Subject: Re: why a plane mirror reverse left to right not up to down
From: verhagen@fys.ruu.nl (Joachim Verhagen)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:29:38 GMT
caseyh@wimsey.com (Casey Hawthorne) writes:
>stephanie wrote:
>>Why does a plane mirror reverse left to right but not up to down?
>Because up and down are global concepts, whereas left and right are
>local concepts. These local concepts depend on the persons position
>relative to some object.
>Hope that helps.
True as far as it goes. In fact mirrors reverse forward and backward.
As this person (sorry, can not draw 3D):
Object: mirror image
o | o
|< | >|
/\ | /\
|
You see forward has become backward.
Now, because left and right are relative to forward, they get reversed and
up and down do not.
Joachim.
--
Joachim Verhagen Email:J.C.D.Verhagen@fys.ruu.nl
Department of molecular biofysics, University of Utrecht
Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Homepage: http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~verhagen (Science Jokes & SF)
Subject: Help locating children book
From: Jon Haugsand
Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:57:14 +0200
I am looking for a book containing about 100 drawings where each
drawing is a ten times magnification of the previous drawing. That is,
the first (or last) picture in the book represents an elementary
particle, quark or an atom (I don't know), the next one is ten times
smaller and thus we see a larger atom, and at some point we see a
molecule, and so on we have a cell, human skin, human body, boy
sitting somewhere, a landscape, a country, the globe, the sun system,
the galaxy, and so on.
Does anybody know about this book? I guess it is 15-25 years old. What
is the name of the artist/author, and what is the name of the book?
Thank you.
--
Jon Haugsand
Dept. of Informatics, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, mailto:jonhaug@ifi.uio.no
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~jonhaug/, Pho/fax: +47-22852441/+47-22852401
Addr: Bredo Stabells v.15, N-0853 OSLO, NORWAY, Phone: +47-22952152
Subject: Re: Linguists vs. literary theorists (was: Sophistry 103)
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 00:35:50 GMT
SPBurris (spb11@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <54k1o7$cgr@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu
: (Russell Turpin) wrote:
: > -*------
: > In article <326D5D1C.78FF@nwu.edu>, brian artese wrote:
: > > I have to assume you're familiar ... with linguistics in general ...
: >
: > "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what
: > you think it means."
: >
: > Modern literary theory is NOT linguistics, indeed, it stands in
: > considerable tension with linguistics. Artese's past posts
: > suggest that he does not know much about linguistics or what goes
: > on in a linguistics department. I offer the following
: > light-hearted table of the the difference (NOT deference) between
: > linguistics and literary theory, in full cognizance that I know
: > more about the first than the second.
: >
: >
: > Linguistics Lit theory
: >
: > PURPOSE General understanding of Literary and cultural
: > language criticism
: >
: > SAMPLE "Categorization and naming "Cyborgs and women"
: > TOPIC in children"
: >
: > DATA Empirical research from 'text'
: > studies of children
: > learning language to
: > in-process PET scans
: >
: > FAMOUS Chomsky, Montagu, Quine, Derrida, Foucalt, Deleuze,
: > NAMES Saussure Saussure
: >
: > MATH Necessary Not
: >
: > SCIENCE Is Isn't
: >
: > STUDIES Theoretical grammars, ???
: > phonology, semantics,
: > language evolution,
: > research methodologies
: >
: > CLOSELY neurology, empirical women's studies, "soft"
: > RELATED psychology, cognitive sociology
: > FIELDS science, computer science
: >
: > As the table indicates, the two disciplines share a common past.
: > Saussure was a seminal linguist. But as is the destiny of all
: > pioneers in a science, his linguistic views have been corrected
: > by data and superceded by better theories. Curiously, many of
: > the Saussurean views that linguistics has since superceded seem
: > alive and well in literary theory.
: Nice table, but a little incomplete. There are places where the two
: disciplines can and do intersect -- my own field, classics, is one. I
: think it would fit nicely in both columns.
Only in that linguistics is required to accurately render meaning in
translations.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: What Is Science? (was: Re: When did Nietzsche wimp out?)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 07:27:02 -0400
nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver):
| >| ...
| >| You are viewing this in much too narrow a sense. Religion is a belief
| >| in a divine power as the creator of the universe. Science is a belief
| >| that something other than a divine power created the universe. ...
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >I disagree with the part about science. Science, as I see
| >it, is the practice of finding or composing interesting
| >statements which correspond to phenomena. It requires only
| >the belief that such statements can be found or composed.
nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver):
| Interesting. From whence do you get this definition?
I made it up after reading what other people had written
about the subject and thinking about my own experiences
with it. I think it's a pretty good definition, but I'm
always willing to consider improvements.
Of course, this is an idealization. "Science" is also a
bunch of guys dressing up in white coats and getting
government grants, etc. etc.
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >However, one may believe this and also take a great variety
| >of religious positions, including most versions of
| >Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and so on. Many scientists
| >have claimed to believe that a divine power created the
| >universe, including Newton and Einstein. On the other hand,
| >one could also believe that science was possible and be
| >almost any sort of atheist or agnostic. There is no
| >inherent conflict between religion and science, although of
| >course if religions produce statements about phenomena they
| >may come into conflict with scientific statements about
| >phenomena.
nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver):
| I don't believe I was speaking of persons who are scientists, but
| rather science itself.
