Newsgroup sci.physics 205385

Directory

candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
> |> > The MR-cat theory, whether or not you (or Newt) want it to be a TOE, 
> |> > describes MR-cats accurately.  It is consequently an MR-cat theory.
moggin:
> |> Newt offered a theory of cats (TOC) which described all cats as
> |> black.  Given Stein's findings, Newt's description was inaccurate,
> |> and his theory was false.  His observations were fine, as far as 
> |> they went, but the conclusions he drew from them were invalid.
Jeff:
>  (i) MR-cat theory = valid TOC               (false)
> (ii) MR-cat theory = valid theory of MR-cats (true) 
> QED.
     Irrelevant.  See above.
-- moggin

In article  moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
   matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
   > My point about Indy cars was that, at low speed, it is impossible,
   > even "theoretically" to distinguish between Classical Mechanics and
   > GR. Not they are close, not good enough for government work, not
   > approximately correct. You can't measure the difference. You can't
   > design an experiment to tell you which is right, because the
   > difference is smaller than any possible measurement error.
        Wait a minute. That shows you can't _practically_ distinguish
   them.  
   > So in that domain both models explain the same data and you can't pick
   > one right and one wrong. 
        If you take Einstein as given, it follows that Newton will be off
   by some amount, no matter how small, right down the line.  Now,  if you
   want to begin with another premise, fine.  Perhaps you want to suggest
   that the universe contains different and conflicting sets of principles,
   such that it follows Newton here and Einstein there.  If _that_ was the
   given, your conclusion would follow.
This is probably a thread I shouldn't enter.  But I'll give it a shot.
I think the point is that Einstein isn't given.  They are both
theories which draw credibility through their ability to explain
observations.  There is a signficant range over which we are not able
to determine experimentally that Einstein is more accurate than
Newton.  We don't really know that Newton isn't exactly right under
such circumstances.
This is probably why many people are annoyed when hearing Newton's
theory declared to be wrong: such a declaration is either based on the
notion that a theory is right only if it is universally applicable (in
which case no physical theory is ever likely to be right) or it is
based on the assumption that we know Newton's theories to be at best
an approximation in all circumstances (which hasn't been
experimentally verified).  The notion that Newtonian mechanics is only
approximately correct over the range in which it is commonly used is
based on an unjustifiable extrapolation which assumes that relativity
is more accurate at low velocities merely because it is more accurate
at high velocities.
I apologize if I've rehashed old points or if I've reached too far in
my relatively shallow understanding of physics.
-- 
Michael Stewart                          http://www-sccm.stanford.edu/~stewart
"Good people drink good beer."                       stewart@sccm.stanford.edu
          --Hunter S. Thompson

In article <32774C11.9E3@pilot.infi.net>,
Jerry   wrote:
>Spinoza and Einstein responded to the universe which they could see and understand.
>The far reaching mind of Einstein saw some interesting properties of space and time
>which enabled properties such as "the memory of the thing becomes the thing" to exist.
>  Einstein had a fatal error. He thought that if you travel faster than the speed of 
>light you would enter the world of yesterday. However this would mean that the energy
>of yesterday was always present. This is false. In truth, if you cross the light speed
>barrier you enter the memory of yesterday which only requires a fraction of the
>energy.As the universe expands a small amount of energy is lost into the memory of
>yesterday. This enables the memory of the thing to become the thing. It enables
>the reincarnation process. It enables the self to exist although it is deade. It 
>enables the Kingdom of Heaven and the Pit of Hell. Ie enables God.
>  My paperback "The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth" is available free for those
>who ask. I post on alt.chrisnet.theology
>Jerry (Jewish Scientific Prophet of God) (Another Jewish Madman speaks for God)
	Oh but you forgot that the Multi-phasic Warp Bubble will cause a 
temporary time dilation in the Chronographic Spectrum decribed by
a surging tachyon beam.  In truth this means that the ever present memory
energy of Jesus Christ will reappear in the form of "The Traveller" and
allow all past things to become one.  This effect will occur the day that
technology advances to the point where Warp core breaches can occur
in waste disposal systems, such that the pit of hell will rise up to
cover the entire flat surface of the Earth.  Ofcourse the illumunati are
trying to promote the saving of the anti-christ (Barney the dinosaur)
So that the radiometric positronic Alpha decay field will vetificate 
the subspace temporal signature of all things (that are really one thing)
existing in sector 14 of the sonic lorentz transformations at the 
TARDIS center.
						-Brad
(Minbari Scientific prophet of Financial Actuaries)

In article <5573dc$fi7@elaine18.Stanford.EDU>, aleistra@leland.Stanford.EDU™ 
says...
>In article <3274A7EC.41F5@firga.sun.ac.za>,
>Sven Keunecke   wrote:
>>In Feynman's book, "Surely your joking Mr. Feynman", Feynman talks about
>>a pipe in the form of a S, that will rotate in one direction when water
>>is forced out of the ends. But then poses the problem that when the pipe
>>is submerged in water and water is sucked into the ends instead of blown
>>out, which way will the pipe then rotate? In the same direction or in
>>the other? He then goes on and gives equally plausible explanations for
>>both and explains how he managed to flood the graduate lab in the
>>process of doing the experiment, but does not mention which way the pipe
>>wiil turn. 
>IIRC, the pipe doesn't turn at all; I've read about the thought
>experiment, though not that Feynman actually did it, and I think that was
>the conclusion.
Yes. The pipe will not turn, which is contrary to many people's intuition. 
Many people regard the situation of water being sucked into the sprinkler as a 
time reversal of the problem of water being forced out of the sprinkler. But 
it is not so. When water is forced out of the sprinkler, the water leaving the 
sprinkler has an appreciable velocity and angular momentum. Since the water 
has zero angular momentum when it entered the base of the sprinkler, it gains 
its angular momentum throuth its interactions with the sprinkler, causing the 
sprinkler to spin with angular momentum opposite to that of the leaving water.
But when water is sucked into the sprinkler, it enters the sprinkler nearly 
from rest. The water transfers no angular momentum to the sprinkler, so the 
sprinkler does not begin to rotate.
Mkluge

In article  moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: When did Nietzsche wimp out?  (was: Sophistry 103)
>Date: 20 Oct 1996 20:14:36 GMT
>(Fiona Webster):                   
>>I believe it were Russell Turpin who wrote:
>> How many religions can you 
>> cite that daily question their foundation?
>     We can't blame Russell for that one -- it was a certain
>"RICHARD J. LOGAN" .  (His caps; sorry.)  
>>I can cite one: mine.  Neo-paganism.  We're making 
>>it up as we go along: we to have question everything, 
>>constantly.
>     While by contrast, scientists depend entirely on their 
>faith in items such as induction, which they rarely question.
>-- moggin
*whoops and hollers from the peanut gallery*

just at test, please ignore
-David de Hilster
 http://www.autodynamics.org

In article <54ptpc$k44@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
ianj@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
> dangrdoc@sound.net wrote:
> 
> : I hate to bring this up again but it is bugging me.  In the original
> : example he was talking about temperature.  There is no negative
> : infinity for temperature it stops at zero degrees kelvin!!!!!!
> 
> Depends. Some theoretical work uses the idea of negative temperature -
> it's to do with how entropy changes with heat input, I believe. 
> 
> I am only reporting what my string theorist chum tells me.
> 
> Ian
When you define temperature as the derivative of entropy
with energy you can get negative temperatures in systems
which have a hard maximum of energy.  A system of spins in
a magnetic field is an example.  At high energy the number
of states goes down with increasing energy, so the temp
is negative.  And IIRC, it goes to minum inf at max energy.
Ross Millikan

arcane@cybercom.net (Dr. Arcane ) wrote:
 Its just that I dont think saying 'its not there till I look
>at it, because until I look at it I cant know its there' is a good way
>of demonstrating quantum physics (theory, factor ?).  It would be one
>thing if lets say the first side you looked on was always where the electron
>was, but this example just seems pointless..  
>--
> Hello,
     I believe that when one says that 'its not there until you look at'
 it is not to be taken literally, but is only meant to imply a 
superposition of two states. One being an e- on the left and one being 
an e- on the right. It is also, as I see it, not about the particle 
itself, but about how observers interact with the observed. If this has 
not addressed what you were talking about I blame it on the cold 
medication.
                                            Derek Slottke
                                          PSU physics
                                          OHSU Rosenfeld lab
                                          slottked@ohsu.edu
My opinions do not reflect those of my employer. 

Hello!
	Can anyone tell me what fire is?
	What is its state, Plasma?
	Is it a chemical reaction?
	THX!

Michael Press (prezky@apple.com) wrote:
: In the diagram at point W on the wall of the sprinkler
: head there is a transfer of momentum to the sprinkler head
: in the direction indicated. Therefore the sprinkler must
: rotate in the same direction as a sprinkler under normal
: operation, and for the same reason: unbalanced forces
: arising from momentum changes.
: 
: 
: 
:                             Sprinkler Head
:                 __________________________________
:                                                   |
:                                                   |
: Fluid In ->                                 --> W |
:                                                   |
:                                                   |
:                 ____________________              |
:                                     |             |
:                                     |             |
:                                     |             |
:                                     |             |
:                                     |             |
:                                     |             |
:                                     |             |
:                                     |             |
:                                     |             |
: 
: 
: 
: 
:                                            o   Swivel axis
: -- 
: Michael Press
: prezky@apple.com
I think you are ignoring the frictional force that the sprinkler head will
feel as it tries to move.  So there are a few points I can imagine will affect
the motion: 1) the frictional or drag force is so weak that the sprinkler head
does indeed move in the direction you state, 2) friction is strong enough to
prevent the above motion and the sprinkler head ends up pulling itself in the
opposite direction (although friction would apply here as well), or 3) there
is no motion at all as a result of the frictional forces of the water and of
the swivel bearings.
It is my opinion that this really is a matter that is best determined by
experiment since there are so many cases to be made for either type of motion or
for non-motion. I'll have to do some checking, but I believe that a more
recent experiment of this sort was done and appeared in the Am. J. of Physics
not too long ago.
-- 
david gunter 
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/gunter/
-------------------------------------
"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find
sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite
different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it."
- A.A. Milne, "The House At Pooh Corner"

Louis Savain wrote:
> Cuidado a los huevos, amigo! :-)
I'm not conversant in Spanish so I had to look this up.  All I can say 
is:  they're all in one basket.
Looking forward to your reply.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

I guess the light colored stuff is the skull.
What I don't understand is why the skull is so important. With clear proof
that Lark cigarettes were smoked that far in the past we have absolute
proof that Gary Larkin's reason for the death of dinosaurs is the correct
one.
Ed Conrad  wrote in article
<5577cl$c0l@news.ptd.net>...
> 
> The  WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
> a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
> between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
> 
> It means man -- in almost our present form but considerably larger --
> had existed on earth multi-million years before the initial emergence
> of the earliest cat-size, monkey-like primate which science texbooks
> have long proclaimed to be our most distant ancestor.
> 
> A color photo of the skull, with one side protruding from the boulder,
> can now  be seen in all its intriguing magnificence at
> >  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skulla.jpg
> 
> The photograph is a direct link from
> >  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
> where photos of other Carboniferous fossils, also found between coal 
> veins, can be viewed.
> 
> Meanwhile, another photo -- comparing the petrified human cranium
> in the boulder with a modern human  skull -- can be seen at
> > http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skullb.jpg
> 
> 
> l
> 
> 
> 

In article <557r0t$5os@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
wrote:
>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>
>[...]
>>  If you think this receding motion happens regardless of direction,
>>you are obviously wrong, unless you are describing something that is
>>alien to me.  Here's a simple diagram of a possible scenario:
>
>
>><---absolute direction of motion of target and source in E-Matrix
>
>>[light source]------------photon------------------>[target]
>
>
>>Does this look like the target is receding (moving away) from the
>>photon to you?
>
>Here you are saying that the MMX apparatus (source and target) are
>moving in the opposite direction of their own absolute motion whcih is
>impossible.
  Huh?  Are you trying to make me look like a fool with such a dumb
statement, Ken?  Otherwise I'm beginning to suspect that I'm seriously
wasting my time here.
>I am puzzled why you are having so much problem
>visualizing such a simple situation.
  I'm puzzled that you can't understand a simple diagram.  And you
want to create a universal theory?  Man, give me a break.
>>>You keep on believing that c+v situations can occur within the same
>>>frame. If you can show me how you can get this then I will convert to
>>>your way of thinking. If not perhaps you will acknowledge that I have
>>>a valid idea? :-)
>
>>  I am partial to the interpretation that whatever c+v situation is
>>going on, is exactly canceled by a combination of length contraction
>>in the absolute direction of motion and by clocking slowing.  I am
>>still thinking about it, so I haven't made up my mind yet on the exact
>>mechanism.
>
>If it's clock slowing, the experiment that I proposed--with different
>clocks facing different directions-- should be able to detect this
>clock slowing.
  The direction of the clocks have nothing to do with it.  Just the
speed.  If the apparatus is moving its clock will slow down.
>>  Anyway, Ken I give up. I think at this point you and I should stop
>>discussing this as it is just wasting your time and my time.  We've
>>had three exchanges on this and either you are missing something or I
>>have no idea what you are talking about.  Is there someone else out
>>there who can make sense out of this receding target regardless of
>>direction nonsense?
>
>This is a cop out attitude.
  Not at all.  It's a sensible attitude.  No one likes being made a
fool of.  Especially by one who is supposedly somewhat one's side of
the fence.  Good luck amigo.
Louis Savain

weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
>>Having read without being able  understanding must be what you call 
>>"ignorance."
>Watch me exercise constraint in not commenting on the syntax above.
Watch me exercise restraint in not commenting on the Websterian,
Freudian, Derridean, and Bismarckian implications of your own remark.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

Louis Savain (savainl@pacificnet.net) wrote:
:   I am partial to the interpretation that whatever c+v situation is
: going on, is exactly canceled by a combination of length contraction
: in the absolute direction of motion and by clocking slowing.  I am
: still thinking about it, so I haven't made up my mind yet on the exact
: mechanism.
:   Anyway, Ken I give up. I think at this point you and I should stop
: discussing this as it is just wasting your time and my time.  We've
: had three exchanges on this and either you are missing something or I
: have no idea what you are talking about.  Is there someone else out
: there who can make sense out of this receding target regardless of
: direction nonsense?
: Louis Savain
        Maybe the alt.lightspeed.old-theories newsgroup
will have all the answers. :-)
        But I can only offer a possible explanation that
might satisfy everyone.
        Assume that photon packets or waves appear to accelerate,
causing the distance of separation of the waves to increase with
time.
        Now, an observer approaching a source will find that
the distance of separation is constant no matter how fast or
how slow he goes.
        An observer moving away from the source might find
the same result, and he certainly will never catch up with
a particular wave crest no matter how much he accelerates.
        It seems that any possible explanation should be
considered, rather than just dwelling on the results of
an experiment, after all, why do the experiment unless
knowledge is being sought and compared with a reference
model.
        And any experimental results should be compared
with _all_ known reference models.
        In the above suggestion, velocity could ever be
measured faster than lightspeed, and nothing could ever
catch up to a light pulse, and it isn't because of mass
increase, it is the result of the nature of the emission
and propagation of light and the system of measurement
not permitting exceeding c in any circumstance.
Ken Fischer 

Read up on Autodynamics before you go and make yourself
look extremely uniformed in front of the entire world.
I'm amazed at how many people can't grasp the basics
of Autodynamics, Special Relavity, General Relativity,
and so forth.  I'm equally amazed at how many people
talk as if they understand the fundementals of AD yet
make incredibly lame statements.  Obviously people,
you haven't taken the time to read what's on the AD
web site.
But then again, I am not amazed.  People who are
entering or are already in physics are going to be
threatened by something that eliminates the neutrino.
People are going to feel threatened if someone
claims there is a new paradigm shift.
Autodynamics is serious.  You can either live with
that or not.  Emotional attacks will not change the
math.  215 people around the world are interested
in AD and the number is growing.  There is math
galore for those who bother to really take the time
and look at it.
But just a piece of advice:  know what you are talking
about before you go an spout off predictable emotional
responses.
Do something different:  read AD, try and understand
it, and then discuss!  Wouldn't that be more scientific
then logging on and flaming without thought?
-David de Hilster
 http://www.autodynamics.org

In article <3276A2CF.1631@cs.purdue.edu>,
Markus Kuhn   wrote:
>A minor observation: The unit gram very slowly starts to get
>used in the U.S. media for general audience. For example,
>I watched TV for a few minutes today and I saw two advertising spots:
>In the first one, the manufacturer claimed that some new candy product
>contains less than two grams fat. In the second one, two products
>against high blood colesterol levels were compared, and one product
>was equivalent to 12 grams garlic, while the other one contained
>extracts from 32 grams garlic.
>
>I guess, the slowly appearing usage of the unit gram even outside
>scientific publications can be attributed to the new federal law
>that requires nutrition information on certain types of food to
>be specified in grams.
No, it can be attributed to the fact that few people ever used scruples
and drams, and hence most people didn't object to switching from those
units to grams.
>If you require SI units in some fields then people start to use them
>elsewhere.
You'll only get to _require_ units when the majority doesn't _care_.
Counting on the U.S. Government to pass a law forcing a change is
misguided; it won't happen.  The government and private citizens can
encourage the conversion, but it won't happen by fiat in most cases.
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California, 94043

     Arkady Plotnitsky is going to be speaking on the science wars 
next week at Duke -- info below for anyone who might be interested.
                              -- moggin
The Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Science and Cultural Theory
announces the second in a series of public seminars:
Modern Science and the Cultural Imaginary
Arkady Plotnitsky
CHARM AND HARM: SCIENTISTS AGAINST POSTMODERNISM
November 6th, Wednesday
4:15 pm to 5:30 pm
126 Soc-Psych Bldg.
Professor Plotnitsky, 1996-97 Visiting Scholar at the Center, holds 
degrees in mathematics and comparative literature from Leningrad 
University and the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of *In
the Shadow of Hegel* (1993) and *Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology 
after Bohr and Derrida* (1994), and  co-editor of *Mathematics,
Science, and Postclassical Theory* (1996).
The seminar series is part of the Center's 1996-97 program of events, 
"Reconfiguring the Two Cultures: Contemporary Perspectives on the 
Sciences and the Humanities.
For more information, contact the Center for Interdisciplinary 
Studies in Science and Cultural Theory, Duke University, Box 90015, 
Durham NC 27708, (919) 681-5013.

What's really curious is why those who believe in this shit don't just
buy their own pack of Tarot or I Ching cards and learn to do their own
readings?  T'ain't hard...and you can have as many readings as you want
for a one-time price of about twelve bucks.  It's fun for a parlor
game, too...just don't bet the rent on it. Send the money to me instead
- I'll share it with Elvira! >;-)
Bill Mayers

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, arnold v. lesikar wrote:
> Where here is one quotation from Einstein when it was reported that he 
> believed in the God of religion:
> 
> 	It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious 
> 	convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I 
Ah, the voice of Reason...a most unwelcome intruder in discussions of 
this sort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen P. Victor                                       svictor@compassnet.com
Houston, Texas USA                          http://www.compassnet.com/~svictor
                      De gustibus non disputandum est.

In article <32702EC6.78A6@cs.purdue.edu>,
Markus Kuhn   wrote:
>The sooner the industry converts, the cheaper the total conversion
>cost will be.
I don't believe your claim.  To convert units, a factory must replace
its machinery.  To do so now means abandoning the capital value of the
current machinery, which costs a great deal.  If the factory waits
until the current machinery wears out, the conversion cost is born
by expected depreciation.
Also, keep in mind that it cost more to spend a dollar today than it
does to spend a dollar next year.
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California, 94043

In article <326B33F6.78AD@renault.fr>,
Antoine Leca   wrote:
>Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> I think the divisions of time were developed by the Babylonians, but
>> that the Romans were responsible for the division of feet and pounds
>> into 12.  Inch and ounce are derived from the Latin uncia, meaning a
>> twelfth.
>
>I'm curious from where comes this meaning.
>
>For what I know, eleventh=unodecimo,-a, simplified into the scheme
>uncim in many romance languages (the e should be breve, I think),
>which look like uncia to me (or is it hazard ?).
>
>OTOH, twelfth=duodecimo,-a, and I don't see the parallel with uncia.
I don't know the derivation, but my sources indicate the following
Latin names for the fractions of a foot/pound.
  uncia  fraction  name
    1      1/12    uncia
   3/2     1/8     sescunx
    2      1/6     sextans
    3      1/4     quadrans
    4      1/3     triens
    5      5/12    quincunx
    6      1/2     semis
    7      7/12    septunx
    8      2/3     bes
    9      3/4     dodrans
   10      5/6     dextans
   11     11/12    deunx
Some of the derivations seem straightforward, but I wouldn't know if
the obvious is correct.
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California, 94043

In article <55079p$m0i@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
Douglas Tricarico  wrote:
>I certainly don't know how many pecks are in a bushel
2 pints per quart
4 quarts per gallon
2 gallons per peck
4 pecks per bushel
>or how many bushels in a hogshead.
None; the bushel is a measure of dry capacity and the  hogshead is a
measure of liquid capacity.
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California, 94043

In article <1996Oct25.150102.9585@astroatc.uucp>,
Joe Johnson  wrote:
>In article <326E4732.5E97@dowco.com>, Jim Quail   wrote:
>>There is no system better than the imperial system, inherited from
>>feudal England, when it comes to measuring a flat Earth.  I assume that
>>is why the US government has retained it.
>
>But we couldn't resist "improving" the imperial system! Consider the
>difference between the US and imperial gallons... :-)
The Imperial system is an 1820 improvement over the English system.
The modern U.S. system is essentially the pre-Imperial English system,
but removing nearly all of the annoying differences based on commodity
measured.
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California, 94043

Might have a look at *Superstrings--A Theory of Everything?*

In article <1996Oct27.105702.29814@ucl.ac.uk>,
Michael Dworetsky  wrote:
>Thanks to John Stockton for pointing out my error on the statute mile.  In
>fact, mile as a generic term for a distance originates from the Roman
>army, milia passuum, or 1000 paces (left plus right)
My sources say the words were "mille passus".
>as marched by legionaries.
The pace was a convienient name for a multiple of the foot; it wasn't
derived from the march of legionaries.  Legionaries probably did use
the unit; but they didn't define it.
For those interested,
    digitus (digit) = 1/16 pes (foot)
    uncia (inch) = 1/12 pes (foot)
        ~= 0.972 inches
        ~= 0.024688849377698757 meters
    palmus (palm) = 1/4 pes (foot) = 3 uncia (inch)
    pes (foot) = 1/625 stadium -- see below
        ~= 11.664 inches
        ~= 0.29626619253238506 meters
    palmipes (palm and foot) = palmus (palm) + pes (foot) = 1/4 passus (pace)
    cubitum (cubit) = 3/2 pes (foot)
    gradus (step) = 1/2 passus (pace)
    passus (pace) = 5 pes (foot)
    decempeda (ten foot) = 10 pes (foot)
    stadium = 1 Classical Greek stade
        ~= 7290 inches = 607.5 feet = 202.5 yards = 0.9204545... furlongs
        ~= 185.16637033274068 meters
    mille passus (mile) = 1000 passus (pace) = 8 stadium
        ~= 4860 feet = 1620 yards ~= 0.9204545... miles
        ~= 1481.3309626619255 meters
Yes, the Romans got their units of length from the Greeks.
>A Roman mile was 1620 yards, the English statute mile is
>1760 yards; could this be because English soldiers were taller than Roman
>soldiers of about 1600 years earlier? 
No, it's because English farmers wanted their miles to be a multiple of
their furlong.  The furlong is 40 rods (220 yard), and eight is a more
convienient multiple than seven (the other reasonable choice).
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California, 94043

In article <327637BD.12CB@cs.purdue.edu>,
Markus Kuhn   wrote:
>Peter Mott wrote:
>
>> In addition to the expense and the lack of good English words to
>> describe the units, the metric system has one more disadvantage
>> compared to traditional units: nothing is evenly divisible by
>> three.
>
>WHAT?
No unit in the metric system is evenly divisible by three.  Of course,
multiples of metric units can be divisible by three, but that's much
like saying multiples of English units can be divisible by ten.
>> That means there won't be a big fat mark on your ruler
>> that is 1/3 of the distance, which is a convienence.  Well, you
>> say, with the metric system you can divide things by 5--but I point
>> out that you are far more likely to divide something into thirds
>> than fifths.
>
>Sorry, this argument is really nonsense and clearly based on a complete
>lack of experience with metric units and metric design rules.
>
>If you do not see the light:
>
>Where on your ruler to you find a marking that devides two inches by
>three? Nowhere, as on common rulers inches are only subdivided by powers
>of two.
Feet and yards can be evenly divided by several multiples of two and
three.  Meters can be evenly divided by several multiples of two and
five.  Multiples of three are more convenient for dividing things into
parts, but multiples of five are more convenient for addition and
multiplication.
>In the metric world, the designer just selects the dimension in mm such
>that they are nicely divisable, if this is a design requirement. You
>select some module size with many factors and try to make all other
>dimensions multiples of this module size.
In metric units this is the 0.60 meter module.  In English, it is the
yard.  I think the yard is simpler.
Actually, the real problem is that we use a decimal (base ten) number
system.  If we were using a duodecimal (base twelve) number system,
would have the best of all world; easy addition, easy multiplication,
_and_ easy division.  We also usually get fewer digits for any given
number, which means everything from calculators to newspapers becomes
cheaper.
>It can't be *that* bad for practical purposes! Only
>ignorance and conservativism in the U.S. Congress have prevented it to
>become widely used here, too, not any practical considerations.
Not true, there are many practical considerations.  If you'll offer to
pay all my expenses, and pay for my time, then I won't have any
practical considerations.
The advantages of converting to a duodecimal number system are clear.
Are you willing to convert?
-- 
  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California, 94043

mkluge@wizard.net (Mark D. Kluge) wrote:
>At 04:11 PM 10/28/96 GMT, you wrote:
>>mkluge@wizard.net (Mark D. Kluge) wrote:
>>A fringe would, of course, also be produced on a stationary disc on
>>which was mounted a combined interferometer/beam splitter. This holds
>>for all particles. When the disc is rotated the fringe is shifted.
>>Rotation of the disc in the other direction shifts the fringe to the
>>other side of the stationary fringe position.
>Of course. That is the essence of the effect.
>>>I stated this badly. What I meant, and should have said, is the trivial 
>>>statement that in the laboratory frame, in which it is most convenient to do 
>>>the analysis, there is, obviously, no Coriolis force on the light. In the 
>>>laboratory frame the light propagates rectilinearly between reflections 
>>>by the mirrors that guide the light's path and move with the disk. Under
>>>these circumstances the light's interaction with the rotating disk 
>>>consists of the light's reflection from the mirrors. This can be 
>>>considered an impulsive interaction-the light reflecting off of moving 
>>>mirrors whose instantaneous velocities in the laboratory frame are 
>>>determined by the rotational speed of the disk and their instantaneous 
>>>positions on that disk. The reflection of light off of moving mirrors is 
>>>well-understood. One can calculate the path of the light around the disk 
>>>as a function of the disk's angular velocity 
>>>entirely in the laboratory frame of reference. One doesn't need even 
>>>to think about Coriolis acceleration.
>>The early experiments on the Sagnac effect (Dufour and Prunier, 1937
>>and 1942) used different experimental configurations, but always with
>>the combined interferometer/beam splitter (BS/I) on the rotating disc,
>>e.g:
>>i) light source and combined BS/I on disc;
>>ii) light source in the laboratory and a recorder on the disc:
>>iii) source and recorder in the laboratory;
>>iv) source and recorder in the laboratory; middle part of light path
>>in the laboratory; BS/I on the disc.
>>ALWAYS the same number of fringe shifts was observed for these
>>different light path lengths. This cannot be explained by mirror
>>reflection. Only non-locality can explain it (same space-time frame).
>>The Coriolis effect is relevant to all as the beginning and end (BS/I)
>>of the paths were onthe rotating disc. 
>I have not analyzed this quantitatively for any experimental geometry. (the
>calculation would probably take a couple of hours which I don't have.)
>However, at least qualitatively the effect may be understood based upon
>small Doppler shifts (in the laboratory frame of reference) to the light
>reflected from the mirrors moving with the disk.  The Doppler shifts clearly
>have opposite signs for beams being reflected around the disk in the
>direction of its rotation and against it. Therefore, the relative phases of
>the partial beams will be shifted at any given point, so the interference
>fringes will be shifted. If you'd like you can call this a beat phenomenon. 
>Of course the number of fringe shifts is observed regardless of whether the
>detection apparatus is rotating or not. The detection of interference fringes
>is essentially a counting operation, counting the relative numbers of
>photons absorbed at various locations. Since counting is frame-independent,
>so is the location of the fringes.  
It os solely aboard the ratating disc that the interference, and the
fringe shifts, occur. A Doppler shift requires relative motion between
source and observer. However, in Sagnac's own experiments the had the
light source, the photographic equipment and the interferometer all
solidly fixed to the rotating disc. There was no relative motion, and
therefore no Doppler effect.
In the later Dufour and Prunier (1942) tests, with the photographic
equipment off the disc there was an insignifecant Doppler effect, not
big enough to explain the fringe shifts.
>>>Even if it were necessary or desirable  to consider Coriolis 
>>>accelerations in the rotating frame of reverence in the analysis, it 
>>>would say nothing about the mass of the photon. The Coriolis acceleration 
>>>is a purely kinematic effect relating the motion of objects in two 
>>>different coordinate systems. The Coriolis acceleration does not depend 
>>>upon the mass of the object being accelerated.
>>The Coriolis force act on the body's mass. The Coriolis acceleration
>>is the tangential acceleration experienced by a body as a result of
>>the Coriolis force (ref The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics).
>No. You have put the cart before the horse in ascribing the Coriolis
>acceleration as a result of the Coriolis force. For real forces (those felt
>by objects in inertial frames of reference) it is correct to say that the
>forces cause accelerations. In the case of the Coriolis "force", however,
>this is not the case. As I noted previously, the Coriolis acceleration is a
>purely kinematic effect resulting from the transformation from the inertial
>laboratory frame of reference to a rotating frame of reference. Consider an
>object experiencing no acceleration in the laboratory frame of reference,
>traveling in a straight line in the laboratory frame. In the rotating frame
>of reference, the object's trajectory will appear curved. In the rotating
>frame of reference, the object's velocity appears to be changing due to the
>nature of the time dependence of the rotating coordinates. The tangential
>component of this acceleration is the Coriolis acceleration. This has
>nothing to do with the object's mass. The object doesn't even have to have a
>mass to experience the acceleration. It is as true for an abstract point
>moving with constant velocity in the laboratory frame of reference as it is
>for a  massive particle.  Or perhaps you think that abstract points also
>have mass? Although an abstract point has no mass, it experiences a Coriolis
>acceleration. The corresponding Coriolis FORCE on the point is simply zero
>times the Coriolis acceleration. Similarly with massless light.
>The Coriolis force is simply DEFINED as the product of an object's mass and
>its Coriolis acceleration. It has no other definition in the physics
>literature.  Since I do not know the level of your mathematical background,
>I cannot proceed further. However, you can find explanations of the
>kinematic origin of the Coriolis acceleration in any intermediate mechanics
>textbook. 
A shift (movement) occurs in the Sagnac effect. A shift implies a
force. The Coriolis force must operate on a body with mass, otherwise:
F=0.a=0.
Therefore, the photon has mass. However, I will have to refine my
paragraph.
>>>It is true that sometimes one needs to associate a Coriolis force 
>>>with objects undergoing Coriolis acceleration in a rotating frame of 
>>>reference. The Coriolis force is then defined as the product of the mass 
>>>of the object and its Coriolis acceleration. This fictitious "force" is 
>>>defined so that Newton's second law of motion formally holds in the 
>>>rotating frame of reference. 
>>>When considering the motion of massless objects in a rotating frame of 
>>>reference, however, (such as the motion of an abstract point) one can still 
>>>speak of its Coriolis acceleration without reference to any corresponding 
>>>Coriolis force. 
>       
>>>In looking at your post again, I think I see where your most serious 
>>>misapprehension lies. You write above:
>>>> >>As the effect is produced on all particles, photons, neutrons,
>>>> >>electrons etc, and since it is mass that acceleration operates on, one
>>>> >>questions the alleged zero rest mass of the photon.
>>>The phrase, "since it is mass that acceleration operates on", is wrong. 
>>>Acceleration is simply the second derivative of position with respect 
>>>to time. It matters not what, if anything, has the position being 
>>>differentiated. One can reasonably speak of the acceleration of the 
>>>midpoint joining the earth and moon, although there is no mass 
>>>associated with that point, although, if one cannot meaningfully 
>>>associate a mass with that point, one cannot define a 
>>>force acting upon it in accordance with Newton's second law. 
>>I change this to "since it is mass that the Coriolis force (and
>>consequently Coriolis acceleration) act on"
>You're still putting the cart before the horse. The Coriolis force is a
>consequence of the Coriolis acceleration, not the other way around. 
This point has been answered above.
>>>In conclusion, even if it were useful or necessary to speak of a Coriolis 
>>>acceleration of the light in analyzing the Sagnac effect, there would be no 
>>>basis for introducing a Coriolis force unless it had been previously 
>>>established that there was a mass to be associated with the light. 
>>Then what causes the fringe shift in the Sagnac experiments?
>I explained that qualitatively above. (I have not read your reference on the
>explanation as a special relativistic effect. However, the Doppler shifts of
>light reflected from moving mirrors may be understood as such. I have little
>doubt that the two formulations are equivalent. It would be an interesting 
>exercise to show that.)
As explained above, the Doppler shift does not explain the Sagnac
effect, even where it is applicable.
In summary, two things need explaining in the Sagnac effect:
i) the fringe shift:
ii) the shifted fringe pattern remaining the same even though the
particle path lengths are different.
i) is explained by the Coriolis force + the Bohm interpretation of QM
(particle +wave), and 
ii) by the time dilation caused by the different accelerations acting
on the particles.
Regards,
Patrick Fleming

Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
| >>> Because THIS SHIT KILLS. Rhetoric in the mogginesian, ogdenian,
| >>> swansonian style is used to create distrust to science.
G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
| > The idea that moggin's or Ogden's rhetoric will kill anyone
| > is ludicrous _unless_ you believe that perfect, unsullied
| > faith is also required -- according to Anton, their
| > rhetoric is bad because it's used to "create distrust." But
| > then one would have to explain why Hume's _Inquiry_ didn't
| > bring down Western Civilization the day it was published. ...
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin):
| It isn't hard, of course, to imagine what Hutticher has in mind.
| Pop culture is full of bad ideas from snake oil remedies to
| psychobabble self-improvement that pose significant potential for
| harm, and that use a postmodern rhetoric to justify themselves.
| ...
They do?  Got any examples?  I'm assuming by "postmodern
rhetoric" you're referring to skepticism, relativism,
multiculti, perspectivism -- the usual suspects, not
particularly postmodern except in bugbear form.  
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

In article <556l3m$e18@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*-----
>
>I see nothing wrong or philosophically problematic in scientific
>institutions mixing these functions, nor in the fact that fields
>are categorized less by any kind of clean definition than by
>historical accident and academic convenience.  Does "physics" (or
>"cognitive science") have a "unique, univocal, rigorously
>controllable" definition?  Of course not!  What counts as physics
>will vary from school to school.
Indeed.  And from generation to generation, as well.  
>
>This kind of thing seems to bother some literary theorists.  I
>can only speculate that it is from some (foundationalist?) notion
>that if one cannot define the exact scope of a field then one
>cannot study problems in it, or from a confusion of institutional
>and epistemological concerns.  (Note other threads where
>methodological individualism is treated as an issue not just for
>the social sciences, but for science as a whole!)  The "science
>campers" have a better understanding of the different activities
>performed by scientists, and of how the results of such activites
>relate or not to the institutional settings in which they are
>performed, and so they are less confounded by such things.
>
It is my feeling that the less people know about something the more 
they tend to insist on precise definitions and boundaries.  The 
definitions are then used as magical incantations signifying 
knowledge.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <3276CD71.46D3@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons  writes:
>
>I found this definition of science to be satisfying for me.  It agrees
>with most of what Mati has been saying and avoids much philosophy.  What
>I have tried to produce is an operational definiton of science.  One 
>with which you could test a person to see if he is a scientist.
>
>Here goes:
>
>A scientist is an historian who studies the history of things that repeat
>themselves.  He uses the results of his studies to predict when/where 
>history will repeat itself again.
> 
...A long and interesting description snipped for brevity ...
I think that this is a good description.  Maybe not quite a 
formal "definition", but science is broad and I'm not sure that a 
single formal definition is even possible.  I've few quibles, one 
major (I'll keep it for the end) the others rather minor.
The bussiness of repeatability and prediction is rather tricky.  
Russell already brough it up so I'll quote him:
"If I'm studying some past phenomena and develop a general rule, which 
I test against future instances of that phenomena, is not that also a 
kind of prediction?  Consider that one may view this as predicting the 
result of future examinations of existing (perhaps not yet discovered) 
evidence!"
So the "future" part of the prediction may refer only to the 
examination, not the event itself.  Moreover, even if we are dealing 
with a one of a kind event, like "the beginning of the universe", I 
wouldn't see applying our theories to it as being out of the realm of 
science, though we're not going to repeat it.
Having said that, I turn around to your position (sometimes I like to 
take both sides).  Certainly the core business of science is with 
things that repeat themselves, so that by studying them we can come 
with rules like "if so and so then such and such will occur" (just 
like your gas law example).  That's what is giving science its value 
and utility (I would even say "purpose" but purpose is in the eye of 
the beholder).  In the past few weeks we've seen here statements, 
originating from the philosophy side, like "don't confuse epistemology 
with utility".  To my mind, whoever thinks that "utility" is a minor 
and insignificant issue in science and that science can be discussed 
ignoring the utility aspect alltogether, just doesn't understand 
science.
Science purpose (here, I said it) is to aid us with making 
intelligent decisions.  Decisions imply future, making intelligent 
decisions implies the ability to make predictions.  That's why the 
"repeatability" is so important.
Now to the major issue.  You've lumped mathematics together with 
science.  I don't see it this way.  I consider mathematics to be not 
science but a thing on its own, a separate cathegory.  Here is why.
A mathematical theory is built from the ground up.  You've an 
axiomatic foundation and you build on it (yes, I know that in reality 
it is not uncommon for a branch of math to proceed merrily along based 
on some intuitive notions alone, then come back and build a solid 
foundation.  Nevertheless).  The axioms must be internally consistent 
and independent but that's the only demand.  There is no further 
external criterion to which the axioms must conform.  NOw, once you've 
laid these foundations, the remaining issue is what logical 
conclusions you can draw from them.  The process is by no means simple 
and straightforward, but it is "forward directed", always from the 
axioms towards the unknown.
In science the situation is many times just the opposite.  The axioms 
are a priori unknown, what's known are the outcomes.  You're a bit in 
a situation of a person presented with a list of problems and 
solutions, then asked to deduce the axioms of the theory which was 
used to deduce the solutions.  With the additional right (usually) to 
pose new problems and receive their solutions).  So the motion in 
science is often "backwards".  You take the observations and guess the 
underlying axioms.  Then you use your guess to predict new 
observations and compare (that's a forward part).  If the comparison 
isn't satisfactory, you come with a new or improved guess and repeat 
the process.  And so on.
So, to put it in one sentence, math is dealing with deducing outcomes 
from known axioms.  Science is dealing with deducing axioms from known 
outcomes.  That's an essential difference.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

