Subject: Re: How Much Math? (not enough)
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 22:43:56 -0600
-*-------
Walker on Earth wrote:
>> ... Btw, could you explain why an increasing function has at
>> most a finite number of discontinuities? ...
In article <55p21b$dgu@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Jeff Candy wrote:
> Actually, this elementary result is generally considered
> pre-calculus (i.e., continuity).
In that case, you must mean "increasing" in some fashion that
isn't immediately obvious to my cold-ridden head. There are
any number of counterexamples given my reading of the claim,
for example, if you want a discontinuity at every positive
integer in a monotonically increasing function:
f(x) = x for x < 0,
f(x) = n*x, for positive integer n and n-1 <= x < n
Are you sure there isn't some important phrase missing in the
statement? Tell me what I am missing ... it's been a long time
since I taught calculus.
> Q: Can I make an upside-down pendulum stable; that is, can I
> make the pendulum oscillate about the normally unstable
> top equilibrium point by forcing the hinge to oscillate
> vertically? If so, what frequency and amplitude of
> up-down hinge motion would do it?
Since we are on the topic of monotonic functions, let me offer an
alternate solution: whenever the pendulum is 14 degrees from
vertical (either direction), give the hinge enough jerk (time
derivative of acceleration, remember?) downward to reverse the
pendulum's horizontal motion. Between times, let the hinge slide
freely downward. (OK, so the hinge doesn't oscillate, and it
requires a very deep well to do this long ... BUT the pendulum
oscillates over the hinge!)
Russell
--
The difference between life and a movie script is that the script has
to make sense. -- Humphrey Bogart
Subject: Re: Do gravitational waves carry momentum? was: Does gravitational waves carry momentum
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 21:18:49 -0500
Ken Fischer wrote:
>
> : Let's compare the field of a proton acting on other electrons to
> : that of gravity. Now both are atractive force fields.
>
> I see nothing about gravity that resembles magnetic
> attraction of opposite charges.
> I am not aware of any direct experiment using a
> single proton and electrons, although I assume it has
> been done if it is possible.
>
Thousands of experiments have been done, of a very detailed nature,
with electrons and positrons.
>
> If gravity is not anything like opposite charge
> attractions, then it must be different.
Of course it is different! The field structure has a tensor, and
not a vector nature.
> Gravity can not be "created", can not be shielded,
> can not be deflected, can not be reflected, can not be
> amplified, can not be weakened, never fails, and the
> mechanism by which it operates is not known.
I've previously mentioned the evidence for gravitational waves.
Like any waves, these should be able to be reflected and refracted.
Why do you worry about the mechanism? If gravitation is fundamental,
then it just _is_ ... there will be no mechanism, only laws.
> The only thing that is known is the effect, and
> it works on all known elements and compositions equally.
>
This seems to be true.
>
> The mathematical representation of fields may seem
> to be somewhat alike, but the gravitational "field" is not
> really a "field" in the same sense as a magnetic field.
They are both mathematical fields ... they have values every
where. But the field structures are different. For example,
the gravitational field for a spherical body has no dipole
component.
> If it were a "field" then there should be some way
> to alter the gravitational field, and there is no way known
> to alter it.
Of course there is! Just move the mass around ... split it up,
rearrange it, add or remove some!
> I wouldn't read too much into statements about the
> gravitational field generating more field, the reason that
> gravitation does not fall off as precisely the inverse
> square is apparently not well understood else there would
> not be dozens of theories with only minor differences.
That is exactly _why_ there are lots of attempts ... the effect
is weak, and we don't have the right "laboratory" for it. But
most of the alternative theories have been disqualified by
the evidence. And the parameterized theories are ever more
constrained. I can give you some refernces, if you like. Clifford
Will's book is a good place to start.
> I think the gravitational field is purely geometrical
> and can not be acted on, the effects are observed from a
> biased reference frame, with the observers seeing accelerations
> where no accelerations exist.
Well, that is one possibility! And has a good deal of truth to it.
> Gravity is a riddle of major proportions.
And very interesting, too!
>
> I am pretty sure that photons do not attract anything,
> in fact, I don't think free electrons produce gravitational
> attraction, but I am still trying to research current thought
> on this,
I think that current thought is that all forms of energy cause
gravitational attraction. Current thought being consistent with
General Relativity. Thus if it contributes to the stress-energy
tensor, it contributes to gravity.
> I am not impressed by the possibilities of mathematical
> representations, they can be very precise and formal, but they
> can also be misleading.
>
While it is true that they can be misleading, I'm still very impressed
by it all. But then you already knew that ;-)
> As I said, LIGO is an important experiment, whether
> it is a null experiment remains to be seen, as there needs to
> both, be a model of gravitation that does not require gravitational
> radiation (I am not convinced that GR does), and, LIGO would
> have to fail, for it to be a null experiment.
>
Ken, General Relativity very definitely predicts gravitational waves.
Yes, the prediction is mathematical. But so is the definition of
a wave!
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:44:36 -0700
In article <55mb90$a1p@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>
>>:: 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.
>
>>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>>: Of which none is possible in this case.
>
>>Quite possible. You just synchronize the two clocks, following
>>Einstein's recipe. This recipe doesn't mention anything about velocity,
>>or absolute anything; you just DO it. You get SR-synchronized clocks.
>>From then on, the analysis proceeds trivially.
>
>It's not that simple. There are quite definite and real physical
>results of such clocks that directly reflect the absoluteness behind
>the definition. For example, given any two events, each observer will
>find a different time between them. This tells us that their clocks
>all read differently at these same two events. And yet the events
>themselves obviously can have only a single time between them.
Why is that obvious. The time interval is only one coordinate difference.
It should be equally obvious that they should always have the same 'X'
coordinate difference, regardless of coordinate system. They are both
equally wrong.
>Therefore, the cause of all the different readings is this: Each
>observer's clocks differ from any other observer's. And this tells us
>that -- even by just purely and ever so "simply" just applying
>Einstein's little harmless fuzzball of a definition -- that there is
>more than meets the eye here. Why do all observers' clocks end up
>being really and physically different after E-synch is applied? The
>only possible cause is their different absolute speeds.
>
>The clocks have been set out-of-true in direct proportion to each
>observer's absolute speed, and this is just the beginning of things
>absolute that are in the Einstein View.
>
You have yet to establish this. If I use a different value for "absolute
speed", I get an equally correct description of nature. So, the assumption
of absolute speed, while not logically impossible, adds nothing to the
physics.
>>The problem is, bjon simply refuses to accept that the synchronization
>>recipe is simply a given, a primitive undecomposable-into-anything-else
>>step in SR, despite the fact that that's exactly what Einstein said it was.
>
>>::: Throop's claim that nothing in SRT is absolute is obviously incorrect.
>>:: Never claimed that nothing in SR is absolute.
>>: So name one thing that you see to be absolute in SRT.
>
>>The interval is invariant, plays the same role in SR using space-time
>>coordinates that "distance" does in analytic geometry using x-y
>>coordinates, and is "absolute" in the useful sense of being
>>coordinate-system-independent. The point is, bjon insists that there
>>must be "space absolutes" and "time absolutes" separately. But this is
>>not logically required by SR. SR is *compatible* with the notion of
>>space-absolutes separate from time-absolutes, iff they remain
>>unobservable. But SR doesn't logically imply them.
>
>The invariant interval has no physical meaning, being a mere
>mathematical construct. It is the square root of the difference of
>the squares of the "time" (per an SRT observer) and the "distance"
>(per the SRT observer). Let's see just how meaningful this is. No SRT
>observer can determine the actual time between two events. No SRT
>observer can determine the actual distance, either. (Unless the
>observer is accidentally at absolute rest). So, we have two false
>values (observer-dependent distance and observer-dependent time), and
The value of the invariant interval is that it has the same value for
all observers, independent of the 'observer dependent' effects.
>we have to square each one, then find the difference and take the
>square root. What physical meaning herein lies? A measured distance
>is squared, and a measured time is squared, and this is supposed to
>mean something? I may care about the _distance_ between two events
>(even an observer dependent one), and I may care about the _time_
>between the events, but the invariant interval is worthless and
>meaningless. And it's about as "absolute" as silly putty. Only by
In the same way that the distance between two points is meaningless, but
the 'X' and 'Y' coordinate differences are of interest.
>using your definition above can we say it's "absolute," and this was
>not my challenge, as you know.
>
>>In euclidean geometry, if you want to drop a perpendicular, you take
>>a compass and two points on a line, scribe the corresponding two points
>>on the perpendicular line, and bob's your uncle. Exactly so in SR:
>>you take two points in space, and bounce light from one to the other,
>>DEFINING your spacelike and timelike axes. There need not be any
>>absolute timelike or spacelike direction in SR, any more than there
>>is a x-like or a y-like direction in geometry for the construction
>>of perpendiculars. You just pick one, and call it x. And in SR,
>>you just pick one, and call it "time".
>
>>And that's what the SR synchronization recipe is all about; getting
>>"perpendicular" space/time axes. It doesn't matter if they're the same
>>for everybody, it just matters that you choose a perpendicular pair.
>>Same as with setting up x/y coordinates.
>
>>: There must be some nonclock event AT the clock. This is standard SRT fare.
>
>>A substantiating reference (that this is "standard SRT fare")
>>would be appreciated.
>>--
>>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>> throopw@cisco.com
>
>See my Throop reply.
>
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:21:50 -0700
In article <55m8pu$s3t@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>
>>>The rear clock must read D/c (per experiment). We can now solve for
>>>the rear clock's reading at the start:
>>>
>>>final reading delta-t start reading
>>> D/c - [D(c-V)]/c² = DV/c²
>>>
>
>>Your derivation shows that you are setting a clock assumed to be at rest in
>>a reference system that measures the rod as moving at speed 'V'. If the
>>clock is in a system where the rod is moving at speed 'U', it will be set
>>as DU/c(1-U^2/c^2)^0.5. In particular in the system where the rod is not
>>moving, implied by your description of the experiment, the speed will be 0,
>>and the clock will read 0.
>
>As I tried to make plain, this lies outside SRT and its various
>reference frames. Thus the speed V (uppercase, not v for relative) is
>an absolute speed, not an as-measured one. And I said that the rod is
>moving at this absolute speed V, meeting a light ray (whose absolute
>speed happens to be c). But it's true that if the rod is not moving
>at all, then the clocks will match (both read zero at the same
>instant). This is because the local offset formula LV/c² yields zero
>when V is zero.
>
How do you measure or define this absolute speed? Your argument has now
stepped outside SR, and your conclusions cannot be used to criticize SR, only
to try to offer an alternative. If you stay within the assumptions of SR,
then you cannot carry through your argument.
>>>So, we see that the rear clock read DV/c² when the front clock read 0.
>>>This DV/c² is the error in synchronization for Einstein-set clocks,
>>>clocks that are not absolutely synchronized as are Newton's. It has
>>>been called by some the "local offset." Note that it varies directly
>>>with the observer's absolute speed V.
>>>
>
>>Nothing in the theory or derivation requires an absolute speed. You cannot
>>define the "absolute" clock settings you require.
>
>SRT cannot supply us with the answer because there is no event that
>ocurred AT the rear clock, and without such an event, SRT is
>speechless. SRT speaks only of actual events AT a clock, so these
>events can be matched with a clock reading.
>
This is without content. See my previous post on this issue.
>And I just defined the absolute settings. Each clock on board differs
>from it neighbor by DV/c². But this is just Einstein's definition of
>synchronization. It has nothing to do with how an outside observer
>views the clocks. It has everything to do with the actual readings
>one the clock faces. No need to bring in an outside observer. The
>clocks read just fine without him.
>
It has everything to do with how an outside observer views the clocks.
An observer at rest with the clocks will see them in agreement. Only a
moving observer will see the offset readings.
>Let's put it this way: The clocks in SRT cannot all read the same at
>the same instant because then they would be absolutely synchronized,
>as in classical physics. So, this tells us that each clock (in the
>same frame) in SRT has a different reading at the same instant in the
>same frame.
>
Again, you step outside SR when you assume an absolute meaning for "at the
same instant". Each reference frame will have a different meaning for this.
Have you forgotten Einstein's train?
>>>Einstein's definition of synchronization, meaning that they have the
>>>"clock difference" of DV/c². It is this offset amount that makes each
>>>einsteinian observer get "c" instead of the Newtonian "c±V" for
>>>light's one-way speed. It is also this offset that makes each
>>>observer get different time intervals for the same two events. And,
>>>further, it makes the observers get different observed lengths for a
>>>passing rod (clocks used to "pin down" rod ends at the "same time" per
>>>the observer's E-set clocks), and similarly makes each observer "see"
>>>the other's clock "run slow" (when the passing clock is compared with
>>>two on-board out-of-true clocks), and, finally, makes each observer
>>>obtain a different "mass" for a passing object (on-board E-set clocks
>>>used to measure the object's resultant speed after being hit by a test
>>>object).
>>>
>
>>In other words, if they set their distant clocks to agree with each other,
>>all the results of SR follow.
>
>They cannot set their distant clocks to agree because there's no known
>way to do that. (One possible way would be to use infinitely rapid
>signals. Do you have any?)
So you agree that absolute time does not exist.
>As I tried to make clear, all the clocks in SRT DISagree.
>(And they disagree by the amount DV/c²)
>
They can be set to agree for any given observer.
>>>In short, E synch is the direct cause of all the so-called
>>>"relativistic effects." (These are: Observer-dependent time, mass, and
>>>length variation).
>>>
>
>>E synch = set their clocks to agree with each other in their rest frame.
>
>No, this is classical or absolute time. SRT has a different time, and
>it's called "relative time."
>
What you call E synch is simply the ordinary, common sense way we set clocks.
(P.s., it should probably called L synch, after the man who introduced it.
Lorentz introduced this time, and I believe it was before MMX.)
>>>But note that the einsteinian synchronization involves an absolute
>>>value, V, the observer's absolute speed. Also note that E's
>>>definition of synch contains another absolute value, c. And bear in
>>>mind that actual clock slowing and actual rod contraction are involved
>>>in this definition, so Throop's claim that nothing in SRT is absolute
>>>is obviously incorrect. It's easy to see why SRT has to have these
>>>real underpinnings -- it's a theory of nature.
>>>
>
>>This is completely wrong. There is no need for absolute speed or absolute
>>clock slowing and rod contraction. You assume these effects, but SR
>>doesn't need them.
>
>Let's switch over to SRT mode, since this is the only mode in which
>you can operate. A light source is given (refer. frame A). Observer B
>moves past this A Frame. When the light source is at the midpoint of
>two clocks located on Observer B's x-axis, the source is energized,
>sending out light rays in all directions. Now, since the observer is
>moving with respect to the source, the front clock moves away from its
>light ray, whereas the rear clock moves toward its light ray. If we
>allow the rays to start the clocks, it is obvious that the two clocks
>will not be started at the same time.
>
Oh, you do remember the train. Ok, observer B will say that the clocks are
started at the same time, and A will say they are not. This is a simple,
direct consequence of PR (extended to cover light speed).
>Now that we have it firmly established that even in the context of
>SRT, the two clocks are not absolutely synch'd, we may inquire as to
We have not. We have established that for A, they are not synch'd. For B,
they are.
>just how they were set by these light signals. Notice that there is
>obviously no need to ask how another observer may see the clocks -- we
>know already that the clocks must have different readings in an
>absolute sense because they were clearly started at different
>(absolute) times by two different light rays. All we care about here
>is what the clocks actually read (at the same absolute instant).
>
The beauty of this is that SR guarantees that you will get the correct answer
even if you choose to describe the entire thing from the A frame. I will also
get correct answers if I stick to the B frame.
>It is elementary to carry this out on paper, and the result is this:
>The rear clock started first. The front clock started second. Their
>time difference is a function of how fast they were moving away from
>and toward the light ray, as well as how far apart they happened to
>be, and also the speed of the light signals (absolute speed because
>any other speed is irrelevant and could not be determined anyway due
>to the lack of two synchronized clocks -- at the start). And this
>time difference (local offset) happens to be DV/c², where D is the
>observer-measured spatial separation of the clocks, and V and c are
>absolute speeds (observer and light).
>
A could say B is moving with velocity V.
B could say A is moving with velocity -V.
They could both confirm these statements with radar or other methods.
Which is absolute? You can choose either one and you will get the same
results.
>And only this offset amount will yield "c" for light's one-way speed,
>as called for by SRT. If you place the same reading on both clock
>faces, you will not get "c" for the one-way lightspeed when using gthe
>clocks.
>
The fact that light speed is assumed to be 'c' can be used to define the
settings of the clocks, yes. But any other signal, at any speed, can also be
used. The clocks will be set the same way. The clock will only appear offset
when viewed by a moving observer.
>And, as my above shows, it is obvious that the clocks are set
>out-of-true in proportion to their absolute speed.
>
No, in proportion to their relative speed, as seen by a moving observer.
>Also, if a clock does not absolutely slow, then light's round-trip
>speed will vary, contradicting SRT. And the same goes for a rod's
>length. This must absolutely vary or else the MMX would have had a
>positive result.
>
Wrong again. You are assuming length contraction to explain MMX and then
complaining when SR doesn't need it.
>Further, only if clocks are set having the above offset, and are
>assumed to be truly slowed, and only if a rod is assumed to be truly
>contracted will the einsteinian transformation equations appear.
>(Based on the use of two such observers observing two events.) In
>other words, the einsteinian transforms contain absolute speeds,
>absolute clock slowing, and absolute rod contraction. One of the
>absolute speeds is c, and the others are the observer's speeds as they
>travel in space while observing the two events.)
>
The alternative is that the Lorentz transformation describe the real
relationship between moving reference systems. No absolutes involved. You
put in the absolutes, not SR or experimental results.
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 07:14:04 GMT
In talk.origins jti@coronado.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) wrote:
>matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>jti@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) wrote:
>
>matt:
>>Instead we have a standard for making our judgements. If the theory
>>does a better job at explaining and predicting we will (provisionally)
>>accept it. They do not say that metaphysics is just hot air, but that
>>metaphysics does not get us anywhere, so we ignore it.
>
>I don't see the difference. You claim that metaphysics is irrelevant
>to knowledge and has no bearing on whether a theory does a better job
>at explaining and predicting, yet it seems quite obvious that one has
>nothing to explain or predict without metaphysics.
>
The difference is this, to say something is hot air is to say it is
nonsense. OTOH, the scientific viewpoint of these metaphysical issues
is that they don't matter to the topic at hand. They may be value
elsewhere, but not here.
>>jti:
>>>The difference between these two positions will never be settled, as
>>>they do not really concern the things being argued about, but rather
>>>concern two different fundamental aesthetics, with which one might
>>>approach experience. This is NOT AT ALL the same as the naive
>>>argument that "everyone's opinion is equally valid". Making that
>>>confusion is so egregious a misunderstanding that one has to suspect
>>>that it is deliberate.
>>
>>However, I don't think anyone has made that confusion. But there
>>another problem with this paragraph. The difference between CM and GR
>>is not mystical, it is not some unexplainable, unknowable metaphysics.
>>It is well define, explicit, and clear. But if you can't follow the
>>math is looks like a big, unsupported philosophical jump.
>
>I didn't say that the difference was found in a "mystical, unknowable"
>metaphysics. Who said metaphysics must be mystical and unknowable?
>Some aspects of what a metaphysics concerns are known so well that one
>doesn't even see oneself embedded in metaphysics when working in those
>domains. This, of course, does not imply on the other hand that
>metaphysics has no place for mystical and "unknowable" experience. It
>seems to me that a given metaphysics identifies both what is knowable
>and what is not. It includes parameters within which the "scientist"
>operates. [I use quotes around that term, in this case, not to deride
>physicists, but rather to allow for the possibility that there may be
>other types of science which would not be granted that title by our
>physicists.] The mystic may indeed have a different metaphysics, but
>I'm not sure if this is really what distinguishes the two. It has
>more to do with how you use the metaphysics you've got.
>
>Turning one's back on "metaphysics" is an ironic act.
>
>The step between CM and GR may be "well defined, explicit, and clear"
>without implying that the metaphysical underpinings of CM are clearly
>continuous with those of GR. It only works in retrospect, as a sort
>of "fixing" of what was understood in the past. But, in fact, the
>nature of what an "object" was in CM and what it is in GR is vastly
>different. Before you can understand what Newton means when he speaks
>of an "object", you must enter a different world. The facility for
>translation between these worlds is so well developed that one doesn't
>see it happening.
I wonder if you could expand on this "object" issue. It does not seem
correct to me, but it might be a different view of something I already
know.
>
>In similar terms, one imagines that the physicists of 500 years hence
>(assuming that humans are still around, then) will look back on y'all
>just as you look back on your forebears: as a bunch of well-meaning
>but myopic dunderheads, who can't see the noses on their own faces.
>Struggling with a primitive metaphysics more than anything else.
>
Very possible. Which is why we have a objective, public standard in
science. So we can take the steps towards that 500 year plus science.
>Is this an indictment? No, it isn't. The knowledge that you will be
>superseded is hardly sufficient to justify abandoning your work.
It is the justification for doing the work.
>But
>it points to the possibility that much of what you conceive of as
>objects of concern may subsequently be understood to have been
>metaphysical squeamishness.
It is possible. It is more likely that there are other, physical
problems that will be solved.
>I'm sure this is no news. But one
>limitation, then, for contemporary science, is the invisibility of the
>metaphysical constraints which bind your hands.
>
>The pointing to metaphysics is not a "refutation" of the scientific
>method, but rather a pointing at its inevitable blindness,
>self-inflicted myopia, and philosophical naivete.
>
I don't see how the point at the metaphysics is a pointing at
blindness, ... For instance I think that many in the sciences are
aware of the metaphysical issues involved in science.
>More generally, it suggests that one can't help being "passionate"
>despite all attempts to be "objective". The notion of "objectivity"
>ought to be appreciated as being somewhat comical. What would it even
>mean? When Jeff Candy pointed me towards "objectivist metaphysics", I
>should have asked him "*which* objectivist metaphysics?"
Actually I don't see any conflict between passion and objectivity.
Objectivity, in the metaphysics of science, is not a given, but a
goal. It is the purpose of many of the mechanisms of science, to
impose as much objectivity as we can on a human, and therefore
inherently subjective, endeavor.
>
>At least, that's my take on it. I presume you will have a response.
>
A good presumption.
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 07:14:07 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:
>]
>]>Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>]>]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.
>]>
>]> And sky can often be considered blue, although it is not now, after
>]> the sunset. If you wish to make your argument, just go ahead.
>]>
>]So, in your view, condemning someone for membership in an ethnic
>]group, does not, in and of itself, constitute an ethnic attack? Then
>]we disagree about the meaning of the word racism.
>
> I am not expressing any particular view, I am waiting for your
> argument.
Are you or are you not supporting your original slur? If so, you are
presenting a view.
>
>]>]>]>]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.
>]>
>]> You argued that finding someone's position self-contradictory and
>]> hypocritical amounts to taking one of the opposing sides invloved.
>]> That is not logical.
>]
>]No, I argued that making a judgement about someone because of their
>]place of birth is an example of what in the U.S. we call racism.
>
> That is nonsense. Place of birth is not the same as race, and pointing
> out cultural differences is not racism by any stretch of word.
>
You have attempted to connect someone to the Nazis and the crimes of
the Nazis, not because of a view they hold, or an act they committed,
but because they share a language, a birthplace, and some cultural
aspects. This is racism in my view.
However, in your view, discriminating against someone because of where
they were born is acceptable.
>]>]>] 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.
>]>
>]> And so I was, which seem justified given her infatuation with
>]> odious figures like Heidegger and LeMan.
>]
>]But you did not attack her views, or her support for other people. You
>]attacked her because of her place of birth and native culture.
>
> Given that her native culture produced the biggest mound of corpses, I
> am most unapologetic about doing so.
No, again I must disagree. Her culture did not produce the corpses.
Why are you so willing to deny the individual responsibility and so
quick to accept the views of your supposed opponents. The Nazis and
their ideology killed the people and many Germans and others supported
this crime.
>
>]>]>]>]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.
>]>
>]> Well, it so happens that German people did it, headed by their
>]> democratically elected leader Adolf Hitler.
>]>
>]All of them? Each and every one?
>
> You are being disingenious.
>
Not really. You want to attach the guilt to the group and I am
claiming it does not belong to the group. In order to support your
position you have to show that all members of the group share the
condition.
>]And all of the their children and
>]their children's children? By your logic there is nothing wrong with
>]killing Jews today because the Jews killed Christ.
>
> Please show where I claimed that killing based on group membership is not
> wrong. Failing that, please apologize.
Sorry, I will not apologized to a racist if I happen to misconstrue
his racism. I find the kind of opinions that you are defending
reprehensible and responsible for much of the worlds evil. Originally
I assumed you spoke rashly and sloppily. I have found that you
understand what you have said and defend it strongly.
>
>]>] 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.
>]>
>]> It is a book with many a fact printed therein.
>]> Anything else you desire to be explained ?
>]
>]Why do you think that being rude will help your position. Instead of
>]trying to appear stupid you could admit that you made an error of
>]fact.
>
> I didn't. Glad I could help.
>
>]Or you could do what you said and explain how Germany started WWI. I
>]would love to hear that.
>
> I again direct your attention towards nearest library.
Did the Austo-Hungarian Empire have anything to do with the war?
>
>]>]>](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.
>]>--
>]No response, eh?
>
> Not every nonsense desrves a responce.
>
But this was not nonsense. WWII started in 1937 with the Japanese
invasion of China. Your eurocentric views not withstanding.
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 6 Nov 1996 06:13:10 GMT
Derrida:
>>>>>"I believe, however, that I was quite explcit about the fact that nothing
>>>>>of what I said had a destructive meaning. Here or there I have used to
>>>>>word _de'construction_, which has nothing to do with destruction. THat is
>>>>>to say, it is simply a question of (and this is a necessity of criticism
>>>>>in the classical sense of the word) being alert to the impliations, to
>>>>>the historical sedimentation of the language which we use-- and that is
>>>>>not destruction. I believe in the necessity of scientific work in the
>>>>>classical sense, I believe in the necessity of everything which is being
>>>>>done and even of what you are doing, but I don't see why I should
>>>>>renounce or why anyone should renounce the radicality of a critical work
>>>>>under the pretext that it risks the sterilization of science, humanity,
>>>>>progress, the origin of meaning, etc. I believe that the risk of
>>>>>sterility and of sterilization has always been the price of lucidity."
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>Derrida is lying. Since his term `déconstruction' is derived from
>>>>Heidegger's term `destruktion', the destructive implications are there,
>>>>brought out by the argument from etymology, favored by the Nazi and the
>>>>Nazi apologist alike.
Silke:
>>>Zeleny is lying, but he can't help it.
Zeleny:
>>You are out of it. See Rodolphe Gasché, _The Tain of the Mirror:
>>Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection_, Chapter 7, pp 109-121.
moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
> I don't have the book handy, but the last time I heard Gasche,
>he was arguing that the implications of Heidegger's _Destruktion_
>differ significantly from the English "destruction." David Farrell
>Krell takes the same tack, noting that _Zerstorung_ would have been
>closer.
Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move. Check his
Greek etymologies against Liddell & Scott -- always good for a giggle.
What better way to judge a writer than by applying his master's lofty
intellectual standards?
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: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 6 Nov 1996 03:39:35 -0500
From zeldor@tau-ceti.net Sun Nov 3 15:44:37 EST 1996
Article: 172407 of alt.conspiracy
Path: news.udel.edu!udel-eecis!gatech!smash.gatech.edu!cc.gatech.edu!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.dra.com!usenet
From: Zeldor
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 19:57:10 -0600
Organization: The Sirius Sector, outpost 4
From previous information, we can see that reading people's mind
has been achieved for a long time.
Also, I have handled the Taiwan' military classified
documrent which had pointed that Taiwan purchased the mind machine
from US (it was called the psychological language machine in Taiwan.
It means the machine can read people's mind) in 1984.
Furthermore, the _RADIO FREQUENCY DOSIMETRY HANDBOOK_ published
by U.S. Air Force in 1986 has proven that reading human mind is not the
problem and they just want to increase the speed of mind reading
in order to know a target's reaction while this target is being
input with subliminal message (see detail on page 189, _ANGELS
DON'T PLAY THIS HAARP_ by Jeane Manning & Dr. Nick Begich).
If the local mind control central stations (in city or county)
operate at same time, the operators indeed can track any target
24 hours a day. Most of time, they can read the target's thoughts
no matter the target is at home or driving a car (I emphasize that
the operators can read driver's mind in car, boat, or even plane
because the orginal survreilliance system program of 1971 is
supposed to "wire" the house, car, boat, etc ). However, while the
target is moving very fast on foot in the shopping canter or
shpopping mall, the operators cannot read target's thoughts.
>These gradients can be overridden through electrical action, however,
Thank you for your approval opinion.
>With respect to high frequency auditory inputs the problem with that is
>that there is a limit with respect to what the human ear can hear. If
>the human ear can not send a neural signal to the brain corresponding
>with the high frequency input if it does not have the apparatus within
>it to send the signal to begin with. Admittably, there might be sounds
>sent at the border of what the human ear could detect. The effect would
>be that it would be 'barely audible'. Some human ears can detect sounds
>at certain frequencies better than others, and so some of those ears
>might be able to hear the sounds. Those people might say to their
>workmates 'hey, can you hear that?' and, since it would be barely
>audible to most persons, they would probably just be able to hear it. If
>it would end up being repeated all the time it would
>eventually be 'tuned out' just like everything else regardless of what it
>is, and be of little more effect than the generic 'moods' of music that
>are played at different stores anyway.
Your argument only show reasders that you have no real knowledge on the
mind control equipments if you are not trying to mislead people.
So I would like to show you the real information of microwave voices as
below. It will help you to know what is the reality.
1. 1760, Dr. Frey reported that when the microwave of 30 to 3000
megahertz were pulsed at specific rates, human (even deaf people) can
hear them ( See page 318 on "The Body Electric" 1985 by Dr. Robert
Becker). The Dr. Frey report will also be enclosed at the bottom of
this article).
2. 1973, Dr. Joseph c. Sharp serving as a test subject himself, heard &
understood spoken words delivered to him in a echo free chamber via a
pulsed-microwave audiogram (an analog of the word's sound vibrations)
beam into his brain. ( See page 319 on " The Body Elrectric" 1985 by
Dr. Robert Becker )
Now I would show you another information about the nonlethal weapon as
bel;ow.
(Attachment)-- New World Order & ELF Psychotronic Tyranny by C. B. Baker
===================================================================
In 1977, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) declassified a report
describing how vast advances in Soviet psychotronic technology can create
THE ULTIMATE BIG BROTHER SOCIETY, " BY USING ELECTRONIC MIND CONTROL
AGAINST POPULATIONS TO IMPLANT IDEAS AND THOUGHTS INTO THE HEADS OF
UNSUSPECTING VICTIMS: "SOUNDS AND POSSIBLY EVEN WORDS, WHICH APPEAR TO
BE ORIGINATING INTRACRANIALLY (WITHIN ONE'S OWN HEAD), CAN BE INDUCED BY
SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT VERY LOW AVERAGE POWER DENSITIES" (VLF & ELF).
The 4\94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported: "Federal researchers are now
investigating a broad array of non-lethal devices
including...LOW-FREQUENCY 'INFRASOUND' GENERATORS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO
TRIGGER NAUSEA OR DIARRHEA,...electronics-disrupting pulses of
electromagnetic radiation..and biological agents that can chew up crops."
To help promote the U.N. global dictatorship, Soviet KGB scientist have
recently been working at various U.S. advanced weapons facilities, such
as Lawrence Liverpool and Los Alamos Laboratories.
In November, 1993, a three day top-secret non-lethal weapons conference
took place in the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University
in Maryland. The meeting was attended by Attorney General Janet Reno,
numerous scientist, military weapons experts, intelligence officials from
state and local police departments. The main purposes of the meeting was
to prepare leading law enforcement officials for the use of psychotronic
mind-control weapons.
The official program of the conference stated: "Non-lethal defense has
emerged as a potent new means of applying force. ...Non-lethal defense is
an approach that explores options for attacking targets...including
NON-TRADITIONAL FOES" (CODE WORDS FOR GUN COLLECTORS, THE UNORGANIZED
MILITIA, AND SO-CALLED CHURCH "CULTS").
Amongst the subjects covered at the conference were "RADIO-FREQUENCY
WEAPONS, HIGH POWERED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY, ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY" (used to
transmit subliminal voices into a victims head), VOICE SYNTHESIS, and
APPLICATION OF EXTREME FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS TO NON-LETHAL
WEAPONS." Col. John B. Alexander, Program Manager for Non-Lethal
(psychotronic) Defense, Los Alamos National Laboratory, served as
conference chairman.
==================================================
Above informaation prove that the microwaves voice device indeed
existence.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alan Yu
The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate
people's health condition and lives in order to eliminate their
opponents or enemies secretly (die as natural cause).
This objective has been secretly carried out since the late of 1970s
in Taiwan (At that time they simply use the microwave beam or low
radio frequency modulation).
The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of
Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free
countries.
Accusing other as insane is the "trademark" of mind control organization.
The shorter the lie is, the better it is. So, the liar can avoid
inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: Re: Constancy of the Speed of Light--Purely Mathematical?
From: schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja Schmelzer)
Date: 06 Nov 1996 09:21:43 GMT
In article <54ntg0$dtu@eri.erinet.com> kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto) writes:
>>Constant speed of light you obtain in some special coordinates. In
>>other coords you can have also non-constant speed of light.
>But these other coodinates were not posited by SRT. The only coords
>posited by SRT are those that give the constancy of the speed of light
>in all frames.
Learn how to use SR in other coordinates using any usual SR textbook.
>>The special coordinates are defined by physical measurements, time
>>measurement with atomic clocks for example.
>The variable light-speed concept also are defined by physical
>measurements. SRT maintains c in all frames by a combination of rod
>shrinkage and time dilation. Guess what this combination is exactly
>equivalent to variable light-speed if you assume that the rod is
>constant (no shrinkage) in all frames. The advantage of the variable
>light-speed concept is that it allows the existence of absolute
>motion.
>>I don't use an "Earth second", I use an atomic clock. I have asked not
>>about mu and epsilon, but about the result of time measurement.
>The different readings of an atomic clock in different frames
>represent the different state of absolute motions of the different
>frames. It is not a true measurement of time.
You cannot answer questions. I have asked you not about the deep
philosophical nature of time, but about the results of some experiment
in your theory.
The Model Nonsense is not a theory, because it doesn't predict the
results of experiments.
>>ROTFL. As far you don't have any mathematics. You don't understand how
>>science is working if you claim to know the "true" underlying process.
>My guess is as good as any established physicists'. This is
>especially true knowing that PG and GR and QM combined cannot possibly
>be the final theory of the universe.
They predict results of experiments very well, different from your
Model nonsense.
>Your math leads you to multi-dimensional space (more than the normal
>three ) and you try to stuff this down to the general public. In spite
>of that freedom you still can't come up with a coherent theory that
>could unite all the forces of nature. I will accept a theory from you
>without math and without abstractions that can unify all the forces.
You have read in some popular journal the words that science still
can't came up with such a theory, but you even don't understand what
this means.
I can give you such a theory without math, if you like: God is the
unification of all forces. Pray.
Science without math was possible for the old Greeks, not now.
>But SR never posited these unorthodox corrds and now you say that SR
>includes the variable light speed concept.
You don't have a theory, and that's why it is impossible to say what
is the relation of your non-theory to SR. I can explain you only the
situation in SR.
You can use any coords you like in SR. Formally, in strange coords
x,y,z,t the light speed dx/dt may be different from c. But if you use
atomic clocks to measure t and modern equivalents of rods to measure
x, you obtain coords with constant c.
Ilja
--
Ilja Schmelzer, D-10178 Berlin, Keibelstr. 38,
my ~: http://www.c2.org/~ilja
postrelativity: ~/postrel/index.html