Hi Everybody,
Thank you for each of these.
Total apologies for the thing about mantras, which I did not intend as
an insult to anybody, because I am keenly aware that several of you
have done a lot more to actually solve and understand the system under
discussion than I have. Also, I value the track of this discussion a
lot, and its attempt to be critical of things that I think deserve
that criticism.
It was a scientist friend who meditated every day (and whose mental
poise was much better than mine) who first told me that the physiology
of the mantra was suppressed pre-frontal cortical activity, and that
the mantra does it better than mere quiet, because it is very hard to
actually quiet a mind, whereas filling it with some kind of redundant
activity is easier. I too always found that fascinating, all the more
because it seems to have some good effects.
I probably shouldn't have expressed a frustration that really
originates from the disconnect between Schroedinger and Kolmogorov,
which it took me a needless 7 years to realize was largely understood
by others, since I am also sympathetic to the difficult balance
between using words habitually to get things done, and being cautious
with the boundaries between intuition and the scope of definitions.
Anyway, apologies for saying something snotty in an email that was
intended for people I respect.
Eric
On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:50 PM, plissa...@comcast.net wrote:
Yes, correspondents are correct. My remarks were pretty stupid, as
they usually are. Apologies. No one needs to be told what they
don’t know.
I was trying to make the point that in bathtub vortex flow there is
huge body of theoretical and experimental research and probably no
unk-unks, in the sense that there are no unknowns. We just can’t
put ‘em all together.
To be constructive, the issue can be idealized to a container with
an exit orifice dispensing fluid in air. Jes holdin’ up a funnel in
the breeze, M’am!
If the losses are small the exit flow speed at the edge of the
emitted jet is approximated by V*2 =2gh, independent of the fluid
density, as was hypothesized by Leonardo (c. 1500), and well known
to Galileo (c.1600), Newton (c.1700) and Bernoulli (1750). If swirl
vanes are introduced, then the rate of outflow is reduced, since the
vortical exit flow is inclined to the vertical. If you have a
narrow, long, constricted nozzle, or filters, then, a’course, again
outflow is reduced, and can be calculated if these impedances are
defined
.
If it swirls of its own accord, then, unless tests show this to be
equally distributed clockwise and anti, one must assume that one’s
water or funnel is twisted or God is a casuistic Jester – both
quite likely. Or that the earth is spinning, a modern hypothesis,
denied by the Bible, but supported by my astronaut friends who claim
to have actually observed same.
As Nick notes, gedanken experimenten are a wonderful source of
insight and “paradoxies”, and simple kitchen experiments for this
case very productive. A’course, with real experiments, a lotta
control issues go without saying, so I won’t.
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
