3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Math]
|
Prev: how much is...
Next: " THE END OF AN HISTORIC ERA OF PRIME NUMBER HEGEMONY OF MATHEMATICS" AN INVITATION TO ALL MATHEMATICIANS, BY INVERSE19 MATHEMATICS TO SEE THE "WIZARD" IN HIS BOX.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 11 May 2010 08:37 On May 10, 10:48 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > > > On May 10, 4:04 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > > > I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody > > radiation. > > You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black > > and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight? > > These things are called light-mill:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html > Geeze. Nice research. The final answer seems unconvincing to me. Suppose that vane is made out of aluminum and it is spinning at a fair frequency; say twice per second. The thermal difference from one side of the plate to the other is going to be pretty negligible I think. The black side is only receiving radiation (roughly) half the time, and radiating it the other half, and the aluminum is a rapid (in terms of available materials) conductor. Think of the steady state and this seems problematic. If it were true then a thicker plate should provide a variation, but better yet would be a sandwich plate of say foil folded over paper. Hmmm... maybe I'll try to build one. I've been making some simple bearings and pivots and the balanced needle is a very neat crude sensetive thing. I don't know much about making vacuums though. You know, it should be possible to put a two-vane on an unmagnetized iron needle, then holding the needle steady with a magnet outside the vacuum charge the thing up in the sun or some other radiation, then shade it and watch it dissipate the heat. The color difference is irrelevant at that point. It would be more a matter of insulating two plates of thermal mass with that edge conduction. Two black surfaces should give better acceleration if this is the case. > > > > If you consider that > > black absorption as elevating electrons within the absorption process > > they must reradiate. The reflective surface also has to be granted > > some interaction with the light. I guess I am puzzled as to where the > > acceleration is. Could it be true that some of the radiation simply > > passes straight through the black side? Even if not straight through, > > but undergoing frequency conversion along the way, shouldn't some of > > the light htting the black side come out of the white side? > > > I'm sorry I got sidetracked. The opposite direction thing is alright, > > but I think it would conflict with standard theory which will claim > > that an electron rising an orbital level has absorbed a photon, and > > that the result is a very small acceleration of the atom, rather than > > an absorption of another photon from the opposite direction. To me you > > could extend this with the electron accelerating outward with > > reception of a photon, another half of which decelerates the electron > > thus causing an apparent discrete transition. Considering this makes > > me think how flaky the existing theory is. Shouldn't most substances > > be completely invisible to some wavelengths of light if their > > electrons are not responsive to that particular frequency? How can a > > reflector even work? I don't know if I am totally off tonight, or on > > to something. Thanks for making me think about this. I guess this goes > > back to mu and epsilon of electromagnetics of interfaces of different > > materials, and I am rusty rather than polished. > > >> (in the spacetime view). Since it works both ways (emission and > >> reception), both have to match to see those interactions as light. But a > >> general case of velocity could go from zero to infinity, only the > >> velocity of light is limited to c. Than time behaves like an axis and > >> guides the movement of a body. Faster than c would reach imaginary > >> distances (because it reaches beyond the light cone). Since this realm > >> acts anti-symmetric, these 'influences' would be back in an instant, > >> what would look static. > > >> Since things usually drop, the timeline should point downwards. This > >> would require many different (non parallel) timelines, hence time could > >> not be one-dimensional. > > > Yikes, Thomas. Are you saying that gravity is directly related to > > time? This is partially coherent within polysign if we consider mass > > as one-signed 'charge'. I guess I would challenge your phrase 'since > > things usually drop' because the earth travels around the sun and does > > not seem to be dropping in towards it. > > This is why I think about a fractal system. That is a superposition of > self-similar systems of different sizes. The surface of the Earth is a > sphere and has associated a frequency, that is in the range of the > Schuman frequencies. This goes like conservation of angular momentum and > smaller spheres have higher frequencies and larger lower. > (Remember the term 'time' in spacetime. It is related to time, hence > changing relations