Newsgroup sci.physics 205287

Directory

Todd K. Pedlar  wrote:
>lucy Haye wrote:  
>
>> you are inmerse in the ignorance of the "Conventional Wisdom" whose dirty
>> censorship make difficult the Carezani's papers publication, because they are
>> so dirty  like you are. But don't worry: Sooner or later the thruth will
>> emerge.
>
>Censorship and peer review are two different things.  Publication in 
>peer-reviewed journals is essential for the acceptability of any new 
>theory.  Unfortunately for AD, its proponents are often perceived as
>very angry and lash out at any attempt at criticism of their work...
>this does not bode well for their getting published in respectable
>journals, I am sorry to say.
	Indeed, when scientists try to determine if a new theory is
legitimate or nonsense, nothing sets off the Crackpot Early Warning
System alarms faster than the theory's proponents making vague complaints
about some conspiracy or scientific "in-crowd."  
	In mathematics this is particularly amusing (well, to me; to many, 
it is a positively depressing display of the capacity of human denial):
someone claims to have squared the circle, trisected the angle, etc.,
despite long-standing proofs of the impossibility of such with an 
unmarked straightedge and compass.  When confronted with whatever 
mistake they made, these people often mutter about the elitist Math
community simply not accepting their ideas, as if mathematical truth
is arbitrarily decided upon in some smoke-filled room, as if proof was
nothing more than a popularity contest.
	Science simply doesn't work unless it can be scrutinized and
criticized, and peer-review is one form of scrutinization.  I find it
highly ironic that the people who accuse the scientific community of 
some form of conspiratorial censorship, of holding on to "Conventional
Wisdom" despite alleged problems with it; that these people are the 
ones who become indignant when any discrepancy in their own theories 
are examined and criticized.
>Todd
 ,oooooooo8     o     ooooo@math.niu.edu  --  http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/
o888'   `88   ,888.    888                                                 
888          ,8'`88.   888        Dr. Leonard:  Let (X,T) be a space.
888o.   ,oo ,8oooo88.  888              (X,T):  Huh?  Wha?
`888oooo88 o88o  o888o 888                                                 
____________________8o888'_________________________________________________

In article <327683D1.4602@onramp.net>, Larry Richardson
 wrote:
>Louis Savain wrote:
>> 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >Louis Savain wrote:
>[...]
>> Still, I'm willing to change my
>> mind if someone can show me mathematically how the net zero
>> accelerations affect the traveling clock.
>
>Since you cite the equations, then consider the time and distance
>coordinate of a point in an observer's original frame both before and
>after acceleration - let's assume that the point considered has a T,X of
>10,5 (10 seconds and 5 light-seconds from the origin).  After
>accelerating the observer will be in a new frame in which the time and
>distance coordinate of the same point must be translated with the
>Lorentz equations.  Those values will be smaller in the observer's new
>frame, and if the observer actually travels to that point and then
>reverses acceleration, thus re-entering the frame originally left, there
>will be a smaller time registered on the observer's clock and the clock
>found at either the observer's new location or the original location. 
>If the observer attempts any renewed acceleration in any direction
>whatever, the discrepancy will become even worse (work the equations and
>see for yourself) - the time and distance coordinates of any rest-frame
>point will be smaller for an observer moving toward that point.  What is
>important is the relative motion, not the acceleration per se, but of
>course relative motion cannot be achieved without having accelerated
>sometime in the past, so citing conditions lacking acceleration is
>simply pushing the inevitable out of sight in order to keep from having
>to deal with the attendant complexity.  You ask that someone show you
>the mathematics involved, but since they are the simple consequence of
>t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) and x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2),
>I would think that you are capable of doing the work yourself instead of
>merely opining.
  OK.  I'm not one to hold on to my erroneous opinions regardless of
the evidence.  I am ready to throw in the towel.  But only partially
:-), because there's still something that's bothering me.  I agree now
that acceleration in any direction will cause the traveling clock's
rate to slow down.  [Thanks Larry for your help on this]  In a sense
this is no different than the acceleration of gravity.  My follow-up
question is this:  does this account for the entire time dilation?
  Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the traveling twin
maintains a 99% c speed relative to the earth-bound twin for two
billion years, 1 billion years both ways.  Let's assume further (I'm
exaggerating for effect) that the acceleration part of the trip took
only 2 years.  Will the time dilation be found to be due only to the
accelerations of the traveling twin?   Or will there be, as I surmise
in my own "theory", a much greater observed dilation?  Thanks for any
clarification.
Best regards,
Louis Savain

In article <3274A7EC.41F5@firga.sun.ac.za>,
Sven Keunecke   wrote:
>In Feynman's book, "Surely your joking Mr. Feynman", Feynman talks about
>a pipe in the form of a S, that will rotate in one direction when water
>is forced out of the ends. But then poses the problem that when the pipe
>is submerged in water and water is sucked into the ends instead of blown
>out, which way will the pipe then rotate? In the same direction or in
>the other? He then goes on and gives equally plausible explanations for
>both and explains how he managed to flood the graduate lab in the
>process of doing the experiment, but does not mention which way the pipe
>wiil turn. 
>Can anybody please explain to me which way the pipe will turn? If at all
>and why?
IIRC, the pipe doesn't turn at all; I've read about the thought
experiment, though not that Feynman actually did it, and I think that was
the conclusion.
-- 
Andrea Leistra                      http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----  
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.

