Where Have You Gone, Isaac Newton?

Ayn Rand Institute ^ | Oct. 2, 2003 | David Harriman

[js1138]

It's the same sort of intellectual self-mutilation that creationists practice, except that they at least have the excuse of cultural momentum.

Nice turn of phrase. You could be the Ann Coulter of physics. Or the Bill Buckley.

[beavus]

I was merely pointing out that "center" has many meanings. One of which is that of central importance. Many of us believe that the earth is of central importance because of its history.

But THAT meaning has itself a multitude of meanings depending one who the unstated valuer is. The thought is not complete when you merely ask if the earth is of central importance. One meaning would be "central importance to me". Another would be "central importance to you". Another would be "central importance to a creature in Andromeda".

It is impossible for me to think without thinking about something, and it is impossible for something to be important (in the sense your using it) without being important to something.

You could, of course, claim that the universe has no center, but that is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.

Is it a philosphical statement to say "a ring has no end"? Do you think that the current scientific concensus is that the universe has some fixed spatial reference point?

[beavus]

Even light has mass, as demonstrated by a radiometer.

A radiometer demonstrates that light has momentum, not mass. Einstein deduced a useful relation for this in his famous equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where p is momentum, and for light, m=0.

You would have difficulty finding a physics text to teach your students your theory that light has mass. I'm curious, from your experiments or deductions, what is the mass of light?

[beavus]

A radiometer demonstrates that light has momentum

On second thought, that is only one way a radiometer works, but I hope the point that its movement is not due to the mass of light is not lost.

[Restorer]

But THAT meaning has itself a multitude of meanings depending one who the unstated valuer is. The thought is not complete when you merely ask if the earth is of central importance. One meaning would be "central importance to me". Another would be "central importance to you". Another would be "central importance to a creature in Andromeda".

You are no doubt correct, from a materialistic viewpoint, which is purely relativistic. However, as I believe I mentioned, many of us view things from a religious position which makes the earth of ultimate importance for every creature in the universe.

If true, this would mean that some events that have taken place on the earth are of eternal importance.

I realize you probably don't share this viewpoint. What I was trying to point out is that the totally relativistic point of view is not the only one.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Don't be too blown away. She's not a particularly good writer who tends to wordiness and stereotyped characters. Worst of all, she has a utopian vision of society that ignores reality and human nature.

[Mr.Atos]

I have conducted no recent experiments with light and the only texts that I apply with regard to light deal with color, aesthetics, albedo, heat gain, perception and thermal delight, to name a few. These concepts are hardly effected by theories on the fringe, but do definitely rely on the current body of knowledge. For me to reject all that I do know about what has been established concerning physics in pursuit of the fringe research (no matter how significant it is) would be to surrender my own professional standards to certain destruction. Afterall, who would occupy a skyscraper built on the notion that common physics is actually subjective illusion. I believe that this is what the author is actually talking about. He is not denegrating the theoretical process, but pointing out that we can only act in accordance with that which we do currently know while keeping our possibilities open to that which we as yet do not, but neverthleses can know... in time.

As for the differentiation between mass and momentum. I defer to your point in this regard. My observation was only that light exerted a certain degree of force... if even by the transfer of momentum. Since I do not profess to be a current expert on the subject, I will leave it at that.

[beavus]

You are no doubt correct, from a materialistic viewpoint, which is purely relativistic.

What I said has nothing to do with either materialism or relativism. It has everything to do with the meaings of words. Something is not just "liked" without being liked by something, and something is not "important" (in the way you used it) without being important to something. If you are trying to say that such and such a thing is important to god, then say it. But I assure you, as a matter of fact, that not everything has the same importance to everybody. God may hold a random planet in Andromeda with the same importance as earth, but I do not.

[SoDak]

Are you a particularly good writer?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I like to think so, but writing books is not my chosen path.