Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: "magnus.lidgren"
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:40:26 -0800
I am truly thankful for all the response on the issue - A photon what is it really?
I find it most educating to follow the discussion even if this has forced me to conclude
that the photon perhaps may be more complex in its nature than I had wished it to be.
Presently I'm right in the process of making all the answers up to now comprehensible,
speaking for myself of course. Quite a tricky mental exercise I should say, however
fascinating.
Although I am very pleased with what I have learned so far, ( to all my friends I've
quickly became the Incarnation of The Outmost Wisdom), there is still something that
troubles me....
......and perhaps also you, as almost all of you have rejected one of my questions, and
the few answers I've got results in a multiple choice situation where I need further
guidance. I hope that someone will help me to make up my mind on this part. May I
therefore repeat the question(s) and also further explain my dilemma? Thank you...
Previously I wrote the following:
Begin quotation:
Perhaps someone can help me out with a little momentum problem ?
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.
Somehow though, it seems that the information about direction and frequency truly never
get lost. To me this indicate ( or should I say pictures) that there is a continuous
signal carrying the, for "the photon in free space", relevant information of energy and
direction. Sometimes this "signal" constitutes a photon and sometimes it comes in some
other shape. Of what importance is it what "vehicle(s)" this "information" or "signal" use
when traveling? Can this information or signal travel without at the same time constitute
a flow of energy (equivalent to the original photon energy) . I can see this "signal" slow
down in velocity when passing through the glass media but can it come to a complete stop,
unless complete absorption or reflection? And could (and why should not) the "signal"
build momentum when slowed down?
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 gains 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, forcing the glass to move in <----
direction as long as the propagation lasts.
Does anyone know if any experiments actually have been performed to see what really
happens as described above ( or similar)
End quotation:
Now to some of the few answers
Mattias Pierrou wrote:
> The thing that obviously troubles you is that the photon gain momentum
> when it enters the medium of (n>1) according to the following relation:
>
> p = h*nu*n/c0
>
> When the photon experience a higher refractive index it also gain
> momentum.
> To conserve momentum you want the piece of glass to gain momentum too,
> but in the opposite direction (which clearly is a violation of the
> conservation of energy - what is most important?).
>
> Answer to your Q:
> Eventually the photon leaves the glass and in the process lose momentum
> in the same manner as it gained momentum above. Your conservation of
> momentum is fulfilled, without any momentum induced in the piece of
> glass!
>
> You have to include the whole system into your analysis, not just one
> boundary of the glass.
>
> Hope I brought you some clarity!
>
> /Mattias
From this answer I conclude that a photon, given that it on its way is not reflected or
truly absorbed, from the moment it enters the glass and during the time it is on its way
through the glass, (but not yet leaving the glass), it will temporarily gain momentum,
and, in order to conserve momentum, move the glass backwards.
Klaus Kassner wrote:
> Gain? Lose. (If it came from the left.)
>
> The net momentum acquired by the glass will depend on the ratio of intensity that is > reflected to that that goes through. Consider a single photon. If it goes through and >
has the same direction (i.e. momentum) on leaving the glass as entering it, it has >
gained back any losses of momentum that it may have had during scattering inside the >
glass. Thus, it does not
> transfer any net momentum to the glass (it did so temporarily, while it was inside).
> So if you have a beam that goes through and comes out with the same direction as it > enters the glass, the net momentum transfer depends on the number of photons still in >
that beam in comparison with that before entering the glass (it also depends on the >
direction of the reflected beam). So it is an intensity question.
From this answer I conclude that a photon, given that it on its way is not reflected or
truly absorbed, from the moment it enters the glass and during the time it is on its way
through the glass, (but not yet leaving the glass), it will temporarily lose momentum,
and, in order to conserve momentum, move the glass in the forward direction.
Well... what should I think ??
Is the piece of glass moving backwards, forwards or perhaps completely still?
Also, may I again stress you on this question. Does anyone know if any experiments
actually have been performed to see what really happens as described above (i.e. when
light propagating glass, does the glass move?) ?
I would very much appreciate if those of you perhaps responding to this post would include
either of the two following lines in your reply.
a. No, I have not heard of any such experiments performed.
b. Yes, I know of such experiments being performed and the piece of glass moved
...............
Regards and thanks
Magnus Lidgren
Subject: Re: Using C for number-crunching (was: Numerical solution to
From: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 31 Oct 1996 04:32:19 GMT
Jeff Candy (candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
: me:
:
: > The speed of C code versus FORTRAN code depends most strongly (given
: > identical coding algorithms) on the compiler. For example, the AIX
: > FORTRAN compiler (IBM) is far superior to the fort77/f2c (gnu) compiler
: > in the UNIX/LINUX distribution.
:
: Paul J. Gans:
:
: >> Not a fair comparison.
:
: Admittedly; but whether or not it is "fair", it is a reality faced by
: anyone porting code from an RS6000 to a linux box.
:
: >> f2c translates FORTRAN into C accurately, but with great loss of
: >> efficiency. Fort77 is still a beta compiler.
:
: fort77 uses f2c.
Right. My mind degenerates. What is the name of the (beta)
FORTRAN compiler? g77?
You are quite right about the realities. But the "realities"
go further than that. No one has infinite money. If one is
running linux on an Intel box, one is not going to get super
high speed in floating point no matter what. If one is running
on an alpha, it is quite probably because one cannot affort the
"official" operating system and compilers.
For me, running linux and using C on an Intel box is a win
because (a) I can't really afford much else and (b) my
programs are mainly integer, not floating point. Of
course, this is a special case and not generally applicable.
------ Paul J. Gans [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: "Robert. Fung"
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 08:50:41 -0500
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.
The energy hf applies to one 'photon' of frequency f,
but it doesn't apply to one wave-number ? In this
context I've read of light pulses representing
less than one photon:
http://p23.lanl.gov/Quantum/quantum.htm#contents
Bohm, in the Undivided Universe, indicates that the particle
nature of light is only manifested in the interaction of the
field with matter.
Is frequency more elementary than wavelength ?
If a monochromatic beam is 'dispersed' in media,
it is only refracted (the wavelength changes but the
frequency is the same) But there also seems to be the
arguments that monochromatic waves are never perfectly
one frequency since there are no perfect sources. The
monochromatic wave being many built of many frequencies
closely centered on the ideal monochromatic frequency.
Also, the idea of a localized particle seems to imply that
a photon is not itself monochromatic, being a
superposition of frequencies that make it spacially
localized, but this is seemingly contradictory.
The above URL refers to an article on Interaction-free
measurements. The Yamamoto, Haroche reference given there is
reminiscent of the Soviet bug placed in the Seal of the United
Nations. It was a passive bug, made from a resonant cavity
modulated by sounds in the conference room and the idea is
an extension of the grid-dip meter towards eavesdropping.
Is this an interaction-free measurement ?
Subject: Re: Antiparticle Charge W/O Magnetic Field?
From: jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 31 Oct 1996 13:55:11 GMT
do719@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron Gorgichuk) writes:
>
>Has anyone ever experimentally measured the charge of the positron or
>the antiproton using a method which does not rely on the magnetic field o
>of these particles.
Two examples come to mind. Positonium 'atoms' (e+ e- bound state) have
been studied in great detail. SLAC runs positrons and electrons down
the same accelerator tube, riding opposite peaks of the oscillating
electric field wave. Both are consistent with equal charges. Traps
use electric fields, but I don't know what sorts of tests are done.
The study of such questions is the work of a small group of physicists
concerned with testing conservation laws and symmetries, and I do not
follow that work in the literature. You can find some starting points
in the relevant section of the RPP (Phys. Rev. D 54, 1).
--
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
Subject: Aggregation and fractals
From: Adrian Burd
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:06:16 -0600
I wonder if some kind soul out there can help me out. some of the work
I am involved with at the moment has to do with aggregation of
particulate material into fractal clusters. Having read some of the
literature on DLA etc, the following question arose.
All of the literature I have seen deals with aggregation from a
homogeneous population of monomers and, via ones mechanism of choice,
builds up larger aggregates. At a certain point in the simualtion the
fractal dimension of these aggregates is determined. What would happen
if I had two populations of particles such that if each population
just aggregated within itself one would arrive at two populations
of aggregates having different fractal dimensions. What would happen
to the fractal dimension of the particles if these two separate
populations were allowed to interact and form a third, hybrid class
of aggregates? Is the fractal dimension of this third related
in some way to those of the previous two classes?
Adrian
--
_____________________________________________________________________
|
Adrian Burd, | Quidquid Latinae dictum sit,
Dpt. of Oceanography, | altum videtur.
