<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Ted, Donovan,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>This is a dispute over the meaning/usage of
words:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Below is a link to a famous essay on this kind of
dispute.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><A
href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm">http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>For your information below is the first bit of this essay
which focuses on these kinds of problems.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The Logical Positivists and Wittgenstein also extensively
discuss these kinds of disputes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV><FONT size=4>
<DIV><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV>_______________________________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>From: "What Pragmatism Means" by William James</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=fst>SOME YEARS AGO, being with a camping party in the mountains, I
returned from a solitary ramble to find every one engaged in a ferocious
metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel a live squirrel
supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the
trees opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness
tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no
matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction,
and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse
of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: <EM>Does the
man go round the squirrel or not?</EM> He goes round the tree, sure enough, and
the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited
leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Every one had
taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each
side, when I appeared therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of
the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a
distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: Which party is
right, I said, depends on what you practically mean by going round the
squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the
south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man
does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the
contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then
behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious
that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the
squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his
back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther
dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb
to go round in one practical fashion or the other.</P>
<P>Although one or two of the hotter disputants called my speech a shuffling
evasion, saying they wanted no quibbling or scholastic hair-splitting, but meant
just plain honest English round, the majority seemed to think that the
distinction had assuaged the dispute.</P>
<P>I tell this trivial anecdote because it is a peculiarly simple example of
what I wish now to speak of as <EM>the pragmatic method</EM>. The pragmatic
method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise
might be interminable. Is the world one or many? fated or free? material or
spiritual? here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the
world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such
cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical
consequences. What difference would it practically make to any one if this
notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever
can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all
dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some
practical difference that must follow from one side or the others being
right.</P>
<P>__________________________________________</P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From: "Donovan Arnold" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com"><FONT
size=4>donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>To: <</FONT><A href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com"><FONT
size=4>Tbertruss@aol.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>>; <</FONT><A
href="mailto:whayman@adelphia.net"><FONT
size=4>whayman@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT size=4>>; <</FONT><A
href="mailto:predator75@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>predator75@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>>; <</FONT><A
href="mailto:dgray@uidaho.edu"><FONT size=4>dgray@uidaho.edu</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Cc: <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:07 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Newtonian Gravity Replaced by
Space/Time Geometry</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=4>> Ted,<BR>> <BR>> Where
we are mainly disagreeing is that you are<BR>> confusing observable fact for
fact. They are not the<BR>> same thing. <BR>> <BR>> Your write,<BR>>
<BR>> "You're starting to sound like the advocates of<BR>> teaching
creationism as a scientific theory in the<BR>> public schools who state over
and over that evolution<BR>> is not a "fact" but an unproved theory."<BR>>
<BR>> No Ted. Creationists argue that we throw out an<BR>> unproven theory
for a disproved one. I am not<BR>> suggesting this. I am arguing that your
terminology<BR>> regarding validation of scientific theory is<BR>>
incorrect. <BR>> <BR>> "Scientific facts that verify the truth of theories
is<BR>> how science operates: no empirical facts to validate a<BR>>
theory, a theory remains just a theory. Replication<BR>> of
experimental findings that verify theories is the<BR>> cornerstone of how
science connects theory with fact."<BR>> <BR>> No Ted! That is incorrect.
Empirical data cannot PROVE<BR>> a theory as TRUE. A theory can ONLY be
disproved, it<BR>> cannot be PROVED. Therefore it cannot ever be fact.
<BR>> <BR>> There was a theory that the Sun and planets traveled<BR>>
around the Earth. This theory was mathematically<BR>> calculated and written
so that you could find the<BR>> location of the known planets in the sky at
any time<BR>> of the year. There was verifiable empirical evidence<BR>>
that this theory was correct. It could be repeated,<BR>> and other scientists
could replicate the findings. But<BR>> that does not mean that the Sun goes
around the Earth<BR>> because someone can come up with a mathematical<BR>>
formula and can predict where Mars, Venus, the Moon,<BR>> and Jupiter will be
six months from now.<BR>> <BR>> According to your thinking it was fact
that the Sun<BR>> use to revolve around the Earth. It never did, even<BR>>
though a theory was supported by verifiable empirical<BR>> observation.
<BR>> <BR>> Empirical data provides evidence for or against a<BR>>
theory. Some theories are "close enough" to be of<BR>> practical use and are
generally accepted as fact<BR>> because they are so close and applicable. But
that<BR>> does not mean that they are fact. <BR>> <BR>> Just as you
write,<BR>> <BR>> "Gravity in Relativity no longer exists as it is<BR>>
described in Newtonian Physics." <BR>> <BR>> No longer exists?! How could
a theory be fact, then<BR>> all of a sudden no longer be fact? Are you saying
that<BR>> physics changed because we discovered a more accurate<BR>>
theory? Or are you saying that the empirical data<BR>> supporting the
previous theory was recorded<BR>> improperly? I do not think so.<BR>>
<BR>> The reality is we do not know, we cannot know, if a<BR>> theory is
correct or incorrect unless it is disproved<BR>> by an advancement in our
understanding of physics,<BR>> which means we can only disprove a theory or
lend<BR>> support to a theory through empirical observation. So<BR>> we
can never say a theory is fact unless we know<BR>> everything, which we do
not. We can only say empirical<BR>> observation supports a theory. If enough
empirical<BR>> data supports a theory most people will accept it as<BR>>
factual, like Newtonian Physics because it shadows<BR>> their reality close
enough. But you cannot PROVE it to<BR>> be fact. <BR>> <BR>> I also
wish to point out to you Ted that many of<BR>> Einstein's theories appear to
have been disproved<BR>> through empirical data observation and collection
on<BR>> quantum level experiments. I invite you to read on<BR>> recent
findings involving particle entanglement and<BR>> photon tunneling.
<BR>> <BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html"><FONT
size=4>http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>> <BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1993PhRvL..71..708S&amp;db_key=INST"><FONT
size=4>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1993PhRvL..71..708S&amp;db_key=INST</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>> <BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Quantum-World1nov02.htm"><FONT
size=4>http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Quantum-World1nov02.htm</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=4>> <BR>> I leave you with the difference between a mechanic
and<BR>> a physicist.<BR>> <BR>> If you place a man and women on
opposite ends of a 20<BR>> foot room and ask them to each move 1/2 the
distance<BR>> between them every minute when will they meet?<BR>> <BR>>
The physicist will respond with, "Never".<BR>> <BR>> The mechanic will
respond, "For all practical<BR>> purposes, less then 10 minutes."
<BR>> <BR>> Take Care,<BR>> <BR>> Donovan J Arnold<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> --- </FONT><A href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com"><FONT
size=4>Tbertruss@aol.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4> wrote:<BR>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> Donovan wrote:<BR>>> <BR>>> "In science the Theory of
Gravity is still<BR>>> just a theory." <BR>>> <BR>>>
Gravity in Relativity no longer exists as it is<BR>>> described in
Newtonian <BR>>> Physics. It has been replaced by mass altering
the<BR>>> geometry of space/time. Objects <BR>>> near a mass
(our Sun, for example) follow the<BR>>> geometry of space/time (Earth's
<BR>>> orbit follows this geometry) that the mass creates,<BR>>> but
are not acted upon by <BR>>> a force (gravity) at a distance, which is
the<BR>>> intuitive notion that we often <BR>>> think of to imagine
gravity keeping the Earth in<BR>>> orbit around our Sun.<BR>>>
<BR>>> Nonetheless, the Newtonian equations dealing with<BR>>>
gravity, speed, mass and <BR>>> force are perfectly workable to launch
satellites<BR>>> into orbit above Earth. I <BR>>> doubt anyone
at NASA uses Relativity to do the math<BR>>> to successfully launch a
<BR>>> satellite into a required orbit, though I have not<BR>>>
verified this. Newtonian <BR>>> physics does the job just
fine.<BR>>> <BR>>> Though I disagree with you that the theory
of<BR>>> gravity is "just a theory," <BR>>> given that its
predictions have been empirically<BR>>> validated over and over given
<BR>>> certain limitations, it is a good example of a<BR>>>
scientific theory which has been <BR>>> replaced by a more accurate theory
(Relativity) to<BR>>> predict the behavior of <BR>>> matter in those
cases where it is required.<BR>>> <BR>>> </FONT><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity"><FONT
size=4>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>>
<BR>>> This below is from the link above:<BR>>> <BR>>> How
spacetime curvature simulates gravitational<BR>>> force<BR>>>
<BR>>> The curvature of spacetime considered as a whole<BR>>>
implies a rather complex <BR>>> picture that is usually treated with the
tools of<BR>>> differential geometry and that <BR>>> requires the
use of tensor calculus. It is possible<BR>>> though to understand - at
<BR>>> least approximately - the mechanism of gravitation<BR>>>
without tensors when the <BR>>> total curvature of spacetime is split into
two<BR>>> components:<BR>>> <BR>>> curvature of space
<BR>>> time dilation. <BR>>> <BR>>> The above components of
the curvature of spacetime,<BR>>> and only these, are <BR>>>
responsible for the gravitation according to<BR>>> Einstein's theory.The
effect of the <BR>>> first component, the curvature of space,
is<BR>>> negligible in all cases when the <BR>>> velocities of
objects are much smaller than the<BR>>> speed of light and when the
<BR>>> ratios of masses divided by the distances separating<BR>>>
their centers of mass are much <BR>>> smaller than a specific constant,
namely the ratio<BR>>> of speed of light squared <BR>>> to Newtonian
gravitational constant: . So for the<BR>>> majority of cases in the
<BR>>> universe, and certainly for almost all cases in our<BR>>>
solar system except <BR>>> precession of perihelion of Mercury and
deflection<BR>>> of light rays in the vicinity of the <BR>>> Sun, we
may treat the space as flat, as ordinary<BR>>> Euclidean space. It leaves
<BR>>> us only with the gravitational time dilation as a<BR>>>
possible reason for the <BR>>> illusion of "gravitational force" acting at
the<BR>>> distance. Assuming that the ratio <BR>>> of masses to
distances between them are smaller than<BR>>> the constant above, the
<BR>>> time dilation is tiny, but it is enough to cause<BR>>>
"Newtonian gravitational <BR>>> attractive force" as we know it.The reason
for this<BR>>> illusion is this: any mass in <BR>>> the universe
modifies the rate of time in its<BR>>> vicinity this way that time runs
<BR>>> slower closer to the mass and the change of time<BR>>> rate
is controlled by an <BR>>> equation having exactly the same form as
the<BR>>> equation that Newton discovered as his <BR>>> "Law of
Universal Gravitation". The difference<BR>>> between them is in essence
not <BR>>> in form since the Newtonian potential is replaced
by<BR>>> the Einsteinian time <BR>>> rate dt / dt, where t is the
time at a point at<BR>>> vicinity of the mass (the proper <BR>>>
time of objects at this point in space, the time<BR>>> that is measured by
the <BR>>> clocks in this point) and t is the time at observer<BR>>>
at infinity, with the right <BR>>> side of the equation staying the
same as in<BR>>> Newtonian equation (with accuracy to <BR>>>
irrelevant constants). Because of the same form of<BR>>> both equations,
the path <BR>>> of the object that takes an extremum of proper
time<BR>>> while traveling, and by <BR>>> this taking a geodesic in
spacetime, is the same<BR>>> (with accuracy to the negligible <BR>>>
in this case curvature of space) as the Newtonian<BR>>> orbit of this
object around <BR>>> the mass. So it looks as if the path of the
object<BR>>> were bent by some "force <BR>>> of attraction" between
the object and the mass.<BR>>> Since bending of the object's <BR>>>
path is clearly visible and the time dilation<BR>>> extremely difficult to
notice, a <BR>>> (fictitious) "gravitational force" has been
assumed<BR>>> rather than a (real, <BR>>> presently measured with
precise enough and formerly<BR>>> unavailable clocks) time <BR>>>
dilation as the reason for bending the paths of<BR>>> objects moving in
vicinity of <BR>>> masses.So without any force involved into
keeping<BR>>> the traveling object in line the <BR>>> object follows
the Newtonian orbit in space just by<BR>>> following a geodesic in
<BR>>> spacetime. This is Einstein's explanation why<BR>>> without
any "gravitational forces" <BR>>> all the objects follow Newtonian orbits
and at the<BR>>> same time why the Newtonian <BR>>> gravitation is
the approximation of the Einsteinian<BR>>> gravitation.In this way
<BR>>> the Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation" that<BR>>> looked
to people who tried to <BR>>> interpret it as an equation describing
a<BR>>> hypothetical "force of gravitational <BR>>> attraction"
acting at a distance (except to Newton<BR>>> himself who didn't believe
<BR>>> that "action at a distance" is possible) turned out<BR>>> to
be really an equation <BR>>> describing spacetime geodesics in Euclidean
space.<BR>>> We may say that Newton <BR>>> discovered the geodesic
motion in spacetime and<BR>>> Einstein, by applying Riemannian
<BR>>> geometry to it, extended it to the curved spacetime,<BR>>>
disclosed the hidden <BR>>> Newtonian physics, and made its math
accurate.<BR>>> --------------------------------------<BR>>> V2020
post by Ted Moffett<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> ><BR>>
_____________________________________________________<BR>>> List
services made available by First Step<BR>>> Internet, <BR>>>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>>>
<BR>>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT
size=4>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>
<BR>>>
<BR>>>
</FONT><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>><BR>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Yahoo! Mail<BR>> Stay connected,
organized, and protected. Take the tour:<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html"><FONT
size=4>http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>
<BR>> _____________________________________________________<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT
size=4>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT
size=4>
<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=4>>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR>>
<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>