Madelaine McMasters

ROB34466IIIa wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: This is why definition and scope are so important. ow ..err .. right.. .. that .. ( .. wow .. :robotsurprised: ) Turns a well defined ankle while spitting her Scope back into the bathroom sink.

Dillon Levenque wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: The result would be no fish in anything but perhaps the largest bodies of water, if anywhere. Alternatively, all the fish would be in places like Coastal California, where ice only forms in those little trays we put in the freezer. You may be onto a solution for global warming there, Dillon. Let's cover the Earth with little trays!

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: I was being absolutely serious, not that it makes your proof any less valid Are you saying that because drop is a measurement then we can say that two drops of water are equal to two drops of water no mater how they are combined, like if we put two cups of milk in a pint we still have two cups of milk? Yes, that makes sense. Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation? 1 + 1 = 2 means 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units. 1 drop of water (1 unit) + 1 drop of water (1 unit) = 2 drops of water (2 seperate units). But... 1 unit (1 drop of water) and 1 unit (1 drop of water) combine to make 1 unit (1 drop of water) of a larger size.. So, pretty much like my 2 cups equals one pint example? In this instance, you have switched units, so the equation is not what it seems. If we keep the units the same (oz) then we get 2*8(oz/cup)=1*16(oz/pint). In the ambiguous case of a "drop", you can argue that 1+1=1, but the equation doesn't tell you much, other than that "drop" is ambiguous. I could just as easily say 1+1=150 if cabbages are currently selling for 75 cents each. This is why definition and scope are so important.

ROB34466IIIa wrote: Aherm. Fluids are measured in volumes. Substitute 'drop of water' with the unit of volume ( liters in my example ). 1 ml H2O + 1 ml H2O = 2 ml H2O Besides .. your reasoning only works at roomtemperature. Does it still apply when it' s freezing ? I remember first learning that water was the only non-metallic element that expands when frozen. This is why ice floats. Without this particular oddity of nature, Earth might be much different. Ice in lakes would form on the bottom and lakes could freeze solid as there would be no insulating blanket of ice and snow to prevent evaporative cooling at the surface. The result would be no fish in anything but perhaps the largest bodies of water, if anywhere. Once again, when you dig, you find stuff!

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? The ability of a telescope to resolve detail is limited by optical diffraction (an effect of the wave nature of light and a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There are numerous explanations on the web, a quick Googling provides this... http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm In short, if not for atmospheric distortions (which give stars (not planets) their twinkle) could see the flag if we built a telescope nearly four miles in diameter. It would be far less expensive to fly a few disbelievers to the moon to see the flag in person than to construct such a telescope. ETA: we (and the Russians) did leave many retroreflectors on the moon's surface, which are routinely used to bounce back laser beams directed at them from Earth. We time the round trip to accurately measure the distance between Earth and Moon. That's more than enough proof to many that we actually put stuff up there, but less than enough proof to those who believe nothing but their own eyes, which of course are as trustworthy as the critical thinking behind them. Cool, but why can we build stuff that can see way out into space, like Jupiter or Saturn, but not the surface of the moon? If we can't even see a bright red object on the moon, how are we to believe anything about how big and expanding our universe is, or that there are all these other solar systems and such, if we cannot even develop the technology to observe our own satellite with precision? We can see the lunar landers from satellites in orbit around the moon, so your statement that we cannot is false. http://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.html The detailed images we have of Saturn's rings come not from Hubble, but from orbiting satellites. It is far less espensive to throw telescopes into orbit around distant planets than to engineer telescopes to achieve that view from here. As to why we don't try to take clear photographs of our flag on the moon, why would we? Scientists are interested in learning new things, not appeasing conspiracy theorists. Seeing our satellites isn't of much value to scientists, seeing with them is. So... the only way we can see things in space clearly is from other stuff in space.. wow, I guess the disbelievers don't have to look far to get their doubts, do they? Right. We can and do devise clever ways to resolve greater detail at a distance, such as measuring the Doppler shift in the light of stars very far away, to deduce they are wobbling due to the gravitational pull of planets around them. This has allowed us to "prove" the existence of planets we can not see by conventional means. I think the conspiracy theorists simply underestimate the cleverness of others. Most high school graduates are far less fluent in mathematics than the architects of things like Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids. Arthur Clarke said (paraphrased) that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It's helpful to understand that, at birth, we are all completely technically naive. If we do not educate ourselves, if we do not explore, we will constantly live in a world of magic, won't we? ETA: You said something a li'l profound here, I think... "wow, I guess the disbelievers don't have to look far to get their doubts, do they? " When you doubt(believe), you can dig deeper, with the understanding that the truth may not agree with you. Or, you can hold tight to your doubt(belief) and choose to see only what agrees with you. You not only don't look far, you often don't look at all.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? The ability of a telescope to resolve detail is limited by optical diffraction (an effect of the wave nature of light and a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There are numerous explanations on the web, a quick Googling provides this... http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm In short, if not for atmospheric distortions (which give stars (not planets) their twinkle) could see the flag if we built a telescope nearly four miles in diameter. It would be far less expensive to fly a few disbelievers to the moon to see the flag in person than to construct such a telescope. ETA: we (and the Russians) did leave many retroreflectors on the moon's surface, which are routinely used to bounce back laser beams directed at them from Earth. We time the round trip to accurately measure the distance between Earth and Moon. That's more than enough proof to many that we actually put stuff up there, but less than enough proof to those who believe nothing but their own eyes, which of course are as trustworthy as the critical thinking behind them. Cool, but why can we build stuff that can see way out into space, like Jupiter or Saturn, but not the surface of the moon? If we can't even see a bright red object on the moon, how are we to believe anything about how big and expanding our universe is, or that there are all these other solar systems and such, if we cannot even develop the technology to observe our own satellite with precision? We can see the lunar landers from satellites in orbit around the moon, so your statement that we cannot comes from a commonly held false belief ;-) http://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.html The detailed images we have of Saturn's rings come not from Hubble, but from orbiting satellites. It is far less espensive to throw telescopes into orbit around distant planets than to engineer telescopes to achieve that view from here. As to why we don't try to take clear photographs of our flag on the moon, why would we? Scientists are interested in learning new things, not appeasing conspiracy theorists. Seeing our satellites isn't of much value to scientists, seeing with them is. ETA: I hope I'm not starting to sound harsh here. I have the benefit of being in a profession that exposes me to a great deal of this kind of thing. I sometimes ask questions to make points that can feel intimidating. That's not my goal. My goal is to encourage the same sort of healthy skepticism that was encouraged in me.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? The ability of a telescope to resolve detail is limited by optical diffraction (an effect of the wave nature of light and a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There are numerous explanations on the web, a quick Googling provides this... http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm In short, if not for atmospheric distortions (which give stars (not planets) their twinkle) could see the flag if we built a telescope nearly four miles in diameter. It would be far less expensive to fly a few disbelievers to the moon to see the flag in person than to construct such a telescope. ETA: we (and the Russians) did leave many retroreflectors on the moon's surface, which are routinely used to bounce back laser beams directed at them from Earth. We time the round trip to accurately measure the distance between Earth and Moon. That's more than enough proof to many that we actually put stuff up there, but less than enough proof to those who believe nothing but their own eyes, which of course are as trustworthy as the critical thinking behind them.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation? I limited the scope to numbers, addition and math. You expanded the scope into the physical world, where much more must be defined. Are you talking about pure water or tap water with typical impurities, some of which may undergo radioactive decay or chemical reactions? Are you talking about visible drops? Mass? Numbers of atoms (will change if a radiocative impurity decays)? Numbers of molecules (will change if impurities in the drops react chemically)? Are you allowing for evaporation and/or condensation? You can work up a set of definitions and a scope for your proposition that prove it true, but if you dig deep enough, you'll eventually have to content yourself with a theory. Aha. So can anything be proven to be true? Or is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know? With the definitions and within the scope I set out for 1+1=2, that IS true. So the answer to your question is yes. But if you keep expanding the scope, eventually (and perhaps quickly) you run to the edge of your knowledge and you must theorize while waiting to be proved wrong, if it happens. Fortunately, one can have a happy and productive life without knowing very much. I offer myself as proof that's true. You must live in a constant state of bliss. Does that make math the only real true thing, or are there other examples of truth? Not content with the proof you've already offered? Yes, there are many other examples of truth. We landed a man on the Moon. The scope of that achievement was very large in comparison to our daily lives. Within that scope, a great deal had to be true in order to have success. We automatically and naturally limit scope in conversation. That I am sitting in a chair right now is true, and you might accept that without any proof other than my word on it, because you limit the scope to that which you find comfortable for the acceptance of the truth. I had conversations like this with my philosophy professor in college. I got the distinct impression (which is not a truth) that he believed my practical approach to scope was somehow missing the point. He got the impression (which was the truth) that I thought his need for that point was pointless.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation? I limited the scope to numbers, addition and math. You expanded the scope into the physical world, where much more must be defined. Are you talking about pure water or tap water with typical impurities, some of which may undergo radioactive decay or chemical reactions? Are you talking about visible drops? Mass? Numbers of atoms (will change if a radiocative impurity decays)? Numbers of molecules (will change if impurities in the drops react chemically)? Are you allowing for evaporation and/or condensation? You can work up a set of definitions and a scope for your proposition that prove it true, but if you dig deep enough, you'll eventually have to content yourself with a theory. Aha. So can anything be proven to be true? Or is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know? With the definitions and within the scope I set out for 1+1=2, that IS true. So the answer to your question is yes. But if you keep expanding the scope, eventually (and perhaps quickly) you run to the edge of your knowledge and you must theorize while waiting to be proved wrong, if it happens. Fortunately, one can have a happy and productive life without knowing very much. I offer myself as proof that's true.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Is that a proven fact, or a theory? It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time. If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact? Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose). 1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics. Does merging two drops of water to form one drop of water disprove that fact? Absolutely not. Water is outside the scope of that equation. However, your proposition does prove to me (not that proof was necessary) that you are a smartass. ;-) ! I was being absolutely serious, not that it makes your proof any less valid Are you saying that because drop is a measurement then we can say that two drops of water are equal to two drops of water no mater how they are combined, like if we put two cups of milk in a pint we still have two cups of milk? Yes, that makes sense. Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation? I limited the scope to numbers, addition and math. You expanded the scope into the physical world, where much more must be defined. Are you talking about pure water or tap water with typical impurities, some of which may undergo radioactive decay or chemical reactions? Are you talking about visible drops? Mass? Numbers of atoms (will change if a radiocative impurity decays)? Numbers of molecules (will change if impurities in the drops react chemically)? Are you allowing for evaporation and/or condensation? You can work up a set of definitions and a scope for your proposition that prove it true, but if you dig deep enough, you'll eventually have to content yourself with a theory.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Is that a proven fact, or a theory? It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time. If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact? Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose). 1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics. Does merging two drops of water to form one drop of water disprove that fact? Absolutely not. Water is outside the scope of that equation. However, your proposition does prove to me (not that proof was necessary) that you are a smartass. ;-)

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Is that a proven fact, or a theory? It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time. If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact? Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose). 1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics. This reminds me of a joke I learned in engineering school, which I'll re-gender. An engineer and a mathematician (both female) are placed across a room from a handsome man. They are both given the following instructions... You may approach the man (we presume the desire to do so), but you may take no step that is greater than half the distance to him. The mathematician immediately throws up her arms, exclaiming "I will never get there!" The engineer calmly steps forward, wryly noting that "In just a few steps I'll be close enough for all practical purposes."

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Is that a proven fact, or a theory? It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time. If a theory can never be proven, what makes a fact a fact? Definitions and scope (which are sorta the same thing or at least overlap, I suppose). 1+1=2 is a fact, given the definition of numbers, addition and equality, within the scope of mathematics.

Phil Deakins wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Is that a proven fact, or a theory? It's a theory. Theories can never be proved. They can only be disproved. It doesn't matter how many results of tests and experiments show a theory to be correct, it only takes one negative result for a theory to be disproved, and that result could come at any time. This is what makes science so exciting!!!

I am saddened to hear of your loss, Chelsea. I share your wonder about balance between our own wants and needs and those of others here. SL is filled with the sick, the lonely and those in need, if even only of a smile and only for a day. You and I will be one of those at some point or other as well. So, what do we do about it? I don't see SL as being any different than RL in this regard. I have and will contribute to worthy causes in both worlds, but still find that (forgive my hubris) one-to-one engagement with my friends is the most rewarding and productive use of my time. Supportive words or an attentive ear are priceless gifts, for both you and your friends. I believe we all leave a wake as we pass through life. I'm sure your lost friend rocked your boat with hers, more than once, and changed you. So, go forward and rock other people's boats. Pass on a bit of you and a bit of her. It's what she would have wanted and you know it ;-)

Deltango Vale wrote: "Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk." - Tom Waits This particular theory will be very hard to disprove.

Ann Otoole wrote: The universe came into existence when the sun god ra pulled forth mankind from the triangular shaped stone of man which i own and wear daily since discovering it at a location later made into an archeological dig said to be the oldest evidence of man in the north american continent. so there. Ann, are you sure that's not just a mud caked Dorito left on the ground by a camper? If so, don't fret, there's a long history of people finding religious significance in bits of junk food.

Marigold Devin wrote: The forums aren't what they once were, and some people got left behind in that ditch we were digging to Arizona, never to be seen again. I just keep coming back to see if anyone has got a good recipe for guacamole - not too much dicing though please.   Mari, I haven't seen PES in ages. Thanks for reminding me!

Dillon Levenque wrote: Wow over 1550 now :-). I didn't know that was a technique. Thanks Charo. Sort of like internet voting. Bogus. But Maddy was wrong, Qwalyphi. It's not you. It's her. Hey, I accepted my responsibility for being uninteresting! ETA: That said, Qwalyphi does pretty well for a weasel.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Almost 1500 views in about 18 minutes, that's not too bad. Somebody's gonna get carpal tunnel syndrome. Maybe that's why it stopped at 15? I think so ;-)

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Almost 1500 views in about 18 minutes, that's not too bad. Somebody's gonna get carpal tunnel syndrome.

