Re: LIGO.
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Feb 2007 22:38:20 -0800
On Feb 11, 7:40 pm, cliff wright <c.c.wri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....
No I'm not one of those people you speak of with regard to science being
a con job. Just as well that it usually isn't. Religion and Politics are
quite enough in that department.
I might add that it would be remarkable if I gave up many hours of my
time to listen to a lot of Con men while spending a lot of my time in
retirement building telescopes and observatories and researching the
history of electronics, one of my pet subjects, if I was anti science.
The fact is most people think of me as fanatically pro Science
especially the local Creationists and members of the anti Space lobby.
regards Cliff Wright.
Cliff makes a point, we can all see faces
in clouds, that's human, but what he fails
to realize is the effort put into the evolving
the algorithm that combines the signals.
Dr. Baez explained that awhile ago, it takes
serious processing power + algorithm.
Ken
BTW, Al Gore did NOT invent the algorithm!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LIGO.
- From: cliff wright
- Re: LIGO.
- References:
- LIGO.
- From: cliff wright
- Re: LIGO.
- From: dlzc
- Re: LIGO.
- From: harry
- Re: LIGO.
- From: dlzc
- Re: LIGO.
- From: Bullion
- Re: LIGO.
- From: dlzc
- Re: LIGO.
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: LIGO.
- From: sal
- Re: LIGO.
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: LIGO.
- From: Joe M .
- Re: LIGO.
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: LIGO.
- From: cliff wright
- Re: LIGO.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: LIGO.
- From: cliff wright
- Re: LIGO.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: LIGO.
- From: cliff wright
- LIGO.
- Prev by Date: Re: .Simple SR question...
- Next by Date: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Previous by thread: Re: LIGO.
- Next by thread: Re: LIGO.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|