Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: Hermital
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 15:20:47 -0800
Michael Ramsey typed:
>
> In <3299E0C8.3828@livingston.net> Hermital
> writes:
> >Hello, Mike:
> >
> >Electrons may appear to move backward in time and mathematical
> >manipulation of the time vector is possible; however, these are merely
> >appearances and possibilities, not fact. Indeed, you qualify your own
> >statement with the word "possibility".
> >
> >Strange things happen to various possibilities as science, life and
> >time
> >move forward.
> >--
> >Alan
> >Egoless pure consciousness, unconditioned pure energy, uncreated
> >absolute pure being pre-exists: All else is supervenient.
>
> Alan,
> I am not so sure that it is only a mathematical trick. Both Maxwell's
> and Schrodinger's equations have negative square root answers which can
> be interpreted as waves travelling backwards in time. We have chosen
> to ignore the math because we don't like what it is telling us.
>
Equations? Negative square root answers? Interpreted!??
The math is a human creation. Much of it requires another look.
> I did use possibilities. The right word should have been amplitude.
> As has been shown over and over again, when you remove an amplitude for
> the electron to do something, the experimental results change. Time
> travelling electrons have to be considered and not dismissed as
> inconvenient. All we fool are ourselves.
Not inconvenient, sir. Not inconvenient at all. Nevertheless, no
amount of manipulating premises or mathematical vectors will cause time
to flow from the future or the present to past effects or events that
constitute the foundation of the omnipresent transcendental and/or
material now.
--
Alan
Egoless pure consciousness, unconditioned pure energy, uncreated
absolute pure being pre-exists: All else is supervenient.
Subject: Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 95)
From: baez@math.ucr.edu (john baez)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 13:52:29 -0800
In article <57ga5l$8rk@charity.ucr.edu>, John Baez wrote:
>The only integer solution of
>
> 1^2 + 2^2 + ... + n^2 = m^2,
>
>is the solution n = 24, not counting silly solutions like n = 0 and
>n = 1.
>It seems the Lucas didn't have a proof of this; the first proof is
>due to G. N. Watson in 1918, using hyperelliptic functions.
I got this information from Jet Wimp's review, and haven't actually
seen the proof. David Morrison pointed out in email that since
the sum on the left is n(n+1)(2n+1)/6, this problem can be solved by
finding all the rational points (n,m) on the elliptic curve
(1/3) n^3 + (1/2) n^2 + (1/6) n = m^2
which is the sort of thing folks know how to do. For a wee bit on
elliptic curves, see "week13".
Also, Robin Chapman pointed out that Anglin's elementary proof
also appears in the American Mathematical Monthly, February 1990,
pp. 120-124, and that another elementary proof has since appeared
in the Journal of Number Theory.
>In dimension 16 there are only *two* even unimodular lattices. One
>is E8 + E8. A vector in this is just a pair of vectors in E8. The
>other is called D16*, which we get the same way as we got E8: we
>take a checkerboard lattice in 16 dimensions and stick in extra spheres
>in all the holes. More mathematically, to get E8 or D16*, we take all
>vectors in R^8 or R^16, respectively, whose coordinates are either
>*all* integers or *all* half-integers, for which the coordinates add
>up to an even integer. (A "half-integer" is an integer plus 1/2.)
I was being very silly in my notation here; that other even unimodular
lattice in 16 dimensions is called D16+, not D16*, and it is definitely
not the dual of D16.
In fact, we can play this trick in any dimension. We start with
the checkerboard lattice Dn in dimension n --- this is the lattice
consisting of all integer-coordinate points whose coordinates
add up to an even integer --- and double its density by throwing
in another copy of Dn shifted over by the vector (1/2,...,1/2).
Conway and Sloan call the result Dn+. It's only a lattice when
n is even, but when n = 3 it's the pattern that carbon atoms form
in a diamond! It's only when we get up n = 8 that we can start
with tightly packed spheres centered at the points of Dn,
and put in new spheres centered at the other points of Dn+ that are
just as big, without having the spheres overlap. The result being
E8, perhaps we could call E8 an "eight-dimensional diamond", which
at least conveys some of its crystalline beauty. D16+ is then the
"sixteen-dimensional diamond".
>On the other hand, the
>group SO(32) gives us the D16* lattice --- or at least some very
>related lattice; I always get confused about this point, and I'm too
>tired to figure it out now, but perhaps some kind reader will
>confirm or correct me here.
Well, it seems that D16+ is neither the weight lattice nor the
root lattice of SO(32) or Spin(32) or anything quite like that.
In his review article on the heterotic string David Gross says
it's the lattice generated by the weights of the adjoint rep of
SO(32) together with one of the two spinor reps.
>Well, in dimension 24, there are *24* even unimodular lattices,
>which were classified by Niemeier. A few of these are obvious, like
>E8 + E8 + E8 and E8 + D16*, but the coolest one is the "Leech
>lattice", which is the only one having no vectors of length 2.
>This is related to a whole WORLD of bizarre and perversely fascinating
>mathematics, like the "Monster group", the largest finite simple
>group --- and also to string theory.
Joshua Burton caught me here; I meant to say the largest *sporadic*
simple group. This is especially galling because I had been
preening myself ever since catching someone else who made this
error on sci.math.research a while back.
It's rather spooky, isn't it, how there are exactly 24 even unimodular
lattices in 24 dimensions? I'll probably say a bit more about that
one of these days, but for now let me just answer the obvious question:
what about in 32 dimensions? Well, Conway and Sloane's book does a
nice calculation that shows there are more than 80 MILLION inequivalent
even modular lattices in 32 dimensions!
Subject: Re: Clifford Algebra, quaternions; Witten's Large N expansion
From: jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 21:37:22 GMT
In article <57hic0$55u@gannett.math.niu.edu> rusin@vesuvius.math.niu.edu (Dave Rusin) writes:
< In article , Jan Bielawski wrote:
<
< >It's impossible to define multiplication "sensibly" in 3-space.
< >J. F. Adams proved in 1960 that the only real division algebras
< >were reals, complexes, quaternions, and Cayley numbers.
<
< Bzzt! Caught another one. The only real division algebras are in
< dimensions 1, 2, 4, and 8. There are many division algebras. You have
< to make further restrictions if you want the answer to be
< "only R, C, H, and O".
I assumed multiplication in *R^n* from the context.
--
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. +
#****************************************************************************#
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Capella
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 17:32:10 -0600
JeffMo wrote:
>
> inquisitor@mindspring.com (Inquisitor) wrote:
>
> >END of ARGUMENT...Right Here Folks
>
> >Although there is no empirical evidence for either creation
> >or evolution, one has to consider which has the most rational
> >basis.
>
> There is plenty of empirical evidence for evolution, and it has been
> presented ad nauseam on UseNet. It has also been ignored ad nauseam
> by the bleaters.
>
> >Creation: based on biblical evidence that has been intrepreted,
> >reintrepreted, misintrepeted, translated, retranslated,
> >mistranslated, written and re-written innumerable times over
> >the course of the ages.
>
> True.
>
> >Evolution: re: the above, make your own conclusions.
>
> OK, I will.
>
> >This thread ends right here.
>
> On this note, I have unequivocal proof that you are wrong. :)
>
> JeffMo
> "A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
> "A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
>
> Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
I second that proof that he is wrong!
--
Capella
Dallas, Texas
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 17:57:05 -0500
Jeff Inman (jti@pajarito.santafe.edu) wrote:
](1) At what point will some minor disturbance cause a significant
]failure in our increasingly brittle, extended, and complex global
]infrastructure?
That our infrastructure is "extended and complex" is true. That it is
also "increasingly brittle" doesn't follow; it seems to be one
of the articles of faith popular among anti-science crowd.
There might be some epistemological problems there.
]It could be the dwindling of some key species, which supports some
]significant part of our food chain. It could be some smallish
]purturbation in the increasingly brittle weather system (for example.
]I suppose the fact of this situation might be disputed) -- a couple of
]years of drought in the wheat and corn producing regions.
Western civilization posesses large excess capacity for food production,
drought or no drought.
] It could be
]some political disturbance .. which brings me to:
]
](2) How much are various people going to be willing to compromise
]themselves in the name of peace? Would you be willing to live in a
]tiny cubicle, eating hydroponically grown food, stuffed full of drugs
]to combat various food-born infections, etc? What if the bill of
]rights is just too destabilizing, in a delicate system? What if it
]were proved to you that your food supply required the devastation of a
]habitat that sustained some foreign people, who were poltically
]insignificant?
What if herd of flying elephants attacks the White House tomorrow ?
BTW, another article of faith among some seems to be that production
somehow depends on some remote opressed people. Never mind that
such a proposition is nonsensical.
]>Finally, with regard to Michael Kagalenko's comment
]>regarding fertility (birth rate), what are the population saturations
]>mechanisms which will likely be active in the 21st century? Facts
]>please, or at least non-trivial models (no Verhulst or Ricker toy
]>models).
]
]K's point about prosperity bringing down birthrate ignores the fact
]that resource consumption is not localized within those countries that
]appear "stable" and self-sustaining.
My point does neither depend on nor require such an assumption, which
isn't really correct, to begin with.
] If resources are being consumed
](or compromised) over increasingly non-local areas, then the
]"stability" is an illusion. Darwin's ideas, for example, implicitly
]assume that this must be happening. If not, anyhow, a world without
]evolution would be a strange salvation.
Of course, all this not only incorrect, but irrelevant to the point
that I made; that birthrates are decreasing hand in hand with technlogical
progress, without any need for particular restraint.
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:50:57 GMT
In article <57id11$h7e@tierra.santafe.edu>, jti@isleta.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>
>And the relevance to this thread would be that science would have no
>tools for ordering these two inimical ethical systems. Curious, then,
>that science seems much more inclined to support the former
>(i.e. preserving the sick and injured) than the latter. I suppose one
>could offer napalm (a product of technology, which simultaneously
>feeds off and drives science) as a counter-example.
>
And a counterexample worth investigating, too. Lets follow a bit from
it.
It seems to me that you mix two separate things, i.e. science and
technology. Science itself is neutral, when it comes to various
ethical choices. There is nothing in Newton's laws or in Maxwell's
equations that is "inclined" either towards or away from preserving
life, just for an example. This is just an information, a tool which
can be used according to the preferences of whoever wields it.
When it comes to technology, i.e. to the application of science as a
tool, then it is applied according to the preferences of the society
at the given time and place. You'll find that a peaceful and affluent
society will give priority to applications that enhance security and
longevity while a society at war will give preferences to applications
aimed at killing other people in the most efficient way. Nothing
surprising in it. A tool is a tool and he who wields it uses it
according to the situation. Same hammer can be used to build a house
or to break somebody's head.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: rafael cardenas
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:17:15 +0100
Michael Zeleny wrote:
> >>>Surely _if_ we treat the organism as an entity capable of making
> >>>decisions and
> >>>seeking goals, and we assert that its 'goal' is (or appears to be)
> >>>'survival', then on a standard sub-Aristotelian teleological ground the
> >>>value to it of 'truth', i.e. a correct appreciation of its environment
> >>>which enables it
> >>>to avoid mistakes, is indisputable. As g*rd*n pointed out much more
> >>>succinctly in
> >>>a parallel thread.
> >>>
> >>>The problem, however, is how a science which in some form admits only
> >>>efficient
> >>>causes (e.g. physics since the 17th century) can establish the
> >>>reality of final causes. We can say that the organism functions 'as if'
> >>>it seeks
> >>>goals, but that is only one step removed from saying that the
> >>>evolutionary process,
> >>> or inanimate systems and bodies, function 'as if' they seek goals,
> >>>which both biology
> >>>and physics deny.
>
> >>Not really. Monod's book on chance and necessity is most typical of
> >>biological acknowledgment of apparent final causality, which has been
> >>since vulgarized in the pop genre by Dawkins et alii.
>
> >Assuming that 'Not really' refers to 'which both biology and physics
> >deny',
> >it doesn't cover the point: Dawkins illustrates very clearly the
> >dichotomy
> >above, since he attributes final causation to the 'gene', but not to the
> >evolutionary process (e.g. 'climbing mt. improbable'.) But if we deny
> >one,
> >how can we accept the other? And if we accept final causation for
> >physical
> >objects, what price traditional scientific methodology?
>
> You are oscillating between appearances of final causality and the
> real thing in a most disconcerting fashion. Monod acknowledges the
> "teleonomic" appearances without postulating full-blooded teleology.
> The gravamen between the proponents of "the anthropic cosmological
> principle" and its detractors is the selfsame difference between
> apparent and real design. And naturalistic analysis of functions and
> goals as determined by evolutionary processes falls under the former
> rubric.
OK, so you (or they) deny the reality of final causes. (I didn't say
they were
real: I said that _if_ we treated the organism as goal-directed, _then_
truth
would be valuable to it). In that case
you (or they) deny the reality of the teleonomic values. And the 'value'
of 'truth' becomes
simply a term for a fictional abstraction. Which was not, I think, what
you
originally claimed as against Silke.
--
rafael cardenas huitlodayo
Swarfmire College, Goscote, UK
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: rafael cardenas
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:43:22 +0100
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> : The point, rather, is that ignorance or false perception in relation to
> : the organism's environment is at best neutral for it, whereas truth is
> : at worst neutral for it. Thus truth has value to the organism.
> : To demonstrate that truth had no value to the
> : organism, you would need to show a) that some truths were necessarily
> : _damaging_ to the organism's survival, and b) that the number and
> : incidence
> : of such truths exceeded the number and incidence of cases of
> : ignorance/error in
> : which it would have been better for the organism to possess correct
> : awareness.
>
> No, the point rather is that none of these speculations will lead you to
> the morally good; unless you want to assign moral goodness to the mating
> dances of mosquitoes. Once we are in a framework where every action is
> determined by considerations of survival, we are in a framework that
> doesn't admit of the opposition of good and evil.
>
It doesn't admit of an absolute opposition: but no teleological morality
admits of that, except as something provided by a _deus ex
machina_. There can be goods for the organism, for the species, and so
on,
determined by some definition of 'survival'. 'Survival' might, for
example,
be defined as the continuation of a process rather than the persistence
of a thing.
> The question of whether knowledge of truth can be harmful is a side-show,
> even though an interesting one. You could certainly argue that knowledge
> of truth can be harmful to the species which would include the organism
> that has or produces this knowledge; for trivial instance, the truth about
> how to make nuclear bombs;
On the contrary: the level of understanding required to obtain that
truth
also provides the truth about how not to let them off. Of course, all
organisms
can make 'mistakes' in the pursuit of some goal, whether that is
individual or
special survival.
> some brand of social darwinism argues that
> truths established by medicine weaken the species;
That's an elisive argument: really social darwinists can claim that only
the incorrect
application of medical truth weakens the species (incorrect because it
ignores
some other truths).
> Nietzsche argues that
> too much knowledge of history is debilitating;
In what sense 'debilitating'? A debilitation of the ignorance required
to do
something stupid is not necessarily damaging.
>pessimists like moggin
> will argue that knowledge of the truth leaves you with very few options
> besides suicide (not conducive to the organism's survival), etc. etc.
He's still alive, isn't he? Knowledge of pessimistic truth tells you
something more
terrible: that suicide is a histrionic waste of effort. It also tells
you that
failed suicides are far commoner than successful ones, and often leave
the person in a worse state than before the attempt :-)
>
> As I said, a side-show.
As I said, on the contrary.
--
rafael cardenas huitlodayo
Swarfmire College, Goscote, UK
Subject: Re: Restraint re: Sokal
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:19:25 GMT
In article <57ihj3$4tb@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>Silke-Maria Weineck (Z.) wrote:
>]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
>]: brian artese (b-artese@nwu.edu) wrote:
>]: ]Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>]: ]
>]: ]> I am addressing broad question of the nonsense promulgated by
>]: ]> prominent "intellectuals". At any rate, that comment by Derrida
>]: ]> sufficed.
>]: ]
>]: ]More ducking and weaving. Sokal certainly wasn't addressing 'broad
>]: ]questions' about unnamed intellectuals. He claimed to have exposed
>]: ]the 'charlatanism' of specifically French intellectuals, which
>]: ]obviously include Derrida.
>]
>]: *Yawn* That's what I am saying, my slow friend. Including, but not
>]: limited to.
>]
>]And you as well as Sokal are wrong, as the recent discussion of the
>]Derrida citation demonstrated. The statement may have been ambiguous,
>]but it does not constitute proof of "charlatanism."
>
> Weineck is lying again. Recent discussion demonstrated no such thing.
>
>]: ] Neither he, nor you, nor any
>]other : ]ill-read Sokalhead has offered a single critique of any of his
>]: ]published writing.
>]
>]: No one is obliged to critique abject nonsense. It is too bad
>]: that you lack appropriate education to recognize Derrida's
>]: statements about science for what they are worth, but I can not
>]: help you here.
>]
>]"Statements about science"? Where?
>
>"Einsteinian constant is not a constant ", and so on, by the book.
>
>]"Abject nonsense"? How so in the light
>]of the fact that several physicists, incl. Mati and Plotnitsky, can make
>]sense of it without too much of a stretch?
>
> I have not noticed that Mati can make sense out of it. Mati, if you
> do, perhaps you could enlighten me ?
>
No, as I've stated explicitly more then once, I can't. I'm not ruling
out the possibility that, by substituting appropriate terms for the
actual terms used in the quote, the statement can be made to make
sense, but I haven't seen yet a good reason why any of the specific
interpretations proposed should be accepted.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: jti@isleta.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 22:46:05 GMT
candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) writes:
>>> candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) writes:
>>> >Since the earth has a finite capacity to produce food, there is clearly
>>> >a "hard limit" with respect to population -- despite that repeated warning
>>> >from dogmatic libertarians that "population is not a problem". Can you
>>> >identify, roughly, the number of years as a function of the average growth
>>> >rate (a la Malthus) which humans can continue to live on earth without
>>> >reaching this hard limit. The dependence is logarithmic in most relevant
>>> >parameters, so an order-of-magnitude estimate is fine. The next step
>>> >is to see if this has anything to do with reality ...
>> I don't have the background, or the data, to try and define this
>> precisely, and anyhow, I think the suggestion of such a calculation
>> misses the point.
>
>You mean you're too lazy?
You can call it that. I prefer to think of it as scientific caution.
>Current pop: 5.7 x 10^9
>
>Current 20-year growth rate: 1.316 (that is P[n+20] = 1.316 P[n], with n=1996).
>
>Note that this is a very large growth rate; the famous Sweden example
>which followed the Malthusian law had less than 1.2 as I recall.
I don't recall that Malthus picked some particular set of parameters
and coefficients. Like you, he qualified it based on the birthrate,
or, actually, on the median (?) age at which new mothers gave birth.
This has a nice intuitive connection with the kinds of lives people
are living, if you consider the age at which they are getting married.
In the American colonies, at that time, people were fucking like
bunnies. And they had plenty of land, too. Malthus said this was no
coincidence.
>Now, the current surface density is
>
> P[1996]
> d = --------------
> 4 pi Re^2 s
>
>where s is a surface factor which I'll pull out of thin air ... about 1/6
>to account for the noninhabitable fraction of the surface. Some sloppy
>math gives:
>
> d = 5 x 10^(-4) / m^2
>
>Thus there is now about 1 person for every 2000 m^2 of inhabitable land.
Now who's lazy? You haven't made any control for the possibility that
"habitable land" may well require some qualification. For example,
you can only pump fertilizer into a piece of land for so long before
you exhaust it. In addition, this practice will have the tendency to
affect nearby water tables, which will affect local flora and fauna,
etc. How do you compute that? You seem to be arguing, with the
simplicity of your equation, that such effects don't really exist.
It's fine that you disagree with me but don't give me this
pseudo-rigorous crap.
I cited these things as part of my reason for doubting that such
calculations weren't naive.
>Lets suppose a hard limit would be reached at roughly 1 person for every
>20 m^2 (100 times curent density). At the current high growth rates, this
>would take 335 years.
Nice. This figure is exactly as useful as your "let's suppose", and
as your figure for "habitable" land, and as your premise that all
other parameters are stable. But even given these naive premises,
what makes you think that a density of one person per 20 square meters
is not way over or way under the limit? Maybe we could stack them in
phone-booth sized cages, covering every speck of land, and many
sea-platforms, and feed them something that comes straight out of a
reactor? I can only hope that they'd have sense enough to start
slaughtering each other long before things came to such a pass.
And, anyhow, as I said, what makes you think that the practical limit
is not more significant, which would have to consider my (proposed)
increasing probability that some small event will have disastrous
consequences (.e.g. alterations in weather)?
I've heard it said that at the present rate of growth world population
will double in about 25-40 years. [Or something like that.] I don't
know what kind of density this would produce in your equations, but it
seems to me already dangerously close having a significant
"incremental probability of disaster", or whatever you want to call
it. I think such considerations are more scientific than the output
from someone's calculator.
>Now, according to the July 1995 President's Committee
>of Advisors on science and Technology (PCAST) Report, in only 50 years we
>will need about 3000 new, large fission reactors to satisfy only HALF of
>the estimated electricity demand -- the remainder coming from I don't
>know where (coal, wind, hydro, solar ... right). The "hard limit" in
>energy is thus a major problem.
Fine. Put it in your computer and calculate.
> jti:
>> If one were to attempt it, here might be some of the factors to consider:
>>
>> (1) At what point will some minor disturbance cause a significant
>> failure in our increasingly brittle, extended, and complex global
>> infrastructure?
>
>"Brittle" infrastructure. My impression is that much of the relevant
>infrastructure (communication, transport) is robust. Among the least
>robust is energy.
Whatever. I was picturing infrastructure as including the political
will to move resources, but anyhow, if you want to talk energy, with a
sudden, lasting shortage of gasoline a lot of people would starve.
>"perturbation"; and what evidence do you have that the "weather"
>is brittle?
Cool. Not only do you compute, but you check spelling. All right-y
then. I personally have no hard evidence. Perhaps you can counter
the claim, and explain why scientific consensus seems to be that human
activity is producing a definite effect on the global weather? I was
probably influenced more by annecdote, as, for instance, the friends
who grew up in Alaska, and say that the glaciers have steadily receded
since they were kids. Or the fact that I have heard of numerous
natural forests being destroyed, but never of one being created,
unless it's some single-species tree-farm. If you don't like
these arguments, there are plenty of other points I raised.
>Of course there are forseeable political problems. However, before
>you jump off the deep end why don't you at least try to understand
>some of the basics?
It was the basics I was relying on.
>When does "science" ever make decisions? What I *do* hope is those
>who are in a position to make important decisions have -- at least --
>a bit of common sense.
If it weren't for common sense, I'd be able to convince myself that
people making decisions might bring this situation to a happy stasis.
That's one of the most interesting implications of Malthus, though (if
you presume that self-restraint will not suddenly become effective):
the problem is not to be solved by people making decisions. I find
that a fascinating dilemma. Terrible problem, nobody to blame!
>> But, more interestingly, the Malthusian dilemma points to an
>> interesting fundamental dilemma in the values of life. It suggests
>> that life is actually at odds with itself, which though we have
>> accepted in terms of Darwinian theory, we have yet to sublimate into
>> our science.
>
>The sentiment "life is at odds with itself" appears awfully vague;
>moreover, I don't know what on earth it has to do with (a) the
>gene for prostate cancer, (b) the neutrino mass, or (c) the solar
>wind.
That doesn't surprise me. Perhaps, if this thread advances well, I
could show you the connection between "life at odds with itself",
science, and values. Silke has probably covered this much more
concisely and appropriately in her contributions to related
sub-threads.
>Lets see, China's demand for energy is *not* relevant to your
>"general point", but the brittle weather system is.
I guess you fusion guys get a bit upset when someone seems to ignore
the importance of energy. But that is not what I did. I offered some
suggestions off the top of my head for why simpleminded calculations
(like the ones you offer above) don't seem very pertinent to me. I
happened to consider weather, and alluded to pollution. I could've
mentioned energy, too.
>I give up.
More for me.
--
"What's a mook?"
"A mook, what's a mook?"
"I don't know."
"What's a mook?"
Subject: Re: Restraint re: Sokal
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 18:07:15 -0500
Silke-Maria Weineck (Z.) wrote:
]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
]: brian artese (b-artese@nwu.edu) wrote:
]: ]Michael Kagalenko wrote:
]: ]
]: ]> I am addressing broad question of the nonsense promulgated by
]: ]> prominent "intellectuals". At any rate, that comment by Derrida
]: ]> sufficed.
]: ]
]: ]More ducking and weaving. Sokal certainly wasn't addressing 'broad
]: ]questions' about unnamed intellectuals. He claimed to have exposed
]: ]the 'charlatanism' of specifically French intellectuals, which
]: ]obviously include Derrida.
]
]: *Yawn* That's what I am saying, my slow friend. Including, but not
]: limited to.
]
]And you as well as Sokal are wrong, as the recent discussion of the
]Derrida citation demonstrated. The statement may have been ambiguous,
]but it does not constitute proof of "charlatanism."
Weineck is lying again. Recent discussion demonstrated no such thing.
]: ] Neither he, nor you, nor any
]other : ]ill-read Sokalhead has offered a single critique of any of his
]: ]published writing.
]
]: No one is obliged to critique abject nonsense. It is too bad
]: that you lack appropriate education to recognize Derrida's
]: statements about science for what they are worth, but I can not
]: help you here.
]
]"Statements about science"? Where?
"Einsteinian constant is not a constant ", and so on, by the book.
]"Abject nonsense"? How so in the light
]of the fact that several physicists, incl. Mati and Plotnitsky, can make
]sense of it without too much of a stretch?
I have not noticed that Mati can make sense out of it. Mati, if you
do, perhaps you could enlighten me ?
]: ] If we were dealing with a writer whose
]: ]charlatanism is so clearly manifest, you should be able to extract
]: ]anything from any of his major works -- you know, the dozens of books
]: ]that people actually read and which are the source of the influence
]: ]Sokal is talking about -- and easily demonstrate this 'charlatanism
]: ]and nonsense.'
]
]: See recently posted fragment, which begins , " Einsteinian constant is
]: not a constant ... " usw.
]
]Which you still don't understand because you lack the ability to engage
]any idiom besides your own
I don't need to. Derrida is speaking on Special Relativity without
understanding it.
]: ]> That Sokal did not bother to dig more nonsense in Derrida's writings
]: ]> on science by no means cast doubt on his point. Fragments he
]: ]> presented are sufficiently ridiculous to establish that those guys
]: ]> don't know what they are talking about.
]: ]
]: ]The fact is, neither you nor Sokal are philosophically competent
]: ]enough to offer an acurate *paraphrase* of even the smallest thesis
]: ]in, say, _Writing & Difference_ -- much less a critique of it.
]
]: I do not have to addresss the whole body of his work to establish that he
]: - Writes about science, and
]: - Is abysmally ignorant in it.
]
]You're wrong. The passage above isn't "writing about science," but an
]off-hand oral comment transcribed.
]He is also not "abysmally ignorant," but has said something you cannot
]understand, in marked contrast to other scientists.
Weineck is lying.
]: ]Offering opinion after opinion without any exegetical support -- could
]: ]there be *any* clearer proof that you and the Sokalites are simply out
]: ]of your depth?
]
]: Again, my slow friend; I, and others, posted here fragments of his
]: writings about science, relativity in particular. To anyone
]: who studied SR or GR it is apparent that he is gibbering.
]
]No; several people who studied Special and General Relativity have
]concluded that he is not gibbering.
Weineck keeps lying. It must be a habit.
]I know this is futile, dear readers.
Lying is unproductive, you are right.
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: Teaching Science Myth
From: dtatar@mid.igs.net (David A. Tatar)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 03:17:23 GMT
hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article ,
>Twisted STISter wrote:
>>In article ,
>>DaveHatunen wrote:
>[...]
>>>Which brings me back to my pet peeve science error. The erroneous idea
>>>that the "centrifugal force" around the earth-moon center of mass is
>>>the cause of the tide on the side of the earth away from the moon. As I
>>>mentioned further back in this thread, this error has managed to find
>>>its way into virtually every science text used K-12, and into many
>>>encyclopedia. After looking at a lot of science texts, I became
>>>convinced that all of the authors crib their material from other
>>>science texts, rather than anything like an authoritative source.
>>
>>On my web page I have a lengthy description of the tidal effect which
>>I wrote because I saw so many incorrect answers to questions
>>about tides on sci.astro. This also inspired me to start a collection
>>of other myths in astronomy and try to correct them; thus my
>>"Bad Astronomy" page was born.
>>
>>The URL for the tide page is
>>
>> http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~pcp2g/tides.html
>Thank you. I have received several emails on this question from people
>who probably should have known better (one had "physics" as part of his
>domain name). The "centrifugal force" aspect seems to have pervaded a
>lot of places, and along with the web page cited above, I refer all and
>sundry to any physics book which discusses the tides; it will be seen
>that nowhere does any sort of centrifugal force or effect enter into
>the cause of the tides, nor does any form of rotation. The definitive
>explanation is to be found in Newton's *Principia*.
>As to the question as to whether some sort of centrifugal/centripetal
>efffect contributes further to the height of a tide, I have not made
>any calculations in that regard because this is not then a tidal
>effect, any more than increased tide due to hurricane storm surge. Any
>explanation of the tides should take the correct form; any discussion
>of heightening phenomena should be explained as an additional effect.
>A couple of the emailers suggested that the true explanation is too
>difficult, and the centrifugal concept is more useful pedantically. To
>them I say, piffle.
>--
> ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
> * Daly City California *
> * Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
> *******************************************************
I would have said more than piffle!
David A. Tatar, B.Sc
You'll always get my two cents worth!
Subject: Re: Clifford Algebra, quaternions; Witten's Large N expansion
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 23:13:27 GMT
From jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com (Jonathan Scott)
Organization IBM UK Labs
Date Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:33:55 GMT
Newsgroups sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic,sci.math,sci.physics
Message-ID <19961126.233355.734@vnet.ibm.com>
J. Scott writes:
In article ,
on Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:19:43 GMT,
Jan Bielawski writes:
>In article <57dbsf$ud4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
><
>< Question: to form Euclidean 3-Space, is Reals,i,j,k essential or is
>< Reals, i,j essential?
><
>< Some future physics experiment will answer that above. At this very
>< moment I would pick Hamilton's Reals,i,j,k. I believe that Hamilton
>< tried just the Reals,i,j but they failed for him until he threw in the
>< k.
>
>It's impossible to define multiplication "sensibly" in 3-space.
>J. F. Adams proved in 1960 that the only real division algebras
>were reals, complexes, quaternions, and Cayley numbers.
Quaternions handle rotations nicely, but for a really useful object in
physics you should look at complex four-vectors, which handle all
Lorentz transformations. These are like a complexified version of
special relativity four-vectors, with a scalar (timelike) part and a
three-vector (spacelike) part, but you can multiply and divide them
algebraically (except of course that you can't divide by null
four-vectors). When the scalar part is real and the vector part is
imaginary, you have a quaternion. (This is equivalent to the Pauli
algebra, although that is usually represented in terms of 2 by 2
complex
matrices. The Pauli algebra is another Clifford algebras, half way
between quaternions and the Dirac algebra).
Using these objects one can apply arbitrary Lorentz transformations
effectively by dividing by one frame of reference and multiplying
by another. The objects are not restricted to representing
quantities which transform as four-vectors but can also describe
quantities such as the electromagnetic field (in the form E + iB)
and the 4-D generalization of angular momentum to include the conserved
Lorentz momentum (pt - Ex) and the action (Et - p.x).
Even the Dirac equation can be expressed as a single equation in this
algebra. The usual representation, using matrices within the Dirac
algebra, is more complicated than it really needs to be, in that the
products of Dirac matrices and bispinor sin the usual form simplify to
products of Pauli algebra objects BUT in the opposite order (which
doesn't match the usual QM conventions).
I personally think that "division algebras" are not a particularly
interesting classification from a physical viewpoint. Since you can
have null four-vectors, there are quantities other than all zero that
you can't divide by, but this doesn't seem a "big deal" to me.
Jonathan Scott
jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com or jscott@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
Clifford Algebras are better than these 4-vectors, but I see where
you are coming from in using the minimum math to describe the
situation. Can get the 4-vector from another Clifford Algebra since it
has only 8 elements, 3 vectors, 1 scalar, 3 bivectors and 1 trivector.
Real Dirac Algebra has 16 elements and complex has 32.
So far the Clifford Algebra is just another language of already known
physics. Nice and neat mathematics but a lot of physics missing from
the physicists point of view, there is no rhyme or reason to this math
-- too arbitrary. Clifford Algebra has not predicted anything new. My
quest into Clifford Algebra is to see if it has anything to say about 1
Photon = 2 Neutrinos, or whether it has enough richness in the math to
speak up about Strong Nuclear Force = EM of nuclear electrons where a
neutron = hydrogen atom system with a nuclear electron.
So far I see no richness in Clifford Algebra to help in shedding
light upon 1 photon = 2 neutrinos nor nuclear electrons.
Personally, at this juncture I feel it is more advantageous to look
for some geometry math to attack these problems and that Clifford
Algebras just do not afford that geometrical visions. Not that it is
not within Clifford Algebras, which it may well be, it is just that
geometry lends itself better to physics discoveries. Faraday's Lines of
Force be the prime example of a simple geometrical foundation which
culminated with Maxwell's Equations. Clifford Algebras is good stuff,
just missing geometrical insights. I am just wondering if instead of
Reals and complex, whether p-adics and doubly infinites is just the
ticket to enrich Clifford Algebras and give them a geometrical
perspective. I think that if the p-adics were substituted within
Clifford Algebras, p-adics = Riemannian Geometry and Doubly Infinites =
Lobachevskian Geometry that what will emerge is
1 photon = 2 neutrinos = perfect DNA inside the photon
Strong Nuclear Force = nuclear electron out of the
neutron
and this nuclear electron space does not violate the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle.
Subject: Re: How does one suck in a piece of spaghetti?
From: Joel Singerman
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:11:15 -0800
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
>
> edzotti@aol.com wrote:
> >Someone has raised the question: how does one suck in a piece of cooked
> >spaghetti? It can't be as simple as, say, sucking milk through a straw,
> >where sucking causes the air pressure over the milk to force the liquid
> >up. If you push on the end of the spaghetti strand it just buckles.
> >Perhaps one sucks in air AROUND the spaghetti, and the friction drags the
> >strand along with it, but one has little sensation of taking in a lot of
> >air when eating pasta. CCs by E-mail appreciated. For a newspaper column.
> >-Ed
>
> Alas, it is as simple as sucking milk through a straw. Air pressure
> inside your mouth is lowered relative to that outside, your lips form a
> suitably conformal orifice about the strand, the sauce is the lubricant,
> and the differential air pressure drives it in.
>
> Try sucking in a cooked strand without sauce (butter, olive oil, or other
> grease). "Moving parts in contact require lubrication," Heinlein.
>
> You can also entrain a strand within an airstream. As its contact with
> your lips in this case is minimal, it will work on sticky spaghetti.
>
> --
> 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!
Nice experiment to show that differential air pressure drives in the
lubricated spaghetti is to have a very very close personal friend suck on
the other end of the strand, and see how much harder you have to work to
get the strand into your mouth. The limits to this experiment involve
the tensile strength of cooked spaghetti and the limits of friendship.
Joel Singerman
Subject: Re: Causality Violation
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:38:17 -0500
Edward Green wrote:
>
> In addition to the observed structure of special relativity, let us
> arbitrarily single out a fixed frame of reference, and let us
> introduce a new kind of particle, the tachyon, which for concreteness
> suppose always travels at 1.5c *relative to this fixed frame of
> reference* (naturally in other frames of refernce it would either be
> seen to be moving faster or slower than light according to the
> behavior of its world line as plotted in the variables of that
> frame -- which is what you saw as the nonsensical nature of my
> proposal, that I seemed to deny this).
You would need to propose more physical consequences before I
would hazard a guess about this system. It is my belief that
tachyons are ruled out for physical reasons ... such as going
shedding energy as they go faster ... and that they are no
longer taken seriously except on Star Trek.
> I merely assert that this is a self-consistent way the universe
> could be, not ruled out on the basis of "casuality violtations".
> Do you see the distinction?
>
I see how you are making a distinction, but I'm not sure that
your assertion of self-consistency is valid.
> Naturally such a phenomenon would break the absolute symmetry of
> physical law with respect to all inertial frames of reference... but
> it would not break logic. And in answer to your question, no, it
> need not remain hidden. All observers could interact with the
> phenomenon in perfectly mundane ways.
>
There are many types of mathematical schemes, all of them perfectly
logical, which do not describe physical reality. Some are more
useful than others (e.g., Newtonian mechanics). But logical
consistency is not sufficient for the creation of a physical theory;
it is only a pre-requisite.
I'll leave it to you to explore your idea a bit further.
I would suggest the following, for starters: consider how tachyon
transmitters could be used, and if they could be used to send messages
backwards in time.
Also consider how physical laws would be modified in this one absolute
frame of reference ... the assymetry of the general laws seems to
require this. Conservation of energy seems to go out the window ...
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:36:09 -0700
In article <57d0a4$eic@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>
>[bjon]
>>>A rod is passing two SRT observers. This rod's speed is fixed (it will
>>>not accelerate). The observers obtain two different values for the
>>>rod's length. Why?
>>>
>>>
>[Kennelly]
>>I assume that you are giving the observers different speeds relative to the
>>rod.
>
>Yes. Otherwise they are essentially the same observer.
>
>> They get different values because they measure the rod differently.
>>E.g., they measure the proper time for the rod to pass them and multiply by
>>the rod's relative speed. As they are in motion relative to each other, each
>>measures the proper time between different events, so they get different
>>values. There are other ways as well. In each case the length determined
>>depends on the proper length of the rod and the relative speed of the rod and
>>the observer, but it does not depend on the rod's speed or the observer's
>>speed separately.
>
>Since the rod's speed is constant, the observers must cause all of the
>difference. We know that the observers have only two kinds of
>instruments, rods and clocks. The simplest method of getting the
>length of a passing rod is just to use two clocks to locate the rods
>end points at the same time per the two clocks. It is well-known that
>even this very simple procedure results in different rod lengths per
>the two observers.
>
>If we look closely at this method, we see that the entire measurement
>consists solely of two time readings (given by two clocks which locate
>two points on the observer's frame that give him the rod's "length" as
>he "sees" it).
>
>We can now ask : Why do the observers' clocks yield different rod
>lengths?
>
>Here is a (necessarily crude) diagram that shows why:
>
>
><---- ============= passing rod==================
>
>LBclock RBclock ------>
>reads 0 reads -1
>
>LAclock RAclock ---->
>reads 0 reads -1
>
>Given Einstein's method for setting clocks, the observers' clocks are
>not truly synchronized (as Newton's would be). SIncet the observers
>have different absolute speeds (or different speeds relative to the
>same rod), the clocks for each are set differently, with B's (the
>faster observer) being more out of sync. (or , as in the picture,
>being closer spatially when temporially identical).
>
>As I said above, all each observer needs is a pair of identical clock
>readings. In the diagram, these two readings will be zero for both
>observers (for simplicity's sake). But note that these zero readings
>don't occur absolutely simultaneously for either observer (and this is
>due to Einstein's relative synchronization of clocks). In fact, the
>B observer's two zero readings don't match the A observer's two zero
>readings.
Each pair of readings occurs simultaneously for one observer.
This method gives the same result as my example, but I used only one clock
for each observer. The discrepancy between observers occurs because the each
will say that the other's clock moved between readings. Nothing absolute is
needed in either method.
>
>An observer sees the rod's front end at his Left Clock when this left
>clock reads zero. According to the proper prescription for
>determining the rod's length, the rod's other end must be at a clock
>that also reads zero. In the above diagram , this has not happened
>yet, but will happen when the rod's right end meets the Right A
>Clock. The x distance between these two clocks gives the A observer
>his rod "length." Then the rod's right end will hit the B observer's
>Right Clock when this clock finally reads zero. This B rod length is
>somewhat shorter than A's measurement.
>
You explicitly assume that there is an absolute time reference, so any
conclusions depend on your assumption.
>Note that this real difference in measured rod lengths is due to a
>real difference in the observers' clocks. And the root cause is that
>the observers had different absolute speeds when they used Einstein's
>clock-setting procedure, making their clocks differ absolutely.
>A real difference in measured rod length has to have a real cause.
>And the difference is real because the observers have permanent marks
>(clock locations) on their frames that represent the rod's measured
>length.
>
No need to involve absolute speeds to reach your conclusions.
>If both observers used Newton's absolutely synchronized clocks, they
>would find the same length for the rod no matter what the relative
>speeds may be. This shows that the immediate cause of the different
>rod lengths is the lack of absolute synchronization, and that it is
>not merely a relative speed thing as you said. And since the two
>observers get different lengths for the same rod, their clocks must be
>synch'd differently. The only thing that could cause this difference
>is a difference in their absolute speeds.
This is an invalid conclusion. The difference between the clocks depends only
on their relative speeds.
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 17:59:30 GMT
x-no-archive: yes
: : -From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
: : Why are you so ready with
: : such petty remarks ?
: Boo-hoo. Because you invite them, and it's hard to resist temptation. A
: deplorable part of the human soul, no doubt.
I see. I am responsible for your
rudeness, because my dissent with your
opinions invites them. This is very
similar to the classic MCP argument
that the girl is responsible for
the rape because of the way she
dresses.
I suggest that dissent is not reason
enough for rudeness. Dissent is not
cause enough for acrimony in the world of
science, indeed it is expected that
every claim will be put to the utmost
test; I doubt if rudeness is the customary
way of dealing with dissent in humanities
either.
So, lets not generalize, and call it
a deplorable part of your soul, not the
human in general.
: But seriously: I'm so ready with petty remarks because I am thoroughly
: fed up with ignorant ravings about intellectual achievements I deeply
: respect; you and others here constitute some kind of anti-intellectual
: mini-mob, and I don't see why someone who critiques books he clearly
: hasn't read gets off demanding respect. Hope I made my position clear.
Not at all. I wasn't critiquing books I haven't
read. I was criticizing Brian Artese's argument
which he posted on the net, and which I read.
You have not demonstrated that my objections
to his argument are ignorant ravings, merely
asserted them loudly and repeatedly.
Also, I don't need to be respected in order to
escape being addressed rudely. These are 2
different issues.
For instance, I do not respect your
way of argumentation, but that does not
mean you deserve rude treatment.
: : : Who claimed absence of intent? The argument from litcrit isn't that
: : : intent doesn't exist. It is that
: : : a) intent is impossible to establish to any extent of certainty in
: : : dealing with the literary or philosophical texts of the deceased
: : : b) a message may contain meaning the author didn't intend to convey.
: : I agree with both (a) and (b), though
: : (a) is stretching the case somewhat,
: : as most of the time, intent is clear
: : to a great extent.
: Oh yes? And what did Rilke clearly to a great extent mean when he
: said that every angel is terrible? What is Hoelderlin talking about
: when he talks about sacredly sober waters? I tell you what, Raghu --
: people reading literature for a living and for a passion come in all
: sorts, like physicists -- some of them are frauds, some of them are
: stupid, but a great number of them care deeply about the texts they
: work with; they aren't just blabbering about, they are sincere, and
: they sometimes put years into understanding one single poem. And
: still, they often come to very different conclusions -- why? Because
: it is precisely not "clear" what "an author" "intends" "to say;" all
: of these terms are open to definition, redefinition.
OK, I agree this is true for many books.
: Absolute certainty : is
: difficult to
: obtain when you are using : a fuzzy thing like a natural language.
: We are not talking about absolute certainty; we are talking about reading
: a text as precisely as possible. What you don't understand is that there
: is nothing fuzzy about the work of Peter Szondi, nothing fuzzy about the
: work of Walter Benjamin, and nothing fuzzy about the work of Derrida.
I didn't say there was; I said natural language
itself is fuzzy. It is not the fault of these
gentlemen.
: : If this is ALL that decon is saying, of course
: : no one can have any quarrel with it.
: : So obviously Brain Artese is not advancing
: : decon arguments, he is advancing his
: : own.
: You haven't even entered the realm of argument in your posts and replies.
: ANd I'm not discussing Brian Artese's intellect with you; he's doing a
: superb job all by himself.
Oh, yeah :-)
: : So when I find fault in Brian's arguments,
: : it is somewhat confusing to have you
: : come in and proclaim " that is not
: : what decon is about". I am not criticizing
: : decon, I am criticizing Brian's argument.
: Not yet, not by a long shot. You are spewing ill-considered common-places
: garnished with meaningless talk about "pomo arguments."
Mere assertion with no reasoning supplied.
: : : : All the Bibles in the world wouldn't
: : : : have made the receivers get the message,
: : : : if the author hadn't sent his message.
: : : That's deep.
: : In other words, it is OK for you to
: : state the obvious, but not me.
: Are you so dense? Do you really expect to be treated better than you
: treat others?
No, the fact is I have not been rude
to Brian or yourself, while you have
been very nasty to me. I expect to
be treated atleast as well as I treat
you.
In the above exchange, I am pointing out
that while you reserved the right to
state the obvious, you are objecting to
my doing the same. This is known as
Double Standards.
: : I think that I am only attacking
: : Brian's ideas, but you are attacking
: : me personally. Not the same thing.
: I don't know you personally; all I address are your posts.
No, when you call me ignorant
just because I find a flaw in
Brian's statement, you are not
critiquing my writing, you are
indulging in an uncivilized
personal attack.
RS
Subject: Vietmath War: DEAR AMERICA: Letters Home From Vietnam, 1987
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 00:17:48 GMT
Found a excellent movie documentary on Vietnam. Watched it and I
cried during the "Silent Night" passages and the end where a mom writes
a letter to her boy engraved on the Vietnam War Memorial and the song
"Born in the USA". To anyone who lost someone in Vietnam this is the
best movie because it is true. Anyone who lost a son or daughter, there
are several nurses who gave stories, will probably cry through it.
PLATOON was a good movie but all fiction stories have a corruption of
life and the true circumstances. Watching DEAR AMERICA there was no
acting; the scenes were right there in Vietnam with the war itself.
I think I get emotionally involved with Vietnam movies because that
would have been my war. If I had not been adopted at 15-16 of age and
thus going to University, I would have been in Vietnam in 1969 or 1970.
Vietnam was probably one of the major reasons for my adoption and if
not for that, I would have given my chances of living or dying in
Vietnam as 50 : 50. Although 3,000,000 Americans were over there and
60,000 died would put the odds at 1 in 50 and 300,000 wounded of odds
of 1 in 10 coming back wounded. I give myself only 50 in 50 of coming
back alive because of my high metabolism. I function poorly in heat. A
tropical war is the last choice I would pick if I had to go to war. I
am sure the Vietnam heat was to the advantage of the NVA and never US
soldiers.
This documentary movie is based on the book, "Dear America: Letters
Home From Vietnam" Edited by Bernard Edelman for The New York Vietnam
Veteran Memorial Commission.
The jacket reads:
" 'Dear America' is an authentic account of the Vietnam War from the
actual letters of the men and women who served there. The harsh
realities of life and death, friendships made and lost, these letters
home tell it all, with newsreel and home-movie footage shot by the
servicemen themselves. These are the authentic voices of war, some who
survived, many who never made it home. 'Dear America' is a living,
breathing tribute to them all. "
To those unfamilar with my long harangue of what I have called
VietMath War. I use the rich history of the Vietnam War, a most complex
and rich war in all facets of human behavior and emotions as a
background. I use that war to analogize my own personal war in
mathematics that the Naturals are not Finite Integers but are really
p-adics. People instantly know about the Vietnam War, but few know much
about mathematics. Most readers of this post do not know what a p-adic
is. A p-adic is just an infinite string number. Whereas a number like
231 looks okay, the p-adic for 231 is ...0000231 where it has an
infinite digits of zeroes to the left. This may seem like a pointless
idea until you realize that some numbers like ...55555. where those are
all 5s are also Naturals. So far there is only me, as far as I know,
who believes this to be the truth. It is a huge uphill fight, but like
the Vietnamese who finally won their whole country independence back, I
feel sure that I will be victorious also.
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:18:03 -0500
Allen Meisner wrote:
>
> Here is a thought experiment that decides the matter once and for
> all. You are in a spaceship traveling at 1000 meters per second. There
> is a laser in the nose of the ship that is pointed in the direction
> perpendicular to the direction of travel. The laser operates in the
> pulse mode.
>
Is traveling at 1000 m/s wrt what? Is anybody else watching, or
is it just the people on board?
Suppose it is just the people on board. Then instead of firing
the laser out the port hole, shoot it across the room, at a mirror.
Does each pulse come back to its origin? We can test this by
putting in a beam splitter, and constructing an interferometer.
Then watch for fringe shifting.
What do we see? We see no deviation at all. Einstein and Galileo
agree: being in an inertial frame of reference, the beams bounce
back.
But to somebody in a _different_ inertial reference frame,
it will look a bit different. But still, the beam returns
whence it came (beam or pulse, makes no difference).
You can do the same experiment, by tossing a ball up and
then catching it while riding in a car, a boat, or an
airplane.
> At time t=0 that laser begins emitting pulses and the
> thrusters are turned on giving the ship a 10 meter per second squared
> acceleration. After 1000 seconds, the ship has traveled 6,000,000
> meters. Will the first pulse still be aligned with the nose? If you say
> yes, you must account for the horizontal component of the light by
> inertia. If this is true, all the laws of electromagnetism must be
> revised to take this inertia into account.
No, it will not be aligned. The argument for its being curved
comes straight from one of Einstein's thought experiments: the
falling elevators. If you use the beam beating back and forth
between the mirrors, you will find that it must "slip backwards"
with the acceleration. After all, the beam is not being
accelerated with the ship ... it is not part of the rigid body.
If there is air in that part of the ship, their may be some
carrying of the beam by the interaction with the air ... so
use an evacuated storage hold for the experiment.
> If you say that special relativity does not apply to accelerated
> frames, then special relativity is wrong, or deficient, isn't it?
Special Relativity does apply to this type of reference frame.
Why shouldn't it? SR's defect is that it assumes a constant
spacetime metric, which is incompatible with the requirements
of a complete theory of gravitation.
> Velocity is merely the first derivative of acceleration.
You meant to say it the other way around, I'm sure.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 21:33:12 -0500
]>Jeff Inman (jti@santafe.santafe.edu) wrote:
]>]: >>> That said, I don't see that there is any "ethical price" particular to
]>]: >>> alternative "sciences" which the scientific method can claim to be
]>]: >>> above.
]>
]>mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]>]: >> There were many cases of children dying from diabetes because
]>]: >> their Christian Science parents believed in faith healing and
]>]: >> denied them insulin. Inman would have us to believe that
]>]: >> there is nothing ethically wrong about the actions of those parents.
]>
]>Jeff Inman (jti@santafe.santafe.edu) wrote:
]>]: > In deference to your handicap, I'll explain what my statement implies.
]>]: > It implies that there may be "ethical costs" associated with the
]>]: > scientific method, though it skillfully leaves some room for
]>]: > discussion, by remaining inconclusive.
]>
]>mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
]>]: Please, do explain to the unsophisticated simpleton such as
]>]: myself, in what way medicine incurs "ethical costs" similar
]>]: to the ones incurred by Christian science practiotioner.
]>
]>Jeff Inman (jti@santafe.santafe.edu) wrote:
]>]You won't like it, but here goes. One possible kind of ethics would
]>]suggest that preserving sick and injured people with technology is
]>]ultimately enervating. Don't get your undies in a bunch: I'm not
]>]claiming that this set of values is somehow superior, or right.
]>]That's just the point. Distinguishing between these sets of values is
]>]not something that can be done with science.
]>
]> You are trying to avoid maintaining your position. You claimed:
]>
]>]: >>> That said, I don't see that there is any "ethical price" particular to
]>]: >>> alternative "sciences" which the scientific method can claim to be
]>]: >>> above.
]>
]> The particular ethical price payed by those "alternative sciences"
]> are people who could be easily saved dying. Medicine does not
]> incur this particular price. One counterexample suffices to
]> disprove general claim.
Jeff Inman (jti@isleta.santafe.edu) wrote:
]It's not clear whether medicine does or does not incur this particular
]price.
It is entirely clear that it doesn't. The ethical price that I have
in mind are deaths caused by denying the existing, available over the
counter cure to sick people.
]If saving sick children means ultimately having to engineer
]the destruction of millions of humans (the necessity of this being in
]dispute, of course),
It is not in dispute - such a necessity does not exist. But even if it
did, that would still fail to support your claim.
]It would be equally interesting to examine the case you seem to be
]interested in, where the ethical costs in the two systems are
]expressed in *differing* terms. I presume this is so that you can
]argue that, while the "alternative" might have some nice things going
]for it, it still allows babies to die.
False. I am claiming that position of quacks such as Christian
Scientists or New Age healers does not "have some nice things going
for it" at all. By the way, you keep trying to invent
ethical system which would excuse quack medicine. But that is not
going to support your original claim at all, which contains
the word "particular"
]> jti:
]>] However, it seems to me that science does operate on the premise of
]>] certain kinds of values. Utility, for example. "Useless" knowledge
]>] is uninteresting to scientists.
]>
]> That is plain wrong. A great number of scientists work on areas
]> which have no realistic chance to be useful, i.e. quantum gravity,
]> studied, among others, by one Prof. Sokal of CUNY.
]
]You're not following. Ideas that elaborate existing theory are still
]"useful", in the scientific sense, because they offer the possiblity
]of new predictive theory, new experiments on old theory, new kinds of
]data, (elaboration of the current metaphysics) etc.
]
]"Useless" data (in the current context) would be, for example, that
]Mati Meron thinks some certain artwork is beautiful, or that some book
]says that "love conquers all".
Your assertion would have been correct if you used "falsifiable"
instead of "useful".
]> jti:
]>] But who said that measuring "ethical
]>] costs" must be done from within that system?
]>]
]>] As someone else pointed out (something like), the glorious progress
]>] and advance of human civilization hasn't done much to spare the
]>] natural ecosystem that many of us love. That'd be another example of
]>] an "ethical cost".
]>
]> It's false, as well. The more advanced a technology is, the less
]> is the harm it inflicts on the environment.
]
]C'mon, you're just saying that. Why should technology give a damn
]about the environment, any more than science does?
I am telling you the fact. If you can't deal with it, complain to your
mommy. I am afraid that you aren't quite following what I said, though.
]> Misuse of science is not its responsibility.
]
]Does this mean that the pursuit of truth has no relation to the world
]as it actually is?
No, it doesn't.
] That theory is pure generalization (indeed, an
]effort to generalize more and more completely), and has no connection
]with particulars?
It doesn't mean that, either. Instead, it points out to the limited
nature of scientific endeavor.
]>]: >> jti:
]>]: >>> I guess it
]>]: >>> just doesn't interest me whether you grant people "worthiness of
]>]: >>> soul", when you dismiss them anyway. As you say, they may be worthy
]>]: >>> souls, but you aren't buying any trips on their airline.
]>]: >>
]>]: >> If Inman is consistent in this pont of view, and if he grants
]>]: >> every person equal value, he then is obliged by logic to
]>]: >> grant the request of anyone who, say, asks him to
]>]: >> donate a large sum of money.
]>]: >
]>]: > Perhaps if you reread my statement, a laborious process no doubt, you
]>]: > will see that you have misunderstood what I was saying. Just perhaps.
]>]: > I make the point inconclusively.
]>]:
]>]: In other words, you retract from the high ethical ground you assumed
]>]: before as soon as implications are pointed out to you.
]>]
]>]First, what "high ethical ground"?
]>
]>
]>Jeff Inman (jti@pajarito.santafe.edu) wrote:
]>]: >>> I guess it
]>]: >>> just doesn't interest me whether you grant people "worthiness of
]>]: >>> soul", when you dismiss them anyway. As you say, they may be worthy
]>]: >>> souls, but you aren't buying any trips on their airline.
]>
]> Clearly, you imply that such a practice is wrong.
]
]Not clear at all. You misunderstood me to be arguing for the case
]that all people are equally worthy, even though I explicitly noted
]that this was not what I meant. You snipped that bit. Did you
]think I didn't intend to say it?
So, to avoid giving all contents of your wallet to the next guy
who asks you for change, you have to deny him worthiness of soul,
equal to your own. Such a nice guy you are, Mr. Inman.
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