would influence frequencies.) > To the Earth the next level would be the solar system, with way larger > frequencies. Than the axis through the ecliptic is like the timeline for > the solar system. > For something of the size of -say- an apple, the timeline goes > downwards, same as Newtons, so it could drop on his head. > Why is the path of a dropping object related to time? Well, actually > this is defined this way, because timelike denotes the motion and > worldline the path of that motion. To be consistent with this picture I > put the x,y and z axis diagonal (conic) along a vertical cone pointing > downwards, with the horizontal surface perpendicular. Than the sky is > somehow past and the ground belongs to the future. This is like a > contraction of something, that goes through the Earth to expand again. > > > Would you have the timeline of > > the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would > > disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you > > onward. > > No. If we take a certain spot on the surface and something dropping, > than it would follow this spot and would perform a helical curve, if > seen from a distance. For the observer underneath, it drops simply down. > Since this (the observers FoR underneath) is a valid FoR, we could > associate the time, measured by that observer with the timeline of the > falling object. > If we would see the solar system from way apart, than it could possibly > move perpendicular to the ecliptic, but measured in the FoR of that > distant observer (with his time-base). I see no logic in assigning time to a spatial orientation like this. Consider that gravity is acting en masse accross every other particle of the earth. Now you've got a time cone of varying density. Really we assign a singular vector that is the sum of all of those little vectors, and they don't all come from the same direction, so gravity on earth is a fairly conical rho density type of thing. That density is smooth near the axis; without a sharp peak, especially because the matter closest is the strongest influence. There is a gravitational experiment you can do in your basement with a balanced beam, again like the windmill. I haven't done it yet. Will you give a stationary object a time orientation in space? > > > As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the > > structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have > > one. > > Thanks, Tim. But I think, there are a few more with similar ideas. Similar, yes, but. It is difficult to find much that I can understand. We all seem to speak gibberish to each other, and then there are camps of paid people who are paid to learn the same gibberish and so call it a valid language. This linguistic challenge is very serious and as far as I know the best way through is to attempt to falsify, which is a skeptical method. Still, falsification is not enough. The attempt to rectify the crux is where the good lays. The most mysterious parts are still fundamental parts, like mass and time. The human race is still in its infancy crying out Why? Why? with no sound parent answering, so we must manufacture our own answers. There is no valid reason to accept prior work under these conditions. The proper attitude is to challenge the prior work wherever possible, and attempt an attack like a chess player's, only you are free to make the rules up as you go. Well, that is too much freedom you say. Well, return to the beginning of the statement and we have closed a coherent loop. To credit past brilliant men as having something we don't will not provide much more than a religious attitude. We have been bred into the system as followers, not as creators. This loop ties as well so that without this process there is nothing to work from, but still, the elevation of the prior work to fact is overblown in my opinion, particularly given the various gibberish departments that are springing up. I guess I do speak one new form and haven't gotten very far with it. You tend to speak Hamilton's form, but clearly have your own constructions going on, and that is a must. We should expect disagreement, and it is the quality of the disagreement that matters most. Otherwise there isn't much to discuss. Oh yeah, thanks for the interpretation on "Größe". I get from his context though that he committed to the real value prematurely. Still as you state it the word is very general. That's encouraging. It's nearly like 'value' could have been used instead of 'magnitude' in the translation. As if this wasn't enough already I think I just came up with a better explanation of the light mill. It is simply a Bernoulli force on the black vane due to the velocity of the gas on it, no different than an airplane wing provides lift. It's not so much about thermal expansion as it is about an actual little breeze flowing more rapidly on the black side. I await falsification. Cheers, - Tim > > Greetings > > TH
From: Thomas Heger on 11 May 2010 14:37 Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: > On May 10, 10:48 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb: >> >.. >>> I suppose this is nearby to the ballistic model of blackbody >>> radiation. >>> You know those little light bulb shaped things with a spinning black >>> and white surfaces that spins in the sunlight? >> These things are called light-mill:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html >> > > Geeze. Nice research. The final answer seems unconvincing to me. > Suppose that vane is made out of aluminum and it is spinning at a fair > frequency; say twice per second. The thermal difference from one side > of the plate to the other is going to be pretty negligible I think. > The black side is only receiving radiation (roughly) half the time, > and radiating it the other half, and the aluminum is a rapid (in terms > of available materials) conductor. Think of the steady state and this > seems problematic. If it were true then a thicker plate should provide > a variation, but better yet would be a sandwich plate of say foil > folded over paper. > Hmmm... maybe I'll try to build one. I've been making some simple > bearings and pivots and the balanced needle is a very neat crude > sensetive thing. I don't know much about making vacuums though. > > You know, it should be possible to put a two-vane on an unmagnetized > iron needle, then holding the needle steady with a magnet outside the > vacuum charge the thing up in the sun or some other radiation, then > shade it and watch it dissipate the heat. The color difference is > irrelevant at that point. It would be more a matter of insulating two > plates of thermal mass with that edge conduction. Two black surfaces > should give better acceleration if this is the case. > Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. As my short term investigation has found out, these objects have a maximum speed with a vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared only. These 'wings' consist of mica. This stuff is known as a dialectic in capacitors. The black side is darkened with soot, what is conductive and a very good black body emitter. Than the bulb has to be spheric. There is some kind of dependence on the bulb, because the bulb could rotate in the opposite direction, if the rotor is stopped by an outside magnet. So we had to look for some sort of electro-magnetic effects, that are related to infrared, thin gas, dialectics and bulbs. The thin gas reminds a bit of plasma bulbs. So, I would think more in terms MHD, what deals with plasma. The correct interpretation seems to be very difficult, since I don't think, that any of the current actually work. >> >>> If you consider that >>> black absorption as elevating electrons within the absorption process >>> they must reradiate. The reflective surface also has to be granted >>> some interaction with the light. I guess I am puzzled as to where the >>> acceleration is. Could it be true that some of the radiation simply >>> passes straight through the black side? Even if not straight through, >>> but undergoing frequency conversion along the way, shouldn't some of >>> the light htting the black side come out of the white side? >>> I'm sorry I got sidetracked. The opposite direction thing is alright, >>> but I think it would conflict with standard theory which will claim >>> that an electron rising an orbital level has absorbed a photon, and >>> that the result is a very small acceleration of the atom, rather than >>> an absorption of another photon from the opposite direction. To me you >>> could extend this with the electron accelerating outward with >>> reception of a photon, another half of which decelerates the electron >>> thus causing an apparent discrete transition. Considering this makes >>> me think how flaky the existing theory is. Shouldn't most substances >>> be completely invisible to some wavelengths of light if their >>> electrons are not responsive to that particular frequency? How can a >>> reflector even work? I don't know if I am totally off tonight, or on >>> to something. Thanks for making me think about this. I guess this goes >>> back to mu and epsilon of electromagnetics of interfaces of different ... >>> Would you have the timeline of >>> the earth as a whole pointing in a particular direction? I would >>> disagree fairly strongly, but I like your creativity and encourage you >>> onward. >> No. If we take a certain spot on the surface and something dropping, >> than it would follow this spot and would perform a helical curve, if >> seen from a distance. For the observer underneath, it drops simply down. >> Since this (the observers FoR underneath) is a valid FoR, we could >> associate the time, measured by that observer with the timeline of the >> falling object. >> If we would see the solar system from way apart, than it could possibly >> move perpendicular to the ecliptic, but measured in the FoR of that >> distant observer (with his time-base). > > I see no logic in assigning time to a spatial orientation like this. > Consider that gravity is acting en masse accross every other particle > of the earth. Now you've got a time cone of varying density. Really we > assign a singular vector that is the sum of all of those little > vectors, and they don't all come from the same direction, so gravity > on earth is a fairly conical rho density type of thing. That density > is smooth near the axis; without a sharp peak, especially because the > matter closest is the strongest influence. There is a gravitational > experiment you can do in your basement with a balanced beam, again > like the windmill. I haven't done it yet. Will you give a stationary > object a time orientation in space? > The idea, I'm working on is mainly a model about matter, that is assumed to be a structure in (of or within) spacetime. Than matter is connected to the environment through 'imaginary' interactions, that are spacelike. Than the path of an object has to be timelike and it has to move. Seen from such an object, this movement is invisible. So I stop an object and say, that this makes time imaginary. But timelike has to be perpendicular to spacelike (in the spacetime view) Since spacelike interactions are only measurable in the direct vicinity, the surface of the Earth could provide such an environment, if we were standing close enough to some object. If the distance is very small, the interactions between distinct objects could behave like gravity, but are much stronger, what seem to be a description of the Casimir force. So gravity depends on scale, what would lead to fractals and frequencies again. In our usual Earth-bound environment, we think in terms of stationary objects like -say- our home. This view is kind of hard-wired to our brain. So we could stick to that and say, that timelines are vertical and would point downwards. This is the view, in what we research particles as well (those in a lab, our home or our selfs). This is the view of QM, too. So we had to keep one common FoR, to make both compatible (QM and GR). This timeline is an axis, that could possibly be changed. This is a difficult problem for some assumptions of QM, because if we would change this axis, the particles would be no longer timelike and would be experienced as radiation. This is wave/particle duality, because these structures behave like particles only under certain conditions. This gives a very different explanation for why the sun would shine. Think about the sun to be a kind of vortex. Than that would shift worldlines and make an invisible radiate. >>> As far as I know you are the only other person to adopt the >>> structured spacetime paradigm. This takes a free mind and you have >>> one. >> Thanks, Tim. But I think, there are a few more with similar ideas. > > Similar, yes, but. It is difficult to find much that I can understand. > We all seem to speak gibberish to each other, and then there are camps > of paid people who are paid to learn the same gibberish and so call it > a valid language. This linguistic challenge is very serious and as far > as I know the best way through is to attempt to falsify, which is a > skeptical method. Still, falsification is not enough. The attempt to > rectify the crux is where the good lays. > The most mysterious parts are still fundamental parts, like mass and > time. The human race is still in its infancy crying out > Why? Why? > with no sound parent answering, so we must manufacture our own > answers. There is no valid reason to accept prior work under these > conditions. The proper attitude is to challenge the prior work > wherever possible, and attempt an attack like a chess player's, only > you are free to make the rules up as you go. Well, that is too much > freedom you say. Well, return to the beginning of the statement and we > have closed a coherent loop. There is something, I have serious problems with: As being an amateur with wage knowledge and a budget of nothing, how is it possible for a single person to challenge the mainstream, that has a headcount in the millions and endless funds? There is something more than wrong, but I don't know exactly what. Greetings TH
From: dlzc on 11 May 2010 15:21 Dear Thomas Heger: On May 11, 11:37 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: .... > Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. Also "Crooke's radiometer". > As my short term investigation has found out, > these objects have a maximum speed with a > vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared > only. All wavelengths, if one has a good internal vacuum. http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/13/7/004;jsessionid=00C2C699F4C0D2D259CD7CDC35499F13.c3 > These 'wings' consist of mica. Or aluminum. > This stuff is known as a dialectic in > capacitors. The black side is darkened > with soot, what is conductive and a very good > black body emitter. And is very light, taking a load off of insubstantial bearings. > Than the bulb has to be spheric. Only if you depend on gases in the envelope to dissipate as little momentum as possible. > There is some kind of dependence on the > bulb, because the bulb could rotate in the > opposite direction, if the rotor is stopped > by an outside magnet. So we had to look for > some sort of electro-magnetic effects, that > are related to infrared, thin gas, dialectics > and bulbs. The thin gas reminds a bit of > plasma bulbs. So, I would think more in > terms MHD, what deals with plasma. The correct > interpretation seems to be very difficult, > since I don't think, that any of the current > actually work. Actually it works really well, in a hard vacuum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect .... > There is something, I have serious problems with: > As being an amateur with wage knowledge and a > budget of nothing, how is it possible for a > single person to challenge the mainstream, that > has a headcount in the millions and endless funds? You've been challenging it. You're making more of your black magic than you should, but you are looking... > There is something more than wrong, but I don't > know exactly what. Consider the budget of the man that invented the radiator overflow reservoir. It wasn't invented (first) by a large company. You find a repeatable effect, and you describe it, and maybe you will get lucky. What is "more than wrong", is that you are coming to the fight completely unarmed. There is a vast array of knowledge at your fingertips, and hosts of people have tried to make the knowledge easy to assimilate. Yet you spend effort imagining and describing "conspiracy". You choose the company you keep, both in terms of people and in terms of knowledge. But it is of course, your life... David A. Smith
From: Thomas Heger on 11 May 2010 18:44 dlzc schrieb: > Dear Thomas Heger: > > On May 11, 11:37 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > ... >> Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. > > Also "Crooke's radiometer". > >> As my short term investigation has found out, >> these objects have a maximum speed with a >> vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared >> only. > > All wavelengths, if one has a good internal vacuum. > http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/13/7/004;jsessionid=00C2C699F4C0D2D259CD7CDC35499F13.c3 > >> These 'wings' consist of mica. > > Or aluminum. > If aluminum works as well, than it could be, that the emitted radiation is the important factor. Since the black side emits and the blank side not (or much less), we had an effect due to reemission of infrared. That would cause the mill to spin. But why would the bulb rotate in the opposite direction and why is some pressure required? (That statement stems from: http://www.vdg-ev.org/technik/technik5.html (This is all German, but possibly Google could help to translate ) >> This stuff is known as a dialectic in >> capacitors. The black side is darkened >> with soot, what is conductive and a very good >> black body emitter. > > And is very light, taking a load off of insubstantial bearings. > >> Than the bulb has to be spheric. > > Only if you depend on gases in the envelope to dissipate as little > momentum as possible. > The title of that link is "Has the container of the light-mill to be a sphere?" and the answer seem to be yes, but I'm not sure about that. >> There is some kind of dependence on the >> bulb, because the bulb could rotate in the >> opposite direction, if the rotor is stopped >> by an outside magnet. So we had to look for >> some sort of electro-magnetic effects, that >> are related to infrared, thin gas, dialectics >> and bulbs. The thin gas reminds a bit of >> plasma bulbs. So, I would think more in >> terms MHD, what deals with plasma. The correct >> interpretation seems to be very difficult, >> since I don't think, that any of the current >> actually work. > > Actually it works really well, in a hard vacuum. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect In the link mentioned above is stated, that the vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. > ... >> There is something, I have serious problems with: >> As being an amateur with wage knowledge and a >> budget of nothing, how is it possible for a >> single person to challenge the mainstream, that >> has a headcount in the millions and endless funds? > > You've been challenging it. You're making more of your black magic > than you should, but you are looking... > >> There is something more than wrong, but I don't >> know exactly what. > > Consider the budget of the man that invented the radiator overflow > reservoir. It wasn't invented (first) by a large company. You find a > repeatable effect, and you describe it, and maybe you will get lucky. > > What is "more than wrong", is that you are coming to the fight > completely unarmed. There is a vast array of knowledge at your > fingertips, and hosts of people have tried to make the knowledge easy > to assimilate. Yet you spend effort imagining and describing > "conspiracy". My statement wasn't about me. But what are all those physicists actually doing? There are really many of them. So all possible theories could be tested and one would survive. As I'm linking my idea to 19th century theories, like Maxwell's early quaternion model, the question would remain, why this hasn't been done in the meantime. Time enough was throughout the last century. I don't think, this has anything to do with conspiracy, but with laziness and powerful financial and political interests. I always think, that finding out how our world really functions would be essential to science and there is no excuse for not delivering a proper solution. Maybe it takes a while and maybe some roads are dead ends, but a century is quite a long time. Greetings TH
From: dlzc on 11 May 2010 20:25
Dear Thomas Heger: On May 11, 3:44 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > dlzc schrieb: > > > Dear Thomas Heger: > > > On May 11, 11:37 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > ... > >> Let me speculate a bit about those 'lightmills'. > > > Also "Crooke's radiometer". > > >> As my short term investigation has found out, > >> these objects have a maximum speed with a > >> vacuum of 0.05 bar and respond to infrared > >> only. > > > All wavelengths, if one has a good internal vacuum. <link broken by Google.Groups> > > >> These 'wings' consist of mica. > > > Or aluminum. > > If aluminum works as well, than it could be, > that the emitted radiation is the important > factor. Since the black side emits and the > blank side not (or much less), we had an > effect due to reemission of infrared. That > would cause the mill to spin. This all was worked out by Reynolds and Maxwell. It is strictly heat transfer to the gas in the envelope, that is strong enough to move the rotor with "bad" bearings. > But why would the bulb rotate in the opposite > direction and why is some pressure required? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer#Explanations_for_the_force_on_the_vanes .... #4. > >> This stuff is known as a dialectic in > >> capacitors. The black side is darkened > >> with soot, what is conductive and a very good > >> black body emitter. > > > And is very light, taking a load off of > > insubstantial bearings. > > >> Than the bulb has to be spheric. > > > Only if you depend on gases in the envelope > > to dissipate as little momentum as possible. > > The title of that link is > "Has the container of the light-mill to be a > sphere?" and the answer seem to be yes, but > I'm not sure about that. It doesn't have to be. > > >> There is some kind of dependence on the > >> bulb, because the bulb could rotate in the > >> opposite direction, if the rotor is stopped > >> by an outside magnet. So we had to look for > >> some sort of electro-magnetic effects, that > >> are related to infrared, thin gas, dialectics > >> and bulbs. The thin gas reminds a bit of > >> plasma bulbs. So, I would think more in > >> terms MHD, what deals with plasma. The correct > >> interpretation seems to be very difficult, > >> since I don't think, that any of the current > >> actually work. > > > Actually it works really well, in a hard vacuum. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect > > In the link mentioned above is stated, that the > vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard > vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids have *perfect* bearings. > > ... > >> There is something, I have serious problems with: > >> As being an amateur with wage knowledge and a > >> budget of nothing, how is it possible for a > >> single person to challenge the mainstream, that > >> has a headcount in the millions and endless funds? > > > You've been challenging it. You're making more > > of your black magic than you should, but you are > > looking... > > >> There is something more than wrong, but I don't > >> know exactly what. > > > Consider the budget of the man that invented the > > radiator overflow reservoir. It wasn't invented > > (first) by a large company. You find a repeatable > > effect, and you describe it, and maybe you will > > get lucky. > > > What is "more than wrong", is that you are coming > > to the fight completely unarmed. There is a vast > > array of knowledge at your fingertips, and hosts > > of people have tried to make the knowledge easy > > to assimilate. Yet you spend effort imagining > > and describing "conspiracy". > > My statement wasn't about me. But what are all > those physicists actually doing? There are really > many of them. So all possible theories could be > tested and one would survive. The lion's share of them are teaching. > As I'm linking my idea to 19th century theories, > like Maxwell's early quaternion model, the > question would remain, why this hasn't been done > in the meantime. Time enough was throughout the > last century. I don't think, this has anything to > do with conspiracy, but with laziness and powerful > financial and political interests. The methods presented make sense, and agree with experiment. It won't get us to space, nor will it get us free energy, or stop "global climate change". Why should anyone with deadlines and budgets worry more about it? > I always think, that finding out how our world > really functions would be essential to science > and there is no excuse for not delivering a > proper solution. We can never know how our world "really" functions. Finding the unfindable is not what Science is about. Finally, your definition of "proper solution" is not of interest to either Science nor Engineering. > Maybe it takes a while and maybe some roads > are dead ends, but a century is quite a long > time. It is your life. If you think you know more than 4-500 years of scientists and philosophers what the possible domain of Science is, get after it. David A. Smith |