h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is it Newton who they disproved all his work, yet still use it to launch spacecraft?
I can't remember if it is him, but someone famous, they proved it doesn't work in some respect, but still use it in space technology. (remind me to listen more closely in chem classes!)
Many people claim to have disproved God, but, as in the case of whats-his-name the scientist, the theory could still be tangible, still be valid, still exist.
There are answers out there for everyone. While some find their answers in hard science or maths, others find it in pure belief. Not everyone with belief (pure or otherwise) finds it in one of the worlds major religions, they may find it in themselves, in wicca, voodoo or anything. Religion (the word) comes from a root meaning 'to connect'. You can connect outside a secular community.
Also, not everything is as cut and dried as some of the arguments I've read in this argument (haven't read all of them, but some of them along the lines, wow!) That wasn't a dig at anyone in particular, may I add, just something I had to get off my chest, because stereotyping is one of my pet hates!

While I'm here, I would really like to hear your plucking joke. Please?

It wasn't that good. Basically, it went along the lines of an imaginary meeting someone who's eyebrows went all the way up to her scalp, and Heff (really cool friend) commented 'Well seen /you/ don't pluck,' timed just perfectly to make us all burst out laughing.

Strangely enough, this was in a Pizza Hut, were we were eating courtesy of an /ace/ librarian...

You're right about Newton, though! His theory was subscribed to for years, and when Einstein's Theory of Relativity came on the scene it was demonstrated to be false. Well, the evidence was there when the Michaelson-Morley experiment was carried out... Anyway, Newton's theory is beautiful, elegant, brilliantly accurate and simple, whereas Einstein's is beautiful, elegent, phenomenally accurate and complicated as hell. (I'm talking about the mathematics here - the idea is easy enough to understand.) The differences in accuracy are so small that it's possible to launch spaceships or do most any practical earthbound task you want - the differences only become significant in everyday terms when you're travelling at more than, oh, 100,000 metres per second or more. Actually, they aren't even that big until you get pretty damn huge...

So, full marks for recall! (Well, maybe not, but I can manufacture perfect results!)

- Jordan

okay then, just the one. Sex? (of the child that is)...

Maybe we could set up and adoption agency around here?

okay, seperate eyebrows it is! and no moustaches...

beards? birthmarks? attached or hanging earlobes?

In reply to 4531 and subsequent ones by Jordan:

I respect your maths; I knew E=mc^2 is a special case derived from a more general equation, thanks for the details,

BUT

to say "The very definition of a formula requires that it be demonstrably correct" is demonstrably tosh. Look it up in any dictionary. Formula means a lot of things, including "recipe".

Mathamaticians don't have a monopoly on correctness. There are other forms of language, and religious language is very different from mathematical language. The Catholic Church made a big mistake trying to claim that the "existence of God" could be proved; it's just not that kind of derivable thing.

At the same time, my suggestion "God=universal consciousness" is not arrived at from nowhere; it is not science fiction (haven't read Dune, have a friend who has, don't think I'd like it), but it is a formula arrived at after puzzling through "Consciousness Explained" (Dennett) and various books on evolution and ethics (Dawkins of course, and I specially recommend R. Wright "The Moral Animal").

Dawkins exposes his petulance when he takes on the churches. Taunting Christians from a scientific point of view is like hunting cows with a high-powered rifle complete with telescopic sight.

Can someone point me in the direction of the posting which made this mathematical, cos I'm getting confused and wanna know how that bit started!

#4509 is the post that introduced the '=' sign I believe. It was unwise to use such a symbol instead of the word 'is'. This folly was further compounded by the 'ice = frozen water' assertion.

Ice is also frozen carbon dioxide 'dry ice' and jewellery, especially diamonds and albeit somewhat colloquially.

Frozen water is also snow, hail and permafrost.

I am amazed that so many have assented to the latter proposition. I wonder if the word 'is' would have made them think twice. The '=' sign also seems to have sent Jordan into mathematical paroxysms from which I sincerely hope he has now recovered!

Recumbentman
Thanks for the 'monopoly on correctness' post. I may be a mattress in a swamp, but now at least I can feel good about not being a Marvin stuck in the same swamp as a mattress

Jordan
I was meaning;
The Bible = the word of God, theory, which millions of people take as proven. Which seems to be a formula without basis in proof.

Hass. Wish you'd used 'is' instead of '=' but no matter. Millions take it on faith that the Bible is the word of God. Who takes it as proven? Who did the survey and where are the data published? What, indeed, is the evidence other than claims made in the Bible itself?

I think that we should use solid geometry to determine the x co-ordinates of gods place in our lives.
I also think cheese goes well on toast how about you?

This post has been removed.

Toxx
Used = because it was in the original that I was answering.
I'd say that many Christians sects take it as proven.
My own survey from speaking with such people and the data comes out of their mouths.
My point is that there is no 'evidence' for this formula and yet it is taken as truth by many.
But it all goes back to Jordans' post, the number of which I've forgotten !!

Shady guy, you eloquence is staggering.
How did you come up with such a philosophical thought?

Hass. I know Jordan took the mathematical dimension to new 'heights' but I think '=' was first mentioned as I specified. Sorry to accuse you of using what you were only mentioning. Such misunderstandings sometimes happen to me and never fail to irritate.

I'm a philosophical kind of guy.
dont be sarcastic.
all work and no play makes me a shady guy!!

Cheese on toast is exqusite is it not?
Who started this non-fulfilling conversation anyway?
I am not enlightened by your philosophical ramblings.
The Shady Guy dont take s**t from nobody.
You fool nobody with your non-sensicle ramblings.
I happen to be a clairvoyant and I forsee that you are
a ten year old seeking mature attension you shall not
have it from me.

GOODBYE FROM THE SHADY GUY

dont you guys ever reply?
you seem the talkative type.

Here's a reply!

Have you ever seen the theological engineering exam? Apparently the all-abiding love of the Holy Spirit is the x-y plane and we are all point-souls. And cheese on toast is brilliant!

- Jordan

My algebraic spasms haven't quite finished yet tox, sorry! Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be done with soon.

Let's see what some quick dictionary searching tells us, shall we? I use kdict from my desktop, which makes it possible for me to search a number of online dictionaries at once.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) says: -

Formula \For"mu*la\, n.; pl. E. Formulas, L. Formul[ae].
[L., dim. of forma form, model. SeeForm, n.]

1. A prescribed or set form; an established rule; a fixed or
conventional method in which anything is to be done,
arranged, or said.

2. (Eccl.) A written confession of faith; a formal statement
of doctrines.

3. (Math.) A rule or principle expressed in algebraic
language; as, the binominal formula.

4. (Med.) A prescription or recipe for the preparation of a
medicinal compound.

5. (Chem.) A symbolic expression (by means of letters,
figures, etc.) of the constituents or constitution of a
compound.

(Missing out a lot of chemistry...)

WordNet (r) 1.7 says: -

formula (n)

1: a group of symbols that make a mathematical statement [syn:
expression]
2: directions for making something [syn: recipe]
3: a conventionalized statement expressing some fundamental
principle
4: a representation of a substance using symbols for its
constituent elements [syn: chemical formula]
5: something regarded as a normative example; "the convention
of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule
not the exception"; "his formula for impressing visitors"
[syn: convention, normal, pattern, rule]
6: a liquid food for infants
7: (mathematics) a standard procedure for solving a class of
mathematical problems; "he determined the upper bound with
Descartes' rule of signs"; "he gave us a general formula
for attacking polynomials" [syn: rule]

The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) says: -

formula

1. In logic, a sequence of symbols representing terms,
predicates, connectives and quantifiers which is either
true or false.

(Missing out the stuff abut computer languages.)


Hmm. Would you feed 'God = the universal consciousness' (or 'God is the universal consciousness') to a baby? I will make a distinction here. Colloquially, one can speak of a mathematical formula in two senses - as the result of a proven fact (i.e. one that has intrinsic meaning and can be true or false) or as an expression (a conglomeration of symbols that can be evaluated - basically a definition). Rules come under the former, and even if you were to take the definition as 'recipe,' we would still need to remember that a recipe is basically a rule ('follow these instructions to reach this goal') and therefore comes under the former definition - a real recipe be demonstrably correct, or the 'rule' does not hold.

Now, you could have meant the latter. In which case you would still be wrong, because the post to which you were replying to stipulated a proof. Therefore I took it to be the former, and since I couldn't see any proof I decided that it was a hypothesis, and not a formula of either kind.

If you had based it upon some evidence, I would have been happier had I seen some of it! What are your premises?

That reminds me of a song - 'Johnny, where's yer troosers?' Weird.

There are languages other than that of logic, yes, and mathematics doesn't have the monopoly on truth - in fact, it doesn't, mathematics is actually an exercise in /consistancy/, which is why it 'and its language) is used to derive what is true. I'm not too fond of mixing logic with other methods. I can accept illogical propositions from illogical processes (thus, I am a Christian), and I can accept logical conclusions from logical inference (and deduction, though I have already mentioned a special case where the deductive step is personal rather than scientific). However, I can't accept either from the other - it just doesn't parse! What do you suggest as an alternative to logic for debating purposes?

'Dawkins exposes his petulance when he takes on the churches. Taunting Christians from a scientific point of view is like hunting cows with a high-powered rifle complete with telescopic sight.'

Who's taunting? Only people who feel they have to persecute need to taunt! I don't hurl obloquy at scientists for the sake of their discipline - in fact, when they do it well I give them the utmost respect, and I don't expect to receive intolerance back! And it's my hope that through a deeper understanding of each other that we might, perhaps, actually progress to something approximating respect.

This wasn't always my view. I've been on either side of, and stood dead on, the divide - atheistic, religious and agnostic. I went through my persecution phases (from 'stupid Catholics with their screwy beliefs' to 'idiot scientists and the "fraud of evolution".' Neither are productive. I'm still trying to grow in tolerance.

- Jordan