Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 15:54:24 GMT
Stowewrite (stowewrite@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <559bcp$r9e@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
: (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >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.
:
: >Your Zeleny imitations are quite boring. You should stick to ethnic
: slurs.
: >
: >S.
: While you're on the subject of mocking foreigners for their poor use of
: English, might I point out that it's "proof" and not "prove"? The former
: is a noun, the latter a verb. I assume you were indulging in a bit of
: postmodern irony.
That's a very uninformed comment; I was truly curious; I have, eh,
corresponded with Kagalenko for quite a while; he usually is in control
of his articles, and I was wondering what stylistic choice he was taking
in this one. I'm a foreigner myself. You also seem to have missed quite a
lot of ethnic slurs Kagalenko has in the past directed at me.
I suggest you are speaking out of honorable intentions, but on the basis
of ignorance of the history of these remarks.
Silke
: Sam Stowe
: "Earth to Fred, Earth to Fred...
: Ahhh, come in, Congressman..."
: -- Tag line from a t.v. ad run by
: Democratic challenger David Price
: against incumbent U.S. Congressman
: Fred Heineman (Fourth District,
: North Carolina). Last year, Heineman
: enraged thousands of his constituents
: when he insisted publicly that his $100,000+
: annual salary and pension placed him in
: the "lower middle class."
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: mbk@bu.edu (Mark B. Kraft)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 16:11:15 GMT
G*rd*n (gcf@panix.com) wrote:
>Are we barking up the wrong tree, however? It may not be
>difficult to understand Newton, at least intuitively,
>without Calculus, but maybe the message of science isn't
>Newton. Patrick pointed out the difference between modern
>and ancient war, and likewise there's a difference between
>modern and classical (e.g. Newtonian) science. For all I
>know modern scientists shovel math the way I shovel stupid
>C code. Or maybe they don't. Maybe the claims about
>math are just a way of keeping the unsanctified out of the
>temple. That's what I'm trying to find out.
But there isn't any temple. All of physics is freely available in
bookstores and libraries, and all the math it uses is just as available
in textbooks from the most elementary imaginable level on up. Are you
seriously suggesting that the physics community has spent the last
three hundred years deliberately concocting mathematical obscurities
just to keep the unanointed at bay? Why? Wouldn't it have been better
just to keep the methods a secret and only reveal specific results,
preferably in return for money?
Wouldn't someone have uncovered the secret behind the math by now and
have produced a nice, talky version that doesn't need any math but
still works just as well? What would it even mean to be able to produce
measurable results without mathmatics? Or is it just that some kinds of
math are suspect: geometry is ok, calculus is not; arithmetic is ok,
group theory is not; etc?
Honestly, I just don't understand what is driving your quest here.
Physicists are only trying to find the patterns in the observable
world. If some kind of mathematical representation of things we can
observe appears to interconnect them and allow us to predict others,
isn't it then a reasonable working hypothesis to take that as a proper
representation of how nature works? Anyone is free to reformulate it,
simplify it, restate it in nonmathematical terms, or replace it with
something entirely different, but it still has to pass the original test
that it matches up with observation. There's no mystery here. Since you
feel you can understand Newton's work intuitively, maybe you can put
together a math-free version that gives the same results. No
hand-waving allowed, of course. It has to be just as rigorously logical
from end to end.
Are you sure the real problem isn't that you start with something
like the following set of givens:
1) I'm smart.
2) I don't know much math.
3) A smart person should be able to understand science.
4) I can't understand physics books because they're full of math.
and conjecture that:
Physics is being deliberately and unnecessarily obscured with math.
============================================
M.B.Kraft, PhD
Any opinions I express are, at most, my own.
============================================
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 15:41:06 GMT
In talk.origins +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
>| >| As once again the post-modern idiots leap into the fray.
>
>g*rd*n:
>| >I guess it's impossible for you to keep a civil tongue
>| >in your head.
>
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
>| It's possible, it's simply neither necessary nor appropriate.
>
>I doubt it. As I've pointed out before, the incivility of
>the science campers is authoritarian in style. If so, it is
>likely to want frequent exercise. On the other hand, it
>might come from ignorance, in which case it will be
>repeated by accident. In any case, it's been one of the
>constant ingredients of these discussions.
>
>I'm not complaining; it's grist for one of my mills. You
>can keep up the good work if you like. If you don't,
>someone else will.
Gordon, does Patrick's incivility come from a different source than,
say, Moggin's? It would seem to me more a personality issue than a
philosophical one. Or do you think that there is a strong relationship
between these kind of personality aspects and philosophical
orientation?
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 15:41:09 GMT
In talk.origins mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
[snip]
>]Your Zeleny imitations are quite boring. You should stick to ethnic slurs.
>
> Gee, that's funny, someone from a country which is famous for
> producing more murdered people per capita than any other, as
> well as starting both world wars, complains about "ethnic slurs".
Let me see if I understand your point. Silke can be considered a
member of a group (German's I assume). Other members of this group
have grouped people by ethnic background. Therefore Silke can't
complain or point out when others do this as well. Somehow this does
not make sense. If you accept the ethnic grouping, then say so. But
don't use ethnic reasoning to deny someone else the right to object to
the same.
It was not the German people who committed those atrocities. It was a
large number of horrible people who were German. To put the blame on
the German's is to give Hitler another victory.
(BTW, as a minor point, Germany did not start WWI.)
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 15:52:45 GMT
Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@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.
: Watch Weineck wriggle.
I think you'll have some trouble selling that hypothesis... I still
wonder about the articles, though.
: Gee, that's funny, you seem to have no
shame whatsoever.
??
: ]: ]: ]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).
: I guess that this is extremely convenient position to take.
Actually, it's quite a common position in the academy: read, then talk.
I'm glad I was able to introduce you to it.
: ]: ]: 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.
: Gee, that's funny, someone from a country which is famous for
: producing more murdered people per capita than any other, as
: well as starting both world wars, complains about "ethnic slurs".
I see you took my advice.
Silke
: --
: LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
: -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 15:56:08 GMT
Hardy Hulley (hoh@rmb.co.za) wrote:
: Michael Zeleny:
: >>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 ...
: Silke-Maria Weineck:
: > And you still haven't told us what you think that means.
: You seem to be having a little trouble here, so I'll help you out. Let's
: concentrate on "The Einsteinian constant is not a constant..." for a
: moment. Either this sentence is to be analysed by applying the common
: interpretations from within physics and mathematics (in which case it is
: certainly false), or else it is simply gibberish (since "Einsteinian
: constant" has no known interpretation outside of physics).
: The rest of the above extract is vapid. In my opinion, Derrida missed
: his vocation as a random word generator (... or perhaps he didn't).
: Glad I could help,
I'm afraid you couldn't; distorting the quote won't help. Derrida
corrects "constant" to "center" -- and if you want to understand the
sentence, you will have to know what "center" means in the context of
Structure, Sign, and Play. Which means you'll have to, gasp. read it.
Next, please.
Silke
: Hardy
: hardy@icon.co.za
: hoh@rmb.co.za
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: "Todd K. Pedlar"
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 09:58:11 -0600
lucyhaye@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Todd K. Pedlar on 1996/10/29 wrote: Please sees his e-mail in this section.
>
> I explain to him a few months ago the same thing very carefully and in detail > but he insists in the same mistake.
> He cannot understand a few very simple questions:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Lucy. You will get nowhere
insulting peoples' intelligence. You sound like Bob Dole: "Don't you
see that I'm the right man for the job, you stupid voters?" You'll gain
no supporters if you insult us as you have. Perhaps you should rethink
your approach.
>
> 1.) The third particle is "needed" because SR fails to conserve momentum and
> energy in a Neutron decay into Proton-Electron. There is not any physical
> reason for the third particle.
This is certainly debatable. I will grant you that without the
neutrino, the
energy and momentum in beta decay are not conserved.
>
> 2.) As AD conserve energy and momentum the third particle in unnecessary.
The debate however is over whether AD conserves energy and momentum. I
think
you make this statement too hastily.
>
> 3.) The Electron Spectrum is explained because the energy distribution between > Electron and Proton is going from zero to the maximum energy available, that
> in first approximation is the mass difference
> before and after decay.
My point was then, and is now, Lucy, that the electron in beta decay
CANNOT
take on different values of energy, IF YOU CLAIM that the neutron decays
into only the proton and electron. In this case, NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM
OF
KINEMATICS YOU CHOOSE, the electron and proton can each take on ONE and
ONLY
ONE energy. Otherwise, ENERGY and MOMENTUM are NOT CONSERVED.
>
> Regarding the Pion decay into Muon is explained perfectly by AD. There is >program in basic to calculate it, no bla, bla as you are doing.
Keep your comments to yourself. I can write a program in basic to show
that
1 + 1 = 9. A program in basic shows nothing.
Second, the pion cannot decay into a muon alone. The mathematics is
simple.
You cannot conserve energy and momentum if there is one body before the
decay and one body of different mass after the decay.
Suppose the pion is travelling through our laboratory at some velocity
beta.
It has therefore a particular value of momentum p and energy E. Its
rest mass is of course 140 MeV, as usual.
Poof! It decays as AD says it should into a muon alone.
However, the rest mass of the muon is different - 106 MeV.
A) If we are to conserve momentum, then the muon has to have the same
momentum as the pion did, p. Via whatever theory you like to use, this
means that the Energy of the muon has to be different. A muon with
momentum
p has different energy than a pion with that same momentum p. Therefore
if
you conserve momentum you do not conserve energy.
B) If instead we choose to start by applying the conservation of
Energy,
then the muon has the same energy E as did the pion before it decayed.
However, a muon with energy E and a pion with the same energy E must
have
different momenta. Therefore, if you conserve energy you cannot
conserve
momentum.
