Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 12:25 MooseFET wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > > > > >Currently the US imports a lot of oil to run cars and the like. You > > > >can make automotive fuel from other things but the energy to do so is > > > >more than you get back. In a market where energy cost money, you will > > > >continue to use oil. > > > > > > > You people are not thinking! Scenario: oil imports stop. > > > > So who's going to be buying the oil instead of the USA ? Where did the oil go ? > > Its obvious. Canada will buy up all the oil. They already have more > than Saudi Arabia but they want to have it all. They haven't gotten > over the "Blame Canada" song yet, you know. What's this song you refer to ? Graham
From: T Wake on 28 Oct 2006 13:23 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454378ED.208A6556(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Which word of the phrase "World Trade Center" >> >> >> do you not understand? >> >> > >> >> >In a much earlier post you suggested that Islam was anti-capitalist / >> >> >business. >> >> >Maybe you'd like to take a look at this ? Or maybe you'd prefer to >> >> >continue living in ignorance of the facts ? >> >> > >> >> >http://www.bahrainwtc.com/ >> >> >> >> I don't webbit and it's too stormy to go to the library today. >> > >> >You're incapable of browsing the web from home ? >> >> Yes. >> >> > Just how blinkered are you ? >> >> 486, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.11, and about 18Kbyte of real memory left. > > What excuse do you have for still using such an antique ? > > I recently picked a Pentium 3 with 256M of RAM, 10GB hd, CD-ROM, audio, > 64M > graphics card and LAN for the princely sum of ?10 ! I'm actually using it > right > now ! I am starting to build a mental image of /BAH as a sort of survivalist, living in a log cabin with a shotgun and a computer built out of twigs. It would go a long way to explaining some things said here.
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 14:06 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >In a much earlier post you suggested that Islam was anti-capitalist / > >> >> >business. > >> >> >Maybe you'd like to take a look at this ? Or maybe you'd prefer to > >> >> >continue living in ignorance of the facts ? > >> >> > > >> >> >http://www.bahrainwtc.com/ > >> >> > >> >> I don't webbit and it's too stormy to go to the library today. > >> > > >> >You're incapable of browsing the web from home ? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> > Just how blinkered are you ? > >> > >> 486, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.11, and about 18Kbyte of real memory left. > > > > What excuse do you have for still using such an antique ? > > > > I recently picked a Pentium 3 with 256M of RAM, 10GB hd, CD-ROM, audio, > > 64M graphics card and LAN for the princely sum of ?10 ! I'm actually using > it > > right now ! > > I am starting to build a mental image of /BAH as a sort of survivalist, > living in a log cabin with a shotgun and a computer built out of twigs. > > It would go a long way to explaining some things said here. It would. I'm still perpelexed by the idea that thinks she's some important big shot. Graham
From: mmeron on 28 Oct 2006 15:00 In article <ehv91q$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <2ez0h.8$e06.383(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <ehso6p$8qk_008(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>In article <Dg80h.5$e06.363(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>In article <ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: ><snip> > >>>>>I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>>>>work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. >>>> >>>>Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian >>>>physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate >>>>than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) >>> >>>Yea. Thanks. It was the only word I could produce to make the >>>contrast. :-) > >I thought about my choice of this word some more. I made my >choice based on my experimental experience. Man...what I wouldn't >have given to have been able to measure to one lousy decimal point. > >I don't think I've ever measured anything to 8 decimal points. >Is that a Wow! moment in physics when you do that for the first >time? Sometimes it is, when a confirmation or rejection of a model stands on this result. But first, it is just hard, tedious (most of the time) work. Precision measurements are difficult and, for the most part, non glamorous. >>>> >>>>>I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >>>>>because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. >>>> >>>>It is even worse than bad form, under most circumstances it is pompous >>>>twittery. >>> >>><GRIN> >>> >><BIG GRIN> >> >>>> You know, you've the kind of people who enjoy saying "all >>>>you know is wrong, I know better, nah nah nananah...". You would >>>>think they should grow out of this by the end of adolescence but some >>>>people never do. >>> >>>I had my virtual baseball bat that stopped a little bit; alas >>>it was never a permanent cure. >>> >>Well, it is not permanent but still useful. Doesn't it say in the >>instructions "apply as often as needed"?:-) > >Instructions? What instructions?! I didn't know these things >came with instructions. > Of course, translated from Chinese to English by somebody not very fluent in either:-) >> >>>> >>>>Sure, Newtonian physics is not exact. It is an approximation, and a >>>>damn good one over a broad range of physical parameters. Calling it >>>>"wrong" is stupid. >>> >>>Thanks for the clarification. I'm not only hip deep in allygaters, >>>I think they're raining down. >>> >>So I noticed. > >I'm untwining myself from the thread. It's still got my ankles. > I admire your perseverence. Having free time helps, of course. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: YD on 28 Oct 2006 15:16
Late at night, by candle light, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> penned this immortal opus: >On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:39:25 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:00:12 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:43:17 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:13:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>>><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Sure, it's like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a >>>>>>simpler one. Newton's equations lack some small high-order terms. >>>>>>Einstein's are better. >>>>> >>>>>No, the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity is >>>>>not at all like that. To say that Einstein's GR theory is "like a >>>>>higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a simpler one" of >>>>>Newton's is appalling. You could not possibly be further away from >>>>>describing their relationship. >>>> >>>>Why appalling? If you used the GR expression for the gravitational >>>>attraction of two point masses as a function of distance, and applied >>>>it to small masses at large distances (like, say, all our planets but >>>>Mercury) some terms would be so small as to be OK to ignore, and you'd >>>>wind up with Newton's equation. That's exactly the same effect as >>>>dropping high-order terms in a polynomial curve fit. >>> >>>It's appalling because comparing these two theories as being like >>>higher order terms in a polynomial is so wrong to do. That you cannot >>>see this tells me a lot about you. >> >>I wasn't comparing the theories, I was comparing the force predicted >>by the theories. Newton didn't actually have a theory of gravitation, >>of *why* bodies attract, he just did a regression on nature and >>expressed the math he saw. >> >>The only test of an equation expressing gravitational force is whether >>it produces quantitatively correct results, as verified by experiment. >>An equation stating Newton's law of gravitation is clearly an >>approximation to a version that includes relativistic effects, with >>the solutions indistinguishable in many common cases and quite >>different in more extreme cases, just the way truncated polynomials >>work. >> >>What a grouch. > >Too bad you think that is all it is. > >Jon I think I understand what John's on about. Forget about the polynomials, that's a bit of an unfortunate comparison that you somehow got stuck on. It's simply that when v << c Newton's equations sort of "fall out" of GR. I even had it demonstrated in a physics lecture many years ago. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail. |