Dear all:
I have not completed this project as yet but will post my comments as soon as they are complete (and edited).
Kind regards,
Arsehole
.
The Materialist Paradigm
-
millipodium
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Father millipodium wrote:
You ignore the asserted significance of baseless and ill-informed assertions and carry on with…critical analysis.
You seem to point to a lot of terms--like “critical analysisâ€--you are incapable of demonstrating. Perhaps that’s why you yourself never start any projects of value, let alone complete them.
.
You mean, like the starting point of white man's religion?How do you complete a project when the starting point is a pack of baseless and illformed assertions?
You ignore the asserted significance of baseless and ill-informed assertions and carry on with…critical analysis.
You seem to point to a lot of terms--like “critical analysisâ€--you are incapable of demonstrating. Perhaps that’s why you yourself never start any projects of value, let alone complete them.
.
-
millipodium
So how do you complete it when it starts with illogical rambling?Leyla Shen wrote:Father millipodium wrote:
You mean, like the starting point of white man's religion?How do you complete a project when the starting point is a pack of baseless and illformed assertions?
You ignore the asserted significance of baseless and ill-informed assertions and carry on with…critical analysis.
You seem to point to a lot of terms--like “critical analysisâ€--you are incapable of demonstrating. Perhaps that’s why you yourself never start any projects of value, let alone complete them.
.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
-
millipodium
It is gibberish---it requires only belief. Some belief in numerology would be helpful, too.millipodium wrote:Can you sum it up for me? Seriously. I just cannot understand the point of it. It really seemed like gibberish.Leyla Shen wrote:What an excellent article.
I knew there was something to what you have been trying to say for all this time. :)
.
Plus, he's stating (that he decided) his theory is true because a few other scientific concepts are just theories. Basically, he's loquaciously saying, "my theory rocks hardcore and yours suck."
You can't just pick and choose what you consider to be established facts, because they may or may not fit your theory (and hey, gravity is still theoretical---it could be a push, could be a pull, could be funky mojo).
He says...
Well, it's an inconcise attempt to bring a sense of order to chaos, so I admire his effort in creative futility---anyway, "made of matter?" What is matter? When he can tell me what that is, then I'll buy his book...My premise is that the Universe can be best understood as a process of construction through the convergence of quantities that are made of matter, and that function and evolve.
"My premise is that the Universe can be best understood as a sequence of interconnected ducks, through the intellectual apotheosis of persistent cracker quacks, that are made of feathers, and that function and evolve."
There's my version.
And...
Or...PS There is the materialist paradigm, and then there is the application of the materialist paradigm. Mistakes in the application of the materialist paradigm do not invalidate the paradigm.
"PS There is the cracker-hungry duck, and then there is the application of the cracker-hungry duck. Mistakes in the application of the cracker-hungry duck, do not invalidate the duck."
Of course. The duck exists whether it has crackers or not!
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
[laughs] Am I the only one to find this absolutely hilarious?m: So how do you complete it when it starts with illogical rambling?
L: You invent Jesus.
m: I wasn't asking about myself.
.
That's a version? Every quantity made of matter (whatever that may be) is a duck?Mooney: My premise is that the Universe can be best understood as a process of construction through the convergence of quantities that are made of matter, and that function and evolve.
Duckman: "My premise is that the Univrse can be best understood as a sequence of interconnected ducks, through the intellectual apotheosis of persistent cracker quacks, that are made of feathers, and that function and evolve."
There's my version.
Duckman: What is matter? When he can tell me what that is, then I'll buy his book...
He's using the standard, scientific definition of matter...
.
-
millipodium
Yes. Just as you're the only one who finds this article to contain any indication of intelligence.Leyla Shen wrote:[laughs] Am I the only one to find this absolutely hilarious?m: So how do you complete it when it starts with illogical rambling?
L: You invent Jesus.
m: I wasn't asking about myself.
What is matter? Science can't answer that. It can only name it.Leyla Shen wrote: That's a version? Every quantity made of matter (whatever that may be) is a duck?
Duckman: What is matter? When he can tell me what that is, then I'll buy his book...
He's using the standard, scientific definition of matter...
.
Why not call it "ducks" as much as "matter?" Means the same thing.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
N:
Science, as will all things of finitude, has its limits. It's necessarily a matter of utility within an aribitrarily closed system.
.
What is an answer if not definition? It is true that there are different definitions of matter, some specialised. It is also true that one might just as well call matter "ducks." However, since "ducks" already has its own useful definition, one might hope that there would be some logic behind exchanging the terms aside from simply saying any word could be exchanged for any other word on the proviso that it is given the same meaning.What is matter? Science can't answer that. It can only name it.
