The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: Andrew Usher on 27 Feb 2010 00:32 Peter Moylan wrote: > In fact Newton did it the other way around. He started with Kepler's > results about the shape of the orbits, and deduced from that that the > force acting on the planets must obey an inverse-square law. In fact he first proved that any central force must lead to equal areas in equal times. Once you know that, it should not be a difficult calculation to find that the force must be inverse square. > I imagine that Newton started with a variety of guesses (constant force; > force varying inversely with distance; etc.) and tried each one until he > found one that gave a match with Kepler's results. No, he (and others) already had surmised the inverse-square nature. Newton did this by first comparing the force that must hold the moon in its orbit (assuming it circular) to the force of gravity here, and finding it to answer to an inverse square rule. > In some other problem domains, e.g. radiant energy, > conservation-of-energy arguments lead directly to an inverse-square law. > In the case of gravity, anything other than an inverse-square law would > lead to planets that either fell into the sun or flew off into the outer > void. No; only an exponent >= 3 would do that. An exponent of exactly 3 (inverse cube law) would be the strangest of all. > It's not clear to me, though, that Newton had enough information > to be able to guess that inverse-square was the most obvious candidate. > These days it's standard practice to publish only the final tidied-up > version of theoretical results, omitting any insight into the reasoning > that led to the results. I think that's also what Newton did. Yes, more or less. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 27 Feb 2010 01:04 Adam Funk wrote: > The earth's rotation has been slowing down faster than we've been > evolving. Certainly not. Andrew Usher
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 27 Feb 2010 01:07 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > On Feb 26, 11:13�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 12:20 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 10:20 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >> >> Or, presumably, if an archaeological site uncovered a new letter, >> >> >> fully compatible with the current canon, determined by Christian >> >> >> authorities to have been written by St. Paul. Any church which >> >> >> added it to their canon would becom non-Christian by your argument. >> >> >> > Many similar documents have been discovered in recent decades, and no >> >> > Christian church has even _considered_ adding them to the canon. >> >> >> Well, at least no question-begging Christian church. But I'm curious >> >> which documents you have in mind with your "similar". I wasn't aware >> >> of any accepted by the church as having been written by an author of a >> >> canonical text (which was, after all, the point of my statement). >> >> > Very few canonical texts were written by their "authors," so >> > again I don't know what you're talking about. (Look up >> > Pseudepigrapha in a Bible dictionary.) >> >> But all canonical texts were written by their authors. �Again, I'm >> not > > No one knows who the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, > some of the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Revelation, and (at least) 2 > Peter are. That's whey they're called pseudepigraphical. But it's a pretty good bet that they had authors. And while nobody knows who the author Luke is or the author of Acts, the broad consensus (unless it's changed recently) is that whoever they were, they were the same person. >> Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that >> Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same >> author (whoever that might have been). �And that at least most of the >> Pauline epistles were considered to have been written by the same >> person (who was believed to actually be St. Paul). �What I'm talking >> about is another letter asserted to be by Paul and enough in the style >> of the others that Christian scholars believed it. �Or a version of >> Acts determined to be by the author of John. �Or a "Second Acts" by >> the guy who wrote Luke. > > If something like that ever turns up, it will be appropriately > assessed. And, I would have thought, if so determined, probably added to the canon. The one you called "finalized" and for which "no option exists within Christianity for adding to" it. > But that's not too likely, despite the number of times it happens in > novels. Not likely at all. > (The most common example being the Q document.) Someone's found a manuscript of Q? When did that happen? As far as I knew it was hypothetical, inferred from the contents of Matthew and Luke. >> I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying >> "Yes, we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but it >> has less status than the others because we didn't know about it >> seventeen hundred years ago." > > And how, exactly, would such a document suddenly come to light? Probably the same way all of the late-discovered non-canonical gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the like did. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 27 Feb 2010 01:28 "sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com> writes: > On Feb 26, 12:52�pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > wrote: >> In article <7uomssFvk...(a)mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> writes: >> >tony cooper wrote: >> >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:14:04 +0800, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> >>> Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded >> >>> or even wanted a church. >> >> >> I thought he delegated the job to Peter. >> >> >I don't think so. I believe he did ask Peter and the others to >> >keep on spreading the word, but I have seen no mention of >> >churches, priests, buildings, vestments or choir boys in the New >> >Testament. >> >> Try Mt 16:17-18. > > The closest I see there is the word "build": > 17And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, > because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who > is in the heavens. > 18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I > will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against > it; > (Young's Literal Translation) > > Note that "ecclesia" is sometimes mistranslated as "church"; in > reality it meant "assembly"--the most well-known "ecclesia" prior to > the writing of Matthew would have been the democratic gatherings of > Athens, which went under that name. There's no reason to think that > it meant anything like the organized hierarchy of the modern Church. No, but it's the same word translated as "church" when used by Paul in his letters, e.g., to the church of God that is in Corinth [1 Cor. 1:2] the one who prophesies builds up the church [1 Cor. 14:19] our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea [Rom. 16:1] just as Christ also does the church [Ephes. 5:29] and, as far as I can tell, in the rest of the New Testament. So whatever the author of Matthew meant that Jesus wanted, it's presumably the same sort of organization that Paul and the author of Acts referred to. The OED cites the word "church" being used to mean The community or whole body of Christ's faithful people collectively; all who are spiritually united to Christ as 'Head of the Church' as well as A particular organized Christian society, considered either as the only true representative, or as a distinct branch, of the Church universal, separated by peculiarities of doctrine, worship, or organization, or confined to limits territorial or historical both to ca. 890. So I don't think that really counts as a "mistranslation". -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork |in it, it's done?" kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: sjdevnull on 27 Feb 2010 02:30
On Feb 27, 12:23 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Feb 26, 9:11 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 7:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 6:45 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 3:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2:30 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 12:52 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <7uomssFvk...(a)mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> writes: > > > > > > > >tony cooper wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:14:04 +0800, Robert Bannister <robb....(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Ant nio Marques wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and > > > > > > > >>>> Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. > > > > > > > >>> Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even > > > > > > > >>> wanted a church. > > > > > > > > >> I thought he delegated the job to Peter. > > > > > > > > >I don't think so. I believe he did ask Peter and the others to keep on > > > > > > > >spreading the word, but I have seen no mention of churches, priests, > > > > > > > >buildings, vestments or choir boys in the New Testament. > > > > > > > > Try Mt 16:17-18. > > > > > > > The closest I see there is the word "build": > > > > > >  17And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, > > > > > > because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who > > > > > > is in the heavens. > > > > > >  18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I > > > > > > will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against > > > > > > it; > > > > > > (Young's Literal Translation) > > > > > > > Note that "ecclesia" is sometimes mistranslated as "church"; in > > > > > > reality it meant "assembly"--the most well-known "ecclesia" prior to > > > > > > the writing of Matthew would have been the democratic gatherings of > > > > > > Athens, which went under that name.  There's no reason to think that > > > > > > it meant anything like the organized hierarchy of the modern Church.- > > > > > > What the hell is "Young's Literal Translation"? Is that one of those > > > > > misguided efforts to render every word of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek the > > > > > same way in English every time it appears? When was it done? > > > > > It's a literal translation of the Bible, done in 1862.  The particular > > > > credentials of Young's aren't important in this case, because plenty > > > > of other scholarly translations (e.g the 1997 version of the American > > > > Standard Version, Darby's) render the passage the same way, but more > > > > importantly because the word in question is easily verified as > > > > "εκκληÏιαν" or "ecclesia" and you can easily research the history of > > > > that word yourself without having to rely on someone else's > > > > translation abilities; at the time of writing, it meant "assembly", > > > > and it wasn't until later that it acquired the second meaning of > > > > "church".- > > > > But rather than answer Robert's question, you chose to obfuscate by > > > quoting an incompetent and outmoded "literal" translation. > > > It was a bit of a polemical post, yes, attempting to convey that the > > issue of translation is a significant one.  My apologies for the > > opacity. > > > That said, the particulars of the version are irrelevant (and modern > > versions like the 1997 version of the ASV use the same word)--you can > > find the word yourself and look at its historical meaning.- > > "ASV"? The American Standard Version, which was a conservative > reaction (ca. 1890) to the Revised Version, which was a very > unfortunate English attempt (ca. 1880) to make the AV (or KJV) more > "literal" in Young's sense, which managed to both take out the poetry > and make the meaning harder to understand? The 1997 ASV is different from the original ASV--thing of it like the King James Version vs. the New King James Version. The names are similar, but the translations are different. |