Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[lily of the Valley]

Still, if the world came to a sudden end it would be kind of fun watching bush during his last moments on earth. I realize we all have to go, but it would still be fun…

adios..

[TedHOhio]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
You stepped on a black cat, in the black of night! I hope you weren't eating black licorice at that moment.

No, I was still half asleep. I was just glad my ... well let's just say I was bruised as opposed to bloody and broken. According to my wife she learned a few new words that night!

[TedHOhio]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>Thats true poly.But can anyone imagine that there is a possibility,that there is a supernatural being?Who created the universe.And that HE is beyond explaining by physics.

You claim God is above understand and Physics, yet you are trying to box God into ID? Are you kidding me! I think you are starting to confuse yourself.

[jerb1]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Poly's point, as I recall, was that the "nature" of something was the sum total of its possible interactions with other things. I don't recall that Poly ever claimed that we had ever actually observed every possible interaction of a particle with other things. Understand now?

There are no rigid particles anymore.. Strange as it may seem, our perceived macro-view is now comprised of 2 dimensional strings, because higher energy states require it to be so...

[Shaft-O Eng]

It's it's ...all clear to me now....
the call of the wild...the nature of the natural...
nature calls....

[shinningelectr0n]

Adrian wrote:

<quoted text>Hey shinnE
I'm not starting a remake of yesterday, I simply can't, and I haven't read up to date yet but I might just address some posts here real quick. I asked so many questions I may not even have time to find them all if they were indeed answered. One of them was about the beginning. Maybe in the Big Bang, all matter was possibly void of motion and therefore electric charge. I wonder if it is accurate to think that motion produced at the Bang gave rise to charge? You couple that with what Polymath said yesterday about particles having mass but not size or shape and the apparant fact that some particles can occupy the same space at the same time, and you have a lot of explaining left to do. I'll tell ya what I'm not sure what 'physical' means anymore. I mean if something can be physical yet not have size, does that mean it doesn't occupy space? But surely it must. I get the feeling that if I left the word 'true' out of 'true nature', the others wouldn't come down so hard on me. But even just the idea that you have to use a term like 'reaction cross section'(or whatever that term was) means we do not know the whole nature of it. Think "they" will like 'whole' better than 'true'? Poly (and Drew for that matter) like to think that we know the whole nature of a particle. That's absurd. I can never know the specifics of physics as well as he, but I know enough to make a judgement like that.
You were talking about what you like to think energy is. I am stuck on the idea that particles (whatever their nature) void of motion have to be void of energy. Energy must be a product of motion. How much energy? is like saying How much motion? SInce particles are never void of motion they must never be void of energy, energy is eternal.(Poly hates that word with a passion, like photons to a vampire)

As jerb1 alludes to further on, once you leave the macro-world and enter into the atomic and sub-atomic realm of the Universe, the macro view should be left behind where it properly belongs. It seems we can easily do this when moving between tabletop physics and molecules but not when moving between chemistry and the sub-atomic. It may be the result of this particular age where the transition to a new paradigm takes a generational effort. Some folks have great difficulty making the transition. It is human nature to prefer remaining with comfortable history and past accrued knowledge. Others, though, find that leaving the macro world in its proper, contextual place and moving on to the next porthole is an opportunity for inventive, conceptual freedom. We still have our guiding constraints but in a wholly different realm of exploration. Certainly, you wouldn't expect to find a hydrogen atom's interior constructed with buttresses, rivets and chemical bonding agents. Intuitively, we know from the outset that this reality of the sub-atomic must somehow contain radically different constructs than those we've become accustomed to in the macro world. So, why fight the transition? Jump in and explore in a way that allows you freedom of thought, freedom of conceptualizing and freedom from defining constraints. I think it is important that we define the "layers" of reality and learn to keep them in their proper place and perspective. Once this is accomplished within, the confusion of "true nature","physical " or "ultimate" can be converted into road signs instead of roadblocks.

[been there9]

Adrian wrote:

<quoted text>I bet it would be a good seller but I was pretty much kidding about wanting to get in on it. How much would it cost do you think to get it out with all the red tape? I'm a poor man, I would help design it for a small sum or percentage but I have not enough moola to gamble with.

Hey I don't even care if somebody goes ahead and does it. I just need one and might have to make myself one (kitty strait jacket, that is). So far, last night I drew a sketch with notes like- leather at paw points- velcro back and strap fasteners- strong but basic material- simple-effective-humane- with of course a statement about misuse punishable by law. Without even talking about it my friend saw my picture of it and asked about it tonight and said"hey I'd buy that." Whatever. All I know Polymath, the towel thing doesn't work with my kitty.Oh yea, the foot pads would be leather or something the claws couldn't get through but not hurt. As far as marketing goes, we could go off on that. Basically I really do just need a practical way to restrain my cat while I take care of him. Think I'll start with infant clothes. You know the ones where the sleeves fold over at the hands so babies don't scratch themselves. C'mon men, you know what I'm talking about right? Should I just bag the back feet or sleeves for all fours?

[shinningelectr0n]

been there9 wrote:

<quoted text>Hey I don't even care if somebody goes ahead and does it. I just need one and might have to make myself one (kitty strait jacket, that is). So far, last night I drew a sketch with notes like- leather at paw points- velcro back and strap fasteners- strong but basic material- simple-effective-humane- with of course a statement about misuse punishable by law. Without even talking about it my friend saw my picture of it and asked about it tonight and said"hey I'd buy that." Whatever. All I know Polymath, the towel thing doesn't work with my kitty.Oh yea, the foot pads would be leather or something the claws couldn't get through but not hurt. As far as marketing goes, we could go off on that. Basically I really do just need a practical way to restrain my cat while I take care of him. Think I'll start with infant clothes. You know the ones where the sleeves fold over at the hands so babies don't scratch themselves. C'mon men, you know what I'm talking about right? Should I just bag the back feet or sleeves for all fours?

It seems you are positioned between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, you want to attend to the kitty's medical needs. Why? Because you love your cat. On the other hand, you don't want to frighten or, at worst, hurt the creature while trying to help it. Why? Because you love it. Humane treatment is the goal but a hard one at that. That's why I mentioned the sleeping pills in jest. You've read enough of my gibberish to know that I occasionaly slip off the cliff into a tanglewood of twisted humor. Tasering a dog for a fur haircut is a cartoonish caricature of dog grooming on the Far Side. In the near(?) future, genetic programming will allow damsels-in-distress like you(?) to place a small electronic device (TV Remote) on the cat's forehead to place it into "Handling Mode". Afterwards, a repeat of the process places the cat back into "Cat Scratch Fever" mode. Until that day, I would recommend using Ritalin:)

[shinningelectr0n]

Adrian wrote:

<quoted text>Hey shinnE
I'm not starting a remake of yesterday, I simply can't, and I haven't read up to date yet but I might just address some posts here real quick. I asked so many questions I may not even have time to find them all if they were indeed answered. One of them was about the beginning. Maybe in the Big Bang, all matter was possibly void of motion and therefore electric charge. I wonder if it is accurate to think that motion produced at the Bang gave rise to charge? You couple that with what Polymath said yesterday about particles having mass but not size or shape and the apparant fact that some particles can occupy the same space at the same time, and you have a lot of explaining left to do. I'll tell ya what I'm not sure what 'physical' means anymore. I mean if something can be physical yet not have size, does that mean it doesn't occupy space? But surely it must. I get the feeling that if I left the word 'true' out of 'true nature', the others wouldn't come down so hard on me. But even just the idea that you have to use a term like 'reaction cross section'(or whatever that term was) means we do not know the whole nature of it. Think "they" will like 'whole' better than 'true'? Poly (and Drew for that matter) like to think that we know the whole nature of a particle. That's absurd. I can never know the specifics of physics as well as he, but I know enough to make a judgement like that.
You were talking about what you like to think energy is. I am stuck on the idea that particles (whatever their nature) void of motion have to be void of energy. Energy must be a product of motion. How much energy? is like saying How much motion? SInce particles are never void of motion they must never be void of energy, energy is eternal.(Poly hates that word with a passion, like photons to a vampire)

I also find it quirky that people will accept weird science in a Movie Theater for two hours watching Star Trek Transporters de-materializing and re-materializing humans or the Enterprise warping Time/Space into an accordion of tight curvatures that get pierced by the spacecraft like a skewer piercing veggies and pork.....but, two weeks later, a blogger tells you that an electron's existence can be viewed as a point source that, instead of volume, has only a "sphere of influence", and you say "Gee..I can't believe that".

Picture a point source of light far off beyond the Moon that glows dimly. You look up into the night sky and think that it's probably pretty small. In fact, as a point source, it is one-dimensional and has no apparent 'size'. Next, assume that this point source suddenly flares in luminosity a trillion-fold. Now you look up and 'see' a light source the size of a Full Moon and are struck by its humongous size. Yet, it is still a point source. Size, Volume, Mass and a whole laundry list of other 'perceptions' can be not what they appear to be under different circumstances. At the sub-atomic, our perceptions become confined to our imaginations and our mental utilities and leave our macro physiology. Or, at least, they should(!!)

[McGoo]

been there9 wrote:

<quoted text>My kitty had to take antibiotics for 14 days so sleeping pills everyday might be a bit hard on kitty.

Don't Vets usually suggest breaking them up and mixing them in with the food?

That not possible?

[McGoo]

been there9 wrote:

Hey, completely off topic. I have an idea for a new product. After adopting a cat recently and trying to give him antibiotics, ear drops, and clean his teeth I came up with this idea. A kitty straight jacket to keep cats constrained as you attend to them. I would call it the Krazy Kat Straight Jacket. What do you think? Do I have a future?

Just read this again, forget my last comment, except for the antibiotics, if they are tablets

[MichiganGEL]

lily of the Valley wrote:

Still, if the world came to a sudden end it would be kind of fun watching bush during his last moments on earth. I realize we all have to go, but it would still be fun…
adios..

And, speaking as an "evangelical Christian" now, just *why* would it be "fun" for you?
I know... You'd like to have the opportunity to join with Laura and the rest of the Bush family in prayer... Right?

[MichiganGEL]

jerb1 wrote:

<quoted text>
There are no rigid particles anymore.. Strange as it may seem, our perceived macro-view is now comprised of 2 dimensional strings, because higher energy states require it to be so...

That's it!... "Cosmic DNA" !!!

Now I realize that DNA is not really just two-dimensional, but one could call it a 2D information "string" that informs all living organisms.

[ I really tried to follow the PBS presentation on string theory, but...
My head still hurts!....:-)]

But, rather than "macro-view," aren't those strings so small that "nano- or "pico- or "femto-view" or...?? would be more appropriate?

[polymath257]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>Thats true poly.But can anyone imagine that there is a possibility,that there is a supernatural being?Who created the universe.And that HE is beyond explaining by physics.

Sure. But being able to imagine something doesn't mean it exists. So now that I have imagined it, what is the evidence for it? And if 'he' is beyond explaining by physics (meaning there cannot be evidence), why should I believe? You see, the problem is that I can imagine all sorts of thing: a single creator, a creation by committee, no creator at all, etc. Why should I choose one over the other? More importantly, why should I choose the more complicated explanation (creator or creators) over a simpler one (no creator) without evidence?

[The Dude]

Adrian wrote:

<quoted text>Boy am I glad to hear you say that. Maybe it was just Poly then. I thought both of you said diferent versions of "we can tell it's true or whole nature just by observing it's interactions, whole nature means nothing"

No, I think Polymath likely HAS heard of Heisenberg.

[polymath257]

jerb1 wrote:

<quoted text>
There are no rigid particles anymore.. Strange as it may seem, our perceived macro-view is now comprised of 2 dimensional strings, because higher energy states require it to be so...

Two things:
1) it's the micro-view (small), not the macro-view.

2) While string theory is one of the contenders, it is far from being generally accepted. There is NO experimental evidence for it and some suggestions that there can be none. That is the kiss of death for a scientific theory.

[polymath257]

MichiganGEL wrote:

But, rather than "macro-view," aren't those strings so small that "nano- or "pico- or "femto-view" or...?? would be more appropriate?

Much smaller than that, actually. Femto- is 10^(-15) and the level of strings is around 10^(-33) meters. In other words, if a proton was blown up to be meter-sized, the strings would still be smaller than a proton.

[polymath257]

Adrian wrote:

<quoted text>Boy am I glad to hear you say that. Maybe it was just Poly then. I thought both of you said diferent versions of "we can tell it's true or whole nature just by observing it's interactions, whole nature means nothing"

I believe I said something along the line of 'a particle is defined in terms of its interactions' or something similar. In other words, if we knew ALL possible interactions a particle can undergo, we know all there is about it.

[MichiganGEL]

MichiganGEL wrote:
But, rather than "macro-view," aren't those strings so small that "nano- or "pico- or "femto-view" or...?? would be more appropriate?

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Much smaller than that, actually. Femto- is 10^(-15) and the level of strings is around 10^(-33) meters. In other words, if a proton was blown up to be meter-sized, the strings would still be smaller than a proton.

Actually, I surprised myself that I was able to remember the pico- and femto- prefixes!! ;-)... Are there prefixes for 10^(-18) and smaller dimensions?

In EE we used to double up such prefixes, so we could talk about strings in terms of femto femto meters (ffm?)

Now, how do we know that strings aren't made up of even smaller entities?!?[My head's starting to hurt again...:-O]

[MichiganGEL]

been there9 wrote:

<quoted text>Hey I don't even care if somebody goes ahead and does it. I just need one and might have to make myself one (kitty strait jacket, that is). So far, last night I drew a sketch with notes like- leather at paw points- velcro back and strap fasteners- strong but basic material- simple-effective-humane- with of course a statement about misuse punishable by law. Without even talking about it my friend saw my picture of it and asked about it tonight and said"hey I'd buy that." Whatever. All I know Polymath, the towel thing doesn't work with my kitty.Oh yea, the foot pads would be leather or something the claws couldn't get through but not hurt. As far as marketing goes, we could go off on that. Basically I really do just need a practical way to restrain my cat while I take care of him. Think I'll start with infant clothes. You know the ones where the sleeves fold over at the hands so babies don't scratch themselves. C'mon men, you know what I'm talking about right? Should I just bag the back feet or sleeves for all fours?

I went to www.Google.com/patent , searched "cat restraint garment" and found something close at

http://www.google.com/patents...

That document references a few citations that might give you some ideas for making something yourself(sketches are usually included):

Patent Number Title Issue date
3742679 STRETCHABLE PET SUIT WITH BOOTS Jun 1973
4796567 Protective bag for handling pots Jan 10, 1989
5060597 Animal enclosure bag Oct 29, 1991
5230304 Animal treatment and handling device Jul 27, 1993
5309866 Animal treatment and handling device May 10, 1994

I still say, ask your vet... If what they use is too fancy, they may have a catalog with something more suitable for a cat owner.

Have fun (and take good care of those scratches on your arms!! ;-)).