Subject: Re: Size of Thought
From: myers@netaxs.com (Paul Myers)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:28:11 -0500
In article <329DB1B1.295A@cyberspc.mb.ca>, 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!!!
Gee, sorry, but you really missed the entire point of this post. The second,
quoted paragraph isn't really significant; the first paragraph, which
summarizes a day in the life of Dr. Sarfatti as a series of Capitalized
Events at really cool places in the Bay Area was the thematic center of
this message. You weren't supposed to criticize the content of Nicholson
Baker's prose, you were supposed to say, "Thanks, Jack! I was overjoyed to
learn what you had for dinner on the 26th of November, 1996!"
Just doing my part to make sure the messages in sci.skeptic stay on topic...
--
Paul Myers Department of Biology
myers@netaxs.com Temple University
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/ Philadelphia, PA 19122
Subject: Search for Technical Experts (4)
From: heerings@worldaccess.nl
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 96 14:12:17 GMT
SEARCH FOR TECHNICAL EXPERTS
Product and/or process development requires specific information, knowledge
and/or experience. Specific information/knowledge/experience is mostly not easy
to track down, even not in centres for technology. One reason is that specific
knowledge/experience is mostly linked to individuals, the experts on a
specific topic.
In order to further the search for specific knowledge I am setting up a
database that refers to experts on all kinds of technological topics.
Companies that look for specific knowledge/experience can use the database
to get in touch with the needed expert.
If you are an expert and you like to be included in the database, please
send me (by email) the following information:
KEYWORDS describing your expertise:
* Field of technology, e.g. chemistry: 1 keyword.
* Application in terms of product/process, e.g. thermocouples: 1 - 3 keyword(s).
* Application in terms of industry/activity, e.g. refinery: 1 - 3 keyword(s).
* Description of your specific expertise: preferably 3 keywords, e.g.
degradation, carbonmonoxide, misinterpretation; if not possible: a small text
is allowable.
Some Rules:
-For the selection of keywords you may use your own terminology.
-A keyword may consist of more than one word.
-Use the above description for each separate expertise you offer.
-If you feel the use of keywords is too restrictive for a good description,
your expertise is probably not specific but general.
PERSONAL details:
* Name.
* Name of company you represent (if applicable).
* Email address and/or facsimile number.
* Country/State.
Confidentiality: My name is J.H. Heerings (Dieren, The Netherlands). I am
writing from a personal interest and as an individual (no company is involved).
The above information will not be used for mailing lists or otherwise; only for
the abovementioned database. I will contact you at the moment the database will
start to run and is accessible to industry.
The information should be emailed to: heerings@worldaccess.nl
Subject: Re: My "reverse testamony" (was Creation vrs Evolution)
From: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 10:14:47 GMT
alk (alk@pobox.com) wrote:
: Capella wrote:
: > There are many psychological emotional
: > advantages to believing that I realized when I came out of it. Strong
: > father figure, forgiveness, brother and sisterly love, security, sense
: > of purpose, feeling the holy spirit in you (psychological phenomenon).
: > These are very hard to give up. I just couldn't keep ignoring bugging
: > realities.
: What about the physical manifestations, synchronicities, answered
: prayer, etc? I tried to be a materialist, but had to give it up for
: animism on empirical grounds, and eventually found that inadeqate
: as well, so that when a spirit-being came into the room and told me
: that "Jesus Christ is coming soon" I was ready to accept the truth
: of his statement as being more consistent with observed reality than
: its negation. Thereafter, of course, my whole life changed.
: I hope you went far enough with the Holy Spirit to enjoy some
: predicitive and ministerial prophecy before you turned away, and if
: you did, I wonder how you integrate such experiences today?
Maybe you're nuts ?
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail: vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
Subject: Re: How did nuclear testing affect environment?
From: Kris Lipman
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 11:10:36 -0500
Mark W. Goodman wrote:
>
> In article <329E9028.41C6@llnl.gov>, Gregory Greenman
> wrote:
>
> > Doug Craigen wrote:
> > >
> > > Todd Andrews wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tracy W wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How did nuclear testing affect environment deeply?
You would be much better served if you requested enviromental
impact statements from the Department of Energy, the EPA, and
other corresponding agencies in France, Russia, etc. than plying
the largely empty recesses of the internet for such facts, as
you no doubt already realize. I presume you know how to find
these agencies' mailing addresses. Good luck.
=========================================================================
Kris Lipman "...let facts be submitted to a candid
world."
kalipman@up.net -- The Declaration of
Independence
=========================================================================
Subject: Re: VERY IMPORTANT!! PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
From: jayfar@netaxs.com (Jay Farrell)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 19:44:10 -0500
In article <01bbdd81$59290200$c94d22cf@jaclen.connect.ab.ca>, "Intrepid"
wrote:
| This is not a joke. Serious business, guys. Please read and take
| some action.
|
| >>>>A group of NEO-NAZIS are trying to form a newsgroup on Usenet called
| >>>>"rec.music.white-power", so that they can get their message of hate out
| >>>>to young people using the Internet. Newsgroups are public discussions
It may as well be a joke. The vote *was* held _many months ago_ and the
proposed newsgroup was defeated.
Cheers,
Jayfar
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////// The Mops Page //////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Jay Farrell
jayfar@netaxs.com
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Jayfar's Virtual Mac FTP Site
Subject: Re: What is fracture toughness ???
From: arosen@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Alan Rosenfield)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 11:43:00 -0500
: > I am using compact-tension method to measure K1c data, which is the
: > index of toughness.
the compact specimen was specifically designed for materials where
specimen volume needs to be minimized (e.g. specimens put into nuclear
reactors for surveillance). It is much cheaper and easier to use the bend
specimen of ASTM E-399 if your material is relatively cheap and available.
: >According some books, I should get several K1c data
: > from one specimen with the same K1c value. but my results have very high
: > deviation ( 20%-50%). I don't know why.
The Weibull (weakest link) theory is usually invoked to explain data
scatter in ceramics and brittle steels. Discussion can be found in any
textbook on ceramic strength. The largest coefficients of
variation (std-dev/mean) that I am aware of are on the order of 30
percent, corresponding to a Weibull modulus of four. This large scatter
occurs in both glasss and steel failing by the cleavage mechanism.
: > by the way, Can any people tell me where to find touchness data (K1c,
: > G1c) of some polymers
Look up papers by Prof. J. Gordon Williams of London University. Also
check the index of Journal of Materials Science.
--
Al Rosenfield
1650 Ridgway Pl., Columbus OH 43212 USA
phone: 614/486-8892; fax: 614/481-8038
e-mail
Subject: Re: Holograms on visa cards
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 1 Dec 1996 16:51:14 GMT
rjmccr9@mail.idt.net (Robert McCready) wrote:
>mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) wrote:
>
>>In article <574qj5$lq2@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Ramone@att.net
>>(Ramone) wrote:
>
>>> You can place a hologram of Donald Duck
>>> playing a saxophone on a Visa card and the minimum-wage tart down at
>>> the grocery store wouldn't know the difference.
>
>>Furthermore, for many purposes the actual card isn't necessary at all, just
>>the credit card *number*, which makes *all* physical forgery-prevention
>>methods useless, including photos and "tamper-proof" signature strips.
>
>>--
>>Matt McIrvin
>
>I don't think that it's very nice to call that person working at the
>grocery store a "tart"... Hope you're not offended, but some people
>are not as fortunate to have a decent paying job Mr. McIrvin, and I
>hardly feel that their situation constitutes being called a "tart".
>
If you have ever waited in a Fedco line as the protohominid at the
register delves deeply into her degree in advanced arithmetic to figure
out which register key to hit, I expect you will agree that she will not
be abandoning her night job. At least there it is one chance in three
that the nocturnal transactions find their proper socket.
(Oddly enough, even at Fedco where the only apparent job qualification is
a sustained body temperature in excess of 32 C, a certain sub-Saharan
racial group is mostly excluded as possessing insufficient operational
skills and trainability. Do not ask for whom the Bell Curve rings.)
--
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!
Subject: Re: physics with calc
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 1 Dec 1996 16:52:44 GMT
tn3frc@aol.com wrote:
>A fellow student friend of mine posed me with this question (he is in
>calc, never taken physics)
>
>Using the harmonic series, given bricks one meter long. Try to stack
>bricks one on top of each other until the bricks reach 100 meters
>horizontally. IE:
>
> _
> _
> _
> _
>_
>
>(----------------------out to 100meters-----------) FIND the
>fractions of space between the end of the bottom brick to the end of the
>brick balanced above it.
>Several people have suggested some type of computer program, but I have
>yet to find anything. Thanks
It has been solved in the mathematical recreations column of Scientific
American about a year ago. You will need a lot of bricks.
--
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!
Subject: Note: Relativity and FTL Travel FAQ
From: hinson@london.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 16:48:21 GMT
Some of the readers of this newsgroup might be interested in a FAQ
just posted to the rec.arts.startrek.tech newsgroup. The FAQ is
called "Relativity and FTL Travel".
Basically, it is a straight forward look (written for a non-technical
person to follow) at Special Relativity, General Relativity, and the
problems and "solutions" one finds when considering faster than light
travel.
For more information, read the "Introduction to the FAQ" portion which
you should find in the r.a.s.tech newsgroup. You can also take a look
at the HTML version of the FAQ via the world wide web from this URL:
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~hinson/ftl/FTL_StartingPoint.html
Enjoy, and let me know what you think.
-Jay
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 11:55:54 -0500
Allen Meisner wrote:
>
> Peter Diehr wrote:
> >
> >So the bottom line is that you believe that light has no inertia.
> >No doubt this is because inertia is generally conceived as being
> >a mechanical property, proportional to the mass.
> >
> Right. I appreciate your effort to understand. This is my arbitrary
> assumption. But special relattivity makes the opposite assumption. You
> can only decide between the two by experiment since they are both
> self-consistent. We could have been talking at cross purposes forever,
> but you have correctly recognized my assumption. I would like to thank
> you again. Being understood is the essential thing, even if I am wrong.
>
> Best Regards,
> Edward Meisner
Your welcome!
It would be nice to see some other people's comments on all of this.
But I'm sure that the experimental results are on the side of SR. ;-)
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Special Relativity Paradox
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 12:11:33 -0500
Allen Meisner wrote:
>
> I have a thought experiment for special relativity that leads to a
> paradox. Could anyone solve it for me? A person is traveling in a
> spaceship at .5c. The spaceship crosses directly in front of a
> stationary observer. The observer in the spaceship has a laser, located
> at the midpoint of the ship. As the spaceship crosses in front of the
> stationary observer, the observer in the spaceship shines the laser in
> the direction of the ship's motion. The stationary observer sees the
> light travel a longer distance than the observer in the spaceship, so
> for him time dilates and for the observer in the spaceship the time
> slows. Now the same process is repeated, except this time the laser is
> rotated 180 degrees and points toward the back of the plane, opposite
> the direction of motion. The spaceship crosses in front of the
> stationary observer, in exactly the same way as previously and the
> observer inside the ship shines the laser toward the back of the ship.
> This time the stationary observer sees the light travel a shorter
> distance, so for him times slows and for the observer inside the
> spaceship time dilates. How can time both slow down and speed up at the
> same time for both observers?
>
> Edward Meisner
This isn't new, and it isn't a paradox. Rewrite this slightly:
A lamp is located in the middle of a railcar travelling at .5c.
A single flash is emitted. It bounces off of mirrors located at
each end of the car, and the reflections meet at the lamp ...
simultaneously.
This is what the sensors in the lamp detect.
So what does the fellow standing along the embankment see?
Well, he must see the flash as one event, and the coming together
as one event ... all observers agree on spacetime events!
But he won't agree that the reflections at the front and rear
of the compartment were simultaneous. I won't derive all of
the details here, but you can find them in Einstein's writings,
and in many other introductory books on SR. David Mermin has
written about this; you may want to look for his book. Sorry,
I can't remember the title!
In any case, the stumbling block is the assumption of synchronized
clocks between different inertial reference frames ... this is
a Galilean (Newtonian) assumption, and must be abandoned in SR.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:42:22 GMT
In article <01bbdeb5$c2594de0$3476f4cd@feemsa.toddala.com>,
CHI CHI wrote:
>
>
>George Black wrote in article
><329ffa8d.0@harold.midland.co.nz>...
>> In article <329A2686.4C03@dpie.gov.au>,
>> Sean Downes wrote:
>> >Judson McClendon wrote:
>> >
>If we are going to argue our case, we should use more sources than one book
>or magazine. Scientific American is not the only source of information. I
>find that sociologists and anthropologists greatly enforcing the theory of
>evolution, but they can never claim that it is nothing more than a theory.
You wouldn't be so surprised to find that to be true if you had
even an inkling of what a theory is. The theory of gravity (either
one...) says that if I push you out from an airplane at 10,000 feet,
you'd hit the ground with such force as to splatter your body over a
very wide area.
When I'm in court, no one is going to let me off the hook for murder
because I claimed it was just a theory and I didn't take it seriously,
that it may or may not be true, and that someone later may disprove it.
>Astrologists and physicians are more apt to acknowledge that God exists
^^^^^^^^^^^^
1) Astrologist are those guys trying to predict people's futures using
planetary positions. Astronomers are the scientist.
2) Physicians require very little science. Their trade is one of
memorization and observation. Hardly "science". True, a very few in
research actually DO conduct experiments, but they're the exception,
not the rule.
So, this statement of yours seems to say that the less people know about
science, the greater the likelyhood that they will believe in a
superstition. Yes, I agree.
>because they see how complex the universe and the human body are and they
>know these did not come together by happenstance, they were planned,
>formed, and organized. Anyone who really studies real science knows that
>it only proves the Bible to be right.
Prove it.
--
Steve La Joie | "I think the biggest weapon of the totalitarian state
lajoie@eskimo.com | is the oppression of the individual by economic means.
| In this manner, the people are made to fall in line
| with the principles of the government" A. Einstein
Subject: Re: physics with calc
From: breed@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu (Bryan W. Reed)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 17:33:50 GMT
In article <19961201064400.BAA12347@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
wrote:
>A fellow student friend of mine posed me with this question (he is in
>calc, never taken physics)
>
>Using the harmonic series, given bricks one meter long. Try to stack
>bricks one on top of each other until the bricks reach 100 meters
>horizontally. IE:
>
> _
> _
> _
> _
>_
>
>(----------------------out to 100meters-----------) FIND the
>fractions of space between the end of the bottom brick to the end of the
>brick balanced above it.
>Several people have suggested some type of computer program, but I have
>yet to find anything. Thanks
The difference in position between the nth and n+1st bricks (counting from
the top) will be 1/(2n) meters.
Suppose you have n-1 bricks just barely balanced on top of the nth brick.
Then the center of mass of the whole stack of the first n-1 bricks is at
the right edge of the nth brick. You can easily find the lateral position of
the center of mass of this full stack of n bricks to be (m/2)/(nm) = 1/(2n)
meters to the left of the right edge of the nth brick (m is the mass of one
brick--not that it matters). The new center of mass, to barely balance, will
go just above the right edge of the n+1st brick.
So the first n bricks will be able to extend out a total of:
n
---
\ 1
/ --- meters.
--- 2j
j=1
With a little calculus you can approximate this sum as a natural log.
Or you can evaluate it exactly using a computer. Find n such that the
sum exceeds 100 (it'll be HUGE), then you've got your answer.
I estimate n ~ e^200 ~ 10^87, so the answer would be something like
10^-87 meters. You won't be finding the exact sum on a computer . . .
