Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: Wil Milan
Date: 8 Jan 1997 05:27:01 -0700
As I mentioned earlier, I have a great many criticisms of psychology in
general, and as one who spent a good deal of time in its formal study, I
know something of what I'm talking about. I eventually became so
disillusioned by the whole thing that I abandoned it as a course of
study, so you will not find me to be one of its advocates.
However, if I may say so, you have some significant misconceptions and,
if I may be so bold, lack of knowledge about what modern psychology as
well as its methods in practices. For instance, though it's not my
purpose (nor would it be practical) to offer you a treatise on IQ tests
and what they measure, in case it matters to you I'd suggest you look a
bit more into IQ tests and what they measure; what you will find may
modify some of the views and attitudes you seem to be expressing about
them. As I said before, I too have strong misgivings about IQ tests,
what they measure and how they're used, but the criticisms you've
offered do not seem to be strongly grounded in an understanding of
psychometrics in general or IQ tests in particular.
I offer the foregoing as constructive suggestion only. Accept it if you
think it has value for you; reject it if not, and in any case thank you
for taking the time to pass on your thoughts.
Wil Milan
Leonard Timmons wrote:
>
> Please note followups!
>
> Wil Milan wrote:
> >
> > Leonard Timmons wrote:
> > >
> > > Science is not digital, but analog. Some science is very good at
> > > describing the world and predicting its future state. Other sciences
> > > are not very good. By most any measure the science of psychology
> > > when used to describe and predict the behavior of human beings is
> > > not very good. It is so bad that it fails my "good enough to
> > > pay attention to" test. Psychology is now where astronomy was
> > > before the invention of the telescope. You should take its descriptions
> > > of human beings and their mental states with a chunck of salt. You
> > > should take its predictions of human behavior with a crystal about
> > > ten times as large.
> >
> > I wasted a couple of years majoring in psychology, so I probably know
> > the holes in psychology better than most. And there is much to criticize
> > about modern psychology. Some aspects of it are quite well established
> > and quantifiable, however, and modern IQ tests are much better in this
> > regard than you may realize. In fact, the repeatability and
> > verifiability
>
> I made the argument that a correlation exists, so we don't disagree.
>
> > of IQ measurements are probably much better than the
> > determination of distances to distant galaxies, and we definitely still
> > consider that science.
>
> You still make my point. Astronomy is quite a soft science in this
> (and other) respect(s). Do you want to take a guess at the value of
> the Hubble constant?
>
> Psychology is the study of the mind. Can you tell me what a mind
> is? If we move from humans to the "lower" animals, when does the
> property called "mind" disappear? The failure to answer these
> questions imply a complete lack of a foundation for the science.
> Astronomy on the other hand is concerned with matter. Here is a
> good definition in a single sentence:
>
> Astronomy is the study of gravitationally bound matter.
>
> All the words here are well defined. If you could do something
> like this for psychology, that would be a start.
>
> >
> > I have some real misgivings about IQ tests and how they're interpreted
> > and used, but it's not all junk either.
>
> I don't think that it is. Could you tell me what an IQ test measures?
> I am thinking of developing a science call piscology. It will be based
> on a test that I am developing. I will give it to a few thousand people
> and see if there is any correlation between the test and the sum total
> of taxes that a person pays in a lifetime. Over the next 100 years
> piscologists will refine the test so that it will accurately and
> repeatably predict (statistically, that is) how many taxes a person
> is likely to pay over his lifetime. I have decided that this test
> measures a person's Social Responsibility Quotient. Clearly a person
> who pays more taxes is more socially responsible that a person who
> pays less. This test may not actually measure Social Responsibility
> (whatever that is), but it does measure something.
>
> As far as I know, the IQ test is really a SO (Social Outcomes) test.
> Calling it an IQ test is exactly equivalent to saying that the planets
> determine our fates. We therefore encourage the astrologers since
> they see their behavior and that of science as equivalent.
>
> -leonard
Subject: Re: Die G.U.T ist da!!!
From: fc3a501@AMRISC02.math.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 12:23:57 GMT
Daniel Himmel (uc4l@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) wrote:
TOE in a smalltalk with God
Karlsruhe, den 8.1.97. 9:25 MEZ
Human: Dear God, what is the LAST TRUTH?
God: For the human?
H: Yes.
G: Any nonselfcontradictory system is based on four
postulates, of which one is recursive. This is a paradox.
E.g:
thermodynamics (0.-3. law)
psychology (Es, ich ,Ueber-Ich, time)
chr.theology( father, son, holy spirit, time)
humanity( logic, emotions, determination , time)
noncosmological physics( 4 natur constants)
H: Why??
G:Because you are ONE. Proof: You have 3 spatial dimensions.
Additional there is time, so you can evolve. This determines
your senses. E.g. color (red green blue), space (x,y,z),
taste (sweet, sour,bitter)
Any sensation our yours can be expressed as an interger
linear combination of three postulates. Evolution was so
practical to give your mind a (nearly) logarithmic structure
because there are no negative sensations. The negative
sensation isn't linear independent. This solves the
paradox good/evil.
H: Why that?
G: Nothing from nothing. Your senses are determined by
the three dimensions of DNA. DNA evolves in time.
