Subject: Re: No Newtonian Theory of Gravitation
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:59:41 GMT
In article <32A2DEB2.1063@mail.ic.net>, Peter Diehr writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
>> So, your starting point in this case is "lets ignore that there are
>> many planets and see what happens for a single body acted upon by a
>> force. And lets take Kepler's laws as given". Starting with these
>> assumptions, the result is uniquely determined. And the "uniquely"
>> part is important, since it is not enough to find a relationship that
>> works if there are many such relationships. How do you choose?
>>
>
>Could you present your derivation again? I'd like to take a closer
>look at it.
Sure. Take the three laws and look what they say. First we've the
one stating that the radius vector sweeps equal areas in equal times.
This just translates to conservation of angular momentum and
identifies the force as a central force (dependent on distance only).
OK, now the other two laws. The one stating that the orbits are
ellipses is actually very profound (something that many of our
philosophy collegues seem to be unaware of). The point is that for
most (virtually all) central force laws you're not going to get a
closed orbit (unless the initial conditions are just right for a
circular orbit). There are only two central force laws which yield a
closed orbit, the k/r^2 force and the kr force (harmonic oscilator)
and both of these give you ellipses. Conversely, if you write down the
equations of motion in a central field and plug in as an extra
condition that the orbit must be an ellipse, you get as a result that
the force must be one of the two mentioned above. Mind you, I'm not
saying that Newton went through all of this, I'm not sure he had the
apparatus at hand to do it assuming an arbitrary potential. But he
could check it for all power of r type potentials and that's quite
enough.
So now you've only two possible force laws. How you decide between
them? Simple, they give different relationship between orbital period
and radius of orbit. So, the last law, about the constancy of the
R^3/T^2 ratio, identifies the force as k/r^2 type.
Moreover, the fact that all the planets exhibit same R^3/T^2 ratio
tells you that their orbital acceleration is independent of their mass
(unless you've a reason to believe that all of them have the same
mass, but then you would have real trouble reconciling this notion
with their moons orbits). So it means that the force of gravity
excerted on a planet by the sun is proportional to the mass of the
planet. But, since the situation is symmetrical (same foce is
excerted by the planet on the sun) it should be proportional to the
mass of the sun, too. So now you've F = k*m_1*m_2/r^2 and all that's
left is to find the constant.
>
>> From Newton's notes it seems that this is indeed the path he took.
>
>What do Newton's notes say? I know that some have been published,
>but I've never seen them. How would I find them?
I'm not sure (I've just seen excerpts here and there) but somebody
posted a comment pertaining to just the above not long ago. You may
check on dejanews.
>>
>> ... Once you derive the force law for an idealized case, then
>> you proceed to apply it to real life cases, including multiple masses,
>> non point distributins etc.
>
>I believe that the main stumbling block was showing that the inverse
>square point mass law turns spherically symmetric mass distributions
>into points ...
>
Yeah, that's part of the "extended distribitions" business and one of
the reasons why Newton invented calculus.
>> >
>> >This is why people say that there is a Newtonian theory of gravitation:
>> >because it has predictive power. It says nothing about the _cause_ of
>> >gravitation. That takes a deeper theory.
>>
>> The combination of Newton's laws with the harmonic oscillator force
>> law also has predictive power. I wouldn't call it an independent
>> theory, though.
>
>Makes for a theory of harmonic oscillators ... seems to have
>excited some of my professors! ;-) But oscillation is a state that
>something exists in; it is an important case, but it is not
>a fundamental force of nature. For this reason you wouldn't
>call it independent of the rest of mechanics.
Keep in mind that the identification of specific forces as
"fundamental" is a development which came way after Newton. For
Newton and his contemporaries there was no reason to assume that the
force excerted by a spring is any more or less fundamental then the
force of gravity (other than the natural human tendency to view
anything related to "heavens" as more profound). But, yes, you can
derive the harmonic osccillator stuff assuming nothing more than small
displacements from equilibrium, regardless of what created the
equilibrium. So it is fully derivable from Newton's laws alone. The
gravity force, on the other hand, isn't derivable from the laws of
motion alone, but it is fully derivable from the combination of laws
of motion and Kepler's Laws. And, that's the important thing, there
is no need for any extra assumptions beyond the laws of motion and
Kepler's laws.
>
>But Newtonian gravitational theory isn't independent of the rest
>of mechanics, either.
Yep.
>
>> >I take a very simple approach: a law is something based upon experimental
>> >results. A theory is based upon an abstraction of the laws, so that it is
>> >much more mathematical in structure. But the theory must be able to give us
>> >back more than the laws that were its inputs: the theory must have further
>> >predictive powers.
>>
>> That's sensible. But a law also has predictive powers as soon as
>> you're willing to use it universally, not only for the specific
>> experimental cases for which it was established.
>>
>In that case I'd say you have a _theory_ about the situation being
>examined. Wouldn't you? ;-)
Yes, I agree. Your theory in this case is that of "universal
applicability". Extremely important, without it physics would never
make much progress.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 21:45:42 GMT
rafael cardenas huitlodayo wrote:
>Michael Zeleny wrote:
>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>No, the point rather is that none of these speculations will lead
>>>>>>>>>>>you to the morally good; unless you want to assign moral goodness
>>>>>>>>>>>to the mating dances of mosquitoes. Once we are in a framework
>>>>>>>>>>>where every action is determined by considerations of survival,
>>>>>>>>>>>we are in a framework that doesn't admit of the opposition of
>>>>>>>>>>>good and evil.
>>>>>>>>>>The mating dances of mosquitoes are undeniably good for the mosquitoes.
>>>>>>>>>"good" and "good for something," as you know, are not synonyms.
>>>>>>>>Neither are "true" and "true in a language". So how does this
>>>>>>>>relate to the question of whether science can provide value?
>>>>Not too clued in about logic, are you?
>>>Have you taken to critique your own statements? Perhaps you could have a
>>>newsgroup all to yourself, as well =-- make it moderated.
>>I am commenting on your failure to understand that good for a kind is
>>a good, just like truth in a language is a truth.
>It may be that yu're putting the stress on the indefinite article there:
>Silke W. had used the articleless 'good'.
>
>Is what is good for unicorns a good?
>Is what is good for unicorns good?
>Is what is good for unicorns possible, and if not, can it be good, a
>good, or
>whatever?
Fictional beings are quite beside the point in a discussion of the
scientific notion of what is good for an organism, as a member of an
historically evolved species. While this consideration only gets to
immanent values, adding the further constraint of rationality yields
more than that. The key point is that, inasmuch as science itself
depends on empirical observation and mathematical deduction alike, it
is simultaneously beholden to naturalism and transcendentalism. This
is why it is so stupid to set up an opposition between science and a
"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: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 21:49:01 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu 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:
>>>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>> ... snip ...
>>>>>>Elementary particles are certainly not observable in the same sense as
>>>>>>their tracks in cloud chambers. But even if we stretch the meaning of
>>>>>>the term to cover any object capable of initiating a causal chain that
>>>>>>terminates by impinging on sensory organs, it will not apply to every
>>>>>>causally efficacious entity. Although human motives cause observable
>>>>>>behavior, they are not in any reasonable sense observable themselves.
>>>>>Hmm, I would refrain from taking such a clear cut position here. At
>>>>>most I would argue that they may not be objectively observable.
>>>>I would make a distinction between observables and intelligibles.
>>>That may be legitimate. Question is, can one have definitions of
>>>observables and intelligibles, leaving no grey areas in between?
>>>Somehow, I doubt it.
>>I am not proposing an exclusive dichotomy. Tables and chairs might be
>>observables, beliefs and desires might be intelligibles, and elementary
>>particles might be both at once. The key point is that causal efficacy
>>might be restricted to a kind that cannot impinge on material objects.
>>Thus psychophysical parallelism claims that each class of entities is
>>restricted to causal interaction with its own kind, and hence no mental
>>entity or event can produce a measurable physical effect.
>Make it "no direct physical effect". A belief in ideology fits under
>intelligibles in this scheme. Same belief may prompt somebody to push
>a button resulting in the launching of a missile, which may result in
>quite measurable physical effects. But, yes, for the intelligible to
>have such effect there is a need for an entity which can process
>intelligibles and interact with observables, i.e. the human mind.
>Hey, I think I'm beginning to like it, though there are still lots of
>loose ends.
OK, here is a more clear-cut case. Consider a functionalist theory of
mind. Suppose that to each possible physical state of the brain there
corresponds at most one computational state of mind, that the physical
and the mental strata alike are causally complete and closed, and that
no causal interaction occurs in either direction. Then mental states
supervene on observable brain configurations, but neither cause them
nor get caused thereby. This view is actually quite popular, though
perhaps not as satisfactory as interactionism.
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: Undergraduate Research Internships
From: bjs@splash.Princeton.EDU (Brian Soden)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 22:04:34 GMT
Princeton University
UNDERGRADUATE SUMMER RESEARCH PROGRAM
in ATMOSPHERIC and OCEANIC SCIENCES
(http://www.aos.princeton.edu/WWWPUBLIC/srp/)
The Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program of Princeton
University invites outstanding undergraduates to apply for
a unique summer research program which provides the opportunity to
explore career interests in the atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
Students will work with scientists from Princeton University and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory (NOAA/GFDL) to explore cutting-edge research
topics in a state-of-the-art computing environment.
The expected research may involve theoretical analysis, numerical modeling,
and observational studies covering a wide range of topics, including:
* dynamics of the atmosphere and ocean
* chemistry of ozone depletion and pollution
* climate and climate change
* El Nino and air/sea interactions
* radiative transfer and remote sensing
* hurricane prediction
* evolution of frontal systems
Applicants should fulfill the following requirements:
* have completed their Junior year by June of 1997.
* have extensive computing experience, including Fortran (or C) and Unix.
* have substantial course work and/or previous work experience in one or
more of the following areas - physics, chemistry, geophysical sciences,
math, computer science, or engineering.
Students accepted into the program will be provided with paid room on the
university campus and a stipend of $325/week for a nine-to-ten week period from
mid-June to mid-August, 1997. Undegraduate student participants must be U.S.
citizens or permanent residents.
Applicants should send a resume, two letters of reference, a college
transcript, and a short essay discussing background in science, computer
experience and reasons for interest in the program to:
Summer Research Program
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Princeton University
P.O. Box CN710, Sayre Hall
Princeton, NJ 08544-0710
APPLICATION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 15, 1997
Keywords:
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:12:57 GMT
In article <57visd$1irq@uni.library.ucla.edu>, zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>I am not proposing an exclusive dichotomy. Tables and chairs might be
>>>observables, beliefs and desires might be intelligibles, and elementary
>>>particles might be both at once. The key point is that causal efficacy
>>>might be restricted to a kind that cannot impinge on material objects.
>>>Thus psychophysical parallelism claims that each class of entities is
>>>restricted to causal interaction with its own kind, and hence no mental
>>>entity or event can produce a measurable physical effect.
>
>>Make it "no direct physical effect". A belief in ideology fits under
>>intelligibles in this scheme. Same belief may prompt somebody to push
>>a button resulting in the launching of a missile, which may result in
>>quite measurable physical effects. But, yes, for the intelligible to
>>have such effect there is a need for an entity which can process
>>intelligibles and interact with observables, i.e. the human mind.
>>Hey, I think I'm beginning to like it, though there are still lots of
>>loose ends.
>
>OK, here is a more clear-cut case. Consider a functionalist theory of
>mind. Suppose that to each possible physical state of the brain there
>corresponds at most one computational state of mind, that the physical
>and the mental strata alike are causally complete and closed, and that
>no causal interaction occurs in either direction. Then mental states
>supervene on observable brain configurations, but neither cause them
>nor get caused thereby. This view is actually quite popular, though
>perhaps not as satisfactory as interactionism.
>
I would say in this case that there are no two stratas, just one, and
the reason people would like to believe there are two is just their
unwilligness to give up on the belief that human spirit exists as an
entity independent of the material body.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: socketpacketpocket
From: "G. Walters"
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:58:55 -0800
>
> > Can anyone send me the full text of the poem whose first stanza is:
> >
> > If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
> > And the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
> > And the address of the memory makes your flopppy disk abort,
> > Then the socket packet pocket has an error to report.
Here is your poem:
------------------------------------------------------
If Dr. Seuss Were a Technical Writer.....
Here's an easy game to play.
Here's an easy thing to say:
If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port, And
the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
And the address of the memory makes your floppy
disk abort, Then the socket packet pocket has an error to report!
If your cursor finds a menu item followed by a dash,
And the double-clicking icon puts your window in the
trash, And your data is corrupted 'causc the index
doesn't hash,
then your situation's hopeless, and your system's gonna crash!
You can't say this?
What a shame sir!
We'll find you
Another game sir.
If the label on the cable on the table at your house,
Says the network is connected to the button on your mouse,
But your packets want to tunnel on another protocol, That's
repeatedly rejected by the printer down the hall,
And your screen is all distorted by the side effects of gauss,
So your icons in the window are as wavy as a souse,
Then you may as well rcboot and go out with a bang, 'Cause as
sure as I'm a poet, the sucker's gonna hang!
When the copy of your floppy's getting sloppy on the disk,
And the microcode instructions cause unnecessary risc,
Then you have to flash your memory and you'll want to ram
your rom. Quickly turn off the computer and be sure to tell your mom!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
$$$
/ @ @ \
( ) {| ' |} ( )
\\ \ ~ / //
\\ ===== //
\\/==============\//
/Gretchen Walters\
(gwalters@clark.edu)
\ Clark College /
\Vancouver, USA/
-------
___| || |___
(___|__||__|___)
Subject: Re: High School Physics Problems
From: alberto miguez me stnt
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:30:57 -0500
This is easy...
Alberto Miguez
Mechanical Egineering
&
Applied Physics stdnt
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Ryan K. wrote:
> Can anyone tell me the formulas to use and the answer to the following
> problems?
>
> 1) A 500 kg mass is at rest and is free to move. At a certain time
> (25 sec) after a force acts on it, the mass has a velocity in the
> direction of the force of 150 m/s. What is the magnitude of the force?
>
First you must find the acceleration. Since you already have the initial
velocity, the final velocity and the time, you use the equations final
velocity - initial velocity/ time...
Then you use Newton's second law of motion which is F=ma. You have found
the acceleration and the mass is given, therefore you can substitute the
numbers into the equation and boom!!! you get the force.
> 2) A 1.5 kg ball, velocity 8 m/sec southward, collides with a 2 kg
> ball traveling along the same path with a velocty of 3 m/sec
> southward. If the velocity of the 2 kg ball after impact is 4.5 m/sec
> southward, what is the velocity of the 1.5 kg ball?
> *-I think I should use m1v1 + m2v2 = m1v1(prime) + m2v2(prime)--Is
> that right or not???
>
Just use the following formula... the sum of the mass times the velocity
(initial) equals the sum of the mass times the velocity (final) and you're
set
> 3) If a rotating object has a decrease in diameter, what happens to
> the velocity?
>
Obviously, as the diameter decreases, the velocity increases.
> Thanks,
> Ryan K.
>
>
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 2 Dec 1996 17:57:19 -0500
(meron@cars3.uchicago.edu) wrote:
]In article <57lpht$m9b@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
]>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
]>] Mati Meron wrote:
]>]>Few comments here, just to keep it going a bit longer:
]>]>
]>]>1) "if the world of physical processes and events is causally
]>]>complete and closed" is a big if indeed. See QM as an example.
]>]
]>]It seems to me that counterexamples to causal completeness and closure
]>]of the physical universe will not be forthcoming from QM, but at best
]>]from particular interpretations of QM.
]>
]> I think that there is a big problem with particular interpretations
]> which allegedly do not suffer from the absense of causal
]> completeness and closeness. Namely, many worlds interpretation demands
]> that every measurement of operator with continious spectrum
]> produces an uncountable set of universes, never interacting in
]> any way from then on. Given that it solves no meaningful physical
]> problems, but is intended to increase philosophycal comfort,
]> it would seem that one can criticize MWI using Occam's razor.
]>
]>]>2) The interaction of mental causes with physical events is
]>]>observable through its effects. Granted, it is not amenable (so far
]>]>at least) to scientific observation since objective evaluations are
]>]>extremely difficult, perhaps impossible. Which is not the same as
]>]>'nonobservable". Denying exiatance to things we cannot explain
]>]>doesn't strike me as a proper approach, not even as a proper
]>]>scientific approach.
]>
]> Wave function amplitude produces measurable effects, yet it is unobservable.
]> Watch out, Mati.
]>
]Wave functions were at the back of my mind when I got involved in this
]argument (hey, I never said I'm not holding anything back, did I).
( Do you mean that all your thoughts are observable ? :)
]That's why I think that any criterion stricter then "produces
]observable effects" is too strict. Of course it is more comfortable,
]from scientific point of view, if the effects aren't only observable
]but measurable. Still, we can't just deny existance to anything we
]can't fit into a convenient measurement scheme.
Well, I think the point Mikhail Zeleny is trying to make is something like;
rational numbers produce observable effects via physicists who use them to
describe and predict results of measurements. Would you call rational
numbers observable ?
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:53:25 GMT
In article <57vmsf$1i@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
> (meron@cars3.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>]In article <57lpht$m9b@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>]>
>]> Wave function amplitude produces measurable effects, yet it is unobservable.
>]> Watch out, Mati.
>]>
>]Wave functions were at the back of my mind when I got involved in this
>]argument (hey, I never said I'm not holding anything back, did I).
>
> ( Do you mean that all your thoughts are observable ? :)
>
If you'll ask my wife, she'll say "sure". :-)
>]That's why I think that any criterion stricter then "produces
>]observable effects" is too strict. Of course it is more comfortable,
>]from scientific point of view, if the effects aren't only observable
>]but measurable. Still, we can't just deny existance to anything we
>]can't fit into a convenient measurement scheme.
>
> Well, I think the point Mikhail Zeleny is trying to make is something like;
> rational numbers produce observable effects via physicists who use them to
> describe and predict results of measurements. Would you call rational
> numbers observable ?
>
A good question. In some very vague sense, yes. A better term may be
the one Zeleny introduced, i.e. "intelligibles". But then you've to
ask yourself "what things are observables" and you'll find that if you
use a strict enough definition almost nothing qualifies. Is an
electric field observable, for example? We've a concept and we work
out the consequences of this concept all the way down to a level we
can observe (a motion of a macroscopic body, for example) and we
consider it an observation of an electric field. Same with wave
functions, BTW, only the chain is even longer. The boundary between
observables and intelligibles is very fuzzy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:53:25 GMT
In article <57vmsf$1i@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
> (meron@cars3.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>]In article <57lpht$m9b@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>]>
>]> Wave function amplitude produces measurable effects, yet it is unobservable.
>]> Watch out, Mati.
>]>
>]Wave functions were at the back of my mind when I got involved in this
>]argument (hey, I never said I'm not holding anything back, did I).
>
> ( Do you mean that all your thoughts are observable ? :)
>
If you'll ask my wife, she'll say "sure". :-)
>]That's why I think that any criterion stricter then "produces
>]observable effects" is too strict. Of course it is more comfortable,
>]from scientific point of view, if the effects aren't only observable
>]but measurable. Still, we can't just deny existance to anything we
>]can't fit into a convenient measurement scheme.
>
> Well, I think the point Mikhail Zeleny is trying to make is something like;
> rational numbers produce observable effects via physicists who use them to
> describe and predict results of measurements. Would you call rational
> numbers observable ?
>
A good question. In some very vague sense, yes. A better term may be
the one Zeleny introduced, i.e. "intelligibles". But then you've to
ask yourself "what things are observables" and you'll find that if you
use a strict enough definition almost nothing qualifies. Is an
electric field observable, for example? We've a concept and we work
out the consequences of this concept all the way down to a level we
can observe (a motion of a macroscopic body, for example) and we
consider it an observation of an electric field. Same with wave
functions, BTW, only the chain is even longer. The boundary between
observables and intelligibles is very fuzzy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Ilja's Review of Model Mechanics
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto)
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 02:52:18 GMT
After reading my article "The Physics of Absolute Motion" in my web
site , Ilja posted his
remarks on Model Mechanics in his web site.
.
Before I deal with the specifics of Ilja's remarks I wanted to make
the following comments to Ilja:
1. No amount of ass kissing will make the physical community to accept
your PG. The reason is that your mathematical scheme only represent a
minor improvement over GR. Furthermore, your scheme predicts the
existence of an aether but you did not provide the experiment that
could detect this aether. Should we just take your words for it? With
Model Mechanics, I have proposed two new experiments that could detect
the existence of the E-Matrix.
2.If you want to be a credible reviewer, you must concentrate on the
technical aspect of my paper. Calling me a crank or crackpot will not
increase your statue. In fact, it will decrease your statue in the
eyes of the established physicists. If I have the correct metaphysical
theory, no amount of name calling will effect the agreement between
the predictions of Model Mechanics and the experimental results.
3. You erroneously interpreted that my proposed experiment #2 will not
give the result as I predicted. Well, it does. After removing your one
erroneous objection, Model Mechanics appears to pass your review with
flying colors. Don't you think that it is remarkable?
4. You keep on saying that I don't have a mathematical scheme for
Model Mechanics and therefore it is not a theory. It is true that I
don't have the mathematical schemes for all the prosesses of nature.
That will take time. But I do have the mathematical schemes for the
two proposed experiments that could confirm the existence of the
E-Matrix. You pressed me for a gravity equation based on Model
Mechanics and when I gave you a modified GR equation you just merely
dropped the subject. Why?
5. You seem to think that a theory only needs a mathematical scheme.
Also you think that it is irrelevant whether you have the correct
metaphysical picture. Well, you are wrong. A mathematical scheme is
only a part of a theory. The other part is the correct metaphysical
picture. A correct metaphysical picture can be used to interpret all
the processes of nature. Obviously, GR, PG, QM, QFT and SRT all have
the wrong metaphysical picture. Otherwise, we would not be in the
untenable situation that we are in right now. Of course, I am
referring to the inability of modern physics to unite all the forces
of nature.
6. You seem to think that Model Mechanics does not include current
physics. Well, you are wrong. The correct parts of current physics are
the mathematical schemes. The wrong parts of current physics are the
erroneous metaphysical interpretations of these mathematical schemes.
For example, the spacetime interpretation of GR and the field and
virtual interpretation of QFT are the wrong interpretations. Now if we
replace the current erroneous interpretations of these mathematical
schemes with Model Mechanics, we will have a complete theory of
everything. This theory would have the correct mathematical schemes
for all the processes of nature as well as a single metaphysical
picture that can be used to describe all the macroscopic and
microscopic events of the universe.
Now the specifics of your post in you web site:
>Ilja wrote:
Ken Seto's Model Mechanics
Ken Seto proposes a theory named Model Mechanics, a nice example of a
crackpot theory which allows to explain typical differences between
scientific theories and crank physics.
A Theory of Everything
For a crackpot it is not enough to solve a particular problem. It has
to be the general solution of all fundamental problems of the
universe. Here is,
for example, the list of the problems solved by Ken Setos theory:
It gives a realistic origin of the universe.
It provides a realistic process for the origin of all matters.
It can unite all the forces of nature.
It provides a new and realistic interpretation of gravity.
It is capable of explaining the charge of a particle.
It provides a realistic explanation for the cell division and the
consciousness processes of life.
It provides a realistic interpretation for all the quantum
experiments and observations.
> Ken Seto's Reply:
>If PG or current physics have these capabilities we would certainly
>know them by now.
>Ilja Wrote:
Absense of mathematics
Crackpots don't know mathematics, that's why they cannot use math in
their "theories". The consequence is that there is usually no math in
such theories, or, as the maximum, copies of well-known formulas. The
theories mostly consist of verbal speculations of how known particles
and forces are build from the more fundamental things introduced by
the author. Such a verbal description does not allow to make
quantitative predictions and that's why useless.
Ken Setos theory is a nice example. He introduces some names -
E-MATRIX, E-STRING, S-Particle (crackpots usually like uppercase
letters ;-)
and when gives verbal descriptions of how the usual names he has heard
in popular literature are "explained" in their theory. What is not
present is any idea how to compute anything.
Ken Seto even tries to sell this failure as an advantage: The word
"realistic" obviously means "without any math". He makes the statement
that his statement "does not rely on abstractive concepts to solve a
problem." We have nice pictures instead of numbers and equations: "The
current state of the universe, according to Model Mechanics, can be
visualized as follows"
>Ken Seto's reply:
> See items #4,5,&6 of my original reply to you. It is obvious that you are not
>capable of recognizing that if you based the mathematics of a process on the correct
>metaphysical picture it will be consistent with all the mathematics of all the processes
>that are based on the same correct metaphysical picture. So therefore, having
> the correct metaphysical picture is more important than any one specific mathematical
>scheme. Model Mechanics provides this correct metaphysical picture.
>Ilja wrote:
Suggestions that current physics is made by idiots
Another characteristic property of crank physics is the "critical"
relation to existing theories. A major difference between religion and
science is that a new religion claims that the old one is completely
wrong, in science the old theory usually survives as the "classical
limit" of the new theory. To consider the relation to existing
theories is that's why a good criterion to distinguish nonsense from
real science. If you read scientific literature, even
if a completely new, non-mainstream theory is introduced, the existing
theory is not described as nonsense, completely wrong. Einstein was
far away from claiming that Newton was an idiot. And the reason for
this is not that the scientific community does not allow or like
criticism, but that the old theory is based on a lot of experiments
which have been in agreement with this theory, the new one not yet.
Different from this, crackpots feel free to criticize current science
as errorneous, seriously flawed and so on. Of course, because their
theories do not allow to derive the predictions of the old theories in
the situations where the old theories have been successful.
Ken Seto gives a typical example of crackpot criticism of existing
theory:
"It turns out that a series of erroneous interpretations of
mathematics and experimental results was the common cause of the
failures. Perhaps the most serious error was ignoring the effects of
absolute motions. The root of this error was the adoption of the time
dilation concept. This concept enabled physicists to explain the
various processes of nature without referring to absolute motions. The
result of this is overwhelmingly tragic. We have theories that are not
compatible with each other. We rely on abstractions to solve our
problems."
Of course, his theory does not allow to make experimental predictions
and what's why has no problem with explaining experimental results.
That's why he has no idea what it means to have a theory which is in
agreement with experiment.
>Ken Seto's reply:
>I never made any suggestions that current physics is made by idiots. In fact,
>I think that it is amazing that current physics could progress so far without the
>correct metaphysical picture. There is no nice way of saying it. If you have the
>wrong metaphysical picture you are not going to come up with the theory of
>everything.
>Ilja Wrote:
Absense of real predictions
Usually crackpots are completely unable to make any numerical
prediction. It has to be mentioned, that it is already a good sign if
the author accepts that a theory has to make predictions, and really
makes some predictions which can be tested by experiment. Fortunately,
Ken Seto has reached this state of understanding what science means.
Nonetheless, to be a prediction of a theory requires to be derived
from the foundations of the theory. Derived in a unique, mathematical
way. So that other people can verify this proof, or derive by themself
other predictions. (For this purpose, we need mathematics, and that's
why the absense of math is so essential to qualify a theory as
nonsense.)
>Ken Seto's reply:
>Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. I have made numerous
>predictions with Model Mechanics. For example, Model Mechanics predicts
> the existence of absolute motion and I have designed experiments
> that can confirmed the existence of absolute motion. The results of these
>experiments can give us a quantitative value of the earth's absolute motion.
>Also, Model Mechanics predicts that Mu and Epsilon are not unversal constants.
>Also, I have suggested experiments that can confirm these predictions. These
>are just a few of amny predictions of Model Mechanics.
>Ilja Wrote:
For example, consider his experiment #2.
He makes a "prediction" of the results of this experiment.
Unfortunately, he cannot prove it. All he can do is to give some
"suggestions". That means, he can decide tomorrow to replace this
"prediction" by another one, may be accepting that he has made an
error. Thus, it is not a prediction of his theory, but only his
personal decision to "predict" this. We will probably be able to
observe this process in near future. Indeed, for a scientific theory,
a wrong experimental prediction is the end. Not for
a non-scientific theory. Here Ken Seto simply has to replace his
support decision by another one. That's why the observation that this
prediction is not in agreement with experiment probably will not lead
to the result that Ken Seto accepts that his theory is wrong.
>Ken Seto's reply:
> What do you mean by "he cannot proof it"? Now you are calling my
>proposed experiments as "suggestions" and speculate how I would
>react to any negative results. Why are you so desperate? Perhaps
> you are getting a little wacky because your PG is about to be replaced?
>Ilja's Wrote:
Experimental situation for prediction #2
I'm not a specialist in experimental physics, but already a standard
reference to experimental verification of theories of gravity, Will -
even an old, 1979 version - suggests that the prediction is completely
wrong. Frequencies of laser clocks can be compared with accuracy
10-15. According to the description of the experiment, the emitter and
receiver are located in the same laboratory. Will mentions 1979 that a
such an experiment to measure the frequency difference of different
types of such accurate clocks has been planned, with accuracy near
10-15. To find out the current state of the art I leave as a homework
for Ken Seto. He may try actual papers of Will ( gr-qc/9504017) to
start his research.
Assuming an absolute velocity of Earth of order V=30km/s, we obtain a
factor sqrt(1-V^2/c^2)-1 ~ 10-8. Compared with the possible accuracy
of measurement 10-15, this effect could be detected with accuracy
10-7.
In other words, he predicts a difference to the relativistic
predictions of order of the Mount Everest where experimental physics
can measure with accuracy 1mm and highly probably has done similar
measurement already years ago without observing anything strange (that
means different from GR predictions).
His predicted effect would allow to measure absolute motion with an
accuracy of order cm/s. Probably Earth does not only move around the
Sun, but even does not rotate.
>Ken Seto's reply:
> It is amazing that you would try to discredit experiment #2 with a completetly
> different experiment. What is the problem Ilja? Is the pressure getting to you?
> The following postings between Jim Carr and myself should explain to you what
>Experiment #2 is all about.
On 26 Nov 1996 03:49:43 GMT, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
After visiting my web site
Jim Carr wrote:
>
> The second of these (new experiments designed to detect absolute motion)
>says that we can detect the absolute motion of
> the earth by monitoring the tunes broadcast by an AM radio station
> for frequency shifts that depend on where we are. Ditto for a
> direction dependence for the modulation frequency of any carrier,
> such as between satellites or any other man-made transmitter with
> known properties.
What Jim Carr said above is completely false. The specific experiment
he referred to is not any where near what he described above. That
specific experiment requires a "KNOWN" light pulse rate. There is a
big difference between a "KNOWN" light pulse rate and a measured
frequency rate such as an AM radio station. When they measure the
frequency rate of a radio station that measuurement will have included
the absolute motion of the earth. In fact, all measurements of the
speed of light (and em waves) on earth will have included the absolute
motion of the earth. Therefore at the receiving end, the frequency
rate detected would be the same as the previously measured broadcast
rate. In other words, both rates contain the absolute motion of the
earth.
OTOH, a KNOWN pulse rate is not the same as the measured rate. It
does not include the absolute motion of the earth. A "KNOWN" pulse
rate can be manufactured by chopping up a continuous laser beam
machanically. The "KNOWN" rate is determined by simply counting the
number of these chopped up pieces (call them light bullets) and divide
by the time lapsed. This method of determining the "KNOWN" rate avoids
the inclusion of the absolute motion of the earth in the "KNOWN" rate.
Subject: Re: ................2nd INTERVAL...........................
From: Keith Stein
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:54:06 +0000
> STEIN'S RELATIVISTIC-ELECTRO-MAGNETIC-FORCE EQUATION
>
>
> F = K * Q1 * Q2 / D1 * D2
>
>
>where F is the force in Newtons between two charges Q1 and Q2,in which
> Q1 and Q2 may, or may not, be moving.
> K is Keith's Constant in N m^2 C^-2 i think :-)
> Q1 is the first charge in Coulombs
> Q2 is the other charge in Coulombs
> D1 is the distance between Q1 and Q2, as determined by a range
> finding laser;said laser being stationary in the frame of Q1.
> D2 is the distance travelled by the photon used in determining D1,
> as measured in the Q2's frame of reference.
>
> That is just such a beautiful equation !!!
Can't have it ruined by sloppy definitions...So i propose a change in
the definitions of D1 and D2, as follows:-
D1 is the distance between Q1 and Q2 in metres,as measured
in the coordinate system in which Q1 is stationary.
D2 is the distance between Q1 and Q2 in metres,as measured
in the coordinate system in which Q2 is stationary.
ALSO
D0 is the distance between Q1 and Q2 in metres,as measured
in the coordinates in which light travels at c ! (ie D0 is
the distance as measured in the coordinate system in which
the medium is stationary). D0 does not actually appear in
Stein's Relativistic-Electro-Magnetic Equation, but the
concept helps in clarifying the new definitions of D1 and D2.
i think.
The old definitions of D1 and D2 were appauling. Not only did they ruin
the beautiful symetry of Stein's Equation,but it would of course be
impossible to have a laser stationary in the frame of Q1, if Q1 happens
to be an electron travelling at say 99% of the speed of light :-(
Note to mention that the original definitions didn't define any units!
> It's not just physics.
> It's MAgIC !!
HOW TRUE !!
keith stein
Subject: Readers Digest LookSmart Looks Provincial
From: coolabah@coolabah.com (Coolabah Systems)
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 02:16:55 GMT
Censorship through neglect? Of the nearly 20,000 USENET groups, why
has Readers Digest LookSmart targeted only 180 or so to 'review'? It
does appear in line with their apparent policy of only serving the
American community as an advertising resource. Pity the users who
believe that Readers Digest LookSmart is, a WWW search engine. A
perceptive visitor may wonder why, for example, of approximately
700,000 Australian Web pages available, Readers Digest LookSmart,
only has 30 (The Melbourne Age 26 Nov 96) .
If Readers Digest LookSmart wants to be an advertising tool, that is
clearly within their right. However, shouldn't they TELL their users
that only (or primarily) American companies are posted on their sites.
Shouldn't they SAY that they only review 180 out of 20,000 newsgroups?
To find more and to see the USENET groups Readers Digest LookSmart
selected, visit
http://www.coolabah.com/oz/controversy.html
And what is more, only 40% of the postings are clearly from Readers
Digest LookSmart personnel, whose USENET profiles are outlined below.
We encourage you to let Readers Digest LookSmart advertisers know that
the web is the WORLD Wide Web and that unstated restrictive policies
that may mislead new and uninformed users are not acceptable to the
international web community.
The following is public information available through DejaNews:
AUTHOR PROFILE: Fleur Toone fleur@homebase.com.au
47 articles posted between 1996/11/12 and 1996/11/14.
0 % of these articles were followups.
AUTHOR PROFILE: John Cussen john@homebase.com.au
27 articles posted between 1996/06/20 and 1996/11/15.
7 % of these articles were followups.
AUTHOR PROFILE: "S Banes - looksmart Intl." sbanes@looksmart.com
AUTHOR PROFILE: Sali sbanes@looksmart.com
36 articles posted between 1996/11/12 and 1996/11/29.
27 % of these articles were followups. by cross-postings):
AUTHOR PROFILE: fmaguire@looksmart.com
AUTHOR PROFILE: Fergus fmaguire@looksmart.com
7 articles posted between 1996/11/12 and 1996/11/13.
0 % of these articles were followups.
AUTHOR PROFILE: Matthew Travers mtravers@looksmart.com
38 articles posted between 1996/11/12 and 1996/11/14.
0 % of these articles were followups.
AUTHOR PROFILE: mback@looksmart.com (Meg)
3 articles posted between 1996/11/15 and 1996/11/15.
0 % of these articles were followups.
AUTHOR PROFILE: cfogarty@looksmart.com (C Fogarty)
AUTHOR PROFILE: cfogarty@looksmart.com (Conor Fogarty)
9 articles posted between 1996/11/12 and 1996/11/14.
0 % of these articles were followups.
AUTHOR PROFILE: Pete Crawford pcrawford@looksmart.com
AUTHOR PROFILE: pete
9 articles posted between 1996/11/13 and 1996/11/14.
0 % of these articles were followups.
AUTHOR PROFILE: Noel Bailey nbailey@looksmart.com
5 articles posted between 1996/11/12 and 1996/11/14.
20 % of these articles were followups.
--Coolabah systems
coolabah@coolabah.com
Subject: Polarisation in a medium. Need help.
From: cazelaig@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Cazelais Gilles)
Date: 3 Dec 1996 02:45:18 GMT
Hi,
I need to find the electric potential in some dielectric media,
polarised with a single point charge placed at the center. Here's more
specifically the problem.
I have this globally neutral media, formed with lots of neutral molecules,
atoms or whatever, all at random location. Then, I place some big
point charge Q > 0 at the center. This charge will polarize the medium.
Atoms are fixed at their location, but the electron's clouds can be
deformed (polarisation). Electrons will tend to be closer to Q. The charge
density "Rho" will be more negative near Q, making a screen effect around Q.
Then, what is the total electric potential V(r) at a distance r from the
point charge?
If there were no medium, then the response is simple: V(r) = kQ/r,
the Coulomb potential. Because of the presence of the medium, there
will be some screen effect that will reduce the field. So I need to
solve the Poisson equation (in spherical coordinates);
Laplacian V = - Rho/E_0
(E_0 is the vacuum dielectric constant). To solve this, I need to know
the function Rho(r) ! How can I find it? Of course, it depends on the
medium ability to be polarised. When the total potential V is not too strong
(do not ionise the medium!), can I assume a function like
Hypothesis (*) Rho(r) = - a^2 V(r) ???
where a^2 is a positive constant, caracteristic of the medium. Physically, it
appears (really?) to make sense, as the electrons will go where V is
stronger. Rho should be more negative where V is stronger (is that true?)
If I place this guess in the Poisson equation, I get
Laplacian V = (a^2/E_0) V,
which give the solution (put E_0 = 1 for simplicity)
Exp(- a r)
V(r) = kQ _________
r
The screening effect is apparent. So I need to know if this model
is correct. How can I justify the use of the hypothesis (*)?
Thanks a lot in advance.
-Gilles.
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: StanR
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 19:51:26 -0800
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <32A2805F.7F35@california.com>, StanR writes:
> >Tobias,
> >I think Michael's point was that other solutions can be found that
> >contain a negative time-arrow.
> >
> >Even if the electron example misses the mark, it's certainly true with
> >photons. And any solution to a wave differential equation. They always
> >have a minus-, as well as a plus-time soliution.
> >
> >Physisists and engineers have been throwing out the negative time
> >solution as unusable, and they may be right about that in solving a
> >problem. But that pratically doesn't negate the validity of the
> >solution.
> >
> >Personally I agree with Michael in concept, if not in example. The
> >mathmatical solution is valid until proven invalid, based on the
> >usefullness of the positive time-arrow solutiion.
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> Yeah, two comments:
>
> 1) The basic equations of physics are invariant under time reversal.
> Thus for any solution propagating forward in time there is a solution
> propagating backward. This results from the very structure of the
> equations. But, it is neither proving nor disproving the possibility
> of backward propagation. The "arrow of time" is an external condition
> imposed as a boundary condition. Obviously you cannot use equations
> which are invariant under time reversal to prove that there is a
> preferred time direction.
>
> 2) Regarding "The mathematical solution is valid until proven
> invalid", no, it ain't so. Math is sufficiently rich to generate way
> more than just physical solutions and the reduction of the set of all
> possible solutions to the set of the "physical ones" is obtained using
> principles which are, in the ultimate account, based on empirical
> observations not on mathematical proofs.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Started off ok. Regarding Comment #1, yes, yes, and yes. And fair-enough
as far as neither proving-nor-disproving the approved time-arrow
direction, and I make the same ascertion.
But no, you don't have a choice to the arrow of time as a "boundary
condition". an interesting distinction between a wave equation and a
diffusion equation. Don't confuse the practical aspect of the choice of
time-direction with defacto proof.
Your "preferred time direction" statement digresses, though and is
off-track, as are most statements that start with 'obviously..."
Comment #2 is more of a statement of prejudice. Sayin'-it-ain't-so don't
make it 'ain't-so. Go back to comment #1 and let's see if we can
develope something concrete from that.
Stan
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: John Wrenn
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 20:19:58 -0800
cc16712@cdsnet.net wrote:
>
> "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.
> >Astrologists and physicians are more apt to acknowledge that God exists
> >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.
>
> [laughter] Anyone who really studies science knows the bible hasn't a
> clue.
> Regards,
> Stoney
Anyone who studies the bible knows science has to many clues and not
enough facts. That does not make science usless, it does tell me that
nothing creates itself. Any high schooler knows the laws of entropy rule
out evolution. One of the first principals I learned in High school
sience was every cause has an effect, and the corallary is true: every
effect has a cause. People can discuss effect all they want ie,
creationism or evolution, but that does not establish cause. "God" the
cause from the christian standpoint comes via revelation. From the
viewpoint of man cause has not been nor can it be established. Man has a
guilty knowledge of God and he suppresses this knowledge unrighteously.
Today people supress the knowledge of the God as evolution and the big
bang, the effect that remains without a cause. Yesterday it was some
sort of mythology or pagan story. Origins have one root that is in
Christ, without him nothing was made, but no one believes that apart
from the grace of God.
< John >
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 3 Dec 1996 02:40:09 GMT
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>I am not proposing an exclusive dichotomy. Tables and chairs might be
>>>>observables, beliefs and desires might be intelligibles, and elementary
>>>>particles might be both at once. The key point is that causal efficacy
>>>>might be restricted to a kind that cannot impinge on material objects.
>>>>Thus psychophysical parallelism claims that each class of entities is
>>>>restricted to causal interaction with its own kind, and hence no mental
>>>>entity or event can produce a measurable physical effect.
>>>Make it "no direct physical effect". A belief in ideology fits under
>>>intelligibles in this scheme. Same belief may prompt somebody to push
>>>a button resulting in the launching of a missile, which may result in
>>>quite measurable physical effects. But, yes, for the intelligible to
>>>have such effect there is a need for an entity which can process
>>>intelligibles and interact with observables, i.e. the human mind.
>>>Hey, I think I'm beginning to like it, though there are still lots of
>>>loose ends.
>>OK, here is a more clear-cut case. Consider a functionalist theory of
>>mind. Suppose that to each possible physical state of the brain there
>>corresponds at most one computational state of mind, that the physical
>>and the mental strata alike are causally complete and closed, and that
>>no causal interaction occurs in either direction. Then mental states
>>supervene on observable brain configurations, but neither cause them
>>nor get caused thereby. This view is actually quite popular, though
>>perhaps not as satisfactory as interactionism.
>I would say in this case that there are no two stratas, just one, and
>the reason people would like to believe there are two is just their
>unwilligness to give up on the belief that human spirit exists as an
>entity independent of the material body.
Note that the above scenario is compatible with there being genuine
psychological laws governing beliefs, perceptions, and volitions,
independently of the physical laws that govern their underlying
neurological base. So a volition would be causally efficacious in
producing a belief, but there need not be any nomological regularity
connecting mental states with brain properties.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: Alec Horgan
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:39:08 CST
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, David Swanson wrote:
> In article
>
> Alec Horgan writes:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, David Christopher Swanson wrote:
> >
> > > There are numerous problems with trying to put a price on
> > > everything. I cited a book in order to avoid having to type
> > > them all in. I'll give you one to chew on: how do you deal
> > > with the interests of future generations?
> >
> > Given the contempt which you appeared to display for Colin McGinn's
> > review of Peter Unger's new book, which relied heavily on this and other
> > similar questions, one would not think this to be much of a concern for you.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Your memory seems spotty. Sure I displayed contempt for the review.
> The review displayed contempt for what sounded like an excellent book.
> But what difference does it make what's a concern for ME? You don't
> get around problems just because I'm fool enough to ignore them, do
> you?
>
I would hope not. However, my point is that, by raising the question
above, you've indicated that you haven't ignored the problem, in which
case your contempt for the review seems, if not completely mistaken, at
least a bit odd.
Alec
