Newsgroup sci.physics 206214

Directory

cc: Ellen
EL>From: ellen3444@aol.com (Ellen3444)
EL>I am having trouble in my physics class, and I was hoping some one could
EL>answer the following questions, taken verbatim from my book.
EL>     1] It is a known fact, included in every book on safe driving, that
EL>as the          speed of the car increases, the distance needed to stop
EL>the car increases as       the square of the speed.  Explain why.
EL>Though this seems logical, and I know that f=1/d^2, and that KE=(1/2)MV^2,
EL>and that KE must be conserved. Still, I can't quite seem to connect with
EL>the exact answer.
EL>      2] There is an inclined plane that strikes the ground at a 37 degree
EL>angle and       is 25m long. It is found by experiment that a force of 70
EL>N (rather than 60 N)       is required to move a 10 kg mass at a constant
EL>velocity up the plane. What is       the PE of the 10 kg mass at the top
EL>of the plane?
EL>I know 2 ways to find PE: fd and mgh. The latter won't work because I
EL>don't know how high the mass is. So, I must use force times distance. Now,
EL>the way the question is worded, I figured that 10 N of force (70-60) were
EL>lost to friction. Then, with force = 60 N and d = 25m, it is easy to
EL>determine PE. My question, really, is with the symantics of the problem.
EL>It "70 N (rather than 60 N)" as if there was a way to determine that it
EL>would take 60 N and that I would have already done the calculation. How
EL>would you determine that the process took 60 N without knowing already
EL>what the PE would be at the top (because to know that you would have to
EL>know the height of the plane).
I'm sure you'll get lots of responses, but here goes my $.02....
1  Pretend the automobile stops because the brakes lock up the wheels
and you slide to a stop using friction against the road.  The total
energy that you expend is proportional to the force (friction of the
tires against the road) times the distance the car travels.  That energy
is simply F*d  You've already stated that the car's KE is proportional
to m*v^2  So the two equate and since friction is proportional to
gravity times the mass your left with the distance to stop proportional
to the square of the velocity.
The kinetic energy has to be dissipated into the energy the friction
consumes.  (Note the wheels locked up so the rotating momentum of the
wheels is out of the picture since the brakes ate up that energy)
2  Maybe I missed something but you said that the plane was 25m long and
strikes the ground at an angle of 37 degrees.  Doesn't simple geometry
predict the height of the board to be 15m?  Maybe telling you the force
it took to move the 10Kg up the board was a red herring meant to
distract you into thinking that that information was somehow important.
You can use that information to make certain that there was more energy
consumed moving the mass up the plane than is stored in it.  Like a
"sanity" check.  Also, he could ask you whether the mass is likely to
slide back down the plane, too.  
                                           - Robert -
                                    robert.macy@engineers.com
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Couldn't find the cereal so I ate a bowl of sugar.

-- 
Mo.Arcy@Glo.be  
Jordan H. Eber  schreef in artikel
...
> Hello--
> 
> 	I am a student in high school enrolled in the AP Physics C course
> in America (AP Physics C is a college level physics course, the second in
> the series of college level physics courses, offered to high school
> students.  This course focuses in Mechanics and Electricity/Magnetism) .
I
> have following question which was posed by my teacher to us and none of
us
> can understand this problem (including our teacher) completely.  
> 
> It is about the reason that bicycles and people and even cars lean into
> the center of the circle to turn. Is it necessary to learn to turn on a
> bike?  The Tipler textbook we have is the only text that even mentions
> this problem and describes a way to calculate the angle of "tilting."
> 
> This is the diagram we constructed:
> 
> ^        / bike
> |N     o 
> |    / |
> |  /   |
> |/  )  |
> +------+--->  Ff
>        | 
>        v W
> 
> where N = Normal force, Ff = Force Friction, W = Weight, the ) signifies
> the angle, the / are the bike.
> 
> We would really appreciate any insight anyone has on this problem and
what
> is the cause of the leaning.  Is it something simple that we all are
> overlooking?  Thank you very much in advance.
> 
> I would prefer a CC of any response sent to my email address as well as
> the group as my Internet access is limited.
> 
> .jordan eber
> 
> eber@poboxes.com  or  eber@cloud9.net  
> http://e.home.ml.org/ and //java.home.ml.org/
> eber@compufit.com                 \  Compufit, Inc.
> http://www.compufit.com/          / Computer Services
> 
> 
it has all to do with the equilibrium of the system( in this case the
bicycle and the driver)
when you make a turn then the described vector makes an angel with your
direction.
(the look from above)
 The result of your turn / Bicycle 1ste direction
                      ^                ^
                        *              *
                            *          *
                                *      *
                                  *    *
                                    *  *
                                     * *
                   < *  *  *  *  * *  *
If you look at this than you see ther is a force workin in the primaly
direction
(one of the laws of newton: a mass in motion, while stay in motion)
an a second one in an angel of the first one: so the result is continous
changing
result vector till the turn is completed.
By looking to the mass then you see ther is a power working to force the
mass center
over his equilibre.
  --------
  *      *   ---->
  *      *
  *  0  *
  *      *
  _____                          
By Leaning down, the center of the mass will come lower  end 
the system will stay in his stable situation.
I hope this answer will give enough explenation to look further
for the solution for your problem.

James Harris wrote:
> 
>  F=(z-y), G=(z-x), H=(x+y);  then
> 
>  z = y + F   and    x^n + y^n = (y + F)^n  so
> 
>        x^n = n F y^{n-1}+...+n F^{n-1} y + F^n
> 
> Dividing out F gives
> 
>   x^n / F = n y^{n-1}+ n(n-1) F y^{n-2}/2+...+n F^{n-1) y + F^{n-1}
> 
> by inspection the expression on the right is no longer divisible by F if
> F>1 unless F=n because this would require that y^{n-1} be divisible by
> F.
> 
> Letting A = n y^{n-1}+ n(n-1) F y^{n-2}/2+...+n F^{n-1) y + F^{n-1}
> 
> then x^n = A(F) where A and F share no prime factors except possibly n.
I will just make three comments on your derivation. As a general
comment it is clear that
F is not a prime in general. Although you do not directly claim
that F is a prime, many implications seem to rely on that (false)
understanding:
1) A divisible by F does NOT necessarily require that  y^{n-1} be
divisible by F.
2) In any case it is not clear to me why  y^{n-1}  cannot be divisible
by  F.
3) A not divisible by F does NOT imply that  A  and  F  do not share
any prime factor.
Of course it is not the case to go through the rest of the proof
untill those points are fixed!
-- 
Maurizio Paolini                        paolini@dimi.uniud.it

