What type of god do you belive in (2 Viewers)

[ms.b.haven]

so anyway back to fucking a manwhore, it was one time and the herpes around my mouth have cleared up and i'm coming out the other side of this a better person (you have to subscribe to see it)
have I told you the story about becoming impregnated by a Yeti??

 

[ms.b.haven]

all the same i think a little teeny part of you felt sorry for me

your brain perhaps !bing

Save it.

 

[ITalkShite]

jesus. harsh

Well, let's face it. Your role on Thumped is somewhere between court jester and punchbag.

 

[ms.b.haven]

im very fucking upset, ah but i stand out from the crowd at being a complete tool that's what matters...in years to come people will whisper in the shadows of the legend that was MS.B.HAVEN

and then i'll just pop INTO the shadows and hook them with a hammer
BRAIN JUICE .|..|

Well, let's face it. Your role on Thumped is somewhere between court jester and punchbag.

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

this thread has given me a soft one.

 

[ITalkShite]

im very fucking upset, ah but i stand out from the crowd at being a complete tool that's what matters...in years to come people will whisper in the shadows of the legend that was MS.B.HAVEN

and then i'll just pop INTO the shadows and hook them with a hammer
BRAIN JUICE .|..|

On reflection, you're also like the kid that beats themself up to stop the other kids beating them up.

Seek help.

 

[La La]

this thread has given me a soft one.

now thats the post of the year

 

[Corey]

im very fucking upset, ah but i stand out from the crowd at being a complete tool that's what matters...in years to come people will whisper in the shadows of the legend that was MS.B.HAVEN

and then i'll just pop INTO the shadows and hook them with a hammer
BRAIN JUICE .|..|

..

 

[ms.b.haven]

how bout i beat you up huh?

On reflection, you're also like the kid that beats themself up to stop the other kids beating them up.

Seek help.

 

[Corey]

how bout i beat you up huh?

careful man, i dont think she's joking.

 

[egg_]

in a nutshell. i believe in the existance of every god that has ever been conceived of, worshiped or invoked through the entirity of humankind's existance ... every thing that is inside (in the mind / consciousness in all its forms) and outside (in "reality" / evironment / the world) are reflective of each other, but revealing no surface (division, see: the Hindu "maya") thus are one and the same.

How about unicorns, leprechauns and Santa Claus? Do they all exist too?

 

[snakybus]

And it's true for any field, not just physics--there's lots of jargon that means something very specific to people working in that field, but means nothing to laypeople. So reducing technical concepts to ordinary language to get the general idea across to nonspecialists is never going to capture the full essence of what's being explained. All you can do is try your best to relate them to concepts they understand, and in language they understand.

If you don't like this, then that's fine. It just seems to me a bit unfortunate, as you've resigned yourself to dismissing any attempt by a specialist to try to tell you what they're doing.

Snakybus, I don't know what you do, but I bet it involves stuff I'm not an expert in. If I asked you a question about your field, would you immediately start spouting technical terms at me? I'd hope not, because it wouldn't mean anything to me. I'd hope that you'd try to put it in terms that I'd understand, even if it meant holding back some of the details.

I personally really admire people who can do this. As the world gets more and more specialised, it's all too easy for people to retreat into their own ivory towers and ignore the outside world. The ones who make a genuine effort to let others outside their field of study are valuable ambassadors--they hopefully let others know why it's important and useful for people to do these things, and ideally also communicate why it is (or can be) an interesting subject. And most of the time, they do so by giving laypeople the general, ahem, flavour of the subject.

Two great examples of this in my own field would be Richard Feynman and Brian Greene. Both have written "pop science" books that explain basic, but technically complicated, ideas in language that lots of people would understand. In doing so, they use metaphor, figures of speech, analogy, all those little linguistic tricks that give the reader an idea of what's going on without intimidating the fuck out of them.

But if you're happier seeing the maths, here you are:

For a particle of nonzero mass m and velocity v:

energy=E=mc^2(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2)
momentum=p=mv(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2)

For a photon of frequency f:

E=hf
p=hf/c

h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light. And "^" means "to the power of".

Now you can decide for yourself if a photon is "pure energy". Me, I'm now off to confuse my students with technical jargon.

Paul

Right, that's better - yes, I do prefer the maths, actually. Never for a second did I doubt that the facts of what you were saying was awry. I just wanted you to state the facts plainly and not use what I perceived to be fuzzy terms. I do know about Richard Feynman et al. In fact, I know quite a bit about all these guys. You know what my specialty is? The communication of science to lay people (though there's not much work in it).

I haven't "resigned yourself to dismissing any attempt by a specialist to try to tell you what they're doing", as you say. Look - I do have respect for science, and physics, and the people involved in it. I just believe they should be subjected to ponderous assessment by the public as, too often, their reputations precede them. I think they should be goaded, prodded, questioned at all times. I am goading and prodding you right now. I enjoy it.

