Directory

davis_d@spcunb.spc.edu (David K. Davis) writes:
> I first saw Cantor's diagonal proof 40 odd years ago and
> it so impressed me that I still torture friends with it. 
Interesting. Could you explain what is Cantor's diagonal proof.
-- 
   Pertti Lounesto                Pertti.Lounesto@hut.fi

In article <3293C634.4A5C@ix.netcom.com> tsar@ix.netcom.com writes:
>> >Hmmmm ... I'm "certain" that the planets are orbiting the Sun, rather than
>> >the earth.
>> 
>> Simply different systems of coordinates - one with Sun at rest, one
>> with Earth. The same from point of view of GR ;-)
>> 
>I think you'll have a hard time selling this idea as a realistic
>view of the universe (system). The tail could also wag the dog as
>easily.
Why I? Einstein has done this successfully (see Klaus Kassner's reply).
>> It is, see postrelativistic gravity.
>Or metares.
Sorry, this word is not in my dictionary.
>> Not. There are a lot of metaphysical and philosophical conclusions
>> which people derive from general relativity and consider as derived
>> from reality, as we observe it. For example, that there is no absolute
>> time, that FTL information transfer leads to violation of causality
>> and so on.
>> 
>It'll be interesting to see which of these derivations survive validation.
PG - as a classical theory - has survived a long discussion with Klaus
Kassner. Thus, these derivations - as derivations from real experiment
- are invalid as long as PG is not falsified by experiment.
>> You cannot be sure. It can be added without any problem with any
>> experiments.
>Yes. But objectively it is either or ... and you "should" be able to
>confirm one or the other.
Why do you think so?  It may be an open question over a very long
period which theory is better. I think/hope, it will be possible in
quantum theory to find this out.
But, before this can be done, the quantum variants of above theories
have to be created. PG is much simpler compared with GR in this
direction, but I'm not a specialist in rigorous quantization of
nonlinear field theories to do this job alone. 
>> >I remain convinced the planets move around the Sun.
>> I'm too. But GR says, it doesn't matter and is your choice.
>I choose the Copernicus approach. It eliminates the need to redo all
>those pretty star charts. :-)
>> >You are still confusing confirmed prediction with confirmed axioms.
>> That's not the point.
>Oh but it is indeed MY point.
In this case, clarify this point. This is a general point of
methodology of science, completely independent from relativity. 
The best I have read about this is Popper.
>> >>One can never be certain. A theory can never be more than a good working
>> >>hypothesis.
>> Yes.
>No. This is simple left over know-nothing metaphysics. It leaves 
>all knowledge as an aproximation ... which isn't good enough even
>for simple existance.
>We can be absolutely certain about some things. 
Examples outside mathematics?
>To pin the criteria of
>certainty "merely" on the predictive ability of a scheme, is to ignore
>the validation of the premises upon which the scheme relies. One could
>continue on indefinently with great predictions and wholly false premises.
But the probability is low that false premises allow to make great
predictions. The dependence from Sirius is an observation, not a
prediction. There is no prediction which follows from the religious
explanation of this observation different from the not very impressive
prediction "it will happen in the next year again".
>By your standard it could only change (fall) should the prediction not
>be forthcoming. 
No. A simpler theory with more predictive power is another
possibility. Kopernikus and Kepler are examples.
Ilja
-- 
Ilja Schmelzer,  D-10178 Berlin, Keibelstr. 38, 
my ~:		 http://www.c2.org/~ilja
postrelativity:	 ~/postrel/index.html

Pertti Lounesto  writes:
> davis_d@spcunb.spc.edu (David K. Davis) writes:
> 
> > I first saw Cantor's diagonal proof 40 odd years ago and
> > it so impressed me that I still torture friends with it. 
> 
> Interesting. Could you explain what is Cantor's diagonal proof.
More interesting is how you torture your friends with it...
And if you like the Cantor's diagonal proof maybe you will enjoy
the following argument:
How many countable numbers between 0 and 1 are there? Suppose the set
of all countable numbers, Cnt, is countable. List out all the numbers
one by one in decimal notation:
0.d11 d12 d13 d14 ...
0.d21 d22 d23 d24 ...
....
0.di1 di2 ....... dii ...
...
Construct the number a=0.e1 e2 e3 ... where ej = 5 if dii not= 5,
otherwise 6. Then a cannot be in the countable set. But how about the
set Cnt U {a}? This is clearly countable -- contradiction. Therefore
the set of all countable numbers is not countable...
(If you do not like the phrase "the set of all countable numbers" try
replace it with "the set of all constructable numbers", that is
constructable with a turing machine.)
--
Jon Haugsand
  Dept. of Informatics, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, mailto:jonhaug@ifi.uio.no
  http://www.ifi.uio.no/~jonhaug/, Pho/fax: +47-22852441/+47-22852401
  Addr: Bredo Stabells v.15, N-0853 OSLO, NORWAY, Phone: +47-22952152

Keith Stein writes
>                +q                          +q
>               A*<---------- D ------------>*B
>
>
>SO the question is :-
>
>     COULD THERE POSSIBLY BE A 'MAGNETIC FORCE' BETWEEN A and B, 
>     from an observer on the moon's point of view, right    ?
>
The correct answer to this question is:                 "NO"
>
>     SO IS 'magnetic force' just a 'matter of opinion' then ?
The correct answer to this question is:                 "NO"
>  Surely
>that can't be right ?
i really don't know what the correct answer to this question is, but
IMHO:-)  " NOT ONE OF THE 'ANSWERS' I HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR WAS RIGHT ! "
I could explain............  but no one would listen ....  right :- ?
-- 
Keith Stein

Sam's manuscript (www.azstarnet.com/~schneik) answers that class of questions.
Very briefly, it has to do with distinguishing between civilians and soldiers.
It also has to do with not destroying the infrastructure that surviving
civilians need to survive afterwards. Read Sam's account of the 
hideous conditions surviving civilians faced in the "conventional" Korean war.
>I should know better, with a .de site, to join this thread, but...
>I see a bit of unlogic. Why should Sam Cohen give a flying
>Maseltov cocktail if Iraq is nuked with a neutron bomb, or
>with an ordinary one? (It seems unlikely that Israel invades
>the remains of Iraq afterwards to get the oil.)
>-- 
>Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
>fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
>fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
>reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY
In response to another questions from another poster, my main purpose is
to notify interested readers of a resource that deals with such
issues at length, not to debate or explain them here, as tempting
as that would be if I had lots of spare time. Without the prior background
context of the rampant sort of behind-the-scenes political craziness that Sam 
describes, attempting a more interactive discussion would tend to be very 
superficial or very long winded. In the latter case, for me the optimum is to 
recommend Sam's manuscript (www.azstarnet.com/~schneik). Moreover, many
of the historical, technical, political, and strategic issues that Sam
discusses apply to other classes of weapons, among other things.
To answer yet another question, it will likely be at least a week before a pdf 
format version is available.

In article <3291600E.8D1@teleport.com> Harry Sweeney  writes:
>I would guess that a person might legitimately worry about undue 
>Jewish influance (through media or any other avenue) on the bases of 
>political issues where Isreal benefits in deferrence to America -- 
>just as we might be concerned if Soviet influances affected policy in 
>a way unbalanced in their favor.  Then the issue of racism is 
    [text trimmed]
>What concerns me is that a great deal of energy is being put into 
>manipulating any two polarized groups in order to keep us all fighting 
>among ourselves and seeing an enemy other than our true foe.  Jews 
>against Arabs.  Jews against anti-Semites.  Christains against Arabs.  
    [text trimmed]
>In the bigger version of this game, of course, it is nation against 
>nation, and guess who both encourages these conflicts and illegally 
>sells weapons to both sides?  Thus, whenever racism or nationalism can 
>be exploited, a certain group tends to profit.  Do we really want them 
    [text trimmed]
One of the most intriguing books I've read on this subject is "The Secret War 
Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People" by John 
Loftus and Mark Aarons (1994). To make a very long, tangled, and complex story 
short,their basis thesis is that the founders of Israel used secret knowledge 
of many and enormous Western sins to blackmail Western support. 
However, there is much, much more of interest beyond the issues of Jewish 
influence and anti-Semitism. It fills in many otherwise obvious and otherwise 
inexplicable gaps in official Cold War history. While not perfect by any 
means, a large portion of it will almost certainly stand the test of time.

In article <01bbd9a4$f52aafe0$350746cf@mg001>, The Q 
writes
>I believe perfection is being what you are (exactly), even if it means you
>are some one or some thing else. To say we will evolve to perfection is to
>say we will become our selves which makes no sence. Believe in what and who
>you are and you WILL be perfect. 
>I don't believe we will evolve(majorly) as you say. I believe what we are
>is as evolved as we ever will be. We will die (be it by our sun going nova
>or by the self destruction of our planet) so what we can do in the mean
>time is live and try to migrate to OTHER areas so that when our "perfect
>blue" passes away, which has to happen eventualy, we will live a little
>longer than we might have. But Creation and Evolution are the same, so as
>we recreate ourselves we evolve.
>
                        exactly !!
,but you're guessing,,right :-?
-- 
Keith Stein

In article <32925E8F.C1E@earthlink.net>, Raj  writes:
p> Flash: Slick Willy is there right now.  Grounds for impeachment from the
p> Left?
Mind to explain.
p> 
p> Roger
p> -- 
p> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
p> + Daring to say things different                +
p> + http://home.earthlink.net/~preacher/index.htm +
p> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In article <5748fc$8pc_001@leeds.ac.uk>, EDU6JA@leeds.ac.uk (J. Allcock) 
dusted off the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
>
>Please could you answer my question.
>
>I am an A-level Physics student in the UK and am confused as 
>to why on a clear dark night we can only see several thousand 
>stars in the sky at night?
>Surely in the universe there a billions of stars and given 
>that there really isnt much in space to obtruct the path of 
>light to earth why arent more visible with the eye?
>
>I thought it may have something to do with living in the city 
>(light pollution?) or the intensity of their light and the 
>earth's atmosphere, but it's bugging me now.
>
If you live in Leeds I doubt you can see even a thousand stars. Go out into 
the country on a clear winter's night and prepare for a shock.
Even then you will only be seeing the nearer bright stars and the milky way. 
Most of the individual stars in the galaxy just aren't bright enough on 
their own for the human eye to detect. It's only when they're clumped 
together (like the milky way or the andromeda galaxy) that you can see them.
Look up Olber's paradox for further explanation.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

: >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.
	Yeah, but you're probably working for the vastly overpaid 
military/industrial complex :-).
	Actually, I think they are looking for Bio majors, not electrical 
engineers, which makes the salary much more in line. Hell, our prime 
contractors used to hire almost nothing but "soft sciences" like 
geography and biology majors, not a comp-sci or engineer in many of the 
shops. As one manager used to cheerfully put it:  Three-quarters of the 
math at one-half the paycheck!
	Besides, look at the major benefit: Life in Alaska. Hell, there 
are bound to be a few burned out SoCal or Corridor types who would gladly 
take a paycut for a chance to live in moose country. Collins electronics 
in Iowa used to score major recruitments from these regions with the lure 
of rural Iowa life (it takes all kinds).  Likewise, our contractors payed 
positively scandalously low wages to people going to Australia, but the 
lines were a mile long anyway. Just something about the reputation.
regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J Forsberg  at  aufsj@imap2.asu.edu              Wizard 87-01

In article 
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> Jeff Inman includes:
> 
>      You won't like it, but here goes.  One possible kind of
>      ethics would suggest that preserving sick and injured people
>      with technology is ultimately enervating.
> 
> I interpret "enervating" as referring to weakening the average health
> and strength of the members of society.
> Inman's isn't an ethical statement, it is a scientific statement that
> might be true or false.  It is part of the scientific question whether
> it is a a little bit enervating or a lot.
There's enervating and then there's enervating.  Health and strength
are not such clear and simple terms as you seem to think.  The thrill
of danger is one thing, the pleasure of a full stomach another, the joy
of sex yet another, etc. ad infinitum.  You gotta CHOOSE on your own if
you want to rank these sorts of things.
> 
> If you start with an ethical statement that it is wrong to let society
> be enervated, and you believe Inman's statement, then you can infer
> that it is wrong to preserve sick and injured people.  This last is
> another ethical statement.
> 
> This is what I meant when I said that with one ought and a lot of ises
> you could get more oughts.
Seems like the same old ought to me.  But, anyway, can you explain the
Kant example?
> 
>  
> -- 
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
> During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
> a lot.
David
"In Europe, they aren't quite that bold yet; there are stone structures
there and people have something to hold on to." -Dostoievski

