Newsgroup sci.physics 209162

Directory

Avoid it "The Man in the Ice".   A lot of speculation.  Not a lot of
substance.  I am waiting, eagerly, for something serious on the ice man.
In article <328B5555.55B3@tnp.com>, paninaro@tnp.com wrote:
> TJ wrote:
> > 
> > Jukka Korpela wrote:
> > >
> > > edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
> > >
> > > > The  WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
> > > > a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
> > > > between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
> > >
> > > I suppose no-one is fool enough to take this kind of scrap seriously,
> > > but just in case...: If this kind of "news" had any truth in them,
> > > and especially if they were unquestionable, we would certainly have
> > > read about them in reputable scientific magazines - which would really
> > > struggle for the right to publish such revolutionary reports before
> > > their competitors.
> > >
> > > Yucca
> > Speaking of human remains...Remember the freeze-dried bronze-age man
> > found in the Alps a few years back. PBS did a once over lightly special
> > on him. I assume much of the research has been done, but where can I
> > find an account of the 'findings' on this guy? Any good books out, or
> > articles? With near-morbid fascination of the very old, tj
> 
> i saw a book on it at a Barnes and Nobles bookstore in new York City.
> One does exist.. i know that!
> 
> 
> -- 
> +---------------------------------------------------+
> | -Pan- of Anthrox           http://www.anthrox.com |
> | Console Programming and Game Information Web Site |
> +---------------------------------------------------+

Jeff Matson (jsm8@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <56plr0$scl@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
:    Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
: >Well I should not say undefeated until after the last game with
: >Princeton.
: >I am proud of this year's Dartmouth football team, undefeated. Strong
: >in body, strong in mind. I am especially proud because our football
: >team has no one so-called outstanding player who hogs all the
: >limelight. Instead, all the members of the team are skilled and rich in
: >experience, that is, a teammanship.
: Hmmmm.  I don't think we care.  There is an Ivy League Cycling cup, and if 
: you'd care to discuss that, I'm sure we'll listen.  But Dartmouth won't be 
: seeing that in their hands any time soon, I  believe!
:         Jeff Matson
:         Cornell
And the reason niether Dartmouth or Cornell has the Ivy League Cycling 
cup is because the University of Pennsylvania has the cup and doesn't 
plan on losing it.
				Daniel Avery
				U of Penn
--
******************************************************************************
Daniel Avery
avery@sas.upenn.edu
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~avery
"If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can create the 
consoling illusion that it has been mastered . . ."		-Stanley
								Kubrick
"Always Searching for that which I can not find." 		-Me
"My advice to you , my violent friend, is to seek out gold and sit on it."
							    	-Grendel
"Then let us mock with ancient mirth this comic, cosmic plan;
The stars are laughing at the earth; God's greatest joke is man." -Robert 
								Service
******************************************************************************

In article <56q4jp$g12@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
bcadle@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Brad J Cadle) wrote:
>In article <56ps98$dkv@due.unit.no>,
>Orjan Johansen  wrote:
>>In article <328f63e8.2934344@news.pacificnet.net>,
>>Louis Savain  wrote:
>>>  It's funny that physicists love to rail and froth at the mouth in
>>>opposition to absolute motion considering that the reason they give is
>>>that "absolute motion is unobservable" and yet, almost all of the
>>>major concepts of physics such as "spacetime", "virtual particles"
>>>"fields", quarks, etc..., are equally unobservable.  These concepts
>>>(as dear to physicists as any other) can only be *inductively
>>>inferred* from observing ancillary phenomena.
>>
>>I think this is just a difference in terminology: when physicists say
>>"observable" they _mean_ "inductively inferrable from observations".
>>
>>The opposite concept (of direct observation) simply is not very
>>interesting, since hundreds of years of experimentation show that
>>what is inductively inferred from the behavior of accurate technical
>>instruments is often more reliable than what is directly observed with
>>human eyes.
>>
>>Greetings,
>>Ørjan.
>>
>>-- 
>>Sign up against spam at 
>
>	Exactly, So the next question is, can absolute motion be 
>inductively inferred from observations?  I have not yet heard
>of any such inferences.  So if you Mr. Savain please post them.
>Note I am comming into this thread late, so if you have
>already posted them I appologize.
  The logical, philosophical, and empirical evidence in support of
absolute motion is overwhelming.  You choose to ignore it at your own
peril.  The very same post that you and Mr. Johansen are responding to
contains some of the evidence in support of the existence of absolute
motion.  The evidence I presented has to do with the unavoidable
inferences that emerge logically from quantum nonlocality and the
*absolute* nature of the laws of physics.  That you (unless you missed
the post) and Mr. Johansen purposely choose to ignore the parts of my
post that dealt with these inferences is one more indication, IMO, of
the mass pathology (or worse) I mentioned in the post.  No offense
intended.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
"O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason."  W.S.

Steve Carlip (carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Ken Fischer (kfischer@iglou.com) wrote:
: :        While gravity appears to be attractive, it isn't, unless
: : again, you are discussing Newtonian gravitation.
: :        In General relativity, freefalling bodies are in inertial
: : motion, and are _not_ accelerating, and so are definitely not
: : attracted.
: Well, this is a little misleading.  We know intuitively what it
: means to say that gravity is attractive---
         It isn't misleading, in fact, I am holding back 
what I really think, I am just trying to keep in line
with all the General Relativity texts I read.
         So, even with your extensive education, prejudices
learned in everyday living affect thought processes.
         The problem is, in order for gravity to have been
attractive, there would have to be a mechanism for imparting
forces to cause the accelerations.
         But the worse part is, each particle of matter 
would have to have known just how much to cause another
mass to accelerate.
         I know there are lots of relativists, and I know
the standing of most of the people who write the articles
I followup, so I know I am in up to my neck, but I feel
that if I don't try to overcome this convenient, useful,
easy to learn and use, intuitive Newtonian baloney, I
don't know who will.
: if I slip on the stairs,
: the center of mass of the Earth and I move towards each other, not
: away from each other---and there had better be a way of describing
: this in general relativity.
         That is a gross assumption, based on the prejudice
I was talking about, theoretical physics will be hog tied
if logical, intuitive concepts are retained.
         If you slip on the steps, either the centers of mass
move towards each other, or, the centers of mass don't move
due to gravity and something else happens, but I am going to
try not to say what it is at this time.
         It is true that in General Relativity, the centers
of mass do move closer, but General Relativity takes a very
concilatory direction, saying that spacetime curves, that
the inertial coordinate points move toward each other, but
General Relativity has to say that to correspond with the
observations made, not with physical facts, and observations
do not have to correspond with actual facts.
         In any case, freefall is inertial motion, pure
and simple, it doesn't matter what restrictions are placed
on how it is comprehended.
: There is, in fact.  To look for attraction, it's not enough to
: look at one object (which, as you say, is in inertial motion); you
: have to look at at least two.  There is an important theorem in
: general relativity that says that as long as matter has positive
: energy (in a suitable technical sense), if you start with a group of
: objects that are initially at rest with respect to each other and
: are interacting only gravitationally, the volume they take up will
: always decrease in time.  Gravity *is* attractive, in the sense that
: it makes distances between objects decrease.
: Steve Carlip
: carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
        I apologize for not accepting attraction as a
physical reality.    To do so would take my way of thinking
back to the 1670s, and I am not willing to allow that.
        Your description above is as good as General Relativity
gets, but I would be much more agreeable (at least not so
argumentive), if the word attraction wasn't included.
        Using attraction as a description of gravitation,
IMHO, works against everything General Relativity tries
to correct.
        Would it not be better to just say that there
"appears" to be an attraction, but that gravitation is
not understood well enough to say just what is happening?
        I better quit before I stick my foot in my mouth. :-)
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372 

Sounds like a homework problem to me.
I'll answer 3 and 4.
3. Nothing.
4. Yes and much cheaper.
Rick Suntag  wrote in article
<3292dee2.5585175@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> I am trying to store an upside down canoe on the (12 foot high) ceiling 
> of my garage.  I mounted 4 pulleys (P1 through P4) onto the ceiling 
> (actually, P3 and P4 are a double pulley) and tried to lift the canoe.  
> With two people pulling, we were barely able to budge the canoe (and 
> yes, the pulleys are turning freely).  I have four questions:
> 1. What are the forces acting on pulleys 3 and 4 while I am trying to 
>    lift the canoe (Will I pull their screws out of the ceiling first)?
> 2. How hard do I need to pull the ropes to lift the canoe?
> 3. What could I use to replace pulleys 3 and 4(cost is a factor) to make 
>    lifting and lowering the canoe easier?
> 4. Is there a better way to get the canoe on the ceiling (again, cost is 
>    a factor)?
> 
> 
>                   
> 
>                            15 feet
>       (P1)------------------------------------------(P3)
>        |                                              |
>        |                  (P2)------------------(P4)  |
>        | 10                |         8 feet       |   |
>        |                   | 10                   | 8 |
>        | f                 |                      |   |
>        | e                 | f                    | f |
>        | e                 | e                    | e |
>        | t                 | e                    | e |
>        |                   | t                    | t |
>        |                   |                      |   |
>        |   -------------   |                      |   |
>      -----|             |-----                    |   |
>  ---|     80 pound canoe      |---                  Me
> |___________2 feet high __________|
>                          
> 
> Note:	The ropes are attached to the canoe via two 1"x6" boards that are 
>         under the canoe.  The rope is then tied off with a slipknot.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help, suggestions, or ideas,
> 
> Rick Suntag
> rsuntag@worldnet.att.net
> 
> 

In article <328F31DB.5B7A3C01@mit.edu>, Joseph Edward Nemec
 wrote:
> Hey Chris, here's some facts for you: you are a second-rate moron. Hell,
> I suspect you aren't really fully human, which would account for the
> 0.725 in your survey.
> 
Tell me Joe, are you any relation to the Joseph E Nemec of 28 Ridgecrest
Drive, Westfield, MA 01085, telephone: (413) 568-5366, or the Joseph N
Nemec at 11 Belvedere Gdns, Westfield, MA 01085, telephone: (413)
562-1048????
Cheers,
Duncan.
-- 

In article <3291d02d.78052033@news.pacificnet.net>,
	savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) writes:
>   The logical, philosophical, and empirical evidence in support of
> absolute motion is overwhelming.  You choose to ignore it at your own
> peril.
Settle down Louis.  :-)
Tell me.  Is your definition of "absolute " like most
physicists?  That is to say that "absolute"  is the
measurement of  in the unique, absolute, inertial reference
frame?  Or, are you using some unconventional definition?
-- 
Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve

Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> As a non-religious person, it seems to me that
> it would be extremely difficult and time consuming 
> to raise good atheist kids as they would tend to
> have casual attitudes toward lying, stealing,
> having casual sex, keeping their words, etc.
What a very interesting point of view! First of all, what classifies as
"religious"? Do Buddhists count? How about Moslems? Is ANY faith included?
In that case, atheism also is a faith, isn't it? 
I was told recently by a usually reliable source that in Czechoslovakia,
atheism is the majority faith. So far as I know, the country is not known
as a hotbed of "lying, stealing, having casual sex" etc.
I believe that children are helped by clear moral rules (e.g. "Don't do
anything to someone else that you wouldn't want someone else to do to
you.") I don't think it matters whether the rules emanate from the parent
or from some old superstitious document. 

In article <56nf1o$4vl@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
	bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) writes:
> You didn't argue against my point made above, which was this:
>>>And a theory
>>>that says "Absolute motion is not detectable" meaning "Despite the
>>>fact that absolute motion does exist, it is not observable" is not
>>>falsifiable unless such motion does exist.  The only way it can be
>>>falsified is by the detection of absolute motion, so this type of
>>>motion must exist for the theory to be falsifiable.
That would depend upon what *you* mean by "absolute motion."
You really must learn to define your terms and be more precise.
-- 
Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve

In article <32904351.4793@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl>,
Jos Dingjan  wrote:
>What's more likely is this: collision, overheated tyre bursts into flames,
>people try to extinguish with water, electric current starts flowing, thus
>heating the tyre and sustaining the fire (gee, it's almost Sinterklaas), etc.
Nope. The tyre wouldn't have been at any kind of high temperature before
the incident. The collision caused no damage to the truck, even if it upset
the electricity pylon. The evening was cool, and the truck unloaded. The
tyre was burning well, clearly being cooked by electrical energy.
And tyres do conduct electricity. I just don't know how much.
-- 
Peter

In article <19961115194600.OAA28133@ladder01.news.aol.com>, thomasl283@aol.com writes:
> The electron and positron are two different particles and are composed of
> photons.
But photons have integer spin.  Electrons and positrons have half-integer
spin.  How do you add integers to get a half-integer?  Sounds like a
logical inconsistency.
> If we insist the electron and positron are point particles
> without structure, that is a logical inconsistency.
Perhaps.  But if you claim that they do have structure, you have to
spell out exactly what that structure is (i.e. a calculable form
factor), and expose that claim to the scrutiny of experiment.  If
the claim is not borne out by the experiment, that is the end of it.
-- K.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <56q93h$o53@mark.ucdavis.edu>, carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip) wrote:
> There is an important theorem in
> general relativity that says that as long as matter has positive
> energy (in a suitable technical sense), if you start with a group of
> objects that are initially at rest with respect to each other and
> are interacting only gravitationally, the volume they take up will
> always decrease in time.
Two questions:  (1) Does this theorem have a name, and (2) precisely how
is "initially at rest with respect to each other" defined?  Are we
speaking of a local group of objects in some Lorentz frame, or an
extended region of them?
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

IT"S HERE;
Visit my web site  for the
article "The Physics of Absolute Moiton". In this article, I
illustrated how the results of past experiments such as the Compton
Effect; the Double-Slit and the Photoelectric experiments were caused
by the absolute motion of the experimental apparatuses. Also included
are two newly proposed experiments designed to detect and measure the
value of absolute motion of the earth. 
Ken Seto

jboutwel@access.k12.wv.us wrote:
>> >I always thought that it was the glass insert (very small- most people
>> >don't even realise that it's there) which flows, so making the skates work.
>>
>> From what I was taught in school, the moving skates melted the ice by heating
>> it (with friction) and the melted layer of water lubricated the skate/ice
>> surface.  I think this makes sense and is better than ice ballbearings.
>>
>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.
This is the common explanation of skating on ice... but regelation is
not a satisfactory explanation unless the area above the ice is warm!
There is the classic demonstration in which a wire with weights
hanging on each end is stretched over a large block of ice in the
classroom. The wire slowly "cuts" its way through the block, but the
block is not cut in two. This is, indeed, due to the lowering of
freezing point due to pressure. But the effect is at most a fractional
degree or maybe two.. Try the same experiment outdoors in the winter
in the midwest( I have). The wire sits there week after week with no
movement!
Conclusion, ice skating is possible predominately due to friction. 
A  book by Peter Bridgeman( He was a Harvard physics Prof and a
renowned expert on high pressure), actually shows that ice enters a
new state under higher pressure.. and even enters a state where the
freezing point goes up.. i.e it  won't melt until well above 0 deg C!
>As a side note.  Another common misconception is that you are safe inside a car 
>during a lightning storm because of rubber tires.  This is false.  Consider, 
>the tires will be wet.  The bolt of lightening has traveled through thousands 
>of feet of air (how would half an inch of rubber help?).  You are safe because 
>you are inside a "Faraday Cage."  Electrical charge is carried on the outside 
>of your cage to ground.  If anything, the tires increase the danger.  
>why many gas tankers have chains they drag with them.  They want a gound conduction to ground.
I believe you will not find many gas tankers carrying chains any more.
That was abandoned many years ago, since the bouncing of the chain on
the highway could produce sparks.  Instead, the tires are made of a
rubber containing enough carbon to provide a conducting path
sufficient to slowly bleed off the charge. The same conducting rubber
is found on the shoes of the surgical team in the operating room. (I
suppose ghosts are still allowed to walk around clanking their chains,
however,since ectoplasm is probably non-combustible(G))
These minor errors in textbooks or classrooms should not embarass or
deter science teachers . The main task is to stimulate an enthusiasm
and understanding for their subject.. and an appreciation of  the
nature of science as well as the science of nature.  In the process of
teaching and in research we will often make mistakes. Only nature
always does what it is supposed to do.. we are fallible and do not
always understand what she is trying to tell us!  If a "pet" classroom
or lab demo has  never failed at an embarassing moment in front of a
class or a large crowd of spectators..  or an article we have
published has not had an error of some kind in it...we just haven't
lived!!
Best regards and good teaching!

Look up my web site for the article "The Physics of Absolute Motion"
. In this article, the
following topics are discussed:
1. The Current State of Our Universe.
2. The Concept of Absolute Motion.
3. Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion.
4. Proposed Experiment to Detect Absolute Motion.
5. The Concept of Forces Based on Absolute Motions.
6.  Description of the Forces of Nature Based on Absolute Motion.
The main features of the Physics of Absolute Motion (Model Mechanics)
are as follows:
    --It gives a realistic origin of the universe. 
    -- It provides a realistic process for the origin of all matters. 
     --It can unite all the forces of nature. 
    -- It can be confirmed experimentally. 
    -- It provides a new and realistic interpretation of gravity. 
    -- It postulates the existence of a new fifth force identified as
the inverse square law force (ISL force). 
     --It is capable of explaining the charge of a particle. 
    -- It does not rely on abstractive concepts to solve a problem. 
    -- It provides a realistic explanation for the cell division and
the consciousness processes of life. 
    --It provides a realistic interpretation for all the quantum
experiments and observations. 
     --There is no known experiment or observation that will
contradict Model Mechanics. 
Ken Seto

Duncan Stewart Matheson (Matheson@ceri.memphis.edu) wrote:
: Tell me Joe, are you any relation to the Joseph E Nemec of ...
: Drive, Westfield, MA 01085, telephone: ..., or the Joseph N
: Nemec at ... Westfield, MA 01085, telephone: ...
:
: Cheers,
: Duncan.
I can't understand why you didn't list the Joseph E Nemec in
Cambridge.  You are awarded null points for being unsubtle, and 
well out of range to boot.

David Kaufman (davk@netcom.com) wrote:
: 
: 
:           For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
:      Interested In Exploring Math, Science And Ethics
:    Through Collaboration For Enrichment And Achievement.
: ------------------------------------------------------------
: 
: 	Young in his book "University Physics" only explains 
: how to add 2 waves out of phase. 
: 
: 	I need to know how to add 16 (or more) out of phase 
: waves to find their resulting energy on a vibrating atom. 
: Would anyone please show how this is done?
: 
: 	When I add 2 waves, I'm combining 2 different distances
: of 2 mechanical waves travelling in the same medium. If I 
: new what distance to use for this combined wave, than I 
: imagine I could add another wave to it, and then be faced 
: with the problem of what resultant distance to use to 
: combine the next wave, and so on.
: 
: 	I'm interested in the case where all waves start at the
: same time.
: 
: 	Thanks in advance for the answer.
: 
:             By David Kaufman, Nov. 18, 1996
: 
: 
: -- 
:                                              davk@netcom.com
There is no general formula, but rather a general procedure. Simply
algebraically add the trig functions representing the out of phase waves.
By hand it is generally a mess, but a computer can easily do it for you,
given the numerical values of the amplitudes and phases.
-- 
Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 

odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
> 
>     The crux of the matter is certainly whether we could determine if
> we were at absolute rest. I believe we can, simply because the
> alternative, i.e. that the speed of light can exceed c, is unthinkable.
> If both buoys were at absolute rest, then how can they be moving at any
> velocity whatsoever?
> 
> Regards,
> Edward Meisner
I agree with the first statement.  "If both buoys were at absolute rest,
then..." is a much more difficult question in my opinion, no matter what
comes after the "then," because I still do not see how it could be
determined that one of our observers is at "absolute" rest.
At rest relative to one of the buoys, yes; but "absolute" is trickier.
Why do you think that the alternative of "being able to determine if
one is at absolute rest" is "that the speed of light can exceed c"?
(I bite my own lip here, remembering that I agreed not to reask the
question about which, if either, of buoy 1 or buoy 2 is at absolute
rest in the example of previous posts...)
Cheers,
Darrin

In article , glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long) writes:
>Gordon Long  wrote:
>
>  The fictitious forces in the frame of the space shuttle don't come
>from a "gravitational potential", but from rotational effects.  For
>example, think about the behavior of two balls, one placed near the top
>of the shuttle bay (orbital radius R + r) and another near the bottom
>(radius R - r), with the same initial angular velocity.  If my intuition
>serves me correctly, they will undergo an oscillatory behavior, which
>would look sort of like they're circling each other about the shuttle
>CM. This is not the sort of behavior one would expect from a 
>gravitational potential centered at the earth.
>
Yep, that's what they'll do.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>Mati:
>
>>>>And you still don't see the difference between the last one and your 
>>>>statement "Newton was wrong".  
>
> [...]
>
>Mati:
>
>>>>I asked you a clear question. 
>
>moggin:
>
>>>You asked no questions, clear or otherwise.  Feeling confused again?
>
>Mati:
>
>>It really doesn't take much intelligence to realize that the 
>>[above] text above is a question.
>
>   The word you're looking for is "assertion."
>
No, I asked a question.  And I'm still asking it.  What is the 
difference between my statements and your "Newton was wrong"?  Can you 
answer?
>>I've also explained, 
>>more times than I care to remember, why the statement "Newton was 
>>wrong", as it stands, is either meaningless or plain false, in any 
>>commonly used sense of the word "wrong".
>
>   Moot point, since I explained what I meant, and you agreed with it.  
>Repeatedly.  In fact, if you hadn't taken my point out-of-context, my
>meaning would have been plain without any additional explanations.
>
NO.  Each time I said "if you phrase it such and such, then I agree 
with it".  Then you go back and phrase it in the old way, i.e. "Newton 
was wrong" and claim I agreed with it.  Sorry, no go.
>
>   The only fraud committed in our conversation was your rewriting
>of some  of my posts.  
Since you keep asserting it, lets see an example.  Mind you, it has to 
be rewritting, not snipping.  Snipping is routine and necessery, 
without it this post would've been some 100000 lines long already.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

I think you will find the answer to your question at the US Naval 
Observatory's web site. They have a bunch of answers to FAQs and one of 
them deals with leap seconds. This particular FAQ is at:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
Aadu Pilt
ab787@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Olivier Glassey (Guest@unifr.ch) wrote:
: A few years ago, one second was added to all the clocks
: of the world. I think it was done because the earth's
: rotating speed is decreasing. But, according to W. Greiner
: (German scientist), the day is today only 0.0165 seconds
: longer than 1000 years ago, which means that one second
: should only be added each 166 years.
: Therefore, I'd like to ask a few questions:
: 1) am I wrong?
: 2) if not, is Greiner wrong?
: 3) if not, why didn't we wait a little century before
:    changing the time?
: Thanks
: ---
: Olivier Glassey
: Inst. math.
: University of Fribourg
: Switzerland
--
Aadu Pilt
aadu.pilt@freenet.hamilton.on.ca

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read".  It would be inappropriate for anyone to interfere with the
propagation of these articles based only on this 'bot's notices.
You can find the software to process these notices at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW
site: http://www.cm.org.  This 'bot is not affiliated with the CM[TM].
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers:
  1 Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.93
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Delete: no
Count: 1
Notice-ID: spncm1996322190626
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<56plr0$scl@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	rec.bicycles.tech
	sci.physics
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMpCztIz0ceX+vLURAQEGDAQAiYdP0COnpht6iHanofqPFuK9uziocUUA
IsvEds7c/U9OcrSIpMo3bauOhNaCiLT3i7zjQBvZ0HDAipAgyyeF9GS4y4Htu0C+
w238EUo9M7XowOvTKgVF1EnaDlR0gVIPyLIF9QxHSMki/EuImurEmjALc26rgSZn
GHlvBkulBCk=
=1as/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jim Carr wrote:
> Mountain Man  writes:
> >I find sci.physics the most amusing newsgroup to read for this
> >very reason ... "Know_it_Alls" - Please stand up and be recognised.
> 
>  Certainly we see that one of the KnowNothings has stood up.
I am quite content to reside at the lowest postion on the ladder
Jim, and quite content to admit to myself and to others that I
know nothing despite a number of years at university.
When one knows nothing one can be sure that one has things to learn.
Needless to say, unfortunately, the converse is often also true.
But we will not dwell on that here & now ....
If you do not have the imagination to look at our current level
of knowledge concerning the nature of the cosmos and of life,
and to admit to yourself that as a race we are still less than
children, or that what we now believe today - this very minute -
will one day be regarded with great humour by our descendant,
much as we would view the cosmological theories which use the'
models of the worlds on the back of giant tortoises ... then
your imagination is suffering from the concrete jungle.
Dont take it personally Jim ....
All the best,
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
 QuoteForTheDay:        "You shall hear how Hiawatha
                         prayed and fasted in the forest,
                         Not for greater skill in hunting,
                         Not for greater craft in fishing,
                         Not for triumphs in the battle,
                         And renown among the warriors,
                         But for profit of the people,
                         For advantage of the nations."
                                                 - Longfellow  (1855)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In <328F966D.6044@amoco.com> "Robert L. Watson"  writes:
>What I find most interesting about this discussion, and please excuse
>me if I'm one, is the following:  cryonics seems to serve much the same
>psychological needs as traditional religious faith...
	True, in the same sense that Western technological/medical
amenities in general seem have to have this effect (cryonics being
an extreme case).  Unfortunately, as this thread demonstrates, there
are some cryonics adherents who quite literally regard cryonics as 
religion (a means to "immortality", a cure for death, militant atheist
soapbox, blah, blah, blah...).  I only hope that this very vocal
minority doesn't create the impression that all cryonicists think 
this way.  
	There are some people who are involved in cryonics not as
a matter of faith, but because they find the pursuit of suspeneded
animation technology a very worthy goal for medicine.  And if they
find themselves dying before suspended animation is developed, then
cryopreservation by the best technology available becomes a form
of medical speculation.  This is a far cry from the belief that
that cryonics *as it exists now* can convey immortality(!!!!). 
>...and yet its (cryonics') claims
>specifically contradict any belief that the human identity or consciousness
>has an aspect that transcends physiology.
	This is not true.  In fact, the post that started this
thread (a claim that some "cryonics scientists" had made some
new discovery about consciousness) was bogus.  Cryonics requires
NO beliefs about identity or consciousness beyond what is already
known within medicine today.  Neurosurgeons already "turn people
off" for up to one hour (no blood circulation, no EKG, no EEG)
at very cold temperatures, and still get people back *if brain
chemistry is correctly restored*.  This is all cryonics proposes.
(Feezing after "death" declared on the basis of simple cardiac
arrest is a non-issue as I've already explained in an earlier post.)
    	So what becomes of the soul in all this?  This is a
question for theology, not science.  Suffice to say that God,
as he does for the aforementioned neurosurgery patients, will
no doubt care for the soul as He wills.  And who's to say that cryonics
(and eventually true suspended animation) isn't part of His
plan for new medical technologies?  I know of Born-Again Christians
who are signed up for cryonics, and they see no conflict.
***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Human Cryopreservation Services   cryocare@cryocare.org
wowk@cryocare.org   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
} 
} Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
} :
} : Please, he does no such thing; the correction is from "center" to
} : "game".  
} 
} I beg your pardon: "The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a
} center." (Structuralist Controversy, p. 267. Later, the paraphrase is not
} of center for game, but of "_not_ a center" for "concept of the game." 
 Based on the quote below, I don't see how one can reach any other 
 conclusion -- that is, if I understand this to be a discussion of 
 the cosmological 'constant' in terms of a language that I *think* 
 I understand about half as well as GR.  ;-) 
cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>Well, lets see:  Hyppolites question ends:
>
>	And in that connection we see a
>	constant appear, a constant which is a combination of space-time,
>	which does not belong to any of the experimenters who live the
>	experience, but which, in a way, dominates the whole construct;
>	and this notion of the constant -- is this the center?
>
>And Derrida replies:
>
>	The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. 
>	It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the
>	concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of
>	something -- of a center starting from which an observer could
>	master the field -- but the very concept of the game
>
>In the first sentence Derrida says, three things very straight
>forwardly:
>(1)	The Einsteinian constant is not a constant (as he is using the
>	term).
 Which appears to be correct.  That is, this 'constant' was put in 
 specifically so it could be varied.  It replaced something that was 
 actually a constant (invariable).  Whether that number is a center 
 is unclear to me (I would say the choice of a geometric approach is 
 the center), but not part of this discussion.  
>(2)	The Einsteinian constant is not a center (as he is using the
>	term).
 Absolutely, given the definition above as the starting point. 
>(3)	The Einsteinian constant is the concept of the game.
 Should I read "very concept" as "key concept"?  Certainly it is 
 *the* concept of the game, which was varying that constant to get 
 the desired cosmology. 
 But what is the argument, then?  About the generalization?  ;-)  It is 
 clear to me that Silke is essentially correct that, besides a specific 
 point about Einstein's "constant" and its role in the game, Derrida 
 is also drawing a specific contrast between concepts which can be 
 centers and concepts which are variable and thus part of the game. 
 Is this really what you folks have been arguing about in this thread 
 for months?  If so, my observation is that the *real* game is not 
 this one, but the game concerning how to change the center, and when. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

>: >> You might recall that the discoverers of this 
>: >> pulsar (Taylor and Hulse) were recently awarded Nobel
>: >> prizes. This system has a much larger perihelion advance than
>: >> mercury. Observation and analysis of pulsar timing has yielded 
>: >> fantastic agreement with GR. End of discussion.
>         I thought the pulsar study was to verify gravitational
>radiation.    Is the advance of the apsides of Mercury supposed
>to have anything to do with gravitational radiation.
>        Can somebody please tell me how the pulsar study 
>relates to Mercury or perihelion advances?
Yes. The orbits of the pulsar objects precess as predicted by
general relativity, just as does the orbit of Mercury. The fact 
that both predictions very accurately match the observations despite
the huge differences in the masses, speeds and field strengths involved
argue that GR is correct. (The Solar system also radiates
gravitational radiation, it's just enormously weaker than that
from the Hulse-Taylor pulsar.) 

cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) enunciated:
>Lee Kent Hempfling (lkh@mail.cei.net) wrote:
>> religion that the soul was still there. But if religion claims the
>> soul to be the life then the soul must not be there if the body is
>> indeed dead.
>What do you mean by "dead"? By my definition, cryonics patients are not
>necessarily dead, any more than a patient undergoing hypothermic surgery
>is dead, or a small child with no vital signs after falling into a snow
>drift is dead. Therefore cryonics patients may still possess souls, if
>souls do exist. 
Actually I wasn't arguring the point of soul or no-soul. I was stating
the point of religion.
What we all mean by "dead" seems to be the issue. All the talk of
people 's body temperature lowered in surgery is not the same as being
dead and trying to revive such death many years later.
What do you mean by "not necessarily dead"? It is not a maybe
condition. If it is then shame on morticians for interrupting the life
cycle.
What seems to be the basic problem is a real definition of dead. That
requires a real definition of life. With all of the argument today
about life or not life I wonder at the comment made earlier about
people having been frozen as embryos. If an embryo is a life of its
own without being attached to grow within a host mother then is it not
a life when it is attached and is a part of the mother she can do with
as she wishes? Or is the embryo a life at all times or not a life at
all. If the embryo is anything at all like a living thing then is it
alive? 
So then, what is life that it can be observably absent yet still be
there to be revived at some later date?
Just curious.
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

In article <19961118144800.JAA29260@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com writes:
>
><>By the way,  do have a booklet of these snippets?  They are worth
><>organizing into paper form.
><
>
>Aawp!  I have never trusted computers to keep my bits intact.  I am
>learning that the only lasting legacy we will have is the stuff we have
>taught others.  Think about keeping a folder.
You're probably right.  I may attend to it one day.  Problem is, it is 
a tedious job, so any excuse is good to postpone it.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"