Newsgroup sci.physics 205545

Directory

Philip Gibbs (philip.gibbs@pobox.com) wrote:
: Matt McIrvin wrote:
: > 
: > In article <54glu6$7hl@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, nurban@vt.edu wrote:
: > 
: > > One of the most profound results in all of physics, embodied in
: > > Noether's theorem, is that every symmetry gives rise to a conserved
: > > quantity and vice versa.  For example, conservation of angular momentum
: > > comes from rotational symmetry ("isotropy") of space, and conservation
: > > of energy comes from time translation symmetry.
: > 
: > Every time I see a post like this, I get the evil urge to post, once again,
: > the following puzzle: "What is the conserved quantity associated with
: > Lorentz boost invariance?"
: What about the symmetry under permutation of identical
: particles? What is the conserved quantity associated
: with that?
Noether's theorem only applies to continuous symmetries.  
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Paul D. Shocklee - physics grad student - Princeton University    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "...how will this end...how should I know...talk to my agent..."     |
|   - Ardwight Chamberlain, between takes on "The Coming of Shadows"   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
> 
> Really! Do you have an electric field?
If you open my page URL:  http://www.ctv.es/USERS/positivo/   you will
find there that I give a new physical meaning to the electric field 
Best Regards, Mariano

> Martin Whewell wrote:
> 
> > We are told that space itself is expanding. If this is so then anything
> > we use to measure that space (e.g .measuring rods) is expanding in the
> > same proportion, thus any distance, or angular projection we measure will
> > always appear constant.
> > Doesn't this mean that from our subjective perspective we cannot percieve
> >  any expansion and
Nobody has refuted the argument that Martin Whewell has put forward
It is known that the redshift in the star spectrum can also be
interpreted by supposing that photons lose energy travelling through the
vacuum from a galaxy to the earth and hence decreasing their frequency -
Acoording to Einstein's relation between energy and frequency.
The "Doppler effect" interpretation implies the expansion os the
Universe.
The "photon energy loss" interpretation may imply that the vacuum is not
an absolute vacuum but is just the absence of ponderable matter

Why DOES this piece of garbage keep getting reposted?
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <55988c$re2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com (LBsys) writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>> The theory that predicted decay, predicted also a specific
>> decay mode.  So you know, in principle, what you're looking
>> for and what is the chance to miss it if it happens.  But, true,
>> the theory may be completely off in which case you're indeed
>> looking in the wrong direction.  Unfortunately it is impossible
>> to set an experiment based just on "lets see if anything happens",
>> you've to have at least some prediction regarding what is it 
>>you're looking for. 
>
>Oh, I don't doubt that even for getting only some measly dollars to
>finance any sort of project, one should have a decent theory and a
>prediction based on it. 
Definitely.  That is the practical aspect of the affair.  But I meant 
a more basic aspect, namely that you can't set up a general experiment 
based on "look if something, anything, happens".  At least not on 
finite budget and within finite time.  You need to have at least a 
rough feeling what is it you're looking for.
>The problem, unfortunately, stays with us b/c of a
>very basic logical problem, which was 'discovered' when inventing 'error
>trees'(?), i.e. models of failures and their resp. probability. It is in
>fact in the same class as stated in Uncle Al's sig: "quis custodiet...",
>or the typical teachers mistake: "Anyone missing, please raise their
>hands", in this case: how can I ever prove, I didn't forget to take a
>major point into account, a strange combination etc... 
You cannot.  At most you can prove that you did take into account all 
you could think of.  Which will amount to a finite list, leaving still 
a potentially infinite list of things you couldn't think of.
	... snip ...
>A friend in the US just installed NT4.0 on his brandnew home PC. 
That's called "looking for trouble".
>So he went up through the setup
>and when being asked for UserID and Password just left it empty, as he
>didn't want to be bothered with a PW-check every day. NT accepted this
>choice, but when rebooting wouldn't let him in - no PW given. He had to
>blank the disk completely and start anew. Of course the designers of NT
>hadn't thought of an unsecured system at all, quite the opposite, and
>didn't dream of a user not to specify a PW. :-(((
Told you he was looking for trouble.  The list of things that Bill's 
guys can think of is no only finite but very limited.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <5599eh$pmd@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> bjon@ix.netcom.com
(Brian Jones), responding to article  
by Keith Stein , writes [in part]:
> Looks like you'll have to read up on your SRT history, Keith. It's
> common knowledge that the MMX null was a shock. And, don't forget,
> the later KTX experiment used a vacuum chamber, so your air thing
> doesn't get it.
You forget, Brian --- Keith doesn't =BELIEVE= in the existence of a
vacuum !!!  If there's even =ONE= oxygen-molecule per cubic meter, 
Keith believes that said molecule will force the light in the KTX to
travel at 'c' relative to *it*. He has consistently refused to listen 
to discussions of the ``extinction theorem'' and its relevance to this
question.  Likewise, he has consistently ignored the fact that his pet
hypothesis implies the Sagnac experiment should =ALSO= yield a null
result, whereas in fact a POSITIVE result was observed.  Finally, he
has consistently ignored the fact that his pet hypothesis will cause
conservation of charge to fail in inhomogeneously flowing media,
unless =MAJOR= modifications to Maxwell's equations are made --- 
such as those discussed by Thomas E. Phipps in his paper ``On Hertz's
Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations'' [_Physics Essays_ v.6, no.2,
pp.249--56, (1993)].
Keith has consistently responded to each of these issues with such
carefully-reasoned arguments as ``nonsense!'' and ``rubbish!''.
In other words:  Keith refuses to be confused by facts --- his mind 
is made up...   :-/
--  Gordon D. Pusch   
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...

In talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>
[snip]
>
>> If the facts fit your analogy then you would be right.  However
>> suppose, instead of going over the mountains, Stein had built some
>> kind of cool looking gadget (with sparks and everything) that could
>> detect non-visable light. And when he turned his device on the cats
>> (all in the name of science, no actual cats were hurt in modifying
>> this analogy) Stein discovered that the cats were different shades of
>> ultra-violet. I think this fits the case better. 
>
>     I gave Newt a break, since in my example, his observations are
>dead-on (that is, the cats he sees are in fact black), while taking
>Einstein as given, Newton produces approximations, at best.
>
No, you did not give him a break. Your analogy did not reflect the
topic under discussion. 
>moggin:
>
>> >     Ah, but wait, say Newt's defenders.  His law may break down under
>> >extreme conditions, for example, if you cross over the mountains, but
>> >it's plenty good enough to predict the color of cats under _ordinary_
>> >circumstances -- so how can you call it wrong?  Simple: a false theory
>> >can produce accurate results, as Newt's case shows.
>
>Matt:
> 
>> No, a better theory can produce better results. You use the word false
>> as though Classical Mechanics does not describe Reality but GR does.
>> Neither theory describes Reality (in the sense Gordon uses the word).
>> They explain and predict the data. And GR predicts a wider range of
>> observation and so is considered the better theory.
>
>     Note, however, that the predictions of GR differ, and in some ways
>differ considerably, from those of Classical Mechanics.  So if you take
>GR as "the better theory," Classical Mechanics is something worse than 
>just the worse.
Huh? I do not understand this last sentence. Of course the predictions
differ. Now respond to the point of the paragraph. There is no right
when referring to these theories. We don't know Reality. What we have
are theories the explain and predict. CM does a great job. GR does a
better one, and contains CM inside it.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

In article , mls@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon) writes:
>
>It is worth quoting in full the famous _hypotheses non fingere_ bit:
>
>        "Gravitation towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations
>        towards the several particles of which the body of the sun is
>        composed; and in receding from the sun decreases accurately as
>        the inverse square of the distances as far as the orbit of
>        Saturn [and who can suppose that Newton thought this more than
>        the *measured* extent of the scope of gravity?] as evidently
>        appears from the quiescence of the aphelion of the planets; nay,
>        and even the remotest aphelion of the comets, if those aphelions
>        are also quiescent. [Again, Newton admits that his scheme extends
>        *indefinitely* beyond the solar system!] But hitherto, I have not
>        been able to discover the cuase of those properties of gravity
>        from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not
>        deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and
>        hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult
>        qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
>        ... And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist [Hah!].
>        and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abund-
>        antly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies.
>        and of our sea."
>-- 
Beautiful!
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , Keith Stein
 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>          There ain't no 'Nothing,
>                  nowhere.
>          There never was 'Nothing'
>          and there never will be.
>          
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a theory, of course.
Are you sure you looked everywhere and did not forget any location?
Or was the only location you checked your own imagination?
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I know that all I know is what I know, including that I
do not know what I do not know.

In talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>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.  
>
I think we have gotten to an important issue here. It is true that we
cannot, as a practical question, distinguish between them. But if we
can't tell them apart, then there is no reason to pick one over the
other. And understand, the GR equations at low velocities look very
much like the CM equations. There are extra terms in GR, but they are
zero, or so close to zero that we can never tell the difference.
>> 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.  
But we don't take Einstein as a given. We don't have givens. We have
theories, developed from data, to explain and predict. If I knew (in
the revealed knowledge, from the mouth of God, kind of knew) that GR
was the correct theory of reality then I could say CM was wrong. We
don't have that kind of knowledge.
>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.
>
I have no idea what principles the universe contains/is run by. I know
the models we have to explain our observations. I don't even know if
the models say anything about any principles. I think this is an
important point.
>> Now, as it turns out, you can build on Classical
>> Mechanics and get to GR. Or, to put it another way, you can get CM as
>> a special case from GR. And, while you make many wordy responses to
>> this, you do not have the language and understanding to follow the
>> steps involved.
>
>     Or perhaps you lack the language and understanding to follow my
>answers.  
It is possible. It is more likely that we have different concepts of
what science is and what it says. It is frequently true that I lack
the background to understand both you and Silke. I have chosen to stay
out of the discussions where I know that is true and to tread very
carefully where I suspect it.
Moggin, I suspect you thought my last line was an insult. It was not.
It is an observation. The relationship between CM and GR is
mathematical. You need the math to follow the steps in reasoning.
There have been many a night were I was sure I understood the words,
but could not follow the math. And had to work and work until I could
see what was going on. Only then did the words in the next step make
sense.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

Libertarius wrote:
> 
> In <3276ACD4.130A@mindspring.com> Leonard Timmons
>  writes:
> >
> >Libertarius wrote:
> >> >I like to avoid definitions that contain within them large nebulous
> >> >concepts such as "person", "conscious", etc.  These things just
> lead
> >> >to more and more confusion.
> >> >
> >> >-leonard
> >>
> >>     WOW! What can be more "nebulous" then "GOD"?
> >
> >I don't mind trying to define large nebulous concepts.  I just don't
> >like using them in definitions of other things especially when
> >those things are large nebulous concepts themselves.
> >
> >What can be more nebulous than God?  How about:  personality, mass,
> >existence, etc, etc.
> >
> >Here is a bad definition (from my perspective) of existence:
> >Something that is observable. (This definition has a human
> >being within it.)
> >
> >Here is a good definition:
> >Something that has a position relative to something else.
> >(Nothing that has the ability to observe need exist for
> >this definition to remain unchanged.  In the previous
> >definition, we would have to define "observation" for
> >inanimate objects.)
> >
> >The difference is minor, but it can cause conceptual blind
> >spots.
> >
> >-leonard
> 
>     How does your definition fit the concept of God? "God exists means
> God has a position relative to something else." So, if God created the
> Universe ("something else"), He did not exist until the Universe came
> into being. Thus, a non-existing God created the Universe. Does that
> compute?
> 
>     Libertarius
First off... i can tell that you, being an intelligent individual, may
see the logic in this:
at one point i belived that 'God' was TIME... since nothing tangible or
comprehendable may exist without it,(agree? if time stopped... what
would fill the gap between it's end and start?) it seemed logical... And
way leading to way, i figured that time was in fact, only a part of
infinity... and allthough the universe is finite... it is ever expanding
(by the views of science). so therefore...  the bible claims that God is
love, and man is created in his image (both of which can be excluded),
and that man is a part of God... are not Time and the Universe a part of
God? 
Well...to shorten (i would have to write a book) i now have made my own
theory that- God is everything. It may sound as a cheap and easy
explaination, but it does make sense in all situations...(ex: all
objects exist in position realative to all other objects) 
Sorry that i had not the time to explain myself well, and  i am aware
that i may have subsumed myself a fool in your eyes, but i can say no
more at the time, sooo... forgive me if you will, And read my book when
i finally do write it... Thanx...
#slave@

Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]: ]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]: ]: ]guilt. But here we have the "science" community, intoning in near-unison
: ]: ]: ]: ]: ]and near-ignorance, "where there's smoke, there must be fire."  
: ]: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]: ]:  You are lying. 
: ]: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]: ]Am I? You have so far demonstrated neither knowledge nor originality i 
: ]: ]: ]: ]your detractions of Derrida.
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]:  Actually this is true sentence. since I have not posted any
: ]: ]: ]:  "detractions of Derrida", I have not "demonstrated either 
: ]: ]: ]:  knowledge or originality" by them.
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]: ] Perhaps I'm "lying" about others -- I'm 
: ]: ]: ]: ]certainly right about you.
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]:   That is false. I challenge you to produce a single post, claiming
: ]: ]: ]:   that Derrida must be wrong, because
: ]: ]: ]:  "where there's smoke, there must be fire." Failing that, I 
: ]: ]: ]:  expect  you to publically apologize for your lying.
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]If you think you're worth an hour spent at altavista, your self-image has 
: ]: ]: ]re-inflated to an amazing degree. You have never posted a derogatory 
: ]: ]: ]remark about Derrida? If you say so. I apologize for having 
: ]: ]: ]misjudged you.
: ]: ]
: ]: ]:  That's welcome development, but it's not nearly good enough. Here's your 
: ]: ]:  claim again:
: ]: ]
: ]: ]:  ]guilt. But here we have the "science" community, intoning in near-unison
: ]: ]: ]: ]: ]and near-ignorance, "where there's smoke, there must be fire."
: ]: ]
: ]: ]
: ]: ]:  Produce the post(s) advancing such an argument, or apologize.
: ]: ]
: ]: ]
: ]: ]Don't push your luck.
: ]
: ]:  Apparently, to elicit from you an acknowledgement of slandering
: ]:  a person or a group of persons takes a bit of luck.
: ]
: ]"Slandering"? You're almost cute now.
:  Apparently, to make you respect rational point, one has to back it with
:  power. I think beating over the head with pickled herring is
:  adequate way of dealing with likes of you.
I'm curious: do you start dropping articles to sound macho or is it an 
emotional thing? What's your "rational" point? That I've slandered 
people? You would have to supply prove of slander. So far none such has 
been forthcoming. You yourself admit below to not having read any 
Derrida, or at least you seem to imply that. So your hostility towards 
him is based on hearsay; moreoever, it's based on hearsay from those who 
eiteher haven't read him either or have admitted to not having understood 
him. That's precisely the point you tried to deny a while back. I retract 
my apology. Now try rational again.
: ]: ]As far as I can see, that's the _only_ argument 
: ]: ]brought forth, since upon repeated inquiry, nobody has admitted to both 
: ]: ]having read and understood any of Derrida.
: ]
: ]:  Having read without being able  understanding must be what you call 
: ]:  "ignorance."
: ]
: ]Watch me exercise constraint in not commenting on the syntax above.
: ]
: ] That 
: ]ignores the possibility that the text in question might,
: ]:  in fact be nonsensical.
: ]
: ]That would be a possibility if there weren't so many people finding 
: ]sense. It takes a while, though. 
:  Wrong again. A lot of people were able to see King's New Clothes, too.
:  You advocate the value of some texts - it is up to you to show
:  with examples that they are not gibberish, as "so many
:  people" perceive.
Not at all; it's  up to me to direct you to the texts and to ask you 
whether you have any reasoned objections to them; if you don't, you have 
forfeited the right to comment on them (in the realm of intellectual 
honesty, needless to say).
: ]: But I think I am wasting my time talking 
: ]with you.
: ]
: ]You'd much better try reading some Derrida, indeed.
:  If you are good example of results of such reading, then I'll
:  pass.
Your Zeleny imitations are quite boring. You should stick to ethnic slurs.
S.
: -- 
: LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
:                 -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

