The purple snipe of the magical kingdom
nu-monet v4.0
logic. What they are doing is the following:
They want to prove the existence of (an)other dimension(s).
How do they know that there is (an)other dimension(s)?
Easy. That is where the gravitons are!
But we have never found a graviton!
Oh, that's because they are in (an)other dimension(s)!
I could use the same logic looking for a magical kingdom:
I know that there is a magical kingdom, because that is
where all the purple snipe live.
But you've never seen a purple snipe! Oh, that's because
they all live in the magical kingdom!)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/aaft-iso020602.php
In search of extra dimensions: Hang on--
a new reality may be around the corner...
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
Sir Dr. Rev. Siegfried The Red
scientists don't always use that Scientific Method bullshit we were taught
in elementary school. Sometimes taking shortcuts really does produce the
best results, especially when your funding is limited. The one thing about
True Science is that it's all subject to change at any time when a better
idea comes along. So if postulating the idea of other dimensions explains a
lot of shit, even though we didn't logically prove it, we'll stick with that
idea until an idea comes along that explains things even better.
Theories are just MODELS that are useful to us and we keep them until
someone creates a model that works better. How they built the model is not
always as important as whether the model works or not.
Of course, if your model is LOGICAL, that's even better. Illogical models
don't last very long when your peers start poking at the cracks. However,
if your model is ILLOGICAL, but explains things in a way that we find useful
in our TECHNOLOGICAL pursuits, then pragmatism kicks you in the ass and
tells you that you might as well go with it.
That's what I like about the Church - it's ALL TRUE, because it works.
"nu-monet v4.0" <not...@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:3C6FDD...@succeeds.com...
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
<not...@succeeds.com> wrote:
> (Brilliant physicists in need of some basic classes in
> logic. What they are doing is the following:
>
> They want to prove the existence of (an)other dimension(s).
> How do they know that there is (an)other dimension(s)?
> Easy. That is where the gravitons are!
> But we have never found a graviton!
> Oh, that's because they are in (an)other dimension(s)!
>
> I could use the same logic looking for a magical kingdom:
> I know that there is a magical kingdom, because that is
> where all the purple snipe live.
> But you've never seen a purple snipe! Oh, that's because
> they all live in the magical kingdom!)
If there is some observable effect that purple snipe were alleged to cause,
your argument would be dead on. However, unless your idea of gravity is way,
way out there, purple snipe don't cause it.
One explanation for what causes the phenomenon we call "gravity" is a
carrier particle known as the graviton.
One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon is that gravitons are
not observable by any known experimental method.
One possible explanation for this problem with this explanation of the
phenomenon is that gravitons move through a dimension which is not directly
observable to human beings.
So you see that what you are considering a basic logic error is in fact a
possible explanation for a problem with an explanation of a phenomenon.
See?
St. Marc
nu-monet v4.0
>
> If there is some observable effect that purple snipe
> were alleged to cause, your argument would be dead on.
> However, unless your idea of gravity is way, way out
> there, purple snipe don't cause it.
>
> One explanation for what causes the phenomenon we
> call "gravity" is a carrier particle known as the
> graviton.
Ahem. One explanation for the phenomenon we call
"Jesus' eternal grace" is his life as a man in the
world.
> One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon
> is that gravitons are not observable by any known
> experimental method.
One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon
is that there is no one alive who actually saw Jesus.
> One possible explanation for this problem with this
> explanation of the phenomenon is that gravitons move
> through a dimension which is not directly observable
> to human beings.
One possible explanation is that Jesus lives on a
different plane of existence than our own which is not
directly observable to human beings.
> So you see that what you are considering a basic logic
> error is in fact a possible explanation for a problem
> with an explanation of a phenomenon.
>
Uh-huh.
My argument is that they are so *desperate* to prove the
existence of gravitons, of *any* description, that they
are wanting to see gravitons under their beds. Every new
advance will try to demonstrate gravitons as a side-effect.
This is ridiculous.
And what if they discover another dimension, but still
*don't* find their blessed gravitons!
There is a story of a German algebra instructor who went
to Russia before the revolution, to teach a bunch of
students, who all they wanted to do was discuss atheism
and why god did not exist. He became so frustrated that
he finally wrote a quadratic equation on the blackboard
and said, "This equation proves that god exists!"
Then he demanded that they prove the equation wrong.
Their efforts more than made up for lost time in teaching.
And they never did prove that "god doesn't exist" using
the quadratic equation.
Now take the similar attitude that there *is* no graviton,
that gravity is just a function of space/time. All of
a sudden there is no *need* to prove gravitons.
--
"Islam is a religion in which God requires
you to send your son to die for him.
Christianity is a faith in which God sends
his son to die for you."
--Attorney General John Ashcroft
mtu...@world.std.com
mathematical description of themuses the assumption of extra
dimensions in order to work. This is exactly the same as saying that
a snipe has a particular location (verifiable by the effects of its
existence, e.g. a bunch of photons hitting your eye after being
reflected from it), but that you need to know that it's purple
(another "dimension" or measurement) in order to understand it well.
Don't assume that just because some people are brilliant,
highly-trained professionals, that they're basically stupid or are
just playing word-games---that's Con-implanted resentment designed to
make you ignore them when they've got something interesting to say.
Many scientists are extremely slackful....
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
Yeah, shame about the math not working out.
Joe Cosby
over a computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused"
<disc...@templeoferis.org> laughed madly, then wrote:
>On 2/17/02 10:43 AM, in article 3C6FDD...@succeeds.com, "nu-monet v4.0"
><not...@succeeds.com> wrote:
>
>> (Brilliant physicists in need of some basic classes in
>> logic. What they are doing is the following:
>>
>> They want to prove the existence of (an)other dimension(s).
>> How do they know that there is (an)other dimension(s)?
>> Easy. That is where the gravitons are!
>> But we have never found a graviton!
>> Oh, that's because they are in (an)other dimension(s)!
>>
>> I could use the same logic looking for a magical kingdom:
>> I know that there is a magical kingdom, because that is
>> where all the purple snipe live.
>> But you've never seen a purple snipe! Oh, that's because
>> they all live in the magical kingdom!)
>
>If there is some observable effect that purple snipe were alleged to cause,
>your argument would be dead on. However, unless your idea of gravity is way,
>way out there, purple snipe don't cause it.
>
>One explanation for what causes the phenomenon we call "gravity" is a
>carrier particle known as the graviton.
>
"Carrier particles" are a bugaboo.
'What's a graviton?'
'It carries gravity'
'So what's gravity?'
'It's what's carried by gravitons'
Why exactly is science so fixated on 'particles' in the first place?
The phenomena they're observing make the idea of a discrete particle
really problematic and I think we've carried this idea of 'fundamental
bits of reality/matter' over from basically outmoded scientific basic
concepts.
For Newton or Democritus or whoever having some concept of a 'most
basic part of reality' was undoubtedly necessary as a jumping-off
point and a referant and it has proved useful, but the idea of a 'most
fundamental particle' has serious logic problems and I think science
is too fixated on the concept of 'basic SOLID building blocks' to be
able to advance any further.
What shape would the most basic particle be?
Obviously there is no answer, and that would be well-understood
already by anybody searching for 'gravitons'. But why then are we
using the conceptual tool of a 'particle' at all?
>One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon is that gravitons are
>not observable by any known experimental method.
>
>One possible explanation for this problem with this explanation of the
>phenomenon is that gravitons move through a dimension which is not directly
>observable to human beings.
>
>So you see that what you are considering a basic logic error is in fact a
>possible explanation for a problem with an explanation of a phenomenon.
>
>See?
>
>St. Marc
>
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"The revolution will not be televised"
- Gil Scott Heron
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
nu-monet v4.0
>
> Why exactly is science so fixated on 'particles'
Many years ago, I got the answer right from the
dumbshit's mouth. It seems the ANCIENT GREEKS
believed in the concept of "aether", a substance
that permeated everything and through which
objects flew, and which sustained them in flight.
Apparently, some of the more idiotic scientists
of Einstein's youth *still* held onto the "aether"
notion, even after he had "proved" that "aether"
DID NOT AND COULD NOT EXIST. FINITO. NO MORE
QUESTIONS. YOU WILL CEASE BELIEVING IN "AETHER"
HENCEFORTH OR ELSE!!!
