The Disappearance of Baker
Bob Grumman
arguing with Baker about the Heywood preface to his Apology to Actors
and couldn't find anything, so I did a search for what Baker said
about Heywood. Nothing. Then I did a search for Baker's messages:
I found 26,000, including recent ones--but NONE to HLAS! It would seem
that the moron removed all his messages to HLAS! What a scholar. I've
written some pretty embarrassing posts to HLAS but I've never withdrawn
one (except once or twice immediately to fix a typo or something).
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Neil R. Brennen
Bob Grumman wrote in message
<75bedea138eb62c4e2d...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
Bob, he shouldn't be able to remove YOUR posts in response to him. If you
are looking for your posts, they should be there.
Neil Brennen
Dave Furstenau
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:75bedea138eb62c4e2d...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> What's going on? [ ...] It would seem that the moron removed all his
> messages to HLAS!
He's putting "x-no-archive: yes" tags in his message headers. It's a way to
tell
places like google not to bother archiving a given message.
KQKnave
Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> writes:
>
>What's going on? I just used Google to try to find what I said while
>arguing with Baker about the Heywood preface to his Apology to Actors
>and couldn't find anything, so I did a search for what Baker said
>about Heywood. Nothing. Then I did a search for Baker's messages:
>I found 26,000, including recent ones--but NONE to HLAS! It would seem
>that the moron removed all his messages to HLAS! What a scholar. I've
>written some pretty embarrassing posts to HLAS but I've never withdrawn
>one (except once or twice immediately to fix a typo or something).
>
If you're talking about the thread "What Heywood Clearly Said", July, 2001,
his posts are all there as far as I can see. Do a newsgroup search
with grumman as the author, and the words heywood and baker
in the "with all the words" section. Some of the messages that come
up will be "Re: What Heywood Clearly Said". Click on "View Thread"
next to one of them. The left window has all the authors, including the
baker, john_baker and john pseudonyms.
I've had the same problem with his messages. They are there,
but you have to find the thread.
See my demolition of Elliott and Valenza's "Equivalent Words Ratios"!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/EVof.html
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Geralyn Horton
removed all his messages to HLAS! What a scholar. I've
> written some pretty embarrassing posts to HLAS but I've never withdrawn
> one (except once or twice immediately to fix a typo or something).
You mean that unlike real life, in hlas it is possible to
"take it all back"? How is this miracle accomplished?
And is it only possible for the author, or can anyone erase?
Could an enemy blot out all trace of one's loquacious existance???
--
Geralyn Horton
http://www.stagepage.org
g.l.h...@mindspring.com
ni...@nowhere.net
I just checked and found several Grumman-Baker threads on Google, e.g.
"What Heywood clearly said", including Baker's replies. Could it have
been a temporary Google-glitch?
Dave Furstenau
"Geralyn Horton" <g.l.h...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3CD8B083...@mindspring.com...
>
> You mean that unlike real life, in hlas it is possible to
> "take it all back"? How is this miracle accomplished?
> And is it only possible for the author, or can anyone erase?
> Could an enemy blot out all trace of one's loquacious existance???
Yes and no (mostly no).
For example, it would be a trivial matter for anyone to cancel the message
you just posted. all they need to do is take the message id number found in
the header (Message-ID: <3CD8B083...@mindspring.com>) and insert it
into the header of a standard UseNet message as a control code. Most other
servers down the line, when they see that code, will automatically ignore
the message -- and they don't check to see who sent it, allowing one person
to cancel another persons post with relative ease (though it's also easy to
track'em).
I'm not gonna get any more specific than this, cuz I don't wanna inspire any
script kiddies out there. Although there are legitimate (albeit "rare")
reasons for doing so, there are very strict conventions you need to follow.
Anything less will get your account pulled (rightfully so) by any ethical
ISP.
Some newsreading software will allow you to cancel your own messages (the
program does essentially what I described above). The best course of
action, if you ever need to cancel a message you sent -- is to ask your ISP
system administrator to do it for you.
As you can imagine, this tactic is abused extensively in highly contentious
groups; Scientologists are noted for sending out cancels on anything that
even mildly criticizes their cult. Of course, there are those who fight
back just as zealously, reposting the original messages. (They used to call
these "control wars".)
I should hasten to add that different sites do things differently. Not
every site will honor a control message, so there is no 100% fail-safe way
to cancel a message once it's sent. Moreover, if anyone quotes the message
before it's cancelled, the point is moot, unless you wanna cancel that one
too. (I recall one of those rare legitimate cases, when some girl fresh on
InterNet thought she was writting a torrid love note to the member of one
group, and accidentally posted it to the entire group. I cancelled that one
for her out of pity (she asked me), but by the time it took, the the message
had been copied to 30 others in the thread. She changed her name and moved
to a convent in Borneo.
Dave Furstenau d...@groundling.com
HLAS Rogues Gallery http://www.groundling.com/hlas
Bob Grumman
> given message.
Whatever. If he were at all a scholar, he'd allow all his messages
to be archived so future scholars could study the thought processes
of wacks and counter-wacks in action--and learn, perhaps, the origin
of the meaningful ideas that have been presented at HLAS (and some
have, I claim).
Bob Grumman
> but you have to find the thread.
Thanks, Jim--you were right; I can find, finally, Baker's posts
and my responses. So I owe him an apology--it would seem it's
some peculiarity of Google (and ineptness on my part) that
hitherto concealed his posts from me.
Bob Grumman
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> removed all his messages to HLAS! What a scholar. I've
> > written some pretty embarrassing posts to HLAS but I've never withdrawn
> > one (except once or twice immediately to fix a typo or something).
>
> You mean that unlike real life, in hlas it is possible to
> "take it all back"? How is this miracle accomplished?
> And is it only possible for the author, or can anyone erase?
> Could an enemy blot out all trace of one's loquacious existance???
I'm vague on all this, but I do know that when I post from some
places to HLAS, I'm given an option of immediately taking it back.
But the one time I remember doing this, because of a typo, the
post was deleted only by one service (or whatever). As I incompletely
understand it, I deleted a post originating in A, and so no one reading
from A would then see it, but those reading it from B, C, etc., could.
I'm pretty sure that there are means to remove any post of yours if
you remember the id number, which I believe only the poster is given.
I don't know the details. I'm sure hackers could remove other people's
posts forever, but there is no authorized way to do this.
I try to save those posts of mine, and replies to them, and that
to which they are replies, that seem important, at least to me.
Quoting the person you are replying to keeps a lot of material safe
from its author's removal, too.
As Jim has now shown, I over-reacted to the situation. Baker's posts
are apparently still available.
Neil R. Brennen
Bob Grumman wrote in message
>> (Baker is) putting "x-no-archive: yes" tags in his message headers.
>> It's a way to tell places like google not to bother archiving a
>> given message.
>
>Whatever. If he were at all a scholar, he'd allow all his messages
>to be archived so future scholars could study the thought processes
>of wacks and counter-wacks in action--and learn, perhaps, the origin
>of the meaningful ideas that have been presented at HLAS (and some
>have, I claim).
> --Bob G.
I've found the term "rigidnik" to be suitable for other newsgroups besides
HLAS. I think this term of yours, Bob, is a major contribution.
Neil Brennen
Bob Grumman
> HLAS. I think this term of yours, Bob, is a major contribution.
> Neil Brennen
Thanks, Neil. Greg, did you hear?
Neil R. Brennen
Bob Grumman wrote in message ...
>> I've found the term "rigidnik" to be suitable for other newsgroups
besides
>> HLAS. I think this term of yours, Bob, is a major contribution.
>> Neil Brennen
>
>Thanks, Neil. Greg, did you hear?
> --Bob G.
I should check to see if my meaning is correct. A "rigidnik" has an idee
fixe and an unflexible viewpoint, and must interpret all of reality in the
terms of his idee fixe. Does this sound about right?
Examples: So and So believes someone who died in 1593 wrote Shakespeare, and
so everything must be interpreted in the light of this belief, including a
monument inscription, no matter how twisted the interpretation may be.
Someone believes Shakespeare was not a writer, and so
constructs a "filter" that excludes evidence because it conflicts with their
belief.
Someone claims Neil Brennen was not at a chess
tournament, and must resort to twisted logic to "refute" testimony from
trustworthy people that Brennen was in fact there.
The chess newsgroups, particularly the chess politics group, are filled with
rigidniks, from my observation, and from my second example.
Neil Brennen
Dave Furstenau
"Janice Miller" <jbmi...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:jbmiller-080...@192.168.123.161...
> Dave,
>
> Your description of Usenet is pretty much all crap.
>
*sigh*
Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions:
http://www.killfile.org/faqs/cancel.html
I wrote:
df=> it would be a trivial matter for anyone to cancel the message
df=> you just posted. all they need to do is take the message id number
found in
df=> the header (Message-ID: <3CD8B083...@mindspring.com>) and insert
it
df=> into the header of a standard UseNet message as a control code. Most
other
df=> servers down the line, when they see that code, will automatically
ignore
df=> the message -- and they don't check to see who sent it, allowing one
person
df=> to cancel another persons post with relative ease (though it's also
easy to
df=> track'em).
The FAQ says:
"Cancel messages are a specialized form of message to Usenet that, when they
arrive at a server, request that the post bearing the Message-ID contained
within be deleted. In essence, a cancel message, if heeded, cancels another
post. [ ... ] Cancel messages are sent out as a standard Usenet post, except
they contain a 'Control: cancel' header. If a system that accepts cancels
receives the message, the post with the specified message ID is deleted from
that system."
I wrote:
df=> Although there are legitimate (albeit "rare") reasons for doing so,
there are very
df=> strict conventions you need to follow.
The FAQ says:
" ... the only people that are always authorized to issue cancels for a
message are the original author of the message and the postmaster at the
site the message was posted from. However, there are rules that allow
third-party cancels in specific circumstances ... "
I wrote:
df=>I should hasten to add that different sites do things differently. Not
every site will
honor a control message, so there is no 100% fail-safe way to cancel a
message
once it's sent.
The FAQ says:
"Many news sites have decided that, for whatever reason, they do not want
cancels; others merely do not want certain types of cancels."
I'll leave it to others to decide if my description was "crap".
Granted, what I described was a condensed version of the process. I didn't
get into cancelbots, ressurectionbots, expirations, supercedes, injecting
forgeries into the nntp stream -- I wasn't writing a dissertation. And I
haven't kept up on the latest controversies; the last time I cancelled a
message was in the early 90's.
> What motives could you possibly have for misleading people as to what
> happens when someone cancels or decides not to send a Usenet message --
Feel free to add some substance to your bluster. How did I mislead anyone?
I wasn't telling Bob that his (or Baker's) messages were cancelled, I was
explaining to Geralyn than 3rd-party cancellations were possible. A
completely different side-issue. (I have no idea why he was having trouble
finding them through google, but my first guess would be a quirk in the
system or some server maintenance going on at that time.) The
"x-no-archive: yes" was a good guess, btw. Several people here use it for
various reasons. It has caused problems in the past during POTM voting.
> and as to what interference they can carry out w/r/t others' posts they
> happen not to like, what they have to do themselves versus paying their
> ISP or another commercial service to do, and so on? How could your having
> sent this post (the one I'm replying to here) possibly have been a good
> thing to do?
I'm confused. I suspect I'm not the only one. Is my desciption "crap"
because it's inaccurate or because it might give people ideas? (These
aren't exactly trade secrets).
> Janice Miller
> Framingham, Massachusetts
Bob Grumman
it (I think). It's fairly complicated, and it's been a while seen
I gavemyself my last tutorial in the subject, so this will be
hit and miss. Eventually, I hope to post the chapter I have in
my book on it. It's not yet ready for exposure.
> I should check to see if my meaning is correct. A "rigidnik"
> has an idee fixe and an unflexible viewpoint, and must interpret
> all of reality in the terms of his idee fixe. Does this sound
> about right?
Sort of. Except I think of a rigidnik more as having a very
narrow set of ideas (a rigidniplex) rather than an idee fixe,
although it may take that form. Also, the "normal" rigidnik
won't see ALL of reality through his rigidniplex, only that
part of reality that bips his bonger. His rigidniplex represents
the rigidnik's "higher" life, or emotionally-charged world-view.
He carries on in the day-to-day via a "quotidiplex" only erupting
when rubbing up against an idea or image inhabiting or connecting
to his rigidniplex.
I would add that there is MUCH more to a rigidnik than his
being inflexibly wedded to and dominated in his chief intellectual
activities by an extremely narrow and irrational belief-system.
> Examples: So and So believes someone who died in 1593 wrote
> Shakespeare, and so everything must be interpreted in the
> light of this belief, including a monument inscription, no
> matter how twisted the interpretation may be.
More or less. Forgive my fussiness, but my greatest fear for my
concept is that it will too quickly come to mean too much less than
I want it to, so I'm prone to quibbling about most everything.
Very roughly what I think is that the rigidnik above has a
rigidniplex based on something much more general than who wrote
Shakespeare (a hatred of diversity would be part of it) which forces
him to believe someone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, and
many factors result in his choosing someone who died in 1593 to
take his place. (I think a better example would be someone SAID
to have died in 1593, incidentally.) He builds a sort of idee fixe
but his greater needs (to block the self-educated, say, and much
more) also prevent his noting that which contradicts his idea, and
accepting anything just about that he can somehow twist to support
his idea, and so forth. His narrowness prevents him from even
seeing alternative positions, though he wouldn't accept them even
if he did see them.
> Someone believes Shakespeare was not a writer, and so
> constructs a "filter" that excludes evidence because it
> conflicts with their belief.
Yes, and cherry picks the historic record and what real scholars
have said that seem to support the rigidnik, and ignore all that
does not--except, again, there's more to it than that.
> Someone claims Neil Brennen was not at a chess
> tournament, and must resort to twisted logic to
> "refute" testimony from trustworthy people that
> Brennen was in fact there.
Sorry--I'm pretty sure Brennen was not there.
> The chess newsgroups, particularly the chess politics
> group, are filled with rigidniks, from my observation,
> and from my second example.
> Neil Brennen
Yes, I think they're drawn to newsgroups--because they can't make
it as real scholars or the equivalent.
Before finishing this lesson, I want to make a few points, though
I've made them before at HLAS. One is that a rigidnik is not just
an inflexible, narrow-minded nut, he is also highly susceptible to
conspiracy theories, in love with unfalsifiability, absolutist,
intolerant, an extreme believer in conformity (except where its
defense requires non-conformity), totalitarian, incapable of
what I call continuumism, reactionary (except where the apparent
new is contesting an establishment seen to be on the side of
freedom, diversity, etc.), anti-intuitive, without a developed
imagination or even any idea that such a thing can exist, and
much else. A second important point is that non-rigidniks can
also be inflexibly narrow-minded about certain things. A third
is that my concept of rigidnikry is part of a fairly extensive
theory of psychology, not just a way of labeling a group of people
I don't like (though it is that, too). Oh, and a rigidnik seems
to me to have a lot in common with David Riesman's inner-directed
character-types.
Actually, I think you understand the concept well enough--but it's
hard for me not to pontificate about it. Hope what I said proved
at least a little interesting.
Neil R. Brennen
Bob Grumman wrote in message
>Neil, let me spray a few thoughts on rigidnikry, as I understand
>it (I think). It's fairly complicated, and it's been a while seen
>I gavemyself my last tutorial in the subject, so this will be
>hit and miss. Eventually, I hope to post the chapter I have in
>my book on it. It's not yet ready for exposure.
Okay.
>
>> I should check to see if my meaning is correct. A "rigidnik"
>> has an idee fixe and an unflexible viewpoint, and must interpret
>> all of reality in the terms of his idee fixe. Does this sound
>> about right?
>
>Sort of. Except I think of a rigidnik more as having a very
>narrow set of ideas (a rigidniplex) rather than an idee fixe,
>although it may take that form. Also, the "normal" rigidnik
>won't see ALL of reality through his rigidniplex, only that
>part of reality that bips his bonger. His rigidniplex represents
>the rigidnik's "higher" life, or emotionally-charged world-view.
>He carries on in the day-to-day via a "quotidiplex" only erupting
>when rubbing up against an idea or image inhabiting or connecting
>to his rigidniplex.
I understand there are degrees of rigidnikness, and it must not interfere
with daily functioning.
>I would add that there is MUCH more to a rigidnik than his
>being inflexibly wedded to and dominated in his chief intellectual
>activities by an extremely narrow and irrational belief-system.
Again understood, since all definitions are by their nature limiting.
>> Examples: So and So believes someone who died in 1593 wrote
>> Shakespeare, and so everything must be interpreted in the
>> light of this belief, including a monument inscription, no
>> matter how twisted the interpretation may be.
>
>More or less. Forgive my fussiness, but my greatest fear for my
>concept is that it will too quickly come to mean too much less than
>I want it to, so I'm prone to quibbling about most everything.
Understood.
>Very roughly what I think is that the rigidnik above has a
>rigidniplex based on something much more general than who wrote
>Shakespeare (a hatred of diversity would be part of it) which forces
>him to believe someone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, and
>many factors result in his choosing someone who died in 1593 to
>take his place. (I think a better example would be someone SAID
>to have died in 1593, incidentally.)
This rigidnik I refer to would agree with you.
He builds a sort of idee fixe
>but his greater needs (to block the self-educated, say, and much
>more) also prevent his noting that which contradicts his idea, and
>accepting anything just about that he can somehow twist to support
>his idea, and so forth. His narrowness prevents him from even
>seeing alternative positions, though he wouldn't accept them even
>if he did see them.
His reading of the verse on the monument proves that.
>> Someone believes Shakespeare was not a writer, and so
>> constructs a "filter" that excludes evidence because it
>> conflicts with their belief.
>
>Yes, and cherry picks the historic record and what real scholars
>have said that seem to support the rigidnik, and ignore all that
>does not--except, again, there's more to it than that.
>
>> Someone claims Neil Brennen was not at a chess
>> tournament, and must resort to twisted logic to
>> "refute" testimony from trustworthy people that
>> Brennen was in fact there.
>
>Sorry--I'm pretty sure Brennen was not there.
Should I add this person tries to interpret all my newsgroup posts as
"attacks" on a particular figure in the chess world? He also believes Lady
Oxford wrote the plays, so he is an "Authorship" rigidnik as well.
Thank you for the lesson! I enjoyed it; I hope you did as well.
My only quibble would be with your assigning the "Shakespeare lacked the
education" argument to only the first rigidnik I mentioned. Isn't this a
basic rule of all anti-Stratfordians?
Neil Brennen
Peter Farey
>
> I should check to see if my meaning is correct. A
> "rigidnik" has an idee fixe and an unflexible viewpoint,
> and must interpret all of reality in the terms of his
> idee fixe. Does this sound about right?
>
> wrote Shakespeare, and so everything must be interpreted
> in the light of this belief, including a monument
> inscription, no matter how twisted the interpretation
> may be.
Although this is in fact a gross misrepresentation of
what I believe, and of how I arrived at such beliefs,
I assume that you intend this 'So and So' to be me.
Why so coy, Neil?
Bob and I have been wasting our time discussing the
authorship question - which you so deride - over
several years, so he must have a pretty good idea by
now of just how much of a 'rigidnik' I am. Why not
simply ask him whether he thinks I am one, and precisely
what behaviours he has observed which lead him to that
conclusion?
While you are at it, of course, you might also like to
ask him about where you yourself would appear in his
taxonomy. My own view is that someone who:
* very shortly after his arrival here, complains about
having to argue with "authorship lunatics",
* rejects ALL anti-Stratfordian opinion as "foolishness"
because "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare",
* agrees that he has no interest in trying to understand
any alternative theory to the Stratfordian one, and
* is happy to agree, on the basis of a single 'visit' to
my website, that I am an 'idiot',
has constructed a glass house of such fragility that
any stone-throwing on his part is decidedly foolish.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Bob Grumman
Hey, I'm a super-crank and LOVE airing my views!
> My only quibble would be with your assigning the "Shakespeare lacked the
> education" argument to only the first rigidnik I mentioned. Isn't this a
> basic rule of all anti-Stratfordians?
> Neil Brennen
I think it may be for the serious ones although some of them pretend it
isn't for propagandistic reasons--Dooley, for instance.
--Bob G.
Neil R. Brennen
Peter Farey wrote in message ...
>Neil Brennen wrote:
>> I should check to see if my meaning is correct. A
>> "rigidnik" has an idee fixe and an unflexible viewpoint,
>> and must interpret all of reality in the terms of his
>> idee fixe. Does this sound about right?
>> Examples: So and So believes someone who died in 1593
>> wrote Shakespeare, and so everything must be interpreted
>> in the light of this belief, including a monument
>> inscription, no matter how twisted the interpretation
>> may be.
>
>Although this is in fact a gross misrepresentation of
>what I believe, and of how I arrived at such beliefs,
>I assume that you intend this 'So and So' to be me.
>Why so coy, Neil?
>Bob and I have been wasting our time discussing the
>authorship question - which you so deride - over
>several years, so he must have a pretty good idea by
>now of just how much of a 'rigidnik' I am. Why not
>simply ask him whether he thinks I am one, and precisely
>what behaviours he has observed which lead him to that
>conclusion?
Gee Peter, do you think you are the only Marlovian who has twisted a
reading? It was a composite portrait of Marlovians.
>While you are at it, of course, you might also like to
>ask him about where you yourself would appear in his
>taxonomy. My own view is that someone who:
>
>* very shortly after his arrival here, complains about
> having to argue with "authorship lunatics",
Baker the Faker qualified as such.
>* rejects ALL anti-Stratfordian opinion as "foolishness"
> because "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare",
The weight of evidence is on our side. Agent Jim will provide the evidence
again, if you missed it the first 100 times.
>* agrees that he has no interest in trying to understand
> any alternative theory to the Stratfordian one, and
Again Peter, what do you consider, "understand"? Often when one deals with
such cranks as the "Authorship" people, one finds they use the word
"understand" to mean "agree with and adopt". I've read some of the
"authorship" books, if that makes you happy, including Calvin Hoffman, who
you cite as a source in one of your essays. I remain unconvinced.
>* is happy to agree, on the basis of a single 'visit' to
> my website, that I am an 'idiot',
I read several of your essays Peter. It was the monument one that convinced
me. Until then I just thought you were horribly misguided.
>has constructed a glass house of such fragility that
>any stone-throwing on his part is decidedly foolish.
You are, of course, free to throw stones at my articles as well. The act of
writing automatically makes one a target.
Neil Brennen
Correspondence Chess News
http://ccn.correspondencechess.com
John W. Kennedy
>
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> removed all his messages to HLAS! What a scholar. I've
> > written some pretty embarrassing posts to HLAS but I've never withdrawn
> > one (except once or twice immediately to fix a typo or something).
>
> You mean that unlike real life, in hlas it is possible to
> "take it all back"? How is this miracle accomplished?
> And is it only possible for the author, or can anyone erase?
> Could an enemy blot out all trace of one's loquacious existance???
The Internet News protocols allow the originator of a message to cancel
it. Some news servers, however, intentionally omit this function, some
out of quixoticism, some out of legitimate concern that a knowledgeable
third party can easily forge a "cancel" message.
On Mozilla or Netscape, do a right-click (I see you're using a Macintosh
-- do whatever the Mac version uses instead of right-click) on the
message line on the sender-subject-date window, or on the message-text
window itself, and you will see "Cancel Message" as one of the options.
(It doesn't appear to be available in offline mode.)
It's regarded as rather bad form to cancel a message in a discussion
forum, unless immediately replacing it with a good-faith correction,
identified as such. The cancel function was really intended for the
days when News was chiefly used for news.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Laila Roth
It couldn't have been anything else. I have frequently had problems
with google search, seldom getting what results I am sure of being
there. It just doesn't work perfectly. Several times my messages to
HLAS have not gone through. Last time I tried to find some messages
from this winter, Google could not produce anything from a period
November 01 to February 02.
But the reason why Grumman is starting this thread is that he is
getting concerned about John Baker's disappearance, maybe as a result
of the treatment of him by Grumman and others. Some unconscious bad
conscience?
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Laila Roth
> Neil, let me spray a few thoughts on rigidnikry, as I understand
> it (I think). It's fairly complicated, and it's been a while seen
> I gavemyself my last tutorial in the subject, so this will be
> hit and miss. Eventually, I hope to post the chapter I have in
> my book on it. It's not yet ready for exposure.
>
> > I should check to see if my meaning is correct. A "rigidnik"
> > has an idee fixe and an unflexible viewpoint, and must interpret
> > all of reality in the terms of his idee fixe. Does this sound
> > about right?
This fits perfectly the pattern of all Stratfordians.
>
> Sort of. Except I think of a rigidnik more as having a very
> narrow set of ideas (a rigidniplex) rather than an idee fixe,
> although it may take that form. Also, the "normal" rigidnik
> won't see ALL of reality through his rigidniplex, only that
> part of reality that bips his bonger. His rigidniplex represents
> the rigidnik's "higher" life, or emotionally-charged world-view.
> He carries on in the day-to-day via a "quotidiplex" only erupting
> when rubbing up against an idea or image inhabiting or connecting
> to his rigidniplex.
>
This is exactly how Stratfordians work.
> I would add that there is MUCH more to a rigidnik than his
> being inflexibly wedded to and dominated in his chief intellectual
> activities by an extremely narrow and irrational belief-system.
>
He refuses to see anything else than his Stratfordian blinkers
(blinders). Since he can't see what's on the other side of them, he
claims there is nothing beyond them. What he can't see can't exist.
> > Examples: So and So believes someone who died in 1593 wrote
> > Shakespeare, and so everything must be interpreted in the
> > light of this belief, including a monument inscription, no
> > matter how twisted the interpretation may be.
>
> More or less. Forgive my fussiness, but my greatest fear for my
> concept is that it will too quickly come to mean too much less than
> I want it to, so I'm prone to quibbling about most everything.
> Very roughly what I think is that the rigidnik above has a
> rigidniplex based on something much more general than who wrote
> Shakespeare (a hatred of diversity would be part of it) which forces
> him to believe someone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, and
> many factors result in his choosing someone who died in 1593 to
> take his place. (I think a better example would be someone SAID
> to have died in 1593, incidentally.) He builds a sort of idee fixe
> but his greater needs (to block the self-educated, say, and much
> more) also prevent his noting that which contradicts his idea, and
> accepting anything just about that he can somehow twist to support
> his idea, and so forth. His narrowness prevents him from even
> seeing alternative positions, though he wouldn't accept them even
> if he did see them.
>
Yes, Stratfordians never can see alternative positions.
> > Someone believes Shakespeare was not a writer, and so
> > constructs a "filter" that excludes evidence because it
> > conflicts with their belief.
And the Stratfordians have a fool-proof filter against anyone else
having written anything in any work attributed to the Stratfordian
illiterate business man.
>
> Yes, and cherry picks the historic record and what real scholars
> have said that seem to support the rigidnik, and ignore all that
> does not--except, again, there's more to it than that.
>
Which the Stratfordians refuse to accept.
> > Someone claims Neil Brennen was not at a chess
> > tournament, and must resort to twisted logic to
> > "refute" testimony from trustworthy people that
> > Brennen was in fact there.
>
I didn't.
> Sorry--I'm pretty sure Brennen was not there.
>
If he doesn't know himself, it's difficult to prove either or.
> > The chess newsgroups, particularly the chess politics
> > group, are filled with rigidniks, from my observation,
> > and from my second example.
>
Yes, all are rigidniks, except you.
> > Neil Brennen
>
> Yes, I think they're drawn to newsgroups--because they can't make
> it as real scholars or the equivalent.
>
And the real scholars are of course you two with only those
authorities accepted by you, whereas all others are idiots whatever
they say.
> Before finishing this lesson, I want to make a few points, though
> I've made them before at HLAS. One is that a rigidnik is not just
> an inflexible, narrow-minded nut, he is also highly susceptible to
> conspiracy theories, in love with unfalsifiability, absolutist,
> intolerant, an extreme believer in conformity (except where its
> defense requires non-conformity), totalitarian, incapable of
> what I call continuumism, reactionary (except where the apparent
> new is contesting an establishment seen to be on the side of
> freedom, diversity, etc.), anti-intuitive, without a developed
> imagination or even any idea that such a thing can exist, and
> much else. A second important point is that non-rigidniks can
> also be inflexibly narrow-minded about certain things. A third
> is that my concept of rigidnikry is part of a fairly extensive
> theory of psychology, not just a way of labeling a group of people
> I don't like (though it is that, too). Oh, and a rigidnik seems
> to me to have a lot in common with David Riesman's inner-directed
> character-types.
This is the perfectest sel-portrait I have seen so far of this great
derogator. He projects himself to everyone with a different view from
his own just to avoid seeing them (the different views) and maintain
his own sovereign Self. It's a mechanism to protect oneself, well
known in psychology. In order to avoid seeing his own picture in the
mirror and its devastating revelations, he projects the picture to all
those he considers his enemies (or in this case opponents) and hates
them instead of himself, to keep himself intact, because that's all he
has: the vanity of loving oneself.
>
> Actually, I think you understand the concept well enough--but it's
> hard for me not to pontificate about it. Hope what I said proved
> at least a little interesting.
>
> Bob G.
You have done very well pontificating about yourself.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
KQKnave
lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) writes:
>ni...@nowhere.net wrote in message
>news:<3cd8d19d...@nntp.2xtreme.net>...
>> On Tue, 7 May 2002 21:40:45 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
>> <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>>
>> >What's going on? I just used Google to try to find what I said while
>> >arguing with Baker about the Heywood preface to his Apology to Actors
>> >and couldn't find anything, so I did a search for what Baker said
>> >about Heywood. Nothing. Then I did a search for Baker's messages:
>> >I found 26,000, including recent ones--but NONE to HLAS! It would seem
>> >that the moron removed all his messages to HLAS! What a scholar. I've
>> >written some pretty embarrassing posts to HLAS but I've never withdrawn
>> >one (except once or twice immediately to fix a typo or something).
>> >
>> > --Bob G.
>>
>> I just checked and found several Grumman-Baker threads on Google, e.g.
>> "What Heywood clearly said", including Baker's replies. Could it have
>> been a temporary Google-glitch?
>
>It couldn't have been anything else. I have frequently had problems
>with google search, seldom getting what results I am sure of being
>there. It just doesn't work perfectly. Several times my messages to
>HLAS have not gone through. Last time I tried to find some messages
>from this winter, Google could not produce anything from a period
>November 01 to February 02.
>
I've never had any problem with Google. The question is not whether
baker's messages are there, but whether you can find them using
his name in the author field, and for his most recent posts you can't.
You can easily find them by searching for a name that replied to
him and then looking at the thread. It's obvious that baker does
something to his header to accomplish this, for his "baker" posts and his
pseudonyms.
Bob Grumman
"No, I'm not--YOU are!" The problem with this tactic for
adults is that will not be taken very seriously (except by other
morons) if you don't support your reply. So, Laila, if you
consider me a rigidnik, please supply evidence of the following:
(1) That I have an idee fixe and an unflexible viewpoint, and
must interpret ALL of reality in the terms of his idee fixe,
as you claim I and all Stratfordians do.
(2) That I have a rigidniplex which represents my "higher" life,
or emotionally-charged world-view, and carry on in the day-to-day
via a "quotidiplex" only erupting when rubbing up against an
idea or image inhabiting or connecting to his rigidniplex, this
being, you say, "This is exactly how Stratfordians work."
(Note, thanks for approving the value of my term--although
you seem not to know how to apply it.)
(3) That I refuse "to see anything else than (my) Stratfordian
blinkers (blinders). Since he can't see what's on the other
side of them, he claims there is nothing beyond them.
What he can't see can't exist." Point out some significant
evidence that Shakespeare was not Shakespeare that I have
failed to see and note, for instance.
(4) That I have a hatred of diversity, which is part of the
self-portrait you state I have created.
(5) That I am forced to believe someone other than Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare, as I say all rigidniks involved with the Authorship
Question are and that I, if I'm the rigidnik you say I am, must
also be.
(6) That I have the need to block the self-educated that I must
have if I'm the rigidnik you say I am.
(7) That I have ignored something that contradicts some idee fixee
that I have.
(8) That I have anywhere twisted the facts to make them support my
alleged idee fixee.
(9) That I've failed to identify and respond to more than the
few alternate positions that anyone is bound to miss, being human.
(10) That I have ever used selective evidence to support a view. > >
Yes, and cherry picks the historic record and what real scholars
(11) That I am susceptible to conspiracy theories (or the "open
secrets" that many of you wacks are now calling the conspiracy
theories you believe in), as rigidniks but NOT people like me are.
(12) That I am in love with unfalsifiability, absolutist,
intolerant, an extreme believer in conformity (except where its
defense requires non-conformity), totalitarian, incapable of
what I call continuumism, reactionary (except where the apparent
new is contesting an establishment seen to be on the side of
freedom, diversity, etc.), anti-intuitive, without a developed
imagination or even any idea that such a thing can exist--as
I must be if I'm the rigidnik you say I am.
(13) That I have a lot in common with David Riesman's inner-directed
character-types, as I must have if I'm the rigidnik you say I am.
You, by the way, are not a rigidnik, Laila--you are too stupid to be
one. You are just a Milyoop throwing paper gliders at your
intellectual superiors because that's the only way you can get them
to notice you, and you need to be noticed because you lack the
inner resources to be able to entertain yourself.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
healthiest-mined of the Shakespeare-Rejectors, and are not
rigidniks. That includes Peter--although, Peter, I must say
that this idea of yours that Sane Hoaxsters decided to tell posterity
that Marlowe helped Shakespeare with The Oeuvre by having
Droeshout give Shakespeare two right eyes, ears and shoulders,
in a volume otherwise thoroughly and extensively devoted to
stating that Shakespeare alone was Shakespeare, makes me
wonder just what kind of mind you do have. (Why, for instance,
when no one noticed the two right eyes, ears and shoulders after
twenty years or so, didn't the hoaxsters reprint the folio and
give Shakespeare two right heads to better help whoever it was
they wanted to know . . . The Truth?)
Aside from that, and because Pat will not likely answer me, can
you tell me if there is any not-explicitly-personal literary
evidence from Marlowe's lifetime that he was a writer? I know
we have no title-page attributions for him before he died, and I
know of no references to him by name as a writer in his lifetime--
except his calling himself a scholar when arrested for coining.
And that was "personal."
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> > >arguing with Baker about the Heywood preface to his Apology to Actors
> > >and couldn't find anything, so I did a search for what Baker said
> > >about Heywood. Nothing. Then I did a search for Baker's messages:
> > >I found 26,000, including recent ones--but NONE to HLAS! It would seem
> > >that the moron removed all his messages to HLAS! What a scholar. I've
> > >written some pretty embarrassing posts to HLAS but I've never withdrawn
> > >one (except once or twice immediately to fix a typo or something).
> But the reason why Grumman is starting this thread is that he is
> getting concerned about John Baker's disappearance, maybe as a result
> of the treatment of him by Grumman and others. Some unconscious bad
> conscience?
> Laila Roth, Derbyite
No, moron, the reason I started this thread is the one I gave. I
wanted to find out what Baker said about Heywood in hopes that would
lead me to what I said about Heywood, and couldn't. That made me angry
with Baker because I thought it his fault. It was not. It may not
have been Google's, either, since I searched for "John Baker," not
"JohnBaker," as I should have.
As for Baker's disappearance, if I had anything to do with it, I'm
proud of it. As I've said before, to each his own, but I don't want
some jerk playing steal-the-ball on the same field I and others
are trying to play soccer.
bookburn
.
Well, I hope he comes back in great power and dudgeon and lords
it over frumious bandersnatch trolls at HLAS. My guess is that
he is deciding what form he will assume in the next roman a clef.
You are trying to play soccer here?
bookburn
Bob Grumman
> it over frumious bandersnatch trolls at HLAS. My guess is that
> he is deciding what form he will assume in the next roman a clef.
> You are trying to play soccer here?
> bookburn
Actually, I'm not sure what it is I'm trying to play--except that
it isn't what Baker most often played. I expect he'll be back.
Upon reflection, I guess I'm neutral about whether he does or not.
--Bob G.
Laila Roth
> >It couldn't have been anything else. I have frequently had problems
> >with google search, seldom getting what results I am sure of being
> >there. It just doesn't work perfectly. Several times my messages to
> >HLAS have not gone through. Last time I tried to find some messages
> >from this winter, Google could not produce anything from a period
> >November 01 to February 02.
> >
>
> I've never had any problem with Google. The question is not whether
> baker's messages are there, but whether you can find them using
> his name in the author field, and for his most recent posts you can't.
> You can easily find them by searching for a name that replied to
> him and then looking at the thread. It's obvious that baker does
> something to his header to accomplish this, for his "baker" posts and his
> pseudonyms.
>
>
>
it yourself.
When you go back on the threads in HLAS, when you reach March 8th, it
then jumps to November 30th 2001, as if there was nothing on HLAS
December 1st 2001 to March 7th 2002. Just try and see if you find the
same HLAS blackout for more than three months as I do every time I
try.
Laila Roth
Laila Roth
insults, endorsing them by elaborating further on your ridiculous
concept of 'rigidnikry', a totally artificial brainfart.
My sole purpose in answering was not to flatter you by seeming to
"approve the value of your term" but to expose their ridiculousness by
mirroring them, showing how generalizing they are, so as to almost fit
anyone or no one. But instead of realizing their ridiculousness you
continue their abortive and absurd construction by increasing the flow
of your intellectual diarrhoea. Your intellectual miscarriage is just
a ridiculous absurdity. No one will feel struck or touched by it, and
it will only please the conceit of your own foolish vanity.
Maybe you have realized something of this, since you suddenly exempt
not only Peter Farey from your 'ridiculidnikry' but all Marlovians,
adding myself although I belong to the Oxford party. (Oxford and Derby
are one - if anyone of them wrote anything of Shakespeare, they both
did.) Perhaps you would exempt anyone who bothers to argue about this
with you. Why not then also exempt all Oxfordians and Baconians, while
you are at it? Then there is no one left to be stamped by your
'ridiculidnikry'. So why then bother anyone at all with your nonsense?
