Faster Than Light
Bob Kolker
If one were able to move information or matter from one point to another
faster than light, then according to special relativity, there would be
some inertial frame of reference in which the signal or object was
moving backwards in time. This is a consequence of the relativity of
simultaneity in special relativity, which says that in some cases
different reference frames will disagree on whether two events at
different locations happened "at the same time" or not, and they can
also disagree on the order of the two events (technically, these
disagreements occur when spacetime interval between the events is
'space-like', meaning that neither event lies in the future light cone
of the other).[7] If one of the two events represents the sending of a
signal from one location and the second event represents the reception
of the same signal at another location, then as long as the signal is
moving at the speed of light or slower, the mathematics of simultaneity
ensures that all reference frames agree that the transmission-event
happened before the reception-event.[7] However, in the case of a
hypothetical signal moving faster than light, there would always be some
frames in which the signal was received before it was sent, so that the
signal could be said to have moved backwards in time. And since one of
the two fundamental postulates of special relativity says that the laws
of physics should work the same way in every inertial frame, then if it
is possible for signals to move backwards in time in any one frame, it
must be possible in all frames. This means that if observer A sends a
signal to observer B which moves FTL (faster than light) in A's frame
but backwards in time in B's frame, and then B sends a reply which moves
FTL in B's frame but backwards in time in A's frame, it could work out
that A receives the reply before sending the original signal, a clear
violation of causality in every frame. An illustration of such a
scenario using spacetime diagrams can be found here.
It should be noted that according to relativity it would take an
infinite amount of energy to accelerate a slower-than-light object to
faster-than-light speeds, and although relativity does not forbid the
theoretical possibility of tachyons which move faster than light at all
times, when analyzed using quantum field theory it seems that it would
not actually be possible to use them to transmit information faster than
light[8], and there is no evidence for their existence.
See the entire article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Time_travel_to_the_past_in_physics
A bibliorgraphy can be found at:
http://www.math.siu.edu/Kocik/tm/tm-all-ch.htm
and also the end of the Wiki article
Bob Kolker
Ken from Chicago
"Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4vdlnpF...@mid.individual.net...
> The equivalence of time travel and faster-than-light travel
<snip>
Gliese 832 is about 16 light years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GJ_832
Travelling at following speeds would take:
0.1c: 160 years
0.2c: 80 years
0.5c: 32 years
1.0c: 16 years
1.6c: 10 years
2.0c: 8 years
3.2c: 5 years
4.0c: 4 years
8.0c: 2 years
10c: 1.6 years
16c: 1 year
32c: 0.5 years
64c: 0.25 years
160c: 0.1 years
1,600c: 0.01 years
16,000c: 0.001 years
16,000,000c: 0.000001 years
As speed approaches infinity: time approaches 0.
There's another name for that: Teleportation.
If c is the upper velocity to which one can accelerate matter then the
minimum time travelled should be 16 years
UNLESS
One also travelled BACKWARDS in time.
Thus one maxes out at an upper velocity of c but THEN one started travelling
backwards in time, determined by the ostensible external velocity. Thus:
An ostensible velocity of 2.0c is 1.0c and backwards time travel of 50
percent. So a distance of 16 light years is travelled in only 8 years time
at an ostensible 2.0c velocity because while one travels at 1.0c and 16
years forward one ALSO travels backward in time 8 years for a NET elapsed
time of only 8 years.
2.0c ostensible = 1.0c and 50 percent backwards time travel
3.0c ostensible = 1.0c and 66 percent backwards time travel
4.0c ostensible = 1.0c and 75 percent backwards time travel
5.0c ostensible = 1.0c and 80 percent backwards time travel
Where m is a multiple of the speed of light, c, then:
mc ostensible = 1.0c and (m-1)/m backwards time travel
(m-1)/m is the time travelled backwards from the time it takes to travel the
distance at c
or
1/m is the elapsed time to an external viewer.
Thus if the distance is 10 light years and you're travelling 4c then:
--at c it would take 10 years to travel
--m = 4 so (m-1)/m = (4-1)/4 = 3/4
--elapsed time is 10 years - 3/4 x 10 years = 10-7.5 years = 2.5 years
--1/m x 10 years = 1/4 x 10 years = 2.5 years
You travel forward in time 10 years AND backwards in time 7.5 years.
As m approaches infinity then 1/m approaches 0
and elapsed time approaches 0 or simply instant teleportation.
-- Ken from Chicago (eating cake and having it too)
P.S. Speeds and times are for EXTERNAL viewers--NOT the traveller.
Ken from Chicago
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ge-dncQKvsqnJwzY...@comcast.com...
Any questions?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ryan Case
--
Ken from Chicago
"Ryan Case" <use...@jamesrobert.us> wrote in message
news:12p3f5e...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Ge-dncQKvsqnJwzY...@comcast.com...
>>> "Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4vdlnpF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> The equivalence of time travel and faster-than-light travel
<snip>
>>> You travel forward in time 10 years AND backwards in time 7.5 years.
>>>
>>> As m approaches infinity then 1/m approaches 0
>>> and elapsed time approaches 0 or simply instant teleportation.
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago (eating cake and having it too)
>>>
>>> P.S. Speeds and times are for EXTERNAL viewers--NOT the traveller.
>>>
>>
>> Any questions?
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
> What is the velocity of an laden African Swallow?
In which direction?
-- Ken from Chicago
Bob Kolker
>>
>>What is the velocity of an laden African Swallow?
>
>
> In which direction?
Tossez la vache!
Bob Kolker
YKhan
> The equivalence of time travel and faster-than-light travel
Everything about Einstein's two Relativity (Special & General) theories
seems incomplete. Just as incomplete as Newton's Laws were before them,
which they replaced. Just the fact that Special and General Relativity
disagree with each other in certain circumstances is proof of that.
Even parts of Quantum Mechanics disagree with Relativity. As such I
think there's a far more fundamental law lying behind it, which has yet
to be discovered. From what I can tell from discussions in the physics
newsgroups, most theoreticians just treat Relativity as a quaint set of
equations that will eventually give way to a greater theory.
Yousuf Khan
Greg Bryant
WHAAA...I don't know...SPROING!!!!!!!!
Greg Bryant
YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELT OF ELDERBERIES!
Michael N. LeVine
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Ge-dncQKvsqnJwzY...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:4vdlnpF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> The equivalence of time travel and faster-than-light travel
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Gliese 832 is about 16 light years away.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GJ_832
> >
<snip>
Check out A. Bertram Chandler's stories of John Grimes.
His ship's used a Mannschenn Drive that got around
the light speed barrier by traveling backward in time
using humugus precessing Gyroscopes.
--
Michael LeVine - mle...@redshift.com
"Thirty days hath September, April, June and November.
All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee
and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc
Kevin
"YKhan" <yjk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167180475....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Duh. Check out Michio Kaku. This guy is brilliant. He will likely be the
guy to find the equation that will explain everything.
Joetheone
Our senses lie to our Selves.
How, then, are we to be anything but liars?
Nyrath the nearly wise
FTL is functionally equivalent to time travel.
This leads to the old rec.arts.sf.science quote:
"Causality, Relativity, FTL travel: chose any two."
More details here:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html#causality
Just_Stone
BRIDGEKEEPER: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
ARTHUR: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
BRIDGEKEEPER: Huh? I-- I don't know that! Auuuuuuuugh! [ explodes and dies ]
BEDEVERE: How do know so much about swallows?
ARTHUR: Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
John Reiher
I Remember a story where the FTL drive took you back in time equal to
the distance in light years that you travelled. If you travelled 20
light years, you went back in time 20 years as well.
Somehow in the ending of the book, the "benevolent space aliens" (TM),
show the hero of the story how to get back home X number of years in the
future, not X number of years in the past.
--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute
Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
BaJoRi
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ge-dncQKvsqnJwzY...@comcast.com...
>
> news:4vdlnpF...@mid.individual.net...
>> The equivalence of time travel and faster-than-light travel
>
Sorry to middle post like this, but the information below is good, and I
didn't want to get lose in that...
Anyways, light speed travel is really just a science fiction brainchild, as
we all know about time distortion when you approach those speeds. Actually,
the "warrp theory" that Star Trek uses as a basis for travel is a viable
theory. Generating anough power you fold space, "punch" through when two
portions of space come together, and you essentially move from one point to
another. There is question whether this would work automatically, or create
a tunnel ("wormhole"), but the theory itself is sound.
The best way to demonstrate how it would work is to take a piece of string
(representing space) and place it flat on a table in a straight line. Then,
leaving an inch at the end of either side, make the string touch itself, so
it looks like one of those stupid ribbons people put on their cars, denoting
whatever cause. Where it touches is where the punch" would occur.
There is way more to it than that, but that is the basics. That was also
part of the theory behind "Quantam Leap".
One drawback is that the estimated power required to do such would be the
cumulative yearly output of every nuclear power plant in the United States.
toytom
Just one, Ken. What do you recommend for a headache? ;-)
Tom
OSbandito
> Ken from Chicago calculated: <...>
> >> As m approaches infinity then 1/m approaches 0
> >> and elapsed time approaches 0 or simply instant teleportation.
> >>
> >> -- Ken from Chicago (eating cake and having it too)
> >>
> >> P.S. Speeds and times are for EXTERNAL viewers--NOT the traveller.
> >>
> >
> > Any questions?
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago
Ryan Case got tricky with:
> What is the velocity of an laden African Swallow?
the mass of the load is directly related to the speed of the swallow.
don't you guys know anything?
Citizen Bob actual
By making accurate predictions.
--
"You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
--Robert A. Heinlein
Citizen Bob actual
<mlevine...@redshift.com> wrote:
>humugus precessing Gyroscopes.
WTF is that?
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>Duh. Check out Michio Kaku. This guy is brilliant. He will likely be the
>guy to find the equation that will explain everything.
Jeez, another sci-fi writer pretending to be a productive physicist.
There are no "parallel worlds", just the one world we exist in.
Citizen Bob actual
>Everything about Einstein's two Relativity (Special & General) theories
>seems incomplete. Just as incomplete as Newton's Laws were before them,
>which they replaced.
Einstein's theories did not replace Newton's Laws. Einstein's theories
*extended* Newton's Laws into a broader range of applicability.
Newton's Laws are embedded in Einstein's theories.
>From what I can tell from discussions in the physics
>newsgroups, most theoreticians just treat Relativity as a quaint set of
>equations that will eventually give way to a greater theory.
Einstein's theories are not going anywhere. They will be extended to
include a broader range of applicability.
There is a fundamental problem with spacetime and that will have to go
away.
Bob Kolker
>
> Einstein's theories did not replace Newton's Laws. Einstein's theories
> *extended* Newton's Laws into a broader range of applicability.
> Newton's Laws are embedded in Einstein's theories.
Newton's law of gravitation, the famous inverse square law mispredicts
planetary motion (precession of perihelia). It assumes instanteneous
interaction between masses which is wrong. Furthermore it incorrectly
predicts lightbending around a massive body. Newton's laws plus GPS =
bombs that miss their target by a kilometer.
When a theory does not predict correctly, given the assumed boundry
conditions, the theory is -wrong- and has to modified or replaced. That
is why we no longer have phlogiston, caloric, vital essence or aether.
A theory is no better than its predictions.
Bob Kolker
Ken from Chicago
"toytom" <drs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167189302....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Ge-dncQKvsqnJwzY...@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4vdlnpF...@mid.individual.net...
>> >> The equivalence of time travel and faster-than-light travel
<snip>
>> > You travel forward in time 10 years AND backwards in time 7.5 years.
>> >
>> > As m approaches infinity then 1/m approaches 0
>> > and elapsed time approaches 0 or simply instant teleportation.
>> >
>> > -- Ken from Chicago (eating cake and having it too)
>> >
>> > P.S. Speeds and times are for EXTERNAL viewers--NOT the traveller.
>> >
>>
>> Any questions?
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> Just one, Ken. What do you recommend for a headache? ;-)
>
> Tom
>
Three, Tylenol 3.
Two, little, yellow, Nuprin.
Advil, advanced medicine for pain.
Aleve, the most powerful pain relief medicine you can buy without a
prescription.
-- Ken from Chicago (pity me and my lack of life)
Citizen Bob actual
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>What do you recommend for a headache? ;-)
>Three, Tylenol 3.
>Two, little, yellow, Nuprin.
>Advil, advanced medicine for pain.
>Aleve, the most powerful pain relief medicine you can buy without a
>prescription.
Don't waste your money on brand name drugs. You can get aspirin and
ibuprophen at WalMart cheap in bulk. You can keep the acetaminophen -
it's worthless for headaches and inflamation.
Three aspirin, three ibuprophen and a pint of beer.
"The best way to avoid a hangover is to stay drunk."
--Confucius
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>> Einstein's theories did not replace Newton's Laws. Einstein's theories
>> *extended* Newton's Laws into a broader range of applicability.
>> Newton's Laws are embedded in Einstein's theories.
>Newton's law of gravitation, the famous inverse square law mispredicts
>planetary motion (precession of perihelia). It assumes instanteneous
>interaction between masses which is wrong. Furthermore it incorrectly
>predicts lightbending around a massive body. Newton's laws plus GPS =
>bombs that miss their target by a kilometer.
All those are instances where Newton's Laws are not applicable.
>When a theory does not predict correctly, given the assumed boundry
>conditions,
Newton's Laws predict correctly when used in the proper environment.
You don't seriously believe that NASA solved Einstein's equations
exclusively to land a man on the Moon. The fact is that they used
Newton's Laws for 99 44/100% of the trip to the Moon because Newton's
Laws were applicable.
>the theory is -wrong- and has to modified or replaced. That
>is why we no longer have phlogiston, caloric, vital essence or aether.
Those never predicted anything correctly. You are up to your old
tricks of introducing straw men again.
>A theory is no better than its predictions.
It is the correctness of these predictions that justifies adopting the
Worldview of Direct Realism when dealing with the objective world.
Idealism is coreect for logic and mathematics, but it is not valid for
concrete reality.
DaffyDuck
> There is a fundamental problem with spacetime and that will have to go
> away.
The problem is with the theories trying to explain it, insofar that
that they are either incomplete, or lack accuracy due to lack of
information.
DaffyDuck
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> One also travelled BACKWARDS in time.
Idiotic - you never travel backwards in time. You are falling victim to
an observational fallacy.
Bob Kolker
>
> It is the correctness of these predictions that justifies adopting the
> Worldview of Direct Realism when dealing with the objective world.
> Idealism is coreect for logic and mathematics, but it is not valid for
> concrete reality.
You got it backwards. It is the falseness of predictions that falsify
theories. No finite set of corroberations can prove the general proof of
a theory. However one valid refutation shows that it is false.
Bob Kolker
Victor Velazquez
news:4592172...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:00:09 -0800, "Michael N. LeVine"
> <mlevine...@redshift.com> wrote:
>
>>humugus precessing Gyroscopes.
>
> WTF is that?
Great big spinney things?
Nyrath the nearly wise
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:00:09 -0800, "Michael N. LeVine"
> <mlevine...@redshift.com> wrote:
>>humugus precessing Gyroscopes.
>
> WTF is that?
Have you ever played with a gyroscope?
If you try to turn it, the thing twists
in your hands like it was alive.
This is called "precession".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope#Properties
In the Grimes novels, the author waves his hands
and says "maybe they can figure out a way to
make the gyroscope precess not in three dimensions,
but instead in four dimensions, and somehow use
this to move the ship faster than light"
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>No finite set of corroberations can prove the general proof of
>a theory.
Define "finite set of corroberations". How big is a "finite" set?
Since the term "finite" is arbitrary, I assume it is unbounded, in
which case your claim is the same as saying you can never prove the
validity of any theorem.
Define "prove the general proof".
>However one valid refutation shows that it is false.
Define "valid refutation".
Bob Kolker
>
>
> Define "finite set of corroberations". How big is a "finite" set?
Any definite number that can be counted out in a finite time.
>
> Since the term "finite" is arbitrary, I assume it is unbounded, in
> which case your claim is the same as saying you can never prove the
> validity of any theorem.
Yes you can, by inference rules such as modus ponens and universal
instantiation.
Read any book on first order logic.
>
> Define "prove the general proof".
I meant provide general proof. No finite set of corroberations can
guarantee that all possible instantiations of the theory are correct,
since there an infinite set of such. See below.
>
>
>>However one valid refutation shows that it is false.
>
>
> Define "valid refutation".
There exists x such that not P(x) if and only if it is false that for
all x P(x). The way you refute for all x, P(x) is to find an individual
b, such that not P(b). The way you falisify all crows are black is to
find a non-black crow. All it takes is one.
This is first order logic 101 which you apprently missed in Texas.
Read a standard text on first order logic.
In general one cannot verify for all x, P(x) if P is a predicate that
applies to an infinite set of individuals, by ennumerating the cases
where P hold. It will (by hypothesis) not exaust the possible instances
of P.
Bob Kolker
Ken from Chicago
"Victor Velazquez" <vict...@notnow.com> wrote in message
news:PJOdnRsEvOBtEg_Y...@comcast.com...
The spinning circles on Krypton in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"DaffyDuck" <daff...@spammersdie.mac.dot.com> wrote in message
news:2006122704223811272-daffyduck@spammersdiemacdotcom...
Net time travel is forward. At infinite speed net time travel is 0.
-- Ken from Chicago
NoOneYouKnow
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 04:43:34 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>What do you recommend for a headache? ;-)
>
>>Three, Tylenol 3.
>>Two, little, yellow, Nuprin.
>>Advil, advanced medicine for pain.
>>Aleve, the most powerful pain relief medicine you can buy without a
>>prescription.
>
> Don't waste your money on brand name drugs. You can get aspirin and
> ibuprophen at WalMart cheap in bulk. You can keep the acetaminophen -
> it's worthless for headaches and inflamation.
All of them are worthless, and bad for you, if you take them too often.
And anyone who can cure a headache with asprin didn't have a headache worth
taking anything for in the first place.
> Three aspirin, three ibuprophen and a pint of beer.
Kill the stomach, kill the kidneys, and kill the liver. 3 for 3. Now just
add some pizza and a cigar and you'll have wasted most of the vital organs.
---JRE---
Ken from Chicago
"NoOneYouKnow" <NoOneY...@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote in message
news:4592a73f$0$44191$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net...
Withour an STD, some would argue the most vital organ had been spared.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ryan Case
> "Ryan Case" <use...@jamesrobert.us> wrote in message
> news:12p3f5e...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>> news:Ge-dncQKvsqnJwzY...@comcast.com...
>>>> "Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4vdlnpF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> The equivalence of time travel and faster-than-light travel
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> You travel forward in time 10 years AND backwards in time 7.5 years.
>>>>
>>>> As m approaches infinity then 1/m approaches 0
>>>> and elapsed time approaches 0 or simply instant teleportation.
>>>>
>>>> -- Ken from Chicago (eating cake and having it too)
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Speeds and times are for EXTERNAL viewers--NOT the traveller.
>>>>
>>> Any questions?
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
The swallow would always be traveling forward in its time and space
wouldn't it? I mean who has ever seen a bird fly backwards? (No, the Red
Dwarf episode does not count!)
--
toytom
<spit take>
LOL!
You're not alone in your lack of a life, I knew each slogaright there
with ya! ;-)
Tom
Joetheone
DaffyDuck
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> Net time travel is forward. At infinite speed net time travel is 0.
That's nice for math, where yu can juggle concepts like 'infinite',
which don't really exist in the physical universe (just like zero)
Gene Ward Smith
Citizen Bob actual wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:00:09 -0800, "Michael N. LeVine"
> <mlevine...@redshift.com> wrote:
>
> >humugus precessing Gyroscopes.
>
> WTF is that?
Part of a great science fiction tradition extending from H. G. Wells to
Carl Sagan.
Bob Kolker
> which don't really exist in the physical universe (just like zero)'
Empty your pockets. The the contents has cardinality zero.
Bob Kolker
>
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>> Define "finite set of corroberations". How big is a "finite" set?
>Any definite number that can be counted out in a finite time.
So if we repeat an experiment N times, where N is "any definite number
that can be counted out in a finite time", it still is not enough to
prove the proof.
How many times do you need to observe an electron to be reasonably
certain that electrons exist?
>> Since the term "finite" is arbitrary, I assume it is unbounded, in
>> which case your claim is the same as saying you can never prove the
>> validity of any theorem.
>Yes you can, by inference rules such as modus ponens and universal
>instantiation.
Now you are changing your mind. One minute you claim that "no finite
set of corroberations can guarantee that all possible instantiations
of the theory are correct", but now you are claiming that you can by
"inference rules such as modus ponens and universal instantiation".
Make up your mind, willya.
>Read any book on first order logic.
You need to read a book on first order physics.
>> Define "prove the general proof".
>I meant provide general proof.
You need to read a book on first order English. How do you expect me
to follow all this convoluted verbage if you misspell the words.
>No finite set of corroberations can
>guarantee that all possible instantiations of the theory are correct,
>since there an infinite set of such. See below.
There is no such thing as "infinite" anything in the realist objective
ontological world. Infinity is a fabrication of mathematicians
operating in the idealist subjective epistemological world of fantasy.
>>>However one valid refutation shows that it is false.
>> Define "valid refutation".
>There exists x such that not P(x) if and only if it is false that for
>all x P(x). The way you refute for all x, P(x) is to find an individual
>b, such that not P(b). The way you falisify all crows are black is to
>find a non-black crow. All it takes is one.
How do you know that? Since you can never "provide general proof" that
there are black crows, they could all be white.
>This is first order logic 101 which you apprently missed in Texas.
And am I glad I did, otherwise I would be thinking like you.
>In general one cannot verify for all x, P(x) if P is a predicate that
>applies to an infinite set of individuals,
You need to decide which world you are in. One minute it's the realist
objective ontological world of crows and the next it's the idealist
subjective epistemological world of infinity. You cannot mix the two
worlds.
Read a book on first order metaphysics.
Citizen Bob actual
<nyr...@projectrho.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>humugus precessing Gyroscopes.
>> WTF is that?
>Have you ever played with a gyroscope?
I know what a gyroscope is, fer fuck sake. And I know what fucking
precession is.
I want to know what a "humugus" is.
Citizen Bob actual
<NoOneY...@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>> Don't waste your money on brand name drugs. You can get aspirin and
>> ibuprophen at WalMart cheap in bulk. You can keep the acetaminophen -
>> it's worthless for headaches and inflamation.
>All of them are worthless, and bad for you, if you take them too often.
Daily aspirin is good for your circulatory system.
>And anyone who can cure a headache with asprin didn't have a headache worth
>taking anything for in the first place.
I don't sniff glue.
>> Three aspirin, three ibuprophen and a pint of beer.
>Kill the stomach, kill the kidneys, and kill the liver. 3 for 3. Now just
>add some pizza and a cigar and you'll have wasted most of the vital organs.
Nothing lasts forever. But what a way to go.
Bob Kolker
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:05:04 -0500, Bob Kolker <now...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Define "finite set of corroberations". How big is a "finite" set?
>
>
>>Any definite number that can be counted out in a finite time.
>
>
> So if we repeat an experiment N times, where N is "any definite number
> that can be counted out in a finite time", it still is not enough to
> prove the proof.
Correct. Besides a general law of physics must be true everywhere and
everywhen. There is no way for humans with a finite lifetime and a
finite travel radius to test general physical laws in all instance.
>
> How many times do you need to observe an electron to be reasonably
> certain that electrons exist?
What does "reasonably certain" mean. The electron hypothesis makes
so-far correct predictions and has yet to falsified so it is
"reasonable" to pretend electrons exist. I point out that neither you
nor I have ever -seen- an electron. We have inferred their existence
from phenomena that makes sense impessions on our brains. Which makes
such items as electrons and atoms hypothetical, but well supported by tests.
>
>
>>>Since the term "finite" is arbitrary, I assume it is unbounded, in
>>>which case your claim is the same as saying you can never prove the
>>>validity of any theorem.
>
>
>>Yes you can, by inference rules such as modus ponens and universal
>>instantiation.
>
>
> Now you are changing your mind. One minute you claim that "no finite
> set of corroberations can guarantee that all possible instantiations
> of the theory are correct", but now you are claiming that you can by
> "inference rules such as modus ponens and universal instantiation".
You can infer predictions. But you can't test them all and you can test
all of the possible predictions from a theory since there are infinitely
many.
>
> Make up your mind, willya.
>
>
>>Read any book on first order logic.
>
>
> You need to read a book on first order physics.
>
>
>>>Define "prove the general proof".
>
>
>>I meant provide general proof.
>
>
> You need to read a book on first order English. How do you expect me
> to follow all this convoluted verbage if you misspell the words.
>
>
>>No finite set of corroberations can
>>guarantee that all possible instantiations of the theory are correct,
>>since there an infinite set of such. See below.
>
>
> There is no such thing as "infinite" anything in the realist objective
> ontological world. Infinity is a fabrication of mathematicians
> operating in the idealist subjective epistemological world of fantasy.
How many integers are there? How many points on a euclindean line. The
assumption of infinite sets is absolutely essential for the mathematics
without which you could not do any non-trivial physics. The theory of
real and complex variables, which is predicated on infinite sets is
essential for doing physics. So the -concept- of infinit is required.
>
>
>>>>However one valid refutation shows that it is false.
>
>
>
>>>Define "valid refutation".
>
>
>>There exists x such that not P(x) if and only if it is false that for
>>all x P(x). The way you refute for all x, P(x) is to find an individual
>>b, such that not P(b). The way you falisify all crows are black is to
>>find a non-black crow. All it takes is one.
>
>
> How do you know that? Since you can never "provide general proof" that
> there are black crows, they could all be white.
It follows from the principle of non-contradiction. Either all x have a
property P or not. If not it means at least one x does not have the
property.
>
>
>>This is first order logic 101 which you apprently missed in Texas.
>
>
> And am I glad I did, otherwise I would be thinking like you.
The mathematics you use in physics is -grounded- on first order logic
and the theory of sets. Invented by Dedikind, Weirstrass and Cantor.
Prior to these, calculus was built on a foundation of quicksand. These
guys invented limits by which derivatives and integrals are define.
>
>
>>In general one cannot verify for all x, P(x) if P is a predicate that
>>applies to an infinite set of individuals,
>
>
> You need to decide which world you are in. One minute it's the realist
> objective ontological world of crows and the next it's the idealist
> subjective epistemological world of infinity. You cannot mix the two
> worlds.
Let us assume arguendo that there are only a finite number of places in
the universe and time is either cyclic or will come to end in a finite
time from now. Even so, the number of instantiations of our physical
theories is so large we will go extinct and the sun will die before we
try out all the possibilities. It is impossible for humans to verify
physical theories based on -general- laws (true everywhere and
everywhen) because we do not have the means or the lifetime or even the
species time. As a result, all we can do in a finite number of
operations is falsify theories which means showing at least one
prediction is incorrect.
It is not within our means to prove our best theories are true. The best
we can do is show that so-far they have not been falsified.
Now matter how many black crows you find you have not shown every crow
that ever was or ever will be is black. However if you should come
across a non-black crow you will have shown not all crows are black.
GPS sateelites plus Newton's law of gravitation = bombs missing their
targets by hundreds or thousands of meters. That is why the time hacks
are corrected using relativity theory.
Bob Kolker
Wayne Throop
: I want to know what a "humugus" is.
It is a paste made from legumes, seeds, oils, and garlic.
"Luckily, as all bean farmers know, Phaseolus limensis perishes when
exposed to dry air and overly nitrogenous soil. "
"But you hit it with a hammer, Jimmy."
"Hey, it was chewing on my butt!"
--- Jimmy Neutron and Carl Wheezer,
recounting an attack by a man-eating legume
(possibly they should have subdued it with garlic)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
William December Starr
sp...@uce.gov said:
> I know what a gyroscope is, fer fuck sake. And I know what fucking
> precession is.
>
> I want to know what a "humugus" is.
He's The Warrior of the Wasteland! The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla!
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Victor Velazquez
news:emunpe$h2d$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <4592bd9e...@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> sp...@uce.gov said:
>
>> I know what a gyroscope is, fer fuck sake. And I know what fucking
>> precession is.
>>
>> I want to know what a "humugus" is.
>
> He's The Warrior of the Wasteland! The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla!
And, as it turned out, rather like a bug on a windshield. :-)
Ken from Chicago
WRONG!!! SPROING!!!
-- Ken from Chicago (who'd suggest investigating birds in hurricanes,
tornadoes or sucked into jet engines before dismissing backward-flying
birds)
Ken from Chicago
There's dust, air and energy.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ryan Case
Oh, well, sorry. I was working under the assumption that we were talking
about birds in movement under their own power. Bringing artificially
propelled birds into the fray would definitely change things.
Sorry
--
Ken from Chicago
Never assume--especially in sf.
-- Ken from Chicago
YKhan
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:17:12 -0800, "Kevin" <kevi...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Duh. Check out Michio Kaku. This guy is brilliant. He will likely be the
> >guy to find the equation that will explain everything.
> >http://www.mkaku.org/
>
> Jeez, another sci-fi writer pretending to be a productive physicist.
>
> There are no "parallel worlds", just the one world we exist in.
I think most theoreticians live in a very sci-fi world these days.
Strings, membranes, etc.
Yousuf Khan
Bob Kolker
Remove all currency from your wallet. The cardinal number of the set of
bills in your wallet is zero. Zero is real.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Read -The Trouble with Physics- by Lee Smollin. You will learn that
String Theory is a bust. Smollin has been doing string theory and loop
gravitation for nearly thirty years. He knows what he is talking about.
Bob Kolker
YKhan
> When a theory does not predict correctly, given the assumed boundry
> conditions, the theory is -wrong- and has to modified or replaced. That
> is why we no longer have phlogiston, caloric, vital essence or aether.
Einstein himself never said that his theories of Relativity disproved
the Aether. All he said was that Relativity makes it unnecessary to
consider the Aether in equations. That's not the same thing as
disproving it. With all of the problems cropping up about Relativity,
it's not inconceivable that the Aether might make a comeback. Indeed
all of the Superstring/M-Theory stuff that is out there, seems to be
going back to the concept of the Aether.
Yousuf Khan
YKhan
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:26:03 GMT, "Joetheone"
>
> <joethe...@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:
> >The universe lies to our senses.
> >Our senses lie to our Selves.
> >How, then, are we to be anything but liars?
>
> By making accurate predictions.
Then all you are doing is making accurate predictions based on a lie.
Yousuf Khan
Raghar
> : sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob actual)
> : I want to know what a "humugus" is.
>
> It is a paste made from legumes, seeds, oils, and garlic.
>
>
> "Luckily, as all bean farmers know, Phaseolus limensis perishes when
> exposed to dry air and overly nitrogenous soil. "
>
> "But you hit it with a hammer, Jimmy."
>
> "Hey, it was chewing on my butt!"
As Cossete said. When I have handcuffs on my hands, my brain speeds up
and I think incredibly logically. It was interesting, because it was a
woman.
Now Wayne Throop, William December Starr, Victor Velazquez handcuff
your hands behind your backs, you need it.
Bob Kolker
I am talking about the kind of aether that Maxwell thought existed. The
MMX pretty well shot that down. Maxwellian aether which is spacefilling
good that carries transverse e.m. waves but doest not slow down planets
in their orbits. It is stiffer than steel and rarer than virtue. Do you
believe this stuff exists? I don't.
Modern physics works very nicely without luminiferous aether. It is
unnecessary to make predictions and it cannot be detected or measured.
In short, it might as well not be there.
Bob Kolker
Mark Anderson
...
> mc ostensible = 1.0c and (m-1)/m backwards time travel
> (m-1)/m is the time travelled backwards from the time it takes to travel the
> distance at c
>
> or
>
> 1/m is the elapsed time to an external viewer.
>
> Thus if the distance is 10 light years and you're travelling 4c then:
> --at c it would take 10 years to travel
> --m = 4 so (m-1)/m = (4-1)/4 = 3/4
> --elapsed time is 10 years - 3/4 x 10 years = 10-7.5 years = 2.5 years
> --1/m x 10 years = 1/4 x 10 years = 2.5 years
>
> You travel forward in time 10 years AND backwards in time 7.5 years.
>
> As m approaches infinity then 1/m approaches 0
> and elapsed time approaches 0 or simply instant teleportation.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago (eating cake and having it too)
>
> P.S. Speeds and times are for EXTERNAL viewers--NOT the traveller.
Is any of this going to be on the test?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>The swallow would always be traveling forward in its time and space
>wouldn't it? I mean who has ever seen a bird fly backwards? (No, the Red
>Dwarf episode does not count!)
Never seen a hummingbird?
Beth
I have - put out feeders for them and plant flowers to their tastes.
Love those little guys
zipping back and forth, hovering and flying backwards. Don't
dragonflies do something similar?
--
Beth
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog it is too
dark to read.
Groucho Marx
Beth
Yes.
Dropping The Helicopter
[blah blah blah I'm not a physicist but I play one because I watch TV
jeez you people]
> mc ostensible = 1.0c and (m-1)/m backwards time travel
> (m-1)/m is the time travelled backwards from the time it takes to travel the
> distance at c
>
And M.C. Ostensible is what my homies call me when I'm dropping bombs at
the club.
"Word to your moms,
I came to drop bombs,
I got more rhymes
Than the Bible got psalms!"
Dropping The Helicopter
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:14:19 -0800, Ryan Case <use...@jamesrobert.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The swallow would always be traveling forward in its time and space
>>> wouldn't it? I mean who has ever seen a bird fly backwards? (No, the
>>> Red Dwarf episode does not count!)
>>
>>
>> Never seen a hummingbird?
>
> I have - put out feeders for them and plant flowers to their tastes.
> Love those little guys
> zipping back and forth, hovering and flying backwards. Don't
> dragonflies do something similar?
>
Yep. And they also breathe fire, which is cool, but also dangerous.
Victor Velazquez
news:1167273068.1...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
i'm typimg withj my nopse1
DaffyDuck
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> "Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:
> Empty your pockets. The the contents has cardinality zero.
>> Bob Kolker
>
> There's dust, air and energy.
Kolker must have been thinking of his brain, I stand corrected, there
*IS* something equal to 'zero'
DaffyDuck
>> By making accurate predictions.
>
> Then all you are doing is making accurate predictions based on a lie.
Shhh... don't tell Bob his life is a lie.
Ken from Chicago
Since when are bills the only "content" you can put in your pockets?
Since when did you limit the contents to the cardinal number of bills?
And wouldn't you more likely put bills in a wallet or pocket-...book?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Mark Anderson" <m...@nospambrandylion.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ffceefed...@chi.news.speakeasy.net...
Already was. You have a little while to travel back in time to take it.
-- Ken from Chicago
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>> So if we repeat an experiment N times, where N is "any definite number
>> that can be counted out in a finite time", it still is not enough to
>> prove the proof.
>Correct. Besides a general law of physics must be true everywhere and
>everywhen.
What "general law"? Pontifical bullshit. There is no such requirement
in physics.
You are giving us mathematics/logic criteria, not physics criteria.
You are telling us that the mathematical properties for a circle must
be universal, and therefore the laws of physics must be universally
correct. That is absolute nonsense and shows us that you do not
understand physics.
I have never met a mathematician who really understood physics. They
always insisted on treating physics like it was mathematics. Physics
is not mathematics in any sense.
They only relationship between mathematics and physics is that
mathematics is a language suitable for communication of the laws of
physics. Otherwise it is just a fantasy like all idealist constructs
of the human mind.
>There is no way for humans with a finite lifetime and a
>finite travel radius to test general physical laws in all instance.
How utterly positivist of you.
We can make accurate predictions such as the one that put a man on the
moon or the one that results in the construction of the first nuclear
reactor.
>> How many times do you need to observe an electron to be reasonably
>> certain that electrons exist?
>What does "reasonably certain" mean.
It means just what it says, namely that a reasonable person is certain
because they can justify their certainty rationally.
>The electron hypothesis
Oh, cut it out, fer chrissakes. Your endless pontification is getting
boring. The electron is not any fucking hypothesis. If it were then
solid state physics would still be conjecture and there would be no
semiconductors or superconductors. And that's not all there would not
be.
This is what happens when a mathematician attempts to do physics
without ever taking advanced courses in physics. If you had taken my
quantum physics lab when I taught it as a graduate teaching assistant,
you would have performed Miliken's Oil Drop experiment, measured the
dynamical properties of electrons in a cathode ray tube surrounded by
a magnetic field and even directly observed the quantum transitions of
electrons in mercury.
This would have been so bloody empirical that you would have gotten
your hands dirty conducting the experiments yourself. You would have
come away from those experiments, and others like them, with an
absolutely certain knowledge that the electron is very real.
Hypothesis my fucking ass.
You are fortunate that you did not go into physics because you would
have starved. Mathematics is the next best thing when you are not
suited for the physical sciences.
Your classical empiricism went out favor at the turn of the 20th
century. If physicists demanded mathematical/logical truth, they would
never get anywhere.
>How many integers are there?
There are as many as you can fabricate in the idealist subjective
epistemological world of mathematics. But there are none whatsoever in
the realist objective onmtological world of physics. Zero, zip, nada.
Integers are mathematical fabrications that have validity only in the
mind. They have no reality in the real world.
>How many points on a euclindean line. The
>assumption of infinite sets is absolutely essential for the mathematics
>without which you could not do any non-trivial physics. The theory of
>real and complex variables, which is predicated on infinite sets is
>essential for doing physics. So the -concept- of infinit is required.
Mathematics is not required for the laws of physics to operate. By
"doing physics" you mean making predictions, and mathematics serves
only to provide a language for physicists to communicate their
understanding of the laws of physics.
Otherwise mathematics has no ontological relationship to physics.
Fermi did not build the first nuclear reactor successfully because of
his mathematics - he built it because of his understanding of the laws
of physics. He could have wanked off mathmatically day and night and
never have arrived at 99 44/100% critical mass.
Another thing I observed about mathematicians is that they try to
steal the glory that is due physicists. They are intensely jealous of
physicists so they try to claim that mathematics is the real secret
behind physics. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But
mathematicians won't let loose of their fantasy.
--
"You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
--Robert A. Heinlein
Citizen Bob actual
Starr) wrote:
>> I know what a gyroscope is, fer fuck sake. And I know what fucking
>> precession is.
>> I want to know what a "humugus" is.
>He's The Warrior of the Wasteland! The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla!
That's Road Warrior's "Humongous"
Humugus is made out of legumes.
Citizen Bob actual
>> >The universe lies to our senses.
>> >Our senses lie to our Selves.
>> >How, then, are we to be anything but liars?
>> By making accurate predictions.
>Then all you are doing is making accurate predictions based on a lie.
How can that be? If it were possible, then we could fabricate any lie
and make predictions using it.
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>Zero is real.
Numbers are not real. They are concepts. Concepts are not real.
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>: sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob actual)
>: I want to know what a "humugus" is.
>
>It is a paste made from legumes, seeds, oils, and garlic.
Then WTF is a "humugus precessing gyroscope" - a device made out of
beans? How can that cause FTL jumps?
> "Luckily, as all bean farmers know, Phaseolus limensis perishes when
> exposed to dry air and overly nitrogenous soil. "
> "But you hit it with a hammer, Jimmy."
> "Hey, it was chewing on my butt!"
"Well, next time treat it with a little more respect!"
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>Lee Smollin.
I wonder if he is any relation to Lee Smolin.
Naw.
Highlandish
<4592bd9e...@news-server.houston.rr.com>
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:35:53 -0500, Nyrath the nearly wise
> <nyr...@projectrho.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>humugus precessing Gyroscopes.
>
>>> WTF is that?
>
>>Have you ever played with a gyroscope?
>
> I know what a gyroscope is, fer fuck sake. And I know what fucking
> precession is.
>
see my crotch!
--
Reply no longer functions. attention me in this group instead
The best part about procrastination is that you are never bored,
because you have all kinds of things that you should be doing.
Joetheone
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SoednYnFsc8qww7Y...@comcast.com...
Bob Kolker
>
>
> What "general law"? Pontifical bullshit. There is no such requirement
> in physics.
Let us examine Newton's law of gravitation. the gratiational force
between two masses at distance r is F = G*m1*m2/r^2.
This is true for any two masses and any distance greater than zero at
any location in the 'verse at any time. Do you see the word "any". Sure
you do. That "any" is a universal quantifier. The universal
quantification on masses, distances, locations and times is what makes
the law general.
I guess they do not teach universal quantifiers in Texas. They also do
not teach the philosophy of David Hume either. Hume demonstrated that
induction is not a valid form of inferernce. No matter how many black
crows you find, you have not proven that the next crow you find is black.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
>
> Numbers are not real. They are concepts. Concepts are not real.
If you emptied you wallet of all currency I guess the set of dollar
bills in your wallet (the empty set) does not exist.
By the way force is a concept. Therefor it does not exist. Location is a
concept. Therefore it does not exist. Time intervals are concepts.
Therefore they don't exist. No number exists since number is a concept.
So how do you go about buying a dozen eggs at your local grocery store?
Motion is a concept, therefore motion does not exist. None of these are
real. So what is real?
Have you ever seen an atom? Have you ever seen an electron? Are they
real or are they concepts?
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
>
> I wonder if he is any relation to Lee Smolin.
THe physcist who taught at Brandeis for a while. That L.S.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
>
> Since when are bills the only "content" you can put in your pockets?
I specified the -set of bills-. No procede from there.
>
> Since when did you limit the contents to the cardinal number of bills?
Cardinality is a property of sets. In the example I gave the cardinality
of -the set of bills in your wallet- after you took at all the bills
from your wallet is class of sets equipotent with the empty set which by
definition is cardinal number zero.
Teaching elementary set theory to the unwashed is a thankless task.
Bob Kolker
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>> I want to know what a "humugus" is.
>see my crotch!
You have legumes for genitals?
Poor woman..
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>> Numbers are not real. They are concepts. Concepts are not real.
>If you emptied you wallet of all currency I guess the set of dollar
>bills in your wallet (the empty set) does not exist.
There is no set - it's a concept, a fantasy. What I do not have is any
dollar bills.
>By the way force is a concept.
The concept per se does not exist, but the referent does exist.
Once again, you are confusing the ontological with the
epistemological. That's a common error for people who spend a lot of
time in the Idealist world, like mathematicians. You need to visit the
ontological world of reality more often.
>So what is real?
The realist objective ontological world is real. That's the world of
Being. All the rest is the world of fantasy, including the world of
mathematic and logic.
>Have you ever seen an atom? Have you ever seen an electron? Are they
>real or are they concepts?
They are real. I do not have to see an atom to know that. That's
because I am not a classical positivist like you. I learned Quantum
Mechanics which taught me that positivism is bankrupt.
Since the advent of Orthodox QM at Solvay, there has been a
continually raging debate over whether QM is ontological or
epistemological. The Copenhagen Interpretation was an invalid attempt
to explain how it could be ontological with its half-alive, half-dead
cats in boxes. Then Einstein convinced Bohr that Copenhagen was wrong
and Bohr tried to fix it by making it epistemological. That was a
disaster too. The problem with Copenhagen was that it was based on
first quantization, which does not have a mechanism for transitions
between eigenstates. You have to invoke second quantization like in
Quantum Field Theory before you can truly understand how QM works.
Then you do not need any Copenhagen Interpretation.
Being is an act, not a thing. Atoms are acts, not things. They are
very real in the strictest terms of realist objective ontological
world - what most rational people call Reality. Even the quantum field
is ontologically real in those terms.
Mathematics, however, is not real in any terms. It is a fabrication of
the idealist subjective epistemological world. The only connection it
has to the ontological real world is it can serve as a language to
allow physicists to communicate the laws of physics.
The reason that man landed on the Moon is not found in the equations
of Newton or Einstein, but in the Laws of Newton and Einstein. Those
Laws are embedded in the very essence of the material world. They are
caused by the way the material world behaves, by the very Being of the
material world, how it asserts itself. Those equations only served as
a language to communicate the Laws of Physics, to make it possible to
construct the space vehicle and operate it successfully.
We know from experiments on animals that they can understand the
material world in a limited way - and they can even do primitive
arithmetic. A monkey watching 3 saber tooth tigers go into a cave and
only 2 come out unserstands the danger that lurks in the cave. Yet
that monkey is not literate.
Physics does not in principle need mathematics to understand how the
material world behaves. However. it is indispensible for being
productive, especially in terms of discovering new laws and making
predictions.
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>They also do not teach the philosophy of David Hume either. Hume demonstrated that
>induction is not a valid form of inferernce. No matter how many black
>crows you find, you have not proven that the next crow you find is black.
Hume was full of crap. That's why they don't teach his crap in Texas.
It is obvious that they do not teach the Law of Large Numbers where
you went to school.
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>> I wonder if he is any relation to Lee Smolin.
>THe physcist who taught at Brandeis for a while. That L.S.
He has an agenda. He is but a voice in the crowd. His physics is not
orthodox. Has he ever predicted anything new that has made it into
orthodox physics?
He looks more like one of those Carl Sagan sci-fi writers. In any
event it is a mistake taking him as the sole advocate of how physics
should be practiced.
If you want to understand physics, you should read real physics books:
Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell
By A. Zee
Princeton U. Press 2003
518 pages
ISBN: 0691010196
Einstein's Universe
Gravity at Work and Play
by A. Zee
Paperback: 320 pages
Oxford University Press (March 15, 2001)
ISBN: 0195142853
Greg Bryant
"Citizen Bob actual" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:45936062...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On 27 Dec 2006 16:15:26 -0500, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
>>> I know what a gyroscope is, fer fuck sake. And I know what fucking
>>> precession is.
>
>>> I want to know what a "humugus" is.
>
>>He's The Warrior of the Wasteland! The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla!
>
> That's Road Warrior's "Humongous"
>
> Humugus is made out of legumes.
>
I thought that was the Scottish food made out of sheep's intestines.
Bob Kolker
>
> Hume was full of crap. That's why they don't teach his crap in Texas.
>
> It is obvious that they do not teach the Law of Large Numbers where
> you went to school.
The Law of Large numbers is based on concepts (limit, probability, etc)
therefore is not real. You said it yourself. The law of large numbers
should make you field comfy and cozy with sufficiently thorough samples
from a population.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers#The_strong_law
And just how do you established by empirical means that random variables
are independent? All you can do is -infer- independence from
suppositions of independence.
Don't get me wrong. I treat the Law of Large Numbers -as though it were
a fact-, but I know it is not a fact. It is a mathematical construct.
Facts are what are, not to be confused with hypotheses or suppositions
of what is.
Hume dealt with what is perceived and made that primary over that which
is supposed or tautologically true by definition. Kant tried to come
back and prove there are true a priori judgements which are not merely
analyatic (things true by definition). He failed. Hume stands.
Hume was a moderate skeptic, and skeptics are as welcome to philosophy
gatherings as Banquo's ghost was to MacBeth's feast.
Anyone who is not at least moderately skeptical is gullible.
I respect facts, and I fart in the general direction of hypotheses which
claim to be facts or smell like elderberry wine.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
>
> I thought that was the Scottish food made out of sheep's intestines.
Hagis. The Poet Robbie Burns loved hagis, so it is not to be despised.
Bob Kolker
CatPanDaddy
>
>>
>> You travel forward in time 10 years AND backwards in time 7.5 years.
>>
>> As m approaches infinity then 1/m approaches 0
>> and elapsed time approaches 0 or simply instant teleportation.
>>
>>
>
>
Yes. What is it like for the traveller then? Does he age faster or slower?
Michael N. LeVine
"Highlandish" <say no to spam> wrote:
> Quoth The Raven; Citizen Bob actual <sp...@uce.gov> in
> <4592bd9e...@news-server.houston.rr.com>
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:35:53 -0500, Nyrath the nearly wise
> > <nyr...@projectrho.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>>>humugus precessing Gyroscopes.
> >
> >>> WTF is that?
> >
> >>Have you ever played with a gyroscope?
> >
> > I know what a gyroscope is, fer fuck sake. And I know what fucking
> > precession is.
> >
> > I want to know what a "humugus" is.
>
taken from www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hum2.htm
HUMONGOUS
Huge, enormous.
This American word has established itself so well in the language that
William Safire reported a couple of years ago it had been put into
the mouth of Thomas Jefferson in a television programme. If so,
that was a sad anachronism, since humongous first darted on to the
linguistic stage only about 1968, apparently as a bit of college slang,
but hit the big time almost immediately and has been with us ever since.
Thatąs despite grumpy comments like those of William Hartston in the
British newspaper The Independent, who said it was łsurely one of the
ugliest words ever to slither its way into our dictionaries˛ and
ła silly and affected synonym for huge or enormous˛, adding that
łit serves no purpose not covered by those words and is thus redundant˛.
Steady on, old chap! Itąs surely in the same class as skittishly
humorous words like ginormous (which arose in World War Two military slang)
and the set of words for large amounts based on creative
augmentations of million, such as zillion, bazillion, gazillion,
and squillion. Our word was probably based on an amalgam of huge and
monstrous, influenced by the stress pattern of stupendous or tremendous.
--
Michael LeVine - mle...@redshift.com
"Thirty days hath September, April, June and November.
All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee
and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc
DaffyDuck
> What "general law"? Pontifical bullshit. There is no such requirement
> in physics.
> Oh, cut it out, fer chrissakes. Your endless pontification is getting
> boring. The electron is not any fucking hypothesis.
> This is what happens when a mathematician attempts to do physics
> without ever taking advanced courses in physics.
> Another thing I observed about mathematicians is that they try to
> steal the glory that is due physicists.
This entire Bob vs. Bob fight is so funny, on so many different levels...
christopherbasken
They always are. For some reason, it reminds me of Spy vs. Spy.
--
Chris Basken
+++++++++++++++
http://stores.lulu.com/chriz
CatPanDaddy
<Christopher Basken> wrote in message
news:2006122810...@news.giganews.com...
Thanks loads, guys... now I have this image of one of the spies taking out the
other with an ontological bomb planted in the other spy's epistemologies.
<smirk>
Wayne Throop
::: approaches 0 or simply instant teleportation.
::: P.S. Speeds and times are for EXTERNAL viewers--NOT the traveller.
:: Any questions?
: "CatPanDaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net>
: Yes. What is it like for the traveller then? Does he age faster or slower?
Depends entirely on how the time travel is accomplished.
The 10 ly at 1c takes zero time for the traveler.
(Or rather, "approaching 1c" and "approaching zero time".)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Citizen Bob actual
wrote:
>The Law of Large numbers is based on concepts (limit, probability, etc)
>therefore is not real. You said it yourself.
There is a distinction between the mathematical statement of the law
and the physical implementation of it.
If I flip a fair coin and keep tick marks on a piece of paper to
represent the number of heads and the number of tails, the tick marks
will begin to become equal in number after enough flips. That's the
implementation in the real world.
>I treat the Law of Large Numbers -as though it were
>a fact-, but I know it is not a fact. It is a mathematical construct.
>Facts are what are, not to be confused with hypotheses or suppositions
>of what is.
The fact that the number of ticks becomes nearly equal is real, not
conceptual.
>Hume dealt with what is perceived and made that primary over that which
>is supposed or tautologically true by definition. Kant tried to come
>back and prove there are true a priori judgements which are not merely
>analyatic (things true by definition). He failed. Hume stands.
More epsitemological bullcrap.
Citizen Bob actual
<gabr...@fuseNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>> Humugus is made out of legumes.
>I thought that was the Scottish food made out of sheep's intestines.
Not when it's got garlic in it.
Citizen Bob actual
<mlevine...@redshift.com> wrote:
>> > I want to know what a "humugus" is.
>taken from www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hum2.htm
>HUMONGOUS
>Huge, enormous.
That's not the same as "humugus".
The poster clearly wrote "humugus precessing gyroscopes".
Whatever it is, it is responsible for FLT jumps because an ordinary
precessing gyroscope is not.