Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr (Ronald Kunne)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 96 17:47:22 MET
In article
Anthony Potts writes:
>
>On 1 Nov 1996, David L Evens wrote:
>
>> neutrinoes. Neutrinoes were initially postulated to account for some
>
>
>Get your "education" from the Dan Quayle school for waywad boys, eh?
>
>Neutrinos, not neutrinoes.
>
>For christ's sake, why am I beset by such mediocrity?
Mr. Potts, you are becoming more and more obnoxious.
Don't you know that correcting spelling and grammar errors of other
people requires that you don't make any *at all* in the posting that
contains these corrections?
At first count, I arrive at three errors in the three lines above.
(But don't trust me, I am not a native speaker.)
:-)
More seriously: we all know that this is a public forum, and as such
prone to see all sorts of sense and no-sense postings.
No-sense postings, one just ignores. Or at least that is what I would
expect of a physicist and future `golden boy' of your standing.
Friendly greetings,
Ronald Kunne
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Christopher R Volpe
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 11:01:02 -0500
Brian Jones wrote:
>
> throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
> >Quite possible. You just synchronize the two clocks, following
> >Einstein's recipe. This recipe doesn't mention anything about velocity,
> >or absolute anything; you just DO it. You get SR-synchronized clocks.
> >From then on, the analysis proceeds trivially.
>
> It's not that simple. There are quite definite and real physical
> results of such clocks that directly reflect the absoluteness behind
> the definition. For example, given any two events, each observer will
> find a different time between them. This tells us that their clocks
> all read differently at these same two events. And yet the events
> themselves obviously can have only a single time between them.
No, the events themselves can only have a single *space-time interval*
between them. The two events need not have a single time interval
between them any more than the two events need to have a single space
interval between them. For example, consider the following two events:
"New York City, 4:05pm EST" and "Los Angelas, 1:01pm PST". Let's
consider the Earth to be an appriximately inertial frame for purposes of
discussion. What is the time interval between these two events? In the
earth's inertial frame, the answer is four minutes. What is the space
interval between the events? In the earth's inertial frame, the answer
is approximately 2000 miles. Obvious, right? What about in the Sun's
inertial frame? The earth moves approximately 4000 miles in those four
minutes in the Sun's frame (well, in the Sun's frame, the time interval
won't *be* precisely four minutes, but it will be close enough), and so,
in the Sun's frame, the space interval between those two events will
involve not only the distance between Los Angelas and New York, but the
changes in position of those two cities during the time interval.
Asserting that there can be only one time interval between two events is
like claiming that there can be only one x interval between two points
on a plane. This is obviously not true. Depending on where you locate
the x and y axes, both the x interval and y interval will be different.
What will remain the same is the invariant interval
sqrt(x_int^2+y_int^2). Similarly, depending on how one orients their
x,y,z, and t axes in spacetime (which depends on inertial frame), two
events will have different x intervals and different t intervals, for
example. But the invariant interval
sqrt(x_int^2+y_int^2+z_int^2-(c*t_int)^2) will remain the same.
>
> The invariant interval has no physical meaning, being a mere
> mathematical construct.
"Euclidean length has no physical meaning, being a mere mathematical
construct"
> It is the square root of the difference of
> the squares of the "time" (per an SRT observer) and the "distance"
> (per the SRT observer)
"It is the square root of the sum of the squares of the "x" extent and
the "y" extent (per the euclidean x and y axes)"
>. Let's see just how meaningful this is. No SRT
> observer can determine the actual time between two events.
"Let's see just how meaningful this is. No euclidean measuring device
can determine the actual x extent between two points."
> No SRT
> observer can determine the actual distance, either.
"No euclidean measuring device can determine the actual y extent,
either."
> (Unless the
> observer is accidentally at absolute rest).
"(Unless the measuring device is accidentally oriented along the true
absolute X axis, and then, the true absolute Y axis, of the plane.)"
> So, we have two false
> values (observer-dependent distance and observer-dependent time),
"So, we have two false values (coordinate system dependent x extent and
coordinate system dependent y extent),"
> and
> we have to square each one, then find the difference and take the
> square root.
"and we have to square each one, find the sum, and take the square
root."
> What physical meaning herein lies? A measured distance
> is squared, and a measured time is squared, and this is supposed to
> mean something?
"What physical meaning herein lies? A measured x-extent is squared, and
a measured y-extent is squared, and this is supposed to mean something?"
> I may care about the _distance_ between two events
> (even an observer dependent one),
"I may care about the _x-interval_ between two points (even a
coordinate-system dependent one)"
> and I may care about the _time_
> between the events,
"and I may care about the _y-interval_ between two points"
> but the invariant interval is worthless and
> meaningless.
"But the euclidean distance is worthless and meaningless."
> And it's about as "absolute" as silly putty.
"And it's about as orientation-independent as left and right"
(I think I've made the point clear.)
--
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
Subject: Re: wind effects on aircraft
From: "J.Kelly"
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 10:18:27 -0600
Langenburg High School wrote:
>
> 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.
1.) 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.
T/F
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?
T/F
3.) I want everyone to do my homework for me.
T/F
> 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
The homework paradox- One must use one's own knowledge
of a subject to alter the structure of a question regarding
the same. Catch 22!!
Subject: Re: wind effects on aircraft
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 5 Nov 1996 16:10:24 GMT
Langenburg High School wrote:
>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
Air speed and ground speed are not coupled in any way, means, or form.
The airplane's movement as measured from the ground is the vector sum of
its local movement through the air and the air's movement relative to the
ground. If you get up near lightspeed that requires a correction factor.
The Jet Stream is a case in point. It is much faster (beyond time zone
changes) to travel east across the US with the 200-400 mph high altitude
winds than west and against them (hence use of different altitudes and
routes to avoid them in the latter case).
--
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!
Subject: Re: Anyone have an energy storage cap?
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 5 Nov 1996 16:18:17 GMT
slwork@netcom.com (Steve Work) wrote:
>Does anyone have a cap which _doesn't_ store energy? I'll pay $350 each
>for the first 10 examples you send in.
>
Baseball cap, pipe cap, fool's cap, lens cap, nurse's cap, dental cap,
spending cap, kneecap, caps as opposed to lowercase, bottle cap.
My PO Box may be found on my homepage. Make the $3500 check payable to
"Uncle Al" Schwartz.
--
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!
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 16:08:43 GMT
devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
>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.
The motion of the instruements on earth's surface is more complex.
This is mainly due to the rotation of the earth on its axis. In fact,
the direction of absolute motion of the instruments is continuously
changing on earth's surface. This is the reason why the intruements on
earth are not directional sensitive. OTOH, the instruements up at the
U2 or the satellite experience no rotating motion and its antenna is
locked onto a specific direction by a gyroscope. This is why these
intruements are directional sensitive and thus able to detect its own
absolute motion relative to the aether occupying space.
Ken Seto
Subject: Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 93)
From: sp@cs.umb.edu (Stephen Parrott)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 17:37:27 GMT
john baez (baez@math.ucr.edu) wrote:
: In article <55981f$6nh@agate.berkeley.edu>,
: wrote:
: >When you try to calculate the spectrum of the string or the actual physical
: >states, you can try to do this using 3 methods from field theory.
: 1. Gupta-Bleuler in conformal gauge
: 2. Light-cone gauge
: 3. BRST formalism
: >When you do these tedious calculations, you find that the spectrum is
: >ghost free only if the dimension is 26. Ghost states are states that have
: >negative normalization and do not correspond to any physical state.
: >Now in superstring theory, you can go through the same calculations and
: >you find that for the theory to be internally consistent the dimension
: >must be 10. Again, you can use the light cone gauge (with proper boundary
: >conditions) to show that in order to preserve Lorentz invariance D=10.
: [Many suggestions as to why dimension 26 might be special omitted]
: But clearly, something big is going
: on here! What I'd like is a point of view that makes all of it --- or
: at least a bunch of it --- seem obviously inevitable.
A lot of people would like to better understand
the significance of spacetime dimension 26.
Before asking *why* 26 is a special dimension,
it might be profitable to ask *what* is special about dimension 26.
First of all, it is not true as stated above
that absence of "ghosts"
(defined as negative norm states) in a bosonic open string theory
implies that spacetime has dimension 26.
If ghosts are absent in a given dimension like 26,
then they are also absent in all lower dimensions.
Dimension 26 is special for other reasons.
For example, in 26 dimensions the space of true physical states
(the space of states satisfying the usual physical state condition
modulo the subspace of null states)
is believed to have the structure of the space of physical states
corresponding to a 24-dimensional Euclidean (i.e., positive norm) space.
I say "believed" because I know of no rigorous proof,
though "formal" calculations (i.e., algebraic manipulations with
analytically ill-defined operators) do lead to this conclusion,
and it seems treated as a fact within physics.
Some otherwise unmotivated choices are made in the basic definitions
of string theory in order to get the No Ghost Theorem to work;
with other choices which seem *a priori* as plausible,
there may possibly be No Ghost theorems in dimensions other than 26.
For example, using different definitions there is a No Ghost Theorem
for dimension 25, but none obviously true for dimension 26.
(All these refer to the same general kind of bosonic open string theory.)
I don't know if under these alternate definitions
there are actually known ghosts in dimension 26 or if it's just that
the usual proofs don't work in dimension 26.
(This might be easy to settle--I don't remember ever thinking
about the matter from this particular angle,
so I haven't worked on it.)
Whatever the case, the algebraic structure of the theory
seems much messier in dimensions like 25 with the alternate definitions
than in dimension 26 with the standard definitions.
Some fragmentary observations about these matters can be found in
Green/Schwartz/Witten's Superstring Theory following page 110
and in the Remarks at the end of my paper
"The No Ghost Theorem in String Theory",
Results in Math 21 (1992), 379-395.
G/S/W summarise on p. 119:
"In the special case of D=26 and a=1 the spectrum is entirely
transverse, with many decoupled zero-norm states.
This is suggestive of an enormous underlying gauge invariance."
Here D is the spacetime dimension, and choosing a < 1 gives
the alternate definitions mentioned above.
The bottom line is that there is almost certainly something
very special about dimension 26,
but it's not so easy to put one's finger on exactly what it is,
nor what is responsible for it.
I don't think the No Ghost Theorem is yet properly understood.
My guess is that it will ultimately be understood by reformulating
it in a completely different context.
