Newsgroup sci.physics 205692

Directory

lucyhaye@earthlink.net writes:
> 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.
Um... Spin angular momentum?
> 2.) As AD conserve energy and momentum the third particle in unnecessary.
As SR conserves energy and momentum whether the decay is two-particle or
three-particle, AD is unnecessary.
> 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.
Hmm... That is a tougher one.  Okay, well, having only looked briefly at the
AD page, it seemed to me that the major differences between AD and SR are
gammas [(1-beta^2)^(-.5)] showing up in different places.  E.g. on page
http://www.autodynamics.org/Professional/technical.html, it is stated that
momentum is given under AD by mv(1/gamma), in contrast to SR's mv(gamma).
It seems to me that formally, as long as momentum is given by
			_    _               _
			p = mv*(function of |v|)
(overbars are for vectors), then you will still have a model predicting the
same _qualitative_ dynamics as more traditional dynamic models.  In particular,
I am pretty confident that if a system is described in which a single particle
decays to only two particles, the energy of the two particles is completely
determined by the rest masses of the three particles.  Seeing a particle
(e.g. a neutron) decay to two observed particles that exhibit a spectrum of
energies would still imply a third particle (an extra degree of freedom)
somewhere.
Can any group theorists out there back me up (or knock me down, I haven't
actually worked out the math yet) on this one?
> Lucy Haye.
Sincerely,
Darrin

           "Where can new and prospective graduate students obtain
	   candid advice to enhance success in graduate school? Not from
	   most college science teaching journals which have almost
	   exclusively published advice for professors regarding teaching
	   undergraduates. Not from national organizations, graduate
	   schools, and university departments; for "official" advice is
	   rarely frank advice.  And not from all faculty and senior graduate
	   students as laboratory lore, unless one is a select "insider."
	   Elsewhere, I have asserted that faculty ought to provide new and
	   prospective graduate students frank advice about becoming
	   scientists and doing science; here I present such advice."
                Interested?  The manuscript "An Insider's Guide to Choosing a
	   Graduate Adviser and Research Projects in Laboratory Sciences"
	   appears in the _Journal of Chemical Education_, 1993, _70_,
	   303-306.
           If you use a www browser, point your browser (e.g., Netscape or
	   lynx) to:
            ftp://ftp.csd.uwm.edu/pub/Psychology/BehaviorAnalysis/educational
            Look for two entries:
            insider-guide-dermer>>>advice for graduate students
            frank-advice-dermer>>>>advice for professors offering advice
            I wish you success!
            Marshall
            Marshall Lev Dermer/ Department of Psychology/ University of
            Wisconsin-Milwaukee/ Milwaukee, WI 53201/ dermer@csd.uwm.edu
            "Life is just too serious to be taken entirely seriousyl!"
-- 
       Marshall Lev Dermer/ Department of Psychology/ University of
       Wisconsin-Milwaukee/ Milwaukee, WI 53201/ dermer@csd.uwm.edu
        "Life is just too serious to be taken entirely seriousyl!"

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:
: >>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: 
: >>>>>>>[etc. -- you get the idea]
: >>>[...]
: >>>>>>>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.
: >>>Let's ask Richard, shall we? Richard?
: >>Note how readily you fall back on the academic view you have been
: >>denouncing heretofore -- that understanding the message depends on
: >>adopting the 18th century conception of its authorship.  This sort
: >>of opportunistic dishonesty is the main reason why I refuse to
: >>interpret your own authorities for you.
: >This discussion isn't on the level of hermeneutic sublety that would
: >require putting them into play yet. 
: More desperate wriggling.  To paraphrase Umberto Eco, your egotistic
: interests in this discussion give the lie to your hermeneutic pretense.
Never the one to engage an argument, hm?
: >>>>>>>>                        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.
: >>>I understand that you cannot answer a simple question put to you: what 
: >>>does Derrida mean when he says that the "Einsteinian constant" (take your 
: >>>pick of what that refers to) is not a "center" in the sense of center he 
: >>>develops in SSP? Give it a try, please.
: >>No.
: >Okay, that's settled then. You may step away from the podium.
: I am unaware of having asked for your permission to speak.
But perhaps you were waiting for permission to stop speaking. It's 
granted. 
: >>>I gather you don't know the Phaedrus very well, then, not well enough to 
: >>>engage it pertinently. Unless dialogues set within institutions, it 
: >>>presents a different way of doing philosophy. Your attitude to interpret 
: >>>all of Plato according to some simplistic default bespeaks a deplorable 
: >>>lack of intellectual agility -- a quality more important to a Platonic 
: >>>philosopher, or any philosopher, than geometry, ultimately. 
: >>I take it that "intellectual agility" is your way to euphemize your
: >>opportunistic dishonesty.
: >I take it you once again have no argument to offer. I am neither 
: >dishonest nor opportunistic; neither defending Derrida nor defending 
: >Plato creates many opportunities in the current academy.
: I am not interested in your academic career.  Your opportunistic
: dishonesty is richly manifested in your weaselly conduct throughout
: this discussion.
Well, Michael, if you call me an opportunist, you'd have to point out 
some opportunity I'm pursuing. 
: >>>>>>>>>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.
: >>>You are incapable of sustaining your point as to Derrida's remark. This 
: >>>is your last chance to say something meaningful about the concept of 
: >>>"center" as it emerges in SSP. 
: >>The answer is still no.  Besides, as I have shown in the comment cited
: >>below, it is irrelevant to my point.
: >You have shown no such thing, and you have consistently failed to address 
: >reasonable objections to you simplistic claim.
: My simplistic claim that Derrida's remark betokens crass ignorance has
: been recognized as obviously true by two disinterested observers to date.
That's an impressive number. I'm sure you could get about two 
disinterested observers to agree with you on just about anything. If 
that's what it takes to make you comfortable with your ignorance, you're 
leading an easy life.
: >[...]
: >>>I concur with that definition and point you to the fact that Derrida pays 
: >>>hommage to Plato in "Plato's Pharmacy." 
: >>An homage whose central point is the boring triviality that the Greek
: >>word "pharmakon", much like the English word "drug", can mean either
: >>poison or remedy.  Big Hairy Fucking Deal.
: >You read that in the _New Republic_, I gather? It's hardly the central 
: >point of the essay. I take your remark above to prove that you haven't 
: >read that piece either.
: No, I read it on pages 108--133 of _La dissimulation_.
Cute little gag, but no, you didn't. 
: >>>[...]
: >>>>>>>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 ...
: >>>And you still haven't told us what you think that means.
: >>Nonsense means nothing.
: >True; but you are incapable of showing why the above is nonsense because 
: >you are incapable of engaging Derrida's notion of center. That's not in 
: >itself dishonorable; to make denunciatory pronouncements out of 
: >ignorance, however, is.
: Feel free to take it up with Messrs Hutticher and Hulley.
In other words, you have nothing to say.
[...]
: >No. To repeat, the explanation I need concerns the following: what is 
: >Derrida's notion of center, and why would Einstein's constant be an 
: >example of it?
: I am not concerned with addressing your needs.  Addressing this notion
: is supererogatory with respect to showing both Derrida and yourself as
: prattling sycophants.
You're not concerned with providing an argument either; from which I 
gather that you have no need for intellectual engagement of any sort. 
That's your prerogative. 
: >>>[...]
: >>>>>>>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.
: >>>I see. You base your assessment of philosophers or semioticians on Paris 
: >>>gossip. Why not read "The Pleasure of the Text" instead?
: >>I base my assessment of people's motives on testimony about them.
: >>Though this practice may be alien to an intellectual such as yourself,
: >>it has rather wide currency in history and jurisprudence.
: >Gossip is gossip. If the testimony varies, you go for the more 
: >sensational and the more denunciatory one. Would you kindly give a 
: >reputable cite?
: Not until you corroborate your denial of the suicide theory.
Defamation doesn't have to be disproven; the burden of proof is on you. 
We agree on the fact that Barthes was hit by a truck and died. Your 
contention that he committed suicide is so far gossip, and no sources 
have been given. Which makes it, precisely, meaningless.
: >>>[...]
: >>>>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.
: >>>You mean, like excluding Barthes from thinkers you will consider on the 
: >>>basis of hearsay?
: >>Who said anything about excluding?  I just considered Barthes -- by
: >>comparing him to Charles Kinbote.
: >You don't know anything about Barthes except gossip, it seems -- on what 
: >would you base any comparison?
: On _S/Z_ compared to _Pale Fire_, naturally.
Naturally.
: >[...]
: >>>So you say. So far, no ideas have been forthcoming.
: >>Here is an idea for you.  Philosophy is hard work.  It requires a lot
: >>of learning in the arts and sciences and a great deal of independent
: >>thought and personal integrity.  Thinking hurts, integrity makes one
: >>unpopular, and there is no end to learning.
: >Precisely. Not new, but still true. One would think, then, that the
: >general unpopularity of Derrida and the range of texts he knows truly well 
: >would at least interest you in his work or make you withhold judgment.
: Is your day incomplete unless you promulgate a logical fallacy?  Next
: time, try to come up with something more original than affirming the
: consequent.
There was no logic in your reply; why would I employ logic to engage it? 
Your criteria for "philosopher" are amply met by JD. 
: >>                                             You are looking for the
: >>royal road.  There is no such thing.
: >But you've found it: denounce anything you don't understand and refuse to 
: >engage any arguments that points you to the cheapness of the strategy.
: I denounce anything I can identify as obstructionist and obfuscatory
: nonsense and refuse to engage any arguments grounded in self-serving
: prevarication.  So sue me.
But ignorance and vanity are no crimes.
Silke

In article <55btpa$q3u@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, bjon@ix.netcom.com says...
>>> It is well known that two clocks once set to agree when adjacent will
>>> not agree when separated and reunited, and the only possible reason is
>>> their different absolute speeds.
No, it is not necessary to have an absolute speed in order for two different
clocks to show different amounts of elapsed time when they reunite. Here's an
analogy that I think illustrates what's going on: Imagine two cars travelling
different routes. Car A travels in the x-direction the whole time, and 
car B travels at a 45 degree angle out and then at a 45 degree angle back.
When the two cars get back together and compare odometer readings, car B
will have travelled farther than car A by a factor of square-root(2).
Does the fact that their odometer readings are objectively different mean that
it is an objective, absolute fact that it was B who was travelling at an angle,
while A was travelling in the x-direction? Not at all. You can choose a
coordinate system in which B starts out travelling in the x-direction, while
A is travelling at a 45 degree angle. However, no matter what the coordinate
system that one uses, everyone agrees that it is B who *changes* his angle
(makes a turn), while A travels a constant angle, a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
In the case of the twin paradox, the velocity of either twin is just as
arbitrary as the angle was in the two-car case. However, regardless of
coordinate system, everyone agrees that it is the twin who changes velocity
that ages the least. You don't need an absolute notion of velocity in order
to talk about a change of velocity, any more than you need an absolute notion
of angle in order to know which car changes its angle.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY

Jeffrey Mishlove wrote:
>  > >estaylor@cris.com wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >> Interesting that you worked with Bohm, Mr. Sarfatti, because your
>  > >> premises/conclusions about physics/consciousness and Bohm's are radically
>  > >> opposed to each other. 
>  > >You do not understand my position.
> 
> It seems to me that we need to make a distinction between Sarfatti's suggestion
> that computer chips could be conscious and Bohm's statement that consciousness
> is not really analogous to computing.
> 
> It does not seem to me that these positions are necessarily (or even actually)
> in conflict.  As far as I can tell, Sarfatti is not arguing that present-day
> computers are conscious.  Nor is he arguing that consciousness can be reduced
> to anything that computers now do.
> 
> -- Jeffrey
> 
> 
Yes, thank you Jeffrey. What I am arguing is that consciousness is a
universally latent property embedded in the fundamental physical
structure of the universe at the post-quantum level. Any material system
which is able to defeat thermal decoherence will become conscious in my
theory. The microtubules are able to do that and that is why we are
conscious. This was Hameroff's great discovery. There are differences of
technical detail in the competing models of Penrose, Nanopoulos, Stapp
and myself - but there is a fundamental common ground as well.

talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
> >     [...]  Newt's theory produces accurate results in a limited
> >range; nonetheless, it's contradicted by Stein's findings. 
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
> Correct for your analogy, not correct for CM and GR. Einstein did not
> contradict Newton. He expanded on the work. 
     Their models conflict in many respects, and they make different
predictions.
moggin:
> >We do
> >many things (the examples offered thus far include racing cars,
> >building bridges, and going to the moon) on the basis of a false
> >theory.  As I said a long time ago, utility doesn't entail truth.
Matt:
> Nor does science.
     Would that all scientists were as humble and modest as you.
> And CM is not false, it does not do as good a job at
> explaining and predicting. That is very different.
     It's considered to make false predictions, e.g., at high
velocities relative to lightspeed; that is, it's been falsified.
Jeff:
> >> Ca va?  In fact, it has EXACTLY the structure:
> >>  Table 2:          -------------------------------
> >>                   |     Newt says a = 1         |
> >>                   |                             |
> >>                   |  Stein says a = 1/sqrt(1-x) |
> >>                   -------------------------------
moggin:
> >     Excuse me?  Newt says all cats are black; Stein says no, it
> >seems they aren't.  I don't know how you worked a square root in
> >there.
Matt:
> Because you don't understand that the difference between CM and GR is
> that GR adds additional terms to the CM equations. 
     Jeff's table refers to Newt and Stein -- inaccurately, as far as
I can see.
moggin:
> >> |> It isn't "quite nice" if there are calicos, tortoise-shells, 
> >> |> orange tabbies, white cats, grey cats, etc. 
Jeff:
> >> black cats:      x=0
> >> calicos:         x=0.0001
> >> white cats:      x=0.5
> >> grey cats:       x=0.99
moggin:
> >> Even though Newt never saw a calico, it turn out that his 
> >> theory is pretty good for them too (although not perfect 
> >> like it is for black cats).  For white cats its only a 
> >> rough guess, and for grey cats its way off.
Jeff:
> >     Newt's theory is equally bad for all cats that aren't black
> >(unless you give him partial credit for cats that have a portion
> >of black in their coats).  
moggin:
> But CM is not equally bad for all observations. So your analogy does
> not help us understand this point.
     Agreed.  That's where the railroad conductor comes in.
-- moggin

matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
> >> >> 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. 
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
> >> >     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.
Matt:
> >> No, you did not give him a break. Your analogy did not reflect the
> >> topic under discussion. 
moggin:
> >     It diverged from the topic in a way that worked in Newt's favor,
> >as I just described -- thus, I gave him a break.
Matt:
> It seems to work in his favor, in that it is, as you say "dead-on". (I
> do hope we still have not needed to kill any cats for this analogy.).
> In fact, Newt's theory has no applicability outside the valley. This
> is significantly different from the relationship between CM and GR.
     I agree with you there.  On that point, the railroad conductor
analogy is a better fit.
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.
moggin:
> >> >     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.
Matt:
> >> Huh? I do not understand this last sentence. Of course the predictions
> >> differ. Now respond to the point of the paragraph. 
>
moggin:
> >     I did.  You didn't understand.
Matt:
> I forgot, I have to be very explicit with you. I did not understand
> the sentence.
        You've got two models that make different predictions.  If
the predictions of model A are more accurate, and those of model B
are less, it follows that model B is flawed, in comparison to model
A. 
moggin:
> >> >"So if you take
> >> >GR as "the better theory," Classical Mechanics is something worse than 
> >> >just the worse.
Matt:
> Please explain what you mean by that. Thank you in advance.
     See above.
Matt:
> >> 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.
moggin:
> >     You have two theories.  One is known to make false predictions --
> >not a selling point.  
Matt:
> Both are known to make "false" predictions, if false means not exactly
> meeting the observed values. One makes better predictions in some
> domains and the similar predictions in the others. 
     Newton is held to be way off, e.g., at high velocities, compared
to Einstein.  But if you want to argue that they're both wrong, be my
guest.
moggin:
> >Furthermore, the theory you call "better" differs 
> >from it in significant ways.  
Matt:
> The better theory adds terms to the other theory and expands on it
> meaning.
     It also differs from it in significant ways.
moggin:
> >So if you want to keep both, you've got a
> >theory that gives bad results, and two different theories that describe
> >the same universe.
Matt:
> As Bill Murray said, "I'm not clear on this good/bad thing". Would you
> explain what you mean by a bad theory. Does it mean less accurate than
> the other? Or does it mean something else.
     I didn't refer to a bad theory.
-- moggin

weinecks@mail2.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: 
>>>>>>>[etc. -- you get the idea]
>>>[...]
>>>>>>>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.
>>>Let's ask Richard, shall we? Richard?
>>Note how readily you fall back on the academic view you have been
>>denouncing heretofore -- that understanding the message depends on
>>adopting the 18th century conception of its authorship.  This sort
>>of opportunistic dishonesty is the main reason why I refuse to
>>interpret your own authorities for you.
>This discussion isn't on the level of hermeneutic sublety that would
>require putting them into play yet. 
More desperate wriggling.  To paraphrase Umberto Eco, your egotistic
interests in this discussion give the lie to your hermeneutic pretense.
>>>>>>>>                        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.
>>>I understand that you cannot answer a simple question put to you: what 
>>>does Derrida mean when he says that the "Einsteinian constant" (take your 
>>>pick of what that refers to) is not a "center" in the sense of center he 
>>>develops in SSP? Give it a try, please.
>>No.
>Okay, that's settled then. You may step away from the podium.
I am unaware of having asked for your permission to speak.
>>>I gather you don't know the Phaedrus very well, then, not well enough to 
>>>engage it pertinently. Unless dialogues set within institutions, it 
>>>presents a different way of doing philosophy. Your attitude to interpret 
>>>all of Plato according to some simplistic default bespeaks a deplorable 
>>>lack of intellectual agility -- a quality more important to a Platonic 
>>>philosopher, or any philosopher, than geometry, ultimately. 
>>I take it that "intellectual agility" is your way to euphemize your
>>opportunistic dishonesty.
>I take it you once again have no argument to offer. I am neither 
>dishonest nor opportunistic; neither defending Derrida nor defending 
>Plato creates many opportunities in the current academy.
I am not interested in your academic career.  Your opportunistic
dishonesty is richly manifested in your weaselly conduct throughout
this discussion.
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>You are incapable of sustaining your point as to Derrida's remark. This 
>>>is your last chance to say something meaningful about the concept of 
>>>"center" as it emerges in SSP. 
>>The answer is still no.  Besides, as I have shown in the comment cited
>>below, it is irrelevant to my point.
>You have shown no such thing, and you have consistently failed to address 
>reasonable objections to you simplistic claim.
My simplistic claim that Derrida's remark betokens crass ignorance has
been recognized as obviously true by two disinterested observers to date.
>[...]
>>>I concur with that definition and point you to the fact that Derrida pays 
>>>hommage to Plato in "Plato's Pharmacy." 
>>An homage whose central point is the boring triviality that the Greek
>>word "pharmakon", much like the English word "drug", can mean either
>>poison or remedy.  Big Hairy Fucking Deal.
>You read that in the _New Republic_, I gather? It's hardly the central 
>point of the essay. I take your remark above to prove that you haven't 
>read that piece either.
No, I read it on pages 108--133 of _La dissimulation_.
>>>[...]
>>>>>>>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 ...
>>>And you still haven't told us what you think that means.
>>Nonsense means nothing.
>True; but you are incapable of showing why the above is nonsense because 
>you are incapable of engaging Derrida's notion of center. That's not in 
>itself dishonorable; to make denunciatory pronouncements out of 
>ignorance, however, is.
Feel free to take it up with Messrs Hutticher and Hulley.
>I'm snipping more evasive drivel.
Would that you had the good graces not to emit it in the first place.
>>>Thanks, Michael. Now what about engaging the point in question? You start 
>>>reminding me of Russell Turpin and S E C.
>>I gave you all the explanation you needed.  Predictably, you answered
>>it with more dissimulation.
>No. To repeat, the explanation I need concerns the following: what is 
>Derrida's notion of center, and why would Einstein's constant be an 
>example of it?
I am not concerned with addressing your needs.  Addressing this notion
is supererogatory with respect to showing both Derrida and yourself as
prattling sycophants.
>>>[...]
>>>>>>>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.
>>>I see. You base your assessment of philosophers or semioticians on Paris 
>>>gossip. Why not read "The Pleasure of the Text" instead?
>>I base my assessment of people's motives on testimony about them.
>>Though this practice may be alien to an intellectual such as yourself,
>>it has rather wide currency in history and jurisprudence.
>Gossip is gossip. If the testimony varies, you go for the more 
>sensational and the more denunciatory one. Would you kindly give a 
>reputable cite?
Not until you corroborate your denial of the suicide theory.
>>>[...]
>>>>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.
>>>You mean, like excluding Barthes from thinkers you will consider on the 
>>>basis of hearsay?
>>Who said anything about excluding?  I just considered Barthes -- by
>>comparing him to Charles Kinbote.
>You don't know anything about Barthes except gossip, it seems -- on what 
>would you base any comparison?
On _S/Z_ compared to _Pale Fire_, naturally.
>[...]
>>>So you say. So far, no ideas have been forthcoming.
>>Here is an idea for you.  Philosophy is hard work.  It requires a lot
>>of learning in the arts and sciences and a great deal of independent
>>thought and personal integrity.  Thinking hurts, integrity makes one
>>unpopular, and there is no end to learning.
>Precisely. Not new, but still true. One would think, then, that the
>general unpopularity of Derrida and the range of texts he knows truly well 
>would at least interest you in his work or make you withhold judgment.
Is your day incomplete unless you promulgate a logical fallacy?  Next
time, try to come up with something more original than affirming the
consequent.
>>                                             You are looking for the
>>royal road.  There is no such thing.
>But you've found it: denounce anything you don't understand and refuse to 
>engage any arguments that points you to the cheapness of the strategy.
I denounce anything I can identify as obstructionist and obfuscatory
nonsense and refuse to engage any arguments grounded in self-serving
prevarication.  So sue me.
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)

There is a somewhat disturbing rumor floating around the net--that the 
government is selling human flesh as beef and pork in the local markets 
(possibly as a way to eliminate political enemies). My question is this: 
is there a way to treat human flesh so people would think they are eating 
beef, or possibly pork? and , just how could you tell what you were bying 
at the market? I know this sounds crazy, but I have recently come across 
an individual too scared to eat red meat who have cited the above rumor 
as a reason they avoid pot roast....   :-(

Franz Kiekeben (kiekeben@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I asked the following to a PhD in physics and he didn't know the answer
: (so now I don't feel so bad):
: If all motion is relative, so is rotational motion. But in that case,
: stars move around the earth at speeds in excess of c; and distant
: galaxies move at millions times c relative to a spinning top.
: What is the answer? Is rotation not relative? And if so, how can
: straight line motion be relative?
        Just because motion is relative, that doesn't mean
that effects of acceleration are relative, and rotation of
anything larger than a point produces acceleration.
        Even linear motion has restrictions on it, even
though it can be observed as a relative process.
Ken Fischer 

Peter Mott wrote:
> You've put your finger on the problem, Markus.  And yes, changing from
> European sized paper to US sized paper (or vice-versa) is painful; you
> have to go out and buy all new notebooks, and all of your old notes
> won't fit in any notebook you can buy locally.
> 
> But don't you think that _banning_ inch rulers is a little severe?
> What should be the penalty for possesion?
Sorry, may be I didn't formulate this well:
With "banning" I just ment that teachers should require all *new*
students to buy only metric tools (rulers, note paper, etc.). I did not
meant forcing everyone to switch at once, which would be a waste of
money. If all this is coordinated with the stationary industry, the
school tools conversion could be done without any additional costs for
anyone. Once the metric stationary is widely available in shops because
of teacher's requirements, they will also be bought by older users and
then the old formats can be phased out after a few years. There just has
to be some initial pressure to get the process started, for example from
the schools or from government agencies only ordering metric tools.
As far as paper sizes are converned: ISO A4 paper is only 18 mm higher
and 6 mm less wide than U.S. letter paper, therefore it will usually fit
into most filing material designed for U.S. letter paper. The major cost
for switching to A4 paper is that laser printers and copying machines
have to be equipped with new paper cartridges. But these cost only a few
dollars per machine (e.g., 45 USD for a HP LaserJet 3) and are already
available from practically all manufacturers, because the same machine
in the same configuration is usually also sold outside the U.S., where
it is delivered with an A4 cartridge. A4 paper can also be ordered in
the U.S., because the U.S. gets most paper from Canadian manufacturers,
which also deliver a lot of paper to Europe, Japan, and other countries.
Very new laser printers are delivered even in the U.S. with paper trays
that can be configured between U.S. letter and ISO A4.
BTW: I have just started to write a Web page about ISO paper sizes. It
is not yet ready, but if you want to have a look, please check 
  http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/kuhn/iso-paper.html
Markus
-- 
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
University, Indiana, US, email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu

In article <55cu1t$502@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com (LBsys) writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>> But, I mentioned above an "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. [...]
>>
>> 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.
>
>For the rigor of the argument, I beg to differ. I'd strongly support the
>idea you mentioned, that we can only state about the exactness of a theory
>if its predictions are in the limit of experimental error. As we have no
>other measure at hand, this then is an exact theory. So for the case CM
>vs. GR in the range of low velocities, we do have two 'exact' theories, as
>the terms which differentiate the two from each other cancel out ( -> 0 or
>fall below exp. error) leaving us with rather the same theory with two
>different names. No _switching_ needed. 
>
I agree, from the point of view of physics once the two theories give 
same results (within the limits of the measurement) they are the same. 
But the important thing is to recognize what you've stated at the end, 
i.e. that it is not switching between the two since "No switching is 
needed".  Without this recognition one may get confused.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

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.
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
> >> >     Wait a minute. That shows you can't _practically_ distinguish
> >> >them.  
Matt:
> >> I think we have gotten to an important issue here. It is true that we
> >> cannot, as a practical question, distinguish between them. 
moggin:
> >     False.  The theories are distinguishable.  You're merely speaking
> >about your practical ability to measure the difference in their results.
> >Furthermore, the difficulty isn't general -- it only applies in a given
> >domain.
Matt:
> I am speaking about the ability, at any time, to distinguish between
> them in the appropriate domain.
     No, you're talking about your ability to design an experiment to
distinguish between their results, under certain, limited conditions.
Matt:
> >> 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.
moggin:
> >     See above.  And note the difficulties you encounter by keeping two,
> >different theories to describe to what is presumably a single universe.  
Matt:
> But no one is suggest that we keep two theories.
     Yes, you have -- rather strongly.  See my other reply.  Hell, read
your own posts.
Matt:
>We are trying to show you that most of CM was kept inside GR.
     No, you've been arguing that at low velocites, it's impossible to 
choose between them -- either one, you claimed, could equally be right.
Matt:
> >> >> So in that domain both models explain the same data and you can't pick
> >> >> one right and one wrong. 
moggin:
> >> >     If you take Einstein as given, it follows that Newton will be off
> >> >by some amount, no matter how small, right down the line.  
Matt:
> >> 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.
moggin:
> >     Fine.  Then you can bring back Aristotle and Ptolemy, too.
Matt:
> Please expand on how this comment is relevant.
     I already have, repeatedly, earlier in our discussion.  By now
you should be getting the idea.
> Does Aristotelian and
> Ptolemaic theories do as good a job at predicting and explaining the
> data? Not even close. Try to use Ptolemy to predict the motion of a
> planet around another star.
     Why should I, when you won't use Newton to make predictions for
objects moving at high velocities?
moggin:
> >> >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.
Matt:
> >> 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.
moggin:
> >     And I think it's wrong.
Matt:
> You do think we know the principles the universe contains? If you have
> this knowledge please let the rest of us know. If you meant something
> else would you please explain you point.
     This is probably just semantics.  For "principles," read "laws,"
or if you don't like "laws," substitute whatever term you prefer.
Matt:
> >> >> 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.
moggin:
> >> >     Or perhaps you lack the language and understanding to follow my
> >> >answers.  
Matt:
> >> 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:
> >     Understandable.  I would have stayed out of this one, if you had
> >let me.
Matt:
> Then do so. Either admit you do not have the background or just drop
> the subject.
     You started this ruckus -- not me.  And as I said to you before,
you're free to stop any time you choose -- I won't miss you.
Matt:
> >> Moggin, I suspect you thought my last line was an insult. It was not.
> >> It is an observation.
moggin:
> >     It's another in your ever-lengthening series of ad hominems.
> It was not an attack, it was not an ad hominem. You have said you do
> not have the background.
     Since I already said that I don't have much background, how come
you're demanding, "...admit that you do not have the background..."?
Y'know, sometimes I think that you're not paying much attention.  And
sometimes I think worse.
> You have shown us you do not have the background.
     I've said several times, in so many words, that I have only a
physics-for-poets understanding of the topic.
> I am only saying this again.
     "Only" is the key term.  That _is_ all you're saying.  But you
seem to believe that you're making a point.
> If you can follow the steps
> from CM to GR then show us. Explain how the physics changed and use
> the math to show the transformation. If not them my point is shown as
> correct.
     Nope -- that's one of the places ad hominem arguments are weak.  If
you want to prove your point (whichever point you're referring to, and
whether or not you're going to take it back tomorrow), then you have to
actually _prove_ it -- commenting on my background doesn't take you even
a single step in that direction.  And so far nothing else has, either.
-- moggin

On 31 Oct 1996 06:36:15 GMT, tmkoson@umich.edu (Todd Matthew Koson)
typed something like:
>: >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?
>
>
>: Wow, you are really in need of a hobby.
>
>As long as you are here smashing the good name of atheism Im giving up on
>stamp collecting.
You make me laugh. You are like a christian who says I am bashing
Christianity when I ask him to prove his god and the son of said god
exists. 
I'm actually very sympathetic to what people call atheism, however
that does not mean I never question it. I am not a fanatic moron like
you who only believes in their own ego.
>
>: Is your life really so empty?
>
>: I feel quite sorry for you.
>
>Not half as bad as I feel for you.  I write something and compel you to
>write back.  AND YOU DO IT!!! This is great you little ago trip in human's
>clothing.
Ago trip?
and I wrote first,
you responded
I'm just being polite.
>
> : I am the first one to enjoy a good scrap, but you seem to have
>gone 
>: out of your way to continue it, in every thread you can find.
>
>Yeah, troll I don't hit and run like you, SS, and Lindauer.
Who are these people you keep talking about?
Are they famous?
Or imaginary friends of yours?
>  I'll shadow
>your ass 
Oh baby, now you are turning me on.
>as long as your here making an ass out of atheists.
But you really do a fine job without me.
"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it." 
-- Frank Zappa

Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) writes:
>The view that our Solar System/Galaxy is an atom in an infinite cycle is 
>something that only a loon who knew nothing about physics would dream up. If 
>the Andromeda galaxy is a "positively charge carbon group of some kind" and 
>we're a negatively charged CH group then the electronic effects would be 
>overwhelmingingly obvious.
I'd be willing to consider the possibility that our entire universe is
something that makes up a tiny particle in another universe on a whole
different size scale, and that electrons or quarks or some bits that may
make them up are universes on a whole different scale.  And so on in both
directions.  There's no way we could ever know or test such a thing though,
so the point is moot other than as entertaining mental masturbation.
Supposedly Bertrand Russell once gave a lecture and a woman confronted him
after and informed him that the world was supported on the back of a turtle,
and it was ridiculous to think otherwise.  He asked her what was holding that
turtle up and she replied with something like "you're not fooling me sonny
boy, its turtles all the way down!"
-- 
Douglas Siebert                Director of Computing Facilities
douglas-siebert@uiowa.edu      Division of Mathematical Sciences, U of Iowa
"It is easier to apologize than to get permission"  -- Grace Hopper

jsnodgrass wrote:
> 
> Einstein said GOD exists...
Since this Christian says we should believe Einstein and another
poster gave a accurate quote from Einstein saying he didn't
believe in a personal God, then we should not believe in the
Christian God.
Thanks for clearing up this issue...there is no God!!!! Duhh.
Another example of how stupid Christians are....if we needed more
proof.
Steve

OX-11  wrote:
>There is a somewhat disturbing rumor floating around the net--that the 
>government is selling human flesh as beef and pork in the local markets 
>(possibly as a way to eliminate political enemies). My question is this: 
>is there a way to treat human flesh so people would think they are eating 
>beef, or possibly pork? and , just how could you tell what you were bying 
>at the market? I know this sounds crazy, but I have recently come across 
>an individual too scared to eat red meat who have cited the above rumor 
>as a reason they avoid pot roast....   :-(
http://www.paranoia.com/coe/e-sermons/butcher.html
"There is a little bit of Jimmy Hoffa in every delicious bite."
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

-=- DewDrop -=- wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, zen publishers wrote:
> 
> >     Call Now!
> > Girls Girls Girls
> >      LIVE!
> >
> > 1-900-476-8585 ext. 8500
> 
> Any beautiful men there?
> 
>      /\
>     / \\
>    ((  ))
>     "--"
> I guess this was posted here because all these ladies are jewish...
Avital.

In article <55d2hp$6lj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com (LBsys) writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>>What's special about 26 dimensions is that we can refer to them as 
>>>dimensions A,B,...Z using only one letter. This kind of convenience
>>>can't be merely an accident, which proves the existence of a God
>>>who possesses a Western European education.
>>>
>> Fortunate, indeed.  Imagine a God with a Chinese education.
>
>"Once I met the devil - he was might sick"
>
>                            (Chicago, Hi-de-hi, ho-de-ho)
>
>Now we know the reason - God gave him a chinese education and told him to
>dream up a suitably dimensioned universe of his own. He thought to keep
>him busy that way but it didn't work after all: as any other bad boy the
>devil wanted Gods toy to play with...
>
Can't say I blame him.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Doug Craigen wrote:
> 
> Nyoung wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm looking for a source of information on time.  A couple of weeks ago,
> > I was talking with a friend over a few beers, and he was talking about
> > some interesting developments in the measurement of the speed of light
> > over the period of time such measurements have been made.  He claimed
> > that it appears that there seems to be some differences in c over time,
> > which would indicate a slowing.  Now...is this BS?  (My friend has been
> > known to see how much BS he can sling before being brought to post...)
> > Anyone else heard anything like this?  Is there an WWW address I can
> > look at if so?   In this same discussion he also claimed that studies of
> > red-shifted light from surrounding galaxies, stars, etc. all fall into
> > bands...or, in other words, are quantized.  So...more BS?
> 
> I don't know who all promotes this claim, but one group is "scientific
> creationists".  Because of this, I've added talk.origins to the newsgroups
> list.
> 
> The interest of scientific creationists is quite simple, the fact that we
> see things billions of light years away creates havoc with the earth being
> 10,000 years old.  The options are not easy: if the light was created
> en-route in the creation, then is this calling God a liar for making the
> universe appear other than what it really is?
> 
> Anyways, measurements of the speed of light have been going on for some
> time.  For example, Huygens and Newton came up with measurements of 2.3 *
> 10^8 and 2.4*10^8 m/s respectively.  If anything, this would indicate that
> light is speeding up, since the presently accepted value is 2.99792458*10^8
> m/s (approximately).  It would also suggest that the speed of light just
> happened to stop changing right around when we were able to start making
> accurate measurements of it (funny coincidence isn't it?).
> 
> The claim that the speed of light is slowing down rests on selective use of
> historical data and in cases such as Newton and Huygens, re-calculations of
> their results.  However, I have not seen the details of the debate myself.
Yes, this one's been through the mill a few time on talk.origins ;)
Ian plimers book "Telling Lies for God" covers the subject quite well.
One of the methods used was to plot a graph using the +/-
percentage on each measurement. If this is done a straight
line can be drawn at constant speed of light for all measurements,
even though the actual measurements are not identical. This is
the accepted method for determining that the speed of light
has not changed. However, if a few key measurements are ommitted,
it's possible to draw a line showing a slowing down of the
speed of light over time. It should strike you that throwing away
evidence in order to prove a conclusion would immediately 
invalidate the theory.
In one case, believing no-one would check their sources, one of the
Creation institutions (ICR I think) actually made up measurements
supposedly made by a Soviet research team. This is why Plimer calls
his book "Telling lies..."
Also try:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/c-decay.html
For the Talk.Origins FAQ entry on the subject.
Barry.
-- 
E-mail: Barry_Vaughan@hp.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this sloppiness caused by ignorance or apathy ? 
I don't know and I don't care. - William Safire
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of Hewlett-Packard Ltd.

The cypress tree in the courtyard.

jbloke  wrote:
>I can't quite get my head round this for years I have believed physics to 
>be a science then I discovered the serve lack of proof in some areas.
>Without anyhard proof of their existance scientist claim to have 
>discovered new particles such as gravitons and glutons simply because 
>they SHOULD be there to perform this or that function in the universe 
>and fit in with the idea of the universe that we hold at the moment. It 
>seems amasing to me that science that challenge and to all intends and 
>perposes defeated relgion, on grounds of a lack of evidence and 'fact' 
>being based on belief/faith, and now respectd physists are expecting us 
>to agree with their theories because calculations show that such and such 
>a particle might possibly exist under some circumstances maybe.
>If you are going to reply to this rant then please ensure that you have 
>evidense to back up your arguement.
>Thank you.
Science models the universe, then compares observations to predictions 
ex post facto.  The order, prediction then observation, is of prime 
importance.  Religion does it the other way and is damned for it.
Both geocentric epicycles and heliocentric elliptical orbits model 
planetary motion to the same accuracy.  The model you choose is simply 
one of convenience.  Either way works better than using the bible.
Aristotleian physics gives you predictions which do not jive with 
observations,  Newton was on the money for ambient conditions but failed 
on large and small scales.  Relativity and quantum mechanics are more 
complete in those respective territories, and are still "wrong" because 
they can give conflicting predictions (wherein quantum mechanics 
invariably jives with observation).  
Choose your model, place your bets.
You can as easily choose a religious model.  6000+ years of religion have 
not progressed beyond "god did it."  Catholicism and Eastern religions 
are particularly adept at having large numbers of people live in utter 
squalor, dying early and often.  God strode Europe AD 476 to about AD 
1000 and, like marxist-leninist thought, wags still complain that 
everything would have worked out had the experiment been conducted 
longer, on a larger scale, and with more vigor. Like maybe the 
Inquisition, eh?
It's your choice - microprocessors and flush toilets vs Black Plague and 
fat priests.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) writes:
>         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.
Do neutrinos bother you? Does sound?  Gravitational radiation is
simply a traveling-wave solution to the Einstein field equation in
free space.
>         Are the waves that LIGO will try to find the "force"
>of gravity, really, or are they just secondary oscillations.
Gravitational radiation consists of ripples in the shape of spacetime
propagating through spacetime.
>: No theory of gravity has been successfully quantized.  But it is exceedingly
>: likely that in a successful quantum theory of gravity, the fundamental
>: quantum of the gravitational field (i.e. the curvature of spacetime)
>: would be a quantized gravitational wave -- a graviton -- just as the 
>: fundamental quantum of the electromagnetic field is a quantized 
>: electromagnetic wave, aka a photon.
>         Why would something like a "graviton" be needed,
>the geodesics follow inertial paths, that is why they call
>them geodesics.
Gravitons would be needed in a quantum theory, because gravitational
radiation carries energy, energy is quantized, and so a graviton would
be a fundamental quantum of gravitational radiation.
>         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?
Because of the symmetry properties of the gravitational field and the
ripples therein, gravitational radiation must be quadrupole radiation
(gravitons must therefore have a spin of 2).  To generate a pulse of
gravitational one must change the quadrupole moment of one's radiator.
Rotating a massive steel bar would work just fine.
>: 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.
>: >        No repeatable experiments have detected gravity waves.
>: >The gravity waves they are trying to detect are secondary
>: >vibrations in spacetime from massive collisions of distant
>: >galaxies or stars, or any lopsided explosion that would
>: >cause a lot of mass to move violently.
>: >        The laboratory experiment that would cause these
>: >"waves" (which some people feel general relativity predicts)
>: >is a heavy bar spinning perpendicular to it's axis.
>: >        But the amplitude of these "waves" would be so small
>: >that it is a very difficult experiment to make, that is why
>: >the distant catastrophic events are the focus of the current
>: >experiments.
>: >        Hopefully in the near future there will be news
>: >releases of the progress.
>: >  
>: >: 2. Do gravity waves slow down when prapagating mass? If so, it is
>: >: according to something similar to index of refraction.
>: >        Since no gravity waves have been detected, study
>: >is needed to determine any facts.
>: The gravitational index of refraction of a matter field (e.g. a dust cloud) 
>: ought to be calculable, in the same way that the index of  refraction
>: of a dielectric material can be calculated. Here is a handwaving sketch
>: of how to carry out the calculation:
>        Do you have a reference for this?
No; I was sketching out the calculation I would attempt if someone asked
me to calculate the index of refraction of a dust cloud.
>: Start with a plane gravitational wave incident on a layer of dust.  The
>: wave propagates in the z-axis direction and has +-polarization (i.e.
>: aligned with the x- and y-axes and has intensity h.
>: First step: calculate the tidal motion of an area element of this dust
>: layer under the influence of the wave.  This is (or ought to be) trivial
>: Second step: calculate the gravitational radiation emitted by this
>: oscillating bit of dust.
>: Third step: Integrate over the entire layer to find its contribution
>: to the radiation field.  You ought to be able to use symmetry to make
>: this into a reasonable expression.
>: Fourth step: just as in the electromagnetic calculation, use this result
>: to compute the resultant overall wave and from this the gravitational
>: index of refraction of the dust cloud.
>        I left this in for anyone who is not getting a conplete
>news feed, as I am not.
>        But I have no idea what you are talking about or
>where it leads.
Then I'm afraid you'll be left behind in any reasonable discussion
of gravitational radiation.  It's basic stuff.
>: It looks like a straightforward problem to me -- I would hope that
>: someone who had taken an undergraduate-level course in relativity
>: could work it through.  There would be no excuse for not being able
>: to do this in a graduate-level course.
>: Expectation: the index of refraction for a plausible dust cloud is
>: going to be very, very, very close to 1.
>          " 1" what?
1, meaning the number 1.  In optics, the index of refraction of a
material is a dimensionless quantity.  Naturally its analog in 
gravitational wave propagation would be dimensionless, also.
>: Question for thought:  When plane gravitational waves interact, they
>: produce singularities.  Imagine a plane gravitational wave incident
>: on the edge of an infinite dust cloud.  Even though the index of the
>: cloud is going to be close to unity, *some* of that wave is going
>: to be reflected.  Will a singularity result?  Why would you expect
>: (or not expect) this to happen with real gravitational waves incident
>: on real dust clouds?
>        I have heard of several different kinds of singularities,
>but not this one.     Please explain what you are talking about.
>: >: 3. I know it is believed to create curvature in time-space wich means
>: >: incredible and amazing thing, but from another point of view, can gravity
>: >: waves as building momentum while propagating a mass unit, then, in order
>: >: to conserve momentum, force the mass unit backwards while passing throug.
>: >        The mechanism that causes gravity in General Relativity
>: >is inertia, but instead of space being a three dimensional
>: >checkerboard coordinate system, spacetime has the coordinate
>: >system flowing toward the center of massive bodies.
>: Coordinate systems are arbitrary.  Go back and read MTW
>         I read it every day, maybe in another 25 years I'll
>finish it.
Start by reading Section 1.2, "Spacetime with and without coordinates"
If you can't hack that, then go away.
-- 
Alan Bostick               | "Dole is so unpopular, he couldn't sell beer on
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | a troop ship." (Ohio Republican Senator William
news:alt.grelb             | Saxbe on Bob Dole's early career in the Senate)
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
http://www.theangle.com/  The first site with a brain.  Yours.

patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
> > >Faith in Science is not necessary.
> > >Science works whether you believe it or not.
pieterh@sci.kun.nl (Peter den Haan):
> >This statement is already based on an article of faith: the validity of
> >induction. Of course, in science, we call it an 'axiom' because we don't
> >like to borrow religious idiom.
Patrick:
> No, it's a simple observation -- the computer at which I writing
> is currently working, it was designed via science, and therefore
> the science by which it was designed works. [...]
     An observation of the class, "tautology."
-- moggin

ellen3444@aol.com (Ellen3444) wrote:
>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.
What is the mechanism by which a car is made to stop?  Is that mechanical 
construct a constant, or does it vary in size as the car changes 
velocity?  Where does the car's kinetic energy go when it is brought to a 
halt?
 [snip]
Ellen3444?  3444? Is this the village of the Stepford wives or something?
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

moggin:
|> You've got two models that make different predictions.  If
|> the predictions of model A are more accurate, and those of model B
|> are less, it follows that model B is flawed, in comparison to model
|> A. 
Once again your statement is not precise.
In physics, we have a word that means something different than 
"wrong" or "flawed".  The word is ...
                         "approximation"
In fact, an approximation can be "correct", or it can be "flawed".
=> Classical mech. IS an approximation of relativistic mechanics.  
=> x''' = F/m ISN'T an approximation of relativistic mechanics, 
   although it agrees in the case of a free particle.  
Thus, we can identify in a word an important relationship which may 
(or may not) exist between two theories.
Q: when x -> 0, which is approximately true of y = 1/sqrt(1-x) ?
(a) y -> 1 + x/2
(b) y -> 1 + x
The answer is (a). 
Try it on your calculator for x = 0.001 ... pretty darn close, eh? 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff:
> |> > Q2: what is a not-wrong theory of mechanics?
> |> Guess I haven't mentioned it lately, but I'm steering clear of
> |> metaphysics, just this once.  I notice that Jeff Inman and Andy Dinn
> |> are around -- you could probably inveigle them into discussing it.
> A2: there isn't one.
     That's certainly one answer, although it would have caused a huge
fuss if it had come from me.  
-- moggin

