Master Mathematician

Köi-Lö wrote:

Space scientist Dr. Wernher von Braun, in awe of the laws governing
the universe, had this to say: "Manned space flight . . . has
opened for us thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches
of space. Our outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of
the universe only confirms our belief in its creator."

The same v. Braun also said: "I aim for the stars, but sometimes I hit
London and Antwerp". He was a war criminal, but the U.S. needed his
services.



Famous physicist P.A.M. Dirac, who was a professor of mathematics at
the University of Cambridge, concurred: "One could perhaps describe
the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high
order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the
universe."

One might say that. Or one might not say that.

Bob Kolker

Newton merely algebraized Kepler's three orbital constraints,
which enabled Gauss to determine the orbit of Ceres,
using only three sightings (and I think,
the assumption that Earth's orbit is circular,
was close-enough for such determination .-)

NB: Gauss didn't bother with Newton's thing for that,
I assume. Newton's "laws" indeed are the two-body problem,
with the proviso that he stole the inverse-second-power "law"
from Hooke, whose portraits were burned by President N.

that quote about Dirac, sounds very Islamic!

Your encyclopedia is wrong. Keplers' laws are a special case of the
solution to the two body problem of Newtonian theory of gravity. They
give no where near enough accuracy for most space probe work. For that

You mean, unlike Kepler's laws, Newton's theory of gravity and motion
ARE the cornerstone of space-flight planning, except where cases of
utmost accuracy is needed and then relativistic effects must be taken
into account.

"If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God,
and Dirac is his Prophet,"

this just in:
yesterday's (Tues,. Nov.15) *UCLA Daily Bruin* finally noted that
darfur is entirely Muslim, though downplaying it AMAP.

thus:
Dick Cheeny, Don Rumsfeld and Osama bin Latin form a mission
to Darfur, to prevent a war instead of to start one:
if Darfur is "100% Muslim," then
what's really going on, there?
is it just aother British Quag for USA soldiers to get bogged
into, with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ad vomitorium,
under auspices of the UN and NATO?

why won't the Bruin publish the fact of Islam on the ground,
therein?

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists)

nightbat wrote

Köi-Lö wrote:
Kepler described the laws of planetary motion in the early 1600's,
and The World Book Encyclopedia noted that these "are used to
determine the orbits of artificial satellites and to plan the flights
of spacecraft." In 1687, Newton published his famous laws of motion,
and these laws, "like Kepler's, form a cornerstone of space-flight
planning," said this encyclopedia. Why is this so?

Because by using these laws, humans can determine by mathematical
calculations where in space a particular body will be at a given time.
Such calculations are made possible by the consistent, ever predictable
movement of heavenly bodies, including the moon and the earth. The
moon, for example, speeds along in an orbit around the earth at an
average of 2,300 miles [3,700 km] per hour, completing its trip of
shortly less than a month with amazing predictability. The earth makes
its yearly trip around the sun, traveling some 66,600 miles
[107,200 km] per hour, with similar predictability.

Thus, when guiding flights to the moon, humans on the earth aim their
spacecraft at a point in space many thousands of miles ahead of the
orbiting moon. By various calculations they know exactly where the moon
is certain to be at the predetermined time. And if the spacecraft is
given proper direction and power, it will be at that spot too, making a
moon landing possible.

What makes such predictability in the movement of heavenly bodies
possible? The first American astronaut to orbit the earth, John Glenn,
exclaimed regarding the order in the universe: "Could this have just
happened? . . . I can't believe that." Then he added: "Some
Power put all this into orbit and keeps it there."

Space scientist Dr. Wernher von Braun, in awe of the laws governing
the universe, had this to say: "Manned space flight . . . has
opened for us thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches
of space. Our outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of
the universe only confirms our belief in its creator."

Famous physicist P.A.M. Dirac, who was a professor of mathematics at
the University of Cambridge, concurred: "One could perhaps describe
the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high
order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the
universe."

Who is this Master Mathematician, this Supreme Intellect, responsible
for the marvels of creation?


nightbat

Ok, ok, Köi-Lö, you got the Science Team on the spot, and the
answer is all of us for we in part individually represent
Master/creation. The field is reciprocal onto itself. Deduced space-time
represents the observed ongoing epochs of that disturbed momentum not
the entire base quantum energy unified field itself. For the perfect
unified field has never existed in our collective life spans (plural)
for it predates it, (latent memory). The observed Universe is not all
there is for there is the entire field itself and of which the physical
Universe is but a bubble of contained boundary conditions of non uniform
energy within. Therefore pure energy which cannot be created or
destroyed represents a partial extended dimension of Master as we are
micro condensed physical masses of energy with field being at our
immense limited observable creative background.

cheers and all the best,
the nightbat

"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

What does this have to do with ponds and fish keeping?


snip Antonio Santana plagerized text

Christopher A.Lee writes:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:33:45 GMT, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
wrote:
....
I think I have to disagree. Koi Lo's original post clearly deals with
the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator, and that is
right up alt.atheisms ally.

It's the theists, surely, who have (or believe) they have an ally?

....
Alt.atheism was set up by atheists to discuss atheist issues, of which
there are plenty - like whether/how to come out as atheists to theist
family, friends etc.

Finally, something to sink our sci.mathematical teeth into! Obviously
the particular problem just mentioned would be trivially soluble for
an theist without theist family or friends. So it remains only to
reduce the general case to the special case, and you're done.
The reduction for friends is clearly unproblematic. There are
greater difficulties for family, but none that can't be overcome
with enough will power. (I believe, but am not sure, that I do
have a theist first cousin. For safety's sake I haven't spoken to
him since 1973 or so.)

Lee Rudolph

Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:33:45 GMT, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
wrote:

I think I have to disagree. Koi Lo's original post clearly deals with
the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator, and that is
right up alt.atheisms ally.

No. Why do you think that should be an issue for atheists - theists
(like that jerk) and their behaviour towards atheists is very much an
issue though.

Alt.atheism was set up by atheists to discuss atheist issues, of which
there are plenty - like whether/how to come out as atheists to theist
family, friends etc. But that gets submerged because a group of
atheists is a magnet for bad-mannered theists.

Well, now I am looking through alt.atheism. If what you said was the
original purpose of this group, it has most certainly been submerged.

On the other hand, I don't see how it is possible to discuss atheism in
a non-theistic vacuum. Theism is a major force in the current world.
While Koi Lo's post might not have fit the original alt.atheism charter
(if such exists), it certainly fits with into any generic discussion of
atheism, and more than that, is completely in character with many of the
posts on alt.atheism.

On the other hand, it has absolutely nothing to do with rec.ponds.

(What do the atronomers think? Presumably they have their share of
people who don't believe man landed on the moon, so I doubt these posts
polute their environment any.)

Stephen

Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:33:45 GMT, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
wrote:

I think I have to disagree. Koi Lo's original post clearly deals with
the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator, and that is
right up alt.atheisms ally.

No. Why do you think that should be an issue for atheists - theists
(like that jerk) and their behaviour towards atheists is very much an
issue though.

Alt.atheism was set up by atheists to discuss atheist issues, of which
there are plenty - like whether/how to come out as atheists to theist
family, friends etc. But that gets submerged because a group of
atheists is a magnet for bad-mannered theists.

Well, now I am looking through alt.atheism. If what you said was the
original purpose of this group, it has most certainly been submerged.

On the other hand, I don't see how it is possible to discuss atheism in
a non-theistic vacuum. Theism is a major force in the current world.
While Koi Lo's post might not have fit the original alt.atheism charter
(if such exists), it certainly fits with into any generic discussion of
atheism, and more than that, is completely in character with many of the
posts on alt.atheism.

On the other hand, it has absolutely nothing to do with rec.ponds.

(What do the atronomers think? Presumably they have their share of
people who don't believe man landed on the moon, so I doubt these posts
polute their environment any.)

Stephen


The group alt.astronomy has been run over roughshod by so many kooks,
anti-kooks, obnoxious trolls, and anyone else who wanted to use it as a
garbage dump, that listening to you guys complain sounds almost
humorous.

Double-A

Double-A wrote:
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:33:45 GMT, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
wrote:

I think I have to disagree. Koi Lo's original post clearly deals with
the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator, and that is
right up alt.atheisms ally.

No. Why do you think that should be an issue for atheists - theists
(like that jerk) and their behaviour towards atheists is very much an
issue though.

Alt.atheism was set up by atheists to discuss atheist issues, of which
there are plenty - like whether/how to come out as atheists to theist
family, friends etc. But that gets submerged because a group of
atheists is a magnet for bad-mannered theists.

Well, now I am looking through alt.atheism. If what you said was the
original purpose of this group, it has most certainly been submerged.

On the other hand, I don't see how it is possible to discuss atheism in
a non-theistic vacuum. Theism is a major force in the current world.
While Koi Lo's post might not have fit the original alt.atheism charter
(if such exists), it certainly fits with into any generic discussion of
atheism, and more than that, is completely in character with many of the
posts on alt.atheism.

On the other hand, it has absolutely nothing to do with rec.ponds.

(What do the atronomers think? Presumably they have their share of
people who don't believe man landed on the moon, so I doubt these posts
polute their environment any.)

Stephen



The group alt.astronomy has been run over roughshod by so many kooks,
anti-kooks, obnoxious trolls, and anyone else who wanted to use it as a
garbage dump, that listening to you guys complain sounds almost
humorous.

Double-A

I feel that sci.math has retained a nice mix. It is fairly high
traffic, has its range of kooks to keep things interesting if you like
that sort of thing, but also has a lot of genuine postings, whether in
debate or in seeking answers. And the questions cover the complete
range of expertise levels.

Furthermore, quite a number of the kookish posts (e.g. those about
Cantor's diagonal argument) can lead to interesting discussions about
the philosophy of mathematics. I find the kookish posts very welcome.
But I can see that you need a high traffic of genuine postings to keep
the group reasonable.

Stephen

Köi-Lö wrote:
Kepler described the laws of planetary motion in the early 1600's,
and The World Book Encyclopedia noted that these "are used to
determine the orbits of artificial satellites and to plan the flights
of spacecraft." In 1687, Newton published his famous laws of motion,
and these laws, "like Kepler's, form a cornerstone of space-flight
planning," said this encyclopedia. Why is this so?

Because by using these laws, humans can determine by mathematical
calculations where in space a particular body will be at a given time.
Such calculations are made possible by the consistent, ever predictable
movement of heavenly bodies, including the moon and the earth. The
moon, for example, speeds along in an orbit around the earth at an
average of 2,300 miles [3,700 km] per hour, completing its trip of
shortly less than a month with amazing predictability. The earth makes
its yearly trip around the sun, traveling some 66,600 miles
[107,200 km] per hour, with similar predictability.

Thus, when guiding flights to the moon, humans on the earth aim their
spacecraft at a point in space many thousands of miles ahead of the
orbiting moon. By various calculations they know exactly where the moon
is certain to be at the predetermined time. And if the spacecraft is
given proper direction and power, it will be at that spot too, making a
moon landing possible.

What makes such predictability in the movement of heavenly bodies
possible? The first American astronaut to orbit the earth, John Glenn,
exclaimed regarding the order in the universe: "Could this have just
happened? . . . I can't believe that." Then he added: "Some
Power put all this into orbit and keeps it there."

Space scientist Dr. Wernher von Braun, in awe of the laws governing
the universe, had this to say: "Manned space flight . . . has
opened for us thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches
of space. Our outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of
the universe only confirms our belief in its creator."

Famous physicist P.A.M. Dirac, who was a professor of mathematics at
the University of Cambridge, concurred: "One could perhaps describe
the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high
order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the
universe."

Who is this Master Mathematician, this Supreme Intellect, responsible
for the marvels of creation?

If we accept that humans can err it leaves the entire problem open.
Much of human belief is human-centric and a seperation should be
alotted that exposes ourselves as optional components of the system we
call reality. This concession wipes a lot of old thinking off of the
plate and exposes the human being as an animal which is subject to
serious limitations. Particularly our social interaction which allows
us to develop these highly organized systems of belief and communicate
them amongst ourselves consistently places requirements on our
behavior. The ability to generate a false belief system is apparent. I
suppose acceptance of this errant notion requires that we exist in one
universal reality where we are all subject to it regardless of our
belief system. This is the basis which I adopt. The ability of the
human to live an illusion consistently and socially is stimulating. The
diversity of culture is promising in this regard, but at its foundation
is a system of mimicry which allows one trend to be established. Upon
establishment these trends have staying power of many generations. Yet
a progression occurs. Is there any belief system that has not undergone
revisionism? At the current time the struggle of belief has some
rejecting science and legislating for the preservation of their old
theory. Preservation is a context that explains alot of human behavior.
How do Mayan women come to be weaving the same patterns of generations
ago when they could so easily make a variation? As we look at man we
may find that he is in the image of a dog intellectually rather than of
a god. Still, there is promise in the diversity that emanates so
slowly, and perhaps not so slowly in modernity. The notion of freedom
of thought may be more like a freedom to make variations.
Are we stuck using the old context for the new idea? The concern brings
one to the notion of a basis that philosophers, mathematicians, and
physicists all need. To accept that nature is the basis leaves us
listening to it. A supposition may be made that nature's basis is an
automatic system that yields reality. An attempt may be made to derive
such a system mathematically and logically. This process for the human
mind includes eradicating false beliefs so that they do not impair the
pursuit. This is a skeptical process which humans are especially in
need of. No matter how good our theories or how strong our logic we are
elements of nature built atop the basis. Our egos would have us think
otherwise but this is a sad truth that leaves us all in effect mentally
ill or retarded. We should resign to this and accept the struggle and
do the best we can without fairy tales. The prison we are in is hardly
a stale place. We should be grateful and take the endless fascination
as stimulus without imposing upon it a preordained conclusion. Leave
the problem open and enjoy it.

-Tim

wrote in message
oups.com...

Before you reply to this cross-posted thread, do you keep fish and a ponds?
If so, we would love to hear about them. If not, then please remove the
"rec.ponds" NG from your replies to this off-topic cross-posted thread. Our
fish are nonsectarian. :-)

Thank You

Meanwhile here are the FAQ's for your perusal.
rec.pond's FAQ are at:
http://www.geocities.com/justinm090/faq.html


Mike Painter wrote:
Köi-Lö wrote:
snip
Who is this Master Mathematician, this Supreme Intellect, responsible
for the marvels of creation?