Newsgroup sci.physics 209816

Directory

Allen Meisner wrote:
> 
>     The crux of the matter is certainly whether we could determine if
> we were at absolute rest. I believe we can, simply because the
> alternative, i.e. that the speed of light can exceed c, is unthinkable.
>
I find this a very strange thing to say.  If you accept the idea that
the causal structure of the universe puts a speed limit on light, which
we call c, then you have already accepted the Theory of Special 
Relativity.
At that point you must abandon the Newtonian and Aristotelian ideas
that allow for super-luminal speeds in the first place.
> If both buoys were at absolute rest, then how can they be moving at any
> velocity whatsoever?
> 
I have yet to see any physical test which would show the buoys
to be at absolute rest.  
Best Regards, Peter

R. Munro wrote:
> 
>         I am currently looking form some physics related humor.  If anybody has a
> good physics joke or story from a lecture or lab, please post.  I hope to
> eventually post them on my web page for all people interested in physics to
> enjoy.
Check out my .sig below.  It gives 4 of my own pages, plus links to 34 other pages 
of physics related humor.  Let me know when your page is up, I'm always looking for 
more to add.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
|    http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html                |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

In an article, David Kaufman wrote:
>          Why Does Flow Increase Dramatically
>           When The Temperature Is Increased?
> 
> Temperature |  Viscosity   | Density | Relative
>  (Celsius)  | (Centipoise) | (g/ml)  | Flow Time
> ------------|--------------|---------|----------
>      0 C    |    1.794     | 0.9999  |  6.055

>    100 C    |    0.284     | 0.9584  |  1.000
> 
>         By dividing the viscosity units by their densities, 
> relative times for a given quantity of water to flow shows 
> the dramatic change in flow from 0 to 100 C above.
   This does seem correct dimensionally - viscosity has units of N s m^-2,
and density kg/m^3 (I prefer mks to cgs), so viscosity / density has units
of
m^2/s, which if you assume a unit cross section pipe gives you units of
1/s. But this is not the "flow time", (as in for flow in a closed pipe),
but a "relaxation time" for viscous effects. Flow is controled by several
other things, and is in general very insensitive to such slight changes in
viscosity (in large pipes - in capillary tubes viscous effects become
important).
>         What did the heat do to the water molecules to make the
> molecules role over each other so much faster?
   Increased their kinetic energy (heat), thereby making their
nearest-neighbor interactions slightly weaker.
>         This is a situation that I am hoping to explore in 
> terms of cubic chunks of water molecules rotating.
   This seems to be a rather odd concept - water is a fluid, and treating
it as a "cubic chunk" is something that is only done (to my knowledge) to
calculate floe integrals.
>         Only a small fraction of the energy absorbed between 0 
> C and 100 C by the water goes into raising its temperature. 
>         Of the 1.2538E-20 Joules/molecule absorbed, 2.0710E-21 
> J/molecule went for temperature as kinetic energy of 
> vibration and translation.  
>         I calculate that about 1.1E-21 J went into potential 
> energy of expansion.
   Please state how you calculated these numbers - where you got the
"energy absorbed", as well as the rest.
> ...kinetic energy of rotating water chunks... 
> ...rotating kinetic energy...
   Are you refering to tubulence? This is a contribution to fluid flow,
and it is influenced by the viscosity (through the Reynolds number), but
I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.
                                          -Brian Davis

In article <573f29$1l1@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Allen Meisner
 writes
>    Here is a thought experiment that will decide the matter. You are
>traveling in a spaceship at 1000 meters per second. In the nose of the
>spaceship is a laser that operates in a pulse mode. The laser is
>pointed in the direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of
>the spaceship. At time t=0 the laser begins to emit pulses of light.
>One hour later the ship has traveled 72,000,000 meters. Will the first
>pulse of light still be aligned with the nose of the spaceship at this
>time. To claim so would be, and is, preposterous.
Consider that instead of a pulse of light I throw a ball perpendicular to the
direction of the space ship, what will be observed?
-- 
Ian G8ILZ
I have an IQ of 6 million,  |  How will it end?  | Mostly
or was it 6?                |  In fire.          | harmless

In article , Gordon Long  wrote:
>In article <572pj0$5s5@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>,
>-Mammel,L.H.  wrote:
>>( those are supposed to be ovals half as side as they are long )
>>The rotations are in the same sense, but 180 degrees out of phase.
>>The maximum excursion from the CM is twice the initial displacement,
>>and the period is 1/2 the CM orbital period!
>
>  Interesting.  I went back to the textbook I used for classical 
>mechanics (Goldstein), and tried to work out the equations of motion 
>for the Kepler problem to first order in eccentricity.  The general
>analytic solutions are a bit complicated, but they aren't too bad if
>you drop all higher order terms. For example, the radial part looks like
>  r(t) = a(1 - e*cos(psi)), 
>where a is the semimajor axis (equal to GMm/2E, where E is the object's 
>energy), e is the eccentricity,  and Psi is a rather complicated 
>expression:
>  psi = wt + sum{J(ne) sin(wt)}
This is the inversion of the simple formula:
wt = psi - e * sin psi
It can be easily solved numerically by iterating:
 psi = wt + e*sin psi
Two iterations starting from psi=0 give:
 psi = wt
 psi = wt + e * sin wt
>  So, to first order in eccentricity, both r(t) and theta(t) seem to
>be periodic, and give closed orbits.  I haven't performed the coordinate
>transformations to the shuttle system, however, so I'm not sure what
>these expressions will be in that frame.
Just use the formulas for x and y in terms of psi. With a shuttle
position of X = cos t, Y = sin t. And an object position given by
X+x, Y+y, we have:
psi = t + e*sin t + psi_0 = t + delta ,  delta << 1
y+Y =  sin psi  =  sin t * cos delta + sin delta * cos t
 ->  sin t + delta * cos t 
x+X =  cos psi - e  =  cos t * cos delta - sin t * sin delta - e 
->  cos t - delta * sin t - e 
so x -> (- psi_0 - e*sin t) * sin t - e
	= - psi_0* sin t - e/2 * ( 3 - cos 2t  )
   y -> ( psi_0 + e*sin t) *cos t
	= psi_0*cos t + e/2 * sin 2t
at t=0, we have the initial conditions x = -e, y = psi_0 ;
vx = -psi_0 , vy = e
Note we have satisfied the periodicity condition x = -vy. The
extra condition y = -vx just fixes the phase ( and position )
of the orbit. So all the qualitatively different orbits are
included. Note that they are a combination of full period and
half period motions.
Note also that with psi_0 = 0, we get the "oval" orbit I
described, except that the "oval" is a circle! I misread
my simulator output, where y varied between +/- 0.0005 and
x varied between 0.001 and 0.002.
So where is this in a book? You'd think it would be.
Lew Mammel, Jr.

>Sorry, but there are many observable consequences, one of which is the
>fact that you will (absolutely) age slower if you travel (absolutely)
>faster.  This is a very significant consequence that could allow
>interstellar travel.
[discussion of how measurements by diferent observers vary according
 to their relative speeds]
You say "absolute", yet every example you give is of the effects
of relative velocity as used in relativity. This is just an oddball
definition of "absolute", not new physics. We've been down that
road with the model-maker who didn't like the definition of the
word "mass", and others.
Sheesh. Give it an "absolute" rest, guys.

>Now see if i can make this reappear.........
>      c_m = 1/(mu * epsilon)^.5 
>        where  mu   = the magnetic permeability of THE MEDIUM.
>        and epsilon = the electric permittivity of THE MEDIUM.
>        and c_m = the velocity of light relative to THE MEDIUM.
>Good. Now, if you don't mind being my assistant
>for this trick; would you please SHOW EVERYONE THE MISTAKE.....
"Mistakes", plural. In the first two statements you have mis-spelled 
"vacuum" as "THE MEDIUM", and mis-spelled "observer" as "THE MEDIUM" 
in the third. You're welcome. 

brian artese wrote:
> 
> Hardy Hulley wrote:
> 
>> Regardless of this, however, Brian is still guilty of petitio 
>> principii - he is assuming what he has to establish by argument.
> 
> What are you talking about?  I'm trying to *remove* excess effluvia 
> from the inherited schema of intent --> author --> text --> reader --> 
> intent -- I'm not bringing into the picture anything you're not 
> assuming yourself.
You made at least two crucial assumptions: intent can be articulated,
and the author doesn't successfully write down the proper articulation
of his intent. Ergo, you're begging the question.
I cannot recall ever having made these assumptions myself.
> You'll find, in fact, that your argument about intent living 'in' the
> author's 'consciousness' somewhere -- an intent that is not any 
> particular articulation -- depends in the final analysis on the logical 
> mistake of "I think therefore I am" -- which *is* an example of 
> positing the conclusion in the premise (i.e., the "I" is posited into 
> existence before the 'therefore' ever hits the scene).
Claiming that "Cogito, ergo sum" is guilty of petitio principii is not
really accurate. As Kant pointed out, the argument fails because
"exists" cannot be regarded as a predicate. How any of this is related
to the matters of intent and consciousness is not clear. Perhaps you'd
care to elaborate.
Cheers,
Hardy

| ...
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| >Revile away, Walker; I'm shaking in my boots.
C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth):
| Looking in my little nondescript dictionary with the front cover
| torn off, I don't see any definition under revile that reads
| remotely like, 'revile:  to request of a person or persons proof
| of the veracity of their statements.'
You would have done better to look at your not-so-little
nondescript article (which I referred to in the article
quoted above) which reads, in part, as follows:
|| Nor do you make any effort to spare more reputable sources than
|| yourself insult; already you have claimed that it is not well
|| known that Feynman is mediocre at best and that Scientific
|| American has been 'thoroughly discredited,' whatever that means
|| in your personal lexicon.  This too is a signature of sorts, the
|| hallmark of those reviled creatures collectively known as trolls,
|| the profile of which you fit remarkably well.
See it?  Second line from the bottom, fourth word from the
left: past passive participle of _revile_.  I was making
fun of your use of the word.
| This will be my last post on this matter unless you have something
| useful to contribute, so feel free to revile my motivations ;-)
I think your present motivations probably include a
praiseworthy discretion.  I do regret that the former
slaggers of the _Scientific_American_ have not come
forward at this time to engage your enthusiasm for it,
but one can't have everything.  If they do -- or if I
suddenly develop a yen to "prove" anecdotes about my
internal states of mind -- I'll give you a call.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

>An aether would represent an absolute frame of reference.
It would be, yes. None has ever been detected, of course, despite
dedicated searches by talented people who expected to find one.
[Newton's bucket, Mach's principle]
As for this, someone else has already pointed out that "frame
dragging" does not care about the presence or absence of any
other masses, at any distance. 

(-Mammel,L.H.):
|> >>The condition on objects having
|> >>a periodic motion wrt each other is v^2/2-k/r = constant. For
|> >>objects with a small displacement, x,y;vx,vy from X,Y;VX,VY
|> >>and with initial condition X=VY=1, Y=VX=0 , the condition for
|> >>periodic motion is vy = -x, to first order.
Mati:
|> >Yep.  But don't forget that motion can be periodic in each dimension 
|> >separately (as indeed you expect fro small displacements) without 
|> >being periodic overall.  In fact the equations of motion in this case 
|> >reduce to a coupled Mathieu pair, which is only guaranteed 
|> >quasi-periodic.
(-Mammel,L.H.):
|> The relative motion of two objects with periodic motions of
|> the same period, is obviously periodic with that period as well.
|> Things like this make you look like a big blowhard, IMHO.
I looked at a few of the previous posts and couldn't figure out 
why Mati's point makes him sound like a "blowhard".  Generally, 
the degenerate points where the two frequencies satisfy
                m omega_1 + n omega_2 = 0
are the linear (m,n integer), and nonlinear (m,n relativley prime) 
resonances of an arbitrary 2 DOF system.  These are the centres of 
KAM tori for the fully nonlinear problem.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, the 22nd of November, 1996
I think it was Ken who said:
  Ah, but doctors (M.D. that is) claimed the title when the world was
  created, the most brilliant marketers of all time: the rest are just
  academics.
I guess I would have said that the academics were the true doctors---
in the original sense of "doctors of the church", a doctor being
one who has been certified capable of holding a right (orthodox)
opinion. I suspect that physicists are closer in spirit to this
tradition than physicians, technically members of a profession.
                Mike Morris
           (msmorris@inetdirect.net)

In article <5700hr$pct@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Silke-Maria  Weineck  wrote:
>
>lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>: Im Artikel <56v7md$g0i@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
>: (Silke-Maria  Weineck) schreibt:
>
>: >: >    Finally, and most interesting, *philosophically we are
>: >: >completely wrong* with the approximate law. 
>: >: ....
>: >: > _The Feymann Lectures on Physics_, Volume I, pp. 1-1 - 1-2,
>: >[lbsys]:
>: >: Hmm, I thought those lectures where by a physicist about
>: >: physics, no? It's a nice quote,  and F. sure  was a great 
>: >: man, but a lousy philosopher (IMHO).
>: >
>: >I'm flabbergasted... May I call _this_ one a desperate rhetorical
>: gesture?
Dear bitchy Silke, you may take this for a compliment, but wouldn't
calling something "a desperate rhetorical gesture" be the sum
cummulative total contribution of your kind to all of humanity's works?
So knock your self out silly! The whole of Existence is one fucked up
rhetorical gesture Ackermanned! And where the hell has Matthew Weiner
been without his "DUH!" on these threads! Believe it or not, we need him
here and now most.
[trim]
>What's wrong with being bitchy? It's a trait I cherish in friends and 
>foes alike. Do you want to know what people say about you behind your 
>back? Didn't think so.
"You are retarded on top of being a Bitch."
Because you record your bitchiness for future generations.
Provided, of course, someone asks what Silke was like.
Indeed, that's all you've had to offer Usenet --- bitchiness.
Be proud! Stand tall! You're immortal now. Immortally Bitch(y).
Damn, I hope my grammar captures my intent.
Damn, the words better not betray me now!
Psst Hamilton, *where's* that retardation potential function again?
[Mercilessly cuTT] In fact,  In fact,  In fact,... Nevermind. 
>Getting more desperate... The claim went, "Feynman is a lousy 
>philosopher," the modification went "(imho)." Trying to cover your ass. 
Why can't you understand a simple insignificant fact. Calling a person 
a name doesn't make him/her become that name's significance! About the
worst thing I can say about your debating habits and countless threads,
with their demonstratably lack of significant MEANINGFUL contribution,
is that "Silke is Silke"! See, there's no good anywhere in there. And
since it's text in writing, it must necessarily mean SOMETHING! Go
figure.
And *if* you understand this insignificant fact, why apply it!!! Argh.
[Mercilessly cuTT] In fact,  In fact,  In fact,... Nevermind. 
>	This wouldn't be worthy of comment if you hadn't been the one 
>harping on other people's competences.
 G R O W     U P. You Silke have harped on people here plenty!!!
 Your inability to recognize Competence doesn't make it nonexistent.
 For sanity's sake, you teach at UoPenn! That's *teach*!
 And they ask me why I bang my head against the wall! Why I drink!
 Having bitched myself... I am satisfied and now must leave.
 This message has been a rhetorical exercise, a rhetorical test.
 If actual intentions and meanings were exchanged, DEAL WITH IT. :-)
 Mahipal |meforce>	http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/
 Happy Thanksgiving and a Merry Christmas and a brave New Year to all.

