Why is "C" squared in E = MC² (and not cubed or raised to the 5th)?

[bosod...@gmail.com]

Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?

Does this relate to a more fundamental formula in physics?

[David Kleinecke]

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 3:24:13 PM UTC-8, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?
>
> Does this relate to a more fundamental formula in physics?

There is a perfectly good reason e = mc² but I have forgotten
what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).

What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
from a standing start, e = ½mc².

[Frank Baron]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:

> There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten

> what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
>
> What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,

> from a standing start, e = ?mc?.

This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units right".
http://sciencesense-eyesopen.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-c-squared.html

They go on further to say the only speed you can use is a constant speed
for all observers, and the only constant speed that fits the requirement of
being the same for all observers is that of light.

Hence, it's the speed of light, squared.
Or so they say...

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 10:24:13 AM UTC+11, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?
>

Because dimensionally at least it makes sense.
Energy (and work) must have the dimension of MLL/(TT) and as C=L/T this infamous
formula does make sense, if only dimensionally so far as physics and engineering
are concerned.

> Does this relate to a more fundamental formula in physics?

No. But it does state implicitly that the speed of light is independent of the
speed of the emitter. Which is a very profound observation, one which will be
acceptable to the disciples of Aristotle, flat earthers, and many among those
who are schizophrenic and/or blinkered plus downright unethical about lotsa
things. Such as needing to bully smaller nations using this formula which apparently explains nuclear explosions.

The correct formula to describe the creation and destruction of energy is
0.5mVVN(N-k), which I discovered in 1999.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Peter Moylan]

One way towards the result is to think of applying a force to a mass to
accelerate it, and calculate how much energy you have supplied to do the
accelerate it to some final speed v. After a small amount of algebra the
answer turns out to be
Input energy = (m - m0) c^2
where m0 is the rest mass and m is the relativistic mass. The final
speed v doesn't appear explicitly in this formula, but it's implicitly
there because m depends on v.

Now, energy is conserved, and to keep the calculation simple you assume
no complications like frictional losses or change in potential energy,
so the input energy has to be equal to the kinetic energy. That is,
Kinetic energy = (m - m0) c^2
Now, we also expect that
Total energy = rest energy + kinetic energy
so it is at least plausible that m0 c^2 is the rest energy and mc^2 is
the total energy.

Now, about your factor of a half: the formula for m as a function of v
is a nonlinear one, but we can do a Taylor series expansion of the
nonlinear function, and discard the terms that are negligible at low
speeds. If you do this, then the low-speed approximation turns out to be
mc^2 = m0 c^2 + ½m0 v^2
so the half is already there in the formula, as a coefficient that turns
up when you calculate the low-speed approximation.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:24:13 AM UTC+2, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?
>

For one thing, the units will not come out right otherwise.

But in natural units c = 1 .

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 2:32:47 AM UTC+2, Frank Baron wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:
>
> > There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten
> > what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
> >
> > What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
> > from a standing start, e = ?mc?.
>
> This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units right".
> http://sciencesense-eyesopen.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-c-squared.html

Exactly.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:24:13 AM UTC+2, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:

> Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?
>
> Does this relate to a more fundamental formula in physics?

There was a physcist who objected to writing the formula like this.

E = mc²/(1-v²/c²)½

For momentum

p = mv/(1-v²/c²)½

But to maintain the formalism p = mv
one could redefine mass

m => m/(1-v²/c²)½

Thus obtaining

E = mc²

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 3:02:41 PM UTC+2, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:24:13 AM UTC+2, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?
> >
> > Does this relate to a more fundamental formula in physics?
>
> There was a physcist who objected to writing the formula like this.

He objected to the formalism E = mc²

He preffered E = mc²γ

with γ ≡ 1/(1-v²/c²)½

>
> E = mc²

[jerryfr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 6:24:13 PM UTC-5, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?
>
> Does this relate to a more fundamental formula in physics?

http://extranet.redeemer.ab.ca/sites/Schools/jp2/cmacleod/Images1/The-Far-Side-by-Gary-Larson-Einsteins-Maid.jpg

--
Jerry Friedman

[J. J. Lodder]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:24:13 AM UTC+2, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Why is light squared in E = MC? and not cubed or raised to a higher

> > power than 2?
> >
>
> For one thing, the units will not come out right otherwise.
>
> But in natural units c = 1 .

There you have it.
c has no physical meaning,
beyond being a conversion constant between units.
And from being a conversion constant between units
it is obvious that it must enter as c^2,

Jan

[pensive hamster]

On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 15:04:15 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> > On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:24:13 AM UTC+2, bosod... wrote:

> > > Why is light squared in E = MC? and not cubed or raised to a higher
> > > power than 2?
> > >
> >
> > For one thing, the units will not come out right otherwise.
> >
> > But in natural units c = 1 .
>
> There you have it.
> c has no physical meaning,
> beyond being a conversion constant between units.
> And from being a conversion constant between units
> it is obvious that it must enter as c^2,

Speed is distance (length) divided by time, eg.
299,792,458 metres per second.

When I was a lad at school, I somehow formed the idea
that all physical phenomena can be defined in terms of
some combination of mass, length, and time (MLT), and that for
a physics equation to make sense, it had to have the same
number (and powers) of MLTs on each side of the equation.

The SI unit of energy is the joule, one definition of which is:
"the energy transferred to (or work done on) an object when
a force of one newton acts on that object in the direction of
its motion through a distance of one metre."

So 1 joule is 1 kilogram times 1 metre squared divided by
one second squared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

In terms of mass, length, and time (MLT), that's one M,
2Ls (metre squared) and 2Ts (second squared).

Since speed is length divided by time, you need to square
the speed on the RH side of the equation in order to get
the 2Ls and 2Ts to balance the 2Ls and 2Ts on the LH
side of the equation.

I hope that's right, it's a long time since I did physics at
school.

[J. J. Lodder]

pensive hamster <pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 15:04:15 UTC, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 1:24:13 AM UTC+2, bosod... wrote:
>
> > > > Why is light squared in E = MC? and not cubed or raised to a higher
> > > > power than 2?
> > > >
> > >
> > > For one thing, the units will not come out right otherwise.
> > >
> > > But in natural units c = 1 .
> >
> > There you have it.
> > c has no physical meaning,
> > beyond being a conversion constant between units.
> > And from being a conversion constant between units
> > it is obvious that it must enter as c^2,
>
> Speed is distance (length) divided by time, eg.
> 299,792,458 metres per second.

Exactly, even.
There is no -physical- reason
why space and time must have different units.
On the contrary, this is a historic accident.
The metric system was formulated
before the relevant laws of nature were properly understood.
If we could do it again there would be no independent length unit.
As it is now c is nothing but a defined conversion factor
between seconds and meters.
And every length measurement is ultimately calibrated in seconds.

> When I was a lad at school, I somehow formed the idea
> that all physical phenomena can be defined in terms of
> some combination of mass, length, and time (MLT), and that for
> a physics equation to make sense, it had to have the same
> number (and powers) of MLTs on each side of the equation.

Education is didactically justified lying by simplification.
Can is correct, need is something else again.
I hope I won't shock your feelings,
but the kilogram is likely to be abolished soon too,
as an independent unit.
(by giving Planck's constant a defined value)

> The SI unit of energy is the joule, one definition of which is:
> "the energy transferred to (or work done on) an object when
> a force of one newton acts on that object in the direction of
> its motion through a distance of one metre."
>
> So 1 joule is 1 kilogram times 1 metre squared divided by
> one second squared.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
>
> In terms of mass, length, and time (MLT), that's one M,
> 2Ls (metre squared) and 2Ts (second squared).
>
> Since speed is length divided by time, you need to square
> the speed on the RH side of the equation in order to get
> the 2Ls and 2Ts to balance the 2Ls and 2Ts on the LH
> side of the equation.
>
> I hope that's right, it's a long time since I did physics at
> school.

Entirely correct, and that is all there is to it.
For a simpler example: if we transform from square inches to square cm
the factor 2.54 must enter squared.
Likewise, c is the conversion factor between length and time units,
so the conversion factor between energy and mass units must be c^2,

Jan

[pf...@aol.com]

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 6:24:13 PM UTC-5, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:

> Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?
>
> Does this relate to a more fundamental formula in physics?

God watches over fools and small children.

The bottom line is that the equation links energy to mass by a specific formula. This has nothing *WHATSOEVER* to do with speed, acceleration, observers nor any other part and piece of anything outside the direct link between mass and energy.

Cutting to the chase: It takes a lot of energy to bind particles into matter. The denser the matter, the greater the mass-to-volume.

So, ENERGY (e) is the product of some amount of matter (m) consisting of some number of particles together with (times) the binding energy involved. The speed of light is a large number, squared, it is even larger. But, due to the quantitative experiments and their results in particle physics (AKA: Atom Smashing), it so happens that the speed of light squared fits the actual experimental results nicely. Hence the formula.

Releasing binding forces releases, as a result, a great deal of energy. And a Nuclear explosion is the result of releasing the energy involved in a relatively tiny amount of matter. Example:

A 1 Megaton nuclear explosion. That's 4.184×1015 J according to the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton). Then using Einstein's equation, m = E / c2 = 4.184×1015 J / 4299792458 m/s)2 = 0.04655 kg = 46.55 g.

Less than two ounces of matter is consumed to make one megaton of energy.

Not bad. But no speed involved even a little bit. Nor observers. Nor dimensions. Nor forces (other than the binding forces released). Nor directions.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Moylan]

This topic appears to be going for the record of the most new threads
spawned with broken threading. Has Google Groups been putting in some
new "improvements"?

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> This topic appears to be going for the record of the most new threads
> spawned with broken threading. Has Google Groups been putting in some
> new "improvements"?

?? I'm not seeing any breaks, and I do see all reference headers,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:28:47 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:

> This topic appears to be going for the record of the most new threads
> spawned with broken threading. Has Google Groups been putting in some
> new "improvements"?

This GGer sees only the single, supremely boring thread, with all of 16 messages.
If, heaven help us, it were to reach 1,000 messages, each reply to a message
within those 1,000 would be the root of a new thread with the same name.

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

In alt.usage.english, in article
<6929747c-7b39-4aba...@googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> posted:

Forwarded post from five years ago:

[ Subject: The derivation of e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
[ From: Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com>
[ Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
[
[
[ With the update of Newton's first law, that a body can
[ move from inertia with internal force, as evidenced from
[ winds, currents, explosions, etc. all caused by the three
[ fundamental forces - gravity, em, and strong nuclear - it
[ is very easy to derive e=0.5mVVN(N-k).
[
[ Assume a body attached to an internal force engine,
[ totally of mass M. It rests in reference R. A burst of
[ internal force, acting over a time t, raises the velocity
[ to V - with no help from any outside agency by
[ definition. That burst of force required loss of the
[ body's internal energy, by a factor E. Constant such
[ bursts, will raise the speed to NV, if such bursts are
[ directed linearly. With respect to R, the kinetic energy
[ is now 0.5MVVNN.
[
[ The internal energy used up is NE.
[
[ E is always 0.5MVV times some efficiency factor k which
[ is greater than unity.
[
[ The important conceptual leap here is to internalise that
[ it is most significant that the body never knows whether
[ it is a V, 2V, or any multiple of V. It is totally
[ oblivious to the external environment. Its motion is not
[ dependent upon pushing back something, or throwing out
[ something. So if we allow that it can at all move from
[ whatever V it was to the next interval, the amount of
[ internal energy required will have to be the same.
[
[ So the net energy gained from such kinetic interactions,
[ in this case N successive hits directed linearly is
[
[ 0.5MVVNN - 0.5MVVNk, or
[
[ e = 0.5MVVN(N-k)
[
[ is the free or surplus or created energy that is always
[ getting formed from kinetic interactions, and which can
[ cause light, motion, etc, pass through different forms,
[ before finally getting destroyed. The destruction of
[ such energy, is referred to as the rise in entropy today.
[
[ We note that the formula works the other way too. Like,
[ internal force such as used in all braking (using brake
[ pads) can bring a body to rest very tidily indeed from
[ very high speeds.
[
[ Cheers,
[ Arindam Banerjee

End of forwarded post.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-12-27 21:36:21 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This topic appears to be going for the record of the most new threads
>> spawned with broken threading. Has Google Groups been putting in some
>> new "improvements"?
>
> ?? I'm not seeing any breaks,

I am

> and I do see all reference headers,

--
athel

[J. J. Lodder]

That is strange indeed. (verify again)
All postings in this thread carry all the References: headers
that they should have, starting with the original from Google.

The only exception is your posting (the one to which I am replying)
which has the first ref (from gg) omitted, but that doesn't matter.

So threading really should work.
There is nothing wrong with the postings.

Jan

[Dingbat]

Even after the cc question is settled, there remains the enigma of why e is mcc
rather than kmcc. The energy of the erg and joule were not calibrated to make
k=1 in e=kmcc; the erg and joule were defined on a basis that apparently had
nothing to do with mcc. Yet, the k in kmcc turned out to be 1! It's not clear
why.

[Peter Moylan]

I'm seeing postings from GG where there is only one item in the
Reference header. This particular thread, for example, has only 6
articles so far, beginning with an article by Jerry.

Ah, wait, I see the problem now. It's not GG's fault. It's just that the
single reference that starts each thread points to an article that I've
killfiled. My newsreader can't reconstruct the thread because the parent
article is missing.

Sorry for the false alarm.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:58:08 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> Even after the cc question is settled, there remains the enigma of why e is mcc
> rather than kmcc. The energy of the erg and joule were not calibrated to make
> k=1 in e=kmcc; the erg and joule were defined on a basis that apparently had
> nothing to do with mcc. Yet, the k in kmcc turned out to be 1! It's not clear
> why.

Just as it is not clear why witches fly on broomsticks.

[J. J. Lodder]

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Even after the cc question is settled, there remains the enigma of why e
> is mcc rather than kmcc.

IIRC the very first derivation by Einstein had E = l m c^2,
with the l scratched out, because on starting to think about units
he realised that no such constant of proportionality is needed.
(or even possible)

> The energy of the erg and joule were not calibrated to make k=1 in e=kmcc;
> the erg and joule were defined on a basis that apparently had nothing to
> do with mcc. Yet, the k in kmcc turned out to be 1! It's not clear why.

I know this may be inconceivable to our American friends,
but once you have a consistent system of units
such things take care of themselves automagically.
So there is no why. A big why would be needed only
if it came out otherwise,

Jan

PS The basis for it is that it comes automaticallly
from (relativistic) energy-momentum conservation.
So you can get a constant there by taking Newton's law as
F = k m a, as it is, in some American engineeering texts.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

That is probably the explanation of why I was seeing the same as you.
Indeed, I think I've seen the same behaviour before in threads started
by people I've killfiled. Fortunately most of those people don't seem
to initiate threads that produce discussion.


--
athel

[J. J. Lodder]

That is because you use Unison.
(basically a binary newsclient that does text too)
It has the bad habit of removing most of the Ref: headers.

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

If you say so! What newsreader would you recommend for Mac OS? Unison
is obsolete (it hasn't been updated since 2011) so I may need to
replace it some time anyway. It claims to be unregistered, but that's
probably because the registration information got lost when I changed
computers some weeks ago (it was certainly registered before).

> It has the bad habit of removing most of the Ref: headers.

Your message comes with this:

<28230b27-8263-4e79...@googlegroups.com>
<bd3bfff8-03d8-49e2...@googlegroups.com>
<o3umbj$ggf$4...@dont-email.me>
<1myxtdc.1z0...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>
<o41rdk$o5r$1...@dont-email.me> <eck6pp...@mid.individual.net>

What am I missing?

>
> Jan


--
athel

[J. J. Lodder]

Unison is free nowadays. The author has given up on it.
You can download the latest free version on his website.
(but I have seen issues with the 'final' one reported)
For binary downloads Unison v1.8.1 is OK,
Unison v2.x has issues for binaries, but only for some of the tasks.

> It claims to be unregistered, but that's
> probably because the registration information got lost when I changed
> computers some weeks ago (it was certainly registered before).

See above, it doesn't matter anymore.
As you may see I have been using MacSoup for a *very* long time.
I hesitate to recommend it though, for it is rather idiosyncratic.
There is a learning curve, RTFM (or just glancing) is really necessary.
(it doesn't even respect standard Mac OSX key combos)
Some swear by it, others hate it.
What makes it especially suitable for alt.usage.english though
is that it's excellent thread display makes it possible
to see easily where you are in the tree, and to ignore subthreads.

MacSoup is free too nowadays. (after the collapse of Kagi)
You can download it from Stefan Haller's website.
Unfortunately, Arim B., you know who, has the evil eye.
He succeeded in formatting a posting in such a way
that my reply to him disclosed a bug in MacSoup
that had been dormant for 20 years.
So MacSoup is back in beta for the time being.
It doesn't matter, all MacSoup versions are fully functional,
even unregistered. (I have never registered mine)

For the rest, usenet is dead.
Newsclients are no longer being written.
I don't know about the other fossils still around.

> > It has the bad habit of removing most of the Ref: headers.
>
> Your message comes with this:
>
> <28230b27-8263-4e79...@googlegroups.com>
> <bd3bfff8-03d8-49e2...@googlegroups.com>
> <o3umbj$ggf$4...@dont-email.me>
> <1myxtdc.1z0...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>
> <o41rdk$o5r$1...@dont-email.me> <eck6pp...@mid.individual.net>
>
> What am I missing?

You should have looked at what you emit,
not at what you receive.
Your posting, to which I am replying now, has only three refs,
(the last) instead of the six it should have had.
Unison seems to have a pour thread reconstruction algorithm,
which fails when the leading Ref: is missing,

Jan

[David Kleinecke]

Once again: Why not use Google Groups?

[Sam Plusnet]

No, that's quite straightforward.
Without the broomstick a witch can't fly.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Arindam Banerjee]

But why broomsticks? Why not umbrellas?
Point is, very many need such "magic" as e=mcc to flourish.
>
> --
> Sam Plusnet

[David Kleinecke]

On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 12:16:00 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:35:52 AM UTC+11, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 29/12/2016 08:16, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:58:08 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > >> Even after the cc question is settled, there remains the enigma of why e is mcc
> > >> rather than kmcc. The energy of the erg and joule were not calibrated to make
> > >> k=1 in e=kmcc; the erg and joule were defined on a basis that apparently had
> > >> nothing to do with mcc. Yet, the k in kmcc turned out to be 1! It's not clear
> > >> why.
> > >
> > > Just as it is not clear why witches fly on broomsticks.
> > >
> >
> > No, that's quite straightforward.
> > Without the broomstick a witch can't fly.
>
> But why broomsticks? Why not umbrellas?

Or - old-fashioned round broomsticks or modern (Shaker-
originated) flat brooms?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Witches predate umbrellas.

> Or - old-fashioned round broomsticks or modern (Shaker-
> originated) flat brooms?

Harry Potter's are the former. Maybe the latter never made it across the Pond?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:49:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 3:39:53 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 12:16:00 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> > On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:35:52 AM UTC+11, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> > > On 29/12/2016 08:16, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:58:08 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
>
>> > > >> Even after the cc question is settled, there remains the enigma of why e is mcc
>> > > >> rather than kmcc. The energy of the erg and joule were not calibrated to make
>> > > >> k=1 in e=kmcc; the erg and joule were defined on a basis that apparently had
>> > > >> nothing to do with mcc. Yet, the k in kmcc turned out to be 1! It's not clear
>> > > >> why.
>> > > > Just as it is not clear why witches fly on broomsticks.
>> > > No, that's quite straightforward.
>> > > Without the broomstick a witch can't fly.
>> > But why broomsticks? Why not umbrellas?
>
>Witches predate umbrellas.

Here are two articles which say that it was all to do with applying a
hallucinogenic substance to the witshe's body.

Scroll down this page to "HOW DID WITCHES COME TO RIDE BROOMSTICKS?"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/WITCHES/witches.php

....
....
Of all the folk drugs available to the witches, ergot was the most
powerful, and the most dangerous. In use as a hallucinogen it was
absorbed through the skin, most quickly through the thin tissues of
the female genitals. "Flying ointment" was administered by rubbing
it on a smooth wooden pole such as a broomstick, and then "riding"
the pole.

This ends with:
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/why-do-witches-fly-brooms/

Now the next time someone asks you, “Why do witches ride on
broomsticks?” you’ll be able to proudly respond: “To shove
hallucinogenic drugs into their vaginas, of course.”


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Arindam Banerjee]

Whatever sweeps away cobwebs, is useful.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 7:49:42 AM UTC+11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 3:39:53 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 12:16:00 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:35:52 AM UTC+11, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > > > On 29/12/2016 08:16, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:58:08 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
>
> > > > >> Even after the cc question is settled, there remains the enigma of why e is mcc
> > > > >> rather than kmcc. The energy of the erg and joule were not calibrated to make
> > > > >> k=1 in e=kmcc; the erg and joule were defined on a basis that apparently had
> > > > >> nothing to do with mcc. Yet, the k in kmcc turned out to be 1! It's not clear
> > > > >> why.
> > > > > Just as it is not clear why witches fly on broomsticks.
> > > > No, that's quite straightforward.
> > > > Without the broomstick a witch can't fly.
> > > But why broomsticks? Why not umbrellas?
>
> Witches predate umbrellas.

Mary Poppins was not a witch?

[Sam Plusnet]

They did, and we still have the truncated (through wear) remains of one.
However I knew not of any Shaker origins to this design - indeed it
could have been the result of parallel evolution for all I know.

--
Sam Plusnet

[bill van]

In article <0a7aca3b-f8ee-4575...@googlegroups.com>,

They and their descendants were used by curlers -- people who play the
sport of curling -- until two or three decades ago. While the Scots
invented curling, for many years the people who played it best were
Canadians. Some parity has been achieved in the last couple of decades;
Canadian teams still expect to win the world championship or Olympic
gold, but some years they don't.
--
bill

[Peter T. Daniels]

Look up "predate" in a dictionary.

Hint: It doesn't mean 'cease to exist before'.

[Snidely]

David Kleinecke noted that:

Because it lacks features most AUEistas consider important.
For me it's killfiles, for some people its multiple panes,
others the ability to mark a subthread to be ignored
(not all "real" noose reeders do that).
There's the little issue of breaking threads at 1000.
Some of the things GG is /thought/ to lack, though,
aren't really lacking, but not everybody wants to learn how.

I'm pretty comfortable with GG, but not completely satisfied by it. MesNews is what works best for me currently, but my favorite is still the Larry Wall rn on BSD 4.2, using an emacs front end (I started with Gosling Emacs, but learned the Stallman Emacs eventually (the 2nd Generation, about 1987)
For a while, I was very happy with Opera Mail (M2, IIRC), but was only successful setting it up for Eternal September once.
Some other popular NRs either didn't like me, or I didn't like them.

(Hmmm, I wonder this message is going to format ... evidently my touchpad thought I clicked on something)

/dps



--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

[Arindam Banerjee]

I had tried to ameliorate the stupidity of your comment.

[Janet]

In article <0876e261-4b99-4428...@googlegroups.com>,
banerjee...@gmail.com says...

Of course not. She was a wizard nanny.

Janet

[J. J. Lodder]

Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:35:52 AM UTC+11, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 29/12/2016 08:16, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:58:08 AM UTC+11, Dingbat wrote:
> > >> Even after the cc question is settled, there remains the enigma of
> > >> why e is mcc rather than kmcc. The energy of the erg and joule were
> > >> not calibrated to make k=1 in e=kmcc; the erg and joule were defined
> > >> on a basis that apparently had nothing to do with mcc. Yet, the k in
> > >> kmcc turned out to be 1! It's not clear why.
> > >
> > > Just as it is not clear why witches fly on broomsticks.
> > >
> >
> > No, that's quite straightforward.
> > Without the broomstick a witch can't fly.
>
> But why broomsticks? Why not umbrellas?

Know your Feyerabend!

Anything goes!

Jan

[CDB]

On 12/29/2016 11:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> David Kleinecke wrote:
>>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:

[oven to coven: witchery takes flight]

>>>>>>> Just as it is not clear why witches fly on broomsticks.

>>>>>> No, that's quite straightforward.

>>>>>> Without the broomstick a witch can't fly.

>>>>> But why broomsticks? Why not umbrellas?
>>> Witches predate umbrellas.

>> Mary Poppins was not a witch?

> Look up "predate" in a dictionary.

> Hint: It doesn't mean 'cease to exist before'.

Further hint: And especially not "jump onto and eat".

[Sam Plusnet]

She did tend to promote sugar - which seems like a bad thing.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Cheryl]

Not at all, in moderation. It's just positive reinforcement.

--
Cheryl

[Janet]

In article <872dnQFF2JG8YfvF...@brightview.co.uk>,
n...@home.com says...

Unless you want to get high.

Janet.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <MPG.32d069611...@news.individual.net>,

I like this.

chrles, assuming I read the Brit right.

--
charles

[bosod...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 4:32:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Baron wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:
>
> > There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten
> > what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
> >
> > What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
> > from a standing start, e = ?mc?.
>
> This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units right".
> http://sciencesense-eyesopen.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-c-squared.html
>
> They go on further to say the only speed you can use is a constant speed
> for all observers, and the only constant speed that fits the requirement of
> being the same for all observers is that of light.
>
> Hence, it's the speed of light, squared.
> Or so they say...


Citing the URL reference "sciencesense-eyesopen" really helped, but I still don't think i get it, thought I did though once when i was running cross country back in the 8th or 9th grade coming in next to last last and was mulling it over back and forth and then it suddenly came to me and i was sure I understood why all without the benefit of math and long before micro doses of acid.

[Peter Moylan]

OneLook gives the example "These mammals predate certain eggs".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Arindam Banerjee]

Just as all e=mcc wallahs are regressive witches.
>
> Janet

[Richard Heathfield]

On 27/12/16 00:32, Frank Baron wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:
>
>> There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten
>> what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
>>
>> What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
>> from a standing start, e = ?mc?.
>
> This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units right".

You fail to answer David's point, but you can blame typography. David is
perfectly happy with the squared, but he is asking why it is m c squared
instead of half m c squared. I am guessing that your newsreader didn't
communicate this to you, preferring to offer you question marks rather
than the glyphs David posted for "half" and "squared".

His point, of course, is that you would expect the half in an integral
calc (half k x squared is the integral of k x). For example, kinetic
energy (which is the integral of momentum) is half m v squared, not just
m v squared.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:49:48 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 27/12/16 00:32, Frank Baron wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:
> >
> >> There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten
> >> what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
> >>
> >> What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
> >> from a standing start, e = ?mc?.
> >
> > This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units right".
>
> You fail to answer David's point, but you can blame typography. David is
> perfectly happy with the squared, but he is asking why it is m c squared
> instead of half m c squared. I am guessing that your newsreader didn't
> communicate this to you, preferring to offer you question marks rather
> than the glyphs David posted for "half" and "squared".
>
> His point, of course, is that you would expect the half in an integral
> calc (half k x squared is the integral of k x). For example, kinetic
> energy (which is the integral of momentum) is half m v squared, not just
> m v squared.
>

The short answer is that teh math makes it so.

I told you:

E = mc²/(1-v²/c²)½

For momentum

p = mv/(1-v²/c²)½

But to maintain the formalism p = mv
one could redefine mass

m => m/(1-v²/c²)½

So m is engineered to make p = mv (the Newtonian definition)

when you do that it happens to turn out
as E = mc²

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

[Yusuf B Gursey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity


Okun and followers reject the concept of relativistic mass.[2] Also Arnold B. Arons has argued against teaching the concept of relativistic mass:[24]

For many years it was conventional to enter the discussion of dynamics through derivation of the relativistic mass, that is the mass–velocity relation, and this is probably still the dominant mode in textbooks. More recently, however, it has been increasingly recognized that relativistic mass is a troublesome and dubious concept. [See, for example, Okun (1989).]... The sound and rigorous approach to relativistic dynamics is through direct development of that expression for momentum that ensures conservation of momentum in all frames:

p = mv/(1-v²/c²)½

rather than through relativistic mass.
Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."[7]
While space-time has the unbounded geometry of Minkowski-space, the velocity-space is bounded by c and has the geometry of hyperbolic geometry where relativistic-mass plays an analogous role to that of Newtonian-mass in the barycentric-coordinates of Euclidean geometry.[25] The connection of velocity to hyperbolic-geometry enables the 3-velocity-dependent relativistic-mass to be related to the 4-velocity Minkowski-formalism.[26]

Roche states that about 60% of modern authors just use rest mass and avoid relativistic mass.[1]

[Sam Plusnet]

On 01/01/2017 01:27, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Look up "predate" in a dictionary.
>>> Hint: It doesn't mean 'cease to exist before'.
>> Further hint: And especially not "jump onto and eat".

> OneLook gives the example "These mammals predate certain eggs".

How about chickens?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Does "predate" predate "predate"?

Or is it the other way round?

[bill van]

In article <dh6i6cpln072qn968...@4ax.com>,

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 14:50:42 +0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >On 01/01/2017 01:27, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>> Look up "predate" in a dictionary.
> >>>> Hint: It doesn't mean 'cease to exist before'.
> >>> Further hint: And especially not "jump onto and eat".
> >
> >> OneLook gives the example "These mammals predate certain eggs".
> >
> >How about chickens?
>
> Does "predate" predate "predate"?
>
> Or is it the other way round?

Predatory questions.
--
bill

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 14:50:42 +0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >On 01/01/2017 01:27, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>> Look up "predate" in a dictionary.
> >>>> Hint: It doesn't mean 'cease to exist before'.
> >>> Further hint: And especially not "jump onto and eat".
> >
> >> OneLook gives the example "These mammals predate certain eggs".
> >
> >How about chickens?
>
> Does "predate" predate "predate"?
>
> Or is it the other way round?

Ask all predators who don't predate themselves.

Who shaves the barber of Sevila?

Jan

[Arindam Banerjee]

That kinetic energy of a body is 0.5mvv is easily proved from first principles.
First, work done and energy used for same is the same.
Work is defined as force multiplied by the distance over which the force is
applied. The force is assumed to be constant (like gravity at a radius r from
the earth) or an average force over the distance.
Thus E=W=F.d
Now the gravitational force on a mass m is mg, where g is the acceleration due
to gravity.
So E=mgd or mgh. This means that the energy or work required to lift a mass
m through a distance d against Earth's gravity is mgh.
When lifted by h, it has a potential energy with respect to the ground and that
value is mgh.
Now when dropped from height h, it accelerates and just before it hits the
ground it has a velocity v. At this stage we say that the potential energy
has been converted into kinetic energy.
Now vv=2gh, as per a basic formula. or gh = vv/2
As by the definition of the law of conservation of energy, the kinetic energy
is the same as the potential energy, mgh=mvv/2
And the is how 0.5 comes into the kinetic energy equation.
Now to derive vv=2gh, how did we get it?
h=v(avg)*t, v(final)=u+gt, when u=0, v=gt.
However v is the final velocity.
The average velocity over the distance h of the body is v(final)/2
So h=v(final)/2t and as t=v/g
h=vv/(2g)
or vv=2gh.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:32:42 -0000, Frank Baron <frank...@example.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:
>
>> There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten
>> what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
>>
>> What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
>> from a standing start, e = ?mc?.
>
> This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units right".

> http://sciencesense-eyesopen.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-c-squared.html
>
> They go on further to say the only speed you can use is a constant speed
> for all observers, and the only constant speed that fits the requirement of
> being the same for all observers is that of light.
>
> Hence, it's the speed of light, squared.
> Or so they say...

Isn't a bit of a coincidence though? That it's the speed of light and not double the speed of light?

--
Computers are like air conditioners: They stop working when you open Windows.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

A lot of equations end up with constants. A number named after a scientist. This is quite weird that this one requires precisely the speed of light.

--
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.

[Peter Moylan]

Before or after crossing the road?

[J. J. Lodder]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:14:34 PM UTC+2, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:49:48 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > On 27/12/16 00:32, Frank Baron wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:
> > > >
> > > >> There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten
> > > >> what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
> > > >>
> > > >> What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
> > > >> from a standing start, e = ?mc?.
> > > >
> > > > This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units
> > > >right".
> > >
> > > You fail to answer David's point, but you can blame typography. David is
> > > perfectly happy with the squared, but he is asking why it is m c squared
> > > instead of half m c squared. I am guessing that your newsreader didn't
> > > communicate this to you, preferring to offer you question marks rather
> > > than the glyphs David posted for "half" and "squared".
> > >
> > > His point, of course, is that you would expect the half in an integral
> > > calc (half k x squared is the integral of k x). For example, kinetic
> > > energy (which is the integral of momentum) is half m v squared, not just
> > > m v squared.
> > >
> >
> > The short answer is that teh math makes it so.
> >
> > I told you:
> >

> > E = mc?/(1-v?/c?)?
> >
> > For momentum
> >
> > p = mv/(1-v?/c?)?

> >
> > But to maintain the formalism p = mv
> > one could redefine mass
> >

> > m => m/(1-v?/c?)?

> >
> > So m is engineered to make p = mv (the Newtonian definition)
> >
> > when you do that it happens to turn out

> > as E = mc?

> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
> >
> >
> >
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
>
>
> Okun and followers reject the concept of relativistic mass.[2] Also Arnold
> B. Arons has argued against teaching the concept of relativistic mass:[24]
>
> For many years it was conventional to enter the discussion of dynamics

> through derivation of the relativistic mass, that is the mass-velocity

> relation, and this is probably still the dominant mode in textbooks. More
> recently, however, it has been increasingly recognized that relativistic
> mass is a troublesome and dubious concept. [See, for example, Okun
> (1989).]... The sound and rigorous approach to relativistic dynamics is
> through direct development of that expression for momentum that ensures
> conservation of momentum in all frames:
>

> p = mv/(1-v?/c?)?

>
> rather than through relativistic mass. Many contemporary authors such as
> Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass
> altogether:

Right. 'Relativistic mass' is obsolete.
It may serve as a guide fossil though.
Someone who talks about relativistic mass has his relativity
from popularisations, undergraduate textbooks, etc.
(yes, I know about Feynman)

It is of historic interest only,

Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

On 02/01/2017 04:28, Peter Moylan wrote:

>>> OneLook gives the example "These mammals predate certain eggs".
>> How about chickens?
> Before or after crossing the road?

I'm pretty sure chickens predate roads.

--
Sam Plusnet

[David Kleinecke]

Hum - I know about bugs but ..

[J. J. Lodder]

James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:32:42 -0000, Frank Baron:

>
> > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:
> >
> >> There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten
> >> what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
> >>
> >> What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
> >> from a standing start, e = ?mc?.
> >
> > This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units right".
> > http://sciencesense-eyesopen.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-c-squared.html
> >
> > They go on further to say the only speed you can use is a constant speed
> > for all observers, and the only constant speed that fits the requirement of
> > being the same for all observers is that of light.
> >
> > Hence, it's the speed of light, squared.
> > Or so they say...
>
> Isn't a bit of a coincidence though? That it's the speed of light and not
> double the speed of light?

E = mc^2 because p = mv,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 13:14:32 -0000, Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:49:48 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 27/12/16 00:32, Frank Baron wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:06:31 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke advised:
> >> >
> >> >> There is a perfectly good reason e = mc? but I have forgotten
> >> >> what it is (and am too lazy to look it up).
> >> >>
> >> >> What is surprising is that it is twice too big. One would guess,
> >> >> from a standing start, e = ?mc?.
> >> >
> >> > This says "the factor has to be some speed squared to get the units
> >> >right".
> >>
> >> You fail to answer David's point, but you can blame typography. David is
> >> perfectly happy with the squared, but he is asking why it is m c squared
> >> instead of half m c squared. I am guessing that your newsreader didn't
> >> communicate this to you, preferring to offer you question marks rather
> >> than the glyphs David posted for "half" and "squared".
> >>
> >> His point, of course, is that you would expect the half in an integral
> >> calc (half k x squared is the integral of k x). For example, kinetic
> >> energy (which is the integral of momentum) is half m v squared, not just
> >> m v squared.
> >>
> >
> > The short answer is that teh math makes it so.
> >
> > I told you:
> >

> > E = mc?/(1-v?/c?)?
> >
> > For momentum
> >
> > p = mv/(1-v?/c?)?
> >

> > But to maintain the formalism p = mv
> > one could redefine mass
> >

> > m => m/(1-v?/c?)?

> >
> > So m is engineered to make p = mv (the Newtonian definition)
> >
> > when you do that it happens to turn out

> > as E = mc?

> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
>
> A lot of equations end up with constants. A number named after a
> scientist. This is quite weird that this one requires precisely the speed
> of light.

Quite remarkable too that Newton's law F = ma
requires a numerical constant that is precisely equal to one,
instead of having a Newton's constant in there.

Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

What do our French cousins call "pot holes" in a road?

How do you think they make those nests?

--
Sam Plusnet

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Some idiot will be along in a minute to say this is proof god designed physics.

--
When there's a will, I want to be in it!

[David Kleinecke]

Long since done. As long as I can remember the complexity
of physics has been offered as proof of God's intelligent
design work. (Though I think the actual term "intelligent
design" is newer.) If the constants hadn't been exactly
what they happen to be the universe could not exist.

[J. J. Lodder]

David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-8, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

> > On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:21:52 -0000, J. J. Lodder:

> >
> > > James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:
> > >

> > >> On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 13:14:32 -0000, Yusuf B Gursey:
> > >>
> > >> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:49:48 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield:

Nothing but the latest god of the gaps,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Or, nore recently and specifically, the anthropogenist(?) view is that the
various constants are set as they are precisely to promote the evolution of
the human ...

presumably: soul.

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 4:49:35 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-8, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

> > > On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:21:52 -0000, J. J. Lodder:

>
> > > > Quite remarkable too that Newton's law F = ma
> > > > requires a numerical constant that is precisely equal to one,
> > > > instead of having a Newton's constant in there.
> > >
> > > Some idiot will be along in a minute to say this is proof god designed
> > > physics.
> >
> > Long since done. As long as I can remember the complexity
> > of physics has been offered as proof of God's intelligent
> > design work. (Though I think the actual term "intelligent
> > design" is newer.) If the constants hadn't been exactly
> > what they happen to be the universe could not exist.
>
> Or, nore recently and specifically, the anthropogenist(?) view is that the
> various constants are set as they are precisely to promote the evolution of
> the human ...

That is called the 'anthropic principle'. ('anthro' from Greek)
Quite profound: it say that we live in a universe that we can live in.

It has become fashionable again in connection with the multiverse,
which has many different universes existing independently,
each with it's own laws of nature.

It has the virtue, to some, that it avoids the need for a fine-tuner,
aka designer, aka god of the gaps,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Its devisers don't seem to say that.

It's very significant that you deleted my last line.

[CDB]

On 1/2/2017 5:35 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> David Kleinecke wrote:

>> James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

>>>> Quite remarkable too that Newton's law F = ma requires a
>>>> numerical constant that is precisely equal to one, instead of
>>>> having a Newton's constant in there.

>>> Some idiot will be along in a minute to say this is proof god
>>> designed physics.

>> Long since done. As long as I can remember the complexity of
>> physics has been offered as proof of God's intelligent design work.
>> (Though I think the actual term "intelligent design" is newer.) If
>> the constants hadn't been exactly what they happen to be the
>> universe could not exist.

> Or, nore recently and specifically, the anthropogenist(?)

Anthropist?

> view is that the various constants are set as they are precisely to
> promote the evolution of the human ...

comedy? cannonball?

> presumably: soul.

Oh.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 10:54:44 AM UTC-5, CDB wrote:
> On 1/2/2017 5:35 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > David Kleinecke wrote:
> >> James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >>> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >>>> Quite remarkable too that Newton's law F = ma requires a
> >>>> numerical constant that is precisely equal to one, instead of
> >>>> having a Newton's constant in there.
>
> >>> Some idiot will be along in a minute to say this is proof god
> >>> designed physics.
>
> >> Long since done. As long as I can remember the complexity of
> >> physics has been offered as proof of God's intelligent design work.
> >> (Though I think the actual term "intelligent design" is newer.) If
> >> the constants hadn't been exactly what they happen to be the
> >> universe could not exist.
>
> > Or, nore recently and specifically, the anthropogenist(?)
>
> Anthropist?

"Anthropist" somehow looks even more egocentric than "anthropic." Maybe because
the stress placement is different.

Ooh: philanthropist is the donor, philanthropic refers to the donating, so
more selfless.

> > view is that the various constants are set as they are precisely to
> > promote the evolution of the human ...
>
> comedy? cannonball?
>
> > presumably: soul.
>
> Oh.

Timing even works in print!

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Can I go to a different multiverse please? I'd like different laws of physics.

--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 3:24:13 PM UTC-8, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why is light squared in E = MC² and not cubed or raised to a higher power than 2?
>
> Does this relate to a more fundamental formula in physics?

See documentary evidence here:

<URL:http://www.gocomics.com/chucklebros/2016/12/07>

/dps

[J. J. Lodder]

I was being kind.
It betrays your complete lack of idea of what this is all about,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 09:20:39 -0000, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>:

>
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 4:49:35 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:

> >> > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-8, James Wilkinson Sword:

> >> > > On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:21:52 -0000, J. J. Lodder:
> >>
> >> > > > Quite remarkable too that Newton's law F = ma
> >> > > > requires a numerical constant that is precisely equal to one,
> >> > > > instead of having a Newton's constant in there.
> >> > >
> >> > > Some idiot will be along in a minute to say this is proof god designed
> >> > > physics.
> >> >
> >> > Long since done. As long as I can remember the complexity
> >> > of physics has been offered as proof of God's intelligent
> >> > design work. (Though I think the actual term "intelligent
> >> > design" is newer.) If the constants hadn't been exactly
> >> > what they happen to be the universe could not exist.
> >>
> >> Or, nore recently and specifically, the anthropogenist(?) view is that the
> >> various constants are set as they are precisely to promote the evolution of
> >> the human ...
> >
> > That is called the 'anthropic principle'. ('anthro' from Greek)
> > Quite profound: it say that we live in a universe that we can live in.
> >
> > It has become fashionable again in connection with the multiverse,
> > which has many different universes existing independently,
> > each with it's own laws of nature.
> >
> > It has the virtue, to some, that it avoids the need for a fine-tuner,
> > aka designer, aka god of the gaps,
>
> Can I go to a different multiverse please? I'd like different laws of
> physics.

You will probably not exist there,
according to the fine-tuners,

Jan

[James Wilkinson Sword]

But there are so many. As long as I select the right one.

--
An American tourist asks an Irishman:
"Why do Scuba divers always fall backwards off their boats?"
To which the Irishman replies: "They have to go backwards. If they fell forwards, they'd still be in the boat."

[David Kleinecke]

I think you lost track of what set this sub-thread off
back four posts - the use of this argument by Christian
apologists.

Yet another apposition.

[Sam Plusnet]

It's irrelevant unless he still has the receipt for the first one.
And the box it came in.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Robert Bannister]

I wish you hadn't mentioned that. I have just finished disposing of a
disgusting, huge black bug that I found lying on my dining table. I
realised before I reached the bin that it was, in fact, a black olive
that had fallen off last night's pizza.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Peter Moylan]

Yes, but then somebody -- I think it was Jan -- offered the anthropic
principle as a counter-argument to the religious argument. Unfortunately
he didn't explain the anthropic principle, probably not realising that
there would be someone here who didn't understand it.

In the other universes, the ones with the wrong properties to support
life, you never get a species advanced enough to invent gods, so those
universes don't have gods.

[Peter Moylan]

Please, Jan, don't discourage him from going.

[David Kleinecke]

But that was why PTD needed the word "soul".

[Peter Moylan]

Look at what he said just before that:

<quote>

Or, nore recently and specifically, the anthropogenist(?) view is that the
various constants are set as they are precisely to promote the evolution of
the human ...

</quote>

The "are set" is totally at odds with the anthropic principle, because
it suggests that somebody tuned the constants.

[RH Draney]

On 1/3/2017 7:51 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 3/1/17 2:13 am, David Kleinecke wrote:
>>
>> Hum - I know about bugs but ..
>
> I wish you hadn't mentioned that. I have just finished disposing of a
> disgusting, huge black bug that I found lying on my dining table. I
> realised before I reached the bin that it was, in fact, a black olive
> that had fallen off last night's pizza.

Hmph....

About three days ago, I noticed that Chloe the Spider's old corner of
the kitchen has a new tenant, whom I'm now calling Chloe Junior....r

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 2017-Jan-04 09:46, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:
>
> >> Can I go to a different multiverse please? I'd like different laws of
> >> physics.
> >
> > You will probably not exist there,
> > according to the fine-tuners,
>
> Please, Jan, don't discourage him from going.

Doesn't matter, there's an infinity of hims,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:46:32 -0000, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl>:

We already live in the best of all possible universes,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 2017-Jan-04 10:03, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 2:46:33 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 4:20:41 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 4:49:35 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:

> >>>>>> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-8, James Wilkinson Sword:

Of course I realise that.
However, this is alt.usage.english, about usage and words,
so not the place to spew physical explanations unless asked for.
So I just dropped the word.

> In the other universes, the ones with the wrong properties to support
> life, you never get a species advanced enough to invent gods, so those
> universes don't have gods.

Or species. Often not even galaxies or stars,
or not even atoms,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 2:46:33 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder:

> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >

> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 4:20:41 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:

> > > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >

> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2017 David Kleinecke wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2017 James Wilkinson Sword:

Not at all.
These are not christian apologists at all.
How could you even think it.
They are just people who noticed some peculiarities in nature,
and inferred a designer from that.
Just a designer, mind you, not their god at all.

If they happen to be christian apologists as well
that is just a coincidence.

So PTD's 'souls' are inappropriate in this context,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Somewhat odd name, for a Gigantea.

You think less is more?

Jan

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 11:21:55 PM UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:
>

> > On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 13:14:32 -0000, Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Quite remarkable too that Newton's law F = ma
> requires a numerical constant that is precisely equal to one,
> instead of having a Newton's constant in there.
>

If there was a constant you would just redifine the units of mass
and get rid of it.

> Jan

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 11:49:35 PM UTC+2, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-8, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

> > Some idiot will be along in a minute to say this is proof god designed physics.
>
> Long since done. As long as I can remember the complexity
> of physics has been offered as proof of God's intelligent
> design work. (Though I think the actual term "intelligent
> design" is newer.) If the constants hadn't been exactly
> what they happen to be the universe could not exist.

According to latest theories there actually are
other universes with different constants. We are
in one universe because it makes life, and hence
physicists who publish thier work, possible.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

They don't have physicists either.

[J. J. Lodder]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 11:49:35 PM UTC+2, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-8, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

> > > On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:21:52 -0000, J. J. Lodder:

> > >
> > > > James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:
> > > >

> > > >> On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 13:14:32 -0000, Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 2:49:48 PM UTC+2, Richard Heathfield:

For some values of 'are'.

> We are in one universe because it makes life, and hence physicists who
> publish thier work, possible.

How could we possibly be on more than one?

Jan

[Yusuf B Gursey]

I didn't say that. But it is theorized that there are other
universes in other dimensions.

>
> Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Whereas you have no recourse but to make them utterly accidental and
coincidental. The anthropic principle was invented to get "intelligent
design" into "scientific" clothing.