The Question To Olimypic Central Park Explosion And The Victims' 
Question To the Okolahoma City Federal Building Explosion
Why the mind control surveillance system is used in our society?
As early as 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later National Security Advisor
to President Jimmy Carter, predicated a "more  controlled and directed 
society" would gradually appear, linked the technology.  This society
would be dominated by an elite group which impresses voters by allegedly
superior scientific know-how.
Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite
would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest
modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society
under close surveillance and control.  Technical and scientific 
momentum would then feed on the situation it exploits.  Brzezinski
predicted (see page 200 on _Angels Don't Play This HAARP_).
Comparing with above Mr. Brzezinski's words, it should be used to 
control the whole society.
However, this system neither can reduce crimes nor can find the 
spies, therefore, this system has been mostly used on our law abiding
citizecs.
Unfortunately, this system is too secret, so, the operators's
actions cannot be adequately regulated.
Thus, this system has offered the unlimited & unlawful privileges to
these operators.
Not only the operators can spy people, but also can use the invisible
wave weapon to manipulate the lives of law aiding citizens.
Is it very funny?  We develope a state opf art technology in 
so many years for only control these law abiding citizens because it 
cannot control the criminals or find the spies! 
Why this system cannot reduce the crimes?
That's because this systm is designed orginally to "WIRE" the house, 
cars, boats, (should also "wire" the plane with current technogies), etc.
via a TV network that would has linked every city, state, house (please
see detail page 181 on _Uncloaking the CIA_)
However, these criminals have no fixed address, no fixed working place, 
drive the stolen car, use the cash, etc., so these operators are 
not so easily to track or spy them.  Furthermore, there is another reason.
It is that these corrupted career officers are not so worry 
about the crimes of society which are never reduced.
Why?
They are not concerned about these criminals because criminals are not a 
threat to the mind control system ( Government or electd officers won't 
agree to declassfied the mind control surveillance system while the
criminals are increasing in the society).
On the other hand, the criminals are only a threat to civilians.  If a
criminal sees a civilian, he may rob the civilian or even rape her (if
the civilian is a female); however, if he sees an officer, the crook would
avoid the cop.  Therefore, these corrupted officers don't seriopusly
concern the criminals.
Furthermore, if crimes increase, they have more excuse to extend their 
security's power in the mind control system.
Therefore, these corrupted officers don't prefer to spend more
career operators to control the criminals. In stead, the rather spend more 
career operastors to spy law abidibg citizens. 
Thus, we must let these career officers to know that if they cannot 
control criminals who really need to be controlled, our lawabiding 
citizens don't need them to waste time on us.  That's because 
the law abiding citizens will not commit crimes but might be the 
opponents of corruptred officers's crimes.
When the crimes still happen on our society (in city, on streets) every
day, why this mind control operators and career operators never spend
more man-power on criminals?  Comparing with the facts, it only shows
that these corrupted creer officers might have their bad intentions to
control these law abiding citizens more effectively in stead of controlling 
criminals. 
 Why the mind control operators prefer to control law abiding citizens?
That's because the protential political leaders in furture will come from 
these law abiding citizens, the welll educated people in our society will 
come from these law abiding citizrens, these political election voters 
will mostly come from these law abiding citizens, these people who have 
chance to influnence our society or have rights to oppose the mind control 
system are this law abiding citizens.  so the law abiding citizens is the 
most important group in the society.
Therefore, if this mind control system can control the law abiding 
citizens very well (as they wish), then these operators can enjoy their 
privileges and control this society forever. Furthermore, these 
corrupted career officers' ultinate goal might be to control the 
political powers in order to finally control whole society, people and 
country. 
However, before they can actually control the political powers, they will
try to manipulate these current politicans to achieve their goal.  
Comparing with above Mr. Brzezniski's words, "this elite would not
hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern
techniques for inflencing public behavior", I found that the 
operators are really doing suh kinds of thing by using different methods.
The methods they can employ are;
I.  To control the lives of their opponents (or dissdents) secretly 
    in the society with the invidsible wave weapons and eliminate
    them secretly to avoid these opponents grow up. 
 Since the career can use the invisible wave weapon to attack the
 terriers and drugtrafficks, these career officers (and career operators)
can also use thee weapon to secretly manipulate law abiding citizens's 
lives whom the operators dislike or are their opponents without being held
responsible by law.
Especially, if any operator want to get rid of a law abiding citizen from 
the local mind control unit, nobody will pay attention on it because it
can be done with the invisible wave weapon in the slince way, and without
leaving extenal evidence on victims.
There is an information reported on nonlethal technologies, issued by 
the Council on Foreign Relations.  The information not only tell us 
that the invisible wave is the speciially designed by goverment to
against terrorists and durgtrafickers, but also has proven these weapon
can be used to injure victim from any direction without victim's
knowledge.  Furthermore, it does prove that the invisible wave weapons 
currently are in the hands of law enforcemrent officers. 
(attachmrent)
----------------------------------------------
This report points out that , "The Nairobiv Convention, to which
the United States is a signastory, prohiibits the broadcast of
electronic signals into a sovereign state without its consent in
peace time.
This report opens discussion of use of these weapons against 
"terrorists" and "drug traffickers".  The CFR report recommends 
that this be done secretly so that the victims do not know where 
the attack is from, or if there even is an attack!  
There is a problem with this approach. The use of these weapons, 
even against these kinds of individuals, may be in violation of United
States law in that it presume guilt rather than innocence.  In other
words, the POLICE, CIA, DEA, OR OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION
become THE JUDGE, JURY  AND EXCECUTIONER. (See page 180 on _ANGELS DON'T 
PLAY THE HAARP_1995 by Jeane Manning & Dr. Nick Begich)
-------------------------------------------------
Comparing with the facts, the author has made a very accuracy deduction on
these invisible wave (nonlethal weapon) abusers.
Therefore, you can see that these operators wields great powers 
and how little real rights in people's hands.
II.  If any current politician has a chance to become the leader of our
country but has a different political philosophy from or is not a  
collaborator of the mind control operators, these corrupted security 
officers (a few individuals) will expose this politician's unethic deeds 
in his private life (according to the career operators' surveilliance 
report) to end his candidancy (For example: The former President 
cndidate senator Gary Hart event).  That's because if they want, they can 
have private information on anyone in this mind control system (from the 
general public to the President).
Here, I should further expaplain my words below.
I didn't claim that the former FBI agent who wrote a book about the 
privacy of President Clinton is also the mind control operator.  I only 
point out that even the President' privacy can be spied in the mind 
(machine) control surveillance system.
Therefore, nobody can avoid to be spied on (however, these operators 
might not waste time on the un-influential persons).
III. Increasing people's fear of criminals to extend these corrupted 
security officers' powers.
The former President Eisenhower had been worried that some ambitious 
officers might use the fear of enemy to increase their own powrer, while 
he was the President of US.
So, we also should avoid these corrupted security officers use some 
illogicall crimes (which might be manipulated by them) to extend their 
secret powers and privileges (such as get more weapons to supress opponents 
in the mind control system).  
To clearify Former President Eisenhower's worry, I would make two example 
below:
July 27, 96, there was the Centenial Olympic Park explosion in Atlanta, 
Georgia.
I have written a articlle on next day (7/28/96) to express my 
opinions on this explosion event.
I strongly suspect that this bombing might be caused with a bad
intention by some corruptrd caeer officers (who are mind control
operators) if the authorities cannot capture the criminals.
That's becauuse the career officers (mind control operaytors) try to
protect their mind control system, increase their budgets and manpower
while the Congress cut the budgets of every federal department.
Why?
That's because the evil of mind (machine) control system has been 
exposed by my articles in these two years.
This year also be the Presidential election year. 
Some corrupted career officers might be worry that this mind (mahine)
control system could be declassfied by President if a lot of people
request it.  Furthermore, while the Congress and federal government try 
to cut the budgets of every federal department, these career officers
also worry that their security system's budgts will not avoid to be 
cut.  
Therefore, to increase the fear of people to criminals will not only 
avoid this mind control system to be declassfied, but also can increase
the budgets and manpower in the mind control surveillance system.
Therefore, these mind control operators might use the Centennial Olimpic 
Park explosion to send the warning message to US people that the crimes 
will be increasing more and more even this country have used the mind 
control surveillance system. 
So these mind control operators might make us to believe that if we don't 
have this mind control system, the situation of crimes will be getting
worse.
Why I will suspect this crime is caused by these mind control operators?
That's because to make any harm to the sporters of Olimpic will anger so 
many countries and cause the criminals to be the international common enemy.
Except a international criminal group might commit such kind crime to 
take srerious revenge to US or any special country, no others will commit 
such kinds of crime.
However, no any international criminal group admit that they involve in this 
crime.  So it should not relate with international criminal group.
Why?
To commit crime in Olympic is obviously to attract the attention from the 
entire nation to entire world. So such kind of criminals will announce 
their objective in order to threat their enemy after the explosion.