In article , columbus@pleides.osf.org (Michael Weiss) writes:
>Charles Torre takes issue with Mati Meron's comment that "there is no
>such thing as Newtonian Theory of Gravitation."
>
>I had a long-running e-mail discussion with Mati, over whether
>Ptolemaic astronomy was a "predictive theory".  (Mati says no, I say
>yes.)  Turns out that we agreed about practically everything but
>terminology.
>
>Wouldn't surprise me if this is a similar kettle of fish.
>
I would practically bet on it.  And I see these little differences as 
very beneficial, they are a stimulus, for all of us, to clarify to 
ourself the meaning of various notions we're using.
>By the way, don't just say that Mati's terminology is *wrong*.  It
>is carefully chosen, and reflects substantial thought on what science
>is all about.  Further defense of it I leave to Mati.
Thank you.  I'll try to clarify a bit.  It ties to what I wrote about 
the issue of generalizations and why a generalization may be a 
revolutionary act even though looking backwards there seems to be a 
smooth path leading from the old to the new.  The key issue is that 
generalizations are by no means "obvious".  You reach a point where 
you can't just keep developing previous ideas, a decision is needed.  
Sort of "mental crossroads".  And it may not be obvious at all, a 
priori, which path to pick.  That's the point where the "touch of 
genius" is needed.
So, before it seems that I go to far off on a tangent, to me a new 
theory begins at such a "branching point" where decisons are made and 
new concepts and ideas introduced (or, possibly, previous concepts 
acquiring a quite different meaning).  With Newton, the Three Laws are 
such a point (in physics, then you could separately point to calculus 
in math), there is no doubt that there you witness the birth of a new 
theory.
OK, so how about gravitation.  Once the laws of motion were there, 
what else was needed.  An assumption that the planetary orbits have 
something to do with some force?  Yes, but Newton was already 
committed to the idea that any motion where the velocity changes (i.e. 
specifically, any orbit) is the result of some force.  An assumption 
of universality?  Yes, but Newton was already committed to 
universality too, his laws were already stated as universal, not 
something valid only in Southern England.  So, there was no need for 
new assumption or ideas, only taking the ideas that were already 
embodied in the laws of motion and applying them to the existing set 
of observations which were compiled in such an elegant form in 
Keppler's Laws (I wonder whether Keppler ever realized what an 
amazingly good job he did there).  That's why I don't see Newtonian 
Gravitation as an independent theory, only as an (natural) development 
within Newtonian Mechanics.
Lets look at another example, the Electromagnetic Theory.  Does
Coulomb's Law represent a new theory.  No, it is just an empirical 
finding for yet another form of force.  After all, there is no place 
in Newtonian mechanics that says "Thou shalt have no other forces".  
In fact the whole issue of what forces there can exist was left by 
Newton wide open, to be found later.  So where does the EM theory 
start.  To my mind, with Maxwell's Equations (though that was the 
culmination point only, Faraday deserves lots of the credit too).  
There these quantities, electric and magnetic fields, took a life of 
their own and became actual physical quantities, having independent 
existance and propagating through space, not just the "something you 
plug the charge into to obtain force".
Now, I've seen claims that my concept of "theory" doesn't quite agree 
with the standard concept.  Sure, it is but my opinion.  There really 
is no standard definition of "theory" in science and I don't think 
there is even a need for a standard definition.  So, I repeat, what I 
do is to express my opinions and they should be taken as such.  You may 
recall that I wrote not long ago that "when scientist is talking about 
science, what he says is not an autoritative statement, just an opinion".
I trust nobody thinks that I hold myself exempt from this rule.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) writes:
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> No, it won't be measurable, in a small enough elevator.  The 
>> difference will be of the order of 
>> 
>>         g * (l/R)^2
>> 
>> where g is the acceleration of gravity at the height you're, l is the 
>> length of the elevator and R your distance from the center of the 
>> earth.  At a near earth orbit location, the l/R ratio will be around 
>> 1e-7.  Substitute in the above and see what you get.
>
>Didn't Robert Forward design a sensitive gizmo for detecting it, even
>on smaller scales than this? (It's described in Misner, Thorne, and
>Wheeler's _Gravitation_, I think.)
>
I remember something in this direction but I don't think it was quite 
that sensitive yet.  Anybody has an MTW at hand to look it up?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>
>moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) 
>
>>>   Mati:  "If it  would've been just a straightforward development from 
>>>the existing theory it wouldn't have been a revolution."  Mati, again:
>>>"Did somebody ever say that it wasn't a revolution?"  Well, somebody
>>>has now.
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu 
>
>>You may not recall that I've also specifically stated that said 
>>revolution didn't involve an overthrow of the old ideas.  Simply put, 
>>yes, there was a revolution and yes, there was continuity.
>
>   A revolution,  but _not_ an overthrow.   Oh.  You missed  your day:
>since the era of sail ended, there hasn't been nearly so much call for
>trimmers.
>
Was there anything unclear in what I said?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
>|> >Feynman, as I have pointed out, thought philosophers were "particularly 
>|> >inane" (the exact words from "Surely You're Joking").  The philosophical 
>|> >statement that an "approximation is wrong" is similarly inane, unless the 
>|> >approximation is wrong.  
moggin:
>|> Of course, that's not what Feynman said.  Minor detail, right?
>Quite right. [...]
   Good.  Then we can move on.
Jeff:
>|> >How much physics moggin knows was apparent by the content of his 
>|> >argument. Moggin's gibberish has nothing to do with Feynman's 
>|> >overall postition on approximation.  Really, nothing. 
moggin:
>|> Except that they're the same.  Otherwise, nothing in common.
>Ah, so its (moggin and Feynman) vs. (Jeff)
>Let me ask you, moggin and Feynman, at what energy will the synchrotron 
>radiation from a charge moving in a magnetic field, calculated in the 
>nonrelativistic approximation, differ by 1% from the relativistic 
>calculation?  Does it depend on the field strength?
   I'll let Richard handle that, if he's a mind to -- personally, I 
don't think he should bother, since it's not germane, but maybe
he'd enjoy a chat.  (Is he still alive?  Well, maybe he'd enjoy a
chat, either way.)
>For that matter, is the relativistic calculation good?  After all, 
>we know SR is WRONG -- and thus the definition of synchrotron 
>radiation is based on an incorrect world-view!  [...]
   Well, I don't want to speak for Richard (we haven't even met),
but I've made it clear I was taking Einstein as given.  You're not 
required.
-- moggin

bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>Sorry, but there are many observable consequences, one of which is the
>fact that you will (absolutely) age slower if you travel (absolutely)
>faster.  This is a very significant consequence that could allow
>interstellar travel.
>
	Many relativistycs think that we can't put our system of
reference in the rocket because this isn't un inertial system of
reference (because it nedd acceleratons), but then, where is valid
inertial system in this Universe? I think that all things in our
universe receive accelerations (for gravity  or centripetal forces).
	To find un inertial system we need to erase all the matter in
the space and then we have got the "absolute space": the unique real
inertial system. And then we have got the "absolute motion".
>Another consequence is the fact that all observer's clocks are set
>differently in SRT in direct proportion to each observer's (absolute)
>speed.  
	Then we have got the "absolute time" in the "absolute space".
	Tell me what do you think about it, please friends.
	SALUDOS DESDE ESPAÑA.
Angel Torregrosa.
angelto@cot.es
angelto@idecnet.com (temporal)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5514/

	For many years the Big Bang theory has been fraught with
difficulties.  Some of these difficulties have been overcome with ever
increasing complexity, giving rise to new problems.  It is therefore
suprising that the Big Bang theory has survived Ocham s ax.  Proponents of
the theory are quick to point out Hubble s discovery of the expanding
universe, and it is a convincing argument-- so convincing that theorists
are willing to invent outlandish schemes to make the Big Bang feasible. 
Obviously, the only way to be rid of the Big Bang is to interpret the
redshift of light in another manner.  
	Unfortunately, there is very little that might explain this
redshift.  The best answer is the absurd:  light is redshifted as a
natural effect of space.  It would be very difficult to prove this
assertion due to the vast distances required to affect light.  Unless
extremely accurate equipment is invented, I do not see this point as
provable.  However, it is not a far stretch of the imagination to assume
that this effect might affect matter as well.
	When considering the possibility that matter might be affected by
the same effect as light is affected, it would be helpful to consider the
high velocities of ions entering the earth s atmosphere.  As yet these
high velocities have eluded explanation.  Once again the best explanation
is the absurd:  the change in velocity of matter is directly proportional
to the distance it traverses through space.  Consequently the frequency of
matter must increase as it travels through space.  It would then follow
that:
d=k(f-f0)
d=km(v-v0)^2 / h
a=d / t^2=h / km
F=h / k
	This could be put to the test by electrons moving through a field.
 I would presume that the field would have to be somewhat strong, but
should be within our technology.
Questions?  Comments?  Write me at grundlos@aol.com

Friday, the 22nd of November, 1996
Jeff Inman writes:
  I guess this conceit is the main reason I'm inclined to take the
  (seemingly) "anti-science" perspective, in this type of debate.  I
  have no problem with an application of the analytical method now and
  again, but the optimistic premise that it is the path to the end of
  suffering, or to peace, etc, etc, seems to me to have been thoroughly
  disproven by now.  
Boy, do you have me stereotyped. I would be the very last person
on earth to claim that science is the way to eradicate human suffering.
What I said (and we could easily retrieve the quote if necessary) is
that a light donning of "alternative truth" bears an *ethical* price.
Not that it is the source of all suffering, but that it adds
unnecessarily to the suffering we already bear. I do think the
problem of credulity is much larger than it is given credit for. For
instance, I would make the bald assertion that the problem of racism
in the United States pales by comparison.
The "ain't shit" sounded like you were saying that *I* granted
no human worth to those who disagree. Since the heart of
Enlightenment liberal political philosophy is to grant equal
worth of soul to all human beings, regardless of disagreement,
it is this possibly unintended inflection to which I was
responding. But, of course, granting "worth of soul" is a far 
different thing than coming around to buy an airline ticket.
Jeff:   
  As the alchemists would say, one has to be able both to analyze 
  and to compose.  Hmmm.  The translation could be better.  I 
  expect you'll get the point though.  Maybe that's not a very 
  good pointer, because you'll just rejoin with something about 
  science involving both deduction and induction, which wasn't 
  quite what I meant.
Look, induction and deduction were not what I was thinking.
But I object loudly to the imputation that science is merely 
the cold, rational breaking up of all that is beautiful and
whole in creation (as though even reason were "cold"!). It seems
to me rather profoundly creative. And not just of aeroplanes,
but I mean that Rutherford's planetary model of the atom, for 
instance, is the result of a deeply human and personal relationship 
with the universe on a par with Leonardo's "Lady with a Stoat".
(Again, I point here to Jacob Bronowski's _Science and Human 
Values_.)
Perhaps now would be a good point to repeat my Feynman story,
or rather the Feynman story told to me by Marcus, a fellow
graduate student when I was at Caltech. Marcus was London
cockney and told me that he had grown up trying to get his
"Mum" interested in physics. Nothing doing, except once she
caught the BBC/PBS special on Feynman and she seemed real 
enthusiastic about Feynman. So, when Marcus got to Caltech,
the first thing he did was knock up Feynman and ask him to
write a little note to Marcus' mother to try to get her
interested in physics. Feynman sent her a postcard saying,
"Dear Mrs. Chown, Don't listen to your son. Physics isn't
important, love is. Regards, Dick Feynman"
Of course there's more Truth than science can give, even in my
philosophy. But my philosophy says first of all that yes, there 
*is* Truth. It also says science can give some of it. And my 
experience tells me that even this isn't easy.
                    Mike Morris
              (msmorris@inetdirect.net)

Check out the latest in alternate energy source info!
Visit www.keelynet.com !!

"Michael S. Morris" :
>>>[...]  It *is* perfectly thinkable
>>>that alternative metaphysical domains lead to other types of
>>>truth. I just think you don't appreciate how much truth goes
>>>into building an aeroplane, or a birch-bark canoe, for that
>>>matter. There is a lot of historical development behind both.
>>>And I also think you don't appreciate the *ethical* danger in
>>>advocating "alternative truth" without having first done the
>>>12,000 years or so of homework necessary to demonstrate its
>>>viability vis-a-vis human beings. My worry is that people will die
>>>and suffer for being too credulous about pseudostuff.
moggin:
>>   While the genuine item is just better living through chemistry
>>and power too cheap to meter.
Michael:
>>> I believe
>>>this happens even as we speak---not so much with respect to 
>>>aeroplanes, but certainly with respect to "repressed memories
>>>of satanic ritual abuse", or "faith healing", or homeopathy
>>>and lots of similar quackery. I am saying not that alternative?
>>>truth doesn't exist, but that we shouldn't put such clothes
>>>on lightly.
moggin:
>>   Of course not --but the outfit that you're wearing is a fashion
>>disaster.
Michael:
>Well, you and I read it differently, then.
   Or perhaps we have different tastes in clothes.
>I am of the
>opinion that the outfit I'm wearing (not just science, 
>mind you, but the whole program of Enlightenment liberal 
>political philosophy) is the *only* one going that tells 
>why men should not be enslaved.
   Obviously you know what you like in your wardobe, and
you don't hesitate to admire your reflection in the mirror.
>Again, you might perfectly well be capable of building
>aeroplanes in a different way. I'm just not buying a ticket
>on your airline until I see it fly.
   I'm not the friendly skies, so I don't give a shit.  But as
I tried to point out before, your planes crash.  And worse 
still, there's a run in your hose.
-- moggin

Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Capella wrote:
> > This is Isaiah talking about himself, not a future sacrificial lamb. He is
> > describing himself as the servant of the Lord.
>
>  "But He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
>  iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His
>  stripes we are healed."
>
> And you think that is Isaiah talking about himself?!?
Not me. Read Isaac Asimov's guide to the Bible.
You snipped 2 lines out of the context of my argument just like Isaiah 53 
has been taken completely out of it's true context: talking about concerns 
of the Babylonian exile, not some saviour that was 7 centuries down the line.
> --
> Judson McClendon
> Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Cheers
-- 
Capella         
Dallas, Texas

Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Capella wrote:
> > This is Isaiah talking about himself, not a future sacrificial lamb. He is
> > describing himself as the servant of the Lord.
>
>  "But He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
>  iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His
>  stripes we are healed."
>
> And you think that is Isaiah talking about himself?!?
Not me. Read Isaac Asimov's guide to the Bible.
You snipped 2 lines out of the context of my argument just like Isaiah 53 
has been taken completely out of it's true context: talking about concerns 
of the Babylonian exile, not some saviour that was 7 centuries down the line.
> --
> Judson McClendon
> Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Cheers
-- 
Capella         
Dallas, Texas

  Today was laundry day for me. I enjoy washing my clothes. My shirts
are in the majority white shirts and so I scrubb them with a scrubb
brush around the collars and cuffs. Most people use an oxidant like
bleach but do not like bleach for it eats away the cotton content. The
reason I point this out is evident below.
It was in one of those Vietnam movies I watched where a soldier said
words to the effect. "Why do you think they recruit young men, not
because they are in the best shape physically, but because they are so
weak in the mind that they do not know what the hell they are getting
into until it is too late."
Now that is partially true, because a teenager or a soldier in their
20s is apt to fall for these trite and political buffoonery slogans and
go off and fight a political war and get killed in it. Whereas older
people tend to weigh things, reflect on them and think about them as
reasonable or sensible before "running off" to war.
> 
> Subject:      Re: Archimedes Plutonium   (RE: Vietmath War; France
> arms)
> From:         David Madore 
> Date:         1996/11/21
> Message-Id:   <32947E29.167EB0E7@clipper.ens.fr>
> References:   <56oe90$f4u@mark.ucdavis.edu>
> <570oun$3kd@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Cc:           collins@ens.fr
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
> Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:   sci.math,sci.physics,sci.logic
> X-Mailer:     Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.4 sun4m)
> 
> 
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Really quite simple.
> > 
> >     Peano Axioms
> > postulate 1: ..
DM> I guess that is "0 is not the successor of a natural".
> > postulate 2: ..
DM> I guess that is "any nonzero natural is a successor".
> > postulate 3: ..
DM> I guess that is "two different naturals have different successors".
> > postulate 4: Successor  written as a SERIES
DM> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean there. Could you afford
DM> to write a complete sentence? Do you perhaps mean to say that when
DM> a0,a1,a2,... are natural numbers then a0+a1+a2+... is also a
natural
DM> number or something? But anyway, how do you define the sum of a
series
DM> of natural numbers?
> > postulate 5: Mathematical Induction
> > 
I set those as traps for you David, knowing that you would fall into
them, face forward.
I did not like the arrogance of your first post. You are young, dumb
and arrogant, but you will grow out of it. And some day you will thank
me for this post but it will be 20 years from now.
I set the above to show you that math is not your cup of tea and that
you do not belong in mathematics at all. Probably not even in the
sciences but that you are better placed in the arts, something like a
French-English teacher, although you cannot even tell the difference
between "advice" and "attack".
To start a Peano Axiom system the first postulate would be the
existence of something. The existence of an entity or entities.
Something like this.
P1 :  There exists a number call it ....0000. and another different
number call it  ....000001.
Once you have two numbers you have a way of creating other numbers from
those two numbers.
P2 : .....0001 is the successor of ....0000
Here you need to talk about an operation, that of addition.
P4 :  By SERIES adding  ...0001 to ...00001 all other new numbers are
created.
Now, why in the world would you David, think that this is the first
Peano postulate?
> >     Peano Axioms
> > postulate 1: ..
DM> I guess that is "0 is not the successor of a natural".
To get up a flight of stairs, do you David Madore start with step 67 ?
Why not start with step 1 or is that too mathematical for you? The
point is that the Peano axioms have a ordering which you do not seem to
have yet realized.
Now to some readers, this may sound like I am coming down too hard on
David Madore. I think not for he starts his first post to me as some
childish juvenile intention.
David Madore writes:
>
>Disclaimer: it is up to the reader of this message to discover
>for himself where the :-) sign should be inserted. HINT: the set
>of such places is non empty.
>
>     Mr Archimedes Plutonium,
  I have never met you David, your house or ever been to France, but
with your two posts to the NET, I have these guesses about you. You
have a maid and you are very dirty. In fact your room probably looks
like a pig sty with left-over food hanging around. You probably have
other people clean up after you and the only time you ever clean
anything is when your mother demands you to clean up after yourself.
You probably throw paper towels into urinals, being lazy and maid cared
for all your life.
  Me, on the other hand  as a comparison has a very tidy room. I never
have food laying around. In fact, I do not often eat in my rented room
because I hate to have a single crumb on the floor. I am one who
believes that cupboards are a rodent and insect grocery store and so
any food I have around the house is inside a plastic containers
airtight and bug/rodent proof. In my room, I know where everything is.
In fact , I am so clean that I cannot tolerate messy people. And I bet
all of the famous mathematicians were clean and orderly people. It is
almost impossible to be good in physics or math and be a worldly slob.
I am a perfectionist and being a perfectionist lends to my being good
in physics, and the sciences and math.
  I am just guessing the above David, that you are a untidy person from
your 2 posts. And I would not be surprized that you smoke, gamble and
chase women and drive a car with a boombox in it.  So I may be wrong,
but I think not. I am thinking back to when I was in University and
when I was in my 20s. And one thing that is very clear, is that I would
not have posted to the Net as a brash and arrogant person like you
David with your pathetic 2 posts, because I had no "big or good new
idea-- Atom Totality theory". If I had posted at all when I was in my
teens or 20s, it would have been only a question or two. I would have
posted a question to a Mr. Plutonium, my name would have been Ludwig
Hansen in my teens or 20s and a Ludwig Hansen would have posted
something like this to a Mr. Plutonium.
  Mr. Plutonium,  If you have the time , please show me how to divide
about ten 10-adic strings with each other and having at least 20 digits
each. I need the practice. Thanks
> 
> If you mean to say that postulates 1 and 5 are not valid in the
> realm of p-adics, you certainly are right.
> 
  I say much much more, but you David Madore are too ignorant about
mathematics for me to want to continue any discussion with you. 
  One of the things I say is this.
   Complex = Euclidean Geometry
    P-adics = Riemannian Geometry
  Doubly Infinites = Lobachevskian Geometry
  Which is all way too deep for your little math mind David. In fact, I
bet you cannot even do this simple p-adic arithmetic. Divide these two
10-adics and then divide them as 94-adics only the 94 adics where the
digits if less than 94 are the numbers-- and if you do not know what I
mean here you don't know adics.
  ....26252423222120191817161514131211109876543210. and 
  ....172. (e written backwards)
and these two
  ....26252423222120191817161514131211109876543210. and 
  ....413. (pi written backwards)
 Try using your simple High School book by Kurt Mahler to help you.
> 
> Mathematics is not concerned with existence in that sense. It is quite
> possible that you are right and that Finite Integers do not exist in
> any physical sense; but that is not relevant as far as mathematics is
> concerned. Mathematics has long since studied all sorts of objects
> which do not have any physical existence.
> 
 Try preaching your bonehead philosophy in sunday school. You missed
your calling David, you should go into philosophy or religion where you
can sit in the yogi position all day and blow bubbles with your
friends, while your mother cleans out our pig sty of a room.
> Besides, if mathematicians had only concerned themselves with
> physically
> existing objects, mathematicians would not have studied p-adics,
> because
> before you came almost nobody thought they were useful. One can never
> know, you see?
> 
 Or perhaps the mathematics of Angels flights to keep the Sun in orbit
to the Earth.
 Or the mathematics of fire breathing dragons shape of fire.
  Kid, put on 20 years of work experience before you make yourself a
clown in front of the world audience. I remember seeing a picture in a
book about France , about a famous girl saloon place in France where
they had show girls-- White Horse? perhaps the name. Get a job at the
White Horse, David and learn some worldly experience. And then come
back on the Net with your math posts.
> 
> Bourbaki is little concerned with p-adics, because that is not the
> sort of things which Bourbaki studies. It may however please you to
> know that he defines p-adics before he defines real numbers (Algebra,
  Ah, maybe you can be of use here. State how Bourbaki defines p-adics.
I am curious if (they) defined it explicitly as a series. Why? Because
if they defined it as a series. How laughable it is that Bourbaki
failed to see that p-adics are the Successor Postulate of Peano Axioms.
Look guys, it was right under your noses but you were too dumb to even
see or recognize it.
> Chapter V (Fields), Section 12 (Finite Fields), Number 3 (The Galois
> Group of the algebraic closure of a finite field). This is a purely
> algebraic definition, though - as a projective limit of finite rings.
> Then, later on (General Topology, Chapter IX (Use of Real Numbers
> in General Topology), Section 3 (Metrizable groups, valuated fields,
> normed spaces and algebras), Number 2 (Valuated fields) &ff;), he
> defines
> the completion of a valuated field with respect to an absolute value,
> showing, in particular, that it can be obtained by taking a quotient
> of the ring of Cauchy sequences (or series, which amounts to the same).
> And he mentions the p-adic absolute value on the rationals. So if you
> put those bits together, it gives you the definition of p-adics in
> the series style.
> 
> You complained that there's no clear and well written introduction
> to p-adic numbers accessible to a high school student, say. I found
> the following book:
>   Introduction to p-adic numbers and their functions,
>   Kurt Mahler,
>   Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics 64,
>   Cambridge University Press.
> which contains a definition of p-adics as series, and which is very
> readable. You might find it to your tastes.
> 
I looked up Kurt Mahler and here is some of it: 
--- quoting Kurt Mahler ---
p-adic numbers and their functions 1981, 2nd ed, page 40
The canonic series of a g-adic integer has the special form
A = a_0 + a_1g + a_2g + . . . = a_0,a_1a_2a_3 . . . (g).
As a special case, such an expansion holds for p-adic integers.
  All rational integers are also g-adic and p-adic integers; thus Z is
a subset of both I_g and I_p.
   If the g-adic number A is not a g-adic integer, thus if  [deleted]
On the other hand, Q_p is the quotient field of I_p because it is a
field.
--- end quoting Kurt Mahler ---
  Seriously, you think that is suitable for High School kids? I think
you say that because you know it is false, but say it to elevate your
esteem. You are as lost of a sheep in mathematics as math professors
are in math education.
  Math education in the world is a sorry pathetic sight and a dam waste
of time.
  Math education the world over has become -- around a junior in High
School-- has become a notebook factory where pupils learn how to take
notes in class and nothing more is learned in class, and then the real
learning of math occurs outside of the classroom by studying the book
in a quiet place and doing some of the problems and having others from
the class help you do the problems.
  That is why I say eliminate math textbooks and replace them with
workbooks. Have a Schaum's outline for all math courses. Classroom is
rarely a lecture session. It is almost all a work session of actually
doing problems.
  That Kurt Mahler book is a graduate level book that in my estimation
should have never been written. I await the day when the 100,000 lazy
math professors, one of them gets the nerve to write a 300 page Schaums
outline of p-adics so that High School students can manipulate these
strings.
> 
> You don't need to threaten me. That's very rude. If you find my posts
> offending, be sure I didn't mean it.
> 
>      David A. Madore
>     (david.madore@ens.fr,
>      http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/index.html.en)
 That was not a threat, that was advice, but seeing that you are French
then I take it as "lost in translation".
  Here is some more advice David as I will not converse with you as I
have no time and better things to do with my time. I recommend that you
do not seek a career in mathematics or the sciences for you have not
what it takes to become successful in those. I recommend you go into
the arts something like politics or preacher religion or even French
English translator. You are not cut out for math or the sciences
judging from your two posts. Of course you will not take my advice and
then what will happen is 20 years from now you will say to yourself, By
Gosh, I should have heeded the advice of AP.
   Adios amigo

In article <56voje$lbb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
< 
< But I proved in 1993 that Naturals = Infinite Integers = p-adics. 
This is impossible since 0 in Infinite Integers has a predecessor
and 0 in Naturals does not.
-- 
Jan Bielawski
Molecular Simulations, Inc.   )\._.,--....,'``.       | http://www.msi.com
San Diego, CA                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,. | ph.: (619) 458-9990
jpb@msi.com              fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' | fax: (619) 458-0136
#DISCLAIMER******************************************************************#
+Unless stated otherwise, everything in the above message is personal opinion+
+and nothing in it is an official statement of Molecular Simulations Inc.    +
#****************************************************************************#

In article , gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>> >weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
> 
>> I buy the "provider of reasoning" part, but I'm not sure about the 
>> "expression of ethics" (as it stands, with no qualifications).  When 
>> we embark on a course of action, science can provide predictions for 
>> possible outcomes, according to various possible scenarios.  Now, in 
>> most cases there are both positive and negative outcomes which are not 
>> commesurable (in the scientific sense, at least).  So, when the time 
>> comes to judge and select the best course of action, extra scientific 
>> criteria must be used.  Science alone won't give you the full answer.  
>> What it'll do is provide you with the information needed and not allow 
>> you to hide behind "but I didn't know that something like this can 
>> happen".  In other words, it can't force you to be ethical but it 
>> makes it more difficult to be unethical.
>
>I quite agree.  But aren't you implying just what I'm saying with the
>"ethical-unethical bit". Just like you say science will not give you the
>full answer, but it contributes, and can point out that activities that
>may be regarded as ethical within the ordinary frame of reference, are not
>ethical in their consequences when viewed in the light of science's
>predictive power.
>
Almost.  It'll point out the consequences.  It is still up to us to 
decide whether we view them as ethical.  And different people and 
cultures will reach different conclusions on this.  Meaning, the 
answer "what's right" won't be given by science.  But science will 
allow the decision to be an informed decision.
	... snip ...
>
>> Well, I'm afraid here we part company.  As I see it, Nature is neither 
>> good, nor evil, it just is.
>
>Wow, you must be a very enlightened soul, Mati. :-)
I think that most of our philosopher friends would dispute this 
statement :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Susan Carroll (scarroll@nwlink.com) wrote:
: Hello, I'm not even sure I'm on the right newsgroups, but...
: I'm like to know where I can order a set of Penrose Tiles.  There's a
: specific shape I'm looking for, and, of course, I want to get them
: before Christmas.
: Does anyone have any sources or ideas?  I'll try anything, even
: international.
: Thank you for any information.
: Sincerely, Susan Carroll.
Eh, is this a joke or are there really people selling Penrose Tiles ???
How about trying Roger Penrose, was it Oxford or Cambridge (Hawking is
at the other place...)   :-)
cheers,
Patrick.
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

