Newsgroup sci.physics 207057

Directory

In article <3FTeEQ$lC5@bbs.phys.ntu.edu.tw>,
Schreiber  wrote:
>
>  so if the medium is ununiformly polarized,  the total charge density must
>
> include "free charge" density and "bound charge" volume density
>
> BUT why can we ignore the bound charge "surface" density ???
>
>  Doesn't it also contribute to the "total" charge ???
>
Yes, it does.
div E = rho_total
div D = rho_free
div P = -rho_bound
E = D - P    
Taking the divergence of this gives:
rho_total = rho_free + rho_bound
(to within factors of 4pi, epsilon_0, or whatever depending on what
system of units you use--which would only confuse things for the present
purposes).
Sounds like you're confusing E and D.  E is produced by all charges in the
system, regardless of whether they're "free" or "bound."  D is produced by
free charges only.  P is related to bound charges only.  Introducing D is
basically a way of considering the world to consist of free charges and
materials, without explicitly figuring out where all the bound charge is.
The surface of a dielectric tends to have a singularity (to first approx.)
in div P, resulting in an infinitesimally thin bound surface charge.
This contributes to E according to the very same set of equations that a
nonuniformly polarized material contributes to E.
Have fun,
breed

Andy Perry wrote:
> Derrida would emphasize that the center is the only thing which
> allows there to be any "play" at all.  Without a center, there
> would be no structure, no rules to play with, only chaos. ...
[snip]
> Derrida is attempting in the opening of this essay to work
> dialectically, to simultaneously describe the center's enabling and
> disenabling effects on play, the fact that "the center also closes off 
> the
> play which it opens up and makes possible."  I'm not sure what in my
> paraphrase you found "exactly wrong," but it still seems dead on to me.
OK, point taken -- you weren't 'exactly wrong' about anything.  But I'm 
not sure I'd call it 'dead on' either.  I don't think the center is the 
only thing that allows play: for instance, play between signifiers can 
occur even when they're oriented toward two different centers.  And 
again, I don't think 'rules' are ever in play -- although particular 
decrees may be.  
-- brian

Andy Perry (Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu) wrote:
]In article <55mg2t$8p0@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu
](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]
]>]> If you find meaning in lunatic ravings, you are liable for getting
]>]> locked up in mental institution. So much for your cherished
]>]> article of faith - that no text can be called gibberish if there
]>]> exists some sucker who thinks it's truly deep.
]>]
]>]If you can use a particular utterance to label someone a lunatic and lock
]>]them away in an institution, you are hardly failing to attribute meaning
]>]to them, now are you?  
]>
]> Your reading is sloppy. I am talking about meaning of texts.
]> I do not know what is "attribute meaning to the person" - 
]> sounds like a gibberish to me.
]
]My writing was sloppy, not my reading.  Let me rephrase: You are
]attributing meaning to the text by calling it "lunatic raving." 
 Your thinking is even slopier then your writing. By calling
 the text "lunatic ravings" I attach the meaning to the act of
 creating it, not to the text itself.
 There are
]many forms of gibberish in the world, and that is a particular kind.  When
]you decide that the gibberish in question is "lunatic raving" it allows
]you to have material effects upon the speaker of the gibberish, such as
]locking him away.
]
]The point is "this is the kind of speech which allows me to rob you of
]liberty" is clearly a statement which finds meaning in the speech.
]
]The larger point is that you are attempting to use "meaning" to mean only
]a subset of what "meaning" properly means.  Heh.
]
]>
]>]And since when are "lunatic ravings" utterly
]>]without meaning, even by your standards?
]>
]> Ever since I learned the definition of "lunatic ravings" and "meaning"
]
]Well, you clearly learned the wrong definitions.
 You are getting into the business of setting standards, my friend ?
]  Or rather, you learned
]definitions which prevent you from dealing with many phenomena in the
]world, from Shakespeare to real-world accounts of lunatic prophets.  There
]is a very long tradition of seeing lunatics as speakers of mangled truths
]that either they, their culture, or both just couldn't handle.
 Who cares ? The tradition of considering the Earth flat and resting on
 the 3 turtles is no less ancient.
]>]Besides which, deciding in advance that they're lunatic ravings is a
]>]slight of hand which obscures the issue, which is precisely why you get to
]>]be the one to decide that.
]>
]> So that's why one approaches text sceptically, but trying to avoid
]> prejudice, and decides that it is gibberish only if examination
]> reveals it to be nonsensical. At least, that's how it is done among
]> rational men. (I know that denizens of English Departments may differ)
]
]I didn't say "one."  I said "you."
 So do show me where I sdeclared some text "lunatic ravings" in advance.
 I encorage you to look back and find my remark;
 "that ignmores the possibility that the texts in question might be,
 in fact, nonsensical". Which prompted you to utter your article
 of faith, that, so long as someone claims the text makes sense, it
 does. In short, it is not me who gets to decide, it is the
 rational facility, on which I do not claim the monoopoly.
]>]Doubly besides which, are you claiming that Derrida is a lunatic?  If so,
]>]it seems rather unsportsmanlike of you to attack him for spouting
]>]gibberish.  What choice would he have?
]>
]> I do not claim that Derrida is lunatic. Spouting gibberish is 
]> not the monopoly of lunatics by a long shot; finding meaning in 
]> gibberish is.
]
]My objection still holds, only one step removed.  Isn't it now
]unsportsmanlike of you to attack the people who LIKE Derrida, since you
]are now saying that they are all lunatics?  What choice do we have?
 I am willling to amend "lunatics" to "soft-headed suckers",
 if that's what you're asking for.
]I assume that you are planning on staying true to form, and in your next
]post you will deny that you are claiming that people who read Derrida,
]teach him, and/or take him seriously are all lunatics. 
 Please note, that, so far, I make no positive statement about
 either Derrida or his fans, but rather, exposing the possibility that
 it is all a sham. To which your objection seems
 to be that you literary types are never, ever wrong when you
 find some meaning in the some text.
] You might try, in
]that post, to explain what your definition of "monopoly" is.
 Assuming the position that can not be challenged on rational
 grounds, as exemplified by your denial of possibility
 of rational evaluation of texts.
]>]>]  It's kind of like
]>]>]feeling pain, don'tcha know?  The same cannot be said for tangible
]>]>]objects.
]>]>
]>]> I note dryly that you fail to make a distinction between logic and
]>]> emotion.
]>]
]>]I note dryly that pain is no more an emotion than are red, cold, or odors.
]>
]> Neither of those are emotions, they are facts of material
]> world that can be measured and that exist independently of any
]> observer.
]
]All four are sensations. 
 Thos words denote both the sensations and the causes that prodiuced them.
 It seems that you are trying to ignore latter meaning.
] None can be measured.  Their CAUSES can be
]measured, but that just isn't the same thing.
 Please note, that progress of neuroscience cast doubt on the second
 part of your assertion.
]>]>]>]You'd much better try reading some Derrida, indeed.
]>]>]>
]>]>]> If you are good example of results of such reading, then I'll
]>]>]> pass.
]>]>]
]>]>]Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the only important
]>]>]difference between Silke and you is that she's read Derrida and you
]>]>]haven't?
]>]>
]>]> You are twisting what I said.
]>]
]>]How so?
]>
]> On the second thought, I replace my previous remark with note that
]> your question is irrelevant to my point, which was; dishonest sophist's
]> recommendation of some text as noteworthy is suspect and ought not
]> to be given weight to when making choces.
]
]And now YOU are twisting what you said.
 Are you caliming that your reading of what I said is privileged ?
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

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
>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):
>>>>>>>>>     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.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>>>>>Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move.
moggin:
>>>>>>>     Neither do I dance like an Egyptian.
moggin:
>>>>>     Correction -- that should, of course, have been "walk."
Zeleny:
>>>>>>Your personal habits are quite beside the point here.
moggin:
>>>>>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Zeleny:
>>>>I did no such thing.
moggin:
>>>     "Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move."
Zeleny:
>>So where is the reference to your personal habits?
moggin:
>>     Where I pointed to it.  If you meant something different, 
>>feel free to explain yourself.  
Zeleny:
> There is no reference to your personal habits in the quotation to
> which you have pointed.  In fact, you may safely assume that there is
> no such reference in anything I have written to date, or am likely to
> write in the foreseeable future.
     Great.  Now, if you want to explain what you _did_ mean, I won't
stand in your way.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>Check his Greek etymologies against Liddell & Scott -- always good for
>>>>>>a giggle.
moggin:
>>>>>>>     I thought we were discussing the relation of _destruktion_ and
>>>>>>>deconstruction: you claimed Derrida is lying when he distinguishes
>>>>>>>them, and stated that "deconstruction" possesses the "destructive 
>>>>>>>implications" of Heidegger's "_destruktion_."  
Zeleny:
>>>>>>As I said, implications are beside the point. 
moggin:
>>>>>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Zeleny:
>>>>I brought up history, not logic.  Refer to Derrida's apposition of
>>>>"the historical sedimentation of the language which we use" for HIS
>>>>sense of `implications', which involves him in Heidegger's crypto-Nazi
>>>>rhetoric by HIS own lights.
moggin:
>>>     Call it what you like, you brought up "destructive implications."
>>>But you haven't said anything that would support your claim, namely
>>>that "Since [D.'s] term `déconstruction' is derived from Heidegger's
>>>term `destruktion', the destructive implications are there...."  (And
>>>>needless to say, you haven't shown that Heidegger is using "crypto-
>>>Nazi rhetoric" -- that's mere demagoguery.)
Zeleny:
>>>Derrida:
>>>"The word _déconstruction_ ... has nothing to do with destruction."
>>>Derrida:
>>>"Deconstruction ... it is simply a question of ... being alert to the
>>>implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language which we
>>>use."
>>>Gasché: 
>>>"The main concepts to which deconstruction can and must be retraced
>>>are those of _Abbau_ (dismantling) in the later work of Husserl and
>>>_Destruktion_ (destruction) in the early philosophy of Heidegger."
>>>Deconstructively speaking, we have a contradiction.  Hence Derrida is
>>>lying, cqfd.
moggin:
>>     First, let's note that you brought up "destructive implications,"
>>denied it, and then dropped the subject when I pointed it out -- so if
>>anyone here is lying, it's you.
Zelany:
> I apologize for assuming that you were capable of distinguishing
> between two clearly identified senses of a single word.
     Toss in a bridge, maybe I'll consider it.  
moggin:
> >     Now to business.  Derrida isn't contradicting himself.  I take
> >it you see a contradiction between his statements and Gasche's.  That
> >wouldn't make Derrida a liar.  Gasche is entitled to give any reading
> >he wishes, whether or not it agrees with Derrida's interpretation of
> >his own work.  Even if Gasche _did_ disagree with Derrida here, that
> >would simply indicate a difference of opinion.
Zeleny:
> As I said before, I am not in the least interested in Gasché's 
> READINGS.  His text is of value to my argument only in so far as it
> corroborates a well-known etymological FACT.  [...]
     Then you could've saved yourself the trouble -- I never disputed
the proposition that "deconstruction" derives in part from Heidegger's
"_destruktion_."  But you claim that the former contains "destructive
implications" it takes from the latter, and _that's_ what you haven't
been able to show.
moggin:
> >     But as it happens, Gasche and Derrida aren't contradicting each
> >other.  Derrida says that deconstruction doesn't have "a destructive
> >meaning."  Gasche observes that it stands in relation to Heidegger's
> >concept of _Destruktion_.  You assume that _destruktion_ contains the
> >"destructive implications" which you mentioned earlier -- but both
> >Heidegger and Gasche say otherwise.  As I already observed, Heidegger
> >says clearly that _destruktion_ does not have "the _negative_ sense
> >of shaking off the ontological tradition."  (His emphasis.)  He goes
> >on, "We must, on the contrary, stake out the positive possibilities
> >of that tradition..."  So Derrida's assertion that deconstruction is
> >not basically destructive is entirely compatible with Gasche's point
> >that the concept derives, in part, from Heidegger's _Destruktion_.
Zeleny:
> Your valiant efforts to stake a claim of plausible deniability are
> duly noted.  Alas, nothing you say has the effect of dislodging the
> "historical sedimentation" of Derrida's term.  I said it before, and
> I will say it again -- Derrida deserves to be judged by the lights of
> his own theory.  If you are uncomfortable about my judgment, blame
> the man or his views.
     The question isn't whether your judgement makes me comfortable
(do you mean it to serve as a couch?),  but whether it's valid.  You
haven't offered any reason to think so, while the evidence against
it is substantial.
Zeleny:
>>>>>                                           My etymological
>>>>>>argument satisfies Heidegger's (and a fortiori, Derrida's)
>>>>>>demonstrative criteria with room to spare.
moggin:
>>>>>     You've offered only an argument-from-authority.  (The one that
>>>>>we're presently discussing.)
Zeleny:
>>>>What else is new?  Arguments about history ARE arguments from authority.  
moggin:
>>>     Your claim concerns the implications contained in certain terms.
>>>But you haven't offered any support for it, except to mention Gasche,
>>>who appears to disagree with you, in any case.
Zeleny:
>>Looks like you are lying, too. 
moggin:
> >     Nope.
Zeleny:
> Looks like you are persevering in your lies.
     False premise.
moggin:
>>>>>>>All this on authority
>>>>>>>of Gasche, in a passage you didn't quote; but as I said, I've heard
>>>>>>>Gasche contend that "_destruktion_" doesn't imply "destruction" (an 
>>>>>>>argument also forwarded by Krell, on the basis I mentioned).
Zeleny:
>>>>>>How phallogocentric of you to judge a text on the basis of an oral
>>>>>>presentation! 
moggin:
>>>>>     ??  Where have I judged a text?  You based your case on Gasche's
>>>>>_The Tain of the Mirror_, but didn't bother to quote whatever you were
>>>>>thinking of.  I replied that while I didn't have the book handy, I'd 
>>>>>heard Gasche argue very differently in the past.
Zeleny:
>>>>And?  Am I responsible for his allegedly arguing in the past?
moggin:
>>>     In this case, yes, since you're relying on his authority.
Zeleny:
>>Not at all.  I am relying on the authority of his TEXT, with which you
>>are admittedly unfamiliar.
moggin:
>>     Until you quoted the text, you were relying entirely on his name.
>>Now that you _have_ quoted it, we can see that it doesn't support your
>>argument.  (As an aside, you don't seem to remember what I said about
>>the book.)
Zeleny:
> Gasché': "This unavoidable loosening up of a hardened tradition, and
> the dissolution of the concealment it has brought about, are not, as
> Heidegger often insists, violent acts.  Nonetheless, it is interesting
> to note that in the context of the public debate between Cassirer and
> Heidegger in April 1929 at Davos, Switzerland, Heidegger employed the
> much more forceful German word _Zerstoerung_, as opposed to its
> Latinization in _Being and Time_, to designate the radical dismantling
> of the foundations of Occidental metaphysics (the Spirit, Logos,
> Reason)." (p 113)
    That repeats Krell's point, which I mentioned at the beginning,
i.e., that if Heidegger had intended to say "destruction," he would
have been more likely to use _Zerstorung_ than _Destruktion_.  Yet
_Destruktion_ is the term that "deconstruction" derives from (as
you've been at pains to argue).
Zeleny:
> To put this disingenuous doubletalk in perspective,
> we are discussing the philosopher who publicly asseverated "the inner
> truth and greatness" of National Socialism as late as 1967; who defined
> in correspondence with Jaspers a moral equivalence between the German
> operation of the gas chambers and the postwar displacement of ethnic
> Germans from East Prissia by the Allies; wno extolled his students not
> to make principles and "ideas" into the rules of their existence; and
> who never renounced his 1933 declaration that "the Fuehrer himself and
> himself alone is the German reality of today, of the future, and of its
> laws." (See Farias' biography for more gems of this kind.)
     Non sequitur.  But out of curiosity, were you the one who was
quoting Lacoue-Labarthe out-of-context on the topic of Farias' book? 
I can't remember who it was, but I'm reminded of your technique.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>            "We understand this task as one in which by taking _the
>>>>>>question of Being as our clue_, we are to _destroy_ [_Destruktion_]
>>>>>>the traditional content of ancient ontology ..." (Heidegger cited by
>>>>>>Gasché on p 112).  Read the book, or I will sic Silke on you.
moggin:
>>>>>     "...until we arrive at those primordial experiences in which we
>>>>>achieved our first ways of determining the nature of Being -- ways
>>>>>which have guided us ever since."  Yep, that's Heidegger, alright --
>>>>>and so?  You haven't established anything about Gasche's reading of
>>>>>"_destruktion_."  But two sentences later, Heidegger says explicitly
>>>>>that _destruktion_ does not have "the _negative_ sense of shaking
>>>>>off the ontological tradition."  (His emphasis.)  Which is just what 
>>>>>Gasche emphasized, as I recall.
Zeleny:
>>>>Why should I give a flying fuck about HIS reading or HIS emphasis?
moggin:
>>>     Because you cited him on your behalf.
Zeleny:
>>I cited him out of context, as per Derridean interpretive technique.
>>His quaint reading and arbitrary emphasis went down the drain.  If you
>>want to make an issue out of it, address all complaints to the old Boa
>>Deconstructor himself.
moggin:
> >     That's your technique, not Derrida's, so my complaints will have 
> >your address, if I need to make them.  Incidentally, it was Heidegger
> >you took out of context.
Zeleny:
> Your complaints would be more effective if you were to address them to
> the Gestapo, as Heidegger did with his racially impure and politically
> incorrect colleagues at Freiburg.
     Non sequitur.  
Zeleny:
>>>>Turnaround is fair play.  In deconstructing a deconstructor I am
>>>>entitled to take his words out of context, imputing "historical
>>>>sedimentation" as I please.  Deal with it.
moggin:
>>>     You're not "deconstructing" shit.
Zeleny:
> >>I have that on your unimpeachable intellectual authority?
moggin:
> >     As well as with my observations below.
Zeleny:
> Lucky for me that your observation rest on naught but your credibility.
     On the contrary, they're verified by the text of this discussion.
moggin:
> >>>                                        You claimed that Derrida is
> >>>a liar, but you didn't show it.  You also claimed Gasche supports
> >>>your position -- but ditto.  
Zeleny:
> >>I have no interest in showing anything to the wilfully obtuse.
moggin:
> >     Just as I have no interest in what interests you -- the point
> >remains that you didn't demonstrate either of the above to anyone.
Zeleny:
> How nice of you to speak on behalf of "anyone".
     Simple:  you didn't demonstrate either of the above; therefore
you didn't demonstrate them to anyone.
moggin:
> >>>                            You haven't even bothered to quote him. 
> >>>(The words you took out of context were Heidegger's, although that
> >>>seems to have slipped by you.)
Zeleny:
> >>So are you functionally illiterate or just a pathological liar?
> The question remains unanswered.
     Need I point out your difficulty in making accurate quotations?
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>>>What better way to judge a writer than by applying his master's lofty
>>>>>>>>>intellectual standards?
moggin:
>>>>>>>>     I can't see Heidegger as Derrida's "master" -- but more to the
>>>>>>>>point, Heidegger doesn't rely on Gasche to authorize his etymologies.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>Tell your problems to an optician.  All I want from Gasché is his
>>>>>>>corroboration of the historical link between Derrida's term and its
>>>>>>>Heideggerian ancestor, which is well-known anyway.  
moggin:
>>>>>>     Well, no -- you invoked Gasche to support your your assertion
>>>>>>that "deconstruction" contains "destructive implications" which it
>>>>>>supposedly derives from "_destruktion_."  (You also accused Derrida
>>>>>>of lying for saying differently.)  That leaves you with an argument
>>>>>>from authority which your chosen authority doesn't seem to support.
Zeleny:
>>>>>I cited Gasché as an authority on etymology.  You seem to suggest
>>>>>that I should care about his interpretation, or your reading thereof.
>>>>>What a droll notion.
moggin:
>>>>     I don't give a damn what you care about.  (Where do you get these
>>>>ideas?)  Your only argument was a reference to Gasche, who appears to
>>>>differ with you on the point in question, and a quote from Heidegger,
>>>>borrowed from Gasche, which doesn't support you, either.  That's that.
>>>>If you can come up with something better, you know where to reach me.
Zeleny:
>>>The sole point in question is the etymology of the term `déconstruction',
>>>as derived from Heidegger's `destruktion' -- a proposition that Gasché
>>>corroborates.  If you have other concerns, address them to your mother.
>>>She cares.
moggin:
> >     I'm surprised you haven't learned to back down more gracefully,
> >given all your recent practice.  Of course "_deconstruction_" derives
> >in part from Heidegger's concept of "_Destruktion_."  That's obvious.
> >But you claimed that since deconstruction derives from _Destruktion_,
> >it contains "destructive implications," making Derrida a liar when he 
> >says that deconstruction isn't fundamentally destructive.  And that's
> >the contention you haven't been able to support -- it's based on the
> >premise that Heidegger's "_Destruktion_" means "destruction," which
> >you've failed to demonstrate.  And as I pointed out, Heidegger's
> >text disputes you.
Zeleny:
> Horror of horrors -- Heidegger's text disputes me, just as it
> dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason?  I am crestfallen.
     Properly so.
-- moggin

Christopher R Volpe  wrote[in part]:
>Brian Jones wrote:
>> 
>> Christopher R Volpe  wrote[in part]:
>> 
>> >Brian Jones wrote:
>> >>
>> >> briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>> 
>> >Correct. THat is what absolute time means. Just like the word "unicorn"
>> >means "horse with a lion's tail and a horn in the middle of its
>> >forehead". However, the fact that these words have meaning doesn't mean
>> >they describe reality.
>> 
>> 
>> The dude did not ask for reality, but only for an operational def. of
>> absolute time.
>Right. You have given a definition, but not an OPERATIONAL definition.
>An operational definition is a procedure that you are physically able to
>follow in any inertial lab (and by "physically able to follow", I mean
>without being magically "given" things like clocks presumed to be at
>absolute rest) to determine whether two events occur at the "same time",
>independent of inertial frame. I.e. you have to be able to say something
>along the lines of "Events A and B are simultaneous if this-and-that
>happens when I do such-and-such", and have the answer be independent of
>the inertial frame in which the procedure is carried out.
>Chris Volpe			
It is operational in the sense that it could be carried out by simple
trial and error if by no other means.

briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
see my challenge to Andersen re Newton vs E's synch.

Christopher R Volpe  wrote[in part]:
>Brian D. Jones wrote:
>> 
>> Christopher R Volpe  wrote [in part]:
>> 
>> >Asserting that there can be only one time interval between two events is
>> >like claiming that there can be only one x interval between two points
>> >on a plane.
>> >>
>> 
>> >(I think I've made the point clear.)
>> 
>> >--
>> 
>> >Chris Volpe
>> 
>> Slightly wrong analogy, Volpe.  In my case, it's the distance between
>> the two points in the plane, NOT their x-y-components.
>No, in your case it's "distance between two events in spacetime", which
>is completely analogous to "x-extent between two points on a plane", in
>that neither is absolute.
Two events have an absolute distance and an absolute time between
them.  This is patently obvious.  Of course, each SRT observer will
get different space values as well as different time values, and all
of these are merely relative values of course.
>>  But since you
>> cannot seem to grasp this, let's go on to the other little example,
>> which so far you have managed to ignore.
>> 
>> An observer has two x-axis clocks that have not yet been started.   He
>> passes a light source.  This source is energized midway of the clocks.
>> 
>> Since the rear clock moves TOWARD the light, and the front clock moves
>> AWAY FROM it, the clocks will not be started at (absolutely) the same
>> time.
>SR Has no notion of the concept of "absolutely the same time". It
>doesn't exist.
>> 
>> Given that the clocks cannot have the SAME reading at (absolutely) the
>> same time, what will their readings be at (absolutely) the same time?
>As far as SR is concerned, there is no absolute space or time. It is
>perfectly valid to consider the two clocks tto be at rest, and the
>source moves from one clock to another. Since it is the source that is
>moving, and since the speed of light does not depend on the motion of
>the source, the light emitted travels at the same speed to each of the
>at-rest clocks. Therefore they are started simultaneously in the frame
>in which the clocks are at rest.
>> 
>> Fill in the blanks:
>> 
>> _________________                                  _________________
>> 
>> Rear Clock Reading                                 Right Clock Reading
>> 
>> NOTE: You cannot put zero in both places.
>In the rest frame of the clocks, I sure can. Just because you can't
>conceive of an absolute rest frame with respect to  which the clock-pair
>is moving, doesn't mean that no such frame exists.
>--
>Chris Volpe			Phone: (518) 387-7766 
>GE Corporate R&D;		Fax:   (518) 387-6560
>PO Box 8 			Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
>Schenectady, NY 12301		Web:   http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr
See my reply to Andersen.

-*------
In article <55tude$vso@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Silke-Maria  Weineck  wrote:
> That's what I tried to warn you about... if you'd read the essay, 
> you'd see that I'm right (emoticon of your choice).
Silke, I've read the essay.  Whence my previous comments about
what effects that wouldn't have.  
That literary theorists themselves cannot agree on what Derrida
means -- or at least on two or three reasonable alternatives --
simply reinforces many criticisms of him.  Theory is not poetry.
Russell
-- 
 The difference between life and a movie script is that the script has 
 to make sense.         -- Humphrey Bogart

moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>Anton Hutticher :
>>Hardy Hulley  wrote:
>>>The question of what does quantum physics *really* mean,
>>>physically, is still very controversial, and I guess one could adopt the
>>>stance that it isn't meaningful. Of course, you'd then have to contend
>>>with the fact that it does make incredibly good *testable* predictions,
>>>in contradistinction to Derrida, who makes no testable claims at all.
>>And successful predictions are of course the only reliable way to 
>>distinguish complex statements which sound like gibberish, but are not,
>>from complex statements which are gibberish. The exception are fields
>>which are formalized enough to permit a formal analysis without recourse
>>to verbal handwaving. 
>     Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
>positivism is dead.
Would you care to explain what you imagine the views suggested above
have to do with logical positivism?  Or are you merely trying to show
incompetence in yet another discipline?
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)

In article <328327e6.0@news.triax.com>, ix32@sisna.com (jmc) wrote:
[   Einstein's thought experiment on a rotating disk - the change in 
[distance only occurs in the direction of motion, the radius stays 
[constant, the ratio of circumference to diameter becomes different 
[from pi 
[ - led him to predict that a gravitational field slows time, and 
[allowed him to estimate the effect as a function of the field 
[strength.
[
[
[
[
[
[In article <55ncn9$m3n@nntp.hut.fi>,
[   tmaurola@cc.hut.fi (Topi Maurola) wrote:
[[Talking about relativity and rotating, I have wondered following 
[experiment:
[[
[[Let's take a toroid and make it rotate at relativistic speed. 
[According to
[[Lorenz transformation, it should shrink in direction of movement. 
[Shrinking
[[a toroid that way means to shrink it also toward center of it.
[[
[[What would really happen?
[[
[[This is an experiment that really can be done! In an accelerator 
[particles are
[[moving near C at circle paths. Two adjacent particles should seem to 
[be closer
[[to each other.
[[

Stephen Parry (sparry@rahul.net) wrote:
: Steve Work (slwork@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Does anyone have a cap which _doesn't_ store energy?  I'll pay $350 each 
: : for the first 10 examples you send in.
: What's your address? I can Fed-Ex you a whole bunch from my garbage can...
: Stephen
OK, but I'll write you a check for $350 in play money.  Hey has anyone 
ever tried to write a check in play money before?  How do you cash it?  
At the toy store?  I never said it had to be in real money, did I?

Adrian Burd  wrote in article
<3278C068.41C6@calanus.tamu.edu>...
> I wonder if some kind soul out there can help me out. some of the work
> I am involved with at the moment has to do with aggregation of 
> particulate material into fractal clusters. Having read some of the
> literature on DLA etc, the following question arose. 
> 
> All of the literature I have seen deals with aggregation from a 
> homogeneous population of monomers and, via ones mechanism of choice,
> builds up larger aggregates. At a certain point in the simualtion the 
> fractal dimension of these aggregates is determined. What would happen
> if I had two populations of particles such that if each population
> just aggregated within itself one would arrive at two populations
> of aggregates having different fractal dimensions. What would happen
> to the fractal dimension of the particles if these two separate
> populations were allowed to interact and form a third, hybrid class
> of aggregates? Is the fractal dimension of this third related
> in some way to those of the previous two classes?
    In minerology they speak in terms nearly identical to 
what you have described. I would give you a more precise 
description but my text is not with me so I'm gonna wing it.
       I do know that crystals of the same symmetry(eg. cubic etc.)
when they grow, will eventually meet and continue to grow as if the
other was not there. Here at Western, there are some excellent samples
of some cubics that seemed to have grown right into and _through_
the others, so you would see two otherwise perfect crystals, except
they are overlaid in three dimensions with respective corners sticking
out here and there-right where they should have been regardless of
the crystal it joined with.
        As far as extra fractal dimensions, I suppose you could take
that as far as you wish. Mix different compounds within a crystal
and you get different properties but there are only so many crystals
that can form at the unit structure level-I think 7 or so. Then you
start getting into chemistry. But if one considers it on a fractal
basis, everything has a crystaline nature. Mother nature demands
nothing less at the atomic scale. The combinations of various crystalline
symmetries make for all the possible shapes and structures within
the U that we know.  
      So I think your answer lies somewhere between Mineralology
and Chemistry. DNA might be an excellent subject to reference
between the two or even better-a virus. Something that is a crystal-like
but not a "crystal"....Diatoms..Oolites.
Good luck!
Jim
> Adrian
> 
> -- 
> _____________________________________________________________________
>                              | 
> Adrian Burd,                 | Quidquid Latinae dictum sit,
> Dpt. of Oceanography,        | altum videtur.
> Texas A&M; University,        | 
> College Station ,            |--------------------------------------- 
> Texas 77843                  |
> F: (409) 847 8879            | http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/~ecomodel
> W: (409) 845 1115            |
> _____________________________|_______________________________________
> 
> Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone, for which 
>             organisations that use spokespersons are profoundly
>             grateful.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 

-*--------
In article <55q9p3$gjd@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>,
Russell Turpin  wrote:
>>GR can extend CM only *because* they share common, operational
>>notions of time, space, and many other common concepts.
In article <55ubmh$9q4@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>,
-Mammel,L.H.  wrote:
> I'm just wondering how you react to the melodramatics of
> e.g. Minkowski, Born, and Weyl in their discussions of 
> relativity. In 1922 Weyl wrote that "A cataclysm has been
> unloosed which has wept away space, time, and matter".
I would say that the cataclysm concerned old and new notions of
how time behaves, and that the revolution in physics would not
have been so revolutionary were it not for the fact that there is
still the one underlying, operational meaning.  Long before GR,
there was any number of myths and stories and religions where
time ran in circles or back and forth, and the mere presence of
these notions caused no stir in physics at all, nor in the larger
culture.  Why not?  Because there was no reason to think that
these notions had any connection (beyond metaphorical) with time
as we experience it.  The revolution came NOT because someone
introduced a strange notion of time, but because we discovered
that time -- in the same old operational sense -- behaves quite
differently than we had thought.  If Mammel thinks otherwise, I
invite him to imagine an alternate history where a conceptual
revolution "sweeps away time," but time in the operational sense
behaves as we previously expected it to.  
Russell
-- 
 The difference between life and a movie script is that the script has 
 to make sense.         -- Humphrey Bogart

Brian D. Jones wrote:
> Slightly wrong analogy, Volpe.
The analogy is correct. How is it wrong?
> In my case, it's the distance between
> the two points in the plane, NOT their x-y-components.
Both are present and important in the analogy. The analog
of the distance has no significance in your analysis, and
you deny its physical significance, but you mention it,
and that justifies its presense in the analogy. And you
use the components in your analysis, so they must be,
mutatis mutandis, present by Volpe.
> But since you cannot seem to grasp this,
What he has failed to grasp is what you have failed to
state: you are talking about another universe, in which
the statement "there is no absolute time" is not true.
> let's go on to the other little example,
> which so far you have managed to ignore.
> 
> An observer has two x-axis clocks that have not yet been
> started.   He passes a light source.  This source is energized
> midway of the clocks.
Again you fail to state which laws hold in this particular
universe. You are also unclear whether the observer is
moving in any other sense than in relation to the light
source.
> Since the rear clock movesTOWARD the light, and the front clock moves
> AWAY FROM it, the clocks will not be started at (absolutely) the same
> time.
Here you seem to assume that absolute rest frame exists, and that the
observer is moving relatively to it. In addition, you seem to assume
that the propagation of light is not instantaneous. But neither of
these are assumed in your statement of the example, and the first
one is not a standard assumption, so your conclusion does not follow.
------------------------------------------------------------------  
   Mikko J. Levanto            !           Tel. +358 8 551 2448  
   VTT Electronics             !           Fax  +358 8 551 2320 
   P.O.Box 1100                ! 
   FIN-90571 Oulu, Finland     ! Internet: Mikko.Levanto@vtt.fi 
----------- VTT - Technical Research Centre of Finland -----------

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
> In article <327957FB.140C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons  writes:
> >How far back would you feel comfortable labelling someone a scientist?
> >Considering the cultural factors, but keeping an essential utility
> >and repeatability as the primary requirements.
> >
> I would certainly count Archimedes as scientist.
I think that I will go as far back as Moses.
-leonard

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:
][snip]
]>]No, again I must disagree. Her culture did not produce the corpses.
]>
]> I bet Martians did that. Are you sure you don't want to add
]> alt.revisionism to the "Newsgroups:" line ?
]
]You seem to have a real problem with separating a culture from the
]people in the culture. Remember the exact same culture produced
]Einstein, Brecht, and Lang.
 I guess that must be a great consolation to the killed ones.
]>]Why are you so willing to deny the individual responsibility and so
]>]quick to accept the views of your supposed opponents. 
]>
]> Whether I accept or not the views of my "supposed opponents" is quite
]> beside the point here. You are trying to invalidate my argument
]> pointing the self-contradiction by alleging that I support
]> one of the contradicting sides.
]
]I am not trying to invalidate your argument, I am categorizing it. You
]are a racist.
 You are, how should I put it, not very honest person.
]>]The Nazis and
]>]their ideology killed the people and many Germans and others supported
]>]this crime.
]>
]> It so happens that not just many, but majority of Germans suported them. It
]> also happens that nazism is not alien to German culture, both
]> before and after 3rd reich.
]>
]It is also not alien to Russian culture, Chinese culture, Cambodian
]culture, Tutsi culture, or just about any other human culture.
 False.
]>]>]>]>]>]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.
]>
]>  No, that is not true. It is suffice to note that actions of Germans
]> are enxtricably linked to what identifies them as a group. 
]>
]You have made no attempt to other than note this. Can you show how
]German culture directly leads to atrocities in a way that no other
]culture does? I don't think you can because it is not true.
 Extreme nationalism and xenophobia are charcteristic of large part
 of mainstream German culture.
]>]>]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.
]>
]> In other words, you are content with slandering people as long as
]> you consider their views wrong. I note dryly that your morals
]> are not very consistent.
]
]I don't consider it a slander. There is a range of racist ideas and
]racist behavior. Your idea seem far from mine and close to the others
]on that scale.
 Your morals seem very flexible.
]And you should look at what I said. I did not claim you supported the
]killing, but the extension of the guilt from an individual to the
]group. In fact, I don't even think Christ existed, so I don't accept
]that the Jews killed him. But if I did, and I thought his killers
]deserved death, but your logic I would support killing Jews today.
 Please note, that you are trying to cast aspertion on me by attributing
 something that I did not say to me. That is why I think that you
 are not very honest.
]>] I find the kind of opinions that you are defending
]>]reprehensible and responsible for much of the worlds evil.
]>
]> Even if your evaluation of my opinions is correct, that does not 
]> absolves you from moral responsibility not to slander them.
]
]But it is not slander if it is true. 
 It so happens thta what you said was not true.
]And my claim was about your
]logic.
 Yet you demonstrated no understanding of it.
] And your logic allows the guilt of an individual to transfer to
]the group and then to all other members of that group.
 Please show me the logic that would allow you to construe the
 action of regime that enjoyed enthusiastic support of majority
 of Germans as "individual actions".
][snip]
]>
]> Austro-Hungarian empire had neither strenght nor determination
]> necessary for that. It was but an impotent satellite of Germany.
]
]You have an eccentric view of history. Unless, of course, you have
]some good references to back up your statement.
 I remind you my previous suggestion wrt. library.
][snip]
]
]>]But this was not nonsense. WWII started in 1937 with the Japanese
]>]invasion of China. Your eurocentric views not withstanding.
]>
]> I again direct you towards your library and encourage to
]> check WWII entry in encylopaedia.
]
]I have read somewhat more deeply on the issue than an encyclopedia
]article
 You have yet to demonstrate this.
]. The war is considered to have started with the Japanese
]invasion of China. The war in Europe, of course, was started with the
]German attack on Poland. But that was not what either of us said.
]
]
]
]Matt Silberstein
]-------------------------------------------------------
]Though it would take me a long time to understand the principle,
]it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
]
]Mark Helprin
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read".  It would be inappropriate for anyone to interfere with the
propagation of these articles based only on this 'bot's notices.
You can find the software to process these notices at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW
site: http://www.cm.org.  This 'bot is not affiliated with the CM[TM].
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers:
  1 Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Delete: no
Count: 1
Notice-ID: spncm1996311215019
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<55rq14$ea8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics
	sci.chem
	sci.bio.misc
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMoJZnIz0ceX+vLURAQG2ZQP/d3gmzxA/ws3vZRFZ9TafXw5qdt0iMF5I
X6xMqJAqQxTjl/9VtbocMSzXczmENLVU6PwdMkfYN3Cuywdks334epxBCzq3HIT9
y+rIe5yhanXc+5cFXSSP0zs3V1+ooOgdxiR2pfMOpiWu7IU10oE/vPs2XZrLHTwN
z31abaf4Zdc=
=44eE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <1996Nov6.093722.4556@imec.be>, croes@imec.be says...
>
>Currently I'm reading a very interresting cyber-book on this topic:
>"Science Without Bounds: A Synthesis of Science, Religion and Mysticism"
>by Art D'Adamo
>He says that...
>well find out by yourself on http://www.voicenet.com/~dadamo/swb.html
>
>Kris
>--
>Kris Croes - mailto:croes@imec.be - http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~croe
>s/
>"Due to budget cuts the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned o
>ff" 
When I was in school, a biology professor began the semester with 
a discussion of the "can science prove or disprove God" argument.
He concluded that relion and science can exist side by side, neither 
a challenge to the other.  His thinking was directly from the 
scientific method.
Let's assume we want to prove the existance of God.  We will need 
to set up an experiment. The scientific methid requires that every 
experiment have a control.  If we want to prove that God exists, we 
need to have a control where we know for sure that God does not exist.  
Of course this is a circular argument, so there can be no control, and 
no experiment.  He thus concluded that the test of God scientifically 
was beynd the scope of science, so religion and science existed 
essentially in parallel, and neither was a challenge to the other.

In article , kfischer@iglou.comG says...
>
>kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
>: In article , Ken Fischer  wrote:
>: >       If gravitation were a "force" field (an attractive,
>: >or repulsive "field" would have to be a "force"field, unlike
>: >the propagated electromagnetic spectrum which has very little
>: >radiation pressure and most of the energy is perpendicular to
>: >the direction of motion), then a GUT would either require that
>: >gravitation be a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, _or_
>: >be a separate "force" field propagating with somewhat the same
>: >characteristics, only attractive.
>
>: Can we clear the deck a little so we only compare one type of object?
>: 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. 
>
>: >       But I don't see gravitation that way, gravitation is
>: >an apparent distortion of the inertial coordinate system,
>: >and that is the way General Relativity sees it.
>: >      
>: >       So there are _no_ forces involved in the gravitation
>: >part of physics _unless_ there is physical interaction, all
>: >effects of gravitation are _inertial_ and even though the
>: >inertial coordinate system is distorted (curved) by gravitation,
>: >"forces" are not required, and General Relativity does not
>: >require "forces".
>
>: How is this different than the electric field?  No charges, no
>: interaction and no forces.
>
>       If gravity is not anything like opposite charge
>attractions, then it must be different. 
>       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.
>       The only thing that is known is the effect, and
>it works on all known elements and compositions equally. 
>
>: >       There is then, two objections to gravitation being
>: >a separate "force" field, the unsatisfactory thought of 
>: >having two major global propagated "spectrums", and the
>: >fact that gravitation is _not_ a "force" mechanism, it
>: >is a distortion of the inertial coordinate system. 
>: >       While "tidal forces" are used as an argument for
>: >a "force" field, all particles simply try to move on their
>: >own geodesics in free space, and "tidal forces" are simply
>: >the local interaction between the particles.
>: >
>: >       It may seem unsatisfactory to have inertial coordinates
>: >curved as a result of gravitation, but it is not as yet known
>: >what curves the coordinate system (I don't think General
>: >Relativity specifies that).
>: >       I have a book that even attempts (and does an impressive
>: >job of it) to present the math that incorporates inertia and
>: >gravitation in within one system along the ideas of Mach and
>: >all the mass in the universe.
>: >       I think this is impossible and a complicating concept,
>: >and that it should be rejected, the quantity of inertia of an 
>: >object must be the same regardless of how much other mass there 
>: >is in the universe or it's distribution.    Even if a single
>: >particle was alone in the universe it would have to have the
>: >same inertia, else proximity to other mass would change the
>: >quantitative value of the inertia (mass) of the particle.
>
>: Having taken the left turn into astro, I am incomplete in my
>: understanding of quantum fields and GR.  The big difference
>: I am aware of is that EM is linear while GR is not.  
>
>        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.
>        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.
>        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.
>        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. 
>        Gravity is a riddle of major proportions.
   I think I followed your thought till you said in the above
   paragraph. What do you mean the observers seeing accelerations
   where no accelerations exist ? 
Regards,
-Pdp.
>
>: What if
>: there were enough energy available to put the massive photons
>: which propogate the EM field back on their mass shell.  I
>: have no idea what the transform would be, but it appears to
>: be concievable that this could transform an EM field into a
>: gravitational one.  
>
>        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, as I just became aware (if I am correct) that electrons
>are not composed of quarks, and I think quarks produce the major
>apparent "attraction" of gravity, although electrons are "attracted"
>by gravity.
>        I am not impressed by the possibilities of mathematical
>representations, they can be very precise and formal, but they
>can also be misleading.
>
>: At least I do not see a necessary logical
>: inconsistency as you do.
>
>         If someone were to find a way to generate a gravitational
>field electrically, I would be very happy, gravity is my worse
>enemy, but it isn't going to happen, so thinking about it is
>like reading science fiction.
>         And I do not see gravity waves (if they exist) as
>a "particle-wave" duality, which seems to be a current 
>popular confusion.
>         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 Fischer 

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> W$ says:
> 
> -I advise you to think a bit about your "relative standards" ...
> -shiny Farriaris and similar vehicles in Geneva are hardly rare at
> -all .... most either driven by those of old money, politicians,
> -or pimps (the new standard there for the kids of the rich seems
> -to be brand new Harleys ... which they ride poorly). In any case
> -mediocrity in physics is miles above those elite drivers ... if
> -measured in intellegence.
> 
> -Stick with the physics ... and a new Opel will serve your driving
> -needs with a few dollars left over to have a weekend or two in
> -Zermat or Cervin.
> 
> My reply:
> 
> The h... you say!  What country are you from again?
Uh ... do you mean like where I'm now residing? Or my citizenship?
Or what??
W$

In <01bbcb21$f2208f40$6b0574cb@vicvic> "IBAN" 
writes: 
>
>
>ASIANS OF THE WORLD....LETS BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA.......
>
>
>
>AND ALL THAT HAVE SUFFERED AND BEEN ABUSED BY WHITES.......
>THIS IS YOUR CHANCE ....BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA......JAPANESE BOYCOTT
>AUSTRALIA....PROVED THAT YOU ARE ASIAN......
>NATIVES OF AUSTRALIA.....STOP BUYING FROM WHITE
>SHOPS......PROTEST......THIS IS A HITLER IN WOMAN'S DISGUISE....
>PAULINE HANSON IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST
Dammit! That does it! I AM DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO AUSTRALIA THIS
YEAR!!!!
Not that I was planning to anyway. Gee, this is an easy boycott. And I
get to feel good about doing something politically correct, too.
Gee, I feel warm and fuzzy all over!
Seriously, who is Pauline Hanson, and is she advocating the interrment
and eventual death of Asians?
This "He/She is another HITLER!" bit of whining is getting way out of
hand. Sam Gibbons, former Rep from FL, decried the Republicans in
general as Nazis several times, as did other vocal Democrats. We hear
this from every corner of society protesting that others are trying to
"force their views" on others.

Anthony Potts wrote:
> I could well come back after a few years out. If I do well and make my
> fortune, I might have retired by the time the interesting physics results
> are starting to coe out, so it's not necessarily all over yet.
> 
Well okay. But don't use those SR formulas to figure your earnings and interest
..... it could piss someone off if you tell them they didn't earn as much as they
thought they should have .. because their rate of time dilation is greater than
yours. Or their bucks didn't go as far because they were contracted in the 
direction of motion. Finance has pretty absolute reference frames.
> Anyway, I have a fair few months left yet, so I will be sitting around
> posting rubbish for a while yet.
> 
Well thanks for that! If you leave we'll could end up with Evens as the resident 
SRian ... who's more like a parrot than any sort of an expert. A parrot that's
lived with a foul mouthed sailor in his younger years though; else why would
he be so obnoxious? I guess being used as a feather duster could make any bird 
hate people.
At any rate your input's always interesting. And do have a drink at Willie's 
for me before you leave town.
W$

In article <3282BD05.472C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> 
>> In article <327957FB.140C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons  writes:
>> >How far back would you feel comfortable labelling someone a scientist?
>> >Considering the cultural factors, but keeping an essential utility
>> >and repeatability as the primary requirements.
>> >
>> I would certainly count Archimedes as scientist.
>
>
>I think that I will go as far back as Moses.
>
I won't.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <55r0tn$t91@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, bjon@ix.netcom.comG 
says...
>
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>>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.
>
>It exists whether or not  I can "define" or "measure" it.  If two
>clocks are started by a light source located midway of the clocks, and
>the observer is moving with respect to the light source, the clocks
>cannot be started at the same (absolute) time.   They will not be
>absolutely synchronized (as are Newton's clocks -- on paper).  They
>will differ absolutely.  And there are only (3) things involved:[1]
>the observer's absolute speed V, [2] the distance between the two
>clocks (which can be in terms of a measured value), and [3] light's
>actual (or absolute) speed.  No outside observers are there.
   Do they differ only to the observer of that is moving or do
   they really differ ?
>
>In this case, the clocks are started by the light signals, and the
>clocks will differ by exactly DV/c², where D is the observer-measured
>distance between the two clocks, V is the observer's absolute speed,
>and c is light's absolute speed.
>
>
>
>     §§ ßJ §§
>bjon @ ix. netcom. com
>
Regards,
-Pdp

moggin@nando.net (moggin)
>     Thanks for the tip.  I haven't read him, except for a few
>_Scientific American_ columns,  since _Godel, Escher, Bach_.  I'll
>keep it in mind.  (Nietzsche says a few interesting things, too --
>try the "On Truth and Falsity" essay if you're ever in the mood.)
Matt:
:Everyone's mind works differently. I have a real problem reading first
:source  philosophy. I just don't seem to see the implications.
     Jeff Inman started to get at the point that we're looking at
two very different ways of thinking, which derive from distinctly
different psychologies -- that's worth exploring.
Matt:
>> So to bring us back to the original idea (I think), Euclidean space is
>> flat. But flatness can be seen a specific case of curvature, a
>> curvature of zero. Reinmann showed how this generalization worked.
>> Einstein picked up on this and showed how it applied to physics. In
>> particular space is curved (positively overall, negatively "near" a
>> mass). And the space we normally deal with has very close to zero
>> curvature.
moggin:
>     I was going to avoid that dangerous subject.  But o.k.  In my
>view, it makes no more sense to call flatness a case of curvature
>than to say that hills are flat.  
Matt:
:Think of it as elevation. Both have elevation as a measurement. But in
:the planes all the numbers are the same. The hills, OTOH, have
:different measurements. So hills and plains generalize to land with
:elevation, even though, by itself, the plains have no elevation.
     Right -- that's exactly what I meant when I said that "you can
describe both hills and plains in terms of a wider concept" (below).
moggin:
>I gather both of those statements
>are true from your perspective, and I'm not arguing differently --
>but their truth depends on your concept of generalization. That is,
>you can describe both hills and plains in terms of a wider concept,
>allowing you to say that you've "generalized" from one to the other.
Matt:
:I think that what we are doing. In the case of CM->GR "we" added the
:concept of curvature to space and generalized it. Remember that Newton
:did not talk about flat space, they did not have the concept that
:space itself could be curved. GR adds the concept and shows how the
:curvature varies.
     No argument there.  Note that since Newton had no concept of
curved space, you couldn't generalize _on_ or _from_ his thinking
to get to relativity, which does.  (I'm speaking of the ordinary
sense of "generalize.")   But you can add a new concept to create
a different theory which is more general than Newton's (which is
what "generalize" means to you).
moggin:
>Nonetheless, a hill is a plain only when it stops being a hill (i.e.,
>when it becomes flat), and while "normal" space may be "very close" 
>to zero curvature, it never gets there (given that space actually
>is Riemannian, rather than Euclidean).
Matt:
:This is an issue of when is close close enough, and not the point I am
:interested in now. 
     That's not the issue I was raising.  My point is that you've
got two distinctly different models.  In one, space is Euclidean --
in the other, space is Riemannian (to give only one example).  No 
matter how closely they may resemble each other in a limited range,
they differ in kind -- not just degree.  (Of course, they differ
to a significant degree, as well, outside that particular range.)
     Remember, too, that a hill is _never_ flat, by definition --
a flat hill is a contradiction in terms.  So _if_ you have a hill
(that is, if the existence of a hill is given), it can't be flat, 
even if it's so short that the finest instruments can't measure
its height; while if you decide that it _is_ flat, then you don't
have a hill anymore.
-- moggin

In article <01bbc7de$46fa5a60$51f143ca@default>, "Silvester"  writes:
>I have a problem about ultra-sound. I know that ultra-sound is a kind of
>wave. As I know, when light(also a wave) passes through from a denser
>medium to a less dense medium, the ray would bend away from normal.
>However, if ultra-sound beam is used to instead, the beam would bend
>towards to normal. Can anyone tell me the reason of the two contradict
>phenomenon? Thank you very much!!!
>
it has to do not with density but with speed.  The beam is closer to 
the normal in the medium where it is slower.  Visible light is slower 
in matter then in air.  The opposite is true for ultra-sound.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

arielle@mit.edu wrote:
: Can anyone tell me why sound travels faster in warm air?
: Thanks,
: Arielle Sumits
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
: http://www.dejanews.com/          [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
From kinetic theory one learns that for a perfect gas
the compressibility is inversely proportional to the
mean kinetic energy of the gas molecules.  Now from
hydrodynamics one finds that in a fluid the sound speed 
squared is equal to the inverse of the product of the
density and the compressibility and thus the sound
speed is proportional to the root-mean-square 
molecular speed in the gas.  This mean molecular speed 
increases with temperature and so will the sound speed.  
--
						Dalcio Dacol
						Washington, DC
						dacol@abyss.nrl.navy.mil
						202-404-4824

Matt --
     Here's the old post of yours I was thinking of.  I'm re-posting
it along with my reply.
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>:Ground with height is a more general concept than ground without
>:height. The height can range from negative through zero to positive.
>:That is a normal use of generalize.
moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>       In some circles it may be.  But ordinary useage distinguishes
>between the concept of "a more general concept" and the concept of
>generalizing -- a distinction that the scientific use appears to lack.
>To generalize, in the ordinary sense, means, as I've explained before,
>to generalize _on_ a given concept -- not merely to introduce an idea
>of wider scope.  Sure, you can analyze both hills and plains in terms
>of height, and view them as taller or shorter parts of the landscape.
>And you can call that "generalizing," if it pleases you.  But you are
>not generalizing on the concept of "plains," which have flatness in
>their definition.
Matt:
>>To go from plains to wider plains does not generalize, it enlarges or
>>lengthens or increases.
moggin:
>       Specifically, it widens, wouldn't you say?  And that's a basic
>part of generalizing (in the ordinary sense of the term).
Matt:
:I think that in many ways this is at least an interesting a topic as
:the Newton one it comes from. I suggest that there are many ways to
:generalize an idea. And that it is particularly difficult to
:generalize from one example. So I could go from plains (flat spaces
:wtih plants) to farms, gardens, maybe swamps. Or I could go from plain
:to hills mountains, valleys. 
     That's exactly where the distinction lies.  I'd go from plains
to other plains (prairie, tundra, what-have-you), while your move
is to a wider concept that includes plains along with other natural
features.  But you haven't generalized the concept of _plains_ --
you've replaced it with a different category, which includes plains 
along with an assortment of other items.
:I don't think of more as a generalizing. To me, generalizing implies
:that the new examples are different in some ways, but not others. So I
:would not think that 10 McDonald's hamburgers are a generalizing of 1.
:But hamburgers from several places would be. As would fast food from
:several places. As would a list of food I won't eat.
     This is the part I remembered (guess I made up the french-fries 
and the milk-shakes).  We already talked about it, so I won't repeat
myself here.
-- moggin

In article <55u6tm$ijt@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, bjon@ix.netcom.comG says...
>
>Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
>
>>In article <55r0tn$t91@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, Brian D. Jones
>> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> It exists whether or not  I can "define" or "measure" it.
>>[snip]
>>>      §§ ßJ §§
>>> bjon @ ix. netcom. com
>>> 
>>Now you are doing it once again!
>>What you state in your sentence amounts to:
>>  The something here, of which I don't know what it is, and which I
>>  cannot observe, is here anyway.
>>How can you know?
>>-- 
>>Regards, Cees Roos.
>>Everyone is clumsy at his own level. 
>
>Einstein does not deny the existence of absolute motion, but the
>detection thereof.
>
   Do we really need it ? What good is it for ?
Regards,
-Pdp

In article <55u6tm$ijt@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, bjon@ix.netcom.comG says...
>
>Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
>
>>In article <55r0tn$t91@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, Brian D. Jones
>> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> It exists whether or not  I can "define" or "measure" it.
>>[snip]
>>>      §§ ßJ §§
>>> bjon @ ix. netcom. com
>>> 
>>Now you are doing it once again!
>>What you state in your sentence amounts to:
>>  The something here, of which I don't know what it is, and which I
>>  cannot observe, is here anyway.
>>How can you know?
>>-- 
>>Regards, Cees Roos.
>>Everyone is clumsy at his own level. 
>
>Einstein does not deny the existence of absolute motion, but the
>detection thereof.
>
   Do we really need it ? What good is it for ?
Regards,
-Pdp

David L Evens wrote:
> 
> tsar@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> : Anthony Potts wrote:
> : > On 31 Oct 1996, David L Evens wrote:
> : >
> : > >
> : > > No model incorporating variable light speed can be compatible with
> : > > Maxwell's Equations, which predict a single, fixed speed of light which
> : > > is a characteristic of the universe.
> 
> : Strange universe that!! No refraction ... no aberration; weird place
> : indeed!
> 
> Ah, a MUCH nicer dis of Potts than I could EVER have come up with:  tsar
> AGREEING with Potts!
> 
Yes, strange that also. But only 1/2 agreeing of course.
W$

In talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>[...]
>
>> >| But, without trying to give you a test, lets look at a recent example,
>> >| the discussion of curved vs. flat space. Are you familiar with the
>> >| discussion here (involving Moggin) on the topic? And are you familiar
>> >| with the issues involved? If so, do you think your knowledge of math
>> >| helps, or even is essential, to understanding the transformation from
>> >| a euclidean to a reinmannian view of space?
>
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n):
>
>> >I skipped over most of that discussion, which seemed to me
>> >to be an attempt to disqualify moggin from speaking about
>> >physics -- another math test. 
>
>Matt:
> 
>> There has been confusing on this issue. Both you and Moggin see this
>> as an attempt to disqualify. I see it as an attempt to explain why
>> Moggin's comments were, shall I say, inaccurate.
>
>     A statement of yours like "Don't discuss this if you don't have
>the qualifications" (I'm paraphrasing) is not an attempt to explain
>_anything_, except in Thurber's sense.  ("Shut up, he explained.")
>It's  an effort to disqualify someone from speaking.
>
I accept that you believe I meant that, but I did not. Your paraphrase
is just not accurate. I have trying to explain why your statements
were incorrect, not tell you should not state. There has been a
persistent and unfortunate misunderstanding about this issue. (As an
aside, it is my general view that when there is a misunderstanding in
communication, the responsibility lies with both parties.)
>     As an aside, the accuracy of my comments was a matter of some 
>debate -- you can say what you like about them, but nothing you said
>refuted my point.  I'm still not certain you knew what it was -- you
>devoted yourself to arguing that I wasn't entitled to have one. 
I suspect that way back when you had a point that has been lost in the
"discussion". That has happened to me several times in this thread. It
seems an unfortunate aspect of communication. (As another aside, I am
sure that there is some relationship between this idea and
deconstruction. I have no idea what the relationship is.)  
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take me a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin

I'm trying to calculate refraction index so far all I know is that sin I
over sin R will give it to me.  I just need to know which angle is where...
Thanks in advance.
Perhaps you could send me a diagram...
-- 
___________________________________________________
David Vitek
E-mail : vitek@hargray.com
Web Site : http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/7326
___________________________________________________

In article <55p6nr$ecp@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko  wrote:
>
> All this is usual pomo nonsense. GR is currently used in engineering. 
> Cars in Europe use GPS already, and GPS would not work without
> GR.
Is this really right? I would think that it would be more
correct to say that the necessity of certain adjustments
or calibrations is only explicable in terms of GR, not that 
it would be impossible to make them without it.
> That would be strange developments indeed. Certainly, this is
> nothing like view of modern physicists on Newton, or, say
> Maxwell. All physicists I discussed Newton with had a great
> repect for his insight.
Had any of them ever read a word Newton wrote? Or were they
referring to the iconographic "Newton" of Newtonian-Mechanics-
as-we-were-taught-it?
Just wondering! ( Matt Austern recently noted with approval
that very few physicists have ever read the Principia. )
Lew Mammel, Jr.

In article <55q9p3$gjd@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>,
Russell Turpin  wrote:
>
>GR can extend CM only *because* they share common, operational
>notions of time, space, and many other common concepts.
I'm just wondering how you react to the melodramatics of
e.g. Minkowski, Born, and Weyl in their discussions of 
relativity. In 1922 Weyl wrote that "A cataclysm has been
unloosed which has wept away space, time, and matter".
Maybe now that those concepts have been swept away, they are no
longer missed very much by those that never knew them as
"pillars of understanding".
Lew Mammel, Jr.

In talk.origins +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
[snip]
>Let's suppose, however, we want to teach a child how the Moon 
>moves around the Earth.  We find an apple tree out in the 
>fields of England, and there's conveniently a pale moon hanging
>in the late afternoon sky.  There are several apples scattered
>on the ground.  We pick one up and encourage the child to notice
>that, in certain positions, the shadow on the apple is similar
>to the shadow on the moon.  Now we throw the apple a short
>distance.  It moves in a curve and strikes the ground.  Then
>we throw another one a bit harder, and of course it strikes the
>ground further out.  Now, the child knows that the Earth is a
>ball; so when we ask her what would happen if we could throw the 
>apples as hard as we wanted, and kept throwing them harder and 
>harder, she will correctly guess that eventually one will either 
>circle the earth or fly off into space.  (We may have to digress 
>to take care of atmospheric friction.)  Now we can point out the 
>similarity of the moon to this apple thrown very hard: it falls 
>around the world.
>
>This child now intuits something about the motion of the Moon
>around the Earth, which can be generalized to the whole Solar
>System.  Is this _understanding_?  Perhaps we should apply the
>compared-to-what test: it's better than belief in crystalline 
>spheres, at least.  It's true we haven't figured out _why_ the 
>orbit is stable but it isn't counter-intuitive to think of it 
>as stable; cyclical processes are common in Nature and larger 
>animal brains are well-programmed to intuit them.
There are many wonderful ways to direct someone to an intuitive grasp
of science. What does that have to do with understanding what the
scientists are doing?
>
>g*rd*n:
>| >I don't see why the detailed mechanics of computation are 
>| >so important to your understanding of understanding, but we
>| >keep coming back to it ("explain").  Why can't people take
>| >them on faith, since they seem to work?
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
>| We can just take everytjing in the world on faith, "things are the way
>| they are".  Easy, no need for science.  If you're satisfied with this 
>| and don't ask for more, fine.  I'm not.
>
>People commenting on science are not doing science (necessarily).
>No one doubts that to practice most sciences, mathematics is
>necessary; but our question is how much mathematics is necessary to 
>observe and comment on other people practicing it.  Some of these
>would-be commentators believe that they also have to read Heidegger, 
>and may have day jobs as well, so we must take care not to multiply 
>their labors unnecessarily.
>
I have said several times that it depends on the science being
performed and the understanding required. If you want to understand
what happened in the transition from CM to GR you need a lot of math.
If you want to understand the affect of either CM or GR on their
respective cultures, you need far less. If you want to understand why
scientists say the things they go about quanta, you need quite a bit
of math.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take me a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin

In talk.origins +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>Matt Silbestein wrote:
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >...
>| >The discussion about the meaning of _understand_ goes back
>| >to the idea that some people shouldn't talk about science
>| >because they don't know the math; therefore they don't
>| >understand it.  This criticism has generally been applied to
>| >20th-century lit-crit and cult-crit figures.  I've never
>| >seen it applied to Locke, Jefferson, Addison, or Pope, but
>| >then they were uncritical enthusiasts.
>
>matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>| Do you claim that all physics is as much math as Newton?
>
>No, not at all.  I just posted that famous remark about
>QM.  Certainly Ptolmaic and Newtonian mechanics are more
>available to our pre-mathematical intuitions than QM, with
>the Relativities being somewhere in between.  Going by
>what people in the business say, anyway.
>
>|                                                    Remember, the
>| he had just invented/discovered the calculus. Much of that work is
>| somewhat understandable without all of the math. (But it takes a lot
>| of work either way.) BTW, do you have any references for how much math
>| these people had? I suspect that Jefferson had a fair amount.
>
>Jefferson might have done some Calculus; the point here is
>that nobody has checked up on him.  Although perhaps I could
>get a flame war going by asserting that Jefferson was not
>only a racist and a slavemaster, but a math-deficient
>ignoramus.  I think I'll pass, though.  If Locke, Addison,
>or Pope studied Calculus I have never heard about it.
>
>| The bit about their being enthusiasts is misleading. They did not say
>| Newton war wrong, so they did not need to understand it.
>
>They said he was right, which is the same order of
>declaration as saying he was wrong.  For example, Pope:
>
>    God said, Let Newton be; and all was light.
>
>If Pope is allowed to say that without knowing his Calculus,
>then moggin is allowed to say Newton was wrong, or even the
>apotheosis of darkness and evil.
Of course you are all allowed to say anything. It seems to me,
however, that Pope is not commenting on Newton's science per se, he is
trying to paraphrase a meaning. 
>
>|                                                         And Locke, in
>| particular, took philosophical/metaphorical implications from the work
>| that are not in the work. I am glad, however, that he did.
>
>What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  Were I
>not a vegetarian, I would try Patak's Lime Pickle Extra Hot
>on both.  _Cautiously_.
>
I will assume I understand this. It is acceptable for people to take
metaphorical meaning from science, but that is not the science. To say
everything is relative, may take Einstein as a root, but it is not GR.
To use "survival of the fittest" as a support for fascism is taking
the philosophy from Darwin, but it is not Darwin or his work or
evolution. These statements are like all arguments from authority. 
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take me a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin