Newsgroup sci.physics 207529

Directory

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!

Is it my imgination, or do all civilian commercial aircraft blanket their 
 fuel spaces with nitrogen as they drain?  It's a little hard to see how 
an explosion of jet fuel under inert gas occurs, ignition source or 
otherwise.
synchrotron@osu.org wrote:
>FROM 11/9 NEW YORK NEWSDAY ARTICLE:
>
>...even after the strong words from the federal officials, Salinger, who
>is also a retired ABC-TV correspondent, stuck by his story in an interview
>with The Associated Press. He repeated the comments made before an airline
>industry conference in Cannes, France, that the Navy accidentally shot
>down the plane because it thought all civilian aircraft would be operating
>at 23,000 feet rather than the 13,000 feet Flight 800 was at.
>
>``As far as the FBI statement and the Navy statement are concerned, I'm
>not a bit surprised that that is their position,'' Salinger said.
>
>He added, ``The FBI is now after me. They visited my house in Washington
>last night and spoke to my wife, and I'm sure they are looking to talk to
>me.
>
>``I am getting my information from someone in the Secret Service who has
>high contacts in the Navy,'' he said. ``I got the information from a
>French intelligence officer.'' He said the latter had gotten the
>information from the Secret Service person, but he knows both individuals.
>
>``My information is that the Navy runs missile exercises off Long Island
>four or five times a year,'' and after the July 17 incident, ``the people
>responsible were put on another ship and sent out to the Atlantic.
>
>``Who knows where they are now?'' he said.
>
>The Navy denied that accusation, too.
>
>Salinger's assertions, the officials said, appear to be based on an
>Internet posting attributed to an unidentified former safety chairman of
>an airline pilots association. That message was copied and recopied into
>messages by other Internet users who believed the friendly fire theory.
>
>In September, the author was identified as Richard Russell of Daytona
>Beach, Fla., a retired United Airlines pilot who said he'd heard the
>information from someone who attended ``a high-level briefing'' in
>Washington in mid-August. Russell said in an interview yesterday that he
>still believes that friendly fire downed the plane.
>
>But the Air Line Pilots Association doesn't believe his claims, said
>spokesman Bob Flocke. 
>
>``We let the FBI and NTSB speak for us in the investigation,'' said
>Flocke, citing the officials' firm denials.
>
>Kallstrom said Salinger had not yet been reached by his agents, but the
>bureau is interested in hearing his claims and seeing his docments.
>Reached in Paris, Salinger's son Gregory said his father was expected
>there last night and said a French radio reported that the families of the
>TWA Flight 800 victims wanted a French judge to investigate Salinger's
>claims.
>
>The friendly fire rumors were born in the moments after the air
>catastrophe as a number of witnesses reported seeing a streak of light
>ascending toward the Paris-bound jet before it exploded 12 minutes after
>takeoff from Kennedy Airport.
>
>Flocke said yesterday that the rumor has ``had three lives'': just after
>the TWA plane went down in July, about a month ago during a flurry of
>media reports about conspiracy theories and now with the Salinger report.
>
>But even before Salinger's statement, the friendly fire theory had taken
>on a life of its own among TWA flight attendants, many of whom came to the
>consensus that nothing but a missile could have downed the flight.
>
>``In the industry, we are pretty certain it's something like a missile,
>and if you look at the body language of, like, [NTSB Vice Chairman Robert]
>Francis, he looks like a fish on a hook, like he wants to say something
>but can't,'' said one TWA flight attendant, who spoke on condition of
>anonymity.
>
>``Most of the flight attendants think it was a missile,'' said another.
>``A lot of [TWA] employees feel it was a missile. Evidently, all over
>Europe, it is a missile, too.''
>
>Recently, someone hired a private investigator in Manhattan to find out
>more:  Vincent Parco said he has been combing bars on Long Island's South
>Shore for several weeks chasing a rumor about a man who claimed his cousin
>accidentally shot down the plane.
>
>``We got a lead that it was friendly fire and that the guy who did it was
>a young man who accidentally let off a missile during training
>exercises,'' said Parco, hired by a private individual he would not
>identify. ``I've been tracking down his cousin who went to a bar, got
>drunk and told them, `Yeah, my cousin . . . Oh my God, what he did, he's
>in a mental hospital.' ''
>
>Kristensen said, ``To my knowledge, the Navy has never fired a live
>missile in the ranges off the coast of Long Island.''
-- 
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!

Cees Roos wrote:
> 
> On the contrary. Design an experiment which shows absolutes, and you
> have falsified SRT. That is Popper's 'Criterion of demarcation' for
> scientific theories.
>
On the contrary, the Special Theory of Relativity predicts many constants.
One is the rest mass of an object. Another is the spacetime interval
separating two events.
In general, if you can form a 4-vector that represents a valid statement
in SR, then its length is a constant.  Current density and charge density
form such a 4-vector, and the result is a specification of conservation
of charge.
In many ways, it is this "theory of constants" derived from SR that is
most useful in physics.
Best Regards, Peter

journali@sprynet.com wrote:
: 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?
      Air has more mass than one might think, about 1 ounce
per cubic foot.     An airliner is usually moving at 200
feet per second, so if the spiral you see is about ten feet
high and ten feet wide, in the space that the wingtip moves
in one second, about 1,200 pounds of air are rotating, and
I am sure everybody knows what momentum means.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372 

Anthony Potts (potts@cms5.cern.ch) wrote:
: 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.
 He was being sarcastic. Are you familar with sarcasm?
: 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.
 That's why he felt the need to respond. All people who don't care bout 
other people or thier opinions respond don't they?  And by the way you cross-
posted to two other groups besides alt.nuke.the.USA
: Those that matter are my fiancee, my family, my friends, and anyone who is
: able to decide whether to employ me or not. 
 Ah selfish as well as greedy. Those that you don't personally know or 
don't have something to gain from you don't care about, must be nice.
: So, call me an arsehole, a wanker, or whatever you like. I am doing
: exactly what I want to.
Which is what? Responding to opinions you claim you don't care about?
: I don't feel the need to attempt to shout down other countries in the
: meanwhile, unlike some other folks here.
 Yes that's why you flame Americans and put down the US, because you 
don't put down other countries.....
 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.
 Niether do I, because Iceland isn't worth the time.
: Perhaps some big mouthed yanks on this group ought to employ a similar
: philosophy.
 They do. Not one Yank to alt.nuke.the.USA  feels the need to 
flame Iceland :).  3/4ths of alt.nuke.the.USA's frequent posters flame 
other countries, mostly the US, it's the way of the group. If you don't 
agree with it perhaps you should talk to the frequent posters about it.
(Yanks and non-yanks included). Or you could always just stop posting to 
and reading alt.nuke.the.USA
: Anyway, they can all tell me about it when I'm in New York, if they really
: want to.
I didn't realize one Yank at MIT constitued a "they" or represented all 
Americans posting to alt.nuke.the.USA
: Anthony Potts
: 
: CERN, Geneva
: 
                            ---Oscar Schlaf---
  "Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" while one finds a rock"

Joseph Edward Nemec (nemecj@mit.edu) wrote:
: On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Anthony Potts wrote:
: > That's right, about ten times what your undergraduate degrees are
: > worth.
: Rubbish. I've spent a considerable amount of time with Oxford and
: Cambridge undergrads, and they are definitely not as well educated as
: graduates of MIT or Harvard, for example. Most of them here at MIT find
: it to be quite a shock at how unprepared they are in many areas. Now,
: some of our smaller colleges, yes. But I've also met a large number of
: students from your little country's horrible technical schools, and they
: are truly poor. I believe you've said so yourself, with typical
: arrogance.
    Let me get this staight Joey, you are calling other people arrogant?
hmmm...
: > >Oh, and speaking of poorly educated, why don't we continue this
: > > conversation
: > > in another language. French or German, you choose.
     Wa do desuka nihonjin? Rikai suru Joseph anata baka inkei?
: I am going to post this risable attempt at foreign languages on your
: part to the newsgroups, Anthony. They are too good to keep to myself.
: They prove many of my suspicions about you. You are an uncultured,
: monolingual, materialistic boor with absolutely no depth. 
    You mean he's american?
: Funny, you fit the British stereotype of the typical American
: much more closely than most Americans...
    Gee Joey, You've NEVER stereotyped, have you?
Eric D.
Toronto, Canada
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 : Internet Direct.                    Have you heard about our      :
 : (416)233-2999, 1000 lines           Do-It-Yourself Webserver?     :
 : T3 bandwidth, 9600-33,600bps+ISDN   http://web.idirect.com	     :
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
> 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.
moggin:
> >Now,
> >if you _can_ observe it decay, that's fine -- but then you don't
> >need to make any assumptions, and again the example is meaningless.
> >You bring up another possibility -- that you can _predict_ it will
> >decay; but that's knowledge several steps removed from observation.
> >And by the time you start using predictions to classify things --
> >well, you could be halfway across Wyoming, if you were in a car.
Mati:
> May I point that predictions is exactly one of those things science 
> deals with most of the time.  Pretty successfully, too.
     Sure.   But I already gave you my reply.
-- moggin

In article <55vsl3$niv@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, Alan  writes
>Keith Stein  wrote:
>> George Penney  writes
>>
>>>  When Einstein put forth his Equivalence Principal using the elevator
>>>   thought experiment,He reasoned that a beam of Light entering the
>>>   elevator through a window(lets say located 1/4 from the 'top'),
>>>   would curve 'downward'and hit the opposite side at a lower point
>>>   then where it entered,he concluded that a lightbeam would also bend
>>>   in the presence of a Gravatational Field produced by a Mass.Simple
>>>   enought so far.
> we may end up sending the spot of
>>light across the ceiling of the elevator rather than the floor,i think.
>
>
>Einstein's elevator is hermetically sealed to outside information - a 
>necessary boundary condition for the experiment.  The light source is 
>attached to the wall.  The Sagnac Effect is therefore not pertinent and 
>velocity does not enter into it.
>
That's interesting Al, but not really relevent to Penney' Problem is it?
> beam of Light entering the
>>>   elevator through a window
-- 
Keith Stein

"Michael D. Painter"  writes:
>There is no evidence that ANY experiment has ever been conducted by the AD
>religion. I suspect that their precession argument would also have some
>problems when applied to Mercury.
>My guess, since in AD things get Lighter as they approach light speed. that
>Mercury would precess in the opposite direction.
Well, things get lighter in AD when they are UNDERGOING DECAY.  This wasn't
happening to Mercury last time I looked :).
From the Web page:
"[Autodynamics] explains the perihelion advance of Mercury, Venus, Earth
and Mars, and all Binary Star precessions for which we have data."
"[General Relativity] explains the Mercury perihelion advance but is
 deficient for Venus, Earth and Mars. Completely fails to explain the 
 observed Binary Star precession(1). "
1. F. Guinan, J. J. Marshall and F. P. Maloney, Dep. of Astrophysics,
   Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085, USA, taken from "Commission
   27 and 42 of the AU Information Bulletin on Variables Stars."
   Number 4101, Kenkeley Observatory, Budapest, October 12, 1994,
   from the WWW.
As for experiments being conducted, there was a paper published in 1988(?) 
outlining an experiment which would verify Autodynamics (see New RaE experiment
on the Autodynamics web page "http://www.autodynamics.org/".  I am aware that 
the SAA is currently trying to find some experimental physicists who would be 
able to peform it.  You must appreciate that these sort of experiments are not
cheap, or the sort of things you can perform in the garden shed with a test
tube and a ruler.
I doubt that Einstein did many experiments to verify Special Relativity either
(please correct me if I am wrong), but built his theory based on the 
existing experimental evidence and theories (as has Carezani), leaving the 
verification to other physicists.  
Dean.

In article <564nen$alf@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, Roger  Luther
 wrote:
> What about the problems of causality, which are implied by FTL travel. 
> Incidentally, could someone give a simple explanation of why FTL travel 
> does suggest time travel?
> Thanks,
> Roger Luther
It's FTL + relativity.
If you can travel faster than light,
time
                                         -----* end
^                                   -----
|                              -----
 --> space                    * start
then according to relativity, in another rest frame your trip looks like
                              start
                              *-----
                                    -----
                                         -----
                                              * end
because the order of events too far apart for speed-of-light communication
can *change* under Lorentz transformations. But according to relativity,
what is possible in one inertial frame is possible in another, so you
ought to be able to go backwards in time in this way no matter what your
initial velocity is. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping you from doing
things like
                              start
                              *-----
                                    -----
                                         -----
time                                          * middle
                                         -----
^                                   -----
|                              -----
 --> space                    * end
that land you squarely in *your own past*, able to prevent yourself
from starting the trip in the first place or do all manner of other
paradoxical things.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

