Newsgroup sci.physics 209855

Directory

Subject:      Re: (2) P-adics in physics; new Periodic Chart of
Elements;
From:         msuob@csv.warwick.ac.uk (RobC)
Date:         1996/11/22
Message-Id:   <5746vg$o29@lupin.csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Distribution: world
References:   <572es9$ipp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Followup-To:  sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.math,sci.physics
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   sci.physics.electromag,sci.chem,sci.math,sci.physics
Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <572ebg$ipp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
: >  For this morning in bed I realized
: > that if I combine the HYASYS theory and look at the periodic chart
of
: > elements then the p-adics are in them.
[snippage]
: Now you may ask so what? Is this change going to lead to anything
: important. See next post.
I don't see why we should use  no. of nuclear electrons as a basis for
a Periodic table at all.
I haven't come across an occasion when I need to know any such thing.
However I frequently need to know the atomic no. and mass and the table
we 
have at the moment is very useful for predicting an element's 
physical/chemical properties.
Robin, 2nd year UG chemist. University of Warwick
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
*********
 Until Dartmouth patches their weakness, I am forced to communicate by
a searth engine repost.
 In answer to your question as to why the number of nuclear electrons
is at all important is this. If not for the Strong Nuclear Force then
there would not be any other atoms besides hydrogen. Thus the number
which portrays the Strong Nuclear force the best is the number of
nuclear electrons.
  Numbers of the Complex/Real Number system are incapable of describing
more than one factor. And the reason for this is because those numbers
are points in the Euclidean 3-Space. With an i and a j for getting the
y and z axes. It should be interesting to find somewhere in physics and
even mathematics since math is but a subset of physics. To find where
physics need but i and j. It cannot go alone on just i, but it needs a
j. For the physics fact of the Schroedinger wave equation, the Dirac
Equation and the fact that an electron needs as essential 3-Space.
Something in physics says that you need two new numbers not just the i
alone to complete 3-Space. And this is terribly important to
mathematics because before me, in the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
that i is essential. Well, that theorem was only 1/2 correct, for to be
100% precise, you also need a j, at 90 degrees to the Real and i-plane.
  So, any mathematician out there or physicist want to comment on this.
The Reals of mathematics need not just an i to make a Fundamental
Theorem of Algebra but they also need a j so that Euclidean 3-Space is
completed. But I am straying off course here.
  Notice that the p-adics have 2 factors, that they have a base
dependency factor that a ...0005 in 6-adics is not ...00005 in 7-adics.
And they have a factor of value just the same as the Complex/Reals have
a value factor. These factors are very easily seen in the Doubly
Infinite Numbers which I claim are the points of Loba geometry and
those of us in physics cannot dismiss the importance of Lobachevskian
geometry in physics. Look at a doubly infinite number such as this one
     . . . 121110987654321 . 314159.....
  There are probably more than 2 factors in the above Doubly Infinite
Number. And I have tried to ascribe each Double Infinite Number as a
half mixture of a p-adic on the left and a Real on the right string. I
have tried to visualize these Doubly Infinites as vectors. And we all
know that at least 2 factors are needed to compose a vector-- magnitude
and direction. One can visualize a Doubly Infinite as a vector where
the left string the p-adic string is direction and the Real string the
rightwards string is a magnitude and that these vectors , all of them,
compose to make Lobachevskian geometry.
  But can a p-adic have 2 factors? Can a p-adic be seen as a vector
with direction and magnitude. It is in this visualization that I
believe the new periodic chart of chemical elements/isotopes will be
constructed.
  That the old chart used just one number, numbers with 1 factor only--
Reals of 1.000....  , 2.000....  , 3.000.... etc
  However, if we take each isotope and pin to it a number that has 2
factors, say a p-adic.
   One factor and its most important factor is the Strong Nuclear force
which is nuclear electrons.
   And the second factor is the number of nonnuclear electrons which is
the old Atomic number but instead of proton number it is nonnuclear
electron number.
   Thus, neutron and hydrogen and helium in the old system were 0, 1
and 2 respectively. 
  But in a p-adic system neutron would be (1,0) because of its 1
nuclear electron and 0 nonnuclear electron. Hydrogen would be (0,1) and
helium would be (2,2). The isotope 231PU would be (137,94).
  The importance of this is that I believe the isotopes are written in
the language of p-adics and that the chart should be a log spiral and
that when a scheme of
          (0,1)
          (1,0)
          .
          .
          (2,2)
          .
          .
          .
          .
          (137,94)
is translated into p-adics it will look like this
  0
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  .
  .
  .
 where all of these are p-adics
 In other words, the chemical table was never meant to be laid out flat
and straight, just as a map of the Earth was never 100% true when laid
out flat and straight.
  But it goes deeper than just a projection, it goes to the fact that
p-adics are the math numbers of Harmonic Oscillators. We use the trig
functions to describe harmonic motion, but we can use the p-adics. For
it is my claim that the p-adics are the numbers of Harmonic Motion.

On Wed 11/20/96 19:21 -0600 PM Dragonbane wrote:
> 
> > If time travel was possible and you could go into the past and alter it,
> > i.e. I went back and shot my grandad, Then I would no longer exist to
> > kill my grandad, but if I did exist then I did kill my grandad. So both
> > things have happend ( there would be an infinate interchange between my
> > existance and nonexistance ) so a paradox wopuld be set up and the time
> > relative to the universe would stop.  So it would be possible to alter
> > history but at a great expense to where the alteration occurd.
> 
>         Nah... you're still thinking that the universe exists as a wave
> function of an event, that there is also only a single state for the
> universe to exist in. If you ahve alternate timelines that branch off
> from the timespace junction at the point of the murder, then there is no
> paradox: the you that kill grandad could then move forward in time along
> the new timeline that was created to a future where you were never born.
> but since you  were born and traveled outside of you normal timeline,
> you still exist. You came from an alternate timeline where you were
> born, but, for all effect and purposes, just skipped over to a timeline
> where you were not born. From the timeline you self, you would have
> merely disappear, and your mother would be worried sick over where you
> were, who had kidnapped you, etc., but otherwise nothing would be
> different. In the new timeline you find youself in, since you were never
> born, you've got some explaining to do, like you non-existant father or
> mother, why there are no records of your birth, and how you expect to
> make a living if your time machine suddenly explodes for no reason.
> 
> Causality is preserved in this case, as long as you have a multiverse.
> If not, then time travel would wreck havock on the wave function that
> describes your existance/nonexistance.
> Dragonbane@mail.utexas.edu
> http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~drgnbane
Hello, Dragonbane:
The arrow of time can be manipulated by mathematics or logic; however,
the manipulation often has no basis in reality and the arrow of time
cannot actually be reversed.  Here's why:
	     Causality
	The scientific
	principle
	that causes
	invariably precede
	their effects
	absolutely
	in all frames
	of reference,
	sometimes called
	Einstein Causality,
	is valid
	on all levels
	of experience;
	valid in time
	as well as space,
	thus the arrow
	of time
	steadfastly
	points
	toward diverse
	possible
	future events
	and is reversible
	only in imagination.
	Each cause
	in the past
	produced
	one or more
	transcendental
	or material
	effects
	in the omnipresent
	now.
	And past effects,
	the foundation
	of the present,
	now abide only
	in distributed
	nonlocal
	holonomic memory.
	     - Alan Williams
-- 
Egoless pure consciousness, unconditioned pure energy, uncreated
absolute pure being pre-exists:  All else is supervenient.

REGIONAL SALMON SONAR PROGRAM SUPERVISOR
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ARCTIC-YUKON-KUSKOKWIM REGION
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
RESPONSIBILITIES: Provide technical and operational supervision for 
sonar-based, salmon passage assessment projects on the mainstem of the 
ukon, Kuskokwim, Noatak and Aniak Rivers. These projects provide daily 
estimates of salmon passage. This position assures that these sonar 
programs are providing good quality information for fishery 
management decisions.
QUALIFICATIONS: B.S.+ experience required; M.S. or Ph.D.+ experience 
preferred. This is a supervisory position which requires solid 
educational background and technical skills in hydroacoustics and 
electronics. Experience in riverine hydroacoustics and fisheries are 
desirable. Good writing, communication and administrative skills are 
necessary. On the job training will be available.
SALARY: Starting at $49,116 plus benefits.
CLOSING DATE: Open until filled.
CONTACT: Send resume and three references to Tom Kron, Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Management and 
Development Division, Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Region, 333 Raspberry 
Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99518; Phone (907) 267-2166; FAX (907) 267-2442; 
e-mail tomk@fishgame.state.ak.us. A State of Alaska employment 
application for register placement and further consideration will be
provided on request.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

> "Mistakes", plural. In the first two statements you have mis-spelled 
> "vacuum" as "THE MEDIUM", and mis-spelled "observer" as "THE MEDIUM" 
> in the third. You're welcome. 
> 
> 
Sorry Richard,
I think you're wrong on this one.  He's right.  To find c in a vacuumn you
would plug in the permeability of vacuumn but in general, you plug in the
permeability of the medium you're int.  And also, the speed of light is
relative to the medium not observer in this case.

grundlos@aol.com wrote in article
<19961122234300.SAA10768@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> 	For many years the Big Bang theory has been fraught with
> difficulties.  Some of these difficulties have been overcome with ever
> increasing complexity, giving rise to new problems.  It is therefore
> suprising that the Big Bang theory has survived Ocham s ax.  Proponents
of
> the theory are quick to point out Hubble s discovery of the expanding
> universe, and it is a convincing argument-- so convincing that theorists
> are willing to invent outlandish schemes to make the Big Bang feasible. 
> Obviously, the only way to be rid of the Big Bang is to interpret the
> redshift of light in another manner.  
> 	Unfortunately, there is very little that might explain this
> redshift.  The best answer is the absurd:  light is redshifted as a
> natural effect of space.  It would be very difficult to prove this
> assertion due to the vast distances required to affect light.  Unless
> extremely accurate equipment is invented, I do not see this point as
> provable.  However, it is not a far stretch of the imagination to assume
> that this effect might affect matter as well.
> 	When considering the possibility that matter might be affected by
> the same effect as light is affected, it would be helpful to consider the
> high velocities of ions entering the earth s atmosphere.  As yet these
> high velocities have eluded explanation.  Once again the best explanation
> is the absurd:  the change in velocity of matter is directly proportional
> to the distance it traverses through space.  Consequently the frequency
of
> matter must increase as it travels through space.  It would then follow
> that:
> d=k(f-f0)
> d=km(v-v0)^2 / h
> a=d / t^2=h / km
> F=h / k
> 	This could be put to the test by electrons moving through a field.
>  I would presume that the field would have to be somewhat strong, but
> should be within our technology.
> 
> 
> Questions?  Comments?  Write me at grundlos@aol.com
> 
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Simply put.

Angel Torregrosa  wrote in article
<329630c0.4694157@news.idec.es>...
> bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
> 
> 
> >Sorry, but there are many observable consequences, one of which is the
> >fact that you will (absolutely) age slower if you travel (absolutely)
> >faster.  This is a very significant consequence that could allow
> >interstellar travel.
> >
> 	Many relativistycs think that we can't put our system of
> reference in the rocket because this isn't un inertial system of
> reference (because it nedd acceleratons), but then, where is valid
> inertial system in this Universe? I think that all things in our
> universe receive accelerations (for gravity  or centripetal forces).
> 	To find un inertial system we need to erase all the matter in
> the space and then we have got the "absolute space": the unique real
> inertial system. And then we have got the "absolute motion".
> 
> >Another consequence is the fact that all observer's clocks are set
> >differently in SRT in direct proportion to each observer's (absolute)
> >speed.  
> 
> 	Then we have got the "absolute time" in the "absolute space".
> 
> 	Tell me what do you think about it, please friends.
> 
> 	SALUDOS DESDE ESPAÑA.
> Angel Torregrosa.
> angelto@cot.es
In General Relativity it is hyphothesized that the inertial frame is the
one where you're free falling in gravity. So therefore being in a gravity
field can still be an inertial frame.
> angelto@idecnet.com (temporal)
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5514/
> 

Jim Carr:
| 
|  Both of these statements are correct. 
|  That is why moggin does not address them, just as moggin ignores 
|  articles that point out examples that show moggin is wrong. 
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>
>   No, I didn't address them because they don't address anything I've
>had to say 
 That statement appears to be accurate.  They repeated the fact that 
 a moggin statement was false.  What moggin wrote did not need to be 
 "addressed" since what was written was wrong, indefensible, and, I 
 might add, never defended. 
> -- I didn't contend that Newton was never right about a
>thing in his life, or argue that he didn't contribute to physics.  
 That might be correct, but irrelevant.  What moggin wrote was 
}     The problem is that you have two different models.  In what I've
}been calling the ordinary sense of "generalize," generalizing Newton
}would mean applying his theories to new regions, e.g., high velocities,
}and discovering that they still worked great.  Instead, we've got a
}different situation -- when  applied over broader conditions, his laws
}turn out to be false (given later findings).
 but we all know that the problem was not with Newton's *laws*. 
> Got any more strawmen?
 I get a continous supply from moggin if I choose to burn them. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

In article <575gtj$p41@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: Well, looking through the the rest of Feynman's quotes (or reading 
>: some of his popular books) you'll find that he cared very little for 
>: those "philosophical" notions of "wrongness".  
>
>So what? Why should he? He's not a philosopher. However, he seems to 
>agree with philosophers on a point that was debated amongst us jolly 
>people here.
>
No.  He seems to agree on "philosophically wrong" which is quite 
different from "wrong" and not something he cared about much.
>What he did care 
>for : was "does it work", which is the notion some people here find so 
>: odious.  Still, you shouldn't take it as gospel, as I've said many 
>: times, opinions of scientists are just opinions, Feynman included.
>
>Doxa are doxa, but some are still better founded than others... again, we 
>are not talking in the realm of science; to you, I assume, all of 
>philosophy consists of "just opinions" -- wrong?
That's for you to judge, not me.
>
>: As a side notion, regarding the "someone who's in physics comes along 
>: and says the same thing" bit, I trust you can see the slight 
>: difference between "wrong" and "philosophically we are wrong".
>
>Certainly; I've never argued for anything but the latter, and neither has 
>moggin even though it seems to give him pleasure to get your goat around 
>this matter.
We are simple folks here.  When somebody says "wrong" we take it for 
"wrong", period.  And we argue with what's being said.  If somebody 
says something, then qualifies his statement, there is no problem with 
it.  If he refuses to qualify it, the rather clear implication is that 
he means it as it stands.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In <3295C73C.EBB@vtt.fi> Mikko Levanto  writes: 
>
>Thomas Womack wrote:
>
>>   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 :(
>
>This can be avoided if the pointer slowly drifts to home position.
If you are trying to build a mouse, 
here is an idea that might work.
Buy a couple of the earphones in a dollar store.
You will have four earphones.
( I've never taken one apart but I assume that
  they are electro-dynamic earphones. )
Mount some mass on the moving part of the
earphones, mount three of them orthogonally,
connect the outputs to amplifiers.
When you move the "mouse" the "speaker cones"
of the earphones ( Transducers ) will move,
generating a voltage, which the amplifiers
will amplify.
In applications where extreme accuracy is
needed, a current could be fed back to the
"speaker cone" to keep it at the center,
in order to avoid non-linearities. This
wouldn't be necessary for a simple mouse
application. In other words, you could
use an open loop, rather than a servo
feedback acelerometer.
Tom Potter    pobox.com/~tdp

moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:
>"Michael S. Morris" 
> I believe
>>this happens even as we speak---not so much with respect to 
>>aeroplanes, but certainly with respect to "repressed memories
>>of satanic ritual abuse", or "faith healing", or homeopathy
>>and lots of similar quackery. I am saying not that alternative
>>truth doesn't exist, but that we shouldn't put such clothes
>>on lightly.
>   Of course not --but the outfit that you're wearing is a fashion
>catastrophe.
There speaks a man who wears fluorescent plaid underwear embroidered
with tasteful little dragons.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

Followups cut to talk.origins.
ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote on Thu, 21 Nov 1996 21:54:28 -0400 in
talk.origins:
>In article <3294E4E5.388@asu.edu>, Rich.Henne@asu.edu wrote:
>
>
>> Karl, 
>> 
>> Woodmarope's and your Noah's Ark speculation requires evolution to occur
>> at a rate orders of magnitude faster and during man's existence, than
>> any that scientists have ever proposed!  Why is this if you are trying
>> to claim evolution doesn't happen?  
>> 
>> -- 
>Rich, perhaps you could provide me some references to back up your statement. 
>
>BTW: from what I've read all the cat species known today came from one
>type of cat back in the days of the Egyptions.  Look at them all....meow.
Do you mean all breeds of domestic cats?  Or all feline species?
Mountain lions, lions, tigers, saber-toothed tigers, and so on?  I'd
be very interested to see some documentation if you're making the
second claim.
Michael
gibgric@mailbag.com

Ken H. Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: 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.
: 
How odd that noone with any physics training can detect absolute motion 
using any method.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3294a59d.24733394@nntpserver.swip.net>,
	kimmo@swipnet.se (Kimmo Björnsson) writes:
> I am as a special project in school programing a simulation of
> collisions between speheres in 3D. I have worked out some formulae,
> [...]
> X, Y and Z position
> X, Y and Z velocity (or momentum if prefered)
> Mass.
A friend and I are trying to do pretty much the same thing.  I am
working with my friend to make a gravity simulator, where we plug in a
body's position, velocity, and mass, and see how they interact
(attraction). But the formula doesn't seem to be working quite right,
the body's seem to pretty much ignore or perhaps even push one another
away (oops!)!  Since I never took physics (I'm the programmer, he is
the physics person), I'm at a loss as to what is wrong.
Could you tell me what formulas you are using?  
What ours does is take each body and interact with every other body:
	  massSum = (Mass + oBody.getMass());
	  xRemainder = (oCoordinates.getX() - Coordinates.getX());
	  // determine x-space acceleration.
	  if (xRemainder > 0) {
	    Acceleration.setX( massSum / (xRemainder * xRemainder) );
	  } else if (xRemainder < 0) {
	    Acceleration.setX( massSum / -(xRemainder * xRemainder) );
	  } else {
	    Acceleration.setX(0); // collision, what should we do?
	  }
we do that for X, Y, and Z.  Then we calculate velocity:
	  Velocity.setX( Velocity.getX() + (Acceleration.getX()/Mass));
we do that for X, Y, and Z.  Then we figure out the new position:
	  Coordinates.setX(Velocity.getX() + Coordinates.getX());
again, we calculate X, Y, and Z. Do we have similar formulas, or is my
friend completely screwy? :-)
-- 
Jim Robinson  - http://www.simons-rock.edu/~jimr/
Simon's Rock College.

virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy):
[ 
[ Newton was ABSOLUTELY right about his work regarding planetary 
[orbits.
[   ... 
[ Einstein didn't come along and say let me discard all of Newton's
[ contribution and start from scratch.   ...
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin): 
}
}     Lord, you go on.  But your reasoning  doesn't work, since "He 
}  made an important contribution" isn't synonymous with "he was 
}  absolutelyright."
Jim:
|
|  Irrelevant, since the moggin quotes are not complete quotes of the 
|  respective sentences that Virdy wrote.  For someone who has posted 
|  complaints about trimming quoted articles, moggin is remarkably 
|  free with the text when misquoting others.  
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>
>   Actually, Mr.  Carr, I quoted every word in Virdy's article.  
 I believe this confirms that moggin is a pathological liar. 
 The moggin included the text of Virdy's article, but the quotes 
 that *moggin* wrote, specifically "he was absolutely right", 
 leaving out the qualifying phrase "about his work regarding 
 planetary orbits", are clearly and unambiguously a misrepresentation 
 of what Virdy wrote.  That moggin leaves in the original so we 
 can see the error in moggin's ways is postively Nixonian. 
 Not surprising, since we already know that "moggin was wrong". 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Todd Smethers (todde@hotmail.com) wrote:
: isn't that?  Instead of assuming that they've read or have at least 
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: familiarized themselves with the competing ideas and found them wanting you 
: assume that they've never looked at them.  How can you judge from such a 
: distance?  Even those who know the texts (By the way who is Dawkins?  I know 
: Darwin and I know Hawking, but am unfamiliar with Dawkins?) 
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
QED :-)
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

In article <6500ur-ya023080002111961940550001@news.silcom.com>, 6500ur@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Jeffrey Borrowdale) writes:
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>}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 ....
>
>Why not just raid the nursing home--it will be a lot fresher and those old
>people suck up a lot more resources than cryonics patients.
>
>Seriously, population growth is a local geopolitical problem in certain
>areas, not a global crisis. Neo-malthusian alarmists like Paul Ehrlich and
>his "Population Bomb" of the 70s have been their predictions turn out to be
>false time and time again. As the third world develops economically, their
>population will level off to be more like industrialized nations. The
>biggest oppostion to these forces the worldwide Catholic prohibition on
>birth control. 
The "biggest" is an exaggeration here (though it is significant, no 
doubt).  Most of third world population isn't Catholic (not even 
Christian, for that matter).
As for the third world countries developing economically, it is not 
that simple.  The problem is that unless an economic growth rate 
faster then the population growth can be sustained, a country keeps 
running in place or even sliding backwards.  So, you've a race between 
two growth curves and stating that the result is predetermined is a 
bit optimistic.  Mind you, I'm not trying to advocate alarmist views 
here, I've a sincere dislike for any alarmism.  But, there is a broad 
spectrum of scenarios between the "it is a guaranteed disaster" and 
the "it is not a problem" extremes.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

	For many years the Big Bang theory has been fraught with
difficulties.  Some of these difficulties have been overcome with ever
increasing complexity, giving rise to new problems.  It is therefore
suprising that the Big Bang theory has survived Ocham s ax.  Proponents of
the theory are quick to point out Hubble s discovery of the expanding
universe, and it is a convincing argument-- so convincing that theorists
are willing to invent outlandish schemes to make the Big Bang feasible. 
Obviously, the only way to be rid of the Big Bang is to interpret the
redshift of light in another manner.  
	Unfortunately, there is very little that might explain this
redshift.  The best answer is the absurd:  light is redshifted as a
natural effect of space.  It would be very difficult to prove this
assertion due to the vast distances required to affect light.  Unless
extremely accurate equipment is invented, I do not see this point as
provable.  However, it is not a far stretch of the imagination to assume
that this effect might affect matter as well.
	When considering the possibility that matter might be affected by
the same effect as light is affected, it would be helpful to consider the
high velocities of ions entering the earth s atmosphere.  As yet these
high velocities have eluded explanation.  Once again the best explanation
is the absurd:  the change in velocity of matter is directly proportional
to the distance it traverses through space.  Consequently the frequency of
matter must increase as it travels through space.  It would then follow
that:
d=k(f-f0)
d=km(v-v0)^2 / h
a=d / t^2=h / km
F=h / k
	This could be put to the test by electrons moving through a field.
 I would presume that the field would have to be somewhat strong, but
should be within our technology.
Questions?  Comments?  Write me at grundlos@aol.com

In <0$LMkiAc2flyEwtP@newbrain.demon.co.uk> Ian Robert Walker
 writes: 
>
>In article <573f29$1l1@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Allen Meisner
> writes
>>    Here is a thought experiment that will decide the matter. You are
>>traveling in a spaceship at 1000 meters per second. In the nose of
the
>>spaceship is a laser that operates in a pulse mode. The laser is
>>pointed in the direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of
>>the spaceship. At time t=0 the laser begins to emit pulses of light.
>>One hour later the ship has traveled 72,000,000 meters. Will the
first
>>pulse of light still be aligned with the nose of the spaceship at
this
>>time. To claim so would be, and is, preposterous.
>
>Consider that instead of a pulse of light I throw a ball perpendicular
to the
>direction of the space ship, what will be observed?
>-- 
>Ian G8ILZ
>I have an IQ of 6 million,  |  How will it end?  | Mostly
>or was it 6?                |  In fire.          | harmless
    Are you saying that the light has inertia like the ball?
Edward Meisner

In article <575fq8$jmi@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Jeff Candy  wrote:
>
>(-Mammel,L.H.):
>
>|> The relative motion of two objects with periodic motions of
>|> the same period, is obviously periodic with that period as well.
>|> Things like this make you look like a big blowhard, IMHO.
>
>I looked at a few of the previous posts and couldn't figure out 
>why Mati's point makes him sound like a "blowhard".
Did you read the first sentence of mine you just quoted? He looks
like a blowhard ( IMHO ) because he's trotting out a lot of
unnecessary erudition to obfuscate a simple point.
Lew Mammel, Jr.

Why is everybody talking about time travel instead of faster than light
travel?

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>Mario Taboada (taboada@mathe.usc.edu) wrote:
>: Silke-Maria Weineck says:
>: <: thread... the one about beating out clumsy rhythms for bears to dance 
>: to while trying to make music to move the stars (my copy is in the 
>: office, so this will have to do). Perhaps it would be a good idea to 
>: distinguish between representative intention and perlocutionary 
>: intention.>>
>: The theories of "intention" proposed by Austin, Grice, and Searle are not
>: to be taken very seriously. As a foundation of semantic analysis they are
>: inadequate (as Chomsky showed back then, when these things were newer; also
>: cf. Derrida's sec and Limited Inc. for an informal and somewhat rambling
>: but nevertheless sharp critique of Searle).
>: I am very skeptical about classification schemes such as those proposed
>: by Searle - Derrida (following Chomsky) put his finger on it when he
>: complained that "marginality" is not covered by the Searle classification.
>: He then asks (not literal quote): "What good is the theory, then, if it
>: doesn't apply to actual language as used by people?"
>Agreed. However, I think the misunderstandings between Raghu and Brian go 
>back to different usages of intention -- Brian is referring to 
>representation, and he's right to point out that the text says what it 
>says and that it's curious to assume an intention that differs from the 
>result; Raghu is talking about a different kind of intention -- in short, 
>he insists, uncontroversially as far as I can see, that the sender has an 
>intention in acting on other people.
>Silke
	Saying that the sender (I prefer to say "speaker" since talking
is the biologically important activity, not writing or "sending") must
have some intention is indeed uncontroversial - perhaps even "trivial",
although if one really asked for evidence, the question becomes meaningless
(who can show someone else an "intention", and why should someone else
believe it?). People can be notoriously self-deceiving, and self-knowledge
of the kind that would be needed to know one's own "intentions" would be
very hard to acquire - impossible to all but Buddhas and near-Buddhas.
More importantly, to admit of an "intention of the speaker" does not
mean that "intention" is a good foundation for a scientific theory
of lexical meaning. In fact it is a terrible foundation and the
theories of "speech acts" have not delivered anything worthwhile in
the field of lexical semantics. Further, as far as I can see, lexical
semantics does not seem accessible to scientific inquiry - although
other types of inquiry do sometimes throw light on meaning (literary
criticism, history, sociology, anthropology, philosophy are such disciplines).
These "theories" however, do not have much explanatory value beyond
narrowly defined domains, and they certainly have no predictive value.
The other day Patrick was referring to this problem in terms of "communication"
and "transfer of information", terms that I am sure he uses in a
technical sense but that, as far as I can see, do not apply to
human language (which is not used primarily for communication, as
Chomsky and others have persuasively argued).
As far as I can see, the text is entirely secondary to the question of
intention. I say this not to put down Brian, who is evidently persuaded
of the value of textualism, but to point out that writing, as merely
an accessory to the language faculty, is *even less* amenable than
speech to scientific inquiry into lexical semantics.
In the late 60s and early 70s there was a group of linguists who
broke with Chomsky (a bitter battle, fought in the most bilious
fashion, typical of academic circles), and who wanted to develop a
"generative semantics". The idea was to do something similar to
generative grammar but dealing with meaning. This project, although
it generated some good ideas, collapsed completely. Incidentally,
this was due to the enormous difficulty of the subject, not to the
lack of ability of the researchers (many of whom were and are brilliant
linguists).
My position is that, if someone says he/she has a scientific theory
of lexical meaning, they are probably wrong. I have almost no faith
in the existence of such a theory; as for bald assertion and speculation,
the innumerable philosophers (in fact, all of them) who have pondered
these questions have come up with very little that can withstand
scientific scrutiny.
Regards,
-- 
Mario Taboada
* Department of Mathematics * Old Dominion University * Norfolk, Virginia
e-mail: taboada@math.odu.edu