However, no criminal group has made such kind of announcement.
On the other hand, according to news reports, a phone call warning about 
the pipe bomb came from a person with a slight southern accent.
Therefore, the bomb was probably planted by an American and this kind of 
crime is obviously politically motivated (because this crime happened at
the Olympics, it attracted the entire world's attention).
If this crime was committed by a criminal (like the Unabomber), then the 
criminal must have a hidden agenda and it should have been revealed to 
the public after the explosion.  However, so far nobody has made this 
kind of claim. Therefore, it is not caused by such kind of criminal.
Who could commit this kind of crime?
Some people might suspect this crime is made by the anti-government groups.
No! It should not be connected with them because this crime didn't try to 
kill a specific target (such as a religion group, the government, or a 
Federal personnel) but only attack the general public.  So it couldn't be 
related to the anti-government people.
On the other hand, this phone call warned the general public to move away 
form the park.  So the purpose of this crime is not really for killing 
any special target but only try to scare people and attract the attention 
from the entire nation (because it happened at the Olympics).  Who would 
try to scare the public and attract entire nation's attention to such 
kind of crime?
Let's review this entire event carefully.
This crime has no special target but only made the explosion to happen in 
general public.  So this threat is directed at the general public. 
Why would this criminal want to threaten the public?  Since the criminal 
sent a warning (the telephone call) about the explosion, it seems that the 
goal of this crime is only trying to scare the masses.
What is the real intention of scaring the entire nation?
Since this crime's target is to frighten the general public (no one other 
than the public could have been the target), it is warning the public 
that people needs more protection from the security system of the government
because this kind of crime can happen anytime.
According to the facts, only the general public is attacked in this 
crime and it has raised the concern that our security system is not 
good enough.
Therefore, not only people might no longer request that the mind control
surveillance system be declassfied, but also government will
increase the budgets in security system.  After that, these corrupted 
career mind control operators will extend their mind control system to
control our law abiding citizens more seriously.
Base on this view point, I have expressed my opinion on July 28, 96.
"if the authorities cannot capture the criminals in this case, I will
strongly suspect that this crime is created by the mind control operators
or their collaborators with above bad intention."
It means that I strongly suspect that the above crime is created by
corrupted career officers who are the mind control opeators.
That's because the whole situation occurred to increase the public's
fear of criminals and terrorists, which will lead to the expansion of
Unfortunately, after passing four month, except the authority had accused
a security guard as a criminal suspect, so far the authority cannot
capture the real criminal.
On the other hand, why the Okolahoma City fedieral building explosion's
criminal suspect can be found and captured in a few days? 
Why the criminal of the Oliympic Central Park Explosion cannot be found
easily?
What is the difference between both explosion cases?
To answer this question, I would show you some information below first.
November 20, 1996, the NBC local station (Philadilaphia) TV program 
"EXTRA" reported:
According to victims family's investigation and some witness's testimony,
the security officers should have known that the bomb would be exposed in
the Okolahoma City ferdial building before it happened.
One of the witness, a private investigator, Mr. Claude Crisse said that
his office is near the federal building, he saw a lot of bomb squad
service persons were searching the bomb in the court house (the opposed
side of federal building) while he drive to office at 8:55 Am.
This kind of searching was very phorough and happened before the bomb
exposed (Bomb was exposed at 9:02 Am) 
Mr. Crisse further said, he also heard the sounds of fire trucks and saw 
eight fire trucks fast drive to the direction of Federal Building around
9:00 Am.  However, while these fire truck drove into the nearest
itersection of the street, the Federal Building was exposed.
According to news report, the Fire Department neither deny nor confirm to
above statement of Mr. Crisse. 
Another witness is a husband of victim (federal employee), he said that
the (Alcohol Tobacco Firearm Agence) ATF office are his wife's friends
and work at the same federal building.  However, these ATF agents 
are fullly absence at the bomb exposed day because they received the 
warning pager--bomb scareing.
The question is that why these ATF agents can received the early
warning to avoid being harm and the Court House can be searched (for 
the bomb) before the bomb exposed?
If the security system officers indeed receiveing the information 
before the bobm exposion, why they didn't warn the whole employees of
the Federal Building? And why these security officers didn't also search
the Federal Building before the bomb explosion?
Could the security system officers have received the corrected
infomration before the explosion?
Yes, I would agree with it.  In the mind control surveillance system, 
there are a lot of chance to get the information about the conspiracy to
explose the federal building in Okolahoma City.
Why?
That's because this national surveillance system is "wire" the cars,
boats, (currently should also "wire" the plane with latest technology),
house, and via a TV which has linked the city, state, house, etc.
(see detail on page 181 on _Uncloaking the CIA_)
Therefore, if the local mind control operator had ever kept Timothy
McVeigh (who is the suspect of the explosion) under close survellance and
control.  The operators should have know that Timothy Mcveigh intent to
explose the federal building in Okolahoma City.
Therefore, the questions appear as below:
If the operators indeed knowing this explosion plan, why the career
officers don't stop Timothy Mcveiigh's crime while he drove to the
federal building (in the midway)?
Tha's because the operators can track any target's car everythere in the
mind control survellance system.
If the career officers claim that they don't know this explosion plan,
then why the ATF agents all stay at home or didn't go to the federal
building offices at the explosion date?!
According to the VICTIM'S husband's testimony on TV, some ATF agents
told him that they received the warning on the pager not to go to
the work (for the bombing scare).  
Therefore, based on this facts, the career officers of security
system should know this conspiracy (explosion federal building plan)
before it happened.
However, why the career officers of the security system only noticed 
these ATF agents?  
Comparing with above facts, I would express my own opinions to it.
I would say that my opinion based on the information from the TV
report.  If the reported information of "EXTRA" program are all true,
I would make the deduction below:
Deduction of Alan Yu:
=============================
The AFT agents are also the law enfocement officers and are part of the 
elite group of the mind control surveillance system, therefore, they are
the real family's members of the mind control operators.
So, these agents' lives are concerned and protected by other
career mind control operators.
When the federal building will be explosed by Timonthy Mcveiigh, the
career officers (career operators) warned these ATF agents to stay at home
in order to keep the ATF agents alive.
However, why the career officers of security system risk the other federal
employees' lives in the federal building at the same time?
The only reason appears that the other federal employees are not the
career mind control operators.  So they are not the family's members of
these elite group and their lives are not so concerned and important to
the career mind control operators.  
If the operators (so called elite group) intent to increase the budgets,
and man-power in the mind control surveillance system while every federal
department cut their budgets.  How could they do?
The whole situation shows that the career officers know the
Federal Building Bombing advance and let it happened to frighten the
American.  Theregore, after the Okolahoma City fedeal building bombing,
the whole society and press will automatically request the governmental
and the Congress to increase the budgets and man-power in security system
to protect our American (thus, the operators can achieve their
goal to increase the budgets & manpower in mind control surveillance
system).
So the career officers (mind control operators) would betray the other
federal employees to risk their lives in this federal building bombing 
case.  To avoid the security leak, therefore, only the ATF agents could
receive the warning to stay at home.
Comparing with the above facts, I strongly suspect that the mind control
career operators intentionally risk the federal employees' lives in the
explosion case in order to get more budget and man-power in the mind
control surveillance system.
That's is an evil way of mind control and it can influennce the society
and press' behhavior (request the government and Congress to increase the
budget of security system).
Also that's why the Timonthy Mvcveiigh can drove his car home so easily,
even he drove over speeding limitation in high way and carry the weapon
(according to news report).
And that's why the authority can capture the criminal susopect Timonthy
Mcveiigh in a few days.
The fedeal building bombing victims' question is that why they didn't
receive any warning while the ATF agents can all avoid to be injured in
the case (stay at home for warning). 
====================================================
If the informtion in the TV program "EXTRA" are all true, my deduction are
above.
If the above deduction are all true, then it is another example to extend
the ambition officers' power-- Increasing the fear to criminals in order
to extend the ambition officers's power.
The above case also shows that the Olimypic Central Park Explosion case 
might be a created crime by corrupted mind control operators.
That's because so far the authorities cannot capture the real criminal in
the case.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> 
> Dear Emma,
> 
[snip Einstein is wrong bit left in the "Dear Emma" bit as it made sense]
>  Again, I fundamentally differ with Einstein and thus do not consider
> the Cosmos as being a four dimensional manifold,  considering  
> Time on a par with a spatial coordinate.
> -- 
First point.  Odds are the Cosmos has more than just 4 Dimesions its just
that humans are 4D beings.
Second Point.  If by "Time on a par...." you mean that Time is just
another dimesion like width then fair enough for basic mechanics.
Third Point. Do you have the Maths behind this and the experminental data
 that backs you up ?  Or even just the who maths not just one trite
 equation using unknown units.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
>        ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS  AND EPIDEMICS
>        ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT  
>                      TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
> 
> 
Oh boy.
Steve Jones

