Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 01:31:10 GMT
Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) 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.
: ]: ]
: ]: ]Am I? You have so far demonstrated neither knowledge nor originality i
: ]: ]your detractions of Derrida.
: ]
: ]: Actually this is true sentence. since I have not posted any
: ]: "detractions of Derrida", I have not "demonstrated either
: ]: knowledge or originality" by them.
: ]
: ]: ] Perhaps I'm "lying" about others -- I'm
: ]: ]certainly right about you.
: ]
: ]
: ]: That is false. I challenge you to produce a single post, claiming
: ]: that Derrida must be wrong, because
: ]: "where there's smoke, there must be fire." Failing that, I
: ]: expect you to publically apologize for your lying.
: ]
: ]
: ]If you think you're worth an hour spent at altavista, your self-image has
: ]re-inflated to an amazing degree. You have never posted a derogatory
: ]remark about Derrida? If you say so. I apologize for having
: ]misjudged you.
: That's welcome development, but it's not nearly good enough. Here's your
: claim again:
: ]guilt. But here we have the "science" community, intoning in near-unison
: ]: ]: ]and near-ignorance, "where there's smoke, there must be fire."
: Produce the post(s) advancing such an argument, or apologize.
Don't push your luck. As far as I can see, that's the _only_ argument
brought forth, since upon repeated inquiry, nobody has admitted to both
having read and understood any of Derrida. You do know that quotation
marks have different functions, I suppose.
S.
: --
: LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
: -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja Schmelzer)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 08:16:31 GMT
In article <326f17a7.261166@news.pacificnet.net> savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
>When most physicists are asked
>about the cause of the slowed ticking rate of fast moving clocks, they
>usually say that it's due to time dilation. If one points out that
>SRT simply equates time dilation with slowed clocks and does not
>introduce a causal relationship between time and clocks, there's
>usually no response. So the question remains.
IMO falling back to an old error - the search of the most fundamental
object.
There is one possibility - to use "time dilation" as basic notion,
"clock" as derived. As valid as the other - to use "clock" as
fundamental, and define time by clocks. If you ask about the reason of
slowing ticking rate, you hear an answer only from the first. The
other have to answer "I don't know". The acknowledgement "I don't
know" usually leads to silence in newsgroup discussions.
>What is the cause of
>time dilation (i.e., slowed clocks)? More precisely, what is the
>physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
Clear statement: Current physics doesn't give you any answer.
If you get any answer, it is trivial (like "cause is time dilation")
or speculation.
>I know that many of you are still desperately and painfully clinging
>to the continuous wave theory of light. Sorry to disillusion you all,
>but the confirmation of nonlocality in 1982 by Alain Aspect and his
>colleagues, was the final nail in the coffin of continuity. Light
>consist of particles, guys. Give it up. :-)
Nonlocality and the Aspect experiment have nothing to do with the
question wave or particle.
You know, my postrelativity is an ether theory which allows to explain
Bell's inequatlity violation by causal hidden variable theories,
because "causal" is defined there in the old, Newtonian, way. So, it
has certainly no problem with Aspect, Aspect is even an argument in
favour of my concept.
In postrelativity the wave seems to become the more fundamental
notion. I can try to explain it shortly:
In relativistic quantum theory, you have above variants on more or
less equal rights. But the way used to define the wave picture - via
canonical commutation relation
[psi(x),pi(y)] = i delta(x-y)
does not depend on the gravitational field g_ij(x), the definition of
the particles does. Thus, if the gravitational field becomes
uncertain, the definition of a particle becomes uncertain too, the
definition of the wave not.
Ilja
--
Ilja Schmelzer, D-10178 Berlin, Keibelstr. 38,
my ~: http://www.c2.org/~ilja
postrelativity: ~/postrel/index.html
Subject: Re: Chemists' Photo Gallery
From: kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu ()
Date: 29 Oct 1996 02:03:15 GMT
In article <553jmh$hf6@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Mark Rajesh Das wrote:
>kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
>: >
>: Which reminds me of Pauli who classified science as being divided into
>: physics, stinks (chemistry), and stamp collecting (all others). He was
>: mortified when he received the Nobel prize in chemistry for his statement
>: of the exclusion principle.
>
> I believe you mean Rutherford and the experiment was him shooting alpha
>particles at a thin metal foil. (Geiger 'n Marsden confirmed) The
>conclusion of the experiment was that the atom 'looked' like a planetary
>system with the nucleus as the sun and the electrons as the planets.
>Took the plum pudding theory of the atom to hell. Rutherford won the
>Nobel in chemistry because, Ias I understand it, the experiment was on
>the atom an thus is chemistry. The pauli principle is physics, though
>as physics professors joke, the chemists do use it incorrectly from time
>to time.
>
>was I even close?
>
Well, I have already demonstrated an egregious lack of competence in history,
so I don't know who got what Nobel. However, the Pauli exclusion principle
can also be considered chemistry since that is what limits the number of
electrons in each energy state and thus defines the chemical properties of
the atom.
Jim
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: Robert Heft
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:06:22 -0800
Scott Gordon put it thusly:
> Once while driving across Colorado I saw someone at a distance through the
> window of a convenience store who looked so much like me that I drove into
> the lot and walked in to meet him. Even when I got right up to him it was
> just like looking into a mirror... I couldn't believe my eyes... and neither
> could he! It was a very spooky experience. We had the same facial and
> body build, same hairstyle, same glasses, same expressions, everything.
> We even compared driver's licenses and we looked identical on those too.
>
Several years ago, I was working in Houston, and many people in Office
Building Management kept mistaking me for the "Duct Man". I didn't
think much about it
until one day when I met the "Duct Man" face to face - and it sent cold
shivers
down my spine! It was like looking into a mirror! Same face, hair,
eyes, glasses,
build, mannerisms and such. I even asked my mom if I had a twin brother
she did not know about.
Weird...
\s\ Robert Heft
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:49:27 GMT
In article <5549ao$7uv@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article ,
>Michael L. Siemon wrote:
>
>>Ummm, as I read the _scholia_ in Newton's _Principia_, there is
>>a hint of belief in absolute space and time, but a *practical*
>>admission that we cannot get there from what we have presented
>>to us in the data, which *only* support relative quantities.
>
>A hint? A HINT ???? A bald declaration of absolute time
>and absolute space is a HINT ????
>
You still don't get the issue (maybe coming out of field where
thoughts and beliefs of authority figures are considered important it
is difficult). Newton's beliefs regarding the existance or
inexistance of absolute space and time are not relevant. Only what in
his physics is. And, I repeat for the umpteenth time, there is no
absolute reference frame in F = ma. Try to adress the issue instead
of grabbing at quotes.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem: A High School Algebra Problem
From: schmid@isi.ee.ethz.ch (Hanspeter Schmid)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 09:05:23 GMT
James Harris (jharris2@earthlink.net) did us the pleasure of writing
his article <3274C6CC.DAC@earthlink.net> for us:
: Some odds and ends.
:
: I state without proof that if (a-b) is divisible by n, then a^n-b^n
: must be divisible by n^2. This is obvious since a-b divisible by n
: implies that a=jn+r and b=kn+r so you can do the substitution and figure
: out the rest in your head.
This is definitely not true. n|(a-b) only implies n|(a^n-b^n), but
not n^2|(a^n-b^n). This becomes obious e.g. for n=3.
: I also state without proof that (x+y-z)^n is divisible by (z-x),
: (z-y) and (x+y). Again, this is also obvious and can be done in
: your head by expanding (x+y-z)^n.
This is also not true. (x+y-z)^n can be written as (y-(z-x))^n and is
therefore the unique factorization of the polynomial (x+y-z)^n in
terms of (z-x). The same can be said for (z-y) and (x+y).
: 1. Statement of the Problem: Fermat's Last Theorem
:
: Given x,y,z, relatively prime, n odd prime
:
: no solution exists for the equation x^n + y^n = z^n
This is not Fermat's last theorem. The theorem is rather:
Given: x,y,z are positive integers, n is an integer > 2
Then no solution exists for the equation x^n + y^n = z^n.
I have not looked closely at the rest of the proof. It seems
necessary to rewrite it a little before it relly works.
Cheerio, Hanspeter
--
-===-=-====-=-===== Hanspeter == Schmid =====-=== hobby-musician classical-
Hanspeter Schmid Switzerland | Cole's Law: Thinly sliced
Signal and Information Processing Lab | cabbage and carrots.
ETH Zurich schmid@isi.ee.ethz.ch | Have a good time!
-===-=-====-=-===== orienteering runner ===== pan-flute trombone =========-
Subject: Postrelativity (PG) - new results
From: schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja Schmelzer)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 09:26:43 GMT
There has been new development for postrelativistic gravity.
The results you can find at gr-qc/9610047 or at my home page.
First, I have tried to derive PG (postrelativistic gravity) from some
first principles. This was successful. The principles I have named
"postrelativity", and postrelativistic gravity is what occurs if we
apply these principles to general relativity.
Second, following the recommendation of Klaus Kassner I have tried to
develop quantum theory as far as I'm able (my mathematical background
is differential geometry, not quantum field theory).
Especially I have tried to undestand the problems of canonical
quantization Klaus has mentioned for the electromagnetic field. The
consequence is a postrelativistic version of gauge theory too. It
would be not difficult to guess what is the main difference: In the
postrelativistic version, the gauge potential is considered as a real
but hidden step of freedom.
As far as I understand, this modification does not lead to observable
differences in QED (the only difference to Gupta-Bleuler is a definite
Hilbert space as configuration space), but for non-Abelian theory it
leads: there will be no Faddeev-Popov ghosts.
Third, there is a new definition of the vacuum state and the Fock
space for quantum field theory on a classical gravitational background
field. Hawking radiation is a consequence of this definition.
I doubt that general relativity really predicts it. You need at least
general relativity + good will (to hide problems) + boundary
conditions (as a replacement of the hidden frame at least at infinity)
to derive them without the hidden frame of postrelativity.
