Newsgroup sci.physics 209510

Directory

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (uncleal0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 3jpla@qlink.queensu.ca (Au Jean P L) wrote:
: >HI. Can someone tell me how does the hologram on credit cards serve as a
: >security measure?
: There is no way of accurately duplicating a hologram except with the 
: original equipment.
  Is this a 'no way' or a 'no not-prohibititively-costly way'? I'd have
thought you could do the inverse of the hologram-printing process, taking a
cast of the hologram's surface in some appropriate material, electroplating
it, casting the result in something solid and printing with it - the same sort
of idea as CDs. Or does the 'appropriate material' not exist.
--
Tom
Dort, wo man Buecher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen
(Heinrich Heine)

Christopher C. Wood  wrote:
>|> Gordon Long :
>
>|>  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.  
>
>|> -Mammel,L.H.:
>
>|>  The shuttle is exactly equivalent to an elevator in free fall.
>|>  I dare say you obviously don't understand this important fact.
>
>|> Gordon Long :
>
>|>    That's true; I don't.  In an elevator in free fall, it seems to 
>|>  me that (to use Mati's example) gyroscopes do not suddenly start
>|>  spinning all by themselves.  
>
>Were the shuttle to maintain a constant orientation re: the celestial
>sphere, then gyroscopes on the shuttle would not suddently start
>spinning all by themselves, either.  What you're not getting is that
>the shuttle in orbit _is_ in free fall, unless you have some private
>definition of "free fall" different from what you explain below.
  Yes, the shuttle is in free fall, but in general it is also rotating.  
You could have it maintain an constant orientation using the method you 
describe, although I see that as a special case rather than a general
one.  If you did, then a frame fixed to the shuttle would be an inertial 
frame near the center of mass.
>
>|>  Another difference comes from the fact that orbital velocity is a
>|>  function of height, leading to effects you would not see an an
>|>  elevator in free fall.  
>
>Such as what?
  Horizontal movement, for example.
>
>|>  In the context of inertial frames, these strike me as rather
>|>  important differences.
>
>Neither an elevator in free fall nor a shuttle in orbit is an inertial
>reference frame.
  Not the way I was using the phrase "something like an elevator in
free fall".  Once you've eliminated gravitational effects and gotten 
rid of all other fictitous forces, you have an inertial frame.  Of 
course, if space is curved, you have to throw in the caveat "in a 
sufficiently small volume of spacetime".  But that's a quibble.
  Actually, this entire gravity argument is a quibble.  The original
statement was
>>> If your test is applied e.g. in the bay of the space shuttle
>>> while it's in orbit, it qualifies as an inertial frame. Einstein
>>> accepts this test and proceeds from there, with gravity becoming
>>> a fictitious force. However, in Newtonian mechanics the space shuttle
>>> bay is not an inertial frame, but an accelerating one, so your test
>>> is inadequate in this case.
  If you eliminate the fictitious forces due to rotation, then the space
shuttle bay is an inertial frame.  If you don't, then it isn't, regardless
of how you treat gravity.
>Acceleration is change in velocity over time, and gravity is one
>source of force.  What do you mean by "cancel out"?  Newton related
>forces and accelerations with F=ma.
  Yes, but imagine you're floating weightless in an elevator, and 
can't see outside.  Are you in "free fall", i.e. are you accelerating
toward the earth due to gravity?  Or are you in deep space somewhere, 
far away from any massive object and therefore not experiencing any 
gravitational force?  The answer is that you don't (and can't) know.  
And furthermore (and this was my original point), whether or not you're 
in an inertial frame is completely independent of which case it is.
>
>|>   My point is that an elevator in free fall and the orbiting space 
>|> shuttle bay are not equivalent.  There *is* a qualitative difference;
>|> namely, one is an inertial frame and the other is not.
>
>Sorry, no.  Neither is an inertial frame.
I disagree.  See above.
>
>|>   (By the way, I should hope for the sake of the shuttle crew that
>|> the semimajor axis is greater than 1 earth radius.)
>
>100 miles (the shuttle's operational altitude) doesn't matter that
>much compared to the 8000 mile radius of the earth.
  I know -- I was just referring to what would happen when the shuttle 
reached perigee; i.e. if the semimajor axis is 1, then the semiminor axis 
must be less than 1, leading to bad things.  In any case, my statement 
was not meant to be taken seriously, since I'm sure the original poster
was fully aware of this.
    - Gordon
--
#include 
Gordon Long                      |  email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE                         |    
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland)  |

> 
> ALL of the Bible's prophecies are coming true.  And Jesus Christ raised
> from the dead, just as He said He would.  There are over 120 specific
> prophecies fulfilled exactly in Jesus.  Daniel even told when He would
> come.
> -- 
> Judson McClendon
> Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
The authors of the New Testament made certain that Jesus rang all the
bells and buzzers when they recrafted his life as myth and poetry.
Cairns

Lee Wai Kit wrote:
>         It is said that Red, Blue and Green are the most fundamental 
>	(prime) colors.
> 
>         Why?
> 
>         Why they can't be yellow, violet, ..... ???
Because your eye only has three different pigments, which are sensitive
mainly to red, green, and blue light respectively.  For an excellent
discussion, refer to the Feynman Lectures -- there's a chapter on color
vision and what color is.

The slogan "Science cannot provide value?" is worthy of a high priced
political consultant.  Silke has opportunities she should not neglect.
Although science has cured the sick, reduced infant mortality, taken
us to the moon and given us Usenet, it cannot provide value.  I'm sure
Silke will readily explain the apparent paradox.
In the meantime, who needs your damn value?
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

In talk.origins seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>-From: brian artese 
>
>-Your example proves my point beautifully.  Let's say the 
>-command center 'didn't get' the message; they didn't get it 
>-because they tried to appropriate the articulation (the 
>-signifier) into the wrong linguistic environment--i.e., 
>-into a context that was not the context of the bible.  
>-Let's say they did 'get it':  one might say that the 
>-command center 'discovered the soldier's intent.'  But that 
>-intent is not something that existed independently of or 
>-'prior to' the realm of signifiers -- a condition implied 
>-by your phrase 'the meaning was there.'  In fact, what 
>-established the success of the communication was the fact 
>-that both parties knew to place the articulation within the 
>-same nexus of signifiers -- i.e., within the bible.
>
>This nonsense is on par with defining "up"
>as "down" or "positive" as "negative".
>
>You asked why, if a writer has a certain
>intent, does he not write it down. You 
>used this point to justify the pomo
>position that the text is everything,
>guessing prior intent is wrong, the text
>alone should be used to derive meaning etc.
>
>My example shows the error in this
>argument. Nowhere in the text (BUT IF NOT
>is the entirety of the text) is
>there any mention of the word "Bible".
>So where do you get off saying that
>intent did not exist independently of
>the text ?
So what? I am not supporting deconstructionism (a school of thought I
don't know well enough to have reasonable opinions on) but your
example just shows a somewhat extreme case of reference to another
text. Intent has no more to do with this than it does with any other
communication.
>
>You obviously are conscious of this
>error; this is proved by the fact that
>you are no longer asking the silly
>question - why didn't the writer write
>his intent down ? You now pretend that
>the intent was right there in the 
>text. Where exactly in the text is the
>word "bible" or any other signifier
>denoting the bible ?
>
You do not need to take up a decon position to answer that question.
The reference to the Bible is right there. Obviously it is there since
the receiver of the message "got" the message. What doest that have to
do with intent? I do not think that word means what you think it
means.
>> This should show up the silliness
>> of pomo arguments.
It does not. They may be silly, but this does not show it.
>
>-Keep tryin'...
>
>I have already tried and succeeded,
>why should I keep trying ? 
>
>RS
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take him a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin

In article ,
moggin  wrote:
>
>moggin 
>
>>>   Repeat it as often as you like -- it was never at issue.  We were
>>>discussing whether or not religion played a role in science -- you
>>>seem to have conceded that it does, so the rest is moot.  One small
>>>note -- the product never "stands or falls on its own," but only in 
>>>the eyes of other scientists, who are, as we now appear to agree,
>>>liable to be influenced in various ways.
>
>virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
>
>>Look moggin, you can take away food and shelter from practicing
>>scientists and that too will _influence_ the Science they practice. You
>>can torture them and their family to death and that too will influence
>>what they _claim_ to think. Or, you can love them and worship them and
>>give them fancy cars and homes and paid vacations etcetra and that will
>>also influence them. Get it? If not, reread the damn paragraph. 
>
>   Are you disagreeing with me?  I'm having a hard time seeing
>where.
I think you understand what I said very well. My rhetoric isn't all that
convoluted. But if you require absolute certainty, and to the best of my
ability to provide such, YES --- I am agreeing with you. Ford
Prefectish.
>>If you
>>still *refuse* to get it, here's some advice. Remove sci.physics from
>>the header and say whatever the explicative your brand of religions and
>>philosophies want to hear. I doubt if many *actual* physicists would be
>>bothered by what you say about Science then. It's just the way
>>partitioning of the newsgroups works. We'll *all* deal with it.
>
>   While here it's unclear what you're saying, if anything.
What I stated is extremely clear and nearly singular in meaning. My
intentions are even there in plain black&white; ASCII. Perhaps I should
point out that partitioning by names of newsgroups is a way of separating
topics and views of people who follow such topics. Nah --- ignore this
sentence. Keep only the first two of this paragraph.
[trim]
>Mahipal:
>
>>Believe it or not, moggin you are finally beginning to make some sense.
>   
>   That's one of us, then.
So you finally admit that you *know* you don't make sense. Thank you for
alerting Usenet to adjust the value of your posts accordingly. On a
scale of one to ten ... Ooops. Sorry. I forgot numbers make you nervous.
>>At least, your motivations are something tangible however misguided.
>>Don't claim I don't know what your motivations are! How can I --- you
>>haven't stated them! Like Duh! 
>
>   Actually, the problem here is that _you_ haven't stated them, so I
>can't either agree or disagree with your assessment.
Beautiful! You want _I_ should state *your* motivations. Pardon me for
laughing. It's not me laughing at you --- at all. It's genuinely very
funny. And I'll go to my grave believing philosphy and philosophers are
great for laughs. But it does take some work to get their Joke(s).
[trim]
>>Yes, DAMN IT, scientists are people too. Like duh! Yes they get
>>influenced by all forms of human endeavours. Sure, we're all connected.
>>Fine. Who gives a Dime --- or pairs of. 
>
>   That's another discussion -- I agree that it's unimportant in the
>context of this one.  That's why Mati shouldn't have brought it up,
>in the first place, and why I offered only a small note in reply.
Mati can bring up anything he desires. The only person he has to satisfy
is himself. I extend this privilege to all posters. In Mati's case, he
actually gives a damn what readers might evolove to think of him. Not
everybody is so inclined.
Btw, these threads have been all over the place. To even claim that the
participators agree on the context-boundaries --- at this point --- is
rather flakey. Especially since I've been within "bounds".
>>Did "religious mysticism"
>>influence Newton's or any other scientist's thoughts? Does it matter to
>>what they consequently discovered? Can you see the difference between
>>those two questions?
>
>   Yep.  Can you see the connection?  (That's just something to reflect
>on -- no need to tell me your answer.)
Me being a self-declared practicing scientist --- I seriosly doubt if I
ever tried assess the connection between cause-and-effect. Why start
now?
>> The terms "pragmatic" "utilitarian" escape your
>>comprehension? It seems to me you just want to argue for argument's sake
>>--- the classic annoying pointless philosphers who can't get that the
>>pope really did shit in the woods.
>
>   Oh, I see -- you're another member of the scientific illiterati.
Yes. Indeed. You've wounded me Sir. But, pray tell, how did you conclude I
was a member of the scientific illiterati cult without having access to my
membership card? I humbly bow before you --- the Unscientific LiTTerati.
If you can't see, the "TT" is Greek geometr(y) for \pi, a 3.1415...
>>LET THE SCIENTISTS TELL THE PHILOSOPHERS AND RELIGION-guys WHAT SCIENCE
>>IS! Is that too unreasonable a request? God, this is the twentieth
>>century isn't it? Is it too late to get off the planet for me? ;-)
>
>   This is a whole 'nother subject, but yes, it's unreasonable.  May I
>suggest we skip the much-too-obvious argument that's staring us in 
>the face?
You need to justify your claim that my request is "unreasonable". You or
no one else holds any supreme position of declaring what are/not (in)valid
pronouncements. Justify your thoughts. If a scientist said "philosophy
is shit", then you too would want a rational debate before accepting the
scientist's proclaimation. Regardless of how much you personally agreed.
>>The force/influence of Religions and Philosophies is entirely too damned
>>real. Hell, the Religionists and Philosophers won't STOP demanding that
>>they never be ignored. We're all too painfully aware of Obviousisms. Now
>>try comprehend this: Scientific Laws are completely and unequivocally
>>independent of the personal beliefs of the Scientists who discover them.
>>Fine, now you'll claim THAT in itself is a philosophy.
>
>   No, I'll claim it's irrelevant.  Apparently you want to have one of
>those tired, old debates over "scientific objectivity."  I'm not biting.
Last I checked, this issue of the objectivity of science keeps many a
Thinker glued to Schrodinger's CaN. (That's a ancient inside joke).
>>Like so what?
>>It's not a trivial philosophy. It's falsifiable. It's testable.
>
>   Really, I'm not letting you drag me into this.  But those ideas
>are part of the philosophy you want to defend -- not tests of it.
You are going to have to do better than that. How many philosophies are
falsifiable and testible? Do help me out. If there is no objective
Reality out *there* --- and I've been misled by the scientific camp ---
then I want the knowledge. I'll exact revenge on those science bastards
then! C'mon --- save me/us.
>>It's an
>>idea which has physical manifestations and demonstrates itself to be
>>true in all physical "E"xistence. 
>
>   Do you think so?
>
>>Now do you want to proclaim that
>>Philosophy is Physics? I doubt it. You are so repulsed by the success of
>>science as the center of intellectual thought this close to the
>>millennium that it burns your soul --- provided you have one. Oh yeah,
>>Religions can't prove you have a soul! Err... religions must be wrong.
>
>   You've lapsed back  into incoherence -- just thought you'd like
>to know.
Have I? I never claimed to be coherent. Thancks for lifting my spirits.
Mind if I take your positive observation to show my Dad, my wife, ...?
>>Grow up. Limitless rhetoric does not a contribution to intelligence make.
>
>   As you've nicely demonstrated.
This can only mean one thing --- you understand, agree, and accept that
rhetoric for rhetoric's sake is not going to a point make. Surely, the
concept applies to all writers. That's just [G,R]e^{At}! Fabulous.
Without pointing me towards the Past or this way or that
Without saying my point is already < or > or << or >> or ^ or elsewhere
Without claiming that author's intent and meaning are disjoint from text
Without questioning the quality of my reading&writing; abilties
Afterall, my reading inadequacies shouldn't deter you from being cogent!
Without all these fancy evasions and more... Tell me this
If "Newton is wrong" then how would moggin make the Universe "right"?
Mahipal |meforce>	http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/

moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) schreibt:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>
>. [...] attributing to somebody things which are contrary to 
>>this person's statements, like, for example, saying "he agreed
>>with me" whan said person states explicitly "I don't agree with
>>him" is an act of fraud.  And it doesn't matter whether in your
>>opinion said person agrees with you. 
>
>   Agreed -- that's why I've repeatedly posted the statements
>where you did your agreeing (there are more of them as time 
>passes by).
Finally! Now we may rightfully call moggin a liar. The "statements" of
Mati, that moggin produced so far, have shown Mati to 'agree' with someone
else, but not with moggin himself. Interestingly moggin doesn't say
explicitely so in the above quote, but leaves that open: "... where you
did your agreeing ...", so with a quick: "But you said..." one might jump
too short b/c moggin doesn't say what one expects: that Mati agreed with
*him! Just another sleight of hand. No, moggin is not stupid, but outright
mean. Then again, he obviously underestimates all others or cannot hold
back or whatsoever, as he finally gives it away half a page further down:
>..., I've pointed out that you've agreed with me, not just once,
>but several different times, and given the evidence -- i.e.,
>your own statements -- to support my assertion. 
And here it is, the open lie: "..you've agreed with me". Mati always
rightfully denied that [of course about moggins Newton statement, that
is], and moggin had to construct such an agreement by using a third
persons opinion, declaring this to be exactly his position as well and
thus trying to prove Mati agreeing with him. Which plain doesn't work for
the reasons Mati has given. 
One can only hope that someday moggin goes away, as we don't need
despicable liars like him around sci.physics or any other place.
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.

Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu (Andy Perry) schreibt:
>>>   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?!?
Never. Doug was on a public forum lately. The talk wasn't as funny or
whitty as one may have expected, but at least he threw in a lot of
smileys, ever was very polite to anyone and also made a lot of jokes on
himself - three behavioural facts separating him from moggin  by
lightyears... And if not for that: when in doubt, he didn't claim to know
it all, but rather openly admitted his lack of knowledge... This alone
would have done to find out...  ;-)
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  sassociation@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) writes:
>In article <56s11q$2l4@news.ox.ac.uk>, patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk
>(Patrick Juola) wrote:
>> >Nevertheless, science places great reliance on the notions of "accuracy"
>> >and "evidence." What can these mean if they have no connection to "how
>> >things really are"?...Gene
>> 
>> Simple.  Science relies to a large extent on self-consistency,
>> predictivity and shared observations.   Most early "scientific" work
>> is based on things that every reasonable person knew or could observe
>> (e.g. that apples fall down from trees, not up; that animals with fur
>> gave milk and that animals with feathers didn't, &c;) -- any proposed
>> "fact" had to meet the test of being widely known.
>
>It seems extraordinarily commonsensical to me to believe that "apples fall
>down from trees" is an expression of "how the world really is". After all,
>that is what every reasonable person thinks he or she really is observing.
>
>So, when and on what grounds did science decide that "apples fall down
>from trees" may *not* be "how the world really is"?
>
>The second commonsense observation would be: why bother observing if you
>have no confidence that your observations will help you determine in some
>fundamental sense a distinction between how the world is and how it is
>not?....Gene
Well, I think the observation that the world may just be an illusion of
the senses predates "science" by a few millenia; it's received wisdom,
for instance, in both the Taoist (e.g. Chuang Tzu's butterfly) and Buddhist
("samsara") religious traditions; I can't instantly find a Greek philosopher
who espoused that view, but I'm confident they existed.
And, the reasons for observing are equally pragmatic -- although 
observation may not find Absolute Truth, it's pretty good at solving
problems within the realm of samsara.  For instance, if you're hungry,
you can either try to convince yourself that hunger is an illusion,
or you can go find yourself some illusionary food that you stuff into
your illusionary mouth and relieve your illusionary hunger pangs.  Once
you've decided that you're going to play with the illusions, you might
as well try to figure out if they play by any rules -- as they seem
to.
	Patrick

In article  bwilliams@commerce.uq.edu.au (Barry Williams) writes:
>
>Now don't get personal, I have heard about Nova Scotians and seals!
>
>Barry in Australia
And I've heard about Diggers and wombats.
Seriously, though, the seal thing is Newfoundland's fault, although I have
to admit that seal flipper pie is pretty tasty.  We don't get enough pack
ice here to be able to go out and club baby seals.
-- 
Arved H. Sandstrom                      *     YISDER
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia                  *     ZOMENIMOR
(at least for now)                      *     ORZIZZAZIZ
best email: asndstrm@emerald.bio.dfo.ca *     ZANZERIZ ORZIZ

Thomas Womack wrote:
> 
> Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (uncleal0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : 3jpla@qlink.queensu.ca (Au Jean P L) wrote:
> : >HI. Can someone tell me how does the hologram on credit cards serve as a
> : >security measure?
> 
> : There is no way of accurately duplicating a hologram except with the
> : original equipment.
> 
>   Is this a 'no way' or a 'no not-prohibititively-costly way'? I'd have
> thought you could do the inverse of the hologram-printing process, taking a
> cast of the hologram's surface in some appropriate material, electroplating
> it, casting the result in something solid and printing with it - the same sort
> of idea as CDs. Or does the 'appropriate material' not exist.
> 
But the hologram is an interference pattern embedded throughout
the material; the surface is smooth. So you need an optical process.
The trouble is that you lose information during the transfer
process (hologram->projection->hologram), so the result loses
detail.
I don't know how they reproduce CD's, but I would be interested
in finding out.  The information is encoded in burned out pits,
in the material behind the surface.
Best Regards, Peter

Hypothetically build the following 4-dimensional circuit using
inductors and capacitors using the following instructions:
Triangulate an infinite region of R^4, then:
1) let each edge of the triangulation be replaced by the circuit
consisting of an inductor and a capacitor in series.
2) let each vertex be replaced by one end of a capacitor, the other end
of the capacitor is connected to "ground".
Now excite the system in various ways, and have fun considering how the
system "moves"!
Do as above but change 1) to 1'):
1') let each edge of the triangulation be replaced by the circuit
consisting of an inductor.
Thanks for any thoughts  %^)

It is outrageous that moggin should insist that her words 
should be repeated in toto by anyone answering. If she was
not memorable the first time, why should repetition make a 
difference? Usenet provides ways of back-tracking and the 
aether is already clogged. If ibsys and the mog wish to
carry on their extremely futile argument, then why not in
private?
Fido

In article <56v7gs$1gs8@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>
ale2@psu.edu (ale2) writes:
> Hypothetically build the following 4-dimensional circuit using
> inductors and capacitors using the following instructions:
> 
> Triangulate an infinite region of R^4
I might better have said to start with and "triangulate" R^1 and then
move on to R^2, then R^3, and then R^4
>, then:
> 
> 1) let each edge of the triangulation be replaced by the circuit
> consisting of an inductor and a capacitor in series.
> 
> 2) let each vertex be replaced by one end of a capacitor, the other end
> of the capacitor is connected to "ground".
> 
> Now excite the system in various ways, and have fun considering how the
> system "moves"!
> 
> Do as above but change 1) to 1'):
> 
> 1') let each edge of the triangulation be replaced by the circuit
> consisting of an inductor.
> 
> Thanks for any thoughts  %^)

-Tom- (gonser@eawag.ch) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
: > Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: > 
: > : weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
: > 
: > : > I'm sorry -- that is the real world. Politics, business, even Usenet. 
: > : > Perhaps your love of science is due to the fact that you perceive it 
: > : > differently? This is not a putdown but a serious speculation.
: [ŠŠŠ]
: > In the end, it's quite simple: 
: > science cannot provide value, and every discourse that involves 
: > value will have to incorporate insights from without science.
: Silke,
: You have an uncanny knack to provoke my response by the categorical
: appearance of your statements and in this case the total exclusion of
: science as a provider of value. I agree with the second half of the above
: statement that discourses on value must incorporate insights from outside
: of science, however, to state that science simply cannot provide value is
: such a different perspective than mine (and differs markedly from the
: mental and social reality I live in) that I am inclined to speak up, but
: mind you not so much in the "defense" science as a scientist (I could live
: with that), but rather in the reverse so to speak, for the values that are
: at stake and in which science has a prominant role. 
Sorry, Tom, we are having a misunderstanding; once you have established
value, science can be immensely helpful in making your argument. But there
is no scientific way to determine good and evil; that it is good to
preserve a species is not a scientific judgment, but an ethical one.
Nature does not provide good and evil; there is nothing good about nature 
itself.
S.

I'm searching for one used copy each of the following:
1) Rudin's _Principles of Analysis_ and _Classical Analysis_
2) Jackson's _Classical Electrodynamics_
3) Goldstein's _Classical Mechanics_
Anyone willing to part with them?
--jf
--
    _ ____  Joe Fouche (jf@ugcs.caltech.edu)  
 ___| |---       Deranged College Student    

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
> In article <56tiaq$jr2@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  writes:
> >nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >Fool!  They don't decapitate the body in violation of all the laws of God
> >and man, They disembody the head.  No problem.  Read the fine print.
> >
> Also, I don't see any reason why cryonics should be outlawed.  It
> takes fools' money and puts it into circulation, thus performing a
> useful social function.
> 
> Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"
I just really don't understand how these idiotic fools go around
disproving Cryonics without one actual fact, well one day I'll be
revived from Cryopreservation and I will go to your grave and laugh out
loud, and to everyone who says cryonics is B.S. without enough facts.
-- 
Thanks to modern medical technology I am immortal, you can be too. For
more information visit my site at http://home.earthlink.net/~onlyjoe it
deals with Cryonic Suspension, the most radical and so far only
technology we have in indefinite life extension.
YOU CAN NOW CHOOSE HOW LONG YOU WANT TO LIVE AND BE YOUNG AND HEALTHY
THE ENTIRE TIME! 
visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~onlyjoe

Peter Hickman wrote:
> 
> Patrick Juola wrote:
> >
> > Peter Hickman writes:
> > >Patrick Juola wrote:
> > >>
> > >> There may be a law stating that "uncaused events happen."  
No, time evolution is determined by the Hamiltonian and the "cause" for an 
"event" is the presence of a respective term in the Hamiltonian with
non-vanishing transition amplitude from the state before the event to
the state after the event.
> > >> According
> > >> to certain interpretations of the QM data, 
Whenever the physics depend on the "interpretation" the only thing to do
is get rid of the latter and try to improve the understanding of the
former.
> > >> this is exactly the state
> > >> of some phenomena such as particle decay.  
This is not true. Particle decay is an intrinsical effect of relativistic 
quantum field theory and cannot be described in nonrelativistic quantum 
mechanics. It is anything but "uncaused", its "cause" is the presence of
electroweak and strong interaction terms in the fundamental Lagrangian/
Hamiltonian.
> > >> There is no cause, for
> > >> example, for a particle to be in a certain polarization, it simply
> > >> *happens*.
This is not true, either. The process in which the particle is created 
conserves, among other quantities, angular momentum. 
> > >> However, despite the (hypothesized) uncausedness of these events, they
> > >> still obey laws...
> > >>
> > >> As a simpler example, when I roll my truly-random-and-causeless pair
> > >> of dice, I can state several laws.
> > >>
> > >>         i) I will never roll a 13
> > >>
> > >> Even if the dice themselves are causeless.
This analogy is flawed. You cannot equate a system whose Hamiltonian you don't 
know (particle decay) with a macroscopic system whose microscopical 
configuration you don't know (dice). Besides, neither is in any strict
sense "causeless".
> > >       This is not very convincing as a case for accepting
> > >the value of the notion ( even heuristically ) of a set of events
> > >that can be observed but have no causes.
> >
> > Obviously, you missed the section above about "truly-random-and-causeless"
> > dice.  Of course real dice aren't causeless at any level above QM, nor
> > are they random if skillfully thrown.
> 
>         Well, if you declare that those (heuristic) dice have
> that property then that's that and if you want to ignore
> QM as an low-energy description of things that make causal sense
> in a larger framework (e.g. including relativistic stuff and symmetries)
> then again, that's that.  I think the characteristics of the real
> world and real procedures and formalisms for discovering its nature
> are worth noting at least in passing.
> 
> >
> > However, just saying
> > >       For example, the causational structure of your dice-rolling
> > >is based on the nature of dice and the QM phenomena ( decay and
> > >spontaneous emission) is based on the nature of the interacting
> > >fields involved as described, for example, by QED....
> >         is at best disingenuous, since the nature of the QM effects
> > is not known or commonly believed to be causal.
> 
>         Within the framework of QM (excluding say, everything after
> 1927 or even Einstein 1917 on spontaneous emmission), sure why not.
In a consistent quantum theory everything is "causal" by definition.
The possibility that something can happen is equivalent to the
fact that the respective transition amplitude does not vanish. This
again is due to the presence of respective "interaction" terms in 
the Hamiltonian and these in turn are effectively the "cause" of the
transition (e.g. particle decay) if it happens to occur.
Ralf A. Engeldinger
-- 
		A noticeable and identifiable recurrent
		structure is very rarely pure coincidence.

Francis Muir (francis@pangea.stanford.edu) wrote:
: It is outrageous that moggin should insist that her words 
: should be repeated in toto by anyone answering. If she was
: not memorable the first time, why should repetition make a 
: difference? Usenet provides ways of back-tracking and the 
: aether is already clogged. If ibsys and the mog wish to
: carry on their extremely futile argument, then why not in
: private?
Hear, hear!
-- 
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net  "Took all the money I had in the bank,
                               Bought a rebuilt carburetor, 
                               put the rest in the tank."
                                USED CARLOTTA.. 1995

John August wrote:
> However, does this really verify the _theory_ ? the _principles_ ?
> We just have the obsevation of a decaying orbit, and the rotation of
> perihelia.
It supports the theory's conclusions on this particular observation.  That's
all that can be done.  The more times this happens (and with general
relativity it has happened a lot), and the more this happens in realms where
the theory has not been tested before (and previous theories are known to
break down), the better and better the theory looks.  Right now general
relativity is looking pretty much as good as it can.  It is far out ahead of
the other contenders.
> As is well known, it is possible to modify newtonian physics in a way which
> explains the rotation of the perihelia of objects in the solar system, where
> you do not need the exotic things like curved space which GR requires.
It is possible, but it doesn't match with observation very well.  In Newtonian
gravitation I know of two ways:  1. assume an oblateness for the Sun, and 2.
presume as-yet-unobserved intra-Mercurial bodies.  Neither of these has proven
very reasonable; solar oblateness is hard to measure and an intra-Mercurial
asteroid belt or a "Vulcan" is just silly at this point.  (Maybe there are
other ways; other people are free to chime in.)
And besides, that only addresses the perihelion precession.  The pulsar
observations also involve orbital decay by gravitational radiation emission.
These two together make general realtivity come out _way_ ahead of the
competition.
-- 
                             Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
                              Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
                         San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
                                 &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
         "But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"

DaveHatunen wrote, among other things:
> Apparently they [textbook authors] do not ask any real scientists to 
> review their manuscripts, either.
I just finished _Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman_, which includes 
Dr Feynman's account of his stint on California's State Textbook
Selection Committee. If the story is representative, then the problem
may have less to do with the authors than with the entire system.
Feynman tells how only he ended up actually reading these texts,
while everyone else on the committee spent a lot of time contacting
other people for *their* opinions on the books. Feynman likened it
to collecting random opinions on a verifyable fact, and averaging
the opinions. Because people didn't actually read the books, it 
turned out that the committe ended up rating one book that contained
*no pages at all*, and giving it a *better* rating that its two 
companion volumes which were not empty.
I see no reason to think that textbook selection committees have 
gotten any more sensible.
Maybe we need to pay more attention to the fact that folklorists
use the word "text" to describe a particular version of a legend
they've come across.
-- 
 Helge "To thin for a boosterseat, and not 
 absorbant enough for the bathroom." Moulding
                                            Just another guy
 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401/      with a weird name

Gary Gurevich wrote:
>> 
>> After reading some of Bryan Wallace's "The Farce of Physics", I get
>> the impression that there really is no data to conclusivly show that
>> the speed of light in vacuum is not 'c + v', but 'c', as everybody
>> says.  Is there any evidence to the contrary?  Have any experiments
>> been conducted to accurately determine whether there is a Galilean
>> component to 'c'?
>> 
>> If there is evidence that points to a 'c+v' velocity of light, exactly
>> what effects would this have on relativity?  Would it imply any
>> changes to Maxwell's equations?
Suprisingly Gary no changes at all would be required, because  
Maxwell's Equations predict:-
                c_m = 1/(mu * epsilon)^.5 
        where  mu   = the magnetic permeability of THE MEDIUM.
        and epsilon = the electric permittivity of THE MEDIUM.
        and c_m = the velocity of light relative to THE MEDIUM.
and remember,Gary,there is always SOME MEDIUM everywhere.  Therefore,
Maxwell's equations are not only consistent with, but in reality DEMAND   
a 'c+v' model, where v is the velocity of the observer relative to
THE MEDIUM, of course.
keith stein.
Sorry about the long delay in replying to that point Gary,
 i must either have overlooked your question, or didn't know
 the answer, when i answered this the first time last April. 
Message-ID: 
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:09:51 +0100
From: Keith Stein 
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: How do we know it's "c"?
>Actually, the search for this extra "v" was what eventually led to 
>relativity.  The experiment conducted was the Michelson-Morley experiment 
>which, suffice it to say, failed to find this extra "v".  
Michelson-Morley experinent proved nothing, except that there was no
'ether' zapping straight through the walls of the laboratory at several
thousand mph.  A most improbable scenario, i always thought.

Gordon Long wrote:
> 
> CharlieS   wrote (after some rearranging):
> >As you cover greater
> >and greater distances at greater and greater "speeds", time
> >_slows down_ in response.  At the "speed" of light, the theory
> >says that time *stops*.  So in a very important sense, light
> >*doesn't* move because it doesn't experience an increase (or
> >decrease for that matter) in time.  So its possible to view
> >a "photon" as a portion of space in which the dimension of
> >time is *zero*.  IOW light seems to be *outside* of time (from
> >a photon's point of view anyway...).  [...]
> 
>   People will sometimes use the phrase "time slows down", but what
> they really mean is that *clocks* slow down, relative to other clocks
> in a different reference frame.  It doesn't really make sense to say
> something like "time stops", any more than it makes sense to say that
> "space stops".  Both time and space are dimensions; what you really
> have to talk about are results of measurements using clocks and
> rulers.
That's fine.  I accept the fact that time and space are dimensions
which can be measured.  The point that I'd make is that the measurment
GR uses has a zero mark on its scale for time while Newtonian
physics tended to view time as a *fixed* value greater than
zero.  As for time and space "stopping", isn't a "singularity"
exactly a case of space (and time) coming to a stop?  The
effect on a light beam which reaches a singularity is that it
can't go any further.  Apart from which, it seems to me that
time can only be measured by detecting differences as they
arise in the dimension of space (eg the movement of a second
hand on a clock).  This relies on aquiring *information* so
"time" is a measurement of the increase in information in
one sense.  But information can only be carried at the speed
of light in our universe (ignoring complications such as Bell's
theorem for the time being) so a photon *can't* receive any
amount of information because there is no way for that info
to reach it.  So if you think of time as a process dependant
on information increase, a photon *does* experience a complete
stop in time because it is informationally isolated from the
rest of the universe.  That's why, for instance, the back-
ground microwave radiation still contains information about
the very early history of the universe because it has not
had any access to the information which has arisen since it
was formed.
>     - Gordon
> 
> --
> #include 
> Gordon Long                      |  email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
> CERN/PPE                         |    
> CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland)  |
Charlie S

Greetings...
			I have recently developed an interest in the 
concept of a space elevator. I understand that this is not a new idea, 
but I was wondering if anyone in this newsgroup would be able to 
recommend any reading or reference material, or perhaps suggest a method 
for using energy directly from Earth (ie- liftoff powersource not on 
ship) to raise/eject material into a low-Earth orbit. 
	Thankyou for any replies, I am most fascinated by this concept.
		David Brodrick

In article <3292F460.362F@stud.ee.ethz.ch>,
Paul E. Sevinc  wrote:
>
>Out now is version 3.0. Check out at:
>http://www.wolfram.com/education/students/mathforstudents/
>
Are you sure about this?  I know they've been plugging it for months,
but has anybody actually seen a copy on a shelf somewhere (for sale).
How much is this version selling for (student or pro).
-- 
David Thomas                      University of Florida
                                  Department of Physics
davet@phys.ufl.edu                Gainesville, FL 32611

Karen McFarlin wrote:
> 
> >
> > ALL of the Bible's prophecies are coming true.  And Jesus Christ raised
> > from the dead, just as He said He would.  There are over 120 specific
> > prophecies fulfilled exactly in Jesus.  Daniel even told when He would
> > come.
> > --
> > Judson McClendon
> > Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
> 
> The authors of the New Testament made certain that Jesus rang all the
> bells and buzzers when they recrafted his life as myth and poetry.
> 
> Cairns
Your answer clearly reveals you have not truly looked at the evidence,
but taken the opinions expressed by others as fact.  History is littered
with skeptics who have started out to demonstrate what you have just
said and wound up accepting Jesus because of the overwhelming evidence.
One of them, Josh McDowell, is now a great expounder of Bible truth.
-- 
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

Xcott Craver wrote:
> 
> Judson McClendon   wrote:
> >
> >Sorry, and no offense, but is you who does not understand my answer.
> >Almost without exception, people who receive Jesus Christ do not do so
> >primarily by logical argument.  That is not to say that it is not a
> >logical thing to do, for it is.
> 
>         Okay.
> 
> >                              It is just that the intellect of man is
> >only capable of comprehending things of this world (universe), not
> >spiritual things.
> 
>         I disagree entirely, and find the very claim an affront to
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
> the intellectual capacities of humankind.  Of course, that's just my
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My point exactly.  Generally the reason men don't believe in God is that
they don't WANT to.  It is an affront to their pride.  Men want to
believe everything is relative, there aren't any absolutes of morality,
law, etc.  That's because then men can believe they are not accountable
to an absolute authority: God.
>                                            Of course, that's just my
> opinion, as this is yours.
Not so.  "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually
minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God;
for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.  So then,
those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:6-8)  The
'carnal mind' here is the natural, or intellectual mind.  My opinion is
not mportant, except for myself.  It is God's opinion that matters.  You
can find His opinion in the Bible.
>                            Speaking of opinions, do you think it
> just as bad as outright-lying to state as fact something that you
> don't know the truth value of, that could very easily not be true?
When God says something is true, then I KNOW it's true, for God cannot
lie. "that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to
lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay
hold of the hope set before us." (Hebrews 6:18)
>         I mean, if I said "I believe XXX" or "IMHO YYY" that would
> be different; but if I up and said "The Goldbach conjecture is
> false," without actually knowing either way, or stating it as my own
> belief or opinion, would you consider that just as bad as knowingly
> telling a lie?
When Bible says something is true I can quote the Bible with absolute
assurance it is true.  My opinion, nor yours, nor my belief, nor yours,
does not affect the truth.
>         [stuff snipped...]
> 
> >the word of God.")  The word translated 'spirit' in the Bible is
> >generally the same word used for 'breath'.  God's 'Spirit' or 'Breath',
> >or 'Word' is alive and powerful.
> 
>         Actually, the word "spirit" is derived from the word
> for "breath."  "Inspiration" is a breathing-in, and to "expire" is to
> breathe out.
> 
> >and 'breathed' life (spirit) into Adam.  The Scriptures really are
> >'alive' in a way hard for us to comprehend, and they have power to enter
> >into the heart of man.  In other words, God's Word can touch people whom
> >I could never sway with logical argument, for just the reason given in
> >Hebrews 4:12, which is why it is exactly the answer to the question.
> 
>         This is the nonsense part.  If you said anything, ANYTHING
> at all other than quote the scriptures, that guy would have at least
> read it.  At least you would have had the *chance* to change his mind.
> Instead, you quoted heavily from a book that he rejects _a priori_.
> Whatever powers the scriptures may have aren't really invoked if they
> AREN'T READ.  As I said, why quote the one thing the recipient would
> immediately disregard?
If he won't read it because it's the Bible, then he is beyond reach.  If
he will read it, then the Scripture has power to reach him that I do not
have. How much clearer can I say it?
-- 
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:15:40 -0700, Bob Gore 
wrote:
>     Graciously conceded, sir.  Btw, during your acting career, did you
>ever have the experience of other actors feeding you lines, not merely
>from another act, but from an entirely different play?  Gives a
>completely different meaning to the word "improv," let me tell you.  You
>think you're performing Neil Simon pseudo-farce, and before you know it,
>you're trying to kill Tybalt sans epee.
>
Works for me.
Insincerely,
G
grace@insight-media.co.uk
_____________________________
SOMEONE will believe ANYTHING
_____________________________

In article <329244FF.66B6@ix.netcom.com>,
Judson McClendon   wrote:
>Matt Pillsbury wrote:
>> Lee Wai Kit wrote:
>> >         It is said that Red, Blue and Green are the most fundamental (prime)
>> > colors.
>> >
>> >         Why?
>> There are 3 types of cones (the color-sensing stuctures in the eye). One
>> type responds strongly to red light, another to green light, and the
>> third to blue light. That is the rationale for calling red, green and
>> blue the primary colors.
>
>Actually there are two sets of primary colors: additive and subtractive.
>The additive primary colors (red, blue, and green) are used for CRT
>screens and other light emitting color sources.  The subtractive primary
>colors (red, blue, and yellow) are used to mix color pigments, paints,
>and other objects which are seen by reflected light.
Nitpick:  Cyan, magenta, and yellow or more often used as subtractive
primaries.
There is a good discussion of color perception in Sears' old Optics text.
Brief summary:  You find the response of each color-sensitive pigment in
the retina to a given spectrum, and call these values x, y, and z (one
for each pigment).  These numbers are called "tristimulus" values, and
are all the information you have for distinguishing on spectrum from another.
If you normalize the overall intensity to one (set x' = x/(x+y+z), etc.),
you get effectively a two-dimensional region in x'-y' space which covers
all the spectra you can distinguish.  Since the response curves of the three
pigments overlap and are non-negative for all frequencies, rather than
getting a full 2-d plane you end up with a sort of convex horeshoeish shape.
The outer curved edge of the horseshoe represents your eyes' responses to
monochromatic light of various wavelengths, with red at one end, yellow and
green near the apex where the "horseshoe" turns around, and violet at
the other end.  The line connecting extreme red and extreme violet represents
"purple."  Purple is technically distinct from violet.  Purple is not a color
of the rainbow, by this definition.
The region inside this horseshoe is the set of all possible colors that
can be described by a spectrum (other colors, like brown, can also 
be perceived, but only relatively.  I don't want to go into that).  
White is somewhere near the middle.
When you mix two colors, the result is on the line connecting the original
x'-y' points of the colors.
Now if you take three colors and use them as additive primaries, you locate
the three colors on the x'-y' graph and draw the resulting triangle.  Then
anything inside that triangle is available to you.  A good choice of primaries
will give you a large triangle that includes white.  This way you can get any
hue and some range of saturation (see Sears for the meanings of these terms).
There are easily available red, green, and blue pigments that satisfy these
requirements, and these colors or colors similar to them are used as additive
primaries.  But you can see if you look at the graph that, if you really
wanted to cover as much area as possible, you'd use a monochromatic deep red,
a monochromatic deep violet, and a monochromatic yellow or green.  You wouldn't
get any more hues this way, but you'd be able to get much more saturation.
You could even add a fourth primary, which would be redundant most of the time
but could occasionally give you a high-saturation color you couldn't get
otherwise.  Et cetera.
It's too hard, though, to make a CRT with bright, monochromatic pigments,
so we settle with what we have.
Anyway, what I mean to say is that "THE" primary colors don't exist.  You can
use any of a variety of primary colors--they're somewhat arbitrary.
Subtractive color mixing is more complicated.  I don't want to describe that
today.  Read up on it if you want more.
Have fun,
breed

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: The slogan "Science cannot provide value?" is worthy of a high priced
: political consultant.  Silke has opportunities she should not neglect.
: Although science has cured the sick, reduced infant mortality, taken
: us to the moon and given us Usenet, it cannot provide value.  I'm sure
: Silke will readily explain the apparent paradox.
: In the meantime, who needs your damn value?
How silly can you get when you feel attacked? Very, even McCarthy, 
obviously. Does _science_ say it's good to cure the sick? Does _science_ 
say it's good to reduce infant mortality? Does _science_, finally, 
suggest that it's good to go to the moon?
You have to distinguish between two statements.
a) science doesn't provide value
b) science doesn't provide anything valuable.
They are not the same.
I'm amazed; I thought this much about ethics they taught you somewhere in 
highschool.
Silke

Patrick Juola wrote:
> 
> In article <32905FA7.4C1E@nwu.edu> brian artese  writes:
> >Patrick Juola wrote:
> >
> >> Now, the first thing that I would like to point out is that the set,
> >> itself, is non-sensible; there's no measurable property of set-ness that
> >> distinguishes the "set" from the collection of its elements...
> >
> >This is because there _is_ no difference between the set and the elements
> >that constitute it.
> 
>   Thanks for trying.
> 
> >> Now, if you want to try telling me that you're qualified
> >> to discuss these sorts of points, go ahead.
> >
> >It would appear I'm over-qualified...
> 
> 'Nough said.  There's a reason I teach at a university instead of
> a kindergarden.
Please.  Enough with your 'qualifications', 'backgrounds' and 'I teach at a 
university!'  I and half the people reading this group teach at a university. 
 And even your kindergardener wouldn't mistake the above for an answer, much 
less an argument.
-- brian

In article <329282B8.5435@earthlink.net>, Immortal Being  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> 
>> In article <56tiaq$jr2@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  writes:
>> >nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >
>> >Fool!  They don't decapitate the body in violation of all the laws of God
>> >and man, They disembody the head.  No problem.  Read the fine print.
>> >
>> Also, I don't see any reason why cryonics should be outlawed.  It
>> takes fools' money and puts it into circulation, thus performing a
>> useful social function.
>> 
>> Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
>> meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"
>
>I just really don't understand how these idiotic fools go around
>disproving Cryonics without one actual fact, well one day I'll be
>revived from Cryopreservation and I will go to your grave and laugh out
>loud, and to everyone who says cryonics is B.S. without enough facts.
>-- 
Somehow, given the trends of population growth, I don't think that 
people in the future will be be that enthusiastic about reviving more 
claimants on the worlds resources (that's assuming already that 
they'll be able to do it).  I would rather think that this will be at 
the bottom of their priority list.  Since, on the other hand, they may 
have on their hands a shortage of fertilizer ....
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Lou Rabinowitz wrote:
> 
> What are the metric units of angular momentum?
dimensions of distance times momentum - units: 
  distance * mass * distance / time
  e.g. kg * m^2 / s
> Why didn't the scientific comunity make up a derived unit for
> momentum and angular momentum as they did for force(nt) and
> energy(joule)???
Or for velocity (m/s)?
Or for acceleration (m/s^2)?
Or for angular velocity (rad/s)?
And why not make up a specific unit for torque too rather than the 
confusion of using energy units?
etc etc
I suppose the real question is, how many different units and conversions 
from them to other units do you want to have to memorize?
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
|    http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html                |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

Dave Langers wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Anyway, that's not why I want to react. It says that bathtubs would drain
> straight down no matter what hemisphere you are in. That is CERTAINLY NOT TRUE!
> The Coriolis-force has almost no influence on the drain. The spinning is
> caused by the mechanism of vortex-stretching. Initially there are random
> vortices present in the bathtub. When they approach the drain they stretch,
> and this makes them spin faster (conservation of angular momentum!) So the
> direction of spinning can not be predicted, even if you know what hemisphere
> you are on. And the water certainly will not go straight down the drain.
> This has been confirmed experimentally.
The coriolis effect doesn't cause the vortex, as you say.  But the force
is enough to bias the direction the vortex will spin, other things being
equal.
-- 
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

Tohru Ohnuki (ohnuki@oxy.edu) wrote:
: In article <56qsol$obj@news.ksc.co.th>, mark@ksc9.th.com (Mark Huang) wrote:
: > Hi, this might seem to be dumb to you, but I need to know how to build
: > an accelerometer (aside from cork tied with a string to the bottom of
: > a water filled container)
: > Can anyone help me out??? 
: If it can have an electrical output, get an Analog Devices ADXL05 chip.
: It's good to about +- 5 g's with a resolution below 5 milli g's. I think
: they make one that takes up to 50 g's, but i forget the number.
This is the Scientific American 'Amateur Scientist' accelerometer chip, from
their 'build your own seismometer' series, isn't it.
  Does anyone know if it's sensitive enough and has a good enough zero that
you could mount 3 at right-angles to build a 3D mouse? If the zeroing is not
good, the pointer travels off to infinity at ever increasing speed :(
: -- 
: Tohru sagt,"Spork!"
--
Tom
Dort, wo man Buecher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen
(Heinrich Heine)

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Lee Kent Hempfling wrote:
> Religion has been based on the saving of the soul. (Read that as
> non-physical) while cryonics (and such things as pagan ritual) have
> based their belief on the body. 
No, fundamentally cryonics is about saving the mind.  In some possible
cures for frostbite (i.e., mind uploading), the body is replaced with a
new or artifical one, but this is unimportant; who we are is defined by
our mental structure, not our physical structure.
But, since this technology does not yet exist, we need some way to get our
mental structure from now to the time when the technology DOES exist.
Since mental structure is encoded in the physical structure of our brains,
liquid nitrogen should do the job adequately.
> Cryonics assumes the life is physical. Religion assumes the life is
> spiritual. It would seem rather useless for one to argue with the
> other on this matter as one requires a disbelief in anything superior
> to man and the other requires a belief in such.
But you see, this is not the case; cryonics assumes life is mental (which
many philosophers equate with "spiritual"), too.  So we are not so
different after all.
> Choosing to believe in the all mighty power of potential science is
> believing that man can create man.
Well, probably man will be able to create people one day, by AI, or
uploading, or perhaps even matter transporters/replicators.  What's wrong
with that?  (And what's it got to do with cryonics?)
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout           Department of Neuroscience, UCSD   |
|    jstrout@ucsd.edu           http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~jstrout/  |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

When was the last Harmonic Convergence of planets, and which planets were
involved.
When will the next convergence occur (around 2002 I think) and which
planets will be involved.
thanks

In article <329369ED.28B66D4@mit.edu>, Joseph Edward Nemec
 wrote:
> > I can't understand why you didn't list the Joseph E Nemec in
> > Cambridge.  
> 
> Because he is an idiot. That Joseph E. Nemec in Cambridge is indeed
> me, at my old address.
OK...here's a clue. THE SEARCH ENGINE I USED DIDN'T RETURN AN ADDRESS FOR
A NEMEC IN CAMBRIDGE. Clearly the people you should be bashing are those
who maintain the search engine at www.lycos.com.
> > You are awarded null points for being unsubtle, and
> > well out of range to boot.
> 
> Listen to what Sue says, Dunc. She's more of a man than you. 
Does this mean our little arrangement is over now Joe? I can't believe
you've found someone to replace me. Oh well......anyone need a large tub
of vaseline?
Cheers,
Duncan.
-- 

Charles Torre takes issue with Mati Meron's comment that "there is no
such thing as Newtonian Theory of Gravitation."
I had a long-running e-mail discussion with Mati, over whether
Ptolemaic astronomy was a "predictive theory".  (Mati says no, I say
yes.)  Turns out that we agreed about practically everything but
terminology.
Wouldn't surprise me if this is a similar kettle of fish.
By the way, don't just say that Mati's terminology is *wrong*.  It
is carefully chosen, and reflects substantial thought on what science
is all about.  Further defense of it I leave to Mati.