It will be interesting to eventually find out what that strange
placeholder in our equations really stands for:

http://www.physorg.com/news139830010.html

Regards,
JS

--
It is like a nightmare where the public servants are the people which
the police are supposed to protect us from!

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
It will be interesting to eventually find out what that strange
placeholder in our equations really stands for:

http://www.physorg.com/news139830010.html

Regards,
JS

--------

Damn, John. That was a good article/discourse.

Ed Cregger

On Sep 7, 2:27*am, John Smith wrote:
It will be interesting to eventually find out what that strange
placeholder in our equations really stands for:

http://www.physorg.com/news139830010.html


That article was a real snoozer. As most of them are, they associate
an increase of entropy (2nd law) with an increase of randomness as
time moves "forward". Thus, a beautiful (orderly) greek temple built
in ancient times becomes a random disorderly pile of dust and rubble
millenia later. Certainly such randomness happens but the error is
that we must complete the observation until maximum condition is
observed. As if by some revelation, "scientists" (according to the
author) have found increases in time symmetry with increase in entropy
with RNA. What they have really discovered is that they do not bound
their observations into a closed system which would require
observation until maximum condition occurs. Of course, in many cases
that is not possible but certainly they should recognize that their
observations are incomplete. One example of an observation that gets
closer to a closed system in time would be Darwin, found in the
evolution of life. As cells divide, randomness (entropy) assigns a
certain probability that mutations will occur. Such mutations are
examples of assymetric time moving irreeversibly towards randomness.
However, when your expand the observation to include the entire system
of time and environment, you find that certain benign mutations are
much more suited to the environment and the life form becomes
improved. We have evolved from single cell life forms to human life,
which follows a path from a much lower level of orderliness to a much
higher level of order. Entropy (disorder) is actually what gets us
there. I suspect it is the concept of "entropy" and not "time" that
needs to be better understood.

wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:27 am, John Smith wrote:
It will be interesting to eventually find out what that strange
placeholder in our equations really stands for:

http://www.physorg.com/news139830010.html


That article was a real ...

WOW! We are gifted with a REAL GENIUS here!

YAWN Yeah, been there done that ... still I do not really understand
time ... just have a bunch of jerks, like you, around telling me I am
STUPID! "FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING" ... again, been there done that ... it
is your shallow thinking which is in error ... NOT my quest for real
answers ... if you think I am going to stand around, hold your hand, and
wait for you epiphany to strike ... take a ticket--get in line grin
I'll be with you as soon as I have handle the present customer ...

You may have just found this news group, the rest of us have been here
awhile ...

Regards,
JS

--
It is like a nightmare where the public servants are the people which
the police are supposed to protect us from!

On Sep 7, 5:58*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

You may have just found this news group, the rest of us have been here
awhile ...

Actually I have been posting here as dfinn, KR4AJ and AI4QJ, and on
"policy", since 1995 on nando.net. There have been several John
Smiths' and John Does' over the years who have posted anonymously and
the Cecil Moores' Gary Caufmans' and Todd Littles' that did not. You
can say that you were an original John Smith but I never believe
anything that anonymous posters write. Certainly you can even accuse
them of being senile and not feel bad because it is as if you are
writing any other inanimate object that does not have a brain.

wrote:
On Sep 7, 5:58 pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

You may have just found this news group, the rest of us have been here
awhile ...

Actually I have been posting here as dfinn, KR4AJ and AI4QJ, and on
"policy", since 1995 on nando.net. There have been several John
Smiths' and John Does' over the years who have posted anonymously and
the Cecil Moores' Gary Caufmans' and Todd Littles' that did not. You
can say that you were an original John Smith but I never believe
anything that anonymous posters write. Certainly you can even accuse
them of being senile and not feel bad because it is as if you are
writing any other inanimate object that does not have a brain.

Actually, you stand here as an idiot, sure, I am ashamed for your sure,
I pity you ... but that does not change your words ...

If you think I argue with those here in "less than what they expect
terms", the know you should expect nothing, and certainly, if your catch
me in a good mood--much less ...

Regards,
JS

--
It is like a nightmare where the public servants are the people which
the police are supposed to protect us from!

On Sep 7, 7:41*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 7, 5:58 pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

You may have just found this news group, the rest of us have been here
awhile ...

Actually I have been posting here as dfinn, KR4AJ and AI4QJ, and on
"policy", *since 1995 on nando.net. There have been several John
Smiths' and John Does' over the years who have posted anonymously and
the Cecil Moores' Gary Caufmans' and Todd Littles' that did not. You
can say that you were an original John Smith but I never believe
anything that anonymous posters write. Certainly you can even accuse
them of being senile and not feel bad because it is as if you are
writing any other inanimate object that does not have a brain.

Actually, you stand here as an idiot, sure, I am ashamed for your sure,

Please explain what it means to be ashamed for "your sure". What
exactly is a "your sure"?

I pity you ... but that does not change your words ...

Of course not, nor was there any intent to do so.


If you think I argue with those here in "less than what they expect
terms",

This sentence is rather awkward. But it does reveal that you choices
to argue are not necesessarily founded on technical principles but
guidedn instead by the ad hominem.

the know you should expect nothing,

"the know" I expect nothing.

and certainly, if your catch
me in a good mood--much less ...

Cool, we should expect less than nothing from you. Define less than
nothing.


Regards,
JS

It is difficult to have a discussion with an organism whose brain
approaches the intellect of a paramecium caudatum.

wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:41 pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 7, 5:58 pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
You may have just found this news group, the rest of us have been here
awhile ...
Actually I have been posting here as dfinn, KR4AJ and AI4QJ, and on
"policy", since 1995 on nando.net. There have been several John
Smiths' and John Does' over the years who have posted anonymously and
the Cecil Moores' Gary Caufmans' and Todd Littles' that did not. You
can say that you were an original John Smith but I never believe
anything that anonymous posters write. Certainly you can even accuse
them of being senile and not feel bad because it is as if you are
writing any other inanimate object that does not have a brain.
Actually, you stand here as an idiot, sure, I am ashamed for your sure,

Please explain what it means to be ashamed for "your sure". What
exactly is a "your sure"?

I pity you ... but that does not change your words ...

Of course not, nor was there any intent to do so.

If you think I argue with those here in "less than what they expect
terms",

This sentence is rather awkward. But it does reveal that you choices
to argue are not necesessarily founded on technical principles but
guidedn instead by the ad hominem.

the know you should expect nothing,

"the know" I expect nothing.

and certainly, if your catch
me in a good mood--much less ...

Cool, we should expect less than nothing from you. Define less than
nothing.

Regards,
JS

It is difficult to have a discussion with an organism whose brain
approaches the intellect of a paramecium caudatum.

Yeah, I'll admit, there was a couple of errors in the grammer, I keep
thinking I'll slow down and read before posting [shrug.]

When you have something to say which is logical, can you put it in caps
.... sorry, but I just skim your text now--since nothing interesting has
been seen for so long ... I am sure you understand ...

Regards,
JS
--
It is like a nightmare where the public servants are the people which
the police are supposed to protect us from!