Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


beecee last won the day on April 16

beecee had the most liked content!


About beecee

  • Birthday 07/18/1944

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maroubra Sydney
  • Interests
    cosmology, Astronomy, general science
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
    retired maintenance Fitter and Machinist

Recent Profile Visitors

20176 profile views

beecee's Achievements


Genius (11/13)



  1. His name is George E Hammond: His Credentials: GEORGE E. HAMMOND B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester MA, USAM.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University, Boston MA, USAPh.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68 Northeastern Univ.Boston MA. Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt at N.U. and later Distinguished Professor of Physics at TAMUPeer reviewed publications: Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in NewIdeas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167 Elsevier Scientific Ltd.. Online copy ofpublished paper is posted at....... Elsevier Scientific Ltd. 1994https://tinyurl.com/2wnrjht3 also a full length free research only copy is located here:https://tinyurl.com/28tyke6w Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July2003, pp231-244(Noetic Press) Online copy of peer/published paper is postedat:https://www.academia.edu/196570/Scientific_Proof_of_God He claims, The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy thus........................(in his own words)
  2. OK, point taken. While my knowledge of American football is scant, unlike the rugby codes where any player must be able to attack and defend, including the nominated goal kicker in the side, who must be on the field at that time already. Your game,( correct me if I am wrong) can have your nominated goal kicker, (Becca) sitting on the side line, waiting for a kicking opportunity, brought on for that kick, and then back to the reserve bench, correct? The rugby codes are two 40 minute halves of 13 on field players, with four reserves waiting in case of injury or at the coaches discretion. Unlike American football, it is basically 80 minutes of non stop action. Mixed rugby league is played at the junior level, until the age of 12, and then separated into men's and women's competitions, for obvious reasons.
  3. That's the point I'm making. Philosophical and metaphyical questions now handled by science. The same applies to the definition of "nothing" and nothing as defined in Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing" 😊 No that certainly was not the one I was referring to. Both are still active, both avoid answering questions directly, both at times dishonestly, and both indulge in poor philosophy as a substitute. But let's let that slide. I'm not sure if that's a valid argument. Even Trump has probably on rare occasions been right. And inversely, someone like Eistein or Bertrand Russell, have probably at times been wrong. And I'm also big enough and ugly enough to understand that any quote, can be out of context. Still, we all use them when it suits our purpose. That caricature has mostly been used by a couple here sadly, that like to reflect that somehow they are deeeep thinkers, yet as I said, actually avoid answering questions directly. While I am familiar with all four, the two I mostly respect are Einstein and Carroll. I don't really know how to refute your argument properly, which reflects more on me being a poor debater, suffice to say, my criticism of philosophy is not as blanketing as you seem to make out. Afterall, I have said we all like playing philosophers, although hopefully I prefer the more practical side and that side more able to reach a solution or a consensus, rather then the innane aspects that Feynman talks about. That's my point as I said earlier and the point Krauss makes. Ideas, subjects being scientifically discussed that as yet we have no answers for and were once the domain of philosophers.
  4. The point I make is that no women could qualify or have the level of skill required to compete with men, in most contact sports like the two rugby codes, American football or Soccer. Even in our own domestic rugby competitions (which I love watching) the time women play is less then the men, for reasons medically and scientifically based. Like I said, I watch both men and women rugby league matches, and while both certainly entertaining and skillful, it would be a weird or dishonest person that did not recognise the increased aggression, skill, hardness of the big hits, in the mens competition. The clash of bodies in some of those "big hits"can be heard at the back of the grandstands. NOTE: Irrespective of that increased skill level and toughness in the mens competititon, and irrespective of the fact that no women could match or qualify at that level, I still support equal pay. That's simply how it is.
  5. Hmmm, not really, I have mentioned and agree that philosophy is the foundation stone of science earlier on. And have had a heavy night celebrating a great progressive Labor win!
  6. Hi Eise...Yes I remember our past "crossing swords"effort re my supposed criticisng philosophy. If you read through my posts in this issue, my point was that much of what is covered by science today, was once the exclusive domain of philsophers, and perhaps in those circumstances, philsophy is superfluous at best. This was imo the main area of criticism by Krauss. I also offerred some criticism on the points another great scientist made, namely Richard Feynman, on the occasions that imo seem to delve into pedant and near stupidity.eg: “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: you don’t know what you are talking about! The second one says: what do you mean by ‘talking’? What do you mean by ‘you’? What do you mean by ‘know’?” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, 1963). The opnion above is in my case re-enforced, particularly with 2 so called phislophical types on this forum, that I have crossed swords with a few times. Many times the same pedant as expressed by Feynman, is used rather then getting a direct answer, or completely and purposely avoiding an answer. Yes valid points that are all recognised by scientists, hence why scientific theories remain as scientific theories, simply gaining in certainty over time, and as they continually align with predictions. If they don't, the theories are modified, added to or just scrapped. That is science, and those scientific theories are generally accepted by the scientific community. Philosophers on the other hand seem to make their living, picking each other apart, never quite agreeing on any one particular philosophy. Highlighted by the following..... "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself." Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956. I have said many times that philosophy is the foundation stone of science, as I'm sure Krauss, DeGrasse-Tyson and Dicky Feynman would agree. I have never said it has no answers, only that areas that it once covered exclusively, are now the domain of science, namely physics and cosmology. Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which has as its foundations philosophy. Yep, one of my favourite videos, and sure, he is philosophising to a certain extent, and I have said we all philosophise at some time, but he is also explaining how depending on how deep one needs to answer that question, and whether one is speaking to an innocent child, lay person, or physicist, the answer has many levels. And essentially he is employing the scientific method, which, yes, has as its foundation stone, philosophy. And therein lies a point I raised earlier...define talking? define this, define that etc etc Having had those pedant queries thrown at me rather then answering questions directly, has me completely agreeing with Feynman. Eise...I'm a non scientist, although have made plenty of efforts to learn from reputable reading material, and forums such as this, and certainly have never studied any philsophy. I see one side (science) as practical, the other just asking questions without any real answers (philosophy) I am also a practical bloke and do not just wax on lyrically about certain things. I do and have done things with regards to world hunger and poverty, and climate change and when asking others what they have done to practically help with some of these problems, get told I am simply blowing my own trumpet from morons that simply take up cyber space on forums such as this. By practical I mean, sponsoring two children (My Mrs mainly responsible for this), limiting my driving to 10,000 kms a year and using public transport...solar panels, waste distribution and plastics sorting. Talk,(philosophising) is cheap, and please note carefully, I am in no way inferring or casting any aspersions on you or your character. BTW, You'll be interested to know that in reality have no objection to the following.... What is really ironic is that you who whole heartedly embrace the woo woo that is karma, and the supernatural, should see anything ironic about my use, and the conventional every day use of the phrase "merry christmas" and accuse me of religiousity simply to support your extreme attemped implementation of nonsensical PC. Sorry old friend, like much of your philosophy, it won't happen.
  7. Sorry for the rather late reply...had a piss up last night celebrating a Labor win in our elections!!! Not at all on either points....your confusion, and your rather silly rhetoric about me holding opposing positions. Your confusion on the latter, is your inabilty to be able to see where normal positions, move into extreme unworkable positions, much as you hold in many disciplines.
  8. When I was a young hairy arse brat, I was a Labor party member. And sure I'll criticise when they make mistakes, and some will be made...minor I hope. Here is the PM elect's acceptance speech...... Thanks for the thoughts.
  9. Totally wrong of course but I can understand your predicement and why you are blinkered. This "new age" thinking that one must envelop all forms of progressivism and extremes of PC, is pretentious at best. We have just elected a new "progressive central" government in Australia, and rejected the and far right loonies, as well as those loonies on the far left. I'm confident unlike the previous conservative government, they will govern wisely for all Australians, most of who thankfully are of a sensible and balanced progression, and acceptance of reasonable PC. Reasonable, sensible and inevitable progressivism is the desire of most Australians including me and will in time be achieved. You know Stringy, the real meaty stuff like climate change action and alternate forms of energy...Old age and disability and care...equal pay...a livable mnimum wage...strenghtening of medicare...cheaper child care for working parents...recognition and consideration to our indigenous Australians and the Uluru statement enshrined in the constitution. All those reasonable sensible policies are the platform of Australia's new governemnt, and yet is already hearing cries of "we are doomed" from the far right ratbags, and the usual fucking "not going far enough nonsense" from the equal loony far left. Thankfully sanity will prevail and the extremeties of both ends will rightly be like the words of a Sarah Brightman song,
  10. It's difficult to get through your confusion, but the same situation applies with your own views. Differences being, my views are widely accepted, while yours are essentially unworkable. Why not for once in your life, take the bit between the teeth, and just admit that you find the extreme PC example I gave, as reasonable and just, in your opinion? That was what you were trying to convey, correct? Thankfully though, as I reported, It of course was laughed out of existence, as well as that council and its so called progressives. Worth noting, that the council was run by my own Labor party, or at least a few extremists that just happened to be a part of that Labor run council. They were rightly given the royal order of the boot, and subsequently admonished by the Federal and State levels of the Labor party. I hope that wasn't too confusing. Merry Christmas!!! 😄 That's why I gave him a like! I will be absent most of today, as I am helping clean up a couple of polling booths in my area, so you may need to get your entertainment value elsewhere for a while. 😴
  11. Although counting continues, Australia now has a new Prime Minister, Anthony Albenese. You fucking beauty!!! Both major parties though lost numbers to the Greens and some Independents. Only doubt that remains is whether he is heading a government that will need the support of the Greens, and some Independents, or have the required 76 seats to govern in their own right. Here is PM Albenese's acceptance speech. https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/federal-election/watch-live-australias-new-prime-minister-anthony-albanese-gives-victory-speech-c-6887483
  12. It's superfluous, not needed and is only to please the extremes of the PC brigade. If it would automatically work out the same as currently is, why do you find that necessary then to implement? Men and women are different. *shrug* (Ooops, I said that before! 🤣) I suggest if I replied in such a churlish manner, I would be bombarded with neg votes. But that's more a reflection on some here. And since your supposed PC proposal would work out the same as the present status quo with women sports segregations, as is, I find your reply even more weird. For you to be more honest, stop pretending playing dumb, and less supposedly smart arse one word answers.
  13. And now in your efforts of one-upmanship, you chose to be dishonest. I never said anything about you disproving equal pay. I said..... NOTE: Facetiousness.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.