On 22/12/2024 11:02, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 12:14:28 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah... he's not my favourite pope. I wonder if there will be a huge
>>> backlash and a super conservative pope when it's time for him to go? I
>>> heard rumours that one contender for the papacy is the only swedish
>>> cardinal Anders (?) Arborelius.
>>
>> I had hopes for Benedict. I think he got tired of a fight he knew he
>
> Interesting. My wife had a private audience with Benedict once. She said
> he seemed like a nice guy.
>
>> wasn't going to win. There is a lot of local controversy after the bishop
>> banned the Latin Mass altogether. I think there is a Society of Saint
>> Pius
>> V priest who still does a traditional Mass two or three Sundays a month.
>> SSPV is sedevacantist, rather than SSPX which skates on thin ice which is
>> a quandary for the trads who don't want to go the whole route.
>
> The great strength and the great weakness of christianity is that they
> are bound by the book. This is a problem in todays woke world, but if
> they let it go, they won't be christians any longer. I respect the guys
> who struggled to reconcile the book with todays world without giving it
> up completely.

I square the circle by thinking of the Bible and religion a 'not life as
it was or is, but life as it ought to have been' .

That is it expresses a desire for a particular way of life, and gives
pragmatic hints on how to achieve it.

Its confusion with esoteric philosophy and mysticism is its greatest
weakness

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 22/12/2024 11:28, D wrote:
>> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient intelligence
>> with a Plan in charge.
>>
>> Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply
>> more complicated than necessary to explain this shit.
>
> I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has
> happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.
>
I wasn't talking about the *practice* of science, or of religion for
that matter. I was talking about their metaphysical *beliefs*.

> I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down waaaay
> too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, in
> reality "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the questions
> is lacking?

Precisely, In many ways the God explanation is simpler :

"God did it all, and faked it so it looks like he was never there at
all, to test you fuckers"

....there are only three people who understand quantum physics and two of
them are liars....

But if you examine Occam from outside the confines of realism and
materialism, he makes perfect sense.

1. The problem of induction means that no inference can ever be proved
to be correct.
2. So given that its all bullshit anyway, why not pick the simplest
bullshit that fits the facts?
3. ...And fits within the accepted already established bullshit, that
works...

That is today's problem., People are absolutely reluctant to abandon the
established bullshit, that works.

Even when they know it is actually wrong.

The Kuhnian paradigm shift is staring them in the face, but they simply
cant accept it.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 2024-12-22, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> The great strength and the great weakness of christianity is that they
> are bound by the book. This is a problem in todays woke world,

The woke are bound by their own book - which is far more outlandish
than the Bible.

> but if they let it go, they won't be christians any longer. I respect
> the guys who struggled to reconcile the book with todays world without
> giving it up completely.

The literalists have always had - and been - a problem. I resolved the
issue in my school days. The literature classes we took taught us about
metaphor and simile, and I saw no reason why the seven days of creation
should not be metaphorical rather than literal. Suddenly there was no
conflict. There are lots of things like that in the book.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 2024-12-22, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 12:17:41 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> I'm following the career of Musk with great interest! I wonder if he
>>> will be the first trillionaire? I also wonder if he will eventually burn
>>> out or if something will happen to him since he's achieved so much in
>>> such a short time.
>>
>> I'm not nominating Musk but I do believe the out of fashion Great Man
>> theory. With the mediocrity of the political class you get nothing but
>> mediocrity, or equity as they style in.
>
> Who do you think will be the first trillionaire?

Musk, of course. It won't take too many more of the 10% jumps in net
worth that billionares have been enjoying lately, and once Trump is
inaugurated we'll see enough more of those jumps to put Musk over the top.

Whether things stay that way or collapse immediately thereafter remains
to be seen. But he'll have at least touched the sky...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 10:09:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The real demise in my book was not the zeppelin hydrogen fire, but the
> USS Shenandoah, which was literally torn in half by bad weather.

The thing to remember about the US zepplin attempts is they were based on
the design of a captured German zepplin "Height Climber". There were
designed to operate at 20,000', higher than the aircraft of the day, to
bomb Britain. They sacrificed strength to cut weight.

In the film 'Hells Angels', there is a scene where after ditching
everything to gain altitude the crew lines up and dutifully jumps.

