The very occasional teaching of ID in public classrooms is probably not even a factor. But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it? I doubt anyone would really argue that support from home is not a strong factor in a child's educational success. However, why not confront all the problems we can, including the mindset that comes along for the ride with ID?
That's why I posted it.:) I hope everyone with a vague understanding of thermodynamics checks out that page -- it's the same old rehash of "arguments" against evolution based on the 2nd Law.
I've run into a physics students who claimed that a 1m^2 solar cell at 100% efficiency would exceed the power output of a nuclear power plant. Perhaps he meant a very small nuclear power plant. Frankly, I hope you backed up and ran into him again.
And one of the arguments against evolution (based on "science" rather than biblical arguments) is
First, the earth and sun must be considered as being in the universe which is by definition (from a physics standpoint) a closed system. Where then does the universe get this strange ability to defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Answer, it doesn't. Therefore, things on the earth always go from a state of order to disorder unless work not just energy is applied to reverse the disorder.
Second, if we allow the earth/sun relationship to be an open system (as my college professor suggested) then we have to take into consideration the quality of the energy being put to work in the system. Let's go back to our bedroom analogy. If you tell a two year old child to clean up his bedroom and leave him unattended, every mother knows exactly what you will get, an even bigger mess than before. As you can see it's not the quantity of the energy but the quality of the work that makes the difference. A two year old child is more than happy to put energy into the room but it's not the kind that will clean up the mess. Likewise with the sun. Yes, the sun will put tremendous amounts of energy into the earth. But as any thinking person knows not all sun energy is good energy. Think about what happens when summer rolls around and you go outside on the first hot day of the year with your sleeves rolled up. You get a sun burn. The sun put energy into you all right. However, it was not good energy but destructive energy. The sun actually killed life (the cells in your skin) it did not create life. Yes, without the sun we would not live long. We need its energy to have life. But, it takes highly developed systems which are capable of taking advantage of the sun's energy to utilize any useful work from it. It can't work any other way. The amount of sun energy that would be necessary to jump start life would kill it before it ever got started. http://mtblanco.com/MtBlancoNews/2005/Regarding%20My%20College%20Experience.html
Probably. Just make damned sure that the transmitter produces frequencies which couple strongly only to the receiver (very small bandwidth). Things which don't resonate at those frequencies will be essentially transparent to the signals. I suggest 2.45 GHz!
On my version (the "new" look), you just click on the ubiquitous paperclip icon, whereupon those emails with attachments float to the top. No searching necessary.
Diamond does have a high refractive index, which does indeed account for many of its prismatic qualities when it's cut well. However, to get the "rainbow" effect, it must also have high dispersion in the visible band, which diamond also does.
Hams are looking forward to the increasing cycle, as this will mean improved propagation. If "increasing cycle" refers to more occurrences of petrified Natalie Portmans with hot grits, then, yeah, I'd look forward to the propagation too!
It's labeled an interpretation because it is an unproven -- and, at this point, a purely hypothetical -- postulation about reality, which brings nothing new to the table (yet). That is, you've surely gathered, why I chose to stress the "interpretation" part of the name. Once these paradigms gain some power of prediction, they are no longer labeled as "interpretations". For example, both Newton's F = ma and Lagrange's action extremezation procedures are equivalent, at least when things like "mass" and "force" can be readily interpreted. When the principle of least action was formulated, it could easily have been termed an interpretation, but it quickly proved itself to be of more general use and power than N's 2nd Law. Stressing "interpretation" is NOT just playing semantics games.
If I label Religion = Reality Interpretation, is religion now an acceptable part of science? Absolutely not.
But its part of quantum mechanics in the scientific community. Yes, but everyone recognizes the untestability (or at least the currently amazingly remote possibility) of showing the interpretation is correct, including the theory's leading proponents/authors. Quantum mechanics is remarkably effective and complete in its purview, without MWI. This is not to say that the thing is wrong, but given our current level of understanding, it doesn't help anyone at this point. That was all of my original point. Taking MWI (a very small corner of QM, which currently has no influence other than philosophical) to somehow invalidate all of QM is like taking the electric universe hypothesis (which contains some salient points, but is a complete mess logically) to invalidate Maxwell's equations.
I think that was your original point.
Please post a scientifically valid test for the Everett-Wheeler interpretation. (My emphasis added to "interpretation".)
I can't. Please post a reason why I should, given that MWI isn't at this point a testable hypothesis, nor is it needed to interpret the extremely detailed, extremely accurate predictions which quantum mechanics (which is what my other post addressed) makes.
That argument is as foolish as the argument of the creationists who fight against evolution. It's narrow minded. There are plenty of people that allow for both. One of the jobs of scientists is to be narrow-minded, in the sense that they try to explain using the simplest possible explanations. Once Ockham's razor principle is slighted, scientists often get a little touchy (as they should). In this sense, science and religion are fundamentally incompatible, because religion proposes some very complicated, unexplainable, untestable, overreaching essences which science says shouldn't be allowed to the tea party.
