🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C27n4.2439$p01.65810@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
  "Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
> I am drunk but aware, see below,
>
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:87ib5a$nbm$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-ZTIcSkt9q7Hr@localhost>,
> >   jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2000 02:34:41 sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Where do you get this "small thing expanding into a bigger
> > > > > thing?" The
> > > > > Big Bang hypothesis has _never_ said anything about a bigger
> > > > > thing the
> > > > > universe should exist in.
> > > >
> > > > This must be a new Big Bang (one without the bang but still big
> > > > enough
> > > > for the buck).
> > > >
> > > > > There is the universe - and that's it, as
> > > > > far as BB goes. BB merely gives an explanation for the
> > > > > evolution of the universe:
> > > >
> > > > I guess the Big Bangers are now evolving the universe from the
> > > > Big Bang into a small neat package you can take home to your
> > > > wife.
> > > > > from very hot (because extremely compact)
> > > >
> > > > "Compact" that must be their new term for "big, really big &
> > > > large?"
> > > > > to pretty cold
> > > > > (because significantly bigger).
> > > >
> > > > "Bigger" that must be their new term for "smaller."
> > > >
> > > It is probably too bold for me to suggest this to a writer and
> > > poet of
> > > fame, but going for this kind of non-sequitur attempts at humour
> > > in a
> > > discussion might be a bad move credibility-wise.
> >
> > It may be irrelevant for a writer and poet to fall into the trap
> > of believing that his credibility is held in very high regard, and
> > that therefore he should try to preserve something which does
> > not really exist at the cost of something which does; but, as for
> > me: Whenever good friends get together and one of them begins
> > to snicker behind someone's  back... a good friend, if he really
> > is a good friend, should break out in some honest laughter (other-
> > wise it might all end up as some sort of cheap melodrama).
> >
> Quite nice!
>
> > > > > This theory is consistent with
> > > > > observations and has made accurate predictions, which makes it
> > > > > sofar a
> > > > > valid theory.
> > > >
> > > > Ah-Ha! That may be true--but ONLY for the last 90 or so years!
> > > > Aristotle's
> > > > theory did that for nearly two centuries before they finally
> > > > discovered
> > > > that the universe didn't orbit the earth after all! Beat that,
> > > > Mr. Einstein!
> > > >
> > > Aristotle _was_ right - within his frame of observation; and so
> > > was Newton.
> >
> > If we follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then
> > we
> > must also give the lunatic his due (as he is unquestionably right as
> > well
> > within _his_ frame of observation). I don't like playing these games
> > in a serious manner--So if we're going to play these games, let's
> > just
> > agree that you can play them soberly and I can play them playfully.
> >
> This is fucking great!!!

I'll have to try it out, then (I usually use more conventional
methods).

> > > The relativity theory corrected for those pesky,
> > > way-behind-the-decimal numbers Newtonian theory had problems with.
> >
> > This is a misapprehension: The relativity theories of the last
> > century
> > merely corrected for effects not taken into consideration by Newton
> > because Newton was not aware those effects caused any problems
> > (and these mostly involve the effects of massive gravitational
> > fields);
> > otherwise, had he been aware of them, I am confident that Newton
> > would have been dealt quite competently with them (just as I am also
> > confident that if Einstein had known of the true implosive nature of
> > our
> > universe he too would have been competently able to avoid falling
> > into
> > all the errors he fell into). It is folly to raise GR/SR's minor
> > corrections
> > to some equal level of importance with Newton's classical theories.
> >
>
> This is really amazingly brilliant.

Great! Now mine enemies will suggest my amazing brilliance
is precisely what makes me so blind! "Know thy enemy."

> As an engineer, who once worked at
> that
> great waste of taxpayers money, the SuperCollider, the reality is,
> basically
> nothing of all this math has resulted in anything of practical value
> to the
> man in the street who payes the wages of theoreticons. In
> anticipation, I
> dont buy the the space program gave us non-stick frying pans.

My god! I always had this vision of astronauts using very sticky
pans--Otherwise their frying eggs would fly in the eyes of the pilot
& cause horrific accidents while the crew burst their guts laughing!

> > > If
> > > the superstring theory is ever proven to be right (they're still
> > > waiting for the right kind of maths to show up so they can solve
> > > their
> > > equations), it will do the same thing.
> >
> > Sir, I predict that superstring theory will be proven right
> > mathematically
> > (and that it will describe a formidable amount of nonsense which
> > some
> > additional mathematical equations will then supersede ad infinitum);
> > because what you are dealing with is an ever more and more complex
> > reality being expressed in ever more and more complex mathematics
> > which will then become an even more complex reality which will then
> > need to be expressed in more complex mathematics ad infinitum.

It's nice work for a mathematician if you can get it, dough (you
get it?).

> In my post in sci.physics.particle, I address this point as well.
>
> Once upon a time there were fat particles. Newton showed we could
> ignore
> that complication and consider an infinitely small mass point at it's
> center
> of gravity, and still get all the right answers, even if, in fact, it
> wasn't
> true. We went on from there produced a theory of point particles,
> namely
> Q.M. that was quite wonderful, or so we thought. This was complicated
> enough, even with the point particle approximations, but not quite
> good
> enough it seems. It did not get all the answers, so SuperStrings
> popped up
> into the universe. Now we have infinitely thin 'long' strings. This is
> of
> course much more mathematically complicated then point particles, but
> apparently gives better explanations as a better approximation to
> reality,
> so well worth the trouble.
>
> And so to the point of the post. When SuperStrings are finally found
> to have
> problems, when will the 2 - D SuperPlanes theory be constructed. i.e
> infinitely thin sheets of tiny planes of space rolled up. This will
> obviously be even more difficult mathematically then SuperStrings, but
> a
> better approximation to reality one might wager. And then at last when
> finally the flaws of the SuperPlanes theory become apparent, we may
> find
> ourselves back to where we started from, and so, Once upon a time
> there are
> now fat
> particles.

Good lord, who said all scientists today were irrational?

> > The real world does not work this way: The real world arises from
> > the fewest essential parameters... that is what makes reality
> > inevitable:
> > You mix a few basic compounds together & you have life! You could
> > not have life if it required even as simple a complexity as
> > Kellogg's
> > Raisin
> > Bran. In this same way... only when the universe can arise from some
> > very elemental force like gravity could it do so, it if required
> > 57,000
> > different dimensions... there is no way in Hell it would be able to.
> >
> > > > > If you want to attack the Big Bang hypothesis, then you should
> > > > > pick on
> > > > > its weak points,
> > > >
> > > > It has strong points?!?!
> > > >
> > > > > like where the cosmological constants came from,
> > > >
> > > > I knowest where they came from: From Mr. Einstein's ignorance.
> > > >
> > > Again, silly remarks like that show that you're mixing up stuff.
> > > Einstein's "cosmic constant" was a term he introduced early in his
> > > equations so they could be solved for a static universe (which he
> > > favoured emotionally). After Lemaitre's and Hubble's discoveries
> > > he dropped it and called it "his biggest mistake ever".
> >
> > Do you doubt it was a big mistake?!?! It is an example of what
> > happens
> > when you try to "get" reality from mathematics: Sheer lunacy (try to
> > imagine a universe where galaxies are forever lying next to each
> > other
> > without ever engaging in gravitational interactions... and you have
> > the
> > sort of universe/reality that came out of Einstein's equations).
> > Yes, at
> > some point either somebody must have pointed out the madness to
> > Einstein (as you suggest above) or he himself must have finally
> > thought
> > about the real-world implications of his equations and hurried to
> > fix
> > them. But it's too late: Einstein's "big" mistake remains forever a
> > moral
> > lesson and an embarrassing insight into the folly of believing that
> > mathematics can give us a greater insight into reality than can
> > reality
> > itself.
>
> This is really good.

Sir, in an insane world it's folly to appear sane (so I'd advise you,
for your own good, to restrict your posts in future to attacks on me
and/or on my "wacky" theories).

But thanks anyway, for old times' sake,

SDR

> {snip} to much for me to follow ton ight
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > sdr@t-three.com
> > http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> >
> >







Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.