Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:54:21 GMT
In article , briank@ibm.net (Brian
Kennelly) wrote:
>In article <32756ca5.23422679@news.pacificnet.net>,
>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>In article <09BcychtjHcY092yn@ibm.net>, briank@ibm.net (Brian
>>Kennelly) wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>Time dilation occurs for that same reason the a book looks thinner when
>>>viewed on end. It is a geometrical property. Another observer can see the
>>>wide view of the book at the same time, but does not search for a causal
>>>explanation beyond the laws of perspective.
>>>
>>>Time dilation is similarly symmetrical. The different observations are
>>>geometrically related.
>>
>> So far so good. I understand that time dilation is mathematically
>>derived from the constancy of the measured speed of light. So in
>>essence, the question could just as appropriately have been, what is
>>the cause of the constancy of the measured speed of light?
>
>The metric of space.
Sorry. I don't see that as a satisfactory explanation. I agree
that it has to do with some interaction with something in "space" but
I need is a picture of the actual physical interaction. What is
metric? Is it made of particles? What does it have in common with
particles of matter that makes it interact with particles of matter?
>>>If time dilation were caused by a physical action based on an absolute space,
>>>then it would be an asymmetrical phenomenon and we would see a direction
>>>dependency to particle lifetimes.
>>
>> Well SR does predict a direction dependency in the form of a length
>>contraction in the observed direction of motion. Aside from that,
>>assuming for a moment that light has an absolute speed, who is to say
>>that beta decay does not depend on the actual speed of light relative
>>to the decaying particles? We all know that electromagnetic clocks
>>would be directly affected by c since light is an EM effect. These
>>type of clocks essentially guarantees a measured constancy of the
>>speed of light, IMO. So what we are really doing with EM clocks is
>>using the speed of light to measure the speed of light. The fact that
>>beta decay is in agreement with EM clocks is proof, in my eyes at
>>least, that the decay process is also tied to the speed of light
>>relative to the decaying particle. If all processes, electromagnetic
>>or otherwise are tied to c, then the measured c could not possibly be
>>the true speed of light.
>> Going back to your direction dependency argument, I am not so sure
>>that this has been properly tested at speeds that would make a
>>measurable difference. I'm not even sure it can be tested. An
>>obvious asymmetry arises from the fact that the traveling twin in the
>>twin paradox, is younger than the other twin. This is a strong
>>indication of absolute motion at some level, IMO. Why? Because, in a
>>postulated absolute motion universe, it is reasonable to assume that
>>the earth is moving at a very small fraction of the speed of light.
>>So regardless of the absolute direction of motion of either twins, the
>>fast travelling twin will always be moving much closer to the speed of
>>light than the earth-bound twin.
>The Twin Effect is no paradox. It only appears as such when we forget that
>there are at least two reference frames involved if we try to describe the
>situation from the traveling twin's viewpoint.
Sorry, I don't see why that makes a difference. The twins
directions of travel should not matter as far as I can see from the
math of SR. Only the comparative speeds matter.
>In fact time dilation is perfectly symmetrical in SR, but would not be in
>an "absolute space causes time dilation" universe. If time dilation were
>greater for objects travelling faster relative to a fixed frame, then cosmic
>rays coming from opposite sides of the earth should show different particle
>populations due to the different time dilation factors. This difference
>would be greatest in the direction of "absolute motion".
I'm assuming that this has already been tested. I do see your point
but the argument can be made that if matter is affected by a variable
speed of light as a result of absolute motion, then matter (our clocks
and rods) automatically compensates for this as its motion changes
from one inertial frame to another. Hence the constancy of the
measured speed of light. That's what I mean when I say that we use
the speed of light to measure the speed of light. What we all seem to
forget is that we are prisoners of a recursive situation. We can help
but use our rods and clocks to measure the same rods and clocks. We
should not be surprised if we notice that they stay the same. We are
not measuring anything really. We are just comparing quantities. If
the quantities change proportionately, we won't notice a change. I
strongly suspect that this is exactly what happens when matter moves,
a proportionate change takes place. This does not in any way forbid
absolute motion. At least, not in my mind.
>> I entertain the notion that the solution to all this is tied to
>>finding the cause of inertial motion. I find it fun to speculate that
>>inertial motion somehow requires energy (the causal mechanism) at some
>>yet undetected level and that there's only enough energy in the
>>"vacuum" to support the motion of a moving body up to the speed of
>>light. As an object approaches the speed of light most of the energy
>>is used to maintain the object's speed in that direction and all other
>>processes suffer as a consequence, hence the slow aging twin.
>>Direction does not matter.
>
>This is a rewarding approach. The proper speed of all material particles is
>the same. For a simplified approach to this see "Relativity Visualized", by
>Lewis Carroll Epstein.
Thanks. I'll take a look.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: Re: holonomic constraints and generalized coordinates
From: candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
Date: 26 Oct 1996 23:47:57 GMT
Chris Hecker:
|> Say I've got a 2D point, with coordinates (r,theta). Now, clearly, the
|> constraint
|>
|> r - c = 0
|>
|> for a constant c will constrain the point to be on a circle of radius c.
|> This reduces our generalized coordinates to just theta, as we'd expect.
|> We can write the Langrangian, or whatever we want to do with this
|> coordinate and everything will work.
|>
|> Now, what happens if I pick (x,y) for my coordinates instead of
|> (r,theta), but I want the same circle constraint:
|>
|> x^2 + y^2 - c^2 = 0
|>
|> This is a single scalar constraint, so we should be able to pick x or y
|> for our generalized coordinate and do dynamics on it _without_
|> referencing the constraint equation (except to solve for the other
|> coordinate if we need it for something). This is the confusing part to
|> me.
There is really no problem with this. Consider your example of motion
on a circle. For simplicity, let mass=1 and c=1.
(x')^2 (y')^2
L = ------ + ------ subject to x^2 + y^2 = 1
2 2
A little algebra shows that this is equivalent to:
1 (x')^2
L = - -------
2 (1-x^2)
Lagrange's equation of motion (after a bit of simplification) is:
(1-x^2) x'' + x (x')^2 = 0
To see that this is in fact the correct result, let x=sin(theta).
Then, as expected,
(theta)'' = 0
Hope this helps.
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Einstein's disks
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 00:17:09 GMT
In article <326FAE43.15D3@ovpr.uga.edu>,
RICHARD J. LOGAN wrote:
>
>In the 1915 (I believe that's the date) paper on general relativity,
>Einstein discusses a hypothetical situation where two bodies, seperated
>by huge distance from other matter in the universe, hover above one
>another. One body is spherical (as measured by rods on the body) the
>other body is an oblate spheroid (as measured by rods on the body).
>There is a relative rotation of one body with respect to the other
>(rotation about an axis that goes through the centers of both bodies).
>This is a quick description of Einsteins detailed set up for the thought
>experiment.
This is in his book, RELATIVITY, except the bodies are
disks rather than spheroids.
>Einstein then asks the question, "what is the cause of the difference
>between the two bodies" and goes on to argue that the cause must lie
>outside the system being considered. I have always interpretted this as
>an attempt by Einstein to show that there is a concept of absolute space
>contained in newtonian physics (an observer trained in classical
>mechanics would argue the nonspherical body was the body that was
>"really" rotating and that the rotation was with respect to absolute
>space) but that this concept is not based on observable facts. Einstein
>then goes on to discuss the equivalence principle and derive the
>equations of general relativity.
The emphasis should be on the last sentence. The point of the
example is that centrifugal force in the noninertial frame is,
by the principle of equivalence, to be treated as a legitimate
gravitational field. He mentions that the source must be
something external only by way of saying never mind its source.
By SR certain effects take place due to the motion of the
disk, but in the noninertial frame there is no motion, so
these effects must be attributed to the gravitational
field ( i.e. centrifugal force field. )
Then, again by the principle of equivalence, these same
effects must be exhibited by any gravitational field. Thus
he is deriving GR.
Sorry for butting in.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: On Religion: Can we at least agree on this truth?
From: Andrew Lias
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:54:54 -0700
Siegfried wrote:
>
> Andrew Lias wrote:
> >Kevin B Black wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <543g4a$k93@news.proaxis.com>, Siegfried wrote:
> >> >Here is my contention:
> >> >
> >> >With regard to the existence of a god (like the Christian one) there are
> >> >three general options: 1. God does not exist, 2. God exists and is
> >> >malevolent, 3. God exists and is benevolent.
> >> >
> >> What happened to option 4? God exists and is indifferent.
> >
> >Let's not forget polytheism. :-)
>
> I was only talking about one god (see above).
And I was only being a wag (see smiley). If I were offering a serious
critique of your contention I would have noted that, in addition to the
forth "indifference" option, one could postulate a God with variable
characteristics or multiple characteristics, for instance a god that was
periodically benevolent and periodically malevolent, or a god that was
benevolent towards Kurdish yak herders, malevolent towards penguin
fanciers, and indifferent towards everyone else (with occasional
benevolence towards left handed dyslexics). We could, in short,
postulate a god that is every bit as complex as a human being, with a
multitude of moral hues.
> Besides, polytheism is an
> impossibility if the god or gods are to be omnipotent beings (there could
> only be one "most powerful being").
Omnipotence wasn't explicit in your statement, although "like the
Christian one" might be construed as an implicit presumption. Never the
less, even if we insist on omnipotence, I fail to see why we couldn't
have multiple omnipotent deities. Being all-powerful is not necessarily
the same as "most powerful", although I would hate to be a god in such a
circumstance given that any one of a multi-god omnipotent pantheon
could negate the existence of any of the others.
Finally, if we do exlude polytheism from the consideration, we ought, at
the least, note that it is an exclusion. Omnipotent mono-deities are
*not* the only dieties that people believe in, and polytheisms abound in
human mythology. Any point that you make about deities that excludes
polytheism is, therefore, a limited point at best.
--
Andrew Lias | anrwlias@wco.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.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.zoom.com/personal/anrwlias
Subject: Gravity In Intervals?
From: "Darren Swersky"
Date: 27 Oct 96 00:07:12 GMT
A beam of light spreads by its distance squared. Therefore, its intensity
must decrease by its distance squared. At some distance, the beam will be
so spread out that the individual photons will no longer be touching.
Relativists believe photons are indivisible, and while I don't agree, I
don't see any reason for photons to split up in a beam anyhow. Therefore,
at some point, another system will receive only one photon at a time. Let's
go a little farther. Perhaps a beam of light can transverse infinity, but
at distant points, it will only reach some systems at a rate of one photon
per year, and farther out per millenium, etc. This way, a beam of light
could extend to infinity in the form of intervals without some strange
problem arrising. As long as the beam of light is relatively stationary,
the intervals should be regular and not probability reliant. A force of
gravity, as defined by Newtons' equations, weakens over distance squared,
just like light. Let's fill in the blanks- is it possible that gravity
travels like a beam of light? If it's caused by gravitons, whether they
cause a space-time curvature or if they act as a bridge as defined by my
bridge theory of gravity and magnetism, could they travel in a spherical
shape by default, and reach infinite distances in intervals? Could gravity
therefore be a finite force, travelling at a finite speed but being able to
reach infinite distances? And most importantly, could gravity behave as an
electromagnetic wave just like light? This would certainly tie gravity and
magnetism together.
Let me know what you think.
Darren Swersky
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 00:49:20 GMT
In article , wrote:
>You must realize (difficult as it may be) that what Newton though of
>the subject has nothing to do with the issue, only what's in his
>physics is relevant. ..............
This is true if "prior" is taken to mean "logically prior",
but I took it to mean "historically prior", in which case
Newton's opinions were not only relevant, they were practically
Law. In the preface to Newton's OPTICKS it's noted that
Young's work on interference almost went unnoticed in
England because it contradicted Newton.
I would also note that Mach and Born both discuss Newton's
absolute space in all earnestness. Are they to be consigned
to the booby hatch with me?
>Actually, the aether got into physics as an attempt to solve the
>crisis brought up by the electromagnetic theory. ...................
Actually, no. It was the wave theory of light which required
an ether, E&M; or not. Huygens discussed the ether and its properties
before 1700. After 1800, many including Fresnel worked on it.
Maxwell, in his treatise, notes that it is "unphilosophical"
to postulate a new medium for every phenomenom seeming to
require one, but then thinks that since light and electrical
disturbances can now be explained by the same medium, the ether
gains credibility.
Treatment of the history of the ether concept is a perfect
example of whig history. Your only reference to it was by its
point of contact with current theory. Even a long book
I found on The Rise of the Wave Theory of Light gave work
on the ether short shrift, frankly confessing the fact in
a section near the end.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 00:21:10 GMT
In article <54sf5g$4vd@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, bjon@ix.netcom.com
(Brian Jones) wrote:
>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote[in part]:
>
>>............. 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.
>
>>Best regards,
>
>>Louis Savain
>
>Howdy, Louis, best regards to you.
>Time is separate from distance and speed.
If you mean *measured* time, I don't think so. My own understanding
and the interesting explanation that you offer below seem to
contradict that assertion.
>If two clocks are started together side-by-side, and then separated,
>and then reunited, they will disagree. It has to do with the clocks
>themselves, and it is their internal (natural) rhythms that are
>involved. For some reason, a clock's intrinsic rhythm varies with its
>(absolute) speed thru space. (It's not merely a relative thing because
>there is no outside observer, and no distance or speed measurements
>involved in the given example, just two clocks, each doing its own
>"thing.")
I leaning heavily in that direction. What I'm looking for is the
"some reason" part. One of the problems with the word "relative" is
that even though inertial frames are said to be relative (which means
that there are related or that there should be some sort of physical
link between them), this physical link is nowhere to be found in the
theory. What maintains this relativity is a total mystery. I hate
mysteries. :-)
> What could slow this internal beat? Mass increase could, if
>it were an actual and not merely an observer-dependent mass increase.
Well I agree that whatever it is, it must be actual since the clocks
do show an *absolute* discrepancy when they are brought together at
the same frame. Isn't it funny how there can exist all these
intertwined absolute quantities in conjunction with a theory that is
purported to forbid absolutes.
>And what would cause this absolute (not relative to the observer) mass
>increase? Inertia. A proposed cause of inertia is the distant matter.
>It was said that inertia is a force similar to gravity, but one that
>increases with distance so that a distant star has more effect on us
>than our own sun/star.
I have my own amazingly simple understanding of inertia but...
> The faster a clock moves thru space, the more
>inertia it has, thereby slowing down its internal beat because every
>particle becomes more massive, making their internal motions more
>difficult.
I don't see how an increase in a particle's inertia can slow down
its internal motion while having no effect on its "external" motion,
i.e., its motion through space, although this is a better attempt at
an explanation as any that I've seen so far. Also you have not shown
the physical link between speed and inertia. Why are they related?
> Light, although it has "zero rest mass" (no mass prior to
>emission), does have an actual mass as it moves (it may be callled
>"pure energy," but it is affected by gravity), so even light can not
>move but so fast against this inertia force from the stars.
I tend to agree. There must be something unique to a light quantum
that causes its momentum to be as high as it can possibly be. Normal
matter does not have this behavior.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 01:40:23 GMT
moggin: (three different posts)
|> If most post-modernists were frauds, you would be entirely right
|> After going a couple or three rounds with the science whizzes,
|> I'm beginning to see how Matthew may have developed his debating style.
|> Much in this discussion is obscure -- for example, it's not clear
|> to me how you can claim more than the least vestiges of literacy. I
|> suppose we'll both have to remain in the dark.
Each of your posts follows the same recipe: two parts empty prose,
one part insult, and a dash of bad metaphor. What is your goal
in writing?
Finally, you said:
|> I further invite anyone who wants to continue the Newton Defense
|> to argue with you, instead of me, since you're much better qualified
|> to carry on the debate.
But the Newton question is *not* a subjective debate.
Newtonian mechanics is an APPROXIMATION. That it *does* work
as an approximation is one of the greatest triumphs of science.
(and the reason why Russell's .sig is spot on). I submit that
your difficulties in this matter were a result of your willingness
to argue without having thought carefully about what it was you
wanted to say.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: "Essential" reality (was: When did Nietzsche wimp out?)
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 04:47:00 GMT
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) wrote:
>-*------
>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) wrote:
>>> 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.
>In article <54riqt$hm8@news-central.tiac.net>,
>Ken MacIver wrote:
>> How so?
>Christianity provides the classic example. A non-believer can
>find the seminary classroom, can study the texts, can learn the
>catechism, can investigate the questions within the faith, yet --
>as most Christians will explain -- he is not *really* prepared to
>learn about Christianity until his heart is loosened and the
>Spirit fills him.
As an intellectual proposition, this, of course is untrue. As a
factual proposition, I also doubt that "most" Christians would say
this. If you are speaking of some type of charismatic "get god" old
timey baptists, then ,well, those folks surely don't need any texts
but will get fed what they should have by a fire eating preacher on a
need to know basis.
