Newsgroup sci.physics 208746

Directory

Anti-gravity can be produced by rotating a ceramic disk
at high speed in liquid nitrogen. Objects weighed in 
a balance beam above it lose about two percent of their
weight. So says a news item in Science, the most prestigious
American science journal. The brief article, in the issue
of October 11, says the project is being carried out by
U. of Alabama professor Ning Li at Marshall Space
Flight Center, funded by a NASA grant.
-- 
==========   http://www.cais.net/whatnews/whatnews.html  =========
==========         Nine days of news at a glance         =========

>           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
>This is a great book. If you are interested in nuclear 
>weapons technology, scientific geniuses, military policy, 
>intelligence issues, 20th century US history, and behind-
>the-scenes politics, you will find this a fascinating and 
>enlightening book. Sam Cohen is a variously blunt, 
>brilliant, witty, down-to-earth iconoclast who pulls no 
>punches. But whether you are offended or not, whether you 
>are outraged or not, whether you agree or not, you are sure 
>to re-think some crucially important life-and-death issues, 
>and to get an unvarnished real-world perspective that is 
>nowhere else available.
>
>You can view the Table of Contents and get an original copy 
>of this book from this web site:
>
>    http://www.azstarnet.com/~schneik
	As to this site, and the "Table of Contents" to Cohen's book
presented within, much of it appears to be the work of a person out to
sell himself as magnificent. 
	His philosophical conclusions seem to have the standards of a
Neanderthal.
	No.5 of the mentioned "Table of Contents".
5. THROUGH THE NEUTRON LOOKING GLASS 
5.1 "let"s set the record straight" 
5.2 "fulfills the dream of civilized nations ? a weapon that restricts
the battle to the battlefield" 
5.3 "there will be no lingering radioactivity" 
5.4 "agony ? produced by having your body charred to a crisp by
napalm, your guts being ripped apart by shrapnel ? those other sweet
things that happen when conventional weapons ? are used" 
5.5 "we had no sensible plans for defending Europe" 
5.6 "the neutron bomb has to be the most moral weapon ever invented" 
(to be completed)
======================================================================
	Because of the neutron bomb's capability to destroy lives and not
property and leaving no lingering radio activity it would make it
easier for the mind to use it than other weapons.
	In this aspect, it is the most dangerous weapon on earth.
	Military units work in a dispersed deployments in the field. Thus
for use on military targets in the field it is not all that efficient,
in that many of them must be engaged. 
	The most likely use of the neutron bomb would to be to use it on
populated areas, either to kill off the population for eventual
occupation while leaving their developments intact, to just kill off
people in general or to use as a means of terrorist extortion.
	The neutron bomb "fulfills the dreams of civilized nations".
	Now there's a statement.
	A space program would be something that could be considered to be
a fulfillment of a society's dreams.
	Music and art would be another legitimate cause for fulfilling
any worthy dreams.
	Developing an example for the benevolence of man kind in general
could be the worthy dreams of a civilized society.
	It's hard to get a sense of fulfillment from a weapon that is
designed for wholesale slaughter of human beings and any other life
form that is in the vicinity of the target.
	In the Greek history, the meat of the historical review is on
their development of sciences and there architecural and artistic
accomplishments.
	For the United States it is much the same along with such things
as it's space program and our Constitution.
	Only a fool would consider the development of any weapon as a
premise for fulfilling the dreams of any society, "civilized" or not.	
	The quote attributed to Cohen in the Table of Contents, "the
neutron bomb has to be the most moral weapon ever invented" including
the one on fulfilling dreams, is the result of a particular thought
process that is passed on from one generation to another that is not
intended one iota for the benevolence of man kind in general.

>tom moran wrote:
>>         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.
>[snip]
>
>Do we smell a little anti-semitism here?  After all, Iraq and the other
>Arab nations have sworn again and again since 1948 to 'push the Jews
>into the sea', and have tried to do so a number of times.  Is it any
>wonder the Jews (I'm not Jewish) would have ill feelings toward Iraq?
	"Anti-Semitism" you "smell", you say? Maybe you can expand on it.
	Maybe while your at that you could explain or excuse how it
happens that Jews who make up barely 2% of the American population
wrote 85% of the columns in the nations two largest newspapers calling
for war on Iraq, the enemy of the Jewish state of Israel.
	Are you going to say they submitted the stuff for the good of
America and it had nothing to do with personal ethnocentric motives? 
>-- 
>Judson McClendon
>Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

In article  schneik@azstarnet.com (Conrad Schneiker) writes:
>
>           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
A truly moral, and humanitarian, weapon of mass destruction 
would be one which would destroy the Internet without harming
any users who are assholes but have no ulterior motives.

glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long):
[re:   Derrida's reply to Hyppolite.
 Much deleted.]
> I don't know whether this is the correct interpretation.  I do think
>it's wrong, except in the trivial sense; in any case, it doesn't say
>anything important about science or about physical reality.  
   Sorry for deleting the rest of your post, Gordon -- I just wanted
to make a quick point about this right here.   Derrida wasn't claiming
to "say anything important about science or about physical reality."
(As a matter of fact, he rarely addresses the natural sciences in his
work.)
   The quotation you're interpreting comes from an answer Derrida
gave during a Q&A; session after a certain talk.  The subject of the talk 
wasn't physics; it was Levi-Strauss.  Physics came up only because
Hyppolite asked, in effect, whether Einstein contradicted Derrida.  To
which Derrida replied basically, "No."
-- moggin

In article <327BC354.5D7B@merle.acns.nwu.edu>, ezotti@merle.acns.nwu.edu 
says...
>
>We were recently asked: if the earth stopped spinning, would we fall off? 
>My initial reaction was: naah, we'd be glued to the planet more firmly 
>than ever (i.e., we'd weigh more), because centrifugal force would no 
>longer be operative. However, I thought it prudent to place the question 
>before the house. So:
>
>(1) If the earth stopped spinning, would we weigh more, less, or the 
>same? If more or less, what would we weigh? If in fact spinning causes us 
>to weigh less, how fast would the earth have to spin before we 
>were weightless? Would we have to reach orbital velocity, which I 
>believe is something like 18,000 MPH at sea level? 
>
>(2) Would any other noteworthy effects occur, apart from no sunrises and 
>sunsets and the fact that bathtubs would drain straight down no matter 
>what hemisphere you were in?
>
>For a newspaper column. CC's by E-mail appreciated. 
>-- 
It seems to me that one half of us would fry and the other half would 
freeze, not to mention the utter havoc caused to our weather patterns.
my $0.02.
Bryan.

It's been a while but the original paper was pulled and at least one of the
people credited with the research denied any knowledge of it.
Joseph Strout  wrote in article
...
> There was a recent buzz of excitement about a so-called "anti-gravity"
> effect found by Finnish researcher E. Podkletnov et al., which even found
> its way into Science magazine a couple weeks ago.
> 
> Searching for the latest, I found that this isn't new at all:
> 
> Podkletnov, E.; Nieminen, R.
>      A possibility of gravitational force shielding by bulk YBa/sub
2/Cu/sub
>      3/O/sub 7-x/ superconductor.
>    Physica C, 10 Dec. 1992, vol.203, (no.3-4):441-4.
> 
> But I can't find anything more recent than that.  I had heard that NASA
> and the University of Alabama were going to attempt a replication.  Any
> news on this?  The negative result probably won't get published, except
> perhaps as a letter to the editor, but it's important enough that I hope
> they'll make some sort of announcement.
> 
> Any info you have would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> ,------------------------------------------------------------------.
> |    Joseph J. Strout           Department of Neuroscience, UCSD   |
> |    jstrout@ucsd.edu           http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~jstrout/  |
> `------------------------------------------------------------------'
> 
> 

dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) wrote:
>In article <56hf2d$pb7@nw101.infi.net>
>tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) writes:
>> I was under the impression that Gibberish came about after the isolation
>> of gibberelic acid, a plant mutagen.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net  "Took all the money I had in the bank,
>>                                Bought a rebuilt carburetor, 
>>                                put the rest in the tank."
>>                                 USED CARLOTTA.. 1995
>BTW, where did you and Meg post your concession speeches?  I can't seem
>to find 'em.
What makes you think they conceded anything.  The way I heard it was
that they were going to demand a recount if they won.
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.

Silke:
>>> You misunderstood; do you have an _original_ cite for that?
Hardy: 
>> In other words, I should have been sensitive to your *intentions*, and
>> not to your words. More decon hypocrisy, perhaps?
Silke: 
> Perhaps not; you know, you are beginning to sound like a Kagalenko
> clone, but you don't mind, perhaps?
So, you've managed to eliminate Messrs Zeleny and Beavis, have you?
> Brian has already addressed your cites, so I won't bother...
Your standards are too modest.
> but if you read his response, you will know by know that
> you haven't proven anything of what you wanted to prove...
But, proof wasn't the intention - merely corroboration. You should look
up the word "cite" sometime.
> for a scientist, that would be a humiliating experience.
Lucky escape for me, then.
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."
Hardy:
>> 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.
Silke: 
> Okay, you don't know what you're talking about, but you're happy to 
> take the word of others as gospel as long as it corroborates your 
> prejudice. Well, congratulations, Hardy, you're really something; just 
> the type I like to judge "philosophical movements."
And congratulations to you too, Silke. You've managed (yet again) to
generate more bluster than a supersonic wind-tunnel experiment. Perhaps
your real area of proficiency lies in fluid dynamics.
Hardy:
>> The subject of discussion was the foundations of a particular 
>> movement, not the content of any particular "text", as you imply.
Silke:
> Hardy, philosophy consists of texts. You want to comment on a 
> particular brand, you'll have to refer yourself to a text, or many 
> texts.
Deconstructionism may well consist of texts. Philosophy, in
contradistinction, comprises concepts, ideas, analysis, rational
argument, and the search for truth - in other words, hard work. Texts
are merely peripheral to this enterprise - they provide the mechanisms
whereby the essence of philosophy may be stored, cross-referenced, and
passed on from generation to generation.
Silke:
> THat's so elemental that I've decided you must be a troll who has 
> chosen this particular venue to discredit opposition to deconstruction.
I, on the other hand, have determined that you have chosen this venue
for a painful, iterative and detailed exposition of the poverty of your
intellectual existence.
Silke:
> But you're a waste of time either way.
You, however, are a perennial source of entertainment.

It seems the question was what completes the curcuit.
The ground(dirt) completes the curcuit. At every properly wired breaker
box and pole transformer, the neutral and ground are connected and
connected to an earth groung. Look at the pole outside your home. If it
has a transformer, a groung wire will run down the pole.... into the
earth. In the event or an electrical short, current will be diverted into
the earth and complete a circuit to the transformer ground. The ground wir
and neutral are connected there.
John

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
> 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.
> 
BJ: For what it's worth, I happen to agree with Stapp's approach in a 
number of important respects.

 > From: darylb@bnr.ca (darylb)
 b> Date: 8 Nov 1996 17:13:05 GMT
> In <01bbcb21$f2208f40$6b0574cb@vicvic> "IBAN"

> writes: 
> >ASIANS OF THE WORLD....LETS BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA.......
 > Sound's like a post from "IBAN" the terrible 8^)
Just someone who evidently agrees with Hanson;-)
Terry

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:14:35 -0600, Judson McClendon
 wrote:
>tom moran wrote:
>>         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.
>[snip]
>
>Do we smell a little anti-semitism here?  After all, Iraq and the other
>Arab nations have sworn again and again since 1948 to 'push the Jews
>into the sea', and have tried to do so a number of times.  Is it any
>wonder the Jews (I'm not Jewish) would have ill feelings toward Iraq?
	Facts can not be anti-semitic.  
	Nor can there be a claim that 93% of the columns by 2% of the
population is merely an accident.  
	And in fact they have proposed to push ISRAEL into the sea that it
happens to be populated by jews is a secondary issue as jews are
people of the book and protected by the teachings of the Prophet.  
	As to Iraq, they were never involved in any such attempt for nearly
half a century.  You are merely pointing out the anti-muslim bigotry
of jews in highlighting Iraq.  
	Jews hate muslims nearly as much as they hate Christians.  Zionists
CHOSE to go to the heart of Muslim territory is FULL KNOWLEDGE of the
hatred it would cause.  The zionists wanted exactly the hatred they
have now.  To say otherwise is to say they were stupid and they were
not.
	They wanted this confrontation with Muslims and they have it.  They
wanted to have an excuse to kill them and they got that excuse.
	Zionists are murderers of the first order and know that they are
and are proud of it.  
=====
http://home1.gte.net/mgiwer/index.html
http://www.codoh.com/

publius@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
>Summary:                   
>Keywords: 
> 
>     I don't know of any scientist who does not believe - as a
>  matter of course -  that the phenomenon "Life" is a function of
>  "Matter".  And I believe I am safe in saying that scientists are 
>  - by definition - Atheists. 
wrong. most scientists i know are theists. it depends on your
definition of god. how do YOU know what their beliefs on god are?
 That is, scientists believe - they 
>  must believe - that Life outside of Matter is an impossibility.
>     Thus, my hypothesis that Life has Primacy over Matter,
>     Just consider how Life on Earth, from its primitive beginning
>  has always "used" lifeless Matter to achieve its purposeful ends.
>  Life "wills" and Matter just "is".
horse manure. what is "life". how does it "will' things. 
your argument is sophomoric and very confused.

Please take a look
README.all, README.MID and README.SEE
and related drawings of H-M in anonymous computer
http://www.funet.fi/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas
or same directory in ftp.funet.fi
There is something about neutrino stars.
Best Regards,
Hannu Poropudas
-- 
"If man has good self-discipline always to choose good instead of
 pleasant, then man becomes also good and happy, which are the
 goals of man's life."  (Hannu Poropudas)

The of/off example does not fit with the rest.  They are not
pronounced the same.  This suggests (the obvious) that we do
not only "think in sound" but also "think in picture."
DS

Walker on Earth (C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu) wrote:
: In article <567rmr$9lb@panix2.panix.com>
: +@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
:  
I have the impression this whole discussion can 
be summarised as:
"Maths is hard" -- Barbi.
              :-)
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

This is a test. There is not necessarily a problem at this time.

In article  meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
wrote:


Strangely enough, I've never heard velocity described quite this way
(derivative of location).  This is producing more thought.  Thanks, Mati. 
I almost missed this article because I've been avoiding certain
discussions in this newsgroup; time, energy and money are at a premium
these days.
By the way,  do have a booklet of these snippets?  They are worth
organizing into paper form.

Ken MacIver wrote:
> My line of questioning, as you so quaintly put it, has established by
> a preponderance of the evidence that you are a fraud and have never
> read Derrida.  
In other words, after much effort, you're finally ready to deny the
antecedent. As I have said, whatever reading I have done in formulating
my argument is unimportant. What you should address is the argument
itself. If I have indeed never read Derrida, establishing a fallacy
should be easy (unless, of course, I'm terribly lucky). So, cogitate
upon the following:
	"[reading] cannot legitimately transgress the text towards something
other than it, toward a referent (a reality that is metaphysical,
historical, psychobiographical, etc.) or toward a signified outside the
text whose content could take place... There is nothing outside of the
text". (_Of Grammatology_, page 158)
Now, go figure...
Ken MacIver:
> But, thank you for puffing.
Anything to please.
Cheers,
Hardy

Greg von Nessi (gvn@ma.ultranet.com) wrote:
: Can anyone describe any high energy (I don't think any low energy
: reactions exhist, but if they do tell me) particle reactions that
: produce antiprotons... thanks ahead of time.
for example:
p + p ---> p + p  + p + anti-p.
you need a centre-of-mass energy of  at least say 2 GeV
for this reaction to occur.  In practice, you just shoot
a beam of protons in bulk matter (also plenty of protons
around) and you set up the magnetic and electric fields
in such a  way that you capture the outcoming anti-protons
while dumping all the other mess you're creating :)
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

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.
It is also an extremely narrow point, which depends for its power on
country specific legal systems.  Germany and France, for example, can
make such a choice because their legal framework allows it; the US
cannot because of the first amendment.
Ken

In article <2d13smd60@poli.satlink.net>, carlos@poli.satlink.net (CF POLI - Quilmes) writes:
u>>In article <328615B8.1228@carmen.murdoch.edu.au>, Shayne O'Neill 
u>  writes:
u>>q> Ian Fairchild wrote:
u>>q>> 
u>>q>> Marcus Tarrnat wrote:
u>>q>> >
u>>q>> > ALT.NEWS wrote:
u>>q>> 
u>>q>> SNIPPEROONIE!
u>>q>> 
u>>q>> > >
u>u>q>> > > In article <55s90n$80t@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, AQAY1 > She ran a 
u> fish shop until she was accidentally elected a few months ago.
u>>q>> > That's one of the drawbacks of democracy I suppose.
u>>q>> > But what's a dimwit like Pauline Hanson got to do with woodworking
u>>q>> > anyway?
u>>q>> > tyrant
u>>q>> 
u>>q>> What a load of crap! She may be a dimwit, and she may have run a fish 
u> shop, but she was
u>>q>> certainly NOT accidently elected. She stood for and won a seat in the 
u> House of
u>>q>> Representatives, against the major political parties. i.e. The people 
u> voted for her
u>>q>> personally, not proportionally as would happen in the senate.
u>>q> 
u>>q> I must disagree. Her election posters claaimed she was "fighting for
u>>q> equality". A most *VICIOUS* *EVIL* and *TREASONOUS* lie.
u>>q> 
u>>q> Pauline hansons days are numbered. By fair means of foul, she ain't 
u>>q> getting another term. Take my word on it. 
u>>
u>>I heard that many Asian governments and African governments are
u>>considering to boycott the Olympic. Is that true?
u>>
u>>
u>>q> 
u>>q> Hmm...
u>>q> 
u>>q> Peace,
u>>q> 
u>>q> 
u>>q> Shayne.
u>>q
u> Hi! What is the matter in this thread?
I think it is kind of the same like what's happening in
the Texaco thread.
u> --
u> Carlos F. POLI Pasaporte Nro. 022524L
u> Quilmes (arg.) - Borgo a Mozzano (Lu)

To all concerned:
A month ago yesterday, I received e-mail from both the Oxford University
Press and Springer-Verlag, in re: my book, *Quanta & Consciousness*. By
that afternoon, my e-mail had been cut off by the UI, for reasons which
remain largely obscure. 
I have since obtained an account on a privately owned server. However, 
for the past month, none of my posts have made it through to sci.physics 
or sci.physics.research. Until today. One of my computer whiz buddies has 
looked into it and thinks it's "really strange".
Meanwhile, I happened to catch a crusty character from the Pentagon on 
CNBC; he was saying that the gov't had decided to classify some of the 
science that has hitherto been passing freely on the net. On the chance 
that there is some connection here with my own situation, I paid a visit 
this week to Rep. Jim Leach's office here in Iowa City. His associate, 
Ginnie Burrus, had me type out the story before I left. While I was doing 
so, a 30'ish male who had been watching me on campus over an hour ago 
showed up at the congressman's office on some dubious pretext. He saw me 
there & saw that I saw him. He left quickly.
Meanwhile, I get another e-mail message from an employment database, 
asking that I clarify my request for my password--a request I never made.
Can anyone throw light on any of this? 
Any constructive suggestions welcome.
Sincerely,
Brian J Flanagan

DaveHatunen wrote:
> 
> In article <19961115.150658.181324.NETNEWS@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>,
>   wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >I'm not sure what the problems are with the discussion.  I teach physics and
> >have dealt with many "myths" in science.  Ice will change state to a liquid in
> >a variety of ways.  One way is by pressure.  The concave shape of the edge of
> >an ice skate applies enough pressure on the ice to force it to change state to
> >a liquid (the process is called "regelation").  The skate glides across a bead
> >of water.  As soon as the pressure is relieved (by the skate moving onward), it
> >changes back to a solid.  Because of the nature of ice formation, the ice
> >reforms as a ridge that must be leveled or smoothed at olympic events.  It is
> >one way judges determine how well a skater did their routine.
> 
> 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,
> and, since the triple point of water is at about 0C, it is unlikely in
> any case.
> 
Just because it has been posted here doesn't make it true.  I was taught
at college (which doesn't necessarily make it true either) that pressure
of the skate blade liquifys a thin layer of water as
jboutwel@access.k12.wv.us described.  
If you examine the pahse diagram for water in any college chemistry
text, you will note that the boundary between solid and liquid states is
inclined to the left.  Thus if the pressure is increased (moving upward)
you cross the boundary and the water enters the liquid state.  
The tripple point of water is indeed close to zero Celsius (0.01
degrees), but at 4.6 torr.  Since normal atmospheric pressure is 760
torr, I'm not sure I understand how it applys to the discussion of ice
skating, because even without the pressure suppplied by the skate you
would be nowhere near the tripple point.
Since normal air pressure is about 14 psi, and even a 50 pound ice
skater is going to create a pressure much higher than that in the small
region under the blade, I'm not sure why it isn't believable that the
pressure wouldn't be enough to liquify the water.  
I'm sorry I entered this discussion late.  I would have loved reading
the posting that you mention so I would understand where I'm
misinformed.  Is there some way I can go back and read it?  (I'm fairly
new to newsgroups.)
-- 
David Hole
dhole@netusa1.net

All of the relevant evidence indicates that life grew here on earth. This
does not necessarily eliminate the divine from the picture. But it
eliminates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
And it quite possibly changes are infantile anthropomorphic and
specio-centristic notion of the divine.
Cairns

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?
> 
You are on the mark ... English spelling is irrational, but the meaning
is (almost) always conveyed by the phonetics alone.  The "modern" approach
in American elementary schools is to begin with a phonetic approach, and
only begin enforcing spelling rules after a few years.
Personally, I'm a very good speller, and a touch typist. I find that I type
"there" for "their" quite often ... I just type what I'm saying to myself.
Best Regards, Peter
the

Cees Roos wrote:
> > they are equally good. One might consider the simplest of the two better
> > > (Occam, you know..).
> >
> > Not necessarily. Epicycles did a wonderful job of prediction planetary motion
> > with a geocentric universe, the Copernican system did/does an equally good job
> > with a heliocentric universe. Which is the "correct" theory?
> 
> Perfect example! Both are correct, but Copernicus is less complex, and
> consequently preferred.
> 
I think the preference follows more from the fact that Copernicus'
model was a bit more in line with reality. I think this is the best
way to pick and choose among models ... when such a clear cut
distinction is available.
> > It may well be possible to have invariant time AND still have the observations
> > which confirm SR,
> 
> I don't see how. But even if, for the sake of the argument, we assume
> this possibility, the invariant time is orthogonal to SRT, i.e. it makes
> no difference whether it exists or not, because SRT yields correct
> predictions as it is.
> 
It makes a difference when you begin to put together your 
cosmological model. Especially if you make the premature
assumption that because your foundation (SR) makes "perfect"
predictions it must be correct.
> > or variant time which does not encompass the assymetrical
> > predictions of the "twins paradox" (among other effects).
> 
> Again, I don't see how.
> 
Nor do I. The truth must be discovered/confirmed empirically
though, not hypothetically. 
> > > As far as I can see, the battle has already been decided, because there
> > > is no experimental result indicating that absolute time exists.
> > > Once more, come up with an experiment which will show one way or the
> > > other and the matter can be settled.
> > >
Several have been proposed. The best experiments though remain
technologically in the future for awhile. But yes they will probably
settle the matter ....probably in SR's favor (odds are), but that's
no reason to claim it's settled now.
> >
> > But you are accepting the "prefered" theory as fact, long before many experiments
> > have been developed to test it.
> 
> Yes, and I will do that as long as it stands, i.e. as long as it is not
> falsified.
> 
Much the same logic kept the geocentric universe scenario
around for a long time. Of course independent verification/testing
was not well received either.
> > You have the cart before the horse when you
> > say someone must disprove the theory ... or accept it. Some things remain
> > to be seen.
> 
> Science progresses by falsifying theories, but as long as a theory gives
> right predictions, and is not falsified, I don't see what's wrong with
> accepting it.
It pretty much stops the discovery process cold.
> On the other hand, if you have an equally 'strong' alternative, feel
> free to believe it. Only, if it's equally strong, there will be no
> conflict. The present discussion could be an indication that the
> two viewpoints pro and contra are not equivalent.
> 
Nope. Don't have an alternative. Someone brighter than me, and starting
down the path much sooner would have a much better chance to find
an alternative ... if one exists. But to find such a alternative
he/she will have to abandone the assumption that what is currently
known is the last/best word on the subject. Einstein took that 
tack until the day he died ... if you can trust the literature.
> > > > Reality is the arbitrator. If SR is an accurate model (of reality) the theory
> > > > must be absolute in the sense of providing accurate data.
> > >
> > > A theory does not provide data, it can provide predictions, which can be
> > > tested. The predictions of SRT have proved to be accurate so far.
> > >
Yes.
> > > > The value of time
> > > > dilation wrt some particular velocity is an absolute value.
> > >
> > > And is correctly predicted by SRT.
> > >
Yes.
> >
> > In some very limited circumstances there is a great deal of evidence regarding
> > SR's predictions.
> 
> Unfortunately, the limited circumstances are all we have. It is possible
> to make all kinds of assumptions about what's outside, but we will never
> know one way or the other. Discussing such assumptions might be a
> comfortable passtime, but will always remain purely speculative.
> 
We'll soon have less limited circumstances ... unless we abandone
science for "new age physics" and such (which could happen).
The point is you cannot make any assumptions about what's outside
except to model it and see if the model conforms to reality. As
to speculation ... well much of science is a process of speculation,
albeit rigorously mathematical in content.
> 
> > This is not the same as claiming ALL predictions of SR WILL
> > BE correct.
> 
> All predictions of SRT have been correct so far. Nobody claims eventual
> further predictions will all be correct. As long as this is so, why not
> be content with a satisfactory theory?
> 
Oh but they do. The "twins paradox" for example is claimed to be a 
decided issue ... but it surely is not; and won't be until one twin
climbs in a rocket while the other stays home ... or some such
variation. There are many claims/predictions which have not
been substantiated ... not even FTL.
> > > >
> > > > If you are speaking of some absolute frame of reference, even Einstein did not
> > > > believe (if one can accept the literature) that SR ruled out finding one.
> > >
> > > In physics nothing can be ruled out on beforehand. SRT hypothesizes no
> > > absolute frame, and comes up with correct predictions so far.
> > >
> >
> > So far. More tests will give more data. More data will add certainty to
> > conclusions.
> 
> Let's wait and see.
> 
> >
I agree.
regards ... W$

cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy) wrote:
>nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>>In article <56gtgj$7s7@lex.zippo.com>, dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F.
>>Dietz) wrote:
>>I thought I was bold
>> but now         it's   so cold 
>>         they chopped off my head
I wrote nothing in that message.  Please get your attributions
straight, please.
	Paul
	"Akbar and Jeffs's Cryonics Hut:
	 Where the elite beat the heat to avoid having to meet St. Pete"

In article <567fls$muo@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article , Anthony Potts  >On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> 
> >> Translation: I am not good enough at physics to get to the top.
> 
> >to be honest with you though, life at the top isn't all that great.
> 
> I thought you studied the top at CERN?  Have I missed something?
                            ^^^
Now wasn't that a strange post?
                  ^^^^^^^
I'm going to get to the bottom of this!
                        ^^^^^^
Charmed, I'm sure...
^^^^^^^
Anyone else want to take a stab at the others?  My brain hurts...
:-) :-) :-)
-- 
Edward Gedeon / The opinions above are not my employers'. / Member DNRC O-
                    ******************************
   "I was put on Earth to raise other people's children."
                                 Jody Lynne Gedeon, 1953-1996

 Kurt Foster  writes
>     A sapling grown from a cutting off the very apple tree Newton was
>supposed to have sat under, was sent to and planted in Japan.  When the
>tree appeared ready to bear fruit, they set up a video camera to record
>the apple's fall from the tree.
>     Before the great event could happen, though, someone living nearby
>spotted the apple, picked it and ate......... 
        This story illustrates the difference between Newton's theory of
Gravity, and Einstein's alternative........... 
        Newton's theory predicts, wrongly, as it turned out,that the
apple must fall straight down. Whereas Einstein theory predicts
correctly ,as it turned out, that the journey of the apple from branch
to ground, would not be determined by a 'force of gravity', but rather
the journey of the apple is determined by a 'warped space-time'.
         Now it might be dangerous to draw any general conclusion from
this particular case, but either way the apple does eventually return to
mother earth, and although the quantitative predictions of Newton's
theory may have totally failed in this particular instance,
nevertheless, it is the 'curved space-time' route which ends up in the
shit.
-- 
Keith Stein

I just found this in a net search. Don't know who the author is.
"Some time ago there was a thread in sci.math discussing the meaning 
of physical locality in Minkowski spacetime, given that for any 
two events A and B there exist other points C such that the space-
time intervals CA and CB are both zero.  This led to the question of
whether physical effects can operate "in both directions" along a null
interval ("is locality transitive?").  Here's an interesting quote
from John Gribbin's new book (Schrodinger's Kittens), in which he
evangalizes for the "transactional interpretation" of quantum
mechanics put forward by John Cramer (cf Reviews of Modern Physics,
58, 1986, p647):
   "From the perspective of pseudo-time, the pair of photons cannot 
    be emitted until an arrangement has been made to absorb them, 
    and that absorption arrangement itself determines the
    polarizations of the emitted photons...  Whether the signals
    are travelling backwards or forwards in time doesn't matter,
    since they take zero time (in their own frame of reference)..."
Compare this with the following comment from a sci.physics post of
last year:
   "The space-time separation between the transmission and absorption
    of a photon, as seen from the photon's frame of reference, is 
    zero.  So does a photon already 'know' how it will be absorbed 
    when it is transmitted?"
The same post went on to observe that the Minkowski metric has similar
implications for massive particles as well, noting that
   "...Schrodinger's wave equations, like Maxwell's equations, work 
    equally well forwards and backwards in time.  Of course, on a
    macroscopic level we seem to only observe outward "retarded" 
    waves, not inward "advanced" waves..."
Compare this with Gribin's discussion of the Wheeler-Feynman theory of
electromagnetic radiation and more recent developments:
   "Wheeler-Feynman theory provides a way for particles here and 
    now to 'know' about the past and future states...  But all this 
    still applied only to electromagnetic radiation.  The giant leap 
    taken by Cramer was to extend these ideas to the wave equation 
    of quantum mechanics - the Schrodinger equation itself, and the 
    equations describing the probability waves, which travel, like 
    photons, at the speed of light."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarfatti comment. I am troubled by this for several reasons. First, it
is not true that the proper time of the normals to Schrodinger waves of
massive particles is zero. They are superluminal. Second, the
Schrodinger waves for several particles exist in 3n configuration space
not in physical 3 space. This is qualitatively different from classical
EM waves. Third, Bohm clearly proves that there are no sources or sinks
for Schrodinger waves in orthodox quantum mechanics. Cramer's theory
purports to explain orthodox quantum mechanics. So this is an
inconsistent picture. True, my back-action extension of orthodox QM to
post-QM does have the sources and sinks that Cramer needs in his
informal language, but then he is not doing ordinary quantum mechanics
as he thinks he is doing.
My point here is that we cannot intuitively think of the quantum problem
for massive particles the way we can think of the emission and
absorption of a classical light signal or even of a photon. There is no
analog to electric charge in the massive quantum problem and we must use
configuration space.
The simplest quantum problem here is that of the EPR correlation of two
massive particles 1 and 2 relatively at rest. Bohm's theory has a
preferred frame of absolute rest which we assume is the global frame of
the Hubble flow of the expanding universe in the standard cosmological
model of general relativity. General relativity restores the global
absolute rest preferred frame in some of its curved spacetime solutions
which are absent from special relativity that only works for flat
spacetime. The cosmic black body radiation is isotropic to 1 part in
10^5 with no motional blue and red shifts and there is a definite
radiation temperature T giving the unique global cosmic time from the
big bang. So this global absolute rest is completely operationally
defined. This is how our star ships will navigate.
The nonlocal context-dependent quantum potential connecting these two
particles is Q(x1,x2,T) where x1 and x2 are 3-D spatial positions in the
global frame of the co-moving Hubble flow and T is the absolute Kelvin
temperature of the cosmic black body (currently microwave) photons. The
quantum force on each particle is -grad1Q and -grad2Q respectively. This
is instantaneous. If one particle moves with speed v relative to the
Hubble frame. The order of magnitude of the delay effect is Lv/c^2
seconds depending on the angle of the particle's velocity relative to
the spacelike geodesic connecting the two particles separated by proper
distance L.
Now one can still use the Cramer picture of a Feynman zig-zag in which
the Bohm/Bell hidden-variable/beable classical point particles propagate
along the timelike world lines with a common origin i.e. a V shape in
the spacetime diagram with the common origin at the base of the "V". In
contrast, the quantum wave fronts move on the dual spacelike world lines
connecting the common origin to the worldlines of the two particle
detectors A and B. We need 4 particles 1,2, A and B to properly picture
this on a spacetime diagram. The retarded quantum messages from the
common origin to A and B will arrive long before the beable particles
arrive because these quantum waves move at superluminal speeds c^2/v
both forward and backward in coordinate time. The corresponding proper
time is imaginary, not zero, proper time as in the case of photons.
Gribbin makes an error in his book, in the above quote from his book,
where he writes: "and the equations describing the probability waves,
which travel, like photons, at the speed of light", by giving the reader
the false impression that the proper time is zero for massive particles
in the same way that is is for the massless transverse real photon in
the far radiation field.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gribbin also reports that Shu-Yuan Chu has recently published
(Physical Review Letters, 71, 1993, p2847) a paper on quantum gravity
that evidently takes a similar approach.  Chu apparently was unaware
of Cramer's work when he wrote his paper, and has remarked "Had I
known advanced interactions have already been accepted as a
possibility in these discussions, it would certainly have lessened my
anxiety in pursuing the string-theory generalization of Wheeler-
Feynman's time-symmetric electrodynamics".
Anyway, Gribbin goes on to explain in detail how Cramer's transaction
interpretation resolves every one of the well-known quantum paradoxes,
and is mathematically totally consistent with the standard theory and
all experimental results.  Further, he argues that Cramer's view is
the most economical and intuitively satisfying of all quantum
interpretations.  I find this both exhilarating and depressing.  It's
exhilarating to find that new ideas and points of view are making
progress, but depressing to reflect on the reception these same ideas
received when posted not long ago here in sci.physics.

In article <328DF210.6A93@netusa1.net>, David Hole   wrote:
>DaveHatunen wrote:
[...]
>> 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,
>> and, since the triple point of water is at about 0C, it is unlikely in
>> any case.
>> 
>Just because it has been posted here doesn't make it true.  I was taught
>at college (which doesn't necessarily make it true either) that pressure
>of the skate blade liquifys a thin layer of water as
>jboutwel@access.k12.wv.us described.  
>
>If you examine the pahse diagram for water in any college chemistry
>text, you will note that the boundary between solid and liquid states is
>inclined to the left.  Thus if the pressure is increased (moving upward)
>you cross the boundary and the water enters the liquid state.  
>
>The tripple point of water is indeed close to zero Celsius (0.01
>degrees), but at 4.6 torr.  Since normal atmospheric pressure is 760
>torr, I'm not sure I understand how it applys to the discussion of ice
>skating, because even without the pressure suppplied by the skate you
>would be nowhere near the tripple point.
>
>Since normal air pressure is about 14 psi, and even a 50 pound ice
>skater is going to create a pressure much higher than that in the small
>region under the blade, I'm not sure why it isn't believable that the
>pressure wouldn't be enough to liquify the water.  
Hm. Looking at the rather crude phase diagram I have, it appears that a
liquid phase can exist at about -20C and 2000 Kg/cm^2. This would seem
to mean that skating is impossible below -20C. I'm not a skater and I
live in California, so I'll ahve to have others tell me if this is
true.
Near as I can figure, a skate has an ice contact area of about 6 cm^2.
So a 50 kg person would exert a pressure of about 8 kg/cm^2. At thsi
pressure the phase change termperature seems to be about -0.01C. 
All of which to say that it doesn't *seem* like the old
"blade-pressure" explanation really works.
>I'm sorry I entered this discussion late.  I would have loved reading
>the posting that you mention so I would understand where I'm
>misinformed.  Is there some way I can go back and read it?  (I'm fairly
>new to newsgroups.)
Depends on yoru newsreader software and your Internet provider. There's
usually a way to see the old posts that haven't been "aged" off the
provider's system.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

 moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>Anton Hutticher:
>
>>>>Our definitions are as good as yours.
>
>moggin  
>
>>>   Not to mention Humpty Dumpty's.
>
>caj@moriarty.math.niu.edu (Xcott Craver):
>
>>        What what WHAT???  Please, Moggin, *just this once* let's settle
>>a quibbling petty side-thread in a direct manner, without one-liners, 
>>without semantically jumping ship.  I can't see how you can do anything
>>other than (perhaps grudgingly) agree on this point, because it's a 
>>point you yourself have made countless times!
>
>>        You have in the past emphasized this in our own articles:  there 
>>is no universal strict definition of such words, and nobody has the right 
>>to insist that theirs is the right one.  You keep insisting that if it's 
>>flat, then by definition it's not a hill.  That's just one definition, 
>>albeit a common one.  It is quite contradictory to your usual behavior
>>to assert this usage of "hill" as if it were strict and universal, and 
>>not just your opinion, your definition.  Indeed, many sciency types fear
>>your ability to escape a losing argument by claiming different def's
>>of terms your opponents used.
>
>>        Remember months back to that yammering about syllogisms and
>>validity?  I foolishly assumed that my definition of "valid" was  
>>universal, and you were quick to point out that it was wrong to do so,
>>even if it's the definition logicians agree upon.  Not everyone is a 
>>logician, and certainly a word like "valid" has many connotations.
>>I was forced to agree.  I still agree.  Why are you suddenly doing a 
>>180?  I mean, if you saw someone behave this way you'd (IMHO) say 
>>the same thing Anton did.  Do principles and opinions get tossed aside
>>or reversed so easily in the name of word games?
>
>>        Agree or disagree, with no sarcastic frosting:  it's a loose
>>use, but not any more or less correct, to consider a flat plane a 
>>hill?  Yes?  No?  A single straight answer would quite brighten my
>>day.
>
>   Sorry for not answering your earlier post (I lost it, along with a
>few others) -- if I had, it might have saved us this confusion.   You'll
>be glad to learn that I agree with your basic point -- my citation of
>the esteemed Mr. Dumpty notwithstanding.  _Pace_ Hardy, I never 
>studied with him, but as a philosopher of language, he has few equals.
>
>   I can agree with you without grudge, quibble, or (I'd better make 
>this plain) sarcasm:  there isn't any universality to my sense of
>the term "hill."  You're fully entitled to use a different one, if you
>see fit.  And if you apply a definition which differs from mine,  it's 
>entirely possible that you would arrive at a different conclusion.
>
>   Please note that I did not make a U-turn.  I'm capable of driving
>like a bootlegger, but here I was out for a Sunday cruise -- agreed
>that I _would_ be reversing myself if I insisted that my sense of
>"hill" was exclusively valid -- but you'll notice that I'm not.  I've
>got no desire for you to adopt it, if you don't so choose.
>
>   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
I'm new to this business and apologise if I've sent this already (I got
an error message of some sort), but I'm interested by the concept of 
flat hills.  If you talk about flat hills then I don't immediately understand
what you mean - I need to hear more.  Perhaps you mean something
"ordinary" (say, a hill with a flat top) and that can be easily explained.
But if no amount of context makes it any clearer then communication
will grind to a halt.  I will conclude that you are using either "flat" or
"hill" in a way which has nothing to do with the words as I know them.
-- Philip

Walker on Earth wrote:
> 
> My
> own intuitive powers find little challenge explaining the lack of a
> net gravitational force at the exact center of a spherical shell, for
> example, but they could in no way ferret out the supposition that the
> net force is also zero anywhere else inside as well :-(
My shot at this: From rotational symmetry it follows that the 
tangential component of the force anywhere inside vanishes and that
the modulus of the radial component depends only on the distance from
the center. Now, moving from a point with non-vanishing radial force
component at distance r from the center straight through it to the point 
at the same distance on the opposite side one would obviously cross a 
point with non-vanishing divergence of the force field (in 
non-mathematical terms this is a point where a field line begins or 
ends). Since non-vanishing divergence of the field means non-vanishing 
mass density we have a contradiction. Thus the radial force component
vanishes everywhere inside.
Does this count as "intuitive?"
Ralf A. Engeldinger
-- 
		A noticeable and identifiable recurrent
		structure is very rarely pure coincidence.

In article , Gordon Long  wrote:
>  Are you trying to show how gravity affects things?  If so, then a
>better example would be something like an elevator in free fall, i.e.
>a frame in which accleration exactly cancels out the effects of
>gravity.  But in this case, you do have a (local) inertial frame -- it
>would pass all the tests. 
The shuttle is exactly equivalent to an elevator in free fall.
I dare say you obviously don't understand this important fact.
Ironically, it is explained very clearly by Newton himself, whom
you presume is incapable of instructing you. Even more ironically,
this is the very nub of the apple/moon apotheosis of universal
gravitation.
You proposed a simple, crude test for an inertial frame ;
one which clearly establishes the orbiting shuttle bay as
inertial. Now Mati Meron and Richard Harter have their micrometers
out ( the shuttle establishes a microgravity environment,
not a zero gravity environment ) to detect second order effects.
This only serves to emphasize that the test you proposed is
inadequate, and the matter is not a trivial one, as you averred.
Lew Mammel, Jr.

In <56ifqk$jhs@ren.cei.net> lkh@mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling) writes:
>>http://www.prometheus-project.org/prometheus/organ-cryopreservation.html 
(deleted)
>Now... I see nothing wrong with this research. This is not talking
>about putting a dead person on ice it is talking about suspending the
>person. As the paper detailed NASA thought about it in the 70's and
>luckily they didn't project it to more fiction. The Project's goal is
>a viable scientific field of study.
	You seem very caught up on the issue of freezing living people
vs. legally dead people, without realizing that legal death is not
real death (not even by contemporary medical criteria).
	If you take a terminal patient with a DNR order on them, have
a qualified medical authority declare them "dead" for legal purposes
when their heart stops, and moments later restart circulation
artificially, then they are NOT dead no matter what their legal
paperwork says.  Their blood gases will be normal, their serum enzymes
will be normal, pH normal.  They'll even *wake up* if you don't
anesthetize them.  You can examine the blood chemistry of a state-of
-the-art cryonics case yourself at 
http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/bpi/tech18b.txt
	If we define death as inability to recover someone using 
1996 technology (as arbitrary as that is), then cryonics patients
don't typically "die" until several hours into the procedure.
And this will be equally true whether I cryopreserve you right now,
or some patient that a doctor just declared "dead" on the basis
of simple cardiac arrest.  So let's recognize this "freezing dead
people" issue for what it is: A legal formality, not a deep
biological conundrum.
***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Human Cryopreservation Services   cryocare@cryocare.org
wowk@cryocare.org   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, Jack, it appears that you have not met EJ before.
This latest appearance is one of the most coherent posts I've seen from
him. ( No, really)
He exhibits all the behavior of someone who goes off his meds, gets worse
and worse, then gets locked up for a few days (when he disappears) and is
put back on track.
I said this in jest the first time I ran across him but am beginning to
believe I was right.
Jack Campin  wrote in article
<1942@purr.demon.co.uk>...
> 
> Eliyehowah  writes:
> > This is a reply. I have not chosen the header newsgroups this thread is
> > found in.
> 
> Yes you have, fuckwit.  You can't weasel out of your responsibility by
> saying "the other guy started it".
> 
> > I have added alt.religion.christian to share with them
> 
> I'm sure that group's readers are all *really* grateful.  I don't think.
> 
> Now edit your goddamn headers before continuing this discussion.
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Jack Campin                                            
jack@purr.demon.co.uk
> T/L, 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE, Scotland       (+44) 131 556
5272 
> ---------------------  Save Scunthorpe from Censorship 
---------------------
> 
> 

Ben Newsam  wrote:
>> > Although communication at greater than c is impossible (says I), it is
>> > in my view certainly possible to communicate across a "horizon", provided
>> > that the message is relayed via someone visible to both parties.
>> 
>> Not the way black holes work.
>No, I suppose not, but then I've never seen one, er, if they *can* be seen.
>Hey! Remember the movie "The Mouse that Roared"? Where a small country was
>planning to send a rocket to the moon? The Russians gave them a spare rocket
>(to tick off the Americans), etc., etc.. The Americans said that they would
>never achieve escape velocity. The answer was... "Escape velocity, it's all
>a lot of nonsense. You'll get there in the end, as long as you keep going
>*up*." :-)
>If you have a "horizon", it should make no difference whether it is produced
>by a curved surface, relative speed, or gravity. It is the effective limit
>of communication. Like the rainbow's end, you can never get there yourself.
Hi Ben.
	That event horizon argument (the "probe chain" postulate) is fairly
trivial under emitter-based framework, but doesn't seem to work too
well under more "modern" mechanics.
	Under emitter-based arguments, there are two equivalent "probe chain"
situations:
1.	Dropping a series of transponder probes into a black hole at
timed intervals in order to relay a signal generated by the first
probe after it has already crossed the classical event horizon.
2.	A craft undergoing classical Newtonian acceleration to speeds
greater than lightspeed wrt it's starting point, throwing out a series
of transponder probes during the acceleration so as to allow FTL
communication back along the probe chain path.
Your escape velocity argument was the correct one - there's a parallel
with the old arguments that "proved" that you couldn't ever escape
Earth gravity with a liquid-fuelled rocket - the solution was to
"stack" a chain of rocket motors to create a multi-stage device. Under
emitter-based logic, the separating probes act a series of signal
boosters. 
Before I get flamed, I know that this is not compatable with normal
physics, but it's not a flight of fancy, either. It just requires the
reengineering of an awful lot of conventional theory...
-
=Erk=

lar20@cus.cam.ac.uk (Dr L.A. Raphals) wrote:
> ...
>Well, either we could use it to communicate backwards in time,
>which would be rather handy, or else we must be mixed up about
>about special relativity or something, which would also be
>likely to have big consequences.  
> ...
Yup. If you _aren't_ using SR, there's always the "probe chain"
hypothesis. It's not an easy thing to test in a lab, though.
=Erk=