Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 17:37:39 GMT
Silke-Maria Weineck:
>>>No:
>>>
>>>Silke: The fact that 2+2=4 sheds no light on the concept of anamnesis.
>>>
>>>Zeleny: 2+2=4! 2+2=4!!! You're wrong, you idiotic moron.
>>>
>>>Silke: What's your concept of anamnesis?
>>>
>>>Zeleny: I won't do your homework for you. Everybody knows Socrates
>>>associated with buggers and whores. There goes your precious Platonism.
Michael Zeleny:
>>Let us try a different approach for the sake of the logically and
>>scientifically challenged. In interpreting Derrida's assertion to
>>support Sokal's claim that it exposes him as an ignorant blowhard,
>>I parse it conjunctively as follows:
>>
>>A = The Einsteinian constant is not a constant.
>>
>>B = The Einsteinian constant is not a center.
>>
>>C = The Einsteinian constant is the very concept of variability.
>>
>>Thus D = A&B;&C.; Now, in order to refute a conjunction, it suffices
>>to refute any one of its conjuncts. Accordingly, I need not concern
>>myself with interpreting A, which is prima facie nonsensical, Iago's
>>"I am not what I am" notwithstanding. Nor am I required to interpret
>>B, either as a logically independent thesis or in apposition to A --
>>for all I care, in his deployment of the term `center' Derrida may be
>>displaying the common French attitude of identifying the crack of his
>>arse with the axis mundi. All that matters is that C transparently
>>runs afoul of the one fundamental feature of SR and GR alike, namely
>>their postulation of invariance. And if C is absurd, by elementary
>>logic so is D. Case closed.
Silke-Maria Weineck:
>But not at all. You are operating with a concept of "invariance" that is
>not necessarily operative here at all; you are repeating your mistake. If
>you were to read on just one paragraph (perhaps two), you'd get a clue.
>I'll post it for you if you don't have the book.
To recap, now we are on to Derrida's notion of variability. Kindly
post a quotation that makes [variability] compatible with invariance.
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)
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: hatcher@nebula.astro.indiana.edu (Robert Hatcher)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 20:01:47 GMT
In article <847130096.25355@dejanews.com>, wrote:
[deHilster/Potts...]
>So don't worry about little ole' David de Hilster who has a
>degree in Advanced Calculus, architecture, and linguistics.
Wow, you've added two degrees in a week. I'm impressed. But, oddly,
again you've neglected to tell us which degree granting institutions issued
these "degrees". In fact, here's a little challenge: I'll send you
photostats of my degrees and you send me photocopies of yours. Since you
brought up the issue of such papers first I'll let you go first in producing
them.
Question: Does a collection of A.B. Physics ('83 UC Berkeley),
A.B. Astronomy ('83 UC Berkeley), M.S. Physics ('87 Michigan State), Ph.D.
('94 Michigan State) trump [unspecified level] in "Advanced Calculus,
architecture and linguistics" from [unspecified institution] on the topic
of *physics*? That is to say if we're having dueling degrees ... which
David must seem to think is a reasonable approach, seeing as he brought
up his "degree in Advanced Calculus" as a point in his favor.
>Worry about learning AD so that you won't become one of the
>religated "old" scientists who dies fighting for a lost cause.
Been to your site, perused it ... found it to be incoherent junk.
Hey, here's a suggestion: open up your "member's only" section for all
to read. I'll bet that what's really there is a bunch of stuff revealling
that this whole AD bit is a mega-troll.
>Send me science questions, not politics. I hate politics!
I've already asked direct questions of you and your AD supporters. Namely,
I'd like to see a credible explaination for the events we saw in our
detector circa 1985 and 1987. Your explaination must cover why these
events had the particular kinematics that we saw. In particular why
did roughly 3/4 of the events have a visible muon (charged current events)
and why did the ratio of the muon energy to total energy have the distribution
that it did. I remind you that I can rule out cosmic rays for the source
of these events (timing, directionality, and their distribution throughout
the detector's volume would rule out "cosmics"). The ~1km of steel and
dirt would rule out neutral hadrons (eg. neutrons, K0's) from the beamline;
besides, with neutral hadrons one would not expect the muons. Oh, and once
you have those down, we can start in on the anti-neutrino events and their
kinematics.
For background material I *again* refer you to:
http://www.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/hatcher/e733.html
>Send me science questions, not politics. I hate politics!
Hey, David, how about a non-political *math* question? Is that acceptable?
Seeing as you have a degree in advanced calculus here's something that
should be fairly trivial (sorry about the crude ascii):
/ +infinity
/
| x sin(x) dx
I(sigma) = | --------------
| x^2 - sigma^2
/
/ -infinity
with the additional constraint that I(sigma) have the form: e^(i sigma).
I suspect that the calculus of residues (Cauchy's integral) would be
useful in solving this one... Now, everyone out there who knows the answer
SHUT UP and let litt' o'l David answer this one for us.
-robert
Robert W. Hatcher | Dept. of Physics | (812) 855-4473 -8247
Research Associate | Swain Hall West 117 | hatcher@nebula.astro.indiana.edu
Indiana University | Bloomington IN 47405 |
http://www.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/hatcher/
--
Robert W. Hatcher | Dept. of Physics | (812) 855-4473 -8247
Research Associate | Swain Hall West 117 | hatcher@nebula.astro.indiana.edu
Indiana University | Bloomington IN 47405 |
http://www.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/hatcher/
Subject: [Fwd: Re: The hard problem and QUANTUM GRAVITY.]
From: "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:34:30 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7422369135E2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Crowell describes a kind of back-action for quantum gravity -- a
Godelian self-reference. The spacelike surface is the "beable". From my
general postulate that anything with back-action is capable of
felt-consciousness, the way Stapp defines it, it follows that we live in
a "conscious universe" at the Planck scale. This answers Hawking's
question about the "Mind of God".
--------------7422369135E2
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: lcrowell@unm.edu
Received: from ariel.unm.edu (ariel.unm.edu [129.24.8.1]) by mh1.well.com (8.7.6/8.7.5) with SMTP id JAA10234 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:47:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmpod_34.unm.edu(really [129.24.200.32]) by ariel.unm.edu
via sendmail with smtp
id
for ; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:36:11 -0700 (MST)
(Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #6 built 1996-Jul-22)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:31:05 -0800 (PST)
From: "Lawrence B. Crowell"
To: Barron Burrow
cc: lcrowell@unm.edu, nixon@geneseo.edu, tmoody@sju.edu, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk,
norwoodr@etsuarts.east-tenn-st.edu, acampbell@cix.compulink.co.uk,
srh@ccit.arizona.edu, md2738@mclink.it, P.Bains@uws.edu.au,
HRSG57A@prodigy.com, rhett@teleport.com, mikebarker@delphi.com,
heuvel@muc.de, matpitka@rock.helsinki.fi, LeonMaurer@aol.com,
rfelder@flagstaff.az.us, stiger@cnet.gr, rwarner@kentlaw.edu,
wordenr@logica.com, hswift@swcp.com, chalmers@paradox.ucsc.edu,
sarfatti@well.com, onesong@ix.netcom.com, hilken@maths.ox.ac.uk,
rcook@cascade.net, pdavies@physics.adelaide.edu.au,
JPL.Verhey@inter.nl.net, jeanbur@netcom.com, bdj10@cam.ac.uk,
MaitEdey@aol.com, hensm@essex.ac.uk, vignes@monaco.mc
Subject: Re: The hard problem and QUANTUM GRAVITY.
In-Reply-To: <199611041551.AA27213@felix.dircon.co.uk>
Message-ID:
X-X-Sender: lcrowell@mail.unm.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> NOTE: I've removed Jonathan Shear from the list , as
> he requested.
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> In an article entitled "Psycho-Physical Problems Revealed in
> Language" (1940), E. Sharpe correctly states that: "In a symbol there is
> concealment and yet revelation; hence, therefore, by silence and by speech
> [OR mathematics] acting together, comes a double significance."
>
> In sum, the true psychic reality, which is the *unconscious*, cannot
> finally be put into words OR into mathematical symbols; cannot ever be
> translated from the silence into words OR into mathematical symbols.
>
> And that is why Lawrence Crowell is quite wrong to imagine that quantum
> gravity (which seeks to find structures that allow general relativity and
> quantum mechanics to coexist) is something that MUST be "dominated by highly
> mathematical concepts". I repeat, Crowell is simply quite *wrong* to
> believe this.
>
A true understanding of quantum gravity is going to involve some very keen
insight into physics that can be expressed in geometric language. It must
in the limit that Planck's constant vanishes recover general relativity.
General relativity is already a fairly mathematical subject with
formalisms that involve Levi-Civita connection coefficients, Riemann
curvature forms and Cartan structure formulas. It is this language that
allows us to formulate conservation laws; and at its roots is the
geometric idea that the boundary of a boundary vanishes. Quantum
mechanics is also formulated in fairly mathematical terms; with bounded
operators over Hilbert spaces.
Most field theories in nature can be quantized because the Green function
or propagator is formulated on a spacetime back ground. The peculiar
thing about quantum gravity is that such a propagator would describe the
evolution of a three dimensional spacelike surface that foliates
spacetime. In effect there is not the same spacetime background upon
which on can place a propagator. It is as if the thing being propagated
is also the thing you are propagating it on. In a rough sense this has
been at the heart of the problem. There are also problems of finding
properly bounded operators for quantum gravity.
In one sense I think that the kernel of the quantum gravity problem lies
in some profound statement; much as Einstein's equivalence principle is
the core of general relativity. This statement is then formulated
mathematically and the structure of the theory then emerges. This
statement is going to clearly state how state vectors evolve under the
action of a generalized parallel translation. A mathematical formalism of
this statement then should give the conservation laws associated with
q-gravity. Without conservation laws and such you simply go not have
physics; and conservation laws are described according to the symmetries
of algebraic varieties and geometric spaces.
Lawrence B. Crowell
--------------7422369135E2--
Subject: Re: THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION
From: yqg023@mrbig.rockwell.com (Jim F. Glass x60375)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 16:40:41 GMT
In article <327555FF.6A4C@easynet.co.uk>, "SDEF!" writes:
|> Jim F. Glass x60375 wrote:
|>
|> >
|> > The "movement" is called "Ludditism", and it is they who are mad;
|> > they want us to return to mud huts and digging for grubs in the
|> > dirt.
|> >
|> > Tell you what. YOU go live a subsistence lifestyle; enjoy the
|> > termites.
|> >
|> > While you are at it, kindly forego the evil results of our "mad"ness,
|> > including computers, electricity, modern medicine, aircraft, etc.
|> >
|> > THEN we might not call you a bunch of ignorant hypocrites. The irony
|> > of seeing such blather as your posting on an internet newsgroup must
|> > escape you.
|> >
|> > The rest of us will colonize space and keep working toward the stars.
|> >
|> > Jim Glass
|> >
|> > Opinions my own, and my own only--as if you could doubt it.
|>
|> The likes of you have already colonised every last bit of habitable land
|> on this planet. There is nowhere we can live as we want to.
This is demonstrably, patently false.
|> Some of us
|> try but we are hounded of the land by armed thugs wherever we try to
|> live.
Who is "hounding [you] of [sic] the land"? Could it be that those
who are "hounded" are squatters trying to "live" on someone else's
property? Property rights are not among your favorite concepts,
I'm sure. Go buy a hunk of land and start a commune. Nobody'll
bother you then--unless Bill Clinton and Janet Reno take a dislike
to you. But then, Al Gore is a friend of yours...
|>Your wonderful civilization is so insecure that it cannot even
|> tolerate a few people living outside of it. We have no choice but to
|> make the best of what is. We work to bring down your life-destroying
|> dictatorship. We work for true freedom.
Fine; like I said: give up computers, electricity, internal combustion,
etc.--to show your purity and convince us you're not hypocrites. At least
the Amish have the guts to walk the walk. YOU on the other hand are all
talk.
|> Your decadent system is already eating itself, all we want to do is
|> speed up the process so there is a world left fit to live in after it
|> collapses.
So said Malthus; we're still waiting.
|> Your rantings re the colonisation of space are hilarious, more please...
|> andy
Glad you like 'em. Lots more where they came from.
Jim Glass
Opinions my own, as if you could doubt it.
|> --
|> http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
|> South Downs EF!, Prior House
|> 6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
|> "Happy is he who dares to defend passionately
|> that which he loves" -Ovidius
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: Paul Skoczylas
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 14:52:32 -0700
David Peever wrote:
> Whatever the U.S. government does, it should learn from the Canadian
> example. They switched in 1975, and immediately disenfranchised a
> substantial fraction of the population (pretty much anyone born before
> 1955 or 1960), who thereafter never really had a sense for the
> temperature, the price of hamburger, or the speed limit.
While I am younger, I know (and am related to) lots of people born
before 1955, and they don't seem to have any problem with metric.
> Worse were the prosecutions. E.g. two students who couldn't find a job
> one summer who opened a fruit stand with an old scale. A govt. inspector
> came up and asked for a pound of strawberries. When they sold him one,
> they were shut down and fined. It was bad enough in a country with a
> tradition of trusting their government -- I can just imagine what would
> happen in the states.
I suspect this is an "urban legend". You know, the kind of story that
everyone swears happened to a friend of a friend. The government here
can't even prosecute stores that sell cigarettes to minors. (They do a
sting now and then, but nothing changes...) However, any scale used in
commerce here must be certified by Canada Weights and Measures. I don't
know what the enforcement is like...
A more serious problem is that related to safety: I don't know if the
"Gimley Glider" episode made into the news down in the States, but it
was a Boeing 767 (? it was Boeing, anyway) that was not filled
properly. (It was a while ago, and I'm working from memory here, so
forgive me if the details are off.) They measured the gas in the tanks
with a dipstick of some sort. The new dipstick was calibrated in
litres, but the service techs read it in gallons. Hence, the plane had
a quarter of the required fuel that it required to fly from Toronto (?)
to Vancouver (?) (I forget the actual cities, but it was a long
cross-country flight.) It ran out of fuel over Manitoba, and the pilot
made a successful landing at a disused airport (then being used as a
drag strip by local auto enthusiasts) at Gimley, Manitoba. The
nosewheel collapsed on landing, but there were no serious injuries. The
pilot credited the successful landing to the fact that a week or two
before he had taken a course in flying gliders, and learned some tricks
that he used to land the large wide-body jet!
-Paul
Subject: Re: G via Einstein, not Newton
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 20:28:06 GMT
In <55le0s$3ji@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> lots@ix.netcom.com(Joel Mannion)
writes:
>
>W. S. Oakley, P.O. Box 10160 San Jose, CA 95157. Copyright Ó 1 Oct.
>1996,
>
>G via Einstein, not Newton:
>
>Abstract Although Einstein’s general relativity theory has long
since
>replaced Newton’s concept of gravity, it is still not recognized that
>Newton’s description of gravity as a force acting between masses in
>observer space is critically incorrect. Consequently, more than
eighty
>years after Einstein introduced his theory the classical gravitational
>constant, G, is still believed to be a basic constant, unrelated to
the
>fundamental atomic constants. A brief analysis easily shows
otherwise.
>
> Mass (m) is an artifact of matter arising from spatial
>localization of (electromagnetic) energy in observer space. As E =
>mc^2, matter energy (E), exists in a space dimensionally c^2 distant
>from the mass effect perceived by the observer. Matter energy in
>frames each c^2 removed from the observer and distance d apart
>interacts via an inverse square law force given by F = G(E/d)^2,
>(equation 1). In the observers frame of reference this force between
>energies appears reduced by c^4, (due to the energies mutual
remoteness
>by this factor) to an apparent attraction, A = (1/c^4)G(E/d)2, which
is
>then mistaken for an attractive force between masses, A = G(m/d)^2.
>However, this differs from Newton’s classical expression (F
=G(m/d)^2),
>in that the attraction is not a force in observer space and equation 1
>gives the units of G as hc/(mc^2)^2, whereas Newton’s expression gives
> the units as hc/m^2. The difference of c^4 is of considerable
>importance and enables an expression for G which removes/explains a
>number of important problems currently existing in physics.
>Overview: Planck’s relation for the energy of a photon is well
known,
>E = hc/l, where h is Planck’s constant, (h* = h/2.pi), c is the free
>space velocity of light and l is it’s wavelength. If l = 2.pi.r where
>r is a distance, then E = h*c/r. Now force is related to energy by F
>= E/r = h*c/r^2, and the electric force is given by Fe = e^2/r^2 where
>e^2 = ah*c, (a being the fine structure constant ~1/137), giving Fe =
>ah*c/r^2. A force interaction 137 times stronger than the electric
>force is therefore given by Fs = E/r. By inserting terms this
>expression can be expanded to the form of an inverse square law acting
>between energies, Fs = (r/E)(E/r)^2, where r/E is a force constant.
As
>E = mc^2, the force constant is r/mc^2. From mc^2 = h*c/r we have r =
>h*c/mc^2, which on substituting for r in the force constant gives the
>energy interaction force, Fs = [h*c/(mc^2)^2](E/r)^2. This has the
>form F = K(E/r)^2, where K = h*c/(mc^2)^2. Now if an inverse square
>force law between energies is represented by F = K(E/r)^2, an inverse
>square law interaction between masses (i.e. gravitation),is
necessarily
>c^4 lower in strength and given by, A = K(m/r)^2. The presumed
>gravitational attraction has the same interaction constant as the
force
>between energies, K = h*c/(mc^2)^2. This mass interaction necessarily
> has dimensions of force/c^4 in observer space, contradicting Newton’s
>assumption that gravity is a force acting on masses; which thereby
>requires different dimensions for G than those currently accepted,
i.e.
>h*c/(mc^2)^2 vs. the classical h*c/m^2.. This is why Newton’s
>equation, although long thought to be an approximation to general
>relativity, has not heretofore been obtainable via that theory.
> We could of course be dogmatic and insist that the mass
>interaction - gravity - is as Newton said a - true force in observer
>space. This would require arbitrarily removing the c^4 term in the
>denominator of K (i.e. G) and replacing it with a dimensionless number
>(~ 10^42), to give both the accepted dimensions (h*c/m^2), and the
>correct numerical value for the gravitational constant. However, it
is
>apparent that an erroneously considered “force ratio” between an
energy
>dependent force, Fe or Fs, and a mass dependent attraction is F/A =
>K(E)^2. /K(m)^2, and always contains c^4. Therefore regardless of the
>units selected for c, the “force ratios” will always “coincidentally”
>include a factor of exactly c^4. Assuming that gravity is a true
force
>in observer space and ~ 10^42 less than the electric force is
>equivalent to requiring that c be a specific number ~ 3x10^10! I
>f G (i.e. K), is evaluated in cgs. units, with c = 3x10^10, the “force
>ratios” Fs/A and Fe/A contain a factor c^4 ~ 81x10^40.
> The accepted ratio of the electrostatic force to the
>gravitational effect between two remote electrons each of mass me is
>4.16 x 10^42., ( = ah*c/Gme.^2.). On removing c^4 in cgs units (~
>80.7x10^40), from this value a factor of 5.155 remains. Inspection
>shows this factor is the cube root of the inverse fine structure
>constant, i.e. 5.155^3 = 137. The ratio “electric force/gravitational
>effect” is therefore a^-1/3. c^4 to an accuracy within the empirical
>error found in the value of G. The “force ratio” Fe/A is not a ratio
>of forces, but a ratio of force/(force/c^4).
> An observer working empirically in cgs. units and assuming
>gravity is a true force will arrive at a value for K (= G), which will
>include the ~ 10^-42 factor. Therefore an expression such as Fg =
>G(m/r)^2 will contain two errors. The first, (on the left) is that F
>is not a force in observer space but is of dimension force/c^4. The
>second, (on the right), is that G is of the wrong dimension due to a
>factor of c^-4 being omitted. These two omissions mask each other and
>the expression appears to be dimensionally correct. If the expression
>is converted from cgs. to (say) MKS units, changes in the value of
c^-4
>on either side mutually compensate, are therefore not evident, and the
>expression will appear to remain valid. The expression can be
>converted into any unit system and appear valid, however the false
>constant of ~ 10^-42 will remain in G, only to reappear as a factor in
>the ratio of the “fundamental forces”, such as “electric
>force/gravitational effect”.
> This error in the units of G is the reason several physics
>problems have until now remained unsolved. For example;
>1/ the occurrence of large numbers ~ 10^42 in particle physics is now
>explained.
>2/ the conjectured Planck Mass differs from the natural particle
masses
>by about 21 orders of magnitude, a difference known as the ‘Hierarchy
>Problem’; the Planck Mass includes the square root of G and therefore
>has a hidden c^2 term in cgs. units, i.e. 10^21!
>3/ In Quantum Electro Dynamics the calculated volumetric vacuum energy
>density is also known to be wrong by about 10^120 which stems from the
>omission of (c^4)^3, or c^12 in cgs. units.
> These deliberations lead to an expression for the gravitational
>constant in terms of the atomic constants, consistent with F/c^4 =
G(m1
>m2.)/R^2; i.e. G = h*c/(mc^2. /a^2/3)^2,. This gives a value G =
>6.67597x10^-8 in cgs. units. Note however, that the expression cannot
>be substituted in Newton’s equation, which is basically invalid as
>gravity is not a force between masses in observer space. Further
>discussion is given in the article referenced below.
>
>Key words: gravity, force ratios, Newton’s constant, G, Planck mass,
>general relativity
>
>Full Text: The full article, “In the Interest of Physics”, can be
>found at URL http://www.lasertape.com
>
> W. S. Oakley, P.O. Box 10160 San Jose, CA 95157
>Also: LOTS Technology Inc. 1556 Halford Ave. Box 113, Santa Clara CA
>95051.
>
>
>
Can the same analysis be done for the elcetrostatic constant k?
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 21:27:20 GMT
Doug (doug@noname.net) wrote:
: Nathan Urban wrote:
: > In article <32754DBC.70BB@cam.org>, Achim Recktenwald wrote:
: >
: > > My question: In what aspect or parameter do two photons differ, if the
: > > first one corresponds to a infrared wavelength and the second one to one
: > > of the ultraviolet part of electromagnetic radiation. As far as I know,
: > > the mass of both is zero, the speed is the same, the size is suposed to
: > > be a point, what characteristic is left ?
: >
: > Energy/momentum. Even though the photon is massless, it has energy;
: > even though its speed is always 'c', its momentum depends on
: > wavelength (as does the energy).
: When energy is transferred from light in the form of photons, one should
: remember that energy is defined as mass * acceleration * distance, and
: momentum is defined as mass * velocity. If the mass of light were truly
: zero there would be no way that light could either hold energy or
: momentum. Light, from the theory of special relativity, is shown to
: have no REST mass, but not necessarily no mass (there is a difference).
According to modern usage, mass is always rest mass. This convention has
been adopted because having more than one thing labeled 'mass' creates
useless and unneccesary confusion.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: If earth stopped spinning, what would happen to us?
From: lrmead@ocean.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 20:23:07 GMT
Edward F. Zotti (ezotti@merle.acns.nwu.edu) 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:
:
: (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?
Your weight is the gravitational force of attraction between the earth
and you. It is independent on the rate of rotation of the planet; thus,
would would weigh the same. Your *apparent* weight - the value read
by a scale you are standing on - *would* change, however, because that
is the normal force of your feet pushing down on the scale and that
(according to Newton's second law) is dependent on the state of rotation
of the earth (or whether, for straight line motion, if you and the scale
are accelerating). To find out how, draw a force diagram for you and apply
2nd law.
: (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?
The rotation of the water exiting a bathtub is (to a very high degree
of accuracy) *independent* of the rotation of the earth (the Coriolis
force is not responsible for how your water drains).
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 17:23:08 -0500
From sheldon@ois.com.au Mon Nov 4 17:14:19 EST 1996
Article: 172657 of alt.conspiracy
Path: news.udel.edu!udel-eecis!gatech!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!hawk63.ois.net.au
From: sheldon@ois.com.au (shel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.mindcontrol,sci.psychology,alt.human-brain,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,soc.rights.human,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.privacy,alt.law-enforcement,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,b
ionet.general
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:17:31 GMT
Organization: Online Information Systems Pty Ltd
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <327ddccd.0@news.ois.net.au>
References: <3g6a1g$500@chopin.udel.edu> <55bj3a$ka4@copland.udel.edu> <55g2ji$oqc@copland.udel.edu> <327BFBF5.6B25@tau-ceti.net> <55j092$510@copland.udel.edu>
Reply-To: sheldon@ois.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: hawk.ois.net.au
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: news.udel.edu soc.culture.taiwan:128694 alt.politics.usa.constitution:71640 alt.mindcontrol:12233 alt.human-brain:2300 alt.conspiracy:172657 alt.activism:175551 soc.rights.human:44346 alt.president.clinton:91419 alt.politics.elections:68928 alt.priv
acy:33564 alt.law-enforcement:71393 sci.physics:179206 sci.skeptic:177650 bionet.general:20111
caesar@copland.udel.edu (Yu) wrote:
****************heaps snipped*************************
>> The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of
>> Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free
>> countries.
>....we have it in Australia too....we call it television.
>
>shel
TV is most effectively broadcast system, therefore. it usually be used as
a social educated tool in many countries.
However, the above situation is different with the activities of mind
control operators. That's because the acceptance of an idea is
determined by the audience of TV. Should the audience deem the arguments
creditable, then they will hear it and investigate. Therefore, the
decision lays with audience.
In the case of real mind control, the acceptance of idea lies with
the operators. They can use ELF and other electronics means to
input the emotion or idea to audience (forcely change other's
behaviors).
Therefore, the audience are being mind controllled, and the decision
is made for them. THIS IS WHAT MIND CONTROL REALLY IS. The use of
mind game tactics and other scientifc technologies to manipulate other
people's emotions, behaviors, and thoughts IS THE REAL MIND CONTROL!
Furthermore, current mind control have controlled people's lives in the
society with the invisible wave weapon. Therefore, the operators can
secretly eliminate the unknowing opponentsof the mind control without
these victims' knowledge ( or force the awared people to follow the
operastors' will with the invisible wave weapon).
That's why their opponents disappear day by day.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alan Yu
The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate
people's health condition and lives in order to eliminate their
opponents or enemies secretly (die as natural cause).
This objective has been secretly carried out since the late of 1970s
in Taiwan (At that time they simply use the microwave beam or low
radio frequency modulation).
The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of
Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free
countries.
Accusing other as insane is the "trademark" of mind control organization.
Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 21:48:35 GMT
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.
Mati:
|> You take the term TOE too seriously. All it really means is "a
|> theory of everything we thought about or noticed so far".
I mentioned a long time ago that many physicists aren't concerned
with general, all-encompasing theories. The equations of classical
fluid dynamics and plasma physics are so complicated that -- no matter
how impressive they look -- you can't really make any sense out of
them in the most general case. Thus if the equations are to have any
predictive value at all, they must be systematically approximated
(long wavelength, short wavelength, hot, cold, high freq., low freq.,
linear, strongly turbulent, weakly turbulent, and so on).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 17:12:35 -0500
From zeldor@tau-ceti.net Sun Nov 3 15:44:37 EST 1996
Article: 172407 of alt.conspiracy
Path: news.udel.edu!udel-eecis!gatech!smash.gatech.edu!cc.gatech.edu!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.dra.com!usenet
From: Zeldor
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 19:57:10 -0600
Organization: The Sirius Sector, outpost 4
>While reading this newsgroup, I could not contain myself from laughing.
While I read this intentionaly misleading words, I could not contain
myself from "laughing."
Your argumentation need more information to explain, so I will reply it
separetrely.
My articles mentioned the mind control equipments include:
1. surveilliance system: using the low radiation wave to surveilliance
people.
2.Invisible wave weapon: using the infrasound weapon, microwave weapon,
electromagnetic pulse, electromagnetic generators, chronal gun (beam),
etc.
3. Mind machine: current US has the EMR and the infrasound mind machine.
The most important thing is that how could they use the surveilliance
system to conjunction with the invisible wave weapon and mind
machine.
I would clerify it below:
The GWEN system include 58 huge (300-500 feet hight)towers which can emit
the VLF (very low frequency) in our entire nation.
The 300-500 feet high towers will gurantee to hover the Empire
Building to the basement of people's house in order to surveilliance
everyplace.
The above VLF of GWEN system is also a different style of the
electromagnetic wave.
By using the "power beam system" patten to remote deliver the
electromagnetic wave (as the electric in battery) to another device
which can convert the electromganetic wave into the DC power.
After the delivering and the converted process, the energy can be use
as the energy power (DC) of the invisible wave weapon.
The GWEN (Ground-Wave Emergency Network) system was built in 1980 (It is at
the same year while the US Senate passed the Intelligence Oversight Act of
1980)) and can emit the VLF or low radiation wave which could be used in the
surveillance system (it could be used to emit the same type of radiation
emit by those security devices used in airport --as the recent TV news
report).
This system not only emitted the VLF which can effect the behavior of human
brain but also can carry LFS (low frequency sound wave or infrasound).
So, the GWEN system has many different functions although the government
states that it is mainly used as a communication system for time of war.
(attachment)
=======================================================
The Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) was begun in the 1980's by the
U.S. Government. The system was allegedly designed for the purpose of
maintaining defense communications in case of a nuclear war. However,
the entire network is highly vulnerable to destruction from an
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated by a high-altitude nuclear
explosion, according to Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D., (co-author of THE
BODY ELECTRIC and author of CROSSCURRENTS: THE PERILS OF ELECTROPOLLUTION).
The GWEN towers transmit electromagnetic waves in the VLF range between
150 and 175 Khz. Dr. Becker reported, "The VLF range was selected because
its signals travel by means of ground waves--electromagnetic fields that
hug the ground--rather than radiating into the atmosphere. The signals
drop off with distance, and a single GWEN station transmits to a
360-degree circle radiating out from it to a distance of about 250 to 300
miles."
Research revealed that there is a natural wave guide between the
ionosphere and the earth which could be used to propagate very-
low-frequency radiation and guide it to selected locations on the earth.
Studies showed that low-frequency sound subtly affected the electrical
behavior of the brain."
"The alpha-wave frequency of the human brain is eight to twelve hertz
(cycles per second). The ionospheric wave guide oscillates at eight
hertz, making it a good harmonic carrier of low-frequency sound (LFS)
waves(infrasound). These are such long waves that they are virtually
impossible to detect. Pentagon reports apply LFS to DEMOBILIZING THE
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF A CIVILIAN POPULATION in time of war."
=============================================================
According to above report, you can find that this kind of system actually
has many different functions.
When the low radiation wave are emitted from the emitter tower and hover
above the Earth, so these low radiation waves can also hover above the
basement of your home.
These low radiation waves will be presented constantly in residential area
(from the air to the basement of your house) or public building.
Therefore, the operators of local mind machine central station can
"remote watch" anyone and invade people's privacy (at home or in office)
on the operators' terminal screen.
How?
These kind of low radiation wave can be turned into DC power by
technology similar to that described in the below patent. Therefore, the
operators can use electromagnetic waves to activate electronic devices and
network into building and people's homes. Using this method, it would be
able to power invisible wave weapons to injure the target and power
electronic parts to surveillant people wirelessly.
(attachment)
=========================================
There is a patent of "power beaming system." (see page 116 on the
"ANGELS DON'T PLAY THIS HAARP")
Patent Number: 5,068,669
According to this patent, the present invention relates in general to the
transfer of energy by means of electromagnetic waves to power a remote
device.
This idea is to convert microwaves to DC power, which can be done very
efficiently and cost effectively with the right kind of transmission
system capable of focusing the power into a narrow beam.
===========================================
Using technologies similar to described in the above patent, the mind
control operators would be able to remotely activate device installed in
buildings or people's homes (some electronic parts in buildings should
have been designed to incorporate new functions while still preserving
their original functions). These device can be remotely control as emitter
for invisible wave weapons (of electromagnetic waves).
Therefore, the operators can use microwave (wireless) network the wire of
any building and enter people's home (or building) to spy people's
privacy & can remotely emit the invisible wave weapon to injure people.
How to spy people's privacy at home (or in office)?
When people live near the GWEN emitter station (each emitter station can
cover area with 300 miles radius from 500 feet high in air), the low
radiation wave would be continuosly present in public building (even
the Empire Building) or people's home and everywhere within that 300 miles
radius.
Also some special electric parts should have been designed as new
electric parts, so these parts keep the old parts' function but also can be
used to react a small (distance) area (as any room) low radiation wave
situation.
Thus, the operators can remotely control the electromagnetic wave
(wireless) to network the wires of people's home (or building) and
connect the special electric parts to spy the resident people's privacy
(in any room) with these low radiation wave which is emitting on living
environment by GWEN system (the operators only need to watch the screen
in the local mind machine central station and the watching ability will
be better in airport).
I believe that this is the correct explanation of "remote watching."
I would remind you the cases which was reported in "Microwave Harassment &
Mind Control Experimentation" by Jullianne McKinney to prove what I say is
true.
(attachment)
===========================================================
One individual (driven to extremes of stress by ongoing electronic
harassment focusing on her children) killed one child in an effort to
protect her from further pain.
Another individual, during a telephone conversation, was told by an
employee of a local power company that , if she value the lives of her
children, she would drop the her opposition to the company's installation
of high power lines. Since receiving that threat, the individual
11-year-old daughter has been reduced to extrement of illness which cannot
be diagnosed. It's now also apparent to this individual that her
three-year-old son is on the receiving end of externally induced
auditory input. (DoE figures prominently in this case.)
=================================================================
I would like to emphasize some important point for those readers who think
that the above examples are unusual cases and other people would not be
subjected to similar harassment.
The two families in this example are average law abiding citizens and
living in their own home. Even under such kind circumstances, these
members of these two families cannot avoid of being spied on. So, the
children of these two families cannot avoid being attacked and harm by
remotely controlled invisible wave weapons (even in the security of
their own home or staying at hospitals).
It proves the invisible wave weapon has been used in conjunction with
the surveillance system. Also, both systems can track or attack any of
the member of these two families with incredible accuracy. From these
cases, we know that anyone of us can be also injured or examined in our
own home or any public building (including cars -- I would emphasize it).
The above information (two cases) also proves that no place is safe for
anyone when you live under the surveillance & manipulation lives system of
mind control (Include the invisible sound or radiation wave weapon &
mind machine surveillance system).
Some female victims had reported that they were attack in the urethra
region at home. According to above information, I deduce that they are
telling truth. These information prove that the state of art of
technologies of mind control should have involved the corrupted
governmental officers. That's how they have access to such incredible
technologies (targeting). Also that's why the local law enforcement
unit can be the basic unit of mind control. This also prove that mind
(machine) control system is the national security system of US (and lots
free countries).
Also this technology can explain that why the "PSI-TECH" company can (using
such kind of surveillance system--remote watching) assist FBI to find
the accuracy location of the kidnapped Exxon executive.
That's because they can (use this technology) freely invade any suspected
building to search anyone who they need. The case of searching the
location of kidnapped Exxon executive has proven that this surveillance
technology can watch (or identify) people's face very clearly. Therefore,
they won't make a mistake or find a wrong guy (they need the "PSI-TECH"
company to help because some of the GWEN system in some states are built
until 1990).
And that why these security officers always proudly say that-- You might can
run but never can hide.
Even worse, you might not allow to run because they can use the
electromagnetic pulses to disable your vehicles or even failure the
engine of your cars.
Therefore, the freedom and liberty of general public can be secretly taken
away in any time.
How could the invisible wave weapon can be used to injured people from any
angle?
I would further clarify it with my own opinion below.
I have stated on above, this GWEN system can also generate the VLF, low
radiation waves and carry infrasound.
These low radiation wave or VLF has been irradiated on the residential area
from the GWEN system. These invisible wave are continuously present in
people's house or building from the air through the ground. These
invisible wave are also electromagnetic wave. According to the "power
beaming system" patent, a remote device can turn these electromagnetic
radiation into DC currents to operate.
Furthermore, I have stated that some old style electric parts of building
(or home) should have been re-designed as new parts which will keep the
old parts function but can also be used as the emitters.
Therefore, the mind control operators can use the microwave (wirelessly)
to network into people's home and use a remote device to turn into DC power.
This DC power would be used to power the emitters (power to
the new designed parts) to beam invisible wave and injure people from any
angle (from the air to the ground).
That's because not only the new designed electric parts has been
installed in each different angle in building, but the electromagnetic
wave (energy) is continuosly present in resident area (from the air to the
people's basement).
So the operators can use the remote device to turn the energy into
DC power to emitters. Therefore, the operators can remotely emit many
kinds of invisible (radiation or sound) wave weapon from the emitters to
injure people (such as emit the infrasound from the button of the bed
while people are sleeping or emit the chronal gun from the air to remote
control the activation of people's organism [on head] while they are
standing).
How could the operators injure people in cars?
It is the same idea. Few parts of the vehicle have been re-designed to
keep the old parts' function but also can be used as the emitters.
Where are these special parts?
According to victims' report & my own experiences, I would describe it
below with my best knowledge.
There is the emitter of microwave emitter in the axis of steering wheel.
This emitter can send the microwave voice to driver or beam lots
microwave radiation to force the driver falling into asleep to cause the
car accident (get rid of driver as car accident).
Some emiters are designed with the signal lights of car, so it always
carry the power which can be remotely controlled (such as the
technology of power beam system pattern which can use the microwave to
remotely send the power to any object) to turn on and beam the low
radio frequency to injure people from back or front.
Other emitters might be installed within doors and can be used (remote
turn on) to attack victim from each side.
Furthermore, some emitters have been hang on the light poles and can be
remotely control to beam the chronal gun or other radio wave to injure
driver's head to cause falling asleep (to cause car accident).
That's because these light poles have been installed on the shoulder of
street, road, high way.
(attachment)---New World Order & ELF Psychotronic Tyranny
==============================================
Several U.S. high tech laboratories, with the help of Soviet scientist,
are working on very low frequency (VLF) weapons. NEXUS reported that
are working on "developing high power, VERY LOW FREQUENCY acoustic beam
weapons. They are also looking into methods of projecting high frequency
acoustic bullets."
"Very Low Frequency (VLF) sound, or low-frequency radio-frequency
modulation CAN CAUSE NAUSEA, VOMITING, AND ABDOMINAL PAINS. Some Very Low
Frequency sound generators, in certain frequency ranges, CAN CAUSE
DISRUPTION OF HUMAN ORGANS, and at high power levels
CAN CRUMBLE MASONARY." Such a system could also be used to create
artificial earthquakes.
NEWSWEEK described how these psychotronics non-lethal weapons will be
used: "The United States needs new options to control rogue governments
and insurrectionaries without resorting to total war. New-wave military
thinkers say that the list of exotic technologies that could be harnessed
for non-lethal technologies is already large and growing. It includes
lasers, MICROWAVES, SOUND WAVES, STROBE LIGHTS (already used for
psychotronic entrainment during the Waco siege), ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES
and Microbes (GERM WARFARE)."
=========================================
According to above information, this mind control surveillance system
should be the National Security system of US and should be built in 1980.
To avoid the security leak, they hire a lot of career operators as the
professional assassin to get rid of those awared people with the
invisible (sound or radiation) wave.
The President of the United States of America is the highest office of
the executive branch of America, this officer does not have the power to
order execution. I would like to ask, who granted these corrupted
officers and the career operators their unlawful power?!!
Furthermore, these law abiding citizens are not riots or criminals but might
aware of this mind control security system. They cannot simply accuse
these law abiding citizens (who are aware of this system) as riots or
traitor. These awared law abiding citizens have no responsibilities to
spend their lives in order to protect these corrupted security officers'
privileges.
Furthermore, The traitors should oppose the constitution and commit
crimes. Therefore, the mind control operators (who has committed crimes
and oppose the constitution) can be judge as treason. How dare these
career operators (who commit treason) kill the law abiding citizens with the
invisible wave weapon. Even the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 was
passed by the Senate. Our Congress members only allow authorities to
investigate people's for the interests of the National Security. Our
Congress member will not authorize these security officers (or other
agents) to kill the awared law abiding citizens ( to avoid the security
leak) or kill those people whom the operators dislike.
Therefore, the Constitution and law did not grant them these powers. They
took it upon themselves and used it to control the majority of the people.
If we, the people, don't do something soon, like vote all the
ones that think they're above the law out of office, this country is
going to be in deep trouble. It already is and there is more crime than
there has ever been.
Dear Citizens,
We have paid our taxes to the government, paid our loyalty to our
country, and have lost our privacy in the mind (machine) control security
system.
We certainly cannot further pay our lives to these mind control operators.
On the other hand, these corrupted security officers have opposed the
Constitution, the operators have committed crimes (for manipulating
people's lives). The awared law abiding citizens have no necessary to
be sacrificed for these operators' crimes (or for these corrupted
officers' privileges). It is evil and oppose the Justices if we allow
these operators to kill the awared law abiding citizens to protect the
secrets and privileges of the career operators (real criminals).
We, people don't allow anyone to manipulate our lives with the invisible
wave weapon anymore.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alan Yu
The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate
people's health condition and lives in order to eliminate their
opponents or enemies secretly (die as natural cause). This objective
has been secretly carried out since the late of 1970s in Taiwan ( At that
time they simply use the microwave beam or low radio frequency modulation).
The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of
Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free
countries.
Accusing other as insane is the "trademark" of mind control organization.
Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: RE: Gravity And Electromagnetism
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 01:02:15 GMT
In <55j3j5$ijv@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes:
>
> It seems that there are two alternatives. Either light has inertia
>or it doesn't. Let us examine the situation assuming that light is
>inertialess. If light is inertialess then we know that its speed must
>be c under all circumstances. I have a thought experiment. Say there
>was a transparent airplane. The plane is moving at a constant
velocity,
>say 100 meters per second. The distance frome the floor to the ceiling
>of the airplane is 10 meters. The bottom of the plane has a hole in
it.
>There is a stationary observer one hundred meters in front and to the
>side of the plane. Directly in front of him, in the path of the
>airplane, is a machine that shoots a ball at 10 meters per second. The
>machine is timed to shoot the ball so that the ball goes through the
>hole in the bottom of the airplane. The plane crosses directly in
front
>of the stationary observer and the machine shoots the ball through the
>hole at 10 meters per second. According to the stationary observer,
the
>ball goes straight up and hits the ceiling of the plane a certain
>distance to the rear of where it entered. The distance it travels is
>the distance from the floor to the ceiling. According to an observer
in
>the plane the ball takes a curved path longer than the path that the
>stationary observer observes. However, this is just an optical
>illusion! The observer inside the plane must take into consideration
>that fact that he is traveling at a certain velocity and is moving
away
>from the ball! Now, the observer does not know at what speed the ball
>is moving. He therefore could not directly calculate his absolute
>velocity. He could, however, make very accurate measurements of the
>velocity of the ball and the angle at which it struck the ceiling.
>Knowing the velocity of the ball and the angle at which it struck the
>ceiling, he could calculate the horizontal component of his velocity
by
>taking the cosine of the angle and multiplying by the velocity of the
>ball. He now knows his absolute velocity! Then he could find the
>vertical component by taking the sin of the angle and multipying by
the
>velocity of the ball. If he measures accurately the time it takes for
>the ball to hit the celing, he could calculate the distance from the
>floor to the ceiling, by multiplying the time by the vertical
component
>of the velocity of the ball. This is the absolute length that the ball
>really travelled, as opposed to the optical illusion of the length
that
>the ball traveled caused by his moving away from the ball due to his
>velocity! This scenario corresponds to the situation in which we
assume
>that light is inertialess. The observer inside the plane would observe
>that the inertialess light takes a curved path to the rear of the
>plane. The stationary observer sees the true path of the light going
>straight up and hitting the ceiling to the rear of where the light was
>originally emitted. The path of the light from this point of view is a
>straight line whose length is the distance from the floor to the
>ceiling. The observer inside the plane sees a longer path that is due
>to the optical illusion cuased by his moving away from the light due
to
>his velocity. He must take into consideration the fact that he is
>moving away from the light when he calculates its distance. The
>observer inside the plane can calculate the true length and his
>absolute velocity by using the method described above! However, the
>observer now knows that light is inertialess and that the speed of
>light is a constant and is always c. He therefore does not have to
>calculate the angle at which the light hits the ceiling. He knows the
>distance from the floor to the ceiling by simple measurement. Light
>always travels at c, so he can calculate the time it takes for the
>light to go from the floor to the ceiling. He then measures the
>distance from the point where he emitted the light to the point where
>the light hit the ceiling. This is by simple measurement. He then
>divides this distance by the time it took for the light to go from the
>floor to the ceiling and he now knows his absolute velocity! His
>calculation of his abolute velocity is dependent only on the distance
>between the point at which the light was emitted and the point at
which
>it hit the ceiling and this distance will vary according to the
>velocity at which he is traveling. This is because the true path is in
>a straight line up from where the light was emitted and, since the
>speed of light is constant, the time it takes to travel from the floor
>to the ceiling will always be constant. Dividing the varying distances
>by this constant time will give him the velocity at which he is
>travelling at the time that he makes the measurement.
> The speed of light is therefore constant in both inertial frames!
>This is not because time dilates, but because the real distance that
>the light travels is the same for both observers! The observer inside
>the plane knows that the distance he sees is an optical illusion and
>that the real distance is always simply the distance from the floor to
>the ceiling! The horizontal component is due to the velocity of the
>plane in which he is traveling!
> Now for the scenario in which light has inertia and is capable of
>traveling faster than c. I am getting ulcers just thinking about it. I
>must rest. I think this will be much harder and I am already at the
>limits of my comprehension. Can someone please help me?
>
>Edward Meisner
If the principles above are correct, one could theoretically
determine whether you were at absolute rest. Simply shine a laser beam
in all directions. If none of the beams are bent you are at absolute
rest. Could someone tell me what he or she thinks of this?
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 17:22:14 -0700
In article <55jtjd$3vq@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>NNTP-Posting-Host: grn-sc4-25.ix.netcom.com
>X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Nov 03 9:05:49 PM PST 1996
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>Xref: news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net sci.physics.relativity:2288 sci.physics:136317
>
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>>
>>>Again, what type of synch are you talking about?
>>>
>>You are going to have to explain what you are asking.
>
>Sorry, but I assumed you knew relativity theory.
>
>> 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. He said that "relative time" means simply that each observer
>finds a different time interval for two events.
You fail to mention that Einstein then found that such absolute time does not
exist. I ask you to provide an operational definition.
>
>> I will assume that "relative" synch is the way clocks
>>will be set by anyone at rest relative to both clocks. This is defined and
>>any reasonable method for setting the clocks will give the same result. This
>>includes signals of any velocity, long rotating shafts, and other fanciful
>>methods. The only problematic method is clock transport, due to time dilation
>>effects, but this can be reduced below any desired error by transporting the
>>clocks slowly, or we can correct for it.
>
>>I assume "absolute" synch refers to the setting by observers at rest in a
>>special, but undefined system. This is not useful or detectable, but if you
>>specify the system, SR can show you how to compare it to anyone else's
>>settings.
>
>>If the clocks are in relative motion, then they will not remain synch'd in any
>>coordinate system.
>
>>The bottom line is that there is no problem in SR with setting clocks.
>
>Never said there was, but that there is a total lack of understanding
>about it.
>
Then why argue about it? You keep making statements like "SR will not allow
clocks to read the same time", or "clocks are not truly synch'd in SR". If
you agree that the clocks can be set according to a reasonable definition,
then these statements are puzzling.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 17:15:28 -0700
In article <55jq2n$j3s@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>>: 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.
>
>>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. 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.
>
That is just plain silly. An event is simply a point in space-time. Unless
the clock materialized from nowhere, we can associate a point when the clock
was simultaneous with the light ray passing the front of the rod. Different
observers will specify different points, but each observer will have a
well defined point.
>
>>: 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.
>
>>Crudely and misleadingly phrased; bjon himself is mislead into
>>supposing that, since not all SR clocks share a universal
>>setting-synchronization, that no two ever do. SR simply says
>>the meaning of "same instant" is (rather obviously) coordinate
>>system dependent. If bjon wants to ask a question in an SR
>>context, he ought not to expect an answer in terms of
>>newtonian clocks.
>
>>Reconsider bjon's original question:
>
>>::: As per experiment (and SRT), when the ray reaches the rear clock,
>>::: this rear clock must read D/c. What did this clock read at time
>>::: zero (per the front clock)?
>
>>In SR terms, this must be answered in terms of a specific coordinate
>>system. Bjon gives two clocks, at rest WRT a rod of rest length D,
>>says the "front clock" read 0 as a ligh pulse reached it, the
>>"rear clock" read D/c when the same light pulse reached it.
>>There's only one coordinate system bjon could consistently
>>be talking about, to give his question any meaning in SR.
>>And that's the coordinate system in which the two clocks
>>read the coordinate system time. Thus, the "rear clock"
>>reads zero when the "front clock" reads zero, because both
>>are reading coordinate time in the only coordinate s ystem
>>bjon supplied to give meaning to a query about time
>>at two locations ("front" and "rear").
>
>>Again, if bjon asks an SR question, he should not expect
>>a Newtonian answer.
>
>As I have consistently tried my best to get across, this is NOT SRT.
>Due to the lack of any (nonclock) EVENT at the rear clock at this
>point, SRT cannot determine the rear clock reading. There is no
>matching event. Period. Over and out. Case closed.
>
>>: How can we determine the rear clock reading?
>
>>We simply decide which coordinate system to use.
>
>>: SRT cannot supply us with the answer.
>
>>Right. We simply have to decide which coordinate system to use.
>
>>: We have to use simple paperwork.
>
>>And bjon proceeds to introduce an arbitrarily defined coordinate
>>system, a coordinate system he didn't mention in posing the problem.
>>Thus, bjon's "correct answer" to the question amounts to
>>confabulating a meaning for his question after its poseing.
>
>No, I am proceding in the only possible way given SRT's total
>inability to provide an answer.
>
A false assertion without proof.
SR can specify the reading for any chosen reference system.