Newsgroup sci.physics 207488

Directory

Patrick.VanEsch@ping.be wrote:
> Well, Tom, you're doing your own country (Switzerland, right ?)
> no favour: while the TCP/IP protocol is an American military 
> invention, WWW (HTTP) has been set up in Switzerland, at CERN.
Thanks for the clarification, Patrick. I just didn't want to get into
that, it being beside the point here. Besides I have no doubts that Gordon
is much more privy to the development of the net than I am.  As for my
"Swissness", that's an amusing concept. I'm a German-American
dualnational, who, very roughly, has spent respective thirds of his life
in those countries and another hopping around elsewhere.
Cheers, Tom.

On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Anthony Potts wrote:
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:33:31 GMT
> From: Anthony Potts 
> To: Brian Pickrell 
> Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA, soc.culture.british, sci.physics
> Subject: Re: Anthony Potts, monolingual buffoon...
> 
> On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Brian Pickrell wrote:
> 
> > Renaissance man.  Plus, he's going to have a Ph. D. degree that will make
> > him oh so smart, and he's even told us about the neat car he's thinking
> > about getting.  How can ya not like the guy? 
> 
> 
> I will explain this one for you, since you seem to have some comprehension
> troubles.
> A Ph.D. does not increase one's intelligence, intelligence is pretty much
> settled before one gets to the Ph.D. stage of life.
But education, culture, and sophistication can be learned. And you, little
Tony, have learned nothing.
C'est vraiment triste, ca...
> 
> I don't care what people think about me very much, except for those that
> matter. I don't count the opinions of anyone on this group.
Naturally. The normal defense of a barbarian.
> Those that matter are my fiancee, 
A monolingual tart...
> my family, 
Lower-class serfs from Newcastle...
> my friends, 
Empty-headed Brits with even less culture than you...
> and anyone who is
> able to decide whether to employ me or not. 
No one of importance...
> So, call me an arsehole, a wanker, or whatever you like. I am doing
> exactly what I want to.
> 
> I don't feel the need to attempt to shout down other countries in the
> meanwhile, unlike some other folks here. 
Oh, you liar!
> Let's face it, no matter how big
> an opinion Iceland has of itself, I feel no need to attempt to disabuse
> its natives of their ideas.
Tony, are you drunk? Can you really believe this?
> 
> Perhaps some big mouthed yanks on this group ought to employ a similar
> philosophy.
> Anyway, they can all tell me about it when I'm in New York, if they really
> want to.
Tell me, Anthony. I come from New York. Hell, I'll be happy to show you
around. You can even stay at my place. Seriously. E-mail me for my home
phone number. You're invited. You in NYC I gotta see... better than the
Bronx Zoo...
(Naturally, little Tony won't respond, as he is a big bag of wind).
--------------------------------------
This is a pain which will definitely linger.
	-- Brain, after something Pinky did.
Joseph Edward Nemec                    
Operations Research Center	         
Room E40-149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
nemecj@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/

Time : For advanced aliens on Bu it was one light year after they
discovered controlled fusion energy. There civilization sent a space
ship in the shape of a rocket and about the size of the Earth's radius
to another pulsar signal.  For Earth, it was the Permian geological
time period.
Mission: The mission for the Bu rocket was to go to the Nascent star
system because the Nascent pulsar had radioed Bu of how to increase
space ship flight speed in trade for pulsar technology. Earth and the
Solar system was a stopping station between Bu and Nascent.
Pit stop on Earth: It is the Permain time period on Earth. Animals and
plants were coexisting nicely. Then this rocket space ship lands on
Earth. It is huge and has to land in the ocean. The Bu-s need more
lithium for their electrical systems. They make a quick analysis of
Earth's environment and decide that the quickest way to restock their
lithium supply is to run all of the big animals on Earth of that time
through their distillation tank. The Bu-s immediately set out to net
all of the Permain large sized animals and run them through their
distillation tank. In one end is fed all of these captured animals and
at the other end is seen a fractionalized form of lithium. Within a
month most all big animals on Earth are gone and the Bu-s have plenty
of lithium and take off to their rendevous with the Nascent pulsar
civilization.
Bu rendevous with Nascent : In the meeting with Nascent civilization
the Bu-s trade their secret of how to pulse millisecond pulsar machines
for the Nascent technology of faster rocketship flight.
Time: On Bu, they have increased their rocketship flight from the trade
in technology with the Nascent civilization. Both Bu and Nascent now
use millesecond pulsar machines for communication. Time on Earth is the
Cretaceous geological period. A Nascent rocketship is on its way to Bu
to exchange biologicals.
Pit stop on Earth: Again rocket spaceships are huge and they need pit
stops to refuel for lithium. Nascent rocket surveys Earth among the
planets of the Solar system and decides the quickest way to get more
lithium is to herd together all the large animals on Earth and to
fractionalize distill the lithium out of the animals. Here the movie
shows interesting encounters and engagements with the dinosaurs as they
are corralled and herded and killed and run through the distiller. Once
enough lithium has been gathered and the Nascents take off for Bu.
  The movie is made long with interesting sequences of the Permian
extinction of animals, and what the Permian animals looked like and
what animals became extinct. And long sequences of the dinosaur
extinction in the Cretaceous at the hands of advanced aliens.

In article <563hd5$k4@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
>| Too complicated for me, try to use simpler language.  Anyway, what 
>| people are claiming is that if you use the formula
>| 
>| 	F = G*m_1*m_2/r^2
>| 
>| to calculate the force of gravity between two material objects and 
>| then use the result as the force in Newton's F = ma, you get 
>| predictions for trajectories which match well with observations (all 
>| the above valid for classical physics, in GR the mathematical 
>| formulation is different).  That's all.  Got it.  That's all!
>| Whatever meanings you attach to it, whatever images it conjures in 
>| your imagination, this is your business, having nothing to do with 
>| science.  ...
>
>Well, not very long ago I was taking quite a bit of abuse
>for saying as much.  It was very interesting.  I think Noel
>sort of blew up the game by cross-posting to sci.physics.
>
I don't know who is Noel but maybe hanging him isn't such a bad 
idea:-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Hello to all in group!
I have a question regarding the physics of the vortices which trail off
the wingtips of airplanes -- specifically, what keeps them spinning?
I understand that the vortex is caused as the higher-pressure air beneath
the wing moves toward the lower-pressure area above the wing, and I can
see how that would initially appear as a spiral motion. However, once the
airplane has passed by, what keeps the particular mass of air spinning?
It would seem that a molecule of air, given that initial impetus to move
toward the area of lower pressure, would continue to move in a straight
line unless acted upon by another force. Of course, if there were a
localized area of low pressure which remained after the airplane had
passed by, that would explain it -- the molecule would describe a
spiraling path as it was drawn toward the center of low pressure.
So then, how does this (apparent ) area of low pressure sustain itself
AFTER the plane has passed by (strong wingtip vortices are known to exist
for many seconds after the passage of an aircraft, and to exist for
several miles behind them)? I would think that as soon as the dynamic
source of low pressure were removed (that is, the moving wing), air
molecules would rush in from all directions and almost instantaneously
equalize the pressure equal to that of the surrounding ambient
(undisturbed) air. Why doesn't that happen? Or if that is not part of the
answer, what DOES keep a wingtip vortice spinning?
I would appreciate this group's learned answers to this puzzle, but please
keep in mind that I am not a physicist or an engineer, so please answer
with that in mind.
Thanks in advance for the help!  :-)

"Hardy Hulley" :
>If by relativity, you mean Einstein's theory, then Derrida's claim 
>that the Einsteinian constant "is the  very concept of variability" is
>surely false. If you are referring to some other theory of relativity,
>then his claim is meaningless.
moggin:
> >>> Your post ran back and forth between the claim that Derrida
> >>> writes only nonsense and the complaint that his work contains an
> >>> over-abundance of meaning.
Hardy:
>Over-abundance of meaning is tantamount to nonsense. Consider the number
>of interpretations available for the Book of Revelations. Actually, that
>brings me to an interesting point - I wonder what Nostradamus would have
>made of Derrida...or Derrida of Nostradamus, for that matter. I sense
>fertile ground for satire here - a dialogue wherein Derrida deconstructs
>Nostradamus' interpretations of himself.
moggin: 
>>I see -- you think that anything which can receive more than
>>a single intepretation  is therefore "nonsense."  
Hardy:
>A non-sequitur - you have, without the slightest compunction, asserted an
>equivalence between "over-abundance of meaning" and "more than a single
>interpretation".
     Here's the basis:  "Over-abundance of meaning is tantamount
to nonsense. Consider the number of interpretations available for
the Book of Revelations."  Of course, it could be that you allow
multiple readings so long as their number doesn't multiply to the
point that they become an "over-abundance."  If that's the case,
I can only wonder how many you permit (three? four? five? eleven?
seven? twenty-three? forty-six? a hundred and sixty-two?  Seven
thousand, five hundred and thirty-eight?), and how you arrive at
the figure.
moggin:
>You also believe that the Book of Revelations is nonsensical.  
>The source of your trouble with Derrida in now apparent.
Hardy:
> As is the source of _your_ trouble with him.
moggin:
> >>> Here, however, you don't seem to have any trouble finding an 
> >>> exclusive meaning and declaring it false.
Hardy:
> >> I note, wryly, that you're in need of an introduction to the
> >> conditional. Observe the leading "if" in the passage you quote - I
> >> didn't claim to have isolated an "exclusive meaning" for anything.
moggin:
>>And I reply, on pumpernickel, that I clearly observed the "if."
>>Had I known you were obtuse, I would have written, "Here, however,
>>you don't seem to have any trouble locating a premise which allows
>>you to find an exclusive meaning and declare it false."  Instead, I
>>credited you with enough intelligence to follow along.  My error.
Hardy:
>So now "locating a premise which allows you to find an exclusive meaning"
>is equivalent to "finding an exclusive meaning" (or, in symbols,
>(P=>Q)<=>Q). Your error (as you put it) is in fact a trivial
>misapprehension of elementary logic, apparently compounded by cavalier
>dishonesty.
     The only error here lies in your reading.
Hardy:
> Furthermore, even your modified assertion is false. I hadn't located a
> premise, *allowing* me to find an exclusive meaning - the very meaning,
> to which you refer, *was*, in fact, the premise of my statement.
     I'll try re-phrasing my point.  Although you claimed that 
Derrida's work was nonsensical, nonetheless you were able, when
it suited you, to make sense of one of his comments.  And when
did it suit you?  When you wanted to press an attack.
Hardy:
> Lastly, let me add that you were already flogging a dead horse with your
> original claim ("you don't seem to have any trouble finding an exclusive
> meaning and declaring it false"). My position, all along, has been that
> Derrida's comment is either false or unintelligible. Your startling
> discovery that I may have isolated an interpretation which does, in fact,
> render his stupid remark false, is silly (though, hardly inconsistent with
> my expectations).
     See above.
moggin:
> I think you're mistaken.  The phrase, "the Einsteinian constant,"
> was Hyppolite's -- what he meant isn't clear.
Hardy:
> Well, Derrida thought he understood the question. So, either the
> question was clear, or Derrida is in the habit of answering "unclear" (a
> quaint euphemism in this case) questions - and of offering "unclear"
> answers, as a natural consequence. The latter, as you well know, is my
> own pet theory.
moggin:
> Why ever should those be the only possiblities?  It's easy to
> imagine that Hyppolite asked an unclear question that Derrida was 
> able to understand, regardless, or which Derrida thought he was able
> to understand.  Happens all the time in conversations.
Hardy:
> Yes it does - usually in silly conversations.
     In all kinds.
moggin:
> >      Confusing, it's true -- a comment made on the spot, copied
> > from a tape, and translated into a foreign language.  But maybe
> > we can make something of it, especially in relation to Derrida's
> > reply.  Derrida appears to grasp what Hyppolite was getting at,
> > and he answers, "the Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is
> > not a center."  Silke thinks he's correcting the term "constant"
> > to the term "center," and she may well be right.  But he could
> > just as easily be correcting Hyppolite.  In that case, he isn't
> > saying that a constant isn't a constant, but rather that what
> > Hyppolite calls "the Einsteinian constant" is better described
> > in different words; in particular, the ones he substitutes.
Hardy:
> In other words, so far, Hyppolite and Derrida are engaged in a verbal
> juggling act. Not a sin, in itself, but not very instructive either.
moggin:
>    "Juggling act" seems a bit much -- "having a conversation" is
>sufficient.  Hyppolite starts to talk about something he calls the
>"Einsteinian constant."  Derrida listens, then replies, "No, you're
>not really talking about a constant."  (In other words, he raises an
>objection at the same place that you do.)  Whether you happen find 
>that instructive is immaterial.  They're talking.  You're bored?
>Go eavesdrop on someone else.
moggin:
> >     So look at them again (remembering that this only a part
> >of Derrida's response to Hyppolite's question).  Derrida says
> >that something in Einstein "is not a constant, is not a center.
> >It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the
> > concept of the game.  In other words, it is not the concept of
> > some_thing_ -- of a center starting from which an observer
> > could master the field -- but the very concept of the field
> > which, after all, I was trying to elaborate."  Can't that be a
> > valid comment about Einstein?  Taken as a remark about a part
> > of relativity that _isn't_ a constant (just as Derrida says),
> > it doesn't seem either meaningless or false.
Hardy:
> Having squinted at this for a long time, I can see the following: There
> exists *something*, not necessarily Einstein's constant, as physicists
> know it, but somehow related to Einstein. This *something* happens to be
> the "concept of variability", and, furthermore, has the alarming
> property of not enabling one to master an entire field (physics,
> presumably) when one uses it as a deductive starting point.
> If this seems like a reasonable statement about relativity to you, I
> must advise you to desist from smoking your underwear.
moggin:
> >     Squinting must have blurred your vision, because you've mixed 
> >me up with Richard.  I don't take that badly -- it's not as good as 
> >the time I was mixed up with Silke (a high honor), but it's still a
> >compliment.  The only problem is that by confusing my remarks with
> >his, you've misconstrued what I was trying to say -- that seems to
> >be what led you to your silly conclusion.  So let's try again.
> > I'm not saying anything about mastery, or fields, or starting
> > points.  That was Richard's suggestion -- I'm not quarreling with
> > it, but I'm taking a different angle.  On my reading, Hyppolite is
> > using a misnomer when he speaks about "the Einsteinian constant."
> > Derrida recognizes that, and corrects him.  So in effect, Derrida
> > replies, "No, that's not what you mean to say."  The transcript is
> > possibly (I'm speculating) in need of some additional punctuation.
> > If I'm right, it should read, "the Einsteinian 'constant' is not a
> > _constant_."   Or in paraphrase, "What you're referring to as the
> > 'Einsteinian constant' isn't really a _constant_ at all.  You've
> > misdescribed what you're talking about."
> >      Now let's look at Derrida's words again.  (Again remember that
> > we're ignoring the bulk of both Hyppolite's question and Derrida's
> > reply in order to focus on one, particular detail.)  Derrida says:
> >      "[It] is not a constant, is not a center.  It is the very
> >      concept of variability -- it is, finally, the  concept of the
> >      game.  In other words, it is not the concept of some_thing_ --
> >      of a center starting from which an observer could master the 
> >      field -- but the very concept of the field which, after all, I
> >      was trying to elaborate." 
> >      You no longer have to assume that Derrida is talking about c,
> > so you no longer have to conclude that his statement is meaningless
> > or false.  We're left to figure out what he _is_ talking about, but
> > it's now possible that he's making an arguably valid observation
> > about certain elements of relativity -- in other words, that there
> > exists an [it] which fits his comments.  Maybe you could make some
> > suggestions.  Personally, I'd guess he's referring to the lack of
> > absolute space and time.
Hardy:
>After much elaborate sleight of hand, all you've managed to tell me is
>that, if we're exceedingly charitable towards Derrida, and assume that
>"Einsteinian constant" is not in fact Einstein's constant, then his comment
>*need* not be false. You still don't have a clue as to what Derrida is
>actually saying *about* the "Einsteinian constant". Consequently, you stand
>absolutely no chance of determining what the "Einsteinian constant"
>actually is. In fact, your grand hypothesis is: Derrida says that for some
>constant c, and some predicate P, P(c) obtains.
     There was nothing elaborate about it at all -- I just paid
some attention to what Hyppolite and Derrida were saying to each
other.  That allowed me to remove the premise of your reading,
which prevented you from understanding them, and replace it with
one that makes more sense, if you accept my interpretation (and
I don't see you arguing with it).  There's no need for charity
toward Derrida, since the term "Einsteinian constant" came from
Hyppolite -- on my reading, Derrida corrects it.  And although
you don't seem to have noticed, I also handed you a clue to the
meaning of Derrida's reply.
Hardy:
>I'm flabbergasted. How can you possibly spew shit like: "We're left to
>figure out what he _is_ talking about..." and "it's now possible that he's
>making an arguably valid observation about certain elements of relativity",
>and offer it as a defence of the truth and intelligibility of Derrida's
>claims? 
     You claimed that what Derrida said was wrong or meaningless;
I showed that you were full of crap.  Mission accomplished.   If
you want to go on to discuss what he meant and whether it's true,
you don't need an invitation; but I gave you one, anyhow, along
with my guess about his meaning.  Your response was to say, "I'm
flabbergasted," and accuse me of spewing shit.  Well done.
Hardy:
>It's time to stop dithering - do you, or don't you know what Derrida meant
>in his much-quoted conversation with Hyppolite? I have claimed that what he
>said was either false, or meaningless - my claim awaits falsification.
     I already showed that your claim was false, and told you
what I thought he meant.  Your reply, such as it is, is above.  
-- moggin

On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Anthony Potts wrote:
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:44:51 GMT
> From: Anthony Potts 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.math
> Subject: Re: Read first people, don't look uniformed!
> 
> On 7 Nov 1996, David L Evens wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> No, I could, if I wanted either go to CERN full time and pick up $100k per
> year tax free, or head out to California, and get a bit less, doing
> research in HEP there.
And that would be the limit for an ambitious, uncultured bourgeois moron
from Newcastle. How sad...
> Neither appeals to me. As I said, physics is not challenging. I want to be
> making rapid fire decisions on a minute by minute basis, not spending
> months on each innovation it just isn't interesting.
Translation: I am not good enough at physics to get to the top.
> I have done everything I wanted in physics. 
Well, aside from actually getting a Ph.D. in it...
> I chose the university which
> was supposed to be the best in the world for undergraduate physics, and
> went there to study the subject.
Soon to realize that you were duped...
> I then spent some time as a professional scientist working in electronic
> warfare, as I felt that I should serve my country, in exchange for the
> excellent education they had paid for.
Soon to realize your country is second rate in that field...
> I then came to Imperial, and CERN.
Soon to realize you weren't up to snuff...
> You probably haven't heard of Imperial, but again, it was rated as the best
> when I was looking for somewhere to go.
Best in Britain, perhaps... A sad commentary...
> Now, there is nothing left to prove to myself in physics. 
Well, except for publishing distinguished work in the field...
> I will shortly
> hand in a report on whether we will see the intermediate mass Higgs boson
> at CMS, and then I will leave.
Please send me a copy of that report.
> People may think I am shallow to be wandering off from the "noble" pursuit
> of science, just because I want to take home several million dollars per
> year in salary, but that doesn't matter.
We don't think you are shallow. We just know that you will not make
several million dollars per year.
> I am doing it for my reasons. 
You are a failure at physics.
> I am not leaving any failures behind me.
> After this work, it would not be any harder to work in any other field of
> research. Again, I picked HEP because of its reputation, and I am not
> about to drop down to something which I do not find as interesting.
Anthony, I would LOVE to test you on your knowledge of the stochastic
calculus...
> So, people may think of me what they like. The only people I have to think
> about are myself and my fiancee. If I have a lot of people calling me a
> wanker behind my back, or a failure, or whatever, it doesn't matter.
Of course not: you are the sort of idiot who rails over the internet, and
hides behind his keyboard.
> I have done what I came to do, and now am moving on, and that's all there
> is to it.
Failure. 
--------------------------------------
This is a pain which will definitely linger.
	-- Brain, after something Pinky did.
Joseph Edward Nemec                    
Operations Research Center	         
Room E40-149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
nemecj@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/

In <563iol$fvv@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
writes: 
>
>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote[in part]:
>>    How about the time span between spacetime events that are
dependent
>>on an inertial frame that is at absolute rest? Would this give us the
>>absolute time?
>
>Yes, because such an observer's clocks are truly set even by using
>Einstein's definition, and further, such clocks are not slowed, being
>at absolute rest in space. But of course this time span cannot be
>confirmed as the one that's absolute because no one knows which
>observer is at rest, if any (or, similarly, no one knows what the true
>time span should be). So, it does give us an absolute time reading,
>but does not give us absolute time itself for our use.
>
>
    Yes, but as I have explained, if light is inertialess then it
cannot have a component of velocity in any direction other than its
direction of propagation. If you are in a spaceship traveling at .5c
and shine a light perpendicular to your direction of travel you will
not see the light go straight up, if light is inertialess. You would
see it go diagonally back toward the rear of the ship.
                        __d__
                        \   |
                  light  \  |d'
                          \ |
___________________________\|_______________________>velocity of ship 
    If you saw the light go straight up, that would mean that the light
was moving with you in your direction of motion. If this is so, the
light has a component of velocity in the direction of the ship's
motion. Now, you shined a light perpendicular to your direction of
motion. We know that light propagates at c. So according to the
observer in the ship the light has a vertical component c and a
horizontal component, the velocity of the ship. The vector sum of these
two velocities, the sqrt(c^2+v^2), exceeds c. Now I, and most
experiments bear me out, assume this to be impossible. You will
therefore see the light go diagonally back, as in the diagram. Since
light is absolutely motionless in your direction of travel, you can
therefore calculate your absolute velocity. Refer to the above diagram.
Light moving vertically at c will reach the ceiling in d'/c. Call this
time t. The distance between the point where you emitted the light and
the point where the light hit the ceiling is d. Your absolute velocity
is therefore d/t. This is really your absolute velocity because light
is at absolute rest in the direction you are traveling. Please tell me
what you think, or if you have any objections.
Regards,
Edward Meisner

Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
: >I'm not denying anything you said, but you are still missing the point; 
: >some people have pointed out here that when Heisenberg or Bohr or 
: >Einstein comment _philosophically_, they are not commenting qua 
: >scientists either, and that their "musings" or "thoughts" have no 
: >bearings on physics as it is of interest to Mati. They _do_ understand 
: >the physics but they also address questions that are _not_ pertinent to 
: >the practice of physics -- just like Derrida, perchance.
: This is a substantial misrepresentation of what Mati was saying, oddly
: enough the same one that Mammel was producing.  Does this really have
: to be explained?
Apparently so; Mati seems to be rather d'accord with my interpretation, 
judging from our last exchange. So please do explain.
: >And I will repeat my recommendation: if you want to know whether Bohr and 
: >Derrida are really as far apart as you assume, refer yourself to 
: >Plotnitsky's _Complementarity_.
: It is not likely that I will refer to Plotnitsky but, still, I
: seriously doubt it.  I have read to enough of Derrida to have a sense
: of how he approaches things and enough of Bohr to know how he
: approaches things and I do not believe.  To be sure there are
: commonalities, such can always be found.  A raven is like a writing
: desk, after all. 
Well, I can't do more than tell you that someone whom I know to be a 
rigorous thinker as well as someone who has studied both Bohr and Derrida 
for years thinks differently and can offer you a few hundred pages of 
why. 
: >I also find your comments a tad disingenuous -- by now it has been 
: >pointed out a million times that Derrida's comments on SR do _not_ spring 
: >out of a whole context of his work but are a casual reply to a casual 
: >question by a colleague -- in other words, yes, he's dabbling a bit -- 
: >just as Bohr and Heisenberg etc. are dabbling in philosophy. 
: Bladderwort.  I was not referring to that oft quoted exchange as a
: topic and well you should know it.  
You re not? Where else does Derrida refer to SR or QM? What _are_ you 
talking about?
Silke

Hardy:
>>>> If by relativity, you mean Einstein's theory, then Derrida's claim 
>>>> that the Einsteinian constant "is the  very concept of variability" is
>>>> surely false. If you are referring to some other theory of relativity,
>>>> then his claim is meaningless.
moggin:
>>> Your post ran back and forth between the claim that Derrida
>>> writes only nonsense and the complaint that his work contains an
>>> over-abundance of meaning.
Hardy:
>> Over-abundance of meaning is tantamount to nonsense. Consider the number
>> of interpretations available for the Book of Revelations. Actually, that
>> brings me to an interesting point - I wonder what Nostradamus would have
>> made of Derrida...or Derrida of Nostradamus, for that matter. I sense
>> fertile ground for satire here - a dialogue wherein Derrida deconstructs
>> Nostradamus' interpretations of himself.
moggin: 
> I see -- you think that anything which can receive more than a single
intepretation
> is therefore "nonsense."
A non-sequitur - you have, without the slightest compunction, asserted an
equivalence between "over-abundance of meaning" and "more than a single
interpretation".
moggin:
> You also believe that the Book of Revelations is nonsensical.  The source
of your 
> trouble with Derrida in now apparent.
As is the source of _your_ trouble with him.
moggin:
>>> Here, however, you don't seem to have any trouble finding an 
>>> exclusive meaning and declaring it false.
Hardy:
>> I note, wryly, that you're in need of an introduction to the
>> conditional. Observe the leading "if" in the passage you quote - I
>> didn't claim to have isolated an "exclusive meaning" for anything.
moggin:
> And I reply, on pumpernickel, that I clearly observed the "if."
> Had I known you were obtuse, I would have written, "Here, however,
> you don't seem to have any trouble locating a premise which allows
> you to find an exclusive meaning and declare it false."  Instead, I
> credited you with enough intelligence to follow along.  My error.
So now "locating a premise which allows you to find an exclusive meaning"
is equivalent to "finding an exclusive meaning" (or, in symbols,
(P=>Q)<=>Q). Your error (as you put it) is in fact a trivial
misapprehension of elementary logic, apparently compounded by cavalier
dishonesty.
Furthermore, even your modified assertion is false. I hadn't located a
premise, *allowing* me to find an exclusive meaning - the very meaning, to
which you refer, *was*, in fact, the premise of my statement.
Lastly, let me add that you were already flogging a dead horse with your
original claim ("you don't seem to have any trouble finding an exclusive
meaning and declaring it false"). My position, all along, has been that
Derrida's comment is either false or unintelligible. Your startling
discovery that I may have isolated an interpretation which does, in fact,
render his stupid remark false, is silly (though, hardly inconsistent with
my expectations).
moggin:
>>> I think you're mistaken.  The phrase, "the Einsteinian constant,"
>>> was Hyppolite's -- what he meant isn't clear.
Hardy:
>> Well, Derrida thought he understood the question. So, either the
>> question was clear, or Derrida is in the habit of answering "unclear" (a
>> quaint euphemism in this case) questions - and of offering "unclear"
>> answers, as a natural consequence. The latter, as you well know, is my
>> own pet theory.
moggin:
> Why ever should those be the only possiblities?  It's easy to
> imagine that Hyppolite asked an unclear question that Derrida was 
> able to understand, regardless, or which Derrida thought he was able
> to understand.  Happens all the time in conversations.
Yes it does - usually in silly conversations.
moggin:
> Squinting must have blurred your vision, because you've mixed 
> me up with Richard.  I don't take that badly -- it's not as good as 
> the time I was mixed up with Silke (a high honor), but it's still a
> compliment
What's with the public display of bottom licking - did somebody deconstruct
the last roll of toilet paper?
moggin:
> I'm not saying anything about mastery, or fields, or starting
> points.  That was Richard's suggestion -- I'm not quarreling with
> it, but I'm taking a different angle.  On my reading, Hyppolite is
> using a misnomer when he speaks about "the Einsteinian constant."
> Derrida recognizes that, and corrects him.  So in effect, Derrida
> replies, "No, that's not what you mean to say."  The transcript is
> possibly (I'm speculating) in need of some additional punctuation.
> If I'm right, it should read, "the Einsteinian 'constant' is not a
> _constant_."   Or in paraphrase, "What you're referring to as the
> 'Einsteinian constant' isn't really a _constant_ at all.  You've
> misdescribed what you're talking about."
> 
>      Now let's look at Derrida's words again.  (Again remember that
> we're ignoring the bulk of both Hyppolite's question and Derrida's
> reply in order to focus on one, particular detail.)  Derrida says:
> 
>      "[It] is not a constant, is not a center.  It is the very
>      concept of variability -- it is, finally, the  concept of the
>      game.  In other words, it is not the concept of some_thing_ --
>      of a center starting from which an observer could master the 
>      field -- but the very concept of the field which, after all, I
>      was trying to elaborate." 
> 
>      You no longer have to assume that Derrida is talking about c,
> so you no longer have to conclude that his statement is meaningless
> or false.  We're left to figure out what he _is_ talking about, but
> it's now possible that he's making an arguably valid observation
> about certain elements of relativity -- in other words, that there
> exists an [it] which fits his comments.  Maybe you could make some
> suggestions.  Personally, I'd guess he's referring to the lack of
> absolute space and time.
After much elaborate sleight of hand, all you've managed to tell me is
that, if we're exceedingly charitable towards Derrida, and assume that
"Einsteinian constant" is not in fact Einstein's constant, then his comment
*need* not be false. You still don't have a clue as to what Derrida is
actually saying *about* the "Einsteinian constant". Consequently, you stand
absolutely no chance of determining what the "Einsteinian constant"
actually is. In fact, your grand hypothesis is: Derrida says that for some
constant c, and some predicate P, P(c) obtains.
I'm flabbergasted. How can you possibly spew shit like: "We're left to
figure out what he _is_ talking about..." and "it's now possible that he's
making an arguably valid observation about certain elements of relativity",
and offer it as a defence of the truth and intelligibility of Derrida's
claims? 
It's time to stop dithering - do you, or don't you know what Derrida meant
in his much-quoted conversation with Hyppolite? I have claimed that what he
said was either false, or meaningless - my claim awaits falsification.

David Schneider wrote:
> I've always been in the group that says that starting with a specified
> state, entropy increases in both directions of time.
> 
> I've never cared for the analogy about the film of a glass breaking being
> played backwards as proof that there is an obvious difference between the
> directions of time.  Start the filming before the glass is created and you
> will see that the setup has not been allowed to occur naturally - it is a
> prepared experiment.  When you take a naturally occurring system and film
> it before and after, I challenge the view that entropy occurs in one
> direction of time only.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -David
In every case that has been observed thus far, when ALL of the entropy
is considered, entropy increases in the forward direction of time. 
Certainly a cup can be made from raw materials such that the entropy of
the materials is decreased.  However, it must be understood that the
decrease in entropy of the materials came at the expense of a GREATER
INCREASE in entropy in the maker of the cup and the other surroundings. 
The total entropy of the universe thus increases monotonically with
time.   The second law of thermodynamics is a result of these
observations.  Of course, someday maybe we will see a broken cup
reassemble itself and jump  back onto the table spontaneously, and the
law will require rewriting, but I'm not holding my breath!
Steven Arnold
Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Oakland City University
Oakland City, IN

In article <3284A12E.6CD@ix.netcom.com>, 
wrote:
> 
> Cees Roos wrote:
> >
> > As far as SRT is concerned, absolutes are no more than romantic
> > phantasies and irrelevant to physics. You might as well say they do not
> > exist.
> > --
> 
> Ah ... so the only absolute is that there are no absolutes!
NO. SRT is a theory, i.e. a formulation of how we think the universe
functions. The formulation of SRT was induced from empiric data, and
subsequent experimental data conformed to predictions.
If SRT would be falsified by data collected with a new experiment, it
would be replaced by a new theory, explaining all the data SRT
explained, plus the new data, which falsified SRT.
So, no absolutes is not absolute, but a pretty good working hypothesis.
> So existance 
> "sort of" exists ... but not in any permanent defined way; and it's basically
> irrelevant to physics (which is the study of the natural (material) world and
> the phenomena therein).
I don't understand what you say.
> 
> Such a working metaphysics should take one a long way .... but of course 
> you never know where you are when you get there because any measure of
> your location is non-absolute, i.e. illusion.
You always know where you are, i.e. here. If you want to know where you
are in the universe, look around and you'll see.
> 
> W$
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

In article <562o9r$a1t@rocky.scvnet.com>, mlyle@scvnet.com wrote:
> OK, the above is true, but _why_ is the abbreviation "Pa" instead of "P"? 
>  Is there another unit I've overlooked that is abbreviated "P"?
Yes, it's the poise (= 0.1 Pa s), a unit of dynamic viscosity that I think
was earlier allowed to be used in conjunction with SI units but may no
longer be. See Olle Järnefors summary at

> Multiplier prefixes are another source of confusion.  Why on earth aren't 
> "da- (10^1), h- (10^2), and k- (10^3) capitalized as are all the larger 
> multipliers?  This would not interfere with the lesser multipliers (we 
> would even be able to removed the "a" from "da", the only 2-letter 
> prefix!) and would make the prefix system more consistant.
It's a mystery to me too, I see no potential for ambiguity in those
changes, even now. Apparently D *was* the prefix for deca at one time. 
> Then there's those Greek letters that snuck into the system.  We could 
> use "O" for "Ohm" and "i" for "micro-" (m is "milli-") without messing 
> anything else up.
That's a really bad idea, due to the potential for confusion with 0 and 1.
"u" is already an official alternative to  for micro-. "R" and "Ohm"
both get used instead of .

In <32853040.524C@mail.ic.net> Peter Diehr  writes:
>
>Allen Meisner wrote:
>> 
>> In <3283D619.393E@mail.ic.net> Peter Diehr 
writes:
>> 
>
>> >While this is a reasonable system for navigation, it is still still
a
>> >relative coordinate system: the ship measures its position with
>> respect
>> >to (relative to) the buoy.
>> >
>> >You can easily verify this by releasing a second buoy: navigation
>> proceeds
>> >as before, and one can arbitrarily name buoy 1 or buoy 2 as the
>> "absolute
>> >system" ... they are identical in function, but yield different
>> coordinates.
>> >
>> >Best Regards, Peter
>> 
>>     Yes, that is why I said "arbitrarily" choose an absolute
coordinate
>> system. However, both buoys are still absolute reference frames by
>> which absolute velocities can be measured. I don't know exactly what
>> the Lonrentz transforms are, but I would imagine you could use them
to
>> get the correct absolute velocties by inference from one frame to
>> another.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Edward Meisner
>
>A Lorentz transformation is a shift to a reference system moving at a
>different relative speed: like the change from standing on an
escalator
>to standing on the floor.
>
>There is nothing wrong with anything that you are saying _except_ that
>everywhere you say "absolute" you should be saying "relative".  It's a
>matter of definition.
>
>When previous generations of philosophers and scientists talked about
>the aether, they meant the one absolute reference frame which was not
>moving, period.  Isaac Newton associated this with a theological
speculation:
>the absolute rest frame is coincident with the sensorium of God.
>
>However, neither Newtonian mechanics, nor Relativistic theory requires
>that such an absolute reference frame exist ... and relativity tells
>us that one inertial reference frame is as good as any other to state
and
>or test the laws of physics.  
>
>Arbitrarily picking one out and calling it "absolute" serves no
purpose.
>
>Best Regards, Peter
    Please bear with me. Light itself is the absolute reference frame.
Light is the priveleged observer and the preferred reference frame.
With light you can determine if you are absolutely at rest. Now, you
say that you can arbitrarily name bouy one or buoy two as the absolute
reference frame. However, both coordinate systems will give you the
exact same velocity, in both direction and magnitude, for an object
moving in space whether you calculate that velocity relative to the
first buoy or the second buoy. The calculated velocity is therefore
absolute, since it does not matter which coordinate system you use.
Regards,
Edward Meisner

Terry@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) wrote:
> > From: jdcorley@ix.netcom.com(James Corley )
> > Date: 6 Nov 1996 13:58:45 GMT
>
> > Seriously, who is Pauline Hanson, and is she advocating the
> > interrment and eventual death of Asians?
>
>Pauline Hanson was a Liberal party candidate who was dropped by
>that party for ignorant and ill-informed comments about the
>treatment Aboriginal Australians receive. She stood in a
>`red-neck' area of Australia, and got in. She has been revelling
>in the media attention fruit-loops get from what passes for
>press here, and has extended her claims to `Too many Asians
>[n.o.s., but variations in the subcutenous fat around the eyes
>seems to be the identifier] are immigrating (offering the
>horrific prospect that if immigration continues at the present
>rate until 2040, `asians' *and their descendents* [stress mine]
>will constitute 25% of the population;-/ Other comments go along
>the lines of `introduce capital punishment' and such other
>rantings.
>
>In short, do *you* want her, freight paid?
Let's not be hasty - she was elected, wasn't she?  She has not been 
recalled, has she?  A whole bunch of somebodies agree with her.  
(Capital punishment has a zero percent recidivism rate.  You cannot beat 
that.)
If the US wanted to close its borders to 1.5 million illegal Mexican 
immigrants each year - and MAKE money doing it, all it need do is declare 
a ten mile wide zone north of the US/Mexican border as a free fire zone 
and sell Mex tickets $1000/night hunting - no liability, no guarantee of 
hunters' survival.
The US National Debt would be retired, Mexican immigration would drop to 
near zero, and much of the populations of Alabama, Georgia, and 
Mississippi would end up interred.  I cannot imagine any cogent 
counterargument to my plan.
(What is this doing cc'd to rec.woodworking?  Are the Abos offering 
plans for lean-tos?))
-- 
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!

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
> But, the destabilization is not in science itself, it is in the way we 
> think about science.  Which, as I keep stressing, is not the same 
> thing.  When I listen to Bethoveen's "Hammerklavier" sonata (the third 
> part, to be specific) I may appreciate the genius of the composer.  At 
> the same time, the feelings the music brings up in me are my own, not 
> the composer's.  They're related to his work, but they're not his 
> work.
     On your account of physics, the music is no more "his work"
than the feelings it inspires in you -- his work consists only
of the notes on the page.  Playing them is both unnecessary and 
irrelevant.  In short, the hammerklavier is superfluous to the
"Hammerklavier."  (N.B.:  I don't say that to make mock -- it's
a defensible, albeit an awkward position.)
-- moggin

          For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
     Interested In Exploring Math, Science And Ethics
   Through Collaboration For Enrichment And Achievement.
------------------------------------------------------------
	Even though it is said that the physical properties are
the same in all directions in a face centered cubic (FCC) 
structure of the metal elements whose atoms are arranged in 
this order, I have doubts that maybe can be explored or discussed.
	Does sound (or energy into the wall) travel like a 
sphere from a hit wall atom?  Or does it travel from atom 
bond to atom bond in straight lines in one direction, but at
45 degrees to the straight line direction, does sound travel
in a zig zag manner as shown in the figure below?
	All numbers and letters in the figure below are atoms 
in the face of cubes. Adjacent faces contain adjacent atoms
that are bonded together.  
	Note the same bond to bond distance traveled of 2 paths
from H the hit atom. But the overall distance traveled is 
different for each path as follows:
     ___________________________ 
    /|       /|       /|       /|
   / |  1   / |  3   / |  5   / |
  /__|_____/__|_____/__|_____/  |
  | H|_ _ _|_2|_ _ _|_4|_ _ _|_6| In Path H-1-2-3-4-5-6
  |  /     |  |     |  /     |  / Energy from H Moves
  | /   A  | /|     | /|     | /  6 Bond Lengths = 6 d.
  |/_______|/_|_____|/_|_____|/    
           | B|_ _ _|_ |          But distance if traveled
           |  /     |  /          in a straight line from
           | /   C  | /|          H--6 = 3 (2)^.5 d 
           |/_ _____|/ |          
                    | D|_ _ _ _ _
                    |  /        /| In Path H-A-B-C-D-E-F
                    | /   E    / | Energy from H Moves
                    |/_______ /  | 6 Bond Lengths = 6 d
                              | F| But In A Straight line.
                              |  /
                              | /
                              |/
	Can the difference in the time sound travels in the
2 paths above be detected? 
	If such a difference in the time sound travels could be
detected, it would prove that sound travels from bond to 
bond in zig zag fashion when necessary. 
	Also the atoms in the crystal could be oriented because
travel perpendicular to the square layer section takes 41.4%
longer for sound to travel than the shortest straight line 
path for the same distance.
	For aluminum sound travels about 5000 meters per 
second. Thus for two 5 centimeter (5/100 m) pieces of 
aluminum (that would have to be 2 single crystals which each
cost about $1450 for 1.5 cm diameter by 5 cm long and 
oriented as needed) it would require the following 2 times 
to be measured:
For the shortest path through 1 cm of aluminum:
       s       5 m        1  
    --------  ---  =  ----------- s = 1E-5 s 
    5000 m    100      100,000
For the longest path through 1 cm of aluminum:
where c = 5000 m/s  
time long = 6 d/c zig zag from picture above.
        c        6 d             2          time long
  ------------  -------  =     ------   =   ----------
    3 (2)^.5 d     c           (2)^.5       time short
time long = (2^.5) time short = 1.414 time short
time long = 1.414 (1E-6s) = 1.414E-5 s
time short =                1E-5 s 
So can this difference in the 2 above times be measured for 
sound travel in 5 cm of 2 aluminum single crystals?
Thanks for joining this undertaking.
	Good luck on this exciting adventure to find useful 
projects to explore and the tools to empower and to succeed 
with.
	I offer this post to continue a useful discussion on 
many valuable ideas about atoms that could become meaningful
projects for students and others to undertake.
____________________________________________________________
  Thanks to those who have offered constructive criticism.
             C by David Kaufman, Nov. 10, 1996
                  Founder of the Cube Club
   For Collaborative Math, Science and Ethics Excellence.
         Be Good, Do Good, Be One, and Then Go Jolly.
                 What else is there to do? 
-- 
                                             davk@netcom.com

