Question
Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)
Date: 14 Oct 2004 23:18:23 GMT

--------
Do we really think that space per se is wave space? ie that the geometry
defines the space (rather than as in cartesian space)? Is this the generally
accepted view?

I'm working in cartesian space and its damn boring. Relatively speaking of
course.(ha ha)

I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp I have
now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.
--
"More than iron, more than lead, more than gold I need electricity.
I need it more than I need lamb or pork or lettuce or cucumber.
I need it for my dreams." -Raptor (A computer program)


Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:03:51 GMT

--------
KD et al wrote:
> Do we really think that space per se is wave space? ie that the geometry
> defines the space (rather than as in cartesian space)? Is this the generally
> accepted view?
>
> I'm working in cartesian space and its damn boring. Relatively speaking of
> course.(ha ha)
>
> I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp I have
> now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.

At some point, you'll encounter the limits of your current formal
training. You may be very bright and have a great background as an
inquisitive amateur, but everyone eventually hits the wall.

Now, don't get me wrong. Will Hunting was right - if you've got the
right sort of aptitude, you can get an Ivy League-quality education in
pretty much any of the liberal arts for a dollar and change in late
fines at the public library.

Math and physics are different. It's almost impossible for anyone to
actually teach themselves advanced mathematics or theoretical physics.
It's a dark truth of the universe: Talking Barbie wasn't lying -- math
really IS hard. Many a bright intellectual has been humbled by the pure
sciences.

There's no easy way out. To acquire the broad synthetic base of
understanding necessary to grasp these concepts, you have to be brutally
and repeatedly forced to accept hideous tentacled aberrations of twisted
thought into the softest, wettest, most private places in your brain,
even as your mind recoils and gibbers with blind sweating terror at the
sheer unspeakable horror of it all. Every day. For YEARS.

You can't do it to yourself. You WON'T, no matter how brilliant you
think you are or how much of an intellectual masochist you think you are.

And it's hard enough even with the rapacious assistance of formal
training, because all you have to do is scream "STOP! I DON'T WANT TO
KNOW!" and it will all end and you can go home and sleep for a week and
never come back again.

So be aware that you may have hit the point where nothing of further of
significance can be gained without devoting years of your life to
agonizing formal training followed by years of tedious painstaking research.

My advice is to choose your battles wisely.


Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:27:58 -0700

--------
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:03:51 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
wrote:

>KD et al wrote:
>> Do we really think that space per se is wave space? ie that the geometry
>> defines the space (rather than as in cartesian space)? Is this the generally
>> accepted view?
>>
>> I'm working in cartesian space and its damn boring. Relatively speaking of
>> course.(ha ha)
>>
>> I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp I have
>> now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.
>
>At some point, you'll encounter the limits of your current formal
>training. You may be very bright and have a great background as an
>inquisitive amateur, but everyone eventually hits the wall.
>
>Now, don't get me wrong. Will Hunting was right - if you've got the
>right sort of aptitude, you can get an Ivy League-quality education in
>pretty much any of the liberal arts for a dollar and change in late
>fines at the public library.
>
>Math and physics are different. It's almost impossible for anyone to
>actually teach themselves advanced mathematics or theoretical physics.
>It's a dark truth of the universe: Talking Barbie wasn't lying -- math
>really IS hard. Many a bright intellectual has been humbled by the pure
>sciences.
>
>There's no easy way out. To acquire the broad synthetic base of
>understanding necessary to grasp these concepts, you have to be brutally
>and repeatedly forced to accept hideous tentacled aberrations of twisted
>thought into the softest, wettest, most private places in your brain,
>even as your mind recoils and gibbers with blind sweating terror at the
>sheer unspeakable horror of it all. Every day. For YEARS.
>
>You can't do it to yourself. You WON'T, no matter how brilliant you
>think you are or how much of an intellectual masochist you think you are.
>
>And it's hard enough even with the rapacious assistance of formal
>training, because all you have to do is scream "STOP! I DON'T WANT TO
>KNOW!" and it will all end and you can go home and sleep for a week and
>never come back again.
>
>So be aware that you may have hit the point where nothing of further of
>significance can be gained without devoting years of your life to
>agonizing formal training followed by years of tedious painstaking research.
>

But what's BEYOND that point?

