Pete

I don't believe that myself. A gravitational field, at least as it was defined by Einstein, has a relative existance and does not require that the spacetime be curved (what you called distorted). Spacetime curvature refers to the presence of tidal forces. Its quite feasable to have a gravitational field with no tidal forces. A uniform gravitational field is just such an example. In fact that's what the weak equivalence principle depends on. I.e. the weak equivalence principle states Einstein viewed the gravitational force to be quite real, i.e. that there is a gravitational force acting on objects which are in the field. His general theory of relativity states that the force is frame dependant and thus is an inertial force and as such inertial forces, like the Coriolis force, are real forces too, contrary to what Newtonian mechanics holds to be true. Pete

Who was being derogatory? I most certainly wasn't. Not at all. I was merely saying that long posts like that will often be ignored because readers often don't want to take the time to read long posts like that. I certainly never mean to be derogatory by any means. FayeKane - I hope you understand that I was by no means trying to be derogatory. Far from it in fact. I appreciate people who check their views with others for feedback. That is highly commendable and I compliment you on your effort. I just wanted to let you know that if you didn't get many responses that it wasn't due to your question per se. It may just be that the reader may be very lazy, like me. I'll try to read it later when I have the time and patience. Good luck. Pete

I may have over reacted to this comment. It now seems to me that you may have been providing constructive criticism whereas I originally thought you were trying to be condescending. If that is the case then I want to humbly appologize for over reacting. Best wishes Pete

I'm unofficially taking a course in the gradute Classical Mechanics this semester. The text we are using is Classical Mechanics - Third Edition, by Goldstein, Poole and Safko (2002. I'm trying to solve Exercise 17 in Chapter 2. The problem reads Where reduced to quadratures means expressed in terms of definite integrals which can be evaluated analytically or numerically. I can't see how to do that. I'll post the differential equation that results when one uses that Lagranian L = T - V later tonight. Thanks in advance. Pete

If you don't get any/many responses its probably because your post was too long to read. Pete

My thoughts exactly. By the way, just because I've read that some scientists have postulated the existance of a moral center and I think that they had good reason to do so, it doesn't mean that I blindly accept it as God's given truth. It only means to me that it becomes a legitimate question for me to ask about and to inquire into. Glider - Thank you so much for all the effort you put into this post. I'm swamped with work right now so I won't be able to absorb it all until later. I wanted to thank you for your effort so that you, and others who have contributed to this thread in a positive way, know that I truly appreciate your efforts. Pete

That's the dumbest thing I've read in this forum in a long time. My comprehension is just fine thanks. Although your response to my post makes me question yours. No shit Sherlock. What exactly was your point? That a particle physicists must try to dumb down before they read your comments? Or perhaps you think that particle physicists don't understand the scinetific method as well as an evolutionist/psychologist? Let me guess; You think that being a particle physicists does not mean I'm qualify to understand what people have explained to me here? Whatever your point was it must be a very poor one. I started this thread to investigate the reasons behind the existance of our morals. As iNow said Glider seems to agree Since you ignored what I said in my last post I'll remind you of it While what the scientists said in the articles I read might be wrong, i.e. we might not actually have a moral center, it doesn't mean that I don't comprehend what I'm reading. By the way, at the very best, someone being wrong is not due to a lack of comprehension. It just means that they're wrong. Sheesh!

Good one!!! Since all murders were done by humans I say we get rid of the whole lot of those pesky humans.

Its best not to make assumptions about another peoples motives when they are asking a question, unless, of course, you know them. The only concern we should have is what a person actually posts. While you frequent this forum and see people asking the same questions over and over you have to keep in mind that they're probably asking the question for the first time. Many forums and newsgroups have an FAQs for this very reason. I hear that. I too had that problem for a long time until I learned how to deal with it. Do they start insulting you or become condescending or something like that? When I see the same person posting the same content over and over I simply don't read them after a certain point. Its easy for me to do this with newsgroups since the newsreader I use has a "Block Sender" function. I think that the wise thing to do is to assume that the person asking the question doesn't have ulterior motives until it is demonstrated otherwise. After all each of us has areas in which we don't have first hand knowledge or expertise. In my case my expertise is in physics. In your case its biology. After all you wouldn't want me to roll my eyes if you asked why, in light of the expression E = mc2, photons have no mass even though they have energy, would you? This particular question comes up quite frequently in relativity forums. But I know that, more often than not, the person asking the question is honestly trying to learn something. I used to be that way until I learned what was actually causing me to roll my eyes in the first place. After I learned that I learned how to deal with it. Now when I get tired of answering a particular question I merely ignore it and let someone else have a whack at it. Most certainly. As I mentioned above, the first few responses were consistent with what I had assumed in the first place and in that sense I got my answer at that time. That said, this is an interesting topic to me and as such I like discussing it. So even though the question was answered I am very interested in the topic of discussion. After all this is a discussion forum, not a QA forum per se. I think this religion thing started because I responded to a comment someone made with the response The Bible doesn't even consider that murder. I phrased it that way to emphasize that the source I was referring to is taken to be the source of morals for many people. I think this may be how suspicions about religion intentions came up. But I don't think its wise to jump to any conclusions about a persons motives simply by the question they asked. I've always wondered how evolution accounts for morals even when I was an agnostic. So there was never a good reason to assume it had to do with religion, even if it actually was in this case.

I came to learn how the frictional force became associated with the Coulomb force. The reason being is that the Coulomb force (as in the force between two charged particles etc.) is the cause of the frictional force at the microscopic level. I.e. friction is a result of charges interacting at the surface of the two materials in contact. Pete

Hmmm! Interesting notation. I've never seen anyone use [math]X^{\mu}[/math] for four-velocity For massive particles we can always reparametrise so that [math]\tau[/math] is the proper time. And we can show that [math]\eta_{\mu \nu}X^{\nu}X^{\mu} = -c^{2}[/math], ok. But is that what FayeKane said? No. If she did then we wouldn't have to guess. I hate it when people say that! Pete

It is not uncommon for physicists to speak of a box of photons. There is no law of physics which prevents it. There may be practical problems though. But it is possible to have multiple reflections. A laser is a perfect example of this. Photons bounce back and forth between two mirrors inside a laser tube but will eventually escape. There is an article in the American Journal of Physics which discusses a box containing a gas of photons. The author explains the mechanism responsible for the photons contribute to the mass of the gas/box system. The mass of a gas of massless photons, H. Kolbenstvedt, Am. J. Phys. 63, 44 (1995). The abstract reads Pete

When I see people make this statement they are usually referring to the magnitude of the 4-velocity, which, of course, is c. Pete

That's why I have never and will never discuss religion in a science forum. People are too ready to jump to conclusions which don't apply to me. People are also to ready to stereotype theists like myself. I didn't assume that they couldn't in the first place. Why would you assume otherwise? I asked because I never thought about this before and assumed that there was a psychological/biological/sociological reason. Pete

At this point all I'm doing is learning. I'm a very long way from making any sort of arguement and to be honest I plan on stearing clear of discussions like this. I'm only interested in the subject for my own contempation of morality. And I didn't say that I'd accept it or use it in an arguement. I said that if someone claimed otherwise I would not be easily convinced. There's a difference. Think about it though. I don't personally know anyone on this forum. At best they might mention if they have a degree or are a scientist etc. But I really don't know anybody. So, for example, why would I believe you over, say, a book I'm reading on philospophy? In this case I don't know you but I actually know the author of the philosophy book I'm reading. Would you have me make an arguement using the material in this thread? I wouldn't because I don't simply believe something because a stranger told me so. Authority is a valid source of knowledge. I understand that it is a word that has a bad ring to it for many people. Its not worth my time to take each assertion an authority makes and trace it back to its source(s). I have no intention of becomming an expert in this field so I have no choice but to accept authority on this matter. However I plan on reading more about this in the future and I'll compare it with comments by other authorities and make a decsion later in life. I'm not in any kind of hurry. I have plenty of time to contemplate morality. Good point. All that means is that the way I asked my question was not the way I should have asked it. After all when one is asking a question they are doing so from a standpoint of ignorance. Sometimes the answer to your question is that you didn't ask the right question. When I first read this I, for some odd reason, interpreted it very differently and it seemed quite rude. I know that you're not rude from other threads so I went back to reread this and see that I misinterpreted it. I appologize for my own rude responses. As far as why I started this - I didn't explicitly want to state the purpose because that kind of thing can derail a discussion. When someone seemed to be assuming I was heading somewhere totally different I mentioned the purpose for posting this. Your response I'll let you in on another secret. That was obvious. seemed rather sarcastic to me and I very much dislike sarcasm. Pete

Yup. That was done in the first few posts and was consistent with what I had assumed in the first place. There were some things like giving your life to save someone elses that I'm trying to figure out how the details work. I keep hearing that humans don't have instincts so I felt it best to start a thread on this. Regarding instict - Is there an expert here who actually knows this as a fact? I'm not certain if what was stated above are facts or educated guesses. Philosophers hold that evolution has not been able to explain morals so I'm not easily convinced that they're wrong. I'm wondering if evolutionary social behaviour and is the same thing as morals. I have a tendacy to think that morals are learned behave, i.e. nuture rather than nature. I'll have to think on this. I'll get back later. Thank all of you for your help. Gee. You're so smart.

I'll let you in on a secret. I was trying to figure out how an atheist would account for the origin of morals.

I regret mentioning it. I was merely trying to get my point across that murdering and killing are not the same thing. Absolutely. That's why I provided definitions for those other terms. I'm not sure why you assumed that. We're clear now I assume? Even if it did, do you really care? I asked because I've ran into people on the internet in other discussion forums who got upset when people continued to discuss a point when they believed that they had already answered that person's question. I don't know the people on this forum that well yet so I asked you if it would bother you so I know for future reference. I may have a great deal of respect for a person's knowledge and wisdom but that doesn't mean that I'd accept everything that they say. Okey dokey? Pete Excellant point! Thank you!

There doesn't seem to be a forum here for geology so I'm posting this question here. Is there any geological evidence which supports all the flood myths that exist in so many different cultures? I.e. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology) I see a lot of hypotheses there but no mention of evidence. Pete

Killing people from other tribes is not what I meant by murder. The Bible doesn't even consider that murder. I was speaking about murdering people from within your own "tribe" or stealing from the guy next door. And I'm aware of what was answered. I hope it doesn't bother you that I choose to continue to discuss this?

I'm usually comfortable with the dictionary definition of most words I used. E.g. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral Sounds good to me. See - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct This also sounds good to me. I have no idea how there could be a biological cause other than gentic. But since I'm not an expert in biology I was leaving room open for it just in case. Pete That would imply that moral differ from society to society. What about those behaviours which remain the same between all societies? I would hazard to guess that there is a common theme between all societies such that each must have that component in order to remain stable. E.g. I can't concieve of of any society in which stealing or murder would be considered acceptable behaviour. Thanks Pete Thanks, I will! Pete

Does psychology have an explanation of how we came to have morals? I heard that humans don't have insticts, is that true? If so the morals can't come from instinct and if so, i.e. nature plays no role then all that seems be left is nurture. Thoughts? Pete

Wow. That's a lot and most of it I'm not sure is meaningful enough to answer or is readily answerable. But first things first; Sorry but I have no idea what that means. Can you give me an example by analogy from, say, communication using radio waves? Thanks. Pete

Is the E-book free?

The book is recommened/suplimental reading for the grad EM course at the school I'm going to. It seems like a real nice book though. One I'd want to have. The real problem is this semester where I have to get Butkov's "Mathematical Physics" text. That'll set me back a good $150. Note: I looked at half.com and the book costs $176.77 Pete