What Are Junk Miles

[nikalas]

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.

[Deadlegs]

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.

[Woo hoo]

[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.

[Deadlegs]

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.

[Filippo Acciaiuoli]

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?

[Hank]

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.

[Hank]

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.

[TimW]

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.

[Filippo Acciaiuoli]

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?

[nikalas]

Btw CL what is your day job?

You won't be surprised when he tells you.