Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 07:08:18 GMT
In article , briank@ibm.net (Brian
Kennelly) wrote:
>In article <32c81372.3206577@ksts.seed.net.tw>,
>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>In article , briank@ibm.net (Brian
>>Kennelly) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <32c6a9d3.1923534@news.pacificnet.net>,
>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>> In essence the argument goes something like this. Things move in
>>>>multi-dimensional space only, not in 4-D spacetime. That nothing
>>>>moves in spacetime is a direct logical (not philosophical) consequence
>>>>of the mathematical nature of spacetime and the equation v = d / t.
>>>>Spacetime is 100% motionless because time is already part of the
>>>>structure. The equation for velocity in time would be v = t / t and
>>>>that, of course, is plain nonsense. It's that simple. There are
>>>>other ways of explaining it that does not involve any math at all.
>>>>Contradict and obfuscate at your own peril. :-)
>>>
>>>Finding the velocity in time = 1 is not nonsense at all.
>>
>> Velocity in time is not nonsense? If you mean motion along the time
>>dimension, this would be bordering on the preposterous.
>>
>Why? We move in the time dimension all the time.
No we don't. I gave a simple proof above which you chose to ignore.
I'm sorry if you can't see it. It can't get any simpler than this.
Now let me ask you a question. If relativity physics is such an
ironclad science as you seem to think it is, why is it that about half
of the professional physicists to whom I have mentioned the illogic of
motion along the time dimension agree with me while the other half
doesn't. Doesn't this fact alone seem strange to you? And guess
what? The logical circularity of motion in time was first pointed out
to me a few years ago by a tenured physics professor who's been
teaching physics at Elizabethtown college in Pennsylvania for years.
Are you a physicist, BTW? Why can't you guys agree on a concept that
is so central to physics? It's not as if you did not have it over
eighty years to think it through. Why is so much of it still
nonsense? Does the name 'Albert Einstein' really instill this much
fear, to the point of preventing some of you from comprehending simple
logic? Or is it just peer pressure politics? I really don't get it.
What's the deal?
>>> It is a way of
>>>normalising the velocity 4-vector. More useful in analysis is usually to
>>>measure motion by the proper time of the particle, which results in a
>>>different normalisation (|v|=1). The evolution of the universe is obtained
>>>by taking a slice through space-time at each value of the parameter used to
>>>describe the passage of time.
>>>
>>>This is not so different than classical physics using Least Action to
>>>determine the path through space over time. Mathematically it considers the
>>>path as existing, but dynamically that need not be true.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't see what any of the above does to bolster your
>>argument that there is motion in spacetime, assuming this is your
>>argument. Maybe I misunderstand your prose. I sure hope so but do
>>correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>
>OK, let me rephrase more carefully. Along any path in spacetime a parameter
>can be assigned to each point. If we describe the position of a point on that
>path as the parameter changes we obtain motion through space-time. I am not
>sure why this is objectionable to you.
I object to it 100%. This is just an example of static analysis of
a time graph. All time graphs are static by definition and simple
logic. This does not demonstrate any motion in time. On the
contrary, it demonstrates zero motion in time.
>Now if we assume that we have a dynamical theory that describes the motion we
>can start from a particular point and determine the future path. It is
>generally possible to describe the path in terms of an integral condition
>which seems to imply that the path already exists, but that does not mean that
>it does.
More static analysis of a static graph. And it does not make a
single bit of difference how often you use the word "dynamical"
either.
>The description of inertial motion in terms of geodesics is an integral
>condition, but that does not mean that there is no motion. The motion can
>also be described as a dynamic evolution. Inertial motion then becomes motion
>along which the 4-velocity does not change as measured locally. Because the
>metric is non-trivial, the 4-velocity may change as seen by a different
>observer and that is the essence of gravity.
I'm sorry for being so blunt but this is still nonsense. There is
no such thing as a dynamical evolution of spacetime nor is there
inertial motion in spacetime. Why? Because, for the umpteenth time,
evolution (motion) takes time. Evolution along the time dimension is
a circular notion because it must obey a nonsensical equation for
velocity, v = t/t, which gives a dimensionless number equal to 1.
Inertial motion can only exist in space. The reason that a falling
body does not feel any acceleration has nothing to do with inertial
motion. It has to do with the fact that the accelerating force, or
influence if you wish, is applied equally to all parts of the body.
