Newsgroup sci.physics 205247

Directory

What will happen to you in the next few days???
Find out!!!
Call 1-900-562-1000 ext 1465.
$3.99 per min. 
Must be 18 yrs. 
Serv-U (619)-645-8434.

Gordon D. Pusch  wrote in article
...
> In article <01bbc561$a5654e40$0cce77cc@michaelp> "Michael D. Painter"
>  writes:
> 
> > lucy Haye  wrote in article
> > <846466874.7093@dejanews.com>...
> > > Gordon D. Pusch, from Argonne National Lab in 26 Oct. 96 writes:
> > > 
> > >[excess noise snipped]
> >
> > All hail the new religion of AD. If you don't believe it you are a
narrow
> > minded, brain washed, lier (sic).
> > They even do the same thing that the creationist fundies do. Send
private
> > posts explaining your narrow mindedness.
> 
> Amen. Except, they didn't merely ``explain'' my wrong-mindedness to me;
> whomever it was advised me threateningly to ``lay off us'' (i.e., ADers),
> unless I wanted to look like a ``baffoon'' [sic]...  
> 
> Wish I'd save that e-mail, now --- I could've posted it, for all the net
> to see...
> 
> 
> --  Gordon D. Pusch   
> 
> But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for
=ME=...
I kept mine. The latest of two private posts states:
> 
> Your response on the newsgroups about Autodynamics
> are being voted into our "Hall of Fame" for your
> amazing logic and emotional answers.
> 
> Even though your response is public, I like to
> inform people that we will be using their responses
> as classic examples of non-scientific thinking.
> 
> Congrats!
I think it's in response to what's quoted above. In this case they are
right. The response was somewhat emotional and does not have any science in
it.
It may have been in response to me telling them again to do science where
it should be done. Until they are willing to do that it remains in my
crackpot file with overenergy devices and the rest.

Anton Hutticher :
> | ... 
> | IMHO, with justification. It was his behaviour which was responsible 
> | for much of the rudeness here. moggin as the grumpty dumpty of sci.skept 
> | (thats where I read it) ....
TAFKA (G*rd*n):
> moggin was posting into a certain context which you seem to
> be unaware of.
     That's what I was gonna say, albeit more rudely.  So I'll make 
another point.  Take Gordon, here: never has a harsh word for anyone.
Although he's received tremendous abuse from the science campers, he
continues to parry it with wit and humor.   So what happens?  Matt
criticizes him for being too witty!  You can't win.
-- moggin

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
> In article <3274E91F.5247@sdd.hp.com>, Steven Hines  writes:
> >Don't you have to believe that every event has a cause? Doesn't
> >acceptance of this proposition constitute a "passage of faith"?
> >
> Assume, yes, believe, no.  There is a difference.  Science is self
> checking and self correcting.  It makes assumptions, draws conclusions
> and checks the conclusions versus experimantal data.  But the
> assumptions aren't sacred and if the data fails to support your
> conclusions you may be forced to modify your assumptions.  It is the
> continuous cross checking that distinguishes assumptions from beliefs.
Steve (and Mati),
I found this definition of science to be satisfying for me.  It agrees
with most of what Mati has been saying and avoids much philosophy.  What
I have tried to produce is an operational definiton of science.  One 
with which you could test a person to see if he is a scientist.
Here goes:
A scientist is an historian who studies the history of things that repeat
themselves.  He uses the results of his studies to predict when/where 
history will repeat itself again.
Note that history is a sequence, but it is not necessarily a causal 
sequence.  We infer causality from repeatabliliy.  Once we make this
inference, we are in the realm of philosophy.  We don't have to go 
there (even if its fun).  
So your normal scientist takes history and chops it up in space and 
time.  He then sifts through it for repeatable sequences.  The chopping
can be pretty arbitrary.  However, the start of the sequence allows 
the scientist to *predict* the remainder of the sequence.  He may 
produce an algorithm that produces the subsequent sequence members,
but he could just as easily produce a table or list.
Lets's consider the gas law for instance.  At the beginning of the 
sequence, I have a gas in a sealed container with a piston at one 
end.  I know the temperature and pressure and composition of the gas.
The gas law tells me that if I release the (frictionless) piston 
the temperature and pressure of the gas will change.  It tells me 
each value that the temperature and pressure will have.  We did not 
even have to consider the concept of cause and effect -- give me a 
sequence of volumes and I will give you the sequence of temperatures 
and pressures.
Note how entirely pragmatic this is.  We just found the gas law to 
be a useful way to encode the sequence of states that the system 
we have defined could obtain.  We don't have to interpret it any
further than this.
My definition of scientists also implies a definition of science:
Science is the process of collecting the data from which a scientist 
can make a prediction.
Now some folks would have put "reliable predictions" above.  I didn't, 
but I will use the reliability of prediction to classify a field of
science.  The best predictions can be made in the fields of mathematics
and physics (among others) so they are known as the "hard" sciences.  The
worst predictions are made in the fields of psychology and economics (among
others) so they are known as the soft sciences.  Clearly, anything that 
repeats itself so that it can be studied can lead to a prediction and 
give rise to a field of science.  
I always thought that doctors were artists, but now they are scientists.  
I used to say that anything that had "science" in the name was almost 
certainly not a science.  I applied this to computer science, christain 
science, scientology, and others.  What I would like to see is a rating 
system for the sciences so that mathematics would have a science rating 
of 0.95, computer science would have a science rating of 0.55, and 
scientology would have a rating of 0.01.  Most folks call anything whose 
predictions they consider to be too inaccurate to be non-science.  We 
each set a cut off point.  I might consider anything with a science 
rating below 0.1 to be non-science.  You might set your cut off at 0.55 
or (even worse) 0.01.
This definition also implies that it is inappropriate to apply science to 
that part of history that does not repeat itself.  This applies to things
such as the totality of human history.  There is only one human history
and though we may study it, it will only occur once.  I could even study
and predict how human history will end (and be right), but my activity 
would not be science.  
This same thing is true for the universe that we live in.  There is only 
one, and as far as I know, it will happen only once while I am here.  We 
can study it intensely, from our study create a theory, make predictions 
from that theory, and verify those predictions.  We would still not be 
doing science because we would have to have seen at least two entire 
universes live and die to make a prediction about the next one.
I am not saying that this non-scientific activity is not useful, or that
scientists should not be involved in it.  However, instead of calling this
science, we should call it exploration.  This is what it really is.  We are
just looking around hoping to find something that will repeat itself so that
we can bring the full force of scientific inquiry down upon it.  This is
scientific exploration -- it creates new sciences.
As you can see, this definition is a fairly strict as far as others I have
seen, but it does not require much philosopy and it requires no faith.  
This scientist is concerned primarily with accurate prediction which 
forces a concern for accurate observation (measurement).  When a scientist
comes up with a theory, he says something like, "If you do this, then 
this will happen."  But he is aware of the fact that he can only predict
the future with a limited accuracy.  A good scientist specifies the 
accuracy of his predictions in time and space.  Historical theories do 
abound (Who is buried in Grant's tomb?  I have a theory),  but they are 
not scientific theories if they do not repeat.
Note that science does not really explain things, it predicts things.  Any
scientific explanation must eventually result in a prediction or it is
not a scientific explanation.  This does not mean that such an explanation
has no value or that it is not correct, it is just not scientific (which
is not a sin, necessarily).  We percieve that the most basic scientific 
theories are telling us the "why" of the universe, but in fact they 
tell us how to make truly massive predictions about that universe.  Why
does an atom's excited electron emit a photon and return to a lower
energy state?  We don't know.  We know that it does, however and the
theory of quantum mechanics allows us to predict that it will.  It
only gives us the lifetime as a probability, however, but the accuracy
_is_ specified.  That's all we need to call it science.
If we say that the electron is "seeking" a lower energy state, we are
interpreting the theory.  Scientists don't have to go there (even if 
its fun).
-leonard

