Newsgroup sci.physics 208206

Directory

[Moderator's note: I'm approving with reluctance yet another post about the
philosphy of physics rather than physics itself. If there is any more to be
said on this issue, please say it by e-mail. -WGA]
In article <55apa7$11lk@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, Ross Tessien
 wrote (about the Tampere "antigravity" claims)
(commenting on a previous posting to which I have alas lost the reference):
| Seems to me that both the post above, and the moderators note presume 
| that the experiment is not valid.  I don't recall having read any repeats 
| of the experiment showing this to be the case.  So it seems strange to me 
| that a post claiming the reports are a "scam" ought not to have been 
| approved.  In the late 1800's the comment was made that all of physics 
| was understood and that all that was left was bookeeping.  I fear that 
| while the above phenomena may be experimental error, it should not be 
| presumed to be so unless there is additional second source information 
| showing this to be so.
Well, there _is_ additional information:  The authors of the paper in
question _withdrew_it_before_publication_.  In other words, they no
longer claim the results to be correct.
Withdrawing a paper has always been a very serious step, and in the
"publish or most definitely perish :=(" late 1990s it's even more so.
In practice, it's only done if the work is found to be plagiarized
(which noone's suggesting is the case here), there are serious legal
threats (again unlikely here) or the work is found to be wrong.  The
latter is thus the "null hypothesis" in this case.
| Not long ago PRL I think it was, published an experiment from a Japanese 
| research team that found that a rotating wheel had its weight altered 
| dependent on the direction of rotation in a repeatable well performed 
| experiment.
These results were an experimental artifact.  The problem was that the
rotating wheel had mechanical bearings.  Balances (= to determine weight)
are only designed to measure *steady* forces.  They don't cope well
with high frequency vibrations, and in particular they often behave
nonlinearly, including "rectifying" such vibrations to apparent weight
offsets.  This behavior can easily depend on the detailed shape of the
waveform shape of the vibration ... which is likely to change when one
reverses the sense of rotation of a mechanical bearing.
Consider, for example, a bearing surface which has a small bump on it,
shaped like this
					 *************
			     *************            ***
		*************                            ***
****************                                            ************
As you can see, the force-vs-time profile is going to differ depending
on which way the bearing is rotating.  And if the adjacent surface looses
contact and free-flies up into the air for a short time after going up
the steep side of the bump, the asymmetry will be even larger.
There's a larger issue here.  To put it simply, "extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence"!  If a friend tells me she saw a deer
in her lawn, and I know she lives in a rural area where deer are common,
I'm likely to accept her claim readily.  But if she tells me she saw
a unicorn, I'm likely to hold her to a higher standard of proof, and
ask for a photograph/videotape, and worry about how photos/videos can
be faked, etc etc.
Returning to physics, Ross Tessien said (about the Tampere claims)
| If you know otherwise and someone has proved the experiment not to work, 
| could you please present that information?
My point is that the burden of proof lies not with "proving the
experiment not to work".  Rather, the burden of proof lies with those
claiming the experiment _to_ work and be valid.  And (!important!) in
order to be significant, this proof needs to be convincing enough to
make the experiment's failure seem less likely to the community of
physicists, than the failure of a _very_ large body of physics (both
theory and prior experiment, in both gravitation and superconductivity)
which argues against the experiment's claims being valid.
Such proof is not a priori impossible -- physics is fundamentally an
experimental science, and if the experiment doesn't fit the theory,
then the theory is wrong.  But the experiment has to be correct, and
the physics community has to be convinced of this.
There are plenty of historical examples of this happening, of "well
established" pieces of physics being overturned by new experimental
results.  Classical statistical mechanics vs quantum mechanics around
1900 is a well-known case, parity-nonconservation in weak interactions
around 1956 is a more recent one.  Note, though, that in both cases the
"new experimental results" (black body radiation, parity-nonconserving
decays) were solid -- they were obtained by many experimental groups
in a variety of situations, and there was no serious doubt about their
correctness.  So far the antigravity claims are a _long_ ways from that
kind of solidity.
-- 
-- Jonathan Thornburg  (personal E-mail)
   U of British Columbia / Physics Dept / 
   "The first strike in the American Colonies was in 1776 in Philadelphia,
    when [...] carpenters demanded a 72-hour week." -- Anatole Beck

C.K.W. Wyllie wrote:
> index for the Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. series of publications.
Try http://www.iop.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use either of the following e-mail addresses:  
       Zsolt.Laczik@eng.ox.ac.uk
       John.Laczik@eng.ox.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a reply. I have not chosen the header newsgroups this thread is found in.
I have added alt.religion.christian to share with them, however if you
are a christian reading this in alt.religion please do stick to the C-14 topic.
I have difficulty working a scanner.
(Need advise for best scan dpi , format, lineart [?] etc.)
However, I will be posting the C-14 of trees from a published Nobel convention.
A list of dendrochronology dates BP~BC along with C-14 dates BP~BC.
In the list is revealed the fact that trees having C-14 from 2300 BC are being
claimed by dendrochronology as 3000 BC trees favoring Egyptology.
Of course, you are claiming them to be trees from 3000 BC containing
C-14 from that era in larger amounts which falsely produce 2300 BC dates.
I believe the real Egyptology is proven by the Hebrew Genesis back to
2370 BC and not the Turin Papyrus (Septuagint Genesis) back to 3090 BC.
Thus the C-14 is my testimony from God as the truth or word of God,
and not the dendrochronology you worship as the word of God.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/c14TPC.gif
forgive me, when I scanned, I clipped the Pharaohs names off the bottom
(not being able to read them in the GIF until I looked back at the book)
I will change it, but clearly you require more charted evidence so I will
spend my time scanning more charts than waste time on just one.
These other Egyptology C-14 chart readings reveal that it is closer to
round the C-14 down to biblical centuries (minus 500 years) believing there
was LESS C-14 and that decades from the Flood were increasing in C-14 to the present,
than to presume the C-14 error as 720 years by claiming that 3000 BC carbon-14
was higher and so now dates younger as 2300 BC. I am presenting
these C-14 charts to declare the current INTERPRETATION of dendrochronology
as a fraud based on a fraudulent Egypt.
Moses did not know Ramses. But when you choose the Turin Papyrus chronology,
you choose 1290 BC Ramses. When I choose the Bible Genesis, I choose
Moses who was bold enough to face all Egypt's scholars twice as being wrong
1554 / 1514 BC. A unanimous group system can save society, it can also
exercise its power to cause total destruction of society by its bold claims of truth
when it is DEAD wrong. You have known little guys before to show up as
correct. But you will not give in whenever the word Bible is mentioned.
I have sent letters off to many institutes, and when I say it is for the Bible,
I get told they're busy, but when that word isnt used, I get a reply.
I think this serves well to indicate the feelings inside of those leading society.
Kerry A. Northrop wrote:
> I take offense at that.  I do not charge people to hear what I have to
> say.  And as for dendrochronology going against your biblical date, I'm
> afraid I'd have to go with the tree rings.  Dendrochronology is one of, if
> not the most accurate chronometric dating method we have.  If you want to
> believe that the bible gives the "real" date that's fine, but I tend to
> believe more proven and trusted methods of dating.
> -ka
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24 
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
          http://www.execpc.com/~elijah

AP, you are non-chivalrous to attact lady sweet like Darla.  Bad man like 
you writes evil.  You are always wrong!  I shall vanquish you with quick 
strokes of my Kevorkian-style.  Point-by-point, I've got logic that 
smushes your arguments like a wet toad under a car on a rainy night in 
South Dakota.  Read, and weep.
Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: 
:    You have failed to see my point and my message. The point is, again,
: that if you seek to understand the world around you and you do so by
: only pen and paper on your laziness and talking with someone such as a
: math proof, that understanding can never be as important as another
: person who draws into his quest for understanding of the world by
: encompassing vast number and large part of his surroundings.
How dare you call Darla lazy?!?  I'll bet that she exercizes much more 
than you do!  And why this pen-and-paper phobia?  There's only ink in a 
pen, and it won't kill you, unless you eat it, and I'll bet that it 
tastes bad.  But maybe you like pen-ink, since you are so much a 
pea-addict. 
:   If your son spends 4 years at a school pushing pen and paper, no
: matter how cute and heavy. 
How dare you call Darla's adorable baby boy fat?!?  YOU'RE the fat one, 
I'll bet.  You never exercize, you tub-of-lard.  Get off of your fat ass 
and run a lap, macaroni-tummy.  I'll bet that lots of mathematicians 
could kick your celluliteeey derr-i-ere.  Especially ones who lift weights.
: You can say that mathematics, all of it is a phsyics
: warm-up experiment. 
Hah!  Like you ever do warm-ups.  Maybe you pick your nose for awhile 
before you type, and warm up your fingers that way.  And Darla will way 
whatever she wants about math, even if she says it is ever a rooty-tooty-
cauliflower.  And you won't do anything about it.
: Physicists are not so
: arrogant and have a better mind, for they tell you that a physics
: experiment can be falsified. 
Wrong!  Physics ain't falsifiable!  Guess again, screwy-dewey!
: But this is the case for
: mathematics also when you accept that a mathematics proof is merely a
: physics experiment that uses little physics equipment or apparatuses,
: usually only pen and paper.
What is your DEAL with the pen-and-paper dog-and-pony show?  Look, I've 
got lots of pens, in lots of wonderful colors, and I've got lots of 
paper, and I've got lots of paper that I've drawn pretty picktures on, 
and I've NEVER DRAWN AN ATOM!  They're too tiny to draw!  And why draw 
them, when they're already on the paper in the first place!  Like, DUH!
:   My advice to you is to open your mind. Recognize that there are
: people in the world who are thousands of times smarter than you and
: that when you read my posts, don't jump the gun and think that you are
: correct and I am wrong. 
No way!  Thousands of times?  Darla's pretty smart, ya know, and I'll bet 
that she wouldn't let you get anywhere near enough to put a ruler up to 
her head.  She'd karate-chop you and your weak Shaolin-style into little 
bits.  And what if Darla likes to keep her brain closed?  It's pretty 
cold out there, and a brain can get awfully chilly.  Your problem is that 
you've been opening your mind up too often, and you've gotten something 
nasty in it, like some pigeon droppings, or something.  I'll bet that 
your brain is foul, fetid, and rank.
I'll bet that you stink, too.  Go take a bath.
-- 

$$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666
		       hetherwi@math.wisc.edu
$$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666


In article <566826$emj@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>Peter Diehr  wrote[in part]:
>
>>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.
>
>I hate to "bust your bubble," but the above things are not in any way
>absolutes in the sense of being physical absolutes.  The "rest mass"
>is merely the "mass as seen by the observer carrying the object," and
>this he has no way of knowing if this mass actually and really varies.
>The interval is a combination of two false measurements (distance and
>time intervals made by SRT observers using relatively synch'd clocks
>with both pretending they are at absolute rest in space).
>
>But they are "constants," so I guess your form of the argument holds.
>
More properly, they are invariants.  They are meaningful because all observers
will agree as to their values, so they allow direct comparison.  Coordinate
dependent values require more analysis for comparison.  Also, the knowledge
of an invariant and one of its coordinate dependent parts allows us to 
determine the remaining parts. This is, in fact, one of the standard ways to
derive length contraction and time dilation.

In article <5667n8$emj@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
>>On the contrary. Design an experiment which shows absolutes, and you
>>have falsified SRT. That is Popper's 'Criterion of demarcation' for
>>scientific theories.
>>-- 
>>Regards, Cees Roos.
>>I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
>>to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981
>
>You have missed the point.  If there's  no such thing as absolute
>motion (no existence of it), then it becomes impossible for any
>possible experiment to ever detect, even in principle, and yet this
>must be the case for SRT to be testable.
>
Your logic is flawed.  If absolute motion can be detected, then the PR will
fail for that phenomenon.  If the experiment is optical, then SR will be 
falsified.  
But it is not necessary for absolute motion to exist for this argument to go
through.  If absolute motion does not exist, then SR is true and therefore
cannot be falsified.  This does not prevent us from testing it and its 
consequences.
In an argument of the form 'if A, then B', it is not necessary for A to be 
true to test the arguement.  This argument is equivalent to 'if not B, then 
not A', so we can test B.  The truth of B does not prove A, nor does the 
falsity of A prove the falsity of B.

In article <5665s1$gr@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>>Oh, I feel sure SRT is correct, but grossly misunderstood.
>>>All the theory says is "No absolute motion detection, not even by
>>>optical means" (classical physics already had mechanical means).
>>>So far, SRT has seemed to hold, but I am not sure about the CBR.
>>>
>>That deceptively simple statement contains the clock settings and all the 
>>other results.
>
>Of course, but without seeing the settings explicitly, no one would
>ever know that Einstein's contain the observer's absolute speed.
>
The only speed in Einstein's definition is the signal speed.  He chose 'c' 
because, by hypothesis, it is invariant.  When we compare the settings 
between moving observers, the relative speed shows up in the settings.
>>>All I am saying above about the clocks is that even in SRT there are
>>>real clocks with real readings, etc.
>>>
>>True, but differently moving observers will set them differently and see them
>>running at different rates.
>
>Who said anything about other (outside) observers?
>
You did.  You are constantly comparing your clocks to a hypothetical 'rest'
system.  When you introduce that system, you introduce the relative velocity
of the target system.

In article <5666ag$gr@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>>The invariant interval is not proper time -- but the square of the
>>>difference of the squares of both time and distance values combined --
>>>which obviously has no physical meaning.  The proper time is simply
>>>the time as recorded by a single clock.  This obviously does have a
>>>physical meaning.
>>>
>>How is it obvious that the interval has no physical meaning?  For time-like 
>>separation it is the proper time, the time recorded by a clock that passes 
>>both events in uniform translation.  The definition of the invariant interval
>>allows us to determine the coordinate time between the events for a moving
>>observer, for whom the space separation is not zero.
>
>The Invariant Interval (II) has a totally different definition (given
>above), but does happen to match the proper time for a "timelike" II.
>I didn't say that the numerical results didn't match, but that the II
>has no physical meaning, being a messed-up combination of false clock
>readings (even if absolute, the II would still be meaningless) and
>false distance readings (even if absolute, the II would still be
>meaningless).  The proper time is a perfectly meaningful actual single
>time reading per a single clock.
>
>>Denying the interval is equivalent to denying the validity of the Lorentz
>>transformations.
>
>They, too, yield meaningless results.  And worse.  Worse because they
>(the LTE in SRT) go to the trouble to translate one observer's junk
>(false time and distance measurements) into another's.  What's the
>point?
>
You now deny the Lorentz tranformations?  What is your replacement?
You deny any observer the ability to measure anything.  What is to be the
basis for doing physics?  It seems only God and bjon know the true 
measurements of the world.  Anyone else is using 'false' values.

In article <5668oi$2ho@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>
>>The internal beat of a clock has nothing to do with absolute time.  You have
>>already made an exception for motion, what is next?
>
>>The regularity of a clock does not tell us how it will compare with other,
>>non-local clocks.  This was recognized by Poincare in 1898, and developed by
>>Einstein in 1905 into SR.
>
>There's more to absolute time than mere clock synch. (In fact, clock
>synch has nothing to do with absolute time -- it is merely a matter of
>defintion, as Einstein has pointed out.)
If clock sync has nothing to do with absolute time, then what is absolute
time?   The only way we can compare time intervals of events at different 
places is by synchonizing our clocks.  Your previous definition of absolute
time is one where all observers will agree on the value of the time interval.
Without synch, the only thing left to agree on is that the time interval is
meaningless.
>And there's no "exception made for motion."  A clock has an absolute
>rhythm, independent of any observer.  This is a simple fact about the
>clock's absolute time.  Another fact is that this absolute rhythm
>changes with the clock's absolute speed. (Proved by the KTX).
>
KTX showed that if AT and length contraction exist, then time dilation must
exist.  Another explanation of the experiment is that AT does not exist and
SR holds.
>Now, if you want to restrict "absolute time" to "all observer's
>knowing what all clocks actually read at any univeral instant," then
>we have not got to this yet, and the only way to get to it is by
>somehow detecting our absolute motion (which is another absolute that
>does exist, but has eluded detection thus far).
>
But, according to your entry above, the clocks could not be compared if they
are not coincident, so your def of AT is meaningless,

In article <566ajh$oa3@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>
>[bjon]
>>>If light's motion is merely and purely relative, then I can say that
>>>I am moving at c and the light ray is motionless, but this contradicts
>>>SRT which claims that nothing inertial can move as fast as light.
>
>>No, within SR you can only transform to a system with a velocity less than
>>light.  If you define a transformation to 'c', then you are not working in
>>SR, so cannot claim a contradiction with SR.  
>
>>What are your transformation equations?
>
>Same as yours. But I am not transforming to a system, just measuring
>the speed of a light ray wrt myself, and I get the relative speed "c."
>SRT says that all motion is relative, so this means that this light
>ray's motion is relative, and SRT says that such motion does not "pin
>down" which entity is really moving thru space, so it does not tell us
>that it is the light ray that's doing all the moving.  This means that
>I can say it is me who is doing all the moving, and that my speed thru
>space in this case is c.
>
The Lorentz transforms cannot take you to 'c', but you can use the velocity
tranform to answer your question in the limit as v->c.  
u+c/(1+u/c)=c for all values of u, except u=-c where it is undefined.  Taking
the limit, we can asign the value 'c' to the result, so light is still 
traveling with speed 'c'.  
>>>In SRT, after each observer sets his clocks per Einstein's def by
>>>using light signals, each observer's clocks are different.  Since
>>>light always travels at the same speed thru space, the only reason for
>>>the difference is that the observers all have different absolute
>>>speeds.
>>>
>>Absolute speed is not required.  The reason the clocks are offset is that
>>the speed of light is the same, and the observers are in relative motion.
>>If you assume that one of the observers is at "absolute" rest, you will get
>>the same offset as if you assume the other observer (or any other observer)
>>is at "absolute" rest.  The "absolute" in the assumption does not show up in
>>the result, so the result does not imply anything is "absolute".
>
>If only a single observer sets his clocks per E's def., this
>observer's clocks will have different readings.  There are no other
>observers involved, so you cannot twust this into a relative
>situation. Why the different clock readings in this case?
>
If there is only a single observer, his clocks will agree with each other,
according to any test he can make.  They will not have different readings.
>(And if can tell me that, then tell exactly HOW they differ, and then
>you'll see that this difference does contain absolute values).
>
They do not differ.  Where is your absolute?
>>>SRT has never claimed that absolute motion has no existence, but only
>>>that it cannot be detected.  SRT says that only relative motion is
>>>detectable.
>>>
>>A corollary is that you gain nothing by assuming absolute motion.  
>>OTOH, you lose the unifying vision of SR by assuming absolute motion.  SR 
>>leads to a perfectly definite model of space-time that allows us to extend
>>our understanding.  
>
>True, but the assumption is not the lack of absolute motion, as I have
>been trying to get across, but the lack of a method for detecting it.
>
I agree to a point, but if absolute motion adds nothing to the physics, then
we do not need to use it.  My further point was that retaining absolute motion
can restrict our understanding and imagination.  

lkh@mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling) wrote:
>ricka@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) enunciated:
>I am dying. We all are. I will not opt for one person or one group of
>high rolling artists telling me there will be hope for me to return as
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^??? Please explain.
>a living breathing entity after the life in me has somehow chosen
>otherwise. I am not gullible. I am also not stupid. Far from it. So
>suffice to allow me to say the above comment to please remember all
>these criticisms when its my turn will not disuade me now now will it
>disuade me on my death bed.  Life is something I cherish. I will not
>toy with it. I will not proclaim that I can somehow win over it. Life
>ends. And when it does there is nothing anyone can do about it.
>Holding out hope for a scientific maybe is absolutely ridiculous in
>the light that when the life is gone, son, it is gone. I find more
>credence in an afterlife potential in a spiritual manner than I do in
>a physical manner. I can not prove that a spirit life is not me. I can
>prove that a physical life is not alive when it is dead. There is
>animate and there is inanimate matter constructs
What about those kids they have pulled from wintry lakes, cold and
blue from many minutes under the water? They have no life signs, no
brain waves, no heart beat, their body temps were far below normal.
I guess they're just lucky you weren't around to make that
"life-and-death decision of whether or not to proceed with radical
life-saving procedures.
>An inanimate matter
>construct (liek a rock) can never be dead as it never was alive.
> But
>an animate matter construct can be dead, it just can not be alive
>again. 
What do you mean by dead? If you stopped breathing 100 years ago, you
were "dead." If I happen to stop breathing on the operating table, Mr.
Hempfling, I truly hope my anesthesiologist does not abide by  that
100-year-old definition of death. 
Is 1996 the year of the  apex of medicine and science?
> The matter does not cease to exist the life does. So now...
>freeze away, all those poor souls of hope and ignore the life. All it
>is, is a replacement for a physical based religion instead of a
>spiritual based religion. Spirit, I can only wonder about but when a
>physical animate becomes inanimate there is no argument. Freeze away
>my friends... all you are doing is paying some scientific con artist
>for the ability to use fanzy toys and very cold techniques to do what
>every chain letter does. Give hope based in absolute nothing.
>>Thank you
>>[heh, heh, heh...]
>>Boy, there's gonna be a lot of room once all the morons are gone.
>>Death: nature's technique for spotting the terminally stupid.
>This is a totally ridiculous and very unscientific statement. It
>sounds just like the religious falderall of the rapture. Cryonics
>seeks to put the body where the soul can not tread. Rapture seeks to
>put the body where only the soul can tread. Go figure. One can not be
>proven any more than the other. 
There's only one way to prove or disprove the cryonics question:
conduct an experiment; freeze a bunch of people with the least
damaging methods possible, invest the money they have provided
in a conservative fashion; get some people who are fascinated with the
possibilities of cryonics to watch over and maintain them, and we
shall see what happens. Until such time as sciencehas seriously tried
to revive them, you cannot say that cryonics will or will not work.
>But one can be pointed out to be
>nothing different from the other. The church calls for money to be
>paid to get the poor dead soul to a higher ground. HA! Cryonics calls
>for money to be paid to get the poor dead body to a colder ground. HA!
I could make the same analogy between religion and donating blood.
>I hate to break the news to you but death is not a choice. Face it.
>YOU are going to die and nothing you can do will change that. Nothing
>you can do, nor pay for, can bring you back in a physical body when
>there is no life inside it.
Perhaps. You certainly are not going against established precedent
here, are you? But, if this ever to be done, then there must be a
first time. 
>But far be it for me, or any other attempt at logic to stand in the
>way of a person's hope. One can place hope in the position of
>potential or one can place hope in the position of control. If you can
>control it then it is not hope. It is hype.
>The machine this company has built from the patent application plans
>is a thinking machine without programming. It is a physical thing.
>Turning it off simply clears all memory and shuts down the function.
>Turning it back on permits new memory and another function. But we CAN
>turn it on and off at will as its "life" is nothing more than a
>battery. Once that power source is removed from the living structure
>it is gone. You, nor anyone else, can turn it back on when IT IS NOT
>THERE to be turned on.
Sounds kinda mystical to me.
>No matter the amount of blind belief in science (which is a very bad
>thing to do) will change that. It will only change the money from the
>pocket of the person going to die to the pocket of the person still
>alive. The last laugh, my friend is with the bank. Not the person
>being faced with mortality's lesson.
Are you saying that cryonics companies are somehow profiting?
I highly doubt that.
>One can not change reality to fit one's hopes. One can change one's
>hopes to fit reality. But there is no money in it.
What a morbid  and fatalistic attitude.
>Cheers!
Randy
>Fire Away!
>lkh
>Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
>chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
>Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
>cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy) wrote:
>> 1
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>a1pianist@aol.com (A1Pianist) wrote:
>>>>AN ARTICLE IN THE MONTHLY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CRYONICS SOCIETY(1994?) 
>>>>(PUBLISHER:ETTINGER/UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS) IN CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
>>>>ANNOUNCED THAT RESEARCH INVESTIGATING THE STRUCTURE  OF CONSCIOUSNESS
>>>>POINTED TO BIOLOGICAL/ORGANIC ORIGIN.  HAS ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE OR KNOW
>>>>THE WORK DONE IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION?  TOM FARESE, 2319 GRANADA
>>>>COURT, PINOLE, CALIFORNINA 94564.  THANKS.
>>
>>
>>>You have this handicap with your shift lock, don't you?  Perhaps you 
>>>ought not impress it upon those of us with even minimal keyboard skills
>>
>>>Cryonics is New Age bafflegab, a hind gut fermentation ranking with Kryon 
>>>(Whoa!  Correlation!), quartz crystals, and homeopathic gobbledygook.  
>>>God created liquid nitrogen for cooling vac line traps, not heads bobbing 
>>i>n a dewar like some sort of demented cyro-lava lamp.
>>
>>
>>I have been researching cryonics for a year or so and am looking for
>>constructive, science-oriented or logical criticisms of such. Can you
>>give some reasons for your negative opinion of cryonics?
>Get yourself a PVT phase diagram for water.
Actually, I've had ocassion to dally with such artifacts of science,
but not in some years.
>All you need do is take living tissue and freeze the bulk solid without 
>killing the cells or bursting them when the water freezes, eventually 
>thaw likewise, and not kill the tissue in the interim.
How does antifreeze/cryoprotecant fit into the picture?
>The brain is solely fueled by aerobic respiration, is a goodly sized 
>lump, is protected by the tight junctions of the blood brain barrier...  
>All you need do is, over a period of 180 seconds maximum diffuse in a 
>cryprotective agent and drop the temp by 230 degrees kelvin.  Don't 
>disrupt either the aqeuous or lipid compartments when you do it.
What if you can protect some, most, or even all of these
"compartments"?
What if the technology to repair such damage is developed?
>Try it with a mouse - they're small.
>If you diddle with a living person it is homicide.  If you do it with a 
>dead person you can add resurrection to your shopping list.
How about all the frogs that do it every spring?
Randy
>-- 
>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!

In article <3289de7f.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>
Simon Read  writes:
> If this is a heavy string,
Let it be a violin string if you like, but with a sideways restoring
force per unit length.
> those programmers and graphics freaks
> among us could have some fun simulating it. If it's a massless
> string, I wouldn't know where to start.

Jim Rogers wrote:
> 
> Jim Carr wrote:
> > caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu) writes:
> > >
> > >Current mind control operators are carrying out the social
> > >revolution to U.S. with the communism theroy
> >
> >  Are you sure that what you wrote is not itself a result of the
> >  application of mind-control techniques by the shadow government
> >  running the United States?
> >
> >  They could be using you to publicize it on Usenet right after they
> >  used Pierre Salinger to discredit stuff appearing in newsgroups as
> >  a way of keeping it secret.
> >
> >  Be sure to wear a conical aluminum-foil hat at all times.
> 
> Yes, yes, conical is important! To effectively harness corona discharge
> to remodulate and re-radiate any collected interphasic electrophoretic
> magnetostatic uvuloresonant microwaves, a cone of angle between 17.5 and
> 22.5 degrees is specified in my engineering CRC, with the tip extending
> at least 60cm above the temples, and with a nonconducting elastic strap
> securing it below the chin; to maximize corona discharge, a tinsel
> pompom about 5cm diameter should be attached at the peak (if you doubt
> me about the pompom, just look at the designs of the most effective
> lightning rods; it helps a lot). If you wear this during an electrical
> storm, make sure you trail a sturdy grounding strap and/or always be
> accompanied by someone taller than yourself (including the hat).
> 
> Jim
Jim,
Do you know anywhere one can by one of these, kind of thin and sexy, in
lace maybe?  Not for me, you understand, for my wife.  Does Victoria's
Secret carry them?
Mitchell Coffey
-- 
I once read a book about cognitive dissonance, but it only proved my
point.

In article <3288B078.7CAA@cyberspc.mb.ca>
Doug Craigen  writes:
> Remember the old worm-burger theory?  Does MacDonald's really use worms mixed 
> into their ground beef to economise?  Fortunately, worms are sold as bait, so 
> it is fairly easy to come up with a figure for the cost per pound of worms, 
> and it far exceeds that of ground beef.
'Tweren't earth worms; 'twas meel/meal worms.
David
"When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the
apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person
could have written them.  When you find an answer, . . . when these
passages make sense, then you may find that more central passages,ones
you previously thought you understood, have changed their meaning."
Kuhn

Jeff Wilson (jmwilson@hooked.net) wrote:
:    "The Bible Handbook", published by American Atheist Press, P.O.Box
: 2117, Austin, TX 78768-2117 (But maybe you should confirm that address
: - my copy is years old) consists of a huge panoply of contradictions,
: absurdities, atrocities etd. originally written by E.Foote in 1900,
: plus some more recent addenda.  It should present an inexhaustible
: fount of things to annoy (or entertain) Christians with.
:   As a basic book pointing out the failure of the Bible, I would go
: with Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" mentioned elsewhere in this
: thread.  The forcefulness of Paine's style and the clarity of his
: thought are unequalled.  
"Ken's Guide to the Bible", by one Ken Smith, is also excellent.
It sorts through the xian bible chronologically, listing the most
indefensible verses and denoting them with handy little pictorial
icons that indicate violence, sexism, illogic, quotes that are taken
so out of context as to totally distort their meaning, and just plain
looniness.  Very entertaining, very articulate, very handy.  I got
my copy in Barnes & Noble about a year ago -- I assume it's still
in print & available.

Lew Kurtz wrote:
> 
> are familiar with, and not many people are familiar with what a megameter
> is (maybe it is a really big electric meter  ;-)
Don't know if they are still around in this age of digital electronic
everything, but there used to be special ohmmeters called meggers, made
especially for measuring resistances in the multi-megohm range.
- Karl
-- 
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
                        - Kosh Naranek

Jim Carr (jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu) 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.  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. 
It is now a law in Michigan that to teach subject x in high school you
must have an MS degree in X, not in education.
-- 
Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 

moggin  wrote:
>>        Agree or disagree, with no sarcastic frosting:  it's a loose
>>use, but not any more or less correct, to consider a flat plane a 
>>hill?  Yes?  No?  A single straight answer would quite brighten my
>>day.
>
>   I can agree with you without grudge, quibble, or (I'd better make 
>this plain) sarcasm:  there isn't any universality to my sense of
>the term "hill."  You're fully entitled to use a different one, if you
>see fit.  And if you apply a definition which differs from mine,  it's 
>entirely possible that you would arrive at a different conclusion.
	Hey!  You brightened my day.  Thanks.
	Back to the original discussion, then.
	Erm ... whatever it was.
 ,oooooooo8     o     ooooo@math.niu.edu  --  http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/
o888'   `88   ,888.    888                                                 
888          ,8'`88.   888     "If I am more nearsighted than others,
888o.   ,oo ,8oooo88.  888       it is because I have stood on the 
`888oooo88 o88o  o888o 888             shoulders of midgets."
____________________8o888'____ (Issac Newton's evil twin brother Spike) ___

Paul D. Shocklee (shocklee@rogue.princeton.edu) wrote:
: Paul D. Shocklee (shocklee@rogue.princeton.edu) wrote:
: : A free neutron has a lifetime of 900 seconds.  So why don't neutron
: : stars decay?  I assume that it's the same reason that neutrons in stable
: : nuclei don't decay - it's energetically forbidden.  But how, exactly?
: 
: Hate to follow up my own post; makes me feel like Archimedes Plutonium.
: 
: But, after sending this, I looked up the answer, and it actually is
: pretty cool, so I thought I would share it.
[answer snipped]
For once someone not lazy !  Just teasing; thanks for the informative
and well written post.
-- 
Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 

In article ,
	Anthony Potts  writes:
>> try you are acting illegally. It's bullshit dreamed up by old gits in grey suits 
>> who hate life.
>
>As opposed to you, who just hates all the conformists, eh?
"I love the anti-conformist crowd.. they're all alike!"
    - I forget, but good quote :)

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK)  wrote on 05.11.96 in <55nuqq$220c@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>:
> You are neglecting the most important reason for that use of symbols:
> speed.  It is always faster to recognise a symbol than a couple of
> words, and these exploitative corporations actually do research to find
> out how fast they can drive their organic production units before they
> break down.
It's definitely not always faster. Much depends on the symbols and words  
in question.
Typical examples are many modern software toolbars, where you need to look  
in the manual to find out what those icons are supposed to mean. *If* the  
manual tells you.
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/

peeverd@cadvision.com (David Peever)  wrote on 04.11.96 in <55lm56$3tu0@elmo.cadvision.com>:
> Is there any particular reason that the person on the street use the metric
> system?  Of course the scientific community will use S.I. -- what's that
> got to do with pricing gas by the litre or the gallon?
The reason usually cited over here is to avoid advertizing problems. If  
one car is advertized using PS and another using kW, or one station sells  
fuel (gas, petrol, depending on which side of the ocean you live) by the  
gallon and another by the lit(er/re), the "person on the street" will have  
trouble. So (the reasoning goes) someone has to decide which units to use.
Most of the time, I like the results.
By the way, a similar reasoning gave us rules that some type of stuff has  
to quote price per kg, or amount of additive per 100 g, or effective  
interest per year. This helps a lot if you try to compare products.
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/

gnygaard@crosby.ndak.net (Gene Nygaard)  wrote on 05.11.96 in <55o7vt$ql5@arl-news-svc-4.compuserve.com>:
> wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote:
>
> >We American ham radio operators routinely use metric measurements, for
> >things like radio wavelengths (80 meters, 40 meters, 2 meters) and
> >then there are electrical measurements where the metric system is the
> >only ball game in town.  Amps, Volts, Watts, and such.
>
> >One minor annoyance is that the word "meter" also refers to those
> >devices that measure volts and amps and such.  "2 meters" by itself
> >could mean the 146MHz ham band, or a pair of voltmeters.
> >....
>
> If you read some of the other articles, you will know that this
> annoyance is almost exclusively a U.S. problem.  Even the Canadians
> usually spell the unit of measure "metre" and the measuring instrument
> "meter".
Actually, we spell both "Meter" in German, and I don't remember ever  
having any trouble with it. It seems to be obvious from the context,  
always.
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/

odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
>     Please bear with me. Light itself is the absolute reference frame.
> Light is the priveleged observer and the preferred reference frame.
> With light you can determine if you are absolutely at rest. Now, you
> say that you can arbitrarily name bouy one or buoy two as the absolute
> reference frame. However, both coordinate systems will give you the
> exact same velocity, in both direction and magnitude, for an object
> moving in space whether you calculate that velocity relative to the
> first buoy or the second buoy. The calculated velocity is therefore
> absolute, since it does not matter which coordinate system you use.
> 
> Regards,
> Edward Meisner
> 
This is true if you assume that buoys 1 and 2 are at rest with respect to
each other; notice, though, that Peter never claimed that.
Imagine that buoy 2 is moving with a velocity of +10 (insert your favorite
velocity units) with respect to buoy 1.  In a coordinate system in which 
buoy 2 is at rest, buoy 1 now appears to be moving with a velocity of
-10 (same units).  This new coordinate system is just as good as the buoy 1
coordinate system (if the buoy 1 coordinate system is inertial, then so is
the buoy 2 coordinate system, and vice versa); but now both systems give you
different velocities for objects moving in space depending on whether you
calculate this velocity relative to the first buoy or the second buoy.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say, "With light you can
determine if you are absolutely at rest."  If buoy 1 emits a beam of light
towards buoy 2 (I am trying to keep the problem simple by imagining that the
velocity of buoy 2 with respect to buoy 1 is just pointing along the line
between the buoys), then do you agree that in the coordinate system determined
by buoy 2, the speed of this light will still be c?  If buoy 2 emits another
beam of light back at the first buoy, do you agree that the speed of this light
measured in the coordinate system determined by buoy 1 will also still be c?
(I suspect that you do, if I am correctly interpreting your first few remarks
above about light; I guess the real question is whether this situation poses
a problem for claiming that either of these coordinate systems is absolute,
i.e. determining which of buoy 1 or 2 is "really" at rest.)
Buoy, is it hard to keep typing "boy" over and over again like that... :)
Cheers,
Darrin

	I know that the world wouldn't be where it is now if it wasn't 
for Newton's and Leibniz's original contributions to calculus. Airplanes, 
microwaves, etc are all derivived from calculus. I am still quite amazed 
at how much Newton did for math and physics. 
	I was wondering if any of Einstein's theories have actually helped
the world, technologically yet? Has anyone used the theories to produce
useful ideas and tools? I am sure that it took many more years after the
invention of calculus before people realized how useful it was and they
started implementing its uses. So has the theory of relativity revealed
its true powers to anyone? 
	     *\
	      |  /\
	  */\ | /  \*			
	     @o@			
	     |_|			
	      \ \  ___			
	       \_\/\_/\__		
		|_|/ \/__\__/\^*	 
--

In article <56cft1$37c@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, davidcs@psy.uq.edu.au (David Smyth) writes:
>In article <568fau$7ul@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com 
>says...
>>
>>We like to say that there is a set, or class of inertial frames
>>with none of them preferred over another. But what is it that
>>singles out this class?  They are all moving uniformly with
>>respect to absolute space, was Newton's answer. He needed that
>>anchor to form an axiomatic system. It seems to me you are failing
>>to respect the foundational structure of his system, as I 
>>indicated by my remark on your operational bias.
>>
>
>Good point!  Newton's F = m*a requires the a to have some meaning.  a is
>simply a quantification of an m undergoing a non-uniform motion.  Non-uniform 
>motion implies the existence of uniform motion.  The word uniform begs the 
>question "uniform to what?"  The answer, of course, is absolute space.
>Without absolute space uniform motion has no meaning.
>
Not really.  Motion which is uniform relative to some reference frame, 
is also uniform relative to any reference frame moving at constant 
velocity relative to the first one.  That's the whole point of 
inertail frames.  So, no absolute space, only an absolute class of 
inertial frames.  And I don't see that the existance of such class 
implies the existance of a single "master inertial frame" such that 
all the other refer to it.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

This Sci-Fi movie needs a preamble. Play some real serious and pensive
music to this preamble.
  This story is dedicated to the fine geologists and paleontologists
who wanted to impose either the meteorite theory or the vulcanism
theory 
or a combination thereof for the dinosaur extinction unto the world
public. 
Some theories are big budget science and the meteor theory alone has
a larger science budget than even cutting edge new important physics
such
superconductivity.
Scientists have indisputably known that the climate at the end of 
the Cretaceous became much colder and it was time for new life and 
extinction of the old. Mammals were superior in coping with cold
climate.
Science like other forms of art is caught in the public's imagination,
for how important really is it as to how the dinosaurs became extinct
as long as a more superior form of life progressed. The hand crank auto
went extinct to the self starter auto and do we need some outside 
explanation for that extinction.
  In the 20th century, scientists do not want to tell the 
world public another aspect to the dinosaur story, being kept in 'top
secret' 
security vaults were two unknown source metallic objects discovered
in the Permain stratigraphy and in the late Cretaceous stratigraphy.
    These metal objects have been hidden from the world public -- 
until now.
Time : For advanced aliens on Bu it was one light year after they
discovered controlled fusion energy. There civilization sent a space
ship in the shape of a rocket and about the size of the Earth's radius
to another pulsar signal.  For Earth, it was the Permian geological
time period.
Mission: The mission for the Bu rocket was to go to the Nascent star
system because the Nascent pulsar had radioed Bu of how to increase
space ship flight speed in trade for pulsar technology. Earth and the
Solar system was a stopping station between Bu and Nascent.
Pit stop on Earth: It is the Permain time period on Earth. Animals and
plants were coexisting nicely. Then this rocket space ship lands on
Earth. It is huge and has to land in the ocean. The Bu-s need more
lithium for their electrical systems. They make a quick analysis of
Earth's environment and decide that the quickest way to restock their
lithium supply is to run all of the big animals on Earth of that time
through their distillation tank. The Bu-s immediately set out to net
all of the Permain large sized animals and run them through their
distillation tank. In one end is fed all of these captured animals and
at the other end is seen a fractionalized form of lithium. Within a
month most all big animals on Earth are gone and the Bu-s have plenty
of lithium and take off to their rendevous with the Nascent pulsar
civilization.
Flashing Forward in Time to the Earth year 1972 when a paleontologist
working in the Permain stratigraphy finds a metal object imbedded in a
fossilized matrix of sea creatures that had become extinct in the
Permian. The metal looks like some sea netting.
Bu rendevous with Nascent : In the meeting with Nascent civilization
the Bu-s trade their secret of how to pulse millisecond pulsar machines
for the Nascent technology of faster rocketship flight.
Time: On Bu, they have increased their rocketship flight from the trade
in technology with the Nascent civilization. Both Bu and Nascent now
use millesecond pulsar machines for communication. Time on Earth is the
Cretaceous geological period. A Nascent rocketship is on its way to Bu
to exchange biologicals.
Pit stop on Earth: Again rocket spaceships are huge and they need pit
stops to refuel for lithium. Nascent rocket surveys Earth among the
planets of the Solar system and decides the quickest way to get more
lithium is to herd together all the large animals on Earth and to
fractionalize distill the lithium out of the animals. Here the movie
shows interesting encounters and engagements with the dinosaurs as they
are corralled and herded and killed and run through the distiller. Once
enough lithium has been gathered and the Nascents take off for Bu.
  The movie is made long with interesting sequences of the Permian
extinction of animals, and what the Permian animals looked like and
what animals became extinct. And long sequences of the dinosaur
extinction in the Cretaceous at the hands of advanced aliens. Use
animations such as in the 4 part series movie DINOSAURS which depicted
a t. rex fighting with a triceratops.
Flashing Forward in Time to the Earth year 1984 when a geologist
working in the near the KT boundary stratigraphy finds a metal objects
imbedded in a fossilized matrix of dinosaurs in Canada, a herd of
dinosaurs and found that the hearts of these dinosaurs were surgically
removed and that a strange knife of a metal was found in the bone
fossil matrix. 
  Show a biologist lecturer explaining that hearts are high in lithium
concentration.
  Show a chemist lecturer explaining that storing electrical energy is
most efficiently done via lithium battery storage.

In article <56cvoo$dsc@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz   wrote:
|shocklee@rogue.princeton.edu (Paul D. Shocklee) wrote:
|>Paul D. Shocklee (shocklee@rogue.princeton.edu) wrote:
|>But then, why stop at muons?  You can also stabilize hyperons and various
|>excited states of nucleons; the fun never ends! :)
|
|Unless the mass of the neutron star exceeds Chandrasekar's Limit (about 
|1.4 solar masses) and it collapses into a black hole.
The Chandrasekar limit defines the maximum mass of a white dwarf, not
a neutron star.  Neutron stars are believed to be stable up to about
3 solar masses or so.
-- Jim Lewis
   Center for EUV Astrophysics

For sale: 
Holmium Laser system producing 2 joules at 2.13u. Comes with fiber optic
delivery with computer control. In excellent condition. Made by Laser
Photonics. Market value +$40K. Asking $18,500 or best offer plus shipping.
-=-= Wes =-=-

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Lee Kent Hempfling wrote:
> I am dying. We all are. I will not opt for one person or one group of
> high rolling artists telling me there will be hope for me to return as
> a living breathing entity after the life in me has somehow chosen
> otherwise.
Are you suggesting that "life" is some magical trait which exists in you,
and can literally choose to depart?  Is it something that we can say
exists in this object, but not in that one, with absolute clarity?  What
about viruses, or bacterial spores, or frozen human embryos?
> Life ends. And when it does there is nothing anyone can do about it.
It seems hubris of the most extreme kind to say that no one will ever be
able to accomplish a thing, when the thing to be accomplished violates
*NO* laws of physics as we now understand them.  (Does reviving someone
who is dead, but not deteriorated, violate physical laws?  Which ones?)
Of course, you may believe that it will never be possible -- but to
believe it so fervently that you bet your life on it, is a bit arrogant,
don't you think?
Consider, by analogy, that you're on a sinking ship in the middle of the
ocean, with no other ships within hundreds of miles.  There are life
preservers aplenty, but their users will probably die of thirst long
before they can be rescued.  "The life boat's a scam!" you say, and
refusing to get in, you go down with the ship.  The cryonicst agrees that
the lifeboat might not work, but seeing no other option, shrugs and gets
in anyway.  Who is taking life more seriously?
> Holding out hope for a scientific maybe is absolutely ridiculous in
> the light that when the life is gone, son, it is gone.
This again implies that life is some magical thing that is either there or
not there (and, moreover, cannot be regained once gone).  At exactly what
point does this binary state of "life" depart?  At one time, people were
considered dead when the heart stopped beating.  Now we routinely revive
such patients.  Then life was considered gone when the EEG went flat; but
people have occasionally been recovered from this state as well.  Of
course there are many clear cases -- someone moving and talking is alive,
and someone vaporized by an atomic bomb is dead -- but there are plenty of
grey areas too.  These imply that life is not the all-or-nothing thing you
suggest, but rather a much fuzzier thing.
> I can prove that a physical life is not alive when it is dead. There is
> animate and there is inanimate matter constructs. An inanimate matter
> construct (liek a rock) can never be dead as it never was alive. But
> an animate matter construct can be dead, it just can not be alive
> again. The matter does not cease to exist the life does.
Right.  How about those frozen embryos?  Can you apply your proofs to
bacterial spores which have been frozen for thousands of years?  Or
animals (some fish, frogs, etc.) which are frozen solid each winter?  They
surely look dead, do they not?  (And "looking dead" seems to be your main
criterion for distinguishing life from death.)
> Spirit, I can only wonder about but when a
> physical animate becomes inanimate there is no argument.
I would think not, but clearly you ARE arguing, so there must be one.  It
does seem obvious that if the structure -- indeed, the information -- that
makes up a living being is preserved, then there is at least potential for
that being to be revived by conceivable technology.  But this is
apparently not obvious to some folks.  Perhaps they do not know enough
about the technology to imagine it, and they assume that whatever they
cannot personally imagine must be impossible.
> all you are doing is paying some scientific con artist
Your theory is that cryonics is a scam.  The natural prediction, then, is
that someone (or group of someones) is making appreciable amounts of money
from it.  All right, do the research -- who can you find getting rich from
this enterprise?  If you can find no one, but instead find many people
working long hours for little pay (as I think you will), then your theory
must be incorrect.
> No matter the amount of blind belief in science (which is a very bad
> thing to do) will change that.
No blind belief is required.  It is exactly like the analogy above: if
frozen, your body does not degenerate, so there is a chance (however slim)
that by future medicine's standards, you will be considered not quite
dead.  If your body rots or burns, then there is virtually no chance.  As
with the lifeboat, a slim chance is better than none.
> It will only change the money from the
> pocket of the person going to die to the pocket of the person still
> alive.
I think you misunderstand how it works.  First, the money comes not from
your pocket, but from your life insurance company.  Second, it goes not to
the pocket of anyone alive, but instead into a special trust fund which
(hopefully) grows, the interest of which pays for your maintenance.  A
small portion is used to pay for the costs of the initial suspension, but
this is mostly travel and equipment.  The salaries of cryonics workers are
small.
> One can not change reality to fit one's hopes. One can change one's
> hopes to fit reality. But there is no money in it.
One can deny hope if it is to painful to face.  Or one can try a long
shot and hope it works, because it is the best chance available.  There's
no money in that either, but there's a chance. 
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout           Department of Neuroscience, UCSD   |
|    jstrout@ucsd.edu           http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~jstrout/  |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

::: Once this has been answered, one can see that absolute clock
::: readings cause this,
:: I coulda swore relative coordinate axes cause it. 
: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones)
: WHAT causes the "relative coord.  axes"?
Hmmm?  What do you mean "what causes them"?
Do you mean, you really don't know what causes a line drawn on paper
to be at a different angle than another line?  You really think
there needs to be an "absolute" or "observer independent" axis-direction,
so that lines drawn on paper have relative angles between them?
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy) wrote:
>a1pianist@aol.com (A1Pianist) wrote:
>>>AN ARTICLE IN THE MONTHLY JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CRYONICS SOCIETY(1994?) 
>>>(PUBLISHER:ETTINGER/UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS) IN CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
>>>ANNOUNCED THAT RESEARCH INVESTIGATING THE STRUCTURE  OF CONSCIOUSNESS
>>>POINTED TO BIOLOGICAL/ORGANIC ORIGIN.  HAS ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE OR KNOW
>>>THE WORK DONE IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION?  TOM FARESE, 2319 GRANADA
>>>COURT, PINOLE, CALIFORNINA 94564.  THANKS.
>>You have this handicap with your shift lock, don't you?  Perhaps you 
>>ought not impress it upon those of us with even minimal keyboard skills
>>Cryonics is New Age bafflegab, a hind gut fermentation ranking with Kryon 
>>(Whoa!  Correlation!), quartz crystals, and homeopathic gobbledygook.  
>>God created liquid nitrogen for cooling vac line traps, not heads bobbing 
>i>n a dewar like some sort of demented cyro-lava lamp.
>I have been researching cryonics for a year or so and am looking for
>constructive, science-oriented or logical criticisms of such. Can you
>give some reasons for your negative opinion of cryonics?
>Randy
If you go to a good research library and browse through recent issues
of the journals "Cryobiology" or "Cryoletters" you will see that most
scientists engaged in the study of low-temperature biology (as it
relates to cryopreservation of living things) are focussing their
research on cellular or simple tissue systems. Work with whole organs
is primarily focussed on the avoidance of ice through vitrification
(for the sci.physics regulars, let's hope these baby's don't "flow"
with a time constant of 25 years) although this work is considered to
be much more speculative. Successful cryopreservation of live humans
has not been shown to be impossible but very few cryobiologists are
expecting the demonstration to be performed any time soon. As for the
freezing of dead people...there are significant technological problems
associated with this program (of thawing and then "revitalizing"
them). ;-)
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca

On 13 Nov 1996, Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> >I have been researching cryonics for a year or so and am looking for
> >constructive, science-oriented or logical criticisms of such. Can you
> >give some reasons for your negative opinion of cryonics?
> 
> All you need do is take living tissue and freeze the bulk solid without 
> killing the cells or bursting them when the water freezes, eventually 
> thaw likewise, and not kill the tissue in the interim.
This has been done many times; it's called "cryobiology".  Human embryos,
various tissues, cells.  I personally have a few million cells (brain
cells, no less) in liquid nitrogen just across the room.  When I need
some, I just thaw them out, feed them properly, and they're just fine.
Your remark about "bursting them" indicates that you've done very little
research on the topic.  It's a myth that freezing cells causes them to
burst; ice crystals form first outside the cells.  This changes the
osmotic balance, drawing water out of the cells; so what really happens is
that cells are dehydrated, not burst.
Moreover, there are cryoprotectants which can inhibit the formation of ice
crystals and instead for vitreous (glassy) ice.  This is the focus of most
cryobiology research aimed at freezing larger tissues.
> The brain is solely fueled by aerobic respiration, is a goodly sized 
> lump, is protected by the tight junctions of the blood brain barrier...  
> All you need do is, over a period of 180 seconds maximum diffuse in a 
> cryprotective agent and drop the temp by 230 degrees kelvin.
I don't think you have any basis for your "180 seconds maximum".  Patients
in hypothermic surgery maintain low (though above freezing) temperatures
for hours, during which the brain receives very little oxygen -- but it is
protected from ischemic damage by the low temperature.  So this would be a
good starting point; from there, you can lower the temperature in a much
more leisurely manner.
> Try it with a mouse - they're small.
Of course it's harder with larger tissues.  Recent reports of the
vitrification & restoration of rat hearts is very encouraging.  But it
misses the point.
We don't have to be able to freeze and revive whole humans today.  We only
have to freeze them.  The nice thing about freezing is that it *stops* all
degradation.  Once frozen, the patient can wait as long as necessary for
the appropriate revival technology to be developed, which may be in about
50-100 years, depending on who you ask.
To make it easier on the doctors of the future, and more likely to work
for us, we naturally want to do as little damage as possible.  This is why
we want to limit ice crystal damage, dehydration, and cryoprotectant
toxicity.  But anything which stops the death & degradation process is
better than letting it continue till you're nothing but dust.  (By
"better" I mean more likely to give future doctors enough to work with to
restore you to health.)
And who knows what techniques medicine might use in the future?  They
might not even use biological cells anymore; see
	    http://sunsite.unc.edu/~jstrout/uploading/
for one alternative.
So I agree with the original poster above -- if you have any logical or
scientific reasons why cryonics can't work, let's hear 'em.  I've been
looking into it for about three years now, and I'm just about ready to
sign up.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout           Department of Neuroscience, UCSD   |
|    jstrout@ucsd.edu           http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~jstrout/  |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

>Please remember all the above criticisms the day your doctor
>says you're dying and there's nothing current medical therapies
>can do. Just repeating: It's a scam, it's a scam, it's a scam...
---snip---
>Boy, there's gonna be a lot of room once all the morons are gone.
>Death: nature's technique for spotting the terminally stupid.
Unfortunatley it doesn't get them before they breed and pass the stupidity
on to thier offspring.
---Melinda

I've read that, if neutrinos are massive, then it would be possible to
form a gravitationally-bound, degenerate neutrino gas, i.e. a *neutrino*
star.  What would such a thing look like?  Since the neutrino doesn't
interact electromagnetically, I'd expect that it would be transparent.
What would happen if a piece of baryonic matter fell onto the star?
What would happen if you collided a neutrino star with a neutron star?
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    Paul D. Shocklee - physics grad student - Princeton University    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 	  That which does not kill me makes me smarter,                |
|		    except oxygen deprivation.                         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

 Advanced Aliens have lived in the 5f6 space going back in time to the
Thorium Atom Totality. They are 15 billion years old and humans on
earth are from the recent Plutonium Atom Totality and are a mere 1
million years old. These thors , as they are called by humans,
communicate by 
microsecond pulsars. The first millisecond pulsar was discovered in
1982. The first microsecond pulsar was discovered in 2018. There was
anxiety on Earth realizing that these thors would be so much more
technologically advanced than humans; should the thors ever visit
Earth.
  The year is 2050 and the day is 7 November when Earth is celebrating
Plutonium Day. The Archimedes Space TELEscope noticed a strange UFO
confirmed by land based radio telescopes. The object was last seen
circling the globe several times and then it landed directly at the
South Pole. An expedition was sent to the South Pole to see what could
be seen, only nothing was seen.
  The thor visitor took 5 days Earth time inside the Earth, liquid core
to reassemble its atomic structure. A thor has a different atomic
structure when in intergalactic flight in order to maximize speed. Once
landed, a thor re-atomizes to the local environs. Thors are so
technologically advanced, considering they have progressed steadily for
15 billion years compared to humans on Earth who are a mere 1 million
years old in technology. Thors travel intergalaxy and interstellar via
a reatomized body, using the bodies own mass as a propulsion system
saving the replication unit in the brain of the body to replicate the
body anew once landed. A thor lives best in the dense medium of liquid
planet cores where it can get all the metals and minerals easily and
quickly.
  Humans have never realized or encountered such advanced life, until
now.
  The thor reemerges from the liquid iron core , having replenished its
body matrix. It is able to imitate any life form except below that of a
insect in size. Thus a thor can imitate a human and you would not
suspect it to be a thor. Its food and sustenance are virtually any mass
objects. Shot a bullet or shot a missile into a thor and you are
feeding a thor a candy bar.
   Life on Earth 12NOV2050 was business as usual, when all of a sudden
the world wide Net and Web received a strange communication. A post to
the Net in all of newsgroups appeared. Apparently a thor can manipulate
the electronic lines of communication.
  The strange message read: 
  I need the entire southern hemisphere to build a signal station to
the Ur galaxy. I give all humans below the equator and contiguous land
to evacuate by 13NOV, tomorrow. Any human found in the no zone will be
automatically terminated.
                                 19Ur7
 OF course few humans believed this message and so many tried to track
down the perpetrator. However there was a group that believed this
message and they were connected to the team that looked for the UFO at
the South Pole wondering if this mysterious appearance was connected. 
This team managed to get through to the leaders of the nations and were
heard, but the time was so fast , only one day to act that it was
thought prudent to just wait and see and hope. It was hoped that the
message was some form of prank or hoax, but the nagging question
remained how could a jokester penetrate all of the newsgroups bypassing
all the gates. It was as if the intruder owned the Net and would do
freely with it at its own will.
  On 14NOV2050 it happened so fast and so orderly that no eye witness
lived to see it. The thor had replicated another thor of the size of a
pen whose mission was to "at flight speed" travel through every human
body on the forbidden land. The terminator thor travelling at such high
speed burned a hole in the heads of all humans. It was like poking a
fork into jello. 
  By the end of 14NOV2050 no human alive was below the Earth's equator.
  On 15NOV2050 Earth's remaining humans were in the Northern Hemisphere
only, trying to find out what was going on in the south. Some ventured
south not knowing what had happened the day before and were instantly
killed. In the Southern Hemisphere the thor started construction of a
machine and its array to produce microsecond pulsar signals.
  Another strange message appeared on the Net and Web and read as
follows:
    No human or human product is to come south of the equator and its
contiguous land nor its airspace. Any violation is termination.
                                 19Ur7

In article ,
   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.
This claim of Sailinger seems incredibly far fetched. The details do not 
coincide well with how airtraffic control is conducted, nor with how restricted 
areas are managed.
I believe I recall Salinger making a statement to the effect that TWA800 was 
held to a lower altitude due to traffic above that flight. He stated that the 
airspace was restricted up to 21,000 feet. Since the vertical seperation 
required between controlled aircraft, at ~13,000 feet, is only 1,000 feet, then 
the other mentioned aircraft was surely also inside the supposedly restricted 
airspace. Not a likely thing for an air traffic controller to allow (though 
human errors are made this way). That would suggest, if there *was* a missle 
firing range active, that someone failed to notify the FAA, and to issue the 
usual Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), advising of the restriction. That could of 
course expalin how the FAA could be ignorant of the activation of such an area 
(and I don't know if there is even one published for that local).
Even if we grant that there was such an area, and it was activated without FAA 
notification, the relatively low altitude, and flight congested area speaks 
strongly against that area being used as an anti-aircraft missle test range. 
Near US Army instalations there are often various height restricted areas, used 
for protecting aircraft from small arms fire (surface to ~5,000 feet Above 
Ground Level), and shell fire (~ 15,000 to 20,000 AGL). A shipboard 
anti-aircraft missile system unable to reach above 21,000 feet is of little use 
for defense from high and fast attackers. A practical test area would seem 
to demand a much larger, and more remote area than the heavily populated and 
frequently traveled northeastern seaboard. 
The military *may* (and I question this) be inclined to hide such an error, but 
not the independant and uninvolved NTSB, the FAA, nor FBI. And certainly not the 
crewmembers of the supposed Navy ship. Someone would talk, and keeping a ship at 
sea, incomunicado for life, is not realistic. Salinger is going to have to offer 
up more than Internet say-so on this. Put up or shut up!
Stephen Bennett

Hardy:
>> Falsifying my claim entails finding an interpretation for Derrida's
>> remark which is both reasonable and true. 
moggin:
>    No, it requires demonstrating that his comment isn't necessarily
> meaningless or false.  And that's exactly what I did.  Case closed.  Of
> course it still _might_ be either one; so might any statement -- if
> you claim it is, you'll have to prove your point.
I really don't expect you to possess the intellectual agility to grasp
this, but I'll state it for the record, anyway. If A stands for the
universal quantifier and E stands for the existential quantifier, then
falsification of some statement A(x)P(x) is equivalent to a proof of
~A(x)P(x). This is, in turn, is equivalent to establishing E(x)~P(x). To do
this, you need to locate some c, such that ~P(c).
Now, you may read my hypothesis concerning Derrida's remark as: "For all
reasonable interpretations x, Derrida's remark is false". Consequently, by
the above, you are required to locate some reasonable interpretation c,
such that Derrida's remark is not false (ie. true).
Needless to say, you haven't offered any reasonable interpretation of
Derrida's comments. Furthermore, by your own admission, even the inane
possibility you did offer doesn't render Derrida correct in any obvious
way. Perhaps you should obtain an education before attempting to continue
this dialogue.
Cheers,
Hardy

In article <01bbd05a$1a8e7b80$32a30fcb@zordan.ozemail.com.au> "Riccardo Casimiro Storti"  writes:
>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)?
>
Momentum is conserved if the net external force on the system is zero.  If   
the frictional losses through the nozzle are negligible then momentum
should be conserved.
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson    |  "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF         |                               S Baldrick
>         "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
  L    L                                       B Waggoner