Subject: Re: G via Einstein, not Newton
From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:39:43 GMT
lots@ix.netcom.com(Joel Mannion) wrote:
>W. S. Oakley, P.O. Box 10160 San Jose, CA 95157. Copyright Ó 1 Oct.
>1996,
[some preliminaries skipped]
>Overview: Planck’s relation for the energy of a photon is well known,
>E = hc/l, where h is Planck’s constant, (h* = h/2.pi), c is the free
>space velocity of light and l is it’s wavelength. If l = 2.pi.r where
>r is a distance, then E = h*c/r. Now force is related to energy by F
>= E/r = h*c/r^2, and the electric force is given by Fe = e^2/r^2 where
>e^2 = ah*c, (a being the fine structure constant ~1/137), giving Fe =
>ah*c/r^2. A force interaction 137 times stronger than the electric
>force is therefore given by Fs = E/r. By inserting terms this
>expression can be expanded to the form of an inverse square law acting
>between energies, Fs = (r/E)(E/r)^2, where r/E is a force constant. As
>E = mc^2, the force constant is r/mc^2. From mc^2 = h*c/r we have r =
>h*c/mc^2, which on substituting for r in the force constant gives the
>energy interaction force, Fs = [h*c/(mc^2)^2](E/r)^2.
At the start, E is clearly the energy of a photon. Later, E is
associated with a mass, m. Since photons are massless, m = 0, solving
for r as h*c/mc^2 is an undefined operation. This is dividing by zero.
OTOH, if m isn't zero in this last expression, it follows E = mc^2
isn't the energy of a photon. In this case the equating this to the
original expression, hc/l, for the energy of a photon isn't valid.
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 18:37:21 GMT
Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: 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"?
Read SSP and get back to me; I'm frankly quite tired of talking about a
text my interlocutors haven't read.
Silke
: >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.
Zeleny is lying, but he can't help it.
: Glad I could help.
We're ecstatic as well.
Silke
: 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: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:45:24 GMT
In talk.origins mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>]In talk.origins mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>]
>][snip]
>]>
>]> Please, specify, how pointing out the hypocrisy of complaint
>]> about "ethnical slur" from representative of the most nationalistic
>]> people in Europe constitutes "an ethnic attack".
>]>
>]My irony meter is in the shop, so I can't provide an exact reading on
>]your post. Let us say that condemning someone for being a member of a
>]group can often be considered an ethnic attack.
>
> And sky can often be considered blue, although it is not now, after
> the sunset. If you wish to make your argument, just go ahead.
>
So, in your view, condemning someone for membership in an ethnic
group, does not, in and of itself, constitute an ethnic attack? Then
we disagree about the meaning of the word racism.
>]>]>]If you accept the ethnic grouping, then say so. But
>]>]>]don't use ethnic reasoning to deny someone else the right to object to
>]>]>]the same.
>]>]>
>]>]> You reasoning has a gap.
>]>]
>]>]You assertion has no persuasive power. If you see a gap, you could
>]>]point out some details so I could correct it.
>]>
>]> I have done so above. Would you like me to repeat it, using
>]> shorter words ?
>]
>]You could do so. Or at least point out where you made your argument.
>
> You argued that finding someone's position self-contradictory and
> hypocritical amounts to taking one of the opposing sides invloved.
> That is not logical.
No, I argued that making a judgement about someone because of their
place of birth is an example of what in the U.S. we call racism.
>]>] And while you are at it,
>]>]please explain your justification for an ethnic slur against Silke.
>]>
>]> I am very sorry that reminding Weineck about some episodes
>]> of the history of her country is considered "ethnic slur".
>]> No, really.
>]>
>]No, you were implying that she had a moral connection to the people
>]who committed those acts.
>
> And so I was, which seem justified given her infatuation with
> odious figures like Heidegger and LeMan.
But you did not attack her views, or her support for other people. You
attacked her because of her place of birth and native culture.
>
>]>]>]It was not the German people who committed those atrocities. It was a
>]>]>]large number of horrible people who were German. To put the blame on
>]>]>]the German's is to give Hitler another victory.
>]>]>
>]>]> It is simple truth that great majority of Germans were willing and
>]>]> enthusiastic Hitler's executioners.
>]>]
>]>]Absolutely true. At what percentage are you allowed to consider it the
>]>]whole group and their defendants?
>]>
>]> If you want to make an argument, that Hitler's policy did not enjoy
>]> popular support among Germans, go ahead and do so. But please do
>]> crosspost it to alt.revisionsim, where such arguments belong.
>]
>]Wow! You have an amazing sense of logic. Are you, by any chance, a
>]creationist? I did not say that Hitler did not have popular support. I
>]am even willing, for the sake of this argument, to accept that 100% of
>]the non-Jew, non-Gypsy, non-Homosexual population of Germany supported
>]everything the Nazis did. That still does make the crime the
>]responsibility of the German people, it makes it the responsibility of
>]the people who did it.
>
> Well, it so happens that German people did it, headed by their
> democratically elected leader Adolf Hitler.
>
All of them? Each and every one? And all of the their children and
their children's children? By your logic there is nothing wrong with
killing Jews today because the Jews killed Christ.
>] And that does not make the descendants of those
>]people guilty in any way.
>]
>]>
>]>]>](BTW, as a minor point, Germany did not start WWI.)
>]>]>
>]>]> I beg your pardon ?
>]>]>
>]>]You have it. Just for fun, please tell me the date of the beginning of
>]>]WWI.
>]>
>]> You will find it in the encyclopaedia. Do you know what is it ?
>]> (I can explain it, too - just ask)
>]
>]Please do so. I would enjoy reading you explanation.
>
> It is a book with many a fact printed therein.
> Anything else you desire to be explained ?
Why do you think that being rude will help your position. Instead of
trying to appear stupid you could admit that you made an error of
fact.
Or you could do what you said and explain how Germany started WWI. I
would love to hear that.
>
>]>](BTW, technically speaking Germany did not start WWII either.)
>]>
>]> Ah, I see your point - technically speaking, it were those pesky
>]> Poles who did the job. They attacked German radio station, isn't
>]> how the story goes ?
>]
>]No, I was considering the Japanese responsible. Or do you only concern
>]yourself with the atrocities committed in Europe.
>--
No response, eh?
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:45:27 GMT
In talk.origins jti@coronado.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) wrote:
[snip]
>
>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.
I disagree with this entirely. The "scientists" have been arguing that
there is no know "true" answer and that there may never be one.
Instead we have a standard for making our judgements. If the theory
does a better job at explaining and predicting we will (provisionally)
accept it. They do not say that metaphysics is just hot air, but that
metaphysics does not get us anywhere, so we ignore it.
>
>[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.]
>
And, from a science point of view, neither one is "right". GR is
accepted because it does a better job and explaining and predicting.
If anyone is holding to a world view that there is a "truth" out there
is would be Moggin. And I don't think that is Moggin's view either.
>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.
However, I don't think anyone has made that confusion. But there
another problem with this paragraph. The difference between CM and GR
is not mystical, it is not some unexplainable, unknowable metaphysics.
It is well define, explicit, and clear. But if you can't follow the
math is looks like a big, unsupported philosophical jump.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 21:00:37 GMT
tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) wrote:
>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>:
>: Muttering about unintelligibility simply says that you aren't trying,
>: aren't willing try to get anything from the text. I am reminded of my
>: first day in boot camp. The hellmaster, excuse me, DI was marching we
>: raw recruits somewhere and was calling out cadence. This I knew from
>: nothing; I had no notion at all of marching in step; I didn't know
>: there was such a thing. The hellmaster halted us, walked over to me,
>: rapped me smartly on the head with his swagger stick, and screamed
>: "You Son of a Bitch, You aren't even TRYING". Boot camp being what it
>: was, I learned to try very quickly.
>But then, did you become a lifer? I wouldn't call THAT "trying".
Mrs. Harter's boy ain't too bright; he signed that first piece of
paper, but he ain't all that dumb; after three years he figured out
that he shouldn't sign the second piece.
>"I can't HEAR you!"
You aren't LISTENING! Folk lore had it that a platoon at Pendleton
was being read the riot act for an hour or so by the CO - at attention
of course, in the rain. As he got through and turned away, some wise
ass in the back hollered out "Give me liberty or give me death". The
CO whirled around and shouted "Who said that?". The same voice
answered "Patrick Henry, you damn fool". Nobody would own up and the
platoon was out there for another three hours. I was told that it was
the next platoon over but, in retrospect, it was probably just a good
story.
>How did you do on the MMPI?
MMPI? Is that the Minnesota Multi-phase whatchamaycallit that's
supposed to figure out whether you're a bed wetting pederast or
whatever? That wasn't part of the drill when I was in. I took the
fool thing later when I was doing the college bit. I got about half
way through, decided it was a piece of shit, and didn't bother do the
rest of it. I gather that this upset the pigeon holers; nobody ever
said anything directly to me but I expect they thought I had an
attitude problem.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: wilson@softdisk.com ("IronParrot" Jiim)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 20:56:48 GMT
caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu) did say:
>From zeldor@tau-ceti.net Sun Nov 3 15:44:37 EST 1996
>Article: 172407 of alt.conspiracy
>Path: news.udel.edu!udel-eecis!gatech!smash.gatech.edu!cc.gatech.edu!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.dra.com!usenet
>From: Zeldor
>Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 19:57:10 -0600
>Organization: The Sirius Sector, outpost 4
>>While reading this newsgroup, I could not contain myself from laughing.
>While I read this intentionaly misleading words, I could not contain
>myself from "laughing."
>Your argumentation need more information to explain, so I will reply it
>separetrely.
>My articles mentioned the mind control equipments include:
>1. surveilliance system: using the low radiation wave to surveilliance
>people.
>2.Invisible wave weapon: using the infrasound weapon, microwave weapon,
> electromagnetic pulse, electromagnetic generators, chronal gun (beam),
>etc.
>3. Mind machine: current US has the EMR and the infrasound mind machine.
>The most important thing is that how could they use the surveilliance
>system to conjunction with the invisible wave weapon and mind
>machine.
>I would clerify it below:
>The GWEN system include 58 huge (300-500 feet hight)towers which can emit
>the VLF (very low frequency) in our entire nation.
>The 300-500 feet high towers will gurantee to hover the Empire
>Building to the basement of people's house in order to surveilliance
>everyplace.
>The above VLF of GWEN system is also a different style of the
>electromagnetic wave.
>By using the "power beam system" patten to remote deliver the
>electromagnetic wave (as the electric in battery) to another device
>which can convert the electromganetic wave into the DC power.
>After the delivering and the converted process, the energy can be use
>as the energy power (DC) of the invisible wave weapon.
>The GWEN (Ground-Wave Emergency Network) system was built in 1980 (It is at
>the same year while the US Senate passed the Intelligence Oversight Act of
>1980)) and can emit the VLF or low radiation wave which could be used in the
>surveillance system (it could be used to emit the same type of radiation
>emit by those security devices used in airport --as the recent TV news
>report).
>This system not only emitted the VLF which can effect the behavior of human
>brain but also can carry LFS (low frequency sound wave or infrasound).
>
>So, the GWEN system has many different functions although the government
>states that it is mainly used as a communication system for time of war.
>(attachment)
>=======================================================
>The Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) was begun in the 1980's by the
>U.S. Government. The system was allegedly designed for the purpose of
>maintaining defense communications in case of a nuclear war. However,
>the entire network is highly vulnerable to destruction from an
>electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated by a high-altitude nuclear
>explosion, according to Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D., (co-author of THE
>BODY ELECTRIC and author of CROSSCURRENTS: THE PERILS OF ELECTROPOLLUTION).
>The GWEN towers transmit electromagnetic waves in the VLF range between
>150 and 175 Khz. Dr. Becker reported, "The VLF range was selected because
>its signals travel by means of ground waves--electromagnetic fields that
>hug the ground--rather than radiating into the atmosphere. The signals
>drop off with distance, and a single GWEN station transmits to a
>360-degree circle radiating out from it to a distance of about 250 to 300
>miles."
>Research revealed that there is a natural wave guide between the
>ionosphere and the earth which could be used to propagate very-
>low-frequency radiation and guide it to selected locations on the earth.
>Studies showed that low-frequency sound subtly affected the electrical
>behavior of the brain."
>"The alpha-wave frequency of the human brain is eight to twelve hertz
>(cycles per second). The ionospheric wave guide oscillates at eight
>hertz, making it a good harmonic carrier of low-frequency sound (LFS)
>waves(infrasound). These are such long waves that they are virtually
>impossible to detect. Pentagon reports apply LFS to DEMOBILIZING THE
>PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF A CIVILIAN POPULATION in time of war."
>=============================================================
>According to above report, you can find that this kind of system actually
>has many different functions.
>When the low radiation wave are emitted from the emitter tower and hover
>above the Earth, so these low radiation waves can also hover above the
>basement of your home.
>These low radiation waves will be presented constantly in residential area
>(from the air to the basement of your house) or public building.
>Therefore, the operators of local mind machine central station can
>"remote watch" anyone and invade people's privacy (at home or in office)
>on the operators' terminal screen.
>How?
>
>These kind of low radiation wave can be turned into DC power by
>technology similar to that described in the below patent. Therefore, the
>operators can use electromagnetic waves to activate electronic devices and
>network into building and people's homes. Using this method, it would be
>able to power invisible wave weapons to injure the target and power
>electronic parts to surveillant people wirelessly.
>(attachment)
>=========================================
>There is a patent of "power beaming system." (see page 116 on the
>"ANGELS DON'T PLAY THIS HAARP")
>Patent Number: 5,068,669
>According to this patent, the present invention relates in general to the
>transfer of energy by means of electromagnetic waves to power a remote
>device.
>This idea is to convert microwaves to DC power, which can be done very
>efficiently and cost effectively with the right kind of transmission
>system capable of focusing the power into a narrow beam.
>===========================================
>Using technologies similar to described in the above patent, the mind
>control operators would be able to remotely activate device installed in
>buildings or people's homes (some electronic parts in buildings should
>have been designed to incorporate new functions while still preserving
>their original functions). These device can be remotely control as emitter
>for invisible wave weapons (of electromagnetic waves).
>Therefore, the operators can use microwave (wireless) network the wire of
>any building and enter people's home (or building) to spy people's
>privacy & can remotely emit the invisible wave weapon to injure people.
>How to spy people's privacy at home (or in office)?
>When people live near the GWEN emitter station (each emitter station can
>cover area with 300 miles radius from 500 feet high in air), the low
>radiation wave would be continuosly present in public building (even
>the Empire Building) or people's home and everywhere within that 300 miles
>radius.
>Also some special electric parts should have been designed as new
>electric parts, so these parts keep the old parts' function but also can be
>used to react a small (distance) area (as any room) low radiation wave
>situation.
>Thus, the operators can remotely control the electromagnetic wave
>(wireless) to network the wires of people's home (or building) and
>connect the special electric parts to spy the resident people's privacy
>(in any room) with these low radiation wave which is emitting on living
>environment by GWEN system (the operators only need to watch the screen
>in the local mind machine central station and the watching ability will
>be better in airport).
>I believe that this is the correct explanation of "remote watching."
>I would remind you the cases which was reported in "Microwave Harassment &
>Mind Control Experimentation" by Jullianne McKinney to prove what I say is
>true.
>(attachment)
> ===========================================================
> One individual (driven to extremes of stress by ongoing electronic
>harassment focusing on her children) killed one child in an effort to
>protect her from further pain.
> Another individual, during a telephone conversation, was told by an
>employee of a local power company that , if she value the lives of her
>children, she would drop the her opposition to the company's installation
>of high power lines. Since receiving that threat, the individual
>11-year-old daughter has been reduced to extrement of illness which cannot
>be diagnosed. It's now also apparent to this individual that her
>three-year-old son is on the receiving end of externally induced
>auditory input. (DoE figures prominently in this case.)
>=================================================================
>I would like to emphasize some important point for those readers who think
>that the above examples are unusual cases and other people would not be
>subjected to similar harassment.
>The two families in this example are average law abiding citizens and
>living in their own home. Even under such kind circumstances, these
>members of these two families cannot avoid of being spied on. So, the
>children of these two families cannot avoid being attacked and harm by
>remotely controlled invisible wave weapons (even in the security of
>their own home or staying at hospitals).
>It proves the invisible wave weapon has been used in conjunction with
>the surveillance system. Also, both systems can track or attack any of
>the member of these two families with incredible accuracy. From these
>cases, we know that anyone of us can be also injured or examined in our
>own home or any public building (including cars -- I would emphasize it).
>The above information (two cases) also proves that no place is safe for
>anyone when you live under the surveillance & manipulation lives system of
>mind control (Include the invisible sound or radiation wave weapon &
>mind machine surveillance system).
>Some female victims had reported that they were attack in the urethra
>region at home. According to above information, I deduce that they are
>telling truth. These information prove that the state of art of
>technologies of mind control should have involved the corrupted
>governmental officers. That's how they have access to such incredible
>technologies (targeting). Also that's why the local law enforcement
>unit can be the basic unit of mind control. This also prove that mind
>(machine) control system is the national security system of US (and lots
>free countries).
>Also this technology can explain that why the "PSI-TECH" company can (using
>such kind of surveillance system--remote watching) assist FBI to find
>the accuracy location of the kidnapped Exxon executive.
>That's because they can (use this technology) freely invade any suspected
>building to search anyone who they need. The case of searching the
>location of kidnapped Exxon executive has proven that this surveillance
>technology can watch (or identify) people's face very clearly. Therefore,
>they won't make a mistake or find a wrong guy (they need the "PSI-TECH"
>company to help because some of the GWEN system in some states are built
>until 1990).
>And that why these security officers always proudly say that-- You might can
>run but never can hide.
>Even worse, you might not allow to run because they can use the
>electromagnetic pulses to disable your vehicles or even failure the
>engine of your cars.
>Therefore, the freedom and liberty of general public can be secretly taken
>away in any time.
>How could the invisible wave weapon can be used to injured people from any
>angle?
>I would further clarify it with my own opinion below.
>I have stated on above, this GWEN system can also generate the VLF, low
>radiation waves and carry infrasound.
>These low radiation wave or VLF has been irradiated on the residential area
>from the GWEN system. These invisible wave are continuously present in
>people's house or building from the air through the ground. These
>invisible wave are also electromagnetic wave. According to the "power
>beaming system" patent, a remote device can turn these electromagnetic
>radiation into DC currents to operate.