As simple as that. No rubber sheet voodoo explanation is needed. The
body is observed to accelerate in space. So how can its motion be
inertial? I don't care how many times GR physicists repeat this
nonsense and I don't care if I, too, used to subscribe to the same
nonsense. It's nonsense all the same. Sheesh! Sometimes I'm truly
amazed at the stuff that came out of the cult of general relativity.
GR does not need rubber sheet explanations. It stands on the math
alone.
>In fact GR can also be cast in the form of Cauchy problem where the present
>is given as a boundary value and the future evolves from it. Only the
>metric and affine connections are needed at the start. But the metrical
>relations of space-time are still valid.
This argument does not change anything. The metrical relations of
spacetime don't exist.
>>>> Spacetime is an abstract collection of events and there is
>>>>absolutely no causal link between it and matter as the SR and GR
>>>>fundamentalists would want us to believe, against all common sense.
>>>
>>>That is true of SR (except possibly for the issue of inertia), but in GR
>>>there is a definite causal relationship between matter and space-time. How
>>>can you claim otherwise, except by assertion? Your "abstract collection of
>>>events" has a metrical structure that can change over time, as understood
>>>above.
>>
>> Again, this is getting close to being preposterous. If the
>>collection of events is abstract, i.e., if it is a non-existent
>>descriptive mapping, how in the heck can it have a causal influence on
>>anything, let alone physical matter. This is exactly the sort of
>
>I am not sure what you mean when you say that space-time is only abstract.
>I do not agree that it is non-existent.
It never existed.
> I consider it to be physical, but
An excellent definition of physical is anything that can interact
with particles of matter. For something to interact with particles,
it must have properties in common with them. Why? Because if they
had nothing in common, they could not interact. Question: What
property does spacetime have in common with particles? Answer:
Zilch. Particles only interact with other particles with which their
share certain common properties. This view of reality is a bare bone
logical view. It's a simple logical system. Why complicate it?
>it is abstract in the same sense that momentum and energy are abstract. I.e.,
>they are not directly measurable, but can be inferred from other things that
>are.
To say that momentum is inferred to exists physically just because
one can calculate mv is a really strange thing to say. It's like
saying the unemployment rate exists physically because it is
calculable from physical things. Is that what you're saying? If it
is, I can assure you that your logic is being wasted on me. :-)
Momentum is non-existent and energy is non-existent. The only
things that need to exist in the universe, IMO, are particles and
particles in motion, i.e., changing/interacting particles. Nothing
else. All that other stuff, (force, momentum, energy, spacetime,
etc...) are just useful mathematical abstractions that were invented
to facilitate human comprehension.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: Re: A wee dram o' Philosophy...
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 2 Jan 1997 02:20:58 -0500
wrote:
>You always have to weight the risk of false positives
>versus false negatives. By ignoring the possibility that somebody may
>be a foe, until evidence is provided, you expose yourself to danger.
>By considering as a foe somebody who isn't, you may eventually turn
>him into a foe. So circumstances are important. Suppose you live in
>a very violent and agressive society, where there is a significant
>chance that any stranger may be dangerous. In such situation it'll be
>prudent to consider any NOT(friend) to be a foe until proven
>otherwise. On the other hand, in a very peaceful society the opposite
>approach may be better. So, you really cannot escape getting past
>experience into consideration, though now it is a more generalized
>past experience.
All I can say is, Yes!!
And these two approaches are in fact what you will see in these
respective social situations. Which choice is related to the
Prisoner's Dilemma -- the problem of evaluating trust/no-trust
strategies. And individually our choice of strategies is dominated by
personal history. And I think you can burn the no-trust strategy into
a child so thoroughly that it will never be eradicated, though the
trusting strategy seems to be more volatile. Which launches us into a
500 page thesis on
*sociology
*psychology
*game theory
*Bayesian updating
Oh, oh! The Hyena is escaping. Another time, I guess...
>>[P.S. There is a method to my madness, but, if you wish to stop, just let
>>me know.]
>>
>Its OK, we're all mad here.
And sometimes we get angry, too. :-) What's more, I have it from a
correspondent in sci.physics.relativity that because of my
intransigent claims of non-canonical understanding, I am now a
certified crank! I wonder when I get my certificate?? ;-)
Subject: Culling the Data
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 2 Jan 1997 02:50:17 -0500
In another thread, wrote:
>jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>>
>>I agree that something must be done. And let's not limit this suggestion
>>just to physics students. Two examples that [I think] may illustrate this
>>need are:
>>
>>1. There is a man at NIH who has confused his opinion with the scientific
>>method. To support his opinion, he has edited the _raw_ data so that
>>anyone who uses this data for research purposes will invariably come to an
>>incorrect theory, conclusion, etc. I am horrified at this breach of
>>ethics. Yet, when I speak about it, noone seems to understand the
>>significance of this act.
>
>None?! I really hope you exaggerate, since if it is true then we've a
>way bigger problem than I imagined (and I'm not known for being
>overoptimistic).
But surely this happens to some degree all the time? If you get some
bizarre runs of data, and you later identify what the quality control
people would call the "special cause", that your pholgiston meter was
failing, then I assume you would simply throw these runs out, as if
they had never been; and experimental ethics says fine. So this is
one extreme.
The other extreme would be like the case you mention, that maybe you
have no special cause to assign to some of the data except that it
does not fit your theory, and therefore there must have been an
unknown problem, and you throw it out.
So what do experimental ethics say? Even in the first case I assume
you would keep the data in some form, though it would never be
published. What about the grey areas? What happens in real life?
Subject: Post-Quantum Physics and The Ultimate Unification Theory
From: Pramana
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 12:02:33 +0700
THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION THEORY AND POST-QUANTUM PHYSICS
Colleen, Jelke, Peter, Paul, Larry et all,
Thank you for your nice words in response to my previous posting
Colleen.
And Jelke, Yes! Here I am, and still at it!
Before answering your questions, I think I have to make a short
introduction about my thesis The Ultimate Unification Theory, and how it
relates to Post Quantum Physics. That’s what Peter also would like to
have.
But Peter, this is not intended to persuade you or giving you any reason
to look further into the matter. I just think, it is only fair and more
appropriate that I give a short introduction, especially to clarify
where do I stand.
Firstly, I am not a quantum physicist, and post-quantum physics is not
my 'creation'. So Paul, sorry that I couldn't or do not feel to have the
authority to answer your question, as what "intuitive science" means.
Jelke, whether you need a degree in nuclear physics or not, solely
depends on yourself, how far do you want to 'understand' the subject.
According to me, there are two types of people in this world, the
generalist, who knows nothing about everything, and the specialist, who
knows everything about nothing. And I’d like to think that I belong to
the first group, the generalist.
I like to watch the woods as it changes colors in every season, having
some information as what kind of trees are there or what kind of animals
lives there, but I am not interested to go into it myself to see any
particular tree or animal species living in the woods, because I don't
want to lose my beautiful panoramic view of the whole forest.
>From everything, that I know nothing of, I’ve put together a grand
picture, made a thesis out of it, call it The Ultimate Unification
Theory and presented it at the fifth international conference on
thinking in Townsville, Australia. It was in July 1992.
(It's now available in my web-page, as the 'scientific' basis of what I
call Scientific Spirituality, the title of my web-page)
The Ultimate Unification Theory is not only the Unification of all
physical laws (in contrast to the Theory of Everything), but also the
psychological and the spiritual laws as well. It is simply the basic
fundamental law of our Cosmos as a totality.
The Ultimate Unification Theory is a Trinity, comprising of:
1. The Law of One-ness
2. The Law of Polarization
3. The Law of Interrelationship.
In my thesis paper, I went quite some lengthy discussion about Eintein’s
relativity theory and Quantum Physics, (though I am not a physicist), to
prove that the whole cosmos is nothing but undivisible One-ness. (please
read “One-ness” as in a mystical term)
Within the infinite One-ness, there are polarities due to the Law of
Polarization, which is also known as The Law of Universal Freewill. And
everything we call reality, is nothing but only result of the
interactions between polarities. It’s The Law of Interrelationship,
which is based on the principle of resonance and induction.
The Ultimate Unification Theory uses a ‘formula’, which is a cross
within a circle. The Circle symbolises the One-ness, while the cross
symbolises the two basic interrelationships. The horizontal axis
symbolises the subject/object interrelationship, which I coined the name
‘exoteric line’, while the vertical axis symbolises the internal,
mind/brain or spirit/matter interrelationship or the ‘esoteric line’.
The materialistic science ignores this ‘esoteric line’, or this vertical
interrelationship. I mentioned in my paper, that he facts are already
there, as in the Jungian Psychology (the interactions between human
behavior and the collective unconscious / the Archetypes), as well as it
was proven by Rupert Sheldrake with his Morphogenetic field.
But they have been ignored by our physicist, as they ignore all other
paranormal phenomena.
And I’ve ‘predicted’ in 1992, that the crucial point for our hard core
science (ie. Physics) to make the next break through, is by
acknowledging the existence of this ‘esoteric’ interrelationship and to
start investigating it.
And exactly this, is now happening with the emergence of the
post-quantum physics. There is a group of scientists, called the Physics
Consciousness Research Group, ie. Jack Sarfatti Ph.D, Henry Stapp, Roger
Penrose etc., who have done quite some works in this area.
Some people do not particularly 'like' Jack Sarfatti, but it's beside
the point. And of course, there will always be pros and cons amongst the
scientists themself.
But, let us wait and see how it will further develop.
Jelke:
> It is nice to know that there is a "physical" or "natural"
> understanding of consciousness but does it really help to know
> myself, not my emperical self, but my Real Self?
Larry:
> How does - or does it - your quantum physics theory
> deal with latent and active capacities.
> To me everyone - according to their individual makeup -
> all different - has all the latent aspects of Divinity to make them
> whole -
> However - in current cognitive perspective - only certain aspects
> may be active and in different degrees on functionality.
>Does the theory shed any light on how to get all fuctions operating?
I don’t know the answer from the post-quantum physics’ point of view, as
they are just a new born baby right now. They are still crawling, and
still have a lot to catch up and to investigate.
>From the perspective of The Ultimate Unification Theory, I’d like to
quote the following from my web-page, which is a derivation from the
UUT:
Every “I” is the same “I”, which is the Cosmic “I”.
The only difference is the subject pattern, held as point of
reference to experience other patterns, the object.
Due to subject/object polarization, the subject pattern
identify itself as “I am”, having the impressions as being
separated from the rest of the universe, which is it’s
illusion.
I am sure you will find the answer to your question behind those words.
Furthermore, I do differentiate between science and technology. If we
take the above statement as the science part about the "REAL SELF", it
still doesn't show you HOW TO achieve or to realize it. It needs the
technology.
However, to elaborate the technology, I think it will need a separate
posting. Meanwhile you can have a look at my article “The Human Energy
Circuit” under Chapter “Microcosm” in my web site. Direct URL address is
http://www.indocon.com/metascience/micro.htm#3
Jelke:
> How about putting together a special page on your web-site
> explaining, in lay-man's terms, what this "back-action" is all about
> and how it evolved from conventional quantum-mechanics?
It's a good idea, but I wouldn't write it as how it is understood from
the quantum physics' point of view. As I said above, I am not a quantum
physics specialist, and I don’t feel to have the right to represent
them. I'd like to know what's going on in those area of research, but am
not getting deeply involved myself.
As from the UUT's point of view, it is what I call 'the esoteric line'
or the vertical axis interactions, and it follows the same principle of
resonance and inductions like any other interactions. And it's already
there in my web page.
I know that some people still having difficulties in reading my page,
but I also still have some difficulties in 'watering it down' to
'laymans term' due to my language problem. Not only that English is not
my mother tongue, it's more that the subject is not an easy one.
Happy New Year to you all!
in LIGHT + LOVE
Pramana
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Pramana email: bpramana@rad.net.id
Scientific Spirituality http://www.indocon.com/metascience
(mirror site) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6780
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dr. Eric Walker: An interview - Azadehdel is NOT a physicist
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 2 Jan 1997 11:22:06 GMT
Im Artikel <32ce1c9f.101985179@news.primenet.com>, bdzeiler@primenet.com
(Brian Zeiler) schreibt:
>Oh, give me a break. All I know is that Azadehdel is NOT
>the only person to be granted an interview by Walker, which
>renders your point wildly irrelevant as it would pertain to the
>validity of what Walker said.
Bullshit, Brian, and you know it. If the *source for the interview is
Azadehdel, the fact that Walker has granted interviews to others does not
validate the words in this one interview.
>Walker has been interviewed several times by several
>different people.
So why don't you cite them instead of a notorious liar?
>My guess is that if he lied about being a physicist,
>then he probably did so to suck up to the physicist
>Walker to try to form a little scientific bond with him
>to get him to talk, taking the journalist's tack.
The first guess dealing with liars is that they lie habitually. My second
guess is that Azadehdel wildly overinterpreted a few mumbles. I read both
your posts on these interviews and find an intelligent person (Walker)
trying to get a whacko as quick of his back as he can.
>Typical of a debunker to try to inflate a non
>sequiter into some kind of revolutionary discovery.
Typical of a believer to hear only what he wants to hear ("and disregard
the rest", as S&G; once sang, continuing with "lie, la lie - lie, lie, lie,
lie, la lie..." - it does fit, doesn't it :-)
BTW: Keep your unscientific tales out of the sci-groups - they don't
belong here.
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Marijuana science is interesting!!!
From: Patricia Schwarz
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 07:23:21 -0800
BBrian Sandle wrote:
> : Then cannabinoids are undoubtedly good for the hippocampus,
> : check out the research on the syntehtic cannabinoid HU211
> : which as a brain anti-inflammatory reduces neural damage from
> : hypoxia by up to 50%
>
> No, no, for someone whose breathing has been reduced it is no good to
> tell them that they will only suffer half the damage.
>
You really are confused aren't you? 8-}
Marijuana does not work by hypoxia, it does not work like a
"dirty drug", it was discovered in 1986 that it works through
a system of chemoreceptors that account for its effects.
There is no hypoxia involved whatsoever in the action of
cannabinoids and this is certain.
The place where "hypoxia" came into your misunderstanding
may be where I referred to HU211, which is not even smoked,
it is an injectable synthetic cannabinoid that is made
in the lab. Here, I will describe the research in very very
simple language so that you have a small chance of comprehending:
They did some experiments with rats. They either gave them
meningitis, hit them on the head really hard or cut off
their oxygen for some length of time.
After causing deliberate brain trauma to the rats in the
above manner, they injected them with the synthetic
cannabinoid HU21l. To which they had not been exposed to before.
The rats who got the HU211 injections had half the neural
damages as the conrols in the test who were also subjected
to the same deliberate brain trauma.
Do you understand now? Administered after a brain trauma,
the synthetic canninoid HU211, because of the anti-inflammatory
action of the cannabinoid system that lalready exists in your
brain, can reduce nerual damage by a significant percentage.
I can see that ten years of research in this field by
pharmacologists and molecular biologists and neuroscientists
has not made much of an impact even among people who ought
to know.
> You are probably telling me no more than once drugs have damaged a brain
> through hypoxia then they may have to continue to be taken.
You are obviously arguing from an ideological standpoint and
probably aren't capable of digesting my above explanation. Oh well.
I'll keep trying, though.
These results have nothing at all to do with damage from "drugs"
they are specific to the cannabinoid system.
Cannabinoids including those in marijuana act through a unique
receptor system with unique properties. So marijuana is in
fact far more comparable to a tricyclic anti-depressant than
it is to, say, alcohol. Tricyclic anti-depressants act mainly
through the serotonin system. Well, here we have a whole
newly-discovered receptor system to use medically.
It's pretty fascinating. What did this system evolve for?
What does it do? And what disorders might be caused by
not having the proper gene for expressing natural cannabinoids?
This is all pretty intriguing stuff folks. It's not a "dirty
drug" i.e. something that acts like alcohol. Cannabinoids
are manufactured by the brain and immune system and they
play a vital role in all animals including humans.
Look, Brian, your own brain is already full of anadamide, which
is the natural analog of THC.
So if THC causes brain damage as you say, I guess we're all
BORN DAMAGED THEN. Because the code for producing cannabinoids
was encoded in your genes, babe, many millions of years ago.
Whether you like it or not, your health depends on cannabinoids
manufactured in your own head. THis is just a fact. But one
that has yet to reach the stage of being understood by large
numbers of scientists outside the cannabinoid field.
-patricia
--
Naked is a state of mind
Luscious Jackson
