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: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Feb 2010 09:37 On Feb 27, 1:07 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(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 Quite a few textual scholars would contest that assertion. the best we can say is that they had "redactors" who compiled existing bits of tradition, primarily oral, possibly (in the case of Q) written. > 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. Nothing to do with "consensus." It says so in the text. > >> 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. Do explain what the options for opening the 1700-year-old canon are. > > 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. There are quite a few novels about it. Has Dan Brown gotten around to it yet? > >> 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. Really? To what communities could Paul have written where suitable climatic conditions prevail?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Feb 2010 09:46 On Feb 27, 9:26 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > *plonk* Why does this wacko bother to look at newsgroups, given that its only response to a challenge is the above? (Followed by many paragraphs of paranoid boilerplate.)
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 27 Feb 2010 11:43 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > On Feb 27, 1:07�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(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: >> >> > 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 > > Quite a few textual scholars would contest that assertion. the best > we can say is that they had "redactors" who compiled existing bits > of tradition, primarily oral, possibly (in the case of Q) written. So for you someone who takes "existing bits of (oral) tradition" and writes a document based on them isn't an "author" but merely a "redactor"? >> 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. > > Nothing to do with "consensus." It says so in the text. So now it's okay to trust what the text says? Then if another document comes to light that says in the text that it's written by the same author it should be a slam dunk. >> >> 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. > > Do explain what the options for opening the 1700-year-old canon are. Something like, "From now on, this book will be considered part of the canon"? >> > 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. > > There are quite a few novels about it. Has Dan Brown gotten around to > it yet? Sorry. I misread you as having been asserting that Q was an example of a document having been found. > >> >> 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. > > Really? To what communities could Paul have written where suitable > climatic conditions prevail? It doesn't matter where he was writing to. What matters is that the letter (or a copy of it) found its way to such a place before all known copies disappeared. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Brian M. Scott on 27 Feb 2010 12:46 On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:46:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in <news:6a68ce6c-1bf8-4deb-ab47-aac7a12d8b18(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 27, 9:26�am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: >> *plonk* > Why does this wacko bother to look at newsgroups, given that its only > response to a challenge is the above? (Followed by many paragraphs of > paranoid boilerplate.) Multiple orgasms? Brian
From: Tak To on 27 Feb 2010 12:53
Peter Moylan wrote: > Yusuf B Gursey wrote: >> On Feb 26, 11:13 am, R H Draney <dadoc...(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >>> Peter T. Daniels filted: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 25, 1:29=A0pm, Adam Funk <a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>>> "archaeoastronomy" >>>> No, that's speculation about the alignments of Stonehenge or the Nasca >>>> figures or whatever. >>>> Which is different from the sort of _recorded_ observations made from >>>> at least the early first millennium BCE in Mesopotamia (and from some >>>> point in China) down to the time of Tycho Brahe, on the basis of >>>> nothing but whose naked-eye observations, Kepler worked out the theory >>>> of elliptical planetary orbits. >>> Impressive, true, but I once got my hands on a book on celestial mechanics that >>> derived the fact of elliptical orbits (and the "equal areas in equal times" >>> principle) starting with nothing but the fact that gravity is in inverse-square >>> proportion to distance....r >> but Kepler didn't know that. it took Newton to figure it out. > > 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. > > Once I tried to follow the same line of reasoning, and got nowhere. > Showing that an inverse-square law leads to elliptical orbits is a > simple undergraduate exercise these days, although it would have been > harder in Newton's day. Showing that elliptical orbits leads to an > inverse-square law is a problem of fiendish difficulty. > > 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. > > In some other problem domains, e.g. radiant energy, > conservation-of-energy arguments lead directly to an inverse-square law. Similarly, a zero divergence of "flux" (outside the source) would lead to inverse square law. Intuitive, this means that if one assume that the force "thins out evenly in all directions" (as luminance, etc), the inverse square law becomes a necessity. > 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. 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. Others have proposed a inverse square relationship before Newton. E.g., Hooke. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto(a)alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr |