Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Journal of New England Antiquities Research Association, 26, 1-14, 1991 ^ | First version published in 1985 as Quaderno 85/3. | Emilio Spedicato - University of Bergamo

Posted on 04/19/2002 12:42:27 PM PDT by vannrox

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2002 12:42:27 PM PDT by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Immanuel Velikovsky is dead. Let him rest in peace.
2 posted on 04/19/2002 1:15:10 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: vannrox
We're dooomed... DOOOOOOOOooooommmed...

Wall Street Journal: "World Ends Tomorrow - Markets Plunge in Heavy Trading"
New York Times: "World to End Tomorrow - Details and Analysis on Page 13"
U.S.A. Today: "We're Outta Here!"
Washington Post: "World Ends Tomorrow - Women and Minorities Hardest Hit"

Actually, on a somewhat more (or less) serious note...

The energy corresponding to Turco's data is 1.4 1025 erg, approximately the same liberated in the explosion of five hundred hydrogen bombs of one megaton (500 MT); the energy corresponding to Ganapathy's data would be 1000 MT. Estimates as low as 10 MT or 30 MT have also been given (Ben-Menahem [103], Deacon [104]), while La Violette [105] again argues for energies in the range 250 - 1000 MT. An important effect of the Tunguska atmospheric explosion, analyzed by Turco et al., may have been the production of large amounts of nitric oxide (up to 30 million tons), leading to a strong depletion (30%) of the stratospheric ozone.

I read, in a book on the event, that the ratio of radiated energy to mechanical ("blast") energy which was calculated of that event, is *only* possible in a nuclear event - that *no* chemical reaction or ordinary mechanical explosion could have produced the effects found at Tunguska.

4 posted on 04/19/2002 2:12:01 PM PDT by fire_eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
First impression: there is no such word as catastrophical.
5 posted on 04/19/2002 2:12:58 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fire_eye
I read, in a book on the event, that the ratio of radiated energy to mechanical ("blast") energy which was calculated of that event, is *only* possible in a nuclear event - that *no* chemical reaction or ordinary mechanical explosion could have produced the effects found at Tunguska.

Goodness, that must surely make it true! In a real book, you say? With, like, a cover and everything?

Sorry for the impolite response, but you can find someone to write almost anything, and find someone to publish it as well.

That's actually a good thing. What's disappointing is that you can also get some people to believe whatever someone might write.

For myself, I think I'll believe in conservation of angular and linear momentum instead of 'catastrophical' occurences that violate it.
6 posted on 04/19/2002 2:24:01 PM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Thanks for the post, gonna bookmark.
7 posted on 04/19/2002 9:23:48 PM PDT by jwfiv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
"...For myself, I think I'll believe in conservation of angular and linear momentum instead of 'catastrophical' occurences that violate it..."

Now you are talking my language. This is what I do for a living. So, I must ask you just how the catastrophe Theory actually violates the conservation of angular and linear momentum?

(You might want to refer to the wonderful text by Alexander Woodcock and Davis)

div class=Section1>

Chapter 2







The imaginative ideas from which scientific work originates depend on a sensitive receptiveness to the oddity of nature, essentially similar to that of the artist. When they are first proposed they often have the same quality of unexpectedness, and perhaps wrongheadedness, as say, cubism, abstract art, or atonal music.




A new idea doesn't necessarily meet with a warmer reception in science than in art or any other human activity. Like most of us, scientists are generally content with established ideas unless a specific problem demands new mathematical or conceptual tools. They rarely have contact with pure mathematicians, and most of them are no more concerned with the philosophy of science than most lawyers are with the philosophy of law.


Although Rene' Thom's creativity in pure mathematics earned him honor among his colleagues twenty years ago, it was familiar only to a small group. And although his natural philosophy was profound and original, it would not by itself have made a stir in science. Yet combined in catastrophe theory, the mathematics and philosophy are having a wide impact. Thom's book, Structural Stability and Morphogenesis, was published only a few years ago,







THE UNFOLDING OF CATASTROPHE THEORY                                                                              15


but today catastrophe theory is being used to describe phenomena as diverse as psychological crises and chemical reactions. At the same time, critics are denying that the theory can or should be applied at all. It's beautiful mathematics, they say, but has nothing to do with the real world, and the claims that have been made for its wide range and possible predictive value are "the height of scientific irresponsibility." In an exchange of letters in Science, mathematician Marjorie Senecbal wrote: "I am fascinated by the sense of mission that drives some scientists to denounce heretics and heresies, and by the ease with which others abandon their objectivity and jump on bandwagons."


How did Thom's abstract new vision of the world so quickly become a heresy, and the opposition to it a bandwagon? And bow was his work in an esoteric branch of mathematics turned to detailed applications? To answer these questions, we must look back at the theory's roots in mathematics and science; at its growth from the early 1960s onward, which brought it to the attention of many scientists even before the publication of Thom's book; and finally, at its divergent evolution in Thom's thinking and that of E. Christopher Zeeman, the English mathematician who contributed to catastrophe theory's birth, has been its most active advocate, and stands at the center of the current controversy.




Thom has long bad a reputation for the ambition, even the riskiness, of his mathematical ideas‑and for their success. In 1946, at twenty‑three, he graduated from the prestigious ‑rcole Normalee Supgrieure. This college, long a pinnacle of France's national school system, awards only a few dozen degrees each year in science and mathematics. In 1951, Thom wrote his doctorate in topology. "He was full of ideas and enthusiasm," recalls a contemporary. "There were great topologists in the older generation but Thom wasn't anyone's disciple‑he had more in




common with Darboux and Poincare" (Gaston Darboux was France's leading geometer at the end of the nineteenth century ‑a century in which Gauss, Bolyai, and Lobacbevsky bad created alternatives to classical, three‑dimensional, Euclidean geometry,






16                                                                                                                                                               CATASTROPHE THEORY


and Riemann had generalized their work into a theory that paved the way for Einstein. Henri Poincare Darboux's contemporary, has been called "the last universalist": the last mathematician to do first‑rate work in all areas of pure and applied mathematics, and to write for a lay audience as well. Many believe that be very nearly anticipated Einstein in stating the theory of relativity.)


Thom published few papers, although it is said that they contained many of the most important ideas in topology of the 1950s. His colleagues prodded him to get his work on paper, and be gained a reputation for preferring intuition to technical rigor. "Some mathematicians go at their work like engineers building a six‑lane highway through the jungle," says mathematician Tim Poston, "laying out surveying lines, clearing the underbrush, and so on. But Thom is like some creature of the mathematical jungle, blazing a trail and leaving just a few marks on his way to the next beautiful clearing."


In a 1954 paper, Thom set forth the concept of transversality. To squeeze it into a nutshell, transversality concerns the ways in which the smooth curves of analysis (the abstract descendant of calculus) can intersect or "cut" each other. These cuts can be clean, or they can be mathematically messy in a variety of interesting ways; transversality demonstrated that most cuts are clean, and gave mathematicians a "handle" on those that aren't. Many problems considered as part of analysis were illuminated by Thom's topological approach, and transversality has stimulated and unified a number of mathematical advances since 1954. It made possible Thom's theory of co‑bordism, for example, for which be won the 1958 Fields Medal (mathematics' highest international honor), and other developments such as Milnor's "exotic sphere" ‑ a seven‑dimensional form with properties as surprising to a topologist as, say, those of a fire‑breathing dragon would be to a biologist.


Thom taught at the University of Grenoble until 1957, then moved to the University of Strasbourg. He pursued the implications of transversality and linked them to the work of others such as Hassler Whitney, an American topologist at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies. Whitney bad studied the singularities of mappings‑phenomena that occur when the points of






THE UNFOLDING OF CATASTROPHE THEORY                                                                              17


one surface are projected onto another as the surfaces are topologically distorted.


Besides its meaning in topology, "singularity" has another meaning in calculus and analysis There, it is a point on a graphic curve where the direction or quality of curvature changes. In Figure 1, the four singularities (a local maximum, two local minima, and a point of inflection) are labeled: you can see that at each one, the slope of the curve is momentarily level. The maximum and the two minima are called "local" because they are not necessarily the highest or lowest points on the curve, merely higher or lower than their immediate neighbors. These points are of interest in many practical applications of calculusfor example, if x represents the temperature at which a fuel is burned and y the amount of pollution; or if x represents the amount of pressure used to forge metal and y its resulting strength. There is a discipline known as the calculus of variations, in which mathematicians have developed general techniques for locating these singularities (given the equation corresponding to the curve). Thom became interested in the relationship between the calculus of variations and Whitney's topological singularities.


He was not the first to see such a connection. In the 1880s and 1890s, Henri Poincare bad linked calculus and topology (then called "analysis situs," analysis of location) to create qualitative Figure 1. Singularities of a curve.


y A




dynamics and apply it to unsolved problems of planetary motion. This may seem strange; after all, dynamics had been a firmly quantitative field since Newton. But Newton's methods yield explicit solutions only for the interaction of two bodies‑for example, the sun and the earth, or the earth and the moon. When three or more bodies are involved, the equations of motion cannot be solved directly, and even approximate solutions require tedious, complex procedures. Around 1800 Pierre Simon de Laplace, the great mathematical physicist known as "the Newton of France," had tried at length‑but without success‑to show that all the two‑body attractions of the solar system added up to a stable dynamic system, a grand perpetual‑motion machine that would run forever.


Poincare set out to show that even if quantitative solutions were impossible, it was still possible to make progress on important questions: does a complex, many‑body system return periodically to the same arrangement? Does a slight perturbation simply "nudge" the whole system, or does it lead eventually to qualitatively different behavior, such as a planet spiraling into the sun or colliding with another planet? Though he did not fulfill Laplace's earlier hopes, Poincare inaugurated a valuable new approach. His fellow mathematicians saw its value, but thought it arbitrary because it was adapted to a particular physical problem rather than being part of a general method: they called it "so new, so perfect and so hard to follow up." Gaston Darboux, Poincare's biographer, explained: "Poincare was an intuitionist. Having once arrived at the summit he never retraced his steps. He was satisfied to have crashed through the difficulties, and left to others the pains of mapping the royal roads destined to lead more easily to the end." As E. T. Bell, a historian of mathematics, summed it up in 1937:


"Much of Poincare's work in his astronomical researches was qualitative rather than quantitative, as befitted an intuitionist, and this characteristic led him, as it had led Riemann, to the study of analysis situs. On this he published six famous memoirs which revolutionized the subject as it existed in his day . . . He modernized the attack [on planetary motions]; indeed his campaign was so extremely modern to the majority of experts ... (continues, but you get the drift)






8 posted on 04/20/2002 9:22:03 AM PDT by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vannrox; Light Speed; RightWhale
2003 bump.
9 posted on 01/02/2003 11:25:04 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
I am always suitably impressed at the ability of the educated tin-foil crowd to predict our impending doom with footnotes. The scale of devastation from these scenarios is always beyond our technological capability to deal with, threat and aftermath. If they are right we die off in large numbers. If they are wrong we die off in large numbers from something else. C'est la vie ou c'est le mort. My fear is palpable and unavoidable. Bartender! Could I get another Heineken?
10 posted on 01/02/2003 11:34:48 AM PST by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fire_eye
Kinetic energy is vastly underrated.
11 posted on 01/02/2003 12:00:34 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Brian Marsden's "Catalogue of Cometary Orbits" of 1997..added to since that time...lists roughly 1,548 comets for which sufficient data exist to compute orbits...91 from the extremely scanty historical data that has come down to us from the period before the 17th Century..the rest from cometary passages recorded during the last 3 centuries.
What science really knows about other words...derives from data on an incredibly narrow sample of cometary behavior as observed from our tiny corner of the 3 centuries.
As per the article...planetary gravametrics do influnce the behavior of comets and the fragmented break up of supers which now circle in ellipses around the sun..or in ellipses around the outer solar system.
Recent study has found out that comets outgas at an unpredictable rate...most noted when heading away from the Sun.
The your Appollo or Space Shuttle's thrusters used for postional the case of the comets...they begin to barrel roll and shift postion like rocket boosters were being fired....the outcome...their postional ellipse changes....the movement changing thier angle..and time.
studying return dates of comets reveals this gravametric/thruster shifting..which equals time values...meaning that a miss by 500,000 klms and a certain number of hrs ..maybe come a close call later..and possibly an impact.
Comet Hale Bopp showed up out of nowhere...having not been seen for an estimated 4,000 yrs.
some comets with orbits of 12,000-90,000 yrs could theoretically appear out of the night any time..without warning.
The "Cape effect"..the violent outgassing of the comets reveals they can shift their orbits..making mapping them a guess.
Since the first optical confirmation of the existence of giant comets in the Kuiper belt in 1992 no such object has yet been seen to fragment.
Ordinary comets,which are intimately related to the giants in every respect are frequently observed to break apart..relasing swarms of "MIRVed" intercontinental missile warheads.
One example was comet Biela..which had a computed orbit that came within 20,000 miles of the Earth.
Discovered in 1826....its return was calculated..retarding influence of Jupiter and Saturn incorporated.
In 1832 it missed by one month.
In 1846 something appeared in 2 seperate 2 race horses 16,000 miles apart.
Now it has dissapeared...its fragments hanging around out their somewhere.
From 1885 to 1892 spectacular meteor showers were some locals 160,000 shooting stars...
Today the debrie of comet Biela returns annually as the Andromeda meteor shower.
12 posted on 01/02/2003 1:35:38 PM PST by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Light Speed
13 posted on 01/02/2003 2:13:11 PM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Well, so is the gravitational constant... I mean, just
look at how *small* it is...
14 posted on 01/06/2003 12:24:06 AM PST by fire_eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Please put into the GGG files. Thanks.
15 posted on 08/05/2003 6:09:59 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blam; *Gods, Graves, Glyphs; carenot; freedom9; FreeLibertarian; Little Ray; lizma; ...
Gods, Graves, Glyphs
List for articles regarding early civilizations , life of all forms, - dinosaurs - etc.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this ping list.

16 posted on 08/05/2003 9:43:32 PM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Just updating the GGG information, not sending a general distribution.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest
-- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

17 posted on 05/19/2005 8:55:07 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FR profiled updated Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Fewer graphics, faster loading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoCmpromiz

ping, I think..

18 posted on 07/22/2005 10:28:17 PM PDT by NoCmpromiz (Deja Moo - The feeling you've heard this bull before...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 75thOVI; AndrewC; Avoiding_Sulla; BenLurkin; Berosus; CGVet58; chilepepper; ckilmer; demlosers; ...
from 2002:

19 posted on 07/22/2006 10:17:12 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

just an update (two, actually).
Gods, Graves, Glyphs ping list
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
Catastrophism ping list
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

20 posted on 03/06/2007 10:43:35 PM PST by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Thursday, February 19, 2007.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson