Chemistry Talk

hanson · Guest

Awe "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> did you crank yourself
in your urinAl when you wrote so excitedly in your message
news:4659FFCF.9F4CFEE2@hate.spam.net...

Y · Guest

That is just a foolish comment. Although I do suspect that whatever
Jesus was made of is still something somewhere. As will you be when
you pass on. That is; unless they had space cannons 2000 years ago and
the body of Christ was sucked into a black hole.

-y

On May 28, 8:01 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

hanson · Guest

Y · Guest

It is common sense really. Why place the model on Jesus or these other
characters ? It is amusing I admit.

Why not place the model on everyone and all living things on land ?
Interestingly, there exists a tiny glitch in the system you speak of.
Nitrogen was transmuted into oxygen in 1919. Most of the quantitative
studies in my youth was placed on the 'will women ever outrun men in
the olympic games' idea. There are allot of drawbacks with alchemy as
in any philosophy. Although my belief is that some of it should be
practiced without proof if that makes sense. Nanobots are a scary but
very real panacea solution on the cards. How this is possible baffles
me, unless the DNA blueprint in an organic system is considered to be
perfect. How does the nanobot learn ? How does any good student of
models learn ? It must first disassemble. Broken and disassembled toys
are just a reminder that the material reality we faced as children is
just a pertinent issue as it is in adult life !

The problem is that certain people who get tied up in logical problems
require proof; so alchemy tends to cross into all physical sciences.
Infact, I suggest that the past 100 years of scientific exploration
has been almost completely alchemical in direction. Atomic energy,
Nano-technology, DNA. Some conspiracy theorist put this down to 'alien
visits'. But lets face it; where would we be without calculus ?

Most of this at a very basic level comes from the modern re-uptake of
calculus (Newton:Alchemist) applied in just about every facet of
science. One of the drawbacks of calculus is that I know without a
shadow of doubt that all calculus is practiced now on calculators with
no real infinity and no real zero, so this begs the question what is
really logical here ? I can hold up my hands and demonstrate that
there is no apple in it, so I can effectively demonstrate nothing and
this makes me able to demonstrate logic. Machines will never possess
this ability. They don't possess this ability now. The 'digital' logic
we are familiar with is based on the transistor which can never have a
real zero. Something like a .000000000000000000001 and this = 0 or
(off).

One alchemical goal is to create a life from scratch. Artificial
Intelligence for example.
Machines will never be able to understand nothing. They will only ever
understand something. They might be able to show nothing, but they
will never recognize it, and this will make them very stubborn
negotiators. This is because whatever view of space they can have will
only ever be in 'resolutions'.

Transistor.
Allot of people know that a transistor has no real zero. How can a
transistor ever be completely logical ? If a group of transistors
manages to become self aware (we may have established a life from
scratch) but that machine will never be a logical machine.

Back to Calculus.
The other thing about calculus is that it is used to predict the
future. So, calculus starts to become something like fortune telling
in my personal view. We have already mapped out the future with
regards to a scientific direction. And, money is the accelerator of
this force. I have nothing against it but what I do hate with a very
burning passion is that most of us have lost respect for the model.

The Model.
We know that realizations regarding material reality will always outdo
those realizations made in the astrophysics (Well at least for the
next 600 years or so as the world begins to tackle its material and
energy problems). Everything we create no matter what it is, is some
kind of model. There tends to be an overwhelming passion and drive for
the building of models and yet almost all practical sense of
disassembly is being lost as models are distributed to an very unaware
public obsessed with images rather than material realities. I started
a new recycling campaign at my house, and it has become a very
seriously intricate enterprise. My bin takes plastics, metals, papers,
glass. So I have been contemplating the possibility of removing all
the plastic from my old PC monitor, and placing that in the bin. Then,
I will melt off all the solder from the chip board into a tray and
place that in the bin. When it gets to the chips I am absolutely
incapable of disassembly, not to mention that the glass is some
strange composite of plastics and LCD crystals.

Recycling approaches are something that will become more and more
important. And chemists will play an important role.

As models become more and more complex disassembly is also rapidly
approaching impossibility. My suggestion is that it has already
reached this critical point.

I mean this insanity goes so far that certain models, (nano-robots)
may even be capable of disassembling us !

hehehe, I never forgot my No. 5 is alive lesson : DISASSEMBLE.

-y

On May 29, 12:14 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: