Directory

In article <328da1f3.37352570@news.gte.net>, fred@frog.net wrote:
>         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.
Matt Giwer once again proves that sweeping generalizations are nothing but crap.
I am a Jew who does not hate Muslims. I also do not hate Christians.
The only one here so filled with hate is Matt Giwer.
Those of us who still have functioning brains make conscious decisions
about individuals, not balnket statements of hate.
Mr. Giwer also seems to be saying that Jew = Zionist.
And that, as well, is as moronic as everything else he says.
Sara
-- 
"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
                 Samuel Butler

JO>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:52:54 -0600
JO>Message-ID: 
JO>Organization: Sprynet News Service
cc: journali@sprynet.com
  : lhs.school.02d080@sasknet.sk.ca
From: journali@sprynet.com     responding...
....clip.....
JO>Hope this helps. (More than you proably wanted to know on the subject, huh?!
JO>If you have any further questions, please email me at
JO>journali@sprynet.com   and I'll see if I can help you.
JO>> Langenburg High School  wrote:
JO>> >A friend and I have long debated a point. In physics texts there are
JO>> >often problems which describe the motion of an aircraft in a certain
JO>> >direction which is affected by the wind from a different direction. I
JO>> >maintain that if an aircraft is in a pocket of air which is moving, it
JO>> >will have its velocity affected by the air. Example) If a plane is
JO>> >capable of flying at 350 km/h and heads N with a 10 km/h tailwind, it
JO>> >will be able to move at 360 km/h over the land. Example 2) If a plane has
JO>> >an airspeed of 100 mph [W] and is affected by a wind blowing to the north
JO>> >at 75 mph, does the plane really travel at 125 mph toward the WNW?
I can vouch for this effect.  While flying a small plane from Fort
Collins, Colorado (about 50 miles north of Denver) down along the
Rockies by Denver to head further south I caught a 50mph tail wind.  I
didn't notice for a while.
Because of that tail wind I arrived much sooner than I expected in the
Denver Airport's controlled airspace (TCA)  I was also at an altitude
that put me into that airspace, so I dove down to get under it as fast
as this little plane could go (around 140mph).
When I called the tower to let them know I was a potential hazard to
commercial liners coming into Denver (have those jets look out for me!),
I was diving at 140 mph with a tail wind of 50 mph.  So my ground speed
was 190 mph.
When you call the tower you identify what kind of aircraft you're in (I
was in a Cessna 172 [4 place with fixed landing gear])  Then there was a
long pause and the tower came back and asked me again what I was flying,
so I told him again.  He didn't say much else to me.  
I'm sure he figured it out later, but I still imagine what that
controller was first thinking when he saw my plane moving at a speed
that should be ripping my wings off.
                                           - Robert -
                                    robert.macy@engineers.com
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Hangover:  the mourning after the night before.

cc:  Jordan Tobin
JT>From: seinfeld@earthlink.net (Jordan Tobin)
JT>For my Phyiscs class, we are to send a pringle's potato chip thourgh
JT>the mail to school, without it breaking. Anyone got ideas on a way to
JT>package the chip so it does not get broken?
There is a recently developed product called "Air-Pak" (I believe)
It is a new way to ship delicate items.  It is fully recycleable,
reuseable, and environmentally "friendly".
Basically, it consists of inflateable bags of air which can be reused
and will hold their air for like six months!
The company has a demonstration where they pack delicate glasses in the
material and then stand on it with no problems.
It is my understanding that Motorola has now declared this product as
its preferred shipping technique for packing their semiconductor wafers.
And a semiconductor wafer is like a thin glass "potato chip".
You should contact that company and see what you can find out.
[I'm not associated with this company and derive no profits from this.]
                                           - Robert -
                                    robert.macy@engineers.com
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Halt!  I have an assault brick, and I know how to use it.

