Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 22:15:47 GMT
x-no-archive: yes
: > OK, Brian, here's a request for a re-statement
: > of your message in another way, with a different
: > articulation :-)
: Actually, the demystification of the Author as lord of meaning
: (i.e., as the 'owner' of intent) was accomplished long ago by
: Lao Tsu, the first great deconstructor. Lao Tsu's erasure of
: the West's favorite 'marked' dichotomies is already well
: known; and among many other things, the 7th chapter of the
: _Tao Te Ching's_ first book 're-states' what I've been saying.
: Just substitute 'the author' for 'the sage', and realize that
: 'person' here also means 'persona':
: 'Heaven persists, earth endures. The reason why
: heaven and earth are able to persist and endure is that they
: do not generate themselves, that is why they are able to be
: persistently generated. Therefore the sage
: Puts his own person behind yet his person is ahead,
: Puts his own person outside yet his person survives.'
:
: (tr. A.C. Graham)
If Lao Tzu means that the author's intent
is not a factor in deciphering meaning,
I'd have to say (repectfully, of course)
that he doesn't know what he is talking
about.
As you have simply quoted without supplying
reasoning, I shall do the same.
RS
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 11:16:52 GMT
In article <57jcvl$g4s@uni.library.ucla.edu> zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>>>>Observable means affecting other things. If it does, you'll notice
>>>>>>it. Of course you can postulate something that , while in principle
>>>>>>observable, will never be observed since the effects are too small.
>
>>>>>No, observable means observable. If Shimony and other interactionists
>>>>>are right, minds are extra-physical and non-observable substances that
>>>>>affect material things.
>
>>If they interact with material things, then they're not non-observable,
>>since their presence can be deduced from the interactions. Unless
>>you are also going to postulate that the fashion in which they affect
>>material things is *also* non-observable, in which case I question
>>your (improper) use of "affect."
>
>The interaction of mental causes with physical effects is not
>observable as such, and neither is any other causal relation.
>And if the world of physical processes and events is causally
>complete and closed, there will always be a physical cause for
>each physical effect.
Right. So either minds are causally efficacious, in which case
they're not inobservable, or else the world is causally closed,
in which case minds don't affect material things.
Patrick
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From:
Date: 28 Nov 1996 13:03:51 GMT
yhurr soakin'inmit...
Matt Silberstein wrote in article
<32a622d5.90437253@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> In talk.origins glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long) wrote:
>
> >moggin:
> >>
> >> If we say that Newton imported action-at-a-distance to physics from
> >>his hermetic studies (for the sake of argument), it follows that
action-at-
> >>a-distance has its basis in a type of mysticism. I don't know how to
make
> >>it any simpler than that.
> >
> > But this is exactly where I think you're wrong. Given what you agreed
> >to above ("given A is based on B, if B were different then A might be
> >different also"), and given your statement "action-at-a-distance is
based
> >on a type of mysticism", this would imply that, if it weren't for
> >mysticism, then the gravitational formula (aka action-at-a-distance)
> >wouldn't necessarily hold true. This is obviously not the case; the
> >gravatitional formula follows from the physical behavior of the planets,
> >and is completely independent of hermeticism. In other words, the
> >gravitational formula would necessarily be just as accurate even if
> >hermeticism never existed.
> >
> We could let this thread go on forever without resolution. However it
> is taking up precious bandwidth that could be available for spam ;-)
> So I will try to help you (both). Moggin is using different, but
> perfectly reasonable, meaning for based on. Think of is as has its
> origins in. And remember that he is more interested in Principia as
> text rather than Classical Mechanics as an approach to scientific
> understanding.
>
> Think of this example: Shakespear's "Julius Caesar" is based on
> Plutarch's "Lives". This statement is just like Moggin's comment on
> action-at-a-distance, and possible just as true. However, the "truths"
> in Shakespear's play are (relatively) independent of Plutarch, much
> like the "truth" of Classical Mechanics is independent of that which
> (intellectually) gave rise to it. These "truths" are dependant only on
> observation.
>
> Having said this I would like to take issue with Moggin's last line. I
> think Moggin could make it clearer if not simpler. I suspect that
> Moggin is aware that they are using the words in two different manners
> and is just playing. If not, then you are both making the same error.
>
> > Remember, I'm really talking about your statement "a part of physics
> >is based on mysticism". The physics is contained in the gravatational
> >formula itself -- not in Newton's motivations or in the source of his
> >inspiration. And this physics has no basis whatsoever in mysticism.
> >
>
>
> Matt Silberstein
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Though it would take him a long time to understand the principle,
> it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
>
> Mark Helprin
>
Subject: Re: Clifford Algebra, quaternions; Witten's Large N expansion
From:
Date: 28 Nov 1996 13:09:34 GMT
send all no poibnt gainedf
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in article
<57fv3a$pcq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
> In article <57dbsf$ud4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> > This is something for me to explore, for our observable universe is
> > the internal parts of the 5f6 and so these gamma matrices must be a
> > exploratory route
>
> I should have said "our observable universe is the 5f6 of 231Pu" , and
> whether these gamma matrices of Clifford Algebras are rich enough to
> yield fruit is another matter.
>
> **** some more Notes for today ****
>
> Schroedinger Equation was okay for orbital angular momentum but did not
> have spin so had to introduce spin into the S.E. There were many
> experiments for which the Schroedinger Equation was inadequate, namely
> the Zeeman effect with sodium. S.E. treats the particle as a point.
>
> Then Pauli patched the S.E. and we have the Pauli Equation. P.E. is
> halfway between the S.E. and the Dirac Equation.
>
> Dirac Equation gives internal parts to particles. D.E. gives particle
> and its antiparticle.
>
> I am not sure as of this writing whether the photon is described by
> the D.E. Dirac Equation was meant for fermions which includes neutrinos
> with mass generally accepted as zero, and thus only half of the D.E. is
> utilized when mass equals zero.
>
> At this moment of time I am investigating the Clifford Algebras ,
> hoping to spot something in the Clifford Algebras which will shed light
> on my old quest of a photon being composed of 2 neutrinos. That D.E.
> requires Clifford Algebra and whether these Algebras are rich enough to
> shed light on the internal parts of the photon.
>
> Maxwell died of TB at a young age, and as of this moment I am 46 and
> James died at age 48, certainly not a long life. Maxwell liked
> quaternions and wrote his equations in quaternions.
>
> Real coefficients
> Complex coefficients
>
> From my view at this moment is that the Clifford Algebras does not
> shed light on the problem of 1 photon = 2 neutrinos and that something
> more needs be seen for Clifford Algebras-- a geometry instead of
> algebra.
>
> I will resume these researches perhaps next year in 1997.
>
>
> **** end of more Notes ****
>
Subject: Re: Abian vs Einstein
From: Steve Jones - JON
Date: 28 Nov 1996 14:15:06 +0100
dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) writes:
>
> In article <2sralfacwq.fsf@berlioz.eurocontrol.fr>
> Steve Jones - JON writes:
>
> > First point. Odds are the Cosmos has more than just 4 Dimesions its just
> > that humans are 4D beings.
>
> Now, what does THIS mean? You do realize you're crossposting to
> alt.postmodern, right? By that I don't mean that you have to hide your
> opinions, just explain them. What's the Cosmos? How can we
> simultaneously know and not know that it has a certain number of
> "dimensions"? Maybe I'm being picky, and your point is close to my
> own, ie that we do not know "everything," whatever that would be. But,
> I repeat, what's the Cosmos?
This going to be rather dull I'm afraid by "the Cosmos" I meant "the
Universe" all the stars and all the objects that it may contain (ie
everything).
The Universe(Cosmos) probably has alot more than 4 dimensions if my
maths lectures hadn't been in the mornings and the discussions from
my mates doing Phsyics not been in the bar (and yes these two events are
linked) then I would have understood it a lot better.
But I got drunk had a great time and woke up late far to often to
understand more than just the basics. But by humans are 4D beings
I mean we have 4 basic dimensions, height,width and breadth and that
we move through time. Therefore it is natural that a simplistic
view of the Universe should be in 4 dimensions for that is how
we percieve the world about us.
And just as all light that is emited is not visible to the naked
eye it would seem that the Universe would have more than just 4
dimensions. Of course I could be way off base here and my brains
melted by too many nights out, but I don't forget many conversations
and I do recall several ones detailing the maths of n dimensional
space.
Is this enough to explain or have I made it more unclear ?
Steve Jones
Subject: Re: Electric field spreads out then "collapses back"?
From: kgloum@news.HiWAAY.net (Kelly G. Loum)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 14:09:29 GMT
jjtom4@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
: I wrote (and am still waiting eagerly for a reply):
: : I have a book here that says that if a "charge is suddenly
: : neutralized, the field that it created continues to spread outward, and
: : then collapses back at some speed..." The spreading out part I
: : understand. Why does the field "collapse back"?
: Sorry, but this is really bugging me. I'm thinking that the changing
: electric field (~instantaneously changing to zero) will induce a changing
: magnetic field which will in turn induce a second electric field and
: perhaps this occurs in such a way that you get a collapsing electric
: field... My problem now is to model this process of a charge disappearing
: (I haven't thought of a feasable way to do this) and figure out the
: corresponding potentials from which I'll get the electric field. I've
: tried modeling the behavior of charge concentrated at a point that
: disappears (into thin air) exponentially in time but I have yet to come up
: with a reasonable description of the current (I don't think this is
: possible because whatever I do it's going to violate conservation of
: charge...)
: Advice / answers will be greatly appreciated.
: -John
Your question might be better worded like this:
Why can't we convert the energy in an electric field to some other form of
energy such that charge is not conserved?
I suspect that (classically speaking) the electromagnetic field is really
what energy is. So conservation of charge is a synonym for conservation of
energy. Energy is electromagnetism, electromagnetism is energy
(classically speaking).
So, for example, I suspect there was no real "conversion" of energy when
two gamma rays collide to form a particle pair. They were EM before the
collision and they are EM after the collision. That is, I suspect matter
is confined light (again, classically speaking). Of course, there must be
some non-linearity of EM to allow for the collision and confine the EM in
what we call a particle.
Quantum mechanically speaking we will probably all be surprised.
Kelly Loum
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 14:28:46 GMT
patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>>>Observable means affecting other things. If it does, you'll notice
>>>>>>>it. Of course you can postulate something that , while in principle
>>>>>>>observable, will never be observed since the effects are too small.
>>>>>>No, observable means observable. If Shimony and other interactionists
>>>>>>are right, minds are extra-physical and non-observable substances that
>>>>>>affect material things.
>>>If they interact with material things, then they're not non-observable,
>>>since their presence can be deduced from the interactions. Unless
>>>you are also going to postulate that the fashion in which they affect
>>>material things is *also* non-observable, in which case I question
>>>your (improper) use of "affect."
