 |
 |
"social astronomy"[!!!] [faster than the breeder of wright] brilliant . . . 11/10 Aubrey At 13:25 09/09/2006, Wright, Steve wrote: >How many angels can you fit on a pin? Why even pose such a silly >question? Well it can effectively distract people with overlarge >brains from focussing on this world rather than the next. > >Jonathan is of course right. Why are we focussing on the speed of >light when we are a climate crisis forum? What we can be sure of is >that our collective mind will not solve climate change at the speed >of light. The rest is infantile.... > >I remember hearing Sir Rudolph Pierls the inventor of the H bomb >trigger harang a group of Pugwash scientists. Individually you are >brilliant - collectively you are stupid! he went on to argue that >all people and all organisations have a stupidity factor which he >labelled sigma. he said one of the objectives of intelligent people >and intelligent organisations should be to reduce their sigma >level...that time has come for us. DO we really need a reminder like >that from someone who has made lethal warfare almost a matter of >omnicide? Well er ...yes! > >We have a choice - we can decide that we are a contemplative group >interested in social astronomy or we can focus. At the moment we can >contemplate the price we will pay and some are paying already. In >the last few weeks we have seen the movement of climate and conflict >refugees from Africa to Europe, the recent climate change camp at >Drax very successfully creating headlines worldwide about global >warming and the quiet announcement that one of the world's biggest >missile companies Raytheon has put into production a microwave >weapon for perimeter control.....Meanwhile we are told in Lebannon >that 100,000 explosive remnants of war have been left. These will >not be cleared at the speed of light but most probably by NGO's and >UN de-miners and of course children whose limbs will be turned into offal... > >So if some wish to continue talking about the speed of light then >fair play...but military forces meanwhile will not be debating >philosophy of science matters but how best to militarise the border >control dillemmas imposed by climate change. We've seen how easy the >civil liberties and human rights dimensions of the current war >against terror have been so easily cast aside...some of us are going >to be very embararssed when those techniques are refocussed in the >days that lie ahead. We have some time - lets leave the how many >angels on a pin/speed of light debates for a while until we have >done at least as much as the climate change camp in making a difference....... > > >Steve > > >---------- >From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum on behalf of Jonathan Ward >Sent: Sat 09/09/2006 11:03 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: RESTORING HONESTY IN SCIENCE > >all, > >surely issues such as the veracity of fundamental laws and theories in >physics can only be discussed by physicists. i would not argue over >technical points in another subject unless i had a firm grounding in all the >relevant facts and theories and methods. > >secondly, for the purposes of a discussion group such as this, we need only >be concerned with the impact of the areas of sciences (or any other subject) >which are affecting the crises we talk about. we need to be practical. if >discussing an area of subject that is well-described, and this theory can be >empirically tested again and again without failure, then don't we need to >use it? > >going back to the speed of light issue: > >Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only >observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it >does not even make any sense to say that it varies. > ><http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html > >easy to find something on the internet which contradicts the argument. > >but read further: ><http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html > >The speed of light, one of the most sacrosanct of the universal physical >constants, may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago - and >not in some far corner of the universe, but right here on Earth. > >so yes, astronomers have started a debate on long term temporal stability of >the speed of light, with the term alpha, depending on c, changing by several > parts in 10*15. no change found in the last 2 billion years. however, >talking about the speed of light's constancy is a tricky business. you need >to consider medium (and changes within that medium over time), the frame of >reference (is it an accelerating frame), and is it absolute constancy, or >relative constancy? everytime you put light through glass or water or >anything with a different refractive index, you are changing its speed. > >and so the debate goes on. theories are often challenged. sometimes they are >changed as a result, sometime they are not, the asserstions of the >challenger are debunked. but the rest of the empirical physics still occurs, >we can see and test that. it is a subject that is about creating best-fit >theories to allow us to understand and predict the world around us to the >best of our abilities. challenging einstein's theory of relativity will not >change our understanding at a practical level of the the physics of thermal >transfer, convection currents and solar energy transfer and greenhouse >effect modelling. and this is my point. we have tools that work currently, >some better than others. but these are what we need to be concentrating on. >the most urgently needed ones. > >physics, philosophically is often in crisis. and probably will continue to >be, as it is a subject that tries to understand the fundementals of a >universe. but it will be contested by other physicists. > >so this is a crisis-forum, but i thought we would be discussing clear and >present dangers, crises that impact upon all facets of our lives. whether c >is constant or not does not change our lives presently, just our >understanding. water shortages, overpopulation, climate change, peakoil, >wars, plagues, extreme weather, energy shortages - these are the crises that >are affecting us now, or will be soon. should be we discussing these and in >more detail? > >best, > >Jonathan >To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go >to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm Aubrey Meyer Director Global Commons Institute [GCI] 37 Ravenswood Road LONDON E17 9LY UK Phone 00 44 (0)208 520 4742 email [log in to unmask] web http://www.gci.org.uk To receive C&C development circulars send an email to: [log in to unmask]