Knowledge and responsibility

wrote in message
oups.com...
The linear thinking is inadequate in describing life, for a simple
reason: Life is non-linear.


Hi,

??? Life is linear. We all age exactly one day each 24 hours. A plot of
your age vs time is as linear as it gets with no scatter in the data:
correlation coefficient = 1.000.


,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair ) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834

Jim Blair wrote:
??? Life is linear. We all age exactly one day each 24 hours. A plot of
your age vs time is as linear as it gets with no scatter in the data:
correlation coefficient = 1.000.

That is the rate at which we age. At what rate do we wise up?

Bob Kolker

Jim Blair wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

The linear thinking is inadequate in describing life, for a simple
reason: Life is non-linear.


Hi,

??? Life is linear.

Bzzt. Try again.

We all age exactly one day each 24 hours.

Nope.

I myself age slightly less than a day in one of your 24 hour periods
since I live in Colorado and a higher altitude than you do in wis.

A plot of
your age vs time is as linear as it gets with no scatter in the data:
correlation coefficient = 1.000.

It is a trivial exercise to show that we do not all age in a linear
fashion with respect to one another.
Hell... one can even prove that one does not age uniformly with oneself.

I am willing to bet that there will be a flurry of "you are wrong" posts
from the ignorant. I am also willing to bet that someone will take time
to argue why my argument is correct.

Since from your page you seem to like things about statistics etc. you
might appreciate the following, offered to reduce the sting of the above
comments.

In a conversation between Gen. Leslie Groves and Enrico Fermi, the
subject of how one defines a "great general" came up.

Fermi: 'So Leslie, how many generals are know as "great"?'

Groves: 'Well Enrico... about 3 out of every 100 generals will perform
well enough to be considered "great".'

Fermi: 'So how does a general become "great" in the eyes of his peers?'

Groves: Well, usually a general is considered "great" if he wins 5
consecutive major battles.'

Fermi: 'Well... let's see... Considering that most modern armies are
equally matched on the battle field, this means that each has a 50%
chance of winning the battle. So if a general were to win 1 battle at
50%, then 2 battles in a row would be 25% chance, 3 is about 12%, 4 is
about 6%... so the chances of winning 5 in a row is about 3%. Yup...
about 3 in a hundred.
However general, that is not "greatness"... that is simply statistics.

Varney wrote:
Jim Blair wrote:

wrote in message


oups.com...

The linear thinking is inadequate in describing life, for a simple
reason: Life is non-linear.



Hi,

??? Life is linear.


Bzzt. Try again.

We all age exactly one day each 24 hours.


Nope.

I myself age slightly less than a day in one of your 24 hour periods
since I live in Colorado and a higher altitude than you do in wis.

A plot of
your age vs time is as linear as it gets with no scatter in the data:
correlation coefficient = 1.000.


It is a trivial exercise to show that we do not all age in a linear
fashion with respect to one another.
Hell... one can even prove that one does not age uniformly with oneself.

I am willing to bet that there will be a flurry of "you are wrong" posts
from the ignorant. I am also willing to bet that someone will take time
to argue why my argument is correct.

Since from your page you seem to like things about statistics etc. you
might appreciate the following, offered to reduce the sting of the above
comments.

In a conversation between Gen. Leslie Groves and Enrico Fermi, the
subject of how one defines a "great general" came up.

Fermi: 'So Leslie, how many generals are know as "great"?'

Groves: 'Well Enrico... about 3 out of every 100 generals will perform
well enough to be considered "great".'

Fermi: 'So how does a general become "great" in the eyes of his peers?'

Groves: Well, usually a general is considered "great" if he wins 5
consecutive major battles.'

Fermi: 'Well... let's see... Considering that most modern armies are
equally matched on the battle field, this means that each has a 50%
chance of winning the battle. So if a general were to win 1 battle at
50%, then 2 battles in a row would be 25% chance, 3 is about 12%, 4 is
about 6%... so the chances of winning 5 in a row is about 3%. Yup...
about 3 in a hundred.
However general, that is not "greatness"... that is simply statistics.


