Subject: Re: The Sagnac Effect
From: mkluge@wizard.net (Mark D. Kluge)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 05:04:59 GMT
In article <54r71f$3l7@nuacht.iol.ie>, flemingp@iol.ie says...
>The Sagnac effect was discovered by the French scientist G. Sagnac in
>1910. In his experiment a light signal (photons)is sent around a path
>on a rotating disc, both clockwise and anti-clockwise, simultaneously
>by means of a beam splitter. In both cases the path length is the
>same. However, the beams take different times to return to the source.
>The effect is seen by means of an interferometer placed on the
>rotating disc, in the same position as the beam splitter. A fringe
>effect is seen. It is seen irrespective of whether the observer
>rotates with the disc, or is stationary in the laboratory. Subsequent
>tests have established that the effect is also seen with electrons
>(Hasselbach et al) and neutrons (Werner et al).
>Over the intervening years many explanations of the phenomenon have
>been suggested e.g.:
>i) Anandan (1981) gives an explanation based on Special Relativity;
>ii) Selleri (1996) gives an explanation in terms of inertial
>transformations.
>A comprehensive list is given in Post (1967).
>I wish to put forward an explanation based on the Coriolis effect and
>the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Coriolis
>acceleration acts on a body (mass) rotating on a disc,
And since the light is not rotating with the disk, there is no Coriolis effect
on the light.
>in a tangential direction.
>If the tangential velocity of the disc is v1 and the velocity of the
>particle is v then, when the particle and the disc are moving in the
>same direction, the velocity of the particle is v1+v relative to an
>observer on the disc. When the particle and disc are moving in
>opposite directions the velocity of the particle is v1-v. Therefore
>the magnitudes of the Coriolis accelerations acting on the particles
>are different.
>As the effect is produced on all particles, photons, neutrons,
>electrons etc, and since it is mass that acceleration operates on, one
>questions the alleged zero rest mass of the photon. Bass et al (1955)
>and Goldhaber et al (1971) suggested a rest mass for the photon. This
>has been endorsed by Vigier (1996).
As noted above, there is no Coriolis effect on the light, which is not
connected to the rotating disk.
>The above analysis, if correct, indicates the non-zero mass of the
>photon and the validity of the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of
>quantum mechanics.
The analysis is wrong, and suggest nothing about the rest mass of the photon.
Mkluge
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 04:36:56 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <54rrks$39k@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >Hi Anton. Lots of stuff here.
: >
: >Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: >: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
: >: >
: >: > Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: >
: >: Talk about culture shock. Thats exactly how I use it in science and
: >: those people I know in and outside of science. Generalisation in its
: >: broadest sense means to me changing a theory ( or replacing it with a
: >: new one) such that the new one encompasses the old one but also is
: >: applicable in areas where the old one is not. So the old theory now
: >: is a special case of the new, generalized one and it makes sense to
: >: say that the old one was incomplete, but not that it was wrong (in
: >: the popular sense of wrong).
: >
: >I hear you, and I accept that this is how scientists use it; I'm still
: >doubting that you'll get very far with this in common usage. When people
: >say, "I'm generalizing here," they usually don't mean that they restrict
: >the applicability of an old theory -- and it is restriction, at least
: >partially, what you're talking about, isn't it?
: It is not an restriction due to the generalization. Rather, you find
: that the old theory (which you thought to be general) is actually
: restricted so you generalize in order to get back to an unrestricted
: situation.
I understand that; I'm saying that the operation debated was that of
restriction -- you objected to "refutation" and suggested
"generalization" instead -- as we have cleared up by now, the
"generalization" part can be conceptualized independently of the
restriction/modification part.
An example modifying Richard's example,
"Richard Harter is sloppy except at very high speed."
Silke
[...]
Subject: Re: Reducibility (was: Science and Aesthetics)
From: Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:17:56 -0500
In article <54r5n8$o8m@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu
(Russell Turpin) wrote:
>-*-------
>In article ,
>Andy Perry wrote:
>> Aesthetics by definition assigns "Art" a different type of uniqueness.
>> It is not one category among others. It is ONTOLOGICALLY different
>> from every other type of thing in the world. Yes, this means that
>> you cannot do aesthetics, properly speaking, without some sort of
>> depth metaphysics. ...
>
>If this is your task, I wouldn't worry about cognitive scientists.
>I think your problems are more fundamental.
This isn't my task. I don't do aesthetics really. I don't do it at all
professionally, since that isn't the kind of thing that happens in English
departments these days. I do have a strong interest in the field as an
amateur, in the sense that I like to blather about specific works of art
as Art sometimes, as I think many of us do. I also have a strong
interest, as a student of culture, in the fact that that field exists,
that it seems to speak to a need of some sort, and that it seems pretty
resilient as a result. It may be in its death throes, but it's not gone
yet.
>> Nor can you do it, I think, without an implicit (or explicit)
>> model of the mind which asserts that aesthetic experience is
>> itself ontologically different from every other type of experience.
>
>On the other hand ... Perry is right that projects involving
>"depth metaphysics" seem inevitably to run up against plain ol'
>science. I suspect that Art in this sense is as doomed as the
>vital force. (The curious thing is that this is always a loss
>of faith rather than a matter of logic.)
Yes, absolutely. Even more interesting is the extent to which a small
group of prophets have called upon us to give up the faith. I'm thinking
of Duchamp and Warhol, among others.
>Now: why should we miss it Art with a capital-A? Will it mean
>less to us just because it comes to live on a more pedestrian
>ontological plane?
Well, here's the thing. There are still many people who FEEL that art is
in fact a privileged domain. I don't think that that's going to disappear
any time soon, although I wouldn't bet the farm on it. What is
disappearing is NOT Art, but merely a generally accepted way of talking
about it which has any claims whatever to intellectual rigour. That is to
say, the death of aesthetics does not in and of itself necessarily imply
the death of its object. I don't think one should dismiss out of hand the
emotional investment that people seem to have in privileging art, merely
because we've forgotten how to construct plausible systems which
articulate that privilege. In fact, the disparity here between what one
feels and what one can say about it is extremely interesting. At least to
me.
--
Andy Perry We search before and after,
Brown University We pine for what is not.
English Department Our sincerest laughter
Andrew_Perry@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
st001914@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 05:51:47 GMT
In talk.origins weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
wrote:
>Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In talk.origins weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
>: wrote:
>
>: [snip]
>
>: >Again, that's mutual. And witness that it's the "science community" that
>: >has descended on moggin like the Wicked Witch of the West's swarm of black
>: >bees.
>
>: Silke, I would appriciate it if you could post one or two example of
>: this swarming. I have recently reread the begining of this thread (or
>: at least it "second coming") and can't find the vicious attack you
>: allege.
>
>Make a search for Lbsys' contributions; they should get you started. He's
>a good example because he came in rather late, didn't know the history of
>the thread, repeated a lot of points that had already been made ad
>nauseam, and repeated them in a needlessly nasty way.
>
But, as you say, Lbsys' contribution came late in the game. I guess my
question is, did the swarming start early or late? For instance, was
the discussion of flat vs. curved space part of this swarm?
>: [snip]
>: >
>: >But since it was clear pretty early on that moggin knew perfectly well
>: >that Newton mostly worked fine, why get so upset? What exactly is it that
>: >makes you guys so irascible about such a trivial point?
>
>: Partially because as soon as pinned down on the science Moggin (and
>: Gordon) start making claims that science is religion. Also it is not
>: clear, even now, that Moggin has any idea of the physics or math
>: Moggin is talking about.
>
>How is that an explanation? You're going after everyone making comments
>on disciplines not hir own?
>
I am sorry I was not clear above. My second sentence was intended to
show disagreement with your first, while my first responded to your
second.
(BTW, Is "hir" a contraction of "his" and "her"?)
Matt Silberstein
================================
A one-man talk.origins mob.
Subject: Re: Stars in daytime and well sjafts (was Why is the sky blue?)
From: bppdd
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:49:01 -0700
William Keel wrote:
>
> Skipping a few levels of nested references on daytime stars...
> : >> 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.
>
> I have managed to see magnitude 0 and brighter stars (Vega, Arcturus,
> Sirius, tried Alpha Centauri once from Chile but didn't know quite
> well enough where to look) some time before sunset at good sites
> with clean skies. The only way the apocryphal well shaft enters into
> the problem is an odd one - the interior of the eye scatters a lot
> of light, so if you're standing in daylight some fraction close to
> 1/2 of the sky brightness is scattered (which is why you gain a little
> bit in contrast at night looking through a telescope, or naked-eye
> at things like Andromeda, if you block stray external light). So
> in principle you gain a little bit (0.75 magnitude) in seeing stars
> from a dark location in the daytime. However, this would normally
> be overshadowed by the fact that your eye usually dark-adapts to
> a mean brightness, and the circle of daylight would be too dazzling to
> pick out a star.
>
> Bill Keel
> Astronomy, University of Alabama
Subject: How Does A Solid Melt?
From: davk@netcom.com (David Kaufman)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 07:01:14 GMT
For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
Interested In Developing Math, Science And Ethics
Toward Curriculum Enrichment And Educational Excellence.
How does a compressive wave
in a vibrating aluminum solid break it into a liquid?.
What happens when atoms hit a wall
with enough energy to melt aluminum?
|
| 10 atoms in their equilibrium center position
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
wall O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O
| |
|<------------------->|
| 1 wave length = 4.44 bonded aluminum atoms.
A high speed atom moves from left to right on line 0
below and hits the wall atom shown in 0 column above. It
hits on line 0 below when the atom 0 is already creating a
maximum compression on atom 1 as it is to the right (R) of
its equilibrium (or center) position. This hit will increase
the compressive force into the solid and then increase the
expansion force that could break the solid apart.
Consider down the page below as time varying after the
hit. When 0 column wall atom moves half a cycle to line 2
below, its new expansion left (L) will be greater. At line 4
below it is again in compression on atom 1 and could be hit
again. Note: compression of 0 atom is half happening in line
3 below as atom 1 moves left into it.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
wall O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O----O
Compression Expansion
on atom 1 about atom 7
0 A hit--> R O L O R O L O R O
1 O R O L O R O L O R
2 L O R O L O R O L O
3 O L O R O L O R O L
4 R O L O R O L O R O
1 O R O L O R O L O R
2 L O R O L O R O L O
3 O L O R O L O R O L
4 R O L O R O L O R O
1 O R O L O R O L O R
2 L O R O L O R O L O
3 O L O R O L O R O L
4 R O L O R O L O R O
Where in the solid will the expansion be greatest, if
the vibrating atoms shown above is a wave length of 4 atom
bonded distances while the wave just created has a wave
length of 4.44 atoms? (This number for aluminum will be
discussed in another post.)
