Newsgroup sci.physics 210497

Directory

On 25 Nov 1996, jason cooper wrote:
> 
> If we want to measure the beat frequency of a laser, however, one
> of two things will have to happen (near as I can tell, and
> assuming the laser is somewhere near 650 nm):
> 
Laser speed guns do not work on doppler shift. They work by range finding.
Send out a pulse, and see how long it takes to return. Send out another
one a short time later, and see how long that one takes to return. You
know the speed of light, and so you know the distance the target is away
each time. Divide this by the time, and you get the speed.
In practice, lots and lots of pulses are sent out, to supposedly get a
reliable average speed. If you only used two pulses, you could have a
problem. For example, if the first pulse bounced off the front of the
roof, but the next one came back from the front of the car, then it would
appear that the car had covered a greater distance in the given time, and
so was travelling faster than it actually was.
Whilst multiple pulses should hopefully reduce the possibility of this, I
would be very skeptical of it eradicating the chance of a false reading.
The laser speed traps they use in Britain can apparently pick out a
motorbike among traffic at over half a mile away. At this distance, it is
difficult to see the trap, and so it makes things that little bit more
risky for those of us who speed.
Cheers,
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

brian artese writes:
# intent exists only in a given articulation.  And to the
# extent that people think unspoken articulations, I would
# grant that intent exists in those unspoken articulations.
#  But the important point for this thread's argument is
# that there is no such thing as a non-articulatable intent
# that 'gives birth' to articulations, which is the
# traditional conception of intent. The only thing that  
# gives birth to intent are other signifiers.
I emphatically disagree.
You are presuming an inviolable correspondence theory between signifier
and intent.  Consider some set of signifiers that gives birth to some 
particular intent; now suppose circumstances change so that the intent
cannot be articulated. What happens to this intent, as well as all the
other intents that have become dissociated from their original functions ?  
"I was beaten as a child"; "I have the intention not to beat my wife". 
Answer: It reappears under other guises; the new intent appears mysteriously 
in a vacuum of signifiers.
# When somebody says, "I didn't understand what your last
# message.  What did you intend to say?" -- that is simply a
# request for a re-statement of the message in another way,
# with a different articulation.  You will notice that
# 'intent' is invoked *exclusively* to help us out with
# these scenarios in which an initial articulation 'didn't
# work,' or when an initial articulation is thought to act
# as a 'code' -- like the way we think of literature.  You
# always end up talking about 'intent' when you talk about
# literature because the text seems to want to say more than
# it *does* say.
Yet a literal reading of text, letter by letter, yields only the poorest
meanings. Even Derrida does not limit himself in this way -- the subject
of the lectures in Given Time (that book again) is "the Sun and the
King, the Sun-King", yet the book is not a lexicon of dictionary
synonyms for "the Sun and the King, the Sun-King", and the connection
of the text with this (at least epistemologically) transcendent notion
is never extablished. What are we to make of this line of Derrida's,
other than its being a spurious glitch ?
We talk about *intent* in literature because we believe that thought
about meaning of text is better facilitated by a process of hypothesis
(which may be all-encompassing) and refinement, the ultimate aim being
to see an image of the work's form, and perhaps work it into a personal
system. We believe in the reader's identification with concepts existing
in and above the text, encouraging the reader's personal synthesis of these. 
It is a global rather than local view, though of course it must ultimately 
concur with the evidence. We want to read what is in the text, not the words 
of the text.
# It is irrefutable that *something* has to let us know that
# there is something *to be said* in the first place; that
# something -- even if it's only a raised eyebrow -- is a
# signifier.  
This ignores maybe the most fundamental question of all, which I've
already spoken of above: which actions, deeds, words, thoughts,
correspond to which actions, deeds, words, thoughts? Was the motion of
my neighbour's eyebrow supposed to be meaningful, or was it just a
twitch? Was that his response to the citcumstances, or a distant memory
reappearing ?
We just cannot know. 
# Intent *is* that very signifier that 'reaches
# out to' or 'calls for' a (possibly) better signifier, a
# better articulation.  
Intent is not necessarily a signifier fro reasons given above; moreover, 
it may be the very form that inheres in the better articulation that 
_was always there_, only forgotten.
# When the listener in my scenario is
# finally satisfied with one of your paraphrases, your
# clarifying articulations, then you can point to that
# statement and say, '*that* is what I intended to say.'
# Notice that 'intended' in this statement simply means
# 'wanted'.  You might also point to the statement and say
# 'That is what I intended,' which simply means, 'That is
# what I wanted,' or 'that statement is what I wanted.'  In
# other words, 'that statement is what I lacked.'  And even
# if you both discover other paraphrases that 'work' just as
# well, all decisions about intent began and ended with
# actual signifiers.
They could have begun with a spuriously twiching eyebrow, or an eyebrow
twitching because of a long lost memory returning, by accident,
misinterpretation of a "signifier" produced by a form that was and is
always there, the one that wants to ask that stranger to articulate my
intention for me.
# *What* you want to say, in other words, are words, not an
# 'intent.'  
But the want has to come from somewhere. It comes from an affinity for
"the Sun and the King, the Sun-King".
# The only thing you 'intend' to say are words.
But I intend to convey a *form*.
# The reason that articulation X is 'correct' for your
# purposes, but Y is not, is that X 'fits' better into the
# context that makes your statement 'make sense.'  
No. The reason is articulation Y cannot convey this form in any context;
or, the contexts it requires to convey this meaning are
completely absurd in the context of the story of the brave general.
In general, there are an infinite number of correct articulations, and
many more wrong ones.
(Peter Porter told me once, on writing poetry: "There are no rules, but
many penalties".)
# Another way to say it:  because X effectively orients one's
# thinking in the direction of that context (a context that,
# as Fish says, must be learned first before such
# orientation can take place).  There are many factors that
# make X more appropriate (that is, appropriable) to (by)
# the correct context than Y, the most influential one
# involving the metonymic links between the words in X and
# those that tend to be found in that discursive context.
One tries to think of all possible contexts.
Mr. X writes:
: [...] I was
: questioning why pomos should agree
: that that was the only possible
: context. As for as the receivers of
#: the message are concerned, they
#: take it as a given that the sender
#: INTENDED to send a meaningful
#: message, and thus they picked the
#: most reasonable choice withing
#: their cultural context. But pomos
#: seem to deny that the commander's
#: intention should be used in deciphering
#: the message; so why pick the Bible ?
#Notice that your 'intended' here is simply a synonym for 
#'wanted,' and is therefore of a different order than the 
#'intent' of the phrase 'the Commander's intent.'
Simple answer to the question: they picked the Bible because 
they intended to win the war. 
#-- brian
jw

This is a request for information on companies or other retailers that
supply insulating transformers.  I am a researcher at Chiang Mai
University, Thailand and build ION implantors for research purposes.  
What I'm looking for are transformers with 110V in 110V out at 300VA
rating with an insulation rating between primary and secondary of
6000V.  If any one can assist please contact me via e-mail at
rhodes@istrd.cmu.ac.th

Dear all,
I would be grateful if you could tell me how to construct (cheaply!) a
cloud chamber. Instructions or reference material will be greatly
appreciated.
Yours faithfully,
Lucas.
******************** Dr Lucas S Karatzas ***************************
Department of Cybernetics     |   Tel: +44 (0)118 931 6796, 931 8219
The University of Reading     |     or 9875123 ext-4397/7661
PO Box 225, Whiteknights      |   Fax: +44 (0)118 931 8220
Reading RG6 6AY, Berks, UK.   |   Email: L.S.Karatzas@rdg.ac.uk
***** http://www.cyber.rdg.ac.uk/staff/people/lsk/lsk.htm **********

In article <3299F627.650ED260@mit.edu>,
	Joseph Edward Nemec  writes:
>> Finished my Masters degree, thanks very much. When are you done with yours
>> Joe???
> 
> I finished it in October. It's my second. I did mean to get it done in
> May, but my research for my Ph.D. was going so well that I delayed it.
Ah, a shirker, a workshy git.  Bloody students.  Still, explains your
obsession with the dole, I guess, since it fits in with your own lifestyle
so well!
Chris.

moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
> 
>>Since you seem unable or unwilling to answer a simple question, 
>>I consider this conversation to be pointless. 
>   It's pointless because you don't want to converse.  And I won't
>insist that you do.  You've got my answers,  if you want to reply;
>if you don't, that's fine, too -- I didn't expect much, in any case.
Notably absent among the flurry of postings, quoted repostings, and
posturings were any direct answer to the question mati asked, neither
"yes" nor "no" nor even "I haven't the foggiest and don't give a
shit".   How utterly quaint.
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.

brian artese jokes:
#Actually, the demystification of the Author as lord of meaning 
#(i.e., as the 'owner' of intent) was accomplished long ago by 
#Lao Tsu, the first great deconstructor.  
Of course, the Author almost never knows *exactly* what he will write,
he only has some vague inkling; so he can hardly be the "lord of
meaning". The role intent plays is far more subtle than that.
Of course, too,  an artist's being chained to the "Tao" of his work is nothing 
to do with deconstruction. People were making the same claims about their 
favorite beliefs in the 60's using Herman Hesse as their vehicle; and any 
number of remarks exist about this-or-that writer's hand being guided "by God". 
The observation doesn't explain why an author seems to fall towards one
description rather than another; moreover, it doesn't excuse the author
from charges of shallowness because the ground he began with was barren.
Where does an author's ground come from ?
A lot of the author's intent is already there with the ground he chooses
(cf. Heidegger at the start of "Being and Time", "it is there at the
start or it is never there" -- this can be construed to refer to any
number of things; Marguerite Duras says exactly the same line in the
context of sexual attraction in "The Lover"). 
The Japanese poet Basho used to stand over his pupils as they wrote haiku 
and smash them on the head and shoulders with a bamboo stick when they made 
one error or other. Why their poems eventually turned one way rather than 
another is more to do with something formless deep within, built up through 
years of experience -- nothing like a well-defined signifier. 
#Lao Tsu's erasure of the West's favorite 'marked' dichotomies is already well 
#known; 
Yet Chinese philosophy is fundamentally duallist (as is Christianity);
Heaven is separate from Earth. More to the point, on the subject of
authorial intent, the Law of Heaven has always stood apart from the Law 
of one's Conscience, and examples abound of the ultimate sacrifice by
certain stubborn writers. It seems a trivialization of their work not to
regard it in the light of their lives, though it doesn't always have to
be regarded in this way.
The "Tao of writing" should be recognized apart from the other relevent
observation, that things sometimes don't work out as you want them to,
yet in the process, a life is lived or a story written.
   "Who among us, in moments of ambition, has not dreamed of the miracle
   of a poetic prose, musical without rythm or rhyme, supple enough and
   rugged enough to adapt itself to the lyrical impulses of the soul, to
   the undulations of reverie, the sudden movements of the consciousness ?
                   [...]
   To tell the truth... As soon as I began the work, I realized that not
   only did I remain far from my mysteriuos and brilliant model, but what
   is more I was doing something (if it can be called something) that is
   singularly different, an accident which anyone else but me would glory
   in, no doubt, but which can only deeply humiliate a mind convinced that
   the greatest honour for a poet is to succeed in doing exactly what he
   has set out to do."
       -  Charles Baudelaire to Arsene Houssaye   
					(Given Time, J. Derrida p89)
#and among many other things, the 7th chapter of the 
#_Tao Te Ching's_ first book 're-states' what I've been saying. 
# Just substitute 'the author' for 'the sage', and realize that 
#'person' here also means 'persona':
#	'Heaven persists, earth endures.  The reason why 
#heaven and earth are able to persist and endure is that they 
#do not generate themselves, that is why they are able to be 
#persistently generated.  Therefore the sage
#	Puts his own person behind yet his person is ahead,
#	Puts his own person outside yet his person survives.'
#		
#		(tr. A.C. Graham)
#--brian
jw
"The objective of the writer is to kill the ego"
						- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Gordon:
>
>>>> First, let me ask you about the following:  given A is based on B, 
>>>>if B were different then A might be different also.  Do you agree with
>>>>that?
moggin:
>>>   Sure.
>>>
[...]
>Gordon:
>
>>  For the sake of argument, let's assume he did import action-at-a-distance
>>from his hermetic studies (whether or not he actually did doesn't matter
>>to me).  So, am I then correct in interpreting your statement above as 
>>meaning that you think the gravitational formula is based on hermeticism?  
>>Or are you making a distinction between "his work" and the gravitational
>>formula?  
moggin:
>
>   If we say that Newton imported action-at-a-distance to physics from 
>his hermetic studies (for the sake of argument), it follows that action-at-
>a-distance has its basis in a type of mysticism.  I don't know how to make
>it any simpler than that.
  But this is exactly where I think you're wrong.  Given what you agreed
to above ("given A is based on B, if B were different then A might be
different also"), and given your statement "action-at-a-distance is based
on a type of mysticism", this would imply that, if it weren't for
mysticism, then the gravitational formula (aka action-at-a-distance)
wouldn't necessarily hold true.  This is obviously not the case; the
gravatitional formula follows from the physical behavior of the planets,
and is completely independent of hermeticism.  In other words, the
gravitational formula would necessarily be just as accurate even if 
hermeticism never existed.
  Remember, I'm really talking about your statement "a part of physics 
is based on mysticism".  The physics is contained in the gravatational
formula itself -- not in Newton's motivations or in the source of his 
inspiration.  And this physics has no basis whatsoever in mysticism.
    - Gordon
--
#include 
Gordon Long                      |  email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE                         |    
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland)  |

