Ask Your Eris?

[Ghost In The Machine]

...So in what way could you interpret what I said to mean we should abandon science and go back to the caves?

My mistake.  I took you for a kindred spirit.

I guess you'll be mowed under with the rest, when we angry Luddites and Amish Hordes combine forces.

[LMNO]

Heh.  Hey, how are you posting these messages, anyway?

[Ghost In The Machine]

Heh.  Hey, how are you posting these messages, anyway?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to connect an underwood typewriter to a network?

And all the other Luddites laugh at me for using the Underwood.  "Moving parts boy", they call me.

[LMNO]

Could be worse, you could be using the old "binary smoke signals" technique...

[Ghost In The Machine]

Could be worse, you could be using the old "binary smoke signals" technique...

I said "Luddite", not "Southern Baptist".

[gnimbley]

surely you're not trying to say that dark matter doesn't exist.

previously observed and quantified data already demands that it does.

our inability to see it says more about the limitations of our technology than anything else.

I didn't say it didn't exist. And while I am not prepared to refute your
second statement, I find it interesting that we posited the existence
of somethng we can't measure from the fact that it was required to
make the math match observable fact, when the theories the math
explain are piled on top of each other like a house of cards.

And "our inability to see it says more about the limitations of our
technology than anything else" sums up my opinion of Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principal as being a crock of shit, too. (I know, there goes
quantum physics.)

OK, fair enough, instead of making fun of Nobel Prize winners, how about you share your story of how the world began

I didn't actually make fun of Nobel Prize winners, I was just
pointing out that the supporters of the Big Bang have dismissed out
of hand all criticisms of the theory to the point that Nobel Prize winners
are publicly complaining about it. (The Big Bang people control all the
funding so no research is being done into theories that oppose the
big bang.)


How the world began? It's a big ball of dirt that coalesced out of a
soup of matter.

If you were referring to how I think the universe began, I have no
idea. I think it was here before the Big Bang, and I believe that "The
Big Bang" was really "A Little Bang" among an infinite number of
bangs that go back in time infintely. And that our little bang only
contained a small part of the total matter in the universe.

There is, therefore, a lot more out there than we can see with our
technologically limited viewing instruments. In other words, the universe
has always been there.


On the other hand, in the beginning was the void. And then there was
music...

Stay tuned tomorrow, where gnimbley explains Bell's theorum using toothpicks and chewing gum!

...Still Another Guy:  Hey, Check it out.  I just got this machine to recognize and identify that other kind of energy y'all were talking about.

Damn. I forgot my toothpicks.

[LMNO]

::hugs gnimbley::

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

Thanks, gnimbley, I would quote you, but that would make my post too big and I have had enough people mad at me.

Actually, the Guth guy talks about our universe as being one of many that probably exist.  Scientists feel good about their answers for what happened at the Big Bang and what happened after, but not what happened immediately after.  The closer you get to the Big Bang going back in time, the more our "laws" of physics fall apart.  I think we should make fun of Nobel prize winners.  Most of them have it easy at a University.  I want to see one have a full time job outside of Science and still find time to write a paper, like Einstein.  He didn't get a job at a University until after he had written the paper that got him the award, I don't think  

Besides, if they(tm) know so much, why do we need so many constants for everything.  Holy fucking chao.  I think is is interesting that the more physicists learn about the unverise(s), the more they sound like mystics   But, maybe that's just me, heh, heh, heh, oops, I channeled Beavis    

[LMNO]

Darling, that sounds about right, except for one thing:

Einstein's job was easy.  That's what allowed him to write.

Similarly, if I had a job that was in any way challenging, "LMNO-PI" would not exist.


[edit:  yes, i did just compare the Theory of Relativity to a crap detective story on an internet forum.  I went there.  you got a problem with that?]

[DJRubberducky]

People keep telling me "Too much information, don't go there".... I *live* there!

[gnimbley]

Thanks, gnimbley, I would quote you, but that would make my post too big and I have had enough people mad at me.

Actually, the Guth guy talks about our universe as being one of many that probably exist.  Scientists feel good about their answers for what happened at the Big Bang and what happened after, but not what happened immediately after.  The closer you get to the Big Bang going back in time, the more our "laws" of physics fall apart.  I think we should make fun of Nobel prize winners.  Most of them have it easy at a University.  I want to see one have a full time job outside of Science and still find time to write a paper, like Einstein.  He didn't get a job at a University until after he had written the paper that got him the award, I don't think  

Besides, if they(tm) know so much, why do we need so many constants for everything.  Holy fucking chao.  I think is is interesting that the more physicists learn about the unverise(s), the more they sound like mystics   But, maybe that's just me, heh, heh, heh, oops, I channeled Beavis    

1. I'm not mad at you.

2. Scientists talk alot about multiple universes. Hell, their math can prove
there is a square root of -1! I was talking about this universe. The one
full of rocks and big gassy things that glow, etc. I believe it is much
bigger than what they are crediting it for.

3. I don't think the "laws of physics" ever fell apart. I think they just
don't know what they are talking about.

4. Einstein didn't get the Nobel Prize for Relativity, just so you know.

5. Scientists are mystics. They just don't know it.

6. You are Beavis. He channels you.

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

1. I'm not mad at you.

2. Scientists talk alot about multiple universes. Hell, their math can prove
there is a square root of -1! I was talking about this universe. The one
full of rocks and big gassy things that glow, etc. I believe it is much
bigger than what they are crediting it for.

3. I don't think the "laws of physics" ever fell apart. I think they just
don't know what they are talking about.

4. Einstein didn't get the Nobel Prize for Relativity, just so you know.

5. Scientists are mystics. They just don't know it.

6. You are Beavis. He channels you.

1.  Good.
2.  The imaginary numbers are more for mathemagicians.  And it wasn't Roger's fault, he ate espresso beans and habeneros in the same, day.
3.  Oh, yeah.  At the moment of the Big Bang, they have no fucking clue.  That's why Guth's work was such a big deal.  It helped to explain the first second after the Big Bang.
4.  He actually wrote 3 or 4 papers while he was working as a patent clerk, but IIRC, he wrote them at home, after work.
5.  Shhhh, they might hear you and really freak out.  Shirley McClain agrees.  I still haven't decided if that helps or hurts.
6.  That explains a lot, you have no idea.  However, my husband is still Butthead.

[Guido Finucci]

2.  The imaginary numbers are more for mathemagicians.  And it wasn't Roger's fault, he ate espresso beans and habeneros in the same, day.
3.  Oh, yeah.  At the moment of the Big Bang, they have no fucking clue.  That's why Guth's work was such a big deal.  It helped to explain the first second after the Big Bang.
4.  He actually wrote 3 or 4 papers while he was working as a patent clerk, but IIRC, he wrote them at home, after work.
5.  Shhhh, they might hear you and really freak out.  Shirley McClain agrees.  I still haven't decided if that helps or hurts.

I hope you won't mind if I stick my fly in your ointment:
2) Imaginary numbers do occasionally have physical-in-the-glowing-gas-Universe manifestations. There are some physics equations that don't quite solve right if you don't allow an imaginary component to some of the numbers.
3) <hairsplitting semantics>He explained nothing. He presented one theory that explained some of the observed data.</hairsplitting semantics> <cough> Just ignore me.
4) Einstien (IIRC) wrote 5 papers in 1905, on a range of physics topics, that are all considered pretty revolutionary.
5) Most of the deep mystical scientists know this too. It is the ones on their coat tails that are scared to admit it.

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

2.  The imaginary numbers are more for mathemagicians.  And it wasn't Roger's fault, he ate espresso beans and habeneros in the same, day.
3.  Oh, yeah.  At the moment of the Big Bang, they have no fucking clue.  That's why Guth's work was such a big deal.  It helped to explain the first second after the Big Bang.
4.  He actually wrote 3 or 4 papers while he was working as a patent clerk, but IIRC, he wrote them at home, after work.
5.  Shhhh, they might hear you and really freak out.  Shirley McClain agrees.  I still haven't decided if that helps or hurts.

I hope you won't mind if I stick my fly in your ointment:
2) Imaginary numbers do occasionally have physical-in-the-glowing-gas-Universe manifestations. There are some physics equations that don't quite solve right if you don't allow an imaginary component to some of the numbers.
3) <hairsplitting semantics>He explained nothing. He presented one theory that explained some of the observed data.</hairsplitting semantics> <cough> Just ignore me.
4) Einstien (IIRC) wrote 5 papers in 1905, on a range of physics topics, that are all considered pretty revolutionary.
5) Most of the deep mystical scientists know this too. It is the ones on their coat tails that are scared to admit it.

No flies, really, I pulled all that info out of my memory, which really isn't all that great always.  
2.  Imaginary numbers are important to Chaos theory, which ends up including all of everything.  My point was, it is the math, not the science that needs them.  You can talk about concepts without using 'i', but you can't always do the equations.  
3.  Guth got the attention for stuff that he did because he attempted to explain a way to connect the Big Bang to the rest of everything.  He may not have observed it, but it was pretty cool.  It was the first time I saw a scientist(not a Star Trek episode) talk about multiple universes.  
4.  
5.  I think it was in one Shirley McClains books that she writes about meeting, I want to say Hawking, but I could be wrong.  it was interesting.

Besides, you are too cute to ignore, with that pie all over your face

[Guido Finucci]

2.  Imaginary numbers are important to Chaos theory, which ends up including all of everything.  My point was, it is the math, not the science that needs them.  You can talk about concepts without using 'i', but you can't always do the equations.

Mathmeticians might argue that the equations are just a concise description of the physical reality and that, if your equations have imaginary components, you can't meaningfully talk about the science without also having references to imaginary stuff. I am not a mathmetician so I definitely won't be doing that though.

Besides, you are too cute to ignore, with that pie all over your face

Awww shucks.