Water burns!
 

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
snip
Tom,

These experiments are time consuming, tricky (very sensitive to external
influences) and expensive to conduct, yielding results close to the
limits
of what is measurable. Unfortunately this isn't the sort of research
that
can be conducted by an amateur in a shed in the back yard. Unless
commercial
applications for experimental findings are found, funds are rapidly
switched
to other areas of research looking for a new discovery that might make a
profit.

It's just the way that capitalism works.

Mike G0ULI



And yet they are done all the time by Universities and commercial labs.
Sorry, I don't buy your excuse. If you were a slashdot.org regular,
you would have noticed that reports on exactly this subject come through
every 2 weeks to a month. And many other science news sources report
the same events.

Again, I don't buy your excuse.

tom
K0TAR

Tom,

University research is largely financed by commercial interests. A
university project uncovers some new phenomena or result. The financiers ask
what use can be made of the result in producing something that can be sold
at a profit. If the discovery has no immediate application, the funding
dries up. There are many areas of research that are currently languishing
for lack of funds even though they are important for the advancement of
scientific knowledge.

Discoveries with military or national security implications are moved to
secure research establishments and the results are withheld from general
circulation. This is just common sense, you don't need every tin pot
dictator with an oil well setting up their own starwars type missle defence
program. I am NOT talking about the conspiracy theorist ideas of flying
saucers actually existing, and similar fictions.

If some research team announce that the have detected/measured/discovered
some phenomena and the explanation is credible. Once the results have been
independently confirmed by a second source, is there really any need to keep
reinventing the wheel. If there's no profit in it, that's where the research
stops.

Perhaps I am becoming just too jaded and cynical as I get older...

Mike G0ULI

Water burns!
 

On 12 Jun, 19:18, "Mike Lucas" wrote:
"Mike Kaliski" wrote These experiments are time consuming, tricky (very sensitive to external
influences) and expensive to conduct, yielding results close to the
limits
of what is measurable. Unfortunately this isn't the sort of research that
can be conducted by an amateur in a shed in the back yard. Unless
commercial
applications for experimental findings are found, funds are rapidly
switched
to other areas of research looking for a new discovery that might make a
profit.

It's just the way that capitalism works.

Mike G0ULI

This is EXACTLY why it Art is having such a difficult time with his Gaussian
antenna project. I think it highly unlikely that aluminium foil on tapered
fish-poles
will offer the repeatability that Gaussian equilibrium demands, since the
skin depth
is so large in ALL units.

snip.

What are you trying to say is "unlikely"?
Art
Mike W5CHR

Water burns!
 

On Jun 11, 6:49 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light isn't
red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding?

I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not
a Doppler effect.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jeez, what happened... I agree with Cecil on something.. Will
wonders never cease...
The BIg Bang wasn't Fred Hoyle was, and is, right
The BBT is more rickety than the house the Topsy built - and dark
matter is the stake through its heart or is that 'steak'
Red shift can be tired light, not just velocity - everything leaks
energy over time, including evaporation from impregnable black
holes... When a photon leaks energy its wavelength increases - simple
cause and effect...
Empty space is not empty
Energy and matter are interconvertable - so it should not come as some
huge surprise when increasing energy flow through a sphere of 'empty'
space relieves the stress and pings into into a quark...

For those who find this news upsetting, you can always retreat into
religion...

denny

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
I assert that the box itself is significant regardless of what it does
or does not contain.

Is that the box that holds Schrödinger's cat?
How about an imaginary box drawn around a closed
volume or system?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
Do you understand Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

In a nutshell, random mutations followed by survival
of the fittest. But now man can cause non-random
mutations followed by guaranteed survival of whatever
species we create no matter how unfit they might be.
Man has evolved to the point of being able to violate
the theory of evolution.

What exactly is your apparent issue with this?

All N versions of string theory cannot be correct.
Yet someone implied that "scientific theories"
wrap aroung subsets of theories that essentially
are so scientifically well designed that they cannot
be wrong.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:38:53 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.
My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that
the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-)
A wonderful lady I'm sure. My mother also did not believe in evolution.
She always said "Man did not descend from Apes" She was right on that
count, but wrong about evolution.

The theory has stood the test of time. So many other concepts and
measurements corroborate with it, and none disprove it. If it is wrong,
then most of what we know about the universe is wrong. There will always
be details that may indicate that something here or there needs an
update. But the basic concept and most of the details has survived much
more rigorous testing than the reference material of those who declare
it wrong.


Those who declare it wrong generally do so from a rigid religious
foundation and then they seek facts - bending them unmercifully in the
process - to support their preconceived objection that the Theory of
Evolution is non- (or even worse, anti-) religious.

It's a battle between objective science and those who believe the
Bible is the literal word of God. Those who believe the Bible is
often allegorical tend to have no real problem with evolution once
they understand it never said that man descended from apes.

One of the most interesting things is that the allegorical nature of
the Bible was an accepted notion, and the so-called fundamentalist ideas
are a relatively new thing, originating in the late 1800's early 1900's.
So I guess it took most of two millenium for them to get it right? Old
time religion apparently started a long time after it started.



And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved
not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be,
capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not
random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within
a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-)
I'm not sure how that disproves anything regarding the theory. In fact,
those things we are tinkering with are just an extension of the theory
in the end. Where the pressure to mutate - and therefore change - comes
from is not necessarily important i the end, but say we're talking about
sheep with human organs in them. Ever wonder what happens to the
embryo's and young ones that didn't have the right attributes?


I'd tend to call the whole thing scientific tinkering vs evolution
(natural selection) and I'd characterize Cecil's objections as a near
total non sequitur. You can force fit it if you wish, but I consider
it more charity than anything else to do so. ;-)


I think Cecil's point was more along the line of look at the issues
with this stuff, so how can you be so sure of what you are talking
about. I think that was in response to my noting the interesting
universe we would live in should the law of conservation of energy not
hold sway. (my best guess is that such a universe would be incompatible
with anything living in it, and would immediately destroy itself)

But that conservation of energy law is just about as foundational as you
can get.


How about "string theory", something that cannot even be
tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing
string theories - all "logically self-consistent"????
Lots more than that, even. More flavors than Baskin-Robbins. I can't
really speculate a lot on string theory. String always seemed like a
"just so" story to me.


The math - and it's all math at this point - is well beyond something
close to (and probably on the other side of) 99% of mathematicians.
Those at the cutting edge of this field who fully understand the
theory and the underlying math to the extent they can actually add to
current knowledge probably number less than 50, maybe even closer to a
dozen. And it's all complicated by many different theories with not
enough truly capable people sharing one or more theories to mount a
decent peer review effort sufficient to reduce the number of theories
significantly.

It's a work in progress. Even the paintings of the masters looked
like hell at some point before they were finished.

Perhaps. My gut on this is that there are so many flavors, all designed
to "correct" something else. So I'll look into it from time to time, but
I'm not going to hold my breath. 8^) And that math.....

- 73 d eMike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:12:04 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be
realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken".


What's the point... unless you think there's a liklihood the law of
conservation of energy and matter as it truly exists is breakable?


It's a bit of a kind nudge to some folk so that they might think about
the absurdity of the idea. As far as I know, thee are only two people
who question the Conservation of Energy, and they is both in this newsgroup.

And nahh, I don't think it is breakable. Any law that has a zeroth Law
within it is okay in my book ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
In a nutshell, random mutations followed by survival
of the fittest. But now man can cause non-random
mutations followed by guaranteed survival of whatever
species we create no matter how unfit they might be.
Man has evolved to the point of being able to violate
the theory of evolution.
...

I find it difficult to generate a true and unwavering belief in "the
creator."

However, when confronted with the argument that a single
virus-type-thingy/cell sprang into being, by sheer chance, just a
handful of billion of years ago (I would more likely expect such a
phenomenon to take billions-of-billions-of years--if possible), with all
the programming necessary to create an end result of beings with self
awareness, and that this is some sort or "law", the fact that such is
possible ... this cell, so perfectly programmed, was able to "work
towards" multi-celled creatures ... and NO MIND WAS INVOLVED!

Well, I will tell you, long before I am even going to start making all
those guesses, assumptions, and base it all on one single case--life on
earth, I am going to seriously consider that something or some mind
designed it ... "Who made God?" Krist, who knows? But, just as likely
that God came from a cell billions-of-billions of years before
mankind--and does exist--as the possibility of sheer chance beginning
mankind and his predecessors.

However, I am a software engineer and see the sheer fantasy which is
being proposed ... NEVER would all happen "just by sheer chance! (luck?)"

And there is NO law which states, "Extremely complex structures and
lifeforms come into being by sheer luck!" There is no example which
even shows nature has a slight tendency towards such a thing. No
scientist would start basing conclusions on a single occurrence, science
only begins when you have found "repeat-ability" of the phenomenon.

I mean, I would feel like a used car salesman, even thinking about
selling that line to someone BELOW average intelligence! ...

Get real ... fairy tales are best used to amuse children ...

Regards,
JS

Water burns!
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
It's a bit of a kind nudge to some folk so that they might think
about the absurdity of the idea. As far as I know, thee are only two
people who question the Conservation of Energy, and they is both in this
newsgroup.

And nahh, I don't think it is breakable. Any law that has a zeroth
Law within it is okay in my book ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Really? You can just find physicists all over the place who would bet
their lives that the law of conservation of energy can't be bent/broken?

H*ll, not even my high school physics teacher was that stupid!

JS

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
Get real ... fairy tales are best used to amuse children ...

Consider that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old
while the Milky Way galaxy may be about 12 billion years
old, not much younger than the universe itself. Some early
evolved intelligent life forms could possibly have been
seeding our galaxy for billions of years.

We are also discovering "nanobes" so small (20 nm) that
we never realized that they were alive before now. These
critters contain only about 10 DNA molecules.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/natio...e-nanobes.html
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com