Assuming that 4.44 atoms = length of 1 wave length from
the hit, where will it create maximum compression or combine
constructively with the vibrating atoms as shown above?
Note: 4.44 atoms (25 wave lengths) = 111 atoms exactly
-----------
wave length
111 atom layer FCC cube is the expected size and place
for the breaking of the solid aluminum into its liquid.
Because 25 wave lengths is the smallest number that makes
the vibrating atoms match the moving wave for maximum
constructive interference.
Such a cube is made up of 683,816 atoms with half of
its surface atoms of 18,151 breaking to create the heat of
fusion for these inner FCC cube atoms. The body atoms
divided by half the surface atoms equals a 37.67 ratio.
This body atom to half surface atom ratio should about
match the heat of vaporization (284 kJ/ mol) divided by the
heat of fusion (10.7 kJ/ mol) which is 26.54. What size FCC
cube would give this ratio? (I will offer a computer
program that can easily answer this question and empower
students to explore other atom structures.)
The above is a hypothesis that I dreamed up that can be
perhaps tested or discussed to increase understanding of
what is happening between solid and liquid atoms of the
metal elements.
Many important ideas will have to be aired on atom
structures and their properties. I hope this discussion will
be conducted in a way that will benefit and enthuse k-12
students, teachers and others.
Consider Also Where The Energy Of The Broken Bonds Went?
The atom distances are not much increased on melting.
Could this small increase in distance account for the fusion
energy per atom? The atoms can't absorb energy by vibrating
(or translating) more because the temperature on melting
remains constant. Therefore I suggest this 111 atom layer
FCC cube must absorb the energy by rotating. Could this be
tested? Bigger sized cubes will rotate slower. Why?
I offer this post to begin a useful discussion on many
valuable ideas about atoms that could become meaningful
projects for students and others to explore.
____________________________________________________________
Thanks to those who have offered constructive criticism.
C by David Kaufman, Oct. 26, 1996
Founder of the Cube Club
For Collaborative Math, Science and Ethics Excellence.
Be Good, Do Good, Be One, and Then Go Jolly.
What else is there to do?
Meditate.
4
--
davk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:39:32 GMT
savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote[in part]:
>............. Still, I haven't yet seen anything in physics
>to convince me that a physical entity called "time" exists
>independently of motion and length. So far, the only unambiguous way
>to describe time is with the equation t = d / v. d and v are observed
>and the ratio t is automatic. I see no empirical reason to think of
>time as anything other than an abstract ratio of two observed
>variables. If physicists want to introduce a physical "time" that can
>affect particles, it is incumbent upon them to produce and possibly
>isolate such a "time" entity. It is also incumbent upon them to
>explain the causal mechanism between the "time" entity and matter. I
>don't see it. Sorry.
>Best regards,
>Louis Savain
Howdy, Louis, best regards to you.
Time is separate from distance and speed.
If two clocks are started together side-by-side, and then separated,
and then reunited, they will disagree. It has to do with the clocks
themselves, and it is their internal (natural) rhythms that are
involved. For some reason, a clock's intrinsic rhythm varies with its
(absolute) speed thru space. (It's not merely a relative thing because
there is no outside observer, and no distance or speed measurements
involved in the given example, just two clocks, each doing its own
"thing.") What could slow this internal beat? Mass increase could, if
it were an actual and not merely an observer-dependent mass increase.
And what would cause this absolute (not relative to the observer) mass
increase? Inertia. A proposed cause of inertia is the distant matter.
It was said that inertia is a force similar to gravity, but one that
increases with distance so that a distant star has more effect on us
than our own sun/star. The faster a clock moves thru space, the more
inertia it has, thereby slowing down its internal beat because every
particle becomes more massive, making their internal motions more
difficult. Light, although it has "zero rest mass" (no mass prior to
emission), does have an actual mass as it moves (it may be callled
"pure energy," but it is affected by gravity), so even light can not
move but so fast against this inertia force from the stars.
>>BJ<<
**bjon@ix.netcom.com**
Subject: Re: Linguists vs. literary theorists (was: Sophistry 103)
From: brian artese
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 02:22:58 -0500
Russell Turpin wrote:
> Again, the amazing thing about recent literary theory -- amazing
> to linguists, and to analytic philosophers -- is its insistence
> on denying human cognition, or at least, any human cognition
> other than words. There is not only a third thing, but a fourth
> thing, fifth thing, and more. There is human observation of,
> interaction with, and understanding about puppies. There are
> innate ways in which people learn and use certain parts of
> language. There are non-linguistic ways that people learn about
> their environment. And all of these are important in
> understanding how the word 'puppy' is learned and in how this
> aspect of language functions.
The reason serious thinkers don't throw around a word like 'cognition'
is because, as your post clearly indicates, it doesn't really mean much
-- that is, it wants to mean just about anything. Don't you ever read
what you write? You should try it once. You'd see yourself sneering at
literary theorists for their lack of 'scientific precision,' brandishing
in every other sentence this 'cognition' to do so; and then you'd read
that your 'cognition' refers to anything and everything involving
'observation' or 'non-linguistic interaction' -- in other words, just
about all human behavior. Ambitious people, your cognicians.
