Newsgroup sci.physics 205425

Directory

>Read up on Autodynamics before you go and make yourself
>look extremely uniformed in front of the entire world.
                ^ 
		Interesting Freudian slip, that.
Could you explain the emotional appeal of denying the 
existence of neutrinos and getting things like the Lorentz 
contraction exactly backwards? Espousing something clearly at 
odds with the observed world must be motivated by emotion since
it can't be motivated by intellect. Maybe all the ADites owe 
money to the author, or maybe it's a Scientology kind of a 
brainwashing deal...
Here's a good one. Never mind all those danged hard-to-detect
neutrinos: does AD deny the existence of the magnetic field? 
Remember that the magnetic field is precisely the electric 
field Lorentz-contracted into another reference frame. If you 
get the Lorentz contraction wrong you will predict an incorrect
magnetic field. Think carefully before you answer.

Michael Stewart:
|> 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.
Actually the last part is not quite right.  The error which one makes 
in calculating with a nonrelativistic theory can generally be quantified 
when the discrepancy is above a reasonable threshold.  
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 J M Woodgate  writes
>You may be intrigued by a device called a Crookes' radiometer, which
>consists of a very light wheel pivoted on a vertical axis in an evacuated glass
>bulb. The wheel has four rectangular 'sails' (vanes) hanging down from
>its rim, and these are black on one side and reflective on the other.
>When placed in sunlight the wheel spins rapidly, due to the momentum
>transferred by the photons absorbed by the black faces of the sails.
                        Something wrong there!
Surely the photons which hit the reflective side must bounce off,
thereby imparting twice the momentum of the photons which hit the dark
side and are absorbed.
Nevertheless the vanes in the Crookes radiometer do go round
with the reflective side to the frount, as J M Woodgate says above.
        So here we have an excellent example of a theory making the 
           RIGHT PREDICTIONS, but for totally the WRONG REASONS.
         (Similarly with many of Einstein's predictions,i think:-)
-- 
Keith Stein

 Lloyd Johnson  writes
>No.  Maybe you should read what I said instead of what you think I
>said.
Well here's exactly what you said Lloyd, so everyone can READ IT.
FRANKLY ! i wouldn't want anyone to read it i had written it myself.
You wouldn't get an O'level physics with your level of understand in
this country. (At least i hope you wouldn't :-)
-- 
Keith Stein
Lloyd Johnson  writes
>It has been stated very clearly in this discussion that photons of
>different energies travel at different velocities through glass and
>other transparent media.  This claim is contrary to wave phenomena.
>
>This claim should then be tested in a laboratory using lasers of very
>different frequencies to direct light through a significant length of
>glass to measure the speed of light.  Make sure that it is a straight
>path so internal reflections don't interfere with the experiment.  Is
>there a difference between the speed measured using the red laser and
>the green laser?

Brian Jones  writes:-
> Of course Big E had to know
>about this null result.  No one had ever dreamed of such a thing, not
>even an Einstein.  All the world's physicists were dead certain of a
>MMX positive result.
        i find this very difficult to beleive Brian.
I am something of an old fashioned classical physicist myself, and i can
assure you that the null result of the MMX is certainly what i would
expect,ie on the basis of Maxwell's wave equation;as applied to the
transmission of the e-m waves in the air of MM's laboratory.
-- 
Keith Stein

In article <556fdf$f25@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, Brian Jones
 writes
>Not to mention that actual clock slowing has been experimentally
>verified.
>>>BJ<<
>**bjon@ix.netcom.com**
>
>
>
Don't beleive that either!
-- 
Keith Stein

]In article <557tlm$2hm@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>|  >Faith in Science is not necessary.
>|  >Science works whether you believe it or not.
>
>pieterh@sci.kun.nl (Peter den Haan):
>| This statement is already based on an article of faith: the validity of
>| induction. Of course, in science, we call it an 'axiom' because we don't
>| like to borrow religious idiom.
>
>This really isn't the same as religious faith; it could be
>tentative and operational.  The only faith science needs is
>the belief that phenomena can be modeled, usually as some
>kind of text, and this is the kind of faith that can be
>checked out regularly.
Yep, definitely.
>  The religious stuff comes in when
>people become excited because someone talks about Newton in
>the wrong way, 
I think that I've mentioned more then once (or twice, or thrice) that 
we're not talking about Newton but about classical mechanics, using 
"Newton" just to refer to it.  Classical mechanics, as any other 
physical theory, stands on its merits regardless to any personalities 
involved.  You can take a text of classical mechanics, delete all the 
names from it and you didn't change the meaning a single bit.  Same as 
Euclidean geometry won't change if you delete the word "Euclid".
Perxonally I consider the realization that in science theories are 
completely separated from theis originators, to be essential for any 
meaningful discussion of the subject.
>or says that improper rhetoric will "KILL."
I agree, maintaining cicility is important.  Lets not forget, though, 
that irrational attitudes may at time be dangerous.  Still, one should 
combat them by becoming irrational.
>As I've pointed out before, too, the violent, obscene
>language used against supposed infidels is reminiscent of
>religious passion.
Sometimes.  And sometimes it is just the result of being annoyed.
Important to recognize it, elase you may read religious passion into 
the situation of two taxi drivers arguing over right of way (believe 
me, the language can get quite violent and obscene in such case).
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) writes:
>magnus.lidgren (magnus.lidgren@swipnet.se) wrote:
>: ( I should attend a course i grammar)
>: I wonder.....
>:  
>: 1. Do gravity waves carry momentum?
>        The gravity waves that LIGO and other experiments are
>trying to detect are not the carriers of gravity (they are not
>the mechanism by which gravity works).
BZZZZT!  Thank you for playing.
The gravitational radiation that LIGO and other experiments are trying
to detect are freely propagating waves in the gravitational field, i.e.
the curvature of spacetime.
No theory of gravity has been successfully quantized.  But it is exceedingly
likely that in a successful quantum theory of gravity, the fundamental
quantum of the gravitational field (i.e. the curvature of spacetime)
would be a quantized gravitational wave -- a graviton -- just as the 
fundamental quantum of the electromagnetic field is a quantized 
electromagnetic wave, aka a photon.
So if quantum gravity ever lives up to our current expectations, 
gravitational radiation *is* the mechanism by which gravity works in
just the same way that photons are the mechanism that electromagnetism
works, even in electrostatic systems.
>        No repeatable experiments have detected gravity waves.
>The gravity waves they are trying to detect are secondary
>vibrations in spacetime from massive collisions of distant
>galaxies or stars, or any lopsided explosion that would
>cause a lot of mass to move violently.
>        The laboratory experiment that would cause these
>"waves" (which some people feel general relativity presicts)
>is a heavy bar spinning perpendicular to it's axis.
>        But the amplitude of these "waves" would be so small
>that it is a very difficult experiment to make, that is why
>the distant catastrophic events are the focus of the current
>experiments.
>        Hopefully in the near future there will be news
>releases of the progress.
>  
>: 2. Do gravity waves slow down when prapagating mass? If so, it is
>: according to something similar to index of refraction.
>        Since no gravity waves have been detected, study
>is needed to determine any facts.
The gravitational index of refraction of a matter field (e.g. a dust cloud) 
ought to be calculable, in the same way that the index of  refraction
of a dielectric material can be calculated. Here is a handwaving sketch
of how to carry out the calculation:
Start with a plane gravitational wave incident on a layer of dust.  The
wave propagates in the z-axis direction and has +-polarization (i.e.
aligned with the x- and y-axes and has intensity h.
First step: calculate the tidal motion of an area element of this dust
layer under the influence of the wave.  This is (or ought to be) trivial
Second step: calculate the gravitational radiation emitted by this
oscillating bit of dust.
Third step: Integrate over the entire layer to find its contribution
to the radiation field.  You ought to be able to use symmetry to make
this into a reasonable expression.
Fourth step: just as in the electromagnetic calculation, use this result
to compute the resultant overall wave and from this the gravitational
index of refraction of the dust cloud.
It looks like a straightforward problem to me -- I would hope that
someone who had taken an undergraduate-level course in relativity
could work it through.  There would be no excuse for not being able
to do this in a graduate-level course.
Expectation: the index of refraction for a plausible dust cloud is
going to be very, very, very close to 1.
Question for thought:  When plane gravitational waves interact, they
produce singularities.  Imagine a plane gravitational wave incident
on the edge of an infinite dust cloud.  Even though the index of the
cloud is going to be close to unity, *some* of that wave is going
to be reflected.  Will a singularity result?  Why would you expect
(or not expect) this to happen with real gravitational waves incident
on real dust clouds?
>: 3. I know it is believed to create curvature in time-space wich means
>: incredible and amazing thing, but from another point of view, can gravity
>: waves as building momentum while propagating a mass unit, then, in order
>: to conserve momentum, force the mass unit backwards while passing throug.
>        The mechanism that causes gravity in General Relativity
>is inertia, but instead of space being a three dimensional
>checkerboard coordinate system, spacetime has the coordinate
>system flowing toward the center of massive bodies.
Coordinate systems are arbitrary.  Go back and read MTW
>        It would be nice if someone close to one of the
>experiment teams would post something here.
Worked on the Caltech LIGO from 1984 to 1988.
-- 
Alan Bostick               | "Dole is so unpopular, he couldn't sell beer on
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | a troop ship." (Ohio Republican Senator William
news:alt.grelb             | Saxbe on Bob Dole's early career in the Senate)
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
http://www.theangle.com/  The first site with a brain.  Yours.

Lionel Issen wrote:
> 
> >If you are wondering what fresh knowledge or scientific evidence
> >changed the POPE's mind recently on the issue of creation/evolution
> >than you might want to see the site below.  It has an engineering
> >history as well as a scientific analogy.
The analogy is pitifully flawed.
> 2. i dont think that your web page would change any fundametalist religeuous or
> scientific persons mind.
Probably not.
> One thing you might add:  there is an old Kabbalistic belief that states in
> brief that a single God's day is much longer than a human day or earth day.
> A blink of God's eye is equal in time to some long period of human time
> (like a 1,000 years or 10,000 years).  Since a human blinks about 20 - 30 times
> a minute, then comparing God's blink to a human blink gives the earth time of
> the 7 days of creation as around 12 to 15 billion human/earth years. I haven't
> checked the math.
This theory falls flat upon further analysis.  According to the Bible,
plants were created before animals and animals were created before man. 
If this "long day" theory were true, plants would not exist today
because they could not have survived for millions of years without the
birds and the bees to assist with pollenation.  Another reason this
theory doesn't resolve the creation/evolution debate is this:  Evolution
theory (and you can't dispute that it is theory) states that a witches
brew of chemicals evolved into single-celled organisms which evolved
into lower life forms which evolved into animals which evolved into apes
which evolved into man - an integral part of evolution theory is death;
organisms/animals had to die in order to evolve and form the "fossil
record".  However, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there was no
death in the world until AFTER man brought sin into the world.  
So this "long day" theory has plants thriving for millions of years
before there were any animals or insects to assist with pollenation and
it has animals dying for millions of years before the appearance of man
when the Bible says nothing died until after man had sinned.  Something
doesn't wash, does it?
Since society has been force-fed the theory of evolution as "fact", many
well-meaning people have tried to reconcile the truth of the Bible with
the supposed "fact" of evolution.  The "fact" is, no such reconciliation
is possible.  Everyone needs to come to grips with the realization that
they must make a choice: either you believe the scientists and their
ever-changing theory or you believe the Bible and its eternal truth. 
You can't have it both ways.
Kent D. Johnson
kentdj@revealed.net
Jesus is Alive...Darwin Isn't!

In article <32767EF4.130A@cardiff.ac.uk>, irvingd1@cf.ac.uk says...
>
>John S. wrote:
>> 
>> In article , skrueger@arco.com says...
>> >
>> 
>> >
>> >Jupiter is an enormous gaseous planet with a nuclear furnace in it's core
>> >(hence the radiation). What's this got to do with the Earth?
>> >
>> If Jupiter has a nuclear furnace at its core, then maybe Earth does too!
>
>I think it would have been detected by now if there were. If this was the 
>case then we would expect to pick it up using seismic methods. As shear 
>waves can pass through the core, it must be a solid as a fluid cannot 
>support shear forces. We find the properties of the shear waves to be 
>those expected in a solid iron-nickel mix with the odd bit of cobalt too.
>
>
>> 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?
>> Hey, my watch is powered by the same kind of non-neutrino producing 
nuclear
>> reaction. (That was neat how that 'gas' splashed when the comet hit it, 
eh?
>> When we were proving what's happening at Jupiter's core, did we also prove
>> what kind of gas forms long-lasting craters?)
>
>You can make a hole in a gas by dropping an object through it (e.g. a 
>comet)
But does the gas exhibit a long-lasting (several rotations) SPLASH pattern?
>
>> Actually, the extinctions happened at intervals over a long period of 
time,
>> corresponding with the ice ages. The Saber-toothed Tiger didn't go as 
early
>> as T. Rex did he? The mammoths were around until just before the last Ice
>> Age, not?
>
>The sabre-toothed tiger was never around at the same time as the 
>dinosaurs, in fact it evolved many millions of years later and, as far as 
>we know, large glaciations or ice-ages have only been occurring during 
>the Quaternary and late Tertiary (about the last 20Ma). How does this 
>correspond to dinosaur extinctions, the last of which was approx 60Ma 
>ago?
The way it corresponds is that I would think it is a shift in the axis that 
would throw ice out in these spirals- because the polar ice cap would become 
off-center. Previous to the Quaternary perhaps there were no polar ice caps 
for some reason. Maybe there was higher land in those locales than there is 
now. But these axis shifts may have been happening since before dinosaurs 
were here. I know that the equator used to run close to where I live, which 
is in the center of a (rapidly-cooling-off, damn it) Canada. 
But an axial shift would still cause large-scale upheaval in the short range. 
And it is my theory that a gradual increase in mass is not gravitationally 
recognized for some reason until the axis, and therefore the magnetic poles, 
are finally pressured into shifting. So it is this sudden incrementation in 
gravity that causes the punctuated evolution we see, happening at intervals 
like a snake shedding its skin.
>Go to your local library and find some geology books, take them out and 
>read them. 
Thanks, I will. Are there any you recommend? Have you read "Theories of the 
Earth and Universe (A History of Dogma of the Earth Sciences)" by S. Warren 
Carey? He's professor Emeritus or some such at some University in Australia.
Read my page, if you like  http://www.petcom.com/~john
John (I was kidding about the nuclear reactions at the Earth's center. I 
don't even think nuclear reactions happen at the Sun's center.)

stewart@Dahlquist.Stanford.EDU (Michael Stewart) wrote:

> 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
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
moggins point of view!
> which case no physical theory is ever likely to be right) or it is
therefore *all* of science is wrong, not just Newton.
> 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.
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)

tony richards (tony.richards@rl.ac.uk) wrote:
> Since it is generally agreed that conventional plane mirrors 
> reverse front to back and not left 
> to right or up to down, are we not therefore woefully guilty 
> of misuse of the term 'mirror 
> symmetry' when it is used to imply symmetry when right-left 
> and/or up/down are reversed?
You mean or, not and/or.  As I'm sure you know, two reversals
through different planes are equivalent to a rotation.
> Should we not avoid using a phrase which is based on a false 
> analogy and instead create and use
> a new desricptive term?
How is the analogy false?  The term is used because if you
saw an object in half through its mirror plane, and cleverly
substitute a mirror, the object will look unchanged from any
angle at which the mirror's surface is visible.
--
Russell Blackadar,   russell@mdli.com

Get lost you idiot....
hotline wrote:
>  What will happen to you in the next few days???
 Find out!!!
 Call 1-900-562-1000 ext 1465.
 $3.99 per min.
 Must be 18 yrs.
 Serv-U (619)-645-8434.

Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
> In article <846101428.28688@dejanews.com> amnon.meyers@trw.com writes:
> 
> > A new theory of relativity is quickly gaining world-wide attention
> >       http://www.autodynamics.org
> 
> Hits on a web-site do not even translate to ``world-wide attention,''
> let alone proof of validity. Furthermore, even if a =BILLION= netizens
> happen to believe in a stupid idea, it is =STILL= a _STUPID IDEA_.
Argumentative little soul aren't we?
How =NON-STUPID= thou art !!!!
> The Univerves is =NOT= a democracy, and does not give a frozen fig
> in Finland what the ``Usenet consensus'' on =ANY= subject is...
The universe =DOES= however display distinct eco-systemic relationships.
> 
> >    * decay phenomena explained without the "undetectable" neutrino
> 
> You're beating a dead horse --- Neutrinos have been reliably produced
> and detected for =DECADES=.
So had the rising of the sun in its geocentric orbit.
Or had you forgotten this remnant theory?
> >    * a feasible mechanism for gravity is postulated.
> 
> In what way is General Relativity ``infeasible'' ???
It fails to explain the observed planetary precessions.
Why is this so?????
> >    * many experiments that Einstein's relativity (and the "Standard
> >       Model") cannot account for are now explainable.
> 
> Name two.
(1) As above (planetary precession)
(2) Decay phenomena
(3) Certain binary star phenomena.
> Describe in detail the experiment, what Einstein's Special Relativity
> predicts, and what ``autodynamics'' predicts.
See the website.
> Given that the ``equations of autodynamics'' haven't even appeared the
> same way twice in any of Carrenzi's (very limited!) publications on the
> subject, it's not clear that =ANYONE= can make =ANY= clear statement of
> what ``autodynamics'' predicts, since no definitive statement of the
> ``theory'' of ``autodynamics'' even =EXISTS= !!!
> 
> --  Gordon D. Pusch   
Typical government response.
Pete Brown 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
 QuoteForTheDay:        "You shall hear how Hiawatha
                         prayed and fasted in the forest,
                         Not for greater skill in hunting,
                         Not for greater craft in fishing,
                         Not for triumphs in the battle,
                         And renown among the warriors,
                         But for profit of the people,
                         For advantage of the nations."
                                                 - Longfellow  (1855)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <5581sa$2urp@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>: 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.
>
>Newton is very much more than F = ma.  Newtonian mechanics also includes
>the Galilean transform, and _that_ involves absolute time.
>
Absolute time intervals, to be specific.  And same with space 
intervals.  Be careful not to confuse the folks here, when they talk 
absolute they mean "absolute reference frame" not just "absolute 
intervals".  Which may be part of the confusion.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. (sarfatti@well.com) wrote:
: Message-ID: <327684B5.2D51@well.com>
: Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:27:01 -0800
: From: "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D." 
: Reply-To: sarfatti@well.com
: Organization: Internet Science Education Project
: X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
: MIME-Version: 1.0
: To: "Lawrence B.Crowell" 
: CC: Barron Burrow , nixon@geneseo.edu,
: 	tmoody@sju.edu, hubey@amiga.montclair.edu, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk,
: 	norwoodr@etsuarts.east-tenn-st.edu,
: 	acampbell@cix.compulink.co.uk, srh@ccit.arizona.edu,
: 	jcs@richmond.infi.net, md2738@mclink.it, P.Bains@uws.edu.au,
: 	HRSG57A@prodigy.com, rhett@teleport.com, trehub@psych.umass.edu,
: 	mikebarker@delphi.com, heuvel@muc.de, matpitka@rock.helsinki.fi,
: 	mgm@santafe.edu, GGLake@aol.com, rwolf@usfca.edu,
: 	Lyle_Fuller@mindlink.bc.ca, NEONLEO@aol.com, Puthoff@aol.com,
: 	LeonMaurer@aol.com, creon@nas.nasa.gov, physics@intuition.org,
: 	kelvin@fourmilab.ch, rfelder@flagstaff.az.us, stiger@cnet.gr,
: 	rwarner@kentlaw.edu, wordenr@logica.com, hswift@swcp.com,
: 	chalmers@paradox.ucsc.edu, onesong@ix.netcom.com,
: 	hilken@maths.ox.ac.uk, pdavies@physics.adelaide.edu.au,
: 	JPL.Verhey@inter.nl.net, jeanbur@netcom.com,
: 	anthony@imprint.co.uk, com@dircon.co.uk, bdj10@cam.ac.uk,
: 	MaitEdey@aol.com, hensm@essex.ac.uk
: Subject: Re: The hard problem and culture.
: References: 
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
: 
: Lawrence B.Crowell wrote:
: > 
: > > Jack Sarfatti notes (10/26/96):
: 
: > 
: > >It is postulated that the quantum pilot wave is Chalmer's fundamental
: > >"felt" information field in sense of his Dec 1995 Sci Am article. Stapp
: > >makes an equivalent postulate in his Heisenberg ontology approach which
: > >he says goes beyond the "orthodox" Bohr pragmatic interpretation.
: > 
: > ------------------------------------------------------------------
: > 
: > 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.  
: 
: Right, that's why I call it "mind-stuff" or, perhaps "subconscious" mind
: since, IMHO, it takes back-action from beable to pilot wave to awaken
: consciousness.
: 
: > However,
: > the pilot wave is associated with the quantum force that influences the
: > motion of the particle (beable) and is thus physical.
: 
: This is how thought influences the brain IMHO. Back-action is how the
: brain changes its subconscious thought. The change in thought is the
: conscious experience. This corresponds to Stapp's Heisenberg
: "actualization" and Penrose's "orch OR".  
: 
: > 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.
: > 
: > L. Crowell
: 
I? often wonder that noone realizes the difference between a mountain and a
molehill.
David

Louis Savain wrote:
> 
> My follow-up
> question is this:  does this account for the entire time dilation?
>   Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the traveling twin
> maintains a 99% c speed relative to the earth-bound twin for two
> billion years, 1 billion years both ways.  Let's assume further (I'm
> exaggerating for effect) that the acceleration part of the trip took
> only 2 years.  Will the time dilation be found to be due only to the
> accelerations of the traveling twin?   Or will there be, as I surmise
> in my own "theory", a much greater observed dilation?  Thanks for any
> clarification.
> 
The acceleration is only the mechanism effecting the switch to a new
reference frame - if a switch back to the original frame were performed
immediately, no significant difference would have accumulated on the
compared clocks.  What is important is time spent in a different frame.
If one of two side-by-side clocks registering zero were to switch to a
frame moving at .6c relative to the original frame and heading toward
the point 10,6 in the original frame (10 time units in the future and 6
distance units away from the original location in the original frame),
then the coordinates of that point in the new frame would be 8,0 (8 time
units in the future and no location change), so that after spending 8
time units of travel and then stopping wrt the original frame, the local
time would be 10 while the travellers time would be 8.  If at any time
prior to a clock reading of 8 the traveller had stopped wrt the original
frame, the discrepancy between the clocks would be less than 2 units -
the difference accumulates as the clocks continue to advance until
relative motion cesases.
The acceleration is necessary because there is no other way to perform a
frame switch, but the acceleration itself does not produce a difference
in clock readings - only time spent in different frames can do that.
Larry Richardson

Brian D. Jones wrote:
In the following line, bjon admits that absolute motion has not been
detected.:
> >> all I am saying is that it has not been done,
I'll come back to this later. Now on to facts versus theories:
> >> 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.
> >>
What bjon fails to understand is that facts are observations and
theories are explanations for them. Theories do not become facts.
"Theory" is not a stepping-stone to fact-hood.
> >> 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. 
Bjon just got through saying that absolute motion has not been detected,
and now he says it is detected every day. Since this is apparently all
SR says can't be done, one wonders why bjon has not yet received the
nobel prize for his disproof of SR.
> It's the only thing that
> distinguishes one observer from another.
No, that would be called "relative motion".
> But, of course it's not the detection that is important, it's the
> determination of one's absolute velocity.
When one speaks of "detecting absolute velocity", what one usually means
is the determining of one's absolute velocity in general, or
distinguishing it from zero in particular. Demonstrating that
alpha-centauri is receding from is *not* a detection of absolute motion,
but rather of the relative motion between it and us. 
> >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.
Gee, I did, but there's nothing bjon has said that addresses this point.
All he did was point to relative motion, and mis-label it absolute
motion. 
> >> 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.
I could grant bjon that the roundness of the earth is a fact, but that
would be beside the point. Getting back to his erroneous claim: Bjon has
stated time and time again that SR must be *FALSE* in order to be
*FALSIFIABLE*. That is, SR's mere assertion that there is no way to
detect absolute motion makes itself unscientific. Completely bogus. SR
provides for many ways in which it can be disproven. In fact, its
assertion that there is no way to detect absolute motion provides for
its falsifiability. All you have to do is detect it. Go ahead and detect
absolute motion, and you've disproven SR. SR is very falsifiable. It
just hasn't been falsified. Given the number of ways and number of times
it has been tried, a reasonable person might  conclude that the reason
for the failure to falsify it is that it is an accurate description of
reality in the realm it was designed to describe.
A good analogy is Thermodynamics's claim that it is impossible to build
a perpetuual motion machine. I suppose bjon thinks that the laws of
thermodynamics are unfalsifiable, and hence unscientific, because of the
inability to find a perpetuual motion machine. Most, if not all,
scientifically literate people would agree that the claim of the
impossibility to build a PMM itself demonstrates falsifiability. In
order to demonstrate falsifiability of a claim, one must merely be able
to anwser the following question in the affirmative: "Is there anything
I can do or observe that will demonstrate the falseness of the claim
under consideration?" With thermodynamics, the answer is obviously yes:
Build a device that outputs as much or more energy than it consumes.
With SR the answer is also obviously yes: Conduct an actual experiment
whose outcome depends on the inertial frame in which it is carried out,
without any "outside" information coming in from other identifiable
frames. No one but bjon claims that SR is not falsifiable. 
At this point I would like to point out that so far bjon has held three
mutually inconsistent positions regarding SR:
1) The conditions of SR's disproof (detection of absolute motion) have
not been met. (See the very top of this post).
2) The conditions of SR's disproof are met every day. (Roughly 35 lines
down from top of post.)
3) The conditions of SR's disproof do not exist because SR is not
falsifiable and not scientific. (Preceding discussion)
> >Does denying the existence of perpetuual motion machines also deny the
> >testability of the laws of thermodynamics?
> 
> Yes.
I'm glad Bjon admits it. At least he is consistent, even if consistently
wrong.
Again, in order for Claim X to be falsifiable, there must merely be a 
set of identifiable circumstances that would constitute disproof of
Claim X. When Claim X is something like "it is impossible to build a
perpetuual motion machine", or "there is no way to distinguish any
inertial frame from being at absolute rest", the identifiable
circumstances of falsifiability are self evident. When Claim X is of the
form "there exists an inertial frame which is absolutely at rest, and in
this frame only are E-synched clocks 'truly synched', even if there is
no way to distinguish this frame", the circumstances which would
disprove the claim are much more difficult, if not impossible, to
identify. 
> 
> >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.
Says who? I could just as easily claim that "absolute rest" has no
possible existence, being a mere concept.
> CLocks are real instruments, and can actually be truly set, if only by
> sheer accident.
Arrows are real pointy things, and can actually be truly pointing up, if
only by sheer accident.
> >> 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.
Fair enough. Then you admit that it is of no consequence to claim that
you can detect absolute motion by using a pair of truly synched clocks,
just as it is of no consequence to claim that you could detect unicorns
if you had a unicorn-detector. 
> 
> >>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.
Proof by blatant assertion. Of course, I really do in fact agree that
"truly horizontal" has no existance, but the point is that "truly
horizontal" has as much existance as "truly synched" or "truly at rest".
They are all the same thing: "Up", "At rest", and "In synch" are all
relative concepts. "Up" depends on where you are on earth, and the other
two depend on what inertial frame you are in. It's that simple. But if
you want to claim that it is possible for two clocks to be truly
synched, I will continue to make the equivalent claim that it is
possible for a plane to be truly horizontal.
> 
> >> >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.
No response to the above claim? 
> 
> SRT makes only one (1) claim, and this single claim must be testable
> if SRT is to be an acceptable theory,
SRT makes two claims, each one expressed in the form of a postulate. 
The first claim is the principle of relativity (PR). It says that all
inertial frames are completely equivalent for purposes of expressing
the laws of physics in a quantitative way. It is another way of saying
that it is impossible to distinguish one frame from another based on the
way in which physical processes transpire. This implies the
impossibility of distinguishing "absolute rest" from "absolute motion".
It is falsifiable merely by doing what is claimed can't be done: Conduct
an experiment entirely within an inertial frame, without using any
information regarding that frame's motion relative to some other
identifiable frame, that demonstrates that physical processes behave
differently in different inertial frames. 
The second postulate is called the law of propagation of light (LPL). It
says that, given an observer at rest in some arbitrary inertial frame,
and two light sources moving with different, and arbitrary, velocities
in that inertial frame, light emitted by each of the two sources at the
same place and time will be emitted with the same speed, and that the
observer will therefore note that the two light waves are
"co-travelling" with each other in all directions, with arrivals at any
given target coinciding.
These are the two claims of special relativity. The second one is
confirmed over and over again by experiment. Bjon likes to call this
second postulate "fact". In actuality, it is a claim that is consistent
with a finite number of experiments, just like the first postulate, and
is subject to later disproof, just like the first postulate. 
Bjon likes to claim that the first postulate is all that SR claims. This
is of course false, since Newton also claimed the PR was true, but
Newtonian relativity is quantitatively different, i.e. makes different
predictions, from Einsteinian relativity. 
--
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

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further responding to this thread. The subject matter is beyond the
scope of the group. Thank you for helping to keep the usenet useable.

In article <557uqf$om4@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
> <54rrks$39k@netnews.upenn.edu> <5566cl$jir@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at> 
>Distribution: 
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: In article <5569qp$n6j@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>: >
>: >That's precisely how I use it as well. In the case of Newton, however, 
>: >if I can trust the here=present scientists, a theory that was held 
>: >universally applicable became not-universally applicable. So its field 
>: >of applicability got restricted. 
>: >
>: Right.  So in comes relativity which reduces to Newtonian Mechanics 
>: within a restricted area, but which is also valid over a way broader 
>: area.  So is it a generalization of Newtonian Mechanics or no.  I'll 
>: put it simpler yet.  We find that Newtonian mechanics is working over 
>: area A while relativity works over B which includes A as proper 
>: subset.  Generalization or no?
>
>In the field of common usage, I'm still happier with modification, or
>perhaps simply "improvement," if you must know. What I'm pointing out
>here, however, is that this matter isn't half as clear-cut as was
>suggested by you and others earlier on.  And I don't think you would jump
>at someone who'd say, Einstein modified Newton, or Einstein improved on
>Newton -- would you? 
No, definitely not.  The last thing I would like to see is some 
"orthodoxy of language", some strict definitions of what terms can be 
used, when and by whom.  That's for religion, not science (Gordon's 
claims nonwithstanding).  There many ways same or similar content may 
be conveyed and I'm certainly not going to react each time somebody's 
description doesn't exactly match the way I would say it, as long as 
there is some overlap.  Mind you, the words "generalize", "improve" 
and "modify" do overlap to some extent, they're not mutually 
exclusive.  At most I could comment that saying "modified" or 
"improved" without additional details may leave one with the feeling 
that it was but a small change, which is inaccurate.
So, anyway, there may be many different descriptions whaich doesn't 
mean that any imaginable description is correct.  And if I see a 
statement which, as it stands, bears no resemblance to reality, then 
yes, I would react.  Not "jump at" its author, mind you, just state 
why I think the statement is incorrect.  You may want to look back at 
my first post on the issue and see whether it constitutes an attack on 
anybody.  Of course, we may get back into the "you've to realize that 
different groups of people have different standards of what is and 
what isn't offensive".  That I may believe.  I'll find it rather 
difficult to believe, though, that any group of people may sincerely 
believe in "anything I say, even if worded as personal attack, is just 
a legitimate expression of opinion but anything you say, unless it is 
a total acceptance of my position, is an expression of hostility."
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

         There ain't no 'Nothing,
                 nowhere.
         There never was 'Nothing'
         and there never will be.
It's just a theory, of course.
-- 
Keith Stein

Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> The advantages of converting to a duodecimal number system are clear.
> Are you willing to convert?
What is so exciting about 12 = 3*3*2*2?
If I ever would advocate to change our common representation of numbers
(I don't, as they are already really globally standardized today), then
my only choice would of course be the sedecimal system (base 16=2^(2^2),
in computer technology commonly called for unknown reasons the
hexadecimal system).
Rationale: Base two is the most natural number system as it uses the
minimal number of digits. Hexadecimal numbers are the most compact
representation of binary numbers that can still be handeled easily by
human brains. Written multiplication can be done very easily in a binary
number representation. And those with a computing background will find
hexadecimal numbers anyway the only obvious choice.
If I really had to reinvent a common number representation without
looking at what is well established today in all countries, I would
probably use something like the Martin digits for a base 16 system
instead of for instance the digits 1-F that are used in computing today.
[Reference for those interested in what Martin digits are:
Communications of the ACM, Vol 11, No. 10, October 1968, p. 658.]
But before we talk about optimal representation of natural numbers,
let's first fully introduce the set of natural numbers in the U.S.  I
have so far seen here mostly, what I call the "set of supernatural
numbers" (aka the set of superstitious numbers):
  S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, ...}
Where is the number 13 in hotel floors, plane seats, apartment numbers?
It seems, some folks in the U.S. are so excited about the 12 that they
even killed the successor of 12, in order to enhance the full glory of
this holly number. BTW: Where can I find an algebra textbook about
calculation in S?
Markus ;-)
(living in a 1995 apartment complex in Indiana, USA, with no
apartment with a number between apartment 12 and 14 ...)
-- 
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
University, Indiana, US, email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu

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.
Jeff:
> Not at all.
     Quite.
Jeff:
> (i) and (ii) summarize quantitatively the logical content of our 
> present discussion; that is, the restricted discussion of idealized 
> cats. [...]
     They may summarize some discussion that you would prefer to have,
perhaps even one you believe you are having -- but they don't pertain
to any discussion I'm participating in.  In relation to the discussion
I'm having with you, they were and are irrelevancies, for the reasons I
mentioned above.
-- moggin

In article <55511t$1c2@news.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr  wrote:
>Note followups...
>Louis Savain  writes:
>>                 9omissions)
>                        
>>      ...                    The motion of the Earth around the sun can
>>also be used as a clock to corroborate the constancy of the speed of
>>light.  Kind of like a giant pendulum clock.  Isn't it strange that all
>>sorts of non-EM clocks are in agreement with EM clocks?  Hey, this could
>>be the basis of a unified theory. :-)  One never knows.
>
Abian answers:
   One of the worst examples of a terribly unreliable clock is 
   "the motion of Earth around the Sun"  mentioned above. 
    The duration of no two complete (if there is such a thing) orbits of
    the Earth around the Sun  are the same. There are so many Celestial 
    factors which makes it impossible to have orbits of the same duration.
    Forget about reliable clocks - No clock can possibly maintain  the
    identical periodic duration. This , especially wipes out the 
    theoretical validity of the AXIOMS of Relativity both special and 
    General.   
    Physics should give up the establishment's notion of TIME.  There is
    but a Unique Universal Cosmic Time as unique as the Cosmos itself.
    And that Universal Cosmic Time is inextricably related to the Mass of
    the Cosmos.
    The constancy of the Speed of Light and the definition of Time as 
    that which is read on the dial of a clock are prepubescent idealistic 
    naivetes! Old unrealistic  tales ! Both the constancy of speed of 
    Light and the establishment's notion of Time should be shredded and
    thrown away.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
       ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS  AND EPIDEMICS
       ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT  
                     TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)

Anton Hutticher  writes:
>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. 
That's only true if you suppose that the ways in which these different
interpetations might be inconsistent are of concern to scientists.  In
practice the different interpretations are currently considered
irrelevant, so the thing remains tidily within its domain.  Or,
presumably, one could wave hands and say, "they just haven't gotten
there yet."
-- 
"But among those whom this story reached were were also the woman's
 in-laws, and they decided, without telling her a word, to find this
 angel and to see if knew how to fly ..."

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
[...]
> I agree, maintaining cicility is important.  Lets not forget, though, 
> that irrational attitudes may at time be dangerous.  Still, one should 
> combat them by becoming irrational.
     Good work, then.
-- moggin

In article <32713BB6.6981@flory.mit.edu>, mott@flory.mit.edu wrote:
[...]
>Aside: have you noticed that the UK-English measure body weight in
>stones?  Is a "stone" = pounds/(32ft/sec^2)?
What you have described is a unit of mass called a "slug".  A "stone" is a
unit of force (or weight) that is 14 pounds.
I personally always have trouble remembering, between pounds or slugs,
which is mass and which is weight.  You can, for example, find "conversion
factors" that convert pounds to grams, so a pound must be mass, right? 
And then there's the ounce: is that a weight (there are 16 of them in a
pound right, unless it is a precious metal) or volume (there are 8 of them
in a cup, right?); and isn't "ounce" supposed to be 1/12 of something?
$.02 -Ron Shepard

Sven Keunecke (keunecke@firga.sun.ac.za) 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. 
: Can anybody please explain to me which way the pipe will turn? If at all
: and why?
I heard that his experiment produced no movement in the sprinkler head.
It may or may not depend on how the experiment is set up so the
question may or may not be more complex that it seems on the surface. 
-----again, if I am wrong, please correct me.
I, however, don't know personally. I ain't a grad student, and if
Berkeley physics has any brains at all, they won't let me near a lab
room.
Where there's a bang, there's a Yang.
"TM"
: --------------------------------------------------------
: Sven Keunecke               |  
: Post Graduate               | 
: Office : Penthouse          | 
: E&E; Department              |
: University of Stellenbosch  |
: South Africa                |
: ----------------------------------------------------------
"TM" again.

"Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."  wrote:
To: "Lawrence B.Crowell" 
>
>Subject: Re: The hard problem and culture.
>References: 
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Lawrence B.Crowell wrote:
>> 
>> > Jack Sarfatti notes (10/26/96):
>
>> 
>> >It is postulated that the quantum pilot wave is Chalmer's fundamental
>> >"felt" information field in sense of his Dec 1995 Sci Am article. Stapp
>> >makes an equivalent postulate in his Heisenberg ontology approach which
>> >he says goes beyond the "orthodox" Bohr pragmatic interpretation.
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 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.  
>
>Right, that's why I call it "mind-stuff" or, perhaps "subconscious" mind
>since, IMHO, it takes back-action from beable to pilot wave to awaken
>consciousness.
I'm not sure that it makes much difference *what* you call it. There are
fundamental stuctures and elements to the 'subconscious' that are spec-
ifically deleted out of the consciousness. This is the *purpose* of the
normal consciousness.
>
>> However,
>> the pilot wave is associated with the quantum force that influences the
>> motion of the particle (beable) and is thus physical.
>
>This is how thought influences the brain IMHO. Back-action is how the
>brain changes its subconscious thought. The change in thought is the
>conscious experience.
Uhhhhh.....I think you're over your head trying to describe something
of which you have no awareness--although, perhaps, an *intellectual*
grasp.
Michael (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98, Column XVII of 1QM)

/On the date of Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:48:54 -0600, "Mr. Smith"
 did inscribe into the group alt.atheism and
unto the ether thereof:\
>If I murder someone, God must,
>> > : : if he were all-knowing, know that I was going to do it.  This
>> > : : implies that I must do it, or God would be wrong (if the outcome
>> > : : is not determined, it cannot be known).  This negates the idea of
>> > : : free choice.
>"And just as they did no approve of holding God in accurate knowledge,
>God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not
>fitting, filled as they were with all unrighteousness, wickedness,
>covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder..."  Romans 1:28,29
In this, we see that at the time that Romans was written, someone had
already figured out that little omniscience/free choice paradox and
was rebutted (as usual) by biblical quotations.
	Mike Turk
--
   /===     e-mail: jhvh-1@geocities.com
  / 111     homepage: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/6966/
    111
J H V H     Energetic is the goblin that fears the 
    111     turquoise wallpaper.
    111
  -=====-
SLACK FIRST

jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)  wrote on 25.10.96 in <54r7pp$nnp@news.fsu.edu>:
> Paul.B.Andersen@hia.no writes:
> >
> >Why should the rest of the world care if US go metric?
>
>  Simple.  So it will be easier to find Disney World rather than find
>  yourself in Liberty City by mistake.  ;-)
Reminds me of the Disneyworld Paris commercials. They ask something like  
"Who doesn't dream of going there?" - actually, I know of no one who  
*does*, and I personally certainly wouldn't want to spend my hard-earned  
money there :-)
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
> [...]  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.
     The statement came from Russell.  (Personally, I liked it.)
-- moggin

|> 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) 
Jeff:
|> (i) and (ii) summarize quantitatively the logical content of our 
|> present discussion; that is, the restricted discussion of idealized 
|> cats. 
moggin:
|> They may summarize some discussion that you would prefer to have,
|> perhaps even one you believe you are having -- but they don't pertain
|> to any discussion I'm participating in.  In relation to the discussion
|> I'm having with you, they were and are irrelevancies, for the reasons I
|> mentioned above.
Your words in quotes:
LHS of (i),(ii):  "Newt offered a theory of cats (TOC) which described 
                   all cats as black."   
 (i) =>  "Given Stein's findings, Newt's description was inaccurate"
 (i) =>  "and his theory was false."
(ii) =>  "His observations were fine, as far as they went" 
 (i) =>  "but the conclusions he drew from them were invalid"
To wit,
  As a TOE, Newtonian mechanics is indeed invalid. (i) 
  As a nonrelativistic theory, it is quite nice.  (ii)
QED (again).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

is it not quintessential that moving across the 'portal' connecting inside
& outside the 'marker', and vice-versa, that the dimensions vary?

pelle@lk-hp-33.hut.fi (timo.pelkonen)  wrote on 17.10.96 in :
> tcox@us1.ibm.com writes:
>
> >1 foot can be divided into halfs, thirds, forths sixths or twelths without
> >using fractions.
>
> those who are metric don't use fractions..
I, at least, *very* rarely have a problem where those fractions would  
help. Actually, I can't think of one off my head.
For example (real life example), I've got a wall of approx. 4.25 m, which  
I want to put book cases at. I can get boards 1.20 m or 0.80 m long. Guess  
what? 2*1.20+2*0.80 = 4.00, and there's a rest of 0.25 m which will  
remain, as getting custom boards would cost about twice as much, and  
that's not worth it.
This is typical of the measurement problems I actually see. I can't  
remember the last time I wanted exactly a third of some distance -  
probably back in school. In any case, the original distance would probably  
not be a nice number anyway ...
> funniest thing is to see man page of some gadget say
> ``Size: 2.0"x4.0" (50.83045x101.5832 mm)''
Tat's the traditional translation problem. Translators usually know  
neither of the two languages, *and* don't understand the subject.
I can't count how many times I've seen "he wondered" translated as "er  
wunderte sich" (he was surprised) ... and those were the better  
translators.
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/

bcpiac@dowco.com (Jim Quail)  wrote on 23.10.96 in <326E4732.5E97@dowco.com>:
> 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.
I wonder how many people read this as "imperial is good", and how many  
read it as the opposite ... some styles of expression are wasted on  
Usenet.
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/

pausch@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)  wrote on 28.10.96 in <55204i$4ff@electra.saaf.se>:
> If you're going to be THAT picky, then WHO are speaking English?  Good
> proper English - who?  Ok, you'll of course find some conservative
> minority in England who does it, but apart from them?
Easy. Germans, Swedes, ... ;-)
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/

In article , moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>[...]
> 
>> I agree, maintaining cicility is important.  Lets not forget, though, 
>> that irrational attitudes may at time be dangerous.  Still, one should 
>> combat them by becoming irrational.                             ^^^^^^
>
>     Good work, then.
>
Aren't Freudian typos funny?:-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"