I only saw this today (Tuesday) amidst the clutter...
Silke-Maria  Weineck writes:
[... sentence about nuptials deleted ...]
#Since you bring it up, here's something from the Duke Faculty Forum:
#"The phrase may not mean -- and does not seem to mean -=- a numerical 
#constant, as virtualy all the physicists who commented on it in print 
#appear to assume. Instead it appears to mean _the Einsteinian (or 
#Einsteinian-Minkokwskian) concept of space-time itself_, 
Though Plotnitsky is another "big famous person", I respectfully say,
he's miles off. Maybe you should come with me on a walk along
yonder garden path of theoretical physics to see how the game 
is played. 
The "Einsteinian constant" remark has nothing to do with the local
curvature, variability etc. of space-time, not even the "concept of
space-time itself". 
For starters, mathematics is a lot "bigger" than physics, mathematically 
true solutions (i.e. solutions true within a certain derivation) are being 
thrown away all the time on the grounds that they're "unphysical".  
What constitutes
a theoretical physics paper ? It's certainly not usually a logical derivation; 
there are numerous guesses, as well as honing down of unphysical mathematics; 
the Einstein constant was such a guess. But guesses are never utterly random, 
there's always some strategy or the end result just "seems" right. The kinds 
of guesses that are possible can only be learned from experience -- guesses, 
opportunistic insights arise from some formless, nameless hodge-podge of 
intuition. Instinct guided by experience. Maybe the main indicator of the 
nature of the theoretical physics game is that while mathematicians reach 
their peak in their mid-20's, theoretical physicists do so in their late-30's, 
early 40's. The TP's mind is different: he relies on a nexus of
experience, strange relations between disjoint examples that seem wildly
different to the ordinary eye. Often, especially in non-linear problems
(e.g. exactly solvable many-body problem in 1-D ... attractive fermions
with delta function potential), every variable is organically related to 
every other -- twiddle one, all the others go bung. Even worse, their
*definitions* change -- some parameters go complex, branches appear.... 
There's no simple handle-cranking formulation to manage such a system. You've 
got to play it by ear and hope for the best. Yet after a long while, you build 
up an intuition as to what the system will do -- it becomes like an analogue
computer.
The game of physics is in a sense like any serious undertaking. 
I do not include decon in this, because the depths of experience called
for in that kind of lit crit seems to me quite rudimentary -- one can
get away with too much, too easily. 
Derrida seems to understand a lot more than he actually writes -- he knows 
all the essences already. In a sense, the point of his writing is, indeed, 
to write what *is not*. You see, writing what *is* just puts the
feelings, insights into *circulation* -- they just become currency. He
builds his discourse inside out.
Unfortunately, with all these people avoiding writing things into
circulation, essences are recorded less and less, and eventually a cycle
of shallowness is perpetuated when new generations come along.
The nature of the shallowness is being addressed in recent posts in r.a.b.
Read the Iain Banks novel.
#That said, however, it 
#is more productive to take these complexities into account, to sort them 
#out to the degee possible, and to give these statements the most 
#sensible, rather than the most senseless, interpretation.
Plotnitsky accidentally gets closer to what the significance of the
Einstein constant is!
#greater congruence with relativity theory once one understands the term 
#"play/game" as connoting, in this context, the impossibility, within 
#Einstein's framework of space-time, of a unique or uniquely privileged 
#frame of reference -- a "center starting from which an observer could 
#master the field" (i.e. the whole of space-time). [...]
[...]
#reference from which they are seen). In short, one might see Derrida's 
#statement as alluding to standard features and questions at issue in 
#Einstein's relativity -- admittedly, in an idiom that is nonstandard, 
#especially for physicists.
#[...] Obviously, most scientists are not familiar with the ideas and 
#contexts that would enable them to offer the kind of reading of Derrida's 
#statement that is suggested here. 
[...]
#A serious engagement with Derrida's thought on the part of 
#scientists is possible, however, and we might yet see it. Then, perhaps, 
#we will also have a better understanding of why "the Einsteinian constant 
#is not a constant, is not a center," why "it is the very concept of 
#variability," and why "it is, finally, the concept of the game" -- or, if 
#that is the case, why it is none of the above."
Derrida was quite right in his remark to Hippolyte regarding the Einstein 
constant.
#Arkady Plotnitsky
Plotnitsky ought to have drawn more on his experience of reading "The
Snail on the Slope", an sf novel by the Stugatsky bros.
jw

  I admit to not knowing much about decon... but consider this. The
movers and shakers in the OSS/CIA (i.e. James Jesus Angleton) were
devotees of Ezra Pound... seeing the "hall of mirrors" that may have
arisen from these men, does anyone wish to provide conjecture as
to the possible outcome (skiffy ideas are more than welcome) of the
"utilization" of decon in the future world that we are waddling
drunkenly toward?
  And if so, what will the outcome be when decon is stuffed down the
orifices of the poor shlub on the street? 
  As I said.. conjecture...
-- 
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

From barr@euclid.colorado.edu Mon Nov 25 03:07:49 EST 1996
From: barr@euclid.colorado.edu (b0
Subject: Re: Does US use the mind machine on American people?
Date: 21 Nov 1996 21:13:39 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.colorado.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: barr
Originator: barr@euclid.Colorado.EDU
>Yes, they do. If I had not experienced it, and am now able to rememmber
>it, I would not believe it either. 
Thank you for your approval opinion.
>One other thing, most people who find out about this think that it is
>only for evil purposes. Though the entire concept may be evil, within
>that concept are attempts to do good.
Unfortunately, the mind control surveillance system neither can find 
the spy nor can reduce the crimes rate.
>That is, they use this technology to improve peoples lives. As L'hopital
(psuedonym) told me,"We've done a lot of good with this stuff."
I do believe that the "electronic" technoilogy can improve
people's lives in the Hospital.  
>Just hope you don't run into the bad stuff, and lord help you if you do.
No! it is all same to everyone, while this technology is used in the
invisible wave weapon.   And it only means injury, illness, or murder.
That's because the operators only use these invisible wave weapon to
secretly manipulate people's lives in the mind control surveillance
system.
I only write the facts that current mind control operators will
use the invisible wave weapon to injure, or even kill people in order
to supress their victims.
>I am not sure that they can actually "read" your mind 
I am passitive that the operators can use the mind machine to read
people's thoughts. 
That's because I had handled Taiwan military classified document of mind
machine (In Taiwan, we called it as psychological language machine-In
Chinese sounds as--"Sin Li Yue Yen Gi").
Furthermore, the _RADIO FREQUENCY DOSIMETRY HANDBOOK_ published 
by U.S. Air Force in 1986 has proven that reading human mind is not
the problem and they just want to increase the speed of mind reading
in order to know a target's reaction while this target is being
input with subliminal message (see detail on page 189, _ANGELS
DON'T PLAY THIS HAARP_ by Jeane Manning & Dr. Nick Begich).
We know that military eduction and trainning must base on the facts,
if not, they will lose the war in the battle field.
Therefore, the Air-force handbook has proven that mind reading is 
not a problem.
Not only the operators can read peoiple's mind in home but also can
read people's mind in car (I would emphasize it).
>but they can drug you, hypnotise you and ask you what is on your mind,
>and you will tell them. They can also communicate with people via
>electromagnetic waves and the person will hear it as his own thoughts.
>They can make you forget. They can make you say things, they can make you
>do things. And you will never know, unless they want you to. 
They do can make above for a long time.
>Of course there is the usual, known techniques of opening mail, reading
>your garbage, and tapping your phone. 
Such kinds of methods are part of entire surveillance system.
Reading information in people's garbage is mostly used to find the 
evidence of the crimes.
>There are also these "pretext phone calls" where they use a voice
>changing machine to imitate people you know over the phone.
I agree with your opinion here that the operators can imitate
people's voices with another device.
>I believe people like Yu are being allowed to post because they are
>"leaking" it.
No! You are wrong. 
Only our Constitution allow me to post it, no one else.
The operators have used the invisible wave weapon to attack me and my 
sons many times in order to stop me posting my articles.
Not only they censor my articles but also use the E-system device to 
interfere me while I write or post my articles.
I can finally post my articles because I use several servers to post my
articles.
However, they also use their rights to bother a few of my servers.
For example, I have used a cheap net server to post my articles.
After my articles make the operators' anger, I found that I cannot post
my articles from my cheap net server.
 That's because they only allow me to post short article (no over 80
lines).   However, my articles usuaslly need several hundred loine because
I need to use a lot of space to enclosed the informaton or express my
opinion. 
After the cheap net server limited the post lines, I cannot post 
my articles from it anymore.  So I drop my account from it.
The above situation has proven that I post my articles on internet very
diffcult.  Furthermore, they taped the phone to me and constantly 
interfere my connection to the internet server.
That's because they can intercept the modem transfers by using the 
device system of law enforcement (see detail below).
(attachment)--see page 204 on_ANGELS DON'T PLAY THIS HAARP_by
Jeane Manning and Dr. Nick Begich 1995
 =====================================================
 E-Systems developed Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies
 (satellite based) which can locate objects anywhere
 in the world within one foot of the subjects' actual location.
 They also developed systems for LAW ENFORCEMENT which can 
 intercept faxed messages, telephone calls, modem tranfers, and video
 transmissions on a single system.  
 They developed the EMASS computers  which are powerful  enough to sort
 the volumes of information needed for tracking billions of people.
===============================================
Also, I almost call the local telephone company everyday to complain that
my phone has been taped and someone interfere my connection to the
internet server. I would say that in God's name, I tell the facts and
truth on above words.
It means that I do my best to post my articles even risk my life, my
family' lives or being injured with invisible wave weapon.
I post these articles because I know it is true and I know the most or
even the best. 
 Please don't try to accuse me from the indirect way.
>The only question, is who are "they". It appears to be run out of
>Washington, D.C. Probably the Military or some sort of private
>contractor of the Military.
No! the question in here is what is your real intention?
>What are they trying to accomplish? Well, if a technology exists, it is
>the pattern to investigate it, and try it out. Think about it, what does
>the military do when they are not fighting a war? They pretend, they play (war)
>games, they go on manuevers
The infrasound and many invisible wave weapon are developed by the Los
Alamos National Lab for both military & law enforcement.
(atachment)
====================================================
The 4\94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported that Janet E. Morris and her husband 
 Christopher C. Morris "have been involved in promoting a psycho-correction' 
technology, developed by a Russian scientist, that is INTENDED TO INFLUENCE 
BY MEANS OF SUBLIMINAL MESS
AGES EMBEDDED IN SOUND OR VISUAL IMAGES." In 1993, "the Morrises organized a 
meeting in which the technology was demonstrated for U.S. scientists and 
officials by its Russian inventor." (Infrasound mind machine--Alan Yu note)
Defense news reported that on Dec. 15, 1992, Janet Morris stated that 
she and the Richmond, Virginia-based International Health-line Corporation 
"have briefed senior U.S. intelligence and Army officials about the Russian 
capabilities, which Morris said could include hand-held devices for 
purposes of special operations, crowd control and anti-personal actions."
Morris reported that this particular weapon  (Infrasound weapon--Alan Yu
note) creates "BONE-CONDUCTING SOUND WAVES that cannot be offset by protective
gear These devices appear to work at the Very Low Frequency (VLF) 
spectrum, the same frequency range as generated by the sinister U.S. 
Gwen (Ground Wave Emergency Network) system of transmitters.
DEFENSE ELECTRONICS reported that a Richmond, Virginia firm, Psychotechnologies
(believed to be closely tied to the CIA and the FBI) has purchased the 
American rights to the Soviet mind-control devices.
==============================================================
>What started as some wierd kind of Cold War thing (with technology
>supposedly coming from the Nazi psychiatrists we let into this country
>along with the Nazi rocket scientists), now has a life of its own. It is
>an intriquing and possibly beneficial technology. However it is being
>used in an illegal and corrupt way.
I disagree with your opinions here.
That's because the U.S. learned the mind control technology from
Russia after the Korea War. 
>If it requires a satellite, then it is certain that it is government
>sponseered.Who else could it be? The mafia? Big Business? The KGB?
>And remember, control is addictive for certain people.
To control people and their lives have become the operators' privileges.
The operators already addic the control and try to  get rid  of anyone who 
intent to out of their control.
>I don't know what else to say. I don't know how to combat it. I am
>meeting others who have had it done to them. It is ongoing, happening
>right now. It is scary.
Scary can help nothing.
To write the facts and evil of mind control can educate our society
to stop the wrong actions of mind control operators.
The obvious evil is that the mind control operators dare with the public
affairs and people's lives but they judge everything according to their
will but not acording to the law.
Therefore, a criminal can live normally because the operator like him/her.
However, a law abiding citizen cannot live normally if the operator
dislike him/her.
The operators use their own will to judge everyone instead of the law
in the mind copntrol system.
Such kinds of action is just like a king because only a king can judge
everything according to his will without consider the law.
The operatotrs treat themselves as the king of people after they become
the controllers of the people.
And that's why I dislike this mind control system.
So what should be the real democractic country?
A governmental officer should judge everything according to the law
but not according to one's own will.  That's because the government 
officer deal with the public affairs.  
Only the officer always follow the law to deal with public affairs.
Then the officer can represent the justice of government. 
Therefore, the officer might dislike someone but this person will not be
punished if this person doesn't violate the law.
On the other hand, if the officer very like a person who commit a crime,
this person (criminal) can not avoid to be punished.
I do hope that the career officers (or under cover operators) do
everything or deal with anyone can follow the law.
After that, I believe the evil will be disappear.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's lives in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies 
  secretly (die as if natural cause).  
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries.
  Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
  control organization.
  (If any law enforcement officer declare anyone as "insane" and 
   the social security department do not put these individual in the 
   welfare program as diable person, then it only represent a kind of
   political suppression or false accusation to discredit someone.
   That' because the local law enforcement is the basic unit of mind
   control)
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

brian artese writes:
#Hardy Hulley wrote:
## You made at least two crucial assumptions: intent can be articulated,
## and the author doesn't successfully write down the proper articulation
## of his intent. Ergo, you're begging the question.
## 
## I cannot recall ever having made these assumptions myself.
#Wait; my point is that your conception of intent *does* presume that it 
#is not itself an articulation, but that it 'gives birth' to 
#articulations.  
Nothing wrong with Hardy's presumption.
### Claiming that "Cogito, ergo sum" is guilty of petitio principii is not
### really accurate. As Kant pointed out, the argument fails because
### "exists" cannot be regarded as a predicate. 
#It seems fairly obvious that the 'I think therefore I am' claims to have 
#'discovered' the 'I' as a result of the premise that sits on the other 
#side of 'therefore.'  This claim does not acknowledge the fact that this 
#'I' was *not* so discovered or made manifest by this movement, since that 
#very 'I' was simply posited in the premise, arbitrarily.  The 'I' that 
#claims to have been discovered by the end of the logical inference was in 
#fact already posited in the premise.
No. What is "I" need not be all that *is*, and what *is* need not be all
that is "I".
#The reason I brought this up is because the same mistake exists in the 
#argument for 'intent,' 
Nope.
#-- brian
jw

jason cooper wrote:

>   1) We can find a photodetector capable of accurately responding
>      to signals that vary on the range of every hundred millionth
>      of a second, or
>   2) The beat frequency produced constitutes a real EM wave, in
>      the radio frequencies, and can be picked up by an ordinary,
>      every-day radio.
> 
> If (1) is true, then I'm badly underestimating our current
> photodetector technology (this is quite possible).
Actually, PIN diodes with 2 ns risetimes (easily capable of 100MHz
operation) cost $1.60 from major electronic supply houses.  Ultrafast
optical detector diodes are now available (for a higher price) to at
least 60 GHz (for example, from New Focus)
However, althoug I am not a laser-RADAR expert, I doubt that this is the
technique used at all.  Direct optical heterodyning is a very trick
technique to try on the open road.  Much easier is optical
time-of-flight, which is what I suspect is really used.  There are two
closely related variants which are probable.
1) Emit a narrow pulse, and time its return.  This requires a fast
optical modulator to generate sub-ns pulses, which isn't too hard, but
isn't the easiest way
2) modulate the laser sinusoidally at a few 100 MHz, and measure the
beat generated, not in the original laser light, but in the detected
modulation relative to the emitted modulation.  This effectively make
the laser beam just a carrier for a more conventional RADAR signal, and
is pretty easy to do.  It gains the high directivity and other nive
properties of the laser with the ease of processing of RF.
I would vote that guess 2 is the most likely
Marcus Mendenhall
Vanderbilt University Physics Department

tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel):
|   I admit to not knowing much about decon... but consider this. The
| movers and shakers in the OSS/CIA (i.e. James Jesus Angleton) were
| devotees of Ezra Pound... seeing the "hall of mirrors" that may have
| arisen from these men, does anyone wish to provide conjecture as
| to the possible outcome (skiffy ideas are more than welcome) of the
| "utilization" of decon in the future world that we are waddling
| drunkenly toward?
|   And if so, what will the outcome be when decon is stuffed down the
| orifices of the poor shlub on the street? 
|   As I said.. conjecture...
Would not the poor shlub be given simple orders, the complex
orders being reserved for elites?  As it is and has been.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

Dr L S Karatzas  wrote:
>
>Dear all,
>
>how could I construct a cloud chamber? Instructions or reference material
>will be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,Lucas.
>
>******************** Dr Lucas S Karatzas ***************************
>Department of Cybernetics     |   Tel: +44 (0)118 931 6796, 931 8219
>The University of Reading     |     or 9875123 ext-4397/7661
>PO Box 225, Whiteknights      |   Fax: +44 (0)118 931 8220
>Reading RG6 6AY, Berks, UK.   |   Email: L.S.Karatzas@rdg.ac.uk
>***** http://www.cyber.rdg.ac.uk/staff/people/lsk/lsk.htm **********
>
See the following Amateur Scientist columns in Scientific American:
Sep, 1952
Dec, 1956
Apr, 1956
Jun, 1959
The April, 1956 article is probably the easiest and most reliable. It uses dry ice 
to cool a glass-walled chamber, with a bright light shining through. I did it 
myself back then. Worked great. Lots of muon tracks.
PGWHITE

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <57dj28$a0c@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) writes:

>
>>Hey...  I smell a sci.fi short story here.   The astronaut is trapped
>>inside a spherical shell of matter,  with one hole.  The perturbation
>>of cutting the hole out of the shell creates an effective repulsive
>>field.  How does he get out?  Of course the inside is smooth,  and
>>his thrusters are broken...
>
Why not just wait until the gravity leaks out through the hole?
PGWHITE

Tim Fitzmaurice wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Duncan Stewart Matheson wrote:
> > In article <3299A821.1075F9E0@mit.edu>, Joseph Edward Nemec
> > > Running away, eh?
> > > Bye bye. Don't let the door hit you on the ass.
> > Finished my Masters degree, thanks very much. When are you done with yours
> > Joe???
> Weee-oooh, Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-oooh, Weeeee-oooh, Weeeeee-ooh
> Weeee-aaaaaaaaaggggggghhhh.
Tim! Leave those pigs alone, damn you! 
Good Lord, you British and your sick sexual practices. It's bad enough 
that you do what you do, but please don't feel the need to share it
with us.
--------------------------------------
This is a pain which will definitely linger.
	-- Brain, after something Pinky did.
Joseph Edward Nemec                    
Operations Research Center	         
Room E40-149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
nemecj@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/

Dan Browne wrote:
> You're a cheeky bastard Joe... he's english as far as I know. Get it
> right.
Go to his web page and look for yourself. He's got some gifs of his
family tartan. They're quite lovely, actually, for a school girl's
uniform.
--------------------------------------
This is a pain which will definitely linger.
	-- Brain, after something Pinky did.
Joseph Edward Nemec                    
Operations Research Center	         
Room E40-149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
nemecj@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/

Chris Hedley wrote:
> 
> In article <3299F627.650ED260@mit.edu>,
>         Joseph Edward Nemec  writes:
> >> Finished my Masters degree, thanks very much. When are you done with yours
> >> Joe???
> >
> > I finished it in October. It's my second. I did mean to get it done in
> > May, but my research for my Ph.D. was going so well that I delayed it.
> 
> Ah, a shirker, a workshy git.  Bloody students.  Still, explains your
> obsession with the dole, I guess, since it fits in with your own lifestyle
> so well!
My dear Chirs, being an American, a country with an extremely low
unemployment
rate, and actually having a work ethic, something you should try, I can
tell you quite frankly that the only doles that I have ever had any
knowledge of were Bob and the pineapples. Actually, I am quite well
paid, as
students go. 
--------------------------------------
This is a pain which will definitely linger.
	-- Brain, after something Pinky did.
Joseph Edward Nemec                    
Operations Research Center	         
Room E40-149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
nemecj@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read".  It would be inappropriate for anyone to interfere with the
propagation of these articles based only on this 'bot's notices.
You can find the software to process these notices at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW
site: http://www.cm.org.  This 'bot is not affiliated with the CM[TM].
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers:
  2 Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.93
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Delete: no
Count: 2
Notice-ID: spncm1996330123755
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<57ddnm$5tl@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.math
	sci.physics
	sci.logic
<57dbsf$ud4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics.electromag
	sci.logic
	sci.math
	sci.physics
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMprkpYz0ceX+vLURAQErtgP/Wt3wOfKS6/bohkrcETUZQcEtHTUAA3u+
t+P7ZkU8fSCXnDid34Ng1ff4yu1gDwHUtddxCXQT5GpZPNFSTcvXI+poVqeRijkm
SWTm4tkDXB57gR32p2IAGyNMrNAWEOsXbn5sCaeCPfEG633fFjJPYoZ1GtLhjKhw
RbHffOud1A8=
=nPZ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I am currently working on a project, the analysis of which requires something
like a Montecarlo simulation.  My field is physics, not computer programming,
and I won't be assessed on the actual program, but including it as part of the
data analysis would make for a better project.
The experiment is a test of Bell's theorem, and the theory assumes pointlike
detectors and scatterers etc etc, which means that my results will never fit
exactly.  I need to somehow incorporate the statistical spread caused by the
physical dimensions of the apparatus into the theory to see how my results really
compare with the theory.  I believe a MonteC would do this.
I was hoping that someone  would be kind enough to send me a template or a
program that I could modify to fit my experiment.  I would obviously credit the
author in my report.  
If you have any suggestions or help (including a new or better computational
approach), please email me directly.
Thank you. 
 Eleanor.

kyle@geko.net.au wrote:
: Why are these messages got on newsgroup like this??? And btw, may I ask 
:  are there anythings that are made in Australia???
Because this is USENET, like duh. Expected something else?
Lets pillage (sp?) Luxembourg! They have wealthy banks and
nearly no army! Join my Kung-Fu Kangaroo Squat Force!
:-)
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

I just finished reading the first book of Charles Fort.
One should think that "damned data", in our media age,
should be reported even more often. So, whatever
happened to fish rain et al? Are there New Forteans
continuing his work? Or have they been wiped out
by the BPAT (Bigoted Peers Assassin Troup)? :-)
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

Joseph Strout (jstrout@ucsd.edu) wrote:
: There was a recent buzz of excitement about a so-called "anti-gravity"
: Searching for the latest, I found that this isn't new at all:
: Podkletnov, E.; Nieminen, R.
:    Physica C, 10 Dec. 1992, vol.203, (no.3-4):441-4.
: But I can't find anything more recent than that.
I noticed this in the High Tc update a while ago:
"Giovanni Modanese, "Updating the Theoretical Analysis of the Weak
Gravitational Shielding Experiment." Preprint #UTF-367/96. I.N.F.N.,
Gruppo
Collegato di Trento, Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universita, I38050 Povo
(TN), ITALY; e-mail modanese@science.unitn.it. 74.72.-h; 04.60.-m. "
which you can find at
http://www.physics.iastate.edu/htcu/backissues/96APRIL01EM.TXT.html
Note that it was in the April 1st issue. I have absolutely no idea
whether that is of relevance.
Ian

Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> being an American, a country with an extremely low unemployment rate, 
Geez, I didn't know there was *another* America, one with an extremely
low unemployment rate, as opposed to the one on the other side of the
Atlantic (But hey, how could I know, I'm only European)
I don't know what your definition of "extremely low" is, but I guess
it's somewhat higher than mine. Or do you just count all the people that
have a job ("Hey, of all the people with a job only 0.1% is unemployed")
Frankly, I don't believe you.
Jos
-- 
<--------------- You ain't seen nothing yet! -------------->
<- Jos Dingjan (jos@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl)                ->
<- Department of Applied Physics  |Everything I say is my ->
<- Delft University of Technology |opinion, not theirs!   ->
<-- "APPLIED PHYSICS" is an anagram of "HAPPY DISCIPLES" -->

    Here is a thought experiment that decides the matter once and for
all. You are in a spaceship traveling at 1000 meters per second. There
is a laser in the nose of the ship that is pointed in the direction
perpendicular to the direction of travel. The laser operates in the
pulse mode. At time t=0 that laser begins emitting pulses and the
thrusters are turned on giving the ship a 10 meter per second squared
acceleration. After 1000 seconds, the ship has traveled 6,000,000
meters. Will the first pulse still be aligned with the nose? If you say
yes, you must account for the horizontal component of the light by
inertia. If this is true, all the laws of electromagnetism must be
revised to take this inertia into account. If you say that special
relativity does not apply to accelerated frames, then special
relativity is wrong, or deficient, isn't it? Velocity is merely the
first derivative of acceleration. If you see the light curve back under
acceleration, you would then see the light go diagonally back in a
straight line under constant velocity. This is first year calculus.
Edward Meisner

Bonjour a tous,
Je recherche des paradoxes scientifiques ! Je m'explique : la science
permet souvent d'etablir des resultats qui defient completement le sens
physique voire le bon sens commun. Par exemple, quel non scientifique
irait s'imaginer qu'un avion est plus petit en vol qu'au sol ?
Par consequent, quel que soit votre domaine, si vous connaissez de pres
ou de loin, des "phenomenes", quels qu'ils soient, qui peuvent paraitre
surprenants au commun des mortels, je vous remercie de me les decrire.
Je recherche d'autre part des pieds-de-nez scientifiques, du type de la
demonstration mathematique (truquee heureusement) de 2=1.
N'hesitez pas a m'envoyer vos suggestions, tout m'interesse ...
Merci d'avance.

Jeff Inman:
|> ]For some reason I felt the need to provoke you into saying this.
|> ]Speaking absolutely strictly, yes, this constitutes a "refutation" of
|> ]a fine point in the letter of the laws that Malthus described.  You
|> ]are right about that.  For anyone with sense to see, however, it
|> ]doesn't do significant damage to the spirit of the principles that
|> ]Malthus proposed.  In order to grasp this, it is only necessary to ask
|> ]oneself why such continuous advances in agricultural productivity have
|> ]been made, and the obvious answer is: necessity. 
Michael Kagalenko:
|>  The obvious answer is not necessarily correct one. Furthemore, it is not
|>  obvious that it is correct.
|> ]Meanwhile, in order to understand whether there is a "problem" as the
|> ]result of this situation, we have first to wonder whether humans might
|> ](a) find exponentially increasing "virtual land" (i.e. some
|> ]combination of new terrain and agricultural technology), or (b)
|> ]control their numbers through their special powers of reason. I don't
|> ]think these are necessarily impossible, for some finite but perhaps
|> ]pleasantly long period of time.  (I'm guessing something like 50
|> ]years, for the majority of us, with perhaps, maybe, just maybe, a
|> ]happy few germs escaping from the collapse to spawn some new and
|> ]glorious dominion elsewhere, if we might be so lucky.)  I submit that
|> ]the other alternatives might be termed "problems".
|>  What you are gibbering about ? Fertility is negatively correlated
|>  with educational level and living standard. In all countries rise
|>  in living standards results in decline in population growth. Special
|>  powers of reason seem to do the job just fine, via making birth control
|>  means readily available. 
|>  Impending ecological disaster seems to be an article of semi-religious 
|>  faith in some quarters.
Question for Jeff Inman:
Since the earth has a finite capacity to produce food, there is clearly 
a "hard limit" with respect to population -- despite that repeated warning 
from dogmatic libertarians that "population is not a problem".  Can you 
identify, roughly, the number of years as a function of the average growth 
rate (a la Malthus) which humans can continue to live on earth without 
reaching this hard limit.  The dependence is logarithmic in most relevant 
parameters, so an order-of-magnitude estimate is fine.  The next step 
is to see if this has anything to do with reality ...
Consider not the demand for food but the demand for energy.  Without 
fission breeder or fusion reactors, will a "hard limit" in energy or 
food demands be reached first (based on say US per capita energy 
consumption)?  Finally, with regard to Michael Kagalenko's comment 
regarding fertility (birth rate), what are the population saturations 
mechanisms which will likely be active in the 21st century?  Facts 
please, or at least non-trivial models (no Verhulst or Ricker toy 
models).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

CanisLupus@Cent.com wrote:
: I read your theory, and I will say that I am uncomfortable with your
: presumption that the big bang theory is flawed.  Forget about tossing
: aside virtually all empirical cosmolgical data gathered to this point in
: our research that supports a universe expanding at high percentages of
: C, I would like to hear YOUR argument for the removal of the BBT as our
: baseline for interpolation back to the origins of the universe.
        Gee, the BBT is an infant, and has just began talking
to us, the original article made it sound like the BBT has
been around for a long time.
: Please exlain for me in greater detail, your theory on the measured
: redshift of Deep space objects on the fringe of the known universe (any
: shifts for that matter), i.e., quasars.  Einstein's spherical universe
: is an interesting model, don't you think?  Relativistic properties of
: matter (and light) are, to my knowledge, theorized but not based on
: empirical scientific data.  You give an "absurd" explanation for the red
: shift, and I quote YOU when i say absurd.  However, I like the
: possibility that our measurements might be explained by other
: phenomenon, i.e. huge gravitation well - black holes.  The possibilities
: are thrilling. 
        His math treatment seems to be based on some property
of space, without any apparent recognition that different
observers would measure different values for the "frequency
of matter" (whatever that is).
: I am not being facetious here, I am quite serious - although it might
: have a sarcastic tone, please believe me when I tell you I am indeed
: serious and curious.
         Here is a different angle on the BBT.    I confess,
I have General Relativity backwards, instead of inertial
coordinates freefalling into matter, I view the process of
gravity as matter diverging with an acceleration.
         So, after 50 years of study if this insanity, I
have just figured out what the cosmology would be with
divergent matter (this is serious, I am not joking). :-)
        T H E     B I G    B O I I N N N G    C O S M O L O G Y
        After posting some of the manifestations of divergent
matter physics, I think a new model of cosmology appears possible.
        At some time in the past, all matter was hot plasma
and in closer contact than now, and when the expansion of the
universe reached the point where cooling could occur, matter
did not expand fast enough to keep up with the expansion of
the universe and the galaxies dispersed and receded from each
other.
        But if matter is expanding with an acceleration, all
matter will eventually expand fast enough to catch up with
the receding galaxies, filling in all the empty space between,
causing another big bang.
        So this is nearly identical with the big crunch
cosmology, except it is backwards, instead of gravity 
pulling the universe back together, the expansion of matter
(The Electrodynamic Divergence of Matter) fills in the
empty space and causes the same results as the big crunch.
        The question may still exist, is matter expanding
fast enough to catch up with the receding galaxies, and it
seems it might be.   The scary part is, the expansion may
be much more non-linear than the recession of the galaxies, 
so the big crunch could come much sooner than thought with 
the big bang and gravity in a universe with sufficient density 
to cause a big crunch. 
        Don't worry about hurting my feelings with criticism,
I get a lot of things backwards (on purpose).
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372 

In article <57deki$g3@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, astephan@students (adam louis stephanides) writes:
>And quaternions can in fact be used to do a lot of what is now
>done through vector algebra; you divide a quaternion a + bi + cj + dk
>into "scalar part" a and "vector part" bi + cj + dk; then the scalar
>part of the product of two vectors is the negative of the modern-
>day scalar product, while the vector part of their product is the
>modern-day vector product.
In fact, for a while there was a three way struggle between vectors,
quaternions, and coordinates, regarding the right way to do physics.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

 The Q  writes
                           "Radar"
                 ....some sort of ehco of a sort
                 (of what sort I couldn't recal...
                 it's self should hint to the make).
        What
                 it does
                 is based on a proven fact,
 sound     from an object moving toward
                                us
       has a     higer
                 pitch,
than when it moves away from 
                                us...
                                Listen
                 to a poloice car
                 drive toward,
                 then away from
                                 you.
         Now, it's then
        a simple
        (so to speak(compared
        with overlaping rays)) 
        as judging 
        frome                   the data
 of the wave
>reflected(bounced) of the object in question.
 I beleive, them a second wave
>is sent to the object to judje the new data
(be it as sound(pitch) or as the
        >speed of the return)
I dont know. However, I'm sure..............
 but if you use a sort
>of overlaping beams of light, as used in 3-d
 holographic cube data storage,
>you'd need to originate both beams from two
 diffrent stationary areas, so
>that the intersect. This would be impossible
 for police to empliment as
>they would need to people to activate the guns,
 and they would have to
>setup prior to using the guns, which would warn
 people ahead of time. I
>don't remember all that I learned on the subject,
 but if I'm
 wrong,
 please
>correct me
The Q,
i have corrected your spelling,
                                   and your layout. 
other than that it was perfect,
                            so far as i could tell. 
-- 
Keith Stein
  "This is only what I have learned through life."

 Kuen-Yo Tsou  writes
>Just wondering why does the relative motion between two charged particle
>create an magnetic field,
LOOK AT                  "...........2nd INTERVAL .........."  thread.
No 'PROVES' there Mr. Kuen-Yo :-(
      ,but very simple for yo
         to understand.
  i think........................................................... :-)
Do let me know if it is any.. HELP..
-- 
Keith Stein

Im Artikel <329A0AA0.406D@hydro.on.ca>, Dan Evens 
schreibt:
>Given that Newton's laws seem to work pretty well (and given their
>more complicated forms in relativity) then:  Since you feel an
>acceleration (which is fairly directly measured even by simple
>things like masses on springs or a glass of water etc.) and since
>the Earth does not feel an acceleration, you changed your velocity,
>not the Earth.
Not quite (although the effect would be very, very small). If you start
walking on a small raft (given null resistance in floating), you will move
wrt the raft, but the raft will also move, but in the opposite direction,
so the CoM of the whole system of you+raft will stay in place more or
less. 
If you start walking on a motor boat, in prinicple it will be the same,
only you will not notice much of it, as the boat may move one inch, when
you do five yards ot ten. Start moving on a free floating ocean liner, and
it'll be the same again, only you'd have to use laser interferometrie to
find out. 
So basically it's the same with mother earth, and it is left to the reader
to calculate what would happen to a pendulum clock in Havanna (swinging
parallel to the equator), if all chinese would start a vicious 10 meter
sprint exactly eastward at exactly six o'clock in the morning ;-)
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Im Artikel <57dig3$99f@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
schreibt:
>"If you want tachyons,  you will either break causality,  or else you
>will break Lorentz invariance".   
>
>No big deal -- take your pick.
Given my first name, even you should be able to guess what I'd pick... I
mean, I mean, you don't really believe that the deplorable state sci.
physics is in at the moment has any cause at all, not even to speak of a
reasonable one, do you? ;-)
>>The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
>
>Yup.  I see the real action in sci.physics now is fighting post-
>modernists in the bear pit,  but I just can't find it in myself...
Well, if they'd only be real post-modernists, that is: if they only had to
say anything reasonable at all with at least a bit of competence, than one
might have an enjoyable conversation with them, maybe not on physics
though; but as it stands now, there's at least two or three lame and
teethless bullterriers, barking at anyone within their reach, and crawling
scathed back in their huts, when trapped spewing crap. You could call them
crackpots, but that really would offend our all beloved home base
crackpots.... Nothing like a self anounced pomo spilling shit, really :-(
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

> I don't see the struggle here...
> There is no comparison to be made...
> Galileos struggle was one of intellect versus superstition, fact over
> false or faulty faith...
> Schools now teach fact (Or a close representation anyway) and matters of
> faith are left to the religious institutions. The battle is won in terms
> of school, and in terms of Creation vs Evolution, the only battle left is
> that of the blind vs those of the enlightened. Any intelligent and
> informed Christian can reason that evolution occurred simply by looking at
> the evidence. And with a belief in an all-mighty God, why would evolution
> be impossible? Do you think God has not the power to concieve of and
> instigate an evolutionary universe? Do you also not recognize the fact
> that fundamentalists have no concept of allegory? This struggle might have
> been monumental n the 1920s or somewhere back then, but modern science is
> much more credible on certain terms these days. God gave us minds for a
> reason other than to memorize and repeat random bible verses.
> > Ptolemy was mandatory long before Catholicism ruled. Your torturing of those
> > speaking true astronomy existed long before Catholcism, and yet you have
> > not apologized yet for this Ptolemy crap you imposed since 300 BC.
> > Dont blame the Catholic Church for inheriting your crap. And I dont care
> > how far back you go, I myself would NOT apologize for what ancestors did.
> > I am not my ancestors, nor is anybody else.
> So why then complain about someone ELSE not apologizing for something?
You are crossing my quotes with others. I havnt complained.
> > Joe Savelli wrote:
> > > The Catholic Church still to this day has not apologized for it's
> > > persecution of others.
> (Re: This other guy...No one has apologized for ANYTHING ever done except
> morons who can't avoid feeling guilty over things for which they were
> brainwashed to feel responsible...ie modern germany to israel,
> modern white usa to modern black usa, or to modern native usa. Political
> correctness etc etc...only people who live in the past think that someone
> owes them something and the same applies to those who think they should
> apologize for things done hundreds or even tens of years past before the
> sorry-sayer was even alive.)
I agree with this remark about people living in the past.
Living in the past should be experienced as a learning process, but
you cannot hold descendents nor classify others as responsible for what the
past of others now dead have once done. You can only warn that their own
conduct can bring the same results. So past obsurdities serve as warnings,
not as crutches for claiming current victimization has descended from.
> > > >Mormans...christian religions...
> Mormons are not Christians, they are a separate and well-established
> cult. Jesus never came to America no matter what their cheesy commercials
> say.
> > >  This must mean that all people with a college education are better
> > > than everybody else.  Maybe we should set up an elite group of college
> > > graduates to rule the world.  It may not be better but it sure would
> > > be more liberal...
> 
> I doubt that. Neither better, worse or more liberal.
> Plenty of conservatives went to college, too, smart guy.
> > > Of course the entire history of the Catholic church has been torture
> > > stealing and murder.
> Geez, why do they even let you out of your little rubber room?
> Correction : The entire history of HUMANITY has been this, you bigot
> freak.
> > > Not to mention the immorality of the popes has
> > > been well documented.
> As has the immorality of every-friggin-body. I promise you this, more
> non-popes have fooled around and been bad than have popes.
> > > "Cleaning out the lies and baloney in the world."
> Start with your own.
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24 
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
          http://www.execpc.com/~elijah

erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>In article ,   wrote:
>>
>>Hey, don't let anybody confuse you with the "you need GR to understand 
>>it" stuff, you really don't.  And the above is fine, if you multiply 
>>by the mass of the bulge and develop in series, you'll get something 
>>proportional to
>>
>>	m*dr/r^3
>
>Hey,  linear,  1/r^3... what's a few powers of r among friends?? 
>
>>which is just the standard dipol field, with m*dr being the dipol 
>>moment.  To do it really right you've to use vectors and you get 
>>scalar products, i.e
>>
>>	m* (r /dot dr)/(abs(r))^4
>>
>>but these are technicalities.  And it doesn't even take a lagrangian
>>(though I can probably get you a used one, real cheap, slightly dented 
>>but just put a new tranny in it, it'll run like new)
>
>Well,  ok;  throw in a full tank of gas and you got a deal.
>
>Hey...  I smell a sci.fi short story here.   The astronaut is trapped
>inside a spherical shell of matter,  with one hole.  The perturbation
>of cutting the hole out of the shell creates an effective repulsive
>field.  How does he get out?  Of course the inside is smooth,  and
>his thrusters are broken...
He gets out in the usual manner.  Male astronauts are naturally supplied 
with a steerable thruster and a periodically refilling liquid propellant 
tank.  Female astronauts are not Mil-Spec.  Thrust vectoring must be 
accomplished through externally configured instrumentatility. 
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> My dear Chirs, being an American, a country with an extremely low
> unemployment
> rate, and actually having a work ethic, something you should try, I can
> tell you quite frankly that the only doles that I have ever had any
> knowledge of were Bob and the pineapples. Actually, I am quite well
> paid, as
> students go. 
> 
Apparently Nemec is able to earn as much as folks in the city.
If we compare his wage with that of a person similarly aged, that means
that Joe is able to collect approximately $300 000 before tax.
By the time he is 30, that means that he will be expecting in excess of
one million per year.
Quite frankly, I don't believe it. I strongly suspect that a
mathematician's lot does not extend into the seven figure range quite so
young.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On 26 Nov 1996 p93040@cplab.ph.ed.ac.uk wrote:
> If you have any suggestions or help (including a new or better computational
> approach), please email me directly.
> Thank you. 
>  Eleanor.
> 
This might not be exactly what you are looking for, but you should try
asking someone in your high energy physics department.
I believe that Ken peach works there, and he is quite approachable, and
should be able to point you in the right direction.
Alternatively, you coulld try asking one of the students. If you want some
names, email me, and I will send you them.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

> 
> The one other problem - how do you obtain enough energy to reach c let
> alone exceed it?
> 
Who still thinks that nothing can travel faster than c???  C is just a 
relative velocity, that's all.  There are probably particles out there 
travelling THROUGH  our known matter at velicities 1000000x that of c!
(And we would never know because there is no way to prove it...)
It is possible to exceed c, but it would be easier by reducing the total 
mass of the object in question - this would require less energy.  
However, you face the problem of gravity wells and cosmic debri that 
would - even sitting still - would render your FTL object destroyed.
There would have to be a way of avoiding hazards such as these, while 
maintaining a course straight as possible...
-------------------=================**************C

Hauke Reddmann wrote:
> 
> I just finished reading the first book of Charles Fort.
> One should think that "damned data", in our media age,
> should be reported even more often. 
Look around your usenet a bit, check the rags near the grocey checkout.  
Or perhaps you are complaining about real journals having standards for 
demonstrating the validity of data.
> So, whatever
> happened to fish rain et al? Are there New Forteans
> continuing his work? Or have they been wiped out
> by the BPAT (Bigoted Peers Assassin Troup)? :-)
Fish rain?  Many years ago an army officer wrote to a journal reporting 
that he was in the middle of a desert, thousands of miles from any large 
body of water, when a storm blew in and he and his soldiers were rained 
down on by marine life.  Is that what you are referring to?  If so, you 
have hung yourself with your own words - it was a hoax.  It was a 
scientist who was upset about lax journal standards, and who wanted to 
demonstrate that one could get anything to appear.  So he made up an 
outrageous story and got it printed in a prestigeous journal.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
|    http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html                |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|