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 5 Nov 1996 17:51:22 GMT
John Torset (johnt4@iceonline.com) wrote:
[...]
: If I remember correctly, the MacDonald's in the US started to use pictures on
: their cach-registers because so many of their employees could not read properly!
: My guess is that the same apply for math.
You are neglecting the most important reason for that use of symbols:
speed. It is always faster to recognise a symbol than a couple of
words, and these exploitative corporations actually do research to find
out how fast they can drive their organic production units before they
break down.
BTW, the main reason for not using a numeric keypad is so that the
exploited workers cannot make an improvisional decision on how much to
charge for something unusual. Try asking for an anchovy on your sub at
one of those pizza places sometime. The only way they are allowed to do
it is to charge you for a "small extra pizza topping"... properly
pigeonholed, you see.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: brian artese
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 11:39:07 -0600
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> : Playing a hoax on someone is hardly evidence of a superior intellect,
> : although it may indicate a superior deviousness.
> You said this earlier, so I asked you for
> another way to demonstrate it.
Well, you know, among scholars there's this thing called a 'critique,'
wherein you read the authors whose charlatanism you've claimed to have
exposed (in Sokal's case, the 'prominent French intellectuals') -- and
then you, like, write the critique of the work(s) down on paper, have
other people read it ... it's been going on for years, really.
-- brian
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: Erik Max Francis
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 08:15:24 -0800
Christopher R Volpe wrote:
> Anthony Potts wrote:
>
> > Neutrinos, not neutrinoes.
>
> '"Neutrinos", not "neutrinoes"', not 'Neutrinos, not neutrinoes'.
At least if you're going to nitpick and correct people, you could do it
correctly. Grammatically speaking, these two words should be
italicized/underlined, not put in quotes.
--
Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
&tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
"But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"
Subject: Re: HELP!!!!!!
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 5 Nov 1996 16:28:37 GMT
"Francis Hahn" wrote:
>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!!!
1) You have a lovely young thing strapped upon a living rock pedestal
and a huge swinging blade is going back and forth, back and forth
descending ever closer to her warm, quivering flesh.
Unfortunately, Affirmative Action decreed the thing be built under
government grant by a minority contractor, who did a crappy job of
alignment. Given the equations of motion of a Focault pendulum, will the
blade come around to an interesting configuration before its descent
makes it cut through her bonds instead of her?
2) Having seen the light, the lady offers to marry you. You wish to
transform a baseball-sized graphite sphere into a diamond for her
engagement ring. Design an explosive lens configuration which will
invert a diverging detonation wave into a convergent one, allowing a
symmetric tessellation of such lenses to implode the graphite sphere.
3) You push your physics instructor out of an airplane at 8000 feet.
In the absence of air resistance, a) how long until impact, b) what is
the impact velocity, c) calculate his temeprature increase if all the
kinetic energy is dissipated as heat.
If it weren't for physicists I as a chemist would need do all that stuff
myself.
--
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!
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: lbsys@aol.com (LBsys)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 11:40:16 -0500
Im Artikel <55ndgn$avp@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) schreibt:
>So far
>the only one to explain his anger so I could understand it
>was Dr. Sokal, who apparently blames Continental philosophy
>for the disorder of the Left, recalling, perhaps, a more
>coherent era under the aegis of "scientific" Marxism.
Well the disorder of the left certainly has more to do with reality not
caring about theory than anything else. BTW: Living east of the Rhine I
would object to calling the ravings of the french wildebeast anything like
'Continental Philosophy' (not that east of the Rhine there would exist
anything deserving that name either - and never you mention Sloterdijk to
me .... what, you didn't? But you might have intended to!)
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Hydrogen Bonds And Water Expanding When Frozen
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 5 Nov 1996 16:36:37 GMT
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.
You might have a look at "Science" 273(5272) 218 (1996). It isn't quite
the answer to your question but it is a nice on-ramp to the production of
Kurt Vonnegut's Ice-9.
The crystal lattice of water water ice near ambient conditions is
extremely open in part due to the directional requirements of hydrogen
bonding. Hydrogen bonds are only about 5 kilocal/mole, which some folks
incorrectly view as near negligible. Consider that at constant volume a
volume of water cooled to -9 C will exert a pressure of 14,700 psi.
I call that more insistent than negligible.
--
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!
Subject: Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
From: alweiner@presstar.com (Alan Weiner)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 17:24:33 GMT
:) I surmized as much. I'm a scientist myself (with degrees in
Mathematics, Biology, and Computer Science) I think what's going on is the
split (which seems to be rampant in this and other scientific newsgroups)
between scientific methodology and faith. Personally, I believe there are
better forums to debate (if you want to call it that :) science vs religion.
Evidently, there are group of people on here who have faith in the
"scientific" evidence this guy is presenting. The scientific facts are
irrelevant to their view -- after all, from their view, if it's not in the
bible, it's not a fact. I'd much rather spend my time on these groups
reading about real science.
In article ,
myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu says...
