Newsgroup sci.physics 206740

Directory

What "big jets" are we talking about?

>I've never read the book, but I seem to recall that the soybeans and
lentils in the 
>movie were Soylent Red, the staple of the masses.  
>Ian
Um - fellas, there're both red and green lentils - also yellow lentils.
Bill

Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
]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:
]>]
]>]>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.
]>
]> I am not expressing any particular view, I am waiting for your
]> argument.
]
]Are you or are you not supporting your original slur? If so, you are
]presenting a view. 
 Still no argument emerges. I am being patient, though.
]> 
]>]>]>]>]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.
]>
]> That is nonsense. Place of birth is not the same as race, and pointing
]> out cultural differences is not racism by any stretch of word.
]>
]You have attempted to connect someone to the Nazis and the crimes of
]the Nazis, not because of a view they hold, or an act they committed,
]but because they share a language, a birthplace, and some cultural
]aspects. This is racism in my view.
 Then your usage differs from the standard. If you don't have
 access to the dictionary of English, I can post the relevant
 part for you.
]However, in your view, discriminating against someone because of where
]they were born is acceptable.
 I welcome you to show how it is possible to discriminate against
 someone one hosds no power over. I am not optimistic, though;
 you are not very good at making intelligible points.
]>]>]>] 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.
]>
]> Given that her native culture produced the biggest mound of corpses, I 
]> am most unapologetic about doing so.
]
]No, again I must disagree. Her culture did not produce the corpses.
 I bet Martians did that. Are you sure you don't want to add
 alt.revisionism to the "Newsgroups:" line ?
]Why are you so willing to deny the individual responsibility and so
]quick to accept the views of your supposed opponents. 
 Whether I accept or not the views of my "supposed opponents" is quite
 beside the point here. You are trying to invalidate my argument
 pointing the self-contradiction by alleging that I support
 one of the contradicting sides.
]The Nazis and
]their ideology killed the people and many Germans and others supported
]this crime.
 It so happens that not just many, but majority of Germans suported them. It
 also happens that nazism is not alien to German culture, both
 before and after 3rd reich.
]>]>]>]>]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? 
]>
]> You are being disingenious.
]>
]Not really. You want to attach the guilt to the group and I am
]claiming it does not belong to the group. In order to support your
]position you have to show that all members of the group share the
]condition.
  No, that is not true. It is suffice to note that actions of Germans
 are enxtricably linked to what identifies them as a group. 
]>]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.
]>
]> Please show where I claimed that killing based on group membership is not
]> wrong. Failing that, please apologize.
]
]Sorry, I will not apologized to a racist if I happen to misconstrue
]his racism.
 In other words, you are content with slandering people as long as
 you consider their views wrong. I note dryly that your morals
 are not very consistent.
] I find the kind of opinions that you are defending
]reprehensible and responsible for much of the worlds evil.
 Even if your evaluation of my opinions is correct, that does not 
 absolves you from moral responsibility not to slander them.
] Originally
]I assumed you spoke rashly and sloppily. I have found that you
]understand what you have said and defend it strongly.
 Regrettably, I have yet to notice that you understand what I am saying.
]>]>] 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.
]>
]> I didn't. Glad I could help.
]>
]>]Or you could do what you said and explain how Germany started WWI. I
]>]would love to hear that.
]>
]> I again direct your attention towards nearest library.
]
]Did the Austo-Hungarian Empire have anything to do with the war?
 Austro-Hungarian empire had neither strenght nor determination
 necessary for that. It was but an impotent satellite of Germany.
