Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 19:53:54 GMT
In article , wrote:
>>
>Well, I decided it is time to take a look at that, but being rather
>short on time, went for the simplest possible case. I'm assuming that
>the shuttle follows a perfect circular orbit, and looking at the
>equations of motion for a body slightly misplaced from the CM of the
>shuttle. The coordinate axes are
>
>1) X - pointing away from the Earth.
>2) Y- tangential to orbit.
>
>Mind you, this means that not only does the center of the coordinate
>system follow a circular trajectory, but also the axes are rotating.
>The equations come out especially simple in this frame, so it is worth
>it.
>
>OK, to make a long story short, to the lowest order the Lagrangian
>comes out as:
>
>L = 1/2 *[(dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + 2*w*(x*dy/dt - y*dx/dt) + 3*w^2*x^2]
Yes, very nice. I had started to think about the rotating frame,
because the centrifugal force just cancels the y-component of
the tidal force, but then I thought - "Argh, there's the Coriolis
force". Well, the Coriolis force turns out not to be too bad.
BTW, recall that Gordon denied the existence of the tidal potential!
I wonder if he believes in it yet. ( My original motivation
for writing the numerical simulator was to illustrate the
tidal force in actaion. )
I get equations of motion from your Lagrangian of ( with w=1 )
ax = 2vy + 3x
ay = -2vx
>Solving the resulting equations you get that the general solution is a
>superposition of two motions:
>
>1) Ellipsoidal trajectory with the ratio of the y and x axes always
>being 2:1, regardless of initial conditions (however the center of the
>ellipse depends on the initial conditions and doesn't have to coincide
>with the CM of the shuttle.
Letting x = x0 + A cos t ; y = y0 +B sin t + vy0 t
I find B = -2A, as you stated, and vy0 = -3/2 x0.
So if x0 = 0, vy0 = 0. All this does line up with the
solution I offered by solving Kepler's equation to
first order in the eccentricity. Although I agree it is
obviously simpler in the rotating frame. The psi_0 parameter
I used shifts the elliptical ( rotating frame ) orbit
along the y-axis.
How did you solve it exactly? I think you are using a technique
I'm not familiar with, unless you just did what I did.
And OK, I take back my "blowhard" remark!
I guess you were just looking at this from a different angle,
although it is obvious from the orbital point of view that
this problem is going to have simple periodicity. So when
you said "Don't forget blah blah blah", I was like,
"Whaddaya talkin' about?"
>2) That's the interesting part. There is also a linear motion
>(constant velocity) in the y direction. The origin of this is obvious
>once you realize that, looking from the Earth frame, the period of the
>test mass orbit will be slightly different then this of the shuttle so
>it'll keep sliding away from the shuttle, in the tangential direction.
In the first order Kepler solution, you can take a slightly
different "r" and note that the reference circular orbit will
drift wrt the shuttle orbit. The -3/2 above is just the exponent
in Kepler's third law.
>Neat little problem.
To be sure.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: dcs2e@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Christopher Swanson)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:02:56 GMT
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu 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@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
> : >>>>>Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
> : >>>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>
> : >>>>>>>Read a book or something, as Kagalenko would say. By Plato, on Plato,
> : >>>>>>>something related. I've worked on Plato for five years straight now,
>
> : >>>>>>Gorgias' followers just wouldn't leave the Teacher alone.
>
> : >>>>>You're _still_ trying to pretend you've read Plato? Kudos on your
> : >>>>>persistence. Listen, it's rather simple: the logos/mythos distinction is
> : >>>>>post-Platonic, and you cannot even begin to understand Socrates if you
> : >>>>>don't understand why he stood still before he joined the Symposion.
>
> : >>>>How keen of Plato to have insisted on this post-Platonic distinction
> : >>>>in _Phaedo_ 61b, _Timaeus _26e, as well as countless other places!
> : >>>>Your aptitude for creative thinking would be most welcome at the
> : >>>>Institute of Historical Review.
>
> : >>>And when you get old enough to move away from soundbites, you may want
> : >>>to consult Robert Zaslavsky's _Platonic Myth and Platonic Writing_
> : >>>(Wash.D.C.: UP of America, 81) about the relevance of the above.
> : >>>Meantime, you might want to acquaint yourself with the variety of
> : >>>meanings given to both logos and mythos throughout Plato's oeuvre and
> : >>>proclaim again, with a straight face, that Platonic logos equates to
> : >>>science.
>
> : >>The relevance of the above is to your claims (a) that "[you]'ve worked
> : >>on Plato for five years straight now" and (b) that "the logos/mythos
> : >>distinction is post-Platonic". In view of the said distinction being
> : >>explicitly articulated by Plato, your arrogation of expertise implies
> : >>a moral responsibility for your erroneous rebuttal. In other words,
> : >>having lied about Plato, you are now trying to cover up your egregious
> : >>lie by appealing to your critical authority.
>
> : >It's called scholarship. Welcome to the concept.
>
> : Appealing to your critical authority is called scholarship?
> : Silly me -- I thought it was called preening.
>
> : >> Sorry, that will not do.
> : >>As I said elsewhere, that wilful overinterpretation of the classics
> : >>can arbitrarily arrive at any desired conclusion does not make for a
> : >>critical breakthrough. As regards your positivistic conception of
> : >>science, it only betokens your crass innumeracy.
>
> : >Give us an argument for science establishing values, and we'll
> : >talk. So far, you're blowing smoke, as usual. Commit yourself to
> : >an argument.
>
> : The best positive argument is that science establishes truth, and
> : truth is a value. On the negative side, there is the argument that
> : ought implies can, and all possibilities are determined by science.
> : Most undergraduate philosophy majors learn this much in introductory
> : ethics classes.
>
> You may have just inadvertently put your finger on what's wrong with
> introductory ethics classes around here. Science establishes truth, but
> not the value of truth. That truth is a value gets established elsewhere.
No, actually it doesn't. Ideas that we think of as having
value, in a utilitarian sense,
we refer to as "true." Why we think of them as having
value is not established. Rather, I mean that they are useful
to us in some way. They are useful in promoting something or
other that we value, in the normative sense.
But there is not one such thing called "truth."
DS
>
> : >I will, if it makes you happy, reformulate my initial assertion
> : >that the "logos/mythos distinction is post-Platonic" to "the
> : >logos/mythos distinction as it would apply to the context of this
> : >thread is post-Platonic."
>
> : Since you brought up the logos/mythos distinction in the first place,
> : it is up to you to explain how it applies.
>
> You introduced "logos" as synonymous with "science" -- I pointed out to
> you that that usage of logos is Post-Platonic (or I have now), since
> Plato uses "logos" to denote a variety of discursive acts, some of them
> non-compatible with scientific inquiry.
>
> S.
>
> : 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: Creation VS Evolution
From: Judson McClendon
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:08:09 -0600
Xcott Craver wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
> >Xcott Craver wrote:
> >> Judson McClendon wrote:
[snip]
> Okay. But who is saying that? I'm saying, "it is foolish
> to claim limits on the human intellectual capacity." This is nowhere
> near the same as saying anything about rejecting God.
If God's Word claims those limits and you don't receive what He is
saying, then aren't you saying, in effect "I know better than You, God,
for it is foolish for You to say that?" If God is God and your creator,
then that is rejecting Him, no? ;)
> >> Again, this is your assumption. There are those who find the
> >> study of mathematics to be entirely spiritual (Ramanujan springs to
> >> mind)
> >
> >People can CALL things spiritual, but that does not make them so. As I
> >said, if you haven't been in love you don't know love. But you don't
> >KNOW that until you've been there! ;)
>
> Whoa, whoa. So you insist that the intellect is not spiritual,
Your intellect cannot know that your hand is in pain without the body's
pain sense. The intellect receives the signal, but would be oblivious
without the body, which is NOT intellect! The spirit/intellect is
similar. The intellect can receive the things FROM the spirit, but
cannot know spiritual things without the spirit. Why is this hard for
you to receive?
> whereas if I believe it is, then I'm just CALLING it spritual. People
> can say things AREN'T spiritual, but that does not make them not so!
Absolutely correct! We have to go on God's word to know.
> Is there any reference in the Bible that supports the belief of
> the intellect and spirit being two separate entities?
Certainly! You clipped one of them out of your response! ;)
> >I did not say that intelligence was not involved. How could there be
> >understanding without any intelligence? I am saying that spiritual
> >understanding is DIFFERENT from intelligence, and cannot be understood
> >only through the inttllect.
>
> And I'm saying that it can indeed. You seem to insist that
> my thinking so is because I haven't experienced what you have. Has
> it occurred to you that I have experienced things that you have not?
Undoubtedly. If you try to describe something to me which you have done
and I haven't then I'm going to listen, not argue. Try me! ;)
> Why do you insist that if my conclusions and interpretations don't
> match yours, then I am wrong?
The question is: "Do your opinions match what God says?" That's why I
am quoting Scripture so much. My opinion doesn't count.
> I have heard people call each other
> "Holier than thou," but I've never really *seen* it first-hand before.
There is no 'holier than thou' here! Nobody can boast of being saved.
The gift of Salvation through Jesus Christ is free to all, and *I*
certainly didn't earn it! "For by grace you have been saved through
faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works,
lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9) If you and I had both won
a lottery and I had claimed my winnings but you had not, why would my
trying to get you to claim your winnings be 'holier than thou'?
> >You're quibling over inconsequentials here. 'Carnal' used in the bible
> >means 'of this earth'; specificly: not of the spirit. Not necessarily
> >bad, just 'earth based'. Unless you have been 'born of the Spirit' you
> >cannot know God:
>
> Stop right there. You are now claiming that 'Carnal' means
> 'of this earth,' rather than 'of the flesh,' which is what it means
> literally.
What I'm trying to say is that intellect and spirit are different.
Neither one does what the other does. You can't feel pain in the
intellect without the body and you can't know spiritual things without
the spirit.
> Can you quote me a relevant passage in the Bible that
> supports this revision? A revision which in turn would support
> your earlier claim that intelligence is 'Carnal'?
>
> >(John 3:6-8)
> > 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of
> > the Spirit is spirit.
Look right there below your question. Everything that is in you (and
all of us) before being 'born again' is of the 'flesh'. It is NOT of
the spirit, and cannot know that of the spirit (see below).
> And this reminds me: can you quote a relevant passage which
> asserts that the spirit cannot be understood only through the intellect?
> That is, after all, part of the reason you insist that the intellect
> is part of the 'Carnal' mind, rather than the 'Spiritual' mind. Does
> the Bible actually support this, and if so, where?
You clipped out the part that should have told you! Look again at John
3:7,9:
7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.'
8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but
cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who
is
born of the Spirit."
Jesus said "You must be born again." What to you think the word MUST
means? This whole passage is being spoken to a man named Nicodemus, who
is having a hard time understanding the concept of being 'born again'.
Nicodemus asks how could he be put back in his mother's womb and be born
again. Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that he is thinking in natural
terms, but Jesus is speaking of spiritual concepts. In verse 8 above
Jesus is trying to convey by example that the natural (worldly, earthly,
intellectual, however you want to express it, but 'not spiritual')
cannot comprehent the way of spiritual things. Go read the whole
chapter, and instead of trying to just see how you can contradict it,
why don't you try and see what Jesus is trying to say here? He is
answering Nicodemus just about exactly the question you are asking.
Why do I try to tell you these things you don't seem eager to hear?
"Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling
to the slaughter." (Proverbs 24:11,12)
--
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:33:19 GMT
moggin:
>
>>> In case you or anyone else is still interested, Mati stated that no
>>>important part of physics was based on "religious mysticism." I
>>>disagreed, citing Newton's studies in hermeticism.
Gordon Long:
>
>> You disagreed -- meaning that an important part or parts of physics
>>*are* based on "religious mysticisim". So what exactly do you mean by
>>that? In particular, what do you mean by "based on", and what constitutes
>>"religious mysticism"? I know from the previous discussion what Mati's
>>answers to those questions are, but I don't know yours.
moggin:
>
> I would have hoped you could glean the answer from what I said
>above, where I offered hermeticism as an illustration of mysticism,
>and gave the relationship between Newton's hermetic studies and
>his work in physics as a case where the latter was at least partly
>based in the former.
To me, this seems to be saying only that a person's beliefs (religious,
philosophical, or otherwise) influence his work, and such beliefs were
often the motiviation for the study of physical science. Is this all
you meant by "part of physics is based on religious mysticism", or did
you mean something in addition to this?
> In a post you undoubtedly missed, I stated that
>Newton imported action-at-a-distance to physics from his studies
>in hermeticism. That was my understanding. But as I told you, Lew
>believes I was overstating the case -- and since he's much better
>informed about it than I am, he may well be right.
No, I saw your statement. But I didn't pay much attention to it, since
I didn't see it as evidence either for or against the statement "part of
physics is based on religious mysticism".
- Gordon
--
#include
Gordon Long | email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE |
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland) |
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 21:19:01 GMT
Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
: >Silke
: >: You'll also learn what Derrida meant by the Einstein constant remark.
: >Since you bring it up, here's something from the Duke Faculty Forum:
: It is scarcely cricket to bring in an analysis by someone competent to
: make such an analysis. That is scarcely prevailing practice here and
: I must take exception to such a departure from tradition.
Bad form and all, I know.
: >"The phrase may not mean -- and does not seem to mean -=- a numerical
: >constant, as virtualy all the physicists who commented on it in print
: >appear to assume. Instead it appears to mean _the Einsteinian (or
: >Einsteinian-Minkokwskian) concept of space-time itself_, since Hyppolite
: >speaks of "_a constant which is a combination of space-time_" (emphasis
: >added). Given the text, such an interpreation is more plausible than
: >seeing this phrase as referring to anumerical constant. This alternative
: >interpretation is not definitive, and perhaps no definitive
: >interpretation is possible here, in view of the status of the text as the
: >transcription of extemporaneous remarks given orally. Similar problems
: >may also arise in regard to Derrida's statement. That said, however, it
: >is more productive to take these complexities into account, to sort them
: >out to the degee possible, and to give these statements the most
: >sensible, rather than the most senseless, interpretation.
: Indeed. Someone writing on this very subject pointed this out quite
: some time ago. The thing that has always amazed me is the obstinate
: insistence upon treating "Einsteinian constant" as a physical
: constant.
Less interesting, I myself pointed this out way before someone, but since
I am not a physicist, my observation that "space-time" probably referred
to "space-time" was taken to be a manifestation of my arrogance,
bitchniness, and general incompetence -- Mati still thinks it's a
fanciful reading even though he is most polite.
: >[...] The moment one accepts this possibility and reads the Einsteinian
: >constant as meaning the Einsteinian concept of space-time, Derrida's
: >statement begins to sound quite a bit less strange. It acquires an even
: >greater congruence with relativity theory once one understands the term
: >"play/game" as connoting, in this context, the impossibility, within
: >Einstein's framework of space-time, of a unique or uniquely privileged
: >frame of reference -- a "center starting from which an observer could
: >master the field" (i.e. the whole of space-time). [...]
: >With these considerations in mind, on emight see Derrida's statement as
: >suggesting that, in contgrast to classical physics, the space-time of
: >special (and even more so of general) relativity disallows either a
: >(Newtonian) uniersal background or a uniquely privileged frame of
: >reference for physical events (which become contingent upon the frame of
: >reference from which they are seen). In short, one might see Derrida's
: >statement as alluding to standard features and questions at issue in
: >Einstein's relativity -- admittedly, in an idiom that is nonstandard,
: >especially for physicists.
: I have to be skeptical about this interpretation. What Plotnitsky is
: alluding to here is, on my view, what Derrida was talking about when
: he referred to variability of the game. What D. said to H. is, very
: simply, "No, you're picking out the wrong kind of thing to think of as
: a center." To go on from there to infer a suggestion about the
: constrasts between classical and relativistic physics or about
: priveleged frames or any such thing is reading far too much from far
: too little. The man need not have and probably did not have any such
: thing in mind. Is it not enough that he understood the question and
: answered it in an intelligible fashion [intelligible, at least, to the
: parties concerned]. One does not need to go on from there to infer
: all manner of wonders and subtleties not present in the text.
You know, in my experience things like that wouldn't work in the manner
of, "Derrida is such a good lay physicist he pulled all that out of the
top of his head when H. asked him," but along the lines of, "Derrida is a
French intellectual and probably has lots of physicists friends and is
very likely to have read and heard a few things about
classical/post-classical physics in his time." So, I agree with you and
Plotnitsky that the interpretation above is not necessary, but I disagree
with you that it's far-fetched (if that was what you suggested).
[...]
: >[...] Obviously, most scientists are not familiar with the ideas and
: >contexts that would enable them to offer the kind of reading of Derrida's
: >statement that is suggested here. One might, however, regret a certain
: >lack of intellectual curiosity on their part and their evident
: >unwillingness to consult scholars familiar with Derrida's thought, or
: >indeed --why not? -- Derrida himself. At issue here is not only the
: >citation of Hyppolite's and Derrida's remarks out of context but the
: >ignoring of even the minimal relevant norms of intellectual and,
: >especially, scholarly exchange.
: Even so. Still, one might observe that a reasonable analysis of
: Derrida's statement required neither any great access to Derrida's
: theories nor any great intellectual curiosity but merely the ordinary
: ability to read what is in front of one, unhampered by an obstinate
: desire to put one's own preferred usage on words irrespective of what
: the author might have meant by them.
That's the kind of dangerous attitude leading to engagement with texts
and has to be avoided at all cost from any true-blooded physicist.
: >Scholars in the humanities should, of course, exercise due caution as to
: >the claims they make about science. Correspondingly, scientists and other
: >non-humanist scholars should exercise due care and similar caution in
: >their chracterization of the humanities, especially when they are
: >diealing with innovative and complex work, such as that of Derrida, and
: >all the more so if they want to be critical about it. In the case under
: >discussion, however, no critiism in any real sense -- not even a
: >dismissal that can be taken seriously -- has been offered, at least not
: >yet. A serious engagement with Derrida's thought on the part of
: >scientists is possible, however, and we might yet see it. Then, perhaps,
: >we will also have a better understanding of why "the Einsteinian constant
: >is not a constant, is not a center," why "it is the very concept of
: >variability," and why "it is, finally, the concept of the game" -- or, if
: >that is the case, why it is none of the above."
: Or one might do none of these things, at least on the basis of this
: single remark, but rather recognize that there is far too little here
: to justify any substantive analysis of what Derrida has to say or to
: think on the subject. One could indeed go ahead and follow Derrida's
: approach and apply it to Physics, a strange and wonderful undertaking
: indeed. But if I were to do so it would be my work and not Derrida's
: and the same would be true for anyone else.
: What Plotnitsky says makes sense; it is not sensible to try to cut
: someone else's clothes to one's own pattern. Yet I would not count
: this as great wisdom; or at least I would not if it were not so
: evidently rare as a matter of practice.
: >Arkady Plotnitsky
: Evidently a man of some parts. I can tell because he says things that
: are similar to what I have said, clear evidence that the man is
: brilliant and perceptive. Modest, too.
: I may do Silke an injustice here, but I have the depressing suspicion
: that, when I said much the same, albeit without the eloquence or
: precision, what I said was invisible. Indeed I have the suspicion
: that nobody has read what anybody has said or thought about what
: anybody said or even given credit to the possibility of other parties
: thinking but instead merely counted who was on what side and
: distributed blows and counterblows thereby.
You are doing me an injustice; just yesterday I complimented you on your
constructive contributions, counting you amongst the very few who have
tried to make sense out of sense. Back then, I didn't quibble with your
interpretation of the passage, either, but with disparaging remarks you
garnished them with.
S.
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 21:21:27 GMT
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@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >>>>>>>Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: >>>>>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: >>>>>>>>>Read a book or something, as Kagalenko would say. By Plato, on
: >>>>>>>>>Plato, something related. I've worked on Plato for five years
: >>>>>>>>>straight now,
: >>>>>>>>Gorgias' followers just wouldn't leave the Teacher alone.
: >>>>>>>You're _still_ trying to pretend you've read Plato? Kudos on your
: >>>>>>>persistence. Listen, it's rather simple: the logos/mythos distinction
: >>>>>>>is post-Platonic, and you cannot even begin to understand Socrates if
: >>>>>>>you don't understand why he stood still before he joined the Symposion.
: >>>>>>How keen of Plato to have insisted on this post-Platonic distinction
: >>>>>>in _Phaedo_ 61b, _Timaeus_ 26e, as well as countless other places!
: >>>>>>Your aptitude for creative thinking would be most welcome at the
: >>>>>>Institute of Historical Review.
: >>>>>And when you get old enough to move away from soundbites, you may want
: >>>>>to consult Robert Zaslavsky's _Platonic Myth and Platonic Writing_
: >>>>>(Wash.D.C.: UP of America, 81) about the relevance of the above.
: >>>>>Meantime, you might want to acquaint yourself with the variety of
: >>>>>meanings given to both logos and mythos throughout Plato's oeuvre and
: >>>>>proclaim again, with a straight face, that Platonic logos equates to
: >>>>>science.
: >>>>The relevance of the above is to your claims (a) that "[you]'ve worked
: >>>>on Plato for five years straight now" and (b) that "the logos/mythos
: >>>>distinction is post-Platonic". In view of the said distinction being
: >>>>explicitly articulated by Plato, your arrogation of expertise implies
: >>>>a moral responsibility for your erroneous rebuttal. In other words,
: >>>>having lied about Plato, you are now trying to cover up your egregious
: >>>>lie by appealing to your critical authority.
: >>>It's called scholarship. Welcome to the concept.
: >>Appealing to your critical authority is called scholarship?
: >>Silly me -- I thought it was called preening.
: >>>> Sorry, that will not do.
: >>>>As I said elsewhere, that wilful overinterpretation of the classics
: >>>>can arbitrarily arrive at any desired conclusion does not make for a
: >>>>critical breakthrough. As regards your positivistic conception of
: >>>>science, it only betokens your crass innumeracy.
: >>>Give us an argument for science establishing values, and we'll
: >>>talk. So far, you're blowing smoke, as usual. Commit yourself to
: >>>an argument.
: >>The best positive argument is that science establishes truth, and
: >>truth is a value. On the negative side, there is the argument that
: >>ought implies can, and all possibilities are determined by science.
: >>Most undergraduate philosophy majors learn this much in introductory
: >>ethics classes.
: >You may have just inadvertently put your finger on what's wrong with
: >introductory ethics classes around here. Science establishes truth, but
: >not the value of truth. That truth is a value gets established elsewhere.
: That the value of truth gets established elsewhere does not imply that
: it cannot be established here and now, by a simple evolutionary model.
: At any rate, you asked for an argument for science establishing values,
: which is exactly what I delivered.
: >>>I will, if it makes you happy, reformulate my initial assertion
: >>>that the "logos/mythos distinction is post-Platonic" to "the
: >>>logos/mythos distinction as it would apply to the context of this
: >>>thread is post-Platonic."
: >>Since you brought up the logos/mythos distinction in the first place,
: >>it is up to you to explain how it applies.
: >You introduced "logos" as synonymous with "science" -- I pointed out to
: >you that that usage of logos is Post-Platonic (or I have now), since
: >Plato uses "logos" to denote a variety of discursive acts, some of them
: >non-compatible with scientific inquiry.
: Must you exercise your talent for confabulation so often? I never
: used "logos" as synonymous with "science". Whatever you pointed out,
: was pointed out to Kagalenko, rather than me. To repeat the salient
: point, Socrates argued that virtue (arete) was scientific knowledge
: (techne or episteme) involving an ability to give an account (logos)
: suitable for teaching it to others. An example of this argument will
: be found in the _Laches_, explained by Gerasimos Santas in the 1969
: Review of Metaphysics.
You used logos in a different post just as I said; I'm too lazy to look
it up. The problem with tekhne and episteme, however, is just the same.
Tekhne can be mere craft (as in knowing how to ride a horse), and
episteme covers the knowledge acquired by revelation as well.
S.
: 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: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 21:24:29 GMT
Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >Michael S. Morris (msmorris@inetdirect.net) wrote:
: >>I went at it from the other side. That is, whether "science" produces
: >>value or not kind of depends on what you mean by "science". If you
: >>mean by it (as I trust you did) merely the procedure of science
: >>that comes after the metaphysical assumptions have been made, then
: >>sure. But, if you mean the procedure of science *together
: >>with the metaphysical assumptions behind it* then I think some
: >>pretty strong value-judgments are in there right at the beginning,
: >Absolutely -- as you say, judgments.
: >>and it's perfectly correct to say that science does provide value,
: >>as in the exercise of science requires certain value-judgments to
: >>be made and not others. Now granted that these judgments probably
: >>won't have much to say about sexual ethics, or table manners, or
: >>even just war, but this doesn't mean that science makes no ethical
: >>pronouncements whatsoever.
: >Oh hell, all the time -- they are ultimately just as arbitrary as
: >the value judgments philosophy makes -- the stress is on ultimately.
: Before you can stress "ultimately", you should explain in what sense
: either kind of value judgments is arbitrary.
Ultimately. YOu know the argument, stop trolling.
: >I think the discipline we want to look at in this context is sociobiology
: >-- they are trying to establih themselves as both ethical and scientific
: >discourse, and it's a bit troubling (imo).
: The only *intellectually* troubling aspect of the sociobiological
: enterprise is its empiricist methodology, which conflicts with the
: normative conclusions.
Troubling enough; define intellectually.
S.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:30:02 GMT
On 23 Nov 1996 12:04:07 GMT, vanesch@guernsey.desy.de (Patrick van
Esch) wrote:
>But I've never seen any *scientific* discussion about the other
>possibility that, say, an extraterrestrial "bacterium" got onto a virgin earth
>with lots of organic stuff to be eaten. The "Martian meteorite" comes
>to mind. Even though I have problems accepting this analysis as proof
>that there is life on Mars, let us, for a second, think that their
>suggestion is right and that life develloped on Mars, and a meteorite
>containing still a few living bacteria, fell onto a virgin earth.
>I have never read a scientific discussion about such (or analogous) matter
>except for Fred Hoyle's transgalactic sperm theory, or how was the thing
>called again.
It was called "Panspermia", if I remember correctly.
>Anyone any idea ?
>
>: As for your claimed faith: If you have faith, you have no need of
>: evidence; the two are not compatible.
>
>I think that is a very valid point: faith is by definition accepting
>propositions as being true without evidence. From the moment there
>is evidence, it is not faith anymore... mmmm, reminds me of the
>Bable Fish :) Gods, watch out for those puffs of logic !
Sadly, they never seem to realize that even *searching* for evidence
would have probably been considered, for a layman, at least
semi-heretical until recently. The Inquisition would have
been...interested in such an effort. (Yeah, I know, " *Nobody*
expects...")
>
>
>cheers,
>Patrick.
>
>PS: I know that sci.physics is not the right group to discuss this,
>but hey, nobody's discussing physics there anyway :)
>
>--
>Patrick Van Esch
>mail: vanesch@dice2.desy.de
>for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: rvien@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 12:24:40 GMT
Let me expand my Feynman quote:
"The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following:
*the test of all knowledge is experiment.* Experiment is the *sole
judge* of scientific 'truth.' But what is the source of knowledge?
Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself,
helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it guves us hints. But
also needed is *imagination* to create from these hints the great
generalizations - to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange
patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether
we have made the right guess..."
We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find
the 'wrong' ones, and then we find the 'right' ones...how *can* the
results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example,
the mass of an object never seems to change: a spinning top has the
same weight as a still one. So a 'law' was invented: mass is
constant, independent of speed. That 'law' is now found to be incorrect.
Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase
requires velocities near that of light. A *true* law is: if an object
moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is
constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate
form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the
new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary
speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant-mass law
as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the
higher the speed, the more wrong we are.
Finally, and most interesting, *philosophically we are completely
wrong* with the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to
be altered even though the mass changes only be a little bit. This is
a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the
laws. Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes in
our ideas.
Now, what should we teach first? Should we teach the *correct* but
unfamiliar law with its strange and difficult ideas, for example the
theory of relativity, four dimensional space-time, and so on? Or should
we first teach the simple 'constant-mass' law, which is only approximate,
but does not involve such difficult ideas? The first is more exciting,
more wonderful, and more fun, but the second is easier to get at first,
and is a first step to a real understanding of the second idea."
