Tuesday, July 01, 2014 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Ode to Joy: the right body posture

This video made me smile tonight. The European "Parliament" in Strasbourg invited some musicians. They would play a wonderful hackneyed song by Ludwig van Beethoven, one of my favorite catchy 18th century melodies.

See also a somewhat sharper video from different angles.

But what is the right body posture when such a song is being played?

The British conservatives were sitting. But that's actually not the right answer. It's right to stand up and to look forward, in the same direction as the musicians. You may see the man on the left side at 0:08, the boss of Britain's most powerful party in the European "Parliament", Nigel Farage.

The other "lawmakers" (who aren't allowed to make any laws) from the UKIP got the same correct answer, much like the Czech member of the same club in the European "Parliament", Petr Mach, whom I voted for a month ago. I think it's Mach on the left side of the screen at 0:18.

As you can see, most of the "lawmakers" don't have a clue and their bodies were directed exactly in the opposite direction to the right one. They apparently failed to realize that it's illegal on the EU territory to present the song by Beethoven as a symbol. Attempts to legalize this song as a symbol (that some people even wanted to call an "anthem" as if Europe were a country) – and to establish an EU flag – were proposed in the 2004 "European Constitution" and these attempts were rejected in some referendums.

At least one of the large fractions of the "lawmakers" must be terribly confused about the legal status of the song.

The Lisbon Treaty which was later approved – despite Václav Klaus' patient but not dogmatic opposition – revived pretty much all the aspects of the failed European "Constitution" but the EU symbols are exactly among the plans of the EU Constitution that had to be erased.

Some people obviously don't have any respect to the people's will in referenda or the laws of their countries in general.

When the girls grow up, they will be just like Bára Špotáková. They plan to become javelin throwing Olympic winners, too. The last girl will once become a terror of all the measurers, too; she is only uncertain where she will look for her own firefighter (Špotáková's partner). I just find this version of the song extremely witty and touching.

Good to see UKIP and Mach giving the Eurocrats a taste of their own medicine, too. ;-)

Due to its hidden power, "An die Freude" was popular with the German filmmakers even in 1940. The bombers were particularly freudlich. :-)

The song is the anthem of the elementary school in Kunratice, too.

A girl managed to ignite an "Ode to Joy" megaconcert in Sabadell, Catalonia, 2012.

Mr Bean, ex-mathematician Rowan Atkinson, has sung the song, too, LOL. His German is similar to mine! ;-)

Just to clarify my sentiments. I do think that the song will ultimately be officially associated with Europe in one way or another – unless someone more powerful hijacks it. However, I find it very important that it is not the case now. The people who are shamelessly treating the song as a state symbol even though it's demonstrably not one according to the laws are showing their insatiable thirst for power and their utter disrespect for the law and the will of the European people. Beethoven's ingenuity notwithstanding, they are a grave threat for democracy on the Old Continent.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (16) :

reader Shannon said...

Lol, Nigel Farage forgot to pull down his trousers and bend forward.
The French National Front chose to remain seated, which was probably less safer ;-)

reader John Archer said...

This is piss poor. I find it extremely offensive and totally unacceptable.

Given their huge expense allowances, Farage and co could at least have supplied themselves each with one of these and one of these and used used them vigorously to generate a cacophony while booing and kicking the furniture behind them throughput the procedure.

Their problem is that they have no style.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Dr O'Neill, you are defending the indefensible. The bias is felt in every sentence.

You are trying to claim that CO2 was important in those geological events but you don't have the slightest positive idea. At most, you are comparing this hypothesis of yours with some not really viable alternatives, and even when you eliminate those, it is never fair.

You are rewriting the rules of your own game without any broader picture, logic, or justification whenever your previous theory fails. So because the Antarctic ice is near record highs, you don't hesitate to revert the signs of all the "dangerous" effects for the Antarctica relatively to the Arctic.

And whatever the data show, you will always claim that there is a problem that should be dealt with. Increasing Arctic and Antarctic ice would be a problem, INC/DEC would be a problem, DEC/INC is also a problem, and decreasing both would also be a problem, right?

With this evaluation of the data, you are 100% isomorphic to the communists in the cute Czech joke about the communist justifications that it didn't work well. The joke says: What are the 4 main enemies of communism? It's spring, summer, autumn, and winter.

By this description, you are a clearcut communist, too. Be ashamed. There isn't any problem with the climate, CO2 isn't among important things for the climate, and the earlier you stop spreading downright lies contradicting these facts, the better for everyone.

reader Shannon said...

Yes UKIP gets a lot of money from Europe now... not the FN who didn't manage to make a big enough European group... yet.
Farage is now going to become the perfect useful idiot for the European Assembly. UKIP wants a federal Europe, just like Juncker... and Churchill before them.

reader thejollygreenman said...

So the EU is using the same theme that the racists Ian Smith used as national anthem for Rhodesia when he declared UDI from the UK.

reader Buzz said...

Bravo UKIP and the FN!, in spite of their pipsqueak detractors here and elsewhere!--Dr James A DeLater, Life member, Veterans of Foreign Wars, member, National Association of Scholars, Life member, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (Canada).

reader John Archer said...

Like you, they're also breathing the same air as today's 'racists'. So, you and they should stop doing that too.

And the sooner the better.

Exterminate the EU.

reader Jon said...

Not only is it sickening that the finest work of art that humanity has ever created is being used to feather the nests of another layer of politicians, but the bigger problem is that by using it to create a supra-national identity, it actually works against the main goal that the EU should have, which is to avoid another world war, this time between super-powers.

reader DRS said...

This sort of nonsense is the result of physics teachers continuing to teach relativity as if no insight has been gained since 1905. In particular the speed of light has nothing to do with relativity. Relativity is a theory of spacetime geometry and the constant c converts meters to seconds, analogous to the conversion from inches to cm using the constant 2.54.

The question of how fast light propagates properly belongs in a theory of electromagnetism, in which case it's staright forward to create a theory in which light does propagate at 'c' (qed, with a massless photon) and a theory in which light does not propagate at 'c' (e.g., the proca lagrangian in which the photon has a mass).

reader Alberto Carvalhal Campos said...

Se considerarmos que o universo tem um centro, isto já foi provado (Astrônomos descobriram que o universo gira como um carrocel deste o big bang) e sabendo que a luz tem velocidades diferentes, de acordo com a densidade do meio o qual transita, a luz terá velocidades diferentes, aqui no centro do universo e lá fora , na periferia.

reader Guest said...

Franson has a Ph.D. In physics from Caltech, so how is this possible? Who am I (a layman) to believe?

reader Luboš Motl said...

That's a good question and indeed, if you are a typical layman, you are going to believe junk written in the media that is backed by some people with a PhD - and no one can do anything against it!

Most other PhDs are silent so indeed, the only way for a layman to escape from this brainwashing by nonsense is to learn the science himself.

reader Guest said...

I did believe it when I read it, because 1) the articles gave the impression that it was a very recently published paper, 2) the articles claimed his calculations exactly predicted the discrepancy, 3) this phenomenon seemed like it was probably a unique and rare opportunity to measure or calibrate the speed of light over astronomical distances, that had not appeared before. Two things gave me pause however, 1) the sensationalist titles, 2) it seemed like light would still be moving at the same speed, i.e. when it was going slower it wasn't light but these other particles.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Guest, there isn't any real discrepancy. The interpretation of the supernova via superluminal propagation is pretty much on par with someone's seeing an airplane and saying that he has seen the extraterrestrial aliens' spaceship.

There are lots of other contexts in which the superluminal propagation would have shown up if it were possible, but it hasn't shown up. So the evidence is extremely strong that the "accelerated" neutrinos in the supernova were actually created before the photons and none of them propagated faster than light.

This can happen, much like the shape of the airplane from some angle may resemble an extraterrestrial flying saucer. If someone wants to believe flying saucers or superluminal neutrinos, he will always find some numerological hints to "justify" his beliefs - and overlook all evidence that those are accidents - because he's selectively looking for confirmations of his preexisting beliefs that he holds independently of the observations.

Science doesn't work in this way. The alternative explanations in terms of mundane phenomena and accidents must always be considered and the explanations, including this one, have to compete against each other according to impartial rules where a theory more compatible with the data, more universally explaning everything, and assuming a smaller number of independent adjustable assumptions is likely to win.

reader André said...

The "New Journal of Physics", where Fransons article was published, has an impact factor of 4.1 (something in between Phys. Rev. C and Phys. Rev. D) and should not be confused with the "European Journal of Physics" that has an impact factor of 0.6.

reader andrew said...

Bro take this article down, you have no idea what you're talking about