>>The interaction of mental causes with physical effects is not
>>observable as such, and neither is any other causal relation.
>>And if the world of physical processes and events is causally
>>complete and closed, there will always be a physical cause for
>>each physical effect.
>Right. So either minds are causally efficacious, in which case
>they're not inobservable, or else the world is causally closed,
>in which case minds don't affect material things.
Your first alternative begs the question in what admittedly is largely
a terminological issue of defining observability, whereas your second
alternative is a non sequitur. See _Mental Causation_, edited by Heil
and Mele, for some plausible counterexamples.
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: The unit 'mole %'
From: sven.berglund@nts.mh.se (Sven Berglund)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 15:03:12 GMT
russ brown wrote:
>Anders Larsson wrote:
>>
>> 'mole %' ... Can anyone give a definition of
>> this unit?
>It is the number of moles of water per total moles, i.e., nitrogen,
>oxygen, water, and other minor constituents, multiplied by 100.
That is, mole fraction times 100 - the same thing, just expressed as
a percentage.
Sven Berglund
Subject: Re: How does one suck in a piece of spaghetti?
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:45:13 -0600
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.
Think for a minute about what you've just wrote. What would happen if you
were to push on the milk. If you push on one spot, your finger goes inside,
nothing goes into the straw. This is much like trying to push the end of
limp spaghetti.
You recognised that it is the pressure over the whole surface of the milk
that is important. The same is true with spaghetti. There is pressure on
it from all sides. When you suck, the pressure is lower inside your mouth,
hence there is a net force on the spaghetti towards the inside of your
mouth.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| Need help in physics? Check out the pages listed here: |
| http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 15:37:21 GMT
rafael cardenas huitlodayo writes:
>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).
This is still wrong. Neither Monod nor Zeleny commit to confirmation
or denial of the reality of final causes, for want both of compelling
evidence and present relevance, a practice you would be well advised
to emulate.
>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.
More shoddy thinking. According to Monod, teleonomy is a real
attribute of apparent goal-directedness of all living organisms.
His theory is neutral between a naturalistic explanation of this
phenomenon in terms of efficient causality, and a teleological
explanation in terms of final causality. On either alternative,
moral values can be inferred from the facts, respectively along
the Epicurean and Aristotelian lines, without any transcendental
leap.
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: Size of Thought
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:37:21 -0600
Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> The Size of Thoughts Essays by Nicholson Baker
> I just discovered this great writer late last night (Nov 26, 1996) in
> Lawrence Ferhlinghetti's City Lights Book Store after Tapas at Enrico's
> on Broadway and a full day in Caffe Trieste working on the Feynman
> Project from my wireless laptop.
>
> "Each thought has a size, and most are about three feet tall, with the
> level of complexity of a lawnmower engine, or a cigarette lighter, or
> those tubes of toothpaste that, by mingling several hidden pastes and
> gels, create a pleasantly striped product ... But a really large
> thought, a thought in the presence of which whole urban centers would
> rise to their feet, and cry out with expressions of gratefulness and
> kinship; a thought with grandeur, and drenching, barrel-scorning
> cataracts, and detonations of fist-clenched hope, and hundreds of
> cellos, a thought that can tear phone books in half, and rap on the iron
> nodes of experience until every blue girder rings; a thought that may
> one day pack everything noble and good into its briefcase, elbow past
> the curators of purposelessness, travel overnight toward Truth, and
> shake it by the indifferent marble shoulders until it finally whispers
> its cool assent-- this is the size of thought worth thinking about."
Forgive me if I've missed something in the poetry here ;->
Thoughts are related to electrical activities in the brain. EEG recordings
are typically reported in the 10 Hz ballpark. Thus one might calculate the
size of the photons related to thoughts as being in the general ballpark of
wavelengths of 3*10^8 m/s / 10 s^-1 = 3*10^7 m = 30000 km. So all
thoughts are big, much bigger than you thought.
A curious thought though - more intense brain activity is associated with
higher frequencies and hence lower wavelengths, and hence smaller photon
sizes. So therefore, larger thoughts could be expected to be less
significant than smaller thoughts.
Here's to the world's small thinkers!!!
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| Need help in physics? Check out the pages listed here: |
| http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: Schrondinger's Cat - HELP!!!!!!
From: Dr L S Karatzas
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 15:30:03 +0000
any popular book on quantum mechanics should have a very clear explanation
on this subject,
e.g. the dancing wu-li masters, in search of schrodinger's cat, ...
******************** Dr Lucas S Karatzas ***************************
Department of Cybernetics | Tel: +44 (0)118 931 6796, 931 8219
The University of Reading | or 9875123 ext-4397/7661
PO Box 225, Whiteknights | Fax: +44 (0)118 931 8220
Reading RG6 6AY, Berks, UK. | Email: L.S.Karatzas@rdg.ac.uk
***** http://www.cyber.rdg.ac.uk/staff/people/lsk/lsk.htm **********
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, Colin Gilder wrote:
> I am in need of desparate help on the topic of Schrodinger's Cat, I have
> been set an assignment about it, and I only have a sketchy clue of what
> it is about.
>
> Any help would be greatfully recieved...........
>
> Your Gilder
>
> gc629@gre.ac.uk
>
>
Subject: Re: The unit 'mole %'
From: Steven Arnold
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:31:42 -0800
R wrote:
>
> In article <3298F83D.6472@hvi.uu.se>, Anders Larsson says:
> >
> >When reading an old paper from J. Chem. Phys. I encountered 'mole %' as
> >the unit for water concentrations in air. Can anyone give a definition of
> >this unit? Thanks.
> >
> >/Anders
> >
> >--
> >Anders Larsson Anders.Larsson@hvi.uu.se
> >Institute of High Voltage Research, Uppsala University
> >Tel: +46 18 532702 Fax: +46 18 502619
> >URL: http://www.hvi.uu.se
>
> Mole percent and volume percent are identical. One gram mole of any gas
> occupies about 22.4 litres at 1 atmos pressure. If you have a mixture
> consisting of 1 volume of gas A and 9 volumes of gas B you have 10 volume
> percent and therefore 10 mole percent of A in the mixture.
>
> R.
Mole percent and volume percent are only identical for ideal solutions.
A major reason that mole percent and molality is used in physical
chemistry and in chemical physics is to avoid such complications as
partial molar/molal volumes.
For example, you probably have seen the demonstration in which volumes
of water and alcohol are mixed and the final volume is less than the sum
of the volumes of the pure water and alcohol. The reason is that the
interactions between water molecules and alcohol molecules are not the
same as those between water molecules and other water molecules, and so
on.
There still of course may be significant nonidealities in the gas phase
as well as in solution.
Another reason that mole percent and molality are used is because they
are based on mass alone, they are temperature independent quantities,
unlike molarity. Currently, mole fraction is used rather than being
expressed as mole percent.
Steven Arnold
Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Oakland City University
Oakland City, IN
Subject: Re: How did nuclear testing affect environment?
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:58:11 -0600
Todd Andrews wrote:
>
> Tracy W wrote:
> >
> > How did nuclear testing affect environment deeply?
>
> It didn't.
I was living in Vancouver back in the days of the Chernobyl disaster.
Vancouver prides itself on its great water, but either because of
Chernobyl or perhaps as a routine, the supply was tested for
radiocativity and was found to be contaminated. This made headlines, at
least locally. What was less known however was that further testing of
the contamination didn't look like reactor products, but rather like bomb
products. When pressed the US military acknowledge that yes, they had
just exploded a test under the desert.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| Need help in physics? Check out the pages listed here: |
| http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Briggid@ix.netcom.com (Lisa K.)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 16:32:46 GMT
I see that this argument has spread out over various and differing ng's.
I just have one thing to say about the issue. I don't think that I am all
that concerned about how the world and universe was made. It was made,
God was the instigator of that creation. There is evidence for the
evolutionary process, whatever the particulars. I really doubt that God
decided to plant fake fossils for a lark!
I guess that I do not see the reason for the debate and long argument over
this issue. HOWEVER the world and universe was created, God was
behind it. Whether via evolution, instant creation, or some other process
that we have not yet considered. THAT is the part that matters, we are
arguing over the mechanics of the thing.
Now, I am certain that I will get letters from people on both sides upset
with this post. So be it. I just think that it is almost a non-issue,
except for those who can't seem to broaden thier vision to see that it
does not have to be an either/or situation, but a both/and.
There are far more important problems that we could be using our time and
energy on than arguing on something like this.
Lisa K.
*********************************************************
Lisa K.
Subject: Re: How does one suck in a piece of spaghetti?
From: russell@news.mdli.com (Russell Blackadar)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 05:15:40 GMT
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
It isn't friction, and you don't suck air.
Let's do a little thought experiment:
Consider what would happen if you chopped through the spaghetti
strand 1 mm outside your lips. The knife would create two new
circular surfaces in the spaghetti, and air would move into the
gap. Since the air would push equally on each new surface, and
in exactly opposite directions, the net force in the system
would be unchanged.
But clearly, the net force on the 1 mm stub in your mouth is
inward; this stub is so short we don't need to consider any
complications due to bending.
Just as clearly, the net force on the limp other piece is zero;
the air pushes on it from all directions with no imbalance, and
so it doesn't move (absent gravity, etc.).
In other words, we started with a system, altered it slightly
while introducing no new net force, and ended up with a system
of net inward force + zero force. By the law of conservation
of momentum, we must have started with a system of net inward
force. Q.E.D.
Of course, the original inward force was distributed over
entire strand, mostly on the outsides of whatever curves
were there, and transmitted down its length by the strand's
resistance to compression. That's why it's hard to visualize;
but nevertheless, it is there.
The strand does not buckle because there would be no reduction
of free energy in doing so -- the force would simply redistribute
itself to different curves. This differs markedly from the
situation where you push on the end with your finger.
--
Russell Blackadar, russell@mdli.com
Subject: Re: Size of Thought
From: tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 16:58:06 GMT
In <329DB1B1.295A@cyberspc.mb.ca> Doug Craigen
writes:
>
>Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>> The Size of Thoughts Essays by Nicholson Baker
>> I just discovered this great writer late last night (Nov 26, 1996)
in
>> Lawrence Ferhlinghetti's City Lights Book Store after Tapas at
Enrico's
>> on Broadway and a full day in Caffe Trieste working on the Feynman
>> Project from my wireless laptop.
>>
>> "Each thought has a size, and most are about three feet tall, with
the
>> level of complexity of a lawnmower engine, or a cigarette lighter,
or
>> those tubes of toothpaste that, by mingling several hidden pastes
and
>> gels, create a pleasantly striped product ... But a really large
>> thought, a thought in the presence of which whole urban centers
would
>> rise to their feet, and cry out with expressions of gratefulness and
>> kinship; a thought with grandeur, and drenching, barrel-scorning
>> cataracts, and detonations of fist-clenched hope, and hundreds of
>> cellos, a thought that can tear phone books in half, and rap on the
iron
>> nodes of experience until every blue girder rings; a thought that
may
>> one day pack everything noble and good into its briefcase, elbow
past
>> the curators of purposelessness, travel overnight toward Truth, and
>> shake it by the indifferent marble shoulders until it finally
whispers
>> its cool assent-- this is the size of thought worth thinking about."
>
>Forgive me if I've missed something in the poetry here ;->
>
>Thoughts are related to electrical activities in the brain. EEG
recordings
>are typically reported in the 10 Hz ballpark. Thus one might
calculate the
>size of the photons related to thoughts as being in the general
ballpark of
>wavelengths of 3*10^8 m/s / 10 s^-1 = 3*10^7 m = 30000 km. So all
>thoughts are big, much bigger than you thought.
I think you did "miss something in the poetry".
Humans differ from rocks, and lower life forms,
in that they have a need to affect a power gain.
That is, they want to fire off a few neurons
with a power output in the picowatts, control
a few muscles which put out power in the watts,
and have that power control the power bound up
in the larger universe, including life, and
non-life material.
Having an energy gain is not enough.
Man needs, not just to affect the larger
universe, but he needs to KEEP affecting it.
Thus power gain is more fundamental to the
human psyche than energy gain.
In order to survive and grow, the power gains of
man must be positive, rather than neutral
or negative. In other words, while rolling rocks
down hills, and burning big piles of wood
might satisfy this primal need in a primitive
way, it does not move man closer to his destiny,
which is ever unfolding truth and grandeur.
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:20:52 -0500
Ray Tomes wrote:
>
> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
> >Peter Diehr writes:
> >>followed by a theoretical procedure that showed how black body radiation is
> >>distributed. Nobody understood what this all meant, including Planck (1900).
>
> > This was a derivation, where Planck assumed the radiation could only
> > be emitted in discrete packets carrying energy given by some constant (h)
> > times the frequency. It was thought to be an ad hoc assumption about
> > matter, not light, at the time.
>
> Why is not still thought to be a property of matter rather than light?
>
The relationship is (Energy) = (Planck's Constant) * (Frequency),
so it is a statement about waves in general, no matter how they
are produced.
However, most common applications are certainly interactions between
matter and light ... such as the photoelectric effect.
But it is the relationship itself that is thought to be universally
applicable. Planck's original concept was that it applied to the
bulk material (atomic oscillators in the cavity). He did not consider
that it applied to the waves in transit.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Size of Thought
From: christine hayes
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:51:55 -0800
Doug Craigen wrote:
>
> Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > The Size of Thoughts Essays by Nicholson Baker
> > I just discovered this great writer late last night (Nov 26, 1996) in
> > Lawrence Ferhlinghetti's City Lights Book Store after Tapas at Enrico's
> > on Broadway and a full day in Caffe Trieste working on the Feynman
> > Project from my wireless laptop.
> >
> > "Each thought has a size, and most are about three feet tall, with the
> > level of complexity of a lawnmower engine, or a cigarette lighter, or
> > those tubes of toothpaste that, by mingling several hidden pastes and
> > gels, create a pleasantly striped product ... But a really large
> > thought, a thought in the presence of which whole urban centers would
> > rise to their feet, and cry out with expressions of gratefulness and
> > kinship; a thought with grandeur, and drenching, barrel-scorning
> > cataracts, and detonations of fist-clenched hope, and hundreds of
> > cellos, a thought that can tear phone books in half, and rap on the iron
> > nodes of experience until every blue girder rings; a thought that may
> > one day pack everything noble and good into its briefcase, elbow past
> > the curators of purposelessness, travel overnight toward Truth, and
> > shake it by the indifferent marble shoulders until it finally whispers
> > its cool assent-- this is the size of thought worth thinking about."
>
> Forgive me if I've missed something in the poetry here ;->
>
> Thoughts are related to electrical activities in the brain. EEG recordings
> are typically reported in the 10 Hz ballpark. Thus one might calculate the
> size of the photons related to thoughts as being in the general ballpark of
> wavelengths of 3*10^8 m/s / 10 s^-1 = 3*10^7 m = 30000 km. So all
> thoughts are big, much bigger than you thought.
>
> A curious thought though - more intense brain activity is associated with
> higher frequencies and hence lower wavelengths, and hence smaller photon
> sizes. So therefore, larger thoughts could be expected to be less
> significant than smaller thoughts.
>
> Here's to the world's small thinkers!!!
>
> |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
> | Doug Craigen |
> | |
> | Need help in physics? Check out the pages listed here: |
> | http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html |
> |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|The 3 inch thought eloquently expressed here is analogous to a
representation of our limited 3rd dimensional, Plane of Earth
capabilities manifested in the 3-5% execution of that thought, as opposed
to the higher consciousness enjoyed in the 4th dimension of the Earth
Plane and on other Planes within varying dimensions on those Planes. For
instance, on the Plane of Heaven, Paul speaks of a 5th dimension. And
the phrase "seventh Heaven" leads one to wonder about our myths having
some basis in ultimate Reality; after all, "there is nothing new under
the sun" and ALL within the 3rd dimensional Earth is but a shadow of
Universal Truth and Law. Therefore, one could surmise that levels of
thought is directly relational to the level one might find oneself in
within any dimension of any Plane in any system of the Universe. Isn't
"thought" fun? It is mankind's favorite activity! In the playground of
our mind, we can be anything, do anything and not be right or wrong, good
or bad, big or little; after all, a raindrop is a beautiful, perfect
prism on the petal of a rose, while it is just a splat on the bottom of
an empty rain barrel! :<)
gabby http://www.eskimo.com/~gabby/
Subject: Re: Size of Thought
From: christine hayes
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:51:55 -0800
Doug Craigen wrote:
>
> Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > The Size of Thoughts Essays by Nicholson Baker
> > I just discovered this great writer late last night (Nov 26, 1996) in
> > Lawrence Ferhlinghetti's City Lights Book Store after Tapas at Enrico's
> > on Broadway and a full day in Caffe Trieste working on the Feynman
> > Project from my wireless laptop.
> >
> > "Each thought has a size, and most are about three feet tall, with the
> > level of complexity of a lawnmower engine, or a cigarette lighter, or
> > those tubes of toothpaste that, by mingling several hidden pastes and
> > gels, create a pleasantly striped product ... But a really large
> > thought, a thought in the presence of which whole urban centers would
> > rise to their feet, and cry out with expressions of gratefulness and
> > kinship; a thought with grandeur, and drenching, barrel-scorning
> > cataracts, and detonations of fist-clenched hope, and hundreds of
> > cellos, a thought that can tear phone books in half, and rap on the iron
> > nodes of experience until every blue girder rings; a thought that may
> > one day pack everything noble and good into its briefcase, elbow past
> > the curators of purposelessness, travel overnight toward Truth, and
> > shake it by the indifferent marble shoulders until it finally whispers
> > its cool assent-- this is the size of thought worth thinking about."
>
> Forgive me if I've missed something in the poetry here ;->
>
> Thoughts are related to electrical activities in the brain. EEG recordings
> are typically reported in the 10 Hz ballpark. Thus one might calculate the
> size of the photons related to thoughts as being in the general ballpark of
> wavelengths of 3*10^8 m/s / 10 s^-1 = 3*10^7 m = 30000 km. So all
> thoughts are big, much bigger than you thought.
>
> A curious thought though - more intense brain activity is associated with
> higher frequencies and hence lower wavelengths, and hence smaller photon
> sizes. So therefore, larger thoughts could be expected to be less
> significant than smaller thoughts.
>
> Here's to the world's small thinkers!!!
>
> |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
> | Doug Craigen |
> | |
> | Need help in physics? Check out the pages listed here: |
> | http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html |
> |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|The 3 inch thought eloquently expressed here is analogous to a
representation of our limited 3rd dimensional, Plane of Earth
capabilities manifested in the 3-5% execution of that thought, as opposed
to the higher consciousness enjoyed in the 4th dimension of the Earth
Plane and on other Planes within varying dimensions on those Planes. For
instance, on the Plane of Heaven, Paul speaks of a 5th dimension. And
the phrase "seventh Heaven" leads one to wonder about our myths having
some basis in ultimate Reality; after all, "there is nothing new under
the sun" and ALL within the 3rd dimensional Earth is but a shadow of
Universal Truth and Law. Therefore, one could surmise that levels of
thought is directly relational to the level one might find oneself in
within any dimension of any Plane in any system of the Universe. Isn't
"thought" fun? It is mankind's favorite activity! In the playground of
our mind, we can be anything, do anything and not be right or wrong, good
or bad, big or little; after all, a raindrop is a beautiful, perfect
prism on the petal of a rose, while it is just a splat on the bottom of
an empty rain barrel! :<)
gabby http://www.eskimo.com/~gabby/
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 18:07:20 GMT
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>> Nietzsche argues that
>> too much knowledge of history is debilitating;
raf379@bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael);
>In what sense 'debilitating'? A debilitation of the ignorance required
>to do something stupid is not necessarily damaging.
"Imagine the extremest possible example of of a man who did not
possess the power of forgetting at all and who was thus condemned
to see everywhere a state of becoming: such a man would no longer
believe in his own being, would no longer believe in himself, would
see everything flowing asunder in moving points and would lose
himself in ths stream of becoming: like a true pupil of Heraclitus,
he would in the end hardly dare to raise his finger. Forgetting is
essential to action of any kind, just as not only light but darkness
too is essential for the life of everything organic. A man who
wanted to feel historically through and through would be like one
forcibly deprived of sleep, or an animal that had to live only by
rumination and ever repeated rumination. Thus: it is possible to
live almost without memory, and to live happily moreover, as the
animal demonstrates; but it is altogether impossible to _live_ at
all without forgetting. Or, to express my theme even more simply:
_there is a degree of sleeplessness, of rumination, of the historical
sense, which is harmful and ultimately fatal to the living thing,
whether this living thing be a man or a people or a culture._
Nietzsche, "On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life."
Silke:
>>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.
rafael:
>He's still alive, isn't he? Knowledge of pessimistic truth tells you
>something more terrible: that suicide is a histrionic waste of effort.
Really? Then psychiatrists should be prescribing anti-histamines
instead of anti-depressants. But I differ with you -- suicide is more
like calling the Roto-Rooter man to unblock a clogged pipe. ("...and
away go troubles/down the drain/Roto-Rooter!")
>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 :-)
This, however, is true -- depressing, huh?
-- moggin
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 17:11:59 GMT
:::: This is also misleading, one might even consider it nonsensical.
:::: Because the meaning of "absolute" is simply "independent of observer";
::: tsar@ix.netcom.com
::: No the meaning of "absolute" is "unqualified" and/or invariant
::: within the frame of the particular observer.
:: "6a: independent of arbitrary standards of measurement", meaning
:: "independent of which observer does the measuring". Choice of
:: observer in this context is "arbitrary", you see.
: tsar@ix.netcom.com
: So throopw's point is that a measurement within a particular frame by
: a particular observer is not invariant?
Guess again. Hint: reading what I wrote rather than making
stuff up at apparent random might help.
: Or that standing in front of his clock and reading off the minutes ...
: the minutes he reads are "non-absolute" ... to his frame of
: reference?
Guess again.
: So what are they variant to wrt that particular frame?
This might be relevant, if I'd said "they" *were* variant WRT
particular frames.
:: Things like elapsed time along a trajectory (ie, proper time), rest
:: mass, and spacetime interval between events are absolute in this
:: sense. Observer or coordinate time or distance between events is not.
: Oh ... so you agree with me after all ... wrt measurements within
: particular frames?
Nope. The term "absolute" in this context is used for things
invariant among all observers. It is not used to refer to things
invariant only within particular frames. Adding "wrt measurements
within particular frames" doesn't help, since it's this qualification
itself that means "absolute" isn't to be used to describe such measures.
: So why the note?
Because the meaning tsar advocates for "absolute" is different than
the way I've seen most other people use the term in this context. That's
been the use of the term in this context for decades. So I pointed this out.
Tsar is, of course, free to invent fresh meanings for words.
But he isn't allowed to try to put his new meanings into the
utterances of others who intend older and more widespread meanings.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:26:27 -0500
Jim Carr wrote:
>
> Jim Carr wrote:
> |
> | Peter Diehr writes:
> | >
> | >You cannot derive Planck's constant from Maxwell's equations.
> |
> | True, but you can get it if you apply the principles of
> | statistical mechanics to those equations.
>
> Mikko Levanto writes:
> >
> >What combination of constants of these two theories
> >is equal to Planck's constant?
>
> I should have been clearer that I was talking about the discreteness
> of the quanta. More importantly, your question made me realize
> that I don't remember the relation between the Wien density
> and classical electromagnetism, which is the key step leading up
> to the application of stat mech to treat that as a density of
> particles rather than of waves.
>
> --
If the derivation that you are suggesting depends upon Wien's
displacement law, then it is dependent upon an empirical result.
That is, I believe that Wien's result is experimental, but has
no classical derivation. My guess is that by including this
result, you get to sneak in the quantization. But I'm only
guessing ... I've never really looked at this.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Schrondinger's Cat - HELP!!!!!!
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:38:00 -0600
Colin Gilder wrote:
>
> I am in need of desparate help on the topic of Schrodinger's Cat, I have
> been set an assignment about it, and I only have a sketchy clue of what
> it is about.
One starting point would be
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/~ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html
For a little trivia, you could look through recent k12.ed.science archives.
A couple of weeks ago there was a discussion on the name of the cat.
Various good suggestions were put forward, including Lazarus, but in the end
someone did post what I assume was its real name.
Both Schroedinger's cat and Einstein's cat were lucky to have theorists
rather than experimentalists for owners.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| Need help in physics? Check out the pages listed here: |
| http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: Relativity: Farce or work of genius??
From: Ian Robert Walker
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 07:01:43 +0000
In article <57fp3f$qot@knot.queensu.ca>, Walton Michael R J
<3mrjw@qlink.queensu.ca> writes
>After having strong suspicions about relativity, I decided
>that it was high to to stop griping and have a look
>at the math behind the theory. So what I did was,
>I read an article on the hyperbolic numbers In
>the 1995 volumne of "The College Mathematics Journal",
>which had a derivation of the Lorentz equations at the
>end (only in 2 space, though i.e. 1 time (ct) one position (x) ).
>Unfortunately, I became disappointed when I realised
>that that Uncle Al's theory using the hyperbolic plane is just
>one of many inequivalent theories which could satisfy Al's
>two postulates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>For christ sakes a simple basis rotation in the euclidean plane
>would be good enough (in a 2-d model)!!!! (although this would not
>follow observed results as well as a Lorentz invariant theory,
>I admit).
If it fails to explain observations then it is not good enough.
--
Ian G8ILZ on packet as G8ILZ @ GB7SRC
I have an IQ of 6 million, | How will it end? | Mostly
or was it 6? | In fire. | harmless
Subject: Re: Q: EG&G; Princeton Applied Research addresses
From: "K.M. Anisur Rahman"
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:58:00 -0500
Hi,
On a different note, can anybody recommend us a good
source/vendor of quartz crystal resonators? We have need of
1" dia overtone polished QCRs. Any pointer appreciated.
-Anis.
Dept. of Chem. Engg. & Matl. Sc.
Columbia University
Dr Graham Johnson wrote:
>
> In article , Brian Aull
> writes
> >In article , root@carat.lviv.ua wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Does anybody know whether the EG&G; Printceton Applied Research
> >> Corporation
> >
> >
> >PAR went out of business.
>
> Incorrect, EG&G; PAR is alive and kicking, they manufacture a wide range
> of electrochemistry, and signal recovery instrumentation, and as part of
> EG&G; Instruments Inc. this group are one of the largest scientific
> instrument suppliers in the world.
>
> They have manufacturing facilities in Oak Ridge TN and Ireland, and
> sales, marketing and service facilities in most of the major countries.
> However, I believe they may have divested themselves of the range of
> instruments you mention. If my memory serves me right, it was to a
> company called Lakeshore(??) or something like that.
>
> Maybe the guys at PAR can help, since it was only about 2 years ago that
> I think they sold this technology. Try contacting:
>
> EG&G; Instruments PAR
> Sorbus House
> Mulberry Business Park
> Wokingham
> Berks.
> RG11 2GY
>
> Tel: 01734 773003
> Fax: 01734 773493
>
> As to the assertive comment above, I would have thought that only PAR's
> competitors would spread rumours of this nature !?!
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Uniscan Instruments Ltd. Tel: +44 (0)1298 70981
> Sigma House +44 (0)1298 77868
> Burlow Rd.
> Buxton Fax: +44 (0)1298 70886
> Derbyshire e-mail: uniscan@uniscan.demon.co.uk
> SK17 9JB url: http://www.uniscan.co.uk
> United Kingdom
> ________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 10:19:40 -0500
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
| ...
| > Nietzsche argues that
| > too much knowledge of history is debilitating;
raf379@bloxwich.demon.co.uk:
| In what sense 'debilitating'? A debilitation of the ignorance required
| to do
| something stupid is not necessarily damaging.
| ...
As I recall, Nietzsche was more forthright ("dome of
ignorance.") May we say that consciousness-desire-
knowledge-power are terminated by action and
realization? Hence, as I have said, victory is death.
"Terminated" may mean "bounded" or "defined" as well
as "ended." I intend to be ambiguous.
I was thinking about this in reference to the many recent
exchanges where people said that other people hadn't read
the right books or learned the right formulas, to have
earned the right to speak, be it about Derrida or Newton.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: tsar@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 12:13:07 -0800
Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> :::: This is also misleading, one might even consider it nonsensical.
> :::: Because the meaning of "absolute" is simply "independent of observer";
>
> ::: tsar@ix.netcom.com
> ::: No the meaning of "absolute" is "unqualified" and/or invariant
> ::: within the frame of the particular observer.
>
> :: "6a: independent of arbitrary standards of measurement", meaning
> :: "independent of which observer does the measuring". Choice of
> :: observer in this context is "arbitrary", you see.
>
> : tsar@ix.netcom.com
> : So throopw's point is that a measurement within a particular frame by
> : a particular observer is not invariant?
>
> Guess again. Hint: reading what I wrote rather than making
> stuff up at apparent random might help.
>
This is good advice for the giver also. Besides, asking you to qualify
what you're talking about isn't "making things up at random". Neither
is my use of the word "absolute".
> : Or that standing in front of his clock and reading off the minutes ...
> : the minutes he reads are "non-absolute" ... to his frame of
> : reference?
>
> Guess again.
>
Now you cannot equivocate on this. Either the minutes are "absolute"
"non-absolute", or some other meaning which you have not explained,
but ascribe to. "Guess again" simply doesn't cover the choices.
> : So what are they variant to wrt that particular frame?
>
> This might be relevant, if I'd said "they" *were* variant WRT
> particular frames.
>
Yes but you didn't. And I clearly said they were invariant, i.e.
absolute wrt their own frame. Which is true.
> :: Things like elapsed time along a trajectory (ie, proper time), rest
> :: mass, and spacetime interval between events are absolute in this
> :: sense. Observer or coordinate time or distance between events is not.
>
> : Oh ... so you agree with me after all ... wrt measurements within
> : particular frames?
>
> Nope. The term "absolute" in this context is used for things
> invariant among all observers.
This is clearly an unknown possibility ... or at best hypothetical.
In other words a concept of conjecture.
> It is not used to refer to things
> invariant only within particular frames.
Why of course it is. Did you not read it here?
> Adding "wrt measurements
> within particular frames" doesn't help, since it's this qualification
> itself that means "absolute" isn't to be used to describe such measures.
>
Obviously, the only reason the qualification is needed in the first
place is because of the conjecture that these measured quantities
do vary. Actually, in common usage the qualification is not needed
and rarely used.
> : So why the note?
>
> Because the meaning tsar advocates for "absolute" is different than
> the way I've seen most other people use the term in this context.
It is a more accurate use of the term.
> That's
> been the use of the term in this context for decades.
The context throopw refers to is quite limited, and not useful
for all levels of discussion such that those familiar with
such terms would follow the implied qualifications necessary
to satisfy the limited use to which throopw alludes.
> So I pointed this out.
>
I hope you have a better understanding of how I use the term
and why now.
> Tsar is, of course, free to invent fresh meanings for words.
Nothing is invented.
> But he isn't allowed to try to put his new meanings into the
> utterances of others who intend older and more widespread meanings.
> --
I'm "allowed" to state my case, and qualify my statements such that
the meaning I wish to convey is forthcoming. Throopw may well object
that he does not understanding what I'm talking about ... though I
don't believe this from the answers to the questions above. But
a semantical issue hangs on the best use of a term which can readily
be understood by all in the discussion. Language need not have the
limitation of other forms of symbolism wherein only a singular
definition is allowed.
Throopw may even make the case that "all in the discussion" here
would not use the term this way ... impossible to verify of
course ... but then throopw cannot know the "all" to whom I'm
speaking, or wish to express my view to.
As to "tradition", this is pretty much irrelevant in this context.
I've made my case as to the better term to use for the concept being
conveyed. Agree ... disagree; whatever; it's done.
W$