Nobody from the AD camp has ever addressed this issue with me, except by
asserting that pions cant decay in vacuum. In order to conserve energy
and momentum, they always state that the pion exchanges some momentum
with
the surrounding atoms, or something, and therefore they say that decays
can't happen in vacuum.
This is bunk. We operate in a vacuum of 10^-10 Torr, and particles
decay
left and right in our experiment. AD will have to do better than that
explanation.
ANOTHER POINT: You claim that AD reproduces the energy spectrum of the
electron in beta decay. You claim that beta decay is represented by the
process
NUCLEUS -> DIFFERENT NUCLEUS + ELECTRON
Nuclei also decay by emission of a photon in the process
NUCLEUS -> DIFFERENT NUCLEUS + PHOTON
However, as anyone involved with particle physics can tell you, the
energy
spectrum of the photon is a spike. The energy spectrum of the electron
in
beta decay is widely spread out bump. Why, if the two processes are
kinematically identical (as AD CLAIMS) are the spectra different?
NO AD person has ever explained this one to me either.
>
> What I cannot understand until today is how he is involve with a Nuclear &
> Particle Group if he didn't understand the most simple question.
Lay off it already. I don't insult your intelligence, so please refrain
from
doing the same. Are you paid to be AD's attack dog?
Seriously, though: I'm afraid that you haven't taken the time to answer
a
simple question as I have posed above. In every one of your posts, you
do one of two things:
Insult the SR supporter's intelligence.
Simply say "AD is correct. SR is wrong".
Mere repetition of dogma does not constitute proof of a theory.
Sincerely and seriously yours,
Todd Pedlar
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern University - FNAL E835
Nuclear & Particle Physics Group
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (708) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 2 highschool physics problem
From: ellen3444@aol.com (Ellen3444)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 12:03:15 -0500
I am having trouble in my physics class, and I was hoping some one could
answer the following questions, taken verbatim from my book.
1] It is a known fact, included in every book on safe driving, that
as the speed of the car increases, the distance needed to stop
the car increases as the square of the speed. Explain why.
Though this seems logical, and I know that f=1/d^2, and that KE=(1/2)MV^2,
and that KE must be conserved. Still, I can't quite seem to connect with
the exact answer.
2] There is an inclined plane that strikes the ground at a 37 degree
angle and is 25m long. It is found by experiment that a force of 70
N (rather than 60 N) is required to move a 10 kg mass at a constant
velocity up the plane. What is the PE of the 10 kg mass at the top
of the plane?
I know 2 ways to find PE: fd and mgh. The latter won't work because I
don't know how high the mass is. So, I must use force times distance. Now,
the way the question is worded, I figured that 10 N of force (70-60) were
lost to friction. Then, with force = 60 N and d = 25m, it is easy to
determine PE. My question, really, is with the symantics of the problem.
It "70 N (rather than 60 N)" as if there was a way to determine that it
would take 60 N and that I would have already done the calculation. How
would you determine that the process took 60 N without knowing already
what the PE would be at the top (because to know that you would have to
know the height of the plane).
I am sorry to bother you, but my physics teacher is sick and we have a sub
that doesn't know anything, but we still have to take the tests and there
is no one at my house who can remember all of this stuff. Please e-mail me
any answers.
ellen
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 17:16:39 GMT
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>>>That is clearly wrong. You just empty millenia of hermeneutics and
>>>exegesis of meaning. Plato's dialogues make this point very clear:
>>>philosophy is, in its essence, revocation, palinodic to the core --
>>>paraphrase of paraphrase that requires, in order to arrive a truth, a
>>>transcendental leap of faith.
>>And what makes you think that he emptied it, rather than it being
>>empty from the beginning?
>A transcendental leap of faith, naturally.
If that is what it takes to fool you into fancying that your critical
vocation does not redound to obstructionist and obfuscatory verbigeration.
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)
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 16:10:37 GMT
savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>In article <55ale1$g4q@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>wrote:
>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <557r0t$5os@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>> If you think this receding motion happens regardless of direction,
>>>>>you are obviously wrong, unless you are describing something that is
>>>>>alien to me. Here's a simple diagram of a possible scenario:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><---absolute direction of motion of target and source in E-Matrix
>>>>
>>>>>[light source]------------photon------------------>[target]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Does this look like the target is receding (moving away) from the
>>>>>photon to you?
>>>>
>>>>Here you are saying that the MMX apparatus (source and target) are
>>>>moving in the opposite direction of their own absolute motion whcih is
>>>>impossible.
>>
>>Louis, hopefully the following will help:
>>> Huh? Are you trying to make me look like a fool with such a dumb
>>>statement, Ken? Otherwise I'm beginning to suspect that I'm seriously
>>>wasting my time here.
>>
>>>No, he's saying, in effect, "let the light source be at the front of
>>>the train, not at the back of the train"; or alternatively "what
>>>happens when you rotate the apparatus by 180 degrees?".
>>
>>Consider the following:
>>
>>!. The structure of the E-Matrix --everywhere you look is the same,
>>2. Lights are waves in the E-Strings of the E-Matrix
>>3. The translational and rotational vector components of the MMX
>>apparatus in the horizontal plane making it insensitive to direction.
>>4. There is no front of the train or back of the train in the MMX
>>apparatus as in your example.
> That's plain nonsense, Ken. Either your E-Matrix theory is based on
>absolute motion or it isn't. Even if it isn't, (although you assured
>everyone that it is) once you select an inertial frame and observe an
>object in motion relative to that frame, there is definitely a front
>and a back when it comes to the observed motion.
Louis I have been civil with you throughout our discussion. But if you
continue the discussion in this demeaning way I suggest that we end
the discussion now. Your logic is based on an observer not in the
frame of the MMX apparatus. Within the MMX apparatus there is no front
and back due to the translational and rotational vector components of
the MMX apparatus.
>>5. With this scenario, light can only hit the target by catching up to
>>it. In other words, a light ray that hits the target are always
>>traveling in the direction of absolute motion.
> This is incredible. You just said in item 3 above that the
>apparatus is insensitive to direction and now you're saying that there
>is a direction of absolute motion? Do you do this on purpose? This
>stuff makes sense only to you, Ken. But then again, maybe not. Have
>you ever gotten anyone at all to understand this, let alone agree with
>you? You once wrote that you thought that Brian Jones agreed with
>you. I'm sure he reads these posts. Why hasn't he come to your
>rescue? I haven't seen any post by Brian, or anyone else for that
>matter, to suggest that he might come close to agree with any of this.
Here again you resort to a demeaning way of expressing your
disagreement with me. It puzzles me why you keep on thinking that you
have a more logical mind than everybody in the NET. Well I got news
for you. You are not.
Again, WITHIN THE MMX FRAME the translational and rotational vector
components in combination with the structure of the E-Matrix will
make the MMX apparatus insensitive to the directions of all the lights
that are in the E-Matrix . An observer outside the MMX frame will
observe a geodesic path of absolute motion for the MMX apparatus in
the E-Matrix.
>>[weird stuff about CBR on earth and in space deleted]
Why are you deleting it? Is it because it supports what I said.
>>
>>>>If it's clock slowing, the experiment that I proposed--with different
>>>>clocks facing different directions-- should be able to detect this
>>>>clock slowing.
>>
>>> The direction of the clocks have nothing to do with it. Just the
>>>speed. If the apparatus is moving its clock will slow down.
>>
>>But SR explains the null result of the MMX by postulating different
>>rate of time dilation and length contraction in every direction. So
>>why wouldn't the clocks give different readings by facing the
>>different directions?
> Only length contraction is direction sensitive in SR. Time dilation
>is only speed sensitive and has nothing to do with direction.
Here is proof that you don't know what you are talking about. In SR
both length contraction and time dilation are speed sensitive. In fact
the transformation equations are based purely on speed -- relative
speed and the speed of light. A different direction means a different
relative speed which means a different contracted length and a
different dilated time.
> Ken, you're gonna have to do something real fast because your
>credibility in my eyes (and I'm sure, in the eyes of some of the other
>participants here) is fading at the speed of light. You'll need
>nonlocal interactions and possibly time travel to save what's left of
>it. Sorry. You're beginning to sound like a con artist, Ken, a snake
>oil salesman.
I suggest you bone up on your logic and physics before you go on
criticizing everybody. Believe me ceditbility in your eyes is no big
deal. So don't go pat youself on the back.
> However, you do have one saving grace. Admit you are wrong, go
>rework your E-Matrix theory and come back when you have figured it
>out. In the meantime, you're wasting most everyone's time here. Most
>of us are trying to slowly and painfully improve our understanding of
>reality and life is short. We just can't wade through every weird
>theory in existence. If you think you have something important, fine.
>The problem is that you can't explain it to the rest of us in a way
>that makes any sense. Ask for some help instead of acting like you
>have found the mother lode or something. Maybe you did (though I
>seriously doubt it) but you seem to have forgotten where exactly you
>left it. Just my opinion. I call it like I see it.
From what I see of your theory I am light years ahead of you. So I
guess I will stick with what I have.
>PS. You are doing a disservice to those of us who sincerely believe
>in the existence of absolute motion. With friends like you, who needs
>enemies? What is your real agenda in this forum, Ken Seto?
Are you claiming absolute motion is your to claim? You are more weird
than I thought.
Ken Seto
Subject: Re: Gravity In Intervals?
From: tony richards
Date: 1 Nov 1996 17:15:31 GMT
"Darren Swersky" wrote:
>A beam of light spreads by its distance squared. Therefore, its intensity
>must decrease by its distance squared. At some distance, the beam will be
>so spread out that the individual photons will no longer be touching.
>
Photons are artificial constructs introduced into the theory of electromagnetic interaction
with matter in order to explain,amongst others, the phenomenon whereby EM energy is observed,
apparently (photoelectric effect), to be 'absorbed' by matter in quantised units, rather than
continuously.
This phenomenon is rather like the reverse of radioactive decay, whereby the decay occurs in
quantised units and at 'random' i.e. unpredictable intervals.
No one can predict 'when' (i.e. the exact time that) a photon (or quantum of EM energy) is
absorbed in a process, just as no-one can predict when an atomic nucleus will emit a particle.
Only probabilities of 'photon' absorption or emission can be stated.
Since photons do not necessarily have physical existence, the concept of them 'touching'
is meaningless.
--
Tony Richards 'I think, therefore I am confused'
Rutherford Appleton Lab '
UK '
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: Markus Kuhn
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 13:35:27 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------1D6D17668B6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> Markus Kuhn wrote:
> >What is so exciting about 12 = 3*3*2*2?
> Actually, 12 = 2*2*3.
Oops ... ;-)
> (2) How large are the addition and multiplication tables?
> Learnability and long-term memory problems favor fewer digit
> values.
In a system where the base is a power of two, you do not need any
tables, as conversion to the binary system is trivial and the algorithms
for elementary calculations also do not need any lookup tables.
> (3) How many distinct small factors does the base have?
> Commerce favors selling in quantities that can be easily
> divided.
Then select the quantities you sell as a multiple of 60 in a reasonable
small unit (gram, millimeter, mol, etc.). I still do not see a need to
give special names to multiples of the module sizes, as the module
factor will vanish anyway after the division. Giving special names to
certain powers of the base on the other hand does not make any
calculations more difficult. And for practically all commercial
purposes, 1000/3=333.3 has more than sufficient precision anyway.
> >[Reference for those interested in what Martin digits are:
> >Communications of the ACM, Vol 11, No. 10, October 1968, p. 658.]
>
> Can you give us a short summary of Martin digits?
The essential idea is that the shape of the digits of a base 16 system
should make it especially easy to convert the digits in the
corresponding bit group for binary calculations. Martin digits do not
require anyone to remember B=1011, as the shape of the digit is directly
related to the bit pattern. With digits designed carefully this way and
some with some practice you can do addition and multiplication without
remembering any tables.
Its a pretty cool concept and it would have been nice if the arabic
mathematicians who invented our base 10 system or Fibonacci who made it
popular in Europe had already been aware of these ideas, but it is
certainly unrealistic to change the base 10 representation today.
As far as the metric system is concerned: less than 250 million (<5%)
out of over 5200 million people on this planet do not yet use the metric
system and related international standards. The required effort for a
change is therefore orders of magnitude smaller than changing to a
different base. The USA are very isolated by not using the metric
system.
> It doesn't matter. If you change to S, we'll just make another number
> be 13. :-) Remember, if you get assigned to room/floor 14, ask the
> clerk if there is a floor 13 and if not, say you've been assigned to
> the 13th and you want to move. That is, fight back! :-)
May be, we should spread the word that there is nothing wrong with the
13, but that a 14 after a missing 13 will bring you *really* bad luck as
you tried to betray the 13 and it will therefore be *very* angry on you.
Well, as I look at the Halloween pumpkin that is still sitting on my
workstation monitor here, I must admit that I start to consider this
argument myself to be pretty convincing ... (see attachment ;-)
Markus
--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
University, Indiana, US, email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu
--------------1D6D17668B6
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="pumpkin.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="pumpkin.jpg"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--------------1D6D17668B6--
Subject: Re: Do gravitational waves carry momentum? was: Does gravitational waves carry momentum
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 10:42:41 -0500
Ken Fischer wrote:
>
> Frankly, all the writing about gravitational waves and
> gravitational radiation presupposes some heretofore unknown type
> of radiation that operates separate from the electromagnetic
> spectrum, and this bothers me, and I get the impression that
> it bothered Einstein, re the unification work.
> Are the waves that LIGO will try to find the "force"
> of gravity, really, or are they just secondary oscillations.
>
LIGO will detect gravitational radiation. This was a prediction
of General Relativity (Einstein, about 1917), and was recently
verified by the orbital decay patterns of the binary pulsars
discovered by Hulce and Taylor ... they received a Nobel prize
for this work a few years ago.
Electromagnetic radiation can be created by shaking an electric
charge; gravitational radiation can be created by shaking a mass.
But the structure of the two radiation fields is quite different;
this is summarized by stating that the electromagnetic field is a
vector field, while the gravitational field is a tensor field.
As to Einstein's work on unification, this does not imply that one
of the fields creates the other ... instead, one might look for
a new set of relationships which can generate both fields. The
modern search for a Grand Unified Theory does this by examining
the fields at higher and higher energies; when you get high enough,
the differences tend to disappear.
> Why would something like a "graviton" be needed,
> the geodesics follow inertial paths, that is why they call
> them geodesics.
>
The graviton model is the result of treating a weak gravitational
field as though it were linear (ie, law of superposition of forces
holds, which is true for the electromagnetic fields, but is false
for gravity, since gravity creates more gravity ... gravity is
non-linear). One then quantizes the resulting metric. This is
at best a useful approximation, and the graviton, if ever discovered,
will be nothing but a pseudo-particle, similar to the quantization
of sound waves in some solids (called phonons). These are very
useful in the study of some phenomena, but are not fundamental
particles.
> The last paragraph I read mentioned the miniscule
> energy produced by a 540 ton rod of steel, a meter in diameter
> and 10 meters long, rotating perpendicular to it's longitudal
> axis.
> Now why would it have to rotate to produce gravitons?
>
The analogy is that you need to shake your electric charges to create
photons, and so you need to shake the rod to create gravitons.
But any acceleration will do, and rotation works just fine. A broadcast
antenna can just chase the electrons up and down the antenna, and
will broadcast radio waves. All the same idea.
> : 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.
>
> One speculative thought, but very unsatisfying,
> having two separate long range propagation systems,
> especially since the one you voice support for requires
> only attractive forces while long range electromagnetism
> only carries energy plus a negligible amount of radiatiom
> pressure (pushing).
> If there is an unseen force pulling the Earth
> toward the Sun, I sure want to know how it works.
>
A force doesn't need to be seen to be felt; you certainly feel gravity
through the soles of your feet!
Still, a more interesting approach would be that of Einstein, where he
tried to convert electromagnetism into a geometric (forceless) theory,
and simultaneously satisfy the geometrodynamics of General Relativity.
BTW, Heinrich Hertz had sketched out such a forceless theory of electro-
magnetism as early as 1890! And there have been "successful" integrations,
but they don't combine the two forces into a single one, because at the
minimum they retain additional degrees of freedom (which show up as
additional dimensions).
> : 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:
>
> Do you have a reference for this?
>
The most recent issue of American Journal of Physics (AJP Vol 64, No 11, (Nov 1996)
has an article on pp 1404-1415 "The optical-mechanical analogy in general relativity:
New methods fo the paths of light and of the planets", James Evans, Kamal K. Nandi,
Anwarul Islam. They discuss this very issue; this idea was used by Eddington.
>
> : Expectation: the index of refraction for a plausible dust cloud is
> : going to be very, very, very close to 1.
>
> " 1" what?
The index of refraction is the ratio of the speed in vacuo to the speed in
the medium: n = c/v. Thus the two speeds are very close to the same, and
one gets very little dispersion.
>
> : Coordinate systems are arbitrary. Go back and read MTW
>
> I read it every day, maybe in another 25 years I'll
> finish it.
>
Ken, you need to stop reading MTW for a while, and go take a class in
differential geometry, and perhaps one in analytical mechanics. Then
you will be able to move along more rapidly ... perhaps you'll be done
in 5 years, including the side trip? ;-)
> : > 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.
>
> Is the effort still underway? Are they
> building anything yet? Do you mean this has been
> going on for 12 years?
Yes, it is still going on. They are doing detail work on the optics systems
now (we are doing some studies on the optical coatings in our lab, wrt
defect determination, and laser damage under high power; I've been taking
photothermal scans for months). I think that the buildings are either
under construction, or are scheduled for the next year or so.
> ... Will 40 years of Weber instruments give us
> any positive results (whatever the gravity waves are supposed
> to be)?
>
Weber bars are ancient history; they just don't have the precision required.
LIGO is "Laser Interferometric Gravitational Observatory". You should go take
a look at the Scientific American article from about 1993.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 18:42:12 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
[cutting to the chase]
> >> 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.
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
> Mati, I would like to point out that no one has suggested this "switch
> off". Moggin claims we should, but I have not seen anyone supporting
> such an idea.
Lorenz has suggested it explicitly; you and Michael have strongly
implied it, at the very least. (Mati's remark about supposedly "loose
interpretations" is pure crap.) More on this below.
moggin:
> > I didn't say it _shouldn't_ be taken seriously -- I just pointed
> >out that if you want to eat your Newton and have Einstein, too, you've
> >_got_ to take it seriously.
Matt:
> No we don't. I don't think that any physicist would say that two sets
> of laws apply. What we have said, and Mati explained very well, is
> that GR subsumes CM inside itself.
That was a different issue -- you didn't make your case, but this
is another question. It's been suggested repeatedly that CM stands on
its own, not just as part of GR. For example, you said it's impossible
to know which one is right, "at low speed," because of the difficulty
in designing an experiment to tell you. Relying on the same reasoning,
Michael Stewart concluded that, "We don't really know that Newton isn't
exactly right under such circumstances."
Mati:
> >> 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".
moggin:
> > As you've already agreed, Newton's laws are an incorrect model of
> >the world, in the general case. Their ability to give an approximation
> >over a certain range doesn't change that, while your remark concerning
> >our "practical interest" is an ad hominem in the classical sense of the
> >term.
Matt:
> If incorrect means, as Mati pointed out, in accurate, the GR also
> presents an incorrect view.
I don't think Mati meant to say that CM and GR present identical
cases of inaccuracy. But o.k., let's agree he did. What's it to me?
> And while you keep harping on the
> "practical interest" you ignore the "experimentally
> indistinguishable". For a significant range of observation, you can't
> tell the theories apart. The predictions are too close, and the
> formulae look almost exactly the same.
You folks are the ones who keep bringing up practicality: you
raised the issue, way back when, and Mati re-introduced it just now.
Furthermore, the theories are not indistinguishable, and you don't
have to conduct an experiment to tell them apart. What you mean, as
I pointed out to you before, is that they make similar predictions,
when confined within a limited range. You seem to think that shows
something, but you've just denied drawing the lesson you took from
it.
moggin:
> >> 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.
Mati:
> > No, not "by all rights" -- by a definition of "generalize" that
> >permits the "generalization" to depart from the "generalized," since
> >Einstein's model differs from Newton's in many significant respects.
Matt:
> Do you know of any of those respects? Please give a few examples other
> than the frames of reference mentioned above.
I've given a slew of examples, and since you've been here since
the beginning, you've seen them all -- as I said, you want to repeat
the whole debate, presumably in hope of doing better the second time.
Mati:
> >> 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.
moggin:
> > You've already agreed that it's incorrect in the general case.
Matt:
> He said both were incorrect in the general case, if inaccurate meant
> incorrect.
Mati agreed that "Newton's laws are not a correct general model of
the world. (Where "general" has a very specific meaning.)" How quickly
you forget!
Mati:
> >> 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.
moggin:
> > Gordon does not demand a religious certitude from science any more
> >than I demand measurements that are "exactly 'right.'" If you want to
> >argue with strawmen, then by all means continue. If you want to contend
> >that Newton is not incorrect, then as I've suggested before, you should
> >argue with yourself. There's no need for you to argue that Newton has
> >utility (within certain limits), since that's never been in dispute (do
> >remember Russell's warning, though).
Matt:
> So do you agree the GR is as incorrect as CM which, of course, is as
> incorrect at Ptolemy?
"So"?
-- moggin
Subject: Re: "Essential" reality (was: When did Nietzsche wimp out?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:38:06 GMT
In article , jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>In article meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
> > In article <32797306.2E84@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons writes:
> > >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> > >> Foreign names are always confusing. Anyway, it is Mr.
> > >
> > >I would have picked up on Jan, but Mati is outside my
> > >experience.
> > >
> > It is an Israeli name. You can find it also in Finland, but then it
> > is spelled Matti.
> >
> > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> > meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
>
>Perhaps in both of these languages and in the English Matty (feminine
>Mattie), it is a derivative of Matthew.
The Hebrew Mati is a derivative of Matitiahu, which was already in use
some 22 centuries ago (appears in the story of Chanukkah). Mathew is
of Roman origin, AFAIK, probably from about same time, so there may be
a connection. Don't know about the Finnish, one has to remember that
the Finnish language is related to Mongolian languages (same as
Hungarian) but totally unrelated to other European or Mid Eastern
languages. So in this case the similarity may be purely coincidental.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Dr. Sarfatti]
From: "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 10:06:30 -0800
Return-Path: gsb007@ix.netcom.com
Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by mh1.well.com (8.7.6/8.7.5) with SMTP id UAA22546 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:07:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from min-mn1-10.ix.netcom.com (gsb007@min-mn1-10.ix.netcom.com [204.30.69.42]) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25261 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:07:05 -0800
Message-ID: <3279A15F.6449@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:06:08 -0800
From: "Gary S. Bekkum"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
To: sarfatti@well.com
Subject: Re: Dr. Sarfatti
References: <55b8e7$90l@clark.zippo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
[message forwarded to Jack Sarfatti, in case he cares to comment]
> Tonyk wrote:
> Personally, I think that although, Dr. Sarfatti has full knowledge of
> conventional textbook physics, he seems to have gone off the deep end and
> went "far-out", in typical California New Age fashion. He knows the difference
> between accepted and proven theories from trash, but he seems to be > entertaining
> them, by discussing them as a moderator. Is he really a serious > academic or a
> bored PHD physicist turned pop guru? Or is it because there is a > market for
> crazy sci-fi pop theories that people will pay to listen to and/or be > listened?
Actually, I believe that Jack is attempting to explain his own personal
paranormal experiences, and that this quest has driven him to find a
link between biological physical processes and quantum phenomena as a
way of describing consciousness. He is not alone here - there are many
others working on this angle, but coming to slightly different versions
of what is going on. Jack has been posting the interaction he is having
with others [Stapp etc.] and also is bringing in their work to help
build his theory. He is definitely exploiting the Internet to bring his
ideas to the largest audience possible for debate - notice the
forwarding list on his news posts.
> I noticed that his website is a cyber-education tax exempt institution and he
> asks for donations in exchange for his latest theories. Who'd pay to know
> what Einstein said.
Einstein never said what Jack is saying.
> Are subscribers to his email on the latest far-out-none-of-them-proven theories
> being asked to contribute financially? Just curious in case I want to sign up
> for entertainment value. I all fairness though, I think he has a (real)
> physics handbook on his site as well, which could be useful.
Jack allows anyone to repost the information on his web site free of
charge, as long as proper credit is given. His new book should be
interesting, in any case.
> Yes, I noticed his commercial angle on that as well. He seems to be > looking
> for research money. He says something like "how much is it worth to > you if
> you have a way of knowing the future...." (I paraphrase). Ever see the > Twilight
> Zone episode about a guy who owned a failing newspaper who was offered > a
> machine that typsets the next day's news by the Devil in exchange for his soul?
Read his links regarding the CIA and Psi Wars. Interesting stuff was
going on in the government a few years ago. There was concern that the
US was falling behind in a psi arms race with the Soviets.
> Dr. Sarfatti is offering the same, except he can't deliver the machine.
> Another way-out thing he's saying is that UFO's might actually be > earthlings
> coming back to restructure their own past (our present) so they can > exist in
> the future. Wow! Talk about a way-out looping anthropic paradox! Or > that his
> theoretical research might lead to fuel that can propel vehicles to > close the
> speed of light., etc, etc.
Some of the links you are following at his Web Site are other peoples
theories [such as the FTL warp drive] which he has added to the site. I
haven't explored that one yet myself. His main premise is the
superluminal connection as a mechanism for self organization in living
creatures [kind of like being able to see a blueprint of a finished
house before you start to build it]. The implication for natural
selection theory should be obvious.
> There's even a funny aside in which he predicts that the Republican > Convention
> in San Diego was going to be nuked by Saddam Hussein (to get Bush) and > he
> wanted his prediction to be on record in Cyberspace in case he gets > killed
> in the blast and he's warning all the government agencies and he wants > the
> Israeli Mossad to take care of the bastard before he destroys the > world.
Think about this Tony - he didn't see the stuff about the convention -
that was a product of his own thoughts after seeing the vision of the
nuclear explosion going off in the bay. Also, consider that Jack still
works aboard Navy vessels if I recall, and that he is moving his office
to San Franciso. Then compare what he saw to Ray Aguilera's San
Francisco nuke in the bay prophecies. Jack is attributing his reaction
to a letter a few days later pointing out that an episode of the
television show Babylon 5, San Diego was the first city to be destroyed
in an act of nuclear terrorism.
Jack's theory says that an event doesn't have to happen physically to
allow information transfer [Jung called this synchronicity]. His
interpretation is that the letter telling him about the San Diego
connection triggered the San Diego nuclear image in his mind. I would
conjecture that the San Diego connection was a product of superluminal
association to a real future event. Will this be San Francisco? Hard
to say - the mind works in odd ways outside of the relm of normal
physical organization.
> Gary, why don't you tell him to post that kind of stuff it on APN next time?
> Well, he says his forefather is a Rabbi, whom I'm sure will tell him to
> study the Torah, wherein it is stated that God is Light and therefore
> "superluminal" would be kind of a blasphemous theory. If he applies his
> formal physics training, I'm sure that he would be able to better understand
> what is written in the Sefer ha-Zohar (Book of Light) and the Sefer ha-Yetzirah
> (Book of Creation) in a quantum mechanics context than the average Goya.
> Gary, since you seem to be so keen on RV, there is an angle that I don't
> think anyone has yet explored (or at least publicized). Forget the Q-M
> approach. They're more interested in how to make chemicals alive with
> consciousness. (QM is to science as New Age is to religion). The human > mind is
> already a conscious thing. There is a neuro-psychological way to > explore an
> alterd conscious state without drugs. The work is pioneered by Dr. > Michael
> Persinger of Laurentian University in Ontario Canada. I haven't > contacted him
> or studied any details of what he is doing, but I saw on TV an > experiment he
> showed in connection with UFO abduction phenomena. It seems, the brain
> "hallucinates" when an electromagnetic field is generated across the > temple
> lobes. The subject remained coherent and reported sensations which I > instantly
> recognized as those of OBE states. I think that an OBE type state is > what
> allows one to access crystal-ball psychic visions. I think that under a
> controlled environment, RV can be achieved through this technique of
> electromagnetic brain wave stimulation. If you're interested, check it out
> with Dr. Persinger or other neurological researchers. Be careful > though that
> they don't fry your brain out!
> Regards,
>
> tonyK
Tony - the whole point of this exploration is not to find altered states
of consciousness, but to explain what consciousness is and how it
occurs, and in the process to explain the mechanism behind paranormal
events.
The connection Jack is describing is the interaction of the quantum
world with the physical brain, and how that process creates conscious
qualia - the experience of being real.
Gary B.