All you have to do - and this is something I go on about a lot so I hope I don't bore people - is look at two great communicators of complex concepts, and see how they disagree in the extreme, to see that it's not all black and white. As I'm sure you know, science is not all out there, defined, quantified in stark mathematical terms with the great sages - the scientists - all in agreement at the side of the stage ready to reveal it all to us.

So that's why I'm very careful about fuzzy terms used in the communication of science. Sure, you can't argue with maths - supposedly - but it's very easy to twist a metaphor. Physicists use human language - not maths - to communicate their ideas to the public. And physicists answer to the public. I'm sorry, but they do, we're paying your rent. Of course, that's not to say that what you were saying about photons wasn't backed up by sound thinking. I'm satisfied now that it was.

And I know we've moved on from this bit, but that's also why I don't like it when scientists segue conveniently from these metaphors into equally fuzzy dismissals of theology or philosophy, when it's clearly not their turf. But that's a whole other kettle of photons.

 

[snakybus]

How about unicorns, leprechauns and Santa Claus? Do they all exist too?

You gonna give Isobel pressies from Santa, Egg, or are you gonna tell her the truth? Just curious.

 

[taubstumm]

And I know we've moved on from this bit, but that's also why I don't like it when scientists segue conveniently from these metaphors into equally fuzzy dismissals of theology or philosophy, when it's clearly not their turf. But that's a whole other kettle of photons.

because you regard the dismissals as fuzzy or because you regard them as wrong?

 

[billygannon]

I'm pretty sure Paul Watts is three beings in one.

 

[snakybus]

because you regard the dismissals as fuzzy or because you regard them as wrong?

Neither. Because they're expertise in one field puts accross the incorect notion that they are also experts in the other. It's like when Isaac Asimov, a biochemist and science fiction writer, decided to write a book about the history of the United States, you want to say "Stick to what you know, Isaac." Or when Steven Jay Gould wrote about baseball and the history of the typewriter (albeit just one chapter in a book). If it was the other way round, the scientists would be up in arms.

 

[photon]

Neither. Because they're expertise in one field puts accross the incorect notion that they are also experts in the other. It's like when Isaac Asimov, a biochemist and science fiction writer, decided to write a book about the history of the United States, you want to say "Stick to what you know, Isaac." Or when Steven Jay Gould wrote about baseball and the history of the typewriter (albeit just one chapter in a book). If it was the other way round, the scientists would be up in arms.

You seem to equate "expertise in" with "has a degree in". Grand, Asimov and Gould have degrees in certain subjects, but I'm not willing to say that they don't know loads about some other subject, enough to write coherently and substantially about it. I have no problem at all with either of them writing a book about something they're passionate about, even if they haven't studied it in university.

And you might disagree with this, but I'd rather the reader decide what he or she is gonna take as authoritative rather than some censorship board that says "you must have this many degrees before you're allowed to write on this subject".

Let people decide for themselves, just like you've decided that I know what I'm talking about in physics but not in philosophy or theology.

Paul

 

[egg_]

You gonna give Isobel pressies from Santa, Egg, or are you gonna tell her the truth?

Pressies from Santa.
While I'm happy to risk her eternal damnation by not getting her baptised, I just think it'd be mean to deny her that special Christmas buzz. How about you, Mr. Hobby Horse?

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

photon and snakybus...

i ran your comments through the gematriculator, a service that uses the infallible methods of Gematria developed by Mr. Ivan Panin to determine how good or evil a web site or a text passage is.

I used photons comment beginning with "And it's true for any field, not just physics--there's lots of jargon that means something very specific to people working in that field...." and snakybus's response beginning with "Right, that's better - yes, I do prefer the maths, actually. Never for a second did I doubt...". the controversial results are as follows:

photons comments: 20% Evil - 80% Good.

Snakybus's response: 9% Evil - 91% Good.

 

[snakybus]

You seem to equate "expertise in" with "has a degree in". Grand, Asimov and Gould have degrees in certain subjects, but I'm not willing to say that they don't know loads about some other subject, enough to write coherently and substantially about it. I have no problem at all with either of them writing a book about something they're passionate about, even if they haven't studied it in university.

And you might disagree with this, but I'd rather the reader decide what he or she is gonna take as authoritative rather than some censorship board that says "you must have this many degrees before you're allowed to write on this subject".

Let people decide for themselves, just like you've decided that I know what I'm talking about in physics but not in philosophy or theology.

Paul

Absolutely let people decide. People are going to decide anyway. And yeah, I have no objection to people writing a book about what they feel passionate about, or know a good bit about, why not.

Incidentally, you may know loads about philosophy for all I know.