Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:37:32 GMT
In talk.origins +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
[snip]
>
>As Machiavelli said, "If you strike at a prince, you had
>better kill him." But perhaps I'm taking it all too
>seriously?
>
G*r*n (do I have to you this form now? Please inform.),
While I do not know you very well, I think I can safely say that you
do not take anything too seriously. As an example I point to the post
I just snipped. You did have a point in it, but you were quite willing
to cover the point with a humorous wording.
Matt Silberstein
================================
A one-man talk.origins mob.
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 14:00:15 -0500
In article <54opon$4ld@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>]guilt. But here we have the "science" community, intoning in near-unison
>]and near-ignorance, "where there's smoke, there must be fire."
>
> You are lying.
Can Weiner sue you for copyright infringement?
--
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: faster than light travel
From: Mad Scientist
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:14:07 +0100
In article <326f5ac7.88021047@News.TIAC.NET>, Robert Coe
writes
>On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 03:37:38 GMT, pcuni@cris.com (Paul Cuni) wrote:
>: whats' the bottom line on this faster than light travel yes or no?
>
>No.
Pay a visit to you local nuclear power station. Turn the lights off and
look down into the water. What do you see? Blue light, that's what.
The escaping electrons (et al) are travelling faster than the local
speed of light, hence, they "leave their EM field behind" --> blue
light.
Or did Paul mean "in a vacuum"? :-)
Prof.
,-----------------------------------+---------------------------. IS THERE
| Antigravity research and advanced | Colin F. Russ | ANY TEA
| time travel development committee | russ@antigrav.demon.co.uk | ON THIS
`-----------------------------------+---------------------------' SPACESHIP?
Subject: HELP - Physics ? from non-physicist 10/26
From: begrench@aol.com (BEGrench)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 14:48:04 -0400
I'm hoping somebody can answer a question for me. I have two baseball
bats, both are made from the same type of metal, both are 33 inches long
and both weigh 28.5 ounces. The only difference is in the ends of the
barrels. While both get thicker as you move away from the handle bat "T"
reaches it's maximum width of 2 3/4" about 6 inches from the end and
maintains that width until the end. Bat "E", an extended barrel model,
reaches the same maximum width of 2 3/4", but it does so around 8 inches
from the end and it too maintains that width until the end.
I have noticed in playing with both bats that I get both more power with
bat "T" (assuming I hit the ball in the last six inches with both bats)
and I get around on pitches faster. My assumption is that bat "T" has
more power simply because it has more mass in the last 6" since the bats
weigh the same but "E" must have more surface area. The power would also
be enhanced if I'm right about having more bat speed with "T".
My question is why do I have more bat speed with bat "T"? I don't think
wind resistance is an issue. Can somebody give me a physics explaination
that a layman could understand? The bat company said bat "E" would be
more powerful, but that doesn't seem to be true. If my anecdotal evidence
is right then the only advantage of "E" would seem to be that I would get
more hits on balls I mis-hit in the extra 2" zone. I would really
appreciate an explaination - THANKS!
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 96 17:44:42 GMT
In article <54tfsp$4qa@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com
(Ken Seto) wrote:
(BIG CUT)
Tsk, Tsk! Comparing different reference frames again, are
we? This will get confusing every time. BTW, who decides
which reference frame is the "standard"? If there are only
to objects in the universe, and they are moving relative to
each other, which one is actually moving, and which one is at
rest? Or are they both moving (if so, what are you using to
determine this)?
The point is this - relativity was constructed such that
there is no standard reference frame. Until people come to
grips with this, they will continue to try comparing
different reference frames to each other, with invariably
confusing results.
>Time dilation is the result of a different definition for a
second in
>different inertial frames. In other words, the duration of a
second is
>different in different frames by definition. Einstein did
that to
>maintain the constancy of the speed of light in all frames.
What about
>the slowed clocks? Why are they seem to tick slower? The
answer to
>these questions are as follows:
>1. The passage of time is not connected to any physical
processes
>(such as the ticking of a clock).
>2. If you want to compare the passage of time using clocks
you must
>use one frame as standard and reset all clocks in the other
frames
>according to this standard.
>
> The consequences of the above interpretations are as
follows:
>1. There is an absolute speed of light and this speed is not
c as
>measured on earth. It has a greater value than c.
>2. Different inertial frames will measure different speeds
of light
>and they are related to the absolute speeds of light and the
absolute
>motions of the frames as follows:
> c (in all
frame)=Ca*Sqrt(1-V^2/Ca^2)
> Where Ca=Absolute speed of light
> V=the absolute motion of
the frame
>
>The variable light speed concept as outlined above is
equivalent to
>SRT in every way. The reason is that SRT measures the speed
of light
>in different frames using the following format:
> Light -speed on earth=c=normal meter/normal second
> Light-speed in all other frames=c=shrunkun meter/slower
second
>
>
>This format is the same as variable light-speed if you use
the normal
>second and normal meter to do the calculations in all
frames. The
>benefit of the variable light-speed concept is that it
allows the
>existence of absolute motion and absolute motion is the
mother of all
>the processes in the universe.
>
>
>
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com
Subject: Re: Generalization, was the usual crap under one of its names
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:49:02 GMT
In article <54sgau$j35@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>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".
>
I'm an experimental physicist, so "failed plumber" is probably a
better description.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: THz
From: Don Stauffer
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:59:03 -0500
Joe Keane wrote:
>
> So i was reading a description of fiber-optic networks, and they talk
> about the sub-channels with megabits and gigahertz, but then, when they
> get to the light band, they switch to nanometers. Why don't people use
> the frequency of light instead; wouldn't that be more consistent?
>
> It makes more sense to me to use bigger numbers for higher frequencies,
> not to mention that the wavelengths given are *completely wrong* since
> the speed of light in glass is not c, i mean duh...
>
> To make it worse, there's also eV, cm^-1, kcal/mol, and so on, plus a
> factor of 2*pi moves around; how do people have intuition with all this?
>
> red ~= 430 THz
> yellow ~= 520 THz
> green ~= 590 THz
> blue ~= 630 THz
>
> --
> Joe Keane, amateur physicist
Joe, good intuition can completely ignore units. Units are a human artifact. The phenomena work
exactly the same no matter what units you use. As a practicing physicist working on various EO
systems I have associates who are spectroscopists who always want to talk in wavenumbers, some
optical designers who work in nanometers and others in angstroms, and, since most of my previous
work was in the IR, I and most of my peers used microns.
I find very few folks working with long wave UV, visible, or IR who work in eV, though to make
certain computations it is easier to convert to eV at times. Even when I work with RF folks,
they defer to wavelength on our EO projects. Indeed, I find many of the RF types using
wavelength once they start working mm Wave or shorter.
--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
Subject: THE UNIVERSE- HOW IT WORKS
From: Allen C Goodrich
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:43:43 GMT
THE UNIVERSE- HOW IT WORKS-
A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
THE UNIVERSE- GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
WHY a grand unified theory of the universe?
Current physics theories do not explain the ocean tides,
the photon (particle or wave), gravity, time, mass, or
the electromagnetic field.
The low tide, not the high tide,
is observed directly under the full moon. This contradicts
physics texts, the dictionary and encyclopedia definition of
tide, which shows a picture of the earth with a bulge of water
on the side facing the full moon, and states that the high tide
occurs directly under the full moon. This is an error.
It is not conceivable that the moon could pull several feet
of ocean water around the earth at better than 1000 mph.
This would wash away the continents and humanity in a day.
The copyrighted theory 1988 A.C.Goodrich; cc023@
freenet.buffalo.edu. explains the tides as a decrease
of kinetic energy and volume of the ocean water
with the increase of potential energy as the moon
direction changes and distance decreases relative to a
particular side of the earth's ocean, to maintain a
constant total energy of the universe.
THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION AND PRINCIPLE
of Rm] expressed
by the (modified Galileo pendulum-Kepler-Newton-
equation by Goodrich) equation:
2 3
T = L / K(M-m) where M is the total energy of the universe,
m is the mass-energy in question and T and L are time and
distance. This equation is derived from the FUNDAMENTAL
EQUATION AND PRINCIPLE of the universe (by Goodrich)
2 2
mL / T + K(M-m)m/L = a constant M.
The total of kinetic and potential energy of the universe is a
constant M.
This grand unified theory defines time, mass, energy, gravity,
the photon, other forces, and the electromagnetic field as
properties of the universe.
See Library of Congress Card Catalog
THE UNIVERSE- A UNIFIED THEORY-GOODRICH
and ISBN 0-9644267-1-4.
ALLEN C. GOODRICH
GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
Gravity, commonly called the force of gravity, is the
force equal to the product of the mass m and the
acceleration of gravity g. It is the acceleration g
of mass m relative to the rest of the universe M
that is involved in the force of gravity.
The linear acceleration of gravity g is the difference
of two accelerations, that of the universe M and that
of the mass m which is in question. F = mg =
m (G-g) = Km( M/LL - m/LL ) = K m( M-m) / LL.=
m L/TT where G = KM/LL ; g = Km/LL ; L = distance
and T = time. LL = L squared and TT = T squared.
According to the grand unified theory, the mass m is
accelerating more slowly than the rest of the universe
because its mass-energy density is greater than the
mass-energy density of the rest of the universe.
The acceleration g is the apparent difference of two
volumetric accelerations which are inverse functions
of the density of mass-energy, consistent with the
fundamental equation and the grand unified theory
of the universe. It is this relative acceleration of mass
m in all three directions, or it's relative volumetric
acceleration Y of mass m, that is sensed as the force
of gravity. Y = LLL/TT = K(M-m) = L cubed./ T squared.
This is the fundamental equation of the universe.
The volumetric acceleration of a mass m relative to
the rest of the universe is equal to the value K(M-m).
Relative to the rest of the universe, the mass m
appears to be contracting, undergoing a force of
gravity, due to its smaller relative volumetric
acceleration and higher density compared with the
rest of the universe.
Copyright 1988 Allen C. Goodrich
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD-
A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields both
obey the fundamental equation and grand unified
theory of the universe.