In article <328fc15c.670799@199.0.216.204>, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) 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]
> >
And would you care to explain HOW you know they are Jewish?
Sara
-- 
"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
                 Samuel Butler

In article <56inia$e9t@basement.replay.com>, Anonymous
 writes
>In article <3289829E.6C8C@gnn.com>, caffeineman@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I just saw a show about cyyonics on the discovery channel, and the
>> thought of living on does sound interest.  However what is the price or
>> prices like for this process.  In the show it talk about $28,000 for
>> full body freezing.  Is there a better price or is that a low price?
>> 
>> Also what happens to me if the company goes belly-up after I'm on ice?
>> 
>> L8r
>> Caffeine Man
>> caffeineman@hotmail.com
>
>There was a company that went bankrupt in LA. The details are available
>in the cryolist archives. The bodies thawed, I believe.
>
>Don't waste your time or money thinking or signing up for cryonics.
>
>Face your death like a real man.
Is that real or mad?
chris@cbenatar.demon.co.uk
Chris Benatar

Wyatt Earp wrote:
> 
> 1)  Explain the double slit experiment.
> 
> I think it was done by Young, in 1801.  He used a single source light and
> shined it thru 2 slits.  Effectively making 2 light sources which were
> coherent (in phase and whatever else). Then he observed the pattern of
> dark and light spots (nodes and anti nodes) and he concluded this must be
> due to the wave property of the light adding and subtractino of the waves.
> Up until this time light was thought of as being particle motion, after
> Youngs experiment, light was thought of as both particle and waves. (and
> later Michaelson-Morley (1920-30?) showed there was no 'ether' through
> which the light wave could propagate, but thats not part of our
> discussion...yet)
> 
The wave theory was originated by Huygens, a contemporary of Newton. The
particle theory was championed by Newton, and since Newton was able to
give very good explanations for optics, his approach was adopted widely.
Young revived the wave theory by means of the demonstration of interference.
Interference is a property of waves, but not of particles.  Fresnel then
developed these ideas further, including mathematics for polarization, etc.
Maxwell showed what light is an electromagnetic wave in 1862. Hertz 
confirmed this by actually creating, and measuring radio waves in the
lab, in the late 1880's.
The Michelson-Morley experiments also date to the 1880's (there was a series
of them, but the definitive one was in 1887). Nobody could explain the
result very well until Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity
in 1905.  Earlier explanations by FitzGerald, Lorentz, and Poincare, which
involved physical changes in objects due to their motion, were shown to 
be unnecessary.  And so was an aether: unnecessary.
Curiously, during the Hertz experiments with radio waves, Hertz discovered
the photoelectric effect.  This remained unexplained until Einstein put 
together the electron theory of electricity (due to Lorentz, 1892) with the
quantization of electromagnetic fields (due to Planck, 1900), and showed
that light quanta (now called photons) must sometimes be considered as
particles.
> 
> and, Would this be "classical" or "quantum" physics?
> 
Young's experiment is classical physics.  But it was repeated in the 1920's
with electron beams (which are generally considered to be particles). Guess
what? The electrons interfere with each other.  Thus it was shown that the
de Broglie hypothesis (matter waves) was correct, and several Nobel prizes,
and a lot of good theorizing resulted.
> 2)  Explain Schrodingers Cat idea
> 
> It has to do with: given a 50/50 chance of a stimulus going off
> and killing a cat in a box.  then discuss the chances of the cat
> being dead.
> 
Sorry, no credit for this answer.  You must discuss the role of quantum
theory ... after all, Schroedinger invented this Hellish device solely
to make a point about how ludicrous the standard interpretation of quantum
mechanics is (1935).  See, for example, Gribbon's "In Search of Schroedinger's
Cat", or Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality".
> 3)  Have any subatomic particles been observed to travel backwards
>     in time?
> 
> I said none have been observed, but I agree that there are theories
> that predict it is possible, however the other person says it has happened.
> 
The usual model just treats anti-particles as regular particles traveling
backwards in time. This is called "time symmetry".  As a practicle matter,
you cannot tell the difference.
> I was told there is (was?) a person named Feynman, who won the 1965 nobel
> prize in Physics, (as I have been told) he completed an experiment that
> actually showed a subatomic particle to travel backwards in time (How did
> he find it to measure it?) If any of you could explain the experiment, if
> there was such, and if it can be replicated.
> 
Feynman did no such experiment ... he was a theoretician. But the idea was
his.  Somebody has their explanations a bit garbled.  For more on this idea,
see Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
Best Regards, Peter
BTW, all of the books mentioned are meant for a general audience ... no math, 
just words and pictures.

In article <19961116152400.KAA14413@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com writes:
>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.
>
A wise approach.  Whoever came with the statement that the Internet is 
going to increase productivity, obviously didn't have anything to do 
with the net in the first place :-)
>By the way,  do have a booklet of these snippets?  They are worth
>organizing into paper form.
I trust Dejanews, for the moment.  One of these days, when I've 
nothing to do (fat chance) I may go back and recover some of the 
stuff.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <328E1180.C8F1FF@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.de>, "Ralf A. Engeldinger"  writes:
>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?"
>
For a person with mathematical intuition, it does.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Im Artikel <56lc51$oi9@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com
(-Mammel,L.H.) schreibt:
>The thing is that Newton's Law of Gravitation devolves inexorably
....
>of generalization and further development.
Oh no, Lew, please, not that word again, do never, ever, ever mention the
word "generalization" when moggin is around, especially not in connection
with the Law of Gravitation, very especially not in connection with
Newton! 
Now swear that you didn't intend to use it, that you actually do not know,
what it means, even more, that you don't know even how to spell it, or
even better just claim that you never heard a word like this before. 
Look I'm just trying to save you from a lot of trouble you're heading for,
which you can't know, as you are relatively new to the thread (one of
moggins favourite arguments, if he's in trouble), but believe me: 
moggin is absolutely allergic to this word, especially in the connotation
you used it, and will turn deep red in the face, gurgle, mumble and mutter
unintelligible phrases before he again will launch just another
moggin-head-war against the science-campers and all other bad boys in the
world (including you of course). 
And don't count on your skills or knowledge in argueing! moggin must be a
cat with seven lifes: He survived nearly all attacks and is alife and well
(ahem, not really, never was) and still yelling "But Newton was *wrong*"
at the top of his lungs. 
After the science campers and all other bad boys really dumped anything
from lightweight humor to heavy arguments on him, he just crawls out,
shakes of all of the good stuff, looks around, and sure, there is a new
victim in sight (a poor boy wants to know what a flat hill is, that'll be
just another mess, as now again curvature comes into play, and that is
just another word moggin is absolutely allergic to, as he's allergic to
anything he doesn't *understand...), so it'll go on and on and on....
Hey, why not talk to him about Derrida. Or Nietzsche. Or Aristotele. These
are rather safe grounds. Not that he then will be any more polite or
rational. But at least he doesn't have to put up with reality then  -
which is when the trouble with him always starts....
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.

In article <56l4j5$o40@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>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.
Only locally.  A frame is a global thing.
>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.
Well, not quite micrometers.  The test I've suggested demand no 
special sophistication.  They just illustrate the issue that we 
consider a frame inertial if any forces apparently present can be 
eliminated by a coordinate transformation.  And the "eliminated" means 
"eliminated globally".  Anything in the world can be eliminated 
locally, i.e. in one point.
An important issue (I expected you to raise it when I've mentioned the 
"coordinate transformations" the first time) is "what coordinate 
transformations one can use".  Obviously if the answer is "anything 
goes" than again, anything can be eliminated.  That would make it a 
pretty useless concept.  So there is a limitation, we're to use 
"Physically allowable" transformations.  Within the Newtonian 
framework it means space transformations which preserve lengths and 
shapes.  Which leaves you with space translations (which may be time 
dependent, hence Galilean transformations) and rotations.  GR allows 
for a broader class of transformations.
>
>This only serves to emphasize that the test you proposed is
>inadequate, and the matter is not a trivial one, as you averred.
Agreed, it is not trivial.  It gave rise to fascinating physics, in 
fact.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <56jia2$ohp@ren.cei.net>,
Lee Kent Hempfling  wrote:
>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.
 Since I'm the one who rhetorically asked if you might be a religious
 nut case, I'll comment. *No one* cares what specific variety of
 religious dementia you suffer from. *You* said you were Jewish, not
 another poster; and no poster wrote anything critical about you being
 Jewish. (At least no such post appeared on my ISP's news server.) Your
 emotional problems seem to impact most facets of of your life---get
 help. You are one paranoid sucker.
 All the pro-Cryonics posters care about is that you compose 
 unintelligible sentences and those which can be deciphered are only
 an emotional rejection. To base an entire argument on "I don't 
 believe" is the hallmark of the fool.
 You have brethen who believe we never landed on the Moon, that the
 TV images we saw were made in a secret studio somewhere in California.
 These people think just like you do.
 Someday, we'll learn whether religious dementia is self-inflicted or
 has a irresistable biological component. Until then, I'll just ignore
 you.
-- 
rha

Allen Meisner wrote:
> 
>     Each buoy has its own observer. The observer in buoy 1 shines the
> laser in his own buoy. He himself determines whether he is at absolute
> rest by observing whether the laser beam that he shines is deflected.
> The same goes for buoy two. If both are at absolute rest, by defintion
> they can not be moving at any velocity whatsoever.
> 
This just means that the observer is at rest wrt the buoy. They are
both in the same reference frame.
There is nothing special about such a reference frame ... you've
created lot's of them with your buoys and observers. Picking out
any particular buoy and calling it the "absolute reference frame"
is an arbitrary act, with no physics behind it.
I'm not objecting to your reference system based upon buoys ... when I 
was in the US Coast Guard, we found that type of system to be very
useful indeed!
But it is not absolute.  Why do you say that it is? I'm curious.
Best Regards, Peter

Kraus  wrote:
>I am an 8th grade student trying to do an experiment involving Archimedes 
>principle and floation of the human body.
>
>I have tried several times to calculate my body volume using a tape 
>measure and I keep getting a number that when divided into the # of 
>kilograms I weigh, gives me a body density of 0.77 to 0.80.  
>
>I know this cannot be right - since human bodies sink in water.  
>
>Does anyone have any tips on how to better measure my body volume or does 
>anyone know approximately what the density of the human body is (I know 
>males have a higher body density than females, but I cannot find any 
>documentation to show what the density figures are.)
>
>Thank you in advance if you can help me.
>
>Heather Kraus
Lungs are filled with air.  It makes a big difference whether you inhale 
or exhale before the measurement.  Try submerging an empty, sealed two 
liter PET drink bottle (Screw the top down after it has been in the 
freezer for 30 minutes to give it a little pressure at room temperature.)
The obvious experiment is to have a butcher scale or whatnot to measure 
your weight less boyancy when fully immersed in water.  Or take a large 
full container, add yoruself to it, and meaure the displaced water over 
the edge.  That and your dry weight is enough.
NASA should have all sorts of data on body weight as part of their 
pseudoscientific space program, likewise legitimate diet doctors and 
health insurers.  Maybe even health spas.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

AJOHNSON@tech.lhs.davis.dist.k12.ut.us (ADAM JOHNSON) wrote:
>Hello Me and my friend have this idea of stacking bouncy balls on top
>of each other and dropping them to launch a smaller ball on top into
>space is this possible
>
Scientific American has had an Amateur Scientist which analyzed the 
remarkable momentum concentration to be had when a light ball is stacked 
upon a heavy ball and the combo dropped (and extrapolations of more 
balls).
How will you work with non-ideal elasticity at high compressions, and 
that little difficulty of the top ball moving at a residual 5 miles/sec 
to enter low orbit?  Air resistance heats things.  Elastomers and white 
heat tend to be incompatible.  Calculate the average speed of an oxygen 
molecule at ambient temperature,  Your ball need be moving at least six 
times faster when it >leaves< the atmosphere at 50 miles height.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article <56l8nb$oc4@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article ,   wrote:
>
>>Don't forget the "any body at rest" clause.  ...
>
>Why address this to me? By proposing more sophisticated tests you
>are in fact agreeing with me that Gordon's crude test is inadequate.
>
That's fine, that's how we make progress in physics.  Start with the 
crudest thing possible, see how far it gets you, then try to elaborate 
on it.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <56l6d2$o6n@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article ,   wrote:
>>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.
>
>What kind of absurd quibble is that? 
Sorry it offended you.  It was just a response to the quible about 
Lorenz versus Newtonian inertial frame (there is no difference between 
the two).  As to the "locally" bit I agree.  That's one of the 
practical sticky point about inertial frames, to verify that one is 
such globally, takes a potentially infinite time.
> Note that he says, "starts to move", nothing about
>"wait half an orbit" as you amended it ( in another post. )
Yeah.  And if the shuttle is in an extended orbit around the Sun, with 
a period of 10 million years (somewhere beyond Oort cloud) the test 
may tax your patience.  That's one problem with globality.  So, if you 
mean to say that a frame may be non -inertial but you won't be able to 
determine it over a finite time (or space) span, I agree.  It is just 
like the business of not being able to distinguish between flat and 
curved space using tests over a finite area with finite accuracy.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In <56d595$q1e@news.hal-pc.org> cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy) writes: 
>
>lkh@mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling) wrote:
>
>>ricka@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) enunciated:
>
>>I am dying. We all are. I will not opt for one person or one group of
>>high rolling artists telling me there will be hope for me to return
as
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^??? Please explain.
>
>>a living breathing entity after the life in me has somehow chosen
>>otherwise. I am not gullible. I am also not stupid. Far from it. So
>>suffice to allow me to say the above comment to please remember all
>>these criticisms when its my turn will not disuade me now now will it
>>disuade me on my death bed.  Life is something I cherish. I will not
>>toy with it. I will not proclaim that I can somehow win over it. Life
>>ends. And when it does there is nothing anyone can do about it.
>>Holding out hope for a scientific maybe is absolutely ridiculous in
>>the light that when the life is gone, son, it is gone. I find more
>>credence in an afterlife potential in a spiritual manner than I do in
>>a physical manner. I can not prove that a spirit life is not me. I
can
>>prove that a physical life is not alive when it is dead. There is
>>animate and there is inanimate matter constructs
>
>What about those kids they have pulled from wintry lakes, cold and
>blue from many minutes under the water? They have no life signs, no
>brain waves, no heart beat, their body temps were far below normal.
>I guess they're just lucky you weren't around to make that
>"life-and-death decision of whether or not to proceed with radical
>life-saving procedures.
>
>>An inanimate matter
>>construct (liek a rock) can never be dead as it never was alive.
>
>> But
>>an animate matter construct can be dead, it just can not be alive
>>again. 
>
>What do you mean by dead? If you stopped breathing 100 years ago, you
>were "dead." If I happen to stop breathing on the operating table, Mr.
>Hempfling, I truly hope my anesthesiologist does not abide by  that
>100-year-old definition of death. 
>Is 1996 the year of the  apex of medicine and science?
>
>> The matter does not cease to exist the life does. So now...
>>freeze away, all those poor souls of hope and ignore the life. All it
>>is, is a replacement for a physical based religion instead of a
>>spiritual based religion. Spirit, I can only wonder about but when a
>>physical animate becomes inanimate there is no argument. Freeze away
>>my friends... all you are doing is paying some scientific con artist
>>for the ability to use fanzy toys and very cold techniques to do what
>>every chain letter does. Give hope based in absolute nothing.
>
>>>Thank you
>>>[heh, heh, heh...]
>
>>>Boy, there's gonna be a lot of room once all the morons are gone.
>>>Death: nature's technique for spotting the terminally stupid.
>
>>This is a totally ridiculous and very unscientific statement. It
>>sounds just like the religious falderall of the rapture. Cryonics
>>seeks to put the body where the soul can not tread. Rapture seeks to
>>put the body where only the soul can tread. Go figure. One can not be
>>proven any more than the other. 
>
>There's only one way to prove or disprove the cryonics question:
>conduct an experiment; freeze a bunch of people with the least
>damaging methods possible, invest the money they have provided
>in a conservative fashion; get some people who are fascinated with the
>possibilities of cryonics to watch over and maintain them, and we
>shall see what happens. Until such time as sciencehas seriously tried
>to revive them, you cannot say that cryonics will or will not work.
>
>>But one can be pointed out to be
>>nothing different from the other. The church calls for money to be
>>paid to get the poor dead soul to a higher ground. HA! Cryonics calls
>>for money to be paid to get the poor dead body to a colder ground.
HA!
>
>I could make the same analogy between religion and donating blood.
>
>>I hate to break the news to you but death is not a choice. Face it.
>>YOU are going to die and nothing you can do will change that. Nothing
>>you can do, nor pay for, can bring you back in a physical body when
>>there is no life inside it.
>
>Perhaps. You certainly are not going against established precedent
>here, are you? But, if this ever to be done, then there must be a
>first time. 
>
>>But far be it for me, or any other attempt at logic to stand in the
>>way of a person's hope. One can place hope in the position of
>>potential or one can place hope in the position of control. If you
can
>>control it then it is not hope. It is hype.
>
>>The machine this company has built from the patent application plans
>>is a thinking machine without programming. It is a physical thing.
>>Turning it off simply clears all memory and shuts down the function.
>>Turning it back on permits new memory and another function. But we
CAN
>>turn it on and off at will as its "life" is nothing more than a
>>battery. Once that power source is removed from the living structure
>>it is gone. You, nor anyone else, can turn it back on when IT IS NOT
>>THERE to be turned on.
>
>Sounds kinda mystical to me.
>
>>No matter the amount of blind belief in science (which is a very bad
>>thing to do) will change that. It will only change the money from the
>>pocket of the person going to die to the pocket of the person still
>>alive. The last laugh, my friend is with the bank. Not the person
>>being faced with mortality's lesson.
>
>Are you saying that cryonics companies are somehow profiting?
>I highly doubt that.
>
>>One can not change reality to fit one's hopes. One can change one's
>>hopes to fit reality. But there is no money in it.
>
>What a morbid  and fatalistic attitude.
>
>>Cheers!
>
>Randy
>>Fire Away!
>
>>lkh
>>Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
>>chairman,
ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
>>Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas,
USA.
>
>
>
I have just dropped in after a long while. I checked two postings and
find two self-proclaimed gods who KNOW that 1) Exactly what God
provided liquid Nitrogen for, and 2) That there is nothing after
"death".
Isn't it great that we'll be through with them in less than a century!
Len.

In article <328E42DB.23FD@visi.net>, Kraus  wrote:
> I am an 8th grade student trying to do an experiment involving Archimedes 
> principle and floation of the human body.
> 
> I have tried several times to calculate my body volume using a tape 
> measure and I keep getting a number that when divided into the # of 
> kilograms I weigh, gives me a body density of 0.77 to 0.80.  
> 
> I know this cannot be right - since human bodies sink in water.  
Not really true. I for one don't sink very well.....
-- 
Jude Charles Giampaolo        'I was lined up for glory, but the
jcg161@psu.edu                 tickets sold out in advance' -Rush
jude@smellycat.com      http://prozac.cwru.edu/jude/JudeHome.html