>Furthermore, I have stated that some old style electric parts of building
>(or home) should have been re-designed as new parts which will keep the
>old parts function but can also be used as the emitters.
>Therefore, the mind control operators can use the microwave (wirelessly)
>to network into people's home and use a remote device to turn into DC power.
>This DC power would be used to power the emitters (power to
>the new designed parts) to beam invisible wave and injure people from any
>angle (from the air to the ground).
>That's because not only the new designed electric parts has been
>installed in each different angle in building, but the electromagnetic
>wave (energy) is continuosly present in resident area (from the air to the
>people's basement).
>So the operators can use the remote device to turn the energy into
>DC power to emitters. Therefore, the operators can remotely emit many
>kinds of invisible (radiation or sound) wave weapon from the emitters to
>injure people (such as emit the infrasound from the button of the bed
>while people are sleeping or emit the chronal gun from the air to remote
>control the activation of people's organism [on head] while they are
>standing).
>How could the operators injure people in cars?
>It is the same idea. Few parts of the vehicle have been re-designed to
>keep the old parts' function but also can be used as the emitters.
>Where are these special parts?
>According to victims' report & my own experiences, I would describe it
>below with my best knowledge.
>There is the emitter of microwave emitter in the axis of steering wheel.
>This emitter can send the microwave voice to driver or beam lots
>microwave radiation to force the driver falling into asleep to cause the
>car accident (get rid of driver as car accident).
>Some emiters are designed with the signal lights of car, so it always
>carry the power which can be remotely controlled (such as the
>technology of power beam system pattern which can use the microwave to
>remotely send the power to any object) to turn on and beam the low
>radio frequency to injure people from back or front.
>Other emitters might be installed within doors and can be used (remote
>turn on) to attack victim from each side.
>
>Furthermore, some emitters have been hang on the light poles and can be
>remotely control to beam the chronal gun or other radio wave to injure
>driver's head to cause falling asleep (to cause car accident).
>That's because these light poles have been installed on the shoulder of
>street, road, high way.
>(attachment)---New World Order & ELF Psychotronic Tyranny
>==============================================
>Several U.S. high tech laboratories, with the help of Soviet scientist,
>are working on very low frequency (VLF) weapons. NEXUS reported that
>are working on "developing high power, VERY LOW FREQUENCY acoustic beam
>weapons. They are also looking into methods of projecting high frequency
>acoustic bullets."
>"Very Low Frequency (VLF) sound, or low-frequency radio-frequency
>modulation CAN CAUSE NAUSEA, VOMITING, AND ABDOMINAL PAINS. Some Very Low
>Frequency sound generators, in certain frequency ranges, CAN CAUSE
>DISRUPTION OF HUMAN ORGANS, and at high power levels
>CAN CRUMBLE MASONARY." Such a system could also be used to create
>artificial earthquakes.
>NEWSWEEK described how these psychotronics non-lethal weapons will be
>used: "The United States needs new options to control rogue governments
>and insurrectionaries without resorting to total war. New-wave military
>thinkers say that the list of exotic technologies that could be harnessed
>for non-lethal technologies is already large and growing. It includes
>lasers, MICROWAVES, SOUND WAVES, STROBE LIGHTS (already used for
>psychotronic entrainment during the Waco siege), ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES
>and Microbes (GERM WARFARE)."
>=========================================
>According to above information, this mind control surveillance system
>should be the National Security system of US and should be built in 1980.
>To avoid the security leak, they hire a lot of career operators as the
>professional assassin to get rid of those awared people with the
>invisible (sound or radiation) wave.
>The President of the United States of America is the highest office of
>the executive branch of America, this officer does not have the power to
>order execution. I would like to ask, who granted these corrupted
>officers and the career operators their unlawful power?!!
>Furthermore, these law abiding citizens are not riots or criminals but might
>aware of this mind control security system. They cannot simply accuse
>these law abiding citizens (who are aware of this system) as riots or
>traitor. These awared law abiding citizens have no responsibilities to
>spend their lives in order to protect these corrupted security officers'
>privileges.
> Furthermore, The traitors should oppose the constitution and commit
>crimes. Therefore, the mind control operators (who has committed crimes
>and oppose the constitution) can be judge as treason. How dare these
>career operators (who commit treason) kill the law abiding citizens with the
>invisible wave weapon. Even the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 was
>passed by the Senate. Our Congress members only allow authorities to
>investigate people's for the interests of the National Security. Our
>Congress member will not authorize these security officers (or other
>agents) to kill the awared law abiding citizens ( to avoid the security
>leak) or kill those people whom the operators dislike.
> Therefore, the Constitution and law did not grant them these powers. They
>took it upon themselves and used it to control the majority of the people.
> If we, the people, don't do something soon, like vote all the
> ones that think they're above the law out of office, this country is
>going to be in deep trouble. It already is and there is more crime than
>there has ever been.
>Dear Citizens,
>
> We have paid our taxes to the government, paid our loyalty to our
>country, and have lost our privacy in the mind (machine) control security
>system.
>We certainly cannot further pay our lives to these mind control operators.
>On the other hand, these corrupted security officers have opposed the
>Constitution, the operators have committed crimes (for manipulating
>people's lives). The awared law abiding citizens have no necessary to
>be sacrificed for these operators' crimes (or for these corrupted
>officers' privileges). It is evil and oppose the Justices if we allow
>these operators to kill the awared law abiding citizens to protect the
>secrets and privileges of the career operators (real criminals).
> We, people don't allow anyone to manipulate our lives with the invisible
>wave weapon anymore.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Alan Yu
>
> The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate
> people's health condition and lives in order to eliminate their
> opponents or enemies secretly (die as natural cause). This objective
> has been secretly carried out since the late of 1970s in Taiwan ( At that
> time they simply use the microwave beam or low radio frequency modulation).
> The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of
> Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free
> countries.
> Accusing other as insane is the "trademark" of mind control organization.
> Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Now wait. Don't waste your time accusing me of being part of a mind
control organization. I AM a member of the United States branch of
the Mind Control Org. And, yes, I think you're insane. No need to
zap you with our Mega-Deth Soopa-Doopa Mind Microwave (tm). You were
already nuts to begin with. Now go away before we REALLY melt your
brain. I'll count to three....
"Iron Parrot" JIIM
"fear the vOIDbEEST"
wilson@softdisk.com
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: thomasl283@aol.com (ThomasL283)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 16:03:38 -0500
> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)wrote:
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
Date: 4 Nov 1996 18:48:04 -0500
Anthony Potts writes:
}
} ...The neutrino is very well observed, both directly as mentioned above,
and
} indirectly, through our measurements of missing energy and momentum in
} situations where we woul dexpect the neutrino to carry it away.
>>dean@psy.uq.oz.au (Dean Povey) writes:
>
>>This is an interesting statement. Let's think for a moment about how
the
>>neutrino was "discovered".
>>
>>Ellis & Wooster measured the energy produced from RaE decay and measured
the
>>energy produced using a calorimeter. They discovered that the amount of
>>energy produced in the decay did not match what was predicted by the
>>standard theory. Other experimenters were able to confirm this result.
>>
>>In 1930, Pauli (never considering that SR might be incorrect) postulated
that
>>the energy which was not accounted for must be carried away by an
undetectable
>>particle (later named the neutrino by Fermi).
>This would be a complete story if Dean were writing in 1935, but quite
>a bit has happened since. For example, in 1956 the neutrino was seen
>directly in the experiments of Reines and Cowan, an early version of
>the sorts of things that are now done routinely.
Reines and Cowan conducted their experiment on the surface of the earth,
very contaminated by cosmics that mimicked the signature of their theory
of *inverse beta decay*. They were reminded of this and then turned off
the reactor for 24 hours. Out of hundreds of similar background events,
seen in the 24 off hours, and they claimed fewer *events* than seen with
the reactor on for 24 hours. Not very convincing *direct detection*. No
Nobel prize there!
I do believe in two kinds of neutrino, and have been working with a model
for the electron and muon types of neutrino structures. The electron
type neutrino structure models can be shown to form good proton and
neutron models (as shown on my web page).
These proposed VPP proton and neutron structures are the only models ever
able to give the mass and difference in mass between the proton and
neutron and actually show that the electron and neutrino are the neutron's
decay products.
The VPP visual neutrino models clearly disagree with the AD premise of no
neutrinos, but VPP does agree with AD that the neutrino cannot be
detected with present methods.
(Snip)
--
> James A. Carr | Raw data, like raw sewage,
needs
> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac | some processing before it can
be
>Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | spread around. The opposite
is
>Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | true of theories. -- JAC
Regards, Tom:( http://www.best.com/~lockyer )
Subject: Re: Hectopascals: the CONSUMMATE pressure units?
From: steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 20:26:43 GMT
Hi,
In article <55nuj9$pu@bone.think.com>,
sandee@think.com.nospam (Daan Sandee) writes:
> Now that SI insists on the pascal, the practical meteorologists quickly
> invented the non-SI hectopascal. I would say it's no big deal.
I agree that it's no big deal. You should know, however, that the
`hectopascal' *is* an SI unit -- comprising, as it does, the SI prefix
`hecto' and the derived SI unit `pascal'.
Confusion arises, I think, because of the use of the term `SI unit'. In
actuality, there are *3* kinds of `SI unit': `base', `supplementary',
and `derived'. Base SI units consist of things like `meter' and
`second'. The supplementary SI units are `radian' and `steradian'.
Derived SI units are things like `pascal' and `webber', which can be
expressed in terms of base SI units.
`Hectopascal' is, thus, a prefixed, derived SI unit.
I had to go through all this when I wrote the UDUNITS units-converstion
package (don't get me started on calendars ;-).
Ciao.
--
Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu ...!ncar!unidata!steve
Subject: Re: Hectopascals: the CONSUMMATE pressure units?
From: 71754.3505@compuserve.com (Gene Nygaard)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 20:48:40 GMT
Pirmin Kaufmann wrote:
>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).
Hectolitres are used almost exclusively for "barrels" of beer for
production statistics. This use was well-established before SI was
introduced, and that is not the case with hectopascals, since pascals
as a name for newtons per square metre didn't come into play until the
1970s.
Hectares or dekares are used. But I have never seen "ares" used
standing alone--have you? That was what my point was about there; if
you don't know what an "are" is, it does you little good to know that
a hectare is 1/100 of that area.
>How about using your energy for fighting against non-metric units?
We should have an advantage here in the United States, in that we
don't have as much excess baggage going in, in the form of obsolete
metric units. Let's do it right.
>Pirmin Kaufmann
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: stewart@Dahlquist.Stanford.EDU (Michael Stewart)
Date: 05 Nov 1996 14:01:08 -0800
In article moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
Michael:
> If I failed to suggest it explicitly, then I wasn't being sufficiently
> clear. However, my reasons for doing so had more to do with how I
> feel that the words "right" and "wrong" should be used in application
> to science than with a belief that Newtonian mechanics might be
> exactly right over some region of velocities.
Maybe it would be better to separate the two issues, then, since
at the moment, Newton is a heated topic. Anyway, I don't follow the
distinction that you're drawing here. You were suggesting it, but you
don't believe it, or you do believe it, but for other reasons?
I don't believe that any theory that we currently have is likely to be
exactly right. But I wouldn't go around claiming that a theory that
matches experiment to within experimental errors over a non-trivial
set of circumstances is wrong. I don't know with any certainty that
any such theory is wrong.
Michael:
>I still stand by this statement. I think that in a context, like
>physics, in which experiment is the ultimate adjudicator, that any use
>of "right" and "wrong" which doesn't take into account the fact that
>physical theories may be experimentally indistinguishable over a
>non-trivial set of circumstances isn't particularly meaningful.
We're going over the same ground. Since Newton and Einstein
are distinguishable, if you want to keep both, on the basis that
there are some regions where they give similar results, you've got
to accept the consequence I outlined in my reply to your earlier
post -- that is, a universe which switches back and forth between
two different models. Again, I'm not saying that's impossible --
simply noting what follows from your position.
Well, I'm not a physicist, but my impression is that in many respects
physics is something of a patchwork. Certainly general relativity
hasn't been integrated with quantum mechanics. They each have clear
ranges of practical applicability in which the other may be ignored
and, presumably, there is some gray area in which we are not sure what
is going on. I don't think you can rule out the possibility of some
sort of non-smooth transition in a model which purports to apply
everywhere. The only propositions which are clearly wrong are those
which disagree with experimental results.
Although, I must admit it is somewhat implausible, or from aesthetic
grounds, I hope it is at least very unlikely.
--
Michael Stewart http://www-sccm.stanford.edu/~stewart
"Good people drink good beer." stewart@sccm.stanford.edu
--Hunter S. Thompson
Subject: Re: Hectopascals: the CONSUMMATE pressure units?
From: 71754.3505@compuserve.com (Gene Nygaard)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 20:48:45 GMT
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:37:41 -0500 Robert P Dale
wrote:
[His message wasn't posted as a reply to this, and my mail program
can't extract his message from Wx-Talk digest for a reply]
>Some?! I don't know who told you that millibars are obsolete, but I've
>never heard a meteorologist say that a "97.3 kilopascal low is moving in",
>or "looking at the 50 kilopascal chart we see..."
Then why do millibars NEED an alias? Why does the American
Meteorological Society say this?
The pascal (or the appropriate decimal multiple, ordinarily
the kilopascal) is the preferred unit for AMS journals....
Although some authors and readers might prefer the
hectopascal (hPa) because it is equal in size to the more
familiar millibar (i.e., 1 mb = 1 hPa), the AMS prefers the
kilopascal (kPa) as the unit of atmospheric pressure.
Just so that in the future you cannot say you've "never" heard things
like this, check out Barrie Maxwell, "Recent Climate Patterns in
the Arctic" at http://www.on.doe.ca/card/paper1.jbm which is full of
statements such as:
This feature appears on the 50-kPa maps as a pronounced area
of low heights extending over the North Pole with three
distinct troughs, particularly in winter.
These results are generally in accord with those of Kahl et al.
(1993b) who found there to have been a warming trend in the 85
to 70 kPa layer (1500 to 3000m) of the troposphere for the
same geographical area of the Arctic.
Then for your visual pleasure check out the "50-kPa upper
analysis/movies" at http://www.on.doe.ca/climate/climatet.cgi
Or go to http://satellite.usask.ca/mcidas/ where one of the charts
available is described as "Height contours for the 50 kPa pressure
level."
There is also a BIG difference between millibars and hectopascals.
Millibars are a once-acceptable unit that are no longer in favor.
Hectopascals never were appropriate.
I spell that out in much more detail at my page at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Here is my morning weather for the closest reporting station to
Crosby, ND, USA from http://www.on.doe.ca/forecasts/
Estevan, Saskatchewan
Current Conditions
Ice Fog
Temperature: -4.2 °C
Barometer: 101.60 kPa
Wind Speed: SSE 7.6 km/h
Dew Point: -4.6 °C
Relative Humidity: 97%
Latest Observation: 04:00 CST
5 November 1996
Or to get a listing of several cities at a time from another office
of Environment Canada, check out "Les conditions actuelles pour
T.N.O." at http://www.mb.doe.ca/FRENCH/WEATHER/nwt.html or
"Saskatchewan Current Weather Conditions" at
http://www.mb.doe.ca/ENGLISH/WEATHER/sask.html
>From my vantage point, there are many more pressing items of interest in
>the meteorological world than a push for switching over to another standard
>of measuring pressure.
Pascals, with the appropriate powers-of-1000 prefixes, are THE modern
standard for all pressure measurements in all disciplines. No real
scientist uses hectopascals, and hardly anyone outside the field of
meteorology has the foggiest idea what they are. Not only that, but
even meteorologists couldn't tell you what the prefix "hecto-" means,
because it is so little used.
The "switch" away from millibars is already in the works. The problem
is that too often it is a switch to the wrong "new" standard. It
really irks me when I see something like 993.2 mb/hPa, which looks
like
it should be a dimensionless number. If you have to learn something
new,
you might as well do it right.
Gene Nygaard
Subject: Re: Hectopascals: the CONSUMMATE pressure units?
From: 71754.3505@compuserve.com (Gene Nygaard)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 20:48:59 GMT
Pirmin Kaufmann wrote:
>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.
More of a problem, yes. But the use of nonstandard prefixes and old
cgs units and so on makes the metric system much more complicated
than it needs to be, and hinders its acceptance in the U.S.
>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).
From my page: "It is commonly stated that these should not be used
except for areas or volumes or for nontechnical use of the centimetre
as in clothing sizes."
Hectolitres are used almost exclusively for "barrels" of beer (and
perhaps occasionally milk) in production statistics. This use was
well established before SI was introduced, which is clearly not the
case with hectopascals. Pascals as a name for newtons per square
metre weren't even a part of SI until the 1970s.
Hectares and dekares are used. But I have never seen "ares" used
standing alone--have you? That was my whole point; if you don't
have a good idea what an "are" is, it doesn't do you much good to
know that a hectare is 1/100 of an are. Because this modification of
the prefix is the only common use of "hecto-" most people don't have
any idea what hecto- means.
>How about using your energy for fighting against non-metric units?
Check out my companion page (linked to the hectopascal page) about
the U.S., and especially the Canadian, mutations of the METAR
aviation weather formats. These deviate from the international
standard in almost every unit of measure: statute miles instead
of meters for visibility, feet instead of metres for cloud layer
heights, knots instead of metres per second for wind speeds,
feet instead of metres for runway visual range, inches of mercury
instead to those screwy millibars disguised as hectopascals
for altimeter settings--and the U.S. temperatures and dew points are
actually whole degrees Fahrenheit in most cases, not the tenths of
degrees Celsius which they misleadingly appear to be and which
the regulation (FMH-1) says they shall be.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/usmetar.htm
We in the U.S. should have an advantage in that we have less
excess baggage, in the form of established use of obsolete metric
units, than most other countries. We ought to be able to get it
right the first time.
Gene Nygaard
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 19:39:54 GMT
weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>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"?
>Read SSP and get back to me; I'm frankly quite tired of talking about a
>text my interlocutors haven't read.
You fancy I am doing this for your benefit? A deconstructionist acolyte
has no right to complain about dismissing context. My job was to prove
the stupidity of Derrida's comment cited by Sokal. Mission accomplished.
>>>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.
>Zeleny is lying, but he can't help it.
You are out of it. See Rodolphe Gasché, _The Tain of the Mirror:
Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection_, Chapter 7, pp 109-121.
>>Glad I could help.
>We're ecstatic as well.
Still speaking for your intestinal fauna?
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)