I'm trying to figure out if all that pseudocode was really there to be cute and stylish, or if it was to conceal the lack of susbstance. But this is Salon, so both answers may be correct.
Yes... it seems so obvious from the post now! Janitors that lose physics research money! Okay, I'll answer. The chances of a janitor not finding a job in the US in the 90's are infinitesimal. Maybe if he had no legs or arms. But then he'd qualify for grants. Why am I responding to you?
Almost everything you've asserted is wrong. First, we weren't talking about "great modern physicists," we were just talking about physicists. But even among the great modern variety, who is so mystical? Physicists are notorious measure-the-data just-the-facts people. Most of them would make good detectives, or judges, or computer programmers (which they practically are).
Additionally, the theories of relativity and QM may be counter-intuitive, but they are indeed apparent to "the intelligence" if the intelligence has done a little studying. But only a whacko would believe them to be "ultimate truths" whatever that phrase means. There is nothing ultimate about any of them, since they are only set in a part of reality, and describe only certain types of systems. And indeed any of them (esp gen relativity) could be demonstrated to be part of some broader model, much as newtonian mechanics was.
If you think tacking decimal places onto constants is only for grad students... what can i say? To each their own ignorance. Yours seems deliberate. But please show me a paper authored by grad students that does even that much. You truly, truly overestimate the scope of most serious physics research. In fact, most physicists don't even get to add many decimal places in their careers. If you want to avoid the dreaded clue stick, visit your local physics lab and ask some questions.
Finally, quoting a little QM equation doen't spread vapors and shift the shadows. There is nothing mystical at all about it. You must have some sort of equation fetish. Get a life.
It's a shame for you that your article did not prove your assertion. I read your page and the actual numbers showed increases in most everything but the EPA. The article was concerned with what chemistry research funding was, whatever the source. There is no evidence that basic science research funding is decreasing.
Thanks you for the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure view on history. Your comment is stupid and uninformed, and you should be ashamed of yourself for writing it.
Dear Mr. Other Coward, I know a lot of good physicists, and none of them know much of anything besides physics and a couple of little hobbies. You are accepting a cultural myth, that of the "enlightened and wise man of science," that simply isn't true. And what makes you think a theologian would give you good info on biology or geology? Are you going to ask why God gave men nipples?
It's funny that you mention that review since Prof. Gerlach is right down the hall (here at OSU). He does Theoretical physics and kicks some serious ass at it, I might add. Gerlach isn't really pointing out math mistakes. He is showing how Mills draws ridiculuous conclusions like
...by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates
and how Mills fundamentally misunderstands the equations he is so blithely pushing around, like
The expressions for the charge distribution given below Eq.(I.5), as well as those given by Eqs.(I.7) and (I.8) do not satisfy the author's wave equation...
People make stuff like this up all the time. Ask any physicist at a university to see his Crank File. The people are never really trained enough in physics or math to get things right, or catch common mistakes, but they are often very clever. I have seen no evidence that any reliable laboratory has been able to reproduce Mr. Mills claims.
Physicists aren't mystical people at all, though they don't quite share the blind faith in science of some slashdot zealots. Many primitive dwellers of trees and caves were, "in general... very mystical people, 'religion' aside." but I don't give a rat's behind what their ideas were.
And physicists certainly aren't "closest to the mind of God". You are cracking us all up here in the physics lab. The typical physicist spends years tacking on another decimal place to some well-known constant. We sit around taking data and writing computer programs. It's nothing as glamorous as you see in the sort movies that you probably favor. There is nothing mystical or holy at all about tensor analysis, or differential equations.
Speaking of weak-minded, you don't show much depth yourself. The appearance of Christ and his death and resurrection literally split history in half. 2000 years later we are still inspired by a bunch of "weak-minded" men and their prophet, and some letters and histories they wrote. 2 billion people still follow him. This doesn't happen every day. You should look into it with an open mind.
Asking only theologians about God would bring us back to the Dark Ages.
What on earth are you talking about? The so-called dark ages saw much more interest in God and general discussion of him than the present. It was a widespread lack of literacy and record-keeping (outside of monasteries) that makes them "dark."
While we're interviewing a famous person anyway, why keep from asking such a question? Kintanon says that "Someone has to ask this." I will add: Everyone should be asked this, and anyone may answer
Well, maybe, but there is a tendency to think that because somebody knows a lot about one important subject, he will be wise about others. Experience is very much to the contrary. Most every good physicist I know (I am a dim one) is practically a moron when the subject changes to economics, or politics, or history, and yes, religion. The age of the polymath seems to have passed, and single-minded pursuit of a set of ideas like physics seems to have precluded serious study of anything else. There are (very very few) exceptions.
Now, this woudn't be so bad, but people somehow miss this, and go around asking actors their ideas on politics and the economy, and physicists their ideas on the nature of God. And what comes forth is a mess of banality. Think of some good physics questions for Dr. Lederman.
You didn't really answer his question, you've just changed it into "Where'd that atom come from?" And your theory is about as likely to be true as those Asian myths about the world being carried on the back of a cosmic tortoise through eternity.
You're so full of it. No physicist has gone homeless because of DOE grant cuts. Pure physics research grants have gone up every year in the 90's. Even if a physicist couldn't get grant money, he is qualified for a zillion other jobs. Quit lying.
Even the lowliest physicists get self-published manuscripts every month that purport to turn physics on it's head. They never do peer-reviewed (or reproducable) research, and they always have suspicious qualifications, like Mills' M.D., or they studied EE, or took the Navy nuclear submarines courses. Never an actual physics background. They're all full of shit. The days of the amateur physicist are long past.
Falling out of Time Magazine and stuck in your bag when shopping at those cute Warner Brothers stores, too. If I was King, Steve Case would have to eat every damn one of those things.
So a few months ago I finally dumped AOL and ordered Time Warner Roadrunner cable. What a joy it was to be free of the pitifully slow network, obnoxious advertisements, and People-magazineish content of awful AOL! Now - AOL is going to provide content for Roadrunner. Next thing you know they'll have a proprietary browser. And pop-up ads. UGH!
The FTC has shut down massive mergers before, your reading of the political "meme" notwithstanding. And the DOJ was heady enough to take on none other than Microsoft.
If anything, the "dominant meme" in the current administration seems to be to jump into a fight if they see a reason.
What you haven't explained, though, is why the FTC should be worried. What about this deal is anticompetitive?
I get your point but it isn't a good one. The FCC never mandated a switch from bw to color. Broadcasters were simply meeting a consumer demand. But there is little apparent demnd for digital tv. Also, unlike color/bw, the new digital tv sets are not automatically compatible with the old standard. You have to buy an expensive additional device for that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm trying to figure out if all that pseudocode was really there to be cute and stylish, or if it was to conceal the lack of susbstance. But this is Salon, so both answers may be correct.
This isn't flamebait. It's a just response to a stupid post.
Your last line is a total non sequitur. What on earth could a grad student union do to cause more jobs to open for Physics PhDs?
Yes... it seems so obvious from the post now! Janitors that lose physics research money! Okay, I'll answer. The chances of a janitor not finding a job in the US in the 90's are infinitesimal. Maybe if he had no legs or arms. But then he'd qualify for grants. Why am I responding to you?
Additionally, the theories of relativity and QM may be counter-intuitive, but they are indeed apparent to "the intelligence" if the intelligence has done a little studying. But only a whacko would believe them to be "ultimate truths" whatever that phrase means. There is nothing ultimate about any of them, since they are only set in a part of reality, and describe only certain types of systems. And indeed any of them (esp gen relativity) could be demonstrated to be part of some broader model, much as newtonian mechanics was.
If you think tacking decimal places onto constants is only for grad students... what can i say? To each their own ignorance. Yours seems deliberate. But please show me a paper authored by grad students that does even that much. You truly, truly overestimate the scope of most serious physics research. In fact, most physicists don't even get to add many decimal places in their careers. If you want to avoid the dreaded clue stick, visit your local physics lab and ask some questions.
Finally, quoting a little QM equation doen't spread vapors and shift the shadows. There is nothing mystical at all about it. You must have some sort of equation fetish. Get a life.
It's a shame for you that your article did not prove your assertion. I read your page and the actual numbers showed increases in most everything but the EPA. The article was concerned with what chemistry research funding was, whatever the source. There is no evidence that basic science research funding is decreasing.
Thanks you for the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure view on history. Your comment is stupid and uninformed, and you should be ashamed of yourself for writing it.
Dear Mr. Other Coward,
I know a lot of good physicists, and none of them know much of anything besides physics and a couple of little hobbies. You are accepting a cultural myth, that of the "enlightened and wise man of science," that simply isn't true. And what makes you think a theologian would give you good info on biology or geology? Are you going to ask why God gave men nipples?
and how Mills fundamentally misunderstands the equations he is so blithely pushing around, like
The expressions for the charge distribution given below Eq.(I.5), as well as those given by Eqs.(I.7) and (I.8) do not satisfy the author's wave equation...
Contradictory results = mistakes in theory.
People make stuff like this up all the time. Ask any physicist at a university to see his Crank File. The people are never really trained enough in physics or math to get things right, or catch common mistakes, but they are often very clever. I have seen no evidence that any reliable laboratory has been able to reproduce Mr. Mills claims.
I sure wish more slashdotters thought this way. Especially with regard to science.
And physicists certainly aren't "closest to the mind of God". You are cracking us all up here in the physics lab. The typical physicist spends years tacking on another decimal place to some well-known constant. We sit around taking data and writing computer programs. It's nothing as glamorous as you see in the sort movies that you probably favor. There is nothing mystical or holy at all about tensor analysis, or differential equations.
Which goes to show that maybe it's not very useful or interesting to ask physicists about God.
Speaking of weak-minded, you don't show much depth yourself. The appearance of Christ and his death and resurrection literally split history in half. 2000 years later we are still inspired by a bunch of "weak-minded" men and their prophet, and some letters and histories they wrote. 2 billion people still follow him. This doesn't happen every day. You should look into it with an open mind.
What on earth are you talking about? The so-called dark ages saw much more interest in God and general discussion of him than the present. It was a widespread lack of literacy and record-keeping (outside of monasteries) that makes them "dark."
While we're interviewing a famous person anyway, why keep from asking such a question? Kintanon says that "Someone has to ask this." I will add: Everyone should be asked this, and anyone may answer
Well, maybe, but there is a tendency to think that because somebody knows a lot about one important subject, he will be wise about others. Experience is very much to the contrary. Most every good physicist I know (I am a dim one) is practically a moron when the subject changes to economics, or politics, or history, and yes, religion. The age of the polymath seems to have passed, and single-minded pursuit of a set of ideas like physics seems to have precluded serious study of anything else. There are (very very few) exceptions.
Now, this woudn't be so bad, but people somehow miss this, and go around asking actors their ideas on politics and the economy, and physicists their ideas on the nature of God. And what comes forth is a mess of banality. Think of some good physics questions for Dr. Lederman.
You didn't really answer his question, you've just changed it into "Where'd that atom come from?" And your theory is about as likely to be true as those Asian myths about the world being carried on the back of a cosmic tortoise through eternity.
You're so full of it. No physicist has gone homeless because of DOE grant cuts. Pure physics research grants have gone up every year in the 90's. Even if a physicist couldn't get grant money, he is qualified for a zillion other jobs. Quit lying.
Even the lowliest physicists get self-published manuscripts every month that purport to turn physics on it's head. They never do peer-reviewed (or reproducable) research, and they always have suspicious qualifications, like Mills' M.D., or they studied EE, or took the Navy nuclear submarines courses. Never an actual physics background. They're all full of shit. The days of the amateur physicist are long past.
Unless you mean the SSC. But lots of physicists thought that was a boondoggle. Wonder what's been done with that monstrous tunnel, anyway?
That's absurd. Congress has done no such thing. DOE grants are still plentiful. Show some numbers or proof of some sort.
I can't believe this got moderated down. Sigh. This guy is hilarious.
Falling out of Time Magazine and stuck in your bag when shopping at those cute Warner Brothers stores, too. If I was King, Steve Case would have to eat every damn one of those things.
So a few months ago I finally dumped AOL and ordered Time Warner Roadrunner cable. What a joy it was to be free of the pitifully slow network, obnoxious advertisements, and People-magazineish content of awful AOL! Now - AOL is going to provide content for Roadrunner. Next thing you know they'll have a proprietary browser. And pop-up ads. UGH!
If anything, the "dominant meme" in the current administration seems to be to jump into a fight if they see a reason.
What you haven't explained, though, is why the FTC should be worried. What about this deal is anticompetitive?
I get your point but it isn't a good one. The FCC never mandated a switch from bw to color. Broadcasters were simply meeting a consumer demand. But there is little apparent demnd for digital tv. Also, unlike color/bw, the new digital tv sets are not automatically compatible with the old standard. You have to buy an expensive additional device for that.