Laila Roth, Derbyite
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
Roundtable
>
> As for Baker's disappearance, if I had anything to do with it, I'm
> proud of it. As I've said before, to each his own, but I don't want
> some jerk playing steal-the-ball on the same field I and others
> are trying to play soccer.
Well, frankly, I'm one of the cheerleaders dancing a bit from
Swan Lake - in boots - while you and the others try to play soccer.
That's because I always have to be "unique" (which, by the way, rhymes
with "freak").
Roundtable
Bob Grumman
> insults, endorsing them by elaborating further on your ridiculous
> concept of 'rigidnikry', a totally artificial brainfart.
No, Laila, I challenged you to support your moronic contention that
I am a rigidnik, by my definition of the term. You failed even
to try to do this, which makes me suspect that you can't.
Bob Grumman
> > As for Baker's disappearance, if I had anything to do with it, I'm
> > proud of it. As I've said before, to each his own, but I don't want
> > some jerk playing steal-the-ball on the same field I and others
> > are trying to play soccer.
> Well, frankly, I'm one of the cheerleaders dancing a bit from
> Swan Lake - in boots - while you and the others try to play soccer.
> That's because I always have to be "unique" (which, by the way, rhymes
> with "freak").
> Roundtable
True. I just haven't had time to get to you. You'd better watch out,
though. First there was Okay Fine. Then Baker. And you don't see
Richard Kennedy around anymore, do you? And what happened to Elizabeth.
I'm working on Laila, now.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> > As for Baker's disappearance, if I had anything to do with it, I'm
> > proud of it. As I've said before, to each his own, but I don't want
> > some jerk playing steal-the-ball on the same field I and others
> > are trying to play soccer.
> Well, frankly, I'm one of the cheerleaders dancing a bit from
> Swan Lake - in boots - while you and the others try to play soccer.
> That's because I always have to be "unique" (which, by the way, rhymes
> with "freak").
> Roundtable
True. I just haven't had time to get to you. You'd better watch out,
though. First there was Okay Fine. Then Baker. And you don't see
Richard Kennedy around anymore, do you? And what happened to Elizabeth?
I'm working on Laila, now.
--Bob G.
Patty Winter
Laila Roth <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>Maybe I am alone to achieve this phenomenon, but just for kicks, try
>it yourself.
>When you go back on the threads in HLAS, when you reach March 8th, it
>then jumps to November 30th 2001, as if there was nothing on HLAS
>December 1st 2001 to March 7th 2002.
By golly, you're right.
Anyone who wants to try this, go to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&num=25&hl=en&group=humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare&start=575
The page starts with some postings from 08 Mar 2002, goes down to a
few from 06 Mar 2002, then jumps to 30 Nov 2001.
Yet when I searched for my own name within the HLAS archives, I found
several postings from that time period. So they're on Google's servers,
but for some reason, they aren't appearing in the chronological presentation
of the archives.
Patty
Mark Alexander
are affecting all kinds of lists and forums.
May be a virus, but I do not know.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message
news:abhjnf$1e8$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
Elizabeth Weir
> > "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>
> > > As for Baker's disappearance, if I had anything to do with it, I'm
> > > proud of it. As I've said before, to each his own, but I don't want
> > > some jerk playing steal-the-ball on the same field I and others
> > > are trying to play soccer.
>
> > Well, frankly, I'm one of the cheerleaders dancing a bit from
> > Swan Lake - in boots - while you and the others try to play soccer.
> > That's because I always have to be "unique" (which, by the way, rhymes
> > with "freak").
>
> > Roundtable
>
> True. I just haven't had time to get to you. You'd better watch out,
> though. First there was Okay Fine. Then Baker. And you don't see
> Richard Kennedy around anymore, do you? And what happened to Elizabeth?
I've been reading relativity theory.
I've been relishing it because at the end of
his frustrated life Einstein was a chastened
Baconian.
Laila Roth
> > Instead of answering my answer to your insults you produce more
> > insults, endorsing them by elaborating further on your ridiculous
> > concept of 'rigidnikry', a totally artificial brainfart.
>
> No, Laila, I challenged you to support your moronic contention that
> I am a rigidnik, by my definition of the term. You failed even
> to try to do this, which makes me suspect that you can't.
>
> --Bob G.
I just don't bother to. Nonsense is like a virus: the more you tackle
it, the more it spreads. The only way to deal with nonsense is to
delete it at once. The mistake of John Baker, Richard Kennedy,
Elizabeth, "Okay Fine" and the others you boast of having silenced for
ever was to at all bother about your nonsense.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Bob Grumman
the term. You failed even to try to do this, which makes me
suspect that you can't."
> it, the more it spreads. The only way to deal with nonsense is to
> delete it at once. The mistake of John Baker, Richard Kennedy,
> Elizabeth, "Okay Fine" and the others you boast of having silenced for
> ever was to at all bother about your nonsense.
> Laila Roth, Derbyite
But you ARE bothering about my "nonsense," but like an extremely
foolish child--by misrepresenting it, and denying its validity
without presenting any arguments against it. You obviously
cannot even begin to do that. Note: the only way to at least
temporarily put down nonsense is to refute it.
Roundtable
> > Well, frankly, I'm one of the cheerleaders dancing a bit from
> > Swan Lake - in boots - while you and the others try to play soccer.
> > That's because I always have to be "unique" (which, by the way, rhymes
> > with "freak").
Sir Bob wrote:
>
> True. I just haven't had time to get to you. You'd better watch out,
> though. First there was Okay Fine. Then Baker. And you don't see
> Richard Kennedy around anymore, do you? And what happened to Elizabeth.
> I'm working on Laila, now.
>
> --Bob G.
Every team needs cheerleaders, so I know I'm safe.
Richard Kennedy will be back, and so will Baker, I'm sure.
I'm rather hard to chase away, actually.
If people are mean to me and want to push me away, I come back
every single day just to prove I'm not giving up.
If people are nice to me, I stay around because they're nice.
The only way to get rid of me is to bore me. I get bored with
HLAS from time to time, and log on less often, so you can still
hope...
Actually, anyone who comes here for "friendship" is going to have
a rough time of it. I don't. I just think I have a right to express
my opinions.
Being a foreigner in Switzerland - or any other country for
that matter - makes one more able to deal with hostility.
Or more accustomed to it.
Or maybe I even expect it.
Which brings to mind an Afro-American model I saw on the Jay Leno
show once - she went to Spain to work for a couple of weeks,
her first time out of the USA and in Europe, and told
the audience "First, there are no Blacks in Spain." So she felt
rather isolated. Then, when she walked around, people would look
at her and say "guapa, guapa!" (which apparently means "pretty").
She however thought it was derogatory and after a hearing this for
several days, got so furious and shouted at one poor admiring
Spaniard:
"tu madre es guapa! E tu padre es stupido!" She finished the story
with "probably now they are saying in Spain, 'don't tell any black
girl she's pretty, they don't like it!'".
This showed me how hostility and the subsequent insecurity can become
an obsession, like Cyrano continuously thinking everyone was talking
about his nose.
Roundtable
Bob Grumman
> think the goal posts frame my living room window.
That's hardly fair, Janice, since EVERYTHING frames your living
room goalposts.
Millon de Floss
> > But the reason why Grumman is starting this thread is that he is
> > getting concerned about John Baker's disappearance, maybe as a result
> > of the treatment of him by Grumman and others. Some unconscious bad
> > conscience?
> > Laila Roth, Derbyite
> And Bob Grumman replies:
> No, moron, ...<snip>
Aaah, Bob Grumman, always the gentleman.
Neil Brennen
Millon de Floss wrote in message
<5069be8e.02051...@posting.google.com>...
He usually is. But Laila Bosh can get on anyone's nerves.
Bob Grumman
> >> > getting concerned about John Baker's disappearance, maybe as a result
> >> > of the treatment of him by Grumman and others. Some unconscious bad
> >> And Bob Grumman replies:
> >> No, moron, ...<snip>
> >Aaah, Bob Grumman, always the gentleman.
> He usually is. But Laila Bosh can get on anyone's nerves.
I note that Milly didn't quote all the pleasant things Laila said
about me. Not that they influenced me. Only her extreme stupidity
influenced me.
Peter Farey
be because it is going out of business on 5 June, after
which I am going to have to find an alternative.
Anyway the effect has been, and still is, that very few
HLAS post are getting through to me, unless I check out
what has happened recently via Google.
It was in this way that I discovered the latest posts on
this thread, including the following gem from Neil.
Neil Brennen wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Neil Brennan wrote:
> > >
> > > I should check to see if my meaning is correct. A
> > > "rigidnik" has an idee fixe and an unflexible viewpoint,
> > > and must interpret all of reality in the terms of his
> > > idee fixe. Does this sound about right?
> > > Examples: So and So believes someone who died in 1593
> > > wrote Shakespeare, and so everything must be interpreted
> > > in the light of this belief, including a monument
> > > inscription, no matter how twisted the interpretation
> > > may be.
> >
> > Although this is in fact a gross misrepresentation of
> > what I believe, and of how I arrived at such beliefs,
> > I assume that you intend this 'So and So' to be me.
> > Why so coy, Neil?
> > Bob and I have been wasting our time discussing the
> > authorship question - which you so deride - over
> > several years, so he must have a pretty good idea by
> > now of just how much of a 'rigidnik' I am. Why not
> > simply ask him whether he thinks I am one, and precisely
> > what behaviours he has observed which lead him to that
> > conclusion?
>
> Gee Peter, do you think you are the only Marlovian who
> has twisted a reading? It was a composite portrait of
> Marlovians.
Gee Neil, I think you are being quite excruciatingly
disingenuous. Which Marlovian, other than myself, has
'interpreted' the monument inscription? Your attempt
to wriggle out of answering my question is noted. I
must assume, therefore, that you have seen Bob's post
in which he rejects your assumption that either I or
other Marlovians are 'rigidniks'.
> >While you are at it, of course, you might also like to
> >ask him about where you yourself would appear in his
> >taxonomy. My own view is that someone who:
> >
> >* very shortly after his arrival here, complains about
> > having to argue with "authorship lunatics",
>
> Baker the Faker qualified as such.
In your opinion. My point is about what your choosing
to use this expression about him and the others might
tell us about you.
> >* rejects ALL anti-Stratfordian opinion as "foolishness"
> > because "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare",
>
> The weight of evidence is on our side. Agent Jim will
> provide the evidence again, if you missed it the first
> 100 times.
There is nothing in Jim's admirable list that hasn't
been argued over in considerable detail. Jim presents
one side of a complex argument, and to wish to discuss
the other is not 'foolishness'. My point is about what
your choosing to use this expression might tell us about
you.
> >* agrees that he has no interest in trying to understand
> > any alternative theory to the Stratfordian one, and
>
> Again Peter, what do you consider, "understand"? Often
> when one deals with such cranks as the "Authorship"
> people, one finds they use the word "understand" to
> mean "agree with and adopt".
I was quoting you. I have never used the word 'understand'
in this way. My point is about what your choosing to say
this might tell us about you.
> I've read some of the
> "authorship" books, if that makes you happy, including
> Calvin Hoffman, who you cite as a source in one of your
> essays. I remain unconvinced.
Calvin Hoffman's book is dreadful, and nobody in their
right mind would be convinced by it.
> >* is happy to agree, on the basis of a single 'visit' to
> > my website, that I am an 'idiot',
>
> I read several of your essays Peter. It was the monument
> one that convinced me. Until then I just thought you
> were horribly misguided.
Then why do you not do what this newsgroup was set up to
do, and discuss with me what you find idiotic or horribly
misguided about them? You see, Neil, I don't know unless
you tell me, and calling me an idiot for having written
something with which you disagree tells us more about you
than about my opinions. My point, however, is about what
your choosing this word to describe me might tell us
about you.
> >has constructed a glass house of such fragility that
> >any stone-throwing on his part is decidedly foolish.
>
> You are, of course, free to throw stones at my articles
> as well. The act of writing automatically makes one a
> target.
You were not throwing stones at my 'articles' were you
though? You were using (or rather mis-using) Bob's
theory to make a personal attack on me, among others,
and well you know it.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co,uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Farey
>
> It has always seemed to me that the Marlowe-advocates are the
> rigidniks. That includes Peter--
Thanks Bob. I knew this already, of course, but I was
irritated by Neil's hijacking your theory as a means of
attacking others, without even having the guts to name
them.
> although, Peter, I must say
> that this idea of yours that Sane Hoaxsters decided to tell
> posterity that Marlowe helped Shakespeare with The Oeuvre
> by having Droeshout give Shakespeare two right eyes, ears
> and shoulders, in a volume otherwise thoroughly and
> extensively devoted to stating that Shakespeare alone was
> Shakespeare, makes me wonder just what kind of mind you do
> have.
It is a mind which, when it becomes aware of something
not as it should be, is curious enough to wonder what
possible reasons there might be for it. One possible
reason in this case is that Droeshaut was a lousy artist.
The quality of the actual engraving, however, makes me
doubt this, so I consider what it might mean if these
'errors' had in fact been deliberate. It is, of course,
precisely the same thinking that led me to the monument's
hidden meaning. And I'm talking about "What it might
mean", Bob, not why he would have wanted it to mean
that, which is very much harder to determine.
> (Why, for instance,
> when no one noticed the two right eyes, ears and
> shoulders after twenty years or so, didn't the hoaxsters
> reprint the folio and give Shakespeare two right heads
> to better help whoever it was they wanted to know . . .
> The Truth?)
Ignoring your assumption that absence of evidence is
evidence of absence, who said that the *intention*
was for anyone ever to discover the true meaning?
My own view is that this (as with the monument) was
a form of equivocation in which the originators, who
knew the true situation, could:
* avoid downright lying by telling the truth in some
cryptic way (and have fun doing it)
* demonstrate to others who were already aware of the
situation that they had done so
* express the truth in a way which they could deny
was intentional, should anybody who they would
prefer not to know become suspicious.
There probably was an assumption (as Leonard Digges
pointed out) that such things would be 'dissolved'
eventually, but not in their lifetime I would guess.
> Aside from that, and because Pat will not likely answer me, can
> you tell me if there is any not-explicitly-personal literary
> evidence from Marlowe's lifetime that he was a writer? I know
> we have no title-page attributions for him before he died, and I
> know of no references to him by name as a writer in his lifetime--
> except his calling himself a scholar when arrested for coining.
> And that was "personal."
>
> --Bob G.
You're asking the wrong person, Bob. I think he *was*
still alive when many of the references to his writing
were made, remember?
Neil Brennen
Peter Farey wrote in message ...
>Bob Grumman wrote:
>>
>> It has always seemed to me that the Marlowe-advocates are the
>> healthiest-minded of the Shakespeare-Rejectors, and are not
>> rigidniks. That includes Peter--
>
>Thanks Bob. I knew this already, of course, but I was
>irritated by Neil's hijacking your theory as a means of
>attacking others, without even having the guts to name
>them.
Bob, I'm curious, but why do you feel Marlovians are the
"healthiest-minded"?
Bob Grumman
> Ignoring your assumption that absence of evidence is
> evidence of absence,
Absence of evidence is ALWAYS evidence of absence, it simply
is not always GOOD evidence of it. That we have no records of
Shakespeare's formal education is evidence that he had none.
That we have no records from any local schools of the time makes
that evidence very weak. Circumstantial evidence counters it
too strongly for it to prevail.
> who said that the *intention*
> was for anyone ever to discover the true meaning?
Sorry. I admit to finding your scenario of people in the know
using all kinds of bizarre ways of winking at each other but
at no one else hard to take seriously enough to remember.
> My own view is that this (as with the monument) was
> a form of equivocation in which the originators, who
> knew the true situation, could:
> * avoid downright lying by telling the truth in some
> cryptic way (and have fun doing it)
> * demonstrate to others who were already aware of the
> situation that they had done so
> * express the truth in a way which they could deny
> was intentional, should anybody who they would
> prefer not to know become suspicious.
> There probably was an assumption (as Leonard Digges
> pointed out) that such things would be 'dissolved'
> eventually, but not in their lifetime I would guess.
Lenny did no such thing, Peter. But thanks for the restatement
of your position on this matter, which (I again admit) I need.
> > Aside from that, and because Pat will not likely answer me, can
> > you tell me if there is any not-explicitly-personal literary
> > evidence from Marlowe's lifetime that he was a writer? I know
> > we have no title-page attributions for him before he died, and I
> > know of no references to him by name as a writer in his lifetime--
> > except his calling himself a scholar when arrested for coining.
> > And that was "personal."
> You're asking the wrong person, Bob. I think he *was*
> still alive when many of the references to his writing
> were made, remember?
> Peter F.
Right. So can you tell me if there is not-explicitly-personal
literary evidence from before Marlowe was said to have died
at Deptford that he was a writer?
Bob Grumman
> "healthiest-minded"?
Several reasons besides simply the way those at HLAS strike me
(and perhaps my own big preference for Marlowe over the other
would-be Shakespeares):
(1) Marlowe was a known writer of genius.
(2) If he faked his death (yes, a huge supposition), all else
follows reasonably enough.
(3) They aren't worshippers of aristocrats (and mostly don't
assume he was running England as well as writing all the valuable
literature and philosophy of the period).
(4) The Marlowe-was-Shakespeare scenario is simply much more
fun than any of the others--which suggests that its advocates
are more fun-loving than other anti-Stratfordians, which--for me--
is a sign of (relative) healthy-mindedness.
Which isn't to say that the healthiest-minded Shakespeare-Rejector
is any more healthy-minded than the largest bug in my yard is large.
Roundtable
>
> Things around here are surprising dry, from my point of view, these days.
> Baker certainly wasn't.
Yes, Baker wrote things that were interesting to argue about,
sometimes, I think, being deliberately outrageous to get a good hot
and spicy discussion started.
> Janice Miller
> Framingham, Massachusetts
The first person I had a crush on, from the age of 11 to 15,
was from Boston, Massachusetts. Last name was Leighton.
An Irish-American Catholic. Died August 19th, 1991 after a long
and unidentified illness, my old-students school newspaper informed me.
Liked Hemingway and wanted to act and write, like me. Had dark eyes
and dark hair. Was very cute. We never even kissed, though.
Roundtable
Neuendorffer
> > Bob, I'm curious, but why do you feel Marlovians are the
> > "healthiest-minded"?
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Several reasons besides simply the way those at HLAS strike me
> (and perhaps my own big preference for Marlowe over the other
> would-be Shakespeares):
>
> (1) Marlowe was a known writer of genius.
>
> (2) If he faked his death (yes, a huge supposition), all else
> follows reasonably enough.
Perhaps he faked his writing as well.
> (3) They aren't worshippers of aristocrats (and mostly don't
> assume he was running England as well as writing all the valuable
> literature and philosophy of the period).
"In the Senate Right not our quest in this, I will protest them
To all the world, no aristocracy." --B. Jonson.
Aristocracy, n. [Gr. ?; ? best + ? to be strong, to rule, ? strength; ?
is perh. from the same root as E. arm, and orig. meant fitting: cf. F.
aristocratie.] A ruling body composed of the best citizens. [Obs.]
From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY
ARISTOCRACY, n. Fellows that wear downy hats and clean shirts -- guilty
of education and suspected of bank accounts.
> (4) The Marlowe-was-Shakespeare scenario is simply much more
> fun than any of the others--which suggests that its advocates
> are more fun-loving than other anti-Stratfordians, which--for me--
> is a sign of (relative) healthy-mindedness.
Does this look like a healthy-mind to you?
http://members.aol.com/davemore/morepics/brawl.jpg
Art Neuendorffer
Paul Crowley
>
> Bob Grumman wrote in message
> <840824397dc2b1c6ec9...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> >Neil, let me spray a few thoughts on rigidnikry, as I understand
> >it (I think). It's fairly complicated, and it's been a while seen
> >I gavemyself my last tutorial in the subject, so this will be
> >hit and miss. Eventually, I hope to post the chapter I have in
> >my book on it. It's not yet ready for exposure.
>
> Okay.
O happy day . . . one word-blind idiot finds another . .
Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments . . .
Paul.
Neil Brennen
Paul Crowley wrote in message <5NuD8.13278$e5.9...@news.indigo.ie>...
I would answer this, but I'd planned on setting aside the morning to reading
Mr. Crowley's "interesting" views on the sonnets and, dare I mention it,
such beasts as "aquatic apes". Sunday morning is a good time to read the
funny pages, don't you think?
David L. Webb
Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:<ac239de7fca24a89738...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> > > "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
[...]
> > True. I just haven't had time to get to you. You'd better watch out,
> > though. First there was Okay Fine. Then Baker. And you don't see
> > Richard Kennedy around anymore, do you? And what happened to Elizabeth?
> I've been reading relativity theory.
Well, it's about time! You spent a couple of weeks recently making
a complete fool of yourself, largely because you had never even read,
let alone *understood*, anything on the subject -- with the possible
exception of inaccurate popularizations, and even those you farcically
misunderstood. Of course, with the nonexistent mathematical background
betrayed by your assertion that "Both Eudlidean and non-Eudclidean
geometry can describe the same space" and other hilarious howlers,
there is little hope of your actually *understanding* a word of what
you read unless you learn some rudimentary mathematics first, but you
might at least be able to understand a little of the Special theory.
Max Born's book is still a good starting point, requiring little
mathematics beyond basic calculus and linear algebra and little physics
beyond Maxwell's equations. Taylor and Wheeler is also quite good, and
presupposes little beyond linear algebra and calculus.
> I've been relishing it because at the end of
> his frustrated life Einstein was a chastened
> Baconian.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you claiming that
Einstein embraced Bacon's philosophy? Or that Einstein attributed the
works of Shakespeare to Bacon? (Or possibly something even more
bizarre?) Do you actually have any *evidence* of either? I suppose
that your presenting evidence is possible -- there's always a first
time. Or are you going to continue making ridiculous, unsupported
assertions about texts that you have never read?
Bob Grumman
> >Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments . . .
> >Paul.
Gee, Paul, I was hoping that Laila's finding you would buoy you
sufficiently for you to be pleased that someone has also found me!
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> >O happy day . . . one word-blind idiot finds another . .
> >Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments . . .
> >Paul.
>
>
> I would answer this, but I'd planned on setting aside the morning to reading
> Mr. Crowley's "interesting" views on the sonnets and, dare I mention it,
> such beasts as "aquatic apes". Sunday morning is a good time to read the
> funny pages, don't you think?
The real question is how you are going to reconcile
it all with your dedicated support of the Taleban and
your fervent Mooneyism. When is the mass-wedding?
Paul.
Neil Brennen
Paul Crowley wrote in message ...
Could you post examples of my having expressed support for either of these
causes? Could anyone?
When you do, Paul, we can discuss your whack on-line history.
KQKnave
"Roundtable" <lancelo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>Yes, Baker wrote things that were interesting to argue about,
>sometimes, I think, being deliberately outrageous to get a good hot
>and spicy discussion started.
>
Baker is an idiot who posts idiotic notions. The only reason
anybody responded was to correct his moronic assertions
for the benefit of those just stopping by.
See my demolition of Elliott and Valenza's "Equivalent Words Ratios"!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/EVof.html
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Elizabeth Weir
> In article <efbc3534.02051...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> > news:<ac239de7fca24a89738...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> > > > "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> [...]
> > > True. I just haven't had time to get to you. You'd better watch out,
> > > though. First there was Okay Fine. Then Baker. And you don't see
> > > Richard Kennedy around anymore, do you? And what happened to Elizabeth?
>
> > I've been reading relativity theory.
>
> Well, it's about time! You spent a couple of weeks recently making
> a complete fool of yourself,
Einsteinian relativity is on the wane and Neo-Lorentzian theory is
replacing it.
Your Darthmouth colleague, Professor J.P. Hsu is a Neo-Lorentzian.
There are many more out there.
> largely because you had never even read,
> let alone *understood*, anything on the subject -- with the possible
> exception of inaccurate popularizations, and even those you farcically
> misunderstood.
You're stuck in the past.
> Of course, with the nonexistent mathematical background
> betrayed by your assertion that "Both Eudlidean and non-Eudclidean
> geometry can describe the same space"
Space is space and it can be described by any geometry. As a mathematician
you should know that.
Einstein's dystopian view of space may be described by non-Euclidean
geometry but as it stands at this moment, Einstein's "distorted nothingness"
as Heaviside put it, has not been proven.
> and other hilarious howlers,
> there is little hope of your actually *understanding* a word of what
> you read unless you learn some rudimentary mathematics first, but you
> might at least be able to understand a little of the Special theory.
The 1905 version of STR was so inadequate a description of physical
space that Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to fix it.
> Max Born's book is still a good starting point, requiring little
> mathematics beyond basic calculus and linear algebra and little physics
> beyond Maxwell's equations. Taylor and Wheeler is also quite good, and
> presupposes little beyond linear algebra and calculus.
I see that I've had a positive influence on you.
> > I've been relishing it because at the end of
> > his frustrated life Einstein was a chastened
> > Baconian.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by this.
Not surprising since you know nothing about Bacon science.
> Are you claiming that
> Einstein embraced Bacon's philosophy?
"Embraced" is too strong. Einstein came to realize that
mathematical models of the physical world are no
substitute for experimental models of the physical world.
> Or that Einstein attributed the
> works of Shakespeare to Bacon?
Get a grip.
>(Or possibly something even more
> bizarre?) Do you actually have any *evidence* of either?
I have evidence that Einstein shifted away from his Kantian
presumptions and ended his life a chastened man.
I don't have any evidence that "Einstein attributed the works
of Shakespeare to Bacon."
> I suppose
> that your presenting evidence is possible -- there's always a first
> time.
I sense latent anxiety.
> Or are you going to continue making ridiculous, unsupported
> assertions about texts that you have never read?
When are you going to ask an honest question?
Paul Crowley
What makes you think I want to discuss anything
with a neo-Nazi paedophile -- someone who has
no objection whatever to spreading irrelevant,
random and quite unsupported ad-hominen
abuse?
Paul.
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<120520021046501166%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> > In article <efbc3534.02051...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> > Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<ac239de7fca24a89738...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> > > > > "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > > > True. I just haven't had time to get to you. You'd better watch out,
> > > > though. First there was Okay Fine. Then Baker. And you don't see
> > > > Richard Kennedy around anymore, do you? And what happened to Elizabeth?
> > > I've been reading relativity theory.
> > Well, it's about time! You spent a couple of weeks recently making
> > a complete fool of yourself,
> Einsteinian relativity is on the wane
This must be one of the funniest claims I've ever seen on Usenet (or
anywhere else, for that matter)! Special relativity is one of the most
secure foundations of modern physics; it has been tested experimentally
literally thousands of times, in everything from elementary particle
experiments to astronomical observations to optical phenomena. Its
acceptance is utterly unaffected by the farcical misunderstandings of a
few ignorant cranks.
>and Neo-Lorentzian theory is
> replacing it.
Here's what Lorentz himself had to say about Einstein's theory:
"A transformation of the time was necessary. So I introduced the
conception of a local time which is different for all systems of
reference which are in motion relative to each other. But I never
thought that this had anything to do with real time. This real
time for me was still represented by the old classical notion of
an absolute time, which is independent of any reference to special
frames of coordinates. There existed for me only this one true
time. I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic
working hypothesis. So the theory of relativity is solely
Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he would have
conceived it even if the work of his predecessors in the field
had not been done at all. His work in this respect is independent
of the previous theories."
> Your Darthmouth colleague, Professor J.P. Hsu
There is nobody named Hsu among my colleagues at Dartmouth; I don't
know where you hallucinated this factoid. The most likely explanation
is that you don't even know the difference between *Dartmouth College*,
a private, Ivy League institution, and the University of Massachusetts
at Dartmouth, a branch campus of the public University of Massachusetts
system. The latter has *no* affiliation whatever with the former --
its campus merely happens to be located in North Dartmouth, MA -- but
it does have Jong-Ping Hsu as a member of its Engineering faculty, a
circumstance which may be the source of your comic confusion.
> is a Neo-Lorentzian.
I have no idea what you mean by that. One of Hsu's monographs is
entitled _Einstein's Relativity and Beyond -- New Symmetry Approaches_.
That sounds like the language of an "Einsteinian" as much as that of a
"Neo-Lorentzian."
> There are many more out there.
There are a few ignorant cranks such as yourself "out there"; Hsu is
certainly not among them.
> > largely because you had never even read,
> > let alone *understood*, anything on the subject -- with the possible
> > exception of inaccurate popularizations, and even those you farcically
> > misunderstood.
> You're stuck in the past.
No, I understand the mathematics and science involved; regrettably,
you do not.
> > Of course, with the nonexistent mathematical background
> > betrayed by your assertion that "Both Eudlidean and non-Eudclidean
> > geometry can describe the same space"
> Space is space and it can be described by any geometry.
No, you do not know what you're talking about -- as usual. Only in
symplectic geometry, where Darboux's theorem holds, are all the spaces
locally equivalent to the linear space model with its bilinear form.
Riemannian geometry is far more rigid. One of Riemann's great theorems
was his discovery that the Riemann curvature tensor is the obstruction
to local isometry. The simplest expression of this result is the fact
that unless a Riemannian manifoid has zero curvature, it cannot even be
*locally* equivalent geometrically (i.e., locally isometric) to
Euclidean space, let alone globally equivalent. Since hyperbolic space
has constant curvature -1, it is not even *locally* equivalent to
Euclidean space. *No* hyperbolic space can be described by Euclidean
geometry.
> As a mathematician
> you should know that.
> Einstein's dystopian
"Dystopian"?! What's "dystopian" about Einstein's view of space?!
> view of space may be described by non-Euclidean
> geometry but as it stands at this moment, Einstein's "distorted nothingness"
> as Heaviside put it, has not been proven.
See Clifford Will's book for an assessment of the experimental
evidence for general relativity, which is on very firm ground. About
the essential correctness of the special theory there is no dispute.
> > and other hilarious howlers,
> > there is little hope of your actually *understanding* a word of what
> > you read unless you learn some rudimentary mathematics first, but you
> > might at least be able to understand a little of the Special theory.
> The 1905 version of STR was so inadequate a description of physical
> space that Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to fix it.
No, the special theory as it is used in everything from modern
particle physics to engineering is essentially *unchanged* from
Einstein's view of the subject around 1905 -- both the kinematic
foundations (Einstein's derivation and correct interpretation of the
Lorentz transformations) and the dynamical results (the relativistic
formulation of energy and momentum, and the mass-energy equivalence).
The subject has been expressed geometrically, thanks to Minkowski's
insight, and many rather surprising consequences of the theory have
been noted by myriads of scientists in various disciplines, but the
core of the subject remains almost *exactly* as Einstein conceived it.
Indeed, Einstein's early papers on the subject *still* serve as an
admirable introduction to relativity for those versed in rudimentary
mathematics and in classical electrodynamics -- I realize, of course,
that that does not include you.
Rather, what Einstein spent most of his life trying to achieve
(after successfully completing the formulation of general relativity)
was the construction of a unified theory describing known physical
interactions. Such a theory is still eagerly sought, although in
directions rather different from those pursued by Einstein.
> > Max Born's book is still a good starting point, requiring little
> > mathematics beyond basic calculus and linear algebra and little physics
> > beyond Maxwell's equations. Taylor and Wheeler is also quite good, and
> > presupposes little beyond linear algebra and calculus.
> I see that I've had a positive influence on you.
No, I read Born with enjoyment when I was still in junior high
school; it's a pity that you still have not done so.
> > > I've been relishing it because at the end of
> > > his frustrated life Einstein was a chastened
> > > Baconian.
> > I have no idea what you mean by this.
> Not surprising since you know nothing about Bacon science.
How on earth would you know? You know nothing about *any* science,
"Bacon" or otherwise.
> > Are you claiming that
> > Einstein embraced Bacon's philosophy?
> "Embraced" is too strong. Einstein came to realize that
> mathematical models of the physical world are no
> substitute for experimental models of the physical world.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are
not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer
to reality."
This Einstein quotation is at least as early as 1921.
Einstein *never* placed undue reliance upon mathematical models --
indeed, Einstein once said "Since the mathematicians have invaded the
theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore," and he is
quoted by Seelig as saying "I don't believe in mathematics." Rather,
Einstein thought and wrote like a physicist. He has had a lasting
impact upon mathematics, but mathematics was neither his primary
interest nor his means of doing theoretical physics.
> > Or that Einstein attributed the
> > works of Shakespeare to Bacon?
> Get a grip.
Why? That assertion is certainly not *nearly* as preposterous as
the hilarious hogwash you have been regaling us with when you venture
into fields like mathematics and physics of which you know nothing.
> >(Or possibly something even more
> > bizarre?) Do you actually have any *evidence* of either?
> I have evidence that Einstein shifted away from his Kantian
> presumptions and ended his life a chastened man.
And that evidence is...?
> I don't have any evidence that "Einstein attributed the works
> of Shakespeare to Bacon."
You don't have any evidence of any of your *other* assertions
either. You still have not supplied any quotation from any of
Poincaré's papers on hyperbolic geometry that has any bearing on
relativity, nor have you provided any quotation from Poincaré's papers
on relativity that shows Poincaré formulating the theory in kinematic
or geometric terms.
> > I suppose
> > that your presenting evidence is possible -- there's always a first
> > time.
> I sense latent anxiety.
No, I'd just like to see if you could actually do it, even *once*.
> > Or are you going to continue making ridiculous, unsupported
> > assertions about texts that you have never read?
> When are you going to ask an honest question?
That was a sincere question. Evidently the answer is exactly what I
expected.
David Webb
David L. Webb
Roth <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> I just don't bother to. Nonsense is like a virus: the more you tackle
> it, the more it spreads. The only way to deal with nonsense is to
> delete it at once. The mistake of John Baker, Richard Kennedy,
> Elizabeth, "Okay Fine" and the others you boast of having silenced for
> ever was to at all bother about your nonsense.
>
> Laila Roth, Derbyite
No, you seem to be sadly misinformed about newsgroup history. The
blunders of Faker, Richard Kennedy, Okay Fine and Elizabeth Weir were
far more substantive and objective than that. Specifically:
(1) Baker claimed to have "solved" Fermat's Last Theorem; his
"solution" was deluded gibberish bearing no resemblance whatever to a
mathematical proof. He also opined that the Apollo lunar landing was
faked, a notion in defense of which he posted all manner of hogwash
that could not even be charitably characterized as pseudoscientific.
Finally, he has claimed on several occasions in this forum and others
that he is a Ph.D., and he has even dared others in rather derisive
terms to match his educational record, yet his putative Ph.D. was found
to be completely bogus and his claims of grandiose educational
attainments fraudulent.
(2) Okay Fine triumphantly demonstrated an apparently irremediable
inability to read ordinary English prose beyond the fourth sentence of
a document. Specifically, he triumphantly cited an essay by Terry Ross
that contained a "quotation" from Puttenham (whom Okay Fine, rather
predictably, confused with Peacham). However, the entire point of
Terry's essay, clearly enunciated already in the *fourth sentence*, is
that the quotation is a fake. I invite you to read the essay yourself
at <http://shakespeareauthorship.com/putt1.html> and see whether you
agree that the fourth sentence is unequivocal and clear.
(3) Richard Kennedy's embarrassing gaffes are far too numerous to list
(as are Faker's and Weir's), but one of the highlights was the instance
of Kennedy's "scholarship" in which he demonstrated that he is unable
to distinguish between original text and annotator's commentary. I
invite you to consult
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EHI8EH.1qs%40midway.uchicago.edu&r
num=2>
and verify this for yourself.
(4) Elizabeth Weir has been posting all manner of nonsense for which
she can furnish no source (except, presumably, her own hallucinations).
Most recently, this has included not only ridiculous allegations of
plagiarism (or as Weir would say, "plagerism") directed at Einstein but
also farcically false assertions about mathematics and physics, of
which fields she is completely ignorant.
Mind you, I don't attribute the temporary disapparance of any of
these individuals to anything Bob Grumman said -- indeed, I take it as
a hopeful sign that these individuals still retain *some* semblance of
self-respect that they would disappear for a time after making such
complete asses of themselves. However, their wounds are, as is usual
for those who have no idea what they're talking about, self-inflicted.
Their voluntary departure, even if occasioned by chagrin at their own
exhibitionistic displays of incompetence, is attributable solely to
that incompetence that they demonstrated so decisively, not to any
"nonsense" from Bob Grumman or from anyone else. Their own nonsense
was quite sufficient.
David Webb
Bob Grumman
>
> No, you do not know what you're talking about -- as usual. Only in
> symplectic geometry, where Darboux's theorem holds, are all the spaces
> locally equivalent to the linear space model with its bilinear form.
> Riemannian geometry is far more rigid. One of Riemann's great theorems
> was his discovery that the Riemann curvature tensor is the obstruction
> to local isometry. The simplest expression of this result is the fact
> that unless a Riemannian manifoid has zero curvature, it cannot even be
> *locally* equivalent geometrically (i.e., locally isometric) to
> Euclidean space, let alone globally equivalent. Since hyperbolic space
> has constant curvature -1, it is not even *locally* equivalent to
> Euclidean space. *No* hyperbolic space can be described by Euclidean
> geometry.
Elizabeth is certainly a crank, but I must thank her for inciting
so much interesting educational material out of you, David. Frankly,
I don't understand it, but I do feel I'm absorbing it, and may even
finally see the light. I suspect my basic attitude toward modern
physics is not far from Elizabeth's--but, unlike her, I absolutely
know that I'm incompetent to judge it. (I also DO understand SOME
of it, as far as I can tell, and all I think I understand goes against
Elizabeth's position.) Final thought, in this preposterously
off-subject thread which I'm grateful for: I'd love to read a
book for laymen on the history of man's conception of space; is
there one? Possibly one of the books on the history of the ether
would, in effect, be such a book. My basic problem in this area is
that I'm tied to the notion that something must exist that has NO
properties, and can have none. Maybe I'm a slave of dichotomy: I
have to believe in a not-material in opposition to matter/energy.
Laila Roth
> In article <b46bc4.020511...@posting.google.com>, Laila
> Roth <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I just don't bother to. Nonsense is like a virus: the more you tackle
> > it, the more it spreads. The only way to deal with nonsense is to
> > delete it at once. The mistake of John Baker, Richard Kennedy,
> > Elizabeth, "Okay Fine" and the others you boast of having silenced for
> > ever was to at all bother about your nonsense.
> >
> > Laila Roth, Derbyite
>
> No, you seem to be sadly misinformed about newsgroup history. The
> blunders of Faker, Richard Kennedy, Okay Fine and Elizabeth Weir were
> far more substantive and objective than that. Specifically:
You know very well how young and green I am, so naturally I am
grateful for your information.
>
> (1) Baker claimed to have "solved" Fermat's Last Theorem; his
> "solution" was deluded gibberish bearing no resemblance whatever to a
> mathematical proof. He also opined that the Apollo lunar landing was
> faked, a notion in defense of which he posted all manner of hogwash
> that could not even be charitably characterized as pseudoscientific.
> Finally, he has claimed on several occasions in this forum and others
> that he is a Ph.D., and he has even dared others in rather derisive
> terms to match his educational record, yet his putative Ph.D. was found
> to be completely bogus and his claims of grandiose educational
> attainments fraudulent.
>
I haven't read much of Baker's, but my impression is that you have all
taken him too seriously.
> (2) Okay Fine triumphantly demonstrated an apparently irremediable
> inability to read ordinary English prose beyond the fourth sentence of
> a document. Specifically, he triumphantly cited an essay by Terry Ross
> that contained a "quotation" from Puttenham (whom Okay Fine, rather
> predictably, confused with Peacham). However, the entire point of
> Terry's essay, clearly enunciated already in the *fourth sentence*, is
> that the quotation is a fake. I invite you to read the essay yourself
> at <http://shakespeareauthorship.com/putt1.html> and see whether you
> agree that the fourth sentence is unequivocal and clear.
I know nothing about "Okay Fine", but his soubriquet gives the scent
of a rather positive and carefree disposition.
>
> (3) Richard Kennedy's embarrassing gaffes are far too numerous to list
> (as are Faker's and Weir's), but one of the highlights was the instance
> of Kennedy's "scholarship" in which he demonstrated that he is unable
> to distinguish between original text and annotator's commentary. I
> invite you to consult
>
>
Richard Kennedy always made me laugh, especially since so many of you
didn't think him funny at all.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EHI8EH.1qs%40midway.uchicago.edu&r
> num=2>
>
> and verify this for yourself.
>
> (4) Elizabeth Weir has been posting all manner of nonsense for which
> she can furnish no source (except, presumably, her own hallucinations).
> Most recently, this has included not only ridiculous allegations of
> plagiarism (or as Weir would say, "plagerism") directed at Einstein but
> also farcically false assertions about mathematics and physics, of
> which fields she is completely ignorant.
>
I have the greatest respect for Elizabeth as long as she speaks about
Bacon. What she knows about Einstein I don't know, but she definitely
knows a lot more about Bacon than any other of us.
> Mind you, I don't attribute the temporary disapparance of any of
> these individuals to anything Bob Grumman said -- indeed, I take it as
> a hopeful sign that these individuals still retain *some* semblance of
> self-respect that they would disappear for a time after making such
> complete asses of themselves. However, their wounds are, as is usual
> for those who have no idea what they're talking about, self-inflicted.
> Their voluntary departure, even if occasioned by chagrin at their own
> exhibitionistic displays of incompetence, is attributable solely to
> that incompetence that they demonstrated so decisively, not to any
> "nonsense" from Bob Grumman or from anyone else. Their own nonsense
> was quite sufficient.
>
> David Webb
Bob Grumman, finally. To me he is a hopeless case of ignorance, a
clown to be the only one to enjoy his own caprices. He can't
understand what you say to him, and as he goes on repeating his
nonsense he gets the idea that no one understands what he's saying, so
he continues repeating it, almost like Jim, a very learned man who
gets mixed up in his own repetitiveness.
The one I find most pleasure in reading now is Pat Dooley for his
almost perfect strictness, and he never tells us any nonsense.
Thanks again.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Elizabeth Weir
Webb gets his information about Einstein from biographies.
Webb should know better because he constantly cites Nabokov's justifiable
complaint that biographies are not credible sources.
As far as Einstein is concerned, Webb can't answer to the fact
that his Dartmouth colleague physics Professor J.P. Hsu can
throw out Einstein's superflous Second Postulate and still have a
complete working relativity theory that is consistent
with quantum physics, because, Laila, to admit to Lorenzian
relativity would prove that Einstein was a plagiarist.
And a pathological liar. And a fool because Hsu [and others]
demonstrate that Einstein's equations were not "derived" from
Einstein's "thought experiments" but were swiped from physics journals
that landed on his desk at the Berne Patent Office. All of the
various parts that Einstein plagiarized were in print before
Einstein mailed his paper to the Annalen der Physik and Einstein
would have seen all the papers while checking priority on patents.
Unlike Webb, who habitually stabs other posters in the back
in second party posts, I won't respond to
Webb's personal insults toward me in this post.
> > Mind you, I don't attribute the temporary disapparance of any of
> > these individuals to anything Bob Grumman said -- indeed, I take it as
> > a hopeful sign that these individuals still retain *some* semblance of
> > self-respect that they would disappear for a time after making such
> > complete asses of themselves.
An example of the above.
> > however, their wounds are, as is usual
> > for those who have no idea what they're talking about, self-inflicted.
> > Their voluntary departure, even if occasioned by chagrin at their own
> > exhibitionistic displays of incompetence, is attributable solely to
> > that incompetence that they demonstrated so decisively, not to any
> > "nonsense" from Bob Grumman or from anyone else. Their own nonsense
> > was quite sufficient.
More of the same.
> > David Webb
HLAS was a much more interesting forum when I arrived a little over
a year ago. Dissention makes a forum exciting but the jesuitical
Webb has assumed responsibility for enforcing orthodoxy. You may
have noticed, Laila, that fewer and fewer posters are posting more
and more boring posts.
> Bob Grumman, finally. To me he is a hopeless case of ignorance, a
> clown to be the only one to enjoy his own caprices. He can't
> understand what you say to him, and as he goes on repeating his
> nonsense he gets the idea that no one understands what he's saying, so
> he continues repeating it, almost like Jim, a very learned man who
> gets mixed up in his own repetitiveness.
>
> The one I find most pleasure in reading now is Pat Dooley for his
> almost perfect strictness, and he never tells us any nonsense.
Dooley is a defender of theories derived from biography. That
is the font of nonsense.
Laila Roth
Whoever enters into Einstein treads the path into an abyss. The
Einsteinean problem that overshadows all is his involvement with the
A-bomb. In 1936 he prompted the American government to launch the
Manhattan project with the sole purpose of anticipating the Germans in
developing the bomb. No one knew whether the Germans were developing
the bomb or not - James Hilton wrote a novel about this most secret
race. When finally Oppenheimer & CO had the bomb, the American
generals obtained the information that the Germans did not. Instead of
cancelling the project, the American generals witheld that information
from Oppenheimer and the other scientists with the intention to have
the bomb used anyway but against the Japanese, although the Japanese
were almost finished already and quite desperate, developing Kamikadze
techniques instead of bombs. After the capitulation of the Germans,
the Japanese sought peace, but the allies closed all doors and would
not listen. The use of the bomb against civilians in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was solely a propaganda pyromaniac putsch to create an effect
and had no political significance, since the war was all but formally
finished - the allies defended it by stating they did it "in order to
save lives". So they sacrificed some hundred thousand civilians in
order to save the lives of a few American soldiers; but those 500,000
civilians constituted no threat against any American. Since then, Asia
has been critical against America.
Oppenheimer and Einstein both felt bad about it, since they had been
tricked by the generals into an abyss of guilt. Several of the
militaries responsible went mad afterwards, for instance the Hiroshima
pilot who dropped the bomb, who was decorated for it.
Neither Oppenheimer nor Einstein were allowed to speak their minds
about it. Einstein said something about that science had been abused
for military means and admitted his own guilt, but neither he nor
Oppenheimer ever got over it. Oppenheimer died of cancer, stamped by
the American government as a permanent security risk. There is a case
for you for the Hague International War Tribunal, which dwarfs the
Milosevic case, and which never has been opened. Bertrand Russell
almost tried to, but only 'almost'.
So I don't care much about Einstein myself. He had his troubles, and
he would have been better off without overestimating the Germans and
underestimating the villainy of ordinary American generals with a
certain weakness for exaggerated pyrotechnics. He can never be
absolved from his part of the responsibility.
But what right have we to chat about advanced nuclear physics and
state secrets? We are just a couple of branded excommunicados, 'wacks'
exiled from the exclusive right of the Stratfordians to know about
things.
> Unlike Webb, who habitually stabs other posters in the back
> in second party posts, I won't respond to
> Webb's personal insults toward me in this post.
>
> > > Mind you, I don't attribute the temporary disapparance of any of
> > > these individuals to anything Bob Grumman said -- indeed, I take it as
> > > a hopeful sign that these individuals still retain *some* semblance of
> > > self-respect that they would disappear for a time after making such
> > > complete asses of themselves.
>
> An example of the above.
>
> > > however, their wounds are, as is usual
> > > for those who have no idea what they're talking about, self-inflicted.
> > > Their voluntary departure, even if occasioned by chagrin at their own
> > > exhibitionistic displays of incompetence, is attributable solely to
> > > that incompetence that they demonstrated so decisively, not to any
> > > "nonsense" from Bob Grumman or from anyone else. Their own nonsense
> > > was quite sufficient.
>
> More of the same.
>
> > > David Webb
>
> HLAS was a much more interesting forum when I arrived a little over
> a year ago. Dissention makes a forum exciting but the jesuitical
> Webb has assumed responsibility for enforcing orthodoxy. You may
> have noticed, Laila, that fewer and fewer posters are posting more
> and more boring posts.
>
Yes, I have noticed, that the most boring Strafordians are
accelerating their rates of brainfarts and oral diarrhoea.
> > Bob Grumman, finally. To me he is a hopeless case of ignorance, a
> > clown to be the only one to enjoy his own caprices. He can't
> > understand what you say to him, and as he goes on repeating his
> > nonsense he gets the idea that no one understands what he's saying, so
> > he continues repeating it, almost like Jim, a very learned man who
> > gets mixed up in his own repetitiveness.
> >
> > The one I find most pleasure in reading now is Pat Dooley for his
> > almost perfect strictness, and he never tells us any nonsense.
>
> Dooley is a defender of theories derived from biography. That
> is the font of nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with Dooley's statistics, which conclusively
prove that Shakespeare was no writer, which anyone can see except
Stratfordians, who don't want to and continue wasting their energy on
defending their nonsense by more nonsense.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Elizabeth Weir
The main problem is that anyone that criticizes Einstein's
THEORY
is automatically under suspicion of anti-Semitism. It's a theory.
It's not a person.
> The
> Einsteinean problem that overshadows all is his involvement with the
> A-bomb. In 1936 he prompted the American government to launch the
> Manhattan project with the sole purpose of anticipating the Germans in
> developing the bomb. No one knew whether the Germans were developing
> the bomb or not - James Hilton wrote a novel about this most secret
> race.
>
> When finally Oppenheimer & CO had the bomb, the American
> generals obtained the information that the Germans did not. Instead of
> cancelling the project, the American generals witheld that information
> from Oppenheimer and the other scientists with the intention to have
> the bomb used anyway but against the Japanese, although the Japanese
> were almost finished already and quite desperate, developing Kamikadze
> techniques instead of bombs. After the capitulation of the Germans,
> the Japanese sought peace, but the allies closed all doors and would
> not listen.
>
> The use of the bomb against civilians in Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki was solely a propaganda pyromaniac putsch to create an effect
> and had no political significance, since the war was all but formally
> finished - the allies defended it by stating they did it "in order to
> save lives". So they sacrificed some hundred thousand civilians in
> order to save the lives of a few American soldiers; but those 500,000
> civilians constituted no threat against any American. Since then, Asia
> has been critical against America.
I don't know anything about the politics of that situation.
> Oppenheimer and Einstein both felt bad about it, since they had been
> tricked by the generals into an abyss of guilt. Several of the
> militaries responsible went mad afterwards, for instance the Hiroshima
> pilot who dropped the bomb, who was decorated for it.
I saw the guy on television a few years ago. He seemed unapologetic.
His plane was named after his mother. Enola Gay.
> Neither Oppenheimer nor Einstein were allowed to speak their minds
> about it. Einstein said something about that science had been abused
> for military means and admitted his own guilt, but neither he nor
> Oppenheimer ever got over it. Oppenheimer died of cancer, stamped by
> the American government as a permanent security risk. There is a case
> for you for the Hague International War Tribunal, which dwarfs the
> Milosevic case, and which never has been opened. Bertrand Russell
> almost tried to, but only 'almost'.
Russell was a geniuine pacifist. Einstein called himself a
pacifist but was openly Zionist. I'm not sure how one can
be a "pacifist Zionist."
> So I don't care much about Einstein myself.
I think we have to separate the chastened Einstein at the end
of his life from the earlier smug plagiarizing wife abuser.
I think Einstein was capable of regret. I feel a little sorry
for him.
> He had his troubles, and
> he would have been better off without overestimating the Germans and
> underestimating the villainy of ordinary American generals with a
> certain weakness for exaggerated pyrotechnics. He can never be
> absolved from his part of the responsibility.
Are you sure about this?
> But what right have we to chat about advanced nuclear physics and
> state secrets? We are just a couple of branded excommunicados, 'wacks'
> exiled from the exclusive right of the Stratfordians to know about
> things.
I'm not qualified to chat about advanced nuclear physics and
I'm only interested in 17th c. state secrets.
Price and Dooley get credit for putting the Authorship Dispute on
a scientific basis but there's problem with the standard of
evidence Price-Dooley apply. The terms "personal" and "impersonal"
are meaningless in qualifying evidence. Price-Dooley also adjusted
the criteria to exclude Jonson. And got caught.
You're right, Laila, that Price and Dooley organized the
evidence in such a way that it graphically reveals that
the Strats had less evidence than we had all assumed.
David L. Webb
[...]
> > > > I haven't read much of Baker's, but my impression is that you have all
> > > > taken him too seriously.
No sane person is apt to take *any* of Weir, Faker, Okay Fine,
Richard Kennedy, etc. at all seriously.
[...]
> > > > > (4) Elizabeth Weir has been posting all manner of nonsense for which
> > > > > she can furnish no source (except, presumably, her own
> > > > > hallucinations).
> > > > > Most recently, this has included not only ridiculous allegations of
> > > > > plagiarism (or as Weir would say, "plagerism") directed at Einstein
> > > > > but
> > > > > also farcically false assertions about mathematics and physics, of
> > > > > which fields she is completely ignorant.
> > > > I have the greatest respect for Elizabeth as long as she speaks about
> > > > Bacon. What she knows about Einstein I don't know, but she definitely
> > > > knows a lot more about Bacon than any other of us.
No, she merely *invents* a lot more about Bacon than the rest of us.
> > > Webb gets his information about Einstein from biographies.
No, I've quoted directly from the papers of Einstein and Poincaré,
something Weir has yet to do; since she has not even read, let alone
understood, either one, her conspicuous failure in that regard is not
at all surprising.
[...]
> > > As far as Einstein is concerned, Webb can't answer to the fact
> > > that his Dartmouth colleague physics Professor J.P. Hsu
Weir's ability to read is about on a par with her mathematics. As I
wrote the last time Weir spouted this delusional rubbish,
"There is nobody named Hsu among my colleagues at Dartmouth; I
don't know where you hallucinated this factoid. The most likely
explanation is that you don't even know the difference between
*Dartmouth College*, a private, Ivy League institution, and the
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, a branch campus of the
public University of Massachusetts system. The latter has *no*
affiliation whatever with the former -- its campus merely happens
to be located in North Dartmouth, MA -- but it does have Jong-Ping
Hsu as a member of its Engineering faculty, a circumstance which
may be the source of your comic confusion."
> > > can
> > > throw out Einstein's superflous Second Postulate and still have a
> > > complete working relativity theory that is consistent
> > > with quantum physics,
Special relativity has been consistent with quantum mechanics ever
since the work of Dirac and the Klein-Gordon equation. As usual, Weir
doesn't know what she is gibbering about.
> > > because, Laila, to admit to Lorenzian
> > > relativity would prove that Einstein was a plagiarist.
No, while the Lorentz transformations are the correct coordinate
transformations for special relativistic kinematics since they preserve
Maxwell's equations, Lorentz's interpretation of these tranformations
was untenable. I've already pointed this out, and have explained in
detail, with quotations from Sartori, French, etc., why this is the
case. Of course, Weir merely ignored this material, as her command of
mathematics and science is that of an inveterate crackpot and she
doesn't even understand the technical meanings of the words she
misuses. From
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=240420021357363562%25David.L.Webb%
40Dartmouth.edu&rnum=1>:
-----------------
No; although Lorentz's contribution was immensely important, his
theory *as a whole* is untenable, since he does not ascribe physical
significance to his _Ortszeit_, the key conceptual breakthrough made by
Einstein in constructing a new kinematics. One of the best accounts
accessible to readers with little mathematical training is Sartori's
book. His summary of the physics community's assessment of Lorentz's
work reads in part:
"Lorentz's aim was 'to reduce, at least as far as possible, the
equations for a moving system to the form of the ordinary formulae
that hold for a system at rest.' [Lorentz, _Theory of Electrons_,
p. 196]. Accordingly, he looked for a mathematical transformation
to a new set of (primed) variables, in terms of which the field
equations would resemble Maxwell's equations. He found the
solution in steps: initially to first order in V/c, then to second
order, and finally...to an exact formula valid to all orders. This
was the Lorentz transformation, under which Maxwell's equations are
covariant...." [Sartori notes that Lorentz made an error which
prevented a full demonstration of the covariance of Maxwell's
equations, one that was corrected by Poincaré in 1905.]
"Lorentz never interpreted the primed variables as ANYTHING MORE
THAN A MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCT, an 'IMAGINARY SYSTEM' S' in which
the body is formally at rest. [Emphasis added] The real rest
system is S, and the real time is t in all frames. The parameter
t', which Lorentz called 'local time' (_Ortszeit_), is *not* the
time recorded by a clock in the rest frame of the moving body."
"Under such an interpretation, the covariance of the equations is
of only formal interest. One can use Lorentz's transformations to
generate additional solutions to Maxwell's equations, but one is
not justified in interpreting these new solutions as the fields
measured in the body's rest frame. Lorentz nonetheless used the
S' solutions as the basis for physical arguments; this logical
flaw in the theory has not been sufficiently stressed in the
literature."
After some further discussion, Sartori summarizes:
"In sum, Lorentz's theory falls short of being a theory of
relativity in several important respects:
1. His theory is firmly rooted in the ether. In his view, the
Lorentz transformation does not relate two arbitrary inertial
frames but is only a mathematical relation between a physical
system (that of the ether) and a nonphysical set of coordinates,
the S' system. Lorentz's theory is not symmetric between the
two sets of coordinates....
2. Lorentz did not derive the transformation equations from
basic principles, as Einstein did, but discovered them by
trial and error.
3. Perhaps most important was Lorentz's failure to grasp the
true significance of the time transformation. Only Einstein
realized that a fundamental reassessment of the nature of time
is required...."
----------------------
I also quoted what Lorentz himself said about Einstein's putative
"plagiarism":
"A transformation of the time was necessary. So I introduced the
conception of a local time which is different for all systems of
reference which are in motion relative to each other. But I never
thought that this had anything to do with real time. This real
time for me was still represented by the old classical notion of
an absolute time, which is independent of any reference to special
frames of coordinates. There existed for me only this one true
time. I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic
working hypothesis. So the theory of relativity is solely
Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he would have
conceived it even if the work of his predecessors in the field
had not been done at all. His work in this respect is independent
of the previous theories."
Iin fact, I've pointed this out to Weir several times. Of course,
being a crackpot ideologue, Weir, merely ignores this.
> > > And a pathological liar. And a fool because Hsu [and others]
> > > demonstrate that Einstein's equations were not "derived" from
> > > Einstein's "thought experiments" but were swiped from physics journals
> > > that landed on his desk at the Berne Patent Office.
Will Weir ever furnish even a citation, let alone a quotation, from
Hsu that avers that Einstein's results were "swiped from physics
journals that landed on his desk at the Berne Patent Office"? Of
course not! Weir's specialty is blatant, unsupported (and
unsupportable) assertion, devoid of any source, even when she
attributes such claims to others whom she farcically hallucinates are
Dartmouth colleague of mine! In fact, one of Hsu's monographs is
entitled _Einstein's Relativity and Beyond -- New Symmetry Approaches_.
That does not sound like the language of someone who views Einstein as
a plagiarist.
> > > All of the
> > > various parts that Einstein plagiarized were in print before
> > > Einstein mailed his paper to the Annalen der Physik and Einstein
> > > would have seen all the papers while checking priority on patents.
> > Whoever enters into Einstein treads the path into an abyss.
> The main problem is that anyone that criticizes Einstein's
>
> THEORY
>
> is automatically under suspicion of anti-Semitism.
That's probably because almost all the crackpots who assail special
relativity, one of the bedrock foundations of modern physics, *are*
unapologetically anti-Semitic.
> It's a theory.
> It's not a person.
It's a correct theory (insofar as any physical theory can be called
correct) that has been spectacularly confirmed literally thousands of
times in experiments ranging from tabletop optics experiments to
elementary particle collisions in particle accelerators.
> > The
> > Einsteinean problem that overshadows all is his involvement with the
> > A-bomb. In 1936 he prompted the American government to launch the
> > Manhattan project with the sole purpose of anticipating the Germans in
> > developing the bomb. No one knew whether the Germans were developing
> > the bomb or not - James Hilton wrote a novel about this most secret
> > race.
Einstein's role in initiating the Manhattan Project has no bearing
whatever upon whether special relativity is correct.
> > When finally Oppenheimer & CO had the bomb, the American
> > generals obtained the information that the Germans did not. Instead of
> > cancelling the project, the American generals witheld that information
> > from Oppenheimer and the other scientists with the intention to have
> > the bomb used anyway but against the Japanese, although the Japanese
> > were almost finished already and quite desperate, developing Kamikadze
> > techniques instead of bombs. After the capitulation of the Germans,
> > the Japanese sought peace, but the allies closed all doors and would
> > not listen.
> >
> > The use of the bomb against civilians in Hiroshima and
> > Nagasaki was solely a propaganda pyromaniac putsch to create an effect
> > and had no political significance, since the war was all but formally
> > finished - the allies defended it by stating they did it "in order to
> > save lives". So they sacrificed some hundred thousand civilians in
> > order to save the lives of a few American soldiers; but those 500,000
> > civilians constituted no threat against any American. Since then, Asia
> > has been critical against America.
> I don't know anything about the politics of that situation.
Weir could dispense woth the qualifying phrase "about the politics
of that situation."
[...]
> > Neither Oppenheimer nor Einstein were allowed to speak their minds
> > about it. Einstein said something about that science had been abused
> > for military means and admitted his own guilt, but neither he nor
> > Oppenheimer ever got over it. Oppenheimer died of cancer, stamped by
> > the American government as a permanent security risk. There is a case
> > for you for the Hague International War Tribunal, which dwarfs the
> > Milosevic case, and which never has been opened. Bertrand Russell
> > almost tried to, but only 'almost'.
> Russell was a geniuine pacifist. Einstein called himself a
> pacifist but was openly Zionist. I'm not sure how one can
> be a "pacifist Zionist."
Einstein's politics have nothing to do with the correctness of the
theory of relativity.
> > So I don't care much about Einstein myself.
> I think we have to separate the chastened Einstein at the end
> of his life from the earlier smug plagiarizing wife abuser.
> I think Einstein was capable of regret. I feel a little sorry
> for him.
> > He had his troubles, and
> > he would have been better off without overestimating the Germans and
> > underestimating the villainy of ordinary American generals with a
> > certain weakness for exaggerated pyrotechnics. He can never be
> > absolved from his part of the responsibility.
> Are you sure about this?
> > But what right have we to chat about advanced nuclear physics and
> > state secrets? We are just a couple of branded excommunicados, 'wacks'
> > exiled from the exclusive right of the Stratfordians to know about
> > things.
No, Weir excludes herself from being taken seriously by her own
abysmal ignorance of both mathematics and physics.
> I'm not qualified to chat about advanced nuclear physics
Understatement of the century!
> and
> I'm only interested in 17th c. state secrets.
Then why, if she is completely unqualified, does Weir pontificate
about relativity theory? For the same reason Baker held forth about
his "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem: both are science cranks.
[...]
David Webb
Neil Brennen
David L. Webb wrote in message
<160520021059210846%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> Then why, if she is completely unqualified, does Weir pontificate
>about relativity theory?
Because, as I explained, Weir is a troll-bot. Version 2.0 has a Webb-sensor
added, that picks up an ID from your PC and causes the Weir-bot to spew some
science idiocy. The Art-bot 2.0 has the same sensor, except it spews
mindless cryptograms when it finds you on-line.
In fact, there are quite a few troll-bots on HLAS. The RichKen 3.0 has a
Gruman-sensor and a Funeral Elegy sensor. The Crowl-bot Deluxe posts idiocy
about the sonnets on a weekly basis. And the Dooleybot Version 2.1 will
respond with the comment "No CPLE" whenever someone attempts to point out
the unequal workings of the Price Magic Strainer.
Laila Roth
It was easy to be a Zionist and Pacifist before May 1948. Afterwards
it was impossible.
>
> > So I don't care much about Einstein myself.
>
> I think we have to separate the chastened Einstein at the end
> of his life from the earlier smug plagiarizing wife abuser.
> I think Einstein was capable of regret. I feel a little sorry
> for him.
He was a very pitiable man. Remember, he didn't speak a word until he
was five and might have had some special autistic endowments. As you
say, he did not get along too well with women either.
>
> > He had his troubles, and
> > he would have been better off without overestimating the Germans and
> > underestimating the villainy of ordinary American generals with a
> > certain weakness for exaggerated pyrotechnics. He can never be
> > absolved from his part of the responsibility.
>
> Are you sure about this?
>
Maybe I should be more explicit and careful. There was only one
American general, whose name has fallen out of my mind at present, who
committed the crime of witholding the vital information from
Oppenheimer and the others about that the Germans never had had any
A-bomb project. Einsten's stipulation that they did have one was the
only and entire motivation for the Manhattan project, which was
started on Einstein's express initiative. He thought the German
generals would do what he gave the means to the American generals to
do, which they did. The military responsibility was not his, but the
moral responsibility certainly was, at least in part, not wholly. The
highest responsibility was Truman's.
> > But what right have we to chat about advanced nuclear physics and
> > state secrets? We are just a couple of branded excommunicados, 'wacks'
> > exiled from the exclusive right of the Stratfordians to know about
> > things.
>
> I'm not qualified to chat about advanced nuclear physics and
> I'm only interested in 17th c. state secrets.
Fair enough. Let's stick to them.
You are right also. I'll try to dig up my old Einstein books for some
interesting quotations.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
David L. Webb
<ches...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote in message
> <160520021059210846%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
>
> > Then why, if she is completely unqualified, does Weir pontificate
> >about relativity theory?
>
> Because, as I explained, Weir is a troll-bot. Version 2.0 has a Webb-sensor
> added, that picks up an ID from your PC and causes the Weir-bot to spew some
> science idiocy.
That's certainly a very plausible conjecture, and one would be
inclined to believe it to be the correct explanation (if only because
stupidity of that magnitude is hard to feign -- even Art can't do it)
were it not that Weir's initial foray into science idiocy arose in a
response to Dave Kathman. Weir enjoined Dave to "read Poincare's paper
on non-euclidean geometry and come back and tell me if Einstein
cheated." Of course, this exhortation betrays Weir's complete
ignorance of science and mathematics (not to mention her history, but
her ignorance in that field was already well known) in myriad ways.
First, Weir seems to be under the impression that Poincaré wrote *a*
paper on non-Euclidean geometry; in fact, he wrote dozens of papers on
Fuchsian functions and other topics in which the use of hyperbolic
geometry is a central insight, including at least two landmark papers I
can think of offhand. Second, alhthough Poincaré took decisive steps
toward special relativity and came close to developing the theory, he
did *not* do so in his papers on hyperbolic geometry, but rather in
other papers (notably the Palermo Rendicotti paper); moreover, _pace_
Weir's ludicrous claims, Poincaré's formulation of relativity was *not*
geometric (hyperbolic or otherwise) or kinematic, but rather dynamical.
Of course, since Weir presumably thinks that Rendicotti is a type
of pasta, she has never read Poincaré's paper; since she does not read
French, she cannot even read (let alone understand) the quotation from
Poincaré's paper that I posted several times demonstrating that point.
> The Art-bot 2.0 has the same sensor, except it spews
> mindless cryptograms when it finds you on-line.
I long ago pegged Art as a troll, but if he is indeed merely a
mechanized troll-bot, then there is something very seriously amiss with
the sensor, since he spews crackpot cryptograms and nutcase numerology
whether or not I'm online.
> In fact, there are quite a few troll-bots on HLAS. The RichKen 3.0 has a
> Gruman-sensor
The Richard Ken-nada software has no memory.
> and a Funeral Elegy sensor. The Crowl-bot Deluxe posts idiocy
> about the sonnets on a weekly basis. And the Dooleybot Version 2.1 will
> respond with the comment "No CPLE" whenever someone attempts to point out
> the unequal workings of the Price Magic Strainer.
Dooley's most amusing feature is his inability to use a dictionary:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=060620011909569801%25David.L.Webb%
40Dartmouth.edu&rnum=3&filter=0>.
Incidentally, your comments upon the chess newsgroups were a
revelation to me. I had assumed that among newsgroups ostensibly
devoted to academic subjects (I exclude the soc.culture hierarchy and
groups like alt.conspiracy for obvious reasons), h.l.a.s. had perhaps
the highest percentage of cranks and lunatics. Other newsgroups might
enjoy numerical superiority, and there are some very vocal cranks and
nutcases (in sci.physics, for instance) who might outdo h.l.a.s. in
sheer volume of lunatic posts, but those cranks are just a few in a
very large newsgroup, whereas h.l.a.s. boasts a plethora of cranks.
However, your description of the chess newsgroups makes it appear that
h.l.a.s. is not so singular after all.
David Webb
Neil Brennen
David L. Webb wrote in message
>In article <ac0job$spm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Neil Brennen
><ches...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Weir is a troll-bot. Version 2.0 has a Webb-sensor
>> added, that picks up an ID from your PC and causes the Weir-bot to spew
some
>> science idiocy.
(Snipped Webb's comments on math to avoid triggering the Weir Version 2.0)
>> The Art-bot 2.0 has the same sensor, except it spews
>> mindless cryptograms when it finds you on-line.
>
> I long ago pegged Art as a troll, but if he is indeed merely a
>mechanized troll-bot, then there is something very seriously amiss with
>the sensor, since he spews crackpot cryptograms and nutcase numerology
>whether or not I'm online.
Oh my, perhaps there is an Art-bot VERsion 3.0, with both a Webb-sensor and
a timer for automatic daily posting. I'm sure it is a Masonic conspiracy.
>> In fact, there are quite a few troll-bots on HLAS. The RichKen 3.0 has a
>> Gruman-sensor
>
> The Richard Ken-nada software has no memory.
None of the troll-bots do. I see the Kaplabot 2002 is still tripping over
itself in a debate with Terry Ross.
>> and a Funeral Elegy sensor. The Crowl-bot Deluxe posts idiocy
>> about the sonnets on a weekly basis. And the Dooleybot Version 2.1 will
>> respond with the comment "No CPLE" whenever someone attempts to point out
>> the unequal workings of the Price Magic Strainer.
>
> Dooley's most amusing feature is his inability to use a dictionary:
><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=060620011909569801%25David.L.Webb%
>40Dartmouth.edu&rnum=3&filter=0>.
>
> Incidentally, your comments upon the chess newsgroups were a
>revelation to me. I had assumed that among newsgroups ostensibly
>devoted to academic subjects (I exclude the soc.culture hierarchy and
>groups like alt.conspiracy for obvious reasons), h.l.a.s. had perhaps
>the highest percentage of cranks and lunatics. Other newsgroups might
>enjoy numerical superiority, and there are some very vocal cranks and
>nutcases (in sci.physics, for instance) who might outdo h.l.a.s. in
>sheer volume of lunatic posts, but those cranks are just a few in a
>very large newsgroup, whereas h.l.a.s. boasts a plethora of cranks.
>However, your description of the chess newsgroups makes it appear that
>h.l.a.s. is not so singular after all.
The chess newsgroups have been particularly bad the past few months, with an
influx of trolls. But if you want to see truly vulgar cranks, visit
rec.music.opera.
Elizabeth Weir
> David L. Webb wrote in message
> <160520021059210846%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
>
> > Then why, if she is completely unqualified, does Weir pontificate
> >about relativity theory?
I'm not "pontificating" Webb.
I've been trying to get you to respond to question but you've
been nothing but evasive.
Again, my point is that Einstein's theory is redundant, that
the Lorentz transformations were a workable relativity theory
on their own before Einstein screwed with them and that
Einstein's superfluous Second Postulate threw 20th c. physics
into disarray not to speak of the fact that it created an
ugly set of cultural metaphors.
Lorentzian relativity does not create problems in physics because
it does not require a *special theory.* And it's
metaphors are classical.
Pardon me for hating dystopia.
Furthermore I asked you point blank how your Dartmouth colleague
Professor J. P. Hsu was able to reject Einstein's Second POstulate
to get a more coherent relativity theory and all you have
come up with so far is some lame thing like "I haven't looked into it."
You can't give a straight answer to anything but you are superbly
skilled at launching attacks and creating diversions.
David L. Webb
> "Neil Brennen" <ches...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<ac0job$spm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > David L. Webb wrote in message
> > <160520021059210846%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> >
> > > Then why, if she is completely unqualified, does Weir pontificate
> > >about relativity theory?
[...]
> Again, my point is that Einstein's theory is redundant, that
> the Lorentz transformations were a workable relativity theory
> on their own
No, they were not, because Lorentz's interpretation of the Lorentz
transformations was incomplete. Lorentz himself acknowledged as much.
> before Einstein screwed with them and that
> Einstein's superfluous Second Postulate threw 20th c. physics
> into disarray not to speak of the fact that it created an
> ugly set of cultural metaphors.
The aesthetic appeal (or lack thereof of) of "cultural metaphors" is
irrelevant to the correctness of a physical theory, a matter which is
decided on experimental rather than aesthetic grounds. In fact,
Einstein himself did not care much for quantum mechanics on aesthetic
grounds, but there he was wrong -- experiment vindicated resoundingly
the quantum theories of Bohr and others that Einstein found so
aesthetically distasteful.
> Lorentzian relativity does not create problems in physics because
> it does not require a *special theory.*
What on earth are you gibbering about? To the extent that Lorentz
developed relativity theory, it was *only* the *special theory* --
Lorentz did *not* formulate a relativistic theory of gravitation. You
appear to have misunderstood *completely* what is meant by the word
"special" in the phrase "special theory of relativity." The "special
theory" is simply a theory that unifies classical mechanics and
electrodynamics without attempting to incorporate gravitation, a
phenomenon whose Newtonian description is manifestly incompatible with
the version of relativity mandated by the Lorentz transformations.
> And it's
> metaphors are classical.
The "metaphors" of special relativity -- point particles rather than
wave functions, deterministic evolution of a system even when probed by
an observer, etc. -- are just as "classical" of those of Lorentz's
incomplete and untenable theory of the electron. It was the *quantum*
theory that introduced disturbing, decidedly nonclassical "metaphors"
-- probabilistic rather than deterministic description of observations,
etc.
> Pardon me for hating dystopia.
>
> Furthermore I asked you point blank how your Dartmouth colleague
> Professor J. P. Hsu
For the *THIRD TIME*, Hsu is *NOT* my "Dartmouth colleague"! I have
already noted that you evidently do not read French and hence cannot
understand the Poincaré quotation I posted (it refutes your claim that
Poincaré formulated relativity theory geometrically). I'm beginning to
wonder whether you can even read English, as you continue to refer to
Hsu as my "Dartmouth colleague" despite my having corrected this
hilarious howler *twice* already! Here is what I wrote the last two
times you described this hallucination of yours:
"There is nobody named Hsu among my colleagues at Dartmouth; I
don't know where you hallucinated this factoid. The most likely
explanation is that you don't even know the difference between
*Dartmouth College*, a private, Ivy League institution, and the
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, a branch campus of the
public University of Massachusetts system. The latter has *no*
affiliation whatever with the former -- its campus merely happens
to be located in North Dartmouth, MA -- but it does have Jong-Ping
Hsu as a member of its Engineering faculty, a circumstance which
may be the source of your comic confusion."
Moreover, as I already noted, Hsu's is by no means the first attempt to
dispense with Einstein's second postulate; Ignatowsky, Pars, and others
long ago attempted this, beginning around 1910, as I recall, so it is
not exactly the revolutionary new "neo-Lorentzian" idea you seem in
your profound ignorance of the literature to believe that it is. For a
related discussion, see N. D. Mermin, "Relativity without light", _Am.
J. Phys._ 52 (1984), 119-124.
> was able to reject Einstein's Second POstulate
> to get a more coherent relativity theory and all you have
> come up with so far is some lame thing like "I haven't looked into it."
As your ignorance of the literature makes abundantly clear, you
certainly have *NOT* looked into it -- or at any rate, you have not
done so *competently*.
> You can't give a straight answer to anything but you are superbly
> skilled at launching attacks and creating diversions.
I've given perfectly clear, direct answers, combining specific
references to the scientific literature with directly pertinent
quotations from that literature, not a one of which you have even
acknowledged, let alone understood. By contrast, your activity seems
to have been confined to grepping nutcase web sites, as well as a very
few reliable web sites whose content you have farcically misunderstood.
Indeed, you have not furnished even a *single citation*, let alone a
quotation, that shows Poincaré formulating relativity kinematically or
geometrically; on the other hand, I have posted -- repeatedly -- a
direct quotation from Poincaré's famous paper on the subject that
clearly states his dynamical approach. Indeed, in the _Rendicotti_
paper, Poincaré attributed the relativistic kinematic effects to a
*force*, *not* to the geometry of spacetime. Here it is again, since
you appear not to have been able to read it the first four times:
"Il faut donc a revenir à la theorie de Lorentz; mais si l'on veut
la conserver et éviter d'intolérables contradictions, il faut
supposer une *force speciale* [emphasis added] qui explique à la
foi la contraction et la constance de deux des axes [of the
electron]. J'ai chercher à determiner cette force, j'ai trouvé
qu'*elle peut être assimilée à une pression extérieure constante,
agissant sur l'électron déformable et compressible, et dont le
travail est proportionnel aux variations du volume de cet
électron*." [Emphasis in Poincaré]
However, as I've already noted, you probably think that _Rendicotti_ is
a kind of pasta.
David Webb
David L. Webb
<ches...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote in message
> <160520022159401387%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> >In article <ac0job$spm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Neil Brennen
> ><ches...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Weir is a troll-bot. Version 2.0 has a Webb-sensor
> >> added, that picks up an ID from your PC and causes the Weir-bot to spew
> some
> >> science idiocy.
>
>
> (Snipped Webb's comments on math to avoid triggering the Weir Version 2.0)
>
> >> The Art-bot 2.0 has the same sensor, except it spews
> >> mindless cryptograms when it finds you on-line.
> > I long ago pegged Art as a troll, but if he is indeed merely a
> >mechanized troll-bot, then there is something very seriously amiss with
> >the sensor, since he spews crackpot cryptograms and nutcase numerology
> >whether or not I'm online.
> Oh my, perhaps there is an Art-bot VERsion 3.0, with both a Webb-sensor and
> a timer for automatic daily posting. I'm sure it is a Masonic conspiracy.
No doubt -- but don't exclude the Templars, Rosicrucians, the
Illuminati, and especially the Priory of Sion. (I believe that Art
even includes the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks in the
ur-conspiracy now.)
> >> In fact, there are quite a few troll-bots on HLAS. The RichKen 3.0 has a
> >> Gruman-sensor
> > The Richard Ken-nada software has no memory.
> None of the troll-bots do.
True, but the Ken-nada version is especially senile -- it can't even
remember what it posted itself.
> I see the Kaplabot 2002 is still tripping over
> itself in a debate with Terry Ross.
> >> and a Funeral Elegy sensor. The Crowl-bot Deluxe posts idiocy
> >> about the sonnets on a weekly basis. And the Dooleybot Version 2.1 will
> >> respond with the comment "No CPLE" whenever someone attempts to point out
> >> the unequal workings of the Price Magic Strainer.
> > Dooley's most amusing feature is his inability to use a dictionary:
> ><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=060620011909569801%25David.L.Webb%
> >40Dartmouth.edu&rnum=3&filter=0>.
> >
> > Incidentally, your comments upon the chess newsgroups were a
> >revelation to me. I had assumed that among newsgroups ostensibly
> >devoted to academic subjects (I exclude the soc.culture hierarchy and
> >groups like alt.conspiracy for obvious reasons), h.l.a.s. had perhaps
> >the highest percentage of cranks and lunatics. Other newsgroups might
> >enjoy numerical superiority, and there are some very vocal cranks and
> >nutcases (in sci.physics, for instance) who might outdo h.l.a.s. in
> >sheer volume of lunatic posts, but those cranks are just a few in a
> >very large newsgroup, whereas h.l.a.s. boasts a plethora of cranks.
> >However, your description of the chess newsgroups makes it appear that
> >h.l.a.s. is not so singular after all.
> The chess newsgroups have been particularly bad the past few months, with an
> influx of trolls. But if you want to see truly vulgar cranks, visit
> rec.music.opera.
I read that group a little some years ago, around the time of its
inception, and it wasn't so bad then; there was little real content,
but there were few if any raving nutcases. If the group now surpasses
h.l.a.s. in density of cranks, I'm not tempted to revisit it -- the
cranks here are depressing enough.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article
<fdba2f18106b955696f...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Bob
Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
Do you mean the history of *scientific* conceptions of space? Or do
you mean surveys that include the cosmological myths of various
religions and cultures? In the latter case, I can't help much. In the
former case, here are a few suggestions. Of course, one must draw a
distinction between physical space and mathematical space, a
distinction that has not always been clear historically.
In fact, perhaps one of the most revolutionary developments arose in
the understanding that the "space" of common experience is just one of
various possibilities, a realization occasioned by the discovery (by
Gauss and others) of so-called "non-Euclidean geometry," by which is
usually meant the two-dimensional hyperbolic geometry of Lobachevsky,
Bolyai, Poincaré, etc. After devoting an emormous amount of time and
effort to an attempt to deduce Euclid's parallel postulate from the
other axioms (all of which were viewed as far more intuitive than the
parallel postulate), it was realized that there are several possible
geometries satisfying the other axioms of Euclidean geometry, exclusive
of the parallel postulate. To understand this adequately requires some
mathematics beyond the usual synthetic geometry taught in high school,
but a book that keeps mathematical prerequisites to a bare minimum is
Nikulin and Shafarevich's _Groups and Geometries_. (This book requires
only a high school background, but it is nevertheless a serious book on
mathematics, so it does require that the reader think.) Another
classic is Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen's _Geometry and the Imagination_.
> Possibly one of the books on the history of the ether
> would, in effect, be such a book. My basic problem in this area is
> that I'm tied to the notion that something must exist that has NO
> properties, and can have none. Maybe I'm a slave of dichotomy: I
> have to believe in a not-material in opposition to matter/energy.
For an understanding of the notions of spacetime underlying special
relativity, some excellent sources are Max Born's book (old, but still
a classic), Taylor and Wheeler's _The Geometry of Spacetime_, and
French's _Special Relativity_. The latter assumes only a very modest
mathematical background, little beyond single-variable calculus.
However, more recent conceptions of space-time must take into
account the nature of the quantum vacuum, string theory, etc. It is
impossible to do justice to this subject without the mathematics
underlying quantum theory, and unlike the case of special relativity
(whose underlying kinematic ideas can be conveyed using mostly high
school-level algebra), the mathematics needed is not that accessible.
However, Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_ and Guth's _The
Inflationary Universe_ are good popularizations.
David Webb
Bob Grumman
> Or do you mean surveys that include the cosmological myths of
> various religions and cultures? In the latter case, I can't
> help much. In the former case, here are a few suggestions.
> Of course, one must draw a distinction between physical space
> and mathematical space, a distinction that has not always been
> clear historically.
I probably am not sure exactly what I want but it seems to me that
it was long taken for granted that space was what things were in--
and my concern is with physical space. Then the ether was
introduced--as a kind of near-space? But it was inside space, I
think. Then there came mathematical space (which I believe I
understand the logic of)--and theories of physical space which
seem to me to theorize that physical space made me non-Euclidean
in some way. In any case, it is now believed that physical space
has curvature, yes? That makes it a different kind of space than
the Greeks believed in, I would think.
I would want all attempts to define physical space included.
snip of worthwhile recommendations with accompanying commentary
These books sound interesting but wouldn't be what I'm looking for,
I don't think, because I think I follow Non-Euclidean geometry (up
to the point that it is used to describe reality). I spent too much
time trying to deduce Euclid's parallel postulate from the other
Euclidean axioms, myself. I can't say that I understand the proofs
that it can't be done, but I do understand that I couldn't do it. I
guess it was good inasmuch as it did teach me quite a bit about
geometry, and humbled me.
snip
> For an understanding of the notions of spacetime underlying special
> relativity, some excellent sources are Max Born's book (old, but still
> a classic), Taylor and Wheeler's _The Geometry of Spacetime_, and
> French's _Special Relativity_. The latter assumes only a very modest
> mathematical background, little beyond single-variable calculus.
> However, more recent conceptions of space-time must take into
> account the nature of the quantum vacuum, string theory, etc. It is
> impossible to do justice to this subject without the mathematics
> underlying quantum theory, and unlike the case of special relativity
> (whose underlying kinematic ideas can be conveyed using mostly high
> school-level algebra), the mathematics needed is not that accessible.
> However, Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_ and Guth's _The
> Inflationary Universe_ are good popularizations.
David Webb
Thanks for the tips, David--again. One of these days, I'll get to one
or more of the recommended books . . . assuming Elizabeth hasn't
finally shown in words even I can understand why it's all hokum.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article
<1444f5583ba9a1c535e...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Bob
Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > Do you mean the history of *scientific* conceptions of space?
> > Or do you mean surveys that include the cosmological myths of
> > various religions and cultures? In the latter case, I can't
> > help much. In the former case, here are a few suggestions.
> > Of course, one must draw a distinction between physical space
> > and mathematical space, a distinction that has not always been
> > clear historically.
>
> I probably am not sure exactly what I want but it seems to me that
> it was long taken for granted that space was what things were in--
> and my concern is with physical space. Then the ether was
> introduced--as a kind of near-space?
The ether proved to be a sort of red herring. Prior to Maxwell's
electrodynamics, physics was acknowledged to obey Galilean relativity:
the laws of physics are the same for any two observers moving with
constant velocity relative to one another; in particular, there is no
way to establish experimentally which observer was "really" at rest.
There were two principles: (1) Newton's second law holds for an
inertial observer, and (2) any observer moving with constant velocity
relative to an inertial observer is himself inertial. After Maxwell
fixed Ampere's Law, however, one of the logical consequences of the
equations of electrodynamics was an equation describing propagating
waves of a velocity c that could be easily computed in terms of the
values of two constants easily measured in the laboratory, the
"permittivity of the vacuum" and the "magnetic permeability of the
vacuum." The velocity c that emerged from this computation was the
observed velocity of light, and the conclusion was inescapable that
light was the wave phenomenon predicted by Maxwell's equations. Thus
Maxwell's equations singled out a *particular* velocity, so Galilean
relativity is destroyed and there is now a privileged "rest frame": the
absolute rest frame is the one in which light has the velocity c. To
determine whether he is moving, an observer need only measure the
velocity of light -- if it is c, he is at rest; if not, he is in
motion. The ether was suggested as a kind of medium for the
propagation of electromagnetic waves predicted by Maxwell's equations,
and the frame of reference of the ether was the obsolute rest frame.
The ether was not logically necessary as a medium for wave propagation
(after all, physicists had long accepted gravitational ineraction over
long distances with no intervening substance to mediate the interaction
-- but the fact that there seemed to be an absolute rest frame made the
model of the ether as a sort of gelatin, fixed at rest in space time
and transmitting electromagnetic disturbances rather as a solid
transmits shock waves, was a very appealing idea. However, the
Michelson-Morley experiment and its many variants dispensed
conclusively with the notion that light's velocity depends upon the
motion of the observer, and with it the ether.
> But it was inside space, I
> think. Then there came mathematical space (which I believe I
> understand the logic of)
Some of these abstract mathematical spaces describe very real
physical phenomena, although they do not model the "space" of normal
experience. For example, the phase space of a mechanical system is an
abstract mathematical space whose geometry is very far from Euclidean,
yet it is very useful.
> --and theories of physical space which
> seem to me to theorize that physical space made me non-Euclidean
> in some way. In any case, it is now believed that physical space
> has curvature, yes?
Mass-energy imparts curvature to spacetime locally, near a massive
object, by the Einstein field equation.
> That makes it a different kind of space than
> the Greeks believed in, I would think.
Yes.
> I would want all attempts to define physical space included.
>
> snip of worthwhile recommendations with accompanying commentary
>
>
> These books sound interesting but wouldn't be what I'm looking for,
> I don't think, because I think I follow Non-Euclidean geometry (up
> to the point that it is used to describe reality). I spent too much
> time trying to deduce Euclid's parallel postulate from the other
> Euclidean axioms, myself. I can't say that I understand the proofs
> that it can't be done,
The simplest proof is that one can construct geometric systems
(e.g., the Poincaré upper half-plane) which satisfy all of Euclid's
axioms *except* the parallel postulate. Therefore the parallel
postulate cannot be a logical consequence of the other axioms.
> but I do understand that I couldn't do it. I
> guess it was good inasmuch as it did teach me quite a bit about
> geometry, and humbled me.
>
> snip
>
> > For an understanding of the notions of spacetime underlying special
> > relativity, some excellent sources are Max Born's book (old, but still
> > a classic), Taylor and Wheeler's _The Geometry of Spacetime_, and
> > French's _Special Relativity_. The latter assumes only a very modest
> > mathematical background, little beyond single-variable calculus.
>
> > However, more recent conceptions of space-time must take into
> > account the nature of the quantum vacuum, string theory, etc. It is
> > impossible to do justice to this subject without the mathematics
> > underlying quantum theory, and unlike the case of special relativity
> > (whose underlying kinematic ideas can be conveyed using mostly high
> > school-level algebra), the mathematics needed is not that accessible.
> > However, Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_ and Guth's _The
> > Inflationary Universe_ are good popularizations.
>
> David Webb
> Thanks for the tips, David--again. One of these days, I'll get to one
> or more of the recommended books . . . assuming Elizabeth hasn't
> finally shown in words even I can understand why it's all hokum.
>
> --Bob G.
Don't hold your breath.
John W. Kennedy
> Incidentally, your comments upon the chess newsgroups were a
> revelation to me. I had assumed that among newsgroups ostensibly
> devoted to academic subjects (I exclude the soc.culture hierarchy and
> groups like alt.conspiracy for obvious reasons), h.l.a.s. had perhaps
> the highest percentage of cranks and lunatics. Other newsgroups might
> enjoy numerical superiority, and there are some very vocal cranks and
> nutcases (in sci.physics, for instance) who might outdo h.l.a.s. in
> sheer volume of lunatic posts, but those cranks are just a few in a
> very large newsgroup, whereas h.l.a.s. boasts a plethora of cranks.
> However, your description of the chess newsgroups makes it appear that
> h.l.a.s. is not so singular after all.
You should see what goes on in the computer-programming groups,
particularly from the sociopaths who see Bill Gates as a technical
genius (trust me, he ain't) and some kind of culture hero. Important
technical subjects often have a specific *.*.*.advocacy group to bleed
off the worst of it.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
John W. Kennedy
> I read [rec.music.opera] a little some years ago, around the time of its
> inception, and it wasn't so bad then; there was little real content,
> but there were few if any raving nutcases. If the group now surpasses
> h.l.a.s. in density of cranks, I'm not tempted to revisit it -- the
> cranks here are depressing enough.
I'm a part-time semi-pro opera singer, so I know that world. Cranks
come with the territory, among both the fans and the artists. (I was
involved for a while with the pitch-reform movement -- the quite
justified reaction against the upward drift from A=432 to A=440 to
A=444, A=450, A=454, A=460... -- but it got co-opted by Lyndon "The
international drug trade is run by the House of Windsor" LaRouche, of
all people.)
John W. Kennedy
> These books sound interesting but wouldn't be what I'm looking for,
> I don't think, because I think I follow Non-Euclidean geometry (up
> to the point that it is used to describe reality). I spent too much
> time trying to deduce Euclid's parallel postulate from the other
> Euclidean axioms, myself. I can't say that I understand the proofs
> that it can't be done, but I do understand that I couldn't do it. I
> guess it was good inasmuch as it did teach me quite a bit about
> geometry, and humbled me.
I don't know that it ever has been _proven_ impossible. But
non-Euclidean geometry has been around for a long, long time, and has
not yet been shown to be self-contradictory, which is a pretty darn good
indicator. If A and B and not-C don't contradict, then A and B
shouldn't imply C.
As to the application to the physical world -- it's not certain that
General Relativity is absolutely right, but experiment clearly shows
that it's mostly right. Either space is curved, whether we like the
idea or not, or the universe is playing us a really dirty trick.
Bob Grumman
> non-Euclidean geometry has been around for a long, long time, and has
> not yet been shown to be self-contradictory, which is a pretty darn good
> indicator. If A and B and not-C don't contradict, then A and B
> shouldn't imply C.
> As to the application to the physical world -- it's not certain that
> General Relativity is absolutely right, but experiment clearly shows
> that it's mostly right. Either space is curved, whether we like the
> idea or not, or the universe is playing us a really dirty trick.
Or, to come in from near-total ignorance, there's a way to describe
what seems to be the curvature of space without giving materiality to
the immaterial. I've never understood why we have to say space is
curved rather than say gravity bends light (although I know there's
a lot more to curvature of space than that). In believing the latter,
I assume that light is a particle (I know about the experiments that
suggest otherwise) and that gravity is, in effect, particulate.
One of my theories is that matter completely fills space except during
the instants between quantum-position changes, and that gravity is
the effect of any surface of a unit of matter on another. Each
matter-unit expands until all of its surface touches other matter
and/or it becomes some maximal size. Its gravitational effect is
inversely proportionate to its size.
There's a lot more to it, but I'm just describing enough to show that
I can outdo any anti-Stratfordian when it comes to crankery.
--Mr. Meta-Weir
Bob Grumman
(after all, physicists had long accepted gravitational interaction over
long distances with no intervening substance to mediate the interaction
I wonder about that. My impression is that universal gravity took
a while to get really thought about. Don't some physicists still
have problems with gravitational action-at-a-distance? Isn't that
why someare searching for particles of gravity? Or some kind of
gravity ray?
-- but the fact that there seemed to be an absolute rest frame made the
model of the ether as a sort of gelatin, fixed at rest in space time
and transmitting electromagnetic disturbances rather as a solid
transmits shock waves, was a very appealing idea. However, the
Michelson-Morley experiment and its many variants dispensed
conclusively with the notion that light's velocity depends upon the
motion of the observer, and with it the ether.
I thought M-M just showed that light traveled at the same speed
against the "ether-wind" as it did with it, which demonstrated
there was no ether wind, as there had to be. Although I don't know
why there had to be an ether-wind.
> > But it was inside space, I
> > think. Then there came mathematical space (which I believe I
> > understand the logic of)
> Some of these abstract mathematical spaces describe very real
> physical phenomena, although they do not model the "space" of normal
> experience. For example, the phase space of a mechanical system is an
> abstract mathematical space whose geometry is very far from Euclidean,
> yet it is very useful.
> > --and theories of physical space which
> > seem to me to theorize that physical space made me (must be?
> > I'm not sure what I intended here!) non-Euclidean
> > in some way. In any case, it is now believed that physical space
> > has curvature, yes?
> Mass-energy imparts curvature to spacetime locally, near a massive
> object, by the Einstein field equation.
> > That makes it a different kind of space than
> > the Greeks believed in, I would think.
> Yes.
> > I would want all attempts to define physical space included.
snip
> The simplest proof is that one can construct geometric systems
> (e.g., the Poincaré upper half-plane) which satisfy all of Euclid's
> axioms *except* the parallel postulate. Therefore the parallel
> postulate cannot be a logical consequence of the other axioms.
Yes, I now remember reading about that or something like it that
made sense to me at the time.
Thanks for the continuing responses, David. I'm finding them
very interesting, and it I think they're building a nest of
some sort in my brain. When I'm finally made chief-over-supremus
of the Masons, I'll definitely make you my number-two science
advisor. (I have to make Art number-one to shut him up.)
Neuendorffer
> Thanks for the continuing responses, David. I'm finding them
> very interesting, and it I think they're building a nest of
> some sort in my brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The European CUCKOO ({CUCUlus canorus}) builds no nest of its own,
but lays its eggs in the nests of other birds.
Middle English CUCCU, Date: 13th century
a grayish brown European bird (CUCUlus canorus) that is a
parasite given to laying its EGGs in the nests of other birds which
hatch them and rear the offspring; broadly : any of a large family
(CUCUlidae of the order CUCUliformes) to which this bird belongs
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABCDEF DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL
ZYXWVU WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman wrote:
> When I'm finally made chief-over-supremus of the Masons,
> I'll definitely make you my number-two science advisor.
> (I have to make Art number-one to shut him up.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
[g]OO-D
LL-W
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
[H]is issue disinherited should be;
[A]nd, for my name of GEORGE begins with G,
It follows in his thought that I am he.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Going to dark bed there was a square round Sinbad the Sailor
roc's AUK'S egg in the night of the bed of all the auks of the
rocs of Darkinbad the Brightdayler." - Joyce, _Ulysses_ (p. 737)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<As my explanations here are probably above your understand-
ings, lattlebrattons, though as augmentatively uncomparisoned
as Cadwan, Cadwallon and Cadwalloner, I shall revert to a
more expletive method which I frequently use when I have to
sermo with muddlecrass pupils. Imagine for my purpose that
you are a squad of urchins, snifflynosed, goslingnecked,
clothyheaded, tangled in your lacings, tingled in your pants,
etsitaraw etcicero. . .>> - FW by Joyce
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZYXWVU WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO
ABCDEF DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUICK, a. [As. cwic, CUCU, cwicu, cwucu, LIVING;
L. vivus LIVING, VIVERE to LIVE]
1. Alive; living; animate;
"Not fully QUYKE, ne fully dead they were." --Chaucer.
Shakspeare with whome QUICK nature DYED,
<<Shake-speare, with the English Man of War, lesser in bulk,
but lighter in sailing, could turn with all tides,
tack about, and take advantage of all winds,
by the QUICKness of his Wit and Invention.>> - THOMAS FULLER
"who shall judge the QUICK and the dead" --2 Tim. iv. 1.
"Man is no STAR, but a QUICK COAL Of mortal fire." -- Herbert.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CUCKOO (Heb. SHAHAPH), from a root meaning "to be lean; slender." This
bird is mentioned only in Lev. 11:16 and Deut. 14:15 (R.V., "seamew").
Some have interpreted the Hebrew word by "petrel" or "shearwater"
(Puffinus cinereus), which is found on the coast of Syria; others think
it denotes the "sea-gull" or "seamew." The common CUCKOO (CUCUlus
canorus) feeds on reptiles and large insects. It is found in Asia and
Africa as well as in Europe. It only passes the winter in Palestine. The
Arabs suppose it to utter the cry _Yakub_, and hence they call it _tir
el-Yakub_; i.e., "Jacob's bird."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
April 14 FIRST COOKOO Day: The first day of full SPRINGtime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Love's Labour's Lost Act 5, Scene 2
ADRIANO DE ARMADO This side is Hiems, Winter,
this VER, the SPRING;
the one maintained by the owl,
the other by the CUCKOO. VER, begin.
[THE SONG]
SPRING.
When daisies pied and VIOLETS blue
And lady-smocks all silVER-white
And CUCKOO-buds of yellow hue
Do paint the meadows with delight,
The CUCKOO then, on eVERy tree,
Mocks married men; for thus sings he, CUCKOO;
CUCKOO, CUCKOO: O word of fear,
Unpleasing to a married ear!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circe (Nighttown) from James Joyce's Ulysses
THE HONOURABLE MRS MERVYN TALBOYS (Unbuttoning her gauntlet violently.)
I'll do no such thing. PIG dog and always was EVER since he was PUPPED!
To dare address me! I'll flog him black and blue in the public streets.
I'll dig my spurs in him up to the rowel. He is a wellknown CUCKOLD.
(She swishes her hunting crop savagely in the air.) Take down his
trousers without loss of time. Come here, sir! QUICK! Ready?
BLOOM (Trembling, beginning to obey.) The weather has been so warm.
(Davy Stephens, ringleted, passes with a bevy of barefoot newsboys.)
DAVY STEPHENS Messenger of the Sacred Heart and Evening Telegraph with
Saint Patrick's Day Supplement. Containing the new addresses of all the
CUCKOLDS in Dublin.
(The very reVEREnd Canon O'Hanlon in cloth of gold cope elevates
and exposes a marble timepiece. Before him Father Conroy
and the reVEREnd John Hughes S.J. bend low.)
THE TIMEPIECE (Unportalling.)
CUCKOO
CUCKOO
CUCKOO
(The brass quoits of a bed are heard to jingle.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is, Stephen said. The boy of act one is the mature man of act five.
All in all. In Cymbeline, in Othello he is bawd and CUCKOLD. He acts and
is acted on. Lover of an ideal or a perversion, like Jose he kills the
real Carmen. His unremitting intellect is the hornmad Iago ceaselessly
willing that the moor in him shall suffer.
Man delights him not nor woman neither, Stephen said. He returns after a
life of absence to that spot of earth where he was born, where he has
always been, man and boy, a silent witness and there, his journey of
life ended, he plants his mulberry tree in the earth. Then dies. The
motion is ended. Gravediggers bury Hamlet pre and Hamlet fils. A king
and a prince at last in death, with incidental music. And, what though
murdered and betrayed, bewept by all frail tender hearts for, Dane or
Dubliner, sorrow for the dead is the only husband from whom they refuse
to be divorced. If you like the epilogue look long on it: prosperous
Prospero, the good man rewarded, Lizzie, grandpa's lump of love, and
nuncle Richie, the bad man taken off by poetic justice to the place
where the bad niggers go. Strong curtain. He found in the world without
as actual what was in his world within as possible. Maeterlinck says: If
Socrates leave his house today he will find the sage seated on his
doorstep. If Judas go forth tonight it is to Judas his steps will tend.
Every life is many days, day after day. We walk through ourselves,
meeting robbers, ghosts, giants, old men, young men, wives, widows,
brothers-in-love, but always meeting ourselves. The playwright who wrote
the folio of this world and wrote it badly (He gave us light first and
the sun two days later), the lord of things as they are whom the most
Roman of catholics call dio boia, hangman god, is doubtless all in all
in all of us, ostler and butcher, and would be bawd and CUCKOLD too but
that in the economy of heaven, foretold by Hamlet, there are no more
marriages, glorified man, an androgynous angel, being a wife unto
himself."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer § :¢ þ)¤÷÷÷÷
Bob Grumman
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> > Thanks for the continuing responses, David. I'm finding them
> > very interesting, and it I think they're building a nest of
> > some sort in my brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> The European CUCKOO ({CUCUlus canorus}) builds no nest of its own,
> but lays its eggs in the nests of other birds.
> Middle English CUCCU, Date: 13th century
ETC.
Thanks for setting us all straight on this, Art. And thanks for
the continuing excerpts from Finnegans Wake, which I may try again
to read before trying on of the books David recommends.
Neil Brennen
Bob Grumman wrote in message ...
>> Bob Grumman wrote:
>> > Thanks for the continuing responses, David. I'm finding them
>> > very interesting, and it I think they're building a nest of
>> > some sort in my brain.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> but lays its eggs in the nests of other birds.
>> Middle English CUCCU, Date: 13th century
>ETC.
>
>Thanks for setting us all straight on this, Art. And thanks for
>the continuing excerpts from Finnegans Wake, which I may try again
>to read before trying on of the books David recommends.
> --Bob G.
Bob, I find it easier now to deal with Art Nonsense, thanks to my killfile.
He's the only member of HLAS sleeping in it at the moment.
Bob Grumman
> to my killfile. He's the only member of HLAS sleeping in
> it at the moment.
Aw, Neil--Art's only insane. I rarely read his posts, but I'd
never kill-file him. Richard Kennedy is the only one I'd be
tempted to, but--well, those of us who are studying mental
dysfunction cannot afford to kill-file ANYone.
--Bob G.
P.S., keep an eye on Beautiful Lyra; looks like she's catching
up to Art in word-gaming.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article
<358f9225d153476d7f9...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Bob
Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
Let me clarify. Physicists had long accepted the idea of action at
a distance in Newton's spectacularly successful theory of gravitation,
despite the fact that there is only vacuum between the heavenly bodies
whose motion is described by Newton's mehanics, i.e., that there is no
substance transmitting or mediating the interaction. In other words,
physicists recognized the reality of the gravitational field of a
massive body: a particle responds instantaneously to the field and
moves accordingly (more precisely, the force felt by the particle is
just the field vector scaled by the particle's mass; the particle then
accelerates in response to this force according to Newton's second
law). A change in the field is thus perceived instantly by the
particle. Thus nineteenth century physicists should have had no
*logical* difficulty with the idea of interactions in the absence of
any ambient medium to transmit the interaction, and hence with the idea
of disturbances in Maxwell's electromagnetic field propagating through
the vacuum.
What probably made the ether hypothesis so attractive after
Maxwell's discovery is not the fact that the ether furnished a putative
medium through which electromagnetic waves could be transmitted (which
would not be strictly necessary), but rather that Maxwell's equations
seemed to single out a *universal* rest frame, the one relative to
which light traveled with velocity c. Thus it must have been almost
irresistible to suggest a model in which the ether was an all-pervasive
medium, at rest in this Maxwellian universal rest frame, through which
Maxwell's electromagnetic waves propagated in much that same way that
shock waves are transmitted through an elastic solid medium.
Einstein alone of all the early contributors to special relativity
realized that in order that a coordinate transformation (like the
Lorentz transformation) leave the light cone invariant, one must
jettison the Galilean notion of a universal time coordinate common to
all observers; hence inertial observers in relative motion will
disagree about the simultaneity and hence the temporal order of events.
Einstein then used this simple but profound insight to derive the
Lorentz transformations as natural and inevitable consequences of two
universal principles, rather than as rather desperate, _ad hoc_
explanations of vexing experimental results with no real physical
meaning, as in Lorentz's interpretation.
Of course, Einstein's new kinematic foundation of all of physics
made Newton's theory of gravitation untenable, as special relativity in
effect forbade instantaneous transmission of information. In fact,
Maxwell's fix to Ampere's Law had already shown the way: physicists
already knew that disturbances in the electromagnetic field were *not*
felt instantly by charged particles responding to the field; rather,
the field disturbances propagated at velocity c. Indeed, physicists
had introduced the idea of "retarded time," "retarded position,"
"retarded potential," etc., to describe the fact that when a charged
test particle responds to the changing electromagnetic field of a
moving charged body, the test particle perceives the charged body at
its *retarded* position rather than at its actual position (the charged
body has moved since it emitted the radiation to which the test
particle is responding, because the interaction was trasmitted *not*
instantaneously but at speed c; this is analogous to the fact that when
you look at a distant N light years distant, you are seeing the galaxy
at it was N years ago, not as it is now). Accordingly, Newton's theory
had to be modified in such a way that gravitational interaction
traveled at finite speed like the electromagnetic interaction. And
indeed, general relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation, does
predict the existence of gravitational waves that travel at velocity c;
this is the "gravity ray" you have in mind. (Taylor's observation of
the slowing of pulsar periods is in remarkable agreement with the
prediction of energy lost by gravitational radiation according to
general relativity; to my knowledge, it's the best evidence of
gravitational radiation thus far.)
Einstein was by no means the only one to realize that such a change
was necessary -- it was quite evident that the theory of gravitation
would have to be fixed somehow to banish instantaneous transmission, as
Poincaré pointed out explicitly. However, it was far from clear how to
effect such a repair -- gravity is such an incredibly weak force, and
the effects predicted in which the Newtonian theory and general
relativity differ are so minute as to be virtually undetectable (the
anomalous behavior of the perihelion of Mercury is about the only
classically known instance) that formulating and testing such a theory
was a daunting task. There were various unsatisfactory _ad hoc_
suggestions (e.g., the paper of Gerber that Weir accuses Einstein of
having "plagerized"), but there was no succesful comprehensive theory
of gravity until Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein's
theory is almost purely geometric and has essentially *no* free
parameters that one can adjust in order to bring the theory into
agreement with experiment, yet it predicts the observed perihelion
anomaly. This was really a stunning success. General relativity is on
shakier observational grounds than special relativity, since the
effects that must be detected are so minute that it is difficult to
distinguish general relativity from various competing theories; for
pretty up-to-date information about the experimental probes of general
relativity, see Clifford Will's book.
Finally, Einstein's general theory of relativity is very classical,
in the spirit of Maxwell's equations: it deals with point particles and
fields that evolve according to deterministic laws, regardless of the
activities of observers; there are no noncommuting observables,
uncertainty relations, probabilistic descriptions of the outcomes of
measurements, etc. However, around the same time Einstein formulated
special relativity, it was being realized that at the small scale,
nature doesn't behave that way. General relativity is *not* a quantum
theory, so it could not be the ultimate theory of gravity, just as the
quantum theory of Schrödinger and Heisenberg, being nonrelativistic,
could not be the ultimate theory at the subatomic scale. Considerable
success has been attained in formulating quantum theories compatible
with special relativity (e.g., quantum electrodynamics, which made the
most astonishingly accurate predictions of any physical theory to
date), but the quest for a quantum theory of gravity is ongoing. When
(if?) such a theory is eventually formulated and tested experimentally,
it will undoubtedly feature a boson, already named the graviton, that
mediates the gravitational interaction (as the photon mediates
electromagnetic interactions); these are the "particles of gravity" I
think you have in mind. According to Witten, a variant of string
theory now called M-theory shows considerable promise.
> -- but the fact that there seemed to be an absolute rest frame made the
> model of the ether as a sort of gelatin, fixed at rest in space time
> and transmitting electromagnetic disturbances rather as a solid
> transmits shock waves, was a very appealing idea. However, the
> Michelson-Morley experiment and its many variants dispensed
> conclusively with the notion that light's velocity depends upon the
> motion of the observer, and with it the ether.
>
> I thought M-M just showed that light traveled at the same speed
> against the "ether-wind" as it did with it, which demonstrated
> there was no ether wind, as there had to be. Although I don't know
> why there had to be an ether-wind.
If there was a universal rest frame of the ether, then there must be
an ether wind, simply because the Earth does not move with constant
velocity. If the Earth happened, by some stupendous coincidence, to be
at rest with respect to the ether in January, then since the Earth is
traveling in the opposite direction in its orbit about the Sun in June,
the Earth should feel an ether wind in June.
There were various suggestions for the failure of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, e.g., Michelson's "ether drag" hypothesis
(that the Earth drags the ether along with it) and Ritz's "emitter
theory" (according to which the velocity of electromagnetic wave
propagation depends upon the velocity of the emitter of the radiation).
The former is untenable for various reasons, among them the observed
aberration of starlight (known for centuries) and the latter is
incompatible with the observations of binary stars.
If you aspire to be helsman of our grand conspiracy, you'll have to
change your name to John. But I doubt that even that expedient would
silence Art!
David Webb
Bob Grumman
> > very interesting, and it I think they're building a nest of
> > some sort in my brain. When I'm finally made chief-over-supremus
> > of the Masons, I'll definitely make you my number-two science
> > advisor. (I have to make Art number-one to shut him up.)
> If you aspire to be helsman of our grand conspiracy, you'll have to
> change your name to John. But I doubt that even that expedient would
> silence Art!
David Webb
I really think your explanations are sinking in, David. In any event,
you've given me good stuff to mull. Thanks! As for my first name,
I thought you knew it WAS John. Surely you don't think my real
name is "Bob Grumman" or variations thereon!
Bob Grumman
> > very interesting, and it I think they're building a nest of
> > some sort in my brain. When I'm finally made chief-over-supremus
> > of the Masons, I'll definitely make you my number-two science
> > advisor. (I have to make Art number-one to shut him up.)
> If you aspire to be helsman of our grand conspiracy, you'll have to
> change your name to John. But I doubt that even that expedient would
> silence Art!
David Webb
I really think your explanations are sinking in, David. In any event,
you've given me good stuff to mull. Thanks! As for my first name,
I thought you knew it WAS John. Surely you don't think my real
name is "Bob Grumman" or some variation thereon!
john_baker
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>What's going on? I just used Google to try to find what I said while
>arguing with Baker about the Heywood preface to his Apology to Actors
>and couldn't find anything, so I did a search for what Baker said
>about Heywood. Nothing. Then I did a search for Baker's messages:
>I found 26,000, including recent ones--but NONE to HLAS! It would seem
>that the moron removed all his messages to HLAS! What a scholar. I've
>written some pretty embarrassing posts to HLAS but I've never withdrawn
>one (except once or twice immediately to fix a typo or something).
>
> --Bob G.
>
Hi Bob,
Sorry, but I didn't remove any of these messages. Google still lists
my Web page as number one when you type in Marlowe and Shakespeare or
Shakespeare and Marlowe...Peter's is just behind me as number two.
I am off the net for a few more weeks, having just posted a blast for
today, but I will be back.
I have all my messages, so I can post them again if you'd like.....
john
>
>--
>Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: Mar...@localaccess.com
"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
_Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler
john_baker
Weir) wrote:
She was working her way through the The Einstein Hoax".
If you check alt.sci.physics under this heading, i.e., ""The Einstein
Hoax" you'll find a good place to start.
baker
ps: let's get married...and take Webb out to lunch...
John W. Kennedy
> Or, to come in from near-total ignorance, there's a way to describe
> what seems to be the curvature of space without giving materiality to
> the immaterial. I've never understood why we have to say space is
> curved rather than say gravity bends light (although I know there's
> a lot more to curvature of space than that).
It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, assuming that gravity
bends particulate light in a Newtonian way predicts a different value.
Einstein's curved-space equations give the right result. They also, by
the way, explain _why_ Galileo's legendary two-falling-weight experiment
works; Newton had to assume that gravity is, for no known reason,
exactly proportional to inertia; Einstein assumes that they're two
aspects of the same phenomenon, which is neater.
As to the fine structure of light, now you're getting into Quantum
Theory, which has yet to be reconciled with General Relativity. Loosely
speaking, General Relativity works right with objects down to about the
size of atoms, Quantum Theory works right with subatomic particles, and
neither works quite right when extended to the other's domain.
But all you need is a pair of Polaroid sunglasses to demonstrate that a
simple particulate theory of light doesn't work. And there are other
problems:
If light were made of particles, then either the speed of light
in (e.g.) glass would be faster than the speed of light in a
vacuum (which we know isn't true) or lenses would bend light
in the opposite direction than they do.
We can _make_ radio waves, and we know that it's waves that we're
making. But we also know that radio waves are just another
form of light.
John W. Kennedy
> I thought M-M just showed that light traveled at the same speed
> against the "ether-wind" as it did with it, which demonstrated
> there was no ether wind, as there had to be. Although I don't know
> why there had to be an ether-wind.
Either the Earth is the unmoving center of the universe or there's an
ether-wind. Or else there's no ether.
Of course, by now, other experiments, having nothing to do with either
the motion of the Earth or ether, have demonstrated the truth of Special
Relativity. Most obviously, the GPS system requires Special Relativity
compensators to give the correct results.