Unlike the gravitational field, which is a function
of the relative volumetric and angular accelerations
of the mass m and the effective universe M, the
electromagnetic field is a function of the relative
volumetric and angular accelerations of the
charges of the masses involved. A charge exists
only when there is a displacement of the centers
of positive and negative angular accelerations. The
electromagnetic field photon is the reaction of
the rest of the universe to a change of the
distance between charges or the distance
between positive and negative angular
accelerations.. Except for very large
mass-energies at very great distances, the
electromagnetic field would appear to be much
stronger than the gravitational field, because
changes of the distance between the centers of
acceleration of the negatively and positively
charged masses occur outside of the nucleus of
the atom. They are therefore more effective relative
to the outside universe and are more easily
sensed from the universe outside of the atom then
are the changes of the density of uncharged masses.
Copyright 1988 Allen C. Goodrich
See THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
###
he
universe is one of
ALLEN C. GOODRICH
Subject: Re: Design in nature
From: Jerry
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 15:18:30 -0400
Andy Mulcahy wrote:
>
> Jerry wrote:
>
> >
> >Ans. from Jerry: God does not store God's intelligence like our minds which work on
> >chemical storage. God stores intelligence as a whole body like our soul. Every second
> >that passes goes into the storage devices.We are one set of storage devices. We carry
> >our lives and our intelligence into the world of the dead. We are absorbed by God. Our
> >intelligence becomes part of the intelligence God stroes. The storage of intelligence
> >is a property of space and time. It is a multidimensional mechanism. We are an
> >important part. So is the Earth itself. The Earth is a multidimensional storage device.
> >This is as far as you need be concerned at your level of salvation. Once you go
> >beyond this very low level of starting humanity, you enter the higher light speed
> >zones of existence. At the very top is the central core intelligence of the Universe.
> >This is the highest level of Godself, however this is not something you can get close
> >to. At our level we are too far below this. It has nothing to do with us. There is
> >a structural hierarchy of the total Godsystem. This is for the highest levels of
> >humanity at the highest light speed universes prior to the Universe without neutrons
> >which is the Remnant of the Perfection of God, yet is the central control over the
> >entire universe and all zones of existence.
>
> As Seigfreid Freud said: "Religious ideas have sprung from the
> same need as all the other achievements of culture: from the
> necessity for defending itself against the crushing supremacy of
> nature." (The Ego and the Id. p.34)
>
> Still, the above makes whistling in the dark look like an
> art form. Only modern day science fiction, of course, could have
> supplied the necessary raw material needed to concoct the above
> hilarious fantasy. Pardon me while I check my battery level.
> Cheers,
> Andy
> ---
> Original Sin: the refusal to willingly, spontaneously,
> unthinkingly, obey Nature's Edicts
Comments from Jerry:
Freud attempted to explain things in terms of the world we see and measure. He
did not know Einsteinian space time nor 5 dimensional mathematics nor multilightspeed
physics. Thus within his limited world view he attempted to explain all things.
Many people are quite content to view the world as three dimensions of distance
and one dimension of time. Others view the world more correctly. They have minds
which can swing to the barriers separating the various zones of existence. They have
minds who can see God. Freud would call them insane.(A sexual problem). Yet, just
because the super sane are that way doesn't mean that absolute truth lies with them.
No. Freud is wrong. It takes a manic depressive mind and even a schizophrenic mind
to asee beyond what appears only to our senses. Of course one also needs an ordinary
mind to make sense out of what the other minds see. To Freud I would be a manic
depressive schizophrenic multiple personality lunatic with periods of normality. To
God I am God's Prophet. I tend to take God's word over Freud's word.
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of God) (Another Jewish Madman speaks for God)
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:08:06 -0700
In article <3271841f.1296426@news.pacificnet.net>,
savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>In article <54p6cb$65o@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca
>(David L Evens) wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>Since the situation is
>>symetrical, your friend observes that your clock is running slower, from
>>his point of view, than yours is. This doesn't create a problem with
>>reconciling the coordinate systems between you becuase the
>>transformations take care of it nicely.
>
> The only thing is that the situation is not truly symmetrical as
>some might want us to believe, because when the two clocks are brought
>back together, one will show more elapsed time than the other. A sure
>sign that something absolute crept in the works while they were not
>looking, IMO. The other funny thing is that, suppose that both
>"friends" can observe each other's clock at all times during the
>experiment. At all times they're thinking that the other clock is
>slower. At what point does the weird switcheroo "magic" happen, when
>they finally realize that it isn't so after all, since the traveling
>clock will be lagging behind the earth-bound clock? I know that
>Mother Nature is subtle but this species of subtlety is bordering on
>mischievousness, if you ask me. :-) I have the funny feeling that
>something unpleasant (uh, absolute?) is missing in this picture. I'm
>sure it has all been discussed to death elsewhere but please don't
>hesitate to humor me. This may not be the thread for it but it
>doesn't matter all that much.
The switch occurs when the traveling clock changes reference frames. The
situation with a traveling clock returning to the origin is not symmetrical
because it must change velocity along the way. If you try to describe the
situation completely from the point of view of the traveling clock, you must
take this into account. BTW, the entire situation can be described in terms
of each system observing the light signals from the other. The short version
is that the signals will be doppler shifted. The traveling clock will see
the red shift and the blue shift occuring for equal times, while the inertial
clock will see the red shift for a longer interval than the blue shift, so
the total elapsed time is different. If you work out the math, you get the
SR results.
>
Subject: Re: Have you had an experience of seeing your double, doppelganger or someone elses, please email also if you have. I would like to hear your experience.
From: gclind01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (George C. Lindauer)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 19:02:14 GMT
Bob Bridges (RHBridg@ibm.net) wrote:
: If you mean a rather literal interpretation of a "doppelganger" - some
: kind of supernatural apparition - I can't help you. But my boss in a
: previous job is originally from Boston, and told me that friends of his
: there told him (and presumably his double) for years there was someone
: else in that city who looked uncannily like him. Ed never met this
: person himself, but his father told him he'd seen him on a train
: platform, walked up to him and spoke to him before realizing it wasn't
: his son!
I've met several people like this. Some of them even acted like me!
David
: --
: ...Bob Bridges, RHBridg@ibm.net
:
: /* Education is not for knowledge - it's for action....Albert Einstein
: */
:
: Aubrey Nye wrote in article
: <326fd311.999250@radiks.net>...
: > Have you had an experience of seeing your double, doppelganger or
: someone elses, please email also if you have. I would like to hear your
: experience.
:
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 19:44:51 GMT
In article <54rv0m$l1m@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
tao@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Terence Tao) wrote:
>In article <32734f7f.81504728@news.pacificnet.net> savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
>
>[interesting and clear summary of the spacetime interval of physics]
>
>>What is the physical mechanism of the universe that causes light to
>>travel at c and no other speed?
>
>Electromagnetism. I thought I already answered this question.
Well, I don't think "electromagnetism" is the full answer. Sure it
has to do with EM but the accounts of EM I've seen so far do not give
a cause and effect explanation that is satisfactory, at least, to me.
IMO, nature does not really obey laws. Laws are abstract concepts
derived from the observed behavior of nature. There is a difference.
I need a concrete quantum physics like explanation for the constancy
of c. For example, QM explains force as being mediated by an exchange
of particles, i.e., intyeractions. EM (or QM for that matter) does
not explain the cause of the speed of light limit in space. It just
says it's the way it is and leaves it at that.
>>what is the mechanism that prevents particles from going faster than
>>c?, and if light has no rest mass, why does not light move at
>>infinite speed since its inertia should be zero without a rest mass?
>
>The laws of motion. Inertia increases with velocity. This is a consequence
>of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum, and special relativity.
>
>Since all energy-momentum transfers are ultimately mediated by one of the
>four forces, one could derive these facts from the force laws themselves,
>but that's rather cumbersome.
Again, the so-called laws of motions do not really explain anything.
They just quantify our observations. I gotta have more concrete
stuff.
>>I just cannot imagine how a particle of matter could interact with
>>anything other than something with which it shares common properties.
>
>You need a better imagination. Or perhaps a picture of reality that
>doesn't rely so much on "mechanisms".
Well, we'll have to part company at this juncture. Better
imagination is worthless if it leads to illogical conclusions. But
that's ok if we don't see eye to eye on this particular issue. I
learned some new and useful things about physics from your posts.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: When Anti-Pomos Get Lame (Was Re: When social critics wimp out [etc])
From: thedavid@clark.net (David O' Bedlam)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 20:20:07 GMT
Mark O'Leary (moleary@dmu.ac.uk) posted:
: Silke has for a while been, along with moggin, a marker for a thread
: wherein any attempt
...By anti-Pomo crackpots who can't read the Newsgroups line...
: to advance the debate
^^^^^^
YM "anti-Pomo polemic," HTH...
: will be sidetracked into little word games, etymological musings,
: philosophical conundra, the usual pomo morass...
...Of things Pomos, as opposed to anti-Pomos, do in our Pomo newsgroup.
: in fact anything to avoid substantive discussion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another misspelling: that's "i-m-m-e-d-i-a-t-e c-a-p-i-t-u-l-a-t-i-o-n."
: I try to avoid these threads. They'd be better off abandoned, imo.
If one's intent is to deride Pomo and Pomos that's certainly the case.
Let's see if you, Mr. O'Leary, are intellectually competent enough to
figure that out -- and mature enough to act on that knowledge. To ease
back into those terms you believe you understand, when a professional
net.kook (me) tells an amateur net.kook (you) you're wasting your time
at my trade you'd do very well to STFU. IYHHAB, AISYDR.
Sheesh.
TheDavid
--
..........................................................................
if i had enough emotion | This Post Copyright (C) 1996 By TheDavid, UnLtd.
IF I HAD ENOUGH EMOTION | http://www.clark.net/pub/thedavid/trythis.html
..........................................................................
Subject: Re: On Religion: Can we at least agree on this truth?
From: Siegfried
Date: 26 Oct 1996 19:42:29 GMT
Harvey Harte wrote:
>Siegfried wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Lias wrote:
>> >Kevin B Black wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <543g4a$k93@news.proaxis.com>, Siegfried wrote:
>> >> >Here is my contention:
>> >> >
>> >> >With regard to the existence of a god (like the Christian one) there are
>> >> >three general options: 1. God does not exist, 2. God exists and is
>> >> >malevolent, 3. God exists and is benevolent.
>> >> >
>> >> What happened to option 4? God exists and is indifferent.
>> >
>> >Let's not forget polytheism. :-)
>>
>> I was only talking about one god (see above). Besides, polytheism is an
>> impossibility if the god or gods are to be omnipotent beings (there could
>> only be one "most powerful being").
>>
>> -Siegfried
>And his name is Alexander The Great. God can exist only as an idea,
>there is no way to prove its metaphysical existence.
Of course there's no way to prove its existence. But you are incorrect in
saying that God can only exist as an idea because of there is no way to
prove its existence. There is no way to prove my existence. Are you
saying that I don't exist?
-Siegfried
Subject: Re: Design in nature
From: Siegfried
Date: 26 Oct 1996 19:51:52 GMT
mul@Islandnet.comTips (Andy Mulcahy) wrote:
>Jerry wrote:
>
>>
>>Ans. from Jerry: God does not store God's intelligence like our minds which work on
>>chemical storage. God stores intelligence as a whole body like our soul. Every second
>>that passes goes into the storage devices.We are one set of storage devices. We carry
>>our lives and our intelligence into the world of the dead. We are absorbed by God. Our
>>intelligence becomes part of the intelligence God stroes. The storage of intelligence
>>is a property of space and time. It is a multidimensional mechanism. We are an
>>important part. So is the Earth itself. The Earth is a multidimensional storage device.
>>This is as far as you need be concerned at your level of salvation. Once you go
>>beyond this very low level of starting humanity, you enter the higher light speed
>>zones of existence. At the very top is the central core intelligence of the Universe.
>>This is the highest level of Godself, however this is not something you can get close
>>to. At our level we are too far below this. It has nothing to do with us. There is
>>a structural hierarchy of the total Godsystem. This is for the highest levels of
>>humanity at the highest light speed universes prior to the Universe without neutrons
>>which is the Remnant of the Perfection of God, yet is the central control over the
>>entire universe and all zones of existence.
>
> As Seigfreid Freud said: "Religious ideas have sprung from the
>same need as all the other achievements of culture: from the
>necessity for defending itself against the crushing supremacy of
>nature." (The Ego and the Id. p.34)
Hey, my dad wrote that, not me! Anyway, I really wouldn't take his word
as law -- he wasn't always "all there".
> Still, the above makes whistling in the dark look like an
>art form. Only modern day science fiction, of course, could have
>supplied the necessary raw material needed to concoct the above
>hilarious fantasy. Pardon me while I check my battery level.
Agreed. Jerry is headed in the wrong direction. Needs: less sci, more
philo.
-Siegfried
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:51:04 -0400
Lloyd Johnson wrote:
>
> It has been stated very clearly in this discussion that photons of
> different energies travel at different velocities through glass and
> other transparent media. This claim is contrary to wave phenomena.
>
What? Are you saying that all waves have to travel at the same speed?
Sorry, but it is a well known result that electromagnetic waves of
different frequencies have different indexes of refraction (ie, prisms
separate the light). The index of refraction is just the ratio of the
speed in vacuo to the speed in the media: n = c/v.
> This claim should then be tested in a laboratory using lasers of very
> different frequencies to direct light through a significant length of
> glass to measure the speed of light. Make sure that it is a straight
> path so internal reflections don't interfere with the experiment. Is
> there a difference between the speed measured using the red laser and
> the green laser?
>
That there is a difference can more easily be shown with a Michelson
white light interferometer. And yes, it has been done ... its an undergraduate
optics lab experiment.
And notice that I'm not talking about the photons, but about the
electromagnetic waves. Wave fronts are just surfaces of constant phase.
The photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field.
The photons always travel at the same speed, c. But they can be scattered,
and in a transparent material the scattering is (mostly) forward coherent
scattering. The quantum interference results in a change of phase, and
a change of phase is a retardation of the wave front. Thus the photons
always travel at c, but the wave front slows when passing through a
different media. And then when the scattering ends, the wave front
resumes speed again.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ? (Question for Mr. Potts)
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:00:59 -0400
Ken Seto wrote:
>
> Speed of Light in A Clear Dense Medium
> It is well known that light travels slower in a clear medium such as
> glass and that light will regain its speed instantaneously when it
> re-emerges from the glass.
Correct.
> The existing wave and particle theories of
> quantum mechanics cannot explain these observations completely.
Oh, but QM does indeed explain this "completely".
> If light travels slower in glass because it goes through the absorption
> and emission processes, it should be completely scattered when it
> enters the glass, and that was not the case.
Correct. The slowing of the wave front is not due to absorption and
emission. As you say, this would result in complete (random) scattering.
When a favored frequency is being absorbed, you get a colored glass.
> If light really traveled slower in glass, then the problems arise
> when we try to visualize the processes by which light regains its
> speed instantaneously as it re-emerges from the glass.
No problem at all. The wave front is _defined_ as a surface of constant
phase. So if we have a change of phase within the media, it will show
up as a change of speed of the wave front.
And yes, there is a change of phase of the photons upon entering a
transparent media: this is due to forward coherent scattering of the
photons. It is coherent, as opposed to random, so that the images are
retained. It is forward, as opposed to reverse, because we are interested
in the transmitted light here, not the reflected light.
Under forward coherent scattering, the photons continue to advance at the
same speed, c, throughout the media. But the wave front is retarded due to
the change of phase. Thus it is no surprise that when the scattering
ends (when we get to the other side of the glass), the speed picks up.
As I said, the photons always travel at the same speed.
You need to be careful to distinquish between light (an observed phenomena),
electromagnetic waves (our classical theory of light), and photons (which
are the quanta of the electromagnetic fields).
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 20:50:13 GMT
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <54tfsp$4qa@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com
>(Ken Seto) wrote:
>Tsk, Tsk! Comparing different reference frames again, are
>we? This will get confusing every time. BTW, who decides
>which reference frame is the "standard"? If there are only
>to objects in the universe, and they are moving relative to
>each other, which one is actually moving, and which one is at
>rest? Or are they both moving (if so, what are you using to
>determine this)?
Tsk, Tsk! It doesn't matter, what ever frame you choose to be standard
as long as you choose one and stick with it. There is no confusion. It
is much better than the concept that different frame have different
duration for a second. "to objects" what is that?:-). Do you mean two
objects? Again it doesn't matter what you choose for standard as long
as you choose one and stick with it.
>
>The point is this - relativity was constructed such that
>there is no standard reference frame. Until people come to
>grips with this, they will continue to try comparing
>different reference frames to each other, with invariably
>confusing results.
Einstein constructed SRT to satisfy Maxwell's physics which implies
that the light speed is constant in the earth frame. However,
Einstein interpreted this as that light speed is constant in all
frames. To maintain this, he was forced to go the route of time
dilation in combination with length contraction. This combination is
not natural and the length contraction is assumed. Whereas, the
variable light-speed concept is natural--you can see objects traveling
at different speeds all the time.
Subject: Re: Breakdown of Einstein's theories.
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:10:08 -0400
Timothy Ryan Froese wrote:
>
> > It's called Cherenkov radiation. It can be commonly seen when a
> >small nuclear reactor is submerged in a pool of water. Particles
> >exiting the reactor at near "c" will be travelling faster than the
> >speed of light in water; they shed their excess energy (and lower
> >their speed) by emitting Cherenkov radiation, which shows up as a blue
> >glow surrounding the reactor.
> >
> Fascinating. What is the consequence of these particles travelling at
> the speed of light in terms of the effects of time dilation? I would
> like to know.
>
There is nothing special going on with Cerenkov radiation, as far as
Special Relativity is concerned. The speed of light in water is about
3/4 of its speed in air.
When a particle moves through something, some of the energy of
interaction goes into photons (light). So when you get a very fast
proton or neutron moving through the water faster than the light
can go, you get an "optical shock wave", pretty much the same as
the sonic boom that accompanies the motion of a supersonic plane
through the atmosphere. In both cases, the shock wave forms a cone.
The speed of the moving particle determines the angle of the cone,
and this is what the detectors might be programmed to pick up.
Thus you can determine the speed and direction of travel of the
particle by recording the Cerenkov flash.
In the reactor bath that is described above, there are particles going
in all directions, all the time. Thus you just get a constant blue glow.
Very pretty ... but don't dive in!
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: HELP - Physics ? from non-physicist 10/26
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:54:10 -0400
BEGrench wrote:
>
> I'm hoping somebody can answer a question for me. I have two baseball
> bats, both are made from the same type of metal, both are 33 inches long
> and both weigh 28.5 ounces. The only difference is in the ends of the
> barrels. While both get thicker as you move away from the handle bat "T"
> reaches it's maximum width of 2 3/4" about 6 inches from the end and
> maintains that width until the end. Bat "E", an extended barrel model,
> reaches the same maximum width of 2 3/4", but it does so around 8 inches
> from the end and it too maintains that width until the end.
>
> I have noticed in playing with both bats that I get both more power with
> bat "T" (assuming I hit the ball in the last six inches with both bats)
> and I get around on pitches faster. My assumption is that bat "T" has
> more power simply because it has more mass in the last 6" since the bats
> weigh the same but "E" must have more surface area. The power would also
> be enhanced if I'm right about having more bat speed with "T".
>
> My question is why do I have more bat speed with bat "T"? I don't think
> wind resistance is an issue. Can somebody give me a physics explaination
> that a layman could understand? The bat company said bat "E" would be
> more powerful, but that doesn't seem to be true. If my anecdotal evidence
> is right then the only advantage of "E" would seem to be that I would get
> more hits on balls I mis-hit in the extra 2" zone. I would really
> appreciate an explaination - THANKS!
The "center of percussion" is different for the two bats. If you hit the
ball at the center of percussion, then you feel no sting (you've hit the
"sweet spot"), and more energy is transferred to the ball.
Typically, you _don't_ want to hit the ball with the tip of the bat, unless
you've plugged it with lead. ;-)
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:30:33 GMT
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <3270122a.255965@news.pacificnet.net>,
> savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>In article <54ooj3$7fk_005@pm0-61.hal-pc.org>,
>charliew@hal-pc.org
>> The *true* value of c relative to an observer may or may
>not really
>>be constant in all inertial frames, but it is certainly
>*measured* to
>>be so by our instruments. SR is a theory about
>measurements.
Other than the earth frame in what other frames that we had measured
the speed of light?
>>Whether or not our instruments are telling us something about the
>true speed
>>of light relative to the observer is another story. I
>personally
>>don't think they are.
I agree.
>If our instruments are telling us that c is constant, and we
>have no other way of determining this, one can only conclude
>that it is true. Just because something is strange doesn't
>make it false.
Our instruements tell us that the speed of light is constanrt in all
directions on earth. Is it true up at the Mir Space Station?
>>>As to why c is constant in all reference frames, you have
>hit
>>>on the fundamental question of relativity.
'c' is not constant in all reference frames. Einstein made it so by
defining the second to have different duration.
>>>One would think
>>>that the electric and magnetic permeability of space would
>>>have something to do with it. However, the requirement for
>>>constant c in all reference frames, apparently at the same
>>>time, is very confusing indeed!
Epsilon and Mu do have something to do with it.. They have different
value in different inertial frames and thus give rise to different
light speed in different inertial frames.
>>
>> I agree. I think the answer may be right in our faces but
>we can't
>>see the forest for the trees. Not to mention all the noise
>and
>>misinformation.
It is right in our face. It is the variable light-speed concept.
Subject: Re: Reducibility (was: Science and Aesthetics)
From: Mikenew2@aol.com (Mike Birtel)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:48:04 -0600
In article <54rlm9$16s@tierra.santafe.edu>, jti@santafe.santafe.edu (Jeff
Inman) wrote:
> This needn't be a fear that "spirit" is
> ultimately deterministic but might quite reasonably be a concern that
> such a reduction to the inadequate tools and concepts that physicists
> currently employ constitutes a loss of important aspects of the
> original.
>
> So, the complaint might quite well be that the inadequacy of reducing
> experience to the kind of "material" that scientists typically mean,
> seems to suggest that "material" is poorly understood. In other
> words, one can be a materialist without being reductive. This
> represents one kind of critique of physics.
I think we essentially agree. I certainly didn't want to imply that any
physics we have is capable of modeling the "ontological facts," simply that
the assumption that it someday could is essential to the belief that there
is nothing special about "experience" except that we aren't capable of
modeling it with our limited tools and processing power. The fact that we
can't understant reductive models well says nothing about the world, but
teels us a great deal about ourselves - this was the point of
distinguishing epistemological from ontological reduction: I fully believe
in ontological reduction but not epistemological reduction - we simply
can't work with models when their complexity approaches that of even
today's physics.
Mike
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 21:36:32 GMT
In article <54rnku$sh2@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>RICHARD J. LOGAN (RJL@OVPR.UGA.EDU) wrote:
>............. Can this guy even define space-time?
>
>As far as I know, he's dead, so the answer is probably no. It should
>would be useful to have the French... I don't know what he meant,
>frankly. And as long as I don't know, I'm going to withhold judgment on
>whether it's stupid. I could imagine that he is just, in very general
>terms, referring to a concept of time that can't be experienced. Perhaps
>Lew Mammel could help -- he had some ideas in this direction.
I had been wondering myself what the referred to constant
could possibly be, but I think Russell Turpin got it right.
If we read "invariant" for "constant" the passage ( up to the
semicolon ) can be seen as a more or less prosaic musing on
the way SR works.
"living the experience" would refer to observations made
in a particular reference frame. If there are several such
frames, each has a different experience of the events ( in
terms of time order, e.g. ) but each can derive invariants
from the observations, and these are the same for all, as the
name implies.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 22:02:58 GMT
Silke-Maria Weineck :
> : > [...] I never thought Nabokov was a good critic, btw, even though
> : > he's a great writer. Like Kleist or Buechner in that regard.
moggin :
> : Oh, he's got some good points. There's something about the
> : meticulous, even obsessive way he maps the Samsa apartment and tries
> : to discover what manner of insect Gregor becomes. In another vein, I
> : like him on Gogal, which is to say contra Chekhov (put a gun on the
> : stage and _don't_ fire it).
Silke:
> I like his approach the Kafka essay as a teaching device -- it's
> the first thing I tell my students to do when I teach Metamorphosis. As a
> reading, however, it falls short imo.
It's what Nabokov told _his_ students, too. And I agree with
you -- as a reading of Kafka, it's hopeless -- but then, as Steiner says,
all readings of Kafka fall short. (He allows one exception: Benjamin.)
But l like Nabakov's reading as a reading, not as a reading _of_ -- or to
put it another way, as a portrait of a reader (and a reader of a certain
kind), rather than as a reading of "The Metamorphosis."
