1995.10.02 / Martin Gelfand / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 2 Oct 1995 11:52:46 -0600 Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Into the breach, again... If nobody else expresses an interest in this thread I am going to end it here. In article <21cenlogic-0110951813190001@austin-1-3.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: >In article <44es53$4nle@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU >(Martin Gelfand) wrote: > >> Mitchell Jones has some serious misconceptions about science; >> I'd like to address one that came up in our public conversation. >> The attribution header is getting too long to be useful, so I've >> axed it. Mitchell's words are always surrounded by braces >> (preceeded by some asterisks) so its easy to tell who's who. >> [...] >> >> >(even though in practice >> >> >> quantum mechanics makes clear predictions for nearly every >> >> >> experiment one can construct) >> >> > >> >> >***{Rubbish. "Quantum mechanics" doesn't predict anything whatsoever. >> >> >"Quantum mechanics" is an inept attempt to "interpret" the curve-fitted >> >> >mathematics of physics in accordance with the precepts of a bankrupt >> >> >philosophy. The mathematics itself is what "predicts." And, to the extent >> >> >that experiments stay within the interpolated regions of the curves, the >> >> >results tend to be extremely accurate. But where is the surprise? Once >> >> >mathematical constructs have been curve fitted to experimentally measured >> >> >data points, would we not expect them to "predict" the interpolated >> >> >regions of the curves to which they have been deliberately fitted? What >> >> >does this outcome have to do with how the math is "interpreted?" >> >> >--Mitchell Jones}*** >> > >> >> Rubbish yourself. You have no idea what consitutes curve fitting. >> >> Surely there is quite a bit of curve fitting done in physics, for the >> >> purposes of summarizing the results of experiments (or calculations), >> >> but quantum mechanics and relativity per se don't involve any >> >> fitting whatsoever. If you do a calculation of the "twin paradox >> >> effect" (for want of a better name; I trust every knows what >> >> the twin "paradox" is) _what is being fit_? Likewise, if one >> >> calculates the spectrum of a hydrogen atom using the Schrodinger >> >> equation, where is any fitting being done? >> > >> >***{You really must be kidding! The implication of your statement is that >> >mathematical physicists just go off into a dark room, sans data, and make >> >up equations! Read a little of the history of physics, for Christ's sake! >> >Bohr wrestled with the data for months before he came up with his theory >> >to explain the circular orbits of hydrogen. And Sommerfeld likewise >> >studied and thought about data for months before he could find the >> >mathematical constructs that would explain the other orbits. These guys >> >spent every waking hour immersed in data. Einstein did likewise. To >> >repeat, there are two basic processes at work in mathematical physics: >> >curve fitting, and tweaking. Some mathematical physicists study the data >> >and find the constructs that fit it; others study new data and the old >> >constructs, and find "transformations" (tweaks) that take the new data >> >into account. Period. That's the essence of the process. Your implied >> >claim that mathematical physicists just go off into a dark room, totally >> >unaware of the experimental data, and pull equations out of their behinds, >> >is beyond absurdity. --Mitchell Jones}*** >> >> This "wresting with data" is what distinguishes theoretical >> physicists from mathematicians. It is _not_ the same as curve fitting. > >***{Actually, theoretical physicists use mathematical constructs as input, >and produce visual models as their output. It is the mathematical >physicists who "wrestle with data." To them, data is input, and curve >fitted mathematical constructs are the output. The difference between a >mathematical physicist and a mathematician is one of purpose: the >mathematician is interested in the math for its own sake; the mathematical >physicist uses the math as a tool in the curve fitting process. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Where do you get these notions, Mitchell? As far as I can tell you just make them up, because they have no basis in reality. Let me give you some advice. Go to a library and take a look at (what I believe to be) the most presitigious forum for mathematical physics, namely, Communications in Mathematical Physics. It looks a heck of a lot like a mathematics journal, and that's no accident: most mathematical physicists in fact do mathematical proofs! The dividing line between mathematical physicists (in the present-day usage of the term) and mathematicians is, essentially, the nature of the problems they're interested in. On the other hand, if you look at a journal like Physical Review B (the condensed matter physics section of Physical Review) you'll find some experimental papers, and some theory papers, some that include both significant theoretical and experimental work, and (very few, in comparison) papers in which the proof of a theorem is the central result. "Theoretical physics" is distinguished from "mathematical physics" largely in that the former does not consist largely of axioms and theorems, but rather (more or less controlled) approximation methods. It is the theoretical physicists who try to figure out what approximation methods are best suited to treating a given problem (and then go on to apply the method), in order to understand some feature seen in experimental data. The simplest example is the use of quantum mechanical perturbation theory, to understand features in atomic or molecular spectroscopy. A mathematical physicist would tend to be interested in the question "Is this perturbation expansion convergent?" whereas the theoretical physicist would be interested in the question "Can we understand the spectrum on the basis of the following Hamiltonian ... using low-order perturbation theory?" > >As for whether what mathematical physicists do can be appropriately >described as "curve fitting," your view harkens back to our earlier >disagreement about whether a "structured vacuum" is an "ether." In both >cases, you want to emphasize differences and I want to emphasize >similarities. In my view the reason is that you buy into the ongoing con >game which passes for physics nowadays, while I do not. In the specific >case of curve fitted mathematical constructs, the goal of the con game is >to pretend that mathematical physics and theoretical physics are the same >thing, despite the fact that they are radically different. (You implicitly >treated them as the same when you said, incorrectly, that "wresting with >data" is what distinguishes theoretical physicists from mathematicians.") > >In order to comprehend the nature and goals of this particular con game, >it is first necessary to realize that, basically, there are four types of >physicists: (1) Experimental physicists collect data and test hypotheses. >(2) Mathematical physicists express the data in a compact mathematical >form by means of a process that I have described as "curve fitting and >tweaking." (3) Theoretical physicists reflect upon the resulting >mathematical constructs and create visual models of the underlying >phenomena, thereby explaining the math and the data, and enabling others >to understand and think about the phenomena. (4) Applied physicists, >commonly known as "engineers," use the visual models and the mathematical >constructs to solve problems in the real world--e.g., by designing >buildings, bridges, machines, etc. > >Within this classification, Nicholas Copernicus was a theoretical >physicist, because he overturned the previous, earth-centered visual model >of the solar system and replaced it with a new, sun-centered one. Isaac >Newton, on the other hand, was primarily an experimental and mathematical >physicist. (His law of universal gravitation, for example, was a purely >curve-fitted mathematical construct which was offered to the world with no >apologies for the fact that there was no accompanying visual model.) Paul >Dirac, by contrast, was a mathematical physicist and a theoretical >physicist: he did not merely produce curve fitted mathematical constructs >which made it possible to calculate data points; he also created the >visual model known as "Dirac's ocean"--to wit: his sea of "extraordinary >electrons" that pervaded all of space. Lord Rutherford was yet another >variant: an experimentalist who, as author of the atomic model, was a >theoretical physicist as well. I've been wondering what in the world you meant earlier when you wrote of a "visual model". Now I have an idea of what's going on. You are simply fearful of mathematics. Never mind the full meaning of the Dirac equation, as long as you have your "ocean" you're happy. You believe modern physics is a con game because you do not understand it, and are too lazy to try to understand it. To rationalize your lack of understanding you deny that there is anything worth understanding. The subsequent comments about the "con job" of current physics are deleted [...] > >By the way, Martin, please note that no personal judgment is contained in >the above. I am *not* saying that you are one of the guilty parties in all >of this, and I am *not* saying you are a superficial rote memorizer. You >may, for all I know, be one of the victims. It is very difficult to >understand the internal workings of bureaucracy and the way incentives >determine outcomes in such environments. Millions of people buy into the >scam because they are sincerely fooled by it. And they are entitled to be >fooled: the "profscam" is one of the slickest con games around. --Mitchell >Jones}*** You (and anyone else) is free to read my work and make whatever judgements of its validity and significant they desire. (If you don't have access to a citation database I can send a copy of my publication list.) > >> Let me give a simple example which, I hope, explains why. >> >> From the Schrodinger equation one can calculate the spectrum >> of the hydrogen atom (up to hyperfine splittings and other >> effects which are "small"). The formula that results has >> several parameters in it: the electron mass (more precisely >> the _reduced mass_, which differs from the electron mass >> by a small amount that depends on the nuclear mass), the >> electron charge, and Planck's constant. The point is that >> all of these parameters can be measured, using methods which >> make no reference whatsoever to the spectrum of the hydrogen >> atom. > >***{Of course they can, but there exist an infinite number of formulations >into which they can be plugged, and Schrodinger's is only one of them. >--Mitchell Jones}*** > >Planck's constant one can obtain from the photoelectric >> effect; the electron mass to charge ratio by looking at how >> the trajectory of an electron is bent in a magnetic field; >> the electron charge can (nowadays) be measured directly >> from the ratio of current to input pulse rate in an >> "electron turnstile"; etc etc etc... all methods that make >> no reference whatsoever to the spectrum of hydrogen. And >> guess what: the correct answer (again, up to small corrections >> associated with the inexactness of simple Schrodinger equation) >> comes out. > >***{Yes, of course, but if the formulation had not given the "correct" >answer--i.e., one that fits the data--it would have joined a hundred >others in Schrodinger's unpublished discard heap, now wouldn't it? That's >why I refer to this process as mathematical curve fitting. The curves that >don't fit the data get tossed! Mitchell, _please_ drop the "curve fitting" nonsense. Otherwise what you've said is basically correct, the theories that don't work get tossed! (Although sometimes they get recycled, when it is found that they are the correct theory for something other than was originally envisioned!) >Moreover, the same considerations apply to Bohr's earlier struggle to find >a formulation that would derive the Balmer series spectral lines (the >success of which, incidentally, earned hin a Nobel Prize), to Newton's >struggle to identify a mass-based formulation from which he could derive >Kepler's laws (and, thereby, the astronomical data of Tycho Brahe), and on >and on. Of course, as you note, the construction of curve fitted >mathematical formulations seldom starts from scratch. Instead, competent >mathematical physicists build on the formulations that they have inherited >from their predecessors. This is why, in my description of the process, I >focused not merely on the aspect of curve fitting, but also on the aspect >of "tweaking" (or transforming) pre-existing constructs. > >In summary, I would note four things: (1) you ignore the garbage heap of >discarded formualtions that *did not* give the correct answer, (2) you Ignore, how? >ignore the fact that the formulations in your example were tweaked >variants of pre-existing mathematical constructs (e.g., Maxwell's >equations), (3) you ignore the fact that the pre-existing constructs were Again, ignore how? >also curve-fitted, tweaked variants of even earlier constructs (Coulomb's >law, the Biot-Savart law, Faraday's law of induction, etc.), and, most >importantly, (4) you ignore the fact that such constructs are valuable for Again, please drop "curve-fitted"! >one reason only: because they sum up, in a compact form, the implications >of the existing experimental data--which means: they contribute to our >ability to calculate, but not to our ability to understand. This is where we really part paths. Any theory which has value does more than summarize current knowledge. It also has implications for _future_ experiments. If a theory (quantum mechanics, applied to the model of atomic structure pioneered by Bohr) not only describes the the spectrum of hydrogen but _also_ tells you all sorts of things about the specific heat of metals and polyatomic gases (which cannot be understood within the framework of _classical_ statistical mechanics) then the theory is not just "curve-fitting" of atomic spectra. > >Point number four, being the most important, requires elaboration. To >convey the relative importance of a mathematical construct as compared to >a visual model of the same phenomenon, an example is required. For that >purpose, therefore, let us work with Newton's law of universal >gravitation, F = GMm/r^2. When Newton made this statement, he was merely >stating a mathematical relationship that fit the data points in the >existing, experimentally determined data base (mostly accumulated by Tycho >Brahe and Galileo), from which other known formulations (e.g., those of >Kepler) could be deduced, and from which he hoped useful interpolations >and even some extrapolations could be made. He did not claim that his >equation *explained* the underlying causal process by which gravity >worked, though he did explicitly debunk the "action at a distance idea" >which was put forward by others who attempted to interpret/explain his >idea. > >Why isn't the law of universal gravitation the same as an explanation of >gravitation? This is a distinction that isn't easy to see, until one >confronts an actual explanation. And, in the modern era, the ongoing con >game in physics ensures that students almost never confront such >explanations. We can, however, get around the con game by going back a >ways in the history of physics, to a time when great theoretical >physicists still existed in the world. To that end, therefore, let's >consider the interpretation of Newton's law put forward by an obscure >theoretical physicist by the name of George-Louis LeSage, more than two >hundred years ago. According to LeSage, the universe abounded with tiny >particles which he called "ultra mundane corpuscles." The particles moved >at enormous velolcities and were so small as to pass through great masses >of ordinary matter (including planets and stars) with a very low >probability of striking anything, and yet they were present in such >enormous numbers that they nevertheless exerted continuous forces on even >the smallest of objects. The result: gravitation, in strict accordance >with Newton's law. > >Have you ever asked yourself, for example, why gravity holds you to the >earth as you stand on your feet looking up at the stars? Within the LeSage >model, the answer is simple: there is a continuous downward force pressing >your body to the earth, due to the fact that the rain of "ultra mundane >corpsucles" coming down on you from space is unobstructed, while many of >those rising up from beneath your feet are obstructed by the earth. Thus >the downward force exceeds the upward force, in proportion to the mass of >the earth and your distance from its center, exactly as Newton's law >indicates. > >The difference between the LeSage model, which is theoretical physics at >its best, and the mathematical formulation of Newton, is profound. First, >the Newtonian formula can be derived from LeSage's visual model, but not >the reverse; and, second, the LeSage model makes it possible to understand >and hence think about gravitation in ways that the mathematical >formulation does not. The difference between the two is profound and >stunning, and falls upon the mind like a thunderbolt. No more perfect >illustration of the difference between the products of mathematical and >theoretical physics could possibly be devised. And, by virtue of the fact >that most physicists today have never heard of the LeSage model (and those >few who have believe, incorrectly, that it has been refuted), no more >perfect proof of the ongoing fraud in physics could possibly be devised. >--Mitchell Jones}*** The LeSage model may not have been "refuted" but it has certainly lost any substantial following. The reason should be clear. If its predictions were _exactly_ the same as Newton's laws then all that it would do would be to introduce constructs ("ultra mundane corpuscles") into a theory which did perfectly well without them! On the other hand, if LeSage's model is to be considered "superior" to Newton's it should yield predictions which are (1) correct, in the sense of being experimentally testable and validated (2) _different_ from Newton's. A big problem with actually testing the LeSage model is that it does not specify in any detail what the hell those corpuscles are, so there's in fact no way to make a specific, testable prediction! If I were to come up with a detailed model for the interactions between corpuscles and ordinary matter, and could show that it led to predictions which were eminently incorrect, a LeSagian would undoubtable state huffily that _my_ version of the LeSage model was wrong, but nonetheless LeSage's is still a true theory. He would fail to understand that the burden is on _him_ to define a specific model. The fact that LeSage failed to do so explains why LeSages model is "pre-refuted". IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL THEORY! (A play on Phil Anderson's notion of "pre-falsified" theories, ie, theories which fail to account for even existing data.) If you think LeSage's model is so great, please describe the corpuscles in sufficient detail so that I can do a calculation which leads to a testable prediction. For example, should we expect "Brownian motion" of all matter due to the interaction with the corpuscles flying in from random directions and with random collision times? > >> >> You see, there is a huge body of knowledge about the world, >> which _overdetermines_ many times the freedom to choose the >> few parameters that exist in theories of the world. > >***{True enough. If a familiar formulation comes close to predicting a >newly measured data point, it is likely to be "tweaked" rather than tossed >out. The reason: people are conservative, and cling to old formulations as >long as they can. This, however, merely confirms the fact that the >formulations were produced by curve fitting and tweaking, exactly as I >said. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> No, you don't want to use theories outside of their >> range of applicability; but that is a whole hell of a lot >> different that saying that theories are mere "curve fitting". > >***{We do not use words in the same way. Thus part of our disagreement may >be terminological and somewhat trivial. However, I also believe that you >think mathematical formulations express deeper truths about the world than >is, in fact, the case. And, as a corollary, I believe you impute far less >significance to visual models and to thinking in terms of them than you >should. I'll bet, for example, that you are not disturbed by the question >of how, in the Newtonian scheme of gravitation, the force gets through >space from one mass to another; and I'll also bet that, in the case of >general relativity, you are not disturbed by the substitution of "curved >space" for "gravitational force." If I am right about these conjectures, >then I would say that your attitudes indicate a virtual indifference to >visualization in physics, because neither of these schemes of gravitation >make any visual sense at all. --Mitchell Jones}*** You have a strikingly limited visual sense. What visual sense evidently means to you is "something *I* can understand without thinking too hard, and certainly without disrupting the world-view I've developed through my life's experiences". Sorry for the insulting tone, but that's how I read it. I have no trouble "visualizing" quantum many-body physics, even if I can't necessarily _calculate_ everything I'd like to! Martin P. Gelfand Dept of Physics Colorado State University cudkeys: cuddy2 cudengelfand cudfnMartin cudlnGelfand cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 10:59:14 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote: > In article <21cenlogic-0110951150010001@austin-1-1.i-link.net>, > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: > > [it refers to the principle of continuity] > > >***{It's bad to violate it because, without it, the entire structure of > >human knowledge collapses. Simply put: if things can leap into existence > >out of nothing, then we have no basis for the inference from sensation to > >source--which means: our sensations may simply be leaping into existence > >out of nothing. Which means: we cannot infer the existence of the sun from > >sunlight; we cannot infer the existence the existence of our bodies merely > >because we receive sensations from the various parts of our bodies (the > >sensations may be leaping into existence out of nothing); and so on. > >Bottom line: the principle of continuity is an absolute truth, because if > >it is or may be false, then we have no basis for believing in the > >existence of anything. We lose ourselves, the world, and all knowledge > >about the world, including history, biology, "quantum mechanics," > >"relativity," and on and on. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > The idea of continuity you are expressing seems to be essentially an > extrapolation of everday experience. While I agree it is a reasonable > extrapolation and have nothing to replace it with, I am not so certain it > is a good model for reality. > > Suppose both space and time are actually discrete things at some very fine > level. If the granularity were sufficiently fine there it would be > exceedingly difficult to impossible to detect the granularity. In this > case, there would be essentially no difference for most things between a > continuous and discrete spacetime. Perhaps the characteristics ascribed to > quantum mechanics are our first glimmerings of a discrete spacetime. ***{What you basically seem to be saying is that if we get evidence indicating discontinuities in the microcosm, but not in the macrocosm, we can count on that situation to continue in the future. In other words, you propose to use inductive, scientific reasoning to confine discontinuities to the microcosm. Unfortunately, the validity of the principle of induction presupposes the validity of the principle of continuity. To see why, let's ask ourselves exactly what induction, this vague and generalized idea that things will behave as they have behaved in the past, means in science. Here is the answer: it means that any closed system (i.e., any system with closed boundaries) can be resolved into entities that will continue to exist (i.e., that will retain their significant properties) throughout the interval for which a prediction is made, and that, as a consequence, any other closed system which you encounter in the future which can be resolved into the same elements will behave in the same way. Since induction rests on the notion that a closed system can exist--i.e., that, by controlling the boundaries of the system, we can control what passes into it and out of it--it follows that induction would be falsified by a single outcome in which it could be unambiguously established that an entity came into, or exited, a system without crossing its boundaries. This means that the idea of "quantum leaps," at root, is a denial of induction. And that, in turn, means that you cannot reasonably talk about things in the microcosm making "quantum leaps," and then say that you have no scientific basis for expecting, or fearing, that things in the macrocosm might do likewise! As soon as one entity leaps out of, or into, a system without crossing its boundaries, the principle of induction collapses, Bill! After it has collapsed, you can no longer use it! Thus you cannot say that, since your only experience of this kind is limited to the microcosm, it follows that it will be so limited in the future. You can no longer generalize from the past to the future on the basis of experimental results, because this particular experimental result refutes the principle on which such generalizations are based. Bottom line: any violation of the principle of continuity, at any level of magnification, falsifies the principle of scientific induction and, thereby, destroys all of science and all of human knowledge. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > It could be argued our perceptions of spacetime are actually discrete. ***{Not without the principle of induction. To say "our perceptions are actually discrete" is to imply a state of affairs that existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future. But, without induction, we have no basis for any expectations concerning the future. How things behaved in the past tells us not a whit about the future. --Mitchell Jones}*** > When we observe things we see them at a point in spacetime. ***{Why do you think so? Your evidence is all in the past, and yet your expectation applies to the future. But, without induction, there is no connection between the past and the future. To repeat: induction is falsified by violations of continuity. Once it has been falsified, you can no longer use it. And, if you can't use it, all evidence about anything instantly becomes meaningless, and you can no longer argue for or against anything. --Mitchell Jones}*** If for no other > reason than finite precision of experiments, values assigned to events are > discrete. Ultimately, the only thing continuity does is avoid the question > of existence between two discrete points in spacetime. ***{Nope. If the principle of continuity is violated anywhere, we lose all of our knowledge. Even the possibility of its violation results in total epistemological destruction. It's a "zyankali capsule" for the mind--a poison pill that eliminates the possibility of knowledge. If we know anything, therefore, we know it must be wrong. So that's what you have to ask yourself: do you know anything at all? If you do, then the principle of continuity must be valid. It's as simple as that. --Mitchell Jones}*** > -- > "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy02 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Mitchell Jones / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 11:20:57 -0500 Organization: 21st Century Logic In article <448898095wnr@moonrake.demon.co.uk>, Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk wrote: > In article: <21cenlogic-0110951059300001@austin-1-1.i-link.net> > 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > > This strikes me as a way for you to duck the issue, Barry. Rather than > > step up and grapple with the principle of continuity, you want to > divert > > me off onto a complex and irrelevant topic. Well, it happens that I > can, > > in fact, answer your question about what a photon is and how to > visualize > > it, and I am willing to do so. However, not wanting to discourage any > bad > > habits on your part, here's the deal: if you will first explain to me > why > > you believe that the principle of continuity is invalid, and defend > that > > view, then I will tell you exactly what a photon is, so you can > visualize > > its acceleration. Fair enough? > > Your 'principle of continuity' is no principle at all - simply a > statement of admission by you of your total failure to understand > physical reality. > > A photon is a packet of eletromagnetic radiation and, as I have tried to > point out to you on a couple of occasions - unsuccessfully, as I should > have anticipated when dealing with somebody as resolutely attached to > his own faulty imagination as you are - it *can* only travel at the > speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation. It simply cannot > exist, travelling at any lesser speed, and remain within the > universally accepted and confirmed laws of physics. There never has been > any experiment in physical science which might even momentarily be > considered to suggest that photons travelling slower than c might have > any place in physical reality. If they did, almost the entire corpus of > 20th century theoretical and observational physics would have to be > declared a total illusion, and we would have to admit total ignorance of > all aspects of the physical world, from the cosmological to the > subatomic scale. > > Offered the option of accepting that, or the alternative that you are a > lone and sadly deluded idiot, there is absolutely no contest. Archimedes > Plutonium consistently makes substantially more sense than you. > > -- > Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) > > I am his Highness' dog at Kew > Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? > [Alexander Pope] > > PGP Public Key available on request. Alan, why do you waste bandwidth posting dogmatic assertions and contentless flames? Surely you are not so feeble minded that you do not realize, at some level, that I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire. And the same goes for Mark North and all the other would-be censors who seek to stifle debate and thereby protect their contentless beliefs. You need to wake up, guys! This is the internet, and at the moment you have no power here. If you want to do more than put out an unpleasant smell, go to Washington D.C., or London, or whatever cesspool of oppressive criminality exists in your native land, and openly participate in the struggle for power. Perhaps if you work hard you can obtain a position of authority from which you can begin to evoke fear in others. In the meantime, however, all you are evoking is laughter and contempt. --Mitchell Jones =========================================================== cudkeys: cuddy02 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Carl Bittner / FREE SPAM PROGRAM Originally-From: cbittner@squeaky.free.org (Carl Bittner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: FREE SPAM PROGRAM Subject: Spamming is Fun. Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 02:15:19 GMT Organization: Spammers 'R Us HERE IT IS: ABSOLUTELY FREE Spam as many groups as you want with one command. Can post same message to 14,000 groups in just a few hours. Must have UNIX shell account, the attached script, and create two ascii text files called groups.txt and message.txt. The file groups.txt should contain a list of all groups you want to spam, one per line. If you want to hit everything, you can just copy your newsrc file, but you'll have to remove all index numbers and end of line punctuation. The message.txt file is the actual message you want to spam. It must contain the subject header on the first line, ie: Subject: Spamming is Fun. You may add in other headers, such as Organization, Paths, Reply to, etc, but none are required. Do NOT put in a newsgroup header. The script does that automatically. There must be a blank line between the last header and the start of the actual message. Then, download those two files plus the following script (call it spamming.fun) to your home directory on the Unix shell account, type "perl spamming.fun", and sit back to watch the fireworks. ----------------------------------Cut Here-------------------- #!perl #Assumes both Perl and Inews are accessible through #your home directory. If not, either place them in your path #or adjust the script. #You must also have a ascii text file called groups.txt, which #contains a list of each group you want to spam. One to a line. #No punctuation at end of line. #Your spam message must be called message.txt, and it should #be in ascii. The first line must be you subject header: # For example: Subject: this is a spam. # You may add in other headers if you wish, but there must be a #blank line before your actual message begins. #run program by typing "perl spam.pl. # # #!perl print "Running...\n"; $newsrc = "$ENV{'HOME'}/testgrps.txt"; open(GROUPS, "$newsrc"); while($group=) {print "Posting to: $group"; open(NEWS,"|inews -h"); print NEWS "Newsgroups: $group"; open(MESSAGE, "message.txt"); while($line=) { print NEWS $line; } close NEWS; if($?==0) { $success++ } else { $fail++ }}$total = $success + $fail;print "Tried to post to $total groups.\n$success OK, $fail failed.\n"; cudkeys: cuddy02 cudencbittner cudfnCarl cudlnBittner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.25 / Brian Erst / Re: Pathological Skepticism! Originally-From: erst@interaccess.com (Brian Erst) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism! Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 16:22:22 GMT Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider Robert F. Heeter wrote: >You might consider reading the recent article in _Popular >Science_ (latest issue I think), where they interviewed >Representative Robert Walker, who is the head of the House >Science Committee and one of the major people responsible >for the 35% budget cut to fusion research this year. He comes >right out and says he wants to do research on cold fusion - he >doesn't think it's fusion, but he wants to see what is going on. >Not only that, but he professes to believe that "hydrogen" >represents a possible alternative energy source, better than >fusion or renewables! (No, he *doesn't* seem to think that >you need other energy sources to make the hydrogen!!!) >It's sad to see America's science policy establishment so >technically illiterate. Having read the same article, methinks you are reading too much of your own prejudices into it. The article was very high-level - the blurb you refer to is 2-3 sentences long. I would assume Mr. Walker was referring more to a "hydrogen economy" - one where hydrogen (from biomass, methane catalysis, splitting water using energy derived from fission/fusion/solar/wind/hydroelectric/black magic) is the prinicpal energy _storage and delivery_ mechanism. A fuel cell connected to a tank of compressed hydrogen is a more efficent storage and delivery system than any battery developed so far and significantly kinder to the environment than gasoline (assuming the hydrogen generating process is less- or non-polluting) Mr. Walker may or may not be technically illiterate - but I don't think you have the evidence to say so either way. Seems more like some preconceived notions and blinders to me. - Brian "Back to lurking mode" Erst cudkeys: cuddy25 cudenerst cudfnBrian cudlnErst cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Carl Bittner / cmsg cancel <44nhp1$8vb@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com> Originally-From: cbittner@squeaky.free.org (Carl Bittner) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: cmsg cancel <44nhp1$8vb@dub-news-svc-2.compuserve.com> Date: 2 Oct 1995 02:50:55 GMT Spam cancelled by clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca cudkeys: cuddy2 cudencbittner cudfnCarl cudlnBittner cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Richard Schultz / Re: Infinite Energy Vol 1, No. 3 Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Infinite Energy Vol 1, No. 3 Date: 2 Oct 1995 05:34:15 GMT Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe In article , MARSHALL DUDLEY wrote: >"Overview of EPRI Program in Deuterided Metals." by Dr. Thomas O. Pussell of >the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. This paper >reports on cold fusion cells with traces of boron and aluminum. Two fast >neutron episodes were reported (but at only 2X background). The cathodes were >determined to be radioactive after the run and it appears that isotopes of Ag, >Pd, Rh and Ru were generated by transmutation. Could someone with access to this paper please tell me if Pussell quantifies "traces" of boron and aluminum. If you think about it, any experiment done in a Pyrex beaker (especially in a basic medium) will eventually have "traces" of boron (and probably aluminum too) from leaching out of the glass anyway. Was any attempt made to relate reaction products to boron and/or aluminum levels? Was the radioactivity of the cathodes measured before the runs? Was a spectrum of the radioactivity measured? Was the radioactivity of the solution measured before and after the runs? Thank you. -- Richard Schultz "Most heat generating cells do not produce measurable amounts of tritium." --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 16 September 1995 "There is no point to pretending CF does not produce tritium." --Jed Rothwell, sci.physics.fusion, 17 September 1995 cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Matt Austern / Re: Pathological Skepticism! Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Pathological Skepticism! Date: 02 Oct 1995 06:41:16 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience) In article <44nikn$1hs@nntp.interaccess.com> erst@interaccess.com (Brian Erst) writes: > Having read the same article, methinks you are reading too much of > your own prejudices into it. The article was very high-level - the > blurb you refer to is 2-3 sentences long. I would assume Mr. Walker > was referring more to a "hydrogen economy" - one where hydrogen (from > biomass, methane catalysis, splitting water using energy derived from > fission/fusion/solar/wind/hydroelectric/black magic) is the prinicpal > energy _storage and delivery_ mechanism. I wouldn't assume that. I've followed energy politics pretty closely for the last fifteen years or so, and I'm quite convinced that most people simply don't understand the distinction between energy production and energy conversion. Witness the widespread enthusiasm for "clean" electric cars: not one article in a dozen asks the obvious question of where all that electricity will come from and whether electric generating plants are really all that clean. (There is a case to be made for electric cars, by the way, but it's a subtler one.) I also wouldn't assume a very high standard of scientific knowledge on the part of Senators and Representatives. I was appalled by the sheer ignorance and stupidity on both sides of the SSC debate. -- Matt Austern He showed his lower teeth. "We matt@physics.berkeley.edu all have flaws," he said, "and http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt mine is being wicked." cudkeys: cuddy02 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.01 / Alan M / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 18:28:58 +0100 Organization: Home In article: <21cenlogic-0110951059300001@austin-1-1.i-link.net> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes: > This strikes me as a way for you to duck the issue, Barry. Rather than > step up and grapple with the principle of continuity, you want to divert > me off onto a complex and irrelevant topic. Well, it happens that I can, > in fact, answer your question about what a photon is and how to visualize > it, and I am willing to do so. However, not wanting to discourage any bad > habits on your part, here's the deal: if you will first explain to me why > you believe that the principle of continuity is invalid, and defend that > view, then I will tell you exactly what a photon is, so you can visualize > its acceleration. Fair enough? Your 'principle of continuity' is no principle at all - simply a statement of admission by you of your total failure to understand physical reality. A photon is a packet of eletromagnetic radiation and, as I have tried to point out to you on a couple of occasions - unsuccessfully, as I should have anticipated when dealing with somebody as resolutely attached to his own faulty imagination as you are - it *can* only travel at the speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation. It simply cannot exist, travelling at any lesser speed, and remain within the universally accepted and confirmed laws of physics. There never has been any experiment in physical science which might even momentarily be considered to suggest that photons travelling slower than c might have any place in physical reality. If they did, almost the entire corpus of 20th century theoretical and observational physics would have to be declared a total illusion, and we would have to admit total ignorance of all aspects of the physical world, from the cosmological to the subatomic scale. Offered the option of accepting that, or the alternative that you are a lone and sadly deluded idiot, there is absolutely no contest. Archimedes Plutonium consistently makes substantially more sense than you. -- Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right) I am his Highness' dog at Kew Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you? [Alexander Pope] PGP Public Key available on request. cudkeys: cuddy01 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / jonesse@plasma / Re: Kasagi paper Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi paper Date: 2 Oct 95 10:37:41 -0600 Organization: Brigham Young University I received e-mail from Bob Heeter in which he states: "I posted an article on this [Kasagi paper, high-energy protons and alphas; anomalous nuclear reactions of d+ on TiDx] which seems to have been lost in the noise on the group. I brought the Kasagi paper to a weekly grad-student discussion group here and we went through the data and decided that Kasagi et. al. seemed to have missed a possibility. While they they consider a sequential reaction involving stopped 3He products fusion with D beam ions, it was definitely not clear that they had considered reactions where the fast 3He products fuse with cold deuterons in the target as the 3He's slow down." Actually, Kasagi et. al. do clearly consider this possibility; here's what they say in their paper: "In order to check the possibility that the alpha particles are emitted in the secondary reactions induced by any materials in the target [including D] with the products of the primary D+D reactions, we have irradiated the target directly with neutrons, protons and *3He* and measured the charged particles. ... The TiDx target were [sic] directly bombarded with 3.3 MeV proton and 1.5 MeV 3He beam obtained from a Van de Graaff accelerator at Tokyo Institute of Technology. The irradiated dose was more than 100 times of that of the products of the D+D reaction. Again, *no* alpha particles were observed." [My emphasis.] This is found on pp. 780-781 of the Kasagi paper; you may want to look at it again. I think they've checked for the right things. They also looked at the TiDx foils sans d+ beam -- and found no anomalous high-energy P+ or alphas, ruling out the possibility of U or Th (etc.) causing the anomalous signals. It is not easy to dismiss their results. We want to check their claims therefore. --Steven Jones cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Matt Austern / Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Fitting vs physics (was Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis) Date: 02 Oct 1995 20:37:59 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley (computational neuroscience) In article <44p8te$2dr2@lamar.ColoState.EDU> gelfand@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Martin Gelfand) writes: > He would fail to understand that the burden is on _him_ to define > a specific model. The fact that LeSage failed to do so explains > why LeSages model is "pre-refuted". IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL THEORY! > (A play on Phil Anderson's notion of "pre-falsified" theories, ie, > theories which fail to account for even existing data.) That's what Pauli meant with his famous putdown of a non-theory as "not even wrong". Pauli may have been mean, but he understood what science is and what it isn't. -- Matt Austern He showed his lower teeth. "We matt@physics.berkeley.edu all have flaws," he said, "and http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt mine is being wicked." cudkeys: cuddy02 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.09.30 / P WHEELER / Help:Anything new on Fusion & Fission Originally-From: 005whp@cosmos.wits.ac.za (P.WHEELER) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Help:Anything new on Fusion & Fission Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 11:08:50 GMT Organization: Univerity of the witwatersrand I'm Writing an essay on nuclear energy, I was wondering If there's anything new happening in Fusion & Fission. Can anyone help me with information about the pebble bed reactor? If you can help me, E-Mail to: 005WHP@cosmos.wits.ca.za Cilla Wheeler cudkeys: cuddy30 cuden005whp cudfnP cudlnWHEELER cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Euejin Jeong / Recent Patent on Extracting Unlimited Vacuum Energy Originally-From: ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Recent Patent on Extracting Unlimited Vacuum Energy Date: 2 Oct 1995 22:58:06 GMT Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenejeong cudfnEuejin cudlnJeong cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Bill Rowe / Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Testing the Mitchell Jones Hypothesis Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 17:41:57 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <21cenlogic-0210951059140001@austin-2-6.i-link.net>, 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote: >In article , browe@netcom.com (Bill >Rowe) wrote: > >> The idea of continuity you are expressing seems to be essentially an >> extrapolation of everday experience. While I agree it is a reasonable >> extrapolation and have nothing to replace it with, I am not so certain it >> is a good model for reality. >> >> Suppose both space and time are actually discrete things at some very fine >> level. If the granularity were sufficiently fine there it would be >> exceedingly difficult to impossible to detect the granularity. In this >> case, there would be essentially no difference for most things between a >> continuous and discrete spacetime. Perhaps the characteristics ascribed to >> quantum mechanics are our first glimmerings of a discrete spacetime. > >***{What you basically seem to be saying is that if we get evidence >indicating discontinuities in the microcosm, but not in the macrocosm, we >can count on that situation to continue in the future. In other words, you >propose to use inductive, scientific reasoning to confine discontinuities >to the microcosm. Unfortunately, the validity of the principle of >induction presupposes the validity of the principle of continuity. No, I am not confining discontinuities to the microcosm. If discontinuities exist they must exist at all levels. However, if they are fine enough they will not be observed in the macrocosm even though they exist. You went on to make several comments about scientific induction with references to closed systems. I don't fully understand your usage of the term induction. To me induction is the process of arriving at a general law from specific observations. This would be true for either closed or open systems. It seems like your main objection to a discrete, discontinuous spacetime is the question of what happens to an object between discrete spacetime points. Quite honestly, I have no idea as to what would happen. However, my lack of imagination on this point does not preclude a discrete spacetime. You basic arguement seems to assume it is impossible to move from one point to another in a discrete spacetime without some loss of information. Why is it necessary to make such an assumption? -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy02 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Bill Rowe / Re: Recent Patent on Extracting Unlimited Vacuum Energy Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Recent Patent on Extracting Unlimited Vacuum Energy Date: Mon, 02 Oct 1995 18:00:51 -0700 Organization: AltNet - $5/month uncensored news - http://www.alt.net In article <44pqpu$rph@giga.bga.com>, ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong) wrote: [nothing] Was the missing content an intentional description of the possibility of extracting unlimited energy from a vacuum? -- "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" cudkeys: cuddy02 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.03 / Euejin Jeong / Recent Patent on Extracting Unlimited Vacuum Energy Originally-From: ejeong@bga.com (Euejin Jeong) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Recent Patent on Extracting Unlimited Vacuum Energy Date: 3 Oct 1995 02:10:05 GMT Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates Check out the web site http://www.realtime.net/~ejeong/ for the recent filing of the patent on Unlimited Energy Extraction by Using Dipole Gravity. Euejin cudkeys: cuddy3 cudenejeong cudfnEuejin cudlnJeong cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1995 ------------------------------ 1995.10.02 / Joe Guokas / Re: Kasagi paper Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Kasagi paper Date: 2 Oct 1995 23:04:36 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Regarding: Jirohta Kasagi, Tsutomu Ohtsuki, Keizo Ishii, and Masayuki Hiraga,"Energetic Protons and Alpha Particles Emitted in 150-keV Deuteron Bombardment on Deuterated Ti," J. Phys. Soc. Japan, Vol. 64, No. 3, March, 1995, pp. 777-783. In article <44kpj4$35f@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I posted an article on this earlier which seems to have been lost in the noise on the group. I brought the Kasagi paper to a weekly grad-student discussion group here and we went through the data and decided that Kasagi et. al. seemed to have missed a possiblity. While they consider a sequential reaction involving stopped 3He products fusing with D beam ions, it was definitely not clear that they had considered reactions where the fast 3He products fuse with cold deuterons in the target as they 3He's slow down. Velocity of 150 keV D: 3.8 x 10^6 m/s Velocity of 1 MeV 3He: 8.0 x 10^6 m/s Velocity of 3.6 MeV 4He: 13.1 x 10^6 m/s The center-of-mass velocity of the beam-target D-D reaction is 1.9 x 10^6 m/s. In this frame, 3He ions are born with a center-of-mass energy of 1 MeV, which gives a laboratory-frame velocity spread of (-)6.1 to (+)9.9 x 10^6 m/s, with the low velocity occuring for ions produced travelling back up the beam, and the high velocity for ions travelling along the beam. These 3He ions can *immediately* fuse with stationary D (or beam D, but there's a heck of a lot more stationary D in the target). The center of mass velocity for *this* secondary reaction is 3/5 of the 3He velocity, or -3.7 to +5.9 x 10^6 m/s. The 3He-D reaction then produces alphas with 3.6 MeV in the secondary collision center-of-mass frame, which therefore have velocities in the lab frame of up to 16.8 x 10^6 m/s for alphas propagating back into the beam, or 19.0 x 10^6 m/s in the forward direction. This corresponds to pure-backwards alpha energies up to 5.9 meV and forwards alpha energies up to 7.6 MeV. At the intermediate angles considered by Kasagi et al, and considering that some of the D beam ions will elastically scatter off heavy Ti lattice ions, it seems entirely plausible that one could get a few 6.5 MeV alphas (and, by similar mechanisms, 17+ MeV protons) from 3He-D reactions. There's no need to repeat the experiment or to invoke 3-body reactions until this explanation is proven incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A useful test would be to beam 3He at the target. This beam would simulate the product 3He of the primary reaction d(d,3He)n, and demonstrate its secondary reaction of d(3He,alpha)p. Kasagi performed this test (see page 781 of his paper). The flux of the 3He beam was more than 100 times that of the 3He products of the D beam, yet no alphas were observed. From this he estimates there must be less than 10e-7 secondary reaction per primary reaction. So the number of secondary reactions must be at least one order of magnitude less than the number of alphas observed in the D beam experiments. Bob Heeter presents a good case that the range of alpha energies from econdary reactions could explain the range of Kasagi's reported energies, without requiring 3-body reactions. However, because Kasagi's 3He beam shows secondary reactions cannot account for the observed alpha intensity, an anomaly remains unaccounted for. I hope Steven Jones decides Kasagi's experiment is worth repeating. Could be interesting. -- Joe Guokas cudkeys: cuddy2 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1995 ------------------------------ processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct 3 04:37:04 EDT 1995 ------------------------------