> The Continentals must struggle to
> get rid of Platonic forms only because they are still carting
> them around in *their* baggage).
The idiotic intrinsicism in your writing about language is as obvious as
spinach in your teeth. You don't see it, but everybody else does.
> Linguists (as opposed to literary theorists) seek a
> fairly broad theory of language...
Good lord, man -- were you abused by a literary theorist as a child? I
don't think I've read a single post of yours, among our fairly numerous
exchanges, in which you didn't oppose all that was Right Thinking
against 'literary theorists'. It's truly pathological with you. I'd
like to know which literary theorists you've actually read. I assume
you've read none at all, since you've proudly proclaimed more than once
that you need not read more than a single one of Derrida's essays in
order to hold forth on his oeuvre.
> ... not one that is just adequate to
> get indexicals right and then do literary theory, but that also
> answers questions such as: how do people learn words like
> 'puppy,' why do all human languages exhibit certain patterns, how
> have languages evolved, and how does language interact with other
> aspects of human cognition.
Mmmm, yes, ... exhibiting 'certain patterns' ... interacting with
'aspects of cognition' ... yes, so much going on there ... (stretch)
Looks like rain ...
> Again, Artese ...
> refuses to recognize the possibility of cognitive demarcations
> that are not linguistic.
Hey, just tell me where I can download any and all maps of these
'non-linguistic cognitive demarcations.' I'm sure it's an eyeful.
> > ... The question that scientists should address is: how and
> > why do people isolate certain phenomena *as such*? ...
> They are adressing that question (among others), and the research
> informs linguists' understanding of language, and that is *why*
> linguists view these things differently than do literary
> theorists.
There's that literary theorist again! Hissss! Booooo! But here comes
Russell's linguist to show him what's what! Yaaaaay! Givem hell!
> > ... It's a huge question, I admit, requiring both physicists
> > and philosophers. ...
> The scientists investigating this are linguists, cognitive
> scientists, empirical psychologists, neurologists, etc.
> Physicists are rarely involved. I suspect philosophers will
> play a role. Literary theorists, on the other hand ...
There he is again!! Bastard! Continental nonsenser! Booo! You'd
think he'd know to stay off the stage, but he comes back every
paragraph!
> > .... Linguists should concern themselves with questions about
> > the shifting but semi-stable organization of these indexical
> > relationships in a given language. ...
> Artese should speak for literary theorists.
Oh my GoD, back agaIN!! Can't we just put him out of his misery?!
> Linguists have
> much broader interest. Again, Artese keeps using that word,
> but I don't think he knows what it means.
Uh huh. Who had to teach whom about the 'Course in General
Linguistics'? C'mon pal, you know as well as I do that you haven't been
able to keep up with me on *any* of our actual discussions about
signification. After I finished explaining it to you, you rightly point
out that there's much more involved, but you haven't brought any of that
'moreness' to bear on any of the hypothetical situations we've been
discussing. All you're able to do is make references to vague concepts,
vague methods, enormous disciplines and your favorite authors. Of the
two of us, I'm the only one who has been capable of talking
intelligently about the construction of a given bit of prose, and I
often have to teach you what certain philosophic and rhetorical terms
*mean*, for chrisssake. Who do you think you're fooling with this talk
about your intellectual superiority to literary theorists? The only
thing to which your intellect is superior, as far as I can tell, is
Zeleny.
-- brian
Subject: Re: Generalization, was the usual crap under one of its names
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 08:01:15 GMT
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>: >Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
[snip snippables]
>: As it happens I am a Fellow at the General Pedantics Institute. As is
>: well know, we general pedanticists deal only in literal textual
>: analysis - humor, satire, parody, and irony are not part of our
>: repertoire, although some of the senior fellows are rumored to enjoy a
>: spot of dry humor in private in the their offices. Behind locked
>: doors, of course.
>: Speaking as a Fellow, I am desolated to inform you that your examples
>: do not form a diagram of generalizations.
>Sadly, though, neither did yours, according to Mati's definition.... (am
>I generalizing yet?)
Since Mati is about I think we will do well to let him offer his own
opinion on the matter rather than speaking for him. To be sure, one
understands the temptation to speak for him, since he is a physicist,
poor chap. A physicist, you see, is a failed mathematician. Granted
that some physicists [I have known such, one or two] are bright enough
to be mathematicians of a sort, still, even the best lack the "right
stuff".
We at the General Pedantics Institute have an obligation to set the
matter straight which we can do since we are always correct. [We may
be in error from time to time but we are always correct by definition.
We make the definitions.]
Our physicist friend has said that special relativity is a
modification of Newtonian mechanics, the difference being that in one
case the translation from one inertial frame to another is done via a
linear translation (newton) and in the other via a Lorentz
transformation (SR). Having put the matter in this style it would
seem that we are looking at a modification rather than a
generalization. However all is not what it seems. Linear translation
is a special case of the Lorentz transformation as can readily be seen
by looking at the formulas. Tra La La, we have a generalization after
all.
There is a subtle point here which is easily missed. When we
generalize Newton's mechanics we get a translation formula depending
on a parameter. If the value of this parameter is not specified we
have the general form; if we pick a value for the parameter we get a
special case. To avoid infinities this parameter is the minimum time
that information can be transferred across a unit distance. If this
parameter is 0 we have Newton's formulas; if it is 1/c we have SR *for
our universe*. What we have here is two different instances of a
single generalization.
As an analogy consider a legal principle generalized from case A which
holds in case B. Both cases are instances of the application of the
generalized legal principle. Neither, however, is a generalization of
the other.
If there are further questions the staff of GPI is only too happy to
answer them in excruciating detail (our specialty). If this does not
suit your needs you may wish to consider purchasing a copy of GPI
report A4772K95, The Principles Of Generalization, 432 volumes,
illuminated and leather bound.
---
By the bye, I have finally given up and kill-filed most of these
threads from Hell. This one has been retained only because I started
it. A paltry reason for doing so, I own, but one feels the
obligations of parenthood even if the child is not quite right.
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.
Subject: Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light--Purely Mathematical?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:14:16 GMT
Christopher R Volpe wrote[in part]:
>[Brian Jones wrote:]
>> There is no frame that can be distinguished physically by us from
>> any other. And we have tried.
>You admit it now? You've denied this before, saying that someday someone
>will figure out a way to detect absolute velocity (thereby
>distinguishing one frame from another).
Not really, Throop, all I am saying is that it has not been done,
leaving open the possibility, however slight, that it may be done in
the future. In fact, this "open-end" view is necessary if SRT is to
be a testable (i.e., scientific) theory.
And the main point I was trying to make was about absolute motion
itself having existence. To say that absolute motion does exist is not
the same as saying we have not detected it yet.
> What Throop may be confused about is
>> that at times I have said just what you said above -- that maybe at
>> this moment the earth (or the sun) could be at absolute rest in
>> space
>What does it *mean* to be at "absolute rest in space" if it is
>indistinguishable from being at absolute motion in space?
Yes, you are right, there's no difference at all, as far as our being
able to detect absolute motion goes, but the point concerned not the
detection but the very existence of absolute motion.
>, and this particular observer would -- under the rules of
>> Einstein -- have truly set clocks, unshrunken rods, and unslowed
>> clocks. But this does not allow him or us to distinguish him from
>> anyone else. He gets "c" for light's round-trip as well as for the
>> one-way trip speed. He cannot tell that he's at rest.
>And it's possible that someone somewhere on earth is at the true "top"
>of the earth, and that he's standing "truly up". After all, it isn't
>necessarily the case that the north pole *really* points up, as all the
>pictures indicate. The north and south poles could *really* point
>sideways and we just don't know it.
Everyone understands mere relative position and such. This has nothing
to do with my argument that absolute motion does exist, altho it has
not so far been detectable. And of course one can say that this is
"good enough" for physicists to "deny its very existence," but by so
doing they deny the very testability of SRT itself.
> Or maybe
>> Throop lost touch when I mentioned that IF we had a way to truly
>> set our clocks, then we could detect our absolute motion by using
>As Bjon has lost touch when I mentioned that it is obvious that the
>concept of absolute clock synching is logically equivalent to the
>concept of absolute motion. Claiming that knowing how to ascertain one
>will enable us to find the other is totally unimpressive, just like I
>could claim that it would be easy to find the true "up/down direction"
>is I could find a way to make a truly horizontal plane.
In the context of relative position, a "truly horizontal plane" is a
total contradiction and a logical impossibility, but this has nothing
at all to do with the current topic, which is the existence of
absolute motion. And even though true clock synch is equivalent to
the concept of absolute motion, it does make for a clear example to
help get across the point that absolute motion has an existence
because one can see that it is physically possible for two clocks to
be truly synch'd, and if they are used to measure light's one-way
speed, the result would be a variable lightspeed, one that indeed
varies with the observer's absolute speed, a type of speed that some
say has no existence.
>> such clocks to measure light's one-way speed. The catch, of course,'
>> is that no one (yet) knows how to truly set clocks.
>No one (yet) knows hot to make a truly horizontal plane.
>> OTOH, Throop
>> may have floundered over my saying that SRT has never denied the very
>> existence of absolute motion, but merely denied it's "detectableness."
>Detectableness is equivalent to existence, as far as physics is
>concerned. Einstein was pretty clear about that.
>--
>Chris Volpe Phone: (518) 387-7766
>GE Corporate R&D; Fax: (518) 387-6560
>PO Box 8 Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
>Schenectady, NY 12301 Web: http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr
They'd better not be precisely equivalent, or his own theory becomes
untestable.
>>BJ<<
**bjon@ix.netcom.com**
Subject: Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light--Purely Mathematical?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:20:35 GMT
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>: bjon (that's me, how are you?, I'm just fine, thank you!) has never
>: claimed that there's a preferred frame. There is no frame that can be
>: distinguished physically by us from any other.
>In which case I humbly beg bjon's pardon. I was really under the
>impression that this bit of bjon's
> <549lri$45e@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
> If one says that light's speed is source independent, then which
> type of speed is involved here? It cannot be a merely relative speed
> because no observers are given. Light's speed is source independent
> even in a universe without any inertial observers whatsoever. The
> only type of speed this involves is an absolute speed. In fact,
> there are two absolute speeds -- that of light, and that of the
> light source.
>(along with many other such over the years, arguing for the philosophical
>necessity of unambiguous objective space and time measures)
>meant that bjon supposed there is an objective, observer-independent,
>intrinsic velocity associated with objects in space.
No inconsistency. See my reply to your "twin" Volpe.
>: What Throop may be confused about is that at times I have said just
>: what you said above -- that maybe at this moment the earth (or the
>: sun) could be at absolute rest in space,
>Sure. You can fantasize all you want. All I've ever said is that SR
>involves no such concept as "absolute rest in space".
>If bjon wants to actually stick to what he claimed above, that there is
>no inertial frame that can be distinguished physically from others, then
>fine, we agree. Glad that's cleared up then. That does lead me to
>wonder a bit about all his "KISS TPP" postings, but so it goes.
>Remember, bjon said that "there is no frame that can be distinguished
>physically by us from any other". And SR is a model of physical
>processes, and thus involves no concept of a distinguished frame of
>"empty space". Einstein said so fairly explicitly:
> [...] the view to be developed here will not require an "absolutely
> stationary space" provided with special properties [...]
> The theory to be developed is based -- like all electrodynamics --
> on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any
> such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies
> (systems of coordinates), clocks and electromagnetic processes.
> --- Einstein, 1905 "special relativity" paper
>The assertions of Einstein's theory have to wo with the RELATIONSHIPS
>between rigid bodies and so on, NOT on any absolute speed or motion
>of a body in and of itself or in relation to an absolute standard
>of motion. As I said, I think Einstein is fairly explicit and clear
>on this point.
>--
>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> throopw@cisco.com
Yes, this is correct, but....
The denial of the very existence of absolute motion is bogus, and this
is what I have gotten from some relativists. There is nothing in SRT
that says "Absolute motion has no existence."
>>BJ<<
**bjon@ix.netcom.com**
Subject: Re: Generalization, was the usual crap under one of its names
From: lbsys@aol.com (LBsys)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 04:22:17 -0400
Im Artikel <54ph1s$l1l@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) schreibt:
>>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>
>>: (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.]
>As it happens I am a Fellow at the General Pedantics Institute. As is
>well know, we general pedanticists deal only in literal textual
>analysis - humor, satire, parody, and irony are not part of our
>repertoire, although some of the senior fellows are rumored to enjoy a
>spot of dry humor in private in the their offices. Behind locked
>doors, of course.
[lots of more good prose regretfully deleted]
So, Prof.Dr.ped., would you care to consider the following and give us an
answer if possible? As one can see from your example, the process of
generalizing may use various methods (which indeed confused a certain
poster and lead to considerable upheaval). One method mentioned is
reducing a complex set to widen its range for applicability. Another
method is exactly the opposite: the rule derived from a simple special
case is generalized by adding terms to make it applicable to all non
simple cases (e.g.: when geometric rules derived from squares are expanded
to rectangulars, the angle of the diagonals do not just half any longer,
but follow a more complex mathematical model, which include the 90/2=45
deg. as a special case). Did your example show a third method of
generalizing and how would you describe it? Could you give examples from
your field (i.e. pedantics) where a) reducing terms and b) adding terms
lead to the generalization of a given expression?
Thank you very much for your kind attention
Cheerio
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: lbsys@aol.com (LBsys)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 05:10:41 -0400
Im Artikel <54misk$9bo@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) schreibt:
>No doubt. We are still looking at the analogy. Newtonian mechanics was
>the car, physics as an institution was Mercedes. QM, I think, was the
>fuel pump. Lbsys doubted the accuracy of my critique of your metaphor.
>Science itself is not in question; rhetorical accuracy is.
Unfortunately I deleted the resp. original from Mati and your answer to
it. And this time I'm sure not going to make the effort to ask DN, as
during daytime the link is too slow. So just from my memory, which very
well may be distorted: AFAIR Mati didn't mention a specific brand or maker
of a car, but just a car, and also mentioned that you wouldn't throw away
the whole car, when there's a bug to fix. In your critique you painted the
picture of Mercedes replacing your broken fuel pump with a new one of the
same making. This was the first misunderstanding IMO.
Indeed, as I explained, in this analogy you cannot take the replacement of
a fuel pump of the same making for what Mati had meant, as then, as you
did show with your example, the analogy doesn't work.
But replacing it with a newly engineered element (remember Mati over and
over mumbling "Lorentzian vs. Galilean..." ;-) does make the analogy work.
As Richard Harter sort of fell for the same misunderstanding, evaluating
your critique as 'point well taken', I felt tempted to clear up the
misunderstanding. As you lately seem to agree with Mati about the term
'generalization' (or rather as your definition of it puts an end to the
confusion, that moggin has brought up once, and as Mati happily agrees to
this definition, showing it was exactly what he ever had wanted to make
clear), we may skip the point.
Now certainly it is clear, why Matis statement "not refuted but
generalized" should not have been replied with "a rather desperate
rhetorical gesture" - which leads to the following point:
[Silke to Mati]
>>I was nitpicking the analogy a bit, and didn't
>>expect that to snowball into yet another attack on my professional
>> credentials or the state of humanities as such.
[Mati]
>I trust you won't find much of an attack in the above, be it personal
>or institutional.
Well, of course I was the one attacking your professionality (for the
humanities bit I did deliver an apology, which on my server has duly shown
up yesterday). Actually IMO you gave reason to attacking you personally.
Why? Well, as probably I'm not the first to tell you, quite often you are
speaking 'ex cathedra'. This certainly is disliked more than you know,
although it is grudgingly accepted, as long as facts and logic displayed
remain flawless. But it is a dangerous game.
Also you are using the whole fund of tools at your disposal, and that is
rather unfair, if your field is rhetorics, and the issue is *not rhetorics
(if it is, anyone taking part should be aware of it). Thus if you are
caught, you have to expect heavy attacks using this as target.
Especially, when on one hand you say things like "should be understood
even without a training in hermeneutics..." and on the other hand, when
one is using exactly an 'understanding' form of interpretation on your
statements (e.g. calling rhetoric questions what they are), you are just
denying it and claiming to be the naive questioneer asking real questions.
Or claiming, that a "rather desperate rhetorical gesture" is a statement
devaluating not the contents of the commented statement (which were
scientific), but on the "rhetoric" itself. As Richard Harter did show the
"loadedness" and undercurrents in your statements, I'm rather sure, that I
didn't get you wrong, and you were indeed making prevarications, again
using the tools of your profession. This IMO is betraying your profession,
which is, why I attack your professionalism.
Scientists do claim (and I take no position here, just report), that their
research (and the tools used) does not contain any moral value. Usually
they will not (should not) misuse their tools or findings to comment or
influence a debate. They may make statements about data, if the public
needs to be informed, and those data should show "both sides of the coin",
and not an interpretion. IMO you did use your rhetoric tools to score
points. You seldom gave two possible interpretations, and, when undeniably
caught, didn't stand up to it. The 'analogy' discussion is just another
hint in this direction - there is more than one way to read this analogy
(and rhetoric and hermeneutic being your field, you would be the one asked
to point them out to us, showing in which version it fits and in which it
doesn't - if that's of any value anyway), but you picked the only version
that didn't fit, just to be able to disagree, it seems. Another example,
why I attack your professionalism: You make use of its tools, but only if
it comes to your needs.
In sciences a respected researcher would do as best as he can to confirm
the data of his opponent with the best tools he commands, even if he
thinks the theory behind it just laughable. It's not only a matter of
honesty. Often it may be just not to get caught himself having fudged the
experiment and loose ones credit - especially in case he *can*not
confirm. As your intelligence not really can be doubted, you may draw your
own conclusions from that.
Just as Mati commented
>It is important, with analogies, to concentrate on the essential,
>not on irrelevant details, else not much progress can be made.
You have yet to show IMO, that you are interested in progress to be made
instead of nitpicking. As you learned about generalization now, I think
it's about time, you would comment on that early statement of yours, that
stood at the beginning of this rather unpleasant debate: "This strikes me
as a rather desperate gesture". As you seem to try to get on terms with
Mati, it certainly would be a good signal to plainly state that your
comment was inappropriate. I'm sure, anyone would know how to read this,
without the slightest misunderstanding.
I myself, as a side note, feel sorry for having made use of similar
rhetorical tricks you presented and would like to apologize to the
readers of groups, where this sort of debating style and language is
neither approved of nor welcome, especially r.a.b., as one poster
privately hinted to me. Having said this, I feel entitled to rest my case.
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: faster than light travel
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 21:43:52 GMT
Marcel (marcel@javanet.com) wrote:
[Much snippage.]
: Experiments have been done in electromagnetics. One experiment that comes to mind is the
: famous "Philadelphia" Experiment. I know, it's been covered up by the government for a
: long time, but the data gathered from this could be quite useful in furthering research
: in the "possibility" of c+ travel. If a way to "drop out", if you will, of this
: "universe" were possible, then would not we be able to attain c+ travel? The other
: possibility would be that we would not be travelling faster than light, but, rather,
: utilize space curvature to get to where we want to go. In essence, "hyper-space".
: Does anybody know of any results of this kind of experiments?
They were TRYING to build a cloaking device. It worked well enough, but
was extremely harmful to life forms inside the field. No good.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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: Re: Inertia, explain this please
From: yap@weiaun.pl.my (YAP Wei Aun)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 09:44:48 GMT
Hi!
Classical physics can easily describe why a rod undergoes
compression/expansion when it is accelerated from one point on it.
It’s because the inertia of the parts connected to that point is
opposing the change in momentum.
What I have been asking about is regarding another force that has the
same effect as inertia but without requiring mass.
"I was wondering in my first post whether the inter particle forces
which hold a rod from one end (B) because that end is ‘stuck’ by time,
is inertia. What I mean by stuck by time is the fact that, as Stephen
Hawking described as a light cone, the end that was accelerated (A)
cannot affect the other end (B) straight away. Because of that, at
some time, end A will be moving while end B will be stationary
relative to A. End A will then experience a kind of pull back force
that has been relayed from B."
That’s a piece of my 2nd post. (Since then, I have of course modified
my conception of this ‘force’). As you can see by the description, the
force I described relies on inter particle forces which could be
caused by electromagnetic attraction. It would even exist if the rod
was mass-less.
