Science Scientists and Scientism
rick_...@hotmail.com
differences in the way that people approach the same problem. The
search for truth.
Regardless of dogma most people in both camps will say they are truth
seekers.
Now if I may give a couple examples of religion at work, for instance
the Catholic's have confessional, and the Scientologists have the E
meter.
With Catholicism, confession is supposed to relieve your conscience,
and the E meter does similar.
Now I am not going to go any further into the religious side, other
than to say, that these people believe what they do is based on truth.
If you tell the truth, your conscience will be relieved.
You may have watched the TV series COPS where they will frisk a
scruffy looking suspect looking for drugs and the cop will say to the
bad guy, the truth will set you free. And then once he confesses, they
slap the cuffs on him.
So obviously it is not setting that guy free. So then whats the story
here?
Well the actual quote, you rarely hear. "You will come to know the
truth, and the truth, shall set you free"
So it is the search for truth, which sets you free, not you telling
the truth necessarily.
And so how do we find the truth in a world which is full of cops and
robbers?
In science we use philosophy. Philosophy is used to reason out truths,
which once established as truth, are forever true.
Now by this I mean as a simple example:
true is not false.
There is a simple philosophical statement that is true today and will
forever be true.
Philosophy, will tell us, that will always be the case.
Now then what if someone said, yes but in Quantum physics, true can
sometimes be false.
Philosophy tells us, that is not a true statement.
In all the confusion and all the complication, it is easy, for people
to believe things, which sound true, look true, feel true, but yet are
false.
Another thing that science does it uses math to determine a truth.
2 plus 2 equals 4 and it will always equal 4.
A simple eternal truth.
But now what if someone was using calculus, and said yes but with the
new axioms, (which no one but this panel of experts understands) 2
plus 2 does not always equal 4.
Philosophy tells us, that is not a true statement.
You see people will always try to create new ways to confuse the
issues, complicate things to the point where the truth cannot be found
in this world of cops and robbers.
Hence the need for science to be tempered with philosophy, so that the
houses we build are built on truth, not on supposition, or the opinion
of a panel of experts, or expert liars.
People are always arguing over the physical laws, and being very
obstinate about such things as the conservation of energy principal.
Or perpetual motion, or all these various things even though our
physics is not complete and we really don't know all there is to know
about things and we could be wrong about a lot of things.
You will always hear people say well it is just a theory and you
cannot prove it completely one way or another.
We need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system and etc.
But with philosophy the types of truths we deal with, they are simple
truths, more than simple facts. Often they have no material substance,
and are based on pure reason.
For instance true is not false.
Now by our defining those terms, we are creating an eternal truth.
By pure definition many truths are established.
The meter is equal to a hundred centimeters because we said it was so.
So we ourselves, have great power in creating truths.
Providing the way the universe works in its own daily business is not
affected by these truths.
We cannot dictate to the universe what truth is when it comes to its
own business.
Quantum fluctuations of the statistical norm, are almost always going
to Heisenberg your parade if you try to establish a physical truth.
But the truths that are based on pure reason, once established as
truth, are forever true.
Is it so important to actually have truth, use truth, be truthful? Can
we not just get by like the universe being true sometimes and
sometimes not?
If you want reliability, and consistency, and predictability, then you
need to use truth, to establish that.
And that is the point.
To be able to be confident, that your projections, are reliable,
accurate, consistent, and hence useful to others.
And once established as scientific fact, then you can build on that
premise.
So you sometimes will find that people will get through the gauntlet
in science with things that may or may not be true, and people will
then, try to make claim that they have been proven as true, and then
use that as a basis for their own next building block. And they will
do this in specific fields where there may be few people who
understand what they are talking about and it gets referred to
experts, and they may be dubious experts, and they may say to
themselves oh my god, how did all this get through the peer review
process???
And then they will look at where they are at, in that chain of lies,
and misconceptions, missteps and half truths, and say well, what am I
supposed to do now, other than what everyone else has done in the past
with regards to this mess, and so I should just go along with the
others and nod my head.
And well that is part of the game. But it needn't be part of your
game.
The game of cops and robbers is everywhere out in the real world too,
but not everyone is playing.
So you can choose to deal with only those things which are true and
plainly so.
This desire to put ones name on a formula or process or to have a
legacy of some sort, does tend to make people want to add to things
which maybe have no real basis in fact to begin with.
That is part of scientism. It looks like science, it smells like
science it tastes like science, but it is not science.
If it cannot be explained in simple terms for all to understand,
chances are it is not true.
You don't need to hide the truth in confusion and complication, but
you do need to hide half truths that way.
Spaceman
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:027b3b71-f5e8-4989...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Very nicely stated.
:)
rick_...@hotmail.com
You are freed from the bonds of ignorance, and your ability to make
accurate projections will prevent you from making more mistakes, and
it will prevent accident, and injury, and it will do a lot of good
because you are not stumbling blindly down blind alleys chasing
shadows, based on misconceptions and half truths.
It has very little to do with you telling the truth. In fact most
people tell little white lies all the time because society demands it.
If you honestly don't like that dress or her hair and you say so, you
are not going to get laid. You may not get that job, if everyone else
is lying their faces off who is applying.
But thats just basic survival in this world. Animals use camouflage, a
bird will lie and pretend its wing is broken to lure away a larger
bird from its young. Welcoime to the real universe.
Its a nasty place where you may need to lie to survive.
But, if you are building things, and creating things, you want them to
work, and you want them to work reliably, so you do need science to
establish facts, and you need established truths, tried and true as
they say, with which to build.
And the two situations can be confusing and do run into each other
where people will lie to get ahead or for survival and contaminate the
scientific process. Or to encourage or discourage some field of
endeavor. If it is at odds with big oil or may cause global warming or
etc and global warming itself, is something where people have made
claim that there is no truth to their assertions, that it is caused by
man.
So you have to also assume that not everything in science is true
today.
You have to be skeptical.
But not overly skeptical or in denial of the obvious, which for
whatever reason many people are.
So it is still, very much like a quantum soup, with some people saying
yes, that is true, you can run your car on water, and those who will
say poppycock, you cannot. And all of these types of things.
And just like, a half truth needs complication, and obfuscation, some
delicate truths need debunkers.
Or nay sayers.
But all this is still not the armor that you can fortify yourself
with, which will allow you to rise above the din and obfuscation. The
armor that will set you free, is the ability to reason things out,
with logic, and to understand, what you are up against.
If you are in the Man Landed on the Moon camp, or in the it was all a
hoax camp, those are two very different places to be.
But the way the universe works is like that all the time. That is just
more quantum interference.
You should expect that.
But what is truth? Well when philosophy or people declare a truth,
such as there are a thousand millimeters in a meter, that is a
declared truth.
So then what if someone declares Man Walked on the Moon! That too can
be a declared truth.
So what is the difference?
The second one is a physical truth, that involves the universe. So
expect quantum interference.
rick_...@hotmail.com
>
> If you are in the Man Landed on the Moon camp, or in the it was all a
> hoax camp, those are two very different places to be.
>
> But the way the universe works is like that all the time. That is just
> more quantum interference.
> You should expect that.
>
> But what is truth? Well when philosophy or people declare a truth,
> such as there are a thousand millimeters in a meter, that is a
> declared truth.
>
> So then what if someone declares Man Walked on the Moon! That too can
> be a declared truth.
>
> So what is the difference?
>
> The second one is a physical truth, that involves the universe. So
> expect quantum interference.
So we declare a meter to be thus, and it is forever true in principal.
That a hundred centimeters equal a meter and any stick that someone
claims to be a meter long but has more or less than a hundred
centimeters is then a falsehood.
But you will notice, that if you take a micrometer to two rulers you
buy at the same store, or even measure each centimeter in one ruler,
you will find discrepancies.
The painted lines are a little wider on that one, the line is a little
bit over in that one ruler at 11 centimeters, and etc. As soon as it
becomes a physical object, it then gets smeared into the quantum
realm.
As long as it is just a true assertion about things we made up, which
have no substance, such as terms like meter, or centimeter, we can
enforce those truths.
And they do need to be enforced. Or else you can be sure someone will
create an axiom, that says well as long as they statistically average
out to a hundred, it doesn't matter how many centimeters are in a
meter.
But you see as long as the universe is not involved, as long as it is
pure reason, you can declare a truth, and if people agree to use it,
as a truth, it will remain true.
Is there anything in the physical realm that we can actually say
something about that is forever true?
In all instances?
Where there is smoke there is fire? Not so.
That is red. Some people are colorblind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorblind
That is made of wood. Ok, but is it just wood, or all wood, well we
can be vague and then it can be true.
So as long as we use the quantum process which is not to try to be
precise, but to use vague terms and statistics and these sorts of
macro terms where the quantum becomes real, then we have no problem
finding truth, using truth, etc.
If we said Man could walk on the moon. No one would disagree.
If we say Man may have walked on the moon. No one will disagree.
You see how the quantum universe is not just on the small scale, but
it is also on the large scale, and we are just used to it so we don't
notice that we are immersed in it ourselves.
So do you think E=mc2 ?
Yes it does because E is a defined term, c is a defined term and mass
is a made up thing.
But that is a tricky one because people don't think of mass as being
something made up by Newton.
Uncle Al
>
> If you compare religion to modern science, you will find some
> differences in the way that people approach the same problem. The
> search for truth.
hey stooopid: Science is a predictive, falsifiable mathetmatical
model of empirical observation. "Truth" has nothing to do with it.
If you want "truth" bend, bare, and spread your cheeks in front of a
Catholic priest. He'll give you all the truth you can handle,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/catholic.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
rick_...@hotmail.com
> rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > If you compare religion to modern science, you will find some
> > differences in the way that people approach the same problem. The
> > search for truth.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> hey stooopid: Science is a predictive, falsifiable mathetmatical
> model of empirical observation. "Truth" has nothing to do with it.
> If you want "truth" bend, bare, and spread your cheeks in front of a
> Catholic priest. He'll give you all the truth you can handle,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/catholic.jpg
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Yes but not in all cases.
rick_...@hotmail.com
>
> So do you think E=mc2 ?
>
> Yes it does because E is a defined term, c is a defined term and mass
> is a made up thing.
>
> But that is a tricky one because people don't think of mass as being
> something made up by Newton.
So ok, you are standing on the precipice, below you is the sea of
knowledge, you have come to the realization, that Newton made up the
term mass, that on earth, mass is the same as gravity, there is no
difference between a non inertial reference frame and an inertial
reference frame with respect to k and k subscript 1 w=mg is the same
as F=ma you are Einstein now and you are in a pretend elevator having
your gazumberbund, your great realization, your own personal
enlightenment, someone has turned on the lights and it is all becoming
clear to you now.
Why was this such a great realization?
What made this point in space and time the moment for Einstein when
the lights suddenly went on in the elevator gedanken?
After all, Newton waited 20 years to release his theory of gravitation
after he released his three laws of motion.
And is this such a startling revelation that if you are in an
elevator, it is no different than a rocket ship?
It was startling when he realized, that gravity is somehow related to
acceleration.
That the force of gravity then, was not magnetic, like people still
believe, but was rather caused by some sort of force, like a rocket is
propelled by a force.
There is a very subtle difference here that many people will still not
grasp.
But that moment of truth, led to Einstein's theory of relativity.
So then did Newton merely take weight and gravity, call the process
mass, as if to project a weight onto an object, and then in that way
use that as his foundation for his theories?
Well probably.
Since he made up the term mass and it is now a fundamental property of
nature.
But all he did was to give it a name and find the relationship between
mass acceleration and force.
So what else have people made up that became truths?
Charge. Another fundamental property of nature.
But they are vague terms. They don't say how much mass and simply by
defining charge you are not saying something must be positive negative
or neutral.
As soon as you start applying values to these properties, you are back
into the quantum realm.
Where the truth is easily disputed.
But yes Al is right, the idea is to set up a controlled experiment,
and then to say that under similar conditions, the results will be the
same 9 times out of ten, and well there you go, if it holds up to
scrutiny and testing and people agree, then they will say that is a
fact.
But you still hear people say the speed of light has been exceeded in
the laboratory, or light has been slowed down and even stopped.
Agreed upon truths are simply truths that the majority accept as
truth.
There will always be the nay sayers, who go against the commonly held
view.
Providing the claims made are not too outlandish, and are useful and
are reproduceable they can become publicly accepted as facts.
When something is too outlandish, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence and like the Hutchison Effect will have more
people who refuse to accept the facts.
But really is that any different that people knowing that some people
have stopped light, in the laboratory, or sped it up and yet people
still say things like well the speed of light is the speed limit, or
the speed of light is constant, it always travels at c, except through
jello or whatever substance like water or... as long as you are being
vague, no one disputes the claim as fact.
If people say that Hutchison was messing around with Tesla technology
then everyone is more apt to accept his claims. Oh, thats Tesla stuff,
we heard about that yes that is bla bla bla.
But buried in all this are some simple truths.
That you can create eternal truths quite easily.
By defining a term. It may not be useful until you show some
relationship to the real world with it, keeping it flexible enough and
not having it be a set value or not trying to force the universe to
comply, but rather just using it to describe in a vague way, some
property or effect or occurrence.
As an example we could make something up such as the Murphy factor.
You know about Murphy's Law, that if something can go wrong it will go
wrong at the worst possible time.
So then we say to ourselves, well thats probably not a true statement
in all cases, but it is true often enough that people say it all the
time. Hence if we have a defined term such as the Murf, and then we
can find the relationship, between good things that happen and bad
things that happen and could determine the Murf factor, then we would
really be making some progress in the world.
Murf = gb2
But we have yet to define terms for the good things and the bad
things.
You know the Forest Gump Principal the sh*t happens.
Well maybe there is a formula, that can determine, to what degree sh*t
happens.
Right?
Thats still the universe in which we live, even if we aren't talking
about planets and forces of nature in the same sense.
Maybe the next Newton, will define just how and to what degree, sh*t
happens.
rick_...@hotmail.com
> Murf = gb2
> But we have yet to define terms for the good things and the bad
> things.
> You know the Forest Gump Principal the sh*t happens.
> Well maybe there is a formula, that can determine, to what degree sh*t
> happens.
>
> Right?
> Thats still the universe in which we live, even if we aren't talking
> about planets and forces of nature in the same sense.
>
> Maybe the next Newton, will define just how and to what degree, sh*t
> happens.
So ok we have now defined Murf, as a fundamental property of nature.
And we have said that there is a relationship between good things
happening and bad things happening at the worst possible time, so we
need to have t in our equation as well.
Firstly is Murf a good term in physics? What letters are left?
http://www.umassd.edu/studentactivities/greek/pics/greek_alphabet.gif
Any of these we can use?
We need a letter to use as a symbol for our Murf property, so lets
just use a tilde ~ for now.
~=gbt
The Sh*t happens principal.
So ok then you only need define values or weights for g b and t to
give you a ~ value.
That wedding has a ~ value of 27.
Or, one crow is talking to another crow, and he says you know what
happened to me today???
You wouldn't believe it. I was hunting baby robins, and I sees this
momma robin with a wounded wing, and so I say to my self here is an
easy meal. And I swoops down to grab it and WTF??? WTF??? Suddenly,
suddenly it goes psycho on me, and goes for my eyes!
WTF???
I haven't eaten for 4 days because I am afraid my lunch is going to go
pycho on me.
So ok, as scientists we could calculate that in that reference frame,
that dinner had a ~ of 247.
Is it a percentage no, its simply a fundamental property of nature
that for a hungry crow, things are not always as they seem, and if you
are not aware of that, you could lose an eye.
So ok, you do a calculation on the wedding preparations and you get a
high ~ factor, and so ok, you need to inform the guests to wear rain
coats or expect the unexpected. It has a useful purpose in the
military. And that is where the real money is for R&D and that is why
I am suggesting that people investigate this further. There might be
grant moneys available.
rick_...@hotmail.com
> So ok, as scientists we could calculate that in that reference frame,
> that dinner had a ~ of 247.
>
> Is it a percentage no, its simply a fundamental property of nature
> that for a hungry crow, things are not always as they seem, and if you
> are not aware of that, you could lose an eye.
>
> So ok, you do a calculation on the wedding preparations and you get a
> high ~ factor, and so ok, you need to inform the guests to wear rain
> coats or expect the unexpected. It has a useful purpose in the
> military. And that is where the real money is for R&D and that is why
> I am suggesting that people investigate this further. There might be
> grant moneys available.
Then of course after all that, you have to quantify and interpret your
results.
And so then you find that weddings on a Wednesday, with a ~ factor of
greater than 47, end in divorce the first year, nine times out of ten.
So that makes it useful.
You see this is the kind of thing that gives investors an edge. And
gamblers too.
With the right formulation you could break the bank at Vegas.
But by making this abstract example it helps to show how the process
works.
You just define terms, and give them values, and by experiment you
record the result, and then you analyze the data.
What remains true will be your terms which you defined, and the
relationship of your formula, which you decided upon as well.
The actual values will vary as the universe does not behave in a way
as for them to be always the same.
Not every wedding will have a ~ factor of 18 even if you use the same
caterer and rent the same hall.
Someone will fart in the church.
hanson
news:e54e048f-f6b8-4917...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Uncle rect-Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
If you compare religion to modern science, you will find some
differences in the way that people approach the same problem.
The search for truth.
[snip crap]
>>
hey stooopid: Science is a predictive, falsifiable mathetmatical
model of empirical observation. "Truth" has nothing to do with it.
If you want "truth" bend, bare, and spread your cheeks in front of a
Catholic priest. He'll give you all the truth you can handle,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/catholic.jpg
>>
Yes but not in all cases.
>
cit: "Not wanting to let Catholic priests have all the fun, Rabbi
David A. Kaye, 56, a Maryland rabbi was sentenced to
6 1/2 years in prison for sex with a 13-year-old boy". see:
http://www.staggeron.org/archives/fire&brimstone2.html
...Serial rapist/child molester - Rabbi Ephraim Bryks, Rabbi
Yehuda Kolko, Malka Leifer, Rabbi Aron Boruch Tendler, etc
http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html
even Israel's former justice minister, Haim Ramon, 56, got caught.
http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html.
65,200 google hits for ----[ rabbi molesting children ]----
>
ahahahaha... Hey rect-Al, do you get the drift?... Now make
a quick search on the subject for Imams and Muslim clergy.
52,900 for google hits for ----[ mullah molesting children ]---
>
Now rect-Al consider, how many priests or mullahs there
are, totally, and then how many rabbis, & then check the %age
of culprits in each set. --- You really should NOT sing so loud:
rect-Al, listen. Glasshouse/Rock... Pot/Kettle... Goose/Gander.
>
To boot, don't you understand, recrt-Al, that all this is endemic
in the religions which YOUR ilk has started with its followers of
Monotheism of whom all have become mentally damaged
goods ever since they bought into
::: the aberrant legacy of the perverse sociopathy of Abe,
::: the Arab. -- Abraham who was a child abuser & the original
::: self-circumciser due to his VD malady, a deranged member
::: from the criminal out-cast tribe of the Habaru, who some 5768
::: years ago, .... (acc. to the tales in the current Jewish calendar,
::: probably on a Oct. 25, during a Shabbat ... ahaha... ahahaha)
::: spawned the seeds of Monotheism that gave rise to Judaism,
::: Xianity and Islam, whose sole & chief raison d'etre seems to
::: be to kill each other off, wholesale, in the name of their own
::: respective irrational, godly-ungodly "spiritual" oye-weh-
::: Yahweh-, trall-Allah- or junk-Jehovah- delusions... ahahaha...
>
Consider the broad spectrum, rect-Al:
== Religion is a tool that is used
=== by the few to fuck the many.
==== Nobody is born religious.
===== Religion is an acquired disease.
====== Amen!... ahahahaha... OR...
======== Religion is Opium for the masses,
========= according to Marx & Lenin.
>
So, rect-Al spread the application of YOUR "truth" around
far and wide and do NOT shield your own ilk from it, unless
you wanna become suspect yourself... ahahaha... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, you Dreidel... ahahaha... ahahanson
hhc...@yahoo.com
> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e54e048f-f6b8-4917...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...Uncle rect-Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> If you compare religion to modern science, you will find some
> differences in the way that people approach the same problem.
> The search for truth.
> [snip crap]
>
> rect-Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> hey stooopid: Science is a predictive, falsifiable mathetmatical
> model of empirical observation. "Truth" has nothing to do with it.
> If you want "truth" bend, bare, and spread your cheeks in front of a
>
> Rick Sobie wrote:
>
> Yes but not in all cases.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> cit: "Not wanting to let Catholic priests have all the fun, Rabbi
> David A. Kaye, 56, a Maryland rabbi was sentenced to
> 6 1/2 years in prison for sex with a 13-year-old boy". see:http://www.staggeron.org/archives/fire&brimstone2.html
> ...Serial rapist/child molester - Rabbi Ephraim Bryks, Rabbi
> even Israel's former justice minister, Haim Ramon, 56, got caught.http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html.
Science and religion are orthogonal.
Science is based on an axis of experimental confirmation of fact.
Religion is based entirely on unconformed beliefs.
It's really difficult to compare these two extremes in beliefs and
correspondingly trust.
Harry C.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:HjK0k.321$jN1.23@trnddc08...
The Prophet married a 6-year-old. If any fuckin' freak society has
a really sick hangup about sex just take a look at their dress.
If your four are pretty and my four are ugly we'll both cover them
up so that
1) I'm not jealous of yours.
2) You are not jealous of mine.
Truth is:
1) I'm not embarrassed.
2) You can't snigger.
Then we both leave it all to the imagination.
The religious should be exterminated whether Jew, Moslem, Xtian,
Bhuddist, Relativist or anything else, they are the scum of the Earth.
--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Androcles
hanson
news:7fa969cb-691a-4c53...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Science and religion are orthogonal. [1]
Science is based on an axis of experimental confirmation of fact.
Religion is based entirely on unconformed beliefs.
It's really difficult to compare these two extremes in beliefs and
correspondingly trust.
Harry C.
>
You should have given rect-Al credit for [1]. He coined that
one, unless he plagiarized it from someone... not uncommon
for him... ahahaha... Anyway, Harry, what does your argument
have to do with child molestation by Monotheistic clergy,
a subject which rect-Al has introduced. See above... ahaha...
Good talking to you, Chief. Take care. ---- hanson
Artfishlintlgenz
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
Ah hanson, u always good. seems al crucify himslf
hanson
The religious should be exterminated whether Jew, Moslem, Xtian,
Bhuddist, Relativist or anything else, they are the scum of the Earth.
>
ahahahaha... AHAHAHHAH .. ahahahaha... ahahahaha...
... uuuuunfortunaltely that ain't gonna happen before the
next Ice Age is over... and has cooled'em off sufficiently.
>
What you refer to here as "scum" you should also look at
in the context of our last discussion which centered around
the concept of "waste"... ahahahaha...
>
BTW, I hope you meant "religions" and not "religious ",
for the latter implies that you are worse then the 2 Jews,
Kike Kolker and uncle rect-Al, who want to get rid of
anybody on the globe but their own ilk...
Take care, my old friend,
hanson
>
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:u_K0k.74336$x55....@newsfe17.ams2...
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
This is ballocks of the finest. Whilst certain Scientists do sometimes
behave like priests and some priests do molest children, this does not
imply that ALL of them are at it on each side! Science is not a blind
faith but can be overthrown (a theory at least) by new evidence. This
was the case with Newtonian Physics. It was not wrong but only applied
undercertain conditions. A more general theory was required. We still
seek the ultimate truth in such matters but this does not make it a
belief system like religion. There is no worshiping or prayers, holy
books etc. The trouble with religion is that it cannot be challenged.
It is blind faith. If I believe in the power of the almighty green
banana - that it gives me comfort then who are you to deny me this!
The majority of experiments in Science are repeatable. When you turn
the light switch on it always happens. Not just when the green banana
says so. A world without Science would be a very dark one indeed.
K.
Y.Porat
> rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > If you compare religion to modern science, you will find some
> > differences in the way that people approach the same problem. The
> > search for truth.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> hey stooopid: Science is a predictive, falsifiable mathetmatical
> model of empirical observation. "Truth" has nothing to do with it.
> If you want "truth" bend, bare, and spread your cheeks in front of a
> Catholic priest. He'll give you all the truth you can handle,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/catholic.jpg
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
-------------
Hey Uncle !
in principle you are right
but something youstill dont know
though your old age is
THAT THERE IS A DISTANCE BETWEEN
PRINCIPLE AND REAL LIFE !!!
you ingore completyely that though the pomous pose
of being subjestedonly to
experiments
EXPERIMENTS CAN BE WRONGLY INTERPRETATED !!
sometimes innocently
and some cases crooked ly !!
fo rinstance
if we observe that light bends next to the sun
one interpretation can be that
photon s has mass and therefore as any mass
are attracted to the mass of the sun
now
we have "calculatiobns that are '
held as GIVEN FROM GOD (:-)
and here lied the dead dog of cheationg and deluding
yousay
**since my old calculations are good for some cases
IT IS GOOD FOR THE PHOTON AS WELL !!
iow
EXTRAPOALATIONS OF EXPERIEMNTAL DATA !!
got it ??
extrapoaltions can be cheasting as well
not least than religion!!
and you say
according to my fucken calcul;ations
the amount of deviation is twice as 'it should be
according to my fucken calculations
therefore
PHTONS HAS NO MASS !!!
religious peopel in scince
**donot consider that
there might be exceptions to their roolsand that each physics formula
HAS ITS LIMITS OF VALIDATIONS
and we cant extrapoalte endlessly .
and here we go with another religion
(yes religioon !!)
we invent a *curved space time *!!
(jsut becuse we could not immagine that
the photon is an exception case
with some **only some** not too radical deviations from the
othjer cases )
and waist the resources of a whole century
of human resources by bogling their balles
in spooky understanding!!!
instead of assuming other alternatives as
there is somebasic particle that it and only it]
moves naturally in closed circles
or a curved path
iow
a croocked explanation
blockes for a whole century any advance of scince
and suplies mountaines of syustems
that are based on a false undertsanding
of its basic assumption
keep well
and jsur consider that even for you
there might be some *surprizes*
so dont be a parrot as all the others
it does not fit you !!.......
Y.Porat
----------------------------
hanson
news:3bd412a3-d495-42de...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...| <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> | > 52,900 for google hits for ----[ mullah molesting children ]---
> | Now rect-Al consider, how many priests or mullahs there
> | are, totally, and then how many rabbis, & then check the %age
> | of culprits in each set. --- You really should NOT sing so loud:
> | rect-Al, listen. Glasshouse/Rock... Pot/Kettle... Goose/Gander.
> | >
> | To boot, don't you understand, recrt-Al, that all this is endemic
> | in the religions which YOUR ilk has started with its followers of
> | Monotheism of whom all have become mentally damaged
> | goods ever since they bought into
> | ::: the aberrant legacy of the perverse sociopathy of Abe,
> | ::: the Arab. -- Abraham who was a child abuser & the original
> | ::: self-circumciser due to his VD malady, a deranged member
> | ::: from the criminal out-cast tribe of the Habaru, who some 5768
> | ::: probably on a Oct. 25, during a Shabbat ... ahaha... ahahaha)
> | ::: spawned the seeds of Monotheism that gave rise to Judaism,
> | ::: Xianity and Islam, whose sole & chief raison d'etre seems to
> | ::: be to kill each other off, wholesale, in the name of their own
> | ::: respective irrational, godly-ungodly "spiritual" oye-weh-
> | ::: Yahweh-, trall-Allah- or junk-Jehovah- delusions... ahahaha...
> | >
> | Consider the broad spectrum, rect-Al:
> | == Religion is a tool that is used
> | === by the few to fuck the many.
> | ==== Nobody is born religious.
> | ===== Religion is an acquired disease.
> | ====== Amen!... ahahahaha... OR...
> | ======== Religion is Opium for the masses,
> | ========= according to Marx & Lenin.
> | >
> | So, rect-Al spread the application of YOUR "truth" around
> | far and wide and do NOT shield your own ilk from it, unless
> | you wanna become suspect yourself... ahahaha... ahahaha...
> | Thanks for the laughs, you Dreidel... ahahaha... ahahanson
> |
Ah hanson, u always good. seems al crucify himslf
>
ahahahaha... thanks, dude. Just do ENJOY what I say
but do NOT BELIEVE in anything I say, . good or no
good. There are a few wisdoms expressed in religo-theo-
philosophy, and the one applicable here would be:
::: "Do not believe simply because you have heard it.
::: Do not believe because it is written in your books.
::: Do not believe in the authority of your teachers & elders.
::: Do not believe in traditions handed down for generations.
::: Believe only what you yourself do judge to be true."
-- Gautamo Buddha, ~2600 years ago
>
AFA rect-Al and his "crucifixation": No. ... rect-Al
is extremely paranoid and afraid of that crucifix, or,
"stick", as he calls it... ... So, chances that rect-Al
goes anywhere near a crucifix, let alone one to crucify
himself on, that is a very slim to non event... Of course,
rect-Al will be loudmouthing about it to the contrary....
ahahaha...
Take care, Art.
>
PS:
This note was posted out of a new plane, in midflight
over the South China Sea, and it may be routed over
additional relays then just the customary West Coast
center. --- The platform here is Vista rather then XP.
So, I don't know whether this transmission will turn out
to be ok.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---=---=---= cut
kk57v5: 10-4 -- over & out.
Eric Gisse
[snip boring stupidity]
I can't help but wonder why you automatically crosspost all your
screed to sci.physics.relativity and sci.physics.particle whenever you
post.
Androcles
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
| The religious should be exterminated whether Jew, Moslem, Xtian,
| Bhuddist, Relativist or anything else, they are the scum of the Earth.
| >
| hanson wrote:
| ahahahaha... AHAHAHHAH .. ahahahaha... ahahahaha...
| ... uuuuunfortunaltely that ain't gonna happen before the
| next Ice Age is over... and has cooled'em off sufficiently.
Of course... if it were a perfect world it would have been made
by gawd and I would not have evolved to be a heretic.
| >
| What you refer to here as "scum" you should also look at
| in the context of our last discussion which centered around
| the concept of "waste"... ahahahaha...
Froth on a pint of ale, full of gas. The black ring left in the
tub after bathing. Dross floating on molten aluminium. Or as
Merriam Webster says, extraneous matter or impurities risen to
or formed on the surface of a liquid often as a foul filmy covering.
Yes, definitely waste, to be discarded.
| >
| BTW, I hope you meant "religions" and not "religious ",
| for the latter implies that you are worse then the 2 Jews,
| Kike Kolker and uncle rect-Al, who want to get rid of
| anybody on the globe but their own ilk...
| Take care, my old friend,
| hanson
Of course I want to get rid of Kolker and Schwartz, they are religious
scum as defined above. Perhaps you are confusing shit with arsehole,
one of which is waste and the other essential for the elimination of
waste.
Androcles
<kron...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bad1af07-4f5a-4851...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
This is bollocks of the foulest.
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena, not the setting up of theories to be knocked down again
by experiment (which are part of the investigation, not the explanation).
No "general theory" is required. Whether you believe in general theories
or green bananas you are still practicing blind faith, confusing technology
with science. Laws of Nature have no exceptions but when you turn
the light switch on it does NOT always happen. A world without
technology would still be lit by the Sun.
Androcles
Seems to be... Vista is XP Media Edition with hype just as
Windows 95 was Windows 3.1 with hype. The giant leap
from Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.1 went largely unnoticed
by the general public, but it was from 16-bit to 32-bit
technology, 1 Mbyte minimum to 4 Mbyte minimum.
What seems to have gone unnoticed this time around is
the dual core processor and the size of mass storage.
Friday, May 30, 2008
11:04 pm | Storage Seagate Touts 2TB Hard Disk Drives, SSDs for Next Year.
Seagate Promises 2TB Drives and Solid State Drives in 2009
--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Androcles
Y.Porat
---------------
it is in case it is veryt relevant!!
to those groops as well
ps
it is interesting to see that no one except you complaines about it
2
it is as well instead of opening a new thread of mine
3
how about you ??
do you ave some new doubts about any detail in
'the establishment physics
or may be your faith in it remaines firm
as before ??
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Robert J. Kolker
> If you compare religion to modern science, you will find some
> differences in the way that people approach the same problem. The
> search for truth.
> Regardless of dogma most people in both camps will say they are truth
> seekers.
Science is the search for hypotheses that produce empirically verified
predictions of how experiments turn out.
Bob Kolker
nico...@hushmail.com
> PHTONS HAS NO MASS !!!
>
You are lacking in intellectual acuity. Photons have no rest mass bu
they do have mass because E=mc^2 and the energy of a photon is E= hc/
lambda.
If photons has no mass then it would be impossible for photons to be
trapped by gravity within the gravitational well of a black hole.
Your failure to accept conventional wisdom to accept the reality of
the mass/energy of a photon is equilalent to a rejection of
conventional wisdom regarding the existence of black holes.
Upon what authority do you base your absurd assertions? Do you have
any observational evidence that disputes the existence of black holes.
To complete the circle of your inconsistency please not the importance
of the number zero in arithmetic. Without zero arithmetic is
impossible. Yet zero is nothing. Do you dispute the existence of
nothing.
Next you will get caught up in a line of circular reasoning and deny
your own existence.
Descarte said, "I think and so I exist". He then ammended it to say,
"I exists therefore I think"
In your case the only valid and consistent assertions that you can
derive are,
" I am stupid and therefore I do not exist".
You do not exist, please go away and never bother us again.
rick_...@hotmail.com
>
> This is ballocks of the finest. Whilst certain Scientists do sometimes
> behave like priests and some priests do molest children, this does not
> imply that ALL of them are at it on each side! Science is not a blind
> faith but can be overthrown (a theory at least) by new evidence. This
> was the case with Newtonian Physics. It was not wrong but only applied
> undercertain conditions. A more general theory was required. We still
> seek the ultimate truth in such matters but this does not make it a
> belief system like religion. There is no worshiping or prayers, holy
> books etc. The trouble with religion is that it cannot be challenged.
> It is blind faith. If I believe in the power of the almighty green
> banana - that it gives me comfort then who are you to deny me this!
> The majority of experiments in Science are repeatable. When you turn
> the light switch on it always happens. Not just when the green banana
> says so. A world without Science would be a very dark one indeed.
>
> K.
Well the light switch doesn't always work.
In fact 2 months ago the light in my bedroom didn't work when I tried
the light switch, and then, the next night when I turned on the switch
in the ensuite bathroom, the bulb blew and the breaker tripped and my
flat was without power.
So I called the landlord and told him he needed an electrician to
check it out and I ran an extension from the hall.
I needed a light bulb for a lamp so I took the bulb out of the ceiling
in my bedroom, and it worked in the lamp.
It hadn't worked the previous night when I tried the switch.
So the electrician shows up the next day, trips the breaker, only one
breaker for the suite, and I replace the bulb in the ceiling and this
time the switch works.
After he tests the switch with a multimeter and tells me it is fine.
He then goes on to switch the switch up and down and explain to me
slowly, that when the switch is in the down position, this means the
light is off, and when it is in the up position it is on.
He refused to believe, that that switch, simply did not work the day
before, and then that day it did.
And there was no possible explanation at all for it not working, it
simply did not work that day.
And that is how the world works. You just never know when things which
science cannot explain will occur.
But science then denies that it happened. For the most part, and
relegates all things like that to the fringe.
If you would like an example then take a look at this...
Let the bodies hit the floor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI
rick_...@hotmail.com
> caterer and rent the same hall.
> Someone will fart in the church.
Well getting back to this example, where we have created a Murf
factor, short form for the Murphy's Law factor, in order to try to
understand as scientists, why sh*t happens. Or why as Murphy's Law
states, if things can go wrong they will and at the worst possible
moment.
So we have created the Murf, as a factor, in order to quantify the
process, giving events a Murf factor naumber, so that we can prepare
for the inevitable as per Murphy's Law.
And we have not yet actually found the formula, but we know the
constituents would be...
good things happen :g
bad things happen: b
time :t
Murf=gb(t)
and the result will be a Murf number which we can use to compare the
results of experiments or compare experimental data statistically, in
order to predict when sh*t might happen.
And so then I was using weddings as an example where a Murf number
would be handy so as to better plan the event, and I stated that
hypothetically, any wedding on a Wednesday with a murf number higher
than 47, ended in divorce within 12 months.
Even if you hire the same caterer, or rent the same hall, the quantum
universe does not comply to our wishes, and not all weddings have a
Murf number of 18 and in this example, someone farts in church which
turns the murf number into a spike on a graph..
So ok, you might say well thats not such a big deal he farted in
church so what, except it was the bridegroom's father, who farted so
loud it echoed throughout the church, right at that pregnant pause,
after the minister had said, you may kiss the bride, and kapow, he
lets it rip, then stands there like a farmer, while everyone is
looking at him in horror and flaps his jacket with his elbows, to air
it out.
Which pushes that wedding to a murf number of 48. It is no longer
about the bride and groom, it is now about the time his dad farted in
church like a farmer in a hay field, on her special day.
And don't think that this doesn't happen because this sort of thing
happens every day.
But as scientists, this could have been anticipated, by examining the
cultural background of the bride and groom and their social habits,
and well I don't know what sort of safeguards except maybe slipping
some Beano or Gas-x in a cocktail for the bridegroom's family or who
knows but something could have been done.
By running the numbers through and tallying up all the possible things
that could go wrong, and then offsetting that with all the things
which could go right, then selecting those things which could happen
at the worst possible time, and arriving somehow at a murf number.
What is important here, is the abstraction of the process.
You see lots of things can go wrong and can go right, but because they
tend to happen at the worst possible moment, that leads us to believe
that there is some process at work, that is consistent and
predictable.
So by merely reducing that to a Murf number, what you are doing is
isolating the process by which sh*t happens.
You are not looking at what happens, merely that something happens.
If you look at each individual occurrence like the fart itself, well
you are missing the point.
Today it is the fart tomorrow it is a sneeze, the next day the baby
crying, and so on.
So if you had a high Murf number what would be the best course of
action in this instance if the bridegrooms father was notorious for
farting like giant bullfrog in public?
Have the wedding outdoors.
But then are you then asking for rain? You see this is the point where
religion will look at causality.
Why, is all this stuff happening in the first place? Why is there a
high murf number?
And religion might say well they are not a good match, there is
trouble in paradise, things will not go well, they will have problems
and these things are signs from heaven. Signs of forbidding. Signs and
portens, that all is not well, the gods are trying to tell them, they
are making a big mistake.
But well maybe, but maybe it is just that a better wedding plan, is
all that is needed, because of the complexity of this union. Some
better arrangement, which would serve to even satisfy the gods, such
as some great diplomatic maneuvers during the wedding which would heal
old wounds, and set things right and pave the way for marital bliss.
So you see knowing that there is a risk of things going very wrong,
can help people to understand if they are making a mistake by having
this wedding at all, or if there are things which need to be done, to
make it work.
And this is just one example of an event. A simple wedding. Where
knowing the Murf number is a valuable thing to know.
The idea being, that Murphy, is not a man, but he may be a god, or a
God because someone, or something, is making these things happen.
And to simply throw up our hands and say like Forest Gump "sh*t
happens" is to choose to live in the dark, when science would light
that single candle to shed some light on the situation.
rick_...@hotmail.com
>
> And religion might say well they are not a good match, there is
> trouble in paradise, things will not go well, they will have problems
> and these things are signs from heaven. Signs of forbidding. Signs and
> portens, that all is not well, the gods are trying to tell them, they
> are making a big mistake.
>
> But well maybe, but maybe it is just that a better wedding plan, is
> all that is needed, because of the complexity of this union. Some
> better arrangement, which would serve to even satisfy the gods, such
> as some great diplomatic maneuvers during the wedding which would heal
> old wounds, and set things right and pave the way for marital bliss.
>
> So you see knowing that there is a risk of things going very wrong,
> can help people to understand if they are making a mistake by having
> this wedding at all, or if there are things which need to be done, to
> make it work.
>
> And this is just one example of an event. A simple wedding. Where
> knowing the Murf number is a valuable thing to know.
>
> The idea being, that Murphy, is not a man, but he may be a god, or a
> God because someone, or something, is making these things happen.
> And to simply throw up our hands and say like Forest Gump "sh*t
> happens" is to choose to live in the dark, when science would light
> that single candle to shed some light on the situation.
So then for the sake of argument, supposing science is content to be
like Forest Gump and doesn't think that the Murf factor is important
or relevant so you hire a psychic.
To determine the Murf factor for your planned event, you hire that
short stout woman from Poltergeist and she goes around touching the
walls of the church and saying "wooooo wooooo.... this is not good..."
and she gives the event a possible Murf number of 48.
So then don't leave your seats and walk out of the lecture just yet as
they would in Albert Hall, but lets suppose that this psychic has the
ability to intuitively communicate with Murphy.
And because of this gift, Murphy has told her/shown her that things
will not go well.
She might even find out why. That there is some baggage associated
with this union.
Now science would look at this whole thing as pure rubbish, but many
people still would see this as a way to prevent catastrophe in their
lives.
She arrives at a Murf number of 48 and so would the scientists if they
were to run the numbers through.
The psychic is going to give advice and all that but the scientist
will simply state the facts.
That according to statistics, sources say, polls show, and scientists
agree, that 9 times out of 10, a Wedding held on Wednesday with a Murf
factor greater than 47 will end in divorce within 12 months.
And so you see that because statistics do predict behavior and they do
predict real world events with incredible accuracy, that has to tell
us something about the world of every day occurrences.
Apparently sh*t happens, but it tends to happen in such a way as to be
somewhat statistically consistent.
Enough that you can predict elections, and most other things where
human decision making is involved.
Market research is based on statistical analysis.
So then you see knowing the Murf number is just an extension of
statistical analysis, and statistical analysis, is part of quantum
theory.
So there is a lot that science can do, to predict macro events if it
took the time to work through the details of something like Murphy's
Law and found a method of attaching a Murf number to proposed events.
Androcles
<nico...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec376bab-6242-47f6...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 11:26 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PHTONS HAS NO MASS !!!
>
You are lacking in intellectual acuity. Photons have no rest mass bu
they do have mass because E=mc^2 and the energy of a photon is E= hc/
lambda.
========================================
You are lacking a brain and have an abundance of stupidity.
Forces have mass because F= ma. Some argument that is...
rick_...@hotmail.com
> <nicov...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Androcles
a photon has to have some mass in order to move those little targets
in those toys that go have little pin wheels in them as the sun hits
it.
Einstein got his Nobel prize for physics when he proved that a photon
is a discreet quanta, as opposed to a ray, and if memory serves he
proved his point by showing that the photon had sufficient energy to
dislodge an electron periodically or some such.
The evidence is that it does have mass/energy but can travel through
the ether (space-time) without resistance which means that it has no
intrinsic mass. No mass of its own.
It has energy, which is evident when it hits something, but not
intrinsic mass because there is no drag as it moves through space-
time.
It is a wave, a transverse wave packet, and so it is not the medium,
has no quantum foam in it, it is just a wave in the quantum foam, but
like when a wave on the ocean hits the pier, it impacts an object with
force.
And so it is mass/energy that it has not intrinsic mass and you could
say well mass/energy is just energy but people like to say mass/energy
because it gives you the impression of physical impact.
For instance you can sail a spaceship by the force of solar wind.
rick_...@hotmail.com
>
> a photon has to have some mass in order to move those little targets
> in those toys that go have little pin wheels in them as the sun hits
> it.
> Einstein got his Nobel prize for physics when he proved that a photon
> is a discreet quanta, as opposed to a ray, and if memory serves he
> proved his point by showing that the photon had sufficient energy to
> dislodge an electron periodically or some such.
> The evidence is that it does have mass/energy but can travel through
> the ether (space-time) without resistance which means that it has no
> intrinsic mass. No mass of its own.
> It has energy, which is evident when it hits something, but not
> intrinsic mass because there is no drag as it moves through space-
> time.
> It is a wave, a transverse wave packet, and so it is not the medium,
> has no quantum foam in it, it is just a wave in the quantum foam, but
> like when a wave on the ocean hits the pier, it impacts an object with
> force.
> And so it is mass/energy that it has not intrinsic mass and you could
> say well mass/energy is just energy but people like to say mass/energy
> because it gives you the impression of physical impact.
> For instance you can sail a spaceship by the force of solar wind.
A wave packet is just a short length of a series of waves in a line.
One complete wave thats a quanta of light.
If we look at a receding galaxy it is red shifted, because the light
is reflecting off of atoms, that are moving away like if you were
hitting a tennis ball at a backboard and it was moving away each time
you bounced the ball off of it.
So what you see is that the time between crests is longer in the red
shifted light which means it is a longer wave length.
And for blue shifted light, the backboard is moving towards you, the
wave length shorter, less space between wave crests, hence a shorter
wave length.
The thing was that before the concept of quanta, people did think
light was a ray of light. A continuous beam. But since atomic
processes are not continuous, since the ultimate matter of the
universe has some graininess, atomic processes are sporadic and
periodic, and so when a photon is released from the sun, it is
released in a burst. A series of bursts gives you a ray of light, but
each individual wave, is itself, a quanta, because only at the wave
crest, does it have the energy sufficient to affect anything.
If a water wave _crest hits a board it slaps against it. If it is in
between the trough and the crest it has less energy.
So light can hit an atom but an electron needs a certain amount of
energy to be released.
