Directory

Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> I think the divisions of time were developed by the Babylonians, but
> that the Romans were responsible for the division of feet and pounds
> into 12.  Inch and ounce are derived from the Latin uncia, meaning a
> twelfth.
I'm curious from where comes this meaning.
For what I know, eleventh=unodecimo,-a, simplified into the scheme
uncim in many romance languages (the e should be breve, I think),
which look like uncia to me (or is it hazard ?).
OTOH, twelfth=duodecimo,-a, and I don't see the parallel with uncia.
Antoine

I had the impression that helium-3 is only solidified recently.
Can anyone give me a reference (prefer the original one) about when and
how did it solidified.
Sorry for an naive question and many thanks.

Ari  wrote:
>What is the formula that gives the force when hitting ground
>of a freefalling ball from a height H and mass M ?
>
>Thnks
>Ari
There isn't a single 'formula' which will give the answer.
It depends on severalthings, amongst them being:
The elasticity of the material making up the falling mass
the elasticity of the material of the 'ground'.
These latter determine the rate at which a decelerating force is generated
as the materials come into contact and start to deform elastically (remember,
the force F generated by an elastic deformation dX is given by F = -KdX,
 where K is the elastic constant of the material). As dX increases, the force F
increases, up to a point called the elastic limit.
If the generated force reaches and tends to exceed the elastic
limit of either material, then that material will start to 'give' (and the force F will no 
longer increase proportionally with dx), but there will still be a decelerating force F
and the mass will still be decelerating, but a different formula will have to be used for the
force generated as the deformation increases beyond the elastic limit.
It is possible that the force F eventually reaches a value that will cause the
mass to start to disintegrate or start moving through the 'ground' until it
has used up all its kinetic energy doing work against the limiting resistance of the
'ground'.
Given F=mass *A and F=-Kmass*Xmass = -Kearth*Xearth for both falling mass and ground,
you should be able to work out the equations yourself.
-- 
Tony Richards            'I think, therefore I am confused'
Rutherford Appleton Lab  '
UK                       '

Some time ago, Louis Savain (savainl@pacificnet.net) wrote:
:   That's just it.  It is not incumbent upon me to produce a physical
: time.  I don't believe in physical time.  It is incumbent upon
: physicists to produce such a time because they postulate that it is
: the cause of clocks dilation and that it is part of spacetime.
: Best regards,
: Louis Savain
        I am trying to promote a model of gravitation where
the process of gravity is a net close range repulsion of
matter, and as the matter expands, it "regulates" the flow
of time by making the length of the unit of time vary in
the same proportion as the unit of length, as time flows.
        This establishes the current size and density at
any given instant in time.
        This model _does_ make "spacetime" intrinsic to
the basic physics, something that no other model or theory
(that I know of) does, and it explains surface gravity in
a rational way, and makes the external gravitational "field"
a purely geometrical coordinate system.
        It also requires a general expansion of the universe,
and it all is a result of close range electromagnetism
between elementary particles, atoms and molecules, unifying
gravitation and electromagnetism.
        I guess it is more topical in ..new-theories though.
Ken Fischer 

Ray Van Dolson (rayvd@shocking.com) wrote:
: 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 :)
       There is no known material to coat the front with 
that will withstand any wear at all.   Silver was originally
used for the back coating, but I think all new mirror uses
an applied aluminum coating (which is very soft except for
a very thin layer of oxide (corundum, ruby, saphirre) that
may form.    Telescope first surface mirrors using aluminum
(vapor deposited) have to be re-aluminized regularly.
Ken Fischer    (Another confused, but curious person) :-)

Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
> 
> In article <540q9d$dpo@progress.progress.com>,
> disabito@rockwell.progress.com (Paul Disabito) says...
> >
> 
> >I'm new to this thread, so forgive me if I have missed material already
> >covered. One day I noticed that the windows in my mother's house (which
> >is over 200 years old) had very pronounced ripples. All of them moved
> >in the direction of gravity. I pointed this out to her and she said that
> >glass is like water, but just flows very slowly. She's not a physicist,
> >so what she says is certainly not authoritative, but it seemed consistent
> >with the appearance of the glass.
> >
> >If my mother is wrong, is it coincidental that the ripples all move
> >in the direction of gravity? Has anyone observed ripples moving away
> >from gravity?
> >
> 
> Your mother is almost right. In the old days they couldn't make flat panes
> of glass (they hadn't invented the float process). So to get windows that
> fit in the frame they'd put a rod of glass across the top of the window and
> then use a blow torch to heat it. This would make the glass melt and slowly
> ooze down until it completely filled the gap. The resultant windows always
> had riples in them, but they were the best that could be achieved at the
> time. This is why old windows always have lead around the edges, to channel
> the molten glass without getting burnt.
ROTFL
This is a fascinating thread, and not just because of the discussions upon the 
liquidity or otherwise of glass.  What I have gleaned so far is that...
1)	Glass is, to all intents and purposes, and to the everyday person in the 
everyday world, a solid (surprise surprise).
2)	By some physical or possibily chemical definitions, glass can be 
considered a liquid, but these definitions are rather esoteric and do not really 
apply to everyday life.
3)	There are some people out there who are really sick of this thread.
4)	There are some people out there who are beginning to enjoy it.  Careful!
I have not been around for very long yet, just some months, and I am wondering if 
this particular thread has always been active, as it shows no signs of 
disappearing, or even of fading slightly.
Peter

John Covington  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have heard that light behaves like both a particle and a wave, but is really neither.  And that light has no 
>mass.  I've also heard the other arugment, that light has no rest mass, but relativistic mass.  Then I've 
>heard that light is a momentum particle, and not a force particle.
>
>Could someone please explain this? A *detailed* explanation would be greatly appreciated, or a source where I 
>could find out the information.  My background is the simple undergraduate engineering physics (and modern 
>physics).
>
>This has been bugging me for the longest time :)
>
May I repectfully suggest that you think about those situations in physics when
you need to know or use the mass of an entity.
IMHO on those occasions you are either interested in working out
the acceleration of the entity as a result of exerting a force on it
or working out the gravitational force ON or OF the entity.
Now 'light', in free space travels at speed C : it cannot physically travel any slower or 
faster, therefore it cannot be decelerated or accelerated , in free space.
So, it cannot have 'inertial mass', that which goes into the F=mass*acceleration formula.
However, it is my understanding that light can have 'gravitational mass', due to the 
equivalence formula E=mass*C*C. It is more complicated than this, because the energy of the 
light contributes to an energy tensor used in General Relativity, but the outcome is that 
energy can contribute to the curvature of space-time which can be seen as the explanation
of the observed motion of bodies due to gravitational attraction.
So, although light does not have 'inertial mass' (F=M*A cannot be defined for light since A
must always be zero), light energy can still 'have' or contribute to, gravity as if it were 
mass.
Imagine a star suddenly converting all its 'inertial mass' to light.
It would appear likely that a planet orbiting that star would continue to orbit that star's
centre of gravity so long as the light remains within the orbit of the body in question,
due to the fact that the energy of the light is still gravitationally equivalent to
the original inertial mass.
I suspect and hope that other readers will criticise the above constructively. 
-- 
Tony Richards            'I think, therefore I am confused'
Rutherford Appleton Lab  '
UK                       '

Join me at my home page.
http://www.netcom.com/~art16
I have reviewed the draft of FCC OET Bulletin #65,
"Evaluating Compliance With FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure
to Radio Frequency Radiation"
It is a real mess. It does and says things that cannot protect from
radio frequency radiation exposures.
Good Surfing!
Arthur Varanelli

In article  
jamesl@netcom.com (James Logajan) writes:
[snip]
>
>Of course, this advantage doesn't do squat for multiplication. And of course
>I can't figure out why there are 5280 feet to a mile.  Or 3 feet/yard. And
>I would have to look up the size of an acre.
>
A statute mile of 5280 feet is the length of one arc-minute of longitude
at the latitude of Greenwich (the Royal Observatory), England.  A nautical
mile (6080 feet) is, near enough for celestial navigation purposes, the
average length of one arc-minute (1/60 * 1/360) of a great circle arc 
anywhere on the Earth's surface.  But I too have to look up the size of 
one acre, which is 4840 square yards--whatever those are.
-- 
Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics  | Bismark's law: The less people
& Astronomy, University College London | know about how sausages and laws
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT  UK      | are made, the better they'll
   email: mmd@star.ucl.ac.uk           | sleep at night.

In article  Anthony Potts  writes:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Joseph Zorzin wrote:
>
>> Anthony Potts wrote:
>> 
>> > Absolutely. The speed limit for particles is c, the speed of light in a
>> > vacuum. Im media where light travels slower than c, the speed limit for
>> > particles is still c. It is this fact that means that we can have
>> > particles travelling faster than the speed of light in a medium.
>> 
>> Hmmmm... Just how slow can those photons go? What medium will slow photons 
>> the most? Might there be any other practical use for slow photons in such a 
>> medium?
>
>Well, I believe that diamond has a refractive index of around 10, and that
>this is pretty much as high as it gets. This means that light in diamond
>travels at one tenth of its speed in a vacuum.
>
>
The refractive index of diamond is 2.4175 according to the Handbook of 
Chemistry and Physics.  
>> 
>> And if you were going in a space ship at close to the speed of light, and 
>> passed some media with slowed down photons passing through it, what would you 
>> see? (if going in the same direction)
>> 
>> 
>You would pass the photons. It is entirely feasible, I suppose, to send
>your photons off, run very fast round to the other side of the medium, and
>then pick them up as they emerge.
>
>Remember, though, the speed of light in these circumstances would still be
>18 000 miles per second, which is pretty fast.
>
>
>Anthony Potts
>
>CERN, Geneva
>
-- 
Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics  | Bismark's law: The less people
& Astronomy, University College London | know about how sausages and laws
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT  UK      | are made, the better they'll
   email: mmd@star.ucl.ac.uk           | sleep at night.

Marcus H. Mendenhall wrote:
> The usual problem with metal in a microwave oven is arcing (sparking) to
> the walls of the oven.
If anyone experiments, be VERY careful to keep metal objects away from the
fine metal screen inside the door glass.  You can very easily melt that screen
right through the glass, exposing yourself to microwave radiation.
Watch out for frozen orange juice containers that have foil under the cardboard.
The neatest firework I've seen was an  aluminized mylar candy wrapper.  If you must
try that, do it only in a VERY well-ventilated area, and only once.  High-temperature 
arcs on plastic produce exceedingly toxic monomers.
A buddy of mine trashed his microwave figuring it was OK to put in *small*
metal objects and nothing else. That leaves the microwave energy with noplace
to go, so it builds up a massive standing wave in the enclosure.
We took the remains apart. The plastic parts near the waveguide had melted,
and the power klystron was shot.
                                 - Jim Kutz

kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
>The pros seem to agree in peer reviewed texts that
>mass is simply "the resistance to acceleration measured in
>it's own rest frame [regardless of how fast it is moving
>relative to anything else]".
You sure? Well, maybe it depends on which kind of physics
you are talking about, i..e. classical, quantum, applied, etc.
The "mass" you refer to is the "relativistic mass", and it increases
with speed.
When doing particle physics using quantum field theory what's called 
"mass" of a particle is the position of the pole of its propagator, 
and this is the "rest mass", not the relativistic mass. A more theoretical
physicist could also tell you that what he calls simply "mass" labels the
representation of the special Lorentz group in which the particle sits. Again,
this is the "rest mass, and doesn't increase with speed, it's a 
constant.
So, if you talk to a professional particle physicist, by "mass" he'll 
mean the "rest mass", and not the one you talk about.
>        I would like those who prefer a different name
>for mass to make an attempt to change the textbooks, why
>let students learn conflicting concepts.
>
>Ken Fischer 
So it looks like it's not a matter of changing textbooks, but rather 
of defining more precisely which kind of physics you are doing. If you do
classical physics your definition could be convenient, but if you
do particle physics the rest mass is the mass you want to use.And anyway,
my impression/feeling/belief is that the "rest mass" definition
is nowadays the most commonly used one. BTW, it would be pretty annoying to
change the mass of the electron every time you consider a different 
accelerator where it travels at a different speed....:-)
Cheers, Matteo

tony richards wrote:
> Now 'light', in free space travels at speed C : it cannot physically travel any slower or
> faster, therefore it cannot be decelerated or accelerated , in free space.
> So, it cannot have 'inertial mass', that which goes into the F=mass*acceleration formula.
OK, I agree with you that light (photons, that is) have no rest mass but only a relativistic mass. In contrary 
to what you say I would like to say that light indeed in some situations can be treated with the relation 
F=m*a. Remember that light has momentum and that the relation can be written F=dp/dt. 
> So, although light does not have 'inertial mass' (F=M*A cannot be defined for light since A
> must always be zero)How do you go from c to zero without acceleration?? Maybe you say that the photon ceases to exist, but its 
momentum must be somewhere.
This is what is called radiation pressure.
If a photon is reflected of a surface its momentum is reversed (i.e. goes from p to -p). This change in 
momentum takes place under a certain time and the result is a finite value of dp/dt.
This force can be utilized for example in an 'optical windmill' where you have a suspended bar (in vacuum) with 
one absorbing side and one reflecting side. The change in momentum for photons hitting the absorbing side will 
be p (goes from p to zero), and for the reflecting side 2p (goes from p to -p). The effect is a net force that 
gives an angular momentum around the suspension axis. The bar starts to rotate!
One question can now be: Where is the rotational energy of the bar taken from. The answer is that the photons 
are red-shifted in the reflection. Hence this 'machine' becomes more and more efficient as the angular speed 
increases.
(This rotation would be in the opposite direction if the bar is suspended in a gas, due to the higher 
gas-pressure over the heated side.)
> I suspect and hope that other readers will criticise the above constructively.
Constructive criticism ;-)
/Mattias

 Brian Jones  writes
>Nope, Mr. Stein. Aberration of starlight would not exist if the there
>were a "carried-along light medium." 
        Of course "Aberration of Starlight" would exist in a "carried-
along light medium" Mr. Jones.  Indeed Brian, THAT IS WHAT CAUSES IT !
Consider the following:-
              Star                                           Earth
                *                                         A<-h->o
For simplicity we will consider that the Earth's Atmosphere starts and
ends abruptly at a point 'A', a hight 'h' metres above the earth.
If the Earth (with it's atmosphere) is moving at v m/s in a direction
perpendicular to the line joining the Earth and Star,then the Earth's
atmosphere will drag the light with it,causing a bend in the light ray
at the point A. It is in fact very easy to work out just how much the
aberration would be from this.
        Time for light to traverse the Earth's Atmosphere = h/c seconds
                Distance travelled by 'A' in time h/c     = vh/c metres
        Therefore Angular displacement of Star = arctan ((vh/c)/h)
                                               = arctan ( v  / c  )
                                               = arctan (3E4 / 3E8)
                                               = 20 seconds of arc
                 IN EXCELLENT AGREEMENT WITH OBSERVATION. 
All this was, of course, known and understood centuries before Einstein
came along and confused everyone with that silly SR nonsense, eh Brian. 
-- 
Keith Stein

In article <54dtft$15k@udevdiv.Unibase.COM> John S. wrote:
>But what ARE these charge-pairs? They are vortices in the aether 
>in which is invested energy. The negative vortex is loose and the 
>positive vortex is much denser- for reasons which are not yet 
>clear to me; 
  Let "ether" denote the continuity aspect of a universally present 
material substance. Let there be only one such substance that 
exists. This is the matter, of which particles are made. Let matter 
be compressible. Let it resist compression increasingly more 
strongly as it is increasingly compressed. It thus exerts an 
expansive pressure ("sorce") from every point. Introduce the 
Bernoulli-Venturi effect: The pressure perpendicular to a flowing 
surface decreases as the velocity of flow increases.
  Let a local portion of ether spin on an axis. The pressure 
against both sides of the spin-surface will decrease. (Call this 
decreased pressure "negative energy".) In response to such a 
grad -s, freely-flowable matter will be pushed toward the spin 
surface ("interface") from both sides. 
  There is an infinite quantity of matter outside the spinning 
portion. The influx of outside matter is thus spread thru the 
surrounding field, decreasing in intensity by the square of the 
distance. There is a finite quantity of matter inside the spinning 
portion. As some flows toward the interface, the pressure from 
where it had been decreases. It is thus impossible for the inner 
material to cancel the grad s merely by flowing "outward" toward 
the interface.
  Accordingly, the only way to reach field-equilibrium 
(grad s = 0) is for the entire spinning portion to be bodily 
comdensed. As this happens, the dinsity (quantity of matter per 
unit volume independently of whether or not any of it has the 
property measured by "mass") inside the spinning portion 
("nucleus") becomes enormously greater than that of the 
now-patterned surrounding material. 
>And how do the atoms link to the aether? 
  Atoms are MADE of "the aether" - i.e. of the continuous tho 
non-homogeneous compressible matter that totally fills the 
universe.
>>PS This is unrelated but exactly how close are we from the 
>>unification of physics?
>>Wei Aun
  Please rephrase the question. (Are you asking about a "unified 
field" equation, or about a physical theory that explains the 
nature of everything physics measures? If the former, until the 
underlying physical meaning of each and every relevant symbol in 
such an equation is known, Physics will not have been completed. If 
the latter, it's already been done.)
  Glird     http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
   "Complexity is but the many faces of simplicity.
The road to complexity consists of just a bunch of simple steps.
   They only look enormous if you skip the littlest ones."

Pascal's Principle says that the pressure at a point in liquid or a gas 
is the same from all directions. 
I wonder why it is so. Can the principle be derived from more basic 
principles?
To me, Pascal's Principle is not obvious. It seems at least as probable
that, in a liquid column in a gravity field (sorry for my dubious english), 
the pressure should be greater from the vertical directions than from
the horizontal.
Erland Gadde

Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]
: ]I shudder to think of you as an English teacher. Whenever someone has 
: ]brought up details, someone else has said, "but that's not SCIENCE, 
: ]that's ABUSE OF SCIENCE by INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS." But if you chose not 
: ]to remember those exchanges, that's your privilege. I don't see why I'm 
: ]"wrong" in not bringing up specifics -- I merely agreed to Ken's comment 
: ]in a general way -- as did you. What's your point, then?
:  I doubt this question is not S Weineck's customary wriggling. It
:  is clear that abuses by people do not disprove the constitutional
:  principle of the enterprise.
And no one claimed that they did, either. What Russell did not grasp and 
what you do not grasp is that I am not critiquing science and therefore 
need no correction as to how to do it.
Silke
: -- 
: LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
:                 -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
> Vance Maverick (maverick@cs.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> : Silke, would you say science is part of aesthetic discourse?  All I
> : can think of here is the people who say, e.g., that Helmholtz and
> : Fourier prove the universal validity of triadic harmony; and these
> : people are not taken very seriously.
> 
> I'm familiar with the phenomenon of projects that try to address 
> aesthetic judgment scientifically, and I'm often intrigued by them. What 
> I've seen (and it's not much), I usually distrust, but I can't really 
> comment on any specific instances. 
> Off the top of my head, I'd say that scientific discourse on aesthetic
> phenomena spell the end of aesthetics as we know it;
This is an interesting polarisation that is quite thought-provoking, but
that I have difficulty relating to. Is science itself or a scientific
approach to the interpretation of phenomena devoid of aesthetics? Is there
no appreciation of beauty deemed worthy of scientific inquiry?  Is
scientific expertise a priori deemed incompetent to make aesthetic
judgements?  Does scientific discourse have no aesthetic value of its own?
Is science incapable of enhancing aesthetic appreciation? Are scientists
oblivious to aesthetics?
I think not. I was inspired to become a biologist (already as a kid) by the
sheer beauty of life forms. Today my aesthetic appreciation of life (and
natural phenomena in general) has been vastly deepened by its scientific
study and understanding. Moreover, the scientific study itself strikes me
as being aesthetic. I find beauty in (scientifically) knowing of the survival
strategies of many critters or how ecosystems work, but also in how some
clever researchers managed to patiently tease this knowledge out of
focussed observations.  I know many biologists feel the same. Is it not
somehow a very basic human trait to want to understand the objects we
behold as beautiful? Does this understanding then have no legitimacy to
provoke and transmit profound aesthetic awe?
Of course I've been confronted with the notion that scientific knowledge
somehow takes away the innocence or unstructuredness of aesthetic
appreciation. I don't share this view. I think it adds to it and gives it
another dimension. I look out of my office window and see the beauty 
of light reflections on the lake, yet I also can ponder on the multitude of
planktonic organisms that inhabit it, their feeding strategies, their life
cycles and their relationships to the physical and chemical conditions and
enjoy the aesthetics of that - and I can share this with friends and
family. 
I find endless aesthetic pleasure in scientifically knowing and learning
about the multitude of orgamisms that surround us, the evolutionary
processes that have brought forth life's diversity, "the universes in a 
grain of sand" (Blake), the history and movements of landmasses and 
climate changes that have distributed the various orgamisms in their 
particular patterns that we observe today. Is there anything more 
sublimely beautiful than that?   Is the (scientific) pursuit to 
understanding our unfolding ecosystem ultimately not aesthetically 
pleasing in the highest order?
But who knows, these might only be considered the nerdy murmurings of a
socially impaired nat-sci critter, who, if he's lucky, makes a good pet. 
:-)
Greetings,  Tom.

On 21 Oct 1996, it was written:
> kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
> 
> >The pros seem to agree in peer reviewed texts that
> >mass is simply "the resistance to acceleration measured in
> >it's own rest frame [regardless of how fast it is moving
> >relative to anything else]".
> 
> You sure? Well, maybe it depends on which kind of physics
> you are talking about, i..e. classical, quantum, applied, etc.
> 
> The "mass" you refer to is the "relativistic mass", and it increases
> with speed.
> 
No, he was referring to rest mass. He said "in it's own rest frame", which
pretty much defines it as rest mass.
> When doing particle physics using quantum field theory what's called 
> "mass" of a particle is the position of the pole of its propagator, 
> and this is the "rest mass", not the relativistic mass. A more theoretical
Ooh, don't know about that. The rest mass also contains lots of terms
arising from the energy of the field of virtual particles around the
particle in question. You have to be careful with which value you are
talking about here, the naked mass, or the real mass that we woudl measure
for a particle.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

Franz Kiekeben wrote:
> 
> 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.htmlAns. from Jerry:
  The past, the present, and the future coexist over a small period of 
time(nanoseconds). This
enables God to control certain events by controlling the minds of some men.They are
unaware that their thoughts are from God. Thus God controls history.

moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
> > 	Honestly, Richard, tear yourself away from that fish -- it's
> > my opponents, naturally enough, who keep pointing to the areas where
> > Newton works.  For my part, I haven't disputed any of their examples.
> > However, I _have_ pointed out that the areas where he works and the
> > areas he doesn't _aren't_ strictly delimited -- to call them "areas"
> > is a convenient fiction.
Jonathan Stone wrote: 
> Moggin,  would you kindly clarify a  point of fact?
> Do you know what the Lorentz  transform is, or a \beta, or \gamma?
> The answer would seem to bear significantly on  the point at hand.
	Can't you guess?  I've made no secret that I don't know much
phsyics -- I said in so many words that I've got a physics-for-poets
understanding of the subject.  Maybe you just wanted to hear it again
-- o.k., there you go.  Now kindly explain how, as "a point of fact,"
what I know about the Lorentz transform or a \beta has a significant
bearing on the utility of Newton's laws: I never realized I had that
kind of power, and I'd like to learn more.
-- moggin

Jens Stengaard Larsen wrote:
> 
> Has "recognize" inadvertedly been used here in stead of somthing like
> "cast doubt upon", or am I misunderstanding something completely?
When you use relativistic mechanics, you are using procedures developed 
by people who regognized that newtonian mechanics makes assumptions about 
the world that, if left uncorrected, would lead to conclusions that do 
not occur in our world.  Chief among theses assumptions is the newtonian 
belief in preferred frames of reference.  By doing away with preferred 
reference frames, you find the speed of light is constant for all 
observers and that different observers can come to different conclusions 
about which event is simultaneous with other events.
In this respect, relativistic mechanics doesn't cast doubt upon newtonian 
mechanics.  Instead, it extends the principles of mechanics to events 
moving at high speed (or seperated by distances large compared to the 
light travel time) with respect to the observer.
-- 
___________________________________
Richard J. Logan, Ph.D.
University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.

Matteo Cacciari wrote:
> 
> kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
> 
> >The pros seem to agree in peer reviewed texts that
> >mass is simply "the resistance to acceleration measured in
> >it's own rest frame [regardless of how fast it is moving
> >relative to anything else]".
> 
> You sure? Well, maybe it depends on which kind of physics
> you are talking about, i..e. classical, quantum, applied, etc.
> 
> The "mass" you refer to is the "relativistic mass", and it increases
> with speed.
Sounds to me like he's talking about rest mass, not relativistic mass.
Note the phrase "IN ITS OWN REST FRAME" in the quoted paragraph.
--
Chris Volpe			Phone: (518) 387-7766 
GE Corporate R&D;		Fax:   (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8 			Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
Schenectady, NY 12301		Web:   http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr
.

Ken MacIver wrote:
> 
> Every religion on the face of this planet daily questions its
> foundation, else they will [and do] disappear as viable belief centers
> for human beings or lapse into internal warfare.
> 
This is interesting, please provide examples.  I would say that christians (for 
example) do not daily question the foundations of their religion.  For example, 
the deity of christ is not questioned, the existance of heaven and hell are not 
questioned.  Similarly, muslims would probably not argue with the statement, 
"there is no god but allah and muhamad is his prophet".  I believe the catholic 
church calls it "heresy" to question the founding principles of the church.
> What does it say to you about science when both
> sides to an irreconcilable difference plead their case through
> citations to science?
> 
It tells me that even lay people recognize that science has provided 
unambiguously positive solutions to problems in the past and that, by implying 
scientific evidence supports their position (and not the position of people on 
the other side of the issue), they hope to convince the uncommitted masses of 
the correctness of their cause.
Relying on science alone to resolve social and political disputes is 
counter-productive.
-- 
___________________________________
Richard J. Logan, Ph.D.
University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.

Im Artikel <54dq18$ogd@dscomsa.desy.de>, vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick
van Esch) schreibt:
>Once we got into a big dispute, and he went to the kitchen sink,
>filled it with water, pulled out the plug... of course in the end
>there was a vortex visible (due to conservation of angular momentum
>and the shape of the sink) and he said: "See, see !! It's rotating
>in the right direction !  You shouldn't believe all that theory,
>experiment shows it !"
> 
>anyone an idea how I could convince him ?
>He's not impressed by the 10^-7.
Haven't you got those double sinks in Belgium just the same as here? With
adjacent outlets? Fill up both sinks, and pull both plugs. With a little
luck they will spin clock AND counter clock wise. Then tell him you just
miracoluosly changed the axis of the earth and the equator now is running
directly through the lab :-)
Cheerio
If you don't bite back, when a dog bites you,
it will say that you have no teeth (from Sudan).
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Jim Akerlund wrote:
> 
> If you can prove that the redshift for extreme values is
> caused by something else other then the objects recession, then you have
> proved that the Big Bang model is incorrect, or needs serious work.
	.....errr, red light has a greater mass and therefor maintains its
momentum longer. Over the vast distances involved this causes it to
arrive slightly sooner, and thus red shift equals distance and the
universe isn't expanding ;)
					C. Holmes
> 
> Jim Akerlund

If at near light speed we should get a change of colors. But if near
light speed we should get a slower time. Wouldn't that disable the
shorting of the wavelenghts?
I heard of an experiment that some particle shouldn't come through the
atmosphere to the the ground because of low lifetime but it did. Is was
explained with when at near light speed lengths gets shorter. But
couldn't that be only explained with lifetime extension because of the
time going slowlier?
If lengths would get shorter so also the wavelength shorting from above
would be disabled, wouldn't it?
 Jan
---
Jan Pavek \|\*(:-)
Email: p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
URL:   http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke
"Why don't we see it as it is? A flower, a tree, a mountain, a bee ..."
"Do you realize the power of the dream?..."

PWisnewski:
|> We have three choices here, physicists:
|> 1) The universe has existed "forever."
|>    For all who can accept the absurdity of a concept 
|>    like "forever" you may stop reading now.
|> 2) The universe, and all energy contained within it spontaneously
|>    self-generated a while back, and, well... 
|>    here we are.
|>    Not much better than "forever", is it?
|> 3) The basic assumptions of science contradict the
|>    fact of our own existence, and are therefore 
|>    fundamentally flawed. 
|> I just want to point out that even cutting edge physics 
|> and modern science are far too stupid about the universe 
|> to risk being smug,
Your deep understanding of modern cosmology is surpassed only 
by a keen philosophical intuition.  
Yours most humbly,
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is sillier than two bald men fighting over a comb.
*plonk*
K.
-
-- 
"...Whispering lunar incantations/Dissolve the floors of memory/And all its
clear relations/Its divisions and precisions..." - RoaWN, T.S. Eliot.
\  GoNQ TPAd PMo M3 C6o a20- b71 g7L w7T r8ebIs s50 Rz Sr N0693 Lie -v2.5   /
  \_{http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~spidey/index.html}---{spidey@maths.tcd.ie}__/

> > How many religions can you
> > cite that daily question their foundation?
Sorry, but I don't see why this statement has stirred up such a hornets 
nest.  Please comment.
-- 
___________________________________
Richard J. Logan, Ph.D.
University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.

Im Artikel <54erk4$4hh@news.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander
Abian) schreibt:
>you know
>very well what do I mean - 
Well, there was no intention to get you wrong on my side, sorry...
>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 !!!
Aha. I didn't suspect this at all, but I do understand now, that you are
under the impression, that we are able to engineer all sorts of nice
vaccines for every grievance known to mankind. Up to this day mankind has
always succeeded in using any inventions as much for the bad as for the
good. Find a "vaccine" against that first, is my suggestion.
If you don't bite back, when a dog bites you,
it will say that you have no teeth (from Sudan).
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Physcist I ain't.  Engineer I am. 
I have what may be some stupid questions (I hope not). 
1. Entropy is always defined in reference to a 'closed system'. 
   What happens in an 'open system'?  
2. In reference to entropy, what really is a 'closed' versus 'open' system.
3. Biological systems 'ALWAYS' have a positive entropy change, 
   or at best zero change of entropy? 
4. The unrestricted expansion of a gas (Joules experiment) 
   is considered an irreversible process.  
   The energy available for work drops to zero. 
   Can't this be used in reference to our universe expanding 
   to the point of maximum entropy and as such irreversible? 
   Therefore, no contraction?  An end state of static nothing? 
*******************************************************
Doug McKean
doug_mckean@paragon-networks.com
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
*******************************************************

Gumby (msw5513@vms1.tamu.edu) wrote:
: lparker@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes...
: >Patrick T.P. Chin (tchin@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: 
: >: That is not a silly question, ok? 
: 
: >Asking "How do you explain how a magnetic stirrer works in chemistry?" is 
: >a silly question.  So would be "How do you explain how cell division 
: >works in physics?"  or "How do you explain how nuclear fusion works in 
: >biology?"  or, for that matter, "How do you explain electron orbitals in 
: >16th century English literature?"
: 
: I've a friend with a chem degree that works with magnetic stirrers and
: centrifuges, and other stuff.  Asking how they work is not a stupid
: question, and the person who operates them should have a clue.
: 
: The other questions you pose are asking a person with no contact with
: with those concepts about them.  That is not the same as asking a
: "chemist", when many chemists have exposure to magnetic stirrers, about
: magnetic stirrers.
Sure it is.  If not for nuclear fusion, there'd be no elements heavier 
than hydrogen or helium, and no life, so you could argue just as much 
that a biologist should know how that works as a chemist should know how 
a stirrer works.  
But perhaps this will be even clearer:  Biologists also work with
stirrers, spectrometers, etc.  So should they also know as much about them
as a physicist or an engineer?  Does an English teacher need to know
exactly how a modern printing press works?  Or how paper is made?  Or why 
the graphite in a pencil works the way it does?  They certainly work with 
these. 

AdrianTeo@mailhost.net wrote:
> 
> Paul Myers wrote:
> > And further, #1 is a non sequitur. Atheists _can_  and _do_ live good
> > moral lives, setting a good example for their families, etc. Being an
> > atheist does not mean one is an unethical brute, just as being a
> > christian does not mean one is a greedy, hypocritical televangelist.
> 
> Correct. I know some atheists who are generally law-abiding citizens.
> But I have not yet met one who is living consistently with his/her
> beliefs. Many atheists are moral relativists and openly preach
> tolerance. But then, they betray their position by strongly supporting
> certain causes, arguing for right and wrong etc. Gross inconsistency!
"But I have not yet met one who is living consistently with his/her
beliefs"
MOST Christians I know don't even come CLOSE to living consistently with
their
beliefs.  Just read through the Bible and compare what it actual says
against
what the average Christian does.  That is even worse gross
inconsistency!
jbb
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Philosopher and scientist,            |
|                       | Poet, musician, duelist -             |
| Jeff B. Baker         |   He flew high, and fell back again!  |
| Software Engineer     | A pretty wit - whose like we lack -   |
| jbb@airmail.net       | A lover...not like other men....      |
|                       |   Here lies Hercule-Savinien          |
|                       | De Cyrano de Bergerac -               |
|                       | Who was all things - and all in vain! |
|                       |          - Edmond Rostand             |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------

In article <326B03B0.77D9@direct.ca>, SAggarwal  wrote:
> 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.
> 1. Does this curvature occur in all planes?
Err, essentially yes, but I think you are probably visualizing things
somewhat incorrectly due to taking the fishnet analogy too seriously.
The way curvature is defined mathematically is roughly along the lines
of:  Travel with a velocity A in some direction for a while, then
travel with a velocity B in another direction for a while.  In general,
you will not end up at the same event (place+time) as you would have if
you had first travelled with velocity B and then with velocity A for
the same durations, due to gravitational time dilation.  Curvature is a
measure of by how much this fails to be true.  (To make this precise you
have to ensure that you travel infinitesimal distances so that you can
determine the local curvature effects.)
Example:  If your velocities were confined to the surface of the Earth
there would be no difference because you are staying at a constant
gravitational potential.  But suppose you walked across the length of a
building and took an elevator at the far end up to the top floor.
Suppose there is someone else who started out where you were, took an
elevator up first, and then walked across the building to the far end
where your elevator arrives, travelling at the same rate.  (That is,
his elevator has the same speed as yours, and he walks just as fast as
you do.)  The other person would not end up where you do at the exactly
the same time; he would arrive at your elevator doors on the top floor
slightly before your elevator gets there.
This is because you spent all that time on the bottom floor, deeper in
the gravitational well, where time is running slighly slower than on
the top floor -- even if you and the other person spent exactly 5
minutes by your watches walking across your respective floors, you will
be delayed because your 5 minutes is longer than his.  Spacetime
curvature is merely a characterization of the exact time difference
between arrivals at the endpoints, for all possible combinations of
velocities for the pair of legs of the trips.
In summary, the way I like to think of this is:
     "spacetime curvature" = "gravitational time dilation"
Pretty simple, huh?  :)
> 2. Is it symmetrical (ie Do I have to stretch 2 fishnets and sandwich
> the ball    in between)?
That's not exactly a good analogy.  The fishnet is spacetime itself,
and we are considering its curvature.  You are thinking of the fishnet
as being embedded in a 3-dimensional space, but this is not necessary
or even desirable.  Properly speaking, the "ball" (or gravitating body)
does not sit _on top_ of spacetime, it is _in spacetime_.  Maybe think
of a disc lying on the fishnet instead; it's supposed to be _in_ the
fishnet, not on it.
> 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? 
Any way you want.  You measure the components of curvature in any
direction you want, much like you can measure the components of a
vector in any direction you want, and put them together to get an
overall description of curvature in every direction.
> 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?
The answer to both questions is "yes", assuming that they are not
rotating.  Otherwise, the answer is "no".  (By the way, it is not
spacetime which is spherically symmetric in this case, but space.)
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

In article <54damf$6h5@panix2.panix.com> +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>| >Does science require mathematics?
>| >
>| >Once upon a time, ...
>
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
>| We are no longer in "once upon a time."  Once upon a time, it
>| was militarily useful to arm your legions with pila and shields,
>| too.  Try that against the Eighth Army, or even the XXI Panzer Div.
>| ...
>
>Did you know that the general officers of the Eighth Army,
>every one of them, have studied not only the doings of
>commanders of legions, but of tribal warriors as well?
>And not as historical curiosities, either.
I am well aware of that.  Please indicate whether or not you are
aware of the difference between equipment and tactics.
	Patrick

Paul Myers wrote:
> And further, #1 is a non sequitur. Atheists _can_  and _do_ live good
> moral lives, setting a good example for their families, etc. Being an
> atheist does not mean one is an unethical brute, just as being a
> christian does not mean one is a greedy, hypocritical televangelist.
Correct. I know some atheists who are generally law-abiding citizens.
But I have not yet met one who is living consistently with his/her
beliefs. Many atheists are moral relativists and openly preach
tolerance. But then, they betray their position by strongly supporting
certain causes, arguing for right and wrong etc. Gross inconsistency!

Jon West wrote:
> 
> 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.?
a) gravitational work is the change in gravitational potential energy (mgh)
in this case, m = 10 kg, g = 9.8 m/s^2, and h = 5 * sin(20)
10 * 9.8 * 5 * sin(20) = 168 J
b) work done by a force is force * distance (note that for the first problem this 
would be  mg * h, the same as determined by potential energy difference)
100 N * 5 m = 500 J
check your book for sign conventions for a) and b)
c) the kinetic energy has increased by 500 J and decreased by 168 J, overall an 
increase of 332 J.
d) final kinetic energy is the initial kinetic energy  plus the change in kinetic 
energy
0.5 * 10 kg * (1.5 m/s)^2 + 332 J = 343 J  ( = 0.5 * 10 * final_velocity^2)
final_velocity = (343/(0.5 * 10))^0.5 = 8.4 m/s
***** please check the above for possible mistakes in plugging numbers into the 
calculator, and check out the web page in my .sig for a listing of sites on the web 
that may be of help to you.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

Patrick T.P. Chin (tchin@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: 
: Exactly. A student may very likely ask how the stirrer works. 
In which case, I'd tell them the same thing a biologist would -- that's 
physics, not chemistry (or biology).  I'd tell them to ask a physics 
teacher or student, or to go to the library and look it up.
: The point is, make this kind of observation and ask questions to your professor
: is not silly or stupid. Torque, as well as force, can be found in any college
: physics. 
But not in college chemistry, and we WERE talking about a student in a 
chemistry class.
: I don't think nowadays any engineering major (bio, chem, whatever) 
: can get by without taking physics 101. Saying that it is irrelevant because
: of a person's arrogance or ignorance is stupid!
We were talking about chemistry, not chemical engineering.  I will 
stipulate that torque is relevant to physics and engineering.

Peter Ward wrote:
> This is a fascinating thread, and not just because of the discussions upon the
> liquidity or otherwise of glass.  What I have gleaned so far is that...
> 
> 1)      Glass is, to all intents and purposes, and to the everyday person in the
> everyday world, a solid (surprise surprise).
> 
> 2)      By some physical or possibily chemical definitions, glass can be
> considered a liquid, but these definitions are rather esoteric and do not really
> apply to everyday life.
Bingo!
> 
> I have not been around for very long yet, just some months, and I am wondering if
> this particular thread has always been active, as it shows no signs of
> disappearing, or even of fading slightly.
If this thread were, for example, "Is Jello a solid?", it would probably not last 
very long.  Furthermore, if I were to argue that water is not a liquid because it is 
possible to obtain it from a gas without ever seeing a condensation point (a similar 
argument to the fact that you can obtain glass from a liquid without seeing a 
freezing point) - the thread would not last very long. IMO threads like this go on 
and on because to some extent people deep down feel they are defending the honor of 
somebody like the grandparent who explained to them why she had ripples in her window 
but you didn't in yours when you were a child.  After several years of research in 
amorphous materials, I could only feel a bit of amusement last week at the irony of 
someone who put more stock in the folk-explanation that what he called the 
"self-proclaimed experts" (such as myself) who have offered a bit of insight into the 
physics of glasses here.  Don't expect this thread to disappear soon.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

Directory

On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Dan Bohlen wrote:
> Are there any religions that don't believe in lawyers? or accountants?
> I know there are some that don't do doctors, but will they take an
> accountant into an IRS audit or will they let God see them through?
>
>
I don't believe in lawyers.  It's not a religion, but simply a reality.
Lawyers don't exist. Lawyer is only a label for something which has no
essence.  I believe in this even without a religion.  And as far as the
practices of those who call themselves lawyers go, I definately don't
believe that it's worth anything. Totally meaningless BS.
but, on another note, I'm thinking of starting a religion which does
believe in the existence of phat.  also known as cool or hip, this is the
driving force which must motivate one to do good, or else they will burn
in the pits of imbicilic nerd-dom.  Phat/wack, cool/uncool, ect.   the
great dichotomies of modern life. . .
kris.

I need help understanding how to use Newton's
force equations.
For example (A homework problem)
A object of mass m falls a distance D. Calculate the force (magnitude of 
the acceleration) to stop the object if from the time the object first 
strikes the ground untill it comes to a complete stop it travels a distance d 
(into the ground).
I solved this problem (symbolicly) useing the equations of motion
My question is :
Is there another way to do this useing the fact 
that the sum of all forces on a body is F = ma
and if so how?
I would really appreciate any help 
Thanks!
--Peter  A new student to physics
--Shine on-- 

First of all:  what's up with the vanishing posts?  How is it that your 
last response to mine disappeared in just a couple of days?  If you take 
a day off from the computer then you lose the thread?  Forgive my 
cyber-illiteracy, but is this supposed to happen?  Does it have 
something to do with my server?
Anyway, I think we can get to the relevant issues with the following:
Russell:
>    Mother:  "Get your doggy"  (referring to favorite stuffed toy)
>    Child:   [Does so.]
> 
>    [later]
> 
>    Child:   "Fix doggy"  (handing stuffed toy with torn ear to mother)
>    Mother:  "Do you want to go to McDonald's?"
>             (attempting to distract child from torn toy)
> 
>    [later, at Luby's cafeteria]
> 
>    Child:   "This isn't MaDees!!!"  (pissed as hell)
>    Mother:  "You like mashed potatoes, right?"
>    Child:   "uh-huh"  (somewhat ameliorated)
> 
> If they are to work at all, the terms "doggy,"
> "McDonald's/MaDees," and "mashed potatoes" are referring.
> Remember: I am NOT denying the processes Artese describes.  What
> I deny is the *adequacy* of a theory of signification purely in
> terms of associations or differences among words.  You have to
> have more than this.  Representation is one example of what more
> is needed.  It is not all.
I realized after arguing with Zeleny about a similar topic that the 
confusion beteween us has to do with the difference between the terms 
'referent' and 'signified'.  The object of my original exposition was to 
demonstrate that the theoretical entity known as the signified is just a 
chimera.  If the signified were said to be just another word for 'a 
particular referent', there would be no theoretical problem.  One of the 
things that cause people to conflate the two is the nebulous word 
'meaning' which attempts to embrace both.
This attempt is *not* made, of course, in cases like your example above, 
in which people say "Which apple do you mean?" -- which can be 
translated as, "Of the given choices that look like they fall under 
category X, which one do you want to isolate?"  But when we say that 
we're going to 'get at the meaning' of a *word*, or any articulation, 
we're not talking about simply tracking down a particular object.  The 
'meaning' in that case -- whatever it turns out to be when we find it -- 
is said to have a quality that allows it to remain distinct (i.e., not 
identical) to any one particular object, no matter how 'closely' the 
meaning and any such object are linked, or no matter how 'dependent' 
they are on one another.  This is even more clearly the case with the 
word 'signified,' which always announces itself as a universal that the 
signifier merely 'names'.
It's true that that particular puppy over there can be *assigned to* a 
universal -- that is, to a previously articulated category, to a label. 
 That label has no existence apart from the *word* 'puppy'.  There is no 
signified, no Platonic form, no third thing in addition to (1) the 
signifier, and (2) that drooling thing over there.  In other words, 
there is no 'meaning' independent of the signifier.
So we can talk all we want about signifiers, signifieds, genuses 
(categories), meanings and everlasting forms.  But it turns out that we 
*need* only two of those:  signifier and genus.  Some signifers are not 
genuses, but all genuses are signifiers.
So let's look again at this statement:
> If they are to work at all, the terms "doggy,"
> "McDonald's/MaDees," and "mashed potatoes" are referring.
As I hope I've demonstrated, this is wrong because although a *person* 
can aim for a particular object, a word cannot do so.  If you like, you 
could formulate it this way:  Through the performance of a speech act, a 
person can indicate his desire to single out a particular object.  In a 
purely behavioral sense, then, the *person* is referring; but the fact 
remains that the 'terms' do not do so.  Besides emotional effects, a 
word can only invoke an index of other words, such as any species that 
may be assigned to it, genuses to which it may belong, or purely 
metonymic or even unconscious associations. 
This schema is perfectly adequate to explain signification, which in 
itself is not a very complicated affair.  And the broader question of 
how language 'works' will never be answered under the tautological 
assumption that this 'work' involves a process whereby the demarcations 
of language 'match' with those that 'already exist' in the empirical 
world.  You're only chasing your synchronic tail there.  The question 
that scientists should address is:  how and why do people isolate 
certain phenomena *as such*?  It's a huge question, I admit, requiring 
both physicists and philosophers.  The answer will have much to do, of 
course, with an evolutionary inheritance geared toward survival -- that 
is, geared toward isolating phenomena in such a way that we can get food 
in our bellies and avoid open head wounds.  But this function is just 
the tip of the iceberg.  Linguists should concern themselves with 
questions about the shifting but semi-stable organization of these 
indexical relationships in a given language.  The answers, however, must 
involve the unavoidably historical source of these relationships, and 
most 'scientific' linguists avoid diachrony like the plague.
-- brian

In article <54oslq$sqs@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
tao@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Terence Tao) wrote:
>In article <326F660D.330B@paragon-networks.com> Doug McKean  writes:
>>  More precisely, what is the
>> physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
>
>Electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity.
  Are you saying that they are all directly tied to the speed of
light?  If so, it would be a strong indication of a common link with
EM at some level since the speed of light is an EM phenomenon?
Best regards,
Louis Savain

In article <54ljcg$6hd@bessel.nando.net> moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  :
>
>>"I replaced the head of my father's ax and my brother replaced the 
>>handle, but it is still my father's ax."  Philosophers love this stuff.  
>>The rest of us get on with life.
>
>	Yes, but whose axe do you chop at it with?
Foul, rhetoric, one-love.
	Patrick

On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Volker Hetzer wrote:
> All right, I will confess my sins to him as soon as I'm dead and
> standing in front of him.
> I'll even admit of having been wrong about his nonexistence.
> However, until I am dead, I don't think, it is worth bothering whether
> your christian or any other gods exist.
I have to interject, sorry.  Even though I agree with both sides in my own
way, I just have to say that your argument here is very weak.  How could
you repent when you're dead?  The very nature of dead is not-alive.  In
order to speak or to think, you must be alive, because thought is life.
So you can't even think in order to confess once you're dead.  But that
doesn't mean you won't exist eternally, in relation to how you lived your
life.
>
> Volker
> PS: funny thread this, I hope it'll live long
>
>
Yes, and long live the non-existence of god as well!
kris.

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Mark D. Kluge wrote:
> In article <326F2A17.36A1C5BD@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de>, 
> p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de says...
> 
> >At near light speed masses gets bigger. When taking two equal masses and
> >accelerating them parallely to near light speed, will there be a bigger
> >force between them? I think not, but between them and another travelling
> >at a lower speed before them. Behind, the two masses will get a lower
> >mass. Am I right?
> 
> No, you are not. 
> 
> One must be careful to specify the frame of reference in which the force 
> bwtween the two masses is measured. Force, like length, time, mass, and 
> momentum, is reference-frame dependent. In the frame of reference in which the 
> two masses are instantaneously at rest, the masses of the particles equal 
> their rest masses. In the laboratory frame of reference, with respect to which 
> the particles travel with a velocity close to that of light, the masses are 
> increased, with a corresponding increase in the force between the bodies, as 
> measured in the laboratory frame. 
> 
> Mkluge
> 
> 
If the force is increasing, are also galaxies, which are travelling at a 
very high speed, pulled together by the increasing force and slowed?
 Jan
---
Jan Pavek \|\*(:-)
Email: p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
URL:   http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke
"Why don't we see it as it is? A flower, a tree, a mountain, a bee ..."
"Do you realize the power of the dream?..."

In article <3270BE5A.D9B@ozemail.com.au>, Jaymz  wrote:
-> Nervous wrote:
-> > 
-> > In article <326DD85B.3909@ozemail.com.au>, James
 wrote:
-> > 
-> > -> I dont understand this pathetic idea that the rest of the world has
-> > -> about Australia. Seems to me like your media has fed all your ignorant
-> > -> fucks with every single clich� about Australia they can ley their hands
-> > -> on. I have met people that dont even know where Australia is on the map
-> > -> what are you fucking blind? So to the person who wrote the above note
-> > -> educate yourself and if your from the US then all I say is sucked in
-> > -> because you will never have a good leader because the country is so
-> > -> brainwashed that sadley most people will belive anything they see on TV.
-> > -> Jaymz
-> > 
-> > Aeee righty, matey!  Put e noder shrimp on de barbie..ruper!
-> > 
-> > --
-> You guys crack me up. Lets forget all this shit and get back to whats
-> important hey.
No problem...
So, anti-gravity...is it good or is it bad?
Remember that Ytrium-Barium stuff that dreams were made of?  You
know...cold fusion?  Well, the first time I ever laid me eyes on it, it was
being demonstrated in my 1st year physics class (quite a while ago....). 
Anywho, I noticed that the little piece of whatever that was used to
'float' above the Ytrium-Barium cake, once started spinning (with the aid
of the professors pencil), it only spun.....
Ahhhhh, never mind....
I don't think that anti-gravity is the key for any kind of intergalactic
propulsion system....
Let's talk about why witnesses report that UFOs have a wobbly trajectory
and how a friend of mine (while in Nepal) witnessed a Vedas meditate then
rise above the ground and have this same 'wobbly' look to him.  Could it be
that UFOs and my friends swami-dude were utilizing the same quantum
consciousness?  Sorta like UFOs and the Ghadi-guy were in our Universe and
another one (a higher one) at the same time?
-- 
You are entering an official U.S. Government System for authorized use
only. Do not discuss, enter, transfer, process, or transmit classified or
sensitive national security information of greater sensitivity than that
for which this system is authorized. Use of this system constitutes consent
to security testing and monitoring. Unauthorized use of this system or the
information on this system could result in criminal prosecution.  Have a
nice day.

In article <09BcychtjHcY092yn@ibm.net>, briank@ibm.net (Brian
Kennelly) wrote:
>[...]
>
>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.
  So far so good.  I understand that time dilation is mathematically
derived from the constancy of the measured speed of light.  So in
essence, the question could just as appropriately have been, what is
the cause of the constancy of the measured speed of light? 
>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.  
  Well SR does predict a direction dependency in the form of a length
contraction in the observed direction of motion.  Aside from that,
assuming for a moment that light has an absolute speed, who is to say
that beta decay does not depend on the actual speed of light relative
to the decaying particles?  We all know that electromagnetic clocks
would be directly affected by c since light is an EM effect.  These
type of clocks essentially guarantees a measured constancy of the
speed of light, IMO.  So what we are really doing with EM clocks is
using the speed of light to measure the speed of light.  The fact that
beta decay is in agreement with EM clocks is proof, in my eyes at
least, that the decay process is also tied to the speed of light
relative to the decaying particle.  If all processes, electromagnetic
or otherwise are tied to c, then the measured c could not possibly be
the true speed of light.
  Going back to your direction dependency argument, I am not so sure
that this has been properly tested at speeds that would make a
measurable difference.  I'm not even sure it can be tested.  An
obvious asymmetry arises from the fact that the traveling twin in the
twin paradox, is younger than the other twin.  This is a strong
indication of absolute motion at some level, IMO.  Why?  Because, in a
postulated absolute motion universe, it is reasonable to assume that
the earth is moving at a very small fraction of the speed of light.
So regardless of the absolute direction of motion of either twins, the
fast travelling twin will always be moving much closer to the speed of
light than the earth-bound twin.
  I entertain the notion that the solution to all this is tied to
finding the cause of inertial motion.  I find it fun to speculate that
inertial motion somehow requires energy (the causal mechanism) at some
yet undetected level and that there's only enough energy in the
"vacuum" to support the motion of a moving body up to the speed of
light.  As an object approaches the speed of light most of the energy
is used to maintain the object's speed in that direction and all other
processes suffer as a consequence, hence the slow aging twin.
Direction does not matter.
Best regards,
Louis Savain

In article <32702644.5D69@mail.ic.net>, Peter Diehr
 wrote:
>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.
  Well it's too bad that physicists, when confronted with problems
that severely tax the limit of their understanding, always feign to
not be interested in the deeper causal mechanisms responsible for
natural phenomena than is readily available to observer.  To be true
to their professed disinterest, I think they should discard almost
everything they know, because most of physics is already very
philosophical in nature.  What with spacetime, continuity,
discreteness, determinism, nonlocality, and all that jazz?  Is there
anything wrong with not knowing something?  Should not the goal of us
all be the pursuit of understanding?
>Of course, you could always write to "Uncle Al", or John Baez ...
>perhaps they know more than they've let on so far ...
  When it comes to a fundamental understanding of reality, we don't
need any more heroes.  There aren't any.  What we need is to put our
egos aside and stop pushing our pet theories at all costs, regardless
of the validity of the objections.  We need cooperation and more
brainstorming.  We need to be less dismissive of new ideas but at the
same time we need to criticize.  We also need to stop plugging the old
ideas so much, as they are not providing answers to the obvious hard
questions such as, what causes inertia and inertial motion? or what
causes the measured speed of light to be constant?, etc., etc...
Best regards,
Louis Savain

Andrus Kan wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that a mass and its curvature of space 'must' go hand in
> hand. one cannot exist without the other. My question is can the mass of
> an object be used to predict the curvature of the space around it?
In my words:
The mass itself is the value for the curvature of space around.
 Jan
---
Jan Pavek \|\*(:-)
Email: p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
URL:   http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke
"Why don't we see it as it is? A flower, a tree, a mountain, a bee ..."
"Do you realize the power of the dream?..."

Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <326C64B3.5A68@dvp.com.au>
: Andrew Davison  writes:
: > When pulsars were first discovered it was speculated that they were
: > signs
: > of intellgient life, so your copyright claim is predated by about 25
: > years
: > or so.
:   I have no doubts that very many had the idea slide through their
: minds that pulsars are advanced aliens. It is often the case in science
: that it is not the first who thought of a idea, but the person who put
: it to work.
LGM 1 to 4 were called that because they initially looked like alien 
signals.  That is in fact the original designation of the first four pulsars.
:   If it truly be known who had the first idea of the Atomic Theory, it
: may be found that it was not Leucippus, but his mentor. The point is
: that Democritus is generally given credit for the Atomic theory because
: it put it to work the most.
No, he gets credit because we have his books.
:   Since the first pulsars were discovered, the idea that they are
: advanced aliens has been neglected to the tune of neutron stars.
:   Here will be my contributions to this field.
:  (1) For one there are no neutron stars as currently envisaged. Is
: there a creature that is purely DNA? The only ones I can think of are
: viruses but I do not think that there is a virus that is 100% DNA or
: RNA. I am not sure of that.
What is the purpose of the irrelevent biological coment?
:   (2) Pulsars that exist naturally are cobalt-nickel all the way up to
: heavy element stars.
Then why are no such objects observed anywhere in the universe?
:   (3) Our Asteroid belt may have been a pulsar that blew up
Then why do pulsars not explode?
:   (4) I have the Atom Totality theory which allows for a spectrum of
: different ages in the cosmos. EG. the age of the Thorium Atom Totality,
: the Uranium Atom Totality and now our present Plutonium Atom Totality
: all living together in the 6 electron space and mass of the 5f6.
And none of the predictions you screech about correspond to the universe.
:   (5) I bring logic to the question can some or most of the  Quasars
: and Pulsars be advanced life forms. I have been in the business of
: science to long to know that in most cases of science conjecturing if
: the idea seems to fit at all with some other ideas, then the idea has a
: high probability of being true. And only a fool what not check-it-out. 
: My whole entrance into this subject is to check-it-out
Then why do you demand that the evidence be ignored?
:   (6) It is the fact that I have the Atom Totality theory that none of
: my predeccessors had, that if this thing comes to be true, then I
: should get the lionshare, if not all of the credit, except for those
: experimenters who first decoded an Alien Message.
What message are you halucinating about?
:   (7) What I am saying is that with the Vantage point of 231PU theory,
: that quasars and pulsars in large numbers are Aliens communicating. I
: believe this has a stronger chance of being true than false.
Why do you demand that life is more plentiful in the past (when there was 
less time for it to have developed) than it is now?
:   (8) Lastly, I propose to use the EM spectrum to figure out what is
: the best forms of communication by aliens should they exist. Once I
: figure that out and notice that the EM of pulsars and quasars are often
: in agreement with those EM spectrum of likelihood, warrants a strong go
: ahead that these are Aliens.
Why do you demand that objects which are definitely not being used to 
communicate are communications devices?
:   Has there been a supercomputer attached to every pulsar to keep track
: and record of their emmissions and has there been a decoder type
: scientist trying to make sense of these EMs?
There has been detailed analysis of the signals of several pulsars.  The 
goal was to locate planets that might be in orbit.  One pulsar has been 
shown to have planets.  So far, no other pulsar planets have been located.
:   THe periodic table, perhaps pulsed backwards because EM like the
: Xerox effect gets smaller with each photocopy. Thus if we look at
: pulsars as emitting the chemical table backwards..
...we'd be as briandead as you.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <54os7f$np5@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu
(Russell Turpin) wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Russell
The two senses of reduction you use have been at issue for some time.  I
beleive the clearest way of describing them has been to distinguish
"ontological reduction": which holds that everything is a physical process
which could be described with physics (opposed to this view are the
"emergent properties" theorists who what to say that at some point
something like the mind ceases to be a 'simple" physical process - they
are, ofg course, afraid of what they perceive to be a determinism); from
"epistemological reduction" which distinguishes how the world is
ontologically from how we, or any observer with limited processing ability,
must deal with it practically. As I said above, confusing the two leads to
the absurdity of emergent properties - quasi religious physics at it's
worst.

Murrian Family wrote:
> 
> If you are on a train going the speed of light and you are in the back of
> one of the cars. While the train is going the speed of light you walk to
> the front of the car. Are you moving faster than the speed of light? Is it
> possible to walk from the back to the front of a train car going the speed
> of light? I think no for the second. Quite a bit of G-Force.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Murrian Family -
> E-Mail: unknown@cycat.com
> Matthew Murrian -
> E-Mail: mattmurrian@hotmail.com
> Homepage: http://www.cycat.com/users/murrian/index.htm
I think that matter cannot go the speed of light and so the train. It
could only be done by shielding it somehow. So you would get another
relative position in Universe. The speed would then be relative to the
train.
 Jan
---
Jan Pavek \|\*(:-)
Email: p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
URL:   http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke
"Why don't we see it as it is? A flower, a tree, a mountain, a bee ..."
"Do you realize the power of the dream?..."

Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
]: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
]: ]: brian artese  (b-artese@nwu.edu) wrote:
]: ]: ]Russell Turpin wrote:
]: ]: ]
]: ]: ]> ... one would have to be extremely stupid to attempt a
]: ]: ]> point-by-point refutation of Derrida, such having about as much
]: ]: ]> relevance (according to his adherents) as a dissection of the man
]: ]: ]> in the moon has to anatomy.  Given this, one would have to be
]: ]: ]> extremely stupid -- also -- to think that Derridean "thought" is
]: ]: ]> somehow relevant to science.
]: ]: ]
]: ]: ]But this is the very reason I would like you to have read the particular 
]: ]: ]theorists themselves and *not* their "adherents".  Why do I want you to read 
]: ]
]: ]:  Witness S Weineck 's failur to produce coherent summary of "particular
]: ]:  theorists'" valuable contributions to phylosophy.
]: ]
]: ]? WOuld you accept Adorno's concept of resistance as valuable?
]
]:  Not until I see coherent and intelligible summary of it which
]:  would convince me in its value.
]
]Clarify something for me first: Have you read any Adorno?
 Give me a good reason why I ought to answer this question.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Darren Garrison wrote:
> 
> I prefer the words "meter", "liter", and "theater"  because there are
> closer to the conventional English spelling rules, and not exceptions
> to those rules that you have to memorize in grade school.  "Metre",
> "litre", and "theatre" are not Anglicized, but retain close to the
> original French spellings.  And that, not ethnocentrism, is why I
> prefer the former (or should that be "formre") spellings to the
> latter. (latre.)  When the new words more closely match the
> conventions of the new language, and less closely match the language
> from which those words were derived, then those words have a more
> logical and rational  place in that language, making it easier
> (easire) to learn, and will, in this case, be more truly English than
> the Frenchier (another new word) spellings.
Yours was an eloquent, classy argument about the distinction between
US and Anglo spelling.  I'd like to take this a step further.
My opposition to the adaptation of the metric system in the US stems
from cultural and language-based concerns.  Take the unit "mile"
for example.  I can think of a tremendous number of English stories, 
poems, songs, etc. that use this unit, while can think of none that
use the unit "kilometer."  To change to the metric system is to turn
our backs on this literary history.  If need be, I can convert
one unit to another, but I favor the word "mile" (an elegant word
that has been in English use for at least 1000 years) over "kilometer" 
(a cumbersome word that has been around only about 100 years).
Secondly, the money required to change everything is astounding.
Every milling machine, every wrench and drill bit set in every tool 
kit, every calibrated machine tool will need to be changed.  Along 
with these, there are the mental changes that need to be made: how 
many auto mechanics can look at a nut and estimate 9/16", and how 
many can estimate 13 mm?  How many Americans know how to dress when 
the guy on the radio says 45 F, and how many know how to dress when
the radio announcer says 32 C?  These mental barriers need to be
figured into the investment necessary to change to metric.
I enjoy seeing Europeans first come to the US, and hear their worries
about dealing with this backward unit system we have here--gallons,
miles, pounds.  Then after about three weeks, they generally say
"well, it all fits together a lot better than I expected."
Peter Mott

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?
>   A related question is, what is the property of space that causes the
> speed of light to be what is?  Why does not light move at infinite
> speed since photons are said to be massless?  Why the limit?  My own
> partially baked theory is that all motion, including the motion of
> light is due to a series of absorption/decay process.  In glass,
> photons are temporarily absorbed by atoms in the glass and then
> emitted back out by the same atoms.  I tend to believe that this
> re-emission is akin to a decay process.  For this reason the speed of
> light in glass is observed to be slower than the speed in a "vacuum".
>   I entertain the notion that something similar is occurring in "empty
> space".  This supposes that "space" is particulate, that there is an
> aether and that there is a continuous absorption/emission process
> taking place while a photon is moving.  The process is an interactive
> one whereby light interacts with particles of the aether.  The energy
> of the interactions is such that the speed of light is maintained at
> the observed level c, independent of the motion of the original
> source.
>   This brings me to a favorite subject of mine.  What is the cause of
> inertial motion?  I believe that this is the number one problem in
> physics and that its eventual solution will also give the answer to
> the title of this thread and a whole slew of other fundamental
> questions.  My own attempt at a solution for the inertia problem is in
> the form of a simple conjecture:  < undergoing a series of interactions>>.  At first glance, this may seem
> to contradict the Newtonian laws of motion but it really does not.
> Newton simply ignored any possible cause for inertial motion and
> formulated his laws accordingly.  This conjecture would be an addition
> to the existing laws.
>   The interaction conjecture demands the existence of an all-pervasive
> 4-D aether and should form the basis for a new understanding of
> motion.  What am I getting at?  Simply that it takes energy for a
> particle to move and even more energy to accelerate.  There's only
> enough energy to keep an object moving up to the speed of light.  A
> clock moving at the speed of light would not have any energy left to
> maintain its own ticking.  So where does the energy come from?  From
> the particles that comprise the aether, of course.
>   I know that many of you are still desperately and painfully clinging
> to the continuous wave theory of light.  Sorry to disillusion you all,
> but the confirmation of nonlocality in 1982 by Alain Aspect and his
> colleagues, was the final nail in the coffin of continuity.  Light
> consist of particles, guys.  Give it up.  :-)  Regardless of whether
> or not you think my ideas in this post have any merit, I still would
> like to hear your input regarding the question I'm posing, which is:
> What is the real cause of time dilation?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Louis Savain
To join this debate, I would say that the slower travelling clock
consumes less time - not energy, because energy is the effect of time -
then a faster one. So the faster one uses more time for trevelling at a
faster speed and less for ticking.
The speed of light was produced maybe with the Big Bang (if there was
one) and so it remained till now. It was maybe a random consumption of
time.
 Jan
---
Jan Pavek \|\*(:-)
Email: p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
URL:   http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke
"Why don't we see it as it is? A flower, a tree, a mountain, a bee ..."
"Do you realize the power of the dream?..."

We won't know, unless being one with Universe.
And then? We won't be human anymore!?
Is this the right way we go?
 Jan
---
Jan Pavek \|\*(:-)
Email: p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
URL:   http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke
"Why don't we see it as it is? A flower, a tree, a mountain, a bee ..."
"Do you realize the power of the dream?..."

Robert Casey (wa2ise@netcom.com) wrote:

: Would guess that "meter" came from something meaning "measurement"
: and a meter is eighter 39 1/3 inches
IIRC, a metre (I'm Australian) was originally defined as
1/10,000 of the distance between the north pole and the
equator on the arc that runs through Paris. The conversion
factor is 1 metre = 39.37 inches
Ah the joys of doing applied mathematics in imperial units
and physics in SI units in the 60's and 70's before Australia
went metric in 1976 - it taught you all kinds of funny factors :)
--
David Cox, Manager - Technology Research. Mincom Pty Ltd
Internet: david@mincom.com    ph +61 7 3364-9999   fax +61 7 3303-3232
Smail:    Cnr Wyandra St and Skyring Tce, Teneriffe, Qld 4005 *Australia*    

Jerry  wrote:
>Landis D. Ragon wrote:
>> 
>> mark friesel  wrote:
>> 
>> >>Jim Sheckard  wrote:
>> 
>> > 'E-M waves have no mass, but cannot
>> >travel faster than the speed of light.'
>> 
>> >What do you mean no mass?
>> 
>> They're not Catholic.
>> 
>> ie..
>> 
>> Electrons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!Comments from Jerry:
>   E-M waves have no rest mass, however E-M waves can and do travel faster than the
>speed of light.At our light speed universe our E-M waves are limited. However when
>we look att the whole light speed spectrum, we see that there are many light speed
>universes up to Godspeed. At the most extreme light speeds, no neutrons are formed
>and no coexisting universes are produced.The entire universe at Godspeed is no larger
>than a single human brain. Thus at Godspeed it takes a split second to cross our
>entire universe. Ultimately we all live within the mind of God whether we choose to
>believe it or not.
Jerry! It was a JOKE! get it? MASS? CATHOLIC? 
Never mind, why do I even bother to explaim humor to Jerry?

Have a fight.

Darren Garrison wrote:
> 
> Anthony Potts  wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Darren Garrison wrote:
> >
> That makes among the most flexable languages in the world, but that
> also makes it one of the most difficult to learn.  British children
> have to learn that "re" is pronounced "re" unless it is in metre,
> litre, theatre, or the such, in which case it is pronounced "er."
>
Hoo kares, it reely aint dat hard two lern!
Ian Howard

Ken writes -
: >I read a while back that when the french academy
: >was about to honor Derrida, more than 100 intellectuals
: >of Europe, including distinguished professors
: >of philosophy, past presidents of the academy,
: >fellows of the Royal Society etc issued a long
: >protest, saying Derrida was the worst kind
: >of charlatan to infest the philosophical waters
: >of Europe in a century. Many threatened to return
: >awards they had gotten if Derrida was honored.
: >I don't know how it all ended.
: >If Derrida is so superior to Sokal, here is a
: >challenge for him - let him select a scientific
: >publication of some repute and publish 
: >a hoax in it.
: One hopes that Derrida would be more honorable than that.  Only a
: swine who lacks ethics would attempt to publish a hoax in a
: professional journal.
And only stupid rogues who don't know
trash from sense would publish them ! :-)
This disingenuous retort by Ken wouldn't
fool a five year old. 
The point is that Derrida lacks the
intellectual ability to do what Sokal
found trivially easy to do. 
Ken, your trick isn't that new,
you know. A lazy relative of mine
has spent years trying to convince
us that his soul is too refined
to be tainted with sordid commerce, :-)
it's his oh-so-fine ethics and not his
laziness that prevents him from
working at a job :-)
Yeah, right.
RS

moggin (moggin@bessel.nando.net) wrote:
: Matt:
: >: :Did you, at that time, think of the surface of the planet as 3D? 
: >:      No, Mr. Examiner, I did not.  I was referring to the shape of
: >: the planet.  But the shape of the planet does have something to do
: >: with the shape of its surface, as you probably understand. 
: David L Evens :
: >The shape of the planet cannot affect the fact that the SURFACE of the 
: >planet is 2d.
: 	Too bad you didn't have enough time finish reading the
: paragraph before you commented on it.  See immediately below:
You seem to not understand that you are in fact claiming that the chape 
of an object can make a difference to the dimension of its surface.
: [moggin:]
: >: I took
: >: it as given that the Earth was round.  If it was flat and round,
: >: maps wouldn't be prey to distortion.  But the current consensus is
: >: that it has a round, three-dimensional shape; i.e., it's a sphere
: >: (or a ball, depending on your place of worship).  And that plays a
: >: large role in determining the shape of its surface (which is what
: >: gets mapped), even though the surface remains two-dimensional.
: 		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 	Note that the two-dimensionality of the surface poses no
: objection to my argument; that is, the one you've forgotten about.
: That's why I asked:
: >: >     Do you have a point?  Better yet, do you understand the point I
: >: >was trying to make before we got sidetracked?
: 	To which you helplessly reply:
Why are you describing your post and attributing it to me?
: >You were blathering stupidly.
: 	Thus demonstrating that you have no comprehension of what I
: was talking about when this subject came up.  Thanks for your time,
: limited as it was.
Why are you describiing yourself in my voice?
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
# Written/Edited by:
     Robert F. Heeter
     
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
# Last Revised February 26, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Contents
  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.
* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
* 4) How to Use the FAQ:
  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.
* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  
  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)
Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History
Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power
Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding
Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)
Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
Section 6 - Recent Results
Section 7 - Educational Opportunities
Section 8 - Internet Resources
Section 9 - Future Plans
Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List
Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z
---------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************
* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)
   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html
   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq
* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups
  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.
  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 
* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):
   Several Web versions now exist.
   The "official" one is currently at
     
   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      () soon.
   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:
 
 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.
 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)
* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro
  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:
    
  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 
  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.
  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.
* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)
  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.
* 5) Mail Server
   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit
   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.
* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 
  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.
  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.
  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Written FAQ Sections:
  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.
  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.
   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***
* 2) Building a Web Version
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 
  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.
* 4) Status of the Glossary:
 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.
 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.
 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)
 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.
 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.
 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)
Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:
[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]
Belgium
-------
  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs
Canada
------
  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70
Finland
-------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm
France
------
  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Germany
-------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP
Korea
-----
  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers
Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers
The Netherlands
---------------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl
Sweden
------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet
Switzerland
-----------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"
Taiwan
------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw
United Kingdon
--------------
  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/
United States
-------------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html

david@orb.mincom.oz.au (David Cox) wrote:
>Robert Casey (wa2ise@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Would guess that "meter" came from something meaning "measurement"
>: and a meter is eighter 39 1/3 inches
>IIRC, a metre (I'm Australian) was originally defined as
>1/10,000 of the distance between the north pole and the
>equator on the arc that runs through Paris. The conversion
>factor is 1 metre = 39.37 inches
Hmmmmmmm...... That would put the Earth's circumfrence at 40 Km.
Disney was right, it IS a small world, after all.

weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>         Obviously, you can conceive of the experience of beauty as a
> physiological event; it might be possible (I don't know) to determine that
> these physiological events are indeed identical or at least similar in
> everyone who says, in these or other terms, "this is beautiful," of if not
> in everyone, then in a large number of those who claim to experience
> beauty. The same event (or similar events) might occur in someone looking
> at a picture postcard of sails and seagulls before sunset as well as for
> someone reading the Duino Elegies, someone looking at industrial ruins or 
> someone like Tom looking at beetles (no sarcasm here).
I would hypothesize that to some degree it is possible to detect the
"beauty-activation" of certain brain areas with brain-scanning techniques
that are available today. However, I think a) they would exhibit very high
variability and b) different kinds of experiences (the sight of one's
child, the nude photo, the sunset, the reading of the Elegies, Mozart,
Guns 'n Roses or the beetle) would induce different kinds of patterns
(physiological reactions).
Assuming a) the physiological reactions are indeed similar for these
differing kinds of triggers this would have tremendous ramifications for
the degree of genetic programming to react to varying stimuli.   
Assuming b) (as I would) that the physiological reactions are different
depending on the type of "beauty-stimulus" we would have the opportunity
to observe differences and detect reaction categories or ranges.
Or assuming c) (a tantalizing prospect) that the reactions are completely
random and no patterns can be detected among humans, we would have
evidence that our degree of programming is minimal and all reactions are
possible to virtually any stimulus, with no general trends.
We would also have to figure out to what degree environmental (cultural)
imprint or conditioning is significant. We all know that too much of good
thing gets to be a drag. Undoubtedly conditioning is of prime importance.
Assuming a) we could easily test for conditioning factors. 
> However, I'm not sure how any of this would reflect on the question 
> of meaning. It would not allow us to distinguish between the
> postcard and the elegy, the beetle or the ruin
I don't agree with the underlying assumption. I would assume that (with a
sufficiently large data set) we would be able to detect some different
physiological types of "beauty experiences". That in itself would warrant
reevaluation, differentiation and expansion of what we mean by beauty.
> It would also not help much, I suppose,
> in reflecting on negative aesthetics, or on much of 20th century art. An
> other way of putting this, I think, is that in order to become a
> scientific discipline, aesthetics would have to neglect (not to deny)
> difference; 
Really? Using your postulate that the experience of beauty exists as a
physiological event, we would have a variable, measurable phenomena in
hand that could be used as an indicator of difference. We would have, so 
to speak, a metric to test or even determine differences among 
individuals or populations.
I am not at all arguing that this should be done or that aesthetics should
become a scientific discipline, but rather that our attempts to understand
something as complex and dear to us all as the experience of beauty should
encompass, or shall we say entertain, all possible and potentially valid
angles, _including science_, otherwise....
> it would be a structure, and Derrida's comments on the 
> problem of structuralism in aesthetics would apply. 
Liked your post.
Tom.

Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: brian artese  (b-artese@nwu.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]Russell Turpin wrote:
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]> ... one would have to be extremely stupid to attempt a
: ]: ]: ]> point-by-point refutation of Derrida, such having about as much
: ]: ]: ]> relevance (according to his adherents) as a dissection of the man
: ]: ]: ]> in the moon has to anatomy.  Given this, one would have to be
: ]: ]: ]> extremely stupid -- also -- to think that Derridean "thought" is
: ]: ]: ]> somehow relevant to science.
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]But this is the very reason I would like you to have read the particular 
: ]: ]: ]theorists themselves and *not* their "adherents".  Why do I want you to read 
: ]: ]
: ]: ]:  Witness S Weineck 's failur to produce coherent summary of "particular
: ]: ]:  theorists'" valuable contributions to phylosophy.
: ]: ]
: ]: ]? WOuld you accept Adorno's concept of resistance as valuable?
: ]
: ]:  Not until I see coherent and intelligible summary of it which
: ]:  would convince me in its value.
: ]
: ]Clarify something for me first: Have you read any Adorno?
:  Give me a good reason why I ought to answer this question.
You've already answered it. Your idol Zeleny can provide some remedial 
philosophy, perhaps. 
Silke
: -- 
: LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
:                 -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
: 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.  
Sadly, though, neither did yours, according to Mati's definition.... (am 
I generalizing yet?)
Silke

Kris Schumacher wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Volker Hetzer wrote:
> 
> > All right, I will confess my sins to him as soon as I'm dead and
> > standing in front of him.
> > I'll even admit of having been wrong about his nonexistence.
> > However, until I am dead, I don't think, it is worth bothering whether
> > your christian or any other gods exist.
> 
> I have to interject, sorry.  Even though I agree with both sides in my own
> way, I just have to say that your argument here is very weak.  How could
> you repent when you're dead? 
Comments from Jerry. The dead do not know that they are dead. They live
within the memory of themeselves in the world of yesterday across the
space time barrier. They do not think fresh thought but remain within
themselves reviewing their lives. They feel with remembered feelings as
well. Thus the dead do exist in a mind lock loop.It is a sad state
of existence.
 The very nature of dead is not-alive.  In
> order to speak or to think, you must be alive, because thought is life.
Comments from Jerry: In the initial state of death you stand alone.If
you enter the Kingdom of Heaven you will be able to speak. The energy
of God and God's time clock takes you from the solitary existence to
a state where you react with others.This process is the same in the
various Kingdoms of Heaven or the pit of hell. The self becomes part 
of the collective as the memory of you becomes the memory of all.
> So you can't even think in order to confess once you're dead.  But that
> doesn't mean you won't exist eternally, in relation to how you lived your
> life.
> Comments from Jerry:  In the world of the dead you will be able tocommunicate with loved ones who will reappear out of collective memory.
Thus those entering the highest Kingdoms will see loved ones again. The
period of existence outside of the collective in general is small.New
arrivals will see their loved ones and then all will return to the
collective state.You will be able to see your mother and father, your
children, your wife and others. 
   However, those who enter the pit of hell are collectived rather
rapidly and the entire intelligence of the group is reduced to that 
less than a single worm. Thus hell does not afford many benefits 
although it is a blessing as compared to self isolation.Prior to Jesus
hell was hell. But Jesus cleaned up the process and no one is tortured
in hell. It is a quick merciful end. So fast that few even realize that
their space time soul is being discharged rapidly into nothingness.
> >
> > Volker
> > PS: funny thread this, I hope it'll live long
> >
> >
> 
> Yes, and long live the non-existence of god as well!
> 
> kris. Comments from Jerry: Have a Good day. And yes some people confess to
God and are saved after they are dead.There are the elite of God such
as astronomers who serve God daily in their work. They are necessary for
the salvation of all upon the new Earth as per Isaiah.

James Harris wrote:
> 
> FLT is too much fun to play with, even if there is a proof now.
> 
> This one is short and elegant.  If you don't know the following, don't
> be too quick to dismiss it.
> 
> Is this already well known?
> 
>   if (a-b)=0mod(n) then (a^n - b^n)=0mod(n^2)
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------Suppose a-b=mod(0,n) then a=b+kn.
b^n = (a-kn)^n = a^n - na^(n-1)kn + n(n-1)a^(n-2)(kn)^2/2 + more stuff
So b^n-a^n = - na^(n-1)kn + n(n-1)a^(n-2)(kn)^2/2 + more stuff
which can be devided by n^2.
Wilbert Dijkhof

Louis Savain (savainl@pacificnet.net) 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?
One simple way to explain the mechanism (which is, incidentally the 
invariance of the speed of light) is to consider a very simple clock 
based on a pulse of light bouncing between a pair of paralell mirrors.
You have two of these clocks, and you know (since you checked previously) 
that they are identicle.  They must, therefor, 'tick' at the same rate.  
One of these oyu keep with you in your rest frame, the other you send off 
with a friend of yours who owns a very fast rocket.  He sets up his 
course so that you will observe him run past you at half the speed of 
light relative to you.  If you look at his clock, you will observe that 
the light pulse doesn't travel paralell to the light pulse in your clock 
(assuming you have the long axes of the clocks perpendiculr to the line 
of motion, which makes it simpler), but instead it follows a diagonal 
path as it must to stay between the mirrors in his frame.  The distance 
the light pulse has to travel in his clock, from your point of view, is 
longer than the distance the light pulse in your clock does, so his clock 
must run slower, from your point of view, than his does, since the speed 
of light is the same for all observers.  Since the situation is 
symetrical, your friend observes that your clock is running slower, from 
his point of view, than yours is.  This doesn't create a problem with 
reconciling the coordinate systems between you becuase the 
transformations take care of it nicely.
(I like this example because it shows why SR predicts that we must 
observe clocks in other frames to appear to run slow.)
:   A related question is, what is the property of space that causes the
: speed of light to be what is?  Why does not light move at infinite
: speed since photons are said to be massless?  Why the limit?  My own
: partially baked theory is that all motion, including the motion of
: light is due to a series of absorption/decay process.  In glass,
: photons are temporarily absorbed by atoms in the glass and then
: emitted back out by the same atoms.  I tend to believe that this
: re-emission is akin to a decay process.  For this reason the speed of
: light in glass is observed to be slower than the speed in a "vacuum".
The speed of light is the way it is because the universe is just built 
that way.  That's really about the best we can do at the moment.  Of 
couse, the speed of light cannot be infinite in a universe that has 
electromagnetism that works like it does in our universe.
:   I entertain the notion that something similar is occurring in "empty
: space".  This supposes that "space" is particulate, that there is an
: aether and that there is a continuous absorption/emission process
: taking place while a photon is moving.  The process is an interactive
: one whereby light interacts with particles of the aether.  The energy
: of the interactions is such that the speed of light is maintained at
: the observed level c, independent of the motion of the original
: source.
That would be called really bad theorising in most of modern physics, 
becuase it postulates unobservables.
:   This brings me to a favorite subject of mine.  What is the cause of
: inertial motion?  I believe that this is the number one problem in
: physics and that its eventual solution will also give the answer to
: the title of this thread and a whole slew of other fundamental
: questions.  My own attempt at a solution for the inertia problem is in
: the form of a simple conjecture:  <>.  At first glance, this may seem
: to contradict the Newtonian laws of motion but it really does not.
: Newton simply ignored any possible cause for inertial motion and
: formulated his laws accordingly.  This conjecture would be an addition
: to the existing laws.
:   The interaction conjecture demands the existence of an all-pervasive
: 4-D aether and should form the basis for a new understanding of
: motion.  What am I getting at?  Simply that it takes energy for a
: particle to move and even more energy to accelerate.  There's only
: enough energy to keep an object moving up to the speed of light.  A
: clock moving at the speed of light would not have any energy left to
: maintain its own ticking.  So where does the energy come from?  From
: the particles that comprise the aether, of course.
:   I know that many of you are still desperately and painfully clinging
: to the continuous wave theory of light.  Sorry to disillusion you all,
: but the confirmation of nonlocality in 1982 by Alain Aspect and his
: colleagues, was the final nail in the coffin of continuity.  Light
: consist of particles, guys.  Give it up.  :-)  Regardless of whether
: or not you think my ideas in this post have any merit, I still would
: like to hear your input regarding the question I'm posing, which is:
: What is the real cause of time dilation?
I gave it my best shot above.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 21 Oct 1996 20:40:04 GMT, jcorn@unlgrad1.unl.edu (James F Cornwall) wrote:
>-vanomen (vanomen@primenet.com) wrote:
>-: The only God that I know is Jesus the Messiah Lord and Savior of the 
>-: world.
>-My personal favorite is Cthulhu.
>-Followed closely by Vishnu, Destroyer of Worlds.
>-They just have cool names and a definite attitude.  8-)
I'll take Quetalcoatl. Never met a piece of chocolate I didn't like!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Do you know that weary feeling  when your mind is strangely strangled
and your head is like a ball of wool  that's very, very tangled;
and the tempo of your thinking  must be lenient and mild,
as though you were explaining  to a very little child.
                                   Piet Hein, 1970
--------------------------

Richard Andrew Bryan wrote:
> 
> You are indeed correct.  I read in an issue of "popular Mechanics" that
> the speed of light is indeed a limit (in the sense of calculus) meaning
> that the velocity can be approached from both sides but never reached.  At
> the speed of light mass becomes undefined or infinite.  At subluminal
> speeds mass is a positive quanitiy while at superluminal speeds, mass
> becomes a negative quantity.  The problem is that negative mass hass never
    In Einstein's 1905
    SR paper, he develops the coordinate transforms first, 
    and gets the length and time dilations. This defines an
    EM interferometry of space and time,
    then     
    he asks "what happens to EM laws in these coordinates"
    and gets the Doppler effects, aberration, intensity
    relations. 
    Then he says that since you can take any ponderable [neutral] 
    mass and put a small charge on it, the SR EM relations will hold 
    for neutral matter also. From this he gets the mass 
    dilation amd E=mc^2.
    But does this only applies to a classical (composite) masses
    since a neutron isn't a neutron when it's charged ?
 > been found and that negative mass would imply negative energy.  These
 > theories need more discussion.
 > 
 > Richard Bryan (MECH 9T7)
 > On 20 Oct 1996 atwilson@traveller.com wrote:
 > 
 > > In <3262a326.23679365@news.villagenet.com>, aklein@villagenet.com 
writes:
 > > >Tardyons, of course.  Tachyons have to be slowed to the speed of
 > > >light.
 > >
 > > I was under the impression that tachyons went faster than light in 
their
 > > medium by definition. If they were slowed down, then they would no 
longer
 > > be tachyons. - I think.

    In considering the spacetime curvatures of the elementary particles
themselves, one possibility has not been examined, i.e. that there are
no elementary particles. It may be that the proton and electron are
nothing but the sum of their electrostatic and gravitational
curvatures. This is easily tested. First calculate the curvature using
the electrostatic constant and charge for the electron. Then calculate
the curvature using the energy equivalent of the mass of the electron.
If the two are identical the particle has disappeared.
Edward Meisner

 cjones@gladstone.uoregon.edu (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.  

Please define "faster".  I can think of 2 ways that one could go "faster".
1.  In the story of the tortoise and the hare, the hare could travel
"faster".  However, the tortoise arrived at a particular point in space
and time earlier.
2.  Take a shortcut.  In other words, travel the resultant vector after
adding all pertinent vectors together.  
As a side note:  One of my frustrations in following some of these
discussions is that speed and velocity are used interchangably.  I have
also noticed that some people seem to interchange them on purpose in the
heat of an argument (presumably to cloud the issue) [a grumbling emoticon
here].  Sorry it's just a bad day.
/BAH

In article  Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry) writes:
>In article <54a9q0$q3a@news.ox.ac.uk>, patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk
>(Patrick Juola) wrote:
>
>>Physical events rarely if ever make moral judgements.  They simply
>>*are*.
>
>Kinda like poems...
I'm not sure I agree with this analogy.  Poems don't just happen,
they're *written* -- so the poem-as-printed-text isn't a viable
and meaningful chunk of the universe in its own right.  And the
system of poem-plus-writer very often is deliberately making moral
judgements; e.g. the Psalms, Tennyson's _Charge of the Light Brigade_,
what's-his-name's _In Flanders Field_, &c.;
	Patrick

Todd Matthew Koson wrote:
> 
> Andy Mulcahey wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> : >          When grown people pour over an old book in an attempt to find
> : > something other than the obvious text, most of us suspect bias.
> : >        What  makes this seem more likely is the amount of people who
> : > have come to the startling  conclusion that the results could infer
> : > the existence of a fairy, witch or deity of sorts.
> : > Cheers,
> : > Andy
> : > Original Sin: the refusal to willingly, spontaneously,
> : >               unthinkingly, obey Nature's Edicts
> (Gidon Cohen's response was:)
> 
> : Surely this is a fair first suspiscion. However, I think that this
> : article deserves attention. Not least of all because if it is a fake it
> : is a bloody good one, which has managed to get pased the referees of one
> : of the worlds most well respected statistics journals.
> : Gidon Cohen.
> Further investigation is imperative if one is to draw a conclusion from
> the article.  I still suspect hoax (also of the "Martian Metoerite) which
> is logical when dealing with claims of such magnitude.  The fact that it
> could have
> slid by the Statistical Science editors is not surprising, in fact better
> hoaxes have been pulled off with more prestigious journals.  I am curious
> to see the experiment replayed, because, by admission of the authors they
> only didn it ONCE (on purpose).  This does not good science make.  Also
> the article only implies the idea of a super- or preter- natural writer
> (why goD?  How about a Nostradamus type? [or is that less believable than
> a goD?])--
> Todd M. Koson
> University of Michigan
> College of Literature, Science, and the Arts
> 
> An ex-proud wearer of athiest genes
I am curious as to why neither side in this debate has produced any 
further (significant) evidence. The experiment is repeatable and 
expandable it is relatively easy to show whether the claims made are a 
hoax/fluke or whether they are genuine. I can't do this myself as I don't 
have the computer knowledge, but I know of no-one else who presents 
further evidence, and the paper was published in 1994.
On the question of justification of God I'm afraid I cannot fully agree 
with you, for whilst the formal logical implication of the study is as 
you point out only for the existence of a future teller this is not the 
end of the story. However, the existence of such a phenomenon (especially 
perhaps in the bible) would be a fatal blow to the modern atheistic 
understanding of the world [ask yourself the practical question 'how many
atheists/agnostics are prepared to accept that the bible accurately and 
'supernaturally' predicts the future?']. However, such questions about 
the implications of the ELS article are clearly of secondary importance. 
The first task clearly is to determine whether the results are a 
hoax/fluke. 
Gidon Cohen