Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: "Harold lines"
Date: 24 Nov 1996 07:40:25 GMT
Johnny Chien-Min Yu wrote in article
<56v0jm$qeg@copland.udel.edu>...
> Why the operators can remotely use the invisible wave weapon to
> manipulate people's lives at home and attack peopple in any place?
>
(SNNNIPPP!!)
Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie [X] Lamer [ ] AOLer
[ ] Me-too-er [ ] Pervert [ ] Troll
[X] Spammer [ ] Nerd [ ] Elvis
[ ] Fed [X] Freak [ ] Scientologist
[X] Socialist [ ] Bible-thumper [ ] Anonymous Coward
[ ] Scammer [ ] Racist Bootlick [ ] Prepubescent
You Are Being Flamed Because:
[ ] You posted a "test" in a newsgroup other than alt.test
[ ] You posted something asking for warez sites
[ ] You quoted an ENTIRE post in your reply
[X] You continued a long, stupid thread
[X] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ ] You said "me too" to something
[X] You suck
[X] You brag about things that never happened
[ ] Your sig/alias/server sucks
[ ] You made up slang then used it in a message
[ ] You posted a phone-sex ad
[ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal
[ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup
[X] Your tone of voice sucks
[X] Your command of the English language sucks
[ ] You sound like a Fed
[X] You sound like a ten-year-old
[X] You posted to more than four newsgroups
[ ] You were imposing your religious beliefs on others
[X] You posted something really stupid/depraved
[X] You tried to blame others for your stupidity
[ ] You incorrectly assumed unwarranted moral/intellectual
superiority
[ ] You are posting an anonymous attack
[ ] You posted ads to a group in which none of the readers would
ever be stupid enough to buy something from a moron like you
[ ] You posted flame-bait to a group other than alt.flame
To Repent, You Must:
[ ] Be the PR guy for Canter & Siegel
[ ] Give up your AOL account
[X] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[X] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read the FAQ
[ ] Be Senator Exon's love slave
[ ] Be the guest of honor in alt.flame for a month
[ ] Post your tests to alt.test
[ ] Print your home phone number in your ads
[X] Slam your fingers in a desk drawer repeatedly
[X] Become a Satanist, sell your kids to Michael Jackson
[ ] Publicly fellatiate yourself
[X] Convince your mother to have a retroactive abortion
[ ] Shoot Pat Buchanan before the Republican Convention
In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] Morons like you give ammo to pro-censorship geeks
[X] Get a life
[X] Never post again
[ ] I pity your dog
[X] Go to hell
[ ]
[X] Take your crap somewhere else
[ ] Learn to post or sod off
[X] Do us all a favor and crawl into some industrial machinery
[ ] See how far your tongue will fit into the electric outlet
[ ] All of the above
Thank you.
By the way, the HAARP experiment cannot possibly cause any effects in any
area other than locally in Alaska. Do some reading and research before you
post your garbage. Better yet, don't post your garbage in
alt.law-enforcement ever again.
Subject: Re: No Newtonian gravity theory?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 07:40:33 GMT
In article , kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: In article ,
>: columbus@pleides.osf.org (Michael Weiss) writes:
>: >
>: >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.
>
>: I would practically bet on it. And I see these little differences as
>: very beneficial, they are a stimulus, for all of us, to clarify to
>: ourself the meaning of various notions we're using.
>
> I agree, but some of us may be wrong. :-)
>
Or even all of us.
>: >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.
>
>: Thank you. I'll try to clarify a bit. It ties to what I wrote about
>: the issue of generalizations and why a generalization may be a
>: revolutionary act even though looking backwards there seems to be a
>: smooth path leading from the old to the new. The key issue is that
>: generalizations are by no means "obvious". You reach a point where
>: you can't just keep developing previous ideas, a decision is needed.
>: Sort of "mental crossroads". And it may not be obvious at all, a
>: priori, which path to pick. That's the point where the "touch of
>: genius" is needed.
>
> Sometimes diligence and determination make up for
>lack of genius. :-)
They may. And sometimes people with both genius and dilligence
underrate the first, or even don't realize they have it. Old Bach
used to berate his pupils for being lazy and repeatedly stated
"anybody can write music like I do, all it takes is dilligence".
>
>: So, before it seems that I go to far off on a tangent, to me a new
>: theory begins at such a "branching point" where decisons are made and
>: new concepts and ideas introduced (or, possibly, previous concepts
>: acquiring a quite different meaning). With Newton, the Three Laws are
>: such a point (in physics, then you could separately point to calculus
>: in math), there is no doubt that there you witness the birth of a new
>: theory.
>
> Or, since Newton highly developed both, maybe I
>have to concede that genius was involved.
I think that Newton is one of the cases where the "genius" part is
quite evident.
>
... snip ...
>
> Perhaps it would be difficult to determine just
>which came first, mechanics or gravitation, but do you
>think it is coincidence that a pound weight is about
>equal to a pound mass and also about equal to a pound
>force?
No, it is no coincidence. The fact that things have weight was known
since the beginning of human history (and, I'm sure, before). This
has no more relationship to the recognition of gravitation as a
universal force then the use of fire has with understanding chemistry.
> Do you think it is coincidence that a freefalling
>object falls about one foot in the first quarter-second,
>three feet in the second quarter-second, five feet in
>the third quarter-second, and seven feet in the fourth?
Yeah, I'm sure that this is pretty much a coincidence as the foot was
in existance long before anybody was measuring time in quarter second
increments.
> Do you think it is coincidence that all units of
>power are indexed to gravity, as horsepower is a measure
>of raising 550 pounds one foot in one second _against_
>gravity?
No, here it is no coincidence, just practicality. Most of the work at
the time these units were established had to be done against the force
of gravity.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Phil Hetherington
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:42:50 GMT
In article <329609F2.40DE@ix.netcom.com>, Judson McClendon
wrote:
>
> Phil Hetherington wrote:
> >
> > I think that it would do a lot of people a lot of good if they would
> just
> > read something like that excellent publication "Scientific American" for
> > twelve months or a couple of years -- some might need to read it for
> longer!
> [snip]
>
> I read Scientific American from the time I was 10 until I was 30. I was
> completely convinced that evolution was true, and argued such many
> times. I had to be drug, kicking and screaming, away from that position
> by the evidence. Why don't you read the Bible for 20 years, and I'll
> have more respect for your position.
>
I happen to be a retired elder in the United Reformed Church, my son is a
minister in that Church, and I think know my Bible rather well having read
it for something like seventy two years . In my late teens and since I have
read widely in theology. I am 78 as indicated in my signature and when I
retired eighteen years ago took the trouble to do a second degree with
strong geological bias. The field work I did in the United Kingdom was
completely convincing as to the accuracy of the geological evidence and
geological time scale. As I have said in the Old World there doesn't seem
to be the anti-science bias that shows up on these groups from the U.S and
all main stream churches accept evolution as a mechanism used by God. The
only ones who don't are minority imports from the States. My worry for a
lifetime has been that those who fall into such anti science groups are
sooner or later going to realise that they are building on sand. I want
people to accept that they can accept scientific methodology and still keep
faith in a God.
--
Philip Hetherington - 78 feeling 14 - Voyaging to-
| _ _ | o._ _ /__ | _. _ _ | | | _ ._ | _|
|_(_)(_)|<|| |(_| \_| |(_|_>_> \/ \/ (_)| |(_|
ZFC G+ _| philhet@argonet.co.uk
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:22:06 GMT
rosebowl@nwu.edu (Cognito Jones) wrote:
>In article <577cla$gu3@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
>Harter) wrote:
>> In all cultures. The difficulty is essential; human cultures are
>> built upon a network of rationalizations, upon, to put it bluntly,
>> lies and self-deception. Dispassionate inquiry, although useful, is
>> necessarily corrosive. Not to worry. The human animal is ingenious
>> in finding ways to conceal from the left hand what the right is doing.
>> In due course we will work out culturally viable ways to minutely
>> examine our actions and motives without noticing that we are doing so.
>My goodness. Are you always so cynical? 8)
>You get the Mark Twain Award for this week!
>=> Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
>[Mark Twain]
Cynical!? Moi?
That, my friend, was an expression of my pollyannish mode.
ObBook: The New Machiavellians
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.
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: Ian Robert Walker
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 08:02:03 +0000
In article <575tck$6pv@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, Allen Meisner
writes
>In <0$LMkiAc2flyEwtP@newbrain.demon.co.uk> Ian Robert Walker
> writes:
>>
>>In article <573f29$1l1@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Allen Meisner
>> writes
>>> Here is a thought experiment that will decide the matter. You are
>>>traveling in a spaceship at 1000 meters per second. In the nose of
>the
>>>spaceship is a laser that operates in a pulse mode. The laser is
>>>pointed in the direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of
>>>the spaceship. At time t=0 the laser begins to emit pulses of light.
>>>One hour later the ship has traveled 72,000,000 meters. Will the
>first
>>>pulse of light still be aligned with the nose of the spaceship at
>this
>>>time. To claim so would be, and is, preposterous.
>>
>>Consider that instead of a pulse of light I throw a ball perpendicular
>to the
>>direction of the space ship, what will be observed?
>>--
>>Ian G8ILZ
>>I have an IQ of 6 million, | How will it end? | Mostly
>>or was it 6? | In fire. | harmless
>
> Are you saying that the light has inertia like the ball?
What has inertia to do with it?
>
>Edward Meisner
--
Ian G8ILZ
I have an IQ of 6 million, | How will it end? | Mostly
or was it 6? | In fire. | harmless
Subject: Re: Complex Numbers in C
From: medtib@club-internet.fr (M. TIBOUCHI)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 10:23:38 GMT
In article (Dans l'article) <57851i$nlh@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
psalzman@landau.ucdavis.edu (I hate grading almost as much as taking in
class exams) wrote (écrivait) :
> Dear All,
>
> I would like some advice on how to handle complex numbers in ANSI C.
> My knowledge of C stops at structs, but from what litle I know about
> structures, it seems like that would be the most clear way of handling
> complex numbers.
>
> If I wanted to load an array with values of a complex exponential, would
> I want to build an array of structures? I'm picturing the structs to
> consist of two floats, one for the real part and the other for the
> imaginary part of the number. Arithmatic would be done via functions
> which operated on the two struct components.
>
> Like I said, my knowledge of stuctures is sketchy. Is what I just said
> approximately correct? Is there a better way of doing it in ANSI C?
>
> Much thanks!
>
> Peter
The best way to deal with complexes is to hack in C++ : you don't use
structs but classes, it's much more powerful. You can then create
'operands' and managing complexes like classic numbers. For example, you
can initialize two complexes. Then, it's possible to add, substract,
multiply, divide them, rise them to a power, and so on.
For more flexibility, you can define complexes as a 2x2 matrix.
For more infos, mail back to : .
I think I could send you C/C++ routines to manage complexes.
--
M.TIBOUCHI
>See you soon on the Global Village
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 10:39:01 GMT
Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
: rosebowl@nwu.edu (Cognito Jones) wrote:
:
: >In article <577cla$gu3@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
: >Harter) wrote:
:
: >> In all cultures. The difficulty is essential; human cultures are
: >> built upon a network of rationalizations, upon, to put it bluntly,
: >> lies and self-deception. Dispassionate inquiry, although useful, is
: >> necessarily corrosive. Not to worry. The human animal is ingenious
: >> in finding ways to conceal from the left hand what the right is doing.
: >> In due course we will work out culturally viable ways to minutely
: >> examine our actions and motives without noticing that we are doing so.
:
: >My goodness. Are you always so cynical? 8)
:
: >You get the Mark Twain Award for this week!
:
: >=> Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
: >[Mark Twain]
:
: Cynical!? Moi?
:
: That, my friend, was an expression of my pollyannish mode.
:
You and your furshlugginer positive attitude.
'don't worry, be happy'
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net "Took all the money I had in the bank,
Bought a rebuilt carburetor,
put the rest in the tank."
USED CARLOTTA.. 1995
Subject: Re: Universal Coordinate System
From: Ian Robert Walker
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:29:43 +0000
In article <575uei$coe@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, Allen Meisner
writes
>In <0$LMkiAc2flyEwtP@newbrain.demon.co.uk> Ian Robert Walker
> writes:
>>
>>In article <573f29$1l1@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Allen Meisner
>> writes
>>> Here is a thought experiment that will decide the matter. You are
>>>traveling in a spaceship at 1000 meters per second. In the nose of
>the
>>>spaceship is a laser that operates in a pulse mode. The laser is
>>>pointed in the direction perpendicular to the direction of travel of
>>>the spaceship. At time t=0 the laser begins to emit pulses of light.
>>>One hour later the ship has traveled 72,000,000 meters. Will the
>first
>>>pulse of light still be aligned with the nose of the spaceship at
>this
>>>time. To claim so would be, and is, preposterous.
>>
>>Consider that instead of a pulse of light I throw a ball perpendicular
>to the
>>direction of the space ship, what will be observed?
>
> Consider a rotating disk with a laser attached along the diameter.
>Does the laser beam follow the source around the rotating disk, if it
>emits light in pulses?
Are you saying that the light pulse does not have a tangental component?
--
Ian G8ILZ
I have an IQ of 6 million, | How will it end? | Mostly
or was it 6? | In fire. | harmless
Subject: Re: (2) P-adics in physics; i and j needed in physics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 09:25:46 GMT
In article <575l1k$tvr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 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.
The above reminds me of my thesis on number of operations limited by
space.
And this would be an easy fact for mathematicians to overlook. Since
all they needed was an i to complete algebra, and make the Reals to
Complex.
But for Euclidean 3-Space we need an x, y, z to make the 3-Space. And
so we have the Reals for the x, and the i is the number which is an
angle and gives us the y axis. Now that is where the mathematicians
have left-off, departed.
I do not know yet whether they departed sloppily. Because , did, any
mathematician realize that i and j are essential for Euclidean 3-Space?
I do not know whether they realized that fact and proved it or whether
they just left and departed.
I do know that the physicists have proved that every electron
requires 3rd dimensional Euclidean geometry and any other dimension
leads to the false Mechanics of Newtonian Mechanics. Quantum Physics
requires 3d Euclidean geometry and only 3d Eucl. Physicists have proved
this via the Schroedinger equation and the experiments of higher
dimensions leads to Classical Newtonian solutions.
But knowing that fact that 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry is
quantum physics and only 3 d. Knowing that fact, I wonder if the
physicists have experimentally proved or theoretically proved that i
and the j is necessary for physics.
The mathematicians only needed the i, to satisfy their Complex
numbers and to complete the algebra. And I would almost bet, but not
sure, that they ran away, departed sloppily and forgot all about the
question of j. To them, if they have i and can solve all their Real
equations with sqrt-1, knowing mathematicians they probably departed
and never realized that j was essential and that there probably exists
a math statement, an extremely important math theorem that says
something like this:
Important Math theorem neglected :
Euclidean 3-Space Geometry is completed when you have i, and j, and
the Reals. Where i is distinct from j.
I am only guessing that the mathematicians have neglected that above
idea. I could be surprized and find out that the mathematicians were
thorough and did realize the above and proved it.
And for the physicists, I would suspect that they already have a
physics experiment or theory which proves the essentialness of i and a
j where i is distinct from j and where i and a j only (no k or more are
needed or essential), where an i and a j only are needed for quantum
physics to be complete. Is an i and a j , i and j only, appear in
Dirac's Equation, in the Schroedinger Equation and in the experiments
where 'higher than 3rd dimension Eucl geometry leads to Classical
Newtonian Mechanics'.
I ask those questions. Anyone have any answers or insights? Please do
not misinterpret me. I know that physics uses i, j, and k. But what I
am saying is that only i and j are needed and that the k is fake excess
baggage just as 4th dimension and higher is fake excess baggage.
And I could be surprized that both the mathematics house and the
house of physics have confirmed my above. But I doubt it, for the
history of physics has advanced further than mathematics and the 20th
century before I came to the scene was 100 years behind physics and the
math people of the 20th century were extremely, extremely sloppy. In
fact, the 20th century for mathematics should be described as the
century of sloppiness. I would have included the 19th century but
noneuclidean geometry was discovered in the 19th so that was a big plus
for that century.
Subject: Re: ...0008 Vietmath War: p-adics training
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 09:41:52 GMT
Subject: Re: ...0008 Vietmath War: p-adics training
From: jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski)
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-Id:
References: <56voje$lbb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Molecular Simulations Inc.
In article <56voje$lbb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
<
< But I proved in 1993 that Naturals = Infinite Integers = p-adics.
Your proofs were beautiful, Ludwig. I adored your proof that the
factorial of all integers leads back to 0. Again showing us that the
Peano Axiom of no predecessor was a made-up hobgoblin by little fools.
--
Jan Bielawski
In Vietnam, Sargent Ludwig )\._.,--....,'``. |
http://www.msi.com
saved my life /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. | ph.: (619)
458-9990
in Saigon fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' | fax: (619)
458-0136
for I had always practiced the Peano Axiom, crossing the street only
where
#TESTIMONY**************************************************************
****#
the white painted stripes are located and when the flashing walk sign
comes on.
Sargent Ludwig, on the last days of Saigon evacuation thumped me over
the head
because in the middle of machine gun fire I was looking for the white
stripes and flashing walk sign permitting me to cross the street safely
and into the
waiting helicopter. This is an official statement of Molecular
Simulations Inc. +
#***********************************************************************
*****#
Jan, please do not bring-up our old Vietnam days. I would rather
forget them.
And please do not continue like a sci.math broken record. Go see one of
your California shrinks and plague him with your problems, you
California fruitcake.
Subject: Re: (2) P-adics in physics; i and j needed in physics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 09:25:27 GMT
In article <575l1k$tvr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 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.
The above reminds me of my thesis on number of operations limited by
space.
And this would be an easy fact for mathematicians to overlook. Since
all they needed was an i to complete algebra, and make the Reals to
Complex.
But for Euclidean 3-Space we need an x, y, z to make the 3-Space. And
so we have the Reals for the x, and the i is the number which is an
angle and gives us the y axis. Now that is where the mathematicians
have left-off, departed.
I do not know yet whether they departed sloppily. Because , did, any
mathematician realize that i and j are essential for Euclidean 3-Space?
I do not know whether they realized that fact and proved it or whether
they just left and departed.
I do know that the physicists have proved that every electron
requires 3rd dimensional Euclidean geometry and any other dimension
leads to the false Mechanics of Newtonian Mechanics. Quantum Physics
requires 3d Euclidean geometry and only 3d Eucl. Physicists have proved
this via the Schroedinger equation and the experiments of higher
dimensions leads to Classical Newtonian solutions.
But knowing that fact that 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry is
quantum physics and only 3 d. Knowing that fact, I wonder if the
physicists have experimentally proved or theoretically proved that i
and the j is necessary for physics.
The mathematicians only needed the i, to satisfy their Complex
numbers and to complete the algebra. And I would almost bet, but not
sure, that they ran away, departed sloppily and forgot all about the
question of j. To them, if they have i and can solve all their Real
equations with sqrt-1, knowing mathematicians they probably departed
and never realized that j was essential and that there probably exists
a math statement, an extremely important math theorem that says
something like this:
Important Math theorem neglected :
Euclidean 3-Space Geometry is completed when you have i, and j, and
the Reals. Where i is distinct from j.
I am only guessing that the mathematicians have neglected that above
idea. I could be surprized and find out that the mathematicians were
thorough and did realize the above and proved it.
And for the physicists, I would suspect that they already have a
physics experiment or theory which proves the essentialness of i and a
j where i is distinct from j and where i and a j only (no k or more are
needed or essential), where an i and a j only are needed for quantum
physics to be complete. Is an i and a j , i and j only, appear in
Dirac's Equation, in the Schroedinger Equation and in the experiments
where 'higher than 3rd dimension Eucl geometry leads to Classical
Newtonian Mechanics'.
I ask those questions. Anyone have any answers or insights? Please do
not misinterpret me. I know that physics uses i, j, and k. But what I
am saying is that only i and j are needed and that the k is fake excess
baggage just as 4th dimension and higher is fake excess baggage.
And I could be surprized that both the mathematics house and the
house of physics have confirmed my above. But I doubt it, for the
history of physics has advanced further than mathematics and the 20th
century before I came to the scene was 100 years behind physics and the
math people of the 20th century were extremely, extremely sloppy. In
fact, the 20th century for mathematics should be described as the
century of sloppiness. I would have included the 19th century but
noneuclidean geometry was discovered in the 19th so that was a big plus
for that century.
Subject: Re: (2) P-adics in physics; i and j needed in physics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 09:14:23 GMT
In article <575l1k$tvr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 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.
The above reminds me of my thesis on number of operations limited by
space.
And this would be an easy fact for mathematicians to overlook. Since
all they needed was an i to complete algebra, and make the Reals to
Complex.
But for Euclidean 3-Space we need an x, y, z to make the 3-Space. And
so we have the Reals for the x, and the i is the number which is an
angle and gives us the y axis. Now that is where the mathematicians
have left-off, departed.
I do not know yet whether they departed sloppily. Because , did, any
mathematician realize that i and j are essential for Euclidean 3-Space?
I do not know whether they realized that fact and proved it or whether
they just left and departed.
I do know that the physicists have proved that every electron
requires 3rd dimensional Euclidean geometry and any other dimension
leads to the false Mechanics of Newtonian Mechanics. Quantum Physics
requires 3d Euclidean geometry and only 3d Eucl. Physicists have proved
this via the Schroedinger equation and the experiments of higher
dimensions leads to Classical Newtonian solutions.
But knowing that fact that 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry is
quantum physics and only 3 d. Knowing that fact, I wonder if the
physicists have experimentally proved or theoretically proved that i
and the j is necessary for physics.
The mathematicians only needed the i, to satisfy their Complex
numbers and to complete the algebra. And I would almost bet, but not
sure, that they ran away, departed sloppily and forgot all about the
question of j. To them, if they have i and can solve all their Real
equations with sqrt-1, knowing mathematicians they probably departed
and never realized that j was essential and that there probably exists
a math statement, an extremely important math theorem that says
something like this:
Important Math theorem neglected :
Euclidean 3-Space Geometry is completed when you have i, and j, and
the Reals. Where i is distinct from j.
I am only guessing that the mathematicians have neglected that above
idea. I could be surprized and find out that the mathematicians were
thorough and did realize the above and proved it.
And for the physicists, I would suspect that they already have a
physics experiment or theory which proves the essentialness of i and a
j where i is distinct from j and where i and a j only (no k or more are
needed or essential), where an i and a j only are needed for quantum
physics to be complete. Is an i and a j , i and j only, appear in
Dirac's Equation, in the Schroedinger Equation and in the experiments
where 'higher than 3rd dimension Eucl geometry leads to Classical
Newtonian Mechanics'.
I ask those questions. Anyone have any answers or insights? Please do
not misinterpret me. I know that physics uses i, j, and k. But what I
am saying is that only i and j are needed and that the k is fake excess
baggage just as 4th dimension and higher is fake excess baggage.
And I could be surprized that both the mathematics house and the
house of physics have confirmed my above. But I doubt it, for the
history of physics has advanced further than mathematics and the 20th
century before I came to the scene was 100 years behind physics and the
math people of the 20th century were extremely, extremely sloppy. In
fact, the 20th century for mathematics should be described as the
century of sloppiness. I would have included the 19th century but
noneuclidean geometry was discovered in the 19th so that was a big plus
for that century.
Subject: Re: (2) P-adics in physics; new Periodic Chart of Elements; Motaatom Harmonics; Spring & HYASYS theories
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 09:22:17 GMT
In article <575l1k$tvr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 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.
The above reminds me of my thesis on number of operations limited by
space.
And this would be an easy fact for mathematicians to overlook. Since
all they needed was an i to complete algebra, and make the Reals to
Complex.
But for Euclidean 3-Space we need an x, y, z to make the 3-Space. And
so we have the Reals for the x, and the i is the number which is an
angle and gives us the y axis. Now that is where the mathematicians
have left-off, departed.
I do not know yet whether they departed sloppily. Because , did, any
mathematician realize that i and j are essential for Euclidean 3-Space?
I do not know whether they realized that fact and proved it or whether
they just left and departed.
I do know that the physicists have proved that every electron
requires 3rd dimensional Euclidean geometry and any other dimension
leads to the false Mechanics of Newtonian Mechanics. Quantum Physics
requires 3d Euclidean geometry and only 3d Eucl. Physicists have proved
this via the Schroedinger equation and the experiments of higher
dimensions leads to Classical Newtonian solutions.
But knowing that fact that 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry is
quantum physics and only 3 d. Knowing that fact, I wonder if the
physicists have experimentally proved or theoretically proved that i
and the j is necessary for physics.
The mathematicians only needed the i, to satisfy their Complex
numbers and to complete the algebra. And I would almost bet, but not
sure, that they ran away, departed sloppily and forgot all about the
question of j. To them, if they have i and can solve all their Real
equations with sqrt-1, knowing mathematicians they probably departed
and never realized that j was essential and that there probably exists
a math statement, an extremely important math theorem that says
something like this:
Important Math theorem neglected :
Euclidean 3-Space Geometry is completed when you have i, and j, and
the Reals. Where i is distinct from j.
I am only guessing that the mathematicians have neglected that above
idea. I could be surprized and find out that the mathematicians were
thorough and did realize the above and proved it.
And for the physicists, I would suspect that they already have a
physics experiment or theory which proves the essentialness of i and a
j where i is distinct from j and where i and a j only (no k or more are
needed or essential), where an i and a j only are needed for quantum
physics to be complete. Is an i and a j , i and j only, appear in
Dirac's Equation, in the Schroedinger Equation and in the experiments
where 'higher than 3rd dimension Eucl geometry leads to Classical
Newtonian Mechanics'.
I ask those questions. Anyone have any answers or insights? Please do
not misinterpret me. I know that physics uses i, j, and k. But what I
am saying is that only i and j are needed and that the k is fake excess
baggage just as 4th dimension and higher is fake excess baggage.
And I could be surprized that both the mathematics house and the
house of physics have confirmed my above. But I doubt it, for the
history of physics has advanced further than mathematics and the 20th
century before I came to the scene was 100 years behind physics and the
math people of the 20th century were extremely, extremely sloppy. In
fact, the 20th century for mathematics should be described as the
century of sloppiness. I would have included the 19th century but
noneuclidean geometry was discovered in the 19th so that was a big plus
for that century.
Subject: Re: (2) P-adics in physics; i and j needed in physics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 09:15:55 GMT
In article <575l1k$tvr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 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.
The above reminds me of my thesis on number of operations limited by
space.
And this would be an easy fact for mathematicians to overlook. Since
all they needed was an i to complete algebra, and make the Reals to
Complex.
But for Euclidean 3-Space we need an x, y, z to make the 3-Space. And
so we have the Reals for the x, and the i is the number which is an
angle and gives us the y axis. Now that is where the mathematicians
have left-off, departed.
I do not know yet whether they departed sloppily. Because , did, any
mathematician realize that i and j are essential for Euclidean 3-Space?
I do not know whether they realized that fact and proved it or whether
they just left and departed.
I do know that the physicists have proved that every electron
requires 3rd dimensional Euclidean geometry and any other dimension
leads to the false Mechanics of Newtonian Mechanics. Quantum Physics
requires 3d Euclidean geometry and only 3d Eucl. Physicists have proved
this via the Schroedinger equation and the experiments of higher
dimensions leads to Classical Newtonian solutions.
But knowing that fact that 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry is
quantum physics and only 3 d. Knowing that fact, I wonder if the
physicists have experimentally proved or theoretically proved that i
and the j is necessary for physics.
The mathematicians only needed the i, to satisfy their Complex
numbers and to complete the algebra. And I would almost bet, but not
sure, that they ran away, departed sloppily and forgot all about the
question of j. To them, if they have i and can solve all their Real
equations with sqrt-1, knowing mathematicians they probably departed
and never realized that j was essential and that there probably exists
a math statement, an extremely important math theorem that says
something like this:
Important Math theorem neglected :
Euclidean 3-Space Geometry is completed when you have i, and j, and
the Reals. Where i is distinct from j.
I am only guessing that the mathematicians have neglected that above
idea. I could be surprized and find out that the mathematicians were
thorough and did realize the above and proved it.
And for the physicists, I would suspect that they already have a
physics experiment or theory which proves the essentialness of i and a
j where i is distinct from j and where i and a j only (no k or more are
needed or essential), where an i and a j only are needed for quantum
physics to be complete. Is an i and a j , i and j only, appear in
Dirac's Equation, in the Schroedinger Equation and in the experiments
where 'higher than 3rd dimension Eucl geometry leads to Classical
Newtonian Mechanics'.
I ask those questions. Anyone have any answers or insights? Please do
not misinterpret me. I know that physics uses i, j, and k. But what I
am saying is that only i and j are needed and that the k is fake excess
baggage just as 4th dimension and higher is fake excess baggage.
And I could be surprized that both the mathematics house and the
house of physics have confirmed my above. But I doubt it, for the
history of physics has advanced further than mathematics and the 20th
century before I came to the scene was 100 years behind physics and the
math people of the 20th century were extremely, extremely sloppy. In
fact, the 20th century for mathematics should be described as the
century of sloppiness. I would have included the 19th century but
noneuclidean geometry was discovered in the 19th so that was a big plus
for that century.
Subject: Re: ................2nd INTERVAL...........................
From: Keith Stein
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 12:03:12 +0000
In article , Keith Stein
writes
>The distance travelled is strongly dependent on the frame of reference
>of the observer. For example,the distance travelled by a sprinter during
>a 100 m race would be about 6000 km, relative to an observer who was
>stationary relative to the Cosmic Background Radiation. Even if the
>runner where able to run at the speed of light, some discrepancy between
>the distance travelled in these two frames of reference would remain,
>although it would admittedly be a lot smaller than for the sprinter. Now
>if the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, and the
>distance travelled is dependent on the frame of reference of the
>observer,this would mean that the time taken for the journey would
>depend on the frame of reference of the observer, surely that can't be
>
>right.
But if the velocity of light where different in different frames of
reference then the physicist would not know what value to use for c,
would she ? The correct solution must be without any discrimination,
of course !
((((( FLAMEPROOF FIRE CURTAIN )))))))
--
Keith Stein
(-: 5 MINUTES to the curtain up :-)
Subject: Re: World's second most beautiful syllogism
From: Jim Balter
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:21:26 -0800
Mike wrote:
>
> I think the fields can be logically described as such:
>
> Biology is applied chemistry
>
> Chemistry is applied physics
>
> Physics is applied mathematics
>
> Mathematics is applied logic
>
> Logic is the most general type of science and all
> others are more specific applications of logic.
> Without logic there is no math, physics, chemistry
> or biology...etc. etc. etc. To say that logic is
> a subfield of physics makes no sense. Logic can
> encompase all of physics while physics cannot begin
> to encompass all logic. All of mathematics is not
> contained within physics either, but all of physics
> can be contained in the field of mathematics.
All of physics is contained in mathematics like all of
Shakespeare is contained in monkeys typing.
The precise content of Shakespeare is a consequence of
Shakespeare being as he was, and the precise content of
physics is a consequence of the world being as it is.
Physics is no more contained in mathematics than are
economics or baseball.
As for the others, chemistry is also applied tinker toys
and biology is also applied mechanics, history, sleuthing. Much of
biology is contingent upon the actual evolutionary history of this
planet; it certainly isn't contained in any way in chemistry.
Vven mathematics is not contained in logic; you cannot derive
the Peano Axioms or the Euclidean Axioms from logic; *given*
those axioms, you can determine what follows, but you need both.
> None of the above order implies a value judgement.
> Being more general does not make a field "better".
You are abusing the word "general".
--
Subject: Vietmath War: war victims; blinded victims
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 12:32:55 GMT
In article
jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:
> Your proofs were beautiful, Ludwig. I adored your proof that the
> factorial of all integers leads back to 0. Again showing us that the
> Peano Axiom of no predecessor was a made-up hobgoblin by little fools.
> --
> Jan Bielawski
> In Vietnam, Sargent Ludwig )\._.,--....,'``. |
> http://www.msi.com
> saved my life /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. | ph.: (619)
> 458-9990
> in Saigon fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' | fax: (619)
> 458-0136
> for I had always practiced the Peano Axiom, crossing the street only
> where
> #TESTIMONY**************************************************************
> ****#
> the white painted stripes are located and when the flashing walk sign
> comes on.
> Sargent Ludwig, on the last days of Saigon evacuation thumped me over
> the head
> because in the middle of machine gun fire I was looking for the white
> stripes and flashing walk sign permitting me to cross the street safely
> and into the
> waiting helicopter. This is an official statement of Molecular
> Simulations Inc. +
> #***********************************************************************
> ****
Can someone verify whether there is a Molecular Simulations? I just
cannot picture a zombie such as Bielawski with his endless two liner
spews of a broken record over and over. I suppose there are quite a few
people, especially in mathematics whose mind can never comprehend that
a math axiom or definition is not an absolute, and no more absolute
than are the instructions on how to play checkers or chess. People like
this really bewilder me, because they seem to be blind in the
recognition of what is artifical constraints and what is constraints
made by Nature. To a Jan, the Peano Axioms are timeless and
unchangeable and perfect. To me, Jan is an utter bozo the clown, and
that is perhaps why he is no longer in mathematics.