-*-------
In article <558c77$1c5@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
> They do?  Got any examples? ...
For example, any number of people who advocate traditional
medical systems argue that these use a perspective different from
science, which perspective is just as "valid," and whose
principles cannot be legitimately examined by science because the
notions involved are "incommensurable," etc.  
> ... I'm assuming by "postmodern rhetoric" you're referring 
> to skepticism, relativism, multiculti, ...
No.
> ... perspectivism ...
Yes, especially if it turns on BS linguistics.
> ... the usual suspects, not particularly postmodern except in
> bugbear form. 
If you say so ...
Russell
-- 
 The difference between life and a movie script is that the script has 
 to make sense.         -- Humphrey Bogart

David de Hilster wrote:
> 
> Read up on Autodynamics before you go and make yourself
> look extremely uniformed in front of the entire world.
                 ^^^^^^^^^
Or get a job as a police officer, fire fighter, postal worker,
nurse, ...
Scott Hewitt

Barron Burrow wrote:
> 
>         This means you think an organism's "physical" self (e.g. brain and/or body)
> is just dead matter?
Change "physical" to "material" or "classical" in above sentence. The
"mind" (pilot-wave + back-action) is "physical" but not "material" and
not "classical".
> 
>         For an organism to be able to distinguish "pleasure" (say, just the
> pleasure of "being") from "pain" involves a reflex action that I believe is
> inherent in all organisms.  
Yes, but to FEEL anything requires back-action from material to mental.
Both of them are physical.
>         The unconscious (physico-psychic) is not the same as consciousness
> (psychophysical). 
The unconscious mind is just the pilot-wave. The conscious mind is
universally present when there is back-action BECAUSE the pilot-wave is
protected against environmental decoherence. Consciousness is a
funda-MENTAL quantum structure of the Universe masked by random
decoherence except under special conditions such as are found in our
microtubules or in nanochips we shall soon build. It's really quite
simple. The "hard problem" is a pseudo-problem of Laputian Academics
suffocating in the obsolete Universities.
> >It is best to say that the pilot wave, or quantum hydrodynamic fluid,
> contains the implicate information that is ascribable to the nonlocality of
> the mind.  Whether this IS the mind is a little tough to say.  However, the
> pilot wave is associated with the quantum force that influences the motion
> of the particle (beable) and is thus physical.  One of the objectives of a
> study of consciousnesss is to exorcise the ghost from the machine.  The
> pilot wave is not simply a physicist ghost that plays the role of more
> mystical or poetic notions of a ghost.  Maybe for a holloween costume I
> should go as a pilot wave that has lost it beable, even though that is
> physically impossible.
> >
>         However, I see it a bit differently.  The quantum hydrodynamic fluid
> contains the implicate information that is ascribable to the nonlocality of
> the *organism*, in the first place, in my view.  In other words, the
> organism first experiences its Being in terms of height, breadth, depth plus
> (physico-psycho) self-time -- vis-a-vis all of space-time.  It is this
> component of 'good' self-time that is *implicately* nonlocal -- because it
> originates at a "deeper" level than the Planck dimension.
Maybe. What is this deeper level?
> 
>         Being is essentially EM
Huh? Classical EM is local beable field theory with no mental aspect.
But once you add the super-quantum potential it has a mental aspect. See 
> (i.e. nonlocal in its wave-particle aspect) and
> Becoming a consequence of "observations".  Being is no more the same as
> Becoming, as the unconscious is the same as consciousness.  Being and
> Becoming are, I repeat, two distinct phenomenal properties.
The experience of becoming is the passage of the brain beable system
point through a sequence of basins of attraction in 3n configuration
space. The self-reference strange loop of Hofstatder is that, because of
back-actin, the structure of these basins, hence the feel of them,
itself depends on the individual actual history or path of the
complex-adaptive brain beable through the 3n space. This is explicitly
absent in Stapp's theory which, therefore, IMHO, misses the mark.It may
be implicit in his Heisenberg ontology which he says is nonorthodox, but
it is obscure. You really need the Bhom-Bell "beable" to understand
"mind-brain". The "beable" in Stapp's theory is the "actual brain state"
resulting from "collapse". His theory only explains natural selection
but does not explain self-determination as defined by Stu Kauffman in
The Origins of Order (Oxford).
See my emerging Cartoon Book, SPACETIME AND BEYOND 2001 at
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/physcon1.html

The spherical Galaxy Pattern. Imagine a large coin, such as a quarter or a 
fifty cent piece. Now imagine that a point is travelling around the edge of 
that coin at a steady rate of ROTATION. Now take that coin, put it on edge on 
the table, and flick it with your finger so it revolves and continues to 
stand on edge looking like a little silver ball. I'm sure you've done this. 
Now imagine that it's going at a steady rate of REVOLUTION twice as fast as 
the point's rate of rotation.
The rotating point will follow the same pathway over the sphere every two 
revolutions. As a matter of fact, EVERY point on a disk which is steadily 
revolving twice as fast as it's rotating will follow a repeating pathway. And 
every pathway, no matter how narrow, will admit of TWO and only two members. 
This applies for a disc as large as a galaxy or as small as an atom.
A circle containing 16 members on a disc with this movement will trace 8 
pathways that complete a very beautiful pattern I have named the Galaxy 
Pattern. It also may be divided into a nice Yin-Yang symbol.
And building concentric rings of 16 may be directly connected to the Periodic 
Table.
See my page http://www.petcom.com/~john

Jeff:
|> > |> > The MR-cat theory, whether or not you (or Newt) want it to be a TOE, 
|> > |> > describes MR-cats accurately.  It is consequently an MR-cat theory.
|> moggin:
|> > |> Newt offered a theory of cats (TOC) which described all cats as
|> > |> black.  Given Stein's findings, Newt's description was inaccurate,
|> > |> and his theory was false.  His observations were fine, as far as 
|> > |> they went, but the conclusions he drew from them were invalid.
|> Jeff:
|> >  (i) MR-cat theory = valid TOC               (false)
|> > (ii) MR-cat theory = valid theory of MR-cats (true) 
|> > QED.
moggin: 
|> Irrelevant.  See above.
Not at all.
(i) and (ii) summarize quantitatively the logical content of our 
present discussion; that is, the restricted discussion of idealized 
cats 
                   ... sad but true.
The only point glossed over with respect to the global discussion 
is related to the Indy Car example -- which points to the notion 
that the truth value of any deterministic theory of mechanics is 
intrinsically ambiguous.  I have followed your lead and ignored 
this subtlety in your feline scenario.
Asking which mechanics theory is the absolute-black-and-white-
either-true-or-false-no-middle-ground *correct* predictor of, 
say, position, when position in its most general form is an 
operator which does not commute with momentum, is meaningless.  
You are doubtless aware that reality is non-Einsteinian.  So, if 
we add the postulate that "cat" is an intrinsically flawed concept, 
how would you modify the truth values of (i) and (ii)?  The irony 
is that even though the notion of "cat" may someday be found by 
Berg to be flawed, the MR-cat theory may indeed be -- in an operational 
sense -- the nicest local theory of cats (a la Newtonian mechanics).
Many of the posters to this thread have realized such a restriction 
with respect to the Newton debacle from the outset.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

On 28 Oct 1996, Anders N Weinstein wrote:
> In article ,
> David Yeo   wrote:>
> >By "simplifies the physical stance" I mean that it acts as a sort of
> >shorthand for processes which, if one cared to, one could describe in
> >terms of the physical stance (assuming it was known). 
> 
> This I disagree with. It's like saying "there's a chair in my office"
> is a shorthand for "there are a bunch of molecules of such and such an
> arrangment at a certain location". The latter does not carry as much
> information as the former -- it does not say that there is a chair in
> my office. 
I suppose if one was to stop at the "there are a bunch of molecules ..." 
level of physical explanation you would be right.  But by why does the
physical stance need to stop there? 
> So a physicist who predicts motions of molecules under basic physical
> descriptions does not thereby predict things under other descriptions,
> such as the intentional -- not unless the higher-level description can be
> reductively defined in terms of the lower level one. Which is what I
> doubt.
IMHO the problem is not that the intentional stance fails to generate
testable predictions; rather that it too readily admits contradictory
predictions *from the same premises*. 
> Better to think of the intentional facts as a distinct realm of fact
> inhering in the physical facts like form in matter, I think. So
> physical science gets to deal with the matter, while being blind to the
> forms (meanings) carried therein. For the latter, something like
> ecological psychology or even existential phenomenology might be the
> right discipline, not basic physics or anything that can be defined
> using it as a basis.
The problem, as I see it, is that when one contends that there exists
intensional "facts" (for lack of a better term) which necessarily defy a
physical account, then one is forced to either embrace metaphysics or to
become an eliminativist. Given these options, I choose the latter - for
the former inevitably puts an end to reasoned discussion and progress. 
Cheers,
- David Yeo (Applied Cognitive Science, University of Toronto)

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:

> But you can only prove that you have a point when you list all 
> "reasonable interpretations" of Derrida's reply to Hippolite. Please do 
> so or admit that you don't know whether Derrida's reply makes sense. 
I sure don´t want to rush in, especially not in this part of the thread
but I just *have* to ask: Do you really mean there exist several 
different reasonable interpretations of Derrida´s, which are so 
different from each other that refuting one of them does nothing
to refute the others?. Gosh, I would *hate* to have, say, a score 
of mutually inconsistent but nevertheless reasonable interpretations
of f=ma or e=mc(2). Then there really could not be any progress in
science. 
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)  

In article <5572h7$21f@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, tmkoson@umich.edu (Todd Matthew Koson) writes:
>Jones (mrjones@yoss.canweb.net) wrote:
>: On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:54:32 GMT, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
>: Silberstein) typed something like:
>
>
>: >
>: >Don't know much about Judaism do you?
>: >
>
>: I dont think that article was meant to a thesis on the subject.
>
>: I personally found it long and short on humor, but sheesh.
>
>Once again, fascist Nazi lovong Mr. Jones is bashing judaism.  What a
>surprise.  Would you care to repost your responses in favor of the
>Holocaust?
>
There seems to be an unlimited supply of bullshit around.  Cut it out.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <55882e$f0v@deneva.sdd.trw.com>,
David de Hilster   wrote:

David de Hilster, neutrino-phobe, is back ... again?
We've been over this *several* times already.  There is extremely strong
evidence for the existence of the neutrino, evidence *other* than simply
the need for energy/momentum conservation.  Evidence like the observation
of events that have the right kinematics that match the theory of weak
interactions.  
Those interested in how one performs a neutrino experiment should
visit the pages I set up on one such experiment:
  http://www.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/hatcher/e733.html
I wrote most of these pages going on two years ago when de Hilster
last tried to make a big splash.
For de Hilster to dispute the existence of the neutrino he must provide 
an alternative theory explaining the existence of these events.  His 
theory must also explain why the the neutral-current (muon-less) to
charged-current ratio is what it is, and why the "y" (hadronic shower
energy over hadron+muon) distribution is what it is.  And, de Hilster,
don't even *try* to claim these are other (acceptable to you) neutral
particles such as neutrons and K0's since those particles are known
to give different event kinematics, or not to survive the distance 
through the berm.  I explained all that to you in excruiating detail
last time through...
>But just a piece of advice:  know what you are talking
>about before you go an spout off predictable emotional
>responses.
No doubt.  David's going to rant and foam about how my rebuttal is an
"emotional response".  Sort of like the wayward child sticking his
fingers in his ears and droning on and on "I caannn't hear you".
In any case, I recommend that those who take "Autodynamics" as a serious
theory, consider the evidence and attempt to counter it with something
more than childish attempts to call others "emotional".  Where's your
alternative explaination of these 100,000 events I've got on tape?  Can
you predict the kinematics?
-robert
-- 
 Robert W. Hatcher   | Dept. of Physics     | (812) 855-4473 -8247
 Research Associate  | Swain Hall West 117  | hatcher@nebula.astro.indiana.edu
 Indiana University  | Bloomington IN 47405 | 
 http://www.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/hatcher/