Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: folsomman@aol.com (FolsomMan)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 05:01:56 GMT
<32d80317.0@news.together.net> wrote:
>will.lorimer@gpo.canada.cdev.com wrote:
>>Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) wrote:
...
>>Perhaps we should recognize the difference between *religion* (which
>>is inherently a search for truth) and *religious dogma* (which is
>>simply blind acceptance without reason. Not every Christian (or
>>Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc.) is dogmatic or closed-minded - the Pope
>>himself has recognized that "Truth cannot contradict truth".
>>>Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>>>with evolutionists. A religion is a religion is a religion...
>God! Who's rattling the bones of this old cage?
>>But science is NOT a religion. Science is independent of your
>>religion. The laws of physics apply regardless of whether you believe
>>in them; the law of gravity will cause Christians to fall at the same
>>rate as atheists; water will boil at the same temperature in a
>>Buddhist temple as it will in a Muslim kitchen. Science is not
>>religion; it is a search for physical truth, just as religion is (or
>>should be) a search for moral truth.
>Look, friend. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am neither a
>Christian, a Buddhist nor a Muslim (though I have respect for all
>three beliefs - if anyone would practice them), I am, for want of a
>better term, a humble seeker *of truth* both *physical and moral*.
>And since we all need to have some common reference points to coexist,
>I'll grant you the laws of physics, the law of gravity and the boiling
>point of water. This is what science does best in fact, observe the
>observable. I will resist the temptation to fully argue that what you
>call "laws" are merely repetitive subjectivities gathered through
>pathetically limited/flawed senses and processed by (what can only be
>described as) creatures of depressingly small mentality for the task
>and brief life/attention spans (ah! the wonder that is man...)
I suppose you think that seeking the truth in this way is inferior to
devoting oneself to the worship of the legends and fantasies of middle
eastern tribesmen of 2000 or more years ago.
>This said, where science falls into the category of religion is not in
>the hard physical sciences (mostly cause and effect observations) but
>in the soft and junk sciences that abound, heralded as 'truth' and
>sold as pap to the masses.
You mean like Genesis or Exodus or the Gospels?
>Let's dispense with the red herring that
>the slim proofs of Evolutionary Theory can be equated to the easily
>observable dropping of a ball or boiling of some water.
Do you contend that the fossil record does not show that there were once
life forms on Earth that no longer exist or that forms that now live were
previously nonexistent (while other life was extant)?
>This argument is vacuous.
Your argument is certainly vacuous, consisting as it does of unsupported
assertions that contradict all of the well supported science on the
subject.
>That some species can mutate and alter reproductive
>regimens according to external pressures (though hardly conclusive) is
>more compelling. No matter how you torture the fossil record to fit
>your own belief system, nowhere (as yet) is there conclusive proof of
>an intermediary form without which Evolution can only be called a
>religion and those who follow its precepts by blind faith, its
>devotees.
What kind of intermediary form do you require? I have read of a large
number of them.
>The real crux here, I suppose, is that science is no sharper an
>instrument to probe the unanswerable questions of, 'who are we? where
>do we come from? where do we go? how was the Universe created? how
>will it end? than any religion. Perhaps blunter.
This is fatuous nonsense. What deep and mysterious questions have you had
satisfactorily answered by a religion? Does it trouble you that religions
contradict each other, and even themselves, in these matters? Does it
trouble you that religions trade valid questions for a silly answer and an
off-limits question? "God created the Universe." "Who created God?"
"God always was." "Maybe the universe always was, without any God."
"Don't say that, it's blasphemy."
>Scientists are free
>to explore any of these issues, needless to say, but I think it would
>be wise of them to stop passing off their guesses as facts.
They offer the best approximations of facts that we can get. You may not
be aware of it, but religions have been retreating in the face of science
for centuries as one religious explanation after another is proven to be
obviously absurd (and just as obviously false).
>(I hate doing an "Emperor has no clothes" on a whole profession - naw,
>I take that back).
You haven't shown any signs of having such a capabilty.
>>The reason we should never cease arguing science with creationists is
>>not that we hope to convince them; rather, I hope we will convince
>>others who are not so dogmatic in their interpretations of religious
>>works, and who come here, not to espouse their own beliefs, but to
>>search for truth.
>Everyone in this aging thread is espousing "their own beliefs". Your
>relentless penchant to equate science with 'truth' and any competing
>belief with falsehood seems to me as pedantic and monistic as any
>religious proclamation of fact.
Science seeks after truth by seeking and considering evidence. Religion
does not. That we will never know the truth exactly and with certainty is
well established, but that we can gain more and more accurate and subtle
knowledge of how the world works has also been demonstrated.
>If one is really a seeker after
>truth, than one is forced to admit when they just don't know. Some
>scientists do this. Many don't.
Scientists are always making false statements and always being corrected.
Those who attempt to correct the errors of religion have often lost their
lives in the most horrible fashion.
>And please save me the preaching on
>the "Scientific Method". I've heard it before and what it basically
>translates to is "I've looked it over and my guess is better than
>yours because I know more than you and a lot of other people that
>think like me, agree with me."
And what sorting process have you gone through to choose the gems of truth
you have provided us?
>Sprinklings of truth, shaman tricks and weighty books filled with
>esoteric poetry/prose (many of the words in Latin!) have been the
>stuff of religions for centuries. Here science accepts no back seat.
The facts belie your assertion: Ptolemy gave way to Newton and Newton to
Einstein.
>Though few of my friends in the scientific community may take it,
>here's a free piece of advice: "Make a clearing house of your *own*
>beliefs before you go searching after truth." For as Epictetus said,
>"It is impossible for a man to learn what he already knows." Deja vu,
>all over again...
>(This said, you guys do make some excellent gizmos. Keep up the good
>work!)
>Terran
>(a heretic glad that burning at the stake went out with the middle
>ages)
I think you should try living in Iran for a while and see what religion
can do for you. ;-)
Mark Folsom
"Gospel truth" is an oxymoron.
Subject: Re: IS THERE A CASE FOR THE ELECTRIC CAR?
From: Samuel Kass
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:49:27 -0500
It seems like the only way an electric car can be viable is if, at
"electricity stations", the entire battery is switched. Recharging
doesn't seem to be getting significantly faster, and it's hard to
imaging it happening in under 5 minutes. If, however, these stations
had an entire rack of batteries recharging, and what you paid was the
potential difference in energy between the battery you're turning in and
the one that you're getting, plus some extra based on the difference in
age between the two batteries, and overhead. Then the station starts
charging the battery you traded to them, and you get a new one that
should plug in easily.
Anyway, that's the only way I can think of to make electric cars useful
for anything but very local driving.
--Sam
Subject: Re: twin paradox
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:29:10 GMT
::: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
::: Depending on the length of the cable, the velocity will vary, but
::: the acceleration will always be constant. The clock rate will vary
::: as a function of the speed, and will not follow the constant
::: acceleration.
:: Ken Fischer
:: I don't usually do math, but this seems odd, I would expect velocity
:: to remain constant (considering a massless cable).
: Richard Mentock
: Ken, the velocity is a vector. So if the astronaut changes direction
: (spins in a circle), his velocity changes. The acceleration changes
: too *if its considered a vector*.
While what Richard said is perfectly true, I don't think it's the
sticking point here. I've already had one stab at a better
phrasing; let me try again:
Between two cases with a different length of cable, the tangential
velocity needed to feel 1g at the ends of the cable will also be
different, even though the acceleration is the same.
That is, I was thinking of tangential velocity, as a scalar,
varying as the length of cable varied between cases. The point
being to show that time dilation wouldn't vary as acceleration,
and in this sense it's a bad idea to say acceleration "causes"
time dilation, even though this is a common meme.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: STOpTheSPAM@Post to your own Newsgroup! (Issauldae)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 07:42:01 GMT
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:47:39 -0800, David Sepkoski
wrote:
>Valk wrote:
>[snip]
>> I did NOT say the Catholic church isn't a christian institution, I
>> pointed out that the church is not the FAITH but a vessel of the
>> faith. I'm saying that the Catholic church has no right in preventing
>> science and saying that it (science) is "against" God.
>>
>> Take for eg. the imprisonment of early scientists for saying that the
>> earth is round etc. and more recently (1981) the pope told scientists
>> that it was okay to study the evolution of the universe but that they
>> should not study the Big Bang because it was the moment Creation and
>> therefore the work of God.
>> What I want to know is where does he get the right to restrict the
>> scientists in what they may or may not study and where in the Bible
>> does he get his motivation?
>
>How exactly is the Pope "restricting" scientists? Torquemada has been
>dead for a long time, and I don't think a whole lot of scientists stop
>practicing their discipline because the Pope issues a bull on some
>subject or another. In fact, proclamations that the Pope makes are
>generally intended to inform Catholics about what is and is not
>considered doctrine by the Vatican. It does not necessarily apply to
>non-Catholics, and plenty of practicing Catholics simply ignore the Pope
>one these and many other issues (birth control, homosexuality). I think
>that its awfully naive of you to compare this to the Catholic church's
>actions in the 16th century. Even back then, however, I think that the
>issue was far more complex than a simple "supression of knowledge." How
>much do you really know about this subject?
>
>D. Sepkoski
>
Now maybe I am coming into this discussion late but if you are talking
about religous bodies (ie The Pope and Vatican) using the bible and or
thier religous powers to supress information and and control what
people do, I too have read about this and studied it in some small
detail (But I am by no means an "Expert"). In The dark ages the bible
was used to control the poverty ridden masses to do the churches
bidding. Since most of the peasents at that time could not read the
only way they heard "The word of God" was through the church and men
of god. It is a fact that much of the bible has been Rewritten and or
translated and tampered with in this way. Take for instance the well
know mistranslation of the word witch into the bible originally
(before translation) it read poisoner they mistranslated it to the
word witch (Perhaps the witch hunts and trials would have never
happened if it was translated properly who knows?) And kings (who were
considered to be close to god almost like a pope figure sort of one of
the people who spoke the word of god) if they found something they
didn't like in the bible they changed it to suit thier needs(how else
do you figure we got all these different versions of the bible). I
believe that the bible has some truth in it but has been manipulated
by People of Religon to control and only give the information they see
fit to give to the public and therefore is not in itself completely
true it has become a tool (A sad fact) to control and supress
information something (If there is a god) I don't think he'd be
pleased or proud of.
