tar

Thank you Acme I read the wiki article, still not sure how to work my problem, when to be in degrees or radians or rads, and I am not sure what angles and distances I "have" already, when I can use an identity, and when I can "figure". But I suppose if trig is what I need, trig is what I need to remember and work with. Got my sister's advanced high school math book out, and will see if I can figure it out. Thank you for the direction though. It is obvious that trig is what I need to be understanding, to do the problem. Have run into sine and cosine and tangent and cotangent before, as I actually did take trig in high school, but I think I was more interested in girls and drinking and smoking, and having fun, than in understanding the implications and uses of the log tables and tables of the trigonimetric functions and the like. I liked them then, and I actually had fun looking at the tables in the back of my sister's book, looking for the patterns. So, as no one else yet has given me a yes or a no as to the exact length of the side of the diamond on the spheroid, I suppose I will have to figure it out myself...using the trig you have pointed me to. Might take a while...but if no one else gets back with the answer, I will eventually. Regards, TAR But, this being a math forum, I would not mind any help anyone would like to give, in setting up the problem and properly executing the math. My thinking is that I have three angles of the triangle made when you run a great circle through though the center of the diamond from obtuse point to obtuse point. The acute point is already a known 90 degree angle, the obtuse point is already a known 120 degree angle and half that would be 60, so the angles are 60, 60 and 90. From this, according to the wiki article, I think I have 3 out of 6 unknowns know, and think I might be able to get the other three from it. If not, if I need an arc length, I could, I suppose, assume that my two arcs of the triangle, that are also arcs of the diamond, are exactly 1, and thusly "find" the length of arc that goes from obtuse point to obtuse point, as that I would have 5 out of 6 to plug into the identities. Then whatever answer I get for the length of arc from obtuse point to obtuse point, I can plug back into the identities, knowing the three angles, treat the other two identical arcs as unknowns, and see if they turn out to be 1. If they do, then they are 1. If some other number comes up, then they are not 1. That is the plan, I am not confident though, in my ability to execute it, and will gladly accept any help, suggestions, directions, encouragement, or correction. According to my sister's math book, the sine of 90 derees is .0000 the tangent is .0000 and the cosine is 1.000. The Cotangent seems to be ------, which I am not sure means either infinity or undetermined. 60 degrees in the chart shows sine=.5000, Tangent-.5774, Cotangent=1.7321 and Cosine=.8660. Addition information, given by the chart is that a 60 degree angle is equivalent to 1.0472 radians and a 90 degree angle is equivalent to 1.5708 radians. In support of my thought, that Pi must reside in these angles, I just this minute made the interesting observation/calculation that 1.0472 is 1/3 of Pi. (not surprising as that 60 is one sixth of 360 and a radius is 1/2 a diameter,) but interesting, none the less. But still to figure or to understand, for me, is when you can use a radian as a length, and when you can use it as an angle, whether the length of the arc is exactly r, or 1.0472 r, or .9549r...or indeed some other length. It "looks" to be around r somewhere, as that one can tape up a 12" globe with approximately 6 inch pieces of tape, into the diamond arrangement, using the poles and the equator as guides. Which is more likely to be correct, that the arc length is exactly r, the arc length is exactly 1/3 pi, or that the length is some other number? No doubt I can assume that 1.5708 is likewise 1/4 Pi without doing the math (using the calculator.)

Was thinking about the wording and setup of the tortoise and warrior paradox of Zeno. If you take a globe and mark a W on the equator in South America and a T in Siberia, and spin the Globe from West to East, the T will move slowly and the W will move rapidly, and the W will never overtake the T. If you put two gears on a rod and marked a W on the one an a T on the other and you spin the W fast and turn the T slowly, the W will overtake the T again and again and again, with no problem at all. Being that a Warrior can overtake the tortoise, the setup of the problem must lingually correspond more to the two gears on the rod setup, than the two marks on the Globe setup, because the two marks on the globe do not represent what actually happens in the race, while the two gears on a rod represents exactly what happens.

Unity+, The way to find the length of the circle segment that corresponds with the sides of the diamonds. Earlier I think it was MD65536 that let me know the angles of the diamonds, but that was the polyhedron, "flat" diamond shape. I am more, at this point interested in the length of the arc from corner to corner, measured along the surface of the sphere, not the straight line that would go "subsurface" between the points. Regards, TAR Imatfaal, Sorry, I misidentified the provider of the angles. It was you. "Ratio of long diagonal to short is sqrt(2) (this is for the flat edged polyhedron not for the spheroid). If the short diagonal is 2 units long, the long diagonal is 2.sqrt(2), and very happily the length of the side is sqrt(3). The small angle is 70.53 degrees." Unity+, So anyway, knowing that as a plane the diamond shape has the above angles, and as a sphere section the obtuse angles seem to join at 120 degrees if you think of a plane tangent to the sphere at every 3-point in question, and the acute angles seem to be 90 degrees if you look at the 4-point junctions, from the perspective of a plane tangent to the sphere at a 4-point. I am interested in what makes a 109.47 degree angle a 120 angle and a 70.53 degree angle a 90 degree one. And I am interested in learning how one deals with angles when they are on the surface of a sphere, and not on a plane. Primarily to figure out if the diamonds that you get when you cut a big 1/12th of a sphere diamond into 4 similar diamonds, are the same 70.53 angle when looked at, as if they are transribed onto a plane inside the sphere, or if they retain any of the 90 degree, 4-point type characteristics when being on the surface of the sphere. Regards, TAR

Here is another arrangement, of the same 12 sections, showing the four Northern "polar" divisions, the four equatorial divisions, and the four Southern "polar" divisions. Still would like to know, if anyone can do the math, if the sides of the diamonds are exactly r or not. (When measured on the surface of the sphere.) Regards, TAR

Spyman, Yeah, the mood swings are rather severe. But I am trying to not take it out on anybody. Don't expect anyone to give me a free pass, but since I was already capable of being stupid and annoying, I don't think too many people will notice a difference. Still, you are right, I should be extra aware of other people, and how I am coming across, as I do seem to be more "emotional" than the normal TAR. I suppose there is also a danger of "rationalizing" your way back to smoking, saying you were a better person, or got along better, or wasn't so mood swingy as a smoker. I am giving myself the advkce to be on the lookout for such rationalizations, and I have already put myself on notice, to not entertain such nonsense, as sensible as it might "feel". That is probably the c&$p that I talked myself into thinking the other handful of times I quit. Really do think I have smoking behind me now. I will come up with a way to deal with whatever hurdles I have yet to face. Good to have the warnings from you though. Makes it easier to ward the darn things off. Regards, TAR

Spyman, 2 hours ago I hit the 4 week mark since my last smoke. Believe me, I have used the peanut butter cup technique. Actually psuedo cup technique. I pour some chocolate morsels in a small bowl, put a superduper heaping teaspoon of peanutbutter in and mix it up and work on that for a while. Not crazy about replacing nicotine with chocolate though. Seems like that would be a rotund solution. So far, my self defense mechanism has mostly been sleep. When I get too "lonely" for nicotine, I just curl up on my barcolounger and grab a little shut-eye. Been rather well rested as a result, and the ole mind has been very active. Am slowly learning to apply myself to the honey do list as well, and spending a few more moments with the wife, than I use to. Breathing real nicely today, and the "pulled muscle" on my left chest seems to be healing, as sneezes hurt less and less. So I am really happy, to breath that deep fullfilling breath, that I was beginning to lose a month ago. Still like Phi's "not an option" mentality. I think that works the best. Then you don't have to feel sorry for yourself, or feel like you are doing anything wonderful or difficult, or anything, by not smoking. Just not an option. Like having a date with somebody other than your wife, is just not an option. Or paying 250 thousand dollars for 30 seconds of wheightlessness on a commercial "spacejet". Might be nice, might be neat, might be pleasurable, but for me, such a ticket is not an option. Smokes are in the same compartment for me now. Just not an option. Regards, TAR

Acme, I am sixty. I probably saw Fuller's projection in the 60s. It most likely was one of the reasons why I was investigating the divisions of a sphere, with my clay balls and such. Because I wanted to better visualize a sphere, and understand solid angles and such. The division into 12 segments I presented at the beginning of the thread is not new to the world, but it was new to me. I learned the names and such of these figures in this thread. But the concepts and the "neatness" of the arrangement, were things I noticed myself. Obviously the characteristics of a sphere, are not my invention. I am just noticing stuff about it, and talking about it on a mathematics board. Perhaps it will interest someone, perhaps it won't. I do not have the understanding of solid geometry and calculus it would take to figure if the length of the diamond's side is exactly r, when measured on the surface of the sphere, but it would be "neat" if it was, and would have implications as to what Pi is. That is, as to "why" Pi is. Just one of the things I care about figuring out. If it has already been figured out fine, I am just looking for the answer, one way or the other. Can anyone help me, in this regard? The figure Janus modeled is already known. Is it known what the length of the arc, describing one side of the "diamond", as measured on the surface of the sphere, is? Regards, TAR MD65536, Thanks for the link, and the suggestions. You are right, I could pick better continent preserving starting points, but I liked the idea of using the North and South Poles as vertices. And the four lines coming from the poles seemed rather regular and understandable, so I put them on the prime meridian, and the 180 "date line" area, and let everything else fall where ever it fell. My thinking on this is that the Rhombic dodecahedron projected onto the sphere, is more important than the sphere projected onto the Rhombic dodecahedron. This is why I am considering that my rendering is not a projection, but twelve pictures taken of the actual curved surfaces, and laid out in a way that you can see the whole sphere at once. Perhaps it is not very useful as a map, but more as a "visualization", being able to "see" all sides of the globe at once. I always had trouble with the projections. Not that they were not mathematically correct, but that they distorted the place, and I didn't know how to make the corrections. We are used to making the corrections required when we look at a ball, so why not keep it a ball. The twelve divisions I think is a nice balance, sort of vector equalibrium, of the place, that gives one the "idea" of what curvature is about. Was standing out on my deck today, probably looked like a crazy man, drawing lines in the air, dividing the world into these diamonds, with the four "equatorial" diamonds, and the four polar diamonds and the four diamonds below, using my neck/head/eyes as the center point. Seems really neat and clean, how the "90 degree" juntures and the "120 degree" junctures work out, to "form" the sphere. And one can divide the 3D world using these 12 identical diamonds. I think it has possibilities. We could call the center of the Milkyway the "below" 4-point, and the opposing point in the sky the "above" 4-point, choose something that was on the resulting "equator" as a 4-point, and that would determine the other three 4-points. The 3-points would also all be thusly defined. Then the Celestial Sphere would be divided in 12 equal areas and each of these areas could be divided in quarters (from mid edge to mid edge, not point to point), and each of those quarters into quarters, as many times as would be useful. And each subdivision would be exactly defined in both solid angle, and direction. Most celestial objects would keep their designated position for thousands of years, and if we picked a very far away galaxy as our equatorial starting 4-point, we would have a "wireframe" with-in which to measure and chart every object and motion within it, against. Regards, TAR

