Streandering Meams

And if you want to see something that is not only cool, but geeky cool, go to their [Location] > [Off planet] menu item.

What spheres are next?

I received the March issue of Dr. Dobb's Math Power Newsletter and read that the editor & chief expositor, Homer Tilton, was flacking a book he and Florentin Smarandache wrote to expose Einstein's error--that a rocketship (sic) cannot go faster than the speed of light: Begin the Adventure: How to Break the Light Barrier by A.D. 2070.

Apparently, in Tilton & Smarandache's Gedankenexperiments, you can get over the hurdle of light speed by jettisoning all non-essential items on the ship (at high speeds)--or maybe that is how you avoid smacking into the Himalayas in your balloon trip around the world--I am confused on this point, which is a non sequitur. Non sequiturs, in the hands of T&S, turn out to be a powerful means of adducing proof. Find them in Einstein's expositions and you poke a hole in his theory.

Since Dr. Dobb's has put the Math Power Newsletter in an area available only to subscribers, and since Tilton has expressly restricted duplication such that only "A limited number of copies may be made at educational institutions for internal use of faculty and students," I won't quote the newsletter in full, but I can give a few excerpts. First of all, let me preface my critique by saying that since no "hard numbers" or equations are adduced, Tilton basically uses rhetoric to find the flaws in Einstein's arguments; accordingly, I will just have my rhetorical fun in return. For those who want a firmer foundation for their scientific entertainment, see my recommended reading below.

Since there is no luminiferous ether, there can be no "road" in space upon which to conceptually post a sign like this for rocketships: ------------------------------------------- | SPEED lIMIT 300 MEGAMETERS PER SECOND | | STRICTLY ENFORCED | ------------------------------------------- | | | | -------- --------

I love this since the line printer orientation of the rebuttal does lend itself to dramatic effect. I also envision Tilton as a high altitude sky diver who shreds his chute because there is no sign saying

| ----- TERMINAL VELOCITY FOR FREEFALL REACHED ----- |.

The reference to "luminiferous ether" is an egregious non sequitur, but I can't tell if it is used for irony or not. One would hope so, since it is a long row to hoe if one has yet to get past Michelson-Morley on one's way to overturning Einstein.

Looks like another non sequitur, and an easing back by Einstein from an earlier position; for aren't gravitation and acceleration fields equivalent?

Yes, in just the same way that mammals and Homer Tilton are equivalent. The Einstein quote that Tilton is trying to sucker punch only mentions acceleration, not an "acceleration field," ("Quick, step on the gas and create an acceleration field!") but we'll ignore that, since I would much rather see Tilton set up an equivalence between a gravitational field and a cyclotron.

"Immaterial"? Consider that an atomic clock will run slower in a stronger gravitational field but a pendulum clock will run faster there. Non sequitur.

Again non sequitur, that tarry brush, is used. I feel like paraphrasing Inigo Montoya here, but must instead admit a truism that has been revealed to me: When you only allow your premises to be assumed, everyone else speaks in non sequiturs. (This is not an original insight, since it is merely a variation on begging the question.) Tilton asserts rebuttal via a Newtonian approximation of the motion of a pendulum in extreme ("relativistic") conditions and seems to use the time frame of the observer for atomic clocks and the time frame of the observed for the pendulum.

No, Mr. Tilton, I think you really do need to at least attempt to come up with a relativistic description of pendulum motion before declaring that you know how it acts at the event horizon of a black hole. You also need to keep straight where you are keeping your time. Then perhaps I'd be more charitable to your pithy rebuttals.

And lastly, my favorite excerpt from the newsletter

From my 1990 book, with co-author Florentin Smarandache, The Light Barrier, (p. 4-2): "But the same relativistic factor that suggests the traveling twin well be younger also suggests -- with equal authority -- that he will be significantly more massive and shorter as well (or skinnier, depending on his orientation in the vehicle)! Why is it never said, 'he was also found, on his return, to be much heavier and shorter'?"

Thus we learn that going on a space voyage at near-light speeds is the same as pigging out on fast food. At last, a crackpot assertion I embrace! For years, everyone laughed at me, but I knew, deep, deep inside, that I had The Right Stuff! I am going to put "Deep Space Voyager" on my resume--my experience will be measured by my girth.

The thinking here is flawed in that T&S seem to believe that the twin paradox means that the faster twin gets !BONUS MASS! As in what? Extra atoms? Heavier protons? Sorry, T&A, the mass & length change is only in the observer's frame of reference relative to the fast twin. Once the twin "reunites" her inertial frame of reference with the observer (i.e., her twin) there is no relativistic difference to be measured. Here the word paradox in "The Twin Paradox" means that a Newtonian mindset experiences cognitive dissonance when pondering it. An Einsteinian mindset would relabel it as the "Twin Example."

And that's enough to give you a taste of the newsletter. There is also a bit of inspirational fiction in there as well as some evasive correspondence from people who don't want to endorse T&S, but don't want to be confrontational.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that T&S should be laughed out of town, but that they need real, not rhetorical, arguments to be taken seriously. However, I find their arguments entertaining, if only as an exercise for rebuttal. Do I think that they are wrong? Certainly. Are they cranks? Most likely. How do you treat cranks? Well, the redoubtable Underwood Dudley says, I believe, don't encourage them. (But I haven't read his latest book on cranks, so I don't know what his current advice is.) Accordingly, I won't say mealy-mouthed things like, "Well, they haven't been proven wrong...." but I will encourage you to read their book once you have a handle on what relativity is. Then you can draw your own conclusion. (But for heaven's sake, don't learn their version of relativity.)

Where to learn relativity? Am I, Jared, an authority on relativity? No. Heck, I can hardly predict what my own relatives will do. The best way to understand relativity is to study it. Fortunately, there are some really good resources for doing so. The first two are books that I've read long ago, but still recall as being good the rest are all on line.

• Einstein for Beginners
  Cartoon format, easy to read, author is a Marxist (e.g., in setting historical context & interpretation). I read and understood this book in junior high and didn't become a Marxist, so what's not to recommend, based upon my experience?
• Relativity Visualized
  Pictures to help understand what is going on. Look for the mathematics elsewhere.
• Spacetime 101
  A nice on-line tutorial I just found. The navigation is not as intuitive for those expecting "Previous" and "Next" links on each page, but you should be able to figure it out. (Hint: Use the links at the top of the page.)

Links to on-line tutorials for relativity

• Search Engine Directory


• Google Directory


• Queryster


• Wikipedia
  
  
  • Theory of Relativity
  
  
  • Special Relativity
  
  
  • General Relativity

Don't feel pressured to learn this all at once. I have a feeling that you have some time to absorb this before T&S bolster their arguments with convincing mathematics.

The very next day after I had submitted my preceding post I picked up this month's SIAM newsletter and found that crochet had cachet, not just for the non-Euclidean geometers, but also for the non-linear dynamics researchers.

All the details (including instructions, read down) are in the paper

Crocheting the Lorenz manifold
by Hinke Osinga and Bernd Krauskopf

Euclidean Geometry

Non-Euclidean Geometry
(in particular, hyperbolic geometry)


(More examples)

Who says crocheting isn't cool? There was a small special interest story about this in the papers, mainly because of the crocheting but without even a picture of (literally) the object of the story! Why not go to an article with thought and pictures? (Love Google!)

If you really want to dive in, then visit the paper by the authors:

Crocheting the Hyperbolic Plane

by David W. Henderson and Daina Taimiða

Well, I finally did it, I went and got me a blog:

Streandering Meams
http://streanderingmeams.blogspot.com/

This way I won't bother some people with trivia e-mail where I send to
everyone via a BCC. (I am *hurt* that my hard culled links on Star
Wars were viewed as spam by some, although notably I haven't heard
that from anyone who is *male*.) This seems like the best of all
possible worlds: I can capture my internet rambles in a place where I
can access them, but I don't feel as pathetic a loser as when I e-mail
myself so as not to forget. Plus, it's like I'm giving back to the
internet!

Whenever (if ever) you wish, you can pop over to the blog to see what
trivia has been distracting me recently. There is an RSS feed for the
page, and you can always keep track of me that way.

Of course, I still send e-mail, but now I won't send out any generic
e-mails with MCI marketing salutations, e.g., "Dear Friends or Family
Members or both...."

I might even post old e-mail musings, so that it will seem like a
touch of the good old days at times, you know, like when we would all
share a Star Wars moment together....

G'night y'all,
--Jared

The above e-mail was sent to a large number of friends and family. There were a few responses, some of which I'll anonymize and post below. This is to partly encourage my e-mail correspondents to start using the blog to respond to my trivial correspondence :-)

All the hyperlinking was done by me, BTW.

I am so happy you have a blog. That is wonderful. You won't feel intimidated by the blogosphere, will you?

Intimidated? Me? No, the only people who know of my little corner of the blogosphere are all family and friends who are caring and supportive.

Geek alert! Geek alert! I'm sure Dan Rather is shaking in his boots. I'll just add this link to my favorites right now; right next to Will Wheaton and Adam Curry in a folder called Nerds! If you start writing anti-microsoft entries in your blog that go on for days and days, I'm having an intervention. What do you mean, giving back to the internet? That's what porn sites are for! Umm... I'm running out of ideas here.... Okay, last one - this is a great blog... For me to poop on! Congrats!

Are you trying to intimidate me? Are you trying to intimidate me? Are you ... trying ... to intimidate me? I don't see nobody else posting on this blog. You must be trying to intimidate me. Or maybe ... you are trying to intimate that I am not cool ... you certainly are trying to imitate something, however.

But I am cool, man

How do you know when a person watching Star Wars is a Lutheran?

Ah! I see you are about to accuse me of a lack of introspection here.... I don't know, how do you know when a person watching Star Wars is a Lutheran?

After "may the force be with you," they say "and also with you." (an oldie but goodie!)

Ich bin ein belly laugher

Cool dude! Although I thought the word was "memes."

It still is! In my humble opinion, spoonerisms are better served by preserving the misspelling so as to jolt the mind into an aural interpretation, hence my prefacing the allusion by "resonates with".

Today's Highlights by Answers.com has admirable focus for its reporting of Today's Birthdays:

• Sharon Stone: actress who is a member of Mensa International (47)

Shame on those of you who thought I was speaking euphemistically when I said she was known for her brains.

This leads naturally to a joke.

Q: How many geniuses does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: None. It doesn't take a genius to screw in a lightbulb.

Any genius have a better answer? (Don't view this as a test, you might answer as if you were average.)

Started blog to stop annoying family and friends with e-mails that don't have a point other than that I wanted to share what I found while pursuing trivia on the web.

The title of my blog is a spoonerism and in taking on such a form also resonates with the fashionable topic of memes. Not too inspired, pretty much following the crowd in terms of trying to be creative and hip to the net.