Why not call it "ducks" as much as "matter?" Means the same thing.
Science, as will all things of finitude, has its limits. It's necessarily a matter of utility within an aribitrarily closed system.
.
Calling matter "stuff," which is all science can really do, is not defining matter. Coming up with synonyms for something is not describing it.Leyla Shen wrote:N:
What is an answer if not definition?What is matter? Science can't answer that. It can only name it.
Why not call it "ducks" as much as "matter?" Means the same thing.
Science has not defined "matter" as anything other than "stuff." Energy? Same thing---stuff that moves other stuff.
Dark matter? Yeah, that one's the funniest..."dark stuff."
A closed system?It is true that there are different definitions of matter, some specialised. It is also true that one might just as well call matter "ducks." However, since "ducks" already has its own useful definition, one might hope that there would be some logic behind exchanging the terms aside from simply saying any word could be exchanged for any other word on the proviso that it is given the same meaning.
Science, as will all things of finitude, has its limits. It's necessarily a matter of utility within an aribitrarily closed system.
.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
N:
Does this mean you have not bought any science books, either? Some have gone to great lengths in their definitions of matter. In fact, that’s all they really are for the most part, and “duck†is a part of that representing a particular quantity and quality (form) of matter.
These are finite things. Finite things are understood within their own specific limits/boundaries--that is, within their own definitions. That's what makes them different.
Can you see it being any other way?
.
Calling matter "stuff," which is all science can really do, is not defining matter. Coming up with synonyms for something is not describing it.
Does this mean you have not bought any science books, either? Some have gone to great lengths in their definitions of matter. In fact, that’s all they really are for the most part, and “duck†is a part of that representing a particular quantity and quality (form) of matter.
I disagree. Science functions with the same basic definition of matter as you do; the same one you need before you can make the distinction “ducks†possible. The terms are, therefore, not interchangeable . That definition (of matter) in its most general form is anything that has mass and occupies space.Science has not defined "matter" as anything other than "stuff." Energy? Same thing---stuff that moves other stuff.
What, you don’t go into hysterics over anti-matter? :) I do. It is sometimes very difficult to express mathematics in words.Dark matter? Yeah, that one's the funniest..."dark stuff."
Yes. The only thing in common that the disciplines of science have can reasonably be summed up as a basic definition of matter. Though they share this basic definition, microbiology cannot/does not resolve the theoretical problems of particle physics, and vice versa. They are specialised fields in the study of matter--the composition, form, function of and relationship between particular things which have mass and occupy space. This explains why physicists and microbiologists use different equipment…A closed system?
These are finite things. Finite things are understood within their own specific limits/boundaries--that is, within their own definitions. That's what makes them different.
Can you see it being any other way?
.
Bought? No, not bought... I have stolen and borrowed several, though.Leyla Shen wrote: Does this mean you have not bought any science books, either? Some have gone to great lengths in their definitions of matter. In fact, that’s all they really are for the most part, and “duck†is a part of that representing a particular quantity and quality (form) of matter.
Yes, I know, there's better, more complex ways to attribute stuff to "stuff"---matter. But it's still stuff. One cannot get around that little fact: matter is just stuff.
Does it seem like I'm "dissing" science here? You bet---science needs a constant kick in the ass, taken out of its arrogant complacency---some branches more than others. Whenever I see science picking its nose, like it does concerning the universe, I feel the need to wind up my boot.
We're "learning"---theorizing and speculating---one-dimensionally. Humans sitting on this planet and talking about wonderful things in the universe ...it's like a wheelchair-bound person trying to figure out what it's like to run.
We're so completely feminized (using almost wholly our left brain premotor---frontal lobe---area and not its right brained counterpart at all), hardly anyone sees the value of manned missions any longer.
What terms are not interchangeable?---"stuff" and matter? Sure they are ("ducks" cannot be interchangeable with it---that was very slight humour, obviously).Leyla Shen wrote: I disagree. Science functions with the same basic definition of matter as you do; the same one you need before you can make the distinction “ducks†possible. The terms are, therefore, not interchangeable . That definition (of matter) in its most general form is anything that has mass and occupies space.
Oh, I rarely go into hysterics, but 'anti-matter' is another near-meaningless name, sure. ("Anti-stuff.")Leyla Shen wrote: What, you don’t go into hysterics over anti-matter? :) I do. It is sometimes very difficult to express mathematics in words.
"It is sometimes very difficult to express mathematics in words." You may be right, yet I don't see why---speech, words, and math symbols are all in the left brain...someone who's good with one should be as good with the other, it *should* stand to reason. Then again, I can't explain myself; I'm great with words and am crappy with math.
No, that sounds about right---straight from the text.Leyla Shen wrote: Yes. The only thing in common that the disciplines of science have can reasonably be summed up as a basic definition of matter. Though they share this basic definition, microbiology cannot/does not resolve the theoretical problems of particle physics, and vice versa. They are specialised fields in the study of matter--the composition, form, function of and relationship between particular things which have mass and occupy space. This explains why physicists and microbiologists use different equipment…
These are finite things. Finite things are understood within their own specific limits/boundaries--that is, within their own definitions. That's what makes them different.
Can you see it being any other way?
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Fantastic! Yours is a much better effort than Mooney's.Does it seem like I'm "dissing" science here? You bet---science needs a constant kick in the ass, taken out of its arrogant complacency---some branches more than others. Whenever I see science picking its nose, like it does concerning the universe, I feel the need to wind up my boot.
.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Page 9 of the Materialsit paradym talsk about this
http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/essay.pdf
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/essay.pdf
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
article
"It is an eclipse of the Sun, but not one as we know it.
"It's like being in the wrong solar system," gasped one NASA scientist after she gazed at the images.
The unearthly view was snapped on February 25 by one of two satellites in the space agency's STEREO (Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory) project to unravel the mysteries of the Sun.
Launched in October, the twin craft are in an orbit around the Sun that almost exactly matches our world's path. However one satellite, STEREO-B, is trailing about 1.6 million kilometres behind the Earth, while the other, STRERO-A, is travelling ahead.
Last month, during a test of STEREO-B's cameras, the scientists commanded the craft to image the Moon as it passed in front of the Sun.
What they saw delighted them.
"What an extraordinary view ... we caught a lunar transit of the Sun," said the NASA scientist, Dr Lika Guhathakurta.
"The images have an alien quality. It's not just the strange colours of the Sun. Look at the size of the Moon; it's very odd."
* By pure coincidence the relatively tiny Moon, when seen from Earth, looks exactly the same size as the much bigger and far more distant Sun.
So, during a solar eclipse our only natural satellite can block out the solar disc, bringing darkness in the middle of the day.
But STEREOB is about 1.6 million kilometres from Earth, so to it the Moon looks 4.4 times smaller than it does to us.
The Sun looks different because the spacecraft took the pictures using four different extreme ultraviolet light wavelengths.
The scientists hope to combine images from the two satellites to make stereo movies of the Sun that will help them understand massive explosions, called coronal mass ejections, that can hurl a billion tonnes of gas into space, sometimes towards our planet.
========================
* According to The materialist Paradym, it is no coincidence that the moon appears as the same size as the sun .
"It is an eclipse of the Sun, but not one as we know it.
"It's like being in the wrong solar system," gasped one NASA scientist after she gazed at the images.
The unearthly view was snapped on February 25 by one of two satellites in the space agency's STEREO (Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory) project to unravel the mysteries of the Sun.
Launched in October, the twin craft are in an orbit around the Sun that almost exactly matches our world's path. However one satellite, STEREO-B, is trailing about 1.6 million kilometres behind the Earth, while the other, STRERO-A, is travelling ahead.
Last month, during a test of STEREO-B's cameras, the scientists commanded the craft to image the Moon as it passed in front of the Sun.
What they saw delighted them.
"What an extraordinary view ... we caught a lunar transit of the Sun," said the NASA scientist, Dr Lika Guhathakurta.
"The images have an alien quality. It's not just the strange colours of the Sun. Look at the size of the Moon; it's very odd."
* By pure coincidence the relatively tiny Moon, when seen from Earth, looks exactly the same size as the much bigger and far more distant Sun.
So, during a solar eclipse our only natural satellite can block out the solar disc, bringing darkness in the middle of the day.
But STEREOB is about 1.6 million kilometres from Earth, so to it the Moon looks 4.4 times smaller than it does to us.
The Sun looks different because the spacecraft took the pictures using four different extreme ultraviolet light wavelengths.
The scientists hope to combine images from the two satellites to make stereo movies of the Sun that will help them understand massive explosions, called coronal mass ejections, that can hurl a billion tonnes of gas into space, sometimes towards our planet.
========================
* According to The materialist Paradym, it is no coincidence that the moon appears as the same size as the sun .