Of course, these are ideal bricks. Real bricks would never stack quite
so well. Also, this calculation gives a result that is barely balanced,
and quite unstable. And clearly the final answer is nonsense, since it's
smaller than the uncertainty principle allows for any reasonable brick mass
(presuming you want your stack to stay in place for more than a fraction of
a second). This is just a mathematical exercise--no reality to it at all.
Have fun,
breed
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: Chris Carrier <72157.3334@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Nov 1996 07:56:06 GMT
mlyle@scvnet.com wrote:
>> I could never figure out why they didn't try to metrify time. 10 metric
>> "hours" per day, 100 metric "minutes" per hour, 100 metric "seconds" per
>> minute. Note that the metric "second" comes within 15% of the length of
>> the old second...
They did, in France during the Revolution, exactly as you suggested: 10 hour
day, 100 minutes in a metric hour, 100 seconds in a metric minute, the metric
second being 1/100000 of a day. Some wall clocks were made to conform to the
new time design, but the metrication of the day was abandoned in 1795.
If anyone has been to France and seen any of these timepieces in a museum, I
would like to know about it.
Judson McClendon
>Just tossing an interesting tidbit into your discussion, but what you
>suggest may happen before too long. About the Antichrist spoken of in
>the Bible, Daniel (chapter 7 verse 25) says: "He shall speak pompous
>words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most
>High, and shall intend to change times and law. ..." Many Bible
>scholars believe Daniel was referring to just such a change as you
>suggest.
That sounds applicable to the French Revolution! Also to the fact that
daylight saving time was introduced as a wartime emergency measure in WW 1.
Subject: about time.
From: Keith Stein
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:30:27 +0000
Perhaps you think that.... it's 'about time' some people learnt about
the the not so new 'sci.physics.relativity' newsgroup. Perhaps you
think that questions 'about time',should NOT be asked on sci.physics. If
so, then, IMHO,it is YOU that is WRONG, as too indeed i firmly beleive
that Relativity is fundamentally, absolutely and proveably 'WRONG !'.
That is IM(H)O, of course! i mean, I do appreciate that it could
possibly be me that is WRONG, but nevertheless, i am a qualified
physicist, and this is my considered (even if not 'Humble') opinion.
Now this is an important matter; not to be hived off into some backwater
newsgroup, along with Archimedies Plutonium....! We are talking here of
the very 'frame-work' within which all physicists must express all their
theoretical and experimental results, and indeed, along with everybody
else, live, and breath, and.., do whatever it is that physicist's do:-)
However, i am sure you are all busy people,and 'people' being 'PC speak'
for 'men',i will endevour not to waste space.So my question, gentlemen:-
WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE TAKE A FEW CLOCKS UP TO THE MIR SPACE STATION ?
,to see if Einstein (or Newton) was right
about time.
--
Keith Stein
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: tsar@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:46:09 -0800
Cees Roos wrote:
>
> In article <329F2A23.6B17@ix.netcom.com>,
> wrote:
> >
> > Cees Roos wrote:
> [snip]
> > > The idea that a model is backwards or not is metaphysics, not physics.
> > > In physics the two are equivalent.
> > >
> >
> > Then why is one chosen over the other? I suppose your claim that
> > the geocentric vs. heliocentric models are accepted simply due to
> > convenience?
>
> You suppose right.
I disagree ... completely.
>
> > The world could also said to be "flat" if you simply
> > allude to a convenient model.
>
> No. Non equivalent theories.
Really? Ever heard of a Mercator projection? Quite widely used
for navigation. How about plane surveying? So the world is
sometimes conveniently "flat" ... just as sometimes the universe
conveniently moves around the earth.
>
> [snip]
> > > > > I was discussing physics, not metaphysics.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's all the same. You cannot have one without the other.
> > >
> > > We disagree.
> >
> > Do we?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I really doubt anyone can operate in this world without some
> > basis for reality. Even the know-nothings eat, sleep, and wipe their
> > butt occasionally. The difference is that metaphysics is learned
> > virtually by "osmosis" as one grows up, and the more narrow aspect
> > of that metaphysics called physics is an academic pursuit. But I
> > suggest you try to defend any model without relying on some givens
> > of existence.
>
> I don't say metaphysics don' exist. I say that I am not discussing it.
Then I'll discuss it and you pretend it has no bearing on your points.
>
> [snip]
> > > Isn't physics dealing with reality?
> > >
> >
> > Yes ... a subset of a much wider subject.
>
> So I want to discuss a subset, and exlude from my discussion any subset
> of the complement.
>
Like the subset of the Earth/Moon without ever making reference to the
existence of the Sun.
> [snip]
> > > I think there's nothing rational in the concept of invariant time.
> > > I think it's just fictional.
> > >
> >
> > You may be correct.
>
> You sure?
>
Quite sure it's a possiblity, reasonably sure it's a probability.
> > > > > There is no model of what time is.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's simply your point of view. There are many. None confirmed
> > > > ..... "absol
> > > > utely".
> > >
> > > Examples please. References if possible.
> > >
> >
> > Beyond the scope here. Maybe later when I have more time.
>
> How can a reference be beyond scope? Please name a single one.
>
Okay, see St. Augustine's disertation, 5th century A.D., or
Newton on the absolutist theory of time. And of course the
current Einstein model, and a note or two from QM.
> [snip]
> > I'm pretty easily convinced by rational arguments and empiric data. That's
> > why I say the indications are time is variant ... but this is not the
> > same as saying time IS variant as described by current models. But I
> > do suggest it's not the simple question you think it is.
>
> No we have made a full half turn. Our discussion started out with a
> challenge to me, about my statement, that nothing is sure.
> Now you are stating the same thing and act as if I think otherwise.
>
Not quite. You claim nothing is certain ... except uncertainty; and
claim certainty for the existence of the variable property of time,
as well as a few other items you are certain about. The "challenge"
is the inconsistancy of the position. At least that's what I thought
you were saying.
> [snip]
> > > Could design a test, which could falsify my prediction that red and
> > > white exist. Want to bet on the outcome?
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't your test rely on the idea that the test was actual and not
> > an illusion? On what basis would we judge the outcome? At some point
> > you'll have to rely on some basic metaphysical premises or your test
> > simply won't work.
>
> OK, I give up. My conviction that red and white exist on a roulette is
> not founded on empiric data, as is my conviction that the absence of
> time dilation exists, because the MMX were an illusion.
>
Yes, but this simply isn't true. Your convictions regarding the roulette
wheel AND the results of the M&M; are well founded ... because your
metaphysical givens are well founded ... in this case. So the test
will work ... absent your claim that you don't wish to consider the
metaphysical basis.
> [snip]
> > Variant time = a probability based on consistant
> > mathematical conjecture (speculation) and experimental evidence.
>
> Undilating time = a probability based on no conjecture at all and no
> experimental evidence at all.
>
Not a correct statement. Much conjecture about time has occurred, and
most "classical" evidence rendered it non-variant. Some experiments,
post-Einstein show variant results in specific circumstances.
It's really not clear why you'd wish to believe otherwise.
> [snip]
> > > Could we settle on: Conjecture: Educated guess
> > > Speculation: Wild guess
> > > ?
> > >
> >
> > I can live with your interpretation when I'm discussing it with you.
> > But I think if you drop in on the Futures Market you'll find a great
> > deal of speculation that's not wild guesses at all. I don't think the
> > word need have a bad connotation ... especially when qualified as above.
>
> Not a bad connotation. Just obsolete in physics.
>
Well I personally don't see the value of limiting the use of the
language in this way, but to each and all their own.
W$
Subject: Re: Genesis account is a metaphor only (was Re: Creation VS Evolution?)
From: fossil204@netins.net (Robert Burris)
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 17:12:25 GMT
Capella wrote:
>>
>> If God agreed with that sentiment, why would He have given us a Creation
>> account which is specific?
>> --
>> Judson McClendon judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
>> Sun Valley Systems http://www.netcom.com/~judsonmc/sunvalley.html
>
>
>
>Most of the world including most christians consider the Genesis account
>a metaphor to explain the introduction of original sin...
>
>Only a few fringe element fundamentalists are concern about this story
>being taken literally anymore.
>
>
>
>--
>Capella
>Dallas, Texas
I have to agree with this view.
I normally ignore these posts, because they usually involve
assertions, made by fundamentalist christians, that are farcical.
Few creationist know the evolutionary view, or the science behind, it
well enough to cripple it.
They regard the Genesis account as holy truth, and as the literal
story of creation. Yet when asked about God's lie to Adam and Eve,
saying they would die if they eat the fruit, they say that God was
speaking metaphoric.
If you take Genesis literally, then God lied and the Serpent told the
truth. If you accept God's use of metaphorin matters regarding death,
then you can't deny His use of metaphor in matters regarding creation.
Is metaphor in the eye of the beholder?
Robert Burris
B.S. Geology, SUNY
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: ca314159
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 14:45:06 -0800
W Letendre wrote:
>
> > > The spot won't move faster than light.
>
> In fact, a beam spot can move faster than light. There are a few very
> high speed oscilloscopes that boast trace speeds faster than c, and they
> work the same way; the intersection of two lines is made to move very,
> very fast by a trick of geometry. In neither case does a physical object
> move faster than light.
> I believe this is equivalent to the "phase velocities" described in
> wave optics; these can also be superluminal.
>
> W Letendre
The phase velocity is wave-length dependent.
When ball bobbing on the ocean moves up to a peak,
you can ask how long it takes before it moves up to
peak again. The wavelength divided by this time is
the phase velocity. This is the same as the oscilloscope
speed since you're not measuring something moving but
some lateral movement of an effect. But what does
the movement of an effect correspond to ? A virtual particle ?
The ball isn't moving transversly, if it
did, you could measure the ball's velocity as the
group velocity of the wave.
The group velocity corresponds more closely to a classical
particle velocity than a phase velocity.
But group velocity for light holds other problems,
like the fact that there are no perfect wave-groups and
they should eventually disperse. And since a wave-group
has no single frequency how does one measure a c=lamda*nu
for a group ?
Subject: MuPAD on Mac MkLinux
From: glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 20:54:37 GMT
For those who are not familiar with it, MuPAD is a powerful symbolic math
package with much of the functionality of Maple or Mathematica. And it's
offered free of charge (but registration is required) by the University of
Paderborn in Germany. It's available for a variety of platforms including
MacOS, Windows, PC Linux, AmigaOS, Amiga NetBSD, PC NetBSD, and a slew of
Unixes.
It is not available for Mac MkLinux. When I asked about it, I was told
they don't have a Mac running Linux, and gave me a list of system
requirements. If such a machine was available (I assume through a telnet
session or something), they can try to build MuPAD on it. If anyone can
offer it, I'm sure the entire Mac Linux community would appreciate your
making the machine available. Here is the e-mail address, web address,
and the letter I was sent. Thank you very much.
Gerald Siek
>Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:42:50 +0100
>From: Gerald Siek
>To: Gregory Loren Hansen
>Cc: jerry@plato.uni-paderborn.de
>Subject: Re: MuPAD: Linux for Macintosh?
>
>>As far as I know, MuPAD for Mac Linux involves nothing more than
>>compiling
>>your Linux version on a Mac running Linux. Source code compatibility is
>>one of the reasons Linux was ported to Mac.
>
>Ok .. no problem.
>
>Unfortunately we have no Mac with Linux installed. To build MuPAD
>a Linux system with about 70 MB free disk space, about 2000 free i-nodes,
gcc
>2.7.2 and the latest xview version installed is required. If you could
>provide such a system we would be glad to try to build a Mac-Linux
version
>for you. What do you think?
>
>Regards,
> Gerald Siek - MuPAD developement group
>
>--
> Dipl.Inf. Gerald Siek - jerry@uni-paderborn.de - UGH Paderborn,
Germany
> FB 17 Mathematik - MuPAD research group / Automath Institute
> Try
--
Gouda's good but cheddar's better.
Subject: Re: I hate it when they do this!
From: fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 18:52:59 GMT
Mike Harder (prince@pcpros.net) wrote:
: For years, my math teachers have been telling me "Infinity
####
: isn't a number; you can't just substitute it into equations." My
: physics teacher told me, and I quote directly, "Infinity is just
#######
: another number if you modify the rules slightly. You'll understand
: when you learn more math." He also said that if a body travels at
: greater than the escape velocity, it will go *past* the infinity
: point. I'm confused! Please help me sort this all out.
Case closed :-)
(Does anyone know an example where the "trust your intuition"
approach of physicists, accompanied by a lack of math rigor,
led to a wrong conclusion?)
--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de PRIVATE EMAIL
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de BACKUP
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de SCIENCE ONLY
Subject: Re: about time.
From: Ian Robert Walker
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:31:21 +0000
In article , Keith Stein
writes
---------Waffel cut --------
But before I am accused of anything, yes it should be discussed. I read
both this and sci.physics.relativity, the latter would seem to be the
place for it, hardly a back water if we both know about it, however:
> WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE TAKE A FEW CLOCKS UP TO THE MIR SPACE STATION ?
What is wrong the clocks already taken into space, and monitored
continuously? I am referring to the GPS, if Einstein was wrong then they
would also be. See also Dirac & QED, which was developed from SR & QD.
>
> ,to see if Einstein (or Newton) was right
Experiments seem to have a habit of failing to show Einstein and SR/GR
as being wrong. Repeating an experiment which agreed with SR might show
it wrong the next time you do it, but what if it doesn't? What you need
is a new experiment, have you any in mind?
--
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: about time.
From: lkh@cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling)
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 22:18:56 GMT
Ian Robert Walker enunciated:
>> WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE TAKE A FEW CLOCKS UP TO THE MIR SPACE STATION ?
>> ,to see if Einstein (or Newton) was right
>Experiments seem to have a habit of failing to show Einstein and SR/GR
>as being wrong. Repeating an experiment which agreed with SR might show
>it wrong the next time you do it, but what if it doesn't? What you need
>is a new experiment, have you any in mind?
I'll offer a situation for consideration at this point:
Observational experimentation: (That which lends to the credibility of
disapproval of an observation) tends to fit the observation.
Einstein's field equation and e=mc^2 are correct but essentially are
observational conclusions. So what is being proven or disproven is the
observation. What I am most interested in at the moment is what the
fair lady scientist's objections are to GR. The notion of time........
a logic argument....please... have at it!!!!!!!
Lee
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.
Subject: Re: Abian vs Einstein
From: dcs2e@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Christopher Swanson)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:12:10 GMT
Steve Jones - JON writes:
> 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.
Then who is a 4-D being, just you when tired and drunk?
>
> 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.
>
OK, a "simplistic view." So we are 4-d when we're being
simplistic.
> 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
>
This helped.
DS
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 17:47:25 -0500
Michael Ramsey wrote:
>
> I read somewhere about experiments that were carried out at Desy
> (Hamburg) that showed that sometimes photons did react with the strong
> force inside a proton. The explanation was that the uncertainty
> principle allowed the energy of the photon to vary for a very short
> amount of time (say, near the Planck time of 10**-43 second). Thus the
> photon can borrow enough energy to form a quark-antiquark pair. If a
> photon is in this state when it collides with a proton, the resulting
> particle shower can be (and was) detected.
>
> How would one reconcile this result with the concept that photons don't
> exist midflight?
>
But it wasn't a photon during that interaction, now was it?
More to the point, the principles of QM prohibit you from drawing
spacetime trajectories. But there is always a _probability_ that
you will detect the photon at a given point ... and quite possibly,
a very large probability.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Causality Violation
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 18:07:01 -0500
Edward Green wrote:
>
> First of all, I think it is clear that seen from a single reference
> frame, signal propagation with *any* velocity, even instantaneous,
> can hardly lead to causal paradoxes -- as long as effects cannot
> propagate backwards in time (the time of that frame).
>
This seems correct to me.
> Now I propose that if a description of the universe is free of paradox
> in one frame of reference, it must be free of paradox in *all* frames
> of reference. This is not a big deal, I hope -- I am just being sort
> of pedantically explicit.
>
This seems to be a reasonable requirement ... I'll accept it. Of course,
it will have consequences.
> How does a temporal paradox arise anyway?
> It must be that some event is able to initiate a sequence of effect
> that bites its own tail, so to speak. You execute action A, and the
> effect wraps around in your proper time, to prevent you from
> executing action A. Well, suppose such a loop would exist in any
> frame of reference... then it would exist in all. How can the choice
> of coordinates alter anything?
>
I don't need to construct such a complete loop, but go on.
> I sense tension here... and I think I can anticipate its form. One
> problem seems to be that relativistic pedagogy emphasizes the
> independence of physical law from the frame of reference. But of
> course! How could the behavior of the universe depend on the
> coordinates we use to describe it?
>
This is the main reason why "absolute reference frames" are ignored
by SR ... what would set them apart, if not the form of the physical
laws? But this turns them into just a not-so-special type of inertial
reference frame. So let's continue ...
> It's tautological -- and also does
> not have much to do with special relativity. It's the invariance of
> physical law *in form* with respect to a certain group of
> transformations that is the non-trivial content.
>
Well, I don't know what is the trivial content and what is the
non-trivial content ... I'm satisfied just to know what _is_ the
content.
> ... I am only making a logical distinction,
> not proposing a new theory. So if someone says "tachyons are ruled
> out on logical grounds" I would say "Not so fast. They indeed would
> have logical consequences... either over-determinism, or breaking
> Lorentz symmetry of physical law, or maybe some other possibility that
> I have not thought of -- like some branching or many-world scheme.
> But we can't simply rule out the possibility for all time on logical
> grounds."
>
> >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 ...
>
> Would it? You mean the ordinary relativistic form of conservation of
> energy would not work? Perhaps. I think this is just muddying the
> waters though -- you try to push me to make some cockamamie dynamics
> for these things which of necessity would probably appear ridiculous.
>
I'm not pushing (much!) ... but isn't it worthwhile to check the
most cherished of physical laws? And push the rules to see what
can happen? Seems a reasonable approach.
But it also serves a purpose: it gets rid of the "war of words"
approach, and puts things on a quantitative basis. I'm not interested
in statements like "there must be a mathematically consistent way
to implement tachyons" ... I want to see proposals that can be
tested, not programs for somebody elses research.
> I will leave that to the universe should she see fit to present us
> with this phenonmenon; I feel sure she will be able to work out some
> pleasing and consistent scheme. :-) Naturally if Lorentz invariace
> turned out to only be an approximate symmetry then things might not be
> quite so nice as we expect up to now.
>
:-)
> You know, if there is one scintilla of doubt I harbor about the local
> correctness of special relativity, it is the absolute nature of the
> Lorentz symmetry. Oh, it is damn good, by current standards of
> measurement, no doubt about it, and perhaps there is no experimental
> evidence now that it is not absolute. But then, the same could once
> have been said about Gallilean invariance of physical law. It seems
> to me that intellectually, we would want to give this the same
> Bayesian prior as the equivalence of the charge of the proton and the
> electron... now there is something that is *obviously* true :-)...
>
It's been verified to better than 1 part in 10^20 (references are
in Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics", 1st chapter).
> and
> yet it has been checked to high precision and at considerable expense.
> Well, I just suggest we regard the absolute Lorentz invariance of
> physical law with the same kind of faint skepticism... not as
> something we expect to fail, but as a possibility somewhere in the
> back of our mind as something that just might not be so.
>
I don't expect it to be exact ... I don't expect any currently
known physical law to be exact.
> Thanks for your patience.
>
Patience I got plenty of ... always willing to share it around.
Comes in handy when you have 6 kids!
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Abian vs Einstein
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 1 Dec 1996 18:20:40 -0500
varange@crl.com (Troy Varange):
| > | It should be pointed out that Einstein is wrong on some
| > | points such as the speed of light being impossible to
| > | break. From my understanding, a recent lab experiment
| > | has shown that an element of some sort was sent at a
| > | speed five times faster than the speed of light, thus
| > | debunking a fundament of the Theory Of Relativity.
G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote in article <57sdti$b3u@panix2.panix.com>...
| > Broke its ass, eh?
"Michael D. Painter" :
| If this report had any validity it would have made headlines far bigger
| than cold fusion ever did.
Hey, maybe there was a cover-up....
"Hey, look at that! Everything we thought about physics for
the last century is wrong."
"Well, don't tell the _New_York_Times_ until I get my
grant for next year!"
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 03:11:49 -0800
In article , columbus@osf.org
(Michael Weiss) wrote:
>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
LS>The idea that just because you cannot measure
LS> something necessarily means that it cannot be inferred through the use
LS> of logic is erroneous and destructive.
Any inferences made upon such a foundation cannot be valid. Your 'logic'
is faulty.
That which has no detectable properites, by definition, does not exist in
any real or ponderable state.
