Occam's Razor and Aesop's Contributions

[Guest guest]

dear Bhaktivinode Thakura Prabhu,

 

thank God people like you are around and still have the patience to write.

 

The Bhaktivedanta understanding, the real vision filled with love and

knowledge, is becoming the object of our speculation, as we integrate into

the western world, as we integrate into its mundane values.

 

"Si vic pacem, para bellum." -Julius Caesar

 

If you desire to propagate the real understanding leading to peace,

*bhoktaram yajna-tapasam sarva-loka-mahesvaram suhrdam sarva-bhutanam*, then

be prepared for war. Opposition awaits you, for it is the mundane world we

are living in.

 

And Lord Krishna blesses each one of us with a particular kind of

understanding, with a particular conviction, according to our desires.

 

As was Einstein's theory proven, so can we prove the world to be red by

covering our eyes with a pair of red sunglasses.

 

But these eyes are meant to be covered with the ointment of love.

 

Let us keep up the pure understanding, the one leading us back to the

spiritual world. What do we care for staying here.

 

Thank you very much.

[Guest guest]

> [Text 2652895 from COM]

>

> > But of course I can offer you the math, and a simple version of it, easy

> > to understand.

>

> To measure the distance to an object, one can use trigonometry.

>

> S

> / \

> / \

> / \

> A-------B

>

> Lets assume that 'S' is the sun and 'A' and 'B' are 1-meter telescopes on

> the earth. 'A' measures the angle between the light rays that it receives

> from 'B' and from 'S'. Similarly 'B' measures the angle between 'A' and

'S'.

>

> 'A' must be able to see 'B' (otherwise it could not measure the angle

> accurately enough), and since the earth is a globe, the distance between

'A'

> and 'B' cannot be larger than 100 miles or so (otherwise they would not

see

> each other).

 

First error. They can be as far apart as the Earth allows, that is, at 12

hours or 180 degrees difference. The math will do the rest of the job. It is

quite unnecessary for them to see each other.

 

> Now one calculate the distance to the sun:

> It is <distance between A and B> divided by <angle at S (in radians)>.

> Where <angle at S> is PI - <angle at A> - <angle at B>

 

Wrong math prabhu.

 

1. Draw a straight line from S which crosses AB at the angle of PI/2 (90

degrees).

The point of crossing will be marked as "T"

 

> S

> /I\

> / I \

> / I \

> A---T---B

 

obviously, BT/ST = tg((angle at S)/2), and BT = AB/2.

This gives (AB/2)/ST = tg((angle at S)/2)

which furhter gives ST = AB/2*tg((angle at S)/2)

Now, if your formula is correct (ST = AB/(angle at S))

it would give us AB/2*tg((angle at S)/2) = AB/(angle at S))

which would simplify to 2*tg((angle at S)/2) = (angle at S)

 

which is, even without further checking, not correct for all values of

(angle at S). You can take any angle and calculate to see if it is true.

For example if angle at S is PI/2 then angle/2 is PI/4,

tg(angle at S/2) = tg(PI/4) = 1

2*tg(angle at S/2) = 2 which is obviously not equal to angle at S (PI/2)

 

And if you did not consider ST to be the distance but SA, then you would get

2*sin((angle at S)/2) = (angle at S) which is the same type of mistake.

 

This was an "Reductio ad absurdum".

 

> With a 1-meter telescope the error when measuring angles is about one

> millionth radian due to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. (That is for

> example 1 mm in 1 km distance).

>

> Now assume that the calculated angle at S is 1 millionth radian with an

> uncertainty of 1 millionth radian, and that the distance between A and B

is

> 100 miles. This gives a distance to the sun between 50 million miles and

> infinit. Sorry but I don't call this "measurement of the distance to the

sun".

 

Uh oh. Too much assumption based on bad mathematical model which

necessitated sites A and B to be too close. Actually when you take into

account what scientists claim (distance to Sun around 150 mil km and Earth

diameter around 12,700 km, if you put A and B at opposite sides of the

Earth, you will measure angle around 0.00008467 radians which is about 84

times more than you assumed. An error of 1 millionth of a radian will not

completely ruin the results as in your model. Actually you don't have to put

them at opposite end of Earth - even if you just set A and B far enough

apart, far more than 100 miles, you are going to get more reliable results

than in your experiment.

 

> Please note that I assumed perfectly manufactured telescopes. I also

ignored

> the disturbing influence of the atmosphere. And I assumed that the light

> rays don't make curves in the space (Einstein has shown that this is not

true in the presence of the sun).

 

True, but all these errors added (when you conduct the experiment properly)

can not turn results into something from 5th Canto.

 

yours,

 

DVD