In article <558nhf$hgr@news.fsu.edu> Jim Carr, jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu
writes:
>That is, read up on a sampling of the experiments that observe the 
> neutrino before going on and on about why models that assume its 
> existence are flawed.  Given that the neutrino was first detected 
> directly almost exactly 40 years ago, your claims look rather foolish. 
>
Jim, I expected much better from you!  Neutrinos have NEVER been
detected directly.  You know that.  They are deduced from SR's equations.
Don't gloss here so the youngins  don't get confused.
Don't you get it Jim?  It's too simple.  An extra frame in SR's derivation
throws extra energy into the whole system.  The neutrino is there to
take up the slack.
If you read the AD pages Jim, you and others would see the answer to
many of your questions.  You don't want to look at the Buechner/Van de
Graaff experiment in MIT in 1946.  It proves that the electron-neutrino
doesn't exist.  It's repeatable today.  How many times do I have to
say it.  Read it Jim and refute it here.  I am waiting.  My guess is that
you can't understand it because you refuse to look at it.
What are neutrino detectors dectecting if not neutrinos?  FAQ on our
pages:  why do they go around burying them under mountains, water,
and put them near penguins?  To avoid false hits.  Jim, neutrino
scientists
get false hits.
Neutrino beams are indirectly assumed to be there so energy conservation
works out for SR.
I know YOU won't see it Jim, but others do.  I guess it's too simple.
No tensors here.  I got a degree in advance calculus.  Don't need it here
Jim.  Just algebra.
What excuses will you come up with next?  You won't look at Beuchner
Van de Graaff.  You also refuse to see this very simple statement:
     SR values - EXPERIMENTAL values = NEUTRINO SPECTRUM
     AD values - EXPERIMENTAL values = ZERO  
Before we part ways, tell me and the world that you understand the
above description - NOT agree with it - but understand it.  It is very
very simple.  YES or NO.  No ring-around-the-rosies.  No feel good getting
together with your buds and bashin' AD.  Just YES or NO.
CAN YOU DO IT???  Here it is again:
     SR values - EXPERIMENTAL values = NEUTRINO SPECTRUM
     AD values - EXPERIMENTAL values = ZERO  
Do you understand the description?  YES or NO.
-David de Hilster
 www.autodynamics.org

About:
               LUTETIUM OXYORTHOSILICATE
                  (Cerium activated)
Does anybody have any information and/or references about
this scintillator material ?
Best regards
Peter Jansson
mailto:jansson@tsl.uu.se

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote: 
>>>[etc. -- you get the idea]
>>>>>>>>>>Here is an argument.  A) I have a good idea what Einstein meant, and
>>>>>>>>>>an equally good idea that any reasonable interpretation of Derrida's
>>>>>>>>>>comment is incompatible with Einstein's meaning.  
>>>>>>>>>Please share your insight, then.
>>>>>>>>It is not insight, but learning, which is not something I can share 
>>>>>>>>with a passive audience.  I recommend the Feynman Lectures as a good
>>>>>>>>starting point in this matter.
>>>>>>>Feynman explains what Hippolite meant? That's fascinating. Are you sure?
>>>>>>Are you suffering from ADD?  The point is to address Einstein's meaning.
>>>>>The point is that you can only determine whether Derrida's meaning is 
>>>>>incompatible with Einstein's meaning if you know what Derrida's meaning 
>>>>>is. Elementary logic. So do you or don't you have an interpretation of 
>>>>>what either Hippolite or Deridda were saying?
>>>>Thank you for answering my question about ADD.  What I wrote is that
>>>>any reasonable interpretation of Derrida's comment is incompatible
>>>>with Einstein's meaning.
>>>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. 
>>>Hint: you would have to include your understanding of Derrida's concept 
>>>of center, since Hippolite is asking in reference to "Structure, Sign 
>>>and Play."
>>Your hint is beside the point.  I have nothing to add to Richard
>>Harter's comments in article <54k6p3$55t@news-central.tiac.net>:
>>#Derrida's statement (as translated) appears to be fairly clear about
>>#what is meant by a center in this context.  "End  of a kind of
>>#privelege of empiric evidence" may be a reference to an end to
>>#intuitive mechanistic models.  "Einsteinian constant" may be a
>>#reference to the invariance of the observed speed of light or it may
>>#be a reference to the concept of space-time as being united rather
>>#than as absolutely separable.  Then again the speakers may have
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>#something else in mind entirely.  On the face of it the entire
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>#exchange is, to borrow a term, gibberish with respect to physics.
>>#However one must allow that this is a translation; the original may be
>^^^^^^^^^^^
>>#clearer.   The translator may simply have had no knowledge of physics
>>#and translated original clarity into vague mush.  Then again, the
>>#original may been confused to begin with.  Derrida's response does not
>>#seem terribly consistent with an understanding of relativity and its
>^^^^^^^
>>#implications.
>I've highlighted the sentences here that distinguish Richard's approach 
>from yours. If you are willing to adopt his viewpoint, that's fine. 
>However, you should acknowledge that it is different from the one you 
>espoused.
Not if you have rudimentary grasp of litotes and hyperbole.
>>>>                        In order to demonstrate that to anyone who
>>>>even minimally understands the latter, I need not do any more than
>>>>circumscribe the former in accordance with the least constricting
>>>>conventions of colloquial speech.  But based on what I have seen of
>>>>your geometrical understanding, I have no interest in assaying such
>>>>demonstration for your sake.  Take it or leave it.
>>>You're trying to wriggle out. So, no. 
>>I will not interpret Derrida for you.  Do your own thinking.
>I have. Nobody says you should interpret Derrida; I asked whether your 
>attack on him was based on an understanding of what he said. It is not. 
I understand that it makes you more comfortable to think so.
>>>>>>>>>>                                                     B) Since 
>>>>>>>>>>Derrida aims to debunk Platonism, since the understanding of 
>>>>>>>>>>Platonism depends on the understanding of geometry, and since
>>>>>>>>>>Einstein is the wellspring of modern geometry, Derrida's 
>>>>>>>>>>ignorance automatically condemns his project to failure.  
>>>>>>>>>This is fun, but it's not an argument. 
>>>>>>>>It is an argument, and a logically valid one.  Under the circumstances,
>>>>>>>>I would be willing to let fręre Jacques off the hook if only he had
>>>>>>>>evinced minimal acquaintance with Euclid, never mind Lobachevsky or
>>>>>>>>Riemann.  Alas, it is not forthcoming.
>>>>>>>Logical, hm. You would have to prove that
>>>>>>>a) an understanding of Platonism does indeed depend on an understanding 
>>>>>>>of geometry; wild assertion no. 1
>>>>>>>b) that Einstein is indeed Platonism for the 20th century -- here, 
>>>>>>>you'd run into trouble with Russell Turpin and others
>>>>>>>c) that Derrida "debunks" Platonism or intends to do so -- here, we'd 
>>>>>>>only need a quote, so you wouldn't have to think much
>>>>>>>d) that all continental philosophy after Kant is cognizant of modern 
>>>>>>>math.
>>>>>>In order to prove a), I need do no more than invoke the principle of
>>>>>>interpretive charity -- if Plato says that an ageometretos must be
>>>>>>disqualified, he is to be taken at his word, so long as your aim is to
>>>>>>understand Plato.  To address b) independently of your predictably
>>>>>>inaccurate reading, I need not do any more than restate the point:
>>>>>>Einstein's work on the geometry of the space-time manifold yields the
>>>>>>basis of present-day understanding of physical geometry.  Curiously
>>>>>>enough, I have already satisfied c) in my conversation with Brian
>>>>>>Artese by quoting Derrida and citing Plato to the contrary.  As
>>>>>>regards d), to adapt your own idiom, you are confusing an intellectual
>>>>>>enterprise with its institutionalized idiots.
>>>>>a) qualifications for philosophers vary greatly within Plato's oeuvre. I 
>>>>>can understand that you would pick the one agreeable with your 
>>>>>Erkenntnisinteresse. However, if you were to direct your attention to the 
>>>>>Phaedrus, you will see a different definition of philosopher emerge.
>>>>I think you are making feeble excuses for your ignorance of Plato's
>>>>prerequisites.
>>>How boring. Please engage the argument, namely: Plato's offers different 
>>>definitions of "philosophy," some of them, like the one in the Phaedrus, 
>>>devoid of all references to "geometry." If you can't engage it, I will 
>>>assume that your knowledge of Plato is restricted.
>>The Phaedrus was written by the head of the Academy.
>? I have no idea what you are trying to say. The dating of the Phaedrus 
>is still contested, as you know. If you are trying to suggest that the 
>Phaedrus is a piece of institutional politics, good luck; as the only 
>dialogue set outside the city, it does not easily lend itself to such 
>reading. You might try, of course.
I don't have to try anything.  The default assumption, by way of
interpretive charity, is that Plato is incomprehensible to an
ageometretos.
>>>>>b) is irrelevant
>>>>Only if your feeble excuses could be rationally sustained.
>>>It could only be made relevant if you were to address the points above.
>>Your points completely depend on your feeble excuses.
>You are repetitive. YOu failed to establish your first assumption; 
>therefore, all conclusions drawn on the basis of it are unestablished as 
>well. 
I established it to my satisfaction by citing the liminary inscription
at the Academy.  In view of your wilful apologetics of ignorance, I
neither expect nor intend to satisfy your objections in this matter.
>>>>>c) a disagreement does not constitute a debunking
>>>>But a disagreement on a fundamental issue does.
>>>No.
>>So you say.
>So most of us say. "Debunking" implies condescension and hostility.
It also implies repudiation of intellectual authority.  I would not
know about hostility, but condescension is implicitly there, in the
presumption of holding forth about the Forms without paying one's dues.
>>>>>d) on the contrary, that is your domain. Are you disqualifying all 
>>>>>philosophers from philosophy who have not proven to you that they know 
>>>>>all they could about geometry, yes or no?
>>>>I am disqualifying anyone who fails the trivium from consideration as
>>>>an intellectual authority in any field of knowledge.  Additionally, I
>>>>am disqualifying anyone incapable of understanding the mathematical
>>>>foundations of any discipline from consideration as an intellectual
>>>>authority in that discipline or its philosophical implications.
>>>>Derrida's comments purportedly belong to the philosophy of physics.
>>>>Draw your own conclusions.
>>>Since Derrida does not claim to be an "authority"  on the 
>>>"philosophical implications" of special relativity, your point is quite 
>>>vapid.
>>Thus spake Jacques Derrida:
>>#The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. 
>>#
>>#It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the
>>#concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of
>>#something -- of a center starting from which an observer could
>>#master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...
>>Sounds like arrogation of authority to me.
>I realize that; I'm still baffled by it, though. Again, he is referring 
>to the concept of center (and play [not game]) that emerges in his talk.
Irrelevant.  Whatever he takes "the Einsteinian constant" to be -- and
the number of reasonable options is strictly delimited by the content
of GR -- his assertion that "it is the very concept of variability" is
physically absurd.  As a bonus, you may note that Derrida's pervasive
and habitual conflation of suppositio formalis and suppositio simplex
(elsewhere also conflated with suppositio materialis) rules out even
an elementary degree of understanding of Platonist linguistics.
>>>>>>>>Do you think it is a coincidence that the best portrayal of postmodern
>>>>>>>>criticism to date was presented by Nabokov as early as 1962?  
>>>>>>>I would find it highly surprising, yes. I never thought Nabokov was a 
>>>>>>>good critic, btw, even though he's a great writer. Like Kleist or 
>>>>>>>Buechner in that regard.
>>>>>>Excellence of portrayal is a matter of strength and precision in
>>>>>>observation and representation, rather than of the critical virtues
>>>>>>of analytic meticulousness in interpretation and explanation.
>>>>>That is hardly a response. You have yet to bolster your claim as to what 
>>>>>Nabokov achieved.
>>>>If the shoe fits, wear it.
>>>The shoe doesn't fit; you're a terrible cobbler. Good thing you've never 
>>>claimed to be an authority on shoemaking.
>>Good thing you are not a Nabokov scholar.
>Indeed.
>>>>>>>The image
>>>>>>>>of a logorrhetic, vituperative, frustrated uranist, equally ignorant
>>>>>>>>of Euclid and Shakespeare, may fit Barthes a little bit better than
>>>>>>>>it does Derrida.  Then again -- I know not what really turns on the
>>>>>>>>eminent grand-daddy of decon.
>>>>>>>How odd. Barthes of all people, "vituperative," "frustrated"? That
>>>>>>>most loving of critics?
>>>>>>As loving as Charles Kinbote, and equally preoccupied with conspiring 
>>>>>>against the author.  As regards his frustration, it is my understanding 
>>>>>>that fulfillment does not conduce to throwing oneself under a truck.
>>>>>As far as I know, he didn't "throw himself under a truck," but was hit by 
>>>>>a truck. 
>>>>Amazing how much information can get lost in shifting to passive voice.
>>>In this case, your misinformation was corrected. A truck hit Barthes. 
>>>What again follows as to his frustration? You may take your point back.
>>More logical incompetence.  How does your saying that a truck hit
>>Barthes vitiate my claim that he threw himself under a truck?
>It shifts agency; Barthes did not throw himself under a truck, he had an 
>accident. I'm sorry for relying on common usage to make my point. 
You have your sources and I have mine.  The suicide story had rather
wide currency in Paris.  Unlike the Brits regarding Ramsey's demise,
the facts of which are only beginning to emerge six decades later, the
French are notorious for their inability to keep a secret.
>>>>>          Loving literature is not the same as loving the 18th century 
>>>>>conception of authorship.
>>>>"Love the sin, hate the sinner."
>>>In other words, you accept my claim or you are unable to refute it.
>>In other words, I am comparing your intellectual integrity to that of
>>John Paul II.  You may feel flattered or insulted, depending on your
>>personal standards.
>But you still don't understand anything about Barthes, which is more 
>important in the context of this discussion.
To repeat myself, it is always interesting to observe the conflict
between duty and inclination -- professional duty to interpret the
hidden meanings and social inclination to act on a petite bourgeoise
concern for excluding undesirables.
>>>>>>>>>>                      C) The copyright laws imply that any critical
>>>>>>>>>>comments appearing in print of symposium proceedings are subject to
>>>>>>>>>>the speaker's release of publication rights and hence carry the
>>>>>>>>>>presumption of ex cathedra pronouncements.
>>>>>>>>>Perhaps they do; that such is enforced, is, however, amply disproven. 
>>>>>>>>>Just witness Wolin's mistranslation of Derrida and subsequent 
>>>>>>>>>publication.
>>>>>>>>On the basis of personal experience with intellectual property laws, I
>>>>>>>>assure you that such enforcement by the owner is always possible among
>>>>>>>>the signatories to the Berne convention.
>>>>>>>For someone harping on logic, this is quite below par. It might be 
>>>>>>>possible to enforce; that does not imply that it has been enforced. So?
>>>>>>So if Derrida had been cognizant of revealing that he was full of shit, 
>>>>>>he would not have allowed published dissemination of this revelation.
>>>>>He might give his readers more credit than they deserve. Then again, he 
>>>>>might only be interested in those readers who do deserve minimal credit.
>>>>Then yet again, he might only be interested in readers willing to
>>>>swallow all the shit he feeds them.  Evidently, in your case, his
>>>>hopes are richly realized.
>>>You are shifting from subjunctive to indicative; cheap move. But 
>>>independently of Derrida's vanity, which might be considerable, I 
>>>disagree with him on a number of points. So you are once again wrong.
>>I stand corrected: evidently, in your case, such hopes would be
>>overwhelmingly realized.
>But since you don't know what his claims are, you don't really know 
>whether that is good or bad. 
I have an idea, which gives me a leg up on Derrida.
>>>>>>>>>>>>As you know, I have done my work and need not rely on Sokal 
>>>>>>>>>>>>to do it.  Nonetheless, if I wanted to cite a professional
>>>>>>>>>>>>opinion that Derrida was a charlatan, I would have brought 
>>>>>>>>>>>>up Chomsky.
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't know this at all. I'm still waiting for you to exhibit a 
>>>>>>>>>>>rudimentary understanding of Derrida's argument in "Cogito." As 
>>>>>>>>>>>long as you can't tell us what it is you object to, your 
>>>>>>>>>>>objections won't be taken seriously. 
>>>>>>>>>>In the beginning of our exchange I told you the rules of 
>>>>>>>>>>engagement -- each thrust is to be followed by a parry and 
>>>>>>>>>>vice versa.  By continuing to argue, you implicitly accepted
>>>>>>>>>>the conventional rules.  If you wish to make a request, I 
>>>>>>>>>>will consider it after you reply to my last article point by
>>>>>>>>>>point.
>>>>>>>>>The last exchange failed. A reasonable reaction to failure is 
>>>>>>>>>to try something else.
>>>>>>>>I will reasonably consider trying something else after you reply 
>>>>>>>>to my last article point by point.
>>>>>>>In other words, you're wimping out?
>>>>>>In my opinion, true wimpery is exemplified by the party who excused
>>>>>>herself from following the rules she had accepted from the start.
>>>>>You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. Let us all agree to note, 
>>>>>though, that you refused to exhibit understanding of an essay you claim 
>>>>>to have read and you claim to object to on philosophical grounds; your 
>>>>>reasons may be what you say they are.
>>>>Let us also agree to note that I have explicitly and repeatedly avowed
>>>>a failure to extract a coherent thesis out of Derrida's essay, objecting
>>>>solely to isolated claims that roughly approximated intelligibility.
>>>Absolutely. You have failed to understand Derrida's essay on Foucault and 
>>>Descartes, and you are convinced that this already constitutes a valid 
>>>objection  against Derrida.
>>I am convinced of having successfully identified logical absurdities
>>and textual misreadings in the essay in question.
>I'd like to hear about that.
You did.  Feel free to answer my points any time.
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)

Hi everybody,
	I am urgently in need of a SIMPLE method of calibrating an 
applicator which generates extremely low frequency (5Hz) and low 
intensity (below 20 gauss). Would a simple standardized circuity plus a 
voltage meter or ammeter would do ?
Pls, Pls, Pls, Pls
Sunny
Please email directly to mailto:sunnylo@hknet.com

In article 
           dyeo@tortoise "David Yeo" writes:
> 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)
> 
> 
I agree - and for what it's worth, I think that most that  passes 
for  discussion  in  this newsgroup  is  really  metaphysics,  or 
tiresome intensional gymnastics....
-- 
David Longley

In article <555i94$ahb@electra.saaf.se>, pausch@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
>In article ,
>Konrad Hinsen   wrote:
> 
>> wayne@cs.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>> 
>> > Hmmm, as long as I stick to arrays (not pointers, but arrays), and
>> > scalars, I can't think of a case where aliasing would be more of a
>> > problem in C than FORTRAN.  Can you give an example?
>> 
>> Arrays are just pointer constants in C, so you can't avoid them when
>> e.g. calling subroutines. A trivial aliasing example in C is
>> 
>> void copy(double *a, double *b, int n)
>> {
>>    int i;
>>    for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>>        *a++ = *b++;
>> }
>> 
>> A C compiler must assume that a and b might point to partly overlapping
>> memory spaces. A Fortran compiler may assume that they don't (and I am
>> sure many Fortran programmers are not aware of the consequences of this
>> fact).
> 
>Why is a Fortran compiler allowed to assume this?
> 
From paragraph 12.5.2.9 of the standard:
"Note that if there is partial or complete overlap between the actual 
arguments associated with two different dummy arguments of the same procedure,
the overlapped portions must not be defined, redefined, or become undefined
during the execution of the procedure."
Michel
-- 
| Michel OLAGNON                       email : Michel.Olagnon@ifremer.fr|
| IFREMER: Institut Francais de Recherches pour l'Exploitation de la Mer|
| Centre de Brest - B.P. 70                     phone : +33-02-9822 4144|
| F-29280 PLOUZANE - FRANCE                     fax   : +33-02-9822 4135|
| http://www.ifremer.fr/ditigo/molagnon/molagnon.html                   |

Since the theory of conservation of energy states that: Energy is not
created or destroyed, just transformed from one form to another.  I think
that answers the question indubitably
Todd Matthew Koson  wrote in article
<5572h7$21f@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>...
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : "Art is making something out of nothing and selling it." 
> 
> 