Isa
Subject: Re: twin paradox
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 17:14:11 GMT
( Discussing the widespread but incorrect meme that acceleration
is what "causes" time dilation. )
:: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: For example, consider an astronaut and a counterweight connected by a
:: cable, and spun to yield 1g acceleration. Depending on the length of
:: the cable, the velocity will vary, but the acceleration will always
:: be constant. The clock rate will vary as a function of the speed,
:: and will not follow the constant acceleration.
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
: I don't usually do math, but this seems odd, I would expect velocity
: to remain constant (considering a massless cable).
Ah. I was perhaps a bit unclear. I mean, consider a set of cases,
where we have a given astronaut and counterweight, and we vary the
length of the connecting cable. For each specific case, the velocity
will not vary of course, but if across all the cases we spin to keep the
acceleration of the astronaut 1g, the velocity will need to be set
differently for each case. This is because a=v^2/r, so the velocity
would have to be higher to still get 1g at increasing r.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: A wee dram o' Philosophy...
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 13 Jan 1997 10:13:05 GMT
Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>
>I guess you right. A bad bout of such disease either kills you, or
>leaves you immune for few generations. Wouldn't it be nice to have a
>vaccine, instead of relying on the natural process?
Shit, you're on to something here, I can smell that. Hey Mati, maybe this
really *is* a new thought! Let's ponder upon it (ah, I know, you'll first
look for something being written some 3000 years ago.... :-))
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Realistic Idealism
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 13 Jan 1997 10:12:57 GMT
Im Artikel <5b8vkl$hv@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
schreibt:
>Well, I don't believe in the supernatural, by definition. Whatever
>is, is, and is "natural" by definition.
So is the pollution of air and water wether it arises from a volcanic
erupture or from those little ants crawling along the ground in their
shiny tin cans ;-). There is no other environment, than the one we have,
and it's always natural. Wether it's healthy or not, that's quite another
question.
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Atonality
From: "M. Inman"
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 23:11:54 +0000
Just a few corrections to my origional posting:
> >
> >
>
> You obviously have little concept for what atonality is, and the
> potentials of its usage.
>
> I belive that you are confusing atonality with the "Avante-Guarde" (A-G)
> (Milton Babbit, George Crumb, etc. (all of which I have deep respect
> for)). The A-G is very difficult to listen to (for most) and it is
> dissonent (relitively speaking of course), but just because most A-G is
> atonal, doesn't mean that all atonal is like the A-G. Atonal music can
> be just as consonent as the Baroque, or even Gregorian chant for that matter. *consonence has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with tonality*
(although the tonality might affect the consonence)
>
> My composition teacher- Dianne Goolkasian Rahbee has taught me how to
> write atonally, AND still *relate* to the listener. I AM 100% Positive,
> that ANYONE who can listen to Tchikovski, or Brahms, or Liszt, Etc.
> Would have NO PROBLEM liking, and relating to my music, even though my
> music has no tonal center. Even the twelve tone row is misunderstood
> because of its use when it was first experimented with. certain rules
> were aplied to it which made it very dificult to listen to. I have
> written several peices using the twelve tone row- and people can't tell
whether it is atonal or not.
(I mean the preconcieved notion of atonality, not atonality itself)
>
> My Op.6 #2 "segments" for violin and piano was taped and I let my friend
> from High School listen to it a few weeks ago. This was his responce
> (keep in mind that he is not sufficiantly musically trained, and hates
> classical music) "*Parts* of it were atonal", my responce was, "no,
> *ALL* of it was atonal" It's just that he could really relate to parts
> of the music, even with it's complex rhythms, harmony relationships, and
> *atonality*. To an ear trained enough to listen to mid to late romantic
> music (and have the same preconceptions of atonality as you do)- the
> peice is noticeably atonal, but they can't understand why they like it.
>
> I would recomend that you listen to some Prokoviev (Romio & Juliet, The
> Love for three oranges, Any piano sonata, or piano concerto.) His stuff
> *IS* tonal, but might help you to a gate to the 20th century
Also check out Debussy, Bartok, but my teacher has the best examples of the kind
of music I'm talking about. She has a CD, but you'd probably have to specially
order it. I would highly recomend it. It is different from any other "atonal"
you'll ever hear, and if you really listened to it, I'm sure your ideas on what
atonal is would change. Her name is Dianne Goolkasian Rahbee. And the CD is of
some of her piano music, and a violin sonata for piano and violin.
>
> J. Mark Inman
Subject: Re: Do people see colours the same?
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 13 Jan 1997 10:13:01 GMT
Im Artikel <5b9ah6$hft@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\"
Schwartz schreibt:
>
>A month or two back, Science hosted an article which listed amino acid
>substitutions (mutations) in all the catalogued color blindnesses, along
>with a series of color charts to test yourself.
>
>One therefore is given to presume that,
>
> 1) everybody, on the average, sees the same color from the same
>stimulus, and
Now this depends on what you precisely mean by 'average' and also by
'see'.
I'd buy that the reaction of the stimulus (as far as non-mutant standard
humans are concerned) would be much the same, although it of course
heavily depends on equals distribution (and sensitiveness) of the three
colour receptors (and I doubt that there is one single pair of eyes, which
is equal in this respect).
But to 'see' actually does include not only the physical act of reception,
but also the following act of data processing. Now of course you are well
aware of the brains ability to 'see' the colours of a photograph under
3000 K yellow bulb light just as 'real' as under 20000 K blue daylight.
But this data processing is bound to vary even more than the physical act.
As I posted last week, even both my eyes 'see' differently.....
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Rolling wheels and forces
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 13 Jan 1997 10:13:08 GMT
Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>
>>Hmm. It seems I just neglected that a circular path has two components:
x
>>and y axis. And while x may come to a halt and then reverse its
direction
>>to speed up again, y does the same but just with 90 deg offset. And if I
>>project this cross product of two sinus curves and give x a certain
fixed
>>addendum (i.e. groundspeed), I'll get my elongated halfcircles... Hmm.
>>Seems right, but doesn't really make me happy.
>
>It is right. So, why should you be unhappy?
Because it doesn't feeeeeeel right. And having slept over it, I know now,
what didn't feel right. Looking purely a the y-axis we have velocities of
0, 1, 0, -1, 0, ... and the respective accelerations. Whereas in the x
direction we get (for the rolling wheel): 0, 2, 0...., no, I left out the
quarters, it's 0, 1, 2, 1, 0,... ah, shit again, still the same, just an
offset of +1...
Well, but what would Newtons bucket say to that :-?
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Whale strandings->earthquakes? Was: (Re: ...earthquake references)
From: Bill Smith
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:40:52 -0800
Dennis Gentry wrote:
>
> In article <32D7D7A4.3D30@pacbell.net>, bilsmith@pacbell.net wrote:
> The burden of proving something false rests on the
> person(s) not making the claim. How can the person
> making the claim say his/her own theory is false?
I didn't mention anything about falsifying a statement; you
are introducing a new subject here. Your original statement
suggests that every coincience may be related.
>
> BTW, the "clear means" that you used above is ambiguous
I used the statement in the context that an assertion is
arguable with information to back it up. I believe that
is common usage.
> >There are elements in this reality that are NOT
> >related. Blindly assuming that everything is related
> >until proved otherwise is a long futile path to nowhere.
>
> I agree.
That is not what you imply when you state "But it also
doesn't mean that they aren't related." Seems like
a contradiction to me.
>
> My intent was to dispell any notion that just because....
Sounds like nonsense to me. "Well, maybe it is related, but
maybe it isn't. But just because it isn't means that maybe it is."
What is left to dispell?
>
> And don't get me wrong, I'm NOT dispelling plate tectonics. Just
> that all quakes aren't explained by that "theory".
It is widely recognized by everyone except phychics that there is
much to be learned about earthquake mechanisms. Plate tectonics
is less than 25 years old (we have discussed this before!) as
a popular model, and the learning curve is very steep. What
are you complaining about, that we don't know enough yet? Sorry!
>
> But, as I said above, the data should be collected to support
> that claim.
What claim?
> And if the data *is* collected to support the claim,
> then its up to somebody else to disprove it.
This sounds like sliding away from nonsense and toward
a tautologically obvious path to nowhere.
>
> Dennis
Subject: Re: Another defender of science arises
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 13 Jan 1997 10:13:12 GMT
Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>Putting on my cynical hat for a moment, I would venture
>to guess that the people having the ability to pass such
>test will be exactly those who have no intention whatsoever
>to get involved in government.
Not involved in election campaigns, may be. Not involved in government?
I'm not so sure. It also would depend on the salary, wouldn't it?
>You may be interested to read something relevant to this issue that
>appears in the Bible. It is called "the Jotham parable", in the book
>of Judges, chapt. 9. About 3000 years old. Read it and you'll see
>that the problem you point out is as old as mankind.
Hmm. If only I had a bible....
>> The idea that the average population should be
>> 'mirrored' in the parliament, thus _anyone_ should
>> have access to get elected, is just silly.
>In principle I agree. Now just try to convince the electorate.
Do you ask them, when passing a law, which abilities a bus driver should
have?
>Well, what do you mean consequences. Put the politician in jail if he
>made a mistake? But real life is not a mathematical problem where all
>the information needed is present and if you get the wrong result it
>is purely your fault. There are always lots of unknowns, lots of
>missing information and (that's important) decisions have to be made
>in real time. So, you judge based on the information available and go
>with it. You may be right, or you may be wrong, no guarantees. Of
>course that's not an excuse to act without considering available
>information, but even if you did, you can still go wrong, and often
>do.
Thats of course the path of fate. And we don't fuzz around with that. But
if a politician says: "We will not raise taxes" and later does, he should
be held for fraud just as any merchant selling me an empty case. It's not
as simple as my neighbour lying to me about this or that. I vote the
politician into power for announcements like the above. He get's paid by
me voting him in. He doesn't fulfil the contract. It's NOT enough to vote
him out. He also has to pay back my part of the deal, as he didn't fulfil
his.
>This rule applies only whan there exists a written law forbidding what
>you did. McNamara broke no law.
[...]
>I'm afraid that here you're unfamiliar with the details. McNamara
>didn't act in vacuum, making his own decisions and ignoring the advice
>of experts. He had access to available information and expert advice
>and used it. That it turned out not being very good, that's another
>matter.
I'm not so sure about 'braking no law'.
>The US wan't attacked by the Vietcong but an ally,
>South Vietnam, was. And you've
>some obligations towards allies.
AFAIR South Vietnam was not a real ally and the first troops asked in were
called consultants or the like. But you are right, I'm not really familiar
with it. I faintly remember that the US stretched the laws quite a bit to
make it possible to move troops into SV....
>>Nixon got away with having planned and ordered
>>crookery and got nothing!!! Nothing!!!
>>
>The laws were there. If the people in the US would take to the
>streets in mass demonstrations, Ford would not dare to pardon Nixon.
>But they didn't, so he did.
Which is something he shouldn't be legally allowed to do. So there
obviously *is* a gap in legislation and the laws needed are *not* there.
See, Ford at that time was not really elected by the people. Thus you
cannot say, they got what they deserved. If Congress with 2/3 of the votes
would have pardonned Nixon, I'd buy it - but can you see that happen?
>Laws are tools, and no tool, no matter how perfect, will do better
>then the hand that wields it.
That is true. But no hand can do better than the tool allows it. And as
humans are imperfect, we invented saftey tools like ABS etc., no? Thus the
tool, that made it possible, that Nixon was pardonned, was imperfect and
could be enhanced.
>Nobody from the outside will fix it for us. It is up for us
> to set the standards and to apply them, consistently.
>And that's what I mean by "In democracy people get
>the government they deserve".
Look, I'm driving a wonderful smooth functioning, very reliable and safe
car. Could I have manufacture it all by myself? No. Don't I deserve than
no better than that rumply old wooden wheel wagon I could produce myself?
In my vision, the whole is more than it's parts and a community deserves
the best it can produce. Thus we deserve the best woman and men governing
us, not the most ignorant, self esteemed, TV-popular ones. And to make
that happen, we should create a system narrowing down on that, not on some
idealistic misconceptions....
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Atonality
From: Tu-Mark
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:47:19 +0000
crjclark wrote:
>
> There is a spectre still haunting the civilized world: it is the
> spectre of atonality. Atonal music cannot adequately be condemned.
> To give a thorough condemnation of atonality would require a formal
> elucidation of *all possible relationships* which have caused the
> phenomenon. Not even complexity theory could discuss the genetic,
> psychological, physiological, neurological, philosophical,
> anthropological and cultural deteriorations which have contributed to
> the existence of atonality.
>
> *Peer approval* programs have contributed to a small band of
> ideological demagogues inculcating the masses with ideas on
> *musicological correctness*. Atonal music enthusiasts have spread
> massive harm to the audience by offending their sensibilities and
> hurting their ears. Personality disorders are encouraged by
> advocating and educating an entire class of atonal charlatans who
> have deluded themselves into thinking that they are *composers*.
>
> Atonal music is a violation of all rational aesthetic values.
> Consonance is not a culturally conditioned relativistic phenomenon.
> When waves combine in a certain way, they produce symmetry and
> resonance. The universal existence of 2nds in virtually all musical
> cultures establishes beyond all reasonable doubt the objective
> independent existence of musical self-organization. This
> self-organization transcends any feeble attempt of serialist
> criticism to defend itself from the inexorable march of absolute wave
> functions.
>
> The move towards the *irrational* in philosophy and physics is
> evidenced everywhere. There was also a movement towards the
> irrational at the dawn of the Dark Ages. People who call themselves
> *physicists* write papers which are incomprehensible to their own
> colleagues. Philosophers ramble on about *memes* and *logic* and
> never once even mention *absolutes* or *universals*. Such ignorance
> is not only lamentable, it is deplorable. If Lorentz invariance is
> not a *universal* constant more immutable than the speed of light, I
> defy any physicist anywhere to prove that such invariance does not
> occur everywhere in space, in exactly the same way, every time it
> occurs. For if Lorenz invariance was not a fact of natural law,
> then all the stars would look different. But for some *invariant*
> reason, the stars all look the same.
>
> The ideological paradigm of such a notion as *atonal* music must
> be called by its proper name: noise. Atonal music as such does not
> exist. For there can be no music that is not at least 51% consonant.
> There is nothing more insidious than seeing one atonal composer
> patting another one on the back and saying, "nice job." There could
> not be a more perverse encouragement of *failure*.
>
> MIDI has contributed to the possible extinction of the composer
> of orchestral music. While there is much that is good about
> contemporary film and television scores, in that there is a *healthy
> move away from atonality*, there is also much that is bad in the
> sense that the purity and quality of orchestra music is lost to
> inferior cheaper machine music.
>
> Let us hope that more producers in the future will insist on
> orchestra music for film and television, and let that music be of a
> tonal and primarily consonant nature. Otherwise, the quality of film
> and television will continue to deteriorate along with the quality of
> music in general. The unfortunate circumstances of the music
> industry cannot be condoned with apathetic Cage-like silence.
> Rather, let silence be condemned as fiercely as atonality.
>
> Craig Clark
>
>
You obviously have little concept for what atonality is, and the
potntials of its usage.
I belive that you are confusing atonality with the "Avante-Guarde" (A-G)
(Milton Babbit, George Crumb, etc. (all of which I have deep respect
for)). The A-G is very difficult to listen to (for most) and it is
dissonent (relitively speaking of course), but just because most A-G is
atonal, doesn't mean that all atonal is like the A-G. Atonal music can
be just as consonent as the Baroque, or even Gregorian chant for that
matter. *consonence has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with tonality*
My composition teacher- Dianne Goolkasian Rahbee has taught me how to
write atonally, AND still *relate* to the listener. I AM 100% Positive,
that ANYONE who can listen to Tchikovski, or Brahms, or Liszt, Etc.
Would have NO PROBLEM liking, and relating to my music, even though my
music has no tonal center. Even the twelve tone row is misunderstood
because of its use when it was first experimented with. certain rules
were aplied to it which made it very dificult to listen to. I have
written several peices using the twelve tone row- and people can't tell
whether it is atonal or not.
My Op.6 #2 "segments" for violin and piano was taped and I let my friend
from High School listen to it a few weeks ago. This was his responce
(keep in mind that he is not sufficiantly musically trained, and hates
classical music) "*Parts* of it were atonal", my responce was, "no,
*ALL* of it was atonal" It's just that he could really relate to parts
of the music, even with it's complex rhythms, harmony relationships, and
*atonality*. To an ear trained enough to listen to mid to late romantic
music (and have the same preconceptions of atonality as you do)- the
peice is noticeably atonal, but they can't understand why they like it.
I would recomend that you listen to some Prokoviev (Romio & Juliet, The
Love for three oranges, Any piano sonata, or piano concerto.) His stuff
*IS* tonal, but might help you to a gate to the 20th century
J. Mark Inman
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:56:20 GMT
vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch) wrote:
>Tim Harwood (TJH103@york.ac.uk) wrote:
>: It was revelaed in the Sunday Times over Christamas, those with a PH.D.
>: in economics are 40 % worse at economic forecasting that those without.
>: ( This is absolutely true, don't flame me for this, read David Smiths
>: round-up of the economic forcasts for 1996 ).
>: Confirmed what I've always thought, academics with lots of with initials
>: after their names can't see the wood for the trees. Lost in irrelevant
>: detail, they lose all track of reality.
>This is maybe because economic forecasting is more like an art than
>a science, and using scientific methods (better known to Ph.D.s) gives
>poorer results than just random guessing :)
This is rather old news. Several decades back (1960s?) Box and Jenkins
made a model which could forecast any time series using only the
timeseries itself and no other data. It consistently outperformed the
models of the hundreds of economists who do the forecasts for the US
government.
One of the problems with economic forecasting is that there isn't enough
history for how many variables there are involved and they invariably
commit the mathematical sin of overspecifying (thats not the right word,
but it won't come to me) their model.
In the 1970s I did forecasting in NZ and outperformed the government
economists here. I don't have a PhD and am not an economist so that
confirms the original report :-)
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
Subject: Re: Astrology: statistically proven now!
From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:56:18 GMT
lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>No, I'm not into NewAge and all that. But I ever wanted to have a simple
>YES or NO on Astrology, as with all our data collections and a little bit
>of statistics it should be easy to give that. Now someone recently did
>exactly that - and proved beyond any doubts, that there are statistic
>significances, which give credit to Astrology.
... details omitted
This is rather interesting. The other great analysis was performed by
the Frenchman Michel Gaquelin and his wife. He found that most of the
traditional astrology was wrong but that were very real effects
associated with the position of the planet relative to the horizon at
the exact moment of birth.
Subsequent research in other countries has repeatedly confirmed this on
large samples of 30,000 to 50,000. It has also shown that it is not the
moment of birth that determines the person's nature, but it is genetics
which determines both the person's nature AND the moment of birth.
For details read any of Gauquelin's books or "Recent Advances in Natal
Astrology" by Geoffrey Dean, which is a monumental work that examined
all astrological research from 1900 to 1976 and showed that most was
quite inadequate scientifically but that a small proportion stood up
very well.
It is interesting that both the French and American Academy of Sciences
declined to publish Gauquelin's results and each participated in further
studies to try and prove him wrong. In each case the additional results
confirmed the original and yet they still tried to prevent publication.
The "scientific" establishment get extremely irrational when dealing
with astrology. Even more so than most astrologers do :-)
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: smidt@dd.chalmers.se (Peter Smidt)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 11:43:13 +0100
In article <5b105c$qvo@elmo.cadvision.com>,
S Martin wrote:
>
> As for the evidence of the Martian origin, the isotopic ratios of oxygen
>in the rock match those of other meteors from Mars, ones having inert gasses
>trapped in the pores that match the distinctive Martian atmosphere (eg,
>less light elements like neon and more heavy ones like xenon) - totally
>distinctive and unique to the planet, and thoroughly measured by Viking.
Strange... Shouldn't the Mars atmosphere change at least a little bit during
all that millions of years, now you say that the inert gasses is exactly the
same as those on Mn Mars?!?
/Mvh Peter Smidt
--
+=======================================+
"The whole valley is like a smorgasbord."
-- TREMORS
Subject: Re: IS THERE A CASE FOR THE ELECTRIC CAR?
From: "Paul G. White"
Date: 13 Jan 1997 12:47:34 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <5bc0ib$16ou@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, ale2@psu.edu (ale2) writes:
>>In article <32da5200.2327475@news.interlog.com>
>>borism@interlog.com (Boris Mohar) writes:
>>
>>> On 12 Jan 1997 05:29:23 GMT, ale2@psu.edu (ale2) wrote:
>>>
>>> >I think the hybrid car (small engine powered generator + batteries +
>>> >electric motor) is the way to go for the short term.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chrysler is working on a system that converts gasoline to hydrogen
>>> and feeds that the fuel cells. The conversion is on board.
>>>
>>
>>Sounds like a good idea also, if the efficiency is high enough?
>
>Sounds like a bad idea, since the efficiency cannot be high. You just
>took the standard process of extracting energy from gasoline (by
>burning it) and added fewo more steps, i.e. extract the hydrogen, then
>oxidize it in the fuel cell to generate electricity, then use the
>electricity to drive mechanical motion. What do you think this shall
>do to the overall efficiency.
>
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Also, you'd better figure out something to do with the left-over carbon.
PGWHITE
Subject: Re: Why can't 1/0 be defined???
From: masjhd@bath.ac.uk (James Davenport)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:04:22 GMT
In article , dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:
> Or simply not distinguish -oo and +oo. To distinguish them may lead to
> severe problems when you are switching to complex numbers. The fact that
Yes, there is a sad mathematical fact here.
The standard real numbers are a subset of the standard complex numbers,
but this is NOT TRUE of their compactifications (which is really what we
are talking about here), since R needs a 2-point compactification (+oo and
-oo whereas C needs a 1-point compactification (projective oo).
To my mind, this sad mathematical fact means that hardware should concentrate
on standard R (which can therefore be extended to standard C in the cartesian
way) and leave the interpretations of infinity to software, since no one
interpretation will suffice for both R and C (unless we also build C and
its 1-point compactification in).
James Davenport
Subject: Re: Astrology: statistically proven now!
From: orie0064@sable.ox.ac.uk
Date: 13 Jan 1997 13:22:21 GMT
> From: lbsys@aol.com
>
>No, I'm not into NewAge and all that. But I ever wanted to have a simple
>YES or NO on Astrology, as with all our data collections and a little bit
>of statistics it should be easy to give that. Now someone recently did
>exactly that - and proved beyond any doubts, that there are statistic
>significances, which give credit to Astrology.
>
.............
>The fact, that since a few years back, the birth dates of bride and
>bridegroom are registered in Switzerland, together with a general
>population census taken in 1990, allowed to put together all statistical
>material, that was needed to find out, if a very personal question:
>"Should I marry him/her?" is influenced by the star sign.
>
>Now, physicists and astronomers and all of you, who believe in equal
>rights and equal chances and do not believe in esoterics: FASTEN SEAT
>BELTS.
>
>Gunter Sachs let some researchers of the University of Munich analyze the
>data. There are 144 combinations (12x12 star signs) that people could
>marry. The given dataset was ~375000 marriages, thus giving statistically
>trustworthy results with low aberration levels. Now first they normalized
>for the fluctuation in birthrate throughout the year (otherwise giving an
>overweight on spring/spring or autumn/spring or autumn/autumn
>combinations). Then they looked at the distribution. Lots of combinations
>where absolutely in the normal statistical noise range. But some
>combinations where highly significant over- or underrepresented. One cited
>example was Stier-Frau vs. Wassermann-Mann (don't know the english
>expressions), which should have had an expected value of 2705 marriages,
>but came up with 2540. For such a huge sample this is a highly significant
>aberration way over noise level.
It is an aberration, but a 160/2705 ~7% one.
Could it be that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy effect:
Many people believe in astrology, and astrology predictions concern which
marriages are more happy.
Therefore it could be reasonable that 7% of the population, consciusly or
unconsciously, use predictions to choose their partner.
>The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
>Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
>__________________________________
>Lorenz Borsche
>
>Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
>be added to any commercial mailing list.
>Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
GT
--
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0064
--
GT
--
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0064
Subject: Re: Infinitude of Primes in P-adics
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:20:16 GMT
In article <5bbsh4$s10$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> In article
> dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:
>
> > But the 3-adics are *not* a field. Please read what I write on occasion.
> > The 3-adics are *not* a field because 3 has no inverse in the 3-adics.
> > Moreover, 3 generates a prime ideal in the 3-adics and can be seen as a
> > prime in the 3-adics. (In a field, by definition, *all* elements except
> > 0 have a multiplicative inverse. Show me the inverse of 3 in the 3-adics
> > if you want it to be a field.)
>
> Different primes p, q, then p-adics not isomorphic to q-adics, but
> p-adics have a multiplicative inverse in the q-adics
I do not understand what you are meaning here at all. What is the
multiplicative inverse of the 2-adic 11 in the 3-adics?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Subject: Re: circuit diagram for bathtub electrocution?
From: wagray@taz.dra.hmg.gb (Walter Gray)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 14:25:50 GMT
In article <5b5lsq$3td@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Jim Thompson writes:
>To make your day: the year was 1957, the location was a bathtub in
>Huntington, WVa. The bather was a JOCK (football team, HEHS, duh!).
>TUBE radio sitting on edge of tub. No witnesses, but JOCK was found dead
>in tub with radio in the water. I am not joking, my wife dated the guy
>once and said "he was all hands and no brains" :-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Did they ever find out who gave him the radio ?
:)
Subject: Re: Color of light bent in gravitation lens?
From: John Stepp
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:38:35 -0800
Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> Sir Terrance of SAL wrote:
>
> > Finally! Thanks John.
> >
> > I was wondering how long this argument could last before someone realized
> > that the geodesic of a particle is independant of that particles mass.
> >
> > Sometimes basic physics is forgotten. The speed of light is c, a
> > constant,
> > and therefore regardless of the energy of the light, the geodesic is the
> > same.
>
> Several people had already pointed this out, including myself.
>
> There is a further complication, since generally a beam of photons are all
> not perfectly in line (that is, not following the same geodesic). If the
> beam has any spatial width, then photons travelling on one side of the beam
> will be following one geodesic, while those on the other will be following
> another geodesic.
>
> The result is that your non-zero-width beam may get _dispersed_, but there
> won't be a spectral dispersion, because for any given photon, the same
> geodesic is following regardless of the photon's energy.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
> Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
> &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
> "You must surely know if man made heaven | Then man made hell"
I'm gonna disagree with this out of cussedness. In an EM field and
light is made of an EM and electrostatic componate there is a width.
If the width is a physical mesurement then a (very small) part of the
light wave dips deeper into the gravity well and seems to be slowed
because the clocks run slower in a g field. The shorter the wave length
(the higher the freq) the less this effect would show. If this has any
validity at all, you could expect "rainbows" around neutron stars or
black holes (ok, I know that two of you don't believe in black holes,
but pretend.)
John.
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: aranders@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan Anderson)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 15:08:23 GMT
In <5b623g$n74@dropit.pgh.net>,
=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.com= ( >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<< ) writes:
>Organisms are designed to thrive, or had you forgotten that?
If you're going to start arguing conscious design of organisms, we have
just lost the possibility of rational debate. By invoking supernatural
causes, you deny the ability of scentific reasoning to explain nature.
The prevailing theory is that organisms thrive because they survive the
environment in which they live. The survival might start as an accident,
but the organisms which survive pass along their traits to the offspring
and the survival traits are emphasized. That's what "natural selection"
is all about.
In the case of "artificial selection" where there are breeders and cross-
breeders and the occasional direct genetic manipulation, organisms are
designed to do whatever the designers want them to do. Dairy cows aren't
designed to thrive, they're designed to give milk. Toy poodles are not
designed to thrive, they're designed to be small. Humulin-producing
bacteria aren't designed to thrive, they're designed to produce Humulin.
So no, *I* hadn't forgotten that organisms aren't designed to thrive --
I never knew it, because they aren't.
= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
# Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
(I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday, HAL!
From: sschaper@inlink.com
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:31:20 GMT
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:09:28 GMT, borism@interlog.com (Boris Mohar)
wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1997 17:01:26 GMT, kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
>wrote:
>
>> "I am a HAL Nine Thousand computer Production Number 3. I became
>>operational at the HAL Plant in Urbana, Illinois, on January 12, 1997."
>>-- "2001 a space odyssey" -- a novel by arthur C. Clarke
>
> And if you shift right the letters HAL you will get his dady's name.
>
> Boris Mohar
Obviously a Connection Machine using Exponential's 533 mhz X704
processors in large numbers.
