Subject: Einstein 11
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:36:03 -0800
Part 1 of the "Relativity" section.
How Einstein created the theory of relativity.
“After ten years of reflection such a principle resulted from a paradox
upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen: If I pursue a beam
of light with velocity c (velocity of light in vaccum), I should observe
such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though
spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither
on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell’s equations.”
In fact, such a phenomenon would correspond to a zero energy tachyon of
imaginary invariant mass moving at infinite speed with finite momentum.
“One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory
is already contained. ... all attempts to clarify this paradox
satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the
absolute character of time, or of simultaneity, was rooted unrecognized
in the unconscious.”
Digression: Clearly my post-quantum “back-action” works for the
“unconscious” in Einstein’s sense. I should use the word “sentience”
instead of “consciousness”. What Einstein means by “consciousness” is
more like “attentive awareness” bringing up an unconscious, but
sentient, back-active process into a self-referential Godel loop of
focused attention or “awareness”. So back-action is required of all
sentience including subconscious or unconscious thinking and feeling and
attentive awareness.
“To recognize clearly this axiom and its arbitrary character already
implies the essentials of the solution of the problem. The type of
critical thinking required for the discovery of this central point was
decisively furthered, in my case, especially by the reading of David
Hume’s and Ernst Mach’s philosophical writings.”
Just as Einstein questioned the axiom of absolute simultaneity, I am
questioning the axiom of absolute retarded causality i.e., that effects
are always in the timelike or lightlike future of their causes. Wheeler
and Feynman temporarily suspended this axiom only to try to put it back
with their total absorber final condition which does not work in the
expanding open universe solution of general relativity. Microwave
experiments (published in Nature) so far have failed to notice a
violation of the total absorber final condition. This could mean a
closed universe with a big crunch, or perhaps the experiments, done
years ago, were too crude. Wheeler and Feynman only used classical
“rocklike” form-independent and intensity-dependent action at a
distance. The quantum “thoughtlike” action at a distance in Bell’s
theorem is more subtle since it is form-dependent and
intensity-independent. Eberhard’s theorem assumes zero back-action and
concludes that thoughtlike quantum action at a distance cannot be used
for faster-than-light an backward-in-time precognitive communication.
Post-quantum back-action is an entirely new ball game which overrides
this conclusion of Eberhard because the statistical predictions of
quantum mechanics are distorted by back-action. We now have a general
conceptual basis for claims of “precognitive remote viewing” that only
involve a small extension of the fundamental laws of physics in a way
already anticipated by David Bohm in 1952. The basic idea of back-action
is simply that the thoughtlike quantum field from Hilbert space to
configuration space has sources and sinks just like the classical
rocklike Maxwell field has in ordinary spacetime. The thoughtlike
charges are local in configuration space which implies that they are
nonlocal in spacetime. This is a dramatic change, because in effect the
laws of post-quantum mechanics are not rigidly fixed, but adapt to their
changing environment. That is, the solutions of the post-quantum
equations act back on their generating equations changing their
parameters in a globally self-consistent loop that violates the absolute
character of the axiom of retarded causality. This is exactly what
neural networks do at the classical rocklike level. Back-action
literally breathes life into the equations of post-quantum mechanics
which purport to universally describe all forms of sentience in this
universe and any possible universe. By “sentience” I mean any physical
system able to have inner-felt experience of “qualia” the way Stapp
means it in his book, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechancis. Post-quantum
mechanics only applies to certain complex adaptive systems which
Gell-Mann calls “IGUS” for “information gathering utilization systems”
in his book, The Quark and The Jaguar.
“One had to understand clearly what the spatial coordinates and the time
fixation of an event signified in physics. The physical interpretation
of the spatial coordinates presupposed a rigid body of reference, which
moreover, had to be in a more or less definite state of motion (inertial
system). In a given inertial system the coordinates denoted the results
of certain measurements with rigid (stationary) rods. (One should always
be aware that the presupposition of the existence in principle of rigid
rods is presupposition suggested by approximate experience but is in
principle arbitrary.) With such an interpretation of the spatial
coordinates the question of the validity of Euclidean geometry becomes a
problem of physics.”
Observation: It is a short step from Einstein’s recurrent use of the
word “arbitrary” and his connected idea of the primacy of intuition and
“free invention” for the linking of mathematics to experience to his
idea of “covariance” in general relativity. Einstein had to withdraw
from naive positivist fundamentalism to reach his deeper conceptions of
general relativity. This is why I have little patience for my naive
fundamentalist positivist critics (e.g., Sam Harris and the Bulgarian)
who try to prematurely pressure me to come up with a crucial
experimental test (on the basis of illusory pure experience free from
theoretical structuring) to falsify the post-quantum physics of
sentience, i.e., subconscious thinking and conscious awareness of
inner-felt experience. My fully conscious solid-state Q-nanochip, and
my prediction of sentient superfluids, still only in the
gedankenexperimental stage, are actually pretty close to crucial
experimental tests. Let us not forget that Einstein wrote that he would
not have given up on general relativity even if Eddington had failed to
find his predicted bending of light by the Sun’s gravity during an
eclipse which was a factor of 2 larger than the Newtonian prediction.
“If, then, one tries to interpret the time of an event analogously, one
needs a means for the measurement of the difference in time (a periodic
process, internally determined, and realized by a system of sufficiently
small spatial extension). A clock at rest relative to the system of
inertia defines a local time. The local times of all space points taken
together are the ‘time’ which belongs to the selected system of inertia
[i..e, inertial frame], if a means is given to ‘set’ these clocks
relative to each other. One sees that a priori it is not at all
necessary that the ‘times’ thus defined in different inertial systems
agree with one another. One would have noticed this ong ago, if, for the
practical experience of everyday life, light did not present (because of
the large value of c) the means for fixing an absolute simultaneity.”
Let us look at Einstein’s ideas from 1905 from the perspective of almost
100 years later. Einstein’s argument is strictly classical. There is no
“measurement problem” in classical phyics as there is in quantum physics
which was to mature about 20 years later. In particular, there is no
problem of different observers measurements of the same event
interfering with each other. There is no problem of a particle being in
many places at the same time as there is in some of the interpretations
of quantum physics. Every thing in special relativity is “rocklike”
i.e.,”explicate”, local, form-independent and intensity-dependent.
There is no “active information” here the way Bohm meant it. Let us also
look at his use of the word ‘set’. The key idea here is that classical
light signals operationally define the concept of time. Let’s call this
classical “rocklike” time. Both David Bohm and Henry Stapp have called
for a second kind of “inner”, or “process”, or “implicate” thoughtlike
time. Let us call it “post-quantum time” or “conscious mind time”. Is
this post-quantum time like the Shaman’s mythic time or “dream time”
written about by Eliade and others? For example, see Fred Alan Wolf’s
“The Dreaming Universe” for background information. When we have
back-action we have a new kind of “spooky telepathic” thoughtlike
substitute for the rocklike light signal to set our clocks by. This is
why Bohm’s quantum potential must really be instantaneous in a preferred
frame of reference e.g., the global cosmological frame of the Hubble
flow in a special class of solutions of the Einstein field equations. It
is well known that the solutions of the field equations can break the
full symmetry of those equations.
to be continued shortly
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: daveg@halcyon.com (David B. Greene)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 06:06:06 GMT
lamontg@nospam.washington.edu wrote:
>Anthony Potts writes:
>>On 11 Jan 1997, Simon Read 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?
>You all sit around and sip tea all day in front of the beam dump, don't you?
I think you meant the bean dip, Lamont.
Dave Greene
Subject: Re: Help me with Newton's law F=ma
From: mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Matt Feinstein)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:38:48 GMT
glird@gnn.com () wrote:
>
>In article <32dbc022.17460877@aplnews> Matt Feinstein wrote:
>>In fact, force is, from the standpoint of logic-and-axiomatics, an
>>undefined concept in classical mechanics.
> How true, alas.
>>
>>This is not to say that we don't know what force is;
> If you think not, please define "force" WITHOUT an (undefined)
>equation.
>
>glird
>
Umm, you could have quoted a little more of what I posted, so it
wouldn't have seemed self-contradictory. What I meant was that
there's no concept in classical mechanics that's -logically- prior to
'force'. However, this doesn't stop us from -using- the concept of
force or from having quantitative equations that include forces-- in
analogy to classical geometry, for example, where we feel free to use
figures composed of infinite numbers of 'points', although 'point'
itself is undefined.
For the record, here's what was cut out after that semi-colon--
------------------------
there are a variety of classical 'force laws' such as the elementary
laws of gravitational force and the electromagnetic Lorentz force,
the not-so-elementary force laws for frictional, pressure, and viscous
forces, as well as (my favorite) the fictional coriolis force.
------------------------
Matt Feinstein
mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: Help me with Newton's law F=ma
From: mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Matt Feinstein)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:38:48 GMT
glird@gnn.com () wrote:
>
>In article <32dbc022.17460877@aplnews> Matt Feinstein wrote:
>>In fact, force is, from the standpoint of logic-and-axiomatics, an
>>undefined concept in classical mechanics.
> How true, alas.
>>
>>This is not to say that we don't know what force is;
> If you think not, please define "force" WITHOUT an (undefined)
>equation.
>
>glird
>
Umm, you could have quoted a little more of what I posted, so it
wouldn't have seemed self-contradictory. What I meant was that
there's no concept in classical mechanics that's -logically- prior to
'force'. However, this doesn't stop us from -using- the concept of
force or from having quantitative equations that include forces-- in
analogy to classical geometry, for example, where we feel free to use
figures composed of infinite numbers of 'points', although 'point'
itself is undefined.
For the record, here's what was cut out after that semi-colon--
------------------------
there are a variety of classical 'force laws' such as the elementary
laws of gravitational force and the electromagnetic Lorentz force,
the not-so-elementary force laws for frictional, pressure, and viscous
forces, as well as (my favorite) the fictional coriolis force.
------------------------
Matt Feinstein
mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: Henry Spencer
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 17:46:50 GMT
In article <32D82EDF.3294@zip.com.au> Sylvia Else writes:
>It stands for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. This paradox was
>meant to show that there are elements of reality that are not
>described by quantum theory - the so called hidden variables...
Well, that was the intention; what it actually shows is that quantum
systems behave in seriously weird ways. Now, that might mean that there
are hidden variables involved, with more "rational" underlying behavior
that quantum theory only approximates, or it might just mean that the
universe is weird. Unfortunately for the hidden-variable enthusiasts,
Bell's theorem indicates that any hidden-variable theory has to include
its own forms of weirdness, e.g. FTL communication (which wreaks havoc
with relativistic physics). It's looking more and more likely that the
universe is simply weird.
--
"We don't care. We don't have to. You'll buy | Henry Spencer
whatever we ship, so why bother? We're Microsoft."| henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: Thought Experiment
From: tagutcow@nr.infi.net (Robert Caponi)
Date: 16 Jan 1997 06:52:36 GMT
In article <5bkcpu$1eb$1@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu
(Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
** That's funny, when I imagined the observer, she had the good sense
** to realize she was getting dizzy, so she jumped off the ride at about
** 4 mph (that's about 7km/h)
Ah, wait, it's coming into focus now. The question is this; if atonal
music is played in a Gravitron, there is no perfect cadence to indicate
the music's completion and thus few people would know when to start
climbing down off the walls. The concern here is largely one of safety.
Really, folks, this guy is either insane, on drugs, or 12.
--
T.W.I.D.N € http://www.infi.net/~tagutcow/
Subject: Re: Why do Black Holes Form at all?
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen Meisner)
Date: 16 Jan 1997 13:09:50 GMT
In <5bhpbg$hfq@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen
Meisner) writes:
>
>In <5bfneu$3v1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> hillman@math.washington.edu
>(Christopher Hillman) writes:
>>
>>In article <32DB0B90.3A6F@quadrant.net>,
>>"Bruce C. Fielder" writes:
>>
>>|> If the gravitation of a black hole is such that anything falling
>into a
>>|> black hole will have its "time" slowed the closer it comes to the
>event
>>|> horizon, how does the thing form in the first place? Surely as
the
>>|> original mass contracts, it should slow (from our point of view)
>until
>>|> the original mass remains "waiting" (sorry about all the quotation
>>|> marks) at the event horizon?
>>|>
>>|> As far as I can see, the same should hold true with the mass
inside
>the
>>|> (soon to be) event horizon; the acceleration and gravity increases
>and
>>|> slows the time to infinity. So how does the thing ever form in
our
>>|> universe?
>>
>>The "picture" of a black hole you probably have in mind (really a
sort
>of
>>map of a particular closed space-time, in the same sense that a
>Mercator
>>projection is a particular map of a certain curved surface) are the
>>Scharwzchild coordinates, in which the "event" horizon appears as
>>a cylindrical coordinate singularity. Geometrically, this cylinder
>>(in the map) is really a circle (i.e. a two-sphere). There are other
>>coordinate systems in which this coordinate singularity is removed.
>>The best is a conformal map (preserving small shapes, like the
>Mercator
>>projection does for the surface of the earth) called the
>Kruskal-Szekeres
>>coordinates.
>>
>>It is true that an exterior observer (usually assumed to be
stationary
>>wrt to the black hole) observes nothing of the history of a particle
>>after it passes through the event horizon. Moreover, as a particle
>>approaches the horizon, signals from it back to more distant
observers
>>are extremely redshifted and also fade in intensity (exponentially in
>the
>>time of a distant observer, in fact, contrary to the impression left
>>by the Schwarzchild coordinates that a distant observer will observe
>>particles "hanging" suspended near the event horizon.
>>
>>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
>>(like the international date line) which has a GLOBAL significance
>(this is
>>the point of no return) but no LOCAL (physical) meaning. Indeed, by
>>a remarkable coincidence, it turns out that you can obtain the
correct
>>experience according to gtr by a simple Newtonian analysis.
>Specifically:
>>
>>Consider two particles falling straight into a gravitational source
of
>mass M.
>>Suppose one is at radius R and the other at radius R+L (L small wrt
>R).
>>Then they accelerate apart relative to one another as
>>
>> -GM/R^2 + GM/(R+L)^2 ~ 2GML/R^3
>>
>>(where we expand in a power series in L, neglecting all but the first
>order term).
>>If we have two particles both at radius R and seperated tangentially
>by L,
>>they accelerate toward one another as
>>
>> -GM/R^2 (L/R) = -GML/R^3
>>
>>(by similar triangles). That is, the curvature coefficients are
>2GM/R^3 radially
>>and -GM/R^2 tangentially. Someone falling into a black hole is
>therefore
>>compressed tangentially and expanded radially by the force of
gravity,
>this effect
>>increasing smoothly as R^(-3) right through the event horizon and
down
>to
>>the true singularity at R=0.
>>
>>It is not obvious but true that these Newtonian values are in fact
>correct
>>according to standard gtr for a non-rotating non-charged black hole.
>>I have modeled this discussion on the first few pages of the
beautiful
>>book Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Freeman 1970, which
>>also contains a thorough discussion of many coordinate systems for
>>black holes including the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, and various
>>techniques for calculating the curvatures and verifying that the
>values
>>given here are correct.
>>
>>Another way to visualize the situation is to consider a sphere of
>particles
>>"at infinity". They begin to fall slowly into the hole, carving a
>three
>>dimensional surface out in the four dimensional space-time as they do
>so.
>>You can readily determine the intrinsic geometry of this section
using
>>methods dicussed in MTW and then it turns out you can embedd this
>"world-surface"
>>as a sort of half-football in R^4. Again, the event horizon is
simply
>one of many
>>spherical "latitude surfaces" on this football, and is not
>distinguished in any
>>way from its brethern. Incidently, such "world surfaces" form an
>entire family
>>of surfaces carving up the space time. There is a family of
>"orthogonal" surfaces
>>defined in the same way that potential curves determine streamlines
in
>the
>>conformal mapping method of solving hydrodynamical flow problems.
>These
>>orthogonal surfaces are flat R^3 planes, flat right down to the
>singularity!
>>That is, the Scharzchild universe is a sort of four dimensonal "ruled
>surface".
>>A more familiar example of a (two dimensional) ruled surface is
>obtained by
>>taking a twisting curve in R^3 and considering the surface carved out
>by its
>>tangents. Typically this surface has a sharp cusp along the curve
>itself;
>>the true singularity as the center of a black hole arises
>geometrically
>>in an analogous fashion.
>>
>>Hope this helps!
>>
>>Chris Hillman
>
> Mr. Hillman, you explained in another post that mass and kinetic
>energy both contribute to the mass-energy of a particle. A body is
>therefore its total mass-energy. You stated in another post that the
>velocity space of a body is a Lobachevsky geometry. Mr. Archimedes
>Plutonium has stated that the Lobachevsky geometry does not have a
zero
>reference point. Since a body with constant velocity has a non-zero
>slope in the Loba geometry, it therefore has a potential energy? The
>start metric of the potential energy can then be calculated because
the
>Loba geometry does not have a zero reference point? Could the relation
>between the potential energy and inertial energy be the same as the
>relation between the electric and magnetic fields? The potential field
>induces an inertial field and the inertial field induces a potential
>field: potential flux thereby inducing inertial flux? Since a body is
>nothing but the mass-energy given by the sum of mass and kinetic
>energy, then the motion of a macroscopic body is therefore the
>potential-inertial propagation of the mass?
>
>Regards,
>Edward Meisner
If the potential-inertial propagation of mass theory is correct,
then is motion itself the gravity waves that scientists have been
looking for? Could I have someone other than Mr. Hillman's opinion on
this?
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Numbers
From: hrubin@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Date: 16 Jan 1997 08:04:55 -0500
In article <01bc034b$0f28e4a0$22b32e9c@goldbach.idcnet.com>,
goldbach wrote:
>Mind probably presupposes the existence of matter
>and change in that matter. Numbers are concepts
>dealing with objective reality.
The set of numbers (whichever one you are using at the
time, whether "naturaL", integer, rational, real, or
complex, is an abstract concept, as are any numbers
which may be under discussion. It seems that it is
often the case that "reality" can be modeled well with
numbers.
The numeral, which is
>a symbol-similar to a word in its use, is the means
>which a mind symbolizes the concept so that it can
>use it as a unit for purposes of thought.
This is a grave error. It is the cause of much misunderstanding
of mathematical concepts by far too many people. The use of
numerals is a means of communication, and the use of these to
think about numbers is one of the reasons why people cannot
handle mathematical concepts. The number which is represented
as "30" in the usual way, or XXX in Roman numerals, or as 36
in octal, or as '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' in tick marks,
or as 11110 in binary is the same number, and its properties
are the same, no matter how it is represented.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (317)494-6054 FAX: (317)494-0558
Subject: Re: Science Versus Ethical Truth.
From: Goddess
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 06:53:10 +0000
In article , Rebecca Harris
writes
>In article , Goddess
> writes
>>In article <70D6wCA0Ep0yIwcx@tharris.demon.co.uk>, Rebecca Harris
>> writes
>>>In article , David Kaufman
>>>writes
>>>> What Is Ethical Truth?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Introduction:
>>>>------------
>>>>
>>>> Is a holy person (who never tells a lie) lying, if they
>>>>hide a person being chased by a killer (when confronted by
>>>>the would be murderer) say, "The person ran that way"?
>>>>
>>>> From a science or math prospective, which usually
>>>>ignores the ethical consequences of revealing certain
>>>>truths, the holy person told a propositional falsehood.
>>>>
>>>> However, from an ethical prospective, the holy person
>>>>told the ethical truth because Truth in its human dimension
>>>>also includes not harming others. Truth creates harmony,
>>>>peace and joy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is God All Powerful?
>>>>-------------------
>>>>
>>>> One area that has caused me much mental suffering is
>>>>the belief that I had because my spiritual teachers told me
>>>>that God is all powerful and all loving.
>>>>
>>>> However, I still believe God is all loving, but I now
>>>>believe God is not all powerful, yet I still believe my
>>>>spiritual teachers told the ethical Truth as described above
>>>>in the introduction.
>>>>
>>>> How can an all powerful God allow legs to be blown off
>>>>by land mines and all the other horrors happening right now
>>>>as you read these lines?
>>>>
>>>> To a would be logical person, if someone has the power
>>>>to act to correct wrongs before their eyes and doesn't, then
>>>>that person is accountable for the harm they allow to
>>>>happen.
>>>>
>>>> So the only conclusion about an all knowing and all
>>>>loving God is that God can't be all powerful. Otherwise, it
>>>>would lead a logical person to either ignore the existence
>>>>of God or to hate God for Mankind's ongoing physical
>>>>suffering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How To Explain Why Holy People Say God Is All Powerful:
>>>>------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Breaking away from accepted beliefs is not only
>>>>difficult for true believers (as I am), but requires setting
>>>>up an alternate plausible (non-contradictory) system of
>>>>ideas to explain, "Why Do Holy People Say God Is All
>>>>Powerful?"
>>>>
>>>> To help others, who might also be struggling with the
>>>>question of how not to hate an all powerful God, I offer the
>>>>following 2 scenarios for our current condition.
>>>>
>>>> On scenario (that is used to explain out current
>>>>situation) is that the Devil created the world and that an
>>>>all loving God to lesson Mankind's suffering made a deal
>>>>with the Devil to gain access to the world through God's
>>>>Saints.
>>>>
>>>> However, the deal with the Devil requires that all
>>>>God's Saints claim God is all powerful and is the Creator of
>>>>all that exists. Otherwise, the Devil regains the power to
>>>>create even greater harm to Mankind.
>>>>
>>>> The other scenario imagines that God did create the
>>>>universe--perhaps our galaxy the Milky Way--and has a grand
>>>>plan to stop emerging suffering in the other galaxies.
>>>>
>>>> To stop enormous suffering elsewhere requires our
>>>>current training in this galaxy to become fit for the tasks
>>>>ahead to serve the universe by eventually creating peace and
>>>>joy for all sentient beings.
>>>>
>>>> I hope the above ideas help those who are currently
>>>>struggling with the concept of God as I did. My Best Wishes.
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>A brief note of value:
>>>>---------------------
>>>>
>>>> Getting teachers to used numbered words properly in
>>>>solving constant rate math and science problems could lesson
>>>>student and teacher suffering enormously, I believe.
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested in promoting constant rate
>>>>solutions using numbered words in the K-12 school system (or
>>>>elsewhere) as outlined briefly in my current post titled,
>>>>"Numbered Word Forms To Algebra Equations." in newsgroup
>>>>k12.chat.science, please e-mail me your interests on this
>>>>matter. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> C by David Kaufman, Jan. 5, 1997
>>>> Remember: Appreciate Each Moment's Opportunities To
>>>> BE Good, Do Good, Be One, And Go Jolly.
>>>>
>>>>Note: Please feel free to share this 2 page article with
>>>> others without charge.
>>>
>>>What is was the point in writing all that "stuff" about god???
>>>I am an athieist(probably wrong spelling)But I believe that everyone is
>>>allowed their own opinion......So why preach about "the wonderful and
>>>powerful god"?
>>
>>R33BOX, you are probably not athiest, but agnostic. But I agree with you. These
>>people think they can change somebody's life just by talking to them...
>
>agnostic, is when you don't know what to belive, but I don't belive in
>God, Full stop.
Fine.
--
Goddess
The girl who cried "MONSTER!" and got her brother....
E-mail : goddess@segl.demon.co.uk
Homepage: http:/www.segl.demon.co.uk/frances
Subject: Re: paradox
From: kkumer@desdemona.phy.hr (Kresimir Kumericki)
Date: 16 Jan 1997 09:01:12 GMT
weasel (weasel@televar.com) wrote:
: kkumer@desdemona.phy.hr (Kresimir Kumericki) writes:
: > : Joseph H Allen wrote:
: > : > Thus all of the non-black things you find which
: > : > aren't ravens (your red coat, the white ceiling, etc.)
: > : > also support your generalization that "all ravens are black".
: >
: > Hm, isn't there a name for this paradox? 'Hempel paradox' or
: > something? I really like it: Some lazy ornithologist on a rainy
: > day could investigate whether all ravens are really black just
: > by going around his room and noting objects which are not ravens
: > and which are not black.
: This is not a paradox. The statement "all non-black things aren't
: ravens" is the contrapositive of the hypothesis "all raven's are black.
: Mr. Allen is correct; the two statements are logically equivalent.
: I'd not call the ornithologist lazy, however. In order to prove the
: hypothesis (all ravens are black) by demonstrating the contrapositive,
: he'll have to examine each and every non-black item and show that
: none of them are ravens. I'd call that a more daunting task even than
: checking up on all the ravens.
I am well aware that these statements are logically equivalent.
Perhaps I was insufficiently precise, but what I meant is not
that these statements constitute *logical* paradox, but the one
which is *epistemological* in nature.
The thing is that you want to know generally how knowledge is
acquired and what constitutes a 'proof' of some scientific
theory. Theories that are most difficult to handle are those
which state that all members of some class have some property.
E. g. why are we so sure that 'all ravens are black'. It is
obvious that it is impossible to prove this because only proof
that would be generally acceptable is something like collection
of photographs off all ravens in the world (for all times in the
history). On the other hand, we are pretty sure that all ravens
are really black and now we want to find a scientific rationale
for believing in such, unproven, statement.
One direction in solving this is to say that the more black ravens
we see the more we are sure that our theory is correct. We can
quantify it by saying that each theory has 'correctness value' between
0 and 1, and with each black raven we see the value is closer to 1
(never reaching exactly 1). But then aforementioned 'paradox' comes
to the game because by noting that my computer screen is green I also
move this number closer to 1. I know that I move it by a very very
small amount, but it is paradoxical that I can move it at all.
This is how I understand this. I'd like to here from someone who
thought about it more than I did. (Or read about it - I'm sure
that this is a very famous paradox in modern philosophy of knowledge,
and I just cannot remember his exact name or what was response
of philosophers to it.)
But to tell you the truth, now, when I thought about it a bit
writing this article, it doesn't seem much paradoxical to me
either, even in the epistemological sense. Perhaps I'm
missing something. (Physicists often tend to think that most
of philosophy is no good :)
Kresimir Kumericki
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Kresimir Kumericki kkumer@phy.hr http://www.phy.hr/~kkumer
Department of Physics, University of Zagreb, CROATIA
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Question about gravity waves
From: ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:51:12 GMT
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:56:14 GMT, mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
>This energy loss has been detected in double star
>systems, where the two stars rotate very fastly around each other.
HA HA, anyone who claims that such an energy loss (i.e. slowing
revolution) is the result of calculated gravity-waves, is telling
lies. There's lots of fish in the physics sea to swallow such a hook
-- just add the "GR" bait and watch 'em come swarming!
You can be sure that such a slowing revolution will have other
reasons.
>Now comes the question : how can gravity waves be produced in
>these systems, when they according to GR are inertial systems
> just following geodetic paths in space-time?
Same way moving charges produce magnetism. :-)
Eric
Subject: Re: Question about gravity waves
From: ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:51:12 GMT
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:56:14 GMT, mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
>This energy loss has been detected in double star
>systems, where the two stars rotate very fastly around each other.
HA HA, anyone who claims that such an energy loss (i.e. slowing
revolution) is the result of calculated gravity-waves, is telling
lies. There's lots of fish in the physics sea to swallow such a hook
-- just add the "GR" bait and watch 'em come swarming!
You can be sure that such a slowing revolution will have other
reasons.
>Now comes the question : how can gravity waves be produced in
>these systems, when they according to GR are inertial systems
> just following geodetic paths in space-time?
Same way moving charges produce magnetism. :-)
Eric
Subject: Re: Why do Black Holes Form at all?
From: hillman@math.washington.edu (Christopher Hillman)
Date: 16 Jan 1997 09:48:12 GMT
In article <5bj9ia$562@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen Meisner) writes:
|> Ok Mr. Hillman, what I would like to ask now is whether the
|> topology of the velocity space is responsible for the inertial motion
|> of a body in the same way that the topology of the gravitational field
|> is responsible for the acceleration of a body.
I can't understand what you have in mind here. In the case of the
acceleration of a body, it would be more correct to say that the
GEOMETRY of space-time is modified by the presence of a
massive body. The topology of space time can have global effects, but
acceleration is a local phenomenom, and because all space-times are locally
homeomorphic to R^4 the TOPOLOGY must be irrelevant to any such phenomena.
Curvature and the presence of matter in some region of spacetime are
both local phenomena.
|> Why does a curvature in space time constrain an object to move?
I think you still have a misunderstanding here. Nothing physical MOVES in
space-time; rather, the mental idea of a body being represented by a
"moving point" is replaced by the idea of a body being represented (throughout
its existence) by a "world line", a (possibly non-straight) curve in space-time.
The "length" between two points (events associated with a time and a spatial
location) on such a curve is interpreted as the time interval between these
events as measured by a clock carried with the body during its motion.
Given these assumptions, it is reasonable to ask how gravitation can be
intrepreted as an effect of the curvature of the space-time. The simplest
answer is by analogy: on a sphere, the shortest distance (along any curve
constrained to lie on the surface of the sphere) between two points lies
along one arc of a great circle (a circle of maximal radius such as the
equator). For instance, all LONGITUDE lines on a globe are geodesics
(shortest length curves) in this sense, but of the LATITUDE lines, only
the equator is a geodesic.
Now consider two parallel geodesics (straight lines) in euclidean space.
As we all know, these lines remain parallel all along their length.
Contrast two longitude lines on a globe. They start off being parallel
(imagine two travelers going North starting at the equator, for instance) but
thereafter they CONVERGE (eventually meeting at the North pole). This
convergence of initially parallel geodesics is one effect of the (positive)
curvature of the globe. This is a LOCAL effect because you can detect
convergence no matter how close the initially parallel geodesics are to
begin with.
Going back to the computation in which two particles were falling radially
toward a massive object, the closer one pulls ahead as time increases.
Remember that in the space time picture we replace the
idea of two moving points with the idea of two world-lines which, since
no forces other than gravity are acting, we are assuming are geodesics.
Then, the "pulling ahead" of the closer particle appears as DIVERGENCE
of initially parallel geodesics, and this divergence corresponds to the
(negative) curvature measured by one component of the curvature tensor.
|> is time dilation the only explanation for the Lobachevsky curvature?
|> I must admit that I can
|> not see how this is so. Wouldn't time dilation give you the flat
|> spacetime of SR and the Lorentz metric?
I addressed several separate issues in seperate postings, one of which
concerned general relativity and the rest special relativity, in which
only flat spacetime is considered. The "velocity spaces" I described
in one of these postings are indeed surfaces of constant curvature, but
they are the exact analogs in Minkowsky space (flat t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2
metric) of the sphere, which is the surface of constant distance from
the origin in ordinary space (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 metric). In the case
of Minkowsky space, it turns out that the analogous surface of constant
distance from the origin has three parts, two copies of hyperbolic space
(only one of which is the velocity space for ordinary particles)
and the tachyon velocity space. If you have a book discussing analytic geometry
look at the figure depicting a hyperboloid of two sheets--- this
is the three dimensional analog of the copies of hyperbolic space,
and consists of two copies of the Lobachevsky plane-- and look at the
figure depicting a hyperboloid of one sheet--- this is the three dimensional
analog of the tachyonic velocity space.
Hope this clarifies things!
Chris Hillman
Subject: Re: Double Slit Expt. and Detecting Photons
From: ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:51:10 GMT
On 14 Jan 1997 18:39:50 GMT, jason cooper wrote:
>Secondly, how does one go about detecting the passage of a photon
>through one of the slits without affecting the properties of that
>photon (that is, without absorbing it, or changing its wavelength
>or phase (do photons have phase?))?
You won't like the answer -- the photon is absorbed and another
emitted in its place. That's cheating, you say? So it may be.
>I can postulate methods that, it seems
>to me, would not absorb the photon but should sap some energy
>from it (hence changing the wavelength) -- a SQUID, perhaps.
Postulate away! You'll have trouble finding a mechanism for the
energy transfer, since photons are themselves the carriers.
It is impossible to detect a photon in mid-flight. The recent
experiments in avoidance detection (where a particles presence is
detected by indirect means) is an interesting new development, but
it's unclear if anything will come of it.
Eric
Subject: How do we know it's "jc" ?
From: Keith Stein
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:32:20 +0000
Jim Carr writes
> Subject does not belong in sci.physics;
>Keith Stein writes:
sorry but i really don't agree with you about that Jim.
>>Maxwell's Equations predict:-
>>
>> c_m = 1/(mu * epsilon)^.5
>>
>> where mu = the magnetic permeability of THE MEDIUM.
>> and epsilon = the electric permittivity of THE MEDIUM.
>> and c_m = the velocity of light relative to THE MEDIUM.
>>
>>and remember,Gary,there is always SOME MEDIUM everywhere. Therefore,
>>Maxwell's equations are not only consistent with, but in reality DEMAND
>>a 'c+v' model, where v is the velocity of the observer relative to
>>THE MEDIUM, of course.
>
> Consider what those equations look like when v = c or -c.
Could you be more specific here Jim. I really can't see any problem when
v = c or -c, but then i can't see any 'v' or 'c' in the equation either
:-)
>
> Or, consider the lowly electron ripping along with c-v = 0.001 m/s.
> What is epsilon for this little observer?
Are you serious Jim? 'epsilon' is the 'dielectric of the medium' and is
same for all observers, just like the 'density of a medium' is the same
for all observers, Jim.
> Does it really see
> electrostatic and magnetic effects changed by the amount Ken
> would predict?
I am very unsure about Ken's predictions, but i'd be suprised if
Maxwell's predictions were far off the mark eh!
> Merely asking these questions shows that the
> equations would have to change --
Merely asking if you have gone daft would prove anything, would it?
>just as implied by Ken's
> statement above:
Perhaps i have overlooked something,
but sometimes your logic escapes me ken!
> the constants would depend on v,
sorry but i don't agree with you there either Jim.
--
Ken!
Subject: Parallel Universe
From: pjh@ihug.co.nz (Peter Harrison)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 07:22:18 GMT
While doing some research into Artificial Life I have 'discovered'
some striking simularities with the 'real world'. I finally wrote a
short article and have posted in on ai.alife, and now on sci.physics.
After finding a method of modeling discrete time I am having trouble
generalizing it to discrete space. Read the article below for more
detail of my 'discoveries' and problems.
PS : My use of the term 'particle' in the article below does not refer
to real particles. It is simply a useful term for describing an
object on which processes are performed. In artificial life I might
have used the term 'agent' or 'creature'.
Parallel System Modeling
By Peter Harrison
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to describe the approach I am using to
model parallel systems such as the brain and the universe. My basic
assumption has been that any process that occurs in the 'real' world
must be computable in principle. This does not mean that events must
be able to be determined exactly, only that history of events are
consistant, and determinations of the probability of events can be
calculated.
First Steps
My first step was to write programs that model a simple parallel
system. I programmed a simple model in which there are ten spacial
positions. Each space can be inhabited by nothing, a blue particle,
or a red particle.
The model begins with only one particle of each colour in any of ten
positions. In each itteration a simple rule is applied. Adjacent
positions to an particle is filled with an identical colour particle.
I wrote three programs to model this system, each using different
methods. The first is a loop from the first to the last position. If
it finds an particle it fills the two adjacent position with particles
of the same colour. This method was not at all good. It would
immediatly fill all the spaces higher than the first agent with the
first agents colour.
The second program used a secondary array. An identical loop to the
first program would fill the secondary array with the results, which
would then continue to itterate after copy of the secondary array to
the first. This program was better, but also favoured the agent
starting in the lowest position within ten itterations.
The third program processed each position at random without regard for
processing each position a equal number of times. Each position is
still processed an equal number of times on average, but there is
still a possibility of one position being processed two times while
others have been processed two. This approach now seemed to be the
best as processing order no longer influenced the outcome of the
process.
Results
This programming experiment got me thinking about other ways to model
a system. It was obvious that there were far more rule sets which
allow multiple consistant paths from a single set of states than rules
which allow only one determined path.
Can we determine weather we are in a system (the universe) which has
rules which allow multiple paths or only one determined path? Up
until this century it appeared that the universe was totally
deterministic, however with research into light we now must come to
the conclusion that multiple possible histories exist for photons, at
least when we are not watching them.
In conclusion, I believe we are living in a system with laws that
allow consistant multiple history paths.
Continuous versus Discrete
The core problem with modeling reality has been the apparent
continuous nature of time and space. Quantum Mechanics shows that
scales are not the same, which tends to indicate that time and space
are not continuous. The problem is developing a model which shows how
time and space can appear continuous, yet have their underlying
storage be discrete.
I believe my simple model can at least describe how discrete time can
appear continuous. In the above ten position system there are no
'frames' which could be observed from within the system. Because each
discrete process can't be predicted from within the system time
appears to be continuous.
From this I can calculate the number of processes occuring in the
universe each second on average :
n := Number of events that can occur for a single particle in one
second.
p := Number of particles in the universe
T := Total number of processes that occur in one second.
T = np
The point of this equation is that T conforms to the first principle I
mentioned : that the universe is computable in principle, in this case
because there is a finite number of processes per second.
Predictions from the Theory
If we are to apply the features of my model to reality, how does it
compare?
To begin with we will see a reality in which time appears continuous.
There will be no way to measure the time between events, as an event
must occur in order to record time (ie atomic clocks rely on
statistical randomness for accurate time keeping in the same way my
model relies on it for continuous time).
We also see a reality which is different on different scales. The
quantum world is very different than the macroscopic world. In my
model small individual particles can act in unpredictable ways, while
a mass of particles can be predicted accuratly by averaging their
combined paths.
In reality there is a limit to the rate anything can propogate. This
is called the speed of light. In my model there must be a limit to
the propogation of information, otherwise every event would need to
consider every particle in the system. In the ten position system
only adjacent positions are affected for example. There is also
statistical possibilities of particles jumping over the average speed
limit if they are processed more than the average.
Limits of the Theory
This theory does is not designed to define the actual model we should
use for reality, rather it defines some of the charateristics of the
system. The theory is not yet complete, as I discuss below.
While the above model appears to do very well for predicting how time
can appear continuous, it does not do a very good job at modeling an
alternative to continuous space. The original model used ten discrete
positions. The two alternative methods of processing that I know of
is processing particles that have varibles describing their positions
and velocities, or a model of what exists at each spacial position.
The first would method requires that the position be recorded relitive
to a fixed reference point. This it not our experience in reality, as
there appears to be no limit on fixing the position of a particle. The
second method, essentially the 'ether' theory, is also not what we
observe. Light travels at the same speed relitive to the observor,
not some fixed spacial reference.
The Next Step
My next step will be to address the remaining problem with space
appearing continuous. Only when such a foundation is built can I
begin to experiment with ways to model real particles such as photons,
which could in fact require a number of 'primary' particles.
In fact, one of the more distastfull possibilities is that I will need
to abandon the concept of particles altogether and adopt the view that
the only reality is events, and what appear as particles are just a
series of related events based on probability.
Reality
My objective is to lay the foundation on which to develop a set of
predictive laws. I am not trying to define a 'reality' - as I do not
believe in reality.
Subject: Re: Why C=3x10^8M/S
From: georg@acds15.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Georg Kreyerhoff )
Date: 16 Jan 1997 14:08:25 GMT
In article <5bhu49$ms3$1@nova.thezone.net> gpenney@thezone.net (George Penney) writes:
> From: gpenney@thezone.net (George Penney)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: 15 Jan 1997 06:40:09 GMT
> Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, St. John's, Newfoundland, CANADA
>
> The Speed of Light!! \[...].I hope I've finally layed this issue to rest with this explanation of Why C=3x10^8m/s.
> George Penney
>
Nonsense. The speed of light is approx. 3*10^8m/s because the meter is
defined that way. It doesn't make sense to ask where the vaue of a
dimensionful constant comes from, only dimensionless constants of nature
(like the fine-structure constant alpha=1/137) are really significant. As
long as you leave those as they are, any different value for c,hbar or
whatever will produce the same world. If you have any suggestion on
where the value of alpha comes from and if you have mastered the use of
the RETURN-key on your computer, post again.
Georg
Subject: Re: negative temperatures
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:33:48 -0800
nick herbert wrote:
> Negative spin temperatures is just a rhetorical trick to characterize
> certain inverted spin populations where the higher energy states are full
> and lower ones not.
Yes, I know this. I read Kittel's book on solid state physics where he
has a very nice discussion of this.
>
> Negative temp arises if you ask the question: if this inversion was
> obtained by a Boltzmann mechanism (ie thermal equilibrium with a heat
> bath)--which of course it wasn't, what would be the temperature of that
> fictitious bath. Most inverted systems are not even approximately
> exponential so this negative temperature fiction doesn't even apply.
Yes I know this.
>
> A system with negative spin temp actually has more energy (positive
> energy) than a system with positive temp so such systems are no way
> candidates for negative energy matter such as is useful for time travel
> and/or warp drives.
Maybe, maybe not. I am not saying that you are wrong here, but only that
you are rushing to judgement. One should have more faith in what the
equations are telling us. Remember Steven Weinberg's point about
"failure of nerve" in his Dreams of a Final Theory.
Do you think Zemansky did not understand thermodynamics? If you look at
his little Dover book, Tempertures High and Low you will see that he
analyzes a Carnot engine between two negative temperatures. I have
simply extended what he did to a Carnot engine between a positive and a
negative temperature with a remarkable result that all the heat transfer
from both reservoirs is converted to mechanical work. If Zemansky's
argument is correct in his book, then so is mine. That's my only strong
claim at this point. My immediate extension of Zemansky's text book
argument suggests that a small amount of energy transfer from a
populated inverted system can coherently organize a much larger amount
of random heat energy into organized energy to do useful work. This is
not in violation of the classical second law of thermodynamics, but is,
in fact, a counter-intuitive consequence of it when it is married to the
quantum principle. The second law of thermodynamics and the quantization
of action make strange bedfellows! :-)
I did not claim I knew how to make an actual Bose-Einstein distribution
with a negative temperature, I was only making a formal remark that such
a distribution would correspond to exotic matter. This formal remark of
mine could point to something more interesting. Let us keep open minds
on this.
Subject: Re: negative temperatures
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:33:48 -0800
nick herbert wrote:
> Negative spin temperatures is just a rhetorical trick to characterize
> certain inverted spin populations where the higher energy states are full
> and lower ones not.
Yes, I know this. I read Kittel's book on solid state physics where he
has a very nice discussion of this.
>
> Negative temp arises if you ask the question: if this inversion was
> obtained by a Boltzmann mechanism (ie thermal equilibrium with a heat
> bath)--which of course it wasn't, what would be the temperature of that
> fictitious bath. Most inverted systems are not even approximately
> exponential so this negative temperature fiction doesn't even apply.
Yes I know this.
>
> A system with negative spin temp actually has more energy (positive
> energy) than a system with positive temp so such systems are no way
> candidates for negative energy matter such as is useful for time travel
> and/or warp drives.
Maybe, maybe not. I am not saying that you are wrong here, but only that
you are rushing to judgement. One should have more faith in what the
equations are telling us. Remember Steven Weinberg's point about
"failure of nerve" in his Dreams of a Final Theory.
Do you think Zemansky did not understand thermodynamics? If you look at
his little Dover book, Tempertures High and Low you will see that he
analyzes a Carnot engine between two negative temperatures. I have
simply extended what he did to a Carnot engine between a positive and a
negative temperature with a remarkable result that all the heat transfer
from both reservoirs is converted to mechanical work. If Zemansky's
argument is correct in his book, then so is mine. That's my only strong
claim at this point. My immediate extension of Zemansky's text book
argument suggests that a small amount of energy transfer from a
populated inverted system can coherently organize a much larger amount
of random heat energy into organized energy to do useful work. This is
not in violation of the classical second law of thermodynamics, but is,
in fact, a counter-intuitive consequence of it when it is married to the
quantum principle. The second law of thermodynamics and the quantization
of action make strange bedfellows! :-)
I did not claim I knew how to make an actual Bose-Einstein distribution
with a negative temperature, I was only making a formal remark that such
a distribution would correspond to exotic matter. This formal remark of
mine could point to something more interesting. Let us keep open minds
on this.
Subject: Re: 1 / 2^.5 or 2^.5 / 2?
From: ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Date: 16 Jan 1997 09:26:01 -0500
In article <32DDA440.2008@math.ucla.edu>,
Mike Oliver wrote:
>But the ^ operator is not exponentiation in C; it's bitwise
>exclusive-or.
That's been covered several times already.
>Since the standard does not (to my knowledge) define
>how numbers are represented as strings of bits, the value of 2^(1/2) is
>implementation-dependent, but I would expect it, ordinarily, to be 2.
Is that an integer 2, followed by the period at the end of the
sentence, or is it a float 2., with the decimal point performing double
duty as a period?
The representation of numbers is irrelevant to this discussion; all
that matters is the type. The constant 2 is of type int, while 2.0 is
of type float. The type is not implementation-dependent.
--
Dave Seaman dseaman@purdue.edu
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++
++++ see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
Subject: Re: Why can't 1/0 be defined???
From: David Kastrup
Date: 16 Jan 1997 15:51:24 +0100
dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes:
> What do you think APL does when it sees 0/0?
I refuse to let this count as anything. Computer "real"s do not obey
associative laws or distributive laws. Mathematics declare infinity a
non-member of the reals so that exactly those laws don't break.
In computer "real" math those laws *are* already broken. Putting
infinity into computer numbers does not do much harm anymore, thus.
Or a special number NAN or so (what would be the typical result for
0/0).
We are not arguing about computer math here, however, but about real
math. And INF and NAN and similar values, when admitted into the
reals, would break laws which are precious in there, and valid.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f=FCr Neuroinformatik, Universit=E4tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germa=
ny
Subject: Re: More Bad Astronomy
From: pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Twisted STISter)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:28:44 GMT
In article <5ba3c1$268c@elmo.cadvision.com>,
S Martin wrote:
>In article , pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Phil C. Plait) says:
>>
>>There is a new addition to my Bad Astronomy page:
>>
>> "There are 12 zodiac constellations."
>>
>>I have once again stolen the meat of this page from the
>>folks at "The Planetarian". See my Bad Astronomy page for
>>the relevant links.
>>
>>The Bad Astronomy pages are my attempt to correct common
>>misconceptions about astronomy. I am trying to add about
>>one page a month. This time it was easy, so I may add another
>>one again soon. Check back every couple of weeks!
>>
>>The URL is
>>
>> http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~pcp2g/bad/bad.html
> I suppose you're including Ophiuchus, eh? Well, the Greeks started out
>with 11, then detached the Scorpion's claws from Scorpius and made it into
>Libra, to make the Zodiac a nice round number. It's still a better
>star-picture if you imagine Libra as the claws. Otherwise, (as people as
>learned as Dickinson complain) Scorpius just looks like a fish-hook.
> -Steve Martin.
According to Shapiro, the author of the article linked in my
Bad Astronomy page, even the most narrow definition of the zodiac
must include Ophiuchus, and I agree. Certainly the constellations
have been joggled and moved over the years (the International
Astronomical Union defines the borders these days along RA and Dec)
but the point is the constellations have to be defined somehow, and
astrologers are more arbitrary about it then astronomers are. If
you use the 'classical' Greek constellations, you get 13. If you allow
the other planets to define the plane if the solar system, you get
24 zodiac constellations, although even I think that's pushing it!
Hmmm, note too that 13 is a *lucky* number for the ancient Hebrews.
I wonder how they defined the constellations?
--
* Phil Plait, Pee Aytch Dee pcp2g@virginia.edu
* My home page-- http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~pcp2g/home.html
* --> Humor, supernovae, Bad Astronomy, Mad Science
* and my daughter Zoe.
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: djensen@madison.tds.net (David Jensen)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:03:00 GMT
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:12:03 GMT, geo@3-cities.com wrote:
>osniezko@rogers.com wrote:
>>In article mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) writes:
>>>From: mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie)
>>>Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
>>>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 17:02:32 -0800
>>>In article <32D83882.6B70@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins
>>>wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>> So far as alcohol goes, yes, it was right. However, please note that
>>>> about 50% of the aforementioned thinking sots were either Yanks or Brits
>>>> or Canadians (wot's the derogatory terms for them?). And I only know
>
>>>Canucks?
>
>>There is also "cakes" as in "mungie (sp?) cakes"
>
>Frostbacks, cheese heads.....
>
I'm honored to be made a Canadian, but, Geo, last I checked, my income
taxes were still going to Washington (clearly this is not used to teach
USAmericans geography). On behalf of an arbitrarily large or small group
of Wisconsinites, I would like the thank the
flatlanders^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Illinois residents, who gave us our
nickname.
Go, Packers!
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: When should a spaceship turn around ?
From: pjh@ihug.co.nz (Peter Harrison)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 07:22:14 GMT
On 29 Dec 1996 19:48:48 GMT, "Michael D. Painter"
wrote:
>Ignoring the relative motion of the stars (which might kill you)
>For short trips accelerate at a comfortable rate for half the journey, then
>turn around.
>For longer trips accelerate at a pace that will keep your velocity low
>enough to allow the fuel to last the whole trip. Not a trivial problem if
>the velocity gets close to C.
>
>And, he realizes, this is not the correct answer. What's missing, and why
>would this method give a fuel reserve at the end of the trip?
My method is NOT the most fuel efficient. In fact it is a maximum
energy transfer. Assuming the source and target were stationary a
minimum transfer would be a small bump (1ms-1 for one second) and a
HUGE transfer time, and another small bump to stop.
This solution totally ignores gravitation, which was not part of the
original problem (don't know the mass of the source or target
planets). If we assume that the target and source are identical there
is no alterations I believe.
Subject: Re: Help me with Newton's law F=ma
From: johnny2bit@the-lair.com (Johnny TwoBit)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:11:44 +0200
In article <5bg90m$s60@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R.
Gaenssmantel) wrote:
> Slawek Goetz (sgoetz@ecs.fullerton.edu) wrote:
> : Hi
>
> : How did Newton come up with F=m*a. What experiment did he do?
>
> : Any help is appreciated
>
> Well, if you try accelerating any mass you'll find you need more power to
do so
> the larger the mass gets. I'm sure you can devise a simple experiment to
verify
> this. Since the power is linearly dependent on the mass (for given a)
there is
> only one possible mathematical relation.
> Hope this helps,
> Ralf
>
> : e-mail: sgoetz@titan.fullerton.edu
>
To me the relation is just a derivation of a more fundamental understanding
of the concept of Force. It's easy to discard that relation as something
natural and easy to understand, when in fact Work and Power are more commonly
grasped by the general public. Many have a problem understanding that a book
lying on a table could be submitted to forces, it is after all 'at rest', and
that holding the same book straight out in front of you is not Work, regardless
of the feeling in your arms :)
-- Johnny
Subject: Re: how do gyroscopes work??
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 16 Jan 1997 12:10:51 GMT
Im Artikel <5bg47i$dc7@dscomsa.desy.de>, vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick
van Esch) schreibt:
>: Patrick, you're in a big lab, aren't you? Why not give it a try? This
is
>
>Don't have time right now,
What did your boss say to refrain from looking at the sink??
>but I can think of a few heads of people
>around here who would make a perfect gyro...
>and I'd love to apply the constraining mechanics :-)
No doubt about that :-)
>: my prediction: the constraint gyro will 'fall' just as slow as the non
>: constraint one (which does fall in the end, doesn't it). Whilst doing
this
>: it will work its rotational energy up against friction (just like the
>: other one)....
>
>Nope. If it is really constrained (and that's the trick: it
>might be that a gyro seems to be constrained, but
>actually the bindings are loose enough to allow the
>(very tiny) nutation motions - the point Russell was
>talking about) the "gyro" will fall like a stone, no
>matter how hard it is spinning. Of course, when
>falling, it will exert a HUGE torque on the bindings
Hmm. Couldn't we use this HUGE torque to turn a generator???? :-) I knew
the fish would come back one day. You ever said that father eskimo had no
problem whatsoever to stop the pot from turning around, there would be no
torque excerted and thus no generator driven. Gotcha! No? Shit :-(....
>(and if those bindings give in, well, then the nutation
> will be possible and the gyro will again act as a real
>gyro). But if the binding holds it will drop.
How many mechanical experiments did you ever do in your life?
>Those nutation motions (which contain the whole
>secret of the gyroscopic effect) are really really tiny.
How tiny? I mean, is there anything you can say like: if your gyro's axle
has a length of 10 cm and is spinning at a rate of x rpm with a disc
weighing y kg, then the free end of the axle is not allowed to nutate more
than 0.x mm to make the thing drop like a stone? But if it can nutate
about 1 mm, it will happily keep itself up more or less? Sorry, but to
anyone with a little bit of mechanical intuition, that sounds rather
ridiculous. Yeah, I know, gyros are ridiculous :-)
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: New Bad Astronomy listing
From: pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Twisted STISter)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:32:02 GMT
In article <32DBACCA.3B04@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
John Oliver (NN3.01) wrote:
>Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>>
>> In article ,
>> musashi@pha.jhu.edu (Eric Burgh ) dusted off the quill, prised open the
>> inkwell and wrote...
>> >
>> >On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, mark green wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <59m02r$jpo@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>, Steve Gilham
>> >> writes
>> >> >cirolini@sodalia.it wrote:
>> >> >> On a related issue, is it true that the full moon shines more in
>> >> >> winter? My reasoning is that the moon is higher in the sky, in the
>> >> >> same way as the sun is higher in summer.
>> >> >That is precisely correct.
>> >>
>> >> correct presuming you live in the northern hemisphere presumably.
>> >>
>> >I would have thought that the sun is higher in the summer in the southern
>> >hemisphere also. Isn't this part of the definition of summer? There was
>> >no mention of any particular calendar month.
>> >
>>
>> That's what I thought at first. Then I thought about it.
>>
>> Imagine the Earth, Sun and Moon at full Moon on June 21st at 12 Noon GMT.
>> The Sun will be at it's highest point in the sky in the Northern hemisphere.
>> At the same time the Moon will be at it's highest point in the Southern
>> hemisphere. Because, in June the South Pole is pointed away from the Sun it
>> is pointing towards where the Moon is when we can see it.
>
>So the moon is highest in winter ... I thot that was what everyone was
>saying ... Its a real pain cause the moon is up for two weeks, roughly
>centered around full. So (barring clouds) you can do dark sky observing
>for two weeks continuously, but then you have to quit for two weeks as
>the darn moon just goes round and round and round ... no partial nites.
The irony here is that nights are longer in the winter, so actually
even more observing time is lost! ;-) And in the summer, when the Moon is
low and the nights warmer, the ecliptic is low and so planet viewing is
more difficult. Oh well. Best to move to Ecuador, I guess.
--
* Phil Plait, Pee Aytch Dee pcp2g@virginia.edu
* My home page-- http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~pcp2g/home.html
* --> Humor, supernovae, Bad Astronomy, Mad Science
* and my daughter Zoe.
Subject: MIGHTY MICROSOFT MIGHT NOT LIKE IT.................. MUCH :-)
From: Keith Stein
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:35:06 +0000
Someone 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.
To which Someone Else replied:-
>>|> Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
>>|> than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
>>|>
>>|
>>|But who gets hired at Microsoft Corp.?
To which Erikc quipped:-
>Clueless fucks who write garbageware for a power-mad marketing wizard.
:-) that's 'LAUGHABLE' :-)
also 'SAD' :-(
,because it's 'TRUE'!!!
This could get expensive if it gets to court,but i do think that this
current computer i'm using, with it's Bloody Windows, Bloody '95 is the
worst Bloody computer it has ever been my displeasure to use !
I guess fundamentally i'm a fundamentalist but quite honestly i think
my 'Commodore Vic 20' was a much better computer than my 'Commodore P60'
(How's that for brand loyalty!), but i tell you what:-
>> THIS IS THE LAST COMMODORE I BUY <<
sincerely,
keith stein
>Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
>diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
:-? Why is it that whenever i read the symtoms of any disease,
i always think i've got it :-(