-- moggin
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:03:30 +1200
> >: I liked that comment about rounding error during conversion, given
> >: that the bulk of the US was originally surveyed with chains, which
> >: would kink, and with measurements made to the nearest link
> >: (100links to a 66' chain, but 80 chains to the mile,
> >: a quasi-metric system).
>
> Just to add a little unwanted fuel to an unneeded fire, I have
> to recall the famous survey baseline carried through by Mason and
> Dixon. This was apparently the single most accurately surveyed line of
> any length in the US, until the advent of satellite Geosurveys in the
> 60's.
>
> Mason and Dixon were of course, British colonial surveyers....
>
I have actually made and used such a chain,
and a surveyors assistant is still often called a "chain-man"
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland NZ neo-Luddite
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 22:42:58 GMT
cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
> >[...] So, what it comes down to is that "the mob, talk.origins,
> >sub-division" is Matt Silberstein (who evidently has a lot to
> >answer). It is his work.
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
> I have never really thought of myself as a mob, more of an unruly
> gang, but if the term fits, I will wear it proudly.
> But's lets get this clear. [...]
Yeah, let's. Richard's summary is false. I never called you a
one-man mob. So if you want to wear that label, you'll have to get
it from someone else. As I already pointed out to Richard, I was
talking about how and where the mob began, not giving a list of its
members. And as I said, it began with Michael, Bob, and you -- I'm
sorry if that makes you feel any less proud of yourself.
The rest of your post looks like an attempt to have the entire
argument over again. Here's a better idea (and one I've suggested
before): you said, "Newton's physics was wrong" and "Newton was
just incorrect." If you accept your own statements, that's an end
to it. If you disagree with them, then you can go ahead and argue
with yourself. I further invite anyone who wants to continue the
Newton Defense to argue with you, instead of me, since you're much
better qualified to carry on the debate.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light--Purely Mathematical?
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:34:03 GMT
Mike Lepore (lepore@mhv.net) wrote:
: If relativity really says this, then doesn't someone have to
: explain where effects of the Earths rotation come from, e.g.,
: the coriolis effect? A force which appears out of nothing?
Coriolis is not a "force", it is a pseudo-force at best,
and a fictitious force in reality.
It is simply the result of common ordinary inertial
motion as seen by biased observers, with secondary effects
sometimes.
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: tao@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Terence Tao)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 23:16:05 GMT
In article <3271841f.1296426@news.pacificnet.net> savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
>
> The only thing is that the situation is not truly symmetrical as
>some might want us to believe, because when the two clocks are brought
>back together, one will show more elapsed time than the other. A sure
>sign that something absolute crept in the works while they were not
>looking, IMO. The other funny thing is that, suppose that both
>"friends" can observe each other's clock at all times during the
>experiment. At all times they're thinking that the other clock is
>slower.
Not on the return journey.
> At what point does the weird switcheroo "magic" happen, when
>they finally realize that it isn't so after all, since the traveling
>clock will be lagging behind the earth-bound clock?
Read the FAQ.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/twin_paradox.html
Terry
Subject: Re: Gravity and Electromagnetism:Unified Field Theory
From: jim.goodman@accesscom.net (Jim Goodman)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:25:48 GMT
mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) wrote:
>In article <54jd0v$7pk@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>> But we do know the dimensions of the nucleus, don't we? If this is
>> so, it shouldn't be such a great step to apply general relativity. I am
>> not sure how the equation would look, but you would probably not need
>> the gravitational constant, since you are treating the mass in terms of
>> its energy equivalent.
>You need the gravitational constant even then. But that's not the real
>problem.
>> Since the Tensor in general relativity refers to
>> the energy distribution, why couldn't we just substitute the appropiate
>> values into the equation?
>The problem is that the energy is not just spread out, its position can be
>quantum-mechanically *uncertain*, which is a different sort of thing.
>General relativity allows the energy to be spread out over space, but it
>makes no provision for the energy to be in a *superposition* of states in
>which it is at point A and states in which it is at point B.
>Some people have proposed ignoring the distinction and using the
>quantum-mechanical average or "expectation" value, but that creates other
>problems.
when you observe where a particle is.>
And whether a numerical calculation can force a particle anywhere!!!!
I like the simple explanations of qm seen from a statistical
interpretation.
A particle is interacted with and we still do not know its exact
position or momentum. Even at the point of interaction.
Experiments with large masses whose
>positions are determined in a "Schrodinger's cat" way show that if you want
>this expectation-value-coupling idea to work at all, there has to be some
>sort of collapse. But then there are other problems. Suppose a particle's
>wave function is spread out over space and you observe it. The wave
>function collapses instantaneously into a little dot; in terms of
>expectation values, stress-energy has disappeared in one place and
>instantaneously appeared somewhere else. GR *breaks* if you try to plug
>this sort of thing into it; it gives inconsistent results. So making
>this work would involve not just imposing a particular QM interpretation,
>but doctoring up general relativity somehow as well.
Using expectation values as approximate measured values will work
well with most of physics, since we measure that way.
---
Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules