JackC

Eh? Nope, the original proof was right: if x=0.999... then 10x=9.999... and 10x-x=9, 9x=9 and x=1 I was trying to think of it another way: if x=0.999... then 10x=9.999... which is asyptotically equal to 10. This is because there is no finite number that you can subtract from 10 to give you 9.999... Thinking in terms of finite numbers is confusing and leads to wrong answers. For most people thinking of infinities is equally confusing. What I do is think of what a number tends to. For example 0.9999... tends towards 1 as more decimal places are added. 9.999... tends towards 10, 1/x tends to zero as x tends to infinity, etc.

Isn't that a bit misleading? For any finite number of decimal places there isn't a one to one correlation between x and 10x, there's always one extra decimal place in x compared to 10x. The proof only works because there is no final decimal place in an infinite series. For every decimal place of 0.9999... there is always a corresponding one for 9.9999... As soon as you truncate x the proof fails. Thinking of it the other way around by taking 0.9999... and multiplying it by 10 gives you 9.999... This is asymptotically equal to 10 because you cannot take any finite number away from 10 to give you 9.999... At least that's how I'd think of it.

Hmmm... I must suck more than I thought.

Well, I finally figured out how to use the recording gear I've got, well enough to actually capure something but not well enough to do any mixing or cleanup jobs. It's rough around the edges and stinky as a pig farm in August so I though you guys might like to tell me how bad I suck. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=785382&content=music

It works because the value of 0.99999... extends to infinity (the ellipsis is used to imply the continuation of a series) . As soon as you tuncate the value of 0.99999... to something finite, the proof fails. Infinities are best avoided, they're usually trouble. For example the series a=1+2+3+4+... adds up to infinity. The series b=1+2+4+8+16+... also adds up to infinity. Clearly for any finite series containing n terms, a

I haven't read it all, I got to the photo-electric effect and figured he was wrong, but either way his work is incomplete without a full mathematical treatment (which he repeatedly asks for some charitable reader to do for him, presumable he either can't be bothered do it himself or isn't capable). This fact alone screams quack.

Hmm... so the speed of light depends on whether it's upside down or not. Interesting. You should call the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. They might give you a prize.

There is a branch of physics called "soild state physics" that deals with, you guessed it, solids. The sort of solids that Rutherford discovered actually had gaps in them. Physicists use the word solid because that's a pretty good description of what it is, despite Rutherford's "gaps". In strict physics terms, the phrase "soild state" actually refers to anything that isn't a gas or a plasma but that will just confuse the issue so forget I mentioned it. On an atomic scale, solids do have gaps in them but they are "quantum gaps". They are not macroscopic gaps or even what most people would consider to be a gap. You cannot drive you car through a "quantum gap" nor can you poke your finger through one. "Quantum gaps" only allow quantum particles to pass through. Rutherford didn't use golf balls in his experiment, he used alpha particles. Alpha particles are quantum particles, not golf balls. They behave like alpha particles, they do not behave like golf balls. You can diffract alpha particle, you cannot diffract golf balls. Or cats (I could tell you why but it's a bad joke and a long story) If we take your definition of solid, not only will physicists have to work hard to decypher what you're talking about but in fact there can be no earth bound solids. You'd have to travel to the nearest neutron star to find anything that you would even recognise as being "a bit firm". If you want to carry on with your definition, go right ahead but don't expect people to understand you. That's not the energy I was refering to which is the exact problem with using the same word for mystic energy* as you do for scientific energy (mystic energy* will henceforth be denoted by an asterisk). To quote you "The duality concept in religion, most often of the masculine and feminine energies*, ... Taoism refers to it as yin and yang." Note the asterisk. This is the type of energy* that is not energy but is a completely different concept. Mass is not energy, momentum is not energy, velocity is not energy, coal is not energy, rock is not energy and energy* is not energy. All of those things (except energy*) may possess energy or have a mathematical relationship to energy but they are not energy. No, the sun does have energy. It does not have energy*, or if it does then I don't know anything about it. It's not these trivial similarities that are being denied. In fact I am asserting that these similarities are just that. Trivial. The thing I'm denying, is that these similarities are non-trivial as you originally tried to suggest. But I'm glad we have now agreed that any similarity between concepts in hard science and concepts in eastern religion are trivial. Synonyms for trivial include: commonplace, diminutive, evanescent, everyday, flimsy, frivolous, immaterial, inappreciable, incidental, inconsequential, inconsiderable, insignificant, irrelevant, little, meager, mean, meaningless, microscopic, minor, minute, momentary, negligible, nonessential, nugatory, paltry, petty, piddling, puny, rinky-dink, scanty, skin-deep, slight, small, small-town, superficial, trifling, trite, two-bit, unimportant, valueless, vanishing, wee, worthless I'm glad we cleared that up.

You seem to have a very non-standard definition of "solid". Not to mention a very non-scientific definition of the word "energy" (possibly the most misused word of all in these science/religion crossover debates). This is the problem with comparing concepts in the hard sciences with esoteric philosophies of religion and mysticism and is the exact point I made earlier. Science has very strict rules on what is and what isn't energy. People take a very tortuous definition of scientific "energy" and try to force it to fit the esoteric mystic "energy". It's pure 100% bollocks because they aren't even the same concept, let alone the same "stuff". Pop science books do more harm than good sometimes.

What, that's it? I stand by my SpongeBob analogy.

Please feel free to give examples of these obvious similarities.

I think that in order to extract any similarity you need to take such a tortuous understanding of the physics that any comparison is totally invalid. It's like saying this tiny bit of a contour map of Switzerland is similar to SpongeBob SquarePants. You have to get down really low and squint and even then... whoopdeefookindoo

Faith and other forms of knowledge?! How is faith a form of knowledge? It's not even a best guess. The interplay between theoretical physics and Hindu spirituality exists solely in the mind of the individual. I think trying to hook physics and spirituality together like this is a basically just a barely amusing conicidence. It's like saying astrology and astronomy are flip sides of the same coin. Erm... no, not even close.

Saying Christianity is the only faith that adequately deals with sin is like saying JRR Tolkien is the only one who adequately deals with Hobbits. They are both fictional concepts in fictional worlds.

Not bad at all. I love to see new talent on a guitar. I still think that Guthrie Govan could well the best electric guitarist alive. The lick at 1:44 is inconceivably hard. Athough I'm diggin' Antoine Dufour and Don Ross at the moment too. ...and John Petrucci, Buckethead, Paul Gilbert, Danny Gatton... Well, you get the idea.

That's not true. I can see there are many ways to interpret the bible. The literalist view is not consistent with logic and within the limits of logic, it can be shown to be false. But that's the only one that can conclusively be shown to be false and even then only within those very rigid rules. Other interpretations have to be dealt with on a case by case basis and have varying degrees of validity. You don't even need to believe in God to take something positive away from the Bible. Christian-Atheist is a perfectly possible position to hold although more orthodox Christians may disagree. There is a difference. The 45 degree rule affects you as a skydiver immediately. Creationism being taught as science (whether inside or outside school) doesn't affect you directly or physically so you might be happy to let it slide. But it does affect the children subjected to it, which in turn affects society and therefore affects everyone. There's no point going after every piece of BS you see but in my opinion the ones that have lasting consequences, even if they don't affect you personally, are worth calling.

Bill, it was an analogy, surely you could see that. Not all religious belief is evil, I never said it was. The point is not whether a belief (any belief, not necessarily religious) is evil (whatever that means) but that simply sitting by and doing nothing when you see obvious bullshit allows that bullshit to be perpetuated. It doesn't matter whether it's the the 45 degree rule for exit separation or Darwin's theory of evolution or the length of Bill Booth's beard. Doing nothing allows that bullshit to thrive. Presumably since you are happy for people to believe anything at all in a religious setting, you're equally happy for people to believe anything at all when planning exit separations too. Or do you have separate rules for religion? Perhaps you would do me the curtesy of pointing out where I said any of that because that wasn't my intent. It seems you are persistently misunderstanding me, so I guess my writing must be really shitty because I can't imagine you would do it intentionally, would you Bill?

Edmund Burke is credited with saying "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I just think that not calling bullshit when you see it is the educational equivalent of doing nothing. That's how you get into a situation where more people believe in the Devil than believe in evolution.

I was trying to make a general point that opinions, whatever they may be, should be justified if they are to be respected. In the special case of religion, some beliefs are racist or homophobic or misogynistic, with no real justification, and it looks as though you respect that. Feel free to clarify your position.

Pointless ain't it.

They don't have to justify anything to anyone. And I don't have to respect unjustified opinions. "Because I said so" isn't something I can get on board with. "Because of A, B and C" is much more likely to peak my interest. If you take it to extremes, racism is unjustified and I don't respect it. Are you saying that you would, so long as it worked for them?

I have no desire to stop people believing in whatever they want, but I would ask them to justify their position if they want any respect fot it. Especially if those beliefs affect others who do not share them.

Yep, but if you want me to beleive "it" you're gonna need to define what "it" is first. I used to be with "it", but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't it, and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me. ~ Grampa Simpson

That's not my definition, it's Biblical. Not everyone is a Biblical literalist of course. Who said that was my belief? I am fully aware of where my logic is valid and where it isn't. I'm strongly atheistic about certain gods and apathetically agnostic about others, but I place no faith in any of them. Although it's more true to say the concept of "god" is so wooly and esoteric that it holds no meaning for me. When pressed, it usually turns out that theists don't have a self-consistent and fully functional definition of what god is either.