Subject: Re: "Essential" reality (was: When did Nietzsche wimp out?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:10:03 GMT
In article , gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> So, to put it in one sentence, math is dealing with deducing outcomes
>> from known axioms. Science is dealing with deducing axioms from known
>> outcomes. That's an essential difference.
>
... snip ...
>However, the life sciences also deal with deducing outcomes from (well)
>known axioms: e.g. biological pest control using predators or parasites to
>get rid of pests or disease vectors; plant successions after disturbance
>events; determining the carry capacities of habitats by knowing a species'
>feeding requirements and food resource availability. Today's immensely
>successful molecular biology is both about deducing outcomes from known
>axioms as well as deducing axioms from known outcomes.
Yeah. It is a "forward-backward" mode, open ended on both sides.
That's what makes it science, using the axioms while realizing that
they're not necesserily true axioms, just our best guess. Thus, even
though relied upon, they're open to be modified if and when the need
arises. Extremely important. When science takes its axioms as
absolutes then it ceases to be science and becomes religion.
>
>I guess a distinction must be made. You appear to treat science only as that
>aspect of the scientific endeavor focussed on obtaining new information and
>insights, namely _research_. However, a lot of science also attempts to put
>scientific knowledge to work (often using math as a tool) in the form
>_technology_.
True. We all tend to concentrate on what we're familiar with and I'm
not an exception.
>
>A key concept here, I think, is uncertainty. Math can deduce outcomes to
>whatever degree of certainty the axiom inherently allows. Math thrives on
>the (degree of) certainty it is capable of conveying. Science on the other
>hand thrives on uncertainty. That's its fuel.
>
Right on !!!
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Is glass a solid?
From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 00:09:07 GMT
In article ,
Peter Ceresole wrote:
>In article <557mi9$5ss@nn2.fast.net>,
>pcosenza@gpu.com wrote:
>
>>No, glass is not a solid.....it is an amorphous liquid. You can see this liquid
>>property express itself best in old (read really old) window panes. If you look
>>closely they will be wider/thicker at the bottom than at the top. The glass has
>>flowed down and caused the pane to thicken.
>>
>
>Wheeee! Here we go again!
>
>The old bullshit is the best bullshit...
>
>Still bullshit of course.
Lettsee, Peter, We have Charles Kittel of Cal Berkley, Anderson, Leaver,
Alexander and Rawlings of the Imperial College of Science and Technology,
Dickerson and Gray of Cal Tech, and Haight of the University of Illinois
saying the same thing.
Then then there is Peter, who pronounces it all "bullshit".
Good for you, Peter. Your opinion captures the essance of the pro-solid
position. No reason, just flat statements.
>--
>Peter
--
Steve La Joie | "I think the biggest weapon of the totalitarian state
lajoie@eskimo.com | is the oppression of the individual by economic means.
| In this manner, the people are made to fall in line
| with the principles of the government" A. Einstein
Subject: Re: Quantum Physics:Illusion and Reality
From: mallahj@acf2.nyu.edu (Jacques Maurice Mallah)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 02:38:36 GMT
Jacques Maurice Mallah (mallahj@acf2.nyu.edu) wrote:
: davidelm (davidelm@tiac.net) wrote:
: : Or if you want to check out the current 'scientific' view you can
: : check out these other web pages on Bell's Inequality:
: : [...]
:
: I checked out the list. Some urls weren't working, but I don't
: think that would change my conclusion. From what I see, there's still no
: good explantation on the web of Bell's theorem.
: What someone has to do is copy some pages out of Sakurai's Modern
: QM and post them on the web. I would do it myself if I had time.
On second thought I probably should do it myself one of these
days, in order to show where the four possibilities come in:
1. Nonlocality (if the algorithm of QM is accurate, it
must be of a sort that allows no FTL communication).
2. One trial, many actual outcomes. (All "possible"
outcomes really occur.)
3. Strong determinism - particles in region A
can behave according to what all the particles
and detector settings in region B are doing,
because that is predetermined and A shares a past
history with them.
4. Bell's inequality is not violated,
but "loopholes" allow low detector
efficiencies to give that illusion.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (mallahj@acf2.nyu.edu)
Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Subject: Re: Gravity And Electromagnetism
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 00:42:45 GMT
In another posting, someone has claimed that gravity is an energy
carrier and, since energy is quantized, gravity must be quantized. I
think this is unacceptable. Gravity is a potential. You must put energy
into an object to increase its potential energy. It is this energy that
is being converted into the Kinectic energy of the object and not
gravity that is being converted. If gravity carried energy, mass would
have to be continually creating energy, in violation of the law of
conservation of energy. The question becomes: What is creating the
potential? GR would imply that mass is itself an energy that curves
spacetime. If this curvature is finite the energy needed to create the
curvature is also finite. For this to be possible the radius of
spacetime must also be finite.
I find this all very confusing in relation to electromagnetic
quanta. Since gravitational energy and electrostatic energy cannot be
"absorbed", how is it that electromagnetic energy can be absorbed?
There must be a fundamental difference in the way these things operate.
I think it has something to do with gravitational energy and the
electrostatic energy being potentials and the electromagnetic photons
being merely a quantity of energy, but I do not know how to explain it
either mechanically or mathematically. For example if the photon were a
curvature of spacetime propagating through spacetime, then particles in
the path of the photon should move in response to the curvature, and
the energy of the photon should decrease. This is not observed to
happen. Could it be that photons only have permissable energy states
that correspond to maximum and zero energy, while the electrostatic and
gravitational fields have only one permissable energy state
corresponding to the maximum energy? This might be possible
mathematically but it still does not provide a very satisfying answer
to why particles in the path of a photon can only repsond to the
curvature in quantized units.
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 01:04:26 GMT
moggin [to Matt]:
|> The models differ considerably. They produce similar results
|> only when confined with certain limits. Outside those limits, not so.
|> if you "pick GR," you reject CM as a model (although you may continue
|> to use it for various tasks), unless you claim the universe switches
|> between the two models, which you now tell me is not your position.
(use a fixed-space font)
v << c
REALITY |-------------> Newton <-|
/ | | |
? / | | |
/ large-scale | | |
/---------------------------> GR ------> SR |
/ flat |
/ metric |
/ |
-------------> relativistic QM ----------> nonrelativistic QM
small-scale v << c
Sometimes we pick GR. Not much good for the Aharanov-Bohm
effect, though.
Your position is that we reject everything "downstream" of the
most inclusive theory. However, the arrows are well-defined
mathematical limits. Whether or not you want to reject the
limits as "false" or "wrong", they are unique and will continue
to exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 01:22:04 GMT
candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
> => Classical mech. IS an approximation of relativistic mechanics.
moggin:
> |> No, CM is an approximation of RM only over a limited range --
> |> outside that span, you need another word. Something on the order of
> |> "wrong" or "false" might fit the bill, but I'll leave it up to you.
Jeff:
> There is already an accepted terminology which is consistent
> with the mathematical structure of (so-called uniform) asymptotic
> approximations:
> DEFINITION:
> The sequence {f_n(z)}, n=0,1,2,... is said to be an asymptotic
> sequence as z -> z_0 in S if each f_n(z) is continuous in R
> and if the conditions f_(n+1) = o(f_n(z)), n=0,1,2,... hold
> uniformly as z -> z_0 in S.
> We would say simply "low-velocity approximation" in the case of
> CM vs. RM. The adjective in front tells you where the simplified
> theory connects smoothly (z_0 in the definition) to the more general
> one.
> Notice that we don't call them "wrong sequences" or "uniform false
> expansions". To do so would be to rob the words "wrong" and "false"
> of their meaning. The game in asymptotic theory is to compute an
> expression that is simpler than some reference expression, but agrees
> with it in a selected domain or domains (S).
My, how you go on! But you haven't managed to improve the
accuracy of CM outside a limited range. Yes, you can say that it
gives approximations of RM at low velocities, but you neglected
to make that qualification until pressed, and you're still trying
to overlook the fact that at high velocities, it's considerably
wide of the mark. So as I said, you need another word -- you've
got my suggestions, but feel free to offer some of your own.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: Physicists prove Wiles FLT garbage
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 01:05:33 GMT
" America at war. the Vietnam conflict is America's largest,
costliest, and most mysterious war. "
from VIETNAM: TEN THOUSAND DAY WAR (1980)
VietMath War has lasted since the invention of mathematics with its
Finite Integers and really picked up steam in the late 1800s when
Cantor put the Finite Integers into a supposed correspondence of Reals.
Of course neither Cantor or the other little fools that followed Cantor
ever raised the question of whether finite of a Finite Integer ever
made sense. Like comparing the number of fire breathing dragons to the
number of real living organisms, one a fiction the other something
real.
" Math at war. the Vietmath conflict is the world's oldest, largest,
costliest, and most mysterious war. "
from VIETMATH: P-adic DAYs of WAR (1996)
If you do not love America, leave her and go to Canada. You draft
evader --Dr. Dmitri Vulis, New York City
__| \ / |__
_ o ___\o \o | o/ o/___ o _
/\ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ /\
___|_\______ _____/_|__
When the physicists show you that Quantum Mechanics is written in
p-adics and not Finite Integers, the math people will know, and know
for sure that they were stupid idiots. One physics experiment is worth
more than a billion math proofs that the nitwit math people care to
construct.
It took hundreds of math people to nodd approval to Wiles for his 100
page FLT, but it will take only one physicist and his physics
experiment to prove that Wiles head is up his ass as well as the rest
of the math community. -- Dr. Dmitri Vulis and Gina Kolata, New York
Jimes, front cover
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~atom/
http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/ppl/ap/index.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gladiola/
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~reneal/
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: mlyle@scvnet.com
Date: 3 Nov 1996 02:02:58 GMT
schne042@gold.tc.umn.edu (Mike Schneider) wrote:
>Robert Burgman wrote:
>To comment on Canada and the metric system; I grew up thinking Canada was
>all metric, until I saw the show Red Green. He was measuring a board 8
>ft., then he says "...and if you are in metric, measure how many meters
>you need to make 8 ft." ROTFL.
Speaking of the metric system and Canada, There was a great routine done
by a Canadian (I think) troupe named "The Frantics". It was a skit set
in ancient Rome where they were switching from Roman numerals to Decimal.
The main character was saying stuff like "How much is that in _real_
numbers?, etc. It was obviously parodying the efforts to convert to
metric units. I wish I had a copy!
Unfortunately, The Frantics big moneymaker was "Boot to the Head", a bit
about a karate class. Funny, but no message...
George
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: Zeldor
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 19:57:10 -0600
While reading this newsgroup, I could not contain myself from laughing.
The human brain operates by generating and maintaining ion gradients
across the cell membranes of neurons. These correlate with the general
sensory inputs and throughout time will establish interconnections
between the different neurons to produce what is in general known as
'sentience'. The problem with the use of radio transmission with
respect to affecting the brain's operation is that the brain uses
localized gradients which are highly specific with respect to site
locations within the brain, and far outweigh the effects of long range
electromagnetic transmition within the localized area of neural action.
These gradients can be overridden through electrical action, however,
when those levels are reached the person undergoes severe convultions
and all of the common effects of 'electroshock' and electrocution are
observed. People regularly have a vast array of low frequency
electromagnetic radiation at 60Hz streaming by them all the time from
the electric lines around them. A mechanic that was testing a battery
generated a few sparks around his thumb as he jumped a wire between two
terminals to see if it was good. I am not necessarily sure of the
wisdom of this, however he seemed to have no ill effects.
With respect to high frequency auditory inputs the problem with that is
that there is a limit with respect to what the human ear can hear. If
the human ear can not send a neural signal to the brain corresponding
with the high frequency input if it does not have the apparatus within
it to send the signal to begin with. Admittably, there might be sounds
sent at the border of what the human ear could detect. The effect would
be that it would be 'barely audible'. Some human ears can detect sounds
at certain frequencies better than others, and so some of those ears
might be able to hear the sounds. Those people might say to their
workmates 'hey, can you hear that?' and, since it would be barely
audible to most persons, they would probably just be able to hear it. If
it would end up being repeated all the time it would eventually be
'tuned out' just like everything else regardless of what it is, and be
of little more effect than the generic 'moods' of music that are played
at different stores anyway.
Admittably, microwaves might have some effects. If I stuck my head in a
microwave oven for about three minutes it would 'fry my brain', and
probably produce fatal effects. The statement about tin foil was
somewhat interesting. Tin foil does cause 'sparks' in a microwave and
will absorb and severely bend or modify microwaves as well as absorb
them. Also long electric wires would do the same. The Russians did
produce some radio transmissions of a certain frequency a few years
back. Supposedly they did try to produce some effects by using much
greater amounts of radiation on certain persons. I am not sure,
however, as to whether it was ever shown that it was more than the
placebo effect.
Such 'large scale efforts' by any organization would become a news
story, and I have never seen any such 'gadgets' in cars.
And by the way, what is an 'aura'? Is it the amount of IR radiation put
out by a person? If so, could you 'destroy' someone's aura by having
them stand in a refrigerator? Is it the amount of static electricity
someone holds? If so, could you generate a 'superman' by having someone
stand next to a heater or rub baloons?
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 02:04:20 GMT
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>::: So, even in your (unnecessary) "reference system setup," how do you
>::: know that the rear clock reading is zero when the front one reads
>::: zero?
>:: Same way bjon knew that the light took D/c in this coordinate system
>:: for the light to reach the rear clock.
>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>: Wrong. In SRT, it is not possible because there is no event at that
>: clock. And that was not my determination, but an experimental result.
>Now bjon is claiming that the ticking of a clock does not supply
>a stream of events at that location. Truly a dizzying intelect, has bjon.
>Anyways, if there "is no event at that clock",
>I wonder what bjon meant by asking what it read?
>--
>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> throopw@cisco.com
(Didn't expect Throop to get it).
Anyway, to plough onward(?), I did not specify any event at the rear
clock, so in your world (SRT), there's no way to determine this
clock's reading because there must be a specified event AT a clock for
this.
Now, about that part where I asked you what the rear clock was reading
when the front clock read zero. It is a well-known fact that SRT has
no absolute syncronization. SRT has relative synchronization. There
is a difference, of course. Absolute (or Newtonian) synchronization
(as is mentioned in many SRT texts) means simply that all clocks in
the universe read zero at the same instant. This allows the Newtonian
observer to determine the true or absolute time interval between any
two events. There are no such clocks in SRT, which, as I said, has
merely relative time. In SRT, all observers will find a different
time interval between two events. All of this is well-known, but
somehow Throop will deny some or all of it, I'm sure.
Now we can see clearly that both the front and the rear clocks cannot
(as far as SRT is concerned) BOTH read the same, so both cannot read
zero at the same instant (the very instant when the light ray hits the
front clock). This is because Einstein's clocks differ from Newton's,
as has been pointed out.
How can we determine the rear clock reading? SRT cannot supply us
with the answer. We have to use simple paperwork.
It is given that the rear clock meets a light ray head-on. So when the
light ray is at the front clock, the rear clock will have a chance to
move thru space before the ray reaches it. Therefore, the light ray
cannot travel the full length of the rod (measured as D) before the
ray hits the rear clock. Also, the rod's actual (intrinsic) length
cannot be fully D because a rod actually contracts as it moves thru
space. [It must do this or SRT is wrong because a full length rod
could easily truly synch two clocks (with clock-starting prongs placed
at the rod's ends as it passes over the clocks).] The rod's actual
(thru-space) travel distance is simply cT, where T is the time per a
hypothetical clock that's at rest in space (can't use the moving
clocks because they're slowed).
Then, we must substitute the rod's actual (contracted) length, which
is Dß, where ß = sqr[1-V²/c²], and V is the rod's actual speed thru
space. And of course the clock travels a distance thru space of VT.
We can now solve for the actual travel time T, since cT+VT=Dß.
We have T = Dß/(c+V)
Now we solve for the slowed clock time t. The slow factor is also ß.
The slowed clock time is therefore Dßß/(c+V) = [D(c-V)]/c².
The rear clock must read D/c (per experiment). We can now solve for
the rear clock's reading at the start:
final reading delta-t start reading
D/c - [D(c-V)]/c² = DV/c²
So, we see that the rear clock read DV/c² when the front clock read 0.
This DV/c² is the error in synchronization for Einstein-set clocks,
clocks that are not absolutely synchronized as are Newton's. It has
been called by some the "local offset." Note that it varies directly
with the observer's absolute speed V.
In SRT, each observer's clocks are set precisely according to
Einstein's definition of synchronization, meaning that they have the
"clock difference" of DV/c². It is this offset amount that makes each
einsteinian observer get "c" instead of the Newtonian "c±V" for
light's one-way speed. It is also this offset that makes each
observer get different time intervals for the same two events. And,
further, it makes the observers get different observed lengths for a
passing rod (clocks used to "pin down" rod ends at the "same time" per
the observer's E-set clocks), and similarly makes each observer "see"
the other's clock "run slow" (when the passing clock is compared with
two on-board out-of-true clocks), and, finally, makes each observer
obtain a different "mass" for a passing object (on-board E-set clocks
used to measure the object's resultant speed after being hit by a test
object).
In short, E synch is the direct cause of all the so-called
"relativistic effects." (These are: Observer-dependent time, mass, and
length variation).
But note that the einsteinian synchronization involves an absolute
value, V, the observer's absolute speed. Also note that E's
definition of synch contains another absolute value, c. And bear in
mind that actual clock slowing and actual rod contraction are involved
in this definition, so Throop's claim that nothing in SRT is absolute
is obviously incorrect. It's easy to see why SRT has to have these
real underpinnings -- it's a theory of nature.
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 21:16:30 -0500
G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
| >What Dr. Sokal did that was dishonest was to reveal the
| >game as soon as _Social_Text_ had published the article.
| >So unlike the case of scientific hoaxes, whatever community
| >or establishment _Social_Text_ belongs to wasn't allowed to
| >deal with it in its own way. ...
vpiercy@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Van Piercy):
| One could argue that the humanities/cultural studies community is quite
| operative, "self-corrective" and innoculated at this stage: anyone who
| would seriously use Sokal's article as supplying any supporting theses for
| his or her own work would be laughed out of court.
| ...
One wouldn't use a contemporary overview as support for
anything. However, if Sokal had let the hoax lie [heh], it
might have been referred to here and there, then (forgotten
by the respectable) descending into our vast intellectual
underworld, to appear later in badly jumbled cabalistic
texts, diagrams scrawled on the walls of tenements, and
dreams. I'm hoping this will happen anyway; as Russell
points out, recantation by an author is not necessarily a
bar to success of one kind or another. The text is all
the freer, is it not, abandoned in the road?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 02:05:43 GMT
Cees Roos wrote[in part]:
>Mr. Jones,
>could you try to explain what evidence you have, that this concept of
>absolutes is more than just your imagination or phantasy, if, as you
>state, they are not detectable?
>Regards, Cees Roos.
>I know that all I know is what I know, including that I
>do not know what I do not know.
Please see my lengthy reply to Throop.
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: mlyle@scvnet.com
Date: 3 Nov 1996 02:32:15 GMT
Markus Kuhn wrote:
>Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>> I don't know of any products in the U.S. sold in 600ml containers.
>> They're all 1l or 500ml.
You probably do not change your own oil!
In the US, oil still comes in quart containers, though the label proudly
reports that that volume is also 946ml. I own two VWs that each need 5.3
pints (or 2.65 quarts) of oil. This leaves a bit less than a quart in
the bottle, which really confuses the next oil change!
I can hardly wait for oil to be repackaged in liter bottles, since Dr.
Porsche wasn't thinking in pints when he designed my engine. In metric
terms, it holds exactly 2.5 liters!
BTW, for those worried about their mechanics not having the right tools
to work on their car, I find that most of my metric tools are good tight
fits on SAE fasteners. I've only had to buy a few individual SAE
wrenches to work on my All-American Chevy.
George Lyle
Subject: Re: "Essential" reality (was: When did Nietzsche wimp out?)
From: gmt1810@msu.oscs.montana.edu (Mark Tarka)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 02:46:03 GMT
In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article , gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>> So, to put it in one sentence, math is dealing with deducing outcomes
[Snip...]
>>However, the life sciences also deal with deducing outcomes from (well)
>>known axioms: e.g. biological pest control using predators or parasites to
[Snip...]
>>A key concept here, I think, is uncertainty. Math can deduce outcomes to
>>whatever degree of certainty the axiom inherently allows. Math thrives on
>>the (degree of) certainty it is capable of conveying. Science on the other
>>hand thrives on uncertainty. That's its fuel.
>>
>Right on !!!
>
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
Uh huh.... Math is not a science. Yeh! There is _nothing_ in
science that relates to the _beauty_ of math.
And there is nothing in math that relates to the _beauty_ of
science. Yeh. Right.
Two plus two equals four, _only_ because we all agree on that
outcome. Thus, "math" is a fantasy. G' luck, pal :-)
Donations, cheerfully accepted...
Mark gmt1810@msu.oscs.montana.edu msu-bozeman USA
Subject: Re: Gravity and Electromagnetism
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 02:32:15 GMT
In <55gem9$f3i@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes:
>
> Could someone help me with a problem I am having with my pet
>theory? I have recently read the FTL FAQ by Jason Hinson. In it he
does
>a thought experiment to explain SR. A space ship is moving at half the
>velocity of light. An observer in the spaceship shines a light
straight
>up. It bounces off a mirror and is reflected back. To this observer
the
>light goes striaght up and down. Another observer, stationary relative
>to the spaceship, observes that the path of the light forms a
triangle:
>
> /\
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
>
> According to my pet theory, electromagnetism is a spacetime
>curvature that is propagating in spacetime. Assuming this to be valid,
>this means that the light in the spaceship would detach itself from
its
>source and travel to the back of the spaceship. This is obviously
>contrary to experience. However, this scenario is true only if
>spacetime is stationary with respect to all observers. In order to
save
>the theory, you would have to assume that spacetime is moving with the
>spaceship. To put it in a fancy way, motion translates spacetime. Is
>spacetime translated only in the vicinity of the spaceship? My
>conjecture is that the whole of spacetime is tranlated relative to the
>motion of the ship, but not relative to a stationary observer relative
>to the spaceship. Traditional GR states that motion and gravity dilate
>time. This interpretation suggests that gravity and motion translate
>spacetime. Is this rubbish, or am I making sense? I am sorry to be so
>bothersome, but I feel it is my obligation to present evidence that is
>contrary to my pet theory.
>
>Edward Meisner
I think I have the answer to this question. Since, according to
this theory, particles themselves are nothing but curvatures in space
time, curvatures in spacetime can have inertial velocities. Since,
according to this theory, electromagnetic photons are also curvatures
in spacetime, photons can have inertial velocities. This means that the
correct velocity of the light is the vector sum of its inertial
velocity plus it's speed of propagation, v=c+v1. There is a terrible
problem though. I have used Einstein's theory that nothing can exceed
the speed of light to prove that the speed of light can be exceeded.
You can not brush me off by saying my theory is incorrect. Einstein
proved that mass is equivalent to energy and he also proved that energy
is equivalent to spacetime curvature. Therefore Einstein's GR leads to
an unsolvable paradox. You can not get around this. This is a logical
paradox in Einstein's theory. Please, citizens of the net, let's stop
our bickering and put our minds together to solve this paradox. My mind
is much too feeble.
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Using C for number-crunching (was: Numerical solution to Schrodinger's Eq)
From: pecora@zoltar.nrl.navy.mil (Lou Pecora)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 07:54:09 -0400
In article <55cg9d$832@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick
Maclaren) wrote:
> In article , Konrad Hinsen
writes:
> |>
> |> I don't quite agree with "replaced"; after all the Fortran 77 standard
> |> still exists. ...
>
> Only in the USA! ISO have superseded it by the Fortran 90 standard.
> ANSI dissented and have preserved both.
Hey, what do you expect from a country that still uses miles, feet, and
pounds and shuns the metric system. :-)
Then again, how many stone do you weigh? :)
Lou Pecora
code 6343
Naval Research Lab
Washington DC 20375
USA
== My views are not those of the U.S. Navy. ==
------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the 4th Experimental Chaos Conference Home Page:
http://natasha.umsl.edu/Exp_Chaos4/
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 20:01:51 -0500
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:
]: ]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.
]
]: This is not true.
]
]I'm sure we're all going to take your word for it.
I am sure we do, as your inability to support your position with anything
but inconsequential prattle is well established. I.e., you made
some claim about Plato. How about supporting it with detailed references
to Plato ? Or perhaps, it's another case of your slandering
of people because you do not bother to read carefully.
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 20:07:00 -0500
Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
]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.
You don't.
] 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.
It is not mere "grouping people by ethnic background" that
gave Nazis the bad name, as you might know. Otherwise,
US Government would share the reputation of the 3rd reich.
]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.
You reasoning has a gap.
]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.
It is simple truth that great majority of Germans were willing and
enthusiastic Hitler's executioners.
](BTW, as a minor point, Germany did not start WWI.)
I beg your pardon ?
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 20:17:06 -0500
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:
]: ]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.
Weineck, you lied that I posted articles showing "hostility
towards Derrida"; when called upon it, you apologized, then withdrew
your apology. You must not be a person of great integrity, I surmise.
]
]: Gee, that's funny, you seem to have no
]shame whatsoever.
]
]??
What a touching innocence.
]: ]: ]: ]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.
I doubt that calling on opponents to do one's homework is all
that common in academia. But, perhaps, our perspective on academia
is dissimilar owing to differing affiliations.
]: ]: ]: 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.
In fact, using "German" as swearword is not all that uncommon in
Europe.
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"