What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)

On Jun 23, 6:37 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

You snipped. You failed to prove anything because like so many
others you are unable to respond to pure logic and so you hide
your disgraceful manners by removing my argument.
However, I can put it back just as easily, with emphasis.

Statements can be valid without the existence of fact, Sylvia.
The well-known example is "If it is raining then I'll take my umbrella."
Even if you see me carrying an umbrella that is no guarantee of rain
or the supposition of rain. Where is the flaw in such a statement?

If you wish to converse logically, particularly in written form when body
language such as smiles and shrugs are absent then it is incumbent
upon you to adhere strictly to the rules of logic or your meaning will
invariably be misunderstood. You must explain yourself precisely and
clearly. No, Sylvia, I cannot see a hole in that reasoning, and neither have
you shown one, you ****in' rude dumb bitch.

Sylvia is much like a Zion borg, thus technically unable to utilize
pure logic, much less common sense as based upon anything deductive.

Such profound Usenet naysayers are usually Zion Atheists cloaked as
the all-knowing good guys, having never once met or otherwise heard of
any bad Jew.

The mainstream status quo simply excludes all of whatever's off-world
intelligent, and otherwise puts a limited number of us humans right
next in line to their God, whereas the rest of us are at best their
minions.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 23, 6:38 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Androcles wrote:
clearly. No, Sylvia, I cannot see a hole in that reasoning, and neither have
you shown one, you ****in' rude dumb bitch.

Ah, yes, the abuse argument. Well, I suppose that proves you're right,
and there's no point in further discussion.

Sylvia.

Spoken like a true Zion.
-
Brad Guth

Sure as hell the Muslims are not the ones at fault.

Your understandings are for the most part based upon lies.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 23, 3:32 pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

I trust you can see the hole in that reasoning.

Silvia

I believe you are seeking reason where none exists.

Whatever your argument and however well it is argued Mr/Ms Guth will
change the subject.

Mr/Ms Guth cannot afford to lose face so Mr/Ms Guth will use any
pretext not matter how out of context to sell his/her wares.

This Zionist nonsense is typical of the irrationality of almost every
post Mr/Ms Guth utters. If Israel had a scrap of intelligence it
would use the Arabs for modestly well paid factory fodder. Thereby
lifting the whole region out of their inherited poverty. End of Middle
East problem.

But I digress from the context of this thread:

When a society like ours progresses beyond a certain point they learn
new tricks to improve mental powers as greater understanding of brain
function matures.

Our understanding of mental processes is really still in its infancy
despite new (non destructive) scanning technologies steadily being
discovered.

Genetics has yet to play a part in improving the human mind beyond the
standard MkI. I Imagine the first MkII will take up meditation and
Yoga to the intense irritation of their US Defense Department masters.

Hopefully the percentage of educated members of the global population
will continue to rise. Thus freeing many more active minds from the
everyday struggle for survival.

Perhaps AI will leapfrog average human intelligence and be used for
something other than battle planning and strategy?

The clearest evidence for the lack of ET amongst us is that they have
failed to curb our excesses, inequality, bigotry and brutality.

Unless "They" are forbidden direct intervention, one can only assume
they enjoy holidaying amongst backward savages. Attired as we are only
in the thin veneer of technological civilisation. (I use the latter
term loosely)

It would take only a few dollars on the price of vehicle fuel for some
countries to descend into total anarchy. Never to rise from the ashes
again.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...
: Androcles wrote:
:
: clearly. No, Sylvia, I cannot see a hole in that reasoning, and neither
have
: you shown one, you ****in' rude dumb bitch.
:
:
: Ah, yes, the abuse argument. Well, I suppose that proves you're right,
: and there's no point in further discussion.
:
: Sylvia.

The abuse was added only after you snipped. Amazingly it was needed to make
the point. Obviously you are incapable of reasoned discussion because you
snip
the OP's Point of View without responding to it, so yes, there is no further
point, bigot.

On Jun 24, 2:07 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message

u...: Androcles wrote:

:
: clearly. No, Sylvia, I cannot see a hole in that reasoning, and neither
have
: you shown one, you ****in' rude dumb bitch.
:
:
: Ah, yes, the abuse argument. Well, I suppose that proves you're right,
: and there's no point in further discussion.
:
: Sylvia.

The abuse was added only after you snipped. Amazingly it was needed to make
the point. Obviously you are incapable of reasoned discussion because you
snip
the OP's Point of View without responding to it, so yes, there is no further
point, bigot.

I snip and/or ignore whatever is boring or infomercial crapolla.
Sorry about that.

Unlike your anti-ET bigot self, I don't exclude whatever rocks my
boat.

ETs do exist, whereas your profound naysayism is noted.

Interplanetary travels are in fact doable, with interstellars travels
using an icy proto-moon or planetoid that's going in the right
direction is also entirely doable, as providing the ultimate
spacecraft for accommodating such extended travels.

Sunlight alone doesn't insure life:

The odds on behalf of other life (intelligent or not) existing,
coexisting and/or having evolved on some other than Earth like wet and
salty planet, or atmospheric enhanced moon, are going to be rather
great if there's still local geothermal energy to being had, and
otherwise somewhat limited if nonexistent should that planet or moon
be a cold one without any significant elements of other local energy
at its disposal. For example, a thin atmosphere is not a good sign,
unless that orb has one heck of a terrific magnetosphere that's good
for at least 10 billions of years.

Of the life on Earth that's most important of all being diatoms is
worthy of our appreciating, whereas removing such diatoms from our
environment would have absolutely dire and lethal consequences, with
few if any biological or physiological adaptations that could manage
to circumvent that shortage or gap of evolution or panspermia.

Cosmic life may yet be unlike anything on Earth. However, the likely
panspermia of complex life arriving into our 98.5% fluid world of such
a self-replicating planetary environment, along with having some of
its own energy is what seems the more likely method of a given planet
being terraformed by happenstance or via intelligent design.

BTW, cosmic sunlight includes a much wider spectrum of energy than
provided by our somewhat wussy sun. For example, the spectrums of
energy derived from the Sirius star sustem far out-performs essential
DNA formation than is available by the filtered spectrum of what we
have to work with.

Of course, with applied physics and of utilizing technology is what
makes most any planet or moon usable by various intelligent forms of
life. At least that's exactly what we humans accomplish whenever
having to survive within environments that are otherwise lethal to our
survival in the buff.

Unfortunately, our usual faith-based methods of having skewed the past
and/or having excluded such evidence of other life as having been
existing/coexisting off-world, is simply a whole lot more pathetic
than merely unfortunate.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

On 23 Jun, 18:55, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

ps.com...
: No we are not more intelligent - not in the genetic sense. Our
: civilization is more "intelligent" than any in the past.
:
: 1) When I was doing my PhD I used to spend hours in the library
: searching references. With Google I can get all the information I want
: in a matter of minutes. I hope that the academic world will see fit to
: put all its publications on line. If it does so I feel that science
: will advance just that little bit faster.

Since when did citing a list of references show any indication of
intelligence?
Where are the references in this student's pile of crap?

You show a great deal of disrespect for Einstein and Relativity but
that is not the point I want to make. The point I am making is about
CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
is a form of AI.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

What the moron did was retard science.

Relativity, both special and general has never been falsified. Mercury
precesses by 43" a century. This is nothing else that can explain
that. Leverrier explaied all the other irregularities with the
gravitational pull of other bodies.
:
: 2) We can train more scientifically. Modern athletes would beat the
: ancients simply for this reason.

Non sequitur, and certainly unsubstantiated since it is impossible to
perform such a contest.

: Modern civilization has allowed us to
: concentrate on simply becoming more intelligent. We no longer need to
: do heavy manual labor to get the harvest in.

You confuse learning from a book with the ability to apply old knowledge to
new
situations. Certainly men such Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Archimedes,
Euclid, Pythagoras, Shakespeare etc. etc. displayed far more intelligence
than Joe Sixpack with his modern beliefs in virgin births, holy ghosts and
time dilation.

How else do you define it. You can reason by means of a Genetic
algorithm, that is tto say you try something, then try something
different. The question of how you dfine reasoning ability is highly
philosopical. I can say that as a member of a team, myself together
with Google can solve problems I would not have been able to solve in
the time before. I could solve them even better if the academic
community would decide on online only.

What is reasoning ability. It is I claim the ability to construct
graphs. Graphs need retrieval information. There are log jams to AI.
Linguistics which I belly ache about is one such. I belly ache about
it because if is such a log jam

"?Quieres dormir con fosforo?" I I wanted friendship or (as the
question implies a little bit more than friendship, Google can find a
match for me. As "fosforo" inplies it does not have the concept of a
"match" even though it can successfully manipulate friendship
networks. This perhaps slightly paradoxical. No it is not like the FTL
paradoxes, it is more like a logjam.

Does anyone else have an idea as to what intelligence is - collective,
individual, corporate.


- Ian Parker
:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
s.com...
: On 23 Jun, 18:55, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Ian Parker" wrote in message
:
: ps.com...
: : No we are not more intelligent - not in the genetic sense. Our
: : civilization is more "intelligent" than any in the past.
: :
: : 1) When I was doing my PhD I used to spend hours in the library
: : searching references. With Google I can get all the information I want
: : in a matter of minutes. I hope that the academic world will see fit to
: : put all its publications on line. If it does so I feel that science
: : will advance just that little bit faster.
:
: Since when did citing a list of references show any indication of
: intelligence?
: Where are the references in this student's pile of crap?
:
: You show a great deal of disrespect for Einstein and Relativity but
: that is not the point I want to make.

Yes, that is correct, I have no respect for bull****, bull****ters and
liars.


: The point I am making is about
: CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
: intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
: recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
: is a form of AI.

Google is a search engine, the internet is a library. As with most libraries
mostly it contains fiction. Google is most certainly a useful for quickly
locating references that are useful to you, but my point is that if you have
the ability to reason then I can can show:
1) Einstein was a liar
2) Einstein was not a mathematician
3) Einstein was a plagiarist
4) Einstein did not cite sources
5) Einstein was a bull****ter.

For each accusation I show the following:
1) His third postulate is:
"We have not defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to
A."

That is a LIE. It is also nonsense, the man himself claims t = x'/(c-v).

2)
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."

No mathematician would claim a velocity is from A to A divided by (t'A-tA),
velocities have direction.

3) He admits this himself while thumbing his nose at the world:

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein

4) There is no mention of either Michelson or Morley in "together with the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the
light medium,'' the bum wanted ALL the glory.

5) "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." - total crap



: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
:
: What the moron did was retard science.
:
: Relativity, both special and general has never been falsified.



Of course it has, you are just spouting your personal religious-like
beliefs. Sagnac blew Einstein out of the water in 1913 and the prat was
still arguing against the Principle of Relativity in 1920.



: Mercury
: precesses by 43" a century. This is nothing else that can explain
: that. Leverrier explaied all the other irregularities with the
: gravitational pull of other bodies.

Of course there is, you are just spouting your personal religious-like
beliefs without a scrap of mathematics to back your claim. What you know of
Mercury's precession amounts to zilch, Parker. You are bull****ting.

All you dickheads quote 43 arc seconds a century, it is in fact

100 years, 415 orbits, 360 degrees per orbit, 3600 arc
seconds per degree.

43 arc seconds/ (415*360*3600) =
7.9949427338985571917298824929347e-8

Le Verrier did quite well, considering. You want to nit-pick that,
bull****ter?

: :
: : 2) We can train more scientifically. Modern athletes would beat the
: : ancients simply for this reason.
:
: Non sequitur, and certainly unsubstantiated since it is impossible to
: perform such a contest.
:
: : Modern civilization has allowed us to
: : concentrate on simply becoming more intelligent. We no longer need to
: : do heavy manual labor to get the harvest in.
:
: You confuse learning from a book with the ability to apply old knowledge
to
: new
: situations. Certainly men such Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton,
Archimedes,
: Euclid, Pythagoras, Shakespeare etc. etc. displayed far more
intelligence
: than Joe Sixpack with his modern beliefs in virgin births, holy ghosts
and
: time dilation.
:
: How else do you define it.



If I were asking a question and thought I was intelligent I'd place a
question mark at the end. Didn't they teach you punctuation before you
attempted a Ph.D.?

: You can reason by means of a Genetic
: algorithm, that is tto say you try something, then try something
: different. The question of how you dfine reasoning ability is highly
: philosopical. I can say that as a member of a team, myself together
: with Google can solve problems I would not have been able to solve in
: the time before. I could solve them even better if the academic
: community would decide on online only.

I'm not criticising Google.




: What is reasoning ability.

You really don't know how to use punctuation, do you?



: It is I claim the ability to construct graphs.

Ahahaha!

"Reasoning ability is the ability to construct graphs" -- Ian Parker, Ph.D.
(NOT)

Parker, you don't even have a bachelor's degree except in bull****.







Graphs need retrieval information. There are log jams to AI.
: Linguistics which I belly ache about is one such. I belly ache about
: it because if is such a log jam
:
: "?Quieres dormir con fosforo?" I I wanted friendship or (as the
: question implies a little bit more than friendship, Google can find a
: match for me. As "fosforo" inplies it does not have the concept of a
: "match" even though it can successfully manipulate friendship
: networks. This perhaps slightly paradoxical. No it is not like the FTL
: paradoxes, it is more like a logjam.
:
: Does anyone else have an idea as to what intelligence is - collective,
: individual, corporate.
:
:
: - Ian Parker
: :
:

You are 100+% right as rain.

Sadly, Usenet doesn't allow deductive reasoning, period.

However, GOOGLE/Usenet allows and even orchestrates on behalf of
Zions, including butt protecting on behalf of all that's Einstein and
of this tribe of brown-nosed minions (usually Zions cloaked as
Atheists).

Usenet rusemasters are many. 99.9% of Usenet is at best hocus-pocus
or worthless. Ian Parker is clearly one of them brown-nosed clowns.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 24, 7:49 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

s.com...
: On 23 Jun, 18:55, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Ian Parker" wrote in message
:
: ups.com...
: : No we are not more intelligent - not in the genetic sense. Our
: : civilization is more "intelligent" than any in the past.
: :
: : 1) When I was doing my PhD I used to spend hours in the library
: : searching references. With Google I can get all the information I want
: : in a matter of minutes. I hope that the academic world will see fit to
: : put all its publications on line. If it does so I feel that science
: : will advance just that little bit faster.
:
: Since when did citing a list of references show any indication of
: intelligence?
: Where are the references in this student's pile of crap?
:
: You show a great deal of disrespect for Einstein and Relativity but
: that is not the point I want to make.

Yes, that is correct, I have no respect for bull****, bull****ters and
liars.

: The point I am making is about
: CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
: intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
: recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
: is a form of AI.

Google is a search engine, the internet is a library. As with most libraries
mostly it contains fiction. Google is most certainly a useful for quickly
locating references that are useful to you, but my point is that if you have
the ability to reason then I can can show:
1) Einstein was a liar
2) Einstein was not a mathematician
3) Einstein was a plagiarist
4) Einstein did not cite sources
5) Einstein was a bull****ter.

For each accusation I show the following:
1) His third postulate is:
"We have not defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to
A."

That is a LIE. It is also nonsense, the man himself claims t = x'/(c-v).

2)
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."

No mathematician would claim a velocity is from A to A divided by (t'A-tA),
velocities have direction.

3) He admits this himself while thumbing his nose at the world:

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein

4) There is no mention of either Michelson or Morley in "together with the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the
light medium,'' the bum wanted ALL the glory.

5) "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." - total crap

: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
:
: What the moron did was retard science.
:
: Relativity, both special and general has never been falsified.

Of course it has, you are just spouting your personal religious-like
beliefs. Sagnac blew Einstein out of the water in 1913 and the prat was
still arguing against the Principle of Relativity in 1920.

: Mercury
: precesses by 43" a century. This is nothing else that can explain
: that. Leverrier explaied all the other irregularities with the
: gravitational pull of other bodies.

Of course there is, you are just spouting your personal religious-like
beliefs without a scrap of mathematics to back your claim. What you know of
Mercury's precession amounts to zilch, Parker. You are bull****ting.

All you dickheads quote 43 arc seconds a century, it is in fact

100 years, 415 orbits, 360 degrees per orbit, 3600 arc
seconds per degree.

43 arc seconds/ (415*360*3600) =
7.9949427338985571917298824929347e-8

Le Verrier did quite well, considering. You want to nit-pick that,
bull****ter?

: :
: : 2) We can train more scientifically. Modern athletes would beat the
: : ancients simply for this reason.
:
: Non sequitur, and certainly unsubstantiated since it is impossible to
: perform such a contest.
:
: : Modern civilization has allowed us to
: : concentrate on simply becoming more intelligent. We no longer need to
: : do heavy manual labor to get the harvest in.
:
: You confuse learning from a book with the ability to apply old knowledge
to
: new
: situations. Certainly men such Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton,
Archimedes,
: Euclid, Pythagoras, Shakespeare etc. etc. displayed far more
intelligence
: than Joe Sixpack with his modern beliefs in virgin births, holy ghosts
and
: time dilation.
:
: How else do you define it.

If I were asking a question and thought I was intelligent I'd place a
question mark at the end. Didn't they teach you punctuation before you
attempted a Ph.D.?

: You can reason by means of a Genetic
: algorithm, that is tto say you try something, then try something
: different. The question of how you dfine reasoning ability is highly
: philosopical. I can say that as a member of a team, myself together
: with Google can solve problems I would not have been able to solve in
: the time before. I could solve them even better if the academic
: community would decide on online only.

I'm not criticising Google.

: What is reasoning ability.

You really don't know how to use punctuation, do you?

: It is I claim the ability to construct graphs.

Ahahaha!

"Reasoning ability is the ability to construct graphs" -- Ian Parker, Ph.D.
(NOT)

Parker, you don't even have a bachelor's degree except in bull****.

Graphs need retrieval information. There are log jams to AI.
: Linguistics which I belly ache about is one such. I belly ache about
: it because if is such a log jam
:
: "?Quieres dormir con fosforo?" I I wanted friendship or (as the
: question implies a little bit more than friendship, Google can find a
: match for me. As "fosforo" inplies it does not have the concept of a
: "match" even though it can successfully manipulate friendship
: networks. This perhaps slightly paradoxical. No it is not like the FTL
: paradoxes, it is more like a logjam.
:
: Does anyone else have an idea as to what intelligence is - collective,
: individual, corporate.
:
:
: - Ian Parker
: :
:

On 25 Jun, 03:49, "Androcles" wrote:
: The point I am making is about
: CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
: intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
: recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
: is a form of AI.

Google is a search engine, the internet is a library. As with most libraries
mostly it contains fiction. Google is most certainly a useful for quickly
locating references that are useful to you, but my point is that if you have
the ability to reason then I can can show:
1) Einstein was a liar
2) Einstein was not a mathematician
3) Einstein was a plagiarist
4) Einstein did not cite sources
5) Einstein was a bull****ter.

Let me look at Relativity. It will help to illustrate what one might
mean by "reasoning ability".

I do some experiments. I find out that the speed of loght is
independent of my speed. I find out that the speed of light forwards
is the same as backwards, again however fast I am travelling. True
Quantum Electrodynamics predicts this effect independently of
Relativity. However I go deeper into Elementary Particle Physics. I
find that SU2 (I actually prefer to write the Lorenz Transformations
in trigonometrical form) is universally applicable. The "standard
model" is, of course, SU3.

I find that mu mesons are produced high in the Earth's atmosphere,
they travel (near as no matter, slightly below) at c. Because of time
dilation they can travel 20km when they ought to be travelling only
about 200-400m. Could I have your alternative.

How would I reason? In the way outlined above. If I had an API
attached to Google, what would I do? I would first look for references
to the "velocity of light". I would look for "speed in aether". If I
found the Lorenz equations I would look for SU2.

This is much more involved than a translation to "velocitad de luz"
although if I got "liger[o][a]" I would be stumped. Actually Google
translate does parse and "liger[o][a]" is an adjective. Doing this is
many years in the future. If though I could abstract something from
the Lorenz equations. If I it could recognize the shape of the
equations it would then look up SU2.

On General relativity. Alice was asked whether or not the angles of a
triangle added up to 180 degrees. Concept definition again. looking up
Euclid - Riemann - Einstein (GR). This is a graph. This is why I
view reasoning in graphical terms. So the critical step is getting the
concept of Eucidean space.

Suppose I was to look up "Black Hole". This stems from my reference
GR. My reference General Relativity will include Gravitational Waves.
I look that up. I find out that a pair of neutron stars orbiting one
and other are losing energy. I find that it is within 10% of GR. OK
but we have not yet DIRECTLY detected gravitational waves. I find LIGO
and LISA. The outcome will be interesting. I will find that if a black
hole is not spinning 50% of the rest energy of a weight. So - a
supernova should produce a strong gravitational pulse.

I find too that a drop into a spinning BH gives of gravitational
waves. Matter forms jets powered by the waves.

Question for you - How do YOU explain the energy sources of quasars.

This highlighs my "dormir con fosforo" paradox. Alice cannot
understand the angles of a triangle yet quasar jets can be predicted
by finite element calculations.

For each accusation I show the following:
1) His third postulate is:
"We have not defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to
A."

That is a LIE. It is also nonsense, the man himself claims t = x'/(c-v).

2)
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."

No mathematician would claim a velocity is from A to A divided by (t'A-tA),
velocities have direction.

3) He admits this himself while thumbing his nose at the world:

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein

4) There is no mention of either Michelson or Morley in "together with the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the
light medium,'' the bum wanted ALL the glory.

5) "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." - total crap

1-4 are simply disinformation about Einstein. Does the fact that he
was Jewish worry you?

5 is more interesting. Clocks do indeed go at the same rate on a
geoid. This is because the SR effect caused by rotation (slowing the
clock down) is compensated for by an equal and opposite GR effect
caused by the fact the the equator is further away from the center of
the Earth. This makes clocks go faster.

I think Einstein being a Jew is a factor. Brad is talking about
"Zionism". What does he want to do? Does he want a CIA psy op to
direct Google in the orthodox ultra right wing course?


- Ian Parker


- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On 25 Jun, 03:49, "Androcles" wrote:
: : The point I am making is about
: : CORPORATE intelligence. If I am an individual I am rated as
: : intelligent partly on my ability to reason, but also on my ability
: : recall facts quicly and relevantly. I claim on that basis that Google
: : is a form of AI.
:
: Google is a search engine, the internet is a library. As with most
libraries
: mostly it contains fiction. Google is most certainly a useful for
quickly
: locating references that are useful to you, but my point is that if you
have
: the ability to reason then I can can show:
: 1) Einstein was a liar
: 2) Einstein was not a mathematician
: 3) Einstein was a plagiarist
: 4) Einstein did not cite sources
: 5) Einstein was a bull****ter.
:
: Let me look at Relativity. It will help to illustrate what one might
: mean by "reasoning ability".
:
: I do some experiments.

Go ahead, do them.

I find out that the speed of loght is
: independent of my speed.

No you don't! That's where your ability to reason is ****-canned, you assume
the result without doing the experiment. If you halfway honest, Parker,
you'd admit you don't even know what "experiment" to do and you've never
experimented
with the speed of light in your life.



I find out that the speed of light forwards
: is the same as backwards, again however fast I am travelling.

No you don't! That's where your ability to reason is ****-canned, you assume
the result without doing the experiment.


: Quantum Electrodynamics predicts


"Predicts" - a word used by any fortune-teller or charlatan. I'm not
interested in your ability to read horoscopes or predict the future, I'm
interested in science. Take your predictions and shove them you know where.
Come back when you've done the experiment instead of guessing its result and
quit trying to bull****, it doesn't work.