Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 03:29:39 GMT
In <56tgd3$a8o@starman.rsn.hp.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A.
Schumacher) writes:
>
>
>>straight up? If you do that means the light is moving with you and
has
>>a component of velocity in the direction you are traveling. If you
are
>>moving at 10 meters per second and the light is not deflected, then
the
>>speed of the light- the vector sum of the velocities -sqrt(c^2+10^2)-
>>exceeds c. If you are traveling in a train at 20 meters per second
and
>>shine a light straight up, and naively consider that the appearance
of
>>the light going straight up is the truth, then you have implicitly
>>confirmed that the velocity of the light is sqrt(c^2+20^2), in
>>contradiction of experimental evidence and physical law.
>
>No, you have instead confirmed that you don't know how to
>add velocities correctly under relativity. Next!
>
You, however, don't realize the implications of what you say. If
you say the light goes straight up then you have to assume a resultant
velocity which must be determined by a convoluted formula, time
dilation, relativistic mass increase, and length contraction. On the
other hand if you assume that the light goes diagonally back, then you
don't have to assume anything; the speed of light stays constant
without mathematical contortions, there is no time dilation, no
relativistic mass increase and no length contraction. In addition
absolute velocity can be determined by the magnitude of the deflection
and absolute rest by no deflection. Which version does Occam's razor
choose?
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Face on Mars Revisited...
From: jpoutre@lehman.com (Joseph Poutre)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 13:36:45 -0500
In article , OX-11 writes:
>
>I have applied a new image analysis proceedure to the original frame of
>the image file which contains the mars face artifact, to bring out new
>detail. Is this "face" an artifact costructed by a long dead race of
>martians, or a 'trick of shadows' like NASA says? You be the judge....
(Location deleted - see the original posting if you wish to waste your time.)
Have you done the same detailed analysis to the face of Kermit the Frog seen
in another photograph of Mars?
Have you done the same analysis to photos taken of the dozens of faces seen
in geographic locations and objects around the world? (reference Ripley's Believe
it or Not for many examples.)
Do you realize that given the huge surface area of Mars and human propensity
for finding patterns in things that it would be more surprising if we _didn't_
find something that looked like a humanoid face on Mars?
Do you realize the immense amount of time and effort that Dr. Hoagland and his
ilk have wasted in propounding these ridiculous ideas instead of just saying
"Oh, neat - there's a mound on Mars that looks like a stylized human face,
and another that looks like Kermit the Frog" and moving on to useful
scientific study of the data obtained by Viking?
Yes, I DID download your photo. I saw nothing more was in the original photo.
Why don't you stop wasting your time chasing shadows when you could be working
on something useful, like feeding the poor or teaching someone to read?
Joseph
---
Joseph Poutre, aka The Mad Mathematician N2KOW
jpoutre@lehman.com Systems Administrator, Lehman Bros.
Member: Battleship New Jersey Historical Museum Society
Member #2166: MST3K Information Club GO BILLS!!
--
Joseph Poutre, aka The Mad Mathematician N2KOW
jpoutre@lehman.com Systems Administrator, Lehman Bros.
Member: Battleship New Jersey Historical Museum Society
Member #2166: MST3K Information Club GO METROSTARS!!
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 20 Nov 1996 01:49:54 GMT
Im Artikel ,
rvien@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau) schreibt:
> Finally, and most interesting, *philosophically we are completely
> wrong* with the approximate law.
....
> -- _The Feymann Lectures on Physics_, Volume I, pp. 1-1 - 1-2,
Hmm, I thought those lectures where by a physicist about physics, no? It's
a nice quote, and F. sure was a great man, but a lousy philosopher
(IMHO).
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.
Subject: Re: Cryonics Contracts
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 20:26:32 +0100
In article <56l0sd$rq1@basement.replay.com>, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
wrote:
> Furthermore, I'd sure hate to be the first person scientists try to
revive. Whoever that guinea
> pig is, he is almost certain to die again after suffering horribly for
days, weeks, or even
> months. Perhaps there could be two tiers: an economy tier (you will be
among the first who are
> brought out of suspension), and a "rest-in-peace" tier (you won't be
revived until, say, 95% of
> revivees survive 50 years or more and the sample size is greater than 100).
>
> Anyway the terms and conditions of these contracts as presently written
need work. Anyone
> agree?
WELL IT'S KIND OF A MOOT POINT. ANYONE WHO OPTS TO GET THEIR HEAD
CHOPPED OFF IS A DEAD MAN AND WON'T BE RESURRECTED.
CRYONICS SHOULD BE OUTLAWED.
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: +@+.+ (G*rd*n)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 21:36:17 -0500
moggin:
| |> Anyway, Russell, Michael, Jeff and others claimed that my point was
| |> obvious, called it a cliche, dismissed it as trivial, etc.
candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy):
| Your revelation, "Newton was wrong", is valid only in the sense
| that every theorist and all theories are wrong. Thus it is trivial.
| ...
It is indeed trivial in this sense, but it might have been
rhetorically apt in the now long-departed context -- if,
for instance, someone were hagiographizing Newton or
claiming, as Pope and others did, that he was a divine
messenger or at least a Philosophically Correct one. This
enormous tree of threads grew, not because moggin flogged
the Net with a manifesto of Newton's wrongness, but because
that one remark was not tolerated -- it had to be effaced.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Re: Anthony Potts, monolingual buffoon...
From: gabriel@idirect.com (Ziggy Stardust)
Date: 19 Nov 96 22:31:21 UTC
Joseph Edward Nemec (nemecj@mit.edu) wrote:
: Ziggy Stardust wrote:
: >
: > Joey,
: > Here's a statistic for you. 376556.725 out of 376556.725 people
: > surveyed think you should fuck off and stop asking your ouija board for
: > statistics.
: 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.
Joey,
Hello little man. You are a real stupid fuck if you don't know
sarcasm.
Eric D.
Toronto, Canada
----------------------------------------------------
: Come play Realms of Despair! http://www.game.org :
----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 04:40:05 GMT
In article , 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.
Notice this: The period of an orbit depends only on the
energy, v^2/2-k/r . If an object is to have a periodic motion
in the shuttle frame it must have the same energy. If it's
below the CM the potential energy is more negative so the
kinetic energy must be more postive, and it must have a boost
along the line of shuttle motion. ( constant angular velocity
about the earth means it's going slightly slower ) In fact, I
get the condition for periodic motion:
dv/v = - dr/r
The "same initial angular velocity" condition has the wrong sign.
You can also consider that the lower object must be in a slightly
eccentric orbit which will carry it from R-r to R+r in the
next half orbit, and it must be going faster at perigee and
slower at apogee.
Note that with dr/r ~ 10^-7 ( ~ 1m ) and v~10^4 m/sec we
have dv ~ 1 mm/sec . These are EXTREMELY subtle effects.
The shuttle forms an EXCELLENT locally inertial frame and
passes your rock test or even much more stringent free fall
tests with flying colors.
If the shuttle is not rotating, then a ball initially at
rest above or below the CM will drift AWAY from the CM
with a constant acceleration ( at first. ) as the tidal
forces dictate.
I went so far as to dash off a predictor corrector finite
difference solution of a nearly circular orbit, using a = 1/r^2,
and taking the difference with the exactly circular orbit.
If the exactly circular orbit has initial conditions
{ x, y ; vx, vy } = { 1,0 ; 0,1 } and the nearly circular
orbit has intitial conditions { 1.001, 0 ; 0,1 }
( note same vx,vy ) then the initial motion goes like this:
( each time step is 1000 iterations of DT=0.00001 )
t x y x-xCM y-yCM
0 1.001 0 0.001 0
1 1.000950 0.0099998 0.00100010 4.98921e-10
2 1.000800 0.0199987 0.00100040 3.99193e-09
3 1.000550 0.0299955 0.00100090 1.34734e-08
4 1.000200 0.0399894 0.00100160 3.19383e-08
5 0.999753 0.0499792 0.00100250 6.23825e-08
6 0.999204 0.0599641 0.00100359 1.07803e-07
7 0.998556 0.0699430 0.00100489 1.71198e-07
8 0.997808 0.0799149 0.00100639 2.55569e-07
9 0.996961 0.0898789 0.00100808 3.63917e-07
10 0.996014 0.0998339 0.00100998 4.99247e-07
Putting the object a little ahead of the CM I get this:
t x y x-xCM y-yCM
0 1 0.001 0 0.001
1 0.999950 0.0109998 5.74981e-10 0.00099995
2 0.999800 0.0209985 4.29949e-09 0.00099980
3 0.999550 0.0309951 1.41714e-08 0.00099955
4 0.999200 0.0409885 3.31854e-08 0.00099920
5 0.998750 0.0509779 6.43315e-08 0.00099875
6 0.998201 0.0609622 1.10594e-07 0.00099820
7 0.997551 0.0709404 1.74948e-07 0.00099755
8 0.996802 0.0809115 2.60362e-07 0.00099681
9 0.995953 0.0908745 3.69792e-07 0.00099597
10 0.995005 0.1008280 5.06182e-07 0.00099503
Note that it accelerates TOWARD the CM initially
with 1/2 the rate that the first object accelerated
AWAY from it. This is the {2,-1} signature of the
tidal force field.
So there!
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Subject: Re: What is fracture toughness ???
From: "Charles A. Baldwin"
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 23:55:44 -0400
> I am trying to understand what fracture toughness is but is fairly
> confused as to what it measures in a material.
> Can anyone help please.
