Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:11:12 GMT
weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>If I may quickly interfere here in my usual conciliatory voice:
>I think that, yes, Zeleny is right: both Destruktion and deconstruction
>have an etymological connection to destruction; he is right further in
>claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are very attuned to implications
>of this sort -- to deny that there is any link whatsoever strikes me
>as problematic.
I appreciate your interference, but calling Derrida's self-serving
lie `problematic' is still, umm... "problematic" -- for reasons I
suggested by my analogy with Jorg Haider. Do you seriously expect
Derrida to remain morally unaffected by inheriting his critical
methodology from a Nazi and sharing it with a Nazi collaborator?
If so, what good is his alleged sensitivity to "historical
sedimentation"?
> Zeleny's problem is that he cannot distinguish between throwing a
>bomb at a church and taking it apart piece by piece, lovingly, to see
>how it is made. The latter does involve, to introduce a new term,
>dismantling, and it is a destruction to the extent that any
>interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't leav
>its object unchanged.
ANY interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't
leave its object unchanged? Are you really implying that each time
you eat your Wheaties or take your morning shit, read a newspaper or
write your Usenet screed, you destroy your body or your mind, by dint
of interfering therewith? Would you care to reconsider your claim
after a leisurely walk through Liddell & Scott on metabole? At any
rate, Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace
them with -- WHAT?
> The larger question, however, is whether such an action is
>destructive in the larger sense -- destructive, as has been claimed,
>to "Western Culture," "humanist education," "respect for the
>classics," etc. Those claims are silly and not worthwhile debating in
>the end, unless one is into the politics of the so-called culture
>wars.
Spare dear Aunt Sally, pretty please. For a vivid example of how
Heidegger's avowed dismantling of Logos destroys moral principle and
undermines communication, refer to the final exchange in his postwar
correspondence with Jaspers, to which I alluded below.
>Silke
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)
>moggin (moggin@nando.net) wrote:
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.
>>[...]
>>>I meant that "historical sedimentation" is either transparently there or
>>>not at all. Matters of brute fact do not require elaborate corroboration.
>> Moot point -- we agree that "deconstruction" derives, at
>>least in part, from Heidegger's concept of _Destruktion_; but as
>>I've pointed out, you want to give that a certain interpretation.
>>In particular, you claim that "deconstruction" has "destructive
>>implications" that it derives from _Destruktion_. And that needs
>>an argument you haven't provided. In particular, you would have
>>to show that _destruktion_, as Heidegger employs it, contains the
>>"destructive implications" you contend. I've given some of the
>>objections to that idea. You haven't replied, preferring to fall
>>back on the authority of "brute facts," which isn't sufficient
>>for your purposes. In the event you were able to establish that
>>_destruktion_ has the meaning you think, you would then have to
>>demonstrate that "deconstruction" inherits it; but you haven't
>>made any efforts in that direction, either.
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:
>>> 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. [...]
moggin:
>>> 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.
Zeleny:
>>>Once again, the historical derivation is all the implication I need.
>> And that's all it is -- an implication. You claim that
>>history bears certain implications re: deconstruction; but
>>that's a matter of interpretation -- not "brute fact." And
>>you haven't made a case for your reading, while I've offered
>>several strong objections; so as yet, Derrida isn't a liar,
>>Silke isn't out of it, etc.
Zeleny:
>>>Politician: "Vote for the Freedom Movement! Our benign goal is being alert
>>>to the national culture and historical genealogy of our fellow countrymen."
>>>
>>>Historian: "The main concepts to which the Freedom Movement can and must be
>>>retraced are those of National Socialism."
>>>
>>>Politician: "The Freedom Movement has nothing to do with National
>>>Socialism."
>>>
>>>Citizen: "He is lying."
>> If you want to claim Derrida's a Nazi, fine -- now prove it.
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.
moggin:
>>> 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:
>>>So you say.
>> Right. And I notice you haven't offered a rebuttal, or
>>substantiated your own conclusions. (Guilt-by-association
>>is no substitute.)
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.
>>[...]
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)
moggin:
>>>> 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:
>>>More reading disability. Like Gasché says, `Zerstoerung' is a dysphemism
>>>for `Destruktion', which Heidegger was wont to use in its stead. Thus any
>>>negative connotation of the latter a fortiori applies to the former.
>> Gasche and Krell both point out the distinction between
>>_Zerstorung_ (meaning "destruction"), and _Destruktion_ (the
>>term Heidegger employs in _Being and Time_ and an antecedant,
>>as we agree, of Derrida's "deconstruction"). Heidegger takes
>>care to explain the meaning he attaches to _Destruktion_ --
>>it's not a synonym for _Zerstorung_. If you want to contend
>>that Heidegger is (as I'm sure you'd put it) lying, and that
>>the former is just a euphemism for the latter, go ahead. So
>>far you haven't gone beyond shouting and stamping your feet.
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 Prussia by the Allies; who 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.)
moggin:
>>> Non sequitur.
Zeleny:
>>>Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance in yet another language?
>>>The point is that Heidegger's insistence on the benign nature of his
>>>procedure has as much credibility as your learned disquisitions on
>>>Einstein's "revisions" of Newton.
>> So you say; but even if we agreed, just for the sake of
>>argument, that Heidegger's credibility was nil, you'd still
>>need to show that a) _Destruktion_ contains the implications
>>you find in it, in distinction from the ones that it appears
>>to have in Heidegger's text, and b) that the implications you
>>find in _Destruktion_ are present in "deconstruction" as an
>>inheritance (in distinction from the ones it appears to have
>>in Derrida's text). You haven't.
moggin:
>>> 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:
>>>No.
>> Must've been someone else, then.
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:
>>>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.
moggin:
>>> Properly so.
Zeleny:
>>>Help yourself to the last word.
>> Done.
>>-- moggin
Subject: Re: the gravitational wave detection revoluti
From: adona26963@aol.com
Date: 12 Nov 1996 11:36:00 GMT
by "the quantum scale" I meant around the Planck length, something like
10-25 cm. Is there a smooth transition to another set of laws,
or a force-unifying law, or is there an abrupt loss of observation so that
below the length nothing is understood or even observed, while on scales
greater than it the currently accepted ideas are not making sense? By not
making sense I mean there must be a more aesthetically pleasing way to
describe, envision, or write on paper the essence of matter and spacetime
curvature (even though I consider the problem to be QuanGrav/GenRel, I
think the frame of mind to consider such questions could be best described
as "problems concerning the essence of matter in spacetime). Succinctly
put, by "quantum scales" I mean WHAT IS MATTER, WHAT IS SPACE, and WHY
ISNT GRAVITY UNDERSTOOD along with Quantum Mechanics, QED, and all the
rest. I personally do not know all the details /notations/calculations of
QM, QED, or anything quantum (not yet anyway, but soon enough, or at least
I can know enough of what it says to lead me to the answer thereby
modifying current ideas, at least a bit (translation: PhD in Quantum
Something?)) but I know enough to realize that gravity as it is understood
now (in my opinion, comments appreciated) cannot "be quantized" or
detected, just proven to exist in the form of radiation (PSR 1913+16 Hulse
and Taylor 1994?). And why isnt it quantized yet? Because (apologies to
those offended- I revere the man too) Einstein couldn't, couldn't find the
unifying field equation(s), and couldn't predict the cosmological
expansion (not fully 100% accepted, but to me its
COBE/CBR/Hzero proven). I'm not saying I can, I'm saying WE ALL
can't because G=8piT (is that it?) and/or quantum physics are simply not
right. Now that may come as a shock to some, but remember that Newton was
"wrong" by our standards, even at the time he was saying it. Up until that
time no one knew Calculus! (except Leibniz) or the reason stuff fell down,
and what I'm saying by this is now we know Calculus (most of us) or at
least what it means, but we STILL don't REALLY know why s**t falls to the
earth, or anything more massive than aforementioned s**t.
Therefore:
1. we ought to detect the damn things, refine the theories, and map our
local, pertinent areas of spacetime, or at least know what/where the dense
spots are (even if by theorizing). (Mr. Fischer, I cannot wait for LIGO.
I'm gonna try my damndest on this problem, and maybe I could tell the boys
at CIT, MIT, LSU, Syracuse, PSU or anywhere else that QuanGrav/Gen Rel
gets a fair shake a thing or two about apples and
blackholespacetimesingularitiesbeyond theeventhorizon since the field is
ripe and this half-century's crops won't be poor I can guarantee.)
2. we ought to focus on matter in spacetime if we want to extract energy
efficiently. (thanks for the well wishing on this one)
3. does dark matter exist? YES NO circle one, it doesn't matter because
you can't prove it and that is because QCosm. is so young, so ignored, so
far out, that dark matter, cold or hot or lukewarm or whatever, to me
means that whoever brings it up (me included) doesn't know what (s)he's
talking about!
4. GRAVITATION THEORY NEEDS REFINING BADLY
5. GRAVITATION IS THE KEY TO MANY ANSWERS
6. YES, EVERYONE, GRAVITATION IS THE GOLDMINE THAT CHALLENGED AND DEFEATED
THE BEST MINDS FOR OVER 300 YEARS SINCE NEWTON- that by itself makes it
right up there with Who is God? and Where are my keys? on the "list of
questions that are indeed worth answering if you can". (below the former
question, above the latter one on aforementioned list)
its a race to solve the problem and i'm still running and i don't see the
finish line but theres not too many people ahead of me, so all i have to
do is keep running straight and something will turn up about falling
objects, black holes, GWaves, and the (car commercial announcer's voice:)
**ALL NEW FULLY QUANTIZED 199x (20XX?)
GRAVITATION/MATTER/SPACETIME MODEL with
applications**
good luck, and a tip to all other runners-
my list of necessities (fair is fair):
EINSTEIN, NEWTON and associated material
MTW GRAVITATION
Bergmann's Riddle of Gravitation
get a grip on the current QUANTUM ideas in order to exploit
misunderstandings/
what we simply don't know
an open, patient, inquisitive mind
tons more reading: Davies, Saulson, Thorne, Hawking, Penrose, Gribbin,
Feynman, etc....................................
who else thinks gravity is where its at?
Subject: Re: THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION and noew dancing as well
From: mdecker@tcns.co.uk (Michael Decker)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 13:05:14 GMT
In article <568hmk$832@news.one.net>, api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam
Ierymenko)
<327555FF.6A4C@easynet.co.uk> <55l6a9$9n9@bugle.nb.rockwell.com>
<327EC21F.7DE1@easynet.co.uk>
<3282D4E9.781C@easynet.co.uk> <55vspg$bpc@news.one.net>
<3284AB6C.44F3@easynet.co.uk> <847724399.10555.24@office.lemon.net> wrote:
>In article <847724399.10555.24@office.lemon.net>,
> gblock@office.lemon.net (Gregory R. Block) writes:
>>On the other hand, there's a lot of *good* things to come of licensing; it
>>generally insures *some* level of safety and accessibility to the venue,
>>which would be a damn good thing should something not-cool happen at said
>>venue, such as a fire, or a floor collapsing from stomping ravers. Regulation
>>allows for the existence of that which many find displeasing, and much of
>>society, if they had their way, would thumb their nose towards most anything
>>with loud music and people dancing, regardless of the venue or style of music;
>>regulation provides for both an offense against that kind of thought, and
>>defense when used against you. It prevents society from becoming nothing
>>more than the tyrrany of the masses, at times.
>
>If it's your own property, you shouldn't have to have a license to do something
>as long as it doesn't hurt anything else.
>
>Pubs and dancing joints are not "public space." They are private property.
In the UK, any building to which the public has access is defined as 'a public
place', and therefore subject to the appropriate regulations applying to the
use of that building (place of work, club, pub, whatever).
>>If your problem is that licensing is too tight, well, join the club, a lot of
>>us feel that way. However, I don't think it's fair to attack the *concept*
>>of licensing in a society that, for the most part, thinks of things in black
>>and white, and would gladly wipe it away for all of the bad press it's seen.
>>Licensing is a way of proving to the local government that you can provide
>>a safe and controlled environment that meets generic social guidelines; that
>>prevents people from thumbing you based on prejudice, to some degree.
>>
>>Unfortunately, it doesn't do well enough at that. But not giving up is the
>>answer.
>
>That vague thing "society" has no right to tell a group of private citizens
>what to do on their own property, provided that it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Ok, I've got a large warehouse that I want to fill with 2000 dancing kids at
£10 a time. I don't want people sneaking in, so I'll padlock all the doors
apart from one narrow one at the front. Hey, private property, right? No-one
has the right to tell me to have fire extinguishers around, or to put those
cables dangling in the water into trunking, right?
(ob.fact: A similar scenario occured at 'Summerland'(?) in, as I recall, the
Isle of Man in the Seventies. Tens of kids' bodies found piled on top of each
other as they tried to push against emergency exits that had been padlocked.
I.o.M. brought in stringent new safety laws, natch. Kids still dead,
unfortunately.)
And I want the kitchens of restaurants I eat in to be swarming with
inspectors.
And planes. I want those governed with a bookfull of regulations before I
step aboard. I don't wanna hear all this stuff about "Well, I own the plane,
so it's private property, so why should I have to service the engines more
than once every three years?".
Yeah, I know, I'm some kinda Nazi.
--
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
mdecker@tcns.co.uk
Think Clean, Live Clean,
Shoot Clean Pinball
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
http://www.tcns.co.uk/decker/biog
"Walk softly and carry a megawatt laser"
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:42:36 GMT
pdp@ix.netcom.com (Pdp) wrote [in part]:
>>
[Pdp]
>>> Do they differ only to the observer of that is moving or do
>>> they really differ ?
>>>>
[bjon]
>>>>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.
>>>>They really differ since they must yield a real result -- they must
>>>>yield the value "c" for light's one-way speed (as determined by the
>>>>use of the two clocks described above -- those set per Einstein's
>>>>definition of synchronization).
>>
> Please help me a bit more. You said "must yield a real result",
> is this because of the result of "DV/C2" equation which C is
> constant. Therefore time must change to satisfied the equation ?
>Regards,
>-Pdp
Well, the best thing to do is start from "scratch." Let's drop all
unnecessary baggage, and go back to the earliest stage of light speed
measurement (on paper only). We will drop or ignore the real slowing
of clocks and the real contracting of rods. We will also assume that
two clocks can be truly or absolutely synchronized (just for the
purposes of giving a simple example).
The observer moves to the right (relative to either the paper or to
the light ray). He has two x-axis clocks, located a distance D apart,
as measured by the observer, and they are truly synch'd (both read the
same time at the same observer position on paper). A light ray meets
the observer, hitting the front clock when that clock reads zero (and
of course the rear clock also reads zero at this same instant). After
this event, the observer's forward motion causes him to travel the
distance Vt, where V is the observer's speed across the paper or thru
space (his absolute speed), and t is the time per any clock because no
clock is slowed in this universe, and so all red the actual time (t is
the true or absolute time). By the same token, light travels an
absolute distance of ct, where c is light's speed across the paper or
across space -- its absolute speed. The observer sees the light ray
move between the clocks or he sees them go a distance D relative to
him. We can now solve for the time t that represents the observed
time for the light ray's one-way journey. We know that ct + Vt = D,
so we have t = D/(c+V). SInce light's observed (or measured) speed is
the observed distance divided by the recorded time, we have the result
light's relative speed = c + V.
This is Newton's or Galileo's one-way light speed. It varies with the
observer's absolute speed, and if found, would give the observer V,
his absolute speed. But note that to find this c + V result, the
observer has to have truly set clocks (absolute synchronization).
Einstein says we cannot find such clocks, and he has been right so
far. Einstein saw that per experiment light's relative round-trip
speed did NOT vary, so he simply sets his clocks to reflect this in
the one-way lightspeed case. (There is no real reason for setting
them to get "c" in the one-way case, it's just a matter of
convenience.)
However, since the round-trip experiments showed that both rods and
clocks actually distort, this must be a part of the one-way deal. (If
you leave it out on paper, you can still get a one-way speed of "c,"
but it will not be reality based). But for the sake of simplicity,
we here will ignore these distortions, and assume constant rod lengths
(intrinsic or absolute lengths) and UNslowed clocks, just as above.
We now will show how Einstein's clocks are set to cause light's
one-way speed (relative to the SRT or einsteinian observer) will be
"c" both ways and for any and all observers.
As before, the front clock reads zero when hit by the oncoming light
ray, but at this same instant the rear clock reads a different value,
one that is not relevant now, but one that will cause a different
total time than we found above. From the above, we know that the
absolute time for this one-way trip is t = D/(c+V). Since the front
clock started at zero and since it is UNslowed, it must read D/(c+V)
at the end of the light ray's journey. However, in order for light's
relative speed to be "c" per this observer, the rear clock must read
exactly D/c at the trip's end (when the light ray hits this rear
clock). At this point, we can find the actual difference in clock
readings by subtraction. D/c - D/(c+V) = DV/[c(c+V)]. This is often
called the "local offset" and is the difference caused by Einstein's
setting clocks to cause light's one-way speed to always be "c"
relative to any inertial observer. (Note that the local offset varies
directly with the observer's absolute speed, so the offset amount is
different for each observer, as it must be to keep light's measured
speed constant.)
And if you don't ignore actual rod/clock distortions, the above result
will be DV/c². (Correct local offset equation for E-set clocks).
Hope this helps a bit.
§§ ßJ §§
bjon @ ix. netcom. com