Newsgroup sci.physics 208553

Directory

Silke:
> You misunderstood; do you have an _original_ cite for that?
In other words, I should have been sensitive to your *intentions*, and
not to your words. More decon hypocrisy, perhaps?
Silke:
> 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."
I'll leave theories concerning my vocation (and all other facile
speculation) in your very capable care. The rest of your paragraph
attests only to your deficient comprehension. Firstly, I made no claim
of the form "text soandso is blablabla". I made a claim about
deconstructionism as a philosophical movement (a potent oxymoron) - as
such, I am free to corroborate my statement by appealing to any informed
authority on philosophical movements in general. Secondly, you did not
ask: "What part of the text do you base that judgement on"? Your
question was: "Do you have a cite for that"? I supplied such. The word
"text" hadn't entered into the exchange, until your ill-considered
reply, above.
The subject of discussion was the foundations of a particular movement,
not the content of any particular "text", as you imply. Your attempt to
subvert it is dishonest. You may well plead stupidity instead, however -
your voluntary association with Derrida could plausibly be evaluated in
this light.
Silke:
>>> What's your opinion based on?
Hardy:
>> Rational and systematic reflection. In other words, concepts alien to 
>> you.
Silke:
> Are you imitating Zeleny, Kagalenko, or Beavis?
I'm sure all of the above will be pleased to hear that you consider them
models of "rational and systematic reflection".
> 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.
On which text have I passed judgement, now? If the mysterious text to
which you refer is unintelligible, then I may quite justly judge it so -
without understanding it (in fact, not understanding it is a
prerequisite for this)... but, then again, you haven't been specific
about what my alleged judgment was, either.
> That thing is often frowned upon wherever people engage with 
> philosophy.
Then there is no apparent reason why *you* should be frowning.
Before I leave you to be a pretentious adherent of French
pseudo-intellectuals on sombody else's time, why don't you ruminate upon
the following (in your customary bovine manner). Of the authors I
quoted, Grayling and Scruton, in particular, are well respected figures.
Grayling has published work on Wittgenstein (the closest that authentic
philosophy ever gets to Derrida) to his credit, while Scruton is an
acknowledged authority on Kant (as far as this is possible). Now, either
their descriptions of deconstructionism are basically correct, or else
accomplished thinkers are incapable of grasping it. The latter would
certainly lend some weight to my evaluation of the meaningfulness of
Derrida's contributions.
Cheers,
Hardy

> Dick Brewster wrote:
> >
> > Marc-Etienne Vargenau wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > One of the problems with the US adopting the SI is that they do not understand it
> > > and often break the rules. I visited the Petrified Forest National Park this summer.
> > > The signs giving the distances inside the park were given in both SI and obsolete
> > > units, and the SI units were even given first. Good. Unfortunately, the sign read :
> > > "16 KM, 10 MI" (instead of "16 km").
> >
> > Good God!  What a terrible event.  Let me apologize for my entire country.  I
> > sincerely hope you weren't caused any permanent emotional damage from that
> > experience.
Well, there are worse things. The first thing I saw when going to
england was a sign on
the road indicating some distance as 2m . Now, beeing used to SI
Units...
After some seconds I figured that they meant miles and the sign made
sense to me.
But the truly bad things are all the self invented abbreviations like
cms, gms or kph which
mean something totally different when interpreted properly.
Tolerating these mistakes usually gives the impression that SI is
basically
like the old system, which is untrue.
In order to get its full merit (especially for rapidly linking different
units
together in calculations) you just HAVE to use them correctly. Otherwise
it just means
driving an air conditioned car but ignoring the air conditioning and
using a stove instead.
Volker

In article <56hrmr$1jj6@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>
ale2@psu.edu (ale2) writes:
> > 
> > Consider an infinite 3 dimensional system of masses and springs such
> > that each mass has six springs attached to it in a symmetric fashion,
> > and all the masses are hooked together by the springs and form a cubic
> > array. This is the system one considers as a simple model of vibrations
> > in solids?
> > 
> > Now transform the above system:
> > 
> > 1) replace each spring with an inductor and capacitor in series,
> > 
> > 2) each mass is replaced with one end of a capacitor and the other end
> > of the capacitor is grounded.
> > 
For more fun make both the inductor and capacitor in 1) above, variable
and variable independently of all others (let it change with time?).
Changing the capacitance in a region has the effect of changing the
"potential" (but with a twist?) and changing the inductance in a region
has the effect of changing the effective mass (but with a twist?).

Peter Diehr wrote:
> 
> You cannot derive Planck's constant from Maxwell's equations. The original derivation
> was "by extraction from experimental data", followed by a theoretical procedure that
> showed how black body radiation is distributed. Nobody understood 
> what this all meant,
> including Planck (1900).  Einstein found a use for Planck's 
> relation, E = h*frequency,
> in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect.
> 
> But the photoelectric effect cannot be derived from classical electromagnetism; it is
> new physics.  h appears only when quantum physics is present.
>
> Robert Fung wrote: 
> >
> > I've only read something to this effect by Dirac something like:
> > theta * E - E * theta = ih for a component of the superposition.
> >
> 
> This is a commutator relationship; it is pure quantum mechanics.
> 
> > >
> > > If you are able to fully specifiy the electromagnetic field, then one of
> > > the quantum properties is that you no longer know how many photons you have!
> > > That is, the photon number is not an eigenvalue of the electromagnetic field.
> >
> >         I guess this is the case when the source is switched on and off and
> >         the resulting wave packet contains energy larger than one hbar*w_o
> >         yielding many coherent, phase-related photons ?
> >
> 
> No, as far as I know, you can never be sure that you have only one photon.
            It's implied that this is the case in this recent work:
            http://p23.lanl.gov/Quantum/kwiat/ifm-folder/ifmtext.htm
> Take a course (or two) in quantum mechanics to find out how
> this all works.  It's a nice way to while away the time!
           Perhaps this is a more pedagogical description of the 
           applicability of photons ? :
           The Nyquist limit:
                 delta w * delta t >= 1/2
           leads to a sampling limit of twice the frequency of the 
           highest frequency component of a signal.
           The corresponding HUP eq is:
                 delta E * delta t >= h
           since  E=hw. 
           But what does this mean ? E=hw is a continuous function
           of E for w. It only applies when matter e.g. the Bohr      
           model of electron shells etc. is involved ?
           That is, in something called free-space, the E=hw
           is useless ? 
           Is this the "tree falling in the forest" paradigm ?
           A magnet surrounded by iron filings exhibits magnetic
           field quantization nicely I think. When the field passes
           through uniform spread of filings the filings move into
           Faraday lines. Why ?  The filings bunch 
           together into the Faraday lines. They quantize in this 
           way because the magnetic field prefers to go through
           the filings rather than free space. This leaves a 
           magnetic depletion zone between the lines where filings 
           were, while additional filings placed in these zones
           will move into the existing lines.
           The question is, whether the magnetic field is quantized
           in such a way in "free-space" rather than a continuously
           varying field strength ? 
           Is the magnetic field continuous if we don't look at it ?

 When you move with certain speed compared to a pre-defined time-frame
(for example the earth)  you will experience time-dillations, that is,
your time will run "faster" than the time in the time-frame (the
earth). This is the idea behind the famous "Twin-paradox", this effect
will occur at ANY speed but you can't detect it unless you are
traveling at a very high speeds (remember that we are talking about
velocity COMPARED  to something else)
Time-dillation will also occur in gravity-fields and that is the
reason why clocks at diffrent altitudes will run at diffrent speeds
(the clock at the highest altitude will run slower).
Now to the second part. You can't  reach velocitys higher than c (that
is the whole  point behind the theory of relativity) so there is no
way you can travel backwards in time just by going fast enough, BUT it
may be possible to go back in time using timedistortions caused by
extremely strong gravity fields, this is the idea that for example
Kurt Godel used when he "designed" a time machine and it is also the
principle behind the famous(?) "Tippling cylinder", however none of
these designs can be used to build a real time machine (The
Tippling-design uses infinte long cylinders and Godels design uses
other mathematical tricks) .
Both the time-dillation effect at diffrent altitudes and the effect at
diffrent speeds have been tested many times and the reslut matches
those predicted by the theory of relativity (your High school teatcher
was right exept for the fact that they didn't use a 747, they used the
a Concorde...)
I hope this somewhat confusing explanation can be of some use.
Tobias Lindström 
physics student at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
(sorry about the lousy english...) 

pain wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>  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"
If you are an American, you boycott Cuba and prosecute anyone else that
doesn't.
Dave
from Canada, eh.

In article <56c3ou$sng@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>
ale2@psu.edu (ale2) writes:
> If i plug Iain Mains book twenty more times he said he might get me a
> free copy (not).
(Make that nineteen more times)
> 
> In Iain Main's book "Vibration and Waves in Physics" he considers the
> physics of the anchored string. Now what gives me goosebumps about this
> system is that it has the same frequency wavelength relationship as a
> massive quanta in one dimension!
You also forgot to mention what about the above also gives you
goosebumps. The example which Iain Main uses is of a string under
tension, anchored at two points, and with a bunch of springs attached
to the string which give it an additional sideways restoring force. All
the springs in his example all lie in a single plane (that plane also
contains the string). Now for the goosebumps. If the string lies in say
the z axis, the string will have two fundamentally different modes of
vibration:
1) the string moves in the plane containing the springs ("massive"
modes),
2) the string moves in the plane perpendicular to the plane containing
the springs ("massless" modes)!
3) almost forgot the longitudinal modes of vibration (also "massless")
> 
> (children and mental midgets are easily impressed)
> 
> A while back i asked the readers of sci.physics to come up with a
> physical system which has the same frequency wavelength relationship as
> a massive quanta in 3 dimensions. Well either no one cared about my
> question or they did not see it (i've been kilefiled?) ?
> 
> I think i have something now that works ?
Yes, i think the below might work, but your three-dimensional system of
inductors and capacitors no longer has massless modes like Iain Mains
example with the anchored string. Please try a little harder!
> 
> Consider an infinite 3 dimensional system of masses and springs such
> that each mass has six springs attached to it in a symmetric fashion,
> and all the masses are hooked together by the springs and form a cubic
> array. This is the system one considers as a simple model of vibrations
> in solids?
> 
> Now transform the above system:
> 
> 1) replace each spring with an inductor and capacitor in series,
> 
> 2) each mass is replaced with one end of a capacitor and the other end
> of the capacitor is grounded.
> 
> Now perturb the system at some small region (apply an oscillating
> voltage at a point where one of the masses once was) for a long time
> with less than some critical frequency and energy is not absorbed after
> steady state is reached, but increase the frequency above the critical
> value and energy propagates out of the small region?
> 

odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
>     You can determine whether any of the buoys is at absolute rest by
> shining a laser in all directions. If any of the beams is deflected,
> you know you are in motion. If you adjust your velocity so that none of
> the laser beams is deflected, you will then be at absolute rest. I
Well, you will be at rest relative to that buoy; in other words, at
relative rest.  Let me put it this way: I adjust my velocity as you say,
keeping my eye on buoy 1 and its laser emitters, until none of buoy 1's
beams are deflected.  I then notify Starfleet Command that I am at
Absolute Rest.  Meanwhile, you adjust your velocity in exactly the same
manner, but the buoy you are looking at is buoy 2 (which, as we said before,
appears to be traveling at +10 velocity units in the frame determined by
buoy 1).  When none of buoy 2's beams appear deflected, you in turn
notify Starfleet Command that you are at absolute rest.
SC now has a problem.  We both _claim_ to be at absolute rest, but we
also both agree that the _other_ fellow is moving, from our points of view.
(Uggh, baddish grammar, my apologies:  _I_ claim that you are moving from
my point of view; _you_ claim that I am moving from your point of view.)
And it should be clear that SC also agrees that we are moving at different
speeds, which doesn't seem consistent with a claim that _each_ of us is at
absolute rest.  (I am avoiding the issue of whether SC thinks the difference
in our sppeds is just 10 velocity units, as in Galilean transformations,
or some other number, determined by Lorentz or some other transformations.
The point is we don't appear to be moving at the same speed.)
So... The question is...
1) Are we both wrong in claiming to be at absolute rest?
or
2) Is one of us right in claiming to be at absolute rest, while the other
   is wrong?
2) seems indefensible to me.  (Imagine the whole thing being videotaped;
buoy 1 is on the left, say, and buoy 2 is on the right, as we watch the
tape back home.  As a precaution against the videocamera blowing up or
whatever, a second tape was made, but from the other side - in this tape
buoy 2 is on the left, and buoy 1 is on the right.  That was the idea anyway,
but Oops! Someone forgot to paint the 1 and 2 on the buoys!  Can we tell
by looking at the videotapes which is which?  (The ships, lasers, etc, are
identical, and the tape is low-budget so that you can't make out the
stars too well, only the ships, lasers, & buoys.)
1) means that either we need a third buoy & ship to define absolute rest
(in which case you can wipe me & buoy 1 out of the picture, and you are
left with an identical situation with two dudes & two buoys), or else
absolute rest cannot be defined via this operational procedure.
> think that light's speed is always the same. However, since, in my
> opinion, it is possible to determine absolute velocity, light's speed
> relative to moving objects varies. If you are moving at .5c and emit
> light in the direction you are traveling, the velocity of the light is
> still c, but relative to the ship it is .5c. Similarly, if you are
> moving toward a light source at .5c, the source emits light at c, but
> relative to you the speed is 1.5c. The light is not moving toward you
> at 1.5c, but you must take into account that you are moving toward the
> light source at .5c. You would therefore be able to determine that you
> are closing at 1.5c. This is because it is possible to determine one's
> absolute velocity. If you couldn't, then you would have to use Special
> Relativity.
> 
> Regards,
> Edward Meisner
I'm not sure about the rest of this...
Cheers,
Darrin

In article <328BAA68.4B82@mhv.net>, lepore@mhv.net says...
>
>Why can't it simply be that ice has a very low coefficient of
>friction?  Why is anything special presumed to happen beneath 
>the ice skate blades?
A coefficient of friction is macro generalisation.  A measure 
of other phenomena going at a micro scale.  There is some other 
cause with the coeff being the effect.
Dave Roussel

ale2@psu.edu (ale2) enunciated:
>Has the following experiment been performed ?
>I think i have read somewhere that experiments can now be performed
>such that the uncertainty of conjugate pairs of variables approach the
>limits set by the Uncertainty Principle?
>Say one can do such an experiment where the measured uncertainty in
>pairs of conjugate variables is extremely close to the theoretical
>limit set by the Uncertainty Principle, if there was some small
>uncertainty in the Uncertainty Principle might one have a small chance
>of measuring a violation of the Uncertainty Principle?
>I'm uncertain, %^(...      Thanks for any thoughts?
Anytime parts of a whole are observed the whole can not be observed.
Anytime a whole is observed the parts are not, of it would no longer
be a whole. Take it micro and the perspective of observation is even
more pronounced. Observe a two wave system, one where a positive wave
and an anti-positive wave reside. One can not observe both at the same
time. And one can not extrapolate the potential of neutrality when the
two are separated by negative. It would have taken the negative to
cause neutrality. So,.... without going into the momentum and position
argument. No. 
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

Out of courtesy to possible newcomers -- in the dark about the
controversy which has been raging since last March -- a bit
of information follows:
The dynamite was ignited by Ted Holden when, as part
of HIS home page, he posted:
>  http://access.digex.com/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
which is entitled:
>                       PETRIFIED HUMAN/HOMIND
>                      AND OTHER LARGE ANIMAL
>                 BONE IN CARBONIFEROUS STRATA
This page was prepared totally by Ted, but it permitted
me to have my own say in the matter at
>  http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/contest1.htm
which is entitled:
>                          MAN AS OLD AS COAL
Just recently, Ted added two color photos I had sent him, of what I
claim is a petrified human skull embedded in -- and protruding from --
a boulder which had been extracted from between anthracite veins
near Shenandoah, Pa., during a surface-mining operation.
The boulder is mentioned deep into Ted's home page and can be called
up for viewing by turning to:
>    http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skulla.jpg
A second photo offers a comparison with the contour of a human
skull and can be seen at:
>   http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/skullb.jpg
I should like to note that both Andrew MacRae of the Univerity of
Calgary and Paul Myers of Temple University have home pages of their
own concerning some of this subject matter.
Their material can easily be found by using Netscape.
Since I have never prepared a home page --- and, quite frankly, don't
know how to do so -- I was never in a position to include references
to the home pages of either Andrew MacRae or Paul Myers on the pages
that, loosely translated, are mine.
The bottom line in the controversy so far -- at least I think so -- is
the insistence by Andrew MacRae and Paul Myers that their microscopic
evaluation of the cell structure of a few of my specimens they had
examined does not reveal the presence of Haversian systems.
I have kept telling them that they can look 'til they're blue in the
face because they'll never see the structures surrounding the
Haversian canals as is clearly evident in non-petrified bone.
They don't seem to get the message that, quite simply, the process
of petrification has caused the surrounding structure to disappear,
leaving only the Haversian canals as the proof that the rock-like
objects are bone.
A comparison of photos of the cell structure of non-petrified bone and
the cell structure of one of my specimens can be seen at:
>      http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/c2.jpg
Additionally, a comparison of the interior surface features of
non-petrified bone and one of my specimens -- taken with a scanning
electron microscope (SEM) -- can be viewed at:
>     http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/bones.jpg

> For Andrew MacRae and Paul Myers:
Let's get down to brass tacks.
Both of you have been incredibly cynical about my claim of having
discovered petrified bone of large land animals -- including man --
between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata where
established science insists it certainly doesn't belong.
Both of you, because of your special interests (and buoyed with the
challenge of shutting me up to score some valuable points  with your
colleagues), have been especially critical about these findings.
At this point in time, you have had numerous opportunities to see the
skull-like object embedded in the boulder which I insist is, beyond
all doubt, The World's Most Important Fossil, a human skull dating
back to the coal formations.
Do you still adamantly insist that the object embedded in the boulder
is nothing more than a concretion, a rock?
Do you still vehemently deny that it bears no resemblance -- none
whatsoever -- to a human skull?
To make it easy on yourself, I have written two answers (listed
below).
All you need do is pick one, then post it on talk.origins. Nothing
could be easier!
>                              (Answer No. 1)
Attention Asshole:
Your boulder and the different colored stuff in the center is a
concretion and bears NO resemblance -- none whatsoever _
to a human skull.
You're a lunatic, a bloomin' idiot and a dipshit.
As one of the posters stated, someday the ``men in the white coats"
will knock on your door and cart you away. It'll be what you deserve.
You've got nothing, pal. No petrified bones! No petrified soft organs!
No nothing! You're a  phony!  And your ``discoveries" are phonier than
you are.
I think I've made myself perfectly clear.
                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                                     Answer No. 2
Ed, I've examined the photos of the boulder rather carefully and have
come to the conclusion that, whatever is embedded in the center, it
certainly does bear a distinct resemble to the contour of a human
skull.
Of course, ``looking like" and ``being" are horses of different fire
departments. A confirmation -- either way -- will require considerable
testing.
In fact,  maybe an answer will still be inconclusive until the boulder
is broken apart to examine what is really inside.
Meanwhile, I realize I've given you a very hard time and  have to
admit, rather sheepishly, that my opinion of the cell structure of the
specimens I had examined microscopically was a bit off base.
After all, I frankly admit I've never examined petrified bone before,
therefore really don't know if you're correct in claiming that the
surrounding structure of the Haversian systems vanishes as a result
of the petrification process.
As for your collection of specimens found in the coal fields, I hope
you realize that I've been dismissing them as concretions -- nothing
more than naturally shaped rocks -- because this has been the party
line for the longest time (and most often in the past it has proven to
be correct).
But never before, to my mind, has anyone ever come up with such a wide
assortment of specimens that seem to bear a resemblance to bone and
even soft organs.
I will admit, if you had found only a half-dozen or so, I definitely
wouldn't make such a statement. But you claim that you've discovered
80,000 and, although I first chuckled about your arithmetic, I now
realize it's no tall tale.
What amazes me even further is that, as you've mentioned on the
internet, every one of the specimens is different (although a few are
somewhat siimiliar contour but of different sizes).
I'd say you have what you claim you have because you certainly 
have been producing intriguing specimens, one after another after
another.
In retrospect, I apologize for being so sarcastic and reving up my
colleagues by debunking your noble cause which, if I can believe you,
is neither fame nor fortune but to give mankind a basic truth about
our species.
Documentation that man is indeed as old as coal -- that our roots
extend far beyond that of the earliest inhuman primates of 65 million
years ago --  would be welcome news to all of humanity, especially in
these dismal times when, because we think we're nothing special, we
seem to have lost all respect for ourselves and our fellow man.
YES, it is my humble opinion that the object embedded in the boulder
does INDEED resemble a human skull.
I truly hope you will understand why I've done what I had to do and
will let bygones be bygones.
Meanwhile, I'd like you to know I would welcome the opportunity to
become an active participant in your further research.
.
You've said you bear no animosity against folks like me who have given
you such a hard time. If I can believe you -- and I do -- maybe we can
work together to help give mankind a wonderful gift of knowledge about
itself as we prepare to set foot into the 21st century.

slarsson@bccancer.bc.ca (Stephan Larsson) wrote:
>pain  wrote:
>
>
>>>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 ?
>
>Surely, nobody has ever been abused by the Japanese?
 Say that to the Koreans, for instance!
 During WWII, a number of countries were occupied by Japan. The
policies of racial supremacy the Japanese pursued there are
horrendous.
 Do you really believe that racism is a "White" invention ?
Cheers
Mario "the froggie"

Does anyone know the temporal properties of the typical phospher
used to coat monitors?
Thanks
Dan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read".  It would be inappropriate for anyone to interfere with the
propagation of these articles based only on this 'bot's notices.
You can find the software to process these notices at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW
site: http://www.cm.org.  This 'bot is not affiliated with the CM[TM].
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers:
  1 Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.93
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Delete: no
Count: 1
Notice-ID: spncm1996319122108
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<56g2t1$pq7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.logic
	sci.math
	sci.physics
	alt.computer.consultants
	comp.edu
	comp.lang.basic.misc
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMoxgNoz0ceX+vLURAQFF6QP/WbLdiFgJ0vd9jDeHj3yIV1AOsicfLpbt
9mhojk/Wy75AAuGmfqHnPVxkRafPG2rrc+oLXo4rmf42oQtfHBcRrgpTrE4rQ00r
34Tg0XRAgaxKq7I6pJPIQIFu8i4LYV8sWlqKTlfUop7ZonYOWmS+T/UsGIuRyOhO
7M9kp12JgOA=
=HxaE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

D.J. wrote:
> Just curious. Do you know where to find a legitimate shortened version
> of the Ten Commandments (Thy shall not steal..etc.) on the Internet?
> Ive searched everywhere from Moses to Mount Sanai but all I get are
> ridiculous versions modified for the benifit of some company or
> individual.  Any Ideas?  Also I agree.  I do believe we were somehow
> genetically manufactured or something like that.
> 
> derek@mail.balista.com
The Ten Commandments 
 1  You shall have no other gods before Me. 
 2  You shall not make for yourself any carved idols. 
 3  You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. 
 4  Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 
 5  Honor your father and your mother, that you may have long life. 
 6  You shall not murder. 
 7  You shall not commit adultery. 
 8  You shall not steal. 
 9  You shall not lie. 
10  You shall not covet. 
Exodus 20:3-17 
-- 
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

In article <328BDD87.6A4F@nwu.edu> brian artese  writes:
>>>Just because a speaker has doubts about how a listener will receive his
>>>statements does not mean he does not say what he planned to say.
>> 
>> No, but it does imply that he has doubt about the message received, and
>> thus an implicit recognition that the same text/words can convey 
>> multiple
>> messages (substitute the word "meaning" if you prefer) -- and thus
>> that there is a functional and logical difference between the words
>> and the intended message.
>
>The reason you're confused is that sometimes you use the word 'message' to 
>refer to an actual articulation, and other times you use it to mean 
>something that 'gave birth' to an actual articulation -- and you jump from 
>one to the other without being aware of it.
Well, no.  I'm very clear and precise in this distinction, having just
submitted a paper to a major linguistics journal on almost exactly
this topic as it relates to various typological and analytic aspects
of linguistics.
Let me be perfectly clear.
The "message" is a message in a Shannon-theoretic sense; it is the
information received (and presumably acted upon).  It is, presumably,
largely language and dialect independent and to a large degree speaker
independent as well.  It is realized only in the mind of the framer and to
a lesser and potentially-distorted extent in the mind of the hearer(s).
The "articulation" (or the words uttered) are the encoding of the message
for a particular communications channel; it is language, dialect, speaker
(and hearer) dependent, and exists in a physical sense as well -- for
example, words on a page or disturbances in the air that can be picked
up by a tape recorder.
Note that the "message" also exists in a sense that is scientifically
testable; it's not simply a concept that exists only in some unfalsifiable
Platonic Empyrean.  Shannon's experiments with noisy channel capacity,
Hamming's theorems on error-correction, and (more recently) my own work
on linguistic complexity are all evidence that the ``message'' exists
in a scientific-but-possibly non-physical sense.  (This, for example,
the same sense in which an encryption function can be said to exist.
That's actually a pretty good metaphor and you should hang on to it.)
Anyway, that's all approximately what I said here :
>> The message is what is received in the mind of the hearer.  The words
>> uttered are, well, the words uttered.
See?  No terminological confusion.
>
>Now, we both agree that, barring any aural mistakes, when I say 'Dave 
>Thomas is a Bastard,' what you as a listener first 'receive in your mind' 
>are the words 'Dave Thomas is a Bastard.'  In other words, you know 
>perfectly well *what* I said -- that is, you heard the message.
No.  I heard the *articulation*.  I have to interpret it to realize
the *message*.
>Properly 
>speaking, this *articulation* is what constitutes the reality of a 
>message.
Flatly and utterly wrong.  Again, see Shannon or Hamming.
>So when you say that you might 'hear the wrong message,' what you mean is 
>that the message may conjure a set of associations for you that are 
>completely alien to the associations that *my* thoughts had attached to 
>the message.
Well, no.  I mean that you interpret the articulation to yield the wrong
message.  But you're at least in the right ballpark.
>Notice that in the explanation above -- and in the real world -- there are 
>_only_ articulations that may or may not give rise to other articulations 
>via metonymy.  What you're calling the 'intended meaning' of an 
>articulation exists only as a finite set of words and/or phrases that 
>makes the articulation appropriate in a given context.
Where did "finite" or "appropriate" slip in?  The "intended meaning" is
the information I intended to convey; the information may or may not
have been conveyed successfully (as both speech and text are not
error-free channels -- and as you [correctly] point out, context is a
significant part of the articulation->message mapping.)
It's also not necessary that either a message or an articulation (broadly
defined) exist as a linguistic entity -- I can convey a message quite
well by, for example, crooking my finger at someone to indicate "come
here" or throwing a dish at someone to indicate displeasure.
[snip]
>>> In other words, "the author cannot say what he means to say." Isn't it
>>> ironic that this is exactly the claim that people think deconstruction 
>>> makes?
>> 
>> Right.  Isn't it ironic that from this (self-evident) claim,
>> deconstructionists seem to jump to the conclusion that the text is
>> primary over the inferred intent, and that any interpretation that can
>> be screwed out of the text is valid -- and equally valid with any other
>> interpretation, regardless of (e.g.) consistency with the author's
>> avowed meaning or other writings?
>
>By the way, do you not see how your use of the term 'avowal' proves my 
>point?  As you yourself suggest, the 'final say' about 'what an author 
>means' is located in what he avowes -- i.e. what he explicitly 
>articulates.  Here -- and in all cases -- 'meaning' or 'intent' is to be 
>found only in such an articulation, not in some mysterious 'source' that 
>is not itself an articulation.
Here again, you're focusing on the text instead of the intended meaning,
(I conjecture) as a result of a self-imposed blindness to the possibility
that there is a message underlying the articulation of the words.  I
don't see the words "final say" which you think you're quoting -- and as
a matter of fact, I specifically allow for (at least) *two* ways by which
an (inferred) message can be disproven, one from the author's disavowal
and another from consistency with other writings.
E.g. :
 (i) Sam went to the bank.
(ii) Suzy went to the bank, too;
(iii) she wanted to see how high the water level was to see if she could go
swimming.
Is it reasonable to infer from these three articulations, in this proximity,
that the same meaning for the word "bank" (as the edge of a river) is
intended?  (Empirically, it certainly is.)  In this case, if you infer
from articulation (i) that I [the author] intended to convey a message
compatible with "Sam went to a financial institution," you've got more
than enough evidence to disabuse yourself of that inference *without* an
explicit disavowal.  (Here I refer you to the work of Yarowsky, Church,
and Gale on "one sense per discourse.")
In the case of an explicit statement about the author's meaning (e.g. "No, no,
you idiot, that's not what I meant at all!"), that articulation itself
should convey a message -- probably a message compatible with
the idea that the author thinks that (what she sees as) the message you
interpreted from her prior articulation is not the message that she
intended.  And so a skilled listener/reader will attempt to reconcile
the message he believed that he (originally) received with the new
information that the author thinks he received.  (More formally, of
course, "interpreted from the articulation he received".)  The easiest
way to do this reconciliation, of course, is to abandon the prior
message and reinterpret the original articulation.
To briefly recap : People don't sense messages, they sense articulations
and infer messages from them.  The underlying messages exist in a
testable scientific sense -- and communication between people is
primarily a process of message exchange having primacy over articulation
exchange.  The speaker has a message she intends to convey, which may or
may not map identically onto the message the hearer infers from the
communications channel.  To assume that there is no such thing as the
"intended message" and that the set of articulations is all that exists
can be naively, theoretically, and/or empirically falsified.
	Patrick

tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) wrote:
>I was under the impression that Gibberish came about after the isolation
>of gibberelic acid, a plant mutagen.
To achieve such a result, you must, of course, first double, then
square it and plant the result in a pool of gibberelic underneath a
shifting, springing footnote.
ken

>           New Book Available--Download for Free
>   Provocative, Educational, Entertaining, Enlightening
>
>             THE FATHER OF THE NEUTRON BOMB,
>           THE MOST MORAL WEAPON EVER INVENTED:
>     The Life and Times of the Neutron Bomb Inventor,
>                       Sam Cohen
>
>Sam Cohen is retired after a forty year career in nuclear 
>weapon issues. 
	During the Gulf War build up, there appeared some 45 vcolumns in
the N.Y. and L.A. Times calling for the U.S. to bash Israel's enemy
Iraq.
	Of the 45 columns, 42 of them were by Jews.
	One of them was Sam Cohen.
	He called for using the neutron bomb. 
	"Use Neutron Bomb on Iraq?"
	The answer was yes.

 wrote:
>> glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long) writes:
>> [stuff deleted]
>Yes, I was reminded of this by Jim Carr.  The resonance points out that
>secondary elastic effects are happening caused by charge, spin and strong
>forces  a one unique energy.  No  relation to the neutrino theory, as
>FAIK.
  They're really inelastic effects, and in a sense they are actually 
part of the neutrino theory (aka Standard Model).
>> 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. 
>
>Gordon, we know why the photon travels at *c* on account of Maxwell's 
>equations.  What is the mechanism for the neutrino to travel at *c*?
>
>It is the wave nature of light that allows increasing (or decreasing)  the
>photon energy by  scattering.  The photon is subjected  to a scattering
>*decrease* in energy as it climbs out of the sun's interior.  The neutrino
>theory would have us believe that the neutrino does not scatter on it's
>way out of the sun!!!!   The  neutrino theory apparently does not allow a
>neutrino wave nature.  Without a wave nature,  the neutrino cannot acquire
>(or lose) energy in the same fashion as the photon.  
  Oh my.  I hadn't quite realized the extent of misunderstanding.  Well, 
let me try to clarify a few points:
 1. Massless neutrinos travel at *c* because they're massless.  
This is true for any massless particle, not just neutrinos and 
photons.
 2. The process that gives rise to a photon losing energy (as it 
passes through the sun, for example) can also lead to an increase 
in the photon's energy.  This process is known as scattering.  
 3. Neutrinos can scatter in the same manner (or almost the same 
manner) as photons.  They just don't scatter quite so often.
 4. Neutrinos do have a wave nature, whether or not they have 
mass.  By the same token, they also have a particle nature, again 
regardless of whether they have mass.  The same is true of photons.
  Of course, none of this is tremendously relevant to the fact that, as 
you increase the flux of the incident neutrino beam, you will observe 
more neutrino scattering events.
>> On the other hand, if the neutrino 
>>is massive, adding energy does not increase its mass, it just increases 
>>its energy.
>
>Yes, sorry. Should have said (mass energy) increase.  With a small mass
>adding energy to the neutrino should give the neutrino  an enormous
>DeBroglie wavelength and allow it to scatter quite handily.
>
  Adding energy (or momentum) to a neutrino decreases its DeBroglie
wavelength; it does not increase it (lambda = h/p).  Think about it --
if it were otherwise, adding energy would increase the cross section even
in the absence of a resonance, which you yourself pointed out was not the
case.  But the main reason for the small neutrino cross section is that
neutrinos can only interact weakly (i.e. via the weak force), and not
strongly or electromagnetically.
  I hope this cleared up at least a few points.
    - Gordon
--
#include 
Gordon Long                      |  email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE                         |    
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland)  |