Religion's job is to be narrow-minded, because religion either i) proposes a very generic "power" or "force" or "entity" which mops up between the gaps unexplained by "common sense" or hard science -- this form of religion is virtually worthless as either a comfort to people, or (especially) as an explanatory tool; or ii) a very specific god, endowed with a long white beard, or eight arms, or noodly appendages, which is definitely multiplying quantities unnecessarily.
It doesn't help that speed limits on interstates get lowered as you approach larger cities. This is a good reason to remove enforced upper limits on these roads completely. I've yet to see those limits really enforced. When the upper limit is 55 for 20 miles of city outskirts and people are still tooling along at 75, I, at least -- knowing nothing of law enforcement protocol -- would think that the cops would have a merry old time nabbing the speeders. Yet I haven't ever seen them try to catch someone in that kind of traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
But I guess confronting real problems isn't as much fun as kicking religious people, is it? I doubt anyone would really argue that support from home is not a strong factor in a child's educational success. However, why not confront all the problems we can, including the mindset that comes along for the ride with ID?
That's why I posted it. :) I hope everyone with a vague understanding of thermodynamics checks out that page -- it's the same old rehash of "arguments" against evolution based on the 2nd Law.
BTW, it's a female who wrote that page.
(Yes, I am a physicist)
Second, if we allow the earth/sun relationship to be an open system (as my college professor suggested) then we have to take into consideration the quality of the energy being put to work in the system. Let's go back to our bedroom analogy. If you tell a two year old child to clean up his bedroom and leave him unattended, every mother knows exactly what you will get, an even bigger mess than before. As you can see it's not the quantity of the energy but the quality of the work that makes the difference. A two year old child is more than happy to put energy into the room but it's not the kind that will clean up the mess. Likewise with the sun. Yes, the sun will put tremendous amounts of energy into the earth. But as any thinking person knows not all sun energy is good energy. Think about what happens when summer rolls around and you go outside on the first hot day of the year with your sleeves rolled up. You get a sun burn. The sun put energy into you all right. However, it was not good energy but destructive energy. The sun actually killed life (the cells in your skin) it did not create life. Yes, without the sun we would not live long. We need its energy to have life. But, it takes highly developed systems which are capable of taking advantage of the sun's energy to utilize any useful work from it. It can't work any other way. The amount of sun energy that would be necessary to jump start life would kill it before it ever got started. http://mtblanco.com/MtBlancoNews/2005/Regarding%20My%20College%20Experience.html
Ah. I guess someone did an apt-get remove Fischer, then. No word on whether "--purge" was used, too.
Poor reporting? No, wait: we know that journalistas never get their factoids incorrect, or promulgate ambuggerous, non-cromulent verbiosity.
In addition to the "bacteria love sponges" comment, the helix allows flow, whereas sponges are very good at stopping flow.
The Ravenous Giant Rodent of Earth often makes a good meal of visiting tourists.
You were right: it did need to be updated.
Aw. It's kind of cute how you got that, and so utterly failed at the same time.
Yeah, some people have learned how to use one-button and two-button mice!
Probably. Just make damned sure that the transmitter produces frequencies which couple strongly only to the receiver (very small bandwidth). Things which don't resonate at those frequencies will be essentially transparent to the signals. I suggest 2.45 GHz!
On my version (the "new" look), you just click on the ubiquitous paperclip icon, whereupon those emails with attachments float to the top. No searching necessary.
Diamond does have a high refractive index, which does indeed account for many of its prismatic qualities when it's cut well. However, to get the "rainbow" effect, it must also have high dispersion in the visible band, which diamond also does.
I think that was your original point.
I can't. Please post a reason why I should, given that MWI isn't at this point a testable hypothesis, nor is it needed to interpret the extremely detailed, extremely accurate predictions which quantum mechanics (which is what my other post addressed) makes.
You're calling quantum mechanics untested? Overreaching? Nice.
Religion's job is to be narrow-minded, because religion either i) proposes a very generic "power" or "force" or "entity" which mops up between the gaps unexplained by "common sense" or hard science -- this form of religion is virtually worthless as either a comfort to people, or (especially) as an explanatory tool; or ii) a very specific god, endowed with a long white beard, or eight arms, or noodly appendages, which is definitely multiplying quantities unnecessarily.
1/r^2, plus being near a far, FAR more powerful start will tend to do that.
What... like, "Yo momma's so fat, it takes 1TB just to store a shot of the box-cover of her latest movie!" ?
Must be that low-res crap. :)
... "Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations"
Yeah, it's really done us a lot of harm so far.