Texas A&M; University, |
College Station , |---------------------------------------
Texas 77843 |
F: (409) 847 8879 | http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/~ecomodel
W: (409) 845 1115 |
_____________________________|_______________________________________
Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone, for which
organisations that use spokespersons are profoundly
grateful.
______________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 31 Oct 1996 14:52:30 GMT
: >>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>>[etc. -- you get the idea]
[...]
: >>>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.
: >I've highlighted the sentences here that distinguish Richard's approach
: >from yours. If you are willing to adopt his viewpoint, that's fine.
: >However, you should acknowledge that it is different from the one you
: >espoused.
: Not if you have rudimentary grasp of litotes and hyperbole.
Let's ask Richard, shall we? Richard?
: >>>> 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.
: >I have. Nobody says you should interpret Derrida; I asked whether your
: >attack on him was based on an understanding of what he said. It is not.
: I understand that it makes you more comfortable to think so.
I understand that you cannot answer a simple question put to you: what
does Derrida mean when he says that the "Einsteinian constant" (take your
pick of what that refers to) is not a "center" in the sense of center he
develops in SSP? Give it a try, please.
[...]
: >>The Phaedrus was written by the head of the Academy.
: >? I have no idea what you are trying to say. The dating of the Phaedrus
: >is still contested, as you know. If you are trying to suggest that the
: >Phaedrus is a piece of institutional politics, good luck; as the only
: >dialogue set outside the city, it does not easily lend itself to such
: >reading. You might try, of course.
: I don't have to try anything. The default assumption, by way of
: interpretive charity, is that Plato is incomprehensible to an
: ageometretos.
I gather you don't know the Phaedrus very well, then, not well enough to
engage it pertinently. Unless dialogues set within institutions, it
presents a different way of doing philosophy. Your attitude to interpret
all of Plato according to some simplistic default bespeaks a deplorable
lack of intellectual agility -- a quality more important to a Platonic
philosopher, or any philosopher, than geometry, ultimately.
: >>>>>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.
: >You are repetitive. YOu failed to establish your first assumption;
: >therefore, all conclusions drawn on the basis of it are unestablished as
: >well.
: I established it to my satisfaction by citing the liminary inscription
: at the Academy. In view of your wilful apologetics of ignorance, I
: neither expect nor intend to satisfy your objections in this matter.
You are incapable of sustaining your point as to Derrida's remark. This
is your last chance to say something meaningful about the concept of
"center" as it emerges in SSP.
: >>>>>c) a disagreement does not constitute a debunking
: >>>>But a disagreement on a fundamental issue does.
: >>>No.
: >>So you say.
: >So most of us say. "Debunking" implies condescension and hostility.
: It also implies repudiation of intellectual authority. I would not
: know about hostility, but condescension is implicitly there, in the
: presumption of holding forth about the Forms without paying one's dues.
I concur with that definition and point you to the fact that Derrida pays
hommage to Plato in "Plato's Pharmacy."
[...]
: >>>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 ...
And you still haven't told us what you think that means.
: >>Sounds like arrogation of authority to me.
: >I realize that; I'm still baffled by it, though. Again, he is referring
: >to the concept of center (and play [not game]) that emerges in his talk.
: Irrelevant. Whatever he takes "the Einsteinian constant" to be -- and
: the number of reasonable options is strictly delimited by the content
: of GR -- his assertion that "it is the very concept of variability" is
: physically absurd.
But he's not talking about the realm of physics.
As a bonus, you may note that Derrida's pervasive
: and habitual conflation of suppositio formalis and suppositio simplex
: (elsewhere also conflated with suppositio materialis) rules out even
: an elementary degree of understanding of Platonist linguistics.
Thanks, Michael. Now what about engaging the point in question? You start
reminding me of Russell Turpin and S E C.
[...]
: >>>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?
: >It shifts agency; Barthes did not throw himself under a truck, he had an
: >accident. I'm sorry for relying on common usage to make my point.
: You have your sources and I have mine. The suicide story had rather
: wide currency in Paris. Unlike the Brits regarding Ramsey's demise,
: the facts of which are only beginning to emerge six decades later, the
: French are notorious for their inability to keep a secret.
I see. You base your assessment of philosophers or semioticians on Paris
gossip. Why not read "The Pleasure of the Text" instead?
[...]
: To repeat myself, it is always interesting to observe the conflict
: between duty and inclination -- professional duty to interpret the
: hidden meanings and social inclination to act on a petite bourgeoise
: concern for excluding undesirables.
You mean, like excluding Barthes from thinkers you will consider on the
basis of hearsay?
[...]
: >>>>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.
: >But since you don't know what his claims are, you don't really know
: >whether that is good or bad.
: I have an idea, which gives me a leg up on Derrida.
So you say. So far, no ideas have been forthcoming.
Silke
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory Dandulakis)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:30:09 GMT
In article Peter den Haan wrote:
>
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>
> >Faith in Science is not necessary.
> >Science works whether you believe it or not.
>
>This statement is already based on an article of faith: the validity of
>induction. Of course, in science, we call it an 'axiom' because we don't
>like to borrow religious idiom.
Science does not have axioms; mathematics has.
But here we make a misuse of the word "faith". Faith in science and
in religion are two completely different things. It might be needed
to use/invent different terms too. In science, the "faith" or better
"expectation" or "induction" or "extrapolation", is rigorously defined
such as to be tested for disprovability. In religion there is no such
a thing. No matter what the outcomes might be, a religious faith, if
it is indeed religious faith, remains unchallenged. Maybe "conditional
faith" vs. "unconditional faith" would suffice to differentiate them.
Gregory
Subject: Re: Can Science Say If God Exists? (was INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY)
From: pritchjm@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (J.M. Pritchard)
Date: 31 Oct 1996 23:18:27 -0500
In article <55b6he$lo5@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
J.W. Tait wrote:
>J.M. Pritchard wrote:
>>In article <3278103B.39B@gte.net>, Ash wrote:
>>>By the way what are the chances on life spontaneously evolving from dead
>>>matter into what it is now. I remember seeing the number somewhere.
>> It can't conceivably be any less probable than the "miracle" of
>>creation - which is by definition, a 0% chance.
>Of course, the "miracle" of creation wouldn't really be all that
>spontaneous, now would it?
Eh? Oh I get it, you're getting postmodern on me.
>That aside, any number quoted would be little more than pur speculative
>bullshit.
Naturally. The point is to try and dissuate this kind of fruitless
babbling in either camp.
Jeff
Subject: Re: Gravity and Electromagnetism:Unified Field Theory
From: jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com (Jonathan Scott)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:07:15 GMT
In article <55677h$ilc@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
on 30 Oct 1996 00:24:17 GMT,
Allen Meisner writes:
>jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com (Jonathan Scott) wrote:
>
>>In what sense interesting? The total angle by which space is curved
>>across an elementary particle of mass m, assuming its size to be of a
>>similar order of magnitude to its de Broglie wavelength, is around
>>Gm^2/(hbar c), which is around 10^-39 for a proton.
>
> Since you seem to want an answer, I would like to point out the
>misunderstanding. I am talking about the curvature of the proton and
>electron themselves, not the curvature they produce.
I don't see how you can make a distinction. If we are talking about
gravity, the curvature is produced by the mass/energy of the particle.
> I imagine this to
>be quite astronomical. Assuming dimensions for the proton to be in the
>10^-27 meter range, the energy density is very large. The equivalent
>energy density of one cubic meter would be about 10^60 joules/m^3.
Why do you assume a proton to be that small? The radius of a proton or
neutron is thought to be around 1.5 * 10^-15 m.
If you want curvature rather than angle, divide 10^-39 radians by 10^-15
meters and you get 10^-24 radians per meter, or to put it another way, a
radius of curvature of 10^24 meters.
A large block of similar material is a different matter because the mass
would be proportional to the cube of the size but the radius from the
center would only be proportional to the size, so the gravitational
potential at the surface would be proportional to the square of the size
and the curvature would be proportional to the size. A solid block of
nucleon material 1 meter across would therefore have curvature about
10^15 times that of a single proton, giving around 10^-9 radians per
meter, or a radius of curvature of 10^9 meters. (This is like the
material within a small neutron star).
If by "interesting" curvature you mean curvature of the same order as
the size of the object, you are talking about a black hole, large or
small.
Jonathan Scott
jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com or jscott@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Can Science Say If God Exists? (was INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY)
From: Gidon Cohen
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 12:08:59 +0000
C. Szmanda wrote:
>
> 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?
Not of an English translation of Genesis. The investigation was carried
out on a Hebrew copy of Genesis (the Textus Receptus - see appendix 4 of
the article).
>
> >
> > 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?
Where did you gain an understanding of my religious beliefs. As I
understand myself I would describe myself as an agnostic. I find the
message of the bible (however interpreted) pretty much repulsive. I would
consider myself an atheist if there were no scientific evidence for
religion. That is why I find the statistical science article so
disturbing/fascinating, it provides the only (so far as I know)
scientific evidence for any kind of religious argument.
The message of the bible is certainly not enough for me.
>
> >
> > 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!
I would have thought so too. But I am aware of the immediate importance
(politically) of this argument. It is being present to secular Jewish
university audiences around the UK and US (and no doubt elsewhere) and it
is, largely by itself, drawing large numbers of individuals towards
extremist religious positions. (My own brother is one such example, hence
my particular interest in this question). The article is becomming
increasing widely discussed in Christian fundamentalist circles too.
Religious people are only too willing to invest time and energy in
investigating such a phenomenon but they are unlikely to show that the
results are false. I thus believe that there is a need for secular
investigation and refutation of the Statistical Science article.
Gidon Cohen.
Subject: Re: WHAT "Fresh Knowledge" CHANGED the POPE's MIND?
From: Patrick Van Esch
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 13:00:42 +0000
Kent D. Johnson wrote:
>
>
> This theory falls flat upon further analysis. According to the Bible,
> plants were created before animals and animals were created before man.
But admit that that is just a theory, not a fact.
> Evolution
> theory (and you can't dispute that it is theory) states that a witches
> brew of chemicals evolved into single-celled organisms which evolved
> into lower life forms which evolved into animals which evolved into apes
> which evolved into man - an integral part of evolution theory is death;
> organisms/animals had to die in order to evolve and form the "fossil
> record". However, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there was no
> death in the world until AFTER man brought sin into the world.
Aha, and if the bible says so, it must be true of course.
>
> So this "long day" theory has plants thriving for millions of years
> before there were any animals or insects to assist with pollenation and
> it has animals dying for millions of years before the appearance of man
> when the Bible says nothing died until after man had sinned. Something
> doesn't wash, does it?
INDEED !!! Now the $ 1.000.000 question is: WHAT doesn't wash ?
>
> Since society has been force-fed the theory of evolution as "fact", many
> well-meaning people have tried to reconcile the truth of the Bible with
> the supposed "fact" of evolution. The "fact" is, no such reconciliation
> is possible. Everyone needs to come to grips with the realization that
> they must make a choice: either you believe the scientists and their
> ever-changing theory or you believe the Bible and its eternal truth.
> You can't have it both ways.
Indeed. So... how about dumping that silly old book all together ?
>
> Kent D. Johnson
> kentdj@revealed.net
>
> Jesus is Alive...Darwin Isn't!
No, they nailed him on a woody structure but it was already too late,
the idiocy
spread already all over the place.
cheers,
Patrick.
Jesus is death, I'm not ! :)
.
Subject: Re: Is glass a solid?
From: schne042@gold.tc.umn.edu (Mike Schneider)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 07:22:02 -0600
Stephen La Joie wrote:
> Kelly Miller wrote:
> > davidelm writes:
> > >Glass is one of those things which is always a liquid at any
> > >temperature.
> >
> > just another example that gross ignorance does not prevent the use of
> > fingers on a keyboard...
> >
> Insults don't prove your point. The do make a point about you.
> Take your insults elsewhere, flame-boy.
>
> There are plenty of references to support both sides of this
> argument. This is a matter of definition.
If your statement is true, that there is plenty of support for both sides,
lets see yours. The only thing I have ever seen supporting that glass is
a liquid is the fact that it is amorphous.
Lots of SOLID materials are amorphous, candle wax, some plastics, wheat
protein, some rubbers, etc. In fact, if one brings some crystaline soilds
through the right heating/cooling cycle, they can became amorphous. Look
at the phase diagrams for some common solids, and you'll see many have
areas where they are amorphous
So by one definition it is a solid because it is hard and does not flow
when a shearing force is applied. This is not to say it does not deform,
but then again, most solids will deform regardless of their crystaline
state.
By another definition, it is an amorphous soild. But a solid nonetheless.
Finally, it is a liquid when it gets hotter than its yield point. A yield
point is the point where an amorphous solid begins to flow when a shear
stress is applied. This point is no where near room temperature for
glass.
I hope I've cleared up this argument. If it is still a matter of
definition, please state why. Thank you.
Keep your stick on the ice,
Mike Schneider http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/g396/schne042/