Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,sci.math,comp.ai,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,alt.consciousness,alt.alien.visitors
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!gatech!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!doug
From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Subject: Re: Stapp, PK & Physics Today
Message-ID: <dougDDDun3.GAq@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <NEWTNews.808441114.14349.richard.caldwell@oufan.oklaosf.state.ok.us> <Pine.SOL.3.91.950815122056.1062F-100000@cms4> <NEWTNews.808521836.13767.richard.caldwell@oufan.oklaosf.state.ok.us>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 02:52:15 GMT
Lines: 36
Sender: doug@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:121119 sci.physics:134749 sci.math:114425 comp.ai:32526

In article <NEWTNews.808521836.13767.richard.caldwell@oufan.oklaosf.state.ok.us> Richard Caldwell <richard.caldwell@mhs.oklaosf.state.ok.us> writes:
>But, it seemed to imply that the researchers were testing the accuracy of the 
>power of 2 in the inverse square law itself.  This is obviously a joke since 
>it is not based on some characteristic of gravity, EMR, or any other physical 
>phenomenon, but on the simple geometric equation for the surface area of a 
>sphere.  Geometry, being abstract and not hobbled by the messiness of reality, 
>has simple equations with exact values like 2, and totally inexact values like 
>pi.

You're *still* missing a point. This is the same issue as
non-Euclidean geometry, from a different angle.

Look at it the other way around; if the actual exponent turned out
to be 2.000000000000007915, then you'd have an argument that space
had a fractal geometry (which is certainly non-Euclidean).

Your "obvious joke" and the "simple geometric equation" etc are
all based on assumptions about which mathematical systems apply
to the universe. Those assumptions could be quite wrong (outside
the limits where they've been tested so far).

And in fact it has not infrequently been argued that space might
indeed have a fractal geometry of some sort. Other kinds of arguments have
also been put forth in a few papers for why the exponent might not be
exactly two.

So you're still too quick to assume what is possible versus ludicrous.
You'd be on stronger ground just to take Ockham's razor: there is
as yet no particularly compelling reason to think it *isn't* exactly two,
that's all. But who knows.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
