Newsgroup sci.physics 210254

Directory

In article <57asrl$duk@tierra.santafe.edu>, jti@santafe.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>jti@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>>>
>>>Notice that Mati Meron can't tell the difference between something
>>>that "doesn't exist" and something that "has no observable effects"
>>>(i.e. something that affects other things that "exist").
>>                 ^^^^?^^^^^^^
>>
>>Correction.  Something that affects other things that exist has 
>>observable effects.  You probably meant to write "... something that 
>>doesn't affect other things ..."
>
>Yes, I think you're right.  The sense of what I was saying was that
>you seem unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between things that
>affect the things you are interested in (i.e. the transitive closure
>of things you are interested in) and things that might affect things
>you are not interested in, which you designate as not "existing"
>(i.e. the transitive closure of the things that exist).
>
The distinction above is yours, not mine.  I've never made it, nor I 
intend to.  In no place and at no time did I separate the world into 
"things I'm interested in" and "things I don't care about".
It seems to me that you've a mental image of the way scientists think 
and you project this image on all I say.  Well, you're welcome to do 
it if you enjoy it but in such case your dialog is not with me but 
with a creature you've conjured out of your own imagination.
	... snip ...
>
>I keep bringing your notion of "existence" up only because it seems to
>crystalize something I'm interested in.  Hahahaha.
Glad to hear it.  But, in such case, you should make some effort to 
read what I say instead of just substituting your own ideas into it.  
Here is a question, just to make it interesting.  "Do ideas exist?"
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>Gordon Long:
>
	... snip ...
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu 
>
>>"Influence" is a vague thing.  Lets qualify it.  When we we talk about 
>>influences on somebody's work we usually mean one of the following:
>
>>1)  Things that motivated the person to do the specific work (you 
>>mention it above).
>
>>2)  Things that influenced the outcome of the work.
>
>   What you mean "we," white man?  "Influence" is a term from the
>precincts of astrology.  (Watch -- I'm going to get replies saying,
>"You want to talk about physics from the perspective of astrology!")
>It refers to the effects of the stars (in particular, to the fluid that
>carries them).  Needless to say, those effects are wide-ranging, and
>so is the meaning of the term.  It certainly isn't limited to the two
>senses you've assigned.  (In fact, it's hard for me to guess why you 
>would think that it _is_.)
>
>>OK, so here is the question.  Do you think that Newton could've got a 
>>different result for the law of gravity, if his background would've 
>>been different?  Yes or No?
>
>   You claimed it was false to say that any important part of physics
>was based in mysticism; but if it's true that Newton imported action
>-at-a-distance from his hermetic studies (which isn't clear -- Lew
>thinks it may be an over-simplification), then his work is at least 
>partly based in mysticism.  Whether he would have gotten different
>results if he had a different background is a different question.  (I'm
>nearly certain I mentioned that once or twice before.)
I asked yes or no?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) writes:
>In 1760, L. Euler suggested that populations grow geometrically, but
>because of later work by Malthus (1798), the simple equation
>
>                          P[n+1] = r P[n]    
>
>is typically called the "Malthusian Model" (r is the growth rate). 
>Not much there, although in some cases populations (eg., Sweden in 
>the late 1800's -- early 1900's) do grow in much this way.  If 
>Malthus had anything valuable to say about saturation mechanisms, 
>I am not aware of it.
If by "saturation mechanisms" you mean principles by which this
geometric expansion is limited, he had two, in theory.  One would be
something along the lines of will and self-restraint.  The other was
death (choose your horseman).
I presume you are suggesting that populations sometimes seem to become
stable without the vast attrition that one would expect from Malthus.
Again, I think a more subtle formulation of Malthus' general idea can
still be made without much trouble, by anyone who reads a newspaper
now and again.
The US intelligence service recently said that they now use maps of
"ecological crisis" to find regions of future political unrest.  And:
our vast technological infrastructure allows us to consume resources
remotely.  To me these notions suggest that the "pressure" which would
historically have been released in local deaths is now being broadly
dissipated into the ecosystem, allowing for more of what computer
scientists might refer to as "graceful degradation", at least in the
first world, so that much of the devastation is being stored in the
ecosystem in ways that are not apparent.  At least not as apparent.
The recent consensus that global warming is a fact, that world
fisheries are dramatically unproductive, and that species are dying at
a rate not seen since the famous Jurassic-Cretaceous dieoff (did I get
my geological eras right?) -- these things suggest to me that reports
of Malthus' demise may have been premature.
I suspect that along the way, there will be an increasing consensus
that more and more so-called "human rights" must be voluntarily
sacrificed along the way, in order to allow the wonderfully
well-reasoned technological support system to become increasingly
efficient, in order that millions, perhaps billions, can be preserved.
I wonder whether the libertarians will give up their hatred of Malthus
then, or whether they will still claim that it is all the
(unnecessary) doing of some evil empire that has thrown away justice
out of pure greed?
>However, I recall reading that Darwin drew ideas from Malthus's
>Essay of the Principle of Population.  My impression (guess) is that 
>just as ideas from Darwinism (a biological theory) were misapplied 
>to create a moronic theory of "social Darwinism", Malthus's ideas 
>could be similarly misapplied -- a standard tactic of the anti-science 
>crowd.
How nice it would be to have your sunny, can-do outlook.
-- 
"What's a mook?"
"A mook, what's a mook?"
"I don't know."
"What's a mook?"

patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>>> Science establishes truth, but 
>>> not the value of truth. That truth is a value gets established elsewhere.
>>
>>Could you tell me where or what the elsewhere is?
>
>Generally, it's in the discipline called "philosophy."  
I doubt it.  For the purposes of this discussion, (most) philosophy
probably counts as yet another science.  I suspect that the place
where values are created is not easily scrutinized, otherwise,
obviously, science would be able to scrutinize them.
>>Both science and ethics are exercises of the human mind. Why should there
>>be an a priori duality?
In our context, I suggest that ethics will also count as yet another
science.  Values come ready made, and are probably only ever
elaborated, rather than ever being justified.  The impulse to
"justify" is an attempt to render your values scientific.  That's the
rub.  What axioms will you use to begin the process of examination of
some values?  Perhaps that minimizing avoidable pain is always good?
So, you might say, e.g. does this set of values cause unecessary pain?
But this would be to measure a value by a value.
-- 
"What's a mook?"
"A mook, what's a mook?"
"I don't know."
"What's a mook?"

kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca (Ken Muldrew) writes:
>
>It is a well known (and often remarked upon) fact that the www was
>invented by the HEP community at CERN as a means of facilitating rapid
>communication. How was it that they weren't able to add markup symbols
>for mathematical equations to the original HTML spec? 
 I would guess that they wanted to be sure it would work on all 
 systems.  Remember, a *graphical* interface was not expected at 
 first, and lots of systems do not support math symbols.  You can 
 distribute an entire paper as TeX or PostScript.  You can always 
 ask the original authors. 
>The HTML 3.0 spec (which included a math tag) was recently dropped in
>favour of 3.2 (which does not include math). One of the reasons for
>dropping the math tag seems to be that the major players (Netscape, et
>al.) just ignored it in the 3.0 spec. Does anyone know how the
>heathens managed to co-opt this valuable tool?
 I don't even know the mechanism for comment, let alone what standards 
 organization is doing this.  I doubt if it is an ISO or ANSI standard, 
 so there may not be a formal process.  The only way to force things 
 of interest to the users, like the DO WHILE standard left out of the 
 original f8x standard because of vendor disagreement, is for it to 
 be demanded by the users.  Of course, scientific users are totally 
 outnumbered now.  Just look at the push for Internet-2 to isolate 
 science from the bandwidth gobblers in the commercial sector. 
-- 
 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. 

Tracy W wrote:
> 
> How did nuclear testing affect environment deeply?
It didn't and thats the point I try to put accross, there is nothing
wrong with nuclear testing as long as it is done in controled conditions
and well supervised.
It is the safest thing on earth, but every one is scared of them....
ignorant fools.
JARROD NEVEN
asshole@msn.com
kdsc@netspace.net.au
4 MURRABIT CRS 
TAYLORS LAKES
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA.
3038
+ 61 3 9390 5694 OR +61 411521861

spyralfox@aol.com (Spyral Fox) writes:
>
>I cannot legally be hired as an earth science teacher, since that is a
>separate area, not covered by the above credentials.  But, I can teach
>Earth Science as long as it isn't my primary assignment, or as long as the
>state is not reviewing the accreditation that year, or -- if the state is
>reviewing it -- if I'm one of a small minority of teachers giving classes
>in an area I'm not authorized to teach, etc.
 And that is the problem, since you can drive an entire school system 
 through those loopholes.  Certainly that explains how the PE teacher 
 could take over as the Calculus teacher in a nearby county, as I 
 learned a few weeks ago from the physics teacher.  If a course could 
 only be offered by a qualified teacher, they might have to pay market 
 rates and the supply would be there. 
-- 
 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. 

Judson McClendon  wrote:
>
>God made man with the ability to know Him.  Adam and Eve knew God
>imtimately before the fall.  But man sinned and lost his spiritual
>ability to know God intimately.  This ability is restored when one
>receives Jesus ans is 'born again'.
>
       Strangely enough, the above does give a symbolic or mythical
explanation for something that I feel keeps bugging we humans.
      Throughout the ages our literature has dwelt on seeking some
kind of  "lost innocence" or "Niverna" or "Truth." Ever since our
species developed the ability to withhold our instinctive response,
thus enabling us to rise to the top of the food chain, we seem to
yearn to return to that age when we were one with the universe, like
all the other species that respond instinctively to Natures demands,
      We are always under the tension created by the desire to do what
nature tells us to do-- doing what we want-- and doing those things
expected of us  by our society: between responding to our instincts or
doing what is best for the long term. People drink, seek religion,
take dope, meditate, etc. in an attempt to release that tension..
              By restraining our natural responses we gained time to
think for ourselves and thus lost "our innocence," but we  have never
been able to escape the compelling pull of nature. 
            It is perhaps understandable then, that we would devise
deities that agreed with our stance-- that is, deities that "order" us
to  do what we want to do anyway :withhold instinctive drives   This
could explain the strange anomaly of people still believing in
religions for a good century or more after men like Galileo and Darwin
opened our eyes to the real world about us.. 
Cheers,
Andy
Original Sin: the refusal to willingly, spontaneously,
              unthinkingly, obey Nature's Edicts

In article , glong@hpopv2.cern.ch says...
>
> [snip]
> [Gordon Long wrote:]
>  ... you can't tell whether or not you're in the
>presence of a gravitational force field unless (as I said earlier) you
>"look outside the elevator", ....
>
>  [snip]
Actually, because space is curved you can tell if you are in the presence 
of a gravitational field.  The trick is to place a spherical cloud of, say,
bb's in the elevator with you.  Since the gravitational field varies with
distance, it is weaker at the top of the elevator than at the bottom.  The
cloud elongates.  Another example of this are the tides produced on the 
earth by the moon's gravational field.  "Flat and curved space-times", by
G. Ellis and R. Williams, pub. by Oxford Press is an excellent reference.
See pp. 210-212.
A good article on Newton's view of distant action can be found in 
"Philosophical consequences of Quantum Theory", J. Cushing & E. McMullin, 
Ed., pub. by University of Notre Dame Press, 'The explanation of distant 
action: Historical notes', by E. McMullin, pp. 272-302.
--Best regards,
--Mike Ramsey

michael keenan  writes:
>
>I know I posted on this subject last year, but I lost it. Could someone
>please tell me what the latest news on neutrino mass is? 
 The upper limit on the neutrino mass is, AFAIK, still around 6 to 
 10 eV depending on your opinion concerning systematic errors and 
 whether the mass fit should be constrained to positive m^2.  If 
 you want to follow it, the lead researchers on the tritium experiment 
 at LANL are R.G. Hamish Robertson and Tom Bowles.  Tracking their 
 papers and citations to them will keep you up to date. 
 This is, of course, an upper limit so it says nothing about the 
 mass, just what it cannot be.  
 There is also the neutrino mixing experiment LSND, also at LANL. 
 They just published a massive article in Phys. Rev. C (current 
 issue) but I have not read through it carefully.  The data seem 
 to be holding up, but only more statistics will tell the tale. 
 The mixing only tells you a mass difference, not the mass, but 
 does guarantee a non-zero mass. 
> The implication
>of this is important in terms of open vs. closed universe (neutrinos being
>the most abundant particles, any measurable mass would probably be enough
>to tip the scales in favour of a closed universe.) 
 I believe the known limits are tight enough to ensure that neutrinos 
 cannot solve the dark matter problem. 
-- 
 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 <3297BDF1.7BEA@california.com>, stan@california.com says...
>
>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
>
> [snip]
Stan,
 electrons travel backwards in time.  If physicist didn't take this 
possibility into account, Quantum electrodynamics (QED) would not match
experimental fact.  See "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", by
Feynman, pub. by Princeton University Press, pp.97-98.
--Best regards,
--Mike Ramsey

From brunelle@vivanet.com Sun Nov 10 15:06:40 1996
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.psychedelics
Subject: S. divinorum experience
From: Kevin Brunelle 
Date: 10 Nov 1996 06:06:40 GMT
Salvia divinorum is a Mexican sage which seems to induce short-periods
of dream-like phenomena which are very remarkable.
Judge for yourself:
I would like to transcribe my experience with Salvia divinorum, in
hopes that we can bring about some INTELLIGENT discussion on this. I
would like to know what other folks' take on this novel psychedelic
are. I am still a tad awe-struck from it and trying to really
 determine exactly *what* happened. 
(You just made a short visit into your own mind!)
It may take some time, or more experience with the herb-- probably
both. But it is fascinating and,since you might be interested, here
goes.
I packed a regular tobacco pipe with just about two good-sized dried
leaves I obtained from HoTi Products in Honaunau, HI.
 (hoti@ilhawaii.net).
 By the by,this is absolutely the greatest price I have come across,
at 10 grams of rapidly-dried (obviously) leaves for $15. I bought two
pouches.. Their service was fantastically quick, and I wish they dealt
with more exotic botanicals than they currently do!
Knowing that I should not pack it too tight, but wanting to get a
whole load in there, I left enough space for what I thought would be a
nice, easily-burning experience. It was filled to the brim, and I lit
it and proceeded to take in huge hits exactly as one would with
cannabis. Of course, with a tobacco pipe instead, but hey. 
First hit, I felt a little bit. I felt something reminiscent of a
marijuana buzz. It was greatly physical and quite relaxing, like
alcohol without any inebriating, dummying-down, or dizzying,
stammering effect. Felt as if it hadn't crept up from my body to my
skull.Kinda said, Let's do more. I felt a little more the second hit--
these were *huge* hits. Monstruously so, that I amazed myself that so
much could be taken in and expelled from my nose and mouth with such
flowing delicacy. It has been some time since I've toked on much of
anything, but I seem to have taken in twice my maximum amount in my
marijuana days. I thought that this was farily mild going down,
actually; easily controllable. After the second hit, I started to feel
something coming on, thought quite different from the cannabis parade
that walks across my limbs and leaves me feeling heavily drugged.
 There was absolutely none of this
. I felt myself being pulled int and pushed out of the chair. Also, I
felt as if something were trying to penetrate my thick head--something
saying Get the hell out and open up! This is wonderful! You don't want
to miss anymore!..... Third hit, I really was able to take a lot in,
and I felt my body be pleasantly lifted from the chair
(Cela ressemble à l'entrée dans un rêve conscient) as I was filling
myself with this smoke. I actually felt myself sinking into the chair
at the same time as I felt incredbily light--as if I weighed nothing
any longer. Very nice.
(This is exactly what happens when one enters,consciously,into a
dream...)
This third hit was magnificent. And I held it in for about 20 seconds
or so, feeling it pulled deeper into my lungs, or so it felt, 
the whole time. I felt my senses transform in a way that was quite
interesting, in that there was really nothing I could pinpoint as
 "different." Then I realized that I was seeing the world for the
first time, in a quite real and convincing way. But it was harsh: it
was a flash of sensory overload. It was as if there were a certain
barrier that this salvinorin passed through, and then, there I was,
immediately: in a completely different place. (Rappelle une transition
onirique consciente!)It pushed me through some kind of membrane, and
it happened in the blink of my mind's eye. Feeling the whole garage (I
know, what a setting) become brighter than anything I have ever
imagined, very unfamilar because it seemed so real. It leapt from the
usual mundane view to something so frighteningly *in-my-face* that it
was as if I had never
 known it, seen it before. Never seen ANYthing. As I exhaled this
smoke, so deliberately and slowly, I realized that I could freak
out--this was a complete shift in reality. This was like having new
existential eyes. 
I mean, it was the same me, the same place, the same eyes, senses, and
feeling--but there was something shockingly ineffable about it. And
wasn't I supposed to feel *fucked-up* if I was on this intense a trip?
It was as if I had been born again. But it was not exactly so, because
I didn't feel really "different." What was it???? 
Well, as if to answer my question, a whole layer of reality ricocheted
out of space into my head. A sound: a voice, and a whole bunch of
some-sort-of-smurf-elf-like creatures that seem to comprise DMT
hyperspace. I swear to you, there were entities there, and they
 were playing! 
(Of course the author of this article is deluded by those visions!)
They were dancing and swirling, laughing and living in complete,
unadulterated bliss! I could glance at them, astonished and with my
eyes probably as wide as the gap between my chin, as it lay on the
floot, and my upper lip. Real animals came out of
 nowhere and all of a sudden I was on the verge of their
village!(encore comme une transition onirique usuelle...) It was like
this, I was watching one of those jukeboxes, except that it is an
experiential jukebox, and the records are not just phonographs, and
they are not recorded sounds of us humans and our music, and they are
unreal, in this respect; these *are* layers of reality, and one of hem
just flipped out from the astral pile in my
 consciousness (or was 
it really just my consciousness??) and played to my mind in vivid
detail. It was as if I was the needle, as crazy as I know this sounds,
and the life of a whole fucking cosmos was being played to my Soul, as
encaptured by some layer/disc of reality. That is what it
seemed like. 
These things, they flashed so quickly before me, they said "Come play
with us! Come on and join us! Come here and rid yourself of all your
worrying and your shit! *Dammit* come on!" And they were flying before
my open eyes, as if to wash everything else out. They 
did look like smurfs,(=schthroumpfs!) yet they weren't blue and they
weren't  annoying. They were more like elves, gnomes, yes, and they
were
, well, quite paradoxical. Like enlightened children. Like a totally
different representation of cosmic intelligence than you would 
expect. (I did not think God was in an elf! but, alas, there was a
spirit of that very character in them.) And it was almost cartoonish
it was so colorful. The "derealized" cartoonish take of this quite
freaked me out, as it was SO real, yet SO foreign to anything I had
imagined. This was some sort of truth. This whole galaxy that was
flipped over so I could see it, I could leap into. But something was
keeping me back. I was scared to the core that I would never come
back. 
This was so real, for a moment I wholly forgot that I was "tripping." 
(This shows the dream-like nature of hallucinations induced by salvia
divinorum)
I hate that term, it is hackneyed and insufficient. This was a
"journey" and a consciousness dance, but nothing short of
mind-blowiing and quite real in spirit. There was no sense of
inebriation, and when I stopped to grab a hold of my normal scope of
reality--as if it was always palpable, if need be--I could be
normalized. And then I noticed that there was a difference. I slipped
out of this flash, it was like. I was slipping out and this voice,
half androgynous, half feminine, said "Come back..." in a whisper that
was both warm and insistent-- over my left shoulder and floating
everwhere. I tried to see her, turning my head like a fool, or dog
trying to chase his tail; she is Elsewhere, yet always aside me. (I've
had the sense of a third party before, stone-cold sober, and felt it a
spiritual overseer, or guardian.) Seemed like some sort of angel who
wanted to get things done and wanted to Truly, finally
communicate(comme psilocine) to me. I said to it, "I have to go let
people know that I am going to be leaving for a while. They'll come
back and I'll be gone!My mom will come out and I will not have warned
her that I was going to a whole different universe and she will be
freaked that I look as if in a coma!" I was seeing so many different
things come to me at once, and I felt my body overload. I was at the
point that I thought I could do anything I wanted, simply
effortlessly, but the sheer overly-puissant Power of this was too much
for me. I could barely walk to the door to the house to yell, "Mom!
Dad!" quite rushed and insistently, myself. "Just so you know, I am
tripping
 hard!" They were my sitters for this. Quite nice. (Needless to say,
they are quite interested in the potential of psychedelics, as they
have shown great promise to help their son out of a series of
psychological and spiritual setbacks that have left me largely
paralyzed and in need of "healing", in whatever forms work...) 
"Really!?!?" my Mom returned. I said, Yes, that I needed to go sit
down 
and be comfortable, this was coming on much more quickly than I
thought. 
I sat back in the chair, and I still heard the mutterings of the
creatures I had neared--whose activites I really only saw from a
distance and into whose world I was not able to take a leap. I still
saw kind of ghostly, transparent and existentially-fleeting
hallucinations of their activity, and the angel in white whose
presence seems to have never left my side, including my life before
this cabriole.She was the Center *and* the cicling orb around me, at
the same time: I was ego, and she was there to take me; and she was
the Host Whom I should worship. And I actually spoke to something, out
loud, yet as the words came out of my mouth I wasn't sure if
it was to Her....And I still can validate that I corresponded with
something; I said that I would come back, and that I wanted them to
make it easy for me to sink on through to the other side. Could they
please not make this a disaster and me a catatonic schizophrenic....I
told him that I like holding on to "these eyes, this ego." And that I
appreciate the beauty and endless wonder that they hold.I kind-of
said, Be patient with me, too. I had the power to conjure them, or
have them *cooperate* with me. 
I had not yet realized the significance of open-eyes versus
closed-eyes. At this point, my eyes had yet to be closed. I was
experiencing enough dimensional shifting without going inward. 
Letting my Mom know that I thought I was about to be going someplace
very alien, 
(the realm of your own mind!)
I proceeded to take yet another large hit. No effect. I was already
departed from the otherworldly reality. Very interesting--it was as if
I had had one chance with this smoking session and it was decided that
I was not equipped or ready to go through with it. This hit was
astronomical, too. Yet, no dancing with the friendly-from-afar and
highly imaginative creatures. Damn, I had barely seen but a slice of
the world of the Veiled Lady's, and her seeming governship of divine
elf-like gnome-like playthings. I was certain, and still am, that I
saw but a snapshot of a whole powerful, energetic, quite-real
dimension to our lives. I went inside to close my eyes and see what
remained of this dimension. 
Lay down, closed my eyes, and asked some questions to myself, like,
What do I make of this, Am I nuts, Isn't this only supposed to happen
on Dimethyltryptamine,
(or:DMT.An endogenous hallucinogen)
 How do I feel free and secure enough to let go??? Visions and
predominantly warm emotions danced spectacularly around and about me.
I was seeing a good chunk of the things I've imagined, from dragons to
demons to mermaids to god to wildlife to every dream I've ever had,
and all with enough beauty and overwhelmment to occupy my whole Soul
as I lay down and went with what was left.
 (This was only about 12 or so minutes after my first toke.) There was
a stream of mild and seemingly still sexual imagery, and emotions was
running from all sorts of hope, and amazement, and excitation, to
calmness, contentment, and also some dejection that the ex
perience seemed to have been "cut off" and I was not really "going
with it."
I could open my eyes and return to 85% of reality around me as I knew
it. Then I could shut up, shut out the things around me, and enter a
dream. This was very peculiar and genius for me! I realized that I DO
have a fear of letting go, of being free, if you will, 
and of truly succumbing to the *whole* effects of this. And then many
implications hit me about my life, and what real problems I face, and
that same old "stuff." I as amazed that there seemed to be Answers, if
I could only take that huge "leap of faith." I realize now that this
leap of faith is truly a dying and rebirthing experience. It truly is.
Anyhow, I digress....The salvia divinorum showed me that there is
something waiting beyond the realms of our normal human imagination,
(Your UNCONSCIOUS self only...)
 and that it "takes you places..." 
This was a feeble attempt to capture something that I still cannot
believe flew into my head, and smacked me across the face. The
effulgent image that I am left with, that I spoke of as my own mother
watched me "watch" the abstract goings-on in my mind, is of me being
sucked from this world, which I really feel I have yet to truly enter.
Am dissociated from myself....and this stuff picked me up out of this
and left me dangling, saying *over* and not just *to* me, "You are
nowhere! I can put you in two places at once and you can live both,
more really than you are here now, when sober!"
And it dangled me, this Force, this Shepherdess, and presented me this
world--multiplied by 100--at the same time as it presented me its own
special and unique, transdimensional world. It said, "You can do much
better than this! You have no idea!"
And so I was shown that perhaps what we have been enculterated to
seeing is not necessarily "real" after all. Especially if we can go
places and come back with this endlessly enriched by the journey. What
a vacation! 
(A vacation in the realm of your OWN mind!)
That is what this is like--a ticket that I have
 to be reassured deep within, is two-way. I still am at the gate and
window, waving to energies and entities which are flying by.
I hope you found this interesting. I am truly turned-on to this beast.
I have some shamanic journeying to do, and I believe that it needs to
be done with as much collective information and help from other
people, various sources, and experiences, and experts, as possible. I
appreciate the site, and wish you the best on your own plans! Til my
next note, (it is too damn late to go on and it has 
been quite a long day)
All the best,
Kevin

In article <57851i$nlh@mark.ucdavis.edu> I hate grading almost as much as
taking in class exams, psalzman@landau.ucdavis.edu writes:
>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
>
Structs are how I have done this  in the past.  Usually I define the
types and function prototypes in a header file (like cplx.h) and
implement the routines in a separate translation unit (cplx.c).  
The data types look something like this:
typedef struct ct {
    double real;
    double imag;
} Complex_t, *Complex_ptr;
This defines two new types, Complex_t and Complex_ptr.  An object of type
Complex_t has two members, real and imag, both of which are double
precision floats.  An object of type Complex_ptr is a pointer to an
object of type Complex_t.
Objects would be declared as follows:
    Complex_t a, b; /* a and b are objects of type Complex_t */
    Complex_t arr[10]; /* arr is an array of objects of type Complex_t */
    Complex_ptr p; /* p is a pointer to an object of type Complex_t */
Assignments can either be done to the individual fields, like this:
    a.real = 0.0;
    a.imag = 1.0;
    arr[i].real = 1.0;
    arr[i].imag = -2.0;
    p = &b;
    p->real = 2.0;  /* same as (*p).real = 2.0 */
    p->imag = -3.0;
Or, you could write a function which assigned two doubles to a complex. 
Note that the function could return the complex value, or take the
complex number as an argument.
/* Method 1 */
Complex_t cplx_assign1 (double r, double i)
{
    Complex_t result;
    result.real = r;
    result.imag = i;
    return (result);
}
/* Method 2 */
void cplx_assign2 (Complex_ptr dst, double r, double i)
{
    dst->real = r;
    dst->imag = i;
}
...
    a = cplx_assign1 (1.0, 2.0);
    cplx_assign2 (&b;, 3.0, 4.0);
The implementation of add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc., would be
similar.
Complex_t cplx_add (Complex_t a, Complex_t b)
{
    Complex_t result;
    result.real  = a.real + b.real;
    result.imag = a.imag + b.imag;
    return result;
}
The rest I think you can figure out for yourself.  Hope this was useful.

jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
| 
| weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
| } 
| } Richard Harter (cri@tiac.net) wrote:
| } :
| } : Please, he does no such thing; the correction is from "center" to
| } : "game".  
| } 
| } I beg your pardon: "The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a
| } center." (Structuralist Controversy, p. 267. Later, the paraphrase is not
| } of center for game, but of "_not_ a center" for "concept of the game." 
| 
|  Based on the quote below, I don't see how one can reach any other 
|  conclusion -- that is, if I understand this to be a discussion of 
|  the cosmological 'constant' in terms of a language that I *think* 
|  I understand about half as well as GR.  ;-) 
cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>One has no way, from the cited text, to know exactly what "the
>Einsteinian constant" meant - the context is too sparse - but it is
>quite unlikely that they were talking about the cosmological constant.
>Attend to the wording of the question.  The "constant" would not
>likely be a constant in the sense that a mathematian or a physicist
>would use the term but rather a fixed feature of the field of
>discourse.  
 Plausible.  And since most of Einstein's efforts were to change 
 what was the fixed feature -- first space-time in a flat metric, 
 then allowing that metric to curve, then stuffing in the cosmological 
 constant, then taking it out -- of the discourse about mechanics, 
 that variation was the concept of the game.  
> The phrase, "combination of space-time" suggests that H.
>is talking about space and time forming a single metric in
>contradistinction to pre-relativistic physics in which time and space
>are separable.  It is the abandonment of absolute time that is outside
>intuition, that "does not belong to any of the experimenters".  Or so
>I would guess, given only the text.  In any event, it is quite
>unlikely that H. was speaking of a particular physical constant in an
>equation.
 Of course, we need not be so sure that H and D are talking about 
 the same thing.  ;-)  But if they are, then I think my conclusion 
 is unchanged after recasting everything in those terms.  As stated 
 above, I would take that to be a statement that the concept of the 
 game is those things one fiddles with - and the really big game The
 Big E was playing in concerned changing things that had been constant, 
 been centers, for centuries.  Of course, this was only temporarily 
 unsettling -- mostly to the old folks like Lorentz and my "absolute 
 whatever" friends in sci.physics.relativity -- since it allowed the 
 unification of mechanics and E+M into electrodynamics, a step that 
 was stabilizing rather than destabilizing for physics. 
-- 
 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. 

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>OK, so here is the question.  Do you think that Newton could've got a 
>>>different result for the law of gravity, if his background would've 
>>>been different?  Yes or No?
>>   You claimed it was false to say that any important part of physics
>>was based in mysticism; but if it's true that Newton imported action
>>-at-a-distance from his hermetic studies (which isn't clear -- Lew
>>thinks it may be an over-simplification), then his work is at least 
>>partly based in mysticism.  Whether he would have gotten different
>>results if he had a different background is a different question.  (I'm
>>nearly certain I mentioned that once or twice before.)
>I asked yes or no?
You don't understand.  Moggin does not deal in questions that can be
answered with yes or no.
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 does not belong in sci.physics; followups set to s.p.relativity 
 where this and related threads appear.  My replies to any of these 
 mis- or cross-posted articles concerning relativity will only go to 
 that group with the exception of a random note like this one. 
Keith Stein  writes:
> 
>Suprisingly Gary no changes at all would be required, because  
>Maxwell's Equations predict:-
>
>                c_m = 1/(mu * epsilon)^.5 
>
>        where  mu   = the magnetic permeability of THE MEDIUM.
>        and epsilon = the electric permittivity of THE MEDIUM.
>        and c_m = the velocity of light relative to THE MEDIUM.
>
>and remember,Gary,there is always SOME MEDIUM everywhere.  Therefore,
>Maxwell's equations are not only consistent with, but in reality DEMAND   
>a 'c+v' model, where v is the velocity of the observer relative to
>THE MEDIUM, of course.
 Consider what those equations look like when v = c or -c. 
 Or, consider the lowly electron ripping along with c-v = 0.001 m/s. 
 What is epsilon for this little observer?  Does it really see 
 electrostatic and magnetic effects changed by the amount Ken 
 would predict?  Merely asking these questions shows that the 
 equations would have to change -- just as implied by Ken's 
 statement above: the constants would depend on v, a number that 
 no one knows (including Ken), and thus would be totally useless. 
-- 
 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 <57b5vt$9ut@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) wrote:
+You don't understand.  Moggin does not deal in questions that can be
+answered with yes or no.
This may be the only good thing I have ever heard from or about moggin...
-- 
Michael L. Siemon                             mls@panix.com        
        "sempiternal, though sodden towards sundown."

PeterW wrote:
> 
> squatch@radix.net wrote:
> >
> >>The concepts of the universe revolving around a stationary flat
> >>earth and crystal spheres with celestial bodies attached to it
> >>go back thousands of years before Ptolemy. The bible is littered
> >>with verses about the flat stationary earth and a sky dome with
> >>the Sun, Moon, and stars attached. This is the way the sky appeared
> >>to the writers of the bible from Genesis through the end of the New
> >>Testament.
> 
> >Would you care to post these verses in which these references appear?
> >After reading the Bible through over 20 times, I still have yet to
> >come across one verse that indicates that the Earth is flat.  I'd just
> >like to know what verse you're going to quote to me that says that it
> >is.  Be careful though, I do know both Greek and Hebrew, and I will
> >check the original languages if I think that you're using an extremely
> >liberal Bible.
> >
> >And now, just to have a little bit of fun . . . verses which go
> >directly against what you have said.  Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that
> >sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth." 
This only would indicate a circular flat earth which would make sense 
to an ancient civilization if you look outside and follow the horizon.
If you wanted a scientifically accurate scripture it would have said 
sphere or near sphere or ball or egg or something simimlar.
 Job 38:13-14, "The earth . . .
> >is turned as clay to the seal."  Job 26:7, "He . . . hangeth the earth
> >upon nothing.
This proves that all the foundation and pillars of the earth scriptures
are being contridicted (common occurance in the bible).
> >
> >Now, produce some verses that say that the earth is flat, or that it
> >revolves around the sun.  Have fun . . . they're not there.
> >
> >Kevin
******** Here are the verses that "aren't there". *******************
> Keep in mind that this was the universe to most ancient people at the time
> these were written. Flat earth, immovable, with celestial bodies affixed
> to plates (glass or crystal) rotating around the earth. Rain water stored
> above the plates of glass periodically falling down to make clouds and rain.
>
> ==============
> Earth is flat:
> ==============
>
> Notice that the tree grows from the "center" of a flat earth and is visable
> to the "ends" of the flat earth. (impossible on a near spherical earth)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Dan 4:10 NRSV)  Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the
> center of the earth, and its height was great.
>
> (Dan 4:11 NRSV)  The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven,
> and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.
>
> The devil could not show Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth if it was
> near spherical, the author had to have envisioned a flat earth.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Mat 4:8 NRSV)  Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed
> him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;
>
> Edges of a flat earth
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Job 38:13 NIV)  that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked
> out of it?
>
> Longer on a flat earth
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Job 11:9 NRSV)  Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.
>
> Satan walks in one direction and then perpendicular in another on a flat earth
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Job 1:7 NRSV)  The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered
> the LORD, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."
>
> One end of a flat earth to the other end of a flat earth (near spherical earth had no ends)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Deu 13:7 NRSV)  any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near
> you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other,
>
> Here is a few verses that mention the ends of a flat earth, there are dozens more
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8,
> Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5,
> Psa 72:8
>
> ================
> Immovable earth:
> ================
>
> Set the world on pillars for foundation (impossible if it's moving in space)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (1 Sam 2:8 NRSV)   For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.
>
> (Isa 24:18 NRSV)  For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.
>
> ==============================================
> Dome sky with celestial bodies attached to it:
> ==============================================
>
> (Gen 1:6 NRSV)  And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate
> the waters from the waters."
> (Waters above were to periodically leak down through sluice gate/windows of heaven Gen 7:11 to make
> clouds and rain after the flood)
>
> (Psa 148:4 NRSV)  Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
>
> (Gen 1:7 NRSV)  So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the
> waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
>
> (Gen 1:14 NRSV)  And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from
> the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
>
> (Gen 1:15 NRSV)  and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And
> it was so.
>
> (Gen 1:16 NRSV)  God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser
> light to rule the night--and the stars.
>
> (Gen 1:17 NRSV)  God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
>
> (Notice that the lights (Sun and Moon) and the stars are *in* the dome below the waters that are above it)
>
> (Job 22:14 NRSV)  Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.'
>
> the sky dome is hard as molten mirror
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Job 37:18 NRSV)  Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
>
> (Job 26:11 NRSV)  The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astounded at his rebuke.
>
> (2 Sam 22:8 NRSV)  Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations of the heavens trembled
> and quaked, because he was angry.
>
> Sky/Heaven/dome is opening and closing letting angels and rain through.
> Keep in mind here the same Hebrew word for dome (shamayim) is used interchangably for heaven and heavens.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (2 Chr 6:26 NRSV)  "When heaven (same Heb word as dome) is shut up and there is no rain because they have
> sinned against  you, and then they pray toward this place, confess your name, and turn from their sin...
>
> (Psa 78:23 NRSV)  Yet he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven (same Heb word as dome);
>
> (Dan 8:10 NRSV)  It grew as high as the host of heaven. It threw down to the earth some of the host and
> some of the stars, and trampled on them.
>
> (Psa 148:4 NRSV)  Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
>
> (Mal 3:10 NRSV)  Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus
> put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour
> down for you an overflowing blessing. (talking about rain for crops)
>
> (Rev 11:6 NRSV)  They have authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days of their
> prophesying, ...
>
> (Isa 34:4 NRSV)  All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll.
>
> (Rev 6:14 NRSV)  The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was
> removed from its place.
>
> (John 1:51 NRSV)  And he said to him, "Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels
> of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."
>
> (Acts 10:11 NRSV)  He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered
> to the ground by its four corners.
>
> crystal spheres or differing plates the celestial bodies are attached to
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Job 22:12 NRSV)  "Is not God high in the heavens? See the highest stars, how lofty they are!
>
> (2 Cor 12:2 NRSV)  I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third
> heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows.
>
> My fingers are getting tired, there are many many more but to list them would be very
> repetitive.
>
> --
> Capella
> Dallas, Texas

Brian K. Thomason (thomason@primenet.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:51:11 -0600, tomk@fishgame.state.ak.us wrote:
: 
: >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.
: >
: 
: 
: Wow, does that first paragraph really look out of place with the
: second paragraph. I have high school graduates making that.
: 
: BKT(SS)
They probably overlook the fact that their applicants lack a 
Green Card!
Note also that the required writing and communication skill doesn't
specify English!
                                   Harry C.
                                       Harry C.
: 
: BKT

Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Todd (tprepsky@pepvax.pepperdine.edu) wrote:
>> Neither of you have even touched upon deconstruction itself.  It is
>> Deconstruction assumes a system of binary opposition that can be
>> reduced to the irreducible, i.e., to set the two sides oscillating
>> against each other.  This is a very basic explanation but one which
>> will suffice to make a distinction between what you're talking about
>> and what I'm talking about.
> 
> Well, no. This is not basic but reductive. Deconstruction doesn't
> assume, it reads.
Yes and yes again.  It does not exist *apart* from a given reading, or a 
collection thereof.  Thus 'deconstruction' as a denomination is a 
convenient fiction.  We won't even talk about 'deconstructionism'...
The phrase 'oscillating against each other' is a bit clumsy as well.  
There are no conflicting poles once erasure has removed them.
-- brian

bflanagn@sleepy.giant.net wrote:
> 
> On 21 Nov 1996, Lee Wai Kit wrote:
> 
> > bflanagn@sleepy.giant.net:
> > : R, G & B are the colors to which the photopigments in our eyes are most
> > : responsive.
	Actually that model, the tri-chomatic model is not a complete
discription.  Human eyes are sensitive to 3 sets of contrasts: 
red-green, violet-yellow, and black-white if I remeber correctly.  And
various combinations of these sets of contrasts can produce all the
colors we experience.
 Any other color (with the exception of violet, I believe) can
> > : be formed by superimposing R, G & B according to the laws of vector
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > : addition. This is interesting because the photons which excite our
> >   ^^^^^^^^^
	Either way, it's still correct that one can make all the colors humans
experience by combinations of those colors.
Nick Cummings

On Sun Nov 23, 96 at 7:57 Am PT al (fogelman@ctainforms.com) wrote:
>Dear You All: 
>Why argue the point?  
We argue the point because mental midgets keep trying to drag us back to
the dark ages and beyond.   And because some young and impressionable
minds might read some of the cretinist crap posted here and not have a
chance to see it refuted.
>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. 
Given the choice of whether to believe the fossils in thousands of feet of
ancient rock or to believe the scribblings of an ancient (and
plagiaristic) tribe with an obvious axe to grind, I choose the rocks. 
Given that there are numerous ancient texts, *all* of which contradict the
bible (including the bible itself), one would not know which to believe,
if any but it is certain that at most one can be true.  The bible cannot
be the (at most) *one* that is true, because it contradicts itself.  It
also contradicts the evidence in the rocks, and thus, if there is a god
and he wrote the bible and he built the rocks, he must be lying to us
anyway.  
>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.
One problem is that this *witness* reported the order of creation in two
contradictory ways in Genesis.  
>May God bless all those who believe with the knowledge of the certain
>truth of creation, thank you, love you, al.
I don't expect an answer, because you cretinists never have the courage to
respond when you are caught in a lie.
Mark Folsom

Brian Davis (davis@miphys.physics.lsa.umich.edu) wrote:
: In an article, David Kaufman wrote:
: Point #1:
: > At 100 C a water molecule has to escape a force of about 1.91E-10 N.
:    You did this by taking the heat of vaporization (40.1 kJ/mole) divided
: by 6.02e+23, and then using a "distance" between water molecules based on
: them being in a FCC structure and having a density of 1 g/cc, correct?
:    * Liquid water is not in a FCC structure - it's a liquid, and it's
: intermolecular spacing will may be larger or smaller (I know, in general
: it's smaller than the solid, witness the density of water vs. ice).
:    * I presume you used the equation Work (or Energy) = Force * Distance.
: But this only works for constant forces - you must do the integral from
: you're starting point to your end point, and the force will vary.
: Additionally, you seem to be doing
:    Force = [ ( 40.1 kJ/mole ) / ( 6.02e+23 mol/mole ) ] / ( 3.53e-10 m )
:    But the distance between the start and end point is infinte - you have
: to remove your sample water molecule to the point where there is no
: interaction with the surface. I think you're using the wrong distance in
: an incorrect formula.
:    And how does your computer program work? No details. There are
: certainly interactions with more than 1 other molecule.
Point #1:  When Are All Work Paths For An Atom Equal?
	In conservative fields like the gravitational and 
electric field, according to Young's book, "University 
Physics", all work paths on a particle between any 2 points 
are equal.
	Therefore, the potential energy between 2 points is 
found from subtracting the potential energy at one point 
from that at the other point.
What Is The Potential Energy Of An Escaping Atom?
	The potential energy is the force on a particle at one 
point times the distance the particle is from that force. 
	Past calculations (if I remember correctly) showed that
over 87% of the forces on an atom are from 5 particles in a 
square pased pyramid, in which the atom sits forming an 
octahedron.
	The distance to the center of the octrahedron is 70.7% 
of d, where d is the distance between 2 adjacent bonded 
atoms. 
	Using this smallest possible distance to divide the 
maximum possible potential energy made up of the heat of 
vaporization, and the rotational kinetic energies, gives the
largest possible force holding the water molecule in place.
	Heres the calculation to find force from energy:
      F = U/d
Heat of vaporization      = 6.752E-20 J/molecule to escape.
Rotational Energy Melting = 1.005E-20
  "    Heating 0 to 100 C = 1.046E-20
   Total Potential Energy = 8.802E-20 J
Therefore, the largest possible force is as follows;
  Force = Potential energy / distance
      F = 8.02E-20/(.707 (3.5E-10)) = 3.241E-10 N/molecule.
Student Challenge:
	Consider how to find the center of force from which 
many atoms act to prevent an atom escape is another 
challenge that some students can undertake as a valuable 
project in dealing with atom forces on escaping atoms or 
molecules.
How to Calculate Distance Between 2 Atoms From Density:
	The distance I calculated between 2 water atoms is a 
reasonable approximation (within 6% of the true value of the
distance) from a density calculation.  
	Particles when in a simple cubic structure give the smallest distance between atoms from density calculations. 
	The maximum distance between 2 atoms is only 1.125 
times greater than the simple cubic distance. The maximum 
distance occurs under the face centered cube (FCC) structure
assumption.  However, most atom structures don't form simple
cubic structures.  Explaining why would be another useful 
project for students.
Calculation To Find Distance Between 2 Water Molecules At 
100 C:
	      ml     18.015 g      mol                   m^3
  ddd = -------  ---------  ---------------------   -------
       .9584 g    H2O mol     6.022E+23 molecules   10^6 ml
  d = (3.1214E-29)^(1/3) = 3.149E-10 m
	Choosing d = 3.149E-10 m as the distance between 2 
water molecules means choosing a simple cubic structure for 
the arrangement of the water molecules as a liquid 
at 100 C.
	However, it seems that gases and liquids would form FCC
structures because of its symmetry that (I believe) leads to
a least energy arrangement. But this has to be yet proved. 
Another useful student project here is to prove (or 
disprove) that a FCC structure is a least energy structure 
for Spheres.
	To change a simple cubic distance from density to a 
more likely FCC distance, multiply the simple cubic distance
by 1.1225.      For example for water, the true distance 
between 2 molecules is probably about d, calculated as follows:
           d = 1.1225 (3.149E-10) = 3.534E-10 m
What is the speed of an escaping water molecule?
	When the heat of vaporization begins, the water 
molecule speed on average is at temperature 100 C. This 
average speed will be maintained on average because the 
temperature remains the same in the gas as the temperature 
in the liquid when under equilibrium conditions for any pure
substance. 
	Thus the heat of vaporization goes into giving a 
molecule a high enough speed which for water is over 3 times
the average speed. This heat of vaporization energy plus the
rotational energy is converted to a high speed molecule so 
that it can escape. During the escape this energy is 
converted to potential energy and the average speed of the 
temperature under which vaporization occurs. 
Calculation to find the escape speed of the water molecule.
 v = (2 K /m)^.5
         2 (8.802E-20 J)     molecule
 v(v) =    -------------   -------------
            molecule      2.991E-26 kg
v = 2426 m/s is the escape speed of the water molecule
Calculaztion to find the root mean speed of a water molecule
at 100 C: u = root mean speed
u = 6.4358E-12 (T/M)^.5 
(T/M) = (373.15/2.991E-26) = 
u = 718.9 m/s is the speed that is used for temperature 
calculations for kenetic energy of gas particles. 
Note: The potential energy of the atom after escape is 0. 
	This allows the force to be calculated to a fair 
approximation as shown above as: force = 3.241E-10 N per 
molecule. N = newton = a little less than 1/4 pound. 
	What use is this force? What's the value in knowing how
a water molecule behaves on the surface, escapes and changes
viscosity, surface tension and density between 0 and 100 C?
Who Can Defend My Position?
	So this above discussion is my defense of my physics 
understanding, regarding point #1.
	I look forward to a defense of the rest of my positions
that you refer to in your points 2 to 5 below (when time 
permits).
	Perhaps some student or teacher could make an effort to
support my other ideas under investigation currently by 
Brian Davis from the Physics Department at the University of
Michiga below.
Thanks for joining this undertaking.
: Point #2:
: >         At 100 C the force on a water molecule in the water 
: > surface is at most 2.08E-11 N calculated from the surface 
: > tension as follows (This assumes tension in only the top 1 
: > layer of molecules.):
: > 
: >              .05885 N    3.534E-10 m    2.08E-11 N
: >     Force =  ---------   ----------- =  ----------
: >                   m       molecule       molecule 
:    * Surface tension is not due to the single top layer of molecules - it
: is due to the interaction of a surface molecule with all it's nearest
: neighbors (to a 1st approx.), and that certainly includes the molecules
: *under it*. This is a major contribution, and cannot be ignored.
:    * The uncertainty in these numbers is much larger than you are showing
: here, and *that* is at least as important as calculating the numbers -
: teach what the limits of the calculation are, where it is valid and at
: what point it fails, not just how to get a number.
: Point #3
: >         How can it be explained that the force holding water 
: > molecules together (1.91E-10 N) is 9.2 times greater than 
: > the pull along the surface on a water molecule which is 
: > 2.08E-11 N?
:    * Ignoring the point that both numbers are probably not correct, the
: most important thing to remember is that we are *not* talking about simple
: forces and mechanics - you must use statistical mechanics. In fact, the
: average force holding an average water molecule to the surface of the
: liquid *is* greater than the average force needed it break away and
: evaporate... but it is not *average* molecules that evaporate. It is the
: high-energy tail of a *distribution* of molecules, moving with various
: speed and energies, and this makes the question (in terms of classical
: mechanics) very complex.
:    My advice - don't use mechanics. Use thermodynamics, that's what it's
: there for. Their are better platforms to teach mechanics - like mechanics
: of falling objects, bouncing balls, and my favorite, mechanics on the
: playground (ever seen a ball roll in a perfect circle and come back to
: you? You can on a platground, and the kids might just teach you
: something).
: Point #4:
: >         How can this difference in forces be explained with 
: > precise figures and calculations?
:    People are still doing cutting-edge research on how water evaporates.
: It appears, for instance, that it may do it in small clumps, not as single
: molecules at all. And water is one of the single oddest substances to
: understand - just because it's common doesn't mean it's simple.
: >         Students could try their hand on force diagrams. I 
: > haven't started making figures at the water surface that 
: > could explain this large difference. It seems like a real 
: > creative challenge in understanding atom forces.
:    It is - very challenging to get right. It might be a good example of
: critical thinking, and also an example of a complex task that maybe cannot
: be solved by some simple method.
: Point #5:
: > Note:  As a Good approximation for force between atoms:  
: >                    Force = C/r^6
: > Where C is a constant and r^6 = rrrrrr where r is some 
: > useful starting distance between the atoms.
:    If you are refering to Van der Waals forces, there are at least 3 types
: I know of:
:    1) dipole-dipole attraction, which is important for polar liquids like
: water. This is proportional to 1/r^7
:    2) dipole-induced attraction, in which the dipole field of a polar
: molecule induces a dipole in a non-polar molecule (not nearly as important
: for water). This also goes as 1/r^7
:    3) dispersion forces, in which charge-fluxuations around neutral
: molecules cause an attractive force. I don't remember how this varys with
: distance at this moment, but this might be the 1/r^6 approximation you
: were using. This is not the major component for water.
:                                                    -Brian Davis
: ref:
: [1] - Serway, "Physics for Scientists & Engineers", 3rd ed.
: [2] - Kittel, "Thermal Physics", 2nd ed. (although I don't like this book, it's 
:       the one on hand currently).
-- 
                                             davk@netcom.com

It might be worth mentioning that objects don't "reflect" radar
energy; they absorb and reradiate it.  This is one of the reasons for
the Stealth fighter's unique wings.  They're designed to focus most of
the radar energy aft.
-- 
                                 Bill
 ------------------------------------
| If everything is possible,         |
| nothing is knowable.  Be skeptical.|
 ------------------------------------

Point #1:  When Are All Work Paths For An Atom Equal?
	In conservative fields like the gravitational and 
electric field, according to Young's book, "University 
Physics", all work paths on a particle between any 2 points 
are equal.
	Therefore, the potential energy between 2 points is 
found from subtracting the potential energy at one point 
from that at the other point.
What Is The Potential Energy Of An Escaping Atom?
	The potential energy is the force on a particle at one 
point times the distance the particle is from that force. 
	Past calculations (if I remember correctly) showed that
over 87% of the forces on an atom are from 5 particles in a 
square pased pyramid, in which the atom sits forming an 
octahedron.
	The distance to the center of the octrahedron is 70.7% 
of d, where d is the distance between 2 adjacent bonded 
atoms. 
	Using this smallest possible distance to divide the 
maximum possible potential energy made up of the heat of 
vaporization, and the rotational kinetic energies, gives the
largest possible force holding the water molecule in place.
	Heres the calculation to find force from energy:
      F = U/d
Heat of vaporization      = 6.752E-20 J/molecule to escape.
Rotational Energy Melting = 1.005E-20
  "    Heating 0 to 100 C = 1.046E-20
   Total Potential Energy = 8.802E-20 J
Therefore, the largest possible force is as follows;
  Force = Potential energy / distance
      F = 8.02E-20/(.707 (3.5E-10)) = 3.241E-10 N/molecule.
Student Challenge:
	Consider how to find the center of force from which 
many atoms act to prevent an atom escape is another 
challenge that some students can undertake as a valuable 
project in dealing with atom forces on escaping atoms or 
molecules.
How to Calculate Distance Between 2 Atoms From Density:
	The distance I calculated between 2 water atoms is a 
reasonable approximation (within 6% of the true value of the
distance) from a density calculation.  
	Particles when in a simple cubic structure give the smallest distance between atoms from density calculations. 
	The maximum distance between 2 atoms is only 1.125 
times greater than the simple cubic distance. The maximum 
distance occurs under the face centered cube (FCC) structure
assumption.  However, most atom structures don't form simple
cubic structures.  Explaining why would be another useful 
project for students.
Calculation To Find Distance Between 2 Water Molecules At 
100 C:
	      ml     18.015 g      mol                   m^3
  ddd = -------  ---------  ---------------------   -------
       .9584 g    H2O mol     6.022E+23 molecules   10^6 ml
  d = (3.1214E-29)^(1/3) = 3.149E-10 m
	Choosing d = 3.149E-10 m as the distance between 2 
water molecules means choosing a simple cubic structure for 
the arrangement of the water molecules as a liquid 
at 100 C.
	However, it seems that gases and liquids would form FCC
structures because of its symmetry that (I believe) leads to
a least energy arrangement. But this has to be yet proved. 
Another useful student project here is to prove (or 
disprove) that a FCC structure is a least energy structure 
for Spheres.
	To change a simple cubic distance from density to a 
more likely FCC distance, multiply the simple cubic distance
by 1.1225.      For example for water, the true distance 
between 2 molecules is probably about d, calculated as follows:
           d = 1.1225 (3.149E-10) = 3.534E-10 m
What is the speed of an escaping water molecule?
	When the heat of vaporization begins, the water 
molecule speed on average is at temperature 100 C. This 
average speed will be maintained on average because the 
temperature remains the same in the gas as the temperature 
in the liquid when under equilibrium conditions for any pure
substance. 
	Thus the heat of vaporization goes into giving a 
molecule a high enough speed which for water is over 3 times
the average speed. This heat of vaporization energy plus the
rotational energy is converted to a high speed molecule so 
that it can escape. During the escape this energy is 
converted to potential energy and the average speed of the 
temperature under which vaporization occurs. 
Calculation to find the escape speed of the water molecule.
 v = (2 K /m)^.5
         2 (8.802E-20 J)     molecule
 v(v) =    -------------   -------------
            molecule      2.991E-26 kg
v = 2426 m/s is the escape speed of the water molecule
Calculaztion to find the root mean speed of a water molecule
at 100 C: u = root mean speed
u = 6.4358E-12 (T/M)^.5 
(T/M) = (373.15/2.991E-26) = 
u = 718.9 m/s is the speed that is used for temperature 
calculations for kenetic energy of gas particles. 
Note: The potential energy of the atom after escape is 0. 
	This allows the force to be calculated to a fair 
approximation as shown above as: force = 3.241E-10 N per 
molecule. N = newton = a little less than 1/4 pound. 
	What use is this force? What's the value in knowing how
a water molecule behaves on the surface, escapes and changes
viscosity, surface tension and density between 0 and 100 C?
Who Can Defend My Position?
	So this above discussion is my defense of my physics 
understanding, regarding point #1.
	I look forward to a defense of the rest of my positions
that you refer to in your points 2 to 5 below (when time 
permits).
	Perhaps some student or teacher could make an effort to
support my other ideas under investigation currently by 
Brian Davis from the Physics Department at the University of
Michigan.
Thanks for joining this undertaking.
	Good luck on this exciting adventure to find useful 
projects to explore and the tools to empower and to succeed 
with.
	I offer this post to continue a useful discussion on 
many valuable ideas about atoms that could become meaningful
projects for students and others to undertake.
____________________________________________________________
  Thanks to those who have offered constructive criticism.
             C by David Kaufman, Nov. 24, 1996
                  Founder of the Cube Club
   For Collaborative Math, Science and Ethics Excellence.
         Be Good, Do Good, Be One, and Then Go Jolly.
                 What else is there to do? 
-- 
                                             davk@netcom.com

In article <57b5vt$9ut@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>
>>>>OK, so here is the question.  Do you think that Newton could've got a 
>>>>different result for the law of gravity, if his background would've 
>>>>been different?  Yes or No?
>
>>>   You claimed it was false to say that any important part of physics
>>>was based in mysticism; but if it's true that Newton imported action
>>>-at-a-distance from his hermetic studies (which isn't clear -- Lew
>>>thinks it may be an over-simplification), then his work is at least 
>>>partly based in mysticism.  Whether he would have gotten different
>>>results if he had a different background is a different question.  (I'm
>>>nearly certain I mentioned that once or twice before.)
>
>>I asked yes or no?
>
>You don't understand.  Moggin does not deal in questions that can be
>answered with yes or no.
>
Oh, I do understand this.  That's why I ask :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"