dennislmay

Members
  • Posts

    1,236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by dennislmay

  1. Multiverses and string theory are recent additions to theoretical physics. In my opinion they are dead ends without any validity what-so-ever. The math may be fine but the connection from reality to the assumptions behind the math does not exist. I suggest reading Nick Herbert "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Reality-Beyond-New-Physics/dp/0385235690 In a compact form you will be exposed to the fact that many competing theories of QM exist even though the popes of physics may have declared one or another path the correct path. Sadly I do not know of any similar popular books discussing other alternative physics. E-mail me with your physical mail address if you would like a free copy of my book of alternative physics dennislmay@yahoo.com Dennis
  2. All very smug but Feynman was the king of discouraging dissention and cutting off discussions with appeal to authority. The ideals of science are seldom practiced in theoretical physics where a handful have already decided what passes for discussion and what is no longer to be discussed because it has already been decided.
  3. So you get your news from unbiased sources like CNN? [Clinton News Network] Dennis No. I don't. I hardly ever watch CNN. Wolf Blitzer does not do it for me. I pay no attention to editorial pages of any major press publication and I don't watch t.v. for the news. Ba'al Chatzaf So no Fox News, none of The Blaze TV, do you listen to talk radio? Internet news? Dennis
  4. So you get your news from unbiased sources like CNN? [Clinton News Network] Dennis
  5. Damn, I'm hoping for the latter (it would be even better if it were put off for a decade or two). I'm far from fully prepared at the moment, being a poor college student and all. Fortunately, I don't live in a large city, so if riots began I'll likely be able to hold off the looters. Omaha, on the other hand, will probably look like a war zone. I went to UNO, I know what you mean. Dennis
  6. Good questions - Glenn Beck says the big money shakers and movers have already taken their money out of the stock market, the Russians and Chinese are buying up gold, and the European's are bracing for a run on their banks. In some ways you could argue we are already in the midst of the economic collapse which has only been delayed by printing vast sums of money. At some point money printing fails and the economic system collapses. That could happen any time from next week to a couple years from now - or if there were a sudden shift in politics it could be delayed or postponed as it has been in the past [1980s and 1994 elections]. WWIII depends on an event happening or the economic collapse followed by any number of sparking events. Beck and several others have noted Obama's sudden interest in military preparations - something he's shown absolutely no interest in until the last 2-3 weeks. Short answer - no way to know but being prepared for your own needs is a good idea. Remember fallout generally travels East from your location. Head West and North if it hits the fan. Dennis
  7. That is one of the biggest problems in modern physics - wonderful mathematical incantations manipulating propositions which often have no valid connection to reality. Dennis
  8. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/29/popular-weapons-youtube-show-host-raided-by-aft-agents-for-using-explosives-and-getting-paid/ So his partner gets murdered and now they are going after the show. Dennis
  9. Interesting data point. For anyone who has been following the knife/martial arts market the last several years you may have noticed that most of the cheap surplus knives for sale are made in China - heavier duty and larger models made in Pakistan. Something new is becoming common - Nazi knives and cigarette lighters - not sold as re-inactment gear but as something for everyday use. I have not bought any but I assume they are made in Pakistan. Dennis
  10. Today Beck discusses the probable outcome if the US doesn't turn it around right away. Economic collapse and WWIII. Post WWIII the world is divided up into 3 primary power Statist groups: An Islamic Caliphate - The Middle East and much of Africa. [Controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood] Russia and Europe [Controlled by Russia] China-India-Australia-Japan-New Zealand-Americas [Controlled by China] **** The Muslim Brotherhood is very open about their plans. The Russians have control the energy supply of Europe - after an economic collapse the Europeans will play ball or be cut off. China controls industrial resources and the land and ports surrounding shipping lanes over much of the rest of the world. Their control will be through puppets and financial pressures. **** Beck describes this as resetting the world - just as done following WWI and WWII. I agree about the coming collapse, WWIII and the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood and Russia. It is less obvious to me what will happen to China-India-Australia-Japan-New Zealand-Americas. It depends too much on the internal stability of China which is a big unknown. Dennis
  11. Please be more specific. On what facts do you base your supposition that the crime rate is deliberately caused by certain parties. And could that effect be accounted for by some other means. I am well aware the a broken clock tells the right time twice a day and I am further aware that paranoids sometimes have real enemies. But the coincidence of the effect with your hypothesis is not sufficient proof that your hypothesis is right. If you recall there was a time when the theory of Caloric accounted for the expansion and contraction of liquids under different temperature conditions. That did not prove Caloric exist or was the cause of the expansion or contraction Ba'al Chatzaf The testimony of former insider socialists and the statements of socialist leaders in their books and public speaking encouraging the tactic of promoting violence to increase their power. Then the 1:1 correlation of socialist leaders [Chicago] and their failure to prosecute gun crimes [Chicago #1 in failure to prosecute] leading to high gun crime rate [Chicago] and most anti-gun laws [Chicago and Illinois]. They openly and behind the scenes say they are going to do it, they do it, and they get the results they say they wanted. Disarm the victims, don't prosecute the criminals, and then deliberately run up the crime rate so naive voter blocks will vote in further restrictions on rights. Old recipe laid out by their leadership and previous generations in detail. Dennis http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/12/31/frances-fox-piven-rings-in-the-new-year-by-calling-for-violent-revolution/ One of the Progressive leaders still promoting violence. An atmosphere of violence is more important than guns specifically. Dennis
  12. Please be more specific. On what facts do you base your supposition that the crime rate is deliberately caused by certain parties. And could that effect be accounted for by some other means. I am well aware the a broken clock tells the right time twice a day and I am further aware that paranoids sometimes have real enemies. But the coincidence of the effect with your hypothesis is not sufficient proof that your hypothesis is right. If you recall there was a time when the theory of Caloric accounted for the expansion and contraction of liquids under different temperature conditions. That did not prove Caloric exist or was the cause of the expansion or contraction Ba'al Chatzaf The testimony of former insider socialists and the statements of socialist leaders in their books and public speaking encouraging the tactic of promoting violence to increase their power. Then the 1:1 correlation of socialist leaders [Chicago] and their failure to prosecute gun crimes [Chicago #1 in failure to prosecute] leading to high gun crime rate [Chicago] and most anti-gun laws [Chicago and Illinois]. They openly and behind the scenes say they are going to do it, they do it, and they get the results they say they wanted. Disarm the victims, don't prosecute the criminals, and then deliberately run up the crime rate so naive voter blocks will vote in further restrictions on rights. Old recipe laid out by their leadership and previous generations in detail. Dennis
  13. There is a reason cities run by Progressives don't put away criminals and keep crime rates high [Chicago] - it gives them an excuse to take away more and more rights to keep people safe. Progressives need gun free zones and crazies on the streets to generate excuses to take away guns. You can't create the Fabian Socialist Progressive dream with an armed populace. Once disarmed gradual socialism moves right into hardcore Fascism, after that North Korean style communism. Dennis Where did you get this theory? Please be more specific.
  14. There is a reason cities run by Progressives don't put away criminals and keep crime rates high [Chicago] - it gives them an excuse to take away more and more rights to keep people safe. Progressives need gun free zones and crazies on the streets to generate excuses to take away guns. You can't create the Fabian Socialist Progressive dream with an armed populace. Once disarmed gradual socialism moves right into hardcore Fascism, after that North Korean style communism. Dennis
  15. It seems worldwide Fascism is the Progressive goal, once all capital everywhere is under effective government control there won't be a better "outside" system to compete and they can turn the screws as tight as they want. Dennis
  16. You are correct - central planners want political power to enact their visions. It seems many libertarians and market anarchists who really don't understand liberty or market anarchy want to force their visions of proper outcomes upon others using political power. Make the right choices leading to my centrally planned outcome or I will use political power or violence to change your mind to the right way of thinking. I can understand the naive and beginners thinking that way but I've seen a few long timers making the same mistake. I am primarily concerned about socialist saboteurs taking advantage of the naive [which seem to be the vast majority]. The damage is already so deep and ingrained that I hesitate to use the names objectivist, libertarian, market anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist to describe myself in any way because of the baggage and errors trailing behind each. I guess long explanations of differences is necessary when using any common label. Dennis