If you take a crack in a material to be a stress raiser, the stresses
just ahead of the crack tip on a microscopic level are greatly
increased. The equations describing these
stresses can be found in a number of books. Fortunately, these
equations are simplified
by defining the stress intensity factor, K, as
K = (stress) * Square Root (Pi * Crack Size)
Therefore, if two test specimens have equal values of K, the stress
states ahead of the
crack tip are identical.
Clearly, for a constant value of stress, K increases with increasing
crack size. At a critical crack size, the material fails suddenly and
catastrophically. At that critical crack size, a critical stress
intensity factor is defined. This critical stress intensity factor is
the fracture toughness.
I hope this helps.
Chaz
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:37:22 GMT
moggin wrote:
>glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long):
>
>>But you never seem to spell out exactly what your point is. I assume you
>>have one, but I just can't figure it out. So, in order to bring this
>>discussion back to some rational basis, could you please restate your
>>point, and provide some explanation of what you mean? [...]
>
> What the fuck is your problem? And why exactly do you expect me
>to fix it? Let me take a guess: you seem to think that because you're
>incapable of finding my point, this is an irrational discussion. What's
>more, that troubles you enough to bring you to my doorstep with a
>personal complaint. Is that about the idea? Honestly, I don't know if
>I'm even close, but I'd hate to think you weren't being rational.
Well, it was worth a try. I was hoping you had something to say
other than insults and statements about how other people's arguments
aren't rational.
- Gordon
--
#include
Gordon Long | email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE |
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland) |
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on deconstruction
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 03:42:34 GMT
David Swanson (dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
: In article <56sn8t$96n@netnews.upenn.edu>
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: > What's to stop you? Derrida's point, if I
: > : may presume to speak for M. Derrida - and I don't even remember where
: > : the paragraph in question is - is that in paraphrasing, not only are
: > : you using language, but you are basing this language on the text, as
: > : opposed to basing it on some hidden meaning behind or inside or under
: > : the text. It's very common in anglo philosophy papers to begin a
: > : critique of another's work by summarizing it. This is usually thought
: > : of not as a variant on the text but as a description of its essential
: > : meaning. But just as Wittgenstein explained that the meaning of a word
: > : is just the way it's used, so that "yahoo" and "excuse me" and "or"
: > : have just as much or little meaning as "chair" or "nose," Derrida
: > : explains that a poem or shortstory has just as much meaning as an
: > : anglophilosophical paper. In both cases there are just the words. And
: > : new paraphrases of those words are always possible.
: >
: > We'd hardly need Derrida for this -- that's a commonplace. Derrida never
: > argues for the interchangeability of interpretations; that's one of the
: > most influential misunderstandings of his work; he certainly doesn't
: > argue for the interchangeability of your run-of-the mill anglophil paper
: > and, let's say, Descartes.
: What do you mean by interchangeability? Perfect translation? And who
: DOES argue for it?
I'm referring to your own formulation above, "just as much as." Seems
pretty unambiguous to me.
Silke
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 05:13:39 GMT
In article <56u235$i8r@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article , 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.
>
>Notice this: The period of an orbit depends only on the
>energy, v^2/2-k/r . If an object is to have a periodic motion
>in the shuttle frame it must have the same energy. If it's
>below the CM the potential energy is more negative so the
>kinetic energy must be more postive, and it must have a boost
>along the line of shuttle motion. ( constant angular velocity
>about the earth means it's going slightly slower ) In fact, I
>get the condition for periodic motion:
>
> dv/v = - dr/r
>
>The "same initial angular velocity" condition has the wrong sign.
>You can also consider that the lower object must be in a slightly
>eccentric orbit which will carry it from R-r to R+r in the
>next half orbit, and it must be going faster at perigee and
>slower at apogee.
>
>Note that with dr/r ~ 10^-7 ( ~ 1m ) and v~10^4 m/sec we
>have dv ~ 1 mm/sec . These are EXTREMELY subtle effects.
>The shuttle forms an EXCELLENT locally inertial frame and
>passes your rock test or even much more stringent free fall
>tests with flying colors.
>
>If the shuttle is not rotating, then a ball initially at
>rest above or below the CM will drift AWAY from the CM
>with a constant acceleration ( at first. ) as the tidal
>forces dictate.
>
>I went so far as to dash off a predictor corrector finite
>difference solution of a nearly circular orbit, using a = 1/r^2,
>and taking the difference with the exactly circular orbit.
