What Are Junk Miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Like most things that CL posts about I think he's more or less right or at least more right than wrong; .

---

Watch out for those men in white coats knocking at your door.

Personaly I find it inspiring when a fell runner can dismiss the work of the Lucasian Professor of Physics in the way CL did. I'm casting a weathered eye on Darwinism.

[QUOTE=Deadlegs;368527]Personaly I find it inspiring when a fell runner can dismiss the work of the Lucasian Professor of Physics in the way CL did. /QUOTE]

Hawking was actually the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics (Cambridge), not Physics, whose popularity far outreaches his achievements.

As to CL's status as a fell runner: that is a mystery darker than the blackest of black holes.

So is this Lucasian Professor of Mathematics thing a bit like X Factor then?

ps I think I'm right in saying that CL is actually a very good fell runner. Whose achievements far outreach his popularity.

It is always interesting to read you opinions CL.

But to give us mere mortals a chance, is there any subject on which you do not claim omniscience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

You are the sort of person who reads something then changes it's meaning to suit your own ignorance. Einstein's comments were about the reasoning involved in relativity and quantum theory. Not just quantum. And like he said the reasoning was 'nonsense.'

Another thing you changed was my comments in regard to Hawking. I'm not saying Hawking said the universe was created from a singularity, I'm saying he said the universe was created out of 'absolutely nothing.'

That is a philosophical flaw and it means everything else he built on that flaw was wrong as well. Years ago when I went to Sunday school we used to sing a song that consisted of the wise man building his house on the rock, and the foolish man building his house on the sand. It was quite a catchy tune. Little did I realise that the foolish man in that tale was Stephen Hawking.

Nobody understands relativity and nobody understands quantum. All one has to understand is when a magician shows a top hat empty and then proceeds to pull a rabbit out of it, the rabbit didn't come out of 'absolutely nothing.' Even an eight year old child understands that.

---

Just out of interest, what did the universe come out of? Presumably if you know ol' Prof Hawking is wrong you have a correct answer to this conundrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

That is a scientific question. I don't know. From a philosphical point of view( which is incidently open to everyone on here)I know it didn't come out of 'absolutely nothing.'

Science is secondary to philosophy. Get the latter wrong and the former will be wrong as well.

---

It's interesting that you claim to know it to be wrong from a philosophical perspective... surely you simply believe it to be wrong? Also interesting that you find the beginning of the universe sufficiently analogous to a simple magic trick to dismiss the theories and beliefs of so many people who are, with all respect, much more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself. I think that could be considered a philosophical flaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

That is a scientific question. I don't know. From a philosphical point of view( which is incidently open to everyone on here)I know it didn't come out of 'absolutely nothing.'

Science is secondary to philosophy. Get the latter wrong and the former will be wrong as well.

---

I know I only pop up on here every now and then Chris but reading your initial response to my assertion I didn't say lots of slow miles were the single best way to develop aerobically, as neither did Lydiard. What we said (dare I compare myself to the great man :) ) is that they contribute to it, in addition to the good quality aerobic running, the latter of which one can only do so much of.

That can't be wrong because how many world class distance runners run much less than 100 mpw at the peak of their training? Their aerobic threshold will be something approaching 4:30 miling (yes!) and even they cannot run 100 miles a week at that pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

That is a scientific question. I don't know. From a philosphical point of view( which is incidently open to everyone on here)I know it didn't come out of 'absolutely nothing.'

Science is secondary to philosophy. Get the latter wrong and the former will be wrong as well.

---

Philosophy is a notion conceived by mankind.

The universe was not created by mankind.

It is as futile for mankind to understand the creation of the universe as is asking a bird to describe the bottom of the sea. It is man's feeble vanity that led to religions being founded (and power politics, etc).

The inability of humans to understand the big bang or steady state or anything else merely illuminates the limitations of man's intellect.

Btw CL what is your day job?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filippo Acciaiuoli

Btw CL what is your day job?

---

You won't be surprised when he tells you.;)

concede

skilful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

You won't be surprised when he tells you.;)

---

Lecturer?

Pontifical, plenty of time, access to computer all day long. Doesn't sound much like a hod carrier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimW

I know I only pop up on here every now and then Chris but reading your initial response to my assertion I didn't say lots of slow miles were the single best way to develop aerobically, as neither did Lydiard. What we said (dare I compare myself to the great man :) ) is that they contribute to it, in addition to the good quality aerobic running, the latter of which one can only do so much of.

That can't be wrong because how many world class distance runners run much less than 100 mpw at the peak of their training? Their aerobic threshold will be something approaching 4:30 miling (yes!) and even they cannot run 100 miles a week at that pace.

---

I think you made the claim that those slower aerobic miles(junk) improved aerobic condition. That just isn't true and referring to top class athletes doesn't help your position either, because everyone knows they take lots of drugs to offset the effects of overtraining.

I am in a position to have know many good runners during my years. Not one of them ran 100 miles per week, never mind an additional 100 miles of jogging on top. One 28 minute 10k man ran only 50miles per week.

I think the thing is with you Tim W, you are obsessed with mileage at the cost of all other aspects, and are consequently making all the same mistakes as Arthur Lydiard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

I think you made the claim that those slower aerobic miles(junk) improved aerobic condition. That just isn't true and refering to top class athletes doesn't help your position either, because everyone knows they take lots of drugs to offset the effects of overtraining.

I am in a position to have know many good runners during my years. Not one of them ran 100 miles per week, never mind an additional 100 miles of jogging on top. One 28 minute 10k man ran only 50miles per week.

I think the thing is with you Tim W, you are obsessed with mileage at the cost of all other aspects, and are consequently making all the same mistakes as Arthur Lydiard.

---

Proof?

You're getting like a broken record on that one CL!!

referring... two "r's".

Sometimes I despair of you Christopher :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Benn

referring... two "r's".

Sometimes I despair of you Christopher :angry:

---

Thanks for that John. I at least have the excuse of not having a PHD. I'll bring your tea out later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

'Poof the magic dragon lived by the sea'.... Or was that Gab and Radcliffe? It's been fun but I've gotta go. See you all in the future, slogging up some hill. And remember Gold is king diversity is dead!

Regards

---

I think you mean Puff... unless there's something the dragon isn't telling us..

Don't leave us CL, I'll never reach Master status without you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

If humans are unable to undertand the big bang or steady state, then where did these concepts come from?

---

I am admonished. (Just a humble BSc you see).

What I meant to write is that from Gods to big bang etc are all human constructs developed because our human vanity urges us to find some explanation for where the universe came from.

But I don't see why the universe (I write in a loose sense) should helpfully comply with allowing pea-brained humans to understand "where it came from" (which is in itself a human concept).

And even my superficial knowledge of the current and conflicting theories (a term of flattery in many cases) leads me to conclude that they are all out of their tiny minds. But hey! if someone is happy to pay them for chalking on a black board it sure beats humping bricks up the side of a house in all weathers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

I think you mean Puff... unless there's something the dragon isn't telling us..

Don't leave us CL, I'll never reach Master status without you.

---

What's that called when the word sounds like the motion? Speak to you in the future my old mate.And remember 'as a white heterosexual male living in Chinley I don't feel discriminated against.'

Classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

What's that called when the word sounds like the motion? Speak to you in the future my old mate.And remember 'as a white heterosexual male living in Chinley I don't feel discriminated against.'

Classic.

---

I still don't :D

Always enjoy a tussle... seriously we should hook up for a ride sometime, I reckon the time would pass pretty quickly.

A couple or three miles on the treadmill before my tea? Junk or worthwhile? If it's junk I'm having a can of beer instead :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

Always enjoy a tussle...

---

I enjoy reading the tussles, very entertaining.

Christopher

I would expect some-one of your standing to be able to spell understand (post 151)

If humans are unable to undertand the big bang or steady state, then where did these concepts come from?

But do not worry I will not hold it against you

Saz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saz

Christopher

I would expect some-one of your standing to be able to spell understand (post 151)

If humans are unable to undertand the big bang or steady state, then where did these concepts come from?

But do not worry I will not hold it against you

Saz

---

Nemesis!

Excuse me. I'm the resident spelling nerd.

And I did spot skillful, but apparently that's the American spelling so I let it go.

a11 work and no play make jack a dull boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

You are the sort of person who reads something then changes it's meaning to suit your own ignorance. Einstein's comments were about the reasoning involved in relativity and quantum theory. Not just quantum. And like he said the reasoning was 'nonsense.'

Another thing you changed was my comments in regard to Hawking. I'm not saying Hawking said the universe was created from a singularity, I'm saying he said the universe was created out of 'absolutely nothing.'

That is a philosophical flaw and it means everything else he built on that flaw was wrong as well. Years ago when I went to Sunday school we used to sing a song that consisted of the wise man building his house on the rock, and the foolish man building his house on the sand. It was quite a catchy tune. Little did I realise that the foolish man in that tale was Stephen Hawking.

Nobody understands relativity and nobody understands quantum. All one has to understand is when a magician shows a top hat empty and then proceeds to pull a rabbit out of it, the rabbit didn't come out of 'absolutely nothing.' Even an eight year old child understands that.

---

Lots to discuss, so I'll start with the quote about Heisenberg and Einstein. This is taken from a conversation between the two and is recounted in Heisenberg's Encounters with Einstein. The full quote runs as:

Quote:

---

For the first time, therefore, I now had the opportunity to talk with Einstein himself. On the way home, he questioned me about my background, my studies with Sommerfeld. But on arrival, he at once began with a central question about the philosophical foundation of the new quantum mechanics. He pointed out to me that in my mathematical description the notion of "electron path" did not occur at all, but that in a cloud chamber the track of the electron can of course be observed directly. It seemed to him absurd to claim that there was indeed an electron path in the cloud chamber, but none in the interior of the atom. The notion of a path could not be dependent, after all, on the size of the space in which the electron's movements were occuring. I defended myself to begin with by justifying in detail the necessity for abandoning the path concept within the interior of the atom. I pointed out that we cannot, in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition probabilities, but no actual path. And since it is but rational to introduce into a theory only such quantities as can be directly observed, the concept of electron paths ought not, in fact, to figure in the theory.
To my astonishment, Einstein was not at all satisfied with this argument. He thought that every theory in fact contains unobservable quantities. The principle of employing only observable quantities simply cannot be consistently carried out. And when I objected that in this I had merely been applying the type of philosophy that he, too, has made the basis of his special theory of relativity, he answered simply: "Perhaps I did use such philosophy earlier, and also wrote of it, but it is nonsense all the same."... ...He pointed out to me that the very concept of observation was itself already problematic. Every observation, so he argued, presupposes that there is an unambiguous connection known to us, between the phenomenon to be observed and the sensation which eventually penetrates into our consciousness. But we can only be sure of this connection, if we know the natural laws by which it is determined. If, however, as is obviously the case in modern atomic physics, these laws have to be called into question, then even the concept of "observation" loses its clear meaning. In that case, it is the theory which first determines what can be observed.

---

Now reading the full quote in its entirety clearly shows that the line of reasoning that Einstein was calling "nonsense" was that all theories could only contain predictions that were directly observable, something that he had previously believed. His argument was that physical theories can contain variables and quantities that are not directly observable. Hence my pointing out to you the error in your using this quote, since you had taken it out of context and "changed its meaning to suit your own ignorance." (your words, not mine!)

Can you please let me know the exact quote where Hawking states the Universe was created out of "absolutely nothing," I cannot find the exact location of him saying this.
However, it should be pointed out to that the theory of the big bang came about due to a prediction that came from General Relativity, that suggested that the Universe was expanding. Einstein didn't like this and introduced a cosmological constant to produce a steady state Universe. Later, when Edwin Hubble directly measured the expansion of the Universe using galactic redshift, Einstein called the introduction of the cosmological constant "my greatest mistake." However more recent measurements and observations have shown that the expansion of the universe is actually increasing and so that Einstein was right in postulating his Cosmological constant. Thus, the idea Universe being created out of "absolutely nothing" comes from the theory, rather than the theory being dependant on it. Even then, this is not the actually what the theory says - it states that the beginning of the Universe was a singularity - a point where our current mathematical and physical knowledge breaks down. A more accurate way to describe the big bang was an infinitesimally small point containing an infinite amount of energy. This difficult concept is often broken down by the media (not the science media though) and lay people into "coming from absolutely nothing."

There are people who understand both of the theories of General Relativity (actually reasonably easy to get your head round given some time) and Quantum Mechanics (very, very difficult to get your head around some of the more difficult concepts), although I will admit that those who do fully understand Quantum theory are a relatively select bunch. I don't understand it properly (I'm ok on the basics, but when it gets to QED, it gets difficult), so don't feel bad that you don't either. I would guess that less than a thousand people in the world fully understand the theory.

Using your rabbit out of the hat analogy: when a physicist shows the Universe and its properties and the proceeds to describe it using a Physical theory, the theory didn't come out of 'absolutely nothing.' Even an eight year old child understands that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Thankyou Fillippo. No I'm not omniscient, but I also know that not everything can be true. For instance I don't need to know anything about physics to know that the rabbit in the magician's hat didn't come out of 'absolutely nothing.' I know it's 'nonsense', and so does a goat. Yet in physics there are people with IQs lower than goats who embrace that very idea in terms of the universe.

---

If you don't know anything about Physics, then how are you qualified to rubbish the field?

I also thought goats had been shown to be quite intelligent animals. I'm not a zoologist, so I would need someone who is to confirm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

That is a scientific question. I don't know. From a philosphical point of view( which is incidently open to everyone on here)I know it didn't come out of 'absolutely nothing.'

Science is secondary to philosophy. Get the latter wrong and the former will be wrong as well.

---

Actually the question of what was before the Big Bang is the point where Philosophy and Physics come together.

Science is not secondary to Philosophy. It is concurrent with it, because they only overlap in a few areas. One of which is the example I've just given above.
An interesting point though is that is often difficult to prove a Philosophy - maybe this is why you are a fan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

It is exactly like a magic trick. Nearly every adult(apart from Mr Hawking) and most children of a certain age, would not concede that the rabbit came out of 'absolutely nothing.' They know it came from somewhere, its just that the magician was skilful enough to hide it from them.

As to those more 'knowledgeable' than me. I don't think so. They don't even know that 'something' can not be created out of 'absolutely nothing.' A magician knows it, an adult knows it, a child knows it and even a goat knows it. Unfortunately Stephen Hawking and those that suck up to his nonsense don't know it.

---

I've just remembered that Stephen Hawking has actually proved that something can be created out of "absolutely nothing." The vacuum of space, which is considered by the layperson to be "nothing" is actually a mass of energy that is constantly creating and destroying virtual particles. Hawking postulated that if a pair of particles is created on the event horizon of a quantum singularity (black hole for the layperson), then one of the pair could be pulled into the singularity and the other would then be free to move off into the Universe and be detected.
This effect has now been observed and proved. It is called Hawking radiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filippo Acciaiuoli

It is as futile for mankind to understand the creation of the universe as is asking a bird to describe the bottom of the sea. It is man's feeble vanity that led to religions being founded (and power politics, etc).

---

No, it is not futile. By trying to understand the Universe, you understand your place in it.

To use a similar animal simile (although a actually a myth), to not try and understand the Universe is like an Ostrich sticking its head into the sand and hoping the predator will go away....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

I at least have the excuse of not having a PHD.

---

Yes it shows.

In order to gain a PhD, one must present an original thesis of work, complete with proof and evidence and objective discussion and then defend it against objective assessment by known experts in the field, with reference to the aforementioned proof and evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

Yes it shows.

In order to gain a PhD, one must present an original thesis of work, complete with proof and evidence and objective discussion and then defend it against objective assessment by known experts in the field, with reference to the aforementioned proof and evidence.

---

Quite. Just like saz did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

Yes it shows.

In order to gain a PhD, one must present an original thesis of work, complete with proof and evidence and objective discussion and then defend it against objective assessment by known experts in the field, with reference to the aforementioned proof and evidence.

---

This is an objective free zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grouse

And I did spot skillful, but apparently that's the American spelling so I let it go.

---

But he is not American, as he is not called Randy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spelling Bee

But he is not American, as he is not called Randy.

---

as! as!!

The word you mean is "because" which is not a synonym for "as".

I refer you to Strictly English (Simon Heffer) page 122 where he describes this outrage as "promiscuous abuse".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filippo Acciaiuoli

as! as!!

The word you mean is "because" which is not a synonym for "as".

I refer you to Strictly English (Simon Heffer) page 122 where he describes this outrage as "primiscuous abuse".

---

Read the name. I am Spelling Bee, not Grammar Bee........by the way, it is 'promiscuous'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spelling Bee

Read the name. I am Spelling Bee, not Grammar Bee........by the way, it is 'promiscuous'.

---

Just testing. 10/10!