  17. American Progressives are clearly in bed with radical Islam just as they were with the Nazi's in the 1930's.
  18. >>>>The key word in this is “isolated”. The 2nd law is invoked incorrectly in many situations because the entire context of the law is not taken into account. I think the 2nd Law is more clearly conceptualized in its statistical-mechanics version as referring to the probability of certain spatial configurations of particles. The 2nd Law confidently predicts that configurations always move from states of lower probability to those of higher probability within an isolated system. However (and this is a big "however"), the 2nd Law does NOT say that simply because one opens the barrier between the isolated system and some larger system encompassing it, that configurations "must", or "shall", move from states of high probability to states of lower probability. There's no inevitability about it. Configurations "MIGHT" or "MAY" move from high-to-low probability, given the additional resources of the enlarged (so-called "open") system. I state the obvious only because many people mistakenly assume that an enlarged system gives them "poetic license", so to speak, to invoke miracles when convenient for their hypotheses. It usually takes the form of saying, "Of course my scenario could work. All it requires is an open system!" And voila! all problems are (supposedly) solved. I always ask them, "What makes you so sure that only 'benevolent', constructive forces will enter your previously closed system leading to states of lower probability? Why wouldn't your putative open system also contribute additional destructive elements as well?" They never have an answer. For them, simply having an enlarged pool, or resource, of energy available automatically leads to constructive processes rather than additional destructive ones. In sum: the 2nd Law does not state that "anything you want to imagine is possible so long as there's an open system." Quite correct, I was not attempting to open thermodynamics up for obvious abuse. I am more concerned about numerous popular pronouncements concerning entropy that do no apply to open systems - yet the pronouncers always neglect to mention the exceptions or under what boundry conditions their pronouncements are valid. This has lead to generations of students being misinformed [and you still see the problem at the PhD level] concerning such pronouncements. Repetition of mistakes - never corrected - become fact to those who don't take the time to understand what is really being claimed. Dennis
  19. I agree with your general point that True Believers (of any system) by definition are what you call "central planners." But perhaps you had something entirely different in mind. It seems that some objectivists, libertarians, and market anarchists have come to believe theirs if the only one and true version of their system and that no one should call themselves by that name unless there is complete agreement with what some self-elected minority has decided are the correct voluntary choices and correct outcomes for that system. Leaders and founders in these different systems are not immune to this problem - in some cases they are among the worst offenders. Socialists are able to steer libertarians and various anarchist groups to do their bidding by picking a few popular points out of many and emphasize them over all others - claiming those opposed to those individual points are not true members. A good example are communists among libertarian anti-war rallies. Debbie Clark has gone to many such rallies as a libertarian but acknowledges that the entire show is effectively run by the communists. Libertarians would be the first against the wall were the communists to gain power. Dennis
  20. I wrote [Objectivist Living Room]: "I don't have any issues with thermodynamics - when properly understood. There are however many clueless physics PhD's and some Nobel laureates out there [past] who have spouted nonsense when it comes to thermodynamics. It is not usually difficult to spot nonsense because it usually comes down to the same few errors." BaalChatzaf wrote: "Could you enumerate the few errors in a separate posting." Error # 1: Not taking the entire system into account [leading to perpetual motion]: Example: A dozen plus PhD's plus graduate students and hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars spent http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1003684421550 Published solution: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7zp7k6zp#page-1 Summary: A thermodynamic system was created made of colliding particles - they neglected taking the large body's reaction to each individual collision into account. Rather they attempted to act like the large body was outside of the system while adding up the collisions and net energy transfers. Error # 2: Substituting continuous functions for discrete functions [loss of information]: Ilya Prigogine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism “Instability resists standard deterministic explanation. Instead, due to sensitivity to initial conditions, unstable systems can only be explained statistically, that is, in terms of probability.” Prigogine pulled some fast ones claiming irreversibility by illegitimate mathematical substitutions. David Bohm