usenet weirdness

But a pretty well tested one.

A growing earth violates the principle of the conservation of mass/energy. That doesn't make it inconcieveable, but it means that you need very convincing evidence to support the idea, and that doesn't seem to exist.

Subduction involves oceanic plate getting sucked into the mantle. It's not going to be anything like as obvious as new oceanic plate being extruded at mid-ocean ridges, but siesmologists are sure that they have have mapped subduction zones. Letting off explosive charges on the surface does launch acoustic waves into the underlying rocks, which you can detect with an array of microphones, and you can use this technique to map large areas. The whole of the Arabian plate has been mapped that way.

They don't. They ride on top of convection currents in the molten rock of the outer core.

Rock is a pretty good insulator. There is a continuous flux of heat (generated by radioactive decay) from the core of the earth out to the surface, where it gets radiated away, and there's a thermal gradiant from the inner cores (which is at 5700K) out to the surface which drives the flow of heat.

You really can't. It's a perfectly terrible model

Except that the outer core is molten rock - a fluid, not a solid - and it convects.

Except that the oceanic plates are in continuous movement as they move from the mid-ocean ridges to the subduction zones, getting thicker all the way as the liquid outer core freezes onto their undersides.

But the upper mantle is entirely molten and convecting, and drags the continental plates plates along in the direction of the convection current.

But they clearly can move past them. The San Andreas fault is a well known example of two plates moving past one another.

But geological forces can obviously bend them. Chunks that were once deeply buried get pushed up to the surface and eroded, and you can see the bent bits if you know where to look.

The San Andreas fault is an obvious counter example.

It might look that way to somebody who doesn't know much about geology.

Yes, but what is 'necessary'?

Jan

Gerhard Hoffmann wrote in sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design:

William of Ockham probably never wrote this.

Using Google Translate:

"Entities should not be folded unless necessary" :)

Using Wiktionary and linguistic intuition, I translate it as

"Entities should not be more complicated than necessary."

instead:

However, a more educated person knows

1. that it is better (although not required) to write in an international newsgroup in English;

1. to check their sources ;-)

It is actually commonly claimed that William of Ockham would have written

"Entia non sunt _multiplicanda_ praeter necessitatem"

which means "Entities should not be multiplied unless necessary", but it is also claimed that he did not write that either:

In that article it is claimed instead that the closest to the meaning of what is considered Occam's/Ockham's/Ocham's razor today that he would have written is

"Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate"

which means "Plurality must never be posited without necessity" 'which occurs in his theological work on the "Sentences of Peter Lombard" ("Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi"; ed. Lugd., 1495, i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K).'

There is a digitized version of which it is claimed that it is a printed version of that work, however, IIUC, the reference above refers to the first book (i), and the digitized version begins with the second book (ii):

In any case, this work was probably not written by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) because it was published in 1495, more than a century after his death. While it is possible that it was just printed in 1495 based on the previous handwritten work, my research (using Microsoft Copilot with the "Smart" setting), and Google Web Search, indicates that it was written instead by Heinrich (Henricus/Henry) Totting/Tötting (de/von Oyta):

It can also be read here:

What bothers me about that is that the book spines(?) are different, but that does not have to mean anything.

Still, it is further claimed in the Wikipdia article that '[...] In his "Summa Totius Logicae", i. 12, William of Ockham cites the principle of economy, "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" ("It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer"; Thorburn,

However, according to Copilot (again), the correct title of Ockham's work is "Summa Logicae" (c. 1323–1326), for example in "Opera Philosophica" (St. Bonaventure, NY): "Vol. I–II: Summa logicae", while the title "Summa Totius Logicae" appears to be a later addition in library catalogues; apparently there was or is a tendency to insert "totius" into medieval Latin titles, analogous to the title of Thomas of Aquin's (Thomas Aquinus') work, "Summa totius theologiae".

So *all* of these claims are very questionable, too. (I am inclined to remove all references from the Wikipedia article that I cannot find confirmed, but maybe it is better to have a discussion in Wikipedia first.)

HTH

F'up2 <news:sci.philosophy.meta>

It makes sense for closed categories.

Most matters of chance and uncertainty are not, and "physics is an open system", so, it lets out that science is justified, then that matters of truth about ideals would have their own grounds.

I.e., an attachment to idealism then also has its own account, since "continuity" and "infinity" are necessary, w.r.t. "suppositiones" in Occam.

Occam is basically a logicist positivist, even Aquinas who was an Aristotlean at least reflects on Platon's accounts in Aristotle, then Occam's wider accounts of "de jure" as lawerly/legalese.

"So Occam was into clear, simple reasoning?" "Well, he was a lawyer, ...." "Oh...."

Things like quasi-modal logic make for lies.

But German has regional variants, and - like all languages - has evolved over time.

It shows. Not often, but often enough.

Granting the number of people who approve of the paper, it's closer to probable than possible.

Suggesting that your judgement isn't all that good.

Never might be a good choice.

You are obsessed with it, which isn't quite the same thing.

Actually my humanitarian duty is to persuade you that this is an unhealthy obsession, that you should discuss with your GP and get yourself referred to a mental health specialist

Maciej Woźniak would tell me the same thing.

But good students ask intelligent questions. And if they are intelligent enough they can get the instructor to refine their point of view

Not if the hierarchy has got something wrong, which happened from time to time when I was a student. It's lot easier to clean up the consequences of an error if you do it before outsiders have got to hear of it.

German "god-professors" were talked about in Australia and England, and some Australian professors did try assert that sort of authority - and got sent up (satirised) until they got the message.

That has its own particulars with regards to Earth particularly.

"Our Radiant World", ....

In 2 days you will write the opposite, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that you're a knight of The S*it of Einstein and you expect some obedience. Right, trash?

But "truth" is inaccessible

Not all of them, by any means. The less competent one get side-lined. If they have tenure they can't be fired, but they be moved into smaller offices and stuck with teaching first year students

Not the the ones I've known.

Some people do ossify. Quite a few don't. My wife was a professor and still seemed to be open to new ideas at age 77 when she died, Her last lecture talked about the way autistic people dealt with small variations in speech sounds. Normal adults and adolescents adjust their perceptions of the speech sounds produced by different individuals within a few moments for each individual they are listening. Young children don't and one her colleagues had noticed that at least some autistic people didn't either. I didn't usually get to hear her lectures, but this was an exception.

None that I've known. The ones that I knew took the attitude that you followed the data, and if more data from new sources showed that process was more complicated than you had originally thought, you'd learned something.

As Galileo said, nevertheless it moves.

None of the ones I knew committed suicide,and getting a good news idea started a couple of successful careers.

But it happens.

That was Max Planck's opinion when he got old - yet he'd been the guy who accepted all four of Einstein's 1905 papers without bothering to get them refereed.

When he got older he stayed in Germany, rather than getting out as a lot of scientists did, and some of the scientist who stayed were actually convinced National Socialists, and rather more doctrinaire than bulk of the profession. They wrote off Einstein's work as Jewish science, much as you seem to be doing.

Eppi si muove, ....

"Yet it moves", "eppi si muove" is one of those usual sorts Latin contractions, basically pointing at a point of dischord with Aristotle, who though, if you rather more thoroughly read Aristotle, already made a fuller sort of dialectic.

"Nevertheless" isn't always a good translation for "yet", while though it's not bad by itself.

Basically re-examining dogma has quite a lot of weight to lift, since it's an overall concern, then that "running the gauntlet" as it were has that it doesn't make for the usual trappings of the comfort of propriety, the "career suicide" of bucking the flow is instead a sort of conscientious account that to overturn the canon and dogma and doctrine of course must involve an historiographic and bibliographic account of the canon and dogma and doctrine, again.

Why blame Jews when there are Greeks?

Yes, these are our "dead white males".

Anyways Einstein's greatest new idea as he was looking to extend his legacy, was "Einstein's attack on Newton (Galileo, et alia)". People then usually say "he was working on a 'total field theory'", which is so since he already knew he was working in a total field, yet though the plain account of "Newton's laws" and "the un-linear", since perfect inelastic collisions don't exist in nature and the mathematical formalism need to always include that, about some "Newton's zero-eth law(s)", and about rest/rest motion/motion, and about that "force is a function of time", if you survey Einstein he was rocking the boat as hard as he could.

Except that wasn't what was going on. The people who could be identified as "German" were looked over on a case-by-case basis to assess whether they'd be likely to support the German war machine, and a fairly small proportion of them were interned. We couldn't sequence human genome until about 2003, and it isn't all that helpful. I've had it done and while my ancestors mostly came from England one of my great-grandmothers, while born in England, was a member of a family who had come over from Strasbourg, so I'm one eighth Rhinelander (and it does show up clearly in my genome).

That didn't matter. It was their sympathies that mattered.

That didn't matter either.

There wasn't any propaganda content. It was just anxiety about loyalties, and probably not confined to the president. Franklin Roosevelt was several generations away from the drug dealers and slave traders. He was a fifth cousin of Theodore Roosevelt, but his wife Eleanore was Theodore's niece.

And any anti-German prejudice he might have had didn't stop him from taking Einstein's advice about the atom bomb, which does seem to have been error-free.

Or anybody else.

You set it on fire. The jet fuel in two pretty much fully fuelled jet-liners is going to be a pretty good fire starter and there's a lot of flammable stuff in a skyscraper that's in use, including the steel frame if you get it hot enough

Star Wars never took off. It frightened the Russians into spending more than they could afford on defense, but it seems to have been confined to paper studies.

How about, "Shiii-ney Pebbles", ....

The World Trade Center? For whatever reason it was closed for "maintenance" a few weeks before, and for whatever reason all the water was let out of the roof tanks, and for whatever reason it got a huge new insurance policy taken out on it, and for whatever reason planes supposedly hijacked by Saudis crashed into them, yet nobody ever asks about "GlobalHawk fly-by-wire" and why when the planes were hijacked they weren't just flown down from the control tower.

Most people think "GlobalHawk" is a predator drone, yet others that it's a mostly ubiquitous fly-by-wire system.

How about WTC7?

It's like one of those old airline disaster movies.

"This is the control tower. We're going to try and talk you down."

"I've never flown a plane before."

"Alright, look at the control panel, and find the sign that says says 'RNAV'".

"Ok, ..., I found it."

"Is the light on?"

"Yeah, ...."

"Don't, ..., touch, ..., anything."

I might got lost here...

if you want to know the Truth of why the building colaspe..

it makes good TV.

I mean, you simply cannot have those buildings on tvee to continue burning for days while America and the world watches.

It's not a good image.

You need to remove the buildings by 'any means necessary'.

Then there is nothing to look at on tv.

bomb some country...

dats wat i said...you look the other way.

Look at the numbers:

NASA management often cited failure odds around 1 in 100,000

Engineers and some contractors believed the real risk could be closer to 1 in 100 or even worse

They told the teacher..."safe routine flight".

I would call it...'human error'. She trusted you guys.

They told her, "Don't worry, it's safe...get your fat ass in dat washing machine, you stupid bitch!"

You people are soooo stupid. NASA shows you a picture of a 'blurred hole' and call it a black hole.

And you don't investigate why the picture is a blurred hole.

NASA will tell you..."OH, dats the way it came out!"

When I first saw the photograph..i need to sharpen it! It's BLURRY!

Since I'm an expert in sharpening photos, I can now see what it REALLY looks like.

https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696 https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/1 https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1120048519715229696/photo/2

If you show this photo to Ai, (don't metioned it's suppose to be a black hole)

and ask "In what direction are the gravitional waves moving, inward or outward?"

Ai will say, "Outward!"

That means everything is escaping a black hole.

Where did you pick up that particular piece of desinformation?

The New York Roosevelts were all descended from a Dutch emigrant to New Amsterdam. There are two branches, going back to two of his sons. Eleanor and Franklin were from different branches.

The Roosevelts have always been 'New York aristocracy'. It is hard to get poor when your family owns many hectares of prime land in Manhattan. [1]

Jan

If your theory won't fit the observations without it, it's necessary.

Necessary indeed, but for your theory only, poor stupid scum.