Subject: 7 November, PLutonium Day is the only future holiday
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 21:51:37 GMT
In the future there is no other holiday, just one, plutonium day. It
comes 7 November, today.
Unlike the other useless holidays of bygone days, of Xmass of
commercial crap. Of Easter silliness of an Easter bunny and painted
eggs. Of New Years get drunk and useless fireworks. Of National
holidays and a nation is born false allegiances, of presidents day, of
memorial day glorifying war and dying and politicians of dubious merit.
Or past holidays of yore of wasteful libations or animal slaughter or
virgin sacrifice. All of these holidays worship or praise or celebrate
things of non-importance. Holidays should be pragmatic, should be spent
with time and energy from the soul of a person. Such as a poem.
This year 1996 I celebrate PLutonium Day with a poem of things recently
on my mind. Here is the poem. You too can write a poem for this years
Plutonium Day.
PLutonium Day 7NOV1996
This is Autumn 1996 and
College bell goes ding-dong-ding
Progress came on Earth with
the One Plutonium Atom Everything
Rejoice studious young woman,
young man in your youth
the One Atom Whole is the truth
Praise the Atom O blessed youth
See it under the microscope
And simultaneously in the telescope
Humanity, one lifeform among
many others in thy 5f6
The many advanced aliens pulse
with their pulsar ping
Grant us vision and wisdom
231 P U
in thy One Atom Universe
Plutonium Everything
Subject: Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
From: DAVE
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:47:26 +0000
In article <55nhn0$bo6@news2.cais.com>, Alan Weiner
writes
>Pls support your premise with some facts. Name some discoveries that
>were surpressed and later found to be valid.
>
This is an excellent request which will make most of the anti science
brigade twitch. The problem is that scientists and non-scientists often
publish 'theories' & 'results' which are criticised, mocked and
occasionally attacked with vitriolic venom. And sometines the original
authour is found to be correct. This may be unpleasant and scar careers
but is part of the social performance aspect of scientific
investigation, and perhaps does act as an error checker.
However, the annoying loons with an axe to grid jump on this and distort
it into som evil conspiracy by ....., well all the usual sad suspects.
The facts are it is easy to publish information and easy for others to
investigate. If an individual bemoans the fact that they are mocked or
even worse ignored by some artificial establishment, then what kudos and
ego boost were they looking for?
If an investigator says 'I dont believe so n so is true' then I give the
original claim the benefit of the doubt. But when its a case of 'so n so
is incorrect because there are no collaborating facts to support their
claim' well, in my view chances are its suspect and should be approached
with caution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get: if your lucky · Todays maths question: If it takes a
Talk: dave@vinery.demon.co.uk · man a week to walk a fortnight, how
Find: Vinery House ls4 2lb · many nuts are there in a bag of apples?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: If earth stopped spinning, what would happen to us?
From: "David Byrden"
Date: 7 Nov 1996 18:25:30 GMT
Edward F. Zotti wrote in article
<327BC354.5D7B@merle.acns.nwu.edu>...
> (1) If the earth stopped spinning, would we weigh more, less, or the
> same?
A little more
>If more or less, what would we weigh?
We're doing about 500mph here; orbital velocity is about 18000,
as you say, so divide!
>If in fact spinning causes us
> to weigh less, how fast would the earth have to spin before we
> were weightless? Would we have to reach orbital velocity, which I
> believe is something like 18,000 MPH at sea level?
Yes. Of course, the whole surface of the planet would detach,
thus spoiling our fun.
> (2) Would any other noteworthy effects occur, apart from no sunrises and
> sunsets and the fact that bathtubs would drain straight down no matter
> what hemisphere you were in?
The bathtub thing is an urban myth. The weather would be
SEVERELY screwed. The dark half of Earth would probably get iced over.
On the whole, I think it would be curtains for 95% of us due to food
shortages.
David
Subject: Re: atomic and molecular spectra
From: "William M. Cornette"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 15:55:11 -0500
><325AD05C.4748@platinum.com>...
>
>> Does anybody list some uses of atomic and molecular spectra for me?
You might try and get a copy of the CD-ROM entitled HITRAN 1996,
available from
Dr. Laurence S. Rothmen
PL/GPOS
Rothman@plh.af.mil
LRothman@Cfa.Harvard.edu
It is free and contains absorption lines (center frequencies,
line strengths, half-widths, ...) for 30 or more gases found in
the earth's atmosphere -- I don't recall the number of lines,
but it is massive, probably well over a million lines, plus
cross-sections, plus software.
Subject: Re: Gravity And Electromagnetism
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 19:48:07 GMT
In kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) writes:
>
>Allen Meisner (odessey2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In another posting, someone has claimed that gravity is an
energy
>: carrier and, since energy is quantized, gravity must be quantized. I
>: think this is unacceptable.
>
> Unless gravity can be shown by experiments to be
>a long range force carrier, I agree.
>
>: Gravity is a potential. You must put energy
>: into an object to increase its potential energy. It is this energy
that
>: is being converted into the Kinectic energy of the object and not
>: gravity that is being converted.
>
> But gravitational potential energy is a result of
>position, and kinetic energy is not developed until the
>object begins falling, reaching the maximum at the closest
>approach to the planet, star or moon involved.
> In Newtonian gravitation, it is energy developed
>by gravity.
>
The point is that gravity is not being converted to energy. Gravity
is the curvature of spacetime. This energy is constant. No energy is
being created. In the quantum model energy is being created out of
nothing. If QM argues that photons are being continually exchanged, it
is opening a can of worms that is best left unopened.
>: If gravity carried energy, mass would
>: have to be continually creating energy, in violation of the law of
>: conservation of energy. The question becomes: What is creating the
>: potential? GR would imply that mass is itself an energy that curves
>: spacetime. If this curvature is finite the energy needed to create
the
>: curvature is also finite. For this to be possible the radius of
>: spacetime must also be finite.
>
> To separate quarks to infinity, the texts say an
>infinite amount of energy would be required.
>
>: I find this all very confusing in relation to electromagnetic
>: quanta. Since gravitational energy and electrostatic energy cannot
be
>: "absorbed", how is it that electromagnetic energy can be absorbed?
>: There must be a fundamental difference in the way these things
operate.
>
> Yes, without a doubt.
>
>: I think it has something to do with gravitational energy and the
>: electrostatic energy being potentials and the electromagnetic
photons
>: being merely a quantity of energy, but I do not know how to explain
it
>: either mechanically or mathematically.
>
> How something is measured and what model of physics
>is used, and the viewpoint of the observer can change how
>a quantity can change.
>
>: For example if the photon were a
>: curvature of spacetime propagating through spacetime, then particles
in
>: the path of the photon should move in response to the curvature, and
>: the energy of the photon should decrease. This is not observed to
>: happen. Could it be that photons only have permissable energy states
>: that correspond to maximum and zero energy, while the electrostatic
and
>: gravitational fields have only one permissable energy state
>: corresponding to the maximum energy? This might be possible
>: mathematically but it still does not provide a very satisfying
answer
>: to why particles in the path of a photon can only repsond to the
>: curvature in quantized units.
>
> What curvature? Almost 100 percent of the energy
>of the photon is an oscillation _NOT_ in the direction of
>motion. The major component in the direction is radiation
>(light) pressure, which is billions of times less than the
>thermal energy of the light.
>
>Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: Anton Hutticher
Date: 7 Nov 1996 22:56:08 GMT
Hardy Hulley wrote:
> The question of what does quantum physics *really* mean,
> physically, is still very controversial, and I guess one could adopt the
> stance that it isn't meaningful. Of course, you'd then have to contend
> with the fact that it does make incredibly good *testable* predictions,
> in contradistinction to Derrida, who makes no testable claims at all.
And successful predictions are of course the only reliable way to
distinguish complex statements which sound like gibberish, but are not,
from complex statements which are gibberish. The exception are fields
which are formalized enough to permit a formal analysis without recourse
to verbal handwaving.
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)
Subject: Some questions from Feynmann's Lectures
From: voutier@euclid.Colorado.EDU (VOUTIER PAUL)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 18:39:45 GMT
Hi there,
I have some questions that came to mind while
reading Chapter 5 of Feynmann's Lectures on Physics
yesterday. Maybe someone can tell me what's going on.
The first one concerns a comment about the lifetime
of resonance particles near the end of Section 5-3
on page 5-3. He says that their lifetimes are about
10^{-24} seconds. With the other time scales he mentions,
he states how they were measured, but here he doesn't
say. How do they determine these lifetimes which seem
so short? The only thing that comes to mind is that if
they could determine the energy of these resonances then
maybe they are in violation of some law of conservation
of energy, but Heisenberg's uncertainly principle lets
them live for a little while. Does this make sense?
If this is the way physicists do it, then how do they
determine the energy? How do they know there is just
one particle of energy X, instead of n particles of
energies x_{1},...,x_{n} whose sum is X? etc...
The second question concerns the photo in Figure 5-9
on page 5-8 of the virus molecules. There is a calibration
ball in the picture. How did they find an area of the
surface being scanned (or whatever you do with an electron
microscope) which contained a calibration ball?
A friend and I suspect that there are probably tons of
such balls spread across the surface, but it would still
seem to require some luck to find an area that contained
one. What's the story?
The second thing about this picture. The caption says that
the diameter of this calibration ball is 2*10^{-7} meters.
How do they measure that? How accurately made are such balls?
For that matter, how do they make them?
thanks for your help,
paul
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: Wiles FLT lecture at Cambridge
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 22:22:52 GMT
In article <327FD551.4A31@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
kenneth paul collins writes:
> Please, what are "p-adics"?
Each of them are Infinite Integers. Around 1901 Kurt Hensel in Germany
extended the integers through a series operation.
The Finite Integer such as 1 is supposedly finite, nothing to the
right or left of it.
Infinite Integers all of them have an endless string of digits to the
leftward, thus 1 is .....000000001 or 231 is .....00000231 but not
every Infinite Integer repeats in zeros, for instance the Infinite
Integer
....9999999999998 is equivalent to -2
and who knows if these two Infinite Integers have any remarkable
qualities
....951413.
....172.
But you can quickly see that if you accept the Infinite Integers as
the real live and true integers and look at the finite integers as a
sham, a cutsy but crude setup that is all foggy and imprecise, a
Newtonian first approximation of what numbers are, then all of
mathematics is changed. No longer do you have Cantor diagonal baloney.
No longer do you have Number Theory stockpiled with ancient unsolved
and easy to state problems. No longer do you have hundreds and
thousands of pages of proofs for easy problems such as FLT or Goldbach
using every piece of incoherent field of mathematics to tackle it with.
But all of the above is useless to tell any mathematician. It is far
easier to convince the Pope that Jesus was just an ordinary human being
than it is to convince a 1993 professor of mathematics that his
understanding of "finite integer" is all wet.
I wait for the physicist to show that Infinite Integers-- the p-adics
are essential in physics. I think it is the Quantized Hall Effect. Once
the physicists report this, then the house-of-cards of mathematics all
comes a fallin down.
A mathematical proof is nothing more than a physics experiment that
uses just a pen and a piece of paper. And just like in physics, where
it takes but one experiment to ruin a theory, the same for mathematics,
that when a physics report comes in that finite integers are not
adequate in describing the Quantized Hall Effect but that the p-adics
are necessary and sufficient thereof. That will be the day that physics
will have destroyed mathematics and will build her back anew and
better.
Mathematics from Cantor until 1993 has become more philosophical than
it has become scientific and it will pay the price for its vagrancy,
its truancy, and its vandalism meanderings
Noone but me can see that mathematics is nothing but physics and is a
subdepartment of physics, but how could anyone see that unless they had
a Atom Totality theory where mathematics is but a mirror reflection of
how many atoms and atom characteristics.
Subject: Re: MEGAMETERS... let's use them
From: breed@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu (Bryan W. Reed)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 19:24:24 GMT
In article <01bbccda$308e7580$8c867dc2@#goyra.iol.ie>,
David Byrden wrote:
>
> The Megameter is the natural unit of measurement for the age of
>jet and space travel, yet we never use it! Why not get familiar with this
>handy distance (one thousand kilometers) and see whether these
>figures aren't convenient;
>
>
> Distance flown by passenger jet plane per hour = nearly 1
> Width of Earth = 12
> Distance to fixed satellites = 36
> Distance to Moon = 400
>
>
> David
>
Seconded. I have to admit that it's easier to wrap my brain around "12"
than to wrap it around "12,000," when thinking of the size of the earth.
It does seem like a good unit for planet-sized stuff.
Have fun,
breed
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: cs324423@student.uq.edu.au (Perryn Fowler)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 23:10:16 GMT
: > >>I recently read that the rotation of the radiometer is caused not by
: > >>photon momentum transfer, but rather by the fact that the black sides
: > >>absorb more photons than do the white sides, so that the black sides
: > >>become hotter. Therefore the air molecules near the black sides are
: > >>excited to higher velocities than are those near the white sides,
: > >>resulting in a pressure difference which causes the rotation. In fact,
: > >>if you watch a radiometer you'll see that it *does* rotate from black
: > >>toward white, which is the opposite of what you would expect if the
: > >>motion were caused by a greater momentum transfer on the white side.
: > >>
: >
: > >Well i was taught that it was due to the extra electrons shooting out of
: > >the hotter(black) side, but i am certainly not saying that your
: > >explanation is wrong, as many of the things i was taught subsequently
: > >turned out to be wrong :-( Indeed that's why i wrote this Charles :-)
: >
: > Since the radiometer supposely should be a wheel inside a evacuated
: (vacum)
: > glassbulb with very few molecules left, I would say that the last
: explanation
: > sound more resonable.
:
: Actually, the tube cannot be fully evacuated. If it is, the device will
: not work.
true .. the first explanation is almost certainly the correct one.
The radiometer will not work if the tube is not sufficiently evacuated
(due to resistance), nor will it work if the tube is too evacuated
(due to lack of air molecules to create the effect)
here are some rough measurements i took as part of an experiment
at uni
Pressure (mTorr) secs per revolution
50 20
30 7.5
20 5.5
10 5
8 20
4 21
there .. i *knew* that would have to come in useful one day
:)
--
^ ^
<-><-> Heisenberg may have been here.
____oOOo_\ /_oOOo______________________________________________________
```' `` `''' | : cs324423@student.uq.edu.au
'THE ANIMAL IS OUT' | http://student.uq.edu.au/~cs324423/
-------------------------------------------------------Kung-Lives!------
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: Markus Kuhn
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 18:22:33 -0500
Paul Skoczylas wrote:
> metre - m
> joule - J
> newton - N
> pascal - P
> second - s (not sec. in SI)
Just a minor correction here:
pascal - Pa (newtons per square meter pressure, 100 kPa is very
close to typical sea level athmospheric pressure)
See NIST SP 811 for
the official SI unit usage guide for the U.S. This text includes in
appendix B an excellent collection of conversion factors to many other
units. It has been written especially for authors of scientific
publications and is a very useful desk reference.
Markus
--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
University, Indiana, US, email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu
Subject: Re: Q about atoms...
From: Richard Caldwell
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 96 11:45:27 PDT
In Article<3280d36b.0@news.softronics.com>,
> 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.
Who were these "scientists"? It was well known to educated people, who were a
small minority back then, that the earth is spherical, long before Columbus
sailed. The people who thought it was flat were the ignorant masses.
> With much more education, we learned to discount
> this theory and open our minds.
No, we simply educated the masses.
> Are our minds closed again?
No, but this hypothesis has been considered and it caused some big problems
with the math. Remember, scientists don't just dream up stuff like this and
then drop it with a, "Someday, maybe they'll find out the truth." Scientists
are the "they". They search for the truth and they do the math to check out
these hypotheses.
> Can electrons be made up of elements we haven't "named" or "classified"
> just because we haven't been able to detect them?
Sure, and experiments are being done all the time to find out if these
particles exist and what characteristics they have.
> Surely you can't believe that we've found the bottom huh?
Scientists certainly don't believe that. All they know is that, the more we
learn, the more we know that there's a *lot* more to learn. Try telling a
paleontologist that all the dinosaur bones have been dug up. 8-]
> That's pretty arrogant, but human nonetheless.
And typical of the un-scientific mind.
Richard
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: jonathan@farncombe.win-uk.net (Jonathan Barnes)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 22:44:35 GMT
In article , Peter Kerr (p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz) writes:
>>
>> And don't forget that there are two kinds of pounds: Avoirdupois, and
>> Apothecaries and Troy. Which of these is the common pound? (There's
>> about a 20% difference between them.)
>>
>I make that three:
As the apothecaries = troy you can't count them both.
>
>Avdp has 1lb = 16oz, 1oz = 28.35gm used for butter and guns
>Troy 1lb = 12oz, 1oz = 31.1gm for precious stones and metals
>Apothc. 1lb = ??oz 1oz = 31.1gm formerly used by pharmacists who now
>seem to have succumbed to metrication.
If you realy want a messed up unit try the barrel,
US oil ( and lube oil ) = 0.15899 m^3
U.K. = 0.16366 m^3
U.K. wine = 0.14367 m^3
US dry = 0.11563 m^3
US liquid = 0.11924 m^3
Any advance on one unit with *five* definitons ?
Jonathan. | Barnes's Theorum: For every foolproof device |
| there exists a fool greater than the proof |
Subject: Re: Is glass a solid? -- how to judge texts, part 2
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 16:09:04 -0600
Stephen La Joie wrote:
> Every text I've ever seen, and every reference, described a solid
> as having long range order and low entropy. Under your definition,
> cold molasses is a solid.
I guess you missed:
*P. M. Goldbart and A. Zippelius. Amorphous solid state of vulcanized
* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*macromolecules: a variational approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2256-2259
*(1993).
What's this, amorphous solid??? Those referees at Phys Rev Lett must
have been sleeping, since every text and every other reference defines a
solid as having long range order!
So how about the keynote address at the HUME-ROTHERY AWARD SYMPOSIUM FOR
WILLIAM L.JOHNSON: Thermodynamic And Kinetic Issues In The Synthesis Of
Metastable Materials I:
*THERMODYNAMIC AND KINETIC ASPECTS OF GLASSY PHASE FORMATION IN
*NON-EQUILIBRIUM METALLIC SYSTEMS: William L. Johnson, California
*Institute of Technology, 138-78, Pasadena, CA 91125
*A glass or amorphous solid is a condensed phase, which like the related
* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*liquid phase, lacks long range periodicity in the arrangement of atoms.
*Amorphous solids can be formed when the liquid phase is deeply ...
*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps you should write to William Johnson and let him know about his
inappropriate terminology!
*Synthesis of Lithium Chromium Oxide from a Hydroxide Precursor
*J. L. Allen and K. R. Poeppelmeier,
*Polyhedron, Symposium-in-Print on Chemical Aspects of Advanced
*Materials,Ed. M. J. Hampden-Smith, 13, 1301, 1994.
*The room temperature reaction of Cr(OH)3*3(H2O) with LiOH*H2O results in
*an X-ray amorphous solid that appears to ...
* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's that non-existent phrase again!
*P. P. LOTTICI and J. J. REHR A connection between Raman intensities and
*EXAFS Debye-Waller factors in amorphous solids ...
* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*Solid State Commun. 35, 565-567 (1980)
And again!
Come to think of it, why are there so many papers on amorphous materials
in solid state journals like Thin Solid Films, or Solid State
Communications?
Why are there so many references to amorphous solids on the home pages of
physicists working with disordered materials (e.g.
http://www.phys.psu.edu/LANNIN/lannin.html)?
And how about the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physics:
* Philip Warren Anderson Electronic structure of magnetic and
* Nevill Francis Mott disordered solids
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* John Hasbrouck Van Vleck
(source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/nobel.html)
******************************
I'll give up here because it is so easy to come up with citations to
disordered solids, non-crystalline solids, amorphous solids or glassy
solids in standard physics texts, journals, home pages ... that I'd be up
typing all night. Go to your favorite web spider, solid state physics
journal, or journal index (e.g. Physics Abstracts) and see for yourself.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
| http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium in big jets. (was: Spent...)
From: patter@cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 18:41:13 -0500
In article <3281bbac.1020945@news.norfolk.infi.net>,
W.E. Nichols wrote:
>+jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
>+ ........ However, if a worker ignorant of
>+ the low-level radiation hazard and, worse, ignorant of the pyrophoric
>+ properties of U metal, were to cut into the counter weight, bad things
>+ would happen and the NRC guys would come trooping in with their yellow
>+ booties and lengthy forms and fines.
>
>........................... Pyrophoric properties??? Not with DU.
Uh, yeah, depleted uranium has pyrophoric properties. That's one thing
that makes it such a good anti-tank round. It burns on impact.
Of course, it's much less pyrophoric than magnesium, grease, oil, jet-A,
and many of the other items commonly found in aircraft manufacturing.
Even if someone did hit DU with a saw, the NRC wouldn't get involved,
though. The level of radioactivity of DU is just too low for it to be in
their jurisdiction. You *would* have to worry about OSHA and possibly the
EPA if it caught fire. Burning DU would be about as dangerous as burning
pressure-treated lumber, and for the same reasons.
Of course, that wouldn't stop the press and other hysterics from calling
it a "nuclear accident" and screaming "Burning *Uranium*!!!!! We're all
gonna die!!!!".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
George Patterson - | Some people can find the cloud in every silver lining.
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Q about atoms...
From: thweatt@prairie.nodak.edu (Superdave the Wonderchemist)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 19:19:58 GMT
I just thought I might clear some things up. I am a Ph.D. candidate in
quantum chemistry, so maybe I might know a little about quantum mechanics.
The planetary model of the atom was proposed by Rutherford in 1911, but
this has a problem:
... there is a fundamental difficulty with this model. According
to classical electromagnetic theory, an accelerated charged
particle radiates energy in the form of electromagnetic (light)
waves. An electron circling the nucleus at constant speed is
being accelerated, since the direction of its velocity vector is
continually changing [we call this centripedal acceleration].
Hence the electrons in the Rutherford model should contiually
lose energy by radiation and therefore would spiral in toward
the nucleus. Thus, according to classical (nineteenth-century)
physics, the Rutherford [planetary model] atomis unstable and
would collapse (Ira Levine, Quantum Chemistry, Fourth Edition,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1991)
This means that the electrons CANNOT orbit in classical orbits around the
nucleus, and that leads us to quantum mechanics.
The Bohr model puts the electrons in orbits which are quantized in energy
(it takes a definite, precise quantity of energy to get the electrons to
move into other circular orbits). This was the first rectification of
experimental results (line spectra of atoms) with the light quanta result
of Einstein's photoelectric effect (for which he won the Nobel Prize).
However, the Schroedinger equation for the Hydrogen atom finally gave us
the model we were looking for. It is the EXACT solution to the energies
of the Hydrogen atom and Hydrogen-like ions (He+, Li++, etc). The
Schroedinger equation can be solved exactly only for one-electron
systems. It has the form: H(psi)=E(psi) where psi is the wavefunction
(yes, that's right, electrons ALWAYS and ONLY travel in waves, even if
the electrons are bound to a nucleus), H is the Hamiltonian Operator, and
E is the energy of the system.
Basically, you get your wave function, plug it into the Hamiltonian, and
the same function comes out with a number in front of it. That number is
the energy. These psi's for the Hydrogen atom are a combination of
radial distribution functions and spherical harmonic funcions and also
include angular momentum functions for the electron "orbital" angular
momentum as well as the electron "spin" angular momentum.
The Hamiltonian (simply put) is a sum of kinetic and potential energy terms.
For more than one electron systems, you end up with a differential
equation which cannot be solved analytically (due to the inseparably
coupled nature of electron-electron repulsions) but the answer can be
approximated usually close enough for chemists to get some very usefull data.
Our methods of approximation use TONS of CPU time, and the programs that
do these approximations usually have over a million lines of code. A
typical calculation that I might do involves about 17 atoms and 84
electrons and can take weeks to optimize the molecule's geometry!!!
In space, ALL objects attract each other (gravity, remember). In atoms,
the electrons are attracted to the nucleus, but repel each other.
Likewise, nuclei repel each other as well (due to simple charge repulsion
and attraction). In space, two planets cannot occupy the same space. In
QM, two electrons with opposite spin CAN and DO occupy the same space!!!
In space, things travel in nice circular or eliptical orbits, or in
straight lines. In atoms, electrons are smeared out, can jump across
nodes (infinite barriers), travel in WAVES, and pretty much do all sorts
of goofy things.
In space, you can pinpoint an object's position and it's exact momentum
vector (it's right here, and it's going exactly this fast and in this
direction). For tiny things like electrons, the more you know about it's
position, the less you can know about it's momentum (one of the forms of
the Uncertainty Principle).
ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN EASILY BE TESTED IN A LAB and have been
undergraduate physics projects for decades
I could go on and on and on...
But the gist is that the doofus who posted the original reply to the
curious young man who started this thread has no clue, and is probably
trying to sell us something.
-Superdave The Wonderchemist
Subject: Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 00:05:42 GMT
In article , DAVE writes:
>In article <55nhn0$bo6@news2.cais.com>, Alan Weiner
> writes
>>Pls support your premise with some facts. Name some discoveries that
>>were surpressed and later found to be valid.
>>
>This is an excellent request which will make most of the anti science
>brigade twitch. The problem is that scientists and non-scientists often
>publish 'theories' & 'results' which are criticised, mocked and
>occasionally attacked with vitriolic venom. And sometines the original
>authour is found to be correct. This may be unpleasant and scar careers
>but is part of the social performance aspect of scientific
>investigation, and perhaps does act as an error checker.
>
Not only perhaps. For sure. It is not only the right, but the duty
of the scientific community to try to poke holes in any new idea that
is being proposed. Only through this process we can be assured that
the body of accepted knowledge is reasonably solid. Failing doing
this we get not a scientific community but a "mutual adoration
society" where everybody praises everybody else while producing
gibberish. There are many examples of those in various fields which,
in order to save bandwidth, I won't mention.
Anybody who has been actively involved in research knows well that for
any good idea there are dozens of faulty ideas, thus a strick weeding
process is needed. It may hurt the egos of some people but the
purpose of science is to generate knowledge, not massage the egos of
its practitioners. It may sometimes slightly delay the acceptance of
a good idea but said delay is negligible when compared to waste of
time and effort which may be caused by the uncritical acceptance of
bad ideas.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Q: minimum diameter water will move through?
From: rvelt@citrus.ucr.edu (Robert Velten)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 12:49:55 -0800
If there is a general question type newsgroup for physics, I'm unaware of
> >it. Hence, I'm posting this here.
> >
> >I need to know the minimum size pore that liquid water will move through.
> >For clarification let me use the following example: the pore size in
> >Gore-Tex fabric is small enough that liquid water will not move through it
> >on its own (adhesion/cohesion properties of water). I am looking at
> >respiratory structures in insects and am wondering if some of the smaller
> >pores are functioning similar to Gore-Tex fabric in preventing liquid
> >water from entering the insects respiratiory system?
> >
> >If someone knows the answer to the pore size question or can refer me to a
> >text that might have it, I would appreciate it.
> >
> >Please e-mail me at markb@galaxy.ucr.edu
> >
> >
> >thanks,
> >mark breidenbaugh
> >UC Riverside
> >Entomology
--
Robert Velten
Dept. of Entomology
UCRiverside
rvelt@citrus.ucr.edu, netlevkr@pe.net
"a day without herptiles is like a day without D3 synthesizing solar radiation."(nerd, geek, call me what you will, just don't call me late for dinner!)
Subject: Re: Anthony Potts, monolingual buffoon...
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:16:02 GMT
Dans l'article <328217DF.23B30DDC@mit.edu>, Joseph Edward Nemec
ecrit:
>Ca va sans dire. Mais quant a l'accent ... moi je doute que tu parles
>l'anglais de la renne de l'Angleterre. Tu viens, evidement, du Nord, et
>les accents la-haut sont affreux. Nous allons voir en Janvier (ou bien
>en Mars, je n'ai pas encore decider...)
La "renne" de l'Angleterre? C'est drole. Dites-moi monsieur Nemec,
y a-t-il des animaux qui parlent l'anglais en Angleterre ces jours-ci?
:-) Je ne pense pas que son excellence, la reine d'Angleterre serait
ravie de se voir comparee a une bete. Mon cher monsieur Nemec, il
faudra qu'on fasse un petit peu plus attention a l'orthographe des
mots quand on accuse les autres d'etre monolingues et mal-instruits.
Et puis, est-ce un peche cela, d'etre monolingue? De toute facon, je
vous offre mes felicitations. Votre francais est superbe, meme avec
une petite faute d'orthographe. Ce n'est pas grand chose. Ou
l'avez-vous appris? En France ou a MIT?
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: Re: Specialized terminology (was: What is a constant?)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 8 Nov 1996 00:20:06 GMT
Russell Turpin (turpin@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
: -*--------
: In article <55tjkp$f5a@netnews.upenn.edu>,
: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
: >>> Since Derrida is mostly concerned with structuralism and explicitly
: >>> with Levi-Strauss, I give you an example from that area, concerning
: >>> myth in order to prove that there is mythical structure that is
: >>> universal (which is, in a very simple nutshell, L-S's project), you
: >>> would have to be able to distill the ur-myth which provides the
: >>> rules to which all specific myths would have to adhere; think for
: >>> instance of Propp's Morphology of the Russian Folk-Tale. Since we
: >>> never _have_ the ur-myth, however, but only variations, this center
: >>> would be introduced retrospect by the work of the mythologist; ...
: Turpin:
: >> This all makes perfect sense, *especially* if one replaces the
: >> phrase "this center" with the phrase "its underlying assumptions."
: Silke:
: > Replacing it with "its underlying assumptions" makes no sense
: > whatsoever; who's assuming? ...
: Perhaps some of this is due to our not having the same first
: tongue? Really, take it slowly, with the substitution made:
: Since we never _have_ the ur-myth, but only variations,
: the ur-myth's underlying assumptions would be introduced
: retrospectively by the work of the mythologist ...
: Is this not what Levi-Strauss's project was about? To find the
: common underlying assumptions in mythology?
No. What makes you think so?
: > ... It's not introduced _as_ an assumption; in fact, it's
: > closer to a Platonic idea, but calling it "L-S equivalent to
: > a Platonic idea" wouldn't really help you out much, I fear. ...
: You're right. If you want to get transcendental, you will have
: to talk with Zeleny, who is into that stuff.
As long as you realize that a Platonic idea is different from an
underlying assumption.
: > ... Which leads us back to the much-noted fact that the best
: > idea would be for you to read Structure, Sign, and Play --
: > much of your questions would be answered.
: Trust me on this: you're assumption is wrong. Despite their
: diversity, the interpretations variously provided by the literary
: theorists here are more clear and at least as sensible as the
: original.
I'm glad to hear it. But Derrida is more fun, and it would move much
faster, and a lot of your questions wouldn't have to be asked and
answered and we could get down to the more interesting points.
Silke
Subject: Re: Action ... and stuff.
From: columbus@pleides.osf.org (Michael Weiss)
Date: 07 Nov 1996 21:14:51 GMT
Starting with the easy one:
The last term: ansatz. (I hope I typed it right.) This is a term
I see often in technical papers, but no definition.
The German word for `start'. Many mathematical schemes demand that
you "prime the pump", i.e. you pick a initial guess for the answer to
some problem, and then the scheme tells you how to obtain better
approximations from that. Simple example: Newton's method. So the
Ansatz is your initial guess.
Action is a long story. I'll add one reference to those already
given: Arnold, "Mathematical Methods in Classical Mechanics".
Also one historical remark that may help. Hamilton developed
Hamiltonian optics, which deals with light propagating through an
optical medium, perhaps inhomogeneous and not isotropic. (Think clear
jelly.) This is form a geometrical optics: wave phenomena like
diffraction are ignored.
A key concept in Hamiltonian optics is the so-called optical path
length between two points in the medium: i.e., the time it takes for
light to get from point A to point B. Fermat's famous Principle of
Least Time says that light takes the path of least time, i.e., least
optical path length. (More precisely, it takes the path of
*stationary* time--- but I'll let someone else get into that.)
Hamilton later realized that he could recast his whole optical theory
as a theory about mechanics. Instead of light rays propagating
through a medium, we have point particles following paths in
spacetime. The action corresponds to the optical path length. Thus:
Hamiltonian Optics Hamiltonian Mechanics
optical medium spacetime
path of light ray worldline of particle
optical path length action along the worldline
local speed of light Lagrangian
in the medium
I cut a few corners on that last correspondence, but that's the
general idea. (More precisely, in Hamiltonian mechanics, if S is the
action and t is the time, then dS/dt = L along a worldline.)
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 19:46:38 -0500
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| >| >Very simple things; I can visualize a body moving in an
| >| >ellipse about another body, for example, and moving more
| >| >rapidly when near the other body then when far from it.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| >| Why an ellipse?
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| >As I said before, explanation ("why") is a rhetorical
| >process.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| No, not at all.
All right, you could make a physical model or a diagram that
was explanatory. In fact, I will do so in a moment. But in
the area of using mathematics on scientific problems, where we
seek explanation, we're usually talking about finding formulas
which model some aspects of some sets of phenomena. Describing
how we abstract the sets and the aspects tends to be a textual
(rhetorical) procedure, and the formulas themselves are textual.
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
| > By the time of Kepler, we already have a
| >rhetoricization of planetary movement; it is an ellipse,
| >that is, a particular geometrical form which we have a good
| >bit of text about, and in addition Kepler observes that a
| >line drawn from one body to the other sweeps out an equal
| >area in equal time.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| Observation and understanding isn't the same thing. A person with
| some curiosity may ask some questions here, like:
|
| 1) Does it have to be an ellipse?
| 2) If yes, does it tell us something about the force or will it be an
| ellipse for any force?
| 3) Is it possible to throw something into space in such way that I'll
| get a close orbit which isn't an ellipse.
|
| The third one is especially interesting since, would the answer be
| "yes" then the obvious next question would've been "so what was the
| specific mechanism which forced all the planets into elliptical
| orbits" while if the answer is "no" then this question doesn't need to
| be asked at all.
|
| Of course there are way more questions that can be asked. I won't
| even start getting into it. But I would hardly call memorizing the
| sentence "planetary orbits are ellipses", understanding.
That would be rhetorical: the memorization of a text, in this
case a rule.
Let's suppose, however, we want to teach a child how the Moon
moves around the Earth. We find an apple tree out in the
fields of England, and there's conveniently a pale moon hanging
in the late afternoon sky. There are several apples scattered
on the ground. We pick one up and encourage the child to notice
that, in certain positions, the shadow on the apple is similar
to the shadow on the moon. Now we throw the apple a short
distance. It moves in a curve and strikes the ground. Then
we throw another one a bit harder, and of course it strikes the
ground further out. Now, the child knows that the Earth is a
ball; so when we ask her what would happen if we could throw the
apples as hard as we wanted, and kept throwing them harder and
harder, she will correctly guess that eventually one will either
circle the earth or fly off into space. (We may have to digress
to take care of atmospheric friction.) Now we can point out the
similarity of the moon to this apple thrown very hard: it falls
around the world.
This child now intuits something about the motion of the Moon
around the Earth, which can be generalized to the whole Solar
System. Is this _understanding_? Perhaps we should apply the
compared-to-what test: it's better than belief in crystalline
spheres, at least. It's true we haven't figured out _why_ the
orbit is stable but it isn't counter-intuitive to think of it
as stable; cyclical processes are common in Nature and larger
animal brains are well-programmed to intuit them.
g*rd*n:
| >I don't see why the detailed mechanics of computation are
| >so important to your understanding of understanding, but we
| >keep coming back to it ("explain"). Why can't people take
| >them on faith, since they seem to work?
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| We can just take everytjing in the world on faith, "things are the way
| they are". Easy, no need for science. If you're satisfied with this
| and don't ask for more, fine. I'm not.
People commenting on science are not doing science (necessarily).
No one doubts that to practice most sciences, mathematics is
necessary; but our question is how much mathematics is necessary to
observe and comment on other people practicing it. Some of these
would-be commentators believe that they also have to read Heidegger,
and may have day jobs as well, so we must take care not to multiply
their labors unnecessarily.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 8 Nov 1996 00:32:08 GMT
Hardy Hulley wrote:
> > The question of what does quantum physics *really* mean,
> > physically, is still very controversial, and I guess one could adopt the
> > stance that it isn't meaningful. Of course, you'd then have to contend
> > with the fact that it does make incredibly good *testable* predictions,
> > in contradistinction to Derrida, who makes no testable claims at all.
Anton Hutticher :
> And successful predictions are of course the only reliable way to
> distinguish complex statements which sound like gibberish, but are not,
> from complex statements which are gibberish. The exception are fields
> which are formalized enough to permit a formal analysis without recourse
> to verbal handwaving.
Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
positivism is dead.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: How Much Math? (Was: Re: How much to invest in such a writer?)
From: coolhand@Glue.umd.edu (Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 19:43:32 -0500
In article <55rdhk$7al@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>| >Very simple things; I can visualize a body moving in an
>| >ellipse about another body, for example, and moving more
>| >rapidly when near the other body then when far from it.
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
>| Why an ellipse?
>
>As I said before, explanation ("why") is a rhetorical
>process.
But, physics is far more interested in prediction than explanation.
Saying that observationally we know planets travel in ellipses (which
of course they don't. After all, the Ptolemic system made much better
predictions than the Keplerian) doesn't give you any insight into why
some comets follow hyperbolic trajectories. Nor does it let you
predict anything about how non-spherical objects interact.
--
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instictive"
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 01:27:52 GMT
In article <55u0lo$7op@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>| ...
>Actually, I've had the idea of plagiarizing the Hoax, and
>filling it out with material from the now-discredited
>_Scientific_American_, my own imagination, and some of those
>curious little books I find on tables disclosing the message
>of the Pyramids. I'd like to whip it into an attractive
>farrago, and find a semi-defective copier to run off my
>publication. Maybe I could get Dr. Sokal to sue me.
>
>Well, god damn it, _somebody's_ got to do it.
>--
Go for it. Submit it to a refereed science journal and we'll see the
result.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 23:31:19 GMT
Anthony Potts (potts@cms5.cern.ch) wrote:
: On Wed, 6 Nov 1996 tsar@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: Nope, I've made my mind up, I am bored with physics, and want to get into
: something a little more challenging. The environment in research just
: isn't what I need to produce my best work. I need more pressure.
If he thinks he's not under pressure, he's not paying attention. There's
more pressure in physics now than there ever was, what with biology not
only taking all the glory, but also having the most promising things in
the way of possible applications. (Physics has already revolutionised
our society, but it looks like biology is going to cause the next major
shift.)
: I must admit, at first I was tempted by the money, but after spending some
: time on the trading floor, and going out in the evenings with the people
: who already trade, it looks like I could really enjoy myself there.
He's really, REALLY twisted if he actually wrote this. It SOUNDS enough
like him, but if it isn't a troll then science is better off without
him. The kind of person who enjoys working with people who make money by
exploiting the errors of others are the last thing that the vicious world
of accademics needs. (Yes, academics are vicious people. After all, the
fastest way to make your reputation it to proove someone else is wrong,
and the more wrong the better.)
: Of course, leaving the subject which I love is not an easy decision, but I
: don't really have any goals left in it any more. A lot of years back, when
: I discovered what physics was, I decided that I wanted to end up doing
: research at CERN. Well, I've done that now. I had the normal idea of
: wanting to discover the ultimate answer, but it isn't going to be a simple
: insight in the next twenty years or so, at least it doesn't look like it
: will be. There are too many theories floating around that can be neither
: proven nor disproven for quite a while yet. My experiment isn't even going
: to turn on for another ten years, so it's probably a good time to go.
What, you need the SCSC or something?
: I could well come back after a few years out. If I do well and make my
: fortune, I might have retired by the time the interesting physics results
: are starting to coe out, so it's not necessarily all over yet.
: Anyway, I have a fair few months left yet, so I will be sitting around
: posting rubbish for a while yet.
Sounds like maybe his grant money is going to run out. That tends to
happen, since results don't usually come before the money runs out.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: moggin@nando.net (moggin)
Date: 8 Nov 1996 01:44:33 GMT
seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri):
> : > Also, do you really think Sokal was
> : > unethical in exposing the feet of clay
> : > of Ross and the other clowns who
> : > edit Social Text ? Isn't exposing
> : > frauds to the light of day an ethical
> : > act ?
moggin:
> : Ethical or not, he was unsuccessful: Ross and the other
> : _Social Text_ editors weren't idols, so Sokal couldn't have
> : exposed their "feet of clay."
Raghu
> : > Do you always miss the point behind
> : > metaphorical phrases ?
moggin:
> : I got the idea: you think Ross and the other _Social
> : Text_ editors are idols with feet of clay. And I'm telling
> : you they're not idols, so talking about their "clay feet"
> : is meaningless. Who idolizes Ross? Can you point out his
> : worshippers?
Raghu:
> If you don't like the word idol, I am
> willing to substitute another word for
> it, like bigshot, leading figure,
> prominent voice of pomo or whatever.
> Happy ?
I was already quite content. Didn't we go through this? I
feel certain that we did. Here's the exchange that's diappeared:
[Raghu:]
> Ross et al are tenured bigwigs and
> are major voices in their chosen arena.
> What is your understanding of idol ?
[moggin:]
"Bigwig" and "major voice" will do. And that's not an
accurate description of Ross. It follows he's not an idol.
So as you can see, it's not a question of semantics. We
can agree to understand "idol" as "bigwig," "major voice," or
"leading figure." And as I said, Ross is none of the above.
Therefore he isn't an idol. From which it follows that Sokal
couldn't have exposed his clay feet.
moggin:
> : > : And since he didn't expose any
> : > : fraud, he couldn't have succeeded at that, either.
Raghu:
> : > He didn't expose any fraud ?
> : > How about the pretence that Ross & Co know
> : > what the hell they are talking about ? :-)
moggin:
> : In order for Sokal to "expose the pretense that Ross &
> : Co. know what the hell they're talking about," he would have
> : had to address what they've said. But he didn't; and so he
> : couldn't have exposed it, whether or not there was something
> : to expose.
Raghu:
> There is more than one way to expose the
> fact that Ross doesn't know what he
> is talking about. What you suggest above
> is one way, certainly. What Sokal did
> accomplished the same thing another way.
No, he didn't -- his hoax establishes nothing about the
contents of, e.g., _Strange Weather_ or _The Chicago Gangster
Theory of Life_. (I hope those are the right titles -- I
took them from Sokal's bibliography -- maybe he was fooling.)
> If Ross knew what he was talking about,
> he'd have perceived that Sokal's article
> was rot; he didn't, ergo, he doesn't
> know what he is talking about.
The evidence for or against the proposition that Ross
knows what he's talking about rests (brace yourself, now --
this may come as something of a shock) in whatever he may
have said -- that is, in his books and articles. It's more
than plain that Sokal failed to address their contents. I
don't know if they're any good or not, since I haven't read
any of them, and I'd be a fool to reach a firm conclusion
about their value on the basis of a hoax that appeared in a
journal where Ross is an editor; but don't let me stop you.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: When social critics wimp out ... (was: Nietzsche)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 7 Nov 1996 19:59:36 -0500
| ...
G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
| >However, if Sokal had let the hoax lie [heh], it
| >might have been referred to here and there, then (forgotten
| >by the respectable) descending into our vast intellectual
| >underworld, to appear later in badly jumbled cabalistic
| >texts, diagrams scrawled on the walls of tenements, and
| >dreams. I'm hoping this will happen anyway; as Russell
| >points out, recantation by an author is not necessarily a
| >bar to success of one kind or another. The text is all
| >the freer, is it not, abandoned in the road?
vpiercy@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Van Piercy):
| One should always let a sleeping hoax lie. But yes, I could see the
| possibility where someone finds something strangely suggestive from the
| Sokal pastiche, or analyze the piece symptomatically as an instance of the
| "culture wars" or "science wars"--that's certainly already taken place.
Actually, I've had the idea of plagiarizing the Hoax, and
filling it out with material from the now-discredited
_Scientific_American_, my own imagination, and some of those
curious little books I find on tables disclosing the message
of the Pyramids. I'd like to whip it into an attractive
farrago, and find a semi-defective copier to run off my
publication. Maybe I could get Dr. Sokal to sue me.
Well, god damn it, _somebody's_ got to do it.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{