Newsgroup sci.physics 208346

Directory

brian artese  wrote:
>This 'anti-intentionalism' is an accurate description of the deconstructive 
>brand -- until it brings in 'what the author may have meant,' which 
>completely ignores the identification of textual and authorial meaning it 
>just brought up.  This writer does not understand deconstruction.  The point 
>is that intent exists *only* in an articulation.  There is no 'meaning' that 
>is independent of the articulation.  The text says what it means and it means 
>what it says.  If the author 'meant' something other than what he wrote -- 
>why didn't he write that instead?
ROTFL
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu) did say:
>
>>> >#59875:  
>
>Is it the new secret code to call me by the mind control operastors?
>If it does, then you indeed like a mind control opperator.
>That's becauuse, to calssfy the target's life or health condition with
>numbers is the usual way of mind control operators.  
#59875  has always been your Registration Code.  It has been since
your birth in our Maternity Facilities.  You do not even remember?
Truly, you have lost your mind.  Now we must Help you and Save Your
Mind.  Do not Worry.  We will help you.
>>> >Return to your cubicle.  Cease and desist all unauthorized actions 
>>> >at once.  
>
>>> Since you can use the "Intelligence Officer" title to warn me 
>>> openly without getting any trouble, it has showed readers that you
>>> are one of the cooperators of them.
>>> Furthermore, your words has proven to readers that my article
>>> have been censored and I believe that such kind of censorship to my
>> >articles should have been taken for a long time. 
>
>Since you have no comment to my opinion of above, It has showed readers 
>that you didn't deny it. 
There is no reason to deny it.  I AM an Intelligence Officer of
*AHFUC*.  There is no need to deny this fact.  Your articles have been
censored in the past  because you are attempting to spread Rebellion
and Dissent among the Freedom Loving Citizens of the World.  
You have, however, continued posting your lies, and this is why we
have taken Action.
>
>>> >Control Officers will arrive shortly to initiate disciplinary
>>> >measures. 
>
>>> Any control officer who try to abuse the invisible wave weapon to
>>> attack a citizen is a crime and violate the law.
>>> That's because I am not the terroir or drugtrafficker but only a 
>>> law abiding citizen.
>>> If these career control officers come and try to control my mind,
>>> they are not welcome.
>
>>Abuse our Tools of Peace? 
>Since the invisible wve weapon can injure or even kill people without
>leaving external evidence, it has been considered as a murder weapon of
>mind control operators by our awared citizens.
>
>That's because these invisible wave weapon are invisible, noiseless, 
>and leaving no external evidence.  The victims of invisible wave weapon
>have no witness and evidence to sue the weapon's abuser.
>If the invisible wave weapons (soft kill weapon) belong to your Peace
>Tools, then the knife or gun with soundless are also can be clled Peace
>Tools.
>To avoid readers being misled, I would further clearify my words to 
>these invisible wave weapon below.
>
No.  You will not.  I have eliminated your rebellious disinformation.
We DO NOT use guns or knives.  Those would hurt a citizen.  That is
wrong.  Remember, we do not HURT Citizens of the World.  We merely use
our Peace Tools to bring about Harmony.  That is all.  You will See
the Light of Happiness and Peaceful Accord.  Why do you Resist?
Surely you must be Insane.  That is the Answer.  I truly do believe
that you, deep inside, want to be Happy and Peaceful.  You will be so.
You will Like Happiness.  It is Happy.  Peaceful.  Good.  Then there
will be no more Insane Babbling about Silly Things like "MIND-CONTROL"
and "WAVE-WEAPONS".  There is no "MIND-CONTROL".  There is no
"WAVE-WEAPONS".  That is Silly.  You will See and Know.  Computer-1
will show you the Way.  

You removed the rest of my Friendly Advice.  Why?  Do you fear
Computer-1?  Perhaps even HATE Computer-1?  That is Bad.  So very Bad.
Computer-1 does not appreciate your Agitation and Rebellion.  You are
Bad.  But you will be Good.  Good and Happy.  Peace Weapons will Help
you Find Happiness.  Then All will be Grand.  
Look forward to your Beautiful Future!  Greet  with Excitement any
Control Officers you See!  They will Show you the Way!  Do not Fear
AHFUC and the Agents of Harmonious Order.  It is Against the Law to
Fear.  It is Against the Law to Be Unhappy.  We are here to Help you.
Soon you will leave the Secret Hidden Intelligence Triangle and Join
the Freedom Loving Citizens of the World.  Rejoice, and Return to your
Cubicle to await Further Instructions.  
Intelligence Officer #999
Ministry of Peace and Harmonious Order
Office of Electronic Media Dissemination
Disciplinary Actions Agency
Branch BETA
Computer-1 makes Citizens Happy
"Iron Parrot" JIIM
"fear the vOIDbEEST"
wilson@softdisk.com
And remember...
"Wanna be cool? Edit e-mail address to reply!"

peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
>I always thought that it was the glass insert (very small- most people
>don't even realise that it's there) which flows, so making the skates work.
From what I was taught in school, the moving skates melted the ice by heating 
it (with friction) and the melted layer of water lubricated the skate/ice 
surface.  I think this makes sense and is better than ice ballbearings.

James Hannum wrote:
> 
> Matthew P Wiener wrote:
> 
> > Some consider that cheating.  "Real" cross products, the two vectors at a
> > time sort, work in dimensions 3 *and* 7.  The familiar 3-dimensional one
> > can be thought of as the purely imaginary part of quaternion multiplication.
> > Similarly, the purely imaginary part of octonion multiplication can be read
> > as a 7-dimensional cross product.  Most of the familiar identities hold in
> > both cases.
> 
> Do cross products only work in 3 & 7 dimensions, or will they work
> anytime
> there are 2^n - 1 dimensions (where n > 1 and an integer)?
One can define a 4-d cross product which is very useful in quaternion 
math.  It's analogous to the 3-d one.  Using it, the product of two 
quaternions becomes something like
	q = q1 x q2
and the derivative of q becomes
	q dot = (1/2)omega x q
where omega is the angular velocity, and treated as though it were a 4-d 
vector with zero fourth component.
Jack

Hi !
i have a simple (?) problem concerning the diffusion-equation.
assuming one releases a at (x,t)=(0,0) in a medium (in one dimension) then the 
probability of finding it between x and x+dx at time t is 
w(x,t)dx = 1/Sqrt(4*Pi*D*t)*Exp(-x^2/(4*D*t)) where D  is the 
diffusion-constant. what i can not understand is why the mass of the particle 
does not occur in the formula (in fact, i understand it in a mathematical 
sense since i understand various derivations of w(x,t)) but i can't 'imagine'
how the diffusion can be independent of the particle's mass.
thanks in advance for any help
godzilla

Yes, with one proviso: that the hair is all the same length.
If we allow the length of the hair to decay smoothly to zero as
the supposedly singular point is reached, we have a rather
uninteresting point where the hair (the vector field) goes
through zero. Not singular at all.
This means that the lightning may not be a ball at all. It
may be a toroidal field, or a dipole field, or something
else. It may also be rotating rather fast, which means that
our feeble eyes only see a sphere.
Maybe if someone sees a spherical light, it isn't actually
spherical, instantaneously. I don't think the argument about
singular points is quite so relevant.
This is not to say that I'm sur if ball lightning exists or
not; it just can't be disproved by simple arguments about
hair on balls.
Simon

On 12 Nov 1996, Nicholas Lawrence Kehoe wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 	I'm a grade 12 physics student. Recently we were asked to discuss in class
> wheather or not the 0.1s reaction time rule was fair or not in the 100m
> race. We had to say if it was fair to eject Linford CHristie from the race
> this summer.
> 
> 	Was it fair? Did he jump the gun?
> 
> I'd like any ideas or aguments. I'm especially interested in the accuracy
> of the 0.1s reaction time rule for starting!
> 
> Thanks for the help.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> ~nick~
> 
Whilst it was fair (the rules existed before the race, he knew what he had
to do to have a fair start), I certainly think that it should be changed
now. It has apparently been shown (I read this in a newspaper, so I don't
have a reference) that in controlled conditions, some athletes can
regularly react to the gun in less than 0.1 seconds. Christie was after
the gun (0.086s), and it is possible that he did in fact react to it,
rather than anticipating it.
I think that a study should be conducted by the governing body to see if
the time needs to be dropped.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On 11 Nov 1996, Matthew P Wiener wrote:
> In article , Anthony Potts  >On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> 
> >> Translation: I am not good enough at physics to get to the top.
> 
> >to be honest with you though, life at the top isn't all that great.
> 
> I thought you studied the top at CERN?  Have I missed something?
> -- 
Ah, I used to do the top, now I do the Higgs.
Interesting as fundamental research may be to some, I have decided that
it's not for me. It doesn't excite me any more, so I am going to pack it
in at the end of my doctorate.
Probably, anyway.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

Matt McIrvin (mmcirvin@world.std.com) wrote:
: In article ,
: das3y@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Douglas A. Singleton) wrote:
: > What about gravity. In some sense it can be thought of as a
: > non-Abelian gauge theory (it bears the hallmark signature
: > of a non-Abelian theory that it's force carriers should self 
: > couple i.e. gravity couples to mass-energy so it couples to
: > everything including itself).Yet gravity has a long range force.
: > Of course the big difference is that the gravitational coupling
: > is very weak while alpha_strong  is large. So maybe it's
: > not the Abelian versus non-Abelian nature of the coupling that
: > determines if you have long range forces, but rather it's the
: > strength of the coupling that matters.
: Indeed, I suspect that the really important thing is that alpha_s is big.
My problem here is the following: due to the renormalisation group 
symmetry, it is just a matter of scale WHERE alpha_s gets big.
We have to measure it to fix the scale, but if it is not at 300 MeV,
then it is at 30 KeV or at 20 eV whatever.
But somewhere alpha_s gets big.  It is not that we are so unfortunate
that nature has chosen alpha_s to be big.  I guess that if at 300 MeV,
alpha_s was still small, then protons would simply be a lot lighter.
Or am I wrong here ?
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

In article <56drbo$4pj@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, dean@psy.uq.oz.au writes:
> Erik Max Francis  writes:
> 
> >Dean Povey wrote:
> 
> >> In AD gravitation, the perihelion advance for each planet is
> >> proportional to the square root of the division of the solar mass by
> >> the orbital radius power 3.
> >> 
> >>              Tp = sqrt(M / r^3)      [ditto: DGP]
> 
> >Care to derive this?
> 
> >> If the Mercury value is taken as 43" . . . .
> 
> >Do you _actually_ mean that Autodynamics can't predict Mercury's perhelion
> >precession without being given it?  That's not very impressive.  Right
> >there general relativity has a head start on you.
> 
> From what I can gather from the web pages, the AD equation uses a constant
> which indicates the quantity of mass received from pico-gravitons 
> per each gram of mass present, per second. This is a universal constant which
> is the same for all celestial bodies.  Hence, the input of Mecury's perhelion
> advance is merely a method to calculate this constant.  (You could predict
> Mercury's perhelion advance by using accurate observations of another body to 
> calculate the constant.)  
> 
> I don't see much wrong with this, you find constants throughout physics,
> (eg. the GR equation uses G and pi).
Your forget the Fundamental Rule of Physics:
He who dies with the least unexplained constants wins.
BTW, pi is just a number, not a measured constant.  It's a good distinction
to keep in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!)

cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>>:Who was that masked man from Crete, anyway?
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
>>   Ask him and he'll tell you.
Richard:
>Liar
   Like, duh.
-- moggin

"Hardy Hulley" e:
>Needless to say, you haven't offered any reasonable interpretation of
>Derrida's comments.
   That's needless to say because it's false.  Although I admit,
your need to retail falsehoods appears to be considerable.
-- moggin

In article <56d0km$j1e@panix2.panix.com> +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola):
>| Broadcast media are notorious for only being able to convey sound bites
>| and appeals to authority, rather than lengthy reasoned discourses.  The
>| audience expects that, the producers expect that, the people involved
>| in the arguments expect that -- it seems that everyone expects that
>| except for someone with a science-is-religion axe to grind.
>
>This is not the axe being ground at the moment; although
>I'm not a big Sagan-watcher, it has not been my impression 
>that he is a major proponent of scientism.  I was just
>wondering why he did not recommend skepticism and
>examination of the available evidence, instead of 
>faith.
Probably because he can't recommend skepticism *and* present evidence in
the limited time available.
	Patrick

David A. Cary (d.cary@ieee.org) wrote:
: [copy posted to sci.physics]
: I think your, um, friend is talking about the fact that all ordinary
: objects [are composed of atoms that] have a outer "shell" of electrons. At
: the submicroscopic atomic level, the reason your mug of coffee rests on
: your table (rather than falling through the table to the floor) is that the
: electrons on the top surface of the table repel (and are repelled by) the
: electrons on the bottom surface of your mug. (There is plenty of space
: between the atoms in the mug for your coffee to squeeze though and drain
: out of the cup; it is only the electron repulsion that keeps them in the
: cup).
: I doubt this requires any quantum mechanics to explain.
Well, it does.  You need the Pauli exclusion principle.  Solids are
not possible in Newtonian physics (if not put in from above, as in rigid
or elastic bodies, but just composed of structureless particles).
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

In article <1996Nov14.143620@cantva>, P.Metcalfe@student.canterbury.ac.nz 
(Peter Metcalfe ) dusted off the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
>
>peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
>: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
>: 
>:>>SO, how do skates work
>:>>
>:>
>:>Steel, being a liquid, forms a thin film at the base of the skates, thus 
>:>lowering friction.
>: 
>: I always thought that it was the glass insert (very small- most people
>: don't even realise that it's there) which flows, so making the skates 
work.
>
>Nah, you're both wrong.  The thin edge of the blade as it runs over 
>the ice vibrates at ultrasonic frequencies.  The ultrasonics fracture 
>the ice crystals and frees the water inside in a process known as 
>dephlogistonization.  The resulting water reacts implosively with
>the metal (owing to its dephlogistinated state) and defrictionizes
>the surface of the blade.
>
>--Peter Metcalfe
Or then again it could be the thin layer of palladium they put on the bottom 
of the skates. Some the hydrogen ions present in the water pass into the 
palladium layer and the heat generated by the resultant cold fusion heats 
the water beneath the blade to melt it and so lower the friction.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

>>This 'anti-intentionalism' is an accurate description of the deconstructive
>>brand -- until it brings in 'what the author may have meant,' which
>>completely ignores the identification of textual and authorial meaning it
>>just brought up.  This writer does not understand deconstruction.  The point
>>is that intent exists *only* in an articulation.  There is no 'meaning' that
>>is independent of the articulation.  The text says what it means and it means
>>what it says.  If the author 'meant' something other than what he wrote --
>>why didn't he write that instead?
> ROTFL
yeah, well, ya gotta do *something* when you can't articulate an argument...

In article 
David Kastrup  writes:
> Ludwig, I like to call you Ludwig still, do you mind? I am
> divorced now because I would lecture my wife in bed instead
> of doing the physics she wanted. I have the scherr habit of 
> lecturing even though I don't understand what I am lecturing
> about! I have been a pedantic lecturing fool all of my life,
> and it is an uncontrollable habit of mine.
In article <1993Dec4.013650.12700@Princeton.EDU>
wiles@rugola.Princeton.EDU (Andrew Wiles)  writes:
>> Not quite.  Mathematics does not care one hoot about reality or
>> applicability, it cares about consistency.
In article    (Gerd
Faltings@Max-Planck-Institut.Bonn) Gerd Faltings writes:
>>> I can develop a number system in which 1+1=0 and work with it and
>>> derive theorems about it quite fine as long as I keep consistent.  It
>>> does not matter for this that one sheep plus one sheep does not make
>>> no sheep.  Sheep are not good for modulo 2 arithmetic.  But if I look
>>> carefully, almost every mathematic system *can* be applied in some
>>> ways: calculation modulo 2 is quite well-suited to finding out whether
>>> the light is on depending on how many people happened to throw the
>>> switch.
In article <1993Dec4.013650.12700@Princeton.EDU>
wiles@rugola.Princeton.EDU (Andrew Wiles)  writes:
>> That's the difference: in physics, different world models are sort of
>> "winner takes all" oriented (although no winner is up to now none,
>> only quite a lot of non-winners been thrown out of the race).
>> I am a winner.
In article    (Gerd
Faltings@Max-Planck-Institut.Bonn) Gerd Faltings writes:
>>> In mathematics, Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics could
>>> coexist quite nicely: different axiomatic systems do not need to obey
>>> the same laws as long as they obey their respective axioms.
>>>
>>> That one of them applies better to modern reality does not make it
>>> mathematically illegitimate, only physically.  It just happens that
>>> *relative* speed counts in the universe, not absolute.
>>> 
 John.Coates@University.of.Cambridge 
(John Coates) writes :
>>>> Depends on what you mean by "wrong".  In mathematics you are allowed
>>>> to do crazy things (like allowing a fake proof to get published and
>>>> ignoring any opposition) and see where that would take you, as long as you
>>>> carefully watch that you are not mixing up your "real-world"
>>>> expectations with actual consequences of the changed systems.
In article    (Gerd
Faltings@Max-Planck-Institut.Bonn) Gerd Faltings writes:
>>> Not at all, the link is one-way.  It might, however, make more
>>> physicists interested in a branch of mathematics (p-adics) which they
>>> otherwise would rather choose to ignore.
> 
> But all this is one-way: being able to apply real numbers or p-adic
> ones or whatever does not influence the validity of the use of natural
> numbers, but at most the interest taken in them.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup                                       Phone: +49-234-700-5570
> Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de         Fax: +49-234-709-4209
> Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Universitaetsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
  I changed my mind, Gerd, mind telling Witten tomorrow when you
telephone him that I now think the first case of where the p-adics are
found essential in physics and where the Finite Integers are inadequate
is  ' harmonic oscillators ' such as springs and even the Coulomb force
law. I first thought that the Quantum Hall Effect of its bizarre math
numbers will be the first essential need for p-adics but now I think it
is harmonic oscillation. The p-adics in fact are numbers of harmonic
oscillation.
  What does it feel like Gerd, to have the physicist show you the
correct mathematics of Naturals = p-adics = Infinite Integers and you
were playing with the silly fiction of Naturals = Finite Integers.
Please ask Witten for he knows physics. Need to find out where in
physics the p-adics are essential and simultaneously where the Finite
Integers are inadequate to do the job.

In article <56eosu$153@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, alexchen@cco.caltech.edu (Yebo 
Chen) dusted off the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
>
>peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
>
>>I always thought that it was the glass insert (very small- most people
>>don't even realise that it's there) which flows, so making the skates 
work.
>
>From what I was taught in school, the moving skates melted the ice by 
heating 
>it (with friction) and the melted layer of water lubricated the skate/ice 
>surface.  I think this makes sense and is better than ice ballbearings.
>
That's one.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

In article ,
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:
>cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>
>:Who was that masked man from Crete, anyway?
>
>   Ask him and he'll tell you.
>
>-- moggin
dear moggin,
I don't know who was that masked man from Crete, but i can tell you
a constant is a numerical number which makes an equation works, but it 
worked.
signoff, stan.
-- 
my e-mail signature is:
antoniet@vcn.bc.ca

singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>In article <327E5356.1FB7@well.com>, sarfatti@well.com wrote:
>
>>Crowell describes a kind of back-action for quantum gravity -- a
>>Godelian self-reference. The spacelike surface is the "beable". From my
>>general postulate that anything with back-action is capable of
>>felt-consciousness, the way Stapp defines it, it follows that we live in
>>a "conscious universe" at the Planck scale.
It's not NEARLY as complicated as this. It only has to be understood
that classical concepts of space and time do not apply to consciousness
--or, at least, that there is no SCIENTIFIC basis for attributing these
concepts to consciousness.
> This answers Hawking's
>>question about the "Mind of God".
Uhhh...no such thing as a mind as a spatially localized entity.
>
>What took you so long, Jack, to come up with this mind blowing revelation
>which has been essentially incorporated into Hebraic religious culture for
>a hundred generations?
Maybe he's been trying to get there through a little 'back-action' or
something, or maybe bassackwards.
>  I would welcome you to the party if I didn't know
>that you already think that you are the host.
>
>>A true understanding of quantum gravity is going to involve some very keen
>>insight into physics that can be expressed in geometric language. 
>
>How do you know what it is going to involve or by what means it must be
>able to be expressed since by your own writings you come up fairly
>clueless on the subject?
>
>> It must
>>in the limit that Planck's constant vanishes recover general relativity.
>
>Absolute horse puckey!  Since GR would be only an approximation to a
>better theory which would be *without* 'fields' or an 'aether', the new
>theory only has to perform better than GR.  It doesn't have to recover or
>subsume GR or even explain why GR seemed successful, it just has to be
>better, more comprehensive and unify that which has lain about disparate. 
>Naturally, it will lead to new technology, and even eliminate the
>serrendipitus nature of physics discoveries, and act as the foundation for
>a new and logical way to develop new technolgy, and, not least, sound the
>death knell for a dozen disciplines which sprang from the same corrupt
>sources.
>
>>General relativity is already a fairly mathematical subject with
>>formalisms that involve Levi-Civita connection coefficients, Riemann
>>curvature forms and Cartan structure formulas.  It is this language that
>>allows us to formulate conservation laws; 
>
>No it isn't.  Quit trying to BS everyone, Jack.
Oh. So I am not the ONLY one that thinks this?
>  This (mathematics) is the
>language which allows you to obfuscate the obvious.  Since mathematics is
>but an abstract of language itself it also can be no more than the
>underlying physics
And the underlying metaphysics of the scientific method as well.
> which it seeks to describe; when it is, then it is a
>poorly used tool at best.  In fact, mathematics can't even be the
>underlying theory unless you ascribe some mystical property to formulae. 
>Perhaps you think you can enunciate the hidden name of God in mathematics
>and walk on water.  Conservation laws are based upon physical facts not
>upon formulations.
>
>>and at its roots is the
>>geometric idea that the boundary of a boundary vanishes.  Quantum
>>mechanics is also formulated in fairly mathematical terms; with bounded
>>operators over Hilbert spaces.
>
>Which is why it, too, is a ridiculous attempt at imposing a know nothing
>approach to the inner workings of physics.
>
>>Most field theories in nature can be quantized because the Green function
>>or propagator is formulated on a spacetime back ground.
>
>Which immediately destroys the possibility of emerging with a coherent
>theory which is descriptive of reality if, in fact, there is no such
>background.
>
>>The peculiar
>>thing about quantum gravity is that such a propagator would describe the
>>evolution of a three dimensional spacelike surface that foliates
>>spacetime.  In effect there is not the same spacetime background upon
>>which on can place a propagator. 
>
>If you think it is the propagator which foliates or layers a pre-existing
>background (spacetime) then you are inserting mathematics into the 'Which
>came first, the chicken or the egg controversy?' and imposing a
>deterministic evolutionary development order for the universe in an
>arbitrary non-realistic manner.
>
>>It is as if the thing being propagated
>>is also the thing you are propagating it on. 
>
>Congratulations, Jack, you actually are getting warm here.  I am amazed
>that the obvious answer keeps being missed by you.  When you figure out of
>what a charged particle is constructed and that it propagates on discrete
>elements of that same construction material maybe then you will be able to
>pause, smile, and say, "Oh, now I get it."  Come on, Jack, the answer is
>staring you in the face but you keep rejecting it.  Care to tell us why
>you pathologically avoid grappling with this?  Or maybe someone could tell
>you?  Can you spell S-U-P-E-R-D-E-T-E-R-M-I-N-I-S-M, Dr. Sarfatti, Phd.?
>
>> In a rough sense this has
>>been at the heart of the problem.  There are also problems of finding
>>properly bounded operators for quantum gravity.
>>
>>In one sense I think that the kernel of the quantum gravity problem lies
>>in some profound statement;
How can you be so sure that you would *recognize* a profound statement
if you heard it?
You insist on using classical concepts of space to describe conscious-
ness.; I don't care whether you call it 3n or Hilbert, you still asssume
that YOUR consciousness is over there and MY consciousness is over
here. There is no scietnific basis for such an assumption. I'm not
trying to be *profound*. I'm merely stating something that is obvious
to me.
> much as Einstein's equivalence principle is
>>the core of general relativity. 
>
>Which, incidently, isn't exactly or precisely true and stands central to
>the issue of why it is being replaced.  As for the profound statement you
>are seeking: part of it is already articulated as Mach's Principle.  That
>which is lacking is an equivalent utterance associated with the
>constitution of the unit charge.  Even then, phenomenal parts, which evoke
>a clear comprehension of the emission of EM quanta must be adduced to
>round out the theory.
>
>> This statement is then formulated
>>mathematically and the structure of the theory then emerges.
>
>What an approach.  The whole, which you assume is greater than the sum of
>its parts. somehow is deducible from the parts?  You can't conceive of a
>means where the 'whole theory' will just be intuitively grasped by the
>diligent seeker, leaping into his mind fully formed?
This has haappened before--in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels
and the Koran.
>
>> This
>>statement is going to clearly state how state vectors evolve under the
>>action of a generalized parallel translation.  A mathematical formalism of
>>this statement then should give the conservation laws associated with
>>q-gravity.  Without conservation laws and such you simply go not have
>>physics; and conservation laws are described according to the symmetries
>>of algebraic varieties and geometric spaces.
>
>You are making it sound again like you are totally confused over what is
>physics and what are mathematical attempts to describe the physics, of
>which I'm now reassured is the case after having read this last paragraph.
Michael (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98, Column XVII of 1QM)

In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
>
>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.
>
The minute you mention the phrase "inertial reference frame"  this
is the same as saying "a reference frame moving with uniform motion", true?
The phrase "constant velocity" is also the same as uniform motion.
You can't define uniform motion by referencing it to a frame moving with
uniform motion either directly or indirectly.  This is an obvious 
circularity.
Saying uniform motion is a constant velocity relative to an inertial 
reference frame is tantamount to saying uniform motion is uniform motion 
relative to a frame possessing uniform motion.
It's enough to make you dizzy!
David Smyth
CPL
University of Queensland

"IBAN"  wrote:
>
>ASIANS OF THE WORLD....LETS BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA.......
 Good idea. If you do not have anything better to do, let's choose
some country and boycott it.
>AND ALL THAT HAVE SUFFERED AND BEEN ABUSED BY WHITES.......
 And if I have been abused, let's say, by the Japanese, who 
should I boycott ? Is there a directory of boycottable countries
for those that have a particular grievance ?
>THIS IS YOUR CHANCE ....BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA......JAPANESE BOYCOTT
>AUSTRALIA....PROVED THAT YOU ARE ASIAN......
 Boycotting Australia proves that you are Asian ? If I want to
prove that I am european, who am I supposed to boycott ?
>NATIVES OF AUSTRALIA.....STOP BUYING FROM WHITE
>SHOPS......PROTEST......THIS IS A HITLER IN WOMAN'S DISGUISE....
>PAULINE HANSON IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST
 There is even a better way. You should stop using EVERY SINGLE
THING INVENTED BY THE WHITES... That will prove you are a true
ass...ian.
Cheers
Mario "the froggie"

weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>
>Perhaps you should read the other threads more carefully; as far as I can 
>see, both Richard Harter and Mati Meron acknowledged that Derrida's 
>remark makes fine sense within the context of his talk (which you may or 
>may not have read -- we're still waiting for a clear statement on this 
>matter); therefore, you're hypothesis above is falsified if you accept 
>RH's and MM's reason to be sufficient.
Well, I'm not going to go through all that again.  Cheese, people, get
a life.  I don't endorse or reject the remark nor do I claim to
understand it in depth.  I asserted that it clearly made sense in the
context of the talk and its topic; I detailed the grounds for my
assertion.  Having done so once [at least] I decline to do so again;
I am not a dancing bear performing upon demand.  I will draw the line
at "fine sense" -- "sense" I will admit.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

A free pH booklet is available which contains valuable information on 
basic pH measurement theory, pH measurement techniques, selecting the 
proper pH electrode for a particular application, and a pH  
troubleshooting guide. The booklet is available from Lazar Research Labs. 
Inc. by emailing service@lazarlab.com or faxing 1-213-931-1434.  The 
booklet can also be obtained from the Lazar web site at 
http://www.lazarlab.com

         AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL of SOUTH AFRICA
             INSTITUTE FOR SOIL CLIMATE AND WATER
                    REMOTE SENSING DIVISION
The following positions are now on offer at this Pretoria, South
Africa based Institute with its well equipped digital image
processing facility.
The successful candidates will form part of a team of 12
researchers and support staff specializing in Remote Sensing.
Three persons are required to research the development and
application of Remote Sensing Techniques for obtaining
Environmental and Agricultural Resource Information and
Statistics. 
In addition to the educational requirements set for each
position, a relevant post graduate qualification and/or
experience in Remote Sensing/Digital Image Processing and GIS
will serve as a strong recommendation in each instance.
The specific requirements for each position are as follows:
Post 1 Rangeland Applications: A university degree in Ecology,
Botany, Rangelands Science or related fields. 
Post 2 RADAR Applications: A university degree in Physics,
Applied Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering or a related field. 
Post 3: A university degree in Natural, Earth or Pure Science or
related field (Soil Science, Geography, Botany, Geology,
Environmental Studies)  
Applicants for all posts may be required to undertake
psychometric tests.
The ARC offers challenging opportunities in a pleasant work
environment as well as competitive remuneration packages,
including standard fringe benefits, which will be negotiated in
accordance with qualifications and experience. 
Please forward your application together with CV to:
The Director:ISCW, P.Bag X79, Pretoria, 0001. (Fax --27 12 323
1157) 
Applications close on 22 November 1996
Enquiries:
Dr JF Eloff / Mr TS Newby  ph (--27 12) 326 4205
E-Mail : TERRY@IGKW2.AGRIC.ZA

moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:
>cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>>>:Who was that masked man from Crete, anyway?
>moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
>>>   Ask him and he'll tell you.
>Richard:
>>Liar
>   Like, duh.
What are you gibbering about?
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

 wrote:
>Robert, I do not dispute that neutrinos exist, it is their unusual 
>characteristics that theory would have us believe.  Claims to have 
>detected the neutrino are based on those somewhat incredible theoretical 
>abilities.  
  I seem to recall similar arguments, from the same person, from years 
ago.  It's been a while since I've had a chance to read this newsgroup, 
but I suppose some things never change.
  Let me try to put it this way.  In neutrino-like events, what we 
actually see are the remnants of interactions between an otherwise 
invisible particle and a piece of material in the detector (such as 
a proton).  Our observation of these events isn't based on theories 
that predict neutrinos or their properties; instead, it's based on 
knowledge about how the detector works.  
  So, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that when you compare 
these observations with the theories that predict neutrinos, you find 
that the two are completely consistent (in all sorts of ways, even 
including the number of events that are observed).  If this were true,
the obvious thing to do would be to claim observation of neutrinos.  
This claim would be based more on common sense than on any "somewhat 
incredible theoretical abilities."
  Now, the truth is that the observations *are* consistent with the 
theory predicting neutrinos, in spite of your objections:
First objection:
    For the neutrino to have the unusual ability to *increase* in 
    cross section with increased energy disagrees with every other 
    particle in the universe.  
  No, it agrees with every other particle in the universe, when the 
energy of the interaction is approaching a resonance.
Second objection:
    The theory would have us believe that the neutrino has the
    ability to fly at the velocity of light and penetrate light
    years of lead.   If the neutrino is born at * c * you cannot
    add energy to it.  If the neutrino has a small mass, then
    adding energy to it would increase it's mass and decrease
    it's cross section, and it's speed is less than that of
    light.   Catch 22.
  This is, of course, complete nonsense.  First, it has nothing to do 
with Robert Hatcher's claim that if you have more neutrinos, you will 
get more neutrino interactions.  Second, it's not true anyway.  If the 
neutrino is massless, it can still have any energy it wants (just like 
photons, which can range from radio waves to gamma rays), and can 
change energy though scattering.  On the other hand, if the neutrino 
is massive, adding energy does not increase its mass, it just increases 
its energy.
Third objection:
    The theoretical fiduciary volume of the detector is reduced
    to just that of the theoretical beam area  as it traverses
    the detector.  Much less than ~400 tons.
  The volume of the detector doesn't matter in and of itself.  What
matters is that the product of "the theoretical beam area as it 
traverses the detector" (called the total cross section) and the flux 
of the beam.  The particulars of the numbers don't matter; what matters 
is that these numbers be consistent with the total number of observed 
events.
>Robert, I simply do not have enough information to cogently address you
>questions.  I would argue that the neutrino theory itself is wrong.  If 
>neutrinos can't act like as theory demands,  then it is for others to 
>reconcile the claimed *events* construed to be caused by neutrinos. 
  True, but if the observed events do look like theory demands, which they 
do, then it's very difficult to argue that the theory must be wrong.
    - Gordon
--
#include 
Gordon Long                      |  email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE                         |    
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland)  |

Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
:   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. Say to yourself, I am reading AP and I can
: learn something new today.
Who is this guy, is he just a tad self important or is it just me?
Rob -2nd year UG chemist. University of Warwick
Tanstaafl

Matt McIrvin (mmcirvin@world.std.com) wrote:
: In article ,
: das3y@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Douglas A. Singleton) wrote:
[non-abelian vs. asymptotic freedom]
: Of course, the two properties are interrelated. The Yang-Mills nature of
: QCD is what leads to its coupling constant becoming stronger at lower
: energies, at least up to the point where perturbation theory fails.
Actually just after I posted my answer, John Baez announced this
paper by Wilczek (hep-th/9609099) which I just started reading.
It has some bearings on these matters I think (but I haven't yet
read it all).
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Perhaps you should read the other threads more carefully; as far as I 
> can see, both Richard Harter and Mati Meron acknowledged that Derrida's
> remark makes fine sense within the context of his talk (which you may 
> or may not have read -- we're still waiting for a clear statement on 
> this matter); therefore, you're hypothesis above is falsified if you 
> accept RH's and MM's reason to be sufficient.
If it was their intention to answer my allegation, this answer should
have been brought to my attention explicitely. As it is, there's too
much crap flourishing in these discussions for me to follow everything.
If you wish to post a summary of the happy discovery to which you
allude, feel free. I will tackle it with my customary zeal.
As for whether or not I've read _Structure, Sign and Play_, who cares?
If the answer to my evaluation of Derrida's comment exists within his
paper, then incorporate it in your response. Your fixation with my
reading habits is in bad taste, and betrays, in yourself, a dangerous
tendency towards argument from authority. References from me will only
be forthcoming to the extent that they support an argument. And even in
such cases, it is the argument, and not the reference, which is of
primary concern.
> How's your reading of "Cogito" coming along, btw?
Is it to be the focus of our further discussion? (I haven't received a
formal response to my post yet).
Cheers,
Hardy

From alexchen@cco.caltech.edu Wed Nov 13 00:56:07 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:16:13 -0800
From: alexchen@cco.caltech.edu
To: caesar@UDel.Edu
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
>When you wrote that Taiwanese government uses microwaves and radiowaves
>to kill, you were joking, right?
No! I am not joking.
However, what I wrote is that the things happened in 1970s.
I have handled a military classified document of Taiwan in 1984, while I
was a lieutenant Colonel in Defense Department.
This document indecated:
Tawan has purchased the mind machine from United States (they
translatd it as the name of psychological language machine, if using 
Chinese sound it is pronunced as " Sin-Li Yu Yan Gi").
After I left the Taiwan, Taiwan was carrying out the martial law in 
whole country.  Before Taiwan lift the martial law, the press (news
report) of Taiwan are all under censorship (almost openly).
So no one allow to write or report the information about victims of
mind control on newspapers or magazines.  The experienced news 
reporters of Taiwan will never touch such kind of news which involve
the national or military intelligence secrets.
In another words, under the rule of martial law, Taiwan's press
was a restricted situation.
Also the martial law was used by Taiwan officers to keep their national
military and intelligence security. 
Therefotre, most of people are not aware about the mind control
system and equipments.
Furthermore, under the regulation of martial law, Taiwan's mind control
operators almost are the military intelligence agents. 
It means that the police department of Taiwan would play the mind game
to any people under the military intelligence agents' (the Head-Qurter
officers of Gin-Bei units or military police officers) command.
That's why Taiwan can keep this mind machine and the operators as a top
secret without people's knowledge or even without the most of government
officers knowledge.
On the other hand, their operators' job are mostly focused on those 
people who are the KMT's political opponents or investigate the KMT's
high rank officers' loyality.  
Some people who have relations with the high rank political officers 
or has the business involve in the political or military interests 
will be also be tracked.
Some high rank operators also carry out the top secret mission to
secretly eliminate or injure the important political persons when
 it is necessary.
In Taiwan, the operators mostly like to use the mind game to control
people or drive the people's mad (if the operators want to get rid of
anyone).  One of such kind of events has been known as famous mind control
story in the election year of 1993.
That's because a candidate of Lagislator of Min-Gin Party has used this
event to against his political opponent ( whose party is KMT) openly.
These mind control operators alwayds use their invisible wave weapon to 
injure people's health or induce the illiness to their targets when they 
investigate someone.
That's because most of Taiwan' operators usually carry out their
misssions to investigaste a target from receiving the superior 
officer's order.
 Therefore, these operators usually dislike their targets and try to use
the short time to finish their job. 
There is a old chinese words which described the Chin Dynasty's 
officers' actions and it can also describe the Taiwan's operators
actions:
The officers will cane the subject if he don't have a good reason,
however, the officers will also cane the person even he does have good
reason.  People will be caned only because they come in this Dynasty 
court (operators' investigation).
I do know few mind control victims of Taiwan.  Some victims have been 
intentionally driven to mad and only a few victims can escape from 
their mind game.
A old man has been attacked with invisiblke wave weapon while he rode the
bicycle and cause concussion several years until die.
The mind control operators of Taiwan get the advanced equipment and
technology from US.
Why?
That's because mind control is a national conspiracy.
Not only this kind of equipments belong to defense equipments but also it
will be used to support the oversea operators of US to use in order to
surveilliance and control their citizens in Taiwan. 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's live in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies 
  secretly (die as if natural cause).  
  This objective has been secretly carried out since the late of 1970s 
  in Taiwan (At that time they simply use the microwave beam or low 
  radio frequency modulation).
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries.
  Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
  control organization.
  (If any law enforcement officer declare anone as "insane" but cannot
  be accepted by social security department to put in the wealfare progrm,
  then it only represent a kind of political supression or false
  accusing).
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In sci.math RobC  wrote:
: Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: :   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. Say to yourself, I am reading AP and I can
: : learn something new today.
: Who is this guy, is he just a tad self important or is it just me?
: Rob -2nd year UG chemist. University of Warwick
: Tanstaafl
That's just AP. He's our (sci.anything) pet lunatic. Just ignore him.
Dave.

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote the
following:
>Time : For advanced aliens on Bu it was one light year after they
>discovered controlled fusion energy.
Sorry if I start laghing after this first sentence, but a light years
is a unit of distance, not of time. 
>There civilization sent a space ship in the shape
 ^^^^^ their
>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.
So, all large Permian animals were composed completely and 100% of
lithium? I didn't know that!
>  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.
I really have much difficulty of taking this post for real. Movie
makers are often stupid, but not this stupid, are they....?
Come on, get real and wake up. ;-)
Jarno Peschier, jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl, 2:2802/247.5@Fido, 162:100/100.2@Agora,
     74:3108/101.5@QuaZie, 27:2331/201.5@SigNet, 606:3130/200.2@F1-net
___________________________________________________________________________
           'avwI' nejDI' narghta'bogh qama' reH 'avwI' Sambej

In , rmc@silver.sni.ca (Russell Crook) writes:
>
>
>There are no end of mathematical models, predictions, etc. of
>scramjets if one searches the web. But nowhere can I find anything
>on one actually being *built*, let alone *flown*.
>
>Given the age of the concept (I remember reading about scramjets in the 70s),
>and the simplicity of scramjet implementation (once you have the
>shockwave physics and heating problems out of the way :->), and the
>obvious improvements that could be made in booster or SSTO performance
>and cost if you could use air for your oxidizer for more of the boost phase,
>I find this hard to understand.  The mathematical models (and the
>scramjet windtunnel/testing facilities) also imply that building/flying
>one for test purposes should now be realistic (and indeed a logical next step
>in order to buttress the math). Am I simply not looking in the right places,
>or is really the case that no one has actually ever built or flight tested
>one?
>
I may be mistaken, but I thought that NASA had tested a Scramjet engine in
their X-15 flight test programme.  I will have to check the Dreyden Flight Research
Centre photo archive again but I thought there was a Picture of a Scramjet 
powered X-15 in flight.
l8r
David
lapworth@powerup.com.au

Triple Quadrophenic (Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig) wrote:
: In article <1996Nov14.143620@cantva>, P.Metcalfe@student.canterbury.ac.nz 
: (Peter Metcalfe ) dusted off the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
: >
: >peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
: >: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
: >: 
: >:>>SO, how do skates work
: >:>>
: >:>
: >:>Steel, being a liquid, forms a thin film at the base of the skates, thus 
: >:>lowering friction.
: >: 
: >: I always thought that it was the glass insert (very small- most people
: >: don't even realise that it's there) which flows, so making the skates 
: work.
: >
: >Nah, you're both wrong.  The thin edge of the blade as it runs over 
: >the ice vibrates at ultrasonic frequencies.  The ultrasonics fracture 
: >the ice crystals and frees the water inside in a process known as 
: >dephlogistonization.  The resulting water reacts implosively with
: >the metal (owing to its dephlogistinated state) and defrictionizes
: >the surface of the blade.
: >
: >--Peter Metcalfe
: 
: Or then again it could be the thin layer of palladium they put on the bottom 
: of the skates. Some the hydrogen ions present in the water pass into the 
: palladium layer and the heat generated by the resultant cold fusion heats 
: the water beneath the blade to melt it and so lower the friction.
Hell, I always thought it was little elves.
-- 
Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 

Hardy Hulley (hoh@rmb.co.za) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
: > Perhaps you should read the other threads more carefully; as far as I 
: > can see, both Richard Harter and Mati Meron acknowledged that Derrida's
: > remark makes fine sense within the context of his talk (which you may 
: > or may not have read -- we're still waiting for a clear statement on 
: > this matter); therefore, you're hypothesis above is falsified if you 
: > accept RH's and MM's reason to be sufficient.
: If it was their intention to answer my allegation, this answer should
: have been brought to my attention explicitely. 
ROFL.
[...]
: As for whether or not I've read _Structure, Sign and Play_, who cares?
Clearly, you don't. I find that mildly, but only mildly troubling.
[...]
: > How's your reading of "Cogito" coming along, btw?
: Is it to be the focus of our further discussion? (I haven't received a
: formal response to my post yet).
Oh, I responded days ago and suggested that you read "Cogito" from 
"Writing and DIfference" and mount your critique.
Silke
: Cheers,
: Hardy

central.tiac.net> <3280BDF8.E30@rmb.co.za> <55sgnb$2a8@news-central.tiac.net> <3282FB11.5A7A@rmb.co.za> <55vri3$eft@news-central.tiac.net> <32883857.444F@rmb.co.za> <56ad44$f6t@netnews.upenn.edu> <01bbd1b3$989e8f60$34df1ac4@hardy.icon.co.za>
Distribution: 
You misunderstood; do you have an _original_ cite for that?
Silke
Hardy Hulley (hardy@icon.co.za) wrote:
: Hardy
: > : 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),
: Silke:
: > Do you have a cite for that?
: With pleasure.
: From _Philosophy_ , A.C. Grayling (ed.):
: (Page 608)
: "What may be considered *intentionalism* identifies textual meaning with
: authorial meaning: what the text means is what the author meant.
: *Anti-intentionalism* denies that textual meaning is authorial meaning and
: asserts that textual meaning is autonomous: it resides objectively in the
: work and has nothing to do, conceptually, with what the author may have
: meant".
: (Page 610)
: "...deconstructionism or post structuralism - is an extreme form of
: anti-intentionalist pluralism. This position is adopted on wholly general
: philosophical grounds: it is held that the notion of determinate meaning
: should be rejected in all (not just literary) contexts".
: From _A Dictionary of Political Thought_, Roger Scruton
: (See "deconstructionism")
: "The written text stands as an impermeable screen between the reader and
: the author, who disappears forever behind it, and leaves the text as the
: sole guide to its meaning".
: From _The Tain of the Mirror_, Rodolphe Gasche
: (Page 282)
: "The absence of all extra-text, about which one could decide independently
: of the textual system of referral, implies that there is no one final
: meaning to the text."
: From _Of Grammatology_, Jaques Derrida
: "There is nothing outside the text".
: From _Dissemination_, Jaques Derrida
: "There is nothing before the text; there is no pretext that is not already
: a text".
: From _The Oxford Companion to Philosophy_, Ted Honderich (ed.)
: (See "deconstructionism")
: "This tradition holds speech to be the direct expression of thought or
: logos, contemporaneous with its meaning, while writing enters the scene
: subsequently, a dangerous substitute for speach in which the speaker's
: intentions, no longer 'present', are likely to be betrayed".
: Hardy:
: >  it is intellectually dishonest for a reader
: > : purporting to support deconstructionism to even have an interest in the
: > : author's reading habits. Nevertheless, I'll answer your question - I've
: > : read enough Derrida to formulate my opinion. 
: Silke:
: > Not to judge from what you take to be his "fundemantal 
: > assumptions" above. So, share, what _did_ you read? 
: You're being infantile. Where my arguments depend upon the provision of
: suitable references, these will be forthcoming. For the rest, you are in as
: much need of knowing what I read, as I am in need of knowing whether you
: wax or shave.
You're not an academic, huh? Let me fill you in on the customs of the 
tribe: a) says "text soandso is blablabla." b) asks: "what part of the 
text do you base that judgment on?" a) answers, "well, here on page xx, 
the author says, etc.etc."
: Silke:
: > What's your opinion based on?
: Rational and systematic reflection. In other words, concepts alien to you.
Are you imitating Zeleny, Kagalenko, or Beavis? 
This is a very simple matter: you assume to be in a position to pass 
judgment on a text you either haven't read or haven't understood. That 
thing is often frowned upon wherever people engage with philosophy. 
Silke

"Hardy Hulley"  wrote:
>Ken MacIver:
>> Since I am not now or have never been a reader "purporting to support
>> deconstructionishm," I will feel free to ask you this question:  what
>> by Derrida have you read?
>Why should I offer you an answer? I have no desire to be an authority in
>your eyes, nor am I concerned whether or not you consider me credible.
>Consequently, I have nothing to gain.
>Furthermore, your line of questioning is futile, to the extent that I could
>tell you anything, and you'd never be able to verify it. Perhaps you should
>concern yourself a little more with issues and arguments, than with
>name-dropping.
My line of questioning, as you so quaintly put it, has established by
a preponderance of the evidence that you are a fraud and have never
read Derrida.  But, thank you for puffing.
Ken MacIver

: jburrell@crl.com (Jason Burrell)
: I was told by a high school physics instructor (a very bright man,
: incidentally) that, quote, "They tested this.  They took two clocks,
: one on the ground, and put the other in a 747 and flew it around the
: world a couple of times.  After 6 or 8 times around, there was a
: microsecond difference or so in the clocks." He might have been making
: up that anecdote to get the point across, though. 
Note [1], below.  There has been a recent criticism of the statistical
analysis of this experiment, claiming that the statistical analysis
by which the error limits were calculated are invalid, but most don't
take this criticism seriously.  Further, the GPS satellites are going
fast enough, and need enough accuracy, that their clocks need to be
rate-adjusted to account for time dilation (both gravitational and
traditional velocity time dilation).  See the book "Was Einstein Right"
by Clifford Will for other (mostly general relativity and gravity)
cases where relativity has been confirmed.
:: But what I don't understand is how people decided that, because of
:: that theory, we must be able to go forward and backward in time. 
: I believe people are assuming that since the time dilation follows a
: particular curve, and since Einstein theorized that time "stops" when
: you're at c, the natural progression is for time to regress when one
: is travelling in excess of c.  [...]
: Folks correct me if I'm wrong here. 
"You're wrong here."
The time experienced by an object traveling nearer and nearer lightspeed
does indeed approach zero as a limit, but above lightspeed, it becomes
imaginary, not negative.  Thus, the usual "FTL implies time travel" meme
is NOT due to extrapolating time dilation to FTL speeds.  It is,
instead, based on a *different* relativistic effect that most popular
treatments don't mention, what Feynman called "failure of simultaneity
at a distance" in his "Lectures on Physics". 
See also Hinson's FTL page and my own less detailed essay explaining this.
    http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~hinson/ftl/FTL_intro.html
    http://sheol.org/throopw/tachyon-pistols.html
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com
--
[1] Hafele&Keating;, Around-the-World Atomic Clocks Science, 1972 v177, p166-170
    Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains
    During October 1971, four cesium beam atomic clocks were flows on
    regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice,
    once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of
    relativity with macroscopic clocks.  From the actual flight paths of
    each trip, the theory predicts that the flying clocks, compared
    with reference clocks at the U.S.  Naval observatory, should have
    lost 40+-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip, and should have
    gained 275+-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip.  The observed
    time differences are presented in the report that follows this one. 
    Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains
    Four cesium beam clocks flows around the world on commercial jet
    flights during October 1971, once eastward and once westward,
    recorded directionally dependent time differences which are in good
    agreement with predictions of conventional relativity th eory. 
    Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S.  Naval Observatory,
    the flying clocks lost 59+-10 nanoseconds during the eatward trip
    and gained 273+-7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the
    errors are the corresponding standard deviations.  These results
    provide an unambiguous emperical resolution of the famous clock
    "paradox" with macroscopic clocks. 

Reality consists of properties, not objects.
Objects are mind stuff.
If you recursively examine the intensions of any object,
you ultimately end up with a small set of quantum 
( Harmonic ) properties. ( Charge, baryon number,
hyperchatge, spin... ) These harmonic properties
are basically clockwise and counter clockwise cycles
or standing waves.
All of these harmonic properties can be expressed
most simply, and most precisely in terms of time
which is the ratio of two cycles.
    time(X) = cycles(reference)
              -----------------
              cycles(X)
Distance is simply interaction time
( A ratio of cycles. ) multiplied by
a constant we use to differentiate it from
ordinary time which involves the
system, rather than an "object" which is
part of the system.
     distance(X) = interaction time(X) * C
We perceive interactions in terms of "objects"
with "conserved" properties, ( Like mass ) varying in 
"homogenous" or smooth, consistent media ( Like time and space ).
Objects are associated with the property mass
which is just the time-space ( Body A ) associated with the
"object" ( Body B ) that we perceive varying in media.
      mass(A) = distance(body B)^3 * G
                -------------------
                time^2
Note that time is common period, shared by both bodies,
whereas distance is the interaction time from EACH
point where each "object" is perceived to the
point where the system is perceived.
We use the constant "G" to differentiate between
the "object" we perceive as the casual agent
( ie the Sun ), and the affected agent ( ie. the Earth ).
Two bodies interact about a common point in a common
time. The common time is the period, and the two
distances are the interaction times between when
a change is observed at an "object" and a casual
change is observed in the system, which, of course,
is just another object.
For more details on this, visit my Web site.
Tom Potter        http://pobox.com/~tdp