-- _The Feynman Lectures on Physics_, Volume I, pp. 1-1 - 1-2,
emphasis in the original.
I threw in the beginning of the paragraph preceding my previous quote
so Mati can have an opinion he agrees with. But why should we take this
opinion any more seriously than any other opinion?
I threw in the start of the paragraph following my previous quote so
Jeff Candy can see how little he is addressing Feynman's ideas. It's
not that all approximations are wrong in some sense, and all theories
are mere approximations. Feynman seems to think that relativity is a
correct theory. Of course, his enuciation of the "*true* law" is
quite interesting. Furthermore, in the chapter on time and distance
Feynman leaves open the posibility that relativity and quantum theory
are not applicable on time and distance scales finer than any
measurements we have yet observed. Also, I believe these lectures were
published before Bell's theorem, but I'll leave it to the physicists
to sort out why we should believe that either relativity or quantum
theory must be wrong.
By the way, if Feynman's views on scientific methodology are that
principles may be useful in some situation, but scientists must
be willing to throw overboard any methodological principle when its
limits are exceeded, then his view is close to Paul Feyerabend's.
This is hardly helpful to Sokal and his epigones, who seem to want to
claim that all relavitists are scientific incompetents. I think
there might even be a suggestion of social constructivism in the
first Feynman paragraph above.
I do not address Lorenz Borsche's comments since he seems to be trolling
to get us to discuss his ignorance of Marx or philosophy so as to
distract us from the agreement between Feynman and moggin. How can
anybody reasonable complain about moggin or Silke's style of argument on
threads in which we are graced by "arguments" from Lorenz?
--
Robert Vienneau Try my Mac econ simulation game,
rvien@future.dreamscape.com Bukharin, at
ftp://csf.colorado.edu/econ/authors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.sea
Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue, are always
found...in proportion to the power or wealth of a man [is] a question
fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their
masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search
of the truth. -- Rousseau
Subject: Re: penrose tiles
From: mert0236@sable.ox.ac.uk (Thomas Womack)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 22:12:07 GMT
Patrick van Esch (vanesch@aruba.desy.de) wrote:
: 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...) :-)
Penrose is at Oxford, and, in the lobby of the Maths department there,
there is a display case containing a tiling of the plane by Penrose tiles.
I haven't a clue where the tiles come from, but they look mass-produced
rather than cut out of cardboard by some poor grad student for a
demonstration, so I suspect someone made such tiles, somewhere, sometime.
If I remember, I'll ask the receptionist there. I doubt a puny undergrad
like me could ask Penrose :)
--
Tom
Dort, wo man Buecher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen
(Heinrich Heine)
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 22:43:20 GMT
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?
moggin:
>> 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.)
Of course its not germane; but in my opinion all the fundamentals
have been exhaustively expounded. Now for the sake of finishing my
point, let us imagine you'd read Jackson or Landau and Lifshitz years
ago and were able to go through the motions to reproduce the famous
expressions for intensity of this radiation (remember, from the
centripetal acceleration of an electron). Then I asked:
|> >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! [...]
moggin:
|> 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.
And in many cases I take Einstein as given, or Newton as
given, or Dirac *minus* Einstein as given. Depends on what
part of nature you wish to explain. Now, return to my example
of synchrotron radiation. This is a formula for the classical
radiation from the acceleration of point particles. As such,
it is based on a much *more* complicated series of approximations
than the one we were discussing in the 'Newton is wrong' thread
(namely, 1/sqrt(1-x) = 1+x). The whole concept of a point
electron orbiting a "magnetic field line" is known to be a
gross idealization. Nevertheless, it turns out to be *correct*
when weighed against experimental observation. Certain phenomena
appear to be well-described in quite a bit of detail by this
idealization: solar radio bursts, radiation from Jupiter, radio
noise from the Crab Nebula. Nature can and does respect the
approximation.
That you were "taking Einstein as given" raises an interesting
point, which I will illustrate with an anecdote. I worked briefly
for the UK Atomic Energy Authority on a large numerical code to
simulate a supposedly dangerous instability in thermonuclear
plasmas. The British lab had taken two bits of physics:
(1) a wave Lagrangian developed here in 1994;
(2) an interaction Lagrangian developed in 1984 at Princeton.
They took them both as "given". I told them: "your code would
be much faster if you set b=0 in (2)", and I showed them how
this could be done". They replied, "but we want our stuff to
be more general than your simplified model". I added, "are
you aware that the wave Lagrangian (1) assumes b=0?". This
made them rather embarrassed. They didn't understand how (2)
was derived, and under what assumptions. They'd taken it as
given.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 22:57:13 GMT
Ken MacIver (nanken@tiac.net) wrote:
: tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) wrote:
:
: >Ken MacIver (nanken@tiac.net) wrote:
: >: "Michael S. Morris" wrote:
: >:
: >: >Friday, the 22nd of November, 1996
: >:
: >: >moggin says:
: >: > Of course not --but the outfit that you're wearing is a fashion
: >: > catastrophe.
: >:
: >: >Well, you and I read it differently, then. 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)
: >:
: >: Chain mail!
:
: >"You know how to do it, now let's make a chain"
: > The LOCO-motion.
:
: >"Chain, chain, chain,
: >Chain of fools."
:
: >"Chains, my baby's got me locked up in chains"......
:
: >"wish I was tied to Berth, instead of this ball and chain"
:
: >so this is solipsism. the wonder of it all........
:
: Not to mention Little Eva, whom I saw sing and *do* the Locomotion
: years ago at Old Orchard Beach, Maine. A great show!
Was this before or after Old Orchard went francophone?
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net "Took all the money I had in the bank,
Bought a rebuilt carburetor,
put the rest in the tank."
USED CARLOTTA.. 1995
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 23:14:37 GMT
weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>: >Silke
>: >: You'll also learn what Derrida meant by the Einstein constant remark.
>: >Since you bring it up, here's something from the Duke Faculty Forum:
>: It is scarcely cricket to bring in an analysis by someone competent to
>: make such an analysis. That is scarcely prevailing practice here and
>: I must take exception to such a departure from tradition.
>Bad form and all, I know.
It's OK just this once, but watch it.
[snip P. on Einsteinian constant]
>: Indeed. Someone writing on this very subject pointed this out quite
>: some time ago. The thing that has always amazed me is the obstinate
>: insistence upon treating "Einsteinian constant" as a physical
>: constant.
>Less interesting, I myself pointed this out way before someone, but since
>I am not a physicist, my observation that "space-time" probably referred
>to "space-time" was taken to be a manifestation of my arrogance,
>bitchniness, and general incompetence -- Mati still thinks it's a
>fanciful reading even though he is most polite.
Well, you might have been right and it still could have been a
manifestation..., er, never mind. Speaking as a mere mathematician,
when someone talks about a combination of algebraic quantities it
sounds to me like they are speaking about an invariant, some that has
a fixed form, for which "constant" is a reasonable lay term. Then
again he might have been talking about the GR equations themselves.
Who knows? The one thing that it quite clear is that he was not
talking about a physical constant qua physical constant. You
under-rate Mati - I'm sure he agrees with you; he just hasn't gotten
around to mentioning it.
>: I have to be skeptical about this interpretation. What Plotnitsky is
>: alluding to here is, on my view, what Derrida was talking about when
>: he referred to variability of the game. What D. said to H. is, very
>: simply, "No, you're picking out the wrong kind of thing to think of as
>: a center." To go on from there to infer a suggestion about the
>: constrasts between classical and relativistic physics or about
>: priveleged frames or any such thing is reading far too much from far
>: too little. The man need not have and probably did not have any such
>: thing in mind. Is it not enough that he understood the question and
>: answered it in an intelligible fashion [intelligible, at least, to the
>: parties concerned]. One does not need to go on from there to infer
>: all manner of wonders and subtleties not present in the text.
>You know, in my experience things like that wouldn't work in the manner
>of, "Derrida is such a good lay physicist he pulled all that out of the
>top of his head when H. asked him," but along the lines of, "Derrida is a
>French intellectual and probably has lots of physicists friends and is
>very likely to have read and heard a few things about
>classical/post-classical physics in his time." So, I agree with you and
>Plotnitsky that the interpretation above is not necessary, but I disagree
>with you that it's far-fetched (if that was what you suggested).
Even so. I wan't suggesting that it was far-fetched, so much as an
unwarranted reading. If I am not mistaken, the man has written
nothing on the subject, said nothing of note on the subject. Why then
manufacture thoughts for him.
>: Even so. Still, one might observe that a reasonable analysis of
>: Derrida's statement required neither any great access to Derrida's
>: theories nor any great intellectual curiosity but merely the ordinary
>: ability to read what is in front of one, unhampered by an obstinate
>: desire to put one's own preferred usage on words irrespective of what
>: the author might have meant by them.
>That's the kind of dangerous attitude leading to engagement with texts
>and has to be avoided at all cost from any true-blooded physicist.
Now, now, leave us not put all physicists in a labelled box. That
would be bigotry. Professors of literature on the other hand... No,
that won't do, either. It is a matter of faith with me that somewhere
there are human beings that rise above the mode of territorial
xenophobia. Other than you and me, I mean, of course.
There are some notable advantages in not being a younger person. One
can always dismiss the arguments of younger folk with the observation
that you, too, had such one sided enthusiasms when you were young.
This is particularly useful when they are right and you are wrong -
their entire case vanishes in the haze of a mature perspective.
Equally useful is the "in my day we..." ploy. If your interlocutor is
skeptical, still they cannot refute you by virtue of personal
knowledge.
If you will kindly forget the preceding paragraph, I wish to point out
that in my day people were expected to read and to understand what
they read, and that an educated person was expected to have a general
understanding of all of the major elements of the culture. Then too,
in my day, we did not engage texts; we engaged workmen and read books.
Sniff.
>: I may do Silke an injustice here, but I have the depressing suspicion
>: that, when I said much the same, albeit without the eloquence or
>: precision, what I said was invisible. Indeed I have the suspicion
>: that nobody has read what anybody has said or thought about what
>: anybody said or even given credit to the possibility of other parties
>: thinking but instead merely counted who was on what side and
>: distributed blows and counterblows thereby.
>You are doing me an injustice; just yesterday I complimented you on your
>constructive contributions, counting you amongst the very few who have
>tried to make sense out of sense. Back then, I didn't quibble with your
>interpretation of the passage, either, but with disparaging remarks you
>garnished them with.
You did? Do tell. In what thread? I seem to have missed it (I
certainly missed it if it was in one of those umpteen hundred line
exchanges in which you [1] and Zeleny exchange love pats). You must
know that I dote on compliments; they warm the very cockles of my
heart, whatever cockles might be. I haven't gone quite to the extent
of keeping a clippings file but I definitely have this ego that, well,
never mind. I will own that it is a great fault in me that I do not
hand out these little accolades with the enthusiasm and alacrity with
which I receive them, but then, who among us is perfect? Not I,
certainly.
[1] Yes, I am quite aware that my phrasing revolts you.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@strauss.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 17:10:47 -0500
>JOE wrote:
>
>> caesar@copland.udel.edu (Yu) typed:
>GOOD CITIZEN READERS:
>Pay No Attention To ....You Can Believe Nothing He Says.
>Go Back To Your Work
Joe, your words sounds like a law enforcement officer who stands on
the street and ask the protesters to go back to work.
Do you feel people's anger for some conspiracy?!
To be a good citizen must be loyal to our country's Constitution
first than others.
Every government officer also must be loyal to the Contitution
first than others because it is the foundation of our country.
>As If You Had Never Heard Of ALAN YU Or His Foolish Lies.
I would like to swear in God's name, I only write the facts and tell
the truth to the society with my best knowledge.
I would be responsible for my words to the God because it is true.
>Thank You Fot Your Cooperation, Citizens.
>
Everyone has his career's habit and the frequently using words, such
kinds of words are the good words but it belong to a typical law
enforcement officer's words.
If you really are a law enforcement officer or a governmental officer,
I hope that you are loyal to our Constitution than others.
>ALAN YU:
>
>>Dear Readers,
>
>> The below reply can prove the mind control operators are
> o--
Dear Readers,
Joe is trying to write the word of obey (O-bey).
I don't know that is he trying to tell me that he will obey to me or
warn me to obey him?
However, readers can judge the facts by your own.
I will show readers these letters of the word below.
>>extiance and they classify people's health condition into groups
>>(by using the secret code) in order to control people's lives.
>>Furthermore, the unlimited privileges of the operators have make
>>them to believe and said that "they are the Constitution."
>>Such kind words only proves that what I say are full truth--The
>>mind control operators are enjoying their unlimited powers and
>>control people's lives.
>>The mind control final goal (the vision of Global Harmony and
>>Total Accord) has also appeared in Wilson's words ---Obey, Be happy,
>>Dis-obey, Be punished!
>>If his words is true, the operators will control people as the
>>soldiers.
>b--(oB-ey), there is the second letter of obey.
>
>I Am Sure That If The Organization Calling Itself "The Association
>for Happiness and Freedom Under Computer-1"Really Exists,
I am sure that the "The Association for .....Under Computer-1 " is fake
but some mind control operators or cooperators try to use this name to
mislead readers but the content of the reply is their true opinions.
That's because I fully understand the operators' behavior and
philosophy.
There is a another infornation below, it shows their intention
are trying to debate with me.
(attachment)
===========================================
leader@secret.us.gov (Mr XJ69) wrote:
>Attention! This is an emergency tap, individualized message,
>directedto caesar@copland.udel.edu via ISP network tap. Important
>revelations follow:
>
>In article <328be4b0.11711307@news.softdisk.com>,
>black999@vexation.net (Intelligence Officer #999) writes:
>> caesar@copland.udel.edu (Yu) wrote:
>>
>>>>We do not abuse our Tools,
>>>>We only use them in order to bring about the realization of the
>>>>vision of Global Harmony and Total Accord.
.........
>>>In the second case, does the high power line is the necassary path
>>of " the vision of Global Harmony and Total Accord?!
>>
>>Power Lines transmit Energy for Citizens to Use in Work and Play.
>>It is Important to Civilization.
>>...........
>focus. This concludes our message tap. Other messages posted to
>this medium will be seen by all.
......
> - Darvos -
===========================================
Since these guys can opnly use the US government title to express
their opinion without getting problem, it has showed readers that
they should be considered as the government officers or law
enforcement officers.
>It Will Obey Not Try To Hurt You. If AHFUC Exists, I Am Sure That It
>Wants Nothing But The Obey Best For You.
By using the fake name of "AHFUC", the operators or cooperators can
express their really opinions and debate with me about the content of my
articles.
Furthermore, they can deny everything if they made mistakes.
>But I Do Not Think That An Organization Called AHFUC Exists.
>Sure, it is not existance.
>Yes. It Is ALL In Your Obey Mind.
No!, this words is all from your writting.
>If AHFUC Is The Constitution,
No! the AHFUC doesn't existance but the operators do believe that
they are the Constitution.
For example:
Some law enforcement officers always believe that they are the "Law".
However, it is a purely wrong idea because the law enforcement officers
must follow the law when they enforce the law.
If a law enforcement officer doesn't follow the law while he is carrying
out his job, then it cannot be called law enforcement.
Furthermore, if a officer violate the Constitution or law in his job, it
should be called crime or corruption (no chance to be called
law enforcement).
Furthermore, since the law enforcement officers can use the invisible
wave weapon (so called nonlethal weapon") attack people without being
held responsible by law, they have become the judge, jury, and
executioner at the same time.
No wonder some of them believe that "they are the constitution."
The enclosed information can proves that the invisible wave weapon are
in the hands of law enforcemrent officers.
(attachmrent)
----------------------------------------------
This report points out that , "The Nairobiv Convention, to which
the United States is a signastory, prohiibits the broadcast of
electronic signals into a sovereign state without its consent in
peace time.
This report opens discussion of use of these weapons against
"terrorists" and "drug traffickers". The CFR report recommends
that this be done secretly so that the victims do not know where
the attack is from, or if there even is an attack!
There is a problem with this approach. The use of these weapons,
even against these kinds of individuals, may be in violation of United
States law in that it presume guilt rather than innocence. In other
words, the POLICE, CIA, DEA, OR OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION
become THE JUDGE, JURY AND EXCECUTIONER. (See page 180 on _ANGELS DON'T
PLAY THE HAARP_1995 by Jeane Manning & Dr. Nick Begich)
-------------------------------------------------
Comparing with the facts, the author has made a very accuracy
deduction on these nonlethal weapon abusers.
That's because these weapon has been also used on the law abiding
citizens who these officers dislike.
> As Obey You Say, I Am Sure That It Will Do It's Best
>To Help All Freedom Loving Citizens Obey Of The World.
Your words without evidence to prove but only your own opinion.
>However,AHFUC Does Not Exist. So It Cannot Be Obey The Constitution. If
>AHFUC Exists (It Does Not), I Am Sure That The Vision Of Global
>Harmony And Obey Total Accord That It Promotes Will Become The
>Standard For The Future. The Vision Of Global Harmony And Total
>Accord Does Not Obey Exist Either.
I believe that you didn't read my oprevious reply clearly because I
have dediuced that the Wilson is a liar who said he is a intellegence
agent of AHFUC.
I only deduce that he might be a law enforcement oficer or cooperatotr.
>Perhaps You Are Insane. Are You Insane, ALAN YU ?
Since your accusation without evidence and your opinion appeares you
didn't read my reply clearly, it has showed readers that you are either
misleading or trying to false accuse me.
Remember that "accuseing other as insane without evidence is the
"treadmark" of mind control operators.
>>Wilson has openly use the governmentall officer's title to warn me
>e--(obE-y), there is the third letter of obey.
>>that they will punish me and I did have been attacked with the
>>infrasound weapon at the Wednesday night (11/143/96).
>>I will keep my rights to sue Wilson if he really involved in the
>>physical attack on me (on Wednesday).
>>Wilson's words has showed us that mind control is a international
>>conspiracy because an operator will be the citizren of the world.
>y--(obeY)
>
>Pay No More Attention Obey To The Man That Called Himself "WILSON"
>AKA "Intelligence Agent #999". There Is Obey No Wilson. There
>Never Was A Wilson.
So, you means that the Wilson (wilson@softdik.com) who openly
use the tiltle of government officer, is only using a fake name.
Even he was using the fake name , openly used the government
officer's title to warn a law abiding citizen on Internet is still
falsely accuse the reputation of US government or the the reputation of
most government officers who really follw the law and enforce the law.
(attachment)
==================================================
wilson@softdisk.com "(Intelligence Officer #999)" wrote:
>caesar@copland.udel.edu (Yu) did say:
>Current the mind control operators are carrying out the
>social revolution to U.S. with the communism theory
>< Part II >
......
>According to some news report, the officers use the mind control
>equipments to confuse David Koresh's followers in order to avoid
>some of them fleeing from the burning building.
Return to your cubicle. Cease and desist all unauthorized actions at
once. Control Officers will arrive shortly to initiate disciplinary
measures. ...........................
Disconnect from the Host Computer and await further instructions.
"Iron Parrot" JIIM
"fear the vOIDbEEST"
wilson@softdisk.com
(Intelligence Officers #999)
============================================
>You Are Obey Mistaken, Surely?
I never obey this kind of misleading words nor such kind of
peron.
>Yes. There Is No
>"WILSON". Now This Is Settled. It Is Good.
>There Obey Are No "INFRA-SOUND" Weapons.
I never obey anyone under the threat.
>That Is "Science Fiction"!!!
>HAHAHAHAHA
No! The operators indeed using the infrasound weapon to attack me.
I would sware my words in God's name, I tell the facts and truth.
>You Should Be Obey Some Sort Of Comic Book Writer, ALAN YU
>!
Joe, Don't try to use the confused words to mislead readers.
>You Are Quite Skilled At Writing Entertaining Obey Fictional
>Stories. There Is No Mind Control Conspiracy.
>If One Exists, It Will Not Hurt You. The Mind Control Conspiracy Does
>Obey Not Exist, Though. It Is Settled.
Your opinions without support information or eviudences.
>Return To Your Cubicle.
Joe, you sounds is really like the Wilson, are you using the fake
names to play two roles.
If you did and can so easily change your name or title, it only shows that
such kinds of action might be from law enforcement officer.
>Thank You For Your Cooperation, Citizen.
>
>JOE SMITH
>ALL-AMERICAN STORAGE COMPANY
Thank you for sharing the information!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alan Yu
The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate
people's lives in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies
secretly (die as if natural cause).
The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of
Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free
countries.
Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
control organization.
(If any law enforcement officer declare anyone as "insane" and
the social security department do not put these individual in the
welfare program as diable person, then it only represent a kind of
political suppression or false accusation to discredit someone.
That' because the local law enforcement is the basic unit of mind
control)
The shorter the lie is, the better it is. So, the liar can avoid
inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 23 Nov 1996 19:33:29 GMT
weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael S. Morris (msmorris@inetdirect.net) wrote:
>>I went at it from the other side. That is, whether "science" produces
>>value or not kind of depends on what you mean by "science". If you
>>mean by it (as I trust you did) merely the procedure of science
>>that comes after the metaphysical assumptions have been made, then
>>sure. But, if you mean the procedure of science *together
>>with the metaphysical assumptions behind it* then I think some
>>pretty strong value-judgments are in there right at the beginning,
>Absolutely -- as you say, judgments.
>>and it's perfectly correct to say that science does provide value,
>>as in the exercise of science requires certain value-judgments to
>>be made and not others. Now granted that these judgments probably
>>won't have much to say about sexual ethics, or table manners, or
>>even just war, but this doesn't mean that science makes no ethical
>>pronouncements whatsoever.
>Oh hell, all the time -- they are ultimately just as arbitrary as
>the value judgments philosophy makes -- the stress is on ultimately.
Before you can stress "ultimately", you should explain in what sense
either kind of value judgments is arbitrary.
>I think the discipline we want to look at in this context is sociobiology
>-- they are trying to establih themselves as both ethical and scientific
>discourse, and it's a bit troubling (imo).
The only *intellectually* troubling aspect of the sociobiological
enterprise is its empiricist methodology, which conflicts with the
normative conclusions.
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: Proof of: Variable Lightspeed & Absolute Local Offsets
From: "John W. D. Anderson"
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:28:01 -0500
Note for Brian Jones:
I noted with interest the _proof_ that
you posted earlier attempting to show
that relatively moving observers
measure the speed of light as being
different and including the claim that
the thought experiment you used is
applicable to special relativity.
Unfortunately, your posting contained
four assumptions (three implicit in
your analysis and one explicitly stated)
that are applicable in Galilean relativity
but not SR. Therefore, it's not surprising
that you arrived at a result that is
inconsistent with SR. The assumptions
are:
1) You explicitly assumed that relatively
moving frames of reference measure the
same spatial separation between events.
2) You assumed that relatively moving
frames of reference have clocks which
run at the same rate.
3) You assumed that relatively moving
frames of reference agree on which events
are simultaneous.
4) You assumed that the rate of change of
the relative displacement of two objects
in a frame in which they are both moving
is the same as the relative velocity.
With regard to (3:
I know you don't want to accept the relativity
of simultaneity since you want to interpret it
as related to synching clocks. However, it
is part of the conventional interpretation of SR,
so if you don't include it, your argument isn't
relevant to that interpretation.
your argument is irrelevant to
With regard to (2:
You have written that time dilation occurs. Why
do you ignore it in your _proof_?
With regard to (1:
You assume that if the photon causes an indelible
mark to be made at some instant that all 3 frames
involved in your experiment will agree that it
happened at the same distance from the origin.
You claim that if they don't, then the only
explanation is that the photon was at different
places at the same time.
But you have written that rod contraction occurs.
The spatial separation of two events is frame
dependent. The different separations do not
make the identity of the event ambiguous. They
just reflect that different frames see the same
event as being at different coordinates.
This is what SR is about. It explains how to
relate the different measurements made of the
SAME phenomenon in different frames of reference.
If every frame had to measure a given event as
being at the same coordinates, nobody would
give a damn about transforming to a different
frame.
The fact that you aligned the origins of your
frames at time 0 is irrelevant. If relative
motion causes distances to be measured differently,
then the coordinates of the same event will be
different in the two frames.
With regard to (4:
If you are in a frame where two objects are
moving, the relative velocity of the objects
is not the same as the rate of change of
relative displacement in SR. The numbers you get
are the same in Galilean relativity, but they
are really conceptually different measurements.
In SR, we want to use velocities to describe
the motions of single objects in some frame of
reference. To get the relative velocity, go
to the rest frame of one of the objects and
measure the velocity of the other in that
frame. In a frame where both are moving, the
relative displacement is the difference in the
displacement of two distinct objects. It does
not describe the position of a single object
in that frame.
In fact, the rate of change
of relative displacement can be greater than
c in SR with no problems. To see this,
put a flashlight one light second to the
right of me and another one light second to
the left. The relative displacement is 2
light seconds. Light from the flashlights
meets one second later at my location. The
relative displacement is zero. Therefore,
the rate of change of relative displacement
is 2c. But nothing moved faster than c, and
it would still take light from one flashlight
two seconds to reach the other one so they
can't communicate faster than c.
_____________________________________________
Now with that out of the way look at the
problem the way it should be looked at in
SR. We look at the problem in a frame S
where a is moving left with speed va and
b is moving right with speed vb. Let A
denote a's rest frame and B denote b's
rest frame. Assume that the origins
of all three frames coincide. I denote
points in spacetime as (t,x) where t is
the time and x the displacement. So
coincidence of the origins means that
there is a single point with coordinates
(0,0) in all three frames.
Lets say that the coordinates in S of
the event where the photon made it's
indelible mark is (0,-D). In S, the
trajectory of the photon is x = c * t - D.
In S, the trajectory of a is x = -va * t
and the trajectory of b is x = vb * t.
a sees the photon for c * t - D = -va * t
ie. t = D / (c + va). Similarly, b sees
the photon when t = D / (c - vb). Then
a's position when he sees the photon is
-va * D / (c + va), and b's position when
he sees the photon is vb * D / (c - vb).
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS IN FRAME S.
Now let's look at these events in frame A.
To do this, I need to use a Lorentz transformation.
t' = ga * (t + va * x / c^2)
x' = ga * (x + va * t)
where ga = (1 - (va/c)^2)^-0.5
Note that (0,0) goes to (0,0) under this
transformation so the origin transforms to
the origin in the new coordinates. But
look what happens to (0,-D)
t' = ga * (0 - D * va / c^2) = - ga * va * D / c^2
x' = ga * (-D - va * 0) = -ga * D
The event that has coordinates (0,-D) in S has
coordinates (-ga * va *D / c^2, -ga * D) in A.
This is the same event, but according to A,
it happened at different coordinates than according
to S.
Similarly, in B, this event has coordinates
(gb * vb * D / c^2, -gb * D)
where gb is defined same as ga by replacing va
by vb.
So all three frames disagree about the coordinates
of the SAME spacetime point. That's what a coordinate
transformation is. They do agree that the photon
made only one indelible mark.
Now look at the event where the photon intercepts
a. In S the coordinates are
(D / (c + va), -va * D / (c + va))
You also know that in S, the photon was at
(0,-D). So in S, the distance between the
events is -va * D / (c + va) - (-D)
= D * c / (c + va) and the time difference
is D / (c + va), so the speed of the photon
is c in S.
If I look at the same two points in A,
I know that the mark was made at
(-ga * va *D / c^2, -ga * D).
In S, the meeting of a and the photon
is at (D / (c + va), -va * D / (c + va)).
Transforming to A
t' = ga * D * (1 - (va / c)^2) / (c + va)
x' = ga * D * (-va + va) / (c + va) = 0
As expected, any point where a is has x
coordinate zero in the inertial frame
attached to a. Distance between events
is
0 - (-ga * D) = ga * D
Time between events is
ga * D * ((1 - (va / c)^2) / (c + va) + va / c^2)
= ga * D * (c^2 - va^2 + va * c + va^2) / (c^2 (c + va))
= ga * D / c
So the speed of the photon measured by a in his
rest frame is c.
Similarly, the velocity of the photon measured
by b in his rest frame is c.
Note that I will be unable to reply to any
response you have to this until next weekend.
