Bitter Fruit
From Nov 2003 this photo journalist travelled across the US and begin his essay on the funerals of the soldiers who were killed in Iraq. I must admit this is a very moving and thought provoking. It makes you wonder what truly goes through the minds of the leaders knowing that over 2,000 of their own have been killed and countless thousands of other have been killed. With hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people been directly effect and traumatised by their senseless death. http://www.magnuminmotion.com/bitterfruit/ BTW. Work as been crazy here so not got a chance to catch up on posts and my forgotten threads Alex -- ___ The pen is mightier than the sword! Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-73) Just look what happened in the US in 2000 Bush wins with the Pen of a Judge! Alex Gogan (1968- gulp!) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 03/11/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
meta research
Anyone know anything about this organizeation? Care to critique? http://metaresearch.org/home.asp From the Viewpoints page of that site, from the Meta Philosophy essay on that page: It has been my sad observation that by mid-career there are very few professionals left truly working for the advancement of science, as opposed to the advancement of self. And given enough people with strong enough interests, professional peer pressure takes over from there. Peer pressure in science, as elsewhere in society, consists of alternately attacking and ignoring the people who advocate a contrary idea, and discrediting their motives and/or competence, in order to achieve conformity. Even when it is not effective directly, it is usually successful at ensuring that the contrary person or idea gains few allies, and remains isolated. In short, those who may suspect the need for a radical change in an accepted theory have no interests or motivations as strong as those supporting the status quo. And members of the former group usually lack the background and confidence to challenge the latter group, who are the recognized experts in the field and well-able to defend their own theories. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: meta research Anyone know anything about this organizeation? Care to critique? http://metaresearch.org/home.asp I have not heard of them before, but they sound like a lot of what I have heard. I read what they said about the Big Bang, and they sound an awful lot like the alternate thinkers who I've debated with on sci.physics. They also sound a lot like creation scientists. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bitter Fruit
- Original Message - From: Alex Gogan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:38 AM Subject: Bitter Fruit I must admit this is a very moving and thought provoking. It makes you wonder what truly goes through the minds of the leaders knowing that over 2,000 of their own have been killed and countless thousands of other have been killed. With hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people been directly effect and traumatised by their senseless death. I wonder how many of the folks who debate what we should have and should do in Iraq are really interested in understand the viewpoint of others. I made my opinion known here from before the war: I was opposed to the war because I didn't believe the administration was capable of handling post war Iraq. I believe that, unfortunately, I underestimated the incompetence of this administration. But, at the same time, I think I underestimated the political skill of the people of Iraq. Looking at the political maneuvering during the last few months, I have been amazed by how the parties involved are working to a political solution to a problem that has lasted for at least a century. I'm guessing that our blundering over the last 2.5 years will be too much to overcome, and our invasion of Iraq will be seen as a failure in history. Indeed, I see it as a true tragedy...in the classical sense (i.e. in the sense that the deaths from the tsunami were not tragic). If the Bush Administration were not so blinded by their own optimism, they actually might have succeeded. I would be interested in a real discussion that allows folks with different views to express them in discussable termsnot terms that presupposes a moral lack in folks with different viewpoints. In particular, I'm interested in the unspoken presuppositions of folks with different viewpoints. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Dan wrote: I have not heard of them before, but they sound like a lot of what I have heard. I read what they said about the Big Bang, and they sound an awful lot like the alternate thinkers who I've debated with on sci.physics. They also sound a lot like creation scientists. I'm guessing you didn't read much. Creation scientists explain light from sources more than 10,000 light years away as being created on the way. There's nothing that brain dead here, I don't think. Let me ask how you would respond to this quote from the site: Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative – something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 6:34 PM Subject: Re: meta research Dan wrote: I have not heard of them before, but they sound like a lot of what I have heard. I read what they said about the Big Bang, and they sound an awful lot like the alternate thinkers who I've debated with on sci.physics. They also sound a lot like creation scientists. I'm guessing you didn't read much. Creation scientists explain light from sources more than 10,000 light years away as being created on the way. There's nothing that brain dead here, I don't think. Actually, some use techniques very similar to the ones used in that website. Let me ask how you would respond to this quote from the site: Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. Uh-huhwhere do they consider the wealth of data supporting the big bang? The tremendous links between astrophysics and high energy physics? The sucesses in dealing with black holes? The observation of neutrino oscillations (explaining the relative lack of solar neutrinos)? There is a lot The arguements given have been given a number of time on sci.physics. Physicists have patiently tried to explain the problems with the various tired light hypothesis. Off the top of my head, I can easily think of data that would be quite different if the graviton drag theory were true. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. He really doesn't know what is going on in science, that's clear to me. First of all, the present theory is well validated over a vast range of observations. Thus, it will not fall to the wayside, like the caloric fluid theory of heat. Instead, when and if a superior theory is developed, it will remain as a special case of the more general theory...they way Classical Mechanics is still kept (and taught in graduate schools). Second, he misses the sociology of science completely. If he were to make the more limited claim that states that there increased number of anomalies that have to be explained in an ad hoc manner indicates that there may be serious limitations to our present theory, then he'd have a very strong case. But, it appears that he doesn't read the general physics magazines, such a Physics Today. I regularly read articles that discuss the difficulties with our ability to accurately model observations in astronomy. The big bang itself isn't often brought into question, because of the wealth of supporting data. But, the anomalies are regarded, hopefully, as an indication that additional observations will allow us to develop a better theory. The gut level reaction of physicists to well verified anomalies is the game is afoot. But, these folks are not actually coming up with real theory (at least as far as I have found on the websiteif you see examples of what you consider real physics, I'll look at it). Instead they present retread old theories...which have run into insurmountable difficulties decades ago. And, if you look elsewhere on the website you will see gems like: On Tuesday, May 8, 2001 at 1PM, Meta Research released findings that provide compelling evidence for the presence of artificial structures on the planet Mars. The press conference was held at the New Yorker hotel in Manhattan, New York. or The Exploded Planet Hypothesis – 2000 Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research followed by a whole lot of arm waving. In what way is this superior to creation science? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 7:48 PM Subject: Re: meta research Uh-huhwhere do they consider the wealth of data supporting the big bang? The tremendous links between astrophysics and high energy physics? The sucesses in dealing with black holes? The observation of neutrino oscillations (explaining the relative lack of solar neutrinos)? There is a lot of work that has been done that is consistent with the big bang. If it didn't exist, why do we still hear the echoes from it, for example? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Dan wrote: Second, he misses the sociology of science completely. If he were to make the more limited claim that states that there increased number of anomalies that have to be explained in an ad hoc manner indicates that there may be serious limitations to our present theory, then he'd have a very strong case. OK, I know I'm way out of my league when discussing this stuff with you, but if the above is true, why spend any time at all trying the patch the theory up with fantastic ideas like inflation and dark matter? It seems like by the time you need to invent stuff out of whole cloth that it might be time to step back and entertain some new ideas. Are there serious efforts to propose and test alternative ideas or is there a tendency to look upon anyone that doesn't go with the flow as a crank? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 8:45 PM Subject: Re: meta research Dan wrote: Second, he misses the sociology of science completely. If he were to make the more limited claim that states that there increased number of anomalies that have to be explained in an ad hoc manner indicates that there may be serious limitations to our present theory, then he'd have a very strong case. OK, I know I'm way out of my league when discussing this stuff with you, but if the above is true, why spend any time at all trying the patch the theory up with fantastic ideas like inflation and dark matter? Or Planck's constant, or the Bohr theory of the atom? Inflation is certainly not an elegant theorybut it is at least a decent phenomenological model of the very very early universe. It is a way of expressing the parameters. Dark matter is used to explain the rotation of the galaxies. If one does General Relativity (which I think can be well approximated by good old Newtonian gravitation for the cases we are considering), we find that the rotation of the stars in the galaxies do not match the mass of the observed stars. If there were dark matter, then the rotation would be consistent with what we know about gravity. If not, then we have to find a fudge for gravityone we have no real basis for. Of the two, dark matter was considered a bit more conservative. It seems like by the time you need to invent stuff out of whole cloth that it might be time to step back and entertain some new ideas. And the candidate new theories are? If someone were to come up with a new theory that simplifed cosmology and replaces the ad hoc patches with a simple theory he/she would be virtually guaranteed the Nobel prize and the title greatest physicist of the early 21st centory (unless the person who comes up with quantum gravety takes that title. Even a modest simplification would be worth a great deal (assured tenure at a first line school for example). A key part of the divide between our perceptions can be explained by my experience in graduate school. Most decent sized physics departements have been approached by crackpots. On at Wisconsin actually got to present he problem to some of the best theorists there. He ideas were wacky (lines of magnetic force were like likes of chalk with nothing in between), but the problem she set up was hard to solve. One of the more esoteric theorists finally came up with the explaination, to her dismay. It had to do with subtle interaction of magnetic and frictional forces that were counterintuitive, but there when you worked out the theory. A real theory is not a few general discussion paragraphs, pages, or even books. It is a serious attempt to fit data (usually with numerical predictions). Are there serious efforts to propose and test alternative ideas or is there a tendency to look upon anyone that doesn't go with the flow as a crank? Actual new ideas are welcome. If someone came up with a new theory and showed how much of the old theory can be derived as a special case of the new theory, people would take notice. If there were an alternative to inflation that match the observed density distribution of galaxies, was consistent with GR and QM to the levels at which they've been well tested, even if it was merely just as simple, it would be accepted as another way to work out the problem. It would be considered a real contribution because it would give more information to later theorists: somewhat in the sense that the Heisenburg and Schrotenger (sp) formations of QM led to Dirac's beautiful general formulation of QM. One way to look at things like dark matter and inflation would be as stepping stones. It is much easier to fit a general model when some of the parts are already modeled. Even ad hoc fits, such as the Bohr atom, provides a means of organizing the data in a way it can be thought of. This allows a different, or even the same, physicist to find a more elegant solution later. But, pages and pages of arm waving generalities rarely produces anything useful. It's more akin to an all night bull session in the dorms than it is to science. I know when I started grad. school Electroweak moved from quite understandable mocking (they insisted that two unseen things really existed), to becoming the standard theory in less than 5 years. It took only 1 year for it to be well accepted. The reason was clear, those two things were found within a year. I've been asked about my work in terms of a potential 5th force, I've seen arguments for monopoles, I've seen searches for proton decay, I've seen first rate physicists who talk how they come up with 2 or 3 ideas a day...but only one a month worth publishing. One said he ran it through a gauntlet before publication...even if he already had a Nobel prize. I've seen arguments for radically
RE: Keyboard fetish.
Reggie Bautista wrote: Sounds like you could use the Virtually Indestructable Keyboard. From the web page at http://www.grandtec.com/vik.htm Very interesting! Thanks for the link. Kevin Street -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 11/5/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
