Newsgroup sci.physics 206062

Directory

This is in part a repeat of my posting No. 129792.
I would be very grateful if someone gave me a pointer to a thorough
intro book to potential theory. Especially I am looking for a 
precise statement as to when a volume of mass may be treated as 
a point source; and I am looking for  a statement just as clear that
if  a region is continuously occupied by mass, it may not be
considered a continuum of point sources, but it is necessary to 
scale the potential per unit mass, as it is done in thermodynamics. 
I am looking for the theoretical foundation of thermodynamics (not as
it is done in textbooks, but where these foundations are derived 
from potential theory). 
I have seen the above statements in some book, but unfortunately 
I cannot remember where I saw them; I need them because I want to
quote them in some paper. 
Please reply to my personal address, 
koenemann@rwth-aachen.de
Thank you, Falk Koenemann

There's nothing here to respond to, so to what I'm sure is a collective 
sigh of relief, I'm ending this particular discussion.
Silke
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:
: >>>>weinecks@mail2.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@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?
: >>>>>>Note how readily you fall back on the academic view you have been
: >>>>>>denouncing heretofore -- that understanding the message depends on
: >>>>>>adopting the 18th century conception of its authorship.  This sort
: >>>>>>of opportunistic dishonesty is the main reason why I refuse to
: >>>>>>interpret your own authorities for you.
: >>>>>This discussion isn't on the level of hermeneutic sublety that would
: >>>>>require putting them into play yet. 
: >>>>More desperate wriggling.  To paraphrase Umberto Eco, your egotistic
: >>>>interests in this discussion give the lie to your hermeneutic pretense.
: >>>Never the one to engage an argument, hm?
: >>You fancy that attempted self-vindication of a dishonest opportunist
: >>publicly caught in the act of self-serving mystification amounts to an
: >>argument?
: >I'm guilty of giving you too much credit; I assumed you knew that the
: >sophisticated critique of authorship does in no way eliminate the
: >imperative to manifest intellectual integrity or sheer politeness (as in
: >rescuing Richard's points from association with yours).
: Your sophisticated attempts at damage control fail to impress.
: >>>>>>>>>>>>                        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.
: >>>>>>No.
: >>>>>Okay, that's settled then. You may step away from the podium.
: >>>>I am unaware of having asked for your permission to speak.
: >>>But perhaps you were waiting for permission to stop speaking. It's 
: >>>granted. 
: >>Still projecting your Prussian mannerisms on citizens of the free world?
: >I see that Zeleny/Kagalenko osmosis works both ways.
: Looks like it is time for you to mention my penis.
: >>>>>>>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. 
: >>>>>>I take it that "intellectual agility" is your way to euphemize your
: >>>>>>opportunistic dishonesty.
: >>>>>I take it you once again have no argument to offer. I am neither 
: >>>>>dishonest nor opportunistic; neither defending Derrida nor defending 
: >>>>>Plato creates many opportunities in the current academy.
: >>>>I am not interested in your academic career.  Your opportunistic
: >>>>dishonesty is richly manifested in your weaselly conduct throughout
: >>>>this discussion.
: >>>Well, Michael, if you call me an opportunist, you'd have to point out 
: >>>some opportunity I'm pursuing. 
: >>To win this argument at all costs, after excising all heuristic
: >>concerns therefrom.
: >I've already won this argument. I'm at this point being polite in responding.
: Must evertything you say betoken your sophistication?
: >>>>>>>>>>>>>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. 
: >>>>>>The answer is still no.  Besides, as I have shown in the comment cited
: >>>>>>below, it is irrelevant to my point.
: >>>>>You have shown no such thing, and you have consistently failed to address 
: >>>>>reasonable objections to you simplistic claim.
: >>>>My simplistic claim that Derrida's remark betokens crass ignorance has
: >>>>been recognized as obviously true by two disinterested observers to date.
: >>>That's an impressive number. I'm sure you could get about two 
: >>>disinterested observers to agree with you on just about anything. If 
: >>>that's what it takes to make you comfortable with your ignorance, you're 
: >>>leading an easy life.
: >>If feeling out of step with the rest of mankind makes you feel all
: >>warm and fuzzy inside, don't let any rational considerations get in
: >>your way.
: >I see; "one, two, many," eh? I remember you making some pretty 
: >high-handed comments about the unpopularity of hard thought somewhere 
: >else; should have known you didn't have the stuff to mean that.
: Once again the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions
: proves to be too crude for your sophistication.
: >>>>>[...]
: >>>>>>>I concur with that definition and point you to the fact that Derrida pays 
: >>>>>>>hommage to Plato in "Plato's Pharmacy." 
: >>>>>>An homage whose central point is the boring triviality that the Greek
: >>>>>>word "pharmakon", much like the English word "drug", can mean either
: >>>>>>poison or remedy.  Big Hairy Fucking Deal.
: >>>>>You read that in the _New Republic_, I gather? It's hardly the central 
: >>>>>point of the essay. I take your remark above to prove that you haven't 
: >>>>>read that piece either.
: >>>>No, I read it on pages 108--133 of _La dissimulation_.
: >>>Cute little gag, but no, you didn't. 
: >>I must have gotten the page numbers from your favorite Log Cabin
: >>Republican rag, too.
: >You're exhibiting your ignorance in the most embarrassing ways. Do you 
: >really suggest that citing page numbers of an essay and making a 
: >rather lame pun on a title will convince anybody but Kagalenko that you 
: >have a clue about what's in the essay?
: You are parroting yourself.  Haven't we established already that no
: critic of pomo could in principle have a clue about it?
: >>>>>>>[...]
: >>>>>>>>>>>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.
: >>>>>>Nonsense means nothing.
: >>>>>True; but you are incapable of showing why the above is nonsense because 
: >>>>>you are incapable of engaging Derrida's notion of center. That's not in 
: >>>>>itself dishonorable; to make denunciatory pronouncements out of 
: >>>>>ignorance, however, is.
: >>>>Feel free to take it up with Messrs Hutticher and Hulley.
: >>>In other words, you have nothing to say.
: >>In other words, I have said all I wanted to say to YOU on this
: >>subject, until and unless you fulfil the previously established
: >>conditions of discourse.
: >The conditions of intellectual discourse I'm habituated to require that 
: >you make judgments on the basis of knowledge and that, if challenged on 
: >your assessment of a text, you can convincingly manifest having read the 
: >text in question.
: More opportunistic dishonesty.  Is that why you had to excuse yourself
: when I challenged you on the Meditations?
: >>>[...]
: >>>>>No. To repeat, the explanation I need concerns the following: what is 
: >>>>>Derrida's notion of center, and why would Einstein's constant be an 
: >>>>>example of it?
: >>>>I am not concerned with addressing your needs.  Addressing this notion
: >>>>is supererogatory with respect to showing both Derrida and yourself as
: >>>>prattling sycophants.
: >>>You're not concerned with providing an argument either; from which I 
: >>>gather that you have no need for intellectual engagement of any sort. 
: >>>That's your prerogative. 
: >>I have no need of intellectual engagement with dishonest opportunists.
: >>However, you are welcome to rectify your misconduct any time.
: >We're still waiting for you to exhibit understanding of the Derridean 
: >concept of "center" -- this is what this discussion is about, or should 
: >be. Your toddleresque mannerisms will not impress.
: By contrast, your lies impress everybody.
: >>>>>>>[...]
: >>>>>>>>>>>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?
: >>>>>>I base my assessment of people's motives on testimony about them.
: >>>>>>Though this practice may be alien to an intellectual such as yourself,
: >>>>>>it has rather wide currency in history and jurisprudence.
: >>>>>Gossip is gossip. If the testimony varies, you go for the more 
: >>>>>sensational and the more denunciatory one. Would you kindly give a 
: >>>>>reputable cite?
: >>>>Not until you corroborate your denial of the suicide theory.
: >>>Defamation doesn't have to be disproven; the burden of proof is on you. 
: >>>We agree on the fact that Barthes was hit by a truck and died. Your 
: >>>contention that he committed suicide is so far gossip, and no sources 
: >>>have been given. Which makes it, precisely, meaningless.
: >>The burden of proof always happens to fall on the other side, as far
: >>as you are concerned.  Either Barthes had his reasons to step in front
: >>of a speeding truck, or the people who had told me so or I in having
: >>related it to you, have perpetrated a lie.  I see no reason to reveal
: >>my sources nor to question their or relinquish my own presumption of
: >>truthfulness, just because you are having a snit fit of self-serving
: >>skepticism.
: >You're being rather pathetic. I wonder whether you know it.
: I bet you say that to all boys, just before you resort to commenting
: on their genitalia.
: >>>>>>>[...]
: >>>>>>>>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?
: >>>>>>Who said anything about excluding?  I just considered Barthes -- by
: >>>>>>comparing him to Charles Kinbote.
: >>>>>You don't know anything about Barthes except gossip, it seems -- on what 
: >>>>>would you base any comparison?
: >>>>On _S/Z_ compared to _Pale Fire_, naturally.
: >>>Naturally.
: >>Then it follows that I must know something about Barthes' writings,
: >>contrary to your previous hypothesis.
: >Naturally.
: Then it follows that things are not always as they seem to you.
: >>>>>[...]
: >>>>>>>So you say. So far, no ideas have been forthcoming.
: >>>>>>Here is an idea for you.  Philosophy is hard work.  It requires a lot
: >>>>>>of learning in the arts and sciences and a great deal of independent
: >>>>>>thought and personal integrity.  Thinking hurts, integrity makes one
: >>>>>>unpopular, and there is no end to learning.
: >>>>>Precisely. Not new, but still true. One would think, then, that the
: >>>>>general unpopularity of Derrida and the range of texts he knows truly well 
: >>>>>would at least interest you in his work or make you withhold judgment.
: >>>>Is your day incomplete unless you promulgate a logical fallacy?  Next
: >>>>time, try to come up with something more original than affirming the
: >>>>consequent.
: >>>There was no logic in your reply; why would I employ logic to engage it? 
: >>>Your criteria for "philosopher" are amply met by JD. 
: >>How would you know from scientific learning, independent thought, or
: >>personal integrity?
: >At least I read the books I comment on. Your independent thought is a bit 
: >too independent of what it thinks for my taste.
: This bit helps, assuming that you distinguish commenting upon Derrida
: from lying about Descartes.
: >>>>>>                                             You are looking for the
: >>>>>>royal road.  There is no such thing.
: >>>>>But you've found it: denounce anything you don't understand and refuse to 
: >>>>>engage any arguments that points you to the cheapness of the strategy.
: >>>>I denounce anything I can identify as obstructionist and obfuscatory
: >>>>nonsense and refuse to engage any arguments grounded in self-serving
: >>>>prevarication.  So sue me.
: >>>But ignorance and vanity are no crimes.
: >>A lucky break for you.
: >Toddler.
: Sophisticate.
: 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 article <55hk85$fmn@elaine2.Stanford.EDU>,
Andrea Lynn Leistra  wrote:
>In article , Stephen Lajoie  wrote:
>>
>>In article <32792CC7.7ADD@cyberspc.mb.ca>,
>>Doug Craigen   wrote:
>
>>>Name of the text and edition please.  I am trying to accumulate a list of errors 
>>>in text books after all. (http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/errors.html)
>
>>The book you are looking for is "Chemical Principles", 2nd ed, Dickerson, 
>>(cal tech) Gray (cal tech) and Haight (Univ of Illinois), pp624-625, which
>>states:
>
>>  Glasses are amorphous, disordered, noncrystalline aggregates with 
>>linked silicate chains of the sort depicted in Figure 14-32. Common soda 
>>lime glass of made with sand (SiO2), limestone (CaCO3) and sodium 
>>carbonate (Na2CO3) or sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), which are melted together 
>>and allowed to cool. Other glasses with special properties are made by 
>>using other metal carbonates and oxides. Pyrex glass has boron as well as 
>>silicon and some aluminum in its silicate framework. Glasses are not true 
>>solids, but are extremely viscous liquids. If you examine the panes of 
>>glass in a very old New England Home, you can sometimes see that the 
>>bottom of the pane is slightly thicker than the top because of two 
>>centuries of slow, viscous flow of the glass.
>
>Regardless of the truth of the first part of the statement, the statement
>that old windows are thicker because glass flows is *not* correct; if this
>were the case, we would not have glass ornaments from various ancient
>civilization that are thousands of years old; they would have flowed into
>puddles.  Windows in old buildings are thicker at the bottom because they
>were *built* that way, for stability and because of poor techniques.
You ignored the part where it explained that the glass will vitrify over
hundreds of years. That explains why your "glass ornament theory not
flowing" is bogus.
The rest of it, about people putting the glass in a certain direction, is
akin to the creationist belief that everything was designed that way. From
my viewing of this effect in the Muse home in Fresno, where hot weather
has increased the effect, I'd ahve to say that I don't see any indication
that thsi was by design. and that it could not be explained by a natural
effect.
>[second citation deleted]
>
>That one, you notice, didn't mention the 'old windows' UL, which is what
>most people have trouble with, I think.
That it is an urban legand or a real effect is what we were trying to
determine.
>-- 
>Andrea Leistra                      http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
>-----  
>Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
-- 
Steve La Joie     | "I think the biggest weapon of the totalitarian state
lajoie@eskimo.com | is the oppression of the individual by economic means.
                  | In this manner, the people are made to fall in line 
                  | with the principles of the government"  A. Einstein

Greetings;
I have not done this sort of thing before. But I find myself is dire
need of a reference and I can not find it.
If anyone knows of a URL for:
R.P. Feynman, "The Reason for Antiparticles," in Elementary Particles
and the Laws of Physics. The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures, edited by
R.P. Feynman and S. Weinberg (Cambridge University Press, New York,
1987)
Would you  PLEASE  let me know???????
Thanks.. and sorry for the request.
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.cei.net/~lkh/ntc/
Neutronics Technolgies Corporation...|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/

In <327A42EF.E45@cs.purdue.edu> Markus Kuhn  writes:
>Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> Markus Kuhn wrote:
>> >[Reference for those interested in what Martin digits are:
>> >Communications of the ACM, Vol 11, No. 10, October 1968, p. 658.]
>> 
>> Can you give us a short summary of Martin digits?
>The essential idea is that the shape of the digits of a base 16 system
>should make it especially easy to convert the digits in the
>corresponding bit group for binary calculations. Martin digits do not
>require anyone to remember B=1011, as the shape of the digit is directly
>related to the bit pattern. With digits designed carefully this way and
>some with some practice you can do addition and multiplication without
>remembering any tables.
More in detail, Mr Martin suggested something like the following (and it
gives me an excuse to do some ascii art :-)
	_
       / \     |    |    |  __|  __|  __|  __|    (the zero is the ordinary
      |   |    |  __|  __|    |    |  __|  __|     zero, of course.)
       \_/   __|    |  __|    |  __|    |  __|     
        0     1    2    3    4    5    6    7
        __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __
          |    |    |    |  __|  __|  __|  __|
          |    |  __|  __|    |  __|    |  __|
          |  __|    |  __|  __|    |  __|  __|
        8     9    A    B    C    D    E    F
the handwriting equivalents of which he showed in the CACM article.  Quite
neat, and never require more than three pen strokes.  The author was fed up
with all the different and inconsistent notations, in particular the
(sometimes ambiguous) usual hexadecimal notations with Indian digits and
Latin letters.  No, I don't know how he intended his digits and numerals to
be pronounced.
>Its a pretty cool concept and it would have been nice if the arabic
>mathematicians who invented our base 10 system or Fibonacci who made it
>popular in Europe had already been aware of these ideas, but it is
>certainly unrealistic to change the base 10 representation today.
Even so, I don't think Fibonacci has ever been properly thanked for this
contribution to our culture, even posthumously.  Instead his name is linked
to this silly number sequence :-)
We can only be grateful that he did the change back then, when companies
hadn't invested much in incompatible numeric systems, instead of, say,
doing the conversion in the late 20th century in the US, and teachers would
have to forbid the kids to use rulers with the good old Roman numerals on
them.
[Markus's ugly pumpkin deleted]
-- 
Mattias Engdegård

I'm realtively new to this group, so I was wondering what everybody's
thoughts are on the idea of the existence of higher physical dimensions
(e.g. more than 3).
Craig

cc: Stephen Lajoie
SL>From: lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) responding to eloquent
         statements
SL>Lettsee, Peter, We have Charles Kittel of Cal Berkley, Anderson, Leaver,
SL>Alexander and Rawlings of the Imperial College of Science and Technology,
SL>Dickerson and Gray of Cal Tech, and Haight of the University of Illinois
SL>saying the same thing.
You forgot me!  I've put up with my windows (over 80 panes in the French
doors of our home) changing over the last 23 years!  (Glass inside has
not apparently changed except for two panes that have become lens like
in the leaded glass sections of our sliding doors)  *AND* the glass
marble (one of many where the others were stored inside) that is more
than 10-15% out of round now which I found outside after it being there
for over 23 years.
These are personal observations.  We're not talking heresay.
Maybe people should start looking at the impact of cyclical ultraviolet
exposure and/or differential temperature cycling to explain this
phenomenon.  And stop saying the effect doesn't exist (because their
models describing glass don't predict it) and start finding out how it
exists.  After all, science explains what we see, not determine it.
                                           - Robert -
                                    robert.macy@engineers.com
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

Mati:
>    > You did give a slew of examples.  You didn't realize though that (as 
>    > far as SR is considered) all of them are the results of a one, and 
>    > only one thing.  SR is different from classical mechanics in one 
>    > respect (I trust you remember what it is).  And it is the form of this 
>    > difference that makes it obvious why it is a generalization.
moggin@nando.net (moggin)
>         You mean that the math is different in one respect; but there are
>    many significant differences between the two models (presumably arising
>    from that change in the math).  And the existence of those differences 
>    prevents Einstein from being a generalization of Newton in the ordinary
>    sense of the term.  (I gather by now that it has a meaning in math and
>    science which _does_ apply.)
stewart@Kutta.Stanford.EDU (Michael Stewart):
> I don't think that your objection to the application of the ordinary
> meaning of "generalize" has anything to do with the mathematics of the
> theory: as I understand it SR is a general theory and classical
> mechanics is the special case of SR in which the speed of light is
> assumed to be infinite.  SR covers classical mechanics as a special
> case.  I don't see this as an abuse of the common meaning when applied
> to two mathematical theories.
     The problem is that you have two different models.  In what I've
been calling the ordinary sense of "generalize," generalizing Newton
would mean applying his theories to new regions, e.g., high velocities,
and discovering that they still worked great.  Instead, we've got a
different situation -- when  applied over broader conditions, his laws
turn out to be false (given later findings).  Thus Newton does _not_
generalize well, in the ordinary sense of the term.
     Aside:  I thought that under relativity, the speed of light
_isn't_ infinite.  So classical mechanics would be the "special case"
which never occurs.  (Same would go for defining it as the limit.)
> Instead of the purely mathematical question of asking if SR
> generalizes classical mechanics by broadening the range of assumed
> values of the speed of light, you seem to be asking if it generalizes
> classical mechanics by extending the range of the predictions made by
> the theory. 
     It doesn't.  Measured against Einstein, Newton's predictions are
false when extended to regions of high velocity -- therefore Newton is
falsified, rather than generalized by relativity.
> The answer depends on your assumptions.  If your
> criterion is purely experimental, then, since it is possible to have
> multiple theories which make predictions which are not experimentally
> distinguishable, it only makes sense to compare classes of theories
> which make equivalent experimental predictions over a particular
> domain.  From this point of view SR does generalize classical
> mechanics: they both make experimentally correct and experimentally
> equivalent predictions over a certain range and SR makes
> experimentally correct predictions over a broader range.  This I also
> fail to see as an abuse of the common usage of "generalize."
     It isn't even within shouting distance.  All you're saying is that
you've got two theories which make similar predictions within a given
span and then diverge from each other, with one of them considered to
give more accurate results over a broader range.  No reason there to
speak of a generalization, in the ordinary sense of the term.  But if
you just want to say that the theory which makes a wider range of good
predictions is the more general of the two, I don't see any problem.
-- moggin

"David Byrden"  wrote:
>Patrick Fleming  wrote in article
><54r71f$3l7@nuacht.iol.ie>...
>> An explanation of the Sagnac effect based on the Coriolis acceleration
>> and the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics
slip
>
> 
>> I wish to put forward an explanation based on the Coriolis effect and
>> the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Coriolis
>> acceleration acts on a body (mass) rotating  on a disc, in a
>> tangential direction. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
>> mechanics describes particles as either a particle or a wave depending
>> on the mode of observation. The de Broglie/Bohm model states that all
>> particles are accompanied by a wave.
>	I repeat, Sagnac's effect is perfectly well explained by standard 
>Relativity. Let's see where Mr. Fleming is taking us...
Anandan (1981) when basing his explanation of the Sagnac effect on SR
referred to "the often made assertion that special relativity cannot
treat the Sagnac effect, presumably because the ratating frame is an
accelerated frame". He uses photons only. So, in 1981 the SR
explanation was far from agreed.
Hasselbach (1993) states "It seems to have become increasingly
accepted, however, that the Sagnac effect can be seen as special
relativistic insofar as a rotation alone (i.e., without mass being
present -----". It is for this reason that I reject a SR explanation
in favour of a GR one. I analyse on the basis of masses being present.
>> As points on the circumference of the spinning disc are accelerating
>> it is not appropriate to analyse the system in the context of special
>> relativity. 
>	Not true! Special relativity does describe acceleration in the
>absence of gravity. Don't you know this?
The principle of equivalence asserts that the forces of acceleration,
such as the velocity-dependent Coriolis force which would arise from
using a rotating reference frame system, are on the same footing as
gravitational forces.
>
> > A particle on the rotating disc is therefore subjected to two
>> accelerations, centrifugal (rw^2) and Coriolis (2vw) where:
>> 
>> r = the radius of the disc;
>> w = the angular velocity of the frame relative to an inertial
>> (constant velocity) frame;
>> v = the velocity of the particle relative to the rotating frame.
>	Stop me if I'm wrong, but don't Coriolis accelerations appear only 
>if you pretend that the rotating frame is a fixed frame?
The Sagnac literature is replete with rreferences to the Coriolis
effect. It is real. My previous posts gave examples of its effect in
weather patterns, bath vortices, and ballistics.
> 
>> If the tangential velocity of the disc is v1 and the velocity of the
>> particle is v then, when the particle and the disc are moving in the
>> same direction, the velocity of the particle is v1+v relative to an
>> observer on the disc. When the particle and disc are moving in
>> opposite directions the velocity of the particle is v1-v. Therefore
>> the magnitudes of the Coriolis accelerations acting on the particles
>> are different.
>	YOU GOT YOUR SUBTRACTION AND ADDITION THE WRONG 
>WAY AROUND!
This is easily corrected. I propose using acceleration in Draft 2.
> 
>>  In General Relativity clocks tick more slowly the stronger the
>> gravitational field. The effect is known as gravitational time
>> dilation, as distinct from special relativity time dilation.
>> Therefore, the two different accelerations will result in two
>> different time dilations, and produce an interference pattern.
>	JESUS! Even Dr Kelly didn't make THIS stupid mistake! 
>	Dr. Kelly CORRECTLY showed that the relativistic effects
>in the Sagnac effect would be extremely small when compared to the 
>interference effect. You're merely stating WITHOUT ANY FIGURES 
>that the relativistic effects are the explanation!
The interference pattern is observed even if the disc is stationary.
Only when the disc rotates does the Sagnac effect arise. There are two
matters to be explained:
i) the fringe shift;
ii) the fact that the shifted fringe pattern remains the same even
though the particle path lengths are different. 
Point i) is explained by the Coriolis force acting on the pariticles
mass, and the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics (particle +
wave);
Point ii) is explained by the time dilation caused by the different
accelerations acting on the particles.
>> As the effect is produced on all particles, photons, neutrons,
>> electrons etc, and since it is mass that acceleration operates on, one
>> questions the alleged zero rest mass of the photon. Bass et al (1955)
>> and Goldhaber et al (1971) suggested a rest mass for the photon. This
>> has been endorsed by Vigier (1996). 
>	This is a digression from what you're supposed to be talking about.
No. My analysis requires a mass for  the photon as well as other
particles.
> 
>> Chiao et al (1995), in two photon interference experiments, clearly
>> brought out the non-local character of the quantum world. A
>> consequence of this non-locality (instantaneous influence between
>> particles) is an absolute space and time frame. 
>	Oh no it's not.
The Bohmian interpretation requires a preferred frame. See "The
Undivided Univese" by Bohm/Hiley.
>> It seems therefore
>> that the rotating disc and the laboratory are in the same space-time
>> frame. Similar effects are seen aboard the disc and in the laboratory.
>> It is of interest to note that when the experiment is carried out on
>> the surface of the earth (which, of course, can be considered as
>> rotating disc at a particular latitude) the same effect is noted.
>> Michelson et al (1925) carried out an experiment on the effect of the
>> earth’s rotation on the velocity of light. They recorded the
>> difference in time taken for the light signals to travel clockwise and
>> anti-clockwise. They got a fringe effect on an interferometer,
>> indicating a time difference.  Saburi et al (1976) sent
>> electromagnetic signals around the Earth between standard clock
>> stations. The results showed that the signals travelled slower
>> eastwards than westwards. One predicts that if the tests were done in
>> a north-south direction, with the particles not being affected by the
>> Coriolis acceleration, one would not see a time difference or fringe
>> effect.
>	Hmmm. I get a strange sense of deja vu...
>  
>> The above analysis, if correct, indicates the non-zero mass of the
>> photon and the validity of the de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of
>> quantum mechanics.
>snip
> 
> 
>> References
>> 
>> Anandan, J. 1981. Sagnac effect in relativistic and non relativistic
>> physics. Physical Review D, Vol. 24, No. 2, 338-346
>> 
>> Chiao, R.Y., Kwiat, P.G., Steinberg, A.M., 1995. Quantum non-locality
>> in two-photon experiments at Berkeley. Quantum Semiclass.Opt. 7
>> 259-278.
>> 
>> Bass, L., Schroedinger, E., 1955, Must the photon mass be zero? Proc.
>> Roy. Soc. 
>> Vol. 232, 1-6.
>> 
>> Goldhaber, A.S., Nieto, M.M., 1971, Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial
>> Limits on The Photon Mass, Rev. Mod. Phys.,Vol 43, No. 3, 277-296
>> 
>> Vigier, J.P., 1996, Relativistic interpretation (with non-zero photon
>> mass) of the small aether drift velocity detected by Michelson-Morley
>> and Miller. (to be published).
>> 
>> Selleri, F., 1996, Noninvariant one -way velocity of light. (to be
>> published).
>> 
>> Post, E.J., 1967, Sagnac effect, Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol 39, No. 2.
>> 
>> Saburi, Y., Yamamoto, M., Harada, K., 1976, IEEE Trans, IM25 No. 4,
>> 473-477
>> 
>> Michelson, A.,A., 1925, The effect of the earth’s rotation on the
>> velocity of light, Astroph. J., Vol. LXI  No.3, 137-139.
>	Oh, very good. If it has a proper list of references, it must be 
>a valid scientific paper, eh? But tell me why you didn't refer to Dr.
>Kelly's
>rather amusing papers, since you LIFTED PASSAGES FROM THEM 
>VERBATIM??
Dr. Kelly and I used the same primary sources. There is no need to
refer to a secondary source.
Dr. Kelly has done magnificent work in collecting most of the Sagnac
literature into three papers. However, I disagree  with his
conclusions.
Regards,
Patrick Fleming
>				

In article <55gugs$hk8@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>
>>::: So, even in your (unnecessary) "reference system setup," how do you
>>::: know that the rear clock reading is zero when the front one reads
>>::: zero?
>>:: Same way bjon knew that the light took D/c in this coordinate system
>>:: for the light to reach the rear clock. 
>
>>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>>: Wrong.  In SRT, it is not possible because there is no event at that
>>: clock.  And that was not my determination, but an experimental result.
>
>>Now bjon is claiming that the ticking of a clock does not supply
>>a stream of events at that location.  Truly a dizzying intelect, has bjon.
>
>>Anyways, if there "is no event at that clock", 
>>I wonder what bjon meant by asking what it read?
>>--
>>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
>>               throopw@cisco.com
>
>(Didn't expect Throop to get it).
>Anyway, to plough onward(?), I did not specify any event at the rear
>clock, so in your world (SRT), there's no way to determine this
>clock's reading because there must be a specified event AT a clock for
>this.
>
>Now, about that part where I asked you what the rear clock was reading
>when the front clock read zero.  It is a well-known fact that SRT has
>no absolute syncronization.  SRT has relative synchronization.  There
>is a difference, of course. Absolute (or Newtonian) synchronization
>(as is mentioned in many SRT texts) means simply that all clocks in
>the universe read zero at the same instant.  This allows the Newtonian
>observer to determine the true or absolute time interval between any
>two events. There are no such clocks in SRT, which, as I said, has
>merely relative time.  In SRT, all observers will find a different
>time interval between two events.  All of this is well-known,  but
>somehow Throop will deny some or all of it, I'm sure.
>
>Now we can see clearly that both the front and the rear clocks cannot
>(as far as SRT is concerned) BOTH read the same, so both cannot read
>zero at the same instant (the very instant when the light ray hits the
>front clock).  This is because Einstein's clocks differ from Newton's,
>as has been pointed out.
>
>How can we determine the rear clock reading?  SRT cannot supply us
>with the answer. We have to use simple paperwork.
>
>It is given that the rear clock meets a light ray head-on. So when the
>light ray is at the front clock, the rear clock will have a chance to
>move thru space before the ray reaches it.  Therefore, the light ray
>cannot travel the full length of the rod (measured as D) before the
>ray hits the rear clock. Also, the rod's actual (intrinsic) length
>cannot be fully D because a rod actually contracts as it moves thru
>space.  [It must do this or SRT is wrong because a full length rod
>could easily truly synch two clocks (with clock-starting prongs placed
>at the rod's ends as it passes over the clocks).] The rod's actual
>(thru-space) travel distance is simply cT, where T is the time per a
>hypothetical clock that's at rest in space (can't use the moving
>clocks because they're slowed).
>
>Then, we must substitute the rod's actual (contracted) length, which
>is Dß, where ß = sqr[1-V²/c²], and V is the rod's actual speed thru
>space. And of course the clock travels a distance thru space of VT.
>We can now solve for the actual travel time T, since cT+VT=Dß.
>
>We have T = Dß/(c+V)
>
>Now we solve for the slowed clock time t.  The slow factor is also ß.
>The slowed clock time is therefore Dßß/(c+V) = [D(c-V)]/c².
>
>The rear clock must read D/c (per experiment). We can now solve for
>the rear clock's reading at the start:
>
>final reading       delta-t       start reading
>   D/c        -   [D(c-V)]/c²  =    DV/c²
>
Your derivation shows that you are setting a clock assumed to be at rest in
a reference system that measures the rod as moving at speed 'V'.  If the 
clock is in a system where the rod is moving at speed 'U', it will be set
as DU/c(1-U^2/c^2)^0.5.  In particular in the system where the rod is not 
moving, implied by your description of the experiment, the speed will be 0,
and the clock will read 0.
>So, we see that the rear clock read DV/c² when the front clock read 0.
>This DV/c² is the error in synchronization for Einstein-set clocks,
>clocks that are not absolutely synchronized as are Newton's.  It has
>been called by some the "local offset."  Note that it varies directly
>with the observer's absolute speed V.
>
Nothing in the theory or derivation requires an absolute speed.  You cannot
define the "absolute" clock settings you require.  
>In SRT, each observer's clocks are set precisely according to
>Einstein's definition of synchronization, meaning that they have the
>"clock difference" of DV/c².  It is this offset amount that makes each
>einsteinian observer get "c" instead of the Newtonian "c±V" for
>light's one-way speed.  It is also this offset that makes each
>observer get different time intervals for the same two events.  And,
>further, it makes the observers get different observed lengths for a
>passing rod (clocks used to "pin down" rod ends at the "same time" per
>the observer's E-set clocks), and similarly makes each observer "see"
>the other's clock "run slow" (when the passing clock is compared with
>two on-board out-of-true clocks), and, finally, makes each observer
>obtain a different "mass" for a passing object (on-board E-set clocks
>used to measure the object's resultant speed after being hit by a test
>object).
>
In other words, if they set their distant clocks to agree with each other,
all the results of SR follow. 
>In short, E synch is the direct cause of all the so-called
>"relativistic effects." (These are: Observer-dependent time, mass, and
>length variation).
>
E synch = set their clocks to agree with each other in their rest frame.
>But note that the einsteinian synchronization involves an absolute
>value, V, the observer's absolute speed.  Also note that E's
>definition of synch contains another absolute value, c. And bear in
>mind that actual clock slowing and actual rod contraction are involved
>in this definition, so Throop's claim that nothing in SRT is absolute
>is obviously incorrect.  It's easy to see why SRT has to have these
>real underpinnings -- it's a theory of nature.
>
This is completely wrong.  There is no need for absolute speed or absolute
clock slowing and rod contraction.  You assume these effects, but SR
doesn't need them.

davk@netcom.com (David Kaufman) wrote:
>
>          For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
>     Interested In Exploring Math, Science And Ethics
>   Through Collaboration For Enrichment And Achievement.
>
>
>	I would like to share my simple vision for creating a 
>better world through these newsgroups.
[snip]
Give war a chance.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Zeldor wrote:
> 
> While reading this newsgroup, I could not contain myself from laughing.
I fail to see the humor in people suffering from this type of trauma.
This is a real phenomenon that affects MANY MANY people, world-wide.
Perhaps if more people spoke up and tried to solve the problem, rather
than laughing and ignoring it, the next generation of Americans wouldn't
have to suffer the same fate. But as is stands, people are too busy
covering up and playing along with these 'Mind Rapists' to get anything
constructive done about it.
From my conversations with Vietnam vets, it is clear, that this
technology was the primary reason for our defeat in that arena. Further
more, with China now in control of Taiwan, soon Hong Kong, and possibly
South Korea... this war is hardly over. In fact, with the economic
reforms that have been put into place, China will most likely send us
into an economic depression by the turn of the century. Just take a look
at the parts in your PC. I bet over half are made in China.
It's a shame people are mis-directing their anger towards our own
government, solely because the truth is not readily available to the
public. What you don't know CAN hurt you... and most likely will.

In article <327c3e31.19792443@news.pacificcoast.net>,
TheKit@Life.com (TheKit) wrote:
>
>How old is thread?
I've been reading this group for over six years, and it's older than
that.
BTW, please don't use MIME encoding when posting to Usenet.
--
Carl Fink             carlf@panix.com      madscientist@genie.com
Dueling Modems                                  http://www.dm.net
"Any given person is an aberration"
        Michael Chary

>I hope you aren't refering to the metric system.
>   unit of length (meter) cubed != unit of volume (liter)
                                                  *(m^3)*
>   unit of mass (gram) is offset by a factor of 1000 from the standard
                *(Kg)*
>       (and nowhere close to the mass of a unit of volume of water)
       *1 liter water at 4'C = 1 dm^3 water at 4'C = 1 kg*
>   the units are multiples of 10, which is inconvienient for division
>       (see the separate thread)
I belive many americans (excluding Canadians) have problems calculating without
using their fingers to count with. That makes the (in the USA and some
other countries) 10 base system is the best one to use.
If I remember correctly, the MacDonald's in the US started to use pictures on
their cach-registers because so many of their employees could not read properly!
My guess is that the same apply for math.
>About the only commonly used unit in the metric system that doesn't
>have problems is the second, and that was borrowed from the
>Babylonians.
The Babylonian second will over time become longer and longer because the earts
orbit around the sun takes longer for each year. :-)
our second is fixed to a certian lenght of time.
But as you say, it's borrowed from the Babylonians.
>--
>  Lawrence Crowl                415-786-6146   Developer Products, SunSoft
>                  Lawrence.Crowl@Eng.Sun.Com   2550 Garcia Avenue, UMPK16-303
>              http://www.cs.orst.edu/~crowl/   Mountain View, California,
>              94043

John Torset
johnt4@iceonline.com

>You are incorrect.
>The quantom mechanics theory say that we can never know the exact speed and
>direction of a partical.So, sometimes, a few particles CAN move faster than
>light for a short period. This is also why black holes radiate photons,
>like anything with temperture.
I have read somewhere (possible stephen hawkins) that black holes radiates
photons because there are being created matter/antimatter along the
eventhorison, and before the matter/antimatter created can annhilate to energy
again they splitt apart, one particle goes into the black hole while the other
particle escapes and radiates photons.

John Torset
johnt4@iceonline.com

>>I recently read that the rotation of the radiometer is caused not by
>>photon momentum transfer, but rather by the fact that the black sides
>>absorb more photons than do the white sides, so that the black sides
>>become hotter.  Therefore the air molecules near the black sides are
>>excited to higher velocities than are those near the white sides,
>>resulting in a pressure difference which causes the rotation.  In fact,
>>if you watch a radiometer you'll see that it *does* rotate from black
>>toward white, which is the opposite of what you would expect if the
>>motion were caused by a greater momentum transfer on the white side.
>>
>Well i was taught that it was due to the extra electrons shooting out of
>the hotter(black) side, but i am certainly not saying that your
>explanation is wrong, as many of the things i was taught subsequently
>turned out to be wrong :-(  Indeed that's why i wrote this Charles :-)
>"Nevertheless the vanes in the Crookes radiometer do go round
> with the reflective side to the frount, as J M Woodgate says above.
>        So here we have an excellent example of a theory making the
>           RIGHT PREDICTIONS, but for totally the WRONG REASONS.
>         (Similarly with many of Einstein's predictions,i think:-)"
>--
>Keith Stein
Since the radiometer supposely should be a wheel inside a evacuated (vacum)
glassbulb with very few molecules left, I would say that the last explanation
sound more resonable.

John Torset
johnt4@iceonline.com

In article ,
H Richardson  wrote:
> > Consider this piece of code:
> >  
> 
> What language is this?  I'll assume that you meant Fortran 77 :-)
> 
>>       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
It's called "Fortran-77 with function prototypes..."  :-)
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch@saaf.se        psr@home.ausys.se

savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>In article <55d7m5$pg2@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>wrote:
>[Your article never made it to pacifinet's news server.  I copied it
>from AOL's server.]
>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>In article <55ale1$g4q@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>>>wrote:
>>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <557r0t$5os@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>  If you think this receding motion happens regardless of direction,
>>>>>>>you are obviously wrong, unless you are describing something that is
>>>>>>>alien to me.  Here's a simple diagram of a possible scenario:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><---absolute direction of motion of target and source in E-Matrix
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[light source]------------photon------------------>[target]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Does this look like the target is receding (moving away) from the
>>>>>>>photon to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here you are saying that the MMX apparatus (source and target) are
>>>>>>moving in the opposite direction of their own absolute motion whcih is
>>>>>>impossible.
>>>>
>>>>Louis, hopefully the following will help:
>>>>>  Huh?  Are you trying to make me look like a fool with such a dumb
>>>>>statement, Ken?  Otherwise I'm beginning to suspect that I'm seriously
>>>>>wasting my time here.
>>>>
>>>>>No, he's saying, in effect,  "let the light source be at the front of
>>>>>the train, not at the back of the train"; or alternatively "what
>>>>>happens when you rotate the apparatus by 180 degrees?".
>>>>
>>>>Consider the following:
>>>>
>>>>!. The structure of the E-Matrix --everywhere you look is the same, 
>>>>2. Lights are waves in the E-Strings of the E-Matrix  
>>>>3. The translational and rotational vector components of the MMX
>>>>apparatus in the horizontal plane making it insensitive to direction.
>>>>4. There is no front of the train or back of the train in the MMX
>>>>apparatus as in your example.
>>>  That's plain nonsense, Ken.  Either your E-Matrix theory is based on
>>>absolute motion or it isn't.  Even if it isn't, (although you assured
>>>everyone that it is) once you select an inertial frame and observe an
>>>object in motion relative to that frame, there is definitely a front
>>>and a back when it comes to the observed motion.
>>
>>Louis I have been civil with you throughout our discussion. But if you
>>continue the discussion in this demeaning way I suggest that we end
>>the discussion now. Your logic is based on an observer not in the
>>frame of the MMX apparatus. Within the MMX apparatus there is no front
>>and back due to the translational and rotational vector components of
>>the MMX apparatus.
>  Ken, what you interpret as "demeaning way" is my reaction to my
>perceiving (possibly wrongly, I'll admit) that you were trying to make
>me look like a fool.  You said somewhere that your E-Matrix is a 3-D
>spatial structure and yet you talk about geodesic path, a term used in
>GR to describe the inertial motion of a particle in a 4-D curved
>spacetime structure.
All material systems  move througfh the 3-D...... E-Matrix  freely and
the path of motion is to follow the geometies of the E-Matrix.  The
motion of any material system in the E-Matrix will, in turn, effect
the geometries of the E-Matrix and thus it give us the cycles of cause
and effect for inertial motions. With this in mind, the path of travel
of any material system in the E-Matrix is curved and this curved path
is called the geodesic path. Even in GR the spacetime is within the
normal 3D space. The time dimension only defines where the material
system is going to be in this 3D space.
>[Not that the GR explanation makes any sense since nothing can move in
>spacetime as any relativist should know.  :-)  But that's a topic for
>another time.]
See above.
snip
>>>>>>If it's clock slowing, the experiment that I proposed--with different
>>>>>>clocks facing different directions-- should be able to detect this
>>>>>>clock slowing.
>>>>
>>>>>  The direction of the clocks have nothing to do with it.  Just the
>>>>>speed.  If the apparatus is moving its clock will slow down.
>>>>
>>>>But SR explains the null result of the MMX by postulating different
>>>>rate of time dilation and length contraction in every direction. So
>>>>why  wouldn't the clocks give different readings by facing the
>>>>different directions?
>>>  Only length contraction is direction sensitive in SR.  Time dilation
>>>is only speed sensitive and has nothing to do with direction.
>>
>>Here is proof that you don't know what you are talking about. In SR
>>both length contraction and time dilation are speed sensitive.
>  I never said they weren't.  According to SR, length contraction is
>sensitive to both speed and direction.  Time dilation is only
>sensitive to speed.  Length contraction is specifically said to be in
>the observed direction of motion, not in any other direction.  This
>direction has **nothing** to do with time dilation.
If time dilation is not working in concert with length contraction we
will have different speed of light in different directions. So when
you say that only length contraction is directional sensitive you are
wrong.
>> In fact
>>the transformation equations are based purely on speed -- relative
>>speed and the speed of light. A different direction means a different
>>relative speed  which means a different contracted length and a
>>different dilated time.
>  The above is proof that you don't know what you are talking about.
>A different direction does not mean a different speed.  Relative speed
>is independent of relative direction.
Our original discussion was: How is SR explain the null results of the
MMX and you said you favor the combination of time dilation and length
contraction of SR. When I pointed out to you  we should be able to
measure the time dilation effect within a Lab by facing several clocks
in different directions and now you are saying that only contracting
length is directional sensitive and that different direction do not
mean different speeds. Which is it? If there is no difference in speed
in different directions why are we trying to detect the different
speeds with the MMX apparatus?  In fact why are we calling the MMX
result a null result? Obviously you are the one who don't know what
you are talking about. 
>>>  Ken, you're gonna have to do something real fast because your
>>>credibility in my eyes (and I'm sure, in the eyes of some of the other
>>>participants here) is fading at the speed of light.  You'll need
>>>nonlocal interactions and possibly time travel to save what's left of
>>>it.  Sorry.  You're beginning to sound like a con artist, Ken, a snake
>>>oil salesman.
>>I suggest you bone up on your logic and physics before you go on
>>criticizing everybody. Believe me ceditbility in your eyes is no big
>>deal. So don't go pat youself on the back.
>  Good.  So why are you trying to so hard to convince me of the
>validity of your receding target explanation when I think it's
>nonsense?  I realize now that you were not trying to make me look like
>a fool.  You just don't understand the very subject that you are
>talking about.  You're pushing your E-Matrix theory even though it is
>based on that "receding target", "earth frame" and 3-D geodesics stuff
>that only make sense to you.  At least I made no bones about the fact
>that I'm learning to understand SR better.  That's the reason why I
>started this thread with a question.  Or didn't you notice?
 It is you who failed to comprehend current physics as well as Model
Mechanics and formed a set of erroneous ideas and then use those
erroneous ideas to criticize everytbody.
>>[...]
>>Are you claiming absolute motion is your to claim? You are more weird
>>than I thought.
>  No.  I just hate to see a valid concept muddied and put in the same
>category as all the weird theories out there.  It's hard enough trying
>to find sincere or unbiased discussants on the subject.
The last I ckecked, this is a free country. How can you judge a theory
is weird or not since you have not fully comprehended current physics?

NEONLEO@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Jack writes:
> 
> << The CSICOPs are a bunch of fuddy duddy old farty men who think that the
>  Femininst-dominated  "Goddess" New Age is dangerous irrationality that
>  will bring down Western Civilization. >>
> 
> Yeah, Jack, "old farty" Francis Crick, Murray Gell-Mann, Steve Gould, Leon
> Lederman, Paul MacCready, Carl Sagan. Glenn Seaborg, Steven Weinberg...etc.,
> people of recognized accomplishment and all CSICOP fellows. No disrespect
> meant, but do you think that your totally inaccurate characterization of them
> might stem from a little jealousy on your part---jealousy of their superior
> intellects and achievements? Perhaps, just for our enlightenment, would you
> care to list your achievements? Just asking.
> 
> BTW, being published in parapsychology journals and being admired by Dougie
> gets you negative points.
> 
> Regards.
Do not misunderstand me. The two observables of being a farty old fuddy
duddy on the one hand and being of superior intellect and accomplishment
on the other commute. They are compatible with each other. I never said
anything which would deny your characterization. None of those people
you mention above have superior native intellect to me. What they have
had is much more powerful economic support for their creative work.
Since mine is beyond the fringe, and I chose not to play the traditional
Academic game, I have not had as much money. If I had, I would have been
able to accomplish more. The relevant parameter here is not intellect
but money. Also I do not publish in parapsychological journals. Where
did you get that idea?
All the fellows you mention are farty old men even though they are also
brilliant creative scientists who have contributed much to society. See
Ariana Huffington's Surviving Picasso no a brilliant movie. It
illustrates my point that great men can still be, and are often, even
greater assholes when it comes to affairs of the heart. The CSICOPs crew
are all extremists overstating the cultural problem posed by the growing
New Age Movement. This is my point.
My accomplishment is realizing the importance of going beyond current
quantum theory in the form of "back-action" which gives a physics of
felt-consciousness and shows how quantum nonlocality can be used for
communication. The fact that my ideas are currently considered heretical
by the people you mention above is not relevant in the long run. My idea
here will eventually become mainstream.
By the way, my past "accomplishments" include recognizing the potential
of the nuclear powered x-ray laser in 1960, use of lasers to compress
fusion plasma in 1965, analogies of self-trapped laser filaments to
superfluid vortices in 1967 used later by Charlie Townes and Ray Chiao,
idea of mini-black holes independent of Hawking.

therre is an even more interesting fossil -- in the upper rio grands 
valley of new mexico, there is the imprint of a bare human female footprint 
in a sandstone outcropping that is around 10 -60 million years old. The 
girl was walking and tripped. seh overcorrected by extending her foot and 
made the imprint in the once soft mud of the riverbank.  It left a deep 
impression clearly visible. You can even see the potho;e she stepped 
into, and the splash marks extending out from it.....

glang80206@aol.com (GLang80206) wrote:
>I AM FRENCH
>CAN ANYONE HELP ME ABOUT PHOTOMETRY ?
This is an interesting juxtaposition of what one would presume are 
orthogonal functions.
The answer lies in Tahiti (with proper grammatical and syntactic use of 
the verb, of course).
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read".  It would be inappropriate for anyone to interfere with the
propagation of these articles based only on this 'bot's notices.
You can find the software to process these notices at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW
site: http://www.cm.org.  This 'bot is not affiliated with the CM[TM].
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers:
  1 Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Delete: no
Count: 1
Notice-ID: spncm1996307182140
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<55gpci$fd1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.logic
	sci.physics
	sci.math
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMnzitoz0ceX+vLURAQEzGAP7BC3RLXTrqHCItQR9j4Pbny6snlE4GHtZ
23DwHxaT2xX08hoSYB5sK5WOphsRQcPbqg8FnLTDXZ6mtxXWUf+L8EmbsqVmaaq0
j1vAG63j+ZEErJBjpwiCDd6oaNe2G12WN1P54LCYOH8A7O1G/TsgFGis4uJT49ME
F8peySoOgUc=
=zA4A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

John G. Cornfield wrote:
> 
>         THE COVARIANT THEORY
> 
>         - a four dimensional, non-linear frame, finite but unbounded,
>           (like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions),
>         - using imaginary time as a mathematical device, making the frame
>           Euclidean,
>         - the above producing no singularities and causing the distinction
>           between time and space to disappear.
> 
> The frame appears to have the capability of unifying the forces of nature in a
> new way, since some of the initial predictions relate to meson masses and
> properties, nuclear binding energy and structure, and relationships between
> ionization potentials across the periodic table. In addition, as a result of
> field geometry, various physical constants, such as "e", "h" and "c", are
> intimately co-related, thus predicting the existence and value of the fine
> structure constant.
> 
>       
> 
> where you will find a web site providing documentation that should be read
> before you access the theory. I have set it up this way to help you make a
> decision, since I do not want you to feel you are wasting your time.
> 
> Please do not e-mail me until after you have visited my home page.
> 
> Thanks - John 
 how about just 5 dimensions per Klauza-Klein ? 
 (c) 1995 by "http://pobox.com/~rd.o.meara" [DOB:15Jan1943;Dubuque,Iowa] 
   "4space -  A Mathematical Model of Elementary Particle Mass"
   --------------------------------------------------------------
                            Abstract
   A "Preliminary model" which uses fifth power Mass packing in a
   modulus-four spatial structure "4space" to describe all the basic 
   elementary particles of matter, with a single quantum, #Slot# .
   This model does not predict nor accommodate the many Hadron/Meson 
   mass resonances of the Particle Zoo; but it does provide slots 
   for two neutrinos and offers a counterpoint to the standard 
   model [QED] which has very few Lepton or Mass insights.
   4space calculates Proton mass as (9/2)^5 = 1845.3~ / 943Mev; 
   0.5% over the 1836.1~ measured ratio.  4space has a natural 3 
   quark harmonic for quantum slot #9# as the Proton root !
   (#): (9) = Proton, (2) = Electron and (22/2)^5 as the "W" mass!
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
Regards; "mailto:rd.o.meara@pobox.com"	588›314

                             SEARCH FOR TECHNICAL EXPERTS
Product and/or process development requires specific information, knowledge
and/or experience. Specific information/knowledge/experience is mostly not easy
to track down, even not in centres for technology. One reason is that specific
knowledge/experience is mostly linked to individuals, the experts on a
specific topic.
In order to further the search for specific knowledge I am setting up a
database that refers to experts on all kinds of technological topics.
Companies that look for specific knowledge/experience can use the database
to get in touch with the needed expert.
If you are an expert and you like to be included in the database, please
send me (by email) the following information:
KEYWORDS describing your expertise:
* Field of technology, e.g. chemistry: 1 keyword.
* Application in terms of product/process, e.g. thermocouples: 1 - 3 keyword(s).
* Application in terms of industry/activity, e.g. refinery: 1 - 3 keyword(s).
* Description of your specific expertise: preferably 3 keywords, e.g.
  degradation, carbonmonoxide, misinterpretation; if not possible: a small text
  is allowable.
 Some Rules:
 -For the selection of keywords you may use your own terminology.
 -A keyword may consist of more than one word.
 -Use the above description for each separate expertise you offer.
 -If you feel the use of keywords is too restrictive for a good description,
  your expertise is probably not specific but general.
PERSONAL details:
*      Name.
*      Name of company you represent (if applicable).
*      Email address and/or facsimile number.
*      Country/State.
Confidentiality: My name is J.H. Heerings (Dieren, The Netherlands). I am
writing from a personal interest and as an individual (no company is involved).
The above information will not be used for mailing lists or otherwise; only for
the abovementioned database. I will contact you at the moment the database will
start to run and is accessible to industry.
The information should be emailed to: heerings@worldaccess.nl

Andy Perry (Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu) wrote:
]In article <558ips$18f@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu
](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]>] 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. 
]>
]> Wrong again. A lot of people were able to see King's New Clothes, too.
]> You advocate the value of some texts - it is up to you to show
]> with examples that they are not gibberish, as "so many
]> people" perceive.
]
]Wow.  I don't think I've ever read such an amazingly bad analogy.  See,
]the thing of it is, clothes are not like meaning.  If you find meaning in
]something, it is there.  Period.  You can't be wrong.
 If you find meaning in lunatic ravings, you are liable for getting
 locked up in mental institution. So much for your cherished
 article of faith - that no text can be called gibberish if there
 exists some sucker who thinks it's truly deep.
]  It's kind of like
]feeling pain, don'tcha know?  The same cannot be said for tangible
]objects.
 I note dryly that you fail to make a distinction between logic and
 emotion.
]>]: But I think I am wasting my time talking 
]>]with you.
]>]
]>]You'd much better try reading some Derrida, indeed.
]>
]> If you are good example of results of such reading, then I'll
]> pass.
]
]Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the only important
]difference between Silke and you is that she's read Derrida and you
]haven't?
 You are twisting what I said.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

>>>>> "Doug" == Doug   writes:
Doug> Achim Recktenwald wrote:
>> I think I have to rephrase my question.  Describing light as a
>> wave, the energy of light is related to its frequency.  If you
>> describe light as a photon, as a particle, what parameter stands
>> for the energy of this particle ?  The mass of the photon is always
>> zero, the speed of the photons is in vacuum always c; what
>> characteristic of the particle corresponds to the energy ?
Doug> Like I just stated in the other thread, the mass of a photon is
Doug> not necessarily zero.  The special theory of relativity says
Doug> that the REST mass of a photon is zero.  A photon can still have
Doug> mass, simply not rest mass.
 This is a confusing and unnecessary distinction.  The accepted use is
now to use "mass" for the quantity E_0/c^2, where E_0 is the rest
energy or the energy one measures for the object when at rest with
respect to that object.  In other words, by mass we mean the quantity
which used to be called "rest mass" and "relativistic mass" is no
longer used.
--
Cornell knows I exist?!? | e-mail: lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu
Lt. Lazio, HTML police   | http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/
    STOP RAPE            | ICBM:   42:29:56 N  76:28:53 W  305 m alt.
sci.astro FAQ at http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/sci.astro.html

In article <558q07$pio@news.cais.com> Mark D. Kluge wrote:
[flemingp@iol.ie (Patrick Fleming) wrote]
>>In summary, two things need explaining in the Sagnac effect:
>>i) the fringe shift:
>>ii) the shifted fringe pattern remaining the same even though the
>>particle path lengths are different.
>> i) is explained by the Coriolis force + the Bohm interpretation 
>>of QM (particle +wave), and 
>> ii) by the time dilation caused by the different accelerations 
>>acting on the particles.
>
>This is a classical effect. No quantum mechanics is required. 
>Regarding items (i) and (ii), the fringe shift (i) is DUE TO (ii), 
>the optical path lengths depending upon the rate of rotation of 
>the disk. The difference is easily and conventionally explained 
>along the lines I indicated above. 
  If the light source is at the center of the disk, and all 
relevant equipment (mirrors and cameras etc) is attached to the 
disk, what difference does the rotary velocity make insofar as "the 
optical path lengths" are concerned? The distance to say mirror one 
is equal to the radius (r) of the disk and so is the return 
distance to the center. HOWEver, a ray moving along a radius and 
reaching mirror 1 (r from the center), will hit it at an angle of 
incidence such that it would not reflect directly back toward the 
center of the spinning disk. The return angle would place the ray 
slightly off center when it returned. There would thus be 
interfence patterns between this incoming ray and successive 
outgoing ones emitted in a direction such that the angle of 
incidence per mirror would have been perpendicular.
  Perhaps THAT explains the fringe shifts. 
glird

alekhine@ix.netcom.com(Steven Metz) wrote:
>        I'm a high school physics student that is working on a railgun
>for a science project.  My friend and I have pretty much figured them
>out mathematically.  But we are completly stumped as to the kind of
>capacitors we need.  We can't calculate the current that the circuit
>will draw, with a given capacitance, resistance, voltage, etc.
>    If anyone out there has familiarity with this subject, or knows
>someone who does, help would be greatly appreciated.  Also, if you have
>access to the kind of capacitors we might need, that would help too.
>
>                                                        Steven
A railgun takes a little cube of polycarbonate plastic with a gold-plated 
back end and launches it into a pair of parallel rails connected to a 
HUGE high voltage capacitor bank.  The gold shorts the rails and a 
MASSIVE current flows, ionizing the metal into a plasma sheet which is a 
much better conductor of electricity.  Current, magnetic field, and force 
are all at right angles (orthogonal).  The PC cube goes zipping down the 
rail at 5 miles/sec with the fires of Hell nipping at its butt.
I suspect that a warehouse of interconected 10,000V capacitors each the 
size of a Canadian tree stump is probably beyond your budget, much less 
the electric bill for their charging.  You could make a nice Marx 
generator with capacitors you can easily get (be careful about matching 
transmission line and target impedences - echoes after the first surge). 
 That should worry the dickens out of your advisor.
http://www.search.com/
Have you considered Project HAARP?  For the same energy input you can 
melt people's minds and not damage infrastructure.  {:^>)
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

"Edward F. Zotti"  wrote:
>We were recently asked: if the earth stopped spinning, would we fall off? 
>My initial reaction was: naah, we'd be glued to the planet more firmly 
>than ever (i.e., we'd weigh more), because centrifugal force would no 
>longer be operative. However, I thought it prudent to place the question 
>before the house. So:
CRC Handbook, 75th Edition, Section 14.
The Earth's rotational energy is 2.137x10^29 Joules.  Try converting that 
into equivalent mass.  Hint:  4.18x10^12 J is a kilotonne nuclear.
>(1) If the earth stopped spinning, would we weigh more, less, or the 
>same? If more or less, what would we weigh? If in fact spinning causes us 
>to weigh less, how fast would the earth have to spin before we 
>were weightless? Would we have to reach orbital velocity, which I 
>believe is something like 18,000 MPH at sea level? 
Ratio of centrifugal force to gravity at the equator:  1/288
 Mean equatorial rotational velocity 0.46512 km/s
>(2) Would any other noteworthy effects occur, apart from no sunrises and 
>sunsets and the fact that bathtubs would drain straight down no matter 
>what hemisphere you were in?
Coriolis force is about 0.2% of a trajectory times the cosine of the 
angle from the Pole (no effect at the equator).  Unless your basin is a 
few miles wide its draining will be more affected by is filling momentum, 
and even advantitious air currents.
Stop the Earth spinning and the weather changes drastically - no more 
storms spinning up, large scale oceanic currents alter path.  
Geosynchronous satellites no longer exist.  The sky no longer spins 
around the North Star.  Long and short photoperiod plants get hit.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

suk@pobox.com (Peter Kwangjun Suk) writes:
>
>[Note: I am not an advocate of AD.  Just fairness.]
 Fairness does not require a suspension of the usual standards of
 critical analysis or blind acceptance of proof by assertion.
>                  ...                              They claim to explain
>(match experimental data) for everything that SR/GR does, and explain some
>additional things that SR/GR doesn't.
 They do this by assuming the SR equations when they are forced to do
 so, by the unambiguous results of accelerator-based experiments, and
 a contradictory set of equations to avoid dealing with neutrinos.
 They assert that the latter set of equations apply only in "decay"
 situations, yet they limit their analysis to beta decay (where they
 force the equations to describe a subset of the data).  They ignore
 alpha decay for a good reason: they predict that the properties of
 a 5 MeV alpha from decay are different from those of a 5 MeV alpha
 from an accelerator, just as they predict that the properties of
 the highest energy electron emitted in a 2 MeV beta decay transition
 are different from those of an electron accelerated through a 2 MV
 potential.  Similar inconsistencies abound.
 What makes some of their pages a laugh a minute are the "additional
 things" they explain: like the reference to Buechner and van de Graaff,
 who disproved a random speculation that the then-newly-proposed
 neutrino might be involved in the energy-loss mechanism for low
 energy electrons.  To place the level of confusion in context, one
 also reads speculations about heavy electrons (muons) in beta decay
 of nuclei.  The cited experiment says *nothing* about the neutrino
 physics of the standard model.
>Thanks for helping to decrease the S/N ratio on Usenet.
 Not much signal in the blind acceptance that noise at the AD site
 constitutes something applicable to the real world.
-- 
 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

a1pianist@aol.com (A1Pianist) wrote:
>AN ARTICLE IN THE MONTHLY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CRYONICS SOCIETY(1994?) 
>(PUBLISHER:ETTINGER/UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS) IN CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
>ANNOUNCED THAT RESEARCH INVESTIGATING THE STRUCTURE  OF CONSCIOUSNESS
>POINTED TO BIOLOGICAL/ORGANIC ORIGIN.  HAS ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE OR KNOW
>THE WORK DONE IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION?  TOM FARESE, 2319 GRANADA
>COURT, PINOLE, CALIFORNINA 94564.  THANKS.
You have this handicap with your shift lock, don't you?  Perhaps you 
ought not impress it upon those of us with even minimal keyboard skills
Cryonics is New Age bafflegab, a hind gut fermentation ranking with Kryon 
(Whoa!  Correlation!), quartz crystals, and homeopathic gobbledygook.  
God created liquid nitrogen for cooling vac line traps, not heads bobbing 
in a dewar like some sort of demented cyro-lava lamp.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

michael@amo (Michael Courtney) writes:
>
>One of the basic assumptions of science is that the laws of nature are 
>constant.  
 True enough, but as an MIT PhD you must also know about effects like 
 spontaneous symmetry breaking where a constant law can lead to a 
 non-constant effect. 
>              ...               So claiming that science disproves a
>reported miracle (such as the Biblical account of creation) is a circular
>argument, because it is a mere restatement of the assumption.  
 Science does not disprove such things, it looks for proof that they 
 occured as described, particularly evidence for or against a specific 
 "creation theory".  If you have a specific one to discuss, please 
 post it so it can be discussed.  (And while you are at it, be sure 
 to include the answer to my long-standing question -- whether cattle 
 or man appeared first -- in the predictions of your theory.)  The 
 history of physics and biology includes a period when biblical-based 
 theories were the mainstream ideas, and the experiments and observations 
 that demonstrated serious flaws in those theories leading to the 
 rejection of those theories. 
 Science accepts the trivial version of such creation theories: that 
 the universe and everything in it, including historical records and 
 human memories, could have been created at any moment, including the 
 day after the day you read this.  No observation can say whether any 
 of these 'creation theories' is better than any other since they 
 assume all evidence was created.  Where creation "theories" get into 
 trouble is when they try to explain details, not vague generalities, 
 about the dynamics of nature. 
-- 
 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