>
>In article <55ktc0$f9b@news2.cais.com>, alweiner@presstar.com (Alan
>Weiner) wrote:
>
>>I checked-out the page you suggested. Evidently, this guy found
>>million-year-old human skull bones. They were not fossilized, but were
>>still the original bone matter. In addition, he found soft tissues,
>>also not fossilized. Evidently, according to the article:
>>
>>"However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful
>>disdainful influence deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy to
>>prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th century to
>>be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning a monumental
>>truth about ourselves. I assure you I know what I'm talking about
>>because I discovered these petrified human remains and have had a
>>ringside seat to the scientific establishment's despicable antics of
>>suppressing an aresenal of physical evidence."
>>
>>So, it's obvious to all why everybody doesn't know about this great
>>find. A conspiracy by the scientific community to supress this find.
>>
>>Unfortunately for the conspiratorial paranoids (well, just cauz yer
>>paranoid doesn't mean people aren't really out to get you :) the
>>"scientific community" isn't a monolithic entity. Big science is big
>>business. If somebody came out with some real info that shattered a
>>major theory, it would get out there faster than the speed of light.
>>Unfortunately, that cuts both ways. Some folks think it's a great way
>>to become famous.
>>
>>I'll be happy to keep an open mind about this, but it does certainly
>>conflict with everyting I've learned about archaeology, anthropology,
>>etc. To the 'believers' out there who know it's real, based soley on
>>what the discoverer says:
>>
>>1) Is it possible to do any scientific experiments on these materials to
>>either confirm or deny his assertions?
>
>It's been done. Conrad has hoodwinked quite a few serious investigators
>into looking at his stuff (usually by pretending to be a naive but
>open-minded amateur who just wants to find out what these odd rocks are).
>Usually, they tell him that this stuff is crap, at which time he pretends
>they don't exist and he moves on to the next victim. In a few cases, he
>has found an Authority who either says something ambiguous, or jollies
>him along for a good laugh -- in which case he adds their little endorsement
>to his collection of quotes, which he will trot out at the slightest
>provocation.
>
>>
>>2) If so, what would they be?
>
>Simple inspection of the gross anatomy, and examination of thin slices for
>the histological structure of bone. The rocks are either featureless, or
>have odd bumps and hollows that do not correspond to any anatomical
>feature. Most of them are broken up--Ed has a large collection of "jaws",
>which are basically any rock with a roughly right-angled curve in them and
>broken edges where we ought to find tooth-bearing surfaces or articulations.
>
>Microscopically, they look like concretions -- see Andrew MacRae's web
>page for a more thorough description. There are tiny translucent spots
>in the rocks that are flecks of quartz; Conrad has seized on these as
>evidence of Haversian canals. However, they look nothing like bone, except
>in the imagination of an obsessed loon. Check out my web page
> for some examples of images
>Conrad himself set up when he visited my lab this summer. You'll see for
>yourself that his rocks look nothing like fresh human bone or fossilized
>dinosaur bone -- although you may afterwards find his attempts to
>rationalize his messy little rocks as looking kinda like bone absolutely
>hilarious.
>
>>
>
>>3) Do you really believe that there is a monolithic scientific
>>conspiracy that is actually the reason why your religious beliefs are
>>not confirmed by scientific evidence?
>>
>
>It's the only excuse he can come up with. He has no training in biology,
>paleontology, or geology, so he's completely lacking in the educational
>ammo to fight a battle of the intellect, so he has to resort to nebulous
>conspiracies and paranoia. He tried, for a while, to pass himself off as
>an expert in bone histology on talk.origins -- the man's ignorance was
>so blatant and appalling that that didn't last for long.
>
>--
>Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
>Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
>Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
>Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr (Ronald Kunne)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 96 17:57:36 MET
In article <327F681C.24247265@alcyone.com>
Erik Max Francis writes:
>Christopher R Volpe wrote:
>> Anthony Potts wrote:
>> > Neutrinos, not neutrinoes.
>>
>> '"Neutrinos", not "neutrinoes"', not 'Neutrinos, not neutrinoes'.
>
>At least if you're going to nitpick and correct people, you could do it
>correctly. Grammatically speaking, these two words should be
>italicized/underlined, not put in quotes.
Now that this thread has turned into a spelling and grammar correcting
shouting match, maybe we could change the subject?
And get back to physics.
Friendly greetings,
Ronald Kunne
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 17:24:34 GMT
weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Following up on myself... I realized this might still all be too
>complicated or worded in a language too alien. Here's a simpler
>version:
>
>The Einsteinian constant is not a center of the game because it is the
>field in which the game is played.
More opportunistic dishonesty. How does this address Derrida's claim
that "The Einsteinian constant ... is the very concept of variability"?
>I also thought the following quote (same exchange, in response to Lucien
>Goldman) would be interesting to at least some of you who lump Derrida in
>with an unreflected critique of science or sciencism:
>
>"I believe, however, that I was quite explcit about the fact that nothing
>of what I said had a destructive meaning. Here or there I have used to
>word _de'construction_, which has nothing to do with destruction. THat is
>to say, it is simply a question of (and this is a necessity of criticism
>in the classical sense of the word) being alert to the impliations, to
>the historical sedimentation of the language which we use-- and that is
>not destruction. I believe in the necessity of scientific work in the
>classical sense, I believe in the necessity of everything which is being
>done and even of what you are doing, but I don't see why I should
>renounce or why anyone should renounce the radicality of a critical work
>under the pretext that it risks the sterilization of science, humanity,
>progress, the origin of meaning, etc. I believe that the risk of
>sterility and of sterilization has always been the price of lucidity."
Derrida is lying. Since his term `déconstruction' is derived from
Heidegger's term `destruktion', the destructive implications are there,
brought out by the argument from etymology, favored by the Nazi and the
Nazi apologist alike.
Glad I could help.
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: Hectopascals: the CONSUMMATE pressure units?
From: Pirmin Kaufmann
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 10:03:19 -0700
Gene Nygaard wrote:
>
> Some meteorologists seem to think they have come up with the
> ideal unit to measure atmospheric pressure. Actually, it is a
> scheme to hang onto obsolete millibars by cloaking them in a
> pseudo-SI disguise.
>
> Check out my comments on this at this site:
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/hectopas.htm
>
Working as an European scientist in the US, I constantly come across
units such as inches, feet, miles, knots, Farenheit and other non-metric
units.
That is much more of a problem than converting a metric unit to another
metric unit by a factor of 10. I am happy with any metric unit, I don't
care what exponent of 10 is involved as long as the unit is properly
stated.
I browsed your web page, there are actually some statments which are
not correct. Hecto is used with other units, such as hectoliter (o.k.,
liter is not a proper SI unit). And "are" _is_ widely used as a measure
of area in some may be old fashioned European countries. I very much
agree that we should use SI units, but I really
don't care about any factor of 10^x. hPa or kPa, the prefix is just
another way to state the order of magnitude (like the scientific
notation 10.E2 or 1.0E3).
How about using your energy for fighting against non-metric units?
Pirmin Kaufmann
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: The Conscious Mind -- David Chalmers]
From: andersw+@pitt.edu (Anders N Weinstein)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 18:33:12 GMT
In article , Jim Balter wrote:
>In article <55m55m$a5o@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>Anders N Weinstein wrote:
>
>Aristotle's "cause" is better taken as "nature" or "essense". It is not so
>much backwards causation as essentialism that is objectionable.
For a good defense of a form of Aristotelian essentialism, see
David Wiggins' _Sameness and Substance_.
>>I take it the
>>physical stance knows nothing of norms and so nothing of functions, but
>>biology does.
>
>To say it again: the division is between the physical stance and the design
>stance, not between the physical stance and "biology"; the latter is a
>category error. Both biological and non-biological entities can be viewed
>from the physical stance; both biological and non-biological entities can be
>viewed from the design stance.
Not anything can be viewed from the design stance. Rocks for example,
can't. I also think that while Dennett is pretty good, he is far from the
last word. for example, I think there is an important difference between
artifacts, that have their design norms imposed on them by an intelligent
designer, and organisms, that have design norms naturally.
>>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.
>
>physics != the physical stance! Stop making this silly category error!
All right: physics is the science that attempts to understand a region
of reality through adoption of the physical stance. The physical world
(or physical reality) is the set of facts that are revealable through
the adoption of this stance. In like fashion, biology is the science
that understands a region of reality through adoption of what I might
want to call the biological stance. The biological world is the
set of facts revealable through this stance -- including facts about
proper function and forms of life.
In general, the way to explain what makes a distinctive region of
reality is to articulate the principles governing the explanatory stance
that reveals it.
>Design norms are ones *we* impose by taking a *stance*. The ability *in
This is suggested by Dennett's terminology, but I don't entirely
agree. It implies that nature is like an inkblot -- we can see it one
way or another, but these are all just our own subjective projections,
in itself it is formless.
But if you look closely, you see that for Dennett, it's stances all the
way down. That is, physical stance explanation is not more "objective"
than design stance explanation, just different. *Both* equally involve
adoption of stances, so both would equally be "projections".
You might better say: in adopting a certain explanatory stance you
hope to reveal certain objective facts about the world.
The second problem with what you say is that the design stance is
essentially a normalizing one -- it requires a notion of *mal* functioning,
for example. Are you saying that the design stance is also just our
heuristic projection or interpretation imposed on a norm-free physical
substratum? You can't underwrite any norms at all that way. So I guess
you must think all of cognitive science is just a heuristic projection
or interpretation.
In any case, I don't really care whether one says that teleology is a
matter of our projection or interpretation -- as long as one recognizes
that physical science is also an interpretation, and does not somehow
get at some noumenal reality "neat", without mediation of human
concepts and normative standards.
If you want to say that everything we know is an interpretation that's
fine with me. Although I think it's a little idle since the contrast
class that would give it substance is empty. I prefer to say that all
forms of understanding aim at objective truth about different aspects
of reality.
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 18:45:44 GMT
In article <55c58n$1nq@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>, dean@psy (Dean Povey) writes:
>In light of this, I find the claim that the Neutrino is well observed
>"through our measurements of missing energy and momentum in situations
>where we would expect the neutrino to carry it away" seem a little like
>a circular argument. [...]
I suppose you believe somewhere in your tiny little head that they got
neutrino counts at various detectors for SN1987A by measuring the total
energy of the original supernova explosion, the total energy that came
out in kinetic, electromagnetic, and gravitational radition, subtracting,
and then divided out by steradians and missing energy per alleged neutrino
produced in a lab simulated supernova explosion?
I mean, sheesh. How totally nescient can people make themselves?
--
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:45:29 GMT
In talk.origins moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
[snip]
>
>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.
I will believe this because you say it, but I have no memory of this
at all and it does not ring the slightest bell. But it is probably
true that we did discuss this. And I am willing to take credit for
almost anything, so I will take credit for this.
>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.)
>
It sounds good to me, so lets accept it.
> 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.
I think I see the difficulty here, and it is one of reference, not
meaning. The sentence "generalizing from one hamburger to ten
hamburgers" does/did not seem significant to me because the concept of
hamburger was already in the sentence. But you did not mean that, you
meant "generalizing from this think here on my plate that I am going
to eat right now to the ten hamburgers I am going to eat next week."
(Silly note for consistency's sake, not actual cows were killed to
support this analogy.)
Now, Moggin, I don't want the above to sound like I am in anyway
faulting you. It looks like you used some words in a perfectly
reasonable way, and I interpreted them in a different, but equally
reasonable way.
Now to the analogy. Of course you are right. Both are reasonable uses
of generalize. They take you in somewhat different directions, but
they both generalized. I think it is time for a little pitch. I am in
the middle of reading "Fluid Analogies" by Douglas Hofsteader. (ISBN
not available right now.) The whole book is devoted to the different
ways people can generalize, how they do it, and the significance of
the mental ability. A great book and full of insight into the thinking
process. To sum up the book in a short, pithy, and misleading
sentence, generalization is the core process to human thought.
>
> 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.
Undeniable true. But for the reasons implied, not those stated. (That
is to say, I liked the joke.)
Really both are valid generalizations. You can go from the think on
the plate to fast food, other sandwiches, things in your home town,
etc. Which generalizations are valid and which are not depends on
context and usefulness.
So to bring us back to the original idea (I think), Euclidean space is
flat. But flatness can be seen a specific case of curvature, a
curvature of zero. Reinmann showed how this generalization worked.
Einstein picked up on this and showed how it applied to physics. In
particular space is curved (positively overall, negatively "near" a
mass). And the space we normally deal with has very close to zero
curvature.
>
>-- moggin
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:45:33 GMT
In talk.origins +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
[snip]
>
>Well, I should review the problem out of which this
>discussion of _understand_ arose. Some people may wish to
>write about, discuss, speculate on, critique, place in a
>cultural context, situate, view the aesthetics of, etc.,
>Newtonian mechanics. I don't think anyone here denies that
>scientific theories are devoid of connection to areas of
>human life outside their domains, so in theory one could,
>say, discuss the possible political implications of Newton's
>work; Locke and Jefferson seem to have thought so.
>
>But it has been said that one cannot properly do this sort
>of thing without _understanding_ the subject. In the case
>of Newton's mechanics, it was said that I could not discuss
>it because I didn't know Calculus.
I have a strong feeling this was me, and it was not what I said. I
said you needed, at the least calculus to understand modern physics,
which begins with Newton. I never said you did not have the right to
talk about it. But the question was what did you need to understand
it.
>Unfortunately for this
>argument, I have studied Calculus, as I recently revealed.
I don't think that is unfortunate, I don't think it is even
meaningful. Knowing calculus does not mean you automatically get to
know physics, merely, IMHO, it is a prerequisite.
>(Although in a previous iteration of this thread someone
>tried to give me a Calculus test.) So the argument had to
>be moved; and while the moving was going on, I decided I
>wanted to know what _understand_ meant, because it seemed a
>little bit too rhetorically fluid for my interlocutors.
>That brings us up to the present.
BTW, I posted what was probably an arrogant view of "understanding"
elsewhere in this thread. I would appreciate some comments. It seems
reasonable to me, but I don't really know. And I think the subject is
worth exploring. What does it mean to understand something? Does it
mean something different to understand Kant, Newton, and Shakespear?
>
>So we can proceed from here: Did Locke and Jefferson know
>their Calculus, or must they be cast into the gutter for
>their unworthy presumptions? And durst Addison write his
>pretty hymn without partial differentials?
>
This is a different question. Locke too Newton's metaphysics and
philosophy, not his science. Many people want to give credence to the
metaphysics because the physics works so well, but that really is not
valid. Just because there are laws which hold the planets in place
does not mean that there should be laws to govern the King.
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:45:22 GMT
In talk.origins "Hardy Hulley" wrote:
[snip]
>(3) The Einsteinian constant cannot "ground cultural, political, aesthetic
>or philosophical structures". Was it ever intended to? What the fuck are
>you gabbling about?
>
There is a serious misconception on the part of some people in this
discussion. When discussion science, as science, then the rules of
science apply, the definitions of science apply, and only those rules
and definitions apply. But when discussion science as part of a larger
culture, then the rules and definitions of more than just science
apply. For example, and to bring this closer to being on topic in
talk.origins, it is wrong to discuss Social Darwinism in relation to
Evolution. The possible moral judgements have nothing to do with the
science. However, if I am discussion Social Darwinism, or modern
political philosophy, or some such topic, the Evolution and Social
Darwinism are appropriate material. And common or even uncommon, but
non-scientific, definitions and rules do apply.
So, to answer your question, if I am discussing GR and Einstein, as
science, then the "cultural, political, aesthetic or philosophical
structures" don't apply. But if I am discussing something else, then
Einstein, GR, and other cultural, political, aesthetic or
philosophical structures do apply.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: Eric Kniffin
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 12:28:07 -0800
jw wrote:
>
> In <01bbc62c$da817b00$7ec4abcf@default> "Kevin Thomas"
> writes:
> >
> >The "grandfather paradoxes" are actaully just erros of logic. There
> really
> >is no paradox when the logic errors are weeded out. As Kip Thorn
> pointed
> >out, if you are planning to go back in time tomorrow to kill you
> >grandfather 50 years ago, although you haven't experience the journey
> yet
> >yourself, as far as the universe is concerned, you have already
> completed
> >you actions in the past. So although you yourself do not know what is
> >going to happen when you get into the past, you may infer by the fact
> that
> >you are alive, as well as your grandfather, that for some reason on
> your
> >journey to the past you fail to kill him.
> >
> >The logic error is putting "cause" before "effect" in a journey to the
> >past. In this situation, "effect" comes before "cause". In other
> words,
> >you actions have already been carried out before your decision to
> perform
> >them. So in the so-called "grandfather paradox" you know that
> regardless
> >of your intentions to kill your grandfather, for whatever reason, you
> will
> >fail to do so in your journey to the past.
>
> This hardly resolves the paradox.
> For every thought experiment of changing retroactively
> anything at all that is already on record - an unexplained
> new factor, different in each case - "for whatever reason" - is
> introduced to prevent the paradoxical result.
> This is not good enough.
> It begs the question. We already know that the
> past can't be changed - because then the present
> would be different - the question is *why*?
Well, I don't know much of anything about the theory of relativity, or
anything else dealing with this stuff. I'm only going to comment on the
observable results of all of this.
As I see it, there are two possible answers:
1-Time travel is not possible. We don't have any evidence of any
time-travellers from our future. And I don't believe that it could ever be
kept in total secrecy. I imagine that there will always be bad guys who want
to come back and rule the world, and we'd know about them.
2-In answer to "We already know that the past can't be changed - because then
the present would be different - the question is *why*?", we DON'T know this
at all. There was a science-fiction book called "Thrice Upon A Time", where
a guy figured ot how to send information back a few minutes in time to
himself. Those who received that information acted on it, and changed
everything from the moment they received the information onward. They talked
about what they called the "Superobserver", who existed outside of
time/space/reality. The superobserver would see things happen. Then it
would see the information being sent back in time. Then it would see the new
reality forming from the moment that the informatin was received.
This could be what is happening all the time for us. We think that Hitler
was a monster. But maybe something worse happened, people went back in time
to change it, and Hitler was the result. Maybe the "previous" problem was
so much worse that they didn't bother to go back and do away with Hitler.
Maybe they've tried to change things a billion times, and Hitler was the
least evil of all the outcomes. (Maybe something bad MUST happen
occasionally)
Subject: Re: Hectopascals: the CONSUMMATE pressure units?
From: sandee@think.com.nospam (Daan Sandee)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 17:47:21 GMT
In article <327F7357.34A@etl.noaa.gov>, Pirmin Kaufmann writes:
|> I browsed your web page, there are actually some statments which are
|> not correct. Hecto is used with other units, such as hectoliter (o.k.,
|> liter is not a proper SI unit). And "are" _is_ widely used as a measure
|> of area in some may be old fashioned European countries. I very much
There is a bit of history that needs explaining here, to counter the usual
American comment of "Those stupid Europeans don't know how to use SI!".
Americans think that the metric system is something weird invented by
scientists that they learned about in physics class.
On the one hand, metric units have been used *by the general population*
in most of Europe for nearly 200 years, and different countries have used
them in different ways.
On the other hand, "metric system" is not equal to "SI". SI is
intended for *scientific* use. There is no reason, nor any pressure,
to eliminate the use of hectograms, hectoliters, or hectometers (or
deciliters and centiliters, common in cook books, or centimeters,
used everywhere but especially in sewing.) European scientists do
use proper SI units even if the population at large does not.
|> agree that we should use SI units, but I really
|> don't care about any factor of 10^x. hPa or kPa, the prefix is just
|> another way to state the order of magnitude (like the scientific
|> notation 10.E2 or 1.0E3).
The bar was a derived pre-SI unit to make normal atmospheric pressure
approximately equal to 1 (I am old enough to remember both millimeters
of mercury and centimeters of mercury). Meteorologists discovered that
it was easier to talk about millibars rather than bars.
Now that SI insists on the pascal, the practical meteorologists quickly
invented the non-SI hectopascal. I would say it's no big deal.
If you want to be an SI purist, consider that the degree Celsius is
not SI either. The only proper unit is the kelvin. I haven't seen
of any meteorologists talking in kelvin, though (except in computer
programs.)
|> How about using your energy for fighting against non-metric units?
Hear hear ! Down with the inch, and up with the millibar ! Not to
mention a temperature scale which puts 100 at the point when Gabi
Fahrenheit had the flu.
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA Use this email address: sandee@cmns.think.com
Subject: Re: What is the Cause MM's Null Result.
From: Christopher R Volpe
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 12:22:18 -0500
Ken Seto wrote:
> Since everybody seem to be disagreeing with Keith, then what is the
> cause of the MMX null results?
> Ken Seto
1) I conduct the following experiment: I take several blocks of
identical material and mass, but of different base areas, and measure
the frictional force exerted by the surface upon which they rest. I try
to detect a dependence of the frictional force on the area of the base.
I get a null result. What caused this null result?
2) I conduct a similar experiment in which I use blocks of different
masses but identical material on an inclined plane and I try to detect a
dependence, of the angle of the plane at which the block begins to
slide, on the mass of the block. I get a null result. What caused this
null result?
3) I drop two balls (heavy enough so that air resistance is negligable)
of different masses from the top of the Leaning Tower of Piza and
attempt to detect a dependence of the gravitational acceleration on the
mass of the dropped balls. I get a null result. What caused this null
result?
4) I set up motion detecters in my pumpkin patch to detect the presence
of the Great Pumpkin, who I know visits my pumpkin patch every
Halloween, and my motion detectors detect nothing. What caused this null
result?
5) I set up a laser, beam splitter, and mirrors on a rotating platform
and look for fringe shifts during rotation, and compare results at
different times of day and different times of year, in an attempt to
detect a dependence of physical phenomena on the inertial reference
frame of the lab (in other words, "absolute motion"), and I get a null
result. What caused this null result?
Answers:
1) There is no dependence of frictional force on base area.
2) There is no dependence of sliding angle on block mass.
3) There is no dependence of earth's gravitational acceleration on the
mass of the dropped body.
4) There is no great pumpkin.
5) There is no dependence of physical phenomena on inertial frame of the
lab. In other words, there is no absolute motion.
--
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
Subject: FOSSIL: human skull, old as coal, is C-14 biblical Flood
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 11:54:03 +0000
** BIBLICAL COAL THEORY **
The increase of radiation by 12 times after the water above our nitrogen atmosphere
dropped, has also increased C-14 by 12 times. Being toxic we age 12 times faster
and live 12 times less. This is revealed in C-14 data lists.
Human chronology is basically aligned against Egypt being viewed as the
most stable filled centuries of history in contrast to China, India, Europe, etc.
[1] First, the charts available...
(fellow men of faith, ask me if you want a scan of it; but critics stay away,
since you charge others cash to hear or see all your profound theories)
prove that Egypt C-14 dates correctly with Hebrew Genesis but because
Egyptologists favor the Turin Papyrus canon written in 1290 BC, they insist
the chronology is 720 years further back. This would force the soil of Egypt
to be 720 years before the biblical global Flood. However, as stated the
C-14 correctly supports the shorter history. Dendrochronology is used
to satisfy Egyptologists who demand that the Bible and C-14 are 720 years
in error.
[2] With this in mind, the difference of C-14 levels 12 times lower must be calculated.
Of which this produces a shift of 20,000 years. Interesting the C-14 dates of
all coal and tar and oil and petroleum and gasoline are not millions of years
but 20,000 years. (C-14 cannot date more than 70,000 years.) Thus biblically
anyone dying in the Flood would likewise falsely date as 20,000 years as
does the coal and organic life crushed and formed by the Earth's global flood.
This means that the first five dynasties of Egypt
(768 yrs Turin Papyrus canon = 338 yrs Hebrew Genesis)
must be dated according to this immence curve from 20,000 false yrs to
its actual position (2321 BC TPC = 2030 BC Hebrew Genesis).
It would still make this finding of a skull as something highly valued
by creationists as it is to evolutionists. The dating is merely to another scale.
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
Subject: Depleted Uranium in big jets. (was: Spent...)
From: Jim Rogers <"jfr"@fc[RemoveThis/NoJunkMail].hp.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 10:51:35 -0700
John R. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, BJ Nash wrote:
>
> > Lets not lose sight of the fact we are talking about SPENT uranium, no
> > more dangerous than lead....but with different danger properties...
>
> Right, neither is likely to give anyone a dose of "radiation poisoning"
> but eating either one would have a deleterious effect on your health!
Let's not lose sight of the fact that we aren't talking about "spent"
uranium at all, which is "spent" from fission reactions in power plants,
but DEPLETED uranium. Depleted uranium is what's left over from the
enrichment process; it's had nearly all of the fissionable isotope
removed for use as fuel, and is of very low radioactivity.
Jim
Subject: Re: Authors & titles: untrue writings (was: ... kind of fakery?)
From: mcguffin@ll.mit.edu (Bruce McGuffin)
Date: 05 Nov 1996 13:10:39 -0500
>
> -*------
> In article <55ejt0$auf@news-central.tiac.net>,
> Ken MacIver wrote:
> > Phony as in intentionally false, untrue.
>
> Like Swift's essay, "A Modest Proposal"? Or like ... Oh, here
> is an idea: given the the typical alt.postmodern poster's broad
> backgrounds in literature, why don't we start a list of famous
> and intentionally untrue writings? Who wants to go next?
Daniel Defoe got in trouble for writing a satirical pamphlet titled
"The shortest way with the dissenters", mocking high-church
intolerance of other religious views. The satire was a little too
subtle, and people took it for a serious proposal. Defoe, himself a
dissenter (i.e. Presbyterian), was jailed for seditious libel, and
forced out of business. In order to get released from prison he agreed
to become a propagandist and informer for the tory (high-church)
party.
Bruce McGuffin