Anyway, I decided to take it quantitatively:
I have this rod with a cross sectional area of A, length l and density
D. Under classical physics, F=ma
m=DAl
a=F/(DAl) (Equation 1)
Now’s the hard part of trying to calculate the effect of this ‘force’.
I can’t really use Newton’s Laws of motion because this ‘force’ is not
really a force, strictly speaking, I think.
Let the Young’s Modulus of that rod be E, let c be the speed of light,
and t be the time taken for light to travel from one end to the other.
t = l/c
Stress = F/A
strain = x
absolute extension = e = xl
Let’s say that the other end is stuck firmly to a fixed thing.
E=F/Ax
F=EAx
F=EAe/l
e=Fl/EA
Now, I’m considering that the end is actually stuck by ‘time’ (as
described above). I’m using the usual laws of motion here to find the
equivalent acceleration. I’m disregarding inertia.
s=ut+(1/2)at^2
Fl/EA=(1/2)a(l/c)^2
a=2Fl(c^2)/EA(l^2)
a=2Fc^2/EAl (Equation 2)
Well, that’s about all I can calculate. I hope I got the maths right.
I would like to take it deeper by calculating the microscopic (atomic)
effects of this ‘force’ but I don’t know how to. I can only draw a few
conclusions.
1) Mass-less particles would require a force to be accelerated also as
long as they occupy space.
2) That there should be a slightly less acceleration than F/m.
I put in some actual figures and found that this ‘force’ is many times
weaker than inertia. When I compare the two equations (1&2), 2 seems
to have quite the same characteristics as 1 in the sense that a prop F
and a prop 1/Al => a prop 1/m. That would mean that it’s pretty hard
to distinguish the two ‘effects’. When I mentioned that Al => m, it
doesn’t actually mean that the ‘force’ is dependent on mass. It just
requires some volume. Even a rod with 0 density can be affected but in
reality, since rods don’t have 0 density, Al => m.
So, what do you’ll think? Rubbish/non-nonsense/logical? Anyway, please
respond if you’ve got something constructive to say.
--
o YAP
o
<><
Subject: Re: The Sagnac Effect
From: flemingp@iol.ie (Patrick Fleming)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:21:36 GMT
mkluge@wizard.net (Mark D. Kluge) wrote:
>In article <54r71f$3l7@nuacht.iol.ie>, flemingp@iol.ie says...
>>The Sagnac effect was discovered by the French scientist G. Sagnac in
>>1910. In his experiment a light signal (photons)is sent around a path
>>on a rotating disc, both clockwise and anti-clockwise, simultaneously
>>by means of a beam splitter. In both cases the path length is the
>>same. However, the beams take different times to return to the source.
>>The effect is seen by means of an interferometer placed on the
>>rotating disc, in the same position as the beam splitter. A fringe
>>effect is seen. It is seen irrespective of whether the observer
>>rotates with the disc, or is stationary in the laboratory. Subsequent
>>tests have established that the effect is also seen with electrons
>>(Hasselbach et al) and neutrons (Werner et al).
>>Over the intervening years many explanations of the phenomenon have
>>been suggested e.g.:
>>i) Anandan (1981) gives an explanation based on Special Relativity;
>>ii) Selleri (1996) gives an explanation in terms of inertial
>>transformations.
>>A comprehensive list is given in Post (1967).
>>I wish to put forward an explanation based on the Coriolis effect and
>>the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Coriolis
>>acceleration acts on a body (mass) rotating on a disc,
>And since the light is not rotating with the disk, there is no Coriolis effect
>on the light.
>>in a tangential direction.
>
>>If the tangential velocity of the disc is v1 and the velocity of the
>>particle is v then, when the particle and the disc are moving in the
>>same direction, the velocity of the particle is v1+v relative to an
>>observer on the disc. When the particle and disc are moving in
>>opposite directions the velocity of the particle is v1-v. Therefore
>>the magnitudes of the Coriolis accelerations acting on the particles
>>are different.
>
>>As the effect is produced on all particles, photons, neutrons,
>>electrons etc, and since it is mass that acceleration operates on, one
>>questions the alleged zero rest mass of the photon. Bass et al (1955)
>>and Goldhaber et al (1971) suggested a rest mass for the photon. This
>>has been endorsed by Vigier (1996).
>As noted above, there is no Coriolis effect on the light, which is not
>connected to the rotating disk.
>
>>The above analysis, if correct, indicates the non-zero mass of the
>>photon and the validity of the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of
>>quantum mechanics.
>The analysis is wrong, and suggest nothing about the rest mass of the photon.
>Mkluge
Thank you for your comments.
The Coriolis force is an inertial force that arises when a body moves
in a rotating frame of reference. The force acts on the body. It must
be taken into account when considering motion relative to the earth's
surface, for example:
i) a fluid that flows along the earth's surface is influenced by the
Coriolis acceleration. In the northern hemisphere low pressure storm
systems spin counterwise. In the southerm hemisphere they spin
clockwise because the direction of the Coriolis acceleration os
reversed;
ii) the same effect applies to a vortex in a bath, but the magnitude
of the effect is so small that it does not normally influence the
direction of flow. The effect can be seen in carefully controlled
expeiments.
iii) the effect must also be taken into account in calculating the
trajectories of long-range ballistics.
None of these bodies is "connected" to the earth. My analysis holds.
Regards,
Patrick Fleming