Subject: Re: Is glass a solid?
From: aleistra@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrea Lynn Leistra)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 00:13:57 -0800
In article , Stephen Lajoie wrote:
>
>In article <32792CC7.7ADD@cyberspc.mb.ca>,
>Doug Craigen wrote:
>>Name of the text and edition please. I am trying to accumulate a list of errors
>>in text books after all. (http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/errors.html)
>The book you are looking for is "Chemical Principles", 2nd ed, Dickerson,
>(cal tech) Gray (cal tech) and Haight (Univ of Illinois), pp624-625, which
>states:
> Glasses are amorphous, disordered, noncrystalline aggregates with
>linked silicate chains of the sort depicted in Figure 14-32. Common soda
>lime glass of made with sand (SiO2), limestone (CaCO3) and sodium
>carbonate (Na2CO3) or sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), which are melted together
>and allowed to cool. Other glasses with special properties are made by
>using other metal carbonates and oxides. Pyrex glass has boron as well as
>silicon and some aluminum in its silicate framework. Glasses are not true
>solids, but are extremely viscous liquids. If you examine the panes of
>glass in a very old New England Home, you can sometimes see that the
>bottom of the pane is slightly thicker than the top because of two
>centuries of slow, viscous flow of the glass.
Regardless of the truth of the first part of the statement, the statement
that old windows are thicker because glass flows is *not* correct; if this
were the case, we would not have glass ornaments from various ancient
civilization that are thousands of years old; they would have flowed into
puddles. Windows in old buildings are thicker at the bottom because they
were *built* that way, for stability and because of poor techniques.
[second citation deleted]
That one, you notice, didn't mention the 'old windows' UL, which is what
most people have trouble with, I think.
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 09:31:13 GMT
In talk.origins mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>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.
>
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the discussion. How does the
enormity of the crime of the Holocaust increase the justification for
an ethnic attack on Silke?
>]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.
You assertion has no persuasive power. If you see a gap, you could
point out some details so I could correct it. And while you are at it,
please explain your justification for an ethnic slur against Silke.
>]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.
Absolutely true. At what percentage are you allowed to consider it the
whole group and their defendants?
>
>](BTW, as a minor point, Germany did not start WWI.)
>
> I beg your pardon ?
>
You have it. Just for fun, please tell me the date of the beginning of
WWI. (BTW, technically speaking Germany did not start WWII either.)
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?
Subject: Re: If earth stopped spinning, what would happen to us?
From: Patrick Van Esch
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 10:59:47 +0000
Edward F. Zotti wrote:
>
> We were recently asked: if the earth stopped spinning, would we fall off?
> My initial reaction was: naah, we'd be glued to the planet more firmly
> than ever (i.e., we'd weigh more), because centrifugal force would no
> longer be operative. However, I thought it prudent to place the question
> before the house. So:
>
> (1) If the earth stopped spinning, would we weigh more, less, or the
> same? If more or less, what would we weigh? If in fact spinning causes us
> to weigh less, how fast would the earth have to spin before we
> were weightless? Would we have to reach orbital velocity, which I
> believe is something like 18,000 MPH at sea level?
Essentially correct (haven't checked the 18.000 Mph but sounds
reasonable)
If the earth wouldn't be spinning, the effect on our weight would be
very
tiny indeed. We would weight a tiny bit more. (the difference being the
largest
at the equator, and nothing at the poles)
>
> (2) Would any other noteworthy effects occur, apart from no sunrises and
> sunsets and the fact that bathtubs would drain straight down no matter
> what hemisphere you were in?
The draining of the bathtub is a myth, btw. (but some physics
professors,
including my boss, think it is true also, so don't bother :)
The biggest difference would of course be that some places would get
VERY
cold and others would get VERY hot. Probably just an icecap and water
vapour :)
The temperature gradient would drive enormous storms. And, oh, yeah,
probably
life would be reduced to some exotic monera.
But that's not the dynamic effects you were looking for. Although the
coriolis
force has no influence on bath tubs, it DOES play a role in
meteorological
phenomena, like the mossoons and the trade winds etc... However, the
temperature
changes introduced by a non-spinning earth would anyway completely alter
that system.
cheers,
Patrick.
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: mmd@zuaxp0.star.ucl.ac.uk (Michael Dworetsky)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 11:41:08 GMT
In article Keith Stein writes:
> J M Woodgate writes
>
>>You may be intrigued by a device called a Crookes' radiometer, which
>>consists of a very light wheel pivoted on a vertical axis in an evacuated glass
>>bulb. The wheel has four rectangular 'sails' (vanes) hanging down from
>>its rim, and these are black on one side and reflective on the other.
>>When placed in sunlight the wheel spins rapidly, due to the momentum
>>transferred by the photons absorbed by the black faces of the sails.
>
> Something wrong there!
>
>Surely the photons which hit the reflective side must bounce off,
>thereby imparting twice the momentum of the photons which hit the dark
>side and are absorbed.
>
Yes. But momentum or light pressure is not the explanation for how such a
device works.
>Nevertheless the vanes in the Crookes radiometer do go round
>with the reflective side to the frount, as J M Woodgate says above.
>
> So here we have an excellent example of a theory making the
> RIGHT PREDICTIONS, but for totally the WRONG REASONS.
>
> (Similarly with many of Einstein's predictions,i think:-)
I do not know of any of Einstein's predictions that are 'right for the
wrong reasons', including this one, but if you would care to enlighten us?
>--
>Keith Stein
How it works:
Before our cat broke our radiometer, I learned enough about it to find out
that it was only partially evacuated. This explains why it works: the
momentum transfer by photons is incredibly small, not enough to overcome
the friction in the bearing, but the energy content of sunlight is not
trivial, and the absorptive heating of the black side warms the air next
to the surface, and the air expands, pushing the vane. The reflective
white side is not heated very much by comparison. (Another way of looking
at it is that air molecules collide with the black side and pick up a bit
of energy and recoil with speed greater than they had when they hit, thus
causing a tiny 'rocket effect', but this does not happen on the white side
to the same extent.)
--
Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics | Bismark's law: The less people
& Astronomy, University College London | know about how sausages and laws
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT UK | are made, the better they'll
email: mmd@star.ucl.ac.uk | sleep at night.
Subject: Re: If earth stopped spinning, what would happen to us?
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 3 Nov 1996 09:16:57 GMT
Edward F. Zotti wrote in article
<327BC354.5D7B@merle.acns.nwu.edu>...
> We were recently asked: if the earth stopped spinning, would we fall off?
> My initial reaction was: naah, we'd be glued to the planet more firmly
> than ever (i.e., we'd weigh more), because centrifugal force would no
> longer be operative. However, I thought it prudent to place the question
> before the house. So:
>
> (1) If the earth stopped spinning, would we weigh more, less, or the
> same? If more or less, what would we weigh? If in fact spinning causes us
> to weigh less, how fast would the earth have to spin before we
> were weightless? Would we have to reach orbital velocity, which I
> believe is something like 18,000 MPH at sea level?
>
> (2) Would any other noteworthy effects occur, apart from no sunrises and
> sunsets and the fact that bathtubs would drain straight down no matter
> what hemisphere you were in?
>
> For a newspaper column. CC's by E-mail appreciated.
> --
>
> Edward F. Zotti
> Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
> ezotti@merle.acns.nwu.edu
There are many noteworthy effects. We would weigh more. One side would cook
and the other freeze, which would make for some interesting winds.
Probably the most fun would be the effects of inertia. Ever had a coke on
the seat and slammed on the brakes? Imagine.
Subject: Re: Do gravitational waves carry momentum? was: Does gravitational waves carry momentum
From: kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu ()
Date: 3 Nov 1996 12:37:58 GMT
In article , Ken Fischer wrote:
>kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
>: In article , Ken Fischer wrote:
>: > I agree, while I do not want to say anything that
>: >might slow or reduce current experimental work, I have to
>: >say that any thought of a long range attractive force field
>: >should have been dismissed as a-result-of GR.
>: > I will say again, two different long range propagation
>: >systems (EM and gravitation) is so unsatisfactory, the idea
>: >is counter to GR, Geometrodynamics, a purely geometric gravity,
>: >affine geometry, and natural physical philosophy.
>: > And especially so since gravity would have to be
>: >attractive over infinite range, and EM does not approach
>: >that.
>
>: Ken, how can we take anything you say seriously when you say something
>: as silly as EM is not infinite in range, just as gravity is.
>
> I shouldn't use initials, I should also have said
>magnetism, and as far as I know, magnetism is the only
>attractive force (all falling bodies in vacuum are not
>accelerated, they are in inertial motion), and magnetism
>falls off faster than light propagation.
>
>Ken Fischer
Sorry to snap. Now consider that there are several kinds
of EM fields and radiation, including magnetic, dipole
electric, quadrapole electric, and various polarizations
of radiation. All these stem from exactly the same law
relating the forces between chrarged particles. They are
different modes because they come from different dynamics
and charge configurations, but they are all perfectly
compatible. The entire idea of GUT is to find the
connection between EM representations and those of
gravitation. Why is this philosophically or otherwise
objectionable?
Jim
Subject: Re: Do gravitational waves carry momentum? was: Does gravitational waves carry momentum
From: kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu ()
Date: 3 Nov 1996 12:37:58 GMT
In article , Ken Fischer wrote:
>kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
>: In article , Ken Fischer wrote:
>: > I agree, while I do not want to say anything that
>: >might slow or reduce current experimental work, I have to
>: >say that any thought of a long range attractive force field
>: >should have been dismissed as a-result-of GR.
>: > I will say again, two different long range propagation
>: >systems (EM and gravitation) is so unsatisfactory, the idea
>: >is counter to GR, Geometrodynamics, a purely geometric gravity,
>: >affine geometry, and natural physical philosophy.
>: > And especially so since gravity would have to be
>: >attractive over infinite range, and EM does not approach
>: >that.
>
>: Ken, how can we take anything you say seriously when you say something
>: as silly as EM is not infinite in range, just as gravity is.
>
> I shouldn't use initials, I should also have said
>magnetism, and as far as I know, magnetism is the only
>attractive force (all falling bodies in vacuum are not
>accelerated, they are in inertial motion), and magnetism
>falls off faster than light propagation.
>
>Ken Fischer
Sorry to snap. Now consider that there are several kinds
of EM fields and radiation, including magnetic, dipole
electric, quadrapole electric, and various polarizations
of radiation. All these stem from exactly the same law
relating the forces between chrarged particles. They are
different modes because they come from different dynamics
and charge configurations, but they are all perfectly
compatible. The entire idea of GUT is to find the
connection between EM representations and those of
gravitation. Why is this philosophically or otherwise
objectionable?
Jim
Subject: Re: Relativity and Rotation Question
From: "Paul B.Andersen"
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 15:09:51 +0200
Nathan M. Urban wrote:
>
> [Followups to sci.physics.relativity]
>
> In article <55d2kv$1rg@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, kiekeben@ix.netcom.com(Franz Kiekeben) wrote:
>
> > If all motion is relative, so is rotational motion.
>
> Not exactly. I hate it when pop-science books say "all motion is
> relative" because they never say precisely what that means. You cannot
> distinguish one frame of inertial (constant-velocity) motion from
> another, but you can distinguish between non-inertial (accelerating)
> frames; just measure the acceleration.
>
> > 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.
>
> No.. this is where the relativity principle fails; in accelerating
> non-inertial frames such as rotating ones.
The relativity principle of SR, that is.
(Well - it does not "fail", it simply does not apply.)
> You can patch up this
> problem sometimes with another relativity principle, the equivalence
> principle, which says that you cannot distinguish gravity from accelerated
> motion, _locally_, but that still doesn't help when talking about distant
> objects.
And then you enters the world og GR.
In GR, the "relativity postulate" is:
"The laws of physics must be of surch a nature that they apply to
systems of reference in any kind of motion".
So in GR, the system of reference in which the earth is stationary
is perfectly legal. In principle, the whole universe could be described
in such a system, not only local phenomena.
But how would spacetime in surch a system of reference "look"?
Remember that there is no _universal_ curvature of spacetime.
This curvature is specific for every system of reference.
If you have a system of reference with lots of circling masses,
the spacetime will be curved and "twisted" in a very akward manner.
In that twisted spacetime, the speed of the circling stars would
not exceed c.
Bottom line:
The frame of reference in which earth is stationary is a legal,
valid frame of reference according to GR. But it would be a
highly impractical system to use when it comes to describing
the movement of distant stars. The math describing that system
would be horrendous!
All systems of reference are equally valid. But some systems are
more equally valid than others. :-)
Paul
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 09:43:31 GMT
Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry) writes:
>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) wrote:
>>Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry) writes:
>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) wrote:
>>>>Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry) writes:
>>>>>mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>Wow. I don't think I've ever read such an amazingly bad analogy. See,
>>>>>the thing of it is, clothes are not like meaning. If you find meaning in
>>>>>something, it is there. Period. You can't be wrong. It's kind of like
>>>>>feeling pain, don'tcha know? The same cannot be said for tangible
>>>>>objects.
>>>>This point sheds light on the pomo cult of Foucault. If he finds
>>>>meaning in receiving a hairy forearm up his colon, or transmitting the
>>>>HIV virus to countless strangers, it is there. Period. The ethics of
>>>>postmodernism in a nutshell.
>>>Thank you for proving my point.
>>>
>>>(Or are you going to claim that ethics are meaningless?)
>>I am claiming that judgments of meaning are corrigible and indeed often
>>erroneous, as are judgments of value in general -- in contradistinction
>>from impressions of pain and other immediate experiences.
>Aha, an actual claim, this time. Note that I am not using "meaning" to
>mean "signficance/importance," which is indeed a value judgment and
>therefore corrigible. I am using it only to mean "meaning." To register
>an object or a sound as a sign is a form of experience, it seems to me,
>rather than a judgment. I am, of course, dubious of a hard and fast
>distinction between experience and judgment, since it is just another form
>of the cognition/perception binary which doesn't really work. But such
>distinctions serve strategic purposes, and since you just indicated that
>you buy into the distinction too, we can accept it for the time being.
No one can enjoin you from using common terms in idiosyncratic senses
that are incompatible with their usage in philosophy. Note however
that the salient sense of `meaning' is one sufficient to distinguish
communication from gibberish, regardless of the number of people
imputing sense to the putative sign.
>To continue the pain analogy: pain can have significance, and the
>significance of a pain admits of judgment and can be argued over. (Is
>this a serious pain? Is it a sign of a heart attack, or just gas? Is it
>"real" in the sense that it comes from a real limb, or is it a "phantom"
>pain, from a leg which was recently amputated?) But the brute fact of
>pain is experiential, and judgments are overlaid later.
I fail to see the relevance of this analogy. Your point that pains
can bear cognitive content (and indeed they do, as witness their
diagnostic utility) is clearly insufficient for establishing their
communicative role. To reverse your analogy, even deliberately
produced gibberish could serve as a means of achieving valid insight
in its sender's mind. But such utility would hardly sustain your
original contention quoted above.
>By the same token, once you accept the distinction between experience and
>judgment (as you do), it seems to me foolish to assert that meaning
>resides all on one side of the fence, and not at all on the other. You
>yourself want to evaluate the meaning of some of Foucault's actions (or a
>crude parody thereof), but in order to evaluate it, it's gotta be there,
>no?
The point is that the meaning of words or actions is informed by
relevant aspects of the external reality, and hence underdetermined
by "what it seems like" to the agent or his audience -- which is the
sole plausible candidate for incorrigibility.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
From: myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 22:56:32 -0500
In article , David Weinstein
wrote:
>In article <5573ab$9st@news.ptd.net>, Ed Conrad
>writes
>>
>>The WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
>>a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
>>between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
>>
>>It means man -- in almost our present form but considerably larger --
>>had existed on earth multi-million years before the initial emergence
>>of the earliest cat-size, monkey-like primate which science texbooks
>>have long proclaimed to be our most distant ancestor.
>>
>>A color photo of the skull, with one side protruding from the boulder,
>>can now be seen in all its intriguing magnificence at
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skulla.jpg
>>
>>The photograph is a direct link from
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>>where photos of other Carboniferous fossils, also found between coal
>>veins, can be viewed.
>>
>>Meanwhile, another photo -- comparing the petrified human cranium
>>in the boulder with a modern human skull -- can be seen at
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skullb.jpg
>>
>>
>>l
>>
>>
> How in the hell can this be possible? The most advanced life
>back then weren't even vertebrates. This is either a very stupid,
>pointless hoax, either for advancement or a joke, or else a case of
>seriously bad practise of science, with no regard to the proper
>scientific method. Surely thios cannot be true.
Oh, just to correct one error in your post-- although Conrad is a
dimwit who doesn't have a clue, it is not true that there were no
vertebrates in the Carboniferous. There were lots of fish and amphibians.
--
Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: Do gravitational waves carry momentum? was: Does gravitational waves carry momentum
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 16:51:14 GMT
kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
: In article , Ken Fischer wrote:
: > I shouldn't use initials, I should also have said
: >magnetism, and as far as I know, magnetism is the only
: >attractive force (all falling bodies in vacuum are not
: >accelerated, they are in inertial motion), and magnetism
: >falls off faster than light propagation.
: Sorry to snap. Now consider that there are several kinds
: of EM fields and radiation, including magnetic, dipole
: electric, quadrapole electric, and various polarizations
: of radiation. All these stem from exactly the same law
: relating the forces between chrarged particles. They are
: different modes because they come from different dynamics
: and charge configurations, but they are all perfectly
: compatible. The entire idea of GUT is to find the
: connection between EM representations and those of
: gravitation. Why is this philosophically or otherwise
: objectionable?
If gravitation were a "force" field (an attractive,
or repulsive "field" would have to be a "force"field, unlike
the propagated electromagnetic spectrum which has very little
radiation pressure and most of the energy is perpendicular to
the direction of motion), then a GUT would either require that
gravitation be a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, _or_
be a separate "force" field propagating with somewhat the same
characteristics, only attractive.
But I don't see gravitation that way, gravitation is
an apparent distortion of the inertial coordinate system,
and that is the way General Relativity sees it.
So there are _no_ forces involved in the gravitation
part of physics _unless_ there is physical interaction, all
effects of gravitation are _inertial_ and even though the
inertial coordinate system is distorted (curved) by gravitation,
"forces" are not required, and General Relativity does not
require "forces".
There is then, two objections to gravitation being
a separate "force" field, the unsatisfactory thought of
having two major global propagated "spectrums", and the
fact that gravitation is _not_ a "force" mechanism, it
is a distortion of the inertial coordinate system.
While "tidal forces" are used as an argument for
a "force" field, all particles simply try to move on their
own geodesics in free space, and "tidal forces" are simply
the local interaction between the particles.
It may seem unsatisfactory to have inertial coordinates
curved as a result of gravitation, but it is not as yet known
what curves the coordinate system (I don't think General
Relativity specifies that).
I have a book that even attempts (and does an impressive
job of it) to present the math that incorporates inertia and
gravitation in within one system along the ideas of Mach and
all the mass in the universe.
I think this is impossible and a complicating concept,
and that it should be rejected, the quantity of inertia of an
object must be the same regardless of how much other mass there
is in the universe or it's distribution. Even if a single
particle was alone in the universe it would have to have the
same inertia, else proximity to other mass would change the
quantitative value of the inertia (mass) of the particle.
But the bottom line is, General Relativity leaves
open the question of what causes the distortion of the
inertial coordinate system by gravitation, and I am trying
to make known that there is a possible physical model that
would cause the coordinate system to _appear_ to be distorted
simply as a result of close range elementary particle
interactions (a net repulsion).
This would be a GUT, and the cause of gravitation would
be a proportional part elementary particle interactions, but
would not be an incremental quantity process as photons are
because it would be a continuous repulsion of like-charge
elementary particles (quarks?).
But the effects of gravitation would be the inertia
of each affected particle or object. The "cause" would
be a sum of the elementary charge (repulsive) stresses,
plus the thermal (internal kinetic energy) and interatomic
energies, while the "effect" would be proportional to the
inertial mass.
I think this is remarkably close to what General
Relativity specifies, and provides a clearness of processes
and resolution of precise predictions even better than
General Relativity.
But I hesitate to try to present anything regarding
new directions in relativity as long as the old ideas and
concepts of aether and absolute motion are being argued
so vigorously. And the mixing of Newtonian gravitation
with General Relativity concepts is also a distraction at
the present time, that could be resolved with observations
that identify the validity of black holes, gravitational
waves, and other processes where "forces" are presupposed.
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 17:11:17 GMT
stewart@Kutta.Stanford.EDU (Michael Stewart):
> I meant to bow out gracefully after having rashly entered a debate
> which has too long a history for me to be able to deal with. However,
> I suppose I am obligated to at least clarify what I have said.
Don't feel that you're interloping. It's true, this has been
going on a long while -- a few months for the most recent chapter,
other installments before that. But the names and faces (well, not
faces) keep changing -- in other words, you're welcome to join in,
if you like. (Of course you're not obliged.)
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
> > Mati, I would like to point out that no one has suggested this "switch
> > off". Moggin claims we should, but I have not seen anyone supporting
> > such an idea.
moggin:
> Lorenz has suggested it explicitly; you and Michael have strongly
> implied it, at the very least. (Mati's remark about supposedly "loose
> interpretations" is pure crap.) More on this below.
Michael:
> If I failed to suggest it explicitly, then I wasn't being sufficiently
> clear. However, my reasons for doing so had more to do with how I
> feel that the words "right" and "wrong" should be used in application
> to science than with a belief that Newtonian mechanics might be
> exactly right over some region of velocities.
Maybe it would be better to separate the two issues, then, since
at the moment, Newton is a heated topic. Anyway, I don't follow the
distinction that you're drawing here. You were suggesting it, but you
don't believe it, or you do believe it, but for other reasons?
moggin:
>>> I didn't say it _shouldn't_ be taken seriously -- I just pointed
>>>out that if you want to eat your Newton and have Einstein, too, you've
>>>_got_ to take it seriously.
Matt:
>> No we don't. I don't think that any physicist would say that two sets
>> of laws apply. What we have said, and Mati explained very well, is
>> that GR subsumes CM inside itself.
moggin:
>That was a different issue -- you didn't make your case, but this
>is another question. It's been suggested repeatedly that CM stands on
>its own, not just as part of GR. For example, you said it's impossible
>to know which one is right, "at low speed," because of the difficulty
>in designing an experiment to tell you. Relying on the same reasoning,
>Michael Stewart concluded that, "We don't really know that Newton isn't
>exactly right under such circumstances."
Michael:
>I still stand by this statement. I think that in a context, like
>physics, in which experiment is the ultimate adjudicator, that any use
>of "right" and "wrong" which doesn't take into account the fact that
>physical theories may be experimentally indistinguishable over a
>non-trivial set of circumstances isn't particularly meaningful.
We're going over the same ground. Since Newton and Einstein are
distinguishable, if you want to keep both, on the basis that there
are some regions where they give similar results, you've got to accept
the consequence I outlined in my reply to your earlier post -- that is,
a universe which switches back and forth between two different models.
Again, I'm not saying that's impossible -- simply noting what follows
from your position.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: Black Holes Are Quark Stars
From: dkorn@alderan.tn.cornell.edu (David Kornreich)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 12:56:58 -0500
In article <55dvoc$12r@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David
L Evens) wrote:
> Mike Hammond (mhammond@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>
> : While not making the claim that BH's are quark stars, would it be possible
> : for a quark star to exist?
Wow, an astronomy question in sci.astro! Who would have thought?
> Probably not in the manner in which neutron stars exist. The reason is
> that a quark star would have to be composed of quarks which were
> individually well defined, which is not a condition allowed by the
> confinement restriction of the Strong Force.
This is incorrect. Quarks are indeed allowed to be well-defined at
extremely high densities. As nucleon-nucleon separations become
infinitesimal, confinement forces become infinitesimal themselves. For
this reason, it is not theoretically impossible for quark stars to exist,
and in fact, at very high neutron star densities, interquark interations
should be considered. However, because the phase transition from neutron
matter to quark matter most likely occurs above the maximum stable
neutron-star density, quark stars would have to be a completely separate
phenomenon from neutron stars (as NS's and White Dwarfs are from each
other.) This also is not theoretically impossible.
Since we know next to nothing about the Strong Force, however, I don't
think anyone has any idea of what such stars would look like.
> : And on a related subject: is the singularity simply a point in space where
> : matter once existed, or is it possible to actually be a small point of
> : matter. I recall reading something about the smallest diameter of an
> : object under extremely high compression (such as found in a BH) could not
> : be less than one Planck length.
>
> The Plank length is the smallest distance in which anything can be
> localised, but this is a QM limitation, and GR is a non-quantum theory
> (one of the really glaring problems with it, incidentally). The idea
> with a singularity is that it is a point where the curvature of spacetime
> goes to infinity. At such a point, all physical laws would break down
> and events would occur completely arbitrarily. This predictability
> failure has no consequences, fortunately, as GR also tells us that the
> gravitational field about such an object would constrain all future light
> cones near it to converge to it, preventing information from leaving the
> vicinity.
But we always must remember the difference between the theory and the
phenomenon. Since GR is unlikely to be valid on Plank-scales, it
encounters predictability failure long before the singularity forms, and
we therefore shouldn't take its predictions about them too seriously.
Suffice it to say that a star collapsing into a black hole collapses
according to GR until it's about a plank length across, but that we don't
have quantum gravity to tell us what happens after that. Philosophically,
I think it would be nice if indeed QG got rid of the need for
singularities altogether, but "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable
answer...
As for the information ever getting out of the black hole, there's always
the possibility of "naked singularities," singularities not "clothed" by
an event horizon, which are allowed by GR. (But then there's Penrose's
Cosmic Censorship Conjecture... [I always enjoy saying that...])
d.a.
--
David A. Kornreich
Cornell University Space Sciences
The Fraternal Order of the Eternal Employees of Floyd
** We Specialize in Circumstances Beyond Our Control **
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 17:44:16 GMT
weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>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?
>>You fancy that attempted self-vindication of a dishonest opportunist
>>publicly caught in the act of self-serving mystification amounts to an
>>argument?
>I'm guilty of giving you too much credit; I assumed you knew that the
>sophisticated critique of authorship does in no way eliminate the
>imperative to manifest intellectual integrity or sheer politeness (as in
>rescuing Richard's points from association with yours).
Your sophisticated attempts at damage control fail to impress.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>Still projecting your Prussian mannerisms on citizens of the free world?
>I see that Zeleny/Kagalenko osmosis works both ways.
Looks like it is time for you to mention my penis.
>>>>>>>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.
>>To win this argument at all costs, after excising all heuristic
>>concerns therefrom.
>I've already won this argument. I'm at this point being polite in responding.
Must evertything you say betoken your sophistication?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>If feeling out of step with the rest of mankind makes you feel all
>>warm and fuzzy inside, don't let any rational considerations get in
>>your way.
>I see; "one, two, many," eh? I remember you making some pretty
>high-handed comments about the unpopularity of hard thought somewhere
>else; should have known you didn't have the stuff to mean that.
Once again the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions
proves to be too crude for your sophistication.
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>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.
>>I must have gotten the page numbers from your favorite Log Cabin
>>Republican rag, too.
>You're exhibiting your ignorance in the most embarrassing ways. Do you
>really suggest that citing page numbers of an essay and making a
>rather lame pun on a title will convince anybody but Kagalenko that you
>have a clue about what's in the essay?
You are parroting yourself. Haven't we established already that no
critic of pomo could in principle have a clue about it?
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>In other words, I have said all I wanted to say to YOU on this
>>subject, until and unless you fulfil the previously established
>>conditions of discourse.
>The conditions of intellectual discourse I'm habituated to require that
>you make judgments on the basis of knowledge and that, if challenged on
>your assessment of a text, you can convincingly manifest having read the
>text in question.
More opportunistic dishonesty. Is that why you had to excuse yourself
when I challenged you on the Meditations?
>>>[...]
>>>>>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.
>>I have no need of intellectual engagement with dishonest opportunists.
>>However, you are welcome to rectify your misconduct any time.
>We're still waiting for you to exhibit understanding of the Derridean
>concept of "center" -- this is what this discussion is about, or should
>be. Your toddleresque mannerisms will not impress.
By contrast, your lies impress everybody.
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>The burden of proof always happens to fall on the other side, as far
>>as you are concerned. Either Barthes had his reasons to step in front
>>of a speeding truck, or the people who had told me so or I in having
>>related it to you, have perpetrated a lie. I see no reason to reveal
>>my sources nor to question their or relinquish my own presumption of
>>truthfulness, just because you are having a snit fit of self-serving
>>skepticism.
>You're being rather pathetic. I wonder whether you know it.
I bet you say that to all boys, just before you resort to commenting
on their genitalia.
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>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.
>>Then it follows that I must know something about Barthes' writings,
>>contrary to your previous hypothesis.
>Naturally.
Then it follows that things are not always as they seem to you.
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>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.
>>How would you know from scientific learning, independent thought, or
>>personal integrity?
>At least I read the books I comment on. Your independent thought is a bit
>too independent of what it thinks for my taste.
This bit helps, assuming that you distinguish commenting upon Derrida
from lying about Descartes.
>>>>>> 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.
>>A lucky break for you.
>Toddler.
Sophisticate.
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)