 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / October 2007Why paint?
Why exclude the symbolism of art making when it is personal variation of mathematics, and does this very human of activities from our earliest records (Lascaux, France), really diifer from our perception of reality as, say, explained by either classical, quantum, or 'new' physics. RH Nigl Here is a better statement of the question? My apologies. Why exclude the symbolism of art making from science when it is simply a personal variation of mathematics--and, does this very human of activities from our earliest records (Lascaux, France), really diifer from our perception of 'reality' today, say, as explained by either classical, quantum, or 'new' physics?" GHD/RHN > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quantum, or 'new' physics. > RH Nigl Before you pluck roses out of your a.s learn the difference between art and craft, <http://thisquantumworld.com/ht/images/stories/RFA/transport_ii_400.jpg> <http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/electron_runs_through.html> <http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/12.14/20-physicist.html> <http://www.fnal.gov/pub/Art_Gallery/archive/Heller/index.html> and why Picasso was important - but not his Blue Period. That was courtesy of a French industrialist Jean Baptiste Guimet, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/blue.htm  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Before you pluck roses out of your a.s learn the difference between > art and craft, Dr. Al, That response was unecessary. Again, you did not understand the question. > <http://thisquantumworld.com/ht/images/stories/RFA/transport_ii_400.jpg> <http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/electron_runs_through .html> > <http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/12.14/20-physicist.html> > <http://www.fnal.gov/pub/Art_Gallery/archive/Heller/index.html> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/blue.htm >>Why exclude the symbolism of art making when >>it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > <http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/12.14/20-physicist.html> > <http://www.fnal.gov/pub/Art_Gallery/archive/Heller/index.html> Don't forget David Goodsell's work: http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell SignatureAndrew Resnick, Ph.D. Department of Physiology and Biophysics Case Western Reserve University : Why exclude the symbolism of art making when : it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : quantum, or 'new' physics. : RH Nigl Is that idiotic drool supposed to be poetry? Whatever it is or however it "diifers", "Why" needs a question mark somewhere. > : Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > : it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Whatever it is or however it "diifers", "Why" needs a > question mark somewhere. I see you understood, (you know, newsgroup format typos are not mine alone). You know it is a question from your basic 'mastery' of English ... so what is your answer, fellow drooler? ;-) Here's the 'poem' again. Why exclude the symbolism of art making when it is personal variation of mathematics, and does this very human of activities from our earliest records (Lascaux, France), really differ from our perception of reality as, say, explained by either classical, quantum, or 'new' physics. : > : Why exclude the symbolism of art making when : > : it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] : : quantum, or 'new' physics. How High is a Chinaman. Why do you still beat your mother. > : > : Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > : > : it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > How High is a Chinaman. > Why do you still beat your mother. Androcles, you are warm and fuzzy, like an atom. Look, this query is only about the 'structure' (I really do not have the correct word here), about 'perception', I will say that another way, about 'observation and consciousness, which seems to trigger our 'reality'. Within string theory 'hypothica' this phenomena seems to 'be'. This theory was articulated by HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), but since, not resolved. I am simply stating that 'observational' reality is common. The scientific resolution, the mathematic resolution at this moment: unresolved. Thanks for being a thorn. RHN <snip> > Androcles, you are warm and fuzzy, like an atom. > Look, this query is only about the 'structure' (I really [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > RHN 'To be', is an intransitive verb. GHD : > : > : Why exclude the symbolism of art making when : > : > : it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] : I will say that another way, about 'observation and : consciousness, which seems to trigger our 'reality'. "OUR" perception is not *MY* reality. Do not include me in "our". I merely pointed out the assumptive nature of your "why (without a question mark)" and affirm that How High is indeed a Chinaman, I met him the other day. During the English examination, where Peter had had "had had", Paul had had "had had had"; "had had had" had had a detrimental effect on the marks awarded to Paul and Peter was declared top of the class. Without punctuation: During the English examination where Peter had had had had Paul had had had had had had had had had had a detrimental effect on the marks awarded to Paul and Peter was declared top of the class Go back to school and learn the importance of punctuation. In a court of law if an attorney uttered "Why exclude the symbolism of art..." it would immediately be objected to and the objection sustained, it calls for conclusion on the part of the witness that he is not qualified to give. It is a "leading" question. You have yet to establish that the symbolism of art is excluded. : Within string theory 'hypothica' this phenomena seems : to 'be'. This theory was articulated by HUP (Heisenberg : Uncertainty Principle), but since, not resolved. "Seems" isn't relevant. This straw seems to be broken. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/straw.gif It isn't, but it seems to be. : I am simply stating that 'observational' reality is common. : The scientific resolution, the mathematic resolution at this : moment: unresolved. Subjective science is an oxymoron. To be science, objectivity is a first requirement. What is observed and what is reality are not always the same, the straw being my ideal exemplar. : Thanks for being a thorn. I'm not the thorn, I'm the surgeon that extracts it ... not always painlessly. Quit squealing like a stuck pig, it's for your own good. You can have some candy afterwards, but first I need to get the telegraph pole out of your eye so that you can see clearly. "We" do not have a telegraph pole in "our" eye, but *you* do. > : > : > : Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > : > : > : it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > the telegraph pole out of your eye so that you can see clearly. > "We" do not have a telegraph pole in "our" eye, but *you* do. Is not the English language wonderful ... so too mathematics. Bye > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quantum, or 'new' physics. > RH Nigl Yes, there is a huge difference. Science must always be testable in the natural world. Math has less restrictions since it's only required to be internally consistent. And art is entirely arbitrary. > > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Math has less restrictions since it's only required to be internally > consistent. And art is entirely arbitrary. Thank you Igor, I always value your observations. Ergo: Science, math, art are not equal vis a vis testability, interal consistency and arbitrary value and/or form ... did I understand your response correctly? I'm not trying to lure a philosophical argument here ... just pondering some hypothetica abstract concept is all ... it's probably a dead issue, but the 'nut' (not Uncle Al), of my inquiry is this: as we approach quantum states, our 'understanding' results in some rather counterintuitive 'visualizations', (how do mathematicians 'visualize' anyway?), just-like- artists. : > > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when : > > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] : 'visualizations', (how do mathematicians 'visualize' anyway?), just-like- : artists. This is art: http://www.ezmuseum.com/images/leonardodavinci/monalisa.jpg Is this art? http://www.henry-cort.hants.sch.uk/images/collimg/art1.gif Note: the second is a crappy abstraction of the first, mere caricature, the first is an artistic abstract depiction of Nature. There is fart, and there is ART. This is abstract physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif Is this physics? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF Note: the first is an abstraction of Nature, the second is an abstraction of crap. There is ART, and there is fart. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder... some people like crap. Nature's art: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/straw.gif The straw is broken, the empirical evidence is overwhelming. Baron Victor von Frankenstein's personal assistant may be correct in what he says, but he ignores the test results. Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. "Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to." In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't use c+v. What kooks like Schwartz and Poe fail to realise is the isomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's thought experiment, shown here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack moving at velocity v in his thoughts. Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real. If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the part where Einstein screws up is: 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif Here are some mathematical proofs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof Not included are Proof by "because I say so", Proof by "everybody knows", Proof by "it is written", the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity. You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations" but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their indoctrination like lemmings. > : > > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > : > > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > This is art: > http://www.ezmuseum.com/images/leonardodavinci/monalisa.jpg I could also make the case that for Leonardo's time, the portrait was also science. > Is this art? > http://www.henry-cort.hants.sch.uk/images/collimg/art1.gif [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their > indoctrination like lemmings. : > : > > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when : > : > > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] : I could also make the case that for Leonardo's time, the portrait : was also science. I make the case that Einstein was a raving lunatic. : > Is this art? : > http://www.henry-cort.hants.sch.uk/images/collimg/art1.gif [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] : > but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their : > indoctrination like lemmings. > > : > > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > > : > > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > - Show quoted text - could you also say that the human processes involved in visualisation are ultimately and irreducebly a cause of mathematics, say? > > > Why exclude the symbolism of art making when > > > it is personal variation of mathematics, and does [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 'visualizations', (how do mathematicians 'visualize' anyway?), just-like- > artists. Quantum states or classical states. It doesn't matter. Any theory thus constructed still has to answer to scientific testability. Otherwise, it's not science. My point was that math doesn't need to address nature. It's only required to be internally consistent. Art really has no requirements at all. It's the most subjective of the three. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.