But if Jan is using the Net as some sort of personal psychological
therapy for himself, well , go right ahead and repeat your mindrot over
and over. You won't mind if I use your fodder, do you Jan?
Subject: Re: 7 November, PLutonium Day is the only future holiday
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 11:55:17 GMT
In article <01bbd889$07807980$89d0d6cc@micron-p133>
"Mike Asher" writes:
> Mr D.F. Steele wrote:
> >
> > : Right on! November 7 is the 79th anniversary of the Great October
> > : Socialist Revolution in Russia. It turned out to be a colossal failure,
> > : too.
> >
> > The Revolution was by communists, not socialists. Try and learn that
> there
> > is a difference, and you might avoid witchhunts.
>
> Union of Soviet Socialists Republic..hmmm....
>
> But I understand your argument quite well. It didn't work in the USSR, nor
> China, nor Vietnam, nor Cuba, nor North Korea, nor Central America, Latin
> America, Africa, or Europe...but by God there is SOMEWHERE on the planet
> Socialism will work!
>
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
>
> "A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither
> equality nor freedom."
> - Milton Friedman
>
Don't kid yourself. The US has been a predominantly socialist country
since FDR's rule and really went socialist when gold was demonitized
and silver coins taken away. Why so many kids fall prey to the idea
that a country is either 100% nonsocialist or 100% socialist, is, well
, kid stuff.
I would hazard to guess that the US of 1996 is 60% socialist and 40%
capitalist. You see, we have little freedom of the pocketbook. You call
it economic freedom when you are guilty until proven innocent to the
IRS? You call it economic freedom when -on average- you work from Jan
till April goes to paying taxes? Is it economic freedom or capitalism
when you live under a system that allows people to collect welfare for
no work? Tell the millions of Americans who collect government welfare
that their free money entitlements is a capitalism paycheck.
These words "communist" "socialist" "capitalism" are so often
bandied about as if people and countries were clear cut, -no gray-
areas-all black or white-
Or are these terms mostly useful to academics, otherwise they would
not have much to talk about in classrooms and would not have courses to
teach
Subject: Re: ................2nd INTERVAL...........................
From: Keith Stein
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 14:48:05 +0000
Peter Diehr writes
>Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> The distance travelled is strongly dependent on the frame of reference
>> of the observer. For example,the distance travelled by a sprinter during
>> a 100 m race would be about 6000 km, relative to an observer who was
>> stationary relative to the Cosmic Background Radiation. Even if the
>> runner where able to run at the speed of light, some discrepancy between
>> the distance travelled in these two frames of reference would remain,
>> although it would admittedly be a lot smaller than for the sprinter. Now
>> if the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, and the
>> distance travelled is dependent on the frame of reference of the
>> observer,this would mean that the time taken for the journey would
>> depend on the frame of reference of the observer, surely that can't be
>>
>> right.
>> --
>
>Distance is not a frame invariant quantity.
right !
Now tell me Peter....."When we work out the force between two particles,
(moving in some general direction at velocity v relative to each other),
Whose'distance' should we use to work out the 'force' between the two?"
>Time of travel is not a frame invariant quantity.
"says Einstein !"
>
>The frame invariant quantity is the spacetime interval.
Einstein's "spacetime" is about on a par with Abian's "masstime",IMHO:-)
>A good tutorial is in Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics",
i think there are more than enough people studying T&W; already, thanks.
>2nd edition.
you want to keep that Peter. They will have great curiousity value in
the years to come...........................
>
>Best Regards, Peter
and you:-)
--
Keith
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: StanR
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:45:30 -0800
Couldn't have said it better, Gordon. Few others have taken the same
attitude.
There's no point criticizing what someone else doesn't know unless you
are ready to state there's nothing you don't know.
In which case noone needs to hear from you.
Stanley Radzewicz
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
>
> Evens --- has it ever occurred to you that the rude, supercilious,
> point-by-point ad-hominem attack style of your replies might alienate
> even people like me who _accept_ the validity of SR ???
>
> Or are you simply trying to singlehandedly prove that there exists at
> least _one_ Canadian who _ISN'T_ polite ???
>
> While sarcasm is an acceptable mode of communication on the usenet,
> rudeness is just plain _rude_.
>
> Frankly, I feel your current attitude helps the Opposition, NOT science.
> *Please* try to start behaving like a rational scientist, instead of a
> cross between the former U.S.Sen. Joe McCarthy and a prosecutor for the
> Spanish Inquisition...
>
> -- Gordon D. Pusch
>
> But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: StanR
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 19:16:01 -0800
Asserting hogwasgh with an inanity is the sign of a closed mind. Please
try to make your responces less insulting.
What you may have said is there is no global theory for time reversal.
It dilates, even goes to zero if you're riding the beam, but never
reverses. Esentially, we have no theory for time reversal-travel. A
multi-verse can be discussed, but not in the context of SR.
SR
Lou Verdon wrote:
>
> In article <3293AE89.38CB@mail.utexas.edu>,
> Dragonbane wrote:
> >> If time travel was possible and you could go into the past and alter it,
> ...
> >
> > 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.
>
> This is hogwash.
>
> t1+(t2-t1)
> ........................[].........................
> /\
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> / \
> ................../............\....................
> t1 t2
>
> The dots represent seconds.
>
> A light event initiates at t1 on earth. at 12:03:01
> universal time. At 12:03:08 the light is reflected b
> ( sorry for the newsgroup cut, but more than 3 is a spam )
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 14:51:00 GMT
In article <577dnq$8p@tel.den.mmc.com>
virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
> In article ,
> David Christopher Swanson wrote:
> >virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com writes:
> [...]
> >> Let me be the next to inform you, there *IS* an objective "Reality" and we
> >> humans are an intricate part of it. If one's philosphy doesn't allow for
> >
> >Well, now that we've been informed. I'm satisfied. How 'bout
> >the rest of you? Moggin? Fellas?
>
> Damn! Was I that convincing! Wow. One conversion per post and a fast
> enough rate I could have everybody convinced of what otherwise should be
> obvious. But consider that everybody read the same *post*. Regardless of
> its message, it is an objective object within that evolving Existence
> thing.
>
> Your post did bring a smile to my face.
>
> Mahipal |meforce> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/
Well, then ONE post WAS successful. That we oughta stop with the
"objective / subjective" talk is an argument you'll find in Rorty,
Heidegger, and Dewey. I have nothing to add.
David
"In Europe, they aren't quite that bold yet; there are stone structures
there and people have something to hold on to." -Dostoievski
Subject: Re: Metal Detection with Microwaves
From: jlundgre@delta1.deltanet.com (John Lundgren)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 13:59:58 GMT
Shameless crossposter! A pox on you! Dielectrics are non-conductive,
and metals are not dielectrics, since they are conductive.
Nebu John Mathai (mathai@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: First: I apologize profusely for the mass-mail but I am very desperate at
: this point. Please direct all flames to me. But I am very sorry.
: I was reading an article on Micropower Impulse Radar--which uses
: Microwaves-Radiowaves--and it mentioned that the reflection of microwaves
: off of a substance varied with the dielectric constant of the substance.
:
: I have tried researching numerous sources, but was not able to find the
: name or details of this effect. Could someone who knows *anything at all*
: about this phenomenon please email me? I am absolutely desperate.
: PS: If anyone knows anything at all about Micropower Impulse Radar, could
: you also mail me.
: Thank you very much.
: Nebu Mathai
--
#===================================================================#
| John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs. | jlundgre@ |
| Rancho Santiago Community College District | deltanet.com |
| 17th St at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 | http://www.rancho|
| My opinions are my own, and not my employer's. | .cc.ca.us |
| Most FAQs are available through Thomas Fine's WWW FAQ archive: |
|http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/FAQ-List.html|
| "Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times... keep on swinging." |
| says the lid on the jar of Laredo & Lefty's Picante Salsa |
! You MAY NOT use my email address for unsolicited Email or lists! !
#======P=G=P==k=e=y==a=v=a=i=l=a=b=l=e==u=p=o=n==r=e=q=u=e=s=t======#
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: StanR
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:37:49 -0800
Some interesting speculations in your header.
There may indeed be good reason to resurect the eather, but not likely a
a particulate structure. More likely an 'aether of strings'.
I'm not aware of the particulars of the Alain Aspect experiment, but the
idea of light arriving as a particle and traveling like a wave is still
valid. Please enlighten me otherwise.
The idea of speed through a vacuum and through glass are apples and
oranges: the properties of matter interacting with light are somewhat
removed from the intrinsic properties of light in space-time.
As to some of the questions you raised about the physical basis for c,
as it were, the wave theory still is the basis for that one. Maxwell's
equations. Unless someone comes up with a cosmological constant,
permitivity and dielectric are it.
The cause of inertial motion? What is the equavalence of gravitational
and inertial mass? Why do they appear to be equivalent?
It seems physics is giving you a little trouble. Keep at it. It's giving
eveybody a little trouble.
Stan
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 15:59:52 GMT
trx140@xmission.xmission.com (theurgy) wrote:
>>>Anyways, what the hell does it mean to *create* a value? I can't think of
>>>any new ones for at least a couple of millenia.
nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
>>In 1958, Maine created a new value when it made a law that cleansing
>>the Kennebec River was more important than catering to the paper
>>companies or stright pipe drops into the water. In 1979, salmon swam
>>in the Kennebec for the first time since the nineteen twenties. It
>>pays remembering that *values* can take time to reach fruition.
trx140@xmission.xmission.com (theurgy)
>Them's values? I had something more heroic in mind: justice, maybe, or
>equality, or at the very least motherhood'n'applepie - in a strictly
>nonsexist way, mind you - and here you bring up a choice for salmon vs.
>cheaper paper.
>Seems to me that this sort of choice can be made on utilitarian grounds:
>rate the costs and benefits of salmon vs. cheap paper. The underlying
>"value" that makes such a calculus possible is surely something the
>Assyrians argued about.
>They were very argumentative, I hear. Not much salmon in Assyria,
>though.
Well, not _anymore_.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: "Michael S. Morris"
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:52:19 -0500
Sunday, the 24th of November, 1996
Again, it looks like some development has gone on without
my newsfeed picking up on it, but I'd like to single this
exchange out for comment. I had said:
and it's perfectly correct to say that science does provide value,
as in the exercise of science requires certain value-judgments to
be made and not others. Now granted that these judgments probably
won't have much to say about sexual ethics, or table manners, or
even just war, but this doesn't mean that science makes no ethical
pronouncements whatsoever.
Silke responded:
Oh hell, all the time -- they are ultimately just as arbitrary as
the value judgments philosophy makes -- the stress is on ultimately.
Then Mikhail (?if I understand the indentations):
Before you can stress "ultimately", you should explain in what sense
either kind of value judgments is arbitrary.
Silke:
Ultimately. You know the argument, stop trolling.
In my opinion, Mikhail's has been the only point under contention.
That is, it may be "thinkable" in some armchair academic sense
to imagine an approach to natural philosophy that would be different
from the approach of science. My response is to nod fine and
say that if you find one, show me how you can build an aeroplane
with it (or something equally as wonder-full), and I'll consider
it. Similarly with other purportedly "arbitrary" value-judgments.
If you, for instance, come up with a political philosophy with
tenets different from liberalism, then again, my response is to
ask you to show me first how it doesn't lead to the concentration of
power into the hands of a few who will do harm with it.
As one open to armchair imagination, I'm capable of seeing
that there could be alternative postulates. I just don't know of
any that lead to anything worth looking at. Now it may be
that I think this just because I am ignorant of fruitful
alternative developments. I don't think so, and heretodate
I have yet to meet someone claiming alternatives who knows
anything much about the development of the same (let
alone that it is invariably the case that the reason these
alternatives are being admired in the first place is because
of insufficient study of what they purport to be alternative to).
(They are in my experience like literalist Christians who
invariably haven't even read the damn thing that so consumes
them.) This fact I consider to be a natural constraint of much
the same kind as the constraints which limit the totality of
thinkable physical theories to the one (or few, depending on how
you look at it) that is experimentally actual. So, I doubt (where
I suspect Mikhail denies) there is anything "arbitrary" at
all. That is, to grant "arbitrary" is already to grant the
relativist side half of the battle. Something here along the lines
of Einstein's quote to the effect that he doubted God had *any*
choice in the world.
Mike Morris
(msmorris@inetdirect.net)
Subject: Re: *****Help With Physics Question Requested, REWARD Offfered***
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 15:56:56 GMT
curious@agt.net (Chris George) writes:
>
Curious George? I like that....
>I have a physics question for all physics students out there,
I would have thought you would seek expert help. ;-)
>2 blocks of wood of equal mass are set up an equal distance away from 2 guns.
>Each gun contains a bullet of equal mass, one is rubber one is aluminum.
>When fired the rubber bullet bounces off the block of wood while the
>aluminum bullet imbeds itself in the wood. The bullets both travel at
>equal velocities and the surface on which the blocks sit is ice so
>friction is minimal. Which block of wood would travel further?
Is this the season for take home tests? Gee, I would have stated
explicity that the friction coefficient is unknown but the same
for both blocks. You can never have too many extraneous unknowns.
Anyway, I would expect any physics student to be able to state the
"correct" answer without thinking -- and the really good ones to
give the right answer, which would include stating the implicit
assumptions necessary to *get* an answer. [Am I saying there is
more than one right answer? Yes. Do I have a favorite that I
would expect from a really sharp student reading this problem?
You bet. First answer via e-mail from a bona fide student wins a
real punched card bearing a non-PC now-banned racist FSU mascot.]
--
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.
Subject: Re: Time...
From: Keith Stein
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 15:55:32 +0000
The Q writes
>Here's a thought...
> I was resting on my bed, looking towards my computer and thoughts, no,
>more like images, came to mind...
> I saw egyptians walking past my computer as if they where only partially
>in my time. I jumped up quickly and thought of what my mind was saying, and
>this was what I came to...
>
>Time is like space, space never changes, it is inhabited by objects, and
>when they leave, the space is still the same. Not mass, space as in a given
>area, like my room or such. So if time never changes, like to have seconds
>add to it, then we actually live in the same time/space as the those who
>lived long ago. We relate time to the motions and orbits of the planets and
>our sun. If the sun just vanished and we were able to sustain our Earths
>existance some how, and we lost track of time(like the watchs bateries
>drained spontaniously) or such that we couldn't keep track of time then
>time would never progress.
> Think of a tomb in egypt, where gasses are released from the stored
>corpses. That gas stays their over all the time of which the tomb is
>sealed, but when opened, the gasses are released as if they where anew,
>like smelling a rose that has been stored in a air free enviroment. Does
>this make sence?
>
ANSWER to 'The Q':
"IT CERTAINLY MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE THAN EINSTEIN'S 'SR' "
--
Keith Stein
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: fogelman@ctainforms.com (Al Fogelman)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:07:42 GMT
On Sun Nov 23, 96 at 7:57 Am PT al (fogelman@ctainforms.com) wrote:
Dear You All:
Why argue the point? There was only one Witness to creation, all the
rest are people trying in their simple way to prove a point based on
guesses thru things they have found on earth placed there by the
Witness. The Witness reported creation in words in the Bible and as
remember by various other people who lived during this period. Who to
believe, people who lived after the fact or those who lived at that
time.
May God bless all those who believe with the knowledge of the certain
truth of creation, thank you, love you, al.
On Fri, 22 Nov 96 08:13:39 GMT, scowling@islandnet.com (Jim Cowling)
wrote:
>In article , ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>>In article <571428$ppj@news.islandnet.com>, scowling@islandnet.com (Jim
>>Cowling) wrote:
>>> In article , saved@heaven.edu (Saved
>>Soul) wrote:
>>> >That is the same question I have been trying to get an answer to! They will
>>> >just say "It happened, we don't know how, it just did, with TIME
>>anything can
>>> >happen!"
>>>
>>> You've been given the answer: WE DON'T KNOW YET!
>>
>>Yet you believe it and except it as fact. Your whole theory is built on sand.
>
>Which theory?
>
>I believe and accept as fact that which has overwhelming evidence to support
>it -- evolution, for instance.
>
>The question Saved is referring to above was about the origin of the universe
>itself -- how did it begin precisely? We don't know yet. We do know that the
>creation of the universe in situ (rather than from a primordial explosion), as
>Christian Creationists believe, is unprovable in precisely the same way that
>we can't prove that the universe wasn't created last Tuesday.
>
>The third usual topic is abiogenesis. How *precisely* did it occur? We don't
>know yet. Is there evidence to support the theory. Yes. Is it conclusive?
>No, not to the same level as evolution is conclusive. Does it require a leap
>of faith? Yes. Does it require the same kind of leap of faith as belief in a
>creator? No.
>
>
>-------
>Jim Cowling, moderator, rec.arts.comics.info
>Editor, IN CHARACTER, An Electronic Journal about Games
>http://www.islandnet.com/~scowling/inc.htm
>-------
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:41:36 GMT
tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) wrote:
>Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
>: rosebowl@nwu.edu (Cognito Jones) wrote:
>:
>: >In article <577cla$gu3@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
>: >Harter) wrote:
>:
>: >> In all cultures. The difficulty is essential; human cultures are
>: >> built upon a network of rationalizations, upon, to put it bluntly,
>: >> lies and self-deception. Dispassionate inquiry, although useful, is
>: >> necessarily corrosive. Not to worry. The human animal is ingenious
>: >> in finding ways to conceal from the left hand what the right is doing.
>: >> In due course we will work out culturally viable ways to minutely
>: >> examine our actions and motives without noticing that we are doing so.
>:
>: >My goodness. Are you always so cynical? 8)
>:
>: >You get the Mark Twain Award for this week!
>:
>: >=> Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
>: >[Mark Twain]
>:
>: Cynical!? Moi?
>:
>: That, my friend, was an expression of my pollyannish mode.
>:
>You and your furshlugginer positive attitude.
>'don't worry, be happy'
I mean the man was positively Margueritasville.
ken
Subject: Re: Cross Product in 7-d?
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Date: 24 Nov 1996 16:20:17 GMT
In article <574rsp$qtk$3@gruvel.une.edu.au>, ibokor@metz (ibokor) writes:
>Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri (coolhand@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
>: In article <55v9fu$etp@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>,
>: Hauke Reddmann wrote:
>: >Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri (coolhand@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
>: >: In article <55scd5$hoc@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>,
>: >: Hauke Reddmann wrote:
>: >: >"True" cross products only exists in dim 3+7.
>: >: Could you explain why 7-d also works? (Also what exactly do you mean
>: >: by "true" cross product?)
It has all the "correct" properties.
The product most simply described as the imaginary part of octonion
multiplication.
>: >Ask on sci.math, I'm only a "trivia" expert ;-)
>: >(Somehow this is connected to Stokes theorem. Another
>: >trivia I remember...I believe in a recent back-issue
>: >of Am.Math.Monthly something appeared)
W S Massey "Cross products of vectors in higher-dimensional Euclidean
spaces", AMER MATH MONTHLY, 90 (1983), #10, pp 697-701.
Massey's first theorem is that bilinear maps R^n x R^n -> R^n such that
the result is perpendicular to the factors and the norm of the result
is equal to the area of the parallelogram spanned by the factors is one
of these two products. His second theorem is if we instead assume the
product is continuous, keep perpendicularity as before, but only require
that the product of linearly independent nonzero vectors is nonzero, then
again, we have one of these two products.
>: OK, dutifully cross posted to sci.math.
>: So, math-types, anyone got an explaination for this little fact.
>The final proof of this is due to J.F.Adams. It is connected to the
>"Hopf Invariant 1" problem and so to the fact that the only real
>division algebras have dimension 1, 2, 4 and 8 (sort of).
Massey's theorems do not invoke much in the way of topology.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
