Richard Feynman
James Silverton
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as
dumb as the next guy.
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But
it is only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We
used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them
economical numbers.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the
easiest person to fool.
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net
Stephen
> A few interesting quotes from Feynman as given by the latest Linux Journal:
>
> I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as
> dumb as the next guy.
>
> There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But
> it is only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We
> used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them
> economical numbers.
>
> The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the
> easiest person to fool.
>
Apparently the number of stars in the Milky Way is estimated at between
100 billion and 400 billion (Wikipedia).
Showing just how much we don't know.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Peter Brooks
wasn't available in wikipaedia?
Roland Hutchinson
A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there: pretty soon you are
talking about real luminosity.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
J. J. Lodder
> A few interesting quotes from Feynman as given by the latest Linux Journal:
With sources?
Quoting Feynman is becoming as bad as Einstein quotes:
no quote attributed to him should be believed
without a verifiable source for it.
> I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as
> dumb as the next guy.
Sure, but Feynman wasn't an ordinary scientist,
not even an ordinary genius, and certainly not the next guy.
And he knew it.
> There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But
> it is only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We
> used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them
> economical numbers.
>
> The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the
> easiest person to fool.
Another one along the same lines:
"you should have an open mind,
but not so open that your brains fall out!"
(no source, also many other attributions)
Jan
Nucular Reaction
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:20:54 +1000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 1/06/2011 8:51 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>>> A few interesting quotes from Feynman as given by the latest Linux
>>> Journal:
>>>
>>> I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as
>>> dumb as the next guy.
>>>
>>> There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But
>>> it is only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We
>>> used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them
>>> economical numbers.
>>>
>>> The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the
>>> easiest person to fool.
>>>
>>>
>> Apparently the number of stars in the Milky Way is estimated at between
>> 100 billion and 400 billion (Wikipedia).
>>
>> Showing just how much we don't know.
>
>A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there: pretty soon you are
>talking about real luminosity.
Pshaw. If that were true, it would be brighter at night.
Stan Brown
>
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:20:54 +1000, Stephen wrote:
> > Apparently the number of stars in the Milky Way is estimated at between
> > 100 billion and 400 billion (Wikipedia).
> >
> > Showing just how much we don't know.
>
> A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there: pretty soon you are
> talking about real luminosity.
LOL -- I thought something of the same, but yours was much cleverer.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Stan Brown
> With sources?
> Quoting Feynman is becoming as bad as Einstein quotes:
> no quote attributed to him should be believed
> without a verifiable source for it.
>
Indeed. I had a college professor yesterday tell me, straight faced,
that the bit about doing the same thing and expecting different
results came from Einstein.
The Sanity Inspector
wrote:
> A few interesting quotes from Feynman as given by the latest Linux Journal:
>
> I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as
> dumb as the next guy.
>
> There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But
> it is only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We
> used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them
> economical numbers.
>
> The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the
> easiest person to fool.
I was born not knowing and have only had a little time to change that
here and there.
-- Richard Feynman
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
-- The Jam
Roland Hutchinson
You are Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers AICMFP.
franzi
>On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 06:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
But it /is/ brighter at night. So it must be true.
The last night I looked, it was definitely brighter than if there were
fewer or dimmer stars.
--
franzi
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:15:22 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > With sources?
> > Quoting Feynman is becoming as bad as Einstein quotes:
> > no quote attributed to him should be believed
> > without a verifiable source for it.
> >
>
> Indeed. I had a college professor yesterday tell me, straight faced,
> that the bit about doing the same thing and expecting different
> results came from Einstein.
wikiquote gives it with a source
===
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results.
Misattributed to various people, including Albert Einstein and Mark
Twain. The earliest known occurrence, and probable origin is Rita Mae
Brown, Sudden Death (Bantam Books, New York, 1983), p. 68.
Jan
R H Draney
>
>On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:15:22 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> With sources?
>> Quoting Feynman is becoming as bad as Einstein quotes:
>> no quote attributed to him should be believed
>> without a verifiable source for it.
>>
>
>Indeed. I had a college professor yesterday tell me, straight faced,
>that the bit about doing the same thing and expecting different
>results came from Einstein.
When as any fule kno, Churchill said it to Dorothy Parker at a ceremony honoring
GBS....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Roland Hutchinson
And we know this because Oscar Wilde wrote about it to Will Rogers.
Adam Funk
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:08:08 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
>
>> Stan Brown filted:
>>>
>>>On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:15:22 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> With sources?
>>>> Quoting Feynman is becoming as bad as Einstein quotes: no quote
>>>> attributed to him should be believed without a verifiable source for
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Indeed. I had a college professor yesterday tell me, straight faced,
>>>that the bit about doing the same thing and expecting different results
>>>came from Einstein.
>>
>> When as any fule kno, Churchill said it to Dorothy Parker at a ceremony
>> honoring GBS....r
>
> And we know this because Oscar Wilde wrote about it to Will Rogers.
Wasn't Mark Twain involved?
--
The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency.
Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at
the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978]
Witziges Rätsel
>
> With sources?
> Quoting Feynman is becoming as bad as Einstein quotes:
> no quote attributed to him should be believed
> without a verifiable source for it.
>
Abe Lincoln and Ben Franklin confirmed all the quotes.
J. J. Lodder
> On 2011-06-01, Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:08:08 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
> >
> >> Stan Brown filted:
> >>>
> >>>On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:15:22 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> With sources?
> >>>> Quoting Feynman is becoming as bad as Einstein quotes: no quote
> >>>> attributed to him should be believed without a verifiable source for
> >>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Indeed. I had a college professor yesterday tell me, straight faced,
> >>>that the bit about doing the same thing and expecting different results
> >>>came from Einstein.
> >>
> >> When as any fule kno, Churchill said it to Dorothy Parker at a ceremony
> >> honoring GBS....r
> >
> > And we know this because Oscar Wilde wrote about it to Will Rogers.
>
> Wasn't Mark Twain involved?
Those rumours are greatly exaggerated,
Jan
R H Draney
>
>On 2011-06-01, Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:08:08 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
>>
>>> Stan Brown filted:
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:15:22 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> With sources?
>>>>> Quoting Feynman is becoming as bad as Einstein quotes: no quote
>>>>> attributed to him should be believed without a verifiable source for
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Indeed. I had a college professor yesterday tell me, straight faced,
>>>>that the bit about doing the same thing and expecting different results
>>>>came from Einstein.
>>>
>>> When as any fule kno, Churchill said it to Dorothy Parker at a ceremony
>>> honoring GBS....r
>>
>> And we know this because Oscar Wilde wrote about it to Will Rogers.
>
>Wasn't Mark Twain involved?
Not according to what Bill Cosby told George Carlin....r
John Varela
wrote:
When dealing with astronomy, often just getting the power of 10
right is close enough.
--
John Varela
abzorba
> On 1/06/2011 8:51 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>
> > A few interesting quotes from Feynman as given by the latest Linux Journal:
>
> > I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as
> > dumb as the next guy.
>
> > There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But
> > it is only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We
> > used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them
> > economical numbers.
> Apparently the number of stars in the Milky Way is estimated at between
> 100 billion and 400 billion (Wikipedia).
The same WP article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way, gives a
rough figure of 50 billion planets in the Milky Way, 500 million in
the "habitable zone". Put like this, one may realize just how
optimistic Carl Sagan was when he imagined that there were millions of
planets with intelligent life in our galaxy. 500 million is half the
money of a billionaire, it's peanuts. Remember that the world was FULL
of life for billions of years before Man came around. So, even if
there were planets with life, there could well be none with a
technologically oriented species. Scientists are coming around to the
notion that maybe we ARE the only such species in the observable
universe. Is that why SETI has failed?
Myles (Alien life form throwing the Earthlings off the scent again...)
Paulsen
Peter Brooks
>
>
> The same WP article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way, gives a
> rough figure of 50 billion planets in the Milky Way, 500 million in
> the "habitable zone". Put like this, one may realize just how
> optimistic Carl Sagan was when he imagined that there were millions of
> planets with intelligent life in our galaxy. 500 million is half the
> money of a billionaire, it's peanuts. Remember that the world was FULL
> of life for billions of years before Man came around. So, even if
> there were planets with life, there could well be none with a
> technologically oriented species. Scientists are coming around to the
> notion that maybe we ARE the only such species in the observable
> universe. Is that why SETI has failed?
>
would intelligent life need to be in the observable universe, it'd
have to be close enough, and advanced enough, to pick up signs of
intelligent life here. The most likely evidence being (vide SETI)
modulated electromagnetic radiation. Weak man-made modulated
electromagnetic radiation only started radiating from the earth in the
early 1800s. So we are only visible as being here from about 200 light
years away. The emission of modulated radio waves peaked in the '80s
or '90s, now with digital communications, the levels of modulated
radiation leaving the earth is reducing each year, making it harder to
see us. So, within another 50 or so years, we might be invisible
again, to all but the most sophisticated watchers. That means that the
human race will only be visible to those who happen to be watching
during the passing of a shell of modulated radiation around 250
lightyears wide. Of course, over time, this shell will be attenuated,
though the inverse square law (inevitable because of its spherical
shape), other radiation sources, such as stars, and other physical
bodies in the way, so, given another few hundred years, even that
shell will be a very, very faint echo - probably not detectable by
SETI. So only intelligent life between 200 and about 700 light years
away would even have a chance of seeing us and then only if they
happened to be watching some time during those particular 900 years,
with very sensitive equipment.
Stephen
You're talking about one galaxy out of an estimated 100 billion galaxies
in the universe.
Admittedly stars in other galaxies are a bit further away and harder to
get to, or get here from.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
Oh well.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Peter Moylan
But not as bright as it was WIWAL, because of the expansion of the universe.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> The same WP article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way, gives a
> rough figure of 50 billion planets in the Milky Way, 500 million in
> the "habitable zone". Put like this, one may realize just how
> optimistic Carl Sagan was when he imagined that there were millions of
> planets with intelligent life in our galaxy. 500 million is half the
> money of a billionaire, it's peanuts. Remember that the world was FULL
> of life for billions of years before Man came around. So, even if
> there were planets with life, there could well be none with a
> technologically oriented species. Scientists are coming around to the
> notion that maybe we ARE the only such species in the observable
> universe. Is that why SETI has failed?
If mankind ever expands across the galaxy - or, more realistically,
across our little corner of it - I'm guessing that we'll find lots of
planets where intelligent life has not yet developed, and others where
intelligent life has become extinct. In view of the times involved, it
would appear to be pretty unlikely that two independent groups would
reach intelligence in the same million years.
Peter Brooks
wrote:
We know it took a certain amount of time for intelligent life to
arrive here. We could call the time between the big bang and the
arrival of intelligence on earth T. Now, for any worlds with similar
evolution - and there's no reason why there shouldn't be countless
millions of them - they'd all be likely to be getting to this stage at
the same time T. As I said, the detectability of such life depends on
them getting radio waves together. Lets say this happens at time T+t.
Local conditions might cause the time to vary by, say T+t +/- 1000
years. With the detectability sphere around 1000 years wide.
Now, for any of these intelligent life forms that arrived at the same
time to spot each other, they'd have to be within 2000 light years of
each other. The problem would be if intelligent life A, at the average
distance of 1000 light years away from intelligent life B detected B,
it'd be 1000 years after the first transmission at least, and,
possibly, 1000 years after the final transmission. In either case
getting a message back to B that it had been spotted by A would take
another 1000 years, on average.
So, in a best case, with all these similar worlds created at the same
time, we could expect to wait another 1000 odd years before we heard
anything, probably 2000. That's if there are any so close - even with
many millions of them in the detectable universe, there'd probably
only be a handful, or less, so very, very close.
J. J. Lodder
Same same goes for the American debt.
It's growing so fast that anything closer
will be outdated rapidly,
<http://www.usdebtclock.org/>
Like astonomical numbers, one or two significant digits will do,
Jan
Peter Brooks
> John Varela <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:20:54 UTC, Stephen <calder...@hotmail.com>
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result
happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty
pound ought and six, result misery."
The real problem is that the misery isn't visited upon the feckless
responsible.
JimboCat
> On Jun 2, 6:25 am, abzorba <myles...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > The same WP article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way, gives a
> > rough figure of 50 billion planets in the Milky Way, 500 million in
> > the "habitable zone". Put like this, one may realize just how
> > optimistic Carl Sagan was when he imagined that there were millions of
> > planets with intelligent life in our galaxy. 500 million is half the
> > money of a billionaire, it's peanuts. Remember that the world was FULL
> > of life for billions of years before Man came around. So, even if
> > there were planets with life, there could well be none with a
> > technologically oriented species. Scientists are coming around to the
> > notion that maybe we ARE the only such species in the observable
> > universe. Is that why SETI has failed?
>
> Those are good points, but there is more to it than that. Not only
> would intelligent life need to be in the observable universe, it'd
> have to be close enough, and advanced enough, to pick up signs of
> intelligent life here. The most likely evidence being (vide SETI)
> modulated electromagnetic radiation.
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists
elsewhere in
the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. " Calvin,
_Calvin and
Hobbes_
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"What if the signal is re-directed from the future signal of a
detector that actually translates to a useful SETI antenna now? Its
possible." -- Patrick Ashley Meuser"-Bianca"
R H Draney
>
>If mankind ever expands across the galaxy - or, more realistically,
>across our little corner of it - I'm guessing that we'll find lots of
>planets where intelligent life has not yet developed, and others where
>intelligent life has become extinct. In view of the times involved, it
>would appear to be pretty unlikely that two independent groups would
>reach intelligence in the same million years.
The problem with that chain of reasoning is that we have absolutely no figures
on which to base an estimate of how long it takes for intelligent life to become
extinct...does it happen in five thousand years?...five million?...five hundred
million?...
Extinctions in general, yes, we have data on that...but not on extinctions of
species that can see it coming and perhaps take steps to prevent it....r
Lanarcam
There is another point to consider, intelligence can become extinct
before the species, see today's trend in media for instance...
Mike Lyle
wrote:
Well, the only intelligent life form we've so far discovered is
positively eager to make itself extinct: maybe that's what intelligent
life forms always do.
--
Mike.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Hmm. Is the Intelligent Designer extinct?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Brooks
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:53:56 +0200, Lanarcam <lanarc...@yahoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 02/06/2011 18:48, R H Draney crivit:
mention just a few, are all pretty intelligent life-forms. With the
possible exception of dogs, that pander overmuch to humans, they're
reasonably sensible in not trying to make themselves extinct. Actually
some slime moulds seem quite bright...
Adam Funk
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]
CDB
that the "intelligent" ones go off quicker. Somebody's Rule says
"Species rot from the head."
Mike Lyle
My prostate says "Yes".
--
Mike.