Jihad needs scientists

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <qplej2togo8vfd6f05tc51k7ota3hni0gi@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:10:06 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



John Fields wrote:

And you're defending that pig? Shame on you.

I'm criticising the USA. And the 650,000 deaths you've caused.

The number is wrong. It would still be high even if cut in half.

And how do you know? The researchers, from Johns Hopkins, employed
time-tested sampling and statistical methods. One of the most respected,
peer-reviewed journals, Lancet, published it.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eh7mj3$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <eh2qeu$c28$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eh2iep$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh066g$fqo$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <pev4j2pkd0bj3da8vjm44121b4tohhc1l8@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:38:27 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote:

snip

It's a unilateral invasion, ordered by one man to satisfy a personal
vendetta, and 650,000 people have died as a result of his criminal
insanity.

---
You got a good source for that 650k? I picked it up blindly from
the Ass, but snapped to it and just a little while ago asked him for
a source. Maybe you've got one?
---

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as published in the
British
medical journal Lancet.

From the news reports I heard, they got this data by going
from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives
and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of
the numbers reported by all these interviewees?

It's called sampling. It's a very established, respected method of finding
out things. We do it here for questions on the census each decade (the
demographic data).

But there is a control on the data collected for the census.
The data given is limited to people living in one house and
not a count of everyone they know.

The sampling was done in such a way as to take this into account, but it's
also why the confidence interval is wide.

If this method was used, do you not see how insultingly (to you,
if you believe their report) biased this number is?


They gave their 95% confidence interval.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died.

So you haven't read the study, yet you claim to know it's wrong.

Adding these up will not
give a correct count. I don't know enough about counting
but I would guess that the reliablility of the count
would be 1/x, where x=number of people asked. They are
going to report anybody who is rumored to have died.

Yes, you do not know enough. Have you studied statistics, sampling, data
analysis?

This is another astonishing example of abject stupidity: 1.)
for those people who issued the report believing that this
was a good number and 2.) for their readers to
believe this is a good estimate and 3) for the way the
US media reported this.

snip

/BAH

Perhaps you should take a basic stats course.

Perhaps you should learn how people talk.

/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <45376EAA.AF2F3DBB@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA?
Why
have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?


Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
used for cars that will cross it?

Would you design a bridge with the same basic structure as, say, a pair of
shoes if you were starting from scratch?

Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
never use the same in any two designs?

I would think an infinite god would have introduced a little variety into his
designs.

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Oh, I see. I'm not supposed to be concerned when those Muslims
are a threat to my life and life style. Am I supposed to let
them act out, kill millions, if not billions of people

What makes you think this will happen ?

In another thread this site was mentioned. You ought to give it a look. Tell me
how many calls for murder there are on it.
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

How about a critique of this article ?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/74E4D099-8A63-4C3E-BF44-F1E13B3B7EBD.htm

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a
sin.

So did Islam.

So DOES Islam.

In case you haven't noticed, this has changed.

No it hasn't.

It is not
suicide if you kill others when you kill yourself.

This is fiction.

Do you
not find something odd about this thinking, considering
what the Koran says?

You have it wrong.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <HItZg.15972$e66.4379@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Now you're finally starting to catch on. There are far bigger dangers, both
ideological and potential physical threats, within our own borders than
without.

You are wrong. It is a secondary danger. If Islam wins, the
internal danger won't exist because none of those people
will be alive. Neither will you be alive so the internal
danger is a null job.

Islam is *not* at war with us.

Graham

 

[MooseFET]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1161223334.040783.47000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161180088.789377.65880@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161136120.854490.3840@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161093618.810074.46780@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:
[....]

In those cases, the US gains nothing by calling it a war either. If
the US calls it a war, they will be called "freedom fighters" so
nothing is gained. In those cases where the US does have some control
over public opinion, what the US calls them matters. In those places,
calling them criminals is better.

You can call them "guntzetzvarthers" and it still won't matter. It is
not what you call them but what means you employ that's the issue.

I disagree. I still believe that the US does have some influence by
means of what words it chooses to use. Using the word "war" is a
mistake in this case.

Feel free to believe what you wish, but don't expect me to share your
beliefs.

I don't see why not. Do you believe that the US has no influence or do
you believe that the US's influence is best used by calling it a war?

The means that have worked so far have been the police actions not the
miltiary ones. It was the British police that stopped the latest group
trying to use aircraft as weapons. It was a customs officer that
uncovered the millenium. After the first bombing of the world trade
center the police tracked down and arrested a whole bunch of folks. So
far, I've seen little or no evidence that the miltiary means has had
any net result.

Police actions are important, as defensive measures. They're
necessary but, in this case, far from sufficient.

Since they are the only thing that works, we had better make them
sufficient. The Afghanistan situation is the only case where there
could be a war. Of course that situation has been allowed to slip
back.

Nowhere else has military actions helped, nor do I believe they ever
could help. The war in Iraq isn't really part of the "war on terror"
but it has made things much worse.

[....]
In the US there is a law called the RICO statute. I assume that most
other countries have a law like this too.

You assume a lot.

Yes I do. Am I wrong on this. Doesn't Italy (for example) have a law
like this?

Some countries do, many don't, and since a law of this nature is very
vague, it'll be used (or not used) based on political contingencies.

This is always a problem with laws. We also have the same sorts of
problems with military actions. Other countries will help, hinder or
stand aside depending on internal politics.

Certainly.

[....]
requirement which is fine for dealing with individuals and small
groups, but cannot be satisfied when dealing with global ideological
movement.

I don't see why not. If it is a world wide movement with many people
involved, there should be even better evidence than if there are just a
few people. The more people in a conspiracy the more likely it is
someone will talk.

So he'll talk, so what. So you'll get few low level operatives
convicted (assuming you can find them in the first place). Will do
very little good.

If you throw all the operatives in jail and cut off the money supply it
will do a lot of good.

Sure. And if you won't it won't. There is little reason to think
that you're catching more than a small fraction of the operatives and
cutting off more than a small fraction of the money supply.

When the millenium plot was unraveled, a fairly large number of people
were arrested tried and convicted.

If you catch just one it does only a little
good. If you send hundreds of thousands of troops into battle but fail
to catch or kill their leaders it also does very little good or perhaps
it does harm. If the bad guys survive an attempt on their life, it
increases their credibility.

I'm glad you start to see why going personally after Bin Laden, in a
way which had far from overwhelming chance of success, was not a very
bright idea.

No, I see no such thing. The US should have gone after Bin Laden. The
US had him at Tora Bora.
He was surrounded but for some reason the US backed away. This was a
major mistake. Bill Clinton had taken his best shot at the tail end of
his presidency. GWB let up on the pressure then. From the moment the
US had proof that OBL did the Cole, the hunt should have been on.


[...]

The net is full of people who are absolutely convinced that they're
100% correct in absolutely everything they ever said and who,
moreover, just know that everybody else will agree with them if
they'll just stop and think about it Take a number and wait in
line.

Oh look! My ticket says number 314159 and they are now serving 271828
so I don't have long to wait. When they get to me all the worlds
problems will be solved.

Criminal investigation is aimed at individuals and
uses precise but limited tools. It is conducted under conditions
which severely limit what can and cannot be done (as it should be,
under the circumstances).

... and I say this is exactly the only way to defeat the terrorists.

Didn't seem to work in any place it was tried, except against small
and isolated groups.

A concentrated police action against Al Queda hasn't really been tried
yet. In the US the Mafai was defeated by police activity. It was an
organization of some considerable size and ceertainly not a small
isolated group.

Going around killing people at random only makes the problem worse.

For a while, until you kill enough to get them discouraged. Read
Clausevitz about how wars end, eventually.

Unfortunately the world may not have enough people for that. I believe
that they want the US to kill a lot of innocent people. Their belief
system makes it very hard to discourage them this way.

War is aimed at large entities and uses
blunt tools with few apriori limits on what can and cannot be done.
War means dirtying your hands (something you seem averse to) and,
unfortunately, lots of collateral damage.

No, I'm not worried about the dirty hands. I'm worried about the fact
that that route leads to a loss. Unless you are willing to turn a
large fraction of the world into slag, you can't defeat the terrorists
with the means of war.

Once they've a large support base, the only way to defeat them is to
discourage the base.

Unfortunately, the US isn't doing much if anything that is discouraging
their base. Since Afghanistan, I would say that the US has actually
done nothing at all. Saudi Arabia is where the biggest support has come
from. The behind the scenes activities between the Bush family and the
royal family are not known to us but if they had been effective,
chances are word would have leaked.

The likely result of actions adn the risks need to be assessed.
Calling it a war makes things worse so lets stop doing that. What I
personally call it doesn't matter much but what the US refers to it as
matters a great deal.

I trust you know that we're in total disagreement here.

Yes I know you disagree. Since I know that I am 100%, absolutely,
totally correct, I must assume that you are simply insane.

 

[MooseFET]

Eeyore wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Is that someone who wrangles virgins, or a wrangler who has not yet
gotten laid?

Thanks. You just helped me get it.

OK, I have to admit I'm a little slow. Can you explain it to me? My
comment was mostly smartass meant to inject humor into the discussion.

The virgin wrangler would indeed be one who wrangles virgins. Presumably
because the virgins need 'persuasion' to be concubines for the martyr.

..... and there aren't enough to go around.

Graham

 

[MooseFET]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1161223334.040783.47000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

The means that have worked so far have been the police actions not the
miltiary ones. It was the British police that stopped the latest group
trying to use aircraft as weapons. It was a customs officer that
uncovered the millenium. After the first bombing of the world trade
center the police tracked down and arrested a whole bunch of folks. So
far, I've seen little or no evidence that the miltiary means has had
any net result.

Generally, I agree (especially regarding Iraq). However, I suspect that
getting the Taliban, who were major supporters of al Qaeda, out of power in
Afghanistan, and forcing Osama bin Laden and most of al Qaeda underground,
has probably ended up significantly hampering their ability to plan and
coordinate attacks. We may never know, however.

Afghanistan was a special case. The Taliban had declared their support
for OBL. No country has done that since. Letting OBL get away at Tora
Bora was a huge blunder. It is generally reported that Al Qeada has
restructured as a much looser organization since then. Today getting
OBL will have less effect than back then but it would still be worth
doing.

If you throw all the operatives in jail and cut off the money supply it
will do a lot of good. If you catch just one it does only a little
good. If you send hundreds of thousands of troops into battle but fail
to catch or kill their leaders it also does very little good or perhaps
it does harm.

Well, I'm not sure that's true. Disrupting their day-to-day activities and
their ability to communicate and plan operations probably does at least some
good

It is about the only thing we have that actually does work. If you can
break up the lines of communication, you prevent money and inteligence
from passing from section to section. This forces them out inot the
open more and makes them easier to mop up.

--and actually, not killing Osama bin Laden probably has been the best
move (be it accidental or purposeful) that the Bush administration has made.
We kill him, and he becomes an instant martyr. Death from kidney failure in
some remote cave in Afghanistan is much more ignominious.

I disagree. Unfortunately, now he will never die. They will keep his
name alive and pretend he is still in charge until someone feels safe
enough to declare himself the new leader.

There will be a mythology of a heroic death even if the actual story is
that he died while having sex with a pig.

As I understand it, it took a huge amount of planning and coordination to
get even one of the 9/11 attacks to go off, let alone all four essentially
simultaneously.

Initially, they wanted to do a larger number than that.

For one reason or another, the approach al Qaeda seems to
have taken to targeting non-Middle Eastern countries for attacks is that
they have to go huge-scale. This is unlike the usual suicide attacks in the
Middle east, which happen nearly daily, and only kill a few people at a
time. Maybe it has to do with a vastly different scale of size and
distance--perhaps they feel that small attacks will not have much effect,
even if repeated often.

They may have been sight. Several smaller attacks may not have done as
much damage as 9/11. Although most of the serious damage has been self
inflicted, you could still in many ways say that 9/11 caused it.

 

[George O. Bizzigotti]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:41:51 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo@mitretek.org> wrote in message
news:7buej255mvce4j69cljs4ohh20pikqcl9l@4ax.com...

A more complete account would state that Alcolac was a supplier of
thiodiglycol to industry.

Does this imply that they might have actually been selling it to companies
in Iraq for legitimate industrial uses? Or was it pretty clear at the time
(because of the dodgy paper trail), that they really were selling it for CW?

They weren't selling it legitimately to Iraqi companies, and the paper
trail, once uncovered, made it clear what was happening. The fact that
they were an industrial supplier of thiodiglycol is relevant because
the one shipment to Iraq started off as a domestic transfer to another
shell company; that transaction was camouflaged by the numerous
legitimate shipments of thiodiglycol made by the company.

OK. Most of my comment was about either the US government selling arms and
munitions to the Iraqis, or the US government conveniently selectively
enforcing export laws so as to allow US companies to sell arms and munitions
to Iraq. I haven't ever heard anyone say that CW precursors were sold to
Iraq, presumably because the press actually reported these two situations as
exactly what they were--attempts at illegal exporting that were caught and
prosecuted.

That's a very large presumption. There are a rather large number of
anti-Iraq War blogs and web sites that state that "the US sold
chemical weapons to the Iraqis," many noting that this occurred during
the time when the current President's father was Vice-President. They
almost invariably cite the Alcolac and Al Haddad incidents as proof
(often citing documents compiled by Senator Riegle's committee, which
investigated the issue). You may not have seen these sites, but my
reading of some of the commentary on this thread suggests that
significant numbers of posters take them at face value, despite this
being conducted in sci.* groups.
Regards,

George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbizzigo@mitretek.org
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
**********************************************************************

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1161269312.610760.325270@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Eeyore wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for
murdering thousandS and millions of people.

Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in
heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Is that someone who wrangles virgins, or a wrangler who has not yet
gotten laid?

Thanks. You just helped me get it.

OK, I have to admit I'm a little slow. Can you explain it to me? My
comment was mostly smartass meant to inject humor into the discussion.

The virgin wrangler would indeed be one who wrangles virgins. Presumably
because the virgins need 'persuasion' to be concubines for the martyr.

.... and there aren't enough to go around.

Yeah, OK, that's what I thought was meant--it just seemed like I was missing
something, especially given Graham's "you just helped me get it."

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:22:57 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

You're a bunch of meanies.

Oh there, there. Have a chocolate and don't cry.

John

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh7ksa$8ss_018@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <bFtZg.15970$e66.4970@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh53ce$8qk_005@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <OF7Zg.17270$6S3.4818@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2k1e$8qk_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e97b6$4534dd17$4fe728b$30183@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth


None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror.

OK, if you must, then "fear of losing power, control and wealth".
Witness
the fear-mongering among the Religious Right in the current election
campaign.

I am. More alarming is the message of the Democrats who keep implying
that there isn't any problem.

Citation, please. In your zeal to support the current administration,
you're not listening carefully.

Listen to any of them.

Any and all conversations? Are they really that repetative?

The speeches say that Bush is lying
about the existence of this national threat.

That would be your problem--comprehension issues. What every single one
I've seen has said, is that Bush is lying about the *extent* of the
threat.
Perhaps in your black-and-white world, you're not able to tell the
difference (I sometimes question whether most Americans are), but there is
a
*huge* difference.

I give up. It is going to take a nuclear bomb set off in
the tenderest place before any of you will begin to think
about the real danger.

But what about the children. Wont any body think of the children.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:7skej2p8cj8c1ifhbimm37jvpfbne96v1e@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:02:03 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

(with JoeBloe trying to butt in
occasionally)

You're an idiot. You also do not know how or when to use comma.

Priceless. Time to get back into your box.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <45376EAA.AF2F3DBB@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA?
Why
have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?


Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
used for cars that will cross it?

Would you design a bridge with the same basic structure as, say, a pair of
shoes if you were starting from scratch?

We are talking building blocks. Steel is used in both, as are
synthetic materials for cushioning.

Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
never use the same in any two designs?



I would think an infinite god would have introduced a little variety into his
designs.

He doesn't have to do what you want, he did what he wanted. If the
DNA wasn't similar, where would the proteins you need come from?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:inlej292cqo45b4n02fm0vjcquf5rrge41@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:06:04 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

It's still quite mad.
^^ You spelled "I'm" incorrectly, DonkTARD.

Good point. He should have said you were quite mad. That would have been an
accurate comment of his.

Anything else you want to admit to now?

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4536D12E.536949A8@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

There appears to be a tendency in humans to want certainty in life.
Science provides absolutely no certainty, only explanations of varying
degrees of usefulness. Religion provides absolute certainty, and
religious explanations are therefore very appealing. In some sense,
some
of the theories of science (notably, evolution, but I think there are
others) cast doubt on this certainty, and the religions appear to be
fighting back by highlighting the uncertainty of the science, and the
certainty of their religious offering. Sadly, the result is the
ongoing
decline of US science education, and a dearth of good American-born
graduates at all levels of many sciences. Who knows where that will
lead,
but my gut feel is that it ain't good for the US economic or technical
world hegemony.

Unfortunately it isn't just the US. Universities in the UK are closing
science departments all over the country, and starting numerous courses
in
"new media" or other arts type courses ("Surf management" for example)

And a *few* ppl are now waking up to the fact that service industries
don't
invent things !

When more than a few people wake up to this, I will be happier.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news0mdj29rrhlrl7g74vu9kkqsg2ib9d0lb9@4ax.com...

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:56:56 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


One thing I find odd, is that you don't think DNA/RNA mutation and
evolution
is amazing and wonderful in itself. Isn't it amazing how four bases can
produce such variety?

The four bases are a programming language. The *programs* and their
high-level structure will turn out to be astonishing in their own
right.

It is already astonishing that ACGT can spell out a human and a fruit fly.
The analogy of a programming language may be accurate, and is certainly
attractive, but answers nothing.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2xBZg.17712$6S3.8120@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:0cmdnWILnIOmN6vYRVnysw@pipex.net...
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jnxZg.16082$e66.10170@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

The discussion below was meant to be an explanation of that difference.
Do you disagree that they are fundamentally diffferent? (that's an
honest question, not an invitation to an argument.)

Generally, I treat all your questions as honest ones and I do try to
respond in kind.

Many here don't, and are quick to take offense. I hate the fact that I
have to waste so much time trying to keep this discussion focused, civil
and respectful.

Sadly a fact of USENET Still, its not really time wasted

This is a difficult question for me to answer as I suffer from two big
problems regarding physics - I went to university late in life (I do not
mean these in a disparaging matter, merely acceptance of the fact that
after a while it becomes harder to "warm" to new ideas )

I have known several people who have gone to school later in life. I have
to say that I respect it a lot. The fact that one loses one's ability to
learn new concepts with age is in my observation way more than
counterbalanced by the increased maturity, motivation, and focus on what
really matters.

I heartilly agree. As a teenager I was interested in pretty much anything
other than school. I was convinced I was going to join the Army at 16 and
(in my mind) classrooms were a waste of my life. When I was older and more
sensible (and I realised I needed a civilian job!) I had the sense to
readapt my view point.

Education is wasted on the young

Sadly, a lot of people become almost religious in their zeal regarding
new theories, and string theory is certainly suffers from this.

I guess I don't have enough exposure to such cutting edge physicists to
see this.

I dont have much exposure to cutting edge physicists myself anymore - my
wife has more than I and I tend to get lost when the conversation turns
"technical."

My comment was more aimed at the people who write the pop science books,
which while they are often fantastic and amazingly well written, there is a
tendency to fantasise about the possibilites and realities of new ideas.

When (if) string theory can be formed into something which makes testable
predictions as well as explaining the currently observed data - without
suffering from torturous, ad hoc, adjustments to shoe horn a fit - I will
be forced to reconsider.

Until then, I really cant shake the feeling it is more belief than
science.

I can understand that. I guess the way I look at it now, much like most
of theoretical physics, is that it is much more a mathematical construct
than a physical theory. As such, they aren't really expected to make
useful predictions so much as to provide a mathematical underpinning. As
such, it's not so much a theory as a basis for describing. (On the other
hand, maybe I don't understand the purpose behind a GUT.) Hopefully, at
some point when the mathematical construct has been fleshed out better,
one would hope that it does make useful predictions, but until then, I
don't have a problem with people having enthusiasm for it, much like any
other field of mathematics--as long as they understand the limitations of
the construct. I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that quarks
were an exactly analogous "discovery"--at first, they were a mathematical
construct, that was eventually fleshed out enough to make predictions
about how we might observe quarks--which we then proceeded to do. While
it remains to be seen whether string theory will reach the same level of
experimental support to be considered a physical theory, as opposed to
theoretical physics.

I think I can see where you are coming from here, and largely agree with
you. As far as the mathematics of "hyperspace" goes, it is fascinating. When
an idea wants to evolve from the mathematical structures into a theory, it
needs to make a prediction. Even new mathematics has this burden but at
least there it "simply" has to make a mathematical proof.

I am fully aware I am not in keeping with the majority viewpoint here

I'm not so sure that's true. I've heard this critique a lot, from some
well respected physicists.

Cool. Impressions of "mainstream" can be a bit skewed by the prolific
nature of string theories supporters in the media.

Gravity, certainly in my day, was taught as a curvature of space time.
There is no force carrier required as it shapes the "spacetime"
everything else exists in.

Well, I guess that sort of begs the question, because there must be a
mechanism for an object here to bend spacetime hundreds of millions of
miles away. That is discomforting.

It does beg the question, and for me personally finding that mechanism
would be more worthwhile than trying to unify the electroweak, strong
force and gravity.

As I understand it, EW and strong have already been unified--not true?

Yes, sorry, there is a unified theory for them, although I would have to
check if this is experimentally verified yet. The problem is entirely with
gravity.

Perhaps they need to be unified in a slightly different way--a new
connection needs to be found between them--in order to be more compatible
with gravity without such mind-bending mathematical contortions as
quantized 11-dimensional space-time.

It would be ideal.

One thing I still cant get my head round is the need to unify all four. It
seems there is an unproven assumption it will be possible so the quest
continues. Seems strange to me, but then so do a lot of things.

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45376EAA.AF2F3DBB@earthlink.net...

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Why then would a designer make every life form use almost the same DNA?
Why
have a flower have the same basic DNA as a human?


Because that designer knows his tools, and how to use them. Do you
think that a bridge should be made of plastic, because steel had been
used for cars that will cross it?

Do you think a designer should learn a whole new disciple for every
project they do? Maybe we need an infinite number of elements so we
never use the same in any two designs?

Gibberish non-answer.