The US did some improvements but gave up eventually. iirc only one
survived.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 15:11:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I square the circle by thinking of the Bible and religion a 'not life as
> it was or is, but life as it ought to have been' .

Much evil has come from chasing dreams of the ought rather than accepting
the is.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 17:23:12 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> The literalists have always had - and been - a problem. I resolved the
> issue in my school days. The literature classes we took taught us about
> metaphor and simile, and I saw no reason why the seven days of creation
> should not be metaphorical rather than literal. Suddenly there was no
> conflict. There are lots of things like that in the book.

Literacy and the printing press allowed many people to read the bible and
come up with novel interpretations.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:55:57 +0100, D wrote:

> Montana is on the list! Someone suggested that we might like eastern
> Oregon. Someone suggested Wyoming, but that maybe is too flat?

Much of Wyoming is high prairie. There are signs on I-80 when you cross
the Continental Divide but it's hard to discern exactly where it might
be. You hit mountain ranges in the west including the Tetons. Even
Yellowstone, while definitely worth visiting, is mostly flat, at least the
more accessible parts.. Grand Teton NP is at the southern border of
Yellowstone and is where the fun begins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park

The Bighorns are another spur, but not as dramatic as the Tetons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bighorn_Mountains

That page has a nice relief map for reference.

Eastern Oregon is also pretty flat high desert until you get to the
Cascades.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 12:03:49 +0100, D wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 12:17:41 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> I'm following the career of Musk with great interest! I wonder if he
>>> will be the first trillionaire? I also wonder if he will eventually
>>> burn out or if something will happen to him since he's achieved so
>>> much in such a short time.
>>
>> I'm not nominating Musk but I do believe the out of fashion Great Man
>> theory. With the mediocrity of the political class you get nothing but
>> mediocrity, or equity as they style in.
>>
>>
> Who do you think will be the first trillionaire?

I think there were a lot of trillionaires in Germany after WWI.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:50:00 +0100, D wrote:

> I shudder at the memory of differential equations and my
> electromagnetism course. I quickly came to the conclusion that I found
> math and physics boring. I was able to push through some of those
> courses by sheer will power, but I realized, why should I spend 4 years
> on something that I find is boring?

Each discipline had courses that sorted the sheep from the goats. diff-e
and e-mag theory were two for the ee's. o-chem did in the potential
chemists. iirc thermodynamics weeded out the civil engineers.

When I took diff-e a friend had a bet with the TA for the course on
whether I would pass. My attendance in class was spotty to say the least
and the TA said 'No way'. He lost.

> So after jumping through legal hoops, and proving to the university that
> my idea was correct and theirs wrong, they let me pick my own courses as
> long as the course difficulty level (A, B, C, D level) met some
> pre-specified levels. So in the end the emphasis was on IT and
> philosophy,
> with a healthy dose of psychology, business, finance etc.

That was the nice thing about the psychology department. There were a few
required courses but it was mostly a la carte.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:43:48 +0100, D wrote:

> It is interesting when the act of focusing takes away from the activity
> such as carrying a glass of water. If you consciously try to balance it
> to avoid spilling, it gets worse, if you trust your instincts, it
> generally goes better. My theory is that when you consciously try to do
> it, you engage a lot of extra machinery which adds latency, and that is
> why you get "out of sync" vs when you try the intuitive way.

'Zen and the Art of Archery' It's an interesting feeling when it all
clicks. I always shot stick bows right handed with no sights. On good days
it just happens. When my right eye developed a cataract I switched to a
left handed compound bow. Compound bows have a sights and I could use them
effectively. Time goes on and I had a couple of operations on my left eye
and couldn't use the sights effectively. I was going to give the bow away
but then realized I'd always shot recurves instinctively, why not
compounds. I took the sights off and it seems to be working.

Handguns can be the same. The sights are there and you sort of see them
but when you're firing in under .3 seconds there isn't a whole lot of
thinking going on.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 22/12/2024 11:02, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 12:14:28 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah... he's not my favourite pope. I wonder if there will be a huge
>>>> backlash and a super conservative pope when it's time for him to go? I
>>>> heard rumours that one contender for the papacy is the only swedish
>>>> cardinal Anders (?) Arborelius.
>>>
>>> I had hopes for Benedict. I think he got tired of a fight he knew he
>>
>> Interesting. My wife had a private audience with Benedict once. She said he
>> seemed like a nice guy.
>>
>>> wasn't going to win. There is a lot of local controversy after the bishop
>>> banned the Latin Mass altogether. I think there is a Society of Saint Pius
>>> V priest who still does a traditional Mass two or three Sundays a month.
>>> SSPV is sedevacantist, rather than SSPX which skates on thin ice which is
>>> a quandary for the trads who don't want to go the whole route.
>>
>> The great strength and the great weakness of christianity is that they are
>> bound by the book. This is a problem in todays woke world, but if they let
>> it go, they won't be christians any longer. I respect the guys who
>> struggled to reconcile the book with todays world without giving it up
>> completely.
>
> I square the circle by thinking of the Bible and religion a 'not life as it
> was or is, but life as it ought to have been' .
>
> That is it expresses a desire for a particular way of life, and gives
> pragmatic hints on how to achieve it.
>
> Its confusion with esoteric philosophy and mysticism is its greatest weakness

I look at it from an exoteric and an esoteric way. On way is the condensed
wisdom of our forefathers, giving practical advice for how to live. The
other part, is the original (in my opinion) esoteric experience, that can
only be lived or experienced, and never passed on through words.

Different religions have different mixes of the two components and
different levels of authoritarianism vs "anarchism" built in.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 09:53:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> One posits a supernatural 'Big Bang' from which time, space energy and
> the laws of nature miraculously sprang, and the other posits a big
> Creation from which time, space energy and the laws of nature
> miraculously sprang, just already formed as a complete *fake*, like
> someone today constructing a '1000 year old' house. Complete with faked
> history.
>
> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient intelligence
> with a Plan in charge.

The Big Bang theory came from a Jesuit priest. I don't believe it came
from theology instead of Hubbell's observations. Einstein based his
theories on a steady state universe and threw in a fudge factor to make
the math come out right. Thus he believed. At the time the Jesuit won even
though Einstein told him his physics sucked.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 12:24:53 +0100, D wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:12:43 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> Those poor people ... caught between an ever-growing mountain of
>>> facts/evidence and equally-persuasive *belief* (which requires no
>>> facts). They TRY to find ways to splice it all together. It doesn't
>>> work well ...
>>
>> A friend was a Young Earther despite being a proficient programmer.
>> Given the premise God can do anything it's no problem for him to whip
>> up the Grand Canyon with all its geological layers in his spare time.
>> He was also well rehearsed in the creationist arguments against
>> evolution.
>
> Did you ever get anywhere with him in arguments, or was every argument
> closed down by the "God"-argument?

There is no winning that argument so I let it slide. I would push his
buttons by taking the Catholic side in arguments about other points. He
was entirely dependent of his interpretation of the bible. I would point
out the Catholics determined the canon. There have been a few Protestant
tweaks. Luther left out Thomas on his first go-around since the parts
about faith without works being empty didn't fit with sola fides.
Maccabees winds up in 'apocrypha' since it mentions prayers for the dead
as an intercession. Then there is the decalogue parsing to come down heavy
on those statues.

I doubt many Catholics believe in the Young Earth but that's one of the
areas that is dealers choice as far as the catechism goes, along with
evolution.

He died last year and I sort of miss the friendly discussions. As a part
of hearing what you want to hear a group from his church sand Cohen's
'Hallelujah' at the service. There certainly is biblical imagery but there
is also the verse

"Maybe there's a God above
But all I've ever learned from love
Was how to shoot at someone who outdrew ya
And it's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah"

Then there are the politicians who play Springsteen's 'Born in the USA' at
there rallies. Or Trump's fondness for 'YMCA'. That song and the Village
People were as queer as it gets but I don't think he gets the context.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 22/12/2024 11:28, D wrote:
>>> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient intelligence
>>> with a Plan in charge.
>>>
>>> Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply more
>>> complicated than necessary to explain this shit.
>>
>> I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has
>> happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.
>>
> I wasn't talking about the *practice* of science, or of religion for that
> matter. I was talking about their metaphysical *beliefs*.

Ahh... our definitions differ when it comes to science. I was tricked! But
I will drop this line as I think it leads us back to old threads. ;)

>> I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down waaaay
>> too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, in reality
>> "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the questions is
>> lacking?
>
> Precisely, In many ways the God explanation is simpler :
>
> "God did it all, and faked it so it looks like he was never there at all, to
> test you fuckers"
>
> ...there are only three people who understand quantum physics and two of them
> are liars....

This is the truth and exactly one of the things I do not like with Occam.
If you're on team God (TM) that's the easiest explanation, if you're on
team Science (C), that's nonsense, and your version is the simplest.

There's no way to decide from a neutral point, if you are dealing with
religious people regardless of if they are from the religion religion, or
the religion science (which has very little to do with the science as a
process).

> But if you examine Occam from outside the confines of realism and
> materialism, he makes perfect sense.
>
> 1. The problem of induction means that no inference can ever be proved to be
> correct.
> 2. So given that its all bullshit anyway, why not pick the simplest bullshit
> that fits the facts?
> 3. ...And fits within the accepted already established bullshit, that
> works...

Ah, but the problem of induction is a chimera, an illusion. Popper argued
that justification is not needed at all, and seeking justification "begs
for an authoritarian answer".

The only thing we need to worry about is if it works, and that's it.

> That is today's problem., People are absolutely reluctant to abandon the
> established bullshit, that works.

This is not a problem, this is the way. If it works, is in fact the only
way. If that is abandoned, everything else is meaningless. That is the
strength of materialism and a common, shared external world, and one of
the best arguments for it.

We've been down this path many times before I think.

> Even when they know it is actually wrong.
>
> The Kuhnian paradigm shift is staring them in the face, but they simply cant
> accept it.
>
>
>
>

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2024-12-22, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> The great strength and the great weakness of christianity is that they
>> are bound by the book. This is a problem in todays woke world,
>
> The woke are bound by their own book - which is far more outlandish
> than the Bible.

What bible do they have? Woke will self destruct into ever smaller
factions. Eventually it ends up as individualism, which is good, or it
will spend itself on in fighting and go away as a political force.

>> but if they let it go, they won't be christians any longer. I respect
>> the guys who struggled to reconcile the book with todays world without
>> giving it up completely.
>
> The literalists have always had - and been - a problem. I resolved the
> issue in my school days. The literature classes we took taught us about
> metaphor and simile, and I saw no reason why the seven days of creation
> should not be metaphorical rather than literal. Suddenly there was no
> conflict. There are lots of things like that in the book.

This is the truth!

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2024-12-22, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 12:17:41 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm following the career of Musk with great interest! I wonder if he
>>>> will be the first trillionaire? I also wonder if he will eventually burn
>>>> out or if something will happen to him since he's achieved so much in
>>>> such a short time.
>>>
>>> I'm not nominating Musk but I do believe the out of fashion Great Man
>>> theory. With the mediocrity of the political class you get nothing but
>>> mediocrity, or equity as they style in.
>>
>> Who do you think will be the first trillionaire?
>
> Musk, of course. It won't take too many more of the 10% jumps in net
> worth that billionares have been enjoying lately, and once Trump is
> inaugurated we'll see enough more of those jumps to put Musk over the top.

Musk is not an improbable bet. I agree.

> Whether things stay that way or collapse immediately thereafter remains
> to be seen. But he'll have at least touched the sky...

I think Trump & Co will try and engineer a financial feast for a couple of
years now. The interest reates globally are going down, the positive
effects have so far been few, which means more interest lowering on the
way.

Add a loose monetary policy, tax decreases and increased government debt,
and we have a nice booming economy ahead of us. The key, as always, is to
know when to sell your shares, take a break, and enter again at the
bottom.

The other option, which I have utilized all these years, is to hold fast,
and just refrain from buying during the last couple of years of booms, and
once things collapse, I usually start to buy in small increments.

This has worked well for me, since I don't need to worry about finding the
moment to sell.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:55:57 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Montana is on the list! Someone suggested that we might like eastern
>> Oregon. Someone suggested Wyoming, but that maybe is too flat?
>
> Much of Wyoming is high prairie. There are signs on I-80 when you cross
> the Continental Divide but it's hard to discern exactly where it might
> be. You hit mountain ranges in the west including the Tetons. Even
> Yellowstone, while definitely worth visiting, is mostly flat, at least the
> more accessible parts.. Grand Teton NP is at the southern border of
> Yellowstone and is where the fun begins.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park

Very beautiful!

> The Bighorns are another spur, but not as dramatic as the Tetons.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bighorn_Mountains
>
> That page has a nice relief map for reference.
>
> Eastern Oregon is also pretty flat high desert until you get to the
> Cascades.
>
>
>

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 12:03:49 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 12:17:41 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm following the career of Musk with great interest! I wonder if he
>>>> will be the first trillionaire? I also wonder if he will eventually
>>>> burn out or if something will happen to him since he's achieved so
>>>> much in such a short time.
>>>
>>> I'm not nominating Musk but I do believe the out of fashion Great Man
>>> theory. With the mediocrity of the political class you get nothing but
>>> mediocrity, or equity as they style in.
>>>
>>>
>> Who do you think will be the first trillionaire?
>
> I think there were a lot of trillionaires in Germany after WWI.

;)

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 21:54:04 +0100, D wrote:

> I look at it from an exoteric and an esoteric way. On way is the
> condensed wisdom of our forefathers, giving practical advice for how to
> live. The other part, is the original (in my opinion) esoteric
> experience, that can only be lived or experienced, and never passed on
> through words.

The Havamal works for me.

https://jacksonwcrawford.com/the-cowboy-havamal/

38. Keep yer guns close.
I don’t care what they say,
there ain’t no tellin’
when there’ll be call for ’em.
An armed man has a shot.

That speaks to me more than offering the other cheek. I couldn't find it
with a quick search but there is also a 'Havamal for New Yorkers'. George
Jones, not the country singer, in 'Honor Bright' compares societies based
on honor to those based on guilt. He offers the heathen beatitudes.

Blessed are the rich, for they possess the earth and its glory.

Blessed are the strong, for they can conquer kingdoms.

Blessed are they with strong kinsmen, for they shall find help.

Blessed are the warlike, for they shall win wealth and renown.

Blessed are they who keep their faith, for they shall be honored.

Blessed are they who are open handed, for they shall have friends and
fame.

Blessed are they who wreak vengeance, for they shall be offended no more,
and they shall have honor and glory all the days of their life, and
eternal fame in ages to come.

I'll admit my forefathers probably were Christian for a thousand years or
more but they didn't jot down the Christian beatitudes.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 23:09:51 +0100, D wrote:

>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:55:57 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> Montana is on the list! Someone suggested that we might like eastern
>>> Oregon. Someone suggested Wyoming, but that maybe is too flat?
>>
>> Much of Wyoming is high prairie. There are signs on I-80 when you cross
>> the Continental Divide but it's hard to discern exactly where it might
>> be. You hit mountain ranges in the west including the Tetons. Even
>> Yellowstone, while definitely worth visiting, is mostly flat, at least
>> the more accessible parts.. Grand Teton NP is at the southern border of
>> Yellowstone and is where the fun begins.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park
>
> Very beautiful!

https://fullsuitcase.com/grand-teton-np-jenny-lake-boat-hike/

Jenny Lake looks like something imported from the Alps. I waked around the
lake and up Cascade Canyon until the trail split. Very scenic. I was going
to take the boat back but there was a line and I'd rather be walking than
hanging around waiting. Jackson Hole is the southern entrance to the park.
I guess it could be fun if you're into expensive tourist traps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Hole

The Tetons are nice but I've got some scenery much closer to home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitterroot_Mountains

The trail to Trapper Peak is nowhere as intimidating as you might think.
Elevation is the major issue if you're not acclimated but it's not as bad
as the 14,000' peaks in Colorado. Oxygen is damn scarce on those. Your
mind thinks you should be walking faster but your body isn't willing.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 22:59:07 +0100, D wrote:

> Add a loose monetary policy, tax decreases and increased government
> debt,
> and we have a nice booming economy ahead of us. The key, as always, is
> to know when to sell your shares, take a break, and enter again at the
> bottom.

Nice booming inflation... I'll strangle the first person that says 'But
the fundamentals are sound.'

I don't do the stock market so what is good for Wall Street doesn't matter
to me.

On 12/22/24 5:09 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/12/2024 06:50, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> I wonder if different materials might make zeps safer ?
>>    Graphite rods, carbon-fiber supports, something that'll
>>    give more under stress than simple rigid aluminum ?
>>    Could go 'meta' ... INFLATABLE, ADAPTIVE, extra supports
>>    you can work pneumatically or whatever. Then the thing
>>    is more like a dolphin or whale, dynamically adaptable
>>    to stresses in the short timescale.
>>
>
> We may have got better strength to weight ratio materials, but that
> simply allows a slightly bigger structure..

Well ... 'slightly bigger' than the Graf or Hindenburg may
be "big enough" ......

The TRICK though is safety - and large things like zeps,
at least the cigar-shaped ones, can pose a problem there.
Strong wind gusts can basically pull the nose and tail in
different directions, snapping the thing. With the large
surface area the forces become considerable.

Dynamic 'profile/rigidity morphing' as I proposed COULD
be a useful tool in the box.

While 'cigar-shape' seems most logical, 'rounder' may be
the trick to reducing such mechanical stresses. The things
don't move THAT fast anyway, 'rounder' won't be MUCH slower.

> The real demise in my book was not the zeppelin hydrogen fire, but the
> USS Shenandoah, which was literally torn in half by bad weather.

Yep. The surface area * wind stress issue.

> "While passing through an area of thunderstorms and turbulence over Ohio
> early in the morning of 3 September, during its 57th flight, the
> Shenandoah was caught in a violent updraft that carried the ship beyond
> the pressure limits of its gas bags. The turbulence tore the airship
> apart, and it crashed in three main pieces near Caldwell, Ohio. Fourteen
> crew members, including Commander Zachary Lansdowne, were killed.
> Lansdowne and eight crew members in the control car (except for
> Lieutenant Anderson, who escaped) died when the car detached and fell
> from the airship; two men died after falling through holes in the hull;
> and four mechanics who fell with the engines were killed. There were
> twenty-nine survivors, who succeeded in riding the three sections of the
> airship to earth. The largest group was eighteen men who made it out of
> the stern after it rolled into a valley. Four others survived a crash
> landing of the central section. The remaining seven were in the bow
> section which Commander (later Vice Admiral) Charles E. Rosendahl
> managed to navigate as a free balloon. In this group was Anderson
> who—until he was roped in by the others—straddled the catwalk over a
> large hole. "
>
> Not my idea of a luxury cruise.

It was a bad disaster.

Modern avionics might have avoided it - a clear view
of storms/winds.

In any case, anyone with the right sim software should
look into 'rounder' - more 'blimpy' - (US) 'football'.
Carbon-based structural members also would not 'snap'
or 'buckle' so readily under stress as 1930s aluminum
struts.

In short they CAN be done, better, these days. But can
you SELL people on them ? You'd have to start well ahead
of time and 'build a romance' so to speak.

> The problem is that the airships of the day were barely faster than a
> ship or a train and really wouldn't pass today's safety tests at all.

Well ... you're selling 'exotic' here, selling to
the upper class, selling a certain 'style' and
'image' of luxury. Speed isn't as important as
LOOKING GOOD.

> They were and would be simply too big to be safe or too small to be
> profitable except in very niche applications.

ONE corp could do it and make a profit ... but don't see
room for more.

On 12/22/24 6:20 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>>>  It's a pity zeppelins proved so impractical - THOSE had
>>>>  a 'romance' and you COULD go for 'luxury'. Cruise ships
>>>>  are a step up, but maybe only one step.
>>>
>>> I have on my to do list to start a zeppelin airline between europe
>>> and new york. I just need to utilize synchronicity to bump into
>>> Richard Branson or other billionaire of choice first, and then we're
>>> off! =D
>>
>>
>>  Oh, I'm sure it will happen ... 'visionaries' are
>>  magnetically attracted to each other !   :-)
>
> This is the truth!
>
>>  I wonder if different materials might make zeps safer ?
>>  Graphite rods, carbon-fiber supports, something that'll
>>  give more under stress than simple rigid aluminum ?
>>  Could go 'meta' ... INFLATABLE, ADAPTIVE, extra supports
>>  you can work pneumatically or whatever. Then the thing
>>  is more like a dolphin or whale, dynamically adaptable
>>  to stresses in the short timescale.
>
> I imagine that old kinds of scientific progress has been made since the
> days of
> Zeppelin that positively alter the safety and economics and viability of
> zeppelin flights. There's even a "far out" theory of vacuum zeppelins,
> that do
> not use a gas but, a vacuum. I met a guy on a mailinglist who was going
> to do a
> self-funded Ph.D. around that concept.
>
>>>>  Anyway, for now, expect all transportation to be Just
>>>>  Another Uber. We will have to wait for Musk to build
>>>>  a luxury Earth/Mars travel line.
>>>
>>> I'm following the career of Musk with great interest! I wonder if he
>>> will be the first trillionaire? I also wonder if he will eventually
>>> burn out or if something will happen to him since he's achieved so
>>> much in such a short time.
>>
>>  Like many with ultra IQ, he's a bit, umm, skittish.
>>  SO far he's holding up, but TOMORROW, well, who knows ?
>
> Yes.
>
>>  Some of these guys go off the deep end abruptly. I've
>>  only met ONE guy with about a 200 IQ who also had a
>>  solid personality. If you've seen US television, there
>>  are a lot of 'Sheldons' and only a few 'Paiges'.
>
> I've met a few people who I thought were _way_ more intelligent than I
> am. I
> obviously did not test them, but they were the kind of people who did
> not really
> have any use for math books at university. They just took down the
> axioms and
> worked out how things work from there. Some of them also only needed to
> read
> things once, and they were all set.
>
> I'd say it's 50/50 for those guys how mentally stable they are. One guy
> I liked,
> went 2 times to the hospital during our studies for alcohol poisoning,
> and he
> enjoyed having 15 degrees C in his room. He took a masters degree in IT
> engineering, but found it boring and without challenges, so after a few
> years he
> went back to school and took a masters degree in chemical engineering
> instead.
> Haven't heard from him since, but I imagine he is holed up in a lab
> somewhere,
> unless he took a third masters degree.
>
> Another guy, I call him "the crypto ninja" was morbidly paranoid, and
> tried to
> cheat me in business, secure in the knowledge that he was so anonymous
> that I
> could never find him. Luckily for me, he was not as smart as he thought
> when it
> comes to hiding his tracks, so I was able to track him down. He was
> fascinating.
> Within one slim area, he was very skilled and knowledgeable, but he
> thought that
> this skill extended to other areas as well, so he was proven wrong by my
> wife in
> legal matters, and by me in privacy matters. Hmm, on second thought,
> maybe he
> wasn't that smart after all? ;)
>
>>  ANYWAY ... I have some doubts about him getting to Mars
>>  in any useful way - but his giant rocket CAN transport
>>  LOTS of stuff into orbit or to the moon.
>
> Rockets are boring! I was space elevators and shooting magnetically
> accelerated loads into space!

And PRIME terrorist targets :-)

Back in the emergent PC days I knew a guy who wrote
clones of Atari/Commodore/Nintendo games, mostly for
the 6502. I watched him program, fast, in BINARY for
the chip. Why waste time with ASM ? Said it gave him
a buzz.

He was NOT entirely 'stable'.

There's an old movie called 'True Genius' - Val Kilmer
I think - this guy was like the guru who lived inside
the dorm walls.

Another guy could just kinda 'see' the math, he said
it was almost like a calculator display 'overlay'.
Ever see that movie 'Lucy' ... I suspect it was kinda
like the scene where she leaves the hospital and sees
the whole transpiration process going on in a tree,
but with all the exact numbers too. An interesting
view of 'next level'.

Alas, human brains just aren't really wired for that.
There tend to be 'trades' - and 'stability' is often
one of them. 'Double-alpha' people, who have it all,
are VERY VERY rare.

BIRD brains ... there are some species that have
spectacular IQ in their little nut-sized brains.
The 'wiring' is a LOT better than in mammals.

Might be the dinos were a LOT smarter than we like
to believe ... lack of 'tech' does not = stupid.
Could be it took 65 million years for Socrates to
pick up where they left off :-)

On 12/22/24 4:31 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:12:43 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> Those poor people ... caught between an ever-growing mountain of
>> facts/evidence and equally-persuasive *belief* (which requires no
>> facts). They TRY to find ways to splice it all together. It doesn't
>> work well ...
>
> A friend was a Young Earther despite being a proficient programmer. Given
> the premise God can do anything it's no problem for him to whip up the
> Grand Canyon with all its geological layers in his spare time. He was also
> well rehearsed in the creationist arguments against evolution.

Met 'em. Even prompted one to physically attack me
because I refused to give in to his worldview.

In any case, as soon as you accept some 'Big Magic
Joe in the sky' then EVERY weird possibility becomes
credible. "Belief" knows no bounds and IS at least
as persuasive as any mountain of facts. Amass all
the facts you want ... they'll STILL burn you at
the stake. Problem solved .......

And no, such 'theology' is NOT restricted to the
political 'right' ... it's part of how WE are
wired-up.