Directory

Mike Asher  wrote in article
<01bbbebe$31421a60$89d0d6cc@masher>...
> Robert Coe  wrote:
> >  Alfonso Martinez Vicente wrote:
> > : Do plus infinity and minus infinity meet at the infinity? I mean,
> > : if I go towards the infinity along the real line, will I somehow
> > : get to the the minus infinity?
> > 
> > That question makes about as much sense as trying to compute the
> > specific gravity of a nightmare.  Your most fundamental error is the
> > assumption that infinity (plus or minus) is even a number, which it
> > isn't.  There are, of course, infinite numbers, and some of them are
> > larger than others.  But none of them have any relevance in the context
> > of your question
> 
> Incorrect.  Although infinity is a concept, not a number, you can easily
Number also is a concept. Numbers do not hang around in objective
reality, only in the mind.
Larry
> base a mathematical system on the equivalence of +infinity and
> -infinity...the question would be whether or not such a system has
> relevance to the physical world.  Many such systems do not, and that
> doesn't stop mathemeticians from spending their life on them.
> 
> In fact, if I'm not mistaken, some of the more esoteric cosmological
models
> treat the time component in exactly this fashion.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
> 
> "E pur si muove"
>                                - Galileo Galillei
> 

In article <54bbcm$oet@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
> Does science require mathematics?
  No, but the absence of mathematics will severly limit what you can accomplish.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson,              Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.

In <54e265$fqo@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> andersw+@pitt.edu (Anders N Weinstein) writes:
>In article <5493ol$gmh@ux.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert  wrote:
>>>>                  Your first sentence describes the transformation of
>>>>neural representations, and transformation of representations would
>>>>seem to be about what we mean by deduction.
>>>A deduction of what premise from what conclusion?
>>In effect the premise is the untransformed representation, and the
>>conclusion is the transformed representation.  Structural properties
>>of the representations system form auxiliary premises.
>I am still looking for an explicit answer to the question. What is
>the content of the premise? What is the content of the conclusion? Can
>you display the "deduction" in a language I can understand so I can
>evaluate it?
I take it you are making a point about what you will count as a
deduction.  It seems to me that mathematicians make deductions in
abstract formal languages, where neither the premise nor the
conclusion could be said to have a content.  I expect that some of
these deductions are carried out in a formal language which neither
you nor I could understand, although we might be able to mechanically
manipulate the symbols and verify that the steps of the deduction
were properly carried through.  In any case, I hold that a formal
language is a quite different category of system than is a natural
language.
>I was recalling the crab-like model from Churchland's article on the
>"phase-space sandwich" model of sensory-motor control. I don't have it handy.
>I seem to recall the input vector represents something like the angles 
>of the eyes that are tracking a projectile, the output vector was angles of
>joints in an arm-like appendage.
>In broad terms the inference rule instantiated by the system would then 
>be a practical one, something like "if the eye-angle is such and such, 
>adjust the joint angle to the so-and-so-function of such and such."
>Which is not exactly a deduction, although it could be accomplished by
>a symbolic computer as well. 
I wouldn't have any problem thinking of Churchland's model as
deductive.  I am doubtful that it is the method implemented by the
brain.
>>conclusion is the transformed representation.  Structural properties
>>of the representations system form auxiliary premises.
>But these structural properties are not *represented* as auxiliary 
>steps in a proof -- they are wholly part of our rational reconstruction, 
>not explicitly represented in the system itself. They are a bit like 
>the "assumptions" that the visual system "relies on", e.g. that
>objects are usually rigid.
I'm not convinced that the visual system can properly be said to rely
on an assumption that objects are usually rigid.  On the other hand,
if it can be said to rely on that assumption, I don't see any
objection to saying that, in effect, it uses that assumption
deductively in its processing.

sdef!  wrote:
> 
> We already have an infinitely complex and beautiful REAL environment
which 
> requires no technology from us to sustain both itself and us.
How long do you think 25 million Californian's would survive without the
technology that turns that arid, worthless real-estate into productive,
useful land?
Another person who's idea of 'real nature' is somewhere between Disneyland
and a well-groomed state park.
-Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

The US won't go metric until the electric car is a mass produced reality, and 
universities get more money for undergraduate programs :-)

Note followups to the appropriate newsgroup....
In article <53e12c$fji@lex.zippo.com> Daryl McCullough wrote:
} In article <325A8A6A.20@hub.ofthe.net>, Kate Mohr says...
} > Two bodies at constant velocity act exactly the same as two
} >bodies at rest.
} 
} But relativity is completely consistent with that assumption!
glird@gnn.com (glird) writes:
>
>  Einstein, 1905: "In accordance with the principle of relativity 
>the length to be discovered by the operation (a) ... must be equal 
>to the length L of the stationary rod. The length to be discovered 
>by the operation (b) ... we shall find that it differs from L. 
Glird conveniently omits the definition of the two operations, 
and the fact that the result in no way contradicts what Daryl 
wrote above.  Indeed, if not for the result referred to above, 
there *would* be a difference since electromagnetic effects 
would then be different in the two frames. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

In talk.origins Jerry  wrote:
[snip]
>.Dear Gidon:
>  Your prayers have been answered. Instead of playing games with files on your
>computer. You can ask questions right on the internet with the Jewish Prophet of God.
>You have the questions, I have the answers. I usualy post in alt.christnet.theology
>but I work on this too. So I will tell you everything about God.What God says today.
>What God is. What God has prepared for mankind. I am God's answer man right on the
>internet.You can even have my book for free, "The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth"
>You will learn the big picture science of all things. No creationist stupidity. God
>is smart today.No devils, God is powerful. No perpetual hello. God is ethical. Yes,
>you will have it all. And free. Salvationis even offered. Free.And you don't have
>to be Jewish. Jerry(Jewish Prophet of Truth)  Starway is the
>pathway to the new Earth as per Isaiah.
This reminds me of a scene in "A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's
Court" . A man claims magical powers to see everything everywhere and
tells the crowd what the King of China and of India is doing. The Boss
(the Yankee) listens for awhile then ask the magician to tell everyone
what the Boss is doing with his hands behind his back. Surprise,
surprise, the magician can't do it, but he can come up with a sneaky
reason why not. 
So Jerry, what am I wearing? God know, so should you.
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid

patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>In article <54bg3g$kme@news-central.tiac.net> nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <549m63$qjl@news-central.tiac.net> nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>>>Unfortunately, your newsreader missed my final sentence relating
>>>>directly to this:  "Thus, science can be cited with confidence at any
>>>>given time and by both sides of most moral issues."  
>>>>
>>>>I think you took my response much too narrowly.  I meant that, in
>>>>general, those debating moral issues understand that the human politic
>>>>respects science and accords it deference in ways they do not for
>>>>religion and so forth (what Silke calls its "privilege") and therefore
>>>>search for "scientific" propositions that support whatever axe they
>>>>wish to grind.  Surely, you must know of or observed this phenomenom
>>>>in public discourse.  What does it say to you about science when both
>>>>sides to an irreconcilable difference plead their case through
>>>>citations to science?
>>
>>>It says something I've been saying for some time.  Science provides
>>>data, not interpretations.
>>
>>IMO, science (& scientists) has (or claims to have) a much broader
>>vision but yours is certainly one reasonable meaning.   Isn't this a
>>variation of the old three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and
>>statistics (or something like that)?  
>Hardly.  It's a simply question of the pragmatic limitations of
>science -- for instance, it's completely acceptable for one
>scientist to question another scientist's interpretations of his
>data, but to question the data themselves is akin to violence,
>since it implies either incompetence or fraud.
 Data is often questioned, either because the methods used to record
it were ineffective or the researcher was incompetent or the
researcher set out ot commit fraud.  The first of these is far and
away the most used and does not reflect necessarily on the competence
of the researcher.  I think the conclusions that scientists draw (e.g.
their "laws" and other such things) are what most laymen believe to be
the practical and religious output of science.
Ken MacIver

patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>In article <546u36$7mf@news-central.tiac.net> nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>>
>>>Andy Perry (Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu) wrote:
>>>: In article <544ssb$jvh@news.ox.ac.uk>, patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk
>>>: (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>>
>>>: >Science provides data, not interpretations, and certainly not
>>>: >judgements.
>>
>>
>>At some point and without fanfare, science became itself a religion, a
>>universal belief that the application of certain "rational" methods
>>leads to predictive real world results.
>Ahem.  "universal belief" doth not a religion make.  There might
>possibly be a reason that it's a common belief that the scientific
>method leads to predictive real world results....
Tell it to Jesus.  You are far too narrow in your views of what
nonscientists view as science.  Most folks could care less about the
methods (or, indeed the data) but look instead to the conclusions
(known often as theories or laws) reached by noted scientists.  It is
those conclusions that have elevated science to the status of a
religion.
>Similarly
>>That its assumptions and
>>fundamental tenets change over time is ignored.
>This isn't right.  It isn't even wrong.  To the extent that tenets
>change (e.g. matter can neither be created nor destroyed), they're
>not fundamental.  To the extent that they're fundamental (e.g.
>experimentation is the ultimate test of prediction), they are
>unchanging.  Failure to recognize this distinction is indicative
>of a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between
>a theory and a method.
Your first point is simply wrong.  You define fundamental as something
that never changes because you say it never changes.  Hardly.  Your
last point is at the heart of the reason why so many nonscientists
elevate the mush that many scientists write to the status of reality.
>>Thus, science can be
>>cited with confidence at any given time and by both sides of most
>>moral issues.
>True but irrelevant.  Science can be cited on either side of most
>moral issues because science doesn't discuss morality.  As I
>said earlier, science only provides data.
It is only irrelevant if you ignore human history, as some, but by no
means a majority, of scientists do.
Ken MacIver

Could anyone explain to me (in fairly good detail if possible) why ordinary 
plane mirrors are coated on the back instead of the front?  
Thanks for taking the time to help out a confused & puzzled person :)
---
Ray Van Dolson -=-=- Bludgeon Creations (Web Design)
rayvd@shocking.com - http://www.shocking.com/~rayvd/

In article <54e12e$hka@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, LBsys  wrote:
>Im Artikel <54cfj7$cup@news.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander
>Abian) schreibt:
>
>>The  NATURE,  for the survival among the myriad of species such as
>> various bacteria, viruses, bacilli, giraffe, cats, dogs, tigers, whales,
>
>>elephants, human beings, etc, etc,    selects the ones who are stronger
>>than the others.
>
>If that would be the case, then there would be only one species left, and
Abian answers:
  First of all so what !  Secondly, I doubt very much because there
will be a variety of deadly viruses which will continuously  and 
inexorably fight among themselves  (just like there is a variety of
homosapiens which fight, kill, slaughter  (e,g Bosnia, etc) each other,
>>Except for (hopefully all)  human beings, all other species blindly
>>and speechlessly surrender to (for us) the cruel, atrocious, heinous,
>>nefarious, monstrous and wicked NATURAL SELECTION FOR
>>SURVIVAL
>
LBsys continues
>a) a principle cannot be "cruel, atrocious, heinous, nefarious,
>monstrous..." in itself, but of course it can be in your eyes. If this
>yields the same in the eye of the tiger is to be doubted.
Abian answers:
Of course, definitely and incontestably  "a principle, an an axiom can
be cruel, heinous and nefarious to some"   I repeated several times that
"The Natural Selection"  is atrocious, heinous and cruel "for us homosapiens".
Because  Nature will let a smallpox virus survive and allow a  child
to dire.  But we, with our intellect and technology will overthrow
that natural Selection Principle (and please let us not bring the
argument that " O,in that case homosapiens will be the strongest and thus
the strongest survives (hence  the validity of the "principle")- you know
very well what do I mean - I mean that those people who are opposed to 
Genetic Engineering - they  are surrendering to a cruel and nefarious
Natural Selection principle! arguing that one must not tamper with the 
Nature !!!
--------------------
  The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation
  of favoured races in the struggle for life.  C. DARWIN  (1859)
 The future of species by means of rational alteration of Cosmos, or the
 preservation of intelligent races in the struggle for life. A. ABIAN (1992)
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
       ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS  AND EPIDEMICS
       ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT  
                     TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)

Hello all,
	I am an AP physics student in high school. I am having extreme trouble 
with a problem in the book. I have tried everything that I can think of, and 
can't come up with the right answers, please help
There is a 10 kg crate being pulled at an initial speed of 1.5 m/s up an 
incline with an 100 N force parallel to the incline which is 20 degrees from 
the horizontal. If the crate is pulled 5 meters a) what work is done by the 
gravitational force b.) what work is done by the 100 Newton force c.) What is 
the change in kinetic energy of the crate d.) what is the speed of the cate 
after being pulled 5 meters.?
You are not doing m homework problem, I am asking advice as a last resort.
thanks Jon

Brian Fleming  writes:
>
>Hi, I'm doing a Physics II problem, but I never covered angular 
>momemtum in Phys I.
If this is true, you should *immediately* file a law suit or a formal 
grievance within the university governance system, depending on your 
inclination and financial resources.  But somehow I suspect what you 
really mean is that you did not learn it, or perhaps retain it. 
Please note: this difficulty reflects a common problem with what I 
like to call the "concept of prerequisites".  In high school in the 
US system, it is rare that one course depends explicitly on things 
learned in other courses beyond the most basic things like reading 
and arithmetic.  In college, when one course is required before you 
can take another, it is commonly expected that you will know many 
of the key ideas from those previous classes or be able to pick 
them up on your own by review. 
In any case, the chapter on this subject is in your textbook, so I 
suggest you review it because it might come up again.  It is one of 
the key parts of mechanics, essential for playing billiards.  Further, 
I think UIC employs TAs to help you with these sorts of questions,
although they might not point out to you what I noted above.  You 
see, you might still need things you learned in calculus or physics 
next year ... or even next century ... especially problem solving skills. 
>The problem is a simple electron moving in a circular path 
Which is not much different from a mass moving in a circular path 
except for the source of the force that maintains the motion.  Look 
for such commonalities and physics will be much easier. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

Matthew 7:1  Judge not that you be not judged.
Matthew 7:5  Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and 
then you will see clearly to remove the speck our to your brothers 
eye.
I may not agree with what some of these people have done or the label 
that they have given believers of the Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah, 
but we are all forgiven in the eyes of the Lord. 
However we are only forgiven if we confess our sins to Him.
I don't cliam to be fundamentalist or right wing or .. or ... I 
believe the Bible.(period)

Matteo Cacciari  writes:
>
>It's a matter of definition. If you define
>
>	mass = resistance of a particle at being accelerated
>
>then he's right: this "mass" increases with the speed, 
But you could also identify this resistance to change in motion 
with momentum, as expressed in Newton's laws, and avoid all of 
these problems, and in particular the crazy business of calling 
energy by a second name (relativistic mass). 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

Gregory Greenman  writes:
>
>  It is more common in the physics community to define mass as I
>have. When I refer to the rest mass, I say "rest mass".
 I can't tell what division you are in at LLNL, but I do not know a 
 single nuclear or particle physicist anywhere, including several 
 at LLNL, that uses mass to mean anything other than the invariant 
 mass tabulated in the Review of Particle Properties or the pocket 
 guide or reference books (e.g. Table of the Isotopes) used in 
 nuclear physics. 
 I also don't know anyone who normally uses the term "relativistic 
 mass" rather than "energy", although everyone of my acquaintance 
 does know that the following expression
>    m = m0 / sqrt(1 - v*v/c*c)
>
>where m0 is the rest mass.
 is the sort of thing used more than a generation ago and the "m" 
 that appears is the "relativistic mass".  Today one writes E = gamma m 
 in c=1 units, where m is the invariant mass.  The problem with the 
 equation above is that it leads to all sorts of problems for photons. 
 The only exception to what I just wrote is that there is a subset of 
 "modern physics" books that perpetuate this sort of thing but which 
 do not confuse relativistic mass with "mass". 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

In article <326B7E26.4C42@prism.gatech.edu>, gt3377a@prism.gatech.edu wrote:
> Could anyone tell me why if two balls are released to hit the other
> three balls in Newton's balls setup.  Why two balls come flying out and
> not just one with a increased velocity.
> 
> I think it has to do with the sum of the moments equal zero, but I am
> not sure.
There are two things that are conserved (well, almost conserved) in the
collision, momentum and energy.  If one ball bounced out with twice the
velocity, then you are correct that momentum would be conserved, but in
this case energy would not.  The only way to have _both_ momentum _and_
energy conserved is for the same number of balls to bounce out as bounced
in.  Momentum is m*v, energy is .5*m*v^2; work through the algebra and
convince yourself.
$.02 -Ron Shepard

In <326AB6D3.6C33@uiuc.edu> Cindy Dole  writes: 
>The rest of the Tony's post was an obnoxious ad hominem attack that
>doesn't deserve to be rebutted in detail.
>
>With best regards to all,
>
>Mike Chotkowski, Ph.D.
>e-mail to: chotkows@uiuc.edu
You, Mike, are obviously an intellectual snob and bigot who flaunts his
knowlegde to aggrandize a rather large ego.   You are proof positive
that one does not necessarily acquire an open mind when one acquires a
Ph.D.   I, sir, have two graduate professional degrees, one in a
scientific discipline, plus a B.S. in Biochemistry.   I say that only
because you apparently like to flaunt your own educational achievements
on the Internet.   Your "facts" above did nothing to further this
debate.
Tony

In article <54ep7t$iec@ux.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert  wrote:
>In <54e265$fqo@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> andersw+@pitt.edu (Anders N Weinstein) writes:
>>I am still looking for an explicit answer to the question. What is
>>the content of the premise? What is the content of the conclusion? Can
>>you display the "deduction" in a language I can understand so I can
>>evaluate it?
>
>I take it you are making a point about what you will count as a
>deduction.  It seems to me that mathematicians make deductions in
I should have said "inference". 
>abstract formal languages, where neither the premise nor the
>conclusion could be said to have a content.  I expect that some of
>these deductions are carried out in a formal language which neither
>you nor I could understand, although we might be able to mechanically
>manipulate the symbols and verify that the steps of the deduction
>were properly carried through.  In any case, I hold that a formal
>language is a quite different category of system than is a natural
>language.
I think this point is irrelevant. *You* said the neural network in the
Churchland piece was making "deductions" , maybe meaning inferences.  I
asked: an inference from what premises to what conclusion? I still
don't know.  Now you bring in purely formal inferences allegedly done
by mathematicians.  Maybe, but that still doesn't help me understand
what is being claimed when you say the model is doing inferences -- its
not like that, it seems.
I only want to understand what you were claiming.
>I wouldn't have any problem thinking of Churchland's model as
>deductive.  I am doubtful that it is the method implemented by the
To repeat, we need to know what is being deduced from what in order
to evaluate this claim.
>I'm not convinced that the visual system can properly be said to rely
>on an assumption that objects are usually rigid.  On the other hand,
>if it can be said to rely on that assumption, I don't see any
>objection to saying that, in effect, it uses that assumption
>deductively in its processing.
"In effect" is crucial here. It may "in effect" use that assumption
without containing a representation of the assumption, just as Dennett's
chess playing program "in effect" wants to get its queen out early.
Given my behavior, there's no doubt that I "in effect" know that 
nouns agree in number with verbs, but there may be doubt whether I
have an inner lexicon, a representation, which is 'consulted' in
the course of sentence understanding.

-*-------
In article <54b1mv$58t@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Patrick Juola  wrote:
> I needn't point out that Catholic dogma does not recognize 
> the validity of this definition -- as is their perogative.  
> If you actually bother to check what they mean by "life," 
> it (c. 1996) usually comes down to the introduction/creation 
> of a human soul, which is unfalsifiable.
As is wise.  Pace Silke, the Catholic Church and its scholars 
have become quite careful NOT to make use of science in 
formulating its core doctrines -- indeed, to express those
doctrines in a way that stays as independent as possible of
modern science -- so that those doctrines cannot be challenged
by tomorrow's scientific findings.  Any educated person who has
read recent Catholic apologia will recognize this, and anyone
who has passing familiarity with the modern history of the 
Church will understand *why* it has taken this tact.
I suppose that this strategy (or its historical roots in 
different strategies that failed) can also be described as 
a reliance on science, so that Silke's claim remains true ...
Russell
-- 
 Newton plain doesn't work, even as an approximation, 
 except within certain limits.        -- Moggin

>>By the way, I'm not a firm believer in God, just a firm believer in 
>>critical thought.
>>
>    False analogy! The "wave-particle" theory refers to an observable,
>tangible space-time event. "God", so far, refers only to a figment of
>some people's imagination. Saying that "they assume then that their
>logic is more powerful than God" is merely saying that the logic
>attributed to the fictitious entity "God" somehow differs from human
>logic. Which of course could be said of any Scifi character or any
>imaginary being.
>    Libertarius
We could relieve a lot of the contentiousness if people who believe in
God (like I do, Fiddler-on-the-Roof-style) would just admit that they
believe what they want to believe, period.  It's fun, it pleases me to
believe that, makes things make sense to this mind which in not in any
sense razor-sharp.  Religious (and many scientific) lines of logical
develoment turn out to be houses of cards, but if you just say it's so
because you want to believe that, there's remarkably little to fight
about.  Of course, then you lose all your ammunition for pushing the
religion down everybody's throat or have Crusades and the like, so I
see why it has to be the way it is.
Bob W.
************************************************************************************
Two dangers constantly threaten the world.  One is disorder, and the other is order.
                                                   Paul Valery
*************************************************************************************

-*------
RICHARD J. LOGAN (RJL@OVPR.UGA.EDU) wrote:
>> Great scientists are great because they recognize assumptions
>> other people have taken for granted.
In article <54d5so$bov@balder.adm.ku.dk>,
Jens Stengaard Larsen  wrote:
> Has "recognize" inadvertedly been used here in stead of 
> somthing like "cast doubt upon", or am I misunderstanding
> something completely?
The recognition and identification of an assumption, and 
description of what it might be to consider otherwise, is 
the hard part of "casting doubt upon."  A crucial element
of this process is recognizing what assumptions might have
useful alternatives.  Simply questioning that the world 
might proceed along as it has, rather than turning inside
out, may produce an interesting philosophical novel, but
it provides little basis for subsequent work.  ("OK, let's
assume the world will turn inside-out tomorrow ... Well,
there is nothing much we can say about it or do about it,
so what shall we do next?")
Russell
-- 
 Newton plain doesn't work, even as an approximation, 
 except within certain limits.        -- Moggin

In article <54eej7$g34@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
   bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote[in part]:
>
>>I submit that we do *not* know that all light rays in space 
>>move at the same absolute speed "c".  We do know that if we 
>>have an experiment that can measure the speed of light, we 
>>will invariably get the same answer regardless of the state 
>>of motion of our reference frame.  This statement is subtly 
>>but distinctly different than your assertion, because there 
>>is no way to verify the speed of every light rays 
everywhere 
>>in the universe.  We assume that all light rays move at c, 
>>but we have no way to verify this.
>
>Experiment disagree with your submittal.
>The MM/KT pair showed that the numerical value of light's
>round-trip speed is a constant c. This means that it is c
>for the arbitrary inertial observer, and one such observer
>happens to be a stationary dude, regardless of whether he
>can tell if he is at rest in space or not. Now this guy has
>"perfect" rods and clocks, meaning unshrunken rods and 
unslowed
>clocks.  Also, his clocks are truly synchronized even by 
Einstein's
>method.  Therefore, when this fellow makes any measurement 
at all, 
>his results are true or absolute.  And since the MM/KT pair 
say that
>even he must get c, this tells us that c is light's absolute 
speed, 
>and also that it is always c because this stationary 
observer can
>measure any light ray coming from anywhere and still get c.
>
>So, we have already verified it.
>
You missed my point.  I have no doubt that your assumption is 
correct.  However, you are still assuming that your 
experiment applies everywhere in the universe at the same 
time, even to the "unobserved" universe (beyond the distances 
we can see).  There is no way to prove this, so it is 
actually a theory.
===================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com

In <326AC12E.7F52@pilot.infi.net> Jerry 
writes: 
>Our light speed is the lowest level of
>existence but cannot exist without the higher levels of existence.
>Thus higher science
>ditates the necessity for the higher structure.And this is basically
>God. Thus God is necessary for the universe to exist today.
But not tomorrow?
Franz Kiekeben
http://members.aol.com/fkiekeben/home.html

In <326AF482.4DDD@primenet.com> vanomen  writes: 
>
>Matthew 7:1  Judge not that you be not judged.
Yeah, but what if one is confident of his opinions and *doesn't mind
being judged*? Then can one judge others?
Franz Kiekeben
http://members.aol.com/fkiekeben/home.html

-*------
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
> ...  Also, I like to distinguish "modern science" from "all 
> science".
A lot of significant science of modern times was done without
math.  Darwin formulated his theory without math.  (Of course,
evolutionary biology now makes great use of math, and in some
sense, it did so even before Darwin.  Remember, Darwin knew
nothing of genes, but Mendel did.)
In article <54d9ku$5qn@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
> She contemplated phenomena, and made up a theory about some
> of them. ...
Mathematics greatly extends our ability to express and analyze
theories.  For this reason, one should be leary of any broad field
that allegedly contains great "theory" but where math is eschewed.
Russell
-- 
 Newton plain doesn't work, even as an approximation, 
 except within certain limits.        -- Moggin

In article ,
Andrzej Pindor  wrote:
>In article <548fvp$nl7@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>Anders N Weinstein  wrote:
>>In article ,
>>Andrzej Pindor  wrote:
>...................................
>>The distinction at issue was suicide vs. unintentional self-caused death. 
>>It was not suicide vs homicide. True the authorities will be 
>>much more interested in the latter distinction than the former, and
>>will therefore be very interested in evidence on that question.
>>
>>>What do you think a coroner in charge of the case attaches importance to?
>>>I am astounded by a grave lack of reflection in your use of words.
>>
>>I really can't see what you are objecting to. One of the things
>>coroners and inquests do is seek evidence as to the person's intentions.
>
>True, there may be cases where a person's death may be self-caused by
>accident. However, what I was objecting to was your claim that a classification
>as suicide dpends on person's thoughts or intentions. These can never be
>known. We can only know that a person left a suicide note, for instance, or
>talked about suicide, etc. IOW, we only know about facts, not intentions.
Write "theory-laden observation" and "the intentional stance" on the blackboard
1000 times.
-- 

Doug Groseclose wrote:
> 
> As usual Uncle Al's reply was clear and to your point. One way to imagine
> spacetime and its curvature due to gravity is this: imagine you have a
> fishnet streched fairly tightly in a horizontal plane (this makes it work
> in Earth's gravity). Onto that net drop balls of varying mass. You will
> see that the lines of the net curve around the surface of the balls, the
> bigger/heavier the ball the greater the curvature.
> 
> Doug
A few more questions please:
1. Does this curvature occur in all planes?
2. Is it symmetrical (ie Do I have to stretch 2 fishnets and sandwich
the ball    in between)?
3. If the answer is no to the first two, then how do I know how to
orient myself when    looking at the curvature of space-time? 
Leading into a question about black holes I did not find on the FAQ
(maybe because it is simple to the first year physics student):
4. Is space-time surrounding a star/planet/etc. perfectly spherical
(assuming object    is perfectly spherical)?
5. Is space-time surrounding a black hole perfectly spherical?
Thanks for enduring these questions from a general relativity newbie.
-- 
************************************************************************
* S.Aggarwal          |   Quoting one is plagiarism.  Quoting many is  *
* saggarwa@direct.ca  |   research.              -- Anonymous          *
************************************************************************

rwj@tiac.net (Robert Jacobs) wrote:
>Siegfried  wrote:
>
>>Here is my contention:
>
>>With regard to the existence of a god (like the Christian one) there are 
>>three general options: 1. God does not exist, 2. God exists and is 
>>malevolent, 3. God exists and is benevolent.  
>
> What is this dointg in alt.sci.physics.new-theories?
Well, see, I replied to a post and left the "Re:" out of the subject line. 
-Siegfried 

Robert Davison  wrote:
>Siegfried wrote:
>> Here is my contention:
>> 
>> With regard to the existance of a god (like the Christian one) there are
>> three general options: 1. God does not exist, 2. God exists and is
>> malevolent, 3. God exists and is benevolent.
>
>But the nature of God does not necessarily have to be malevolent or
>benevolent.  How about a God that lives according to the primal law of
>nature?  Nature appears to us humans at times harsh, unjust, cruel and
>beautiful, but not as malevolent or benevolent.
Then we don't change a thing (same responce as if there is no God).  
>God may just be a creative force, completely alien to human concepts,
>without memory, morality or concious thought as we percieve it.
>
>Most of the `One God' religions have tried to force human
>characterisitics on an entity such as God (even physically with the old
>man with white beard theme).  They have come up with a doctrine of
>morality and proclaimed that this is what God represents.  Now, it does
>not seem likely to me, that God would have the demeanor of an orthodox
>jew for example.  (of course unlikely and impossible are two very
>different things).
>
>Most people who follow religion have definate viewpoints on the nature
>of God (though they can't seem to agree with each other, even within
>their own sect).  Buddhism on the other hand refuses to define the
>nature of God, or confirm or deny Gods' existance.
>
>How about God as the collective conciousness of the Universe?  A part of
>God could reside in every one of us, thus making him both evil AND good
>(although there is no `real' evil and good, merely a perception of evil
>and good).  This would also coincide with some of the theories of the
>likes of David Bohm, who speculates that in each of our DNA codes lies
>the possibility to reconstruct the entire Universe.
When I said "like the Christian [God]" (above), I meant to imply that the 
being would be omnipotent, omniscient, independent from us, the ruler of 
everything that exists.  
>The point is, any speculation into the nature of God is just that,
>SPECULATION.  Philosophy could be oxymoronically defined as `the science
>of speculation). None of us can really claim to have exclusive rights to
>the nature of God, so we have a few options to choose from-
>
>1)  To carry around a bunch of contradictory theories in our minds and
>refuse to put a solid definition on God (as I do)
>
>2)  To pick a theory and choose to believe in it (although it is
>cavalier to proclaim your chosen belief as the `one true' belief, people
>still can't seem to stop killing each other over this)
>
>3)  To deny that there is a God.
>
>Some interesting points Siggy, but I don't think that you exhausted all
>of the possibilities (nor have I for that matter).
I was only, for the moment, considering a god similar to the Christian 
type.  I did this because I wanted to focus on the Christian religion in 
particular and I should have changed the word 'religion' from the 
subject line to 'Christianity'.  
I also might have said something like this:
There are three general contingencies to worry about with God, and each of 
the three are nothing to worry about, except if we are evil people.  If I 
havn't made any sense so far, here is my whole point: If you want to do 
good[1], you will not get punished for it -- it can only be good for you, 
if anything; doing bad[1], however, might indeed cost you (of course, it 
might not -- the point is that it possibly might).
[1] I am using these words in a general sense.  Doing one bad thing in 
your life, for example, would not necessarily make you bad according to 
this definition.  (I don't know what would make one bad, if anything -- 
not that there isn't anything that could -- I just don't know of anything 
that would).  
-Siegfried

>Since I have stated that I don't care for this sort of thread appearing in the 
>sci groups, I'll not respond again. I've been drawn in foolishly (my fault), 
>helping continue what I wish to end in sci.physics.
I think your are right in saying that science doesn't have anything to do with 
religion, but I think that many of the questions that religions bring up are the 
kind of questions that require the sort of thinking that scientists do.  The 
science newsgroups also seem to draw out slightly more logically sound 
replies.  
-Siegfried

In article , moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>moggin:
>
>>>>>Mati claimed to possess "the
>>>>>truth" about posts that (as it turned out) he had never read, 
>
>Mati:
>
>>>>Really?  Interesting.  I'm sure you can substantiate this statement, 
>>>>of course.
>
	.... long snip (it became necessery)...
>
>     Since you were posting from sci.physics, and coming late to the
>discussion, you _shouldn't_ have commented on posts that you hadn't
>seen -- yet that's what you were foolish enough to do.  You called my
>description of the posts I was replying to "propaganda," 
Nah, I just called the stuff I've seen from you "propaganda"
>
>     Of course you meant that my post had "nothing to do with the truth"
>-- that was your claim to possess "the truth" which I was, in your view,
>trying to hide.  
Excuses, excuses.  You stated that I claimed to possess "the truth".  
Now it ends up being "I interpret your words as a claim to possess the 
truth".  Sorry, won't do.  When you say "so and so said such and 
such", you should be abble to support it with his actual words, not 
your interpretations.  And, when you make a claim you cannot 
support then you'ld have the sense to change the subject instead of 
trying to wiggle out, else you just sink deeper (just a suggestion).  
Still, it does have some entertainment value.
	... snip ...
>You can try to >dispute my explanation, but you can't accuse me 
of fraud.  
What else do you call attributing to somebody words he didn't say?
>
>:Moggin, this already has been answered with the A-B-C exchange.  You 
>:cannot claim that you didn't see it since you responded to it.  And 
>:I'm sure that others seen it too.  So, don't waste your time.
>
>     I saw it and replied by pointing out that your A-B-C analogy didn't
>closely resemble the case at hand.
Yes, you did.  Which doesn't mean that it doesn't resemble it, just 
that you've a problem with either admitting the fact or even 
recognizing it.
>As I said, "You agreed that Newton's
>laws provide an incorrect model of the world, in the general case.  And
>that was my point.  
Your point was "Newton was refuted."  I said that it is incorrect and 
I still say it.  So, sorry, no agreement.
	... snip ...
>
>:As a side remark again, you're only justified to say that I agree with 
>:you when I explicitly say so not when you decide that my words 
>:"register an agreement.  Saying, in a debate, that somebody agreed 
>:with you when in fact this somebody didn't is, again, a fraud.
>
>      You replied "Yep" to a statement of my position:  an explicit
>agreement.  To charge fraud is an even more desperate gesture than
>the one Silke pointed out before. 
What else do you call attributing to somebody words he didn't say?
(Sorry for repeating myself but this point should be clear to you)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

sammya@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>I am a high school researcher who has stumbled upon a problem that I
>don't know enough physics to solve.  Here goes:  I have a device
>fabricated on an Si wafer which is basically two trapezoidal shaped
>electrodes separated by a 30 micron gap.  These electrodes are 3000
>angstroms thick--2500 of gold on 500 of titanium.  These electrodes
>sit on about 250 A of SiO or SiO2.  Under this layer is a 150 A layer
>of cobalt or nickel which then rests on an Si substrate
>The problen with this thing is that I want to generate about 35 kV/cm
>in the gap by applying about 100 VDC to the electrodes.
>When I tried this, to my dismay, the thing arced and blew some Au from
>within the gap, thus widening it.
>I guess my question is--Can I get these sort of fields or is it
>physically impossible due to its construction.  If I do this under
>vaccuum, will it work?
>Any help please!  I'm desperate!
Read up on new materials used in high voltage capacitors as
dielectrics. Your friendly power (electricity) company engineer
may have some clues. Back in the old days, mica (SiO2) was
the best insulator. Space age technology may have have
created some super dielectrics.
Read up on Ionization Potentials. All materials break down at
their IP and allow an arc. The gasses He,Ne,Ar, etc. have the
highest IP of the elements. Vacuum is a poor resistor.
---
Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules

In article <54eaur$6i4@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
>    Inertia can be explained by the law of conservation of energy. If
>an object had no inertia it would violate this law, since you would, in
>effect, be creating energy, rather than merely changing its form
>
I don't think this means anything.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <326AAEAA.A8D@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>, rafael cardenas  writes:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> >Matt:
>> >
>> >>That is too bad. It does depend on the science being discussed. To
>> >>understand physics you must, at the least, understand the language
>> >>that physics is written in. It is written in calculus and statistics
>> >>and other maths. 
>
>> You need to understand the language the subject is written in. How
>> about that. Do I need to explain to you why you need to know the
>> language? I will try. Science, especially physics, is written in
>> "math". The statements is makes are all in this other language. Now if
>> I want to understand Derrida, it would be best if I could read and
>> understand French. But if the translation is good, I can probably get
>> much of his message from an English version. Unfortunately, it is
>> impossible to do a good translation from math to human languages. You
>> can transliterate, that is replace symbols with "words", but the
>> language is still math.
>
>If the 'language' cannot be translated, it does make one wonder whether
>it is useful to describe it as a language.
Why not?  It has symbols which convey meaning, to the people fluent in 
this language.  Now, I wouldn't say that "it can't be translated, 
period".  Rather that it cannot be translated in a way that gives you 
a text which is comprehensible to a person not knowing mathematics.  
If instead of writing the integral symbol I write the word "integral" 
it still conveys no meaning to you if you never encountered it.  And 
it'll take many pages of text to convey the full meaning, that's 
assuming that you already know algebra and geometry.  If you don't 
know these either, the amount of text needed will be in volumes, not 
pages.
It is a language where new terms are defined in terms of previous ones 
and the number of steps needed to get back from an "advanced" term to 
a "basic" one may be very large.  Thus, translation may be possible, 
in principle, but is not very practical.
>As a matter of history, of course, the development of wholly symbolic
>as opposed to largely rhetorical mathematics was a very gradual one.
>Were pre-symbolic mathematicians mathematicians or not?
Of course they were.  And there was a reason why math gradually 
changed over to symbolic.  As it advanced, the amount of verbiage 
needed became totally impractical.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <54erji$h2e@europa.winmail.com>, rayvd@shocking.com (Ray Van Dolson) writes:
>Could anyone explain to me (in fairly good detail if possible) why ordinary 
>plane mirrors are coated on the back instead of the front?  
>
Purely technical reasons.  The coating is a film of metal (aluminum) 
which'll rapidly tarnish and lose its reflectivity when exposed to 
air.  So the glass of the mirror is there simply as a protective 
layer.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Leonard Timmons wrote:
> 
> 
> Libertarius wrote:
> >
> >     I am afraid you lost me somewhere. Does anyone else feel that way?
> 
> 

Libertarius, I do too.
First off, regardless of the logic of the argument Leonard Timmons 
presents, it is an argument from analogy, therefore useful for providing 
a 'grasp' of a concept, but not useful for proof. Leonard should refer 
to any book on logical fallacies for elucidation.
But herewith I respond anyway:
The argument begins:
> If we define an object and some operators that act on those objects,
> then from the objects' perspective:  The operators are present
> everywhere (by definition since they would be the axioms).  
So, Leonard, you should define such an object and some operators by way 
of example. Do you mean for example the set of whole positive integers 
and the operations addition, subtraction, etc.? Or do you have some 
other operators in mind that have the rather special attributes you 
introduce? If so, give us an example and use it to illustrate each 
point.
Objection: Objects that you or I define do not have 'perspective', or 
you should name some that do. Granted the 'set' of live rabbits in a lab 
does, but what are the 'axioms' in this case? Isn't this a wild stretch?
Objection: It does not follow or even merit the term 'coherent' to say 
that operators are 'everywhere' by definition. Provide a dictionary 
reference that includes omnipresence in the definition of axiom.
>If an
> operator acts on an object, the object is powerless to prevent
> itself from being transformed in the manner specified by the
> operator.  The operator is all powerful.
Objection: Objects as you or I define them do not have selves.
Objection: The operator is executed by you or me or the program we 
start. It has no 'power'.
Since an operator can
> apply itself (I am assuming an absence of people to apply the
> operators, they must act on their own) to any member of the set of
> objects, it must be aware of every member of the (possibly inifinte)
> set.  
Objection: You are assigning personhood and attributees of living 
organisms to operators. The Operation "Addition" does not have 
personhood.
Objection: In what way is the number 5 aware of being added to 3?
From this point on, this discussion does not merit serious 
consideration, IMO, unless you can provide an example that demonstrates 
every claim. And then, at best, it is only an argument from analogy!
. Some examples:
>...The operator is all seeing.
>...the axioms "understand" all the theorems that they can produce.
The quotation marks on ""understand"" are telling, aren't they.
> 
> ...Moses and others...
> called this collection of rules that define our existence "God."
No they did not. They believe they came from God.
>They noted how a rule... must be there "observing" the goings
> on so that it could act.
No they did not. They attributed seeing to God but even then never said 
He had to see to act.
> 
They then used the word "understand"
> to denote the relationship between these rules.
Nope.
You begin using "IMO" at this point in your essay and I cannot dispute 
that something is your opinion. So from that point on I can only say 
thank you for sharing this with us.
Pacificus

tcox@us1.ibm.com wrote:
: In , pelle@lk-hp-33.hut.fi (timo.pelkonen) writes:
: >tcox@us1.ibm.com writes:
: >
: >>1 foot can be divided into halfs, thirds, forths sixths or twelths without
: >>using fractions.
: >
: >those who are metric don't use fractions..
: 
: Gee, then why do you have decimal points.
Well, we don't. We use commas ;-))))
-- 
oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo Gerhild Kirchweger oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo
|____ Department of Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics ____|
|__ Graz University of Technology/ Austria ___Tel. ++43 316 873 7212___|
oo_oo_oo_o http://fvkma.tu-graz.ac.at/~gerhild/gerhild.html _oo_oo_oo_oo

This, this, this is just not related to Super Big Gulps in the least
little bit, although some of us over here at Super Big Central do worship
the lovely frosty beverage much like a deity.
So I ask you all nicely that you watch the crossposts, unless of course
you include the divinity of huge, sickly-sweet drinks in your posts...
-- 
--mike
(STILL no bitchin' sig, I **SPIT** on your bitchin' sig, your mother
was a hamster and your father smelled of elder berries!)

Matthew Clarke  wrote:
>  #1 If there is no God? I die.  I rot.  There is no meaning.   Yet 
>  I have still tried to live my life in the best possible way.  
>  #2 However if there is God(As defined in the bible):  I spend eternity
>  roasting over an open flame.  And being generally misserable.  (note:
>  since all things come from God this is because of a decree from Mr.
>  Benevolent himself)
>  Neither of my options are especially comforting.  
>  Respectfully
>   Matthew A. Clarke
I dunno Matthew, there's something I remember about the sheep that's
stuck down the cliff being more important than all the well-behaved
ones up in the field, and the analogy drawn that a sinner's soul is
worth more to God than all the jolly good chaps, so do we get to go
upstairs anyway even if we haven't led a Christian life?  If so then
we still get to be scientists and question the sub-atomic structure of
the ( His?) universe if we want don't we?  No doubt someone is going
to pick me up on the above and point out where I've misinterpreted the
passage and inform me that  I *shall* roast in Hell after all.
I agree with you and many of the other posters that most of us try and
live a good life.   The 10 commandments are pretty sound guide lines
that I assume most people would  figure were common sense anyway.
Does my idea that killing people is generally poor show come from an
innate sense of right and wrong, or should I attribute it to my
nominal  Church of England upbringing?  Interesting to ponder but
obviously there's no control data for comparison.  Perhaps someone
could do a twins study and see if twins brought up outside the Church
show a greater propensity for becoming axe-wielding homicidal maniacs
than their sibs. 
Is a sociopath created by lack of Christianity in his/her life, or by
mental/psychological dysfunction, or by God causing the
mental/psychological dysfunction?  
Sue Murphy
--
Sue Murphy	
London, UK 		sue@murphy.prestel.co.uk	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Directory

I am not a physicist, I play baseball and I need your help.  I have two
metal bats, both are made from the same type of metal, both are 33 inches
long and both weigh 28.5 ounces.  The difference is in the barrel.  Bat
"T" gets thicker from the handle and reaches it's maximum width of 2 3/4"
about 6 inches from the end and remains at that width until the end.  Bat
"E", an extended barrel model, does the same thing, but reaches it's
maximum width, also 2 3/4", about 8" from the end.  
I have noticed that bat "T" not only provides me with more power (assuming
I hit the ball in the last 6" on both bats), but I get around on the ball
alot faster.  Wind resistance does not seem to be a factor.  I can
understand the power phenomenon since bat "T" must have more mass in the
last 6 inches (same weight, less surface area to spread the material).  
But my question is why can I swing bat "T" quicker?  The bat company said
that bat "E" should provide more power, blah, blah, blah, but I don't
think they know what they are talking about.  Can someone give me a
physics explaination or is this a body mechanics issue or is my anecdotal
evidence bunk?

zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>>>Thus spake Jacques Derrida:
>>>>>>> When I take, for example, the structure of certain algebraic
>>>>>>> constructions [ensembles], where is the center? Is the center the
>>>>>>> knowledge of general rules which, after a fashion, allow us to
>>>>>>> understand the interplay of the elements? Or is the center certain
>>>>>>> elements which enjoy a particular privilege within the ensemble?
>>>>>>> ...With Einstein, for example, we see the end of a kind of
>>>>>>> privilege of empiric evidence. And in that connection we see a
>>>>>>> constant appear, a constant which is a combination of space-time,
>>>>>>> which does not belong to any of the experimenters who live the
>>>>>>> experience, but which, in a way, dominates the whole construct;
>>>>>>> and this notion of the constant -- is this the center?
moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>>>>>I'm afraid you're badly mistaken: Derrida didn't say any of the above.
Zeleny:
>>>>>I am afraid that you are correct.  I have omitted the attribution of
>>>>>the above question to a Derridean sycophant.  Not that apportioning
>>>>>boundless ignorance to two parties makes any difference in the outcome.
moggin:
>>>>	Your error is of commission, not ommission: you wrote, "Thus
>>>>spake Jacques Derrida" and proceeded to quote another person entirely
>>>>(namely Jean Hyppolite).  This type of thing is frowned on, for the
>>>>reasons you demonstrate above.
Zeleny:
>>>On the contrary, my point was to focus on the nonsensical claim that
>>>the Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center.  Hence its
>>>force would not have been blunted, had I not neglected to expand my
>>>attribution to read "Thus spake Jacques Derrida in response to vigorous
>>>brown-nosing by Jean Hips-or-Lips", or whoever.
Weineck:
>>Just as quick nit-picky correction here: when JD gave that talk, he was 
>>nobody; JH was big stuff. In other words, you're fantasizing.
Zeleny:
>So perhaps your heroes were practicing reciprocal gluteonasal engagement.
>Does it make a difference?  Should I care?
	It's not of tremendous significance, in itself, but you may
find it easier to comment intelligently on the dramatis personae if
you know who they are, much as your observations about Derrida might
benefit if you were to distinguish his statements from Hyppolite's.
-- moggin

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <54nsfo$lpn@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>>In article <54mthq$php@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Yah, science does deal with such issues because it assumes as a
>>>>fundamental tenet, as you do, metaphysics.
>>>>
>>>Could you be more specific, please?
>>
>>What is it about the sentence that you do not understand?
>>
>Just what is the metaphysics that, in your opinion, science assumes?
I suppose it to be in general terms an essential reality.
Ken

+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver):
>| >| >| ...
>| >| >| You are viewing this in much too narrow a sense.  Religion is a belief
>| >| >| in a divine power as the creator of the universe.  Science is a belief
>| >| >| that something other than a divine power created the universe.  ...
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >| >I disagree with the part about science.  Science, as I see
>| >| >it, is the practice of finding or composing interesting
>| >| >statements which correspond to phenomena.  It requires only
>| >| >the belief that such statements can be found or composed.
>nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver):
>| >| Interesting.  From whence do you get this definition?
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >I made it up after reading what other people had written
>| >about the subject and thinking about my own experiences
>| >with it.  I think it's a pretty good definition, but I'm
>| >always willing to consider improvements.
>| 
>| >Of course, this is an idealization.  "Science" is also a
>| >bunch of guys dressing up in white coats and getting
>| >government grants, etc. etc.
>nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver):
>| My problem with the definition is that it reduces science to games
>| playing without purpose.
>Not at all.  You've overlooked the word "interesting."
Not really.  Many games are interesting (as well as fun).  
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >| >However, one may believe this and also take a great variety
>| >| >of religious positions, including most versions of
>| >| >Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and so on.  Many scientists
>| >| >have claimed to believe that a divine power created the
>| >| >universe, including Newton and Einstein.  On the other hand,
>| >| >one could also believe that science was possible and be
>| >| >almost any sort of atheist or agnostic.  There is no
>| >| >inherent conflict between religion and science, although of
>| >| >course if religions produce statements about phenomena they
>| >| >may come into conflict with scientific statements about
>| >| >phenomena.
>nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver):
>| >| I don't believe I was speaking of persons who are scientists, but
>| >| rather science itself.
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >I ... don't know what science is without the scientists.  What
>| >do you mean?
>nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver):
>| I mean the definition of science, what it is, what it covers.  To move
>| it away from your hot button issues, take baseball.  You can learn a
>| lot about baseball from reading its rules and watching its games and
>| listening to its experts without ever being a baseball player.  Ditto
>| science.
>The baseball players and their fans could say that we didn't
>really _understand_ baseball, though.  You know, not just
>understand but _understand_.  Probably, anything can be
>turned into an arcanum.
>So there comes to be this issue:  How do we deal with an
>enterprise whereof the practitioners insist a mysterious
>essence, especially if its juju has power?
Perhaps the best way is for the society to use a big tent theory:
plenty of room for science, religion, and anything else.
Ken

In article <326fc3c2.698384@news.pacificnet.net>,
savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>In article <326F792A.A6E@mail.ic.net>, Peter Diehr
> wrote:
>
>>Louis Savain wrote:
>>> 
>>>   Time dilation is a prediction of special relativity theory.  If one
>>> is to accept the reports, time dilation has been experimentally shown
>>> to occur between synchronized clocks.  When most physicists are asked
>>> about the cause of the slowed ticking rate of fast moving clocks, they
>>> usually say that it's due to time dilation.  If one points out that
>>> SRT simply equates time dilation with slowed clocks and does not
>>> introduce a causal relationship between time and clocks, there's
>>> usually no response.  So the question remains.  What is the cause of
>>> time dilation (i.e., slowed clocks)?  More precisely, what is the
>>> physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
>>
>>The _cause_ is that we live in a causal universe.  That is, there is
>>a speed limit on the transmission of information, which shows up in
>>the geometry of spacetime via the light cone structure.
>
>  Peter, I'm sorry but this does not explain anything.  The question
>already assumed that we live in a causal universe.  That's nothing
>new.
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Louis Savain
Time dilation occurs for that same reason the a book looks thinner when 
viewed on end.  It is a geometrical property.  Another observer can see the 
wide view of the book at the same time, but does not search for a causal
explanation beyond the laws of perspective.  
Time dilation is similarly symmetrical.  The different observations are 
geometrically related.
If time dilation were caused by a physical action based on an absolute space, 
then it would be an asymmetrical phenomenon and we would see a direction 
dependency to particle lifetimes.  

Christopher Michael Jones wrote:
> 
> Robert Coe (bob@1776.COM) wrote:
> : On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 03:37:38 GMT, pcuni@cris.com (Paul Cuni) wrote:
> : : whats' the bottom line on this faster than light travel yes or no?
> 
> : No.
> 
> Not true.  Travel Faster than the speed of light relative to another
> object is impossible in SR (special relativity) where all space-time is
> assumed to be flat (a simplifying but innacurate assumption).  However,
> in GR (general relativity) space time does not have to be flat (since it
> isn't really, this is good).  You can manipulate space-time (in GR) in
> such a way that you _can_ actually go faster than the speed of light.
> I'm not making this up either, you can read a description of FTL in
> Science magazine's I believe 11 Oct issue.  Anyway, anyone who says going
> faster than the speed of light is "totally 100% absolutely impossible"
> isn't thinking as scientifically as they should be.  I'm not saying that
> faster than light travel is easy or that it is even possible to construct
> a device which can make it possible.  All I'm saying is that FTL is
> _permitted_ by the laws of physics as we know them.
Hello, everyone! 
I'm new to this (these?) newsgroup(s) and this is a discussion which interests me 
greatly. Sorry to cross-post, but to those who don't get the feed of SOME of these 
groups, they might not see my input (and consequently wouldn't get the responses).
I propose a question:
What about the "laws" of physics in an alternate univers or alternate dimension?
This is relative to the "hyper-space" or, maybe "warp-bubble" idea presented in so many 
classic Sci-Fi adventures. It sounds like fantasy, but before you dismiss this notion, 
read on...
Experiments have been done in electromagnetics. One experiment that comes to mind is the 
famous "Philadelphia" Experiment. I know, it's been covered up by the government for a 
long time, but the data gathered from this could be quite useful in furthering research 
in the "possibility" of c+ travel. If a way to "drop out", if you will, of this 
"universe" were possible, then would not we be able to attain c+ travel? The other 
possibility would be that we would not be travelling faster than light, but, rather, 
utilize space curvature to get to where we want to go. In essence, "hyper-space".
Does anybody know of any results of this kind of experiments?
Marcel

-*------
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> Just what is the metaphysics that, in your opinion, 
>> science assumes?
In article <54p6d3$4t1@news-central.tiac.net>,
Ken MacIver  wrote:
> I suppose it to be in general terms an essential reality.
What differentiates an essential reality from a
non-essential one?
Russell
-- 
 Newton plain doesn't work, even as an approximation, 
 except within certain limits.        -- Moggin

Louis Savain wrote:
> 
> In article <326F792A.A6E@mail.ic.net>, Peter Diehr
>  wrote:
> 
> >Louis Savain wrote:
> >>
> >>   Time dilation is a prediction of special relativity theory.  If one
> >> is to accept the reports, time dilation has been experimentally shown
> >> to occur between synchronized clocks.  When most physicists are asked
> >> about the cause of the slowed ticking rate of fast moving clocks, they
> >> usually say that it's due to time dilation.  If one points out that
> >> SRT simply equates time dilation with slowed clocks and does not
> >> introduce a causal relationship between time and clocks, there's
> >> usually no response.  So the question remains.  What is the cause of
> >> time dilation (i.e., slowed clocks)?  More precisely, what is the
> >> physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
> >
> >The _cause_ is that we live in a causal universe.  That is, there is
> >a speed limit on the transmission of information, which shows up in
> >the geometry of spacetime via the light cone structure.
> 
>   Peter, I'm sorry but this does not explain anything.  The question
> already assumed that we live in a causal universe.  That's nothing
> new.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Louis Savain
Well, then you should be posting this question in a philosophy or 
theology echo then.  I don't think that you'll find the answer
in SCI.PHYSICS, even if Einstein were to post here.
Of course, you could always write to "Uncle Al", or John Baez ...
perhaps they know more than they've let on so far ...
Best Regards, Peter

Who cares?  Next you'll try to revive Esperanto.

In <546gi0$t7@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> raistlin@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Paul
Ready) writes: 
>
>David Byrden  wrote:
>
>>	Not so. There was another light source above this shaft;
>>the air itself glows blue, and that is what should have been seen.
>
>Yes, but the issue isn't a matter of the presence of light sources,
>it is one of simultaneous contrast.  The moon is visible during the
>day, and it's already been stated that under certain conditions
>Venus is visible after the sun has risen (high altitude, clear
>skies, the sun still has to be low). 
Contrast (C) is the ratio of the apparent luminance of a target (T)
minus that of its background to the apparent luminance of the
background (B):
            C = (T-B)/B
Luminance is the light intensity emitted by a source in a particular
direction.  In this case the target is a star and the background is the
 total atmospheric scattering which takes place along the line of sight
to the target.  We see a star during the day when the contrast, C, is
above a threshold level Co.  In the case of a solar eclipse, the
background luminance B due to scattering decreases (less light to
scatter), C increases above the threshold level and we see the star.
In theory B can be calculated by integrating the contribution of each
layer of the atmosphere to scattering along the line of sight to the
target.  
What I want to know is how does decending into a pit increase C to
beyond the threshold contrast?  Attenuation of light within the pit
will effect both T and B by the same factor and C will be the same.  My
view is that T and B do not vary significantly from the top to the
bottom of the pit.  The question then is what varies?  All that is left
is the the threshold contrast Co.  Co can vary from about 0.005 to 5,
varies from individual to individual and with observation conditions. 
If (and I don't know if this actually happens) the process of decending
into the pit's darkness has the effect of decreasing Co, then it could
be possible for C > Co at the bottom and C < Co at the top. Meaning
that you can see things from the bottom which you can't see from the
top.    
>The issue is really weather
>enough of the sun's light can be masked to see at least some of the
>brighter stars, and all I've seen so far by way of arguments is
>"No Way!" and "Way!" ala Wayne's World.  I seem to recall some images
>taken of stars under eclipse conditions, only the brightest (or maybe
>it was only planets), but there's still a significant amount of light
>around, in principle a long enough shaft would (not could) produce the
>effect, the real question is what the threshold is.  
The eclipse decreases the amount of scattered light and hence B,
because it greatly reduces the amount of sun light in the area of the
observer.  Decending into a shaft however deep does not reduce the
amount of sun light being scattered by the atmosphere.  If I were to
take a very long pipe, say 20 miles, and look through it then I would
see stars (because there would be no scattering of sunlight within the
pipe).  In this case the pipe masks the sunlight.
>I have no clue
>how to answer that, and therefore I'm not going to discount any claims
>yet on the basis of what I have heard here so far.
Caving and physics ... two of my favorite subjects ...
                                        => Marty

fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
>In article , Pete Zakel  wrote:
>>The tourguide must have been pulling a prank.
>>My guess is that the top is covered and has small holes in it which simulated
>>a black sky and stars.
>>During the day, the atmosphere itself is scattering sunlight, which is
>>why the sky looks blue -- the blue light gets scatter the most.  No matter
>>how long the cave or tube or chimney is, unless it is several MILES long
>>and has an opening above the bulk of the atmosphere (and I know of no
>>such chimneys), you will see blue sky and no stars during the day (unless,
>>of course, you see clouds or fog or smog).  You *might* see Venus, since it
>>can be bright enough to be visible during the day, if the shaft were pointed
>>directly at it when you looked up, but no stars.
>Actually, it might be possible to see stars. Personally, I've seen
>a few bright stars on the eastern horizon, about half an hour
>to an hour before sunset (here in Boulder, the mountains to the
>west block out the Sun about an hour or so before sunset.) That's
>looking about 120-150 deg. away from the Sun, and the brightness
>of scattered light does depend on the angle of scattering. It might,
>just barely, be possible to see stars looking 90 deg away from
>the sun if your eyes were very well adapted to darkness. I.e. if
>you had been a cave for a while and were looking up a shaft just
>after sunrise or just before sunset. Altitude would also be a
>factor. Here in Boulder, we're above about a quarter of the atmosphere
>so the sky is a bit darker than at sea level. If the cave had
>been at a similar or greater altitude, that would make seeing
>stars more likely. Finally, scattering isn't entirely by molecules 
>of atmospheric gas. Water vapor also contributes. So the sky's
>darker in arid climates. I'd say seeing stars during the day,
>from the bottom of a shaft, might be possible _if_ it wasn't
>more than a couple of hours away from sun rise or sun set,
>and the cave were in a high altitude, arid climate. That's
>a very restricted set of circumstances, however, so it would
>be very unusual.
>                                                  Frank Crary
>                                                  CU Boulder
    It is indeed possible to see stars in broad daylight. Unfortunatly
not with the naked eye. The 13 inch telescope I have outside is a
good likeness to a vertical shaft being black inside having a hole
at the top and you look up it from the bottom. If I point this vertically
during the day and just look through it without any sort of eyepiece
I just see a bright blue sky. If I point it at the known position of a bright
star and increase the magnification  by adding higher power eyepieces
the sky appears to darken until you reach a point  where it is darker than
the background stars and the brightest appear. This is no different to 
looking up in the middle of the day and seeing the moon hanging in the 
sky. It is visible because it is brighter than the background: its actual
brightness remaining the same night and day. The stars are not as bright
as the moon and are therefore swamped by the brightness of the day.
The increased aperture of a telescope has the effect of brightening the
stars [just look through a pair of binoculars at night]. When you magnify
the view you spread the available light over a wider area and make the
view dimmer. With a correctly focused telescope a star remains a pinpoint
and its brightness remains the same whatever the magnification. It can be 
seen that increasing the magnification would allow the stars to show up
against the darkening background. In practice this only works for the brightest
objects and apart from those that insist on looking at the closest star allow
the majority of astronomers some sleep.
-- --
David Bryant:david@seaplane.celtic.co.uk: Animals are not brethren; they are not
underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and
time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.-Henry Beston.

The moon is not falling but is drifting away at approxiametely 1cm per 
year.  Around the time of the jurassic era you could barely have blocked 
it out with a basketball at arms length.
                                          slottked@ohsu.edu

In article <54ooj3$7fk_005@pm0-61.hal-pc.org>, charliew@hal-pc.org
(charliew) wrote:
>In article <326f17a7.261166@news.pacificnet.net>,
>   savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>> 
>>   Time dilation is a prediction of special relativity theory.  If one
>> is to accept the reports, time dilation has been experimentally shown
>> to occur between synchronized clocks.  When most physicists are asked
>> about the cause of the slowed ticking rate of fast moving clocks, they
>> usually say that it's due to time dilation.  If one points out that
>> SRT simply equates time dilation with slowed clocks and does not
>> introduce a causal relationship between time and clocks, there's
>> usually no response.  So the question remains.  What is the cause of
>> time dilation (i.e., slowed clocks)?  More precisely, what is the
>> physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
>
>(BIG CUT)
>
>If you could answer these questions with certainty, you 
>definitely wouldn't be mortal!
  Does it follow that we will become immortal when we do eventually
figure it out?  :-)  And figure it out, we will.  There are just too
many people working on these problems.  Besides, the internet is a
fabulous idea breeding machine.  Someone's nonchalant post might
spontaneously mutate into a revolutionary insight in someone else's
mind.  Who knows?  Just don't be too surprised if something really
simple and fantastic comes out of all this.
>The requirement of a constant speed of light inevitably leads 
>to time dilation.
  I agree.  That what SR seems to be all about.
>Apparently, time and space are intertwined 
>in ways that we do not understand, if you take it on faith 
>that c is constant in all reference frames.
  The *true* value of c relative to an observer may or may not really
be constant in all inertial frames, but it is certainly *measured* to
be so by our instruments.  SR is a theory about measurements.  Whether
or not our instruments are telling us something about the true speed
of light relative to the observer is another story.  I personally
don't think they are.
>As to why c is constant in all reference frames, you have hit 
>on the fundamental question of relativity.  One would think 
>that the electric and magnetic permeability of space would 
>have something to do with it.  However, the requirement for 
>constant c in all reference frames, apparently at the same 
>time, is very confusing indeed!
  I agree.  I think the answer may be right in our faces but we can't
see the forest for the trees.  Not to mention all the noise and
misinformation.  Thanks for the response.
Best regards,
Louis Savain

Paul Skoczylas wrote:
> I don't know about manufacturing, but the U.S. is at a large
> disadvantage when it comes to sales outside of North America.  The
> "billions per year" I've heard about is the loss of trade income for
> this reason.
This might very well be realistic. In Europe, very few customers would
buy some machine that needs non-metric tools for servicing (which hardly
anyone has in Europe) and follows strange U.S. standards (which hardly
anyone is familiar with outside North America) instead of the common ISO
standards, unless this type of machine is really only available from a
U.S. manufacturer.
Sure, to some degree you can work almost as conveniently with the
inch-pound system if you have to and if you are used to it, but having
two systems of measurements that are related by very odd conversion
factors is simply a great inconvenience. This begins with common
comparisons: I have a 30 cm telescope, my U.S. friend tells me
he has just bought a 12 inch telescope and again I am silently starting
to multiply by 2.54 in order to find out how the two compare. It is just
inconvenient.
The inch-pound system will certainly not survive the next 50 years, so
let's get rid of it as fast and painless as possible. The sooner the
industry converts, the cheaper the total conversion cost will be. The
less inch-pound units are used in product labels, the faster they will
vanish from peoples minds.
Unfortunately, U.S. law currently requires that both inch-pound and
metric units are given on product labels today. This law should be
changed to make the inch-pound labels optional and only the metric
labels should be required. A deadline (e.g., January 1, 2005) should be
set, after which the inch-pound units are banned from product labels.
The U.S. congress planned this already in 1905, but the law failed
because of a single vote. Congress planned such a deadline again in 1975
but weakened the law to an irrelevant recommendation.
There is no indication from the experience in Canada, India, England, or
Australia that a conversion to metric units will cost the industry a lot
of money. In fact, there have been many reported cases where a side
effect of the conversion has saved a lot of money in way that noone had
expected at first:
  Manufacturers were redimensioning many produced parts
  to metric module sizes and ISO standard number serieses. In this
  process, they often did a careful analysis of which sizes their
  customers really needed and often ended up with a much smaller
  set of product sizes. The metricifaction was a good opportunity
  to drop a historically grown but unnecessary large variety of
  product sizes. If you concentrate on producing fewer sizes, you
  can do this more efficient (less storage space, fewer machine
  readjustments, etc.) and a lot of money has been saved this way.
The reports available from metric projects in the U.S. so far indicate
that workers, engineers and trade persons can change to metric units
within a few days. I have mentioned several related URLs in previous
postings, especially considering federal projects like highway and
building construction. The managers just have to made sure that
  - all plans are metric
  - no inch-pound measurement tools are available in the factory,
    lab, bureau, or on the construction site
  - you tell the workers that metric units will be used more and more
    everywhere in the future and that it is therefore a good idea to
    get used to them quickly
and experience shows that the workers will prefer to work with metric
units after a few days.
Markus
-- 
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
University, Indiana, US, email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu

Lloyd R. Parker (lparker@larry.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: Mark Brindle (brindle@lf.hp.com) wrote:
: I think if Strobel meant energy flux, he would have said that.  He only 
: uses the word energy half a dozen times or so in the 2-3 pages after the 
: Planck equation.  I think common sense dictates you accept what Strobel 
: wrote, not what you'd like to think he meant.
: : MB: Guess what, Lloyd?  Ergs/cm^3 is *NOT* a unit of energy;  the *erg*
: : MB: is a unit of energy -- you CAN'T just ignore the "/cm^3" part.  Duh!
: : 
: : LP: Of course not.  It's energy density -- energy per unit volume.
: : LP: Still no "time" unit.
: : 
: : DEAD WRONG, Lloyd.  Wall's energy density formulation is predicated on
: : the assumption that ALL of the energy (i.e., photons) is moving in a
: : particular direction and *AT A PARTICULAR SPEED*;  the "units of time"
: : are implicit in his equation -- it's just Planck's equation divided
: : by the *SPEED* of light.  (As I've explained to you about ten times.)
: Sorry, Mark, units are never implicit.  If they're not there explicitly, 
: there're not there.  Wow, a new discovery by the great H-P engineer!  
: Implicit units!  What units are implicit in the speed of light?  In 
: density?  
Sorry to interrupt the party, but first I thought Mark was really nitpicking
here.  But he's right that you didn't understand Planck's equation, otherwise
you wouldn't have said THAT.  (or: you are expressing yourself in a lousy 
way :)
There are 2 cases here.  One is where we consider a black body radiator.
So you have a finite piece of "black body surface" and out of it comes
a flux of radiation.  This flux is one way of course (away from the
surface, into the big void of space).  Very close to the surface, it looks
as if the surface was very very large, and one gets a net photon flux
perpendicular to that surface.  There are 2 equivalent ways to express
this flux, one being directly in power/surface, but - as Mark pointed
out - this is equivalent by giving the energy density close to the
surface,
as you know that both of them are related with the speed of that 
"energy density", namely, c.  (informally speaking).
When you know that all water molecules go in one direction at 20 m/s,
it is equivalent to give the water flux in liters per minute,
or just quoting the surface of the cross section.  It is similar.
However, and there Lloyd would have been right (so he would have
jumped onto the occasion if that was indeed what he meant :-)
one can also look upon black body radiation INSIDE a cavity.
Then there is no power flow at all, and only the energy density
plays a role.  It is the SAME formula as the one used
to
calculate that flux (upto a nasty geometrical factor I always 
forget, 2, 3 or 6 !) higher up, so usually one keeps just
one formula, knowing one can use it in both cases.  In that 
case, there is no power, and only energy has a meaning.
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

Cosmik Debris  wrote:
>Bill Arnett wrote:
>> 
>> Maybe the USA should make a deal with the rest of the world:  we'll go
>> metric if you'll learn to speak English.  (This is only half joking; I
>> think both would be big wins for the world as a whole.)
>
>The US went metric in 1974 remember? And Americans certainly don't speak
>English.
>
>-- 
>
>------------------------------------------
>Cosmik "I owe money, therefor I am" Debris
Actually, the US went "officialy" metric at around the end of the 19th
century.  Some time in the 1880s or 1890s.  And Americans most
certainly do speak English.  You can say that Americans, English, and
Australians speak different DIALECTS of English, but to suggesst that
American English is different enough to be concidered a different
lauguage would be enough to have any real student of languages to
laugh hard in your face. 

In article <54ooj3$7fk_005@pm0-61.hal-pc.org>, charliew@hal-pc.org
(charliew) wrote:
>In article <326f17a7.261166@news.pacificnet.net>,
>   savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>> 
>>   Time dilation is a prediction of special relativity theory.  If one
>> is to accept the reports, time dilation has been experimentally shown
>> to occur between synchronized clocks.  When most physicists are asked
>> about the cause of the slowed ticking rate of fast moving clocks, they
>> usually say that it's due to time dilation.  If one points out that
>> SRT simply equates time dilation with slowed clocks and does not
>> introduce a causal relationship between time and clocks, there's
>> usually no response.  So the question remains.  What is the cause of
>> time dilation (i.e., slowed clocks)?  More precisely, what is the
>> physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
>
>(BIG CUT)
>
>If you could answer these questions with certainty, you 
>definitely wouldn't be mortal!
  Does it follow that we will become immortal when we do eventually
figure it out?  :-)  And figure it out, we will.  There are just too
many people working on these problems.  Besides, the internet is a
fabulous idea breeding machine.  Someone's nonchalant post might
spontaneously mutate into a revolutionary insight in someone else's
mind.  Who knows?  Just don't be too surprised if something really
simple and fantastic comes out of all this.
>The requirement of a constant speed of light inevitably leads 
>to time dilation.
  I agree.  That's what SR seems to be all about.
>Apparently, time and space are intertwined 
>in ways that we do not understand, if you take it on faith 
>that c is constant in all reference frames.
  The *true* value of c relative to an observer may or may not really
be constant in all inertial frames, but it is certainly *measured* to
be so by our instruments.  SR is a theory about measurements.  Whether
or not our instruments are telling us something about the true speed
of light relative to the observer is another story.  I personally
don't think they are.
>As to why c is constant in all reference frames, you have hit 
>on the fundamental question of relativity.  One would think 
>that the electric and magnetic permeability of space would 
>have something to do with it.  However, the requirement for 
>constant c in all reference frames, apparently at the same 
>time, is very confusing indeed!
  I agree.  I think the answer may be right in our faces but we can't
see the forest for the trees.  Not to mention all the noise and
misinformation.  Thanks for the response.
Best regards,
Louis Savain

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >>>>>>>It is very rare that physicists submit to humanities journals; if you 
: >>>>>>>are suggesting that the article should have been sent out to another 
: >>>>>>>physicist, I whole-heartedly agree. As things stand, however, the hoax 
: >>>>>>>proves that the grad student whom A.Ross let judge the article didn't 
: >>>>>>>know much about either science or literary theory -- and what does that 
: >>>>>>>prove? 
: >>>>>>That the postmodern "authorities", whose idiotic theses Sokal cites and
: >>>>>>purports to sustain with parodic arguments, are full of shit.  Is that
: >>>>>>good enough for you?
: >>>>>No. What a silly thing to suggest. I cannot think of any philosopher 
: >>>>>whose sentences cannot be made to look silly by taking them out of 
: >>>>>context; when it comes to sentences spoken off the record, as it were, in 
: >>>>>a matter outside their field, it's so easy that only someone rather 
: >>>>>desperate for a point would stoop so low. You're Erkenntnisinteresse (you 
: >>>>>understand I'm using the term ironically) is running away with you.
: >>>>Your logical ineptitude is showing again.  That anyone can be made to
: >>>>look stupid on the evidence of a single sufficiently decontextualized
: >>>>quotation, does not entail that no single quotation can serve as a
: >>>>sufficient proof of its author's stupidity, as witness le "sottisier"
: >>>>de Bouvard et P�cuchet.  In effect, Sokal does for the postmodern
: >>>>booboisie what Flaubert did for the French bourgeoisie.
: >>>Nonsense. Sokal's hoax proves exactly nothing about Derrida. It proves 
: >>>something about Social Text. Your work isn't done, and if you rely on 
: >>>the likes of Sokal to do it, you are wimping out.
: >>Derrida's assertion cited by Sokal, about the Einsteinian constant not
: >>being a constant, proves two things.  Firstly, he is ageometretos, and
: >>hence not a philosopher.  Secondly, he is given to pronouncing on the
: >>basis of ignorance, and hence not a critic.  Why would you doubt that?
: >Simple. It does not follow, and you haven't produced an argument. A) you 
: >have no idea what he meant. B) Even if you had an idea what he meant and 
: >even if your idea were correct, it wouldn't follow that he's not a 
: >philosopher, since "philosophy" is not defined as "that body of work that 
: >exhibits knowledge of Einstein." C) a critic can be ignorant of many 
: >things he pronounces on, as long as he doesn't pronounce on them _qua_ 
: >critic in his field.
: Here is an argument.  A) I have a good idea what Einstein meant, and
: an equally good idea that any reasonable interpretation of Derrida's
: comment is incompatible with Einstein's meaning.  
Please share your insight, then.
B) Since Derrida aims to debunk Platonism, since the understanding of Platonism depends
: on the understanding of geometry, and since Einstein is the wellspring
: of modern geometry, Derrida's ignorance automatically condemns his
: project to failure.  
This is fun, but it's not an argument. 
C) The copyright laws imply that any critical
: comments appearing in print of symposium proceedings are subject to
: the speaker's release of publication rights and hence carry the
: presumption of ex cathedra pronouncements.
Perhaps they do; that such is enforced, is, however, amply disproven. 
Just witness Wolin's mistranslation of Derrida and subsequent publication.
: >>As you know, I have done my work and need not rely on Sokal to do it.
: >>Nonetheless, if I wanted to cite a professional opinion that Derrida
: >>was a charlatan, I would have brought up Chomsky.
: >I don't know this at all. I'm still waiting for you to exhibit a 
: >rudimentary understanding of Derrida's argument in "Cogito." As long as 
: >you can't tell us what it is you object to, your objections won't be 
: >taken seriously. 
: In the beginning of our exchange I told you the rules of engagement --
: each thrust is to be followed by a parry and vice versa.  By continuing
: to argue, you implicitly accepted the conventional rules.  If you wish
: to make a request, I will consider it after you reply to my last article
: point by point.
The last exchange failed. A reasonable reaction to failure is to try 
something else.
Silke
: Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
: Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
: itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
: ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

If anyone has any information on any FAQ on
archimedes.plutonium@dartmouth.edu, please email me info at the address
below.  The a.u.k FAQ that I found had no information on the thing.
|---------------------------------|
| Note that From: line has been   |
| altered to foil email spammers. |
|                                 |
| Felix Tilley                    |
| ftilley@goodnet.com             |
| ftilley@indirect.com            |
|---------------------------------|

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>fncll@aurora.alaska.edu (Chris Lott) writes:
: >>>tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) wrote:
: >>>>Bottom line: if a professional in a field tells an amateur they are
: >>>>mistaken, they would do well to listen. If ten do so, listen really hard,
: >>>>because you are very likely to be mistaken.
: >>>Then why are so many non-professionals intent on making pronouncements
: >>>about a philosopher and critic?
: >>>
: >>>Oh wait, that's a rhetorical game... I see.
: >>It takes an idiot to deny that there is a mob mentality involved in most
: >>pronouncements of Derrida's professional incompetence.  It takes another
: >>idiot to infer the innocence of the mob's victim.
: >And, of course, it would take an even greater idiot to assume that the
: >presence of mobbing activity is already sufficient cause for assumption of
: >guilt. But here we have the "science" community, intoning in near-unison
: >and near-ignorance, "where there's smoke, there must be fire."  Derrida
: >deserves to be judged in the field that he published in, to wit
: >continental philosophy. 
: Since logos is not subject to political or geographical boundaries,
: "continental philosophy" is a noxious oxymoron.  Derrida's judgment 
Logos isn't subject to the boundaries of bodies either, and it still is 
amply justified to talk of "Plato's Philosophy." To deny that there a 
different philosophical traditions seems rather silly.
: philosophers is well-known.  Curiously enough, the French philosophical
: community has thwarted his recent career ambitions.  Do they understand
: something that you don't?
Derrida has never been very popular with the French. So what? He isn't 
very popular with anybody, as far as I can see. Why should I care what 
the French establishment has to say about him? Do you make your judgments 
on the basis of the US establishment? Were you a fan of the Yale school 
while it lasted?
Silke

In article <54l8f0$bdo@panix2.panix.com> bradham@panix.com (Bo Bradham) writes:
>From: bradham@panix.com (Bo Bradham)
>Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
>Date: 23 Oct 1996 10:01:04 -0400
>Tim Hollebeek  wrote:
>> rnh@gmrc.gecm.com writes:
>>> 
>>> john baez (baez@math.ucr.edu) wrote:
>>> 
>>> >>Yes, and if the shaft were *that* deep its field of view would be
>>> >>so small you'd be lucky to see even one star, even at night!  
>>> 
>>> >Nonetheless, I've read in various reputable sources that one
>>> >can see the stars in the day, this way.  I haven't actually tried
>>> >it, personally.  
>>> 
>>> But not sources sufficiently reputable that you are willing to cite
>>> them, apparently.
>>
>>Yup.  I've heard this one a couple times, and have a bit of trouble
>>believing it.  ...
>>
>>I've added alt.folklore.urban, in hopes they've heard this one before,
>>and can provide some cites.
>The afu FAQ has 
>F. Daylight sky appears dark enough to see stars from bottom of deep well.
>It's been a long time since it has come up on the newsgroup,
>though.  And there's nothing about it in the afu archive as far
>as I can tell.
As I suspected it's in the sci.astro FAQ. It is not possible to see stars in 
the daytime from the bottom of a well. It is apparently possible to see venus 
at sunset if you know where to look and it is also possible to see some of the 
brighter stars with a telescope provided the 'scope is prefocussed and pointed 
at exactly the right place.
Jonathan Depree,
Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
people advice. They killed him.   (school history howler)

In <54nfs3$mv9@shellx.best.com>, Joe Keane  writes:
>So i was reading a description of fiber-optic networks, and they talk
>about the sub-channels with megabits and gigahertz, but then, when they
>get to the light band, they switch to nanometers.  Why don't people use
>the frequency of light instead; wouldn't that be more consistent?
>
>It makes more sense to me to use bigger numbers for higher frequencies,
>not to mention that the wavelengths given are *completely wrong* since
>the speed of light in glass is not c, i mean duh...
>
>To make it worse, there's also eV, cm^-1, kcal/mol, and so on, plus a
>factor of 2*pi moves around; how do people have intuition with all this?
>
>red    ~= 430 THz
>yellow ~= 520 THz
>green  ~= 590 THz
>blue   ~= 630 THz
>
>--
>Joe Keane, amateur physicist
	Actually, convienence rules over consistency here. And actually
makes a lot of sense when you stop and think about it...
	When discussing data transmission, i.e. subchannels, it makes sense
to discuss frequencies.
	When discussing optical phenomena, it makes sense to discuss
wavelength, as all the formulas are based on wavelength.
	The other units also make sense for other applications. For example, 
in  semiconductors, i.e. LED's lasers, etc.., you will go nowhere quickly 
without using eV. 
	Finally, all wavelengths are kept in their vacuum values for
standardization as well. For example, what if the fiber optic is made
of two materials? It's just easier that way. A lot of this stems from the
fact that we physicists are inherently lazy :) and just want to make the
equations as simple as possible. 
Joel M. Therrien

Marc Reviel  writes...
>> write plays with and the 2H lead I use for drafting.  I can go to the EE
>> department and buy a bunch of AND and OR gates and make a crude, but
>> working, model of the CPU in the computer I'm typing on.  I've been in a
> Actually, you'll also need a NOT (or any inverting function) gate to
>implement all logic functions. ;-)
Actually, I'd just grab NAND and NOR gates.  That is how they usually come,
and it removes the necesity of a NOT.
Marc

In article <51ljgb$r03@dscomsa.desy.de>, vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch) wrote:
>Wachter Herwig (herwig.wachter@telecom.at) wrote:
>: Please help me with the following question:
>
>: Why is there twice a day a high-tide on earth? Which physical effect
>: creates the "bulge" on the other side? 
>
As far as I know, the double bulge is just created by gravity.  Note that 
earth does not lie in a uniform gravitational field.  A point on the side of 
the earth facing the sun experiences a stronger gravitational force than a 
point on the other side.  The earth, however, consists largely of solid 
rock that is held together by molecular bonds in the solid state.  These bonds 
stretch to hold the solid mass of the earth together in the sun's 
gravitational field (i.e. the earth can be modeled as a rigid body).  Because 
ocean water is liquid it can stretch much more easily, so the water closer to 
the sun is pulled ahead in a bulge toward the sun, while the bulge on the 
other side of the earth is the water that is "left behind" because it is not 
pulled as strongly as the earth and, being a liquid, can "sag away" to a much 
greater extent.  Did I get that right?
Mike Rust
mrust@tjhsst.edu
mjrust@erols.com

weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>: (1)	Richard Harter is a sloppy thinker
>: (2)	Richard Harter is sloppy
>: (3)	Scientists are sloppy thinkers
>: (4)	Scientists are sloppy
>: [(3) and (4) are generalizations under the hypothesis that Richard
>: Harter is a scientist.  (1) and (2) are well known facts.]
>Or:
>	Sokal makes fun of Derrida in Social Text
>	Social Text's editors don't notice.
>	Social Text's editors are stupid.
>	Derrida is stupid.
As it happens I am a Fellow at the General Pedantics Institute.  As is
well know, we general pedanticists deal only in literal textual
analysis - humor, satire, parody, and irony are not part of our
repertoire, although some of the senior fellows are rumored to enjoy a
spot of dry humor in private in the their offices.  Behind locked
doors, of course.
Speaking as a Fellow, I am desolated to inform you that your examples
do not form a diagram of generalizations.  The first second statement
is a subsequent event rather than a generalization of the first.  The
third statement is an explanation of the second rather than a
generalization.  Likewise the fourth statement is not a generalization
of the third but rather is an instance of an unstated generalization
from the third.
I will concede that this analysis follows ordinary parlance.  One has
to consider context, of course, for meanings shift in the context of
usenet reconstructionism.  For example, one might suppose that Derrida
is shorthand for Derrida, the person, this usage being evidenced by
the usage "is stupid", or possibly is a reference to the works of
Derrida.  In reconstructionism, however, words do not denote people or
events; they are emblematic icons which instantiate emotive stances.
For example, Derrida is an icon for "that French Shit" which is in
turn is an icon for "that radical-chic humanities department shit"
which in turn is... Well, you get the idea.
Using the methods of usenet reconstructionism your example is quite
unexceptional.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

In article <54ov7k$u3@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>So there comes to be this issue:  How do we deal with an
>enterprise whereof the practitioners insist a mysterious
>essence, especially if its juju has power?
>-- 
No big mystery here.  We all (or at least those of us who never quite
mature) like to play games.  Science is a great game to play.  That's 
about as profound as I can make it.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <54ovfk$1eb@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>mjcarley@maths.tcd.ie (Michael Carley):
>| The phenomenon did not participate in creating it. F=ma
>| is not a model of a dialogue with Nature, it is a model
>| of Nature.
>
>What if Nature hid something?
>
Then either we'll notice it eventually, through the discrepancy 
between the predictions of the model and measurements (in which case 
we'll modify the model) or if the consequences of what's being missed 
are unmeasurable, it won't matter.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Jeff Candy (candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
[deletions]
: The speed of C code versus FORTRAN code depends most strongly (given 
: identical coding algorithms) on the compiler.  For example, the AIX 
: FORTRAN compiler (IBM) is far superior to the fort77/f2c (gnu) compiler 
: in the UNIX/LINUX distribution.
[more deletions]
Not a fair comparison.  f2c translates FORTRAN into C accurately,
but with great loss of efficiency.  Fort77 is still a beta
compiler.
    ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

lparker@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes...
>Anthony Potts (potts@cms6.cern.ch) wrote:
>: > sun does affect your life, doesn't it?).  Tell me about what it is about
>: > water that determines that it has an unusually high boiling point and makes
>: > it float whereas most solids are denser than their liquid phase (water
>: > does affect your life, doesn't it?). 
>: Well, gee Lloyd, let me guess, is it possibly hydrogen bonding in the
>: substance, eh?
>Well, that plus the angular shape.  
The angular shape of the H2O or the shape of the crystals?  It isn't
necesarily light enough to float.  I don't remember the exact point,
but under a few thousand atms it will be a more dense solid.
>Sure, you may know, but you'll note this was directed at "Gumby," who 
>says he is a theater major.
If you wist to direct something to only one person, there is something
called "email."
Marc

In article <54p6d3$4t1@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>Just what is the metaphysics that, in your opinion, science assumes?
>
>I suppose it to be in general terms an essential reality.
>
If you mean by this that science assumes that reality exists then, yes 
I agree with you.  I would add to it that science also assumes that 
said reality is consistent.  None of this, however, has any bearing on 
the existance or non existance of a creator of said reality.  That's 
beyond the scope of science.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In sci.astro, Chris Mills wrote:
:In article , billa@znet.com (Bill Arnett) says:
:>
:>Maybe the USA should make a deal with the rest of the world:  we'll go
:>metric if you'll learn to speak English.  (This is only half joking; I
:>think both would be big wins for the world as a whole.)
:>
: 
:You Yanks don't speakor write proper English (eg you spell metre 
:as meter and litre as liter) so stop preaching to the world when YOU 
:can't get things right.  (This is not a flame it is just something I feel
:VERY strongly about)
What is the speed limit on the Motorways (e.g., M5) these days?

Brian Jones wrote:
> Should we forgive his ass?  Hell No!
Hello Bjon.
Throop knows what he's doing, flip or not.  I've noticed some tendency 
in this newsgroup to attack a statement without regard to the underlying 
assumptions.  For instance, it appears that Throop buys into GR 
wholesale and his responses are fairly reasoned and knowledgeable.  That 
makes him right.  One of the principles that guided the development of 
GR was that there was no absolute frame.  On the other hand, what if 
there were some heretofore unknown effect that would allow us to 
determine a absolute frame.  That's fun to speculate about, and we 
should be allowed to do it.  That is also "right", but not canonically 
so.
One of the interesting things I've come across in the last few years is 
that there is a philosophically distinct theory of general relativity 
that assumes a preferred frame, and matches almost every single testable 
condition of Einstein's General Relativity.  See p.1124 (and index!) of 
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, about Whitehead's theory.  It was disproven 
in the early 70's, but there have been some recent developments that 
might give you a grin:  http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/physicst.htm
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>[to Russell]
>>>      A comforting story for you to tell yourself, but sadly false.
>>>You're forgetting that I didn't start this discussion.  That was the
>>>work of the mob, talk.origins sub-division, who found some comments of
>>>mine from a conversation last spring and immediately flamed them.  (I
>>>guess it was easier for you to leave that out of your version.)
... and continues on in a subsequent post ...
>        As I said, several talk.origins posters found some of my
>comments from a conversation last spring and proceeded to flame them.
>I didn't want to embarrass the individuals, but oh, why ever not?
>They were Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com), Michael L. Siemon
>, and Bob Casanova .net> (clearly a man who likes his own last name).  If per chance Bob
>was posting from sci.skeptic, then the mob had roots there as well as
>in talk.origins.  (It would hardly be surprising.)
We begin with "the mob, talk.origins sub-division" which, upon
inspection, turns out to be Matt Silberstein and (briefly) Michael
Siemon, Casanova not being a talk.origins poster.  So, what it comes
down to is that "the mob, talk.origins, sub-division" is Matt
Silberstein (who evidently has a lot to answer).  It is his work.
One can scarcely argue with such reasoning.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

In article <54os7f$np5@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu
(Russell Turpin) wrote:
>-*------
>In article ,
>Andy Perry  wrote:
>> When I say "reducible" I basically mean "wholly replaceable."  
>> Let me rewrite the sentence.  "...which in this context simply 
>> means a realm which cannot be *exhaustively described* by any
>> combination of other fields, such as normative psychology,
>> neurological mapping, or ideology critique."
>>
>> What do you mean when you say "reduced?"
>
>Assuming there is no vital force, biology reduces to chemistry
>and physics in the sense that all biological processes are
>ultimately very complex chemical and physical processes.  But
>this does not allow us to replace the study of biology, because
>the conceptual abstractions of biology are required to understand
>the complexity of the chemical-physical system.
>
>Similarly, I am quite confident that the behavior of software
>executing on a computer chip is fully determined by QED (causal
>reduction succeeds), but I am equally confident that QED cannot
>be used to analyze the behavior of that execution (conceptual
>reduction fails).
>
>I can think of other senses of reduction that often come into
>play in such discussions, and the two senses intended above are 
>only roughly suggested by my description.
I think we are using "reduce" in somewhat similar senses.  But I think I
can be more precise in my description of aesthetics, so I'm going to try,
building on your biology/chemistry/physics example.
Assuming there is no vital force, all three of those sciences have
perfectly compatible objects of study.  (I predict you want to know what I
mean by this.  I hope it will become clear below.)
The objects of study of aesthetics and normative psychology are not
compatible.  (Unless you happen to be David Hume, but we'll leave him
aside for the moment.)  The latter discipline would describe art in a way
which not only fails to correspond to the description of the former
discipline, but actively denies the validity of the former's desciption. 
The same is true for ideology critique.  In both cases, the other
discipline treats "art" as the name for one category among others.  For
psych, it's a category of experience which produces certain types of
reactions.  For ideocritique, it's a species of ideology.  Each discipline
may treat "art" as unique, in the sense that it IS a category unto itself,
which is in some important sense different from, say, newspaper articles,
or riding public transportation.  But that's the only type of uniqueness
they allow to "art."
Aesthetics by definition assigns "Art" a different type of uniqueness.  It
is not one category among others.  It is ONTOLOGICALLY different from
every other type of thing in the world.  Yes, this means that you cannot
do aesthetics, properly speaking, without some sort of depth metaphysics. 
Nor can you do it, I think, without an implicit (or explicit) model of the
mind which asserts that aesthetic experience is itself ontologically
different from every other type of experience.
So, I guess, having written that all out, that that's what I actually
meant by "reducible."  That for something to be reducible to psych,
neurology, and/or ideocritique, it would have to take its object of study
to be part of a class of other similar objects which are recognized by
those fields, whereas aesthetics denies that there is a fundamental
similarity between aesthetic experience and other types of experience. 
It's a question of leveling vs. preserving hierarchies.
-- 
Andy Perry                       We search before and after,
Brown University                 We pine for what is not.
English Department               Our sincerest laughter
Andrew_Perry@brown.edu OR        With some pain is fraught.
st001914@brownvm.bitnet            -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole

I don't think F1 cars are a good example to quote for aerodynamic examples.
The purpose of F1 aerodynamics is to give downforce in corners.  A previous
poster mentioned that just lifting off at high speed gave a 4g negative 
acceration.  That's without using the brakes!!!
As well most F1 cars will accelerate faster from 60-120 mph than from 0-60!!!
Aerodynamics again,  at higher speeds the aerodynamic downforce gives better
traction.  Same with braking,  as the cars slow down there is less downforce,
so it is easier to lock'em up.
But back to the thread:
Drafting will allow the lead vehicle to go faster.  At least in automobiles.
Ignoring F1, Winston Cup NASCARs do it all the time.  A train of cars is more
aerodynamic than a single car.
Road & Track added 5mph to the top speed of a Honda Civic by forming a three
car draft a few years ago.
It works with cars (mostly), but I don't know whether it will make any 
appreciable difference with cyclists.  There's a whole lot of turbulence going
on there.  Maybe for team time trialists?
Alan 

Back again?
The same questions will be asked, the same answers expected.
I suspect someone will point out that hits on a web site do not constitute
proof.
amnon.meyers@trw.com wrote in article <846101428.28688@dejanews.com>...
> A new theory of relativity is quickly gaining world-wide attention
> via the Web.  Check out
>       http://www.autodynamics.org
> 
> This theory derives the relativistic equations with one frame of
> reference, rather than Einstein's two.  That is the fundamental
> difference, yet the consequences are revolutionary:
> 
>    * decay phenomena explained without the "undetectable" neutrino
>    * faster-than-light speed is not forbidden.
>    * a feasible mechanism for gravity is postulated.
>    * a feasible mechanism for accelerating particles postulated.
>    * many experiments that Einstein's relativity (and the "Standard
>      Model") cannot account for are now explainable.
> 
> This and much more are out there for everyone to see, layman and
> physicist alike.  While many corrections and enhancements to Einstein's
> theory exist, Autodynamics provides derivations, experiments,
> and detailed explanations of prior experimental data.
> 
> Amnon Meyers
> A member of the Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics
> P.S. A mail list of about 200 people is growing fast.  Free
> subscription is available at the Autodynamics website.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
> http://www.dejanews.com/          [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
> 

Dr Michael Mattes wrote:
> I don't think so. If i would look at a fast moving passenger, i would
> see "his time" passing by very slow. Thats "his" proper time.  On the
> other hand, if he looks at my clock, he would see a very fast running
> clock. Thats "my" proper time. And when he returns (e.g. after a year
> in ** his ** reference system) for me (in ** my ** reference system
> there have passed a lot of more than one year (e.g. some millions
> year, if he was travelling at near light speed).  This means ** I **
> would be able to write much more digits than the moving passenger.
> 
> > Unless you�re moving at the speed of light you can�t generate a random
> > number.
You're exactly right... I inverted the situation in my last statement...
I stand corrected.

Mike
The "Conservation of Energy" has nothing to do with the dept of
Energy, global freezing/global warming activists, or switching
off un-used lights.
This is refering to science laws, in this case, what goes in must
come out. You can't "preserve" the Conservation of Energy: it looks
after itself!!!
George :)
Mike Turk wrote:
> 
> /On the date of 14 Oct 1996 09:14:13 GMT, roq@chch.planet.org.nz
> (Quentin Rowe) did inscribe into the group alt.atheism and unto the
> ether thereof:\
> 
> >Why are scientists so concerned with preserving the conservation of energy
> >within the entire (infinite) universe, when we can't even conserve the
> >available energy on the planet?
> 
> What?! Are you suggesting that we *destroy* energy on Terra? That's
> absurd!
> 
> > ________________________________________
> > Quentin Rowe      roq@chch.planet.org.nz
> > Christchurch
> > NEW ZEALAND -the worlds best kept secret
> >  .......................................
> >  : KNOWLEDGE,  the Fruit of Experience :
> >  : -Ferments to Myth, Distills to Fact :
> >  :.....................................:
> 
>         Mike Turk
> --
>    /===     e-mail: jhvh-1@geocities.com
>   / 111     homepage: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/6966/
>     111
> J H V H     Energetic is the goblin that fears the
>     111     turquoise wallpaper.
>     111
>   -=====-
> SLACK FIRST

In article <54mvrn$1n6u@uni.library.ucla.edu>, zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu
(Michael Zeleny) wrote:
>Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry) writes:
>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) wrote:
>
>>>Note that gainsaying your interlocutor does not amount to taking a
>>>principled stand on any position of intellectual consequence.
>
>>Well, that kinda depends on who your interlocutor is, dunnit?  In your
>>case, I'd agree...
>
>Actually, it does not in the least depend on the identity of your
>interlocutor.
Sure it does.  There are people of intellectual consequence in the world.
>Thus Peter Ramus is traditionally credited with the
>assertion that everything Aristotle said is wrong.  You may have to
>ask somebody in your philosophy department to explain to you why his
>claim is a priori erroneous.
Whether it is erroneous or not is beside the point.  It's important. 
People care whether Aristotle was right or wrong about stuff.  So much so
that you know that this Ramus dude (probably) once made this comment.
No one's ever going to win a similar immortality by saying "everything
Zeleny said is wrong."
-- 
Andy Perry                       We search before and after,
Brown University                 We pine for what is not.
English Department               Our sincerest laughter
Andrew_Perry@brown.edu OR        With some pain is fraught.
st001914@brownvm.bitnet            -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole

I refer to my own article of the same subject which is dated
18 Oct 1996 17:13:55 GMT <548dsj$fdo@freenet.hut.fi>:
I personally prefer that question is Earth's internal
processes only and that possible          period of
super continent cycle is about 430 Ma if it exists.
H-M explained about that last possibility  that Earth is
too far away from the big ball in center of the space 
(in center of M87) in order that this kind could be 
seen in rocks of Earth. Color electricity 'forces'
changes geometry of Universe (almost instantly).
H-M expalined also that Earth's and radiation peripheries
interact ('time passes') such that radiation peripheries
go through Earth. (The age of Earth for example is not
very easily understandable if you think 'time passing'
in this way instead of our conve  ntional thinking
were year is measured as Earth orbits the Sun (in
other words by years).?)
Best Regards,
Hannu Poropudas,
Vesaisentie 9E,
90900 Kiiminki,
Finland.
P.S. I wish that Nobel prize of physics will never be given in future.
-- 
"If man has good self-discipline always to choose good instead of
 pleasant, then man becomes also good and happy, which are the
 goals of man's life."  (Hannu Poropudas)