Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 19:58:26 GMT
In article , wrote:
>In article <56gbm9$770@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>>In article , Gordon Long wrote:
>>>
>>> So much discussion on such a trivial point! Anyway, Mati already
>>>answered this one. You don't need to define "uniform motion" to define
>>>an inertial reference frame. To give a simple example: take a rock,
>>>hold it still, and let go. If the rock stays still, then you are in
>>>an inertial reference frame. If the rock starts to move, then you are
>>>not. No "uniform motion" involved.
>>
>>You have to be aware that this establishes a "locally Lorentz"
>>frame, and not a Newtonian inertial frame.
>
>Only when you throw in the invariance of the speed of light.
What kind of absurd quibble is that? It has nothing to do with
the nature of Gordon's test, which is clearly suited to establishing
a locally Lorentz frame and not an extended Newtonian inertial
frame. Note that he says, "starts to move", nothing about
"wait half an orbit" as you amended it ( in another post. )
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: Teaching Science Myth
From: peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:33:11 +0000
In article ,
hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>Tank trucks drag chains to discharge the inevitable static charge built
>up by traveling along a highway. it has nothing to do with lightning
>strikes. This static charge is probably at least partially due to the
>friction of the tires on the pavement.
How much do modern tires conduct? I ask because they are full of carbon
black, and many of them (not all, of course) have steel cords in their
walls.
I saw a dump truck on fire once in Baghdad. It was at night, driving into
town. It was standing there in the dark, with one rear tyre on fire; fat
orange flames, every now and again some air shooting out sideways and
torching everything within six feet. We couldn't understand why, when they
hosed it with water, although the fire stopped they suddenly got huge blue
flashes and nasty cracking and banging noises. So they stopped the hose,
and the fire started again.
After a while we realised that the truck had banged into a local
electricity pylon, and one of the (probably 450 Volt) phases was lying on
the steel bucket, and conducting down to earth through the tyre. There was
obviously quite a bit of resistance, and the heat evolved was setting the
tyre on fire each time.
In the end an Iraqi much braver than I would ever be got hold of a large
wooden pole and, standing on the road which was streaming wet from the
hosing, pushed the cable free of the top of the truck. There was a
tremendous arcing and he had to drop it back. The second time, after the
arcing, everything stopped. The local breaker had finally tripped.
At this point, the driver emerged from the darkness. The truck was brand
new; he'd obviously driven it for X hours across the desert road from
Aleppo. His eyes were like pissholes in the snow- it was amazing that he'd
got as far as Baghdad before colliding with something. The rear tyre was
one of those huge things with two air chambers, and in spite of burning
through was still up; the driver climbed into the cab, started the engine
and drove off. As he passed them along the road, another ten dump trucks in
the convoy started up and followed him.
So, if the tyre could conduct so many amps, presumably it ought to disperse
any static charge pretty easily as the voltage would be higher than that
from a local distributon cable. So why do they need conducting straps
and/or chains? I know that they have them... I'm just wondering why?
--
Peter
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:38:30 GMT
In article , moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>moggin@mindspring.com (moggin):
>
>moggin:
>
>>> Yet Newton's theory presented a force, namely gravity, that had
>>>effects across immense distances, and no mechanism by which to
>>>apply itself. Any self-respecting mechanist would be horrified by
>>>that kind of nonsense, and many were.
>
>Mati:
>
>>The rule of science is "if it works, use it". Moreover, if it works
>>in a way that's opposed to your common sense, then it is your common
>>sense thet needs to be modified. I don't see why this concepts are so
>>difficult to comprehend.
>
> They're easily comprehensible. The question is, what makes you think
>they're relevant?
But of course they are relevant to science.
>Are you shaking your finger at Newton's colleagues for not properly
>following your "rule of science"?
Not really, because they are two different levels of argument. One is
"does the proposed rule fit well the experimental data?" At this
level it is a matter of comparing things. If it fits, it fits and the
statement "but it doesn't make sense" doesn't make sense. Now, you
may go to the next level and argue that while the rule works, it is
but a reflection of a deeper, underlying, mechanism which will somehow
make it "make sense". This was for example the position Einstein took
towards Quantum Mechanics (the results are in, Einstein was wrong on
this one). That's a legitimate argument but, first, it doesn't
invalidate the rule and, second, the burden of proof is on its
proponent.
In any case a statement like "although it seems to work, we cannot use
it because it doesn't make sense" is clearly unscientific.
>
>
>Mati:
>
>>No more so then the remote control I talked about few days ago is an
>>illustration of action at a distance. You use it and it works from a
>>distance. This is a fact.
>
> That's an interpretation, although hardly worth the name. As I've
>already pointed out, "action-at-a-distance" is an explanation of the
>workings of the remote control (albeit an empty one). I ask, "Mati,
>how does the remote work?" You tell me, "It exerts a force." I say,
>"Mysterious forces -- yeah, right. O.k., how do _they_ work? You
>answer, "Action-at-a-distance,"
No, that's where you go wrong. I don't reply "action at a distance".
I reply "it acts from a distance and I've no idea how it does it".
>
>>By acknowledging this fact you don't deny the possibility of an
>>underlying mechanism (you don't affirm it, either). But you don't
>>need to know the mechanism in order to acknowledge the fact.
>
> What "fact"?
>
In the specific case we're talking about, the fact that the planetery
orbits were fully explained using the proposed law, which moreover was
used to make successful predictions for things which couldn't be known
in advance (Halley's comet was a pretty successful demonstration).
>Mati:
>
>>>>These are technicalities, though. What is important to understand is
>>>>that the adoption of a physical law in this or other form in no way
>>>>constitutes an acceptance of this or other philosophical principle.
>>>>It just constitutes a recognition that said law fits well with
>>>>available experimental evidence. In physics evidence is king, not
>>>>philosophical ideas.
>
>moggin:
>
>>> That _is_ a philosophical idea, d00d -- not the brighest one in
>>>the world, either.
>
>Mati:
>
>>That's your opinion. In my opinion it is brighter than anything that
>>ever came out of philosophy. And, as I stated above, I value my
>>opinions higher than yours.
>
> Again, your self-evaluation has no relevance here. And I see you
>accept my point, since you're now claiming to have a philosophy
>that's superior to any philosopher's, while before you argued that
>physics was ruled by evidence, not "philosophical ideas."
I claim that empirical evidence carries more weight than the opinions
of all philosophers that ever lived. If you want to call it
"philosophy", be my guest.
>
>moggin:
>
>>> But I've got no interest in arguing with you
>>>about the philosophy of science (or the supposed lack of it). You
>>>claimed that there was no relation between physics and religious
>>>mysticism. That's false.
>
>Mati:
>
>>Statement from authority? And whose authority? You're too much in
>>the habit of passing pronouncements, trying to act as a referee while
>>taking a side in a debate, at the same time. But, I'm not impressed.
>
> I don't care _what_ your feelings are -- your assertion is false for
>the reasons that I've offered.
Apparently you can't get over this habit. It may impress the folks at
a.p. but not at sci.phys.
>Mati:
>
>>Now, if the above you mean to say that many physicists were (and some
>>still are) motivated by mysticism (religious or otherwise) I'll
>>certainly agree. This exchange started with me bringing an example
>>for just such occurence.
>
> You're being duplicitous again. You cited the religious motivations of
>Maupertois or Fermat (you weren't sure which) in order to deny that
>mysticism had a meaningful relationship with physics. You did poorly.
>Not only were you uncertain who you were actually talking about, you
>had nothing to say about either their religious beliefs or their work as
>physicists.
Frankly, If I'll elaborate on their work as physicists, I rather doubt
whether you'll understand any of it. It takes some calculus, you
know?
>
>>However, the results of such work stand or
>>fall based on their own merit, not on the underlying philosophical or
>>religious beliefs of their authors. And the reason for this is just
>>the thing which you find so boring, tedious and irrelevant, namely
>>that the criterion used to judge scientific work is plain and simple
>>"does it work or doesn't it?".
>
> "Please be upstanding for the Mayor of Simpleton."
>
:-)))
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: 100130.3306@compuserve.com (Eric Baird)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 19:00:30 GMT
On Fri, 08 Nov 1996 04:08:44 GMT, bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
wrote (in part):
>Oh, I feel sure SRT is correct, but grossly misunderstood.
>All the theory says is "No absolute motion detection, not even by
>optical means" (classical physics already had mechanical means).
That's certainly the special principle, but it's not _quite_
Einstein's special theory. The second postulate does generate your "by
optical means" bit (which is the most important part), but it also
does more - it also says that the speed of light doesn't change as it
crosses from one object to another.
This is neccessary to distinguish Einstein's implementation of a
special theory from other sorts of theory that would match your
definition (without being Einsteinian SR).
-
For instance, you could invent a hypothetical intermediate (massless)
frame between any two objects, and reason that if light crossing from
object-to-space-to-object undergoes a shift "X", then light undergoing
a half-transition (object-to-space, or space-to-object) must undergo a
hypothetical, unmeasurable shift of root(X) at each half-transition.
Now, if we then follow through to construct a fully relativistic
theory by making one of these half-transitions use the "stationary
emitter" Doppler formula, and the second, the "stationary observer"
Doppler formula, then you'd have a model that didn't use a unique
reference-frame, and gave a non-transverse shift over a full
source-to-observer frame transition of
f'/f = root[ (c-v)/c ] * root[ c/(c+v) ]
f'/f = root[(c-v)/(c+v)]
Which matches the SR shift prediction exactly, and if the
half-transitions are deemed to occur close to the objects, it's gotta
give you figures that also agree with Desitter's and Brecher's,
inasmuch as the flight-time differences of pairs of signals coming
from those double-stars is going to be tiny and won't increase
linearly with distance.
-
Yet this alternative model would definirtely NOT be Einstein's special
theory, because the total flight-time (rather than the difference
measured by Desitter or Brecher) could be different.
-
Einstein's second postulate really is rather important - without it,
Einstein couldn't have claimed that his special theory was a unique
solution to the situation.
-
=Erk=
___________________________________________________
Erk's Relativity Pages:
web: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/
___________________________________________________
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: mike105@ix.netcom.com (Mike Abernathy)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:02:46 GMT
mbcx6prn@stud.man.ac.uk wrote:
>If time travel was possible and you could go into the past and alter it,
>i.e. I went back and shot my grandad, Then I would no longer exist to
>kill my grandad, but if I did exist then I did kill my grandad. So both
>things have happend ( there would be an infinate interchange between my
>existance and nonexistance ) so a paradox wopuld be set up and the time
>relative to the universe would stop. So it would be possible to alter
>history but at a great expense to where the alteration occurd.
Yes, this is an old chestnut, the so-called "grandfather paradox".
However, there are lots of ways to handle this. One is that you have
a universe that doesn't allow revision. That's what I was talking
about. You can't shoot your grandfather because you *didn't* do it.
This requires a deterministic universe in which all events are fixed
and unalterable. You can even go back in time and *become your own*
grandfather (a la the movie "Timerider"), if that is what did happen.
But no matter what, you can't change the past.
The best version of this I've ever run across was an old Twilight Zone
where a man invented a time machine and kept trying to change the
past. It never worked. Tried to shoot Hitler, but the Gestapo kicked
in the door just before he could get a shot off. He finally went back
to the 1890s just to drop out, except he knew that a school would be
burned down by a lantern from a runaway wagon. He told himself to
stay out of it, becuase he knew he couldn't change the past, but he
couldn't do it, thinking of the kids getting burned up. He tried to
stop it from happening. He told the guy with the wagon to unhitch the
horses. They got in an argument, began yelling, the guy grabbed the
harness, the horses bolted and ran off, the lantern flew off the
wagon into the schoolhouse, and yeah, *he* started the fire. From the
foundation of the universe, he was going to be the cause of that fire.
Period. Nothing he did could change that.
Unfortunately that answer requires an absolute determinism which is
repugnant to the idea of free will, since most of us like to think
that our actions aren't graven in stone and do affect things. Okay,
so we allow a universe that accepts revision; i.e., you can change the
past.. Now, you've either got a universe with one timeline or
multiple, co-existant ones. If you allow multiple timelines, then
every time you alter the past, you create a new timeline (see, for
example, The Proteus Operation by Hogan, or many, many other SF books
that play with this idea). So yes, there's a universe in which you
shot your grandfather, but you're still here because in YOUR timeline,
it didn't happen, because you created a new timeline (in which you
were never born) when you fired the fatal shot. No paradox 'cause
it's a separate timeline.
Or you can have a revisable universe with one timeline (see Hogan's
Thrice Upon a Time or Milennium by (I think) Joe Haldeman for the
general idea) and in which your actions can "rewrite" the past from
that point on. Here, if you shoot your grandfather, you generate a
"timequake" in which something ugly happens. Probably you disappear,
but there may be other side-effects as the universe works it out,
which is, I think, what you are reffering to as the "great expense".
If you allow revisions, then you also can have lots of fun with the
various "time police" stories, in which operatives work to avoid
revisions. If you like this sort of thing, see, for example, ARC
Riders by Drake and Miesel. ARC stands for Anti-Revisionist Command,
which should give you an idea of what they're up to.
Or you can have something sort of in-between. There's a great story
by Fritz Lieberman called (I think) "Try and change the past". This
happens in a universe in which time can be changed, but it's not easy.
There's this guy who, just before he was shot right between the eyes
by his wife using a .38, was told it was going to happen and offered a
chance to live if he enlisted with this group of time-travelers. So
he signed up, they made a duplicate of him (had to leave one of him
behind to die) and took him away to headquarters. Due to a screw-up,
he was left in the control room alone for a while. He decided to
change the past and save his life, prevent his wife from shooting him.
It didn't work. Something always happened so that he ended up dead.
Finally, he thought he'd succeeded. He killed her first and was
standing on the balcony afterwards when a meterorite -- which just
happened to be .38 of an inch -- hit him right between the eyes. The
universe wanted him dead, all right, and found it less improbable for
a meteorite to hit him than for him to live!
In the real world, I like things simple and would prefer to think that
time travel wasn't possible, since allowing it opens up all sorts of
doors. Still, it looks like time travel may be theoretically possible
(what about the Tippler "time machine" -- not that anybody is likely
to be building one of those real soon), so maybe it does bear thinking
about.
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: gree0072@gold.tc.umn.edu (Joseph M Green)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 15:28:38 -0600
brian artese writes:
>Patrick Juola wrote:
>> To briefly recap : People don't sense messages, they sense articulations
>> and infer messages from them. The underlying messages exist in a
>> testable scientific sense -- and communication between people is
>> primarily a process of message exchange having primacy over articulation
>> exchange. The speaker has a message she intends to convey, which may or
>> may not map identically onto the message the hearer infers from the
>> communications channel. To assume that there is no such thing as the
>> "intended message" and that the set of articulations is all that exists
>> can be naively, theoretically, and/or empirically falsified.
>You claim that there are two things:
>1) Signifiers -- the sensible ink on the page or sound from a mouth; and
>even, as you point out, physical gestures, facial expressions, etc.
>2) Messages -- the extra-material, extra-sensible thing that signifiers
>point to, the 'inference' that a signifier can give rise to. By your own
>definition, these can never themselves be signifiers.
>Since the only things that we actually see or hear are signifiers, the
>burden rests on your shoulders to prove the existence of transcendent
>messages. You claim that the existence of these are a necessary inference.
> They are certainly not.
>Before I explain the proper way to describes how one 'arrives at a
>meaning,' let's look at your attempt to describe this disputed entity, 'the
>message.' You say that the author's intended message may or may not 'map
>identically' onto the message the hearer infers. The problem is that the
>only things that can be 'mapped' are things with form, things which can be
>described, things which can be sensed. But by your own definition, a
>message cannot *itself* have such sensible properties. A message cannot
>itself be mapped, described or transcribed -- because then it would be a
>signifier.
>The reason you want to hang onto the idea that there is something 'beyond'
>signifiers is because you're aware that 'what' you want to say can be
>expressed by more than one articulation. You see that there are several
>ways of expressing something. The problem is with this 'something' (this
>'what') which *automatically presumes* that 'what you want to say' is a
>singular entity. But this 'something' -- and this cannot be over-stressed
>-- is not a thing. The 'something' that reveals an articulation to be
>appropriate or not appropriate is a contextual environment composed of a
>collection of related signifiers. If you hear the phrase 'This apple is
>bad,' you will glean its 'appropriate meaning' if you situate 'bad' among
>the cluster of signifiers that include 'rotten,' 'overripe,' 'brown and
>mushy,' 'beyond its prime,' etc. -- as opposed to the cluster which
>includes 'evil,' 'unholy,' 'wrong,' etc. You can see that this situation
>-- literally, a situation -- is not a thing.
>This is indisputable in light of the fact that the *only* way to establish
>whether or not a given articulation is being used appropriately is by
>making reference to other signifiers. (e.g., 'Do you mean that the apple
>is overripe or that the apple is evil'?) These signifiers include the
>'other texts' you were talking about in relation to the author, as well as
>the explicit avowals he articulates. Read your last post; each of your own
>examples bears this out.
>The fact is, communication is adequately accounted for with reference to
>purely empirical phenomena -- signifiers and their metonymic relationships
>with other signifiers. There is intent, of course: an articulation's
>intent is established by its relationship to other (clarifying)
>articulations. How do these other articulations clarify the first? By
>situating it in the proper nexus of signifiers -- not by attaching it to
>some transcendent 'meaning' that hovers above the empirical world.
>I find it strange that people who appeal to 'science' and 'reality' so
>often adhere to your 'message that's not an articulation' theory -- which
>clearly relies upon transcendentalism, despite your claim that it has
>nothing to do with a naive Platonism -- as opposed to the explanation i've
>articulated, which never leaves the realm of the empirical.
>-- brian
On the contrary, your explanation leaves out most of the empirical. King John
wants the prince killed. He looks meaningfully at the poor boy while
addressing a servant. He says "a grave." Hubert understands his intent.
King John knows what he intends. Nothing at all transcendent about
his intention.
Now King John is very much a fellow whose existence can be verified
by empirical means -- he is a person. In this case he is the actor
playing at being King John and intepreting a text through
eloquent action (the "looks meaningfully" action), the words, the
"nexus of signifiers." He is an actor representing a character and
both the actor and the character represented are said to intend
a certain communication. You want to banish the person who has
intentions since the intentions are not observable -- an odd
instance of naive Platonism since what we presumably are is what is,
in fact, exactly what is most abstract: the poor self that thought it
had intentions is flung out into ther void where it is not this and
not that and the sum of whatever articulations possess it at
wahtever odd instant. You really take the view of, say, those
tentacled fellows of Wolfe 1734 who observe their human specimens
making love in the specimen holding area of their starship
and think that they can understand what is there by understanding
what is observable. Your theory of communication implies a theory
of persons and what is implied is that there is no reality beyond
the "nexus of signifiers" expressed.
You want to label any claims that a realm other than the nexus
of signifiers exists as claims to transcendence. 'We murder to dissect" comes
to mind.
King John might plead that he was misunderstood -- Hubert simply
placed his words in an incorrect context. But he knows what
he intended -- and this is how he is judged.
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: "J. Matthew Nyman"
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:38:39 -0600
Mike Abernathy wrote:
I tend to avoid time travel as well simply because, from a rigid logical
perspective, it plays havoc with commonsense when backwards time travel
is allowed.
> so we allow a universe that accepts revision; i.e., you can change the
> past.. Now, you've either got a universe with one timeline or
> multiple, co-existant ones.
Which we sort of have to allow, if we accept time travel as a plausible
notion. There is nothing that I know of in the laws of physics that
would demand that time travelers could not change history. Logically,
we would like to say they could not but the laws of physics, such as
they, have nothing that would strictly forbid it; again, this assumes
time travel into the past is possible in the first place.
> If you allow multiple timelines, then
> every time you alter the past, you create a new timeline (see, for
> example, The Proteus Operation by Hogan, or many, many other SF books
> that play with this idea). So yes, there's a universe in which you
> shot your grandfather, but you're still here because in YOUR timeline,
> it didn't happen, because you created a new timeline (in which you
> were never born) when you fired the fatal shot. No paradox 'cause
> it's a separate timeline.
So what would stop you from entering that timeline? I used to think
about this myself. If you now generate two timelines, what allows you
to "hop" back onto your own and travel into your own future. I once did
a paper (very NON-scientific) that talked about quantum resonances. In
other words, you could only travel along the timeline that you
"resonate" with. This would make a horrible science-fiction story,
though, because it implies that no matter what changes you make you
cannot experience any of them. (Actually, you could experience them and
generate paradoxes in some situations that I worked out but it usually
involved doubling back on your worldline two or more times.)
> Or you can have a revisable universe with one timeline (see Hogan's
> Thrice Upon a Time or Milennium by (I think) Joe Haldeman for the
> general idea) and in which your actions can "rewrite" the past from
> that point on. Here, if you shoot your grandfather, you generate a
> "timequake" in which something ugly happens. Probably you disappear,
> but there may be other side-effects as the universe works it out,
> which is, I think, what you are reffering to as the "great expense".
But the "just disappearing" thing is just as much a paradox to me as
anything else. The problem, as I see it, is that the reason you "just
disppear" is because you no longer exist nor have you existed -
presumably because you have shattered your own past. This runs into the
matricide paradox. You go back and blow Mom away. Since your mother
never gave birth to you, you will never grow up to go back in time and
kill her. But since you are not born (and, on this timeline, you never
were born) you could not go back and kill her. So she would live and
she would give birth to you, etc. It seems we constantly would
fluctuate between the two "timelines."
> If you allow revisions, then you also can have lots of fun with the
> various "time police" stories, in which operatives work to avoid
> revisions. If you like this sort of thing, see, for example, ARC
> Riders by Drake and Miesel. ARC stands for Anti-Revisionist Command,
> which should give you an idea of what they're up to.
I used to read the "Time Patrol" series by Poul Anderson. The only
problem is that most of these stories fail to take into account that the
time patrol (or ARC) would cease to exist along the timeline as well
and, therefore, one major change in the past would ensure they never
existed to police the timelines anyway.
> Or you can have something sort of in-between. There's a great story
> by Fritz Lieberman called (I think) "Try and change the past". This
> happens in a universe in which time can be changed, but it's not easy.
> There's this guy who, just before he was shot right between the eyes
> by his wife using a .38, was told it was going to happen and offered a
> chance to live if he enlisted with this group of time-travelers. So
> he signed up, they made a duplicate of him (had to leave one of him
> behind to die) and took him away to headquarters. Due to a screw-up,
> he was left in the control room alone for a while. He decided to
> change the past and save his life, prevent his wife from shooting him.
> It didn't work. Something always happened so that he ended up dead.
> Finally, he thought he'd succeeded. He killed her first and was
> standing on the balcony afterwards when a meterorite -- which just
> happened to be .38 of an inch -- hit him right between the eyes. The
> universe wanted him dead, all right, and found it less improbable for
> a meteorite to hit him than for him to live!
The universe "wanted" him dead? I don't know about these theories. It
sort of sounds like those "meant to be" anecdotes. Certain things are
meant to happen, so the concept goes, and the universe (or Fate or
Destiny or whatever) will see to it that it does happen as it should
have.
> In the real world, I like things simple and would prefer to think that
> time travel wasn't possible, since allowing it opens up all sorts of
> doors.
Well, I think it is possible but only in extreme situations. Say,
around a black hole. I seriously doubt there will ever be time
"machines" a la H.G. Wells or James Hogan's "Proteus" device. I think
that time travel is allowed but is rendered so damn hard to do by the
laws of nature, that even if you could do it you probably couldn't
generate any paradoxes anyway. The only other solution is to believe
that paradoxes can happen and history can be altered.
> Still, it looks like time travel may be theoretically possible
> (what about the Tippler "time machine" -- not that anybody is likely
> to be building one of those real soon), so maybe it does bear thinking
> about.
I think it bears thinking about since it is not strictly ruled out and
is allowed in certain extreme situations. But the whole "machine" idea
(even if the machine is some vast rotating cylinder such as Tipler's) I
think is out. For example, Tipler's cylinder, as originally formulated,
had to be infinite in length. Then new theories came out where it could
be finite but it had to be the mass of the universe or something like
that. I think the actual time travel would be something like Godel's
idea about the rotating universe. Granted, his idea turns out to be
false - but something like that is more what I mean.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: 100130.3306@compuserve.com (Eric Baird)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:20:11 GMT
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 23:41:46 -0500, Richard Mentock
wrote:
>Eric Baird wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Oct 1996 04:56:04 -0600, pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What has always =TRULY= astonished me is that, while no one seems
>> >to have difficultly understanding the cause of foreshortening of
>> >perspective, the *majority* of people seem to have a hard time
>> >understanding length contraction and time dilation... :-(
>>
>> Actually, the only group of people I've ever met that have trouble
>> with perspective effects have been relativists ...
>>
>> If you want a really fruitless argument, try suggesting to a
>> relativist that an object appears smaller in a photograph if the
>> object is further away from the camera.
>>
>> I think I had four arguments of this type, with the physicist
>> declaring crossly that no such effect existed or we'd know about it,
>> before I learned to avoid the subject.
>>
>> There's also a variation on the effect, when you take signal timelags
>> into account. As a result a photographed object appears to be longer
>> if it's approaching than if it is receding. Simple, simple, simple
>> kiddie-level stuff.
>> I've never managed to get a physicist to admit to the existence of
>> that effect, either (not for want of trying). Textbooks don't mention
>> an observed length-dilation effect for approaching objects, therefore
>> it can't exist .
>> -
>> =Erk=
>Fascinating stuff. What are we talking about? "an object appears
>smaller in a photograph if the object is further away from the camera."
>Do you mean that of two identical objects, the one that is farthest from
>the camera will have the smallest extent on the photo? What kind of
>objections did the physicist raise to that?
None of them could actually put their objections into words - they all
tended to take the line that the idea was so ridiculous that it
"wasn't even wrong".
>I've never heard of the receding/approaching effect either. How does
>that work, using your "signal timelags" explanation.?
This one's quite fun.
In brief, redshifted objects appear length-contracted, and blueshifted
ones appear length-dilated.
You stand by a railroad track and watch a train 1 lightsecond long
approaching, then receding.
When it's approaching, and the driver is at the observer's position,
(no observation timelag), the observed position of the rear of the
train won't be its true position, but will be the position it occupied
about a second earlier. This old position is further away than 1 ls,
so the 1ls train is seen to occupy a greater amount of track than it
is supposed to- it looks stretched.
Then, when the train is receding (and the guard's van is next to the
observer), the signal coming from the driver's cab one ls away will
just be starting its journey, and what is seen is instead the signal
emitted at an earlier time, when the cab was closer than 1 ls.
The train looks compacted.
-
The amount of apparent compaction or elongation depends on the
light-propagation model - it seems to always be inversely proportional
to the wavelength change in light coming from the object.
-
___________________________________________________
Erk's Relativity Pages:
web: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/
___________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation
From: 100130.3306@compuserve.com (Eric Baird)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:19:39 GMT
On 30 Oct 1996 05:27:19 GMT, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
wrote:
>Time dilation is a most fatuous, inane and puerile notion.
Um ... well, I wouldn't put it quite that strongly ...
>The Lorentz
>equations has nothing to do with reality and with the notion of Time.
>TIME is not measured by any clock or any other periodic device. Any such
>mechanism is extremely susceptible to physical conditions, gravitation,
>magnetism, emission of particles and speaking of dilation of time is
>sheer nonsense and giving a formula which would measure the real TIME
>as what the dial of a watch indicates is absolutely nonsensical.
-
Depends on your base definitions.
Newton's stuff used the concept of an absolute time-reference, which
could be assumed to be the same for all observers once all local
effects were compensated for. He accepted that observed time and space
were variable (ie relative) and chose to use the deduced "absolute"
versions instead (see Principia, Definitions).
-
However, if someone wants to use local observed time, then they are
quite entitled to do so, IMO - as long as they are clear about what it
is they are using (Einstein was pretty explicit about using observed
time-intervals for SR).
-
If Newton was prepared to accept that the word had two possible
meanings (back in the Eighteenth century), then I think that we ought
to do the same.
-
> TIME, is the Cosmic TIME it exists in the entire Cosmos it is another
>manifestation of Mass and it moves at the expense of depletion of Cosmic
>Mass.
If you are saying that time advances at a rate corresponding to the
loss of conventional mass-energy from the universe due to expansion,
then perhaps we are in broad agreement. This doesn't necessarily
disagree (much) with what I've seen of modern cosmology, though, once
you change the basic definitions.
If you are equating the loss in conventional energy (Hubble shift) and
the resulting long-term reduction in conventional mass (imbalance on
mass>energy and energy>mass conversions, giving overall entropy) with
the increase in total distance within the universe
(mass/energy/distance conservation), then maybe you are describing
something that's already lurking in an undeveloped form somewhere in
conventional theory.
-
Unfortunately, we can't look up an "original" definition of "time", so
I guess we have to live with the dual definitions and be prepared for
misunderstandings.
>The whole notion of TIME in Relativity is a fraud.
Well, the default usage changed from "absolute" to "relative" ...
but since Newton described both versions, and Einstein was clear about
the version he was using, I don't think that that's fraud.
I think that people often misrepresent Newton's ideas on the subject
as being far more naive than they actually were, but that's probably
genuine ignorance rather than fraud - people tend to trust the
self-perpetuating myths that you sometimes find in textbooks, because
they don't have time to check the original source material.
>Time is not on a par with spatial dimensions.
The supposed "time dimension" doesn't follow the same rules as the
"space" ones, and observed time and observed space aren't
perpendicular to one another (as you'd expect with "proper"
dimensions), no.
>TIME as any mass is subject to the
>gravitational electromagnetic and all other Cosmic forces
"Relative time" is a useful way of measuring the difference in the
combined effects of those forces at the observer's and object's
positions.. If the inertia of a clock changes (without local forces)
then the rate of that clock will change accordingly. That makes the
clock a handy tool for measuring relative inertia.
>and trying to
>define it as what the dial of a watch says is sheer prepubescent
>idealistic naivete.
It's probably naive to believe that =only= directly-observed effects
have any physical reality, yes.
Einstein tried to present that viewpoint as a way of justifying parts
of the special theory, and then regretted it when people applied the
same logic to quantum mechanics.
GR used the idea to dismiss the idea that "dark stars" could emit
indirect radiation, and now QM is putting the effect back in.
I think the decision to treat only directly-observed effects as being
"real" will be considered to be a mistake in a few years time.
But is someone wants to refer to "local time" as just "time", then
IMO, they are entitled to do so as long as they are clear about what
they are referring to and don't try to claim that theirs is the only
correct usage (as the origin of the word is lost in the mists of ...
er .. time).
>TIME, as I have indicated, is einextricably related
>to the MASS of the entire Cosmos and there is an equivalence of Mass and
>Time.
Well, the inertial properties of objects govern local time, and are
linked to the state of the background universe, yes. And again, yes,
the definitions of local time and local inertial mass are inextricably
interlinked.
>It is Time for Physics to equate TIME WITH MASS and abandon the
>classical and relativistic notions of TIME.
Well, I rather thought that conventional relativity was already
linking timeflow and inertial mass pretty closely.
IMO, they haven't gone quite far enough. It does seem possible to
equate any spectral shift to an apparent change in inertia of the
observed object, and this principle seems to extend to conventional
propagation shifts, which (IMO) ought to be considerable as
gravitation-equivalent (thus blowing out the conventional
interpretation of the SR math).
-
PS - I think it might be worth thinking about using fewer capital
letters and changing your sig.
=Erk=
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: 100130.3306@compuserve.com (Eric Baird)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:19:08 GMT
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:55:35 -0800, Larry Richardson
wrote:
>Richard Mentock wrote:
>>
>> Eric Baird wrote:
>>
>> > There's also a variation on the effect, when you take signal timelags
>> > into account. As a result a photographed object appears to be longer
>> > if it's approaching than if it is receding. Simple, simple, simple
>> > kiddie-level stuff.
>> > I've never managed to get a physicist to admit to the existence of
>> > that effect, either (not for want of trying). Textbooks don't mention
>> > an observed length-dilation effect for approaching objects, therefore
>> > it can't exist .
>> > -
>> > =Erk=
>>
>> Fascinating stuff. What are we talking about? "an object appears
>> smaller in a photograph if the object is further away from the camera."
>> Do you mean that of two identical objects, the one that is farthest from
>> the camera will have the smallest extent on the photo?
Yup - I really was being that basic.
>>What kind of
>> objections did the physicist raise to that?
The usual one - that the physicist can't remember having heard of the
effect, therefore it can't possibly be correct, and experiments must
therefore prove that it doesn't happen.
>> ... the receding/approaching effect ...
>> How does
>> that work, using your "signal timelags" explanation.?
>>
>I believe this is a reference to the fact that the photons arriving from
>the trailing end of an approaching object left that object at an earlier
>time than photons arriving from the leading end, and during the time
>difference, the leading end had moved nearer the observer, therefore
>giving the object a "stretched" look - the reverse would be true if the
>object were receding.
Yup - that's the one.
If (for example) you assumed that the speed of light was constant wrt
the observer (as in SR, propagation shift being f'/f = c/(c+v) ), then
a train receding at lightspeed would appear halved in length due to
the differential timelag between front and back.
Take a train lightsecond long, travelling at c.
Half a second after the front of the train passes you, it has gotten
half a lightsecond down the track. It takes another half second for
that image to get back to you, by which time the end of the train is
already at your position. Result - you see the train to be occupying
0.5 ls of track intead of 1 ls, and its length appears halved.
-
Similarly, a train approaching at c appears extended by an
infinite(ish) amount, using the same light behaviour.
-
The general rule seems to be that whichever frequency shift equation
you decide to use for your propagation model, the same equation then
turns up as an observed length-change effect.
-
SR obeys the same rule.
It introduces a "separate" Lorentz redshift - but then it also brings
in a matching Lorentz contraction, so you still get the same agreement
as before, between the shift law and observed change in length, just
as you'd expect if the whole shift equation was a propagation effect.
-
I'm reassured that a couple of people have recognised the effect - I
gave up discussing it as a supporting argument for the SR equations
being usable in a curved-space model, because every physicist I
mentioned it to denied that any such first-order Doppler length
dilation/contraction effect existed.
-
___________________________________________________
Erk's Relativity Pages:
web: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/
___________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flat hills
From: taboada@mathe.usc.edu (Mario Taboada)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 13:57:43 -0800
Philipp:
<>
Imagine that the hill is razed by machines. Then what's left is a flat
hill. In other words, the hill has a height that is usually assumed to
be positive with respect to some "flat terrain". Let the height approach
zero and you get the "flat" hill as a limit.
I think people are confusing "ordinary hills" with mathematical hills,
which can have zero elevation (or even negative elevation, if you get
fanciful).
This is, of course, a matter of definition. If you decide that your
definition of hill doesn't allow flat ones, then there are no flat ones.
If you do, there are. In a scientific theory of hills,the flat hill
would be included. In the ordinary use of the word "hill" for purely
descriptive purposes, there seems to be little need to think of
flat ones (at least if flatness is assumed to be the "norm").
It's hard to believe that, as (following President McMuffin) we get
ready to cross into the 21st century, the legitimacy of the number
zero is still under discussion.
Regards,
--
Mario Taboada
* Department of Mathematics * Old Dominion University * Norfolk, Virginia
e-mail: taboada@math.odu.edu
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 21:36:33 GMT
In article ,
moggin wrote:
>moggin wrote:
>
>>>> .......................-- as I've mentioned before, Newton
>>>>imported his concept of action-at-a-distance to physics from his
>>>>studies in hermetic philosophy (read: religious mysticism).
>
>-Mammel,L.H.
>
>>>What gives you this idea, I wonder? Are you just making it up?
>
>>Belay that. I see this idea is promulgated in, e.g., LET NEWTON BE .
>>More later, maybe.
>
> I already posted a reply -- read it as more polite than I wrote it,
>then. And if the idea turns out to be a false one, I'd like to hear more.
I don't think it's a question of categorical right or wrong, but
one of degree. I think the claim that the idea was "imported"
is very misleading. I'll try to express why without getting too
bogged down in Newtoniana.
The thing is that Newton's Law of Gravitation devolves inexorably
from dynamical considerations applied to the Kepler's laws of
planetary motion. You can do a thumbnail derivation if you have
the formula for centrifugal force, and Hooke in fact claimed
precedence with a derivation of this sort. Then it's a question
of generalization and further development.
So I think the idea that mysticism or natural magic contributed
to the conceptual development of the Law of Gravitation is
highly doubtful.
When it comes to Newton's comments regarding the use of
new and then unkown force laws as a program for studying
general natural phenomena, I think there is a more interesting
case to be made. In fact, a lot of the discussion in Chapter
Six of LET NEWTON BE is along these lines.
I might be inclined to speculate ( is that qualified enough :-)
that the success of his gravitational theory encouraged Newton
to think that some of the notions of spirits and influences that
are stated to be rife in his mystical ( or magical or whatever )
reading could be similarly made rigorous. I agree that one ought
to consider that Newton must inevitably have been influenced
by this whole area of thinking that he devoted so much time
and effort to, but the exact nature of this influence is likely
to be a bit tricky to discern, and the declaration that he
imported action-at-a-distance from mystical thinking into his
natural philosophy is simplistic and a bit precipitate.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: dark matter
From: egreen@pop.pipeline.com (Edward Green)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:14:27 GMT
bflanagn@sleepy.giant.net wrote:
Hi Brian -- you have temporarily lured me out of semi-retirment to
create more noise...
>To all concerned:
>A month ago yesterday, I received e-mail from both the Oxford University
>Press and Springer-Verlag, in re: my book, *Quanta & Consciousness*. By
>that afternoon, my e-mail had been cut off by the UI, for reasons which
>remain largely obscure.
>I have since obtained an account on a privately owned server. However,
>for the past month, none of my posts have made it through to sci.physics
>or sci.physics.research. Until today. One of my computer whiz buddies has
>looked into it and thinks it's "really strange".
What I find strange is how your articles could fail to appear even on
your own local server. As I understand usenet -- what few crumbs of
knowledge -- when you post the article is first going to go to your
local news machine. Thereafter, some neighboring news machine is
going to say to your news machine "Hey, what's new with you?" -- or
maybe your machine just broadcasts new articles indiscriminantly...
The point it, your article at least appearing locally is a local
matter to your system, and if it fails to appear you should
eventually be able to pester your sysadmin types into figuring out
why.
>Meanwhile, I happened to catch a crusty character from the Pentagon on
>CNBC; he was saying that the gov't had decided to classify some of the
>science that has hitherto been passing freely on the net. On the chance
>that there is some connection here with my own situation, I paid a visit
>this week to Rep. Jim Leach's office here in Iowa City. His associate,
>Ginnie Burrus, had me type out the story before I left. While I was doing
>so, a 30'ish male who had been watching me on campus over an hour ago
>showed up at the congressman's office on some dubious pretext. He saw me
>there & saw that I saw him. He left quickly.
>Meanwhile, I get another e-mail message from an employment database,
>asking that I clarify my request for my password--a request I never made.
>Can anyone throw light on any of this?
>Any constructive suggestions welcome.
Ed Green
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 22:10:27 GMT
In article <5624q2$rf@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
>
>This doesn't mean that the part of Newtonian theory that
>we still use is _based_on_ mysticism, but there are other
>ways of thinking about groups of ideas than as a structure
>of bricks -- one can see them as living beings who combine,
>separate, reproduce, and so forth, and trace their lineages.
Insofar as Newton's talk of "subtle spirits" etc. can
be said to be mystical, I think this mysticism was inherited
and continues to reside in modern science.
From what I gather, Cartesian Mechanism relied on "contact
forces" for the propagation of effects. Even though contact
forces are used in introductory physics courses, and continue
to be a useful concept, they are replaced in foundational
thinking by fields. Everyday contact forces are due to the
electrostatic repulsion of mutually induced dipole moments
in the adjacent bodies. So the "rationalistic" mechanism
of contact forces is explained in terms of "mystical" fields
of influence.
At the deepest level, the forces due to classical fields
are explained in terms of exchange of particles, so
action-at-a-distance is finally banished, but this is
a case of "obscurum per obscurius" if there ever was one!
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: the gravitational wave detection revolution
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:08:51 GMT
Aaron Bishop (awb116@psu.edu) wrote:
: >adona26963@aol.com wrote:
: >: We must discover and utilize technology to
: >: detect gravity waves...
: I've been thinking about a little experiment I saw a while back
: that caught my attention. This one professor took a disk of aluminum,
: rotated it about an axis through its center ( like a record ), then
: placed a magnet above it. What happened was that the magnet somehow
: recieved a slight upwards force.
: I missed his explanation of the phenomenon, so I'll just guess
: that the moving particles of aluminum somehow reflected a portion of
: the magnetic radiation. The faster the atoms travel, the more
: magnet-thingies hit the aluminum, and the more bounce off. Maybe sort of
: like raindrops in a slight drizzle progress to an observed downpour as a
: car is taken from a slow speed to a high velocity ( I know I didn't say
: that well ). The magnetic waves would then fly back up to push on their
: source.
That is somewhat like the way rail guns work, you
can look it up easy enough.
: Why can't the same be done with gravity. I've read that Einstein
: thought the two forces to be one in the same, and they are definitely
: related in many ways... Perhaps the aluminum atoms need only move faster,
: Or maybe a thicker plate needs to be used.
No, it can't be done with gravity, gravity works on
everything, gravity even works when nothing is there to be
"attracted", gravity is the result of matter doing something
to make spacetime coordinates appear to flow into the matter,
and everything, including light is affected by spacetime
curvature.
: Well, even if that does work, I still can't see how you could use it
: to make a detection device, though it would make for a nice accelerator
: on a vehicle. One could set up a kind of uniform gravitational field
: throughout the hull of a ship, thereby causing all occupants and the craft
: itself to change speeds at the same rate, and in a different direction
: from downwards. Since all internal organs would be speeding up together,
: the passengers wouldn't be crushed no matter how far down the pedal was
: pressed.
: Maybe I've been dreaming too much.
Yeah, but it isn't your fault there is so much talk
about gravitational "fields", as if they were something like
magnetic fields, they are not.
I feel bad that that there are people who write books
about wormholes and faster-than-light travel, and anti-gravity,
because it isn't physically possible to use any of that, it is
just science fiction.
There might be faster progress on the things that are
possible if only there wasn't so much of the impossible in
the books.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
Subject: Help with some questions and references
From: wyatt@netcom.com (Wyatt Earp)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:22:14 GMT
Im having an argument with another person (heh, good thing im
not arguing with my self ;-)
And I need a few questions answered, or references where I can
get them answered. Ill ask the questions, and put my answers
below. Please correct me where I am wrong, and feel free to add :-)
Email or followups are ok, please include my whole original text, because
Ill be using you as a source to win my argument (if thats ok with you ;-),
and I want my original questions left in context, and if youd rather just
jump right into a physics discussion between 2 non physicists, we are on
alt.fan.joe-crummey
1) Explain the double slit experiment.
I think it was done by Young, in 1801. He used a single source light and
shined it thru 2 slits. Effectively making 2 light sources which were
coherent (in phase and whatever else). Then he observed the pattern of
dark and light spots (nodes and anti nodes) and he concluded this must be
due to the wave property of the light adding and subtractino of the waves.
Up until this time light was thought of as being particle motion, after
Youngs experiment, light was thought of as both particle and waves. (and
later Michaelson-Morley (1920-30?) showed there was no 'ether' through
which the light wave could propagate, but thats not part of our
discussion...yet)
I probably wouldnt get this completely right on a Physics
test, but am I at least close, and not way off base?
(I looked it up in Selways, Physics for scientists and engineers
3rd ed, its a UC first year physics book)
and, Would this be "classical" or "quantum" physics?
2) Explain Schrodingers Cat idea
It has to do with: given a 50/50 chance of a stimulus going off
and killing a cat in a box. then discuss the chances of the cat
being dead.
3) Have any subatomic particles been observed to travel backwards
in time?
I said none have been observed, but I agree that there are theories
that predict it is possible, however the other person says it has happened.
I was told there is (was?) a person named Feynman, who won the 1965 nobel
prize in Physics, (as I have been told) he completed an experiment that
actually showed a subatomic particle to travel backwards in time (How did
he find it to measure it?) If any of you could explain the experiment, if
there was such, and if it can be replicated.
I have a few more questions, and Im sure the answers to these
will bring up even more. But Ill leave them alone for now :-)
Thanks
Wyatt@netcom.com
--
I'm probably mudding at the Last Outpost (aea16.k12.ia.us 4000)
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: Steven Arnold
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 16:49:41 -0800
Peter Diehr wrote:
>
> Robert. Fung wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > No, as far as I know, you can never be sure that you have only one photon.
> >
> > It's implied that this is the case in this recent work:
> > http://p23.lanl.gov/Quantum/kwiat/ifm-folder/ifmtext.htm
> >
>
> This is an interesting presentation, and by someone who is well
> prepared to delve into this subject. You might try asking him
> the question "what is a photon?" ... but perhaps that is a life's
> work!
>
> The only reference I noticed was in "Step 2: The Quantum Zeno Effect",
> where the diagram shows entry of "One Photon"; in the text there is
> a reference to the probability that a partial photon is present.
>
> I interpret this to mean that they have arranged things so that
> _on average_, there is less than one photon present. But there might
> be one, there might be none, and there might be two.
>
> Best Regards, Peter
Regarding sending a single photon into an apparatus, it depends upon
what your definition of "sure" is. If you are willing to accept some
arbitrarily small probability (other than zero) of having more than one
photon, then it is certainly possible. For example, one of the methods
for determining the fluorescence lifetimes of compounds is the single
photon counting method, in which the fluorescent intensity is reduced to
a level that the probability that more than single photons are being
detected is extremely small.
Steven Arnold
Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Oakland City University
Oakland City, IN
Subject: Re: The history of Gibberish
From: thedavid@clark.net (Ersatz Caligula)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 22:27:49 GMT
-Tom- (gonser@eawag.ch) posted:
: [...] the preferred course of action is to denigrate the other's
: statement as gibberish, or even attack them personally, their
: "gibberish" being considered an affront to one's own intelligence.
: In other words the objective is no longer (if ever it was) to express,
: learn or understand, but rather to triumph over an "adversary". On
: Usenat that seems to be something akin to standard procedure.
GIBBERISH! Oh, that burns me up -- I'm going to have to hunt you down
and torture you now, you blasphemous pedagogue out to poison Usenet with
so-called common-sense empirical observation you!
By the way, your Mommy wears Navy shoes!
Sui Generically,
TheDavid, Nettwit
--
..........................................................................
if i had enough emotion | This Post Copyright (C) 1996 By TheDavid, UnLtd.
IF I HAD ENOUGH EMOTION | http://www.clark.net/pub/thedavid/trythis.html
..........................................................................
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 22:15:11 GMT
weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>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?
>>>>>>>Yes; as much as I don't accuse Aristotelians to be pro-slavery.
>>>>>>Why ever not? Philosophers such as Bernard Williams in _Shame and
>>>>>>Necessity_ -- have made THAT argument. What sort of superiority --
>>>>>>and surely the intellectual variety could be ruled out right away --
>>>>>>entitles you to dismiss them without consideration?
>>>>>You says I haven't considered it? I'm familiar with the argument; it
>>>>>doesn't interest me, and I think it's fallacious. Next thing you'll argue
>>>>>that everybody who thinks Nietzsche is worthwhile will contract syphilis.
>>>>No germ or poison can contaminate reason as much as the belief that some
>>>>men are natural slaves.
>>>So?
>>So your hysterical analogy is quite worthless, as usual.
>Barely established; commit yourself: are all people who respect
>Aristotelian philosophy pro-slavery or not? If not, are all people who
>respect Heidegger's philosophy pro-Nazi or not? If not, do you still have
>a point?
All people who accept Aristotelianism lack the intellectual grounds
for being anti-slavery. All people who accept deconstruction lack the
intellectual grounds for being anti-Nazi. I say this counts as being
morally affected by the ancestral odium.
>>>>>I find much of Heidegger's approach to metaphysics problematic, and I
>>>>>have no interest in constructing apologetic arguments about his
>>>>>involvement with the Nazis -- yes, he was a Nazi, and, yes, part of his
>>>>>philosophy reflects this or is at least connected to it. That does not
>>>>>constitute a critique of his philosophical work yet; it certainly does
>>>>>not constitute a critique of _Derrida's_ philosophical work. As you damn
>>>>>well know.
>>>Response?
>>You know where to find my critique of Derrida's philosophical work.
>No, I don't.
See my responses to Brian Artese in the thread "De la grammatologie".
>>Feel free to join in. In this thread I am exclusively addressing his
>>moral failure. To recap:
>>Derrida:
>>"The word _d�construction_ ... has nothing to do with destruction."
>Have you read Goldman's comments to which Derrida is addressing himself?
No, I haven't. Nor do I care about their content. Derrida's emphatic
"nothing to do" speaks for itself. So does your frenetic scramble for
plausible deniability.
>>Derrida:
>>"Deconstruction ... is simply a question of ... being alert to the
>>implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language which we
>>use."
>Precisely; and you have failed to establish what exactly the historical
>sedimentation of Heidegger's _Destruktion_ would be here. In other words,
>make a case for destructiveness.
Assuming that "X has nothing to do with Y" means that X has nothing to
do with Y, Derrida's claim can be falsified without such hermeneutic
excavations.
>>Gasch�:
>>"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.
>You are again trying to argue from Gasch'e's authority; by now, you
>should have realized that it doesn't work very well.
Works for me just fine. I am a simplistic fellow making a simplistic point.
>>>>>>>>If so, what good is his alleged sensitivity to "historical
>>>>>>>>sedimentation"?
>>>>>>>It's good when it's subtle; your brand is indeed worthless.
>>>>>>Subtlety is no substitute for truth.
>>>>>It's a good approach to it, though.
>>>>It is in no way superior to honest reason as an approach to truth.
>>>Honesty and subtlety are not mutually exclusive; I consider your response
>>>a non-response.
>>You implied that my brand of deconstructing `d�construction' was
>>worthless for want of subtlety. Consider your claim refuted by your
>>own subsequent turn.
>Hardly. You set up a dichotomy between honesty and subtlety; that's
>pathetic. Apart from the fact that nothing you do in these threads is honest.
Speak for yourself. I pointed out a straightforward connection
between deconstruction and destruction. You impugned it for lack of
subtlety. I consider THAT response a non-response.
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>Response?
>I did respond to this; you quote my response below.
You never substantiated your distinction between destruction and dismantling.
>>>>>>>> At any
>>>>>>>>rate, Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace
>>>>>>>>them with -- WHAT?
>>>>>>>Yes, I am -- which is precisely why your objection is so worthless;
>>>>>>>deconstruction is destructive precisely to that degree --- that is,
>>>>>>>it is destructive in such obvious and negligible ways that to point
>>>>>>>out that it is destructive and trying to build your case on it
>>>>>>>bespeaks your vindictive fantasies rather than any understanding
>>>>>>>of what is at stake.
>>>>>>Half of my family was murdered by Heidegger's party comrades. What
>>>>>>makes YOU so sure of your entitlement to the high moral ground in
>>>>>>denouncing my "vindictive fantasies"? What have YOU got at stake?
>>>>>Half of my family belongs to slavic Untermenschen; another part (a small
>>>>>one) is gypsy; my husband is Jewish and my children according to
>>>>>Antisemites the result of Rassenschande -- so what's your point?
>>>>First tell me what entitles you to the high moral ground.
>>>You introduced the terrain; you graze it. Since you introduces your
>>>family history, I introduced mine -- but it's you who seems to think it's
>>>relevant. Explain yourself.
>>I introduced my family history to put in context my moral concerns,
>>which you so charitably characterized as "vindictive fantasies."
>Bullshit. You have given no evidence of "moral concerns" whatsoever;
>being a relative of Nazi victims gives you no intellectual leverage. If
>you have true concerns about a connection between deconstruction and
>Nazism, establish such a connection.
I never arrogated "intellectual leverage". My provenance merely gives
me personal reasons for concern and visceral understanding of what is
at stake. In particular, I have concerns about the avowed connection
between deconstruction and dismantling of the Spirit, Logos, and Reason.
>> As
>>far as I am concerned, your ethnic provenance is irrelevant to moral
>>standing -- but perhaps you feel differently. So answer the question
>>already.
>My ethnic provenance is as irrelevant as yours. Your question is
>disingenuous; I do not claim moral high ground, I'm asking you for an
>argument to sustain your moralisms.
What sort of argument do you require to sustain a straightforward
identification of a self-serving lie as such? In the passage quoted
above, you already identified Derrida's disclaimer as "problematic".
At this point, we are merely quibbling about proper force of epithets.
>>>>>>>"What does he replace them with?" -- Why, do you think philosophy
>>>>>>>is like restocking the shelves in a supermarket? Oh, gee, these
>>>>>>>Wheaties seem stale, let's put some Cheerios in instead? As soon
>>>>>>>as you stop asking "what is" in favor of "what is it good for,"
>>>>>>>you're in trouble. Get your reassurances somewhere else --
>>>>>>>Commentary would probably suit.
>>>>>>What a jolly good show of non-partisan demagoguery. Now would you
>>>>>>kindly point out an instance when I stopped asking "what is" in favor
>>>>>>of "what is it good for"?
>>>>>It's implied in your suggestion that critique should reshelve the
>>>>>metaphysical storehouse.
>>>>Non sequitur. Quidditative inquiry depends on the availability of its
>>>>tools and subject matter alike, as surely as pragmatic concerns depend
>>>>on an expectation of benefit.
>>>So tell us what your point was in the dramatically capitalized "WHAT?"
>>First you answer the question.
>Which question is that?
Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace them
with -- WHAT? Until and unless you can answer this question, your
distinction between destruction and dismantling will remain nugatory.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 01:48:24 GMT
Hardy Hulley wrote:
>Ken MacIver wrote:
>> My line of questioning, as you so quaintly put it, has established by
>> a preponderance of the evidence that you are a fraud and have never
>> read Derrida.
>In other words, after much effort, you're finally ready to deny the
>antecedent. As I have said, whatever reading I have done in formulating
>my argument is unimportant. What you should address is the argument
>itself. If I have indeed never read Derrida, establishing a fallacy
>should be easy (unless, of course, I'm terribly lucky). So, cogitate
>upon the following:
> "[reading] cannot legitimately transgress the text towards something
>other than it, toward a referent (a reality that is metaphysical,
>historical, psychobiographical, etc.) or toward a signified outside the
>text whose content could take place... There is nothing outside of the
>text". (_Of Grammatology_, page 158)
Silke has addressed your above comments succinctly and posed questions
that I think you will be hard pressed to answer. Good luck.
Ken
Subject: philosophy
From: User
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 15:11:49 -0800
Tell me what you think of these philosophies, email me at
amonra@pacbell.net if you like them email them to a friend, or a
publisher.
Crackpot Philosophies of a Teenager
by: Alex Geana
1. A true friend is someone who is always there for you, accepts you
for who you are, does stuff with you, and doesn�t judge. Don�t expect to
find one unless you are one yourself.
2. Don�t argue with anyone angry.
3. True friends are one of life�s great blessings, don�t give one up
without a fight.
4. Appreciate people for just who they are.
5. One does not own a person, don�t try, don�t expect to, and don�t
hope for it subconsciously, it only leads to frustration, and animosity.
6. Match a friends phone calls one for one, unless its a dyer
emergency, or you haven�t in a week and a half.
7. What close friends tell you about yourself is the truth don�t try to
deny it.
8. Every guy has to work out.
9. Don�t expect someone to change unless you are willing to.
10. One will find love, when one doesn�t look.
11. I may not agree with what you have to say. But I will fight like
mad for you to say it. -Voltaire
12. Stand by your friends no matter what.
13. Accept everything.
14. Never give money on a friends birthday, that�s for relatives to do.
Buy a present.
15. God is more merciful than priests make him out to be.
16. There is always something new to learn.
17. The minute you say you are not a hypocrite, you are.
18. Everything sincere sounds corny.
19. You only live once so experience everything. (well almost)
20. Each person has peace inside them, they just have to draw it out.
21. Don�t make a boast unless you can back it up, or are willing to.
22. Women; can�t live with them; can�t live without them.
23. Someone who sees his own mistakes is not doomed to repeat them.
24. When you argue with a friend it doesn�t mean you like each other
any less.
25. Anything that doesn�t kill you; makes you stronger. -Oprah
26. Life has a way of having it�s own time for everything.
27. Every year expect a bad week, every month expect a bad day.
28. Life goes on no matter what.
29. The more you cling the more people shun away.
30. Arguments are interesting, at the time one happens it seems like
the most important thing, But after a while you laugh at what happened.
31. Know who you are, then experiment with the rest.
32. The cosmos dishes out its own revenge, so don�t bather dishing out
your own it will land splat in your face.
33. When guys say its a guy thing, they don�t know what their talking
about either, or it�s to silly to explain.
34. Struggle is the state in which life is lived, so when happiness
comes appreciate it.
35. Give advice only once, more then that it becomes annoying.
36. One never knows how much a person meant to them until they have
lost them.
37. Sometimes the best thing you can do for a friend is listen.
38. Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best, does not apply to
emotions, just hope with all your heart for the best, and maybe it will
happen.
39. Friends are an asset not a necessity.
40. Figure out what you can do in a situation and don�t worry about it
until you can do something.
41. Patience is a virtue, so is forgetting.
42. Pray it works.
43. Write a letter to God when in dought.
44. It�s true in order to notice that people like you, you must have
enough confidence to notice.
45. Never expect more then friendship and you will get far more.
46. There is never a right answer to life, at least not at the moment
you have to make the decision.
47. We laugh because it hurts to much to do anything else.
48. Its easier for a person to figure something out then it is to apply
it.
49. If the foundation is strong everything else can be fixed.
50. Life goes on long after the pain of living is gone.
51. When you write a letter to a friend you are at odds with write
everything you want to say as if they were there.
52. Love a person for just who they are. This applies to every type of
love.
53. One can�t betray someone who didn�t trust them, one can�t hurt
someone who didn�t care.
54. Being an adult means seeing the end of the road, and noticing
exactly how far it is.
55. Being an adult, that�s when, you are in trouble and look around for
help and you are the only one there.
56. One can never truly grow up.
57. If all else fails, listen.
58. If it�s meant to be it will happen, no matter what intervenes, when
it ends it was also meant to be all one can do is learn, and wait.
59. The simpler the lie the better it works.
60. People always learn the lessons life has to offer, especially the
ones that mold there lives the hard way. It never fails, because that
way you remember.
61. There will always be something you can�t do.
62. Music is the power of emotion, as poetry is the word of the soul.
63. Try your best not to say things you know nothing about.
64. Time goes by in a blink of an eye.
65. Only to be.
66. Appreciate Rock for it�s subtle philosophy.
67. Never tell anyone you are ending the relationship, unless you have
thought about it a week before, have reason, and think that your life
will, be better off. Two hours of thought does not count, just when you
utter the words.
Thanks
Alex
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 23:32:37 GMT
In article , moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>
>>> I didn't do anything to the science campers -- they attacked me. And
>>>what's ridiculous is that they attacked me for stating something they're
>>>convinced is a truism. Doesn't speak well for their intelligence, does
>>>it?
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>>Two month and countless posts and you still claim it. I won't even
>>bother using descriptive epithets, , don't think they're needed. But,
>>I'll just mention that claiming that "they are convinced that your
>>statements are truisms" when "they" specifically said otherwise, is a
>>fraud, just like it was when you attributed to me things I didn't say.
>>Got to work a bit on these ethics standards, I would say.
>
> As I recall, you didn't hesitate to rewrite my posts when you found
>yourself in some tight spots.
Your recall is faulty.
> Anyway, Russell, Michael, Jeff and others claimed that my point was
>obvious, called it a cliche, dismissed it as trivial, etc. -- curiously,
>that didn't stop them from disputing it or calling me all sorts of names.
> I don't offhand remember you calling it obvious, but you certainly
>agreed with it -- at least three separate times. Yet for some reason
>you keep changing your mind. I think you ought to figure out what you
>believe and get back to me after you have it sorted out. This is getting
>silly.
>
At least the last statement is true. As for the rest, Dejanews exists
and anybody who still cares (probably an empty set by now) may check
the facts.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
