Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365527 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-28 06:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-14 17:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 136 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 06:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-28 09:52 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 23:25 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-29 07:04 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-29 06:06 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-29 10:34 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 19:40 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-30 08:39 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-30 21:43 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 20:57 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-28 12:18 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 23:16 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 14:47 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 14:50 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 23:24 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:21 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 20:59 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-29 07:20 -0500
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:34 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 20:59 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-30 09:00 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 08:32 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-30 21:46 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 13:26 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-30 23:04 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 14:48 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-12 00:37 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-11 18:58 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-12 18:39 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-12 14:15 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-12 12:56 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 04:19 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 04:31 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 17:32 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 18:31 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-16 06:41 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-16 04:48 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-12 23:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 03:58 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 02:33 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 17:22 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-16 20:24 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 13:01 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-16 22:12 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 15:32 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 19:42 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-17 10:01 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-17 09:58 +0200
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 17:36 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 18:34 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 18:44 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 18:48 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-14 02:31 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-15 04:36 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-23 20:16 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-24 11:54 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-25 12:12 +0100
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-25 16:31 -0500
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 15:27 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-10-27 14:03 -0500
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 10:35 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 15:11 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 16:06 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 16:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 18:19 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-12 22:34 -0500
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 22:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 22:21 -0700
Re: where can we find such people kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-13 11:52 -0400
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 09:01 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-13 16:39 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 10:49 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-13 18:12 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 14:12 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-14 00:22 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 20:00 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-14 03:52 +0000
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 03:11 -0700
Re: where can we find such people paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 03:57 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 04:13 -0700
Re: where can we find such people kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-14 07:05 -0400
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 04:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-14 07:47 -0400
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 05:54 -0700
Re: where can we find such people kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-14 15:19 -0400
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-14 22:12 +0200
Re: where can we find such people pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-14 15:17 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 23:18 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 10:39 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-14 20:08 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 11:16 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-14 21:11 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 12:17 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-14 22:03 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:11 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 23:14 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 11:44 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 15:18 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 23:36 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 23:28 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:56 -0500
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 23:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 11:45 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 15:32 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-15 22:32 +0200
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 14:35 -0700
Re: where can we find such people shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-16 00:10 +0000
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 23:52 -0700
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:56 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-16 00:03 -0700
Re: where can we find such people paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 04:19 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-16 05:01 -0700
Re: where can we find such people paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 05:42 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-16 05:47 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 18:17 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 04:10 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 18:21 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 06:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 09:14 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 07:53 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-14 13:05 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 14:57 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-14 22:35 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 06:00 -0700
Re: where can we find such people mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-15 06:15 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-15 14:43 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-15 20:19 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-15 22:37 +0200
Re: where can we find such people Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-14 23:30 +0000
Re: where can we find such people JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 17:04 -0700
Re: where can we find such people Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-14 22:41 -0500
Re: where can we find such people Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: where can we find such people Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:54 -0500
Re: where can we find such people John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 15:35 -0700
Re: where can we find such people John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 17:53 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 20:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <muen3e$i27$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #365750 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ca7b185d-0432-4ed9-b275-15f8feceeec7@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:20:20 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > ----snip---- > ` > > OK, in case my Wikipedia link was not immediately obvious: > > in order to criticise X, you have to know X. End of story. > > Wrong. > > I know little of Alchemy, but can I criticise it quite easily: > it doesn't work. |Wrong analogy And you're the queen of England.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 09:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn0nqo0.mv5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #365750 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > OK, in case my Wikipedia link was not immediately obvious: > > > in order to criticise X, you have to know X. End of story. > > > > Wrong. > > > > I know little of Alchemy, but can I criticise it quite easily: > > it doesn't work. > > Wrong analogy You're wrong again; it's not an analogy: it's a counter-example. > - see my answers to Maciej. One could criticise > anything at random if that analogy worked. And you're wrong yet again. One can criticise anything *that doesn't work* in those terms. And why did you surreptitiously snip the religious counter- example, hmmm? Restored: > * I know little of Islam, but I can criticise it quite easily: > * there is no such thing as a god. Is it because you cab't contest the point it makes? You can criticise anything based on hypothesis by simply rejecting the hypothesis. > I normally stress specifically > that one cannot criticise TECHNICAL aspects of physics without > knowing it. Oh, moving the goalposts yet again, are we? What a *clever* little weasel you are! ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27abb14e-2f99-4951-a00e-67bdaaa1714e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365750 |
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:34:23 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: > > I would like very much to see a good philosophical discussion of relativity > or QM. > > -- > Jan Hi Jan, I would like that, too. Maybe we can start one: First of all, the standard model of cosmology, using GR, predicts that the universe began with an infinite density in a singularity. I find this to be quite unphysical since nature seems to abhor infinities (and zeroes, too, for that matter, but I digress). And Neil Turok sees inflation as also suspicious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxetKz61evI Are you familiar with his and Steinhardt's ekpyrotic universe model? http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0103239.pdf Sorry for jumping from relativity into quantum gravity, but it seems that the former may well be an emergent property of the latter. What do you think? Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 21:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <muhe6m$csc$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #365808 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:27abb14e-2f99-4951-a00e-67bdaaa1714e@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:34:23 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: > > I would like very much to see a good philosophical discussion of > relativity > or QM. Yes, I'm sure you'd like very much to see philosophers praying to incredible wisdom of morons like you. Still, I'm not a philosopher.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a17a35b6-9369-4dc1-9892-539a8feed87f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365822 |
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 1:46:32 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:27abb14e-2f99-4951-a00e-67bdaaa1714e@googlegroups.com... > > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:34:23 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: > > > > I would like very much to see a good philosophical discussion of > > relativity > > or QM. > > Yes, I'm sure you'd like very much to see philosophers praying > to incredible wisdom of morons like you. > Still, I'm not a philosopher. Everyone knows you're not a philosopher. They also know that you aren't a scientist. They also know that you are the things you call others. “When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of judgment. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-30 23:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <748cc3d8-8411-4484-99c6-d9ca4254821c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365824 |
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 10:26:11 PM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 1:46:32 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:27abb14e-2f99-4951-a00e-67bdaaa1714e@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:34:23 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > I would like very much to see a good philosophical discussion of > > > relativity > > > or QM. > > > > Yes, I'm sure you'd like very much to see philosophers praying > > to incredible wisdom of morons like you. > > Still, I'm not a philosopher. > > Everyone knows you're not a philosopher. They also know that you aren't > a scientist. They also know that you are the things you call others. They also know their Ingenious Shit brought them to a level of transcendency unapproachable for common mortals and made them unerring and infallible demigods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0938fb9-84ef-487d-aa6d-2bcbf891bfa9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365862 |
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 11:04:31 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 10:26:11 PM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 1:46:32 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:27abb14e-2f99-4951-a00e-67bdaaa1714e@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:34:23 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > I would like very much to see a good philosophical discussion of > > > > relativity > > > > or QM. > > > > > > Yes, I'm sure you'd like very much to see philosophers praying > > > to incredible wisdom of morons like you. > > > Still, I'm not a philosopher. > > > > Everyone knows you're not a philosopher. They also know that you aren't > > a scientist. They also know that you are the things you call others. > > They also know their Ingenious Shit brought them > to a level of transcendency unapproachable for > common mortals and made them unerring and infallible > demigods. My money is on autism. Anyone? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 00:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1684579.OQOJrBiJaK@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #365694 |
Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: >> OK, in case my Wikipedia link was not immediately obvious: >> in order to criticise X, you have to know X. End of story. > > Wrong. > > I know little of Alchemy, but can I criticise it quite easily: > it doesn't work. ACK. > I know little of Islam, but I can criticise it quite easily: > there is no such thing as a god. The problem with that criticism is that it is a bare assumption that is hard to prove, if that; it is not falsifiable, therefore not scientific. Consider Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Therefore, I am leaning towards scientific agnosticism: Suppose there are beings that we would consider gods (which really has nothing to do with Islam; you would have to reject all theistic religions based on your argument), then it is not clear if and how we could recognize them, and if they would be interested in us or understand us in any way (consider yourself watching an ant hill). That begs the question why we should consider such hypothetical beings in our thinking and actions: would that please them, or annoy them, would they realize them or be oblivious of them, and if they realized them, would they even care? But that philosophical discussion is beyond the scope of this newsgroup and subhierarchy. PointedEars -- Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door when he went camping? A: 'Gone fission'. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 18:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1lttg.57e.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #366793 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > OK, in case my Wikipedia link was not immediately obvious: > > > in order to criticise X, you have to know X. End of story. > > > > Wrong. > > > > I know little of Alchemy, but can I criticise it quite easily: > > it doesn't work. > > ACK. > > > I know little of Islam, but I can criticise it quite easily: > > there is no such thing as a god. > > The problem with that criticism is that it is a bare assumption > that is hard to prove, if that; it is not falsifiable, therefore > not scientific. Wrong. It is rejection of the god hypothesis. It's up to those who put that hypothesis to show cause to accept it. > Consider Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology > is indistinguishable from magic." All due respect to the great mind, but in this he's not wholly correct: superstitious people will see magic, objective thinkers will see effects whose causes they cannot (at yet) determine. > Therefore, I am leaning towards scientific agnosticism: Agnosticism is a purely logical response to a question: no value judgement is made in respect of the hypothsis being considered. But logic alone cannot *ever* take us anywhere: we *must* begin with an acceptable premisae, and the god hypothesis is unacceptable because it is untestable. > Suppose there are beings that we would > consider gods (which really has nothing to do with Islam; you > would have to reject all theistic religions based on your > argument), Of course. All else is insanity. > then it is not clear if and how we could recognize > them, and if they would be interested in us or understand us > in any way (consider yourself watching an ant hill). Not a good analogy. Ants don't build telescopes. > That begs the question *Raises* the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise. > why we should consider such hypothetical > beings in our thinking and actions: would that please them, or > annoy them, would they realize them or be oblivious of them, > and if they realized them, would they even care? And, since you've gone down that road, how would we know? The road itself is nonsense. > But that philosophical discussion is beyond the scope of this > newsgroup and subhierarchy. Science *is* philosophy. Remember the old name for Physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 18:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvgnoc$hmq$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #366798 |
Użytkownik "Ned Latham" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:slrnn1lttg.57e.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz... |Wrong. It is rejection of the god hypothesis. It's up to those who |put that hypothesis to show cause to accept it. Why? |Agnosticism is a purely logical response to a question: |no value judgement is made in respect of the hypothsis |being considered. But logic alone cannot *ever* take us |anywhere: we *must* begin with an acceptable premisae, |and the god hypothesis is unacceptable because it is |untestable. And that's exactly the point. It is unacceptable - for You. As You didn't accepted it, You imagine logical reasons for the fact, but logic of them crumble at a touch. How did You test the permisae, that a non testable permisae is invalid? How did You test "a=a" axiom? Brain is a complicated thingie. But, actually, programmable. Science and religion have different purposes, but both are brain applications, and that make them quite similiar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 14:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1o1mc.3bt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #366854 |
Maciej Wozniak wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Wrong. It is rejection of the god hypothesis. It's up to > > those who put that hypothesis to show cause to accept it. > > Why? You lurk in a physics NG and you need to ask that? *sigh* Okay then, slow boy, pay careful attention. Syllogism 1: 1. If an alleged phenomenon doesn't exist, it can have no physical effect on the universe. 2. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. C. Therefore it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist. Syllogism 2: 1. If an alleged phenomenon does exist, it can have some physioal effect on the universe. 2. Such an effect would be evidence of its presence. C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. Syllogism 3: 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist. 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause to accept it. Quite simple, really. > > Agnosticism is a purely logical response to a question: Correction: "an unanswerable question". > > no value judgement is made in respect of the hypothsis > > being considered. But logic alone cannot *ever* take us > > anywhere: we *must* begin with an acceptable premisae, > > and the god hypothesis is unacceptable because it is > > untestable. > > And that's exactly the point. It is unacceptable - for You. Wrong. Learn to read. It's unacceptavle because it's untestable. > As You didn't accepted it, Because it's untestable. > You imagine logical reasons > for the fact, What fact? > but logic of them crumble at a touch. You wanna translate that into English? > How > did You test the permisae, that a non testable permisae > is invalid? I didn't say "invalid", I said "unacceptable". And it's not a premise, it's an axiom. > How did You test "a=a" axiom? You don't test axioms. And that one's irrelevant here. > Brain is a complicated thingie. But, actually, programmable. > Science and religion have different purposes, but both > are brain applications, and that make them quite similiar. Wrong again. They are similar in just one thing: both are attempts to explain the universe. One of them is thus far unsuccessful; the other begins with delusion and marches boldly forth into gibbering lunacy. Can you guess which is which?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edaf2dd1-f0d4-4c81-90bd-af657781555c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366867 |
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 1:15:29 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Syllogism 1: > 1. If an alleged phenomenon doesn't exist, it can have no > physical effect on the universe. Correct. > 2. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Correct. > C. Therefore it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of > an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist. Actually, one can refute the existence of said phenomenon IF other CONFIRMED phenomena are incompatible with its existence. > Syllogism 2: > 1. If an alleged phenomenon does exist, it can have some > physioal effect on the universe. Correct. > 2. Such an effect would be evidence of its presence. Correct. > C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an > extant phenomenon. Yes, IF the effect were big enough to measure. > Syllogism 3: > 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged > phenomenon that doesn't exist. Not completely correct. > 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. Perhaps. > C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence > hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause > to accept it. > > Quite simple, really. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 04:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1ursa.bis.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #366872 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Syllogism 1: > > 1. If an alleged phenomenon doesn't exist, it can have no > > physical effect on the universe. > > Correct. > > > 2. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > > Correct. > > > C. Therefore it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of > > an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > Actually, one can refute the existence of said phenomenon IF > other CONFIRMED phenomena are incompatible with its existence. No. That can only refute its description; ie, its existence *as described". > > Syllogism 2: > > 1. If an alleged phenomenon does exist, it can have some > > physioal effect on the universe. > > Correct. > > > 2. Such an effect would be evidence of its presence. > > Correct. > > > C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an > > extant phenomenon. > > Yes, IF the effect were big enough to measure. It's a conceptual possibility. That detecting the effect might be beyond current abilities is immaterial. > > Syllogism 3: > > 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged > > phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > Not completely correct. *Quite* completely correct, actually. > > 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. > > Perhaps. No, certainly. Again, it's conceptual. > > C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence > > hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause > > to accept it. > > > > Quite simple, really. > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi That implies a rather lackadaisical attiude to evidence. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 04:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13bd6919-2af4-4373-9bba-047ed40a5265@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367133 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 3:19:09 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Syllogism 1: > > > 1. If an alleged phenomenon doesn't exist, it can have no > > > physical effect on the universe. > > > > Correct. > > > > > 2. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > > > > Correct. > > > > > C. Therefore it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of > > > an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > > > Actually, one can refute the existence of said phenomenon IF > > other CONFIRMED phenomena are incompatible with its existence. > > No. That can only refute its description; ie, its existence > *as described". Your claim is getting really close to word salad by introducing the undefined term "description." > > > Syllogism 2: > > > 1. If an alleged phenomenon does exist, it can have some > > > physioal effect on the universe. > > > > Correct. > > > > > 2. Such an effect would be evidence of its presence. > > > > Correct. > > > > > C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an > > > extant phenomenon. > > > > Yes, IF the effect were big enough to measure. > > It's a conceptual possibility. That detecting the effect might > be beyond current abilities is immaterial. If you can't measure it, you have NO evidence. So it IS material. > > > Syllogism 3: > > > 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged > > > phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > > > Not completely correct. > > *Quite* completely correct, actually. Nope. As I said, other measurements can rule out a particular speculation that disagrees with them. > > > 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. > > > > Perhaps. > > No, certainly. Again, it's conceptual. PROOF is not "conceptual." If you can't measure it, you have no "proof." > > > C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence > > > hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause > > > to accept it. > > > > > > Quite simple, really. > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi > > That implies a rather lackadaisical attiude to evidence. > > Ned Nope. That strongly implies a stringent requirement for sanity. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 17:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn20ach.32d.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #367138 |
Gary Harnagel wrote in <13bd6919-2af4-4373-9bba-047ed40a5265@googlegroups.com>: > On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 3:19:09 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > Syllogism 1: > > > > 1. If an alleged phenomenon doesn't exist, it can have no > > > > physical effect on the universe. > > > > > > Correct. > > > > > > > 2. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > > > > > > Correct. > > > > > > > C. Therefore it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of > > > > an alleged phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > > > > > Actually, one can refute the existence of said phenomenon IF > > > other CONFIRMED phenomena are incompatible with its existence. > > > > No. That can only refute its description; ie, its existence > > *as described". > > Your claim is getting really close to word salad by introducing > the undefined term "description." Ad hom characterisation is not arhument. And the word *is* defined. Get a dictionary. > > > > Syllogism 2: > > > > 1. If an alleged phenomenon does exist, it can have some > > > > physioal effect on the universe. > > > > > > Correct. > > > > > > > 2. Such an effect would be evidence of its presence. > > > > > > Correct. > > > > > > > C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an > > > > extant phenomenon. > > > > > > Yes, IF the effect were big enough to measure. > > > > It's a conceptual possibility. That detecting the effect might > > be beyond current abilities is immaterial. > > If you can't measure it, you have NO evidence. Immaterial. I might be able to measure it tomorrow. > So it IS material. > > > > > Syllogism 3: > > > > 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged > > > > phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > > > > > Not completely correct. > > > > *Quite* completely correct, actually. > > Nope. As I said, other measurements can rule out a particular > speculation that disagrees with them. And I refuted that statement. > > > > 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. > > > > > > Perhaps. > > > > No, certainly. Again, it's conceptual. > > PROOF is not "conceptual." If you can't measure it, you have no "proof." That objection has been refuted. > > > > C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence > > > > hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause > > > > to accept it. > > > > > > > > Quite simple, really. > > > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi > > > > That implies a rather lackadaisical attiude to evidence. > > > > Ned > > Nope. That strongly implies a stringent requirement for sanity. Wrong again. Claims of all sorts require conclusive ecidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 18:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7138ba95-7d5c-4ad3-a5dc-e2200e9d0c4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367221 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 4:32:51 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote in <13bd6919-2af4-4373-9bba-047ed40a5265@googlegroups.com>: > > > > On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 3:19:09 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > No. That can only refute its description; ie, its existence > > > *as described". > > > > Your claim is getting really close to word salad by introducing > > the undefined term "description." > > Ad hom characterisation is not arhument. Calling what you wrote close to word salad is not an ad hom. You seem to be greatly confused. > And the word *is* defined. Get a dictionary. You didn't use that word, and I didn't either. Are you REALLY so clueless? > > > > > C. Therefore it's possible to prove the existence of an > > > > > extant phenomenon. > > > > > > > > Yes, IF the effect were big enough to measure. > > > > > > It's a conceptual possibility. That detecting the effect might > > > be beyond current abilities is immaterial. > > > > If you can't measure it, you have NO evidence. > > Immaterial. I might be able to measure it tomorrow. It's still material until you CAN measure it. Today, you are just yammering nonsense. > > > > > Syllogism 3: > > > > > 1. It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of an alleged > > > > > phenomenon that doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > Not completely correct. > > > > > > *Quite* completely correct, actually. > > > > Nope. As I said, other measurements can rule out a particular > > speculation that disagrees with them. > > And I refuted that statement. No, you didn't. Are you really that delusional? > > > > > 2. It's possible to prove the existence of an extant phenomenon. > > > > > > > > Perhaps. > > > > > > No, certainly. Again, it's conceptual. > > > > PROOF is not "conceptual." If you can't measure it, you have no "proof." > > That objection has been refuted. No, it hasn't. You are DEFINITELY delusional. > > > > > C. Therefore it's incumbent upon those who put an existence > > > > > hypothesis to show evidence in its favour; ie, show cause > > > > > to accept it. > > > > > > > > > > Quite simple, really. > > > > > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi > > > > > > That implies a rather lackadaisical attiude to evidence. > > > > > > Ned > > > > Nope. That strongly implies a stringent requirement for sanity. > > Wrong again. Claims of all sorts require conclusive ecidence. > > Nothing more, nothing less. How am I wrong if I agree that "Claims of all sorts require conclusive evidence"? You seem to have a real logic problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 06:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn21oid.o35.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #367229 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote: ----red herring babble snipped---- > > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." > > > > > - Marcello Truzzi > > > > > > > > That implies a rather lackadaisical attiude to evidence. > > > > > > Nope. That strongly implies a stringent requirement for sanity. > > > > Wrong again. Claims of all sorts require conclusive ecidence. > > > > Nothing more, nothing less. > > How am I wrong if I agree that "Claims of all sorts require conclusive > evidence"? That's not what you did. > You seem to have a real logic problem. Wrong again. Do feel free to try again when you've learnt to face facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 04:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8438bdf1-d500-450d-a4e2-b013a00890a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367249 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:41:07 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > How am I wrong if I agree that "Claims of all sorts require conclusive > > evidence"? > > That's not what you did. You seem to have a real problem parsing sentences. > > You seem to have a real logic problem. > > Wrong again. Do feel free to try again when you've learnt to face > facts. I have faced the fact that you have a problem relating to reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 23:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67e6babb-c68c-44e0-b873-6b3e4c3e79d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366867 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 12 października 2015 21:15:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał: > You don't test axioms. And that one's irrelevant here. So, according to your brilliant proof, fast boy, axioms are unacceptable. Aren't they? > > > Brain is a complicated thingie. But, actually, programmable. > > Science and religion have different purposes, but both > > are brain applications, and that make them quite similiar. > > Wrong again. Because? |They are similar in just one thing: both are |attempts to explain the universe. A bullshit. Though, of course, as our curiosity is the best gate to install, both are pretending. And, about impossible proofs of nonexistence - do you want a proof of nonexistence of an even prime number greater, than 2? I think such a brilliant logician can do it himself. On the other hand, try to prove the existence of Earth. Your attempt to explain the universe, well... you understand exactly nothing. Instead, as we can see, there are some rules installed in your head. You believe them, protect them, teach others of them, get angry, when someone is questionning them, and sometimes you even apply them. That's what science is designed for, and that's why it is similiar to religion. some rules
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 03:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1uqlj.bis.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #366923 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > You don't test axioms. And that one's irrelevant here. > > So, according to your brilliant proof, fast boy, > axioms are unacceptable. Aren't they? Wrong again, slow boy. Learn to read. Then look up the words "axiom" and "axiomatic". > > > Brain is a complicated thingie. But, actually, programmable. > > > Science and religion have different purposes, but both > > > are brain applications, and that make them quite similiar. > > > > Wrong again. > > Because? Clearly, because you're retarded, and don't understand either of them. > > They are similar in just one thing: both are > > attempts to explain the universe. > > A bullshit. Though, of course, as our curiosity > is the best gate to install, both are pretending. > > And, about impossible proofs of nonexistence - do > you want a proof of nonexistence of an even prime > number greater, than 2? I think such a brilliant > logician can do it himself. Numbers are not phenomena. When you've finished looking up "axiom" and "axiomatic", look up the word "noumenon". > On the other hand, try to prove the existence of Earth. When you've finished looking up "noumenon", go to the library and settle in for a couple of weeks' reading and contemplation of Descartes. > Your attempt to explain the universe, Not in this thread, bozo. > well... you > understand exactly nothing. *Nobody* understands exactly nothing. Not even you. > Instead, as we can > see, there are some rules installed in your head. > You believe them, protect them, teach others > of them, get angry, when someone is questionning > them, and sometimes you even apply them. That's > what science is designed for, and that's why > it is similiar to religion. According to that idiotic babble, nursery rhymes, Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Asimov's "Foundation" series, and Beethoven's seventh symphony are also similar to it. You should go soak your head in a bucket of piss until enlightenment comes. Don't hold you breath.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web