Subject: Universities: centres of cultural and financial parasitism (with particular reference to physics and the arts) Was: Re: US academic persecutes a dissident
From: john@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:04:54 GMT
This posting will concentrate on one central point: that of the
cultural poison spread through abuse of physics. Other topics are
dealt with in quotes below, such as the abuse of the arts by
universities. By concentrating on the most prestigious intellectual
discipline in universites, I hope to truly effectively demonstrate how
untrustworthy academia is.
It really is time to wage long overdue and just war on academia! I am
having difficulty getting the war going! This posting is being
directed to newsgroups with a legitimate interest in matters
discussed. Some sports groups are included as it was from these
groups quoted material below originated in.
Now I will readily admit there is a beauty and aesthetic to applied
mathematics and the more mathematical or theoretical side of physics
that can almost blow one's mind, particularly with the more eleagant
equations. It can leave on feeling how hollow and superficial those
who propound the classic arts are. It can leave one feeling set apart
from the ordinary mass of students, staff and academic life. It can
contribute to a hatred of bureaucracy: why do these ignorant people
yield so much power who can never know? Maybe its effect is more
powerful than drugs. Frankly it is dangerous. Perhaps it is a
similiar effect to that on returned soldiers who find it difficult to
adapt back to normal life after war and never talk about it: how can
those who have not experienced understand?
Now we have had some talk about it: Issac Newton comparing himself to
a child at the sea's edge who has but thrown in a pebble. We have had
Stephen Hawking's book on time. We have had Albert Einstein delving
into the philosophical.
However there is a problem with two central issues arising from
contemporay physics which have in reality had a culturally poisoning
effect. One is related to particle physics and the other to
relativistic predictions giving rise to notions of curved space-time
and multiple space and time dimensions.
No principle in physics, including the Heisenberg Uncertaintity
principle, states that sub atomic particles have free will. Yet this
is a contemporary popular interpretation! It is impossible to make a
measurement to an infinite level of accuracy. The Heisenberg
Uncertaintity Principle provides a prediction of what a level of
uncertaintity is! Nothing more!
Their is nothing in Relativistic mechanics that suggests the standard
Western world cultural 'common sense' standard three space dimensional
with one time dimensional model of the universe is invalid. There are
predictions that go against the standard Western world cultural
'common sense' notions (as much science as done in the past, such as
the world is round, not flat), but they do not imply extra space and
time dimensions. Such extra dimensions make no sense within the
predictions of Relativistic mechanics yet are readiy propagated in
the popular media. Relativistic mechanics works with the standard
dimensions, just because it gives rise to predictions that appear to
confound 'common sense' does not mean it throws out the dimensions it
used to make the predictions in the first place!
So why has the world being poisoned by the champions of the mind? At
any rate academics and universities cannot be trusted. They are
culturally and financially parasitic! Read on for more...
John Heenan
john@heenan.ironbark.id.au
********************************************************************
From: john@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan)
Subject: Re: Screening Posts to rec.sport.swimming
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:28:04 GMT
Brent S. Rushall (brushall@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
: From time to time postings have advocated "stopping" individuals and
: topics from being posted to "rec.sport.swimming".
: From then on when you open "r.s.s" it will not show you the topic/s or
: author/s that you do not want to see.
: I hope this is helpful. It is a good way of "santizing" content from
: aggravating origins.
: Brent S. Rushall, Ph.D., R.Psy. [brushall@mail.sdsu.edu]
I am the only person on r.s.s. (rec.sport.swimming) that their have
been calls to stop. I find Brent, a Ph.D, implication that my
contributions are unsanitory offensive (in his incoherent statement
above). I am going to up my contributions ridiculing the academic
community. See my latest posting: 'Universities: centres of cultural
and financial parasitism'.
John Heenan
*********************************************************************
From: datam@mpx.com.au (John Heenan)
Subject: Re: US academic persecutes a dissident
Date: 14 Sep 1996 11:54:04 GMT
RICHARD J. LOGAN (RJL@OVPR.UGA.EDU) wrote:
: John Heenan wrote:
: >
: > a lot of stuff
: >
:
: John:
:
: You sound like a very bitter, angry person. You must be a joy to be
: around. Why did you post this trash to sci.research?
: ___________________________________
: Richard J. Logan, Ph.D.
: University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.
Why don't you address the issues instead of making silly unsubstantiated
comments that serve to reinforce my points.
Why did you respond with trash? What are you? A failed researcher who
has found consolation and power in administrating research grants to
those who have spent their valuable hours writing humiliating submissions
for research grants?
John
****************************************************************
Subject: US academic persecutes a dissident
From: john@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:32:26 GMT
William A. T. Clark (clark.31@osu.edu) wrote:
: In article , john@heenan.ironbark.id.au
: (John Heenan) wrote:
: > This posting is simply to correct one word below marked with ^^^^^^^
: > towards the end. Willaim, the academic, has got so petty, I am
: > reduced to this!
: Actually, no. It is all too apparent that Mr. Heenan, the paranoid, is
: completely off his rocker, and is not worth replying too any further. From
: now on "sticks and stones....".
: Pathetic.
: William Clark
Actually it is all too apperent how irrational, pathetic and incapable
of balanced judgement of Willaim, the academic at Ohio State University in
the US, is!
William is reinforcing many of the points I have been making about
academia, including pettiness! Now what am I supposed to be paranoid
and 'off my rocker' about? Like a dissident, I have publically
expressed views about universities that are not publically admitted to
by university staff. These views are worth expressing. It is
threatening to the 'powers that be' in universites to express them
publically. It is abusive to dismiss my expression of these views as
symptomathic of mental illness. It is somewhat akin to the attitude
that put dissidents in psychiatric hospitals! I wonder if William
worships some ideology akin to that held by the university Markists
and would like to have me committed as occurred formerly to dissidents
in communist countries!
Additionally I have asserted views that are somewhat unique, such as
that the arts in universities enforce rigid conformity to style or
form that is opposite to their real stated purposes. This serves
unstated middle class and business values of being able to maintain
value for a purpose other than that to which the purpose of the value
really applies (marketing techniques in business come immediately to
mind as an example). The form or style becomes important, rather than
the content (crudely expressed as 'appearance or image is all'). The
arts have no real substance, but a pretence is kept up that they do.
As long as the pretence of substance is maintained, diversity of
opinion is tolerated. It is clear that my points are reasonable and
have worth. However they do not accept the delusioned values of worth
in the university arts world, that teaches and tests the valuable
qualities of exagerrated expression of substance which cannot be
substantiated.
Under the conditions above we can expect irrational judgements and
picking up om minor and irrelevant points to dismiss the value of
statements. In this posting we have seen the irrational from Willaim,
while in quotes below from a former posting, we see William dismissing
the worth of statements on the basis of a really petty point. It is
clear William cannot be trusted to form reliable judgements.
Some more points on the relation between university culture and work
culture. The important point is conformity to a style that promotes
what cannot be substantiated. I have seen Williams type of attitidue
at work in work envoirnments. It is well known the way to get ahead
in work is to embrace the culture and views of those superior to you
in the organisation, despite appearing to embrace these views on more
substantive grounds. 'Licking up' is a common term used. There are
well known variations on this description. You can see the most
ridiculous reports in work environments that pretend to have research
type quality simply by using the appropriate style of expression. You
can also see the most ridiculous judgements made on people, with
either no, or very weak, substantation, when those people are prepared
to expose the ineptness of their superiors and organisation.
We can see much of the university style in the statements made by
university trained economists in the popular media. Statements that
are remarkably pompous, are expressed using the right mix of jargon,
but with very little of substance to support them.
Interesting headline in today's 'Sydney Morning Herald' of 11/9/96. It
states 'Universities set to lose jobs for life' The by line is Luis
M. Garcia, Higher Education Writer and the first paragraph reads:
"The alliance between vice-chancellors and the peak academic union was
in tatters last night after the university chiefs decided to
publically support the Federal Government's industrial relations
reforms, which may end guaranteed jobs for life for academics."
Would be rather a big change for institutions who have managed to keep
many of their ways intact since their origins in medieval religious
practice. To quote Bob Dylan some 30 years on, out of context: "Times
are a changing"
For the benefit of the new groups I am also posting this to, I have
included copies of earlier postings
An individual mentioned, US Swimmer Janet Evans, was suppposed to hav
espent a short time at Stanford University. From a publication I read
in 1988/1989, the impression I had was that she attended a non
university college whose students had the use of facilites belonging
to Stanford University.
QUOTES FROM POSTING REPLIED TO:
************************************************************
: >
: > John
: >
: > John Heenan (john@heenan.ironbark.id.au) wrote:
: > : : >> This guy (who identified himself in a former post as a faculty member
: > : : >> at a US university) doesn't when to give up! Is he one of those all
: > : : >> too common academics who has never done any decent research in his
: > : : >
: > : : >Au contraire, mon ami, I consider myself anything but common.
: >
: > : Is this an implicit acceptance by the academic of my taboo statement
: > : of the all too common academics who have never done any decent
: > : research?
: >
: > : : >
: > : : >> life but is more than willing to pontificate on how to do research?
: > : : >> How do great researchers know which facts and evidence to look for to
: > : : >> effectively evaluate and advance their
: > : : >> hypotheses/theories/speculations unless they are operating within a
: > : : >> speculative framework in the first place?
: > : : >>
: > : : >> Now I don't know what basic tenet the academic is referring to. If
: > : : >> anyone believes it is impossible for private universities to possibly
: > : : >> have double standards as indicated then they are naieve.
: > : : >
: > : : >Repeat after me - USC = University of Southern California - private
: > : : > UCLA= University of California, Los Angeles - public.
: > : : >
: > : : >It's hard to take someone's opinions seriously when they don't even have
: > : : >the most basic facts straight. Rule one of good research - speculate, but
: > : : >from a firm and correct foundation.
: >
: > : Ah shucks, boys and girls, be good and repeat after William...
: >
: > : It good resaerch practice to be clear about what is being referred to.
: > : How many decent researchers have such a set of numbered rules they
: > : work to? The above is typical patronising, pointless and petty
: > : academic bickering that academics appear to love to indulge in. So
: > : what that I made a mistake. The mistake goes in my favour. It is
: > : irrelevant to the main thrust. Maybe the academic doesn't realise
: > : that most scientific or knowledge advances are eventually regarded as
: > : incorrect in the light of later advances.
: >
: > : : >> At any rate the issue of Evans education is irrelevant to the main
: > : : >> issues.
: >
: > : : >> Does this academic expect a simple but humble apology for every
: > : : >> mistake his students make? So I made an error, the error in fact may
: > : : >> go in my favour. Does he aplogise for every mistake he makes.
: > : : >
: > : : >If they challenge (and insult) mine or anyone else's position using
: > : : >incorrect facts then of course I would. Debate is central to advancing
: > : : >knowledge, but it should be based on sound information. You have demeaned
: > : : >Stanford, USC, and UCLA (and I'm sure many other institutions) while
: > : : >indicating that you have not the slightest clue where they rank in any
: > : : >hieracrchy of universities. The fact that they are all world-class
: > : : >universities, defined by opinions far more systematic and impartial than
: > : : >yours seems to be of little account.
: >
: > : Again: negative marks!
: >
: > : Even the inefficient and paranoid can be ranked and have their pecking
: > ^^^^^^^^
: > The marked word above was supposed to be 'parasitic', not 'paranoid'.
: > Now we don't William going off his brain again demanding apoligies for
: > implying he is inefficient and parasitic, do we?
: >
: > : order! I don't give a stuff about your university rankings, and don't
: > : get paranoid (or maybe do). THE FACT IS I DEMEAN ALL UNIVERSITES AND
: > : THEIR LARGELY INEFFICIENT AND PARASITIC STAFF, WILL NOT APOLIGISE FOR
: > : IT AND WILL CONTINUE TO SCORN AND MOCK AS THE OPPURTUNITY PRESENTS
: > : ITSELF FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. Being ranked more highly because of a
: > : few exceptional individuals, who can effectively guide the research of
: > : a few mediocre researchers does not alter any of my comments.
: >
: > : John
COPIES OF EARLIER POSTINGS:
*************************************************************************
From: john@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan)
Subject: Re: Michelle Smith and the drug rumours
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:17:43 GMT
Following are some clarifying background statements before possibly
further silly common abuse reaches my news server that provides a
false and pathetic excuses not to appreciate the quality of my
statements!
1. The problem of quality of university output with abuse of public
funds is world wide, not just confined to the US.
2. Universites see their primary function as advancing knowledge, not
teaching. The fact that they advance knowledge inefficently is
irrelevant to the way they see themselves.
3. In the context of a university, the definition of a 'good student'
is boringly evident. In the context of the arts themselves it has
little relevance. Universites can be regarded to have institutionally
parasitised the arts, having tamed and subverted them to serve
unspoken middle class and business ideals such as 'appearance is all'
or 'style not substance'. Despite the posturing of universites to
independent thought in the arts, they in fact impose a discipline of
rigid conformity to style amidst appearance to the contrary. Ideal
qualities for an employee!
4. The following paragraph is just some speculative ideas I am
throwing out.
Originality is diffficult, dangerous and subversive. Very few
individuals are capable of conducting effective truly original thought
in universities. Exam results and IQ correlate poorly with quality of
originality. It must be controlled and rigidly channelled. The only
real vehicles for expression of originality in universites for
students is under highly controlled postgraduate conditions in 'hard'
disciplines under near penniless conditions. It can be pirated by
senior staff. The most original individuals appear to be marginalised
and alienated, and not to appear to be part of their university.
5. It is a fact that the mainstream public view of Bill Gates is that
he is a hero genius entrpreneur who cares. Just because others have
other views does not mean it is not a mainstram view or that any of
the views are correct.
6. I have been informed USC is a private college. Good. There is
speculation as to a set of double standards by private colleges
towards high profile and very rich students as opposed to ordinary
students.
THE POSTING BELOW WAS INCLUDED AS A QUOTE IN POSTING ABOVE
*************************************************************************
From: john@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan)
Subject: Re: Michelle Smith and the drug rumours
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 13:22:06 GMT
Ah yes, an ignorant abusive response from an academic dinosaur! He is
actually doing work for me in that his ignorant points reinforce the
whole point of my posting! Ordinarily I wouldn't bother replying to
such insignificant rubbish. However the work done for me and the
unwarranted esteem such patronising elitist self agrandizing twits are
held in leads me to make an exception! Read on!
Additionally, as a member of the public concerned at the horrific
waste of public monies on providing expensive resources to privileged
university staff with low quality and quantity output, questionable
teaching methodoligies and standards, and poisonous elitist culture, I
cannot let a US university faculty member's ignorant and uninfomed
remarks go unanswered.
William A. T. Clark (clark.31@osu.edu) wrote:
: As a faculty member at A US university, I cannot let the ignorant and
: uninformed remarks made in theis post go by unanswered. If Mr Heenan is
: really interested in informed debate, then perhaps he should begin by
: informing himself.
Oh, setting the tone with a boring ignorant introduction. Yawn.
Nothing original there. Negative marks!
: In article <4vp69a$om4@inferno.mpx.com.au>, john@heenan.ironbark.id.au wrote:
: > I intend having some fun in this ghastly thread. If you persist in
: > reading through this posting you will see a comparison between two all
: > american heroes, Janet Evans and Bill gates!
: >
: > John
: >
: > RunnSwim (runnswim@aol.com) wrote:
: > : In article <4vc9mn$7l@inferno.mpx.com.au>, datam@mpx.com.au (John Heenan)
: > : writes:
: > :
: > : >Janet Evans, according to information I read in Swimming World years
: > : >ago, did not attend Stanford University on a degree couse. I
: > : >understood she was in a program that leads to a degree course. So
: > : >that may not be what is called a 'prep school', so what. She left
: > : >soon after starting, not in a pre Olympic year.
: > :
: > : Janet Evans is not the dimwit Heenan is cruelly trying to portray. She
: > : left Stanford (and college swimming) when the NCAA proposed passing a
: > : ruling limiting workouts of student athletes to 24 hours per week.
: >
: > So she left on a proposal and not on a ruling. If Texas (see below) was
: > better to train at, why didn't she enroll there in the first place! If
: > Stanford was better, why not stay at Stanford after dropping out.
: > Additionally she refused to take on endorsements after the 1988 Olympics
: > in order to retain College eligibility. So now she has lost both College
: > eligibility by dropping out and her endorsment offers. If changes are
: > going to be made in a program, it is considered they should only affect
: > those who have not yet on the program. Of course Evans must have had no
: > idea such a 24 hour ruling might be imposed before she started and then
: > assumed it would affect her if implemented, even though it should only
: > affect those who have not yet started! All seems rather strange!
: Not in the least - the NCAA introduced these rulings to protect football
: and basketball players, and get them into the classroom. No one seruiosly
: considered the consequences for swimmers who spend many hours in the pool,
: but are better able to balance this with school work because they can
: train at hours oputsinde the academic day.
Well it just goes to show incompetently universites run themselves and
take care of their students. Allowing the NCAA to change the rules
midway and failing to consider special cases is a joke.
: >
: >I pointed out she was not
: > enrolled in a degree program at Stanford, that she dropped out, has been
: > called a '100% moron' (not by me) and that on this basis we have little to
: > suppose Evans' father is a genius!
: If she was not enrolled in a dgree program, she would not have been
: eligible to swim for Stanford under NCAA rules. You must be "making
: progress towards a degree (not a "pre-degree") to stay eligible, and it is
: checked on rigorously at top schools like Stanford.
The above does not contradict what I have asserted and learnt from
'Swimming World' magazine. The standard time to complete a standard
bachelors degree is four years. If on a course that will lead to the
same standard degree in a longer time due to a substandard SAT score
for the normal time to complete degree, then the NCAA requirements are
still met. By no stretch of the imagination can such a person be
regarded, using conventional standards, as attending a real degree
course, when they start it.
The academic has provided no useful information to resolve this
matter. More negative marks!
: > : Jim Nabor reported that she had a good scholastic record at Stanford and
: > : that scholastics had absolutely nothing to do with her leaving. She went
: > : on to enroll at Texas to train with a famous coach and later transferred
: > : to USC, when that coach, Mark Schubert, took the head coaching job there.
: > : She was a good student at USC, and graduated a year or so ago with a
: > : communications degree, if I remember correctly.
: >
: > What does 'good student' at USC mean? That she turned up for her classes
: > and was polite and non confrontational during tutorials? How horrific to
: > be labelled a 'good student' in the arts! Congratulations to Janet that
: > she had a 'good scholastic record' at her non degree course at Stanford.
: > It means damn all.
: Now we start with sneering invective. Some quite inteliigent people have
: degrees in the arts, and it is not Mr. Heenan's place to define what "good
: student" defines; especially from a position of such total ignorance.
I know intelligent people have arts degrees. The term 'good student'
has no real definition or meaning in the context of arts. It is an
embarrassment in that it has connotations of good behaviour, obedient
study and conformity to a common set of values. This is not relevant
to the problems and issues that the arts attempt to grapple with.
: >
: > So it took her 7 or so years to graduate with a soft degree from a state
: > college which may specialise in ensuring people on sports scholarships get
: > some sort of paper qualification in something that won't embarrass the
: > College if any scholarly knowledge is required to be be demonstrated.
: Now we start the REALLY ignorant part. 1) Stanford is NOT a state
: university, but a private one. 2) It ranks among the top ten college in
: the United States, and has very high academic standards, to go with a
: record of achievement on athletics, too. The two are not necessarily
: mutually incompatible in this coutry - perhaps they are where you come
: from.
SUCH IGNORANCE! I know Stanford is a private university. I stated
Evans graduated from USC, a state College. So doesn't bother to read
my posts and sounds off! More neagative marks!
As for the ignorant remark about my country. How silly and stupid!
Nothing useful there. Tut tut! Such appalling standards!
:
: >>
: > 1. Evans and Gates dropped out of college. How intelligent are they?
: >
: > We know both dropped out of College. Dropping out of College does not
: > of course point to lack of intelligence, admission standards usually
: > are set to ensure this is not an issue. Gates was in a real degree
: > course, Evans wasn't. So presumably Gates did better on the IQ
: > admissions test than Evans (known as the SAT or Scholastic Aptitude
: > Test). Have Gates and Evans SAT scores being divulged to the public?
: > Now I reckon to fail to get into a real degree course at a private
: > university when on a sports scholarship points to some serious doubts
: > by the administration as to suitability for a degree course. She may
: > have left over humilation over this.
: >
: > So what did Evans do when she dropped out? Evans joined another coach
: > at a Southern University.
: If you are referring to her current enrollment at USC, that is not a
: "southern university", and I don't think she ever enrolled at Texas. As
: far as I know she is about to graduate from USC, and has talked about
: going to law school. Now, whatever we feel about lawyers and law schools,
: the ones at good schools at hard to get into.
If the academic read the thread then he would realise that Janet only
trained at Texas, then followed her coach to USC, enrolled there and
graduated in communications! Quite a joke given her public interviews
on television and the way she has inflamed the Chinese, leading them
to believe she is a moron.
: >Evans refused endoresements after the 1988 Olympics,
: > before entering College, perhaps so as not to jeporadise some College
: > eligibility.
: >
: > In conclusion we can say there is evidenece Gates is bright and can
: > exloit oppurtunuty. We cannot say the same about Evans. Gates
: > dropped out of College and exploited oppurtunity. Evans had
: > oppurtunity before College and failed to exploit it.
: See comments re graduation - this is a stupid and puerile comparison.
What a silly comment! What I stated is of course an entertaining and
relevant comment!
: >
: >
: > 2. What is the image of Evans compared to Gates?
: >
: > Evans comes across as a vivacous but vulnerable 'girl next door'. The
: > idea of her cheating is inconceviable on the basis of her image.
: >
: > Gates comes across as a caring, crusading, genius US entrpreneur, who
: > brought user friendly computing to the masses. He successfully
: > challenged the supremacy of IBM in the commercial world.
: Then you have been sound asleep. Gates is reknowned as one of the most
: determined and avaricious businissmen in the US. He has engineered a
: succession of moves that have effectively, and quite deliberately,
: destroyed his business rivals. He has a reputation for hiring and firing
: Microsoft employees on a whim. No one disputes his contributions to
: personal computing (apart from the fact that his power has forced the
: computing world to stick to outdated DOS-based systems), but his warm
: fuzzines should at least be tempered by some small grasp on reality.
So this ignorant academic has failed to read what I read. Maybe the
academic is such an elitist that he doesn't regard general image and
perception held by 'the masses' as a legitimate expression of an
image! I stated there are corners of the internet were Bill Gates is
regarded as an 'antichrist'. Well you now see correct my assertion
is! I mentioned the anti trust suit brought by the US government.
Anyway the academic has unwittingly reinforced my point! That is that
image and reality can differ incredibly. The image of Evans is such
that it is inconceviable to cheat. However their is circumstantial
evidence otherwise and we can see how different reality is from image!
I might also add you can also see how the image of academics does not
comform to the reality as evident in this posting!
: Hope some of this helps you get a slightly clearer view of the US (always
: assuming that you want one;-))
Marks for this academic: off the scale in the negative direction!
I have been provided with more ammunition against a largely parasitic
community.
John Heenan
**************************************************************************
From: john@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:02:01 GMT
William A. T. Clark (clark.31@osu.edu) wrote:
: In article , john@heenan.ironbark.id.au
: (John Heenan) wrote:
: > Oh good! USC is private! There is interesting speculation as to the
: > flexibilty or double standards of private universites with regard to
: > their standards for high profile and very rich students as opposed to
: > 'ordinary' students!
: Speculation in the absence of facts and evidence may be a self-gratifying
: experience, but it largely pointless. This is all the more so when a basic
: tenet of the argument is so simply and completely wrong.
This guy (who identified himself in a former post as a faculty member
at a US university) doesn't when to give up! Is he one of those all
too common academics who has never done any decent research in his
life but is more than willing to pontificate on how to do research?
How do great researchers know which facts and evidence to look for to
effectively evaluate and advance their
hypotheses/theories/speculations unless they are operating within a
speculative framework in the first place?
Now I don't know what basic tenet the academic is referring to. If
anyone believes it is impossible for private universities to possibly
have double standards as indicated then they are naieve.
At any rate the issue of Evans education is irrelevant to the main
issues.
: >
: > John
: >
: > Kevin Metcalfe (metcalfe@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us) wrote:
: > : John Heenan (john@heenan.ironbark.id.au) wrote:
: > : :
: > : : SUCH IGNORANCE! I know Stanford is a private university. I stated
: > : : Evans graduated from USC, a state College. So doesn't bother to read
: > : : my posts and sounds off! More neagative marks!
: Like I said, a simple, but humble, apology will suffice.
Does this academic expect a simple but humble apology for every
mistake his students make? So I made an error, the error in fact may
go in my favour. Does he aplogise for every mistake he makes.
[snip]
John
***********************************************************************
From: sad@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (John Heenan)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,alt.infinity
Date: 24 Aug 1996 16:21:30 +1000
Subject: Re: alt.infinity
Frank (frank@knarf.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article , lunaslide
: writes
:
: >Does the lack of posts in alt.infinity denote a common (encouraging)
: >admittance of non-understanding? Or has it just been done to death?
:
: Assumption: The universe is infinte.
This statement has no value without further qualification. It provides no
basis on which to make any further statements. More useful statements
might be: The universe has an infinite amount of mass and according to
conventional notions of space, extends infinitely in all directions with
no defined centre. This infinite amount of mass has resonance effects
that give rise to populist notions of a 'big bang' origin. What are
popularly interpreted as Einsteinan notions of time and space are are
simply an abuse of predictions arising from theories associated with the
property of matter. Quantum mechanics does not state sub atomic
particles have free will. Quantum mecahanics provides a statistical
estimate of the amount of uncertaintity of measurement. Not being able
to measure to an infinitesmal measure of accuracy does not mean there is
free will.
:
: Any number divided by infinty is zero. Therefore if you attempt to find
: the distribution of the universes' population, by dividing the total
: number of peolpe by the area, the answer is zero.
If the universe has infinite mass and the universe has a finite population
then the density of people is zero. Not a useful calculation. If the
population is infinite then the calculation is useless. Taking a known
finite area enables an estimate people density for that area.
:
: Therefore, the population of the universe is zero, and anyone you may
: meet is a figment of your non-existant imagination ;-)
Likewise you are a figment of your own imagination.
John
*******************************************************************
John Heenan
--
[=====================================================================]
[ John Heenan john@heenan.ironbark.id.au Swim controversy Web ]
[ updated 3 September 1996 http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ohn/swim ]
[=====================================================================]