OT question

On 25/12/2017 08:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think what he's asking is why it's a constant, ie what makes it so,
and why it is what it is rather than something else?

Got any answer?

Because if it wasnt what it is, the world wouldn't be what it is, and in
all likelihood he wouldn't be wherever here is to ask such damn fool
questions.

So finding yourself in the very unusual position of not being able to
concoct some bull**** answer you resort to abusing the questioner.

I had an RI teacher like that. My awkward questions were met by him
making me stand in the corridor.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 09:25, Tim Streater wrote:

AIUI, there are about 26 physical constants (such as speed of light)
for the values of which there is no theoretical explanation known
today. That is, it's as if God (I use the term for convenience) has 26
knobs to turn to set these values and launch the universe. They could
have any values, these constants, and life would not be possible in
most of the resulting universes.


That's interesting. My goodness, wouldn't it have saved a lot of bother
if He'd chosen an unworkable combination?

Bill

On 25/12/2017 09:51, John Hall wrote:

Which raises the interesting question of whether alternative universes
exist in which some or all of those constants have different values.

There are places not far from here where different values are
universally applied.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 10:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 08:18:37 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/12/17 20:43, Bill Wright wrote:
What are the parameters that set the speed of electromagnetic
transmission in a vacuum? I've googled everywhere but I can't find the
answer. It's easy enough to find the figure but WHY? Why not
29,979,245.8 metres per second or 2,997,924,580 metres per second?

Bill

Not everything has a cause. Some things Just Are.

God was the traditional explanation of course.


Child: - Who made the universe?
RE teacher - God.
Child: - Who made God?

Yeah, that was the sort of thing I used to get into trouble for. And
then there was my confusion about Albert Schweitzer.

We had a student teacher who made us learn all about Albert Schweitzer —
and, it seemed, nothing but Albert Schweitzer — for weeks on end. I
suppose she had some sort of religious crush on him. I remember her as a
lumpy-cardigan-wearing creature with a hairy face. Near the end of her
tenure a very old man with a droopy moustache came into the classroom
and sat silently at the back as the student took the lesson. I was
certain he was the great man himself and asked him for his autograph.
Strangely he merely frowned and waved me away. I didn’t think much to
Albert Schweitzer after that bit of unpleasantness, and told everyone
so. Grandma Martin seemed unsurprised that I’d met Albert Schweitzer,
but there again, at about the same time as this she told me that she and
her sister had once walked all the way round Rutland in an afternoon.

Miss Hairyface looked at my writing book one day and said, “What on
earth is this word?� I said it was ‘yacht’. She said “You don’t spell it
like that!� I said you did, and she said I was stupid, but I wouldn’t be
told so in the end she sent me down to the library for the big
dictionary, which when consulted proved me right. So she told me to sit
down and stop being cheeky. Stupid hairy bitch! I was to have the same
trouble twice more in my school career, but not until the Secondary
Modern, where I was told in a marking note that ‘route’ was spelled
‘root’ when the context was how to get from A to B, and when I was told
verbally that there was no such word as ‘officious’. The ‘root’ one
puzzles me now because it was an older teacher, but the ‘officious’ one
was just a student teacher, so no big surprise there. Maybe ‘root’
cropped up near the end of a hard marking and drinking session.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 13:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:



Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.

They had to call it philosophy because they hadn't really figured out
about doing proper experiments and that (well at best it was early days)
so they had to kinda guess about why things were as they were, and
that's what philosophy is really. Just chewing the fat and getting
nowhere. It's another of those devices that otherwise unemployable
people use to get a salary out of the those of us who actually do a job
that benefits humanity. It's the same with linguistics. They only
invented that because the Indo-European theory was wearing a bit thin
and otherwise there would have been a lot of profs out of work. Can't
have profs doing proper jobs, not the done thing, so they invented
linguistics. Remember when plate tectonics came in? A lot of profs had
two choices: either disown their life's work or get the sack. Most of
them managed to make the transition. I don't know if they actually burnt
their own books. The next one will be when the tide turns against global
warming as caused by mankind. A few foolhardy youngsters will speak out;
most will be blackballed but a few won't; gradually the consensus will
drift just as the magnetic poles drift, then like the poles there will
be a sudden flip. Luckily by then most of the people who've made their
money from global warming will be retired, so the damage won't be too
bad. I suppose a few guys in their late 50s who were a bit slow on the
uptake will be the collateral damage, but to be honest I think they'll
deserve it for clinging on and propagating the bull**** long after they
should have kept quiet. The sensible thing is to be like the Vicar of Bray.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

Bill

On 25/12/2017 18:49, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 12:49:16 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't asked.

So why did you? There must be more appropriate groups.

How could he prevent being asked?

Bill

On 26/12/2017 10:23, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

**** all for sure either...and I dont mean Hawkings or Dawkins either.
Both second rate minds.

So who, in your opinion, demonstrates a first rate mind?

Imsen

Bill

On 27/12/17 00:55, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/12/2017 08:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think what he's asking is why it's a constant, ie what makes it so,
and why it is what it is rather than something else?

Got any answer?

Because if it wasnt what it is, the world wouldn't be what it is, and
in all likelihood he wouldn't be wherever here is to ask such damn
fool questions.

So finding yourself in the very unusual position of not being able to
concoct some bull**** answer you resort to abusing the questioner.

what are you on about?

Thst is in fact the correct answer. With slice of humour added...

I had an RI teacher like that. My awkward questions were met by him
making me stand in the corridor.

Bill

On 27/12/17 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/12/2017 18:46, Tim Streater wrote:

Mind you, that idea could be scrapped at any time. Remember phlogiston
and the luminiferous ether. Both though to exist to explain observed
phenomena, both ideas scrapped as sharper minds thought up other
explanations.

Be interesting to watch what happens with anthropogenic global warming
over the next few decades.

like watching paint dry?

already people are bored with it: its lost the power to amaze, so it
will be replaced by something else.

but its got nothing to do with science so I don't know why you
introduced it.


Bill