>Consider what one could say about science if Nature published Archimedes
>Plutonium's One Atom Universe theory.  That is what Sokal's hoax allows
>one to say about the humanities.  Inability to recognise total
>meaningless bullshit
>cannot be compared with giving credence to (say) Piltdown Man.
> :? 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.
> They certainly would, if the piece in question were painstakingly
> corroborated with a collage of appositely idiotic claims by eminent
> scientists thitherto highly regarded in their fields.  That's Sokal's
> point.
You must not know much about the writers in Sokal's works cited page if 
you think his piece 'corroborated' with them at all.  In fact, I *know* 
you don't know much about them.  
Just because the Social Text editor can't see bullshit doesn't mean 
Derrida can't.  According to your logic, R. Feynman's work would fall 
into disrepute just because he was cited in the hypothetical Nature 
article.
But hey, keep tryin'...
-- brian

Jones (mrjones@yoss.canweb.net) wrote:
: 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
Oh boy, you're pretty funny.  Stick with the Gatorade quotes - just
because you think you can quote a real philosopher doesn't make you sound
smarter.
What is it with you and the jews anyways, you fascist bastard?  

Jones (mrjones@yoss.canweb.net) 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.
Once again, fascist Nazi lovong Mr. Jones is bashing judaism.  What a
surprise.  Would you care to repost your responses in favor of the
Holocaust?
: "Art is making something out of nothing and selling it." 

In article <54qsmr$r3f@bessel.nando.net> moggin@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>	Andy was alluding to "Ars Poetica," by Archibald MacLeish.
>(You're now down to your last strike.)
Moggin, do you think I give a flying fuck whether or not you're keeping
score?  I call bullshit as I see it, regardless of its pedigree.  Bad
poetry -- and bad thoughts expressed as poetry -- neither makes incorrect
thoughts relevant nor appropriate, nor correct, for that matter.

Peter Mott (mott@flory.mit.edu) wrote:
: Generally, tool sets are not duplicated.  Go rummaging around in your
: own--do you possess a metric twist drill set?  If you do, great.  If
: you don't, try to buy one at your local hardware store.  I'll give
: you 50-50 odds that they won't have them.  Then, once you find one,
: consider the expense, that if there wasn't a change, you would not
: have to pay.  
You may be talking in terms of engineering shops, but on a DIY scale I won't
agree. I have a mixture of imperial and metric drills. I have imperial (AF) and
metric spanners, I have imperial (AF), whitworth and metric socket sets.
The world already uses more than one set of units and trades stuff back and
forth so one needs duplicated sets of tools anyway. Now if the US went metric
then we might all be able to get rid of the imperial tool sets which would
save everyone having to pay.
--
Stephen Baynes                              Stephen.Baynes@soton.sc.philips.com
Philips Semiconductors Ltd                  
Southampton                                 +44 (01703) 316431
United Kingdom                              My views are my own.
 Are you using ISO8859-1? Do you see © as copyright, ÷ as division and ½ as 1/2?

In article <54t6lb$4b0@panix2.panix.com> +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>| ...
>
>Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
>| : Because THIS SHIT KILLS. Rhetoric in the mogginesian, ogdenian,
>| : swansonian style is used to create distrust to science.
>
>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck):
>| Are you _honestly_ suggesting that moggin's remarks about Newton on
>| Usenet pose a threat to physics? I'd say that Sokal's shit is more likely
>| to cost the humanities dearly, and unjustly.  ...
>
>I find it amusing that Faith in Science is not only good
>but necessary to life.
As once again the post-modern idiots leap into the fray.
Faith in Science is not necessary.
Science works whether you believe it or not.
Science does not, however, work whether you apply it or not.  It's
not a self-generating system.
If you encourage people not to use science, they'll not use science,
and a significant chunk of the lifestyle we've come to know and love
will come crashing down about your ears. 
	Patrick

In article <32767BA1.425C@nwu.edu> brian artese  writes:
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>> Consider what one could say about science if Nature published Archimedes
>> Plutonium's One Atom Universe theory.  That is what Sokal's hoax allows 
>> one to say about the humanities.  Inability to recognise total 
>> meaningless bullshit
>> cannot be compared with giving credence to (say) Piltdown Man.
>
>? 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.
Depends on whether or not this had been done in the wake of a lengthy
discussion about "no science journals can tell shit from shinola."
	Patrick

jsnodgrass wrote:
> 
> Einstein said GOD exists...
maybe. is it enough for you ?

The  WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
It means man -- in almost our present form but considerably larger --
had existed on earth multi-million years before the initial emergence
of the earliest cat-size, monkey-like primate which science texbooks
have long proclaimed to be our most distant ancestor.
A color photo of the skull, with one side protruding from the boulder,
can now  be seen in all its intriguing magnificence at
>  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skulla.jpg
The photograph is a direct link from
>  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
where photos of other Carboniferous fossils, also found between coal 
veins, can be viewed.
Meanwhile, another photo -- comparing the petrified human cranium
in the boulder with a modern human  skull -- can be seen at
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skullb.jpg
l

The  WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
It means man -- in almost our present form but considerably larger --
had existed on earth multi-million years before the initial emergence
of the earliest cat-size, monkey-like primate which science texbooks
have long proclaimed to be our most distant ancestor.
A color photo of the skull, with one side protruding from the boulder,
can now  be seen in all its intriguing magnificence at
>  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skulla.jpg
The photograph is a direct link from
>  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
where photos of other Carboniferous fossils, also found between coal 
veins, can be viewed.
Meanwhile, another photo -- comparing the petrified human cranium
in the boulder with a modern human  skull -- can be seen at
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skullb.jpg
l

In article  meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <550ab2$fgk@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>>| ...
>>
>>matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>>| In your example where do you "formulate" the concepts involved? I
>>| understand that you respond to event and make reasonable judgements
>>| about time to impact. But I don't see any formulation involved. I can
>>| see how one could go from driving, to intuiting that there are rules,
>>| to trying to rigorously describing those rules. But I can't see how
>>| you can develop general principles of acceleration and motion without
>>| using calculus.
>>
>>The original issue was whether Newton could be "understood"
>>without Calculus.  In the case of "formulate", I didn't
>>know what was meant, so I asked.
You received an answer.  To determine or describe the behavior of objects
within acceptable (and in principle arbitrary) bounds of error.  You then
deleted my description of a sample problem and claimed that I had
not provided a sample.
In the case of classical physics, these "formulations" can be
captured in explicit formulas, such as the distance/rate/time
equations.  In the case of your intuitions, you can drive at a
very small set of speeds with very gross error margins that you
can't refine.
	Patrick

Autodynamics has one *real* (testable) claim: 
The neutrino does not exist!
The Standard Theory in particle physics will collaps if the neutrino
must be removed. This is somewhat troubling, as predictions
of the QED and QCD based on the Standard Theory are accurate to 
22(!) decimal places, an accuracy that DEPENDS on the existence of 
the neutrino family. 
So can Autodynamics claim the same accuracy?
Second, Autodynamics wants to replace SR and GR. However, predictions
of GR are even more accurate than those of the Standard Theory, up to
23(!) decimal places. And this accuracy is based on only TWO physical
constants: the speed of light c and the gravitational constant g.
Again, can autodynamics claim the same accuracy?
Just offering another formalization for SR and GR is uninteresting.
Claiming that the Neutrino family does not exist just because it
is possible to describe Macro Dynamics without it is ridiculous.
The Standard Theory is not based on SR (it doesn't even use GR).
All evidence for Neutrino's are purely Quantum Dynamical, i.e., 
the results of interactions between particles and the conservation
laws which themselves are based on the symmetry of the universe 
(space and time) and NOT on particular dynamical systems.
The mathematical link between the incompatible theories of
Quantum Dynamics and GR is a very intricate one. 
For example, why should the entropy of a black hole be linked to 
the surface area of its horizon in square Plank distances? 
Why should black holes conserve Quantum States at all?
GR does not use anything from DEQ or QCD!
Autodynamics just runs in and wants to replace SR&GR;, trash
the Standard Theory with only the claim that it can explain
some predictions of SR without Neutrino's.
Any theory that wants to replace either SR and GR or the 
Standard Theory (Autodynamics does both) must do more than
just claim all physists in the world are fools. It must do
BETTER than they did, using LESS assumptions.
About the fact that there are unanswered problems in GR,
please read the works of Karl Popper. To refute a theory
you have to have a definite and fundamental prediction
refuted. Unexplaned observations are not enough.
-- 
      Sylvia & Rob
    Bruisten   van Son
  0vson01@almere.flnet.nl
http://www.flnet.nl/~0vson01/

Kurt Foster  writes
>     Well, the observational evidence of quasars forced Hoyle officially
>to abandon the "steady state" theory some years back 
        The evidence to which you refer is now known to be wrong, Kurt.
It was originally thought that quasars were associated with the early
(ie distant) universe. However recent observations have shown that this
is an erroneous impression, caused by the extreme brightness of quasars,
which gave a false impression of their relative numbers. They are now
thought to be uniformily distributed, just like all the other galaxies,
i beleive. 
> the observed fact that
>the cosmic background has a blackbody spectrum is generally considered
>highly significant.
Well i don't know why you should be so impressed with that Kurt. The
radiation inside any closed box is a perfect black body spectrum, when
left for a suffient time that is, but you will not find a box which has
had longer to reach equilibrium than this old universe ,eh Kurt.
-- 
Keith Stein

Nyoung wrote:
> ...  He claimed
> that it appears that there seems to be some differences in c over time,
> which would indicate a slowing.  Now...is this BS?  
See the talk.origins FAQ article at 
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/c-decay.html
and the relativity/phyiscs FAQ article at
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/speed_of_light.html
-- 
====================================================
Phil Gibbs     pg@pobox.com     http://pobox.com/~pg

arcane@cybercom.net (Dr. Arcane ) wrote:
>I've asked this question before, but I never got a good response..
>You have something.. say an electron.. you bounce the sucker off something,
>with a 50% chance its going to the left, or 50% that its going to the right
>(yes, I know the problems with trying to 'aim' electrons, but anyway)..
>I've read that this creates a probability wave, showing the two outcomes,
>but upon observation it resolves itself into a particle on the left, or
>the right... Quantum physics fans would say that the particle does not
>exist until you look, and then it is collapsed from its 'wave' form
>into the fun little particle.... I just find this idea kind of silly.
>
Nice question. I will try to avoid philosophy. If ever an electron was
observed, it existed for a measurable time and unless anhilated by
a positron (etc.), it still exists, whether or not observed.
Now this eternal electron hits another electron (50/50) and you 
observe on both the right and left (up and down). And you do
not detect it. A kindly white haired guru says that the apparatus
is working fine and the results are correct and the electron
did what it was predicted to do.
Does the electron still exist barring the quibble above?
In the case of billard balls, the conclusion is that it
'disappeared".
In the case of qm, there is a small but finite probability that it
tunneled through the other electron.
Probability is a mathematical tool modelling reality and is not to
be confused with reality.
Jim
---
Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules

Hello all,
Can you tell me where I can find Publications and suppliers of Heat 
Pipes ?
Please email me.......
Bart Broeren
prakpf1@tpd.tno.nl
http://www.tno.nl/instit/tpd/product/heatflux/index.htm

johnp@amber.math.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
> on a RS6000 between Fortran 90 and C++.  Fortran 77
> is obsolete and was replaced as both an American and
> an international standard five years ago (and itself
> is about to be replaced as the standard by Fortran 95).  
I don't quite agree with "replaced"; after all the Fortran 77 standard
still exists. More importantly from a practical point of view is that
Fortran 90 compilers are not nearly as widespread as Fortran 77, C, or
C++ compilers. I have accounts on three computer networks in different
scientific institutions around the world. They all have Fortran 77, C,
and C++. Only one has a Fortran 90 compiler, which doesn't work due
to misinstallation, and so presumably has never been used.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                          | E-Mail: hinsen@ibs.ibs.fr
Laboratoire de Dynamique Moleculaire   | Tel.: +33-76.88.99.28
Institut de Biologie Structurale       | Fax:  +33-76.88.54.94
41, av. des Martyrs                    | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
38027 Grenoble Cedex 1, France         | Nederlands/Francais
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pausch@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
> Why is a Fortran compiler allowed to assume this?
>  
> Consider this piece of code:
>  
>       SUBROUTINE COPY(DOUBLE PRECISION A, DOUBLE PRECISION B, INTEGER N)
>       DIMENSION A(N), B(N)
>       INTEGER I
>       DO 100 I=1,N
>  100  A(I) = B(I)
>       END
>  
>       PROGRAM TEST(INPUT,OUTPUT,TAPE5=INPUT,TAPE6=OUTPUT)
>       DOUBLE PRECISION X(100), Y(10), Z(10)
>       EQUIVALENCE (X(3),Y(1)), (X(1),Z(1))
>       DATA /Z/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/
>       COPY(Y,Z,10)
>       WRITE(*,*) Y
>       END
>  
> This exhibits exacly the same aliasing problem as in C .....
Yes, but there is a little-known rule in the Fortran 77 specification
(citing from http://www.fortran.com/fortran/stds_docs.html):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.9.3.6 Restrictions on Association of Entities.
If a subprogram reference causes a dummy argument in the referenced
subprogram to become associated with another dummy argument in the
referenced subprogram, neither dummy argument may become defined
during execution of that subprogram. For example, if a subroutine is
headed by
SUBROUTINE XYZ (A,B)
and is referenced by 
CALL XYZ (C,C)
the[n the dummy arguments A and B each become associated with the same
actual argument C and therefore with each other. Neither A nor B may
become defined during this execution of subroutine XYZ or by any
procedures referenced by XYZ.
If a subprogram reference causes a dummy argument to become associated
with an entity in a common block in the referenced subprogram or in a
subprogram referenced by the referenced subprogram, neither the dummy
argument nor the entity in the common block may become defined within
the subprogram or within a subprogram referenced by the referenced
subprogram. For example, if a subroutine contains the statements:
  1.SUBROUTINE XYZ (A) 
  2.COMMON C 
and is referenced by a program unit that contains the statements: 
  1.COMMON B 
  2.CALL XYZ (B) 
then the dummy argument A becomes associated with the actual argument
B, which is associated with C, which is in a common block. Neither A
nor C may become defined during execution of the subroutine XYZ or by
any procedures referenced by XYZ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially this means that the code you have shown, although all
compilers I know would accept it, does not conform to the Fortran 77
standard.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                          | E-Mail: hinsen@ibs.ibs.fr
Laboratoire de Dynamique Moleculaire   | Tel.: +33-76.88.99.28
Institut de Biologie Structurale       | Fax:  +33-76.88.54.94
41, av. des Martyrs                    | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
38027 Grenoble Cedex 1, France         | Nederlands/Francais
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pgh@nortel.co.uk wrote:
:> As another point of comparison. Under LINIX compiling LAPACK with
:> g77 gives benchmark times of about 50% of those from CLAPACK+gcc. 
:> [The README said. I haven't confirmed it.]
:> 
:> If you use LINUX & gcc, f2c may have had its day.
:> 
:> Peter
To spread my own experiences over the world: in conjunction with a project
to develop a set of BLAS routines (assembler-)optimized for intel pentium
i discovered that code produced by g77 (at least for intel platform) for 
the typical routines coming to mind (xDOT, xAXPY and so on) is quite bad.
gcc with straightforward rewritten C-equivalents (link compatible with
FORTRAN) gives typical 20-30% speed increase over the FORTRAN ones, at 
least for short vectors where memory bandwidth is not a problem due to
the builtin cache. See for this some remarks for my assembler written
BLAS routines which are available at my home page (adress see down).
(Assembler beats both C and FORTRAN for short vectors by a factor of 
2-3, but that's another story!)
So, the point is, all results discussed in this thread seem to be VERY
VERY compiler/os/machine dependant, so it's a problem of compiler techno-
logy, not of the language itself. FORTRAN and FORTRAN compilers have been
used for heavy computing since '60 (i think), whereas C was used mostly
for other tasks, and C++ is not even yet standardized. With time going on
C(++)-compilers should get better and better for numerical work, and then
the advantage of much shorter developing time than with FORTRAN 77
gets more important. Don't know about FORTRAN 90(95), but i think if it
has object oriented features as another one wrote, then it's just
slightly different form C++, if you don't look at syntax.
Just my 0.02 DM!
Ciao,
	Manuel
-- 
Manuel Kessler
Graduate Student at the University of Wuerzburg, Germany, Physics Department
SNAIL: Zeppelinstrasse 5, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany
EMAIL: mlkessle@cip.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de
WWW: http://cip.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~mlkessle

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Van Son-Bruisten wrote:
> Autodynamics has one *real* (testable) claim: 
> The neutrino does not exist!
> 
Well then, autodynamics is wong. We can detect neutrino beams very simply,
as they induce inverse beta decay. 
The neutrino is very well observed, both directly as mentioned above, and
indirectly, through our measurements of missing energy and momentum in
situations where we woul dexpect the neutrino to carry it away.
So, your theory has been disproven.
May I suggest that you actually get yourself something resembling an
education in physics before you come up with your next crackpot theory, it
is getting very tiresome to see so many ill conceived ideas, bandied about
by people who don't have the intelligence to actually win a place to study
physics anywhere of note.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

Note followups...
Louis Savain  writes:
>
>How can you be so sure?  It seems to me that since beta decay rates
>are in agreement with EM clocks and since EM clocks are obviously
>dependent on the speed of light, that beta decay must have something in
>common with EM at some level.
 And it does: both are related at the scale of electroweak unification
 and by very small parity-violating mixing between the photon and Z0.
 The other thing beta decay and E+M have in common is that both
 theories are formulated so they are covariant -- that is, they
 transform so they are physically the same in any inertial reference
 frame.  It is this last property, consistency with the postulates
 of special relativity, that makes their temporal properties behave
 the way we observe.  If the correct physical theory had different
 transformation properties, we would not observe muon decay to be
 the way it is.
 The situation for alpha decay, where tunneling depends on the barrier
 as well as the dynamics of the wavefunction, is more complicated but
 as long as the mechanical theory and the interaction are expressible
 covariantly, it must transform the same way as well.
>      ...                    The motion of the Earth around the sun can
>also be used as a clock to corroborate the constancy of the speed of
>light.  Kind of like a giant pendulum clock.  Isn't it strange that all
>sorts of non-EM clocks are in agreement with EM clocks?  Hey, this could
>be the basis of a unified theory. :-)  One never knows.
 One such unifying theory is that all 'good' physical laws must be
 the same in any inertial frame, with the caveat that Maxwell's
 equations is one of those laws (so that E+M based clocks are
 described covariantly).  What SR tells us is that other laws that
 are consitent with this principle (that the physics must be expressed
 in a covariant fashion) will have the same temporal transformation
 properties between frames as E+M.
-- 
 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

Aaron Boyden wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, jsnodgrass wrote:
> 
> > Einstein said GOD exists...
> 
> Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza.  I'm sure you don't know
> what that meant, and I doubt I can adequately explain it to you, but in
> his own time Spinoza was persecuted for atheism by people who were not
> necessarily ignorant of his philosophy or confused or dishonest in their
> complaints about it.
> 
> ---
> Aaron Boyden
> 
> "Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
> not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained."  -David LewisComments from Jerry:
Spinoza felt that the Universe and God were the same. Einstein also perceived that
the Universe and God was the same. This is absolutely true.Thus God=Universe. Both
Spinoza and Einstein responded to the universe which they could see and understand.
The far reaching mind of Einstein saw some interesting properties of space and time
which enabled properties such as "the memory of the thing becomes the thing" to exist.
  Einstein had a fatal error. He thought that if you travel faster than the speed of 
light you would enter the world of yesterday. However this would mean that the energy
of yesterday was always present. This is false. In truth, if you cross the light speed
barrier you enter the memory of yesterday which only requires a fraction of the
energy.As the universe expands a small amount of energy is lost into the memory of
yesterday. This enables the memory of the thing to become the thing. It enables
the reincarnation process. It enables the self to exist although it is deade. It 
enables the Kingdom of Heaven and the Pit of Hell. Ie enables God.
  My paperback "The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth" is available free for those
who ask. I post on alt.chrisnet.theology
Jerry (Jewish Scientific Prophet of God) (Another Jewish Madman speaks for God)

steffend@lamar.colostate.edu (Dave Steffen) writes:
> Asger Tornquist (Tornquist@dk-online.dk) wrote:
> 
> > I see no logical reason that + and - inf. should meet. If it were so
> > the result of finding lim(x->+inf.) and lim(x->-inf.) for any real
> > function would give the same result, which it  doesn't.
> 
> 	It does in the complex plane. If one extends to complex
> numbers, you can go to infinity along the positive real axis ("plus
> infinity") or along the negative real axis ("minus infinity")... or
> along the positive imaginary axis ("plus imaginary infinity?!"), or in
> any one of an infinite number of directions.
Of course, this is wrong.  Just view the limits of the function
exp(z).  They are quite different for different directions of
infinity.  Rational functions, though, have the "same" limits for each
kind of infinity if you consider all of them alike.  The Riemann
sphere is a mapping of the complex plane onto a sphere and happens to
map values of arbitrary magnitude to an arbitrarily small area.
Note that the function x^2 maps +x and -x to the same value, yet
nobody would claim that this would make +x and -x the same.
> > If the real number line were placed on an infinately big sphere on
> > the other hand, maybe plus/minus-inf would be the same.
If we find a mapping where some things get mapped onto each other, it
proves nothing whatsoever about the proximity of those points before
the mapping.
> 	This is, in fact, exactly what's done in complex analysis; the
> complex plane is mapped to a sphere.
Not at all.  That a mapping of the complex plane onto a sphere exists,
and that for purposes of rational functions one can still form
consistent limiting expressions on this sphere does not imply that the
sphere is always used for complex analysis.
-- 
David Kastrup                                       Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de         Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Universitaetsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany

Sorry for the test ... need to see if our system is accepting articles yet.
-- 
 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

"James A. Sawyer"  writes:
>
>I missed the earlier part of this thread.
>Anyone care to post a brief summary of the
>experiment, and/or it's claimed results?
 The only thing missing from the news article I saw posted is a
 reference to previous published work on the subject by the same
 first author: Podkletnov and Nieminen, Physica C 203, 441 (1992).
 Reading that paper will clarify how the thing is supposed to
 work, since it is (according to some who have seen the preprint
 of the 1996 article, accepted by J Phys D and then withdrawn
 when it became apparent that the second author Vuorinen had not
 approved its submission) a device operating on the same principle.
 There are also theory papers: one by Modanese reported accepted by
 Europhys Lett (have not seen any details on that) and various
 articles by Li and Torr in Phys. Rev. D 43, 457.  I believe a
 citation index search showed one followup in Physica C to the
 original experimental paper and there are other related papers
 by Li and Torr and comments on same by others.
 Other papers can be found at http://www.padrak.com/ine/RS_REF2.html
 along with many others not relevant to this particular line of work,
 and quite a bit at the Journal of Ideas: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~joi/
 (which had the Modanese preprint last time I was there).
-- 
 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

Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
| >| : Because THIS SHIT KILLS. Rhetoric in the mogginesian, ogdenian,
| >| : swansonian style is used to create distrust to science.
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck):
| >| Are you _honestly_ suggesting that moggin's remarks about Newton on
| >| Usenet pose a threat to physics? I'd say that Sokal's shit is more likely
| >| to cost the humanities dearly, and unjustly.  ...
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| >I find it amusing that Faith in Science is not only good
| >but necessary to life.
patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
| As once again the post-modern idiots leap into the fray.
I guess it's impossible for you to keep a civil tongue
in your head.
| Faith in Science is not necessary.
| 
| Science works whether you believe it or not.
| 
| Science does not, however, work whether you apply it or not.  It's
| not a self-generating system.
| 
| If you encourage people not to use science, they'll not use science,
| and a significant chunk of the lifestyle we've come to know and love
| will come crashing down about your ears. 
If I encourage people not to use science, they'll go right
on using science, because they have a scientific, rather
than a religious attitude towards it: if it works, use it,
even if you have some doubts about it.  But that's popcult
for you.
The idea that moggin's or Ogden's rhetoric will kill anyone
is ludicrous _unless_ you believe that perfect, unsullied
faith is also required -- according to Anton, their
rhetoric is bad because it's used to "create distrust." But
then one would have to explain why Hume's _Inquiry_ didn't
bring down Western Civilization the day it was published.
Or maybe one wouldn't.  I don't know how the theology of
Scientism works these things out; maybe Hume has somehow
been accounted for, as the Christians account for various
difficulties in _their_ scriptures.
It's very odd.  When I was a boy, back in the Middle Ages,
distrust was the lifeblood of science.  What happened?  When
did skepticism become not only undesirable but deadly?  That
is what the man _said_.  It's right up there: "THIS SHIT 
KILLS."  It's not only explicit but it's cast in diction
which should be familiar to you (see above).
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

> > Why be so stupid and wait until it's too late. Don't you think every
> > rapist and murderer is gonna repent if they were standing before God.
Actually one can be a nonbeliever WITHOUT beeing a rapist or murderer,
you know?
> Comments from Jerry
> The only ones who
> really deserve hell are the ones who preach it.
Good comment.
Volker

S. Smith / R. Bourgeois wrote:
> 
> Sorry for budding in like this in the middle of a thread...with a naive
> question on top of that!
> 
> On the comment that we can't cancel gravity because it is always an
> attractive force....   If gravity is a wave, then by definition, can't
> you cancel any wave's effect by synchronizing it with a 180deg out of
> phase parallel wave?  They do it with sound!  Theoretically then, isn't
> it possible with gravity?  An "Anti-gravity" beam like in the Jetsons!!!
Bear in mind it's always an attractive force - think about what kind of
interaction your wonderful gravity generation device (that's most likely
to be hovering right above your head) will have with the millions of
tonnes of solid rock beneath your feet. Nuff said.
-- 
Rains of fish, for example, were so common in the little landlocked
village of Pine Dressers that it had a flourishing smoking, canning and
kipper-filleting industry.
-Reaper Man, Terry Pratchet
Visit my homepage at http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~vic-chou/
Unfortunately no Discworld related stuff at the moment...but plenty of
other stuff

Yes, please!
I'd like readings of my pulse rate, the air temperature (8 pm to
midnight), wind speed, cloud cover and air transparency. 
What kind of modelling techniques are you using for forecasting? Do you
use Finite Element Analysis, Runge-Kutta, Inverted Winnit, or just plain
shite?
Now go away.
Edwin.

Michael Zeleny wrote:
> 
> brian artese  writes:
> >Michael Zeleny wrote:
> [...]
> >>...
> >>Since Goedel's work in formal logic is so often misapplied in support
> >>of the postmodern credo, you may want to come to terms with the fact
> >>that his philosophy was antithetical to the neo-Sophistical revival
> >>advocated by Derrida and his cronies.
> 
> >I've read Derrida and plenty of his French cronies, and I've never come
> >across any reference to Goedel.  I suspect they don't give a shit.  I hope
> >I can come to terms with that...
> 
> Your suspicion is unfounded in fact.  See Deleuze, _La condition postmoderne_.
There is a discussion of Goedel's theorem in Derrida's La Dissémination 
at the end of the first Séance. I found this a week point in the 
undoubtly remarkable book.
Thomas.

John Steele wrote:
> 
>stuff deleted> 
>  Sounds like the modern equivalent of what one of my professors called `proof by
> Princeton seminar'.
> 
>  ``But I gave this seminar at Princeton, and no-one noticed the error''.
> 
That reminds me of my favorite proof principle when I, as an engineer,
am "proving" a math concept, especially to a math friend of mine:
Proof by Least Astonishment..."I'd be surprised if it wasn't true"
-- 
**************************************************************************
"That's ASYMPTOTICALLY Kazinsky, not ASYMPTOMATICALLY, you moron!"
Dave Lee
Ph.D. Student -- Department of Engineering Physics
2950 P Street
Dayton, OH 45433-77765
dlee@afit.af.mil
"The opinions expressed here are not the opinions of the employer."
*************************************************************************

Does anybody have any information and/or references about the
scintillator material LUTETIUM OXYORTHOSILICATE ?
Best regards
Peter Jansson
jansson@tsl.uu.se

Am 29. Okt. 1996 schrieb Hanspeter Schmid (schmid@isi.ee.ethz.ch):
> This is definitely not true.  n|(a-b) only implies n|(a^n-b^n), but
> not n^2|(a^n-b^n).  This becomes obious e.g. for n=3.
Es ist definitiv doch wahr! Wenn n ein Teiler von (a-b) ist, dann ist
n^2 ein Teiler von (a^n-b^n). Beweis:
Es gilt  a = xn+r  und  b = yn+r  mit geeignet gewählten x, y, r.
Ausrechnen mit dem binomischen Lehrsatz ergibt
	a^n - b^n  =  (xn+r)^n - (yn+r)^n 
	=   \sum_{k=0}^n {n \choose k} x^k n^k r^(n-k)
	  - \sum_{k=0}^n {n \choose k} y^k n^k r^(n-k)
	=  \sum_{k=0}^n {n \choose k} (x^k-y^k) n^k r^(n-k).
Die Summanden mit  k >= 2  sind offensichtlich durch n^2 teilbar (wegen
dem Faktor n^k). Und für  k = 0 ist der Summand 0 
(denn x^0-y^0 = 1-1 = 0). Es bleibt noch der Summand mit  k = 1. 
Nun gilt aber {n \choose 1} = n, also ist dieser Summand ebenfalls durch
n^2 teilbar.
(Für Leute, die mit der TeX-Schreibweise nicht so vertraut sind: 
{n \choose k} ist der Binominalkoeffizient "n über k".)
> : I also state without proof that (x+y-z)^n is divisible by (z-x),
> : (z-y) and (x+y).  Again, this is also obvious and can be done in
> : your head by expanding (x+y-z)^n.
>
> This is also not true.  (x+y-z)^n can be written as (y-(z-x))^n and is
> therefore the unique factorization of the polynomial (x+y-z)^n in
> terms of (z-x).  The same can be said for (z-y) and (x+y).
Da gebe ich Dir recht. Das kann in dieser Allgemeinheit nicht gelten.
> : 1.  Statement of the Problem:  Fermat's Last Theorem
> : 
> : Given x,y,z, relatively prime, n odd prime 
> : 
> : no solution exists for the equation x^n + y^n = z^n 
>
> This is not Fermat's last theorem.  The theorem is rather:
>
> Given: x,y,z are positive integers, n is an integer > 2
>
> Then no solution exists for the equation x^n + y^n = z^n.
Grundsätzlich hast Du recht. Man kann aber leicht beweisen:
	Wenn es eine Lösung für  x^n + y^n = z^n  (mit n > 2)
	gibt, dann gibt es auch eine, bei der x, y, z teilerfremd
	sind und n eine Primzahl ist.
Für den Fermatschen Satz reicht es also zu beweisen, daß die
Aussage für teilerfremdes x, y, z und ungerade Primzahlen n gilt.
Karl-Heinz Krause

Who knows interesting web sites concerning physics?
We are trying to build a list of links to useful 
and interesting sites. This web page will be announced
later in this newsgroup.
Thanks for all help.
	Markus Knauer 

No, glass is not a solid.....it is an amorphous liquid.  You can see this liquid 
property express itself best in old (read really old) window panes.  If you look 
closely they will be wider/thicker at the bottom than at the top.  The glass has 
flowed down and caused the pane to thicken.

: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: Giving a direct proof to Throop is "pearls before swine."
Namecalling won't change the fact that bjon's "direct proof" is faulty.
::: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
::: In SRT, clocks must slow with their absolute speeds because otherwise
::: one could easily truly set clocks by using simple clock transport. 
What follows the "because" does not logically imply what comes before
it, because the "otherwise" doesn't exclude not having an "absolute
speed" at all.  Bjon's basic claim is that real, measureable effects
must have real, observer-independent, "absolute" causes.  But he hasn't
shown any reason (except for the simple *claim* that it is so) that
space and time measures (or, "absolute speed") must be this
observer-independent cause. 
Bjon's "proof" is hardly a pearl.
It is the same claim as concluding that plumb lines must change their
"absolute up-down length" because "otherwise, we'd be able to figure
out which plane is absolutely horizontal".  By "the same claim", I
mean that the geometric content is exactly the same.  Nobody worries
about the "absolute direction" in space.  The notion of an "absolute
velocity" in space-time is geometrically the same worry, and should
therefore be counted metaphysically necessary exactly as much 
as "absolute direction" is.
None of this "proves" there is *no* absolute speed, of course.
I've always agreed with bjon on that sub-point.  It's just that SR's
model for velocity effects is of the same kind as Euclidean geometry's
model for orientation effects.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

pausch@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) writes:
  [Someone else wrote]
> > A C compiler must assume that a and b might point to partly overlapping
> > memory spaces. A Fortran compiler may assume that they don't (and I am
> > sure many Fortran programmers are not aware of the consequences of this
> > fact).
>  
> Why is a Fortran compiler allowed to assume this?
>       SUBROUTINE COPY(DOUBLE PRECISION A, DOUBLE PRECISION B, INTEGER N)
[...]
>       END
>  
>       PROGRAM TEST(INPUT,OUTPUT,TAPE5=INPUT,TAPE6=OUTPUT)
>       DOUBLE PRECISION X(100), Y(10), Z(10)
>       EQUIVALENCE (X(3),Y(1)), (X(1),Z(1))
>       DATA /Z/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10/
>       COPY(Y,Z,10)
[...]
>       END
> This exhibits exacly the same aliasing problem as in C .....
Yes, but the standards differ.  If you do such folly in Fortran, the
language standard permits the compiler to fall into that trap and
generate bad output.  The C standard demands "correct" behaviour
nonetheless.
So the Fortran standard classifies this as a user problem, whereas the
C standard calssifies this as a compiler problem.  That allows Fortran
to generate more efficient code in cases like this.
Of course this is one reason never to use EQUIVALENCE...
-- 
David Kastrup                                       Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de         Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Universitaetsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany