Subject: Re: Relativistic Charge Increase
From: jmc
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 21:49:58 -0600
jmc wrote:
>
> In article <5afm30$bsm@panix2.panix.com>,
> erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> [In article <59vcad$pea@play.inetarena.com>, jmc
> wrote:
> [>> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
> [>> SR applies only to flat spacetime.
> [>
> [>
> [>Note: the word "flat" in regard in spacetime means this:
> [>
> [> Euclidean=flat
> [> non-Euclidean=curved.
> [>
> [>
> [>Therefore it is incorrect to say that SR applies only to flat
> [>spacetime; SR spacetime is non-Euclidean, i.e. not flat.
> [
> [This is a new one on me. I have it on good authority that I am a
> [certified crank, but I have communicated with many certified
> [mainstream people here, and they all seemed to accept the usage
> "flat
> [spacetime" as being the space time of special relativity (i.e. in the
> [absence of gravitating matter), without comment.
>
> Thanks to you and the others who pointed out that the definitions
> which I gave were not correct.
>
> As I understand it now, space-time is considered flat
> a. in the case of SR uniform movement in a straight line
(relative to an inertial system of coordinates)
> and b. generally, when the Riemann-Christoffel tensor is zeroes.
>
> Is it true that, strictly speaking, space-time is not flat in the
> SR problems often discussed in this group?
> For instance, the twin problem involves more than uniform movement
> in a straight line.
> And in general isn't it true that the Riemann-Christoffel tensor
> is not zeroes even in 'empty' space, that spacetime between the stars
> is curved?
Subject: Re: Particles&Waves;
From: mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 06:06:53 GMT
In article <32CC38E8.6F86@b.com>, a@b.com wrote:
> Why not just say that the act of 'observation' is the transfer of energy
> from the wave or particle. Why go into wierd things like contemplating
> whether if we enter a room and turn the lights out or shut our eyes as
> to whether the universe ceases to exist? Why is there all this wierd
> pseudoscientific terminology tied up in the science?
This is exactly why 95 percent of physicists don't worry about these issues
very much. Worrying about what really happens is philosophically
interesting, since it doesn't square with our everyday experience, but lots
of things don't square with everyday experience. The choice between all but
the crudest interpretations has no effect whatsoever on the predictions for
experimental data. We prefer to talk about phenomena we can measure, and
quantum physics is known to be a good generator of predictions.
Usenet and water-cooler discussions tend to circle around quantum
philosophy issues, but for most people who do quantum physics, it's at best
something they muse about recreationally when not actually doing science.
Furthermore, the people who *do* work on these subjects include some who
have gone a considerable distance toward formulating their statements
precisely rather than wandering about in verbal speculation. Discussion in
places like the sci.physics hierarchy is not a very good gauge of what the
scientific community actually does with its time.
--
Matt McIrvin
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: mj17624@janus.swipnet.se
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 16:25:33 GMT
realistic@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall) wrote:
>I'm no expert, but the idea of expansion as an explanation of gravity has
>some appeal and has not been expressed yet. Just like when you're on an
>elevator that is accellerating, one feels the floor rising below. With
>everything expanding, there is a "battle" for room or "space". Instead of
>falling to the earth, you are a small item next to a much larger mass. The
>expansion of the earth, of which you are a part, come beneath you like the
>floor of the elevator.
>On the other hand, the idea of magnetic fields such as the attraction of
>magnets of opposite poles may be the primary force of gravity. Combining
>these two ideas in some way may be an answer as well.
>Following posts from those of you who know about this would be appreciated.
Ken Fischer has a theory about that (expansion)
http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer
Personally I don't think expansion theories can explain gravity. Among
other things it seems to be hard to get the 1/r^2 dependance.
Field theories on the other hand could very well be the answer to
gravity. The theories for the other forces (EM,weak,strong) are
explained by fields. It seems likely that gravity could have a similar
structure ( Newtons law and Coloumbs law are very much alike). An
other advantage would be that all theories for the forces could be
combined to one. I we developed a field theory for gravity, it would
replace General Relativety, and such things as space-time curving and
wormholes wouldn't have a physical ground.
I am not an expert on the subject, but I think that the equivalence
of gravity and acceleration might be no more than a coincidence. The
gravitational "charge" is mass, and both gravity and acceleration
changes inertia of a object (inertia=mass (sort of)). All objects will
fall with the same speed, because the force on the object is
proportional to its mass (=inertia). Furthermore, the object won't
feel anything (when falling) because every part of the object is
affected at the same time.
Mathias Ljungberg
Subject: Re: Relativistic Charge Increase
From: nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan M. Urban)
Date: 3 Jan 1997 01:34:08 -0500
In article <5ahoa5$op3@play.inetarena.com>, nx56@inetarena.com (jmc) wrote:
> As I understand it now, space-time is considered flat
> a. in the case of SR uniform movement in a straight line
> and b. generally, when the Riemann-Christoffel tensor is zeroes.
Spacetime is considered flat if and only if the Riemann curvature tensor
vanishes everywhere.
> Is it true that, strictly speaking, space-time is not flat in the
> SR problems often discussed in this group?
No.
> For instance, the twin problem involves more than uniform movement
> in a straight line.
Correct. However, the spacetime of SR is still flat. SR can handle
nonuniform motion. It just can't handle _gravity_ -- which is merely
another word for spacetime curvature. There is no gravity in the SR
spacetime.
> And in general isn't it true that the Riemann-Christoffel tensor
> is not zeroes even in 'empty' space, that spacetime between the stars
> is curved?
Right. The Riemann curvature tensor can be broken down into two
different "pieces" -- the Ricci tensor and the Weyl tensor. In empty
space, the Ricci tensor must vanish, but the Weyl tensor (and hence the
Riemann tensor) need not.
In an idealized cosmological model such as a Friedmann universe, the
model assumes uniform mass-energy density, so the spacetime you obtain
is technically nowhere empty! However, this is just an idealization,
and if you have matter distributed homogeneously throughout the
universe with gaps in between, even the vacuum regions will have
curvature since such a universe closely approximates a Friedmann model
on the large scale. This is how we think our universe behaves. The
curvature is really, really small, though (because the universe is so
large). One shouldn't expect to be able to locally measure the tidal
forces generated by cosmological curvature.
Followups to sci.physics.relativity.
--
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: fuzz@gte.net (Paul M. Zeller)
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 06:41:20 GMT
On 1 Jan 1997 20:40:19 GMT, "Kyle Dillon"
wrote:
>MARK A CLARK wrote in article
><5absml$d9p@news.nevada.edu>...
>> ksjj (ksjj@fast.net) wrote:
>>
>> : > Oddly, you have claimed many times that Noah did not take
>representatives
>> : > of every species but of every genus and/or family. If you think he
>took
>> : > only families in some cases, then you DO think that new genera have
>> : > evolved, and very rapidly at that: something like all genera and
>species
>> : > of canines having evolved within the last 4000 years. Of course,
>given
>> : > that you have no idea what you're talking about when you throw these
>terms
>> : > around, such inconsistency on your part is hardly surprising.
>>
>> it only took that one moth 100 years to change classifications as it
>> evolved new colors on it's wings to reflect the post-industrial
>> environment in england. seems that it could have reasonably changed
>> (evolved) 40 times in 4000 years. why not other species?
>>
>True, and more probable when you consider the enviroment that the animals
>were in after the Flood. Their changes probably occurred more rapidly.
>Possibly God made this principle so as to allow animals to have a better
>chance of surviving?
Why would he do that and then kill them all with a flood?
>This would also indicate how predators could have
>come about after the Fall of Adam. In this case,
and every case based in reality,
>evolution could be
>somewhat true, but not as a slow and natural process, but as an immediate
>and miraculous process. I have nothing to base this on,
No kidding?
>so I won't go
>anywhere with it(actually, Genesis 3:14,15 says how God altered the snake
>to make him crawl on his belly and produce venom).
So he must have screwed up the first design then, eh?
>
>And this is not the same as evolution. If the animals on the ark carried
>the genes of all animals in their genus, then it would be microevolution
>that was occurring, which has been proven, and says nothing for
>macroevolution.
>
And if I was hollow and had a handle, I'd be a suitcase.
Subject: Re: Powerline's effect on human health
From: bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle)
Date: 3 Jan 1997 06:27:13 GMT
Robert Macy (robert.macy@engineers.com) wrote:
:
: cc: Operator (Patrick)
:
: OP>From: root@power7200.ping.be (Operator)
:
: OP>In article <5agsbb$o8h@orm.southern.co.nz>,
: OP> bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) writes:
: OP>>
: OP>>Though Brodeur says the government and power companies are trying to play
: OP>>down the risks.
: OP>>
: OP>>I can't spend too much time here & maybe there are better studies to
: OP>>quote in the book.
: OP>>
: OP>>page 255:
: OP>>Ahlbom & Feychting...
: OP>>Children living at > 1 milligauss had twice risk of leukemia compared to
: OP>>children living at < 1 milligauss.
: OP>> " " > 2 " 3 times "
: OP>> " " > 3 nearly 4 " ".
: OP>>
:
: OP>Mmm, I see. Now, I happen to have been quite a while in > 20.000 gauss
: OP>fields ( ~ 2 Tesla). That must mean I run the risk about
: OP>20.000.000 times to catch leukemia, right ? Whoops, dead already !
: OP>That could explain some things, actually ! Hey, thanks :-)
:
: It is my understanding that any interactions observed with interruption
: of cellular mitosis (which uses the calcium ion for something) occurs at
: *specific* levels of magnetic field. Not like one would intuitively
: suspect - like more is worse.
:
: I have heard that psychiatrists and psychologists report more
: hallucinogenic effects in their patients during times when the solar
: flares disrupt the earth's magnetic field. This may be urban myth, but
: certainly has grounds in the basis that the calcium ion is used in
: neurological activity.
:
Is Patrick reporting static or alternating fields?
The earth's field is about 500 milligauss but is static mostly.
I have heard suggested to put a magnet near the bed so that the calcium
ion resonance will not occur at the particular mains frequency. It cannot
be the usual cyclotron resonance of an ion in the combioned static and
alternating fields, that would have a rather large radius at the values.
Do you find you sleep better in some locations? Perhaps varying fields
should be investigated. I understand that a sensitive magnetometer will
detect a variation when crossing above an underground stream. Such
variation might reduce the quality of sleep. The eye can respond to about
6 photons, the nose to very low concentrations of pheromones, why not the
pineal to tiny field changes? Indeed in the frequency range about 1 or 2
to 7 hertz it does - fractions of a milligauss.
Brian Sandle
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: chrislee@netcom.com (Christopher A. Lee)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 06:28:57 GMT
In article <32CBE4E4.3F1E@utah.uswest.net> bee@utah.uswest.net writes:
>>
>> can you show me some proof you are not a child molestor? can you show
>> me some proof you dont steal cars? this is why it is up to the person
>> making the POSITIVE statement to prove it. it is NOT up to atheists to
>> DISPROVE god, it is up to the xtians to PROVE it
>
>It isn't up to us to prove it to YOU, though. We believe that there is a
>God. We feel that we have enough "proof" to support that belief. The
>fact that our basis for belief isn't good enough for you is irrelevant
>to OUR belief.
As long as you keep your beliefs to yourself then you are correct.
However as soon as (generic) you start making claims based on it,
evangelising etc then you *do* have to justify it to your audience.
>Therefore, we most certainly do not have to prove that God exists. We
>feel we have that proof already, enough for us. Your problem is that you
>think we have to prove His existance to YOU before WE are allowed to
>believe. Isn't that a bit, oh, arrogant?
Duh... Nobody would give a flying freak what christians believed if they
kept it to themselves. But they don't. They evangelise it. They try to
get parts of their dogma taught as fact, etc.
And when they do that they have to support it to their involuntary
audience's satisfaction.
>Your point about who has the obligation of proof is valid. However, as
>we already believe in God, YOU are the one who is making the allegation
>contrary to our belief. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you.
No. Because we couldn't care less about it. However too many christians
who think it's important, think we should too.
So it's up to them to come up with something convincing.
>The plain fact is, I can't prove to you that He exists, you can't prove
>to me that He does not. We can only come to our own conclusions in this
>very subjective, personal topic.
So what? As I'm tired of repeating: IT IS SIMPLY IRRELEVANT TO US.
If it's important to you then you might have difficulty understanding
this. But to us gods (of which yours is a subset) are simply the gods of
somebody else's religion. No more relevant to us than eg zeus is to you.
>Diana
Subject: Re: A few dark matter questions
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 06:33:04 GMT
kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
: Eric Flesch wrote:
: >Anyway, some people seem to put Big-Bang into the same bucket as
: >evolution, in that these theories are now known to be fact. Listen,
: >evolution may be considered fact, but Big-Bang is just a theory, and
: >shall remain so. There is no need to contour any view of physics to
: >the hypothetical Big-Bang scenario.
: Ok, Erik, my silliness comes from an exercise (out of Weinberg, Cosmology
: and Gravitation) which seamlessly traces an expanding universe through the
: use of stat mech and GR from BB to current expansion, including creation
: of primeval H and He. It starts with energy and satisfies simple minds
: like mine. You can even use integrals and come up with numbers for your
: own amusement.
I was just reading something about the Big Bang,
and it said that when all the mass in the universe was
within a sphere smaller that the Plank length....?????
I only know one way that could be possible. :-)
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: "What causes inertia?
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 06:54:53 GMT
Michael Ramsey (745532603@compuserve.com) wrote:
: As nobody can explain Newton's spinning bucket of water, I have to agree
: that if there isn't a preferred frame of reference, then there is a darned
: unusual one. Isn't it odd that the unusual frame is the same one that
: Mach conjectured about?
: --Best regards,
: --Mike
A number of people can offer explanations, but
you might not like them all.
Consider just swinging the bucket like you are
wwarming up to pitch a baseball. The surface of the
water should be flat.
Now, hold the bucket, and spin yourself, isn't
the surface flat?
After enough of this, I thnk it should be clear
that the origin of inertia is within each atom, it should
not be a mystery. The different experiments with the
bucket should rule out any magical control from the
distant stars.
Sincerely,
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: Harmonic Resonance
From: "Jonah Barabas"
Date: 3 Jan 1997 07:40:30 GMT
crjclark wrote in article
<32CCAB99.111E@Prodigy.Net>...
Craig,
That is some really interesting stuff. With your permission, I have a few
questions/comments.
>
> ... a composer's music is really the Universe's. All the oscillations
in
> galaxies and stars ultimately arrive in the human mind as harmonics.
What is the mechanism that the vibrations of the universe reach the
composer's mind? Also, do you view this as an implied consciousness of the
universe (pantheism)?
Without some evidence, I have a very hard time buying into star music. My
main objection is that I see no evidence of the simultude between music and
the natural laws of the universe. For example, I would expect to see some
manifestation of the inverse square law in the organization of music. With
the exception of the disapation of sound (any sound -- not only music), I
don't see it. I would also expect to see some simultude with the increase
of entropy of the universe in music. I don't see it.
I do see the the relationship between the natural laws of acoustics and
music. However, that relationship can be explained simply as the
properties of the paint molding the picture. What I believe you are
suggesting is that the picture is surfacing from the back of the canvas.
Well, for me to buy that, I have to see the similarity of the ghost image
with the true image.
I'll have to admit that my inability to see the similitude may be from my
blindness and not from its absence. Also, even if I'm right and you're
wrong -- you've given us a beautiful allegory. Thanks.
> .... However, I feel that music produces
> the imagery, not the other way around. ... The interesting thing about
music
> is that it produces so much imagery and so much thought which is
non-musical
> in nature. That's why Jimmy Page said it's more than just the notes.
...
How do you compare your beliefs with the doctrine of ethos? In other
words, do you see the non-musical thought influencing our actions?
Personally, I have a hard time with ethos and any intrinsic quality of
music(separate from its social context) to communicate. I think music
communicates based on mutually understood conventions. These conventions
evolve by a process of mutation over time. The best example of this is our
concept of consonance and dissonance. If music has an inherent ability to
communicate, then that would make that evolution impossible. In other
words, if C -> F represents an intrinsic consonance that does not require
resolution (as it did at one time) then how could it become a dissonance
later in counterpoint? The only explanation is that the conventions
changed and that change, at least in my mind, disproves the belief in
intrinsic communicative properties.
Now, I will admit that there does seem to be functions of good music that
are beyond any conventions of the time. Music has always moved from
consonance to dissonance and back to consonance. It has always balanced
variety and sameness. However, those functions are not the micro elements
of music but the macro mechanics of composition. It is like the mechanics
of plot for the novelist. Ethos, as I understand it, deals with the
diction and syntax of music.
So, IMHO, I would expect to see musical style to be static for the last
1,000 years if it contained intrinsic communicative properties beyond
mutually understood convention. As we all know, that is not the case.
Thanks again for some interesting posts.
Be well and play well
--
Jonah Barabas
http://www.tclock.com/jbarab.htm
Subject: Re: Placing limits on creativity
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 2 Jan 1997 20:51:31 GMT
jnorthct@central.murdoch.edu.au (J Northcote) writes:
>
> ..... Are there dangers in
>an 'anything goes' approach to theoretical formulation?
Sure. Economics. ;-) That is, without some connection to the
test of reality, physics could become pure math the way some parts
of economics have gone. (Read the New Yorker article from last
month.) String theory is a prime example in physics, since they
have struggled for years to find a way to connect the math to
reality. Unified theories that can only be tested at the Planck
scale fall in the same category.
Anything goes creativity is essential if you want to come up with
new ideas, but you have to be prepared to junk most of them.
>"There is only one thing to say about physics: the theorists are on
>the hind legs and it's up to us to get them down again."
>
>What exactly did Ernest Rutherford mean by this metaphor?
I can only guess, but I think he had in mind whacking them
across their knees with the cricket bat of experiment, thereby
cutting them down to size and forcing them to grovel at the
feet of the most important physicist: the experimentalist.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: John Wilkins
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 20:19:44 +1100
crs wrote:
>
> IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
> >
> > "Gregory A. Covington" wrote:
> >
> > >Larry Kurka wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >> The second part of the statement "...just as the evolutionist
> > >>does the same with an evolutionary description." This is of
> > >>course incorrect. The scientist does not start with the idea
> > >>of evolution and then apply the evidence in such a way as to
> > >>support the idea.
> >
> > >Hogwash! Do you think that Darwin's observations came before
> > >the theory of evolution? That is absolutely false.
> >
> > They did come before! Have you read Darwin? Have you read any of the
> > many books on Darwin and his activities? He put in YEARS of
> > observation and research before writing the "Origin of Species". I
> > prefer to believe you're misinformed rather than lying.
> >
>
> Actually, Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus (a physician and
> naturalist), proposed a theory of evolution in the 1790s. As a child,
> Darwin became quite familiar with his grandfather's hypothesis.
>
> Here's the thing, Darwin may have used either his grandfather's ideas or
> his own as working hypotheses - but he was very strict about employing
> the scientific method. There is no question that he pursued his work
> honestly and rigorously.
>
Darwin (C) was influenced mostly in his Beagle research by vol 2 of
Lyell's Principles of Geology, which spent a fair bit of time debunking
Lamarck's evolutionary views. The influence of Darwin (E) on Darwin (C)
was in his own words to predispose him to consider evolution as a live
hypothesis, but when he started his researches he was a special
creationist, as most educated people were at the time. What moved him to
an evolutionary model was the evidence that suggested that species were
modifications of neighbouring species. He realised this too late in the
case of the Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands to actually note
which islands they came from. Darwin was not influenced by the specific
hypotheses of his grandfather's 1794 book, or Lamarck's 1800-1806 books
on the subject, but at least they made it a view he had to consider.
I have an essay on this at that gives
the refs.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: John Wilkins
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 20:21:19 +1100
IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
>
> "Larry Kurka" wrote:
>
> >Gregory A. Covington wrote in article
> ><32C81ED0.581E@ex1.wes.army.mil>...
> [snip]
> >> Gregory A. Covington, PE
> >>
> >Oh! Look everyone! Gregory can put letters after his name. I know I'm
> >impressed. Doesn't that make him important, wise, and knowledgeable.
>
> >Larry L. Kurka, AA, BS, MA, MCP
>
> I hate it when they append PE!
>
> IG (Slim) Simpson rmc,B Eng (Mechanical), BSc
And what exactly does Physical Education have to do with the subject
matter, I wonder?
John Wilkins, MA GradDipComp BTh (failed) ICAR*
* I Climbed Ayers Rock.
Subject: Re: "What causes inertia?
From: gooral@sentex.net
Date: 3 Jan 1997 08:43:21 GMT
> kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) writes:
........
> In other words, "attractive" gravitation isn't
> a viable theory. General Relativity is too perfect,
> and too accurate for me to accept particles or a medium
> acting at such distances.
..........
> There is no F in "gravity". :-) And this is a
> physics newsgroup, I don't know what metaphysics is. :-)
>
> Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
> Divergent Matter GUT of Gravitation http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer
>
Hi Ken!
You look to know so much, so I hope you can explain one thing to me.
The light ray grazing the Sun is bent. Einstein predicted the angle as !.75 arcsec.
Space curvature accounts for half of this angle.
Can You tell me what accounts for the other half?
Thanks in advance!
Jan Gooral gooral@sentex.net
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: John Wilkins
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 20:34:16 +1100
Adrian Brunyate wrote:
>
> Wilkins asserts two things: first, he disagrees with my assesment of the
> distinction between science and religon; and second, he disagrees whith my statement
> that evolution should be discarded if a counterexample is found. As for the first point,
> I wrote:
>
> > > The distinction between science and religon is arbitrary (hence really > > >
> > should not be discussued), but well defined. Religon is a belief system that is not >
> > science in a form resembling that today.
>
> Wilkins replies:
You can call me John; I don't mind.
>
> > I disagree that science and religion are arbitrarily distinguished. An
> > arbitrary distinction is one that is entirely subjective - that is, it
> > does not correspond to a 'natural' reality independent of interests of
> > the person doing the distinguishing.
> >
> > There are some quite non-arbitrary distinctions between (western,
> > theistic or deistic) religion and science. One is that science is an
> > iterative and experimental process, refining explanations on the basis
> > of common experience. Religion is based on unrefinable basic beliefs. To
> > illiustrate: science can be (and has been) revised such that there is
> > nothing left of the starting assumptions of a field or theory. In
> > religion this is by definition not possible (which is not to say that
> > religions do not evolve; just that religions are doctrinal 'essences'
> > that cannot be totally revised and still 'be' the same religion).
>
> The crux of his arguement seems to be that religons do not evolve. I do not
> think this is so. Looking at any religon with a recorded history, or at any mainstream
> analysis of the subject, one will observe a distinct change over time. If anyone
> disagrees, tell me. For example, in the Judeo-Christian religons distinct changes occur.
> Christianity itself evolved directly from Judiasm, which in turn was influenced, during
> its long history by many sources, including zoroastrianism. This fact is mirrored by the
> recording of religious history in parallel with geneology. For example, Arab culture and
> religon's divergence is represented by the birth of Ishmael (mothered by Hagar). While
> it is true that if a religon is changed radically, it is no longer called the same name.
Actually, I think that religions do evolve, and I said so (to elucidate,
I even think that the mode of cultural evolution is Darwinian). However,
from an internal viewpoint, a believer cannot admit of this historical
and cultural change, for if all the pertinent propositions in a western
religion are revised away (eg, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or
that God made a covenant with the Jews, etc), then the claim of (some)
eternal truth in that religion is invalid. No matter what point in
history a religion is at, a believer at that time must assert the
eternal truth of at least some of its credenda.
Contrast science. It is a commonplace that all our theories will be
revised, and that there are no privileged claims or models. It is a
virtue in science to be able to replace an extant model with a better
one.
> But science does the same. A radicaly different scientific hypothesis than the one
> preceding it has a distinct name as well. This can not be taken as proof that science
> and religon do not evolve, only that thier names evolve in parallel. *The* major
> distinction between "science" and "religon" is that science appears to fit my previously
> stated (loosely) criteria better than religon.
The major distinction between science and religious systems is that
explanations in science are based upon empirical evidence and testing
procedures, and the epistemological point that deep revision is a good
thing in science.
> As for Wilkins' other point, I believe that the problem is lack of clarity on my
> part. I wrote:
>
> > > In short, by our basic modes of truth evaluation, evolutionism appears to be
> > > better than all current alternatives. If an example that can't be explained by
> > > evolution comes up (I have yet to see one, despite claims to the contrary), the
> > > theory is dead and needs a replacement.
>
> And Wilkins replied:
>
> > While I appreciate your viewpoint, I think it is wrong. A theory is not
> > abandoned on the basis of a single anomaly, something that has been
> > appreciated since Kuhn, but was noted by Pierre Duhem in 1915. As
> > Dennett said, Darwinian evolution theory routinely takes the challenge
> > to explain things that its opponents say cannot be explained, but the
> > explanation may be some time coming.
>
> I was refering to actual anomalies. An observation that *appears* to contradict
> a well established theory generally does not. If a signifigant number of unexplained
> observations acumulates, or if these alleged anomalies are sufficiently baffling, THEN
> the theory would need replacing because the probability that at least one of the
> observations would be a true counterexample would be very high. Of course, the number of
> apparent counterexamples necessary to cast doubt on the theory would increase. Also a
> theory can only be replaced if a suitable replacement exists. A good example would be
> the development of cosmology. Although physicists knew of problems inherent in thier
> "laws" (and so the theory was obviously flawed), Newtonian mechanics was not replaced
> until the advent of relativity many years later. If evolution holds, all the so-called
> counter examples should *eventually* be explained, as all have been so far. Sorry for
> the confusion.
No problem. A common rebuttal made by antievolutionists is that
evolutionary models are supposed to be unfalsifiable in some Popperian
fashion, overlooking the Duhem-Quine hypothesis that any hypothesis in
science can be retained so long as sufficient ancillary assumptions and
background hypotheses are revised. That was my point. The Kuhnian
"crisis" model is historically quite generally true - with enough
anomalies, a theory will be abandoned, once a new and more adequate
model is proposed. It is important to make that distinction.
Subject: ** structure of reality **
From: gary.forbat@hlos.com.au (Gary Forbat)
Date: 3 Jan 97 20:57:59
31-12-96
revised 1-1-97
Notes on the structure of reality - article 3
(first draft)
by Gary Forbat
Copyright (c) G. Forbat 1996
It may now be convenient to extend and qualify some of the main
concepts derived from the theory. In the previous essays I described
a process of material formation which provides the basis for the
observed material reality. The process operates through a building
procedure which involves a relationship between the physical
magnitudes of structures, that is, the volume they occupy, and the
rapidity of their internal cycles. Moreover, the process is universal,
ranging over an infinity of scale tranformations from the most
miniscule sizes to the most gigantic imaginable, in fact infinite in
both directions.
But it is not a single dimensional process involving only scale. What
is peculiar about the sequence is that the smaller structures of
the micro world are highly dynamic due to an extremely rapid internal
cycle operating to hold it together, and the smaller the structure,
the more dynamic it is. Dynamics refers to the rapidity of the
cyclical pulse. As particles break down to the cyclical funtion of a
number of smaller components, those components will have a
significantly more rapid internal cyclical rate than those of the
larger structure they contribute to forming. The atomic structure,
for instance, comes into being due to the cyclical function of the
electron in relation to the nucleus. The composition of the electron
has not yet been penetrated, but the possibilities are few. Either it
is composed of a very large number of tiny parts, or maybe fewer but
of a much higher dynamicity. The nucleus, on the other hand, is known
to break down to combinations of smaller, but much more dynamic parts
known as 'quarks'. Quarks themselves must reduce to even smaller
components, with cyclical rates of increasingly more rapidity. The
many qualities of quarks testify to a variance of configurations.
The quantum proportions testify to this very nature. With the
process of reduction infinite, so with it is the increase in
dynamicity.
We are fortunate enough to be able to observe two vastly different
aspect of the material process. The micro scales of phenomena present
an integrated view of average behaviour over many billions of cycles.
Imagine how the solar system would look if billions of planetary
cycles were pressed into a single second. Theoretically at least, it
would be possible to simulate the effect by taking a long term video
of the solar system in motion over many billions of years, and then
replaying the tape over a matter of seconds. Undoubtedly we could
make computer image simulations of it much more easily.
Then there is the almost static view of the process presented
by the structures of the large scale in their 'real time' cyclical
movements. Our viewpoint of stellar formations is fashioned from the
workings of the atomic structure, and compared to the speed and
capacity of the functioning of our instruments and sensing apparatus,
the stellar structures are both extremely large and so slowly evolving
as to be almost static. But now, let's venture to reconstruct in its
broadest principles the consequences of this infinite sequence of
structuring, not only to determine the status of our own viewpoint
within it, but to attempt to discover general principles that may be
directly affecting us and we are not yet aware of. Firstly, going up
or down in scale, the specific attributes of structure types that
occur depend on the interactive possibilities afforded on each
particular scale. Solar systems of one type or another, whether
binary or planetary are the almost exclusive forms that may be found
at the scale of the direct interaction between the most massive
atomic conglomerations. At this scale of consideration the universe
can be seen to be interspersed with stellar and planetary matter in
mutual interaction as solar systems. But we know that solar systems,
in turn, almost exclusively congregate in the larger massive
formations of galaxies, occuring in a small number of types. Galaxies
themseves form clusters with unique characteristics types of their own.
On the galactic scale of consideration the universe can be seen as
interspersed almost exclusively by galactic formations. Certainly they
are the only long term stable forms to be found at this scale.
In fact we can apply this principle at any level of magnitude. Thus
the universe is interspersed by atoms at the atomic scale of
consideration but with planetary/stellar matter on a larger scale.
So then, as the process builds to infinity, with each structure type
occuring in forms and attributes appropriate to interaction and
formation possibilities at that scale. Each transformation produces
unique structure types, and there is certainly no likelyhood of the
same structure type occuring at different levels either in the micro
and macro scales.
Both the reduction and its reverse process of expansion runs to infinity,
with the roots of each or any structure traceable in infinite steps
toward smaller scales. But this does not work in the reverse toward the
macro. The reason is that not all structures continue to build outward
forever. Large sections of it terminate at a certain level, as in the
case of the structures that intersperse in our seemingly empty spatial
regions. My findings are that these regions are far from empty.
The entire spatiality in fact contains a fine invisible mist of matter,
structured at its highest level to an interactive fabric to form
a micro infrastructure which sets the framework for the workings of
our atomic based matterial environment. But only those elements
which participate in further building processes to form the atomic
base can get through to build outward to form structures on larger
scales. The rest, indeed a very large portion of micro material,
is lost to further structuring. In this infinite chain of
expansions it should be expected that terminal stages are reached
from time to time. Nevertheless, what remains after each of these
mass terminations is still adequete to reconstruct other equally
thickly populated levels of structures on much larger scales.
So what is the status of our material system amid this infinity of
transformation levels ? On the micro end we observe the process through
a very high integration, but on the macro end it tends toward static.
With the two directions reflecting merely different aspects of a
single process, our observational access results from the circumstances
of our evolution as sensing beings and our relation to the material
interaction that brought it about. We are a direct product of our
micro infrastructure and the atomic base. The question remains
whether ours is the only material environment possible or whether
there may be others ? Perhaps other configurational circumstances can
exist among an infinity of types which produces alternative material
bases.
We need firstly to examine the general circumstances which must be
present for a material environment. Obviously the most evident
is the versatility of our atomic structure. It is extremely stable
and durabile with, stability, regularity, as well as variability in
chemical combination. It is truly like a wonder particle which goes on
to create a tremendously varied and interactive world of material
activity. Surely it would be fairly rare to find a scale level of
structuring where such a useful type of particle is found.
Nevertheless it stands to reason that in a infinite chain of
transformations other similarly efficient structure types are bound
to occur. some may indeed be even more flexible than the atom, or
perhaps somewhat less so, but still able to generate a causal
evolution in its conglomerate forms to create an alternative material
environment rivalling ours. Of course on the micro scales a funtional
world would evolve extremely rapidly compared to ours, and on the macro
scales the events would take on gigantic proportions, evolving very
slowly by our way of looking at it.
G. Forbat
to be continued in the next article
Subject: Re: Baez & Bunn >> Re: Help me believe in Coulomb's law
From: root@power7200.ping.be (Operator)
Date: 3 Jan 1997 10:43:44 GMT
In article <32CC9600.45AE@magna.com.au>,
Mountain Man writes:
>Operator wrote:
>
>> So it is arrogant to point out that a tiny part of usenet is rightly
>> reserved for real science discussions ? Or...
>> Do you guys really take yourself serious ????? *shock* :-)
>
>Well, if you are genuinely such a scientific disciple as you claim
>to be, and object to 'untoward posts' invading your tabernacle or
>ashram of 'real scientific discussion', I would put a simple question
>to you which you can either answer or flame - the choice is yours.
I don't take myself seriously, and never post to sci.physics.research.
I might, some day, post a technical question in that group, but usually
I try to solve my own problems via other channels.
>
>The original post which you have flamed, and which constituted the
>subject matter of the posts which was rejected by Mr Baez,
>is presented for your review in my usenet archive at:
>http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/news96_p.html
>
>In this post Ray Tomes has presented two sequences of DATA:
> ^^^^
Well, I could dump quite a few Terabytes of data onto your head.
Those data would be very "serious", very expensive scientific
data. Very recent data. But that doesn't mean it is interesting
to post them.
>(1) Data concerning the distances of the planetary orbits from the sun.
>(2) Data concerning the observed periodic solar fluctuations.
>
>If you take the time to read the post, you will determine that there
>exists - IN THE CORRELATION OF THE TWO DATA TABLES - more than a random
>correlation.
>
It is not difficult to present sets of data which show correlations.
Especially when looking for those correlations. But that is not the
point. Those data would only make sense if they were explained with
a *REAL* scientific theory or better yet, if they would contradict
a real scientific theory. The pet theory of Harmonic whatevers or
anything similar cannot be taken seriously for more than 5 milliseconds
by any real scientist and that was what I was referring to. You must
really be very far out of touch with science (real academic science -
the one that is supposed to be discussed on sci.physics.research)
to think such a naive toy theory makes any chance what so ever. *that*
is the reason (I suppose) why John Baez didn't want to post it there.
The people reading that group aren't in the slightest way interested
in that kind of childs play - even if there is a piece of real data
mixed with it.
Now I know what you are going to say: "interests of the establishment",
"shortsightedness", "conspiracy (maybe)", "ununderstood genius" ...
Well, whatever. That communication channel is meant for people from
the establishment, with their shortsighted views, their conspiracies
and their lack of recognizing a true genius - if you want to. But
nevertheless they're not interested in Ray or any other kind of toy
theory and you have to respect that. There are enough ways (sci.physics)
to vent your desire to make "new theories" public.
>The question - as a scientist - which should be asked is:
>Why is there a correlation in these two data sequences????????????
Yes, and he should ask that question first from within the framework
of known theories. Actually there is a lot of research going on in
that direction. Although it is far outside my field (I'm a particle
physicist) I more or less know what they're doing: simulating the
contraction of gaseous clouds to form planets. It might be that in
this dynamics, certain "resonances" (ugh!) favor certain simple
relationships between the distances from the sun. But it takes a lot
more serious work to find this than just plotting some datapoints
and proposing a new theory. It is easy to invent new theories.
It is much harder to fit them within the whole of scientific knowledge.
Those who cannot distinguish between the two complain about not being
able to post their creations to sci.physics.research.
>
cheers,
Patrick.
Subject: Re: Particles&Waves;
From: ddiamond@shell02.ozemail.com.au (Diana Diamond)
Date: 3 Jan 1997 10:04:41 GMT
Anonymous (a@b.com) wrote:
: to whether the universe ceases to exist? Why is there all this wierd
: pseudoscientific terminology tied up in the science?
: -X
: (expanded to sci.physics)
Dear Anon.. (et al?)
It seems to me as if you found the "Particles&Waves;" post difficult to
read since your comments are, to me, out of it's context. I have therefore
summarized things in point fashion below. I hope this makes things
clearer.
Chris Lofting c/o ddiamond@ozemail.com.au OR c/o Diana.Diamond@anu.edu.au
For refs, please email me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particles&Waves;Wholes&Aspects;
------------------------------
(copyright (C) 1997 C.J.Lofting)
A definition:
Dichotomy - "1. (logic) division into two classes, one positive, the other
negative. 2.(botony) a mode of branching by repeated bifurcation"
The following points are aimed at offering a different perspective and
thus a possible 'solution' to the on-going discussion re: wave/particle
duality.
(1) Scientific research at the neurological level suggests that the brain
processes information in the form of wholes and their aspects. Thus the
fundamental dichotomy in the processing of information is a 1:many type.
(Whole/notWhole, and thus notWhole is aspectual - many). Furthermore,
research suggests that wholes can be either processed 'wholistically' (in
parrallel), or as the summation of aspects (in serial).
We state that anything not interpreted as a whole is interpreted as an
aspect.
(2) Scientific research at the psychological level suggests that humans
make maps (metaphors) to differentiate wholes from other wholes as well as
wholes from their aspects.
(there is a subtle distinction here. (1) is more 'brain' oriented whereas
(2) is more 'mind' oriented. The brain adapts and adopts without thought -
neurological level. The mind introduces going beyond the moment - making
long term, concensus-derived maps. Thus we have brain = what is (raw
stimulus / response, 1:1 bias), mind = what is + what could be (refined
S/R by introducing statistical processing and a strong degree of
1:many-ness))
(3) Scientific research at the neurological and psychological levels
suggest that the characteristics of our senses, primarily vision and
audition, have been abstracted at the level of thought; e.g. number is an
abstraction of wholes and aspects processing, and we 'deal' with numbers
as wholes or aspects in that the latter are interpreted as parts
(rational), fixed relational (irrational) and dynamic relational
(complex). Within mathematics we manipulate numbers geometrically
(parrallel bias - visual root) as well as algabraically (serial bias -
tonal root). Thus we are tied to our senses.
This may seem 'obvious', but to many it is 'forgotten' in the process of
abstraction. Thus, 'hidden' in our abstract maps of wholes and their
aspects are the sensory basics of what we see and what we hear, combined
with a degree of synesthesia - the mixing of the senses where we can
'hear' colour and 'see' tone. (or even taste colour and smell tone).
(4) From (3), what we perceive as 'out there' is in fact what 'in here'
perceives as 'out there'. The former is an ontological perspective and the
latter an epistemological perspective. In the context of QM, Heisenberg
made the point that:
" This probability function represents a mixture of two things, partly a
fact ['out there' - ontological] and partly our knowledge of a fact ['in
here's' perception of 'out there' - epist.]" (I added the [] material).
1,2,& 3 favours a bias to the epistemological perspective, and thus the
point of view that Science is also metaphor (A concept some debate).
The manner in which we make maps of reality is based on whole/aspects
analysis through the use of dichotomy(A/notA), where in the process of
making a map each dichotomy adds an aspect (in a geometric context, each
axis is a dichotomy). Thus Science, *the* map-making system, has a strong
aspectual bias in that it emphasizes the collection of aspects (a serial
process) to 'refine' our knowledge of a whole.
With this in mind, we work backwards where we find that the aspectual
nature of our senses is tied to the concept of harmonics which is manifest
in the form of waves; tonal or visual (colour).
(5) From (4), the success in physics of the wave analysis of 'reality'
does NOT demonstrate the 'wave' nature of reality; it demonstrates the
best tool we have for the analysis of aspects - wave (harmonic) analysis.
(Audition is abstracted to serial communications of *any* type, and any
serial communication is biased to aspectual summation leading to a
'whole'. Vision is abstracted to parrallel communications of *any* type,
and any parrallel communication is biased to a 'gestalt' of a whole (like
'white' light) that is then aspectually broken down - e.g. colour
harmonics ellicited via a prism.
An aside: does the 'fact' of colour blindness being Y-chromosome linked
suggest a bias of colour-blind males to serial-biased Science and the
prefered experience of emotion, usually ellicited by both tonal and visual
harmonics, through music?)
(6) From (5), since aspects of a whole include removable aspects - wholes
at a different level of analysis (we call them parts) - there will be
situations where an apparent 'whole' seems to have 'wave' characteristics;
and visa versa. This is not neccesarily 'real' in the context of 'out
there', but is 'real' in the context of how 'in here' perceives what is
'out there'; it is a result of our manner of analysis since it is apparent
that mental 'wholes' are hierarchic in form - a removable part is a whole
in it's own right; context determine which.
(7) From (6), when we design experiments we design them to *either* look
at wholes *or* to look at aspects. This methodology stems from the use of
dichotomy. There will therefore be situations where an apparent whole
seems to be a 'wave'. These situations occur when the same experimental
environment is used for two purposes - whole analysis and aspectual
analysis. In QM this has been done in the single-slit, double-slit, and
polarization experiments designed to 'test' Bell's inequality and the EPR
'paradox'.
For example, shooting an electron at a screen gives a point showing where
the electron hit. Inserting a barrier with a small hole in it
(intentionally designed for waves) inbetween the source and the screen
moves us from a 'wholes' analysis to an 'aspectual' analysis - from a
'what is' state to a 'what could be' state (Statistical). When we then try
to detect what passes through the hole we get a particle. But when we
change levels of analysis to a statistical model and 'look' at the screen,
the result suggests we are dealing with waves (aspects bias) rather than
particles (whole bias). (Note that the particle 'hits' still appear on the
screen, it is their *grouping* that is wave-biased, but then their
grouping is an aspect of the whole, statistically-oriented experiment).
Observer and observed are not seperate and there is no 'wave/particle'
duality other than that created by our methods of analysis based on our
sensory systems and their extension by our equipment; the moment 'we'
change levels of analysis so do the results 'change'. If you choose to
stay at one level e.g. the level of a whole, and attempt to perceive data
at another level relative to our level of observation, we will 'see'
aspects rather than wholes.
The resolution of these 'paradoxes' usually come when we change levels, we
move up (or down) and thus add (or subtract) dimensions. These are
properties of the methods of analysis, 'in here' attributes, and not
necessarily properties of that under observation ('out there' attributes).
From this we can conclude that Science is metaphor. It is extremely good
in that it's symbolism is more universal (wide concensus) but it's maps
are founded on our brain's way of dealing with reality. Our brain uses
dichotomy to create subject-specific metaphors enabling the grouping as
well as differentiation of wholes and their aspects. By understanding this
we can be more wary of our confusing map with territory and with confusing
the properties of the methods of analysis with the properties of the
objects under analysis.
Chris Lofting
(for a description of dichotomous analysis and a template for metaphor,
see my "Sense of Dichotomy")
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: fw7984@csc.albany.edu (WAPPLER FRANK)
Date: 2 Jan 1997 17:01:11 GMT
Louis Savain wrote [in part]:
> 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.
> Brian Kennelly) wrote:
> > 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.
> 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?
Gentlemen!
And Ladies!
Being a physicist (thought I persue my interest in `fundamentals' in my
spare time) allow me to express my opinion on that (and - to some extend -
to fill in for W. Throop; just hope I'm not yet b_k_k_f-ed :)
AFAIU this will present the consensus of `Physics' (unless marked otherwise :)
A central notion for this news-group as well as `Physics' and even `Science'
in general is the perception of events and their description communicated by
observers.
Physical law represent invariants in those descriptions.
Let me make up an example. Events:
1) Taring open the my Christmas present I ended up with two pieces of gift
wrap (and Christmas present :)
1b) On Christmas Day my neighbors were awakened by a scream.
2) We took a polaroid at our wild New Years Eve party. I removed the
section showing my face with one straight cut (while keeping the girls :)
2b) My girl-friend is about to throw an object (my Christmas present to her)
at me.
Law:
(*) One application of force by a human (one `grab and rip' or `one cut'
- given scissors) will result in exactly either one or two pieces of paper.
Notes:
1) The law does not present exactly the invariant of those four events but was
obtained by dropping countless specificies, i.e. it is a fairly general
invariant of very many events. That makes it more abstract and powerfull.
2) The law is wrong or rather: it's range of applicability is limited.
(Folding a piece of paper `the right way' one can cut it in many more
pieces `at once').
3) Events of type b) happen on a daily basis anyway.
Now, what's my point? (what are my points? :)
Certain `common scales' (time, appropriate noise level, paper fragments
resulting from snipping, etc. ) are implicit in descriptions of events as
what the observer `naturally' perceives as his/her own and (rarely bothers
to mention it - for instance that I scream a lot :).
Laws emphasize one particular invariant for groups of observers (or sets
of experiments) which are individualized (different) through their very own
`reference point on the common scales' but also have some (presumably large)
set of identical properties.
Notice that a single observer cannot create any scale (interval between
reference points) at all, the act of communication is always essential.
However, as human observers, we are systems subjected to communication and
change (both internal and external) while maintaining a `sense of
individuality' (after awaking from the koma I fell in after being hit by the
object I screamed as usual :). We call the scale by which those changes are
correlated "time" - that's the best definition of "time" I can think of.
As humans we are also provided with a `natural (bodily) space-scale' which
however seems less essential from the `perceptional point of view' (it's
fairly easy to close the eyes, `put the hands on the floor' and imagine
oneself `disproportioned', IMHO is harder to `conciously ignore the internal
clock'). Spatial correlation of change (through injuries, for instance) are
apparently less significant to establish human individuality.
An abstract point-like SR-observer may have a clock but (by definition)
cannot have an `a priory' space-scale (here goes another smiley :).
Accordingly, it is non-trivial to establish inertial systems of non-zero
spatial extent as required by SR.
Often groups of observers synchronize each other by adapting a standard
clock, transmitting its signal (that's difficult :) and ignoring differences
to their internal clocks (or attributing those difference to laws if they
are somehow correlated with other scales, i.e. an observational invariance
exists between internal and external `clock-events').
Apart from those difficulties:
d/d_t( x ) =( def. ) v ; d/d_t( t ) =( def. ) 1.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Subject: Re: Baez & Bunn >> Re: Help me believe in Coulomb's law
From: tim@franck (Tim Hollebeek)
Date: 3 Jan 1997 00:27:57 GMT
Brian J Flanagan (bflanagn@sleepy.giant.net) wrote:
: On 31 Dec 1996, Operator wrote:
: > In article ,
: > singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
: >
: > What you kids seem to forget is that a tiny bit of usenet
: > is reserved for real science. It is such a tiny bit it really
: > shouldn't bother anyone and people like John put in a lot
: > of time to keep that little corner a bit tidy. You have
: > 99% of usenet to play, so please leave those few people who
: > want to discuss science their little bit of space.
: > It is no injustice. It is simply: children not allowed.
: >
: BJ: Now, that's snooty! Moreover, you can readily see that, while the
: speaker is largely unconscious of his snootiness, to the extent that he is
: aware of it, he is quite unashamed of it - an intellectual failure
: compounded by an ethical lapse. He has thereby made himself an appropriate
: target for this very kind of abuse, for he declares himself a villain of
: the prissy, dweebish little toad variety. He presents you with an
: opportunity to execute the classic comic reversal, whereby the high are
: brought low and ensnared in a web of their own dark designs.
Actually, I think he is very well aware of it. The post in question
is obviously carefully designed to piss off all the kooks lurking in
this thread.
BTW, don't reply to this; I probably won't see it. I just happen to
have just gotten a new computer, and I haven't downloaded my killfile
yet. This thread is odd in that it is almost entirely composed of
people from the aforementioned file. So Baez isn't the ONLY person
who thinks you bunch have very little to offer as far as scientific
discussion goes. I must admit, a few posts in this thread have
given me a giggle or two, including Mr. Cagle being his usual pompous
self, and Mr. Tomes claiming that the problem is noone will read his
theory (why anyone should is another matter; I got through the first
page at one point, and quit after the number of obvious errors,
fallacies, and twisted logic became obvious).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:02:02 GMT
mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
: realistic@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall) wrote:
: >I'm no expert, but the idea of expansion as an explanation of gravity has
: >some appeal and has not been expressed yet. Just like when you're on an
: >elevator that is accellerating, one feels the floor rising below. With
: >everything expanding, there is a "battle" for room or "space". Instead of
: >falling to the earth, you are a small item next to a much larger mass.The
: >expansion of the earth, of which you are a part, come beneath you like the
: >floor of the elevator.
: Ken Fischer has a theory about that (expansion)
: http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer
Thank you for mentioning it. :-)
: Personally I don't think expansion theories can explain gravity. Among
: other things it seems to be hard to get the 1/r^2 dependance.
The inverse square function of the external field in
Divergent Matter results because bodies of matter double in
size in certain periods of time.
: Field theories on the other hand could very well be the answer to
: gravity.
I think "field" theories refer to the mathematics,
rather than the mode of operation. In Divergent Matter,
matter is one field, and everything around matter is the
other.
The attractive thing about Divergent Matter is that
the external field is purely geometrical, needing no method
of operation. The fact that the units of time and length
do lengthen with the passage of time makes Divergent Matter
the only model of gravitation and TOE that ties space and
time together based on a physical cause.
: The theories for the other forces (EM,weak,strong) are
: explained by fields.
I can accept "field" at sub-atomic ranges.
: It seems likely that gravity could have a similar
: structure ( Newtons law and Coloumbs law are very much alike). An
: other advantage would be that all theories for the forces could be
: combined to one. I we developed a field theory for gravity, it would
: replace General Relativety, and such things as space-time curving and
: wormholes wouldn't have a physical ground.
(Assuming the above should read "If we developed") I have
to say that space-time curving is observed, and Newton got
around that by using a "field" theory, and it works great,
but it leaves too much out, and isn't as accurate as General
Relativity, and let's face it, General Relativity is a
mathematical "field" theory, it just uses complex geometry.
: I am not an expert on the subject, but I think that the equivalence
: of gravity and acceleration might be no more than a coincidence. The
: gravitational "charge" is mass, and both gravity and acceleration
: changes inertia of a object (inertia=mass (sort of)). All objects will
: fall with the same speed, because the force on the object is
: proportional to its mass (=inertia). Furthermore, the object won't
: feel anything (when falling) because every part of the object is
: affected at the same time.
: Mathias Ljungberg
That is an excellent description of Newtonian Gravitation,
which will be used for most calculations where gravitation is
concerned, probably forever, and General Relativity will be
used when high accuracy is needed and for very high speeds
and near dense bodies of matter.
I do not expect Divergent Matter to ever be used
for ordinary calculations where things work fine using
Newtonian gravitation or General Relativity.
I do expect Divergent Matter to be used to model
things like star formation, where an attractive "field"
theory doesn't seem to work at all.
In Newtonian gravitation, the aggregation of
matter would proceed endlessly until all nearby matter
became one star, with the greatest pressure at all
times at the center of the aggregate, and heating
would retard the process.
With Divergent Matter, heating would hasten
the process, and great pressure peaks would occur at
an interface well away from the center of the most
dense part of the aggregate as the expanding cloud
collides with surrounding matter.
This would cause spherical shell explosions/
implosions that would essentially give birth to
dense stars of fairly uniform mass, and throw all
the extra matter off into the distance.
The advantage of having a model of gravitation
that produces a totally different result than existing
"attractive" theories is the ability to compare models
with each other and with observation.
Most stars are formed with less than 5 times
the mass of the sun.
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: A few dark matter questions
From: ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch)
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 01:49:27 GMT
On 2 Jan 1997 23:48:18 GMT, kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu () wrote:
>Ok, Erik, my silliness comes from an exercise (out of Weinberg, Cosmology
>and Gravitation) which seamlessly traces an expanding universe through the
>use of stat mech and GR from BB to current expansion, including creation
>of primeval H and He. It starts with energy and satisfies simple minds
>like mine. You can even use integrals and come up with numbers for your
>own amusement.
The Big-Bang is perhaps today's leading example of Bayesian science in
action, as theoretical calculations and observations directed by those
calculations gravitate towards eachother, with constant punctuations
of new observations which disagree wildly with theory and so require
the theoreticians to lurch a new appendage of theory toward it. A
sort of Bayesian Scientific Amoeba in action, aglomerating all in its
path -- todays melting pot of theories and minds. Cry, cry, the
rationalist, clinging to his outmoded ideas of refutability. :-)
Eric
Subject: Re: Potential Energy
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen Meisner)
Date: 3 Jan 1997 12:30:46 GMT
What exactly is potential energy? I ask this because I am confused
about something. If you have two earth sized bodies at absolute rest,
what constrains the bodies to follow the gravitational geodesics? In
other words, why should the bodies begin moving for no reason.
Obviously, you can't use gravity to explain gravity. Would solving for
the gravitational potential, Gm/r, in the equation for general
relativity, provide any insights? Something must change when you
increase the potential by moving the bodies farther apart. There
therefore must be something that is constraining the body to move to a
lower potential. IOW, something must decrease when the body moves to
the lower potential, and this decrease constrains the body to move-or,
counterintuitively, is something increasing? What is this something?
Could someone enlighten me?
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: How to obtain other-than-red pocket laser ?
From: sam@stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
Date: 02 Jan 1997 18:28:51 GMT
In article <32CB8245.4D45@nl.compuware.com> C++ Freak writes:
> Many electronics stores sell pocket lasers for about $50 which are
> small but powerful for their size. They are usually operated by
> 2.5 Volts (2 AAA batteries) and draw only 60 mA, but the beam
> has a low divergence (1 mrad) and reaches easily over 300 meters
> (1000 ft) far away. I am talking about the 5 mW ones.
> They are sold as pointers in a pen-shaped package.
> They have one thing in common: they are red (635 nm) and monochromatic
> (my spectroscope shows a single sharp red line).
> But I know that bluish-green (krypton ?) lasers are common as well,
There are Argon most likely - gas lasers, expensive, use a lot of power,
not pocket sized.
> e.g. in discos or on rock concerts. I never saw them
> offered in pocket size form.
> My question is: are pocket-lasers also available in other colors ?
No, only 635 (newer) and 670 (older, 4 times or so less visible. Experimental
green and even blue laser diodes are under development for not available,
certainly at anything you could afford. There are problems with life
at room temp. as well.
> BTW: Another question: why does the spot lit by a laser (the red
> 635 nm diode one) show a dotted pattern ? The same occurs with
> 'professional' lasers, also in other colors (e.g. the bluish-green Kr one) ?
The is called 'speckle' and is basically an interference pattern common
to lasers and other coherent light sources. With proper optics (spatial
filter-pin hole) this can be reduced but not in cheap pointers).
--- sam : Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.paranoia.com/~filipg/REPAIR/
Subject: Re: Harmonic Resonance
From: crjclark
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 09:33:54 -0800
Jonah Barabas wrote:
>
> What is the mechanism that the vibrations of the universe reach the
> composer's mind? Also, do you view this as an implied consciousness of the
> universe (pantheism)?
I am not a pantheist, as I think there may be several Univseral Minds,
one for each independently existing universe. The composer can tune into
a Universal Mind and achieve some kind of unity. In Kant, the unity of
mentation is automatic and instantaneous. Whatever your thoughts, the
Univseral Mind thinks simultaneously. This process is both physical and
mental.
> Without some evidence, I have a very hard time buying into star music. My
> main objection is that I see no evidence of the simultude between music and
> the natural laws of the universe. For example, I would expect to see some
> manifestation of the inverse square law in the organization of music. With
> the exception of the disapation of sound (any sound -- not only music), I
> don't see it. I would also expect to see some simultude with the increase
> of entropy of the universe in music. I don't see it.
If you take inverse square law first, a semi tone likes to go to another semi
tone. A 13th interval in tonal music melody is rare. Diatonic and chromatic
melody are the norm. Hindemith likes diatonic melody. The position of tones
in space makes it easier for them to combine when they are nearer to each other.
Just like Newton's inverse square law. Dissipation of sound is very much
like entropy. If the sound dissipates, it undergoes Lorentz transformation.
There is a move towards chaos and eventually musical vacuum. That is, no
music left in the air.
>
> I do see the the relationship between the natural laws of acoustics and
> music. However, that relationship can be explained simply as the
> properties of the paint molding the picture. What I believe you are
> suggesting is that the picture is surfacing from the back of the canvas.
> Well, for me to buy that, I have to see the similarity of the ghost image
> with the true image.
Kandinsky thought that the colors in his paintings were conscious. I don't
think he had a plan all the time for his painting. He was often surprised
at his own shapes and forms on the canvas. They kind of generated themselves.
He just held the paintbrush. I think composing can be the same. But it is
non-linear. It doesn't always happen the same way. One day you can hear a
melody in your head and simply write it down. The next day you have a trial
and error session. The next day you hear the note but not the chord. The
virtual image and the reality exist together. In optics the virtual image
is the only infinite one. The real one is very finite. Optics and acoustics
tell us a lot, but not the whole story. The *a priori* intuitions and mentations
are such a vital aspect of the mind and that is why I could never be an
empricist.
Ultimately, thoughts themselves can be memory, perception or combinations.
William Blake didn't buy the notion that Imagination was merely subconcious
recombinations. His visions were projected in living 3-d color. Now where
did these projections originate? If you buy the dualist theories of mind/brain,
there is an aspect of mind that is not strictly limited to neuron configurations
of the individual cortex. We all have radio antennas in our heads. Where the
signals are coming from is anybody's guess. AFter all, like Kant said, we have
meager finite minds as humans and ultimately we know nothing.
>
> How do you compare your beliefs with the doctrine of ethos? In other
> words, do you see the non-musical thought influencing our actions?
Surely the non-musical thought is the whole reason for the existense of music.
The world could not exist without music. It is there by internal necessity.
It is not merely aural stimulation. A conductor very well may lead a
concert hall audience to Heaven in a very real sense, or he may influence
the audience to relax and unwind and forget their worries. The power
of music is profound. It definitely influences actions.
>
> Personally, I have a hard time with ethos and any intrinsic quality of
> music(separate from its social context) to communicate. I think music
> communicates based on mutually understood conventions. These conventions
> evolve by a process of mutation over time. The best example of this is our
> concept of consonance and dissonance. If music has an inherent ability to
> communicate, then that would make that evolution impossible. In other
> words, if C -> F represents an intrinsic consonance that does not require
> resolution (as it did at one time) then how could it become a dissonance
> later in counterpoint? The only explanation is that the conventions
> changed and that change, at least in my mind, disproves the belief in
> intrinsic communicative properties.
Consonance and dissonance are always evolving. To my ear, Stravinsky and
Shostakovich are consonant most of the time. This wasn't always the case.
3rds and 6ths are always going to sound stronger than the other intervals
as far as harmony goes. I guess the power of music to communicate is in the
ear of the beholder.
>
>Craig Clark
