Subject: Re: Hectopascals: the CONSUMMATE pressure units?
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:49:13 GMT
Gene Nygaard <71754.3505@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>Some meteorologists seem to think they have come up with the
>ideal unit to measure atmospheric pressure. Actually, it is a
>scheme to hang onto obsolete millibars by cloaking them in a
>pseudo-SI disguise.
Probably.
That means you should ask yourself why the original choice of millibars
was made, rather than centibars or some other possible option. The
answer must be that an integer with about 3 digits contains about
all the information you can know about atmospheric pressure given
the fluctuations that occur. It is probably a natural unit, such
as the ones adopted in other areas of science and technology.
You may not like it, but there is nothing pseudo-SI about its
definition given the rules and the existence of that very real
prefix in the system.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: anonymous@nowhere.com (anonymous)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:03:50 GMT
In article , Anthony Potts says:
>
>No, I could, if I wanted either go to CERN full time and pick up $100k per
>year tax free, or head out to California, and get a bit less, doing
>research in HEP there.
>
>Neither appeals to me. As I said, physics is not challenging. I want to be
>making rapid fire decisions on a minute by minute basis, not spending
>months on each innovation it just isn't interesting.
>
>I have done everything I wanted in physics. I chose the university which
>was supposed to be the best in the world for undergraduate physics, and
>went there to study the subject.
>
>I then spent some time as a professional scientist working in electronic
>warfare, as I felt that I should serve my country, in exchange for the
>excellent education they had paid for.
>
>I then came to Imperial, and CERN.
>
>You probably haven't heard of Imperial, but again, it was rated as the best
>when I was looking for somewhere to go.
>
>Now, there is nothing left to prove to myself in physics. I will shortly
>hand in a report on whether we will see the intermediate mass Higgs boson
>at CMS, and then I will leave.
>
>People may think I am shallow to be wandering off from the "noble" pursuit
>of science, just because I want to take home several million dollars per
>year in salary, but that doesn't matter.
>
>I am doing it for my reasons. I am not leaving any failures behind me.
>After this work, it would not be any harder to work in any other field of
>research. Again, I picked HEP because of its reputation, and I am not
>about to drop down to something which I do not find as interesting.
>
>So, people may think of me what they like. The only people I have to think
>about are myself and my fiancee. If I have a lot of people calling me a
>wanker behind my back, or a failure, or whatever, it doesn't matter.
>
>I have done what I came to do, and now am moving on, and that's all there
>is to it.
>
>
>Anthony Potts
>
>CERN, Geneva
>
This post reminds me of that old joke about the guy at the party who
finishes a monologue about himself with:
"That's enough about me. Now lets talk about you. What do you
think of my new Mercedes?"
I guess in this case we should exchange the Mercedes for a Ferrari
David Smyth
CPL
University of Queensland
Subject: What Is Size Of Magnetic Domain?
From: davk@netcom.com (David Kaufman)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:49:53 GMT
For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
Interested In Exploring Math, Science And Ethics
Through Collaboration For Enrichment And Achievement.
------------------------------------------------------------
In numerous high school and college physics texts, I've
never seen any comment on the size of magnetic domains.
Does anyone know the actual size of magnetic domains?
And how do you know?
The reason I raise this question is for my continuing
pursuit on understanding how liquids break up on melting?
Could the size of a magnetic domain be the size of a
liquid particle now frozen into a solid?
I look forward to any information and discussion
relating to the size of liquid particles for the melted
metal elements.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for joining this undertaking.
Good luck on this exciting adventure to find useful
projects to explore and the tools to empower and to succeed
with.
I offer this post to continue a useful discussion on
many valuable ideas about atoms that could become meaningful
projects for students and others to undertake.
____________________________________________________________
Thanks to those who have offered constructive criticism.
C by David Kaufman, Nov. 11, 1996
Founder of the Cube Club
For Collaborative Math, Science and Ethics Excellence.
Be Good, Do Good, Be One, and Then Go Jolly.
What else is there to do?
--
davk@netcom.com
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:11:10 GMT
In article ,
Michael L. Siemon wrote:
>.................................. You have even had the
>gall to claim that references to the "fixed stars" as a
>reference to motion imply a Newtonian use of absolute
>motion, when his scholia explicitly state:
No. I am claiming that a reference to "the fixed stars
being at rest" implies that he gives meaning to "being
at rest".
[ excerpt omitted ]
>Now. The last bit suggests indeed a philosophical opinion on
>Newton's part in favor of absolute motion and space .........
badump.
>................................................... -- but do
>not get over-enthusiastic, as it says rather less than you may
>think: Newton's point here is that one may not with philosophical
>justification treat as "true" the fixity assumed for convenience
>in our (actual and necessary) use of relative motion. And there
>is exactly zero place in the Prinicipia where any use is made of
>absolute motions[*] (as indeed the above passage makes clear is not
>possible to do.)
I understand all of this very well, but I have to ask you:
Why didn't Newton take the step of renouncing the idea of
absolute motion, since he seems so close to having done so?
We like to say that there is a set, or class of inertial frames
with none of them preferred over another. But what is it that
singles out this class? They are all moving uniformly with
respect to absolute space, was Newton's answer. He needed that
anchor to form an axiomatic system. It seems to me you are failing
to respect the foundational structure of his system, as I
indicated by my remark on your operational bias.
>And so, instead of absolute places and motions **we use relative
>ones.** Exactly what part of "we" do you not understand in this
>discussion, Mr. Plain English?
He plainly means that in application we are perforce restricted
to consideration of relative motions, just as he plainly means
that his system is grounded on the concept of absolute space,
notwithstanding all the conceptual difficulties this entails.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: liquid nitrogen
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 11 Nov 1996 22:14:34 GMT
kebcool@aol.com wrote:
>I am an 8th grade student doing a science fair project on liquid nitrogen.
>Does anyone have any ideas where i might find information either in books
>and magazines or are there any Internet resources that would be helpful to
>an 8th grade students
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Merck
Index; McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Sciecne and Technology. Also look
up "cryogen." Hit the Yellow Pages and call a local supplier of liquid
nitrogen.
You might visit a college science library and look up (under physical
chemistry) "Joule-Thompson inversion temperature."
If you know anyone doing cooled IR sensor work (e.g., heat-seeking
missles) they often incorprate a miniature monolithic nitrogen gas
expansion refrigerator that can hit and sustain remarkably low
temperatures.
Note that liquid nitrogen can cause severe frostbite, and quite rapidly,
especially when it wets hair or cloth. It also slowly condenses liquid
oxygen. NEVER store liquid nitrogen in a SEALED container - it will
physically explode as the pressure rises.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES, 2.03
Find anything at the top of the list, everything at the bottom.
Big Boppers
http://www.search.com/
http://pacific.discover.net/~dansyr/engines.html
http://albany.net/allinone/
http://www.webcom.com/webscout/
http://www.probe.net/~niles/
http://www.ARTECH.com/post.html
http://www.tstimpreso.com/hotsheet/
http://www.cnet.com/
http://home.netscape.com/home/internet-search.html
Research It!
http://www.cam.org/~psarena/it.html
240,000+ indexed and documented shareware packages
http://www.jumbo.com/
http://shareware.com/
http://ftpsearch.unit.no/
http://www.intbc.com/sleuth/
UU-decoding/viewing USENET binary posts
http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~ijh/
Newsgroups
http://www.dejanews.com/ (Usenet search engine)
http://gagme.wwa.com/~boba/groups/
http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Edbrick/newspage/root.html
http://sunsite.unc.edu/usenet-i/hier-s/0top-1.html
Medline (8 million medical references)
http://www.healthgate.com/
More search engines:
http://www.hotbot.com/
http://www.opentext.com/
http://www.webcrawler.com/
http://pointcom.com/
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/wwww/
http://www.earthlink.net/free/bigbee/webdocs/links.html
http://www.pond.com/~justice/engine.html
http://rama.poly.edu:1800/WWW.html
http://www.lycos.com/
http://cuiwww.unige.ch/meta-index.html
http://pubweb.nexor.co.uk/
The Phone Book
http://www.yellowpages.com/
http://www.bigbook.com/
http://www.bigyellow.com/
http://www.four11.com/
http://wyp.net/info/search/NA.html
http://www.iaf.com/
http://www.switchboard.com/
http://www.telephonebook.com/
US Snail Mail ZIP codes
http://www.usps.gov/
Thomas Register (all North American manufacture)
http://www.thomasregister.com/
YAHOO (Web Index by topic),
http://www.yahoo.com/
Archieplex (ARCHIE search front end)
http://web.nexor.co.uk/archie.html
The List (3500 Internet Providers by area code)
http://www.thelist.com/
Link hubs are homepages which provide hundreds of hypertext links to
other Web sites. Here are some of Uncle Al's haunts:
But first... something completely different
http://www.pythonline.com/
http://www.cheesesofnazareth.com/
http://www.paranoia.com/coe/e-sermons/butcher.html
http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/mad.html
http://www.us.mensa.org/
http://www.wpi.edu/~dborden
http://users.aol.com/rpollanen/ (massive and indexed)
http://www.bigeye.com/ (1000+ URLs)
http://cool.infi.net/ (Cool Site of the Day)
http://www.hotwired.com/ (join, it's free!)
http://www.netlynews.com/ (truth free of Official truth)
http://www.suck.com/ (kewl)
http://www.firstsite.com/ (aggressive info)
http://www.iguide.com/ (indexed guide to the net)
http://www.msnbc.com/ (Microsoft + NBC = something)
http://www.cnn.com/ (folks you might trust)
http://www.cyberzine.com/seeress/vision.html
http://kzsu.stanford.edu/uwi/reviews-l.html
http://www.vpm.com/tti/stick1-5.html#SURFSITES
http://gagme.wwa.com/~boba/spider1.html
http://www.oslonett.no/home/frodeni/odin/
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASA_homepage.html
http://www.ziff.com/~pcmag/websites.htm
http://www.bekkoame.or.jp/Users/user.home.page.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Everything is everywhere. Magic is loose in the world!
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: pdp@ix.netcom.com (Pdp)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 01:07:53 GMT
In article <562heq$k2k@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, bjon@ix.netcom.com
says...
>
>pdp@ix.netcom.com (Pdp) wrote[in part]:
>
>>In article <55r0tn$t91@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.comG
>>says...
>>>
>>>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>>>>How do you measure or define this absolute speed? Your argument has
now
>>>>stepped outside SR, and your conclusions cannot be used to criticize
SR,
>>only
>>>>to try to offer an alternative. If you stay within the assumptions
of SR,
>>>>then you cannot carry through your argument.
>>>
>>>It exists whether or not I can "define" or "measure" it. If two
>>>clocks are started by a light source located midway of the clocks,
and
>>>the observer is moving with respect to the light source, the clocks
>>>cannot be started at the same (absolute) time. They will not be
>>>absolutely synchronized (as are Newton's clocks -- on paper). They
>>>will differ absolutely. And there are only (3) things involved:[1]
>>>the observer's absolute speed V, [2] the distance between the two
>>>clocks (which can be in terms of a measured value), and [3] light's
>>>actual (or absolute) speed. No outside observers are there.
>
>> Do they differ only to the observer of that is moving or do
>> they really differ ?
>>>
>>>In this case, the clocks are started by the light signals, and the
>>>clocks will differ by exactly DV/c², where D is the observer-measured
>>>distance between the two clocks, V is the observer's absolute speed,
>>>and c is light's absolute speed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> §§ ßJ §§
>>>bjon @ ix. netcom. com
>>>
>>Regards,
>>-Pdp
>
>
>They really differ since they must yield a real result -- they must
>yield the value "c" for light's one-way speed (as determined by the
>use of the two clocks described above -- those set per Einstein's
>definition of synchronization).
>
Please help me a bit more. You said "must yield a real result",
is this because of the result of "DV/C2" equation which C is
constant. Therefore time must change to satisfied the equation ?
Regards,
-Pdp
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 01:11:42 GMT
Earlier, dean@psy (Dean Povey) writes:
]
]>In light of this, I find the claim that the Neutrino is well observed
]>"through our measurements of missing energy and momentum in situations
]>where we would expect the neutrino to carry it away" seem a little like
]>a circular argument. [...]
Which is not how they are detected, as Matt points out with an example:
weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
}
} I suppose you believe somewhere in your tiny little head that they got
} neutrino counts at various detectors for SN1987A by measuring the total
} energy of the original supernova explosion, the total energy that came
} out in kinetic, electromagnetic, and gravitational radition, subtracting,
} and then divided out by steradians and missing energy per alleged neutrino
} produced in a lab simulated supernova explosion?
dean@psy.uq.oz.au (Dean Povey) writes:
>
>There are of course a lot of discrepancies with the detections of neutrinos
>from SN1987A. I include an article by Ricardo Carezani on the SN1987A
>neutrino detectiosn, you can find this on the AD web page.
Why not speak for yourself. I will observer that the article contains
a number of errors concerning the time evolution of supernova explosions
in the current models, and repeatedly states that neutrinos are observed
in those detectors. He probably does not dare mention that Kamiokande,
which has directional sensitivity, shows that the neutrinos it sees on
a regular basis come from the direction of the sun.
Uncertainties in 'first light' as well as the models make reaching
conclusions about neutrino mass from those data rather uncertain,
but do not change the fact that neutrinos are seen and that a
pulse was seen at about the time the explosion began.
>Might I also point out that I said nothing in my post about detecting
>Neutrinos in detectors, I was merely pointing out the logical problems
>with the assertion that you can "detect" particles because the calculations
>of a certain theory don't agree with experimental results.
Yes, it is a fact that you said nothing about detectors. That shows
either ignorance of how neutrinos are detected, or an intent to make
misleading statements the basis for your argument. There are no such
logical problems because that is not how they are detected.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:29:13 -0500
Keith Stein wrote:
>
> It is not possible to fully evacuate anything,of course! In
> fact, one can't even get within an order of magnitude of the vacuum
> which exists in space, and there's still plenty of Hydrogen out there.
>
Oh, we can make better vacuums on earth than you get in near space.
As a research project, why don't you check into what the best man-made
vacuums are, and compare them with the typical vacuum of our solar system,
inter-stellar vacuum, and inter-galactic vacuum?
> Due to difficulties beyond my control(like i don't live in a
> high vacuum laboratory) I have not actually been able to try this for
> myself, as you suggest James, but nevertheless i am sure that
>
> the Crookes radiometer will work at 'ALL OBTAINABLE VACUA',
> if the bearings are 'good enough', it must,because the thermal
> electrons contribution to the moment must surely be there,i
> think.................................................................
> (but if everyone else has actually managed to try it and finds that it
> actually don't work at very low pressures, then, all i can say is
> "get a better bearing" :-).
> --
As a second project, you should try reading the catalogs of scientific
supply houses, focusing on the educational area. You should find listings
for radiometers, and of at least two types: the Crookes type, with a dilute
gas, and (I forget the name) type, with a high vacuum.
Focus your attention on the high vacuum type. If you are able to see one
in action (most college physics departments will have one or two of these),
you'll find that it rotates opposite to the Crookes radiometer.
You can see it for yourself. No need for guess and by golly!
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Looking for some ZPE reference info
From: kenneth paul collins
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:56:05 -0500
Jon Noring wrote:
> Well, this certainly could be documented, and probably should be. But why
> didn't you carry through with your ideas and publish them in peer-reviewed
> journals? And Puthoff makes it clear that he was inspired to start his
> research on Stochastic Electrodynamics, vacuum energy, and so forth, after
> reading about Sakharov's Conjecture. So obviously he is building upon the
> ideas and foundations of others. Don't all scientists do this?
>
> Anyway, if you can dig up your posts (DejaNews, etc.) with a time stamp, and
> then dig up Puthoff's various published papers, we can start putting together
> a time line, and from that see if there's any corroboration to your concerns.
It's all been documented for years already. Greed has won the battle. Truth will
win the war. K. P. Collins
_____________________________________________________
People hate because they fear, and they fear because
they do not understand, and they do not understand
because hating is less work than understanding.
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:56:25 GMT
Jim Carr :
|
| One rejoinder that was posted was "Which of Newton's Laws is wrong?".
|
| That is was ignored in this discussion is further evidence of how
| vacuous the original statement was, suggesting the intent was to
| generate excitement rather than light.
moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>
> Well, I made that statement (God save me), and I've explained
>several times exactly how and why I did, in order to correct this
>kind of misconception.
Not very satisfactorily, since you repeat the statement that
Newton's Laws are wrong in the continuing discussion without
ever qualifying it or providing any text from Einstein that
might clarify it. The fact is, there is nothing wrong them.
The problem lies elsewhere and failing to identify it shows a
significant lack of understanding of the texts under discussion.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 16:45:07 GMT
Hardy Hulley :
>>The question of what does quantum physics *really* mean,
>>physically, is still very controversial, and I guess one could
>>adopt the stance that it isn't meaningful. Of course, you'd then
>>have to contend with the fact that it does make incredibly good
>>*testable* predictions, in contradistinction to Derrida, who
>>makes no testable claims at all.
Anton Hutticher :
>>And successful predictions are of course the only reliable way to
>>distinguish complex statements which sound like gibberish, but are
>>not, from complex statements which are gibberish. The exception
>>are fields which are formalized enough to permit a formal analysis
>>without recourse to verbal handwaving.
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>> Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
>>positivism is dead.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>Would you care to explain what you imagine the views suggested above
>>have to do with logical positivism? Or are you merely trying to show
>>incompetence in yet another discipline?
moggin:
>> You're in no position to be issuing challenges, but I'll humor
>>you, just this once. Logical positivism: meaning is verification;
>>a statement that can't be verified is meaningless.
Zeleny:
>>Not. Verificationism is neither necessary nor sufficient as a
>>characterization of logical positivism. For starters, you must
>>do justice to the genus and the differentia.
moggin:
>> So who's characterizing? I offered a tenet, namely the one
>>in common with the statements above.
Zeleny:
>>In other words, your offering had nothing to do with falsifying the
>>statement that logical positivism is dead. Thank you for playing.
moggin:
>> Sure it did: if a central tenet of logical positivism is in
>>circulation, and cited with approval, then it must not be dead.
Zeleny:
>>At the risk of hating myself in the morning for catering to the
>>wilfully obtuse, here goes another attempt. F.H. Bradley, among
>>others, articulated the view that all propositions must have the
>>logical form of general assertions. It follows that all Bradleyan
>>propositions make predictions, and all predictions are, by definition,
>>testable. Hence BY YOUR LIGHTS, Bradley must be a logical positivist.
moggin:
>> Far be it from me to harm your self-image, but it seems to me
>>that the statements above are sufficiently doctrinaire to qualify,
>>in virtue of their contents. Bradley, of course, is everything any
>>self-respecting logical positivist would reject, but I don't feel
>>at all compelled to enlist him in their ranks.
Zeleny:
>> Would it help or hinder your comprehension to consider the point that
>> Messrs Hulley and Hutticher said nothing that Popper would have found
>> objectionable? Is Popper a logical positivist?
moggin:
> On the whole, no more than Bradley, although his emphasis on
>falsification is a variation on the theme. But I doubt either one
>of them would be content with the above. Distinguish between the
>idea that a testable statement is meaningful, and the idea that in
>order to be meaningful, a statement must make testable predictions.
Will your idiotic lies never cease? THAT is not what they said, EITHER!
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: "Jonathan W. Hendry"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:36:01 -0500
-Tom- wrote:
> It's what bugs me too, but its not so much an economic class structure as
> it is a segregation of academic and non-academic classes. The economic
> class segregation in the US is several orders of magnitude worse. And
> these days in America the upper classes don't even send their kids to
> public schools anymore, or they happen to live in high-income, priviledged
> school districts. And higher first class education, say Harvard or MIT;
> what kid from a low-income family can really make it there unless he's
> outstandingly bright?
Actually, the lower the family's income is, the better their chances
probably are.
--
Jonathan W. Hendry President, Steel Driving Software, Inc.
OpenStep, Delphi, and Java Consulting in Cincinnati
http://www.steeldriving.com
DNRC Lord High Minister Of Binder Buffing
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 01:20:18 GMT
In article <55q31o$g8n@panix2.panix.com> +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>
> ... One of the common
>arguments brought by the science campers (not scientists,
>science campers) against out-of-camp commentary about
>science is that the commentators don't know the math. When
>they do know the math, then they don't know enough math,
>etc. etc. etc.
I know how you feel. The Russian-lit-campers kept telling me
the same thing about Russian poetry -- I had to know the language
to be able to read it properly, then I didn't know it well enough
to understand the subtle points, etc etc. Philosophers get all
bent out of shape if you say that Derrida is a Logical Positivist.
Well, why not? He is logical, and he is positive he is right.
Oh, those words have a special meaning? Why do I have to know
that to get involved in a discussion?
You have to understand what the symbols in the text mean if you
wish to discuss it with persons fluent in that language.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 17:01:54 GMT
cs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) writes:
>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>Trivially. General assertions entail each of their spatiotemporal
>>instances. It might be difficult to apply, or even articulate one
>>of the latter -- but hey, that's Bradley's problem, not mine. To
>>put it in simpler terms, under the foregoing assumptions there is
>>no way to express an individual concept of any concrete particular.
>>The closest you can get to it is identifying it as the entity that
>>satisfies certain non-indexical properties. If there happen to be
>>more than one of them, e.g. by dint of eternal return, you are out
>>of luck.
>Well, I don't know whose problem THIS is, but some of us have outgrown
>talking about propositions and general and particular and concrete and
>entity and nonindexical properties.
Yes, some of you have followed your master in supplanting critical
thought with random spouting of mealy-mouth platitudes. Devolution
is a well-known intellectual phenomenon.
> As far as eternal return, I don't
>getcha; couldn't your proposition eternally return too, or is it
>disposable after a single use?
The proposition never goes away; it is the concrete particular that
must differ numerically between spatiotemporal discontinuities.
>David
>
>"When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the
>apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person
>could have written them. When you find an answer, . . . when these
>passages make sense, then you may find that more central passages,ones
>you previously thought you understood, have changed their meaning."
>Kuhn
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Anthony Potts, monolingual buffoon...
From: Joseph Edward Nemec
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:35:23 -0500
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Patrice Delapalme wrote:
> Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Anthony Potts wrote:
> (...)
> >> Si vous voudrais,
> > ^^^^^^^^
> >If you are attempting to use the present conditional,
>
> He is not of course, because you must not put conditionnal
> in the IF sentence, but just after...
Certainly, you and I know that, but I was remarking on the fact
that he used the word "voudrais".
> >that should be "voudriez".
> no : "voulez"
Yes, I know that as well. I never claimed that using
"voudriez" would be grammatically correct. I was simply pointing
out to mister Potts that he should use the first person form of
the verb when he was using "vous".
--------------------------------------
This is a pain which will definitely linger.
-- Brain, after something Pinky did.
Joseph Edward Nemec
Operations Research Center
Room E40-149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
nemecj@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:27:07 -0700
In article <563i4t$8oj@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>
>>Bjon's claim is that, for observer-independent results, there must be
>>an observer-independent cause. OK. Fine. But this observer-independent
>>cause need not be a coordinate time, nor a velocity. In Bjons' framework,
>>since the coordinate time between two events varies, this variation must
>>be due to the varying of some observer-independent absolute "velocity".
>>This is exactly as daft as the claim that since delta-x between two
>>points varies, this variation must be due to the varying of some
>>observer-independent absolute "slope" or direction.
>
>I have two choices: [1] spend a lot of time typing an explanation, or
>[2] let Throop try to explain. Guess which one I chose? Question: If
>I see events A & B occur at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock (respectively),
>and you find them to occur at 2 o'clock and 5 o'clock, then why (given
>parallel x-axes on which are our clocks)? Answer: It may be because
>our clocks had these time readings at the events. Question: Why did
>our clocks have different time readings at the same two events? And
>not only different readings, but different time intervals per the
>clocks. Answer: It may be because my clocks are not set like yours.
>For example, if we assume truly simultaneous events (to keep it as
>simple as possible), then my clocks are clearly set exactly one (1)
>hour apart on my x-axis, while yours are just as clearly set three (3)
>hours apart. This is just as clearly NOT a relative thing at all; the
>clock readings are real readings made by actual clocks, and recorded
>in the Captain's Log. And this is clearly the only possible way for
>us to obtain those different times and different intervals for the
>same two events. Question: How did our clocks get to be set
>differently? Question: Why are my clocks only 1 hour apart, and why
>are yours a full 3 hours apart?
>
>
>>: If a clock travels between two events, there's only one value for this
>>: particular clock, and it is an absolute reading, not a relative one.
>>: And the clock that has the greatest reading has taken the shortest
>>: absolute route between the two events, which is the absolute distance
>>: between them.
>
>>But the "absolute distance" is completely irrelevant, and doesn't figure
>>into any part of the SR model, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Because
>>the exact same SR calculations work no matter what this "absolute distance"
>>or "absolute route" might be.
>
>True, but also irrelevant. My point is that SRT contains absolutes,
>and the proper time is one of them, and it reflects the absolute
>distance between two events.
>
Now you assert the reality of the invariant interval. SR does not disagree
with you, but you have a remarkably fluid definition of absolute.
>>Just exactly as length in geometry works, and yields the same answers
>>from the same measurements, no matter what direction you
>>might choose as the "absolute direction".
>
>>: you carry it beyond reason by denying the very existence of that which
>>: SRT says we cannot determine -- our absolute velocity.
>
>>Sheesh, bjon can't even get *this* simple point correct.
>>I DO NOT DENY THE EXISTANCE of absolute velocity, in this discussion.
>>I say it's irrelevant. I've lost track of the number of times
>>I've told bjon this; dozens at least. Yet he continually
>>says I'm "denying the very existance of [] absolute [whatever]".
>
>>Read my lips. It's irrelevant to SR.
>>I didn't say it was nonexistant, and in this context, I don't
>>care whether it exists or not. It's precisely as relevant to SR
>>as absolute direction is to geometry.
>
>>It's not beyond reason. It's simply pointing out that SR doesn't
>>involve any absolute velocity, in any of its formulae, nor in any of its
>>definitions, either explicitly or implicitly. The cases where bjon
>>claims it creeps in are, in fact only places where bjon *drags* it in
>>arbitrarily, to "explain why" (eg) SR synchronization works. And this
>>is as irrelevant to SR as dragging an "absolute direction" into geometry
>>to "explain why" a straightedge works.
>
>>A straightedge works because it's straight. It's straight because
>>we've defined objects with certain relative properties straight.
>>Just as with SR clocks and synchronization.
>>--
>>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>> throopw@cisco.com
>
>There are absolutes in the definition of synchronization, as there are
>absolutes in much of the relativistic stuff, including the transforms.
>Throop would see this instantly if he only knew how to show the
>difference between a Newtonian observer and an einsteinian observer
>measuring light's one-way, two-clock speed. Perhaps Throop can show us
>this in detail, using algebraic clock readings. These are different
>cases, you know.
>
Your use of absolute has shifted from Newton's to the search for invariant
quantities. Your have begun to follow the path of Einstein.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:15:54 -0700
In article <562fsc$c3c@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>
>>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>>: We do not have absolute time at our disposal, but it does of course exist.
>
>>Exist exschmist. That's not the point.
>>The point is, it is not at our disposal, as even bjon agrees.
>>If it's not at our disposal, it has no consequences.
>>If it has no consequences, it's superfluous in describing things.
>
>>SR is a model of things AT our disposal.
>
>And yet, since absolute time (in the sense of real clocks having real
>readings -- as opposed to mere relative readings -- and in the sense
>that real clocks really slow -- and in the sense that SRT's clocks are
>set out-of-true by an amount that is proportional to the observer's
>absolute speed, just so this absolute speed is cancelled when the
>observer uses such clocks to meausure light's speed) exists, then it
>exists inside SRT since this is a theory of that which exists.
>
>>: But it does have a very real existence as shown by the actual beat of
>>: each atomic clock.
>
>>But the "actual beat of each atomic clock" is proper time,
>>equal to the spacetime interval. That in no way establishes that
>>there must be an absolute time.
>
>It can be called "proper time" or "schnopper time," but the simple
>fact is it is an absolute beat, not in any way observer-dependent.
>
It is not observer dependent, true.
>>Further, if "a very real existence [were] shown by [atomic clocks]",
>>then it would be at our disposal. But bjon says it is not.
>>As so often the case, bjon contradicts himself (but refuses
>>to realize it).
>
>No contradictions if understood.
>
>
>If a clock travels between two events, there's only one value for this
>particular clock, and it is an absolute reading, not a relative one.
>And the clock that has the greatest reading has taken the shortest
>absolute route between the two events, which is the absolute distance
>between them.
>
You seem to have shifted the meaning of absolute. You now have equated
absolute time with proper time. This is radically different than either
Newton's or Einstein's use of the term. I don't think that is what you
meant.
>>: Obviously, for many events, there's not enough time for a clock to
>>: "span" them, even at lightspeed, so there would be no proper time for
>>: the events. This is the case above.
>
>>Yes, because we've switched from trig to hyperbolic trig.
>>We've switched from Pythagorus to Lorentz/Minkowski.
>>Thus, the interval is spacelike.
>
>>Oooooooo, scarey. Ooooooh. I dunno about you, kids,
>>but that sure convinces old Count Floyd, boy, I'll tell you. Oooooh.
>>--
>>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>> throopw@cisco.com
>
>Sad and irrelevant attempt at being humorous.
>And what's really scarey is a clock that reads hyperbolic time!
>
Your use of absolute above would truly be hyperbolic time in the sense that
events at the same absolute time from the origin would occupy a hyperboloid,
rather than a plane. I will let you reconsider this one.
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:18:12 GMT
In article <568ck7$7la@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article , wrote:
>>
>>Too complicated for me, try to use simpler language. Anyway, what
>>people are claiming is that if you use the formula
>>
>> F = G*m_1*m_2/r^2
>>
>>to calculate the force of gravity between two material objects and
>>then use the result as the force in Newton's F = ma, you get
>>predictions for trajectories which match well with observations (all
>>the above valid for classical physics, in GR the mathematical
>>formulation is different). That's all. Got it. That's all!
>>Whatever meanings you attach to it, whatever images it conjures in
>>your imagination, this is your business, having nothing to do with
>>science.
>
>I personally think this is an absurd claim, since it was precisely
>by the force of his imagination that Einstein produced GR in
>the first place. Isn't that what makes his feat so remarkable,
>that he conjured it up "out of nothing" ?
>
His feat is remarkable, but GR wasn't conjured out of nothing. Let's
list a few developments which occured within the 250 or so years
separating Newton from Einstein.
1) The development of non Euclidean geometries, around mid 19th
century. Important since it showed that space may have a way richer
structure than previously invisioned.
2) The Hamiltonian formulation of Newtonian mechanics. In one of its
variations (by Ritz, I think) it shows something quite interesting,
namely that the equations for a particle's trajectory are formally
identical to those defining a geodesic (shortest line) in a space the
metric of which is related to the force. Didn't draw much attention
since what entered into the the metric was force divided by mass.
That would lead to the absurd idea that same point in space has
different metrics associated with it, one for each test mass passing
by. But, if the force itself is proportional to mass....
3) The recognition, enforced by SR, that an interaction over a finite
distance cannot be characterized by a potential force, since that
would imply infinite signal propagation speed.
4) The measurements (by Eatwos, especially) which checked for
differences between inertial and gravitational mass and found none.
All of these pieces had been important to the outcome. It still took
a genius to notice the significance and the interconnectness of these
things but the result certainly wasn't conjured out of nothing.
Beyond all of this, I think that you've totally misinterpreted my
comment to Gordon. You can create physics using your imagination but
it doesn't mean that any image conjured in your mind by the physics
has anything to do with physics. As to the images I've in mind, I
suggest you go and read the post by Gordon I was responding to.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:11:56 -0700
In article <562e01$l3e@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>
>
>>Yet "distance" and "interval" *are* precisely, mathematically analogous.
>>They are both instances of the same kind of coordinate system invariant.
>>When you deny the physical meaning of the one, you can only grant it
>>to the other by being inconsistent, employing a double standard.
>
>>What's to be mixed up about? Facts is facts.
>
>>--
>>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>> throopw@cisco.com
>
>The invariant interval is not the same as proper time and this is what
>I was trying to get across. Also, I was trying to point out that the
>invariant interval has no real meaning because first of all it
>consists of false time and distance values (readings made by observers
>using nontrue or relatively set and slowed clocks), and second, they
>use a time reading squared. (Four hours squared has what meaning?)
>
The invariant interval is, more precisely, the square of the proper time,
multiplied by the square of the speed of light.
What is squared is a distance (ct). Maybe that will help you understand.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:30:41 -0700
In article <563iol$fvv@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote[in part]:
>> How about the time span between spacetime events that are dependent
>>on an inertial frame that is at absolute rest? Would this give us the
>>absolute time?
>
>Yes, because such an observer's clocks are truly set even by using
>Einstein's definition, and further, such clocks are not slowed, being
>at absolute rest in space. But of course this time span cannot be
>confirmed as the one that's absolute because no one knows which
>observer is at rest, if any (or, similarly, no one knows what the true
>time span should be). So, it does give us an absolute time reading,
>but does not give us absolute time itself for our use.
>
>
Another step on the road to understanding relativity. The next is to discard
the scaffolding of the absolute frame. You will see that the theory stands
without it, and yields the correct answers to any questions about the
relationship between moving reference frames.
Subject: Re: Science cannot disprove creation
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 01:33:34 GMT
jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
|
| > ... So claiming that science disproves a
| >reported miracle (such as the Biblical account of creation) is a circular
| >argument, because it is a mere restatement of the assumption.
|
| Science does not disprove such things, it looks for proof that they
| occured as described, particularly evidence for or against a specific
| "creation theory". If you have a specific one to discuss, please
| post it so it can be discussed.
I will observe that the reply below did not specify exactly what
sort of creation, or sequence of creations, implied by that term.
There was also no statement about the time "Garbage Man" had in
mind for the creation, so perhaps he had in mind the trivial case:
| Science accepts the trivial version of such creation theories: that
| the universe and everything in it, including historical records and
| human memories, could have been created at any moment, including the
| day after the day you read this. No observation can say whether any
| of these 'creation theories' is better than any other since they
| assume all evidence was created.
However, I assume he had in mind something else, so a vague statement
like the following
jcadam@cris.com asserts:
>
>Science cannot disprove(or prove) creation, but it can disprove the
>theory of evolution.
was made because he must be well aware of the truth of what I wrote
earlier:
| Where creation "theories" get into
| trouble is when they try to explain details, not vague generalities,
| about the dynamics of nature.
After all, the fact is that a number of creation-based theories of
evolution were found to be in disagreement with observations before
the theory of natural selection came along. Similar problems were
encountered in cosmology and geology.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION
From: api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:45:33 GMT
In article <3284A9EA.290D@easynet.co.uk>,
"sdef!" writes:
>> They shouldn't be persecuted, and don't need to be. They are persecuted
>> because of anal-retentive politicians and snobs, which doensn't have anything
>> to do with the so-called "system."
>
>Except that they run it.
Nobody runs "the system" (depending on how you define it). The industrial
system is a living entity very much like the ecological system and runs itself.
Politicians, when it comes to running "the big picture," are just pushing
buttons on something very large and powerful that they cannot comprehend or
control. My guess is that our genes and our system have something in store
for us that we can only guess at. (Yes.. some of this is a little irrelevant)
Bad politicians can make individual human lives very miserable though, and can
inject a lot of irrationality and downright tyranny into the world. They
mostly just get in the way.
>> You aren't much better. You want to force other people to live *your* way.
>> I want a society where nobody forces anyone else to live "their" way. Of
>> course, that's probably just a pipe dream.
>
>I dont want to _force anyone to _do_ anything. Where on earth did you get this
>from? I work against people who impose their will on me and on my freinds.
>Critisise me as much as you want, but don't make fictional representations of me
>and then denounce them. You are just as bigoted as those people who think all
>black people look the samre and are good dancers.
>
>You are arguing with _me_ NOT the green movement, so don't lump your possibly well
>justified prejudices onto me.
Sorry.. so you're a "green libertarian" or something like that? Not that I
think that even "green libertarian" can approximate someones views. Terms
like "environmentalist" and "libertarian" are only useful in describing mass
social trends, not individuals.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
>> Dancing is illegal? (I live in the U.S... do you live in commie china or
>> something?)
>
>Didn't say that... said without a licence... can't get licance unless you got
>loadsamoney, and so on.
Yuck. I feel more patriotic for the U.S. now than ever. (Of course there are
a few hick towns in the U.S. where they've banned "satanic" dancing...)
>> I think your problem is that you see everything as a unit. You see the fact
>> that dancing is illegal in whatever fascist hole you live in (the UK?) and
>> technology as being part of the same "system."
>>
>> There is no need for 80% of the regulations we live under.
>
>Glad you think so. I agree. I don't see everything as a unit, I see lots of
>different things being used by the same people to keep things as they are, when
>what is needed is drastic change. I don't claim to know what the answer is, just
>want agreement
I think we partially agree. Of course thinking people rarely completely
agree. Only people following mindless "movements" or propaganda ever totally
agree on everything.
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 01:25:23 GMT
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| >Very simple things; I can visualize a body moving in an
| >ellipse about another body, for example, and moving more
| >rapidly when near the other body then when far from it.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| Why an ellipse?
In article <55rdhk$7al@panix2.panix.com> +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>
>As I said before, explanation ("why") is a rhetorical
>process.
And that is the process you are participating in. The quoted text
above is clearly an explanation of your views. Talking about the
process instead of continuing to participate in it is just another
rhetorical process -- changing the subject when the argument is
going someone else's way.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION and noew dancing as well
From: api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:51:32 GMT
In article <847724399.10555.24@office.lemon.net>,
gblock@office.lemon.net (Gregory R. Block) writes:
>On the other hand, there's a lot of *good* things to come of licensing; it
>generally insures *some* level of safety and accessibility to the venue,
>which would be a damn good thing should something not-cool happen at said
>venue, such as a fire, or a floor collapsing from stomping ravers. Regulation
>allows for the existence of that which many find displeasing, and much of
>society, if they had their way, would thumb their nose towards most anything
>with loud music and people dancing, regardless of the venue or style of music;
>regulation provides for both an offense against that kind of thought, and
>defense when used against you. It prevents society from becoming nothing
>more than the tyrrany of the masses, at times.
If it's your own property, you shouldn't have to have a license to do something
as long as it doesn't hurt anything else.
Pubs and dancing joints are not "public space." They are private property.
>If your problem is that licensing is too tight, well, join the club, a lot of
>us feel that way. However, I don't think it's fair to attack the *concept*
>of licensing in a society that, for the most part, thinks of things in black
>and white, and would gladly wipe it away for all of the bad press it's seen.
>Licensing is a way of proving to the local government that you can provide
>a safe and controlled environment that meets generic social guidelines; that
>prevents people from thumbing you based on prejudice, to some degree.
>
>Unfortunately, it doesn't do well enough at that. But not giving up is the
>answer.
That vague thing "society" has no right to tell a group of private citizens
what to do on their own property, provided that it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Subject: Re: THE hypocrite who cried 'hypocrite'
From: api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 00:54:25 GMT
In article <3284A28F.D59@easynet.co.uk>,
"sdef!" writes:
>SOOO! the justification for having obscene amounts of wealth far above
>that needed for comfort, is the fact that there are people starving in
>the third world!
>This really simplifies things. The rich have a very good reason for
>keeping the poor down, as it can be used to justify their wealth.
There is a difference between earned wealth and unearned wealth. You have
the right to as much wealth as you can earn through only voluntary interaction
with other human beings. You don't have the right to unearned wealth.
>I have two rooms. I could choose to do work that enabled me to have
>more, but choose not to because what I would have to do to achieve that
>would support those who cause the problems. Your position is
>indefensible. Mine is merely awkward.
That kind of totally puritan attitude is doing more to hurt you than to
hurt the crooks in London, Washington, etc.
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:39:02 -0500
-Tom- wrote:
| > It's what bugs me too, but its not so much an economic class structure as
| > it is a segregation of academic and non-academic classes. The economic
| > class segregation in the US is several orders of magnitude worse. And
| > these days in America the upper classes don't even send their kids to
| > public schools anymore, or they happen to live in high-income, priviledged
| > school districts. And higher first class education, say Harvard or MIT;
| > what kid from a low-income family can really make it there unless he's
| > outstandingly bright?
unspam.jon@steeldriving.com.mapsnu:
| Actually, the lower the family's income is, the better their chances
| probably are.
Damn right. I live in a poor neighborhood, predominantly
Hispanic, with, I'd guess, about half the people on Welfare;
and every damn one o' those kids is going to Harvard, Yale,
or MIT. It's amazing. I don't know how they find so much
time to hang out on the streetcorners.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: TWA800 -- Another speculative theory
From: conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 01:33:26 GMT
While I continue to seriously doubt that anything but mechanical
failure was responsible for the crash of TWA Flight 800, the following
scenario (totally unsupported by physical evidence) has crossed my
mind.
I recall one news report citing an (airline pilot?) observer claiming
that he saw a decending streak of light (perhaps a meteor) heading
towards TWA800.
Given that a ground (or ship) fired Stinger type missile would be
unlikely to reach the operating altitude of the TWA aircraft, what
about the possibility of a missile launched from another aircraft?
To date, I have read absolutely no speculation on this possibility.
Could something like a Stinger be launched from a small, general
aviation class aircraft without the 'back-blast' seriously damaging
the aircraft from which it was launched? Today, I posed this question
to a number of private pilots (some familiar with Stinger) and the
answer was a unanimous and resounding "YES, it could have been
done that way!"
Some suggested that it would not be difficult to sling the Stinger
launcher under the wing (improvised hard point mount) or even from
the landing gear of certain types of aircraft. Even the possibility
of someone leaning out of the aircraft door and firing the missile
could not be excluded (provided that they were careful not to blow
off the wing while doing so).
I asked about the 'sight picture' and was told that "it isn't needed,
because stinger emits an audible beep on target lock-on."
Someone even remarked how easy it would be to improvise a 'cotter
pin' type mounting for it, so that after firing, simply pulling a
cord would detach the launcher and drop it into the sea!
Lots of other more technical discussion followed, but the overwhelming
consensus was: "Yes, it could have been done this way."
The only negative that I received on this hypothesis was that since
Stinger is heat-seeking, it would have likely impacted an engine and
not the central airframe.
Still, the hypothetical ease of such an attack is, to put it mildly,
an interesting speculation. Certainly one far more credible than
the notion that the Navy downed TWA 800 with a missile.
Harry C.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:37:59 -0700
In article <562h73$k2k@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>
>>::: The dude did not ask for reality, but only for an operational def.
>>::: of absolute time.
>>:: You have given a definition, but not an OPERATIONAL definition.
>
>>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>>: It is operational in the sense that it could be carried out by simple
>>: trial and error if by no other means.
>
>>You can only have "trial and error" as an operational definition if you
>>can tell when you err. For example, it is clear that bjon has erred
>>here. He now knows he needs to make another try at his operational
>>definition.
>
>>So, keep on trying, bjon. Everybody needs a hobby, I guess.
>>--
>>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>> throopw@cisco.com
>
>Still, given enough trials (and the error is when the times don't
>match), the observers should eventually reach the point where all
>their time intervals match for any given events. At that point, they
>would have absolutely synch'd clocks. And this is per Einstein's own
>definition of absolute time, which is that all observers find the same
>time between any two events. In SRT, all find a different time period
>for the same two events, which (being only two events) can have only
>one actual time between them.
>
But there is no single outcome of your definition. It amounts to setting the
clocks in one reference system, then setting the clocks in all other reference
systems from that one. How do you choose the starting system? And then there
is that pesky time dilation that prevents the clocks from agreeing after some
time lapses.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:00:18 -0700
In article <563fpa$fhn@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>Cees Roos wrote[in part]:
>[re the existence of absolute motion per bjon]
>[roos]
>>I am not discussing Einstein with you. My question rather relates to
>>epistemology. How can you know a phenomenon exists if you cannot
>>define it and not measure it?
>
>By "not define," I meant "No working definition," not "No definition,
>period." We cannot measure gravity waves, but everyone believes in
>their existence.
>
>Anyway, if light has no real (or absolute) motion, then how does it
>get to here from the stars? And what type of light motion is source
>independent, absolute or relative? It makes no sense to say relative
>because "Relative to what?" cannot be answered. But let's go on to
I will answer it. Relative to any observer whatsoever. That was easy!
>more meaty proofs of light's absolute motion existence. In 1977, Ken
>Brecher studied binary star x-rays to see if the stars' _absolute)_
>motion (the only kind that _could_ have a real effect upon anything)
The issue was variation of the star's motion relative to the Earth.
>had any affect upon the emitted light's _absolute_ speed (the only
>type of speed that could be affected by a source's motion). He said in
>his paper that there would be a definite pattern if light's speed were
>source-affected (or source dependent), and this pattern would be
>readily observable from earth. (The light would get "mixed up" as it
>was emitted from stars moving rapidly in opposite directions).
>However, no such telltale pattern was ever observed, meaning that the
>light's actual speed thru space (or its absolute speed) was in no way
>affected by the source's movement thru space, or the stars' absolute
>movements. Note that the earth observer in no way measures any light
>speed (either round-trip or one-way)in this case. This is purely a
The experiment was based on the fact that the travel time would vary if the
speed varied. (D/c+v <> D/c-v). The equality of the times is a proof that
the speeds are the same.
>matter of absolute speeds, both of the light sources and of the light
>leaving the sources. All that was looked for was a particular
>pattern, a pattern whose origins were light-years away, and in no way
>affected by us on earth. Since no observer measured any speed at all,
>the speed of the light in this is simply an absolute speed.
>
Absolute's got nothing to do with it. The experiment showed that the light
traveled at the same speed, relative to the Earth, no matter what the relative
speed of the source.
>And if light has an absolute speed, so does everything else.
>
>However, this does not mean that we can determine any object's
>absolute speed. Mechanical methods fail due to inertia, and optical
>attempts have failed due to various reasons. Right now, the earth's
>absolute speed could be anything from zero to nearly lightspeed (using
>c as light's absolute speed), but we have no way (yet -- but some
>think the CBR supplies us with an absolute frame) of determining the
>actual value of this absolute earth speed. (We could so it if we could
>find a way to start two clocks at the same time, but this, too, has
>eluded us).
>
This was one of Poincare's objection's to Lorentz's theories. The same
principle (PR) is explained by various hypotheses, depending on the experiment.
So, one explanation is given for mechanical tests, another for first order
optical, still another for second order optical. Lorentz was able to combine
the optical results with his 'corresponding states' and offset time definition.
Einstein answers all PR questions by showing that Lorentz' time indicates the
need for a new kinematics.
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory Dandulakis)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 02:30:25 GMT
In article Xcott Craver wrote:
>
>Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
...
> Okay, let's stop here. "Normal forms?" How are the
>... erm, what you call "types of qualitative dynamics" ... of two
>different scientific theories reduced to the same set of things
>you call "normal forms?" Can you provide an example, where you
>take two separate scientific theories, *explicitly* identify
>these "qualitative dynamics," and show this reduction? I'm
>quite afraid I still have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> Oh, and ... um ... a "dense" number?
Pleeeeeease, I am not the only one who uses the terms "normal forms"
or "qualitative dynamics". I have in mind my textbook "Introduction to
Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos", by Wiggins (Caltech);
Springler-Verlag, NY, 1990.
As far as examples, I gave them below:
>>As an example, I would refer to Archimedes theory of buoyancy
>>or theory of levers as "fixed-point theories", the Newtonian
>>theories (including Relativity) as "first-order chaos theories",
>>and the Quantum Mechanical theories as "second-order chaos the-
>>ries".
>
> Okay, but what specifically is the basis for these
>classifications? See, you're using mathematical terminology
>to describe your, um, theory of theories. Scientific and
>mathematical language was designed for speaking of things
>exactly and carefully. If you continue to use mathy language,
>people will expect you to live up to mathy standards, and be
>able to describe explicitly what you're talking about.
It is very clear. One guy used classical algerba to _correlate_
observed/experimented variables. The other guy used differential
calculus to search for correlations. The last example broke away
from determinism. The fundamental difference being on the theore-
tical tools that they had at _their disposal_ for handling the
_infinitely_ big or small.
Furthermore, don't pretend that a "scientific or a mathy guy" is the
one going all the way to absolutely exactly defined terms. Newtonian
mechanics were ploughing through non-rigorous, and non-consistent
differential calculus for more than 2 centuries. But this didn't
stop them from being developed in the mean time. Not to mention
that even today speaking about the "foundations of the mathematics"
is like diving into unknown and treacherous territories. Which math
guy bases his arguments in first-order logic? None. I have in mind
primarily the book "The Mathematical Experience" (1980; by two math
profs, at Brown etc; exact citation?), but several others too.
> And let's not lose my original question: how do you
>go about considering sets of theories to be "topologically
>homeoporphic?" If you just mean "the same in spirit," you
>should just say that, even if it isn't as impressive to others.
>"Topologically homeomorphic" is a very specific kind of sameness,
>applying to similarity between spaces. Again, you are probably
>using all these terms loosely, but even then I don't see why
>you're using them! Please explain how topology has anything
>at all, explicitly or just in spirit, with any of this.
In the above examples: Algebraic relations (in geometrical lingo)
permitted the analysis of what we would call today _equilibrium_
physics. Differential calculus permitted the description of up to
deterministic chaos phenomena. Probabilities seem to go up to stoc-
hastic chaos.
In other words: Archimedes could not have invented Classical Mecha-
nics because he didn't have at his disposal the differential calculus;
so no oscillations, no quasi-periodic orbits, no deterministic chaos
could have been successfully described at the time. Similar things
about probability theories and Newton; so no stochastic chaos could
ever be embedded in his scientific theories.
Gregory
Subject: Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 93)
From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 03:42:47 GMT
In article <55nu0n$gij@agate.berkeley.edu>, sp@cs.umb.edu says...
> Dimension 26 is special for other reasons.
>For example, in 26 dimensions the space of true physical states
>(the space of states satisfying the usual physical state condition
>modulo the subspace of null states)
>is believed to have the structure of the space of physical states
>corresponding to a 24-dimensional Euclidean (i.e., positive norm) space.
When you speak of all these dimensions in these string theories, do they
have anything to do with degrees of freedom, or is that the whole thing?
ie, if I have 3 degrees of translational freedom,
3 degrees of rotational freedom about each of those axis,
A dual spacetime metric which doubles each of the above,
2 opposing phase angles for "real", 0, and
imaginary, 180 degrees, time,
I get such a hypothetical system to have 3*3*2*2 = 24 degrees of freedom.
Ignoring the choices of degrees of freedom above as arbitrary, is that
what is meant by 24 dimensions? Just the numbers of degrees of freedom
for motion of a hypothetical object? Or do these "dimensions" correspond
to nothing tangeable at all?
Ross Tessien
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:52:49 -0700
In article <562d48$mqv@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) wrote[in part]:
>
>>In article <55smhd$jqi@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>> bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) writes:
>
>>> Absolute time is a part of relativity, as it must be. It controls the
>>> clock settings when Einstein's def. of synch is applied.
>
>>I'm sorry, but in the SRT that I know, the concept of absolute time is
>>completely unnecessary.
>
>>What is necessary is a method for synchronizing clocks. SRT provides
>>this in a way that is consistent with both SRT and Newtonian mechanics.
>
>>--
>
>>Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu ...!ncar!unidata!steve
>
>Einstein's def. is based on the round-trip lightspeed experimental
>result. And this result was caused (in part) by actual clock slowing.
>This is a part of absolute time.
>
Einstein's definition is based on the failure of first order effects to detect
the motion of the Earth through the ether. He extrapolated those null results
to an invariant light speed. This led him to the definition he used for
clock setting. How is that based on a round trip result?