If your DNA would be 4D, you had 4 spatial dimensions
and you would be a higher being. There is no spontan
increase of symmetry possible in you. The break of
symmetry in your spacetime happened when RNA organized
and the racemate landed in a parallel universe.
H: What's a dimension?
G: Utmost, a degree of freedom for storing information.
Informations are measured in bits.
H: Does that mean dimensions are digital?
G: Yes. If you increase the dimension containing n bit
by a single bit, you need n(n+1) bit for coding it.
The 1 comes from true/false. The universe is splitted
in two by the extra bit (schroedingers cat).
Your mind reduces it to one by being always true
a posteriori. You too split as a part of the 4D universe
but can't sense it because your mind is 3D.
(Define the quality q of a dimension by the number
of bits needed for coding it.)
The electron is the double reduced 2D superstring in
5D space to a singularity. The spin is unrestricted,
its coding correspond exactly to the above statement
( L = h_bar* l(l+1) ). iBecause it is 5D, its a higher
lifeform and can emulate us. (The upgrade of SR/GR
contains the cosmic constant and is 5D) There are no
white holes! Energy conservation must be thought over!
H: What is the mind, informationally speaking?
G: A recursive function. Recursion is life! It's the
derivative of three dimensions after a fourth.
The fourth is the coding of the other three, time.
In one elementar quantum of time the number of bits
in the three isotope* dimensions increases by 1,
so the quality of your mind goes from Q to Q(Q+1)(Q+2)(Q+3).
As your sense of time is the logarithm of this, you feel
it as linear. That's trivial, isn't it?
Entropy is the negation of Q. The number of all generated
universes can be approximatedly computed, and so the
age of the universe.
Mass is trivial as a reduction of the second derivative
of the impulses after time.
All particles are thus trivial.
This theory ist purely rationalist, beautiful and determines
eternal progress. It is universal. The author is 22 years old
and was inspired by:
Jostein Gaarder: Sophies World
ditto, The Secret of the cards
Frank Tipler: The physics of immortality
Stephen Hawking: A short history of time
Ah, and something about science. It stops here.
Its worthless now. The professors can go frag now.
Hasta la vista,baby!
<...but don't expect me to translate the followups
and flames! I'm innocent! H.Reddmann>
--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de PRIVATE EMAIL
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de BACKUP
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de SCIENCE ONLY
Subject: Re: Time and its existence
From: schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja Schmelzer)
Date: 08 Jan 1997 08:17:30 GMT
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
>
> In article <32B5EF3F.958@livingston.net> Hermital
> writes [in part]:
>
> > H: One can travel to the past only in memory or imagination.
> > H: After all, actual atoms never leave the omnipresent "now".
> > The future is always becoming the future, and the past abides
> > only in memory.
>
> *My* memories are not *your* memories.
> *My* subjective perception of the passage of time may not be the same
> as *your* subjective perception of the passage of time.
> So =WHY= do you expect me or any one else to believe that *my* ``now''
> and *your* ``now'' are the =SAME= ``now'' ???
If I talk with you now, and I talk with you tomorrow, I talk with the
same person, not with another, shifted in time, person, independent of
our different subjective perceptions of time or different clock
showings. One twin in the twin experiment is older, but the twins are
nonetheless the same twins.
The assumption that there really exists an infinite world-line of
"yours" and at every my "now" I choose one of them to talk with I
reject by Occam's razor - I see no necessity to introduce such
mystical entities. Moreover, such a construction suggest conclusions
about determinism which seem to me incompatible with quantum
uncertainty.
To accept that I'm not almighty and cannot establish by clock
measurement which past events have happened at the same moment is not
a problem for me. There are other domains there I have no such
measurements, i.e. I believe that other humans have "consciousness",
but also have no measurement device for this.
I consider presence as the only thing which is real. "Future" is not
real, and "spacetime" too. "Past" is also not real. It seems, QM adds
evidence for this. After we have observed an interference picture, we
cannot travel back to try to observe which slit has been used by the
particle.
> IMO, the =MOST= significant single conceptual revolution introduced by
> Einstein was the realization that every observer's ``now'' is a PRIVATE,
> subjective matter;
SR/GR has shown that the numbers shown by clocks depends on the path
choosen by the clocks. That clocks are dilated by gravity doesn't
tell us more about the "now" than the distortion of rulers by
temperature tells about space - nothing. The reasons why I believe
that only "now" really exists, future and past events not, have
nothing to do with any assumptions about having good clocks.
It's time for the conceptual "restoration" ;-)
> ``now'' cannot even be objectively and meaningfully
> =DEFINED= for anything but a point-event; ``distant simultaneity'' is
> thus a void and meaningless concept, incapable of any operational
> determination, and devoid of any objective significance.
Please replace "objective" by "inside SR/GR".
> It is an
> oxymoron; a meaningless combination of english words --- just as are
> the phrases ``spherical cube'' or ``five-sided triangle''...
No. These phrases are tautological impossible. "Distant simultaneity"
is possible, see gr-qc/9610047.
"Now" is simply outside SR/GR, like God, consiousness - things we also
have no good operational definition now. If something is not
described by SR/GR, it doesn't mean that it cannot exist.