Basically, what this meant was that Einstein and
his peers developed a serious complex on the
subject, and got apoplectic if any of their
students suggested anything even *remotely*
similar to "aether." "AETHER" DOES NOT AND CANNOT
EXIST AND YOU FAIL THIS COURSE IF YOU SUGGEST IT
MIGHT.
Therefore, there are ONLY three things permitted
in their universe: particles, waves and nothing.
The trouble is, is that it isn't so black and
white. Particles and waves are basically two
forms of the same thing, now called "energy
packets." And as much as they keep insisting
that there is NOTHING in all of that NOTHINGNESS
that isn't particles or waves, there keeps turning
up a LOT of evidence that there *is* ONE HELL OF A
LOT OF SOMETHING in NOTHING (like 7/8ths of the
universe.)
And then you get the problem that space and time are
basically the same thing, too. But not even different
forms of the same thing: they *are* the same thing.
So, still desperately trying to avoid the "aether"
thing, they look for a "time" particle or wave,
PRETENDING REALLY HARD that if they find a "time"
particle, it won't really be a "space" particle, which
IS NOT PERMITTED.
And then you have the mass/gravity circular thing.
So they look for a "mass" particle and a "gravity"
particle. But IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER that
"mass" and "gravity" are the same thing and/or that
they are a *function* of space time and *not* a
particle or wave.
Actually, I'm sort of glad that physics is only suffering
from an acute neurosis about being spanked by their long
dead old teachers who believed in "aether"; rather than
some seriously fucked up Freudian psycho-sexuality
thing.
If the latter was the case, we would prolly have lots of
cosmological models that looked like penises and vaginas.
And damned if the math wouldn't back them up.
Cardboard Box
<im...@imbjr.com> committed the following:
> I was recently watching the telly and was told that our universe came
> about thru colliding membranes in the 11th dimension. Sounds like a
> B-movie plot.
And WHAT, exactly, were these colliding membranes attached TO, and what
(natural) purpose did those membranes serve? And to what UNnatural purposes
were they put?
And how many were involved? In which positions? Did they use toys?
Sounds like pan-dimensional ET god porn to me!
---
Rev. Cardboard Box, money exorcisms a speciality
Tactical Nuclear Bubblebath (tacnukebubblebath.tripod.com)
Curator of the Unofficial Guide to Elf Life
(tacnukebubblebath.tripod.com/el/)
"Start a revolution - Stop hating your body" (Nully Fydyan)
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "nu-monet v4.0" <not...@succeeds.com> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>some seriously fucked up Freudian psycho-sexuality
>thing.
>
>If the latter was the case, we would prolly have lots of
>cosmological models that looked like penises and vaginas.
>And damned if the math wouldn't back them up.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
False Memories Do Not Exist!
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, fatcon...@come.to (Cardboard Box) laughed madly,
then wrote:
>Some time between the hours of March 10th and Friday, IMBJR
><im...@imbjr.com> committed the following:
>
>> I was recently watching the telly and was told that our universe came
>> about thru colliding membranes in the 11th dimension. Sounds like a
>> B-movie plot.
>
>And WHAT, exactly, were these colliding membranes attached TO, and what
>(natural) purpose did those membranes serve? And to what UNnatural purposes
>were they put?
>
>And how many were involved? In which positions? Did they use toys?
>
>Sounds like pan-dimensional ET god porn to me!
You're way ahead of this.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
If I could be any kind of tree, it would probably be a
turtle.
~AbbessAbyss~
Tesla Coil
>> If the latter was the case, we would prolly have lots of
>> cosmological models that looked like penises and vaginas.
>> And damned if the math wouldn't back them up.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
Less than ideal when your universe has a dose of crab nebula.
Bryan J. Maloney
> (Brilliant physicists in need of some basic classes in
> logic. What they are doing is the following:
>
> They want to prove the existence of (an)other dimension(s).
> How do they know that there is (an)other dimension(s)?
> Easy. That is where the gravitons are!
> But we have never found a graviton!
> Oh, that's because they are in (an)other dimension(s)!
These ARE the same people who claim that time travel is impossible
because that would "violate causality". But all their arguments in
favor of this alleged "causality" biol down to "it would be too icky not
to have it".
--
America is a wonderful country. Where else could a young Black man like
Michael Jackson grow up to be a middle-aged White woman?
Bryan J. Maloney
> idea comes along. So if postulating the idea of other dimensions
> explains a
> lot of shit, even though we didn't logically prove it, we'll stick with
> that
> idea until an idea comes along that explains things even better.
It's an old practice--take all the dangly bits and shove them into the
dangly bit box for somebody else to sort out later.
Bryan J. Maloney
fatcon...@come.to (Cardboard Box) wrote:
> Some time between the hours of March 10th and Friday, IMBJR
> <im...@imbjr.com> committed the following:
>
> > I was recently watching the telly and was told that our universe came
> > about thru colliding membranes in the 11th dimension. Sounds like a
> > B-movie plot.
>
> And WHAT, exactly, were these colliding membranes attached TO, and what
> (natural) purpose did those membranes serve? And to what UNnatural
> purposes
> were they put?
1: Each other
2: Collisions
3: More collisions
Bryan J. Maloney
Perpetually Amused" <disc...@templeoferis.org> wrote:
> One explanation for what causes the phenomenon we call "gravity" is a
> carrier particle known as the graviton.
>
> One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon is that gravitons are
> not observable by any known experimental method.
>
> One possible explanation for this problem with this explanation of the
> phenomenon is that gravitons move through a dimension which is not
> directly
> observable to human beings.
>
> So you see that what you are considering a basic logic error is in fact a
> possible explanation for a problem with an explanation of a phenomenon.
Let me lay it out concretely:
1: Claim that gravity is carried by the graviton particle.
2: We have no evidence for this particle to exist.
3: We will INVENT a "dimension" that cannot be observed in which we
will CLAIM that gravitons do all their existing.
4: Therefore, this is how it is that we can validly and scientifically
claim these gravitons exist and act but we have no evidence of it.
How is it different from the following?
1: What we call "gravity" is the tugging of angels upon matter.
2: We cannot see these angels.
3: We will decide that these angels exist in a spiritual realm beyond
the senses of living mortals.
4: Therefore, this is how it is that we can validly and scientifically
claim these angels exist and act but we have no evidence of it.
Now I will lay out the matter abstractly:
Posit A.
Evidence of A cannot be found.
Posit condition B of A that precludes evidence of A being found.
Use B as supporting evidence of the existence of A despite all lack of
evidence.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Ahem. One explanation for the phenomenon we call
> "Jesus' eternal grace" is his life as a man in the
> world.
...
> One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon
> is that there is no one alive who actually saw Jesus.
...
> One possible explanation is that Jesus lives on a
> different plane of existence than our own which is not
> directly observable to human beings.
Ah, but there is a VERY IMPORTANT (TM) difference! Gravitons are the
dogma of the Priests of the True God Physics, so they MUST be real.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>In article <3FTb8.1851$Or3.3...@typhoon.mn.ipsvc.net>, "Sir Dr. Rev.
>Siegfried The Red" <spammersdi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> idea comes along. So if postulating the idea of other dimensions
>> explains a
>> lot of shit, even though we didn't logically prove it, we'll stick with
>> that
>> idea until an idea comes along that explains things even better.
>
>It's an old practice--take all the dangly bits and shove them into the
>dangly bit box for somebody else to sort out later.
>
"I am QUOAD, warrior-lord of the dangly bit dimension."
>--
>America is a wonderful country. Where else could a young Black man like
>Michael Jackson grow up to be a middle-aged White woman?
>
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
The Ends Justify the Means: Philosophical Concepts That Make
Hot Coffeehouse Chicks Want to Jump You
- Philosophy for Dummies, chapter 4
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>In article <3C6FDD...@succeeds.com>, like....@sex.org wrote:
>
>> (Brilliant physicists in need of some basic classes in
>> logic. What they are doing is the following:
>>
>> They want to prove the existence of (an)other dimension(s).
>> How do they know that there is (an)other dimension(s)?
>> Easy. That is where the gravitons are!
>> But we have never found a graviton!
>> Oh, that's because they are in (an)other dimension(s)!
>
>These ARE the same people who claim that time travel is impossible
>because that would "violate causality". But all their arguments in
>favor of this alleged "causality" biol down to "it would be too icky not
>to have it".
Causality is another thing scientificks can't let go of.
We still haven't solved the vast majority of differential equations.