Kevin Luttrell wrote:
> 
> I am a high school science teacher looking for a table of half lives and
> decay modes for common radioisotopes on the Internet. I found a great
> resource on the Web called WebElements, but it only gives this information
> one element at a time. Does anyone know of such a table on the Internet
> that I could just copy and paste into my word processor so my students
> will have this information?
> 
I did a quickie search on AltaVista for you and came up with:
	http://www.dne.bnl.gov/CoN/index.html
The data they have is quite comprehensive, perhaps too much for 
high school students, but you can be the judge of that!
Enjoy!
-- 
o--------------------------------------------------------o
  Ross C. K. Rock
  Reactor Safety and Operational Analysis Dept.
  Ontario Hydro, Toronto, CANADA
                                    ross.rock@hydro.on.ca
                           http://www.inforamp.net/~rrock
o--------------------------------------------------------o

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
> >> 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.
Ultimately, yes, Mati. But that isn't the way a lot of theoretical physics
works, afaik. Especially in the realms of cosmology and high-energy
subatomic "particle" physics the structures of thought seem to have a
history of racing way ahead (and even establishing themselves) before
verification was possible, or even feasible. The existence of some
subatomic particles were deduced theoretically many years before they were
actually detected.
Tom.

On 10 Nov 1996, Ziggy Stardust wrote:
> : > >Oh, and speaking of poorly educated, why don't we continue this
> : > > conversation
> : > > in another language. French or German, you choose.
>      Wa do desuka nihonjin? Rikai suru Joseph anata baka inkei?
Hee?!? Kore wa nan desu ka? Nihongo o hanasu tsumori desita ka? 
Zya, Ziggy no nihongo wa honto ni taihen da to omoimasu!
Moo ichi-do, onegaisimasu.
Ziggy, your Japanese is terrible. Your first sentence is completely
wrong. In Japanese, the verb always goes at the end of the sentence,
so "desu ka" should come after "nihonjin". If you are trying go an
inverted sentence, asking me how my Japanese is, you make two serious
mistakes. First of all, inverted sentences are never written.
Secondly, "nihonjin" means "Japanese" as in person (hence the "jin").
You meant to say "nihongo", which means Japanese, as in the language.
In your second sentence, you refer to me by my first name, and then use
the formal form of "you", "anata". Unless you are a woman, you shouldn't
be using "anata" in the first place, and you certainly should no use it
in a sentence where you refer to me by my first name.
Don't you know anything, you idiotic moose-fucker?
--------------------------------------
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 article <5646t1$6lt@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>You have to remember that Mati is a plumber, er, experimentalist.  His
>focus is on the use of theory in the laboratory.  For this it suffices
>to have the equations, the barest formal theory, and some connection
>with them to their application in the specific experiment.  But
>physicists come in two sorts,  experimentalists and theorists.   The
>theorists are after bigger game and the musings are relevant to them
>in their practice.  They ask questions such as "why are these
>equations right" and "from what assumptions, what principles can they
>be derived from" and "what other equations or laws can these be
>generalized into" and "what models are appropriate for this theory"
>and "what are the implications of these equations".   And so on and so
>forth.
>
>When someone like Einstein or Bohr  comments philosophically they are
>speaking as scientists; they are addressing the periphery of Physics
>but they are still within the domain of Physics.   Even such a
>statement as Einstein's "God does not play dice" is not just
>philosophy and it is not just musings.  It is an organizing principle
>which asserts certain characteristics theory must have; it carries
>with it testable predictions [the tests were made; Einstein was
>wrong].
>
The way I see it, these comments and thoughts are the scaffolding 
withing which the structure is being built.  The scaffolding is 
essential, in the construction phase.  Later, the structure stands on 
its own.  Of course if some of the thoughts can be turned into 
statements which carry predictions, they become theory in their own 
right.  So, I don't think we're disagreeing on anything significant.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

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, of course, there is no such thing as space-time curvature, and pilot
waves do not exist.  The experiment to test for gravity waves around the
neutron star will fail like the search for the ether.

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>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.
This is difficult and in truth I do you an injustice; what you said
was not at all what Mammel produced.  I will see what I can do with
but I make no promises of success.
You have to remember that Mati is a plumber, er, experimentalist.  His
focus is on the use of theory in the laboratory.  For this it suffices
to have the equations, the barest formal theory, and some connection
with them to their application in the specific experiment.  But
physicists come in two sorts,  experimentalists and theorists.   The
theorists are after bigger game and the musings are relevant to them
in their practice.  They ask questions such as "why are these
equations right" and "from what assumptions, what principles can they
be derived from" and "what other equations or laws can these be
generalized into" and "what models are appropriate for this theory"
and "what are the implications of these equations".   And so on and so
forth.
When someone like Einstein or Bohr  comments philosophically they are
speaking as scientists; they are addressing the periphery of Physics
but they are still within the domain of Physics.   Even such a
statement as Einstein's "God does not play dice" is not just
philosophy and it is not just musings.  It is an organizing principle
which asserts certain characteristics theory must have; it carries
with it testable predictions [the tests were made; Einstein was
wrong].
Without going back and rereading sundry posts I cannot be certain but
I believe this is not what Mati said.  I predict that he will agree
with it - but then, I have so much in common with Einstein.
What I do think he was saying is that said musings are/were pertinent
but not essential.  They are pertinent because they provide a means
for understanding how to use the equations, how to apply them.  This
is particularly true of QM which is so contra-intuitive.  Without a
guideline one quickly ends in a quagmire of confusion.  Again, for the
experimentalist, it doesn't matter much if the model is right; what
matters it is a reliable guide.  It is the existence of a reliable
guide that is essential; it's correctness is not.  Again, "pertinent"
is not a word he used (I think) but I think he would agree with me.
So. You are right and I am right and...
>: >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?
How should I know where Derrida refers to SR?  Am I to go to an
indexing service that can scan everything he wrote and have them
search for references to SR?  Why should I care?  Said exchange is
utterly inconsequential except insofar as people choose to belabor
each other with distant readings.
I was addressing the mode in which Derrida does philosophy-1 and that
in which Physicists do philosophy-2 as an "East is East and West is
West" proposition.  That was what the post was about and it was not
based on said exchange which could scarcely count as a significant
basis for analysis but rather on reading D. himself and Gasche on D.
and said Physicists.  And if I have not read as much of either camp as
I might have, still it does not take a great deal to recognize a mule
being married to a monkey.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

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

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <5646t1$6lt@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>>
>>When someone like Einstein or Bohr  comments philosophically they are
>>speaking as scientists; they are addressing the periphery of Physics
>>but they are still within the domain of Physics.   Even such a
>>statement as Einstein's "God does not play dice" is not just
>>philosophy and it is not just musings.  It is an organizing principle
>>which asserts certain characteristics theory must have; it carries
>>with it testable predictions [the tests were made; Einstein was
>>wrong].
>>
>The way I see it, these comments and thoughts are the scaffolding 
>withing which the structure is being built.  The scaffolding is 
>essential, in the construction phase.  Later, the structure stands on 
>its own.  Of course if some of the thoughts can be turned into 
>statements which carry predictions, they become theory in their own 
>right.  So, I don't think we're disagreeing on anything significant.
Agreed.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

In article <55vu06$ecm@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <+@+.+> wrote:
>columbus@osf.org (Michael Weiss):
>| If I may butt in for a moment...
>|
>| Somewhere in this thread I seem to have lost the point.  Three
>| questions for +@+.+ :
>|
>| a) OK, some aspects of Newtonian mechanics can be understood without
>| calculus, or even without any math at all.  Why is this such a big
>| deal?
>
>People have been saying "You can't understand Newton(ian
>mechanics) unless you know Calculus."  This is part of a
>apparent theme of delegitimating discussion of science by
>people outside the sciences, or actually outside what we've
>been calling the "science camp."  
I think the point is that just like I would not presume to comment on
the work of an author I had not read (and understood), one should
similarly not comment on science that they have not learned (or
understood).  Of course, you can say whatever you want, but if it is
clear that you don't know what you are talking about, then people will
attempt to discredit you.
>So I've been trying to
>get at what they mean by "understand" as a sort of subtopic
>within a discussion of the delegitimation.
OK, I would claim that the scientific usage of the word
"understand" is in essence that you can make (correct) predictions about
phenomenon that you have not yet observed.  
Does that clarify things for you?  And do you still think that you can
understand (in the scientific sense) Netwonian mechanics without
Calculus?
-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri				University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instictive"

In article <328655D8.1A30@steeldriving.com.mapsnu>,
unspam.jon@steeldriving.com.mapsnu wrote:
> a bigger following than scientists. On TV, pseudo-science gets 
> ratings, while science is relegated to PBS and cable.
Why do people assume something like this is an anti-science feature?
Anything difficult needs to be dealt with at the learner's own pace. The
only kind of science (or history or linguistics etc) you can get on TV
(and the same goes for such TV wannabes as 99% of all CD-ROMs) is some
watered down mindless parody of science.
If you want to learn something hard, you read, or utilize something like
reading that allows you to stop and think every few minutes. 
I can't say I'm especially impressed by people who boast about watching
documentaries on TV.
Maynard
-- 
My opinion only

Dan Pressnell (dpressne@ns.vvm.com) wrote:
: jakiel@crl.com (Jennifer B. Jakiel) wrote:
: :Yeah, I met my double at a pagan gathering once... she didn't have
: :the same name as me, and she was just a kid, but she and I looked
: :a lot alike in the face and had TOO much in common for comfort...
: Were you a kid at the time, too?
No, this was last weekend, and I'm 22 years old.
: What did you have in common that caused you discomfort (besides the
: face)?
It was rather more cool 'n nifty than uncomfortable.  We both got a big
kick out of it  :)
: Dan
--JenTailchaser

| ...
Jim Clark :
| 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. ...
It seems to me the responsibility is the same.  I might add
that I think Mr. Pope's estimate of Newton was far more
excessive on the favorable side, than moggin's was on the
critical side; moggin did not say (as William Blake did)
that Newton had blinded the people ("single vision and
Newton's sleep".)  It's actually a rather neutral remark,
given that probably all theories about the physical
universe are in a sense "wrong" and everyone knows it.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

In article <565sf8$jad@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>| ...
>
>Jim Clark :
>| 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. ...
>
>It seems to me the responsibility is the same.  
I disagree.
I might add
>that I think Mr. Pope's estimate of Newton was far more
>excessive on the favorable side, than moggin's was on the
>critical side; moggin did not say (as William Blake did)
>that Newton had blinded the people ("single vision and
>Newton's sleep".)  It's actually a rather neutral remark,
>given that probably all theories about the physical
>universe are in a sense "wrong" and everyone knows it.
Wrong only in a sense that anything which isn't exactly right is 
wrong.  This is rather far removed from the commonly used meaning of 
wrong and everybody knows it.
Besides, could you try to grasp the point that we're talking about 
classical physics versus modern physics not Newton versus Einstein as 
individuals.  You got so locked on the notion that it is a matter of 
personal reverence that you seem to have a great difficulty to see 
what the issues are.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

| ...
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > You can't avoid being looked down upon by buying into the
| > system of looking-down-upon.  You have to reject the system.
gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| But that's not at all what their doing. They're buying into the
| tutti-frutti religious supermarket and supporting its telegenetic
| advertisers propagating the look-down-on-everyone-else mentality of divine
| redemption. Especially the fundamentalist Christian folks (who are a
| characteristic feature in the American landscape) are, if anything,
| supporters of closed systems of thought and have erected rigid systems of
| mandatory adherence.
Then they're not buyers-into at the tutti-frutti religious
supermarket, are they?  We've got two different groups here,
neither of which are very popular with the great majority
of their fellow citizens excepts as the butts of jokes.
gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| > | 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.  ...
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > 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. 
gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| Well, I would say that's a rather narrow definition, and a narrow
| perspective too. I think education also contains the training of critical
| thought, the honing of logical skills, the offering of intellectual
| stimulus and challenge, the nurturing of intelligence, the knowledge of
| how to seek and access information, presentations of frameworks of
| knowledge that order and contribute to retaining information, contact with
| differing modes of thought, the inspiration conveyed by the experience of
| others' creative genius, the helping hand of a caring person. I view
| education from a practical perspective of offering kids the best possible
| access to information and training of their skills and not so much as an
| issue of the Klassenkampf.
The education you describe above in America is distributed
at prep schools and some special public schools to candidates 
for posts in the ruling class.  The remainder get no such
instruction -- in school, that is.  As far as I know.
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > 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.  
gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| I don' think this is a specific fate of intellectuals, but rather the fate
| of most ordinary humans. And from my experience in the real world many of
| those "bourgeois institutions" usually offer more intellectual freedom
| than most other crannies of society.
Certainly.  And also more freedom than niches in non-liberal
social systems.
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > 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.
gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
| Maybe. But aren't they also those with the most virtuously subversive 
| impact for all to see.......  Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi,
| Martin Luther King. Isn't it the new and subversive ideas and the
| intellectual capacity to forward them against the opposition of the
| establishment, that, more than anything, brings about change?
Such is the omnivorous nature of liberalism, that one can
hardly make progress against it without being at least
middle-class within it.  It's an impressive system.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

In article <1892@purr.demon.co.uk>
jack@purr.demon.co.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
> dbongard@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
> >Yea, I gots the 1997 Princeton Mail-Order-CAtalog 
> > on 5 November 1996 delivered to my front porch
> > It has a picture of Morrison, Wheeler, Reynolds
> > Sherr, Smith, Anderson, Taylor, Pais and Gross
> > --- photographer was NYT. You can order anyone of
> > these doctors for your child's birthday party as
> > as a stand-up magician or clown or comedian.
> > Anyone have experience with this catalog?
>
> I received my catalog and am amazed at the 
> reasonable prices. Last year we had Hawking and
>  Penrose give magic tricks to our 3 year old Emily.
> We had a barrel of laughs. Be sure to take plenty of
> pictures. This year they have come down in prices.
> We can rent Wheeler or Taylor & Hulse or Dr. Kip
> Thorne for Emily's 4 year old birthday party. Dr. Wheeler
>  does the pea under the 3 shells routine, soft stuff.
>  Taylor & Hulse
> do a magic routine of the disappearing rabbit. But I kind
> of think you had better order a more experienced team since
> Taylor & Hulse are just recent arrivals on the stage. Your
> best money would be in Doctors Witten and Kip Thorne.
> Considering Kip Thorne recently wasted 350 million on LIGO, he
> arrives at your youngsters birthday party dressed as 
> Thumbelina
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jack Campin                                             jack@purr.demon.co.uk
> T/L, 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE, Scotland       (+44) 131 556 5272 
> ---------------------  Save Scunthorpe from Censorship  ---------------------
> 
  Could someone please give me the command instructions for setting up
a killfile of Jack Campin  posts?

I am looking for help on determining bright line spectra of any element
mathematically. I am somewhat familiar with quantum mechanics and vector
and tensor calculus, but need some guidence in the correct application
of equations to accomplish this task. I am also interested in equations
that determine the relative intesities of each spectral line. Also
equations that determine X-ray spectra would also be appreciated. I am
also interested in application of equations that can help me determine
the exact spectrum for certain molecules.

-Tom- wrote:
> 
> +@+.+ (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_.
> 
> 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.
> 
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.
cheers,
Patrick.

Markus Kuhn (kuhn@cs.purdue.edu) wrote:
: (or even like cgs, another coherent system of units, that isn't used
: today any more, except in U.S. physics textbooks, where the authors
: still think for some strange reasons that you can't explain
: electro-magnetic fields nicely in SI units).
I have seen many thoughtful postings in the past from Markus, and expect to
see more in the future. Unfortunately, this posting contains a truly
baseless claim. First, the use of cgs in electromagnetics (Maxwells equations
in particular) has in the past hardly been confined to the U.S. Secondly, all
of the undergrad physics/EM texts on my bookshelves use mks, although one or
two mention that cgs results in fewer constant factors in Maxwells equations.
Which commonly used text or texts are you referring to that use cgs or English
units?
Finally, there are many subfields where the "base" units are not SI: the barn
in nuclear physics; the Angstrom in atomic physics; setting c = 1 (speed of
light) in relativistic kinematics; Parsec or light-year in astronomy, the
electron volt in atomic/nuclear physics; and I'm sure one can find a few other
examples like this in the sciences. And most of these are used universally in
their respective fields.

In article ,
Michael L. Siemon  wrote:
>
>When I read Newton without Machian (or anti-Machian) presumptions, I see little
>to recommend the position you have taken. Perhaps I would change my mind if I
>had a substantial exposure to Medieval and Renaissance treatment of natural
>philosophy, especially if I were highly sensitized to Cartesian agendas and to
>the Newtonian reaction to these. I understand (at some removes :-)) that this
>was a live issue for Newton, and I would (no doubt) read the _Prinicipia_ with
>more insight if I were better grounded in this. But that doesn't seem to be
>what you are objecting to. Instead, you seem to assume that a late 19th century
>reading of Newton (which was totally dependent on two centuries of work derived
>from the _Principia_), is the "right" foundation on which to approach the
>question
>of what Newton thought. Frankly, I think *that* is silly.
The only foundation I'm presuming is "plain English", and
Newton seems to express himself quite clearly:
        Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation
        to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.
        Relative space is some movable dimension or measure
        of the absolute spaces; ...
You are making a presumption that his definitions must
be grounded operationally. Since Newton confesses this
can't be done completely ( although "the thing is not
altogether hopeless." ) you decide the whole thing has
to be reinterpreted relativistically, riding roughshod
over his plain meaning.
I really can't get over the idea that Newton can't be accepted
at his word on this. It seems that anathema has been pronounced on
Absolute Space, so to save Newton, it must be exorcised from
his (sacred?) works, although Mati chooses simply to ignore it
as irrelevant commentary, notwithstanding its foundational position.
( Not that this stops him from expressing enthusiastic agreement
with the sentiments he finds praiseworthy. )
Lew Mammel, Jr.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| ... 
| Besides, could you try to grasp the point that we're talking about 
| classical physics versus modern physics not Newton versus Einstein as 
| individuals.  You got so locked on the notion that it is a matter of 
| personal reverence that you seem to have a great difficulty to see 
| what the issues are.
| ...
What _the_ issues are?  Where, in the Empyrean, or God's
mind?  My issues are my issues, and your issues are your
issues, and hopefully there's some overlap; but I don't
think there are any The-Issues here.
Anyway -- I'm very curious where you get that I've been
talking about Newton or Einstein as individuals.  The
historical individuals Newton and Einstein are, of course,
parts of their respective institutions; but I don't recall
talking about either of them very much that way.  The
reverence I've observed, both on the Net and coming from Mr.
Pope, is for the institution, I believe.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

feher@inward.com (Rodrigo Feher) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>	Could anyone explain me what a geostat satellite is?
>
>(please, send a cc to )
A geosynchronous satellite is positioned in an orbit such that it appears 
to hover above a constant point on the surface of the Earth.  In the real 
world it still requires periodic thrust to maintain its position due to 
gravitational, solar wind, and other perturbations.
The following wisdom has flowed through the newgroup.
-- 
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!
> How fast and at what height above the earth must a satellite 
travel to stay stationary relative to the earth?
At height h, the gravitational attraction of the earth is 
 G(h) =  9.81.(R/(R+h))^2 m/s^2
where R is the radius of the Earth in the same units as h (for 
convenience, metres).
The satellite has angular velocity w = 2.pi/86400 rad/sec (one 
turn in 24 hours), and hence to balance gravity with centrifugal 
force
(R+h).w^2 m/s^2 (when R and h are in meters)
Equate the two
(R+h).w^2 = (9.81R^2)/(R+h)^2
so that (R+h)^3 = 9.81(R/w)^2.  Knowing that R = 6.4e6 meters, we 
can solve for h. (Evaluate the right hand side, and take the cube 
root, to get R+h, and subtract R to get h).
The speed is just (R+h)w - angular velocity*length of radius 
vector.  Turning the handle to get the numbers is left as an 
exercise for the reader.
It has to be about 22,280 miles above the earth and directly over 
the equator and going the right way. How fast? I don't know 
actually.
(2 Pi times Radius) / (23 hours 56 minutes 4.09 seconds)
If you don't care about oblateness, solar wind, etc.  here is a 
simple calculation.
v**2/r = GM/r**2 -- centripetal acceleration = gravitational 
acceleration
2*pi*r/v = T = 86164.09 sec -- one rev per siderial day
M = mass of earth, GM = 3.9860080e+5 km**3/sec**2
Solving for r gives, r = (GMT**2/(4*pi**2))**1/3 = 42164 km = 
26200, miles from the center of the earth.
Solving for v gives v = 2*pi*r/T = 1.91 miles/sec

Tom X says:
<>
An unhealthy fiction, not a healthy (or real) attitude. Nowhere outside
of the worst totalitarian regimes is institutionalization so pervasive;
in this case, no overt force is exerted, yet blind acceptance of
institutionalization results in a very large percentage of the population.
Examples: the monopoly of "education" by schools; the monopoly of "health"
by professionals (who often kill more people than they cure); the 
monopoly of "counseling" by "mental health providers"; the monopoly
of "news" by giant and completely corrupt organizations which feed
the rabble the rankest swill each and every day, tubed, pre-cooked,
and pre-digested; the monopoly of "law enforcement" by uniformed thugs;
the monopoly of "legal services" by mostly venal and rapacious lawyers;
and I could go on for several pages.
Perhaps the question to be asked is: why don't more children and
adolescents *reject* institutionalization? An institutionalization which,
despite costs that double every 25 or so years (in real terms), clearly
"produces" a rapidly worsening "product"...
This question, in my opinion, is a much more relevant one...it is not
one that politicians (or even social servants and other "helpers"
of the "needy") ever ask.
Regards,

nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) wrote:
> gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) wrote:
> >I find the poor state of American public education is an expression or
> >symptom of much deeper and wide-spread deficiencies in the appreciation of
> >learning and the educated in general. 
> >Over here in German-speaking Europe education is highly esteemed, teachers
> >and especially professors are greatly respected and society offers
> >teachers tremendous benefits and job security to attract the bright and
> >select only the best to teach its youth. Universities are free in order to
> >offer everyone that qualifies regardless of parents' income equal
> >opportunity. Society shows a strong commitment to see to it that everyone
> >(not just my own kids) gets a good education.
> 
> There is some truth to this, I think.  However, in Germany (& most
> other European countries, I believe), kids are weeded out quickly,
> thos who don't make the grade are moved out into society or to a
> technical school at a younger age, and the system concentrates its
> resources on the select - i.e. those who attend the Gymnasium, for
> example, in Germany.
I dislike your wording of "kids are weeded out quickly", Ken. I'll assume
you don't mean that as it sounds. Some kids simply have different talents
and aptitudes than pure academic learning. The kids are set on different
educational tracks early (a little too early in my opinion), but society
also puts a premium and invests its resources on these technical schools
and an apprenticeship system producing excellent trades- and craftsmen. In
the US such a system doesn't even exist.
> OTOH, Americans have an almost indecent obsession about higher
> education, to the point of touting it without focus, lowering or
> eliminating admissions barriers, and offering easy access to loans
> that may encumber the students for a decade or more, dampening an
> other wise youtful propensity towards risk taking and exploration.
I don't agree with lowering admission barriers, but isn't that a direct
result of universities and colleges being strapped for cash and seeing it
as a way to bring in more tuition fees and increase the number of
"successful" graduations and thereby procure more government support. If
society would be willing to commit more support so schools can be more
independent and maintain high standards even for low-income students that
wouldn't be necessary.
As for easy access to loans, I'm for it, and I will gladly take into
account those students that end up sticking around the university a little
longer, for the benefit of any and all students for whom this is the only
opportunity to get access to higher education that is basically being sold
on an education market.  For many it is the only ticket to exploration. I
say support kids' educational exploration opportunities.
America most certainly has some (maybe even most) of the very best
universities and private schools in world, but they are extremely elitist
and very expensive. What I'm talking about here is the commitment to
"Everyman's" kids, to the public schools, the run-of-the-mill high
schools, the community colleges or the creation of trade schools. Why are
Americans _as a society_ so selfish when it comes to providing education
to their own youth?
Tom.

There is no evidence that ANY experiment has ever been conducted by the AD
religion. I suspect that their precession argument would also have some
problems when applied to Mercury.
My guess, since in AD things get Lighter as they approach light speed. that
Mercury would precess in the opposite direction.
lucy Haye  wrote in article
<846466874.7093@dejanews.com>...
> Gordon D. Pusch, from Argonne National Lab in 26 Oct. 96 writes:
> 
> >Hits on a web-site do not even translate to ``world-wide attention,'' 
> >let alone proof of validity. Furthermore, even if a =BILLION= netizens
> >happen to believe in a stupid idea, it is =STILL= a _STUPID IDEA_.
> >The Univerves is =NOT= a democracy, and does not give a frozen fig 
> >in Finland what the ``Usenet consensus'' on =ANY= subject is...
> 
> It is painful to see a physicist in Argonne National Lab writing so
stupid 
> thing like you write in your e-mail. What you don't understand is a
> stupid idea: a classical reaction from the ignorant "Conventional
Wisdom." 
> If the whole "Scientific community" believe in something false 
> (stupid regarding your words) as SR and GR, this give not validity to SR
>  and GR, using your own argument!!!!
> 
> >You're beating a dead horse --- Neutrinos have been reliably produced
> >and detected for =DECADES=.  
> 
> Give me a proof of the Neutrino existence, no hundreds of Scientific
>  Science Fiction papers WITHOUT any scientific or technical bases.!!!
> 
> >Experiments at FermiLab have demonstrated the reality of neutrinos by
> >(among other things) using them to transmit information via Morse code,
> >as well as by reconstructing a ``neutrinograph'' image of one of their 
> >large bubble-chambers by backstracking of neutrino-induced events.
> 
> I know many Scientific Scienc Fiction papers from Fermilab and you now 
> add  a new one. They never prove anything that they say. Any Neutral 
> particle could produce the same phenomenon atribute to the Neutrino. 
> You didn't remenber that the Neutrino was invented by Pauli and named 
> by Fermi,precisely, to save SR from its failure to explain energy and
> momentum conservation in decay phenomena.(explisitelly RaE decay). 
> Please, if the neutrino is detectec give me its rest mass and its
velocity!!
> 
> >> NEUTRINOS EXIST.<<  Suck it up, and learn to live with them (and
reality).
> 
> This sound to me as Declaration of Independence. Viva la France!!!
> 
> >In what way is General Relativity ``infeasible'' ???
> 
> GR cannot explain DI Herculis and Pulsar Binary Stars precession.
> Predic "gravitational Lens that doesn't exist!!! See Physics Essays 8,
350(1995)
> pages 354 and 355. See also Phys. Lett. A 168(1992).
> GR doesn't give a "mechanism" a "machinery for Gravitation. AD do. 
> You don't know what the word means. Study AD Universal Gravitation
> and tou will see what this mean!
> 
> >In what way is electromagnetic acceleration of particles ``infeasible''
???
> >How else do *you* explain the operation of a particle accelerator ???
> 
> You are so ignorant that cannot realize that withing an accelerator the
>  particle get energy from the external medium, and in decay casesess 
> the particle kinetic energy is get from its own rest mass energy. 
> This is too much complecate for a member of the "Scientific Community" 
> that repeate as  parrots what they don't understand. Please, see in the
> Autodynamics Home Page the "Special Report for Professional," page 18, 
> Inside an Accelerator, because it is time that the people in Argonne Lab 
> known how an accelerator work!! It work Autodynamically!! I know that 
> you don't speeck  for ANL, and consequently I hope that they will
understan 
> the AD proposition of how the accelerators work!!
> 
> >(BTW, has anyone else noticed that ``autodynamics'' predicts that
> >electric charge depends on velocity --- thus contradicting both the
> >conservation of charge, and Maxwell's equations ???)
> 
> Autodynamics doesn't "predict" the "charge variation." AD is not fatalist
> as SR and GR. AD says that IF a particle DECAY in some condition, 
> and its charge change, its values will be given by the Autodynamics 
> equations!!!
> The Autodynamics equation must be applied when the phenomenon happen, 
> but the phenomenon doesn't happen because the equation exist!!!! 
> You cannot understand AD because you cannot understand very simple 
> questions. You need to learn how to read or don't talk about what you 
> don't know or understand!!!
> 
> >    * many experiments that Einstein's relativity (and the "Standard
> >       Model") cannot account for are now explainable.
> >Name two. 
> 
> There are hundreds of experiments where SR cannot give the correct
values. 
> But don't be ignorant. We are talking about SR no SR+Neutrino. 
> Of course this is also too much complecate for a member of the 
> "Conventional Wisdom"
> Muon Decay, Pion decay and all decay phenomena(dozens)., Nucleus-Nucleus 
> Collision, Energy Loss by Electrons in Absorber, The Compton Effect, 
> Electron K capture, Uranium decay, RaE decay, etc.
> 
> >Given that the ``equations of autodynamics'' haven't even appeared the
> >same way twice in any of Carrenzi's (very limited!) publications on the
> >subject, it's not clear that =ANYONE= can make =ANY= clear statement of
> >what ``autodynamics'' predicts, since no definitive statement of the
> `>`theory'' of ``autodynamics'' even =EXISTS= !!!
> 
> Regarding the AD equationds you sre simply a LIER. AD didn'tchange its 
> equations in the last 45 years(there are publications). You are the same
LIER 
> when you say that AD doesn't predict anything. AD predict , in general, 
> the same as SR and GR. (No "stupid" gravitational lens). The difference
> are that AD match the experimental or obserbational values that in many
> casesess SR and GR fail terribly, as happen with DI Herculis and Pulsar 
> Binbary Stars precession.
> The AD statement about relativity are so simple that you cannot see 
> something so revolutionary(AD didn't create any new postulate), because 
> you are inmerse in the ignorance of the "Conventional Wisdom" whose dirty
> censorship make difficult the Carezani's papers publication, because they
are 
> so dirty  like you are. But don't worry: Sooner or later the thruth will
emerge. 
> They cannot hide the thruth for ever!!!
> 
> Lucy Haye
> lucyhaye@earthlink.net
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
> http://www.dejanews.com/          [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
> 

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depends on what you believe), NO FACTUAL
book has been written since there is NO basis on which to write such a
book.  Afew people have made feeble attempts, and a few copies have been
sold, but even those attempts were miserable FAILURES.
What those authors attempted to do was take passages out of context and
concerning different precepts, and attempt to convince the reader that
there were discrepancies.  The intelligent reader, who, with that book
in one hand, and the Bible in the other, in attempting to corroborate
the authors opinion, did just the opposite.  
Though there will always be those who contend that there are discrepan-
cies, or contradictions, too many others with the same ideas proved
themselves wrong. 
I was one of them.

matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
[...]
> >| But, without trying to give you a test, lets look at a recent example,
> >| the discussion of curved vs. flat space. Are you familiar with the
> >| discussion here (involving Moggin) on the topic? And are you familiar
> >| with the issues involved? If so, do you think your knowledge of math
> >| helps, or even is essential, to understanding the transformation from
> >| a euclidean to a reinmannian view of space?
+@+.+ (G*rd*n):
> >I skipped over most of that discussion, which seemed to me
> >to be an attempt to disqualify moggin from speaking about
> >physics -- another math test. 
Matt:
> There has been confusing on this issue. Both you and Moggin see this
> as an attempt to disqualify. I see it as an attempt to explain why
> Moggin's comments were, shall I say, inaccurate.
moggin:
:     A statement of yours like "Don't discuss this if you don't have
:the qualifications" (I'm paraphrasing) is not an attempt to explain
:_anything_, except in Thurber's sense.  ("Shut up, he explained.")
:It's  an effort to disqualify someone from speaking.
terrys@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith)
> No, it's pointing out that you are talking about something of
> which you are ignorant, and pointing out why.
     Strange, then, that it doesn't do either of those things.
moggin:
:     As an aside, the accuracy of my comments was a matter of some 
:debate -- you can say what you like about them, but nothing you said
:refuted my point.  I'm still not certain you knew what it was -- you
:devoted yourself to arguing that I wasn't entitled to have one. 
Terry:
> This tends to confirm that you couldn't have had one. 
     No, it doesn't.
Terry:
> If you
> wish to use terminology to `make a point', you will fail unless
> you have at least some limited understanding of what the words
> you are using mean. 
     Often true.  But irrelevant.
moggin:
> > -- you devoted yourself to arguing that I wasn't entitled to
> >have one.  
Terry:
> No, pointing out that you were incapable of making one using the
> examples you tried.  
     Again, that's exactly what he didn't do.
Terry:
> If, as you seem to be saying, you don't
> understand the maths needed to discuss physics, then you are
> incapable of understanding physics. It is hubris of the highest
> order to attempt to then argue points related to that field with
> physicists.
     Eat me.
Terry:
> This [appearances aside] is a science group. 
     No, it's a group about books, a group about evolution,
a group about post-modernism, a group about...whatever sci.
skeptic is about, a group about physics, and in some cases
a group about philosophy.  But maybe you hadn't noticed.
-- moggin

bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
> [ a whole load of stuff, so much stuff in so many postings that
>   I suspect he has nothing to do all day but sit at his terminal
>   posting to usenet. ]
Keep up the good work, Brian! The Internet needs you!
Simon

lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>Im Artikel <562g1t$304@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
>Harter) schreibt:
>>>> Scientists quote people like Popper, not because they are
>>>>very good [they aren't], but because what Popper, et.al., says is
>>>>somewhere in the neighbourhood.
>>
>>>Would you care to back up the claim in the brackets just a tiny wee bit?
>>
>>What did Popper say about evolutionary theory and why and when did he
>>retract it?
>>
>>Will that do is as a tiny wee bit?
>No. And having gone through all that Newton debate, you should know why.
>But I'll explain. Claiming that someone 'wasn't very good' is a general
>statement. Just like 'Newton plain doesn't work' etc. Popper said (wrote)
>a lot of things. Even if his claims on ev. theory where a lot of BS, as
>you suggest (and you would have to back up that just for credibility in
>the eyes of bystanders), this doesn't necessarily discount anything else
>he said. Remember Linus Pauling and Vitmain C? 
>I know you can do much better, and if it (the jab in the brackets) was
>only a temporary slip, just state it and let's forget about it. Otherwise
>allow me to stick with Popper in general, if only for this very handy tool
>he gave us (V vs. F), quite practically resolving a severe problem Kant
>has left us alone with (not even mentioning his followers, *Weltgeist*,
>wow, *Uebermensch*, no, thank you very much indeed....).
You don't understand; I haven't the slightest intention of defending
that remark at this particular juncture; I have other fish to fry.
You will have to take it as my opinion, with all of the authority of
my peachable credibility. You asked for a wee tiny bit; that I was
willing to deliver.  For more you will have to pay my consulting
rates.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

moggin@nando.net (moggin):
> >    if a central tenet of logical positivism is in
> >circulation, and cited with approval, then it must not be dead.
patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
> Um... dunno 'bout this one, moggin.  Ever hear of "overlap"?
> 
> It's a central tenet of Aristotelian physics that rocks fall down.
> This doesn't mean that Aristotelian physics is still viable in any
> sort of "scientific" fashion.  
     Arguably it does, although we just had that argument, and
I don't feel like having it all over again (especially since we
had it all over again, too).  So I'll just point out that it's
not a good analogy.  For one thing, we're speaking (or at least
I was) of viability in the literal sense.  The consensus these
days is that logical positivism was _never_ a viable philosophy,
in the sense you seem to be using the term (that is, it didn't
ever hold water).  But it was certainly viable in that people
accepted it, talked about it, and so on:  it was alive.  Which
was exactly my point above.  So if there are still people who
talk about entelechy, and take it seriously, Aristotle isn't
dead, either.
-- moggin

Hardy Hulley :
>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. 
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>     Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
>positivism is dead.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>Would you care to explain what you imagine the views suggested above
>have to do with logical positivism?  Or are you merely trying to show
>incompetence in yet another discipline?
moggin:
>     You're in no position to be issuing challenges, but I'll humor
>you, just this once.  Logical positivism:  meaning is verification;
>a statement that can't be verified is meaningless.  
Zeleny:
>Not.  Verificationism is neither necessary nor sufficient as a
>characterization of logical positivism.  For starters, you must
>do justice to the genus and the differentia.
moggin:
>     So who's characterizing?  I offered a tenet, namely the one
>in common with the statements above.
Zeleny:
>In other words, your offering had nothing to do with falsifying the
>statement that logical positivism is dead.  Thank you for playing.
moggin:
>     Sure it did: if a central tenet of logical positivism is in
>circulation, and cited with approval, then it must not be dead.
Zeleny:
>At the risk of hating myself in the morning for catering to the
>wilfully obtuse, here goes another attempt.  F.H. Bradley, among
>others, articulated the view that all propositions must have the
>logical form of general assertions.  It follows that all Bradleyan
>propositions make predictions, and all predictions are, by definition,
>testable.  Hence BY YOUR LIGHTS, Bradley must be a logical positivist.
moggin:
>     Far be it from me to harm your self-image, but it seems to me
>that the statements above are sufficiently doctrinaire to qualify,
>in virtue of their contents.  Bradley, of course, is everything any
>self-respecting logical positivist would reject, but I don't feel
>at all compelled to enlist him in their ranks.
Zeleny:
> Would it help or hinder your comprehension to consider the point that
> Messrs Hulley and Hutticher said nothing that Popper would have found
> objectionable?  Is Popper a logical positivist?
     On the whole, no more than Bradley, although his emphasis on
falsification is a variation on the theme.  But I doubt either one
of them would be content with the above.  Distinguish between the
idea that a testable statement is meaningful, and the idea that in
order to be meaningful, a statement must make testable predictions.
-- moggin