It may become operational again if we find a better theory - quantum
gravity for example. It probably has GR as the classical limit. But
consider the conceptual differences between quantum theories and their
classical limits, and after this ask yourself if it is possible to
make conclusions about the nature of time in quantum gravity based on
the metaphysical picture of time in SR/GR. That the concepts of time
of GR and QM are incompatible is well-known as the "problem of
time". I believe the concept of time of QM will win this fight, and
the "proper time" of GR will be reduced to the status of some
distorted by gravity observable without relation to "time".
Ilja
Subject: Die G.U.T ist da!!!
From: uc4l@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Daniel Himmel)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 08:25:55 GMT
Theory of everything in einem Gesprach mit Gott.
Karlsruhe, den 8.1.97. 9:25 MEZ
Mensch: Lieber Gott, was ist die letzte Wahrheit?
Gott: Fuer den Mensch?
M: Ja.
G: Jedes widerspruchlose System basiert auf 4 Postulaten, von denen eins
rekursiv ist. Dies ist ein Paradoxon.
(z.B Mathematik (e, i, 1, Algorithmus)
Thermodynamik (1.-3. Hauptsatz, 0.HS
Psychologie (Es, ich ,Ueber-Ich, Zeit)
Chr.Theologie( Vater, Sohn, Hl Geist, Zeit)
Menschlichkeit( Verstand,Gefuhl,Bestimmtheit,Zeit)
Nichtkosmologische Physik( 4 Naturkonstanten)
M: Wieso??
G: Weil Du eins bist. Beweis: Du hast 3 Raumdimensionen. Dazu kommt die
Zeit, in der Du Dich entwickeln kannst. Dies determiniert Deine Sinne. Du
hast z.B Farbsinn(rot,gruen,blau)
Raumsinn(x,y,z)
Geschmack(suss,sauer,bitter)
Jede Empfindung von Dir laesst sich als ganzzahlige Linearkombination dreier
Postulate ausdruecken. Die Evolution hat Deinem Bewusstsein praktischerweise
eine in etwa logarithmische Struktur gegeben, da es keine negativen
Empfindungen gibt. Die negative Empfindung ist nicht linear unabhaengig.
Dies ist die Aufloesung der Paradoxons gut/boese.
M: Warum dies?
G: Von nix kommt bei Dir nix mehr. Deine Sinne sind durch die 3 Dimensionen
der DNA determiniert. Die DNA entwickelt sich in der Zeit.
Waere die DNA 4-D, so haettest Du 4 Raumdimensionen und waerst ein hoeheres
Wesen. Es gibt keine spontane Symmetrieerhoehung bei Dir mehr. Der
Symmetriebruch in Deiner Raumzeit entstand, als die RNA sich organisierte
und das Racemat im Paralleluniversum landete(s.u.)
M: Was ist eine Dimension?
G: Letztlich ein Freiheitsgrad zur Speicherung vonInformationen .
Informationen werden in bit gemessen.
M: Heisst das, Dimensionen sind digital?
G: Ja. Erhoeht man die Dimension, die n bit enthaelt, um 1 bit, so braucht
man zu ihrer Codierung n(n+1) bit. Die 1 kommt durch wahr/falsch. Das
Universum spaltet sich durch das Extrabit in 2 auf (Schroedingers Katze).
Dein Bewusstsein reduziert es auf eines, indem es a posteriori immer wahr
ist. Du spaltest Dich als Teil des 4 D Universums ebenfalls auf, nur merkst
Du es nicht, da Dein Bewusstsein 3 D ist.
(Def: Die Qualitaet Q einer Dimension entspricht der Anzahl bits, die man zu
ihrer Codierung braucht.)
Das Elektron ist die doppelte Reduzierung eines 2 D Superstrings im 5 D Raum zu einer
Singularitaet. Der Spin ist unbestimmt, seine Codierung entspricht exakt
obiger Aussage ( L = h_quer* l(l+1) ). Da es 5 D ist, ist es ein hoeheres
Lebewesen und kann uns emulieren.( Die Weiterentwicklung der Rel.Theorie
enthaelt die Kosmische Konstante und ist 5 D)
Es existieren keine Weissen Loecher!
Die Energieerhaltung muss ueberdacht werden!
M: Was ist, informatisch gesehen, das Bewusstsein?
G: Eine rekursive Funktion. Rekursion ist Leben! Es ist die Ableitung dreier
Dimensionen nach der vierten. Die 4. ist die Codierung der anderen 3, die
Zeit. In einer Elementarzeit erhoeht sich die Anzahl bits in den 3 isotopen
Dimensionen um 1, daher die Qualitaet Deines Bewusstseins von Q auf
Q(Q+1)(Q+2)(Q+3).
Da Dein Zeitempfinden der Logarithmus davon ist, empfindest Du sie als
linear. Das ist doch trivial.
Die Entropie ist die Negation von Q. Die Anzahl aller entstandenen Universen
laesst sich annaehernd aus der Hintergrundstrahlung berechnen, damit auch
das Alter der Universums.
Masse ist trivial als Reduktion der 2. Ableitung der Impulse nach der Zeit.
Alle Teilchen sind damit trivial.
Diese Theorie ist rein rationalistisch, schoen und determiniert ewigen Fortschritt. Sie ist
universal. Der Verfasser ist 22 Jahre alt und wurde inspiriert von:
Jostein Gaarder: Sophies Welt
" " : Das Kartengeheimnis
Frank Tipler: Physik der Unsterblichkeit
Stephen Hawking: Eine kurze Geschichte der Zeit.
Noch was zur Wissenschafft: Sie endet hier. Sie ist nun wertlos!
Die Professoren koennen gehen!
Guten Tag!
--
Daniel Himmel *** eMail: uc4l@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
WWW: http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~uc4l
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 05:47:09 GMT
mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: >: If we call the doubling time T for a body with diameter 1m and mass
: >: 1kg, and look at three such bodies:
: >:
: >: o -10m- o -20m- o
: >:
: >: at t=0
: >:
: >: then at t=T
: >: the bodies now have diameter 2m
: >:
: >: O -9m- O -19m- O
Let me look at this prior article again, I responded
online, and need to explain further;
Even though everthing has to double in size in the
same period of time in order to keep relative size, the
expansion that causes the doubling in size has two components,
an acceleration as a function of density, and a residual
outward velocity of the surface of each object.
: >: we can continue this and conclude: the attraction of two bodies of
: >: same size and mass is independent of the distance between them.
The fact that they have doubled in size does not
tell us what part was due to acceleration, and what part
was due to residual velocity of the surfaces.
With expanding matter, T_0 must be reserved for the
instant of the Big Bang, or essentially zero size, and there
was a very large number of doubling times to get to the present
time and size.
The outward residual velocity must be included in any
thought experiment, and the acceleration of the surface merely
increases the velocity and produces the phenomenon of surface
gravity.
: > I don't believe you have interpreted DM correctly here,
: >it looks to me like you are using time units of the same length,
: >if matter expands, all clocks must slow with time, giving the
: >equivalent of 1,2,4,8..... as the lengthening series of T units,
: >so you need to look at more T units to make thought experiment
: >function properly.
: I really don't see how this would affect the discussion. If time slows
: down, there would still be equivalence in the relations of the bodies.
The slowing of time allows moving objects to move
a greater _actual_ distance in each _actual_ unit of time and
this affects the existing velocities.
Objects placed in space that appear to us to be
stationary, actually are movng apart.
: > Also, you have objects not having a motion of translation,
: >which is more of a difficult thing to accomplish than first appears.
: > You must consider how the objects got to where they are,
: With these small bodies, we could simply try it in a space station in
: orbit. We would just fix them to a iron bar (so there is no
: mass-centre velocity in our frame, the "absolute" velocity can be
: calculated using the doubling time for the bar) and drop them in
: space.
The ends of the bar would be moving apart as the
bar expands, according to the density of the bar.
A higher density bar would have the ends moving
apart with less velocity, but with a greater acceleration.
I am sorry I can't describe this in a way to make
it easier to understand. I am trying to prepare a better
presentation to put in my homepage, but it is difficult
because it has to result in the curvature of spacetime
that we observe.
: >and the motion of translation of the centers of mass. I am not
: >objecting to having zero motion of translation of the COMs, but
: >it is something that must be considered, because as the meter
: >stick lengthens (matter, all objects, are meter sticks), the
: >"space" between objects _decreases_ UNLESS objects are moving
: >apart.
: > This is difficult to imagine unless a "fixed" meter
: >stick is used, the length being -the-length-that-it-was-at-
: >t = 0 (this _is_ a thought experiment), so this is possible.
: What's the problem? The meter stick also expands at the same rate as
: the bodies. We therefore know the size of a meter at any point in time
: (if we know T)
It depends on the density of the meter stick, and
in order to see the underlying motions, the moving objects
must move in front of a background grid made of t = 0
meter sticks. There are no coordinates, and the only
thing to relate motion and position to is prior motion,
position and size.
: > If done properly, I think you will see results
: >essentially equal to Newtonian gravitation (I sure hope). :-)
: Still you are unable to explain the dependance of distance (or mass,
: for that matter).
I thought I had, in the old description on my
homepage, and in the section titled "Kinematics".
Obviously I will have to try to do better.
: > I don't understand why you have a preference for
: >what form a theory takes, "quantum" merely means numbers
: >or how many, expressed in integer units.
: > If you mean that you prefer a model of gravitation
: >that somehow reaches out, grabs distant things, and pulls
: >on them, I think that is what Newtonian gravitation is.
: > For this, you need magic, or a totally new means
: >of interaction at a distance that we are not aware of,
: >which I would not object to, if everybody would consider
: >Divergent Matter until the means of magic is discovered.
: Well, how come that EM is explained by the exchange of
: photons (in QED)? Magic?
From what little I know, I think it is very
short range and they are virtual photons invented to
provide a working model.
Magnetism is somewhat the same, falling off
very rapidly with distance.
: OK, since it is based on QM I might agree,
: but it can explain all known observations. GR can't, for example in
: the very small scale and very strong gravity (black holes). This would
: require a theory for quantum gravitation (in order not to violate QM
: laws), but the two theories are incompatible. A theory is an attempt
: to explain reality, and when it fails, alternative theories must be
: considered. I think a theory of gravitation along the lines of QED
: would be able to explain these phenomena (QM has never failed to
: do so), and make it possible to combine all theories to one.
: Sure we will consider your theory (and try to find faults in it), as
: well as every other theory.
DM is a quantum theory, each particle of a given
type expands a given amount, and these little expansions
are additive, producing a big expansion for big objects.
The model must create itself, and this is different
from most theories that have multiple postulates, all I
can do is try to understand it and explain it, I can't
change it, it exists on it's own, and on it's own merits.
: >: but space doesn't expand in your theory...
: >
: > The distance of separation (if that is what you mean
: >by "space") does expand if you do the thought experiment
: >properly, or else things would appear to real world observers
: >to have a velocity towards each other.
: Oh, they do, it's called gravity. :-)
My favorite subject. :-)
: > The thought experiment
: >must establish whether or not there is an actual motion toward
: >each other or not, or if there is a motion away from each other
: >or not.
: Can be easiely done as explained above.
No, it is very difficult to explain, and even
more so for small objects the same size.
It is easier to consider a test object above
the surface of the Earth, like a rocket.
The surface of the Earth has an upward velocity,
and the rocket accelerates to a higher velocity, then
coasts.
In DM it stays in motion and the surface of the
Earth catches up to it, but in Newtonian gravitation,
it is slowed by gravity, stops, and falls.
This thought experiment is easier to understand
and is something we know well, we just are biased by
being taught universal attraction, and we don't see
the true motion of the rocket.
If we know that gravity does not slow the
rocket, then we know what we have to do to understand
how gravity really works, without the attractive "force".
: > In complex geometry models, which General Relativity and
: >Divergent Matter are, the prior history of the motion of an
: >object is the important thing, rather than the position relative
: >to a background "space".
: > So, in Divergent Matter, "space" does expand, even though
: >space has no intrinsic properties or attributes, that is why and
: >how ""coordinate free" theories have to work.
:
: I think you mean that space expands if two objects move away from each
: other. But the galaxies are accelerating away from each other because
: the space between them expand, the galaxies aren't accelerating.
I don't think galaxies appear to be accelerating
apart, I think they are in inertial motion, with the more
distant ones moving with higher velocity.
I don't consider space to have any intrinsic
attributes, it can't expand because space doesn't have any
size or length. But let's not consider cosmology until
we can agree on the simple freefall thought experiment
that shows the actual motions that we misinterpret.
: > I agree that there may be things about General Relativity
: >that may have been misinterpreted, or things added on that don't
: >belong there.
: > But I repeat, why have a preference for the form a theory
: >takes, it must describe nature, and if there is nothing in nature
: >that can reach out from every object and grab every other object
: >in the universe at the same time and pull on all of them at the
: >same time, then we might have to settle for Divergent Matter,
: >whether it is attractive to us or not.
:
: Sure, I will settle for any theory that explains reality. However
: there are often interpretations within the theory itself, like in QM.
: I think everybody accepts that QM describes reality, but very few
: accept the current interpretations.
For what it is, QM works well, and DM does not
contradict it, in fact, I think DM is Quantum Gravity,
it just isn't what most people expect, they expected
some magical gravitons to reach out and pull things
at a distance.
: > It doesn't mean they _are_ the same, but it also doesn't
: >mean they -can't-be- the same. Please point out the big
: >problems, and I will be glad to consider whether or not to
: >try to explain them.
: Big problems:
: 1. GR and QM are incompatible
: 2. GR fails to explain reality at microscopic levels, and at high
: energies.
I wasn't aware that General Relativity had
any big problems. There is no reason to think that
GR has to be compatible, it would just be nice if it
were.
But I think GR is compatible with DM, and I
think DM is Quantum Gravity.
: Other reasons:
: 1. Since the forces are so similar, it would be nice to have a common
: structure, so a TOE could be obtained.
Perhaps DM is the TOE, it just has to be studied.
There are no forces acting at a distance in gravity, in
my opinion, that is just the way we were taught.
: 2. The principle of equivalence doesn't automaticly lead to GR, it
: could as well be interpretated in a different way.
DM takes the POE literally, and I think GR
is a direct result of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence,
except he wrote it in terms of how we observe and measure.
DM has to be seen as the underlying kinematics
of GR and spacetime. Does any other theory require
that time be dependent on the length of the meter stick?
: 3. If GR was proved wrong, SR would still be valid.
I do not consider Special Relativity to exist
separate from General Relativity.
: > In "down to Earth" situations, yes, but in astrophysics,
: >merely being aware that a model of gravitation based on matter
: >expanding, is enough to allow evaluation of processes taking
: >place, and to compare the different models.
: Perhaps, but it still is necessary to be able to explain all known
: phenomena.
I feel that DM has a better chance of doing
that, while I don't know of another theory that has any
chance of doing it.
Gravity and inertial motion and the elementary
particles are all connected, and energy is intimately
connected too. I will try to write better descriptions
of each individual thought experiment for my homepage,
and I hope others will try to understand how DM works,
it is just universal repulsion. :-)
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
Divergent Matter GUT of Gravitation http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer
Subject: Re: circuit diagram for bathtub electrocution?
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 13:37:23 GMT
In article <5au2if$7pr@bvadm.tek.com>,
David Buxton wrote:
>Telephones operate on 48 VDC batteries. The ring voltage can be 90 VAC
>and even higher. Under normal conditions telephone circuits are
>reasonably safe. I watched a telephone technician down in a wet ditch
>splicing a large telephone cable that a backhoe had ripped up. He was
>getting frequent jolts as he spliced pairs of wire together. His hands
>were soaking wet, so he could have been getting jolted off the 48 VDC or
>it could have been the ring voltage. He was getting jolted so frequently
>that I tend to think it was the 48 VDC, but it could have simply been
>people trying to ring the phone lines repeatedly because the lines were
>broken and calls were not getting through. I offered to get him a pair
>of hospital style rubber gloves. He said he had a box full of rubber
>gloves in the back of his truck for that purpose, but that he preferred
>to work with bare hands.
>
>Using a telephone in a bathtub has been known to kill people on the odd
>rare occassion. If you were using a telephone in the tub and then
>dropped it into the water, your attempts to rescue the phone could be
>fatal. Best thing would be to get out of the tub and forget about trying
>to rescue the telephone until the tub has drained dry. If you must use a
>telephone in the tub, then use a cordless phone.
>
>There is also an authenticated story of a pastor in a baptismal tank for
>a baptism. The pastor asked for a microphone, which was handed to him.
>There was enough ground potential coming from the PA amplifier that it
>killed the pastor. My guess is that there was a wiring problem with the
>PA system that was not showing up under normal usage, that a properly
>grounded PA system in good working condition would not have killed him.
>
>The point is that normal skin resistance is rather high, especially with
>dry skin. Given a floor with a plywood base and carpet, I can walk up to
>a outlet, make contact with the black conductor and feel absolutely
>nothing. If my hands are dry and caloused and my other hand touches
>something grounded I will get a good jolt that will not endanger my life.
> If my hands are wet and the floor is carpeted and dry I'm ok until I
>touch that grounded conductor, such as the kitchen sink, at that point my
>wet hands could conduct a lethal jolt. If I'm in the bath tub my skin
>resistance is very very low compared to what it is with dry caloused
>hands.
>
>I read a technical artical on hospital electronics equipment. This
>artical dealt with the proper grounding of hospital equipment. Made the
>point that when a patient is hooked up with saline solutions in their
>arms and legs that they can be grounded even better than if they were in
>a bath tub. That under such circumstances it would be possible to kill a
>patient with a 1.5 volt flashlight battery. That explains why the pastor
>was killed by taking hold of the microphone. It explains why hospital
>equipment, especially equipment used in intensive care units, must be
>designed to exceedingly high standards in terms of grounding and leakage.
> The management of ground loops becomes exceedingly important. You want
>to make sure you have some really top notch electricians on the job when
>you build a hospital.
---------------------------------------------------
The ground loop has little to do with it except for noise for EKG/EEG.
The saline isn't a problem unless you are using the tiny amount of exposed
needle, which is bandaged with synthetics anyway, for a clip on contact.
The saline is in a glass or plastic container and the tubing is plastic.
They even use teflon catheters in most veinous drips. So you'd have to invade
the saline to make connection. The motors in the bed are grounded to the
frame, however, so the bed siderails are a potential grounding point. But
you'd have to do a bit better than 1.5 volts, though on a directly exposed
heart in an opened chest, a few volts IS enough. The power supplies of EKG
machines and the like are isolated by a battery powered system, but that
battery pack can be several volts! They just wish to avoid ANY potential for
patient shock through skin breached by shaved and sanded conductive pickup
pads. That's all. And that would be through an extreme machine fault, if
isolation, now often optical, were not used.
-Steve (physicist/EMT several years)
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/
-Lots of New FTP Electronics Stuff!! 700 Files/40 Dirs (Full Mirror ==> *)
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew *
Europe:(Italy) ftp://ftp.cised.unina.it:/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com *
Oz: (Australia) ftp://gold.apana.org.au:/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com *
(U.Cinci) ftp://ieee.cas.uc.edu:/pub/electronics/mirrors/ftp.armory.com *
Subject: *** CRESCENT MOON VISIBILITY Thu 9 Jan 1997, evening ***
From: mnd@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib N Durrani)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 09:51:13 GMT
Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
( In the name of ALLAH, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
19 Dec 1996
SUBJECT: CRESCENT MOON: FIRST VISIBILITY (every lunar month)
**************************************************************
ISLAMIC Date 1417 RAMADAN [ 9th Islamic Month]
Astronomical New Moon Date is 1997 Jan 09d 04h 26m (UT) (Thu)(INVISIBLE)
Sighting Date is 1997 Jan 09 (Thu) evening (Visible ?)
Date Increase is 0 From Astronomical New Moon Date
The first worldwide sighting of the Hilal, for the month of Fasting,
RAMADAN, is expected to be in southern USA and western USA on
the evening of 9 Jan 1997, inshallah.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Hilal to be visible Asia, Europe,
and Africa (except, perhaps, the western tip of Africa) on
the evening of 9 Jan 1997.
Hence it is IMPOSSIBLE for Ramadan to begin in
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and places east,
on the day of 10 Jan 1997.
In addition to the postings in sci.Astro, sci.physics, sci.space,
see also postings in soc.culture.african, ..arabic, ..bangladesh,
..pakistan, ..turkish, .. ..., soc.religion.islam
for the significance of
ISLAMIC EVENTS.
It is to be noted that the AGE OF THE MOON is NOT THE ONLY CRITERIA
for determining the naked-eye SIGHTABILITY of the Hilal (Crescent).
The **ALTITUDE** of the Hilal (at the time of Sunset) is the
PREDOMINANT PARAMETER (because of the brightness of the twilight sky).
The next predominant factor is the **WIDTH OF THE CRESCENT**, which
is dependent on Lunar ELONGATION (angle of the Moon from the Sun).
The skies are assumed clear (very low humidity and aerosols).
We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY"
in the evenings, for every lunar month.
Some TECHNICAL INFO. is at the end.
PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
Since they are very helpful in the research.
Please also pass on the request to your friends
who are interested in Astronomy/physics and to
your local amateur Astronomy associations.
We would very much like to hear from you.
Please respond either by email or by letter.
The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.
Hilal (crescent) sightings would be in the evenings,
at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes,
and upto 40 to 90 minutes after sunset; near and along the sun's path.
When reporting Crescent Moon (Hilal) sightings, (even if you do not see it)
PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
HILAL was visible to naked eye?......... (Yes/No)
Hilal sighted in binoculars,etc?........ (Yes/No)
If binoculars or Telescopes were used: Used.......... (Telescope/Binoculars
Total Magnification..................... Diameter of Objective Lens......(mm)
EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End......
HEIGHT: Hilal highest......(deg); Hilal lowest.....(deg); .......(faded/set)
LOCATION: Hilal LEFT of Sun .......(deg) Hilal RIGHT of Sun........ (degrees)
ORIENTATION: Ends of Hilal Curve, along with an approximate middle.
(Visualize an imaginary vertical Clock Face in the western horizon:)
(Right is 3'O Clock:Bottom is 6'O Clock: Left is 9'O Clock:Top is 12'O Clock)
HILAL CURVE: Start at.....'O Clock: Middle at...'O Clk: End at....'O Clk
Hilal Curve Continuity: ................ (Continuous/Broken/Jagged)
WEATHER condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure...........
Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?............
Observation Place: Latitude.........(+N) Longitude......(+E): Elev........(m)
OBSERVER: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?......
Name....................... Date........ City, State.........................
E-Mail.................................. Telephone.................(optional)
An approximate guide for MEASURING ANGLES in the sky is as follows:
When our hand is stretched out in front of us (palm facing the horizon)
a. each finger at arm's length would cover about 1.5 deg at our eye,
b. two fingers ... ... ... ... ... ... 3.0 deg
c. four fingers ... ... ... ... ... ... 6.0 deg
d. closed fist ... ... ... ... ... ... 10.0 deg
e. outstretched fingers and thumb ... ... 20.0 deg
Thanks.
Email to: mnd@cunix.cc.columbia.edu (Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani)
Homepage: http://www.columbia.edu/~mnd
Mail: Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
(Research Division)
601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
Columbia University
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
United States of America
****************************************************************************
CRITERIA for sighting has been UPDATED with the NEW WORLD RECORD SIGHTINGS
on 20 JAN 1996 by AMATEUR AstroNOMERS, with good telescopes, from Arizona.
($) = Indicates possiblity of sighting with optical aids.
****************************************************************************
ISLAMIC Date 1417 RAMADAN [ 9th Islamic Month]
Astronomical New Moon Date is 1997 Jan 09d 04h 26m (UT) (Thu)(INVISIBLE)
Sighting Date is 1997 Jan 09 (Thu) evening (Visible ?)
Date Increase is 0 From Astronomical New Moon Date
Event times are approximate Civil -- Clock Standard Time
(nearest) (+N,-S) (+E) Zone QIBLA SUN MOON AGEat MOON-SUN Unaided-Eye
CITY LAT LONG -UT East SET SET Sunset ElgAlt Azm SIGHTING
*********** deg deg hr MagN Hr:Mn Hr:Mn Hr:Min DegDeg Deg **********
.MAKKAH-SArb 21.4 39.8 +3 0 17:57 18:26 10: 31 +7 +6 +3 IMPOSSIBLE
.DARSLM-Tnzn -6.8 39.2 +3 3 18:45 19: 3 11: 19 +7 +4 +6 IMPOSSIBLE
%MOSCOW-Rusa 55.8 37.6 +3 168 16:21 17:15 8: 55 +6<+6 -1 IMPOSSIBLE
%ISTNBUL-Trk 41.0 28.9 +2 148 16:56 17:37 10: 30 +7<+7 +0 IMPOSSIBLE
.CAIRO-Egypt 30.1 31.3 +2 134 17:13 17:47 10: 47 +7<+7 +2 IMPOSSIBLE
.KHRTUM-Sudn 15.5 32.6 +2 47 17:36 18: 4 11: 10 +7 +6 +4 IMPOSSIBLE
.CPETOWN-SAf -33.8 18.6 +2 46 20: 0 20: 8 13: 34 +9 +1 +9 IMPOSSIBLE
.LAGOS-Nigra 6.5 3.4 +1 68 18:48 19:17 13: 22 +8<+7 +5 IMPOSSIBLE
.ALGIERS-Alg 36.8 3.0 +0 107 16:50 17:33 12: 24 +8<+8 +0 IMPOSSIBLE$
%GRENWCH-Eng 51.5 0.0 +0 124 16:13 17: 8 11: 47 +7<+7 -2 IMPOSSIBLE
.DAKAR-Sengl 14.7 -17.5 +0 85 18:56 19:32 14: 30 +9<+8 +3 VERY DFCLT$
%RIOJNRO-Brz -22.9 -43.2 -3 88 18:42 19: 6 17: 16 +11 +5 +9 IMPOSSIBLE
.PARAMRI-Sur 5.9 -55.2 -3 84 18:42 19:21 17: 16 +10 +9 +5 DIFFICULT $
.BNSARS-Argn -34.7 -58.4 -3 82 20: 9 20:27 18: 43 +11 +3 +11 IMPOSSIBLE
%LIMA---Peru -12.4 -77.0 -5 71 18:39 19:13 19: 13 +11<+8 +8 VERY DFCLT$
%HALIFX-Cand 44.6 -63.6 -4 86 16:53 17:55 16: 27 +10 +9 -3 DIFFICULT $
%NEWYORK-USA 40.8 -74.0 -5 73 16:48 17:48 17: 22 +10+10 -2 PROBABLE
%MIAMI---USA 25.8 -80.2 -5 61 17:48 18:40 18: 22 +11+11 +1 MOST PROBL
%CHICAGO-USA 41.2 -87.6 -6 51 16:39 17:43 18: 13 +11+10 -3 PROBABLE
%DALLAS--USA 32.8 -96.8 -6 38 17:38 18:38 19: 12 +11+11 -1 MOST PROBL
%DENVER--USA 39.7 -105.0 -7 24 16:55 18: 1 19: 29 +11+11 -3 MOST PROBL
%SnDIEGO-USA 32.7 -117.1 -8 12 17: 1 18: 4 20: 35 +12+12 -1 MOST PROBL
%SnFRNCS-USA 37.7 -122.4 -8 3 17: 9 18:17 20: 43 +12+12 -3 MOST PROBL
%VANCOVR-Cnd 49.3 -123.1 -8 356 16:34 17:53 20: 8 +12+10 -5 PROBABLE
%ANCHORG-Als 61.1 -150.0 -9 327 16:11 17:59 20: 45 +12 +9 -9 DIFFICULT $
.HONOLU--Hwi 21.3 -157.5 -10 327 18: 5 19: 9 23: 39 +14+13 +1 VISIBLE
(INCREASE date one day, if crossing EAST TO WEST)
##################### INTERNATIONAL DATE LINE ######################
(DECREASE date one day, if crossing WEST TO EAST)
%SYDNEY-Aust -33.9 151.2 +10 265 19:10*18:57 4: 44 +6 -2 +5 IMPOSSIBLE@
.TOKYO-Japan 35.7 139.7 +9 300 16:47 17: 4 3: 21 +4 +3 +3 IMPOSSIBLE
%BEIJING-Chn 39.9 116.4 +8 285 17: 9 17:32 4: 43 +5 +4 +2 IMPOSSIBLE
.JAKARTA-Ind -6.3 106.9 +7 295 18:15 18:22 6: 49 +6 +2 +6 IMPOSSIBLE
.DHAKA-BngDs 23.8 90.3 +6 278 17:30 17:51 7: 4 +5 +4 +3 IMPOSSIBLE
.AGRA--India 27.2 77.9 +5 269 17:13 17:38 7: 47 +6 +5 +3 IMPOSSIBLE
.PESHAWR-Pks 33.6 71.4 +5 253 17:25 17:54 7: 59 +6 +5 +2 IMPOSSIBLE
.BUKHRA-Uzbk 39.6 64.6 +4 233 16:37 17:10 8: 11 +6<+6 +1 IMPOSSIBLE
.TEHRAN-Iran 35.7 51.4 +3 215 16:40 17:13 9: 14 +6<+6 +1 IMPOSSIBLE
(#) = May be visible on Previous Evening, with Difficulty.
(@) = May NOT be visible even on Next Evening.
($) = Indicates slight probablity of sighting ONLY with optical aids.
(*) = Moonset BEFORE Sunset (Obviously IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE)
(<) = Actual Topocentric Altitude of the Moon is LESS THAN the number
(This information is only for altitudes from 6 to 8 degrees)
% (add 1 hr to event time, during summer DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME,
from nearly early April to nearly end of October, in the Northern Hemisphere,
from nearly early October to nearly early March, in the Southern Hemisphere)
Copyright (c) Dr.M.N.Durrani, 1987 - 1996
Permission to copy for free distribution is granted to all,
please do give credit and reference. Thanks.
For further information, please feel free to contact:
Mail: Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
National Coordinator of
Astronomical Information,
Islamic Societies of North America (ISNA)
and
Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
(Research Division)
601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
Columbia University
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
United States of America
Email to: mnd@cunix.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)
Internet Web Page Access: http://www.columbia.edu/~mnd
This File was Created on :12-19-1996. Time : 11:02:27
************************************************************
Look For The CRESCENT MOON ( HILAL ), ---------------- >>> )
It Is One Of THE MOST BEAUTIFUL OF CREATIONS; -------- >>>> )
Then Offer An INTENSE PRAYER To The ONE CREATOR, ---- >>>> )
All Sincere DEVOTIONS Are Surely ACCEPTED. --- >>> )
