Newsgroup sci.physics 208672

Directory

>glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long)writes:
 wrote:
>> [stuff deleted]
>>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.
Gordon, the frightening thing about your statement is that it seems to
satisfy everyone.  Motion of the photon is a function of the wave nature
of the photon.  The photon and photon alone has the mechanism for motion
at *c* by it's own bootstraps.  Simply assigning *zero* mass does not
provide a *cause*  mechanism for travel at *c*.  
 Anyway, the jury is still out on whether the neutrino has zero mass or
not, and the only other proposed masseless *particles* are the 
theoretical ones (gluons and gravitons).
> 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.  
Yes, Compton scattering loses energy, Doppler shift can  add energy.
> 3. Neutrinos can scatter in the same manner (or almost the same 
>manner) as photons.  They just don't scatter quite so often.
How can the neutrino  have a wave nature and not scatter as often as a 
photon with the same wavelength?   
> 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.
Is the neutrino  wavelength equal to (lambda = c h/Joule)? 
>  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.
The caveat is *if* the neutrino can travel at *c* and penetrate light
years of lead.
>> 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. 
Yes, that is my point, there are terrible inconsistencies in neutrino
theory vs *claimed* experiment results. 
> 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.
Again, I am seeking the mechanism that would make it so for the neutrinos.
 > 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)  |
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.  See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
         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

mellyrn@enh.nist.gov wrote:
> 
> In a previous article, lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> ->Im Artikel <328B52A7.17B5299F@alcyone.com>
> ->
> ->>I guess they didn't learn that in the Autodynamics school.
> ->>(Amusingly enough, there answers aren't even write.)
> ->
> ->Cool, too bucks in one line :-)
> ->
> ->This has been fascinating me since I read s.p.: First I observed myself
> ->spelling words wrong b/c there existed another word with the same or
> ->almost the same pronounciation, and I thought it happened to me only b/c
> ->I'm not a native speaker. But then I realized I happens to others just the
> ->same (whom I suspect to be natives :-). The most common pairs being
> ->twisted are AFAICT:
> ->
> ->their / there
> ->right / write
> ->to / too / two
> ->of / off
> ->then / than
> ->
> ->And some of the most prominent are definitely not just spelling errors,
> ->e.g. _their_ vs. _there_. This indicates to me that we do not think in
> ->written syllables, but in 'heard' ones, thus sound is by far more
> ->important to speech then scripture. Which of course devalidates another
> ->argument in the 'metric' thread: the notion that differentiating between
> ->'meter' and 'metre' would be of any help to distinguish between the device
> ->and the measure. IMO spelling in the english language is the most
> ->prohibitive barrier to this otherwise (in its *basics*) easy to learn
> ->language - always in rememberance of GBS' cheap shot: How'dya spell
> ->"fish"? Yup, "GHOTI"! Comments?
> 
> AFAIK, the concept of orthography, the idea that words should be
> spelled in one and only one way, is fairly recent.  Over in the
> "How much math?" thread, folx have argued that math is being used
> to keep the unclean masses out of the sacred temple of science; it
> seems to me that orthography can be used the same way, to separate
> the Learned from the ignorant.  I am living proof that this is silly
> -- I am "eulexic"; I spell better than my spell-checker; if you
> judge people's worth on how well they conform to spelling standards,
> then I must seem one of the Greatest People in the English-speaking
> World.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't find my way out of the proverbial paper bag.
> 
> So, even though spelling correctly is one of the few things I do
> really well (or maybe because of it?), I find it difficult to
> support the idea that orthography is in any way essential, or even
> significant, to "real" education.  There are precious few occasions
> when a nonstandard spelling seriously corrupts the intended meaning;
> as lbsys@aol.com notes, we *do* "think in 'heard' syllables" and as
> long as a familiar sound can be worked out, so can the intended
> meaning.
> 
> It's possible that orthography might help to brake linguistic
> diversification; otherwise one day New-Jerseyese might write "bk"
> and North-Carolinian might write "boowuck", and a speaker of
> Californian might never know that "book" was meant in each case.
> 
> That in no way explains why Americans put gravy on their "biscuits"
> and the English dip theirs in tea, though.
> 
> ---mellyrn
> -----------------------------------------------------
> speaking only for myself
But if you don't spell at least reasonably well people will stop trying 
to figure out what you are trying to say and go on and read something 
else.  I personally like to try to write well enough that people will 
read what I say, instead of giving up on it.  
You make a good point about orthography helping to unify the language.  
With consistent spelling it becomes easier for people from all over to 
communicate with one another.
As to why some Americans put gravy on their biscuits, I have no idea.  I 
am an American, and it makes no sense to me.  I can understand butter 
and jelly, but not gravy.
Bill Gill

moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:

> 
> Anton:
> 
> >But I am not attacking you! 
> >However, I am glad that you state publicly that you feel so. You see, 
> >I simply used your style to post loaded statements without telling
> >anyone that I loaded them with private meanings. You are not overly
> >bright, remember :-).
> 
>    Trouble is, that's not my style -- it's an accusation you've repeated
> countless times.  You have yet to substantiate it.  I don't even know how
> you came up with it, in the first place -- but as I said, you're in the
> habit of making groundless attacks, and you're not always coherent, so
> I've pretty much given up trying to make sense out of what you say.
> 
You posted statements like Newton is wrong without telling people 
you have a different notion of wrong. I did the same with 
"not overly bright", not telling you what my notion of overly bright is. 
Not the same style?
> >As to inveterate liar: There is sufficient evidence that you have very
> >peculiar notions of true, false, right, wrong, correct....
> >Your claim that Newton is as wrong as Ptolemy, for instance. It transpires
> >that for you Newton is always wrong (except if v=0 or c=infinite), because
> >the slightest deviation in the millionth decimal means its wrong.
>    You have no any idea what I was saying, even though I explained it
> repeatedly.  Or maybe you prefer to set up a strawman.   Comes to the 
> same thing.
> >Same with the question of the bus conductor (which you did not answer
> >but evaded, IMHO, btw).
> 
>    I answered it, twice -- and you vanished from sight.
I can unfortunately not post always when I want to and our server 
keeps posts for less than three days.
> >Paraphrased, if I understood you correctly, the
> >bus conductor uses a theory to make his announcement of when the bus
> >arrives and he gets ever more wrong. Having the wrong theory, he never
> >can be right, just like Newton.
> 
>    No, you didn't understand.  Sorry.
Ok, I dug upthe ref:
Moggin: 
    If the conductor is Newton, we need to add some details.  Say
   you're riding on his bus.  As you drive along, he announces the time
   that you'll arrive at each stop.  The bus reaches the first one within
   a second of the time he announced it would be there.  It gets to the
   second stop within a minute of the time he announced.  When it reaches
   the third stop, it's five minutes late.  At the fourth stop, it's ten
   minutes behind.  Several stops after that, it's running an hour behind
   the conductor's announcements.  Then several hours.  And so forth, as
   it proceeds across country, until it's off by days, weeks, and months.
        Is the conductor right or wrong?  You could say he's right in
   a "limited domain," or that he produces "useful approximations within
   certain limits" (that is, the area of the first four or five stops).
   But in general, his announcements can only be described as inaccurate.
   They begin with a small inaccuracy, dismissable from a practical point
   of view, which grows steadily as the bus travels along.  And that says
   something -- namely, that the theory he's using to produce the times
   he announces is false.
According to you, if the conductor makes inaccurate announcements, 
his theory for producing the times is false. 
With a false theory he will produce false statements, except by chance. 
In general therefore the conductor will not tell truth. 
Anton
> >No scientific theory can ever be right, except maybe the final one, 
> >according to your usage of right.
> >Well, what about people, can they generally be right. No, it turns out 
> >that according to your own philosophy they are inveterate liars. 
> >"Mrs. Miller, as a witness, you must tell truth. So, tell me how tall
> >are you. 1m52? Well I see at a glance this is not right, looks more like
> >1m 51.9 to me. So, in earnest, how tall are you. 1m 51.987345? well,
> >seems still not right to me. So once again: HOW TALL ARE YOU! WHAT?
> >1m 51.98734598765432112345678909876543211234567890. THIS IS AS
> >WRONG AS EVER! 
> >Your honour, I, moggin the great, proclaim this subject to be an inveterate
> >liar."
This is just a scenario of how a courtroom scene might be if the lawyer 
uses right and wrong in the same way as you do. Neither Newton nor any
other scientific theory can ever be right, according to moggin, nor 
can people be in general.
(moggin: 
    So there's no domain where Newton is "right" -- just a range where the
    errors his theory generates are small enough to limit their practical
    consequences.
)
> >Well, can *you* tell me your precise age, not an approximation, as a
> >simple number, not an evasion. See, duh.
> >LIAR!
You did not answer the question.

>    None of that crap has much anything to do with what I said -- it's just 
> a pile of straw.
No, its simply using right and wrong, true and false exactly in the same 
medieveal sense as you did.
> >The interesting thing is, you felt attacked when I used your peculiar
> >meanings of truth against you without telling you. 
> 
>    No, you didn't. 
Prove to me that you can tell your age or weight truthfully, given 
your usage of true/false.
> >Maybe now you get
> >an inkling of why you caught some flames on the sci. groups.
> 
>    You've given me more than an inkling, thanks -- if the answer
> wasn't already obvious, it sure it now.
signs of hope?
> >Well I got on long ago because I was reminded of like statements in 
> >discussions at our university: You know: "The distance to the moon was
> >measured not completely correct a hundred years ago, the distance is
> >being measured not completely right now. Pronouncements on the
> >distance of the moon have been false and are false. The statements 
> >of science have been false, are false and will always be false. 
> >There is no progress in science."  Thats where I got on.
> 
>    You don't understand what I was saying, and I wonder if you
> you understood the discussions you were in at school, either.
Misunderstanding you *is* easier than misunderstanding the "science 
campers", but I don´t think I misunderstood: 
"So there's no domain where Newton is "right" -- just a range where 
the errors his theory generates are small enough to limit their 
practical consequences". 
> >You have the same debating style as they. You use weird notions of true
> >etc. without telling people but knowing you mislead them. You do not
> >change them nor tell about them when politely told the error of your ways
> >In the end it simply is a power play, where the power of science, which
> >is perceived as *unjustifiedly* overwhelming, is sought to be reduced to an
> >equal standing with "alternative realities". 
> 
>    The notions of truth I've used in this discussion have been mundane.
They have been different from scientific and common usage.
> >"Newton always gives wrong results. Einstein most likely always gives
> >wrong results. Ptolemy gave wrong results" Einstein is as wrong as
> >Newton as Ptolemy.
> >No scientific theory can ever be right. So what? (moggin)
> >No bus conductor can ever be right. 
> >Nobody can tell truth about his age, height, weight etc.
> >They are all liars, according to moggin.
> 
>    You're not even in shouting distance.
You are again evading answering the points.
> >That where I get off.
> >Several other people have told you more or less the same as I have
> >above, several times
> >Maybe this tells you something. 
> 
>    Absolutely.  But I'm too courteous to say what.
You are sure you understood correctly?

> 
> >So I did not intend to attack you. I simply did to you as you did to
> >the science camp. And it irked you and you felt attacked.
> 
>    I didn't do anything to the science campers -- they attacked me.  And
> what's ridiculous is that they attacked me for stating something they're
> convinced is a truism.  Doesn't speak well for their intelligence, does
> it?
You made a statement, "Newton was wrong", without indicating that you 
use "wrong" in a peculiar way.
Sure they corrected you on that. 
Richard Harter: 
"moggin wants to use a pre-modern, indeed almost medieval
usage for right/wrong true/false whereas the science camp is using, 
by training, meanings that are post-modern in a real sense, although 
not in the sense that those wearing placards bearing the label 
post-modern use it.  It is an amusing paradox."
Ignoring several people who argue in this line is sure to create
some heat. 
When you said "wrong" you say something different from what the 
science campers say. Your inference that they attacked you for 
something they consider a truism is unwarranted.
It was pointed out to you that their meaning of "wrong" is 
not the same as yours
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)
I will be temporarily off the net since I am going 
on a postdoc in Montreal, Canada, next week. 
Responses this week, please or in e-mail (which will be 
forwarded to me, but I don´t know when).

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:
> 
> 
> The conjecture that quantum mechanics is involved with consciousness is
> that the NONlocality of qm can explain the simultaneity of consciousness,
> while a nearest neighbor classical approach can not.  I do think that a
> theory involving phase transistions might also work as a physical
> framework for consciousness.  In the experimentation will decide the
> issue.
> 
> L. Crowell
Stapp in his book Matter, Mind and QM gives a fundamentally sound
argument why any classical physics-based theory cannot, in principle,
explain consciousness along the lines described by Chalmers in Dec 1995
Sci Am. Phase transition theory involving QM effects as in the Ising
model may well be relevant. The main idea is that the nonlocal quantum
potential is fundamentally a thoughtlike thing as opposed to the beables
(Bohm-Bell) or, equivalently, the Heisenberg actual states (Stapp) which
are fundamentally rocklike things.
New work on violation of temporal analogs to Bell's inequality which was
for spacelike separations give a test on whether there is a definite
history between measurements. See Gribbin's Schrodinger's Kittens for
introduction. This is relevant to the consciousness problems as is the
work by Aharonov et-al on multiple time quantum states.
Gribbin argues for the Cramer's transactional interpretation for the
"best buy" in quantum interpretations. I am attracted to it myself.
Always have been. But I am wondering about accuracy of Gribbin's
popularization as well as basis of Cramer's formulation. Gribbin seems
to incorrectly imply that the quantum waves, like light waves, move at c
with zero proper time. In fact there is dispersion and the quantum waves
have phase speeds faster than light and group speeds less than light for
ordianry finite rest mass matter. This also gets to effect of dispersion
in light propagtation in media and for vacuum polarization on the
destructive interference of the advanced waves both before emission and
after absorption leaving only retarded wave between emission and
absorption.
But the main problem with Cramer's theory is that it requires that the
beables be a source for quantum waves. This means back-action whyich is
excluded from orthodox quantum theory as shown by Bohm. Bohm shows that
beables cannot be sources for quantum waves if the unitarity of quantum
propagation between measurements is to be preserved. So does the
Cramer's theory require backaction for a consistent formulation?

In article <199611131613.IAA31348@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>, 
nobody@cypherpunks.ca says...
> Anyone have tips for keeping David Kaufman's droppings out of 
> the newsgroups?
> 
Here's a tip:
I use Micro Planet Gravity as my news reader and it has a wonderful 
little tool on it called the "Bozo Bin".  Just put the name of the 
offensive sender into the Bozo Bin and none of his/her postings will 
litter your screen anymore.  Other news readers may have "rules" which 
perform the same function.
After reading the post on bugs, Mr. Kaufman has entered my Bozo Bin hall 
of fame.  :)
Laurie

In article <199611131613.IAA31348@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>, 
nobody@cypherpunks.ca says...
> Anyone have tips for keeping David Kaufman's droppings out of 
> the newsgroups?
> 
Here's a tip:
I use Micro Planet Gravity as my news reader and it has a wonderful 
little tool on it called the "Bozo Bin".  Just put the name of the 
offensive sender into the Bozo Bin and none of his/her postings will 
litter your screen anymore.  Other news readers may have "rules" which 
perform the same function.
After reading the post on bugs, Mr. Kaufman has entered my Bozo Bin hall 
of fame.  :)
Laurie

Patrick Juola wrote:
> 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.
You claim that there are two things:
1) Signifiers -- the sensible ink on the page or sound from a mouth; and 
even, as you point out, physical gestures, facial expressions, etc.
2) Messages -- the extra-material, extra-sensible thing that signifiers 
point to, the 'inference' that a signifier can give rise to.  By your own 
definition, these can never themselves be signifiers.
Since the only things that we actually see or hear are signifiers, the 
burden rests on your shoulders to prove the existence of transcendent 
messages.  You claim that the existence of these are a necessary inference. 
 They are certainly not.
Before I explain the proper way to describes how one 'arrives at a 
meaning,' let's look at your attempt to describe this disputed entity, 'the 
message.'  You say that the author's intended message may or may not 'map 
identically' onto the message the hearer infers.  The problem is that the 
only things that can be 'mapped' are things with form, things which can be 
described, things which can be sensed.  But by your own definition, a 
message cannot *itself* have such sensible properties.  A message cannot 
itself be mapped, described or transcribed -- because then it would be a 
signifier.
The reason you want to hang onto the idea that there is something 'beyond' 
signifiers is because you're aware that 'what' you want to say can be 
expressed by more than one articulation.  You see that there are several 
ways of expressing something.  The problem is with this 'something' (this 
'what') which *automatically presumes* that 'what you want to say' is a 
singular entity.  But this 'something' -- and this cannot be over-stressed 
-- is not a thing.  The 'something' that reveals an articulation to be 
appropriate or not appropriate is a contextual environment composed of a 
collection of related signifiers.  If you hear the phrase 'This apple is 
bad,' you will glean its 'appropriate meaning' if you situate 'bad' among 
the cluster of signifiers that include 'rotten,' 'overripe,' 'brown and 
mushy,' 'beyond its prime,' etc. -- as opposed to the cluster which 
includes 'evil,' 'unholy,' 'wrong,' etc.  You can see that this situation 
-- literally, a situation -- is not a thing.
This is indisputable in light of the fact that the *only* way to establish 
whether or not a given articulation is being used appropriately is by 
making reference to other signifiers.  (e.g., 'Do you mean that the apple 
is overripe or that the apple is evil'?)  These signifiers include the 
'other texts' you were talking about in relation to the author, as well as 
the explicit avowals he articulates.  Read your last post; each of your own 
examples bears this out.
The fact is, communication is adequately accounted for with reference to 
purely empirical phenomena -- signifiers and their metonymic relationships 
with other signifiers.  There is intent, of course: an articulation's 
intent is established by its relationship to other (clarifying) 
articulations.  How do these other articulations clarify the first?  By 
situating it in the proper nexus of signifiers -- not by attaching it to 
some transcendent 'meaning' that hovers above the empirical world.
I find it strange that people who appeal to 'science' and 'reality' so 
often adhere to your 'message that's not an articulation' theory -- which 
clearly relies upon transcendentalism, despite your claim that it has 
nothing to do with a naive Platonism -- as opposed to the explanation i've 
articulated, which never leaves the realm of the empirical.  
-- brian

In article , moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>   I didn't do anything to the science campers -- they attacked me.  And
>what's ridiculous is that they attacked me for stating something they're
>convinced is a truism.  Doesn't speak well for their intelligence, does
>it?
>
Two month and countless posts and you still claim it.  I won't even 
bother using descriptive epithets, , don't think they're needed.  But, 
I'll just mention that claiming that "they are convinced that your 
statements are truisms" when "they" specifically said otherwise, is a 
fraud, just like it was when you attributed to me things I didn't say. 
Got to work a bit on these ethics standards, I would say.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Wayne Throop wrote:
> 
> Could you be more specific?  I was under the impression that
> Dirac's work importing SR into QM was vintage 1940's, and the
> transistor was vintage 1950's?
> 
Dirac's QED work began in 1928, and went through about 1933.
The first transistors, very crude, were made in the 1920's. There
was also some research work done on them at that time, using QM.
But the effort was premature.
The work at Bell Labs dates to 1947, and was the result of an intentional
search. The team included one expert theoretician, and one expert
solid state experimentalist. They knew what they were trying to accomplish,
but had to find the right materials to match with the right approach.
So here we have an invention that was _not_ empirical in nature, but
required empirical data in order to come together.
Modern QED (Feynman, Schwinger, et al) also dates from 1947.
> :
> : To give credit where credit is due, lasers were indeed first predicted
> : theoretically, with the aid of QED, then developed based on the
> : predictions.
> 
Einstein developed the theory that is used in lasers, in 1917. He used the
best ideas of the "old quantum theory". I'm sure you've read a version of
this in some quantum physics class, with Einstein's A and B coefficients,
ending with a derivation of Planck's law for black body radiation.
But while people would sometimes investigate this, it was completely 
unclear how to get the inverted population densities required for lasing.
This was first accomplished in the microwave range, with the maser
(mid-1950's).  Given that it could be done there, there was a renewed
interest, and all sorts of people began looking at materials (mostly 
mixtures of gases) that might be used ... and many solutions were found.
But the first laser used a crystal. The inventor had done detailed studies
of the energy levels of the ruby for his thesis work, and was able to
convince his employer to fund "a little research project". Knowing the
materials, he was able to quickly get results ... and fame as the inventor
of the laser.
> 
> I still think there's some considerable justice to say that there's LOTS
> of modern technology that is related to SR at least as strongly as
> "airplanes" are related to "calculus".
> --
Well, not to the average man, but certainly there are lots of applications
of SR in science, and some in everyday engineering.
Best Regards, Peter

In article , Gordon Long  wrote:
>-Mammel,L.H.  wrote:
>>Gordon Long  wrote:
>>>
>>>  So much discussion on such a trivial point!  Anyway, Mati already
>>>answered this one.  You don't need to define "uniform motion" to define
>>>an inertial reference frame.  To give a simple example: take a rock, 
>>>hold it still, and let go.  If the rock stays still, then you are in 
>>>an inertial reference frame.  If the rock starts to move, then you are 
>>>not.  No "uniform motion" involved.
>>
>>You have to be aware that this establishes a "locally Lorentz"
>>frame, and not a Newtonian inertial frame. So why did you say it?
>
>  Why did I say it?  Because it's true.  And because there seems 
>to be confusion on this point, and because it's such a fundamental 
>concept.
>
>  Anyway, this point has been covered before.  An inertial frame is
>one in which Newton's first law holds; in other words, it's a frame in
>which inertia works the way it's supposed to.  Not surprisingly, this
>is why it's called an inertial frame.  Of course, to define it, you
>have to distinguish between physical and fictitious forces (using the
>"rule of thumb" that Mati described earlier), and define your inertial 
>frame in the absence of external physical forces. 
It looks to me like you dropped the ball :-)
If your test is applied e.g. in the bay of the space shuttle
while it's in orbit, it qualifies as an inertial frame. Einstein
accepts this test and proceeds from there, with gravity becoming
a fictitious force. However, in Newtonian mechanics the space shuttle
bay is not an inertial frame, but an accelerating one, so your test
is inadequate in this case.
Lew Mammel, Jr.

In <56ieml$2ma@news.ecn.bgu.edu> cudap@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Donald Probst)
writes: 
>
>Triple Quadrophenic (Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig) wrote:
>
>: What you've got to realise is that the correct answer to the
question "Is a 
>: photon a particle or a wave?" is "Neither". A photon
(electron/neutrino/etc) 
>: sometimes behaves like a particle, sometimes like a wave. Frequency
is a 
>: property of waves but it is also a property of fundamental
particles.
>
>
>Actually, it would probably be more correct to say "both".  A photon
is
>actually a wave packet, with a beginning and ending.  A great
>source of information on this is an electronic article written by Dr.
>Giles Henderson of Eastern Illinois University which is published at
>
>http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu
>
>It illustrates how a photon is created or absorbed.
It seems to me that a photon being created or
absorbed is a cause or an effect.
What is a photon when it is not
being created or absorbed?
And where is it?
Tom Potter      http://pobox.com/~tdp

 > From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
 > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 17:46:42 GMT
 > lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>Im Artikel <561qjh$976@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net
(Richard
>Harter) schreibt:
>> Scientists quote people like Popper, not because they are
>>very good [they aren't], but because what Popper, et.al., says
is
>Would you care to back up the claim in the brackets just a tiny
wee bit?
  > What did Popper say about evolutionary theory
It was not a scientific theory because it couldn't make testable
predictions, but was self-referential.
  >  and why and when did he retract it?
Some years later, after the advent of molecular biology [among
othe methodologies] allowed the testing of earlier `untestable'
predictions, and the predictions were found to correlate highly
with what was found.
Terry

In article <56iut6$itk@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article , Gordon Long  wrote:
>>
>>  Anyway, this point has been covered before.  An inertial frame is
>>one in which Newton's first law holds; in other words, it's a frame in
>>which inertia works the way it's supposed to.  Not surprisingly, this
>>is why it's called an inertial frame.  Of course, to define it, you
>>have to distinguish between physical and fictitious forces (using the
>>"rule of thumb" that Mati described earlier), and define your inertial 
>>frame in the absence of external physical forces. 
>
>It looks to me like you dropped the ball :-)
>
>If your test is applied e.g. in the bay of the space shuttle
>while it's in orbit, it qualifies as an inertial frame. Einstein
>accepts this test and proceeds from there, with gravity becoming
>a fictitious force. However, in Newtonian mechanics the space shuttle
>bay is not an inertial frame, but an accelerating one, so your test
>is inadequate in this case.
>
Don't forget the "any body at rest" clause.  Take two balls, place one 
at the center of mass of the shuttle (that'll be close to the center 
of the bay, the other close to the floor or the ceiling of the 
shuttle (both at rest relative to the shuttle).  Wait half an orbit 
and observe.  The one at the CM will stay there, the other one will 
move.  Alternatively you can use a gyroscope.  Hang it at the CM, with 
axis pointing in the direction of motion and observe (the thing to 
remember is that the gyro is an extended object).
Conclusion from both experiments:  The condition for inertial frame is 
fulfilled in the shuttle at one point only (CM) over extended time or 
at one point of time over the whole frame.  But it is not fulfilled 
over all space for all time.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <3289F1E8.7239@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>, Klaus Kassner  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>   
>> It is not a matter of presumption.  There is nothing in Newton's
>> equations that relies on the notion of absolute space.  Thus the
>> notion is extra-physical.
>
>I think that things are a bit more subtle. There are no absolute
>positions and no absolute velocities in Newton's equations.
>But what about accelerations? The famous example of the rotating
>bucket filled with water? Rotation with respect to the absolute
>space would be detectable by measuring the curvature of the surface
>of the water. So I would say that Newton's space still has some
>remnants of "absoluteness".
Oh definitely.  More then remnants.  Accelerations are absolute in 
Newtonian space.  Note however, that this doesn't specify a single 
frame as absolute.  In other words, the "absolute space" is not a 
specific frame but an infinite family of frames.
Since it it on topic, I'll post something I wrote about it in an 
E-mail message, discussing just the thing you've mentioned above, 
Newton's bucket.  My apologies for the imprecise language, it was 
intended for a single intelligent reader, not for public consumption, 
and I'm not about to edit it.  Anyway ...
_________________________________________________________________
OK, lets look at the issue of describing events in space, purely 
mathematically for the moment.  We describe location by coordinates 
but these are obviousle arbitrary.  All that's involved is picking 
a specific point as a reference, then picking arbitrary three 
directions as axes, and measuring the distance from your point to 
the origin along these axes.  So location has no absolute meaning.
What about the derivative of location, i.e. velocity?  Same thing.  
After all, it is measured relative to some "coordinate center" and 
I can pick different centers which move one relative to another.  So 
velocity is also purely relative.
What about the derivative of velocity, i.e. acceleration.  Same thing 
again, and for same reasons.  Pick different reference points that are 
accelerating one relative to the others and the rest follows.
What about the derivative of acceleration.  Same thing ... and as you 
see, the argument may be continued indefinitely.  In this mathematical 
space we're talking about, everything is relative.
Now comes Newton with the following thought experiment (which can be 
easily performed at home).  Imagine you've a rotatable platform and put 
a bucket of water on top of it.  Now start rotating.  The water surface 
deviates from the initial planar shape and becomes curved (a paraboloid, 
actually).  And using Newtonian dynamics it is easy to say why.  The 
ratating platform is an accelerated system and the curving of the water 
surface is caused by the centrifugal force.
But wait, says Newton, we could equally well say that the platform is 
standing still and it is the Universe that rotates around it.  From 
mathematical perspective this is an equally valid point of view.  But 
in such picture the bucket is not being accelerated and the water 
surface should remain flat.  Now, how it is possible that it is flat in 
one description and non flat in the other.  Obviously, somehow, the 
two descriptions aren't equivalent.
So, was there something wrong with the previous, mathematical 
argument.  No, it is perfectly OK.  Obviously, what follows is that 
the physical space is more than just the mathematical space of points.
There is "something" pervading it, some "field" if you wish (though 
Newton wouldn't use the word "field", it didn't exist yet) which makes 
itself felt when you try to accelerate relative to it (remember the 
question "what is inertia"?).  Curiously enough, it is oblivious to 
either position or velocity, so in spite of the existence of this
field, position and velocity remain relative concepts.  But not 
acceleration.  This one acquires an absolute meaning, you don't need 
a reference point to measure it.
This is really the central message of Newtonian Mechanics:  There is
"something" in the Universe that gives acceleration an absolute 
meaning and there is a specific, privileged, set of reference frames, 
what we call the inertial frames, relative to which the laws of 
physics have an especially simple form.  Mind you, this is not the 
same as sayying that there is an "absolute" frame.  There is an 
infinity of inertail frames and they're all equivalent.  But there are 
infinitely more non inertial frames.
Now, what is this "something".  Newton ventured no ideas other then 
noticing that it is related to the "fixed stars" frame (which is 
illustrated by the bucket example).  As you could see from some 
quotes from Newton's writings which were posted over the last few days, 
he wasn't given to idle speculations about things that couldn't have 
been verified (something our resident and guest crackpots could learn 
from, but they're already convinced that they're smarter then Newton).  
MInd you, though, that the "fixed stars" frame means the frame of the 
Universe as a whole.  So there was a recognition here, though not yet
put into any formal description, that the physical space isn't just an 
inert point space, serving as a stage on which the masses move, but that 
somehow it has some special properties, given it by same masses 
(This idea was, way later, stated explicitly by Mach).  Do you start 
recognizing the roots of General Relativity here.
As I said, Newton ventured no hypotheses regarding this "something".  
What properties may space have other then simply existing?  There was 
nothing Newton or his contemporaries could think about that came even 
close.  But, in another two hundred years or so, after non Euclidean 
geometries had been developed, it turned out that there may be a 
property like this, namely the curvature of space.  From here on it 
is a long story but you're familiar with its outline at least.
 _________________________________________________________________
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Wasn't it Socrates who said that if he was wise, it was only in that he
was aware of how ignorant he was?  Of course, we teach things that we
believe because someone else taught them to us.  And of course, some of
those things are wrong.  There's nothing wrong with being wrong.  There
is something wrong with pretending to know all the answers.
Science education is NOT the process of passing on the accumulated truth
discovered by infallibles of the past.  It is the process of teaching
students the best understanding we have so far, how we reached that
understanding, and how we go about discovering more and correcting our
errors.
When a teacher is unable to explain something, or explains it
incorrectly, AND THEN LEARNS FROM IT AND SHOWS THE KIDS HOW HE LEARNS
FROM IT, the kids learn something far more valuable than they would from
an explanation that is correct from the start.  And if the correction
comes from an experiment, and, even better, from one that the students
design or conduct, they learn even more.
But if that teacher pretends to be the last word in truth, he presents a
distorted picture of the nature of science, which is far worse than
presenting an incorrect fact.
A good error is 1000 times better than the truth.
Lou Goldstein

In article <56gbm9$770@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article , Gordon Long  wrote:
>>
>>  So much discussion on such a trivial point!  Anyway, Mati already
>>answered this one.  You don't need to define "uniform motion" to define
>>an inertial reference frame.  To give a simple example: take a rock, 
>>hold it still, and let go.  If the rock stays still, then you are in 
>>an inertial reference frame.  If the rock starts to move, then you are 
>>not.  No "uniform motion" involved.
>
>You have to be aware that this establishes a "locally Lorentz"
>frame, and not a Newtonian inertial frame. 
Only when you throw in the invariance of the speed of light.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <56b92e$63h@news.fsu.edu>, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
= carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
= >
= >This isn't as true as it used to be.  To get a science certification
= >in most U.S. States these days, you need a science degree, and to keep
= >it you generally need a science Masters.
= 
=  Is this really true?  I know it is not true in Florida, where all you 
=  need is a "science ed" degree.  That does require them to take some 
=  actual science classes (non-calculus physics, for example, where 
=  being a science-ed major was found to be a predictor of failure in 
=  a study here at FSU) but nothing like what is required for a BS in 
=  any science area.  Now Florida puts education pretty low on the 
=  totem pole, but I cannot imagine that this is a rigid requirement 
=  given the patterns in science enrollment. 
= 
=  I know that Michigan State had a Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) 
=  degree in physics, but it was a joke and even then rarely used.  If 
=  a true science MS was required after N years, salaries for science 
=  teachers would have to go up significantly. 
Here in California, you may earn your secondary teaching credential
clearance in one of three ways, once you've passed that basic courses in
pedagogy, teaching reading, technology, etc.
  1)  Have a bechelor's degree in that area.  
       For example, I have a degree in Biology, 
       so I easily got a clearance to teach life 
       sciences, merely by showing that I had the
       degree.
  2)  Take enough classes to get clearance in that
        area, even if you don't have a degree.
       For example, I have a clearance to teach chemistry,
       based on the inorganic, organic and biochemistry
       courses I took as an undergraduate and while in 
       grad school. They do count units, which is why I 
       neded to incude gratuate level biochem.
  3) By an examination covering both the subject material 
       and aspects of how to teach that material.
       My mathematics credential was earned by examination,
       I could have also earned one in Physics, Health, or 
       some other area if I wished.
I cannot legally be hired as an earth science teacher, since that is a
separate area, not covered by the above credentials.  But, I can teach
Earth Science as long as it isn't my primary assignment, or as long as the
state is not reviewing the accreditation that year, or -- if the state is
reviewing it -- if I'm one of a small minority of teachers giving classes
in an area I'm not authorized to teach, etc.
Teachers are discouraged from earning a post-Baccalaureate degree right
off the bat, as it will make your place on the salary scale too expensive
for someone with little or no experience.  However, as they progress
through the years, many teachers will earn the equivalent of a masters' or
other higher degree while taking continuing education courses.
- - -Adina
"What makes you think I'd do as you say?  Ani l'dodi."
http://home.aol.com/pregilla    

In article , glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long) writes:
> wrote:
>>>
>>I think it has to do with people crossing over from disciplines where 
>>reading and interpreting the writing of "gurus" is considered science [...] 
>
>What a strange concept...
>
I agree.  Nevertheless, evidence in the form of various postings (as 
well as a significant part of the human history) indicates that there 
may be something in the hypothesis above :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article ,
Peter Ceresole  wrote:
>In article <56f04q$n3m@phunn1.sbphrd.com>,
>Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
>
>>That's one.
>
>What could you possibly mean by that?
IMHO: "What kind'a bait you usin'?". IYKWIM, AITYD.
-- 
Michael Warner
warner@wsu.edu

		TCT Status Report
As of this posting about 125 people have downloaded the introduction and first 
nine chapters of Part 1 of  the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and Nuclei". Part 
2 is now being released, on a chapter by chapter basis, at the web site given 
below. Chapters 10 and 11 are now available. 
The files are available in three compressed formats: MS-Word 6.0 (*wd.zip) 
including self extracting (*wd.exe) , and PostScript (*ps.zip).
More details are available in the "Items of Interest ?" section on the "Part 
2" status page at the web site, the URL for which follows the article below.
Cheers - John
I have been posting the following article to this newsgroup since early in 
December of 1995, and will continue to do so for some time. If you are a new 
subscriber, or have missed it, and find it of interest, perhaps a visit to the 
URL will see you joining the above group of "readers"?
	THE COVARIANT THEORY
In the last few chapters of "A Brief  History of Time"(Bantam 1988), Stephen 
Hawking writes about an earlier idea of his concerning a new frame of 
reference in which to consider physical reality. In essence it is:
	- a four dimensional, non-linear frame, finite but unbounded,
	  (like the surface of the earth, but with two more dimensions),
	- using imaginary time as a mathematical device, making the frame
	  Euclidean,
	- the above producing no singularities and causing the distinction
	  between time and space to disappear.
The above proposal appears to describe very closely a theory I have been 
interested in for the past 30 years. It is called "The Covariant Theory" and 
is not my own, but the work of another man. It is unpublished, the original 
author losing interest in it many years ago. Since I did show interest, he 
gave me his original writings, about 1500 pages, which I first organized into 
some 60 folders back in 1969.
In 1993 I retired from being a physics teacher (after 34 years!), and have 
just recently acquired a new computer. For fun, I've started to put the work 
into an electronic form, and am willing to share it with anybody who is 
interested. There is no copyright on the material and you can work with it, 
communicate, publish etc. as you see fit.
First let me assure you that it does indeed propose a change in the frame of 
reference in which to view reality. It is a unique non-linear four dimensional 
frame in which space and time are related in a covariant manner, and thus the 
name of the theory. It is because the theory is based on a frame change, that 
even though the draft was produced over 30 years ago, developments since that 
time , such as quark theory and the standard model for example, can be 
accommodated, in my opinion, within the theory. The central ideas then, seem 
to me to still be viable.
The frame appears to have the capability of unifying the forces of nature in a 
new way, since some of the initial predictions relate to meson masses and 
properties, nuclear binding energy and structure, and relationships between 
ionization potentials across the periodic table. In addition, as a result of 
field geometry, various physical constants, such as "e", "h" and "c", are 
intimately co-related, thus predicting the existence and value of the fine 
structure constant.
The range of topics dealt with requires the potential reader to be comfortable 
with the quantum, electromagnetic, and relativity theories and their 
mathematical formalism. Generalized mechanics and knowledge of various nuclear 
models is also required. In general then it is the theoretical physicist, with 
a special interest in nuclear theory, to which this posting is directed, since 
rigorous scholarly review and assessment is required.
Now there are a number of problems associated with the preparation and 
transfer of the material as well as the central problem of communicating a 
frame change. You have to start some place however, and I have decided to 
prepare a pre-publication draft of the "Theory of Radiation, Matter and 
Nuclei", which comes from about 30 of the 60 folders.
If you are interested in looking into the Covariant Theory, please proceed via 
the WWW
to	 
where you will find a web site providing documentation that should be read 
before you access the theory. I have set it up this way to help you make a 
decision, since I do not want you to feel you are wasting your time.
Please do not e-mail me until after you have visited my home page.
Thanks - John

Anton Hutticher wrote:
> =
> moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:
> >
> 
> =
> >    I admit, it's hard for me to grasp the idea of a hill that's flat,
> > but that's probably because I'm thinking of my sort of hills -- if
> > you're giving the term your own definition, there's no reason in
> > the world hills couldn't possess flatness as a characteristic.   I
> > wouldn't even call that a "loose" use of the word, since there's no
> > larger notion of hilliness for me to measure by -- it's just a
> > different way of using the term.
> >
> > -- moggin
> =
> May I hazard a guess? (I think hazard is the right term here).
> =
> Could your difficulty stem from the following (and this is just my
> unbridled speculation): You hold an object in your mind which has
> "hilliness" as one of its characteristics, another one with "planeness"
> and possibly one with "holeness". (Is a hole a reversed hill, btw. And
> it should have been plane in my first post. I guess I was already
> roaming the great plains, in my mind). Well, since "hilliness" etc are
> ideal properties which cannot change there can not ever be a mix of
> "hilliness" and "planeness" ranging from "100% hilliness, 0% planeness"
> to "0% hilliness, 100% planeness". Which would also explain your
> troubles with the common and scientific usage of words like true,
> false, correct, incorrect...
> =
> Just a platonic speculation.
> =
> Anton Hutticher
> (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)
OK, Here's the American Heritage Dictionary to help you guys out. Pardon =
the font difiiculties. Note etymology.
hill (h=BEl) n.
1. A well-defined natural elevation smaller than a mountain.
2. A small heap, pile, or mound.
3.a. A mound of earth piled around and over a plant. b. A plant thus =
covered.
4. An incline, especially of a road; a slope.
5. Hill.a. Capitol Hill. Often used with the. b. The U.S. Congress. =
Often used with the.
=8Bhill tr.v. hilled, hill0ing, hills.
1. To form into a hill, pile, or heap.
2. To cover (a plant) with a mound of soil.
=8Bidiom.
over the hill. Informal.
Past one's prime. [Middle English hil, from Old English hyll. See kel-2 =
below.] =8Bhill2er n.
kel-2. Important derivatives are: hill, excel, culminate, colonel, =
column.
kel-2. To be prominent; hill.
1. Zero-grade form *k=85-. a. HILL, from Old English hyll, hill, from =
suffixed Germanic form *hul-ni-; b. HOLM, from Old Norse h=C5lmr, islet in =
a bay, meadow, from suffixed Germanic form *hul-ma-.
2. Suffixed form *kel-d-. EXCEL, from Latin excellere, to raise up, =
elevate, also to be eminent (ex-, up out of; see eghs).
3. O-grade form *kol-. a. COLOPHON, from Greek koloph=C5n, summit; b. =
suffixed form *kol(u)men-. CULMINATE, from Latin culmen, top, summit; c. =
extended and suffixed form *kolumnE. COLONEL, COLONNADE, COLUMN, from =
Latin columna, a projecting object, column. [Pokorny 1. kel- 544.]

Back to the original question, isn't it possible to say that 
space-time is a field, and that where its field strength is higher, 
time runs slower relative to where its field strength is lower?

In article <56j1gn$a0h@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, tim@franck.Princeton.EDU.composers (Tim Hollebeek) writes:
>
>In article , mmcirvin@world.std.com writes:
>> In article <328B7096.6D0A@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Didn't QED come after the invention of the transistor?
>> 
>> Initial stabs at QED were made in the 1920s and 1930s. It was formulated in
>> its modern form in the late 1940s. (I've forgotten when the transistor was
>> invented.)
>> 
>> Technological applications are not necessarily all beneficial. After World
>> War II it was fashionable to regard relativity as a cursed theory, on the
>> grounds that it had made nuclear bombs possible. Certainly the relation
>> E=mc^2 was a major aid in the effort (though experimental work in nuclear
>> physics made a larger contribution than relativity theory did, and calling
>> E=mc^2 "the equation for the atom bomb," as many did at the time, is a bit
>> of an overstatement--there's a lot more to it than that).
>
>Right.  The first fission work was predominantly chemistry, though
>this is often forgotten these days.  Personally, I hate that people
>talk about fission converting mass to energy.  IMO, it just releases
>nuclear binding energy, just as burning molecules releases chemical
>binding energy.  The only difference is that in the first place, the
>energy is large enough to have an appreciable mass.  That fact is
>completely irrelevant to building a bomb, though.
>
Right on.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) writes:
>In article <55q0af$5dd@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, gtclark@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (G T
>Clark) wrote:
>>         Are you sure? I haven't had a chance to test it in both
>> hemispheres and on the equator myself, but I've seen some very
>> convincing film made by someone who did.
>My bathtub and sink drains swirl in opposite directions. QED.
	presumably because one or t'other (or likely both) isn't
circular or level or something. The film was made using a circular
funnel. You could still be right, though.
		G.

Peter Hickman appears to have typed something along the lines of:
> John S. wrote:
> > The only people you're annoying are those who find common sense thinking
> > threatening. That applies to anyone who continues to espouse a theory that
> > contains paradoxes, like QM. 
> > It's the fractal idea on a galactic scale.
> > Check my page  http://www.petcom.com/~john
> > Of course many 'scientists' that write in here say I'm 'raving'.
> 	Hey, kid, don't listen to this guy.  I'm no
> scientist, but this guy is obviously raving.  Just ask
> youself what sort of infinite regression you're in for
> if atoms are galaxies (what about those atoms in those
> galaxies or those galaxies in those atoms...etc. etc.).
What`s wrong with infinite regression? Just because we can`t imagine it
doesn`t mean it can`t happen -- look at QM!
Rhiannon
--
Polygamy would be wonderful!
Imagine, masses of support, always someone to babysit when you want to
nip out to the shops, lots of close women friends who *really*
understand how awful your husband is, and you don't have to have sex all
that often!  Sounds absolutely ideal...... :-)

moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:
>
> Anton Hutticher :
>  
> >> >So far we know about your philosophical stance only that it enables 
> >> >you to claim that people are inveterate liars. 
> 
> moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
> 
> >>    As I recall, "inveterate liar" was your phrase, aimed at me.   I've
> >> never used it.
> 
> Anton:
> 
> >I didn´t say you used it. I said your philosophy enables you to claim
> >that people are inveterate liars.
> 
>    If I haven't called anyone an inveterate liar, then how do you know?
Why should I have to find an instance of your calling someone an 
inveterate liar in order to conclude that your philosophy *enables* 
you to call people that.
> And more generally, _what_ are you going on about?
Well, it was laid out in the other post - apparently 
not very successful - .
In a nutshell its that your usage of terms like right, wrong etc.
differs from scientific and "common" usage. You do not explain
that before using them and most readers here do not expect your 
weird usage. One consequence of holding that a statement is "wrong"
if it is off by any amount regardless of how small is that people
can generally only make wrong statements about many properties of  
our physical universe.
This has been pointed out to you in various form by several people.
You ignored it.
Grinding down someone by just repeating inaccuracies, manipulative
statements, misleading usage of words even after it has been 
pointed out to them is an attitude I have experienced often with the 
"new age, pop psych, pseudo pomo decon" crowd at Sbg univ. I am 
surprised that you use the same strategy.
One of the reasons of arguing with you is that I think you are not
an isolated incidence of a lost sheep bleating up the wrong tree. 
You have ignored too many explanations of how substantially common
and scientific usage of certain words differs from yours and I have
seen far to many people argue in the same style as you. Usually it 
turned out their ultimate aim was power, not understanding. So while 
it is probably useless to try to convince you it is important to
clearly state that your peculiar usage of words misleads people in 
order to redress the bias created by your usage of words.
Anton Hutticher
(Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at)
I will be temporarily off the net since I am going 
on a postdoc in Montreal, Canada, next week. 
Responses this week, please or in e-mail (which will be 
forwarded to me, but I don´t know when).

erikc (fireweaver@insync.net) wrote:
: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz 
: in message <56b48v$n4o@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
: dated 13 Nov 1996 00:20:47 GMT 
: wrote to alt.atheism, among others:
: [snip]
: >>|God is like a shamrock - small, green, and in three parts.
: Isn't that the same argument that Saint Patrick used to convert the heathen in
: Ireland?
So the myth goes.  The thing with the snakes is alleged to have had a lot 
to do with it as well.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11 Nov 1996 10:13:25 GMT, Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple
Quadrophenic) wrote:
>In article , Bob_Hoesch@fws.gov (Bob 
>Hoesch) says...
>>
>>Q: "Is a photon a particle or a wave?" 
A photon is a wave packet. For information on the process of formation
of a photon, please look up my web site for the article entitled "The
Physics of Absolute Motion" 
Ken Seto

On 9 Nov 96 10:30:00 -0800, Mark_Stenhoff@msn.com (Mark Stenhoff)
wrote:
>I would very much appreciate information concerning the following for 
>serious research purposes:
>· ball lightning events, especially recent events/those involving 
>traces or damage
>· ball lightning publications
>· meetings and conferences concerning ball lightning. 
>Many thanks for your help,
>
>Mark Stenhoff
>
>(Mark_Stenhoff@msn.com)
 Try:
  http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.html
  Boris Mohar

On 13 Nov 1996 19:11:56 GMT, nguyen@clark.edu (Man Huu Nguyen) wrote:
>	I know that the world wouldn't be where it is now if it wasn't 
>for Newton's and Leibniz's original contributions to calculus. Airplanes, 
>microwaves, etc are all derivived from calculus. I am still quite amazed 
>at how much Newton did for math and physics. 
>	I was wondering if any of Einstein's theories have actually helped
>the world, technologically yet? Has anyone used the theories to produce
>useful ideas and tools? I am sure that it took many more years after the
>invention of calculus before people realized how useful it was and they
>started implementing its uses. So has the theory of relativity revealed
>its true powers to anyone? 
Einstens theories are used everyday all over the world. I will give
you some examples (I am asuming that you are asking about the theory
of relativity, not the photoelectric effect)
*The general theory of relativity (GTR) is a fundamental part of
modern astrophysics, our understanding of such things as black holes,
stars and other phenomenas relies on GTR.
*In everyday life Einsteins theories are used in applied physics, GPS
(Global positioning System) have to use the theories in order to get
the correct result, the data from the satellities has to be adjusted
or the position reported would be totally wrong. All
Communication-satellites uses the theory of relativity for the same
reason.
I could make the list a lot longer but these examples should give you
some idea what Einsteins theories can be used for in "real life".
Tobias Lindström
CTH, Sweden

In article <56jer6$1rq@play.inetarena.com>, nx56@inetarena.com (jmc)
wrote:
>Back to the original question, isn't it possible to say that 
>space-time is a field, and that where its field strength is higher, 
>time runs slower relative to where its field strength is lower?
  I like this explanation within the context of GR but no SR.  SR
assumes a flat spacetime.  At any rate it is not an entirely
satisfaction because it does not stipulate what the field consists of.
A field of what?
  But taking your suggestion a little farther, it is possible, IMO, to
imagine that moving bodies could interact with a "flat field" in such
a way as to cause the observed constancy of the speed of light, hence
the ensuing measured time dilation.  In my opinion, there's no space,
there are only particles and change.  Space is but an illusion because
of quantum nonlocality and the laws of conservation.  Thus, the
"field" in question would have to be a field of particles.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
"O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason."  W.S.

dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) enunciated:
>lkh@mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling) wrote:
>>You find a problem with Jew being a Jew? You and Hitler too? 
>Ding!  By official usenet rules, the comparison of your opponent
>to a nazi ends the thread.  A TKO to the opposing side!
You are full of it too.
Unless of course you join his stupidity.
And if you find a question a comparison you are.
Ding nothing. Just dumb. And the next time I am personally attacked I
will counter. And any lame excuse for a support will receive the same
thing. Either this thread and all of usenet is for discussion and NOT
personal attack or it is NOT. Choose your side.
You will notice that this thread continues in part to discuss the
issue offered. Only ridiculous childish comments like the one above
continue the idiotic side stepping of the issues. It reminds me of
people who seek to preserve life regardless of its state. They are
branded "right to lifers" oh horrible thing it may be. While Right to
Choose is NOT called Anti-Life. Semantics is used to turn an objector
away from making the point. Intinidation. Therefore, as the attempt
made above is indicative, the arrogance wins by default.
Not this time.
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy) enunciated:
>"Robert L. Watson"  wrote:
>>How about this attempt at a definition:  Life is not only cell structure, 
>>and life is also not some mysterious extra ingredient that departs or 
>>vanishes at death; life is an extremely complex and inter-related process 
>>that occurs in the context of cells, bodily systems, etc.  When the 
>>physiological substrate is sufficiently disrupted, the process breaks 
>>down and comes to a halt, and then the organism is dead.
>You mean disrupted *beyond repair*? Right? If the substrate is
>delivered to a time when repair techniques are sufficient, then the
>organism is not dead.
>What if you developed acute appendicitis in the year 5000 BC?
>Yes, you would be suffering shortly from a burst appendix and 
>likely death. Is that shaman going to be able to fix you up with the
>appropriate herbs and chants?
>What if that happens tomorrow in New York?
>Are you dead?
>What about the USA 300 years from now?
>Depends on "when" and where you are. Deliver the substrate, damaged
>though it may be, to the appropriate *time* and the organism is not
>necessarily dead. It depends on if the repair facilities are up to
>repairing the damage.
>Randy
Sooooooo it is not death you are trying to beat it is time.
Nooowwwww  I understand.
Nope, on that account too.
"Golly George, the facts just keep gettin in the way."
Recess is over, son. Grow up.
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

Im Artikel , awb116@psu.edu (Aaron Bishop)
schreibt:
>     I've been thinking about a little experiment I saw a while back
>that caught my attention.  This one professor took a disk of aluminum,
>rotated it about an axis through its center ( like a record ), then
>placed a magnet above it.  What happened was that the magnet somehow
>recieved a slight upwards force.
>     I missed his explanation of the phenomenon, so I'll just guess
>that the moving particles of aluminum somehow reflected a portion of
>the magnetic radiation.  The faster the atoms travel, the more
>magnet-thingies hit the aluminum, and the more bounce off.
AFAICT from your description, the magnet induced an electric current in
the rotating disc, which in reverse produces a magnetic field opposite to
the magnet. And the effect gets stronger the faster the disk spins. So
your pictural description "The faster the atoms travel, the more
magnet-thingies hit the aluminum, and the more bounce off" is not at all
far off, but quite a vivid explanation IMO.
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Im Artikel <56hqtj$p3l$1@nargun.cc.uq.oz.au>, davidcs@psy.uq.edu.au (David
Smyth) schreibt:
>In fact we regularly discard trials for which subjects move their eyes
>within 200 ms of a visual stimulus as false starts.
>
>To go even further, the P300 is considered to be the 'spike' of
electrical
>activity of the brain in reaction to a visual stimulus.  As the name
>suggests, it typically occurs 300 ms after the presentation of the
>stimulus.
>
>Even though 100 metre sprinters no doubt have a far greater number of
fast
>twitch muscles, it's unlikely they could react within 100 ms with any
>level of consistency.
At least a specialist knowing his field filling us in :-) thanks! And of
course a question follows: do all the senses produce the same reaction
times? Is a sound stimulus as fast (or slow) as a visual one? What about
sensoric stimuli (hot/cold/touch/pain) - and what about smell - as smell
is going right through not being filtered, no? I'd like to know more, if
you would care to tell us....
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Im Artikel , hatunen@netcom.com
(DaveHatunen) schreibt:
>It was posted here by someone early in the history of 
>this thread that it happens that it cannot be shown that
>the pressure of an ice skate is sufficent to shift the ice
>into the liquid part of the phase diagram,
...
But no one ever confirmed the information. The example of the weight
dragging the wire through an ice block still holds, no? And the
calculation, which should have shown, that ice skates still glide at
temperatures well below a point where the pressure of the skate might be
sufficient, maybe just another sort of bumble bee calculation: I'd guess,
that one took the whole width of the skate and the full length. The length
is ok, but the skate will never rest on its full width....
>and, since the triple point of water is at about 0C, 
>it is unlikely in any case.
Hmm, shit, gotta get out this ole book, where was that triple point
again.... OH NO! All I said above is a load of BS! Urban myths! No wire
cutting through the block, no gliding on pressurized ice, i.e. water.
Sorry folks, but this is, how the pressure/temperature curve works for
water (according to my source):
     Ice  
         Water 
10^2   |    /
10^1   |   /
10^0   |  /   Steam
10^1   | /
10^2   |/_._._._  
10^3   /0 100     degree C
10^4  /
 atm
Sorry for the crude ascii-graph. 10^0 atm means atmospheric pressure, but
I had to leave out the sign not to spoil the graph. So below 10^0 of
course it means 10^-1 etc. The triple point actually is a bit below 10^-2
(my reference says: 1/125 atm).
BUT: What this curve says also, is, that there is _NO_ water below 0
degree C between 1/125 atm and 500 atm, just ice! It's a straight line
shooting up from the 0 degree C point along the pressure axis, no doubt
about that (the diagram for CO2 is right next to it and shows a nice curve
instead :-). Can anyone please confirm this???? And up to which pressure
(please in SI units, not BTU/sqare hogsheads ;-)???
Well then, how about the wire experiment? We have to assume, that the wire
has a temperature of just about or more than 0 degree, otherwise it can't
melt through the block (=falsifiable theory). Thus it shouldn't work in an
environment of -10 degrees (=prediction). 
Now what about the skates?????? Is it friction, heating up the crystals to
melt them? And why do sportswomen say the ice (and snow as well) becomes
'blunt' around the melting point, i.e. slows down skis and skates?
And something else springs to mind: There seems to be an endless potential
of pressure to be created by freezing water.....
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <56gm1f$7ae@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>, Anton Hutticher  writes:
: >
: >But if you are asked: "What shall we do? Should we outlaw Holocaust denial
: >because of these reasons or should we tolerate it because of those."
: >you have to make a decision. Not enacting a law is also a decision.
: >
: An extremely important point.  Unfortunately it is lost on most people 
: who believe that by refusing to decide they can wash their hands of 
: any consequences.
You may (or perhaps you may not) want to read Adorno on resistance to a 
system that demands complicity in its decisions but dictates the 
alternatives from which you are allowed or forced to chose. _Minima 
Moralia_ is a good starting point, so is book III of _Negative 
Dialectics_. 
Silke

lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) wrote:
>>  Anyway, this point has been covered before.  An inertial frame is
>>one in which Newton's first law holds; in other words, it's a frame in
>>which inertia works the way it's supposed to.  Not surprisingly, this
>>is why it's called an inertial frame.  Of course, to define it, you
>>have to distinguish between physical and fictitious forces (using the
>>"rule of thumb" that Mati described earlier), and define your inertial 
>>frame in the absence of external physical forces. 
>It looks to me like you dropped the ball :-)
>If your test is applied e.g. in the bay of the space shuttle
>while it's in orbit, it qualifies as an inertial frame. Einstein
>accepts this test and proceeds from there, with gravity becoming
>a fictitious force. However, in Newtonian mechanics the space shuttle
>bay is not an inertial frame, but an accelerating one, so your test
>is inadequate in this case.
Bad example.  The shuttle is not under uniform linear acceleration
and this is detectable.
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.

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.  See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
"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"