Israel civ

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I'm not saying Newton was wrong, but that his theory is only an approximation.

All theories/models are approximations. this is just as true of SR/QM as of classical mechanics.

You can derive classical mechanics from relativistic theory or quantum mechanics - but you must make assumptions to acheive it - meaning it is only valid when those assumptions hold. Therefore SR & QM are definitely better theories as they are more encompassing and don't make assumptions.

Not "assumptions", but restrictions. Classical mechanics are equally valid to quantum mechanics when, in general, when multiplying/dividing by a factor of sqrt(1 - square(v/c)) will not affect the result within the observable number of significant digits.

OTOH, relativistic calculations have been accurate in all situations and to all levels of significant digits that we have so far been able to observe (as was true of classical mechanics a mere 150 years ago). Just as this did not guarantee the future correspondance of the classical model 150 years ago, we have no current guarantees on SR/QM.

[One_Brow]

XarXo,

You had said that English is not your first language, and that may be of the problem. Perhaps you should consult with someone who speaks your language to clarify some of these ideas.

Frankly, it sounds as if you have been reading some layman's text that explain mathmatical ideas and combining these ideas in ways that do not mesh. It would be like trying to describe the details of surgery after reading some descriptions of anatomy from Reader's Digest.

For example:

The || function, is teh basic comparation, so:

infinite ^ infinite = infinite -> T == T -> T
infinite ^ 0 = 0 (by exclusion) T == F -> F
0 ^infinite = 0 F == T -> F
0 ^ 0 = infinite (by exclusion) F == F -> T

This is very important, the results are appliable to obtain the ¬ not system that generates the rest in the + group (in this case, the variation of total modulus in negative values)

It looks like you are combining a discussion of the minimal necessary logical operators needed to generate all possible truth value outcomes in a Boolean construction with some abstract algebra/number theory regarding the generation of groups. The result is plain nonsense.

[Dauphin]

one_brow, I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet. I haven't seen anything you've written that I disagree with, and I'm at loss as to what exactly it is that I've said that you disagree with.

[One_Brow]

Sagacious Dolphin:

My disagrement would be that you seem to imparting reality into a model/approximation. Perhaps I am quibbling over semantics. For example:

"For example, changing from Newton to Einstein is more than a semantic issue, and more than a change in interpretation. Interpretation assumes the known facts do not change. Yet it was a change in the known facts that led to the new theory."

There was no change in known facts that showed SR to be a more correspondent model than classical mechanics. It was the addition of previously unknown facts, outside the previous range of established conditions, that showed the predictive ability of the classical model was insufficient under said conditions. You spoke of these models as being "proven" or "disproven", as if they have some inherent reality, but all they can be is "tested".

Also, there is an inherent bias toward simplification in our models. For eample, Newton could have used the relatavistic formulae, but had no reason to add in what, at that point, were unneeded complicaitons. For example, an atillery officer does not need to used relatavistic effects in his calculations, they would be insignificant. This does not disprove SR, but rather verifies the use of classical mechanics within the domain of values that it was origianlly determined.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by One_Brow
Sagacious Dolphin:

My disagrement would be that you seem to imparting reality into a model/approximation. Perhaps I am quibbling over semantics. For example:

"For example, changing from Newton to Einstein is more than a semantic issue, and more than a change in interpretation. Interpretation assumes the known facts do not change. Yet it was a change in the known facts that led to the new theory."

I'm not meaning to impart reality, only the way reality is perceived. One equation is no more "real" than the other, but the way the theories are viewed. Newton saw space and time as immutable and fixed, Einstein saw them as flexible (in the loosest sense of the terms).

You spoke of these models as being "proven" or "disproven", as if they have some inherent reality, but all they can be is "tested".

"Proven" is a delicate term. By that I meant that, experimentally, no testing has countered the predictions of SR but they have countered the predictions of classical mechanics in certain areas. I'm sure SR will be countered one day and a more "accurate" model will be obtained.

And sure, classical mechanics is much easier to use when the difference between its predictions and relativity's are insignificant such as when v << c.

There was no change in known facts that showed SR to be a more correspondent model than classical mechanics

I was refering to the fact that observers are important. The speed of light is constant to all observers. This is not strictly a change in facts, but is a change in what was expected (i.e speed dependent on medium or source).

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

There was no change in known facts that showed SR to be a more correspondent model than classical mechanics

I was refering to the fact that observers are as important as the observed.

This is a prediction of the theoetical model, but I don't think it would be possible to verify experimentally. n How do you measure the change due to measurment?

In any case, the effect from oservational interference would be too small to be detected within the range of facts that was used to establish classical mechanics. It would still be a new fact, not a change in a known fact.

[Dauphin]

I edited my above post to clarify what I meant.

[gsmoove23]

This was a pretty good thread until the mathematicians hijacked it

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

There was no change in known facts that showed SR to be a more correspondent model than classical mechanics

I was refering to the fact that observers are important. The speed of light is constant to all observers. This is not strictly a change in facts, but is a change in what was expected (i.e speed dependent on medium or source).

This is exactly my point. The extrapolation of of the model into untested conditions (high speeds) does not invalidate the model under the conditions that devised it.

BTW, the speed of light is medium-dependent. For example, light moves slower in water than air (otherwise there would be no rainbows). It is merely source-independent.

[Dauphin]

Its dropping into nit-picking now. I'll rephrase - There is no ether, or medium, which propagates light.

[Az]

There is an apparent gape in the knowledge of The history of the region. What is known now, is that the hebrews were a PART of a larger group of people that were called Canaanites. Another well-known people from that group are the Phoenicians. Other groups include the Amonnites , The Moabites , and a number of lesser tribes I can't remember.( I can testify that seeing the phoenician alphabeth, and dieties, I was astounded by their similarity to us) .Most chances are that the concept 'hebrews' , "ha ivrim" was formed MUCH after they settled in the land. The canaanite ( a concept that didn't exist then, either ) tribes migrated into the areas which now known as Israel, The PA and Jordan, in late-prehistoric times , pushing from the north, and displacing tribes of african descent. The story of the migration to egypt, and consequent slavery,is doubtful, but possible, IIRC. The Phillistines are settlers from the agean sea, and genealogically probably have little in common with the palestinians. The story that was told in the bible After Saul, is probably truth, in essense ( without the theological parts ). two hebrew kingdoms are traced throughout the ages, one is called Judea, the other is Israel, and they appear to be rather small principalities. Assyria captures Israel and disperses it's people. later , The resurgent Babylon captures Judea, and disperses most of it's population as well. However, the Babylonian triumph is short lived , as a new power emerges. Persia sweeps throughout the the Mid-east, and sinse a very short ( historically speaking) period of time has passed, the people return, to a pretty empty land. AtG sweeps across the area a couple of hundreds of years later. The land is being a border zone between the Ptolmeics and the Seleucids. The hellenic rulers build hellenic cultural buildings, and try to change the culture of the Judeans, with limited success. A rebellion rises, by a group of judean zealots, led by a family of judean priests. The rebellion succeeds, and a judean dynasty of priest-kings is created, and lasts for a couple of hundreds of years, in which the high judeans due to the existance of central government, and their numeric strength subdue many other surrounding canaanite tribes, such as the Moabites, and forcefully convert some of them into Judaism. Roman occupation of the entire east-med occurs. After several rebellions, The Romans moved in to uproot the culture and most of the judean inhabitants, And to refrain the country from every having a national identity again, call their province Palestina.

You wanna know more , search the web. ( but be careful. There are lots of lies , from all sides, but mostly the anti-Israeli , and the anti-jewish. there simply are much more anti-semites, than jewish extreme nationalists. )

[gsmoove23]

Azazel,

Thanks for the history, I didn't know alot of it, but I have to question the assumption that the Phillistines and Palestinians aren't related in some way, albeit mixed up and defused through the centuries. Is it possible that the Romans could have been referring to the Phillistines who might have been the dominant group, after the Judean culture, when they named it Palestina. The words are incredibly similar.

[Beren]

The Romans had to deal with a revolt in Judea. After that they were so mad that they didn't want to refer to the Judeans, being the province. So they called it after the Phillistines: Palestina.

[Solomyr]

the fact that those ancient Jews pissed the Romans off so badly they had to change the name of the land and expell the people just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling

of course, that was also the start of the last 2000 years of problems...but, i'll take what i can get.

[Apep]

As usual it is the Britishs' fault,
Well not really it was the USA that gave Palesine to the Jews & Isreal was not a colonial aquisition it was ceased from the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI (Could be a colonial aquisition I guess, but not really) Palestine has belonged to the Palestinians since the Romans lost it. Before that it was Roman, Before that Jewish, Before that Egyptian, Before that Jewish, Before that it was Caananite (Phonecian), But the earliest inhabitants were the people of Jericho in 7000 BC! Or earlier. The point I'm making is this piece of land is the most disputed on Earth and as no person is immortal, no culture is either, their is always a stronger one waiting behind it (Interpretation of Karl Marx). It is promised but it is promised to two peoples and hopefully they can learn they don't have to be one people to live on the same land. On the other hand they might decide not to.
The claim that Palestine should cease terrorist action to get some land back is absurd. Unfortunatly it is absolutly impossible to stop someone who wishes to kill and is not afraid of death, after all they aren't under the Governments control. If anything the Government is under their control, as was the state in Afghanistan I gather.