Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 28 Oct 2006 16:00 On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:28:37 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehv9q8$8qk_002(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <yir0h.17056$TV3.1877(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehsnps$8qk_006(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>>>Only bin Laden has attacked us. >>>> >>>> I see. Your approach is to fix the pimple on the skin and >>>> not the disease that caused the pimple. I don't work that >>>> way. >>> >>>No, your approach is to cut off the head, to make sure the acne is cured. >> >> If the cause of the pimple is so virulent that cutting the head >> off will prevent tranmission of the disease, yes. I'm not talking >> about an annoying skin bump. > >So you can envision a problem that is so bad that killing yourself, and >taking out over half a million other people, is a viable solution? What >*exactly* makes you different than the suicide bombers? On this last point, perhaps the thing that makes the US different is that the US has a military funded with 100's of billions of US dollars each year and can temporarily afford the price. Perhaps if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak, and we US folks had no funds by comparison and were occupied and being killed to such a degree that we'd lost 5% of our population since it happened and we had our occupiers starting to suggest letting our gov't be run by Catholics to boot, we'd probably have plenty of fundamentalists doing quite the same thing -- killing our own and the occupiers when they felt like it. They'd imagine going to heaven, too. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 28 Oct 2006 20:14 On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:16:29 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT(a)techie.com> wrote: ><snip> >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. No, I didn't get hung up on some detail. I simply was sensitive to a larger picture. Yes, Newton's approach does sort of fall out when parts of it diminish relative to other parts, deduced to some specifics common to human experience. So I do understand what you, above, suggest John is on about. And you may be right about that (only he can say for sure.) I grant that in the smaller mental volume space where both theories produce similar quantities, they do actually produce similar quantities. Shouldn't they, on the face of it? If not, one or the other is wrong, for gosh sake. This is no surprising realization and it completely fails to draw attention to what actually is important -- that their explanatory and predictive volume spaces are markedly different (GR's is vastly larger and encompasses Newton's) and that they take quite different approaches while also GR still manages to come up with very similar quantities in those areas where they substantially share meaning, as GR obviously must. Likening them to higher order terms in polynomials is "not even wrong" (there's a new book by Smolin and Weit by this name regarding string theory.) It's the difference between understanding how science knowledge expands and being blind to and ignorant of it. Jon P.S. In case you misunderstood me, I have personally worked through how Newton arrived at his earlier ideas from Kepler's 2nd law and Hooke's suggestions and then almost fell into his three laws as a trivial outcome, applying his then newly developed fluxions. I have worked through attempts to use Euclidean frame translations of Maxwell's equations and seeing its then incorrect predictions that the null result experiments of Michelson and Morley contradicted. I have worked through the obvious result of two very simple statements (x=ct and x'=ct'), the inevitable Lorentz transformations at the end of simple algebra. I have gone through developing the consequences of presuming that inertial and gravitational mass are the same thing and the idea of coordinate invariance and had to struggle with Levi-Civita's differential geometries. So pointing out the case where v << c is like teaching one's grandma to suck eggs, so to speak.
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 21:13 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvl9u$8qk_002(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4543442A.FCBDD467(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> 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 > ? > > If production hasn't been stopped, China, India, and parts of Europe > in exchange for capitulation. > > /BAH They're suddenly going to increase their oil consumption by over a factor of 10??? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 21:18 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45436FD6.3B0A4C75(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Wow. You should market your filter. I know a few politicians >> that would love to hand them out before every speech. > > Do you have anything useful to contribute ? Apparently she doesn't. Logic has failed her, so she just goes around spouting Republican soundbites and acting holier-than-thou when people dare to question them. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 21:19
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehvloo$8qk_005(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45435648.FD2B9A7(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >Your pompousness aside, so what? It was just a couple of buildings > full >>> >> >of people, mostly Americans. >>> >> >>> >> The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. >>> > >>> >Not especially. It was just a catchy name for a big office block. >>> >>> Yes. That is how the mayor got the building filled up; by attracting >>> businesses that dealt in world trade. >> >>Largely financial institutions as far as I know. That's not exclusively >>about >>world trade. > > You overlooked the commodities and shipping businesses. Yes, and what has the loss of these world-critical buildings done to world commodities and shipping businesses, exactly? Eric Lucas |