Ron, BTW - that correction also means the Lorenz transformation is not what it appears. It can only be some as yet unexplained mathematical oddity until it is. The "cosmic asymmetries" are a complete fudge at the moment.
I used to design and analyze parts for military aircraft ... once upon a time (for a year or two, nearly 30 years ago) ;-) Been mainly in the Oil, Gas, Refining, Energy & Chemicals engineering business - the last decade in information systems and modelling. Regards Ian On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, X Acto<[email protected]> wrote: > Ian, Thanks for the clarification, Wiki is usually the fastest way > to gain semi-reliable info, enough to prove my point > about Bo's usage of the term anyhoo. But as you > state, it takes alittle digging in other sources to get > a more accurate explaination. > > You design fighters for the RAF don't you? > > -Ron > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:14:31 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Ironistic Metaphysics > > Bo, you sir, are the master of misinformation and a hack. Simply > muck-spreading a meme. > > That "surprising fact" about travelling at different speeds leading to > different relative time is a myth however many wiki pages and popular > science books say otherwise. It would be plain paradoxical if it were > true. > > It's the absolute acceleration not the relative velocity, that > determines which of the relatively moving observers record slower or > faster time, distance and ordering of events. Relatively they are > always both moving at the same velocity relative to each other. > > Even wikipedia gets this right if you look at the right pages between > the right edits. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > > The weirdness is that there does in fact appear to be an inertial > frame of reference for the absolute acceleration "at a given location > in a so-called expanding universe". But of course science largely > chooses to ignore this inconvenience when applying for billion dollar > funding post-Copenhagen. Come back Einstein. > > Regards > Ian > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, X Acto<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Bo: >> The MOQ is a meta-metaphysics compared to the Aristotelian- >> Academical term, but as I try to convey, it robs SOM of its "M" rank >> and thereby degrades it to a sub-set of its own. Some people show >> their inability to pull themselves by hair or bootstraps out of SOM by >> not seeing this "transformation". To move from Newton physics to >> Einstein's needs a set of equations called Lorenz Transformation, the >> SOL is such a procedure from SOM to MOQ. >> >> Ron: >> >> The Lorenz transformation has nothing to do with transforming >> calculations from newtonian to relativity. >> >> "In physics, the Lorentz transformation precisely describes how, >> according to the theory of special relativity, two observers' >> varying measurements of space and time can be converted into >> each other's frame of reference. It reflects the surprising >> fact that observers moving at different velocities report >> different distances, passage of time, and in some cases even >> different orderings of events. The Lorentz transformation was >> the result of attempts by the eponymous Hendrik Lorentz and >> others to explain observed properties of light propagating in >> what was presumed to be the luminiferous aether; Albert Einstein >> later reinterpreted the transformation as a statement about >> the nature of space and time themselves and derived it from >> the axioms of relativity. >> -wiki >> >> You sir, are the master of misinformation and a hack. >> >> The SOL procedure, as far as I have been able get from you, >> it a semantic one of stripping the "M" from SOM and adding it >> to "M"OQ. quite a complicated procedure Bo, what mathematical >> formula did you use? >> >> For you, using the gallery metaphor, MoQ is the only painting in the gallery >> a bigger one than the previouse painting that was the only painting in the >> gallery >> which now hangs as a detail might hang on the larger painting of the MoQ. >> Bo's MoQ. Yay Bo. >> >> But the MoQ I subscribe to. the one that Pirsig presents really isn't a >> painting at all >> but the ability to recognize and value other paintings, it's the knowledge >> that there is no >> one "real" "true" painting that they are all true in their own context and >> their value >> is relative to my own context. >> >> This creates a "radical metaphysic" >> >> Bo's "Meta-Metaphysic" is culturalcentric, limited and falls to the same >> absolutism that SOM does. >> It produces ideas of western cultural superiority. >> >> He produces no support for his assertions other than his rather limited >> reading of Pirsigs work >> and a handfull of vastly misunderstood theories and terms. But he seems to >> have learned >> a very important aspect of "truthiness" that hammering on a single statement >> long enough >> will give it creedance and an illusion of verifyablity and acceptance. >> Where, in P.T. Barnum >> style, the illusion of self importance and granduer go's miles in selling >> snake oil, the aire >> of acerdimic authority is more persuasive than actually knowing what the >> hell one is talking about. >> >> >> but we love our Bo just the same >> >> >> and his struggle with SOM's testicals >> >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