We know that the majority of events in the real world are bound
inextricably with unresolvable chaotic indeterminacy. And we have
known for nearly a hundred years that causality is -not- woven into
the most fundamental aspects of the universe.
But still we KNOW that the universe is strictly causal.
Where is this beautiful simplifying causality that we can't observe?
still I don't mean to give them a hard time. I admire their quaint
religion and their dogged faith in it.
I guess it gives them a sense of hope. I wouldn't want to take that
away from them.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"A Dangerous Toy. This toy is being made for the extreme priority
the good looks. The little part when the sharp part which gets hurt
is swallowed is contained generously.
Only the person who can take responsibility by itself is to play."
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
>
> What shape would the most basic particle be?
From what I've been told, a tetrahedron.
>
> Obviously there is no answer, and that would be well-understood
> already by anybody searching for 'gravitons'. But why then are we
> using the conceptual tool of a 'particle' at all?
Probably because it fits better than the others, so far.
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
>
> Causality is another thing scientificks can't let go of.
>
> We still haven't solved the vast majority of differential equations.
> We know that the majority of events in the real world are bound
> inextricably with unresolvable chaotic indeterminacy. And we have
> known for nearly a hundred years that causality is -not- woven into
> the most fundamental aspects of the universe.
Like what? That's a new one on me.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>Joe Cosby wrote:
>
>>
>> What shape would the most basic particle be?
>
> From what I've been told, a tetrahedron.
So it has corners?
>
>>
>> Obviously there is no answer, and that would be well-understood
>> already by anybody searching for 'gravitons'. But why then are we
>> using the conceptual tool of a 'particle' at all?
>
> Probably because it fits better than the others, so far.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Show me that your footglands are bigger, metaphysically speaking, than my
WHOLE BODY.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
Like what what? What are you asking?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
The whole point of having a religion is to be able to do things on
longer time scales than a single human lifetime or a few generations.
- Josh Geller
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
>
> "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> hunched over a computer, typing
> feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> laughed madly,
> then wrote:
>
> >Joe Cosby wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Causality is another thing scientificks can't let go of.
> >>
> >> We still haven't solved the vast majority of differential equations.
> >> We know that the majority of events in the real world are bound
> >> inextricably with unresolvable chaotic indeterminacy. And we have
> >> known for nearly a hundred years that causality is -not- woven into
> >> the most fundamental aspects of the universe.
> >
> > Like what? That's a new one on me.
>
> Like what what? What are you asking?
What fundamental aspects of the universe don't defer to causality?
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
news:bjm10-6A281F....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <3c700d14$0$35568$272e...@news.execpc.com>, "St. Marc the
> Perpetually Amused" <disc...@templeoferis.org> wrote:
>
> > One explanation for what causes the phenomenon we call "gravity" is a
> > carrier particle known as the graviton.
> >
> > One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon is that gravitons
are
> > not observable by any known experimental method.
> >
> > One possible explanation for this problem with this explanation of the
> > phenomenon is that gravitons move through a dimension which is not
> > directly
> > observable to human beings.
> >
> > So you see that what you are considering a basic logic error is in fact
a
> > possible explanation for a problem with an explanation of a phenomenon.
>
> Let me lay it out concretely:
>
> 1: Claim that gravity is carried by the graviton particle.
> 2: We have no evidence for this particle to exist.
> 3: We will INVENT a "dimension" that cannot be observed in which we
> will CLAIM that gravitons do all their existing.
> 4: Therefore, this is how it is that we can validly and scientifically
> claim these gravitons exist and act but we have no evidence of it.
The difference being that if you show a physicist data which his theory will
not fit, he will change his theory, whereas if you show a religious person
data which the theory of the existence of angels will not fit, he will
challenge the data. (It's also logically impossible to reconcile the notion
of a benevolent God with the existence of angels, but it's not impossible to
reconcile the observable universe with the existence of unobservable
dimensions.)
> How is it different from the following?
>
> 1: What we call "gravity" is the tugging of angels upon matter.
> 2: We cannot see these angels.
> 3: We will decide that these angels exist in a spiritual realm beyond
> the senses of living mortals.
> 4: Therefore, this is how it is that we can validly and scientifically
> claim these angels exist and act but we have no evidence of it.
If by "angel" you mean "entity which is responsible for the phenomenon known
as gravity," and if by "spiritual realm" you mean "location which is not
directly observable by human beings," there is no difference. However,
that's not what "angel" usually means and it's a rather torturous definition
of what "spiritual realm" usually means. Your analogy is maladequate.
If that was *all angels did,* then you could substitute the word "angel" for
"graviton." However, since angels are usually believed to be sentient, you
would be unnecessarily complicating things. There is no need for sentience
in an entity which always behaves exactly the same. Occam's Razor slices the
brains neatly off angels. And that's not even considering that while
gravitons only do one thing (carry gravity) if you implied that angels were
responsible for gravity, they might also do other things. Again,
unnecessarily complicated.
> Now I will lay out the matter abstractly:
>
> Posit A.
> Evidence of A cannot be found.
> Posit condition B of A that precludes evidence of A being found.
> Use B as supporting evidence of the existence of A despite all lack of
> evidence.
That is not what is happening here. Your last step is not applicable.
St. Marc
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
> In article <3C7017...@succeeds.com>, like....@sex.org wrote:
>
> > Ahem. One explanation for the phenomenon we call
> > "Jesus' eternal grace" is his life as a man in the
> > world.
>
> ...
>
> > One problem with this explanation of the phenomenon
> > is that there is no one alive who actually saw Jesus.
>
> ...
>
> > One possible explanation is that Jesus lives on a
> > different plane of existence than our own which is not
> > directly observable to human beings.
>
>
> Ah, but there is a VERY IMPORTANT (TM) difference! Gravitons are the
> dogma of the Priests of the True God Physics, so they MUST be real.
Again, they are simply believed by some scientists to be the best possible
explantion for an observable phenomenon. If a better explanation is found,
the theory will be modified or discarded. It doesn't happen overnight, but
it does happen. That is the difference.
St. Marc
John Starrett
A good article on M theory, supergravity and gravitons (and
physicists talking amongst themselves):
http://obswww.unige.ch/~lbartho/TWF/week158.html.
JS
"."
yard man
what the fuck is this?
you guys what to pretend to be smart, go somewhere else.
never gonna get any cooter with this stuff, anyway. No matter where
you go.
Joe Cosby
An electron is in a high energy orbit. It is unstable, and at some
point will pass to a low-energy orbit, and the energy difference will
create a photon.
What is the cause of the electron's transition from high-energy to
low-energy? What is the cause of the appearance of the photon?
What is the cause of the appearance of any of the atoms in the
universe? What is the cause of the spontaneous disappearance of any
of them?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
aibohphobia, n., The fear of palindromes.
Arbane the Terrible
> Ah, but there is a VERY IMPORTANT (TM) difference! Gravitons are the
> dogma of the Priests of the True God Physics, so they MUST be real.
Nice troll.
You sound like a Creationist, arguing that BLIND FAITH is ALL that sustains
the Obviously FALSE Dogma of that Rival Faith known inaccurately as
'science'.
Last time I checked, no scientist was arguing that the existence of
gravitons should let them control my thoughts, bank account, diet, or sex
life, so I am inclined to give them a great deal more Slack than the
(other?) religious nuts. Afterall, Science! has given us stereos, smallpox
vaccines, cars, and computers, whereas all the (other) religions have given
us is a lot of DEAD True Believers.
Or kill me.
--
"Remember, the plural of 'moron' is 'focus group'."
-- James A. Wolf
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c717328....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> hunched over a computer, typing
> feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> laughed madly,
> then wrote:
>
> >Joe Cosby wrote:
> >>
> >> "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> hunched over a computer, typing
> >> feverishly;
> >> thunder crashed, "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> laughed madly,
> >> then wrote:
> >>
> >> >Joe Cosby wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Causality is another thing scientificks can't let go of.
> >> >>
> >> >> We still haven't solved the vast majority of differential equations.
> >> >> We know that the majority of events in the real world are bound
> >> >> inextricably with unresolvable chaotic indeterminacy. And we have
> >> >> known for nearly a hundred years that causality is -not- woven into
> >> >> the most fundamental aspects of the universe.
> >> >
> >> > Like what? That's a new one on me.
> >>
> >> Like what what? What are you asking?
> >
> > What fundamental aspects of the universe don't defer to causality?