>When can we expect the first Pons Fleischman plant built then?.
I heard that there is now evidence that the first humans (those as old 
as coal!!!) actually built the first one (they found part of the power 
plant sticking out of a rock).  The tremendous power of that plant 
forced the sun out from its orbit around the earth and caused many 
elephants and whales to mutate into the creatures we now know as 
dinosaurs.  :)
There was a great show on PBS lately about a professional skeptic (who 
debunked Uri Geller, amongst others) who made an expedition to a clinic 
in the USSR which claimed to have water with "magical healing 
properties".  He tried an experiement to measure the differences between 
their water and normal water.  Evidently, normal water he brought in was 
exactly the same as the water they had.  Of course, it turned out 
(according to the believers) that their water was so powerful, that it 
automatically transmuted any water he brought in into "magical water".  
Thus, no scientific experiment could ever measure any difference.
Ya see, there's a 'scientific' reason for everything...  :)

gt2943a@prism.gatech.edu (Dan Cook) wrote:
>
>Hi there!
>
>Does anyone know where I can get some good tips for building a small 
>parabolic dish (from 12" to 3')?  I need it for a project involving
>a parabolic microphone.
>
>I would kind of prefer to build it myself, but if anyone knows of any
>readily available products that just happen to be parabolas, that
>would be great too!
>
>
>Much appreciated,
>
>Dan Cook.
>
>dcook@victoria.oit.gatech.edu
>-- 
>Daniel A. Cook (the "Danimal")     | "I must down to the seas again,
>Georgia Institute of Technology    |    to the lonely sea and the sky,
>Atlanta, Georgia 30332             |  All I ask is a tall ship and a star 
>Internet: gt2943a@prism.gatech.edu |    to steer her by..."  -John Masefield
There's an article in The Amateur Scientist column of Scientific American for Dec 
1973 and a subsequent one in the November 1974 issue. If my memory serves, the 
first article was subsequently corrected because of incorrect instructions. I might 
possibly be able to dig them up if you are unable to access copies.
PGWHITE

Ken, I cannot comprehend the following as long as you believe the electric
field between charges is a "magnetic attraction", and are unaware of the
identical nature of the formula of the gravity and electric field.
In article , Ken Fischer  wrote:
>kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
>: In article , Ken Fischer  wrote:
>: >       If gravitation were a "force" field (an attractive,
>: >or repulsive "field" would have to be a "force"field, unlike
>: >the propagated electromagnetic spectrum which has very little
>: >radiation pressure and most of the energy is perpendicular to
>: >the direction of motion), then a GUT would either require that
>: >gravitation be a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, _or_
>: >be a separate "force" field propagating with somewhat the same
>: >characteristics, only attractive.
>
>: Can we clear the deck a little so we only compare one type of object?
>: Let's compare the field of a proton acting on other electrons to 
>: that of gravity.  Now both are atractive force fields.
>
>        I see nothing about gravity that resembles magnetic
>attraction of opposite charges.
>        I am not aware of any direct experiment using a
>single proton and electrons, although I assume it has
>been done if it is possible. 
>
>: >       But I don't see gravitation that way, gravitation is
>: >an apparent distortion of the inertial coordinate system,
>: >and that is the way General Relativity sees it.
>: >      
>: >       So there are _no_ forces involved in the gravitation
>: >part of physics _unless_ there is physical interaction, all
>: >effects of gravitation are _inertial_ and even though the
>: >inertial coordinate system is distorted (curved) by gravitation,
>: >"forces" are not required, and General Relativity does not
>: >require "forces".
>
>: How is this different than the electric field?  No charges, no
>: interaction and no forces.
>
>       If gravity is not anything like opposite charge
>attractions, then it must be different. 
>       Gravity can not be "created", can not be shielded,
>can not be deflected, can not be reflected, can not be
>amplified, can not be weakened, never fails, and the
>mechanism by which it operates is not known.
>       The only thing that is known is the effect, and
>it works on all known elements and compositions equally. 
>
>: >       There is then, two objections to gravitation being
>: >a separate "force" field, the unsatisfactory thought of 
>: >having two major global propagated "spectrums", and the
>: >fact that gravitation is _not_ a "force" mechanism, it
>: >is a distortion of the inertial coordinate system. 
>: >       While "tidal forces" are used as an argument for
>: >a "force" field, all particles simply try to move on their
>: >own geodesics in free space, and "tidal forces" are simply
>: >the local interaction between the particles.
>: >
>: >       It may seem unsatisfactory to have inertial coordinates
>: >curved as a result of gravitation, but it is not as yet known
>: >what curves the coordinate system (I don't think General
>: >Relativity specifies that).
>: >       I have a book that even attempts (and does an impressive
>: >job of it) to present the math that incorporates inertia and
>: >gravitation in within one system along the ideas of Mach and
>: >all the mass in the universe.
>: >       I think this is impossible and a complicating concept,
>: >and that it should be rejected, the quantity of inertia of an 
>: >object must be the same regardless of how much other mass there 
>: >is in the universe or it's distribution.    Even if a single
>: >particle was alone in the universe it would have to have the
>: >same inertia, else proximity to other mass would change the
>: >quantitative value of the inertia (mass) of the particle.
>
>: Having taken the left turn into astro, I am incomplete in my
>: understanding of quantum fields and GR.  The big difference
>: I am aware of is that EM is linear while GR is not.  
>
>        The mathematical representation of fields may seem
>to be somewhat alike, but the gravitational "field" is not
>really a "field" in the same sense as a magnetic field.
>        If it were a "field" then there should be some way
>to alter the gravitational field, and there is no way known
>to alter it.
>        I wouldn't read too much into statements about the
>gravitational field generating more field, the reason that
>gravitation does not fall off as precisely the inverse
>square is apparently not well understood else there would
>not be dozens of theories with only minor differences.
>        I think the gravitational field is purely geometrical
>and can not be acted on, the effects are observed from a
>biased reference frame, with the observers seeing accelerations
>where no accelerations exist. 
>        Gravity is a riddle of major proportions.
>
>: What if
>: there were enough energy available to put the massive photons
>: which propogate the EM field back on their mass shell.  I
>: have no idea what the transform would be, but it appears to
>: be concievable that this could transform an EM field into a
>: gravitational one.  
>
>        I am pretty sure that photons do not attract anything,
>in fact, I don't think free electrons produce gravitational
>attraction, but I am still trying to research current thought
>on this, as I just became aware (if I am correct) that electrons
>are not composed of quarks, and I think quarks produce the major
>apparent "attraction" of gravity, although electrons are "attracted"
>by gravity.
>        I am not impressed by the possibilities of mathematical
>representations, they can be very precise and formal, but they
>can also be misleading.
>
>: At least I do not see a necessary logical
>: inconsistency as you do.
>
>         If someone were to find a way to generate a gravitational
>field electrically, I would be very happy, gravity is my worse
>enemy, but it isn't going to happen, so thinking about it is
>like reading science fiction.
>         And I do not see gravity waves (if they exist) as
>a "particle-wave" duality, which seems to be a current 
>popular confusion.
>         As I said, LIGO is an important experiment, whether
>it is a null experiment remains to be seen, as there needs to
>both, be a model of gravitation that does not require gravitational
>radiation (I am not convinced that GR does), and, LIGO would
>have to fail, for it to be a null experiment.
>
>Ken Fischer 

gt2943a@prism.gatech.edu (Dan Cook) wrote:
>
>Hi there!
>
>Does anyone know where I can get some good tips for building a small 
>parabolic dish (from 12" to 3')?  I need it for a project involving
>a parabolic microphone.
>
>I would kind of prefer to build it myself, but if anyone knows of any
>readily available products that just happen to be parabolas, that
>would be great too!
>
>
>Much appreciated,
>
>Dan Cook.
>
>dcook@victoria.oit.gatech.edu
>-- 
>Daniel A. Cook (the "Danimal")     | "I must down to the seas again,
>Georgia Institute of Technology    |    to the lonely sea and the sky,
>Atlanta, Georgia 30332             |  All I ask is a tall ship and a star 
>Internet: gt2943a@prism.gatech.edu |    to steer her by..."  -John Masefield
 There are articles in the Nov. 1973 and Dec. 1974 Scientific American Amateur 
Scientist columns describing how to do this. If you are unable to get copies, I 
might possibly be able to dig them up.
PGWHITE

I checked-out the page you suggested.  Evidently, this guy found 
million-year-old human skull bones.  They were not fossilized, but were 
still the original bone matter.  In addition, he found soft tissues, 
also not fossilized.  Evidently, according to the article:
"However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful 
disdainful influence deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy to 
prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th century to 
be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning a monumental 
truth about ourselves. I assure you I know what I'm talking about 
because I discovered these petrified human remains and have had a 
ringside seat to the scientific establishment's despicable antics of 
suppressing an aresenal of physical evidence."
So, it's obvious to all why everybody doesn't know about this great 
find.  A conspiracy by the scientific community to supress this find.
Unfortunately for the conspiratorial paranoids (well, just cauz yer 
paranoid doesn't mean people aren't really out to get you :)  the 
"scientific community" isn't a monolithic entity.  Big science is big 
business.  If somebody came out with some real info that shattered a 
major theory, it would get out there faster than the speed of light.  
Unfortunately, that cuts both ways.  Some folks think it's a great way 
to become famous.
I'll be happy to keep an open mind about this, but it does certainly 
conflict with everyting I've learned about archaeology, anthropology, 
etc.  To the 'believers' out there who know it's real, based soley on 
what the discoverer says:
1) Is it possible to do any scientific experiments on these materials to 
either confirm or deny his assertions?
2) If so, what would they be?
3) Do you really believe that there is a monolithic scientific 
conspiracy that is actually the reason why your religious beliefs are 
not confirmed by scientific evidence?
In article <55kotr$k0b@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net says...
>
>David Weinstein  wrote:
>
>> Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net) writes
>>>
>>>The  WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
>>>a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
>>>between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
>
>>How in the hell can this be possible? The most advanced life
>>back then weren't even vertebrates. This is either a very stupid,
>>pointless hoax, either for advancement or a joke, or else a case of
>>seriously bad practise of science, with no regard to the proper
>>scientific method. Surely this cannot be true.
>>-- 
>Unfortunately, it IS!
>I assure you the specimens discovered between anthracite
>veins are neither a ``very stupid, pointless hoax" nor a joke.
>
>You see, David, sometimes truth can INDEED be stranger
>than fiction.
>
>And please don' t mention the possibility of my disregard for the
>``proper scientific method" of investigation.
>Instead, point your finger at the scientific establishment which has
>displayed a total lack of honesty and integrity in pursuit of this
>particular truth.
>
>And, unfortunately, science's disregard for facts is nothing new.
>Col. James Churchwood squarely hit the nail on the head with
>a few choice words in one of his books:
>
>>>>              ``Our scientists today do not want facts.
>>>>                They hate them because it upsets all
>>>>                the fairy tales they have been building up
>>>>                for many, many years."
>
>                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>If the truth really hurts, David, I'd suggest you take a pain pill,
>wait about five minutes, then click on:
>
>>>>  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skulla.jpg
>
>>>>  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skullb.jpg
>
>>>>  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>
>Maybe it won't hurt so much!
>
>
>

In article <327b33a2.14527033@hermes.is.co.za>, ferdi@is.co.za (Koos) wrote:
*My wife swears she saw someone looking exactly like me with another
*woman in town.
*
*It was not me. No ways. I was at another place at that time.
*Must be a double.
*
*But coincidences abound.
*
*This other woman, HER husband swears he saw a woman looking like her
*that same day! Also in town!
*
*This is a strange thing this. And it should be brought under the
*attention of people much more, this thing that we have doubles walking
*around.
I moved to colorado when i was in high school. In school several people
called me a name not my own.  Later, in the hallway, I saw a girl who
looked like me.  It was strange.
-- 
Susan***
Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
                              Rousseau

In article ,
Mandy Wright   wrote:
> the first pulsar was discovered by Jocelyn Bell, she coined the
>expression LGM1,   see Radio Astronomy John D Kraus
Bell was Hewish's graduate student.
Please trim your quotations.
Followups set.
Martin
-- 
Martin Hardcastle           Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cambridge
                                              Be not solitary, be not idle

alweiner@presstar.com (Alan Weiner) wrote:
>  Big science is big business.  If somebody came out with some real
>  info that shattered a major theory, it would get out there faster
>  than the speed of light . . .
to suppress it?
I most certainly agree!

Franz Kiekeben wrote:
> 
> I asked the following to a PhD in physics and he didn't know the answer
> (so now I don't feel so bad):
> 
> If all motion is relative, so is rotational motion. But in that case,
> stars move around the earth at speeds in excess of c; and distant
> galaxies move at millions times c relative to a spinning top.
> 
> What is the answer? Is rotation not relative? And if so, how can
> straight line motion be relative?
> 
> Are there any books or articles that address this issue?
> 
> Franz Kiekeben
Try Einstein's Theory of Relativity by Max Born.  From page 356 of the 
1962 Dover edition:
	"A similar error lies at the root of the following, which is 
continually being brought forward, although the explanation is very 
simple.
	"According to the general theory of relativity, a coordinate 
system which is rotating with respect to the fixed stars (i.e., which is 
rigidly connected with the earth) is fully equivalent to a system which 
is at rest with respect to the fixed stars.  In such a system, however, 
the fixed stars themselves acquire enormous velocities."
Born does provide the simple explanation promised.  In the Earth-fixed 
system, the metric coefficients are transformed, becoming very large at 
large distances away from the Earth.  Since the limit on the speed of 
light is derived from these coefficients, the "enormous velocities" of 
the stars are still less than their local speed of light.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