>There is no comparable passage of faith in the sciences. If a
>student learns how to engage the relevant questions, perform the
>relevant research, intelligently analyze the results, and write
>up the results (all issues of performance, not belief), it does
>not matter whether he is some kind of Platonist who believes that
>he is investigating the ultimate Reality or a Buddhist who thinks
>it is all illusion or a science skeptic who thinks it is just a
>meaningless game. Whatever one's metaphysics and epistemology,
>as long as they do not reduce a person to dysfunction (hence, the
>requirement about finding their way to the classroom), they are
>enough to learn and do science. There is no faith to which one
>must leap, no metaphysical tenets that one must accept.
I think you are confusing *belief* with knowledge.
Ken MacIver
Subject: Re: holonomic constraints and generalized coordinates
From: vdananic@jagor.srce.hr (Vladimir Dananic)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 01:50:32 GMT
Chris Hecker (checker@netcom.com) wrote:
: Say I've got a 2D point, with coordinates (r,theta). Now, clearly, the
: constraint
: r - c = 0
: for a constant c will constrain the point to be on a circle of radius c.
: This reduces our generalized coordinates to just theta, as we'd expect.
: We can write the Langrangian, or whatever we want to do with this
: coordinate and everything will work.
: Now, what happens if I pick (x,y) for my coordinates instead of
: (r,theta), but I want the same circle constraint:
: x^2 + y^2 - c^2 = 0
: This is a single scalar constraint, so we should be able to pick x or y
: for our generalized coordinate and do dynamics on it _without_
: referencing the constraint equation (except to solve for the other
: coordinate if we need it for something). This is the confusing part to
: me. While any value of theta was a valid configuration, x and y both
: have ranges over which they're valid, or else the other variable is
: imaginary. What's going on? Can I not reduce this system to 1DOF in
: these coordinates? I could use Lagrange multipliers to "keep the point
: on the circle," but if I want to use generalized coordinates am I stuck
: with (r,theta)? Is theta the only generalized coordinate possible for
: this system?
: Actually, maybe that answers my question: are the only coordinates
: allowed to be called "generalized" those which can range over any value
: and still yield a valid configuration (I seem to remember something like
: this in Goldstein)? I guess that makes sense, but that sure does make
: generalized coordinates a lot more limiting than I originally thought.
: Am I missing something?
: Chris
Perhaps you're missing the fact that the constraint x^2+y^2-c^2=0
CANNOT be solved neither for x nor for y in a one-valued way i.e.
either is y=+sqrt(c^2-x^2) or is y=-sqrt(c^2-x^2). In order to resolve
this two-valuedness you must transform (x,y) coordinate to some other
coordinates (not necessary polar) in which the constraint CAN be solved
in an appropriate way.
Vladimir
Subject: Re: liquid/gas Temperature
From: Bob Funchess
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:36:08 GMT
pclthoma@pop3.connectnet.com (Charles Thomas) wrote:
> Why is liquid Nitrogen in an open container so cold?
>
> According to Bolyes (spelling) law the relationship of temperature to
> gas pressure is roughly equal.
Boyle's Law is that p1V1 = p2V2 at constant temperature. I think maybe
you
mean Charles' Law. Both of them are, at best, historical curiosities; I
really
don't understand why so much is made of them in high school science
class
instead of just teaching the ideal gas law straight off: pV = nRT. You
can
rearrange this to give p/T = nR/V, which is effectively Charles' Law.
By the way, the temperature in any of the gas laws is _absolute_
temperature,
not Fahrenheit or Celsius. You can do it in Rankine if you insist, but
you
still have to start counting at absolute zero.
> Example: if Freon is released at 35 PSI the temperature of the gas will be
> 35 degrees.
Umm... No.
First, I'm not sure what "released" means; if it implies the volume is
changing
then that messes up the pressure/temperature ratio even for an ideal gas
(it's
even worse for real gasses, because of the J-T effect). Second, the fact
that
the temperature and pressure are proportional to each other at constant
volume
does not necessarily mean they're equal.
> Does this only apply to closed systems?
Yes. It also doesn't apply to any gas which is sufficiently non-ideal
to exist
as a (horrors!) liquid under the conditions of the experiment.
Regards,
Bob Funchess
Hey, maybe if we stopped teaching Boyle's Law in chemistry we'd have
time to
work in something about torque...
--
Dr. Robert B. Funchess bobf@msi.com
Senior Scientist, Scientific Support Voice (619) 458-9990 x738
Molecular Simulations Inc. FAX (619) 458-0431
9685 Scranton Road
San Diego, CA 92121-3752 http://www.msi.com/
#DISCLAIMER******************************************************************#
+Unless stated otherwise, everything in the above message is personal opinion+
+and nothing in it is an official statement of Molecular Simulations Inc. +
#****************************************************************************#
Subject: Re: PEACE VACCINE (or more precisely PEACE GENETIC-VACCINE)
From: "Darren Swersky"
Date: 27 Oct 96 01:08:49 GMT
// wrote in article ...
>
> In article <53piko$m2j@news.iastate.edu>,
> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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)
> >
>
> You know, if Archimedes Plutonium and Wellington start posting,
> it'll be just like old times.
>
> With guys like these, who says the Internet is getting worse? ;)
>
> ----------------------------
> Steve "Chris" Price
> Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
> Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
> University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
> raven@kaiwan.com
>
It would be very nice if, after I have my theory published, if I ever do
(and hopefully soon), I could have a unit named in my honour (of course,
I'd like for someone else to do it for me, otherwise it would, in my
opinion, seem a little greedy). Unfortuneatly, "Swerskyans" sounds
fairly... rugged to me. Perhaps a name change would be in order.
Darren Swersky
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: Quark
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:33:33 -0500
magnus.lidgren wrote:
>
> Trying to educate myself within the subject - A photon - what is it really ? .
> Thanks to all those initiated, sharing their wisdom by responding to this issue !
>
What you have observed is the classic conundrum involving the question
of the particle versus wave theory for light. Science will in general
develop models of the physical world that will attempt to describe it in
a fashion that will show precicely the way phenomenon will exist in
nature and be able to generate predictions with regard to how the
physical world will show itself to be under various circumstances. In
general, in the late twentieth century there were two general theories
that were used to describe light. Particle theory and wave theory.
Both theories were viable under different circumstances, and had
intrinsic merit when it came to predicting the properties of light in
general. However, when each of them were to be used, and not to be
used, and the circumstances under which they were valid or not valid
were not well defined, and thus did not provide a complete description
of electromagnetic radiation in general due to the inexact properties of
definition and a failure to define exactly under what conditions the
various descriptions would apply. Ther propagation of light through a
transparent media is a classic example of when the old 'basic photon
theory' of light would break down and be invalid.
> A short summary of some of the questions and answers:
>
> (The summary below should of cource in no way be regarded as a judgement with respect
> to scientifical or pedagogical skill of above mentioned initiated, only, as I forget
> quickly, as an expression what it all has condenced into in terms of my personal
> understanding.)
>
> Q1. What is a photon really made of ? Does 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) ?
>
> Majority opinion was that the photon just is and does not consists of minor parts.
>
There are of course, some types of particles or 'quanta' which are
divisible into smaller ones, however they might not be considered
'elementary quanta' (like particles built up of several quarks). There
are, however, basic elementary quanta.
> Q2. Do all different photons, if they are not absorbed or reflected, also
> travel with identical speed when traveling through a media, for example glass ?
>
> All pointed out that the photon travel with different speed in different media
> according to the index of refraction for the media.
>
I should remind you that basic ancient wave theory for light as derived
in the nineteenth century was able to predict even the speed of light as
it traveled through a non-vacuous media. It was related to the
permitivity and permeability of the media (ie, the general
susceptibility of the material to electricity and magnetism), and it
used the same general equations as those used to predict the speed of
light in a vacuum.
> Q3. As I understand it, Quantum mechanics states that when a photon makes
> its way through a glass body, it is absorbed and (a new?) (re?)-emitted a number of
> times before it passes through. Every time "the photon" actually is a "real" photon it
> travels at c speed and during "the absorption period" "it" stands still ??
>
> Majority opinion was that the photon goes through repeated absorbtions
> and re-emissions (in the forward direction) thus delaying "its" passage
> through the glass in correlation with the index of refraction for glass.
>
> Q4.If a photon is truly absorbed by the media glass, in what way does "it"
> know (as it then has ceased to exist ?) what direction to take when
> emitted again and how does it know what frequency to recover?? Is all
> information, needed to guide the "new" photon to the right path and frequency,
> delivered from the "old" photon to the glass atoms during absorption and
> present in the glass atoms while "the photon" is in "absorpted mode".??
>
> Majority opinion was that "true" absorption could not have happened, re-emission would
> then have random direction. Where the information about direction was situated when
> not carried by the photon was more an open question. Perhaps one photon on its way
> could guide another while this was emitted , (not quite clear, this issue). Recovering
> frequency, however, could be possible through the specific amount of energy delivered
> to electrons, going from one lower shell to a higher and then back again.
>
As you can see, many of the humans of this time period could not figure
out whether the photon was absorbed or not. Basic quantum mechanics
would state that a particle would situate itself as a probability
distribution within the schrodinger wave, and would interact with the
glass at specified points and then be re-emitted at random directions.
This is precicely what occurs when you have non-transparent glass, but
that is not the question being considered. I should also remind you
that transparancy occurs when there are no energy levels being
interacted with, thus you do not have a sort of laser effect going on.
For a good description of what goes on with respect to light in a
transparent medium and the question of particle and wave descriptors, it
is a good idea to remember what the mathematical expressions 'particle'
and 'wave' mean to begin with. When one has a phenomenon where you have
continuous free space, where each location in that space will affect the
surrounding medium, you have what in mathematics is called a 'continuous
function', and can build such properties as 'coherence' in a periodic
spatial function such as a wave. I should remind you that the spatial
location of 'potential quantum transitions' or 'photons' is confined
within the spatial characteristics of the schrodinger wave (or light
wave in general). In other words, if you have a node in a schrodinger
wave, at that location there is 0 probability, and there are still
probability constraints as defined by that wave. I should also remind
you what is meant by a particle. A particle in general can be said to
be a phenomenon that is defined as localized within a specific region of
space. In some ways like the 'point' on a Cartesian coordinate system,
though still capable of taking up space. Many relations of 'parts to
the whole' and 'points to the curve' were devised by ones like Newton,
who were even further back in human history. When you have the light
wave interacting with relatively localized phenomenon like specific
atoms and their orbitals, you have basic photon interaction. When you
have refraction and the slowing down of light in glass, the entire
schrodinger wave interacts with the glass to produce effects that reduce
down to those calculated in the nineteenth century for electromagnetism
and glass, because the entire schrodinger field will act much in the way
that an 'electromagnetic field' was calculated to then. In some ways
the phenomenon might be described as a 'virtual photon' interacting with
the glass and then being reabsorbed by the wavefront as it would pass
through the medium. I should remind you that it does not do so in the
'random photon' fashion as described by basic particle mechanics, also,
each portion of schroding field interacts with the glass in an even
fashion. If it did not, the wave front would quickly get 'chopped up'
as it would move through the glass and we would not be able to see a
viable image as it would travel out the other side of the transparent
material. It is the whole schrodinger field that interacts. In theory
you could define it in terms of 'virtual photons' so long as you would
remember that they were behaving in coherence with each other, but then
they would not be engaging in the probabilistic fashion that we would
generally associate with photons. In general, when you consider light
as it moves through a transparent medium you are dealing with
interactions that are more macroscalar with respect to the light wave,
and thus deal with the whole schodinger wave, and thus use equations
that reduce to maxwell's equations, rather than localized phenomenon
with respect to the wave, in which case the phenomonon would be
photonic.
For more information dealing with the ancient mysteries concerning light
I suggest you read 'Scientific American - The Ancient Quandries
Concerning Descriptors for Quantum Phenomenon', June, 2075.
Maybe someday you humans might even be able to fix my replicators.
Quark - for the finest in the Bajoran system, or anywhere.
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:29:20 GMT
In article <54ubig$jj1@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article , wrote:
>
>>You must realize (difficult as it may be) that what Newton though of
>>the subject has nothing to do with the issue, only what's in his
>>physics is relevant. ..............
>
>This is true if "prior" is taken to mean "logically prior",
>but I took it to mean "historically prior", in which case
>Newton's opinions were not only relevant, they were practically
>Law. In the preface to Newton's OPTICKS it's noted that
>Young's work on interference almost went unnoticed in
>England because it contradicted Newton.
>
That's not science, just the well known phenomenon of influence by
authority. Human relations, in other words. The bottom line is
simply, does F= ma involve or depend on an absolute frame. The answer
is no. The rest are musings.
>
>Actually, no. It was the wave theory of light which required
>an ether, E&M; or not. Huygens discussed the ether and its properties
>before 1700. After 1800, many including Fresnel worked on it.
>
Possible. As I mentioned before, once you've a wave theory, within
classical mechanics, it requires a medium since the wave speed is
imbedded in the equation.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 02:52:43 GMT
candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
> Each of your posts follows the same recipe: two parts empty prose,
> one part insult, and a dash of bad metaphor. What is your goal
> in writing?
In this, particular discussion, it's to defend myself against
pig-ignorant attacks from people like you. And yours, pray tell?
moggin:
[to Matt]
>> The rest of your post looks like an attempt to have the entire
>>argument over again. Here's a better idea (and one I've suggested
>>before): you said, "Newton's physics was wrong" and "Newton was
>>just incorrect." If you accept your own statements, that's an end
>>to it. If you disagree with them, then you can go ahead and argue
>>with yourself. I further invite anyone who wants to continue the
>>Newton Defense to argue with you, instead of me, since you're much
>>better qualified to carry on the debate.
Jeff:
> But the Newton question is *not* a subjective debate.
In other words, you think you're right, whatever it is that you
happen to think. (You forgot to mention that part -- an oversight,
I'm sure, rather than a sign of irremediable brain damage.) But if
you knew how to read, you would have noticed my suggestion that you
take it up with Matt.
> Newtonian mechanics is an APPROXIMATION. That it *does* work
> as an approximation is one of the greatest triumphs of science.
> (and the reason why Russell's .sig is spot on). I submit that
> your difficulties in this matter were a result of your willingness
> to argue without having thought carefully about what it was you
> wanted to say.
Unfortunately, you once again forgot to mention what if anything
you were thinking about, while the remarks that you _did_ offer are
based entirely on misconceptions, aside from the word in caps. (You
don't have to yell.) So given you _are_ willing to think carefully,
you must be incapable of it.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: 2nd law, a general view
From: Anonymous
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:03:34 -0500
>
> Quentin Rowe wrote:
>
> Why are scientists so concerned with preserving the conservation of energy
> within the entire (infinite) universe, when we can't even conserve the
> available energy on the planet?
>
> Quentin Rowe roq@chch.planet.org.nz
> Christchurch
> NEW ZEALAND -the worlds best kept secret
> .......................................
> : KNOWLEDGE, the Fruit of Experience :
> : -Ferments to Myth, Distills to Fact :
> :.....................................:
The laws of thermodynamics are far from a trivial phenomenon and do not
deal solely with energy conservation, although that is one aspect of
thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are the ultimate basis for
life, good and evil, and everything that exists. That which we call
constructive, good, or righteous, is called 'low entropy', that which we
call 'evil' is known of as 'high entropy'. Entropy is defined in terms
of probability. To be more precise, that which has low probability of
occurance (one state out of many states), has a low entropy. That which
has a high probability (is likely and common in occurance, or is a state
which exists that does not have many other possible occurances besides
that state), is high in entropy. What is the probability that you would
be spontaneously assembled from base components? Ie., if a vat were
filled with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and all the types of atoms that
make up your physical body, what are the odds that those molecules would
randomly come together to produce a human, or you? Technically, that
probability is non-zero, for out of all the positional locations that
the atoms may take you are one of them (for you are here), however that
probability is astronomically low. When you consider the unique
locations of codons on DNA, molecules within cells, the odds that all
the cells would coalesce with the same DNA and structures, not to
mention the macroscopic organs and tissues as well, the probability that
the molecules would instantly randomly coalesce is a probability that
would dwarf in the extreme even such conundrums such as the 'universe
full of monkeys pounding typewriters' type.
There is one commonly accepted method by which entropy can be decreased,
and another method that I used to debate might also be a method that
entropy might be decreased as well, although that method is negligible
on the macroscopic level and on the cosmic scale these days.
There are two commonly accepted methods in which entropy is increased.
The first method is known as the first law of thermodynamics, and is
commonly known as the 'conservation of energy' (or matter-energy).
Humans, on a basal level, being 'animals', kill plants or other animals
to obtain energy in order to survive. The generation of destruction
(killing plants) to generate some other good (maintanance of corporal
form) is one method by which evil is generated. There is a second
method by which evil is generated as well. This is through the use of
the second law. When there are many other possible states, destruction
may result from the generation of 'randomness', which may select other
states rather than a particular one. Parts breaking down, persons dying
in automobile crashes, and woe being visited upon men through no fault
of their own are all examples of the second law, just as warfare and
theft may be common and extreme examples of the first law.
There is one commonly accepted method by which entropy is decreased.
That is through the input of Gibb's free energy (or energy in general)
into a system. The input of energy in the form of sunlight upon the
surface of the earth provides for the generation of new plant structures
which we can later imbibe. If a part breaks down we can use use energy
from coal and oil to forge new steel into parts to replace the old
ones. And if we have papers scattered across our desk we can use energy
from our muscles coordinated through our eyes and brains to sort those
papers into more ordered masses. And if we are intelligent enough, we
can even find ways to decrease entopy even more efficiently, and use
less energy in the bargain. That sorting also take place through
enzymes in our body, which generate what we know of as 'life'.
I am not sure if quantum mechanics may provide a second method by which
entropy might be decreased through the generation of quanta from a
schrodinger field, however even if that were so, the generation of
negative entropy from quantum mechanics would only have been non
negligible during the early formation of the universe. Now those
effects would be negligible, and would contribute very little at all,
even if quantum mechanics were to be a method.
Those are the laws of thermodynamics, the fundamental basis upon which
all life exists.
-P.S. This is a reposting of a previous news letter in this group.
After my reviewing my previous posting I noted that one example of the
second law is misspelled words. Out of the various possible chains of
letters in the alphabet only a subset of them are ones that we would
find in the dictionary. I hope to have 'decreased the entropy' of this
posting in that manner. I also posted this message to a few other
newsgroups.
Subject: Re: Gravity and Electromagnetism:Unified Field Theory
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 03:05:42 GMT
In <54u2js$qmq@ux2.accesscom.net> jim.goodman@accesscom.net (Jim
Goodman) writes:
>
>mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) wrote:
>
>>In article <54jd0v$7pk@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>
>>> But we do know the dimensions of the nucleus, don't we? If this
is
>>> so, it shouldn't be such a great step to apply general relativity.
I am
>>> not sure how the equation would look, but you would probably not
need
>>> the gravitational constant, since you are treating the mass in
terms of
>>> its energy equivalent.
>
>>You need the gravitational constant even then. But that's not the
real
>>problem.
>
>>> Since the Tensor in general relativity refers to
>>> the energy distribution, why couldn't we just substitute the
appropiate
>>> values into the equation?
>
>>The problem is that the energy is not just spread out, its position
can be
>>quantum-mechanically *uncertain*, which is a different sort of thing.
>>General relativity allows the energy to be spread out over space, but
it
>>makes no provision for the energy to be in a *superposition* of
states in
>>which it is at point A and states in which it is at point B.
>
>>Some people have proposed ignoring the distinction and using the
>>quantum-mechanical average or "expectation" value, but that creates
other
>>problems.
>>when you observe where a particle is.>
>
>And whether a numerical calculation can force a particle anywhere!!!!
>
>I like the simple explanations of qm seen from a statistical
>interpretation.
>
>A particle is interacted with and we still do not know its exact
>position or momentum. Even at the point of interaction.
>
> Experiments with large masses whose
>>positions are determined in a "Schrodinger's cat" way show that if
you want
>>this expectation-value-coupling idea to work at all, there has to be
some
>>sort of collapse. But then there are other problems. Suppose a
particle's
>>wave function is spread out over space and you observe it. The wave
>>function collapses instantaneously into a little dot; in terms of
>>expectation values, stress-energy has disappeared in one place and
>>instantaneously appeared somewhere else. GR *breaks* if you try to
plug
>>this sort of thing into it; it gives inconsistent results. So making
>>this work would involve not just imposing a particular QM
interpretation,
>>but doctoring up general relativity somehow as well.
>
>Using expectation values as approximate measured values will work
>well with most of physics, since we measure that way.
>
>
>---
>Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
>sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules
>
>
This is too hard for me. Why can't you simply find the curvature
for an ideal, isolated electron in vacua. Then formulate the equations
that account for the other quantum states, identify the terms that can
be expressed with respect to this curvature and substitute into the
equations.
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: white noise
From: mkluge@wizard.net
Date: 27 Oct 1996 03:05:55 GMT
In article <325EF546.185C@euronet.nl> <32608B91.2C4E@usa.net> <53t2k4$btd@news.cais.com> <54gih2$250@news.cais.com> <54hgan$p88@news.cais.com> <54irtc$9a9@news.cais.com> <54j8ne$kqu@news.cais.com> <54jbuu$jt0@news.cais.com> <54keu1$210@news.cais.com>,
Bernhard Schopper wrote:
>
> mkluge@wizard.net (Mark D. Kluge) wrote:
>
> >Probably not for most people, for whom the turning on of a white-noise
> >generator carries no significance. For you, however, for whatever reason, the
> >turning on of a white-noise generator brings expectations of certain dreams.
> No, it doesn't. The literature that comes with the generator makes no
> claim that it affects dreams. I discovered its effects by accidentially
> leaving it on during the night.
Perhaps it did not have any significance to you when you bought it.
But, for whatever reason, it does have significance for you now.
Perhaps you did not expect any unusual dreams the first time you used
the machine. But apparently early in your usage you began to regularly
experience unusual dreams correlated with your use of the machine. We do
not know what caused your first unusual dreams. Perhaps it was the machine,
or perhaps it was something else. Regardless, on subsequent occasions when
you turned on the machine, you did expect (or at least suspect) that you
would experience unusual dreams. Hence, unless you do an experiment in
wh8ich your expectation is not correlated with whether or not the machine
is turned on, you cannot know which (if either) is the cause of your
unusual dreams.
> >Some people are able to control the subject of their dreams. You might be one
> >of them based upon your expectation of certain dream subjects when you turn
> >the WN generator. Or your dreams might be the result of the noise generated by
> >the WN generator.
> 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.
> >Until you do a proper experiment, though, you will not know which. In
> >experiments testing the effects of a certain stimlus, it is best if the
> >subject of the experiment does not control, and is not even aware of the
> >stimulus. One should be sure that it is not the expectation of the stimulus,
> >or some other circumstance ssurrounding the application of the stimulus, that
> >yields a response. (For example, for all I know you might only turn on your WN
> >generator after you've had sardines for dinner, and sardines might affect your
> >digestion in such a way as to stimulate the dreams you are having. Now you
> >have probably avoided an error so obvious, but short of drawing a random
> >number each night before bed-time to determine whether to activate the WN
> >generator, you cannot rule out some other happening correlated with both your
> >turning on the WN generator and your unusual dreams.
> All I can say at this point is that when I turn on the WN generator, the
> dreams differ considerably. Whether this is true just in my case or also
> for the general populace, I do not know.
> Bernie
That is another question. I don't doubt that the effect you describe is
real for you. The question is what causes it. Your experiments have not
clarified the issue.
Mkluge
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: ISSP '97
From: yuichiro@yuichiro.com (Yuichiro Nakamura)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 12:31:40 +0900
The Study Committee of Sputtering & Plasma Processes, Japan Technology
Transfer Association is hosting the 4th International Symposium on
Sputtering & Plasma Processes, Kanazawa, Japan between June 4-6,1997.
Many technical papers will be presented on topics such as:
- Fundamentals of Sputtering & Plasma (Analyzing, Simulations etc.)
- Sputtering Processes (Arcing Control, High-Rate Sputtering, Via-Filling etc.)
- Reactive Sputtering (Oxide & Nitride Thin Film Coating etc.)
- Apparatus (Sputtering Target, Plasma Sources, Fabrication Technologies
of Large Scale Substrate etc.)
- Plasma Processes (PE-CVD, Etching, Charge up Phenomena, High Density
Plasma, Polymerization etc.)
- Applications (for Semiconductor-, for Electronic-, for Magnetic-, for
Display Devices (LCD and PDP, etc.), for Storage Devices (DVD,MO and HD,
etc.)
- Others
For more information, please visit the ISSP '97 web site at:
http://www.yuichiro.com/issp/.
--
Yuichiro Nakamura
Subject: Re: liquid/gas Temperature
From: frank@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 03:53:44 GMT
In article kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
writes:
> Charles Thomas (pclthoma@pop3.connectnet.com) wrote:
>
>: According to Bolyes (spelling) law the relationship of temperature to
>: gas pressure is roughly equal. Example: if Freon is released at 35 PSI
>: the temperature of the gas will be 35 degrees. Does this only apply to
>: closed systems?
>
> Perhaps the particular Freon you are talking about
> boils at 35 degrees (that would have to be Farhenheit).
I did a little work with Freon 12 a few years ago. My memory is vague
on this point, but I seem to remember an interesting bit of trivia.
Between two temperatures (the freezing point of water and room
temperature, I think), the saturation pressure in psia is numerically
close to the saturation temperature in degrees F, by pure coincidence.
In other words, at 32 F, the saturation pressure is about 32 psia,
likewise for 70 F and 70 psia. Outside this range, the relationship
diverges, of course. At 0 F the saturation pressure is hardly 0 psia.
And at -70 F, well...
Maybe this is the source of the confusion. Or maybe I'm completely off
on a tangent :-)
-- Frank Manning
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
Date: 27 Oct 1996 04:22:05 GMT
moggin (on why he posts):
|> In this, particular discussion, it's to defend myself against
|> pig-ignorant attacks from people like you. And yours, pray tell?
I tried to be as polite as possible in my last post. One main
point -- namely, that most of your posts include an insult --
was unavoidable. To call my comments "pig-ignorant" is not
reasonable.
My goal? To reach a substantive conclusion.
|> moggin:
|> [to Matt]
|>
|> >> The rest of your post looks like an attempt to have the entire
|> >>argument over again. Here's a better idea (and one I've suggested
|> >>before): you said, "Newton's physics was wrong" and "Newton was
|> >>just incorrect." If you accept your own statements, that's an end
|> >>to it. If you disagree with them, then you can go ahead and argue
|> >>with yourself. I further invite anyone who wants to continue the
|> >>Newton Defense to argue with you, instead of me, since you're much
|> >>better qualified to carry on the debate.
Me:
|> > But the Newton question is *not* a subjective debate.
moggin:
|> In other words, you think you're right, whatever it is that you
|> happen to think.
What I think was stated explicitly. I can restate it very succinctly
if you wish: gamma -> 1 is an approximation which captures the
relevant physics in most situations. One can, and should, use this
approximation in most applications. On this, I know I'm right.
There. Done.
|> (You forgot to mention that part -- an oversight,
|> I'm sure, rather than a sign of irremediable brain damage.)
Moggin, read your sentence above again. Then, ask yourself if
there was *any* constructive reason for typing it and posting it
to five newsgroups.
|> But if you knew how to read, you would have noticed my
|> suggestion that you take it up with Matt.
I did not follow your suggestion. You were of course not
obliged to respond.
Me:
|> > Newtonian mechanics is an APPROXIMATION. That it *does* work
|> > as an approximation is one of the greatest triumphs of science.
|> > (and the reason why Russell's .sig is spot on). I submit that
|> > your difficulties in this matter were a result of your willingness
|> > to argue without having thought carefully about what it was you
|> > wanted to say.
moggin:
|> Unfortunately, you once again forgot to mention what if anything
|> you were thinking about,
After reading many of your posts (and you do produce a prodigious
amount), I offered two tentative conclusions:
(i) your posts contain more insults than original ideas
(ii) you argued at length about a subject you had not thought about.
This is what I was thinking about.
|> while the remarks that you _did_ offer are based entirely on
|> misconceptions, aside from the word in caps.
Not true.
|> (You don't have to yell.) So given you _are_ willing to think
|> carefully, you must be incapable of it.
I can understand how arguing *against* so many others can be
frustrating. Maybe its a good lesson for you. But, I don't
see that it does you any good to respond (repeatedly) with
insults. If you have a point, make it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------