Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >> There have been some evolutionary experiments that have been done.
> > 
> >   So, how many fish have they converted into cats like this?
> > 
> >   (I hope you get the point.)

> It takes a long time to convert a fish into a cat. So?

> How many complete orbits of pluto have been observed? How do you know it 
> is really orbiting the sun?

  Yes, both things are comparable in complexity.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'd be happy to hear about other things that the hypotheses of 
> "inflation" or "dark energy" have predicted that were observed only 
> after those hypotheses were proposed. It would greatly reduce my 
> skepticism. :-)

  You are welcome to propose a better theory. (How come this sounds
familiar?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Real word trains can't go fast enough.

  Yes, and machines will never fly.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'd be happy to hear about other things that the hypotheses of 
>> "inflation" or "dark energy" have predicted that were observed only 
>> after those hypotheses were proposed. It would greatly reduce my 
>> skepticism. :-)
> 
>   You are welcome to propose a better theory. (How come this sounds
> familiar?)

I have no better theory. However, I have no evidence at all that the 
current theory is "right". I'm sure someone probably has some evidence, 
but that's why I asked for the evidence, you see.  Maybe there's a whole 
bunch of evidence pointing to dark energy as a real thing out there, and 
I just haven't heard about it. Given how wide-spread the "dark matter" 
evidence was all over, I kind of doubt it.

The difference, again, is that when evidence is presented that a theory 
is correct, I can actually change my mind. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>> There have been some evolutionary experiments that have been done.
>>>   So, how many fish have they converted into cats like this?
>>>
>>>   (I hope you get the point.)
> 
>> It takes a long time to convert a fish into a cat. So?
> 
>> How many complete orbits of pluto have been observed? How do you know it 
>> is really orbiting the sun?
> 
>   Yes, both things are comparable in complexity.

No, of course not. But you haven't expressed why you think creating a 
new species over the course of a few weeks or a few years couldn't 
easily lead to creating a cat out of a fish over the course of a few 
million. All the mechanisms to make it happen are understood, and 
technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and 
non-living environments.

What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant 
TB is evolved from earlier TB? Do you believe that seedless grapes 
evolved from grapes with seeds? Do you believe that dogs evolved from 
wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.

I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of 
evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence, have no alternate 
theory to propose that explains any of the evidence, and still say "I 
don't think it could be right." It just sounds a bit crazy to me.

But that's OK.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:16:20 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Darren New wrote:
>> But the conductor of the eastbound train will see the westbound train  
>> get onto the tracks later than he does, and vice versa.
>
> Actually, I meant to say "may see" there. And it looks like based on  
> that wikipedia article that the conductor will actually see the other  
> train get to its junction *before* he gets to his own. Very strange.

Though won't the double track also seem foreshortened?

To quote from somewhere - a conductor stands on the platform of the train  
station and sees that the railline has collapsed leaving a large hole. The  
train coming towards him is travelling at near-light speed and the  
shortening effect means that from the conductor's POV the train is short  
enough to fit neatly into the hole, except he can see that it's travelling  
so fast it'll just sail straight over the gap without falling far enough  
to get stuck. From the train's POV the hole is shortened to a tiny gap so  
the driver expects to experience just a small jolt as he goes over it. So  
both points of view match the expectations of both.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/03 21:10:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>>> There have been some evolutionary experiments that have been done.
>>>>   So, how many fish have they converted into cats like this?
>>>>
>>>>   (I hope you get the point.)
>>
>>> It takes a long time to convert a fish into a cat. So?
>>
>>> How many complete orbits of pluto have been observed? How do you know 
>>> it is really orbiting the sun?
>>
>>   Yes, both things are comparable in complexity.
> 
> No, of course not. But you haven't expressed why you think creating a 
> new species over the course of a few weeks or a few years couldn't 
> easily lead to creating a cat out of a fish over the course of a few 
> million. All the mechanisms to make it happen are understood, and 
> technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and 
> non-living environments.
> 
> What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant 
> TB is evolved from earlier TB? Do you believe that seedless grapes 
> evolved from grapes with seeds? Do you believe that dogs evolved from 
> wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.
> 
> I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of 
> evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence, have no alternate 
> theory to propose that explains any of the evidence, and still say "I 
> don't think it could be right." It just sounds a bit crazy to me.
> 
> But that's OK.
> 
They actualy made dogs out of foxes. Over just a few generation, taking only the 
more dociles and crossbreading them. The foxes went from redish fur to brown and 
black fur, stoped yaping to start barking.
The goal was to ease the farm raising of foxes for the furs.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when your personal correspondence to 
friends starts out with #Dear Linda =
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Though won't the double track also seem foreshortened?

Yes, but the oncoming train will seem *more* foreshortened.

> travelling so fast it'll just sail straight over the gap without falling 
> far enough to get stuck.

Not ... exactly. The problem isn't that he doesn't fall far enough. The 
problem is that the bottom of the train starts falling before the top 
does, kind of.

And in that case, there are only two speeds involved (the track and the 
train), rather than the three in Warp's original problem.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> They actualy made dogs out of foxes. Over just a few generation, taking 
> only the more dociles and crossbreading them. The foxes went from redish 
> fur to brown and black fur, stoped yaping to start barking.
> The goal was to ease the farm raising of foxes for the furs.

I saw that. They also got floppy ears and curly tails. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:477abc37@news.povray.org...
> Xavier Manget <NOS### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> If the trains' speeds are close enough to the speed of light, 
>> because of
>> relativistic length contraction  (and with correct timing) the 
>> trains will
>> have enough length to pass each other on the double track?...
>
>> Did I get it? :-p
>
>  Yes.
>
>  (Had you heard of the thought experiment, or did you figure it 
> out on
> your own?)
>
> -- 
>                                                          - Warp

This could only be true if the trains and the track are uncoupled.
They are not, so any contraction of trains will apply equally to 
the
track. Same problem, different scale for an outside observer.

Post a reply to this message