Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: "Jonathan W. Hendry"
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:23:36 -0500
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> -Tom- wrote:
> | > It's what bugs me too, but its not so much an economic class structure as
> | > it is a segregation of academic and non-academic classes. The economic
> | > class segregation in the US is several orders of magnitude worse. And
> | > these days in America the upper classes don't even send their kids to
> | > public schools anymore, or they happen to live in high-income, priviledged
> | > school districts. And higher first class education, say Harvard or MIT;
> | > what kid from a low-income family can really make it there unless he's
> | > outstandingly bright?
>
> unspam.jon@steeldriving.com.mapsnu:
> | Actually, the lower the family's income is, the better their chances
> | probably are.
>
> Damn right. I live in a poor neighborhood, predominantly
> Hispanic, with, I'd guess, about half the people on Welfare;
> and every damn one o' those kids is going to Harvard, Yale,
> or MIT. It's amazing. I don't know how they find so much
> time to hang out on the streetcorners.
Gordon, maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a large
portion of the middle class that cannot afford the ivy
leagues, but also cannot qualify for financial aid that is
available for the very poor.
--
Jonathan W. Hendry President, Steel Driving Software, Inc.
OpenStep, Delphi, and Java Consulting in Cincinnati
http://www.steeldriving.com
DNRC Lord High Minister Of Binder Buffing
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 14:44:46 -0500
Gregory Dandulakis (gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
]In article Michael Kagalenko wrote:
]>
]>Gregory Dandulakis (gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
]...
]> Nature is not finite, binary, or even countable, stupid.
]
]
]Is this an act of faith? How many uncountable data has science
]revealed?...!:-)
Physical laws are not tools for compressing the data.
]And who said that compression algorithms work only on discrete
]sets? Have you ever heard the term "pattern recognition"?
All aglorithms work only on countable sets, stupid.
]Not to mention the central concept _event_ as used in current
]physical theories..., "smarty"?
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: Unit system based on physical constants -- was: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:33:14 GMT
In article <56a2j6$gpt@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>,
churchyh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
>> For example, you can base a system on the speed of light,
>> Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, and the charge of the
>> electron. You can easily define mass, length, time, energy,
>> and electrical units with these four constants.
Since I didn't see any smiley, why don't we meet in the lobby in
2.241071e+27 exa to discuss it?
That's in 5 minutes for the unit-impared.
;-)
--
Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu ...!ncar!unidata!steve
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: steve eric cisna
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:07:43 -0600
On 12 Nov 1996, Alan Weiner wrote:
> Name and publisher of book pls. What evidence do they use to support
> this conjecture?
>
> In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> >
> >I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> >printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> >accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
>
But you're assuming that we are a planned creation. If a printing press
exploded, chances are excellent that something would be formed, even if
it was just gibberish. But every conceivable bunch of letters has the
same chance as every other bunch of letters. I'm sure that the printing
press story does have about the same possibility as the earth exactly as
it is being formed. But the way it is now is just one of many
possibilities. It's just the one that happened.
Do you see what I'm saying? I'm aware that that last paragraph was a bit
confusing. What I mean to say is, the analogy of the printing press and
Webster's Dictionary really isn't appropriate, because Webster's
Dictionary is a book written by somebody. That means that somebody made
sure that all the words are the way they should be. How do you know that
the universe the way it is is the way it should be? The current universe
is just one of many possible things that could have happened.
Steve
P.S. By the way, you said that the universe couldn't have been created
out of "dead matter." But isn't most of the universe composed of
nonliving material, which I assume is what you mean by "dead matter."
Your body is made mostly of carbon, right? So are diamonds and
graphite. Wouldn't you classify that as "dead matter?"
>
>
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: El Lobo con Moto
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:56:37 -0600
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, David Hultgren wrote:
> Ash wrote:
> >
> > I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> > printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> > accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
>
> If You are a troll, this is getting a bit stale please stop...
>
> otherwise...
>
> 1. State Your sources (creationist pamplettes doesnt count)!
>
> 2. Show us the amazing calculation You talk about.
>
> My guess is that (if You are for real and not a troll), You vagely
> remember something from a creationist pamplette or something from some
> religious creationist book...
>
> DH.
>
>
I am a Christian.
Now, with that out of the way...
The argument that a living world is so unlikely is absolutely stupid.
Sure, perhaps the chances that a *particular* world will evolve life is
slim...but the fact is, when you take into account the vastness of the
universe (I'm no astrophysicist, but haven't quasars been recorded as
15-20 billion light years away??) it is almost impossible that life
*wouldn't* form somewhere!!!!
The Anthropic Principle comes to mind...
dav
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 20:40:13 GMT
In article <569rb4$9gr@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>I'm not trying to prove something, I'm trying to explain
>something. If the other person doesn't seem to be getting
>it, then indeed I might observe that the rhetorical process
>is going wrong. In the case above, I think you're confusing
>the explanation of my views with my views, but they're not
>the same thing.
>--
A nice opportunity to throw in an example of physical reasoning. It
is impossible to confuse the explanation of your views with your views
since your views are unknown, to everybody but yourself. All the
others are getting are the your explanations of your views. So, at
most you can claim the the interpretations of said explanations are
wrong.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:34:24 GMT
Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
: >>>If I may quickly interfere here in my usual conciliatory voice:
: >>>I think that, yes, Zeleny is right: both Destruktion and deconstruction
: >>>have an etymological connection to destruction; he is right further in
: >>>claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are very attuned to implications
: >>>of this sort -- to deny that there is any link whatsoever strikes me
: >>>as problematic.
: >>I appreciate your interference, but calling Derrida's self-serving
: >>lie `problematic' is still, umm... "problematic" -- for reasons I
: >>suggested by my analogy with Jorg Haider. Do you seriously expect
: >>Derrida to remain morally unaffected by inheriting his critical
: >>methodology from a Nazi and sharing it with a Nazi collaborator?
: >Yes; as much as I don't accuse Aristotelians to be pro-slavery.
: Why ever not? Philosophers such as Bernard Williams in _Shame and
: Necessity_ -- have made THAT argument. What sort of superiority --
: and surely the intellectual variety could be ruled out right away --
: entitles you to dismiss them without consideration?
You says I haven't considered it? I'm familiar with the argument; it
doesn't interest me, and I think it's fallacious. Next thing you'll argue
that everybody who thinks Nietzsche is worthwhile will contract syphilis.
I find much of Heidegger's approach to metaphysics problematic, and I
have no interest in constructing apologetic arguments about his
involvement with the Nazis -- yes, he was a Nazi, and, yes, part of his
philosophy reflects this or is at least connected to it. That does not
constitute a critique of his philosophical work yet; it certainly does
not constitute a critique of _Derrida's_ philosophical work. As you damn
well know.
: >>If so, what good is his alleged sensitivity to "historical
: >>sedimentation"?
: >It's good when it's subtle; your brand is indeed worthless.
: Subtlety is no substitute for truth.
It's a good approach to it, though.
: >>> Zeleny's problem is that he cannot distinguish between throwing a
: >>>bomb at a church and taking it apart piece by piece, lovingly, to see
: >>>how it is made. The latter does involve, to introduce a new term,
: >>>dismantling, and it is a destruction to the extent that any
: >>>interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't leav
: >>>its object unchanged.
: >>ANY interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't
: >>leave its object unchanged? Are you really implying that each time
: >>you eat your Wheaties or take your morning shit, read a newspaper or
: >>write your Usenet screed, you destroy your body or your mind, by dint
: >>of interfering therewith? Would you care to reconsider your claim
: >>after a leisurely walk through Liddell & Scott on metabole? At any
: >>rate, Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace
: >>them with -- WHAT?
: >Yes, I am -- which is precisely why your objection is so worthless;
: >deconstruction is destructive precisely to that degree --- that is, it
: >is destructive in such obvious and negligible ways that to point out
: >that it is destructive and trying to build your case on it bespeaks your
: >vindictive fantasies rather than any understanding of what is at stake.
: Half of my family was murdered by Heidegger's party comrades. What
: makes YOU so sure of your entitlement to the high moral ground in
: denouncing my "vindictive fantasies"? What have YOU got at stake?
Half of my family belongs to slavic Untermenschen; another part (a small
one) is gypsy; my husband is Jewish and my children according to
Antisemites the result of Rassenschande -- so what's your point?
: >"What does he replace them with?" -- Why, do you think philosophy is like
: >restocking the shelves in a supermarket? Oh, gee, these Wheaties seem
: >stale, let's put some Cheerios in instead? As soon as you stop asking
: >"what is" in favor of "what is it good for," you're in trouble. Get your
: >reassurances somewhere else -- Commentary would probably suit.
: What a jolly good show of non-partisan demagoguery. Now would you
: kindly point out an instance when I stopped asking "what is" in favor
: of "what is it good for"?
It's implied in your suggestion that critique should reshelve the
metaphysical storehouse.
Silke
: Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
: Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
: itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
: ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: El Lobo con Moto
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:00:22 -0600
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Dave Monroe wrote:
> >
> > In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> > >
> > >I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> > >printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> > >accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
>
> Another simile I've heard is that "Evolution is like a tornado
> tearing through a junkyard and assembling a 747". This doesn't
> come from any science text, it comes from promoters of creationism.
>
> The problem with creationists is that they assume that those of us
> that believe in evolution are atheists.
>
> People believe in evolution because there's a huge body of evidence
> that points in that direction. People believe in creationism because
> they were told to.
>
> Evolution is a much more interesting story than creation and is
> more what I would expect of God. God is smarter that whoever wrote
> the story of creation in Genesis.
>
> It's a shame creationists don't think better of God.
> --
> David S. Monroe David.Monroe@cdc.com
> Software Engineer
> Control Data Systems
> 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
> Fairborn, Ohio 45324
> (937) 427-6385
>
>
Bravo!!!
I am also an evolutionist...and I don't believe it really clashes with the
bible...unless you feel the need to take it totally literally, which is
not the best approach when you consider that the bible basically tries to
put the infinite in human terms...
I'm glad someone finally said they believed in evolutino *and* God...I was
beginning to think I was alone...
dav
Subject: GETTING A LIFE
From: publius@gate.net (Publius)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 21:10:50 GMT
Summary:
Keywords:
I don't know of any scientist who does not believe - as a
matter of course - that the phenomenon "Life" is a function of
"Matter". And I believe I am safe in saying that scientists are
- by definition - Atheists. That is, scientists believe - they
must believe - that Life outside of Matter is an impossibility.
Thus, my hypothesis that Life has Primacy over Matter,
that Life exists outside of Matter, that Life existed before
Matter, apparently can't be a subject of scientific research.
Nevertheless, our cognitive faculty - emancipated from our
current fixations, and taking a retrospective view of Life as
it has thusfar developed on Earth - should uncover some dis-
turbing inconsistencies in this 'closed-circuit' view of Life.
Just consider how Life on Earth, from its primitive beginning
has always "used" lifeless Matter to achieve its purposeful ends.
Life "wills" and Matter just "is". And if Life has existed and will
exist eternally in our Universe and elsewhere in infinite Space,
how can we logically -scientifically - jump to the conclusion
that Life is incapable of achieving anything more than that which
our senses can comprehend. Life "Wills" continuously and who
is to put limits on its "Ultimate Configuration"?
Life declares: "I am, before Matter was."
PUBLIUS at
Subject: Re: supersonic combustion ramjets (scramjets)
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 12 Nov 1996 21:22:27 GMT
rmc@silver.sni.ca (Russell Crook) wrote:
>
>
>There are no end of mathematical models, predictions, etc. of
>scramjets if one searches the web. But nowhere can I find anything
>on one actually being *built*, let alone *flown*.
>
>Given the age of the concept (I remember reading about scramjets in the 70s),
>and the simplicity of scramjet implementation (once you have the
>shockwave physics and heating problems out of the way :->), and the
>obvious improvements that could be made in booster or SSTO performance
>and cost if you could use air for your oxidizer for more of the boost phase,
>I find this hard to understand. The mathematical models (and the
>scramjet windtunnel/testing facilities) also imply that building/flying
>one for test purposes should now be realistic (and indeed a logical next step
>in order to buttress the math). Am I simply not looking in the right places,
>or is really the case that no one has actually ever built or flight tested
>one?
NASA dropped a few $(US)billions into the "China Clipper." It was to be
a hypersonic plane which seated about a thousand, had a nickel aluminide
skin internally cooled with liquid hydrogen then used as fuel, and flew
from Los Angles to Japan faster than an Environmentalist petition drive
could be mounted.
There were certain technical glitches encountered.
Anyway, the thing was powered by scramjets and supposedly a contractor
had the whole thing worked out to a nicety. So talk to NASA or visit
Dreamland.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: a naive question about the charge of molecules
From: Richard Logan
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:10:14 -0800
> (spagnoli@ohsu.edu) says...
> >
> >I am not sure of your experience level, but ,as you may know, electrons
> >do not exist in shells per se, but in probability fields where the first
> >'shell' (s orbital) is a hollow sphere
You shouldn't go around telling people to picture the S shell as a hollow
sphere. That conjures up pictures of electrons spinning around the nucleus at a
fixed distance from the nucleus. In the S shell, the probability density is
greatest at zero radius and decreases as you move out from the center of mass.
Therefor, electrons in the S shell spend a great deal of time inside the nucleus
(this can lead to K capture in heavy elements). The S shell isn't hollow, it's
a (kind of) solid ball.
--
___________________________________
Richard J. Logan, Ph.D.
University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.
Subject: Re: What Is Size Of Magnetic Domain?
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:12:33 -0600
David Kaufman wrote:
>
> In numerous high school and college physics texts, I've
> never seen any comment on the size of magnetic domains.
>
> Does anyone know the actual size of magnetic domains?
> And how do you know?
"According to this model, which has been experimentally confirmed, a
ferromagnetic material (such as cobalt, nickel, and iron) is composed of
many small domains, their linear dimensions ranging from a few microns to
about 1 mm. Thes domains, each containin about 10^15 or 10^16 atoms, are
fully magnetized in the sense ..."
source: Field and Wave Electromagnetics, Second Editions. David K. Cheng.
p.258 (publisher, Addison Wesley)
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
| http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 17:23:12 -0500
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| >I'm not trying to prove something, I'm trying to explain
| >something. If the other person doesn't seem to be getting
| >it, then indeed I might observe that the rhetorical process
| >is going wrong. In the case above, I think you're confusing
| >the explanation of my views with my views, but they're not
| >the same thing.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| A nice opportunity to throw in an example of physical reasoning. It
| is impossible to confuse the explanation of your views with your views
| since your views are unknown, to everybody but yourself. All the
| others are getting are the your explanations of your views. So, at
| most you can claim the the interpretations of said explanations are
| wrong.
Well, I was trying to express the difference between a
situation where I'm saying "It's raining" and one where I
explain why I think it's raining. I expect if you laid
aside your epistemic screwdriver you might feel that you
had some idea of my views even in the former case and the
way in which it differs from the latter case. Not that an
epistemic screwdriver isn't a lot of fun to wield.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: the gravitational wave detection revoluti
From: nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan M. Urban)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 15:31:57 -0500
In article <19961112113800.GAA23311@ladder01.news.aol.com>, adona26963@aol.com wrote:
> Something?)) but I know enough to realize that gravity as it is understood
> now (in my opinion, comments appreciated) cannot "be quantized" or
> detected,
What do you mean by "gravity cannot be detected"? It certainly affects
the paths of bodies.
> just proven to exist in the form of radiation (PSR 1913+16 Hulse
> and Taylor 1994?). And why isnt it quantized yet? Because (apologies to
> those offended- I revere the man too) Einstein couldn't, couldn't find the
> unifying field equation(s),
That's not a reason for why it hasn't been quantized. There may not, in
fact, be a unified field theory. There must be a (possibly nonunified)
theory of quantum gravity, however. And whether or not Einstein came up
with one or not has no bearing on why gravity has yet to be quantized.
> and couldn't predict the cosmological
> expansion (not fully 100% accepted, but to me its COBE/CBR/Hzero
> proven).
Cosmological expansion is predicted by general relativity. Einstein
just didn't accept the prediction at first.
> I'm not saying I can, I'm saying WE ALL
> can't because G=8piT (is that it?) and/or quantum physics are simply not
> right.
This is known. General relativity and/or quantum physics are known to
be inconsistent, so at least one (possibly, or even probably both) of
them must be wrong. However, both theories are known to work in their
respective regimes. The fact that GR and/or QM are not right (yet are
both very accurate) is not an indication that no one can quantize
gravity; it is an indication that gravity _must_ be quantized.
> Now that may come as a shock to some, but remember that Newton was
> "wrong" by our standards, even at the time he was saying it. Up until that
> time no one knew Calculus! (except Leibniz) or the reason stuff fell down,
> and what I'm saying by this is now we know Calculus (most of us) or at
> least what it means, but we STILL don't REALLY know why s**t falls to the
> earth, or anything more massive than aforementioned s**t.
I hate it when people say things like that. When it comes down to it,
we don't know why ANYTHING happens. We can only characterize WHAT
happens, create a model of such happenings, and speak of the model
analogies as reality. It is merely a matter of you finding the model
of gravity philosophically less acceptable than other physical models.
> 3. does dark matter exist? YES NO circle one, it doesn't matter because
> you can't prove it
It is likely that we will never get much in the way of direct evidence,
but it is quite possible that we may find sufficiently convincing
indirect evidence. Which is pretty much all we have when it comes to
_anything_ in astronomy/astrophysics.
> and that is because QCosm. is so young, so ignored, so
> far out, that dark matter, cold or hot or lukewarm or whatever, to me
> means that whoever brings it up (me included) doesn't know what (s)he's
> talking about!
We don't know what dark matter is yet, but I'd hardly say that anyone
who mentions the possibility doesn't know what they're talking about.
There are numerous theories. One of them may be right.
> 4. GRAVITATION THEORY NEEDS REFINING BADLY
Only in order to quantize it. GR works well on the large scale.
> 5. GRAVITATION IS THE KEY TO MANY ANSWERS
Most likely.
> who else thinks gravity is where its at?
Me.
--
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 22:45:48 GMT
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>>>>>If I may quickly interfere here in my usual conciliatory voice:
>>>>>I think that, yes, Zeleny is right: both Destruktion and deconstruction
>>>>>have an etymological connection to destruction; he is right further in
>>>>>claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are very attuned to implications
>>>>>of this sort -- to deny that there is any link whatsoever strikes me
>>>>>as problematic.
>>>>I appreciate your interference, but calling Derrida's self-serving
>>>>lie `problematic' is still, umm... "problematic" -- for reasons I
>>>>suggested by my analogy with Jorg Haider. Do you seriously expect
>>>>Derrida to remain morally unaffected by inheriting his critical
>>>>methodology from a Nazi and sharing it with a Nazi collaborator?
>>>Yes; as much as I don't accuse Aristotelians to be pro-slavery.
>>Why ever not? Philosophers such as Bernard Williams in _Shame and
>>Necessity_ -- have made THAT argument. What sort of superiority --
>>and surely the intellectual variety could be ruled out right away --
>>entitles you to dismiss them without consideration?
>You says I haven't considered it? I'm familiar with the argument; it
>doesn't interest me, and I think it's fallacious. Next thing you'll argue
>that everybody who thinks Nietzsche is worthwhile will contract syphilis.
No germ or poison can contaminate reason as much as the belief that some
men are natural slaves.
>I find much of Heidegger's approach to metaphysics problematic, and I
>have no interest in constructing apologetic arguments about his
>involvement with the Nazis -- yes, he was a Nazi, and, yes, part of his
>philosophy reflects this or is at least connected to it. That does not
>constitute a critique of his philosophical work yet; it certainly does
>not constitute a critique of _Derrida's_ philosophical work. As you damn
>well know.
>>>>If so, what good is his alleged sensitivity to "historical
>>>>sedimentation"?
>>>It's good when it's subtle; your brand is indeed worthless.
>>Subtlety is no substitute for truth.
>It's a good approach to it, though.
It is in no way superior to honest reason as an approach to truth.
>>>>> Zeleny's problem is that he cannot distinguish between throwing a
>>>>>bomb at a church and taking it apart piece by piece, lovingly, to see
>>>>>how it is made. The latter does involve, to introduce a new term,
>>>>>dismantling, and it is a destruction to the extent that any
>>>>>interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't leav
>>>>>its object unchanged.
>>>>ANY interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't
>>>>leave its object unchanged? Are you really implying that each time
>>>>you eat your Wheaties or take your morning shit, read a newspaper or
>>>>write your Usenet screed, you destroy your body or your mind, by dint
>>>>of interfering therewith? Would you care to reconsider your claim
>>>>after a leisurely walk through Liddell & Scott on metabole? At any
>>>>rate, Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace
>>>>them with -- WHAT?
>>>Yes, I am -- which is precisely why your objection is so worthless;
>>>deconstruction is destructive precisely to that degree --- that is, it
>>>is destructive in such obvious and negligible ways that to point out
>>>that it is destructive and trying to build your case on it bespeaks your
>>>vindictive fantasies rather than any understanding of what is at stake.
>>Half of my family was murdered by Heidegger's party comrades. What
>>makes YOU so sure of your entitlement to the high moral ground in
>>denouncing my "vindictive fantasies"? What have YOU got at stake?
>Half of my family belongs to slavic Untermenschen; another part (a small
>one) is gypsy; my husband is Jewish and my children according to
>Antisemites the result of Rassenschande -- so what's your point?
First tell me what entitles you to the high moral ground.
>>>"What does he replace them with?" -- Why, do you think philosophy is like
>>>restocking the shelves in a supermarket? Oh, gee, these Wheaties seem
>>>stale, let's put some Cheerios in instead? As soon as you stop asking
>>>"what is" in favor of "what is it good for," you're in trouble. Get your
>>>reassurances somewhere else -- Commentary would probably suit.
>>What a jolly good show of non-partisan demagoguery. Now would you
>>kindly point out an instance when I stopped asking "what is" in favor
>>of "what is it good for"?
>It's implied in your suggestion that critique should reshelve the
>metaphysical storehouse.
Non sequitur. Quidditative inquiry depends on the availability of its
tools and subject matter alike, as surely as pragmatic concerns depend
on an expectation of benefit.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: Wiles FLT lecture at Cambridge
From: kenneth paul collins
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:44:07 -0500
Le Compte de Beaudrap wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, kenneth paul collins wrote:
[snip irrelevant stuff]
> > _____________________________________________________
> > People hate because they fear, and they fear because
> > they do not understand, and they do not understand
> > because hating is less work than understanding.
> >
> --- The exception being, of course, those who hate not understanding.
No... the folks who hate not understanding do the work that
understanding requires, so they need not fear, so they need not hate.
Doing the work that understanding requires enables one to choose Love.
ken collins
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: handleym@apple.com (Maynard Handley)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:32:42 -0800
In article <3288C0A8.70CE@steeldriving.com>, jon@steeldriving.com wrote:
> Gordon, maybe you haven't noticed, but there's a large
> portion of the middle class that cannot afford the ivy
> leagues, but also cannot qualify for financial aid that is
> available for the very poor.
So what? America is full of good colleges that are cheaper than Ivies.
If you love learning, you'll do well at any of them.
If you want an Ivy degree for snob value, well I find it hard to feel sympathy.
Americans seem to think they're all entitled to big screen TV, three cars,
vacations around the world every year, Ivy degree (and all the mundane
frills of being at an Ivy). Go live somewhere in the rest of the world for
some time to get a reality check.
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Subject: Re: Where's the theory? (was: Specialized terminology)
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:40:25 GMT
Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
: >
: > Russell Turpin (turpin@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
: >
: > : That literary theorists themselves cannot agree on what Derrida
: > : means -- or at least on two or three reasonable alternatives --
: > : simply reinforces many criticisms of him. Theory is not poetry.
: >
: > Oh, give me a break; not three philosophers can agree on Plato's notion
: > of anamnesis, or on what the status of his daimonion is; put any three
: > Kant scholars together and they will argue bitterly about the sublime;
: > likewise, try to get pragmatists to agree on Dewey's notion of
: > intelligence. In this regard, theory may as well be poetry. Which,
: > incidentally, is one of the claims post-struc is making, to wit that it
: > has become increasingly difficult to draw a _rigorous_ line between
: > philosophy and literature.
: >
: > Silke
: >
: I donīt mind if philosophers disagree among themselves. Frankly, they
: can do that till kingdom comes in their face. But what happens, when
: the real world intrudes.
The real world as opposed to?
: For instance I remember you saying that you are involved in HUGO.
I am?
: So its possible that you are asked for an opinion which may then
: influence decisions. How do you cope with the idea that your
: recommendation is not going to be the "considered opinion of a large
: majority of the group of reasonable philosophers, and most likely true"
: but a hotly contended personal opinion and that another philosopher in
: your position might recommend the exact opposite of it. And this
: exactly opposite opinion would be just as reasonable as yours.
I don't even begin to see the relevance of your questions; they are most
likely based on a deplorable misunderstanding of poststructuralism, but
please do make the connection for me and we'll see. If you think that
Derrida validates "personal opinion" or is responsible for herds of
undergraduates failing to see the necessity to argue any point they ever
try to make, you're flat wrong. If you think that anyone even vaguely
sympathetic to deconstruction argues that "every opinion is equally
valid," you're again flat wrong. So?
: (But only one of them would be "right" that is: give far more beneficial
: results than the other if implemented).
: I would feel distinctly queasy if I had to give advice on treating a
: sick child and knew that there were two contradictory but equally
: reasonable opinions:
As would I.
: a) This child has a deadly disease but the medicine will heal it without
: any trouble.
: b) This child will recover easily from the disease but the medicine will
: kill it.
: Fortunately, if you encounter such statements in science, mostly one
: of them is overwhelmingly more likely than the other.
: How do philosophers react if reality intrudes this way.
: How do you cope.
?
Please, you will have to fill me in on the gaps in the argument above ---
I'm not saying this in a hostile way, I just really am not sure what you
are driving at. I can think of an analogy, not quite from philosophy, but
nonetheless, let me see whether this works:
-- outlawing Holocaust denial in Germany will keep antisemites at bay; it
will also be a sign of respect of and ethical commitment to the victims
of the Holocaust and their relatives;
-- outlawing Holocaust denial in Germany is a gesture of authoritarianism
which proves that Germany is not a democracy and on the slippery slope to
the next totalitarian regime
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Real enough?
Silke
Subject: Re: The hard problem and QUANTUM GRAVITY.
From: "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:47:50 -0800
roland cook wrote:
> > An attractive possibility is that sensory qualia are in one-one
> > correspondence with BE condensates. Wormholes connecting parallel
> > spacetime sheets, Cooper pairs, BE condensate of photons....
How? More details needed to see what this means. Stapp, at least, makes
the link to a precise classical configuration of the brain which all
neuroscientists like Crick do asociate with a quale.
>
> You are aware of course that "sound", "light", "smell", etc. occur in
> different parts of the brain, specialized apparently for these qualia.
What you mean is that the brain system point in higher dimensional 3n
configuration space projects to well defined regions of the brain in 3
physical space. This is the classical branch actualized in the
Heisenberg collapse of Stapp's theory. This branch is self-selected by
back-action in my more detaqiled implementation of Stapp's ontology
using Bohm's ontology. But the actual "feel" is not in 3 space or even
3n space, but is in self-measuring living Hilbert space -- or mental
space. Back-action breathes life into the equations to use Stephen
Hawking's imagery at the end of his Brief History of
Time.
>
> It would appear to me that if the qualia are reprented ONLY by diffeences
> in quantum events, then there would be no requirement for specialization
> of cells to create different qualia of experience. The cortex could just
> be one uniform surface, with just the quantum events themselves
> distinguishing various qualia. Thus one must assume that there is some
> special property of these cells, which would create diffeences in the
> resulting quantum events for different qualia. I have not seen nor heard
> mention of this nor how it would come about, in quantum discussions.
>
This is simply the result of how the brain hardwires itself as it
evolves under the combination of the DNA code and sensory input. Clearly
thye DNA code is dominant because all brains seem to have more or less
the same regions of specialized sensory processing. It is the nonlocal
quantum potential at the "top control level" in Stapp's terms that glues
the pieces together into a unitary quantum of experience in the fuzzy
present moment of order 1 sec in the stream of felt-consciousness.
Subject: Re: GETTING A LIFE
From: Mitchell Coffey
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:32:03 -0500
Publius wrote:
>
> Summary:
> Keywords:
>
> I don't know of any scientist who does not believe - as a
> matter of course - that the phenomenon "Life" is a function of
> "Matter". And I believe I am safe in saying that scientists are
> - by definition - Atheists. That is, scientists believe - they
> must believe - that Life outside of Matter is an impossibility.
>
Pub,
OK, three sentences into your opus and there's already three readily
demonstrable errors of fact, plus evidence that you know few scientists,
yet are
willing to grossly generalize about them. Why should anyone read the
rest of
this work? I mean, I'd rather go home, see my wife, play with the kids.
Mitchell Coffey
--
I once read a book about cognitive dissonance, but it only proved my
point.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:27:28 GMT
: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones)
: This is quite funny considering the fact that none of my questions in
: this regard have been answered by the relativists here.
Gee, I coulda swore I'd answered these sorts of questions from bjon
about a bazillion times, only to have bjon ignore it. Oh, well, deja vu
all over again:
: Such as why two SRT observers obtain different
: time intervals for two events.
Because their coordinate axes are not parallel in spacetime. This is
the same phenomenon as obtaining different delta-x for two points on a
plane; because the coordinate systems have their x-axis pointed in
different directions.
: Once this has been answered, one can see that absolute clock readings
: cause this,
Gee, that's funny. I coulda swore relative coordinate axes cause it.
: and that the clocks were set out-of-true in direct proportion to each
: observer's absolute speed.
How does bjon know this? Has he measured the absolute speed to check?
Are city blocks also shortened in direct proportion to the each city's
absolute orientation? If not, how do the cases significantly differ?
: There are many such absolutes in SRT, behind the scenes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't like to say so, since spelling flames are so declasse,
but bjon has misspelt "in bjon's fevered imagination" here.
Multiple posters have shown multiple times that "absolute velocity" in
SR is exactly as justifiable, philosophically and logically, as
"absolute direction" is in geometry. They fill exactly analogous
mathematical and physical roles.
Bjon simply refuses to acknowledge this.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (not enough)
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 23:57:52 GMT
In article <1783C1359DS86.C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu>,
Walker on Earth wrote:
>In article <568b9h$7gj@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>
>lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>>This is really an old standby ( it's in Newton's Principia,)
>>so if you ask me you look pretty silly trying to lord it over
>>Gordon with that goofball discontinuity stuff when you don't
>>even know this one.
>
>It's an old _mathematical_ argument, and not an intuitive one,
>imho. I'll even go so far as to say that it's mathematically
>intuitive . . . but please note that Mr. Fitch has specifically
>disallowed this type reasoning.
I think you're right about Fitchian intuition; I note that he
claims an intuitive grasp of a sphere acting as a point mass
at its center, by which it seems he can only mean that it's
easy to believe. I tend to think of an argument as intuitive if
I can "hold it in my head". BTW I wanted to mention that
Galileo makes some interesting remarks along these lines in
Dialogues re the Great World Systems. In fact one of the
points of his indictment referred to these remarks, condemning
him for equating the powers of the human mind to those of God.
>............................... Note also that even this argument
>only works because the gravitational force law has the character
>it does, and even then fails for, say, a ring. You may also recall
>that I brought precisely this comparison up in my original post.
Perhaps a quibble: the argument doesn't FAIL. it just doesn't
APPLY. ( I would take failure to mean the premises hold true
but the conclusion doesn't ) The reasoning of the argument is
sound, although there is a hidden subtlety to it.
>As for trying to 'lord it over' someone, as you so inelegantly put
>it, I think that for your accusation to sound plausible I would
>have had to use something a bit less elementary than properties
>of continuous functions :-)
This opens the door to a whole area. Calculus had, in fact, an
intuitive foundation that Newton, e.g. used freely. The
"elementary" properties of continuous functions were completely
unknown to him, unless I'm mistaken. These are part of the
rigorous foundation that came later, and into which we were
all indoctrinated. As I understand, it wasn't until the 1940's
that the intuitive treatment based on differentials ( which has
long been the habit of mind of physicists ) was put on a rigorous
basis itself - so that it then became "OK" to think that way,
by some standard.
All this by way of reiterating that it doesn't make any sense
to be bludgeoning Gordon with this particular stick.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: Ground
From: Mike
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:10:56 -0800
bikerbabe in black leather wrote:
>
> In article <5665u7$3pu@Nntp1.mcs.net>, Tommy E. wrote:
> >
> >>From: DC, 75277.3335@CompuServe.COM
> >
> >>>What completes the grounding circuit in an electrical system?
> >>Let's say a refrigerator shorts and the current goes to ground (thus
> >>protecting anyone touching the refrigerator).
> >>The current goes through a wire down to metal pipe down to the earth
> >>itself, but how does it come back from the soil in the back or front
> >>yard to complete the circuit to the refrigerator in the house?
> >>Thanks for help and info.
>
> To clear up a bit of a misnomer, ground has several meanings. In
> general it's used to indicate something that is at zero volts with
> respect to a source. The earth ground is used mainly for protection
> from lightening or similarly induced voltages, and is used to ensure
> that all wires into a house are at the same ground voltage with
> respect to each other. This includes phone lines and cable.(snip)
For power, ground is a reference. At the main breaker box, the typical
single phase residential power line has a pair of wires at 240VAC and a
center tap that will give you 120 from it to either of the other two
wires. At the main box this center tap is connected to ground and
becomes the zero voltage reference and the return path for neutral.
Ground and neutral are the same thing at the main box - and ONLY at the
main box because there is power running thru the neutral wires and none
thru thru the ground, (normally), and the resistive drop will cause a
slight voltage difference between the two at an outlet that is carrying
a load there or from others along that circuit from the main.
So to your question, the power from a faulty hot lead goes to ground if
the refrigerator is grounded. It completes the circuit back to the main
box where ground is connected to the center tap where it flows back to
the transformer. -- it does NOT flow down a pipe into the earth any
significant amount. If the bad connection conducts enough current the
main breaker will trip. If the refrigerator is not grounded it becomes
a real hazard in a kitchen where there are many places to touch a
good ground connection such as the sink or other grounded electrical
appliances.
It is important to verify that ground circuits are not open anywhere from
the outlet on back to the main box. An open ground at the main will let
a fault from any single '3 prong plug' appliance anywhere in the house
present a shock hazard to ALL the other supposedly 'grounded' appliances
in the house connected by their 3 prong plugs to that 'live ground'.
This is extremely dangerous especially in bathrooms with wet people and
portable electric heaters, etc.
The practice 30 years ago, (when '3 prong' 120VAC plugs were very rare),
many states allowed the ground wire to be wrapped around the romex
sheathing and clamped in a non-conductive strain relief to connect to the
enclosure via the clamp. In time, the clamp nuts loosen, the box
corrodes resulting in a poor ground path. Many do-it-yourself types
blindly trust that the outlet box is ground when there really isn't one
there. Always check it. I unwrap the ground wire and connect it to the
box and the outlet and do it at each box all the way back including the
main. (Be sure that any wire isn't close to fatigue failure.)
GFI circuits check that the amount of current that flows thru the hot
side is no greater than that flowing thru neutral. Any difference means
the power is flowing somewhere else to ground and the circuit is then
electronically interrupted. The allowable difference is sensed in the
range of micro-amps I believe..(?) It only takes a very small amount of
electrical current through the heart to cause fibulation in some people.
Mike (Intended for reference not practical application)
Subject: Re: Masquerading human flesh as beef?
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:14:32 -0600
Stephen La Joie wrote:
>
> Daniel Howell wrote:
> >
> > In article ,
> > OX-11 wrote:
> > >There is a somewhat disturbing rumor floating around the net--that the
> > >government is selling human flesh as beef and pork in the local markets
> > >(possibly as a way to eliminate political enemies). My question is this:
> > >is there a way to treat human flesh so people would think they are eating
> > >beef, or possibly pork? and , just how could you tell what you were bying
> > >at the market? I know this sounds crazy, but I have recently come across
> > >an individual too scared to eat red meat who have cited the above rumor
> > >as a reason they avoid pot roast.... :-(
>
> I would think that it would have to be pork and not beef. I understand
> that a nice butt of human makes a fine substitute for ham if properly
> smoked. (I learned that in some anthropology class when we were
Remember the old worm-burger theory? Does MacDonald's really use worms mixed
into their ground beef to economise? Fortunately, worms are sold as bait, so
it is fairly easy to come up with a figure for the cost per pound of worms,
and it far exceeds that of ground beef.
So what is the cost per pound of human flesh? I suspect it would be pretty
high if there is any sort of market, and if there isn't any sort of market
then the question is moot. In either case, the proposal seems pretty
unlikely.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
| http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: TWA800 -- Another speculative theory
From: conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 23:51:29 GMT
Stephen La Joie (stephen.a.lajoie@boeing.com) wrote:
: Harry H Conover wrote:
: >
: > While I continue to seriously doubt that anything but mechanical
: > failure was responsible for the crash of TWA Flight 800, the following
: > scenario (totally unsupported by physical evidence) has crossed my
: > mind.
:
: Gee, the FBI, FAA and NTSB are still gathering evidence. So
: far, no clues or very weak clues. And you "seriously doubt"
: anything but mechanical failure? Based on what? Does you're
: left big toe tingle when it's mechanical failure and your
: right big toe when it's pilot error?
Well, in the final part of this point you come dangerously close
to stating the same tentative conclusion as I have. Lacking
strong evidence of external forces at work, or pilot error,
only mechanical failure appears to remain as a possibility.
Also, given the official reports that there is strong indication
that the central fuel tank suffered an explosion, and that
suspicious 'petaling' was noted on one of the fuel level sensors,
it would appear that the mechanical failure hypothesis is a bit
more than idle speculation.
: I'm asking, since a real scientist or engineer would say
: "I don't know" when they don't have enough information.
Evidently, you're not a scientist. Ever hear of a hypothesis?
I thought I had added sufficient caveats to my post to make it
obvious that it what I was doing.
e.g. Evidence: The plane exploded in mid-air.
Hypothesis 1: It was struck by a missile of unknown origin.
Hypothesis 2: It suffered an explosion due to mechanical failure.
Hypothesis 3: An on-board bomb was involved.
Hypothesis n: ....n something elses speculated as a cause.
Next, close examination of the evidence may confirm or
eliminate certain of these theories...however...without
advancement of a hypothesis to be tested against the evidence,
all the forensic data in the world is little more than a
collection of curious observations.
Generally speaking, scientific investigation operates this way.
: If you have another theory of mechanical failure that hasn't
: already been gone over, lets hear it.
While I can't take credit for it, the mechanical failure hypothesis
that I've heard advanced deals with mechanical failure of a fuel level
sensor leading to production of a spark sufficient to ignite explosive
vapor in the central fuel tank. Had you been following the reports
of the investigators, you might have heard the same report. (As I
understand, the investigators are planning to stage an attempted
explosion of a 747 fuel tank to determine if, in fact, the evidence
produced by a staged explosion is consistent with that recovered
from the wreckage.)
:
: > I recall one news report citing an (airline pilot?) observer claiming
: > that he saw a decending streak of light (perhaps a meteor) heading
: > towards TWA800.
Some reports had it heading up, some down.
:
: I thought it was a navy pilot who was on the ground who
: saw a red streak going upward. The red color was not
: characteristic of a Stinger missel. As for the "meteor"
: remark, well, the likelyhood of a meteor stiking the plane
: is just about as likely as a catastrophic mechanical failure
: on a well maintained airplane. That's better than 10^-9.
How often are the fuel level sensors replaced on an airframe
over 20 years old?
: > Given that a ground (or ship) fired Stinger type missile would be
: > unlikely to reach the operating altitude of the TWA aircraft, what
: > about the possibility of a missile launched from another aircraft?
: >
: > To date, I have read absolutely no speculation on this possibility.
: >
: > Could something like a Stinger be launched from a small, general
: > aviation class aircraft without the 'back-blast' seriously damaging
: > the aircraft from which it was launched? Today, I posed this question
: > to a number of private pilots (some familiar with Stinger) and the
: > answer was a unanimous and resounding "YES, it could have been
: > done that way!"
: >
: > Some suggested that it would not be difficult to sling the Stinger
: > launcher under the wing (improvised hard point mount) or even from
: > the landing gear of certain types of aircraft. Even the possibility
: > of someone leaning out of the aircraft door and firing the missile
: > could not be excluded (provided that they were careful not to blow
: > off the wing while doing so).
: >
: > I asked about the 'sight picture' and was told that "it isn't needed,
: > because stinger emits an audible beep on target lock-on."
: >
: > Someone even remarked how easy it would be to improvise a 'cotter
: > pin' type mounting for it, so that after firing, simply pulling a
: > cord would detach the launcher and drop it into the sea!
: >
: > Lots of other more technical discussion followed, but the overwhelming
: > consensus was: "Yes, it could have been done this way."
: >
: > The only negative that I received on this hypothesis was that since
: > Stinger is heat-seeking, it would have likely impacted an engine and
: > not the central airframe.
: >
: > Still, the hypothetical ease of such an attack is, to put it mildly,
: > an interesting speculation. Certainly one far more credible than
: > the notion that the Navy downed TWA 800 with a missile.
: >
:
: You have a very vivid imagination. I'm sure that you'd make
: a very creative terrorist should you take that bent. ;-) But
: I've heard that the color of the UFO's tail was the wrong
: color to be a stinger, and the presence of (unexplained)
: explosives has not yet been determined. Based on that, I think
: that the airborn stinger missle theory can be disregarded at
: least until there is more information.
Quite likely (disgruntled scientists are only a bit more stable
than distruntled postal workers, and potentially far more dangerous).
I agree with your assessment that the probability
of a missile being involved is quite unlikely. Still, most of the
arguments posted against Stinger's involved the missiles altitude
limitation. As a scientist/engineer, I was simply posting the
description of a fully possible workable method which eliminates that
objection.
Like you, I realize that so far no evidence of a missile or explosive
has been detected in the recovered wreckage. If we rule out pilot
error, does anything but mechanical failure remain as a possibility?
Harry C.
ps. As you are already aware, 'mechanical failures' are not limited
to really gross structural failures such as an engine falling
off (previously happened) or even parts falling off the aircraft
(as reported by the press happening at various locations surrounding
major airports.) A fuel level sensor worn to the point of producing
sparks would be more than adequate to get the job done!
Subject: Cryonics bafflegab? (was re: organic structures of consciousness)
From: cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 03:06:56 GMT
1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a1pianist@aol.com (A1Pianist) wrote:
>>AN ARTICLE IN THE MONTHLY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CRYONICS SOCIETY(1994?)
>>(PUBLISHER:ETTINGER/UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS) IN CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
>>ANNOUNCED THAT RESEARCH INVESTIGATING THE STRUCTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
>>POINTED TO BIOLOGICAL/ORGANIC ORIGIN. HAS ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE OR KNOW
>>THE WORK DONE IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION? TOM FARESE, 2319 GRANADA
>>COURT, PINOLE, CALIFORNINA 94564. THANKS.
>You have this handicap with your shift lock, don't you? Perhaps you
>ought not impress it upon those of us with even minimal keyboard skills
>Cryonics is New Age bafflegab, a hind gut fermentation ranking with Kryon
>(Whoa! Correlation!), quartz crystals, and homeopathic gobbledygook.
>God created liquid nitrogen for cooling vac line traps, not heads bobbing
i>n a dewar like some sort of demented cyro-lava lamp.
I have been researching cryonics for a year or so and am looking for
constructive, science-oriented or logical criticisms of such. Can you
give some reasons for your negative opinion of cryonics?
Randy
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm (lots of + new)
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: The Concept of Time
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:52:25 GMT
Ken H. Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 , kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
: >So why do we bother with the variable light-speed concept? Because it
: >allows us to think in terms of absolute motion and absolute motion is
: >the mother of all the processes in the universe. For more information
: >on absolute motion please look up my web site for the article "The
: >Physics of Absolute Motion"
: >
: Since there is no response to this thread, I assume that the
: relativists are agreeing with the existence of absolute time and
: motion. Also, I assume that the variable light-speed idea is a valid
: one.
: Ken Seto
The original article never made it to my server,
and might not have made it everywhere, so how can I be sure
that you sent it? :-)
But I claim to be a relativist, and I regret having
to tell you I disagree, unless you can show me whatever it
is that is not moving.
And I am still confused by what you mean by absolute
time, I asked before, does that mean one second per second?
And I thought everyone was aware the speed of light
depended on the medium the light is moving through.
And you crossposted to a non-existent newsgroup,
sci.physics.new-theories needs alt. in front of it.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
Subject: Scientific American, Nov. 1996; Quantum Seeing in the Dark
From: davec@sr.hp.com (Dave Copley)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 00:28:49 GMT
To Any and All.
I have just finished reading Quantum Seeing in the Dark in the November 1996
Scientific American, pages 72-78 by Kwait, Weinfurter and Zeilinger. This was
the second time I have read the article, and I think I understand what they
are trying to say about interaction-free measurements. On page 75 they state
that an interaction-free detection occurs because the introduction of an object
to be detected has altered the odds of the dark-band detector finding a photon
to detect. On page 77 they state that the results so far with the system
incorporating the quantum Zeno effect are as much as 70 percent interaction-
free, with 85 percent interaction free being an achievable goal. The theoretical
limit is of course 100 percent interaction free. My question is this, could one
view the alteration of dark band detection odds as the result of the introduction
of matter waves (De Broglie (sp?)) probability waves into the system when the
detection pebble is placed in the system? I thought of this just before going to
sleep last night. If so, would this interaction of probability waves be simply
between the photon wave characteristics and the matter waves of the target object,or does something larger happen, such as the "tails" of the matter waves for the
target object, the mirrors, the detectors, etc. overlapping and changing the
probability distribution for the whole system? I seem to remember that the matter
waves have significant magnitude only very close to the boundries of the body,
but this is from aloooooong time ago. Comments?
Subject: Re: Can Science Say If God Exists? (was INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY)
From: tc3@acsu.buffalo.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:30:21 -0500
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, FRANK A. BLACK wrote:
> Unfortunately, or fortunately (depends on what you believe), NO FACTUAL
> book has been written since there is NO basis on which to write such a
> book. Afew people have made feeble attempts, and a few copies have been
> sold, but even those attempts were miserable FAILURES.
>
> What those authors attempted to do was take passages out of context and
> concerning different precepts, and attempt to convince the reader that
> there were discrepancies. The intelligent reader, who, with that book
> in one hand, and the Bible in the other, in attempting to corroborate
> the authors opinion, did just the opposite.
>
> Though there will always be those who contend that there are discrepan-
> cies, or contradictions, too many others with the same ideas proved
> themselves wrong.
>
> I was one of them.
>
>
I assume this message is in response to my request for books that
pointed out contradictions in the Bible. Thanks to those of you who have
responded! Recently I have searched for the suggested titles and found
most of them. I have skimmed through some of them and most are quite
informative.
The age of reason by Thomas Paine
Rational approach to critiquing the Bible.
Part 1 Paine lays the groundwork by describing his personal
philosophy of reason and why the Bible can not be the word of god.
Part 2 Paine does an indepth analysis of both the old and new
testament. Like most rational people Paine is shocked by the horrible and
cruel acts attributed to god in the old testament. Concerning the new
testament Paine shows how Mathew, Mark, Luke and John all have different
accounts of both the crucifixion and the resurection as well as other
contradictions.
Paine is not an Atheist, he believes in god but rejects the bible as
the word of god.
Self Contradictions of the Bible by William Henry Burr
Initially published in 1859, Burr shows the many outright
contradictions in the Bible. Burr cites instances in the Bible of
conflicting statements and includes the chapter(s) and verse(s).
Burr illustrates a total of 144 conflicting statements in the Bible.
Example of format: #119 No man is without sin (1 Kings 8:46)
Christians are sinless (1 John 3:9,6,8)
(Prometheus Books)
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRENCY by Dennis Mckinsey
This is THE book. Unfortunately it is a reference book at my library
and I didn't have much time to skim through it but from what I have read
it is enormously indepth, witty, humurous. It is quite lengthy but a joy
to read. If I can find it at a bookstore I am definitely going to purchase
it. (Prometheus Books)
Asimov's Guide to the Bible by (you guessed it) Isaac Asimov
Now we are really talking lengthy. Skimming through this book
it doesn't appear to be a critique so I skipped it. So unless you have
plenty of time on your hands...
Subject: Re: GETTING A LIFE
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 13 Nov 1996 00:20:47 GMT
publius@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
>Summary:
>Keywords:
>
> I don't know of any scientist who does not believe - as a
> matter of course - that the phenomenon "Life" is a function of
> "Matter". And I believe I am safe in saying that scientists are
> - by definition - Atheists. That is, scientists believe - they
> must believe - that Life outside of Matter is an impossibility.
> Thus, my hypothesis that Life has Primacy over Matter,
> that Life exists outside of Matter, that Life existed before
> Matter, apparently can't be a subject of scientific research.
> Nevertheless, our cognitive faculty - emancipated from our
> current fixations, and taking a retrospective view of Life as
> it has thusfar developed on Earth - should uncover some dis-
> turbing inconsistencies in this 'closed-circuit' view of Life.
> Just consider how Life on Earth, from its primitive beginning
> has always "used" lifeless Matter to achieve its purposeful ends.
> Life "wills" and Matter just "is". And if Life has existed and will
> exist eternally in our Universe and elsewhere in infinite Space,
> how can we logically -scientifically - jump to the conclusion
> that Life is incapable of achieving anything more than that which
> our senses can comprehend. Life "Wills" continuously and who
> is to put limits on its "Ultimate Configuration"?
> Life declares: "I am, before Matter was."
> PUBLIUS at
God is like a shamrock - small, green, and in three parts.
See? It is possible to make a public fool of one's self in fewer than
a dozen words. Perhaps you need more practice - elsewhere, not in
sci.physics.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!