IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP


Ken Collins KPaulC at email.msn.com
Sun Aug 8 21:44:24 EST 1999


Alan M Dunsmuir wrote in message ...
>In article <eo#xIfE4#GA.52 at cpmsnbbsa05>, Ken Collins
><KPaulC at email.msn.com> writes
>>period shortens.
>> On the bottom of the bob?
>>period lengthens.
>That really is amusing. When you hadn't had a chance to look it up in a
>standard reference, or to carry out the experiment for yourself, and you
>only had your famous wtb2t to fall back on, that - so you assured
>everybody who would listen, over a period of several weeks - told you in
>unmistakable terms that the extra mass would mean it was more difficult
>to push the pendulum along, which meant that the pendulum would slow
>down, whether the new weight was above the c of g of the bob, or below

Yeah, and i stand on what i said... but what i said was looking a bit deeper
into the problem than folks appreciated at the time.

as i said in an earlier reply in this thread, the 'system' is the 'clock' +
the rest of the Universe.

if the "clock's" bob is more 'massive', then more 'force' is required to
impart motion through a given distance to the bob'.

work = fd.

energy = the ability to do work.

more work = more energy sent to disorder, in rigorous accord with wdb2t.

so, the 'system' runs down sooner than it, otherwise, whould have.

you know, Alan, what you do is Cheap. it's =easy= to jump on something new
and just-becoming... before it's translated into new nomenclature that will
communicate its new essence.

but, in the end, that which is purchased Cheap shows itself for what it is.

>You accused me of lying then

the discussion is archived, but i'm not going go back to look it up.

my recollection was that you jumped-me, then, as you've attempted to
jump-me, now.

my recollection is that you just didn't care about comprehending anything i
was saying... all you did was trash just about everything i posted.

but i don't recall accusing you of lying, although, as i noted in a prior
post in this thread, i did recognize then, as i do now, that you had, and
have, little regard for Truth.

i stand on that assessment.

>(just as you accuse me of lying now when I
>recount how you phoned Tom's employers to get him sacked, because he
>kept moving your nonsense from 'Physics' to 'Speculative Science')

i don't discuss 3rd-party matters, but i never did as you say. i did make a
telephone call with respect to my being Censored in the CIS "Science Forum",
hoping that a standard of openness in Scientific discussion could be
meaningfully communicated, in a way that would make a difference, but i
never did as you say.

on behalf of others, i can do more. i'll die without ever having done
anything such as you say i did on my own behalf.

if anyone expressed, to you, that which you've said, and you've accurrately
conveyed that which was expressed to you, that which was expressed to you
was False...

...and the Censorship continues, now, with respect to my speaking-up about
having been Censored.

the way such computes is easy to discern.

>I told you that the clock pendulum in 'Big Ben' was regulated by penny
>coins being placed either at the top of, or at the bottom of, its
>weight, depending on whether the clock was running fast or slow.

yes, and then i looked up, those years ago, and saw that the thing that
matters is the length of the pendulum, and it was a small step to translate
change in center of mass to pendulum length...

...and, when i did, i saw that i'd been stuck in a 'tweener... i was working
on the larger set of things that are the focus of Tapered Harmony... the
system with respect to which there exist no 'sub-systems'.

i started developing what became Tapered Harmony when i was 11. did it just
for the 'fun' of doing it. i never talked about it with anyone, so there
just wasn't any need for 'words'... which, when my work in Neuroscience was
attacked from the perspective of "physics"... so-called, "discrete
'states'", and all, i just started scrambling to do quick translations out
of the non-verbal, internal reifications of the understanding.

a few folks, back then (Jon, Emory, Peter, and some others whose Names exist
too-deeply within me, just now, to recall, deserve acknowledgement), did
see, at least a bit, of what i was, then, endeavoring to communicate. i
remain Grateful to these Folks, whose actions, whether or not intended, made
things endurable for me.

>>now, what about the FLT Proof?
>You never had any FLT proof, Ken.

i could write a little program that'd construce and send msgs consisting of
"ho-ho", ad infinitum, but i'll just write:

ho-ho ^ (ho-ho)

and tell you that there was never a more-rigorous equation written.

>Arm waving doesn't count as mathematical proof.

B. S. doesn't count as valid criticism.

>What your proof said was:
>"I realised as I was taking a shower this morning that if x^n + y^n =
>z^n is true for some x, y and z, and n = 2, then it can't possibly also
>be true for any n > 2, since the left hand side will always be a little
>less than, or a little more than, the right hand side.   QED"

nope... as i told you then, i tell you now. what the Proof says is, "A
Square is a Square".

>I just hope I never have to rely on any computer software which you have
>had a hand in writing.

ho-ho ^ (ho-ho)...

...it's a Certainty that you, and everyone else, already is.

K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net