Directory

In article <54dh21$jpe@netnews.upenn.edu> weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article <54at4v$ghp@netnews.upenn.edu> weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>: >Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
>: >: In article <546ce2$9b3@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at> Anton Hutticher  writes:
>: >: >> Analyzing the fundamnetalist/Catholic position in a bit more depth,
>: >: >> what's the "assumption" behind "Life begins when oocyte and sperm
>: >: >> meet"?  That sperm exist?  That oocytes exist?  That sometimes
>: >: >> they meet?  Just down the hall are people who are eminently qualified
>: >: >> to demonstrate the truth of these assertions in a petri dish in
>: >: >> front of you.  The statement, on the other hand, that the act of
>: >: >> meeting is the defining moment of "creation of life" is *not* a
>: >: >> scientific question.
>: >: >
>: >: >I think the underlying scientific assumption is "Life begins when 
>: >: >oocyte and sperm meet" itself.
>: >
>: >: Well (ahem) you're wrong.  The statement is unfalsifiable, therefore
>: >: unscientific, therefore not a scientific assumption.
>: >
>: >It depends; once you have a scientific definition of life that fits it 
>: >may very well be. I think you're a bit hasty.
>
>: Not at all.  As a matter of fact, biologists have a working scientific
>: definition of life having to do with metabolism -- that incidentally
>: falsifies the statement that life begins at conception, as the oocyte
>: and sperm are very definitely alive before they meet.
>
>You do realize that you just made my point? "Not at all" above should 
>read, "well, yes, now that I think about it, you're right." The catholic 
>vaguely scientific claim has now been reduced to a wrong assumption, 
>since science itself as personified by biologists etc. etc.
Excuse me?  What color is the sky in *your* world, Silke? The Catholic
claim is unscientific, as it's unfalsifiable.  It's unfalsifiable
because it hinges on an unaccepted and unfalsifiable definition of life,
(or more fundamentally on "the soul").
If you look more deeply into biologist's "working definition of life",
you'll find that that's all it is -- a "working definition," and it
gets tossed aside more or less at will when the context requires it;
for example, a pathologist would consider a human being to be "dead"
when a cellular biologist would still consider the body cells to be
"alive."  
If you're going to discuss "scientific assumptions," then learn some
science, damn it!
	Patrick

Richard Harter :
>By the bye, speaking of pick-pockets, I have a bone to pick with you,
>Sir.  I do not object that you paw through my trash looking for fish
>to read nor do I complain that you try to steal from my pick pockets -
>if your being without pants doesn't embarass you neither does it
>bother me.  But it would be kind of you to produce your own literary
>inventions from time to time rather than simply purloining mine.   And
>if your powers of invention do fail you remember this:  I am a crude
>sort of fellow, hacking mis-shapen cabinets out of inferior woods;
>there are far better poets to steal from than I.
	Nice post, but based on a misunderstanding:  I never
stole _from_ you, I alluded _to_ what you wrote.  And since I
was addressing the person who wrote it, I felt confident that
the allusion would be plain.
-- moggin

I thank 
Martin Gefland 
and 
Nick Cummings 
kindly for responding my novice questions about photons (and also the 
speed of information in a bar). I am not a physician and unfamiliar with 
most subjects within the field, but, still, photons are a considerably 
large part of the every day life as they seems to be everywhere I go and 
so, they interest me. Photons are mysterious things, at least to me, and 
maybe it goes down to the famous spoken words: "Let there be light". 
Somehow I think that if I just could understand the photon, I too could 
say: " I have eaten from the apple".
I believe that your answers were quite understandable to me and I could 
follow most of what you wrote, but.... 
naturally, my curiosity forces me to some additional questions...
1. I read somewhere , (something about monochromatic light generated from 
a gas), that when these gas atoms each emitted their photons, this was 
done through something called wave trains. These wave trains in some way 
carried the photons ( or perhaps was the photons ). The remarkable fact 
was, as I could understand it, that these trains had a length that could 
be some 5000 - 6000 times the length of the wavelength of the related 
photon, also that the birth of such a photon actually took this long 
time, i.e. the length of the wave train devided by c . Furthermore, 
depending on individual preferences for each gas atom, different lengths 
of wave trains were created, still, however, all resulting in photons 
with the same specific wavelength !!  Have I understood this correctly?, 
if so:  
How can this be possible ??
2. Quantum mechanics, you say, states that when a photon makes its way 
through a glass body, it is absorbed and re-emitted a number of times 
before it passes through. Every time "the photon" actually is a "real" 
photon it travels at c speed and during "the absorption period" it stands 
still ??
If a photon is truly absorbed by the media glass, in what way does it 
know (as it then has ceased to exist ?) what direction to take when 
emitted again and how does it know what frequency to recover?? Is this 
information, needed to guide the photon to the right path and frequency, 
delivered from the photon to the glass atoms during absorption and 
present in the glass atoms while "the photon" is in "absorpted mode".??
Can someone bring some light on these problems??
Hope that I'm not asking to much...
thanks
Magnus Lidgren

-*-------
In article <54fnjl$mja@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Silke-Maria  Weineck  wrote:
> 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, I *do* understand your claim.  I even respect your
disengagement here, much as I think the Catholic Church is wise
in recently constructing its doctrines to stand independent of
science.  
But it is a hard row that you hoe, wanting to comment on the
social effects and interactions of science in a multitude of
senses, while standing purposely apart from knowing what some of
those senses are and how they work.  Consider, for example, your
claim that everyone latches onto sciece, specifically, in the
abortion debate.  This is certainly true at *some* level.
(Science, after all, works from what we experience, so anyone
talking about experience is, in some very, very loose sense,
relying on things scientific, ergo ...)  Nonetheless, I will
continue to stand by my assertion that Catholic scholars have
become quite -- er, hm, cautious -- in tying Catholic doctrine or
definitions to scientific claims.  How can this be, given the
pervasiveness that Silke claims?  Well, we *could* talk about it
... but only given some knowledge of philosophies scientific ...
Russell
-- 
 Newton plain doesn't work, even as an approximation, 
 except within certain limits.        -- Moggin

aleistra@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrea Lynn Leistra) wrote:
> the analogy is a
>poor one, since the classical view of an electron as a point particle
>orbiting the nucleus would have the electron radiating energy away (as
>do all accelerating charges), which the moon does *not* do, 
I thought that in these days, we know of gravitational radiation,
and thus that the moon accelerating round the earth DOES radiate away
energy, just not very much. The precession of the orbit of Mercury
can be explained by space-warping effects which Newton doesn't
touch.

Erland Gadde wrote:
> 
> 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?
Common sense argument mainly.  If the pressure were different in some 
direction, the liquid would shift to eliminate the difference.  Pressure is 
force per unit area, where there is a pressure difference, there is a force to 
move the liquid to oppose the difference.
> 
> 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.
No, there will be a pressure gradient in the vertical direction.  The pressure 
gradient is equal to the gradient caused by the weight unit area of the liquid.
Mathematically (I noted you are writing from a Math Dept):
P(x, y, z) = P(z), where z is the vertical direction
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

Jens Stengaard Larsen wrote:
>> Has "recognize" inadvertedly been used here in stead of somthing like
>> "cast doubt upon", or am I misunderstanding something completely?
RICHARD J. LOGAN :
>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.
	How is it that newtonian mechanics makes false assumptions
("assumptions that, if uncorrected, would lead to conclusions that do
not occur in our world"), but relativistic mechanics, which "corrects"
those assumptions, "doesn't cast doubt upon newtonian mechanics"?
-- moggin

Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <54dh21$jpe@netnews.upenn.edu> weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: >: In article <54at4v$ghp@netnews.upenn.edu> weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >: >Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: >: >: In article <546ce2$9b3@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at> Anton Hutticher  writes:
: >: >: >> Analyzing the fundamnetalist/Catholic position in a bit more depth,
: >: >: >> what's the "assumption" behind "Life begins when oocyte and sperm
: >: >: >> meet"?  That sperm exist?  That oocytes exist?  That sometimes
: >: >: >> they meet?  Just down the hall are people who are eminently qualified
: >: >: >> to demonstrate the truth of these assertions in a petri dish in
: >: >: >> front of you.  The statement, on the other hand, that the act of
: >: >: >> meeting is the defining moment of "creation of life" is *not* a
: >: >: >> scientific question.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >I think the underlying scientific assumption is "Life begins when 
: >: >: >oocyte and sperm meet" itself.
: >: >
: >: >: Well (ahem) you're wrong.  The statement is unfalsifiable, therefore
: >: >: unscientific, therefore not a scientific assumption.
: >: >
: >: >It depends; once you have a scientific definition of life that fits it 
: >: >may very well be. I think you're a bit hasty.
: >
: >: Not at all.  As a matter of fact, biologists have a working scientific
: >: definition of life having to do with metabolism -- that incidentally
: >: falsifies the statement that life begins at conception, as the oocyte
: >: and sperm are very definitely alive before they meet.
: >
: >You do realize that you just made my point? "Not at all" above should 
: >read, "well, yes, now that I think about it, you're right." The catholic 
: >vaguely scientific claim has now been reduced to a wrong assumption, 
: >since science itself as personified by biologists etc. etc.
: Excuse me?  What color is the sky in *your* world, Silke? The Catholic
: claim is unscientific, as it's unfalsifiable.  It's unfalsifiable
: because it hinges on an unaccepted and unfalsifiable definition of life,
: (or more fundamentally on "the soul").
The sky is the colors it's always been. You tossed out the possibility of 
defining life above, and an argument about it, however rudimentary. You 
must have noticed somewhere under your skies that the Catholic Church 
isn't the only organization that makes claims about abortion.
: If you look more deeply into biologist's "working definition of life",
: you'll find that that's all it is -- a "working definition," and it
: gets tossed aside more or less at will when the context requires it;
: for example, a pathologist would consider a human being to be "dead"
: when a cellular biologist would still consider the body cells to be
: "alive."  
Indeed. And while it's not written in the skies, it's written in lots of 
bioethical journals that it's precisely that kind of debate that gets 
utilized in discussions about organ donation, living wills, etc. etc.
: If you're going to discuss "scientific assumptions," then learn some
: science, damn it!
That's rather a non-sequitur. If you want to discuss ideology and
rhetoric, learn something about ideology (beyond your admirable intuitive
grasp of it, needless to say) and alot about rhetoric. 
Silke
: 	Patrick

G*rd*n wrote:
> 
> 
> Certainly.  You have made an analogy between science and
> war, but it is not an enlightening analogy.  It replicates
> the question -- how much do we need to know about the
> equipment of science (mathematics) before we can talk about
> it?  Because obviously science is not equivalent to its
> equipment, just as war is not.
> 
Am I right in understanding your meaning here ? You are saying
that understanding and context of war does not change with
equipment ? And thus that understanding and discussion
of science can take place without mathematics ?
There are huge diffences in context between Wars of the last
100 years and those of 1,000 years ago.  Telling Alexander
the Great that he would lose 000s of men in an "air-raid"
would have come as something of a shock to him.
If you think the context is the same, look at WWI, this
was a war fought with modern(ish) weapons in an old style.
It resulted in more casualties as a result.  Had they
adaptated the new methods to the new equipment the war
would have been in a very different style (Tanks were
considered "unfair" by both high commands).
It is the same with Science, you can discuss the basics
if that is what you understand, but to profess an opinion
on that whose understanding (ie maths) is beyond you is
egosistical in the extreme.
Steve Jones
PS Anyone got change of a quid ?

I believe that Dr. Who created the universe by traveling back in time
and pressing the wrong button.

+@+.+ (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.
| >| ...
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| >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.
patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
| I am well aware of that.  Please indicate whether or not you are
| aware of the difference between equipment and tactics.
Certainly.  You have made an analogy between science and
war, but it is not an enlightening analogy.  It replicates
the question -- how much do we need to know about the
equipment of science (mathematics) before we can talk about
it?  Because obviously science is not equivalent to its
equipment, just as war is not.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

 Hi, there:
 Here is a simple question (Compare to many advanced topics your guys
discussed):
What is the method to measure weight in motion ? Object sitting on  a
running conveyor line or hang under a running conveyor line ?
Conveyor line run < 50 meter / min
Error no bigger than 2 gram
Typical weight 2 - 50 Kg
Please give me some hint ? What is the measure principle, component,
article ?
I heard there is a Analog Device IC chip is useful for this kind of
application, anyone remember the name of the chip, etc.
Please email me a copy of your posting.
Thanks in advance.
 Qian 

haneef@engin.swarthmore.edu (Omar Haneef '96):
| ...
| Your criticisms, then, have been about the attitudes that the scientists
| have.
No, not scientists as such; scientism-ists, perhaps.
Adherence to scientism is far from universal among
scientists, and is widespread among non-scientists.  And I
am not exactly criticizing them so much as exploring the
ideology or theology, which for some reason is often
partially obscured by its proponents.  It has interesting
and surprising connections.  For instance:  one may not
blaspheme against Newton; one may not blaspheme against
Jefferson.  Is there a connection between the two?  It
turns out that Jefferson's spiritual ancestor, Locke, was
aware of and interested in Newton's work -- or so I am
told.  So it may be that Newton is included, by
association, in the religious awe in which the heroes of
classical liberalism are held.  Or it may be that Newton
gives the original light, and the deistic-mechanistic logic
of classical liberalism shines by reflection of it.
haneef@engin.swarthmore.edu (Omar Haneef '96):
|       These are not sort of psychological critiques: that the
| scientists have gotten very angry, and very defensive when there was
| nothing to get angry or defensive about, this "false enemy effect"
| is a criticism of the social and cultural practices and beliefs that
| are (arguably? allegedly?) engendered by the scientific establishment
| which includes all kinds of funding schemas, and corporate allegiances and
| what not.
I don't much care about scientists getting money from the
government for dubious schemes; they are hardly the only
offenders in this category.  I don't think this is what
gets them excited, anyway.
G*rd*n:
| >  The
| > predicament is deep: the body of science is so great in our
| > age that no one can claim an encyclopedic knowledge of it,
| > and the faithful can always claim, to any critic, that there
| > is an arcanum which the critic misunderstands.  Therefore
| > even scientists cannot criticize science.  You can see why I
| > find it necessary to refer to this system of belief in
| > religious terms.
haneef@engin.swarthmore.edu (Omar Haneef '96):
| But that has NOT been your predicament really. You haven't really offered
| a criticism which would even require this knowledge.  ...
I haven't offered _any_ criticism of science, to my
recollection.  It is in no way a criticism of science to
make fun of people for talking about f=ma as if the
electrons knew about it, or for having a hissy fit about
wrongthink concerning a prominent figure in the history of
physics.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

hype (ryanb@netins.net) wrote:
: 900 = (Va^2)*0.75 - (Vb^2) (Cos q)^2
If this is supposed to relate the total kinetic energy before and after, it's
wrong. (Hint: K.E. is not a vector quantity.)
You should be able to show that for the conditions you stated that the
difference between the two angles after the collision is 90 degrees.  If you
haven't seen this derived in class or in the text you should still be able to
show it yourself.
-- 
david gunter 
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/gunter/
-------------------------------------
"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find
sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite
different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it."
- A.A. Milne, "The House At Pooh Corner"

tony richards wrote:
> 
> 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,
>      etc
It is possible that the question above was simply not worded quite right.  As 
Tony mentioned above (mostly deleted), there are many things that go into the 
force of the impact beyond H and M, and the force is function of time during the 
impact anyways.  But assuming the above was a question from introductory 
physics, it may be that the intent was to ask about the energy with which the 
ball hits the ground, or impulse (momentum change) transmitted to the ground by 
the ball.  In the latter case, the average force would be easily determined if 
one knew how long the impact lasted (force = impulse/time_taken).
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

Don Wilkins (dwilkins@orion.polaristel.net) wrote:
: 
: There does eventually come a time to go on to more productive
: endeavors.
Agreed.  That's why in my post last week, I suggested getting back to 
discussing chemistry, and why I just e-mailed a response to a post rather 
than posting it here.
But when I'm attacked personally, including the title of the thread, as 
Mr. Potts did, I feel I must reply in the same forum.

::: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
::: But he does have an absolute speed, that much is certain. 
:: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: Relativity involves no claims about "absolute space". [...]
::          [...] the view to be developed here will not require
::         an "absolutely stationary space" [...]
::                 --- Einstein
: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: Au contraire.  Listen to Einstein (1905 SRT paper):
Yes, listen to him.  He doesn't contrairedict me.
: "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
: discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium,"
: possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
"[...] the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
: Everyone knew that the sole purpose of the MMX was to detect the
: earth's absolute motion, a type of motion whose existence was not then
: nor is now doubted by anyone except Throop. 
It isn't?  Gee, I'm the ONLY person to interpret Einstein
straightforwardly on this issue? I could have SWORN I'd seen a few tens
of posters holing this opinion; Volpe, Bielawski, Carr, and lots more. 
Is bjon *really* claiming that Volpe, Bielawski, Carr, Potts, and all
those others are actually disagreeing with me on this point?
Seems to me exactly the other way 'round.  Only bjon maintains
relativity involves a notion of absolute rest, against Einstein's
explicit disclaimer of such. 
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

Can anyone point me to a faq regarding the following train of thought;
We are told that space itself is expanding. If this is so then anything 
we use to measure that space (e.g .measuring rods) is expanding in the 
same proportion, thus any distance, or angular projection we measure will 
always appear constant. 
Doesn't this mean that from our subjective perspective we cannot percieve 
 any expansion and that the so called "doppler" red shift is due to the 
change of some fundamental constant (c or G or something more exotic) 
over the transit time of light from distant stars?

As far as I know, the glass transition is marked by a discontinuity only in
the derivatives of volume, enthalpy and entropy w.r.t. temperature, not in these
variables themselves. It looks a bit like a second order phase transition, but
isn't, because the glass transtition temperature depends on the rate of cooling
, and also on the timescale one is considering. (the longer the timescale, the
lower the transition temperature, as the example of the old windows indicates;
and the faster the cooling, the higher the transition temperature.)
The glass transition looks like this in the V-T diagram :
     |
  V  |                       melt   *
     |                          \ *
     |      glass transition    *
     |                      \ *
     |      glass         * .
     |           \ *      . 
     |      *           .
     |                .  \ 
     |              .     supercooled liquid
     |
     |
     |
     |--------------------------------------
                            Tg            T
The supercooled liquid's line in the diagram has no kinks, as far as I know.
Also one can anneal glasses, by keeping them at a certain (high) temperature,
so that their density changes as rearrangements occur in the material.
This is not possible with supercooled liquids.
Therefore I think, that a glass is not a supercooled liquid. Glass isn't a
liquid either, again from the discontinuity in the derivatives. 
Therefore i think, glass is a solid, albeit one which has some odd properties.
Lorenz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ....          ....       ....
      .  .          .  .       .  .         
     .  .          .  .   .   .  .         Lorenz Wegener                
    .  .          .  .  . .  .  .          Trinity College Cambridge (UK)
   .  .          .  . .   . .  .           lglw100@hermes.cam.ac.uk 
  .  ........   .  ..     ..  .            
 ...........   .....      ....
_____________________________________________________________________________

In talk.origins meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
[snip]
>
>Why not?  It has symbols which convey meaning, to the people fluent in 
>this language.  Now, I wouldn't say that "it can't be translated, 
>period".  Rather that it cannot be translated in a way that gives you 
>a text which is comprehensible to a person not knowing mathematics.  
>If instead of writing the integral symbol I write the word "integral" 
>it still conveys no meaning to you if you never encountered it.  And 
>it'll take many pages of text to convey the full meaning, that's 
>assuming that you already know algebra and geometry.  If you don't 
>know these either, the amount of text needed will be in volumes, not 
>pages.
A small point. Use of the characters "integral" instead of a [insert
graceful S-looking think that I can produce here] does not translate
the language. I transliterates, it substitutes one symbolic
representation for another.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid

bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)wrote [in part]:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>>The formal application of relativity, and its conceptual foundation,
>>simply do not involve any object "having" an "absolute speed".
>>That is what is really certain.
>Au contraire.
No contraire.
Try this from The Evolution of Physics by Einstein and Leopold (III. 
Field, Relativity; General Relativity, 4th page of section):
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the 
views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless.  Either 
CS (coordinate system) could be used with equal justification."
In other words, you could talk about an absolute velocity.  Perhaps the 
Sun at absolute rest, or perhaps the Earth.  But obviously not both at 
the same time. (Throop, I guess that's not so obvious is it?)  And there 
is no preferred absolute rest frame in the sense that it is better than 
all the others.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

In talk.origins 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!
Moral relativity means taking other peoples views and situation into
account. It does not mean that anything is acceptable. "Tolerance"
does not mean that anything is acceptable.
OTOH, according to the Bible can followers of Christ own property?
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid

Matthew 7:1  Judge not that you be not judged

Pacificus wrote:
: 
: Leonard Timmons wrote:
: >
: >
: > Libertarius wrote:
: > >
: > >     I am afraid you lost me somewhere. Does anyone else feel that way?
: >
: >
: 
: 
: Libertarius, I do too.
: 
: First off, regardless of the logic of the argument Leonard Timmons
: presents, it is an argument from analogy, therefore useful for providing
: a 'grasp' of a concept, but not useful for proof. Leonard should refer
: to any book on logical fallacies for elucidation.
Folks, this is an definition.  It is in no way a proof.  I reject out of
hand the concept of proving that God exists.  I have and will make no 
attempt to do this.  Anyway, in the final analysis, proof is simply a 
matter of what you are willing to accept.  I originally posted
this as "A tentative definition of God."  That is what it remains.  You
can use it or ignore it.  
Someone asked for a definition, I responded with one.  I did not respond
with a proof.  If you were looking for a proof, then you should have 
asked for one.
-leonard

In  meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes: 
>
>In article <54eaur$6i4@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
>>    Inertia can be explained by the law of conservation of energy. If
>>an object had no inertia it would violate this law, since you would,
in
>>effect, be creating energy, rather than merely changing its form
>>
>I don't think this means anything.
>
>Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
>meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the
same"
    Saying an object has no inertia is the same as saying it has no
resistance to acceleration. If an object had no resistance to
acceleration, any acceleration it is initially given, it will maintain.
If you gave it an initial acceleration of 1 meter per second squared,
it will maintain that acceleration, even after you withdrew the force
that is causing the acceleration. It would therefore be creating energy
out of nothing, in violation of the law of conservation of energy.
Inertia is therefore nothing more than the fact that you cannot create
energy out of nothing.
Edward Meisner 

Colin Holmes  wrote:
>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 ;)
You are wrong on several counts.
Photons are massless. So, red photons have exactly the same mass as
blue photons which is zero. 
The momentum of any photon is given by E/c. Since red photons have
less energy than blue photons, it follows they have less momentum as
well.
Finally, all photons travel at c in a vacuum. Red photons will not
arrive sooner or later than any other photon traveling the same
distance in a vacuum.

Wayne Throop wrote:
> 
> ::: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
> ::: But he does have an absolute speed, that much is certain.
> 
> :: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> :: Relativity involves no claims about "absolute space". [...]
> ::          [...] the view to be developed here will not require
> ::         an "absolutely stationary space" [...]
> ::                 --- Einstein
> 
> : bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
> : Au contraire.  Listen to Einstein (1905 SRT paper):
> 
> Yes, listen to him.  He doesn't contrairedict me.
> 
> : "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
> : discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium,"
> : possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
> 
> "[...] the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
> possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
Wayne, your words are falling on deaf ears. Bjon apparently can't
understand plain English.
> 
> : Everyone knew that the sole purpose of the MMX was to detect the
> : earth's absolute motion, a type of motion whose existence was not then
> : nor is now doubted by anyone except Throop.
> 
> It isn't?  Gee, I'm the ONLY person to interpret Einstein
> straightforwardly on this issue? I could have SWORN I'd seen a few tens
> of posters holing this opinion; Volpe, Bielawski, Carr, and lots more.
> Is bjon *really* claiming that Volpe, Bielawski, Carr, Potts, and all
> those others are actually disagreeing with me on this point?
For the record, I agree 100% with Wayne on this. 
Now, before Bjon quotes my above Statement and says, "See? Volpe agrees
with me on this" (thereby doing to me precisely that which he does to
Einstein), I'd just like to make the following clarifications for the
benefit of Bjon. (Others capable of interpreting English in a
straightforward manner may skip over the following bullet-list).
    * My Statement does *NOT* imply that I agree with Bjon.
    * My Statement does *NOT* imply that I DISagree with Wayne.
    * My Statement *DOES* imply that I DISagree with Bjon. 
> 
> Seems to me exactly the other way 'round.  Only bjon maintains
> relativity involves a notion of absolute rest, against Einstein's
> explicit disclaimer of such.
Einstein wasn't explicit enough for Bjon. If Einstein had known that
someone like Bjon would be reading his text, he would have made himself
clearer:
	* Mechanics and electrodynamics posess no properties
          corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
	* This does NOT imply that there is an inertial frame which
	  is absolutely at rest.
	* This does NOT imply that certain (massive) objects
	  can be said to be "absolutely moving".
	* The "absolute velocity of light in empty space" does not 
	  imply that there exists one absolutly-at-rest inertial 
	  frame in which light has this velocity, nor does it imply
	  that the phrase "empty space" denotes this inertial frame.
--
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

Jonathan Stott wrote:
> 
> In article <32697873.3929@netusa1.net>, David Hole   wrote:
> >Why doesn't someone with access to a university library go check this
> >out and end this thread once and for all.
> 
> Several of us have.  No one listens, and then someone comes along and
> starts spewing about windows with their ripples.  After saying the same
> thing for a few months over and over, most rational people give up
> trying.
One of the problems with threads like this is that nobody knows how much 
credibility to assign to those who post answers.  They may be citing an old folk 
legend, they may have spent a day in the library, they may have spent 30 years in 
glass research.  Boasting about one's qualifications for answering is generally 
not done by those who genuinely are qualified, so you just don't know.
For whatever its worth, I have a fairly advanced knowledge of the subject  -  a 
PhD in amorphous silicon, which meant a lot of reading in amorphous materials in 
general.  I've also spent a few years coating glasses near the transition 
temperature, and have done some consulting for the window glass industry in 
this area.  So the physical properties of glass, including window glass, have 
been an interest of mine for some time.  So if that amounts to any credibility, 
then please review the recent addition someone made to the physics FAQ 
specifically on the subject of the glass liquid/solid subject.  I personally find 
no fault with this page.  You can find it at:  
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/glass.html
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

In article , Ken Fischer
 wrote:
> 
> Cees Roos (croos@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> : In article , Ken Fischer wrote:
> : > J.A.S (tomtech1@airmail.net) wrote:
> : > : Can anyone tell me if gravity consumes power (include math)
> : > : What is the sourse if any.	
> : > 
> : >         Yes, gravity consumes power, but it is transparent to
> : > any measurement we make,
> 
> : Could you try to give a short explanation how you think you can know
> : a phenomenon exists, while at the same time stating that there is no
> : possibility to observe it? 
> 
>          Suppose there was only one element, iron, and
> it were incompressible.    Gravity is simply the atoms
> of the iron are repulsing each other, causing an expansion.
>          The measuring stick is made out of iron, how
> could the expansion be detected?
> 
> Ken Fischer          
You are missing my point.
What you say is, there's something here, but there is no means to
observe it.
In that case how can you know it's here, and for that matter, if it does
not have any physical impact, what difference does it make whether it's
here or not.
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

moggin wrote:
>         How is it that newtonian mechanics makes false assumptions
> ("assumptions that, if uncorrected, would lead to conclusions that do
> not occur in our world"), but relativistic mechanics, which "corrects"
> those assumptions, "doesn't cast doubt upon newtonian mechanics"?
> 
There is nothing to cast doubt on.  Some of the assumptions used in classical 
physics have been shown to be unfounded, Einstein elliminated these assumptions 
and extended mechanics to regimes where the finite and limiting velocity of the 
speed of light are important.  The methods for solving problems outside of this 
regime (classical mechanics) are still valid, there is no reason to doubt the 
conclusions of a calculation using the methods of classical mechanics when the 
propogation velocity of light signals is not important.  The assumptions 
underlying the techniques have changed but the techniques themselves are as 
useful as ever.
-- 
___________________________________
Richard J. Logan, Ph.D.
University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.

In article <326990FA.5C29@primenet.com>, vanomen  wrote:
>Superstition?  I call it Faith.  God gave us a free will to decide on 
>our own.  YOu have decided your way and I mine.  2 things to think 
>about though
>#1 If I am wrong and there is no God?  WEll  worst case I have still 
>tried to live a life and set an example for my family of a way of life 
>that is steps and leaps above the way most people live and treat each 
>other
>#2 However if I am correct and there is a God(which I am sure there 
>is) then I have eternal Life.
This a convincing argument.  Are You Hindu? Buddist?  Jew? Perhaps God is one 
of the ancient Gods that are no longer worshipped. What if we worship the 
wrong one? Will we be punished for worshipping the wrong deity? Should we be 
sacrificing babies to the Aztec Gods?
Please tell me which God you worship, and Why it is safer/better to worship 
him and not one of the others?

In talk.origins patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>Excuse me?  What color is the sky in *your* world, Silke? The Catholic
>claim is unscientific, as it's unfalsifiable.  It's unfalsifiable
>because it hinges on an unaccepted and unfalsifiable definition of life,
>(or more fundamentally on "the soul").
>
>If you look more deeply into biologist's "working definition of life",
>you'll find that that's all it is -- a "working definition," and it
>gets tossed aside more or less at will when the context requires it;
>for example, a pathologist would consider a human being to be "dead"
>when a cellular biologist would still consider the body cells to be
>"alive."  
>
>If you're going to discuss "scientific assumptions," then learn some
>science, damn it!
>
I would like Silke to correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think she
is talking about "scientific assumptions" at all.  As I understand it,
her claim is that many non-scientific discussions try to use "science"
as support. So it is not the biologists definition that is under
discussion, it is other's definition when they reference science. It
is probably also true that Silke has stated that many of these claim
are not accurate in that they don't reflect actual scientific thought.
So the question is not if the Catholic position is a scientific one,
the question is, does that opinion use "fact" which come from science.
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid

In talk.origins Steve Jones - JON  wrote:
>G*rd*n wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Certainly.  You have made an analogy between science and
>> war, but it is not an enlightening analogy.  It replicates
>> the question -- how much do we need to know about the
>> equipment of science (mathematics) before we can talk about
>> it?  Because obviously science is not equivalent to its
>> equipment, just as war is not.
>> 
>
>Am I right in understanding your meaning here ? You are saying
>that understanding and context of war does not change with
>equipment ? And thus that understanding and discussion
>of science can take place without mathematics ?
>
>There are huge diffences in context between Wars of the last
>100 years and those of 1,000 years ago.  Telling Alexander
>the Great that he would lose 000s of men in an "air-raid"
>would have come as something of a shock to him.
I have studied a fair amount of military history. The standard
formation for battle for the last several thousand years has been:
standing/walking guys in from, guys with long distance weapons behind
them, guys who move fast on the sides. There are, of course,
significant exceptions, but they exists thoughout history. What
changes is the stuff they where, the speed they move, the distance the
weapons travel, and the number of people involved.
>
>If you think the context is the same, look at WWI, this
>was a war fought with modern(ish) weapons in an old style.
>It resulted in more casualties as a result.  Had they
>adaptated the new methods to the new equipment the war
>would have been in a very different style (Tanks were
>considered "unfair" by both high commands).
>
WWII, OTOH, was frequently fought in acient roman style.
>It is the same with Science, you can discuss the basics
>if that is what you understand, but to profess an opinion
>on that whose understanding (ie maths) is beyond you is
>egosistical in the extreme.
This I agree with.
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid

In article <54e3op$jjt@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Nick S Bensema  wrote:
>I think I'll just modify my projection TV and put porno movies on the
>moon.
Along these lines, a couple of years ago, some of the guys in Dodds
House up on the NW corner of the Quad projected Deep Throat onto the
side of the eight story main stacks at the library across the street.
Hilarity ensued.
Ralph
-- 
Joseph Richard "Ralph" Koleszar       |       jkolesza@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
      I AM THE ANTIBOB(c)!  I AM THE ANTIBOB(c)!  I AM THE ANTIBOB(c)!
           Archbishop of Bloomington for the Church of the Cactus
                      For your killfiles:  /jkolesza/f:j

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
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.
> 
> ATW
> 
> 
> 

The only God that I know is Jesus the Messiah Lord and Savior of the 
world.

Erland Gadde (Erland.Gadde@sm.luth.se) wrote:
> 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.
Yes, it is not immediately obvious, you are right.
However one could derive it. Pascal's Principle
is a consequence of the fact that there cannot be
transverse stresses in liquid; all pressures act
perpendiculary to the surfaces they are applied to.
This is the basic difference between solids and liquids.  
Take a small prism and put it into liquid as shown below
       /\
      /   \
     /      \
    |\        \
Ph  |  \      /
--> a    \   L
    |__a___\/
       ^
       | Pv 
The angles of prism are 45, 45, and 90 deg and its 
dimensions are  a, a, and L. The two pressures Ph and Pv 
acting on catheti add upp to a total force which should 
be compensated by the pressure applied to the hypotenuse 
(not shown). Since this pressure acts perpendiculary to the 
hypothenuse (i.e. 45 deg with respect to horizontal), 
its horizontal and vertical components are equal, and 
therefore  Ph and Pv should be also equal. 
(Since the size of prism is very small we neglect Arhimedes'
 force. Note that Arhimedes' force is proportional to V=a^2*L/2, 
 and the pressures Ph and Pv are proportional to S=a*L, 
 i.e. the latter dominate if  a  is small. But we need really 
 small prism if we want to measure pressure at given *point*).        

Does anybody have any information of the speed of sound in a plasma, 
specifically a working neon light or a typical industrial argon plasma?
Variation of the speed of sound with frequency, up into the megahertz 
range, would be especially useful.
Thank you.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/        (best of + new)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

THE UNIVERSE- HOW IT WORKS- 
A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
THE UNIVERSE- GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
WHY a grand unified theory of the universe?
Current physics theories do not explain the ocean tides,
the  photon (particle or wave), gravity, time, mass, or
the electromagnetic field.
The low tide, not the high tide,
is observed directly under the full moon. This contradicts
physics texts, the dictionary and encyclopedia definition of
tide,  which shows a picture of the earth with a bulge of water
on the side facing the full moon, and states that the high tide
occurs directly under the full moon. This is an error.
It is not conceivable that the moon could pull several feet
of ocean water around the earth at better than 1000 mph.
This would wash away the continents and humanity in a day.
The copyrighted theory 1988 A.C.Goodrich; cc023@
freenet.buffalo.edu. explains the tides as a decrease 
of kinetic energy and volume of the ocean water
with the increase of potential energy as the moon
direction changes and distance decreases relative to a
particular side of the earth's ocean, to maintain a
constant total energy of the universe.
THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION AND PRINCIPLE
of the universe is one of constant total energy expressed
by the (modified Galileo pendulum-Kepler-Newton-
equation by Goodrich) equation:
   2       3
T    = L    / K(M-m) where M is the total energy of the universe,
m is the mass-energy in question and T and L are time and
distance. This equation is derived from the FUNDAMENTAL
EQUATION AND PRINCIPLE of the universe (by Goodrich)
     2     2
mL  / T    + K(M-m)m/L = a constant M.
The total of kinetic and potential energy of the universe is a
constant M.
This grand unified theory defines time, mass, energy, gravity,
the photon, other forces, and the electromagnetic field as
geometric properties of the universe.
See Library of Congress Card Catalog
THE UNIVERSE- A UNIFIED THEORY-GOODRICH
and ISBN 0-9644267-1-4.
ALLEN C. GOODRICH
GRAVITY- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
Gravity, commonly called the force of gravity, is the
force equal to the product of the mass m and the 
acceleration of gravity g. It is the acceleration g 
of mass m relative to the rest of the universe M 
that is involved in the force of gravity.
The linear acceleration of gravity g  is the difference
of two accelerations, that of the universe M and that
of the mass m which is in question. F = mg = 
m (G-g) = Km( M/LL - m/LL ) = K m( M-m)  / LL.= 
m L/TT where G = KM/LL ; g = Km/LL ; L = distance
and T = time. LL = L squared and TT = T squared.
According to the grand unified theory, the mass m is 
accelerating more slowly than the rest of the universe 
because its mass-energy density is greater than the 
mass-energy density of the rest of the universe. 
The acceleration g is the apparent difference of two 
volumetric accelerations which are inverse functions 
of the density of mass-energy, consistent with the 
fundamental equation and the grand unified theory 
of the universe. It is this relative acceleration of mass
m in all three directions, or it's relative volumetric 
acceleration Y of mass m, that is sensed as the force
of gravity. Y = LLL/TT = K(M-m) = L cubed./ T squared.
This is the fundamental equation of the universe.
o72The volumetric acceleration of a mass m relative to
the rest of the universe is equal to the value K(M-m).
Relative to the rest of the universe, the mass m 
appears to be contracting, undergoing a force of 
gravity, due to its smaller relative volumetric 
acceleration and higher density compared with the 
rest of the universe.
Copyright 1988 Allen C. Goodrich 
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD-
 A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields both
obey the fundamental equation and grand unified
theory of the universe.
Unlike the gravitational field, which is a function
of the relative volumetric and angular accelerations
of the mass m and the effective universe M, the 
electromagnetic field is a function of the relative 
volumetric and angular  accelerations of the
charges of the masses involved. A charge exists
only when there is a displacement of the centers
of positive and negative angular accelerations. The
electromagnetic field photon is the reaction of
the 0Rm]Nm!rest of the ]unp

In article <54g3e9$3b8@netnews.upenn.edu> weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
>: If you look more deeply into biologist's "working definition of life",
>: you'll find that that's all it is -- a "working definition," and it
>: gets tossed aside more or less at will when the context requires it;
>: for example, a pathologist would consider a human being to be "dead"
>: when a cellular biologist would still consider the body cells to be
>: "alive."  
>
>Indeed. And while it's not written in the skies, it's written in lots of 
>bioethical journals that it's precisely that kind of debate that gets 
>utilized in discussions about organ donation, living wills, etc. etc.
When did "bioethics" turn into a science?  As a matter of fact, one
of the major things that distinguishes "bioethics" from "biology" is
the absence of a scientific foundation for it; the questions addressed
in such issues as "living wills" are not scientific ones....
	Patrick

Directory

Jim Carr writes:
   Uptake in the GI track is pretty poor if I remember the BEIR results (and 
   we now know how the AEC got that data), but once it is in the body it 
   messes with the biochemistry like any heavy metal.  
BEIR?
As for the parenthetical comment, that rings a muffled bell: my memory
of the news reports is pretty vague.

 schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja Schmelzer) wrote:

< In curved geometry, u =|= 2Pi r.

Ilja,
Would you please tell me what the characters =|=  mean in the above
equation?
/BAH

I would appreciate help on the following problem:
Two balls, A and B, are moving on a frictionless surface. A, which has a
mass of 8 kg, is moving right at a V of 15 m/s, and B, which has a mass of
2 kg, is moving left at a V of 24 m/s. I know the two will colide in an
elastic colision, so both momentum and vis viva must be conserved, but I
can't use V`a=(2Ma/Ma+Mb)Va or V`b=(Ma-Mb/Ma+Mb)Va because both object are
moving. I am asked to find the velocity of both balls after the collision.
How can I do this?
Thank you for your help; I truly appreciate it.
Charlie

Kris Schumacher 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 beleive that St. Paul said something about not going to lawyers, but I 
can't find the reference (using QuickVerse).

I looked briefly at the Autodynamics site and bookmarked it for later study.
They give a list of new mathematical relationships. One of them replaces the 
increase in mass with velocity with a *reduction* in mass with velocity (so 
that objects have zero mass at c!).
The increase in mass is a supposedly well-documented effect, seen in 
particle accelerators.
I find this VERY hard to swallow.

Hello,
I need help with this problem. Did I do this correctly?
Question:
A 2000kg block is lifted by a steel cable that passes over a pulley to a 
motor-driven winch. The radius of the winch drum is 30cm, and the moment 
of inertia of the pulley is negligible.
a) What force must be exerted by the cable to lift the block at a 
   constant velocity of 8cm/s?
b) What torque does the cable exert on the winch drum?
c) What is the angular velocity of the winch drum?
d) What power must be developed by the motor to drive the winch drum?
Ok, now, did I do this correctly? Here's what I got:
a) F = mg = 2000kg * 9.8m/s = 19,600N
b) Torque = r*F = .3m * 19,600N = 5880Nm
c) w = v/r = (8cm/s)/(30cm) = .27rad/sec
d) P = F*v = 5880Nm * 8cm/s = 47,040N cm/s
e-mail me at: chiquita@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu
Thanks!
Jen
--

In article <01bbc205$3ef095c0$9c2aa2ce@murrian>, "Murrian Family"  wrote:
> I have heard the moon IS gradually getting closer to the earth, ie falling.
Nope.
> What is falling though, does an object have to be going at a particular
> speed to be falling? I think not.
Well, it needs a certain velocity vector in order to be decreasing its
radius, and that is not enough to ensure that it will always decrease
its radius.  (Technically, it can never do so if you treat the Earth as a
point mass, but in reality if the Moon is on an orbit that intersects
the Earth's surface, it will stop there when it collides before it has a
chance to travel outward again.)
> And what axis does an object have to be
> descending on in order to be considered falling? The Axis on which the
> gravity effects. Things fall because of gravity. Things fall faster nearer
> the Earth's surface because the gravity is stronger.
All true.  (Though, if you want to be picky, there is no unique axis on
which the gravity effects for a finitely extended body, since different
points have different axes.)
> The earth's gravity
> effect on the moon is probably a minute bit more than needed to keep the
> moon in orbit without swinging off into space.
Huh?
For a given radius, you need a very precise velocity to maintain a
circular orbit.  A little lower and it will spend more of its time
inside that radius; a little higher and it will spend more of its time
outside.
The sentence you wrote above doesn't make any sense.  It's not as if
the gravitational acceleration at the Moon's orbital radius needs to be
above some value to maintain a circular orbit, below which the Moon
would just fly off.  (At least, that's how I'm interpreting your
sentence.)  If you adjust the acceleration a little and keep everything
else the same, it's pretty much as if you were keeping the acceleration
the same and adjusting the velocity a little.  If gravitational
acceleration were a little weaker at the Moon's orbital radius, the Moon
with its current velocity would spend more of its time outside that
radius in an elliptical orbit, since its velocity would be a little too
high for a circular orbit with that acceleration.  (And note, of course,
that in all these cases with elliptical orbits, the velocity varies.
I'm just assuming the Moon starts out at its current radius and velocity
and goes from there.)
Perhaps I just don't understand what you're trying to say.  But you
seem to be implying that it is physically possible for the Moon to
spiral into the Earth.  Assuming that energy is conserved and
neglecting angular momentum transfer between the two bodies, as I think
you are assuming (your argument does not seem to depend on either of
those assumptions being false), this is not the case.
> So, in conclusion, the moon
> is very slowly "falling on the earth."
This does not follow.  And a continuously decaying orbit would mean
that energy is not conserved.  (Which is true in the practical case
with friction and the like, but false for your idealized argument.)
In fact, the Moon is actually very slowly _receding_ from the Earth,
due to angular momentum transfer between the Earth and the Moon.  It's
a tidal effect.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

(Followups to sci.physics.relativity since this is a general relativity
question.)
In article <54on54$nf5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, andruskan@aol.com (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.
Yes.
> My question is can the mass of
> an object be used to predict the curvature of the space around it?
Yes.  That is the point of Einstein's field equation of general
relativity.  It would be a poor theory of gravity that could not predict
the gravitational effects of a massive body!
(Although more than just the mass of an object contributes to spacetime
curvature.  Gravity actually couples to stress-energy, which takes into
account the mass-energy density, momentum density, pressure, and
stress/strain of the material.)
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

Noel Smith :
>} "With Einstein," writes Derrida, "for example, we see the end of a
>} kind of privilege of empiric evidence." Unfortunately this is simply
>} not true, and in fact reflects a position, as Meron says, which is not
>} possible for 20th century physics.
moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>>	What's "simply not true" is that Derrida said what you claim.
Jim Carr :
> What is the correct quotation, and the citation where it can be found? 
	Silke already gave the details, but I want to underline the
main point:  Noel, like Zeleny, has confused Derrida with Hyppolite.
(I guess it's catching.)
-- moggin

Ian Howard wrote:
> 
> 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."
> >
Difficult?
Try Finnish for a chance...
even Finns have great difficulties with it.
Believe me. I know.
-- 
*******************************************************************
* " You can point your finger at the moon, but the finger is not  *
*   the moon" - Old Zen saying                                    *
*************************** Mixu Lauronen, mplauron@paju.oulu.fi **

In article <325DDA89.676B@cs.purdue.edu>  <326FE21C.2F71@ultranet.com>,
    "C. Szmanda"  wrote:
> 
> Who cares?  Next you'll try to revive Esperanto.
> 
Vi pravas.  Tio sonas kiel iom superflua entrepreno.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/          [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]

In article , depreej@lincoln.ac.nz
(Depree, Jonathan A) wrote:
>As I suspected it's in the sci.astro FAQ. It is not possible to see stars in 
>the daytime from the bottom of a well. It is apparently possible to see venus 
>at sunset if you know where to look and it is also possible to see some of the 
>brighter stars with a telescope provided the 'scope is prefocussed and pointed 
>at exactly the right place.
>
... it is definitely possible to see Venus at high noon, if you know where
to look.. I know, because I've done it.. it is "apparently possible" to
see Jupiter under similar conditions, but that I haven't yet been able to
do..
.. Dana "viewed all planets except Pluto thru my 4" refractor" Netz
-- 
=  Dana A. Netz, Engineer, Daddy, Carpenter, Tinkerer, Genealogist, Hobbit  =                      
==  Posting from the Jemez Mountains, Land of Enchantment, New Mexico, USA ==                      
===  "All I know is, everything you know is wrong." -- "Happy" Harry Cox  ===
====          hobbit@jemez.com   ||   http://www.jemez.com/netz/         ==== 

Brian Jones wrote:
> All one can do is shake one's head incredulously.
> Or, maybe one can do more; maybe there's a way to get through to
> Throop....
> Naw, no way.  But, then, there's that other dude, Mentock, and
> I should try to set things straight with him, at least. (And
> besides, Throop's flippancy is getting on my nerves, so until
> he settles down a bit, he doesn't deserve a reply.) Now, here's the
> deal, Richard old boy:  bjon (that's me, how are you?, I'm just
> fine, thank you!) has never claimed that there's a preferred frame.
> There is no frame that can be distinguished physically by us from
> any other. And we have tried.
You admit it now? You've denied this before, saying that someday someone
will figure out a way to detect absolute velocity (thereby
distinguishing one frame from another). 
 What Throop may be confused about is
> that at times I have said just what you said above -- that maybe at
> this moment the earth (or the sun) could be at absolute rest in
> space
What does it *mean* to be at "absolute rest in space" if it is
indistinguishable from being at absolute motion in space?
, and this particular observer would -- under the rules of
> Einstein -- have truly set clocks, unshrunken rods, and unslowed
> clocks.  But this does not allow him or us to distinguish him from
> anyone else. He gets "c" for light's round-trip as well as for the
> one-way trip speed. He cannot tell that he's at rest.
And it's possible that someone somewhere on earth is at the true "top"
of the earth, and that he's standing "truly up". After all, it isn't
necessarily the case that the north pole *really* points up, as all the
pictures indicate. The north and south poles could *really* point
sideways and we just don't know it. 
   Or maybe
> Throop lost touch when I mentioned that IF we had a way to truly
> set our clocks, then we could detect our absolute motion by using
As Bjon has lost touch when I mentioned that it is obvious that the
concept of absolute clock synching is logically equivalent to  the
concept of absolute motion. Claiming that knowing how to ascertain one
will enable us to find the other is totally unimpressive, just like I
could claim that it would be easy to find the true "up/down direction"
is I could find a way to make a truly horizontal plane.
> such clocks to measure light's one-way speed. The catch, of course,'
> is that no one (yet) knows how to truly set clocks.
No one (yet) knows hot to make a truly horizontal plane.
>  OTOH, Throop
> may have floundered over my saying that SRT has never denied the very
> existence of absolute motion, but merely denied it's "detectableness."
Detectableness is equivalent to existence, as far as physics is
concerned. Einstein was pretty clear about that.
--
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

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> 
> Kris Schumacher 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 beleive that St. Paul said something about not going to lawyers, but I
> can't find the reference (using QuickVerse).
Try 1 Corinthians 6
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Ken Thompson wrote:
> 
> I disagree.  If what you are saying holds true, then why are there
> essentially two forms of calculus?  Newtonian and the other(I can't
> remember right now but N. preaches that the (dt) is an infinate number
> where the other one states that the (dt) is only a place holder.  Now
> I must admitt that I do not find the original argument to hold any
> true meaning I do believe it is easier understanding to veiw cal using
> Netwonian methods.
> 
We don't use Newton's "definition" of calculus anymore. Rigorous
definitions were develeped early in the 19th century by Gauss and
Cauchy, among others.
If one wants to use free-standing differentials, then one might
do better to follow the methods of differential geometry.  There
we look at the tangent planes, and the differentials are functions
that carry the vectors of the tangent planes into scalars (ie, 
the differentials are just elements of the dual space of the tangent
space).

magnus.lidgren wrote:
> 
> A short summary of some of the questions and answers:
> 
> Q3. As I understand it, Quantum mechanics states that when a photon makes
> its way through a glass body, it is absorbed and (a new?) (re?)-emitted a number of
> times before it passes through. Every time "the photon" actually is a "real" photon it
> travels at c speed and during "the absorption period" "it" stands still ??
> 
> Majority opinion was that the photon goes through repeated absorbtions
> and re-emissions (in the forward direction) thus delaying "its" passage
> through the glass in correlation with the index of refraction for glass.
Anthony Potts disagrees with this. I thought the same thing, until he
offerred me the following explanation in email (which I hope he doesn't
mind my sharing)
++++++++++++++++++++Begin included message++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Christopher R Volpe wrote:
> Anthony Potts wrote:
> >
> >
> > The net effect is to make the photons travel slower, even though they are
> > not being absorbed and reemitted by the medium.
>
> Interesting. I was told that this absorbtion and reemission is precisely
> why it is slower.
>
Well, I don't know who told you that, but it seems to be a very dodgy
way
of looking at it. For a start, without the light being absorbed by a
single atom, maxwell's equations tell us that it will be slowed, because
of the change in the permittivity and permeability.
Secondly, if the light were absorbed, and reemitted, why on earth would
it
keep going in the same direction? The atoms have no reason to emit the
light in the same way that it first hit them, so you would just get the
light diffusing in all different directions. If you look at a clear
substance like glass, you can see that this just doesn't happen.
Now, obviously if you look at single photon effects, you have a bit of
trouble explaining things like refraction, but this lack of absorption
and
reemission works equally well with a wavefront, rather than single
photons.
Another reason to assume it doesn't work is that atoms can only absorb
certain frequencies. If a photon is equal in energy to the difference
between the state an atom is in, and one of its excited states, then it
can be absorbed. If it is not, it can't be. This would mean that we
would
expect to see some very sharp frequancies slowing, with the rest not
slowing at all. This is not what we actually see.
++++++++++++++++++++++End included message++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Q4.If a photon is truly absorbed by the media glass, in what way does "it"
> know (as it then has ceased to exist ?) what direction to take when
> emitted again and how does it know what frequency to recover?? Is all
> information, needed to guide the "new" photon to the right path and frequency,
> delivered from the "old" photon to the glass atoms during absorption and
> present in the glass atoms while "the photon" is in "absorpted mode".??
> 
> Majority opinion was that "true" absorption could not have happened, re-emission would
> then have random direction.
This contradicts what the "majority opinion" claimed in response to the
previous question.
> Where the information about direction was situated when
> not carried by the photon was more an open question. Perhaps one photon on its way
> could guide another while this was emitted , (not quite clear, this issue). Recovering
> frequency, however, could be possible through the specific amount of energy delivered
> to electrons, going from one lower shell to a higher and then back again.
--
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

Peter Mott wrote:
> 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."
The same thing would happen to Americans who switched to metric, though.

I believe that, if anything, drafting would *speed up* the front rider.
Some of wind drag comes from the inability of the parted air to seamlessly
reattach as it comes off the rear of the bike/rider.  The resulting
turbulence creates a partial vacuum that wants to get filled and thus
pulls the rider back into it.  Teardrop shaped attachments behind a riders
butt combat this by allowing the air to smoothly reattach.  The drafting
rider, in similar fashion, could prevent the air leaving the front rider
from creating a vacuum pocket.  Instead of trying to reattach behind the
front rider, the air is now flowing over both riders and reattaching
behind the drafting rider.  The same vacuum now exist behind the drafting
rider but the front rider doesn't have to deal with it, so he can go
faster.  The second rider does have to deal with the vacuum, but he is
better able to do so because he doesn't have to part the air in the first
place.  The effect is similar (but much smaller) to what occurs on a
tandem.  On a tandem you have the same need to part the wind and the same
vacuum behind, but 2 riders together battle these effects.  Correct?

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) wrote:
>-*------
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>> Just what is the metaphysics that, in your opinion, 
>>> science assumes?
>In article <54p6d3$4t1@news-central.tiac.net>,
>Ken MacIver  wrote:
>> I suppose it to be in general terms an essential reality.
>What differentiates an essential reality from a
>non-essential one?
One, the ultimate, the thing that science seeks to account for, is
essential for existence; the other, baseball, could be considered by
some to be non-essential (though not by me, but then again I am not a
scientist).
Ken

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <54p6d3$4t1@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>Just what is the metaphysics that, in your opinion, science assumes?
>>
>>I suppose it to be in general terms an essential reality.
>>
>If you mean by this that science assumes that reality exists then, yes 
>I agree with you.  I would add to it that science also assumes that 
>said reality is consistent.  None of this, however, has any bearing on 
>the existance or non existance of a creator of said reality.  That's 
>beyond the scope of science.
Well, yes and no.  I use creator in its broadest sense here meaning
that science believes that it can discover *something* that accounts
for whatever it believes is reality (i.e. its creator).  The scientist
who discovers this, if it exists, will win a Nobel Prize & a six pack
of Buzzards Breath.
Ken

-- 
Mike   hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu
"Why no, I do not want any lenses,
can I interest you in a totally unimodular matrix?"  --  Michael Trick

mbobrowsky@stsci.edu wrote in article <1996Oct24.110904@scivax>...
> 
> While an accelerometer measures acceleration, it could give the 
> same result sitting still in a gravitational field.  According to 
> GR, the two are indistinguishable.  In that case, what is it that 
> we should say an accelerometer actually measures?
First of all, there ar several type of accelerometers.
1) By messuring relative speed (to a reference) and calculating its
derivative periodically. With this accelerometer, you will messure the
average rate of change of the speed respect to a reference. In space, being
accelerated by the Earth's gravity towards the Earth and  using light
doppler speedometer pointing to the Earth (the reference), you will messure
a few m/s2 of acceleration RESPECT TO THE EARTH. This type of accelerometer
calculates acceleration as a vector in the same direction as relative speed
was messured.
2) By messuring forces. If you put a sphere inside a cube and you messure
the force done by the sphere to each side of the cube, you can conclude
which is the resultant force of all the component forces applied to the
cube. As the acceleration is proportional to that force you can calculate
the acceleration and the resultant vector in three dimensions (I believe
this type is used in aeronautics for inertial navigation [?]). But in the
example of the 1st. type of accelerometer, this unit will messure 0 m/s2!!!
The second type will messure 1g (9.8 m/s2) acceleration in the surface of
the Earth as its messure is relative to "free flotation" (this is something
that you can consider absolute). So this accelerometer will always agree
with GR!
Sorry for my poor english.
Jose,
Madrid, Spain.

G*rd*n (gcf@panix.com) wrote:
]C code.  Or maybe they don't.  Maybe the claims about
]math are just a way of keeping the unsanctified out of the
]temple.  That's what I'm trying to find out.
 Actually, a good point. The most common topic of discussion between 
 physicists burning midnight oil is the best way to keep unsanctified out
 of the temple. Check out the latest plot; we noticed that girls
 are really neat and always berate men for being too messy,
 so we make "chaos" the important part of physics picture. Ingenious, 
 isn't it ? Illuminati are amateurs, I am telling you.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

hennebry@plains.nodak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry) writes:
>"Why no, I do not want any lenses,
>can I interest you in a totally unimodular matrix?"  --  Michael Trick
I put a lot of the blame on the ambiguous name "op-research."  I think
it is reasonable to think that "op" stands for optics.  In addition,
my newsreader alphabetizes "op-research" before "optics."  So someone
who is looking for optics might see op-research first and think that
it is the right forum.
Why the group isn't named "sci.orms" or something like that is beyond
me.  But since the traffic is so pitifully low, I really don't care.
I just ignore any articles dealing with lenses or lasers or whatever.
-- 
Gregory Glockner                               __/Z\___Chop!_____
Logistics Engineering Center                  |_/XXX\____________|
School of ISyE, Georgia Inst. of Technology    /     \  Go Braves!!!
http://akula.isye.gatech.edu/~greg            /_______\ '95 World Champs

In article <54o13l$il4@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Jeff Candy  wrote:
>
>Solving a 2-D PDE numerically with a symbolic package such as MAPLE or 
>MATHEMATICA or MACSYMA or MATHCAD is nuts! (unless you know nothing 
>about programming or numerical analysis). 
I can argue both sides of this case, but it depends on how you
wish to spend your time, and how you wish to spend your computer time.
If, for some reason, you can get a program to work with less human
effort in a "slow" system, you may save time overall.
e.g.
  1 hour programming + 10 hours of running
vs
 10 hours programming + 1 hour of running.
For the case in point, solving Schroedinger's equation, I am guessing
that this could be done by
2 hours of research to find someone else's package + ? hours
of setup/running.
As to the relative performance of C vs. Fortran on various systems,
any response that would be an appropriate length for a newsgroup would
probably be inconclusive at best.
-- 
Richard J. Fateman
fateman@cs.berkeley.edu   http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/

Andrus Kan (andruskan@aol.com) wrote:
: If position and velocity are the defining characteristics for an electron
: and neither can be measured to the same accuracy of the other because of
: the Uncertainty Principal, then what if you use one value to deduce the
: conditions under which the electron was "born".  From those original
: numbers you could predict the electron's position and time at a particular
: instant using its original numbers. Is this possible? Or am I unclear?
First of all, I don't know that you could determing the "birth" of an electron
from only one such number.  Secondly, there's nothing to prevent you from
knowing the exact position and time of an electron (outside of experimental
precision). Another way of saying this is that position and time commute.
However, you still will not be able to determine the velocity or energy to any
greater precision set by the uncertainty principle.  Knowing the position
exactly means that you lose all information about velocity (momentum) and
knowing the time exactly means that you lose all info about the total energy,
which you could have surmised from the previous case.
-- 
david gunter 
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/gunter/
-------------------------------------
"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find
sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite
different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it."
- A.A. Milne, "The House At Pooh Corner"

>As I suspected it's in the sci.astro FAQ. It is not possible to see stars in 
>the daytime from the bottom of a well. It is apparently possible to see venus 
>at sunset if you know where to look and it is also possible to see some of the 
>brighter stars with a telescope provided the 'scope is prefocussed and pointed 
>at exactly the right place.
This hardly does justice to the visibility of Venus.  I can see Venus
in broad daylight without a telescope and I don't always need to know
exactly where to look.  I once looked up at the moon and saw Venus
right next to it.  I help others see Venus in daylight by having them
look through a tube which I've pointed straight at Venus.  Afterward
they can see Venus without the tube, since they now know where to
look.
Venus is much brighter than any star, -4.  One of my professors claims
he saw Jupiter in daylight, without a telescope.  Jupiter is about -1,
which is comparable to a bright star like Sirius, -1.5.
I believe it's possible to see bright stars from the bottom of a well.
A simple way to test this is to point a tube South at an angle such
that Sirius will pass through it's field of view.  Calculate just when
Sirius will pass through.  Return to the tube about 15 minutes before
that passage, drape a dark cloth over your head and watch through the
tube while you dark adapt.
http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu):
>>>>>[..]  In effect, Sokal does for the postmodern booboisie what
>>>>>Flaubert did for the French bourgeoisie.
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck):
>>>>Nonsense. Sokal's hoax proves exactly nothing about Derrida. It proves 
>>>>something about Social Text. Your work isn't done, and if you rely on 
>>>>the likes of Sokal to do it, you are wimping out.
Zeleny:
>>>Derrida's assertion cited by Sokal, about the Einsteinian constant not
>>>being a constant, proves two things.  Firstly, he is ageometretos, and
>>>hence not a philosopher.  Secondly, he is given to pronouncing on the
>>>basis of ignorance, and hence not a critic.  Why would you doubt that?
Silke:
>>Simple. It does not follow, and you haven't produced an argument. A) you 
>>have no idea what he meant. B) Even if you had an idea what he meant and 
>>even if your idea were correct, it wouldn't follow that he's not a 
>>philosopher, since "philosophy" is not defined as "that body of work that 
>>exhibits knowledge of Einstein." C) a critic can be ignorant of many 
>>things he pronounces on, as long as he doesn't pronounce on them _qua_ 
>>critic in his field.
Zeleny:
>Here is an argument.  A) I have a good idea what Einstein meant, and
>an equally good idea that any reasonable interpretation of Derrida's
>comment is incompatible with Einstein's meaning.  B) Since Derrida
>aims to debunk Platonism, since the understanding of Platonism depends
>on the understanding of geometry, and since Einstein is the wellspring
>of modern geometry, Derrida's ignorance automatically condemns his
>project to failure.  C) The copyright laws imply that any critical
>comments appearing in print of symposium proceedings are subject to
>the speaker's release of publication rights and hence carry the
>presumption of ex cathedra pronouncements. [...]
	Jeb, on the entrance requirements at Jeb's Academy: "I say a
fella ougther get his basics down a-fore he goes a-thinkin' 'bout the
real puzzlers in life.  And I never heerd o' anything much more basic
than milkin' a cow.  So if this here Derra-diddy has got a mind to do
some philosophizin,' then he better come an' show me that he can get
some milk outa ol' Bessie, here.  Elsewise I ain't a-gonna be wastin'
my time."
-- moggin

Landis D. Ragon wrote:
> 
> 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?Comments from Jerry: 
  I am sorry for not catching that. I do have a lot of humor. Otherwise I would go
completely mad. At times I laugh like a seal. Often, I get almost hysterical in my
laughter.My family needs a lot of humor too to put up with me. Some of the comments
here get me hysterical.

>- When photons travel through a medium, they are being continually absorbed
>  and re-emitted by the medium (its atoms or molecules or larger systems).
Usually when a photon is absorbed, then re-emitted, it is emitted in
some random direction.  Yet when a photon travels through glass, you
say it is continually absorbed and re-emitted.  Why then is it
preferentially emitted in the original direction?
http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html

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.
When you are on the train, you consider it to be still, and there is no 
problem with walking at any reasonable speed.
An observer elsewhere at a different relative speed may consider the train to 
be traveling near the speed of light (there are problems if you try to be 
equal to the speed of light ...).  However, they percieve you as slowed down 
to a degree related to how close to the speed of light you are traveling.  
They also perceive the train length differently than you do. - To cut to the 
point, they may percieve you as being faster than the rest of the train, but 
not above the speed of light.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

Steven Eisenberg wrote:
> 
> Can someone enlighten me as to why some materials are transparent to light
> and some are opaque?  How does the electron configuration of a material
> determine wether or not it will transmit light?  What other factors are
> involved?
Consider energy levels available to electrons:
C ______________
    ^
    | E2
B ______________
  ^
  |
  |  E1
  |
  |
A ______________
Suppose B is partly filled with electrons.  Electrons from A can be excited 
into empty states in B by absorption of photons with energy E1.  Electrons 
from B can be excited into empty states in C by absorption of photons with 
energy E2.  If B were full, then only E2 transitions would be possible, not 
E1.
Got the idea?  If the energy levels take on a range of values, then a range 
of photon energies can be absorbed.  So if the smallest E between a set of 
populated and empty levels is smaller than 1 eV (near infrared), and the 
largest is greater than 3 eV (near uv), then any visible photon energy could 
be absorbed by some intermediate transition.
If the smallest E between a set of populated and empty levels is greater 
than 3 eV, then visible light cannot be absorbed.
**************
Another set of considerations associated with partially filled levels 
(e.g. metals) is that of reflectivity (and to some degree absorption) 
possible in response to the movement of electrons between states within the 
same energy band.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
|                                                              |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
|    http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html                |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

-*------
In article ,   wrote:
> ...  I would add to it that science also assumes that 
> said reality is consistent. ...
Really?
I would say that science deals with considerable inconsistency in
the world.  Matter behaves one way when very cold, and another
when very hot.  Even in time, the earth's atmosphere was
seemingly was very different a couple of billion years ago.
Or did you have another notion in which reality might be 
inconsistent?
Russell
-- 
 Newton plain doesn't work, even as an approximation, 
 except within certain limits.        -- Moggin

Charles Thomas wrote:
> 
> Why is liquid Nitrogen in an open container so cold?
> 
> According to Bolyes (spelling) law the relationship of temperature to
> gas pressure is roughly equal. Example: if Freon is released at 35 PSI
> the temperature of the gas will be 35 degrees. Does this only apply to
> closed systems?
> 
> If the temperature of a gas is equal to the pressure of release then
> why would Nitrogen be colder than either 0 or 14 degrees.
> Atomospherice pressure at 14.7 PSI.
Think about liquid water in an open container when the surrounding air is 
at 500 C.  Since the water reaches a vapor pressure of 14.7 psi at 100 C, 
it cannot exceed this temperature in an open container when the 
surrounding air is at 14.7 psi.  Instead the very hot air will cause the 
water to vaporize (boil), but the portion that is remaining at any given 
time would "cold" (as seen by someone living at 500 C).
The liquid nitrogen case is the same, except that N2 achieves atmospheric 
pressure at 77 K (approx. -200 C).
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

me:
> The speed of C code versus FORTRAN code depends most strongly (given 
> identical coding algorithms) on the compiler.  For example, the AIX 
> FORTRAN compiler (IBM) is far superior to the fort77/f2c (gnu) compiler 
> in the UNIX/LINUX distribution.
Paul J. Gans:
>> Not a fair comparison.  
Admittedly; but whether or not it is "fair", it is a reality faced by 
anyone porting code from an RS6000 to a linux box.  
>> f2c translates FORTRAN into C accurately, but with great loss of 
>> efficiency.  Fort77 is still a beta compiler.
fort77 uses f2c.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert K. Adair is the Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Yale University
and he has written a 1987 Oxford University Press book titled THE GREAT
DESIGN/PARTICLES, FIELDS, AND CREATION.  On page 74 he writes:
  If light is used to propagate signals and if the relations of the Galilean
  transformation are correct--that is, if they correctly describe the
  relations between observers in different inertial systems--we must expect
  to have to consider the detailed character of the propagation of light.  It
  is necessary to ask two questions: (a) what is the medium that transmits
  light, and (b) does the earth pass freely through the  medium such as an
  open flatcar through the atmosphere, or does the earth carry the medium
  with it like an enclosed railroad car?  Suppose that we call this
  hypothetical medium ether; of course, the assignment of a name does not
  increase our knowledge of the medium. ...
On page 80 he argues:
     If the ether were dragged along with the earth, the phenomena of
  aberration would not be observed.  The light would be dragged along with
  the telescope no matter what the velocity of the earth, and the angular
  orientation of the telescope would not have to be changed during the year.
     The observation of aberration shows that the ether (if there is an
  ether) is not carried along with the earth like the air in the enclosed
  railroad car.  Yet the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the ether is
  carried along with the earth.  There is a paradox!
     For completeness, we should also examine the "projectile" theory of
  light.  Can we resolve the paradox just identified by using such a model of
  light?  If light had properties like those of a classical particle, and the
  wave nature was somehow not important, we might expect that the relevant
  velocity of light would be defined with respect to its source--for
  instance, the muzzle velocity of a bullet from a gun.  The velocity with
  respect to the ground of a bullet fired forward with a muzzle velocity of
  2800 feet per second from a World War II British Spitfire plane traveling
  at 600 feet per second (about 400 miles per hour) is 2800 + 600 = 3400 feet
  per second.  Such an addition-of-velocity model is consistent with both the
  Michelson-Morley effect if the experiment had been designed to use machine-
  gun bullets.  And there would be an aberration result if light traveled
  like bullets.
On page 85 he states:
  Explanations of the Michelson-Morley results that demand such special
  distortions of the measuring instruments are unsatisfactory because they
  are designed to fit one experimental result and thus have an artificial
  character.  The ether wind is undetectable because it affects the measuring
  instruments in precisely the way needed to foil the instruments.  Logic
  like this is satisfactory as a beginning hypothesis, but carried further it
  is very close to the reasoning of a witch-doctor rather than a scientist. 
  If the ether cannot be detected, it is simpler to assume that it does not
  exist.  What meaning can the concept of the ether have if the ether is in
  principle undetectable?  This was the view taken by Einstein.
On page 86 he states:
     In 1904 Henri Poincare stated that a new dynamics must be developed that
  would not differentiate between observers in different reference frames
  (relativity) and would lead naturally to the conclusion that the speed of
  light was the same for all observers.  In 1905 Einstein published his
  Special Theory of Relativity, which accomplished that aim.  The basic
  equations of Einstein's theory were the equations of Lorentz and
  Fitzgerald.  But Einstein gave them a new meaning.
   My main insight into Einstein and his work came from a book by Abraham Pais
titled 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. 
Pais is an award-winning physicist who knew Einstein personally during the
last nine years of his life.  On page 13 we find that in Einstein's own words
he had been an "unscrupulous opportunist."  Dover has published a book titled
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY that has translations of Einstein's more important
early relativity papers.  In his 1905 special relativity paper he states on
page 38 "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" and "The
introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous."  On page
69 of a short additional paper on relativity published later that year he
refers to "plane waves of light."  In effect, Einstein changed the name of the
"ether" to "space" and based his arguments on two postulates he invented and
the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations without making any direct mention of the
Michelson-Morley experiment.  With time Einstein's view evolved from the wave
model of light he presented in his 1905 paper to a photon particle emission
model used in his General Relativity papers.  In this regard, on page 403 of
the Abraham Pais book Pais wrote:
     In his discussion of Eq. 21.5, Einstein stressed that `the current
  theory of radiation is incompatible with this result.' By current theory,
  he meant, of course, the classical wave theory of light.  Indeed, the
  classical theory would give only the second term in Eq. 21.5, the `wave
  term' (compare Eqs. 21.5 and 21.3).  About the first term of Eq. 21.5,
  Einstein had this to say: `If it alone were present, it would result in
  fluctuations [to be expected] if radiation were to consist of independently
  moving pointlike quanta with energy hv.'  In other words, compare Eqs. 21.4
  and 21.5.  The former corresponds to Wien's law, which in turn holds in the
  regime in which Einstein had introduced the light-quantum postulate.
     Observe the appearance of a new element in this last statement by
  Einstein.  The word pointlike occurs.  Although he did not use the term in
  either of his 1909 papers, he now was clearly thinking of quanta as
  particles.  His own way of referring to the particle aspect of light was to
  call it `the point of view of the Newtonian emission theory.'  His vision
  of light-quanta as particles is especially evident in a letter to
  Sommerfeld, also dating from 1909, in which he writes of `the ordering of
  the energy of light around discrete points which move with light velocity'
  [E4].
Additional evidence of Einstein's switch to the emission particle model can be
found in Banesh Hoffmann's book titled "ALBERT EINSTEIN CREATOR & REBEL" where
we find on page 178 the following:
  ...  Quickly extending the work in a second paper, Einstein found
  compelling reasons for regarding light quanta as particles having energy
  and momentum like bullets--reasons so compelling that he boldly wrote in
  his article, "...radiation in the form of...waves does not exist."  And
  indeed the bulletlike behavior of light quanta was strikingly confirmed by
  experiment in 1923.  Yet the evidence for light waves was strong, and as
  late as 1922, the year in which Bohr was awarded the Nobel Prize, he and
  others were still reluctant to accept Einstein's idea of particles of
  light.  In a sense, Bohr never did accept it.
Like Bohr, most modern physicists believe in a version of GR where light
photons and elementary particles are a sum of waves in a stationary solid
space/vacuum/ether.  As an example of this I quote the following on page 3
from Steven Weinberg's book DREAMS OF A FINAL THEORY:
  ... Einstein's special and general theories of relativity have permanently
  changed our view of space and time and gravitation.  In an even more
  radical break with the past, quantum mechanics has transformed the very
  language we use to describe nature: in place of particles with definite
  positions and velocities, we have learned to speak of wave functions and
  probabilities.  Out of the fusion of relativity with quantum mechanics
  there has evolved a new view of the world, one in which matter has lost its
  central role.  This role has been usurped by principles of symmetry, some
  of them hidden from view in the present state of the universe. ...
On page 25 Weinberg writes:
  ... A field like an electric or magnetic field is a sort of stress in
  space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within
  a solid body, but a field is a stress in space itself.  There is one type
  of field for each species of elementary particle; there is an electron
  field in the standard model, whose quanta are electrons; there is an
  electromagnetic field (consisting of electric and magnetic fields), whose
  quanta are the photons; there is no field for atomic nuclei, or for the
  particles (known as protons and neutrons) of which the nuclei are composed,
  but there are fields for various types of particles called quarks, out of
  which the protons and neutron are composed; and there are a few other
  fields I need not go into now. ...
The only prominent modern physicist to agree with Einstein on this was Richard
Feynman.  On page 14 of Feynman's 1985 book "QED, The Strange Theory of Light
and Matter" we find the following statement:
  ...Thus light is something like raindrops--each little lump of light is
  called a photon--and if the light is all one color, all the "rain-drops"
  are the same size.
On page 15 of his book he states:
     I want to emphasize that light comes in this form--particles.  It is
  very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for
  those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something
  about light behaving like waves.  I'm telling you the way it does 
  behave--like particles.
On page 37 he argues:
  ...Quantum electrodynamics "resolves" this wave-particle duality by saying
  that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), but the
  price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by physics to the
  position of being able to calculate only the probability that a photon will
  hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually happens.
The modern solar system data gives overwhelming evidence in favor of the
Newton/Ritz/Einstein/Fox/Feynman particle model of light and against the solid
space/vacuum/ether wave model!  My published analysis of the published 1961
Venus radar data [B. G. Wallace, Spectros. Lett., 2, 361 (1969)] showed a much
better fit to the Newtonian particle c+v model for light than for the solid
space/vacuum/ether wave constant speed c model.  Theodore D. Moyer of NASA/JPL
has sent me the reprints of his two published "Celestial Mechanics" journal
articles that use of the term "Newtonian light time" and the related equations
that are confirmation of my earlier findings using the more accurate current
data.  The title of the articles is TRANSFORMATION FROM PROPER TIME ON EARTH
TO COORDINATE TIME IN SOLAR SYSTEM BARYCENTRIC SPACE-TIME FRAME OF REFERENCE
Part 1 (23(1981)33-56) and Part 2 (23(1981)57-68).  The general public and
most physicists don't read and can't understand the articles published in
scientific journals by dynamical astronomers on this question.  What is needed
is for the JPL to present an impressive array of evidence in easy to
understand language in the press and on television as they have on most their
less controversial photographic data.  When this happens, modern physics will
cease to be a such a farce.  You can read the updated Hypertext version with
graphics of my free book that contains 156 references to the published
literature with quotations of arguments from many prominent people that are
related to and an extension of the above information at my GTE PPP Web site:
   http://home1.gte.net/wallaceb/index.htm
Bryan

RE: WHY.  1Cor. 6:1-7 applies only to the limited `walls' 
(?) of the christians who willingly obey the Scriptures.
The people in Timbaktu dont live by the U.S. constitution. American 
pagans need not necessarily obey this.

Mark Brindle (brindle@lf.hp.com) wrote:
: 
: Just *LOOK* at the friggin' *UNITS*, Lloyd!  How on earth did *YOU*
: manage to get J/m^2 out of (hc^2 * dL/L^5)?  Quit the weasel-worded
: bullshit and *SHOW US* -- or admit that you are totally innumerate.
: 
I did look at the units.  In Wall's equation, on the right side, the
numerator, (8)(pi)(c)(h)(d lambda) has units of J-m^2.  The denominator,
(lamba^5)(e^{expression}-1) has units of m^3.  That makes the units J/m^3. 
Or, as Wall used them, erg/cm^3.  He later gives the integrated equation
for total energy density -- numerator (8)(pi^5)(k^4)(T^4), so units are
J^4, and denominator (15)(c^3)(h^3), so units are m^3.  Once again, we get
units of J/m^3 for the total energy density.  And that's what Wall calls
it too -- "total energy density." 
: 
: Are you really suggesting that *your interpretation* of Strobel's
: prose is more credible than Max Planck's *MATHEMATICAL EQUATION*?
Planck's equation can be expressed different ways, as Wall aptly shows.
: 
: Wrong, Lloyd!  I've repeatedly said that both forms of Planck's equation
: are *ABSOLUTELY EQUIVALENT* expressions of (in Strobel's own words) "the
: monochromatic emissive power of a blackbody".  Yes, Lloyd, he said POWER!
Uh, no, Strobel uses the word "power" once; he uses "energy" 4 times on 
that same page (286), plus 4 more times on p. 287.  It amazes me you can 
seize on one phrase of his and ignore all the others, and you can seize 
on one form of Planck's equation while ignoring all the others.
:                        ^^^^^
: The forms are *COMPLETELY* interchangable -- because they *both* describe
: the emissive *POWER* per unit area.  The fact that Wall's form has "ergs"
: in the numerator is of no consequence -- it still describes the *POWER*
: of the radiating source.  Please repeat after me...
: 
:  - There is *NO SUCH THING* as "the energy" of a black body radiator.
Strobel:  "distribution of emitted energies"
          "total energy emitted at a given temperature"
          "distribution of energy with wavelength"
          "would radiate more energy than the source"
          "the total energy it would produce"
          "the energy it would emit at a given wavelength"
          "would radiate about 130 times as much energy"
Plus the graph with the vertical axis labelled "energy"
: LP: Are you saying that's false?  Haven't you learned anything from the
: LP: Silk quotes I've posted?
: 
: Yes indeed, Lloyd -- I'm saying that in classical Newtonian mechanics
: gravity is a *FORCE*, and as such, it does *NOT* have units of Joules.
Magnetism is also a force, yet we recognize electromagnetic energy and 
measure it in joules.  What do YOU call it when a star goes supernova and 
sends off pulses of gravitational energy?  What do YOU measure them in?
Maybe you can move into the twentieth century yet, Mark.  
: OTOH, I'm willing to learn -- so, just jot down a few simple examples 
: of Newtonian equations that use Joules Of Gravity.  Go ahead, Lloyd.
: 
: Furthermore, I'm saying that you must be *INCREDIBLY IGNORANT* of the
: most basic concepts of high school physics to claim that "energy must
: be supplied" to maintain a static force.  
If I hold a book up, I'm applying a static force (the book isn't going 
anywhere) and I'm expending energy.  Try it sometime and see.

In article <54okk6$4og@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Nick Maclaren  wrote:
>C was designed (if that is the right word) for PDP-like computers, and is
>perhaps the least optimisable third generation language ever invented.
>RISC chips are based on the assumption that clever optimising compilers
>can rearrange operations to maximise the performance.  C, performance
>and RISC processors are currently incompatible.
The reason FORTRAN is often optimized better than C is not a technical
one, but a business one.  There is much more numerical code written in
FORTRAN than in C, and so vendors expend much more effort on their
FORTRAN compilers than on numerical aspects of their C compilers.
This, in turn, causes people (like you, no offense meant) to think that
FORTRAN is faster, so they write their code in FORTRAN, increasing the
FORTRAN base of numerical code, allowing the vendors to continue to
neglect their C compilers, etc.
It is true that it is possible to write C code that is very hard to
automatically optimize, but it is also true that it is easy to write C
code in such a way that it is just as easily optimized as FORTRAN, if
such an optimizing compiler exists.  (In fact, many compilers these
days do the optimizing *after* the source has been translated into a
language-independent intermediate form.  In that case, FORTRAN and
"well-written" C code can be on *exactly* equal footing when it comes
to optimization... except, again, FORTRAN often gets the high ground
because vendors expend more effort to produce optimizable intermediate
code in the FORTRAN front end than the C front end.)
>It is fairly common for the same algorithm, programmed equally well in
>Fortran and C, to run 50% faster in its Fortran version on a modern
>workstation.  On 'supercomputers', a factor of 10 is not uncommon, and
>I know of one system where the Fortran Linpack runs over 100 times
>faster than the C Linpack!
I believe you are talking about the matrix-multiplication part of
Linpack, and I believe the reason for the 100 speedup is because of the
KAP pre-processor that re-arranges the multiplication so that the
multiplication is broken up into small sub-matrices that fit into the
CPU cache.  This, indeed, speeds the process by about a factor of 100,
but the KAP preprocessor only works on FORTRAN code.  (It works
directly on the source, and is not, strictly speaking, part of the
compiler.)  If they took the effort to allow KAP to preprocess C code,
the same speedup would result.
--
"Unix is simple and coherent, but it takes || Wayne Hayes, wayne@cs.utoronto.ca
a genius (or at any rate, a programmer) to || Astrophysics & Computer Science
appreciate its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie|| http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~wayne

NoseWheeli wrote:
> 
> I would appreciate help on the following problem:
> 
> Two balls, A and B, are moving on a frictionless surface. A, which has a
> mass of 8 kg, is moving right at a V of 15 m/s, and B, which has a mass of
> 2 kg, is moving left at a V of 24 m/s. I know the two will colide in an
> elastic colision, so both momentum and vis viva must be conserved, but I                                         ^^^^^^^^ ???
> can't use V`a=(2Ma/Ma+Mb)Va or V`b=(Ma-Mb/Ma+Mb)Va because both object are
> moving. I am asked to find the velocity of both balls after the collision.
> How can I do this?
> 
> Thank you for your help; I truly appreciate it.
Rather than hunting for the right equations to plug number into, start with the 
basics.
momentum is conserved:
Ma * Va + Mb * Vb = Ma * V'a + Mb * V'b
This is clearly not enough since both V'a and V'b are unknown.  
You can get a second equation from energy conservation
1/2 Ma * Va^2 + 1/2 Mb * Vb^2 = 1/2 Ma * V'a^2 + 1/2 Mb * V'b^2
You now have two equations and two unknowns - the rest is algebra.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|