explained in “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” you can’t simply replace individual interactions with continuous functions – doing so destroys information content. Error # 3: Faulty Generalization/Straw Man [claiming all situations covered by the Straw Man]: 1904 solution to Le Sage gravity thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation “He [J.J. Thomson] argued that Maxwell's heat problem might be avoided by assuming that the absorbed energy is not be converted into heat, but re-radiated in a still more penetrating form.” The same insight applies to many issues concerning ether theory generally. From the same Wikipedia article: “In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, primarily as an example of an attempt to explain a "complicated" physical law (in this case, Newton's inverse-square law of gravity) in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics, and also as an example of a failed theory. He notes that the mechanism of "bouncing particles" reproduces the inverse-square force law and that "the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced", but then remarks that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies, "so that is the end of that theory".” Unfortunately when I attended undergraduate and graduate physics only the Feynman view was discussed [appeal to authority]. In fact I had never heard the J.J. Thomson story until Wikipedia had been around for a number of years though I had research the subject for decades including on Wikipedia. Error # 4: Forgetting to apply the entirety of a thermodynamic law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics “The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium —the state of maximum entropy.” The key word in this is “isolated”. The 2nd law is invoked incorrectly in many situations because the entire context of the law is not taken into account. Dennis
  21. Thanks for posting the link. I watched one video all the way through and part of another. A good source of information. Dennis You're welcome. I like his set-up and man can he shoot! Yes he can indeed shoot - most people are good with a small number of guns. In just the two videos I randomly watched it is obvious he is very good in general.
  22. Thanks for posting the link. I watched one video all the way through and part of another. A good source of information. Dennis
  23. Matrioshka brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain and Grey Goo as a means of implementation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo were among topics discussed. If you do a search using M-brane you come up with the membrane based physics theory. M-brain used to give the correct answer in searches but now the name is used in a number of commercial ways so unless you just looked up Matrioshka brain Google won't find M-brain as intended. I don't have any issues with thermodynamics - when properly understood. There are however many clueless physics PhD's and some Nobel laureates out there [past] who have spouted nonsense when it comes to thermodynamics. It is not usually difficult to spot nonsense because it usually comes down to the same few errors. Dennis
  24. One of the rationalist delusions is that operating in a free market can be done with an algorithm. In a sense an algorithm is a central plan but one that is not applied using armed force or the threat thereof. If there were a deterministic algorithm for allocating capital (there isn't by the way) then you could have an anarchist central plan devoid of armed force. The market would no longer be "played". It would be computed. Alas, there is no such animal. Ba'al Chatzaf I think the most interesting such discussions I've had on this topic was on an Extropian discussion site where M-brains are worshipped like they can somehow overcome thermodynamics, information theory, military theory, evolution, and economics, An extreme case of central planning - yet full of logical holes at every turn. As you say there is no [static] algorithm central plan that works - even in the M-brain world. Dennis
  25. During a Facebook discussion last night I again saw irony rear its ugly head. Libertarians and market anarchists determined to centrally plan what qualifies as libertarian or market anarchy - outcomes - when people are allowed to freely choose. If they freely choose "wrongly" - though doing so in voluntary manner - they are not real libertarians or not real anarchists. These central planners of libertarian and anarchist thought are already sure what the right answers are and attempt to cut the discussion at its root through pronouncing proper outcomes. What I saw was primarily an issue of intellectual depth or the lack of it. It did however remind me again of the problem that many libertarians and left leaning anarchists seem able to turn on a dime and support every single socialist concept in the "outcome" they are attempting to achieve without ever thinking through the consequences of how real world socialists actually behave when gather power to enact those outcomes. It is little wonder socialists are able to steer libertarians and various anarchist groups to do their bidding at nearly every turn. The intellectual depth to be able to see, understand and combat internal saboteurs simply isn't there in most cases. Dennis