simple questions [Archive]

Eckard Blumschein

Apr7-04, 08:35 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resize=yes,status=no,wi dth=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nElsewhere I did not get much responses to some curios questions of mine:\n\n1) Who made sure that measured red shift of background radiation from\nuniverse is actually merely due to Doppler effect? Is\'nt there also a\nsimply frequency dependent attenuation similar to sunset glow? Would not\nwe face it as if we were at the middle point of our experienced world?\n\n2) How does time axis of my personal Minkowski\'s cones relate to the\ntime of my clock over a while?\n\n3) A pulse train is called comb or sha function. Did anybody come across\nwith comb(0)=0 ?\n\n4) Does it really make sense in reality to exclude t=0 but not |t|<epsilon?\n\n5) Why do sentences always distinguish between the verb do, what I did,\nand what I will do, while physical equations do not strictly distinguish\nbetween time, elapsed time, and time to come?\n\nE. Blumschein\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Elsewhere I did not get much responses to some curios questions of mine:

1) Who made sure that measured red shift of background radiation from
universe is actually merely due to Doppler effect? Is'nt there also a
simply frequency dependent attenuation similar to sunset glow? Would not
we face it as if we were at the middle point of our experienced world?

2) How does time axis of my personal Minkowski's cones relate to the
time of my clock over a while?

3) A pulse train is called comb or sha function. Did anybody come across
with comb(0)=0 ?

4) Does it really make sense in reality to exclude t=0 but not |t|<\epsilon?

5) Why do sentences always distinguish between the verb do, what I did,
and what I will do, while physical equations do not strictly distinguish
between time, elapsed time, and time to come?

E. Blumschein

Kefka G

Apr7-04, 09:15 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resize=yes,status=no,wi dth=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Eckard Blumschein (blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de) wrote:\n>\n>Elsewhere I did not get much responses to some curios questions of mine:\n>\n>1) Who made sure that measured red shift of background radiation from\n>universe is actually merely due to Doppler effect? Is\'nt there also a\n>simply frequency dependent attenuation similar to sunset glow? Would not\n>we face it as if we were at the middle point of our experienced world?\n\nI think you\'re talking about scattering of light off of matter here, and\nalthough I don\'t know for sure, I think that the density of interstellar matter\nis so slight that the effect of scattering is overwhelmingly dominated by\nredshift. Again, this is not my area of expertise, but as far as I know, the\nastronomers have all of these things calculated out fairly precisely, so if\nthey\'re telling us that it\'s redshift, it\'s probably redshift (and they\'ve\nprobably even calculated what percentage of the effect is due to scattering).\nSorry, don\'t have a reference, though - try Google.\n\n>\n>2) How does time axis of my personal Minkowski\'s cones relate to the\n>time of my clock over a while?\n\nConsidering the fact that your personal light cone always aims straight up and\ndown your time axis, it doesn\'t...your clock will tick at a constant rate\nunless you break it, which would be a rather poor use of a perfectly good\nclock.\n\n>\n>3) A pulse train is called comb or sha function. Did anybody come across\n> with comb(0)=0 ?\n\nSorry, I\'ve never heard this terminology.\n\n>\n>4) Does it really make sense in reality to exclude t=0 but not |t|<epsilon?\n\nDepends what you\'re excluding t=0 from...restate the question, maybe?\n\n>\n>5) Why do sentences always distinguish between the verb do, what I did,\n>and what I will do, while physical equations do not strictly distinguish\n>between time, elapsed time, and time to come?\n\nNow I understand - you\'re a philosophy major. In that case, here\'s an answer\nthat will probably not satisfy you: what you did already happened, what you do\nyou\'re currently doing, and what you will do you have not yet done. But who\nsaid that physical equations do not distinguish between time, elapsed time, and\ntime to come? Time is a label, elapsed time is the difference between two time\nlabels, and time to come is simply a future time label. Physical equations\ndon\'t really distinguish between different values of the time coordinate,\nbecause just like a meterstick works to measure an interval of space regardless\nof whether you start from 0 or 10 cm, (assuming you make the appropriate\ncorrection), a clock will still measure a time interval whether you start it at\nmidnight or 1 AM. This is to some extent an assumption of the fact that our\nphysical laws, if they are valid now, will continue to be valid in a\nweek/month/year/etc. But in reference to the present time, there is a clear\ndistinction (within your light cone) between past, present, and future events.\nOtherwise physics would not be useful in the slightest.\n\n-Eric\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Eckard Blumschein (blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de) wrote:
>
>Elsewhere I did not get much responses to some curios questions of mine:
>
>1) Who made sure that measured red shift of background radiation from
>universe is actually merely due to Doppler effect? Is'nt there also a
>simply frequency dependent attenuation similar to sunset glow? Would not
>we face it as if we were at the middle point of our experienced world?

I think you're talking about scattering of light off of matter here, and
although I don't know for sure, I think that the density of interstellar matter
is so slight that the effect of scattering is overwhelmingly dominated by
redshift. Again, this is not my area of expertise, but as far as I know, the
astronomers have all of these things calculated out fairly precisely, so if
they're telling us that it's redshift, it's probably redshift (and they've
probably even calculated what percentage of the effect is due to scattering).
Sorry, don't have a reference, though - try Google.

>
>2) How does time axis of my personal Minkowski's cones relate to the
>time of my clock over a while?

Considering the fact that your personal light cone always aims straight up and
down your time axis, it doesn't...your clock will tick at a constant rate
unless you break it, which would be a rather poor use of a perfectly good
clock.

>
>3) A pulse train is called comb or sha function. Did anybody come across
> with comb(0)=0 ?

Sorry, I've never heard this terminology.

>
>4) Does it really make sense in reality to exclude t=0 but not |t|<\epsilon?

Depends what you're excluding t=0 from...restate the question, maybe?

>
>5) Why do sentences always distinguish between the verb do, what I did,
>and what I will do, while physical equations do not strictly distinguish
>between time, elapsed time, and time to come?

Now I understand - you're a philosophy major. In that case, here's an answer
that will probably not satisfy you: what you did already happened, what you do
you're currently doing, and what you will do you have not yet done. But who
said that physical equations do not distinguish between time, elapsed time, and
time to come? Time is a label, elapsed time is the difference between two time
labels, and time to come is simply a future time label. Physical equations
don't really distinguish between different values of the time coordinate,
because just like a meterstick works to measure an interval of space regardless
of whether you start from or 10 cm, (assuming you make the appropriate
correction), a clock will still measure a time interval whether you start it at
midnight or 1 AM. This is to some extent an assumption of the fact that our
physical laws, if they are valid now, will continue to be valid in a
week/month/year/etc. But in reference to the present time, there is a clear
distinction (within your light cone) between past, present, and future events.
Otherwise physics would not be useful in the slightest.

-Eric

Cl.Massé

Apr7-04, 09:23 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Eckard Blumschein" <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> a écrit dans le\nmessage de news:40717449.2060807@et.uni-magdeburg.de...\n\n> Elsewhere I did not get much responses to some curios questions of\n> mine:\n>\n> 1) Who made sure that measured red shift of background radiation from\n> universe is actually merely due to Doppler effect? Is\'nt there also a\n> simply frequency dependent attenuation similar to sunset glow?\n\nNo. The spectral lines of known elements, as well as their absorption\nlines, are all shifted by an amount derived from the Doppler effect for\nthe same velocity. The relative intensities of each part of the\nspectrum, that is the apparent colour, aren\'t taken into account.\n\n--\n~~~~ clmasse at free dot fr\nLiberty, Equality, Profitability.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Eckard Blumschein" <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> a écrit dans le
message de news:40717449.2060807@et.uni-magdeburg.de...

> Elsewhere I did not get much responses to some curios questions of
> mine:
>
> 1) Who made sure that measured red shift of background radiation from
> universe is actually merely due to Doppler effect? Is'nt there also a
> simply frequency dependent attenuation similar to sunset glow?

No. The spectral lines of known elements, as well as their absorption
lines, are all shifted by an amount derived from the Doppler effect for
the same velocity. The relative intensities of each part of the
spectrum, that is the apparent colour, aren't taken into account.

--
~~~~ clmasse at free dot fr
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.

Charles Francis

Apr7-04, 09:27 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <40717449.2060807@et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein\n<blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> writes\n>\n>\n>\n>Elsewhere I did not get much responses to some curios questions of mine:\n>\n>1) Who made sure that measured red shift of background radiation from\n>universe is actually merely due to Doppler effect?\n\nIt isn\'t. It is due to the expansion of the universe.\n\n>2) How does time axis of my personal Minkowski\'s cones relate to the\n>time of my clock over a while?\n\nYour clock defines the time axis of your Minkowski frame.\n\n>\n>4) Does it really make sense in reality to exclude t=0 but not |t|<epsilon?\n\nYou don\'t usually exclude t=0. Usually you have an initial condition at\nt=0 and calculate for t>0. If you are talking of the big bang. We don\'t\nreally think classical gtr goes back to t=0 without taking into account\nquantum effects, and we don\'t have the theory for it. But we don\'t know\nat what value of epsilon the classical model breaks down.\n\n>5) Why do sentences always distinguish between the verb do, what I did,\n>and what I will do, while physical equations do not strictly distinguish\n>between time, elapsed time, and time to come?\n>\n\nGrammar.\n\n\n\nRegards\n\n--\nCharles Francis\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <40717449.2060807@et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein
<blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> writes
>
>
>
>Elsewhere I did not get much responses to some curios questions of mine:
>
>1) Who made sure that measured red shift of background radiation from
>universe is actually merely due to Doppler effect?

It isn't. It is due to the expansion of the universe.

>2) How does time axis of my personal Minkowski's cones relate to the
>time of my clock over a while?

Your clock defines the time axis of your Minkowski frame.

>
>4) Does it really make sense in reality to exclude t=0 but not |t|<\epsilon?

You don't usually exclude t=0. Usually you have an initial condition at
t=0 and calculate for t>0. If you are talking of the big bang. We don't
really think classical gtr goes back to t=0 without taking into account
quantum effects, and we don't have the theory for it. But we don't know
at what value of \epsilon the classical model breaks down.

>5) Why do sentences always distinguish between the verb do, what I did,
>and what I will do, while physical equations do not strictly distinguish
>between time, elapsed time, and time to come?
>

Grammar.

Regards

--
Charles Francis

Eckard Blumschein

Apr8-04, 02:28 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Kefka G wrote:\n\n>>1) Who made sure ...\n>\n> ... as far as I know, the\n> astronomers have all of these things calculated out fairly precisely, ...\n\nI do not have any reason not to trust in Peebles but my respect to\nThomas Gold who correctly predictet in 1948 that Lighthill\'s passive\nmodel will not work. Peebles did not get the price awarded to Penzios\nand Wilson.\n\n\n>>2) How does time axis of my personal Minkowski\'s cones relate to the\n>>time of my clock over a while?\n>\n>\n> Considering the fact that your personal light cone always aims straight up and\n> down your time axis, it doesn\'t...\n\nIf I understood you correctly, this time axis always shows zero at the\npoint between the tips of the cones. In other words, this point travels\nalong the common time scale. Correct?\n\n\n>>3) A pulse train is called comb or sha function. Did anybody come across\n>> with comb(0)=0 ?\n>\n> Sorry, I\'ve never heard this terminology.\n\nFourier-Transform of a pulse train yields another pulse train on\ncondition the pulses are symmetrical to zero. A shift e.g. by less than\nT/2 would exclude Hermitian symmetry. I see it reasonabe in two cases:\n- addition of a second train moving in opposite direction, cf.\nStueckleberg, or:\n- just unilateral train. I prefer the latter\n\n\n>>4) Does it really make sense in reality to exclude t=0 but not |t|<epsilon?\n>\n> Depends what you\'re excluding t=0 from...restate the question, maybe?\n\nI cannot conform correct mathematics to be alwasy sensible. Buridan\'s\ndonkey still suffers starvation. Proof of Cantor\'s diagonal argument\nassumes 0.99999... to be equal exactly 1. This would meet my notions.\nNonetheless, I feel that a fundamental contradiction between continuous\ngeometry and integrity of numbers still persists. I do not, however,\nsupport a \'fundamental crisis of mathematics\'.\n\n\n>>5) Why do sentences always distinguish between the verb do, what I did,\n>>and what I will do, while physical equations do not strictly distinguish\n>>between time, elapsed time, and time to come?\n>\n>\n> Now I understand - you\'re a philosophy major.\n\nYou got me wrong. I claim having solved tricky problems: understanding\ncochlear function for the first time, the only natural spectrogram, etc.\nThe trick of mine is to always exactly count just elapsed time but no\nfuture one, because the latter is irrelevant. Elapsed time is\nunilateral. Therefore FCT instead of FT avoids redundancy,\nnon-causality, etc.\n\n\n> This is to some extent an assumption of the fact that our\n> physical laws, if they are valid now, will continue to be valid in a\n> week/month/year/etc.\n\nYes, but I see deterministic thinking a common mistake. Causality is not\nanchored within the laws but within references to elapsed and only\nelapsed time.\n\nMaybe, you will already get aware how my simple questions mutually\nrelate to each other.\n\nE. Blumschein\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Kefka G wrote:

>>1) Who made sure ...
>
> ... as far as I know, the
> astronomers have all of these things calculated out fairly precisely, ...

I do not have any reason not to trust in Peebles but my respect to
Thomas Gold who correctly predictet in 1948 that Lighthill's passive
model will not work. Peebles did not get the price awarded to Penzios
and Wilson.

>>2) How does time axis of my personal Minkowski's cones relate to the
>>time of my clock over a while?
>
>
> Considering the fact that your personal light cone always aims straight up and
> down your time axis, it doesn't...

If I understood you correctly, this time axis always shows zero at the
point between the tips of the cones. In other words, this point travels
along the common time scale. Correct?

>>3) A pulse train is called comb or sha function. Did anybody come across
>> with comb(0)=0 ?
>
> Sorry, I've never heard this terminology.

Fourier-Transform of a pulse train yields another pulse train on
condition the pulses are symmetrical to zero. A shift e.g. by less than
T/2 would exclude Hermitian symmetry. I see it reasonabe in two cases:
- addition of a second train moving in opposite direction, cf.
Stueckleberg, or:
- just unilateral train. I prefer the latter

>>4) Does it really make sense in reality to exclude t=0 but not |t|<\epsilon?
>
> Depends what you're excluding t=0 from...restate the question, maybe?

I cannot conform correct mathematics to be alwasy sensible. Buridan's
donkey still suffers starvation. Proof of Cantor's diagonal argument
assumes .99999... to be equal exactly 1. This would meet my notions.
Nonetheless, I feel that a fundamental contradiction between continuous
geometry and integrity of numbers still persists. I do not, however,
support a 'fundamental crisis of mathematics'.

>>5) Why do sentences always distinguish between the verb do, what I did,
>>and what I will do, while physical equations do not strictly distinguish
>>between time, elapsed time, and time to come?
>
>
> Now I understand - you're a philosophy major.

You got me wrong. I claim having solved tricky problems: understanding
cochlear function for the first time, the only natural spectrogram, etc.
The trick of mine is to always exactly count just elapsed time but no
future one, because the latter is irrelevant. Elapsed time is
unilateral. Therefore FCT instead of FT avoids redundancy,
non-causality, etc.

> This is to some extent an assumption of the fact that our
> physical laws, if they are valid now, will continue to be valid in a
> week/month/year/etc.

Yes, but I see deterministic thinking a common mistake. Causality is not
anchored within the laws but within references to elapsed and only
elapsed time.

Maybe, you will already get aware how my simple questions mutually
relate to each other.

E. Blumschein