]>]>]>](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?
]>
]> Not every nonsense desrves a responce.
]>
]But this was not nonsense. WWII started in 1937 with the Japanese
]invasion of China. Your eurocentric views not withstanding.
 I again direct you towards your library and encourage to
 check WWII entry in encylopaedia.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Derrida:
>>>>>>>"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."
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>>>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.
Silke:
>>>>>>Zeleny is lying, but he can't help it.
Zeleny:
>>>>>You are out of it.  See Rodolphe Gasché, _The Tain of the Mirror:
>>>>>Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection_, Chapter 7, pp 109-121.
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>>>>     I don't have the book handy, but the last time I heard Gasche, 
>>>>he was arguing that the implications of Heidegger's _Destruktion_ 
>>>>differ significantly from the English "destruction."   David Farrell
>>>>Krell takes the same tack, noting that _Zerstorung_ would have been
>>>>closer.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move.
moggin:
>>     Neither do I dance like an Egyptian.
     Correction -- that should, of course, have been "walk."
Zeleny:
> Your personal habits are quite beside the point here.
     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Zeleny:
>>>Check his Greek etymologies against Liddell & Scott -- always good for
>>>a giggle.
moggin:
>>     I thought we were discussing the relation of _destruktion_ and
>>deconstruction: you claimed Derrida is lying when he distinguishes
>>them, and stated that "deconstruction" possesses the "destructive 
>>implications" of Heidegger's "_destruktion_."  
Zeleny:
> As I said, implications are beside the point. 
     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
> My etymological
> argument satisfies Heidegger's (and a fortiori, Derrida's)
> demonstrative criteria with room to spare.
     You've offered only an argument-from-authority.  (The one that
we're presently discussing.)
moggin:
> >                                              All this on authority
> >of Gasche, in a passage you didn't quote; but as I said, I've heard
> >Gasche contend that "_destruktion_" doesn't imply "destruction" (an 
> >argument also forwarded by Krell, on the basis I mentioned).
Zeleny:
> How phallogocentric of you to judge a text on the basis of an oral
> presentation! 
     ??  Where have I judged a text?  You based your case on Gasche's
_The Tain of the Mirror_, but didn't bother to quote whatever you were
thinking of.  I replied that while I didn't have the book handy, I'd 
heard Gasche argue very differently in the past.
 "We understand this task as one in which by taking _the
> question of Being as our clue_, we are to _destroy_ [_Destruktion_]
> the traditional content of ancient ontology ..." (Heidegger cited by
> Gasché on p 112).  Read the book, or I will sic Silke on you.
     "...until we arrive at those primordial experiences in which we
achieved our first ways of determining the nature of Being -- ways
which have guided us ever since."  Yep, that's Heidegger, alright --
and so?  You haven't established anything about Gasche's reading of
"_destruktion_."  But two sentences later, Heidegger says explicitly
that _destruktion_ does not have "the _negative_ sense of shaking
off the ontological tradition."  (His emphasis.)  Which is just what 
Gasche emphasized, as I recall.
Zeleny:
>>>What better way to judge a writer than by applying his master's lofty
>>>intellectual standards?
moggin:
>>     I can't see Heidegger as Derrida's "master" -- but more to the
>>point, Heidegger doesn't rely on Gasche to authorize his etymologies.
Zeleny:
> Tell your problems to an optician.  All I want from Gasché is his
> corroboration of the historical link between Derrida's term and its
> Heideggerian ancestor, which is well-known anyway.  
     Well, no -- you invoked Gasche to support your your assertion
that "deconstruction" contains "destructive implications" which it
supposedly derives from "_destruktion_."  (You also accused Derrida
of lying for saying differently.)  That leaves you with an argument
from authority which your chosen authority doesn't seem to support.
-- moggin

Dan Pressnell  writes:
>"Frederic Thompson"  wrote:
>> I don't believe I'm writing this but, I walked into a Mac Donald's one day
>> and saw this guy who looked exactly like me.   He was a little shorter,
>> maybe stockier ('cause he appeared shorter) but it scared the hell out of
>> me.
>Given that there are billions of people in the world, I don't find
>anything remarkable about some people resembling others.
I don't know.... It was bizarre that this woman at one of the colleges
I attended mistook me for her own son, who had the same name... same
nick name... Then when I went off to art school for a brief stint, it
turned out he had just graduated from there.... in the same field (film)...
At the end of my only year there one of the students confessed to his
admiration of my style in both film and sound and praised my consistancy
"over the years"! Crazy I tell you...
-purge
--
(I am able to apprehend it only in a series of snapshots, still lifes, 
and fast takes of conversation, as it were, and when with heightened 
concentration I try to move in closer, everything seems to move away 
from me; perhaps I am somewhat overinvolved with this) (- B.Malzberg)

In article <3280d36b.0@news.softronics.com>,
Vishnu Verheer  wrote:
[...]
>Well, remember, this also works the other way around.  The Earth cannot
>be a sphere!  The people at the bottom would all fall off!  There
>were many scientists who regarded the "sphere" theory as mental
>masturbation as well.
Utter rot. It has been known since at least the time of the Ancient
Greeks that the world was a sphere. It was the ignorant who thought
otherwise.
>  With much more education, we learned to discount
>this thoery and open our minds.  Are our minds closed again?
>Can electrons be made up of elements we haven't "named" or "classified"
>just because we haven't been able to detect them?  Surely you can't
>believe that we've found the bottom huh?  That's pretty arrogant,
>but human nonetheless.
Whatever an electron may be, it is most certainly not an analog to a
celestial body of any sort. This sort of thinking is derived form the
elementary school notion that electrons orbit the nucleus in the same
manner as the planets orbit the sun; it just ain't so.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

Steve Work (slwork@netcom.com) wrote:
: Does anyone have a cap which _doesn't_ store energy?  I'll pay $350 each 
: for the first 10 examples you send in.
What's your address? I can Fed-Ex you a whole bunch from my garbage can...
Stephen

> Ed Conrad  writes:
>>
>>And, unfortunately, science's disregard for facts is nothing new.
>>Col. James Churchwood squarely hit the nail on the head with
>>a few choice words in one of his books:
>>
>>>>>              ``Our scientists today do not want facts.
>>>>>                They hate them because it upsets all
>>>>>                the fairy tales they have been building up
>>>>>                for many, many years."
this is why
the planes don't fly
the cars don't move
the digital watches are all a hoax
my eyeglasses don't *really* work
i'm not *really* sending this message through the internet
durn scientists
always gettin' in the way
with their consarned
*fairy tales*
jamming up the works
--it's 'cause they ignore the facts i tell ya!--
with their so-called "inventions"
like that "polio vaccine", ha!
i know all about it
oh sure, "polio", yeah, right
and their "theories"
i know
i know about them and their "theories"
like this "electricity" nonsense!
rubbish!
this computer i'm sitting in front of
doesn't really *work*!
and hey, get *this* one: "gravity"!!!
can you believe it?!!
...durn scientists
always gettin' in the way
i know
i know all about it...
--rdh

cc:
   (AP>Please email responses to:    alan@hpmalr90.mal.hp.com)
AP>From: aphang@mal.hp.com (Alan Phang)
AP>A tiny silver-plated conical cup in which sits a light-emitting semiconducti
AP>die is to be filled with a liquid chemical (which will blend well with epoxy
AP>such that no air voids or bubbles are present in the cup.
AP>As 300 of such cups need to be simultaneously filled, the most convenient wa
AP>(or so it seems) is to VERTICALLY immerse the cups into a solution bath as
AP>shown below.
AP>The trouble is that such an action will inevitably trap air bubbles in the
AP>cups unless:
AP>(a) a liquid solution with a good wetting capability is used; or
AP>(b) the liquid solution is agitated w.r.t. the cups in a suitable way.
AP>Even after having experimented extensively with (a) and (b), I have not
AP>found anything remotely reliable.
Usually all is immersed in 10E-3 torrs to remove bubbles in epoxy.  This
is done in high voltage transformer potting, too.
                                           - Robert -
                                    robert.macy@engineers.com
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Does your cat come when called...or is it a real cat?

Derrida:
>>>>>>>>>"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
>>>>>>>>>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."
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>>>>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.
Silke:
>>>>>>>Zeleny is lying, but he can't help it.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>You are out of it.  See Rodolphe Gasché, _The Tain of the Mirror:
>>>>>>Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection_, Chapter 7, pp 109-121.
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>>>>>     I don't have the book handy, but the last time I heard Gasche, 
>>>>>he was arguing that the implications of Heidegger's _Destruktion_ 
>>>>>differ significantly from the English "destruction."   David Farrell
>>>>>Krell takes the same tack, noting that _Zerstorung_ would have been
>>>>>closer.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move.
moggin:
>>>     Neither do I dance like an Egyptian.
moggin:
>     Correction -- that should, of course, have been "walk."
Zeleny:
>>Your personal habits are quite beside the point here.
moggin:
>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
I did no such thing.
Zeleny:
>>>>Check his Greek etymologies against Liddell & Scott -- always good for
>>>>a giggle.
moggin:
>>>     I thought we were discussing the relation of _destruktion_ and
>>>deconstruction: you claimed Derrida is lying when he distinguishes
>>>them, and stated that "deconstruction" possesses the "destructive 
>>>implications" of Heidegger's "_destruktion_."  
Zeleny:
>>As I said, implications are beside the point. 
moggin:
>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
I brought up history, not logic.  Refer to Derrida's apposition of
"the historical sedimentation of the language which we use" for HIS
sense of `implications', which involves him in Heidegger's crypto-Nazi
rhetoric by HIS own lights.
Zeleny:
>>                                           My etymological
>>argument satisfies Heidegger's (and a fortiori, Derrida's)
>>demonstrative criteria with room to spare.
moggin:
>     You've offered only an argument-from-authority.  (The one that
>we're presently discussing.)
What else is new?  Arguments about history ARE arguments from authority.  
moggin:
>>>                                              All this on authority
>>>of Gasche, in a passage you didn't quote; but as I said, I've heard
>>>Gasche contend that "_destruktion_" doesn't imply "destruction" (an 
>>>argument also forwarded by Krell, on the basis I mentioned).
Zeleny:
>>How phallogocentric of you to judge a text on the basis of an oral
>>presentation! 
moggin:
>     ??  Where have I judged a text?  You based your case on Gasche's
>_The Tain of the Mirror_, but didn't bother to quote whatever you were
>thinking of.  I replied that while I didn't have the book handy, I'd 
>heard Gasche argue very differently in the past.
And?  Am I responsible for his allegedly arguing in the past?
Zeleny:
>>            "We understand this task as one in which by taking _the
>>question of Being as our clue_, we are to _destroy_ [_Destruktion_]
>>the traditional content of ancient ontology ..." (Heidegger cited by
>>Gasché on p 112).  Read the book, or I will sic Silke on you.
moggin:
>     "...until we arrive at those primordial experiences in which we
>achieved our first ways of determining the nature of Being -- ways
>which have guided us ever since."  Yep, that's Heidegger, alright --
>and so?  You haven't established anything about Gasche's reading of
>"_destruktion_."  But two sentences later, Heidegger says explicitly
>that _destruktion_ does not have "the _negative_ sense of shaking
>off the ontological tradition."  (His emphasis.)  Which is just what 
>Gasche emphasized, as I recall.
Why should I give a flying fuck about HIS reading or HIS emphasis?
Turnaround is fair play.  In deconstructing a deconstructor I am
entitled to take his words out of context, imputing "historical
sedimentation" as I please.  Deal with it.
Zeleny:
>>>>What better way to judge a writer than by applying his master's lofty
>>>>intellectual standards?
moggin:
>>>     I can't see Heidegger as Derrida's "master" -- but more to the
>>>point, Heidegger doesn't rely on Gasche to authorize his etymologies.
Zeleny:
>>Tell your problems to an optician.  All I want from Gasché is his
>>corroboration of the historical link between Derrida's term and its
>>Heideggerian ancestor, which is well-known anyway.  
moggin:
>     Well, no -- you invoked Gasche to support your your assertion
>that "deconstruction" contains "destructive implications" which it
>supposedly derives from "_destruktion_."  (You also accused Derrida
>of lying for saying differently.)  That leaves you with an argument
>from authority which your chosen authority doesn't seem to support.
I cited Gasché as an authority on etymology.  You seem to suggest
that I should care about his interpretation, or your reading thereof.
What a droll notion.
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)

Jake Russell (jaker@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Hello all Physics buffs!
: I was wondering if someone could explain to me in terms of physics why a
: turbocharger draws less power from an engine than a supercharger does.  The
: turbo is driven by exhaust gasses, where a supercharger is driven by a belt
: directly off the engine.  Does it have something to do with exhaust gas
: temperature difference across the turbo?
       A turbocharger works by changing the vector of the
exhaust gas stream, not by direct pressure pumping, where
a belt driven or geared supercharger uses engine power.
       If the exhaust gas was used as a direct pressure
pump, then it would not be more efficient, maybe even
worse.
       Pressurized gas jets can impart a great deal of
energy without causing very much back pressure when used
in a turbine configuration.
Ken Fischer 

In <55nr9h$mkj@twain.mo.net>, mjb@Walden.mo.net (Michael J. Barillier) writes:
>.... and the follow-up question, what consistency would a glob of 
>neutronium have - liquid, like mercury, or solid?
It is purple, and is also known as Ivan's Ooze.

In article <55q9p3$gjd@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>,
Russell Turpin  wrote:
>........................  If Newton were to pop forward to the
>20th century, he would NOT say of GR: What a strange concept of
>time!..........
I think he would assume we had entered the thousand year
rule of The Beast, is what I think.
Lew Mammel, Jr.

Help me with my studies in Quantum-Mechanics. I need all information I 
can have. From the beginning to science..
-- 
     ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
      `6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.`)
      (_Y_.)'  ._   )  `._ `. ``-..-'
    _..`--'_..-_/  /--'_.' ,'
   (il).-''  (li).'  ((!.-'        gyi95nby@blg.du.se

G*rd*n wrote:
> 
>The mystery for me is this:  I studied and got a reasonably good
>grade in elementary Calculus.  Prior to this study, I had what we
>might call an intuitive grasp of Newtonian mechanics -- for instance,
>I could "feel" and visualize the planetary system, and beyond that I
>could do the arithmetic given reasonably simple cases.  According to
>a lot of people in these threads, however, at that time I did not
>_understand_ Newtonian mechanics, because I didn't know Calculus.
Here's my slant on calculus:  For years, I used formulas like 
area of a circle= pi * radius^2
and thought I had a pretty good intuitive grasp of geometry.  It had
never occured to me to ask, "How do they know this is the correct
formula?"  especially when it has a number like pi in it.  I accepted
the formula on faith because it was so useful.  Later, in a calculus
class I discovered how to derive such formulas from first principles.
(Like the area of a triangle is 1/2 the base times the height. A much
more intuitively obvious formula.)  
The process even defines a way to approximate the value of pi to any
desired accuracy.  The calculus approach did nothing to allow me to
calculate the areas of circles more accurately, but to appreciate where
the formulas come from, and to make my own when the need arrises.  Is
this the kind of thing you're talking about?  
John Popelish

Hello,
I'm having trouble finding out how many litres of gasoline
fit into one cubic metre (or gallons/cu feet). I'd need the information,
but no little physics. Do you know the answer?
Thank you!
Klaus Kostenbauer

mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
> Metaphysics deals with the question of possibility of knowledge.
> Scientist does not need anything from metaphysics beyond the
> fact of possibility of knowledge, much like humans managed to do
> ad-hoc genetic engineering thousands of years before discovery of genes.
If you don't understand the issue, just say so.  That would be the
scientific way to go.
>jti:
>] In similar terms, one imagines that the physicists of 500 years hence
>] (assuming that humans are still around, then) will look back on y'all
>] just as you look back on your forebears: as a bunch of well-meaning
>] but myopic dunderheads, who can't see the noses on their own faces.
>
> That would be strange developments indeed. Certainly, this is
> nothing like view of modern physicists on Newton, or, say
> Maxwell. All physicists I discussed Newton with had a great
> repect for his insight.
The case is more clear if you go back, say, to Aristotle.  There you
can see that empiricism has not yet risen to primacy, and yet the
endeavor is clearly a precursor of "science".  The metaphysics under
the physics are more apparent, there.  Certain questions are not even
entertained, or are entertained in what may seem an "unscientific"
fashion, because those questions are "wrong questions", or must be
understood differently than they would be today.  This is not just a
shortcoming of a primitive method, but is the direct result of what it
is that one thinks one is involved with; with what The World is, and
therefore with what one wants to know about it, and how one goes about
asking questions and answering them.
> Relativistic electrodynamics was shown to agree with experiment
> up to more the tenth digit of precision. Looks quite objective to me.
The accuracy of a prediction has nothing to do with its objectivity.  The
fact that you offer this as an argument suggests (though, to give you
credit, it doesn't prove) that you haven't grasped even the beginnings of
what this discussion is about.
>LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
>                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Thiink about this.  Perhaps it applys to natural law, as well.
-- 
"But among those whom this story reached were also the woman's in-laws,
 and they decided, without telling her a word, to find this angel and
 to see if he knew how to fly ..."

Ken Fischer  wrote in article ...
> Jake Russell (jaker@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> : Hello all Physics buffs!
> : I was wondering if someone could explain to me in terms of physics why
a
> : turbocharger draws less power from an engine than a supercharger does. 
The
> : turbo is driven by exhaust gasses, where a supercharger is driven by a
belt
> : directly off the engine.  Does it have something to do with exhaust gas
> : temperature difference across the turbo?
> 
>        A turbocharger works by changing the vector of the
> exhaust gas stream, not by direct pressure pumping, where
> a belt driven or geared supercharger uses engine power.
>        If the exhaust gas was used as a direct pressure
> pump, then it would not be more efficient, maybe even
> worse.
>        Pressurized gas jets can impart a great deal of
> energy without causing very much back pressure when used
> in a turbine configuration.
> 
> Ken Fischer 
> 
Thanks for the response.
I'm starting this thread into the Volkswagen newsgroup for all of us to
see.  We've been wondering why turbo's are more efficient than
superchargers from a physics explanation.  One idea we've thrown around was
that the temperature of the exhaust gasses has something to do with it
(This is based on lower temp exhaust gasses having less energy than higher
temp exhaust gasses.)
The explanation above is missing something because turbos are known to be
more efficient than superchargers.
Comments?  Qualifications?
Go at it, Physics heads and VW enthusiasts!  Should be fun an educational
for us both.
Jake

ferrick@ixc.ixc.net (patrick ferrick) wrote:
>Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (uncleal0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Baseball cap, pipe cap, fool's cap, lens cap, nurse's cap, dental cap, 
>: spending cap, kneecap, caps as opposed to lowercase, bottle cap.
>
>Ok, OK, very funny...!  What I am looking for, of course, is a capacitor
>that is designed specifically to discharge quickly through a flashlamp.
>Any of you jokers have one that you'd like to sell us?  Thanks!
http://www.thomasregister.com/
You might also solicit university physics and electrical engineering 
departments, and government surplus.  Los Alamos and the like must be 
knee-deep in the critters.  Ask the DoE for help, or your local 
Congresscritter.  They ought to be good for >something<.
-- 
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!

On 1 Nov 1996, Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
> NONONONONONONONONONONONOOOO!!
> 
> GLASS DOESN'T FLOW.
> 
> How many time do we have to go through this?
> 
> Old glass window panes are thicker at the bottom because glass is slightly 
> soluble in water.
Hahahahahah!  Dude, put down the crack pipe.  If you think glass is
soluble in water, feel free to list the solubility rate and cite the
chemistry manual you got it from.  
 When it rains some of the glass dissolves. The water then 
> runs down the window pane, evaporating slightly as it does so. When it 
> evaporates some of the glass comes out of solution. The overall effect is 
> that the tops of windows thins and the bottoms thicken.
> 
> If glass flowed then telescope mirrors (some up to 150 years old) would be 
> out of shape. If they distort by anything over a millionth of an inch then 
> they don't work properly. However, they do have to build those big domes 
> around them to keep the rain off. And they tend to build them at the top of 
> mountains where the air is a lot drier.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! what a GREAT troll!
============================================================================
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
-- Albert Einstein	Jeffrey L. Nelson http://mole.uvm.edu/~jlnelson
============================================================================

On Fri, 1 Nov 1996 sunrise@gulf.net wrote:
> My best friends sister was at a restaurant in Easton MD, not far from
> where I lived in Chestertown, and she heard an announcement, "Kirsten,
> pick up your order" or something like that.  This happens to be my
> name.
Wow!  Her name is "Kirsten, pick up your order"?  Weird!  
>  And
> we have the same odd first name too!!
Man, I'll say!
============================================================================
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
-- Albert Einstein	Jeffrey L. Nelson http://mole.uvm.edu/~jlnelson
============================================================================

In article <55qe3o$t6n@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu
(Russell Turpin) wrote:
>With Kant, once you
>get through the rhetoric, there is substantive philosophy (in the
>analytic sense): defining different kinds of cognitive constructs
>(predication, synthetic, etc.) and performing a rigorous analysis
>of how they are validly used and what their limits are.  Kant's
>metaphysical stuff (other than his pointing to the limits of what
>we can know about it) is downplayed if not thrown away, and it is
>*that* which leads into Hegel and all the rest.  In short, the
>parts of Kant that lead into the Continental morass are precisely
>the parts of Kant that (analytic) philosophers take less
>seriously.
Could you be a little more specific here?  Pippin argues that Hegel is
basically rejecting Kant's assertion that space and time are pure
intuitions, while embracing the rest of Kant's project.  Which is why
Hegel saw himself as "completing" that project: he threw out the notion of
preconceptual experience of any sort, and then rescued the project from
the morass in which that left it (in his opinion, of course).
-- 
Andy Perry                       We search before and after,
Brown University                 We pine for what is not.
English Department               Our sincerest laughter
Andrew_Perry@brown.edu OR        With some pain is fraught.
st001914@brownvm.bitnet            -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole

In article <55ql68$lem@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>| ...
>| But, without trying to give you a test, lets look at a recent example,
>| the discussion of curved vs. flat space. Are you familiar with the
>| discussion here (involving Moggin) on the topic? And are you familiar
>| with the issues involved? If so, do you think your knowledge of math
>| helps, or even is essential, to understanding the transformation from
>| a euclidean to a reinmannian view of space?
>
>I skipped over most of that discussion, which seemed to me
>to be an attempt to disqualify moggin from speaking about
>physics -- another math test.
Well, this is what I would call "attitude problem".  Somebody makes a 
statement about Reimannian geometry which strikes me as odd.  I ask a 
question to clarify whether the person knows what does the terminology 
stand for and the response is "Enough of your math tests and 
dominations games", meaning "how dare you question my competence".  
Somebody else may say "Maxwell's equations are divergent since they 
use the divergence operator".  Again I may ask "do you know what the 
divergence operator is" and again I'll get same response as above.  
All these examples are purely hipothetical, of course, but they do 
bear some resemblance to real cases.
Now, I'm willing to admit freely that there are many things I don't 
know or don't understand and many areas in which my competence is 
either minimal or nonexistant.  So I won't be offended if somebody 
questions my knowledge, in any area.  My response in such case may be 
one of the following:
1)  I may demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about (assuming 
this is indeed true).
2)  I may try to convince the person that the specific knowledge 
he/she asks about is not relevant to the issue (again, it helps a lot 
in such case if one knows the issue.
3)  I may recognize my lack of knowledge and accept it as a challenge, 
as "here is something I should learn about".
4)  Finally, I may recognize my lack of knowledge and decide that I 
have more important things to do then spend my time learning about 
this specific area.  Nothing wrong with it, nobody can know everything 
about everything (hell, even anything about everything doesn't seem 
achievable).
As this is not supposed to be an all encompassing study, I'm sure that 
some of the readers could think up additional responses.  What I don't 
see a reason for, is this "how dare you question me" response.  It 
strikes me as the response of a person not willing to come to terms 
with the fact that maybe he/she isn't perfect yet.
Of course you can point situations in which the sole purpose of the 
questions is to make the other person look bad, without contributing 
anything to the debate.  One should, though, make really sure that 
this is indeed the case before complaining.  In the case mentioned 
above the  subject was the differences between Newtonian mechanics and 
General Relativity.  The relation of Euclidean to Remannian geometry 
is central to this issue, it is not some small and irrelevant 
technical point.  Thus questions on the subject are perfectly relevant 
to the debate.
>the transformation of Euclidean to Riemannian space strikes
>me as at least partly a rhetorical procedure, so I would
>assume one would have to understand the rhetoric.  
How is it so?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <55r59j$duv@cronkite.amoco.com>, rdholder@amoco.com wrote:
> I thought that acceleration and deceleration were changes in speed.
No, they are changes in velocity.  Velocity is a vector; speed is its
magnitude.
> How can the speed of something remain constant as it accelerates?
Uniform circular motion.  Swing a ball around in a circle on the end of
a string at constant speed.  Its velocity vector constantly changes, so
it accelerates.  (Radially inward centripetal acceleration due to the
tension in the string, to be exact.)
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

Derrida:
>>>>>>>>>>"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
>>>>>>>>>>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."
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>>>>>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.
Silke:
>>>>>>>>Zeleny is lying, but he can't help it.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>You are out of it.  See Rodolphe Gasché, _The Tain of the Mirror:
>>>>>>>Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection_, Chapter 7, pp 109-121.
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>>>>>>     I don't have the book handy, but the last time I heard Gasche, 
>>>>>>he was arguing that the implications of Heidegger's _Destruktion_ 
>>>>>>differ significantly from the English "destruction."   David Farrell
>>>>>>Krell takes the same tack, noting that _Zerstorung_ would have been
>>>>>>closer.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move.
moggin:
>>>     Neither do I dance like an Egyptian.
moggin:
>>     Correction -- that should, of course, have been "walk."
Zeleny:
>>>Your personal habits are quite beside the point here.
moggin:
>>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Zeleny:
> I did no such thing.
     "Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move."
Zeleny:
>>>>>Check his Greek etymologies against Liddell & Scott -- always good for
>>>>>a giggle.
moggin:
>>>>     I thought we were discussing the relation of _destruktion_ and
>>>>deconstruction: you claimed Derrida is lying when he distinguishes
>>>>them, and stated that "deconstruction" possesses the "destructive 
>>>>implications" of Heidegger's "_destruktion_."  
Zeleny:
>>>As I said, implications are beside the point. 
moggin:
>>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Zeleny:
> I brought up history, not logic.  Refer to Derrida's apposition of
> "the historical sedimentation of the language which we use" for HIS
> sense of `implications', which involves him in Heidegger's crypto-Nazi
> rhetoric by HIS own lights.
     Call it what you like, you brought up "destructive implications."
But you haven't said anything that would support your claim, namely
that "Since [D.'s] term `déconstruction' is derived from Heidegger's
term `destruktion', the destructive implications are there...."  (And
needless to say, you haven't shown that Heidegger is using "crypto-
Nazi rhetoric" -- that's mere demagoguery.)
Zeleny:
>>>                                           My etymological
>>>argument satisfies Heidegger's (and a fortiori, Derrida's)
>>>demonstrative criteria with room to spare.
moggin:
>>     You've offered only an argument-from-authority.  (The one that
>>we're presently discussing.)
Zeleny:
> What else is new?  Arguments about history ARE arguments from authority.  
     Your claim concerns the implications contained in certain terms