(first perl jokes, now physics jokes. geekdom confirmed. At least
I'm not Bill O'Reilly. I consider geekdom the lesser of many evils.)


>My advice is to choose your battles wisely.

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
BLOOD AND SOULS FOR MY LORD ARIOCH! BLOOD AND SOULS!



Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:06:22 GMT

--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:03:51 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> wrote:
>
>>KD et al wrote:
>>> Do we really think that space per se is wave space? ie that the geometry
>>> defines the space (rather than as in cartesian space)? Is this the generally
>>> accepted view?
>>>
>>> I'm working in cartesian space and its damn boring. Relatively speaking of
>>> course.(ha ha)
>>>
>>> I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp I have
>>> now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.
>>
>>At some point, you'll encounter the limits of your current formal
>>training. You may be very bright and have a great background as an
>>inquisitive amateur, but everyone eventually hits the wall.
>>
>>Now, don't get me wrong. Will Hunting was right - if you've got the
>>right sort of aptitude, you can get an Ivy League-quality education in
>>pretty much any of the liberal arts for a dollar and change in late
>>fines at the public library.
>>
>>Math and physics are different. It's almost impossible for anyone to
>>actually teach themselves advanced mathematics or theoretical physics.
>>It's a dark truth of the universe: Talking Barbie wasn't lying -- math
>>really IS hard. Many a bright intellectual has been humbled by the pure
>>sciences.
>>
>>There's no easy way out. To acquire the broad synthetic base of
>>understanding necessary to grasp these concepts, you have to be brutally
>>and repeatedly forced to accept hideous tentacled aberrations of twisted
>>thought into the softest, wettest, most private places in your brain,
>>even as your mind recoils and gibbers with blind sweating terror at the
>>sheer unspeakable horror of it all. Every day. For YEARS.
>>
>>You can't do it to yourself. You WON'T, no matter how brilliant you
>>think you are or how much of an intellectual masochist you think you are.
>>
>>And it's hard enough even with the rapacious assistance of formal
>>training, because all you have to do is scream "STOP! I DON'T WANT TO
>>KNOW!" and it will all end and you can go home and sleep for a week and
>>never come back again.
>>
>>So be aware that you may have hit the point where nothing of further of
>>significance can be gained without devoting years of your life to
>>agonizing formal training followed by years of tedious painstaking research.
>>
>
> But what's BEYOND that point?
>
> (first perl jokes, now physics jokes. geekdom confirmed. At least
> I'm not Bill O'Reilly. I consider geekdom the lesser of many evils.)

Couldn't say. Wasn't one of the battles I picked.


Correspondent:: "iDRMRSR"
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:55:59 -0400

--------
> Do we really think that space per se is wave space?

No, the actual answer is it's LOVE space.

Love, the primate phenomenon so prized by humans, stems from a simple fact.
We have forward pointing eyes. Thus, it is impossible for us to groom
ourselves properly without the assistance of others.

In order to gain that assistance, we must emit an attractive force. Enter
the phenomenon of time (aging). In old age, humans are very unattractive.
Thus, the total attractive force (LOVE) they generated earlier comes into
play in later life, compelling other humans (in the name of Love and
Humanity) to perform the grooming rituals BASED UPON LONG PAST EVENTS. A
form of time compression.

This inability to detect photons coming from other directions has left our
brains muddled such that we conceive ORIENTATION. When in reality, any
energy can go anywhere, we are most concerned that we can calculate a path
relative to our virtual or actual or thought orientation. This divorces us
from viewing the entire spacetime continuum as a continuum, and instead
confuses us forever to think that there is a "front and back", or beginning
and end, to all processes.

That causes our thinking to be essentially PLANAR. Indeed, for most of the
history of mankind, planar view (ie, the luck plane) satisfactorily answered
our questions about the nature of things.

But did you ever try to look up your OWN asshole without using a
(distorting) MIRROR? Your natural inclination would be to BEND in some
fashion. From this maneuver, in the name of proper primate grooming, flows
the topology necessary to understand simple Einsteinian relativity.

Extending the bending process repeatedly over short distances then
encompasses more modern theories such as wave theory and strings and
D-branes and the such like.

Had we eyes in the back of our heads as well, the development of our logical
brain circuits would be the SQUARE of the complexity of our present
development, and we would be smart enough not to ask such questions.

[*]
-----




Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:47:23 -0400

--------
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:03:51 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:

> KD et al wrote:

>> I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp I have
>> now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.
>
> At some point, you'll encounter the limits of your current formal
> training.

And I think WE'LL ALL be glad when she DOES!



Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)
Date: 15 Oct 2004 22:58:52 GMT

--------
Vertigo wrote:

>My advice is to choose your battles wisely.
>

I've long been a jack of all knowledge, master of none.
--
"As life's constants become relativized, all the certainties we live by become
frighteningly unpredictable for awhile. The payoff, of course, is insight."
Bernard Barrs, 'In the Theatre of Consciousness'


Correspondent:: "ghost"
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:48:14 GMT

--------

"Cardinal Vertigo" wrote in message
news:XlFbd.17516$Qv5.6958@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> KD et al wrote:
> > Do we really think that space per se is wave space? ie that the geometry
> > defines the space (rather than as in cartesian space)? Is this the
generally
> > accepted view?
> >
> > I'm working in cartesian space and its damn boring. Relatively speaking
of
> > course.(ha ha)
> >
> > I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp
I have
> > now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.
>
> At some point, you'll encounter the limits of your current formal
> training. You may be very bright and have a great background as an
> inquisitive amateur, but everyone eventually hits the wall.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong. Will Hunting was right - if you've got the
> right sort of aptitude, you can get an Ivy League-quality education in
> pretty much any of the liberal arts for a dollar and change in late
> fines at the public library.
>
> Math and physics are different. It's almost impossible for anyone to
> actually teach themselves advanced mathematics or theoretical physics.
> It's a dark truth of the universe: Talking Barbie wasn't lying -- math
> really IS hard. Many a bright intellectual has been humbled by the pure
> sciences.
>
> There's no easy way out. To acquire the broad synthetic base of
> understanding necessary to grasp these concepts, you have to be brutally
> and repeatedly forced to accept hideous tentacled aberrations of twisted
> thought into the softest, wettest, most private places in your brain,
> even as your mind recoils and gibbers with blind sweating terror at the
> sheer unspeakable horror of it all. Every day. For YEARS.
>
> You can't do it to yourself. You WON'T, no matter how brilliant you
> think you are or how much of an intellectual masochist you think you are.
>
> And it's hard enough even with the rapacious assistance of formal
> training, because all you have to do is scream "STOP! I DON'T WANT TO
> KNOW!" and it will all end and you can go home and sleep for a week and
> never come back again.
>
> So be aware that you may have hit the point where nothing of further of
> significance can be gained without devoting years of your life to
> agonizing formal training followed by years of tedious painstaking
research.
>
> My advice is to choose your battles wisely.

But even laypeople can try to glean whatever they can out of pop science and
have fun turning it over and around in their heads. Pop science is better
now than it's ever been and there are some GREAT books out there on lots of
subjects. Pop science IS the new science fiction. And it's fun.

Playing with such lofty concepts is probably just a bit of harmless
fantasizing best done in private, but hey, it's still better than talking
about baseball. As long as one isn't writing Usenet manifestos proving
Einstein was wrong...

Shit, in a good mental state I can read a good science book a week, have a
lot of fun and get tons out of it. I'm not an expert, but I'm still better
entertained (and informed) than if I had read some piece of shit horror
novel.

But how 'bout them Yankees!




Correspondent:: "Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello"
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:00:22 GMT

--------
DOH!

http://superstringtheory.com/


"KD et al" wrote in message
news:20041014191823.13199.00002054@mb-m28.aol.com...
> Do we really think that space per se is wave space? ie that the geometry
> defines the space (rather than as in cartesian space)? Is this the
> generally
> accepted view?
>
> I'm working in cartesian space and its damn boring. Relatively speaking of
> course.(ha ha)
>
> I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp I
> have
> now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.
> --
> "More than iron, more than lead, more than gold I need electricity.
> I need it more than I need lamb or pork or lettuce or cucumber.
> I need it for my dreams." -Raptor (A computer program)




Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:42:41 -0700

--------
In article <20041014191823.13199.00002054@mb-m28.aol.com>,
kdetal@aol.com (KD et al) wrote:

> Do we really think that space per se is wave space? ie that the geometry
> defines the space (rather than as in cartesian space)? Is this the generally
> accepted view?
>
> I'm working in cartesian space and its damn boring. Relatively speaking of
> course.(ha ha)
>
> I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp I have
> now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.
> --
> "More than iron, more than lead, more than gold I need electricity.
> I need it more than I need lamb or pork or lettuce or cucumber.
> I need it for my dreams." -Raptor (A computer program)

"Science is but an organized system of ignorance." --Peter Sellers

pb


Correspondent:: "Rich Clark, aka Left Reverend Egg Plant, ULC, CotSG"
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:13:56 -0400

--------
KD et al wrote:
> Do we really think that space per se is wave space? ie that the geometry
> defines the space (rather than as in cartesian space)? Is this the generally
> accepted view?
>
> I'm working in cartesian space and its damn boring. Relatively speaking of
> course.(ha ha)
>
> I'd like to get my mind around wave space better than the tenuous grasp I have
> now. But only if this is the generally accepted view.
> --
> "More than iron, more than lead, more than gold I need electricity.
> I need it more than I need lamb or pork or lettuce or cucumber.
> I need it for my dreams." -Raptor (A computer program)

Baby, I love the way you talk. Yer givin' me a boner.

Rich


Correspondent:: Overdog8080@yahoo.com (Overdog)
Date: 26 Nov 2004 02:10:54 -0800

--------
"Joey Jolley" wrote in message news:...
> Does McDonald's still serve hamburgers, cheeseburgers, Big Macs,
> milkshakes, french fries, etc.?

In the late 70s, scientists working for NASA developed a synthetic
food substitute that was completely inorganic in nature. It was
essential to have such a material for use in long space voyages-- when
having a real "kitchen" was impractical. The meat substitute also had
to be able to resist heavy radiation, and vacuum. The code name for
this project was "Grimace."

Initial tests all checked out. The "food" was edible, all right, and
the "space meat" was impervious to normal biological breakdown. As a
side benefit, it could also be used for degreasing clogged fuel
intakes.

However, serious problems soon surfaced with substance X.
Subjects who ingested the "food" became irritable and sluggish. They
gained tremendous amounts of weight, even while losing brain mass at a
precipitous rate. Also, it was calculated that the flatulence and
feces output of even one of the subjects was enough to overload the
waste management systems of the entire shuttle.

In the ensuing scandal, the project director, Dr. "Ronald" Evil, came
under suspicion of falsifying research results.
He already had several black marks on his record prior to this-- for
example, his research into hamster sexuality was questionable at best,
and his alleged attempt to build a "death ray" out of unused toaster
parts was poorly received.
After a long investigation, Ronald was fired-- and his pension plan
was suspended.

The good doctor was down, but not out. He soon changed his last name
from "Evil" to the more folksy MacDonald. He severed all ties with
NASA, and began a chain of restaurants bearing his (new) name. To
conceal his former identify, he took on the persona of a clown, and
recruited a crew of loyal midget henchmen.

Ronald's new restaurants specialized in serving McMeat... also *known*
as the BANNED "substance X"! Soon, "USians" were reeling beneath the
combined impact of McMeat and the animatronic Reagan (another
government project gone horribly wrong)

NASA knew that their invention was spiraling out of control, but they
hesitated to expose Mr. MacDonald for what he was. Perhaps the
directors were afraid that if they exposed Ronald, other secrets of
the department would come to light... like the superchimp fiasco.
Eventually, the decision was made to cover up everything, and reassign
all personnel associated with the project to Penis, Arizona-- where,
it was hoped, the baking sun and intense radiation would soon
obliterate all leads into the puzzle.

So now you know.
And yes, McDonald's is still serving this crap.


Overdog