In article , moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>
>     It's not unjustifiable in the least, although you may reject the
>reasoning.  The extrapolation (or interpolation, I'd think) accepts as
>a premise that natural laws function consistently -- which is to say
>that the universe doesn't switch horses in midstream.  You're welcome
>to think differently, but that puts you in the position of claiming it
>operates on one set of principles over _here_, and another one over 
>_there_.  At some velocity, you're saying, the universe switches from 
>Newton to Einstein, and back again going the other way.  So whether
>God is playing craps or anything else, he's playing by two different
>sets of rules, depending on where he happens to be (or rather, on how
>fast he's going).  That's not impossible -- but it's an assumption
>you can't do without.
>
OK, now that the debate becomes more sensible, on one hand, while 
weering off toward irrelevancies on the other, I may join in for a 
short while.  I'll try to keep the math to minimum, don't think I can 
quite avoid it, though.  I'll also try to divide the subject matter to 
few separate parts.
Approximations:
Approximations are used and will continue to be used, constantly.  
There are very few things that can be calculated exactly (not to even 
mention measured).  When you calculate the perimeter of a circle, you 
use pi.  But, in reality you use just an approximation to pi, since 
the number pi itself cannot be represented by any finite number of 
digits.  When you solve a quadratic equation, you've in principle an 
exact formula to do it.  However, the formula involves a square root 
which in most cases, again, cannot be represented by a finite number 
of digits.  So, again, your calculated result is an approximation.  
When your calculator gives you the sine or cosine of an angle, it is 
using an approximation to derive it.  The full formula involves an 
infinite series which would take an infinity of time to sum.  So you 
use a truncated version of the series, just a finite number of terms, 
and throw away the rest.  That's an approximation.
Now, it is in the nature of approximations that they are exactly right 
at a single point, or at most at a limited number of points.  So, if 
we consider anything that is not "exactly right" as being "wrong" then 
an approximation is almost always wrong.  However, that's not the way 
these things are wieved, whether in scientific or in common usage.  
The normal approach is toconsider the approximation "right" if the 
error involved is of no consequence for the issue at hand.  Mind you, 
this involves two things.  First, we've to be able to estimate the 
error (an approximation without an error estimate is worthless).  
Second, there is the matter of "the issue at hand".  different 
situations and applications involve different error tolerance.  in 
some casee an error of 1% is acceptable, in other cases anything 
bigger then 0.00001% is too much.  But there is no conceivable case 
when anything but the exact result is already "wrong"
Approximations in physics:
Once you get from mathematics into physics, there are additional 
errors involved.  Physics relies on measurements which can never be 
performed with infinite accuracy.  Instead of philosophising, lets 
look at the "standard problem" of mechanics which can be formulated as 
follows:
Given all the forces acting on a body as well as its position and 
velocity at some time, calculate its position and velocity at any 
future time.
A theory of mechanics is measured by its ability to achieve the above, 
i.e. to calculate values which will match the measured values at this 
future time.  But:
1)  It is not possible to take into account all the forces acting on a 
given body.  To do this you would've to include, for example, the 
gravitational forces exerted on this body by any other object in the 
universe.  This in term will involve knowing the position and velocity 
of any other body in the univrse (most of which you can't observe and 
you don't know they exist).  Not to mention the random impacts of air 
molecules (assuming the measurement is performed on Earth) on your 
test body.  To take this into account you would have to know the 
future trajectories of all the molecules in the atmosphere.  So you 
would've to solve their equations of motions too.  To make a long 
story short, in order to know the exact force acting on your test
body you would need to know the state of motion of everything in the 
universe.  So, you pick the forces that you know to be relevent, at 
the level of accuracy you care about, and ignore the rest.
2)  The initial position and velocity also cannot be measured with 
infinite accuracy.  During the time you measure them, molecules attach 
themselves to the body or evaporate from its surface.  Electromagnetic 
waves, present everywhere, impact on it and influence the very 
parameters you try to measure.  All these effects are incredibly small 
but, they are non zero and if we consider any result with nonzero 
error to be wrong, then your initial data is wrong.
So, even if by some magic we can be assured that the dynamical theory 
we use is "exact", we still use it with an approximate force and 
approximate initial conditions.  Then, when we want to compare the 
predictions with the results, we've to, again, to measure position and 
velocity and same measurement errors as in (2) are involved again.  
Like it or not, we compare an approiximate calculation with an 
approximate measurement.  And, if within the accuracy of these 
approximations the predictions and the measurements match, we call it 
"right".  That's the only sensible approach.
But, I mentioned abovean "exact" theory.  How can we know that we've 
an exact theory.  The answer is, we cannot.  Since the only way to 
verify the "exactness" of a theory is to compare its predictions with 
measurements, all the approximations above are involved in the 
process.  So the most we can say about a theory is that within 
experimental accuracy it agrees with the data.  That's it and you'll 
never have more.
OK, now that we got this stuff out of the way, we can talk about 
classical mechanics versus relativity.  Now, I don't subscribe to the 
notion mentioned by some that maybe within the realm of small 
velocities relativity is "switched off" and classical mechanics 
becomes an "exact theory".  I agree with you that the idea that there 
are two different sets of rules shouldn't be taken seriously.  There 
is no reason to doubt that relativity superceeds classical mechanics 
globally.
However, it is also true that over a broad range of physical 
parameters the results given by classical mechanics and relativity are 
extremely close.  In fact over most of the range that is of practical 
interest to us, the results are experimentally indistinguishable.  
This already suffices to classify classical mechanics as an excellent 
approximation to relativity over a broad range.  And an approximation 
isn't "wrong", it just is "inexact".
This however still doesn't mean that much.  If relativity would 
consist of abandoning all or most of the notions of classical 
mechanics and buikding from scratch then you could claim that in 
principle classical mechanics is wrong and it just happens to yield 
good results over some region due to a lucky coincidence.  This is not 
the case however.  Relativity carries over almost all the notions of 
classical mechanics, intact.  It changes exactly one aspect, the issue 
of transformations between reference frames and even this one is 
changed in such way that classical mechanics resides within relativity 
as a special or limiting (sorry, couldn't avoid it) case.  Thus by all 
rights relativity can be considered a generalization of classical 
mechanics.
So, where does it leave us.  Is classical mechanics "right".  No, not 
quite.  Is it "wrong".  Again, no.  It is a limited scope theory, 
which is useful in its own right within some (significant) range of 
physical parameters and serves as an excellent foundation for theories 
of more general scope.  Quite a far cry from being simply "wrong" in 
my opinion.
Now, you may argue that all this doesn't matter and as far as you're 
concerned anything that's not exactly "right" is "wrong".  If such is 
the case then you demand from science a religious certitude, andyou 
can argue the issue with Gordon, not with me.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>Told you he was looking for trouble.  The list of things that 
>Bill's guys can think of is not only finite but very limited.
You bet! And the list of things they do *not (cannot) think of is not only
infinite, but 'Ben Gurion'.
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Dr. Arcane (arcane@cybercom.net) wrote:
: I've asked this question before, but I never got a good response..
: 
: You have something.. say an electron.. you bounce the sucker off something,
: with a 50% chance its going to the left, or 50% that its going to the right
: (yes, I know the problems with trying to 'aim' electrons, but anyway)..
: I've read that this creates a probability wave, showing the two outcomes,
: but upon observation it resolves itself into a particle on the left, or
: the right... Quantum physics fans would say that the particle does not
: exist until you look, and then it is collapsed from its 'wave' form
: into the fun little particle.... I just find this idea kind of silly.
: I understand the applications of quantum physics in stuff like the two
: slit experiment or polarization experiments.. but this.. just doesnt
: seem to fit in.. You flip a coin.. it could be 50%, 50% either way, true
: but to say that the coin face only comes into existance in this case
: seems odd.  The way I see it, YOU dont know which is which until YOU
: look.. but how does this effect the coin or electron...  And a probability
: wave just means you dont know yet.. I just fail to understand how this 
: example of the ricocheting electron is supposed to prove anything.
: The way I see it is, its there, you just havent looked.  All it is saying
: is that theres a 50% chance, and once you'll look you know.. 
: I am by no means an expert on the subject, and I'd really appreciate
: responses.. 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..  
IMO the two slit experiment makes the chief point more clearly. The
interference effect is explained only by waves, by the particle going thru
both slits, and yet this works even for just one electron - which shows up
at one spot - i.e. like a particle - in any individual experiment. So a
probability wave definitely is NOT just a matter of not knowing yet. 
A wave of not knowing interferes with itself. Yes, it's very
counter-intuitive, non-sensical even. That's why 70 years after the
mathematics of QM was worked out (and proven itself handsomely) its
interpretation is still a matter of raging debate.
-Dave D.

--- quoting NOTABLE 20TH-CENTURY SCIENTISTS ---
   HEWISH
 It crossed the minds of some of the team members that perhaps the
pulses were being transmitted by alien beings, or "little green men,"
as they termed them. Believing that if the press was notified of the
team's investigation, journalists and reporters would descend en masse
upon the observatory, Hewish kept the work quiet....
   On February 24, 1968, Hewish, along with his colleagues at the
observatory, finally published a paper in the journal NATURE detailing
their findings;...
   .... however, both Thomas Gold .. and Franco Pacini proposed that
pulses are caused by beams of radiation that pour out from spinning
neutron stars, which measure several kilometers across and contain a
mass greater than that of the sun.
--- end quoting NOTABLE 20TH-CENTURY SCIENTISTS ---
  This recent conjecture of mine is perhaps the second most important
science conjecture I have ever entertained. After the 231PU theory,
this idea is of immense importance because should we be far behind in
the level of intelligent life, our whole attitude and outlook on life
changes.
  I could spend some time discussing on how little guidelines are given
for science priorities of our present society. We spend so much money
time and resources on minor things such as the "what caused the
Dinosaur extinction" or the huge amounts spent on high energy particle
physics all for what? to chase an illusive Higgs particle which
promises nothing once found.
  I should spend some time discussing the pragmatics of science
priorities.
   Suppose most pulsars are some EM cobalt nickel stars, some heavy
element stars but suppose just 1% of the pulsars are Aliens
communicating. How much more advanced would they be over us in order to
enable them to build machines that can mimic the pulsing of natural
physical EM stars?
  The question here is , how important of a fact is it that there exist
Advanced Aliens and that we can learn about them? Is this knowledge of
greater importance than how the Dinosaurs died? I say immensely more
important. And is the knowledge of Advanced Aliens far more important
than chasing the Higgs boson, again I say definitely yes.
  The point I am making is that weigh the relevant importance of
something in science with how much time and money should be spent on
it. In this light, supposing there is but a tiny chance that some
pulsar is Alien Advanced communication. Even with that tiny chance, the
huge, the extraordinarily large importance such a fact makes on us,
dictates and demands that we apply diligent, painstaking time and money
and research into the question of whether anyone of these pulsars is in
fact Advanced Aliens.
  Due to its huge importance, estimates of what form of communication,
what frequencies, what the actual messages may be saying, what type of
physics machinery would make these pulses should be explored fully. We
should go into these projects with the attitude that Advanced Aliens
exist, until we can find evidence that we are  the most advanced
creatures.
  Now reading the above selection on Hewish, made me to think that such
could be a true accounting of history. But there is one fact that
stands out in the history of biology and physics and that fact is that
one science is never far behind, if ever, from the other.  Call it Bio
complements Physics, or Bio lock step in progress with Physics. Notice
that the battery was made from electric eel and frogs legs research.
Thereby, pulsars, for the most part are natural physical processes such
as EM on cobalt-nickel star cores or heavy lead-uranium star cores etc.
However, the most advanced life would have studied these pulsar stars
and imitated them to the point of building a machine that would imitate
them. Then they used these machines to communicate to other aliens. It
is impossible for life as we know it to travel at the speed of light.
So rather than to visit in person your neighbors at 10,000 light years
away, it is easier to pulse them.
   Reading the Hewish selection makes me think that if governments
wanted to study pulsers for alien life messages, governments would want
to arrest the pulsar data from the general public and study it in
secrecy. So a ruse would be used to placate the general public and to
say they are "neutron stars". This way, secret govt agencies control
the data of "pulsars advanced aliens" leaving the scientists with the
wild goose chase of a neutron baloney with their general public cow
towed by the scientists. And should any scientists become wise to the
fact that some of these pulsars are better seen as alien communication
then the government agency simply discredits the scientist as a 'gone
loco weed'. In this sense, it would not do the general public much good
if they knew that some pulsars are Advanced Aliens, they would cause
panic and hysteria.
  I am not saying that it is a bad thing that the govt takes over the
"research into pulsar = Advanced Aliens". The government would offer a
controlled and orderly news release of the facts. The problem would be
for the govt to ever release any of the facts for they may have the
propensity to never release the facts until it is far far too late.
Another good aspect of the govt controlling the studies of pulsars is
that they could spend money as they saw fit, being that money was no
obstacle. Here one can envision that should the US govt agency find a
pulse that is repeating in 6 different pulsars and the message is one
element 231@94 being pulsed between these 6 stars. Then the govt can
afford to set up a supercomputer and listen closely to those 6 pulsars.
  If the 231PU theory is correct, then advanced life would have
discovered this theory a long time ago and would be using that theory
name as the opening lines of introduction to other advanced aliens.
  If we get a pulsing machine up, what wisdom would we use as a letter
of introduction? Of course, our most comprehensive theory of all---
Atom Totality and we would pulse 231*94 throughout the sky for other
advanced aliens to respond in like kind. Once we establish letter of
introduction with another,then we would pulse new and more information
with that particular contact.
  Plutonium in us , Atom Plutonium
  Thus , shall we never die,
  But live with thee,
  Part in thy Electron infinity
  Part in thy Proton divinity
  Atom

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: >>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. 
: >A little misunderstanding; "reasonable," as I understand Zeleny (and 
: >myself) here refers to the adequacy of the interpretation. But you would 
: >really have to address Michael; he suggested the plural.
: Will your dissimulation never cease?  I can reasonably interpret
: Anton's point as consistent with my hypothesis.  I cannot reasonably
: interpret your reply as having anything to do with his question.
I will never cease to perplex you, apparently; it was not what I 
intended, however. You spoke of several "reasonable interpretations of 
Derrida," all of them, according to you, incompatible with Einstein. This 
seemed to confuse Anton, who, I think, thought that "reasonable 
interpretation" meant to denote "reasonable interpretations of Einstein 
by Derrida."
	The question of whether there can be more than one reasonable 
interpretation of a given text, I take to be trolling.
Silke

In article <5523np$an1@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
rakehell@cats.ucsc.edu (Jesse   Matonak) writes:
> 
> Israel has targeted Princeton Univ. as a synagogue region.
> The next leg precisely, though artful is a Jewish president of the USA.
> Wiles accepted the Wolf prize upon rejection of his Anglican upbringing.
> (That is to say, it _is_ an art.)
> I got a chance to hear Wiles here at Santa Cruz.
  You sound more like a bigot than a student. And I had thought of
Santa Cruz as a backwater of USA education.
  Do you even know what a p-adic is?
   Say there Jesse, give us the arctan of 7-adic ...565656.

In article <559sgb$4n8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com (LBsys) writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>Told you he was looking for trouble.  The list of things that 
>>Bill's guys can think of is not only finite but very limited.
>
>You bet! And the list of things they do *not (cannot) think of is not only
>infinite, but 'Ben Gurion'.
>
Now, I wonder how many readers will get this.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

NEW BOOK: 
WHERE IS EVERYBODY? THE SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE
Excuse this "commercial", but our latest book is so relevant to this 
news group that I thought that many people would like to know about 
it. Here goes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEWS RELEASE . . . NEWS RELEASE . . . NEWS RELEASE
Are we really alone in the Universe? The recent exciting discoveries 
by NASA scientists of the first evidence of life on Mars begins to 
bridge the gap between science fiction and science fact, giving new 
urgency to our questions. How different from ourselves would 
intelligent life be on other worlds? Might we be able to receive 
broadcasts from alien civilisations? All the issues raised are 
addressed by the timely publication of "Where is Everybody?: the 
Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (ISBN: 1 85058 576 8) by 
Edward Ashpole. The book is published on 28th October by Sigma Press 
and the price is not at all astronomical - just  6.95.
"Where is Everybody?" examines our reasons for thinking that life is 
a universal phenomenon. Edward Ashpole, who lives in Pembrokeshire, 
UK, has been a science correspondent for 30 years and is a member of 
the Association of British Science Writers. He believes that his book 
opens up our thinking about the ways that astronomers are searching 
for possible evidence of ET. He says, "If we examine the science that 
is currently available to us, we have to conclude that possible 
evidence of ET could equally well be within the Solar System as out 
there amongst the stars."
This is a book for the general reader - no prior knowledge is 
required and absolutely no mathematics. Edward presents his readers 
with a wide range of scientific evidence and introduces some new 
ideas based on this. All of the recent developments and advances have 
been examined and are presented in a clear, readable form. There are 
clear diagrams - many of the illustrations have been downloaded 
directly from Internet web sites provided by NASA.
The prospect that we may not be unique may be exciting or disturbing, 
but with further discoveries seeming inevitable, this is the book 
that no one with an interest in life and intelligence in the universe 
can afford to miss.
                         ---ENDS---
Note to Editors: Author available for interview (phone Edward 
Ashpole: 01834 831522). Copies of this book available for review and 
as competition prizes.
Press Contact at Sigma: Annie Eastwood:
Tel: 01625 531035; Fax: 01625 536800; E-mail: sigma.press@zetnet.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SPECIAL OFFER!
The book costs UKP6.95 and we normally add UKP2.00 for post & packing 
in the UK (UKP4.00 elsewhere). 
Until the end of November, the deal is:
UKP6.95 - POST FREE TO UK PURCHASERS
UKP8.95 - BY AIRMAIL OUTSIDE THE UK
Payment by credit card or Sterling cheques.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- 
.............................................................................
           SIGMA PRESS - One of Britain's Brightest Publishers!
  E-mail: sigma.press@zetnet.co.uk  | Web site: http://www.sigmapress.co.uk
           Tel: (44) (0)1625 531035 |  Fax: (44) (0)1625 536800
    Snail Mail: 1 South Oak Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 6AR, UK
.............................................................................
.          PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW WEB SITE NAME - COME & VISIT US!             .
.............................................................................

Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
> 
> Jan Pavek (p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de) wrote:
> : Around a light beam, can there be meassured or is there predicted a kind
> : of a field?
> :
> :  Jan
> 
> Light *is* a field: an electromagnetic field (both E and B).
> 
> --
> 
> Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu)
> ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
> http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
Yes, yes that's right! But around it maybe "far" away? With a field
there is always a force, so is also here a force?
 Jan
---
I know I'm not a brainy one, but I'm working on it!
Jan Pavek \|\*(:-)
Email: p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
URL:   http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke
"Why don't we see it as it is? A flower, a tree, a mountain, a bee ..."
"Do you realize the power of the dream?..."