I'm don't know what science is without the scientists. What
do you mean?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: EASY MONEY
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:20:40 GMT
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Chris Lehenky wrote:
> Taking 5 minutes to read this text may be the best decision you
> ever make! Let me start by telling you a little about myself. I'm a
Here's a better way to make an absolute fortune, and it's 100% legal.
Spend a few years as a physicist, in some fashionable part of the subject
(particle physics is good), then leave physics, and go and work for a
large US investment bank, on a ludicrous salary.
This way, you are not comitting any sort of fraud or deception, and make
far more than any silly mailing scheme can replace.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Subject: Re: Question on Force, Work, and Torque was: Emory's Professors
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:26:05 GMT
On 23 Oct 1996, Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>
> Do you know about the sp2 hybridization of the carbon atoms in graphite
> vs the sp3 hybridization in diamond, which makes the graphite planar
> instead of 3-dimensional, which in turn lets the sheets of graphite slide
> over one another?
Yes, what of it?
> sun does affect your life, doesn't it?). Tell me about what it is about
> water that determines that it has an unusually high boiling point and makes
> it float whereas most solids are denser than their liquid phase (water
> does affect your life, doesn't it?).
>
Well, gee Lloyd, let me guess, is it possibly hydrogen bonding in the
substance, eh?
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Subject: Re: Does drafting slow the front rider?
From: "D. Keith Higgs"
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:23:04 -0700
altavoz wrote:
>
>
> altavoz : There is a vac' behind a single rider , anything that
> reduces this vac' (or low pressure area) will speed that rider up.
>
> ______End of text from altavoz___________
In order for this effect to occur the trailing rider would have to be
so close as to be sharing not only a frame but also a seat. The
slowing effects, if any from the decreased air pressure behind the
rider are ,in my understanding, minimal when compared to the frontal
and lateral resistances.
--
D. Keith Higgs - __o mailto:DATA+@osu.edu
Prior Health Sciences Library - _`\<,_ phone:(614)292-0930
376 West 10th Avenue _ (_) /(_) FAX:(614)292-5717
Columbus, OH 43210 http://bones.med.ohio-state.edu/hsl/staff/dhiggs/
Home of "The PEDALphilia Page" on bikes & cycling, & other neat stuff.
Subject: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 07:16:41 GMT
Time dilation is a prediction of special relativity theory. If one
is to accept the reports, time dilation has been experimentally shown
to occur between synchronized clocks. When most physicists are asked
about the cause of the slowed ticking rate of fast moving clocks, they
usually say that it's due to time dilation. If one points out that
SRT simply equates time dilation with slowed clocks and does not
introduce a causal relationship between time and clocks, there's
usually no response. So the question remains. What is the cause of
time dilation (i.e., slowed clocks)? More precisely, what is the
physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
A related question is, what is the property of space that causes the
speed of light to be what is? Why does not light move at infinite
speed since photons are said to be massless? Why the limit? My own
partially baked theory is that all motion, including the motion of
light is due to a series of absorption/decay process. In glass,
photons are temporarily absorbed by atoms in the glass and then
emitted back out by the same atoms. I tend to believe that this
re-emission is akin to a decay process. For this reason the speed of
light in glass is observed to be slower than the speed in a "vacuum".
I entertain the notion that something similar is occurring in "empty
space". This supposes that "space" is particulate, that there is an
aether and that there is a continuous absorption/emission process
taking place while a photon is moving. The process is an interactive
one whereby light interacts with particles of the aether. The energy
of the interactions is such that the speed of light is maintained at
the observed level c, independent of the motion of the original
source.
This brings me to a favorite subject of mine. What is the cause of
inertial motion? I believe that this is the number one problem in
physics and that its eventual solution will also give the answer to
the title of this thread and a whole slew of other fundamental
questions. My own attempt at a solution for the inertia problem is in
the form of a simple conjecture: <>. At first glance, this may seem
to contradict the Newtonian laws of motion but it really does not.
Newton simply ignored any possible cause for inertial motion and
formulated his laws accordingly. This conjecture would be an addition
to the existing laws.
The interaction conjecture demands the existence of an all-pervasive
4-D aether and should form the basis for a new understanding of
motion. What am I getting at? Simply that it takes energy for a
particle to move and even more energy to accelerate. There's only
enough energy to keep an object moving up to the speed of light. A
clock moving at the speed of light would not have any energy left to
maintain its own ticking. So where does the energy come from? From
the particles that comprise the aether, of course.
I know that many of you are still desperately and painfully clinging
to the continuous wave theory of light. Sorry to disillusion you all,
but the confirmation of nonlocality in 1982 by Alain Aspect and his
colleagues, was the final nail in the coffin of continuity. Light
consist of particles, guys. Give it up. :-) Regardless of whether
or not you think my ideas in this post have any merit, I still would
like to hear your input regarding the question I'm posing, which is:
What is the real cause of time dilation?
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 08:02:29 -0400
G*rd*n:
| > |> Obviously "pass the 100m mark exactly 20 seconds after you
| > |> start to accelerate" is language.
Noel Smith :
| And as Fitch so memorably told us during the Science Wars,
| "f=ma" is "social."
|
| And he wonders why so many of us find this kind of thinking a
| real hoot.
One of the things moggin's recent tour de farce exhibited
was a clearer picture of the discussion to which you allude,
about which I was somewhat confused at the time; not about
what I said, but about the hysterical resistance it
encountered. To recap my end of it: "F=ma" is language;
language is social; therefore, "F=ma" is social. Everyone
knows this.
So what was the problem? Well, in the "Newton was wrong"
fandango, we see that a statement which everyone who has
read a high school physics text knows is correct caused a
great outcry. Why? Because one isn't supposed to say
things _that_way_; it is what I have called "blasphemy."
Any remarks about the limitations of Newtonian theory must
be surrounded by formulae warding off demonic influences.
Just so, as I said, everyone knows (almost everyone) that
"f=ma" is a piece of language and that language is a social
practice of human beings. But one musn't say things in
_that_way_. My guess is that calling attention to human
participation in science detracts from a vision of science
as Revealed Truth.
Far from regarding what I wrote as a "real hoot", people
felt called upon to respond with the most awful insults and
objurgations, such as that I had shit for brains or knew
nothing of science. At that time, I made the mistake of
trying to explain things; always a waste of time. It only
confused matters, as we can see from the purity of this
subsequent exercise. What is wanted is not an explanation
but the triumph of one's religion.
I do take satisfaction in seeing that my words, in spite of
their simplicity, have stuck in a few craws, going neither
up nor down. I hope to hear more coughing in the future.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: fncll@aurora.alaska.edu (Chris Lott)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:26:17 GMT
On 23 Oct 1996 08:43:40 GMT, tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) wrote:
>: Bottom line: if a professional in a field tells an amateur they are
>: mistaken, they would do well to listen. If ten do so, listen really hard,
>: because you are very likely to be mistaken.
Then why are so many non-professionals intent on making pronouncements
about a philosopher and critic?
Oh wait, that's a rhetorical game... I see.
c
--
Chris Lott
fncll@aurora.alaska.edu
eclectica@polarnet.com
http://www2.polarnet.com/~eclectica (Eclectica Magazine!)
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:15:58 GMT
In article meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <54k5lm$if4@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>>If you think the Law of gravity and gravity per se
>>are the same thing you should stick to your guns. If not, you should
>>confess to your confusion, or at least claim it was a temporary
>>lapse. I'm sure we're all ready to believe the sun got in
>>your eyes.
>>
>Ah, so there wasn't supposed to be a smiley? Never mind, it was funny
>anyway.
>
>>But to pretend that a distinction this simple is alien to
>>a physicist's way of thinking. Oh my!
>
>If you think that physicists use disclaimers all the time like "... I'm
>talking about the law of gravity which of course is only our model for
>the phenomenon of gravity... etc. etc." then, sorry as I'm, I have to
>disappoint you. We would never get anywhere talking like this.
Let me second Mr. Meron's (Dr. Meron's?) point here. The distinction
among phenomena, data, and theory is well-understood. Most mathematicians
don't bother to explain that the numbers that they write are in base
ten, either.
Patrick
Subject: Re: Design in nature
From: Jerry
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:43:16 -0400
Andy Mulcahy wrote:
>
> Jerry wrote:
>
> >For the most part God resides in the memory of the past across the
> >space time barrier. Basically this is a timeless state. God can project
> >ahead and see the general outcome of man on this Earth. The salvation of
> >any one man is unimportant.We are merely duplicates of each other. Thus
> >God will judge the Nations and the Churches. These are large scale
> >entities rather than individuals. Individuals are judged by their
> >Churches and their ancestors in the timeless state within God's memory.
> > God can control historic events to insure that the overall pattern
> >will be as God wills.Thus God is the God of history. And yes, God is
> >ultimately responsible for all the wars and the Holocaust as well.
>
> So this "god resides in the memory of the past across the space
> time barrier". That takes him right out of this real world and plants
> him squarely in our imagination as fantasy then. doesn't it? Part of
> our collective daydream , so to speak. Talk about Tolkein!
> Cheers,
> Andy
> "Pity the poor philosopher who fervently, desperately,
> seeks the *TRUTH*
> in order to avert his gaze from the reality before his eyes."Ans. from Jerry:
Yes. In many respects part of our collective day dream would be close to the truth.
Over a small nanosecond range, the past, the present, and the future coexist. This is
the way the universe is constructed. The mind of God can enter the individual or
collective consciousness and override the mind of man without man knowing. Thus God
can control the future one little nanosecond at a time.God can make everyone think
that a mountain has moved although it is not necessary for the mountain to have
actually moved.Thus the Biblical myths are created in the mind of man to serve God's
purpose. The myth is obviously false such as Noah and the Ark, however the moral Myth
comes from God.Thus the believer has little choice but to believe such nonsense from
a technical viewpoint because it comes from God. It is myth but it is Gods moral truth.
The atheist can scoff at what used to be believed as truth. The intelligence of man
increased above that of Biblical man. However the message from God to man within the
myth never fades away.
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:45:16 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <54mrq8$erl@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >
: ... snip ...
: >I'm sorry, I must indeed have misunderstood. As far as I remembered,
: >apperently incorrectly, "generalization" popped up in the context of
: >situations to which Newton didn't apply; it seemed to me that you said
: >that this didn't constitute a refutation of Newton, but a generalization.
: >
: Yeah, that was what I said. What I said was that both QM and
: relativity are generalizations of Newtonian mechanics. This is so
: since they maintain the basic framework established in classical
: mechanics and introduce the modification needed to make the old
: concpts applicable over a broader range (just what we all seem to
: agree is the essence of generalization). Of course in order to see
: that it is a generalization it is important to realize that the basic
: framework was maintained. I assumed that it is known, which was
: probably a mistake.
No, that was clear. Out here, we'd call that a modification, not a
generalization, however.
: >As far as I remember, the talk was of a theory held to be universally
: >applicable for quite a while; a theory with universal ambition that has
: >to be modified is wrong _qua_ its universal ambition, even though the
: >exceptions may be small indeed. That doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me.
: Well, I think that I wrote somewhere that if the original statement
: would've been "The belief that Newtonian mechanics is universally
: applicable turned out to be wrong" I wouldn't find anything
: objectionable in it. In fact I would second it. Now, if you'll tell
: me that this indeed was the thesis as presented in t.o or a.p.m and
: what leaked into sci.phys was just an unfortunately abbreviated
: version, I'll take your word for it. But, I just react to things the
: way they are presented and they certainly weren't presented this way
: on s.c. at the time.
Sounds like we could all go home now and feel warm and fuzzy...
Silke
: Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
: meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:47:07 GMT
Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >>>It is very rare that physicists submit to humanities journals; if you
: >>>are suggesting that the article should have been sent out to another
: >>>physicist, I whole-heartedly agree. As things stand, however, the hoax
: >>>proves that the grad student whom A.Ross let judge the article didn't
: >>>know much about either science or literary theory -- and what does that
: >>>prove?
: >>That the postmodern "authorities", whose idiotic theses Sokal cites and
: >>purports to sustain with parodic arguments, are full of shit. Is that
: >>good enough for you?
: >No. What a silly thing to suggest. I cannot think of any philosopher
: >whose sentences cannot be made to look silly by taking them out of
: >context; when it comes to sentences spoken off the record, as it were, in
: >a matter outside their field, it's so easy that only someone rather
: >desperate for a point would stoop so low. You're Erkenntnisinteresse (you
: >understand I'm using the term ironically) is running away with you.
: Your logical ineptitude is showing again. That anyone can be made to
: look stupid on the evidence of a single sufficiently decontextualized
: quotation, does not entail that no single quotation can serve as a
: sufficient proof of its author's stupidity, as witness le "sottisier"
: de Bouvard et Pécuchet. In effect, Sokal does for the postmodern
: booboisie what Flaubert did for the French bourgeoisie.
Nonsense. Sokal's hoax proves exactly nothing about Derrida. It proves
something about Social Text. Your work isn't done, and if you rely on the
likes of Sokal to do it, you are wimping out.
Silke
: Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
: Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
: itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
: ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Q: Temperature of sky
From: mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Matt Feinstein)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:56:32 GMT
Philip Gibbs wrote:
>It is not clear to me how well we can justify including
>contributions from the upper atmosphere as if it was a
>black body radiation. Correct me of I am wrong (again)
>but the black body spectrum corresponding to a given
>temperture gives a very specific intensity v's frequency
>relationship. At high tempertures there has to be a
>high total intensity. If you get a weak signal from the
>upper atmosphere which is at a higher frequency this
>does not justify saying that the temperature of the
>radiation is high.
I think I'd say that the temperature of the radiation is high, i.e.,
it is thermal radation that is not in thermal equilibrium with its
surroundings. In more detail-- if radiation is in thermodynamic
equilbrium with a source when it is emitted, then at the emitter the
radiative energy flow has a magnitude that depends -only- on
temperature, given by the ol' Stefan-Bolzmann law (energy flow of
radiation at the emitter is proportional to T^4). From this, and
because radiation in thermal equilbrium must have a constant energy
flow in all directions (otherwise it would be inhomogeneous and
therefore not in equilbrium) you get that the energy flow of a
radiation field in thermal equilibrium is proportional to T^4 in any
direction. Now, if the radiation propagates away from the emitter and
-doesn't interact thermodynamically- (i.e., doesn't do any work and
doesn't transfer heat to anything else) with anything along the way,
then its temperature can't change-- regardless of its energy density.
The radiation is an isolated system, thermodynamically.
>The same applies to the radiation from stars. The colour
>depends on the temperature(s) of the surface of star which
>may be 5000 K, but we cannot say we are receiving
>radiation with a temperature of 5000K because the intensity
>is lowered. If it were otherwise we would all be frying
>in the starlight.
Another example, nearer to home, is the Sun..
Matt Feinstein
mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
>--
>====================================================
>Phil Gibbs pg@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~pg
Subject: Re: Does drafting slow the front rider?
From: Fisherman
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 07:06:28 -0700
altavoz wrote:
>
> Jobst Brandt wrote:
> >
> > Erik Buitenhuis writes:
> >
> > > In long, descents where I drafted a (heavier = faster) friend of
> > > mine going 80-90 km/h (50-55 mph) he reported the effect. He could
> > > see his speed dropping slightly on his computer every time I
> > > drafted. This happened several times, all in different descents.
> >
> > Wait a minute, the contention is that drafting increases the speed of
> > the leading rider. How can you state the opposite when those using
> > aerodynamic jargon claim greater speed? On the other hand, I know of
> > no straight descent long enough and with such a uniform gradient that
> > will give a speed continuous and uniform enough to detect variations
> > of 1-2 km/h. This whole experiment sounds highly suspect to me.
> >
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> altavoz : There is a vac' behind a single rider , anything that
> reduces this vac' (or low pressure area) will speed that rider up.
This must be why lead formula 1 race cars accelerate automatically
whenever another car is drafting, right?