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Back then - In the old forums (pre March 2011) I would sometimes post. Then I would be curious how many were viewing and responding. So I could check that by refreshing the page and see the counts change. There was really a lot of activity. Anytime I did a refresh at least one more person had viewed the thread. Sometimes more than that. No matter how fast I hit enter. Sometimes in a few minutes I could see that 200 had read my post. Now is the new forums. I can list all my recent posts on a page with how many views and responses. I can refresh that when I want. And not like before. Sometimes no new views. Okay, sometimes one or more than one. But nothing like then. Now is slow and sad. Okay, this is not forums feedback. It's feedback about me - in general. Yes, it is about you, Qwalyphi. You have become very uninteresting, but not as uninteresting as me ;-)

Sy Beck wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: A tiny universe within our own universe must be subject to the constraints of our universe. One of those is what is believed to be the shortest length possible. I think that's the Planck length. So, since or own planet is subject to those constraints, and yet is hardly even a speck in the universe, a tiny universe wouldn't be possible. A tiny something might become possible, but not a tiny universe with stars, planets, things on the planets, atoms and molecules making up the things, etc. Creating a universe has to mean that it is not within our own. ETA: If we ever came to the point of creating a universe that is not within our own, we wouldn't even know that we'd done it. We may be unintentionally doing it quite often. We don't know whether or not the collisions of particles in the colliders cause new universes to come into existance. There's infinite 'room' for them in Null. Your use of the term "within" doesn't fully comprehend the concept of dimensions. If we are able to create universes by somehow manipulating these unseen extra dimensions that string theory posits, they would not be "within" or "inside" ours, and we would not be within or inside theirs. All universes, including the ones we create, would perceive whatever dimensions they could within the N-dimensional space that comprises the super-universe that contains everything. So maybe it's helpful to consider a super-universe that encompasses all the dimensions ( from 10 to 26, depending on who you ask). This N-dimensional super-universe would contain countless sub-universes. I'm no expert on such things, to be sure, but I think "sub-universe" creation could depend on the ability of any other sub-universe to move "information" along one of its potentially (or currently or practically) invisible dimensions, perhaps from another sub-universe. If that can happen, then one sub-universe could create another, but potentially be unable to probe it, or perhaps even know it had been created. This tangentially hits upon what I mentioned eons back in this thread about how a single consciousness can create/observe a universe and therefore all things are possible within it, including any number of dimensions. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159-167 I think there's a leap of faith in that video that does not comport with the thinking of at least David Bohm. That video infers that Bohm supports the thesis that until consciously observed, a thing isn't realized. In fact, Bohm proposed an interpretation of quantum theory (De Broglie-Bohm Theory) that collapsed the wave function to an unambiguous result without observations at all. The observed Heisenberg uncertainty is in the measurement, not the thing measured. If I wanted to mislead people, I'd have picked a more sympathetic physicist. Perhaps they picked Bohm because they didn't understand his physics, but liked his thoughts on thinking. Dean Radin is "Senior Scientist" at a non-profit organization (IONS) that believes that "consciousness matters". Radin appears to be from the Von Neumann school of "consciousness causes collapse". This is, I think, a minority view in the physics community, but Heisenberg has prolly ensured as much uncertainty in the theories as in the observations ;-) Lynn McTaggart is a non-scientist author of books that have been characterized as pseudoscience. If you'd like to get a sense for her veracity, watch this... http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcm6df_the-clean-water-experiment-at-lake_webcam Thankfully, her followers needn't purchase tin-foil hats, they can simply think them into existence. (I edited my comments about Radin to reduce my stridency ;-) ETA: A bit of wandering about the IONS website raises a few hairs on the back of my neck, like "peer reviewed" publications reviewed by peers with the same beliefs. That looks like ideological incest to me. I get the same general feeling from IONS that I get when reading about Scientology.

Oh dear. I hope this blows over with no lasting effect, Val. Hugs!

Phil Deakins wrote: Don't move on, Madelaine! I've gained a lot because you've been in the thread. You seem to accept the extra dimensions and I certainly don't, but that's just something we don't agree on, that's all. It's no cause for anyone to move on. It's not that I accept extra dimensions or not. I'm not informed enough to be more than ambivalent. I'm content to watch the debate and think the anti string-theorists have made some interesting arguments about the politics of academia. I mentioned that before. The anti string theorists also haven't got a better (read more popular) theory... yet. I can't continue the conversation about n-dimensionality because I'm out of ways to explain it. If you are conceptually stuck in three dimensions (your use of "inside" indicates so) then the discussion stops at 3D.