David Mayo
Patron with Honors
David, Was Sandra Stevens American and her husband's name was Harry? If so, I may be able to contact her for you.
That was her maiden name. Became Sandy Wilhere. I've recently heard that she is still in SO.
D
David, Was Sandra Stevens American and her husband's name was Harry? If so, I may be able to contact her for you.
That's the second time you joke about your "fuzzy mind". I remember CBR used, as one of the rare instances where I raised my mental eyebrows on his evaluations, to speak mocking of fuzzy logic.
Do you also think that precise logic is desirable, but one should know that one will never reach it? (Except that one never should think never, of course.)
I wasn't joking. Nor would I joke about fuzzy logic; it is a very workable technology. I believe human minds use fuzzy logic --as well as other very sophisticated methods of thinking.
I wasn't joking. Nor would I joke about fuzzy logic; it is a very workable technology. I believe human minds use fuzzy logic --as well as other very sophisticated methods of thinking.
That was her maiden name. Became Sandy Wilhere. I've recently heard that she is still in SO.
D
I hope they don't allow smoking on the premisses.
using my __ powers.
Usens on this board are not considered Kiwis....we're considered Squirrels.
What would be warping the space?
Seriously, in accordance with einstein: matter/energy is what accounts for the curvature ('warping') of space-time. Where there is spatial warping there is matter/energy and vice versa.
As to how do you distinguish 'dark matter' from 'dark energy' when you can't directly detect either.... :confused2:
The 'go to guy' on that for the board would be 'Student of Trinity'. he's a physicist & professor at Trinity College as well as a sceptic on all things involving the 'S' word.
Mark A. Baker
I believe human minds use fuzzy logic --as well as other very sophisticated methods of thinking.
... Re: dark energy -- it's not the same as dark matter, nor could it ever be mistaken for it. Dark energy is the repulsive force responsible for the expansion of the universe (also observed). ...
http://vimeo.com/5424007Wallace Thornhill (b. May 2, 1942) earned a degree in physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and began postgraduate studies. Before entering university he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky's best-selling book, Worlds in Collision. However, the lack of curiosity and the frequent hostility toward this challenge to mainstream science convinced Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia.
http://www.velikovsky.info/Wallace_Thornhill
It's looking increasingly likely that this is the case, and that the kind of sentential thinking we've always fancied ourselves doing is largely a rarity in our daily lives. That's not to say that we can't force ourselves into particular modes of formal rules-governed thought; obviously mathematicians and logicians do it all the time. It's just to say that our workaday thinking is not of this sort, if the behaviors and workings of neural networks (which the brain undoubtedly is) are any indication. Natural selection is a cheap, blind bitch, and a heuristic computational system is a shortcut that satis-ffices in the ancient environment in which our brains were shaped.
I knew Sandy Wilhere quite well. She was the senior CS at AOLA. She went up lines to INT with Greg and she has since died. I believe she contracted multiple sclerosis. She was not being utilized as a tech person for a long time. I was sad to read that she passed away so unceremoniously. She was also good friends with Barbara Thompkins.
I would imagine they would have trouble attracting Scientology business if they didn't.
That's one thing that always amuses me - Scientology seems to have a higher percentage of cigarette smokers than the rest of society. Surely they can't all be dramatizing a volcano or trying to ward off cancer...
ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
This is no longer entirely relevant, but I didn't get to this thread a few pages back when dark energy and matter were being discussed, so pardon the digression here. The other caveat is that I'm also a layman.
Re: dark matter -- just about every version of the standard model predicts the existence of particles that are either weakly interactive or entirely non-interactive. We know that galaxies are much more dense and heavier than can be accounted for by counting up all the lit matter in them (by several orders of magnitude). As Mark Baker pointed out, the degree of warping observed around distant galaxies (measured via gravitational lensing) is one of the indicators of unaccounted-for density. We also know that their rotational spin implies (in the strictest sense) more matter than we can see (including all the blackholes, the behaviors and motions of which we can infer by observation of stars around them). We have very good reason to suspect (as mentioned) the existence of particles which can be densely packed yet unlit, particles which allow photons to pass right through them, and if we're correct then they fit the bill as the best explanation.
Re: dark energy -- it's not the same as dark matter, nor could it ever be mistaken for it. Dark energy is the repulsive force responsible for the expansion of the universe (also observed). On very small scales, it is so small as to be negligible. However, across large scales, one can see its effects on objects large enough and diffuse enough (meaning gravity loses out and those objects drift further and further apart with, from their own perspective, greater and greater velocity). It has been measured out to I don't know how many decimal places. Most recently, Steven Weinberg famously used the Anthropic Principle to predict the upper and lower bounds of the dark energy constant, something that has now sparked a furious debate between proponents of rival cosmological theories (referring here to Lee Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection model vs Leonard Susskind and the Eternal Inflation model). The details of that fascinating debate can be found here.
As a sidenote, in response to others in this thread, I don't think it's quite fair to challenge whether the above constitutes 'observation', unless one is equally skeptical of such things as the existence of exosolar planets (indirectly observed by their gravitational effects on stars) or the orbital path of Pluto (which has yet to be completed since its discovery). Not quite the same as the inferences of dark matter or dark energy, but the difference is one of degree rather than kind, imo.
Also, welcome, David!
Hah!!! Now that's a man who honors his agreements.
If someone asks you if you'd like to do an interview, do you say "I'd rather ___"? Do you now have to say "Dammit, I can't get this k___ out of my shoelaces!"?
ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
It's looking increasingly likely that this is the case, and that the kind of sentential thinking we've always fancied ourselves doing is largely a rarity in our daily lives. That's not to say that we can't force ourselves into particular modes of formal rules-governed thought; obviously mathematicians and logicians do it all the time. It's just to say that our workaday thinking is not of this sort, if the behaviors and workings of neural networks (which the brain undoubtedly is) are any indication. Natural selection is a cheap, blind bitch, and a heuristic computational system is a shortcut that satis-ffices in the ancient environment in which our brains were shaped.