	I need some help finding sites/information/formulas on the study
of off-centre collisions between moving spheres.  Right now I'm only
interested in two-dimensional collisions (such as billiard balls) but
any more advanced information is more than welcome.  Any help is much
appreciated!
PS Please EMAIL any suggestions to me as I do not check the newsgroups
very often.  Thanx again!
_________________________________________________
Rob Pieké 
rob.pieke@quest.ca
Have any cool TTF's or advanced Photoshop/POV-Ray tricks?

In article <55u8i2$l6d@camel1.mindspring.com>, mikehide@mindspring.com (Michael John Hide) writes:
p> ksjung@ix.netcom.com(Kevin S. Jung) wrote:
p> 
p> ;In  Tse Ka
p> Chun
p> ; writes: 
p> ;>
p> ;>On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Andrew Juniper wrote:
p> ;>
p> ;>> IBAN wrote:
p> ;>> > 
p> ;>> > ASIANS OF THE WORLD....LETS BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA.......
p> 
p> Yep why dont you all go home ,perhaps you and the aussies will all  be
p> happy 
p> 
What is the official positions of Asian governments?

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>>>>>[...] One of the originators 
>>>>>of the "least action" approach (an extraemly important part of physics 
>>>>>but I won't get into details now), either Maupertois or Fermat (or 
>>>>>maybe even both of them), was motivated in his work by theological 
>>>>>notions.  So, if somebody reads his rambling on the subject and 
>>>>>considers them to be part of the his contribution to physics, one may 
>>>>>conclude something like "one of the centerpieces of physics is based 
>>>>>on religious mistycism".  Which ain't true, although that founding 
>>>>>father really thought so.
moggin@nando.net (moggin)
>>>>     Well, _one_ of them is -- as I've mentioned before, Newton
>>>>imported his concept of action-at-a-distance to physics from his
>>>>studies in hermetic philosophy (read: religious mysticism).  The
>>>>reaction from his colleagues was just what you would expect: they
>>>>felt it was poppycock.  But when the dust settled (as one might
>>>>say), it had become orthodoxy, and it stayed that way for several
>>>>hundred years.
Mati:
> >> I don't know if you did read the excerpt from Principia that somebody
> >> (I think either Weiss or Siemons) posted here few days ago.  Newton 
> >> writes there about gravity and clearly states that he has no 
> >> explanation for its action and not going to try to offer one since 
> >> (I'm not using his words here, only paraphrasing them, maybe somebody 
> >> will repost) offering hypotheses which can't be verified isn't the job 
> >> of a scientist.  Doesn't strike me as introducing a mystical idea, 
> >> rather stating "that's the way it works, though we don't know why".
moggin:
> >     Missed the excerpt, or read it too quickly.  I agree that what
> >you're saying here isn't mystical, but I was referring to the concept
> >of action-at-a-distance, which Newton introduced to explain the way
> >that gravity worked -- in other words, to provide a means by which it
> >could exert its force.  Action-at-a-distance is mystical in that it
> >comes from hermeticism, and also in the rather ghostly quality which
> >it has, as an idea.  But as an explanatory principle, it's empty, I
> >think, more than it is mystical -- really, it just begs the question. 
Mati:
> The point of the excerpt I've mentioned is that Newton didn't 
> introduce action at a distance as explanation for gravity.  He just 
> stated that it appears to act from a distance and the he has no 
> explanation.  Was quite explicit about having no explanation, in fact.
     The only problem with this is that he _did_, and it was the
one I cited -- action-at-a-distance.  We've had this discussion
before -- you eventually took the position that he didn't supply
it as an explanation, but only as a description.  My impression
differs, but I agree that stripped of its Hermetic connotations,
it doesn't serve as any more than that; which is why I said that
it begs the question.  But the question is significant, and it
was an attempt to provide an answer.  Since you're content with
the math, the question doesn't exist for you.  
Mati:
> >> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "it became orthodoxy".  It was 
> >> used since it worked.
moggin:
> >     Wait a minute -- you just finished telling me it didn't exist.
Mati:
> Gravity didn't exist???!!!
     Interesting hypothesis, but no, I meant action-at-a-distance.
Mati:
> >> Mind you, Newtonian gravity is a formula, not a theory.  There is no 
> >> explanation of any sort offered.  So, how does a formula become an
> >>orthodoxy?
moggin:
> >     That's a different question, and I'd like to stick with this one,
> >for now.  Action-at-a-distance _is_ the explanation that Newton gave,
> >and the one that eventually became accepted, after the resistance died
> >down, even though it meant introducing sheer mysticism into physics.
Mati:
> No, read above.
     No, _you_ read above.
-- moggin

Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
 > 
 > In article <32756FDD.5D63@cam.org>, achim@cam.org (Achim Recktenwald )
 > says...
 > >
 > >
 > >But frequency is a characterisitc of a wave. How do you distinguish
 > >photons, not waves, of different energy ?
 > >
 > >Achim
 > 
 > By their frequency!!!
 > 
 > What you've got to realise is that the correct answer to the question 
"Is a
 > photon a particle or a wave?" is "Neither". A photon 
(electron/neutrino/etc)
 > sometimes behaves like a particle, sometimes like a wave. Frequency is 
a
 > property of waves but it is also a property of fundamental particles.
 > 
    But isn't a photon a wave ? Mathematically a wave packet 
    built up from a superposition of a certain spectral distribution 
    of wave frequencies ? 
    If it exhibits particle-like behaviour, then isn't "particle-like
    behaviour" then a property of these wave packets ?

Well, when I first saw Brad Pitt in a movie, I had to wonder...
Gabriel
-- 
Joshua Ellis     gabriel@deathsdoor.com
http://www.slip.net/~gabewint/
"They can't do this to me
I'm not some piece of teenage wildlife!"
	--David Bowie
--

David Schneider  wrote in article
<01bbcb23$607513c0$9fa901c7@David_Schneider.onramp.net>...
> I've always been in the group that says that starting with a specified
> state, entropy increases in both directions of time.
> 
> I've never cared for the analogy about the film of a glass breaking being
> played backwards as proof that there is an obvious difference between the
> directions of time.  Start the filming before the glass is created and
you
> will see that the setup has not been allowed to occur naturally - it is a
> prepared experiment.  When you take a naturally occurring system and film
> it before and after, I challenge the view that entropy occurs in one
> direction of time only.
> 
> Comments?
Remembering back to when I took thermo in college, I recall that entropy is
a state function.  That means that the entropy change of a process is
dependent only on the starting and final states connected by that process. 
Consider any two states A and B.  Then, if you consider a process that is A
--> B --> A.  Then DeltaS(A-->B-->A) = DeltaS(A-->B) + DeltaS(B --> A). 
However, for the process A-->B-->A, the starting state and final state are
the same, so DeltaS(A-->B-->A) = 0.  Combining these last two equations,
DeltaS(A-->B) = -DeltaS(B-->A).   Since A-->B is the time reverse of B-->A,
this tells me that entropy increases in one time direction, and decreases
in the other.  The third law tells us that entropy increases in the forward
direction of time, so I conclude that entropy decreases in the reverse
direction of time.  Note here that the arguments strictly only hold for the
entire universe.  However, the same arguments hold for any subsystem of the
universe, as long as you're looking at the same subsystem forward and
reverse in time.
You say that the glass breaking is not a "natural" process because it is a
planned experiment.  Why should planned experiments not be subject to the
same laws of nature as what you call "natural processes"?  That's a pretty
arrogant view of the human species, to claim that just because a human
planned an experiment, it is not subject to the third law of
thermodynamics.
	Eric Lucas

  I am trying to create a "Casimir Effect" experiment for our
Grad physics lab course, and am looking for suggested methods.
Has anyone out there ever done this experiment? Perhaps you have
access to a write up? Does anyone know of a university that has
it as part of their physics graduate lab? I have a $15K - $20K
budget to work with - any help or advice is welcome.
Thanks,
Greg Huey
ggh@student.physics.upenn.edu

Im Artikel , moggin@nando.net
(moggin) schreibt:
...
>in other words, Ellis doesn't misquote Derrida, 
>but Whiteman misquotes Ellis' quotation of 
>Johnson's quotation of her translation. 
ROTFL  
(...but who actually pays moggin to find out this most important fact
about the mega confusion in the pomo camp?)
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

In <563cef$5e7@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes: 
>
>    I am having trouble understanding something. I have already asked
>Mr. Oakley for clarification in a private email, but I would like to
>pose the question to this newsgroup at large. Mr Oakley, in his
article
>"In the Interest of Physics," puts forth the hypothesis that gravity
is
>an interaction between energies, rather than a force between mass. My
>hypothesis is that electrostatics is also an interaction between
>energies, rather than a force between charges. If this is so, then why
>is the interaction proportional to mass rather than charge. In other
>words, the force equation, Coulomb's Law, is a function of mass rather
>than charge. Shouldn't the interaction be proportional to both mass
and
>charge, since they are both essentially the same? And shouldn't the
>interaction between mass also be proportional to both mass and charge,
>since they are both essentially curvatures in spacetime? Should Mr.
>Oakley therefore apply his calculations to both Coulomb's Law and
>Newton's Law?
>
>Regards,
>Edward Meisner
    I am sorry. I have already resolved this problem in my mind.
Coulomb's Law already calculates the acceleration as a function of both
mass and charge. Newton's Law does not need to take charge into account
because, in the interaction between neutral bodies, the effects of the
positive and negative charges cancel each other.
Edward Meisner

wetboy wrote:
> 
> Fred Hapgood (hapgood@pobox.com) wrote:
> : Greetings --
> 
> : I'm looking for a good book that talks sense about contemporary views
> : on quantum mechanics, including the many worlds hypothesis.   The
> : audience here (me) is on the level of the average _Economist_
> : or _The Sciences_ subscriber, if that means anything.  (Kaku's
> < snip >
> : Any suggestions??
> 
> "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert.
> 
> -- Wetboy
I concur....This is the best/most even treatment of quantum
interpretation.  It gives the historical background, then goes over the
various interpretations, many world view being one of them.  A slightly
less "grounded" but still solid book is "In Search of Parallel
universes" by Fred Alan Wolf.  This one hit the many worlds view head
on.  I liked it Very much.
Wayne Shanks

Hi,
	Could anyone explain me what a geostat satellite is?
(please, send a cc to )
-- 
- rf

November 10, 1996
 I am writing at this time because I feel that my time is very limited,
and I want to make a contribution before I go.  I have studied physics
somewhat and I understand that any other subject is "merely stamp
collecting."  Therefore, I would very much like to make a contribution in
physics.  My idea is this:  please consider it seriously as I believe it
to be correct:  Gravity, as we know it, does not actually exist.  It
exists, but the term gravity is a misnomer which is better understood as
electricity and magnetism which have already been unified.  In the
universe, the mythical anti-matter is energy, which keeps the universe
from collapsing.  Matter is, of course, interchangeable with energy and
keeps the universe from expanding infinitely.  Thank you very much for
printing this, even if you do not believe it.  I have thought about
physics very much, and do not mean this as a hoax.  Is there any support
for my theory?   Steven Kurtz
Skurtz5502@aol.com
Also, there is no such thing as space-time curvature, of course, since
this is a gravitational effect.

gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| > | That's quite possibly true. Instead a large portion of them seems to
| > | prefer handing control to demagogues, preachers,  blind faith, and a media
| > | concerned more with holding short attention spans than providing
| > | information in the warranted complexity.
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > Exactly.  Lunatics on stumps.  But the lunatics don't look
| > down on them, even though they're up on stumps....  They're
| > scanning the heavens for a sign.  Remember our ancestors:
| > religious fanatics, [..........], huddled masses yearning to
| > breathe free. We are sensitive to being looked down upon.
gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| Although I can follow your historical reasoning, doesn't the cat somehow
| bite its tail?:  It is this very act of elevating ignorance, adhering to
| lunatics and worshipping the heavens and "scripture" that induces the
| being-looked-down-upon.
You can't avoid being looked down upon by buying into the
system of looking-down-upon.  You have to reject the system.
This goes back a long way -- to the religious wars of the
16th and 17th centuries: the Scriptures are translated into
the common tongue, and everyone interprets them in their
own way.
gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| > | This chain of associations:
| > | Intellectual=bourgeoisie=enemy -> resistence (I call it contempt)
| > | is most certainly prevalent and has in its own way become a testimony of
| > | faith. I think Americans are not sufficiently irreverent of great
| > | ignorance.
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > No, I think Americans like information.  After all, they --
| > we -- got this whole Internet / Web thing going, and we
| > support the _Weekly_World_News_.  
gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| Well, yes....to information, but what kind of information and why? Mostly
| all this information is being shoved around just for kicks. Look at us.
| That's where I think Americans truely excel - in having fun.
| Not that I think learning shouldn't be fun. In fact that's just it. - The
| fun of it should be encouraged.... Maybe the Internet will help. But then
| again, could it be, just maybe, it's just another thrilling distraction.
| 
| Actually, the point I was trying to make above is that the association
| intelectual=enemy is a matter of faith in its own right. Ignorance as
| creed. Educatedness as embodying demonic evil.  ...
I think it makes sense, historically speaking.  Remember
that education does not equal intelligence or information.
Actually, I would define _education_ as the training of the
young to serve the purposes of the ruling class, which in
many cases will mean keeping them in ignorance.  Certainly
many subjects were carefully obfuscated when I went to
school.  From what I have heard of contemporary schools,
this practice is much advanced in some areas.
Similarly, a professional intellectual usually has to fit
into a system of bourgeois institutions, or she or he is
simply not going to have a job.  If the common folk find
themselves at odds with their rulers, it makes sense for
them to suspect the agents of their rulers.  This is not to
say that some intellectuals can't be virtuously subversive,
but it's hard for outsiders to tell them from the others.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

moggin@nando.net | (moggin) schreibt:
| ...
| >in other words, Ellis doesn't misquote Derrida, 
| >but Whiteman misquotes Ellis' quotation of 
| >Johnson's quotation of her translation. 
lbsys@aol.com:
| ROTFL  
| 
| (...but who actually pays moggin to find out this most important fact
| about the mega confusion in the pomo camp?)
That's the _anti-pomo_ camp.  The pomo camp is _supposed_ 
to be confused.  The big problem with the pomo camp is not
confusion but non-existence.  However, it's being worked on.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 20:47:59 GMT, 71754.3505@compuserve.com (Gene
Nygaard) wrote:
>Peter Mott  wrote:
>
>
>>Don't misunderstand me.  I do not favor US-English units for 
>>science--metric units are the only appropriate here.  Nor
>>do I propose going back to a stricly English system.  What I 
>>do oppose is metrification of the common, everyday kind of things, 
>>such as gallons of milk or gasoline, 1/4-20 stove bolts, 16" stud 
>>spacing, 12d nails, 3000 miles from Boston to Seattle.  I can see 
>>no reason to change these.
>
>>Peter Mott
>
>But which gallon?
>
>The wine gallon, ....
You didn't mention that the UK gallon (and ounce, pint etc.) are
different.
And just what is a 12d nail?

Q: "Is a photon a particle or a wave?" 
A: "Yes"

anyone here know the fomula that dictates how dense a singularity must
be?  i would be curious about this because i am interested in the
"universe as a black hole" theory.  I personally think it is, and that
the big bang was simply a reorganization of the stuff in the
singularity.
---------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Ott
ottthoma@pipeline.com
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/5294
"All Things Are Possible Except Skiing Through A 
Revolving Door..."
[My posting address has been changed 'cause I'm getting too much usenet junk mail - use the one in my sig!]

Ash wrote:
> 
> I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
Just curious. Do you know where to find a legitimate shortened version
of the Ten Commandments (Thy shall not steal..etc.) on the Internet? 
Ive searched everywhere from Moses to Mount Sanai but all I get are
ridiculous versions modified for the benifit of some company or
individual.  Any Ideas?  Also I agree.  I do believe we were somehow
genetically manufactured or something like that.
derek@mail.balista.com

On 7 Nov 1996, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>  
> > 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
[...]
I don't really see how the way we write a number is important. If
"...9998" and "-2" are equivalent I would naively go for the "-2" notation
just because it lacks the confusing "..." at the left end. Just like I
prefer "2.0" to "1.999...". But I might be wrong. 
It would be interesting if Archimedes Plutonium would steer his postings
away from anti-mathematical-establishment conspiration-theory-esque
rantings and tell us more about these mysterious p-adics, their fine
properties and their potential impact on life from mathematics and physics
to, say, accounting. 
I need more background before I start fighting the VietMath war.
Regards,
DRG
--
 ghica@qucis.queensu.ca **** http://www.qucis.queensu.ca/home/ghica/info.html
Many vast and imposing philosophies are based on stupid and trivial confusions.
                                                               Bertrand Russell

In article , moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>
>> >     If observation is your only source of knowledge, and you can't
>> >observe the element decay, then the premise that the element isn't
>> >stable goes in the trash, and the example become meaningless.  
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>> Really?  This would mean that any calculation ever done dealing with a 
>> hypothetical case not yet observed in nature is pure trash.  Rather 
>> broad and sweeping statement, don't you think.
>
>     You called the tune.  If you want to keep those calculations, I
>don't mind; but then observation isn't your only source of knowledge.
Oh, I feel perfectly free to hypothesise and so should you.  Without 
hypothesising we would find it very difficult to enlarge our knowledge 
domain.  But hypothesis isn't yet knowledge.  It is only "potential 
knowledge" awaiting verification.
>
>> In a way you got more 
>> extreme than I'm here, I'm only saying that you can't attach physical 
>> meaning to the unmeasurable, but you argue that even thinking about it 
>> is trash.  Nah, I suggest we avoid extremes.
>
>     I'm just pointing out that your premises conflict.  If you gain
>all your knowledge from observation, you can't know that an element
>is unstable unless you observe it decay; if you say that the element
>is unstable, even though you can't observe it decay, then you must
>have a source of knowledge apart from observation.
Nah, you take it to far.  The issue is not what questions you can ask, 
but which you can answer.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Hi
On 7 Nov 1996, G*rd*n wrote:
> +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | >...
> | >The discussion about the meaning of _understand_ goes back
> | >to the idea that some people shouldn't talk about science
> | >because they don't know the math; therefore they don't
> | >understand it.  This criticism has generally been applied to
> | >20th-century lit-crit and cult-crit figures.  I've never
> | >seen it applied to Locke, Jefferson, Addison, or Pope, but
> | >then they were uncritical enthusiasts.
> They said he was right, which is the same order of
> declaration as saying he was wrong.  For example, Pope:
> 
>     God said, Let Newton be; and all was light.
> 
> If Pope is allowed to say that without knowing his Calculus,
> then moggin is allowed to say Newton was wrong, or even the
> apotheosis of darkness and evil.
Pope wrote (from memory)
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night.
God said, "Let Newton be" and all was light.
Pope was in essence poetically stating the collective judgment of
scientists at the time, not trying to make a judgment about Newton's ideas
or his contribution independent of scientific thinking at that time.  I
suspect that most contemporary scientists would assert that Newton's
contributions to contemporary science were immense, despite subsequent
corrections, and that Pope's epitaph was highly appropriate.
Reflecting scientific opinion in poetry or whatever is quite different, it
seems to me, than trying to assert that the science giving rise to those
opinions is incorrect or that the enterprise as a whole is somehow flawed. 
That is, critics who want to overturn the collective judgment of
scientists have a much greater burden of responsibility. 
To build on an analogy given by another poster, one can go about
identifying who are the major contributors to the development of bridge
without actually knowing much bridge (who has written books in the field,
who has won tournaments and awards, who is cited by other bridge players,
...).  That is what Pope did.  It seems bizarre, on the other hand, for
someone without a very deep understanding of bridge to argue that the
alleged contributions were in fact flawed and that they misled generations
of bridge-players. 
There is possibly some intermediate ground where a non-bridge playing
historian or philosopher or cultural-critic of bridge might identify
aspects of a person's work or life that could suggest a less favourable
interpretation (e.g., evidence that a supposed expert cheated at
tournaments, citing other expert bridge-players who denounce person X,
demonstrations that X's reasoning was incorrect in deriving some
recommended practices, ...).  But even here I would require a deeper
understanding of the subject by the critic who wants to overthrow the
collective judgment of experts in the area than some outsider who simply
wants to "immortalize" in poetry, essay, or film the collective judgment.
It is true that the supportive outsider is taking "on faith" the
collective judgment of the scientific community, the bridge community, or
whatever area of expertise one chooses to consider.  Note, however, that
this collective judgment is based on huge numbers of people who have taken
time to study the field, and that people who truly doubt can themselves
take the time to become experts in the field and satisfy their own
curiosity.  Perhaps learning math would be an essential part of that
education?
Take care
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark				(204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology		(204) 786-1824 Fax
University of Winnipeg			4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9		clark@uwinnipeg.ca
CANADA					http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================

In article , moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>
>> But, the destabilization is not in science itself, it is in the way we 
>> think about science.  Which, as I keep stressing, is not the same 
>> thing.  When I listen to Bethoveen's "Hammerklavier" sonata (the third 
>> part, to be specific) I may appreciate the genius of the composer.  At 
>> the same time, the feelings the music brings up in me are my own, not 
>> the composer's.  They're related to his work, but they're not his 
>> work.
>
>     On your account of physics, the music is no more "his work"
>than the feelings it inspires in you -- his work consists only
>of the notes on the page.  Playing them is both unnecessary and 
>irrelevant.  In short, the hammerklavier is superfluous to the
>"Hammerklavier."  (N.B.:  I don't say that to make mock -- it's
>a defensible, albeit an awkward position.)
>
It is defensible.  Would I have the ability of hearing the music in my 
mind just by reading the notes (Some people do, so it is not 
impossible) then plying it wouldn't be necessery.  But, I don't have 
such ability, not even the ability to play the music for myself.  So, 
I'm like an illiterate story lover, paying somebody to read the 
stories for me.
But, there is one more dimension to it.  When you hear somebody 
playing it, you don't get just the composer's work (which, indeed, 
consists of the notes on the page) but you also get the artistry of 
the performer.  The final product that reaches your ear is a 
combination of the work of two artists, not one.  Same piece will 
sound different when palyed by Brendel than when played by Sviatoslav 
Richter.  Each is beautiful, but in a different way.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

tectra@t-online.de (Andreas Gati) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>can someone help me with an equation on how to calculate the pumping
>speed per cm2 for water vapour of a cold surface in vacuum, depending of
>the temperature.
>
>Any help appreciated
>
>Andreas
>
Assume that every hit is a capture.  Calculate the number of water 
molecules/second (the partial pressure) impacting a square centimeter of 
collector.  Gas pressure is a standard topic in elementary physical 
chemistry and physics texts.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!