:-)

Socialism is a Mental Disease wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:18:07 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...
The linear thinking is inadequate in describing life, for a simple
reason: Life is non-linear.

In one sentence you use linearity with two completely distinct
meanings and you impose a causal relationship between the two.
That is an example of ultra linear thinking.


The original poster is a known retard. He's beyond treatment.



You can tell by Mr. Disease's response that he is a Republican.
Having no knowledge he can be as irresponsible as he chooses.
Cause God is on his side.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson. http://GreaterVoice.org

"Varney" wrote in message
...
Jim Blair wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

The linear thinking is inadequate in describing life, for a simple
reason: Life is non-linear.


Hi,

??? Life is linear.

Bzzt. Try again.

We all age exactly one day each 24 hours.

Nope.

I myself age slightly less than a day in one of your 24 hour periods
since I live in Colorado and a higher altitude than you do in wis.

Hi,

???

A plot of
your age vs time is as linear as it gets with no scatter in the data:
correlation coefficient = 1.000.

It is a trivial exercise to show that we do not all age in a linear
fashion with respect to one another.
Hell... one can even prove that one does not age uniformly with oneself.

I don't understand your point. Are you speaking of "subjective age"? As in
a stressful time "ages" one faster than a relaxed time? As in "life in
Colorado is less stressful than in Wisconsin?" Or you don't have the
stress of watching so many of your football team's games decided in the
final second like us Packer fans? ;-)

Are you trying to introduce relativity theory and Lorentz time dialation?
Being at a higher altitude, your velocity from the earth's rotation is
greater?


I am willing to bet that there will be a flurry of "you are wrong" posts
from the ignorant. I am also willing to bet that someone will take time
to argue why my argument is correct.

Since from your page you seem to like things about statistics etc. you
might appreciate the following, offered to reduce the sting of the above
comments.

In a conversation between Gen. Leslie Groves and Enrico Fermi, the
subject of how one defines a "great general" came up.

Fermi: 'So Leslie, how many generals are know as "great"?'

Groves: 'Well Enrico... about 3 out of every 100 generals will perform
well enough to be considered "great".'

Fermi: 'So how does a general become "great" in the eyes of his peers?'

Groves: Well, usually a general is considered "great" if he wins 5
consecutive major battles.'

Fermi: 'Well... let's see... Considering that most modern armies are
equally matched on the battle field, this means that each has a 50%
chance of winning the battle. So if a general were to win 1 battle at
50%, then 2 battles in a row would be 25% chance, 3 is about 12%, 4 is
about 6%... so the chances of winning 5 in a row is about 3%. Yup...
about 3 in a hundred.
However general, that is not "greatness"... that is simply statistics.

I like your story. But would not agree with the premise that being a "great
general" is determined by winning consecutive battles. Given a large enough
advantage, a poor general may beat a good one. And a great general may lose
(or better avoid) the battles and so win the war.

I think of Sam Houston. He retreated from the Mexican army and
"lost/avoided" battles all across Texas. Until he decided it was the right
time and place for the one battle that his army could win. He was a great
general because he won only one battle: the decisive one.



,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair ) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834

Varney wrote:

I like your story. But would not agree with the premise that being a
"great
general" is determined by winning consecutive battles. Given a large
enough
advantage, a poor general may beat a good one. And a great general
may lose
(or better avoid) the battles and so win the war.

I think of Sam Houston. He retreated from the Mexican army and
"lost/avoided" battles all across Texas. Until he decided it was the
right
time and place for the one battle that his army could win. He was a
great
general because he won only one battle: the decisive one.


Perhaps it was the greatness of General Houston, who as a Texan holds a
special place in my heart, but the folly of Santa Anna. He did waste
much of his army and time on an insignificant objective in San Antonio
and ralied many to the Texan cause due to the Massacre at Goliad.
Sometimes people appear to be great simply because their opponents are
so weak. Sam Houston was not stupid but it is hard to say he was great
after freeing Mexico from European invaders, Santa Anna made a whole
string of mistakes that allowed Texas to become independent. The first
was turning those Mexicans who politically fought for independence from
Europe against him. The last was attacking at a place like San Jacinto.

Jim Blair wrote:


??? Life is linear.

"Varney" wrote in message

Bzzt. Try again.


We all age exactly one day each 24 hours.

Nope.

I myself age slightly less than a day in one of your 24 hour periods
since I live in Colorado and a higher altitude than you do in wis.


jeb:

A plot of
your age vs time is as linear as it gets with no scatter in the data:
correlation coefficient = 1.000.

It is a trivial exercise to show that we do not all age in a linear
fashion with respect to one another.
Hell... one can even prove that one does not age uniformly with oneself.


I don't understand your point. Are you speaking of "subjective age"? As
in
a stressful time "ages" one faster than a relaxed time? As in "life in
Colorado is less stressful than in Wisconsin?" Or you don't have the
stress of watching so many of your football team's games decided in the
final second like us Packer fans? ;-)

Are you trying to introduce relativity theory and Lorentz time
dialation?
Being at a higher altitude, your velocity from the earth's rotation is
greater?

I was also referring to a relativistic effect of the gravitational field
of the earth and is quite distinct from relativistic time dilation of
relative motion.

T = T0 (1-(2GM)/(Rc^2))^(-1/2)

Read up on the experiment performed by Hafele and Keating.
Considering that one is not a point particle, one could argue that
different parts of the body age at different rates in the earth's
gravitational field.

Hi,

1- As a practical matter this effecct is of little consequence. For an
average lifespan of 75 years, what will be the difference in milliseconds
between A who lives on top of mt. Everest and flys a jet plane daily, and B
who lives at sea level and does not ever leave the ground? And what is the
percent gain by A?

2. And is there a difference in the time of each as they experience time? I
mean it is time which slows, not the rate that a person ages. Don't both A
and B age still exactly one day each 24 hours as they experience that 24
hours?

If my point 2 is valid, the correlation between age and time remains 1.000.
If not, it is 0.99....9. And I leave it to you to determine how many 9's in
the correlation between time and the age of someone who travels between the
Dead Sea and the top of Mt. Everest every day.


I am willing to bet that there will be a flurry of "you are wrong" posts
from the ignorant. I am also willing to bet that someone will take time
to argue why my argument is correct.

If so, I didn't see them on sci.econ. But in economics, if data and a
theory match to a correlation of better than about 0.6 it is considered to
be a confirmation of the theory. Like in cosmology where the rule is "10 =
100" ;-)

,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair ) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834

Jim Blair wrote:
Hi,

1- As a practical matter this effecct is of little consequence. For an
average lifespan of 75 years, what will be the difference in milliseconds
between A who lives on top of mt. Everest and flys a jet plane daily, and B
who lives at sea level and does not ever leave the ground? And what is the
percent gain by A?

It makes a BIG difference in the operation of the GPS. Without
relativistic corrections locations would be off by tens of kilometers.

Bob Kolker

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
news:W0iAd.274625$V41.86786@attbi_s52...


Jim Blair wrote:
Hi,

1- As a practical matter this effecct is of little consequence. For an
average lifespan of 75 years, what will be the difference in
milliseconds
between A who lives on top of mt. Everest and flys a jet plane daily,
and B
who lives at sea level and does not ever leave the ground? And what is
the
percent gain by A?

It makes a BIG difference in the operation of the GPS. Without
relativistic corrections locations would be off by tens of kilometers.

Bob Kolker

Hi,

If I understand Varney's equation, M is the mass of the earth (in this
discussion) and so the size of the gravitational correction is the same for
either my lifetime or my GPS location. But the time for light to travel
from a satellite to my GPS is considerably shorter than my lifetime. So sure
the correction would be significant for accurate GPS location, but not for
correcting my lifetime, or even the 24 hours in a day.

And all of this is assuming that my point 2 is not valid. Since it is time
which is distorted by gravity (or by rapid motion), "correcting" for the
distortion would not alter the time change that I experience. I still age
one day during each of MY 24 hours, even if MY 24 hours differ slightly from
YOUR 24 hours. Or am I missing something here?


,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair ) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834