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> 
> In article <3293C634.4A5C@ix.netcom.com> tsar@ix.netcom.com writes:
> 
>
> >> It is, see postrelativistic gravity.
> >Or metares.
> Sorry, this word is not in my dictionary.
Oh sorry. Dr. Tom Van Flandern. metares@well.sf.ca.us
He has some interesting ideas regarding gravity.
> 
> >> Not. There are a lot of metaphysical and philosophical conclusions
> >> which people derive from general relativity and consider as derived
> >> from reality, as we observe it. For example, that there is no absolute
> >> time, that FTL information transfer leads to violation of causality
> >> and so on.
> >>
> 
> >It'll be interesting to see which of these derivations survive validation.
> 
> PG - as a classical theory - has survived a long discussion with Klaus
> Kassner. Thus, these derivations - as derivations from real experiment
> - are invalid as long as PG is not falsified by experiment.
> 
Hmmmm ... well yes, it's just such questions as these that I find interesting.
> >> You cannot be sure. It can be added without any problem with any
> >> experiments.
> >Yes. But objectively it is either or ... and you "should" be able to
> >confirm one or the other.
> 
> Why do you think so?  It may be an open question over a very long
> period which theory is better. I think/hope, it will be possible in
> quantum theory to find this out.
> 
Agreed. 
> But, before this can be done, the quantum variants of above theories
> have to be created. PG is much simpler compared with GR in this
> direction, but I'm not a specialist in rigorous quantization of
> nonlinear field theories to do this job alone.
> 
Well, as I've said on numerous occasions, I think a continuing advance
in our capacity to do experiments will lead to more and better answers.
You cannot leave it to thought-experiment, you must "show" the "correct
view".
> >> >You are still confusing confirmed prediction with confirmed axioms.
> >> That's not the point.
> >Oh but it is indeed MY point.
> 
> In this case, clarify this point. This is a general point of
> methodology of science, completely independent from relativity.
> The best I have read about this is Popper.
> 
A good model for prediction can rest on totally false premises (axioms);
an infinite number of examples could be shown. You have to develop
criteria for confirmation which not only rests on confirmation of 
the predictions, but excludes alternate explanations .... for the
highest degree of certainty.
> >> >>One can never be certain. A theory can never be more than a good working
> >> >>hypothesis.
> >> Yes.
> >No. This is simple left over know-nothing metaphysics. It leaves
> >all knowledge as an aproximation ... which isn't good enough even
> >for simple existance.
> 
> >We can be absolutely certain about some things.
> 
> Examples outside mathematics?
> 
The fact of your existence.
> >To pin the criteria of
> >certainty "merely" on the predictive ability of a scheme, is to ignore
> >the validation of the premises upon which the scheme relies. One could
> >continue on indefinently with great predictions and wholly false premises.
> 
> But the probability is low that false premises allow to make great
> predictions. The dependence from Sirius is an observation, not a
> prediction. There is no prediction which follows from the religious
> explanation of this observation different from the not very impressive
> prediction "it will happen in the next year again".
> 
True enough, but this simply reflects the increasing sophistication
of the sciences to differentiate between implications.
> >By your standard it could only change (fall) should the prediction not
> >be forthcoming.
> 
> No. A simpler theory with more predictive power is another
> possibility. Kopernikus and Kepler are examples.
> 
Okay. But until you confirm your premises you are still less certain
than when you do.
W$