>
>If the exactly circular orbit has initial conditions
>{ x, y ; vx, vy } = { 1,0 ; 0,1 } and the nearly circular
>orbit has intitial conditions { 1.001, 0 ; 0,1 }
>( note same vx,vy ) then the initial motion goes like this:
>
>( each time step is 1000 iterations of DT=0.00001 )
>
>t x y x-xCM y-yCM
>
>0 1.001 0 0.001 0
>1 1.000950 0.0099998 0.00100010 4.98921e-10
>2 1.000800 0.0199987 0.00100040 3.99193e-09
>3 1.000550 0.0299955 0.00100090 1.34734e-08
>4 1.000200 0.0399894 0.00100160 3.19383e-08
>5 0.999753 0.0499792 0.00100250 6.23825e-08
>6 0.999204 0.0599641 0.00100359 1.07803e-07
>7 0.998556 0.0699430 0.00100489 1.71198e-07
>8 0.997808 0.0799149 0.00100639 2.55569e-07
>9 0.996961 0.0898789 0.00100808 3.63917e-07
>10 0.996014 0.0998339 0.00100998 4.99247e-07
>
>Putting the object a little ahead of the CM I get this:
>
>t x y x-xCM y-yCM
>
>0 1 0.001 0 0.001
>1 0.999950 0.0109998 5.74981e-10 0.00099995
>2 0.999800 0.0209985 4.29949e-09 0.00099980
>3 0.999550 0.0309951 1.41714e-08 0.00099955
>4 0.999200 0.0409885 3.31854e-08 0.00099920
>5 0.998750 0.0509779 6.43315e-08 0.00099875
>6 0.998201 0.0609622 1.10594e-07 0.00099820
>7 0.997551 0.0709404 1.74948e-07 0.00099755
>8 0.996802 0.0809115 2.60362e-07 0.00099681
>9 0.995953 0.0908745 3.69792e-07 0.00099597
>10 0.995005 0.1008280 5.06182e-07 0.00099503
>
>Note that it accelerates TOWARD the CM initially
>with 1/2 the rate that the first object accelerated
>AWAY from it. This is the {2,-1} signature of the
>tidal force field.
>
Nice job. What would be the closed form of the solutions (assuming
small displacement?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Teaching Science Myth
From: bloore@h-plus-a.com (mARCO bLOORE)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:32:36 -0500
In article <56esj6$n3m@phunn1.sbphrd.com>,
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
> Or then again it could be the thin layer of palladium they put on the bottom
> of the skates. Some the hydrogen ions present in the water pass into the
> palladium layer and the heat generated by the resultant cold fusion heats
> the water beneath the blade to melt it and so lower the friction.
if you use a strip of palladium sponge instead of a solid layer, the much
greater surface area allows the cold fusion to proceed so rapidly that
the ice flashes into steam, propelling the skater forward.
these skates are not legal in speed competitions :(
************************************************************
Visit our top-rated children's site, Nikolai's Web Site, at:
http://www.nikolai.com/
mARCO bLOORE
Vice-President, Software Engineering
I. Hoffmann + associates inc.
Email: bloore@h-plus-a.com Web: http://www.h-plus-a.com/
************************************************************
Subject: Re: Earth's rotating speed
From: Ian Robert Walker
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:40:31 +0000
In article , Ken Fischer
writes
>Lloyd Johnson (johnson@mintaka.sdsu.edu) 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.
>
>: This additional second you mention was not added to the day. It was
>: added to the year. This is what we call leap second. They are added
>: occasionally. Other can tell you exactly how often they are added.
>: http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html
>
> I don't know where this thread is going (I see Judson
>made an interesting observation), but I don't see how the
>year enters into the number of seconds in a day.
> The number of seconds in 24 hours must be accurate
>in order to keep the center point of the Sun lined up
>properly over time, else it might become daylight at midnight
>at the equator given enough time.
>
> The number of seconds in a year is meaningless,
>as even the number of days in a year is not always the same.
Most users can tolerate the sun & stars being a second out against their
mean time clock so there is no need to adjust the day. Since the Earth's
orbit is elliptical the error will vary from day to day (I think). It is
also much easier to add a second to the year than a variable number of
micro seconds to each day, about 10-20 micro seconds per day.
--
Ian G8ILZ
I have an IQ of 6 million, | How will it end? | Mostly
or was it 6? | In fire. | harmless
Subject: Re: Earth's rotating speed
From: Ian Robert Walker
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:45:13 +0000
In article <32910531.2C0C@ix.netcom.com>, Judson McClendon
writes
>Olivier Glassey wrote:
>[snip]
>> But, according to W. Greiner
>> (German scientist), the day is today only 0.0165 seconds
>> longer than 1000 years ago
>[snip]
>
>No doubt Herr Greiner discovered this from the meticulous records made
>from those ultra precise clocks around 1000 AD? ;)
He would not have to, the current rate has been calculated to be 1 milli
second per century. There being no reason to suppose that it has changed
much in the last 1000 years.
--
Ian G8ILZ
I have an IQ of 6 million, | How will it end? | Mostly
or was it 6? | In fire. | harmless
Subject: Re: Hempfling's Cryonics bafflegab
From: tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 19:46:43 GMT
In <56qsd4$2ih@panix.com> cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes:
>
>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.
Perhaps a better phrase would be
"a system of behavior, which has evolved and
been tested over a long period of time."
Now, I assert that an old, proven set of
globally applied rules, is better than
having each set of parents ad libing rules,
and to have some self-serving government
dictating "The thoughts of Chairman Clinton".
I think that a good system of moral behavior
should be CAUTIOUSLY and SLOWLY modified as
the need arises, and as new information becomes
available. For example, I would like to see
a statement on entropy, and information,
and government incorporated into the moral code.
Ultimately the code might integrate mores
about littering, ecology and such.
I mention these in an article at my Web site
called "God is Culture."
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: rvien@dreamscape.com (Robert Vienneau)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 22:20:57 GMT
Here's a quote for moggin and Mati's amusement:
"We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find
the 'wrong' ones, and then we find the 'right' ones...how *can* the
results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example,
the mass of an object never seems to change: a spinning top has the
same weight as a still one. So a 'law' was invented: mass is
constant, independent of speed. That 'law' is now found to be incorrect.
Mass is found to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase
requires velocities near that of light. A *true* law is: if an object
moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is
constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate
form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the
new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary
speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant-mass law
as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the
higher the speed, the more wrong we are.
Finally, and most interesting, *philosophically we are completely
wrong* with the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to
be altered even though the mass changes only be a little bit. This is
a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the
laws. Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes in
our ideas."
-- _The Feymann Lectures on Physics_, Volume I, pp. 1-1 - 1-2,
emphasis in the original.
--
Robert Vienneau Try my Mac econ simulation game,
rvien@future.dreamscape.com Bukharin, at
ftp://csf.colorado.edu/econ/authors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.sea
Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue, are always
found...in proportion to the power or wealth of a man [is] a question
fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their
masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search
of the truth. -- Rousseau
Subject: Re: Physics Question........
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:50:48 -0500
Hiker wrote:
>
> I hope someone can give me an answer to this question.....I'm only a
> microbiologist, and I know I learned this sometime long ago and far away,
> but the answer eludes me...
>
> What force is at work to prevent an electron (in the lowest "orbital" or
> energy level) from being attracted to the nucleus? They have opposite
> charges. Also..is this force mediated by a particle?
>
No force ... the electron is bound to the nucleus via the electrostatic
force. When you solve Schroedinger's equation, you get quantization
of the energy levels. And the innermost orbital is the ground state.
This is essentially the theory of Neils Bohr, updated with the
de Broglie "matter wave" hypothesis, and then turned into quantum
mechanics by Heisenberg and Schroedinger.
If you back up to the de Broglie stage, you find that Bohr's
quantization _hypothesis_ works when you require the electron to
be a wave in a stationary state. That is, there must be a whole
number of wavelengths encircling the nucleus.
The ground state has the least number that fit.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Future test on General Relativity, poor experimental set-up,
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 02:13:08 GMT
I need to keep this as future reference.
--- quoting NEW SCIENTIST 31AUG96, pp 28-31 ---
MUSIC OF THE SPHERES
When Gravity Probe B shoots off into space in 1999 the hopes of an
entire generation of physicists will go with it. If the satellite fails
to find any trace of a key force predicted by Einstein, relativity may
have to be rewritten, ...
A big drag
Relativity also predicts that when a massive object rotates it tends
to drag space and time with it. This effect is known as frame dragging
and it should manifest itself as a force that pushes a gyroscope's axis
out of alignment as it orbits the Earth. Gravity Probe B will attempt
to measure the force, gravitomagnetism, ...
At the same time, the gyroscopes will experience a much bigger
force-- the geodetic effect which is a result of the warping of
space-time predicted by Einstein ...
--- end quoting NEW SCIENTIST 31AUG96, pp 28-31 ---
I wish some physicists would do a more important analysis. That of
detailing how much of humanity's technology has depended on the force
of gravity as compared to quantum physics. Such a report would show how
wasteful spending of money has gone into General Relativity theory.
That it matters not to technology whether GR is correct or false.
According to my theory that EM is the force of gravity replacing
charge with that of mass, then the 1999 test may contradict Einstein's
GR. However, GR may still be a fake and the test may yet support GR. I
say this because GR is temperature dependent such as superfluid helium
does not obey gravity.
This 1999 test , like a test on Ohm's law may keep variables
relatively constant and so the reporter may wrongly think the
experiment verified GR when in fact it was so limited in range as an
experiment that it , like Ohm's law was limited in range and the
reporters wrongly concluded that Ohm's law is universal.
This is why I harp on the cost worthiness of GR as a science. So many
expensive research yet no useful technologies derived thereof.
But if one considers the opposite venture. Consider GR a fake science
and that is the reason that no technologies are ever spawned off of GR.
And the reason such large sums of moneys are spent on GR -- the above
1999 probe and the planned Kip Thorne graviton seeker, is because GR is
a fake science and no new technologies ever will bloom from GR and the
price tags for these experiments are a throwing away of good money.
Summary: Even if the 1999 probe confirms Einstein GR, the set-up was
so poor of an experiment that it really did not confirm GR over a large
range, (like testing Ohm's law over a narrow part of its range). But if
the 1999 contradicts GR, the physics community will run to patch up GR
and keep GR even though it is a fake. The physics community is
conservative, especially when a spigot of govt money flows into a area
even though it is a fake.
Subject: Re: Where's the theory? (was: Specialized terminology)
From: Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:59:36 -0500
In article <56nl85$nqn@mathe.usc.edu>, taboada@mathe.usc.edu (Mario
Taboada) wrote:
>moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>
>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck):
>>[to Anton]
>
>>>I am sorry to see the anxiety that interpretation evokes
>>>in you; I can't help you with that, though.
>
>> Prescription for Anton -- take two Fish and call me in the
>>morning. (You'll say, "Good-bye, and thanks for all the Fish!")
>
>>-- moggin
>
>Pay attention, folks. This may be the closest Moggin ever comes to
>giving away his identity....
You mean he's really Douglas Adams?!?
--
Andy Perry We search before and after,
Brown University We pine for what is not.
English Department Our sincerest laughter
Andrew_Perry@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
st001914@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:00:28 GMT
In article <56tgng$agn@starman.rsn.hp.com>, schumach@convex.com
(Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:
>> It's strange but I believe in the existence and unavoidability of
>>absolute motion and yet, I don't believe in absolute space. Why? a)
>
>Ah! I knew you had some pet theory :->
>
>I read the post twice with an open mind and a pure heart and I
>still can't decide what you mean by "absolute motion". Can you
>provide an example of something (anything!) in "absolute motion"
>or at "absolute rest", per your definition? How does one tell?
One does not tell. You can look at it as the "uncertainty principle
of "absolutivity". The idea that just because you cannot measure
something necessarily means that it cannot be inferred through the use
of logic is erroneous and destructive. Here's an example: You cannot
observe the velocity of a particle while measuring its position. Does
that mean that the particle has no velocity while its position is
being measured? I don't think so. Likewise, does a particle have a
position in the universe while its velocity is being measured? I
think so. Here's my current working definition of absolute motion:
Definition: Absolute motion is the opposite of relative motion. It
is independent from other motions and is invariant under geometric
transformations.
Relative motion on the other hand is dependent. Ultimately, it is
dependent on absolute motion. It could not be dependent on the
relative motion of other bodies because accelerating from one frame to
another changes the observed relative motion of body A with respect to
the observer's frame. Why? What is responsible for this change in
the observed relative motion of body A? IOW, how can the relativity
of the motion of body A be responsible for this change? Of course it
isn't: The motions of one body is completely independent of (ignoring
force fields, for the sake of argument) the motion of another. So the
question will not go away. What is responsible for the change in the
observed motion? This is not as trivial as you may think, in view of
the widespread rejection of the absolute.
On the one hand we do observe that there is a definite relationship
(relativity) between the observer and the body. It's a mathematical
relationship, i.e. one motion is a function of the other. This
function determines how the motion of body A will be perceived at all
times. On the other hand, logic tells us that the two bodies are
independent of one another. Otherwise they would have to be psychic.
We live in a cause and effect universe. What relativists are
telling us is that the relativity of the motion of body A with respect
to the observer is caused and maintained only by an abstract
mathematical function! This sort of meatless, non-physical and stupid
explanation does not bother them in the least bit. They are
absolutely convinced that they understand motion and yet they can't
provide a cause for it. They live in a strange universe, where
effects exist without causes and the relative exists without the
absolute and opposites come not in pairs but in singles. This is
preposterous! I call it voodoo physics. Try telling a child that
left can exist without right or yes without no.
Who needs controlled substances when you have the skewed and
exclusive relativity of the relativitists? All I can say at this
point is, enjoy your high. :-) But don't force your impaired view of
reality on the rest of us. Don't put relativity in one box and
"absolutivity" in another. Opposites are of the same nature and they
attract. You can try in vain to keep them apart. The relative
complements the absolute and vice versa. There are those of us who
love SR while at the same time relishing the knowledge of the
absolute. We are not going to go away. We are here to stay.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
"O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason." W.S.
Subject: Re: Hempfling's Cryonics bafflegab
From: Judson McClendon
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:47:57 -0600
Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
> Now, I raised three good, moral, athiest kids,
> but I must state that I had to deal with all
> moral issues on a one to one basis. It would
> be much easier to tell them that some God
> will deal with them, IF they do not conform to
> some laundry list of rules.
[snip]
May I correct a misunderstanding here? Christians do not (should not)
teach their children to obay God because He will zap them. Such
instruction is for non-believers, who WILL be zapped unless they accept
Christ. Believers obey God out of love and appreciation for His grace
and love toward us. Once a person accepts Jesus Christ as savior there
will be no punishment for that person before God. Jesus took our
punishment for us, and that's why we're thankful to God.
--
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Subject: A case of persecution mania?
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 20 Nov 1996 01:49:56 GMT
moggin accuses Mati of editing his posts. Mati admitted snipping, but no
editing. moggin (as usual) persists on his argument:
"Another heavy-handed editing job. Let's try this again, with the
original version of my post:"
Original as cited by moggin
>>> I was being conversational. Since that was too hard
>>>for you to understand, I'll re-phrase my point. You haven't
>>>offered a reason for anyone to think you're right. Matter
>>>of fact, you simply haven't offered any support for your
>>>assertion at all. Its absurdity remains undiminished.
... and as quoted by Mati
>>> I was being conversational. Since that was too hard
>>>for you to understand, I'll re-phrase my point. You haven't
>>>offered a reason for anyone to think you're right.
>
>No. I just didn't offer a reason for you to think I'm right [....]
This seems to be quite a normal case of snipping. Mati obviously didn't
want to reply to emotional rages like "absurdity remains undiminished" to
keep the flames low. Also the two snipped sentences didn't say anything
new but rather the same as "You haven't offered a reason ... to think
you're right" just in less kind words like "not offered support for your
assertion".
Now moggin declares this to have been "heavy handed editing", which it
clearly was not. Thus we have to conclude one of the following:
a) moggin doesn't know the difference between 'snipping' and 'heavy-handed
editing' - suggested treatment: back to elementary school!
b) moggin is so much in rage, that he has to construct a case of
'editing', even though he must count on the debility of usenet readers to
get through with this - proposed action: killfile'm!
c) moggin is going nuts faster than we all thought it would happen - then
he should see a shrink!
d) moggin is fighting down a nightmare haunting him: whenever he turns
round there's someone looking out of the mirror yelling: "Boooh" at him.
In fact all his posts are to be understood as emerging from a
"whistling-in-the-dark" behaviour. He needs to make sure there's always
someone answering his whistles, and stupid allegations plus personal
attacks are always more successful in securing an answer than anything
else. For a New Yorkian it must be pretty dark and lonesome out in
northern carolinian elite pomo duck land. Solution: It never rains in
Southern California....
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.
Subject: Re: Earth's rotating speed
From: alvarez@nntp.best.com (Richard Alvarez)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 07:49:34 GMT
<>
Annecdote about that:
Many years ago, I watched the arrival of the New Year in New York
City, I think at Times Square. It was a big ceremony, with a band,
pom-pom dancers, baton-twirlers, laser lights, and a huge crowd of
spectators. A leap-second was due to be added that day, and it was well
publicized and was incorporated into the ceremony.
At about 11:59:00 Eastern Standard Time (according to the master of
ceremonies), the MC began a count-down, I think with time announced
every 10 seconds. The band was blowing up a storm, the pom-pom dancers
were gyrating, the baton-twirlers were twirling away, and the lasers
were putting on quite a show.
At about 11:59:50 EST (again according to the master of ceremonies),
the MC announced every second. The whole pace became frantic.
At 11:59:60 EST (again according to the master of ceremonies), the
band stopped playing in the middle of a note, the pom-pom dancers
stopped on one foot, the batons stopped in mid-twirl (For such a special
occasion, Newton's laws of motion were suspended temporarily.), and only
the lasers remained in motion. There was total silence for one second.
At the end of that second, the band resumed, and the crowd went
wild.
The whole thing was very impressive ... and total hogwash. The
leap-second had occurred at 7 PM New York time. But it was fun to
watch. At least many people became aware of leap-seconds.
Dick Alvarez
alvarez@best.com
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: Richard Mentock
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 02:54:45 -0500
Louis Savain wrote:
> Definition: Absolute motion is the opposite of relative motion. It
> is independent from other motions and is invariant under geometric
> transformations.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are opposites. There are still
general relativity theories out there that use a preferred background
metric, or absolute reference frame. Physicists can handle the problems
of absolute motion readily--please don't accuse them of dogmatism.
The General Relativity of Einstein just doesn't need that hypothesis,
that's all. It's like that analogy of the balloon to represent the big
bang. Our universe is the surface of the balloon (2 dimensional) and
the third dimension is time. As the balloon expands, each point gets
further away from every other point. This is supposed to illustrate how
no single point can be considered to be the center of the universe. The
center of the big bang is no longer a part of the surface of
the balloon (our universe)--it is *inside* the balloon somewhere.
The analogy can also be extended to the concept of absolute motion. Is
the balloon rotating? We don't know, it could be. But this would be
totally unmeasureable, within our universe, using the physics of GR.
There would be no way, within our universe, to determine absolute
motion.
Again, there are theories of general relativity (uncapitalized) that say
the absolute motion can be detected. GR is not one of them. Almost all
of those other theories have been disproven by experimental evidence.
Your arguments with the folks on this newsgroup arise because it is not
clear when the discussion is assuming mainline physics, and when it is
not. Regardless, it is totally inappropriate to accuse physicists of
being "preposterous."
--
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: anonymous@nowhere.com (anonymous)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 07:58:45 GMT
In article , glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long) says:
>
>David Smyth wrote:
>>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu says...
>>>
>>>Not really. Motion which is uniform relative to some reference frame,
>>>is also uniform relative to any reference frame moving at constant
>>>velocity relative to the first one. That's the whole point of
>>>inertail frames. [...]
>>>
>>The minute you mention the phrase "inertial reference frame" this
>>is the same as saying "a reference frame moving with uniform motion", true?
>>The phrase "constant velocity" is also the same as uniform motion.
>
>
> 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.
>
I'm falling through a vacuum and I let go of the rock. The rock
stays still! Am I in an a (Newtonian) inertial reference frame?
I don't think so.
Up until this point I would have thought this was one of the
problems solved by GR. Hence the concept of a relativistic
inertial frame of reference.
Do you think an inertial frame of reference under GR (not SR)
is identical to one under Newtonian mechanics?
If not what do you think is the difference between the two?
David Smyth
CPL
University of Queensland
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 20 Nov 1996 06:14:50 GMT
Raghu Seshadri (seshadri@cup.hp.com) wrote:
: x-no-archive: yes
: : : > : >>If the author 'meant' something other than what he wrote --
: : : > : >>why didn't he write that instead?
: (my story deleted)
: : : Doubtless this shows the silliness of some pomo arguments, but there
: : : is little hope of getting them all with one truck bomb.
: : Allow me to doubt the doubtless: which "pomo argument" has just been
: : devastated by a nice anecdote about intertextuality?
: : Silke
: Read the sentence I was responding to.
: It asks - "if the author meant something
: other than what he wrote - why didn't he
: write that instead" ? This is a prominent
: pomo argument to justify their thesis
: that the text should be analyzed independently
: for meaning, ignoring things like
: authorial intent.
Let me suggest that you don't know what you're talking about; the author
did write exactly what he meant to say, and he could do so in the form
you describe because he knew his audience; both he and his audience
shared knowledge of another text, the bible, without which the message
could not have been deciphered.
The source of meaning here comes from the bible; that's what your
anecdote suggests. Intent doesn't matter; if the audience hadn't known
the bible, all the good intent in the world wouldn't have made the
message intelligible.
In other words, you're shooting yourself in the foot without even
realizing it; which is what Brian politely and very clearly pointed out
to you.
Let me remind you, as a footnote, that I was the one who introduced you to
the concept of esoteric writing... that was back in the days when you
were arguing that the text says what it means and that even basic
hermeneutic skills are a waste of time. However, your recent performance
does not constitute progress.
: This argument has been demolished
You can demolish your own arguments all you like; if you want to pretend
that you are demolishing other people's arguments, you will have to prove
first that those other people made them. So will you please come up with
a quotation by someone identifiable as a postmodern thinker and set your
cute little story into relation to it?
: by my anecdote, though judging
by : the laughable efforts of Brian : Artese, I wouldn't bet on the pomos
: owning up to it.
The only laughable thing here is your self-aggrandizement.
S.
Subject: Re: Cryonics bafflegab? (was re: organic structures of consciousness)
From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 21:55:52 -0500
Lee Kent Hempfling (lkh@mail.cei.net) wrote:
> 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.
But why not? The only difference I can see is that freezing currently
causes cellular damage. What if there's a good cryoprotectant that
prevents this? Would long-term storage still be different from hypothermic
surgery, from your perspective? In that case, you have to tell us where
the dividing line lies. At what temperature does temporarily dead become
permanently dead? After how many hours, weeks, or years? These are
serious questions!
> What seems to be the basic problem is a real definition of dead. That
> requires a real definition of life.
Time to check the encyclopedia. Last time I looked, the Britannica entry
on "Life" began with several different definitions and stated that
biologists and doctors probably would not be able to agree on any of them.
From a religious perspective I'm sure the story is different yet again.
Is a virus alive? Is a bacterium? Is a cell?
I prefer to see the situation purely from a point of view of function. If
a person seems to function (and claims he does function) in the manner of
most human beings, and also claims to have and seems to have a soul
(assuming he believes in a soul), I feel this is the only proof we need
that he is alive and equipped with the necessary spiritual functions.
It's like the Turing Test: if a machine seems intelligent when we interact
with it, for all practical purposes it IS intelligent. (Of course, many
people feel dissatisfied with this point of view.)
> So then, what is life that it can be observably absent yet still be
> there to be revived at some later date?
Why do you say it is observably absent? I'm not sure if it is absent if
cell processes have stopped temporarily but can be restarted at a later
date. I would prefer to say it is in a state of suspended animation.
--Charles Platt
CryoCare
