I wrote this 26 Jun, '11
If we want to talk about communities, it is important to understand just exactly what is referred to, what is the essence of Community, that which is so desired and to which such high value placed. But, what in reality can be a mere mirage, a projection our collective unconscious, reaching back to a primordial time before 'self' awareness. [I changed the grammar a bit - hope it reads a bit better now - Comments are something that should be banged out on the key board in 1/2 hr or so and 'damner the grammar' - 2 Oct.'11].
Community exists when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and is defined and exists to that extent only. It is made up of that part of our existence that goes beyond the 'self', the 'me'. It occurs when we think, not what is good for me, but what is good for the whole and its boundaries are defined to the extent that we are willing to make such consideration beyond ourselves. It is the opposite of 'sink or swim', 'everyone for themselves', 'only the strong survive', 'the law of the jungle', 'might is right'. It was encapsulated in "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". It is the stuff that allows us to survive a Great Depression, World Wars. It motivates us to pool our resources together to help those that need help and protect those that need protect.
During the Great Depression people helped on an individual basis, and the governments took a hands off approach (until near the end). With this and the 2nd World War fresh in their memories, people turned more and more to their governments to organize social programs to assist others, and willing to pay increased taxes to implement such programs. However, at the same time they transferred the responsibility, the direct contact and exposure to the point of disassociation. It freed their consciences to pursue a 'everyone for themself' attitude (and perhaps that was what JFK was addressing) and let the government take care it. The problem with this is when you have a government that wants to implement a hand off approach, an 'everyone one for themselves', reduce government, reduce taxes so that the individual may have more disposable income. With this both sides of the equation say 'me'. The result is: there is no 'Community', there is no 'social' there is no common ground or bonds, there is no identification with 'you', there is no 'us' (even if it is 'us against them'). There is only 32 million points, without significance in a Universe of billions.
I was at a Church on Friday evening and on the wall was a plaque that set what makes for a Community. I would reproduce here but for copy right laws. However, one thing it suggested was "Buy from local merchants". This seems innocuous. However, perhaps if people did buy 'local' as opposed to say, importing, even though it might be more expensive, we may not be able to afford all this stuff. But, when combined with the very 'me' attitude of spending beyond our means, how do you think this recession would look to us, to all those in our 'Community' who have lost their jobs, had their lives destroyed, live substandard lives, are unable to provide the opportunity to their children to allow them to reach their potential (and make us, as a whole, stronger).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 September, 2011
23 September, 2011
- Neutrinos - Earth shattering???
Continuation of the last post - below
Particles found to break speed of light
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
submitted: 23 Sep.'11 at 9:58am (PDT)
I submitted a comment yesterday but apparently it is not being posted - perhaps they thought I was making 'light' of such an 'Earth-shattering' experiment.
(you may read my comment at: cicblog.com/comments.html
"- Little Known or Understood Exception to the Speed of Light")
To dispel such impressions I would like to add:
If I recall my Prof from my 1st year Physics class (UofT '72 - that's 1972) explaining that Einstein's Special Theory implied that it would take an infinite amount of energy to raise an object (with mass) to the speed of light. This, of course, is a simple application of the Lorentz factor:
γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2 (i.e. power -1/2)
Vis.:
e=γmc2
where m is the rest mass.
He went on to point out, quite rightly, that this inferred prohibition was based on the assumption that the object had 'rest mass' and was going less than the speed of light and so did not apply to either objects without 'rest mass' or objects with 'rest mass' but whose speed was not less than the speed of light - obviously since light travels at the speed of light and has mass (apparently). If I recall he mentioned something about neutrinos - but that was a long time ago and I would have to review my notes to confirm.
Basically, the mass equation above has a singularity at v=c and as we know, in physics it can not be assumed that the theory extends to this point or beyond.
As we also know this equation has only been verified for speeds less than the speed of light and only within experimental accuracy. It is meaningless to the theory to say it has been verified for speeds up to .9999999c due to the general principle in Physics (and life generally: a miss is as near as a mile - i.e. you give me a degree of accuracy and I am confident that I could find - well I used to be able to do that kind of thing anyway - an equation that will approximate the Lorentz equation to within existing experimental accuracies but that does not have the speed of light as a singularity)
It seems to me that what is Earth-shattering about this experiment is not the neutrinos - which as we 'know' (ha ha ha, little joke) do not shatter Earth - is that the technology of measurements has advanced to such a degree that they have the technical ability to measure these events and of such short periods of time. It reminds me of the Michelson- Morley experiment in the late 1800's that concluded that the speed of light was constant, which of course set everything off. One must always be skeptical of the conclusion that the speed of light is constant, of course, but the fact that they were able to make such measurements was absolutely 'Earth-shattering', at the time.
Personally, I am not convinced that neutrino's are no more than a figment of our imaginations but then, in the immortal words of the Sage himself:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Albert Einstein
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Particles found to break speed of light
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
submitted: 23 Sep.'11 at 9:58am (PDT)
I submitted a comment yesterday but apparently it is not being posted - perhaps they thought I was making 'light' of such an 'Earth-shattering' experiment.
(you may read my comment at: cicblog.com/comments.html
"- Little Known or Understood Exception to the Speed of Light")
To dispel such impressions I would like to add:
If I recall my Prof from my 1st year Physics class (UofT '72 - that's 1972) explaining that Einstein's Special Theory implied that it would take an infinite amount of energy to raise an object (with mass) to the speed of light. This, of course, is a simple application of the Lorentz factor:
γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2 (i.e. power -1/2)
Vis.:
e=γmc2
where m is the rest mass.
He went on to point out, quite rightly, that this inferred prohibition was based on the assumption that the object had 'rest mass' and was going less than the speed of light and so did not apply to either objects without 'rest mass' or objects with 'rest mass' but whose speed was not less than the speed of light - obviously since light travels at the speed of light and has mass (apparently). If I recall he mentioned something about neutrinos - but that was a long time ago and I would have to review my notes to confirm.
Basically, the mass equation above has a singularity at v=c and as we know, in physics it can not be assumed that the theory extends to this point or beyond.
As we also know this equation has only been verified for speeds less than the speed of light and only within experimental accuracy. It is meaningless to the theory to say it has been verified for speeds up to .9999999c due to the general principle in Physics (and life generally: a miss is as near as a mile - i.e. you give me a degree of accuracy and I am confident that I could find - well I used to be able to do that kind of thing anyway - an equation that will approximate the Lorentz equation to within existing experimental accuracies but that does not have the speed of light as a singularity)
It seems to me that what is Earth-shattering about this experiment is not the neutrinos - which as we 'know' (ha ha ha, little joke) do not shatter Earth - is that the technology of measurements has advanced to such a degree that they have the technical ability to measure these events and of such short periods of time. It reminds me of the Michelson- Morley experiment in the late 1800's that concluded that the speed of light was constant, which of course set everything off. One must always be skeptical of the conclusion that the speed of light is constant, of course, but the fact that they were able to make such measurements was absolutely 'Earth-shattering', at the time.
Personally, I am not convinced that neutrino's are no more than a figment of our imaginations but then, in the immortal words of the Sage himself:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Albert Einstein
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Little Known or Understood Exception to the Speed of Light
Submitted: 22 Sep.'11
Particles found to break speed of light
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
"neutrinos moving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a distance of 730 km between Geneva and Gran Sasso"
It was actually Berlusconi trying to get away from the media - a very fundamental part of Einstein's theory, not well known, or understood, but very well documented, is that politicians running for cover when the sh... starts flying is an exception to the general rule.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Particles found to break speed of light
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922
"neutrinos moving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a distance of 730 km between Geneva and Gran Sasso"
It was actually Berlusconi trying to get away from the media - a very fundamental part of Einstein's theory, not well known, or understood, but very well documented, is that politicians running for cover when the sh... starts flying is an exception to the general rule.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)