Let's remark that the short phrase "canonical quantization" was
sufficient to obtain the last two results. For gauge theory, all what
was necessary was the usage of a non-gauge-invariant Lagrangian (the
diagonal gauge) and the observation that in the resulting theory we
obtain a configuration space where different gauge potentials are
different as quantum states (that means different for the Pauli
principle). In the case of the vacuum definition, I have spend a lot
of time with the search of an optimal definition, but the result was
also straightforward canonical quantization. Thus, I have lost a lot
of time because I have not followed my own concept :-).
--
Ilja Schmelzer, D-10178 Berlin, Keibelstr. 38,
my ~: http://www.c2.org/~ilja
postrelativity: ~/postrel/index.html
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:23:15 GMT
In article <554a97$q5n@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
wrote:
>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>
>>In article <5505ut$c9j@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>>wrote:
>[...]
>>>It was based on Maxwell's physics and the null result of the MMX.
>>>Maxwell's physics implies that the measured speed of light (E-M waves)
>>>is a constant c in all the directions as measured (Mu and epsilon are
>>>measured quantities) in the various Labs on earth. This does not mean
>>>that the measured light-speed has the same constant value in different
>>>inertial frames. However, that was Einstein's interpretation of
>>>Maxwell's physics.
>
>> Not a bad interpretation on the part of Einstein, I would say,
>>considering that there is really no such thing as an "earth frame".
>
>How can you be so sure? Absolute motion of the earth is the motion
>relative to the medium (E-Matrix) occupying space. This means that
>the earth has only one path of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. This
>path of absolute motion is made up of vector components of all the
>observed motions. An observed uniforn motion will yield a vector
>component in the direction of absolute motion. An observed accelerated
>motion will yield a vector component that will change the direction of
>absolute motion. The resulting path of absolute motion is curved
>(geodesic) and this agrees with the prediction of GR. This means that
>all the Labs on earth have the same path of absolute motion in the
>E-Matrix and thus there IS such thing as an earth frame.
>Einstein would have preferred to interpret that the speed of light is
>variable if it were not for Maxwell's physics. Also, if he had foresaw
>that Maxwell's physics (Mu and epsilon) is not constant in all
>frames, he would have interpreted that the speed of light is variable.
I'll concede that the earth's frame in its orbit around the sun is
inertial in the sense that a falling object's frame is in inertial
free fall. But since the earth is also rotating on its own axis, an
MMX apparatus on the surface of the earth is always accelerating,
i.e., changing its velocity. Furthermore, the acceleration of earth's
gravity also contributes to messing things up. You cannot call that
an inertial frame. At any rate I'm willing to consider all these
things to be negligible for argument's sake.
>>The earth is constantly moving from one frame to another and MMX gives
>>the same result regardless of the time of year. Are you saying that
>>this is negligible? I don't think it is.
>
>I am saying that the earth has one path of absolute motion relative to
>the E-Matrix and all the lights are waves in the E-Matrix. This means
>that the whole MMX apparatus is moving relative to all the light waves
>that it had deposited into the E-Matrix. This motion is a receding
>motion. So it doesn't matter when or where you do the MMX experiment
>you will get the same result.
If the light beam and the absolute motion of the lab are moving in
the same direction, I'll agree that the target is receding from the
speeding photons, everything else being equal. But if the light beam
is moving absolutely in a direction opposite to that of the target,
then the distance should be less assuming everything else is equal.
However we know that everything else is not equal because the ticking
rate of moving clocks are slower and lengths do contract in the
direction of motion. Not that it matters much in this context.
>[...]
>> Ken this makes no sense, IMO. Sorry. How do you know the target is
>>not moving toward the light beam?
>
>Louis, think about it. Light rays that are generated within the same
>frame of the target must take longer to catch up to the moving target.
Only if the light beam is moving in the same direction as the
target.
>[...]
>That's right and I am not kidding. The target is always receding from
>the light beam that is generated by the MMX apparatus.
That's nonsense for the simple reason I gave above.
>[...]
>>the target is always moving away from the source. You actually believe
>>this is logical? This is total hogwash, Ken. I apologize for being
>>so blunt but I can't side with this.
>
>If you read the above carefully, you will find it to be completely
>logical. I would not try to put any thing over you.
I read it and it still makes no sense to me. Sorry. This receding
target business is very hard to accept.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: Re: "Essential" reality (was: When did Nietzsche wimp out?)
From: patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 09:38:36 GMT
In article <327524A3.4B40@sdd.hp.com> Steven Hines writes:
>That being said, I have a hard time seeing how one can experimentally
>determine that some events do not have causes and still be doing
>science. That is, if a scientist observes an event, looks for a cause,
>and finds none, what is the consensus among other scientists in the field?
>Honestly... are they likely to say, "Ah, this event has no cause"
>or instead will they say (perhaps to themselves) "This scientist has
>not looked hard enough, or in the right places."
I think you overestimate the power of experiments. I can't think of
a single experiment that could demonstrate that "some events do not
have causes"; I can think of several that can demonstrate that "some
events do not have causes of flavour X." (For example, Bell's Inequality
demonstrated that there are no "hidden-variables" or "local causes"
for quantum correlations.)
With the results of the Bell/EPR experiments in hand, the jury is still
out on the "causes" of quantum correlations. I don't think you'll find
such a thing as a consensus, even among theoretical physicists, and
certainly not among "scientists" at large. Many of them have indeed
embraced the theory that quantum events are uncaused, others (myself included)
still hope for a revision that will bring back determinism to the world
of physics.
>What I mean to say is that I can't see how science can proceed unless
>is assumes beforehand that observed phenomena can be explained
>(isn't that, after all, the job?). But what about this assumption?
>Is it forced to stand up to the same rigor as the hypotheses, theories
>and laws?
Yes, it's forced to stand up to the same rigor. If I can produce a
theory that predicts a new and previously unthought-of cause for
some event, then idealized scientific practice demands that it be
tested (as in the Bell/EPR experiments). As always, untestable
theories (e.g. God did it, undetectibly) need not apply.
Patrick
Subject: Re: why a plane mirror reverse left to right not up to down
From: Simon Read
Date: 28 Oct 96 22:31:03 GMT
You could try lying on your side; then the mirror would reflect
up-down, which would be left-right in your twisted frame of
reference. Then you could slowly turn round, watching the mirror
as you did so, so that when you were side on to the mirror, you
would discover that the left-right flip was in your body's
frame of reference and not in the mirror's frame of reference.
Try standing with your back to the mirror, then bend over and
look between your legs at the mirror. What do you see? Are you
going cross-eyed yet?
Alternatively, you could have your back to the mirror, and your
friend could look in the mirror for you, at the back of your
head, and say, "You're a pratt."
Then, if you have mirrors on the ceiling, you could lie on your
side, looking sideways (upwards) at the mirror, which would
still appear to flip things left-right, although it would be
up-down.
Simon
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 04:56:04 -0600
In article <3275544e.5018197@news.pacificnet.net>
savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
> In article <32743114.2A57@onramp.net>, Larry Richardson
> wrote:
[looong snip]
> > A crude analogy would be to have two cars at
> >the same place with identical mileage on their odometers, then driving
> >one of them a few miles away. You couldn't get their odometers to match
> >once again by driving the car that had moved back to meet the car that
> >hadn't moved even though the movement exhibited some symmetry.
>
> It's a good thing you said this is a crude analogy. Very crude, I'd
> say. :-) Comparing lengths traveled with the rates of clocks can
> only lead to confusion at best and wrong conclusions at worst.
Actually, it's an =excellent= analogy !!! And it can be further improved:
Imagine two automobiles --- call them 'A' and 'B'. Let both of them be
equipped with cruise-controls set to 30 kph, and large digital odometer-
repeaters on their roofs.
Let both cars be driven between two points 'P' and 'Q'. Let 'Q' be
generally north of 'P', as measured by both of two surveyors, 'S1'
and 'S2' --- however, 'S1's coordinates are aligned with *magnetic*-
compass north, while 'S2's coordinates are aligned with *gyrocompass*-
north.
Let car 'A' drive straight from 'P' to 'Q', while car 'B' is allowed
to take detours, so long as both surveyors still agree they are heading
generally ``north.''
Let each surveyor keep meticulous records of each cars' odometer
reading and (X,Y) coordinates relative to their own coordinate system;
Let each surveyor FAX a copy of their records to the other, as a list
of ((X,Y),odometer)-triples. Finally, let each surveyor plot their
list of triples and the other surveyor's list of triples as 2D charts.
Now: it should be clear to all that when the surveyors compare the two
2D charts, while they will =NOT= agree on the *numerical* values of
((X,Y),odometer)-triples --- in particular, they may not necessarily
agree *which* odometer has a larger reading for a given specified
number of ``kilometers north,'' because they are each using a
different definition of ``north.'' However, they =WILL= agree that:
1.) Car 'A' traveled in a straight line from 'P' to 'Q';
2.) Car 'B' did =NOT= travel in a straight line from 'P' to 'Q';
3.) Car 'B' traveled a longer =total= distance than car 'A' in going
from point 'P' to point 'Q'.
In addition, assuming that they are both intelligent individuals,
they will each quickly figure out that their respective surveyed
coordinates merely differ by a rotation (and possibly, an offset),
and work out the coordinate-transformation required to translate
between each others' coordinate-representations.
How is this ``parable of two surveyors'' analogous to SR? After
properly taking into account the differences between *Euclidean*
spatial geometry vs. *pseudo-Euclidean* spacetime geometry:
A.) Odometer readings are analogous to the ``proper time readings''
of each twins' on-board clock;
B.) Surveyed (X,Y) coordinates of a point on each surveyors' chart are
analogous to (X,T) coordinates of an event in an inertial observers'
frame of reference; in particular,
i.) ``kilometers north'' is the analog of ``observed time,'' and
ii.) ``foreshortening of perspective'' is the analog of ``time dilation.''
C.) Rotations of Euclidean space charts are analogous to Lorentz
transformations of spacetime inertial-frames.
The analogous three points on which all inertial observers agree are
that:
1'.) Twin 'A' traveled in a straight line from 'P' to 'Q';
2'.) Twin 'B' did =NOT= travel in a straight line from 'P' to 'Q';
3'.) Twin 'B' traveled a longer =total= distance than twin 'A' in
going from event 'P' to event 'Q'.
What has always =TRULY= astonished me is that, while no one seems
to have difficultly understanding the cause of foreshortening of
perspective, the *majority* of people seem to have a hard time
understanding length contraction and time dilation... :-(
-- Gordon D. Pusch
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
Subject: Re: Using C for number-crunching (was: Numerical solution to Schrodinger's Eq)
From: David Kastrup
Date: 29 Oct 1996 12:00:22 +0100
shenkin@still3.chem.columbia.edu (Peter Shenkin) writes:
> However, if the C code were written as follows, the compiler would
> know that x[] and y[] cannot overlap:
>
> void sizpy1( const int n, const float alpha, const float x[], float y[] ){
> int i;
> for( i=0; i y[ i ] += alpha * x[ i ];
> }
> }
>
> I also const-qualified n and alpha, but it's the const qualification of
> x[] that gives the compiler the information it needs -- namely, that
> no part of x[] will be written to.
Sorry, no payoff. It just tells the compiler that the user is not
supposed to be varying the y array via the parameter y, but it does
not tell the compiler that there might be no other path via which it
might modify the array.
That is, the const qualifier is, unfortunately, just usable for
generating error messages in case somebody tries to do something
inappropriate, but provides no guarantees about the objects' absolute
state, unless it is included in the variable declaration. That is, a
paramter declared const does not guarantee the least bit that the
object will not be modified, just that it cannot be modified *under*
*this* *name*.
Tough.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Universitaetsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Subject: Re: Science cannot disprove creation
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 29 Oct 1996 06:27:30 GMT
FolsomMan wrote in article
<553vtf$r59@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
> kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster) wrote:
>
> >Michael Courtney (michael@amo) wrote:
> >: One of the basic assumptions of science is that the laws of nature are
> >: constant. Any miracle or supernatural event requires that these laws
> >: be broken at some point in space and time. Yet the beginning point of
> >: science is that the laws are constant. So claiming that science
> >: disproves a reported miracle (such as the Biblical account of
creation)
> >: is a circular argument, because it is a mere restatement of the
> >: assumption. You cannot begin by assuming that miracles never happen
> and
> >: reach a valid conclucion in which some reported miracle did not
happen.
> :
> > Other than proving "creation science" to be an oxymoron, and the
> >creationists who claim their religious doctrine to be "science" are
> >liars, what is your point?
> > Science does not deal with miracles - the miraculous (as you point
> >out) involves breaking the (known) laws of nature, which perforce would
> >not be laws. Absent laws of nature, science is impossible.
> > Science cannot disprove the Ussher chronological interpretation of
> >the Biblical account of creation; so likewise can science not disprove
> >that the world was created whole, five minutes ago; with all our
> memories,
> >historical records and any other indications of there being a past
> >exceeding five minutes in length, all shipped along FOB.
>
> In addition, no one can prove that the bible and our memories of it and
> all of the supporting materials were not produced by demons a millisecond
> ago. As a matter of fact, I think I will start a cult that
scientifically
> proves just that. It would have just as much to support it as scientific
> creationism does.
>
> Mark Folsom
Mark,
before committing such heresy investigate The Church of Last Thursday that
holds the unifies was created last Thursday by a cat named Maeve.
Don't follow the demon root, beside the cat is cute.
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: brian artese
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:53:52 -0600
I hope you don't mind if I banish much of our sprawling conversation into
ellipses. I suspect we're only really addressing two or three issues
that have splintered into extraneous branches. If I've avoided something
important by doing so, let me know.
Michael Zeleny wrote:
> >The 'manifest success' of scientific theories depend first and
> >foremost on money, material resources and a political establishment
> >sympathetic to the science industry. These material products *never*
> >rely on any theory that has not already been tested in a material
> >environment. The actual material result of those tests almost never
> >correspond to the original theory. The theory has to then be modified
> >to conform to the material result of the test.
>
> There is no need to quibble about the economic dependence of
> scientific progress, which is quite beside the point being argued.
> Setting it aside, I am not sure what it is that you wish to question.
> My point of departure is the commonplace observation that science
> successfully explains the world around us. This explanation depends
> far more intimately on positing universals like mass, number, gene,
> and so on, than it does on hypothesizing the existence of any concrete
> particular. The social conditions that make this explanation possible
> are something else altogether, in so far as they do not form part of
> the explanandum or enter into the content of the explanans.
I understand. But my argument is that a true 'explanation of the world
around us' has much more to do with what you say is irrelevant--i.e.,
science as it *actually*, historically manifests itself. When you
suggest that science is constituted not by its historical activities, but
by its ruminations about 'mass, number and gene', you must understand why
I object. I don't dispute the existence of mass, etc. as constants that
can be measured at any given time in any given place. And I know you
know the difference between a historical event and an abstract universal;
my argument is that these two realms get conflated in your discourse
about signifiers and signifieds.
