Newsgroup sci.physics 208046

Directory

moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:

 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
It depends on his point of view. If he reads it on sci.phys only 
he is entirely correct.
I would also count sci.skeptic and talk.origins as science groups. 
Thats three out of five.
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)
I will be temporarily off the net since I am going on a postdoc
in Montreal, Canada next week. Responses please this week or in
e-mail (which will be forwarded to me).

How about removing this drivel from soc.culture.jewish?  Keep it in your
alt. groups.
Shelly
[soc.culture.jewish removed from the list]
Publius  wrote in article <56ap4q$12us@news.gate.net>...
> Summary:                   
> Keywords: 
>  
>      I don't know of any scientist who does not believe - as a
>   matter of course -  that the phenomenon "Life" is a function of
>   "Matter".  And I believe I am safe in saying that scientists are 
>   - by definition - Atheists.  That is, scientists believe - they 
>   must believe - that Life outside of Matter is an impossibility.
>      Thus, my hypothesis that Life has Primacy over Matter,
>   that Life exists outside of Matter, that Life existed before
>   Matter, apparently can't be a subject of scientific research.
>      Nevertheless, our cognitive faculty - emancipated from our
>   current fixations, and taking a retrospective view of Life as
>   it has thusfar developed on Earth - should uncover some dis-
>   turbing inconsistencies in this 'closed-circuit' view of Life.
>      Just consider how Life on Earth, from its primitive beginning
>   has always "used" lifeless Matter to achieve its purposeful ends.
>   Life "wills" and Matter just "is". And if Life has existed and will
>   exist eternally in our Universe and elsewhere in infinite Space,
>   how can we logically -scientifically - jump to the conclusion
>   that Life is incapable of achieving anything more than that which
>   our senses can comprehend.  Life "Wills" continuously and who
>   is to put limits on its "Ultimate Configuration"?
>      Life declares:  "I am, before Matter was." 
>   PUBLIUS at    
>      
>   
>      
>       
>              
> 

In article <56amua$1f6@ncar.ucar.edu>,
Steve Emmerson  wrote:
>In article <56a2j6$gpt@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>,
>churchyh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> For example, you can base a system on the speed of light, Planck's
>>> constant, the gravitational constant, and the charge of the
>>> electron. You can easily define mass, length, time, energy, and
>>> electrical units with these four constants.
Actually, Michael A. Rouse  wrote everything above,
in article <327d2f53.25214036@news.cdsnet.net>.
> Since I didn't see any smiley, why don't we meet in the lobby in 
> 2.241071e+27 exa to discuss it?
> That's in 5 minutes for the unit-impared.
--%!PS-Adobe
/M{rmoveto}def/R{rlineto}def 10 10 scale 2/Times-Roman findfont 2 scalefont
setfont 12 45 moveto 0 5 R 4 -1 M 5.5 0 R/C{currentpoint}def C 3 sub 3 90 0
arcn 0 -6 R 7.54 10.28 M 2.7067 -9.28 R -5.6333 0 R 9.8867 8 M 7 0 R%Shalom
setlinewidth 0 -9 R -6 4 M 0 -4 R -31 -5 M C stroke moveto%   Austin, Texas
    (Henry Churchyard http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh )     show showpage

Tim Hollebeek wrote:
> 
> In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, Ash  writes:
> > 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.
> 
> Be very wary of anyone who can compute the probability of the world being
> created, as this implies they understand everything about how it happened.
> Subject modified to be more accurate.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Hollebeek         | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
> Electron Psychologist |                for sufficiently false values of true.
> Princeton University  | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
> ----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
Comments from Jerry:
  The probability of the world being created is meaningless.From our point of view,
there was an infinity of time prior to this universe. In this time an infinity of
other universes could have been produceds some of which produced man and others
which produced nothing at all.Thus without any God whatsoever, infinite time would
produce the conditions we see.
  However the story is more complex than that. Our universe is composed of a spectrum 
of energy from our light speed toward infinite light speed. Over an infinity of time,
we get universes of God alone where all the energy is at the highest light speeds and
only standing waves of energy form. The convergence of this energy to an Einsteinian
set of pinpoints produces a spectrum of other universes which yields some that produce
neutrons. Thus from the higher light speeds down to this light speed flows energy and
intelligence which produces man and beast. At this light speed chaos prevails whereas
at the highest light speed, there is absolute harmony.
Free Book (The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth)(Paperback published in India)
Jerry (Jewish Scientific Prophet of God) 

carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>
>This isn't as true as it used to be.  To get a science certification
>in most U.S. States these days, you need a science degree, and to keep
>it you generally need a science Masters.
 Is this really true?  I know it is not true in Florida, where all you 
 need is a "science ed" degree.  That does require them to take some 
 actual science classes (non-calculus physics, for example, where 
 being a science-ed major was found to be a predictor of failure in 
 a study here at FSU) but nothing like what is required for a BS in 
 any science area.  Now Florida puts education pretty low on the 
 totem pole, but I cannot imagine that this is a rigid requirement 
 given the patterns in science enrollment. 
 I know that Michigan State had a Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) 
 degree in physics, but it was a joke and even then rarely used.  If 
 a true science MS was required after N years, salaries for science 
 teachers would have to go up significantly. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Lawrence B.Crowell wrote:
> 
> Penrose has it right when he argues for the nonalgorithmic nature of
> self-measurement and consciousness.  
Bohm has a similar argument in Ch 15. My way of understanding this is
that back-action evades Eberhard's theorem making local decoding of
precognitive messages on advanced waves possible. This downloading of
information FROM the future is nonalgorithmic since an algorithm is the
execution of steps forward in time according to a definite rule. Must
the rule be fixed? With back-action the rules keep changing in an
adaptive way. With precognition ideas literally create themselves in
contradiction to David Deutsch's "principle of natural philosophy". This
is how allo great ideas come into the world IMHO. They have a life of
their own.
see http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr for more details

moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:
 Hardy Hulley :
l  >The question of what does quantum physics *really* mean,
l >physically, is still very controversial, and I guess one could 
l >adopt the stance that it isn't meaningful. Of course, you'd then 
l >have to contend with the fact that it does make incredibly good 
l >*testable* predictions, in contradistinction to Derrida, who 
l >makes no testable claims at all.
l  
l Anton Hutticher :
l 
l >And successful predictions are of course the only reliable way to 
l >distinguish complex statements which sound like gibberish, but are 
l >not, from complex statements which are gibberish. The exception 
l >are fields which are formalized enough to permit a formal analysis 
l >without recourse to verbal handwaving. 
l   
l moggin@nando.net (moggin):
l 
l >     Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
l >positivism is dead.
l zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
l 
l >Would you care to explain what you imagine the views suggested above
l >have to do with logical positivism?  Or are you merely trying to show
l >incompetence in yet another discipline?
l  
l moggin:
l 
l >     You're in no position to be issuing challenges, but I'll humor
l >you, just this once.  Logical positivism:  meaning is verification;
l >a statement that can't be verified is meaningless.  
l 
l Zeleny:
l 
l >Not.  Verificationism is neither necessary nor sufficient as a
l >characterization of logical positivism.  For starters, you must
l >do justice to the genus and the differentia.

l Zeleny:
l  
l > Would it help or hinder your comprehension to consider the point that
l > Messrs Hulley and Hutticher said nothing that Popper would have found
l > objectionable?  Is Popper a logical positivist?
l 
l      On the whole, no more than Bradley, although his emphasis on
l falsification is a variation on the theme.  But I doubt either one
l of them would be content with the above.  Distinguish between the
l idea that a testable statement is meaningful, and the idea that in
l order to be meaningful, a statement must make testable predictions.
l 
l -- moggin
Would you care to clarify what philosophical position enables you to 
derive logical positivism from a paragraph which says, rephrased: 
There are statements whose meaning is not intuitively obvious. 
For those statements among them which make predictions we have a 
reliable tool to find out whether or not they are gibberish: Look if 
the predictions are successful. For the other statements we seem to 
have no reliable tool to find out if they are gibberish or not.
So far we know about your philosophical stance only that it enables 
you to claim that people are inveterate liars. That does not inspire 
confidence.
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)

breed@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu (Bryan W. Reed) writes:
>
>Also note that that's the resistance for a battery that's going bad.  A good
>one might give 10 mOhm.
 Also note that the internal resistance of a battery is temperature 
 dependent.  A non-trivial matter to people in northern climes as 
 winter approaches.  
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Andrew/ wrote:
> 
> In alt.nuke.the.USA, Brian Pickrell (pmaker@eskimo.com) wrote:
> 
> > Oh, dear, did I miss the discussion about whose school is best?  My high
> > school was No. 4 in the state in Division II basketball, you know.
> 
> My school was featured in a recent Equinox as a centre of competance
> for bomb making.
Your posts are ample proof of your "bomb making" abilities, Andrew/.
--
Eo

In article <56atcg$c5v@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>| >I'm not trying to prove something, I'm trying to explain
>| >something.  If the other person doesn't seem to be getting
>| >it, then indeed I might observe that the rhetorical process
>| >is going wrong.  In the case above, I think you're confusing
>| >the explanation of my views with my views, but they're not
>| >the same thing.
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
>| A nice opportunity to throw in an example of physical reasoning.  It 
>| is impossible to confuse the explanation of your views with your views 
>| since your views are unknown, to everybody but yourself.  All the 
>| others are getting are the your explanations of your views.  So, at 
>| most you can claim the the interpretations of said explanations are 
>| wrong.
>
>Well, I was trying to express the difference between a
>situation where I'm saying "It's raining" and one where I
>explain why I think it's raining.  
I know, I just was in a nitpicking mood.  Happens to the best of us.
>I expect if you laid
>aside your epistemic screwdriver you might feel that you
>had some idea of my views even in the former case and the
>way in which it differs from the latter case.  Not that an
>epistemic screwdriver isn't a lot of fun to wield.
Safer then an epistemic razor, that's sure
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Henry Churchyard (churchyh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <327d2f53.25214036@news.cdsnet.net>,
: Michael A. Rouse  wrote:
: > Personally, I don't think the U.S. should convert to SI. Not because
: > I like the "English" system of units but because there are better
: > ways to construct a measurement system than using a quadrant of the
: > planet and liquid water.
: > For example, you can base a system on the speed of light,
: > Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, and the charge of the
: > electron. You can easily define mass, length, time, energy,
: > and electrical units with these four constants.
: There was an article published in _Analog_ science fiction magazine in
: the early-to-mid 1960's that speculated in some detail about
: developing such systems of measurements.  Maybe we should use base 137
: in our numbering system (actually it's a little bigger than 137, isn't
: it? -- but I'm not sure how a numbering system with a non-integer base
: would work).
Badly.  Ever tried to write out a number in base e?
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gregory  Dandulakis  wrote:
>In article Michael Kagalenko  wrote:
>> Nature is not finite, binary, or even countable, stupid.
>Is this an act of faith?  How many uncountable data has science
>revealed?...!:-)
	Um, I deal a lot with uncountable sets, but I don't see
how an uncountable set of data could arise in science.  Do you 
mean instead a Theory based on observed data that can make 
predictions regarding an uncountable number of different cases?
What do you mean, and can you provide an example?
	Pretty much, so far I have not seen how any of the math
terms you use in your long, rambling theories really have anything
to do with the things you're talking about.  I'm still awaiting
a response on all your yammerings regarding topology.  I'm 
really interested on how scientific theories can be considered
in a topological sense!
>And who said that compression algorithms work only on discrete
>sets?  Have you ever heard the term "pattern recognition"?
	??? 
	Algorithms only work on discrete sets.  All algorithms
work on discrete (finite even, if you go with the strict def'n)
input strings.  What "pattern recognition" algorithm 
doesn't?  Hell, even human "pattern recognition" works on a 
finite, discrete set of input at any single time.  
	With all this empty buzzwordization, I'm surprised you 
haven't used the phrase "content-based" yet.
>Not to mention the central concept _event_ as used in current
>physical theories..., "smarty"?
	Huh?
>Enough.
	Enough for me.
 ,oooooooo8     o     ooooo@math.niu.edu  --  http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/
o888'   `88   ,888.    888  "For every E>0 there exists a clay tablet of
888          ,8'`88.   888  height E such that an ancient Sumerian can
888o.   ,oo ,8oooo88.  888  draw any part of f(x) with a stylus without the 
`888oooo88 o88o  o888o 888  curve crossing the top or bottom boundary."
____________________8o888'__________________________--Cuneiform continuity_

Andy Perry writes:
JW:
##What a shame that
##nowadays the trend in Western philosophy and literature is to bury its head 
##further up its own arse.
#Hey, whatever type of intro-spection works for you...
... says another Lit academic with comprehension failure.
#-- 
#Andy Perry                       We search before and after,
#Brown University                 We pine for what is not.
#English Department               Our sincerest laughter
#Andrew_Perry@brown.edu OR        With some pain is fraught.
#st001914@brownvm.bitnet            -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole

On 12 Nov 1996 12:14:02 -0600, schumach@convex.com (Richard A.
Schumacher) wrote:
>
>Yes, exactly. I can only judge the value of a theory by comparing
>it to the real universe in which we live. Since your notions clearly
>do not describe that universe, we'd have to consider your notions as
>an isolated abstract system. And I ain't got time for that shit.
Quite frankly you would be the last person who I would rely on to
describe the real universe. You have no clue what is the real universe
is like. Furthermore you have no clue what are my notions.

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>
>:    ...      In 1922 Weyl wrote that "A cataclysm has been
>: unloosed which has wept away space, time, and matter".
>
>Which might explain, just as a footnote, why French philosophers who 
>might read the original contributors rather than self-declared Usenet 
>experts think of certain developments in 20th century physics as 
>de-centering rather than stabilizing.
 The events between 1905 and 1927 were indeed de-centering.  The 
 events between 1973 and 1995 were stabilizing.  A French philosopher 
 writing in the 60s based on then-40-year-old concerns, particularly 
 in the unstable situation of the peak cold-war years, can be expected 
 to take such a view.  Philosophy tends to follow what has been 
 written rather then trying to plumb the contemporary concerns of 
 scientists as a sociologist might.  That revolution is now long gone. 
 Today, in the context of the developments in recent decades, those 
 concerns look like the 90-year-old ideas they are.  Sort of the way 
 folks would react if Jack Kemp had made bimetallism or the gold 
 standard the central issue in the presidential campaign the way it 
 was 90+ years ago.  The changes Weyl writes about were unsettling 
 but necessary to achieve the present stability of the standard model. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Brian D. Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
: >In article <563fpa$fhn@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
: >bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
: >>Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
: >>[re the existence of absolute motion per bjon]
: >>[roos]
: >>>I am not discussing Einstein with you. My question rather relates to
: >>>epistemology. How can you know a phenomenon exists if you cannot
: >>>define it and not measure it?
: >>
: >>By "not define," I meant "No working definition," not "No definition,
: >>period."  We cannot measure gravity waves, but everyone believes in
: >>their existence. 
: >>
: >>Anyway, if light has no real (or absolute) motion, then how does it
: >>get to here from the stars? And what type of light motion is source
: >>independent, absolute or relative?  It makes no sense to say relative
: >>because "Relative to what?" cannot be answered.  But let's go on to
: >I will answer it.  Relative to any observer whatsoever. That was easy!
: And meaningless.  (What does "Light's speed relative to any observer
: whatsoever is independent of the light source" mean?)
Actually, the meaning is quite simple:  All observers, regardless of 
inertial motions, observe that all light from all sources moves at 
precisely the same speed.
: >>more meaty proofs of light's absolute motion existence. In 1977, Ken
: >>Brecher studied binary star x-rays to see if the stars' _absolute)_
: >>motion (the only kind that _could_ have a real effect upon anything)
: >The issue was variation of the star's motion relative to the Earth.
: No.  It was the star's speed being source affected or not, and the
: only type of light speed that  can possibly be affected by a light
: source is the absolute or actual light speed.
Light moves at the same speed for everyone.
: >>had any affect upon the emitted light's _absolute_ speed (the only
: >>type of speed that could be affected by a source's motion). He said in
: >>his paper that there would be a definite pattern if light's speed were
: >>source-affected (or source dependent), and this pattern would be
: >>readily observable from earth.  (The light would get "mixed up" as it
: >>was emitted from stars moving rapidly in opposite directions).
: >>However, no such telltale pattern was ever observed, meaning that the
: >>light's actual speed thru space (or its absolute speed) was in no way
: >>affected by the source's movement thru space, or the stars' absolute
: >>movements. Note that the earth observer in no way measures any light
: >>speed (either round-trip or one-way)in this case.  This is purely a
: >The experiment was based on the fact that the travel time would vary if the
: >speed varied.  (D/c+v <> D/c-v).  The equality of the times is a proof that  
: >the speeds are the same.  
: No clocks were involved, therefore no times.
Light itself can be used as a clock, and was in this case.  What would 
have been observed if there had been a speed difference was a set of 
interference fringes that depended upon the direction of the light beams 
in the instrument.  This didn't happen.
: >>matter of absolute speeds, both of the light sources and of the light
: >>leaving the sources.  All that was looked for was a particular
: >>pattern, a pattern whose origins were light-years away, and in no way
: >>affected by us on earth. Since no observer measured any speed at all,
: >>the speed of the light in this is simply an absolute speed.
: >Absolute's got nothing to do with it.  The experiment showed that the light
: >traveled at the same speed, relative to the Earth, no matter what the relative
: >speed of the source.
: Dead wrong.  Call  Mr. Brecher.
Why should he call someone you claim is wrong?
: >>And if light has an absolute speed, so does everything else.
: >>
: >>However, this does not mean that we can determine any object's
: >>absolute speed. Mechanical methods fail due to inertia, and optical
: >>attempts have failed due to various reasons.  Right now, the earth's
: >>absolute speed could be anything from zero to nearly lightspeed (using
: >>c as light's absolute speed), but we have no way (yet -- but some
: >>think the CBR supplies us with an absolute frame) of determining the
: >>actual value of this absolute earth speed. (We could so it if we could
: >>find a way to start two clocks at the same time, but this, too, has
: >>eluded us).
: >This was one of Poincare's objection's to Lorentz's theories.  The same 
: >principle (PR) is explained by various hypotheses, depending on the experiment.
: >So, one explanation is given for mechanical tests, another for first order 
: >optical, still another for second order optical.  Lorentz was able to combine
: >the optical results with his 'corresponding states' and offset time definition.
: >Einstein answers all PR questions by showing that Lorentz' time indicates the
: >need for a new kinematics.
: Of course there must be different physical explanations for optical vs
: mechanical.  These are totally unalike because light's speed (UNlike
: any inertial object's) is source independent.
Indeed it is.  It is also OBSERVER independent.
: And Einstein's View explains nothing at all.
Except for most of the universe.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>
>     ...       In fact, I think it would be interesting to
>go into the sociology of Calculus.  On the one hand you have
>its necessity in some fields; on the other, you have its use
>as a bludgeon, and not just in Net arguments.  
 That would be an interesting discussion, but the newsgroups would 
 have to change.  Mathematics has not been emphasized in Biology, 
 which has held back the general acceptance of particular lines of 
 investigation that use mathematical or computer models.  On the 
 other hand, Economics is almost more formally mathematical than 
 Mathematics, and there I suspect there are MBA candidates who think 
 it is used as a bludgeon.  Its use as a tool is pervasive in Physics. 
 I would be interested in an example of where Calculus is used as a 
 bludgeon, presumably in published articles outside the sciences. 
 What did you have in mind there? 
>  One could not
>proceed in that discussion without a good understanding of
>what Calculus is used for.
 But perhaps without as deep an understanding of Calculus qua Calculus 
 as is needed to do Real Analysis, or the understanding needed to use 
 calculus when reading Hamilton. 
>          ....            In the last few weeks, I've
>gotten down to just one "idiot."  So I've made a certain
>amount of progress.
 And we all learn in the process.  Just don't become a f**l.  ;-) 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

In article <56b92e$63h@news.fsu.edu>,
jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>>
>>This isn't as true as it used to be.  To get a science certification
>>in most U.S. States these days, you need a science degree, and to keep
>>it you generally need a science Masters.
>
> Is this really true?  I know it is not true in Florida, where all you
> need is a "science ed" degree.
Have you checked lately?  I got my bio degree from Florida Atlantic,
and my advisor there told me that the science ed program had been
phased out because real degrees would be required in the future.
I know that real degrees, including a Masters, are needed for
permanent certification in New York, where I ended up getting
certified.
--
Carl Fink             carlf@panix.com      madscientist@genie.com
Dueling Modems                                  http://www.dm.net
"Any given person is an aberration"
        Michael Chary

Riccardo Casimiro Storti (zordan@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: I have a question if someone could help, not quite related to what your
: talking about.
: Is momentum always conserved during interactions (say..fluid flow through a
: nozzle)?
Yes, momentum us always conserved.  So is mass-energy.  Doing the 
explicit calculations to predict exactly how much energy is in each place 
and each form and how much momentum finishes up in each body isn't always 
feasible.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian D. Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
: >>If a clock travels between two events, there's only one value for this
: >>particular clock, and it is an absolute reading, not a relative one.
: >>And the clock that has the greatest reading has taken the shortest
: >>absolute route between the two events, which is the absolute distance
: >>between them.
: >>
: >You seem to have shifted the meaning of absolute.  You now have equated 
: >absolute time with proper time.  This is radically different than either
: >Newton's or Einstein's use of the term.  I don't think that is what you 
: >meant.
: A single clock traveling between events records a single time - this
: is clearly not relative, but absolute, or not observer dependent.
The problem with this demand is that the CLOCK becomes the observer.
: >>>: Obviously, for many events, there's not enough time for a clock to
: >>>: "span" them, even at lightspeed, so there would be no proper time for
: >>>: the events.  This is the case above. 
: >>
: >>>Yes, because we've switched from trig to hyperbolic trig.
: >>>We've switched from Pythagorus to Lorentz/Minkowski.
: >>>Thus, the interval is spacelike.
: >>
: >>>Oooooooo, scarey.  Ooooooh.   I dunno about you, kids, 
: >>>but that sure convinces old Count Floyd, boy, I'll tell you.  Oooooh.
: >>>--
: >>>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
: >>>               throopw@cisco.com
: >>
: >>Sad and irrelevant attempt at being humorous.
: >>And what's really scarey is a clock that reads hyperbolic time!
: >>
: >Your use of absolute above would truly be hyperbolic time in the sense that 
: >events at the same absolute time from the origin would occupy a hyperboloid,
: >rather than a plane.  I will let you reconsider this one.
: But there's no proper time reading by a real clock.
No, the proper time is given by a clock carried by the observer or system 
you want the proper time of.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

t. smith  wrote in article
<32800F13.49054F04@prado.com>...
>   CAN WE KILL THIS STUPID 'URANIUM' THREAD CRAP. IT'S WORTHLESS TO
> ANYTHING THIS NEWSGROUP IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT.
Maybe we should just start a new ng?
Take your pick:
rec.aviation.spent.uranium
alt.disasters.spent.uranium
sci.physics.spent.uranium

Hardy Hulley wrote:
> Since a fundamental assumption of deconstructionism is that the text
> forms an impenetrable screen separating author from reader (with the
> corollary that the author's intentions, together with the source of his
> statements, are irrelevant)...
Wow -- not even close.  Deconstruction doesn't give a damn about some 
interiority 'within' a writer where 'intent' is some silent decree 
already articulated before the piece of writing even hits the scene (the 
'source of his statements,' as you say).  Deconstruction does not care 
about interiorities or subjectivities -- it leaves those straw-men to the 
'realists' and religious people.  It cares only about the text at hand 
(or the speech at ear), the articulation that is said to have an intent. 
 Only particular articulations intend toward meaning--that is, toward 
further articulation; silent human bodies do not.
-- brian
_________
Don't be paranoid.
It makes you look suspicious to the authorities.

> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
> >
> >This isn't as true as it used to be.  To get a science certification
> >in most U.S. States these days, you need a science degree, and to keep
> >it you generally need a science Masters.
> Jim Carr  writes:
>  I know that Michigan State had a Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) 
>  degree in physics, but it was a joke and even then rarely used.  If 
>  a true science MS was required after N years, salaries for science 
>  teachers would have to go up significantly. 
I'm a student at a local community college and am taking a course called
phys-1000 Physical Science, it's a liberal arts type science course, most
of the ppl in my class are human services type major and the like, one of
the other student though is a 6th grade science teacher at a local middle
school.  He needs to take it to keep up his acreditation.  Trust me this is
no where near the Masters in anything type course, but Rhode Island accepts
it for accreditation.  We call it moron physics: physics with no formulas
basically.  But hey I'm going to be a librarian, I only need to know where
to look the stuff up :)
				minmei

Stephen La Joie (lajoie@eskimo.com) wrote:
: David L Evens wrote:
: > Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com) wrote:
: > 
: > : >PS: I accidentally deleted sci.physics.relativity from my computer. So
: > : >if you want to comment please make it on sci.physics or
: > : >sci.physics.new-theories.
: > 
: > : Hmm, he knows the secrets of the universe but can't run his
: > : newsreader. This does not inspire confidence. Even Einstein
: > : could ride a bicycle.
: > 
: > Yeah, but he couldn't be depended upon to remember to put his pants on in
: > the morning!
: Humph. Like you never forgot to put your pants on in the
: morning. It could happen to anybody. No need to be nasty
: about it.
It happened to Albert often enough that he had a running tab at the 
dinner he ate breakfast in every morning on his way in to Princton U.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CharlieS wrote:
> 
> Judson McClendon wrote:
> >
> > CharlieS wrote:
> > > Only if you think people should have a "fear of 'God'".
> > > I've seen this too often to take it seriously; every time I've
> > > told a believer that I don't need "salvation", they've turned
> > > on me with the old threat "Just wait till you're standing
> > > before 'God' and you'll soon change your sinful ways".
> > > The fact is, I'm not scared of your "God" so I'm not scared
> > > of "His" opinion of me.
> > > The fact that some believers feel too scared of their "God"
> > > to even be able to face "Him" just shows how pathetically
> > > weak their so-called "faith" is in the first place.
> >
> > "And I say to you, My friends, do not be  afraid of those who kill the
> > body, and after that  have no  more that they can do. But I will show
> > you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power
> > to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!" (Luke 12:4,5, words of
> > Jesus)
> >
> > No, you don't have to fear God.
> 
> ?
> Then who is the one with "the power to case into hell" that Jesus
> was talking about in your quote above?
> 
> > You just have to face Him at Judgement.
> 
> But I want to face him NOW!
> 
> I keep getting this promise from Christians.
> They always say "You'll meet 'God' on judgement day and _then_ you'll
> know the truth!"
> Why the hell do I have to wait?
> I'm *ready* to face "Him".
> In fact I'm looking forward to asking "Him" just how life evolved
> and what happened during the Big Bang, but you damn christians keep
> me waiting till "Judgement day", its just not fair damn it.
> Why am I always held up by the dumb kids in class?
> 
> 
> > No choice.  And your opinion won't impress God.  You can argue with a
> > human, but you won't argue with God.
> 
> I'd like to think it would be more like a friendly debate rather
> than an actual argument; but then a debate isn't half as fun
> unless it gets a little heated :)
> 
> > However, there is a way out.  Not by ignoring God,
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the *only* "way out" is precisely by
> ignoring "God" -- but you theists won't let me.  You're ruining
> my chance of "salvation": that's _soul_ abuse.
> 
> > but by receiving His
> > salvation in Jesus Christ.  If God enjoyed destroying us, He wouldn't
> > have to work up a sweat doing us in.  But He went to a lot of trouble to
> > provide a way of salvation.  But if we trample under feet the salvation
> > provided by God, there will be no mercy.  God loves you, but he will not
> > tolerate rebellion forever.
> 
> If "He" really is such a kill-joy, I just might rebel and stop
> tolerating
> "Him"...
> 
> > Judson McClendon
> 
> CharlieS
Comments from Jerry:
  Well at last God provided the world with the answers. My free paperback "The Natural
God of Law, Love, and Truth will explain the big bang and all other things to you.
You will see how man evolved. You will see the answer to all things. And of course if
you have a question, the answers are available on the Internet.Thus you now have the
truth of all things on the Internet. Just the right service for you. And it is free.
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of an Ethical God)

Cees Roos wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hmmmm .... not in accordance with what I've read regarding Einstein's development
> > of SR. The literature I've seen indicates that SR was a pure thought-experiment
> > by Einstein. Though it's often stated that SR was the answer to the resolution of
> > M&M;, I find no evidence that that experiment played any role whatsoever with
> > respect the development.
> >
> > If you (anyone) have a cite of a direct correlation please post it. But I think
> > you'll find the thought-experiment stands on it's own without being based on
> > any empirical data. ... Of course empirical data (observations, experiments, etc.)
> > has provided evidence of the theory's accuracy.
> 
> Oh, come on, Mr. Samples,
> do you seriously propose that Mr. E, being a fully educated physicist,
> did not know of the MMX results of about twenty years before, and the
> Lorentz hypothesis of length contraction of about ten years before,
> which both were not yet understood at the time, when he conjured up his
> thought experiment? Do you seriously propose that the fact that this
> thought experiment addressed this particular problem, and came up with
> a plausible theory explaining the puzzling items, was coincidence?
> 
> >
The point was whether SR was based on empirical data. I don't think you'll find 
any support for this. Einstein was certainly well aquainted with Lorentz's work,
but this too was hypothetical. M&M; failed to detect the ether, and a number of
ideas were explored to explain this. 
Direct experimental "verification" of SR came long after ... and is still coming.
> > > 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.
> >
> > Unfortunately the answer is not that easy. The question is not only whether data
> > provides clear contradiction of the theory ... but whether there's an alternate
> > "theory" which explains the data. In other words, whether SR explains the data,
> > experiments, observations, etc. exclusively. While simple confirmation provides
> > validity to the use of a theory for prediction, it does not provide
> > the necessary proof that the theory reflects reality.
> 
> If your 'alternate theory' explains exactly the same phenomena as the
> 'original theory' then they must agree on all issues, and any discussion
> as to whether one is better than the other will be superfluous, because
> they are equally good. One might consider the simplest of the two better
> (Occam, you know..).
Not necessarily. Epicycles did a wonderful job of prediction planetary motion
with a geocentric universe, the Copernican system did/does an equally good job
with a heliocentric universe. Which is the "correct" theory?
> The issue of the present thread is the need for absolute time.
> If the 'alternate theory' needs this, it is not an alternate theory,
> because absolute time is irrrelevant to SRT. Consequently we have a
> means if determining which of the two is better.
It's more involved than "invariant" vs. "variable" time. The variant time 
must act exactly in accordance with SR for the theory to be "correct". 
It may well be possible to have invariant time AND still have the observations
which confirm SR, or variant time which does not encompass the assymetrical
predictions of the "twins paradox" (among other effects).
> As far as I can see, the battle has already been decided, because there
> is no experimental result indicating that absolute time exists.
> Once more, come up with an experiment which will show one way or the
> other and the matter can be settled.
> 
But you are accepting the "prefered" theory as fact, long before many experiments
have been developed to test it. You have the cart before the horse when you
say someone must disprove the theory ... or accept it. Some things remain 
to be seen.
> >
> > > So, no absolutes is not absolute, but a pretty good working hypothesis.
> > >
> >
> > Reality is the arbitrator. If SR is an accurate model (of reality) the theory
> > must be absolute in the sense of providing accurate data.
> 
> A theory does not provide data, it can provide predictions, which can be
> tested. The predictions of SRT have proved to be accurate so far.
> 
> > The value of time
> > dilation wrt some particular velocity is an absolute value.
> 
> And is correctly predicted by SRT.
> 
In some very limited circumstances there is a great deal of evidence regarding
SR's predictions. This is not the same as claiming ALL predictions of SR WILL
BE correct.
> >
> > If you are speaking of some absolute frame of reference, even Einstein did not
> > believe (if one can accept the literature) that SR ruled out finding one.
> 
> In physics nothing can be ruled out on beforehand. SRT hypothesizes no
> absolute frame, and comes up with correct predictions so far.
> 
So far. More tests will give more data. More data will add certainty to
conclusions.
W$

: In article , Anthony Potts  says:
: >
: >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.
: >
: >Neither appeals to me. As I said, physics is not challenging. 
Anthony,
Look, if you're after a challenge, try embracing a theory which goes against
everything most physicists believe and then try to peddle it.
Very challenging, let me assure you.
-- 
John August
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose. But you can't
pick your friend's nose.

In sci.physics.relativity Ken H. Seto  wrote:
: On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 18:29:09 GMT, kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto)
: wrote:
: >So why do we bother with the variable light-speed concept? Because it
: >allows us to think in terms of absolute motion and absolute motion is
: >the mother of all the processes in the universe. For more information
: >on absolute motion please look up my web site for the article "The
: >Physics of Absolute Motion"
: >
: Since there is no response to this thread, I assume that the
: relativists are agreeing with the existence of absolute time and
: motion. Also, I assume that the variable light-speed idea is a valid
: one.
: Ken Seto
Oh, come on.
I'd never use that approach. I think you're being a bit of spoilt kid
here.
I've never * expected * anyone to take notice of a challenge, and I've never
been too keen to make challenges anyway.
Not making any judgement on your theory, but I think you should think
carefully about how you are marketing it.
Frustration/spitting the dummy is not a good sign.
-- 
John August
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose. But you can't
pick your friend's nose.

On 12 Nov 1996 11:45:38 GMT, pdp@ix.netcom.com (Pdp) wrote:
>
>   Are you refering to geo-stationary satellite or ? Even geo-stationary
>   sat, the satellite still moves around in a small "box".
I don't know the construction of a geo-stationary Sat. However, the
antenna of the COBE thta detected the dipole must be locked onto a
specfic direction before it can detect the dipole.
>
Ken Seto

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  writes:
>
>     ...         A neutron star has a classical matter surface, then a 
>degenerate matter rind, then the neturonium core.  
 And, it should be noted, "pure neutronium" is not 100% neutrons.  
 It is an equilibrium mixture of (mostly) neutrons plus protons 
 and electrons that depends on density.  
 There may be a pure neutron nucleus, or perhaps a neutral nucleus 
 made up of two neutrons and two Lambdas, but we have not seen it 
 yet.  Otherwise, only gravitationally bound systems where the 
 equation of state makes electron capture energetically favored 
 appear to support 'neutronium'. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Ken H. Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: On 7 Nov 1996 03:01:57 GMT, devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
: >Ah, so he's claiming that sattelites and aircraft are at absolute rest.  
: >Never mind the little detail that aircraft and sattelites are constantly 
: >moving arround the curved surface of the Earth, and are moving at least 
: >as fast as the surface of the Earth at all times.
: No. What I mean is that the satellite is not rotating so the antenna
: can locked onto a specific direction and enabling it to detect the
: dipole. On the earth's surface, the antenna is subjected to the
: rotating motion of the earth and thus the direction of absolute motion
: is continuously changing. In other words, there is no specific
: direction that you can locked onto. This means that all the directions
: are the same and that's why you cannot detect the dipole on earth.
So you are claiming that we cannot determine how the Earth is moving at 
any time.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

El Lobo con Moto wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Dave Monroe wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> > > >
> > > >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.
> >
> > Another simile I've heard is that "Evolution is like a tornado
> > tearing through a junkyard and assembling a 747".  This doesn't
> > come from any science text, it comes from promoters of creationism.
> >
> > The problem with creationists is that they assume that those of us
> > that believe in evolution are atheists.
> >
> > People believe in evolution because there's a huge body of evidence
> > that points in that direction.  People believe in creationism because
> > they were told to.
> >
> > Evolution is a much more interesting story than creation and is
> > more what I would expect of God.  God is smarter that whoever wrote
> > the story of creation in Genesis.
> >
> > It's a shame creationists don't think better of God.
> > --
> > David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
> > Software Engineer
> > Control Data Systems
> > 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
> > Fairborn, Ohio 45324
> > (937) 427-6385
> >
> >
> 
> Bravo!!!
> I am also an evolutionist...and I don't believe it really clashes with the
> bible...unless you feel the need to take it totally literally, which is
> not the best approach when you consider that the bible basically tries to
> put the infinite in human terms...
> I'm glad someone finally said they believed in evolutino *and* God...I was
> beginning to think I was alone...
> davComments from Jerry:
  Read my book. It is free. It will explain the whole evolution process from our start
within the will to exist within an exploding star.
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of an Ethical God)  (paperback from India)

X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Nov 13 01:26:06 1996 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 141.201.11.57 (DZOO57.ZOO.SBG.AC.AT)
X-Authenticated-Sender: Anton Hutticher 
Lines: 30
Xref: magma.Mines.EDU sci.skeptic:211077 alt.postmodern:46761 talk.origins:261932 rec.arts.books:187586 sci.physics:208080 talk.philosophy.misc:69743
    moggin@nando.net (moggin) wrote:

>  And if it
> _is_ a hill, then it can't be flat (by definition).  But I made a
> place for your perspective.  If you decide that it must be flat,
> since your measurements don't detect any height, then it can't be
> a hill.  Simple.
> -- moggin
> 
You are still abusing words.
Definition: A hill�s elevation can range from - infinite to + infinite. 
Then a hill obviously can be flat. It just is a hill with elevation zero.
The old notion of hill has been generalized and now subsumes 
hole, plain and hill. 
Our definitions are as good as yours.
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/           [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News]

Dave Monroe wrote:
> 
> >
> > In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> > >
> > >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.
> 
> Another simile I've heard is that "Evolution is like a tornado
> tearing through a junkyard and assembling a 747".  This doesn't
> come from any science text, it comes from promoters of creationism.
> 
> The problem with creationists is that they assume that those of us
> that believe in evolution are atheists.
> 
> People believe in evolution because there's a huge body of evidence
> that points in that direction.  People believe in creationism because
> they were told to.
> 
> Evolution is a much more interesting story than creation and is
> more what I would expect of God.  God is smarter that whoever wrote
> the story of creation in Genesis.
>Comments from Jerry:   The processes for the production of man are certainly smarter than the simple
story in Genesis. It takes a billion years to make a man.
  If you would like to understand the whole story for the production of man,  my
book is available for free."The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth"
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of an Ethical God)  
> It's a shame creationists don't think better of God.
> --
> David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
> Software Engineer
> Control Data Systems
> 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
> Fairborn, Ohio 45324
> (937) 427-6385

kerrlegal@aol.com writes:
>
>We are in the process of installing new playscape equipment on a church
>playground for 2 to 5 year olds.
>
>A couple of the platforms may be up to 4' 6" high with openings for
>ladders.  There is some disagreement regarding how high these platforms
>should be.  We are concerned about children getting hurt falling off.
 You should consult the design recommendations for playgrounds.  I 
 don't know if it is the CPSC or OSHA or DOEd or People for Safe Play 
 or what, but they exist.  Someone in your local school system can 
 probably give you a pointer.  Based on the efforts I have seen locally, 
 I believe your concern should be directed at the surface below as 
 much as the height, since soft surfaces cushion the impact and 
 children's heads are very vulnerable even at low impact speeds on 
 hard surfaces.  
>We would like to know how fast a falling object is moving just before it
>hits the ground from the following hights:
>3' 6"
>4'
>4' 6"
 Eeek, English units!  If a kid drops his or her head that distance, 
 it will hit at v = sqrt( 2*32*distance ) where distance is in feet 
 and v is in ft/s.  Multiply by 60/88 to get mph.  
 The difference between those speeds is small compared to the whiplike 
 impact of the head on the ground if the kid falls sideways so the 
 head is snapped onto the ground by an awkward fall. 
 Note that either speed is comparable to running headlong into a wall. 
 Note that they put cushioning on the walls of gymnasiums under the 
 basketball basket.  Some playgrounds are designed to have a soft 
 cushioning surface in places where kids can fall. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Robert. Fung wrote:
> 
> 
>         This part is still confusing. Can you elaborate more on the distinction
>         since the confusing part seems to be, where, what range, mathematically the
>         quantization occurs. Does 'hbar' enter the picture only
>         as an empirically derived proposition or is it mathematically derivable from
>         EM properties for free-wave packets.
>
You cannot derive Planck's constant from Maxwell's equations. The original derivation
was "by extraction from experimental data", followed by a theoretical procedure that
showed how black body radiation is distributed. Nobody understood what this all meant,
including Planck (1900).  Einstein found a use for Planck's relation, E = h*frequency,
in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect.  
But the photoelectric effect cannot be derived from classical electromagnetism; it is
new physics.  h appears only when quantum physics is present.
>
> I've only read something to this effect by Dirac something like:
> theta * E - E * theta = ih for a component of the superposition.
> 
This is a commutator relationship; it is pure quantum mechanics.
> >
> > If you are able to fully specifiy the electromagnetic field, then one of
> > the quantum properties is that you no longer know how many photons you have!
> > That is, the photon number is not an eigenvalue of the electromagnetic field.
> 
>         I guess this is the case when the source is switched on and off and
>         the resulting wave packet contains energy larger than one hbar*w_o
>         yielding many coherent, phase-related photons ?
>
No, as far as I know, you can never be sure that you have only one photon.
What I was getting at was that if the electromagnetic field is perfectly well
defined (by some magical means, no doubt!), you cannot determine the number of
photons present ... even though there is a quantum mechanical operator for 
"photon count".  Take a course (or two) in quantum mechanics to find out how
this all works.
It's a nice way to while away the time!
Best Regards, Peter

I have a question regarding the constants of electricity and magnetism
equations. My physics book makes it sound perfectly obvious that 
	mu * epsilon * c^2 =1
I agree that this relationship holds but do not understand where it comes
from. Who formulated this equation? I know light can be interpreted as a
electromagnetic wave, but what (specifically) do these quantities have to
do with the speed of light?
			Regards,
			- Dan -
_____________
Daniel M Grasso
State University of New York at Buffalo
School of Engineering and Applied Science		   
dmgrasso@eng.buffalo.edu
     "I don't want to repeat my innocence. 
                 I want the pleasure of losing it again."
			       -Fitzgerald

Anton Hutticher :
>So far we know about your philosophical stance only that it enables 
>you to claim that people are inveterate liars. 
   As I recall, "inveterate liar" was your phrase, aimed at me.   I've
never used it.
-- moggin

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
: >>>>>If I may quickly interfere here in my usual conciliatory voice:
: >>>>>I think that, yes, Zeleny is right: both Destruktion and deconstruction 
: >>>>>have an etymological connection to destruction; he is right further in 
: >>>>>claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are very attuned to implications 
: >>>>>of this sort -- to deny that there is any link whatsoever strikes me 
: >>>>>as problematic.
: >>>>I appreciate your interference, but calling Derrida's self-serving
: >>>>lie `problematic' is still, umm...  "problematic" -- for reasons I
: >>>>suggested by my analogy with Jorg Haider.  Do you seriously expect
: >>>>Derrida to remain morally unaffected by inheriting his critical
: >>>>methodology from a Nazi and sharing it with a Nazi collaborator?
: >>>Yes; as much as I don't accuse Aristotelians to be pro-slavery. 
: >>Why ever not?  Philosophers such as Bernard Williams in _Shame and
: >>Necessity_ -- have made THAT argument.  What sort of superiority --
: >>and surely the intellectual variety could be ruled out right away --
: >>entitles you to dismiss them without consideration?
: >You says I haven't considered it? I'm familiar with the argument; it 
: >doesn't interest me, and I think it's fallacious. Next thing you'll argue 
: >that everybody who thinks Nietzsche is worthwhile will contract syphilis. 
: No germ or poison can contaminate reason as much as the belief that some 
: men are natural slaves.
So?
: >I find much of Heidegger's approach to metaphysics problematic, and I 
: >have no interest in constructing apologetic arguments about his 
: >involvement with the Nazis -- yes, he was a Nazi, and, yes, part of his 
: >philosophy reflects this or is at least connected to it. That does not 
: >constitute a critique of his philosophical work yet; it certainly does 
: >not constitute a critique of _Derrida's_ philosophical work. As you damn 
: >well know.
Response?
: >>>>If so, what good is his alleged sensitivity to "historical
: >>>>sedimentation"?
: >>>It's good when it's subtle; your brand is indeed worthless.
: >>Subtlety is no substitute for truth.
: >It's a good approach to it, though. 
: It is in no way superior to honest reason as an approach to truth.
Honesty and subtlety are not mutually exclusive; I consider your response 
a non-response.
>>>>>	Zeleny's problem is that he cannot distinguish between throwing a 
: >>>>>bomb at a church and taking it apart piece by piece, lovingly, to see 
: >>>>>how it is made. The latter does involve, to introduce a new term, 
: >>>>>dismantling, and it is a destruction to the extent that any 
: >>>>>interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't leav   
: >>>>>its object unchanged.
: >>>>ANY interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't
: >>>>leave its object unchanged?  Are you really implying that each time
: >>>>you eat your Wheaties or take your morning shit, read a newspaper or
: >>>>write your Usenet screed, you destroy your body or your mind, by dint
: >>>>of interfering therewith?  Would you care to reconsider your claim
: >>>>after a leisurely walk through Liddell & Scott on metabole?  At any
: >>>>rate, Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace
: >>>>them with -- WHAT?
: >>>Yes, I am -- which is precisely why your objection is so worthless; 
: >>>deconstruction is destructive precisely to that degree --- that is, it 
: >>>is destructive in such obvious and negligible ways that to point out 
: >>>that it is destructive and trying to build your case on it bespeaks your 
: >>>vindictive fantasies rather than any understanding of what is at stake.
: >>Half of my family was murdered by Heidegger's party comrades.  What
: >>makes YOU so sure of your entitlement to the high moral ground in
: >>denouncing my "vindictive fantasies"?  What have YOU got at stake?
: >Half of my family belongs to slavic Untermenschen; another part (a small 
: >one) is gypsy; my husband is Jewish and my children according to 
: >Antisemites the result of Rassenschande --  so what's your point?
: First tell me what entitles you to the high moral ground.
You introduced the terrain; you graze it. Since you introduces your 
family history, I introduced mine -- but it's you who seems to think it's 
relevant. Explain yourself.
: >>>"What does he replace them with?" -- Why, do you think philosophy is like 
: >>>restocking the shelves in a supermarket? Oh, gee, these Wheaties seem 
: >>>stale, let's put some Cheerios in instead? As soon as you stop asking 
: >>>"what is" in favor of "what is it good for," you're in trouble. Get your 
: >>>reassurances somewhere else -- Commentary would probably suit.
: >>What a jolly good show of non-partisan demagoguery.  Now would you
: >>kindly point out an instance when I stopped asking "what is" in favor
: >>of "what is it good for"?
: >It's implied in your suggestion that critique should reshelve the 
: >metaphysical storehouse.
: Non sequitur.  Quidditative inquiry depends on the availability of its 
: tools and subject matter alike, as surely as pragmatic concerns depend
: on an expectation of benefit.
So tell us what your point was in the dramatically capitalized "WHAT?"
Silke
: Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
: Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
: itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
: ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

In article ,   wrote:
>In article <566age$12l@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>>In article ,   wrote:
>>
>>>It is not a matter of presumption.  There is nothing in Newton's 
>>>equations that relies on the notion of absolute space.  Thus the 
>>>notion is extra-physical.
>>
>>Newton's laws of motion are grounded in his definition of absolute
>>space. Without it, the second law is circular as Feynman, e.g.
>>notes.
>
>Really?  And why it is so?
Because you can pick any frame and declare by fiat that there
must be forces to account for any accelerations wrt this frame.
Of course, this is what we do in the case of fictitious forces.
Yes, the third law does come to the rescue in this case, but the
establishment of inertial frames is a nontrivial problem in
Newtonian mechanics, especially with all this gravity around!
To do so, you have to appeal inductively to the laws of motion.
If you want to proceed deductively, you need some way to establish
motion ( in principle ) without reference to force laws, and this is
the point at which Newton appeals to Absolute Space.
Please understand. I'm not trying to start a "back to Newton"
movement, although I am trying to appreciate and defend Newton's
presentation of his system in the Principia.
Lew Mammel, Jr.