Im Artikel <329d7970.68340542@aklobs.org.nz>, rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray
Tomes) schreibt:
>At first it might seem that this is not much different from any other
>harmonic structure in a musical instrument.  However when the
>calculations are done it is seen that some harmonics occur in many
>different ways while others do not.  For example the waves of frequency
>1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 all produce energy at the frequency 12 (the 12th
>harmonic of the original wave) while waves 11 and 13 only occur one way.
>When allowance is made for the fact that the 4th and 6th harmonics also
>occur in multiple ways it is found that the 12th harmonic is 8 times
>more powerful than the 11th or 13th.
>
>At very high numbers some harmonic numbers occur in a phenomenally high
>number of ways.  The number 34560 is an especially important number in
>this way but that will be the subject of another article.
So far no problem. Only one question: Does a graph over those harmonics
show a special pattern one would recognize?
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.

In article , Jan Bielawski  wrote:
>It's impossible to define multiplication "sensibly" in 3-space.
>J. F. Adams proved in 1960 that the only real division algebras 
>were reals, complexes, quaternions, and Cayley numbers.
Bzzt! Caught another one. The only real division algebras are in
dimensions 1, 2, 4, and 8. There are many division algebras. You have
to make further restrictions if you want the answer to be
"only R, C, H, and O".
You don't need the full power of that result to see that there is no
real division algebra of dimension  3; that's considerably easier.
dave

Hi,
Does anybody   know whether  the  EG&G;  Printceton  Applied   Research
Corporation  (that produced  Vibrating   Sample  Magnitometers   M155)
exists. I  would  be  appreciated for any  information  about  current
addresses (postal,fax and E-mail) of this firm.
Sergii

|> candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) writes:
|> >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 ...
Jeff Inman:
|> I don't have the background, or the data, to try and define this
|> precisely, and anyhow, I think the suggestion of such a calculation
|> misses the point.
You mean you're too lazy?  
Current pop: 5.7 x 10^9
Current 20-year growth rate: 1.316 (that is P[n+20] = 1.316 P[n], with n=1996).
Note that this is a very large growth rate; the famous Sweden example
which followed the Malthusian law had less than 1.2 as I recall.  Now, 
the current surface density is 
                 P[1996]
          d = --------------
               4 pi Re^2 s
where s is a surface factor which I'll pull out of thin air ... about 1/6 
to account for the noninhabitable fraction of the surface.  Some sloppy 
math gives:
         d = 5 x 10^(-4) / m^2
Thus there is now about 1 person for every 2000 m^2 of inhabitable land.
Lets suppose a hard limit would be reached at roughly 1 person for every 
20 m^2 (100 times curent density).  At the current high growth rates, this 
would take 335 years.  Now, according to the July 1995 President's Committee 
of Advisors on science and Technology (PCAST) Report, in only 50 years we 
will need about 3000 new, large fission reactors to satisfy only HALF of 
the estimated electricity demand -- the remainder coming from I don't 
know where (coal, wind, hydro, solar ... right).  The "hard limit" in 
energy is thus a major problem.
|> If one were to attempt it, here might be some of the factors to consider:
|> 
|> (1) At what point will some minor disturbance cause a significant
|> failure in our increasingly brittle, extended, and complex global
|> infrastructure?  
"Brittle" infrastructure.  My impression is that much of the relevant 
infrastructure (communication, transport) is robust.  Among the least 
robust is energy.
|> There might be some epistemological problems there.
|> It could be the dwindling of some key species, which supports some
|> significant part of our food chain.  It could be some smallish
|> purturbation in the increasingly brittle weather system (for example.
|> I suppose the fact of this situation might be disputed) -- a couple of
|> years of drought in the wheat and corn producing regions.  
"perturbation"; and what evidence do you have that the "weather" 
is brittle?
|> (2) How much are various people going to be willing to compromise
|> themselves in the name of peace?  Would you be willing to live in a
|> tiny cubicle, eating hydroponically grown food, stuffed full of drugs
|> to combat various food-born infections, etc?  What if the bill of
|> rights is just too destabilizing, in a delicate system?  What if it
|> were proved to you that your food supply required the devastation of a
|> habitat that sustained some foreign people, who were poltically
|> insignificant?
Of course there are forseeable political problems.  However, before 
you jump off the deep end why don't you at least try to understand 
some of the basics? 
|> These are the kinds of choices that I forsee facing humans.  I doubt
|> if science is qualified to make judgements about these things other
|> than to offer suggestions as to how the system might still absorb more
|> pressure.
When does "science" ever make decisions?  What I *do* hope is those 
who are in a position to make important decisions have -- at least -- 
a bit of common sense. 
|> But, more interestingly, the Malthusian dilemma points to an
|> interesting fundamental dilemma in the values of life.  It suggests
|> that life is actually at odds with itself, which though we have
|> accepted in terms of Darwinian theory, we have yet to sublimate into
|> our science.
The sentiment "life is at odds with itself" appears awfully vague; 
moreover, I don't know what on earth it has to do with (a) the 
gene for prostate cancer, (b) the neutrino mass, or (c) the solar 
wind.  
|> >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)?  
|> 
|> Not particularly relevant to my general point.  But: I don't know.
|> There're costs.
Lets see, China's demand for energy is *not* relevant to your 
"general point", but the brittle weather system is.
I give up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3298F83D.6472@hvi.uu.se>,
   Anders Larsson  wrote:
>When reading an old paper from J. Chem. Phys. I encountered 'mole %' as 
>the unit for water concentrations in air. Can anyone give a definition of 
>this unit? Thanks.
How about moles of water vapour/moles of total gas vapor X 100?  Also known as 
volume percent.
Tim Blackmore    tim_blackmore@notes.ipl.ca

Hoi Netters,
Does anybody a more or less exact equation of state for 
a 2D hard circular disk fluid. I am looking for the 2D
analogon of the Carnahan-Starling or Pervus-Yervick ap-
proximation. Perhaps, you have some references for me?
Thank you, regards,
        Henk Huinink (email: huinink@fenk.wau.nl)

JRANCK@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> Could someone please help me with what is probably a simple statics
> problem for a high school physics class?  I am not denying that this
> is a homework problem, and I am admitting that I should know how to do
> this.  However, I am having great difficulty with this one problem.
> 
> The problem is as follows:
> 
> A sled weighing 100 N is pulled horizontally across the snow while a
> 120 N penguin sits on it.  The �(kinetic) = .1 between the sled and
> snow and �(static) = .7 between the pengiun and sled.  What is the
> maximum force that can be applied horizontally without the penguin
> slipping off?
> 
> Thanks for any help you could give me.  Please post here of e-mail to:
> 
The maximum force applied to the penguin is 0.7*120N = 84N.
The maximum force applied to the tandem is 0.7*220N = 154N.
The force required to start the tandem in motion is
0.1*220N = 22N.  Notice that the maximum force exceeds
the break-out force, so we can get the bugger in motion
on the sled.  [Presumably, the static coefficient of 
friction between the bird and the sled is greater than
0.7.]
When the bird starts to slide off the sled, 
the accelleration is 0.7 g, where g is the local
gravitational accelleration.  At that point, the force
applied to the tandem is
   F = (220N/g) 0.7 g = 0.7 * 220N.
-- 
***************************************************************
  Dr. Albert P. Gerheim   |    Sonalysts, Inc. PO. Box 280 
  gerheim@sonalysts.com   |         215 Parkway North
  1 (800) 526-8091 X 218  |        Waterford, CT  06385
***************************************************************

One of my friends is PhD in nuclear chemistry. He is looking for a
postdoc opportunity in his field. The summary (in french -- sorry !) of
his thesis follows below.
If you know some good mailing lists or e-mail addresses he could
contact, or any helpful informations, please send them to me.
Thanks a lot for your help,
Jean-Marc Radelet (jmr@info.ucl.ac.be)
===========================================================================
                     ETUDE DE LA RADIOLYSE GAMMA
           DANS DES COMPOSES DE COBALT (III) A SPIN FAIBLE
La dissertation a pour objectif l'etude de la radiolyse gamma dans des
composes de cobalt (III) a spin faible. Un tel choix a ete motive par
le fait que ces composes presentent l'avantage d'etre cinetiquement
inertes et propices a l'etude des reactions de racemisation sous
l'action des radiations.
En vue de determiner les mecanismes reactionnels de la radiolyse, la
presente recherche a pris en compte l'influence de divers parametres:
1. La nature et le nombre de ligands. Plusieurs complexes de cobalt ont
   ete synthetises et irradies au 60Co:
	M^o(^s^Up5(I);^s^do4(3))Co(C2O4)3 xH2O  ou M^o(^s^Up5(I );;^s^do4())=
	Li^o(^s^Up5(+);^s^do4()), NH^o(^s^Up5(+);;^s^do4(4 )),
	Na^o(^s^Up5(+);;^s^do4()), K^o(^s^Up5(+);^s^do4()),
	Rb^o(^s^Up5(+);;^s^do4()), Cs^o(^s^Up5(+);;^s^do4())
	M^o(^s^Up5(I))M^o(^s^Up5(II))Co(C2O4)3.xH2O ou M^o(^s^Up5(II );^s^do4())=
	(Pb, Ba)
	M^o(^s^Up5(II);^s^do4(3))Co[(C2O4)3]2.xH2O  ou M^o(^s^Up5(II)) = (Ca, Sr, Ba)
	K[Coen(C2O4)2].xH2O
	[Coen2C2O4]Y.xH2O  ou Y = ( 1/2SO^o(^s^Up5(--);;^s^do4(4)), Cl^o(^s^Up5(-))]
	[+] [-] Coen3Y3.xH2O ou Y = (  Cl^o(^s^Up5(-)), l^o(^s^Up5(-)),
	1/2C^o(^s^Up5();;^s^do4(4))O^o(^s^Up5(--);;^s^do4(4))]
2. Etat physique de l'echantillon irradie (solide ou en solution
   aqueuse).
3. Influence de la dose absorbee, du debit de la dose et de la
   temperature de recuit apres irradiation.
4. Influence de la concentration initiale et de divers solutes, dans le
   cas de la radiolyse des solutions de Co(ox)33- et Co(en )33+.
Parmi les conclusions les plus interessantes de la these, citons:
1. Le rendement radiolytique de reduction du Co(III) en Co(II) augmente
   quand le numero atomique du cation alcalin croit: ce travail permet
   ainsi d'etablir que cet effet du cation est du a un effet physique,
   en confirmant des travaux anterieurs sur les composes de Fer(III).
   Cet effet physique est plus difficile a interpreter dans le cas des
   cations alcalino-terreux.
2. Dans certains cas, l'eau d'hydratation entraine des augmentations du
   rendement radiolytique, a cause d'une dissolution partielle du
   solide dans l'eau liberee. Cet effet a ete controle dans la
   radiolyse de solutions correspondantes.
3. La nature du ligand directement lie au cobalt dans la 1er sphere de
   coordination se revele preponderante sur le degre d'avancement de la
   reaction.
4. Dans le cas du complexe avec l'ethelyndiamine, la radiolyse g donne
   lieu a la racemisation des composes optiquement actifs.

cmorse@zoomnet.net wrote:
: In <3293ded3.1261377@news.twics.com>, salvia@salvia.com (SALVIA) writes:
: >Salvia divinorum is a Mexican sage which seems to induce short-periods
: >of dream-like phenomena which are very remarkable.
: >Judge for yourself:
: What the hell is this doing in this soc.culture.brazil?
I guess the writer must have been in a dream-like state of mind.
--
# Joao de Souza - Network Manager - Systems Developer #
#  Management and Governance Network (MagNet) - BPPS  #
#         United Nations Development Programme        #
#        jdsouza@undp.org - http://www.undp.org       #

In article <57dvq3$1f9e@uni.library.ucla.edu> zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>>Observable means affecting other things.  If it does, you'll notice 
>>>>it.  Of course you can postulate something that , while in principle 
>>>>observable, will never be observed since the effects are too small.  
>
>>>No, observable means observable.  If Shimony and other interactionists
>>>are right, minds are extra-physical and non-observable substances that
>>>affect material things.
>
>>And if they're wrong?
>
>Irrelevant.  A definition is vitiated by the mere logical possibility
>of satisfying the definiens without falling under the definiendum.
If they interact with material things, then they're not non-observable,
since their presence can be deduced from the interactions.  Unless
you are also going to postulate that the fashion in which they affect
material things is *also* non-observable, in which case I question
your (improper) use of "affect."
	Patrick

David Swanson (dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
: In article <57dtpg$dh3@netnews.upenn.edu>
: weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: > I don't know you personally; all I address are your posts.
: > 
: > Silke
: What's the difference?
My point exactly; as I said, I don't see why it's allright to call 
Derrida a charlatan but not Raghu.
S.
: David
: "In Europe, they aren't quite that bold yet; there are stone structures
: there and people have something to hold on to." -Dostoievski

JRANCK@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> Could someone please help me with what is probably a simple statics
> problem for a high school physics class?  I am not denying that this
> is a homework problem, and I am admitting that I should know how to do
> this.  However, I am having great difficulty with this one problem.
> 
> The problem is as follows:
> 
> A sled weighing 100 N is pulled horizontally across the snow while a
> 120 N penguin sits on it.  The �(kinetic) = .1 between the sled and
> snow and �(static) = .7 between the pengiun and sled.  What is the
> maximum force that can be applied horizontally without the penguin
> slipping off?
> 
> Thanks for any help you could give me.  Please post here of e-mail to:
> 
> JRANCK@ix.netcom.com
> 
> Thanks again.
> MIKE
The drag force of the whole system (sled+penguin on snow) ...Fd
The force that accelerates the system...Fa
The force being applied on the sled...F
Fd=(100N+120N)*0.1
Fa: (this force is also exerted on the penguin+sled system, at the time
the penguin starts slipping off, Fa and the static drag of the penguin
have to equal: Fa=120N*.7 
now you can easily solve for F, while F=Fd+Fa
-- 
\    / | --+--   | | |-\   /\   |-\ |-- /-\ | / \ /
 \  /  |   |     |-| |_/  /--\  | | |-  |   |/   |
  \/   |   |     | | | \ /    \ |_/ |__ \_/ | \  |

roth@tpusa.com wrote:
: I have a 13 year old that wants to tinker. They want something other
: than wimpy mechanical toy sets- they want an assortment of gears,
: pulleys, shivs, belts, pillow blocks, shafts, wheels, motors, etc. so
: that they can design and build all sorts of mechanical contrivances.
: We're talking about stuff on the miniature side here, not "full size".
: 
: Any ideas or suggestions on how to find such items, possibly in an
: collection already?
: 
: Thanks,
: 
: Lee
Here in the Chicago area there is a placed called American Science & Surplus
which might have what you want.  It's hard to describe the place.  They sell
some basic science kits, they have a great assortment of telescopes,
glassware, etc, yet most of the store consists of various bins and boxes
containing almost anything. If it's gears you're looking for, they've got
them. The last time I was there I saw a shelf dedicated to small gears and
belts, etc.  
There's an awful lot of surplace electronics equipment as well. You can easily
find guages, switches, motors, etc, often pulled from military
equipment.  Then there was the time I saw a box of touch-tone keypads,
individually wrapped and including wiring info.  I think you can get the
idea...
There's also a location in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area.  I don't know of any
others. Perhaps you could contact them and see if they've put together a basic
kit as you've described.  Here's the numbers:
American Science & Surplus
  Chicago - (773) 763-0313 
Milwaukee - (414) 541-7777
Good Luck!
-- 
david gunter 
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/gunter/
-------------------------------------
"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find
sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite
different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it."
- A.A. Milne, "The House At Pooh Corner"

In article , root@carat.lviv.ua wrote:
> Does anybody   know whether  the  EG&G;  Printceton  Applied   Research
> Corporation 
PAR went out of business.

Friends:
The 1997 COLA (Conference on Laser Ablation) website is found at:
http://cola97.ornl.gov
Best Regards,
odg@ornl.gov

Claudio Manuel Neves Valente:
|> Can anyone recommend me a good book on Cannonical Transformations?
|> 
|> I am particulary interested in getting a fair amount of pratctice.
|> 
|> Thank you in advance.
Ola Claudio,
Others will surely recommend the books by Goldstein, Arnol'd 
and Landau/Lifshitz.  However, if you are unfamiliar with the 
topic, the following is a useful book:
    "Introduction to Dynamics", by Percival and Richards
     (Cambridge, 1982).
Chau,
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

ZBA2410  wrote:
>> 
>> 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??? 
The people who get PAID to think about this stuff.
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise

Anders Larsson  wrote:
>When reading an old paper from J. Chem. Phys. I encountered 'mole %' as 
>the unit for water concentrations in air. Can anyone give a definition of 
>this unit? Thanks.
A mole of water is about 18 grams.  A mole of air (average molecular 
weight of dry air) is about 29.  One imagines mole-% water would be moles 
of water to be had in a corresponding volume or weight of wet air.
-- 
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!