H E L P !!!
 I try to find equastion which describe relationship of  boiling point to
pressure.  
 I have that 
		p=p0*exp(E/(R*T))
 But somthing is wrong. For example for water when I try to find E 
(I artificialy linearized equation ln(p)=ln(p0)+E/(R*T) )  I got
about 3100J/mol when real it is 75J/mol.
It is important to me!
Reply send to me via email !!!
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Michal Szymanski                               Address:
 email: mszym@ely.pg.gda.pl                     ul.Rybaki 20
 http://www.ely.pg.gda.pl/~mszym/index.html     10-150 Olsztyn 
                                                Poland
 For Netscape 1.0  
English version:    http://www.ely.pg.gda.pl/~mszym/indexang1.html
Polska wer: http://www.ely.pg.gda.pl/~mszym/noficjalna.html 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Faculty of Electric and Automation
                  Specialization Automation&Robotics; III year
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Jones wrote:
> 
> briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
> 
> > Physics provides no
> >operational definition for "absolute" or "relative" synchonization without
> >defining those terms.
> 
> Einstein long ago did this very thing.  He said that "absolute time"
> means simply that all observers find the same time interval for two
> events.
Correct. THat is what absolute time means. Just like the word "unicorn"
means "horse with a lion's tail and a horn in the middle of its
forehead". However, the fact that these words have meaning doesn't mean
they describe reality.
--
Chris Volpe			Phone: (518) 387-7766 
GE Corporate R&D;		Fax:   (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8 			Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
Schenectady, NY 12301		Web:   http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr

Peter F. Curran wrote:
> 
> In article ,
>         OX-11  writes:
> >There is a somewhat disturbing rumor floating around the net--that the
> >government is selling human flesh as beef and pork in the local markets
> >(possibly as a way to eliminate political enemies). My question is this:
> >is there a way to treat human flesh so people would think they are eating
> >beef, or possibly pork? and , just how could you tell what you were bying
> >at the market? I know this sounds crazy, but I have recently come across
> >an individual too scared to eat red meat who have cited the above rumor
> >as a reason they avoid pot roast....   :-(
> >
> >
> 
> Tell them not to worry about it...  The tastes are really
> very different.
> 
>     - Pete
There is a way. It's called Soylent Green if memory serves.
Ian
-- 
                                     _
"I say we take off and nuke the     / )  Ian.Fairchild@deetya.gov.au
 whole site from orbit. It's the   (_/_   _  DEETYA, Canberra,
 only way to be sure."   Ripley ____/(_\_/ )____ Australia

Brian Jones wrote:
> 
> throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
> 
> >Bjon specified a "clock reading".  The event of a clock hand reaching
> >a certain reading (or an lcd lighting up a particular digit string,
> >or any other ways a clock could "have a reading")is... well... an event.
> >That's what a clock IS.  A stream of events.  A sequence of
> >"clock reading" events.
> 
> There must be some nonclock event AT the clock. This is standard SRT
> fare. 
Really?!?! What part of SRT says that the occurrence of a particular
configuration of the hands on a clock doesn't constitute an event?
> There must be a light signal hitting the clock, etc, but why am
> I having to explain SRT?  There is no event that can be matched with
> any rear clock reading, mainly because I didn't give one.
It's amazing that  someone who clearly doesn't know what an "event" is
can think he is explaining SRT.
--
Chris Volpe			Phone: (518) 387-7766 
GE Corporate R&D;		Fax:   (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8 			Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
Schenectady, NY 12301		Web:   http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr

Mati:
|> Not by me, at least.  If you say "the belief that Newton's theory is 
|> universally valid was proven wrong" I'll sign it.  Same if you say 
|> that it was proven to be "just an approximation".
Of course.  But the statement is logically trivial -- as any theory, 
other than a TOE, fails this way.  
My thrust is that each accepted "good" theory (SR, Newton, GR, 
QM) is the correct limit of what is presumably a more grand TOE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , 
eber@cloud9.net says...
>
>This is the diagram we constructed:
>
>^        / bike
>|N     o 
>|    / |
>|  /   |
>|/  )  |
>+------+--->  Ff
>       | 
>       v W
>
Where's the centrifugal force??
Fc = m v^2 / R
>We would really appreciate any insight anyone has on this problem and what
>is the cause of the leaning.  Is it something simple that we all are
>overlooking?  Thank you very much in advance.
If i've time i'll post it.
Btw, this is a basic question found in many physics books.
bye

Hardy Hulley (hoh@rmb.co.za) wrote:
: Michael Zeleny:
: >>>>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 ...
:  
: Silke-Maria Weineck:
: >>>And you still haven't told us what you think that means.
:  
: Hardy Hulley:
: >>You seem to be having a little trouble here, so I'll help you out. >>Let's concentrate on "The Einsteinian constant is not a constant..." >>for a moment. Either this sentence is to be analysed by applying the >>common interpretations from within physi
cs and mathematics (in which >>case it is certainly false), or else it is simply gibberish (since >>"Einsteinian constant" has no known interpretation outside of physics).
: >>
: >>The rest of the above extract is vapid. In my opinion, Derrida missed
: >>his vocation as a random word generator (... or perhaps he didn't).
: >>
: >>
: >>Glad I could help,
:  
: Silke-Maria Weineck:
: >I'm afraid you couldn't; distorting the quote won't help. Derrida
: >corrects "constant" to "center" -- and if you want to understand the
: >sentence, you will have to know what "center" means in the context of
: >Structure, Sign, and Play. Which means you'll have to, gasp. read it.
: >
: >Next, please.
: I appreciate your well-meaning advice, but you haven't addressed my
: point.
Well, neither have you so far...
 So, out of pure generosity, I'll give you a hard target to shoot 
: at - namely, the following hypothesis, whose expression is both
: unambiguous and falsifiable (Popper would have loved me):
: The quote (above) from Derrida has no interpretation which is both (a)
: reasonable (in the sense that it doesn't rely upon a proprietary mapping
: of syntax into semantics), and (b) valid when interpreted within the
: constraints of (a).
: In order to falsify my hypothesis, a suitable counter-example is all
: that is required of you. You may, naturally, invoke whatever supporting
: text from Derrida you deem appropriate. Of course, conditions (a) and
: (b) would have to apply here as well.
Sure, let's see: "Einstein's constant is not a center," meaning: 
"Einstein's constant does not offer a center [supply: in the sense in
which I have defined center in the talk I have just given and all of you
present have heard, so you know what I'm talking about]," i.e. it does 
not and cannot ground cultural, political, aesthetic or philosophical 
structures since, as I will continue a paragraph down (and if Hardly 
Hulley had read the talk or the whole discussion instead of jumping to  
conlucsions on the basis of an excerpt from an oral response, he would 
actually understand this):
[Hippolite:] It is a constant in the game?
[Derrida:] It is _the_ constant of the game...
[Hippolite:] It is the rule of the game.
[Derrida:] It is a rule of the game which does not governthe game; it is 
a rule of the game which does not dominate the game.:
Here's some extra:
"How to define structure? Structure should b centered. But this center can
be either thought, as it was classically, like a creator or being or a
fixed and natural place; or also as a deficiency, let's say; or something
which makes possible 'free play,' in the sense in which one speaks of the
'jeu dans la machine,' of the 'jeu des pie`ce,' and which receives -- and
this is waht we call history -- a series of determinations, of signifiers
which have no sifnifieds finally, which cannot become signifiers except as
they begin from the deficiency." 
: An appropriate starting point may be a listing of Dictionary definitions
: of words such as: constant, centre, concept, variability, game, etc.
: Then all you would have to do is join the dots, so to speak - an
: intellectual exercise for which, I am sure, you are admirably equipped.
Why would a dictionary help with a concept that has just been elaborated? 
What a strange idea. Derrida has just spent an hour developing his 
concept of center, and you ask for a dictionary? And this doesn't strike 
you as slightly bizarre?
: Hopefully in this (possibly your first) formal exercise in
: falsification, you will learn something about the philosophy of science.
I suppose the above should have read, "I hope that...," because I can't 
say that your reply makes me feel very hopeful about that philosophy of 
science as whose representative you present.
Silke
: Good luck,
: Hardy
: hardy@icon.co.za
: hoh@rmb.co.za

>In article <3278A604.2EA90F6@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de>, Jan Pavek
> wrote:
>
>> Why do human always zoom something in (or out)? Can't we see something
>> in its whole shape? Is it too much for us (our brain), so we can only
>> see a part of something? All that scientific descriptions can only
>> describe a part of a whole thing, so is science only for people who
>> can't use their brain to see it all at once?
>> 
>>  Jan
I've been trying it, but I can't seem to zoom with my eyes!
I've been following the following method:
- look at an object far away
- now, enlarge it!
you see? 
I think you're confusing it with accomodation or the direction of view.
Btw, we don't need to see a whole object. Most of the times just the front 
part will do! :)
Jaap

the great and intrepid bashford@psnw.com (Crash) wrote:
>... "Our economy isn't growing fast enough!"  - Our politicians.
>* Sustained economic growth is impossible because it is tied to
>* physical consumption (wealth).  Why impossible??  5% annual growth 
>* in the consumption of 2 grams of any substance will become a "hole" 
>* with a mass of 800 trillion planet earths in only 2,000 years.
>* Thus long term economic growth is impossible.  This is but one 
>* of many fallacies in ALL orthodox economic foundations. - G. Hardin
That's what I have been wondering all about so many times. And now it turns out
that some smart bloke thought about the same.
It can't be anything else but true, and I wonder where this gets us with our
consumption economy...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The most civilized civilizations are as close to barba-
rism as polished iron is to rust.
                                 Rivarol
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

John Torset wrote:
> I belive many americans (excluding Canadians) ...
What's that supposed to mean?  (I think I resent it, anyway!)
-Paul
(Canadian, eh.)

Some meteorologists seem to think they have come up with the
ideal unit to measure atmospheric pressure.  Actually, it is a
scheme to hang onto obsolete millibars by cloaking them in a
pseudo-SI disguise.
Check out my comments on this at this site:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/hectopas.htm
This seems to be a worldwide problem, foisted on us in part by
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a United Nations
agency.  Canada uses the proper units of pressure, kilopascals,
in its public weather reports.  But even the Canadians use these
oddball hectopascals in their METAR aviation weather reports and
for some other purposes.
I'm looking for more citations to standards and guidelines which
would indicate that hecto- is not a proper prefix in this
context.  Can anyone help me out?  One such comes from
meteorologists, in the American Meteorological Society's
Guidelines for AMS Journals and Monographs, which says that
kilopascals are the proper units of pressure.  These guidelines
can be found at:
http://www.ametsoc.org/AMS/pubs/style.html
-- 
Gene Nygaard
***************************************************
# At the present time, however, the metrical system
# is the only system known that has the ghost of a
# chance of being adopted universally by the world.
#                     -- Alexander Graham Bell,1906

saint wrote:
> 
> the priniciple states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed but
> changed from one form to another.
> then why, when a torch is shone, then switched off, where does all the
> light energy go? it's lost isn't it?
As energy is used up from the batteries, light is produced.  The energy 
is in the photons that were created and a second latter have either gone 
far away, or have been absorbed by something (e.g walls) nearby, 
generating heat.  Turn off the torch and you simply stop producing new 
photons.
> please enlighten me. i'm an aspiring engineer and the thought just
> popped into my mind.
> 
> another thing:
> if e=mc2
> then matter can be destroyed to create energy right?
> rthen why do we say that energy cannot be created, unless we consider
> matter energy? 
Precisely, matter is one form or energy.
>i heard of the wave matter duality buit i don't think
> it's referring to this right?
Right, that's not what it refers to. 
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Need help in physics?  Check out the pages listed here:      |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html         |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

In article <55ktc0$f9b@news2.cais.com>, alweiner@presstar.com (Alan
Weiner) wrote:
>I checked-out the page you suggested.  Evidently, this guy found 
>million-year-old human skull bones.  They were not fossilized, but were 
>still the original bone matter.  In addition, he found soft tissues, 
>also not fossilized.  Evidently, according to the article:
>
>"However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful 
>disdainful influence deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy to 
>prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th century to 
>be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning a monumental 
>truth about ourselves. I assure you I know what I'm talking about 
>because I discovered these petrified human remains and have had a 
>ringside seat to the scientific establishment's despicable antics of 
>suppressing an aresenal of physical evidence."
>
>So, it's obvious to all why everybody doesn't know about this great 
>find.  A conspiracy by the scientific community to supress this find.
>
>Unfortunately for the conspiratorial paranoids (well, just cauz yer 
>paranoid doesn't mean people aren't really out to get you :)  the 
>"scientific community" isn't a monolithic entity.  Big science is big 
>business.  If somebody came out with some real info that shattered a 
>major theory, it would get out there faster than the speed of light.  
>Unfortunately, that cuts both ways.  Some folks think it's a great way 
>to become famous.
>
>I'll be happy to keep an open mind about this, but it does certainly 
>conflict with everyting I've learned about archaeology, anthropology, 
>etc.  To the 'believers' out there who know it's real, based soley on 
>what the discoverer says:
>
>1) Is it possible to do any scientific experiments on these materials to 
>either confirm or deny his assertions?
It's been done. Conrad has hoodwinked quite a few serious investigators
into looking at his stuff (usually by pretending to be a naive but
open-minded amateur who just wants to find out what these odd rocks are).
Usually, they tell him that this stuff is crap, at which time he pretends
they don't exist and he moves on to the next victim. In a few cases, he
has found an Authority who either says something ambiguous, or jollies
him along for a good laugh -- in which case he adds their little endorsement
to his collection of quotes, which he will trot out at the slightest
provocation.
>
>2) If so, what would they be?
Simple inspection of the gross anatomy, and examination of thin slices for
the histological structure of bone. The rocks are either featureless, or
have odd bumps and hollows that do not correspond to any anatomical 
feature. Most of them are broken up--Ed has a large collection of "jaws",
which are basically any rock with a roughly right-angled curve in them and
broken edges where we ought to find tooth-bearing surfaces or articulations.
Microscopically, they look like concretions -- see Andrew MacRae's web
page for a more thorough description. There are tiny translucent spots
in the rocks that are flecks of quartz; Conrad has seized on these as
evidence of Haversian canals. However, they look nothing like bone, except
in the imagination of an obsessed loon. Check out my web page
 for some examples of images
Conrad himself set up when he visited my lab this summer. You'll see for
yourself that his rocks look nothing like fresh human bone or fossilized
dinosaur bone -- although you may afterwards find his attempts to 
rationalize his messy little rocks as looking kinda like bone absolutely
hilarious.
>
>3) Do you really believe that there is a monolithic scientific 
>conspiracy that is actually the reason why your religious beliefs are 
>not confirmed by scientific evidence?
>
It's the only excuse he can come up with. He has no training in biology,
paleontology, or geology, so he's completely lacking in the educational
ammo to fight a battle of the intellect, so he has to resort to nebulous
conspiracies and paranoia. He tried, for a while, to pass himself off as
an expert in bone histology on talk.origins -- the man's ignorance was
so blatant and appalling that that didn't last for long.
-- 
Paul Z. Myers                 myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology              myers@netaxs.com     
Temple University             http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122        (215) 204-8848

Following up on myself... I realized this might still all be too 
complicated or worded in a language too alien. Here's a simpler 
version:
The Einsteinian constant is not a center of the game because it is the 
field in which the game is played.
I also thought the following quote (same exchange, in response to Lucien
Goldman) would be interesting to at least some of you who lump Derrida in
with an unreflected critique of science or sciencism: 
"I believe, however, that I was quite explcit about the fact that nothing 
of what I said had a destructive meaning. Here or there I have used to 
word _de'construction_, which has nothing to do with destruction. THat is 
to say, it is simply a question of (and this is a necessity of criticism 
in the classical sense of the word) being alert to the impliations, to 
the historical sedimentation of the language which we use-- and that is 
not destruction. I believe in the necessity of scientific work in the 
classical sense, I believe in the necessity of everything which is being 
done and even of what you are doing, but I don't see why I should 
renounce or why anyone should renounce the radicality of a critical work 
under the pretext that it risks the sterilization of science, humanity, 
progress, the origin of meaning, etc. I believe that the risk of 
sterility and of sterilization has always been the price of lucidity."
S.
Silke-Maria  Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) 
wrote: : Hardy Hulley (hoh@rmb.co.za) wrote:
: 

Emerson King  wrote:
>I would like some scientific feedback on David Hudson's claims.  There's
>a fair amount of material on the web (see, e.g.,
>http://monatomic.earth.com/ ), although Mr. Hudson himself does not
>appreciate such publicity outside the circle of those 'prepared to
>understand' his material.  
>
>His subjects range from 'white gold' and platinum-element powders, in a
>monatomic state which slips through standard analytical chemical
>techniques, 'high spin' states, 'distorted nuclei', kundalini
>orgasmic-like states, channeled material, superconductivity, alchemy,
>etc., etc.  I have seen 'chemical analyses' discussed that  yielded half
>a gram of platinum group elements in 1 ounce of Seneca frozen grape
>juice concentrate....
[snip]
YES!  YES! IT'S ALL TRUE!  Each ounce of frozen Seneca grape juice yields 
a full 500 mg of pure metallic platinum to the adept.  The holy men do 
not avail themselves of this source of vast wealth because of their 
spiritual mission.  They must be content with taking your money by the 
bushel though it is dirty, and deficient in kundalini orgasmic-like 
states.
 (Besides, it wasn't really platinum afer all - DISINFORMATION!  It was 
extraterrestrial iridium, now contaminating the Earth and killing off all 
the manatees, mutating all the frogs, and necesitating the female human 
use of stay-fresh panty liners.  The horror, the horror...)
Get an orgone box/N-ray generator/500 mpg carburetor like the rest of us. 
-- 
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!

In article <55kqfs$cas@news.be.innet.net>, year1440@club.innet.be says...
>
>the great and intrepid bashford@psnw.com (Crash) wrote:
>
>
>>... "Our economy isn't growing fast enough!"  - Our politicians.
>
>>* Sustained economic growth is impossible because it is tied to
>>* physical consumption (wealth).  Why impossible??  5% annual growth 
>>* in the consumption of 2 grams of any substance will become a "hole" 
>>* with a mass of 800 trillion planet earths in only 2,000 years.
>>* Thus long term economic growth is impossible.  This is but one 
>>* of many fallacies in ALL orthodox economic foundations. - G. Hardin
>
>That's what I have been wondering all about so many times. And now it turns 
out
>that some smart bloke thought about the same.
>It can't be anything else but true, and I wonder where this gets us with our
>consumption economy...
Economic growth in our society is not based on increased consumption of
raw resources, but on increased efficiency in the use of those resources.
Technology is all about doing "more with less".  Since we can see no limits
to technology, there would appear to be no limits to what we can do.  The
computer you are reading this on is an excellent example of this principle.
Sure, there are areas of technology where we are consuming raw resources.
Rainforests and the biosphere's capacity for CO2 are probably the most
worrying.  But the Limits To Growth scenario was debunked long ago.
According to the Club of Rome the Big Crash was due a few years ago.
Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson            | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 242244         +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work:        | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home:     | standards, all different.

In article <327BC354.5D7B@merle.acns.nwu.edu>, ezotti@merle.acns.nwu.edu 
says...
>(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?
On day would last a year!

Mati:
| |> Not by me, at least.  If you say "the belief that Newton's theory is 
| |> universally valid was proven wrong" I'll sign it.  Same if you say 
| |> that it was proven to be "just an approximation".
candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
| Of course.  But the statement is logically trivial -- as any theory, 
| other than a TOE, fails this way.  
| 
| My thrust is that each accepted "good" theory (SR, Newton, GR, 
| QM) is the correct limit of what is presumably a more grand TOE.
I don't see why it has to be.  There may not be a coherent
Everything, and even if there is, it may not be theorizable.
Neither state of affairs would prevent anyone from
constructing useful and interesting theories.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

In talk.origins +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>Mati:
>| |> Not by me, at least.  If you say "the belief that Newton's theory is 
>| |> universally valid was proven wrong" I'll sign it.  Same if you say 
>| |> that it was proven to be "just an approximation".
>
>candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
>| Of course.  But the statement is logically trivial -- as any theory, 
>| other than a TOE, fails this way.  
>| 
>| My thrust is that each accepted "good" theory (SR, Newton, GR, 
>| QM) is the correct limit of what is presumably a more grand TOE.
>
>I don't see why it has to be.  There may not be a coherent
>Everything, and even if there is, it may not be theorizable.
>Neither state of affairs would prevent anyone from
>constructing useful and interesting theories.
Your objection is noted, but does not refer to the previous post. He
did not say a more grand Everything, he said a Theory Of Everything.
And he did not say absolute answer, he said "more grand". And he did
not say it existed, he said he presumed it exited. So the metaphysical
claim you wish to avoid was avoided.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

In talk.origins +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
>Mati:
>| >| |> Not by me, at least.  If you say "the belief that Newton's theory is 
>| >| |> universally valid was proven wrong" I'll sign it.  Same if you say 
>| >| |> that it was proven to be "just an approximation".
>
>candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
>| >| Of course.  But the statement is logically trivial -- as any theory, 
>| >| other than a TOE, fails this way.  
>| >| 
>| >| My thrust is that each accepted "good" theory (SR, Newton, GR, 
>| >| QM) is the correct limit of what is presumably a more grand TOE.
>
>g*rd*n:
>| >I don't see why it has to be.  There may not be a coherent
>| >Everything, and even if there is, it may not be theorizable.
>| >Neither state of affairs would prevent anyone from
>| >constructing useful and interesting theories.
>
>matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>| Your objection is noted, but does not refer to the previous post. He
>| did not say a more grand Everything, he said a Theory Of Everything.
>| And he did not say absolute answer, he said "more grand". And he did
>| not say it existed, he said he presumed it exited. So the metaphysical
>| claim you wish to avoid was avoided.
>
>The existence of a Theory of Everything would strongly imply
>that there was an objectifiable Everything and that one
>could describe it with a theory.  So if it doesn't imply a
>metaphysical claim it runs mighty close to the line.  
>
A Theory Of Everything does not have to imply the metaphysical reality
of this everything. And I think that the comparative "more grand" was
there to point out that there was no metaphysical claim in the term
TOE.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
Pooka: n. A mythical beast. Fond of rum pots, crackpots, and how are you Mr. Wilson?

Mati:
| >| |> Not by me, at least.  If you say "the belief that Newton's theory is 
| >| |> universally valid was proven wrong" I'll sign it.  Same if you say 
| >| |> that it was proven to be "just an approximation".
candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
| >| Of course.  But the statement is logically trivial -- as any theory, 
| >| other than a TOE, fails this way.  
| >| 
| >| My thrust is that each accepted "good" theory (SR, Newton, GR, 
| >| QM) is the correct limit of what is presumably a more grand TOE.
g*rd*n:
| >I don't see why it has to be.  There may not be a coherent
| >Everything, and even if there is, it may not be theorizable.
| >Neither state of affairs would prevent anyone from
| >constructing useful and interesting theories.
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
| Your objection is noted, but does not refer to the previous post. He
| did not say a more grand Everything, he said a Theory Of Everything.
| And he did not say absolute answer, he said "more grand". And he did
| not say it existed, he said he presumed it exited. So the metaphysical
| claim you wish to avoid was avoided.
The existence of a Theory of Everything would strongly imply
that there was an objectifiable Everything and that one
could describe it with a theory.  So if it doesn't imply a
metaphysical claim it runs mighty close to the line.  
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

In  cdyer@infochan.com
(Charles Dyer) writes: 
>
>In article
,
>OX-11  wrote:
>
>> There is a somewhat disturbing rumor floating around the net--that
the 
>> government is selling human flesh as beef and pork in the local
markets 
>> (possibly as a way to eliminate political enemies). My question is
this: 
>> is there a way to treat human flesh so people would think they are
eating 
>> beef, or possibly pork? and , just how could you tell what you were
bying 
>> at the market? I know this sounds crazy, but I have recently come
across 
>> an individual too scared to eat red meat who have cited the above
rumor 
>> as a reason they avoid pot roast....   :-(
>
>Come on, admit it, you've been reading Damon Knight's _To Serve Man_,
now
>haven't you...
>
>And you really should try the mint sauce recipe...
I've got a marvelous one using red wine, orange zest and
raisins....marvellous accompaniment to a full moon!

In article <558oon$ims@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
pritchjm@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (J.M. Pritchard) wrote:
>In article ,
>Adam Hibbert  wrote:
>>In article <54k6n2$5ga@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
>>pritchjm@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (J.M. Pritchard) wrote:
>
>>>         Obviously, it is stupid to talk of an external reality in this 
>>> case. The "absolute" fact-of-the-matter about whether one should stop 
>>> or go at a red light can only be a matter of the sheerest indifference. 
>>> The only thing which matters is what everyone else is doing, and what 
>>> behaviors you will have to emulate in order to survive/and not be 
>>> institutionalized.
>>>         Evolutionarily speaking, the "false" gets weeded out because it is 
>>> insufficiently adapted to a dangerous environment. Our environment *is* 
>>> dangerous. 
>
>>Hang on a mo. What can be referred to here as dangerous? Is it *really*
>>dangerous, or does it just /pass/ for dangerous? If it is really
>>dangerous, we can presumably be more or less safe in it (ie, approximate
>>towards it). Evolution does this slowly, language/ experience/ memory a
>>lot faster. 
>
>        What I want to say is that distinctions like the ones we 
>putatively make between "real" and "apparent" (dangers, or what have you) 
>are no longer objectively valid given our historical understanding. 
>In this sense, "danger" merely points to the more or less objective 
>fact that some things do indeed die, and others live. Some are happy, 
>others are not.  Some are beautiful, and others ugly. Now there's nothing 
>especially analytic about any of this, that's just the way things are.  
>Similarly, all these things: death, unhappiness, ugliness, etc. can be 
>understood as "dangers" if you choose.
>        Now this is all in response to your first question.  The next one 
>I'm not sure I understand.  And as regards evolution, I am proposing that 
>we explode this notion *into* those other fields you mentioned, 
>especially language.  Questions about the "long-term" notwithstanding, it 
>seems a natural move to make - no pun intended.
>
>>>         Wittgenstein does not deny that the world exists.  He 
>>> just denies that language has a particular relation to it. The 
>>> constraints of living successfully are constraints enough.
>
>>Surely those constraints determine (within reason) how we conceptualise
>>the world? In fact, don't we conceptualise the world *in order that* we
>>can better employ it to our advantage? We establish, in the first instance
>>perhaps by convention, that a particular word refers to a particular
>>object/event/quality; we end up with stuff like numbers, which give math .
>>. . which reveal aspects of the world previously unappreciated . . . 
>
>>Why do i feel like I'm walking into a trap here?
>
>        Wittgenstein said that philosophy was the attempt to show the fly 
>the way out of the fly-bottle.  Not sure if you're walking into a trap 
>unless it is stepping out of a smaller and into a larger one. But you're 
>exactly right. The "trap" is that we have lost "objective" reality - the 
>joke is that we never "had" it. There is no ethos, there is only pathos, 
>only language constantly feeding back upon itself. At least that is what 
>the postmodern philosophers will tell you, the ones who have erased the 
>boundaries between poetry and philosophy, people like Rorty, Derrida, 
>Foucault, etc.
>        But I'm starting to froth at the mouth.  All this bears some more 
>thought, obviously - especially the criticism that we may have gained a 
>neat new way of talking, but have lost the "world".  I don't believe that 
>this is necessarily the case, but this is a problem I am struggling with 
>as well, it is perhaps a new "danger"...
>
>        Could you repeat the question?
>
>
>                                Jeff
We see alike on the trap, the joke, and the postmoderns, Jeff.
As I see it, we have this problem with language (to restate the obvious,
but it bears repeating)... we cannot "get outside" it to have a good look
at it, so it is at the heart of our self-reference dilemma. I recently ran
across a concept of Owen Barfield's (ref below) which seems helpful: that
of "polar contraries." He (Talbott) summarizes it somewhat thusly with
respect to precision and meaning: they are poles apart, but exist only *by
virtue* of each other. Thus if we attempt to see them as opposites,
explaining one or the other out of context, we are doomed to failure just
as we would be in trying to explain the essence of a magnetic north pole
without reference to its southern polar contrary. And Talbott describes
Barfield's anti-intuitive (at least to me) result: absolute precision (if
attainable) would result in *total* loss of meaning!
A good mystery is a wondrous thing to behold! Thank God for 'em, sez I!
The Future Does Not Compute - Transcending the Machines in Our
       Midst. Author: Stephen L. Talbott Publisher: O'Reilly & Associates
       ISBN: 1-56592-085-6..
--
Jim Naylor                 jnaylor@southwind.net
-- 
Jim
jnaylor@southwind.net

>You write sci-babble for Star Trek- Voyager... right?
>
>hutch
Aw, please, Hutch - he's not nearly imaginative enough!
Bill

Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
> 
> DougieG@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > I've been wondering about something lately - there are so many intelligent
> > people like Brian Josephson, Jack Sarfatti, and Fred Alan Wolf doing research
> > into the paranormal yet CSICOP keeps trumpeting the fact that they still have
> > their 600 K. Why is this?
> >
> > Douglas
> >
> 
> 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. They are as extreme as the
> anti-technological Luddites. The truth is in between these two extremes.
> 
Oops, you forgot to answer the question about the 600K.  Just an
oversight I guess.

Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.  wrote in article
<327CF23E.37E4@well.com>...
> NEONLEO@aol.com wrote regarding his creative work:
> > 
> (snip)
> Since mine is beyond the fringe, ... (snip)
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Mountain Man wrote:
> The diurnal tides generated by the moon and the sun would be
> replaced by a lunar 14 day tide, and a solar 183 day tide,
> which would be superimposed.
> 
> The long term effects of this new (gravitational) tidal arrangement
> would need to be contemplated, but the oceans would become less
> moved by this influence and - as others have written - the range
> of temperature difference between the 6 months day and the 6 months
> night would probably cause large scale storms and prevailing winds.
> 
> This would increase the groundswell, and the average global swell
> heights would rise considerably as a result, and although the
> surfing community would benefit with larger surf, there would be
> a huge increase in the effects of beach erosion, etc.
I don't understand why there would be a 183-day solar tide, since the 
assumption is that the same side of the earth would always face the sun. 
I suppose there might be some variation in solar tidal pull due to the 
earth's elliptical orbit around the sun; perhaps that is what was meant 
here.
It seems clear the primary meteorological effects would be extreme heat 
on the sunny side and extreme cold on the shady side, which would 
generate fierce winds. In view of this it strikes me that confusion due 
to changes in "diurnal living cycles" would be the least of our problems. 
Most of the earth would become uninhabitable except by "some exotic 
monera," as one writer put it.
In terms of gravitational effects, which after all was the original 
question, the consensus seems to be that you would weigh a little more at 
the equator, with progressively less difference as you moved toward the 
poles. However, one writer points out that the cessation of spinning 
would also presumably mean the earth would become more perfectly 
spherical--no more flattening at the poles. Thus the earth's radius at 
the equator would be somewhat reduced, cancelling out the effect of the 
loss of centrifugal force. I despair of computing this and fear that the 
only way to arrive at any definite conclusions is to put the matter to 
the empirical test.
Several writers noted that the real problem would not be the lack of 
spinning but the sudden stop. I have ignored this since such fussy 
practicality seems at odds with the spirit of the question. Admittedly it 
may be more of an issue if the empirical test alluded to above is 
undertaken.
Several writers have taken me to task for claiming that the principal 
effect would be that bathwater in both hemispheres would drain straight 
down. The Coriolis effect on bathtub drains is very slight, they point 
out. I know that. I mentioned it as a joke. 
My thanks to all who took the time to write. -Ed 
-- 
Edward F. Zotti
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.   USA
ezotti@merle.acns.nwu.edu

In article <558oon$ims@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
pritchjm@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (J.M. Pritchard) wrote:
> In this sense, "danger" merely points to the more or less objective 
> fact that some things do indeed die, and others live. Some are happy, 
> others are not.  Some are beautiful, and others ugly. Now there's nothing 
> especially analytic about any of this, that's just the way things are.  
Well, that's kind of what I was arguing for in the first place; that
despite our inability to provide an absolute basis for our beliefs re: the
world, we can develop our knowledge from 'less' to 'more' 'objective
fact'.
> And as regards evolution, I am proposing that 
> we explode this notion *into* those other fields you mentioned, 
> especially language.  
Well, OK, but go easy: everyone doing this seems to chuck-out precisely
the relationship that we're attempting to investigate, here. Natural
evolution describes the bumping together of objects, of physical
determinants - what I'm interested in is the self-organisation and
refinement of concepts conducted by rational *Subjects*. IMHO, if we allow
an evolutionary analogy into this too carelessly, we end up in Dennet &
Dawkins' impenetrable bio-psychological planet, where conscious,
1st-person Subjects are entirely replaced by swarms of memes, which
somehow 'trick themselves' into 'conceiving' of themselves as 'a Self'. 
> joke is that we never "had" it. There is no ethos, there is only pathos, 
> only language constantly feeding back upon itself. At least that is what 
> the postmodern philosophers will tell you, the ones who have erased the 
> boundaries between poetry and philosophy, people like Rorty, Derrida, 
> Foucault, etc.
Jus' seems like a lot of self-supporting idealism to the uninitiated; I
really wish I could abandon my materialism for long enough to discover
some logic in there. In particular, I don't understand how there could be
any differentiation or meaning in the first place to get the system
started (a sort of language-game Big Bang, perhaps?), unless through a
relation to something outside the system (ie physical universe). I think I
wandered off the original question ages ago . . . sorry.
Adam
-------                   User or Loser?                 --------
-------  http://www.junius.co.uk/LM/heroes/intro-5.html  --------