Acme, No doubt I could have gotten the idea from Mr. Fuller, but I also got it from suggestions on this thread, and I have not copied Mr. Fuller's projection onto the cuboctohedron. I do not even recall ever seeing his projection onto a cuboctohedron. The icosahedron pictured in the link, is not the division into twelve equal segments we are talking about here. We are talking about the one Janus modeled. The cuboctohedron is obviously the figure upon which the diamond segments are built, as that each of the diamond shape's center's are located exactly on a vertex of the cubooctohedron, but the diamond shape, we have already determined is not condusive to making a hedron out of, as the four points of the diamond are not on the same plane. However, retaining the curved surface of the segment, results in no projection onto a flat surface required. The idea is therefore similar to, but not exactly the projection of Fuller. And although it is built on the form of a cubooctohedron, it is NOT a projection of the features of the Earth onto the flat surfaces of a cuboctohedron, and does not use at all the icosahedron, nor does it unfold well, nor is it "flat", except it is a photo on a two D surface. There remains some interesting attributes of the figure that can be explored. Perhaps you can help, or someone can help with establishing the truth or falseness of a conjecture I have related to the figure Janus modeled, and the division of the globe, I have presented here. The globe I used, was a 12" globe. (12" in diameter). I built the sloppy divisions, using peices of tape, 6 inches long. This appeared to me, to work out exactly. Leading me to make the conjecture that the distance between the corners of the diamonds, when measured along the surface of the sphere (as in a peice of tape or a string that could lay flat on the sphere) was "exactly" r. Does anyone know spherical geometry well enough to calculate the length of string or tape it would take to make the edges of the diamonds on the surface of the sphere? It already seems to me that the lengths are identical, but are the lengths equal to r? Regards, TAR

Here is a crudely done rendition of the globe divided into the same twelve "identical" shapes. The globe photographed from twelve vantage points is a copyrighted Replogle Stereo Relief Globe, by RePlogle Globes Inc., Gustav Brueckmann, Cartographer, with polical boundries and names as they existed 50 or 60 years ago. Used without permission. Rendition executed to see what the world would look like, from 12 directions at once, on a two dimensional space, using the segments we have been talking about. There is no projection involved, all continents are "actual" size, to the same scale, as each of the photos is taken of the same 12" globe, from approximately the same distance. Regards, TAR

Mike, The tidal bores and Morning Glory waves related to the solitions idea in your latest links, were and interesting read. Nice pictures too of those clouds in the bay in Australia. Interesting in regards to an earlier related childhood thought you related of the "running down the chute shaped slope" is the fact that glider pilots from all over the world, congregate to ride the waves, in that area during the time of year the phenomena is most likely. Was wondering about the tides between the Black Sea and the Mediteranian, and was "surprised" to learn that the Med doesn't really have tides of much amplitude, like the Atlantic. More of a landlocked lake, than an ocean. I probably knew this already from school, and forgot about it, but it raises some nice questions about boundry conditions and waves and tubes of opportunity and manifolds and surfaces and such. The gravity waves you linked, like the ripples coming off the boat, are caused when the boat is no longer keeping the water from its "equilibrium" state, in regards, to gravity and surface tension and the like, and this "rebound" to equalibrium causes a wave, and even the wave causes subharmonic motions as each subcomponent of the media occilates around the equilibrium point. Ideas not foreign to the stochastics of the stock market, or the touching of a guitar string at exactly 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 or 1/5th its length creates a harmonic "ringing" note. Frequency certainly has an incredible amount to due with life and waves and cycles, and orbits, from subatomic to galactic systems. The returning to equilibrium, and the discussions we were having earlier concerning strange loops and the "outliers" several SD from the norm, and the negative and positive feedback loops, all involve each other, and are related to each other. Boundry conditions and manifolds, and translations and charts and models are all part of the the same conversation...as if we are talking about everything at once. Imagine that. Regards, TAR

Mike, I like this thread, because a lingual theory of everything takes both the thing as it is, and what we can say about it, on at the same time. It is completely possible that an adjustment of the model is require when two components of the model do not fit together. It is not so likely that reality its self would require adjustment to fit our model of it. Not that we cannot make reality fit our model, we do it all the time, but in the greater scheme of things, gravity, and great attractors, Lagrange points and strings of Galaxies stretching for unimaginable distances in all directions, what a human mind can model seems very weak and small and second hand, compared to the size and strength and duration of the thing that the human mind models. Of course we are not going to come up with a theory of everything. Millions of people for 10s of thousands of years have not managed the feat. We don't have the reach and info to even take a vague quess at what is going on in the neighborhood. However, a theory that included both the thing as it is, and what we can say about it, is going to, by definition be more complete than a theory that ignored what we could say about the thing, or ignored the thing and concentrated only on what we could say about it. I was, very impressed by the tsunami in Japan two years ago. How our certainty in our mastery of the place, and our control over matter and energy, was wiped away in a couple of minutes. Made us humble, so to speak. At least made me humble. And over the last two years or so, the storms in the Northeast of the U.S. have been uncharacteristically strong. Global warming, and CO2 emmisions and the like, as well as how we are to handle radioactive waste and accidents are REAL concerns for all of us, from scientist to fool. What we think of ourselves, and what we think of the place are the exact same conversation. A theory of everything would have to include us, and the place, because neither means a whit, without the other. What we find suprising or counter intuitive, is only the case for a minute or two. Once we know the thing is so, we adust our model to include the thing, and then the thing is as intuitive as it gets. Regards, TAR

Spyman, I experienced your grief thing yesterday. Was driving by a gas station where I used to buy cigarettes regularly several years ago, and I actually had the emotional reaction you were talking about, thinking about the color and look of the pack, that I had "lost". Like heartbreak or grief. Easy to see how running into that emotion, could cause one to remove the heartbreak and feeling of loss, by just purchasing a pack and reuniting with the ole friend. Really important I think for people like myself, who have succeeded in getting out from under the immediate draw of nicotine, to not underestimate its alure, and to expect this emotional "sadness" from time to time, and just power through it, find stategies to handle it, and expect that there will come other times, when smoking would "feel" like the easy way out of the bad mood. But like Phi says, you just have to not give yourself that option. Ever again. That is the only way to be truely "stopped". Regards, TAR

Acme, Well reasoned debate indeed. I see no lack of it from either "side". There were very smart and educated men who thought the Earth was flat, and later many if not close to all who thought the planets had to move with little epicycles to explain the apparent motion of the planets. Your central drift, is that I have not read enough to understand what is going on, and I therefore have no right to engage in conversation on the logical implications of stuff. I have read a little, I have understood a little, and I have run into logical road blocks, where other people's assumptions and determinations do not add up. I can not make them add up. But the universerve itself has never let me down. It always adds up exactly. If there is a paradox, I look for where the situation is being misunderstood, or misapplied. I know for absolute certain, that if there is an apparent contradiction, the problem is with our interpretation of the thing as it is, not with the thing as it is. So yes, I have some problems with dark energy and dark matter showing up so late in the game. There could be an interpretation issue. A math mistake, an observation snaffu. Otherwise, we would have seen the stuff before. It would be built into our science and our calculations. Other things that we could not explain before, would be explained by it now. Things would fall nicely into place, that perplexed us before...not the other way round. What of all the calculations of age of the universe, and expansion of the universe, and redshift and distances, and number of particles in the observable universe, and predictions of the fate of and beginnings of the universe, that were made before dark energy and dark matter where announced? Doesn't everything need to be recalculated now? Were those other calculations not somewhat crude in comparison to what they should have been? Scientists are very quick to throw things out when contradictions are noticed. Usually. But in certain situations, as is documented by the epicycles, and reams of material written on why its impossible for a warrior to overtake a tortoise, or in odd attempts to prove forshortening in rotating laboratory fields and such where contradictory logic must be applied to close high speed long ladders into short garages and such, contradictions are just sluffed off, and I am told I would understand if I only read into it and understood the math. Well perhaps I have, and I STILL don't accept the contradictions and I am still looking for a better, simpler cleaner, less complicated, more occum razor like explanation for some of these things. I don't have the answers, I have not figured out the maths involved in some of my possible solutions, but if entropy was the only final situation, we should have gotten to that condition by now. If the route is only from completely ordered to completely disordered, the universe would have started simple and perfect and deteriorated from there. Since human life and cleverness is somewhere on this path TO deterioration, and was not extant at the beginning of the universe, when only hydrogen atoms were around, there must be some other considerations, occuring within this deterioration that cause or allow stars to form and make heavier elements, and carbon and oxygen and such, that allows for snowflakes and jellyfish. I get the entropy equations. I get the gas laws. This place just doesn't act like it is suppose to, according to the equations. So if life here, causes some more entropy over there, fine. Total entropy has to increase. But if that is true, then that was true before life on Earth began, and life on Earth is therefore a victory against the trend. Life has found a way to use, whatever it is that the universe has to do, for its own reasons. Form and structure grabbed from a place that does not think or care, but is just marching along unknowingly toward complete disorder. Life has found a way to continue this form and structure and pass it on to the next generation. Stars do the same kind of thing. Buck the trend. Have generations. As Mike suggests. Regards, TAR The alternative to challenging "known" science is to simply accept that someone else knows all the answers, and everything there is to know is already documented, if you were to only read it all. Well, there is this judgement aspect that I think its important to maintain. A balance between BC logic and internet information 100 percent coverage. Sure we know a lot. Sure everything has to fit together and make sense. But if your only answer to a question I raise is that I should read physics, then I think you might be misunderstanding my question, or the level upon which I might be asking it. My ignorance of certain findings, or my inability to agree with certain assumptions or to understand the import of certain equations, does not affect the truth. What is true, will remain true, whether I know it, or not. I am not trying to turn anyone away from truth. Just asking people not to ignore contradictions, but to look for the truth that would eliminate the apparent contradiction. If the choice is, to change ones mind, or to change reality, I think the mind is the one that is going to turn out requiring the adjustment. Perhaps mine. Perhaps yours. That is what the discussion is about. Reality is already right.

Acme, I don't think you are scum at all, there were some neg reps that counted more than 1 and you were my next choice, but your reasons were justified. I understood your reasons. I know you. You have been part of the discussion. That I can readily handle because I can do something about it. Either fight or switch. But that is water under the bridge. The task at hand is for me to figure out why honest thoughts I have that appear logical and required to me are viewed as problematic to others. I think Mike is having the same issue. He has a thought, like the solition thing, observes these waves on open water and thinks about the implications. What the heck is wrong with that? Why is that appalling? I don't know what I am missing here. I feel like I am standing on the corner drinking a glass of milk innocently, and everybody is looking at me wierd, like I am suspicious because the only cow in town has gone missing, or something. I know I jump to conclusions on very little evidence, but when there is a whole lot of evidence pointing to a universe that seems to be as capable as capability gets, its perplexing to me, why people would say its impossible for the universe to "know" what it is doing. In a view from 30,000 ft, the place looks pretty well put together, even without the roads and fields, buildings and other works of man. The beauty and structure and fitness of nature is a given. No one denies it. Many, including me, know there can not be an antropomorphic god pulling the strings. Eminations from superior beings is not my drift. But that leaves only a few possibilities. Ideas like its all an illusion and so on, I have ruled out. We are all on some eternal journey of some sort, might hold some water, logically, except for the fact that we are people, and people die. So the reality of the situation must, in my estimation, lie somewhere in the middle, between being eternal, and being non-existant. To that we all have a claim on the universe and reality, and can figure our part in it as full members. As tiny and fleeting as our part in it may be, it is still "everything" to us. And what we can not achieve ourselves we can make possible for our children to achieve, and leave the place at least as nice as we found it, if not maybe a little nicer, for the next generation to enjoy. Science and technology play and incredibly important role in my ability, and all human's ability to predict and modify the world for human benefit. Fairies and Gods and Angels and such are the metaphors we use to describe the actual place and our position in it. But its not as if the place doesn't look and feel clever. Consider just the fact, that as clever as any one of us figures we are, there are 8 or 9 billion other such instances of cleverness, extant on the planet presently. That is a pretty clever Earth to consider already, with just the humans on it. Not even considering the flowers and the bears and the jellyfish and trees. Regards, TAR2

Ophiolite, I see your point. And I am guilty of the same conflation as Mike. And he can explain himself in this regard, but one does not have to abandon precision to embrace touchy-feely interpretations of reality. Not if the touchy-feely interpretations are true, or "could be" true, and still operate with the precision and certitude that an honest scientist would demand. I was reading today about a Japanese Scientist who is studying jellyfish. He has found a microscopic jellyfish that regenerates itself 10 times in a two year period. He thinks the darn thing could live forever. The article suggests such notions as "has the jellyfish found the fountian of youth?". If anyone has ever been stung by a jellyfish, touchy feely wise, we that have been stung could probably easily relegate the little pests to washing up on the sand, being stranded there, and dry up and die. But at the same time we can appreciate the beauty of the little thing, its symetry, its motion through the water, and its victory of grabbing form and structure and keeping it, and passing it on, or maintaining it, in a universe, that otherwise is tending toward entropy. We might "learn" something from the little guys (and or gals, and or its, I really don't precisely know the sex of lack thereof of a jellyfish). But if we were to learn something about regeneration, and longevity from a jellyfish, that would mean the thing knows something, or has "figured out" something, "accidently", that we don't know, that us "mimicking" might provide for some of us that follow the jelly fish's lead, some extended period of existence, as the human form that we are. I don't know exactly how the jelly fish accomplishes this regeneration. Just that, according to this other human being, it does accomplish it. It is capable of this clever feat. It is not metaphor, it is actual. So conflation of the two concepts, the well defined human application of the term, and the somewhat ambiguous, touchy-feely credit we give the jellyfish to have accomplished life, even more cleverly than us in the rejuvenation regard, does not ask the scientist to discard precision and adherence to logic and math, and facts and evidence. Not in the least. In fact we know that only by studying the little guys are we to learn it's secrets. After we find out how it does what it does, we might apply any workable aspects of it's plan, to our plan...through scientific discovery and mimickry. At some point in this thread, I think it was this thread, I mentioned that I thought we did a lot of our thinking outside our brains. Let the world show us what to think, so to speak. In this way, "our" cleverness is not a separate, different concept or usage of the well defined term "cleverness", than the cleverness the "stupid, accidental, non-conscious human" world shows evidence of. It is instead a happy and actual noticing that the universe we are in and of, has some very real and powerful and meaningful capabilities, and our cleverness, how ever one defines it, had to have been a result, of some previous clever arrangements, and therefor we are part and parcel of the world that has spawned us, and that we as a species have grabbed our form and structure from it. So I will admit to your point, Ophiolite, that Mike and I are conflating the cleverness that we exhibit as brilliant, logical, mathematical scientists, able to study and remember the world, predict its activity and create new arrangements of matter and energy that are useful, with the cleverness of nature that makes galaxies and Suns, and Earths, and oceans and jellyfish, and allows us to metabolise and heal and grow and stuff, but the one being actual and the other being metaphoric, is not really the case. There are actual facts, relating the two usages of the term. And there IS evidence of cleverness in nature. Both because we are clever AND natural, and because we are natural AND clever. Regards, TAR

Phi for All, He listened to my lungs, and actually seemed pleased with what he heard as I took long deep breaths (without coughing). He thought I had probably just pulled a muscle somehow in my sleep. But he didn't send me to get an xray or anything. He knew from a previous x-ray that I had some scaring on my lungs from long time heavy smoking, and thought it was an excellent move to stop smoking. He said I was realitively young, and I was good that I stopped, because I was on my way to emphysima (sorry about the spelling) without too much doubt, should I have continued to smoke. Anyway, my blood pressure was excellent, my EKG was good and barring any unforseen news from blood tests, it looks like I will be around for a while. Thanks to both you and Spyman for your words of encouragement. I do believe I am actually done with the little devils this time. Welded the ole door shut, plasterd it over, and painted a nice mural on the wall where that particular door once stood. Won't be using that way out, any more. Thanks. Regards, TAR I'll check back in with weekly reports. That one month mark has been my downfall several times, and the two month mark once or twice. I am not even a little worried that I will make the mistake of "rewarding" myself with a smoke. Not this time. Its too important for me to NOT do something I would have regretted...that is, continue to smoke, knowing it was affected my breathing in a noticable and disturbing manner.

Three weeks now. No nicotine required. Breathing really nicely. Still worried about my left lung, but it does not hurt like it did last week. Will see the doctor tomorrow for my yearly. I really do recommend that anyone that wants to quit, try the trial the next time they wake up, on a Saturday morning. Just to clarify your relationship with nicotine, in your own mind. I smoked off and on for a week after the trial, but I knew I didn't have to smoke. Thanks to the trial. Then when I decided I had smoked my last cigarette, it was the last cigarette I smoked. Regards, TAR I gave my wife 140 in cash in a Birthday card a week after I stopped. Told her it was money for her to burn, because I had not. Feeling flush at the moment, and figure I just gave myself a raise of 5 to 7 thousand dollars a year. Plus a possible few more years of unaided breathing and living.

Physica, I am NOT arguing for intelligent design. You came no where close to winning the Zeno argument. The tortoise can be overtaken by the warrior, despite the fool proof logic that states otherwise. I did not bring the other thread into this one, you did, twice, and now thrice by advertising your wonderful bossing here again. I would like you to, Mike would like you to, drop the stupid Zeno thing, and stop pretending you have brought something wonderful to the discussion. You have no point. You have no purpose, you are adding nothing to the discussion over there, of Mike's Linqual Theory of everything, and adding even less to this discussion of the thing that looks like cleverness in nature, by bringing your percieved brilliant defeat of Tar and Mike, to this thread. You have not defeated us in the least, raised no points of any value or purpose in either this discussion or that one, related to Zeno or the percieved bossing. You can drop those two considerations, Zeno, and the perceived bossing. You are incorrect, on both counts and those discussions and the continuation of those discussions are required only by you, to be continued, not my me or Mike. That is why we have both asked you to stop with the Zeno crap, stop with "I am wonderful and Mike and Tar are spanked babies" crap, and either talk about the issues raised in the threads, or go away. And what is really really really stupid about this, is here I am addressing you, yet again, receiving the same crap back, getting my ire raised again, and responding to you again, addressing you again, doing exactly what you want me to be doing, when I had advised Mike, that our best course of action was to just ignore you, and not address you. So, one last time. Give us your opinion on what the nature of this thing that looks like cleverness in the universe is all about. How it came about, and how we could measure it, predict its activity in the future, and understand its emergence in the past. You have already acknowledged it must exist for us to exist. The thread title is already proved to be true. The objection to the title is only in its "smell" of being a vindication of "clockmaker" arguments. And Mike may have some small tendencies in this direction, and has left open that possibility, but does not require that be the case, and merely says "lets look at this cleverness issue" to see what it means to us, and to science, and to nature. What is it composed of, if there is no watchmaker, and can we measure and talk about the thing, witness and be the thing, in a friendly fashion, explore the thing and embrace the thing, study the thing and so on, from an adult, scientific, fact only, logic only, math only, observation only, real and meaningful point of view? I say we can do this, and need no bossing from you Physica to accoomplish the feat. In fact your "bossing" is a detraction from the topics at hand in each of Mike's threads, that you have invaded. So, one final time. Engage in the discussions, on topic, stop defending yourself, and defend your points, and not by saying yet again that you are vindicated, because TAR is waffling. I AM NOT waffling, you are just PISSING ME OFF, and it IS NOT because I think you have won and I am scattered by your wonderfulness. Its because I want to DEFEAT you because you are a troll, or are acting like a troll. No, wait, not one final time, because I know human nature, I know you already, you will want to vindicate yourself and depreciate me once again. I will just say I have already given you your last chance, as far as I am concerned, and you cannot redeem yourself in my eyes. You have already lost that particular battle, that particular achievement, of gaining TAR's approval, is NOT within your grasp. You are now banned from TAR's conversational circle of 1, with no hope of gaining reentry. And I don't care which of my recent neg reps have come from you, but if it was only one, I still take it as a slap in the face, and rather than slap you back again and again, as seems to be your want, I will just shun you, from here on out. Disregards, TAR And I will simply turn the other cheek upon any further attacks from the troll.

Physica, I gave you, in that other thread, my feelings about Zeno's paradox, and my opinion about the ranking of logic and math and observation, and assumptions and proofs and the like, and indicated to you with fine examples, the fact that logic can be flawed and mathematical proofs can look to be correct, while they are not, and "prove" an untrue thing. The warrior can overtake the tortoise, so there is no need to solve have a theory solve the paradox, because there is none, in my estimation. You kept at Mike and I, both with the same BC logic demand that neither Mike or I saw the import of. You should put your own posts in that thread into your word processor and note how many times you repeated the same demands, which neither Mike or I were understanding or agreeing with. Mike responded to you, that he thought you were being rude, and if we were in person, he would like to teach you some manners. To which you repeated your Zeno BC logic thing, which I had already discounted, and told us you were not being personal, but giving us both the "bossing" that we deserved. I had written a message similar to Mike's to you, but decided to delete it, and figured, in a PM with Mike, that the best thing to do, was to not feed the Troll, and just not address you. Then, on cue you show up on another of Mike's threads and continue your attack. I am sorry that I blamed you for a neg rep that you did not give me, but since the several neg reps I got just recently, were all on replies to you, I made the assumption that they were from you. Any points you tried to make in your posts, I have already countered and have side stepped none, and waffled not a bit. My many word "proof" of there having to be evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, was an attempt to leave no doubt, and remove all objections. As to Zeno, why do you bring him here, when your use of him failed on the Lingual theory of Everything thread? So anyway, as to my proof of evidence of cleverness existing in nature and its processes, let's use Ophiolite's definition. If anybody, can plan a thing and create a thing, and show cleverness, then cleverness exists. If humans, and clever humans at that, are real, which I have no doubt they are, and are products, or biproducts, or emergent components of the universe, then they are examples of natural things that nature has procured, that are clever, have cleverness in them and about them, and are evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. I do not require a brain to conceive of this cleverness beforehand, as Mike has suggested might be something we would find required if we looked at the situation long enough, and I said as much at the start of this thread. So Mike and I do not think with one mind, and what one of us says does not automatically mean the other thinks it. And early on in this thread he acknowledged that cleverness might be the wrong word for what he was looking for, and it was me that brought cleverness back as something there is no doubt that the universe is capable of producing, as that we are clever, and of nature ourselves. This to me is obvious and plain, and does not in the least, force the requirement for an Anthropomorphic God, which I believe I have already, on many occasions suggested is something not required, impossible and which we have absolutely NO evidence of. Regards, TAR And Physica, I don't think you came anywhere close to giving me a bossing. No where even in the vicinity.

Dear Mods. I would like to make an out loud and formal complaint against the individual who gave me a neg rep on 254. I hate neg reps, and do not think I said anything deserving of such in 254. If there is a particular point someone would like to take issue with, where I have crossed a line of logic, or fact, or sensibility, I would accept that challenge, and correct myself if in error, or attempt to defend myself if I think I still have a point. I do believe I even know who it was that gave me the neg rep, as there is a character shadowing Mike Smith Cosmos and I, in several discussions, that I believe is handing out neg reps to us both, which is angering both Mike and I, in that this character is acting in an abusive and condesending manner, for no apparent reason, other than to get Mike and my goat. I take such attacks as personal attacks, and would like to return the favor to Physica, a place a neg rep on any post he makes on any topic in any subformum, just on general, spiteful principle. Except I have not done such, and will not do such. Instead, I would like to challenge Physica to a duel, and fire deadly weapons at each other at 10 paces, so that he can be dead, and my honor restored...except that is illegal. Perhaps a mod could speak with him, or he could just stop trolling Mike and I, or he can keep his hand off the neg rep button and answer our points with appropriate counter points.

RedKnight, I think it is possible to overthink a thing. I do it all the time. Yes there is a "signifigance" issue going on between analogue and digital measurements. For instance, a sweep second hand, spends more time being precisely the right time, than a secound hand that "ticks" between the minute marks. And on a digital clock, the darn thing shows 2:02 for the whole minute between when it was 2:01 and 2:03. You can not tell, just looking at it, whether it just turned 2:02 or is about to change to 2:03. Looking at the brass rooster on the barn roof, you actually see exactly which direction the wind is blowing at the moment, and every little wiggle and angle tells you significantly, something about the wind direction, as that rigidly attached to the roof, nearby the pivoting rooster, is an indicator pointing North, which gives you South and East and West and NW and SSE and so on to judge the wind, or measure the wind as coming from. You cannot though, from the ground say the wind is coming from 271 degrees, 12 minutes, and 42 seconds from North, counting clockwise from the top, because the rooster setup was not designed to judge the wind direction that precisely. The N on the appartus might not even be alligned exactly toward the North Pole, as someone could have positioned the thing using a compass, that was pointing toward magnetic North. In anycase, all these factors are significant and therefore judging the wind direction from the ground the 42 seconds has no meaning, the 12 minutes has no meaning and the 271 has no meaning. You can just say the wind is coming from the West. So us overthinkers, you and me both, have to learn to use the terms like significant digits, exactly in the way they were designed to be used, for the purposes they were designed to be used, and excercise good judgement in applying them, not taking something too literally if it would be silly to do such, or too liberally if it would be silly to do such, but follow the letter of and the principle behind the rule. All the other aspects of measurement and significance you are referring to are still real and meaningful, and must be considered when taking a measurement and reporting it, but a measurement of 5 degrees has but one significant digit. It is NOT effectively three. Regards, TAR

RedKnight, I see your question. I had the same kind of misunderstanding of the principle, when I learned about measuring practices in Physics, at NJIT many years ago. You are thinking that a measure of 355 degrees is no more or less accurate, and no more or less significant than a measure of 5 degrees, so a measure of 5, when it comes to degrees, should be just as significant, of equal significance, so to speak, as a measure of 355 degrees, that is ranked as having 3 significant digits. So "effectively" you figure that 5, by itself, is good to, or is "as if" it has 3 significant digits. Well, as it turns out, as everyone else has already explained, it does not mean that a particular number has a significance rank, it means that if you cannot accurately measure to a particular precision, any numbers guessed at, averaged, interpolated or otherwise arrived at signifying that you have measured something to an accuracy greater than you are capable of measuring, are not significant of anything, and should be discarded. So 5 degrees has one significant digit, 12 degrees has 2 significant digits and 355 has three significant digits, and in all cases you are promising you have the ability to measure in whole degrees. If you had reported measuring 5 degrees and said to someone that was good to three significant digits, you would be insinuating that you had measured it as 5.00 degrees and had the ability to measure with no question to hundredth of a degree, and with some lesser degree of certainty, to 1000ths of a degree. The general rule, as I understand it, is to report only significant digits, and when mixing data where one set of data is reported to lets say tenths of a gram and another set is reported to hundreths of a gram, you should round your more accurate data to the significant digits available in the set with fewer significant digits before merging the data. Example. If I say I wheigh 200 pounds and Jim says he wheighs 200.00865 pounds, the two of us together, would wheigh 400 pounds, not 400.00865 pounds. If however, I reported my wheight as 200.00 pounds, I believe you could report our combined wheight as 400.01 pounds. But it was a long time ago, I took physics at NJIT. The correct reported combined wheight may be 400.0. I will yield to BigNose for the actual conventional treatment of those two measurements, added together. Regards, TAR

Physica, Let's make two assumptions, one that there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, and one that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. Stipulated in the assumptions is that there is such a thing as nature, and that it has processes of some sort, which we have not shown yet to show evidence of cleverness or not. Any example of, or definition of cleverness existing or not existing, in whole or in part in this instance or that of nature or its processes, would be at the very least, acknowledgement that there is such a thing as cleverness to be considered within reality. The existence of a single peice of evidence that there is such a thing as cleverness anywhere in nature and it processes, would negate the statement "there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes", and this same one peice of evidence that there is such a thing as cleverness at all in reality, would prove that indeed there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, if one makes an additional assumption, that there is nothing other than nature and its processes, from which reality is constructed. So of the two assumptions, one that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, and the other, that there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, one is negated by the evidence and one is supported by the evidence. It makes no difference whether we agree on how this cleverness came about, or if we even have a suitable guess as to how this cleverness came about. Or if this cleverness is spread about evenly or appears in clumps or individual examples or a plethora of examples. The question is whether or not there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. Any cleverness would be an example of and evidence of cleverness. Any non cleverness would be an example of and evidence of there being something clever to judge against. Any judgement at all would also require a clever judge to do the judging. In all cases the evidence points toward accepting the assumption that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and it processes and rejecting the assumption that there is no evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. Just asking the question proves a clever judge to ask it. And many other clever judges to answer and pick between the assumptions. Left then in question is whether any of these many judges is unnatural, or can establish any existence that has come about for any unnatural reason. Since this is a science board, no unnatural explanations for cleverness will be accepted, leaving only natural explanations, and leaving standing only one of the assumptions, that is, that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. Regards, TAR

hoola, I like the triangulation idea. In determining the truth you can do it one way, and be right/correct/smart/capable, do it more than one way and you are intelligent and the thing is more true and workable and valuable as it becomes applicable to more than one area or you "kill two birds with one stone". The triangulation you speak of is that next step up where the thing is true and known in more than one way and you use this knowledge in yet another way, this third way, the proper application of the triangulation provides the kind of thing one could call wisdom. Perhaps upon triangulation you find reason not to throw the stone. Regards, TAR Hoola, Your idea also goes nicely with an old YMCA idea an uncle of mine often promoted. That of stregthening the mind, the body and the spirit of young men. He, my uncle was instrumental in establishing many YMCA camps in the PA,NJ,NY area back in the 50s and 60s. Perhaps he was wise to do such a thing. Regards, TAR

Mike, Thanks for the quick bio. Important for me to remember, when I notice stuff about the world, that its been looked at before, and thought about before. Also important, I think, for the young folk coming up to remember that some of the things in the world that they take for granted came from somebody's ideas and work bringing the ideas into reality. Sure we have fantastic systems and tremendous knowledge at our finger tips, but somebody was programming Commodore 64's and bringing digital copiers into the business world, and designing pedal powered electrical storage and such, that laid some of the groundwork, for what we have now. Regards, TAR