�See how The Fates their gifts a lot, for A is happy and B is not...�
Mikado, Gilbert and Sullivan
From Arthur Fine�s The Shaky Game. An alternative view of EPR.
Einstein on Bohr�s Copenhagen Interpretation: �This theory reminds me a
little of the system of delusions of an exceedingly intelligent
paranoic, concocted of incoherent elements of thoughts.� Do not conclude
that Einstein did not like or respect Bohr!
Podolsky actually wrote the famous EPR paper of 1935 and obscured
Einstein�s main idea so that most of the pop explanations including
Heinz Pagels� one in The Cosmic Code are misleading. This includes some
of my own explanations as well.
The �Podolsky� argument is essentially:
1. �If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with
certainty the value of a physical quantity� that that quantity is
objectively real.
2. In the case of a quantum correlated pair of particles moving in
opposite directions �we can predict from a measurement of the position
of one system, the position of the other, and similarly with regard to
linear momentum.�  If the systems are allowed to separate far enough
spatially, there can be no question of the measurement of one disturbing
the other... hence ... at least one particle must have simultaneously
definite position and momentum.� (Fine p.33).
�Locality� or �separability� is �the claim that whether a physical
property holds for one of the particles does not depend on measurements
(or other interactions) made on the other particle when the pair is
widely separated in space.� p. 37
�Completeness� means if a particle really has a property, it should be
in an eigenstate whose eigenvalue is that property. Behind this is the
idea that wavefunctions are attached to individuals which I assume in my
beyond the quantum physics of the mind-brain connection.
Einstein says locality and completeness are incompatible. Showing that
locality violates Heisenberg uncertainty is a secondary consequence.
Einstein of course opted for locality and, therefore, concluded that
quantum mechanics was �incomplete�. That is, the quantum wave function
does not describe the individual quantum system completely. The wave
function only describes a statistical ensemble. Bohm, and myself, opt
for completeness and nonllocality. That is, the wavefunction is an
objective nonlocal field attached to the individual quantum system.
Another way of putting the Podolsky argument is:
�Suppose the two particles (A and B) are far apart and I measure, say,
particle A for linear momentum (in a certain direction). Using the
conservation law I can infer the linear momentum of particle B from the
result of this measurement on A. Thus after the A measurement, the B
particle has a certain linear momentum. By separation, this real
property of B must have heald already at the time when I began my
measurement on A ... For otherwise I would have created the momentum at
B by measuring A, in violation of separation.� (Fine, p. 37)
But what was most important for Einstein, according to Fine�s historical
study of the Einstein archive, was the implication that �But at the
initial moment of the A measurement, the state of the composite system
does not yield probability one for finding any momentum value for B, for
that state is a nontrivial superposition of products of momentum
eigenstates for the A and B subsystems. Hence the description provided
by the state function given by quantum theory is incomplete. Here ...
the argument establishes the incompatibility of separation and
completeness.� (Fine, p. 37)
Go to http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr
look for the Cartoon Version of SPACE-TIME AND BEYOND 2001.

In article <556k3c$1c7e@uni.library.ucla.edu>, elwright@ucla.edu says...
>
>>In article <54v8bv$4e@services.arn.net>, tadchem@arn.net (tadchem) 
writes:
>>> Question:  How is the red shift due to transitions across gravity 
wells 
>>> (presumably a roughly linear function of distance for intergalactic 
photons)
: distinguishable from doppler red-shift?
:A Doppler shift changes the photon energy, the photon arrival rate, and 
the
:observed angular size of the source so that a blackbody remains a 
blackbody
;-- but with a different temperature.  Tired light models do not do this.
>
>Since the cosmic microwave background is a blackbody to great precision,
>and since the local low redshift Universe is not opaque and isothermal
>and thus won't create a blackbody, tired light models will not work.
>
Fred Hoyle's book ' From Stonehenge to Modern Cosmology' proves that 
redshift is not an accurate measure of stellar distances.  Check it out.
Danik Jerriko
snowlion@mail.telis.org

G*rd*n 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.
mbk@bu.edu (Mark B. Kraft):
| 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.
The mystery for me is this:  I studied and got a reasonably good
grade in elementary Calculus.  Prior to this study, I had what we 
might call an intuitive grasp of Newtonian mechanics -- for instance, 
I could "feel" and visualize the planetary system, and beyond that I 
could do the arithmetic given reasonably simple cases.  According to 
a lot of people in these threads, however, at that time I did not 
_understand_ Newtonian mechanics, because I didn't know Calculus.  
Then I studied Calculus.  Afterward, what I would call my 
understanding or view of Newtonian mechanics was pretty much 
the same as it had been before I studied Calculus, except now I 
had some additional tools to use if I wanted to work on it.  It just 
didn't change my view of what was going on physically to any 
significant degree.  
Therefore, I have to draw the conclusion that those who assert 
that one must know Calculus to understand Newtonian mechanics 
are using the words "Calculus" and "understand" differently than I 
do, and they must be using them to refer to a state of mind which I 
haven't experienced, something sort of mystical which can't be 
explained to me because I haven't studied _enough_ Calculus, or 
something.  In other words there's an arcanum here.  Before I heard 
about this, I'd have agreed with you that physics, like other 
sciences, is wide open.  To me, Newtonian mechanics doesn't seem 
arcane at all; in fact, it seems a lot easier on the intuition 
than ranks of crystalline spheres.  So you can see how benighted,
how far from true _gnosis_ I am.  I am probably beyond help, eh?
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
> >> Surely, the problem does NOT have the structure:
> >> Table 1:          ----------------------
> >>                   |   Newt says  a = 1 |
> >>                   |                    |
> >>                   |   Stein says a = 2 |
> >>                   ----------------------
> >> Otherwise, we could never build Indy Cars with Newton's laws.  
     Interesting that you silently deleted my reply to this point.
Borrowing Mati's tricks, eh?  Next you'll be re-writing me, too.
Jeff:
> >> Ca va?  In fact, it has EXACTLY the structure:
> >> Table 2:          -------------------------------
> >>                   |     Newt says a = 1         |
> >>                   |                             |
> >>                   |  Stein says a = 1/sqrt(1-x) |
> >>                   -------------------------------
moggin:
> |> Excuse me?  Newt says all cats are black; Stein says no, it
> |> seems they aren't.  I don't know how you worked a square root in
> |> there.
Jeff:
> moggin, this is EXACTLY the form of the difference (in the simplest 
> case) between classical and relativistic mechanics, where x=v/c.
     You're offering it as an account of the differences between Newt
and Stein on the subject of cats.  And it doesn't even begin fit the
case.
> In your mind exists the contradiction of Table 1.
     No, it's quite simple, and I've explained it several times --
Newt concluded that all cats were black; Stein discovered non-black
cats, thus contradicting Newt's claim;
> In reality exist two theories with the mathematical structure 
> shown in Table 2.  Neither represents the truth, although Stein's 
> has a wider range of applicability.
     That's not Stein's theory (although I can't speak for whatever
reality you're posting from).
-- moggin

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>Would be really interesting to see whether he mentioned something in 
>this direction.  There were recently few posts (by Michael Siemons, I 
>think) of interesting quotes from Newton's Principia.  Maybe he can 
>help.  Personally I think you're right.  It seems to me that Newton's
>general approach was to one which since then served physics so well, 
>i.e.
>First, it has to work.  That's obligatory.
>Second, you should've an explanation.  If possible.
>Meaning, if it works and you don't have an explanation, it is still 
>fine.  Use it and leave the explanation to the future.
There is a quote from Newton along these lines (but I don't have a
cite). When asked why his theory didn't explain what gravity is,
Newton replied, "It tells you how it moves. That should be enough."
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca