Directory

Mati:
:Anyway, it is obvious to anybody not living in 
:moggin-land that I'm commenting on your recent (for that time) 
:exchanges on sci.physics (which I did read).  since I'm posting from 
:sci.physics it cannot mean anything else.  Moreover, it is also 
:obvious that the "has nothing to do with the truth" statement has to 
:do with your post, which I was answering.  And there is no claim 
:whatsoever over there to any knowledge of anything else you might have 
:been involved in.
moggin:
>>     Since you were posting from sci.physics, and coming late to the
>>discussion, you _shouldn't_ have commented on posts that you hadn't
>>seen -- yet that's what you were foolish enough to do.  You called my
>>description of the posts I was replying to "propaganda," and went on
>>from there to offer your own, supposedly more accurate account.  Now,
>>if you had stopped to think, you might have realized that my point
>>concerned posts you had missed -- but thinking must not be among your
>>strengths, as you went ahead and tried to correct me, claiming that
>>you had "the truth" I was supposedly distorting.
Mati:
>Nah, I just called the stuff I've seen from you "propaganda"
     To be more specific, you wrote, "Good propaganda.  Nothing to
do with the truth, of course, but that's to be expected."  You were
referring to my remarks about the people I was dealing with and the
posts they had made.  Then you offered your own brief description,
to correct mine.  However, you hadn't seen many of the posts that I
was talking about, so you weren't in any position to discuss "the
truth" about them or to call my comments "propaganda."
moggin:
>>     Of course you meant that my post had "nothing to do with the truth"
>>- that was your claim to possess "the truth" which I was, in your view,
>>trying to hide.  But as I said, you were making a claim to "the truth"
>>about posts which you had never read.  You _should_ have said something
>>like, "That account doesn't fit what I've seen, reading lately from sci.
>>physics."  I would have replied, "You must have missed the posts I was
>>referring to."  But in your hurry to criticize me, you claimed that my
>>comments were mere propaganda that "had nothing to do with the truth."
>>Unfortunately, you weren't aquainted with the posts I was remarking on, 
>>so your attack showed you for a fool.
Mati:
>Excuses, excuses.  You stated that I claimed to possess "the truth".  
>Now it ends up being "I interpret your words as a claim to possess the 
>truth".  Sorry, won't do.  When you say "so and so said such and 
>such", you should be abble to support it with his actual words, not 
>your interpretations.
     And I quoted your "actual words" -- here they are again.  You
wrote, "Good propaganda.  Nothing to do with the truth, of course,
but that's to be expected."
Mati:
>And, when you make a claim you cannot 
>support then you'ld have the sense to change the subject instead of 
>trying to wiggle out, else you just sink deeper (just a suggestion).  
     Kind of you to offer advice, but since I can support this claim
just fine, it doesn't apply here.
Mati:
>>:May I point to you that attributing to people things they never said 
>>:is an act of fraud.  And, as a side remark, most people caught in 
>>:commiting fraud have the sense to lie low, stay quiet and not draw 
>>:more attention then necessery.  Just something to consider.
Mati:
[re: fraud]
>What else do you call attributing to somebody words he didn't say?
     To repeat, I didn't attribute anything to you that you didn't
say -- I pointed out that you claimed to know "the truth" about posts
you hadn't even seen, and backed that up with the relevant quote.  On
your request, I then explained the quotation to you.  You can try to
dispute my explanation, but you can't accuse me of fraud.  In fact, 
that's a topic you should shy away from, since you've engaged in the 
genuine article, editing my posts to distort what I said (as well as
removing entire passages which you found it easier to not reply to).
moggin:
>>>>>     So now it's coming back to you, huh?  Good.  Let's look at what
>>>>>you said.  In reply to the proposition that Newton's laws are an
>>>>>incorrect model of the world, in the general case, you said with the
>>>>>eloquence which stems from brevity, "Yep," thereby registering your
>>>>>agreement to my basic point.
Mati:
>>>:Moggin, this already has been answered with the A-B-C exchange.  You 
>>>:cannot claim that you didn't see it since you responded to it.  And 
>>>:I'm sure that others seen it too.  So, don't waste your time.
moggin:
>>     I saw it and replied by pointing out that your A-B-C analogy didn't
>>closely resemble the case at hand.  As I said, "You agreed that Newton's
>>laws provide an incorrect model of the world, in the general case.  And
>>that was my point.  Therefore you supplied your agreement.  Q.E.D."  What 
>>others see is usually hard to be sure of, but in this instance things do
>>look pretty clear.
Mati:
>Yes, you did.  Which doesn't mean that it doesn't resemble it, just 
>that you've a problem with either admitting the fact or even 
>recognizing it.
     Submitting an analogy doesn't make its validity into a fact, 
although the fact I have to point that out to you gives me pause.  You
claim it's an accurate one (and seem to believe that's self-evident).  I
say it isn't, and also note that you gave your clear agreement ("Yep")
to my position.
>Your point was "Newton was refuted."  I said that it is incorrect and 
>I still say it.  So, sorry, no agreement.
     You attacked me for saying that Newton was wrong in the general
case, but you agreed his laws are incorrect as "a general model of the
world."  There's the agreement.  Now you want to say that a theory is 
refuted only when no piece of it is salvagable.  And if that's how you
define "refuted," then it's certainly possible for you to label Newton
"unrefuted," even though you admit that his model is incorrect.
Mati:
>>:As a side remark again, you're only justified to say that I agree with 
>>:you when I explicitly say so not when you decide that my words 
>>:"register an agreement.  Saying, in a debate, that somebody agreed 
>>:with you when in fact this somebody didn't is, again, a fraud.
moggin:
>>      You replied "Yep" to a statement of my position:  an explicit
>>agreement.  To charge fraud is an even more desperate gesture than
>>the one Silke pointed out before. 
Mati:
>:What else do you call attributing to somebody words he didn't say?
>:(Sorry for repeating myself but this point should be clear to you)
     I attributed your own words to you.  The exchange again:
                                *  *  *
system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu:
:>Newton's laws are not a correct general model of the world. (Where
:>"general" has a very specific meaning)
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati Meron):
>Yep.
                                *  *  *   
-- moggin

In article <326BF79B.57DE@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>, rafael cardenas  writes:
>> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> 
>> : Oh, I agree.  But there is more then this to it.  What moggin appears
>> : not to recognize is that the more advanced theories, quantum mechanics
>> : and relativity, build on Newtonian mechanics and generalize it, not
>> : reject it.  This is completely different from the transition from
>> : Aristotle, through Galileo to Newton, where the previous body of
>> : knowledge was basically rejected wholesale and a new theory was
>> : generated from scratch.
>> : Now, I can't blame anybody whose knowledge of modern science is based
>> : on popular accounts (i.e. about 99% of the population) for thinking
>> : that modern physics completely "refuted" all that existed before. 
>
>
>Well, in traditional logic, surely, if we regard a theory as the
>copulative proposition
>
>{P(i) and P(i+1)....and P(j-1) and p(j)}
>
>then if someone refutes, say, P(j), the copulative proposition is false,
>even if the copulative proposition {P(i) and P(i+1) ... and P(j-1)}
>remains acceptable and part of some larger theory 
>{P(i) and P(i+1) ...and P(j) and P(j+1) and ....}
>
> doesn't it?
>
It is hardly an appropriate way to look at a physical theory.  A 
theory is a multi-element structure.  You my find that one of the 
elements is inadequate but by replacing it (or fixing it) while 
maintaining the restyou get again a good theory.  This is not the same 
as rejecting it and starting from scratch (do you junk a car because 
the fuel pump died?).  Of course, a purist will say "but that's a 
different theory".  same purist will say that once you replaced the 
fuel pump you've a different car.  So, the issue becomes how much was 
replaced and how much was maintained.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Download article and figures from www at  http://www.acute.com/craig

Peter Gaunt  writes:
>
>One of our pupils at school was playing around with polaroid filters and
>noticed the following behaviour:
Now that you understand how inserting a polaroid at 45 degrees between 
two crossed polaroids gives transmission of some light, it is time to 
let the kids play with more stuff.  All of what I describe below works 
really well on an overhead projector with one of the polaroids affixed 
to the 'head'.  
Clear plastics show stress areas as color under crossed polaroids. 
Simple things with holes in them, like a protractor, work great. 
Break one and it can be even more interesting. 
Plain old clear tape is also optically active.  Different thickness 
to get different colors.  Tear a plastic sandwich bag.  Look at a 
clear plastic fork.  Etc. 
Then, for real amusement, get some corn syrup.  It rotates the polarization 
by an amount that depends on thickness *and* color of the light.  This 
is extremely cool, changing if you rotate one of the two polaroids.  A 
standard 250 ml beaker is deep enough for good effects. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

Russell: 
[...]                            
>: >and who realized that a 2d surface, such
>: >as the 2d sphere, does NOT require a third dimension.
moggin:
>:       Yes, they realized that.  Doesn't make the Earth flat.
>devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens):  
>:It makes the surface of the Earth 2 dimensional, however.  You still
>:seem to be confusing dimension with flatness.  
>     False premise.
Matt:
:In message <525o1n$7qs@bessel.nando.net> you said:
:"The map is 2D; the planet, however, is 3D."
:Did you, at that time, think of the surface of the planet as 3D? 
     No, Mr. Examiner, I did not.  I was referring to the shape of
the planet.  But the shape of the planet does have something to do
with the shape of its surface, as you probably understand.  I took
it as given that the Earth was round.  If it was flat and round,
maps wouldn't be prey to distortion.  But the current consensus is
that it has a round, three-dimensional shape; i.e., it's a sphere
(or a ball, depending on your place of worship).  And that plays a
large role in determining the shape of its surface (which is what
gets mapped), even though the surface remains two-dimensional.
:Did you understand that the discussion of mapping involved a change in
:curvature, not a change in number of dimensions?
     Yes, I did.  Do you think the Earth is flat?  If you don't, do
you see that its surface is curved in a certain way because it's the
surface of a sphere (or a ball, as some denominations put it)?  I've
since been told that the term I needed was "second-degree curve," but 
not having that at my disposal, I noted that the surface in question
was firmly glued to a round, three-dimensional object, namely the
Earth. The round part, I thought, went without saying -- had I known
I was addressing a group of Cubical-Earthers, I'd have named all my 
assumptions.
     Now, as I said to David L Evens:
>     Do you have a point?  Better yet, do you understand the point I
>was trying to make before we got sidetracked?
-- moggin

moggin:
> >         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"?
"RICHARD J. LOGAN" :
> There is nothing to cast doubt on.  Some of the assumptions used in
>classical physics have been shown to be unfounded,
   Seems like a good candidate right there.  How can you claim "there
is nothing to cast doubt on," and in the next breath admit that "some
of the assumptions used in classical physics have been shown to be 
unfounded"?  Good work, though: you just summed up this whole debate.
Or at least one side of it.
>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.
   The fact that Newton gives good-enough results at low velocities,
relative to light-speed, doesn't mean there's nothing to doubt about
his work.  And if the underlying assumptions have now changed, there
was obviously something important to doubt.
-- moggin

Im Artikel <326B7DFB.447A@paragon-networks.com>, Doug McKean
 schreibt:
>4. The unrestricted expansion of a gas (Joules experiment) 
>   is considered an irreversible process.  
>   The energy available for work drops to zero. 
>
>   Can't this be used in reference to our universe expanding 
>   to the point of maximum entropy and as such irreversible? 
>   Therefore, no contraction?  An end state of static nothing? 
The case is idealized without taking gravity into account. But in
magnitudes of the universe, gravity does count. So the question rather is,
if the mass still expanding is 'heavy' enough to - after having finished
with expansion - recontract. The problem seems to be that from the current
calculations about 90% of the mass needed for recontraction is missing. On
the other hand it's a problem to imagine any force else than gravity
having been able to contract all that mass in the first place to give rise
to the Big Bang. Maybe it's because of this model of a continuity between
an expanding, then contracting and again expanding universe  (fitting
rather nicely other circular models in different belief systems
(religions) throughout the whole world) astro-physicists are so eager to
find the missing mass.
If you don't bite back, when a dog bites you,
it will say that you have no teeth (from Sudan).
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

tooie@sover.net (Tooie) writes:
>
>The human body contains about 1/2 lb of K-40 which leads to a production 
>rate of nearly 8000 1.33 MeV beta particles/sec.  Keep a little extra 
>distance if you eat a lot of bananas ;-)
Heh heh.  You think that is amusing, put a counter next to a big bottle 
of your least favorite sports drink or a container of salt substitute. 
Stuff like GatorAde or 10-K have lots of potassium in them and the 
gamma is easily detected.  Anti-nukes *really* like this demo.  ;-) 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

lparker@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>
>I quoted from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica refuting your claim about 
>Peierls.  Since you weren't around in the 1940s, your data must be 
>second-hand too, so I would like for you to cite a source for your claim 
>as I've cited for mine.
Try "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes for the 
definitive history of this period.  I never saw the original 
comment or claim, but an encyclopaedia is a poor source for 
facts about recent history, especially when significant parts 
of that history were classified for many years.  Flerov's sketch 
proposing the gun method was not widely available until recently, 
for example, just as the identity of the second Los Alamos spy 
was made public in the past month or so. 
Rhodes gives the primary references for all of his work, so you 
can track it back as necessary. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

In article <547p25$r40@herald.concentric.net> Hitech@cris.com (Hitech) writes:
>
>This is my last post to this thread.  I understand the lack of
>appreciation of transcendental numbers by experimental physicists.  I
>understand the lack of appreciation of transcendental numbers by most
>theoretical physicists.  
I fail to appreciate just how you could reach this conclusion from 
the data collected on Usenet.  Most?  You need an appreciation of 
statistical analysis at least comparable to that of most experimenters. 
>Until one has a fundamental understanding of
>Euler*s Theorem, a condensed form being e^(i Pi) = -1, transcendental
>numbers will remain just another dot on the plot.
I don't know any theoretical physicists who do not appreciate this. 
Some worship it.  Most have a reasonably fundamental understanding 
of it and other results from complex analysis. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

David Kastrup  writes:
}
}baez@math.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
}
}> If the earth was shaped like a cone, with the tip at the North
}> Pole, maybe Santa Claus would be justified in using a different
}> value of pi from the rest of us.  But the earth is not shaped
}> like a cone and there is no Santa Claus.  I know this, because
}> I am a scientist.
}
}You *believe* this because you are a scientist.  The round earth might
}all be gigantic hoax of everybody else on you (including pendulum
}fabricants), but that is unlikely, so you don't believe it.
Well, I *know* this because I worked summers as a land surveyor.  With 
sufficient work on rural boundary surveys in a state like Michigan 
that uses a rectangular grid and is far enough north to have large 
corrections appear over fairly moderate distances, the fact that 
parallel lines want to meet is quite evident. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

mmd@zuaxp0.star.ucl.ac.uk (Michael Dworetsky) writes:
>
>         ....                But I too have to look up the size of 
>one acre, which is 4840 square yards--whatever those are.
Oh come on, just find a convenient king and measure him.  That's what 
you folks keep royalty around for, isn't it? 
Anyway, an acre is a chain*furlong.  Oh, and a furlong is 10 chains, 
while a chain is 4 rods, just in case you did not remember.  ;-) 
I liked that comment about rounding error during conversion, given 
that the bulk of the US was originally surveyed with chains, which 
would kink, and with measurements made to the nearest link (100 links 
to a 66' chain, but 80 chains to the mile, a quasi-metric system). 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

David Hole  writes:
>
>Why doesn't someone with access to a university library go check this
>out and end this thread once and for all.
It has been done, at least three times in the past year (last spring 
and twice this summer) and is now in the FAQ -- but this is a real 
FAQ UL that will return like the relativistic car turning on its 
headlights or does light have mass. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

Nathan Urban wrote:
> 
> In article <326B03B0.77D9@direct.ca>, SAggarwal  wrote:
> 
> > Doug Groseclose wrote:
> 
> > > As usual Uncle Al's reply was clear and to your point. One way to imagine
> > > spacetime and its curvature due to gravity is this: imagine you have a
> > > fishnet streched fairly tightly in a horizontal plane (this makes it work
> > > in Earth's gravity). Onto that net drop balls of varying mass. You will
> > > see that the lines of the net curve around the surface of the balls, the
> > > bigger/heavier the ball the greater the curvature.
> 
> > 1. Does this curvature occur in all planes?
> 
> Err, essentially yes, but I think you are probably visualizing things
> somewhat incorrectly due to taking the fishnet analogy too seriously.
> 
> The way curvature is defined mathematically is roughly along the lines
> of:  Travel with a velocity A in some direction for a while, then
> travel with a velocity B in another direction for a while.  In general,
> you will not end up at the same event (place+time) as you would have if
> you had first travelled with velocity B and then with velocity A for
> the same durations, due to gravitational time dilation.  Curvature is a
> measure of by how much this fails to be true.  (To make this precise you
> have to ensure that you travel infinitesimal distances so that you can
> determine the local curvature effects.)
> 
> Example:  If your velocities were confined to the surface of the Earth
> there would be no difference because you are staying at a constant
> gravitational potential.  But suppose you walked across the length of a
> building and took an elevator at the far end up to the top floor.
> Suppose there is someone else who started out where you were, took an
> elevator up first, and then walked across the building to the far end
> where your elevator arrives, travelling at the same rate.  (That is,
> his elevator has the same speed as yours, and he walks just as fast as
> you do.)  The other person would not end up where you do at the exactly
> the same time; he would arrive at your elevator doors on the top floor
> slightly before your elevator gets there.
> 
> This is because you spent all that time on the bottom floor, deeper in
> the gravitational well, where time is running slighly slower than on
> the top floor -- even if you and the other person spent exactly 5
> minutes by your watches walking across your respective floors, you will
> be delayed because your 5 minutes is longer than his.  Spacetime
> curvature is merely a characterization of the exact time difference
> between arrivals at the endpoints, for all possible combinations of
> velocities for the pair of legs of the trips.
> 
> In summary, the way I like to think of this is:
> 
>      "spacetime curvature" = "gravitational time dilation"
Is gravitational time dialation is exemplified by the redshift of light?
(Out of curiosity, that occurs because energy (photon) accelerates at
the same rate as matter in a gravitational field right?)
> Pretty simple, huh?  :)
The way you explained it was much easier to understand than the book I'm
reading on all of this.  The book is called *Was Einstein Right?* and I
forget who the author is. Supposedly for the layman. Ah well.
> > 2. Is it symmetrical (ie Do I have to stretch 2 fishnets and sandwich
> > the ball    in between)?
> 
> That's not exactly a good analogy.  The fishnet is spacetime itself,
> and we are considering its curvature.  You are thinking of the fishnet
> as being embedded in a 3-dimensional space, but this is not necessary
> or even desirable.  Properly speaking, the "ball" (or gravitating body)
> does not sit _on top_ of spacetime, it is _in spacetime_.  Maybe think
> of a disc lying on the fishnet instead; it's supposed to be _in_ the
> fishnet, not on it.
I think I understand. The curvature (fishnet) is not something you can
stand back and observe, it's more something that explains why things act
the way they do...a model of sorts.
> > 3. If the answer is no to the first two, then how do I know how to
> > orient myself when    looking at the curvature of space-time?
> 
> Any way you want.  You measure the components of curvature in any
> direction you want, much like you can measure the components of a
> vector in any direction you want, and put them together to get an
> overall description of curvature in every direction.
So the curvature is more of an instantaneous thing? or is it the
reverse, more of an overall effect?
> > 4. Is space-time surrounding a star/planet/etc. perfectly spherical
> > (assuming object    is perfectly spherical)?
> > 5. Is space-time surrounding a black hole perfectly spherical?
> 
> The answer to both questions is "yes", assuming that they are not
> rotating.  Otherwise, the answer is "no".  (By the way, it is not
> spacetime which is spherically symmetric in this case, but space.)
Is the sun rotating?
Thanks again for your patience.
-- 
************************************************************************
* S.Aggarwal          |   Quoting one is plagiarism.  Quoting many is  *
* saggarwa@direct.ca  |   research.              -- Anonymous          *
************************************************************************

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

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
>>Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>>>I shudder to think of you as an English teacher. Whenever someone has 
>>>brought up details, someone else has said, "but that's not SCIENCE, 
>>>that's ABUSE OF SCIENCE by INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS." But if you chose not 
>>>to remember those exchanges, that's your privilege. I don't see why I'm 
>>>"wrong" in not bringing up specifics -- I merely agreed to Ken's comment 
>>>in a general way -- as did you. What's your point, then?
>>I doubt this question is not S Weineck's customary wriggling. It
>>is clear that abuses by people do not disprove the constitutional
>>principle of the enterprise.
>And no one claimed that they did, either. What Russell did not grasp and 
>what you do not grasp is that I am not critiquing science and therefore 
>need no correction as to how to do it.
Of course not.  Anyone familiar with your argumentative style has long
abandoned the expectation of seeing you consistently take a principled
stand on any position of intellectual consequence -- unless one counts
wistful speculation about Kagalenko's penis size among such.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

brberg@ix.netcom.com(Brandon Berg) writes:
>
>    1.Every time scientists find what they believe to be an elementary 
>      particle, they break it open fifty years later and find that it 
>      consists mainly of empty space held together by energy.  
 Not every time.  We have been working real hard on the electron for 
 about a century and it is just as elementary as ever.  But that is 
 why people push to higher energies seeking underlying order, because 
 each step (elements --> atoms --> nuclei --> quarks) has enabled a 
 simple explanation of what had been a hugely complex set of phenomena. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> 
> SAggarwal  wrote:
> 
> >2. Is it symmetrical (ie Do I have to stretch 2 fishnets and sandwich
> >the ball    in between)?
> 
> The fishnet (or rubber sheet) analogy is a projection of four-space onto
> two dimensions, with curvature in the third.  That is as far as the model
> goes.  It obviously suffers inadequacies as an analytical tool.
So does the curvature of space-time affect the 5th dimension (if it
exists) or is it more like looking at the world through a fisheye lens
(just affects the dimension in question)?
> >3. If the answer is no to the first two, then how do I know how to
> >orient myself when    looking at the curvature of space-time?
> 
> Do the math (icky).  Any frame of reference is a valid frame of
> reference.  Both epicycles and elliptical planetary orbits work to equal
> accuracy.  The Copernican universe is easier on human intuition.
So it is similar to the Star Trek thing, everything is oriented on the
same plane (just depends what you define it to be)?
> >4. Is space-time surrounding a star/planet/etc. perfectly spherical
> >(assuming object    is perfectly spherical)?
> 
> Is the mass  spinning?  Is it magnetic?
This brings up another question that is touched upon here, Earth and the
moon would affect space-time differently (neglecting mass differences)?
Interesting.
> accelerating linearly or angularly?
Does this include things like friction, orbits and the like?
-- 
************************************************************************
* S.Aggarwal          |   Quoting one is plagiarism.  Quoting many is  *
* saggarwa@direct.ca  |   research.              -- Anonymous          *
************************************************************************

In  meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes: 
>
>In article <54g5hg$7t2@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
>>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.
>>
>You don't "give an acceleration" you apply a force.  If the body has 
>no inertial mass and you apply to it a final force then the result is 
>infinite acceleration but it deosn't necesserily mean that its energy 
>changes.  If you want to treat it relativistically then you've to take
>into account the energy-momentum relations to arrive at the proper 
>result.  In either case there is no violation of conservation laws.
>
>Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
>meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the
same"
    By definition, the acceleration of a body with no inertial mass is
undefined. Please explain to me why an object that is being accelerated
without a force being applied does not violate the conservation laws.
Edward Meisner

John S. wrote:
> You've heard the definition of a dead atheist? All dressed up and nowhere
> to go.
Ad nauseum.
-- 
Andrew Lias | anrwlias@zoom.com | andrew.lias@lamrc.com | Siste viator
*-----------*-------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.

Matt:
:You made the following comment:
[moggin:]
:They're inaccurate, period.  Very inaccurate in certain cases.
:The "they" in question was Newton's Laws. I did not agree with that
:absolutist statement.
moggin:
>     Excuse me, but at this point it's totally irrelevant what you
>do or do not agree with.
   My mistake -- I misread "did not agree" as "do not agree."  Yes,
it's relevant whether you did or did not agree with me previously.
And in fact you did, stating both that "Newton's physics was wrong"
and "Newton was just incorrect."
-- moggin

Im Artikel <54gqk1$bo4@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) schreibt:
> The
>onset of life as a separate biological individual comes with
>fertilization.
As with fertilization the genetic information is mixed to create an new
unique set of genes, this certainly is the best point to fix for a start
of a new individual.
>The problem is that the embryological development
>sequence is "designed" for loss of "unsatisfactory" embryos which
>leaves room for decisions which are not clear cut.
The definition of a starting point of 'life' does not at all imply any
evaluation of the new status, it merely defines it. If it is agreed upon
that a certain individual 'life' has a certain value, than this is a
social agreement. Society does accept a wide range of different values for
individual "lifes" taken or lost or willfully paid with for individual
rights or general merits. There seems to be no rational for that other
than historically founded social behaviours (including power being
excerted by one 'group' or the other). Most certainly there is nothing
'scientific' in the decisions made (but for one, which I can think of:
physicians I talked to gave the 3-month-rule for legal abortion in some
countries credit for being med.-statistically a safe upper limit for  not
endangering the woman concerned).
If you don't bite back, when a dog bites you,
it will say that you have no teeth (from Sudan).
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <326BF79B.57DE@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>, rafael cardenas  writes:
: >> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: >> 
: >> : Oh, I agree.  But there is more then this to it.  What moggin appears
: >> : not to recognize is that the more advanced theories, quantum mechanics
: >> : and relativity, build on Newtonian mechanics and generalize it, not
: >> : reject it.  This is completely different from the transition from
: >> : Aristotle, through Galileo to Newton, where the previous body of
: >> : knowledge was basically rejected wholesale and a new theory was
: >> : generated from scratch.
: >> : Now, I can't blame anybody whose knowledge of modern science is based
: >> : on popular accounts (i.e. about 99% of the population) for thinking
: >> : that modern physics completely "refuted" all that existed before. 
: >
: >
: >Well, in traditional logic, surely, if we regard a theory as the
: >copulative proposition
: >
: >{P(i) and P(i+1)....and P(j-1) and p(j)}
: >
: >then if someone refutes, say, P(j), the copulative proposition is false,
: >even if the copulative proposition {P(i) and P(i+1) ... and P(j-1)}
: >remains acceptable and part of some larger theory 
: >{P(i) and P(i+1) ...and P(j) and P(j+1) and ....}
: >
: > doesn't it?
: >
: It is hardly an appropriate way to look at a physical theory.  A 
: theory is a multi-element structure.  You my find that one of the 
: elements is inadequate but by replacing it (or fixing it) while 
: maintaining the restyou get again a good theory.  This is not the same 
: as rejecting it and starting from scratch (do you junk a car because 
: the fuel pump died?).  Of course, a purist will say "but that's a 
: different theory".  same purist will say that once you replaced the 
: fuel pump you've a different car.  So, the issue becomes how much was 
: replaced and how much was maintained.
There seems to be a slight problem with the analogy: if a part of my car 
breaks, I try to get a replacement that's identical to the now-broken 
part when it was in prime condition. 
	If Mercedes, let's say, develops a _new_ part, they _will_ call it
a different car most of the time. Unless the modification is next-to
irrelevant. 
	Is QM next to irrelevant in this sense? Would you say that 
physics hasn't changed much in the last hundred years? 
Silke

moggin:
>>>>        Honestly, Richard, tear yourself away from that fish -- it's
>>>>my opponents, naturally enough, who keep pointing to the areas where
>>>>Newton works.  For my part, I haven't disputed any of their examples.
>>>>However, I _have_ pointed out that the areas where he works and the
>>>>areas he doesn't _aren't_ strictly delimited -- to call them "areas"
>>>>is a convenient fiction.  And I've noted that (borrowing Russell's
>>>>phrase), it won't do to confuse epistemology and utility (although
>>>>a number of folks here are hell-bent on doing exactly that).
 (Mike Morris):    
>>>This is precisely wrong. In fact, I would say that the areas
>>>where Newton works are quite strictly delimited in the plain sense
>>>that we know well that in order to achieve so many decimal places
>>>of predictive accuracy about natural phenomena we can apply
>>>Newton here and not there for such and such reasons. On the
>>>contrary, it is relativity and quantum mechanics that are not 
>>>(yet) strictly delimited, though it is true we have a sense 
>>>about where the limits lie.
moggin:
>>   Well, no -- or at least better to have said, "It depends what you
>>mean by delimit."  But "precisely wrong" is precisely wrong.  My point
>>was that while, as you say, it's possible to apply Newton here and not
>>there, and to be confident about the results, there isn't a sharp line
>>dividing the areas where you can apply him successfully and the ones
>>where you can't:  it's not as though the universe has border crossings
>>or customs posts to separate the sections where Newton works from any
>>others.  You won't find a point where Newton suddenly begins to apply,
>>or where he stops, unless you define it yourself.  That's what I meant
>>when I said that the areas he works in aren't strictly delimited, and
>>that to call them "areas" is a convenient fiction.  (Let's also recall
>>that, in Russell's handy phrase, confusing utility and epistemolgy is
>>a mistake.)
"Michael S. Morris"::
> On the contrary, the universe very much does have border
> crossings and customs posts which separate where Newton works
> from where Newton must be generalized to something which
> works better. The border guards and customs agents are the
> human beings who wish to use the theory to understand or
> predict things about the way this or that sector of the universe
> works. They input how many decimal places they want their
> predictions to be correct to.  [...[
   As I said, "You won't find a point where Newton suddenly begins to
apply, or where he stops, unless you define it yourself."  You're now
replying, "No, that's wrong -- I can define the point myself!"
> The only input from "yourself" would be to for you to
> say how accurate you want your predictions to be. Relativity
> and quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics and chaos theory
> and the like then take over and define where the boundary is. [...]
   That's an immense "only," and it concedes my point.  _You_ decide
where to draw the line, which exists as a function of your decision.
Change your decision, and presto -- the line moves.
> We can't delimit relativity and quantum mechanics in the same
> way because we do not know *precisely* where (or how)
> their accuracy ends in the same way that we know this for 
> Newtonian mechanics. [...]
   Again, there is no line where Newton's accuracy ends, except
insofar as you decide to draw one.  You seem to think (God knows
why) that I'm arguing with your ability to draw lines as fine as
you please.  I'm not -- what I'm pointing out is that the lines
are your own doing.
>*I* was talking about what it is we know, and I was saying that
>(in the sublunary sense, which is the only sense we scientists
>think we may use) we *know* the validity of Newtonian mechanics
>precisely. In fact, given the outstanding predictive accuracy
>of the theories which bound it---quantum mechanics and relativity---
>our knowledge of the validity of Newtonian mechanics is about
>as absolute as any knowledge gets on earth. I at least wouldn't 
>have a problem condemning a man on evidence from Newtonian physics. 
>I say this as a general-relativity theorist who has also worked
>in quantum field theory and quantum cosmology.
   I'm not disputing that.  (Where do you get these ideas?)  What
I'm saying is that the validity of Newtonian mechanics doesn't 
fall off a cliff at any given point unless you put the cliff there,
and that Newton doesn't suddenly become valid when you step across
a certain line: if he does, it's because that's where you decided
to draw it.  The universe isn't fenced into two separate, distinct 
areas marked "Newton" and "Einstein."  Or if you want to say that 
it _is_, you've got to realize that you're the one who put up the
fence and decided just exactly where it ought to go.  You get the
idea yet?  I'm sure you can locate the fence with as much accuracy 
as you choose, once you decide on a place for it; but this ain't
about how many decimal points you can calculate to. 
-- moggin

Pacificus wrote:
[cut]
> Your *definition* is a definition by analogy. Having some pragmatic
> leanings,
While preparing to make a response to your objections, I was trying
to find the analogy that you say that I made between God and some 
other system.  I could not find it in my posts.  Could you point
it out for me.
> I somehow came to believe that you wanted people to believe it was
> useful and therefore in a pragmatic sense, true.
I was responding directly to the original post which requested
a definition of God worthy of discussion.  Discussion would be
the primary use of this definition.  I have what I believe is 
an operational definition of life.  Now, if someone had asked
for a definition of life that was worthy of discussion, then
I could have posted that definition with an explanation and
some of the implications of the definition and then shown
how that definition might be useful.  If someone then asked 
me to prove my definition I might be appalled.  If someone
wanted all the gory details, I might say wait until the 
book comes out :-)
In my definition I assume that the universe is a formal system.
The fundamental objects of that formal system are unknown to
me.  We can be pretty sure that we do not know them.  The 
best we can do so far is define a particle's wave equation.  
The fundamental operators are probably the forces in the 
universe.  So far, there are five (ok, four).  This is also 
the best that we can do here.
more later...
-leonard

Kevin B Black wrote:
> 
> In article <543g4a$k93@news.proaxis.com>, Siegfried  wrote:
> >Here is my contention:
> >
> >With regard to the existance of a god (like the Christian one) there are
> >three general options: 1. God does not exist, 2. God exists and is
> >malevolent, 3. God exists and is benevolent.
> >
> What happened to option 4? God exists and is indifferent.
Let's not forget polytheism. :-)
-- 
Andrew Lias | anrwlias@zoom.com | andrew.lias@lamrc.com | Siste viator
*-----------*-------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.

Matteo Cacciari (cacciari) wrote:
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: >The pros seem to agree in peer reviewed texts that
: >mass is simply "the resistance to acceleration measured in
: >it's own rest frame [regardless of how fast it is moving
: >relative to anything else]".
: You sure? Well, maybe it depends on which kind of physics
: you are talking about, i..e. classical, quantum, applied, etc.
: The "mass" you refer to is the "relativistic mass", and it increases
: with speed.
       No, the mass I refer to is invariant.
Ken Fischer 

Darren Garrison wrote:
> 
> Gel6036@port.ac.uk (Chris Mills) wrote:
> 
> >In article , billa@znet.com (Bill Arnett) says:
> >>
> >>Maybe the USA should make a deal with the rest of the world:  we'll go
> >>metric if you'll learn to speak English.  (This is only half joking; I
> >>think both would be big wins for the world as a whole.)
> >>
> >
> >You Yanks don't speakor write proper English (eg you spell metre
> >as meter and litre as liter) so stop preaching to the world when YOU
> >can't get things right.  (This is not a flame it is just something I feel
> >VERY strongly about)
> 
> Actually, you have it backwards.  Here in the US at least, we
> pronounce meter as "met-er,"  not as "met-re."  (In other words, the
> US pronounciation rhymes with "beat her" not with "oak tree")  Same
> with liter, which is not pronounced "let-re."  So it makes MUCH more
> sense to spell it the way we do when we pronounce it the way we do.
> If you pronounce the words as met-re and lit-re, then your spelling is
> better for you.  If you don't, then it isn't.
The Brits pronounce both words the same as we do, they spell them that 
way to suck up to their idols, the French.

Im Artikel <54esem$62r@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, olskool@ix.netcom.com
(Tony) schreibt:
>>The rest of the Tony's post was an obnoxious ad hominem attack that
>>doesn't deserve to be rebutted in detail.
>You, Mike, are obviously an intellectual snob and bigot who flaunts his
>knowlegde to aggrandize a rather large ego. 
May water be transparent to Tony, but the meaning of the sentence he
responded to obviously wasn't...
If you don't bite back, when a dog bites you,
it will say that you have no teeth (from Sudan).
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Im Artikel ,
p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) schreibt:
>Whitworth? I though only the French still used that ;-)
>at least Renault were until quite recently using some French 
>"metric" standard bolts that measured suspiciously close to Whitworth.
Oh, you mean why a 13er is to small and a 14er is to wide for one and the
same screw? That's an old problem with french technique. Engineering:
ingenious, elegant, beautiful. Making: a bit sloppy and only for the day.
Over the Rhine its the other way round: heavy clumsy things made for
eternity. You should see trams in Strassbourg - beautifully rounded
overall glassy trains, which I wouldn't like to be in, in case of crashing
into a lorry - and in my hometown: square tin cans, surviving even direct
hits on houses (yup, they've done that :-). And of course we have the
exception to both sides of this rule right there in the middle of Paris -
but Mr. Eiffel was - I think - from Belgium....
If you don't bite back, when a dog bites you,
it will say that you have no teeth (from Sudan).
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

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

In  meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes: 
>
>In article <54g5hg$7t2@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
>>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.
>>
>You don't "give an acceleration" you apply a force.  If the body has 
>no inertial mass and you apply to it a final force then the result is 
>infinite acceleration but it deosn't necesserily mean that its energy 
>changes.  If you want to treat it relativistically then you've to take
>into account the energy-momentum relations to arrive at the proper 
>result.  In either case there is no violation of conservation laws.
>
>Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
>meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the
same"
    By definition, the acceleration of a body with no inertial mass is
undefined. Please explain to me why an object that is accelerating
without any force being applied, does not violate the conservation
laws.
Edward Meisner

11:34pm - Oct 21 1996
E U R E K A!!!  I just found it...Sorry guys I just wanted to take it 
out. I just found a solution for one of the toughest problems I ever had 
in my new model of relativity. This solution beautifully predicts 
anti-gravity!!!
YeeeeeeeeHHaaaaa!!
( I hope this will last little longer this time! )
Yousuf Karamali

mkluge@wizard.net (Mark D. Kluge) wrote:
>In article <53t2k4$btd@news.cais.com>, webweave@cais.com says...
>>I have a device on my nightstand that generates electronic white noise
>>(e.g. synthesized sounds of waterfalls, rain, surf, etc.). If I leave 
>>this device on during my sleep, adjusting the volume to barely above 
>>hearing threshold, the dreams I experience are extremely rich in content 
>>and variety. 
>
>>Because there is such a difference between my "normal" dreams (i.e. when 
>>the device is not on) and the dreams experienced when the device is on,
>>I possibly can conclude that white noise indeed interferes with mental 
>>processes during sleep.
>
>No you cannot conclude that the effects you descriibe are due to the white 
>noise, although they might in fact be so. Since you have turned the white 
>noise generator on before going to sleep, the effect might be due to your 
>expectation that there will be some effect. 

No. 
When you sleep, you are essentially unconscious. Conscious expectations 
do not come into play.
If they would, I'd have sex (in my dreams) with Sharon Stone *every* 
night!
Unfortunately, it isn't so. 
;^(
Bernie

In article <326C2415.4B62@algonet.se>, pri@algonet.se says...
>I just hope that someone will be able to help me with this easily
>formulated but obviously not easily answered question.
>***** Why is momentum preserved? *****
The short answer is that momentum is conserved because the fundamental laws of 
nature are invariant with respect to spatial translations. What this means is 
that the fundamental equations of motion do not EXPLICITLY depend on position. 
Consider, for example, the interaction of two particles interacting 
gravitationally. The force between the particles dependcs on their coordinates 
only through the differences in their coordinates. If we add the same amount 
to the x-coordinates of both particles, the equationss of motion are 
unchanged. 
The same thing happens when we consider the other fundamental laws of 
physsics. We may add the same amount to all of the x-coordinates in whatever 
system, and the fundamental laws of motion remain in the same form. We say 
that space is homogeneous, bu which we mean that the laws of physics don't 
de[end upon location in space. It can be shown that this invariance leads to a 
conserved quantity. 
Other invariances lead to other familiar conservation laws. Rotational 
invariance leads to the conservation of angular momentum. Invariance under 
time translation (the laws are the same now as they were yesterday) leads to 
conservation of energy.  Some more exotic invariances, which are not as easily 
described, lead to other conservation laws. (One sych symmetry, called gauge 
invariance, leads to conservation of electric charge.)
Mkluge

In article , andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk (Andrew Dinn) writes:
>I commented to Russell Turpin:
>>From what I have read of post-modernism in
>>general (and Derrida in particular) I don't think this is anything
>>like the case. They seem to be arguing about the status of the law of
>>gravity rather than disputing it's utility, why it is useful rather
>>than whether it is useful, how exactly it is used rather than whether
>>it should be used - andf here's the big one - whether it could be
>>replaced with something else rather than whether it should be.
>
>>Are you suggesting that these are misguided questions?
>
>Mati Meron replied:
>That's a nice proof that they don't know what they are talking about.
>The law of gravity isn't useful, nor not useful, it just is.  Arguing 
>"how it is used" or "whether it should be used" is appropriate to 
>devices.  But the law of gravity isn't a device.  It is there and 
>that's it.  You can take it into account in what you're doing, or you 
>can ignore it, at your peril, bu the way gravity acts is independent 
>of philosophers ideas regarding "how it should be used".
>
>Patrick Juola wrote in response to me:
>
>: This seems to be yet another round of the post-modern technique of "make
>: inflamatory statements then retreat to the trivial when people demonstrate
>: that they have a consistent and robust worldview."
>
>  [repeat of above quote by Andrew Dinn]
>
>  . . .
>
>: >Are you suggesting that these are misguided questions?
>
>Patrick replies:
>: If he isn't, then I am.  More accurately, I'm suggesting that
>: these are trivial questions. To wit, here are the answers :
>
>: 1) The law of gravity is a description of how falling objects behave; the
>: idealized law of gravity, which scientists do not yet have, is an
>: error-free description of how falling objects behave.
>
>: 2) It's useful by construction; descriptions that had errors were
>: observed to be less useful and abandoned.
>
>: 3) It's used like any other equation in mathematics or physics; you
>: put known values in for some of the variables and solve for the
>: remaining unknowns.
>
>: 4) The version current could easily be replaced with something else that
>: did a better job of describing how falling objects behave.
>
>: None of these are social questions.  Similarly, none of these vary
>: with the beliefs, political or otherwise, of the scientists.
>
>Well, I agree with Patrick, of course, but it appears that the
>question cannot be so trivial and that scientists do not all share a
>`consistent and robust worldview' as he and Russell Turpin wish to
>argue since here we have Mati, a working scientist, disagreeing with
>Patrick. For him the law of gravity is not a `description of how
>falling objects behave' but rather `it just is', `It is there and
>that's it'.
>
>Presumably Mati will not sign up to 2) since the law of gravity is not
>useful by construction but by being the law which fallling objects
>obey. He may well agree on point 3) despite his statement that `The
>law of gravity isn't useful, nor not useful'. Presumably he does not
>intend this statement to deny the fact that one can use the law of
>gravity for making predictions. But 4) will presumably stick in Mati's
>craw since, the law of gravity being something which just `is', I
>don't suppose he is expecting it to go away. And he certainly does not
>seem to think that it is up to us to choose whether the current law of
>gravity (sorry, *the* law of gravity) or some other law is more
>appropriate for describing how things fall.
>
I'm afraid we're mixing two issues here.  It may be partly my fault 
since I responded the way I would respond to a fellow physicist, not 
the way things are phrased in a legal document.  Anyway, just to 
clarify matters, there is gravity itself and there is its mathematical 
description (I trust it is known that physics generates mathematical 
models of observable reality).  The mathematical description, whether 
the old, Newtonian one, or the new, general relativistic, is 
constructed.  And, yes, it is up to us to choose which one is more 
appropriate but the choice isn't arbitrary and isn't based on likes or 
dislikes.  The only criterion is how well predictions derived from 
this mathematical model correspond to measurements.  The issue of 
"whether it could be replaced by something else" is hardly a matter 
for a philosophical debate.  In any case, if and when replaced bya 
modified version, it is not going to "go away" as you suggest.  It is 
just going to be modified.
>The questions may well be trivial but that is not to say that most
>scientists are capable of answering them correctly. How many other
>scientists think like Mati that the law of gravity `just is'?
>
I suggest not to confuse different wordings with differences of 
meaning.  And, as to "answering them correctly", is there some book of 
"correct answers" which you consult.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

I'm not sure about this whole expansion of the universe and curvature of space (-time?).  I mean, 
I've read a little about it, but my friends think that it's crap.  What's the evidence?  Any 
insights or pointers to other sources of information would be appreciated.  That is,
1) Is it really true that a straight line (geodesic?) will extend to meet itself again?  In the 
most powerful physically possible rocket, would it also return home or would it "break" the 
curvature and create space?  How about with a beam of light?  Why?
2) What does "the curvature of space-time" basically mean?  Why don't we just say "the curvature 
of space" (or is there a difference)?
3) What's the current situation on the "big crunch" vs endless expansion?
4) Is it possible that the universe has infinite mass?  (Or, put differently, that there are 
infinite universes in our 3 dimensions?)  Why or why not?
5) (A little knowledge is a bad thing.)  Consider that a light beam could circumnavigate the 
universe.  If the universe measures less than 15 billion (age of universe) light years around, we 
would be bathed in light from the Big Bang.  Therefore, the universe measures more than 
15-billion light years around.  Therefore, the universe expands faster than the speed of light.  
Thus we have broken the rule that relative motion cannot exceed the speed of light.  Am I missing 
something here?
I'm primarily concerned with strong evidence in favor of the curvature and expansion of the 
universe.
Thanks in advance,
Peter Kirby

-*------
In article <54h44d$6d8@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
> Ah, well, we've been on the Net too long and the ambient
> literalism is getting to us, isn't it?  No one explicitly
> moaned "Blasphemy!" when Jefferson was blasphemed.  Rather,
> someone posted an article describing another article
> uncomplimentary to Mr. Jefferson, which noted that he was
> a racist and a slaveholder. ... fifteen or twenty people 
> felt called upon to speak up in what looked to me like a 
> purification ritual.
Again, I would ask Fitch to go back and show us the posts that
"looked like a purification ritual."  I was one of the main
respondents in that thread, and what *I* pointed out was that the
author of the "blasphemous" article engaged in seriously slanted
history, NOT in condemning Jefferson for certain sins, but for
failing to note the larger circle who engaged in these sins.
> Now, if I were to call Jesus (or Karl Marx) a raving
> necrophiliac, I'm sure I'd be ignored. ...
Nonsense.  I have many times responded to stupid posts about
Jesus in a very similar fashion, often critizing atheists who are
on "my side" in some simplistic choosing of ranks.  Similarly,
Michael Siemon has often criticized his fellow Christians for
many of their abuses of history and science.  This would confuse
(or be obstinately ignored by) anyone who wants to interpret all
discussion of topics Christian as a battle between believers and
non-believers.  But shift the coordinates a little, and it is
clear that Michael and I dislike simplistic treatment of history,
whether it comes from those who share or dissent from our
political and religious views.
Similarly, I think Fitch is intent on finding his particular
field of battle, regardless of what is going on.  For example:
> ...  But the Newton tizzy's isn't even over yet -- I've caught
> sight of yet more earnest crusaders soldiering up the hillside 
> to Moggin Keep....
Consider the possibility that this has nothing to do with Newton,
and everything to do with Moggin.  There are still flurries from
Moggin's asserting that the earth is not flat, and even Fitch
cannot view *this* as blasphemy!  If Fitch is not careful, he
might conclude from listening to a bad humorist that jokes about
sex are not funny, when in fact, the humorist just doesn't know
how to tell a joke.
Russell
-- 
 Newton plain doesn't work, even as an approximation, 
 except within certain limits.        -- Moggin

magnus.lidgren wrote:
> 
> What is a photon really made of ?
> 
> As I understand it, the general belief is that photons, electromagnetic
> waves, regardless their energy, i.e. their frequency, they all travel
> with the same speed in vacuum.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1. Does this means that a photon constitute a collection of smaller
> identical elements, (some kind of basic photon parts), of which all
> different photons are made of, (but, with respect to different
> frequencies, with various amounts of these basic parts) ?
> 
> 2. Do all different photons, if they are not absorbed or reflected, also
> travel with identical speed when
> traveling through a media, for example glass ?
> 
> Regards and thanks
> 
> Magnus Lidgren
I am not sure whether my view corresponds completely well with the view
of other scientists, or little, however I have found that my idea on the
subject may have some merit and as to the views of others on the subject
I am not sure exactly how they would range.
Up to and throughout the nineteenth century it has been known that light
exhibits many wavelike properties.  Light exhibits constructive and
destructive interference, as well as diffraction, which are known
wavelike properties.  It also has properties corresponding to frequency
and is known to refract in glass and other transparent substances.  The
fact that light has fundamental wave properties is also shown from
Maxwell's equations, which have found that light has a velocity c that
is derived directly from the permitivity and permeablilty of free space,
which are both constants of electric and magnetic static attraction and
repultion, through the use of equations which are used to describe
waves.  This value of c has been found to remain the same no matter who
observes it, ie, a person who would travel 100,000 miles per second
would still see light traveling at c186,000 mi/sec in all directions,
just like the person 'standing still' with respect to that 'inertial
reference frame'.  Also, the velocity of light does not vary with
frequency.  This can be deduced from the fact that light is not observed
to have many different speeds, and has been shown through various exact
measuring devices as well as through astronomical observations.  From
the constancy of light were derived all of the 'paradoxes' of special
relativity.  
When light or electromagnetic radiation interacts with matter or some
particles in general, it will transfer energy to a substance in
increments or 'quanta' that will be great in amount when the frequency
of EM radiation is high (and thus small in wavelength), and will be
small in amount when the frequency is low (and long in wavelength).
This propensity is not solely limited to light interactions but is a
fundamental property of the universe.  This does not mean that the light
itself could not be high in intensity or low in intensity at any
wavelength, for it can be, but it does mean that when light is
transferred it will do so in an all or nothing fashion, and that those
increments of transfer are greater when they occur in a small amount of
time (for Energy) and over a small distance (for Momentum), than when
the energy is transferred more gradually over greater periods of time
and distance. 
When a momentum transfer is made in a fashion that is highly localized
in space (and over a small distance), the question arises as to whether
a transfer will take place if the intensity of the EM wave is such that
there is only a partial amount of the energy in a wave within a possible
localized area of transfer, even though that wave as a whole, will have
more than enough energy to enact quantums of transfer.  Whether energy
will or will not be transferred at a specific point has been said to be
a matter of probability, ie. it is only probability and nothing more
that determines whether one localized point will transfer the energy
versus another.  This is Einstein's 'God playing dice with the universe'
question, which has been aesthetically unpleasing to some because it
does not precicely say where the localized point of transfer will occur,
only that it will occur, and precicely where it will occur is determined
at random, with the odds being determined by the general intensity of
the wave. 
Nonetheless, this general 'all-or-nothing', 'digital' type transfer
propensity can be used to predict and model extremely well the structure
of atoms and derive their chemical properties.  When these 'all or
nothing' transfers take place between the negatively charged electrons
traveling around the nucleus, they can segregate out precicely areas of
'electron density' that can produce all the spatial properties of atoms
and molecules and their bonding properties, and produce what is known 
as 'Chemistry'.
There seems to me to be a general propensity on the part of some to at
least think at times that 'particles' will exist apart from the
probability distribution fields that generate them when they are not
interacting in the localized fashions characteristic of high energies. 
In other words, that the electron is not a dispersed 'electric cloud'
that will become more localized when interacting at a high energy, but
is instead in some way like a 'little point' that will continuously
randomly coalesce in a probabilistic fashion at seperate points
throughout the electron orbital of an atom, with a drift that would
correspond with classical 'rotation' about the nucleus, rather than a
cloud that will then only 'coalesce' when interacting at a higher energy
or localized point.  If the random 'little point' conceptualization were
valid then two electrons in a combined orbital like that of H2, or
molecular hydrogen, could have the two electrons 'randomly coalesce'
right next to each other, and then through electrostatic repultion,
instantly force those localized point electrons out of the the H2
without any input of energy and leave the H2 protons behind.  The
bonding orbitals of H2 are relatively stable once formed, and this has
not been observed to occur.  When interacting with localized areas and
high energies, like when an electron interacts with the nucleus, regular
probalistic mechanisms kick in.  I am not sure, however, as to how much
that 'moving point' hypothesis, is really adhered to by many people
anyway.
A quantum, however, can be said to be an increment of transfer of energy
or momentum that either occurs or does not occur when it occurs at the
small scales of atoms and molecules (or even more macroscopic levels
when dealing with a few special cases, like superconductivity or the
like), and a photon is a quantum of light.    
These quantized localized properties have also been used to predict
properties of the nucleus as well.  Producing all those different shells
which have been written of.  In the nucleus there is also the strong
force, which binds the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus and
overcomes the force of electric repulsion of all the positive protons,
and the weak force, which can produce an interconversion of proton to
neutron and neutron to proton (with neutrinos involved).  The strong
force has been described through 'quarks'.  I am not overly familiar,
however with all of the intricate aspects of quarks and quantum
chromodynamics, although naturally, due to the name, I should be.
Can any of you tell me whether it has been derived as to why electrons
and protons have their constituent masses, and for that matter why the
different quarks have the masses that they do, and has it been
mathematically derived as to how matter-energy can be consolidated
within certain areas to produce electrons, positrons, neutrons, and the
like, to begin with?  In other words, deriving the mass of the electron
and the proton from constants like plank's constant, permittivity,
permeability, and calculus and so on? 
Have another, nothing is too fine for our replicators, - Quark.

In <54gj00$jal@udevdiv.Unibase.COM> john@mail.petcom.com. (John S.)
writes: 
>
>In article <54bvtg$sd9@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, attila1@ix.netcom.co
says...
>
>>    False analogy! The "wave-particle" theory refers to an
observable,
>>tangible space-time event. "God", so far, refers only to a figment of
>>some people's imagination. Saying that "they assume then that their
>>logic is more powerful than God" is merely saying that the logic
>>attributed to the fictitious entity "God" somehow differs from human
>>logic. Which of course could be said of any Scifi character or any
>>imaginary being.
>>
>>    Libertarius
>You've heard the definition of a dead atheist? All dressed up and
nowhere
>to go.
>
    Funny, but it applies to EVERYONE, not just atheists! Read
Ecclesiastes!
    L.

Directory

I made a list of science links, mainly for my personal use but
others are being welcomed to use it too.
lot of physics sites included.
http://www1.mhv.net/~lepore/sci.htm
Mike Dolan wrote:
> 
> A former student of physics, I've been sidetracked for about five
> years by business concerns.  I want to work my way back into physics,
> but am extremely rusty (and in stating this, I'm certainly not
> implying that I was all that advanced in my studies to being with).  I
> am interested in finding any quality Internet sites that contain good
> educational materials or other information that might assist in my
> (re-)education.  Do(es) any such site(s) exist?  (Similar stuff for
> math would also be great.)
> 
> Any suggestion(s) that might help me on my way are appreciated.
> 
> Thank you,
> Mike

Louis Savain wrote:
>   Well it's too bad that physicists, when confronted with problems
> that severely tax the limit of their understanding, always feign to
> not be interested in the deeper causal mechanisms responsible for
> natural phenomena than is readily available to observer.  To be true
> to their professed disinterest, I think they should discard almost
> everything they know, because most of physics is already very
> philosophical in nature.  What with spacetime, continuity,
> discreteness, determinism, nonlocality, and all that jazz?  Is there
> anything wrong with not knowing something?  Should not the goal of us
> all be the pursuit of understanding?
  Well what do expect as a deeper theory? Suppose i came up with a
theory that exact repreduced the results of special relavity but was
based on a underlining classical casual model, say space is a lattice
of springs and rods, and that all matter and radiation is the
vabritions of these rods. You sound like you'd like such a theory.
But it wouldn't be a better theory, it would be a worse one. We already
knew all the equations of SR without such a model.
But now we have more questions.
	- What are the springs and rods made of?
	- What forces make them move?
	- How did they come into existances?
And we still have all the old deep questions SR left.
	- Why this model and not another?
	- Why 3d space + 1 time
	- Why anthing instead of nothing.
We SR we have describe part of the world in simple maths. Thats
is could an explination as we ever find. Unless SR is experimental
wrong of course.
The whole of the universe has not yet been reduced to simple maths
let, So we may let get some deeper meaning out of quantum gravity.
But don't expect it to be simple except perphaps in mathematical
terms. Expect it to be wierd, more wierd and either General
Relavity or Quantum Machanics. If it wasn't physicist would have
already found the answer. And as the saying goes greenness
distingrates. What the adage is means an explaination of why an
object is green, in terms of it been make of lots of little green
things, is completely useless. Unless ultimatly, something that
looks green isn't green when looked a closely enough, we don't
have an explaination of green.
Barry Adams

Louis Savain wrote:
>   Well it's too bad that physicists, when confronted with problems
> that severely tax the limit of their understanding, always feign to
> not be interested in the deeper causal mechanisms responsible for
> natural phenomena than is readily available to observer.  To be true
> to their professed disinterest, I think they should discard almost
> everything they know, because most of physics is already very
> philosophical in nature.  What with spacetime, continuity,
> discreteness, determinism, nonlocality, and all that jazz?  Is there
> anything wrong with not knowing something?  Should not the goal of us
> all be the pursuit of understanding?
  Well what do expect as a deeper theory? Suppose i came up with a
theory that exactly reproduced the results of special relavity but was
based on an underlining classical casual model, say with
space as a lattice of springs and rods, and that all matter and
radiation is the vibrations of these rods. You sound like you'd like
such a theory.
But it wouldn't be a better theory, it would be a worse one. 
We already knew all the equations of SR, without such a model.
But now we have more questions.
        - What are the springs and rods made of?
        - What forces make them move?
        - How did they come into existances?
And we still have all the old deep questions that SR left.
        - Why this model and not another?
        - Why 3d space + 1 time
        - Why something instead of nothing.
With SR we have described part of the world in simple maths. Thats
is as good an explination as we ever find. Unless SR is experimentally
wrong of course.
The whole of the universe has not yet been reduced to simple maths
let, So we may yet get some deeper meaning out of quantum gravity.
But don't expect it to be simple except perphaps in mathematical
terms. Expect it to be wierd, more wierd thab either General
Relavity or Quantum Machanics. If it wasn't physicist would have
already found the answer. And as the saying goes greenness
distingrates. What the adage is means an explaination of why an
object is green, in terms of it been made of lots of little green
things, is completely useless. Unless ultimatly, something that
looks green isn't green when examined more closely, we don't
have an explaination of green.
Barry Adams
(Hopeing that the version with the typos didn't get sent.)

: 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?
 If I'm not mistaken, then you're unclear.
Firstly, you can measure P and X with the "same accuracy" (I got into
trouble with this. Since P and X are of different units, you're comparing
apples 'n' oranges). The point is that if you measure P exactly, it
makes the wave describing X totally non localized. so, after measuring
P, you have no idea where X is. (science jokes stem from this. Like
the one about the student who lost his homework because he measured
the momentum exactly and so doesn't know where the hell it's location is..
... trust me, I'm funnier live). Secondly, you can measure position and
time to whatever accuracy you wish, the HUP doesn't limit you there.
things like p and x, E and t, or l_x and l_y can't be exactly measured
simultaneously, but p and t can. 
 perhaps a little bit o' conceptual understanding is needed and then
you can reframe you r question a little better. You can also be more
like me -- who asks more advanced questions but still unclear.   
As usual, add subtract, comment or correct, but leave me out of it. 
"TM"

"Rick Osborne"  wrote:
>I just had lunch at the local Makoto's (a Japanese steak house) where I
>noticed a very interesting phenomenon.  The chef comes out and starts by
>pouring ice water on the hot grill.  Along with plenty of steam, if you
>look at the grill you notice that the water beads up and actually appears
>stable in the sphereoidal shape, despite the extreme temperature under it. 
Its the Liedenfrost effect.  If the surface has a much higher temperature 
than the boiling point of the liquid there forms a cushion of vapor with 
poor thermal transport properties.  Liquid nitrogen in your palm floats 
on a cushion of cold vapor (fora  while).  Liquid nitrogen on your arm or 
clothing soaks into hairs or fibers and frostbites you.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
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!

neosoft@users.unitel.co.kr (Young Hun Chung) wrote:
>  I got the idea of the teleportation when I studied about 
>magnetic-field.
>
>  So, I had several simulation about it.
>
>  Realization of super transition was accomplished by the 
>magnetic wave synthesized body field. Magnetic wave synthesized 
>body field was consisted of 6 pole rotating magnet, and a fixed 
>magnet. There by a consistent modulated magnetic wave with a 
>specific frequency is controlled for creation, elimination, and 
>teleportation. An electrical control circuit or a mechanical 
>device can be applied. Experimental results showed that if 
>copper is used as a standard material, Lead is the major created 
>matter. Teleportation and elimination depended upon the magnetic 
>wave frequency and space energy density. High voltage discharge, 
>strong magnet in the reaction container accelerated the super 
>space transition.
I bet you are not playing with us.  
You really >are< an imbecile, arent you?
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
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!

In article <54r9kn$ou8@news.fsu.edu>, jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>rbrowning@nc.acorn.co.uk (Richard Browning) writes:
>>
>> Would one American object when another spelt 'Light' thus: 'Lite'. 
>
> Only if it violated a registered trademark for the awful liquid 
> substance sold by that name.
"Awful" is an understatement, in this case.
> Ah, another benefit of metrification: 
> we could export "lite beer" to europe where they could use it as 
> a water substitute. 
Yeah, give it to them.  It is a rather poor water substitute, but for 
doing dishes it may be good enough.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <54rf5o$8sr@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>, Anton Hutticher  writes:
	... snip ...
>
>Isn�t it funny that the "science camp" comes up with similar attitudes
>and even the same questions. Can they be up to something the pomos don�t.
>Do they know something special. Naa, must be a conspiracy.
It must be this training we all went through, about "how to keep the 
laymen out of the temple" :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) notes parenthetically:
>                           (The Continentals must struggle to
>get rid of Platonic forms only because they are still carting
>them around in *their* baggage).
Never mind the Continentals -- with the amount of hot air YOUR engine
is blowing, I wouldn't leave any candy bars in the trunk.  In view of
all linguistic references you have been dropping in your wake, you
just might want to read some Cantor, Frege, Tarski, or Church -- or
even Jerrold Katz on _The Metaphysics of Meaning_.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

 David L Evens  writes
>Louis Savain (savainl@pacificnet.net) wrote:
> what is the
>: physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
>
>One simple way to explain the mechanism (which is, incidentally the 
>invariance of the speed of light) is to consider a very simple clock 
>based on a pulse of light bouncing between a pair of paralell mirrors.
>
> so his clock 
>must run slower, from your point of view, than his does, since the speed 
>of light is the same for all observers. 
BUT IT ISN'T! The speed of light in the clock travelling at V must
obviously be (c^2 + V^2)^.5, since the light WILL be carried by the
medium between the mirrors of the travelling clock, just as light is
carried by the atmosphere of the Earth, which we know does happen from
the Aberration of starlight, which is caused by exactly this effect.
> Since the situation is 
>symetrical, your friend observes that your clock is running slower, from 
>his point of view, than yours is.  
               but which clock is *REALLY* 'running slower' ?
                        DON'T TELL ME !
REALLY ! :-)
-- 
Keith Stein

nobody@nowhere (apparently "Peter" posting from annex02-02.jetcity.com) writes:
>
>I need help understanding how to use Newton's force equations.
 I was going to e-mail you a hint, but your return address does not work. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

arcane@cybercom.net (Dr. Arcane ) wrote:
>Heres a silly question.  Keep in mind that I'm just a high-school student,
>so please no flames.
>
>According to Einstein, one cannot travel the speed of light, due to stuff
>like increasing mass etc.  My question is, isnt speed in its self relative?
>After all, in space speed needs to be measure in relation to something.
>If you have point A, and point B, and two ships leave at them and travel
>at half the speed of light, dont they perceive eachother passing at
>the speed of light?  And cant one further argue that since everything
>is moving, we can never be sure how fast we are traveling.  After all
>the earth turns, orbits the sun, solar system, galaxy etc.  So my point
>is that considering the massive speeds at which things move, and also
>the fact that speed must be measured in comparision to other bodies, which
>are in themselves moving, and also that speed would differ when viewed
>from different views.  Thus, how can it be assumed that 'travel at the 
>speed of light' is impossible, when speed is relative to the observer.
Classical:      V1 + V2 (observed) = V1 + V2
Relativisitic:  V1 + V2 (observed) = (V1 + V2)/[1 + V1V2/c^2)
No matter how you add the vectors, if they start at less than lightspeed 
they sum to less than lightspeed.  This is not to say that you cannot rig 
an observer who "sees" superluminal movement.  It happens in astronomy 
and is deconvolved without contradiction by relativity.
Travel at lightspeed by a massed particle leads to a mathematical 
singularity - division by zero.  Faster (do you have a problem with 
evanescent waves in total internal reflectance and their associated 
negative energy region?) or slower is OK, but the crossover is undefined.
The Third Law of Thermodynamics (You can't win; You can only break even 
on a cold day; It never gets that cold) has a similar prohibition.  
Negative degrees kelvin are routinely generated - by going the long way 
around! - as in a working laser medium.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox as reduced to practice in the Bell 
Inequality apparently displays communication at speeds arbitrarily 
exceeding lightspeed (or demonstrates the fundamental interconnectedness 
of quantum-entangled states).  Quantum eraser experiments have the effect 
(classical or non-classical behavior at a double slit) cocuring before 
the cause (look or don't look behind the slit).  Quantum mechanics bids 
higher than relativity.  Kewl.  Einstein is incomplete.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
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!

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <54qilr$e5t@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>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.
>>
>Well, this is indeed a very broad sense of the term "creator".  I 
>won't quible over it but you must admit that without the explanation 
>it is a bit confusing.
>Anyway, I would qualify the above just a tad.  I would say that 
>science believes that it may be possible to discover "something", say 
>a set of consistent principles, that accounts for the observable 
>reality.  I through in the "may" since it is not an absolute article 
>of faith that such set of principles exists (though we're strongly 
>inclined to believe it is so).  Moreover, there is always this little 
>fly in the ointment, the knowledge that even if we happen to find this 
>"something", we'll never be absolutely sure that this indeed is the 
>ultimate, basic, irreducible "something" beyond which any further 
>search is pointless.
Your qualification makes sense although it has the effect of making
any *absolute* differentiation of  science from philosphy or sociology
or, for that matter, poetry impossible.  And, maybe that's okay.  As
for my explanation, I agree that alone it needs more, but it didn't
stand alone at the beginning; it was placed consciously together with
religion to make the creator analogy obvious (speaking of a word that
never works in rabland).
Ken MacIver

nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) wrote:
> Science takes on faith that measurable facts are objective facts, that
> consistent methods produce not just accurate but useful data, and
> there are bedrock secrets to be uncovered.  None of this is always
> true in all cases, I think.  However, accepting your posit for a
> moment, to take nothing on faith is the flip side of the coin from
> taking everything on faith.  In that case, my sense is that the
> "truth" if there be such a thing lies somewhere in the fuzzy area on
> the edge of that coin.
> 
> Ken MacIver
> 
You mean mathematics is also a religion, because mathematicians
"believe" in their axioms.
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) 

Bill Owen wrote:
} 
}  c = (299792458 m/s) (1209600 s/fortnight) (1 furlong/201.168 m)
}    = 1.802617... x 10^12 furlongs/fortnight
}  
} You can take the division out to as many places as you want -- the answer will
} turn out to be a repeating decimal eventually, and it's exact.
Paul Skoczylas  writes:
>
>My computer, when I ask for 100 digits of accuracy, gives me:
>c=1802617499785.254 furlongs per fortnight
>
>(Hence, I presume that it's not a repeating decimal, but finite.)
 I thought you beat me to it, but did you enter it as 1000/201168? 
 Hand factoring, I get 201168 = 16 * 9 * 11 * 127, and only the 16 and 9 
 divide any of the integers in the numerator (1209600 = 16*9*8400).  So 
 I am left with 
                  299792458*8400*1000 / 1397  
                                             as the answer. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC

In article <01bbc151$a68a16c0$8e7143a4@dante.resnet.ucla.edu>,
Bill Lee  wrote:
>
>
>Alexander Abian  wrote in article
><54efbl$or@news.iastate.edu>...
>> 
                    (omissions) 
>> 
>> Contrary to the extinction of some species, because of Humans tampering
>> with Nature,  human species is growing and the life span of  average
>> humans has grown more than 30 years during the  19-th and 20-th
>centuries.
>> 
>> We have defied the NATURAL SELECTION of the Nature.  We will continue
>> to defy and to augment the life span of humans  and will inhabit other
>> planets - but will not surrender to the (for us) nefarious Natural
>> Selection which gives priority of survival to the viruses of smallpox
>> and measles over the survival of human beings.
                     (omissions)
Bill Lee replies:
>Interesting...
>Actually, humanity is more fragile than you seem to think. A meteor can end
>our civilization rather abruptly. I know it sounds like science fiction,
>but there actually exists a small but real probability of collision(there
>has been a recent interest in charting asteroids near the earth).
Abian answers:
  Yes, if it was left to the Natural Selection, homosapiens would have been
extremely fragile.  However, due to homosapiens having intelligence and
exponentially (e^x for  x > 0) growing technology, we managed to excel many,
many species  as far as tenacity and survival is concerned. Proof: the
increasing lifespan of a human species. Almost no specific species has
doubled its lifespan in a century - and this,  because of our brain,
our medicine and our science and technology. True, viruses and bacteria 
seems to be around for ever - but they mutate constantly.
  Bill Lee continues:
There is no evidence that we are beyond nature's control. After all, all
>evidence suggest that our understanding of the universe is limited.
 Abian answers:
 All evidences suggest that we are beyond nature's control.  Using
electricity we create daylights  where it would have been a deep
darkness  if it were left to the Nature.. Using electricity we create  
Summer heat where it would have been a brutal cold if it were left to the
Nature,
 All evidences suggest that our understanding of universe is expanding
exponentially.  Pretty soon we will know about other planets better
than we know about our planet Earth. We will reorbit Venus and create
a born again (hopefully  much more friendlier than) planet Earth!
  Bill Lee continues:
>............................................ Humans have only existed
>for a very brief period of geological time.............
 Abian answers:
 Geological time does not apply to the case of human beings.  Mozart
existed for less than 40 years  BUT SEE WHAT AN ETERNITY has he created !!
 The danger for extinction of Homosapiens will not  come from the asteroids  
or  deadly viruses -  It will come from the Homosapiens themselves -
and that is why we urgently need to produce a PEACE VACCINE.
-----------------------
  The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation
  of favoured races in the struggle for life.  C. DARWIN  (1859)
 The future of species by means of rational alteration of Cosmos, or the
 preservation of intelligent races in the struggle for life. A. ABIAN (1992)
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
       ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS  AND EPIDEMICS
       ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT  
                     TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)

Michael Zeleny :
>It takes an idiot to deny that there is a mob mentality involved in most
>pronouncements of Derrida's professional incompetence.  It takes another
>idiot to infer the innocence of the mob's victim.
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck):
>And, of course, it would take an even greater idiot to assume that the
>presence of mobbing activity is already sufficient cause for assumption of
>guilt. But here we have the "science" community, intoning in near-unison
>and near-ignorance, "where there's smoke, there must be fire."  Derrida
>deserves to be judged in the field that he published in, to wit
>continental philosophy. 
Zeleny:
>Since logos is not subject to political or geographical boundaries,
>"continental philosophy" is a noxious oxymoron.  [...]
Silke:
>Logos isn't subject to the boundaries of bodies either, and it still is 
>amply justified to talk of "Plato's Philosophy." To deny that there a 
>different philosophical traditions seems rather silly.
Zeleny:
>As would be to insist that different philosophical traditions are
>subject to different standards of justification -- which is exactly
>where logos came in.  To make it easy for you, here is a simple test.
>Plato, Descartes, and Husserl represent respectively classic, modern,
>and contemporary continental philosophers who suffered from Derridean
>deconstructions.  Show me that the latter are well-respected by the
>authorities in Platonic, Cartesian, or Husserlian studies -- and then
>we will talk.
moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>	Given that you suggest judging Derrida by a show of hands, it
>seems unlikely you would have anything much to say.  But don't let me
>discourage you from trying.
Zeleny:
:I was addressing myself to an intellectual standard proposed by Silke,
:which happens to coincide with the quaint academic custom known as peer
:review.
	It _is_ a rather quaint practice, and a highly flawed one, at
that.  Perhaps you noticed J. Scott Armstrong's recent report on peer
review in the sciences, where he concluded that while the process often
fails to catch significant errors, it frequently "hurts the authors of
innovative work."  Furthermore, he suggests, the main question asked by
many reviewers is, "'Do I agree with the findings?'"
	But that's beside the point, since Silke didn't propose peer
review as a method of evaluation.  Her suggestion was to judge Derrida
as a continental philosopher -- taking a poll is your idea.
Zeleny:
:Given that to date you have failed to evince adherence to any
:intellectual standard above and beyond petty bickering about the format
:of attributions, it seems unlikely you would have anything much to say.
:but don't let me discourage you from trying.
	I was going to let that drop, but since you bring it up again,
let me remind you that the problem didn't lie in your format -- that
was fine, especially for anyone with a taste for sarcasm laid on with
a trowel.  The problem is that your attribution was incorrect -- you
credited Hyppolite's words to Derrida (to repeat the explanation that
I repeated before).  In addition, you cited comments Derrida made in
discussion as though they were part of to his essay, "Structure, Sign,
and Play."  All in all, you failed to meet even basic "intellectual
standards."
Zeleny:
>>>>[...] Curiously enough, the French philosophical community has
>>>>thwarted his recent career ambitions.  Do they understand something
>>>>that you don't?
Silke:
>>>Derrida has never been very popular with the French. So what? He isn't 
>>>very popular with anybody, as far as I can see. Why should I care what 
>>>the French establishment has to say about him? Do you make your judgments 
>>>on the basis of the US establishment? Were you a fan of the Yale school 
>>>while it lasted?
Zeleny:
>>You are richly exemplifying the quality that makes conversing with the
>>sophist so unpleasant -- once cornered, you rush to change the subject.
>>Which of us said that "Derrida deserves to be judged in the field that
>>he published in"?  According to THAT person, he got his just deserts.
moggin:
>	See above.
Zeleny:
:Ditto
	You're making the same mistake.  Note the difference between
being judged _in_ the field where one works, and judged _by_ whoever
happens to be standing in it.
-- moggin

turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) wrote:
>-*-------
>In article <54r04c$po4@news-central.tiac.net>,
>Ken MacIver  wrote:
>> I am sorry to leave you puzzled.   I don't know from your posts
>> whether you disagree that scientists believe that science has a
>> metaphysical foundation.  I think they do. ...
>I think they have different views on this.
>My own view is that science needs no more metaphysical or 
>epistemological assumptions than normal, everyday reasoning.
>If you were able to find your way to the classroom for the
>first freshman physics class, you already have all the 
>metaphysical and epistemological assumptions you will ever
>need for doing physics.  I think this stands in significant
>contrast to many religions.
How so?
Ken

home_business@prodigy.net wrote:
> 
> test test test
Your test posting to all of the above groups did NOT make it. You might
want to try cross posting again. ;-)
-- 
Greg Kellogg                     http://home.earthlink.net/~glkellogg
Co-Founder: FanEx                http://www.telepath.com/goldstar/fanex
Staff Writer: FF Online          http://www.mk.net/insider

In talk.origins weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck)
wrote:
>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>
>: [Paranthetical note: I do not undertake to support anybody's arguments
>: or positions except my own and that only upon occasion.]
>
>: >I understand that. Whenever a thread is cross-posted between science 
>: >community and non-science community, however, mutual accomodations are in 
>: >order. Witness the "generalization" terminology: for most people, 
>: >"generalizing" something means to make it _more_ applicable, to extend or 
>: >expand its applicability. I do not for a moment doubt that Mati uses the 
>: >term correctly according to sci usage, but it's counter-intuitive to the 
>: >rest of us.
>
>: One must reckon with the difficulties of cross cultural communication.
>: However the matter is more subtle than that; it has to do with what is
>: being generalized which in turn is a selection of what is significant.
>: The essence of generalization is to take a statement or observation
>: which is specific to a context and apply it more broadly.  Let me give
>: an example, chosen to offend as few sensibilities as possible:
>: (1)	Richard Harter is a sloppy thinker
>: (2)	Richard Harter is sloppy
>: (3)	Scientists are sloppy thinkers
>: (4)	Scientists are sloppy
>: [(3) and (4) are generalizations under the hypothesis that Richard
>: Harter is a scientist.  (1) and (2) are well known facts.]
>
>Or:
>	Sokal makes fun of Derrida in Social Text
>	Social Text's editors don't notice.
>	Social Text's editors are stupid.
>	Derrida is stupid.
I would hope that there is (general) agreement that Sokal's article
says nothing about Derrida, and probably nothing about his writings.
It may or may not say something about Decon, and it does say something
about the state of the art of "humanities" commenting on science.
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid

matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In talk.origins nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) wrote:
>>"RICHARD J. LOGAN"  wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>2.  But this is beside the point.  I was startled by a previous posters response 
>>>that religious people daily question the founding principles of their faith (at 
>>>least that's the way I interpretted the posters comment) and that the practice of 
>>>science was in some sense a religious enterprise. 
>>
>>That was me and I did not mean to startle you.  I meant that religions
>>study and debate their meanings and purposes.  Separate and apart from
>>that, many people do indeed treat science as a religion in the sense
>>that they believe it offers the key to the origin and structure of the
>>world.  
>That is like saying religion is like science because both have classes
>on Tuesday night. It is true, but not important to at least one of the
>subjects at hand.
No, it is like saying that religion is like science because both
believe that something caused the creation of the universe.  It may
have happened on Tuesday night; who knows?
[snip]
>>I did not say that science is a religion in the formal sense.  But
>>science has become very much like a religion in the sense that large
>>numbers of people "believe" in its infallibility and often cite
>>various of its "facts" and "theories" to support both sides of moral
>>issues in hopes of attracting to a position others who believe in the
>>"god" of science.
>>
>Since science is not a belief system per se it is not defined by what
>people believe it has said. It is true that many people use scientific
>statements in their moral statements. That does not make science a
>moral system. 
So far you agree with me.  BTW, I made no claim that science was a
"moral" system.
It is more likely that people use the scientific
>statements to show how their statements are aligned with observation
>rather than your "god" of science. For instance if I say it was wrong
>of someone to sell poisoned food, the morality is contained in the
>"wrong" but it is supported by the scientific evidence of the poison.
The morality is contained in the assumption that the person who bought
the food should not be killed or made severly ill.  Perhaps you can
think of situations where this might not be true.
Ken

Bernhard Schopper  wrote:
>There is a dream-state called "lucid dreaming" where some people can 
>control the content of the dream. However this state is on the borderline 
>between being awake and sleeping, and cannot be called true dreaming.
>During a regular dream-state, a person has no conscious awareness of his 
>environment and cannot control the content of a dream.
In addition to the common states of awake and asleep there are two
others which are variations which can sometimes occur naturally but may
also be induced by practice involving suggestion.  These are lucid
dreaming, which occurs during dreaming when the dreamer becomes aware
that they are dreaming, and the hypnogogic state (spelling?), which
occurs during waking and involves being awake but having the image
making apparatus still running.
In Lucid dreams it is possible to influence the course of dreams as long
as you don't try too hard or breath too fast, both of which cause
waking.  It is most definitely a dream state, as it is the dream body
that is controlled.  It is possible to fly or make love to Sharon Stone
as someone wanted.  Free virtual reality is available now!
The Hypnogogic state is quite different as physical actions result in
the real body moving, not the dream body, but even with the eyes open
(in a dimly lit room) the image-making apparatus goes overtime on
interpreting the faint shapes around and fantastic detail and structure
can be seen that does not physically exist.  This usually only lasts a
short time.
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm

In article <54rjbe$i5g@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>
>No, it is like saying that religion is like science because both
>believe that something caused the creation of the universe.  It may
>have happened on Tuesday night; who knows?
>
No.  Science doesn't go as far as saying that "something caused the 
creation of the universe".  It just says "this is how the universe 
works, to the best of our understanding".  While it is true that, 
based on this understanding, the universe came into being some 15 
billion years ago, it doesn't imply that "something" caused it to come 
into being and, even if so, this something is beyond the realm of 
science.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

William Sommerwerck  writes:
>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!).
This is only the case when a particle is undergoing decay.  In a decay process
a particle uses some of its own mass to increase its kinetic energy (E=mc^2 
remember).  AD says that any particle can use all its mass to accelerate
it to c (at which point it becomes a photon). Decay can be compared to 
a rocket which uses some of it's mass (ie. the rocket fuel) to increase it's
velocity.    
>The increase in mass is a supposedly well-documented effect, seen in 
>particle accelerators.
Particle acceleration is _not_ decay, in particle acceleration you are applying
energy external to the particle to increase it's K.E. thus you also increase
it's mass. AD also predicts an increase in mass in processes where external
is energy is applied to the particle.   (In fact you can derive the SR 
Kinetic energy equation from the AD one for this situation). 
Autodynamics says that for external energy you use the SR Kinetic
energy equation, for decay you use the AD one.
Dean.

In article <54p81n$ccs@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>,
   turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) wrote:
>What differentiates an essential reality from a
>non-essential one?
>
>Russell
	Blood alcohol level.
Mike
mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw

jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>taboada@mtha.usc.edu (Mario Taboada) writes:
>>
>>            ....                        In the Principia, Newton
>>mixes the old "geometric" methods with the recently developed calculus of
>>"fluxions". Some of the things he was able to prove by pure geometry
>>are simply incredible...
>According to a colleague here, who has a friend that studied the 
>matter for an undergrad thesis project, some things presented 
>geometrically could only have been proved with the calculus and 
>then converted back to the old, more familiar, geometrical notation. 
>-- 
> James A. Carr        |  Raw data, like raw sewage, needs 
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  some processing before it can be
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  spread around.  The opposite is
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  true of theories.  -- JAC
	That is my impression, too. It is interesting to look at the
very rare translation of Book I by Robert Thorp (first edition 1776), in which,
besides providing a brilliant English version, he added a "Commentary"
to each proposition. In many cases, he provides proofs by fluxions
(i.e.,calculus) of statements that take Newton somewhat wordy
geometric explanations. In fact, Thorp's Commentaries could constitute
a set of "lecture notes" on Newton's treatise - this is what they
were, in all likelihood, since he taught mechanics in Cambridge.
Regards,
-- 
Mario Taboada
* Department of Mathematics * Old Dominion University * Norfolk, Virginia
e-mail: taboada@math.odu.edu

In article <54r1mg$2cdq@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
tao@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Terence Tao) wrote:
>In article <32786f04.24029230@news.pacificnet.net> savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
>>In article <54oslq$sqs@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
>>tao@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Terence Tao) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <326F660D.330B@paragon-networks.com> Doug McKean  writes:
>>>>  More precisely, what is the
>>>> physical mechanism that is responsible for slowed clocks?
>>>
>>>Electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity.
>>
>>  Are you saying that they are all directly tied to the speed of
>>light?  
>
>Yes, they all are connected in the same way to the constant c.  This 
>connection can be made precise, and is called Lorentz-covariance.  It's also 
>called special relativity.
>
>>If so, it would be a strong indication of a common link with
>>EM at some level 
>
>Yes.  This common link is called Lorentz-covariance, or special relativity.
>
>>since the speed of light is an EM phenomenon?
>
>No.  EM waves are the most prominent place where the constant c comes in,
>but it is not the only place where c appears.  For instance, as a first
>approximation c is also the speed of gravity.  (The weak and strong forces
>are mediated by particles with non-zero invariant mass, so the relationship 
>with c is not quite as simple, but c still appears in the equations).
  Interesting.  It seems like c is the common link between everything
in physics then.
>Don't think of c as just the speed of light.
  Well, you may be right but it all started with the measurement of
the speed of light.  It may well be that everything (including "space"
itself) is made of light particles (quanta?) and that gravity is but a
side effect of EM.
>c is a universal
>constant, part of the intrinsic structure of the universe, and light
>happens to travel at c because electromagnetism is based on this intrinsic
>structure, as are the other three forces in nature.
  Ok.  I'll buy that.  I was pretty much thinking along the same line.
Still, my question remains, even though it should be rephrased thus:
What is the physical mechanism of the universe that causes light to
travel at c and no other speed?  A couple of related questions are, a)
what is the mechanism that prevents particles from going faster than
c?, and b) if light has no rest mass, why does not light move at
infinite speed since its inertia should be zero without a rest mass?
I think that probably it all comes down to the fact that we do not yet
have a complete understanding of motion.
  Again, my own guess is that motion requires a reactive or an
interactive process between the moving object and whatever substance
is occupying "space".  The interaction "force", or "impetus" if you
will, is such that its magnitude is limited to c.  This seems to
require that the substance is particulate and evenly distributed.  I
just cannot imagine how a particle of matter could interact with
anything other than something with which it shares common properties.
If two things have nothing in common, I can't see how they can
possibly interact.  My point is that particles must interact with
particles and that they could not interact with an abstract spacetime.
Where is the commonality?
Best regards,
Louis Savain

In article <32708BEA.191459B3@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de>, Jan Pavek
 wrote:
>Louis Savain wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>To join this debate, I would say that the slower travelling clock
>consumes less time - not energy, because energy is the effect of time -
>then a faster one. So the faster one uses more time for trevelling at a
>faster speed and less for ticking.
  That's very interesting though kind of hard to swallow.  I do see
the obvious analogy between having a fixed supply of "time" and a
fixed supply of energy.  Still, I haven't yet seen anything in physics
to convince me that a physical entity called "time" exists
independently of motion and length.  So far, the only unambiguous way
to describe time is with the equation t = d / v.  d and v are observed
and the ratio t is automatic.  I see no empirical reason to think of
time as anything other than an abstract ratio of two observed
variables.  If physicists want to introduce a physical "time" that can
affect particles, it is incumbent upon them to produce and possibly
isolate such a "time" entity.  It is also incumbent upon them to
explain the causal mechanism between the "time" entity and matter.  I
don't see it.  Sorry.
>The speed of light was produced maybe with the Big Bang (if there was
>one) and so it remained till now. It was maybe a random consumption of
>time.
  Maybe.
Best regards,
Louis Savain

Joachim Verhagen (verhagen@fys.ruu.nl) wrote:
...
> True as far as it goes.  In fact mirrors reverse forward and backward.
> As this person (sorry, can not draw 3D):
> Object:        mirror        image
>      o            |           o
>      |<           |          >|
>     /\            |           /\
>                   |
> You see forward has become backward.
Yes.  Very nice, very accurate picture!
> Now, because left and right are relative to forward, they get reversed and
> up and down do not.
Well, what do you mean, "left and right are relative to forward"?
So are up and down, too, if you consider that we can rotate 
back-to-front about a horizontal axis.  We don't usually rotate 
things that way, hence our mental bias for seeing the reversal as 
left-to-right.  (I.e. rotation about a vertical axis.)
Actually, IMO there's a bit more to it than that; in fact it's a
rather interesting question of psychology and child development.
Recall, if you will, how long it took you to learn reliably to
distinguish left from right.  (Some of us still have trouble! :)
The writing of a typical six-year-old contains nearly as many
mirror-image E's, S's, N's, etc. as it does their correct forms.
Of course this difficulty learning the left/right distinction 
until relatively late in childhood has to do with the near-
bilateral symmetry of the human body and its nervous system.
Accordingly, of all applicable perceptual distinctions we can
bring to bear in this matter, the left-to-right distinction is
usually our weakest.  And so, for purely psychological reasons,
left-to-right is how the reversal "looks" to us, unless we make
a conscious effort to see it as it really is, front-to-back.
IMO there's a lesson to be drawn from this, regarding prejudices
in general.  Effort is required.
...
--
Russell Blackadar,   russell@mdli.com

In article <54ri6r$h5l@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>In article <54qilr$e5t@news-central.tiac.net>, nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) writes:
>>>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.
>>>
>>Well, this is indeed a very broad sense of the term "creator".  I 
>>won't quible over it but you must admit that without the explanation 
>>it is a bit confusing.
>
>>Anyway, I would qualify the above just a tad.  I would say that 
>>science believes that it may be possible to discover "something", say 
>>a set of consistent principles, that accounts for the observable 
>>reality.  I through in the "may" since it is not an absolute article 
>>of faith that such set of principles exists (though we're strongly 
>>inclined to believe it is so).  Moreover, there is always this little 
>>fly in the ointment, the knowledge that even if we happen to find this 
>>"something", we'll never be absolutely sure that this indeed is the 
>>ultimate, basic, irreducible "something" beyond which any further 
>>search is pointless.
>
>Your qualification makes sense although it has the effect of making
>any *absolute* differentiation of  science from philosphy or sociology
>or, for that matter, poetry impossible.  And, maybe that's okay.
I think that it is OK.  Personally I shy away from absolutes.  I'm yet 
to see a single classification or differentiation scheme that can get 
by without the "miscellaneous" cathegory.  Also, why should we insist 
on absolute differentiation.  All the things you've mention are 
expressions of the human spirit, there is no reason why there shouldn't 
be overlaps between them.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

"Michael S. Morris" :
| ...
| For that matter, there's an equivalent use of non-Euclidean
| geometry to point the benightedness of Euclid, or of
| non-Aristotelian logics to point the benightednesss of
| Aristotle that in my experience invariably exhibits a
| similar misunderstanding of Euclid or Aristotle to the
| one we have just seen about Newton, and so it invariably
| misunderstands how much the different and modern developments
| are in fact underpinned by the ancient work.
I've never tried blaspheming Euclid, but I've been able to
get away with blaspheming Aristotle.  Surprisingly, a
Newton worshipper blasphemed Ptolemy earlier in this
discussion, which seems something like blaspheming Euclid
to me -- the Ptolmaic system is a ingenious and
considerable accomplishment.  But in the science area, so
far, Newton seems to be the only completely taboo figure.
So it appears to me that there's some kind of difference
between the cases of Euclid, Aristotle, and the other
classical fellows on the one hand, and Newton.
Thinking of Euclid reminds me of Edna St. Vincent Millay's
sonnet.  Possibly the aesthetic, even religious sentiments 
expressed there put a curse on the poor man's ghost.  Edna
was a bit gushy at times.  But Pope could write "God said 
'Let Newton be!'  And all was light" without similarly
tarnishing the iconic visage.  Powerful juju indeed.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>> [...]  So, you see, this concept of "wrong" as used by moggin is
>> not only mot in use in science, it is also not accepted in general
>> usage.  So, where is it valid?
Anton Hutticher  :
>Gee Mati, thanks for preempting me, thanks a miiillliooon!
>I wanted to ask moggin exactly those questions.
>I have been asking moggin questions leading to this sort of question
>but he has not yet satisfactorily answered them. Now its all moot.
	I answered all the questions you put to me, in some cases
twice.  I'm sorry if you don't consider the answers satisfactory.
I don't think much of your comments, either.  That's where things
end up.
	Obviously you missed my reply to Mati's question, but it
was brief, so I'll repeat it here: I said, "A better question is,
how is that an honest account of my position?"
	I have the same question about your most recent reply to
Silke, where you go on and on about my satanic qualities.  I just
don't recognize myself in your descriptions.  The kindest thing I
can say is that you're arguing with a strawman.
>I planned to make several posts, but a tooth extraction which took
>more than an hour made me decide otherwise for a few days.
	I'm genuinely sorry to hear that -- I know how painful it
can be -- dentistry has never fully emerged from the Middle Ages.
(Watch:  somebody's gonna cross-post this to sci.dentistry, and a
horde of angry dentists are going to come after me with drills.)
-- moggin

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. [...]
moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>	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."
Zeleny:
>Has Jacques Derrida been debunking milk farming practices ex cathedra?
>What a versatile fellow he must be!
	Derrida addresses very few topics ex cathedra.  He typically
offers close readings.  You're welcome to examine the results, and of
course to comment, if you so choose; thus far, however, you've chosen
to make your remarks from a distance -- one of the reasons they fall
short of your target.
-- moggin

In article <1996Oct15.173540.27248@lafn.org>
ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, pcowley@origin-at.co.uk (Phil Cowley) says:
> 
> AP, how is a generator at a different "level" than a motor?
An electric current.
We (think) we know of 4 different forces :
 1) Strong Nuclear
 2) EM
 3) radioactivity
 4) gravity
 But I put it to you that there are but 2 forces and those two are
complementary. Two of the above 4 are fictitious forces.
  With HYASYS theory that the strong nuclear force is merely the EM
force in a close and crowded space. That a neutron is a hydrogen atom
and that the electron of a normal electron space has been confined
turning the normal electron into a nuclear electron. This eliminates
the strong nuclear force altogether and turns it into another form of
EM.
  With HYASYS there is an EM level at the nuclear region and it
corresponds to a force strength of 10^40 between strong nuclear and EM
  With EM and gravity there is another level and the force strength is
again 10^40
  Thus we have a picture of  10^40 --  EM -- 10^40
 That suggests to me that because the difference if strength between
gravity and EM, or EM and strong nuclear are of the same value that
these two of strong nuclear and gravity are sham forces and are just
quantized forms of EM
  This leaves only the forces of EM and radioactivity
  How can we picture gravity as EM?  In the old view we thought that
gravitons were exchanged between every mass particle on Earth with
every mass particle of the Sun and that gravity was the exchanging of
these gravitons, but EM is 10^40 stronger and so we can eliminate 10^40
gravitons for each EM exchange. Perhaps the photon or the neutrino
perform more than what is currently known of them at this time and that
the photon/neutrino exhange on a ratio of 1 to 10^40 for mass,
substituting charge for mass in the Coulomb force law. There is a lot
that we do not know about photons and EM.
 So we have two forces remaining EM and radioactivity
  EM is Maxwell's Equations and one level of organization is Coulombs
law which is the above replacement of gravity.
  Another level is the Electric Motor and the Earth is an Electric
Motor itself.
  And a third level is the Electric Generator, generating an electric
current. In Radioactivity we can have beta decay, emissions of
electrons and this is an electric current. (But I believe the most
important function of radioactivity is its 'creation of new matter'
function which may perhaps be related with its being an Electric
Generator also).
  I think 3 levels has some significance because we have 3 levels of
particle matter of electrons, of protons and of neutrons. I think these
3 levels ought to show themselves in astro bodies.

In article <326FCB29.3FA@cyberspc.mb.ca>,
Doug Craigen   wrote:
>I always think of R as nothing more than a fudge factor, a constant to 
>balance out the units in the equation.  I would have thought it simply stood 
>for something like "Ratio".
It's not a fudge factor.  The PV = NkT form of the ideal gas law can be
derived relatively simply in statistical mechanics; from there, it's just
a change in the quantitues used.  (In the above form, N is the number of
molecules (or atoms) and in the chemistry form PV = nRT it is the number
of moles.)  R is just Avogadro's number times Boltzmann's constant.
-- 
Andrea Leistra                      http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----  
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.

NoseWheeli (nosewheeli@aol.com) 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?
        Momentum is a useful bookkeeping system for certain
things, but kinetic energy is useful for other things.
Ken Fischer 

RICHARD J. LOGAN (RJL@OVPR.UGA.EDU) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
: > 
: > The quote above is from Jean Hyppolite, a Hegel scholar. JH goes on:
: >         "And in that connection we see a constant appear, a constant which
: > is a combination of space-time, which does not belong to any of the
: > experimenters who live the experience, but which, in a way, dominates the
: > whole construct; and this notion of the constant -- is this the center?
: > But natural science has gone much further. It no longer searches for the
: > constant."
: > 
: This is nothing but nonsense.  What does "a constant which is a combination of 
: space-time" mean?  What does it mean for an experimenter to "live the 
: experience"?  If you're going to talk about science you should know more than 
: buzz words.  Can this guy even define space-time?
As far as I know, he's dead, so the answer is probably no. It should 
would be useful to have the French...  I don't know what he meant, 
frankly. And as long as I don't know, I'm going to withhold judgment on 
whether it's stupid. I could imagine that he is just, in very general 
terms, referring to a concept of time that can't be experienced. Perhaps 
Lew Mammel could help -- he had some ideas in this direction.
Silke

mbobrowsky@stsci.edu wrote:
: 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?
: 				Matt
[sci.physics.relativity added]
       Perhaps it measures acceleration.    Just because the
surface dwellers hold to the old notions of "at rest" is no
reason to think an accelerometer reads one thing one minute,
and another thing the next.
       But the model of gravitation that is consistent with
accelerometer readings is so bizarre that I can't even get
a rational continuing discussion of it (I try to keep it in
alt.sci.physics.new-theories, but things are getting to the
point that I may have to shout it from the rooftops).
       Believe the accelerometer, there is no magic that
can simulate or mimmick acceleration.    Some books on
gravitation (like "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and
Wheeler so much as say that the surface of the Earth
is accelerating upward, but fail to follow through
with the idea (because they haven't figured out how
the model could work).
       A little hint;  if the surface of the Earth 
accelerates radially outward from the center of mass,
then the yardstick must be getting longer too, and
the second must be lengthening at the same rate.
       Could this be a coincidence that space and
time have to be blended together in a purely geometrical
dynamic spacetime to correctly represent gravity?
       I wonder why Einstein's gravity theory is called
"Geometrodynamics"?
Ken Fischer 

On 25 Oct 1996 17:37:08 GMT, "Rick Osborne"
 wrote:
>I just had lunch at the local Makoto's (a Japanese steak house) where I
>noticed a very interesting phenomenon.  The chef comes out and starts by
>pouring ice water on the hot grill.  Along with plenty of steam, if you
>look at the grill you notice that the water beads up and actually appears
>stable in the sphereoidal shape, despite the extreme temperature under it. 
>Can anyone explain this?
>-- 
>Rick Osborne / C++ VB Pascal HTML VRML Java / osborne@gateway.grumman.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>(A)bort, (R)etry, (T)ake down entire network?
>
 It is floating on its own steam which insulates it somewhat.
Boris