Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 16:05 On Mar 18, 2:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 11:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 10:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 18, 7:01 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/17/2010 9:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > >> On Mar 16, 11:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > >>> mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > >>>> 'curved spacetime' is meaningless nonsense in terms of a physical > > > > > > >>>> description of nature. What is physically being 'curved'? [...] > > > > > > >>> Nothing "physical" is involved, this is GEOMETRY. > > > > > > > >> Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > > > > > > > > The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern > > > > > > > physics without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > > > > > > I think it's perfectly valid to ask if the curvature of spacetime is > > > > > > something real or if it's a useful fiction, however asserting a priori > > > > > > that it is "meaningless nonsense" or that "nothing 'physical' is > > > > > > involved" are both quite premature. One trouble I have with > > > > > > philosophers is that they assert such things and run with them and you > > > > > > have to whack 'em with a two-by-four to get them to look at their > > > > > > premise. Unfortunately the ranks of philosopher wannabees seem to be > > > > > > considerably larger than then ranks of physicist wannabees who are > > > > > > actually serious about it. > > > > > > And in this particular case, MPC has a preconceived notion about what > > > > > makes sense and what is absurd, and there is no need (at least in his > > > > > mind) to test whether that categorization is appropriate. > > > > > > PD > > > > > And in your mind in order to maintain support of a failed theory you > > > > have to resort to the future determining the past. > > > > > In your mind since you really do not understand what is physically > > > > occurring in nature your resort to labels such as 'fields' and > > > > 'virtual' particles. > > > > > Yes, I realize you think 'virtual' particles physically exist out of > > > > nothing and I realize you think a 'field' is physically real. But in > > > > the reality of nature they are not. > > > > See? You've already made decisions in your mind about what is real and > > > what is not, what makes sense and what is not, what is absurd and what > > > is not. And you've not figured out how to test whether those decisions > > > are right or not. You just make the decisions and go with it. > > > > Scientists don't do that. > > > 'Scientists' decide the future determines the past because they do not > > understand what occurs physically in nature? > > > 'Scientists' invent 'virtual' particles which exist out of nothing > > because they do not understand what occurs physically in nature? > > > 'Scientists' use the term 'field' because they do not understand what > > occurs physically in nature? > > Actually, no, they don't decide that. They put it up as a testable > model, Like a model where the future determines the past? Like a model where 'scientists' (i.e. mathematicians) do not understand what occurs physically in nature and confuse a 'wave function probability' with a physical wave? Like a model where 'scientists' (i.e. mathematicians) do not understand what occurs physically in nature and confuse geometry with the aether displaced by a massive object? I see a difference between nature and mathematical constructs. How about instantaneous action at a distance? What happened to the model of conservation of momentum? How does the the downgraded photon pair having exact opposite angular momentums in order to maintain the original photons momentum get 'lost' in order to have a model where there is instantaneous action at a distance?
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 16:10 On Mar 18, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 11:18 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 10:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 5:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 4:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The poster I was responding to has finally made it to the step of > > > > > > > > understand something physical causes gravity. The poster is a QM true > > > > > > > > believer so it must be excused if the best step the poster can offer > > > > > > > > is 'quanta is responsible' for gravity. > > > > > > > > > The point I was trying to make, which you completely misinterpreted, > > > > > > > > is if quanta is responsible for gravity then whatever you want to > > > > > > > > consider the quanta to physically exist as in order for it to be > > > > > > > > responsible for gravity, light from the sun is physically propagating > > > > > > > > in quanta. > > > > > > > > This is so cute. Note he says that quanta must be physically real, but > > > > > > > that quantum mechanics (which describes the behavior of quanta) is not > > > > > > > about stuff that is physically real. > > > > > > > You're making my point. > > > > > > > Gravity is physically real. > > > > > > > Only in your interpretation of the absurd nonsense of QM can gravity > > > > > > not be physically real. > > > > > > > If quanta is responsible for gravity then quanta is physically real > > > > > > Of course they are real. And quantum mechanics describes those real > > > > > things. Quantum mechanics is the study of how quanta (those real > > > > > things) behave. Thank you. > > > > > So, you are walking down the street and you are 'tied' to the Earth > > > > because quanta is responsible for gravity. > > > > Yes, this seems likely. > > > > > Now it is a bright sunny > > > > day outside and you are being bombarded by light quanta. > > > > Yes. > > > > > How does > > > > light quanta interact with gravity quanta? > > > > We don't know for sure, because we don't have a solid model yet for > > > how gravitational quanta work. This doesn't mean we know nothing. We > > > do know they interact, and we have observational measurements of how > > > much. > > > In AD, the 'quanta' responsible for gravity and the 'quanta' > > responsible for light is aether. If you conceptualize the aether as > > consisting of quanta you will advance your understanding of nature. > > > > > Are they one in the same? > > > > No. > > > Then you will never understand nature. Light waves propagate through > > the aether and the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a > > massive object is gravity. > > Well, let's see. You asked a bunch of questions about quantum > mechanics, since you didn't know anything about it. Then when I told > you the answers, You have also told me the future determines the past when I know it is more correct for a C-60 molecule to have an associated aether displacement wave. Exactly how do you know a gravity quanta is different than a light quanta?
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 16:14 On Mar 18, 3:07 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 18, 1:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > On Mar 17, 9:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On Mar 16, 11:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>>> mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>> 'curved spacetime' is meaningless nonsense in terms of a physical > > >>>>> description of nature. What is physically being 'curved'? [...] > > >>>> Nothing "physical" is involved, this is GEOMETRY. > > >>> Not only do we have the absurd nonsense [...] > > >> The "absurd nonsense" is your thinking that you can discuss modern physics > > >> without any understanding of it whatsoever. > > > > Do you understand geometry is a mathematical representation of nature > > > and is not responsible for gravity? It's obvious from your > > > 'understanding' of nature where geometry is responsible for gravity > > > you are full of absurd nonsense. > > > As I said, "... without any understanding of it whatsoever." > > > I am discussing MODELS of nature, and make no attempt to describe what is > > "responsible" for any physical phenomenon like gravity, > > ================== > > > because I know that can > > never be known to humans. > > Oh My! > > <<The theoretical possibility of there being > some other, non-human intelligence at work in > the process of evolution must be acknowledged. > However, any such intelligence would be observable > and measurable, just as human breeding is an observable, > measurable phenomenon. >>http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_best_case_for_i... > > We would much prefer a Lorentz ether theoristhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > over an Intelligent-designer. Please reconsider. > > :-)) > > Sue... > Lorentz ether theory is incomplete. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. In Einstein's train gedanken the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is the train because the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter where the Earth is the most matter. If the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment are able to view each others clocks for a period of time both Observers would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than the clock on the embankment. The train and the embankment are not moving relative to one another, in terms of the rate at which the atomic clock on the train and the atomic clock on the embankment tick. The train and the embankment are moving with respect to the aether.
From: Esa Riihonen on 18 Mar 2010 16:33 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 18, 5:55 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 17, 6:42 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> > On Mar 17, 7:47 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 5:46 pm, Esa Riihonen >> >> >> > <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >>> I would like the following to fit on one line. Have at it: >> >> >> >> >>> The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive >> >> >> >>> objects >> >> >> is >> >> >> >>> gravity. >> >> >> >> >> Here: >> >> >> >> >> Gravity can somehow be explained by the science of the 19th >> >> >> >> century. >> >> >> >> > I think I'll stick with: >> >> >> >> > Gravity: Pressure associated with aether displaced by massive >> >> >> > objects. >> >> >> >> By all means please do. Now it would be interesting to see your >> >> >> actual theory in action - that would mean a rigorous logical >> >> >> (read mathematical) framework to produce some numbers to compare >> >> >> with actual measurements. If I may suggest, calculating planetary >> >> >> orbits (including Mercury) would be a good point to start. >> >> >> > Aether Displacement is a physical interpretation of 'curved >> >> > spacetime'. The math has already been developed. >> >> >> > Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is >> >> > gravity. >> >> >> Perhaps the connection between the mathematical machinery of the GR >> >> and this aether pressure view is obvious - but frankly I just can't >> >> see it. Could you please elaborate. >> >> > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Some >> > like to say aether is matter and others like to say matter is aether. >> > In order to try and avoid this pointless discussion I say both matter >> > and aether are different states of mather. >> >> > Since matter and aether are different states of mather both matter >> > and aether have mass. >> >> > As the Earth orbits the Sun the aether which exists in front of the >> > Earth's path does not disappear when the matter which is the Earth >> > occupies the three dimensional space previously occupied by the >> > aether. The aether does not vanish. The aether is displaced by the >> > matter which is the Earth. >> >> > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. This >> > 'displacing back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the >> > matter doing the displacing. >> >> > How do we know there is a pressure associated with the aether >> > displaced by a massive object? Because light from distant stars >> > reaches us from where Jupiter was in its orbit (i.e. Jupiter does not >> > leave a void in its wake). >> >> > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object >> > is gravity. >> >> > The analogy is a bowling ball with a million tiny holes drilled >> > throughout it which is placed into a tub of water. When the bowling >> > ball is placed into the tub of water, even though the water exists >> > throughout the bowling ball, the matter which is the bowling ball >> > still displaces the water. When you take the bowling ball out of the >> > water is there a void in the water in the tub? No, of course not. The >> > water was exerting a pressure towards, and if the bowling ball >> > consists of millions of individual particles, throughout the bowling >> > ball. >> >> > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In >> > a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the C-60 molecule >> > always enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether >> > displacement wave which enters and exits the available slits. The >> > associated aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting >> > the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. >> >> > Since aether surrounds each and every nuclei which is the matter. The >> > faster an object is moving with respect to the aether the greater the >> > aether pressure exerted on and throughout the body. This is the why >> > atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they >> > exist. >> >> Nice story thanks. Now to make this physics we need some way to produce >> numbers to compare with actual measurements. That means a mathematical >> model of the situation. So what are the equations describing the C-60 >> double slit experiment. I assume they will have more or less same form >> as the QM equations, but the interpretation of the symbols must be >> different referencing to aether and its physical properties. >> >> > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > by the double solution theory > Louis de BROGLIE' > http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to see how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the > aether. Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no immediate sense to me - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If so, how does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I assume entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure formula (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I would like to see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the interfering ether waves and the equation of the resulting particle trajectories. > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > The wave nature of the electron > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- lecture.pdf The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed - you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the >> radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A >> conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to >> add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure >> must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical >> clocks. >> >> > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the > space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether > pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the > associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is > going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to > differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory developed almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just happens to accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields e.g. GPS, while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate enough for testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they don't even measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful coincidence. But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks (e.g. aging or cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. I wonder what would be the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do you derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and the actual time (biological time) are different? I really don't see the logic how it rises from your aether concept as you have described it so far. We really need a mathematical model with equations (I already asked for in previous message - remember). So please fill here: Cheers, Esa(R) -- One evening Rene Descartes went to relax at a local tavern. The bartender approached and said, "Ah,good evening Monsieur Descartes! Shall I serve you the usual drink?" Descartes replied, "I think not," and promptly vanished.
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 17:48
On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:55 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > On Mar 17, 6:42 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> > On Mar 17, 7:47 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 5:46 pm, Esa Riihonen > >> >> >> > <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >> >>> I would like the following to fit on one line. Have at it: > > >> >> >> >>> The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > >> >> >> >>> objects > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >>> gravity. > > >> >> >> >> Here: > > >> >> >> >> Gravity can somehow be explained by the science of the 19th > >> >> >> >> century. > > >> >> >> > I think I'll stick with: > > >> >> >> > Gravity: Pressure associated with aether displaced by massive > >> >> >> > objects. > > >> >> >> By all means please do. Now it would be interesting to see your > >> >> >> actual theory in action - that would mean a rigorous logical > >> >> >> (read mathematical) framework to produce some numbers to compare > >> >> >> with actual measurements. If I may suggest, calculating planetary > >> >> >> orbits (including Mercury) would be a good point to start. > > >> >> > Aether Displacement is a physical interpretation of 'curved > >> >> > spacetime'. The math has already been developed. > > >> >> > Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > >> >> > gravity. > > >> >> Perhaps the connection between the mathematical machinery of the GR > >> >> and this aether pressure view is obvious - but frankly I just can't > >> >> see it. Could you please elaborate. > > >> > Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Some > >> > like to say aether is matter and others like to say matter is aether.. > >> > In order to try and avoid this pointless discussion I say both matter > >> > and aether are different states of mather. > > >> > Since matter and aether are different states of mather both matter > >> > and aether have mass. > > >> > As the Earth orbits the Sun the aether which exists in front of the > >> > Earth's path does not disappear when the matter which is the Earth > >> > occupies the three dimensional space previously occupied by the > >> > aether. The aether does not vanish. The aether is displaced by the > >> > matter which is the Earth. > > >> > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. This > >> > 'displacing back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the > >> > matter doing the displacing. > > >> > How do we know there is a pressure associated with the aether > >> > displaced by a massive object? Because light from distant stars > >> > reaches us from where Jupiter was in its orbit (i.e. Jupiter does not > >> > leave a void in its wake). > > >> > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > >> > is gravity. > > >> > The analogy is a bowling ball with a million tiny holes drilled > >> > throughout it which is placed into a tub of water. When the bowling > >> > ball is placed into the tub of water, even though the water exists > >> > throughout the bowling ball, the matter which is the bowling ball > >> > still displaces the water. When you take the bowling ball out of the > >> > water is there a void in the water in the tub? No, of course not. The > >> > water was exerting a pressure towards, and if the bowling ball > >> > consists of millions of individual particles, throughout the bowling > >> > ball. > > >> > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. In > >> > a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule the C-60 molecule > >> > always enters and exits a single slit and it is the associated aether > >> > displacement wave which enters and exits the available slits. The > >> > associated aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting > >> > the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > >> > Since aether surrounds each and every nuclei which is the matter. The > >> > faster an object is moving with respect to the aether the greater the > >> > aether pressure exerted on and throughout the body. This is the why > >> > atomic clocks tick based upon the aether pressure in which they > >> > exist. > > >> Nice story thanks. Now to make this physics we need some way to produce > >> numbers to compare with actual measurements. That means a mathematical > >> model of the situation. So what are the equations describing the C-60 > >> double slit experiment. I assume they will have more or less same form > >> as the QM equations, but the interpretation of the symbols must be > >> different referencing to aether and its physical properties. > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > by the double solution theory > > Louis de BROGLIE' > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to see > how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the > > aether. > > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no immediate > sense to me Then that is your issue. "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave- functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the maze !" The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. > - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If > so, how does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You > really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I assume > entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure formula > (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I would like to > see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the interfering ether > waves and the equation of the resulting particle trajectories. > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > The wave nature of the electron > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > > lecture.pdf > > The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction > section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed - > you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. > > >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the > >> radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A > >> conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to > >> add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure > >> must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical > >> clocks. > > > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. > > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the > > space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether > > pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the > > associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is > > going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to > > differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. > > Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory developed > almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just happens to > accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields e.g. GPS, > while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate enough for > testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they don't even > measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful coincidence. > > But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks (e.g. aging or > cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. That is not what I said. I said the rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. The same for the biological process in the human body or the rate at which a hard boiled egg cooks. If you are on top of a mountain and it requires longer for your egg to cook then has time changed? No, of course not. It takes longer to cook stuff at elevation because there is less pressure. > I wonder what would be > the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do you > derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and the > actual time (biological time) are different? Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. If you own a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically occurring to the clock in order for it to tick slower. If you choose to believe the pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is up to you. But just because you choose not to understand why an atomic clock ticks at the rate it does does not mean time has changed. If you choose to not understand what causes your battery operated clock to tick slower then has time change? > I really don't see the logic > how it rises from your aether concept as you have described it so far. > > We really need a mathematical model with equations (I already asked for > in previous message - remember). So please fill here: > > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > One evening Rene Descartes went to relax at a local tavern. The bartender > approached and said, "Ah,good evening Monsieur Descartes! Shall I serve > you the usual drink?" Descartes replied, "I think not," and promptly > vanished. |