Ken Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
: >Ken Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: >: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
: >: >In article <54tfsp$4qa@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com 
: >: >(Ken Seto) wrote:
: >: >Tsk, Tsk!  Comparing different reference frames again, are 
: >: >we?  This will get confusing every time.  BTW, who decides 
: >: >which reference frame is the "standard"?  If there are only 
: >: >to objects in the universe, and they are moving relative to 
: >: >each other, which one is actually moving, and which one is at 
: >: >rest?  Or are they both moving (if so, what are you using to 
: >: >determine this)?
: >: Tsk, Tsk! It doesn't matter, what ever frame you choose to be standard
: >: as long as you choose one and stick with it. There is no confusion. It
: >: is much better than the concept that different frame have different
: >: duration for a second. "to objects" what is that?:-). Do you mean two
: >: objects? Again it doesn't matter what you choose for standard as long
: >: as you choose one and stick with it.
: >: >
: >: >The point is this - relativity was constructed such that 
: >: >there is no standard reference frame.  Until people come to 
: >: >grips with this, they will continue to try comparing 
: >: >different reference frames to each other, with invariably 
: >: >confusing results.
: >: Einstein constructed SRT to satisfy Maxwell's physics which implies
: >: that  the light speed is constant in the earth frame.
: >No, ALL frames.  Maxwell's equations specify no frame, which implies all 
: >frames are equivalent.
: That's the normal interpretation.  But according to the variable
: light-speed concept, Maxwell's equation will give different
: light-speeds in different frame and mu and epsilon will have different
: value in different frame as follows:
:              Mu (in other frames)= Mu (earth frame)*Sqrt(1-V^2/C^2)
:   Where V =relative velocity  between the other frame and the earth
No model incorporating variable light speed can be compatible with 
Maxwell's Equations, which predict a single, fixed speed of light which 
is a characteristic of the universe.
: >: However,
: >: Einstein interpreted this as  that  light speed is constant in all
: >: frames. To maintain this, he was forced to go the route of time
: >: dilation in combination with length contraction. This combination is
: >: not natural and the length contraction  is assumed. Whereas, the
: >: variable light-speed concept is natural--you can see objects traveling
: >: at different speeds all the time.
: >But under no circumstnaces has lightspeed been observed to vary.
: The only place where we had measured light speed is the earth frame.
There can be no such frame.
: Perhaps you are confused the earth measurements with the observed
: phenomena that the light-speed is source independent which in itself
: indicates that light has a constant speed but this constant speed is
: not the c as measured on earth.
Why do you demand that measuring a constant speed for light doesn't 
indicate that the speed of light is constant?
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawrence Crowl (crowl@philmont.eng.sun.com) wrote:
: In article <3277DC9D.60CE@cs.purdue.edu>,
: Markus Kuhn   wrote:
: >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?
: Actually, 12 = 2*2*3.  It is evenly divisible by the first three
: non-trivial integers, 2, 3, and 4.  It is also divisible by 6.  (The
: square of 12, 144 is also divisible by 8 and 9.)  A base of 12 allows
: you to divide evenly by the most common small factors.
: The next small factor is 5, and to include it would result in a base of
: 60 (the Babylonian base).  Unfortunately, the addition and
: multiplication tables are hard to remember (3600) entries each.
Consider 30 = 2*3*5, I know 1/4 is a 2 digit 'tridecimal' fraction (0.7F) 
rather than a 1 digit '6decimal' fraction (0.F). But it has a much
smaller multiplication table (only 900 entries).
If I recall correctly the babylonean system was actually represented as
pairs of base 6 and base 10 digits so perhaps one could get away with 196 =
6*6 + 10*6 + 10*10 entries (I will have to think about that number).
--
Stephen Baynes                              Stephen.Baynes@soton.sc.philips.com
Philips Semiconductors Ltd                  
Southampton                                 +44 (01703) 316431
United Kingdom                              My views are my own.
 Are you using ISO8859-1? Do you see © as copyright, ÷ as division and ˝ as 1/2?

In article <55220c$aku@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
rakehell@cats.ucsc.edu (Jesse   Matonak) writes:
> See "grapes, sour."  Andy Wiles could not have stayed at Princeton
> for long after his first gap, if it had not been "faked-over".
> Nope, religion would have faked-over and fudged over his gap,
> and sure enough the newspapers would have ignored all 
> evidence to the contrary. Math has the power to corrupt
> absolutely in our modern times. But what do I know, I am only
> a loud-mouthed schnook here at Santa Cruz
Oh, Jesse, I don't think your a little know nothing schnook, I think
you do at least know what the arctan of the 11-adic  
....1413121110987654321. is. Don't you?

In article <553flo$896@earth.njcc.com>
nahay@pluto.njcc.com (John Nahay) writes:
> 
> Precisely because of the difficulty, the rewards are greater for physics 
> and engineering. Mr. Alfred Nobel of the Nobel prizes recognized that 
> mathematics is a huge waste of time for such a dismal little return.  He 
> thus awarded no math Nobel. You have to have coke-bottle thick glasses
> to wear in mathematics (look like me) and be as bewildered about the true 
> world. I am all lost in my little make believe math world. Now for a 
> glass of Pepsi.
  This is a big problem of people who go into math for a career, just
simply cannot see the forest for the trees, and their Net appearances
vouch this blind spot. You sound like early school burnout Nahay. Join
the Marines where numbers matter.

In article <54s1s6$30s@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
 > These are the transformations of going from one geometry to another.
 > To map  R -> L:  make the radius imaginary
 > To map  L -> R:  undo imaginary radius
 > To map  E -> R:   theta{R} = theta{E},  r{R} = tan r{E}
 > To map  R -> E:   theta{E} = theta{R},  r{E} = arctan r{R}
 > To map  E -> L:   theta{L} = theta{E},  r{L} = tanh r{E}
 > To map  L -> E:   theta{E} = theta{L},  r{E} = arctanh r{L}
Notice the graphs of the above four trig functions.
 We can see discreteness,  quantization in the tangent graph
  Each branch of the tan graph is a discrete separate particle
 We can also sort of see positive curvature in each of those tan
branches.
  Now inspect the hyperbolic tangent graph. Can we see Lobachevskian
geometry in that graph?
  If i is a 90 degree turn of Reals, what is arctan compared to tan,
and what is tanh compared to tan? And what is tanh compared to arctanh?
All important questions for we want to penetrate into the heart of what
these 3 distinct geometries are. These geometries are the heart of
atoms for electrons are mostly space and space is geometry.
  The history of what is current geometry and mathematics has been one
of less than proud achievement. One only needs to look at what present
day math people consider Riemannian, Lobachevskian and Euclidean
geometry. In summary of 1993 mathematics for geometry it is this--- no
math person before me ever thought that Riemannian and Lobachevskian
geometry had their own unique coordinate system. All math people before
me thought that the Reals and the Complex could be used for modelling
Riem and Loba geometries. Noone before me realized that Riemannian
geometry intrinsic coordinate system was the All-adics. Noone before me
realized that the Doubly Infinites were the intrinsic numbers that make
the Lobachevskian geometry.
  But this is an important point in math also, that great important
discoveries in math take millenium to get there proper due. Whereas an
equally important discovery in physics or biology will reap their just
rewards in a decade. That is why I now just post my math, let the
milleniums prove me correct and spend the majority of my time over in
the ** important ** subjects of physics and biology and the sciences
where great discoveries are treated in a timely manner.
  The future of mathematics is dark and bleak. What will happen to her?
She will find out that P-adics are essential in some field of physics
where the Finite Integers simply fail. When news of this reverberates
around the world, it will be shortly thereafter that much of the sand
castle proofs that mathematics has relied on will all cave in. You see,
Naturals = Infinite Integers will clean house of mathematics. And when
it is swept clean, math will no longer be a separate subject.  HOORAY,
for math will then be were it true belongs --- a mere sub-subject of
physics and math will foreever thence lie as a subdepartment of
physics. Mathematics, on the day that physics shows where the P-adics
are necessary ( my guess is the Quantized Hall Effect) and the Finite
Integers inadequate is the day that science liberated itself, pulled
the excalibre out of the anvil and freed itself of mathematics, and
showed itself as King over mathematics. And on that day, mathematics
will scrub and clean itself up, for it will forever hencefoward be in
tune with experiments that all the sciences are in tune with. But
somehow, math has been this naughty , errant boy of more than 2
thousand years. Why, math has even taken on the aura of religion.