|
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 |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:ZIXbi.29511$JZ3.3334
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net: 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. Just applying a different sort of evolution. If the pressure comes from humans, it is the same as pressure from radiation, environmental pressure, or simple random mutation. If man keeps life forms around that have genetic traits that would prove fatal in another environment, it just means that those traits are not fatal at this point. If things change, they could become a detriment, and the more red in tooth and claw version of evolution would take over. 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. Wow, who said that, Cecil?. They would be quite wrong. Now if you were referring to my "evolution and all the other things we observe correlation that I mentioned a little while back, then that would be bit of a disservice on your part. A whole lot of observations do a fine job of propping up evolution. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
"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 Ah, now the conspiracy theories pop out. B as in B, S as in S. tom K0TAR |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
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 Impossible in the first generation if they are carbon based, since you need a generation of supernovas followed by star forming for that. There would be a significant delay, very likely about as long as it took to make us. Of course all bets are off if they are based on some other chemical starting point. tom K0TAR |
Water burns!
Mike Coslo wrote:
Wow, who said that, Cecil?. They would be quite wrong. Don't remember who said that a scientific theory is not discarded but simply becomes a subset of some new theory. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
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 Cecil: There are many possibilities ... I am just awestruck (think shock and awe here!) that so many jump on the "evolution bandwagon"--apparently tossing logic out the window with the bath water and the baby--even occams' razor is missing. DNA and its' complexity, yet simplicity, is amazing, (some search this DNA for "Gods Signature") logic leads me away from viewing it as "just happened." Mankind appears to serve nature in no meaningful way, yet some maintain that nature went to extraordinary means to create/evolve us ... and, claiming that the similarity of DNA between all species "proves" evolution. Heck, if that argument holds water, then all structures which man has ever lived in show signs of evolution--only a handful of materials have ever been used in the construction of buildings, notably stone, dirt, plant material, metal and most recently plastic--DNA and its' span across all life here only demonstrates that the same "building materials" were used in lifes' creation(s). One haunting phrase found in the bible, and dealing with God, and paraphrased he "... is and always has been ..." This deals with Gods' apparent explanation of his own beginning/existence, obviously, one could guess, he doesn't know his creator either! Indeed, logic would lead me to think the necessary microbe(s)/cell(s)/virus-thingy(s) "came through" with the big bang, perhaps an intended "life seeding" (experiment?) of this universe--maybe that is where "heaven" is--outside this universe. However, count on new theories/discoveries coming on down the road ... that is something we CAN have faith in. I don't find any of the current explanations to our existence acceptable--proof of one will correct that. Regards, JS |
Water burns!
Tom Ring wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/library/natio...e-nanobes.html Impossible in the first generation if they are carbon based, since you need a generation of supernovas followed by star forming for that. Of course, impossible in the first generation. But we can observe the remains of supernovas that are 8 billion years old. Supernovas probably occurred a couple of billion years after the Big Bang. That means some other life forms may have a 4 billion year head start on us. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Wow, who said that, Cecil?. They would be quite wrong. Don't remember who said that a scientific theory is not discarded but simply becomes a subset of some new theory. Hmmm ... So, Abiogenesis/"spontaneous generation"/autogenesis have just become incorporated into "evolution theory", yanno what, I can believe that! Frankly, I subscribe to a belief in Biogenesis ... and wonder where "first life" (or God, or his predecessors) did "happen?" See: http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenesis Regards, JS |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
One haunting phrase found in the bible, and dealing with God, and paraphrased he "... is and always has been ..." This deals with Gods' apparent explanation of his own beginning/existence, obviously, one could guess, he doesn't know his creator either! People who believe in "first cause" have to grapple with the question of "What caused God?" If God doesn't have to have a cause, why does the universe have to have a cause? :-) The Bible proves that God understood relativity. A day for God (in his fast starship) is like 1000 years for man on earth. :-) We can calculate the speed of God's starship from that information. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: One haunting phrase found in the bible, and dealing with God, and paraphrased he "... is and always has been ..." This deals with Gods' apparent explanation of his own beginning/existence, obviously, one could guess, he doesn't know his creator either! People who believe in "first cause" have to grapple with the question of "What caused God?" If God doesn't have to have a cause, why does the universe have to have a cause? :-) The Bible proves that God understood relativity. A day for God (in his fast starship) is like 1000 years for man on earth. :-) We can calculate the speed of God's starship from that information. Its' all how 'ya look at it ... Could be that God is living in the entangled particle universe (just down the block a spell.) Could explain why his vision/expectation of time seems a tad bit faster ... I heard a rumor that the color of God is grey; and, he is alive and well and living in Roswell, NM ... :-) But then, another guy told me the military captured him and got him out a Groom Lake ... ya never know, ya just never know ... Regards, JS |
Water burns!
Indeed, logic would lead me to think the necessary microbe(s)/cell(s)/virus-thingy(s) "came through" with the big bang, perhaps an intended "life seeding" (experiment?) of this universe--maybe that is where "heaven" is--outside this universe. Have we considered that viruses need complex cells in order to procreate and survive... Perhaps animals were created simply to provide that service... It may be that the prodrome of a viral infection, such as the common cold with its aches, pains and sniffles, is merely a byproduct of billions of tiny, viral orgasms... So, who is the higher order of evolution here? Might I recommend that you all read Richard Dawkin's, THE SELFISH GENE.. It will give you a new perspective... denny |
Water burns!
Don't remember who said that a scientific theory is not discarded but simply becomes a subset of some new theory. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com It's called recycling... denny / k8do |
Water burns!
Denny wrote:
Indeed, logic would lead me to think the necessary microbe(s)/cell(s)/virus-thingy(s) "came through" with the big bang, perhaps an intended "life seeding" (experiment?) of this universe--maybe that is where "heaven" is--outside this universe. Have we considered that viruses need complex cells in order to procreate and survive... Perhaps animals were created simply to provide that service... It may be that the prodrome of a viral infection, such as the common cold with its aches, pains and sniffles, is merely a byproduct of billions of tiny, viral orgasms... So, who is the higher order of evolution here? Might I recommend that you all read Richard Dawkin's, THE SELFISH GENE.. It will give you a new perspective... denny When I mentioned "virus-thingy", I was referring to the organism Cecil had mentioned earlier, his text: "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." JS |
Water burns!
On 14 Jun, 06:25, John Smith I wrote:
Denny wrote: Indeed, logic would lead me to think the necessary microbe(s)/cell(s)/virus-thingy(s) "came through" with the big bang, perhaps an intended "life seeding" (experiment?) of this universe--maybe that is where "heaven" is--outside this universe. Have we considered that viruses need complex cells in order to procreate and survive... Perhaps animals were created simply to provide that service... It may be that the prodrome of a viral infection, such as the common cold with its aches, pains and sniffles, is merely a byproduct of billions of tiny, viral orgasms... So, who is the higher order of evolution here? Might I recommend that you all read Richard Dawkin's, THE SELFISH GENE.. It will give you a new perspective... denny When I mentioned "virus-thingy", I was referring to the organism Cecil had mentioned earlier, his text: "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." JS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - John, Water does burn. It has been years that I have felt the sensation of my body throbbing with so much passion. |
Water burns!
art wrote:
John, Water does burn. It has been years that I have felt the sensation of my body throbbing with so much passion. To be more precise, water *is* burnt. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:47:30 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: Jim Higgins wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:38:53 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: It's [evolution vs creation] 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. Not having studied much of the history of religion(s) (I suppose Christianity in this case) this comes as news to me... especially in light of the Bible declaring itself to be THE word of God and that if any Man shall add to or take away from it God shall add unto him plagues and take his name from the book of life. (Revelation 22:18,19 broadly paraphrased.) And yet so much has been added and taken away over the years that it is pretty hard to determine what is what. I'm not disagreeing with you at all - and if I were I darn sure wouldn't cite a Bible that declares itself to be THE word, and because it IS THE word it's accurate on that point, as my reason. I do understand the concept of circular logic and the pitfalls of self authentication. But it seems to me that the basis for fundamentalism is very firmly embedded in the Bible in far more places than Revelation 22 and I'm a bit surprised to hear it emerged only recently. Perhaps it did so as a reaction to so many other denominations (for lack of a better word) within Christianity seeming to blow with the wind on matters the Bible seems to hold as absolute. There was/is a movement called modernism (kind of a lumped category) in which a major part was called "liberalism" - not to be confused with liberal in politics, but the coincidence is juicy. The main strengths of that movement were that there was no need for elaborate explanations of where the floodwaters came from, or where they went. Or why we have so many flavors of the bible, or the other little inconsistencies in the book. The disadvantage of this liberalism or modernism was that there are a lot of people who *want* to be told "this is exactly how it is, there is no wiggle room". Religions in which the adherents set themselves apart from society - like the Shskers or Amish want every aspect of life examined and a determination made as to if it is permissible. At any rate, fundamentalism arose in opposition to modernism. It has the advantage of a person believing that "this is exactly how it is" and it needs interpreters to wriggle around the inconsistencies and contradictions. Of course there is one nasty flaw, in that an exact interpretation is impossible, due to all the different versions, strange consequences of trying to explain things like the biblical flood (where did the water come from, and where did it go to. Did the kangaroos swim to the Middle East from Australia to get on the Ark so that they wouldn't drown? So much better to just look at that as a wonderful story about trust, doing right against ridicule and planning ahead to save innocents in harms way of Karma visited on evildoers. We can all debate Karma, but it's still a darn good story that people should know. While I don't hold the Bible as being THE word, I look at those who do and wonder why they aren't all fundamentalists. More to the point, I think the Bible is clear on that point in many places so I wonder why any Christians who profess to believe in the Bible as the word of God - as almost all do if asked - AREN'T fundamentalists. The fundamentalists have largely succeeded in getting everyone else to stereotype all Christians as fundamentalists with the only difference being in degree (yeah, I know it seems a contradiction to have degrees of fundamentalism 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) I have no clear idea where Cecil is coming from except that it doesn't seem to be consistent other than to consistently throw semantical monkey wrenches into the works. There might be some here that would say that Cecil enjoys a "bloody good row". 8^) Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of course! That's how science works! Not all scientists are correct and this is resolved by peer review. Peer review is trail by fire. Weak theories die or are reforged to correct the parts demonstrated to be wrong and then retested. It's an iterative process designed to get at the Truth (emphasis by capitalization intended) and in the process a number of inadequate or totally incorrect theories are expected to fall by the wayside. Cecil seems to me to be gloating on the sidelines that there be dumbasses amongst scientists holding competing points of view because it's obvious they can't all be correct. At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, I think the scientific method is just about the coolest thing to come down the pike. When I watch someone passionately defend a wrong idea, then have it proven wrong, then accept a more possible idea without remorse, that is exhilarating. It's even a thrill to have it happen to ones self. Who was it that said "Everyone has an idea that is just plain wrong"? The process is designed to figure out which is which and Cecil seems to be taking a snapshot in time, criticizing the status at that point as unresolved and with mutually exclusive components, when the emphasis of science isn't on the instantaneous status but on applying the process to make progress. Pretty good analysis. But that conservation of energy law is just about as foundational as you can get. Conservation of energy AND matter. As I think you said earlier, if that weren't The Law, I think the universe would be a very unstable place to the point that it would VERY rapidly go to the lowest possible entropy state and cease to be a changing universe. Aha, that's a much more eloquent assessment than mine. I keep getting stuck on the idea of a big kaboom, hehe It's [string theory] 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..... Aye... the math is incredibly complex and just properly understanding the concepts at the cutting edge of research today - *minus* any meaningful understanding of the math - escapes the vast majority of people close to the field let alone the far larger majority on the periphery. Those fully understanding both cutting edge theory and cutting edge math are indeed extremely rare. Needless to say I'm not in either group. ;-) I often hope for an eloquent and simple explanation of everything. Eloquent because it seems like that is how it should be, even without the idea of symmetry, and simple because that is what I do best. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
If it isn't a Doppler effect, what is it, and why? I'm not alone in asserting that the red shift is not 100% Doppler effect. There are many other possibilities as can be seen from a web search. Here's one simplified possibility. Assume that for some undiagnosed reason, the objective length of one second of earth time is gradually decreasing and we are not aware of it. When the light from a galaxy was emitted five billion years ago, it was a certain number of cycles per second. Now, undetectable by us, we are measuring the frequency of that light with a reduced length of second. The measured frequency of the light would be inversely proportional to the age of the light and not necessarily attributable to its velocity away from us. We know that the length of a second of time varies with position in the universe and with velocity. The earth's velocity and position in the universe are probably continuously changing. There's no reason to believe that the length of earth's second of time is not also changing. We once believed that the earth's position was the absolute and unchanging center position of the entire universe. Now we believe that earth's time is the absolute and unchanging center of time for the entire universe. Those two concepts are equally valid. Maybe an ever expanding universe is just an illusion caused by our present localized subjective standards of measurement. My practical joker technician once repositioned the time base knob on my oscilloscope off by one position. I adjusted the length of a one-shot pulse based on the o'scope reading. He bet me $5 that the pulse was not long enough. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
I truly believe - as I'm beginning to suspect you do also - that the best fun is had at the expense of others... and if we're in agreement on this (disallowing malice) I want to remind you it's much more fun if at least one other notices what's happening. Which is not to suggest in the slightest that missing the point was anything but a total lapse on my part. ;-) Jim, maybe you were the target of the leg pulling. :-) When I, as a VP of Koala Technologies, met the VP of Operations, I told him that my wife, a nurse, would like to discuss operations with him. He responded: "What the hell does a nurse know about operations?" And after it soaked in: "You SOB, how did you set me up for that?" We were best friends till death did us part. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
That you can so succinctly summarize evolution theory and still hold this view simply boggles the mind. Is your view motivated by an application of the scientific method or by something better defined as faith? I put no faith in either theories or religion. The only thing in which I put my faith is skepticism. There's a vast difference between something being "wrong" and simply being inadequately developed so that even making a determination of its correctness and/or completeness is premature. A skeptic would call that rationalization. :-) "To admit that I was wrong would be premature - I was only developing my latest theory." :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of course! That's how science works! Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of something that is more correct. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Don't remember who said that a scientific theory is not discarded but simply becomes a subset of some new theory. Doesn't matter who said it because it's wrong as an absolute statement. That's all I am saying, that some scientific theories are wrong. Not even Einstein could come up with a scientific theory of everything. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Higgins wrote: Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of course! That's how science works! Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of something that is more correct. I'm sure those straw men of yours are shaking in their boots. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK |
Water burns!
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
I'm sure those straw men of yours are shaking in their boots. I think if you will check the history of this thread, someone asserted that scientific theories are very rarely ever wrong but sometimes have to be boundary condition limited to become subsets of more accurate theories. So I am never wrong - I am just in the process of defining the boundary conditions for my scientific theories. :-) -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On 30 May, 19:13, Tony Jaa wrote:
Water burns! Man looking for cancer cure hopes to solve energy crisis Posted: May 30, 2007 5:00 p.m. Eastern http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55934 By Joe Kovacs © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com Is the solution to America's energy needs as simple as a trip to the beach? snip YES What is so wrong in applying a governer to all engines. These would be activated when an engine has come to a stand still and would regulate the acceleration rate. This same governer would also activate again to regulate the rate of accelaration after 65 mph is reached. Most of the population live in high density hot spots using the vehicle to sit in waiting for traffic to move and it is not economical to accellerate to the bumper up front. For inner cities enforce use of public transportation for those not willing to pay the price to the companies front door. As for trucks the interstates are wide enough to introduce rail traffic as well as predicting the needs of product movement. A generaqtion later work will be done at home in a psuedo office enfironment memoving the need to get on the road in the first place. As for the trip to the beach that won't be necessary as the water will be way to polluted and the sand will be taken away to build developments upon, that will decay in unison with the advance of science. If we had to, is the above a total impossibility that it is not doable because of the power of those who have cornered the money or the naysayers that serve them? directional needs |
Water burns!
art wrote:
What is so wrong in applying a governer to all engines. The first time a driver needed to use acceleration and didn't have it to avoid a fatal accident, the requirement would be in deep dodo. For instance, on a long straightaway with no oncoming traffic, someone decides to pass a couple of 18-wheelers. The car following that one decides to do the same thing. Suddenly ahead, a car pulls into the oncoming lane from a side road. Emergency acceleration would save lives but it's not available due to a governor. Five children are killed. Imagine the outrage. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On 15 Jun, 11:56, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote: What is so wrong in applying a governer to all engines. The first time a driver needed to use acceleration and didn't have it to avoid a fatal accident, the requirement would be in deep dodo. For instance, on a long straightaway with no oncoming traffic, someone decides to pass a couple of 18-wheelers. The car following that one decides to do the same thing. Suddenly ahead, a car pulls into the oncoming lane from a side road. Emergency acceleration would save lives but it's not available due to a governor. Five children are killed. Imagine the outrage. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:27:31 -0700, art wrote:
On 15 Jun, 11:56, Cecil Moore wrote: art wrote: What is so wrong in applying a governer to all engines. The first time a driver needed to use acceleration and didn't have it to avoid a fatal accident, the requirement would be in deep dodo. For instance, on a long straightaway with no oncoming traffic, someone decides to pass a couple of 18-wheelers. The car following that one decides to do the same thing. Suddenly ahead, a car pulls into the oncoming lane from a side road. Emergency acceleration would save lives but it's not available due to a governor. Five children are killed. Imagine the outrage. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Hi Arthur, Your responses are always so insightful. To add to the confusion, instead of five children killed, the cars are passing twenty two gas tankers when a school bus pulls out near a nuclear facility in the outskirts of Keokuk. The conflagration kills 1345 children (there were more busses behind the first, it was the last day of grade school) and the raging inferno melts down the transmission lines from the nuclear plant that went into immediate overload. This caused the nuclear pile to go into the "China Syndrome" and melt through the containment and disturbing an unknown fault that ran beneath the plant. The earth rent and sent shock waves through metropolis Keokuk toppling buildings and throwing more school busses (on the road from closing schools) into yawning chasms opening up as the earth quakes. Death toll at this point now stands at slightly less than a million. The National Guard (which is otherwise away on other, foreign, business) does not show up and famine wipes out two million more in the surrounding country side as the president helicopters over the scene for Fox news commentary coloring. The stock market plunges and politicians open committees investigating the cause of this calamity. Soon, all cars are stopped at every intersection as the newly instituted Department of School Crossing Security inspects under the hood of every car for contraband governers. Digital examinations up tail pipes are common. The designer of this governer product is known to be hiding somewhere in Texas so we immediately declare war on Canada with a scorch the earth policy (brought to you by Halliburton and Anderson Consulting firms) until he is found. Four years later and the ice cap has been melted putting out the fires in downtown Keokuk (Chicago, Boston, New York, Tampa, Phoenix....) and the president expresses his support for the governer designer and hails this crowning victory from the Hacienda Blanca. With apologies for lifting a very old idea from an equally old book By Sinclair Lewis "It Can't Happen Here." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Water burns!
On 15 Jun, 11:56, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote: What is so wrong in applying a governer to all engines. The first time a driver needed to use acceleration and didn't have it to avoid a fatal accident, the requirement would be in deep dodo. O.K. so you want to be a naysayer. Assuming you are willing to accept change and adaptation that change requires let as look at the actual words without playing word games to gain a gottcha. For instance, on a long straightaway with no oncoming traffic, Ok so we say that people are going the speed limit since speeding is prohibitive. No don't play word games someone decides to pass a couple of 18-wheelers. So he accelerates to pass or if it cannot be done without breaking the speed limits he doesn't do it tho he could overtake over a period in time since the governer only regulates not stop. The car following that one decides to do the same thing. Thats O.K. he now has more time to decide on his options. Suddenly No there is no "suddenly" his vehicle will not allow him to do that tho it will allow him to ease into the traffic flow where others could accommodate his actions. ahead, a car pulls into the oncoming lane from a side road. No a car doesn't pull into fast moving traffic knowing the engine will not respond in such a dangerous manner. However other cars do not have a governor to prevent braking while the other car is moving slowly from a distance Emergency acceleration would save lives Emergency acceleration is still available over 30 miles an hour and under 65 miles an hour. Most accidents occur at un expected changes in direction and judgement and in dense areas thus giving more time for alternate action including brakes. but it's not available due to a governor. he has time, a steering wheel and brakes. Five children are killed. Imagine the outrage. Deaths occur at high speeds in general or non use of seat belts Studies have shown that setting speed limits and the use of seat belts saves lives and remember when the work day starts congestion rules for the majority. -- Don't you think you can adapt quickly in dense traffic even if the motor cycle you ride allows you to ride with impudence? Remember the intent is to reduce the use of gasolene for the Nation not to prevent people to take advantage of others on the road without looking back at the mayhem caused to others or are you wearing a straw hat again. Surely you are not promoting the burning of water as a more logical way to go while the oil supply burns in anticipation of success. 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: Ian White GM3SEK wrote: I'm sure those straw men of yours are shaking in their boots. I think if you will check the history of this thread, someone asserted that scientific theories are very rarely ever wrong but sometimes have to be boundary condition limited to become subsets of more accurate theories. Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
And you can name those people ... and refer to a message where this can be verified? Don't want to name names but here is the assertion with which I have been disagreeing: "Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. No, he appeared to be referring to all theories: "Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com