Here's what I mean: I assume from your past comments that I can roughly
equate what we've been calling 'universals' with Plato's 'Forms'. I
think this is admissible simply because if it's true that a given
universal *exists*, it must do so in the way that Plato describes a Form
-- as something whose existence is independent of any particular object
that partake of it.
You claim that the historically consistent reaction of certain
instruments proves the independent existence of mass. But you still
can't get around the fact that mass never exists apart from a particular
object that can be measured, a particular object that can be said to have
mass. And even if we assume that all particular objects will exhibit
this property -- we still have no extra thing called 'mass' *in addition*
to the aggregate of all particular objects. I say, "therefore, the
burden of proof that this 'mass' exists still remains with you." You
answer, "I can prove it by inferring its existence from the properties
exhibited by the particular objects."
So now I respond: There's no *need* to make such an inference. Science
can work perfectly well with the understanding that all particular
objects exhibit these properties *as an effect*. There's no need to
posit the existence of this *other thing*, this 'mass' that exists
independently of these objects. If anything, the empirical evidence
would lead one to believe that the property and the entity are
indissociable -- they've never been seen apart, the property and the
object, so why are we positing two independent entities? Just like there
is no 'green' independent of the aggregate of green things, there is no
'mass' independent of particular objects.
> Your understanding of science is very limited indeed. For example,
> the men who discovered the principles of classical mechanics, from
> Galileo to Lagrange, derived its formulation from a handful of
> extremal principles they regarded as known a priori and obtaining of
> the same degree of necessity as the axioms of arithmetic. Empirical
> corroboration always came after the fact.
But those a priori principles were based upon observation of physical
phenomena that they actually, historically witnessed, were they not?
Aristotle's were.
> A sign is what it is only in so far as it stands for something else.
> That, and the possibility of vacuous extension, is the reason why
> Saussure and other theorists of the sign from the Stoics and Port-
> Royal to Frege and Church, have inferred stratification of meaning
> into lekton and tynchanon, intension and extension, sense and
> denotation, or concept and object.
Actually, Saussure said that a sign acquires its value entirely from its
differential relation to other signs. A sign is *composed* of a signifer
that is said to 'stand in' for a signified, and that synchronic 'standing
in' is what he calls signification. He emphasises, however, that the
sign (the signifier/signified duo) *has no meaning in itself*, but
acquires such only in relation to other signs (that is, other
signifier/signified pairings). What poststructuralists rightly pointed
out later was that you don't need the extraneous concept of the signified
to keep intact the schema of signifiers acquiring value from their
differential relation to each other.
> Here is [an] example... John leaps to his death
> from the bell tower because of his unrequited love for Mary. The
> explanatory value of this statement need not depend on John's verbal
> expression of his love. It is perfectly legitimate to infer his
> motives from the way he manifested them unintentionally, without
> meaning to communicate them to anyone else. Indeed, we understand
> human action only in so far as we can impute motives to the agent.
> And understanding your peers is necessary for survival. If you have
> managed to make it into adulthood, your success is entirely due to
> unconscious logocentrism.
We could be entirely wrong about John's motives even if he *did* leave a
suicide note. Because of the metaphysics of presence that you implicitly
rely upon, we are forced to accept that any testimony he leaves could
always be a lie. Perhaps he's actually in love with Dan, but can't bear
the thought of his mother knowing he's gay? When a henchman of the
Spanish Inquisition barks the question "Are you in league with the
devil?" to the man strapped to the pole, the man can scream "No!" all he
wants, but that will never settle the matter because he could always be
lying. This unavoidable indeterminacy in regard to any testimony is
further evidence that a core 'presence' -- some consciousness 'at
bottom', as it were -- is an unreachable chimera. It is, in fact, *your*
insistence on some 'interior mind' *beneath* all testimony that creates
this unavoidable chasm. Don't you see? If the henchman understood
'consciousness' as simply the aggregete of spoken and unspoken
articulations, then he could be satisfied that "No" really is a sincere
response since he doesn't need to keep 'diving further' to make sure.
But you are whispering in the henchman's ear that there is this this
interiority, this 'mind' that is independent of these articulations.
Since the mind is not identical to the testimony, that testimony can
*never* be proven to be 'one' with the mind.
-- brian
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 06:22:51 -0600
In article <01bbc561$a5654e40$0cce77cc@michaelp> "Michael D. Painter"
writes:
> lucy Haye wrote in article
> <846466874.7093@dejanews.com>...
> > Gordon D. Pusch, from Argonne National Lab in 26 Oct. 96 writes:
> >
> >[excess noise snipped]
>
> All hail the new religion of AD. If you don't believe it you are a narrow
> minded, brain washed, lier (sic).
> They even do the same thing that the creationist fundies do. Send private
> posts explaining your narrow mindedness.
Amen. Except, they didn't merely ``explain'' my wrong-mindedness to me;
whomever it was advised me threateningly to ``lay off us'' (i.e., ADers),
unless I wanted to look like a ``baffoon'' [sic]...
Wish I'd save that e-mail, now --- I could've posted it, for all the net
to see...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 06:22:51 -0600
In article <01bbc561$a5654e40$0cce77cc@michaelp> "Michael D. Painter"
writes:
> lucy Haye wrote in article
> <846466874.7093@dejanews.com>...
> > Gordon D. Pusch, from Argonne National Lab in 26 Oct. 96 writes:
> >
> >[excess noise snipped]
>
> All hail the new religion of AD. If you don't believe it you are a narrow
> minded, brain washed, lier (sic).
> They even do the same thing that the creationist fundies do. Send private
> posts explaining your narrow mindedness.
Amen. Except, they didn't merely ``explain'' my wrong-mindedness to me;
whomever it was advised me threateningly to ``lay off us'' (i.e., ADers),
unless I wanted to look like a ``baffoon'' [sic]...
Wish I'd save that e-mail, now --- I could've posted it, for all the net
to see...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
Subject: Absolute vs. Relative [Was: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?]
From: pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 06:05:07 -0600
In article <3275544e.5018197@news.pacificnet.net>
savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
> Is someone deliberately trying to keep the masses from figuring out
> the cause of the constancy of the speed of light. It might be my
> paranoia kicking into overdrive but I don't think so. I haven't seen
> a single sensible reason why relativists absolutely refuse to have
> anything to do with absolute motion when it would instantly explain so
> many things in one fell swoop. Why the reticence? Did someone
> decided that Occam's razor somehow lost its sharpness when it came to
> relativity? Or are some people afraid that its application might
> inadvertently do away with a few huevos in the process? :-)
I'm sorry, but I see your entire ``absolute velocity is a necessary
prerequisite for defining relative velocity'' rant as being due to
a somewhat silly conceptual block on your part. In fact, I see it as
being similar to claiming that ``the concept of 'zero' is a necessary
prerequisite for defining subtraction'' --- just try telling a
mathematician that the integers are a logical prerequisitive for
defining the natural numbers, for example, and they will fall ROTFL.
The logical independence of ``absolute'' and ``relative'' velocities
would not even cause a mathematician of engineer to blink --- they
both understand the conceptual distinction between ``bound vectors''
which require that an ``origin'' be specified, versus ``free vectors''
which do =NOT= require an origin.
Both ``bound'' and ``free'' vectors obey =analogous= rules for addition
and subtraction; however =conceptually= they are quite distinct.
For example, free vectors may =always= be added or subtracted.
Bound vectors, OTOH, may only be added or subtracted if they live
at the same point; otherwise, operations between them aren't even
=DEFINED=, unless the space they live in admits a natural and unique
definition of ``parallel transport'' between two distant points
(not every space admits a natural concept of distant vectors being
``parallel,'' you know --- spherical geometry doesn't, for example...).
Since you say you're a programmer, I'' provide you with another analogy:
In C, pointers and arrays are very similar, and obey analogous rules.
However, as pointed out in Kernigan and Ritchie, they are =NOT= the
same concept. One may be more natural than the other in a particular
context. Furthermore, operations that are legal for one may NOT be legal
for the other... Comprenez-vous ???
-- Gordon D. Pusch
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
Subject: Re: Magnetic symmetry supports new ocean ridge model
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 03:33:14 GMT
Paul F. Dietz (dietz@interaccess.com) wrote:
: john@mail.petcom.com. (John S.) wrote:
: >After all, we're not seeing any neutrinos from the Sun's 'nuclear furnace'-
: >so why would we see any from Jupiter's- or Earth's?
: Experiments are seeing neutrinos from the sun, just not as many as
: predicted by theory.
And even then, it's only one particular type of neutrino we aren't seeing
in the anticipated numbers. Probably only a small flaw in the model.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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: Hoyle on the Big Bang.
From: Keith Stein
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:45:31 +0000
One of the world's leading astronomers writes:-
"Almost every week nowadays one reads that the Universe
originated in a Big Bang, not MIGHT have originated that way,but
DID originate that way. A detailed picture is developed of how all the
matter in the Universe was compressed essentially into a point source
that 'exploded' at some definite moment in the past. The truth is that
we have no such knowledge.
The aim of the Big Bang is to account for the present features
of the observed universe in terms of the manner in which the Universe
was started in the first place. In this aim it is only partially
successful, most of the observed features remaining unaccounted for even
after more than half a century of effort.
At what is usually considered its best, the supposed explanation
of the cosmic microwave background, there is no understanding of why it
should be the particular background that is observed and not any other
of an infinite number of possibilities. "
(Extract from:-
"OUR PLACE IN THE COSMOS" BY Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.)
So the BB does not really explain the spectrum of the CBR at all !
WHEREAS: If we assume that every line of sight ends in a (Hubble red
shifted) star, we must surely predict a spectrum very close to that
found, ie a far red shifted black body spectrum representing an
originating temperature very similar to that of the surface of the sun.
--
Keith Stein
Subject: Re: New Relativity - Autodynamics
From: Dries van Oosten
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 21:37:02 GMT
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> I looked briefly at the Autodynamics site and bookmarked it for later study.
>
> They give a list of new mathematical relationships. One of them replaces the
> increase in mass with velocity with a *reduction* in mass with velocity (so
> that objects have zero mass at c!).
>
> The increase in mass is a supposedly well-documented effect, seen in
> particle accelerators.
>
> I find this VERY hard to swallow.
AD claims that photons traveling at lightspeed is an unexplained
phenomenon in SR, this is not true. Photons traveling at c, define SR.
And btw. photon are massless and when you devide zero by zero you
needn't have a problem. They also state, that the neutrino not being
involved in a certain process is a failure of SR, while it is not up to
SR to come up with particle to explain thing, it has to come up with
energies and QD can figure out a particle that corresponds with it. And
btw. if neutrino's do not exist, what are the particle we detected as
being neutrino's in the large tanks of baby-oil so deep underground,
virtually nothing else can get there?
Well I'll leave at that and go and laugh at this article with my
relativity teacher.
Dries
Subject: Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light--Purely Mathematical?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:52:31 GMT
Christopher R Volpe wrote [in part]:
>Brian Jones wrote:
>>
>> 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,
>Once again, Bjon has mistaken me for Wayne Throop.
Your "evil twin."
>> 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.
>BS. Is the "open end" of possibly discovering the world's flatness
>someday necesssary if the round-earth theory is to be a testable
>scientific theory?
There's a very small but critical distinction between a fact and a
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.
>True, but it IS the same thing as saying that it can never be detected,
>even in principle.
Essentially, it's detected everyday. It's the only thing that
distinguishes one observer from another.
But, of course it's not the detection that is important, it's the
determination of one's absolute velocity.
>> >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.
>There is no difference between existence and the ability to be detected.
>The ability to be detected, in principle (even if technologically it is
>not currently possible), is the very essence of "existence".
See above.
>> >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,
>And I can argue just as effectively that absolute up does exist.
>> altho it has
>> not so far been detectable.
>Just as absolute up so far has not 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.
>Does denying the existence of "absolute up" deny the testability of the
>round earth theory?
Facts don't need testing, only theories.
>Does denying the existence of perpetuual motion machines also deny the
>testability of the laws of thermodynamics?
Yes.
>>
>> > 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,
>Why? I claim that there is a "real" up direction, and that a plane
>perpendicular to this direction is "really horizontal". It's as
>meaningful a claim as your claim regarding absolutely-synched clocks
>being able to identify the absolute rest frame.
Because an "up" has no possible existence, being a mere concept.
CLocks are real instruments, and can actually be truly set, if only by
sheer accident.
>> but this has nothing
>> at all to do with the current topic, which is the existence of
>> absolute motion.
>I think the analogy is pretty good.
Think again.
>> And even though true clock synch is equivalent to
>> the concept of absolute motion,
>I'm holding you to this admission. When I quote you in the future, don't
>deny you said this.
Of course it is, as I have said all along. But this is no fantastic
secret as you seem to think.
>>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,
>Non-sequitur. Absolute up has an existence because one can see that it
>is physically possible for a plane to be truly horizontal.
It is not possible because truly horizontal itself has no existence.
>> >Detectableness is equivalent to existence, as far as physics is
>> >concerned. Einstein was pretty clear about that.
>>
>> They'd better not be precisely equivalent, or his own theory becomes
>> untestable.
>Non-sequitur. In no way does the use of the word "existence" to mean
>"detectability in principle" make the specific quantitative claims of SR
>untestable.
>--
>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
SRT makes only one (1) claim, and this single claim must be testable
if SRT is to be an acceptable theory,
<><>BJ<><>
bjon @ ix. netcom. com
Subject: Re: Using C for number-crunching (was: Numerical solution to Schrodinger's Eq)
From: Konrad Hinsen
Date: 29 Oct 1996 13:39:41 +0000
pecora@zoltar.nrl.navy.mil (Louis M. Pecora) writes:
> This Fortran vs. C speed question comes up often. Outside of anecdotal
> evidence given here (which can be useful if it is based on experience),
> the only study I know of (and it's a good one) is:
>
> [1] SW Haney, �Is C++ Fast Enough for Scientific Computing?,� in Computers
> in Physics (1994), Vol. 8, pp. 690-694.
Check out the followup in the most recent issue of Computers in Physics.
It shows how a better C++ compiler can give the same speed as C.
Unfortunately it does not explain the strongly machine-dependent difference
between C/C++ and Fortran (ranging from about equal speed to a factor
2 in favour of Fortran).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen | E-Mail: hinsen@ibs.ibs.fr
Laboratoire de Dynamique Moleculaire | Tel.: +33-76.88.99.28
Institut de Biologie Structurale | Fax: +33-76.88.54.94
41, av. des Martyrs | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
38027 Grenoble Cedex 1, France | Nederlands/Francais
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------