Newsgroup sci.physics 206329

Directory

A foreign company (non Australian) is looking for some employees with 
following background:
1- one Indonesian civil engineer with at least MS degree,
2- three Pakistanis with at least MS degree in Solid State Physics or 
related areas,
3- one Iranian engineer who has at least MS degree in telecommunication 
and have some work experience in ITC (Iran Telecommunication Company).
If you are interested please send your complete CV, address and phone 
number to P.O.Box 89, Kingsford, NSW, 2032 or E-mail it to 
“p2111092@vmsuser.acsu.unsw.edu.au” by Nov. the 15th.
--

In <55ljg7$idj@thorn.cc.usm.edu> lrmead@ocean.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R.
Mead) writes: 
>
>Allen Meisner (odessey2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:     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
>[snip]
>
>Stop right there: light carries inertia E = pc where p is the
momentum.
>Light thus may be (locally) accelerated; it is ideed observed to
accelerate
>around massive objects (stars) [ it's *speed* of course remains C
during
>the acceleration].
>
>: Edward Meisner
>
>-- 
>
>Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
>ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
>http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 
    Light, of course, is not inertialess in its direction of
propagation. However, it is inertialess in any direction other than
this. Or it may not be. There are two alternatives. I have assumed it
is inertialess in the above scenario. I personally prefer the
assumption that it is inertialess, because of the null result of MM.
Light is not accelerated around a star. It is following the curvature
of space.
Edward Meisner

On 3 Nov 1996 19:09:09 -0500, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>>columbus@osf.org (Michael Weiss) writes:
>>>Jim Carr writes:
>>>
>>>   Uptake in the GI track is pretty poor if I remember the BEIR results (and 
>>>   we now know how the AEC got that data), but once it is in the body it 
>>>   messes with the biochemistry like any heavy metal.  
>>>
>>>BEIR?
>>
>> Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. 
>>
>> This is shorthand for a National Academy of Sciences committee that 
>> has turned out a number of reports published in various places.  I 
>> am pretty sure one from the late 70s (perhaps just before TMI?) 
>> was published in Rev. Mod. Phys. 
>>
>>-- 
>> James A. Carr  
Lets not lose sight of the fact we are talking about SPENT uranium, no
more dangerous than lead....but with different danger properties...
AIRCRAFT REMANUFACTURING 
VISTA, CA. 92084   (619) 749 0239     FAX: 749 6384
Sales Directory: Infobot@pdsig.com

Hello,
Wasn't there a news group called "sci.electromagnetics" at one time? 
What ever happened to it?
Thanks,
Paul
***********************************************************************
Paul A. Mallas
Space Systems/Loral
3825 Fabian Way, M/S G-56
Palo Alto, CA 94303
e-mail: mallas.paul@ssd.loral.com
tel:  415-852-5450
fax:  415-852-7932
***********************************************************************

Andrew Eland wrote:
> 
> I'm and A-Level physics student, and we have to cover optical fibres
> as part of the course. The thing is, what makes a Monomode fibre
> different  to a Multimode fibre. I know monomode are thinner, but why
> does that only let one light path through when multimode let
> (infinite?) through? None of my teachers know, and they want to know
> as well!
> If you know, please send e-mail to andy@ace-of-base.com
> my news feed is SO slow that if you posted a follow-up, I'd get it in
> around years time :-)
If you treat the fiber as a wave guide, you'll find only one mode, the
TEM mode, can propogate in a multimode fiber.
Treat it as a boundry value problem with cylindrical bessel functions.
Make the core thin enough for just mode to propagate.
Another way to think of it is that only light going straight down the
pipe will stay in the core. Any "reflecting" off the core wall will
not be reflected, but passed through to the cladding, and not propagate.
Due to the nature of the single mode fiber, "straight" can curve slightly
if the fiber is bent.
Single mode fibers are more useful for some applications because you
don't get modal dispersion. Seems that all those other modes arrive
slighly later than the TEM mode. That mucks up the signal a the receiving
end a bit. If you can stand the insertion loss and have a long distance
to convey the information and need to work up to the microwave frequencies,
then single mode is the way to go. On the other hand, if you are more interested
in a short distance, multiple tap, HF-VHF band signal, you might look
into multimode.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Eland                       Hymers College Novell Network Administrator
> andy@ace-of-base.com                                   Year 13 A Level student
>      "In love I trust, I put my faith, to make me happy, to keep me safe"
>                               I Need Nothing Else:Sophie B.Hawkins/Whaler
> http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/hymers/andye/home.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
> >> In science, applying a theory to a new region and finding that it 
> >> still works great is considered just an application, not a 
> >> generalization.  If the theory remains formally the same, you can't 
> >> call it a generalized theory, it is just the same theory.
moggin:
> >     That's helpful, since it brings out another one of the ways that
> >the "scientific" sense of generalization differs from the "ordinary"
> >one.  (Although I'm sure it _is_ ordinary to scientists -- stay calm,
> >folks -- I'm not trying to slip anything by you.)  But note that if
> >you change a theory in significant ways, you can't say (in common
> >speech) that you've generalized it, since it's _not the same theory_
> >anymore.
Mati:
> Agreed, if it is the same theory we won't call it a "generalization", 
> we'll just call it "same theory".
     Since we don't agree very often, I won't ruin it by saying any
more.
moggin:
> > That's what Silke was trying to tell you when she pointed
> >out that the usual word for that would be something like "modified."
Mati:
> Yes.  And, as I answered her, there is an overlap between the terms.  
> It is automatically assumed (in the scientific usage) that 
> generalization involves a modification.
     But not in my neck of the woods.  Thus the confusion we stumbled 
into earlier.
moggin:
> >Yes, the result is that you end up with a theory of wider scope, but
> >you've done it by changing the theory you started with.  To say you
> >generalized _that theory_ is sounds odd, since the one you end up
> >with (i.e., the more general one) is considerably different.
Mati:
> Agreed.  And it is not straightforward (if at all possible) to state 
> exact criteria how much different the thing has to be before you say 
> "gee, you can't even see the resemblence anymore".
     True.  But we're coming at this from different ends -- for me,
they need to be basically similar, while for you, they only need to
have some elements in common.   (N.B.:  That's not an argument --
just a note on semantics.)
moggin:
> >     Naturally you're entitled to your use of "generalize" (I'm not
> >trying to dispute it) -- but what matters is what you noted above: 
> >in your sense of the  term, you don't have a generalization as long
> >as the theory remains the same; conversely, to generalize requires
> >a new theory.  So as I've said to you before, generalization in the
> >scientific sense doesn't entail consistency between the theories in
> >question -- instead, it indicates that they differ significantly.
Mati:
> Yes, definitely.  What it requires is that some core of essential 
> concepts is being shared and that the old theory resides within the 
> new one as a limit (meaning that there is some range of parameters 
> over which their predictions are very close).  Beyond this they can 
> differ enormously.
     In our new-found spirit of amity, I'll confine myself to saying
that have different understandings of what it means to state, "the
old theory resides within the new one."
Mati:
> >> A word of caution here, regarding the issue of a "new region".  One 
> >> should distinguish between what I would call "primary theories" and 
> >> "secondary theories".  Primary theories, such as classical mechanics, 
> >> quantum mechanics, electromagnetic theory and relativity are a priori 
> >> constructed to be universally valid.  "New region" here means just "a 
> >> region where they were not tested so far" but if they're tested there 
> >> and found to work, there is no generalization involved.  Secondary 
> >> theories are derived from primary ones to deal with a specific, 
> >> limited issues and they, indded have an a priori limited range.  For 
> >> example, the theory of sound assumes that the sound carrying medium 
> >> (be it liquid, solid or gas) is a continuum.  Thus it is expected to 
> >> break down when you reach scales small enough so that the graininess 
> >> of matter (atoms) becomes noticeable.  And, in principle, ignoring 
> >> this graininess means that at any scale the theory is but an 
> >> approximation (but at scales you care about you won't be able to see 
> >> the difference).
moggin:
> >     Fine by me.  But as you said, in this scheme classical mechanics
> >is a primary theory, thus "constructed to be universally valid."  And 
> >given later findings, it isn't.  So saying that it's invalid shouldn't
> >cause any fuss.
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".
     Then once again we agree.  Actually, I think we've agreed on this
point three separate times now.  Personally, I'm hoping this one will
stick, so we can stop arguing about it.  Even Jeff is going along here
(he calls the observation "trite," but doesn't dispute it), so barring
any objections from Matt, I'd say we have a consensus.  Now, what was
all the fighting about?
Mati:
> >> OK, so what do we mean when we talk about a generalization of a 
> >> primary theory.  It roughly looks as follows:  You've a theory which 
> >> was supposed to be primary, i.e. universally valid.  Then you find out 
> >> that it is not universally valid, after all, and that beyond some 
> >> range of physical parameters you start getting noticeable deviations 
> >> from reality.  So, of course, you try to find a new primary theory.  
> >> If the new one is such that it reduces to the previous one over a 
> >> limited (but non trivial) range of parameters and that there is a 
> >> continous relationship between the concepts of the old theory and 
> >> those of the new one (the other way around isn't necesserily true) 
> >> then it is a generalization of the previous one.  Note that it means 
> >> that the previous primary theory has been reduced to a secondary 
> >> theory, derivable from the new one.
moggin:
> >     Now you're weaseling around.  Einstein doesn't reduce to Newton,
> >or vice-versa (you appear to have put it both ways -- I'll leave you
> >to decide which one you meant).
Mati:
> Einstein to Newton.  Relativity is the more general of the two and you 
> can only reduce from more to less general.
     Logical.
moggin:
>>  If you're referring to their models,
>>then the differences, as we've already agreed, are substantial.  If 
>>you're speaking of predictions, then you don't get a match except at
>>uninteresting points like v=0 (although they approximate each other
>>within a limited range).
Mati:
>>>One more important issue is what does "reduces to" mean in the above.
>>>It does not mean "yields exactly the same results".  "Exactly the 
>>>same" is an idealization which can never be experimantally verified.
[...]
     O.k. -- no dispute.  But as I said:
>>    What we've got here is a discrepancy that increases with velocity.
>>At high relative velocity, it's substantial.  So your point is moot.
-- moggin

Ok, so you did well next to our good old bar patron Mendor.  Admittably,
the function upon which the operator acts is continuous.  I imagine that
you humans have worked out the equations by now converting Bose-Einstein
to Fermi-Dirac statistics (hence the name boson and fermion).  Have you
people yet been able to predict the energies of the different quarks,
and thus the masses of the photons and electrons, using basic
non-experimental constants (like h)?  More interestingly, have you been
able to tie the equations of special relativity into the physics of
fermion production to generate gravity?  Admittably O'brian does fix my
replicators from time to time... .
-Quark - Quark's Bar, for delights that would make a Vulcan smile.

In article <55lkq8$lej@news1.pld.com>
kimbrel@pld.com (Ryan K.) writes:
> What is the effect called that makes a pendulum move back and forth in
> a circular motion? (It loses power every swing and moves in a circular
> motion, what is this called?)
The Greatest Mystery in the Universe Effect.

In article , Jim Balter  wrote:
>
>On the matter of terminology, I have read that there is a move by some modern
>biologists to use the term "teleometric" instrad of "teleological", to avoid
>the mistaken and misleading connotations of traditional teleology; I don't
>know how successful this attempt has been, but the rejection of traditional
>teleology is quite widespread among modern academic biologists.
I should have made clear I reject "traditional teleology" as well.
There is an old myth propagated by Skinner and others that Aristotle's
"final cause" meant a spooky backwards causation, a pull from the
non-existent future on present events. Biologists oppose this, as well
they should, although Aristotle never held it so far as I can see.
I mean such statements as that the function of the heart is to pump
the blood and not to make noises in the chest cavity. Note this is *not*
a "functional explanation" in that it does not purport to explain 
the presence of hearts in human beings, rather, *given* that hearts
belong to human beings by nature, it says what their function is. 
Moreover, if a heart fails to pump the blood well, it is
*mal*functioning. The difference between functioning properly and
functioning improperly is a normative difference. I take it the
physical stance knows nothing of norms and so nothing of functions, but
biology does.
Now: it is Dennett's and others' program to explain natural function in 
terms of design produced by natural selection.  This may be all right,
it does not show biology reducing to physics, in my view, since it
still acknowledges that there can be norms in nature in a way the 
physical stance does not. 
I think it also has other problems. For example, I think we would say
that the function of the heart is to pump the blood *even if* there
were no natural selection, merely as part of understanding something as
thing with a characteristic form of life.

A friend and I have long debated a point. In physics texts there are 
often problems which describe the motion of an aircraft in a certain 
direction which is affected by the wind from a different direction. I 
maintain that if an aircraft is in a pocket of air which is moving, it 
will have its velocity affected by the air. Example) If a plane is 
capable of flying at 350 km/h and heads N with a 10 km/h tailwind, it 
will be able to move at 360 km/h over the land. Example 2) If a plane has 
an airspeed of 100 mph [W] and is affected by a wind blowing to the north 
at 75 mph, does the plane really travel at 125 mph toward the WNW?
	If you can answer, please pack it up in email (I hope it is 
automatically included on this thing) because I haven't the faintest idea 
where in the net I am, and am very unlikely to be able to get back to 
check a posting.  Thanks, 
			Tim

kimbrel@pld.com (Ryan K.) wrote:
>What is the effect called that makes a pendulum move back and forth in
>a circular motion? (It loses power every swing and moves in a circular
>motion, what is this called?)
>
It is the Focault pendulum. (My spelling is suspect.  Half the letters in 
French are silent, the other half are meaningless).  The plane of 
oscillation is constant vs the fixed stars, but the Earth is rotating 
under it (and you along with the Earth).
-- 
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!

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
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article <55atf7$cpg@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Nick Maclaren  wrote:
>In article <553eba$ii1@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, shenkin@still3.chem.columbia.edu (Peter Shenkin) writes:
>|> In article <5539na$c6@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>|> Nick Maclaren  wrote:
>|> >.....  The fact is
>|> >that ANY translation via C will be inefficient, because there is no way
>|> >in C to specify when pointers or data structures can be assumed not to
>|> >be aliased.  ....
>|> 
>|> Well, it depends what you're translating.  For instance, if the Fortran
>|> code being translated only writes to one destination in each function
>|> or subroutine, the C code can const-qualify the underlying data for
>|> the other variables.
>
>Yes and no.  This is possible in the simplest cases, but becomes
>extremely restrictive and tricky for anything else.  
First, I recently posted a disclaimer to two of my earlier postings,
but now I want to disclaim the disclaimer. :-)  Someone had
posted saying that const qualification (in C) does not convey
non-alias information, because the const qualifier guarantees only 
that no attempt will be made to write to the underlying addresses 
*through the const-qualified pointer*.  Consider the following
code fragement: 
void func( float a[], const float b[], const float c, const int n ) {
	int i;
	for( i=0; i...There is a
>particularly horrible mess to do with multi-level structures,
>such as the following:
>
>void fred (double *a, double **b, int *c, int d) {
>    int i;
>    for (i = 0; i < d; ++i) a[i] = b[c[i]];
>}
>
>You can easily const qualify 'c' and 'b' at ONE level, but the
>casting rules do not allow you to const qualify 'b' at both levels.
>And nor do they allow the caller of the function to do it :-(
Can you not do this with typedefs?
typedef const float CF;		/* const float */
typedef CF *const PCF;		/* const ptr to const float */
typedef PCF *const PPCF;	/* const ptr to const ptr to const float */
void fred( double *a, PPCF b, const int *const c, const int d) ;
	-P.
-- 
****************** In Memoriam, Bill Monroe, 1911 - 1996 ******************
* Peter S. Shenkin; Chemistry, Columbia U.; 3000 Broadway, Mail Code 3153 *
** NY, NY  10027;  shenkin@columbia.edu;  (212)854-5143;  FAX: 678-9039 ***
MacroModel WWW page: http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/chemistry/mmod/mmod.html

Brian Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
: >They can be synchronised in any inertial frame you desire.  In this case, the
: >rest frame of the rod.
: How synchronized? (absolutely or relatively?)
There can be no such thing as absolute sychronization.  That would 
violate all the laws of macroscopic electrodynamics.
: >>Since Einstein does not allow matching clocks, guess again.
: >>
: >Wrong again.  Einstein specifically assumes that clocks can be matched.  He 
: >only concludes that clocks that are spacially seperated cannot be synchronised
: >in all inertial systems at once.
: How matched?  (absolutely or relatively?)
If you understood physics, you would already KNOW that two clocks at 
different places are only sychronizable in a specified frame, which is a 
relativistic sychronization.  (Incidentally, your misuse of the word 
'relatively' is completely idiotic in this instance.)
: >As you consistently ignore, the synchronization comes from the postulates
: >of SR.  Lorentz introduced the time transform to explain the failure of all
: >experiments to show an absolute motion effect.  Einstein was the first to 
: >realise that the time so defined is the objective time for each observer. He
: >then showed that any method of setting spacially seperated clocks must agree
: >with the values given by the Lorentz transformations.
: Again, what type of synch are you talking about?
The kind that actually occurs in the real universe.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian D. Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote [in part]:
: >: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: >: Nothing ambiguous there.  I said clearly that the front clock read
: >: zero when the light ray "hit" it.  I later referred to this very same
: >: front clock reading. 
: >Bjon also clearly asked what the reading on the REAR clock was
: >"at time zero (per the front clock)".  This is clearly ambiguous,
: >and simply trying to point to portions of the whole that are not
: >ambiguous (eg, events only at the front clock) do not suffice to
: >validate bjon's attempt to sneak an unambiguous meaning of 
: >"at the same time" for two distant clocks.
: >: If both the clocks read "zero" at the same instant (as you said above,
: >: or at least this is the only way anyone can take it),
: >Why not take it the way I said it?  Which is, that in the coordinate
: >system in which the front clock is at rest, the rear clock reads
: >zero when the light strikes the front clock?  That gives physical
: >meaning to all the claims; we've physically said how to set up
: >coordinate systems, we've got physical clocks and a physical rod.
: >Bjon likes to refer to some physically-undefined "same instant",
: >and to pretend this is unambiguous.  But repetition doesn't make it so.
: Not so.  It is a fact that there are two clocks.  It is a fact that
: both have readings at absolutely the same time, as long as both are
: operating.  All I am asking you is what are these readings.  You have
: only two choices: Both read zero at absolutely the same time, or one
: reads zero while the other reads something else.
THe problem with this is that you haven't defined what you mean by 
'absolutely the same time.'  A further complication with this is that you 
CAN'T define what you mean by this, because you cannot define a prefered 
frame to be the 'absolute' one.
: We need not bring up "coordinate systems" in order to discuss these
: simple clock readings.  Just pick up a piece of plain white paper, and
: draw a couple of clocks meeting a light ray.
Which will strike the clocks, in general, at different times in any given 
frame.  No help, since the ray CANNOT strike two clocks simultaneously 
unless they are at the same place.
: You will instantly see that it is not possible for the rear clock to
: read zero at the time (absolute) that the front reads zero because
: this will not result in "c" for light's speed.  Also, as I have
: already pointed out, SRT disallows truly set clocks (or clocks that
: both read the same).
What SR ACTUALLY disallows is clocks which are synchronised in any one 
frame from being seen as synchronised in any OTHER frame.
: >: Both the clocks cannot read "D/c" at the same time because this is
: >: absolute synch, a forbidden type of synch. 
: >I made no reference to absolute anything.  I specifically did not
: >say anything about "the same [absolute bjonian] instant".  If bjon
: >wants to import his own errors into the discussion and then debunk them,
: >fine, but don't attribute reference to this superfluous "absolute time"
: >to me, thank you very much.
: So, even in your (unnecessary) "reference system setup," how do you
: know that the rear clock reading is zero when the front one reads
: zero?
You can only say that two clocks have the same reading if you define the 
frame of the clocks AND the frame of the observer, and then set the 
clocks accordingly.  SR includes a perfectly good definition for 
determining if events are simultaneous, which is what you need to decide 
if two clocks are reading the same or not.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
: [bjon]
: .....  However, we can contrast
: >>this with Michelson's and Lorentz's notion that the MMX should have
: >>easily detected the earth's (still) real absolute motion.
: >>
: >Should have if their assumptions were correct.  The null result showed that
: >there was an error in those assumptions.  SR postulates that the error was
: >in the assumption of a special frame for light propagation.
: True but vague. Why is there no special frame in this case?
Because there has never been any phenomena predicted by any theory 
involving a prefered frame.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Jeff Candy:
>>> Q2: what is a not-wrong theory of mechanics?
>| Jeff Inman:
>|> A "not-wrong theory of mechanics" is one which is in accord with
>|> whatever the existing metaphysics is.
Jeff Candy:
>Objectivist metaphysics.
That is indeed one "existing" metaphysics.  There are others, you
know.  I suppose I should have referred to "any given" metaphysics.
Consider my definition amended.
The joke -- which you failed to get -- is that "theories" and
"metaphysics" are mutually engendering, thus suggesting (through my
definition, above) that the scientific method is vulnerable to the
very kind of self-justifying circularity that y'all have been using to
deny that this vulnerability is non-existent.  This dilemma is the
"brow furrowing" I was hoping to induce.  I guess it only works if one
is at least as clever as a smart young dog.
>What is a not-wrong theory of mechanics?  
According to the definition I've proposed, and your fixing of your
attention on objectivist metaphysics, it seems that you've settled
this question nicely.  You have selected the parameters that allow you
to answer a broad question with a narrow answer, as no doubt suits
your, um, objective.  This nicely misses my point.
>|  Jeff Inman:
>|> If this makes you tip your head sideways, wrinkle your forehead and go
>|> "hmmHMM?" like my former-girlfriend's amusing black lab does, then I'm
>|> just going to answer you the same way I answer him, namely, by
>|> repeating what I just said in an even more exaggerated and
>|> interrogative tone, to see how deep I can make the wrinkles go.  He
>|> was pretty smart though, and didn't have much trouble with
>|> metaphysics.
>
>Coincidence?
You mean, that he doesn't have much trouble with metaphysics?  I think
not.  But it does point out that there are two ways to not have
trouble with metaphysics.  [Deliberately split infinitive.  It's
better that way.]  One is to be smart, like a certain dog.
I think this discussion boils down to this: The arguments of Silke and
Moggin and others are directed at pointing towards alternative
metaphysics whose existence makes the pursuit of hard-and-fast
descriptions of physical law a subtle and delicate one.  Even a
suspicious one.  At least, a necessarily ironic one.  The "scientists"
on the other hand have been insisting that there is still only one
essential "thing in itself", which successive theories are presumed to
be getting better and better at comprehending, and that "metaphysics"
is just a short way of saying "humanities-types blowing a bunch of hot
air".  Yet, those successive theories can quite reasonably be argued
to embody different metaphysical premises.  As such, they are not of a
piece.
[When Moggin calls a theory "wrong", I think (correct me if I'm wrong)
that he is implicitly referring to a principle something like the one
I've formulated, above.  The development from Newton to Einstein
involves a transformation of metaphysics, in accordance with the
transformations in physics.  Thus, looking back at Newton, we see not
an "approximation that continues to be valid within limits", but an
entirely different universe.]
The difference between these two positions will never be settled, as
they do not really concern the things being argued about, but rather
concern two different fundamental aesthetics, with which one might
approach experience.  This is NOT AT ALL the same as the naive
argument that "everyone's opinion is equally valid".  Making that
confusion is so egregious a misunderstanding that one has to suspect
that it is deliberate.
It seems to me that what we are observing in this thread, and in the
millions of other similar and similarly aggravating threads I've seen
elsewhere, is a meeting, or rather the inevitable failure to meet, of
the opposed aspects of personality that Jung referred to as "Sensate"
and "Intuitive".  No fooling.
Go ahead.  Knock yourselves out.  But it may be interesting to note
that this particular categorization is considered to be one of the
more deeply divisive ones (because it concerns very deep notions about
what one is doing).  As I understand it, about 75% of the population
tends to be categorized as "Sensate", whereas about 25% tends to be
"Intuitive".  (Actually, it's usually spelled "iNtuitive", since
capital "I" is already used to mean "Introverted".)  Interesting that
this percentage is roughly supported by the number of contestants on
the two sides.
I'm not particularly a disciple of Jung, but he does have some
compelling ideas here and there.
-- 
"But among those whom this story reached were also the woman's in-laws,
 and they decided, without telling her a word, to find this angel and
 to see if he knew how to fly ..."

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
> >> In science, applying a theory to a new region and finding that it 
> >> still works great is considered just an application, not a 
> >> generalization.  If the theory remains formally the same, you can't 
> >> call it a generalized theory, it is just the same theory.
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
> >     That's helpful, since it brings out another one of the ways that
> >the "scientific" sense of generalization differs from the "ordinary"
> >one.  (Although I'm sure it _is_ ordinary to scientists -- stay calm,
> >folks -- I'm not trying to slip anything by you.)  But note that if
> >you change a theory in significant ways, you can't say (in common
> >speech) that you've generalized it, since it's _not the same theory_
> >anymore.  That's what Silke was trying to tell you when she pointed
> >out that the usual word for that would be something like "modified."
> >Yes, the result is that you end up with a theory of wider scope, but
> >you've done it by changing the theory you started with.  To say you
> >generalized _that theory_ is sounds odd, since the one you end up
> >with (i.e., the more general one) is considerably different.
Matt:
> Can we accept that the terms "generalize" and "considerably" different
> are what is often call a term of art. That is, it depends on who is
> applying the term.
     Yes, unquestionably.  Take that as given when you read what I
say below.
> I can see why you want to call the theories
> considerable different. However, in a very real sense we can also call
> them similar. It does not seem to me to make sense to argue any more
> over whether some is "considerable" different, "somewhat" different,
> or what have you.
     Well, there _was_ a reason to argue about it, and a very specific
one, but I hesitate to mention it (I don't want to fan the flames).  So
instead, I'll go back to an analogy you offered.  (You may not recall,
but you did talk about this before.)  It was based on fast food.  In my
sense of the term, you said, generalizing from a hamburger would give
you ten hamburgers.  You were pretty unimpressed by that result -- you
preferred to generalize to milk shakes and french fries, in order to
create a more powerful concept of "fast food."  (I hope I'm remembering
corrrectly, but I think that's how it went.)
     I never replied (that was when I had to leave for for a few weeks),
but here what's I wanted to say:  generalizing from one hamburger to ten
is more significant than you may realize.  If you _couldn't_ do that,
then you wouldn't have a concept of a "hamburger" that you could apply
whenever you ate a ground beef patty on a bun -- that category wouldn't
exist. 
     Now, I see why you want a wider concept to use in discussing fast
food -- but from my point of view, you aren't generalizing from the idea
of hamburgers when you add milk shakes and french fries.  How could you
be?  A hamburger doesn't contain anything that you could generalize to
produce either a milk shake _or_ french fries -- forget about both.  No 
matter how much you widen the concept of a hamburger, it won't encompass
them.  
     So when you offer the broader category of "fast food," I'd agree
with you that it's more general than the category of "hamburgers," but
at least in my sense of "generalize," it's not a generalization _of_
"hamburger."  See the difference?  Generalizing "hamburger" would take
you as far as cheeseburgers and even bacon-cheeseburgers.  It could
include both Whoppers and Big Macs.  And you can replace the concept of
"hamburger" with the more general notion of "fast food," which covers
hamburgers as well as other items on the menu.  But saying that you've
generalized on hamburgers and arrived at milk-shakes ain't kosher.
-- moggin

WAPPLER FRANK wrote:
> 
> R. Mentock wrote:
> > acceleration has nothing to do with the twin paradox, except that you
> > have to accelerate to change inertial frames.
> 
> I feel the need to make a `reality check'.
> 
> So here are some `statements' - my not quite unfounded opinions, please
> indicate where you disagree:
> 
> The twin paradox arises whenever both twins (at least one of them  `falsely')
> claim that s/he remained at rest between the meetings. Of course, an 
> inertial observer has observed their actual accelerations and finds no > paradox, that's what your page confirms.
> 
> When would someone who has reversed her/his travelling velocity 
> reasonably maintain that s/he was at rest? Only when there's no > observable evidence for acceleration, namely:
> 
> a) there is no inertia for the twin to observe in her/his system while
>    accelerating (that's probably equivalent to a twin of mass = 0 and
>    energy = 0, let's forget about it) or
> b) The twin took a `swing-by' from some sufficiently massive planet.
>    (and free-falling around it, there was never any acceleration >    registered by `inertial experiments').
> 
If my impression of this post is correct, it seems that the meaning of
the term "acceleration" is the crux.  In the sense used by R. Mentock,
it simply means a velocity change or frame switch, but your use seems to
address the details of the process and mechanism of acceleration.  There
may well be a GR counterpart of the "twin paradox", but the only one
that has been discussed recently in this group is the SR version, and
there is nothing in your post that would indicate that you have any
disagreement with or misunderstanding of that version.
Larry Richardson

Ken Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: "Paul B.Andersen"  wrote:
: >Ken Seto wrote:
: >>  
: >> There is support for this. On earth we cannot detect the direction
: >> where the CBR is hotter and the opposite direction to that it is
: >> cooler. We detected that the CBR has  the same temperature in all the
: >> directions.
: > 
: >The "dipole effect" in the CBR cannot be measured from the surface
: >of earth only because the noise from the atmosphere is to high, 
: >masking the (quite small) effect. The dipole was however detected 
: >by measurements done in a U2-airoplane.
: Measurements in the U2-Plane will eliminate the rotational vector
: component of the earth. It is this vector component that make the
: intruements on earth insensitive to the dipole. Both the instruements
: in the  U2-plane and the COBE satellite do not have this vector
: component.
Indeed, there is a somewhat more complex vector effect for the airborn 
and orbital measurements.  The removal of velocity effects from the raw 
data is a trivial matter.  All we need to do is compute the instantaneous 
velocity of the instrument being used in the average rest frame of the 
Earth (or any other rest frame we choose, but the net rest frame of the 
Earth is a good one, since it is the same as the net rest frame of the 
Sun) and take its effects out.
: >> Up at the COBE Satellite the direction of  motion is set
: >> by a gyroscope. There is no rotational vector component up there.
: snip
: >The direction of the antenna can be locked just as easy in 
: >either case. (that's what the gyroscopes in the satellite are for)
: That's what I means the direction of the antenna is locked in up at
: the COBE satellite.  I think if you can somehow flow the instruement
: on the earth surface--such as an hot air balloon and lock in the
: direction of the antenna, the dipole will also be found. My point is
: that the inability of us to detect the dipole is not due to the noise
: from the atmosphere but it is due to the more complex motions of the
: earth laboratories compared to the balloon, the U2-Plane and the COBE
: Satellite.
Which doesn't explain why the fact that the motions of baloons, aircraft, 
and satelites are greater and at least as complex as instruments 
attatched to relatively stable surface of the Earth doesn't make the 
problem worse.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>In article <55ipij$hpa@eri.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
>wrote:
>>>You said somewhere that your E-Matrix is a 3-D
>>>spatial structure and yet you talk about geodesic path, a term used in
>>>GR to describe the inertial motion of a particle in a 4-D curved
>>>spacetime structure.
>>
>>All material systems  move througfh the 3-D...... E-Matrix  freely and
>>the path of motion is to follow the geometies of the E-Matrix.  The
>>motion of any material system in the E-Matrix will, in turn, effect
>>the geometries of the E-Matrix and thus it give us the cycles of cause
>>and effect for inertial motions. With this in mind, the path of travel
>>of any material system in the E-Matrix is curved and this curved path
>>is called the geodesic path. Even in GR the spacetime is within the
>>normal 3D space. The time dimension only defines where the material
>>system is going to be in this 3D space.
>  I think you are mistaken here.  In GR, gravity does not just curve
>3-D space.  If it did, GR would not be able to predict a gravitational
>time dilation.  AFAIK, GR relativists are always very careful to
>specify *spacetime* curvature.  The geodesics that define the inertial
>path of a particle in this curved spacetime is always described in 4-D
>spacetime.  Now, I'm not claiming that I know GR better than anyone.
>I sure don't.  So, any GR expert is welcome to correct me here if they
>think I'm wrong.
Your description of GR is exactly the same as mine except that mine is
more realistic and is based on the idea that there is an aether
occupying space. Einstein would have like to adopt mine description if
it were not for his erroneous interpretation of the following:
1. The MMX null result was erroneously interpreted by Einstein as: NO
AETHER occupying space. My interpretation is different. The MMX null
result was caused by the receding motion of all the targets in the MMX
apparatus relative to all the light rays that were generated within
the same apparatus. There is no c+v in the same frame. If there were
we would have variable light speeds in different directions.
2.The  no aether interpretation forced Einstein to come up with an
alternate explanation for the question: Why material systems follow
the curvature of space if space is nothingness? He came up with the
idea of spacetime and spacetime is an abstractive  fourth dimension of
space. Of course as soon as he invoked the abstractive 4D spacetime
there was no need for him to provide the underlying processes for
gravity because in physics you don't have to explain any abstraction.
If you look at what spacetime can do you will realize that it is an
abstractive way of describing an aether. Einstein once said (quoting
from memory) "GR without the existence of an aether is unthinkable".
>>[...]
>>>>>>>>If it's clock slowing, the experiment that I proposed--with different
>>>>>>>>clocks facing different directions-- should be able to detect this
>>>>>>>>clock slowing.
>  The idea that clocks have faces and that SR predict that the faces
>are dependent on direction is your own silly fantasy.
It is not my silly idea. It is yours and SR's. I rejected the idea
that time can be dilated differently in different directions within
the same frame. In fact I rejected the idea of time dilation within
the framework of background time. 
This was started by you saying that the MMX null result can be
explained by a combination of length contraction and time dilation.
From that I assumed that you and SR meant that different direction
have different reading for time. This can be tested experimentally as
I suggested in my other postings.
>> So when
>>you say that only length contraction is directional sensitive you are
>>wrong.
>  I didn't say it.  SR said it.  Length contraction is direction
>sensitive because it is observed, according to SR, in the direction of
>motion of the moving object.  Even if time were sensitive to direction
>of absolute motion why would it have anything to do with which way the
>clock faces, as long as the clock is in the same inertial frame as the
>apparatus?  That's utterly ludicrous, Ken.  What if the clock has no
>face, like a cesium clock.  Are you referring to the digital readout
>of the clock or what?
I think you have misinterpreted SR. What SR says is that the
contraction as set forth in  the Lorentz' s transform equation is in
the direction of motion. The only thing that can effect the contracted
length and dilated time is speed. 
Again you said a combination of length contraction and time dilation
give rise to the null result of MMX and that is why I suggest the
experiment to test this out. Whatever clock you want to use is OK with
me as long as it has the accuracy (speeling?) to do the job.
>> If there is no difference in speed
>>in different directions why are we trying to detect the different
>>speeds with the MMX apparatus?  In fact why are we calling the MMX
>>result a null result? Obviously you are the one who don't know what
>>you are talking about. 
>  You know, I realize now that this whole thing is getting very
>muddled because we have two concepts of motion being discussed here,
>absolute motion and relative motion.  When we talk about speed and
>direction and velocity we should be careful to specify WHAT is moving
>and whether or not we mean ABSOLUTE or RELATIVE motion.  In this
>light, why don't we start again from the top?  Would you care to
>explain one more time, in clear unambiguous language, the reason for
>the null result of the MMX?  Especially the receding target part.  Is
>it an absolute recession or is it a relative recession?  If the
>latter, relative to what?  If I still don't get it, maybe we should
>call it quits.  :-)
The MMX apparatus is in one frame of reference. Its designed purpose
was to detect absolute motion.There is no relative motion within the
MMX apparatus. Again, the  reasons why all targets in the  frame of
the MMX apparatus are receding from the light rays that are generated
from a source within the same frame of the MMX apparatus:
1. Space is occupying by a substance called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix
is, in turn, comprise of E-Strings and the E-Strings are extended
randomly in all the directions This is responsible for the inverse
square law nature of light. The E-Matrix is stationary.
2. Lights are waves in the E-Strings. The speed of light in the
E-Strings is the max. speed of light. The familiar 'c' includes the
absolute motion of the earth.
3. The MMX apparatus is a material system in the E-Matrix. It motion
relative to  the E-Matrix is the absolute motion. The path of this
absolute motion is geodesic. This is due to its confinement  to the
geometries of the local region of the E-Matrix. 
4. The absolute motion of the MMX apparatus is comprised of the sum of
all the vector components of all the observed motions. An observed
translational motion will yield a vector component in the direction of
absolute motion. An observed accelerated motion (such as orbiting
motion around the sun) or rotational motion(such as the rotation of
the earth on it's axis) will yield a vector component that will change
the direction of absolute motion. The end result is that all the
targets within the MMX apparatus are constantly changing their
direction of absolute motion. This eliminates the idea that there is a
front and back of the train. In other words, all the directions  are
the same within the MMX apparatus.. 
5. Now consider what happen when a light pulse is emitted from a
source within the MMX apparatus where the targets are also located:
The light pulse is traveling in the E-Matrix at a constant Max. speed
toward the target. .At the mean time, the target is moving in a
parallel direction  with the source along the geodesic path of
absolute motion. Clearly, this eliminates any possibility of the
target moving toward the source and thus eliminates the possibility of
any c+v situations wthin the MMX apparatus. OTOH, as the light pulse
have reached the old position of the target, the target will have
moved to a new position and therefore it must covered the extra
distance traveled by the target to reach it. This is why I said all
targets are in a receding motion relative to the light pulses that are
generated within the same frame.
I have modified my home page. I have included an article entitled "the
physics of absolute motion".  Take a look. It includes an explanation
for all the forces of nature.

kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu wrote:
: 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 the last message I wrote:
: >        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. 
       If the particle isn't charged, is there any acceleration
in an electromagnetic field?
       How about "electromagnetic attraction"?    The text
"Gravitation" [MTW] has a box on page 35 comparing the acceleration
of a test particle in an electromagnetic field with the same
particle in a gravitational field.
       A charged particle has to be compared to an uncharged
particle in an electromagnetic field.
       All particles, charged or not, accelerate the same
in a gravitational "field".
       A charged particle in an electromagnetic field
accelerates proportional to e/m, in a given field, I would
think that the electron will accelerate 1836 times the rate
of a neutron.
       I don't want to quote the entire box on the comparison.
Then, in the last message, I said:    
: >       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. 
        This is nothing like the electromagnetic field.
And:
: >        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.
        Forgive me for pushing this, but I have developed
first approximations for a unified field reference model
where the gravitational field is purely geometrical, and
I am anxious to discuss it.
        I have little to gain from standing my ground on
this, and I can understand how many people might have a
lot to lose if they agree with me, so I just have to keep
trying.
        Electromagnetism is the cause of gravitation, but
I don't think it is anything like the long range attractive
"field" that supposedly requires gravitons as the operating
particle.
        I support General Relativity 100 percent, as every
single thing I have ever figured out in my reference model
has already been extensively covered in General Relativity.
Sincerely,
        Ken Fischer 

You may want to check out the Annapolis naval academy home page.
Last time I checked it out there was a page on a graduate student who was 
building one.  I got there by typing 'railgun' into my search engine.
Apparently, oxidation of the rails is a common problem. Perhaps an inert 
gas shield is a good idea.
                              goodluck,
                          Derek Slottke
                       PSU physics 
                      OHSU Ped. End.

Ryan K. (kimbrel@pld.com) wrote:
: What is the effect called that makes a pendulum move back and forth in
: a circular motion? (It loses power every swing and moves in a circular
: motion, what is this called?)
       Do you mean Coriolis?    The Coriolis effect appears
because the pendulum doesn't move in a circular motion as
fast as the Earth.
Ken Fischer 

In article <327C0A99.2120@mcs.com>, chappell@mcs.com wrote:
> I have placed a paper with the above title on the Web in order to put
> forth many reasons to believe that present day descriptions of magnetic
> fields are incorrect.  
Have you ever taken a physics course?
-- 
Jude Charles Giampaolo        'I was lined up for glory, but the
jcg161@psu.edu                 tickets sold out in advance' -Rush
jude@smellycat.com      http://prozac.cwru.edu/jude/JudeHome.html

briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>The rear clock must read D/c (per experiment). We can now solve for
>>the rear clock's reading at the start:
>>
>>final reading       delta-t       start reading
>>   D/c        -   [D(c-V)]/c²  =    DV/c²
>>
>Your derivation shows that you are setting a clock assumed to be at rest in
>a reference system that measures the rod as moving at speed 'V'.  If the 
>clock is in a system where the rod is moving at speed 'U', it will be set
>as DU/c(1-U^2/c^2)^0.5.  In particular in the system where the rod is not 
>moving, implied by your description of the experiment, the speed will be 0,
>and the clock will read 0.
As I tried to make plain, this lies outside SRT and its various
reference frames. Thus the speed V (uppercase, not v for relative) is
an absolute speed, not an as-measured one.  And I said that the rod is
moving at this absolute speed V, meeting a light ray (whose absolute
speed happens to be c).  But it's true that if the rod is not moving
at all, then the clocks will match (both read zero at the same
instant).  This is because the local offset formula LV/c² yields zero
when V is zero. 
>>So, we see that the rear clock read DV/c² when the front clock read 0.
>>This DV/c² is the error in synchronization for Einstein-set clocks,
>>clocks that are not absolutely synchronized as are Newton's.  It has
>>been called by some the "local offset."  Note that it varies directly
>>with the observer's absolute speed V.
>>
>Nothing in the theory or derivation requires an absolute speed.  You cannot
>define the "absolute" clock settings you require.  
SRT cannot supply us with the answer because there is no event that
ocurred AT the rear clock, and without such an event, SRT is
speechless. SRT speaks only of actual events AT a clock, so these
events can be matched with a clock reading.
And I just defined the absolute settings. Each clock on board differs
from it neighbor by DV/c².  But this is just Einstein's definition of
synchronization. It has nothing to do with how an outside observer
views the clocks.  It has everything to do with the actual readings
one the clock faces.  No need to bring in an outside observer.  The
clocks read just fine without him.
Let's put it this way: The clocks in SRT cannot all read the same at
the same instant because then they would be absolutely synchronized,
as in classical physics.  So, this tells us that each clock (in the
same frame) in SRT has a different reading at the same instant in the
same frame.
>>Einstein's definition of synchronization, meaning that they have the
>>"clock difference" of DV/c².  It is this offset amount that makes each
>>einsteinian observer get "c" instead of the Newtonian "c±V" for
>>light's one-way speed.  It is also this offset that makes each
>>observer get different time intervals for the same two events.  And,
>>further, it makes the observers get different observed lengths for a
>>passing rod (clocks used to "pin down" rod ends at the "same time" per
>>the observer's E-set clocks), and similarly makes each observer "see"
>>the other's clock "run slow" (when the passing clock is compared with
>>two on-board out-of-true clocks), and, finally, makes each observer
>>obtain a different "mass" for a passing object (on-board E-set clocks
>>used to measure the object's resultant speed after being hit by a test
>>object).
>>
>In other words, if they set their distant clocks to agree with each other,
>all the results of SR follow. 
They cannot set their distant clocks to agree because there's no known
way to do that.  (One  possible way would be to use infinitely rapid
signals. Do you have any?)
As I tried to make clear, all the clocks in SRT DISagree.
(And they disagree by the amount DV/c²)
>>In short, E synch is the direct cause of all the so-called
>>"relativistic effects." (These are: Observer-dependent time, mass, and
>>length variation).
>>
>E synch = set their clocks to agree with each other in their rest frame.
No, this is classical or absolute time.  SRT has a different time, and
it's called "relative time."
>>But note that the einsteinian synchronization involves an absolute
>>value, V, the observer's absolute speed.  Also note that E's
>>definition of synch contains another absolute value, c. And bear in
>>mind that actual clock slowing and actual rod contraction are involved
>>in this definition, so Throop's claim that nothing in SRT is absolute
>>is obviously incorrect.  It's easy to see why SRT has to have these
>>real underpinnings -- it's a theory of nature.
>>
>This is completely wrong.  There is no need for absolute speed or absolute
>clock slowing and rod contraction.  You assume these effects, but SR
>doesn't need them.
Let's switch over to SRT mode, since this is the only mode in which
you can operate. A light source is given (refer. frame A). Observer B
moves past this A Frame.  When the light source is at the midpoint of
two clocks located on Observer B's x-axis, the source is energized,
sending out light rays in all directions.  Now, since the observer is
moving with respect to the source, the front clock moves away from its
light ray, whereas the rear clock moves toward its light ray.  If we
allow the rays to start the clocks, it is obvious that the two clocks
will not be started at the same time.
Now that we have it firmly established that even in the context of
SRT, the two clocks are not absolutely synch'd, we may inquire as to
just how they were set by these light signals.  Notice that there is
obviously no need to ask how another observer may see the clocks -- we
know already that the clocks must have different readings in an
absolute sense because they were clearly started at different
(absolute) times by two different light rays. All we care about here
is what the clocks actually read (at the same absolute instant).
It is elementary to carry this out on paper, and the result is this:
The rear clock started first.  The front clock started second. Their
time difference is a function of how fast they were moving away from
and toward the light ray, as well as how far apart they happened to
be, and also the speed of the light signals (absolute speed because
any other speed is irrelevant and could not be determined anyway due
to the lack of two synchronized clocks -- at the start).  And this
time difference (local offset) happens to be DV/c², where D is the
observer-measured spatial separation of the clocks, and V and c are
absolute speeds (observer and light).
And only this offset amount will yield "c" for light's one-way speed,
as called for by SRT.  If you place the same reading on both clock
faces, you will not get "c" for the one-way lightspeed when using gthe
clocks.
And, as my above shows, it is obvious that the clocks are set
out-of-true in proportion to their absolute speed.
Also, if a clock does not absolutely slow, then light's round-trip
speed will vary, contradicting SRT.  And the same goes for a rod's
length.  This must absolutely vary or else the MMX would have had a
positive result.
Further, only if clocks are set having the above offset, and are
assumed to be truly slowed, and only if a rod is assumed to be truly
contracted will the einsteinian transformation equations appear.
(Based on the use of two such observers observing two events.) In
other words, the einsteinian transforms contain absolute speeds,
absolute clock slowing, and absolute rod contraction. One of the
absolute speeds is c, and the others are the observer's speeds as they
travel in space while observing the two events.)

Hi everybody,
By any chance do you have an energy storage cap you'd like to get rid of?
We're looking to upgrade our ruby laser power supply and we need something 
in the 300-500J range.  Say about a 40 uF / 5KV or so part.  We'd like it
to be fairly small, on the order of 3x4x7" or so to fit an existing 
enclosure; the main 
criterion is price however...we can't afford a whole lot.  But by all means
let me know what you have and we'll make a deal!
thanks,
Pat Ferrick
Science Dept. / Town of Webb High School
Old Forge, NY

daryl@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
|> >"What's so great about 10 and 26 dimensions?"  When one
|> >reads about string theory, one often hears that it only works in 10
|> >or 26 dimensions --- and the obvious question is, why?
|> 
|> It's obvious! What's special about 10 dimensions is that we can refer to
|> them as dimensions 0,1,...,9 using only one digit. What's special about 26
|> dimensions is that we can refer to them as dimensions A,B,...Z using only
|> one letter. This kind of convenience can't be merely an accident, which proves
|> the existence of a God who possesses a Western European education.
Hah, nice.  It supports my contention that she intends us to use base 10,
that 2pi rather than pi is the key constant, and that we should routinely
make approximations to 737 decimal places; as explained in my old PI post.
However, right now I'm writing because your article reminded me of a
"Little bit of Fry & Laurie" program we just saw...
Interviewer:  Is it true that God is an Englishman?
Vicar:   Hmmmmm... tricky one, that.  There's some controversy on the matter.
         However, it's pretty much agreed he's NOT Welsh...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Bill Taylor      W.Taylor@math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                WANTED:  Guillotine operator and head storeman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a question thats been bothering me for a while and
I was wondering if someone could clear this up for me. Basically
I dont see what people mean when they say entropy is one of the
"arrows" of time, and that since newtons laws hold in either
direction it is as likely to go in either direction, because
of microscopic reversibility.
	For a concrete example lets take, a system of classical non interacting
particles. Since here is a greater volume of higher entropic states than
there are less entropic states so during a time evolution of the system
the most likely thing to happen is it to hang out in these high entropic
states by definition of how we partitioned out the volume into different
entropies. Microscopic
reversibility  addresses changes from a particular point in
phase space to another particular point in phase space, while 
entropy increases because we've defined the large volume of
spread out states as being equivelent (ie having the same "entropy")
 Or am I missing something?
	-avi

In article <55lobj$fmk@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) writes:
>
>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).   
>   
Well, take practically any area in physics and you really cannot get 
exact, analytical solutions to more than a handful of cases (or, if 
you can, the solutions are too complex to make sense, as you say).  
Big part of the art of physics is the art of using approximations.  I 
call it art intentionally since it can't be reduced to standardized 
procedures.  It is a combination of judgement, experience and 
intuition.  But, definitely, most of the time is spent dealing with 
approximations.
It seems to me that many of the critics of science here have this 
mental picture of science dealing with finding exact and absolute 
answers to eternal questions (sort of a substitute religion), then get 
upset when it turns out to be a more "down to earth" type of 
enterprise.  If you set your expectations too high, you're bound to be 
disappointed.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

I'm am high school physics and am in need for inspiration to want to learn
physics.  Sometimes it gets very frusterating when I'm doing the problems. 
Please give me some advice or some inspirational pep talk to get and go!!
Thanks!!!

"Eric Weiss"  wrote:
>In the picture, the tension T is large enough to accelerate the block, but
>not large enough to lift it. the coefficient if friction between the block
>and surface is u. Show that the block will undego maximum acceleration if
>the angle, O, is choosen such that cos O + u(sin O) is a maximum.     >
>                                           /
>                                         /  O 
>                                --------/______
>__________________|____|
>
>A box being pulled by a rope with tension T at an angle of O to the the
>horizontal
>
>Any help would be appreciated.
Derive the equation for acceleration in terms of the angle.  You'll find 
that the expression you quoted above will be in the denominator, which 
means that it must be maximized if acceleration is to be maximized.
George Lyle

Christopher R Volpe  wrote[in part]:
>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
The dude did not ask for reality, but only for an operational def. of
absolute time.

In article , moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
	... snip ...
>     Then once again we agree.  Actually, I think we've agreed on this
>point three separate times now.  Personally, I'm hoping this one will
>stick, so we can stop arguing about it.  Even Jeff is going along here
>(he calls the observation "trite," but doesn't dispute it), so barring
>any objections from Matt, I'd say we have a consensus.  Now, what was
>all the fighting about?
Well, it did provide a good excuse to get away from writing a rather 
boring report  That's on my side of the argument, I don't know about 
yours.  Now that we seem to agree on quite a lot of stuff, I'll follow 
your example and leave it at that.  Which means that I'll have to 
finish the report after all :-(  Work is the curse of the posting class.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Wiles: No I do not believe p-adics are the Naturals and I do not feel
like proving it whenever I am not forced to prove something, I assume
it true. The p-adic coverings of the Euler system...
Ken Ribet in the audience: Sir, why was 10 afraid of 7 ?
Wiles : because 7, 8, 9
Ian Stewart in audience: Sir, I am not convinced your Euler Systems are
all covered.   You know when I ordered for lunch from a milkshop an    
" elastic sandwich ", I said to the waitress, make it,   " snappy ". 
Hehe he, get it Andy, the joke ?
Wiles: Ah yes, snappy elastic sandwiches are covered in the Euler
Systems..
Pogo bird sitting in last row looking into the camera:  Physics
destroyed and removed religion and philosophy. And it took just  130
years, from 1800 of Dalton to the 1930 Quantum Mechanics for physics to
subsume chemistry.  By the year 2050 , mathematics will be a mere
teenie weenie itsy bitsy subdepartment of physics. Watch when it is
announced that the Quantized Hall Effect is writ in p-adics and not the
Finite Integers.

In <55m4i8$p46@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes: 
>
>In <55ljg7$idj@thorn.cc.usm.edu> lrmead@ocean.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R.
>Mead) writes: 
>>
>>Allen Meisner (odessey2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>:     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
>>[snip]
>>
>>Stop right there: light carries inertia E = pc where p is the
>momentum.
>>Light thus may be (locally) accelerated; it is ideed observed to
>accelerate
>>around massive objects (stars) [ it's *speed* of course remains C
>during
>>the acceleration].
>>
>>: Edward Meisner
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
>>ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
>>http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 
>    
>    Light, of course, is not inertialess in its direction of
>propagation. However, it is inertialess in any direction other than
>this. Or it may not be. There are two alternatives. I have assumed it
>is inertialess in the above scenario. I personally prefer the
>assumption that it is inertialess, because of the null result of MM.
>Light is not accelerated around a star. It is following the curvature
>of space.
>
>Edward Meisner
>
 I am afraid that I have not made myself clear. When I say that light
is inertialess, I mean that light can only have velocity in its
dicrection of propagation. It can not have a component of velocity in
any other direction. If it did, the vector sum of its velocities would
exceed c.
Edward Meisner

In  Mike Czaplinski  writes:
>> Bees do fly, there's nothing to prove. There *was* question as to how
>> they can support their body weight, but if you prove they can't fly
>> do they all of a sudden  drop to the ground? Isn't that kinda like
>> cartoon logic where you don't fall off a cliff until you learn about
>> gravity?
>Wait.  You can't?
>AAAIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!
>NO CARRIER
Don't worry. You're safe as long as you don't LOOK DOWN.
-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 

Does anyone have a cap which _doesn't_ store energy?  I'll pay $350 each 
for the first 10 examples you send in.

lawrence.lek@dial.pipex.com wrote:
> 
> Why does water expand when it freezes, instead of contracting like most
> things? I understand that this has something to do with Chemistry as
> well as Physics, but any ideas? I also know that this has something to
> do with Hydrogen bonds and the fact that they're quite long. Thanks.
Hello, Tim from Langenburg, Saskatchewan, Canada responding. I don't 
know if I can help much, but as I understand it, hydrogen bonds are 
not true bonds but intermolecular forces. They interfere very little 
with the motion of molecules of water in the form of steam because the 
steam has so much kinetic energy. Liquid water is at a lower energy 
level, so the strength of the "hydrogen bond" interfered more with the 
motion of particles and makes H2O a liquid, when by all other 
characteristics,it should still be gaseous! This gives water 
molecules their very strong attraction for each other, as 
demonstrated by their ability to bead up when placed on a table, wax 
paper, or even on top of a glass of water. As water is cooled, the 
kinetic energy and motion of the molecules is decreased even further.
 4 degrees Celsius seems to be a critical point; the strength of the 
hydrogen bond starts to act among most molecules. H2O is a bent 
molecule, so the pull of the hydrogen bond makes a regular shape with 
some empty space (wheras in liquid water there were more random 
lengths to fit together more closely). The empty space means that the 
average density has decreased with the increase in volume and the ice 
shows its anomolous behaviour and floats on its own liquid. It is 
both the shape of the molecule, the great difference in attraction
for electrons between hydrogen and oxygen (and also the small size 
of hydrogen atoms, I think) that makes H2O behave strangely. 
	I hope not too much of this is misleading rubbish, but 
there should be a bit of truth to it, though I can't quote any 
authorities. Good luck getting answers,
		Tim

Ken Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: steveg@uk.gdscorp.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:
: >Ken Seto wrote:
: >[MMX stuff snipped]
: >> There is support for this. On earth we cannot detect the direction
: >> where the CBR is hotter and the opposite direction to that it is
: >> cooler. We detected that the CBR has  the same temperature in all the
: >Unfortunately for this little argument, the direction in which the
: >CMBR is slightly hotter was detected from the ground pre-COBE.
: You are making this up. If they had detected CBR is directional
: sensitive on earth, they would have concluded that they have
: discovered the aether drift and thus the existence of aether.
Nom they would not because there had been no observational evidence 
indicating the presence of an aether to have a shift in for other systems 
where aether effects should be detectable.
: Please
: give me the pre-COBE references.
: Ken Seto
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------