[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

[Ian Glendinning]

Ron,

BTW - that correction also means the Lorenz transformation is not what
it appears.
It can only be some as yet unexplained mathematical oddity until it is.
The "cosmic asymmetries" are a complete fudge at the moment.

I used to design and analyze parts for military aircraft ... once upon
a time (for a year or two, nearly 30 years ago) ;-)
Been mainly in the Oil, Gas, Refining, Energy & Chemicals engineering
business - the last decade in information systems and modelling.

Regards
Ian

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Ian, Thanks for the clarification, Wiki is usually the fastest way
> to gain semi-reliable info, enough to prove my point
> about Bo's usage of the term anyhoo. But as you
> state, it takes alittle digging in other sources to get
> a more accurate explaination.
>
> You design fighters for the RAF don't you?
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:14:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Ironistic Metaphysics
>
> Bo, you sir, are the master of misinformation and a hack. Simply
> muck-spreading a meme.
>
> That "surprising fact" about travelling at different speeds leading to
> different relative time is a myth however many wiki pages and popular
> science books say otherwise. It would be plain paradoxical if it were
> true.
>
> It's the absolute acceleration not the relative velocity, that
> determines which of the relatively moving observers record slower or
> faster time, distance and ordering of events. Relatively they are
> always both moving at the same velocity relative to each other.
>
> Even wikipedia gets this right if you look at the right pages between
> the right edits.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>
> The weirdness is that there does in fact appear to be an inertial
> frame of reference for the absolute acceleration "at a given location
> in a so-called expanding universe". But of course science largely
> chooses to ignore this inconvenience when applying for billion dollar
> funding post-Copenhagen. Come back Einstein.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bo:
>> The MOQ is a meta-metaphysics compared to the Aristotelian-
>> Academical term, but as I try to convey, it robs SOM of its "M" rank
>> and thereby degrades it to a sub-set of its own. Some people show
>> their inability to pull themselves by hair or bootstraps out of SOM by
>> not seeing this "transformation". To move from Newton physics to
>> Einstein's needs a set of equations called Lorenz Transformation, the
>> SOL is such a procedure from SOM to MOQ.
>>
>> Ron:
>>
>> The Lorenz transformation has nothing to do with transforming
>> calculations from newtonian to relativity.
>>
>> "In physics, the Lorentz transformation precisely describes how,
>> according to the theory of special relativity, two observers'
>> varying measurements of space and time can be converted into
>> each other's frame of reference. It reflects the surprising
>> fact that observers moving at different velocities report
>> different distances, passage of time, and in some cases even
>> different orderings of events. The Lorentz transformation was
>> the result of attempts by the eponymous Hendrik Lorentz and
>> others to explain observed properties of light propagating in
>> what was presumed to be the luminiferous aether; Albert Einstein
>> later reinterpreted the transformation as a statement about
>> the nature of space and time themselves and derived it from
>> the axioms of relativity.
>> -wiki
>>
>> You sir, are the master of misinformation and a hack.
>>
>> The SOL procedure, as far as I have been able get from you,
>> it a semantic one of stripping the "M" from SOM and adding it
>> to "M"OQ. quite a complicated procedure Bo, what mathematical
>> formula did you use?
>>
>> For you, using the gallery metaphor, MoQ is the only painting in the gallery
>> a bigger one than the previouse painting that was the only painting in the gallery
>> which now hangs as a detail might hang on the larger painting of the MoQ.
>> Bo's MoQ. Yay Bo.
>>
>> But the MoQ I subscribe to. the one that Pirsig presents really isn't a painting at all
>> but the ability to recognize and value other paintings, it's the knowledge that there is no
>> one "real" "true" painting that they are all true in their own context and their value
>> is relative to my own context.
>>
>> This creates a "radical metaphysic"
>>
>> Bo's "Meta-Metaphysic" is culturalcentric, limited and falls to the same absolutism that SOM does.
>> It produces ideas of western cultural superiority.
>>
>> He produces no support for his assertions other than his rather limited reading of Pirsigs work
>> and a handfull of vastly misunderstood theories and terms. But he seems to have learned
>> a very important aspect of "truthiness" that hammering on a single statement long enough
>> will give it creedance and an illusion of verifyablity and acceptance. Where, in P.T. Barnum
>> style, the illusion of self importance and granduer go's miles in selling snake oil, the aire
>> of acerdimic authority is more persuasive than actually knowing what the hell one is talking about.
>>
>>
>> but we love our Bo just the same
>>
>>
>> and his struggle with SOM's testicals
>>
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>