Subject: Re: Anthony Potts, monolingual buffoon...
From: plapalme@pratique.fr (Patrice Delapalme)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:14:21 GMT
Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Anthony Potts wrote:
(...)
>> Si vous voudrais,
> ^^^^^^^^
>If you are attempting to use the present conditional,
He is not of course, because you must not put conditionnal
in the IF sentence, but just after...
>that should be "voudriez".
no : "voulez"
>Good Lord, your French is terrible.
Yes, indeed. (but it really doesn't matter on scb, don't worry).
Patrice Delapalme.
**
Subject: Re: "Essential" reality (was: When did Nietzsche wimp out?)
From: patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 16:27:32 GMT
In article <327E437B.6DF9@GLAXOWELLCOME.COM> Peter Hickman writes:
>Patrick Juola wrote:
>>
>> In article <327A33B8.7DF0@GLAXOWELLCOME.COM> Peter Hickman writes:
>> >Patrick Juola wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There may be a law stating that "uncaused events happen." According
>> >> to certain interpretations of the QM data, this is exactly the state
>> >> of some phenomena such as particle decay. There is no cause, for
>> >> example, for a particle to be in a certain polarization, it simply
>> >> *happens*.
>> >>
>> >> However, despite the (hypothesized) uncausedness of these events, they
>> >> still obey laws...
>> >>
>> >> As a simpler example, when I roll my truly-random-and-causeless pair
>> >> of dice, I can state several laws.
>> >>
>> >> i) I will never roll a 13
>> >>
>> >> Even if the dice themselves are causeless.
>> >
>> > This is not very convincing as a case for accepting
>> >the value of the notion ( even heuristically ) of a set of events
>> >that can be observed but have no causes.
>>
>> Obviously, you missed the section above about "truly-random-and-causeless"
>> dice. Of course real dice aren't causeless at any level above QM, nor
>> are they random if skillfully thrown.
>
> Well, if you declare that those (heuristic) dice have
>that property then that's that and if you want to ignore
>QM as an low-energy description of things that make causal sense
>in a larger framework (e.g. including relativistic stuff and symmetries)
>then again, that's that. I think the characteristics of the real
>world and real procedures and formalisms for discovering its nature
>are worth noting at least in passing.
Not in a thought-experiment. And I've deleted the section below where you
completely ignore the Copenhagen interpretation despite the fact that it's
now standard (Einstein 1917? That was disproven by the Bell theorems!)
But you're trying to divert me with trivia.
>> The point I'm trying to make is that if uncaused effects are confined
>> to a range, or set, of possible outcomes, then it's possible to
>> reason about the distribution and extremes of that set in a lawful
>> fashion, even without knowledge -- or even the potential of knowledge --
>> of causes within the set.
>
> But you still have the notions of confinement and set and range
>and probability implying some kind of before and after and some virtually
>causal relation between the before and after states.
In what sense is the relationship between the states causal?
I have a state S0, in which I have a pair of "truly-random" dice in my
hands. [Yes, they're truly random by hypothesis; I bought them at the
same store where I buy resistanceless wires, frictionless surfaces, and
massless pulleys.] I throw the dice, resulting in some state S1...S36,
depending upon the number shown. (Let's pretend that it's S23).
How is the relationship between S0 and S23 causal? How is the relationship
between S0 and not-S24 causal? The new state, S23, is uncaused in the
rather conventional sense that it "could have been otherwise" (See Dennett's
work on causality for that particular historical development.), but there
*is* a strong causal relationship, in exactly that sense, between
S0 and not-S38, since S38 couldn't have happened. So, we still have
"lawful behavior" (not-S38), in the presence of "uncaused events" (the
dice throw resulting in S23).
Patrick
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: wallaceb@gate.net (Bryan G. Wallace)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 10:51:05 -0500
Brian Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
:
: >The internal beat of a clock has nothing to do with absolute time. You have
: >already made an exception for motion, what is next?
:
: >The regularity of a clock does not tell us how it will compare with other,
: >non-local clocks. This was recognized by Poincare in 1898, and developed by
: >Einstein in 1905 into SR.
:
: There's more to absolute time than mere clock synch. (In fact, clock
: synch has nothing to do with absolute time -- it is merely a matter of
: defintion, as Einstein has pointed out.)
: And there's no "exception made for motion." A clock has an absolute
: rhythm, independent of any observer. This is a simple fact about the
: clock's absolute time. Another fact is that this absolute rhythm
: changes with the clock's absolute speed. (Proved by the KTX).
:
: Now, if you want to restrict "absolute time" to "all observer's
: knowing what all clocks actually read at any univeral instant," then
: we have not got to this yet, and the only way to get to it is by
: somehow detecting our absolute motion (which is another absolute that
: does exist, but has eluded detection thus far).
:
This is a variant of the standard propaganda that most physicists have been
taught to believe. The argument was derived from the first postulate in
Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity theory paper. The fact that most
physicists still believe this in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it
is a major reason modern physics is such a farce. One must realize that in
1905 when Einstein wrote his first published paper on relativity, it was
before he knew the true nature of galaxies or had any evidence of the
background radiation. Before he died, Einstein realized the importance of
Newton's concept of privileged systems. In an article by I. Bernard Cohen
titled "An Interview with Einstein" that starts on page 69 of the July 1955
issue of the journal Scientific American, Cohen wrote:
... Einstein said, he thought that Newton's greatest achievement was his
recognition of the role of privileged systems. He repeated this
statement several times and with great emphasis. This is rather
puzzling, I thought to myself, because today we believe that there are no
privileged systems, only inertial systems; there is no privileged frame--
not even our solar system--which we can say is privileged in the sense of
being fixed in space, or having special physical properties not possible
in other systems. Due to Einstein's own work we no longer believe (as
Newton did) in concepts of absolute space and absolute time, nor in a
privileged system at rest or in motion with respect to absolute space.
...
In Chapter 7 of my book, I presented Einstein's former research associate
Peter G. Bergmann's argument with regard to the first postulate:
In the foregoing, I have pinned the breakdown of the principle of
relativity to the background radiation: but this is only by way of
emphasis. One can construct local frames of rest also by averaging over
the observed proper motions of the surrounding galaxies; the field of
direction obtained by this procedure will not deviate grossly from the one
gained from observing the background radiation. Either way, permitting
large-scale samplings to enter, one is led inexorably to the breakdown of
the principle of relativity.
With regard to the current evidence against the postulate Timothy Ferris of
the University of California at Berkeley wrote an article titled "Where Are We
Going?" in the May 1987 issue of "Sky & Telescope." The following was taken
from that article:
...
... The Earth's absolute motion through the universe is a complex
combination of flows, only a few of which are represented here. Our planet
revolves about the Sun at 30 kilometers per second. Meanwhile, the entire
solar system is racing at 250 km per second as it circuits the galaxy. The
Milky Way, along with the other 20-odd members of the Local Group, appears
to move in the direction of Hydra at 600 km per second. ...
...
Having thus been set loose from its moorings, the solar system spent the
19th century adrift in a universe of more or less uniformly distributed
stars moving randomly through empty space. No large-scale structure nor
coherent dynamic was known to exist among the stars.
The discovery of the Milky Way galaxy shattered this picture. First
Jacobus Kapteyn in 1905 identified a general "star-streaming" motion
characteristic of stars in the vicinity of the Sun. ...
...
Soon after the Rubin-Ford paper was published, George Smoot, Marc
Gorenstein, and Richard Muller announced that high-altitude observations
conducted from a U-2 aircraft had detected an anisotropy in the cosmic
background radiation (CBR), the ocean of Big-Bang photons in which all
galaxies swim and to which all may be referred for measurement of their
absolute motion relative to the inertial framework of the universe as a
whole. ...
You can read the updated Hypertext version with graphics of my free book
that contains 156 references to the published literature with quotations of
arguments from many prominent people that are related to and an extension of
the above information at my GTE PPP Web site:
http://home1.gte.net/wallaceb/index.htm
Bryan
Subject: Re: Can Science Say If God Exists? (was INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY)
From: Aaron Dunn
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:28:02 -0800
On Sat, 9 Nov 1996 tc3@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
>
> The Bible is a lengthy, tedious, repititious and often boring book.
> Can you recomend a book (or books) that fully analyzes the Bible and
> points out all the contradictions it contains?
Granted, but if you get past all of the legalism and geneology, there is a
lot of juicy sex and violence. New Testement has some good tips on how to
not be a Messiah and some interesting magic tricks. Depends on which
version you read of course. Mark seems like a real good mystery writer.
Revelations are a real trip if you are using mind altering drugs (or just
a fundie).
I recommend Asimov's big bible reference, both truly critical and
entertaining to read. It's not very in depth on any topic, but a pretty
good overview of the whole Anthology. I can't remember the specific name,
which is pretty dangerous when you are trying to find ONE of his books.
AD
Aaron D. Dunn*** This space for rent, cheap! *****
drdee@teleport.com *** This space for rent, cheap! ***
sig.mund sig.arette sig.ar sig.nature sig.you sig.off sig.it sig.out
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:51:25 GMT
"Jonathan W. Hendry" wrote:
>Ken MacIver wrote:
>>
>> "Jonathan W. Hendry" wrote:
>>
>> >Ken MacIver wrote:
>>
>> >> This is both true and false. It is true that Americans as a group
>> >> devalue in particular humanities, art, philosophy, and the like and
>> >> often place on mindless pedestal science and other things that promise
>> >> *answers*. I have a pretty good imagination, yet I'd find it hard to
>> >> imagine an American scence such as that in one of Zola's novel where a
>> >> working class wedding party takes a tour of the Louvre.
>>
>> >scence? This isn't clear. Do you mean science? Or scene?
>> >I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at here.
>>
>> I mean that a reader would disbelieve a scene in a novel which
>> depicted an American working class (or any other class, for that
>> matter) wedding party taking a tour of an art museum whereas the same
>> reader would believe Zola that such a thing might happen in Paris.
>Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps in Philadelphia (think Rocky running
>up the Art Museum steps). Here in Cincinnati, there's a monthly
>single's event held at the Cinci Art Museum. Definitely not
>an upper-class event - the mix is pretty good. They have
>booze, dancing, and a cover band, and people munch on a buffet among
>the exhibits. The event is sponsored by a bank and a top-40
>station.
I don't know about Philly, which hosted the Cezanne exhibit earlier
this year, but in Cincy don't you have to watch out for the police,
who might close things down if any nude pictures are around?
>I can't really see a wedding party taking a tour of an art
>museum, mostly because that's not really the sort of thing
>that happens during American weddings. American weddings
>tend to be pretty much cookie-cutter things: wedding at
>a church, reception at a rented hall. I think that says
>more about American wedding traditions than it says
>about attitudes towards the arts.
The point is not *what* was done (the Zola wedding also had a
traditional meal with drinks, etc, much like western weddings
anywhere) but that such a thing (the museum visit) would not be
considered by French society of that day as out of the ordinary.
>I couldn't see any wedding party, anywhere, taking a tour
>of a science museum. Except, perhaps, if married couple happens
>to work there.
>Do working-class wedding parties in Paris *really* tour art
>museums? Is this due to a love of art? Or is it an old custom?
>Or does Zola just spin a good yarn? Has the art museum of old
>been replaced by EuroDisney?
>I think the problem isn't so much a cultural bias against
>the arts so much as a general cultural malaise. For
>many people, TV shows are all the culture they get.
>If the arts are being ignored, it's probably due
>to competition from pop culture. Artistic merit isn't
>as important as sheer entertainment value. The MOMA
>simply doesn't compete with One Life To Live or
>Baywatch for most people. I wouldn't be surprised if
>museum regulars watch less TV than the average. How
>many hours of TV do the French watch?
Again, that's not my point. The French & other Europeans watch plenty
of tv, including soap operas, have a vibrant pop culture, and, if
anything, are more fashion conscious than Americans. There is in
Europe I think a deep societal respect for people who are writers,
poets, painters, or sculpters that doesn't exist in America (except
for the famous), whose citizens tend to view those professions as
either something they or anyone could do easily if they had more time
(devaluing) or as professions that attract societal parasites (disdain
for public support).
>Considering how little scientific knowledge most people
>have, I seriously doubt the humanities are being superceded
>by science. If anything, the fine arts are being drowned
>out by the baser arts - along with the sciences. (Science
>museums do have a small advantage - children tend to
>be interested in science, dinosaurs, etc.)
Science museums do a better job of attracting the young, I think, than
do art museums. And the young, after all, are the patrons of the
future.
>Americans have simply acquired a well-rounded ignorance.
>Like the song says:
>We got high school kids runnin' 'round in Calvin Klein
>and Guess
>Who cannot pass a 6th grade reading test
>But if you ask them, they can tell you
>The name of every crotch on MTV
>And it feels like I'm living in the wasteland of the free
> Iris Dement, "Wasteland Of The Free"
It's not so much about ignorance, I think, as about values.
Ken MacIver
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: crowl@philmont.eng.sun.com (Lawrence Crowl)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 09:22:41 GMT
In article <327DEFA2.71B0@sni.de>, Volker Hetzer wrote:
>Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> I don't remember the numbers, but both are close (+/- 20%) to 100
>> pounds. Why do you care what the exact number is?
>Because, I might have to pay for it.
You'd only ever pay for one particular size for one particular
commodity. E.g. a hundredweight of silk always weighs the same.
Likewise, a hundredweight of wool always weighs the same, though
different from that of silk. You'll always get what you pay for.
>> Fine. Note however, that bushels don't measure volume, they measure
>> dry capacity. Hogsheads don't measure volume, they measure liquid
>> capacity. Until very recently, you wouldn't use the same container for
>> storing dry and liquid commodities, so there was no need to have the
>> units be the same.
>Yeah, you buy always two different pots. One for dry goods
>and one for wet goods.
People _did_, because wet goods containers were much more expensive.
Even today, we buy different containers for the stovetop and the
refrigerator.
>Just by the way, how wet has dough to be in order to count as wet?
Does it drip out of the holes in the basket?
>And what's capacity other than volume (except electrical capacity of
>course)?
Containers have capacity. Objects have volume.
>> A US bushel is not equal to 35.2383 litres, because they don't measure
>> the same thing. You can say that a bushel of wheat occupies 35.2383
>> litres. Likewise, a hogshead is not equal to 283.4759 litres, because
>> they don't measure the same thing. You can say that a hogshead of wine
>> occupies 283.4759 litres. The distinction is _not_ silly because,
>> through most of the history of the units, it required very different,
>> and more expensive, manufacturing techniques to make containers for
>> liquid commodities than dry commodities.
>Of course it is silly. The fact that you manufacture two things
>differently doesn't mean at all that you have to measure their contents
>in different units.
How is our proverbial medieval farmer going to measure the contents?
He's going to use a standard container. Probably the one designed
to hold the stuff he's measuring. He has no means other than the
standard container to measure anything. He probably doesn't understand
the length cubed equals volume concept.
>> I hope you aren't refering to the metric system.
>>
>> unit of length (meter) cubed != unit of volume (liter)
>Wrong. There is no "Unit of volume" per se. You can measure
>Volume in cubic meters, cubic centimeters or cubic light years.
>And one of these units (cubic decimeters) happens to have a second name
>(liter).
There is (as far as I know) only one volume measure with its own name,
the liter. It was clearly intended as the unit of volume in the original
metric system.
>> unit of mass (gram) is offset by a factor of 1000 from the standard
>> (and nowhere close to the mass of a unit of volume of water)
>What has the mass of gram has to do with water?
The mass of a liter of water is very close to one kilogram. A more
rational system would have the mass of a liter being one gram.
--
Lawrence Crowl 415-786-6146 Developer Products, SunSoft
Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com 2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/ Mountain View, California, 94043
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 11:20:14 -0500
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
| >| >| Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "it became orthodoxy". It was
| >| >| used since it worked. Mind you, Newtonian gravity is a formula, not a
| >| >| theory. There is no explanation of any sort offered. So, how does a
| >| >| formula become an orthodoxy?
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| >| >Curiously, this is where I came in, so long ago. I
| >| >complained about the reification or materialization of the
| >| >law of gravity, and the howling began. How does it become
| >| >not only an orthodoxy, but a True Faith involving a kind of
| >| >incarnation or transubstantiation? This is precisely the
| >| >question I've been asking.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| >| Sounds like "when did you stop beating your wife?" to me.
g*rd*n:
| >C'mon, if people are claiming that a theory of gravity is
| >materially inherent in phenomena _we_ collect and objectify
| >as "gravity", they are, to me, proclaiming the incarnation
| >(embodiment) of a _human_ abstraction. And if they become
| >greatly wroth with unbelievers, then I take their passion to
| >be religious, since what excites them is a question of faith
| >in what's really real, the Truth, etc. etc. etc.
mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw (Michael Turton):
| Whoa Gordon, you're throwing up a smokescreen of
| abstractions and complex grammar which obscures the fact that
| you have no argument. Nothing is incarnating, since the "theory
| of gravity" has not become a human. The use of a word like
| "transubstantiation" or "incarnation" signifies not
| an argument of any kind but an extremely learned troll (admittedly
| successful in this case).
What's this, I can't use heightened language, and Mr. Pope
can? Fair is fair. And I was tired of "reification."
| Nobody is claiming that the "theory of
| gravity" is materially inherent in the phenomena which we collect;
Not any more. Several months ago, this was not the case.
I'd quote the articles, but "inadvertently" I wiped them
out.
| rather, that the theory of gravity helps us understand, explain or
| predict why the phenomena we collect occur in the patterns that they do, as
| well as tells us about what phenomona might be more interesting or useful to
| collect and suggest directions in which to look for more inclusive and
| incisive models of phenomena. Mati specifically claimed that Newton
| did not have a theory of gravity, he offered a set of relatively reliable
| formulas instead.
I was aware of this, which made some of the flammage I refer
to above all the more remarkable.
| As for the reactions to Newton, I suggest you check out
| any good book on the social behavior of primates, with reference
| to competition, status and deference patterns. "Scientism" is not
| inherent in science, but in homo sapiens.
Politics, you mean. Scientism is a particular development,
a theology or ideology. And not all bullying in and around
the sciences is scientism; for instance, trying to give
people math tests can be a rhetorical ploy that is not
particularly locked to any ideology.
Basically, though, we agree on this.
I have taken in the fact that some sci.physicists are tired
of this stuff, so followups will go to alt.pomo only.
Possibly the discussion should move to sci.philosophy.tech,
if the Objectivists and the Scientologists are now done
with it.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Cees Roos
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:55:26 +0000 (GMT)
In article <32864375.5796@mail.ic.net>, Peter Diehr
wrote:
>
> Cees Roos wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary. Design an experiment which shows absolutes, and you
> > have falsified SRT. That is Popper's 'Criterion of demarcation' for
> > scientific theories.
> >
>
> On the contrary, the Special Theory of Relativity predicts many constants.
> One is the rest mass of an object. Another is the spacetime interval
> separating two events.
>
> In general, if you can form a 4-vector that represents a valid statement
> in SR, then its length is a constant. Current density and charge density
> form such a 4-vector, and the result is a specification of conservation
> of charge.
>
> In many ways, it is this "theory of constants" derived from SR that is
> most useful in physics.
>
> Best Regards, Peter
Mr. Diehr,
The issue discussed here is time dilation, and during this discussion
the concept of length contraction has come up also. These are the
absolutes I mention in my post. You are right. So am I.
--
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong. Richard Feynman 1981
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Cees Roos
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:31:52 +0000 (GMT)
In article <328612BE.2597@ix.netcom.com>,
wrote:
>
> Cees Roos wrote:
> >
> > In article <3284A12E.6CD@ix.netcom.com>,
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Cees Roos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As far as SRT is concerned, absolutes are no more than romantic
> > > > phantasies and irrelevant to physics. You might as well say they do not
> > > > exist.
> > > > --
> > >
> > >
> Ah ... so the only absolute is that there are no absolutes!
> >
> > NO. SRT is a theory, i.e. a formulation of how we think the universe
> > functions. The formulation of SRT was induced from empiric data, and
> > subsequent experimental data conformed to predictions.
>
> Hmmmm .... not in accordance with what I've read regarding Einstein's development
> of SR. The literature I've seen indicates that SR was a pure thought-experiment
> by Einstein. Though it's often stated that SR was the answer to the resolution of
> M&M;, I find no evidence that that experiment played any role whatsoever with
> respect the development.
>
> If you (anyone) have a cite of a direct correlation please post it. But I think
> you'll find the thought-experiment stands on it's own without being based on
> any empirical data. ... Of course empirical data (observations, experiments, etc.)
> has provided evidence of the theory's accuracy.
Oh, come on, Mr. Samples,
do you seriously propose that Mr. E, being a fully educated physicist,
did not know of the MMX results of about twenty years before, and the
Lorentz hypothesis of length contraction of about ten years before,
which both were not yet understood at the time, when he conjured up his
thought experiment? Do you seriously propose that the fact that this
thought experiment addressed this particular problem, and came up with
a plausible theory explaining the puzzling items, was coincidence?
>
> > If SRT would be falsified by data collected with a new experiment, it
> > would be replaced by a new theory, explaining all the data SRT
> > explained, plus the new data, which falsified SRT.
>
> Unfortunately the answer is not that easy. The question is not only whether data
> provides clear contradiction of the theory ... but whether there's an alternate
> "theory" which explains the data. In other words, whether SR explains the data,
> experiments, observations, etc. exclusively. While simple confirmation provides
> validity to the use of a theory for prediction, it does not provide
> the necessary proof that the theory reflects reality.
If your 'alternate theory' explains exactly the same phenomena as the
'original theory' then they must agree on all issues, and any discussion
as to whether one is better than the other will be superfluous, because
they are equally good. One might consider the simplest of the two better
(Occam, you know..).
The issue of the present thread is the need for absolute time.
If the 'alternate theory' needs this, it is not an alternate theory,
because absolute time is irrrelevant to SRT. Consequently we have a
means if determining which of the two is better.
As far as I can see, the battle has already been decided, because there
is no experimental result indicating that absolute time exists.
Once more, come up with an experiment which will show one way or the
other and the matter can be settled.
>
> > So, no absolutes is not absolute, but a pretty good working hypothesis.
> >
>
> Reality is the arbitrator. If SR is an accurate model (of reality) the theory
> must be absolute in the sense of providing accurate data.
A theory does not provide data, it can provide predictions, which can be
tested. The predictions of SRT have proved to be accurate so far.
> The value of time
> dilation wrt some particular velocity is an absolute value.
And is correctly predicted by SRT.
>
> If you are speaking of some absolute frame of reference, even Einstein did not
> believe (if one can accept the literature) that SR ruled out finding one.
In physics nothing can be ruled out on beforehand. SRT hypothesizes no
absolute frame, and comes up with correct predictions so far.
> > > So existance
> > > "sort of" exists ... but not in any permanent defined way; and it's basically
> > > irrelevant to physics (which is the study of the natural (material) world and
> > > the phenomena therein).
> >
> > I don't understand what you say.
> >
>
> I'm saying existance, i.e. reality, IS absolute, and it is the superior final
> arbitrator of all speculation ... even rigidly consistant mathematical ones. And
> that everything else is relevant to this absolute ... not the other way around.
Do you mind if I leave this for the time being. The discussion might
wander off topic.
>
> > >
> > > Such a working metaphysics should take one a long way .... but of course
> > > you never know where you are when you get there because any measure of
> > > your location is non-absolute, i.e. illusion.
> >
> > You always know where you are, i.e. here. If you want to know where you
> > are in the universe, look around and you'll see.
> >
>
> I agree with you. In fact this is the basis for rational objective metaphysics,
> i.e. ostensive knowledge. But for those that claim there are no absolutes
> (except the absolute that there aren't any), one can claim the ostensive
> information is illusionary, and the "real" reality unassailable ... in which
> case one could never "know" anything. While this may be an interesting
> philosophical question to discuss it has no bearing on the real world for
> real beings where absolutes are required for existance. Illusionary food is
> good to sustain only illusionary entities.
Again I abstain.
> > >
> > > W$
> > --
> > Regards, Cees Roos.
>
> regards, Bill Samples (W$)
--
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong. Richard Feynman 1981
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: Mitchell Coffey
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:51:48 -0500
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU:
> | ...
> | However, the ordinary, unreflective person often has contradictory
> | ideas in mind, i.e. can simultaneously believe in science and
> | technology and also in abductions by aliens.
>
> I don't see anything unscientific in belief in abductions
> by aliens, given the information available to the average
> person. I heard Dr. Sagan complaining about such beliefs on
> the radio, and yet all he could come up with as a counter
> was appeal to authority -- not a very good
> argument.
>
> Of course, part of the problem here is political -- the
> ownership and operation of the media and the government by
> people who lie as a matter of course, something the public
> seems to be at least dimly aware of.
>
> | The literary, high
> | culture that denigrates science and scientists is almost as
> | unreflective in many of its fattitudes.
>
> What literary, high culture denigrates science and
> scientists? I'm not familiar with this. I realize there's
> probably something out there, but I want specifics.
> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
If you want specifics then why did you preceed with your inspecific
nonsence about "the ownership and operation of the media and the
government by people who lie as a matter of course"
Mitchell Coffey
--
Nazi Agent: "You're no democrat! You're a man-of-action, like me!"
Humphrey Bogart Character: "I may not be exactly a model citizen,
but I've been a registered Democrat all
my life."
-- Some 1940s Bogart flick
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: wilkins@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:22:16 +1100
In article <562t4m$h6v@news.ox.ac.uk>, patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk
(Patrick Juola) wrote:
|In article <560d06$76s@lynx.dac.neu.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) writes:
|>Gregory Dandulakis (gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
|>]It seems that you forget that science is, like biological
|>]evolution, a field filled up with dead-end hypotheses.
|>]These dead hypotheses are many-many more than the success-
|>]ful ones.
| [deletia]
|>
|> What a bunch of crackpot nonsense.
|
|Oh, I don't know. The first two sentences were coherent, correct,
|and important.
|
And the implications of which are explored at length in David Hulls
_Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual
development of science_ U Chicago P 1988, among others.
--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research
AUSTRALIA, n. A country lying in the South Sea, whose industrial and
commercial development has been unspeakably retarded by an unfortunate
dispute among geographers as to whether it is a continent or an island.
_The Devil's Dictionary_ by Ambrose Bierce
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: Hardy Hulley
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:22:03 +0200
Hardy Hulley:
>>>>> 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.
Anton Hutticher:
>>>> 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.
moggin:
>>> Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
>>> positivism is dead.
[Much deleted]
Michael Zeleny:
>> Would it help or hinder your comprehension to consider the point that
>> Messrs Hulley and Hutticher said nothing that Popper would have found
>> objectionable? Is Popper a logical positivist?
moggin:
> On the whole, no more than Bradley, although his emphasis on
> falsification is a variation on the theme. But I doubt either one
> of them would be content with the above. Distinguish between the
> idea that a testable statement is meaningful, and the idea that in
> order to be meaningful, a statement must make testable predictions.
From the above, it seems as if you have attributed to Anton Hutticher
and me the position: "In order to be meaningful, a statement must make
testable predictions". You have also claimed that our position is
essentially that of logical positivism. Well, consider this: "A bachelor
is an umnarried man" is an analytically verifiable assertion.
Consequently, it is rendered meaningful, within the conception of
meaning adopted by logical positivists. Nevertheless, this statement
makes absolutely no predictions, whether testable or not. It cannot,
thus, be a meaningful assertion, according to the stance you have
(falsely) associated with Anton and me. Ergo, even according to your
wildly inaccurate interpretation of what we said, we still do not
conform to logical positivism.
Having just demonstrated that logical positivism doesn't imply that "in
order to be meaningful, a statement must make testable predictions". I
can do the converse as well. Quantum mechanics provides an example - it
makes verifiable predictions concerning the classical, observable world.
But, according to Bohr's conception of the theory, before we perform the
observations alluded to, the world exists in a quantum realm, which
collapses under observation, and, consequently, does not permit
verification. If we turn our attention to Hugh Everett's 1957
interpretation of quantum mechanics, the problems are actually
compounded. Everett would have us take the wave equation quite
literally, resulting in a view in which every particle occupies each of
its quantum states simulataneously (a sort of branching time theory, in
which the universe splits with every quantum event). It is inconceivable
that such a view of quantum mechanics could be verified. So, while the
theory as a whole isn't meaningful to logical positivists, it is
meaningful if testable predictions is your criterion.
The source of your stupidity in this matter is your insistence that
logical positivism has anything to do with *predictions* at all. In
fact, the principle of verification is only concerned with that
procedure (in the case of synthetically verifiable statements) by which
a statement is verified. It pays no particular attention to the logical
consequences of this statement. In any case, a preoccupation with the
testability of a theory's consequences brings us much closer to the
spirit of Popper's intentions, than to logical positivism. Considering
your track record for making uninformed claims about peoples'
philosophical inclinations, however, let me state right now that I am
not hereby commiting myself epistemologically to Popper either - lest
you should conclude in your response that I am anti-induction, or
something similarly stupid, but not entirely out of character.
Cheers,
Hardy
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: Hardy Hulley
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:55:42 +0200
Hardy Hulley:
> : I note, approvingly, that you have now successfully negotiated the
> : transition from nebulous verbiage to unsophisticated sarcasm.
Silke-Maria Weineck:
> Projective identificatin is a fine thing, nah? We will talk
> sophistication once you start reading what you critique.
I have read enough of Derrida, and of philosophically informed opinion
concerning him, to formulate my opinion (with which you are now,
naturally, well acquainted). I have expressed this opinion in terms
amenable to falsification. Yet all I detect from you, of late, is a
preoccupation with my reading habits.
Okay, here's the deal: you go and pick something by Derrida that makes
you feel warm and fuzzy inside (by granting you the advantage of
determining the text, I, in return, expect to set the standards of the
discourse - ie. no jargon, no empty verbiage, etc). Give me enough time
to scan it ("read" just doesn't quite fit Derrida, in my opinion), and I
will "critique" it for you. I remain sceptical as to whether anything
will be learnt in the process, but I'd just *love* to get sophisticated
with you.
Cheers,
Hardy
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (not enough)
From: C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 96 09:24:58 CST
In article <5626gi$31j@panix2.panix.com>
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth):
>| ...
>| Not that I am outright calling his claims patently absurd, just extremely
>| unusual, and if, in fact, he does demonstrate to my satisfaction the
>| veracity of his statements I for one will be extremely envious. My
>| own intuitive powers find little challenge explaining the lack of a
>| net gravitational force at the exact center of a spherical shell, for
>| example, but they could in no way ferret out the supposition that the
>| net force is also zero anywhere else inside as well :-(
>
>As I said, I'm not interested in playing the game of math
>test. As for my intuitive powers, I doubt if they're very
In other words, Mr. Fitch, you are unable/unwilling to prove
that you have any understanding of a) Newtonian mechanics or
b) elementary calulus. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the
rules of reasoned discussion; among them is the proposition
that it is up the one who advances a claim to prove its
veracity. What I see here is the cheap and boring trick
of the intellectually inept to squirm out of a conversational
obligation.
So let me say this bluntly: you are not qualified to partic-
pate in the manner that you have in this discussion, for you
do not understand caluculus, and you certainly don't under-
stand mechanics. That being said, please refrain from
further posting on this thread.
>unusual, although I have no evidence one way or the other on
>the question. I mentioned my little story only in an
>attempt to clarify what I was talking about; it proves
>nothing and its veracity is of no consequence. Remain
In other words, you lied about taking even introductory
calculus. Obviously dishonesty bothers you not in the
least.
Subject: Re: Can Science Say If God Exists? (was INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY)
From: Jerry Tribe
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:24:16 +0000
Gidon Cohen wrote:
[snip]
> > I once read an example where people had used the random numbers included in
> > many data books of the time as representing the activity levels of
> > unicorns..when this 'data' was analysed it was discovered that these unicorns
> > were most active early to mid afternoon I believe around 1:30pm..the moral of
> > this story is, there are Lies, damn Lies and statistics and you can 'prove'
> > nearly anything with numbers if you muck around with them enough...
> > Aria
> > (hopes this isn't the second post of this..if so please forgive.)
>
> Modern Statistical analysis presents methods which can be used and
> misused. However, if one is careul with statistical methodology it gives
> a powerful (and, scientifically, essential) way of checking an
> hypothesis. Care must be taken in doing so. However, if research is fully
> described but incorrect it should be possible to show where the mistakes
> in method are. The mistakes in your unicorn example are, no doubt, clear.
> All I ask is that you point out the similar errors in the Statistical
> Science article ('Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis',
> Statistical Science, 1994, vol.9, no.3).
>
Is it particularly suprising that some form of statistically significant
'letter sequences' have (perhaps) been found in Genesis? Gematra was
extremely
popular in Jewish mysticism and I would be more suprised is there were
not
hidden sequences in it.
Rgds
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 17:08:12 GMT
In article gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> Nah, you take it to far. The issue is not what questions you can ask,
>> but which you can answer.
>
>Ultimately, yes, Mati. But that isn't the way a lot of theoretical physics
>works, afaik. Especially in the realms of cosmology and high-energy
>subatomic "particle" physics the structures of thought seem to have a
>history of racing way ahead (and even establishing themselves) before
>verification was possible, or even feasible. The existence of some
>subatomic particles were deduced theoretically many years before they were
>actually detected.
Um, try "predicted" instead of deduced. The first predictions-by-mathematics
(that would be Dirac's prediction of the positron, if I recall correctly)
were received with a tremendous amount of skepticism and hostility by
the physics community at the time. Since then, people have been more
willing to use those predictions as a base for explanations, but there's
also a tremendous effort to try to validate those predictions; for
example, see the recent demonstration of Bose-Einstein condensation, a
feat that will probably win the Nobel for its discoverers.
I know of few physicist that will claim that we can "deduce" the
existence of particles from theory alone.
Patrick
Subject: Re: Teaching Science Myth
From: Helge Moulding
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:43:52 -0700
DaveHatunen wrote:
> [describes his career as science teacher, which prompted a buncha
> folks to chime in that they, too were science teachers, but
> competent ones.]
Look, let's not diss anyone's competence; that is hardly the issue. The
issue is, how do we know what we know, and make sure that only the real
stuff gets transmitted to kids?
Ferinstance, some may recall the guff over making ice over on AFU,
where part of the discussion involved the question of whether or not
ice melts under pressure. Sure it does, sez I, cuz that's how ice skates
work. There's that classic experiment, where a weighted wire cuts its
way through a block of ice, without cutting the block in half.
Keith Ellis challenged us to be more careful with authoritative
statements from memory, so I went to the library to get the real stuff.
Turns out that ice skates work at temperatures much colder than where
pressure will melt ice, so there is still a question of how they work.
The point being that I cannot be sure if what I know is based on fact
or folklore without experimental data. And if I rely on someone else's
experimental data, I want to be sure that I know how it was obtained.
So how do we teach kids this stuff? Or do we?
--
Helge "Seems to me we don't." Moulding
Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401/ with a weird name
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: jacobin@voicenet.com (Cris Jacobin)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:39:57 -0500
In article <32843332.2A7A@mbox2.singnet.com.sg>, "Doug \"thE_bUG\" Tham"
wrote:
> lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>
> ---[GIGANTIC snip! sorry!]---
>
> > Ah, there was a 60 million year old sneaker
> > footprint being found at the end of the story in a layer of slate()....
>
> Interesting story...sorry about intruding here, but there are tons of
> REAL fossil anomalies, e.g. imprint of what looks like a sandaled
> footprint crushing a trilobite; toads, frogs, spark plugs, nails and
> even a pterosaur found trapped in unbroken coal...looks like the guy who
> made that time machine was pretty careless, huh?? :)
I've heard stories of frogs, trapped within coal, seemingly hibernating since
they spring back to life. How they knew there was a frog in a particular rock
of coal, I don't know. Maybe they went around x-raying chunks. ;)
Of course, the shows/articles on stories of this ilk, tend to be spouted
mostly from WeeklyWorldNews genre of periodical. Heh, "Sightings", in print.
Since you quote that there are 'tons' of REAL fossil anomalies, can you
be so kind as to give me a URL or two, or other sources for further information?
-Jac 'Thanks in advance'
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory Dandulakis)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:43:12 GMT
In article Patrick Juola wrote:
...
>Well, no. It wouldn't have. Making up (incorrect) terminology on
>the fly does not lucidity create. All that your terminological
>games really demonstrated is that you don't understand data compression
>as well as you think. For one thing, there's a strong distinction in
>science between cataloguing events and explaining them, one that
>your "everything is compression" metaphor not only fails to capture,
>but completely destroys. Your topological metaphors don't even achieve
>the status of being incorrect, as your compression theory metaphor
>does.
Well, I would say that you don't know well what science is about.
You need heavy reading in philosophy of science, from Kant to Popper
and Carnap, to see that science can never make _ontological_ state-
ments. It is all _phenomenology_, that is, relations (pattern) search
and not substance identification. And there is nothing "erroneous"
or "on the fly" about identifying science with "compression algo-
rithms"; it is an exact (modern) equivalent term to phenomenology;
no metaphors involved. Take an infinitely large file and try dif-
ferent algorithms to see which one compresses it better, or best
compresses certain specific sections of the file; that _is_ what
science does _exactly_.
Gregory
Subject: Re: Do gravitational waves carry momentum?
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:27:57 GMT
Peter Diehr (pdiehr@mail.ic.net) wrote:
: Ken Fischer wrote:
: > I don't consider acceleration to be a relative thing,
: > I believe the accelerometer readings, and an accelerometer
: > resting on the Earth's surface reads 1 g.
: Relative accelerations are around us all the time. Without
: taking them into account, Newtonian mechanics gets mangled.
Newtonian mechanics must be used with Newtonian
gravitation, and Spacetime must be used with General Relativity.
Obviously, Newtonian gravitation directly infers by
the equations that there is a long range mutual attraction
of matter.
While this greatly simplifies the math, it produces
some irrational impressions concerning the readings of an
accelerometer.
: A lot of the formalism was worked out by Leonhard Euler,
: in the mid-1700's. You may want to put MTW back on the shelve,
: and pick up an undergraduate text on analytical mechanics.
I'll leave the math to you, :-) My interest
is gravitation and possible causes (I consider all possible,
regardless of how weird they are). Newtonian gravitation
seems to proffer a cause (mutual attraction), but does not
offer a "how", and the mechanism by which something works
is the interest of all mechanics, at least I am interested.
Gravitation is very complex, though.
: > This isn't a big problem until the _cause_ of the
: > apparent relative acceleration is considered.
: We need to get the kinematics straight first.
I think General Relativity has it right, even though
it might be possible to do the math with irrational transforms
of accelerated motion.
: > One of the other possibilities is that matter is
: > expanding from an internal net repulsion, and this possibility
: > cannot be ignored forever.
: But Ken, this is inconsistent with the spectroscopic evidence:
: we get the same spectra from hydrogen no matter how it is made,
: or how old it is, or where it is. This poses a very severe
: constraint upon any expansion of atomic systems ... unless we
: have a "conspiracy of nature" such that the expansion is undetectable.
I thought you said in you last message this isn't
the place to discuss this. :-)
What I am talking about is totally different from
the isotropic Hubble model. MTW makes a few statements
about an isotropic expansion of the universe.
On page 719 they say it doesn't happen, the Earth-
Sun distance doesn't increase with time, neither does the
length of the meter stick.
I tend to agree pretty much, I don't think masses
in a coasting recession would be taking place at the atomic
level, and local gravity and collisions, etc. would have
disturbed any remanent of an isotropic expansion within
the solar system, except for perhaps, the orbits of the
planets.
But I have _NEVER_ considered an isotropic expansion
before yesterday (just to set the record straight, even
though we discussed my model of gravitation 7 or 8 years
ago, I have it on disk).
As it turns out, an isotropic expansion is interesting,
what would be the best quantitative treatment.
Just to get a feel for it, I assumed the age of
the Hubble universe and it's radius (not the same), and
made a rough estimate of the time required for the length
of anything to double in length.
I think 6 or 7 billion years is in the ball park,
no sense trying to be precise as long as cosmologists don't
agree on the radius.
So, the meter stick would have doubled in length
over the last 6 billion years, not exactly a critical
event, not very measurable (directly), and not even worth
discussing.
But it is interesting if the orbits are affected,
and I will leave it to the astronomer-mathematician to
consider. I will mention that on circular orbits it
would have a negligible effect, but on highly elliptical
orbits, it might make a noticable difference because as
distances increase, so does the length of the second (I
think this is considered in the radius and age determinations
in cosmology), so, since a planet in a highly elliptical
orbit spends more time in the more distant part of the
orbit, the lengthening second might make the apsides
advance, and astronomical observations are very precise,
it is just interesting to wonder if precise enough to
detect a doubling of the length of the second in 6 billion
years. :-)
: In which case, it is as though such expansion doesn't exist.
It doesn't, and it isn't worth discussing, if
you mean an isotropic expansion, I have never suggested
that an isotropic expansion would do anything, especially
not provide a basis for gravitation.
: In this way we parallel the undetectable aether of yesteryear.
No, the isotropic expansion could be a possibility,
the aether never was (Let's take this to the .old-theory
newsgroup).
: > I consider spacetime to be the real world geometry
: > that we observe and measure.
: > It is not something that has a physical structure,
: > it is just the geometry.
: Then you reject the Einstein field equations, which state that
: the geometry of spacetime is a dynamical entity (hence "geometrodynamics").
No, but I might possibly not agree with every single
interpretation.
: If the metric tensor changes based upon the local stress-energy tensor,
: then we must have some physics present, yes?
Perhaps, perhaps not, it depends on where the tensor
physics arises, in space or in matter. I can see that
I am too interested in physics to follow math based on
unknown magical stresses and energy in space acting at
great distances, it sounds too much like Newtonian gravitation.
Thanks for the discussion,
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 13:23:04 -0500
jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU:
| > | ...
| > | However, the ordinary, unreflective person often has contradictory
| > | ideas in mind, i.e. can simultaneously believe in science and
| > | technology and also in abductions by aliens.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > I don't see anything unscientific in belief in abductions
| > by aliens, given the information available to the average
| > person. I heard Dr. Sagan complaining about such beliefs on
| > the radio, and yet all he could come up with as a counter
| > was appeal to authority -- not a very good
| > argument.
| >
| > Of course, part of the problem here is political -- the
| > ownership and operation of the media and the government by
| > people who lie as a matter of course, something the public
| > seems to be at least dimly aware of.
jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU:
| > | The literary, high
| > | culture that denigrates science and scientists is almost as
| > | unreflective in many of its fattitudes.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > What literary, high culture denigrates science and
| > scientists? I'm not familiar with this. I realize there's
| > probably something out there, but I want specifics.
mcoffey@grci.com:
| If you want specifics then why did you preceed with your inspecific
| nonsence about "the ownership and operation of the media and the
| government by people who lie as a matter of course"
Because the knowledge of it is widespread. Anyone who has
anything to do with a situation or event subsequently
reported in the mainstream media, with the exception of
rhetorical events staged by established authorities, will
know what I'm referring to. And because that wasn't what
I was talking about, or John either. I was specifically
curious as to which "literary, high culture" John was
referring to because I don't know -- a good reason for
asking the question, eh? I haven't seen much material
denigrating science or scientists, but maybe he has. I
trust we're not counting mad-scientist movies.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 11 Nov 1996 08:29:05 GMT
Dean Povey wrote in article
<565oud$95r@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>...
> "Michael D. Painter" writes:
>
> >There is no evidence that ANY experiment has ever been conducted by the
AD
> >religion. I suspect that their precession argument would also have some
> >problems when applied to Mercury.
> >My guess, since in AD things get Lighter as they approach light speed.
that
> >Mercury would precess in the opposite direction.
>
> Well, things get lighter in AD when they are UNDERGOING DECAY. This
wasn't
> happening to Mercury last time I looked :).
The equations box on the AD web page has
m = m1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for relativaty and works for Mercury.
and
m = m1*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) for AD and does NOT work for Mercury?
Why are these equations shown if they are not intended to be compared?
It's rather hard to have a superset of something if the equations are the
inverse of the set.
In fact a brief review of set theory as learned in junior college would
show this to be impossible. Perhaps the degree in advanced calculus
precluded set theory.
>
> From the Web page:
> "[Autodynamics] explains the perihelion advance of Mercury, Venus, Earth
> and Mars, and all Binary Star precessions for which we have data."
Where is your data posted?
> "[General Relativity] explains the Mercury perihelion advance but is
> deficient for Venus, Earth and Mars. Completely fails to explain the
> observed Binary Star precession(1). "
>
> 1. F. Guinan, J. J. Marshall and F. P. Maloney, Dep. of Astrophysics,
> Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085, USA, taken from "Commission
> 27 and 42 of the AU Information Bulletin on Variables Stars."
> Number 4101, Kenkeley Observatory, Budapest, October 12, 1994,
> from the WWW.
>
> As for experiments being conducted, there was a paper published in
1988(?)
> outlining an experiment which would verify Autodynamics (see New RaE
experiment
> on the Autodynamics web page "http://www.autodynamics.org/". I am aware
that
> the SAA is currently trying to find some experimental physicists who
would be
> able to peform it. You must appreciate that these sort of experiments
are not
> cheap, or the sort of things you can perform in the garden shed with a
test
> tube and a ruler.
>
> I doubt that Einstein did many experiments to verify Special Relativity
either
> (please correct me if I am wrong), but built his theory based on the
> existing experimental evidence and theories (as has Carezani), leaving
the
> verification to other physicists.
>
> Dean.
Some were, some weren't. He used normal scientific means to achieve his
goal, including peer review.
You don't.
As for yours, it implies the use of "standard" equipment. Would not such
apparatus be widely available at a good university. I would suspect this
type of work is done at the graduate level if not lower.
You don't even bother to acknowledge or defend serious analysis in these
news groups.
Subject: Re: sending faster-than-light messages?
From: bgilmore@mathworks.com (Bob Gilmore)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:53:16 GMT
cfbarr@aol.com wrote:
>Nick Herbert's book "Faster Than Light" had a chapter on theoretical
>attempts to exploit the "twin state" polarization of a pair of photons,
>emitted by a central source, to send messages faster than the speed of
>light. Such an attempt would depend upon finding a means of "decoding" a
>message by measuring the polarization of a single photon. No such means
>has apparently yet been found.
>Would it be possible to send an instantaneous message without having to do
>single-photon measurements?
The short answer is "no", and we'll see why in a minute...
>Suppose a "central source" sends two
>continuous beams of photons in opposite directions to a "sender" and a
>"receiver" an approximately equal distance apart. (The "sender" is
>slightly closer than the "receiver".) The beams are run through
>polarizing filters at the "central source", such that they are both
>polarized at 0 degrees. So every photon in each beam is correlated with a
>photon in the other beam, and the polarization of every photon in each
>beam is known to be 0 degrees.
There's where is went wrong. You created some photons, which were
correlated. That's fine. But then you filtered them to get a
'reference angle' of zero degrees. By doing that, you uncoupled their
spin states (polarizations). To put it another way, you performed a
measurement and collapsed the spin wave functions. After this point,
the photon spins are no longer coupled.
This kind of thing will never work. In addition to other claims,
relativity claims that _information_ cannot travel faster then c.
I'm sure that an information theorist will correct me on this point,
but as far as I can tell, conveying information requires _two_ things;
knowledge of an established baseline signal, _and_ your message
signal. For this example, I have no way of knowing whether a
"missing" photon doesn't appear because (a) it was screened out by
that initial zero degree filter or (b) it was blocked by my buddy
trying to send a signal. My buddy can only send me the "composite"
signal: ( (pure beam) - (screening from the zero filter) -
("message") ), and since I can't know a priori what (screening from
zero filter) looked like, I can never extract the "message."
So you can send a 'signal,' (noise, really), but not 'information.'
>The "sender," who receives the beam slightly before the "receiver," has
>two polarizing filters, one behind the other, both set at 0 degrees. The
>"receiver" has one filter, also set at 0 degrees, and an apparatus behind
>this filter to measure the number of photons passing through (or the
>"intensity" of the beam).
>In this initial state, the "receiver" receives a beam of 100 percent
>intensity. But now the "sender" resets the front filter to 45 degrees,
>and the back filter to 90 degrees. This causes half the photons
>intercepted by the "sender" to change their polarization to 90 degrees.
>If the polarization changes identically in the opposite beam just
>before reaching the "receiver", this means that at least half the photons
>reaching the "receiver's" filter are at a 90 degree angle, and cannot pass
>through. This will reduce the number of photons, or "intensity" of the
>beam as measured by the apparatus behind the "receiver's" filter, by at
>least half.
>By varying the "intensity" of the beam in a measurable way, can the
>"sender" send a faster-than-light message to the "receiver"?
Bob Gilmore
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: Jean-Joseph JACQ
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:05:30 -0800
Anthony Potts wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
>
> >
> > And that would be the limit for an ambitious, uncultured bourgeois moron
> > from Newcastle. How sad...
>
> Good job I'm not from Newcastle then.
> >
> > Translation: I am not good enough at physics to get to the top.
> >
>
> Are you not Joe? How sad.
>
> to be honest with you though, life at the top isn't all that great. It
> just means that you are researching slightly different things to other
> people.
>
> Of course, I get to have a nice well known subject such as the Higgs, but
> that's about it.
> >
> > Well, aside from actually getting a Ph.D. in it...
> >
>
> I will hand in before I head off to the city. Probably.
> >
> > Soon to realize that you were duped...
>
> Shit, man, you're right. I ought to instead have gone to some anonymous
> institution. I'd havedone much better there, that's for sure. Then,
> instead of ending up a particle physicist, I could have become an expert
> in queuing theory. After all, it is THE fashionable subject of the day,
> isn't it?
>
> >
> > Soon to realize your country is second rate in that field...
>
> Oops, we were ten years ahead of the field. Never mind.
>
> >
> > Well, except for publishing distinguished work in the field...
>
> Been there, done that.
> >
> > Please send me a copy of that report.
>
> Please pay me 50 pounds, and I will send you a copy. You aren't getting
> one for free, that's for sure.
>
> You wouldn't understand it anyway. Peculiarly enough, it will be pretty
> technical, requiring knowledge beyond degree level of high energy physics.
>
> >
> > We don't think you are shallow. We just know that you will not make
> > several million dollars per year.
>
> No, all the people I know in the city are obvioulsy completely
> unrepresentative of what's out there. I am completely deluding myself that
> I will do the same as them.
>
> Well, at least I'm happy in my ignorance.
>
> > You are a failure at physics.
>
> Of course I am, of course. How foolish of me to think otherwise.
>
> >
> > Anthony, I would LOVE to test you on your knowledge of the stochastic
> > calculus...
>
> Now why doesn't that surprise me?
> >
> > Of course not: you are the sort of idiot who rails over the internet, and
> > hides behind his keyboard.
>
> That's right Joe. My boxing matches have all been carried out over the
> internet. In fact, now I think back, they weren't boxing matches at all,
> they were in fact just video games.
>
> >
> > Failure.
> >
> You oughtn't to sign yourself that way. Hell, just because you aren't
> going anywhere, it doesn't mean that your parents don't love you. And not
> all of us can get a place on the high energy physics courses, so don't
> feel too bad about yourself.
>
> Anthony Potts
>
> CERN, Geneva
Anthony if you really leave high energy particle physics to become a
stock market jock, can you at least use what you've learnt to
investigate the probability that the devaluation of the pound is somehow
linked to the increase of entropy in the universe? And keep posting to
this news group Pleasssse . Just so I can continue enjoying thesse
controversies.
And if London's weather is no good, come down under, we'd love to have
you here.
--
John Jacq
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:24:40 -0800
In article <5652rp$sut@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken
MacIver) wrote:
> gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) wrote:
> >I dislike your wording of "kids are weeded out quickly", Ken. I'll assume
> >you don't mean that as it sounds. Some kids simply have different talents
> >and aptitudes than pure academic learning. The kids are set on different
> >educational tracks early (a little too early in my opinion), but society
> >also puts a premium and invests its resources on these technical schools
> >and an apprenticeship system producing excellent trades- and craftsmen. In
> >the US such a system doesn't even exist.
>
> It's that "little too early" part that sticks in the craw of Americans
> generally and educators specifically. It creates and determines an
> economic class structure at an early age.
It's what bugs me too, but its not so much an economic class structure as
it is a segregation of academic and non-academic classes. The economic
class segregation in the US is several orders of magnitude worse. And
these days in America the upper classes don't even send their kids to
public schools anymore, or they happen to live in high-income, priviledged
school districts. And higher first class education, say Harvard or MIT;
what kid from a low-income family can really make it there unless he's
outstandingly bright?
> It is also simply untrue
> that the U.S. doesn't have excellent trade schools.
Trade schools yes, but not an apprenticeship system that's sets mandatory
standards of achievement as well as obligates the employer to supply
qualified training and leave from work to attend advanced schooling at
training institutions spread throughout the nation.
> In my state of
> Massachusetts, for example, there are many good technical high schools
> and two year colleges that train people in all manner of technical
> skills.
If you would have asked me to name the US state with the highest school
density, highest per capita investment in education, and highest average
education I most certainly would have chosen Massachusetts. You have over
50 colleges and universities, some of world class ranking such as Harvard
and MIT, research institutes like the Woodshole Oceanographic Institute
that are meccas to the cognoscenti and in general, from what I can tell, a
voting populace that is committed to education. I think in Mass. and maybe
even in New England, there is an above average appreciation of education.
Out west in the "Heartland" of the plains and the Rocky Mtn. States the
picture is a little different, to say the least.
> >> OTOH, Americans have an almost indecent obsession about higher
> >> education, to the point of touting it without focus, lowering or
> >> eliminating admissions barriers, and offering easy access to loans
> >> that may encumber the students for a decade or more, dampening an
> >> other wise youtful propensity towards risk taking and exploration.
>
> >I don't agree with lowering admission barriers, but isn't that a direct
> >result of universities and colleges being strapped for cash and seeing it
> >as a way to bring in more tuition fees and increase the number of
> >"successful" graduations and thereby procure more government support. If
> >society would be willing to commit more support so schools can be more
> >independent and maintain high standards even for low-income students that
> >wouldn't be necessary.
>
> Admissions barriers were lowered, IMO, to make school more accessible
> to a greater segment of society. Whether this is right or wrong, it
> did not always bring in more dough, as, for example, in the case of
> CCNY. I do agree that society should commit more support to schools
> but it is in how they do so that the battlefield rages.
Agreed. Where I differ in attitude in many of the discussions, is that I
would prefer to err in favor too much support or pay the extra taxes or
set higher standards for teachers. I'll give my support the benefit of the
doubt.
> >As for easy access to loans, I'm for it, and I will gladly take into
> >account those students that end up sticking around the university a little
> >longer, for the benefit of any and all students for whom this is the only
> >opportunity to get access to higher education that is basically being sold
> >on an education market. For many it is the only ticket to exploration. I
> >say support kids' educational exploration opportunities.
>
> Maybe so, but like those easy loans for fancy tractors that sent many
> a *family* farm into bankruptcy, kids straddled with $80,000 in debt
> and no prospect of a decent job are often the losers in the endgame.
That's the risk. I say give 'em the opportunity.
> >America most certainly has some (maybe even most) of the very best
> >universities and private schools in world, but they are extremely elitist
> >and very expensive. What I'm talking about here is the commitment to
> >"Everyman's" kids, to the public schools, the run-of-the-mill high
> >schools, the community colleges or the creation of trade schools. Why are
> >Americans _as a society_ so selfish when it comes to providing education
> >to their own youth?
>
> Americans are not so much selfish as [far] more diverse in size and
> population than the typical European society. Many cities and towns
> provide substantial funding for good public schools. What you think
> of as *selfishness* is often a legitimate disagreement over whether
> (and, if so, what kind) we should have a national curriculum.
No, it's that everybody is just worried about their own wallet, their own
kids, their own community, and maybe their own state. It is most certainly
also a national problem. We shouldn't just be thinking of "ourselves" (on
whatever level you care to interpret this) but of "others" requirements
for a good education. I've spent quite a bit of time in the Rockies in
recent years and am simply dismayed by the neglect that society as whole
exhibits regarding the investment to education there.
Tom.