LS> Here's an example: You cannot
LS> observe the velocity of a particle while measuring its position. Does
LS> that mean that the particle has no velocity while its position is
LS> being measured?
No. It simply means that its velocity becomes more indeterminate as you
more precisely fix its position. It sounds like you would like to imagine
the particle on a definite classical trajectory which at any given instant
has a real velocity and therefore position. QM merely points out that the
act of fixing one value requires the physical intervention of the
trajectory itself so that the other value becomes indeterminate. The
problem is that a particle in a universe of n particles without a
spacetime background metric has n-1 trajectories all at the same time so
that your vision of it having a classical trajectory is necessarily wrong
in the first place if there is not really a spacetime background metric by
which is the only imaginable means to establish a classical trajectory for
the particle in the first place.
LS> I don't think so. Likewise, does a particle have a
LS> position in the universe while its velocity is being measured? I
LS> think so.
>Ah, a frontal attack on the conventional view of QM, as well as on GR!
>
>We could bat our own philosophical biases back and forth all day long.
>(Indeed, this being usenet, we probably will.) I'm too lazy to write
>up a counter-argument, so I'll let a quote say it for me.
>
> We get a lot of letters from people insisting that we ought to make
> holes in our guesses. You see, you make a hole, to make room for a
> new guess. ...... and
that is not so easy. > As soon as >any really definite idea is
substituted it becomes almost immediately
> apparent that it does not work. ----Richard Feynman, _The Character
> of Physical Law_, p. 161, MIT Press, 1965.
You suppose, as did Feynman, that it is the duty of the individual who
suggests that a particular system is wrong to find a replacement for it.
This is really bad form and bad logic to arbitrarily make this rule.
I can see that a side crash airbag is a bad design when I first read that
it decapitated a one year old in a minor 5 mph fender bender in a parking
lot. I am not required to design a replacement before I criticize it.
In the case of physical theories as they stand today, only a blind man
could not see that they are rife with holes and hodgepodge patches and
ambiguities and paradoxes and shortcomings. Physic's inability to predict
new phenomenon or even to adequately explain old phenomenon makes it a
candidate for the trash heap. But what is it that we should toss out?
Everything? Heavens no! Keep the data but get rid of the theories.
Replacements are required only for those who think that somehow the world
will collapse if a suitable replacement isn't established before we chop
down the old.
We are not sawing off limbs that we are sitting on. The world will
continue even if we do not know what makes it continue. What is really at
issue here is the loss of credibility for those professionals in the field
who would be publicly required to admit that all of their knowledge in
their particular profession might just be a lot of hooey.
The physics isn't going to stop because our modeling of it is wrong.
Most technology is based upon experimentally determined parameters of
behavior not upon theory exactly per se.
I may or may not agree with Louis Savain's logic or his theory but I must
certainly take exception at your belief that bad theories have to be
replaced before they can be removed. Most scientists would agree with you
and because of that, by my lights, it simply makes them bad scientists;
why they are bad scientists is an epistemological issue. It was never
nature that abhored a vacuum, but rather people.
They hate vacuums of knowledge and as long as one exists they will seek to
fill it with any handy idea. Somehow most people inherently believe that
what they know constitutes what and who they are; a physicist identifies
himself as a physicist by virtue of his education in areas like quantum
mechanics or general relativity or whatever his subspeciality or
subdiscipline might be (such as superconduction). He desires to see a
suitable replacement for an existing bad theory so that he can appear to
seamlessly slide across a fictional bridge linking the two so that he
doesn't appear to lose the continuity of his identity as a physicist. The
problem is that he assumes that you can somehow get to the correct theory
or foundation of physics from the present system. There is no evidence
that this is a valid assumption. The real fact may be that you have to
throw nearly all of the present system in the toilet and give it a good
flush and start the foundation of physics all over to get to the correct
or true theory of the operation of the universe. Our present physics
consists in large part of manufacturing theories for violations of
fundamental experimentally determined behavior laws between charged
particles. Believe it or not much of modern physics is based upon
Coulomb's Law. As we see violations of Coulomb's Law we are required to
manufacture complex theories which account for such violations.
Experimentally we see like charges repel one another so when it was
discovered that nuclei of atoms with atomic number greater than one was
the rule a quandary or paradox or mystery appeared. The strong force was
invented. When electrons were found to be attractively interactive in
superconductors the BCS theory was invented. Because the strong force was
invented was also required the invention of virtual particles to carry
exchange forces, and so on and so forth. So what happens if we more
closely examine Coulomb's Law and find that it is not the 'general case'
having to do with the interaction of charged particles but rather our
experimental evidence only demonstrates that it is only, in fact, a
special case. Just showing that it is a special case, must, of necessity,
bring the collapse of most of modern physical theory.
In this example, I don't even necessarily have to precisely outline what
the 'general case' might be. I can describe it phenomenologically and
outline it qualitatively without having it precisely pinned down
quantitatively. Doing so strikes a fatal blow to modern physics but
modern physics is like a great bull elephant shot cleanly through the
heart but still moving with great inertia it continues on in its charge,
neither hearing nor seeing nor comprehending neither what it was that
killed it or that it is yet dead and must shortly fall in its tracks. The
facts are that if it was wrong then it was never valid and those who
relied upon it lived their lives on false bravado and not facts.
Best Regards,
--
C. Cagle
SingTech
