Subject: What Are Water Molecules Doing?
From: davk@netcom.com (David Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:50:23 GMT
For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
Interested In Exploring Math, Science And Ethics
Through Collaboration For Enrichment And Achievement.
------------------------------------------------------------
What Are Water Molecules Doing?
At 100 C a water molecule has to escape a force of
about 1.91E-10 N.
Some Background between the 2 lines that can be skipped:
-----------------------------------------------------------
This force is obtained by dividing the energy needed by
a water molecule to escape (which is 6.752E-20 J/molecule)
by the distance between 2 water molecules (3.534E-10 m)
which could be off by 12.25% at most because I deduced the
distance from the density by assuming the water molecules
are arranged in a face centered cubic (FCC) structure.
I also calculated a slightly higher escape energy
(9E-20 J) and force (3.5E-10) using a computer program that
models 2 water molecules. It is a computer program I wrote
to help me think about the forces between atoms.
-----------------------------------------------------------
At 100 C the force on a water molecule in the water
surface is at most 2.08E-11 N calculated from the surface
tension as follows (This assumes tension in only the top 1
layer of molecules.):
.05885 N 3.534E-10 m 2.08E-11 N
Force = --------- ----------- = ----------
m molecule molecule
How can it be explained that the force holding water
molecules together (1.91E-10 N) is 9.2 times greater than
the pull along the surface on a water molecule which is
2.08E-11 N?
How can this difference in forces be explained with
precise figures and calculations?
Students could try their hand on force diagrams. I
haven't started making figures at the water surface that
could explain this large difference. It seems like a real
creative challenge in understanding atom forces.
Note: As a Good approximation for force between atoms:
Force = C/r^6
Where C is a constant and r^6 = rrrrrr where r is some
useful starting distance between the atoms.
Thanks for joining this undertaking.
------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck on this exciting adventure to find useful
projects to explore and the tools to empower and to succeed
with.
I offer this post to continue a useful discussion on
many valuable ideas about atoms that could become meaningful
projects for students and others to undertake.
____________________________________________________________
Thanks to those who have offered constructive criticism.
C by David Kaufman, Nov. 22, 1996
Founder of the Cube Club
For Collaborative Math, Science and Ethics Excellence.
Be Good, Do Good, Be One, and Go Jolly.
What else is there to do?
--
davk@netcom.com
Subject: NEW BOOK: N-Body Tree Methods in Physics
From: Paul Gibbon
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:32:21 +0100
We have just completed a book about N-body tree methods, including
a lay-introduction to the Barnes-Hut and Greengard-Rohklin (FMM)
algorithms. This is now available from Cambridge University Press.
S. Pfalzner & P. Gibbon, 'Many Body Tree Methods in Physics', CUP 1996,
ISBN 0-521-49564-4 (hardback).
For a description and ordering info, see
http://www.astro.uni-jena.de/Users/pfalzner/treebook.html (Europe)
http://www.cup.org/Titles/49/0521495644.html (US)
We are also interested in using tree codes for collisional and
collisionless plasma simulation. An implementation of the Barnes-Hut
method for periodic plasma systems can be found in:
S. Pfalzner & P. Gibbon, Computer Physics Communications 79, 24-38
(1994)
Reprints available from pfalzner@astro.uni-jena.de on request.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gibbon Max Planck Society
Tel: +49 3641 635621 Research Unit `X-Ray Optics'
Fax: +49 3641 636126 University of Jena, Max-Wien-Platz 1
WWW: http://xro.physik.uni-jena.de D-07743 Jena, Germany
Subject: Re: Ground
From: Rick Hull
Date: 22 Nov 1996 06:37:46 GMT
>John E Youngk wrote:
>>
>> It seems the question was what completes the curcuit.
>>
>> The ground(dirt) completes the curcuit. At every properly wired breaker
>> box and pole transformer, the neutral and ground are connected and
>> connected to an earth groung.
>Mike Mitchell wrote:
>Ground to earth is NOT part of the power circuit. What you are saying
>about current running back to the transformer is FALSE. It's a 'stake
>in the ground' to reference the whole circuit as earth=zero which
>otherwise would be completely isolated. Without connecting the center
>tap, (neutral), to earth, the whole circuit could build up a static
>charge of thousands of volts, referenced to earth, that would break
>through insulation designed for a couple hundred when near any grounded
>conductor.
>
John is right. The ground technically completes the circuit back to
the power plant, and 120-volt household electricity will not work without
a ground connection.
This how household electricity works: The power comes into the house
on two "hot" wires of 120-volts each. (Since this is alternating current,
they are neither positive or negative.) If you connect these red and
black wires, such as at a stove, you get 220-volt electricity.
The white wire is neutral, and connected to a ground at the junction
box. When connected either to a black wire or a red wire, the circuit
becomes 120-volts.
You need to treat the while wire with respect, because it does carry
electricity when connected. You also make an effort to make sure it is
not live, except when the circuit is closed.
The biggest example is on ceiling light fixtures - the light switch
interupts the black wire, so the fixture is not energized unless the
switch is on. (Since a ground completes the circuit, otherwise you would
get shocked if the light fixture shorted out and you touched it and
something grounded - like a radiator or other pipe - at the same time.)
The green or bare wire is the ground. It is also attached to the ground
at the junction box, but should never carry electricity.
Its role is to provide a fuse-blowing connection if a live wire
becomes loose somewhere, and touches an outlet box, light fixture, etc.
This is why you run a lead from the ground wire to a clip or (green)
screw on every outlet box.
Rick Hull
Kalispell, MT
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
Date: 21 Nov 1996 20:50:06 -0500
brian artese (b-artese@nwu.edu) wrote:
]John McCarthy wrote:
]
]> 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.
]
]...and the other 99.9% of the time science labors on, making sure
]Cheetos stay crunchy even after they get stale.
You sound like impotent denouncing the evils of promiscuity, dude. Face it;
your crowd isn't any good even to figure out the Cheetos.
--
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: Anthony Potts, monolingual buffoon...
From: Tim Fitzmaurice
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:54:24 +0000
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Duncan Stewart Matheson wrote:
> 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.
Duh....I unscrewed a straight line screw with my screwdriver, duh, I
unscrewed a large Phillips screw with my screwdriver...duh I unscrewed
someones eyeball with my screwdriver...but its, duh, not my fault
the people who made the screwdriver should have told me.
Jesus that has to be the most pathetic excuse for poor research I have
ever heard in my life.
Tim
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 08:08:23 GMT
gcf @ panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
>>>While I wouldn't put it past Socrates and Plato to tell
>>>people that they had worked out a handy method for
>>>producing Values through the grinding of their rhetorical
>>>mills, I don't think John was saying that. "In the
>>>meantime, who needs your damn value?" can only mean that
>>>values are unnecessary, eh? We have _stuff_ (see above) so
>>>we don't have to think about why we like it -- we don't even
>>>have to like it (value it). It's just _there_.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>A more plausible -- and more charitable -- interpretation
>>of John's ejaculation is that Silke's values are worthless.
gcf @ panix.com (G*rd*n) replies:
>Well, they would be worthless to a block of wood. So this
>is not much of an advertisement for John.
Somehow, I am not surprised by your notion that intellectual
merit accrues in a statement concomitant with its speaker's
self-aggrandizement.
gcf @ panix.com (G*rd*n) concludes:
>>>This seems like an extreme position, but it's not
>>>inconsistent with the view that consciousness and will are
>>>illusional epiphenomena, a view I've often observed among
>>>AI types. Indeed, if mental states are determined by
>>>physical facts, and physical facts exist independently of
>>>what anyone thinks about them, then one can hardly come to
>>>any other conclusion.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>One's inability to come to any other conclusion seems directly
>>correlated with one's ignorance of occasionalism, double aspect
>>theory, pre-established harmony, and other alternatives to mental
>>epiphenomenalism compatible with supervenience, as explained in
>>undergraduate philosophy texts.
gcf @ panix.com (G*rd*n) concludes:
Yes, of course. One comes to the conclusion, doesn't like
>it, and backs away into a rhetorical thicket -- not hard to
>do, and I thought savvy guys like you and me would bypass
>such things without drawing attention to them.