>
> An electron is in a high energy orbit. It is unstable, and at some
> point will pass to a low-energy orbit, and the energy difference will
> create a photon.
>
> What is the cause of the electron's transition from high-energy to
> low-energy?
The collapse of its probability function. Its orbit has a much higher
probability of getting closer to the nucleus than it currently is.
Eventually, it goes there, and because its energy is now lower, it has a
very low probability of going back to where it was or to some other orbital
state. It *can* do it, though. Individual particles quantum-jump all over
the damn place. It's just that statistically speaking, individual particles
are not important. One of my electrons may quantum-jump to the Lesser
Magellanic at any given time, but a whole lot of them are going to have to
do it at once to cause me any discomfort.
I once saw a goldfish quantum-jump out of a sealed container. No shit. I
mean, I wasn't actually *looking* at it during the time-infinitesimal that
it performed the jump in, so I guess it *could* have been Xists playing
tricks on me or some sort of elaborate hoax, but one minute it was in the
container, the next it was gasping on the floor. Container was sealed - I
checked. Damndest thing I'd ever seen until I got to X-Day.
> What is the cause of the appearance of the photon?
Now *that* is a good question. A beautiful question. I'm not sure it can be
explained in words. It can be explained in math, but causality doesn't work
the same way in math that it does in English. The best way I know how to
answer it is that the potential energy the electron had in its higher orbit
has to go somewhere. It goes into the photon. Richard Feynman's father once
asked him a similar question which he compared to saying that an atom has no
"photon bag." The photon literally appears out of nowhere. If it elevates
another electron in some other atom to a higher energy state, it disappears
*into* nowhere. If it then comes back out, it is not the "same" photon, but
it is indistinguishable. The question of "sameness" becomes a highly
relevant issue at that point.
A viable theory can be constructed around the postulate that there is really
only one photon, and since time does not pass for a particle moving at the
speed of light, it simply is everywhere at once.
> What is the cause of the appearance of any of the atoms in the
> universe?
The collapse of probability functions. Once you have a Prime Cause, the rest
is just probability. The problem is that damn prime cause.
>What is the cause of the spontaneous disappearance of any
> of them?
Back taxes.
Incidentally, have you read Scott Adams' book "God's Debris?" A bit
schlocky, but entertaining. It's worth the five bucks, IMO.
St. Marc
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
And thus, lack of information = lack of existence, eh?
When you say you know something is not something else, you should be
able to show why not, yes?
Bryan J. Maloney
Honk.blrp...@excuseMe.com (yard man) wrote:
I did at *my* college--but that was before the damned _US News_ article
that called it an "academic best buy" or whatever.
Bryan J. Maloney
The point is not what SCIENTISTS believe. The joke is what the general
public believes. The general pinklic will swallow anything so long as
it has the cachet of "science" about it. Even self-styled "skeptical
atheists" are fully credulous when confronted with the Priesthood of
Science.
Bryan J. Maloney
arb...@attbi.com wrote:
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> > Ah, but there is a VERY IMPORTANT (TM) difference! Gravitons are the
> > dogma of the Priests of the True God Physics, so they MUST be real.
>
> Nice troll.
>
> You sound like a Creationist, arguing that BLIND FAITH is ALL that
> sustains
> the Obviously FALSE Dogma of that Rival Faith known inaccurately as
> 'science'.
No, you sound like a dipshit who can't figure out that I'm making fun of
the way that some models are accepted with a little too little
incredulity.
> vaccines, cars, and computers, whereas all the (other) religions have
> given
> us is a lot of DEAD True Believers.
There are a lot of dead scientists, too. Indeed, it looks like there
are a lot of dead people who believed just about anything. I guess that
mere faith has nothing to do with whether or not somebody is dead.
Lemme guess, now you're going to start whinie whinie whinie about how
"religion" is bad. I don't give a flying fuck at the moon about the
matter. I just find boojum thinking to be especially silly when
resorted to as part of a scientific model of the universe.
Bryan J. Maloney
> in an entity which always behaves exactly the same. Occam's Razor slices
> the
> brains neatly off angels. And that's not even considering that while
Occam's razor slices nothing--it's just an apparently useful rule of
thumb. I've generally found that people who invoke "Occam's razor" a
lot don't do any actual benchwork, themselves. I develop vaccines for a
living. What science do you do for a living?
> gravitons only do one thing (carry gravity) if you implied that angels
> were
> responsible for gravity, they might also do other things. Again,
> unnecessarily complicated.
>
> > Now I will lay out the matter abstractly:
> >
> > Posit A.
> > Evidence of A cannot be found.
> > Posit condition B of A that precludes evidence of A being found.
> > Use B as supporting evidence of the existence of A despite all lack of
> > evidence.
>
> That is not what is happening here. Your last step is not applicable.
Oh, REALLY? Okay, so show me the actual OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for
these "gravitons". Show me the actual OBSERVATIONS MADE of this alleged
"dimension". We both know that it's nothing more than an accounting
trick used to make the figures add up. Generally, the more one relies
upon accounting tricks, the less valid conclusions based on a model are.
Bryan J. Maloney
joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote:
> An electron is in a high energy orbit. It is unstable, and at some
> point will pass to a low-energy orbit, and the energy difference will
> create a photon.
>
> What is the cause of the electron's transition from high-energy to
> low-energy? What is the cause of the appearance of the photon?
Lack of Slack.
> What is the cause of the appearance of any of the atoms in the
> universe? What is the cause of the spontaneous disappearance of any
> of them?
Slack and its Lack.
Joe Cosby
No, that's not what I'm saying and not what quantum physics says.
> When you say you know something is not something else, you should be
>able to show why not, yes?
Come again?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
I'm PRO-ACCORDIAN and I VOTE
Joe Cosby
over a computer, typing feverishly;
All of the above; sure, but it remains an irreducibly probabilistic
function.
We can -explain- it and indeed apply it with razor sharp precision,
but it is acausal. Acuasal. Whichever.
The original paradigm of causality is inapplicable, that's all I'm
saying. I think when we search for God Particles or Gravitons we are
at least influenced by a mindset of causality.
>>What is the cause of the spontaneous disappearance of any
>> of them?
>
>Back taxes.
>
heh
>Incidentally, have you read Scott Adams' book "God's Debris?" A bit
>schlocky, but entertaining. It's worth the five bucks, IMO.
>
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
thirty eight ... thirty nine ... fourty
- Two times
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
>
> There are a lot of dead scientists, too. Indeed, it looks like there
> are a lot of dead people who believed just about anything. I guess that
> mere faith has nothing to do with whether or not somebody is dead.
Last I checked, Cornell was in the US, right? =)
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
exactly ... I agree that science isn't as dogmatic as religion, but
what it comes down to is the willingness of the scientific hierarchy
to accept radically different notions.
IMO science still hasn't really assimilated quantum physics.
There's an adage I've read here and there that new scientific theories
will never be accepted completely until the existing generation of
scientists die off; die off literally. It really has been the case
historically.
Sure in theory a new scientific theory is accepted based purely on
evidence and logic, but in practice that's much less true than what
the theory implies. Look at Rupert Sheldrake or Wilhelm Reich. I
wouldn't stand here and argue that they were necessarily right, or
that they were wrong, regardless of whether they were right or wrong I
don't think anybody can read about them or anybody like them (i.e. on
the fringe) and fail to acknowledge that there was a tremendous
hostility towards them from the start because the -nature- of their
theories didn't harmonize nicely with the general gestalt of physics.
The mindset, the general idea.
As you say though I think this is much more true of the general
public's somewhat fuzzy attitude about what 'scientific' means or what
'scientific truth' means, than it does what science is actually
practiced.
People who I've known, and read, who really were out there doing
theoretical physics have often seemed to me to be more genuinely
open-minded and willing to go wherever the search for reality took
them than people might suspect.
But then there's sort of a lower stratum of 'scientist'; the
high-school science teachers, popular 'scientist' figures on TV and in
movies, the legions of jokers with a PHD and a strongly held personal
opinion, who form the practical priesthood of science. To many of
these people, the gestalt, the general idea of solid unimaginative
conservative strict causality is as strongly held as a religious
belief, and they will fight any heresy which offends them with
tremendous vigor and hostility.
So at one level we have assimilated the revolution of quantum physics
and at another we haven't.
At the level of our common, social understanding of reality we are
still a hundred years behind the times.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
I was told by a Professor of Education in class once that school
administrators cared about only two things: Image and Damage control.
Any attempts to get their attention have to be translated into those
terms.
Satyr
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>In article <4udc8.8549$tu6.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>"St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disc...@templeoferis.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> in an entity which always behaves exactly the same. Occam's Razor slices
>> the
>> brains neatly off angels. And that's not even considering that while
>
>Occam's razor slices nothing--it's just an apparently useful rule of
>thumb. I've generally found that people who invoke "Occam's razor" a
>lot don't do any actual benchwork, themselves. I develop vaccines for a
>living. What science do you do for a living?
Very true ... infighting aside, I'll let you kitties work that out
between you ... Occam's razor in no way, shape or form provides any
utility in separating a true idea from a false one, and never did.
As a practical tool which helped our technology advance, it's been
very useful, but it isn't a theorem or a fact. It's just a rule of
thumb.
Really it's original purpose was to refute platonism and neo-platonism
and it's kind of long past it's 'Use By' date ...
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
She looks like she knows the Dewey decimal system and isn't afraid to use it
- The Definite Maybe
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
>In article <3c717328....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
>joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote:
>
>> An electron is in a high energy orbit. It is unstable, and at some
>> point will pass to a low-energy orbit, and the energy difference will
>> create a photon.
>>
>> What is the cause of the electron's transition from high-energy to
>> low-energy? What is the cause of the appearance of the photon?
>
>Lack of Slack.
>
>> What is the cause of the appearance of any of the atoms in the
>> universe? What is the cause of the spontaneous disappearance of any
>> of them?
>
>Slack and its Lack.
That's where bobbyons come in.
Whatever else happens, we know that conservation and symmetry must
hold, so the dissappearance of a particle due to slacklessness must
necessarily give rise to a Bobbyon, even if it can't be observed.
And they can't. I've got them all in a jar in my kitchen.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
if i look good crying, does that mean i'm cryogenic?
- subgenius spice
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
>
> > > Now I will lay out the matter abstractly:
> > >
> > > Posit A.
> > > Evidence of A cannot be found.
> > > Posit condition B of A that precludes evidence of A being found.
> > > Use B as supporting evidence of the existence of A despite all lack of
> > > evidence.
> >
> > That is not what is happening here. Your last step is not applicable.
>
> Oh, REALLY? Okay, so show me the actual OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for
> these "gravitons". Show me the actual OBSERVATIONS MADE of this alleged
> "dimension".
Why? You said B was used as supporting evidence, not as one possible
explanation of its absence.
If there are scientists dumb enough to do so, I haven't heard from
them yet, except maybe on creationist sites.
If you're actually confused about the difference between theory and
evidence, I think I might want to know which company you're developing
vaccines for - so I can avoid them.
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> In article <4udc8.8549$tu6.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disc...@templeoferis.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> in an entity which always behaves exactly the same. Occam's Razor slices
>>> the
>>> brains neatly off angels. And that's not even considering that while
>>
>> Occam's razor slices nothing--it's just an apparently useful rule of
>> thumb. I've generally found that people who invoke "Occam's razor" a
>> lot don't do any actual benchwork, themselves. I develop vaccines for a
>> living. What science do you do for a living?
>
> Very true ... infighting aside, I'll let you kitties work that out
> between you ... Occam's razor in no way, shape or form provides any
> utility in separating a true idea from a false one, and never did.
Actually, while it was not usually cited by name, the principle behind it
has been used in the development of modern physics quite extensively. A
theory should be as complicated as it needs to be, and no more complicated
than it needs to be. *Nature* is not required to follow it, you're
absolutely right, and nature frequently *does* make things more complicated
than they need to be. But that doesn't mean we need to learn the same bad
habit. *grin*
> As a practical tool which helped our technology advance, it's been
> very useful, but it isn't a theorem or a fact. It's just a rule of
> thumb.
>
> Really it's original purpose was to refute platonism and neo-platonism
> and it's kind of long past it's 'Use By' date ...
Never monkey with a system that works, unless of course it would Amuse you
to do so.
St. Marc
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> hunched over a computer, typing
> feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> laughed madly,
> then wrote:
>> The point is not what SCIENTISTS believe. The joke is what the general
>> public believes. The general pinklic will swallow anything so long as
>> it has the cachet of "science" about it. Even self-styled "skeptical
>> atheists" are fully credulous when confronted with the Priesthood of
>> Science.
> exactly ... I agree that science isn't as dogmatic as religion, but
> what it comes down to is the willingness of the scientific hierarchy
> to accept radically different notions.
>
> IMO science still hasn't really assimilated quantum physics.
Science, as a field, has not. Humanity, as a species, has not really
accepted Copernicus and Galileo. However, I wasn't talking about whether
biologists are justified in disregarding quantum effects in the theory of
photosynthesis or the implications of Hubbert's Law for the regulation of
the sale of sport utility vehicles. The original argument was about whether
it was logical to believe in particles which exist only in a dimension you
can't observe. My point was that there's nothing inherently illogical about
it.
It then became this massive diatribe against the priests of Science. Well, I
don't particularly feel like laying my firstborn on the altar of Science,
either. If I thought orgone therapy might help her, I'd find an orgone
shooter, and to hell with the FDA. That Science, as it exists in our
society, has many similarities to dogmatic religion does not mean that
gravitons can't exist in a higher dimension, any more than the fact that the
Catholic Church frequently covers up for pedophile priests means that the
Catholic God is not infinitely benevolent. The two have nothing to *do* with
each other.
> There's an adage I've read here and there that new scientific theories
> will never be accepted completely until the existing generation of
> scientists die off; die off literally. It really has been the case
> historically.
It's much less true today than it used to was, but it still has a certain
applicability.
<snip>
> So at one level we have assimilated the revolution of quantum physics
> and at another we haven't.
>
> At the level of our common, social understanding of reality we are
> still a hundred years behind the times.
I think that you give them too much credit, actually.
St. Marc
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> What is the cause of the appearance of any of the atoms in the
>>> universe?
>>
>> The collapse of probability functions. Once you have a Prime Cause, the rest
>> is just probability. The problem is that damn prime cause.
>>
>
> All of the above; sure, but it remains an irreducibly probabilistic
> function.
>
> We can -explain- it and indeed apply it with razor sharp precision,
> but it is acausal. Acuasal. Whichever.
>
> The original paradigm of causality is inapplicable, that's all I'm
> saying. I think when we search for God Particles or Gravitons we are
> at least influenced by a mindset of causality.
Sure, in that we are looking for gravitons because we want to know what
"causes" gravity. I would argue that we get into dogmatic problems when we
try to figure out what causes gravitons. Or we can go back to the "particles
are collapsed probabilities" argument and argue about what causes
probability collapse. (The Hand of Eris, in case you were wondering.) But I
am quite willing to admit that all I'm doing is moving the argument up a few
levels, not really changing it.
Stephen Hawking notwithstanding, "fingo non hypotheses" is still the most
rational thing any cosmologist ever said. That's not our department. (Not
that I, personally, am more than an armchair cosmologist.) You want the
cosmetology department for that. You know... they argue about the makeup of
the universe.
St. Marc
*ducking and running*
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
bjm10-6A6BE6....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu, "Bryan J. Maloney"
<bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> In article <4udc8.8549$tu6.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disc...@templeoferis.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> in an entity which always behaves exactly the same. Occam's Razor slices
>> the
>> brains neatly off angels. And that's not even considering that while
>
> Occam's razor slices nothing--it's just an apparently useful rule of
> thumb. I've generally found that people who invoke "Occam's razor" a
> lot don't do any actual benchwork, themselves. I develop vaccines for a
> living. What science do you do for a living?
I don't do science for a living, although part of what I do for a living is
act as a consultant to industrial designers and an electrical engineer about
applied physics problems. I'm a patent lawyer by trade with degrees in
physics and mathematics.
"Developing vaccines for a living" could imply a Ph. D in virology or
equivalent, or it could mean you were an MD doing active research, or it
could mean you go around and collect timebooks from people who do the above.
None of these imply any particular education about cosmology or high-energy
physics. Sorry, not impressed. My own education in the matter is not
impressive, I readily admit, but I do have some. Are we done comparing
sexual organs now?
>> gravitons only do one thing (carry gravity) if you implied that angels
>> were
>> responsible for gravity, they might also do other things. Again,
>> unnecessarily complicated.
>>
>>> Now I will lay out the matter abstractly:
>>>
>>> Posit A.
>>> Evidence of A cannot be found.
>>> Posit condition B of A that precludes evidence of A being found.
>>> Use B as supporting evidence of the existence of A despite all lack of
>>> evidence.
>>
>> That is not what is happening here. Your last step is not applicable.
>
> Oh, REALLY? Okay, so show me the actual OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for
> these "gravitons". Show me the actual OBSERVATIONS MADE of this alleged
> "dimension".
I am not saying I *believe* in gravitons. (Although tachyons are real,
neener neener neener, I can't HEAR YOU!) I am saying that a theory which
incorporates particles which do not exist in the observable universe, but
rather in a higher dimension, is not *inherently* illogical. It may agree
with the "real" universe, or it may not. (Great quote from this month's
American Scientist: "Will physics always remain neurophysics, or will we
someday get a look at what is casting the shadows on the cave wall?)" It may
predict the behavior of the universe better than theories which do not
contain such particles, or it may not. But it is not a Miracle of Faith
argument.
And, more particularly, the fact that in the theory under discussion,
gravitons exist in an unobservable dimension is not being used *as proof
that they exist.* At worst, it's being used to explain why they *can't* be
proven to exist. This is a huge difference, logicwise.
> We both know that it's nothing more than an accounting
> trick used to make the figures add up. Generally, the more one relies
> upon accounting tricks, the less valid conclusions based on a model are.
That reminds me of a funny story. Paul Dirac pointed out that one of the
fundamental equations describing the electron had a square root in it.
Theoretically, that means that an electron could have a positive charge, or
a negative one. "A mathematical fluke," said those who Observed Particles
for a living, as opposed to some misty-eyed scribbler. "Stop playing
arithmetic games and go look at some electrons! They have a negative charge,
dolt!"
The conclusion is left as an exercise for the student.
As complicated as it *needs* to be. Not less. Not more. Not less is just as
important as not more.
St. Marc
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
bjm10-DDB96C....@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu, "Bryan J. Maloney"
<bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
How did the general public get into this? If we are going to despair at the
stupidity of the herd, I'll bring the popcorn. No argument *there.* But
that's not what I was discussing. The question at hand was whether arguing
that gravitons exist in an unobservable dimension represents unacceptable
logical bootstrapping that they exist at all. I say no. Now, do you like
butter on your popcorn?
St. Marc
Joe Cosby
over a computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused"
<disc...@templeoferis.org> laughed madly, then wrote:
yeah that's the thing, there are fundamental questions about reality
involved but there really isn't a department for them anymore. The
philosophy department just sit there whacking off to Foucault but they
are avoiding questions of fundamental reality as steadily as the
physics department.
What was it I read recently?
Foucault continued insisting that AIDS was an illusion created by the
social power complex attitude towards the poor and marginalized and
had no fundamental reality right up to the point he died of AIDS.
Hoo hah. Progress marches on. Welcome to the 21st century.
>St. Marc
>
>*ducking and running*
>
smack
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
The secret to flying is actually quite simple. Just throw yourself at the ground as
hard as you can, and miss.
- Douglas Adams
Joe Cosby
over a computer, typing feverishly;
In the social and political climate of today it would not surprise me
much to see Christians bring back witch burning.
Which to some of us is a more intimate proposition than to others ...
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Actual dialogue between Ronald Reagan and
Nancy Reagan (nee Davis), in the movie,
"Hellcats of the Navy":
(standing in front of a stack of naval mines)
Nancy: What are you going to do after the war?
Ronald: I told you a hundred times.
Nancy: I want to hear it once more.
Ronald: I'm going into the surplus business.
I'm gonna buy up all the old mines
and sell them to the man in the moon.
Nancy: But there's no water on the moon!
Ronald: How do you know so much about the moon?
Nancy: I know a lot about it. I spend all my
time looking at it when you're away.
That's how it still is with me.
Ronald: It's time for me to go now.
John Starrett
<snip>
> >A good article on M theory, supergravity and gravitons (and
> >physicists talking amongst themselves):
> >http://obswww.unige.ch/~lbartho/TWF/week158.html.
> >
> >JS
> >"."
> what the fuck is this?
>
> you guys what to pretend to be smart, go somewhere else.
>
> never gonna get any cooter with this stuff, anyway. No matter where
> you go.
Nerd chicks are HOT. And if you think a careful proof of the
Hairy Ball Theorem doesn't get them revved, you better stay
of campus during Physics Phest.
JS""
Mrs Babymash
>Occam's razor slices nothing--it's just an apparently useful rule of
>thumb.
And of course, "rule of thumb" was an old English gentleman's thing
which said he shouldn't hit his wife with anything thicker than his
thumb...
==============================================
Mrs Båbymåsh [668 - Neighbøur øf The Beåst]
"God, grant me SERENITY to deal with problems I can't change,
COURAGE to face the challenges of all other problems and
WISDOM to hide the bodies of those who fuck with me."
http://mrs-babymash.dampgirl.com
==============================================
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> At the level of our common, social understanding of reality we are
>>> still a hundred years behind the times.
>>
>> I think that you give them too much credit, actually.
>>
>> St. Marc
>>
>
> In the social and political climate of today it would not surprise me
> much to see Christians bring back witch burning.
>
> Which to some of us is a more intimate proposition than to others ...
Yes, well, if they come for her, they'll have to go through me. And I don't
move easy.
St. Marc
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Stephen Hawking notwithstanding, "fingo non hypotheses" is still the most
>> rational thing any cosmologist ever said. That's not our department. (Not
>> that I, personally, am more than an armchair cosmologist.) You want the
>> cosmetology department for that. You know... they argue about the makeup of
>> the universe.
>>
>
> yeah that's the thing, there are fundamental questions about reality
> involved but there really isn't a department for them anymore. The
> philosophy department just sit there whacking off to Foucault but they
> are avoiding questions of fundamental reality as steadily as the
> physics department.
Like I said, not our department. We describe it, we don't 'splain it. Not
without more drinks in us than are allowed during working hours. As for the
philosophy department, while I had a few wonderful philosophy professors, in
that they were amusing and gave high marks for very little effort, I was
never too impressed with "organized" (ha!) philosophy.
> What was it I read recently?
>
> Foucault continued insisting that AIDS was an illusion created by the
> social power complex attitude towards the poor and marginalized and
> had no fundamental reality right up to the point he died of AIDS.
>
> Hoo hah. Progress marches on. Welcome to the 21st century.
This is akin to insisting that as you comprise mostly empty space, and a
bullet comprises mostly empty space, even if one is fired right at you the
odds of any part of you actually interacting with any part of the bullet are
so ridiculously low that there's no way it can possibly hurt you.
The hell of it is, and I mean the really, truly, awfully shitty part of it
is, I honestly believe that if you believed it hard enough, it would WORK.
The thing is, you've got to believe it hard enough to cancel out everybody
else's *not* believing it. Tall order. Paging Prince Siddartha...
>> St. Marc
>>
>> *ducking and running*
>>
>
> smack
I deserved it, yes I did. That was a bad one even more me.
St. Marc
Arbane the Terrible
> Oh, REALLY? Okay, so show me the actual OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for
> these "gravitons". Show me the actual OBSERVATIONS MADE of this alleged
> "dimension". We both know that it's nothing more than an accounting
> trick used to make the figures add up. Generally, the more one relies
> upon accounting tricks, the less valid conclusions based on a model are.
Sigh.
First, you have to 'prove' you're not a brain in a jar, being fed false
sensory data by sadistic alien researchers.
--
"Remember, the plural of 'moron' is 'focus group'."
-- James A. Wolf
Artemia Salina
> I once saw a goldfish quantum-jump out of a sealed container.
This is why Einstein's Riddle is so hard to solve, I'll bet.
--
Artemia Salina -- http://www.drpez.com/drali1.htm
Negative Ovulite Proverbially Blubs Stratotic Knowa bleness!!! Just ask Kevan!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
HellPope Huey
says...
>And of course, "rule of thumb" was an old English gentleman's thing
>which said he shouldn't hit his wife with anything thicker than his
>thumb...
Yet many of THEM enjoyed being caned themselves. Great, a nation of abusive men
and beaten women, all with terrible teeth and they can't sit down without
wincing. No wonder they went downhill as a great nation: their asses are pulped.
HellPope Huey, hellpo...@subgenius.com
Makes me feel like I done dropped trou
for a hillbilly Balrog
"MOVE it, ya ugly Normals!"
- "Futurama"
"Nazis...mein Gott."
- "Von Ryan's Express"
Buckskin Harry had just killed the six desperados,
so he savagely beat the sagebrush
back to the Los Pendecos bar,
for a whiskey, and Lola,
who would hold him down with her massive bulk
and chew off his painful corns.
- St. Nu-Mone
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
You can ask me all kinds of questions I can't answer, for as long as
you want to, but thus far I'm still not seeing anything really backing
this up. In my opinion, the jury's still out.
Joe Cosby
> "And we have
> >> >> >> known for nearly a hundred years that causality is -not- woven into
> >> >> >> the most fundamental aspects of the universe."
>
> You can ask me all kinds of questions I can't answer, for as long as
> you want to, but thus far I'm still not seeing anything really backing
> this up. In my opinion, the jury's still out.
The jury is out on -what-?
Causality is not fundamental. This is demonstrated by (for instance)
the indeterminacy in a spontaneous photon emmision. This has nothing
to do with lack of information, as has been explored thoroughly by
people studying the problem.
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Are you saying that the fact that we can't predict, say, the emission of a
photon by an excited electron, or the decay of a radioactive nucleus, that
there is therefore no cause for the emission of a photon or the decay of a
radioactive nucleus? That because we can't say why it happens when it
happens, therefore there is no why, it just happens? Just trying to get your
position straight before I respond.
St. marc
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
OK, I'll bow to your greater prowess - but, riddle me this, Batman -
suppose I claim that the 'spontaneous' photon emission was caused by
whatever kicked the electron up a notch in the first place, and that
it's emission was merely delayed by an indeterminate amount? The energy
had to come from somewhere, right? =P
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> laughed madly,
then wrote:
But just look how -difficult- the concept is to you.
I mean not to whip you about it or anything, but really, apply the
same critical thought to yourself as you would to a creationist or a
scientologist or whatever.
It's really HARD for you to deal with indeterminacy.
I mean really think about that.
Meditate upon it little grasshopper.
Just because the illusions of many are clear to you don't think you
don't have a few of your own lurking ...
And you know, it's all good, somebody literally without any illusions
would be unable to funcion practically. Without our illusions our
minds would just be white noise and right-brain randomness.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
I find that I get a meaningful response when I refer to christians as
"lion food".
Joe Cosby
over a computer, typing feverishly;
<disc...@templeoferis.org> laughed madly, then wrote:
A cause in the sense of a necessary pre-existing condition, sure.
But the relation between the pre-existing condition and the event is
purely probabilistic.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Hi, we can't come to the phone right now - me an' the kids are out
back playing kitty piñata!!
(Meeeeowrrll! Rowlll!! Fss fs fsss!)
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
No, see, what I'm asking you is, are you denying the fundamentality of the
causality of the event itself - which would be silly and so I don't think
it's what you mean, but if it is, I can work with it - or the fundementality
of the causality of the timing of the event? And, if the latter, are you
saying that because we can't determine the cause, we can't argue that there
is one, or that the fact that we can't determine the cause *means* that
there isn't one?
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
St. Marc
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
Hey, no sweat - all you've done is make me restate my question
(actually your own quote) over and over and impugn me for my
undereducated opinion being different from your undereducated opinion -
you've got nothing.
All I really have to do is claim the Big Bang had a cause - I should
think the whole argument would collapse like a house of cards, if that's
the case.
Joe Cosby
The big bang didn't have a cause.
It was probabilistic.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"DO NOT ALLOW AIR CONDITIONER TO FALL OUT OF WINDOW."
- warning on a window air conditioner
Joe Cosby
I don't think I have anything you can work with ...
Yes, I am saying what you hope I'm not saying. I think that it is at
least potentially as likely a model of reality to suppose that the
most fundamental unit is 'events', defined in terms of the means of
resolving the event, and that the lower limit of these events is a
probabilistic 'matrix'; as it is to suppose that the most fundamental
unit is 'particles', defined in terms of mass/energy, and that the
lower limit of these events is our ability to measure them.
I think the former better fits the data, personally.
I think it really does show how locked into the conceptual tools we've
built up over the last five hundred years we are, that we really can't
seriously -conceive- that the basic nature of reality could exist in
terms of probability and event. We can't even conceive of it as a
possibility.
It's just a different model, why should it seem so bizarre?
All we -know- is that we have a set of observations of the world. The
rest is all just abstraction. Causality was simply a working
assumption adopted by Aristotle; read Aristotle, it isn't really even
very strongly argued. The only justification for adopting a causal
model is that nobody thought of a better idea. "We observe the world
and see that events follow from preceding causes" From that he
concludes that there is no reason -not- to assume that all events
extend from preceding causes. The fact that we observe causality in
the world around us does not mean that causality is a fundamental law
(any more than the fact that we do not observe any difference in
chronology for objects moving at different relative speeds: the
difference is there, but it simply doesn't occur at the level of our
senses).
There's no reason to think that the world as it exists beyond our
immediate senses conforms to laws that are comprehensible to us, or
even that there are any underlying laws in effect at all.
The belief that it does was based solely on the belief that the world
was made by God and that therefore it must necessarily have a logical
structure throughout and that the human mind could map this structure.
There's no other reason to assume that there is an underlying ultimate
structure.
IMO the idea that the fundamental 'stuff' of reality is a purely
undifferentiated, indeterminate state and that determinism occurs
within the realm of our senses has a lot of explanatory power. Given
the fact that we exist in the universe at all (regardless of whether
we can explain our 'selves' or not, that we do exist is, ultimately,
the -only- truly undeniable fact), with such a model it would be
inevitable that existance would occur, and that it would occur within
a local 'matrix' in which determinacy was strong. It's just a
question of evolution. Any number of failed universes could rise and
fall with no life; an infinite number existing outside our space-time
continuum. God does play dice, and he gets an infinite number of
throws. Existance could only occur within one of the lucky rolls.
Versus any kind of a fundamentally deterministic model, in which we
are left with the problem of the prime mover. We either have to
conjure up God, or state that the universe we exist in is infinitely
improbable. Even if we can accept 'infinitely improbable' it still
doesn't resolve the problem. Let's say we can find a cause for the
big bang (which, actually, is starting to be abandoned by
astrophysicists). Then we will have to find te cause of that. And of
that. Inevitable we are putting ourselves in a position where we
expect to find an infinite chain of increasingly fine causes.
That just strikes me as paradoxical.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
13. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend.
nu-monet v4.0
>
> The big bang didn't have a cause.
>
> It was probabilistic.
>
I still suspect that bad little boy down the street had
something to do with it. He's usually involved when
something like this happens.
--
SLACK:
In 1927, Bertie Oostermart of the Netherlands
wrote to Santa Claus asking for a chocolate
bicycle, an indian costume and a canary.
74 years later his letter was found by Jean
Olf Lammers, who discovered Bertie was still
alive, so he bought the stuff on the list and
presented it to Bertie.
Joe Cosby
> Joe Cosby wrote:
> >
> > The big bang didn't have a cause.
> >
> > It was probabilistic.
> >
>
> I still suspect that bad little boy down the street had
> something to do with it. He's usually involved when
> something like this happens.
>
DOBBYONS
dammit.
It's -ALL- dobbyons.
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c748c95....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Some theories say exactly that.
I sorta like Scott Adams' theory that it was God comitting suicide to find
out what would happen.
St. Marc
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
<snip lots of tasty brain candy>
> That just strikes me as paradoxical.
That pretty much sums up your argument, and a fine argument it is. You are
completely correct that because we are wired the way we are wired we have a
hell of a time imagining that "how we see things" does not necessarily
correspond to "how things are." Or, as I once put it in a similar
discussion, "You cannot logically prove that the universe is logical." Once
you allow ANY sort of paradox, contradiction, or fixed uncertainty, the
whole system comes crashing down around your ears. You must first stipulate
that logic works at all if you wish to argue logically.
I can't argue with you if that is what you are, in essence, saying - that
causality is a convenient fiction which may or may not correspond to
reality. I can argue *levels* of causality, but I can't argue its underlying
validity, because the argument presupposes it.
Funny how we always start out arguing furiously but then sort of wind down
into afterglow.
St. Marc
Joe Cosby
over a computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused"
<disc...@templeoferis.org> laughed madly, then wrote:
It's because you don't get pissed off.
That's unusual.
Usually if I say anything that disagrees with anybody they go berserk.
You prolly have brain damage. That would tend to explain it.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Being well-informed is but a stone's throw from being boring - and
stones will be thrown"
- Quentin Crisp
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Not that it necessarily excludes brain damage, but the reason I don't often
get pissed off is that I have an ego big as all outdoors. It's SO big that I
don't take other people seriously very often, so what do I care if somebody
disagrees with me? It's like having an Australian argue with my
interpretation of American constitutional law. (This used to happen on
another newsgroup I read.)
However, for those of you following along at home, this WILL NOT WORK if you
don't understand, despite your boxcarload of ego, that you can be and will
be wrong from time to time. If you take yourself THAT seriously, you'll get
pissed off in spite of yourself. Trust me on this.
St. Marc
John Starrett
>
> Joe Cosby wrote:
> >
> > Why exactly is science so fixated on 'particles'
> > in the first place?...
>
> Many years ago, I got the answer right from the
> dumbshit's mouth. It seems the ANCIENT GREEKS
> believed in the concept of "aether", a substance
> that permeated everything and through which
> objects flew, and which sustained them in flight.
Some of them did, certainly Pythagoras and his followers.
They also were the first to suggest (to our knowledge) that
things were made of tiny particles.
> Apparently, some of the more idiotic scientists
> of Einstein's youth *still* held onto the "aether"
> notion, even after he had "proved" that "aether"
> DID NOT AND COULD NOT EXIST. FINITO. NO MORE
> QUESTIONS. YOU WILL CEASE BELIEVING IN "AETHER"
> HENCEFORTH OR ELSE!!!
Actually, Michaelson and Morley did the experiment that
proved aether did not exist, although the impetus for the
experiment was Einstein's theory.
Plenty of folks still believe in the aether:
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html
<snip>
> Therefore, there are ONLY three things permitted
> in their universe: particles, waves and nothing.
Dang! You forgot forces and fields.
<snip>
> And then you get the problem that space and time are
> basically the same thing, too. But not even different
> forms of the same thing: they *are* the same thing.
Well, they are different coordinates in "one thing", namely
space-time.
> So, still desperately trying to avoid the "aether"
> thing, they look for a "time" particle or wave,
> PRETENDING REALLY HARD that if they find a "time"
> particle, it won't really be a "space" particle, which
> IS NOT PERMITTED.
Huh? Time particle? Never heard of such a thing, unless you
are talking about tachyons, which are predicted by some old
forms of string theory.
> And then you have the mass/gravity circular thing.
> So they look for a "mass" particle and a "gravity"
> particle. But IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER that
> "mass" and "gravity" are the same thing and/or that
> they are a *function* of space time and *not* a
> particle or wave.
Einstein's theory of general relativity states that mass
curves space-time, which in turn causes the effect perceived
as the acceleration due to gravity. He never knew the
physics that posits a graviton.
> Actually, I'm sort of glad that physics is only suffering
> from an acute neurosis about being spanked by their long
> dead old teachers who believed in "aether"; rather than
> some seriously fucked up Freudian psycho-sexuality
> thing.
Today's modern now-a-go-go physicist is not too concerned
with spankings. They are more worried that the Calabi-Yau
manifold looks so much like an 11 dimensional vagina that
they may not be able to get funding.
> If the latter was the case, we would prolly have lots of
> cosmological models that looked like penises and vaginas.
> And damned if the math wouldn't back them up.
And damn, the math does indeed back them up.
John Starrett
"We have nothing to steer."
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, John Starrett <jsta...@carbon.cudenver.edu> laughed
madly, then wrote:
>
>Dang! You forgot forces and fields.
>
yeah but that's kinda the whole thing. If we were satisfied with the
idea that 'gravity is a force occupying a field', we wouldn't be
looking for gravitons.
>"We have nothing to steer."
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
- William Blake
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
news:3C79A8CC...@carbon.cudenver.edu...
> "nu-monet v4.0" wrote:
> >
> > Joe Cosby wrote:
> > >
> > > Why exactly is science so fixated on 'particles'
> > > in the first place?...
> >
> > Many years ago, I got the answer right from the
> > dumbshit's mouth. It seems the ANCIENT GREEKS
> > believed in the concept of "aether", a substance
> > that permeated everything and through which
> > objects flew, and which sustained them in flight.
>
> Some of them did, certainly Pythagoras and his followers.
> They also were the first to suggest (to our knowledge) that
> things were made of tiny particles.
>
> > Apparently, some of the more idiotic scientists
> > of Einstein's youth *still* held onto the "aether"
> > notion, even after he had "proved" that "aether"
> > DID NOT AND COULD NOT EXIST. FINITO. NO MORE
> > QUESTIONS. YOU WILL CEASE BELIEVING IN "AETHER"
> > HENCEFORTH OR ELSE!!!
Nevertheless, the "Sons of Ether" is still a fucking cool name for a secret
society. ("Children of Ether," however, is not, you politically correct
killjoys.) Just thought I'd mention that.
St. Marc
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
> John Starrett <jsta...@carbon.cudenver.edu> hunched over a computer,
> typing feverishly;
> thunder crashed, John Starrett <jsta...@carbon.cudenver.edu> laughed
> madly, then wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Dang! You forgot forces and fields.
> >
>
> yeah but that's kinda the whole thing. If we were satisfied with the
> idea that 'gravity is a force occupying a field', we wouldn't be
> looking for gravitons.
At this point I believe that the people who believe in gravitons are just
"Star Trek" geeks who refuse to acknowledge that gravity can't be controlled
so we can build big starships where everybody can just walk around with
electronic Etch-a-Sketches as if they were on Earth in a movie studio or
something. The explanation I got from a professor of mine, which satisfied
him and satisfied me, is that gravity is a consequence of some of the
geometrical properties of spacetime when it interacts with mass. No
conducting wavicles are required. GUT's which attempt to incorporate gravity
on the same basis as the strong and electroweak forces are, IMO, doomed to
Hubbell's Constant/Ptolemaic Epicycle/YouNameIt patching, forever, because
the math will not work.
But they said the same thing when the man first tried to sell sliced bread,
so what the hell do I know?
St. Marc
nu-monet v4.0
>
> At this point I believe that the people who believe
> in gravitons are just "Star Trek" geeks who refuse to
> acknowledge that gravity can't be controlled so we can
> build big starships where everybody can just walk around
> with electronic Etch-a-Sketches as if they were on Earth
Directly. That's the key word. If you want to manipulate
gravity directly, you must have gravitons. Otherwise, you
have to futz around manipulating space/time to cause the
desired mass/gravity effects.
One possible solution would be to change the space/time of
your location, relative to everything else. So instead of
having to follow the "x" space/time rules, you would be in
a bubble (membrane type) of "y" space/time.
Think of "picture-in-picture" on a teevee. A miniature
screen that holds a smaller version of a full screen, but
as a subset of a larger screen. If you are "in" the smaller
screen, it appears that you are in a "complete" screen, and
you fit proportionally in the smaller screen.
The trick is to assume the "properties" of the larger screen
while still "being" in the smaller screen. If the smaller
screen is 1/10th the size of the larger screen, it would
appear to the "small screeners" that you are instantly 10
times larger, can travel 10 times as fast, etc.
From the "small screeners" point of view, you are violating
physicals laws left, right and sideways. But from the
"large screener" point of view, you are behaving normally.
But space, to *you* (being a "ls" person in a "ss" universe)
would appear to be 10 times smaller, with distances 10 times
less, etc. Hell, instead of running a 10 minute mile, you
would run a 1 minute mile!
--
"The guarding of freedom that God grants is
the noble charge of the Department of Justice."
--Attorney General John Ashcroft
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
> St. Marc the Perpetually Amused wrote:
> >
> > At this point I believe that the people who believe
> > in gravitons are just "Star Trek" geeks who refuse to
> > acknowledge that gravity can't be controlled so we can
> > build big starships where everybody can just walk around
> > with electronic Etch-a-Sketches as if they were on Earth
> > in a movie studio or something...
> your location, relative to everything else. So instead of
> having to follow the "x" space/time rules, you would be in
> a bubble (membrane type) of "y" space/time.
This is essentially how the warp drive system works anyway, so I don't see
why they can't just use it for both. My all time favorite Star Trek Geek
Quote:
Questioner at ST Conference: "How do those Heisenberg Compensators work,
anyway?"
Response from ST Insider: "They work very well, thank you for asking."
St. Marc