Subject: Re: Occams Razor Exceptions
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 14:33:23 -0500
Richard Mentock wrote:
>Brian Tozer. wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that Occams Razor is just an example of a piece of practical
>> advice in formulating hypotheses rather than a scientific law. Therefore I
>> would expect that there would be many examples of exceptions.
>> I would be interested to hear of some.
>
>Probably there are no exceptions.
>
>But that is not because it is such a good law. It's because,
>as you mentioned, it's more like practical advice. And it's vague.
Exactly. Or we might say, there are no exceptions that someone
defending the universality of this rule of thumb would not challenge.
>What does it mean to be "simple"? Anyone can see that if the planets
>orbit the Sun in circular paths, the motion will look complex from
>the Earth. This makes Copernican theory simpler than Ptolemaic. On
>the other hand, when he was done, Copernicus had formulated the
>planetary orbits in terms of *circles*, which they're not, and he
>ended up with more epicycles than Ptolemy.
My favorite rant on this for the moment is that in the absence of
dynamics the idea that "the earth goes around the sun rather than
the sun around the earth" is without operational content -- therefore
if we insist that in the time of Galileo it should have been
obvious to people not blinded by theology that the earth "really does
go around the sun", we are being about as blind as the churchmen who
persecuted him.
>Einstein's GR theory may look complicated, but in geometric coordinates
>it is a whole lot simpler than Newton's. Einstein said, even if it
>produced no better results, he would have preferred it over Newton's.
>Now, that would have been an application of Occams Razor, but the
>rest of us would have stuck with Newton--also applying Occams Razor.
>
>Wait, that's two exceptions already. g
>
>A person's point of view will change how the Razor is applied.
Also in practice, I find those who would wield the razor inevitably
have resort to some phony example involving invisible mythical animals
(apparently feeling mere invisibility is not fine enough). In a
real case, like your example of Newtonian vs. Einsteinian gravity,
the distinction is hardly so clear cut. Also, in my limited
experience, mature scientists hardly ever wield this argument,
realizing that the implication of belief in invisible mythical
beasts is an insult to intelligence. It is associated with a stage
of youthful confidence when long having been a big goldfish
in a little pond one still embraces the notion that anybody who does
not accept your worldview instanter must be doltish and logic
challenged, or at least not quite as smart as you.
Another fine procrastination. ;) So much more interesting than that
little c program I am supposed to be writing. :-)
Ed
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:08:23 GMT
On 14 Jan 1997 09:21:53 GMT, Steve Gilham
wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity Ken H. Seto wrote:
>> GR defines gravity as an object following the curvature of space-time.
>> But what is space-time? Nobody knows. What are the processes that make
>> an object follows the curvature of space -time? Nobody knows.
>
>At the ultimate philosophical level ("why are the laws of physics what
>they are?") that is true.
But we are not sure that we are at the ultimate level. Just because we
have no answers for these questions does not mean that they are at the
ultimate level. For that matter, Model Mechanics can answer these
questions but is Model Mechanics is at the ultimate level? The answer
to this question is we don't know.
>
>On a more practical level, the path of a body not under external
>acceleration is, following Newton, locally a straight line; a geodesic
>in spacetime is the natural extension of that notion.
Again, this does not tell us why. Furthermore, spacetime--what is it?
Is it an abstraction? Is it within our 3D space? If not hor is the
material system in our 3D space interact with it? Again if you say
these questions are fundamental and aqain Model Mechanics could answer
them. So it appear that Model mechanics is more fundamental than GR.
In fact GR is the local theory of Model Mechanics.
>
>> Physicists would like to say that space-time is the description of the
>> curved geometry in our 3D space in combination with the time
>> dimension. But this explanation implies that there is a medium
>> occupying space. The MMX null result made physicists to abandant this
>
>Spacetime is not a medium, it's geometry.
To have geometry you need spatial dimensions which in turn, you need
some kind of medium to be meaningful.
>You'd not quibble at there
>being Euclidean geometry in an empty 3-space, would you. So why cavil
>at the possibility of something more complicated?
But no theory is based on the reaction of material systems to the
geometry of 3D space. Whereas GR is based on the reaction of a
material system to the geometry of a non-existing space-time.
>
>> 1. All of space is occupied by a substance called the E-Matrix and the
>
>Earlier you wrote regarding spacetime
>
>"But this explanation implies that there is a medium occupying
>space. The MMX null result made physicists to abandant (sic) this"
The following question and answer will answer your question:
Question: The MMX null results suggest that the speed of light is
constant in all the directions--would not that suggest that there is
no absolute motion and no aetheric medium in space?
Answer: Previously, it was concluded that the earth is an inertial
object that follows a geodesic path in the E-MATRIX. The structure of
the E-MATRIX is such that all points on earth will have the same
absolute motion in the E-MATRIX in all the directions. This means
that the measured speed of light is the same in all the directions. In
other words, there is no preferred direction of motion. An emitter and
detector system can be pointing in any direction the same following
results will be observed and this is the cause of the null results of
the MMX. When the first light pulse from an emitter arrives at the
detector's initial position the detector will have moved to a new
location (due to its absolute motion) and this light pulse will not be
detected. However, as the successive light pulses are arriving, at
some later point those light pulses will have had time to catch up
with the detector and thus they will be detected.
>
>I say to you
>
>This E-matrix implies that there is a medium occupying space. The MMX
>null result made physicists to abandon this.
See above.
>
>> 2. Light is waves in the E-Strings of the E-Matrix.
>
>The Earth's orbit around the sun would, one expect, cause an annual
>variation in the motion wrt the E-matrix, and hence in the velocity of
>light.
No you are confusing relative motions with absolute motion. Also, you
must remenber that the structure of the E-Matrix is such that it is
the same in all directions.
>
>> 3. Material systems such as the earth is moving freely in the
>> E-Matrix. This motion (V) of the earth in the E-Matrix is the
>> absolute motion of the earth. This means that all the earth labs will
>> have the same absolute motion of the earth in the E-Matrix.. This
>
>The Earth is rotating. One would expect a lab in Houston and one in
>Delhi to have different motions wrt the E-matrix.
No again, the earth labs only have one path of absolute motion in the
E-Matrix.
>
>[Pseudo-LET stuff snipped]
>
>> 2. Set the earth second as the absolute second (standard). This means
>> that an absolute second has the same duration in all frames.
>
>Have you considered the Pound-Rebka experiment?
I am not familiar with this. Perhaps you will enlighten me.
Ken seto
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: daveg@halcyon.com (David B. Greene)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:59:12 GMT
potts@cms5.cern.ch says...
>On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, angus wrote:
>> > > Well, you may work for CERN and hence glow in the dark, but that isn't
>> > > everyone's experience.
>> > >
>> > You don't actually understand what is done at CERN, do you?
>
>> Obviously cultivate a "snotty then thou" attitude".
>>
>That makes no sense. Would you care to try typing it again so it can
>actually be construed as an insult, rather than some unconnected words put
>next to each other.
>
>If someone suggests that working at CERN is going to cause me to have a
>higher than normal content of radioactive substances, then they clearly do
>not understand what we do there.
>
>Anthony Potts
>CERN, Geneva
OK, Anthony, we know exactly what you do at CERN and it is no use trying to
hide it! You make the American based scientific establishment glow green
with envy, dammit!
David B. Greene
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: Kent Budge <"kgbudge,"@,sandia,.gov>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:52:46 -0700
Fred McGalliard wrote:
>
> Michael Edelman wrote:
>
> > That aside, let's not confuse the tool with its use. IQ tests were
> > conceived by Binet as a tool for identifying students with deficits that
> > needed addressing in certain areas.
>
> Sorry if I am confusing the tests, but as I recall, the original IQ tests were prepared to allow US armed
> services to seperate those who could be taught to fire a gun and those who should be kept as far away from any
> sharp instruments as possible. Lots of others thought to use this test or some modification of it to screen
> workers, school children, etc. I think it is arguably manifestly inappropriate to expect such tests to deal
> with the skills necessary to invent a new math or dicover or even understand the current theory of (I would use
> QED as a good example).
My understanding is the same as Michael Edelman's. However, it
is true that the U.S. Army in World War I introduced widespread
I.Q. testing of inductees, as a result of pressure from intellectuals
who saw a great opportunity for social engineering. The Army found
that the average mental age of the inductees, according to these tests,
was 13 -- a conclusion sufficiently ridiculous that it ought to have
called the whole procedure into question.
Instead, the intelligentsia began to question whether democracy was a
viable form of government when the average citizen was a moron. This
debate eventually led to the system of public education we have in
the United States today.
All this in spite of the fact that Binet himself emphasized that his
test was only intended to give an approximate measure of the mental
deficiencies of retarded children, and was not appropriate for any other
purpose.
--
-Kent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES
_/_/_/
_/ _/_/ _/ _/ Department 9231
_/_/
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Albuquerque, NM 87185-0819
_/_/_/_/_/_/
/ _/ _/_/ _/ tel: 505 284 3825 _/ _/_/
_/
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ fax: 505 844 0918 _/ _/_/
_/
_/_/_/
Computational Physics Research
and Development Department Kent G. Budge -
kgbudge@sandia.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(usual disclaimer)
Return address hacked to foil junk mail; edit before replying.
Subject: Re: "What causes inertia?
From: mj17624@janus.swipnet.se
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:38:04 GMT
bonus@algonet.se (Bjorn Danielsson) wrote:
>If I plug in the numbers for the sun: 2.0E30 kg, and the sun radius ==
>perihelion distance 7.0E8 m, and the speed 3.0E8 m/s for a probe entering
>the solar system, then Newton's theory (giving a hyperbolical path) will
>produce an angle of 0.872 arc-seconds according to my calculations.
>This is about half of 1.75.
>I haven't seen the complete GR derivation of the 1.75 angle, but my own
>hunch is that the difference from the newtonian path is due to time
>dilation in the relativistic model.
According to Hans-Uno Bengtssons book "Kvarken och Universum" (highly
recomended, contains both explainations and mathematics), half of the
angle is due to time dialation and half to space curvature. The result
of the newtonian equation responds to the time dialation bit, so the
difference that GR predicts has to do with the curving of space.
Mathias Ljungberg
Subject: THE UNIVERSE-A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
From: ALLEN GOODRICH <105516.1052@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 14 Jan 1997 20:08:33 GMT
THE UNIVERSE- HOW IT WORKS-
A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
THE UNIVERSE- GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
WHY a grand unified theory of the universe?
Current physics theories do not explain the ocean tides,
the photon (particle or wave), gravity, time, mass, or
the electromagnetic field.
The low tide, not the high tide,
is observed directly under the full moon. This contradicts
physics texts, the dictionary and encyclopedia definition of
tide, which shows a picture of the earth with a bulge of water
on the side facing the full moon, and states that the high tide
occurs directly under the full moon. This is an error.
It is not conceivable that the moon could pull several feet
of ocean water around the earth at better than 1000 mph.
This would wash away the continents and humanity in a day.
The copyrighted theory 1988 A.C.Goodrich; cc023@
freenet.buffalo.edu. explains the tides as a decrease
of kinetic energy and volume of the ocean water
with the increase of potential energy as the moon
direction changes and distance decreases relative to a
particular side of the earth's ocean, to maintain a
constant total energy of the universe.
THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION AND PRINCIPLE
of the universe is one of constant total energy expressed
by the (modified Galileo pendulum-Kepler-Newton-
equation by Goodrich) equation:
2 3
T = L / K(M-m) where M is the total energy of the universe,
m is the mass-energy in question and T and L are time and
distance. This equation is derived from the FUNDAMENTAL
EQUATION AND PRINCIPLE of the universe (by Goodrich)
2 2
mL / T + K(M-m)m/L = a constant M.
The total of kinetic and potential energy of the universe is a
constant M.
This grand unified theory defines time, mass, energy, gravity,
the photon, other forces, and the electromagnetic field as
geometric properties of the universe.
See Library of Congress Card Catalog
THE UNIVERSE- A UNIFIED THEORY-GOODRICH
and ISBN 0-9644267-1-4.
ALLEN C. GOODRICH
GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
Gravity, commonly called the force of gravity, is the
force equal to the product of the mass m and the
acceleration of gravity g. It is the acceleration g
of mass m relative to the rest of the universe M
that is involved in the force of gravity.
The linear acceleration of gravity g is the difference
of two accelerations, that of the universe M and that
of the mass m which is in question. F = mg =
m (G-g) = Km( M/LL - m/LL ) = K m( M-m) / LL.=
m L/TT where G = KM/LL ; g = Km/LL ; L = distance
and T = time. LL = L squared and TT = T squared.
According to the grand unified theory, the mass m is
accelerating more slowly than the rest of the universe
because its mass-energy density is greater than the
mass-energy density of the rest of the universe.
The acceleration g is the apparent difference of two
volumetric accelerations which are inverse functions
of the density of mass-energy, consistent with the
fundamental equation and the grand unified theory
of the universe. It is this relative acceleration of mass
m in all three directions, or it's relative volumetric
acceleration Y of mass m, that is sensed as the force
of gravity. Y = LLL/TT = K(M-m) = L cubed./ T squared.
This is the fundamental equation of the universe.
The volumetric acceleration of a mass m relative to
the rest of the universe is equal to the value K(M-m).
Relative to the rest of the universe, the mass m
appears to be contracting, undergoing a force of
gravity, due to its smaller relative volumetric
acceleration and higher density compared with the
rest of the universe.
Copyright 1988 Allen C. Goodrich
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD-
A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields both
obey the fundamental equation and grand unified
theory of the universe.
Unlike the gravitational field, which is a function
of the relative volumetric and angular accelerations
of the mass m and the effective universe M, the
electromagnetic field is a function of the relative
volumetric and angular accelerations of the
charges of the masses involved. A charge exists
only when there is a displacement of the centers
of positive and negative angular accelerations. The
electromagnetic field photon is the reaction of
the rest of the universe to a change of the
distance between charges or the distance
between positive and negative angular
accelerations.. Except for very large
mass-energies at very great distances, the
electromagnetic field would appear to be much
stronger than the gravitational field, because
changes of the distance between the centers of
acceleration of the negatively and positively
charged masses occur outside of the nucleus of
the atom. They are therefore more effective relative
to the outside universe and are more easily
sensed from the universe outside of the atom then
are the changes of the density of uncharged masses.
Copyright 1988 Allen C. Goodrich
See THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
###
Subject: Re: twin paradox
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:03:45 GMT
Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
: Ken Fischer wrote:
: > I don't usually do math, but this seems odd, I would
: > expect velocity to remain constant (considering a massless
: > cable).
: You mean you don't understand that a constant acceleration leads to an
: increasing velocity?
Erik, you apparently didn't read what I was responding to,
here is the part you must not have read.
::( Discussing the widespread but incorrect meme that acceleration
:: is what "causes" time dilation. )
::
:: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: For example, consider an astronaut and a counterweight connected by a
:: cable, and spun to yield 1g acceleration. Depending on the length of
:: the cable, the velocity will vary, but the acceleration will always
:: be constant. The clock rate will vary as a function of the speed,
:: and will not follow the constant acceleration.
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
: I don't usually do math, but this seems odd, I would expect velocity
: to remain constant (considering a massless cable).
And Wayne Thorp wrote:
> Ah. I was perhaps a bit unclear. I mean, consider a set of cases,
> where we have a given astronaut and counterweight, and we vary the
I thought he meant with the same cable, varying the
length would change the velocity, but it will not, and he
did not mean to infer that it did, he was talking about
different sets of circumstances.
Please try to be nice. :-)
Ken Fischer
Subject: **********Moon orbit**************
From: "k.barton"
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:57:56 -0500
I was given the following questions which I have answered below. The
answers may be a little off.
However the answer must be accompanied by a diagram
Q 1) The moon rises 50 minutes later every night, but the stars rise 4
minutes earlier every night. Why does this happen?
A1) The earth takes about 365 days to orbit the sun. That means that
after
one day, the position of the sun relative to the fixed stars has
changed. Which means that the earth only has to rotate 364/365 of a
circle for the sun to return to the same position. But for a star to
reach the same position it has to rotate the full circle. So it takes
365/364 days for a star to get back to the same spot. That's 24.065
hours, or about 24 hours and 4 minutes.
Likewise, the moon orbits the earth. And it takes about 29.5 days to do
so. 1/29.5 *24 = 49 minutes.
The phases are keyed to the relative position of the Moon and Sun in
the sky.
Q 2)It takes 29 ½ days for the moon to go through its phases, why
doesn’t the moon rise at sunset one month and sunrise the next month?
A 2) If a full moon rises at sunset, then 29.5 days later the moon will
be
full again. But that moment won't be at local sunset. Instead, it
would be at local sunrise, and the moon would be setting. For the moon
to be full it has to be exactly opposite the sun in the sky.
*The diagram must show the counter clockwise rotation of both the earth
and moon.
I really don’t know where to place the stars.
Subject: Where Have All the Wise Men Gone ?
From: Keith Stein
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:30:14 +0000
In article , Keith Stein
wrote:
"Three Questions for Wise Men"
> It would be much appreciated if you could answer any or all of the
>following:-
>
>1. Total Force (Electrostatic + Magnetic) between two charges
> (travelling with general velocities V1 and V2) is given by:
>
> F = K * Q1 *Q2 * (r + V1 x (V2 x r)/c^2) / R^2....(1)
>
> where K = 4 * Pi * 8.854 * 10^-12 Farad/metre
> r = 1metre = the unit vector joining the charges
> R is the distance between the two charges in m
> V1 is the velocity of Q1 in m/s
> V2 is the velocity of Q2 in m/s
>
>First question is, Is that Correct ? (It is intended to be just the
>combination of Coulomb's Law with the usual Magnetic Force Equation,
>not quite as usually written, but standard physics, i think).
>
>2. What is the experimental evidence that action is not equal to
>reaction, as implied by the vector product term on the RHS of (1)
>
>3. What are the velocities V1 and V2 meant to be 'relative to' ?
Well as i've had no response from the wise to these questions,
i'll foolishly have a crack at answering them for myself :-)
I think that strickly, Equation (1) applies ONLY to a VACUUM,
and as there aren't any Vacuums, it DOES NOT APPLY ANYWHERE AT ALL !
However if i have not made a mistake then it is a good approximation for
any charges surrounded by any very low pressure gas. However, it is
essential not to forget the ubiquitous medium, at least in order to
answer question 3, i think. ie the velocities V1 and V2 must surely be
'RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM', as no way can the force between two charges
change when i run away from them, so i can't beleive that V1 and V2 can
be relative to the observer.
i don't know the answer to 2, although i would hazard a guess that the
difference in the forces appears as a force on the medium, but that's
just because i'm an old Newtonian, and if anyone knows better, do please
put me right.
--
Keith Stein
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: John Wilkins
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:11:34 +1100
L.A. Moran wrote:
>
> In article ,
> Paul Z. Myers wrote:
> >In article , varange@crl.com,blah@blurgh.bleah.retch wrote:
>
> >> > A PhD isn't useless. True, the knowledge you are digging up
> >> > is very specialised, but the skills you learn while digging
> >> > are very important: determination, skepticism, thought,
> >> > rigour, etc.
>
> >> Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
> >> than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
>
> >Anyone care to place any bets that Mr. Varange does NOT have an
> >advanced degree of any kind?
>
> I would need pretty good odds to take such a bet. How about a million
> to one? (I'm assuming that the Ph.D. requirements in the USA are similar
> to those in the rest of the world. All bets are off if that isn't the case.)
Actually, it isn't the case. While I'm not exactly sure of the European
practice (I understand it's *much* more rigorous), the Anglo tradition,
followed in Australia, roughly works out to Anglo Masters (by research)
equals US PhD in years of post-secondary study. It's not exact because
you have that confusing Junior College thing. That's not to denigrate US
PhD's, because the standard of work is most likely the same, but US
graduates are typically a few years younger than ours and the UK.
I only know this because I once worked in a university that had to
accredit Australian degrees for Aussie postgraduates and post-docs in
the US.
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: If US had been parliamentary, no Vietnam war?
From: mbusse@midway.uchicago.edu (Marty Busse)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:39:00 GMT
In article ,
Alison Brooks wrote:
>In article <5bc184$q32$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes Plutonium
> writes
>> If the US had been a parliamentary form of government where all
>>politicians are elected and not these cabinets that linger from one
>>administration to another and really run the government. Then,
>>hypothetically, is it highly likely that the Vietnam War would have
>>never occurred? Or if it had, would not a parliamentary form of
>>government gotten the US out quicker? One can argue that the US Vietnam
>>War was chiefly the result of foolish advisors to the president.
>>
>
>Interestingly enough, while the US was busy getting bogged down in
>Vietnam, the UK was engaged in fighting in Borneo, in remarkably similar
>political situations. The UK military position wasn't as good as that of
>the US; the Borneo border was massively longer than that which the
>Americans had to deal with, and the terrain very much harder.
>
>Nonetheless, the UK was successful.
>
>One can debate why this should be; however, there was no great "anti-
>war" debate in the UK. I suspect that this was in part because of
>different attitudes.
>
I suspect the UK was successful because Borneo is not next-door to China.
The UK did not have the restrictions on elminating the insurgency's main
base of operations (N. Vietnam for the US) that the US did.
>> Perhaps this is a great research inquiry as to see which form of
>>democracy is superior-- the US or the UK parliamentary.
>>
>> In a parliamentary system, the likelihood of foolish advisors doing
>>so much damage is minimized, I suspect.
>>
>
>If only. You don't live in Britain, do you?
>
A PM can pull all sorts of stunts on his own in Britain. Aside from
Borneo, there was an effective undeclared war between Britain and the
early Bolshevik government for a while. Britishers can probably come up
with numerous examples of the parliamentary system failing to prevent
Vietnams.
And then there's the fictional example of PM Urquhart, who starts a war
in Cyprus to build his memory, the phrase "Frances, this could be our
Falklands" dripping from his wife's lips.....
--
"A story to me is like a line on which I hang little baubles of incident"-Al
Capp
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: fireweaver@insync.net (erikc)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:24:20 GMT
On 14 Jan 1997 03:40:00 GMT
ale2@psu.edu (ale2)
as message <5bev6g$1ld6@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>|In article <5bdu4f$agl@interport.net>
>|cjc@interport.net (Cheng-Jih Chen) writes:
>|
>|
>|>
>|> Oh, the joys of American anti-intellectualism. It's been part of
>|> American culture that the "common man", with little training but
>|> wads of common sense, will go further than someone with advanced
>|> training. While this _might_ have been slightly true back when
>|> we were mostly farmers, it certainly doesn't hold in an advanced
>|> industrial society.
>|>
>|
>|Microsoft Bill Gates didn't have a degree did he?
No, he didn't. That doesn't stop him from being a sharp and crafty individual.
Erikc -- firewevr@insync.net
Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
Wanna see how sick some fundies are?
http://www.christiangallery.com/ (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger (sicker than ever)
/* Finest Christian porn on the 'Net */
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution *
From: fireweaver@insync.net (erikc)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:24:18 GMT
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:39:04 -0600
Judson McClendon
as message <32DAD5A8.7AAD@ix.netcom.com>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
[snip]
>|The whole point of the Bible is to bring mankind to a right relationship
>|with God through Jesus Christ.
If you believe that sort of claptrap. Show me your god.
>|Though man's situation is hopeless
>|without help from God, there is hope in Christ.
Horseshit. Tell that to a Jew, a Hindu, a Moslem, or a Pagan. They'll tell
you to blow it out your ass.
>|The state of man's
>|natural heart is evil, but the Holy Spirit regenerates man and makes him
>|into a new creature.
What do you mean? Some kind of transgenic mutant?
>|This is what being 'born again' means. "and be
>|renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man
>|which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness."
>|(Ephesians 4:23,24)
I think you are just another BORING AGAIN fundy trying to spread his delusions
where they are not wanted.
>|
>|> Gee, I thought maybe you got sick or went on vacation. BTW, when am I
>|> going to get those citations, Judson? (2 Cor 4:2)
>|
>|I gave you the citation, Elmer: the Centennial edition of Darwin's
>|'Origin', published in 1959. I have checked the catalog in my public
>|library and they don't have a copy of Origin that old. I regret that
>|you aparently think I am trying to be 'crafty'. I'm just being honest.
Erikc -- firewevr@insync.net
Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
Wanna see how sick some fundies are?
http://www.christiangallery.com/ (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger (sicker than ever)
/* Finest Christian porn on the 'Net */
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 22:23:38 GMT
In article <5bf6qq$sah@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, lamontg@nospam.washington.edu writes:
|> What's confusing me is the seminar I went afterwards to where I
|> could swear that computer simulations were suggesting that the
|> comet got captured by Jupiter appx. on the order of 100 or so years
|> ago (undetermined due to chaotic effects -- this was just a monte
|> carlo statistical average). Of course, it wasn't in anything
|> resembling the orbit of a jovian satellite...
Not so much captured as a Jovian satellite, but captured as in bound
to the inner solar system, perhaps?
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood christw@lexis-nexis.com cats@CFAnet.com
Subject: Re: IS THERE A CASE FOR THE ELECTRIC CAR?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:57:54 GMT
In article <32df45ed.3548502@news.interlog.com>, borism@interlog.com (Boris Mohar) writes:
>On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:51:51 GMT, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>In article <5bc0ib$16ou@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, ale2@psu.edu (ale2) writes:
>>>In article <32da5200.2327475@news.interlog.com>
>>>borism@interlog.com (Boris Mohar) writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12 Jan 1997 05:29:23 GMT, ale2@psu.edu (ale2) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >I think the hybrid car (small engine powered generator + batteries +
>>>> >electric motor) is the way to go for the short term.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chrysler is working on a system that converts gasoline to hydrogen
>>>> and feeds that the fuel cells. The conversion is on board.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds like a good idea also, if the efficiency is high enough?
>>
>>Sounds like a bad idea, since the efficiency cannot be high. You just
>>took the standard process of extracting energy from gasoline
>> (by burning it)
>
>" Gasoline is converted to hydrogen, carbon dioxide and water in a
>multi-stage chemical reaction process."
>
>> and added fewo more steps, i.e. extract the hydrogen, then
>>oxidize it in the fuel cell to generate electricity, then use the
>>electricity to drive mechanical motion. What do you think this shall
>>do to the overall efficiency.
>>
>>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>>meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
>
> " The car is expected to be at least 50 % more fuel efficient and 90%
>cleaner than the current gasoline powered internal combustion engine."
>
> The above were quotes from an article in Toronto Star, Jan 11, 97
I believe these are quotes from a newspaper. Worth as much, too.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Companies in the USA.
From: Jeff Wilson
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:59:34 -0600
Lars Gustavsson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are a group of 15 students that study our last year at Lulea
> University of Technology, Sweden. Our field is science and specially
> applied physics and mechanics. In June 1997 we are going to make a trip
> to the USA. There we plan to visit Boston, San Francisco and Houston.
> The theme for the trip is space. In Houston, for example, we will visit
> Nasa. What we would like to know is names, addresses and homepages of
> companies and institutes that would be of interest to us.
>
> Grateful for your help.
>
> Please send your reply to: f93-lgn@sm.luth.se
Houston has many companies all around JSC (NASA). Try these:
McDonnell Douglass, Boeing, Hughes, Rockwell, Grumman, Loral,
Lockheed-Martin. Of course, many of those were bought by/have bought
the others. I can't really keep up with all of the mergers/buyouts.
However, all have Houston addresses.
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Jeff Wilson | In space, no one can |
| jdwilson@nortel.com | hear you scream!! |
| Richardson, TX - my opinions are...MINE. | |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: sunrise sunset
From: Langenburg High School
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:11:34 -0800
Hello out there!
Light is split into colours by diffraction methods such as using
a prism, by reflection and refraction as in a rainbow, and it seems to be
split by scattering (blue sky in the day, red, orange, at sunset). Why is
there green in the other light splitting occurrences, but there is no
green in the sunrise or sunset? If you could reply by email, I would
appreciate it (I'll likely not find my way back to wherever I am now.)
Tim
Subject: Re: Einstein's Constant
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:12:54 GMT
In article <32DB0209.78D2@quadrant.net>, "Bruce C. Fielder" writes:
>
>For the record though, I tried to define a physical "constant" as a
>"number" which cannot be represented as a real number in any integer
>based counting system, and which relates any number of dimensions to an
>additional one.
>
>I was not quite clear in my first posting, but I still feel that any
>numerical system which uses "pi" or "e" as "one" will not relate to well
>with everyday experience.
>
>Nor do I think that any numerical system which uses "e" as "one" will
>find that either "pi" or "c" will end up being integers in that system.
You confuse things that don't belong together. Dimensionless numbers,
such as "pi" or "e" have the same value in any system. "C", on the
other hand, is not a dimensionless number. The value of "c'
represents the reatio of the speed of light in vacuum to some value of
speed which we chose, by definition, to be unit speed. This second,
"standard", value is completely arbitrary. Thus the numerical value
of "c" carries no meaning. Just as an excercise compare the value of
"c" when expressed in meters per second, feet per minute, furlongs per
forthnight and (that's the most interesting one) light years per year.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: PH.D.s are useless
From: varange@crl.com (Troy Varange)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 13:01:31 -0800
> I don't think you have any idea what getting a PhD is all about.
> I've read a lot of posts that seem to indicate that getting a
> doctorate is a simple matter of studying hard or memorizing
> a lot of useless facts. Its not. It is about intellectual
> creativity, hard work and as much stress as you'll find in any
> other occupation. It ain't about pulling a B+ average in a
> bunch of lecture courses in college. So before YOU go assuming
> a bunch of things that YOU aren't informed about, I urge you
> to heed your own advice.
Then why are PHDers so ignorant? Is it just about being in
a mutual backpatting club?
Perhaps PHDs are about as indicative of intellectual ability as
being an elected politician is indicative of a good politician,
confusing status with ability and ignoring the social element.
"What? Corruption in accademia?!?? Surely, you jest! Why,
it's illegal, just like corruption in politics and business!"
In other words, you can't trust the PHuDdie duddies.
As if status meant ability! Laugh riot! So just like Clinton
is the *best* politician, Bill Gates is the *best* businessman!
Whoever is the most powerful in the political or material
sense is the best!
Of course, this is the philosophy of the powerful, and
unfortunately for the Plebians, they practice it.
--
Cheers!
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: sguerke@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Guerke)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 19:51:25 -0500
In article <32DC0496.153F@wehi.edu.au>,
John Wilkins wrote:
>L.A. Moran wrote:
>>
>> In article ,
>> Paul Z. Myers wrote:
>> >In article , varange@crl.com,blah@blurgh.bleah.retch wrote:
>
>Actually, it isn't the case. While I'm not exactly sure of the European
>practice (I understand it's *much* more rigorous), the Anglo tradition,
>followed in Australia, roughly works out to Anglo Masters (by research)
>equals US PhD in years of post-secondary study. It's not exact because
>you have that confusing Junior College thing. That's not to denigrate US
>PhD's, because the standard of work is most likely the same, but US
>graduates are typically a few years younger than ours and the UK.
>
>I only know this because I once worked in a university that had to
>accredit Australian degrees for Aussie postgraduates and post-docs in
>the US.
Since this is totally off topic anyway, I thought it might interest those
of you who have the fortune or misfortune of living outside the U.S. what
a Ph.D. program requirements at a typical U.S. University are. While I
won't get into a discussion of whose educational system is better or
worse, I suspect that by the time the Ph.D. is earned, wherever it is
earned, that you have put the poor bastard thru enough abuse that they are
pretty much equal. Except, of course, those who earn their degrees at the
good 'ol University of Ediacara, who are superior to all.
Knowledge * Wisdom * Beer.
------------------------
University of Delaware
Graduate Catalog 1996-1997
College of Arts and Science
Department of Biological Sciences
Requirements for the Degrees
The Master of Science program requires 24 hours of courses, 6 hours of
thesis and successful completion of the preliminary examination. Primary
emphasis is on research that culminates in the written thesis and the oral
defense of that thesis.
For the Ph.D. degree, successful completion of the preliminary and
qualifying examinations as well as the presentation and defense of a
written research proposal and dissertation are required. The preliminary
examination is administered after two semesters of study and is designed
to identify the student's strengths and weaknesses and suitability for
further graduate study. The qualifying examination is an in-depth
examination of the student's research specialty and is administered after
six semesters. Formal courses should be completed as soon as possible to
allow time for independent study and research. Experience in the teaching
of undergraduates is required of all candidates. It is expected that a
significant portion of the dissertation will be suitable for publication.
Financial aid is available to graduate students in the form of
assistantships and fellowships, and pertinent information is available
from the chair of the Graduate Admissions Committee.
You can peruse the University of Delaware's Graduate catalog at
http://www.udel.edu/gradoffice/GRADHOME.HTM
--
*************************************************************************
Stephen Guerke, Computer Information/Technology Associate
University of Delaware Parallel Program sguerke@strauss.udel.edu
Georgetown, DE 19947 Phone: (302)856-5400 ext.266
Subject: Re: Why No Math and Science TV Station?
From: zare@cco.caltech.edu (Douglas J. Zare)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 22:45:06 GMT
Gary Hampson wrote:
>In article <5ap3jf$1u53@b.stat.purdue.edu>, Herman Rubin
> writes
>>[...]
>>Unless there is a specific course, TV is not a means of learning a
>>subject. At best it is a means of getting a low-level popularized
>>version of it.
It is possible to learn much from these versions if one develops the habit
of reading between the lines and understanding the context of the
presentation. Very few people seem to have that habit, though it is useful
for much more.
>In the UK we have the Beeb (BBC) of course, in particular BBC2. Channel
>4 also does a load of educational stuff. Also in this centre of
>civilisation [ ;) ] we have the Open University which basically allows
>degree study at home with the help of tv programs and course books. The
>programs are often transmitted at the most obnoxious times, but if you
>can programme a video recorder you can still get a nights sleep (unless
>you're paranoid of course). It usually takes 5-7 years to study for a
>first degree using this method. I guess they may have a web page.
Where I grew up, the University of South Florida broadcast some
canned lectures on public television. I watched a course while skipping
school, and was fascinated enough to major in that area. Not only did I
learn the subject material, but before that random exposure I had no idea
what that discipline studied.
Lecturers should ask themselves what they can do better than videos, and
exercise these possibilities or consign themselves to obsolescence.
Douglas Zare
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:50:06 GMT
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:26:00 -0500, in sci.skeptic, "Darryl L. Pierce"
wrote:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> *You* claimed that cancer wasn't possible without exposure to
>> carcinogens, specifically industrial pollutants; you provided no
>> evidence for this claim. What was that about "unsubstantiated claims"?
>
>Save your breath. Sheila is either unwilling or unable to make a logical
>argument. She only posts empty replies (unless you count the full
>quoting of somebody *else*'s content) and has nothing to add to a
>discussion.
Yeah, I've been noticing that. Hope, however, springs eternal...
>
>--
>+-------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
>| Darryl L. Pierce | "I know not with what weapons World |
>| mailto:keeper@sol.traken.com | War III will be fought, but World |
>| http://www.traken.com/~keeper | War IV will be fought with sticks |
>+-------------------------------+ and stones." - Albert Einstein |
> +-------------------------------------+
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: Another defender of science arises
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:51:14 GMT
In article <19970114172900.MAA27296@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>In article ,
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>,
><>There is a fact that people rarely talk about.....the current government
><>in the U.S. is really one that has been elected by a minority of the
><>voters. Assume that 50% of the registered voters vote. The candidate
><>that wins gets 50% the votes (it is usually less). At most, only 1/4 of
><>the population decided who should run the country.
><>
>
>As do the ones who exercise their right.
Indeed.
>One of things that is alarming me is the fact that most issues passed
>are ending up in the courts leaving a single judge to decide.
A combination of the political leadership being eager to pass the
buck, and of the people willing to let them get away with it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Help me with Newton's law F=ma
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:53:14 GMT
In article <32dbc022.17460877@aplnews>, mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Matt Feinstein) writes:
>orie0064@sable.ox.ac.uk wrote:
>
>
>>I think F=ma is not so much a law as a definition.
>>The real laws of newton were that:
>>
>>1) If a body is not disturbed, it will stay where it is or move forever
>>with constant velocity
>>
>>2) The conservation of momentum: that every body has a quantity called
>>mass, such that in every collision,
>>
>>m1v1+m2v2 will stay constant throughtout.
>>
>>From 2) one can define momentum & hence force.
>>--
>>GT
>>--
>>http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0064
>
>No, no, no. This may get me into an argument. but--
>
>F = ma is -not- a definition of force. It is -not- an identtity, it
>is a -law of motion-. It is a second-order differential equation that
>relates the motion (i.e., kinematics) of a particle to the force
>(i.e., dynamics) acting on the particle.
>
Yep.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Another defender of science arises
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:10:12 GMT
In article <19970114192700.OAA03191@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>Here I agree. And this could be formalized into a law.
>>You could have an arrangement where a politician's
>>campaign promises are being collected in a formal
>>document which he has to sign upon being elected
>>and which then is considered a binding contract.
>>Then, if he breaks a promise, it is a breach of contract
>>with the usual penalties. Hey, I like it.
>
>Ohoh, then pass it on to your congressman :-)
With pleasure. I rather doubt he'll like it, though :-)
>>>I faintly remember that the US stretched the laws quite a bit to
>>>make it possible to move troops into SV....
>>
>>That's true, it did. Or, rather, the US presidents did.
>>By never declaring a war they got around the law
>>stating that only Congress can authorize war.
>
>Hm, hm. "Mitgegangen, mitgefangen, mitgehangen" (Gone with, caught with,
>hung with [the other crooks]). McNamara must have known, that this IS a
>war and his president was more than stretching the law. Thus staying in
>the government as secretary of defense he is guilty just as well.
I'll concede that much. But, in this case the primary guilty party is
the president, with the Congress coming close second since it knew the
situation just as well and had both the duty and (more important) the
tools to stop the abuse at any moment.
>
... snip ...
>>This was indeed a unique and unprecedented occurence in the US
>>history, having a president who was not elected by the people. As I
>>said, no law can predicted any eventuality.
>
>Easy: The president has the right to pardon .... . This right is not valid
>for any member of his or a former government. The right to pardon a member
>of [former] government[s] stays with the Congress with 2/3 of all votes.
>
Sure. Then something else nobody though about will come along. Mind
you, I didn't say that the situation cannot be resolved legally. I
just said that no law can predict in advance all situaitions which may
need resolving.
>
>>>Thus we deserve the best woman and men governing
>>>us, not the most ignorant, self esteemed, TV-popular ones. And to make
>>>that happen, we should create a system narrowing down on that, not on
>some
>>>idealistic misconceptions....
>>
>>I can't say that I disagree. But, it all gets back to the point of
>>"who'll select these people?" If not the public then who? Some
>>paternalistic body of people who "know what's good for us"? Can't
>>think about any such body that I would trust.
>
>How is the head of MIT or Harvard or UofChicago being chosen? By the
>students???? Or are those who choose the head elected by the students?
No. Thus indeed MIT, Harvard and UofC are authocracies. Which works
fine since nobody compells you to be there, you come voluntarily.
Would you want the government of your country being selected this way.
Same question as before arises, "by whom?".
>
>And lets again ponder upon the idea of immunizing people against
>dictatorship, fascism and the like. There is a book (I think an american
>one) how a teacher made an experiment with his class [The Bridge???]. He
>put up a certain group ideology, garnished it with a certain outfit,
>songs, group rules etc. He of course was the leader and the pupils
>followed willingly. No outsiders were allowed, etc.pp. Then he showed them
>how near that all was to fascism... It's a fascinating story of how easy
>people can be mislead. I'm convinced, that non of the participating pupils
>can ever be mislead by another "Pied Piper of Hamelin". How about putting
>such an experiment into the regular curriculae?
Excellent idea, and I mean it. Maybe I'll write my congressman, after
all.
>
>BTW: I wonder when someone will come up with the idea that this is not
>physics nor science at all and ball us out =;-)....
Shhh. Don't mention it :-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Occams Razor Exceptions
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:30:17 GMT
In article <5bgn23$kqj@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) writes:
>Richard Mentock wrote:
>
>>Brian Tozer. wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems to me that Occams Razor is just an example of a piece of practical
>>> advice in formulating hypotheses rather than a scientific law. Therefore I
>>> would expect that there would be many examples of exceptions.
>>> I would be interested to hear of some.
>>
>>Probably there are no exceptions.
>>
>>But that is not because it is such a good law. It's because,
>>as you mentioned, it's more like practical advice. And it's vague.
>
>Exactly. Or we might say, there are no exceptions that someone
>defending the universality of this rule of thumb would not challenge.
>
Or that, given a vague and general enough definition there are no
exceptions. I think that it is important to realize that Occam's
Razor is not a rule which tells you how to pick the best hypothesis.
It only tells you that in a situation when you've two or more equally
good (that's important) hypotheses, when "equally good" is measured by
correspondence to existing information, you should pick the simplest
one, i.e. the one which uses the smallest number of postulates and/or
assumptions.
So then somebody may come and say "yeah, but in such and such case,
based on the information that became available later, the other
hypothesis turned out better. So, Occam's Razor was wrong in this
case." Not so. At the time the first decision was made, the
hypotheses were equally good, thus the need to apply the Razor. By
the time the new information came around, they were no longer equally
good and a new judgement was called for. Statemetns like "good",
"better", "equally good" etc. when applied to physical theories, don't
have an eternal and invariant truth value. They are temporary
statements, based on available information, and they keep being
reevaluated.
>>What does it mean to be "simple"? Anyone can see that if the planets
>>orbit the Sun in circular paths, the motion will look complex from
>>the Earth. This makes Copernican theory simpler than Ptolemaic. On
>>the other hand, when he was done, Copernicus had formulated the
>>planetary orbits in terms of *circles*, which they're not, and he
>>ended up with more epicycles than Ptolemy.
>
>My favorite rant on this for the moment is that in the absence of
>dynamics the idea that "the earth goes around the sun rather than
>the sun around the earth" is without operational content -- therefore
>if we insist that in the time of Galileo it should have been
>obvious to people not blinded by theology that the earth "really does
>go around the sun", we are being about as blind as the churchmen who
>persecuted him.
Yep. That fits beautifully with what I wrote above. Up to some point
in time both statements were equally good.
>
> Also, in my limited
>experience, mature scientists hardly ever wield this argument,
>realizing that the implication of belief in invisible mythical
>beasts is an insult to intelligence. It is associated with a stage
>of youthful confidence when long having been a big goldfish
>in a little pond one still embraces the notion that anybody who does
>not accept your worldview instanter must be doltish and logic
>challenged, or at least not quite as smart as you.
That's a charitable view. I think that in many cases what you see is
just a variation on the well known phenomenon that little dogs bark
more than big dogs.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Why do Black Holes Form at all?
From: mlerma@math.utexas.edu (Miguel Lerma)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 23:30:21 GMT
Christopher Hillman (hillman@math.washington.edu) wrote:
[...]
> Nonetheless, a particle falling into the BH (or the matter of the star
> itself as the hole is being formed) experiences nothing strange as it passes
> through the event horizon. The event horizon is an artificial mental construction
Let me ask a follow up question. In Schwarchild's coordinates the
particle passes through the event horizon at time t = infinity.
However, Hawking has shown that a black hole cannot last until
t = infinity, it will evaporate first. If by the time the particle
enters the black hole it does not exist any more, how can it do it?
Someone told me that the "paradox" comes from an improper mixture of
classical and quantum physics, but I would appreciate any more detailed
explanation about how matter can fall inside an evaporating (non rotating
and non charged) black hole.
Miguel A. Lerma
Subject: Re: Infinitude of Primes in P-adics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 23:31:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Infinitude of Primes in P-adics
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Date: 1997/01/13
Message-Id:
Sender: news@cwi.nl (The Daily Dross)
References: <5b8tan$7ao$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<5bbsh4$s10$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.logic
>
> Different primes p, q, then p-adics not isomorphic to q-adics, but
> p-adics have a multiplicative inverse in the q-adics
I do not understand what you are meaning here at all. What is the
multiplicative inverse of the 2-adic 11 in the 3-adics?
****
Sorry Dik, my mistake, that was all wrong. I was confused with Q and Z
of adics. Today I was looking for the 3-adic multiplicative inverse of
"12", 110, which of course is 1/3 X 1/4 and finding these inverses is
not an easy math problem. I suppose I need some expansion series on
1/4, oh well, that is not important for me, but please tell if you
know, what is the proof trick that one can know that all 3-adic
Integers have a mult. inverse except the 3. There must be some quick
logic that one can see that all of these integers have an inverse
except the 3.
Thanks for teaching me some more about p-adics, Dik. I am trying to
see if this imaginary 3', the multiplicative inverse of 3 in 3-adic
Integers possesses any of the characteristics that i possesses for
Reals? Could there be some e^i pi = -1, for 3' ?
Could there be one and only one imaginary integer to cover all Z_p
that would make all of the Z_p-adics a field. Or do I need to append a
3' to 3-adics, a 5' to 5-adics. Thereby requiring an infinitude of
imaginary integers.
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: davidcs@psy.uq.edu.au (David Smyth)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 23:42:28 GMT
In article <32db26ce.32344546@news.pacificnet.net>, savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) says:
>
>
> If time is by definition what clocks measure then we can stop right
>here because I can assure you that clocks measure a lot more than
>time. The changes taking place within the clock are part of a process
>that involves d/v. Only d and v are observed. From that we obtain t.
>For all practical purposes one can assume that d is constant. v on
>the other hand depends on the clock's mechanism and the conversion of
>potential energy into motive energy. Therefore, you are not using an
>independent time to measure motion; you are merely comparing the
>velocity of the internal mechanism of the clock with the velocity of
>whatever moving body whose motion you're trying to measure.
>
Consider the practical everyday problem of meeting someone
for lunch. First we must decide on a location then we must
decide on a time.
How do we ensure the lunch meeting will occur?
It is not enough for us to both have a device for
which we may observe a velocity v moving through
a distance d to measure time. There are two
constraints.
First the devices must both change at the same rate i.e.
the v's and d's must be set up so they are both equal or
the ratios if v to d is the same for both devices.
Secondly they must be synchronized to read zero at the
same time. The two devices must be placed together
and an observed point d0 for each device chosen when
their respective v's are at this point. We must then
measure the d from d0 for each device.
These two constraints are what time really is. The
v's and the d's are quite arbitrary. Hence time
is not merely the observation of change. It is the
need to apply the above constraints to the v's and
d's of the two devices which is what time really is.
The necessity of applying these constraints in order
for the lunch meeting to succeed implies the existence
of time. Without them we will end up eating lunch
by ourselves.
These constraints are orthogonal to (i.e. independent of)
the spatial coordinates since, as stated above, the v's
and d's (and for that matter the d0's) are quite arbitrary.
It is the relationship between the two sets of d's, v's
and d0's which is important.
This is of course completely analogous with the three
spatial coordinates. In order to meaningfully compare
two axis systems they must both share the same origin
(analogous with synchronization) and must be of the same
scale (analogous with running at the same rate).
Engineers regularly (without even thinking about it)
apply translations and scaling factors to design drawing
to ensure these constraints are satisfied.
David Smyth
CPL
University of Queensland