Hey, wait a minute - that's not even right, because wouldn't the
compounded vacuum behind the second auto slow the latter auto even more
- and in a long line, this tremendous vacuum would suck the air foils
right off ... this must be another phenomenon unique to bicycling. Good
thing, or there'd be vacuumed lycra all over the road.
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:43:52 GMT
Noel Smith :
}
} "With Einstein," writes Derrida, "for example, we see the end of a
} kind of privilege of empiric evidence." Unfortunately this is simply
} not true, and in fact reflects a position, as Meron says, which is not
} possible for 20th century physics.
moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>
> What's "simply not true" is that Derrida said what you claim.
What is the correct quotation, and the citation where it can be found?
--
James A. Carr | Raw data, like raw sewage, needs
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | some processing before it can be
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | spread around. The opposite is
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | true of theories. -- JAC
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: mjcarley@maths.tcd.ie (Michael Carley)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 14:10:46 +0100
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>One of the things moggin's recent tour de farce exhibited
>was a clearer picture of the discussion to which you allude,
>about which I was somewhat confused at the time; not about
>what I said, but about the hysterical resistance it
>encountered. To recap my end of it: "F=ma" is language;
>language is social; therefore, "F=ma" is social. Everyone
>knows this.
Wading in at a late stage in the proceedings, might I try
to explain it like this?
i) F=ma is an attempt to say something about the real world
(the world outside our own experience which doesn't much
care what we think about it or even if we think about it at
all).
ii) In that sense (the attempt to say something about the (a?)
world) it is language and is a social construction. It is
``just'' a way of expressing an idea.
iii) On the other hand (the reason science works) it is possible
to test that expression in a particular way which does not depend
on your opinion of it. You can define and express very clearly
the limitations of the concept and the conditions under which
it works well.
iv) In that sense (the sense of being something testable in a way
which does not depend on your opinion, although it does depend
on your honesty) F=ma is not a social construction. It's the
``truth'' until something better comes along. Depending on what
you mean by better.
--
"You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even
got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John)
Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.carley@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie
Home page
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
From: John Oliver
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:09:08 -0400
Bo Bradham wrote:
>
> Tim Hollebeek wrote:
> > rnh@gmrc.gecm.com writes:
> >>
> >> john baez (baez@math.ucr.edu) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Yes, and if the shaft were *that* deep its field of view would be
> >> >>so small you'd be lucky to see even one star, even at night!
> >>
> >> >Nonetheless, I've read in various reputable sources that one
> >> >can see the stars in the day, this way. I haven't actually tried
> >> >it, personally.
> >>
> >> But not sources sufficiently reputable that you are willing to cite
> >> them, apparently.
> >
> >Yup. I've heard this one a couple times, and have a bit of trouble
> >believing it. ...
> >
> >I've added alt.folklore.urban, in hopes they've heard this one before,
> >and can provide some cites.
>
> The afu FAQ has
> F. Daylight sky appears dark enough to see stars from bottom of deep well.
>
> It's been a long time since it has come up on the newsgroup,
> though. And there's nothing about it in the afu archive as far
> as I can tell.
>
> Bo "which proves that there is a conspiracy to cover it up" Bradham
> --
> "You know there's something wrong with a thriller when you're more
> afraid of the leading lady than you are of the axe-wielding psycho."
A G Smith carried out a series of careful exp. using a factory stack
years ago, published in the Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences
... It was actually harder for people to see stars in daytime with the
stack.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Doug McKean
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 08:50:21 -0400
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> Time dilation is a prediction of special relativity theory. If one
> is to accept the reports, time dilation has been experimentally shown
> to occur between synchronized clocks. When most physicists are asked
> about the cause of the slowed ticking rate of fast moving clocks, they
> usually say that it's due to time dilation. If one points out that
> SRT simply equates time dilation with slowed clocks and does not
> introduce a causal relationship between time and clocks, there's
> usually no response. So the question remains. What is the cause of
> time dilation (i.e., slowed clocks)? More precisely, what is the
> physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
> A related question is, what is the property of space that causes the
> speed of light to be what is? Why does not light move at infinite
> speed since photons are said to be massless? Why the limit? My own
> partially baked theory is that all motion, including the motion of
> light is due to a series of absorption/decay process. In glass,
> photons are temporarily absorbed by atoms in the glass and then
> emitted back out by the same atoms. I tend to believe that this
> re-emission is akin to a decay process. For this reason the speed of
> light in glass is observed to be slower than the speed in a "vacuum".
> I entertain the notion that something similar is occurring in "empty
> space". This supposes that "space" is particulate, that there is an
> aether and that there is a continuous absorption/emission process
> taking place while a photon is moving. The process is an interactive
> one whereby light interacts with particles of the aether. The energy
> of the interactions is such that the speed of light is maintained at
> the observed level c, independent of the motion of the original
> source.
> This brings me to a favorite subject of mine. What is the cause of
> inertial motion? I believe that this is the number one problem in
> physics and that its eventual solution will also give the answer to
> the title of this thread and a whole slew of other fundamental
> questions. My own attempt at a solution for the inertia problem is in
> the form of a simple conjecture: < undergoing a series of interactions>>. At first glance, this may seem
> to contradict the Newtonian laws of motion but it really does not.
> Newton simply ignored any possible cause for inertial motion and
> formulated his laws accordingly. This conjecture would be an addition
> to the existing laws.
> The interaction conjecture demands the existence of an all-pervasive
> 4-D aether and should form the basis for a new understanding of
> motion. What am I getting at? Simply that it takes energy for a
> particle to move and even more energy to accelerate. There's only
> enough energy to keep an object moving up to the speed of light. A
> clock moving at the speed of light would not have any energy left to
> maintain its own ticking. So where does the energy come from? From
> the particles that comprise the aether, of course.
> I know that many of you are still desperately and painfully clinging
> to the continuous wave theory of light. Sorry to disillusion you all,
> but the confirmation of nonlocality in 1982 by Alain Aspect and his
> colleagues, was the final nail in the coffin of continuity. Light
> consist of particles, guys. Give it up. :-) Regardless of whether
> or not you think my ideas in this post have any merit, I still would
> like to hear your input regarding the question I'm posing, which is:
> What is the real cause of time dilation?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Savain
Well, alright. I'll stick my foot in it.
It sounds like the concept of 'wavelets' is not excluded in your 'hypothesis'.
Wavelets - packets of wave functions that can explain masslessness of photons
and since the E/M fields are self propagating do interact with
one another at a certain 'rate', thus the speed of light.
*******************************************************
Doug McKean
doug_mckean@paragon-networks.com
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light--Purely Mathematical?
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:29:02 -0400
Richard Mentock wrote:
>
> bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)wrote [in part]:
>
> >throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>
> >>The formal application of relativity, and its conceptual foundation,
> >>simply do not involve any object "having" an "absolute speed".
> >>That is what is really certain.
>
> >Au contraire.
>
> No contraire.
>
> Try this from The Evolution of Physics by Einstein and Leopold (III.
> Field, Relativity; General Relativity, 4th page of section):
> "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the
> views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either
> CS (coordinate system) could be used with equal justification."
>
These are all relative coordinate systems.
> In other words, you could talk about an absolute velocity. Perhaps the
> Sun at absolute rest, or perhaps the Earth. But obviously not both at
> the same time. (Throop, I guess that's not so obvious is it?) And there
> is no preferred absolute rest frame in the sense that it is better than
> all the others.
>
No, an "absolute rest frame" is when there is a single, unique, frame of
reference in which the "true laws of physics" hold. You seem to be calling
every inertial reference frame an "absolute reference frame". But (according
to Einstein, and the theory of relativity), all inertial frames are equivalent.
Thus there is no way to know (ie, pick out) that unique, absolute rest frame
that Newton associated with the Sensorium of God.
So while there may be an absolute reference system, we cannot find it, and the
laws of physics don't require it.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:45:03 GMT
seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) wrote:
>Brian writes -
>: You cannot know how laughable, unintelligent -- how completely _embarassing_
>: such a statement is to anybody who knows anything about philosophy. Sokal is
>: so far beneath Derrida in philosophical training and scholarship -- I can't
>: even find the words. Forget the outright inanity of the claim that you have
>: "exposed" a philosopher without engaging any of his work. A man who claims
>: to have done so is _at least_ implying intellectual superiority to the
>: "charlatan."
>: Sokal is Derrida's intellectual superior? ALAN SOKAL IS JACQUES DERRIDA'S
>: INTELLECTUAL SUPERIOR?!?? Ohh ho ho ho! Ha ha hawww! oh! oh! (excuse me a
>: moment, I'm sorry) Oh ha haw haw haw ! Oh my god! Oh! Oh my god! (pardon
>: me again) Haaaw! hhhaw! oh! (pant, wheeze..., pant, pant) I'm sorry. I do
>: apologise, that was uncalled for.
>I read a while back that when the french academy
>was about to honor Derrida, more than 100 intellectuals
>of Europe, including distinguished professors
>of philosophy, past presidents of the academy,
>fellows of the Royal Society etc issued a long
>protest, saying Derrida was the worst kind
>of charlatan to infest the philosophical waters
>of Europe in a century. Many threatened to return
>awards they had gotten if Derrida was honored.
>I don't know how it all ended.
>If Derrida is so superior to Sokal, here is a
>challenge for him - let him select a scientific
>publication of some repute and publish
>a hoax in it.
One hopes that Derrida would be more honorable than that. Only a
swine who lacks ethics would attempt to publish a hoax in a
professional journal.
Ken
Subject: Mystery Soviet magnetic pole? (1941)...
From: pbs@iaccess.za (Jan Lamprecht)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 12:19:06 GMT
Mystery Soviet magnetic pole? (1941)...
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question...
I read somewhere that back in 1941, the Soviets announced the discovery of
another North Magnetic Pole - somewhere near Russia. Unfortunately, I can't
remember the name of the scientific journal in which this occurred.
Elsewhere, I also came upon a reference to the existence of TWO magnetic
poles (for the vertical component of magnetism only). I am trying to find
out more about this - can anyone help? If so, kindly drop me an e-mail - it
would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Cheers, Jan...
* Ignorant people think it's the noise which fighting cats make
that is aggravating, but it ain't so; it's the sickening
grammar they use. (Mark Twain)
* No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session. (Mark Twain)
* What do politicians and porn stars have in common? They're both
experts at changing positions in front of the camera.
Subject: Re: When did Nietzsche wimp out? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:52:49 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <54mthq$php@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>>In article <54ltgc$ikf@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>
>>> ... snip ...
>>>>
>>>>You are viewing this in much too narrow a sense. Religion is a belief
>>>>in a divine power as the creator of the universe. Science is a belief
>>>>that something other than a divine power created the universe.
>>
>>>Nah, science doesn't deal at all with issues like who (or what)
>>>created the universe and for what purpose. The question it deals with
>>>is "how does the universe (or selected pieces of it) work".
>>
>>Yah, science does deal with such issues because it assumes as a
>>fundamental tenet, as you do, metaphysics.
>>
>Could you be more specific, please?
What is it about the sentence that you do not understand?
Ken
Subject: Re: Curvature of Space-Time
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:39:03 -0400
SAggarwal wrote:
>
> Nathan Urban wrote:
>
> > vector, it's a tensor.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I know what scalars and vectors are, but what is a tensor?
>
A scalar is also a vector.
A vector is also a tensor.
And there are all kinds of tensors, of increasing complexity.
A vector, viewed geometrically, does not depend upon the coordinates
of the space. But if I move the coordinate axes about, the components
of the vector shift about. You get one component for each axis.
For scalars, there is no change with the coordinate system. Thus the
length of a vector doesn't change just because you rotate the axes
by a few degrees.
A tensor is also a geometric entity. But you have more than 1 component
projected onto each axis. This means that you cannot draw them with
arrows on a piece of paper.
Example: force is a vector, but the stress and strain in a metal
bar must be represented by a tensor.
Best Regards, Peter
A vector
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: lbsys@aol.com (LBsys)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 09:32:11 -0400
Im Artikel <54lifs$nrh@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) schreibt:
>So you are suggesting
I am not suggesting - and if you insist on it, you would better provide
evidence.
>that 20th century developments in physics are the
>equivalent to a clandestine ("silent") fixing?
Have you stopped beating your, well, dead horse yet? If you are looking
for playgrounds to try your newly learned tricks wrt your 'field', go
elsewhere. Only to stop you from playing the naive about the above quote:
the question you put is looking rather harmless, but it is poisoned: it
cannot be answered without falling into one trap or the other. As rhetoric
being your field, as you claim, you either put it that way intentionally,
which says a lot about your character, or you didn't recognize it at all,
which says a lot about your professional knowledge. You trapped yourself
again.
>Seems to me you're getting
>in deepter instead of digging yourself out.
Care to explain I dig out from where or what? False premises, as your
friend moggin would cry out.
>: So of course 'Classical mechanics'
>: vs. 'Relativistic mechanics' may look like two different models to the
>: onlooker, the brandnew one replacing the older one, when in fact the
same
>: heart still is beating under the bonnet.
>I assume that most physicists pay more respect to Einstein, Newton, and
>co.
More respect to E, N & co. than? Marcuse? Heidegger? The French
connection? You may be up to your first scientific theory - as it's
falsifiable and testable.
>It's of course your and Mati's prerogative to think of them as
>fuel-pumps;
Oh, this. Yeah, of course. Actually did you know that I think of Goethe as
the battery? And Leonardo as the back mirror? Now who do you think I
picked as being the steering wheel? Just think of 'Feindbild'. Got it?
YES, Bismark!
Hmm, now how do I find words simple enough to explain to Silke the
difference between one mathematical element in a formula and the person of
the inventor of this formula? Anyone there to show me how to explain this
simple fact to someone, who is claiming to have an office and her field
being rhetorics - and not even understanding the simplest analogies
without getting confused about nearly everything?
Ah, a little hint we got: she obviously didn't get the meaning of 'heart',
nor why I was using that rather untechnical word here.
Oh! That! Ste tried to take it literally! fuel=blood, pump=heart!!!
Wow, Silke, you did try to understand. Now that's wonderful! Don't worry
that you were completely off track with that first try. Some learn a
little later. Doesn't mean you will not learn at all.
But, too sorry, it's again *no*, Silke, even with the word 'heart', which
in cars is not refering to the fuel-pump, I didn't mean the persons you
named - can you guess what I was refering too?
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 13:39:13 GMT
LBsys (lbsys@aol.com) wrote:
: Im Artikel <54lifs$nrh@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
: (Silke-Maria Weineck) schreibt:
: >So you are suggesting
: I am not suggesting - and if you insist on it, you would better provide
: evidence.
Your posts defending an analogy everybody else has agreed to be faulty is
evidence enough.
: >that 20th century developments in physics are the
: >equivalent to a clandestine ("silent") fixing?
: Have you stopped beating your, well, dead horse yet?
Gee, as far as I remember, I was talking to Mati, quite amiably; it also
seems he agreed with me. So why are you hanging around?
Silke
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 13:43:54 GMT
Jim Carr (jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: Noel Smith :
: }
: } "With Einstein," writes Derrida, "for example, we see the end of a
: } kind of privilege of empiric evidence." Unfortunately this is simply
: } not true, and in fact reflects a position, as Meron says, which is not
: } possible for 20th century physics.
: moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
: >
: > What's "simply not true" is that Derrida said what you claim.
: What is the correct quotation, and the citation where it can be found?
"Discussion," _The Structualist Controversy_, ed. R. Macksey and Eugenio
Donato, JHU Press 1970, 265ff.
The quote above is from Jean Hyppolite, a Hegel scholar. JH goes on:
"And in that connection we see a constant appear, a constant which
is a combination of space-time, which does not belong to any of the
experimenters who live the experience, but which, in a way, dominates the
whole construct; and this notion of the constant -- is this the center?
But natural science has gone much further. It no longer searches for the
constant."
Silke
Subject: Re: Generalization, was the usual crap under one of its names
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:50:56 -0400
Richard Harter wrote:
>
> weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>
> [Paranthetical note: I do not undertake to support anybody's arguments
> or positions except my own and that only upon occasion.]
>
> >I understand that. Whenever a thread is cross-posted between science
> >community and non-science community, however, mutual accomodations are in
> >order. Witness the "generalization" terminology: for most people,
> >"generalizing" something means to make it _more_ applicable, to extend or
> >expand its applicability. I do not for a moment doubt that Mati uses the
> >term correctly according to sci usage, but it's counter-intuitive to the
> >rest of us.
>
> One must reckon with the difficulties of cross cultural communication.
> However the matter is more subtle than that; it has to do with what is
> being generalized which in turn is a selection of what is significant.
> The essence of generalization is to take a statement or observation
> which is specific to a context and apply it more broadly. Let me give
> an example, chosen to offend as few sensibilities as possible:
>
> (1) Richard Harter is a sloppy thinker
> (2) Richard Harter is sloppy
> (3) Scientists are sloppy thinkers
> (4) Scientists are sloppy
>
> [(3) and (4) are generalizations under the hypothesis that Richard
> Harter is a scientist. (1) and (2) are well known facts.]
>
> The point I am getting at here is that generalization always involves
> the replacement of an element of particularity by a more general
> element. This is a baby example.
>
> Now consider a more complicated instance, say a case in law where a
> general legal principle is derived from a particular suit. What
> restrictions, what particularity are we removing? The obvious,
> generic one is the restriction to the specific case. The original
> ruling applied to one case; now we will apply it to many. This is a
> generalization of the domain of application. However a generalization
> of a legal principle from a specific case is more complex because, to
> construct the generalization, we have to remove many elements that are
> specific to the case in hand. We make a selection of what elements
> are appropriate for a generalization. That selection is inevitably
> based on a theory, a characterization of what is essential and what is
> incidental. For example, in the Miranda case the crime and Miranda's
> actual guilt were incidental; the focus for generalization was the
> contamination of the evidence due to improper process.
>
> Scientists and Mathematicians are not, as some would have it, using
> generalization in a different sense that is used in ordinary parlance.
> Not at all; they are using it in the same sense. The contra
> intuitiveness for the layman, if there be such, rests in the selection
> of what is appropriate as a focus for generalization and what is
> incidental.
>
> When a mathematician or physicist looks at Newtonian mechanics they
> think of it terms of a formal system, a set of equations and rules for
> applying those equations. Within that context one naturally [or not
> so naturally, depending on your nature] views special relativity as a
> generalization of Newtonian mechanics. The generalization is trivial
> - if you understand the math and the physics.
>
> And this is a general property of generalizations [generally
> speaking]. One cannot follow the reasoning in the derivation of legal
> principles from case law as practiced by the Supreme Court without a
> grounding in constitutional law.
>
> A layman, I name no names, might say that special relativity is not a
> proper generalization of Newtonian mechanics because it doesn't just
> change the results for a specific domain of velocities, it changes the
> results for all velocities. However the computed results are an
> incidental. They are important for deciding which formulation is
> preferable, to be sure, but they are a consequence of the change in a
> parameter. They are incidental because all results will change if the
> equations are changed in any way.
>
> There is a further subtlety to consider. We can generalize by
> extending the domain of application of a statement; in our baby
> example (3) is a generalization of the domain; we generalize from
> 'Richard Harter' to "scientists". We can also generalize the
> attributes, going from "sloppy thinker" to "sloppy". [But not
> handsome, which would be an improper generalization.] There is a
> third and more subtle way to generalize and that is structural; thus I
> could say:
>
> (5) There is a relationship between Richard Harter and sloppy
> thinking.
>
> That, I suggest, is what is going on when people say special
> relativity is a generalization of Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
> URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
> Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
> in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.
Based on the analysis shown, I question the factuality of statement (1).
;-)
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Generalization, was the usual crap under one of its names
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 13:49:44 GMT
Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
: [Paranthetical note: I do not undertake to support anybody's arguments
: or positions except my own and that only upon occasion.]
: >I understand that. Whenever a thread is cross-posted between science
: >community and non-science community, however, mutual accomodations are in
: >order. Witness the "generalization" terminology: for most people,
: >"generalizing" something means to make it _more_ applicable, to extend or
: >expand its applicability. I do not for a moment doubt that Mati uses the
: >term correctly according to sci usage, but it's counter-intuitive to the
: >rest of us.
: One must reckon with the difficulties of cross cultural communication.
: However the matter is more subtle than that; it has to do with what is
: being generalized which in turn is a selection of what is significant.
: The essence of generalization is to take a statement or observation
: which is specific to a context and apply it more broadly. Let me give
: an example, chosen to offend as few sensibilities as possible:
: (1) Richard Harter is a sloppy thinker
: (2) Richard Harter is sloppy
: (3) Scientists are sloppy thinkers
: (4) Scientists are sloppy
: [(3) and (4) are generalizations under the hypothesis that Richard
: Harter is a scientist. (1) and (2) are well known facts.]
Or:
Sokal makes fun of Derrida in Social Text
Social Text's editors don't notice.
Social Text's editors are stupid.
Derrida is stupid.
Silke