roamer@global2000.net (Roamer) wrote:
>
>Check out the latest in alternate energy source info!
>
>Visit www.keelynet.com !!
It makes you wonder when a bozo intent on banging his own drum doesn't 
even manage a clickable link.
Uncle Al is privy to the secrets of the universe.  He has contracted with 
Dr. Abfallig Matsch Schund to fabricate the ultimate infinite energy 
source and supernova protective shield:  THE NEUTRINO SQUEEGEE!
$(US)5000.00 non-refundable buys you a summary of the remarkable concept.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article <32a02292.181614016@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>In talk.origins meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>In article <329c4e67.127300771@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>>In talk.origins lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Im Artikel ,
>>>>rvien@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) schreibt:
>>>>
>>>>>    Finally, and most interesting, *philosophically we are completely
>>>>>  wrong* with the approximate law. 
>>>>....
>>>>>     -- _The Feymann Lectures on Physics_, Volume I, pp. 1-1 - 1-2,
>>>>
>>>>Hmm, I thought those lectures where by a physicist about physics, no? It's
>>>>a nice quote,  and F. sure  was a great man, but a lousy philosopher
>>>>(IMHO).
>>>>
>>>I disagree with you entirely. First, there is a sense in which we are
>>>completely wrong with the "approiximate law".
>>
>>Yes, there is.  The sense which defines anything less then "perfectly 
>>right" as being "completely wrong".
>>
>But that is not what I was referring to, nor, IMHO, was Feynmann. It
>seems that the point he was making was that, thought the difference
>between the two predictions was small, it is profound.
>
The difference may be profound and sometimes it is.  Which is a different 
thing than "completely wrong", though it may qualify as 
"philosophically completely wrong".  I gather you missed the key point 
of the "Newton was wrong" debate, which is that in order for the 
statement to be true (or even meaningful) it needs to be qualified.
>>>Second, I think Feynmann was a well thought out and direct philosopher.
>>
>>Apparently you've never seen Feynmann's opinion about philosphers :-)
>
>One I tend to agree with. Note the word "direct" in the above.
>Feynmann did talk about what he was doing and what he thought, he did
>not just let the math speak for him.
>>
If you want to consider any person who thinks about what he's doing 
and is talking about it, I've no problem with it.  I'm afraid that 
some of the others here won't like it, though.
>>>Third, I think we have to be very careful when reading F. He really 
>>>is far brighter than you and I, and there is likely something else 
>>>going on when he writes.
>>
>>The one argumant I'm never going to buy is "you should accept this 
>>guy's opinion, he's brighter than you're."  I agree, if somebody 
>>proved himself bright it is worthwhile to hear what he has to say.  As 
>>for accepting, that's another matter.
>>
>But I did not make that argument either. Do not accept him because he
>is bright, pay attention to him. There may be more going on than you
>first realize.
>
There is more going on, I've read enough of Feynman's stuff to be 
aware of this.  If you read it you'll find that the purpose of his 
statement above is to dismiss the "philosophical notion of wrong."
Not that I'm saying, "by this it has been dismissed".  It is just his 
opinion, after all.
>Since we are now speaking of Feynmann, I am reminded of a story I read
>recently (it may even have been in a thread related to this one months
>back). Someone quoted Feynmann saying that you teach "standard"
>student the theory, but for the "exceptional" student, you just give
>them a bunch of observations and let them develop the theory
>themselves. The relevance to my point is that Feynmann's concept of
>"standard" and "exceptional" is different than yours and mine.
>
Certainly his concepts were different.  Whether it is a workable 
approach, is another question.  Carried to extreme it sure isn't.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

lbsys@aol.com:
>>>Does a new set of rules in philosophy always have to be a 'turning [the
>>>old set of rules] from the head onto its feet' as Marx once said? That for
>>>sure is not the way in physics, as you certainly have learned from Mati,
>>>where there is rather evolution of ideas than a complete overthrow - even
>>>if it needs some historical distance to not mistake any other paradigm
>>>shift for a full grown "revolution". 
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) 
>>   Mati:  "If it  would've been just a straightforward development from 
>>the existing theory it wouldn't have been a revolution."  Mati, again:
>>"Did somebody ever say that it wasn't a revolution?"  Well, somebody
>>has now.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu 
>You may not recall that I've also specifically stated that said 
>revolution didn't involve an overthrow of the old ideas.  Simply put, 
>yes, there was a revolution and yes, there was continuity.
   A revolution,  but _not_ an overthrow.   Oh.  You missed  your day:
since the era of sail ended, there hasn't been nearly so much call for
trimmers.
-- moggin

Im Artikel ,
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) schreibt:
>lbsys@aol.com:
>
>>Does a new set of rules in philosophy always have to be a 'turning [the
>>old set of rules] from the head onto its feet' as Marx once said? That
for
>>sure is not the way in physics, as you certainly have learned from Mati,
>>where there is rather evolution of ideas than a complete overthrow -
even
>>if it needs some historical distance to not mistake any other paradigm
>>shift for a full grown "revolution". 
>
>   Mati:  "If it  would've been just a straightforward development from 
>the existing theory it wouldn't have been a revolution."  Mati, again:
>"Did somebody ever say that it wasn't a revolution?"  Well, somebody
>has now.
Nicely observed. When I wrote the above post I knew it carried the problem
of any other usenet post: not to be boringly long there's always the
problem still to be precise, and I knew it'd contain a lot of very
'general' and thus debatable statements. But, I have to say, I hadn't
thought of especially this one phrase moggin is rightfully pointing at.
Looking at it, I still don't know how to precisely express what I mean
with 'evolution of ideas'. If you look at Newtons and Einsteins formulae
you find out, that under certain conditions one merges completely into the
other. I sure don't want to discuss if this can be called a
generalization, but we can easily call it an evolution, just like
Non-Euclidean geometry evolved from Euclidean. 
It for sure is worth a thought if the change in "ideas" behind the
formulae (about how the world is etc.) was as dramatic as to call it a
revolution. And we'd have to discuss who's understanding is taken as the
general base to decide for Rev vs. Ev. For the physicists, the MMX nul
result, the disproving of an aether, might have been a revolution, but is
this true as well for the contemporarial farmer? Would he have cared for
how light propagates? For the farmer, the way how the work of the Wright
brothers and Mr. Ford changed the face of the world for sure was much more
revolutionary. Is it revolutionary to state, that space is not flat, but
curved? Even if it is, the mathematical models evolve from one another.
That's what I meant wrt physics. Whereas - coming back to my 'philosophy'
example - Marx's "revolutionary" thoughts do have shaken up the world
quite a bit, no?
So how is it in the history of philosophy? Is there the same sort of
ballyhoo (revolution No. 9 ;-) at the surface, while the underlying
development of basic structures is rather 'evolutionary'? Is there, viewed
back of course, a general 'leitmotif' (sorry, but that's what the Collins
gives as translation(sic) for 'roter Faden'), do the new ideas evolve from
their predecessors? Do they usually contain them as a special case?
Comments? Explanations?
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

In article <572109$d1m@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>
>>Boy, oh boy.  Only 10 billion.  A person will be able to spit without 
>>hitting anybody (well, at least not too often).  The problem is, I 
>>really don't believe any extrapolations going further then 10 years 
>>into the future.  Personally I think it'll not reach 10 billion but 
>>for different reasons.
>
>The entire current population of planet Earth would comfortably fit upon 
>the island of Puerto Rico, with elbow room to spare.  Space is no 
>problem.
Not the biggest problem, that's true.
>
>Places like Zaire show that irresponsible cultural+reproductive 
>proclivities are self-regulating via the Four Horsemen, as the Rev. 
>Malthus looks on.  No problem there either.
I actually do count on the Four Horsemen to keep the numbers 
reasonable.
>
>The great sin is pouring gasoline on a forest fire - sending in 
>megatonnes of food and medical supplies, encouraging the folly to 
>exponentiate, fueling a massive crash.
Yep.  
>
>Aboriginal cultures are sparse, dying early and often.  Technological 
>cultures are dense, living long and propering.  If you mix aboriginal 
>values with technological wealth you get boom and bust population 
>cycles... and god doesn't give shit one either way.
Definitely.  But there is one more thing you should add.  The trait 
for personal responsibility is certainly not dominant in the human 
race.  Without external reinforcers, which are greatly diminished 
during long periods of prosperity, irresponsibility gradually takes 
over.  Then comes the bust.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <574rmo$dof@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Below are two articles I fetched the search engines. But here at
> Dartmouth's Internews Internet these articles do not appear. And they
> will not appear until about 5 days have gone by.
  Is it possible to put a command on the newsreader such that no
outside follow-ups to a poster will register on the reader until after
a set date, say 5 days?
 I know that a person can manipulate the expiration of posts to the
newsreader. How about rogue manipulation of incoming follow-ups?
  So I suspect one person could also manipulate the time in which
outside posts are posted to the newsboard. Even target one person , not
all outside posts, just all outside posts to Archimedes Plutonium.
Quite obviously, if I post a science article today and someone say in
Europe replies to me the next day but I do not see it in the newsgroups
of Dartmouth until 10 days have gone by, well , such a situation is
hardly conducive to a science discussion considering it would be a
lapse of at least 10 days between communications here.
  I have noticed this lapse in time for several months  because I read
the search engines and compare them with the Dartmouth newsboard, but
today I no longer want to sit still and let it go by. If I see a poster
post to one of my articles and the Dartmouth newsboard will not show
his post until 5 days have elapsed, that puts a crimp in dialogue. And
I should not have to use two separate computers having the Search
Engines open and the Net open simultaneously in order to check for
follow-ups. The Internet from Dartmouth should have all the articles
shown in the Search Engines. I cannot imagine that Deja News has such
superior technology. And I am sure this is not the case because back in
1993, when my attackers had not yet learned to attack me, I saw
follow-ups to my posts without no delay in newsboard registry.
  It is likely that there is some glitch in the Dartmouth registering
of posts. And it is highly likely that someone can attach a *command*
to the system commanding that all incoming follow-ups to a AP post are
delayed for 5 or 10 days.

Hi,
I agree.
But we must find out the reason of weight now. Isn´t it ?
Any ideas ?
Knut
KLoeschke@MSN.COM

In article rjk@laraby.tiac.net (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
>Where do the electrons ... go ...?
dev/null/ ?
Jon Noring
-- 
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL:  http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St.      | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095     | ftp.awa.com  /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037               | E-mail:  omnimedia@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today!  Just send e-mail
to majordomo@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
     subscribe ebook-list     

Very strange -- I have no quarrel with the below whatsoever; especially 
as regards the futility of "intention" as a category of interpretation. 
This is, of course, not a postmodern argument, as Raghu seems to 
assume; the intentional fallacy is quite a bit older...
Regards,
Silke
Mario Taboada 
(taboada@mathe.usc.edu) 
wrote: : weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >Mario Taboada (taboada@mathe.usc.edu) wrote:
: >: Silke-Maria Weineck says:
: >: <: thread... the one about beating out clumsy rhythms for bears to dance 
: >: to while trying to make music to move the stars (my copy is in the 
: >: office, so this will have to do). Perhaps it would be a good idea to 
: >: distinguish between representative intention and perlocutionary 
: >: intention.>>
: >: The theories of "intention" proposed by Austin, Grice, and Searle are not
: >: to be taken very seriously. As a foundation of semantic analysis they are
: >: inadequate (as Chomsky showed back then, when these things were newer; also
: >: cf. Derrida's sec and Limited Inc. for an informal and somewhat rambling
: >: but nevertheless sharp critique of Searle).
: >: I am very skeptical about classification schemes such as those proposed
: >: by Searle - Derrida (following Chomsky) put his finger on it when he
: >: complained that "marginality" is not covered by the Searle classification.
: >: He then asks (not literal quote): "What good is the theory, then, if it
: >: doesn't apply to actual language as used by people?"
: >Agreed. However, I think the misunderstandings between Raghu and Brian go 
: >back to different usages of intention -- Brian is referring to 
: >representation, and he's right to point out that the text says what it 
: >says and that it's curious to assume an intention that differs from the 
: >result; Raghu is talking about a different kind of intention -- in short, 
: >he insists, uncontroversially as far as I can see, that the sender has an 
: >intention in acting on other people.
: >Silke
: 	Saying that the sender (I prefer to say "speaker" since talking
: is the biologically important activity, not writing or "sending") must
: have some intention is indeed uncontroversial - perhaps even "trivial",
: although if one really asked for evidence, the question becomes meaningless
: (who can show someone else an "intention", and why should someone else
: believe it?). People can be notoriously self-deceiving, and self-knowledge
: of the kind that would be needed to know one's own "intentions" would be
: very hard to acquire - impossible to all but Buddhas and near-Buddhas.
: More importantly, to admit of an "intention of the speaker" does not
: mean that "intention" is a good foundation for a scientific theory
: of lexical meaning. In fact it is a terrible foundation and the
: theories of "speech acts" have not delivered anything worthwhile in
: the field of lexical semantics. Further, as far as I can see, lexical
: semantics does not seem accessible to scientific inquiry - although
: other types of inquiry do sometimes throw light on meaning (literary
: criticism, history, sociology, anthropology, philosophy are such disciplines).
: These "theories" however, do not have much explanatory value beyond
: narrowly defined domains, and they certainly have no predictive value.
: The other day Patrick was referring to this problem in terms of "communication"
: and "transfer of information", terms that I am sure he uses in a
: technical sense but that, as far as I can see, do not apply to
: human language (which is not used primarily for communication, as
: Chomsky and others have persuasively argued).
: As far as I can see, the text is entirely secondary to the question of
: intention. I say this not to put down Brian, who is evidently persuaded
: of the value of textualism, but to point out that writing, as merely
: an accessory to the language faculty, is *even less* amenable than
: speech to scientific inquiry into lexical semantics.
: In the late 60s and early 70s there was a group of linguists who
: broke with Chomsky (a bitter battle, fought in the most bilious
: fashion, typical of academic circles), and who wanted to develop a
: "generative semantics". The idea was to do something similar to
: generative grammar but dealing with meaning. This project, although
: it generated some good ideas, collapsed completely. Incidentally,
: this was due to the enormous difficulty of the subject, not to the
: lack of ability of the researchers (many of whom were and are brilliant
: linguists).
: My position is that, if someone says he/she has a scientific theory
: of lexical meaning, they are probably wrong. I have almost no faith
: in the existence of such a theory; as for bald assertion and speculation,
: the innumerable philosophers (in fact, all of them) who have pondered
: these questions have come up with very little that can withstand
: scientific scrutiny.
: Regards,
: -- 
: Mario Taboada
: * Department of Mathematics * Old Dominion University * Norfolk, Virginia
: e-mail: taboada@math.odu.edu