I have a couple of questions for you big time physics majors.
1.) The displacement of an object over any time interval is
always________ the distance it travels over that same time interval.
    A.  greater than or equal to
    B.  less than or equal to
    C.  equal to
    D.  greater than
2.)  For uniformly accelerated motion, which of the following quatities
must be zero?
    A.  the initial velocity
    B.  the rate of change of acceleration
    C.  the rate of change of velocity
    D.  the rate of change of displacement
3.)  In the absence of air resistance, objects fall at constant
   =
   A.  velocity
   B.  speed
   C.  acceleration
   D.  distance each successive second
4.)  A car and a truck, both starting from rest, have the same
acceleration but the      truck accelerates for twice the length of
time.  Compared to the car, the truck      will travel
  A.  three times as far
  B.  four times as far
  C.  1.4 times as far
  D.  none of the above
5.)  A object is dropped from rest.  If the time interval it falls is
cut in half, the      distance it falls will
  A.  double
  B.  be the same
  C.  increase by a factor of four
  D.  none of the above
6.)  The unit of velocity in the SI is
  =
  A.  m
  B.  m/s
  C.  m/s=B2
  D.  none of the above
Please respond as soon as possible.  If you can answer some that will be
great, if you can answer them all that will be even better.  I am a
student in college and am having difficulty with some of these problems,
most are just think problems, which most of physics is.  Help would be
appreciated.
=2E-,--.  ,-_/   ,-_/,.                  =
  `|__/  '  |   ' |_|/,-.,-.,-,-.,-.,-.,-.
   | \ ,.   |,.  /| | |-'|  | | |,-|| |`-.
 `-'  ``'   |`'  `' `'`-''  ' ' '`-^' '`-'
         /  |
         `--'
R.J. Hermans, Internet and Computer Consultant
Email:rhermans@e-tex.com
Phone:(903)723-0656  Pager:(903)727-6279

> 
> How the HELL do you know that >in death you stand alone< and that >
> The dead do not know that they are dead. They live
> > within the memory of themeselves in the world of yesterday across the space time barrier. They do not think fresh thought but remain within themselves review
> Have you been dead????  Perhaps you have!
 Ans. from Jerry:
    According to God, I cannot die. Thus I will be born and die and born again
on another planet and die. etc. Yes, I have been dead many times temporarily.
  The undeerstanding of the dead is very simple. If we exceed the speed of light, we
do not enter yesterday but the memory of yesterday. Thus the memory of yesterday
exists. Thus when we die, the memory of us still exists in space and time.Thus we
die yet we do not know we are dead. 
  Of course, this condition doesn't last. We may reincarnate to another life, we
may enter the pit of hell for a fast destruction our soul (no pain since Jesus took
over the Godhead), or we may enter the various Kingdoms of Heaven and become 
collectivized as part of collective memory.
  Jerry (Jewish Prophet of God) (Jesus couldn't come, he sent me instead)

Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>To illustrate by example, consider the "proton decay" which
> was postulated some ten years ago or so.  The question here
> is whether a proton is an absolutely stable particle or whether
> it decays with a finite lifetime.  OK, so you sit on to of a huge
> pile of protons and look for a decay.  Few years went by and
> nothing happened.  Does this mean that protons are absolutely
> stable?  NO, it just sets a limit on their lifetime, a limit which 
>depends both on the amount of matter being monitored and
> on the span of time you've spent monitoring the current limit
> is very high (10^35 years as I recall) but it is not infinite 
>(which the phrase "absolutely stable" implies). 
And, if you are really sincere, it is even worse than that. Having spent
all that time without a single proton decaying, you even don't know, if
you are looking in the right direction, i.e. if your instruments are able
to detect such a decay :-(((...
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
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.

This is what Gidon Cohen wrote:
> All I am looking for is further investigation.
Equidistant letter spacing - of an English translation of Genesis? 
You're kidding, right?
> 
> The time and effort required to investigate the phenomenon suggested in
> the Statistical Science article is not much (elementary Statistics and
> some knowledge of computing plus a bit of computer time). I am however
> not surprised that there has been relatively little investigation, I
> recognise the problems that you are pointing to.
> 
For what purpose?  You're religious, if I understand correctly.  Isn't
the message - however interpreted - enough?
> 
> The religious are spending time and money investigating the evidence that
> I refer to. My hope was that some non-religious people would choose to
> examine the evidence too as there is very little critical appraisal of
> this evidence. If the evidence is incorrect then it should be relatively
> easy to show. The fact that the only religious people examine the codes
> gives them a false sense of security in their arguments. After all at
> present religious people can (and do) claim that they are shown to be
> correct by an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
> 
Anybody who would spend time and money on such a thing is a dope!

>In article <54v8bv$4e@services.arn.net>, tadchem@arn.net (tadchem) writes:
>> Question:  How is the red shift due to transitions across gravity wells 
>> (presumably a roughly linear function of distance for intergalactic photons)
>> distinguishable from doppler red-shift?
A Doppler shift changes the photon energy, the photon arrival rate, and the
observed angular size of the source so that a blackbody remains a blackbody
-- but with a different temperature.  Tired light models do not do this.
Since the cosmic microwave background is a blackbody to great precision,
and since the local low redshift Universe is not opaque and isothermal
and thus won't create a blackbody, tired light models will not work.
See my home page listed below and click on Cosmological Fads and Fallacies.
-- Edward L. (Ned) Wright, UCLA Professor of Physics & Astronomy
   (310)825-5755, FAX: (310)206-2096, E-mail: wright@astro.ucla.edu
   http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/intro.html
   Snail: UCLA Astronomy, PO Box 951562, Los Angeles CA 90095-1562
   FeDeX: UCLA Astronomy, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles CA 90024-1562

In article ,
John Turner   wrote:
>Please note that g77 does *NOT* translate to C first, as some seem to
>think.
>
>To quote a post some time ago by someone else in response to a similar
>question:
>
>-----
>GNU FORTRAN compiles directly to object code but uses the back-end from
>gcc to generate code.  This is a similar arrangement to that used by most
>modern vendor-supplied compilers where front-ends for different languages
>use a common back-end for optimization and code generation.  The GNU
>back-end knows how to exploit superscalar architectures although the
>quality of the output code may very somewhat from that of a vendor-supplied
>compiler.
However, if I recall correctly, there are certain optimizations,
appropriate to Fortran but not C, that were not envisioned when
the GNU back-end was designed and, at least as of a year or so
ago, were still not incorporated into it.  There is something about
this in the comp.lang.fortran archives;  look for articles by Craig 
Burley (the guy who's been writing g77).
	-P.
-- 
****************** In Memoriam, Bill Monroe, 1911 - 1996 ******************
* Peter S. Shenkin; Chemistry, Columbia U.; 3000 Broadway, Mail Code 3153 *
** NY, NY  10027;  shenkin@columbia.edu;  (212)854-5143;  FAX: 678-9039 ***
MacroModel WWW page: http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/chemistry/mmod/mmod.html

Im Artikel <32767BA1.425C@nwu.edu>, brian artese 
schreibt:
[on the Sokal hoax]
>? What?  If Nature published such a piece, people would raise their 
>eyebrows at the journal -- they certainly wouldn't question science in 
>general.  That's the point.
It's hard not to agree on that - good point!
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
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.

On 29 Oct 1996 04:56:04 -0600, pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch)
wrote:
>What has always =TRULY= astonished me is that, while no one seems
>to have difficultly understanding the cause of foreshortening of
>perspective, the *majority* of people seem to have a hard time
>understanding length contraction and time dilation... :-(
Actually, the only group of people I've ever met that have trouble
with perspective effects have been relativists ...
If you want a really fruitless argument, try suggesting to a
relativist that an object appears smaller in a photograph if the
object is further away from the camera.
I think I had four arguments of this type, with the physicist
declaring crossly that no such effect existed or we'd know about it,
before I learned to avoid the subject.
There's also a variation on the effect, when you take signal timelags
into account. As a result a photographed object appears to be longer
if it's approaching than if it is receding. Simple, simple, simple
kiddie-level stuff.
I've never managed to get a physicist to admit to the existence of
that effect, either (not for want of trying). Textbooks don't mention
an observed length-dilation effect for approaching objects, therefore
it can't exist .
- 
=Erk=

Marcus H. Mendenhall (mendenmh@nashville.net) wrote:
...
>   I believe the right-left myth comes about entirely because
> people try to read text in  mirror and it looks backwards. 
Yes, I agree that this at least *contributes* to the myth.
I think it also confirms what I said earlier regarding
prejudice, and its taking effort to notice the truth...
> However, if
> one thinks about it, to see a book in a mirror, one has just turned the
> book backwards by rotating around its vertical axis, so the pages are
> viewed from the back side!  Of course they look backwards about the axis
> used for the rotation..  It would be just as logical (!? maybe not) to
> flip the book upside-down around a horizontal axis parallel to the
> mirror instead of side-to-side to see the text on the other side, and
> then we would all believe mirrors flipped things the other way.
This is good; but I think the issue is a little more subtle than
what is our usual method for flipping books.  Indeed, if I want 
to read a book whose backside is toward me, and I can tell which
way it opens, I will flip the book whichever way brings it into 
my vision front-upright.  That might be left-to-right, or top-to-
bottom; I'll do whichever is called for.  We need to look deeper.
I'd like to ask a different question first.  Consider a 180 degree
rotation of an object about the axis of our line-of-sight. In 
English at least, the most common way to describe this action 
is: we are "turning the object upside-down."  Why?  Why not 
"leftside-right," which would be just as accurate? 
The reason, I think, is that the idea of rotation is more familiar,
or more fundamental to us, than reflection; surely, it is understood
at a much earlier age in childhood.  (It can be learned without
any special apparatus!)  Simultaneously, the symmetry of our own
bodies makes the top-bottom distinction much clearer to us than
left-right; and btw we tend to devalue the 3rd dimension (depth)
altogether.  If Mommy's face appears over our crib the wrong
way, it is a mental *rotation* that will fix the face for us.
And not only that: the *criteria* for the rotation are that the
mouth be beneath the eyes and nose.  (And not, for example, that 
Mommy's hair parts on the correct side of our field of view.)
Our familiarity with rotation is the only reason why we don't
get as many questions about it in sci.physics, as we do for
mirrors!
So now, returning to mirrored text, if I were to rotate a book
away from me about a horizontal axis, and view it in a mirror,
my natural description would be "It is upside-down and backwards."
In other words, to fix it, I imagine first having to rotate it 
rightside-up and then reverse it.  My associations are roughly: 
      swap top/bottom == rotation
      swap left/right == hmmmm... something weaker I've learned
                       to call reflection.  Maybe I'd better ask
                       sci.physics if this is really so?  :-)
With text, there is the added (or rather, related) issue that we 
are all very practiced readers of rotated text -- in fact, nothing
we ever read is perfectly horizontal in our field of view.  We can
mentally "unrotate" text and read it fine, without even being aware
we're doing this.  (Most of us cannot do this with mirror text.)  If
we read rotated text, the words appear to our mind's eye in their
correct left-to-right orientation, not as we actually see them.  We
are simply not aware, without effort, that left has been swapped for 
right in the rotated case.
If text is upside-down and backwards, we still unconsciously rotate
it in our heads before pronouncing it, falsely, to be reversed left
to right.  At least, that is my explanation.
> Some months ago, another poster recommended a neat experiment.  Write
> some text on a sheet of transparent plastic, and look at it in a mirror
> so you can see the text and the mirror image _at the same time_.  They
> look identical!
Yes, that is a nice demonstration.
> Marcus Mendenhall
> Vanderbilt University Physics Department
--
Russell Blackadar,   russell@mdli.com

moggin:
|> I've deleted your analogies, so I'll substitute one of my own.  In
|> an isolated, mountain-ringed country, a person named Newt notes that all
|> the cats he sees are black (and not only at night).  He concludes that
|> all cats are black, and produces a law of cats to explain his findings. 
|> Sometime later a person named Stein crosses the mountains and discovers
|> many different colors of cats; why, even cats of many different colors.
Theory: mountain-ringed (MR) cats are black.
|> Now, what can we say about this?  
MR cats are black.  
|> Given Stein's findings, Newt's conclusion is wrong, and his law is 
|> false.  But his adherents may claim otherwise.  
"adherents" is irrelevant.
|> Without denying that there are other colors of cats, they
|> may say that Newt's thinking can be considered only in its geographical
|> context.  
Yes. It wasn't a theory of everything (TOE).  
|> Or they may claim Newt's conclusion is correct, when applied
|> within certain limits.  
Yes. ditto.
|> Or they may argue that Stein generalized Newt, instead of refuting 
|> him. 
Yes.  Made clear it wasn't a TOE.
I'm a physicist and have never been interested in a TOE.  
|> Do they have a case?  Newt's observations are accurate within his
|> geographical context, but his conclusion is still false.  
Only if it is touted as a TOE.  Otherwise it represents a theory 
of MR cats which is very predicitve.  I could stop here.  This
is the crux of the argument.
What follows is ancillary.
|> You could say that it's true when applied within a certain, limited
|> range, but that's no help, since he offered a general conclusion 
|> about cats.  
The MR-cat theory, whether or not you (or Newt) want it to be a TOE, 
describes MR-cats accurately.  It is consequently an MR-cat theory.
You have an odd preoccupation with absolute generality in a physical 
theory.  Physics is not mathematics; it is not an axiomatic system 
per se.  
|> And while Stein's work is more general than Newt's, and includes black 
|> cats, it's not a generalization of Newt's law -- in fact, it's a 
|> contradiction.
|>      Ah, but wait, say Newt's defenders.  His law may break down under
|> extreme conditions, for example, if you cross over the mountains, but
|> it's plenty good enough to predict the color of cats under _ordinary_
|> circumstances -- so how can you call it wrong?  Simple: a false theory
|> can produce accurate results, as Newt's case shows.
The MR-cat theory produces accurate results because it captures the 
essential blackness of MR-cats.   
The MR-cat theory is not a TOE.  No physical theory is a TOE.
The sense in which you use the word "theory" is miles away from 
the operational usage in modern physics.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

While we are correcting history ...
rmarkd@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Mark Rajesh Das) writes:
>
> I believe you mean Rutherford and the experiment was him shooting alpha
>particles at a thin metal foil. (Geiger 'n Marsden confirmed) The
>conclusion of the experiment was that the atom 'looked' like a planetary
>system with the nucleus as the sun and the electrons as the planets.
 Nope.  Geiger and Marsden did the experiment and published it in 1909.
 Rutherford's explanation was published in 1911.  It required a small 
 nucleus but did not provide the planetary structure of the atom, 
 which was provide by Bohr a few years later -- and thereby made folks 
 take Rutherford's claim more seriously. 
 From a talk I heard by a old prof who had postdoc'd with Rutherford, 
 it would not surprise me if he had helped with the counting, but his 
 name is not on the experimental paper. 
>Took the plum pudding theory of the atom to hell. 
 A final version of which was published in 1910 by Thomson. 
>Rutherford won the Nobel in chemistry because, as I understand it, the 
>experiment was on the atom an thus is chemistry. 
 Also note that Rutherford won the Nobel prize in 1908, for studies of 
 radioactivity, not the "Rutherford scattering experiment".  He did that 
 work in Canada, with Soddy, as I recall. 
-- 
 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 <3276CD71.46D3@mindspring.com>,
Leonard Timmons   wrote:
> I found this definition of science to be satisfying for me. ...
I found Timmons' account of science quite good, though I would
note one place where it oversimplifies:
> A scientist is an historian who studies the history of things that 
> repeat themselves.  He uses the results of his studies to predict 
> when/where history will repeat itself again.
(1) Is it necessary for prediction to concern only events that
have not yet occurred?  If I am studying some past phenomena, and
develop a general rule, which I test against further instances of
that phenomena, is not that also a kind of prediction?  Consider
that one may view this as predicting the result of future
examinations of existing (perhaps not yet discovered) evidence!
(2) Interesting scientific theories make infinite predictions.
Very clearly, only a finite number have ever been tested.  But it
would be a paltry physics that applied in only a finite number of
cases!  Once such theories are developed and well tested, is
science not also about applying such theories, even in cases
where the results cannot be tested?  For example:
> This same thing is true for the universe that we live in.  There is only 
> one, and as far as I know, it will happen only once while I am here.  We 
> can study it intensely, from our study create a theory, make predictions 
> from that theory, and verify those predictions.  We would still not be 
> doing science because we would have to have seen at least two entire 
> universes live and die to make a prediction about the next one.
Note that most cosmologists' predictions about the universe's
beginning and end, while they do involve some speculation, are
also built on very well-tested theories, such as GR.
> I am not saying that this non-scientific activity is not useful, or that
> scientists should not be involved in it.  However, instead of calling 
> this science, we should call it exploration. 
Sure.  It is often called that.  Semantics.
> I always thought that doctors were artists, but now they are scientists.  
> I used to say that anything that had "science" in the name was almost 
> certainly not a science.  I applied this to computer science, christain 
> science, scientology, and others.  What I would like to see is a rating 
> system for the sciences so that mathematics would have a science rating 
> of 0.95, computer science would have a science rating of 0.55, and 
> scientology would have a rating of 0.01.  ...
Social institutions are organized for practical and political
purposes, not to best fit epistemological categories.  Thus,
scientists in a physics department do some scientific research
(as Simmons describes), some teaching, some politicking, some
administration, some business development, some PR, and some
engineering.  As a computer "scientist," I can make some very
accurate predictions about (for example) the minimum time it
takes certain kinds of machines to solve certain kinds of
problems.  But I recognize Simmons' point that most computer
"science" (when it is not teaching, politicking, etc.)  is
actually engineering.  
I see nothing wrong or philosophically problematic in scientific
institutions mixing these functions, nor in the fact that fields
are categorized less by any kind of clean definition than by
historical accident and academic convenience.  Does "physics" (or
"cognitive science") have a "unique, univocal, rigorously
controllable" definition?  Of course not!  What counts as physics
will vary from school to school.
This kind of thing seems to bother some literary theorists.  I
can only speculate that it is from some (foundationalist?) notion
that if one cannot define the exact scope of a field then one
cannot study problems in it, or from a confusion of institutional
and epistemological concerns.  (Note other threads where
methodological individualism is treated as an issue not just for
the social sciences, but for science as a whole!)  The "science
campers" have a better understanding of the different activities
performed by scientists, and of how the results of such activites
relate or not to the institutional settings in which they are
performed, and so they are less confounded by such things.
Russell
-- 
 The difference between life and a movie script is that the script has 
 to make sense.         -- Humphrey Bogart

: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: Actual (or absolute) clock slowing is a part of relativity's
: ramifications,
Wrong.  There need be nothing "absolute" on account of SR.
: and is included in the einsteinian transforms,
Wrong.  The transforms (simplified for units and dimension) are
            t' = (t-vx)/(1-v^2)^(1/2)
            x' = (x-vt)/(1-v^2)^(1/2)
and the "v" in those transforms is relative.  The clock slowing
described is relative.
: as well as his definition of syncronization. 
Einstein's definition of synchronization has no reference to
any absolute clock slowing, or any absolute effect at all.
That is, in fact, exactly why special relativity is simpler
than lorentzian relativity.  There's no absolute frame to worry about.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

Eric Baird wrote:
> 
> On 29 Oct 1996 04:56:04 -0600, pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D. Pusch)
> wrote:
> 
> >What has always =TRULY= astonished me is that, while no one seems
> >to have difficultly understanding the cause of foreshortening of
> >perspective, the *majority* of people seem to have a hard time
> >understanding length contraction and time dilation... :-(
> 
> Actually, the only group of people I've ever met that have trouble
> with perspective effects have been relativists ...
> 
> If you want a really fruitless argument, try suggesting to a
> relativist that an object appears smaller in a photograph if the
> object is further away from the camera.
> 
> I think I had four arguments of this type, with the physicist
> declaring crossly that no such effect existed or we'd know about it,
> before I learned to avoid the subject.
> 
> There's also a variation on the effect, when you take signal timelags
> into account. As a result a photographed object appears to be longer
> if it's approaching than if it is receding. Simple, simple, simple
> kiddie-level stuff.
> I've never managed to get a physicist to admit to the existence of
> that effect, either (not for want of trying). Textbooks don't mention
> an observed length-dilation effect for approaching objects, therefore
> it can't exist .
> -
> =Erk=
Fascinating stuff.  What are we talking about?  "an object appears 
smaller in a photograph if the object is further away from the camera." 
Do you mean that of two identical objects, the one that is farthest from 
the camera will have the smallest extent on the photo?  What kind of 
objections did the physicist raise to that?
I've never heard of the receding/approaching effect either.  How does 
that work, using your "signal timelags" explanation.?
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

In article <556io0$rrn@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com (LBsys) writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>To illustrate by example, consider the "proton decay" which
>> was postulated some ten years ago or so.  The question here
>> is whether a proton is an absolutely stable particle or whether
>> it decays with a finite lifetime.  OK, so you sit on to of a huge
>> pile of protons and look for a decay.  Few years went by and
>> nothing happened.  Does this mean that protons are absolutely
>> stable?  NO, it just sets a limit on their lifetime, a limit which 
>>depends both on the amount of matter being monitored and
>> on the span of time you've spent monitoring the current limit
>> is very high (10^35 years as I recall) but it is not infinite 
>>(which the phrase "absolutely stable" implies). 
>
>And, if you are really sincere, it is even worse than that. Having spent
>all that time without a single proton decaying, you even don't know, if
>you are looking in the right direction, i.e. if your instruments are able
>to detect such a decay :-(((...
>
Well, you may know within some limits.  The theory that predicted 
decay, predicted also a specific decay mode.  So you know, in 
principle, what you're looking for and what is the chance to miss it 
if it happens.  But, true, the theory may be completely off in which 
case you're indeed looking in the wrong direction.  Unfortunately it 
is impossible to set an experiment based just on "lets see if anything 
happens", you've to have at least some prediction regarding what is it 
you're looking for.  Either this or luck.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
|
|Larry Adams (laradex3@sj.znet.com) wrote:
|: 
|: A photon is the combination of two spin
|: waves of opposite helicity within matter
|: undergoing magnetic resonance.
|: 
|: L.A.
|
|While a *plane* polarized wave is indeed a
|superposition of right and left circularly
|polarized waves of the amplitude, this is a
|mathematical identity which follows from the
|principle of superposition - it has nothing
|whatever to do with magnetic resonance.
"nothing whatever to do with magnetic resonance"?
Clearly, L. Mead is *not* an expert in magnetic
resonance. Read these words and weep, L. Mead!
The magnetic resonance expert, S.V. Vonsovskii,
edited  Ferromagnetic  Resonance,  (1966).
Within the chapter, "Relaxation Processes in
Ferromagnetic Dielectrics," pp141-142 state:
"An analysis shows...that the basic process
leading to the absorption of a photon is the
splitting of the photon into two spin waves
...two spin waves appear during the splitting
with equal but opposite wave vectors."
The reverse process is the emission of a
photon by the merging of two spin waves.
It is all there, in black and white, on two
pages. The arrogance of L. Mead is deplorable!
L.A.

Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
: >
: > Hi Anton. Lots of stuff here. 
: you say!
: 
:                                                  ^^^^^^
: > : So far some members of the non-science-community has errh have been less 
: > : than accomodating.
: > 
: > Again, that's mutual. And witness that it's the "science community" that 
: > has descended on moggin like the Wicked Witch of the West's swarm of black 
: > bees.
: IMHO, with justification. It was his behaviour which was responsible 
: for much of the rudeness here. moggin as the grumpty dumpty of sci.skept 
: (thats where I read it), who makes his words mean what he wants, but 
: doesn´t tell anyone, deserves to be taken to task for it. (and he 
: doesn´t even pay them extra, he beats them into submission, them cute 
: little wordies). 
I don't think so. I, for instance, have no difficulty understanding what 
he says; I don't find his wording obscure or esoteric, and I don't find it 
inflammatory. This is most probably due to having read much of the same 
stuff he's read. You shouldn't assume that he's a total intellectual loner 
-- he just hangs with a different crowd than you do.
: 
:  
: > I hear you, and I accept that this is how scientists use it; I'm still 
: > doubting that you'll get very far with this in common usage. When people 
: > say, "I'm generalizing here," they usually don't mean that they restrict 
: > the applicability of an old theory -- and it is restriction, at least 
: > partially, what you're talking about, isn't it? That all generalization 
: > involves loss is obvious --- but it seems that we were debating how to 
: > call the modifications involved. 
: It is interesting how the expectations put into a word can differ 
: between scientists and non-scientists, even after some exchange on it. 
: As I see "generalization", it is an enlargement, not a restriction: 
: There is a theory with a domain of applicability. Outside this domain 
: its predictions get increasingly and inacceptably inaccurate.
That's precisely how I use it as well. In the case of Newton, however, 
if I can trust the here=present scientists, a theory that was held 
universally applicable became not-universally applicable. So its field 
of applicability got restricted. 
 So the 
: formulae of it are changed by adding or dropping elements or are completely 
: revamped and a new theory is made, which can account for all of the old 
: domain but is also correct in a new wider domain. This is why I see 
: "generalization" as enlargement, not restriction.
: So generalization is about making the scope of a theory wider, by 
: having a more general formula,which in the special case where the old 
: theory was applicable, reduces to the old formula (meaning: gives the 
: same result).
: But I agree, we are rapidly approaching the point of debating mere 
: naming choices
Actually, now you have me wondering all over again.
S.

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote: 
>[etc. -- you get the idea]
>>>>>>>>Here is an argument.  A) I have a good idea what Einstein meant, and
>>>>>>>>an equally good idea that any reasonable interpretation of Derrida's
>>>>>>>>comment is incompatible with Einstein's meaning.  
>>>>>>>Please share your insight, then.
>>>>>>It is not insight, but learning, which is not something I can share with
>>>>>>a passive audience.  I recommend the Feynman Lectures as a good starting
>>>>>>point in this matter.
>>>>>Feynman explains what Hippolite meant? That's fascinating. Are you sure?
>>>>Are you suffering from ADD?  The point is to address Einstein's meaning.
>>>The point is that you can only determine whether Derrida's meaning is 
>>>incompatible with Einstein's meaning if you know what Derrida's meaning 
>>>is. Elementary logic. So do you or don't you have an interpretation of 
>>>what either Hippolite or Deridda were saying?
>>Thank you for answering my question about ADD.  What I wrote is that
>>any reasonable interpretation of Derrida's comment is incompatible
>>with Einstein's meaning.
>But you can only prove that you have a point when you list all 
>"reasonable interpretations" of Derrida's reply to Hippolite. Please do 
>so or admit that you don't know whether Derrida's reply makes sense. 
>Hint: you would have to include your understanding of Derrida's concept 
>of center, since Hippolite is asking in reference to "Structure, Sign 
>and Play."
Your hint is beside the point.  I have nothing to add to Richard
Harter's comments in article <54k6p3$55t@news-central.tiac.net>:
#Derrida's statement (as translated) appears to be fairly clear about
#what is meant by a center in this context.  "End  of a kind of
#privelege of empiric evidence" may be a reference to an end to
#intuitive mechanistic models.  "Einsteinian constant" may be a
#reference to the invariance of the observed speed of light or it may
#be a reference to the concept of space-time as being united rather
#than as absolutely separable.  Then again the speakers may have
#something else in mind entirely.  On the face of it the entire
#exchange is, to borrow a term, gibberish with respect to physics.
#However one must allow that this is a translation; the original may be
#clearer.   The translator may simply have had no knowledge of physics
#and translated original clarity into vague mush.  Then again, the
#original may been confused to begin with.  Derrida's response does not
#seem terribly consistent with an understanding of relativity and its
#implications.
>>                        In order to demonstrate that to anyone who
>>even minimally understands the latter, I need not do any more than
>>circumscribe the former in accordance with the least constricting
>>conventions of colloquial speech.  But based on what I have seen of
>>your geometrical understanding, I have no interest in assaying such
>>demonstration for your sake.  Take it or leave it.
>You're trying to wriggle out. So, no. 
I will not interpret Derrida for you.  Do your own thinking.
>>>>>>>>                                                     B) Since Derrida 
>>>>>>>>aims to debunk Platonism, since the understanding of Platonism depends
>>>>>>>>on the understanding of geometry, and since Einstein is the wellspring
>>>>>>>>of modern geometry, Derrida's ignorance automatically condemns his
>>>>>>>>project to failure.  
>>>>>>>This is fun, but it's not an argument. 
>>>>>>It is an argument, and a logically valid one.  Under the circumstances,
>>>>>>I would be willing to let frêre Jacques off the hook if only he had
>>>>>>evinced minimal acquaintance with Euclid, never mind Lobachevsky or
>>>>>>Riemann.  Alas, it is not forthcoming.
>>>>>Logical, hm. You would have to prove that
>>>>>a) an understanding of Platonism does indeed depend on an understanding 
>>>>>of geometry; wild assertion no. 1
>>>>>b) that Einstein is indeed Platonism for the 20th century -- here, you'd 
>>>>>run into trouble with Russell Turpin and others
>>>>>c) that Derrida "debunks" Platonism or intends to do so -- here, we'd 
>>>>>only need a quote, so you wouldn't have to think much
>>>>>d) that all continental philosophy after Kant is cognizant of modern math.
>>>>In order to prove a), I need do no more than invoke the principle of
>>>>interpretive charity -- if Plato says that an ageometretos must be
>>>>disqualified, he is to be taken at his word, so long as your aim is to
>>>>understand Plato.  To address b) independently of your predictably
>>>>inaccurate reading, I need not do any more than restate the point:
>>>>Einstein's work on the geometry of the space-time manifold yields the
>>>>basis of present-day understanding of physical geometry.  Curiously
>>>>enough, I have already satisfied c) in my conversation with Brian
>>>>Artese by quoting Derrida and citing Plato to the contrary.  As
>>>>regards d), to adapt your own idiom, you are confusing an intellectual
>>>>enterprise with its institutionalized idiots.
>>>a) qualifications for philosophers vary greatly within Plato's oeuvre. I 
>>>can understand that you would pick the one agreeable with your 
>>>Erkenntnisinteresse. However, if you were to direct your attention to the 
>>>Phaedrus, you will see a different definition of philosopher emerge.
>>I think you are making feeble excuses for your ignorance of Plato's
>>prerequisites.
>How boring. Please engage the argument, namely: Plato's offers different 
>definitions of "philosophy," some of them, like the one in the Phaedrus, 
>devoid of all references to "geometry." If you can't engage it, I will 
>assume that your knowledge of Plato is restricted.
The Phaedrus was written by the head of the Academy.
>>>b) is irrelevant
>>Only if your feeble excuses could be rationally sustained.
>It could only be made relevant if you were to address the points above.
Your points completely depend on your feeble excuses.
>>>c) a disagreement does not constitute a debunking
>>But a disagreement on a fundamental issue does.
>No.
So you say.
>>>d) on the contrary, that is your domain. Are you disqualifying all 
>>>philosophers from philosophy who have not proven to you that they know 
>>>all they could about geometry, yes or no?
>>I am disqualifying anyone who fails the trivium from consideration as
>>an intellectual authority in any field of knowledge.  Additionally, I
>>am disqualifying anyone incapable of understanding the mathematical
>>foundations of any discipline from consideration as an intellectual
>>authority in that discipline or its philosophical implications.
>>Derrida's comments purportedly belong to the philosophy of physics.
>>Draw your own conclusions.
>Since Derrida does not claim to be an "authority"  on the 
>"philosophical implications" of special relativity, your point is quite 
>vapid.
Thus spake Jacques Derrida:
#The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. 
#
#It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the
#concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of
#something -- of a center starting from which an observer could
#master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...
Sounds like arrogation of authority to me.
>>>>>>Do you think it is a coincidence that the best portrayal of postmodern
>>>>>>criticism to date was presented by Nabokov as early as 1962?  
>>>>>I would find it highly surprising, yes. I never thought Nabokov was a 
>>>>>good critic, btw, even though he's a great writer. Like Kleist or 
>>>>>Buechner in that regard.
>>>>Excellence of portrayal is a matter of strength and precision in
>>>>observation and representation, rather than of the critical virtues
>>>>of analytic meticulousness in interpretation and explanation.
>>>That is hardly a response. You have yet to bolster your claim as to what 
>>>Nabokov achieved.
>>If the shoe fits, wear it.
>The shoe doesn't fit; you're a terrible cobbler. Good thing you've never 
>claimed to be an authority on shoemaking.
Good thing you are not a Nabokov scholar.
>>>>>The image
>>>>>>of a logorrhetic, vituperative, frustrated uranist, equally ignorant of
>>>>>>Euclid and Shakespeare, may fit Barthes a little bit better than it does
>>>>>>Derrida.  Then again -- I know not what really turns on the eminent
>>>>>>grand-daddy of decon.
>>>>>How odd. Barthes of all people, "vituperative," "frustrated"? That most 
>>>>>loving of critics?
>>>>As loving as Charles Kinbote, and equally preoccupied with conspiring 
>>>>against the author.  As regards his frustration, it is my understanding 
>>>>that fulfillment does not conduce to throwing oneself under a truck.
>>>As far as I know, he didn't "throw himself under a truck," but was hit by 
>>>a truck. 
>>Amazing how much information can get lost in shifting to passive voice.
>In this case, your misinformation was corrected. A truck hit Barthes. 
>What again follows as to his frustration? You may take your point back.
More logical incompetence.  How does your saying that a truck hit
Barthes vitiate my claim that he threw himself under a truck?
>>>          Loving literature is not the same as loving the 18th century 
>>>conception of authorship.
>>"Love the sin, hate the sinner."
>In other words, you accept my claim or you are unable to refute it.
In other words, I am comparing your intellectual integrity to that of
John Paul II.  You may feel flattered or insulted, depending on your
personal standards.
>>>>>>>>                      C) The copyright laws imply that any critical
>>>>>>>>comments appearing in print of symposium proceedings are subject to
>>>>>>>>the speaker's release of publication rights and hence carry the
>>>>>>>>presumption of ex cathedra pronouncements.
>>>>>>>Perhaps they do; that such is enforced, is, however, amply disproven. 
>>>>>>>Just witness Wolin's mistranslation of Derrida and subsequent 
>>>>>>>publication.
>>>>>>On the basis of personal experience with intellectual property laws, I
>>>>>>assure you that such enforcement by the owner is always possible among
>>>>>>the signatories to the Berne convention.
>>>>>For someone harping on logic, this is quite below par. It might be 
>>>>>possible to enforce; that does not imply that it has been enforced. So?
>>>>So if Derrida had been cognizant of revealing that he was full of shit, 
>>>>he would not have allowed published dissemination of this revelation.
>>>He might give his readers more credit than they deserve. Then again, he 
>>>might only be interested in those readers who do deserve minimal credit.
>>Then yet again, he might only be interested in readers willing to
>>swallow all the shit he feeds them.  Evidently, in your case, his
>>hopes are richly realized.
>You are shifting from subjunctive to indicative; cheap move. But 
>independently of Derrida's vanity, which might be considerable, I 
>disagree with him on a number of points. So you are once again wrong.
I stand corrected: evidently, in your case, such hopes would be
overwhelmingly realized.
>>>>>>>>>>As you know, I have done my work and need not rely on Sokal to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>Nonetheless, if I wanted to cite a professional opinion that Derrida
>>>>>>>>>>was a charlatan, I would have brought up Chomsky.
>>>>>>>>>I don't know this at all. I'm still waiting for you to exhibit a 
>>>>>>>>>rudimentary understanding of Derrida's argument in "Cogito." As 
>>>>>>>>>long as you can't tell us what it is you object to, your 
>>>>>>>>>objections won't be taken seriously. 
>>>>>>>>In the beginning of our exchange I told you the rules of engagement --
>>>>>>>>each thrust is to be followed by a parry and vice versa.  By continuing
>>>>>>>>to argue, you implicitly accepted the conventional rules.  If you wish
>>>>>>>>to make a request, I will consider it after you reply to my last
>>>>>>>>article point by point.
>>>>>>>The last exchange failed. A reasonable reaction to failure is to try 
>>>>>>>something else.
>>>>>>I will reasonably consider trying something else after you reply to my
>>>>>>last article point by point.
>>>>>In other words, you're wimping out?
>>>>In my opinion, true wimpery is exemplified by the party who excused
>>>>herself from following the rules she had accepted from the start.
>>>You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. Let us all agree to note, 
>>>though, that you refused to exhibit understanding of an essay you claim 
>>>to have read and you claim to object to on philosophical grounds; your 
>>>reasons may be what you say they are.
>>Let us also agree to note that I have explicitly and repeatedly avowed
>>a failure to extract a coherent thesis out of Derrida's essay, objecting
>>solely to isolated claims that roughly approximated intelligibility.
>Absolutely. You have failed to understand Derrida's essay on Foucault and 
>Descartes, and you are convinced that this already constitutes a valid 
>objection  against Derrida.
I am convinced of having successfully identified logical absurdities
and textual misreadings in the essay in question.
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)

In talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>Anton Hutticher :
>
>> | ... 
>> | IMHO, with justification. It was his behaviour which was responsible 
>> | for much of the rudeness here. moggin as the grumpty dumpty of sci.skept 
>> | (thats where I read it) ....
>
>TAFKA (G*rd*n):
>
>> moggin was posting into a certain context which you seem to
>> be unaware of.
>
>     That's what I was gonna say, albeit more rudely.  So I'll make 
>another point.  Take Gordon, here: never has a harsh word for anyone.
>Although he's received tremendous abuse from the science campers, he
>continues to parry it with wit and humor.   So what happens?  Matt
>criticizes him for being too witty!  You can't win.
>
Moggin, do you mean "criticize" as in denigrate? Or as in comment on?
Because if I denigrated Gordon at any time I apologize. IIRC, I
suggest that Gordon, like me, sometimes choose the "clever" response
over the clear. That is a personal opinion masked as an objective
analysis. But not an attack.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

In talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
[snip]
>
>     What matter are you concerned with?  And what do you want my
>basic assumptions about?  Six months ago, during one of the periodic
>round-robins between alt.postmodern, talk.origins, and sci.skeptic, I 
>gave Newton as a counter-example to the proposition that "scientific
>theories are never wrong."  Recently a post turned up quoting part of
>that conversation.  Several members of talk.origins and sci.skeptic
>saw the post, read my earlier comments, and felt compelled to dispute
>me.  Michael Siemon called me a complete idiot, Bob Casanova accused
>me of playing semantic games, and Matt Silberstein asked, in what may
>have been plaintive tones, "But what about Indy cars?"  The ensuing
>flame-war was cross-posted to rec.arts.books and sci.physics (in all
>likelihood by Noel Smith).  The rest is history.
My point about Indy cars was that, at low speed, it is impossible,
even "theoretically" to distinguish between Classical Mechanics and
GR. Not they are close, not good enough for government work, not
approximately correct. You can't measure the difference. You can't
design an experiment to tell you which is right, because the
difference is smaller than any possible measurement error. So in that
domain both models explain the same data and you can't pick one right
and one wrong. Now, as it turns out, you can build on Classical
Mechanics and get to GR. Or, to put it another way, you can get CM as
a special case from GR. And, while you make many wordy responses to
this, you do not have the language and understanding to follow the
steps involved.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

In article , siegman@ee.stanford.edu (AES) wrote:
>> > So i was reading a description of fiber-optic networks, and they talk
>> > about the sub-channels with megabits and gigahertz, but then, when they
>> > get to the light band, they switch to nanometers.  Why don't people use
>> > the frequency of light instead; wouldn't that be more consistent?
>> 
This terminology is very convienient for me. I work with fm signals 
transmitted on optical fibers.   If someone asks me, "what frequency does that 
thing work at?" I know they're talking about the carrier frequency, like 30 
MHz vs 60 MHz,  but if they ask me "what wavelength  does it use?" I know they 
mean the light itself, i.e. 850 nm vs. 1300 nm.   So it makes for clearer 
communication which is sometimes more important than consistency
J.  Pindar    darkstar@superlink.net
American Fibertek Inc.      www.americanfibertek.com
.

On 28 Oct 1996 17:33:42 GMT, bcadle@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Brad J
Cadle) typed something like:
>
>	Interesting that you should post this, just after someone
>else posted quotation of EINSTIEIN saying HE DOES NOT BELEIVE IN 
>A PERSONAL GOD.  HE stopped believing in a personal God by the age
>of twelve, according to these postings.  The individual also gave
>his WEB page address for the full source of the quotations.
Actually I posted before I recieved that post, and the web page was
very interesting.
>	SO the adult EINSTIEN DID NOT BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL GOD as 
>described in the bible.
I never said he did, and I think that is a pretty obvious statement,
I said he was a jew.
>
>To quote a person on this thread: "Can anyone say: Duh?"
But thanks, I can now say I have been quoted.
Jones
"Every existing thing is born without reason, goes on living out of weakness, and dies by accident." ------ J.P. Sartre
"Life is a sport, Drink it up!" ---- Gatoraid Ad.
@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@
°_·q¡G¦b§Ú¤W­±ªº¬PªÅ©M¦b§ÚùØ­±ªº¹D¼w«ß¡C

On 28 Oct 1996 17:27:13 GMT, attila1@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) typed
something like:
>In <32745cb6.23577896@news.ftn.net> mrjones@yoss.canweb.net (Jones)
>writes: 
>>
>>On 27 Oct 1996 17:17:02 GMT, attila1@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) typed
>>something like:
>>
>>>In <327326BB.EFE@mho.net> jsnodgrass  writes: 
>>>>
>>>>Einstein said GOD exists...
>>>
>>>    The young Einstein said Santa Claus exists.
>>
>>references?
>>
>>I hope you can support this, being he was a jew.
>>
>    He meant a Jewish Santa of course - (Chanukklaus)
Ooops, sorry, I stand corrected.
There goes my webpage idea.
Jones
"Every existing thing is born without reason, goes on living out of weakness, and dies by accident." ------ J.P. Sartre
"Life is a sport, Drink it up!" ---- Gatoraid Ad.
@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@¡@¡@¡@@¡@
°_·q¡G¦b§Ú¤W­±ªº¬PªÅ©M¦b§ÚùØ­±ªº¹D¼w«ß¡C

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:54:32 GMT, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
Silberstein) typed something like:
>
>Don't know much about Judaism do you?
>
I dont think that article was meant to a thesis on the subject.
I personally found it long and short on humor, but sheesh.
"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it." 
-- Frank Zappa

In article ,
Ilja Schmelzer  wrote:
>In article <326f17a7.261166@news.pacificnet.net> savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
                     (the rest is omitted)
Time dilation is a most fatuous, inane and puerile notion. The Lorentz 
equations  has nothing to do with reality and with the notion of Time.
TIME is not measured by any clock or any other periodic device. Any such
mechanism is extremely susceptible to physical conditions, gravitation,
magnetism, emission of particles  and  speaking of dilation of time  is
sheer nonsense and giving a formula which would measure the real TIME
as what the dial of a watch indicates is absolutely nonsensical.
  TIME, is the Cosmic TIME it exists in the entire Cosmos it is another
manifestation of Mass and it moves at the expense of depletion of Cosmic
Mass.  The whole notion of TIME in Relativity is a fraud.  Time is not
on a par with spatial dimensions. TIME as any mass is  subject to the 
gravitational electromagnetic and all other Cosmic forces  and trying to
define it as what the dial of a watch says  is sheer prepubescent 
idealistic naivete.  TIME, as I have indicated, is einextricably related
to the MASS of the entire Cosmos and there is an equivalence of Mass and
Time.  It is Time for Physics to equate TIME WITH MASS   and abandon the
classical and relativistic notions of TIME.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   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)

The "grandfather paradoxes" are actaully just erros of logic.  There really
is no paradox when the logic errors are weeded out.  As Kip Thorn pointed
out, if you are planning to go back in time tomorrow to kill you
grandfather 50 years ago, although you haven't experience the journey yet
yourself, as far as the universe is concerned, you have already completed
you actions in the past.  So although you yourself do not know what is
going to happen when you get into the past, you may infer by the fact that
you are alive, as well as your grandfather, that for some reason on your
journey to the past you fail to kill him.
The logic error is putting "cause" before "effect" in a journey to the
past.  In this situation, "effect" comes before "cause".  In other words,
you actions have already been carried out before your decision to perform
them.  So in the so-called "grandfather paradox" you know that regardless
of your intentions to kill your grandfather, for whatever reason, you will
fail to do so in your journey to the past.
David L. Smith Jr.  wrote in article
<553u2i$l9c@atlas.vcu.edu>...
> abostick@netcom.com (Alan Bostick) writes:
> 
> >greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) writes:
> 
> 
> >>In article <53sv1h$c4r@news.xs4all.nl>, marcone@xs2.xs4all.nl (Marco
"Mark-1"
> >>Nelissen) writes:
> 
> >>Your premise is flawed.  Yes, there are some "tricks" or "loopholes" in
> >>presently understood physics which would appear to permit "apparent"
FTL
> >>travel.  Most of them are understood to be mathematical artifacts of
> >>non-physical conditions, but a few of them (tunneling & Thorne-type
> >>wormholes, for example), may be physically attainable by a suitably
advanced
> >>technology.
> 
> >>However, to the best of our current understanding, *all* of these
tricks
> >>violate causality as it is presently understood.  That doesn't mean
they're
> >>impossible -- but it means that either our understanding of the physics
> >>is wrong, or our definition of causality needs improvement.  If you
want an 
> >>opinion, my opinion is that our understanding of causlity is imperfect,
but
> >>the universe doesn't respect my opinion :-)
> 
> >Kip Thorne's wormhole-based time travel devices do not seem to violate 
> >causality; at least it does not generate grandfather (Kip calls it
"matricide")
> >paradoxes.  He discusses the issue in his popular book, BLACK HOLES AND
TIME
> >WARPS: EINSTEIN'S OUTRAGEOUS LEGACY.
> 
> These types of time machines do violate the father paradoxes.
> If one worm hole end is brought to a relativistic speed and dialated
> in time, anyone from the forward time part of the hole could travle
> back in to cause such a paradox, remember the dilation is only a local
> effect for that end of the worm hole.
> 
> 
> >He *does* warn, however, that a wormhole-based time machine would very
likely
> >blow itself up in a fountain of amplified vacuum energy.
> 
> >-- 
> >Alan Bostick               | "Dole is so unpopular, he couldn't sell
beer on
> >mailto:abostick@netcom.com | a troop ship." (Ohio Republican Senator
William
> >news:alt.grelb             | Saxbe on Bob Dole's early career in the
Senate)
> >http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
> >http://www.theangle.com/  The first site with a brain.  Yours.
> 

In article <326FD262.1166@swipnet.se>, 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 !
> Now...
> Perhaps someone can help me out with a little momentum problem ?
[megasnip]
> 
> Imagine a window pane hanging freely in space and a beam of light passing through it 
> straight forward.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~
>  
> People tell me that there will be given no net momentum to the glass when the beam 
> passes through, due to the fact that equal number of absorption and emision resulted 
> in zero p.
[snip]
> 
> To my present understanding, when a photon enters the glass media, or perhaps during 
> the propagation of glass, the photon can either
> 1. be reflected and leaving its momentum x2 to the glass. The glass gaines 2p in --> 
> direction (radiation pressure ?)
> 2. be truly absorbed, cease to exist, and thus leave its momentum to the glass in  -> 
> direction. (radiation pressure?)
> 
> or ( and this is actually the question)
> 3. propagate the glass in a number of different shapes (still a signal) but slow down 
> to a speed adequate to the media glass, thus substantially gain momentum in ----> 
> direction and as a consequence, in order to conserve momentum, forceing the glass to 
> move in <---- direction as long as the propagation lasts.
> 
> Does anyone know of any experiments actually performed to see what really happens as 
> desribed above ( or similar)
> 
> I wou
> ld be most grateful if someone could give me an hint on this no 3 issue?
> 
> 
> thanks 
> 
> Magnus Lidgren
 That should be 'medium', not 'media'. 
You may be intrigued by a device called a Crookes' radiometer, which
consists of a very light wheel pivoted on a vertical axis in an evacuated glass
bulb. The wheel has four rectangular 'sails' (vanes) hanging down from
its rim, and these are black on one side and reflective on the other.
When placed in sunlight the wheel spins rapidly, due to the momentum
transferred by the photons absorbed by the black faces of the sails.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate Tel. +44 (0)1268 747839
 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124 OOO (Own Opinions Only)

Achim Recktenwald (achim@cam.org) wrote:
: Stephen Holland wrote:
: > In article <32754DBC.70BB@cam.org>, Achim Recktenwald  writes:
: > 
: > -> I just stumbled into this thread and might therefore ask something which
: > -> has already been answered.
: > 
: > -> My question: In what aspect or parameter do two photons differ, if the
: > -> first one corresponds to a infrared wavelength and the second one to one
: > -> of the ultraviolet part of electromagnetic radiation. As far as I know,
: > -> the mass of both is zero, the speed is the same, the size is suposed to
: > -> be a point, what characteristic is left ?
: > 
: > The energy of the two photons is different.  The energy (E) of a photon
: > is related to its frequency (f) by E = hf where h is Planck's
: > Constant.  The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and
: > the bluer the light appears to be.
: But frequency is a characterisitc of a wave. How do you distinguish
: photons, not waves, of different energy ?
Photons, like all quantum mechanical particles, has both particle and 
wave nature simultaneously.  This is part of the weirdness that provoked 
much of the early resistance to QM.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Ottolini (stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM) wrote:
: >If Jupiter has a nuclear furnace at its core, then maybe Earth does too!
: >After all, we're not seeing any neutrinos from the Sun's 'nuclear furnace'-
: >so why would we see any from Jupiter's- or Earth's?
: Probably not enough gravtitational energy for conventional fusion.
: However, one of the original "cold fusion" scientists in the late 1980s
: proposed this mechanism as a heat source in the earth.  (Not to be confused
: with the other cold fusion riff-raff that seemed to be scamming the investment
: community.)
Are you refering to the guy who had the cloud chamner tracks of and 
actual cold fusion event, who was completely overshaddowed by the guys 
with the palladium electrode at the same conference?
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Mott wrote:
> Aside: have you noticed that the UK-English measure body weight in
> stones?  Is a "stone" = pounds/(32ft/sec^2)?
Nice one.
Sorry to diappoint you but it is 14 pounds to the stone - don't ask me
why :)
Sean Stanley-Adams

In talk.origins mrjones@yoss.canweb.net (Jones) wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:54:32 GMT, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt
>Silberstein) typed something like:
>
>
>>
>>Don't know much about Judaism do you?
>>
>
>I dont think that article was meant to a thesis on the subject.
>
>I personally found it long and short on humor, but sheesh.
>
My point was the first two showed some familiarity with the doctrines
of the groups. But Jewish and Moslem showed not awareness at all. It
helps to have some actual facts to make a satire. I did not mean to
defend Jewish theology.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]: Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]: ]: ]: ]guilt. But here we have the "science" community, intoning in near-unison
: ]: ]: ]: ]and near-ignorance, "where there's smoke, there must be fire."  
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]:  You are lying. 
: ]: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ]Am I? You have so far demonstrated neither knowledge nor originality i 
: ]: ]: ]your detractions of Derrida.
: ]: ]
: ]: ]:  Actually this is true sentence. since I have not posted any
: ]: ]:  "detractions of Derrida", I have not "demonstrated either 
: ]: ]:  knowledge or originality" by them.
: ]: ]
: ]: ]: ] Perhaps I'm "lying" about others -- I'm 
: ]: ]: ]certainly right about you.
: ]: ]
: ]: ]
: ]: ]:   That is false. I challenge you to produce a single post, claiming
: ]: ]:   that Derrida must be wrong, because
: ]: ]:  "where there's smoke, there must be fire." Failing that, I 
: ]: ]:  expect  you to publically apologize for your lying.
: ]: ]
: ]: ]
: ]: ]If you think you're worth an hour spent at altavista, your self-image has 
: ]: ]re-inflated to an amazing degree. You have never posted a derogatory 
: ]: ]remark about Derrida? If you say so. I apologize for having 
: ]: ]misjudged you.
: ]
: ]:  That's welcome development, but it's not nearly good enough. Here's your 
: ]:  claim again:
: ]
: ]:  ]guilt. But here we have the "science" community, intoning in near-unison
: ]: ]: ]: ]and near-ignorance, "where there's smoke, there must be fire."
: ]
: ]
: ]:  Produce the post(s) advancing such an argument, or apologize.
: ]
: ]
: ]Don't push your luck.
:  Apparently, to elicit from you an acknowledgement of slandering
:  a person or a group of persons takes a bit of luck.
"Slandering"? You're almost cute now.
: ]As far as I can see, that's the _only_ argument 
: ]brought forth, since upon repeated inquiry, nobody has admitted to both 
: ]having read and understood any of Derrida.
:  Having read without being able  understanding must be what you call 
:  "ignorance."
Watch me exercise constraint in not commenting on the syntax above.
 That 
ignores the possibility that the text in question might,
:  in fact be nonsensical.
That would be a possibility if there weren't so many people finding 
sense. It takes a while, though. 
: But I think I am wasting my time talking 
with you.
You'd much better try reading some Derrida, indeed.

In article <5569qp$n6j@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>
>That's precisely how I use it as well. In the case of Newton, however, 
>if I can trust the here=present scientists, a theory that was held 
>universally applicable became not-universally applicable. So its field 
>of applicability got restricted. 
>
Right.  So in comes relativity which reduces to Newtonian Mechanics 
within a restricted area, but which is also valid over a way broader 
area.  So is it a generalization of Newtonian Mechanics or no.  I'll 
put it simpler yet.  We find that Newtonian mechanics is working over 
area A while relativity works over B which includes A as proper 
subset.  Generalization or no?
Now, I'm cheating here a bit, or rather I would if I wouldn't mention 
something more.  It is possible to have a new theory which, while 
yielding similar results to the old one over some limited set of 
parameters, isn't a generalization (the phlogiston theory comes to 
mind).  There is one more condition which is that the new theory 
should include the old one as a special case.  That this is indeed the 
case regarding relativity and Newtonian mechanics, has been explained 
at length already, by me and others.  I trust that there is no need to 
repeat it.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>     I've deleted your analogies, so I'll substitute one of my own.  In
>an isolated, mountain-ringed country, a person named Newt notes that all
>the cats he sees are black (and not only at night).  
Sorry, but cats are gray at night.
>He concludes that
>all cats are black, and produces a law of cats to explain his findings. 
>Sometime later a person named Stein crosses the mountains and discovers
>many different colors of cats; why, even cats of many different colors.
>
Now I thought it was horses and coats that came in different colors.
>     Now, what can we say about this?  Given Stein's findings, Newt's
>conclusion is wrong, and his law is false.  But his adherents may claim 
>otherwise.  Without denying that there are other colors of cats, they
>may say that Newt's thinking can be considered only in its geographical
>context.  Or they may claim Newt's conclusion is correct, when applied
>within certain limits.  Or they may argue that Stein generalized Newt, 
>instead of refuting him. 
>
>     Do they have a case?  Newt's observations are accurate within his
>geographical context, but his conclusion is still false.  You could say
>that it's true when applied within a certain, limited range, but that's
>no help, since he offered a general conclusion about cats.  And while
>Stein's work is more general than Newt's, and includes black cats, it's
>not a generalization of Newt's law -- in fact, it's a contradiction.
>
If the facts fit your analogy then you would be right. However
suppose, instead of going over the mountains, Stein had built some
kind of cool looking gadget (with sparks and everything) that could
detect non-visable light. And when he turned his device on the cats
(all in the name of science, no actual cats were hurt in modifying
this analogy) Stein discovered that the cats were different shades of
ultra-violet. I think this fits the case better. 
>     Ah, but wait, say Newt's defenders.  His law may break down under
>extreme conditions, for example, if you cross over the mountains, but
>it's plenty good enough to predict the color of cats under _ordinary_
>circumstances -- so how can you call it wrong?  Simple: a false theory
>can produce accurate results, as Newt's case shows.
No, a better theory can produce better results. You use the word false
as though Classical Mechanics does not describe Reality but GR does.
Neither theory describes Reality (in the sense Gordon uses the word).
They explain and predict the data. And GR predicts a wider range of
observation and so is considered the better theory.
>
>moggin:
>
>l>Matt Silberstein asked, in what may have been plaintive 
>|>tones, "But what about Indy cars?"  
>
>Jeff:
>
>> Well, what did you make of this question?
>
>     I'm astonished that you have to ask, since we were just talking about
>it.  To repeat: "You're trotting out the Indy-cars, bridge-building, moon-
>shots argument again.  But that was never a matter of any dispute -- it's
>obvious to everyone concerned that Newton is good enough for good ol' boys
>and government work.  So if that's the only conclusion you want to reach,
>congratulations -- we've been there from the start."
>
But that was not my point. And I am sorry I did not explain it well. I
tried again in another post.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

In talk.origins weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck)
wrote:
>Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
[snip]
>: It is interesting how the expectations put into a word can differ 
>: between scientists and non-scientists, even after some exchange on it. 
>: As I see "generalization", it is an enlargement, not a restriction: 
>: There is a theory with a domain of applicability. Outside this domain 
>: its predictions get increasingly and inacceptably inaccurate.
>
>That's precisely how I use it as well. In the case of Newton, however, 
>if I can trust the here=present scientists, a theory that was held 
>universally applicable became not-universally applicable. So its field 
>of applicability got restricted. 
>
I think this is a point of view question. If you keep the rules of
Classical Mechanics constant, you can say the domain was restricted.
Or you can say the rules were generalized to cover a larger domain. As
I see it there is no meaningful distinction between these views. 
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

Hi 
My name is Johnson Tjia
I'm a Junior in High School
And I'm in Physics class
Can Someone help me?
I have to build this project
and it is making a car or vehicle that goes the farthest with only using 
the power a mouse (not rat) trap spring.
My teacher told me the best car that his student ever made traveled 300 
feet.
But he also told us about a student in MIT (Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology) build one that travelled 1100 feet, almost four times, using 
the same restrictions
So can someone help with ideas or plans for making the best car
And if any one know the plans for MIT car can you send me the details.
Thanks
Below is the rule for the project.
Mouse Trap Extra Credit
Goal:  To construct a wheeled vehicle to move down a hallway at the 
maximum distance.  Utilizing only the energy available in a mouse trap 
spring.
Dos:  Spring must be carried on and along with the vehicle (However 
spring need not be approved to trap spring)
Dos:  Design vehicle to go straight enough to stay away from hallway 
walls
Dos:  Design vehicle to utilize a 'coast' after power drive is done
Dos:  Start early
Don't:  Store any energy other than that provided by the spring
Don't:  Use less than two wheels
Don't:	Design a catapult system
Due:  Last week of November 
Method:  Best Distance of three trials
Thanks a lot
Ps:  if you can help me, can you draw the design and the materials used. 
Thanks