Posted on 09/23/2002 9:27:50 AM PDT by vannrox
Maybe e absorbed some c.
Maybe e absorbed some c.
i before e except after c.
Does that help?
Actually, I don't see how this necessarily follows from this finding. There are a lot of other questionable and unstated assumptions that have to be made to get from here to there. Also, this seems to use a naive (quasi-Newtonian) interpretation of the second law, rather than the full expression of it (which is rarely brought up because it is ugly, makes the math complicated, and usually isn't necessary). *shrug*.
One of my favorite parts of science is that stuff always changes, although there IS slow convergence with time.
Interesting. So if it's time itself that is variable?
Suppose the 'speed' of time is what has change? Isn't the speed of subatomic particles related to their temp? And it's known that the temp of the universe *has* decreased?
Therefore . . .
While I agree with your assessment of the comment you were referring to, there are deep mathematical reasons why the 2nd Law needs to be correct. The 2nd law has been around forever; the mathematics that suggest it isn't just a random feature came much later.
Is the speed of light slowing at a constant rate? What rate?
Is the rate of deceleration increasing?
Decreasing? (this has been a staple of creationist speculation for many moons)
Was it always slowing?
That's what makes me wonder.
Would also mention that Stephen Hawking, I believe, said Einstein did not prove Newton wrong, merely incomplete. Seems to me that even if this speculative theory is proven correct, the same would be true of this discovery.
Also, you are correct in your statement that Einstein qualified by saying "for all observers."
Since I don't really have a science background, I've really never understood the controversy over light changing speed. I thought that prisms and water proved that light changed speed, or at least strongly suggested it, as a change in direction required a change in speed.
I work my way through these books, often re-reading a sentence or paragraph several times until I feel that I've understood. This clearly indicates depth, which is why I happen to disagree with one of your conclusions:
Is it because I'm stupid? I guess it depends on how you define intelligence… I wanted to become a… physicist… That was before I discovered that I have no talent for math.
Although a mathematics genius often declares him(her)self early, it is very, very hard to determine who does not have talent for mathematics. This is because most people do not encounter mathematics at school, although that may be the subject of the course.
A person that cannot undo parentheses in algebra falls behind very quickly and, more often than not, concludes, incorrectly, that "math is not for him." Well, this is much like studying the rules of the road without ever getting behind the wheel, getting bored to death, letting your mind wonder as a result, failing to perform and concluding that "driving is not for you." All of us, regardless of our capabilities, need an objective to stay focused; when one is not given, the mind simply shuts down to preserve itself --- very wisely, if you stop to think of it --- and we oftentimes confound that with inaptitude.
Undoing parenthesis and trigonometric identities are much like the words we use in speech, and mastering them is similar to learning to speak. Mathematical thinking, however, lies beyond that: it is what you speak about, not the words one uses. One has to get beyond the mundane, yet initially arduous, tasks to start seeing images. (I feel the same when I listen to Bach or Vivaldi: their music intertwines quite easily with what I see while doing mathematics.) It is incredibly rare, however, to encounter a schoolteacher that can impart this feeling to students. As a result, people often interpret their lack of early progress in mathematics as their own failure; hardly ever they have a chance to reconsider.
From what you kindly shared with me, I am confident that you merely had a bad teacher.
Although my customers sometimes tell me they appreciate my work, no one ever expresses admiration. But when I'm interpreting at a conference, invariably one or several participants will walk up to me and say, "Oh, I'm completely in awe at what you guys do. How do you do it?"
As I am sure you know, how people perceive an object and the degree to which they like or are surprised by it depends not only on the object but on the observer himself. Someone has defined satisfaction as "quality delivered minus quality expected." Most conference participants have very low expectation of what they could do being in your shoes: yours is a rare talent, and most people do not even attempt simultaneous translation. The difference between these expectations and the "quality delivered" by you is therefore enormous, hence the reaction.
Although the skills required for "paper' translation are also nontrivial, people can relate to them easier: "Well, he just learned a foreign language; had I done so, given enough time, I could do that also." Never mind the falsehood (incompleteness) of such assumptions --- they result in quite high "quality expected," hence lower evaluation.
In your case, evaluation is a subtle matter, but most are much more blatant and ridiculous. I never knew that until I started to teach myself. As I am writing this, I recall an evaluation that a colleague of mine received from a student after a quarter-long, graduate-level business course. It contained one sentence: "Wears nice shoes." Go figure…
Thanks for writing; I enjoyed our conversation.
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.