BaalChatzaf

Barbara, If you can come up with a nifty technique for separating the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats would you let us know what it is? In the mean time killing lots of folks, many of them mothers and babies is one of the unavoidable infelicities of modern warfare. The Allies killed over 700,000 civilians in air attacks during WW2. But just keep in mind who started the war. In addition, if our enemies ever got wind of our soft feeling they would line their rooftops with their own children. What would you do then? We are living in hard times, and hard times call for hard actions. If you think it is o.k. to kill the bad guys, just keep in mind that they deliberately live among the not-so-bad guys. So how do you propose to kill the bad guys without killing some of the not-so-bad guys. If you can think of a nifty way, pray do let us know. In the real world we cannot fight Platonic wars. We can only fight by the means and tactics available to us. When Muslim fanatics do another number on New York City (and they will. because that is where the Jews are) I would really like to hear your response to that. Really and truly. Ba'al Chatzaf Eem yavoh l'hargechah hashkeem l'hargoh -- If he comes to murder you, rise up early and slay him first. Babylonian Talmud, San Hedrin 72A. This is the survival manual of a people who have been on everyone's hit list for over 2000 years. We are still here.

The proper way of putting that question is: Are you convinced by the models and the data so far presented that 1. global warming is largely anthropogenic and 2. said global warming will lead to catastrophic conditions? My response to those questions would be no and no. I have stated my reasons in another post concerning the nature an quality of climatic science and climatic modeling. Ba'al Chatzaf

In reality only a small amount of mass can be converted to energy in fusion and fission reactions. In fusion reactions about 0.007. That is 7/10 of one percent. When multiplied by c squared that is one humongous can of whoop-ass. HOO-RAH! But being an astronomer you should know we are not going to ever convert large percentages of mass to energy. The underlying physical processes have gone to a great deal of trouble to solidify energy into mass, since the Big Bang. Yodah says: Do not your breath hold, Young Ed, until all mass into energy converted is, else blue turn you will. Ba'al Chatzaf

The good folks of Sidney would be much better off if they replaced all incandescent bulbs with standard base florescent bulbs. The savings in in current is about 60 percent with no loss of illumination. In addition the fluros last five times longer than incandescents. Now to the main point: The basis for the dire predictions is so-called Climate Science. Climate Science which is based in part on physics is really not well grounded theoretically. Climate Science (so-called) is a collection of -models- (implemented by computer programs) and constructed to fit data measured from various sources. That, in itself, is not bad. When dealing with something as complicated as climate, it is unlikely that anyone is going to come up with some mathematically elegant axiomatic type model, such as we have in theoretical physics. Climate is much more complicated than the interactions of particles and fields. The correctness of climate models is very dependent on what and how much data is gathered. There is currently a bias built into temperature data, to wit, too many measuring stations are in or near cities. Cities have become "heat islands". The steel and concrete structures of a large city heat up under sunlight during the day and radiate the heat at night. This makes the temperature readings higher than they should be. Temperature gather stations should be spread out further away from cities. Unfortunately cities are where most of the universities and weather data gathering companies are located. The accurate collection of temperature data has no been going on long enough to accurately establish trends. That is another problem. So we have empirical models built on biased and potentially incorrect data. In addition there is really no theoretical underpinning to climatology. Let me make an analogy: climatology is where astronomy was in the time of Kepler. Kepler was the first to -fit curves- to data gathered from Tycho Brahe's instruments, then the best naked-eye (non-telescopic) data collection enterprise in the world. That is how Kepler derived the idea that planet orbits are elliptical (which is true to the first order of approximation). However Kepler did NOT have a theory underlying the motion of the planets. His understanding was data limited and the best he could do is fit curves to data. In short Kepler constructed a model. It happened to be a good model and it was left to Isaac Newton to produce a THEORY to account for the observations. The theory consisted of force laws and differential equations. Climate Science is still waiting for its Isaac Newton. O.K. So we do not have a well grounded -theory of climate-. All beginnings are hard. If this was the only problem it would be a matter of working smarter and thinking better until a theory is developed. Unfortunately, major policy decisions are based on climate models of dubious quality. In addition, many of the conclusions are -politically motivated-. Governments have an interest in making a case for telling foks what to do, what not to do and charging them for the privilege of being ruled in a less than reasonable manner. The UN IPCC has a genuine ax to grind in the matter of global warming. They make quasi-dire predictions to enhance their reputations for far-sightedness. Unfortunately their sight is derived from bent and dirty lenses. If Chicken Little is going to go around telling everyone that the sky is falling, it would behoove him to, at least have accurate data to that effect. The Chicken Littles of global warming have not yet met that requirement. Ba'al Chatzaf -- ever skeptical of those who think themselves wiser than the rest of us

Thank you for inquiring. 71 years old, born in the Bronx. I now reside in the Bad-a-Bing state, New Jersey, but my heart is still in Massachussetts, the home of the American Revolution. Yes, I have read Ayn Rand and I even subscribed to the Objectivist. No, I am not an Objectivist, but I am joined at the hip to Reality. If I were still religious, my god would be the facts. Ba'al Chatzaf

Perhaps the movie should have been entitled -600 Pectorals- Bob Kolker

Here is what it means. Let T be a topological space and S be a subset of T. p is boundary point of S if and only if every neighborhood of p contains a point in S and and point not in S. Now consider the surface of a three dimensions sphere. This a a two dimensional topological space where the neighborhoods are defined by "circles" around each point on the surface of the sphere. A neighborhood of p is the set of points whose great circle distance from p is <= r where r is less than the great circle distance between antipodal points. Under this definition, no point on the surface of the sphere is a boundary point. But the distance between any two points must be less than or equal to the distance between any pair of antipodal points. This makes the surface of the sphere -finite-. Hence the surface of the sphere is both finite and unbounded (no boundary points on it). It is a technical term requiring some grasp of basic point set topology. I hope you find this useful. Ba'al Chatzaf

The idea of Spartans fighting for Freedom is almost an oxymoron. Sparta was one of the most repressed societies that ever existed and it lived on the slave labor of the Helots. No doubt the Spartan fought for Independence (from Persian domination) as did the Athenians. But Freedom and Liberty? Not a chance. Even Athens which was far freer than Sparta was not a democracy. Only one in six adult males living in the Athenian City-State had any standing in its governance. Five sixths of the population were either resident aliens whose presence was tolerated and found useful or -slaves-. Slavery was alive and well in Athens in those days. Aristotle even defended slavery. Don't get me wrong. I -loved- the movie. It was exciting, it was bad-ass, it got my juices flowing. Personally, I admire the way of the warrior, the man who puts his blood and vital organs between his family and community on the one hand, and the outsider who would come to conquer or destroy them. All hail the Warrior! The stand of the 300 is Sparta's lasting contribution to human culture along with its military memes. Spartan military modalities are -the- model for military organization in every subsequent society, be it fee or be it tyrannical. For example; the Romans were organized in the manner of the Spartan Hoplites. Here is Simonides verse on the Spartan stand in memory of Spartan bravery: Ώ ξειν', ἀγγέλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ότι τήδε κείμεθα, τοις κοίνων ρήμασι πειθόμενοι Oh Stranger passing by, go tell the Spartans.... Graven on the statue of Leonidas at Thermopolea was the Spartan response to the Persian demand that they Spartans lay down their weapons. "Μολών λαβέ" ("Come and take them!"). Damn! That gives me goose bumps. Ba'al Chatzaf

Darwin's theory as presented in -Origin of Species- has undergone many modifications. For starters, Darwin did not have a well grounded theory to account for the inheritance of characteristics. He did not have an underlying genetic theory (that was developed by others) to account for variations. What he did get right was that natural selection culls those bundles of characteristics leading to organisms that cannot survive in the (current) world. Darwin's Rock Bottom assumption was that all development of living things from the beginning to now, however modified in their descent is caused by -natural processes-. In short, No Miracles. Now matter how his theory has been modified (for example Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium) the underlying natural processes have not been denied nor has that assumption been refuted by experiment. Kenneth Miller in his book -Finding Darwin's God- point by point demolishes Behe's arguments for Intelligent Design. Ba'al Chatzaf

The poster writes: I emphatically disagree with Dragonfly's assessment of the importance or value of the Law of Causality. (He is welcome to dispute this and to clarify his own view.) I think there is a lot we can do, as philosophers of science wielding Rand's metaphysical insights as a kind of "veto power" over invalid models of physical and psychological reality. As a relevant example, indeterministic models of physics (or psychology) that claim some actions are not caused but just happen, must be false. I reply: There are only two "veto powers" concerning a physical theory: a. An internal logical inconsistency. b. A properly designed experiment which shows that a prediction of the theory is false. There are your vetoes. Collision with one's philosophical predispositions do not count. Only facts count. Ba'al Chatzaf

Fortunately, the interpretation is NOT the theory. Quantum theory in its latest from as a second renormalized theory is the most successful physical theory ever formulated. Its main defect is that it does not deal with gravitation. There are other interpretations, none of which sit comfortably with our man-scaled intuitions. So even if the theory is counter-intuitive and collides with our philosophical expectations, never the less it works and and works superlatively. If it works, use it. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it smiles at you, smile back. Ba'al Chatzaf

With all due respect. An -Atlas Shrugged- movie will disappoint you. Why? The novel is too big a story to fit into a motion picture of reasonable length. Even a trilogy a la Peter Jackson's movification of -Lord of the Rings- failed to do the novel justice. Yodah says: Do not your breath hold, Young GaltGulch, until made is movie of -Atlas Shrugged- else blue turn you will. BaalChatzaf

Thank you for your kind invitation. My user name is BaalChatzaf which is Hebrew for cheeky guy. You can call me by my real name, Bob, if you are so inclined. I wish to post in this forum on mathematics and physics with their implications for epistemology. I consider epistemology the part of philosophy that is useful and important. Metaphysics? Well the only metaphysics I use is Reality Lite: Reality (the world outside our skin beyond our wishes and hopes) exists and we all have enough brains to understand it sufficiently to survive in it. Anything beyond this I consider excessive. I am not interested in ethics or morality. Any intelligent sentient being ought to know the difference between right and wrong and if he/she/it does not, he/she/it will soon find out, sometimes painfully. I consider mathematics, physics and flying airplanes the best things that humans do. Flying is the most exciting thing one can do while fully clothed. Next best is making war. We are rather good at it. We are not so good building fair and just social orders. That is a shame, but there it is. Later on topics of interest. BalChatzaf