From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #109 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Sunday, April 18 2004 Volume 04 : Number 109 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope [cr ] Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) [cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:07, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/17/2004 1:28:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > TPTB's sense of right and wrong and justice was always subservient to > > Principle #1 of the Xenaverse: "Shit happens". > > And the all-important corollary: "But you don't have to leave it there." > > -- Ife Well, yeah. Xena's raison d'etre. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:38:49 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:07, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: (much snippage - somebody gotta tame this hydra of a thread :) > > >Yes, I understand the mathematical precision. What's meaningful to me > > > is > > > > > >also that it still depends on where something was when the calculations > > > are being made. I'm assuming the formula is the same, but the outcomes > > > might be different depending on the variables? If so, I think you're > > > focusing on the mathematical process (precise and unchanged, > > > independent of opinion), whereas I was focusing on the variables that > > > might go into and come out of that process, and personal opinions about > > > that. E.g., with missiles, interpretations of "safe" or "effective" > > > distances, of "acceptable" damage. > > > > Well, no. Special relativity has to do with locations and distances in > > space and time. 'Safety', 'effective' and 'acceptable' (and any other > > value > > judgement) have nothing to do with it. >> > > Okay, so the theory should be seen as separate from the application? The > latter involves personal aspects that are irrelevant to the actual process > used to arrive at various applications? If so, I can see that. Where we > seem to differ is that the theory is more meaningful to me in its > applications than as some standalone thing that simply "is." I suppose if > I were a mathematician, I could admire its "pure" beauty. :-) Well, yes, physicists and mathematicians do sometimes talk about a theory/theorem as 'beautiful' - by which they mean clean, elegant, simple (by their standards :) - and I think they would be the first to say that's a quite different 'beauty' from its everyday application as applied to scenery, music, women etc. ;) As for its applications - well, special relativity 'applies' to everything that moves. It's a bit like gravity in that sense. But in fact it only gives results that differ from 'ordinary' kinematics (as defined by Galileo? Newton? my memory fails me!) - at speeds approaching the speed of light. So in trying to explain my guess of where Einstein got the term 'relativity' from, I was in fact leaving out Special Relativity's most distincitve feature. Computing the apparent path of the 747 (or the trajectory of a moon lander or a Voyager) does not (so far as I know) require Special Relativity to be taken into account, since the speeds, though high by our standards, are so slow compared with light speed. It is possible to measure the effects of Special Relativity, for example by flying atomic clocks round the earth, after which they have 'lost' a few microseconds - obviously this is quite insignificant in everyday terms. Relativistic effects also have to be taken into account in designing nuclear accelerators - synchrotrons and the like. But I can't think of any everyday phenomenon where one could say "That's [Einstein's] relativity at work". > > Yes, certainly the mathematical process is 'neutral'. So are the > > formulae involved in nuclear fission. They're either mathematically > > correct or not, > > but not 'good' or 'bad'. An H-bomb is 'evil' but the equations aren't, > > any more than gravity is 'bad' if you fall off a cliff. >> > > Yes, I understand this. I do see a difference between your examples, > however. There are human dimensions (e.g., choice, expertise, > perseverance) iinvolved in coming up with calculations to produce an > H-bomb, even if the forces are out there whether we harness them or not. > Gravity seems more "neutral," a more "pure" force that has nothing to do > with human intervention. That is, until people started using ballistics (i.e. motion under gravity) to calculate the trajectories of cannon balls, shells, and ICBM's :( This is an old debate, of course - whether 'scientists' (in the broadest sense) are morally responsible for the applications of their 'discoveries'. I think we better rule it OT before it spawns another wild digression :) > > I actually left out (for simplicity) the time and distance distortion > > effects > > as you approach the speed of light. Besides, I'd need diagrams to > > explain it, even if I could remember it correctly ;) >> > > LOL! That's okay. I wanted to understand the basic principle better, > which I do now. I just hope like hell I didn't mislead too much with my 'explanation' :) > > >Huh. That kind of assumes that the user assigns more "authority" to > > > these scientific terms than to others. In my case, they're just > > > another reference point, like terms from music or art or psychology. > > > > Nevertheless - and this is a sociological phenomenon, not a scientific > > one - > > every prestigious field of endeavour has parasites hanging on its > > coat-tails trying to garner some reflected glory. > > Agreed. I simply meant that I (and possibly Jackie) was not attempting to > do that. I can see where you'd get frustrated with how we're using > scientific principles. That's different to me than why. OK. > > Your theories are what I might call empirical/statistical theories - > > based on > > observations. The circumstances are always so complex that no rigorous > > mathematical formulation is possible (other than a statistical one). > > And also, they are probaly limited to human (or at least mammalian) life > > forms as > > evolved on this planet. ;) >> > > And yet they underly much of our discussions about what is meaningful to us > about XWP. We find them intriguing and *worth* arguing about as they > relate to the human condition. Oh, I absolutely agree. I find, for example, the question of why certain sounds (or combinations of sounds) are 'pleasant' to me, quite intriguing. Why do I like some songs and not others? And often for reasons I can't explain by any simple 'rule'. I wasn't being derogatory about such theories, but pointing out that they (usually) deal with much more complex phenomena and circumstances, and (usually) their applicability is correspondingly more limited, than those of physics. > > Hmmm. I think many engineers and scientists are perfectly happy with > > the creative / artistic side of things, and even science fiction so long > > as it is > > recognised as fiction. But they tend to draw a line between 'fact' and > > 'fiction'. They hate 'pseudoscience' which deliberately tries to blur > > the distinction - fiction masquerading as 'fact'. > > I said "great thinkers." Maybe it's my bias, but I'd say most don't seem > that preoccupied with drawing lines, but in pushing boundaries, revealing > lines where nobody saw them before, erasing ones that seemed hard and > "true," moving beyond ones they've drawn to explore new ones ---making > "fiction" fact or "fact" fiction. I believe it's the rest of us who argue > about where to draw lines around where the great minds have already been. > > -- Ife No disrespect, Ife, but it seems to me that that approach must leave one open to every snake-oil salesman on the planet. How do you ever decide if someone's trying to con you? Most times, there is no great difficulty deciding between a charlatan or crackpot, and a genuine pioneer/researcher with a potentially valid theory. But if one insists on giving *everyone* the benefit of the doubt - well, hey, have I got a hot deal for you ;) One should give accused persons 'the benefit of the doubt' -since the consequences for them are dire. But not salesmen or theories - it's up to them to prove their claims. Btw, I disagree about the 'great thinkers' - most of them (I think) were 'pushing boundaries' only in certain areas - the ones they were interested in. I'm not aware that they (on average, and what a wild generalisation this is!) were any more tolerant of unconventional thought in other directions, or of pseudoscience or snake oil, than anyone else. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:29:43 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Channeling Xena spiritually On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, mirrordrum wrote: > naw. xena could have called, and did call on, "powerful assistance" all over > the place. first of all, there was gabrielle her sides and laughing hysterically>. C'mon, c'mon. Gabrielle helped Xena out a lot. She was powerful in her inability to accept that she wouldn't be very much help to the WP in battle and so jumped in anyway. And I think Xena really admired that courage. But more often, just the fact that she stood up to Xena when very few people dared to, in doing that, she was a powerful assistance in bringing Xena back to her reforming self when she went overboard and slipped off her path in the heat of battle. but seriously, she had m'lila. very > powerful and a relationship whose power caused both suffering and great > benefit. she had lao ma. very powerful. she managed to kind of blow that > relationship thus creating an exceptional arc. she had a potentially > powerful ally in alti. an evil ally, admittedly, but one who certainly > taught her things. xena had ares, but that was conflictual thus creating an > exceptional relationship. she had krishna whose help she used and i'm still > flummoxed that all the xena-hos have tolerated, nay, liked that. head in bafflement> As one of the most ardent Xenahos in the Xenaverse, I'll tell you why I found her interaction with Krishna achingly beautiful and extremely touching. Because Krishna was one of an extremely rare few who wanted only to help Xena and wanted nothing in return. And he treats Xena with such kindness and love and is worried about her, not about what she can do for him. That's practically unheard of in the series. And I loved seeing Xena for once get absolute and unconditional love. Krishna didn't say, "Yeah, I love you, but you gotta change". Krishna just said, "I love you. Be what you are. I love you." The one person who comes closest to this selfless attitude towards Xena is Solon. He doesn't know she's his mother when he wants to go with her. But unlike Gabrielle, he knows her and really likes her and wants specificially to be with her, not just use her to get away from home. He feels her love for him and he responds to that. And he admires her tremendously. Then I think Cyrene is next. Because yeah, she wants Xena to reform. But she wants her to reform for her own sake. She feels so badly for her "little one". I don't think it's as much about the shame Xena has brought to her house as about her anguish over her daughter's loss of her soul. Yes, she blames Xena for the death of Lyceus, but I think this is purely a mother's grief speaking when she's standing over the body of her son. As we saw in Remember Nothing, Lyceus was just as gung-ho to fight as Xena was. xena even had the god of eli for awhile there. i found > that *really* odd and didn't much like it. > Yeah. I'm GLAD that one ended badly... > the nifty thing about all the allies xena could and did call on--or maybe > teachers is a better word, tho it went beyond that imo is that, as in real > life as distinct from the iliad, her allies, or potential allies, were the > source of magnificent plots and sub-plots and arcs and angst and turmoil and > whatnot. Excellent point. No one was ever neutrla towards Xena. She fired everybody up. Snip snip. > > these are not the gods and goddesses of xena. even when she encounters the > immortals, she is never really ruled or controlled. her relationship to > those powers that be is decidedly not that of her purported time. this was > essential, of course, and i think it simply mediated the ways she could > call, or refuse to call, for assistance. > > for example, in , she actually calls on the power of ares. > but, being xena and not, for example, achilles, she outsmarts ares. yeah, > she uses his power but she uses his power for herself and the villagers and > avoids servitude and powerlessness. it's really the first clue we have that > xena is going to be a real pain in the butt for the olympians. > > cheerio, > > md And an absolute joy for the rest of us. KT ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #109 **************************************