I doubt that McCarthy is committed to epiphenomenalism. Recall his
doctrine imputing beliefs to thermostats. That sounds like double
aspect metaphysics to me. Having said that, I sincerely hope that
this freshly minted savvy will not interfere with your assiduously
cultivated sancta simplicitas.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Maple and Mathematica
From: pecora@zoltar.nrl.navy.mil (Lou Pecora)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:26:18 -0400
In article ,
woody@alumni.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) wrote:
> glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
>
> > I'm looking at buying either Maple or Mathematica. As a student, Maple
> > will cost me about $80 and Mathematica about $110, and I'm not really
> > interested in that $30 difference. I've been told Maple is a lot easier
> > to learn. How else are they different? What would you recommend?
>
> I would recommend using Metrowerk's Codewarrior C++ to build your own
> symbolic mathematical system; it's one of the easiest programming
> environments to use, and it's debugging environment would allow you
> to very quickly walk through the various mathematical representations
> to find bugs in your symbolic integrator.
You've got to be kidding. That's a full-time, long-term task. Far beyond
most people. Buy one. You'll save time and money.
Lou Pecora
code 6343
Naval Research Lab
Washington DC 20375
USA
== My views are not those of the U.S. Navy. ==
------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the 4th Experimental Chaos Conference Home Page:
http://natasha.umsl.edu/Exp_Chaos4/
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Maple and Mathematica
From: pecora@zoltar.nrl.navy.mil (Lou Pecora)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:28:29 -0400
In article <56vb94$drk@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>, davet@wombat.phys.ufl.edu
(David Thomas) wrote:
> 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).
I've received my copy. They may be mailing orders, first. BTW, so far it
appears to be *quite* the upgrade. Very impressive.
Lou Pecora
code 6343
Naval Research Lab
Washington DC 20375
USA
== My views are not those of the U.S. Navy. ==
------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the 4th Experimental Chaos Conference Home Page:
http://natasha.umsl.edu/Exp_Chaos4/
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 11:49:03 GMT
John Camp (jcamp@mr.net) wrote:
:
: The fact that North American Indians used red-willow bark for centuries as an
: analgesic, not knowing specifically that it contained salicylic acid, was a
: product of intelligent observation and insight, not science; the production of
: the same salicylic acid by Bayer, as aspirin, seems to me more akin to
: engineering than science, since the desirable result had already been observed
: and what was needed was technique, rather than any new insight.
:
: Where is the Science in this?
You never took organic chemistry, I take it? Or ethnobotany?
But willow/salix was used in the old world, too. There is reason in
the use of bundled willow switches for gentle "flagellation" in the
Finnish sauna.
--
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
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 08:40:47 GMT
weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>Maybe McCarthy's high school taught Socrates and Plato before teaching
>>>>>>XIXth century positivist dogma.
>>>>>Well, no -- obviously not. Or McCarthy cut class. The good cannot be
>>>>>scientifically established, as you well know (what's all this corporate
>>>>>identity knee-jerking going around here anyway?); it cannot even be
>>>>>represented in non-fiction. Cf. the ending of the discussion of the
>>>>>parable of the cave, and all other dialogues where intuition of value is
>>>>>precisely that -- intuition.
>>>>Socrates argued that virtue (arete) was scientific knowledge (techne
>>>>or episteme) involving an ability to give an account (logos) suitable
>>>>for teaching it to others. In his later dialogues, Plato amended this
>>>>analysis, adding emotive and appetitive aspects to purely intellectual
>>>>expertise. Needless to say, nothing in this emendation suffices to
>>>>sustain the positivist distinction between fact and value. In other
>>>>words, you are confabulating -- as usual.
>>>You really imagine the above to be a refutation? Join Lorenz Borsche.
>>No, I imagine the above to be well-deserved ridicule. You would have
>>to go beyond groundless emotional outpourings to merit a refutation.
>>Though I note that Mike Morris, in one of his charitable moods, has
>>condescended to honor you with a conclusive rebuttal.
>Read a book or something, as Kagalenko would say. By Plato, on Plato,
>something related. I've worked on Plato for five years straight now, and
>I'd be happy to send you 40pp of argument if I were convinced you'd be
>capable of following it (capable being more an emotional category here
>than an intellectual one).
As is my wont, I did reread a book or two before replying -- these
being _Laches_ and _Charmides_ as well as the Cambridge Companion to
Plato. I commend to your attention the Terry Penner paper in the
latter, especially pp. 125ff. As regards your kind offer, I will
take a raincheck until your abstract pops up in the Phil Index. That
wilful overinterpretation of the classics can arbitrarily arrive at
any desired conclusion does not make for a critical breakthrough.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
Subject: Re: Methane Hydrate noises
From: mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:27:02 GMT
In article <571dj1$cqr@news.ox.ac.uk>, mert0236@sable.ox.ac.uk (Thomas
Womack) wrote:
> William Beaty (billb@eskimo.com) wrote [speculating rampantly]:
>
> : Methane Hydrate fuels the Bermuda Triangle!
>
> This speculation I've heard in several other places; it seems at least
> vaguely plausible. Sent Alvin there and have a look.
The conventional explanation, of course, is that there's nothing to
explain: vehicles don't disappear there with any greater frequency
than any other place with similar weather and traffic. On the other
hand, maybe this is happening all over!
I seem to recall Nature's "Daedalus" column, my favorite source of
bizarre speculations, musing about methane hydrate as a power source.
--
Matt McIrvin
Subject: Re: Holograms on visa cards
From: mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:02:30 GMT
In article <329335A3.4718@ix.netcom.com>, judsonmc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> You wouldn't duplicate the hologram by COPYING it, but by making another
> LIKE it. The problem is that this would be very expensive, probably
> prohibitively so for most crooks. This is the security.
I seem to recall that during the recent flap over information piracy in
China, it was revealed that some of the perpetrators had gotten into the
business of mimicking the hologram labels on audio CD packages. That, of
course, was a *big* operation, obviously capable of mass-producing the
pirated CDs as well.
--
Matt McIrvin
Subject: Re: Numerov (Cowling) algorithm?
From: michael@helium (Michael Courtney)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 12:47:04 GMT
Peter Hoppe (hoppep@uni-muenster.de) wrote:
: Hello,
: who knows how to get a (FORTRAN-) routine of the
: Numerov* algorithm with !adaptive step size! ?
: In the Numerical Recipes I found only the Runge-Kutta
: algorithm with adaptive step size.
: * it's also called:
: - Cowling method
: - Fox-Goodwin method
: - Cowell method
It's a pretty simple algorithm, and you can probably code it yourself
without much trouble. I've coded it in C, but that was some time ago,
and my code was for a specific application. The numerov algorithm
is very nice.
--
Michael Courtney, Ph. D.
michael@amo.mit.edu
Subject: Erector set plus?
From: roth@tpusa.com
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:11:03 -0600
I have a 13 year old that wants to tinker. They want something other
than wimpy mechanical toy sets- they want an assortment of gears,
pulleys, shivs, belts, pillow blocks, shafts, wheels, motors, etc. so
that they can design and build all sorts of mechanical contrivances.
We're talking about stuff on the miniature side here, not "full size".
Any ideas or suggestions on how to find such items, possibly in an
collection already?
Thanks,
Lee
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Lee Roth N8JQY | "No matter how thin you slice it, it's still |
| Trade Point USA | baloney." -Rube Goldberg |
| roth@tpusa.com | "I gave up VMS for Unix? Sigh." -Lee Roth |
| | |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Subject: Re: Fourier Transforms
From: "Robert. Fung"
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:52:37 -0500
David Ullrich wrote:
>
> I hate grading almost as much as taking in class exams wrote:
> >
> > hello
> >
> > i was wondering last night why it is that i've never seen fourier
> > transforms used to solve ODE's. i've used/seen fourier (and
laplace)
> > transforms for PDE's, but never a fourier tranform for an ODE.
> >
> > i tried the simplest toy problem i could come up.
> >
> > f'(x) = 0
> >
> > which has the obvious solution of f(x) = constant. transforming
both
> > sides of the equation to k space, we get:
> >
> > ik F(k) = 0
> >
> > and tranforming back, we get:
> >
> > f(x) = 0
> >
> > which is certainly a solution, but just not a very interesting one.
what
> > is it about fourier transforms that makes them useful for PDE's but
not
> > ODE's?
>
> Say D is the Laplacian in the plane (the second partial wrt x
> plus the second partial wrt y). By exactly the same argument you can
> show that the only solution to Df = 0 is f = 0 . We know that's not
> right. So whatever it is you do different when you solve PDE's via
> the Fourier transform, do that with your ODE.
>
> This doesn't explain how it actually works - that's a long
> story. But it does indicate there's no big difference between ODE's
> and PDE's here.
>
Is this similar to finding the periodicities in
a parametrization ? for instance when
f(x,y) = x^5-(5/4)x^3+(5/16)x-(1/4)y^3+(3/16)y
is taken as:
x(t)=cos(3t), y(t)=cos(5t)
Subject: The issue is hearing God speak
From: michael@helium (Michael Courtney)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 12:57:59 GMT
God speaks. Some people want to hear him and others don't.
Some people are able to hear him, and other's don't. God's
voice removes doubt and the need to have all of the mind's
questions answered. God's voice enables me to trust him more
the strength of my own mind, or the collective strength of
many mind's. In God, I can have the mind of Jesus Christ.
The Bible is not true or false because of man's interpretation
of scientific evidence. The Bible is true because it is God's
word, and I know the Bible is true because I have heard God
say that it is true.
We like to find scientific evidence which seems to disagree
with minor Biblical themes, so we can fool ourselves about the
major Biblical theme. Yet the evidence of man's sinfulness
and inability to solve the problem of sin is universal and apparent
to all. And this is God's main message to you. Christ can
solve your sin problem. You cannot. Open your hears, perhaps he'll
speak to you about it.
--
Michael Courtney, Ph. D.
michael@amo.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:30:17 GMT
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Saved Soul wrote:
>
> Yup Karl, and they mock us for accepting OUR beliefs on faith, faith
> in God, which makes more sense.
>
Oh dear. You don't get it do you?
If it is faith, rather than evidence, then one faith is on equal footing
with any other faith. You quite simply can't say that yours is any better.
Secondly, we don't mock you just for your faith. Your sort are normally
mocked for the refusal to even look at the competing ideas. When a
religious person can stand up and have a decent argument after having read
dawkins, and similar texts, then they will likely not be mocked.
The problem is, they never have. All we get are people on the religion
side who appear to have completely failed to look at the evidence for
evolution, preferring insted to get their facts on it from religious texts
and teachings.
Ask yourself this. If your faith is so right, and scientific method so
wrong, how come it was scientific method, along with engineering, which
created cars, computers, air travel, and so on.
Basically, we have lots of reasons for assuming that scientific metod
makes sense. We don't need faith, we have evidence.
you have your faith, but you have no reason to assume that you are more
right athan any other faith.
On balance of probabilities, Christians have the wrong faith, and
therefore, are dammed to hell for their herecy.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Stig Hemmer
Date: 22 Nov 1996 11:18:36 +0100
Keith Stein writes:
> "Any discrepancy between previouly syncronised clocks, which can
> be fully accounted for by the finite velocity of light, must disappear
> whenever the clocks are bought to a common location." Stein's Principle!
>
> Surely this is self evident ?
Maybe, but it is still wrong. This has been tested. The clocks were
out of sync, by the amount predicted by theory.
Stig Hemmer aka stig@pvv.ntnu.no
pvv - ProgramVareVerkstedet ("The Software Workshop", a student society)
.ntnu - Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskaplige Universitet
.no - NOrway, a minor kingdom in northern Europe. Yes in 2016!
Subject: (4) P-adics in physics; new Periodic Chart of Elements;
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 21 Nov 1996 21:02:22 GMT
In article <572fgp$okv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> I propose that the isotopes, based on nuclear electrons are p-adic
> trees. And the importance of this , if true is that if a p-adic exists
> then an isotope exists and if not, then not. If true, then the
> existence of an chemical isotope matches the p-adic numbers themselves.
> Thus, chemistry and physics are written in p-adics.
I do not have the time right now to run a complete tree on all the
known discovered or manufactured isotopes. To run a tree on all the
isotopes.
Then run a tree on those isotopes based on nuclearelectrons and
protons+nuclearprotons.
Then find out if those trees are a p-adic tree.
I do not have the time right now, but will look at this come Jan97.
If all of this is true, then the periodic table of elements are
written in p-adics. And without exploring it any further, it is my
hunch that this is true. The Mendeleev chart of Periodic Elements, the
familar chart we see in chemistry is written in p-adics.
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:46:18 GMT
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:41:15 GMT, browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) wrote:
>
>So when you say I cannot tell if something is in absolute motion or
>not, it seems to me totally equivalent to saying absolute motion
>doesn't exist.
Ah, but absolute motion dose exist. Past famous experiments such as
the Compton Effect, Photoelectric and Double-Slit Experiments all have
detected absolute motion. Also I have designed two new experiements
that can detect the existence of absolute motion. Look up my web site
for a description of these experiments.
Ken seto
Subject: Re: How does reflection work?
From: am432@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brice Wightman)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 13:54:49 GMT
Patrick van Esch (vanesch@jamaica.desy.de) writes:
> T Murray (tdmurray@dra.hmg.gb) wrote:
> : Can anybody explain in fairly simply terms how photons are reflected at a
> : plane metal surface. I can imagine photons interacting with free
> : electrons, but why are they ejected at a specific angle.
>
> : I hope this isn't too obvious, I haven't studied physics for ~15 years.
>
>
> You're saying "photons" so I guess you want a quantummechanical
> picture. If you would have said "electromagnetic wave" I would
> have presumed you want to see things classically.
>
> Quantum mechanically, photons simultaneously take many paths,
> and according to certain rules, phases are calculated for every
> path. (this is the path integral formalism as proposed by Feynman
> and shown to be equivalent to standard quantum mechanics).
>
> So a photon can simultaneously scatter off electron number 1,
> electron number 2 etc...
> these are to be considered as different alternatives that "happen"
> simultaneously.
> Now when a photon is supposed to be detected, it gets out its
> pocket calculator and calculates the probability to be at a certain
> point. This probability is given by the sum of contributions along
> every path. It turns out that for endpoints that do not lie on
> the "reflected track" the phases coming from the scattering from
> electron 1 and electron 2 etc... are all different and hence tend
> on the average to cancel one another.
> OTOH, right ON the track of the reflected beam, all these phases,
> are, well, eh, in phase and add together. So the probability of doing
> that is very much higher than going somewhere else, and the photon
> - after all these calculations - tosses a few coins and decides
> to appear right there where the probability is high, eg. on the
> reflected track.
For an extended version of this explanation with figures, read "QED" by
Richard Feynman.
--
===========================================================================
Brice Wightman am432@freenet.carleton.ca
Ottawa, Canada VE3EDR
===========================================================================
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 14:45:52 GMT
Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck (weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: ]Read a book or something, as Kagalenko would say. By Plato, on Plato,
: ]something related. I've worked on Plato for five years straight now,
: Gorgias' followers just wouldn't leave the Teacher alone.
You're _still_ trying to pretend you've read Plato? Kudos on your
persistence. Listen, it's rather simple: the logos/mythos distinction is
post-Platonic, and you cannot even begin to understand Socrates if you
don't understand why he stood still before he joined the Symposion.
S.
: --
: LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
: -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 14:49:50 GMT
theurgy (trx140@xmission.xmission.com) wrote:
: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
: >Michael, it's not science itself that makes these things good; science
: >evolved the way it did because the evaluations were in place.
: >This is really very simple, and I had no idea I was saying something
: >remotely controversial.
: Not controversial, merely trite. "
I'm fully aware of it; when arguing with someone who thinks
philosophy has to create consensus to be valuable, you are forced
to unpack the basics. It's very ironic that all these guys keep
asking for simplicity but start bitching when they get it.
Charitably, I'll assume you didn't know the context where my
statement originated.
S.
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:56:11 GMT
trx140@xmission.xmission.com (theurgy) wrote:
>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>Michael, it's not science itself that makes these things good; science
>>evolved the way it did because the evaluations were in place.
>>This is really very simple, and I had no idea I was saying something
>>remotely controversial.
>Not controversial, merely trite. "Values" in your sense are thin stuff,
>arrived at via metaphysical invocations. Whether you get 'em from intense
>introspection, or from blister-packs at the checkout stand, they seem
>ubiquitous, unavoidable, and largely built-in. What they mean, and whether
>they are anything other than abstracted/idealized urges and intestinal
>discomforts is another question. Insofar as anything can be said to be
>source of *examined* values, science is.
Assuming, as I do, that values are not solely metaphysical, it remains
hard to see how science cand discover them in any meaningful sense.
Values may be common to all (we humans want to live longer and
healthier), imposed (we'll jail you if you violate a particular
value), political/ephemeral (man on the moon), and so forth. Once
decided through a process of common sense, philosophy, politics,
power, or whatever, science may then be employed to help us achieve
these values. I suppose one could say that science can point the way
to values, as when it uncovers facts that threaten (the rain forest
will die, the blue goat will cease to exist, nuke the commies).
ken
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
Date: 22 Nov 1996 14:47:24 GMT
Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In talk.origins weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck)
: wrote:
: >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,
: This really looks like one of the discussions where each side has very
: different meanings to the words. Do you mean that science does not
: provide VALUE, that is science does not help create a social
: constructed meaning to the word "value". If so, we are in agreement.
Of course we're in agreement; as I pointed out before, my statement was
hardly controversial. McCarthy simply misunderstood, and was happier
claiming that deconstructionists eat babies than to give the statement a
moment's thought.
SIlke
: 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
Subject: Re: How do automobile fuel gauges work?
From: Phil Nichols
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:23:43 -0800
Trinition wrote:
>
> I was discussing with a classmate of mine abotu how fuel gauges work.
> Neither of us knew for sure, but we guessed:
>
> o Electrical resistance along a strip
> o Bouy
> o Photosensor
>
> Does anyone know in more detail how they work? I know, for example, in my
> car that the supposed fuel level changes as I drive, but not directly with
> my acceleration; it seems to be averaged.
>
> Thanks for any insight.
>
> Brian Sayatovic
The one in my car is definitely a "buoy"; I usually park on a hillside
outside my house, and the fuel gauge reads more if the car faces
downhill than if the car faces uphill (or is it vice versa?).
I doubt if many fuel gauges would use an electrical sensing system,
since electricity and fuels are best kept well apart!
Phil Nichols
University of Wolverhampton