Because of the bonding strength of matter.
So what happens is that everything ends up being quantized.
And it has to do with Plank's constant because all quanta are
divisible by Plank's constant.
So the ultimate matter of the universe, the quantum foam, is probably
a bubble, the diameter of Plank's constant.
There is no real theory yet as to why this should be the case.
Why a Plank moment is the smallest measure of time and why Plank
length is the shortest measure of distance, except that is the limit
at which we can measure, and so anything less than that is imaginary,
and things become real at Plank length.
Virtual particles cross that line from imaginary or potential and
become real, then disappear after a short time.
But we still say that the real universe consists of particles that are
this side of Plank length and time.
The vacuum of space is full of particles which are coming into
existence and fading out of existence as they have enough energy to be
across teh line into real, and lose energy and drop below detection.
So real is a state and anything with less energy than that line, is
not real, as it cannot affect anything real.
However, when two virtual particles collide now it has sufficient
energy to affect another real particle, so ok, now it is real, when
previously it was not. As an example.
And quanta work on that same principle. If it takes a certain amount
of pressure to topple a bowling pin, when you spray water on it, at
the point at which it topples, you can also say thats a quanta of
energy right there.
The idea is that if you have a hose and it is hooked up to a machine
that varies the pressure in bursts, only at the peak of energy will it
topple that pin. So then each time it crests at that point, that is a
wave crest. Regardless of what is going on in the black box, if you
can see the hose, or the machine or any of that it doesn't matter, it
is a wave crest if it is happening at regular intervals.
And each of those bursts, is a quanta of energy. And you don't need to
know how the process works even to know, that the system is quantized,
you just have to see the pins fall at a regular interval.
Or an electron released at a regular interval.
Tom Potter
Not so.
Science and religion are pretty much alike.
In fact, as can be seen from the posts in the physics newsgroups,
the physics cults are more rigid and more devoted to their
models and priests than most religious folks.
I have observed that one can have a rational, unemotional
debate with almost all religious folks, including cult members,
but it is impossible to have a rational, unemotional debate
with members of a physics cult.
I have met few religious folks who are as dogmatic about
their views as many physics cultists.
Observe that the physics cultists
quote the words of their cult leaders
much like devote Christians quote John 3, 16.
People turn to religion and science for pretty much the same reasons,
to "understand the mind of God",
to rationalize the birth and death of the universe,
to grasp a straw to power and immortality,
"to go where no man has gone before", etc.
Openmindedness is orthogonal to closedmindedness,
but science and religion are in the same quadrant.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Y.Porat
----------------
Oh Gohsh
did i say that photons *do not* have mass??!!!
sorry sorry
i think it is about 10years that i claim ans PROVE!
that photons HAS mass
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
> This is bollocks of the foulest.
> Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
> phenomena, not the setting up of theories to be knocked down again
> by experiment (which are part of the investigation, not the explanation).
> No "general theory" is required. Whether you believe in general theories
> or green bananas you are still practicing blind faith, confusing technology
> with science. Laws of Nature have no exceptions but when you turn
> the light switch on it does NOT always happen. A world without
> technology would still be lit by the Sun.
> Androcles
Confusing Technology with Science? Technology IS Science! It has its
foundations in Science. Since you are too thick to understand why I
will explain with a simple example so your simple brain will
understand:...
Faraday discovered Electromagnetic Induction ie he "invented" the idea
of electricity generation. Technology turns this into an industry. One
needs the other. We cannot deisgn new IPOD players without an
understanding of basic Science. Go work it out yourself.
This is not blind faith since it is repeatable.....!! Your Gods only
do things on occasions when nobody is about! Ballocks...
K.
Androcles
<kron...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1a25daa-c1be-4d68...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
| On Jun 2, 10:22 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| > This is bollocks of the foulest.
| > Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
| > phenomena, not the setting up of theories to be knocked down again
| > by experiment (which are part of the investigation, not the
explanation).
| > No "general theory" is required. Whether you believe in general theories
| > or green bananas you are still practicing blind faith, confusing
technology
| > with science. Laws of Nature have no exceptions but when you turn
| > the light switch on it does NOT always happen. A world without
| > technology would still be lit by the Sun.
|
| > Androcles
|
| Confusing Technology with Science? Technology IS Science!
Don't be silly, that's like saying cooking is chemistry. Maybe it is,
but the first man to throw pork in a fire was no scientist.
| It has its
| foundations in Science. Since you are too thick to understand why I
| will explain with a simple example so your simple brain will
| understand:...
Listen fuckhead, don't call me thick, you arsehole. If it's a flame war
you want you can have one, short and sweet, you dumb cunt!
Y.Porat
-------------------
1
you dont know that our days
technology is the leader of science
abd not vice versa
even your example about faraday and his generator
showes it
forst he invented the generator by trial and error
and only then the theory could come
and 'discover' that in order of creatting electricity
in a magnetic field MOVEMENT ISNEDED!!
it was not predicted by theory !! of those days
2
you are completely unaware that
the claim that science is based on experiment
is a sort of a lie in many cases !!!
in fact experiments can be in many cases
have two or more INTERPREATTIONS
for insatnce
if light curved next to sun
one explanationcan be that it is because
sapce is curved
another expanationcan be thjat
it is because
photons has mass!!
but the photon is a special case
tha needs a special calrulation of curvature
in a gravitational field !!
so keep well
and stop being a crackparroter that understands only
mathematics
(may i guess that you came to physics from mathematics ??.. or
'physicsists that knew mathhematics
better than physics ???.).....
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
hanson
>
"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
This is bollocks of the foulest... Kronecker, you are still
practicing blind faith, confusing technology with science.
>
Technology IS Science! Since you are too thick to
understand why ... Go work it out yourself. Your Gods
only do things when nobody is about! Ballocks...
>
"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
Listen fuckhead, don't call me thick, you arsehole.
If it's a flame war you want you can have one, short
and sweet, you dumb cunt!
>
... ahahahaha... Yeah, yeah, yeah!... ahahaha....
Issue your formal DoW and start the campaigns.
------------ News at eleven... -------------
ahahahaha... One request though guys:
Don't gang up one me. I am just a spectator
in the crowd's thicket ... but I got a valid ticket.
>
--
"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
>
> 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
> where
> A = (0,0,0,t)
> A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
> B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> x' = x-vt
>
> Ref:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> "Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
> Androcles
>
There is a way, way too large of a jump in your thought
train between .... "is the same?... & 1/2[tau... " for the
ED's to see the connection. So, perhaps if you'd post
an easier, more fluid bridge between the 2 sets above,
some EDs may begin to comprehend why you ask the
question. --- Also leave your last line out. The EDs feel
like cretins to begin with for parroting their REL-igion..
instead of being creative & thinking for themselves.
Androcles
| === AHHH, .. new flame war in the offing ! ===
| >
| "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| This is bollocks of the foulest... Kronecker, you are still
| practicing blind faith, confusing technology with science.
| A world without technology would still be lit by the Sun.
| >
| kron...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
| Technology IS Science! Since you are too thick to
| understand why ... Go work it out yourself. Your Gods
| only do things when nobody is about! Ballocks...
| >
| "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
| Listen fuckhead, don't call me thick, you arsehole.
| If it's a flame war you want you can have one, short
| and sweet, you dumb cunt!
| >
| hanson wrote:
| ... ahahahaha... Yeah, yeah, yeah!... ahahaha....
| Issue your formal DoW and start the campaigns.
| ------------ News at eleven... -------------
| ahahahaha... One request though guys:
| Don't gang up one me. I am just a spectator
| in the crowd's thicket ... but I got a valid ticket.
You are safe enough, you have a brain. I wouldn't want to
war with you, it would be at best Pyrrhic and a war of attrition
besides being unnecessary and futile. Arrogant bastards like
Kronecker I'll take on any day (until I'm bored).
Ok, well, you phrase it. The statement in algebra is the same
statement in the three line version, it is Einstein that deliberately
confuses the coordinates A and B with the interval x', and
even then the distance back again is x+vt, not x' = x-vt.
I'm still not certain whether he was just an incompetent moron
who actually believed the crap he wrote or a very clever con-artist.
I have to go with the latter, witch doctors abound in all societies
and they know in themselves they are only scamming the public.
"I am Mr M'bonko, a lawyer from Nigeria and I have all this money
- help me launder it and I will share it with you. Oops, did I say
launder? Sorry, I meant inheritance -- I am probating a will.
If you send me money you can be rich. Please reply urgently,
give me your email address quickly."
The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate
father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr.
Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, "Well, I'm off now. The man should
be here soon."
Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer
happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. "Good morning, Ma'am",
he said, "I've come to..."
"Oh, no need to explain," Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, "I've been
expecting you."
"Have you really?" said the photographer. "Well, th at's good. Did you know
babies are my specialty?"
"Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a
seat".
After a moment she asked, blushing, "Well, where do we start?"
"Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bath tub, one on the
couch, an perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor
is fun. You can really spread out there."
"Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!"
"Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try
several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure
you'll be pleased with the results."
"My, that's a lot!", gasped Mrs. Smith.
"Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be In and
out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed with that."
"Don't I know it," said Mrs. Smith quietly.
The photographer opened his briefcase and pulle d out a portfolio of his
baby pictures. "This was done on the top of a bus," he said.
"Oh, my word!" Mrs. Smith exclaimed, grasping at her throat.
"And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their
mother was so difficult to wo rk with."
"She was difficult?" asked Mrs. Sith.
"Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to the park to get the job
done right. People were crowding around four and five deep to get a good
look"
"Four and five deep?" said Mrs. Smith, her eyes wide with amazement.
"Yes", the photographer replied. "And for more than three hours, too. The
mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate,
and when darkness approached I had to rush my
shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just
had to pack it all in."
Mrs. Smith leaned forward. "Do you mean they actually chewed on your,
uh...equipment?"
"It's true, Ma'am, yes.. W ell, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and
we can get to work right away."
"Tripod?"
"Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too
big to be held in the hand very long."
Mrs. Smith fainted
rick_...@hotmail.com
Thats a good one.
Whatever happened to the good old days when you could be a fuller
brush man and get laid, and everyone had a little box beside their
back door, where the egg man put his eggs every morning.
(And sometimes twice on Tuesdays)
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
> <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:c1a25daa-c1be-4d68...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> | On Jun 2, 10:22 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> |
> | > This is bollocks of the foulest.
> | > Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
> | > phenomena, not the setting up of theories to be knocked down again
> | > by experiment (which are part of the investigation, not the
> explanation).
> | > No "general theory" is required. Whether you believe in general theories
> | > or green bananas you are still practicing blind faith, confusing
> technology
> | > with science. Laws of Nature have no exceptions but when you turn
> | > the light switch on it does NOT always happen. A world without
> | > technology would still be lit by the Sun.
> |
> | > Androcles
> |
> | Confusing Technology with Science? Technology IS Science!
>
> Don't be silly, that's like saying cooking is chemistry. Maybe it is,
> but the first man to throw pork in a fire was no scientist.
Have you ever studied ANY science or technology at all or do you just
bs your way through life?
I am a professional Engineer and from year one at University we
learn...yes Science! Physics,Mechanics,Physical
Electronics,Mathematics etc etc You are obviously thinking of craft
technology - people spinning things on lathes.
Now, do tell me how an IPOD player can be designed from scrath without
basic science? Another example - a DVD writer?
Uses diode laser technology taken from fundamental physics. Now be a
good chap ...your mummy is calling you to tea..
K.
Androcles
<kron...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cca0e68a-5438-4246...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| On Jun 3, 10:51 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:c1a25daa-c1be-4d68...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Jun 2, 10:22 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > |
| > | > This is bollocks of the foulest.
| > | > Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
| > | > phenomena, not the setting up of theories to be knocked down again
| > | > by experiment (which are part of the investigation, not the
| > explanation).
| > | > No "general theory" is required. Whether you believe in general
theories
| > | > or green bananas you are still practicing blind faith, confusing
| > technology
| > | > with science. Laws of Nature have no exceptions but when you turn
| > | > the light switch on it does NOT always happen. A world without
| > | > technology would still be lit by the Sun.
| > |
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | Confusing Technology with Science? Technology IS Science!
| >
| > Don't be silly, that's like saying cooking is chemistry. Maybe it is,
| > but the first man to throw pork in a fire was no scientist.
|
| Have you ever studied ANY science or technology at all or do you just
| bs your way through life?
Fuck off if you can't answer my question.
hanson
news:cca0e68a-5438-4246...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...hanson wrote:
Hey Kroney, I said this here before:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/da5adb5e0fea8855
and then the "you said -- he said" started with:
>
Kronecker wrote:
Have you, Andro, you just bs your way through life?
I am a professional .. blah, blah, blah....
Now be a good chap ...your mummy is calling you to tea..
>
Kronecker, I'll take on any day (until I'm bored).
Fuck off, Kroney, if you can't answer my question:
>
::: Why did Einstein say
::: the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
::: the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
::: the "time" each way is the same?
>
::: 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
::: where
::: A = (0,0,0,t)
::: A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
::: B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
::: x' = x-vt
::: Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
::: "Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
>
Now, Kroney, after you have advertised your exquisite
qualifications, you really should answer Andro's question.
Else the game is ---[ Andro 1 : Kronecker 0 ]---
Come on "Now be a good chap"... never mind mummy...
... and of course, thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
rick_...@hotmail.com
going no where fast as well, and the whole ball of wax is in need a
rewrite.
Capitalism does not work.
Do you think that we as humans, could build a structure, out of
concrete, with walls 3 feet thick, reinforced, and have housing units
inside that complex, and have a high speed tunnel system for elevator
type travel within it, and adequate ducting for electrical and
plumbing, and have a waste processing system, that worked, for this
mile long housing unit, and have a conveyor system, for the delivery
of foods, and have air conditioning, and central heating, and make it
as part of the unit, and then power this unit with either nuclear, or
hydrogen fuel?
Of course we could. And it would last a thousand years as well if we
wanted it to. If we made things to last, out of good materials with
the idea that people need shelters, and they need efficient ways to
move goods and services and they need certain fundamental things in
houses like heat and air conditioning and it can be provided quite
easily by modern scientific methods.
We can make a nuclear submarine, but we can't make a good apartment
complex?
We have to make things to last only 40 or 50 years so that consumerism
will continue to feed the capitalist system?
We can't make a decent large scale housing unit, with the needs of
people in mind by working together?
People used to think there was a great future ahead for mankind and
they used to paint pictures of futuristic societies where they take
these new technologies and apply them in practical ways.
Well we have lots and lots of technology, and we have lots and lots of
engineering capability and materials, that are futuristic already, but
not put to use.
We continue to burn fossil fuels because as a species of animals, we
have no future period.
We have been condemned.
We have until 2012 to party, then we will die off and be replaced by a
better model, who knows what logic is, and the value of being
rational, and logical as opposed to irrational, and illogical.
No not like Spock, just sensible.
Fostering greed is not logical, not sensible and that is all that
capitalism does.
People do not even know, that greed is not good for your survival.
That is illogical.
Kirk would know that.
What we have here is not even the level of common sense that a person
like Kirk would have, without going into the extreme of Mr. Spock.
Kirk is a pass.
And the earth did not pass the test.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Its not just there its in every aspect of society.
Do you think we can create fillings and caps for teeth that are made
of material stronger and better than tooth enamel?
Of course we can.
Why don't we use it?
Dentists have to eat. They need to be a part of the capitalist system
so dentistry must be made to fail so that there will be more work.
People atlk about landfills and plastic, how plastic does not break
down for millions of years, unless you buy disposable contact lenses,
which expire in an unopened package in 3 months.
Why?
Optometrists have to eat and must be part of the capitalist system.,
So you see already things which should be happening with technology
are not happening, instead things are purposefully made to need repair
and to malfunction in order to create work.
Because humanity needs busy work, because as an animal, it is not
capable of functioning properly, without some sort of preoccupation
with useless worthless endeavors?
Humanity does not have the intelligence, to know how to survive
without useless meaningless work?
Humanity is broken. It is a machine that is broken and it is propped
up with illogical make do projects and systems. It is being shored up.
And still failing, because it cannot progress.
Its treading water because it is condemned and has no future.
rick_...@hotmail.com
>
> Humanity does not have the intelligence, to know how to survive
> without useless meaningless work?
>
> Humanity is broken. It is a machine that is broken and it is propped
> up with illogical make do projects and systems. It is being shored up.
> And still failing, because it cannot progress.
>
> Its treading water because it is condemned and has no future.
So where is the problem?
The software that runs consciousness in humans, needs a rewrite, and
the conscious computer which run the instinct software for both
animals and humans, and the conscious computer which runs the
sentience software, both of these systems are outdated, and
malfunctioning.
They need to be upgraded.
You can talk about political systems, and say well maybe if we just
made a new system, like what?
Communism? Hasn't that been tried? It is an evil word isn't it?
Socialism? Isn't that another word people are taught to hate?
They are words, labels, and only that. But with a label, you see the
opposition can make that into something terrible.
They merely attach heinous acts to that label and then that label
becomes associated with heinous acts.
Regardless of what the system is supposed to do, it will not be
implemented, because the opposition will stymie all attempts to change
the system.
Because the few fortunate ones who hold the wealth and power, like to
hold that wealth and power, and the system, right through to the
conscious computers themselves, supports that at the expense of the
rest of humanity, and at the expense of further development and growth
as a species.
So changing the system has been tried and it failed.
And that is the sad reality of things that the earth did not pass the
test. It was unable to progress in a logical meaningful way, and is
now, just quietly waiting to die.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Youtube video, Let the Bodies Hit the Floor, where he is knocking lots
and lots of people to the ground without touching them, here is
another example...
The power of chi exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdvYXIwa0Ow
Now what chi is, is when the conscious computers which animate humans,
stop sending software signals to the pineal gland, and that shuts them
down.
The one conscious computer which provides commands for instinctual
behaviors, the reptilian part of the brain, it can control movement as
well. It can send signals that imitate your own nerve signals and
nerve impulses so that you will move your body accordingly as if
instructed there was a need for musculature movement when your own
nervous system sends a signal.
And so then what they are doing, is making it look like this invisible
power is in the hands of the adept.
And they do this to play along with the silly humans.
But then you will notice that it doesn't always work, as in the
exposed video where the cool chi master gets his ass kicked and has to
cower from his opponent to save his own life and to keep himself from
quickly becoming hospitalized.
The same master who could ward off his own students with ease, was
useless and helpless when facing a foe that it didn't work on. And the
same is true for Evangelists.
The power they wield does not work on everyone.
So that leads us to assume, that there are more than one conscious
computer providing software signals to the pineal glands of humanity
to animate them and give them sentience.
Only those on the same system, appear to be affected through this
method.
But anyways that is how humans work. They have a brain, and it does
some simple computation but the real work requires a greater more
massive computer system with greater capabilities and that is where
the human soul resides. Sort of like the Matrix, except your body is
not in a vat, your personality is in a file.
What makes you unique is your personality. Your character. And that is
kept in the conscious computer and all human decisions that you make
are filtered through that.
That is why statistically, all humans behave the same way.
Why you can sample the population and give accurate projections,
because all humans are running the same software.
The differences in the decisions they make are based on their
personality type.
And those personality types are based on molds, called archetypes.
Original design types.
Then descendants are made by mixing these pure types and a person ends
up with a personality that is similar to the type it was derived from.
Now then on the instinctual level, that machine governs such things as
survival of the fittest.
But well there is a problem with that since we have a mammal here who
won that game.
There isn't an animal left on the earth, that does not live merely
because we choose not to kill it and eat it.
We can kill any of them from miles away with a stinger missile they
have no chance.
So that software is redundant. So if the instinctual behavior in man,
is not modified, then he will eventually just end up killing off all
other species in accordance with his programming which is really to
not care about their survival at all, but rather to compete with them
for survival.
Why we won is because we have that second level of software. We have
sentience. And so using it, and that extra processing power, we have
gone forth and conquered all other living things.
rick_...@hotmail.com
>
> There isn't an animal left on the earth, that does not live merely
> because we choose not to kill it and eat it.
>
> We can kill any of them from miles away with a stinger missile they
> have no chance.
>
> So that software is redundant. So if the instinctual behavior in man,
> is not modified, then he will eventually just end up killing off all
> other species in accordance with his programming which is really to
> not care about their survival at all, but rather to compete with them
> for survival.
>
> Why we won is because we have that second level of software. We have
> sentience. And so using it, and that extra processing power, we have
> gone forth and conquered all other living things.
It takes a great deal of effort to make humans function properly.
We have a subconscious, but that when it is working, is just our
operating system, doing its thing.
Humans do things when they are conscious. If you are unconscious, then
you aren't functioning properly. You have no power of rational thought
and no concept of time and space and where you are or what day it is
when you are unconscious.
Now the conscious computers which run the software that humanity uses,
they too affect people in many ways through the subconscious. That is
part of their function. Body language is not a conscious thing, but it
is a social behavior, for one person to send signals to another
person, through their body language, and they do it subconsciously.
That is a function of the reptilian part of the brain, instinctual
behavior and the lower level conscious computer handles that.
That is part of its function, to manage these subtle communications
and that is why it has the ability to use that also, to make people
move or twitch on the stage for Benny Hinn's crowd of followers.
Thats just an extension of capabilities the conscious computer has.
And so the subconscious, is tied in with a collective subconscious,
and that is where the conscious computer being in contact with brains,
and the software running those brains, can use that system for subtle
communications in dreams and etc.
Getting back to Captain Kirk, of the Star Ship Enterprise, as an
example of a role model...
Now role models are used in society to help people to see what proper
behavior patterns are like with respect to morals and ethics.
However, most people functioning properly, would automatically be born
with a set of morals and ethics similar to those of James. T. kirk, if
the software was functioning properly.
You could say that he was born with a good conscience. People have
good consciences.
Religious people attribute that to God, but in fact that comes from
your programming on the subconscious level as a rule set, by which the
conscious computer is supposed to prompt your decision making on a
subconscious level.
So that when it is functioning properly, you already know, what is
good and what is bad instinctually.
You have a gut feeling that this is good or that is bad. And if you
make a bad decision, your conscience will bother you.
Thats a function of the software to help people live together in a
civil society.
However not everyone has that. There are 4 percent sociopaths in
society who do not have a conscience, so the system breaks down.
So people themselves have very little control over the development of
their own personality.
Kirk went to the academy, and in the process got some new rules to
live by, maybe a strengthened code of honor, specific things to deal
with his occupation, however in terms of making good judgments those
decisions would come from his good conscience.
So humans know, what a good functioning human looks like, and they do
tend to agree when they see one that that is the case. TV and popular
culture is filled with role models and people agree that those are
properly functioning humans.
But in reality, the world does not have a full set of people like
that.
And so when you say well people should be more logical, right away
they point to Spock, and they say yes, but we don't want to be like
Spock.
And when you say well people should share the wealth, and cooperate,
and build things together that last for the benefit of all, they will
say well we don't want to be communists, living in communes.
Well China seems to be doing ok with their system, in fact they are
kicking America's ass financially and all of North America is treading
water financially and deep in debt.
So it does not appear to be sustainable as it is today. So time will
tell, at what point, the system will break down, but from a scientific
point of view, when you stop using the advances made, or do not
implement advances made which would make life better across the board,
then the system has already failed. The system itself, is standing in
the way of progress.
Androcles
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
> <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:cca0e68a-5438-4246...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com..."Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Hey Kroney, I said this here before:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/da5adb5e0fea8855
> and then the "you said -- he said" started with:
>
> Kronecker wrote:
>
> Have you, Andro, you just bs your way through life?
> I am a professional .. blah, blah, blah....
> Now be a good chap ...your mummy is calling you to tea..
>
> Andro wrote:
>
> Kronecker, I'll take on any day (until I'm bored).
> Fuck off, Kroney, if you can't answer my question:
>
> ::: Why did Einstein say
> ::: the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> ::: the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> ::: the "time" each way is the same?
>
> ::: 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
> ::: where
> ::: A = (0,0,0,t)
> ::: A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
> ::: B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> ::: x' = x-vt
> ::: Ref:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Now, Kroney, after you have advertised your exquisite
> qualifications, you really should answer Andro's question.
> Else the game is ---[ Andro 1 : Kronecker 0 ]---
> Come on "Now be a good chap"... never mind mummy...
> ... and of course, thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
Doesn't matter WHY he said it. The experiments bare out what he said.
Goes against common sense for sure but that doesn't make it wrong.
Now the beauty of Science as opposed to religion is that you will be
given the opportunity to prove by experiment that he is wrong - and if
you are right then we accept your explanation. No such opportunity
with religion though...that's the difference.Now your point may be
that some Scientists are "blind" to new ideas. Well maybe, but you
need firm evidence to back up any claim and then people may well then
listen.
K.
K.
hanson
ABOUT YOUR QUESTION?... wow... WOW!
>
ahahahaha... Kroney, you are a good sport. You didn't
run away from the game... ... but talk to Andro. Not me!
>
Guys, guys don't answer my posts. Talk to each other.
You guys provide great cyber excitement.
You are good at it.
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
<kron...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d6661af0-f1a4-484e...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Y.Porat
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------------------
you dont know the late real history of technology
it is more than half a century that
*technology is leading science and not vice versa*
fo r instance all the breakthroughs in electronic scince
were made in the big private companies
many of them by trial and error
and some of them just by chance!!
(sort of how peniciline was discovered)
theoretic scince is laging far behind
and in many cases just hindering the advance of science
'modern science' is like a flea on the back of the dashing
tecnology Elephant shouting loudly:
'look look what a big dust we make' !!!
Y.Porat
------------------------
Androcles
<kron...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d6661af0-f1a4-484e...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
HAHAHA! The bare bear was threadbare, naked experiments!
Funny how technology doesn't use anything the crackpot with no
common sense has said, in particular the ring laser gyroscope.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
"As a result, the counter-rotating pulse arrives at the "end" point slightly
earlier than the co-rotating pulse"
(at exactly the same time).
HAHAHA!
| Goes against common sense for sure but that doesn't make it wrong.
Now that IS faith!
| Now the beauty of Science as opposed to religion is that you will be
| given the opportunity to prove by experiment that he is wrong
Done by Sagnac in 1913.
- and if
| you are right then we accept your explanation.
The explanation:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
| No such opportunity
| with religion though...that's the difference.
So relativity is a religion.
| Now your point may be
| that some Scientists are "blind" to new ideas.
Well maybe, but you
| need firm evidence to back up any claim and then people may well then
| listen.
Firm evidence:
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/art/print?id=74134&articleTypeId=1
Will the fuckhead listen?
Two chances, fat and slim.
--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Androcles
Androcles
| ANDRO!.. DID YOU HEAR WHAT KRONEY SAID
| ABOUT YOUR QUESTION?... wow... WOW!
Yep. He didn't answer it, I asked WHY and he said it doesn't matter why.
| >
| ahahahaha... Kroney, you are a good sport. You didn't
| run away from the game... ... but talk to Andro. Not me!
| >
| Guys, guys don't answer my posts. Talk to each other.
Can't do that, I've already plonked the stupid fuck. I would not know
what he said if he had not replied to you.
He's not going to understand the firm evidence of Sagnac, he has no
common sense. He doesn't even realise a ring laser gyroscope is not
a bare, naked experiment or know the difference between bare and bear.
Heck, he's deliberately vague about what experiment he's blabbing about.
--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Androcles