From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Date: 7 Nov 1992 22:40:39 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <qToPTB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>
>> where _PV_ is the "potential value of an individual or group", _I_ is the 
>> "intelligence" and _D_ is the "Dynamic".   
>>       What is x?  
>        As explained in the book, x stands for the magnitude on
>which the person is surviving on the dynamic.

	This link was not made.  But thanks for the info.

>>       What are the units of _PV_,_I_,_D_ and _x_? 
>        Re-read the chapter.  It's self-explanitory.

	No its not.  Nowhere in part 1 of "Dianetics" is there a
discussion of the units.  If anybody knows, please tell me!

>>       How do you measure them?   
>        With widely accepted testing.

	WHAT "widely accepted testing"?  Be specific!

>>       What ranges of values are normally seen?  
>       Below average.

	By RANGES I mean, give me values, give me the
upper and lower bounds, the most common values AND the 
average value.  Or make it easy and just send me some data.



>>       How do you apply the equation?
>        Insert the known factors and use standard algebra.
	
	Brilliant! You must be a "hi skool grajuate"!

>>       What experimental evidence is there to show that it works?
>        Do it and find out.  Why take someone elses word?
	Do what?  Why do you take Ron's word for it?

>>       Can someone suggest an experiment?
>        Apply it to yourself.

	O.K.   Lets see:

I want to find my PV.  O.K. since money is so important to the CoS
(see my next post!) PV must be in units of the American dollar.  Now
my potential income next term from my student loan is about
$2500.00 (US) and from my part time job is about $700.00 US.  So
my PV must be  $3200.00.

Now lets see if the equation gets the same value.

I is my intelligence,  Hmmm, this must refer to I.Q. score!
My I.Q. is about average, I suppose, so I=125 I.Q. points.

D is my dynamic.  This refers to where I am within the four 
dynamics(TM), I guess.  Well I, as an individual, would like to
see mankind survive, and sure, I'd even like to see all the little
symbiotes survive.  So... I guess in my case D=4, no units are ever 
mentioned, so it must be unitless.

x, according to Bill, is magnitude on which the person is 
surviving on the dynamic.  Oh!  'x' must be unitless, since
it is a power and not multiplied by any constant.  Hey!
It must be a probability(quite a leap I realise, but I'm grasping
here)!  Well I'm alive, so the magnitude of the probability
that I'm surviving is 1... x=1

ok here we go:

	PV = I*D^x
	   = (125 I.Q. points)*(4)^1
	PV = (1000 I.Q. points)

I estimated my PV to be $3200.00  the "equation" was WAY off.  The
units were even wrong ([$]!=I.Q. points)  

	It seems like this theory needs a lot of work!!!

As a matter of fact it seems the "equation", not being scalable, is
not really an equation at all, just a jumble of letters, that happened
to hit the "ground" in some order resembling what the layman might
think was an equation.  It sort of reminds me about the time I was 
at a party put on by one of my polital science friends, and a
philosophy student, apon hearing that I was a physics student, came
up to me and started a "conversation" with the sentence:

	"Say, In Einsteins theory of relativity, you know
	the one where he said that everything was relative..."

ACCKKK!

>>       Could someone e-mail me the experimental data?
>        Why, it's simple to do.  I have observed over 500 people
>with a simple high school education work the equation to their
>complete understanding.  The only help they required was making sure
>that they fully understood the words used.

	O.K. help me out here, Bill, explain the words!!!

>>       Is the origional experiment reproducable?
>        Yep.

	Good.  Post the description of the original(now that I have
my dictionary) experiment.  And the data, if there actually was an
experiment.

>> The first part of the book left me with many, many questions, such as 
>> these, about Dianetics.  But, I thought I'd best start small.
>        "The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes
>confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a
>word that was not understood." LRH

Yup, I read that.  I don't feel that it's always applicable.

>Bill Hardman
>------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
>   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
>                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
>                        *A Secret Cult*
>If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!

What a novel way to increase ARC!



Richard Nistuk       Fourth year physics student at U.B.C.
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca  (soon to be nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca)