Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Science Controversy over Speed of Gravity

Guest

On 16 Nov 2005 22:58:13 +0000, Paul Leyland <paul@leyland.vispa.com>
wrote:

[quote]amacmil304@aol.com writes:

On 15 Nov 2005 09:02:15 +0000, Paul Leyland <paul@leyland.vispa.com
wrote:

amacmil304@aol.com writes:

The use of oil and it fractions have changed so much over the past
hundred years that I think it would be a waste of time to compare
costs.

We disagree on that then. I think it a valuable lesson in economics.

Anyway, what makes you think that the use of oil and its fractions
won>t change greatly over the next hundred years?

I>m sure it will change much quicker that in a hundred years.

I note that you didn>t answer my question ("what") but never mind.
[/quote]
Sorry. I think it will be the developed world>s eagerness not to
reduce living standards and the developing world>s eagerness to catch
up; both with the intention of using oil.
[quote]
Let>s examine the changes in the last century or so.

In 1880 oil was used mostly for lighting, and to a lesser extent, for
heating. Its use for transport and as a chemical feedstock were
essentially negligible. Coal was the resource of choice for those two
uses. To the best of my knowlege, oil was not used at all for
electricity generation, that being essentially done entirely by
chemical batteries. Look up the development and deployment of the
telegraph to see why elctricity was important, even then.

Compare the uses of oil today. Hardly any oil is used for lighting.
Its use for heating is still significant, but far from the principle
use. As a chemical feedstock and for transport it is extremely
important, neither of which made any noticeable impact in 1880. Some
electricity is still oil-generated but that usage has decline recently
in many places. However, some places depend on it --- La Palma, where
I go on holiday every so often, generates the great majority of its
electricity from oil, though a few wind generators have appeared in
the last decade.

I>m quite sure oil>s use will change markedly in the next hundred
years; I emphatically disagree that its use has not changed markedly
in the last 100 years.
[/quote]
I didn>t say that. I said the research would be useless because of
the change.

[quote]
By the way, I came across this report today:
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,69529,00.html

Rather amusing, I thought, in the light of recent discussion here
about alternatives to oil. Trucks running (partially) on hydrogen
electrolysed from water and doing so more cheaply than running on
nothing but diesel.
[/quote]
I don>t think it>s that significant. It appears to be an injection
system possibly similar to the ones that were and perhaps still are
used on racing ICE engines.

[quote]

Do you not think
you may be able to learn something about change by studying it?

Not on the basis of cost a hundred years ago.

Ok. I>ll let you have the conclusion, though not the precise
figures. You can look them up for yourself if you want them.

In inflation weighted prices, kerosine (and crude oil for that matter)
was the about the same price (circa $20 US per barrel for the latter)
from 1880 to about 2003. There were fluctuations: some of the time it
was lower, some of the time it was higher -- hitting around $80 per
barrel in the first oil-shock when OPEC flexed its power. Recently
the oil price has reach $60 or so (with wide variations).

The median family income has approximately doubled in the same
period. So, in the period 1880 to 2003, the ordinary family found
that oil products were approximately halved as a fraction of their
wealth. In the last couple of years the price has about tripled, so
instead of halving the price is now roughly 50% higher than it was 125
years ago --- as a proportion of the median family income.
[/quote]
With respect, that>s absolute nonsense. The median family income is
many times that of 1880 and if oil was $20 at that time it is only
three times the price now.

[quote]
Let>s put this into perspective. Ever since the 1890>s, every
investigation into the size of the economically recoverable oil
reserves has given the result that about thirty years worth of oil was
left in the ground. I don>t know what today>s figure is, but it was
about 30 years of reserves a couple of years ago.
[/quote]
A good book for you to read would be "The End of Oil" by Paul C
Roberts.

[quote]
I claim that for a commodity that has been extracted in very large and
increasing quantities for over a century, such a constancy in price
suggests very strongly indeed that its resources have not been
markedly depleted to date. Economics tells us that if something
becomes in short supply, its price will rise. And, indeed, that is
exactly what we have been seeing these last couple of years. The
consumption of, principally, China has increased markedly and the
supplies then being extracted were insufficient. However, the
increased price gives both an incentive and the funds to oil producers
to increase extraction capabilities. It also gives an incentive to
oil consumers (especially the US motorist who see the real price of
oil much more than we do in the UK, buffered as we are by unusually
high taxation) to reduce consumption and find alternative sources of
fuel for automobiles. I expect oil prices to fall back to the $20-$40
range within five years. Of course, I may be completely wrong. We
will see.

[/quote]
I think you are but fortunately none of us are blessed with a crystal
ball.

[quote]Are you saying that oil is not a scarce commodity in view of its
consumption?

No response?

Sorry, it was overlooked, though I gave a partial answer earlier and
in another context which you may also have overlooked.

No, I do not think it is a scarce commodity at the moment. It may
become one in the future, but that is another matter entirely.

As I said elsewhere, the fact that we can afford to use vast amounts
of oil for essentially reasons of entertainment indicates that oil is
cheap. It is the same observation that leads me to the conclusion
that it is not scarce either.
[/quote]
If it isn>t scarce climate change will prevail; if it is resources
wars will do the same.

[quote]
On the other hand, you do not appear to have spent any time examining
the evidence for those opinions, to see how well the evidence supports
the opinions, or to present the results of your investigations.

It is commonly accepted knowledge.

It was commonly accepted knowledge relatively recently that
science-fiction ray guns were impossible because the gun would have to
be at a higher temperature than the target (seems rather a pity that
lasers were invented); that heavier than air flying machines were
impossible (despite all the evidence from biology) and, a little
longer ago but not so long, that it was impossible to know the
chemical constitution of the stars.

I, for one, mistrust "commonly accepted knowledge". I prefer to
investigate reality for myself as best I can. Even when I can>t
reasonably expect to perform experiments or make observations myself,
I try to examine the reports and views of as wide range as possible of
people who have and then draw my conclusions.

[/quote]
Fair enough.

[quote]In summary: lots of evidence of talk; little or no evidence of research.

How much evidence do you have from your thirty years of thought?

If you have a lot, why not publish a paper and let the experts
decipher it?

Largely laziness. To some extent I am publishing it. As you have
discovered, I>m placing my thoughts in public where they can be
commented on immediately and will be archived for future perusal. The
uk.misc newsgroup may not be a peer-reviewd journal but it is
certainly somewhere where one can publish.
[/quote]
I think you have to take it much further than you have to gain
acceptance.

[quote]
World peace for one, when it starts to run out.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that when oil starts
becoming so expensive that an incentive to produce alternatives
appears, world peace will be at an end purely because the alternatives
are not oil, even though they satisfy those properties of oil which we
value so highly --- a convenient energy source and a chemical
feedstock.

What I>m saying is the scrabble for oil will be much more of a target
for the developed and developing economies that the attraction of
developing alternatives that are less fruitful.

To some extent, you are correct. Nazi Germany thought, wrongly as it
turned out, that it would be cheaper and more effective to head
eastwards for Lebensraum and for the oil fields of Rumania and the
Caucasus. Japan made a similar miscalculation.

Both nations have since learned very well indeed that it>s very much
in their own self-interest to develop alternatives and/or purchase
other>s resources. Incidentally, Imperial German chemists developed
the Haber process for synthesizing ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen
because their supplies of nitrates were cut off by the UK navy. A
nice example of how restriction of one resource leads to innovation
and the development of cheaper alternatives. There are numerous other
examples. Indeed, extraction of crude oil was driven to a significant
extent by the declining availability of whale oil in the third quarter
of the nineteenth century.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote]
Some people do study history, despite your disinclination to do so,
because valuable lessons can be learned from the cost of resources and
responses to them in the past.

[/quote]
Responses in the future will be much more disasterous.

[quote]Sounds like you have an unhealthy emotional attachment to
hydrocarbons. Personally, I don>t give a damn whether my motorbike
runs on alcohols or hydrocarbons as long as it runs at a reasonable
cost.

So what would it run on at reasonable cost?

If I were living in Brazil, it would most likely run on ethanol today.
I see no particularly good reason why it should not run on synthetic
alcohols in the future here. Minor engine retuning is all that it
should need.
[/quote]
Ethanol has been used from the fifties in motorcycle engines here.

[quote]
What kind of bike is it?

A 1996 Honda Pan European. The 1100cc version. I get close to 50mpg
in city traffic and my average speed through the Cambridge rush hour
is about three times that of the motorists. The latter rarely have
more than one person per vehicle as I go by, and I very much doubt
that they average anywhere near 50mpg.

[/quote]
Good bike. My last one, which I sold a few years ago was a 1996
Kawasaki GPZ1000RX, which did about 40 mpg, or 27 when on the German
Autobahns and a speed slightly higher than average.

[quote]strongly, though that none of the alternatives are as fruitful as oil.
I believe, through having read a number of sources, that methane is
markedly more plentiful than oil. Coal certainly is (though it>s
really filthy stuff in comparison with most alternatives). The amount
of uranium and thorium in known reserves, extractable at current
economic rates, is immense. The amount of deuterium in sea water is
even bigger. The amount of deuterium and helium-3 in the gas giants
enormously bigger than that.

If you believ that will supply the world>s needs and be an adequate
replacement fro oil, submit a paper for evaluation.

"That"? Which of those alternatives? All of them together?
[/quote]
All that you propose and their sources.

[quote]
Submit a paper to whom?

[/quote]
Perhaps to your own university for a start and see where it led from
there.

[quote]I couldn>t agree more. Just look at Malcolm Ogilvie', contributions
ot this ng

Which is "this ng"? I>m reading it on uk.misc.
[/quote]
uk.environment.conservation

[quote]
However, I have spent some time investigating these matters and
thinking about the consequences of the evidence I>ve unearthed. That
is, I>ve done a little more than merely parroting the words of others.

Well, do something about it.

I am doing something about it. I>m arguing my case in public and
attempting to get others to think about and to research the issues.
What else do you suggest I do?
[/quote]
Rather than vaguely put forward ideas it might be better to come up
with some practical solutions for the worlds problem and that might
convince those in the know to take on board some of your ideas. From
my point of view I don>t think there is a solution and catastrophe is
the only way that man will change.

[quote]I>m rather busy with other things too
(a web search will turn up evidence of a few others, over and above my
full-time employment) and something will have to slip to make time for
anything new. This discussion is taking up a significant fraction of
my otherwise free time.

[/quote]
Same here.

[quote]Here>s a couple of nice recent example of resource wars, phrased as
rhetorical questions: why did Japan invade China and points south in
the 1930>s and 40>s? why did Germany invade the Ukraine and Rumania
in the 1940>s?

Small beer in relation to military capabilities now.

WWII remains the only nuclear war in history, despite a greatly
increased arsenal held by a larger number of nations and despite a
large number of provocations in the last 60 years. The trend of
recent warfare has been that of markedly reducing physical
destruction. Compared with that of, say Vietnam, recent conflicts in
the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq have been
very restrained affairs. Even Vietnam was veryy localized and was
completely piffling in comparison with either of WWI and WWII.

It is distinctly possible that the politicians and military have been
paying attention to economic history.

Another lesson from history: you do not need modern weapons to wipe
out an entire city in short order. Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima
and Nagasaki all made a come-back, and in rather a short time, though
the economic policies of the old DDR were well illustrated by the
speed and competence of the reconstruction of Dresden in comparison
with the others. How well did Carthage do by comparison with any of
these?
[/quote]
Things have changed since those days. Targeted nuclear strikes could
raze a country to the ground and make it uninhabitable.

[quote]
Thirty years of non-constraint hasn>t got you very far.

Now that statement baffles me. It>s got me pretty much where I want

Happiness is contentment :-)

Hmm, sounds pretty much like a syllogism to me.
[/quote]
Perhaps; I wouldn>t know. I think it>s something to do with logic but
I>d need to look it up:-)

[quote]

Paul
[/quote]

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Hypodeemic Nerdle · Guest

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:24:25 +0000, Peter <PBrookes@00000.com> wrote
this:

[quote]On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:00:02 GMT, JAF <anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:13:31 +0000, Peter <PBrookes@00000.com> wrote:

To beat the shit out of terrorist scum.

Idiot. It>s oil.

No idiot it isn>t, which is why we also did Afghanistan.
[/quote]
"We" didn>t do Saudi Arabia, tho', did we?

Grk.

John Brockbank · Guest

"JAF" <anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:atbkn1ll9m22s12ujb85o2b127in6mu1cr@4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:51:17 -0000, "John Brockbank"
wagley@screaming.net
wrote:

Why did USA and UK invade Iraq. It certainly wasn>t for Human Rights
reasons.

That question surely should be rephrased. The UK invaded Iraq in order to
help the USA - our Government consider that maintaining close alliance
with
the USA to be our most important foreign policy. Why the USA did it
though
is a mystery. My guess is that it was done because they hadn>t caught
OBL.

Oil.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
[/quote]
The USA already had full control over Iraq oil, and were paid billions of
pounds per year from it. This was officially because Iraq was forced to pay
compensation for the fact that we had to go to war against them.

John Brockbank · Guest

< The likelihood that Iraq had any significant connection with OBL is
remote, in my opinion, and I believe that to have been the opinion of
policy makers in the US too. >

Of course Iraq had no significant connection with OBL, but OBL very
certainly had everything to do with the US war on Iraq.

Note that the war on Afghanistan is widely thought to be justified in
response to 911. However, in terms of reducing terrorism, it certainly
didn>t work.

JAF · Guest

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:42:51 -0000, "John Brockbank" <wagley@screaming.net>
wrote:

[quote]The likelihood that Iraq had any significant connection with OBL is
remote, in my opinion, and I believe that to have been the opinion of
policy makers in the US too.

Of course Iraq had no significant connection with OBL, but OBL very
certainly had everything to do with the US war on Iraq.

Note that the war on Afghanistan is widely thought to be justified in
response to 911. However, in terms of reducing terrorism, it certainly
didn>t work.

It must have been a fucking deep cave, the one you>ve been in for the past[/quote]
four years. . .

What a knoobhead you are.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom

JAF · Guest

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:37:55 -0000, "John Brockbank" <wagley@screaming.net>
wrote:

[quote]The USA already had full control over Iraq oil, and were paid billions of
pounds per year from it. This was officially because Iraq was forced to pay
compensation for the fact that we had to go to war against them.
[/quote]
Knobhead.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom

John Brockbank · Guest

"JAF" <anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bi3qn15ff3fdga7loqjeeocjjr2esp9pal@4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:42:51 -0000, "John Brockbank"
wagley@screaming.net
wrote:

The likelihood that Iraq had any significant connection with OBL is
remote, in my opinion, and I believe that to have been the opinion of
policy makers in the US too.

Of course Iraq had no significant connection with OBL, but OBL very
certainly had everything to do with the US war on Iraq.

Note that the war on Afghanistan is widely thought to be justified in
response to 911. However, in terms of reducing terrorism, it certainly
didn>t work.

It must have been a fucking deep cave, the one you>ve been in for the past
four years. . .

What a knoobhead you are.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
[/quote]
I take it from what seems likely to be an attempt to be rude that you
disagree with something I wrote.

So you presumably are of the opinion that the war against Afghanistan and
the Taliban Govt was not justified and that the war against Iraq has cured
terrorism. I can see that you could legitimately be of the opinion that the
US should not have attacked Afghanistan, though you would certainly be one
of a small minority. However I can not accept that anyone can think that
terrorism has even been significantly reduced by the war against Iraq.

So it might be interesting if you would expand your original comment. Swear
if you must, though it does not really seriously emphasise an opinion;
rather the reverse actually.

JAF · Guest

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:15:08 -0000, "John Brockbank" <wagley@screaming.net>
wrote:

[quote]
"JAF" <anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bi3qn15ff3fdga7loqjeeocjjr2esp9pal@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:42:51 -0000, "John Brockbank"
wagley@screaming.net
wrote:

The likelihood that Iraq had any significant connection with OBL is
remote, in my opinion, and I believe that to have been the opinion of
policy makers in the US too.

Of course Iraq had no significant connection with OBL, but OBL very
certainly had everything to do with the US war on Iraq.

Note that the war on Afghanistan is widely thought to be justified in
response to 911. However, in terms of reducing terrorism, it certainly
didn>t work.

It must have been a fucking deep cave, the one you>ve been in for the past
four years. . .

What a knoobhead you are.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom

I take it from what seems likely to be an attempt to be rude that you
disagree with something I wrote.

So you presumably are of the opinion that the war against Afghanistan and
the Taliban Govt was not justified and that the war against Iraq has cured
terrorism. I can see that you could legitimately be of the opinion that the
US should not have attacked Afghanistan, though you would certainly be one
of a small minority. However I can not accept that anyone can think that
terrorism has even been significantly reduced by the war against Iraq.

If that>s what you think I said, you really *are* a knobhead.[/quote]

[quote]So it might be interesting if you would expand your original comment. Swear
if you must, though it does not really seriously emphasise an opinion;
rather the reverse actually.

No. It might possibly be interesting for me, but it wouldn>t be interesting[/quote]
for you, because you are such a knobhead, and you>d completely (and either
stupidly or deliberately) misunderstand me. Because you are a knobhead..
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom

Dexter Broadhurst · Guest

"JAF" <anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

[quote]What a knoobhead you are.

I take it from what seems likely to be an attempt to be rude that you
disagree with something I wrote.

So you presumably are of the opinion that the war against Afghanistan and
the Taliban Govt was not justified and that the war against Iraq has cured
terrorism. I can see that you could legitimately be of the opinion that
the
US should not have attacked Afghanistan, though you would certainly be one
of a small minority. However I can not accept that anyone can think that
terrorism has even been significantly reduced by the war against Iraq.

If that>s what you think I said, you really *are* a knobhead.
[/quote]
Yup. He>s a knobhead.

[quote]So it might be interesting if you would expand your original comment.
Swear
if you must, though it does not really seriously emphasise an opinion;
rather the reverse actually.

No. It might possibly be interesting for me, but it wouldn>t be
interesting
for you, because you are such a knobhead, and you>d completely (and either
stupidly or deliberately) misunderstand me. Because you are a knobhead..
[/quote]
FFS, now this knobhead is bound to reply with some platitude totally
isolated from the original knobheaded bollocks about terrorism and
Afghanistan, even though the two are totally isolated results of the general
fuckedupness of the world thanks to George W Skull&Bonesand his travelling
players.

He is totally unaware that you have been an active and positive participant
in the opposition of the %CuntInTheWhitehouse% since he was just a stain on
the barn door and yet you still poke him with a stick. Stop it, now.

JAF · Guest

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:32:04 -0000, "Dexter Broadhurst"
<qrnq_fghssrq_ghexrl@ubgznvy.pb.hx> wrote:

[quote]FFS, now this knobhead is bound to reply with some platitude totally
isolated from the original knobheaded bollocks about terrorism and
Afghanistan, even though the two are totally isolated results of the general
fuckedupness of the world thanks to George W Skull&Bonesand his travelling
players.

Yebbut, I was going to ignore him.[/quote]

[quote]He is totally unaware that you have been an active and positive participant
in the opposition of the %CuntInTheWhitehouse% since he was just a stain on
the barn door and yet you still poke him with a stick. Stop it, now.

Yes, Oh Illustrious One.[/quote]

I bow to your greater whatnaughts.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom

Dexter Broadhurst · Guest

"JAF" <anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

[quote]Yes, Oh Illustrious One.

I bow to your greater whatnaughts.
[/quote]
Never mind that, where the f ck>s my dinner?

And shave your back. It>s irritating the sensitive skin on my heels.

Alastair McDonald · Guest

"slumpy" <not.me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3sptldFp6fjaU1@individual.net...
[quote]In the beginning there was dark. That went on for a while, until someone
found the light switch. But it was only Gerry who did nothing to break the
tension by saying:

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF CLIMATE PROTEST

I>ll go if the weather isn>t too bad.
[/quote]
LOL,

Cheers, Alastair.

Guest

Bill Hobba wroteth:
[quote]"S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:44AAB880.2040906@sdrodrian.com...
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

So models have no connection to realty?
[/quote]
Such an absolute statement! Since you are a person
obviously lacking the gift of subtlety, I shall be more
categorical still, for your sake:

"Some models do have a connection to reality, but
not all of them." NOTE that my paragraph specifies
those models which use so-called "dimensions."
Specifically: NONE of those "models" have any
connection with reality whatsoever (they lose all
connection to reality the instant the term "dimension"
is a mention):

Why? Because if the mind can conceive of any
"conceivable" manifold (or, so-called dimension), then
that "dimension" can exist in our reality as part of
our so-called three-dimensional reality WITHOUT
having to "add anything to it" (to our 3-D reality).

"Pushing" it OUT of our reality is an unnecessary
artificiality perpetrated ("mathematically") via the
common confusion that arises when we speak of our
reality as somehow strictly "3" dimensional. Or,

HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality, there is no
need for it to exist outside it. Therefore it adds nothing
to speak of it as "an additional" dimension (it adds
nothing to our reality). DOUBLE HINT:

There is nothing "1" dimensional in our reality.

Therefore it>s nonsense to try to speak of
anything being "2" dimensional, and therefore
even more absurd to speak of anything being "3"
dimensional (in reality), and so on & so on...
the sequence becoming more and more absurd
as it goes on.

Hope this simplificationalism helps, but I know from
experience that simpletons are not necessarily always
the first to grasp the simplest things.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

Guest

Virgil wrote:
[quote]In article <1152073768.049686.46360@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com wrote:

Bill Hobba wroteth:
"S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:44AAB880.2040906@sdrodrian.com...
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality, there is no
need for it to exist outside it.

As you have referred to reality in terms of dimensions, your "3
dimensional reality" is, by your own assessment, relegated to science
fiction.
[/quote]
"One cannot say, 'Him pulled the trigger!'"
--But, gee, Boss: You just said it!

The term "dimensions" is not only used in science and
mathematics but commonly. As in, "the dimensions of
this box are not enough." (I also need a sandwitch.)

But my point stands: It is ALWAYS an absurdity
when anyone limits (sets a number to) "dimensions."
And the number (which number) is irrelevant.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

sdr · Guest

[quote]On 5 Jul 2006 17:28:48 -0700, "Timothy Golden
BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote:

S D Rodrian wrote:
The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

The three dimensional aspect of space is very simple.
[/quote]
No doubt, no doubt! Who can>t count to three?
Well, there ARE a number of drinks beyond which...

[quote]Take an object like the tip of a pencil.
[/quote]
What is a tip of a pencil! Certainly to an ant
it must be a mountain top. And to our dear ole
Planck Length Creature it is its universe in all!
But, what is the tip of a pencil to the elephant,
or to the whale! O, what is a tip of a pencil
to the world!

(Good Heavens, I>ve still got it! --The Poet In Me.]

[quote]Place it in a square room.
[/quote]
Why does it always HAVE to be a square room?
Every time I am placed in a square room I feel
compelled to only walk in "2" dimensions! Unless
I manage to wiggle out of my strait jacket, of course.
And then I can walk "3" dimensionally (via the rope
my kind keepers like to leave for me tied to a hook
on the ceiling).

[quote]You will find that three measures sufficiently
represent its position
relative to the room.
[/quote]
Why bother? Why not simply ask, "You
can>t see it?!?! It>s right in front of you nose!"

HINT: However way you point it out.... said "way"
is all in your head:

Unless your "lines" are the thickness of a Planck>s
Length>s Planck>s Length>s Planck>s Length>s Planck>s
Length>s (ad infinitum) your triangulation will only
always ONLY succeed in giving a general direction
as to where the thing is. (Cross you fingers and see
just how large the area is over which they cross.)
And, yes, it works both ways... or try to triangulate
the position of the earth with such itty bitty "lines."

We live in an approximate world only. And this is
the achilles heel of all attempts by Mathematics
to "rule" the universe, I>m afraid. (Who knows not
this, is doomed to waste a lot of his life de-noodling
his mind with infinite minutia.) --SDR

And how comes it that we just happen to live in
an approximate world only, you might ask. Because
in reality we live IN OUR MINDS, and there>s very
precious little in there that>s not but an estimation.
Or something close to it...

Certainly none of it will have to do with "dimensions"
but only with different approaches to it (or, directions).

START QUOTE

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth>s...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let>s say that a Planck>s
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck>s Length to our Planck>s
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck>s
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck>s Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it>s
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it>s a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It>s your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can>t see this, you>re not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

END QUOTE

Repeat after me: IF A ONE-DIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO-
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE. AND A 3-DIMENSIONAL ANY-
THING IS 3 TIMES AS IMPOSSIBLE & SO ON.

A balloon only has two-dimensions. But only
because that>s a convenient short-hand in
mathematics: That two-dimensional balloon
helps mathematics neither to add to nor to
substract from REALITY anything whatsoever,
though we speak about it until the Word of God
at last falls silent in the universe. Amen.

[quote]Any more will be wasteful
and any less will be broken.
In this sense the Euclidean three
dimensional space is an empirical
discovery that takes very little to demonstrate.
Do you deny this?
These are the three dimensions that you are
disputing.
Even if more dimenions do exist this
behavior must be resolved.
Three dimensions are an observation.-Tim
[/quote]
You are right at last, Tim: "3" dimensions ARE only
a requirement of the mind (in the mind) and have
nothing whatsoever to do with reality:

Imagine that man has finally become extinct. Then,
to the world that continues without him, what use
are the methods he used to use to point out things
to himself?

I don>t mind your use of whatever method you wish
to point things out to yourself, Tim. But don>t then
ORDAIN that your brain commands reality, Tim!

That>s positively bonkers, ole boy.

[quote]An interesting way to conceptualize this
is to imagine a large
screened TV in front of you. Then,
in your imagination, expand
the width and height to infinity.
Next, in your imagination, toss
the hardware aside, leaving
only the image in place.
Persons in this image perceive
their space as 3-dimensional.
[/quote]
That would be a nice trick for such "persons"
to perform, since they would have to do it
with "brains" which have no "depth" at all.

[quote]That
is, they can move in any direction they want to.
[/quote]
With "muscles & limbs" which have no "depth"
at all.

[quote]To them, a meter
stick will appear to be one meter long,
any way they orient it.
[/quote]
Well, certainly, if they try to orient it from "width" to
"height" they are going to have to make it travel
through a zillion dimensions other than their only "2."

As I>ve said: I don>t mind Mathematics describing
every point in a circumference. But do not let then
Mathematics try to describe the "dimensions" of
reality! (Because, as I said, it>s absurd to limit them
in any way... in effect, by any number. It offends
the laws of physics.)

[quote]However, from your perspective,
these people are limited to
something very close to two dimensional
space. Granted, the image
has some thickness, albeit very small.
[/quote]
Ah! A little bit of sanity creeps into this petty pace!
Not much, but a little bit does. That>s a start.

[quote]Now, in your imagination, shrink the
image>s thickness on down to
less than a Planck Length.
[/quote]
Does it really matter how thick the image is?
And, who sez when we get to a Planck>s Length>s
thickness we won>t get bitten by an even tinier tick?

[quote]From your perspective it is no longer
discernable, but it is still there.
[/quote]
"In your imagination" everything is possible, yes.

[quote]From your perspective, their
third dimension is rolled up to less
than a Planck Length. But,
from their perspective their third
dimension is no different than
their other two dimensions.
[/quote]
A truly "really" three-dimensional "thing" could
only be observed from "six" very specific, very
specifically placed very infinitely infinitesimal
"impossible" positions (hint: no such positions
are possible in reality, ole boy):

BEGIN QUOTE

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth>s...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let>s say that a Planck>s
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck>s Length to our Planck>s
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck>s
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck>s Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it>s
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it>s a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It>s your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can>t see this, you>re not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

END QUOTE

Repeat after me: IF A ONE-DIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO-
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE.

[quote]This is not a real-world kind of thing,
[/quote]
There ya go! THAT>s my whole point in a
banana peel.

[quote]but it does provide a
rather nice way of getting the concept.
[/quote]
I>m sure that as long as you understand, Gordon,
the world/the universe will sleep soundly tonight.

[quote]Those other dimensions
could very well be right her in our midst,
[/quote]
There ya go! THAT>s the whole problem right there
out of the safety of its banana peel:

The instant you even so much as HINT at the
mere possibility that it>s possible to assign a
(necessarily limiting) number to the dimensions
of "anything" you are literally knocking all sorts
of bits from "it" OUT of existence (in our reality).

And THAT would be a jolly nice trick indeed. Gordon!

[quote]but if they are less
than a Planck Length, they are completely
indiscernible to us.
Gordon
[/quote]
Gordon, if something exists, it does (or, if it doesn>t
it doesn>t). But you can>t cheat on the rule by ANY
means. (And I should think CERTAINLY NOT by merely
shrinking the thing out of sight... or tossing a hanky
over it and hollering, "Abracadabra!")

Voila!

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Miscelaneous	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 9 of 11