Subject: Re: Is glass a solid?
From: peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 20:44:47 +0000
In article ,
lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) wrote:
I assume this was a quote from your book?
>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.
Well if it says that, which is one of the hoariest old ULs in existence, I
don't see how you can believe the rest of it.
Does it talk about Roman glass artefacts? Cathedral windows? All a lot
older than New England windows. Does it refer to window glass manufacturing
techniques? Glazing techniques? Both resulting in panes of irregular
thickness, fat bit downwards. Does it refer, maybe in some other chapter,
to the modulus of glass at earth surface temperatures and show how the
statement about windows is... errr.... wrong?
However, as always, we are talking about semantics here. To all practical
ends, at earth surface temperatures (including normal cooking) glass is a
solid. I have no problem with it being called an amorphous solid- but in
practice when I'm around it behaves like a solid. It's just the flowing
window panes that get me- or rather the foolishness of the story.
--
Peter
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 04:39:21 GMT
Michael Zeleny:
>>>>>>>>Thus spake Jacques Derrida:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the
>>>>>>>>concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of
>>>>>>>>something -- of a center starting from which an observer could
>>>>>>>>master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...
Silke-Maria Weineck:
>>>>>>>And you still haven't told us what you think that means.
Hardy Hulley:
>>>>>>You seem to be having a little trouble here, so I'll help you out. Let's
>>>>>>concentrate on "The Einsteinian constant is not a constant..." for a
>>>>>>moment. Either this sentence is to be analysed by applying the common
>>>>>>interpretations from within physics and mathematics (in which case it is
>>>>>>certainly false), or else it is simply gibberish (since "Einsteinian
>>>>>>constant" has no known interpretation outside of physics).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The rest of the above extract is vapid. In my opinion, Derrida missed
>>>>>>his vocation as a random word generator (... or perhaps he didn't).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Glad I could help,
Silke-Maria Weineck:
>>>>>I'm afraid you couldn't; distorting the quote won't help. Derrida
>>>>>corrects "constant" to "center" -- and if you want to understand the
>>>>>sentence, you will have to know what "center" means in the context of
>>>>>Structure, Sign, and Play. Which means you'll have to, gasp. read it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Next, please.
Michael Zeleny:
>>>>In other words, Derrida's comments cannot be deconstructed outside of
>>>>the context of his oeuvre. More opportunistic pomo dishonesty.
Silke-Maria Weineck:
>>>Wish you weren't so dense. If someone would comment on a Platonic comment
>>>that involved adrasteia or anamnesis, the commentor would have to know
>>>these concepts as well -- I suppose you would be the first to point that
>>>out. Derrida may still be wrong in saying that the Einsteinian constant
>>>is not a center in his sense -- however, it is that sense you will have
>>>to engage to prove him wrong. There is nothing dishonest in that; it just
>>>takes a bit of work. The fact that you're not willing to expand labor is
>>>quite acceptable; your pathetic attempts to prove that it's not necessary
>>>in order to prove your point is not.
Michael Zeleny:
>>Pseudo-Socrates: I recollect that 2+2=5.
>>
>>Michael Zeleny: But 2+2=4.
>>
>>Silke-Maria Weineck: Not so fast! In order to prove Pseudo-Socrates
>>wrong, you will have to engage his concept of anamnesis.
Silke-Maria Weineck:
>No:
>
>Silke: The fact that 2+2=4 sheds no light on the concept of anamnesis.
>
>Zeleny: 2+2=4! 2+2=4!!! You're wrong, you idiotic moron.
>
>Silke: What's your concept of anamnesis?
>
>Zeleny: I won't do your homework for you. Everybody knows Socrates
>associated with buggers and whores. There goes your precious Platonism.
Let us try a different approach for the sake of the logically and
scientifically challenged. In interpreting Derrida's assertion to
support Sokal's claim that it exposes him as an ignorant blowhard,
I parse it conjunctively as follows:
A = The Einsteinian constant is not a constant.
B = The Einsteinian constant is not a center.
C = The Einsteinian constant is the very concept of variability.
Thus D = A&B;&C.; Now, in order to refute a conjunction, it suffices
to refute any one of its conjuncts. Accordingly, I need not concern
myself with interpreting A, which is prima facie nonsensical, Iago's
"I am not what I am" notwithstanding. Nor am I required to interpret
B, either as a logically independent thesis or in apposition to A --
for all I care, in his deployment of the term `center' Derrida may be
displaying the common French attitude of identifying the crack of his
arse with the axis mundi. All that matters is that C transparently
runs afoul of the one fundamental feature of SR and GR alike, namely
their postulation of invariance. And if C is absurd, by elementary
logic so is D. Case closed.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 04:06:56 GMT
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>: 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.
>Bjon specified a "clock reading". The event of a clock hand reaching
>a certain reading (or an lcd lighting up a particular digit string,
>or any other ways a clock could "have a reading")is... well... an event.
>That's what a clock IS. A stream of events. A sequence of
>"clock reading" events.
There must be some nonclock event AT the clock. This is standard SRT
fare. There must be a light signal hitting the clock, etc, but why am
I having to explain SRT? There is no event that can be matched with
any rear clock reading, mainly because I didn't give one.
>: 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.
>Why should I deny any of it? It's relatively straightforward,
>if crudely and misleadingly phrased.
(Crude only to you).
>: 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.
>Crudely and misleadingly phrased; bjon himself is mislead into
>supposing that, since not all SR clocks share a universal
>setting-synchronization, that no two ever do. SR simply says
>the meaning of "same instant" is (rather obviously) coordinate
>system dependent. If bjon wants to ask a question in an SR
>context, he ought not to expect an answer in terms of
>newtonian clocks.
>Reconsider bjon's original question:
>::: As per experiment (and SRT), when the ray reaches the rear clock,
>::: this rear clock must read D/c. What did this clock read at time
>::: zero (per the front clock)?
>In SR terms, this must be answered in terms of a specific coordinate
>system. Bjon gives two clocks, at rest WRT a rod of rest length D,
>says the "front clock" read 0 as a ligh pulse reached it, the
>"rear clock" read D/c when the same light pulse reached it.
>There's only one coordinate system bjon could consistently
>be talking about, to give his question any meaning in SR.
>And that's the coordinate system in which the two clocks
>read the coordinate system time. Thus, the "rear clock"
>reads zero when the "front clock" reads zero, because both
>are reading coordinate time in the only coordinate s ystem
>bjon supplied to give meaning to a query about time
>at two locations ("front" and "rear").
>Again, if bjon asks an SR question, he should not expect
>a Newtonian answer.
As I have consistently tried my best to get across, this is NOT SRT.
Due to the lack of any (nonclock) EVENT at the rear clock at this
point, SRT cannot determine the rear clock reading. There is no
matching event. Period. Over and out. Case closed.
>: How can we determine the rear clock reading?
>We simply decide which coordinate system to use.
>: SRT cannot supply us with the answer.
>Right. We simply have to decide which coordinate system to use.
>: We have to use simple paperwork.
>And bjon proceeds to introduce an arbitrarily defined coordinate
>system, a coordinate system he didn't mention in posing the problem.
>Thus, bjon's "correct answer" to the question amounts to
>confabulating a meaning for his question after its poseing.
No, I am proceding in the only possible way given SRT's total
inability to provide an answer.
>Oh, such a bright boy is bjon.
>Bjon continues his analysis, confabulating as he goes along.
All the silly remarks will not matter.
>: Also, the rod's actual (intrinsic) length
>Correct SR analyses don't involve the concept of an "actual" length.
There is no possible "SRT analysis." There's no event AT the clock.
>: The rod's actual (thru-space) travel distance is simply cT
>Correct SR analyses don't involve the concept of an "actual" distance.
See above.
>: T is the time per a hypothetical clock that's at rest in space
>Correct SR analyses don't involve such confabulated clocks.
Ditto.
>And so on and so on. Bjon loves to confabulate this superfluous
>"absolute" frame, and talk about "absolute" length, and "absolute"
>speed" and "true" synchronization. All these concepts are
>superfluous to a correct SR analysis.
Of which none is possible in this case.
>: It's easy to see why SRT has to have these real underpinnings -- it's
>: a theory of nature.
>SR, to be a proper theory of objective, observer-independent reality,
>needs, to have objective, observer-independent features. These
>need not be an object's "actual speed" or "actual length".
>And indeed, they are not.
>: Throop's claim that nothing in SRT is absolute is obviously incorrect.
>Never claimed that nothing in SR is absolute.
>Merely claimed that bjon is barking up the wrong absolute tree.
>--
>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> throopw@cisco.com
So name one thing that you see to be absolute in SRT.
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 04:41:14 GMT
moggin@nando.net (moggin)
> >> You mean that the math is different in one respect; but there are
> >> many significant differences between the two models (presumably arising
> >> from that change in the math). And the existence of those differences
> >> prevents Einstein from being a generalization of Newton in the ordinary
> >> sense of the term. (I gather by now that it has a meaning in math and
> >> science which _does_ apply.)
stewart@Kutta.Stanford.EDU (Michael Stewart):
> >> I don't think that your objection to the application of the ordinary
> >> meaning of "generalize" has anything to do with the mathematics of the
> >> theory: as I understand it SR is a general theory and classical
> >> mechanics is the special case of SR in which the speed of light is
> >> assumed to be infinite. SR covers classical mechanics as a special
> >> case. I don't see this as an abuse of the common meaning when applied
> >> to two mathematical theories.
moggin:
> > The problem is that you have two different models. In what I've
> >been calling the ordinary sense of "generalize," generalizing Newton
> >would mean applying his theories to new regions, e.g., high velocities,
> >and discovering that they still worked great. Instead, we've got a
> >different situation -- when applied over broader conditions, his laws
> >turn out to be false (given later findings). Thus Newton does _not_
> >generalize well, in the ordinary sense of the term.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
> In science, applying a theory to a new region and finding that it
> still works great is considered just an application, not a
> generalization. If the theory remains formally the same, you can't
> call it a generalized theory, it is just the same theory.
That's helpful, since it brings out another one of the ways that
the "scientific" sense of generalization differs from the "ordinary"
one. (Although I'm sure it _is_ ordinary to scientists -- stay calm,
folks -- I'm not trying to slip anything by you.) But note that if
you change a theory in significant ways, you can't say (in common
speech) that you've generalized it, since it's _not the same theory_
anymore. That's what Silke was trying to tell you when she pointed
out that the usual word for that would be something like "modified."
Yes, the result is that you end up with a theory of wider scope, but
you've done it by changing the theory you started with. To say you
generalized _that theory_ is sounds odd, since the one you end up
with (i.e., the more general one) is considerably different.
Naturally you're entitled to your use of "generalize" (I'm not
trying to dispute it) -- but what matters is what you noted above:
in your sense of the term, you don't have a generalization as long
as the theory remains the same; conversely, to generalize requires
a new theory. So as I've said to you before, generalization in the
scientific sense doesn't entail consistency between the theories in
question -- instead, it indicates that they differ significantly.
> A word of caution here, regarding the issue of a "new region". One
> should distinguish between what I would call "primary theories" and
> "secondary theories". Primary theories, such as classical mechanics,
> quantum mechanics, electromagnetic theory and relativity are a priori
> constructed to be universally valid. "New region" here means just "a
> region where they were not tested so far" but if they're tested there
> and found to work, there is no generalization involved. Secondary
> theories are derived from primary ones to deal with a specific,
> limited issues and they, indded have an a priori limited range. For
> example, the theory of sound assumes that the sound carrying medium
> (be it liquid, solid or gas) is a continuum. Thus it is expected to
> break down when you reach scales small enough so that the graininess
> of matter (atoms) becomes noticeable. And, in principle, ignoring
> this graininess means that at any scale the theory is but an
> approximation (but at scales you care about you won't be able to see
> the difference).
Fine by me. But as you said, in this scheme classical mechanics
is a primary theory, thus "constructed to be universally valid." And
given later findings, it isn't. So saying that it's invalid shouldn't
cause any fuss.
> OK, so what do we mean when we talk about a generalization of a
> primary theory. It roughly looks as follows: You've a theory which
> was supposed to be primary, i.e. universally valid. Then you find out
> that it is not universally valid, after all, and that beyond some
> range of physical parameters you start getting noticeable deviations
> from reality. So, of course, you try to find a new primary theory.
> If the new one is such that it reduces to the previous one over a
> limited (but non trivial) range of parameters and that there is a
> continous relationship between the concepts of the old theory and
> those of the new one (the other way around isn't necesserily true)
> then it is a generalization of the previous one. Note that it means
> that the previous primary theory has been reduced to a secondary
> theory, derivable from the new one.
Now you're weaseling around. Einstein doesn't reduce to Newton,
or vice-versa (you appear to have put it both ways -- I'll leave you
to decide which one you meant). If you're referring to their models,
then the differences, as we've already agreed, are substantial. If
you're speaking of predictions, then you don't get a match except at
uninteresting points like v=0 (although they approximate each other
within a limited range).
> One more important issue is what does "reduces to" mean in the above.
> It does not mean "yields exactly the same results". "Exactly the
> same" is an idealization which can never be experimantally verified.
What we've got here is a discrepancy that increases with velocity.
At high relative velocity, it's substantial. So your point is moot.
Mati:
> No, it is understood in a limiting sense. Given to expressions, one
> is the limit of the other if for any arbitrary value d, no matter how
> small, a region of parameters may be found over which the values
> resulting from both expressions differ by less then d. Jeff provided
> the example of approximating the square root of (1 - x^2) by the
> expression 1 - 0.5*x^2. If you demand strict equality then the two
> expressions give the same value only for x = 0. However, if you say
> "I want the difference to be smaller then, say, one part in a million,
> then you'll get a range, roughly between x = -0.05 t0 x = 0.05 where
> your demand is satisfied. If, instead of one part in a million you
> demand one part in a billion, you'll still get a range, albeit a bit
> smaller. etc. It is only whan you demand absolute equality that the
> renge is reduced to a point.
moggin:
> > Aside: I thought that under relativity, the speed of light
> >_isn't_ infinite. So classical mechanics would be the "special case"
> >which never occurs. (Same would go for defining it as the limit.)
> See the explanation of limit, above.
You're being artitrary. Got it.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 04:59:28 GMT
Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
[...]
: Silke-Maria Weineck:
: >No:
: >
: >Silke: The fact that 2+2=4 sheds no light on the concept of anamnesis.
: >
: >Zeleny: 2+2=4! 2+2=4!!! You're wrong, you idiotic moron.
: >
: >Silke: What's your concept of anamnesis?
: >
: >Zeleny: I won't do your homework for you. Everybody knows Socrates
: >associated with buggers and whores. There goes your precious Platonism.
: Let us try a different approach for the sake of the logically and
: scientifically challenged. In interpreting Derrida's assertion to
: support Sokal's claim that it exposes him as an ignorant blowhard,
: I parse it conjunctively as follows:
: A = The Einsteinian constant is not a constant.
: B = The Einsteinian constant is not a center.
: C = The Einsteinian constant is the very concept of variability.
: Thus D = A&B;&C.; Now, in order to refute a conjunction, it suffices
: to refute any one of its conjuncts. Accordingly, I need not concern
: myself with interpreting A, which is prima facie nonsensical, Iago's
: "I am not what I am" notwithstanding. Nor am I required to interpret
: B, either as a logically independent thesis or in apposition to A --
: for all I care, in his deployment of the term `center' Derrida may be
: displaying the common French attitude of identifying the crack of his
: arse with the axis mundi. All that matters is that C transparently
: runs afoul of the one fundamental feature of SR and GR alike, namely
: their postulation of invariance. And if C is absurd, by elementary
: logic so is D. Case closed.
But not at all. You are operating with a concept of "invariance" that is
not necessarily operative here at all; you are repeating your mistake. If
you were to read on just one paragraph (perhaps two), you'd get a clue.
I'll post it for you if you don't have the book.
Silke
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 05:06:58 GMT
briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>
>>Again, what type of synch are you talking about?
>>
>You are going to have to explain what you are asking.
Sorry, but I assumed you knew relativity theory.
> Physics provides no
>operational definition for "absolute" or "relative" synchonization without
>defining those terms.
Einstein long ago did this very thing. He said that "absolute time"
means simply that all observers find the same time interval for two
events. He said that "relative time" means simply that each observer
finds a different time interval for two events.
> I will assume that "relative" synch is the way clocks
>will be set by anyone at rest relative to both clocks. This is defined and
>any reasonable method for setting the clocks will give the same result. This
>includes signals of any velocity, long rotating shafts, and other fanciful
>methods. The only problematic method is clock transport, due to time dilation
>effects, but this can be reduced below any desired error by transporting the
>clocks slowly, or we can correct for it.
>I assume "absolute" synch refers to the setting by observers at rest in a
>special, but undefined system. This is not useful or detectable, but if you
>specify the system, SR can show you how to compare it to anyone else's
>settings.
>If the clocks are in relative motion, then they will not remain synch'd in any
>coordinate system.
>The bottom line is that there is no problem in SR with setting clocks.
Never said there was, but that there is a total lack of understanding
about it.
Subject: Re: New Relativity - Autodynamics
From: suk@pobox.com (Peter Kwangjun Suk)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 01:17:50 -0400
In article <55iu67$bs5@news.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim
Carr) wrote:
> suk@pobox.com (Peter Kwangjun Suk) writes:
> >
> >[Note: I am not an advocate of AD. Just fairness.]
>
> Fairness does not require a suspension of the usual standards of
> critical analysis or blind acceptance of proof by assertion.
>
> > ... They claim to explain
> >(match experimental data) for everything that SR/GR does, and explain some
> >additional things that SR/GR doesn't.
>
> They do this by assuming the SR equations when they are forced to do
> so, by the unambiguous results of accelerator-based experiments, and
> a contradictory set of equations to avoid dealing with neutrinos.
[much deleted]
> Similar inconsistencies abound.
That's very informative. Thank you.
Since the first poster did not elucidate their reasons, I thought that
they were simply dismissing AD on the strength of Einstein's authority.
On the other hand, you seem to have good reasons for holding your
position.
[deleted]
> >Thanks for helping to decrease the S/N ratio on Usenet.
>
> Not much signal in the blind acceptance that noise at the AD site
> constitutes something applicable to the real world.
If you review my post, you will find that there is no such "blind
acceptance" as you suggest. A simple search through DejaNews for (peter
suk autodynamics) will suffice. From my original post:
As for AD, we'll see what the future holds. FTL would be nice. I'll
let someone else hold their breath, however.
Where do you get your "blind acceptance" from? I was merely calling
someone on making statements without justification. (Such misleading
implications also decrease S/N.)
In any case, thanks for your informed opinion on Autodynamics. I found
that very helpful.
--PKS
--
There's neither heaven nor hell
Save that we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice
Save what we grant each other.
Peter Kwangjun Suk
Musician, Computer Science Graduate Student
[finger suk@pobox.com for PGP public key]
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: stowewrite@aol.com (Stowewrite)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 01:21:53 -0500
In article <55elct$r37@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
Sam Stowe wrote:
>: I would like to put forward a couple of questions and see whether you
or
>: any of the other members of the merry band of pomo/scientist pranksters
>: are willing to take a crack at offering some answers. First of all, if
>: postmodernism offers a "critique" of the scientific method and the
>: scientific establishment, does that mean postmodernism offers a
"better"
>: way to do science, one that avoids the pitfalls identified in its
critique
>: of science as it is? Or is the postmodernist critique of
science-as-it-is
>: (God, I'm starting to sound like Heidegger) simply designed to put
science
>: in its place as one way among many of "knowing" the world around us?
>
Silke-Marie was kind enough to reply:
>Well, a couple of short answers: I don't think there's anything
>inherently "postmodernist" in the critique of science in the sense in
>which you are talking about it above; all these angles are mainstays of
the
>critique of modernity. You could imagine a hard-line conservative (or
>fundamentalist, for that matter) line of critique that would incorporate
>these points: science/technology as usurpation of power; science as a way
>of knowing that's inferior to faith or inspiration; etc. etc. (note for
>Russell: no, I'm not advancing these points of critique, so please spare
>me any requests to exhibit knowledge of molecular biology).
I understand what you're saying here. A lot of Heidegger's criticism of
technology seems to be rooted in conservative Romanticism which is
concerned with exactly what you've mentioned -- science/technology as
usurpation of power and science's epistemological claims (please forgive
me if I'm using the wrong terms here. I've already given you guys fair
warning that I'm neither a scientist nor a philosopher nor do I play
either one on television). So how does postmodernism's critique of science
and technology diverge from other "angles" of the critique of modernity?
What distinguishes it in particular from other critiques of modernity?
>
>
Sam Stowe asked:
>: If
>: it's the former, how exactly does postmodern science differ from what
went
>: before? What scientific discoveries has postmodern science produced?
What
>: technological advances has postmodern science given us? I'm still
trying
>: to figure out just how sweeping postmodernism's claims for its critique
of
>
Silke-Marie doth aver:
>I don't understand the question; since the critique is not in itself a
>natural science, it is not beholden to compete with the results of nat
>science. It's a bit like very good ballet critics who may very well be
>less than graceful; note, I'm not suggesting that all critics of science
>are good or well-informed critics of science; merely that critique does
>not have to produce a competitive product; in fact, one could argue that
>this would implicate critique in the practice it is critiquing.
If you didn't understand the question, your reply surely doesn't show any
traces of confusion. (That's a compliment, by the way, not a flame. You've
tried to answer my questions even when they weren't very well-framed and I
appreciate your effort) I understand that a critique is not a natural
science. But if you're going to critique any human endeavor, don't you
pretty much have to do so on some common footing with the endeavor you're
critiquing? You wouldn't review "Swan Lake" by the same criteria you'd use
to judge the Philadelphia Eagles' performance against the Redskins, would
you? I may be absolutely wrong here (and I am sure there will be no end of
folks ready and willing to let me know I am), but a critique of anything
carries with it the strong implication that the critic is able to analyze
the faults and flaws of the endeavor under critique. That analysis, then,
provides the grounds for correcting those flaws and faults. Science's
claim is bolstered by the fact that it works, that it produces tangible
artifacts like, say, televisions and nuclear bombs which humans wouldn't
have access to without scientific inquiry. If postmodernism is offering a
critique of science, that critique ought to have led to some visible
response from science accommodating itself to the flaws and faults
highlighted by the postmodernist critique. Evidence of that response
should be available in the form of new scientific theories or discoveries
which never would have seen the light of day without the postmodernist
critique of science. If what you're saying in the above paragraph is true,
then the scientists can go their way in peace and the pomos can go their
way in peace and both sides can agree to disagree because the pomos are
trying to write a ballet review while the scientists just want to play a
football game.
>
Sam Stowe observed:
>: Some of the pomo supporters sound like they're only
>: trying to get science on an equal footing with, say, aesthetics or
>: religion.
>
Silke-Marie riposted:
>In what respect? What's the basis for the value judgment in "equal"?
>Seems to me it depends on what you expect or would rather avoid.
I'm one of these Neanderthals who doesn't think it's inconsistent human
behavior to work in a laboratory all day long conducting, say, research
into plasma physics using the accepted scientific methodology and then
come home and watch sitcoms on television after dinner, laughing
spontaneously when you truly find one of the jokes funny. I have friends
who actually do this. They don't get irritated by the absolutely
unscientific manner in which Steve Urkel clones himself. Nor do they try
to replicate his work in the lab the next morning. And they attend church
on a regular basis and believe in God and that Jesus died for our sins.
Somewhere along the line, they've accommodated themselves to the idea that
the different endeavors which make up the totality of their daily life may
well be governed by intellectual orientations (an inelegant turn of
phrase, I realize, but I'm tired) which clash wildly with one another. Yet
they seem sane. Perhaps I'd better not lend them any sharp-edged tools. I
won't speak for our scientist participants on this thread, but it seems to
me that this ability to transit effortlessly between various intellectual
orientations is prosaic -- everyone, pomo and scientist alike, does it.
Granted, it ain't relentlessly logical, but it does seem to work for most
of us. I can envision a continuum running from people with an absolute
inability to make this shift or even perceive the need for it to people
who mix and match orientations and endeavors with wild abandon. I wonder
where postmodernism fits into that continuum.
By the way, Silke-Marie, thanks for taking the time to respond to my
questions. I may have given you more grist for the mill with this reponse.
It'll be interesting to see what the scientists have to say.
Sam Stowe
>
>Silke
"What do a tornado and a
North Carolina divorce have
in common? Either way, someone's
gonna lose a mobile home."
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:14:17 GMT
In talk.origins mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
[snip]
>
> Please, specify, how pointing out the hypocrisy of complaint
> about "ethnical slur" from representative of the most nationalistic
> people in Europe constitutes "an ethnic attack".
>
My irony meter is in the shop, so I can't provide an exact reading on
your post. Let us say that condemning someone for being a member of a
group can often be considered an ethnic attack.
>]>]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.
>
> I have done so above. Would you like me to repeat it, using
> shorter words ?
You could do so. Or at least point out where you made your argument.
>
>] And while you are at it,
>]please explain your justification for an ethnic slur against Silke.
>
> I am very sorry that reminding Weineck about some episodes
> of the history of her country is considered "ethnic slur".
> No, really.
>
No, you were implying that she had a moral connection to the people
who committed those acts.
>]>]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?
>
> If you want to make an argument, that Hitler's policy did not enjoy
> popular support among Germans, go ahead and do so. But please do
> crosspost it to alt.revisionsim, where such arguments belong.
Wow! You have an amazing sense of logic. Are you, by any chance, a
creationist? I did not say that Hitler did not have popular support. I
am even willing, for the sake of this argument, to accept that 100% of
the non-Jew, non-Gypsy, non-Homosexual population of Germany supported
everything the Nazis did. That still does make the crime the
responsibility of the German people, it makes it the responsibility of
the people who did it. And that does not make the descendants of those
people guilty in any way.
>
>]>](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.
>
> You will find it in the encyclopaedia. Do you know what is it ?
> (I can explain it, too - just ask)
Please do so. I would enjoy reading you explanation.
>](BTW, technically speaking Germany did not start WWII either.)
>
> Ah, I see your point - technically speaking, it were those pesky
> Poles who did the job. They attacked German radio station, isn't
> how the story goes ?
No, I was considering the Japanese responsible. Or do you only concern
yourself with the atrocities committed in Europe.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 06:30:11 GMT
In article , moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
... snip ...
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>
>> In science, applying a theory to a new region and finding that it
>> still works great is considered just an application, not a
>> generalization. If the theory remains formally the same, you can't
>> call it a generalized theory, it is just the same theory.
>
> That's helpful, since it brings out another one of the ways that
>the "scientific" sense of generalization differs from the "ordinary"
>one. (Although I'm sure it _is_ ordinary to scientists -- stay calm,
>folks -- I'm not trying to slip anything by you.) But note that if
>you change a theory in significant ways, you can't say (in common
>speech) that you've generalized it, since it's _not the same theory_
>anymore.
Agreed, if it is the same theory we won't call it a "generalization",
we'll just call it "same theory".
> That's what Silke was trying to tell you when she pointed
>out that the usual word for that would be something like "modified."
Yes. And, as I answered her, there is an overlap between the terms.
It is automatically assumed (in the scientific usage) that
generalization involves a modification.
>Yes, the result is that you end up with a theory of wider scope, but
>you've done it by changing the theory you started with. To say you
>generalized _that theory_ is sounds odd, since the one you end up
>with (i.e., the more general one) is considerably different.
Agreed. And it is not straightforward (if at all possible) to state
exact criteria how much different the thing has to be before you say
"gee, you can't even see the resemblence anymore".
>
> Naturally you're entitled to your use of "generalize" (I'm not
>trying to dispute it) -- but what matters is what you noted above:
>in your sense of the term, you don't have a generalization as long
>as the theory remains the same; conversely, to generalize requires
>a new theory. So as I've said to you before, generalization in the
>scientific sense doesn't entail consistency between the theories in
>question -- instead, it indicates that they differ significantly.
>
Yes, definitely. What it requires is that some core of essential
concepts is being shared and that the old theory resides within the
new one as a limit (meaning that there is some range of parameters
over which their predictions are very close). Beyond this they can
differ enormously/
>> A word of caution here, regarding the issue of a "new region". One
>> should distinguish between what I would call "primary theories" and
>> "secondary theories". Primary theories, such as classical mechanics,
>> quantum mechanics, electromagnetic theory and relativity are a priori
>> constructed to be universally valid. "New region" here means just "a
>> region where they were not tested so far" but if they're tested there
>> and found to work, there is no generalization involved. Secondary
>> theories are derived from primary ones to deal with a specific,
>> limited issues and they, indded have an a priori limited range. For
>> example, the theory of sound assumes that the sound carrying medium
>> (be it liquid, solid or gas) is a continuum. Thus it is expected to
>> break down when you reach scales small enough so that the graininess
>> of matter (atoms) becomes noticeable. And, in principle, ignoring
>> this graininess means that at any scale the theory is but an
>> approximation (but at scales you care about you won't be able to see
>> the difference).
>
> Fine by me. But as you said, in this scheme classical mechanics
>is a primary theory, thus "constructed to be universally valid." And
>given later findings, it isn't. So saying that it's invalid shouldn't
>cause any fuss.
Not by me, at least. If you say "the belief that Newton's theory is
universally valid was proven wrong" I'll sign it. Same if you say
that it was proven to be "just an approximation".
>
>> OK, so what do we mean when we talk about a generalization of a
>> primary theory. It roughly looks as follows: You've a theory which
>> was supposed to be primary, i.e. universally valid. Then you find out
>> that it is not universally valid, after all, and that beyond some
>> range of physical parameters you start getting noticeable deviations
>> from reality. So, of course, you try to find a new primary theory.
>> If the new one is such that it reduces to the previous one over a
>> limited (but non trivial) range of parameters and that there is a
>> continous relationship between the concepts of the old theory and
>> those of the new one (the other way around isn't necesserily true)
>> then it is a generalization of the previous one. Note that it means
>> that the previous primary theory has been reduced to a secondary
>> theory, derivable from the new one.
>
> Now you're weaseling around. Einstein doesn't reduce to Newton,
>or vice-versa (you appear to have put it both ways -- I'll leave you
>to decide which one you meant).
Einstein to Newton. Relativity is the more general of the two and you
can only reduce from more to less general.
> If you're referring to their models,
>then the differences, as we've already agreed, are substantial. If
>you're speaking of predictions, then you don't get a match except at
>uninteresting points like v=0 (although they approximate each other
>within a limited range).
>
>> One more important issue is what does "reduces to" mean in the above.
>> It does not mean "yields exactly the same results". "Exactly the
>> same" is an idealization which can never be experimantally verified.
>
> What we've got here is a discrepancy that increases with velocity.
>At high relative velocity, it's substantial. So your point is moot.
>
>Mati:
>
>> No, it is understood in a limiting sense. Given to expressions, one
>> is the limit of the other if for any arbitrary value d, no matter how
>> small, a region of parameters may be found over which the values
>> resulting from both expressions differ by less then d. Jeff provided
>> the example of approximating the square root of (1 - x^2) by the
>> expression 1 - 0.5*x^2. If you demand strict equality then the two
>> expressions give the same value only for x = 0. However, if you say
>> "I want the difference to be smaller then, say, one part in a million,
>> then you'll get a range, roughly between x = -0.05 t0 x = 0.05 where
>> your demand is satisfied. If, instead of one part in a million you
>> demand one part in a billion, you'll still get a range, albeit a bit
>> smaller. etc. It is only whan you demand absolute equality that the
>> renge is reduced to a point.
>
>moggin:
>
>> > Aside: I thought that under relativity, the speed of light
>> >_isn't_ infinite. So classical mechanics would be the "special case"
>> >which never occurs. (Same would go for defining it as the limit.)
>
>> See the explanation of limit, above.
>
> You're being artitrary. Got it.
No, it is not arbitrary. The boundary beyond which we consider the
discrepancy to be significant depends on what we call significant (the
size of the parameter d) but for any nonzero size of d there is a non
zero region for which the differences are smaller than d. That
establishes one as the limit of the other.
BTW, Speaking of "universally valid" it is worth recognizing that at
least one of the two currently "universally valid theories" i.e.
quantum mechanics and general relativity must ultimately fail in this
role (possibly both will). We know it since there exists a region of
physical parameters where their predictions contradict one another.
But, as we've no way to check experimentally (so far) what really
happens in this region, we've no idea how is the difference going to
be resolved. I'm mention this just to illustrate that the definition
of a theory as "universally valid" is just temporarily valid, until
proven otherwise.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 06:52:13 GMT
In article <55ipij$hpa@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
wrote:
[Your article didn't make it to pacifinet's news server. I copied it
from AOL's server.]
>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>In article <55d7m5$pg2@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>>wrote:
>>[Your article never made it to pacifinet's news server. I copied it
>>from AOL's server.]
>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>>In article <55ale1$g4q@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <557r0t$5os@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>[...]
>>You said somewhere that your E-Matrix is a 3-D
>>spatial structure and yet you talk about geodesic path, a term used in
>>GR to describe the inertial motion of a particle in a 4-D curved
>>spacetime structure.
>
>All material systems move througfh the 3-D...... E-Matrix freely and
>the path of motion is to follow the geometies of the E-Matrix. The
>motion of any material system in the E-Matrix will, in turn, effect
>the geometries of the E-Matrix and thus it give us the cycles of cause
>and effect for inertial motions. With this in mind, the path of travel
>of any material system in the E-Matrix is curved and this curved path
>is called the geodesic path. Even in GR the spacetime is within the
>normal 3D space. The time dimension only defines where the material
>system is going to be in this 3D space.
I think you are mistaken here. In GR, gravity does not just curve
3-D space. If it did, GR would not be able to predict a gravitational
time dilation. AFAIK, GR relativists are always very careful to
specify *spacetime* curvature. The geodesics that define the inertial
path of a particle in this curved spacetime is always described in 4-D
spacetime. Now, I'm not claiming that I know GR better than anyone.
I sure don't. So, any GR expert is welcome to correct me here if they
think I'm wrong.
>[...]
>>>>>>>If it's clock slowing, the experiment that I proposed--with different
>>>>>>>clocks facing different directions-- should be able to detect this
>>>>>>>clock slowing.
The idea that clocks have faces and that SR predict that the faces
are dependent on direction is your own silly fantasy.
>>>>>> The direction of the clocks have nothing to do with it. Just the
>>>>>>speed. If the apparatus is moving its clock will slow down.
>>>>>
>>>>>But SR explains the null result of the MMX by postulating different
>>>>>rate of time dilation and length contraction in every direction. So
>>>>>why wouldn't the clocks give different readings by facing the
>>>>>different directions?
>>>> Only length contraction is direction sensitive in SR. Time dilation
>>>>is only speed sensitive and has nothing to do with direction.
>>>
>>>Here is proof that you don't know what you are talking about. In SR
>>>both length contraction and time dilation are speed sensitive.
>
>> I never said they weren't. According to SR, length contraction is
>>sensitive to both speed and direction. Time dilation is only
>>sensitive to speed. Length contraction is specifically said to be in
>>the observed direction of motion, not in any other direction. This
>>direction has **nothing** to do with time dilation.
>
>If time dilation is not working in concert with length contraction we
>will have different speed of light in different directions.
Of course they are in concert since they are both speed sensitive.
By speed I mean the speed of the apparatus relative to an observer.
Now, if you are referring to absolute speeds and directions, that's
another story.
> So when
>you say that only length contraction is directional sensitive you are
>wrong.
I didn't say it. SR said it. Length contraction is direction
sensitive because it is observed, according to SR, in the direction of
motion of the moving object. Even if time were sensitive to direction
of absolute motion why would it have anything to do with which way the
clock faces, as long as the clock is in the same inertial frame as the
apparatus? That's utterly ludicrous, Ken. What if the clock has no
face, like a cesium clock. Are you referring to the digital readout
of the clock or what?
>>> In fact
>>>the transformation equations are based purely on speed -- relative
>>>speed and the speed of light. A different direction means a different
>>>relative speed which means a different contracted length and a
>>>different dilated time.
>
>> The above is proof that you don't know what you are talking about.
>>A different direction does not mean a different speed. Relative speed
>>is independent of relative direction.
>
>Our original discussion was: How is SR explain the null results of the
>MMX and you said you favor the combination of time dilation and length
>contraction of SR. When I pointed out to you we should be able to
>measure the time dilation effect within a Lab by facing several clocks
>in different directions
There you go again with your "facing of the clocks".
> and now you are saying that only contracting
>length is directional sensitive and that different direction do not
>mean different speeds. Which is it?
Again this is what SR says. If SR does not say that, just show me a
textual reference so I can change the error of my ways. I'm always
ready to admit that I'm wrong about SR because I'm still learning the
theory and it's not my theory. You act like you know SR inside and
out and yet, what my books say contradict what you say about time
dilation between the clocks in two inertial frames being direction
sensitive.
> If there is no difference in speed
>in different directions why are we trying to detect the different
>speeds with the MMX apparatus? In fact why are we calling the MMX
>result a null result? Obviously you are the one who don't know what
>you are talking about.
You know, I realize now that this whole thing is getting very
muddled because we have two concepts of motion being discussed here,
absolute motion and relative motion. When we talk about speed and
direction and velocity we should be careful to specify WHAT is moving
and whether or not we mean ABSOLUTE or RELATIVE motion. In this
light, why don't we start again from the top? Would you care to
explain one more time, in clear unambiguous language, the reason for
the null result of the MMX? Especially the receding target part. Is
it an absolute recession or is it a relative recession? If the
latter, relative to what? If I still don't get it, maybe we should
call it quits. :-)
Louis Savain
--O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. W.S.
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: otoe@ix.netcom.com (Susan S)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:01:43 GMT
On 3 Nov 1996 08:24:33 -0500, 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:
>]
>]>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?
>
> Please, specify, how pointing out the hypocrisy of complaint
> about "ethnical slur" from representative of the most nationalistic
> people in Europe constitutes "an ethnic attack".
>
>]>]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.
>
> I have done so above. Would you like me to repeat it, using
> shorter words ?
>
>] And while you are at it,
>]please explain your justification for an ethnic slur against Silke.
>
> I am very sorry that reminding Weineck about some episodes
> of the history of her country is considered "ethnic slur".
> No, really.
>
>]>]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?
>
> If you want to make an argument, that Hitler's policy did not enjoy
> popular support among Germans, go ahead and do so. But please do
> crosspost it to alt.revisionsim, where such arguments belong.
>
>]>](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.
>
> You will find it in the encyclopaedia. Do you know what is it ?
> (I can explain it, too - just ask)
>
>](BTW, technically speaking Germany did not start WWII either.)
>
> Ah, I see your point - technically speaking, it were those pesky
> Poles who did the job. They attacked German radio station, isn't
> how the story goes ?
>
>--
>LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
>
You are absolutely wrong to label Matt as a revisionist; next you will
be calling him a Holocause denier. He _is_ arguing that the German
people supported Hitler's policies. And I think he meant decendants,
not defendants; he is a terrible speller.
Susan S
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:14:16 GMT
In talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
[snip]
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>
>> In science, applying a theory to a new region and finding that it
>> still works great is considered just an application, not a
>> generalization. If the theory remains formally the same, you can't
>> call it a generalized theory, it is just the same theory.
>
> That's helpful, since it brings out another one of the ways that
>the "scientific" sense of generalization differs from the "ordinary"
>one. (Although I'm sure it _is_ ordinary to scientists -- stay calm,
>folks -- I'm not trying to slip anything by you.) But note that if
>you change a theory in significant ways, you can't say (in common
>speech) that you've generalized it, since it's _not the same theory_
>anymore. That's what Silke was trying to tell you when she pointed
>out that the usual word for that would be something like "modified."
>Yes, the result is that you end up with a theory of wider scope, but
>you've done it by changing the theory you started with. To say you
>generalized _that theory_ is sounds odd, since the one you end up
>with (i.e., the more general one) is considerably different.
Can we accept that the terms "generalize" and "considerably" different
are what is often call a term of art. That is, it depends on who is
applying the term. I can see why you want to call the theories
considerable different. However, in a very real sense we can also call
them similar. It does not seem to me to make sense to argue any more
over whether some is "considerable" different, "somewhat" different,
or what have you.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?
Subject: Re: Is glass a solid?
From: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 08:49:19 GMT
In article , lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
says...
>
>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
liqui
>d
>>>property express itself best in old (read really old) window panes. If
you loo
>k
>>>closely they will be wider/thicker at the bottom than at the top. The
glass ha
>s
>>>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.
>
OK Superbrain.
I couldn't give a pigs fart what you call glass - a solid, supercooled
liquid, Samantha - anything.
The part of the "glass is a liquid" argument I cannot hold with is that it
flows. Even one of your expert sources quotes the old myth about old window
panes. I would just like you to answer two questions.
1. A one hundred year old window pane is noticeably larger at the bottom
that the top. Let's assume that 5mm is enough to notice. So we have a
thickening of 5mm per century. This means that Roman glass statues (over
2000 years old) should have flowed out into puddles by now. Yet they are
still well defined.
2. Telescope mirrors need to have their surfaces accurate to within a few
tens of nanometers. If they flowed at 5mm per century then they's be useless
within a year. But there are mirrors over 100 years old - as good as the day
they were made.
I don't need to quote so-called experts. This is evidence. Until you, or
your experts, can explain why astronomy is still possible, just like the
anti-flows can easily explain old window thickness, then you're just blowing
hot air.
--
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com or fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.
Subject: Re: Gravity and Electromagnetism:Unified Field Theory
From: jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com (Jonathan Scott)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 08:57:06 GMT
In article <55doar$jud@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
on 1 Nov 1996 20:59:07 GMT,
Allen Meisner writes:
>...
> Yes, but as I said, I am talking about the curvature of the mass
>itself, not the gravitational curvature produced in the spacetime
>surronding the mass.
What do you mean by this? Don't you realize that the curvature within
the mass joins onto the curvature of space at the borders of the mass?
Of course, we are talking about two types of curvature here, which I
will try to explain by an analogy in ordinary space.
Imagine a conical hill with a rounded top.
The sides are curved, but that curvature is not visible locally on the
ground, and one could for example lay a flat piece of paper on it. This
is the sort of curvature which is equivalent to a gravitational field in
empty space. You can think you are moving in a straight line when a
distant observer sees your path to be curving.
The rounded top has intrinsic curvature which is even visible locally.
That is the sort of curvature which is equivalent to the curvature of
space caused by mass-energy density.
If the rounded top is made smaller, making the mound more pointed, but
the slope of the sides remains the same, that represents the same amount
of mass-energy, but concentrated into a smaller volume. Also, the
surface of the cone adjacent to the edge of the rounded part gets more
curved. If you think of the rounded part like part of a sphere, and
imagine the cone as touching the sphere all round but continuing up to a
point, you will see that the radius of curvature of the surface of the
cone at the point it touches the sphere is the same as the radius of
curvature of the sphere (except that it only curves in one dimension
rather than two). In fact, the average curvature of the rounded part
is completely determined by its border, as it has to join on to the
flat part around it.
(This analogy should not be taken too far because in the 2-D cone model
the spatial curvature is proportional to 1/r but in gravity the field is
proportional to 1/r^2).
Jonathan Scott
jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com or jscott@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Some neat surface equations and their graphs?
From: ale2@psu.edu (ale2)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 09:46:03 GMT
Please forgive any mistakes in what follows %^(
Some consideration of the surface x^4 + y^4 + z^4 = 1 led me think
about surfaces and rediscover (that is, i'm sure this is written
somewhere) some cool relatives of some well known surfaces.
Consider the surface given by x^2 + y^2 = z^2 (surface of a cone) and
for simplicity only look at the surface above the x-y plane and ignore
the surface below the x-y plane (do this for all the surfaces that
follow). An easy way to graph the above function is the get some
Mathematica software, but with only paper, pencil, and some imagination
one can just as quickly figure out what the above surface looks like.
(sketching hints, set y = 0 and sketch x^2 = z^2, then set z^2 = alpha,
alpha a constant, and sketch x^2 + y^2 = alpha. Its fun (and usefull)
to sketch functions?)
Consider a more general form of the above function:
x^2 + y^2 = z^2 ------> |x|^n + |y|^n = z^m
and consider the following values for n and m, (n,m), in the above more
general form,
1. (1/2,1/4)
2. (1/2,1/2)
3. (1/2,1)
4. (2,1)
5. (2,2)
6. (2,4)
7. (4,1)
8. (4,4)
9. (4,8)
The number n determines the shape of the surface when "cut" by a x-y
plane:
n=1/2 gives a "more pointed" square shape (stellated (sp?) square?)
n=2 gives circle
n = 4 gives a rounded square shape.
The number m/n determines the shape when the surface is looked at from
the side:
m/n = 2 the outline of the surface looks like the line z = |x|^1/2
m/n = 1 the outline of the surface looks like the line z = |x|
m/n = 1/2 the outline of the surface looks like the line z = x^2
With a little work, if you care to, one can easily see the surfaces.
Some are very sharp, don't poke yourself @%^)
Homework, consider the family of surfaces given by:
a*x^2 + b*y^2 = c*z^2
and the more general form:
a*x^2 + b*y^2 = c*z^2 ------> a*|x|^n + b*|y|^n = c*z^m.
Sketch all distinct forms (consider only representative values of a,b,
and c) of the more general equation using the above nine pairs of
numbers (n,m) and post the answer on your favorite wall.
Extra credit, consider what happens to the surface as n --> 0, and as n
--> infinity.
You may use any graphing software you want, but pencil and paper is
preferred.
Subject: Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:50:58 GMT
David Weinstein wrote:
> Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net) 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.
>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 this cannot be true.
>--
Unfortunately, it IS!
I assure you the specimens discovered between anthracite
veins are neither a ``very stupid, pointless hoax" nor a joke.
You see, David, sometimes truth can INDEED be stranger
than fiction.
And please don' t mention the possibility of my disregard for the
``proper scientific method" of investigation.
Instead, point your finger at the scientific establishment which has
displayed a total lack of honesty and integrity in pursuit of this
particular truth.
And, unfortunately, science's disregard for facts is nothing new.
Col. James Churchwood squarely hit the nail on the head with
a few choice words in one of his books:
>>> ``Our scientists today do not want facts.
>>> They hate them because it upsets all
>>> the fairy tales they have been building up
>>> for many, many years."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the truth really hurts, David, I'd suggest you take a pain pill,
wait about five minutes, then click on:
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skulla.jpg
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skullb.jpg
>>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
Maybe it won't hurt so much!