Directory

odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
> relativity is wrong, or deficient, isn't it? Velocity is merely the
> first derivative of acceleration. If you see the light curve back under
> Edward Meisner
Other way around: accleration is the first derivative of velocity.
Regards,
Darrin

In article , wilkins@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>|In article <57g3ki$7f2@tierra.santafe.edu>, jti@pajarito.santafe.edu (Jeff
>Inman) writes:
>|>
>|>However, it seems to me that science does operate on the premise of
>|>certain kinds of values.  Utility, for example.  "Useless" knowledge
>|>is uninteresting to scientists.  
>|
>|Where did you take it from?  The whole history of science indicates 
>|otherwise.
>|
>Wasn't there a famous mathematician who prided himself on never having done
>anything remotely useful?
>
More then one, probably.  You may be referring to Hilbert's toast: 
"long live pure mathematics, and may it never be of any use to 
anybody."
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <57gpd3$25rk@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:
	... snip ...
>
>>>Irrelevant.  A definition is vitiated by the mere logical possibility
>>>of satisfying the definiens without falling under the definiendum.
>>>Even so, Bell's beables afford yet another, physical counterexample.
>
>>Did I ever mention that you should use shorter words if you want me to 
>>understand?  Hmm, yes, but not to you.  Well, it is never to late.
>
>Shorter words are no substitute for precisely chosen words.
No.  One gets the feeling sometimes, though, that long words may be 
chosen bacause they sound more impressive, regardless of clarity.
>>"Observable means observable" is a nice sound bite.  How do you think 
>>you observe an elsectron (not to mention a neutrino)?  Do you think 
>>you look through a magnifying glass and see a little ball with an "e" 
>>engraved on it?
>
>Elementary particles are certainly not observable in the same sense as
>their tracks in cloud chambers.  But even if we stretch the meaning of
>the term to cover any object capable of initiating a causal chain that
>terminates by impinging on sensory organs, it will not apply to every
>causally efficacious entity.  Although human motives cause observable
>behavior, they are not in any reasonable sense observable themselves.
Hmm, I would refrain from taking such a clear cut position here.  At 
most I would argue that they may not be objectively observable.
>If John visibly and tangibly leaps to his death from the bell tower
>because of his unrequited love for Mary, we are not in a position to
>impute observability to the cause of his demise.
"We?"  I trust you're not speaking for me :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

HI
Is it easier to detect electron neutrinos? If so, why?
Has anyone got any recent news and developpement at Superkamiokande?
Best reagrds, 
ANNA

	

Universe Evolution



 According to "My Best Fractal Formula","Calculating The Mass Of The Pla=
nets
And Stars" and "Relativistic And Fractal", we can get a good picture of the=
Universe Evolution.
In the beginning the temperature was very high, the energy level of the =
Universe was very little. According to "My Best Fractal Formula" the mass i=
s
temperature dependent, so due to the high temperature in the beginning the =
mass
was very large.If the temperature in the beginning was very large, then the=
 gravity-field =
frequency was very high. According to the "EQF-theory" the g-force was very=
large at that time. According to "Relativistic And Fractal" the speed of =
light was very high,and that will give an infinite imaginary time in the
beginning. The size of the Universe in the beginning was very little accord=
ing
to the Lorentz - transformation, Newton`s gravity formula and the fractal e=
nergy.
Then the Universe for some reason started to get colder, the mass became sm=
aller
than in the beginning. The time began to get shorter, and the energy-level
of the Universe began to increase. At 128000 deg. K the mass of the Univers=
e
has it`s minimum value of 1.225 E+21 kg. 1/3 of the Sun mass today.
The expansion continued. After the temperature of 128000 deg. K the mass be=
gun
to increase. The time got shorter and begin to decrease to zero.
According to the Newton gravity-formula and the energy of the Universe,
the expansion still continued. At present time the mass is 5.92 E+47 kg and=
the radius of the Universe according to to Newton`s gravity formula is =
5 E+42 m. The temperature is 3 deg. K The time moves very fast against zero=
,
and the speed of light is very low (1.1199 m/s), compared to the speed of l=
ight on the
Earth. Further the g-force and gravity-field frequency are very low.
The radius of 5 E+42 must be transformed to Earth scale, and will be 1.4781=
 E+34.
It is exactly the inverse of Planck`s constant multiplied with 9.81, the gr=
avity
on the Earth. In fractal micro cosmos the Planck`s constant is the smallest=
mass a particle can consist of.
From Newton`s gravity formula point of view, the Universe is expanding for
ever, but from a fractal physics point of view, the Universe is in contract=
ion
until zero value.
 =

Pertti Lounesto (lounesto@dopey.hut.fi) wrote:
: 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.
Cantor's diagonal proof shows that there are more real numbers than there
are whole numbers (positive integers). Since we're dealing with infinite
sets here we need a way of saying when two sets have the same cardinality,
i.e. are equinumerous, have the same number of elements. Our criterion is
that we can pair off the elements of one set with another in such a way
that both sets are totally used up. The number of people in a theater is
the same as the number of seats if there are no empty seats and no one is
standing. 
By this criterion, the even numbers are equinumerous with ALL the whole
numbers even though it might seem that one set is twice the size of the
other. But 2N <--> N pairs them up with none left on either side. How
about the whole numbers and the fractions? Make a table of all the
fractions by putting P/Q in the Pth row and the Qth column. 
 1/1  1/2  1/3 ...
 2/1  2/2  2/3 ...
 3/1  3/2  3/3 ... 
 ...
Now count them - not by going across or down - you get stuck in a row or
column that way - but by going 1/1 1/2 2/1 3/1 2/2 1/3 1/4 2/3 ... . Trace
it out - you'll see the pattern. But as you go, count, i.e. pair 1 to 1/1,
pair 2 to 1/2, etc. In this way you number all the fractions and pair each
fraction to a whole number. (Of course 3/3 is the same as 2/2 - big deal -
just skip over it!). So the whole numbers and the fractions are
equinumerous - which is surprising - and we begin to think infinite is
infinite is infinite.
Ah, but no! What about the reals? A real is just any number that is
expressed as a decimal, no matter how many digits to the right of the
decimal point - even an infinte number - e.g. 3.1415926 ... . To make
things easy for our self, we will show that not just the reals, but even
one small interval of the reals - between 0 and 1 say - is more numerous
than all the whole numbers. So we will deal with numbers like .1415926... 
So we are saying that the reals in this interval cannot be paired up with
the whole numbers. Why not? Well, assume so. If so then we can write a
list something like:
     1 <--> .1415926...
     2 <--> .4512789...
     3 <--> .3892340...
     4 <--< .8000000...
     ....
And such a list would have every real between 0 and 1 in it. But there be
no such list. Why not you ask?. Because you've left out a real! Whoa, how
can say that - this is just a for example thing - don't you see the ... .
They're all there! I'm telling you. Ah, but you left one I say. You left
out .2549.... . This number differs from each of the numbers in the list -
it differs from the first in the first digit, from the second in the
second digit, from the third in the third digit, etc. I have the freedom
to do that - there are ten digits. So that number is NOT in the list, even
though the list is completely general, completely unspecified. In other
words, it's impossible to list (count) the reals because no matter how we
do it, it's always possible to show one that we missed.
Clearly there are at least as many reals, even in this interval, as whole
numbers. (That should be easy by now.) So because of the above we can say
that there are more reals than whole numbers. In other words, there's more
than one kind of infinity! And with that you've taken the first step into
Cantor's paradise.
Some of Rudy Rucker's books are a good place to learn more in a fun way.
The cognoscenti will (rightly) point out some liberties I've taken.
-Dave D.

In article <57hqp0$ie@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
>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.
"Mole %" is an obsolete expression for mole per decilitre (mol/dL).
Andreas Prilop

[What are the coefficients B'n in Stirling expansion for gamma(x)?]
I am interested in Stirling _assymptotic_ expansion for gamma(x).
We can take a look at it on line in
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/
~eww6n/math/s2node197.html#SECTION0000197000000000000000
( expansion for gamma(x) )
and
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/
~eww6n/math/s2node194.html#SECTION0000194000000000000000
( expansion for ln(gamma(x)) ).
The coefficients B2n in the expansion for ln(gamma(x)) are the Bernoulli
numbers.
Question is:
What are the coefficients B'n in the expansion for gamma(x)?
They are not the Bernoulli numbers because numerical substitution dows
not yeld the
numerical coeficients (the first ones) that are shown.
Or am I getting something wrong?

In article <57fm63$12gu@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
Ross Tessien   wrote:
>The question is, are the "Dimensions" of string theory in essence 
>**degrees of freedom** of the system of strings, or are they physical 
>dimensions in the sense of length and time?
One perfectly fine answer would be that this question is too vague
to be meaningful, until one specifies precisely what one means by
a "physical" dimension.  
However, in the holiday spirit, I'll be nice:
They are physical dimensions in the sense of length and time.  Each 
extra dimension of space gives the string an extra direction in which 
to wiggle back and forth, hence extra degrees of freedom.  (Of course, 
each extra dimension provides the string with *infinitely* many extra 
degrees of freedom, since it takes infinitely many numbers to describe 
even the position of a string that can only wiggle up and down in one 
direction.)
That's all there is to it for a bosonic string.  For a supersymmetric
string, spacetime also has additional "odd" or "fermionic" coordinates,
as explained in "week95".   These are a bit harder to get used to.  For
these, it is tougher (and probably pointless) to decide whether they
are "physical" dimensions in the sense of length and time.  They are
analogous, but anticommuting instead of commuting.  They are physical
in the sense of being relevant to the physics of this theory.

Followup to:  <01bbda37$8e9e0e00$21cbadce@crc3.concentric.net>
By author:    "Paul Childs" 
In newsgroup: comp.std.internat
> > 
> > Dunno! Sounds good to me (as long as we still only work fivre of them)
> 
> The logical conclusion from this would be that we would also have to work 8
> out of 10 hours each of those five days.  It doesn't sound like fun to me!
> 
Hmmm... 8/10 * 5/10 = 40% duty cycle
        8/24 * 5/7  = 24% duty cycle
Nope, definitely not fun...
	-hpa
-- 
This space intentionally has nothing but text explaining why this
space has nothing but text explaining why this space would otherwise
have been left blank, and would otherwise have been left blank.

Sorry if I spelled it wrong, but I'm a Spanish freshmen at the University of
Seville (SPAIN E.U.) and I want to know, if you please, everithing about it.
Including Trigonometrical forms, frequency, natural frequency, oscillations
with damping forces, equations...
THANKS
PS. I will send a X-mas E-mail card...

The Size of Thoughts Essays by Nicholson Baker
I just discovered this great writer late last night (Nov 26, 1996) in
Lawrence Ferhlinghetti's City Lights Book Store after Tapas at Enrico's
on Broadway and a full day in Caffe Trieste working on the Feynman
Project from my wireless laptop.
"Each thought has a size, and most are about three feet tall, with the
level of complexity of a lawnmower engine, or a cigarette lighter, or
those tubes of toothpaste that, by mingling several hidden pastes and
gels, create a pleasantly striped product ... But a really large
thought, a thought in the presence of which whole urban centers would
rise to their feet, and cry out with expressions of gratefulness and
kinship; a thought with grandeur, and drenching, barrel-scorning
cataracts, and detonations of fist-clenched hope, and hundreds of
cellos, a thought that can tear phone books in half, and rap on the iron
nodes of experience until every blue girder rings; a thought that may
one day pack everything noble and good into its briefcase, elbow past
the curators of purposelessness, travel overnight toward Truth, and
shake it by the indifferent marble shoulders until it finally whispers
its cool assent-- this is the size of thought worth thinking about."
This Web Site is dedicated to LARGE THOUGHTS like the
The Feynman Project http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/feynpro1.html

Someone has raised the question: how does one suck in a piece of cooked
spaghetti? It can't be as simple as, say, sucking milk through a straw,
where sucking causes the air pressure over the milk to force the liquid
up. If you push on the end of the spaghetti strand it just buckles.
Perhaps one sucks in air AROUND the spaghetti, and the friction drags the
strand along with it, but one has little sensation of taking in a lot of
air when eating pasta. CCs by E-mail appreciated. For a newspaper column.
-Ed

In <3299E0C8.3828@livingston.net> Hermital 
writes: 
>
>Michael Ramsey wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3297BDF1.7BEA@california.com>, stan@california.com
says...
>
>> >What you may have said is there is no global theory for time
reversal.
>> >It dilates, even goes to zero if you're riding the beam, but never
>> >reverses. Esentially, we have no theory for time reversal-travel. A
>> >multi-verse can be discussed, but not in the context of SR.
>
>> > [snip]
>> 
>> Stan,
>>  electrons travel backwards in time.  If physicist didn't take this
>> possibility into account, Quantum electrodynamics (QED) would not
match
>> experimental fact.  See "QED: The strange theory of light and
matter", by
>> Feynman, pub. by Princeton University Press, pp.97-98.
>
>Hello, Mike:
>
>Electrons may appear to move backward in time and mathematical
>manipulation of the time vector is possible; however, these are merely
>appearances and possibilities, not fact.  Indeed, you qualify your own
>statement with the word "possibility".
>
>Strange things happen to various possibilities as science, life and
time
>move forward.
>-- 
>Alan
>Egoless pure consciousness, unconditioned pure energy, uncreated
>absolute pure being pre-exists:  All else is supervenient.
Alan,
 I am not so sure that it is only a mathematical trick.  Both Maxwell's
and Schrodinger's equations have negative square root answers which can
be interpreted as waves travelling backwards in time.  We have chosen
to ignore the math because we don't like what it is telling us.
I did use possibilities.  The right word should have been amplitude. 
As has been shown over and over again, when you remove an amplitude for
the electron to do something, the experimental results change.  Time
travelling electrons have to be considered and not dismissed as
inconvenient.  All we fool are ourselves.
--Best regards,
--Mike Ramsey

In <3299DA10.146C1F9E@alcyone.com> Erik Max Francis 
writes: 
>
>Michael Ramsey wrote:
>
>> Stan,
>>  electrons travel backwards in time.  If physicist didn't take this
>> possibility into account, Quantum electrodynamics (QED) would not
match
>> experimental fact.  See "QED: The strange theory of light and
matter", by
>> Feynman, pub. by Princeton University Press, pp.97-98.
>
>It sounds like you're being a little flippant with the reference to
>positrons being electrons moving backward in time.
>
>What this really means is that in a Feynman diagram you can reverse a
>particle arrow and change the particle to its antiparticle and the
>diagram will still be reasonable.  That is to say, the destruction of
a
>particle is equivalent to the creation of its antiparticle, and vice
>versa.
>
>For instance, the beta decay has a neutron decaying to a proton, and
>electron, and an electron-antineutrino:
>
>    n -> p + e- + antinu_e
>
>Since the creation of a particle is equivalent to the destruction of
its
>antiparticle, you can turn the antineutrino into a neutrino and move
it
>over to the left side of the reaction:
>
>    n + nu_e -> p + e-
>
>Here you have neutrino-induced beta decay.
>
I didn't mean to be flippant.  Did Feynman believe in time traveling
electrons or was it just a trick (like renormalization)?
--Best regards,
--Mike Ramsey

Travis Hardy wrote:

Add your name to this list of stupid people and send it to everyone!
> 
>                 1.      Travis Hardy
> 
>                         9766 E.  Mexico Ave.
> 
>                         #1303
> 
>                         Denver,  Co  80213
> 
>                 2.      Sean Jackson
> 
>                         706 Warren Ave.
> 
>                         Gillette,  Wy  82716
> 
>                 3.      Donna  Rae Rourke
> 
>                         437 Gayle St.
> 
>                         Ft.  Morgan,  CO  80701
> 
>                 4.      TSH
> 
>                         234 Bek Hall
> 
>                         Grand Forks, ND  58202-2001
> 
>                 5.      Parker Lohmann
> 
>                         9928 Wagner Ln.
> 
>                         Westminster,  CO  80030
> 

=09I have a problem in deducting why the P-V diagrams of the Van der=20
Walls isothermals are cubic equations.
=09No solutions i have found so far. If you could provide any=20
insight in this matter i would much aprecciate it.
=09=09Andr=E9 David        =20
._____________________________________  adavid@fisica.ist.utl.pt  _________=
__.
|                                                    Physics student at IST=
, |
|- Quote: ---------------------------------------.                   Lisbon=
, |
|       " God is real, unless declared void"     |                  Portuga=
l |
`------------------------------------------------'-------------------------=
--'
(This signature is under medical surveillance :-) )

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> ZBA2410 wrote:
> 
> > Who still thinks that nothing can travel faster than c???  C is just a
> > relative velocity, that's all.
> 
> It is? That's news to me. Odd - I thought it was one of the few absolutes
> around.
> 
> Let's see - if a light ray passes me at speed c, and is chased by my friend
> Fred, who's moving in the same direction at speed c/2 relative to me
> (apparently I'm not pretty enough for him to stay), then if he measures the
> speed of the ray, he must find that its speed relative to him is......well, actually,
> still c. Doesn't seem very relative, some how.
> 
> Sylvia.
Some "things" can be made to travel faster than light. For instance, if
I use a laser to shine a spot on the moon, if I then rotate the laser at
a speed of more than 1/3 revolution per second (not very fast even for
an old chappie like myself), the spot on the surface of the moon will
travel about twice as fast as light (since the moon is more than 300000
km away).
So the spot can be made to travel faster than light. The speed of the
spot being V = 2*Pi*(3*10^8)*(1/3). 
This does not mean that information or energy can be passed at a faster
speed than light. And the speed limit is now considered to apply only to
mass/information transfer. 
BTW I'm sure Fred would have stopped ! ;-) 
John

edzotti@aol.com wrote:
>Someone has raised the question: how does one suck in a piece of cooked
>spaghetti? It can't be as simple as, say, sucking milk through a straw,
>where sucking causes the air pressure over the milk to force the liquid
>up. If you push on the end of the spaghetti strand it just buckles.
>Perhaps one sucks in air AROUND the spaghetti, and the friction drags the
>strand along with it, but one has little sensation of taking in a lot of
>air when eating pasta. CCs by E-mail appreciated. For a newspaper column.
>-Ed
Alas, it is as simple as sucking milk through a straw.  Air pressure 
inside your mouth is lowered relative to that outside, your lips form a 
suitably conformal orifice about the strand, the sauce is the lubricant, 
and the differential air pressure drives it in.
Try sucking in a cooked strand without sauce (butter, olive oil, or other 
grease).  "Moving parts in contact require lubrication," Heinlein.
You can also entrain a strand within an airstream.  As its contact with 
your lips in this case is minimal, it will work on sticky spaghetti.
-- 
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!

In  gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Gregory  Dandulakis) writes: 
>
>In article Michael Ramsey <745532603@compuserve.com> wrote:
>...
>>Stan,
>> electrons travel backwards in time.  If physicist didn't take this 
>>possibility into account, Quantum electrodynamics (QED) would not
match
>>experimental fact.  See "QED: The strange theory of light and
matter", by
>>Feynman, pub. by Princeton University Press, pp.97-98.
>
>
>This is not a "possibility" in a _factual_ sense.  It is only
>a mathematical trick, just as _superposition_ of fields from di-
>ferent sources is a mathematical trick in classical field theory.
>Don't expect to be able to measure/register/observe "time reversal",
>as you don't expect to measure/register/observe two electrical fields
>at the same place at the same time.
>
>And BTW, quantum mechanical "interpretations" are still struggling
>to _deduce_ the fundamental concept, for the existence of science,
>"fact/datum" from the theory...!  It seems that finally they have
>almost done it!
>
Gregory,
 you answered my append of a few minutes ago ("Is it a trick?").  The
pragmatic view ("It is just mathematics") strikes me as ultimately
unsatisfying.  What about the original Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory?
Isn't radiative resistance a measurementment of FTL travel?  How else
do you explain it?  What about inertia?  What does cause inertia? 
There are unanswered questions.   
--Best regards,
--Mike Ramsey

::: I remain convinced the planets move around the Sun. 
:: They do.  They also move around the earth, 
:: in a slightly more complicated orbit. 
: tsar@ix.netcom.com
: There are reasons why "frames" and coordinates have origins ...  and
: why it's said the dog wags his tail ...  not the other way around. 
True.  But from what else he says, it seems clear that tsar has
very little idea what those reasons actually are.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

inquisitor@mindspring.com (Inquisitor) wrote:
>END of ARGUMENT...Right Here Folks
>Although there is no empirical evidence for either creation 
>or evolution, one has to consider which has the most rational
>basis.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for evolution, and it has been
presented ad nauseam on UseNet.  It has also been ignored ad nauseam
by the bleaters.
>Creation: based on biblical evidence that has been intrepreted,
>reintrepreted, misintrepeted, translated, retranslated, 
>mistranslated, written and re-written innumerable times over
>the course of the ages.
True.
>Evolution: re: the above, make your own conclusions.
OK, I will.
>This thread ends right here.
On this note, I have unequivocal proof that you are wrong. :)
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

:: This is also misleading, one might even consider it nonsensical. 
:: Because the meaning of "absolute" is simply "independent of observer";
: tsar@ix.netcom.com
: No the meaning of "absolute" is "unqualified" and/or invariant within
: the frame of the particular observer. 
That's what tsar, in his role as Humpty Dumpty, might mean by it, sure.
Of course, everybody else has been using the word in this context for
the last few decades to mean observer independent, in the spirit of the
6a "measurement" meaning in the hypertext Webster's: "6a: independent of
arbitrary standards of measurement", meaning "independent of which
observer does the measuring".  Choice of observer in this context is
"arbitrary", you see. 
Things like elapsed time along a trajectory (ie, proper time),
rest mass, and spacetime interval between events are absolute
in this sense.  Observer or coordinate time or distance between
events is not.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

	I admit to not following this thread from the start and in what
I have seen in its middle it seems to have degenerated into nit-picking
and name calling. I would like to offer my out of context take on
the subject.
	Science is a human activity which makes use of and must deal with
human frailities especially the tendancy to jump to conclusions, to
place evaluation on facts prematurely and with pre-judgement, prejudices.
Hopefully the preceedures in science eventually separate flawed thinking
by people from verifiable facts and useful generalizations which can lead
to improvements in its framework of ideas.
	In order to give appearance to the objectivity of its proceedures
scientists say that they try to avoid what may sound like moralizing while
doing science. When they do not do science they are free to philosophize
and moralize to their heart's content. Mnay of the great scientists of
our age and others engaged in speaking and writing on subjects outside
of the area of fundemental science in which they excelled. They were
not doing science on those ocassions but were behaving as one of the
great intellectuals of their age and culture, commenting on the
general human situation and its meaning, moralizing about it. The
physicists who developed the atomic bomb, when they were not doing
atomic physics, agitated about the morality of the use of it as a weapon
and indeed about the morality of war and the arms race in general. They
had placed value on the results of their science, when they were not
doing science. In their minds there must have been a deep distinction
between doing science, the reasons for pursuing atomic physics, and
the moral and political implications of their work. There is something
compelling about discovering more fundemental properities of matter
and the universe, apart from the morality of immediate applications.
	I would argue that this is an important and useful difference.
Were it not so, one would have to argue that the kind of reality that
the scientist developes is less important than the reality developed
under the leadership of culture-bound religion or other thinkers in
the nation. Consider a state like the Islamic Republic of Iran. In
order to perserve the traditional culture based on an Islamic theocracy,
that society has chosen to isolate itself from the outside, especially
the influience of the West. There is nothing to stop it from using
the fruits of technology created mostly in the West. Dealing in
purloined fissile isotopes is not beyond its interests, for example,
but what would happen if its survival depended on technical competition
with an open secular society such as the U.S.? It might be able to
survive for a time by spying and using stolen technology. But ultimately
it would fall behind, if its future depended on being able to innovate
competitively, it would have to have the traits of an open and creative
society employing attitudes contrary to its valued traditions.
	In our society we value delayed judgement and mental habits
that do not junp to evaluation in the moral sense too soon. I leave
the definition of how soon to be an open question. I simply wanted
to make some useful distinctions.
Bruce Salem
-- 
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!

In article <57dlc5$r0b@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Steve Carlip  wrote:
>Note: follow-up limited to sci.physics
>
>-Mammel,L.H. (lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com) wrote:
>
>: ........... then a longer discussion in chapter 12 of Newtonian
>: theory in the language of spacetime curvature.
>
>Chapter 12 of MTW is not about general relativity, but about
>Newtonian gravity in a geometric context. 
So didn't I just say that ?  SHEEESH !!!!
Lew Mammel, Jr.

In article <329d7970.68340542@aklobs.org.nz>,
Ray Tomes  wrote:
>It is clear to me that not many people have grasped the basic concept of
>the harmonics theory.  This is evident because of the accusations by a
>number of scientific types that there is something arbitrary in the
>harmonics that I say are the important ones.  For that reason I thought
>that I would take it a bit slower with a small step at a time.  I am
>prone to going too fast, so please stop me if I do that.
Well this science type doesn't object to your hamonics but does object to your
claim that the observations of galaxy quantisations by Tifft confirms a
prediction of your theory. Your theory has no way of producing galaxies at the
nodes of your standing waves so therefore there is no evidence to justify your
theory.
Phil

Peter Diehr (pdiehr@mail.ic.net) wrote:
: Keith Stein wrote:
: > 
: >                 +q                          +q
: >                A*<---------- D ------------>*B
: > 
: > Imagine i have these two charges,A and B,right,?
: >                     each of magnitude +q,right ?
: >                  held a distance D apart,right ?
: >                    as illustrated above, right ?
: > 
: > CLEARLY there will be an electrostatic force between A and B, right ?
: > 
: > BUT, assuming the charges 'A' and 'B' are stationary, there will be
: >                 NO 'MAGNETIC FORCE' BETWEEN 'A' and 'B', right ?
: > 
: > OK, BUT 'stationary' is a 'matter of opinion'................... right?
: > 
: > To an observer on the moon, A and B would right now be travelling at
: > some common non stationary velocity 'v'..........................right ?
: > 
: > 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    ?
: > 
: >      SO IS 'magnetic force' just a 'matter of opinion' then ?  Surely
: > that can't be right ?
: > --
: > Keith Stein
: This type of problem makes a good homework problem for students in the
: E&M; theory class.  Yes, the contributions to the total energy density
: from electrostatic and magnetic forces vary with the speed of the
: viewer.  That is, how you see the electromagnetic field is reference
: frame dependent.
       Can we have a little more explanation as to what the
"particle" and "viewer" might be?    I fear that some may
confuse this experiment with gravity in some way.
       Isn't the "particle" restricted to one of the elementary
particles, or possible a magnet or magnetized object.
       And isn't the "viewer" in this case, an electromagnetic
coil or meter of some kind?
: This shouldn't be too surprising, since Maxwell's equations are
: relativistically invariant.
: Best Regards, Peter
As always,

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Leif Sterner wrote:
> ale2 wrote:
> > 
> > Has the following experiment been performed ?
> > 
> > I think i have read somewhere that experiments can now be performed
> > such that the uncertainty of conjugate pairs of variables approach the
> > limits set by the Uncertainty Principle?
> > 
> > Say one can do such an experiment where the measured uncertainty in
> > pairs of conjugate variables is extremely close to the theoretical
> > limit set by the Uncertainty Principle, if there was some small
> > uncertainty in the Uncertainty Principle might one have a small chance
> > of measuring a violation of the Uncertainty Principle?
> > 
> > I'm uncertain, %^(...      Thanks for any thoughts?
> 
> Perhaps I am uncertain (?) about what your problem really is ....
> 
> There are some interesting topics about the uncertainty principle
> however, some years ago Scientific American had an article about
> 'squezzed vacuum' a phenomenon where apparently the zero-energy
> variation could be made to vanish by moving the 'noise' to other
> parts of the experimental setup.
> 
> There could even be practical applications of this as exemplified
> by the 'silent light' techniques in fiber optics that produces
> signals free from stochastic variations and thus are able to 
> transmit higher levels of data.
> 
> ** check out  http://www.algonet.se/~vohu/  for 21'st century physics
> 
> 
I cannot prove it, but I think that the uncertainty principle  will
disappear in a few decades...

[posted and emailed]
Todd Smethers  wrote:
>rango1@ix.netcom.com says...
>>The simplest life form contains over 500 amino acids. For these to
>>link up by chance has been calculated to be about 10 to the 123rd
>>power.
[...]
>>The formation of life requires even yet more. DNA creates a genetic
>>code to form the building blocks of life itself. Scientist have
>>calculated the odds of a single DNA gene forming by chance to be about
>>10 to the 155th power.
>Nicely put Jim but how does it not support the existance of a creator?
This is exactly the kind of creationist arguments that a previous poster
was complaining about: misinformed, ignorant, derived from a religious
tract instead of real scientific data.  And creationist never trouble
themselves to understand the issue, preferring instead to repeat the same
old tired arguments based on ideological dogma.
These probability calculations are meaningless because they ignore the
laws of chemical bonding.  The processes are not random, some combinations
are more likely to occur than others, and some combinations are more
stable than others and persist longer.  Calculating the probability that
DNA would form by a chance sequence of random events is about as useful as
calculating the probability that an elephant will materialize out of thin
air.  NONE of these so-called probability calculations takes into account
the fact that the formation of molecules is not random.  When you do, then
the probability becomes quite high.
If you want to see a more complete analysis of
the creationist probability argument, go to
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/
click on Chapter 4, then search for the word "probability" and read a few
screenfuls.  earth.ics.uci.edu:8080 (the talk.origins FAQ archive) may
have some information on this also.
-- 
"These are MY words, not my employer's"     /|
-- Alex Matulich --                __.  __=#||  ___   _o--
matuli_a@marlin.navsea.navy.mil ____##_/_____|==###===###____
                                \____________________________\

Alan Anderson wrote:
> 
> In ,
> ZBA2410  writes:
> 
> >Who still thinks that nothing can travel faster than c???
> 
> Almost everyone who doesn't think Star Trek is real.  (I'm a Trek fan
> myself, but I recognize that Trek physics doesn't match the way the
> world as we know it works.)
> 
> >C is just a relative velocity, that's all.
> 
> Not according to Relativity, it isn't.  C is special.  It's constant.
> It's the same thing relative to *everyone*, no matter how slow or fast
> each observer is moving relative to the other observers.
> 
> >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...)
> 
> If we can observe such particles, we can measure their velocity, and we
> could certainly prove that they were going that fast.  We don't observe
> any, which implies that either they do not exist or their existence is
> somehow independent of what we can observe and measure.  If they don't
> show up on any of our sensors, they cannot affect us and are irrelevant.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Unless its mass is exactly zero, it takes infinite energy to accelerate
> something to the velocity of light.  It takes more than infinite energy
> to exceed c -- which is only one of the several nonsensical answers one
> gets when trying to deal with faster than light velocities using the
> mathematical tools at our disposal.
> 
> >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...
> 
> This would be exactly the same problem faced by slower-than-light travel,
> but with the relative velocity increased.  It's not suddenly a problem
> for FTL speeds.  But if you try out the math of FTL collisions, you have
> the interesting puzzle of what imaginary mass implies for kinetic energy.
> 
> = === ===   === = = =   === === === === =   = === =   = = ===   = = === =
> # Alan Anderson #  Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent.  #
>   (I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)
This is not exactly correct. The energy for a non zero mass to reach the
speed of light is infinite. However, should something be travelling at a
larger speed than c, its energy would be finite (though imaginary unless
the mass itself is imaginary) and the faster it went the lesser would
the energy be. The problem for such a particle would be that to slow it
down to C would require infinite energy.
Not that this implies I believe in tachyons. I don't.

In article <57etlc$dq9@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
>     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.
I'm going to use SR as the thought model within which to perform
this thought experiment.
>Will the first pulse still be aligned with the nose?
No, it will not.
>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.
Not applicable, since I didn't say yes.
>If you say that special
> relativity does not apply to accelerated frames, then special
> relativity is wrong, or deficient, isn't it?
I didn't say that, so this one is not applicable either.
Oh, by the way.  Isn't it ironic that you promote the notion that there
is only one reference frame by complaining that the competing theory
doesn't apply to enough reference frames.
Anyone willing to do the coordinate transformations can, of course,
apply S.R. to most any reference frame.
>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.
This claim is false.
First year calculus would tell you that (for constant acceleration a)
	v = integral(a dt) = at + c1
	x = integral(v dt) = 1/2at^2 + c1t + c2
Now, you've got two arbitrary constants in there.  Constant velocity
is, of course, the caes when a = 0.  Under that condition, the straight
line can go diagonally forward, diagonally back or straight up depending
on the value for c1.
Now, let me give you something concrete to try to shoot down.
You started with the statement that the space craft was moving at 1000
meters per second.  Ok.  Take that rest frame with respect to which the
space craft is moving.  You'll see the light pulses moving
diagonally forward and not curving at all (though each successive
pulse will slant farther forward than the last).  Hint:  look at
the time coordinate offsets between the leading and trailing edges
of a moving laser orifice to see how SR makes laser emission direction
velocity dependent.
Switch to a space-craft-centric frame and you start seeing the light
pulses curve.  But in that frame each pulse starts going start up, not
diagonally forward and not diagonally back.
If you don't like seeing light curve, don't using accelerated frames
to describe its motion.
	John Briggs			vaxs09@alpha.vitro.ccom

Andre DT Mendes  wrote:
>
>I have a problem in deducting why the P-V diagrams of the Van der 
>Walls isothermals are cubic equations.
>
>=No solutions i have found so far. If you could provide any 
>insight in this matter i would much aprecciate it.
>
The van der Waals equation of state for a real gas is 
      [(P + an^2)/V^2](V-nb) = nRT
The equation is cubic in "n," the number of moles.
-- 
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!

Return-Path: potts@cms2.cern.ch
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:05:32 +0100 (MET)
To: "Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D." 
Subject: Re: WHY do we need to go faster than  c (light)
Dear Sir, 
Thank for your reply, 
:On 26 Nov 1996, Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D. wrote: 
Not only me "> >" these are from P.Cummings. 
">" this is what I have written and
":" those were your lines. 
> 
> I have been thinking about it since 1981 and discussing with my teachers 
> and friends while in seconary school. I have been posting this topic and 
> similar ones since 1991 from Ireland. Nobody replies except children and 
> students. Would it be a TOP SECRET theory ? 
> 
:Well, perhaps you will believe a reply from me. If there was a conspiracy,  
:I would have to know about it, since I am a working physicist, using 
:relativity every day. 
                                     :) 
> >However, for "2-way trips", if I wants to stay safe and sound on Earth 
> >(with family, friends, etc.) there's no getting around the fact that after 
> >I send a probe to a star 100 lightyears away, it will be a *minimum* of 200 
> >years (by my watch) before the results get back. 
> 
> 
> No. 
:I am afraid that you are wrong here. From the point of view of the 
:observers on earth, if we believe relativity to be correct, one cannot 
:physically travel to a distant object, and return in any less than twice 
:the light-time. 
Let us think about the 'LIMES' case Sir, IF (a big theoretical one) one almost 
reaches the speed of light, the distance becomes almost 0. One is here still 
with us and there (well everywhere on the direction) at the same time while 
looking at his or her watch. Also we can see that person, (or perhaps light) 
since still stays with us. Of course it is possible only in theory of a 
boundary case. 
                            (other readers REF: my previous postings)
Another experiment in our mind: 
We can not reach the speed of light OK, we are so close to the speed of 
light that the distance between moving person and another star becomes 
60 cm (one hand shaking with the guy on Earth the second one on that 
planet in the galaxy we wanted to visit shaking with a representative 
of guys who did not want us to visit them). 
Well my hands became so long for the observer on the Earth one shaking here 
and the second one over there...wait a minute one says ... this theory says 
your hands should be shorter, because the speed is relative. 
...
?
:Therefore, if one were to travel to Alpha Centauri, and come back, and if 
:I am correct in recalling that it is at a distance of 4.6 light years, 
:then the trip, as measured from earth, would always take more than five 
:years. 
:Of course, the astronaught in the spaceship could well see it as taking 
:only two minutes, if he does it fast enough. That wasn't the point in 
:contention, though. What is being discussed is how long it would take for 
:the people on earth, who launched the probe, to get it back. 
The relativity theory says something like: "Who really moves it does not matter" 
when objects travel at a constant speed (say it is almost the speed of light). 
The Lorentz's transformation also has the value of v/c, (assuming v=const).
I said and...
You say two minutes really for the man going fast enough. When we look at 
Earth and think the astronaut stays in (0,0,0) point of the reference 
system and the Earth travels, it takes only two minutes then for the 
observer on the Earth also. It takes only two minutes for the entire Earth 
to make that trip. 
Some people say "while accelerating". Comeon. When we choose a reference 
system it depends whether the Earth or the spaceship accelerates. 
Still I do not cancel the booking for an a-pex & business. 
> 
> No you do not need. That is what I wanted to say. The distance becomes 0 
>at the speed of light...
:Only to the person travelling that fast. The observers on earth do not see
:this effect.
Why ? if the relativity says it does not matter who moves. I mean who travels  
depends only on choosing the reference system. 
:That is why the astronaut would age so little. To him, he has only
:travelled a few miles.
That is why the people on Earth would age only so little, because one can say 
they travel while the astronaut stays in place. 
:Again, this does not mean that the people on earth would see this effect. 
:I think that you have maybe misunderstood the tenets of special 
:relativity. Not all observers see the same distances, times and so on. 
:You cannot take the time interval seen by the astronaut, and say that it 
:is the same as the interval on the earth. 
> 
> be careful of other planets and star systems behind the point you wanted 
> to reach. It is better then to go slower than c, since ALL the distances 
> on the way become 0 when reaching the c speed (v=c) and this implies from  
> 
:But we cannot reach c, we can only ever get close to it, so distances do 
:not become zero for any inertial frame. 
> 
> This or that way we can perhaps reach other galaxies if only using fast 
> enough engines or other accelerating systems. 
> 
:No, the astronaut could reach the far galaxies, and return, within his 
:lifetime. 
Again his lifetime (or two minutes, of course we will have to remember about
human's construction which can not withstand more than x times 'g' unless one
builds something inside compensating accelerating of the spaceship, well people
are quite smart beings). Applying the relativity of movement with a constant 
speed this is also a lifetime of those people on Earth. 
:When he returned, though, he would find that thousands of years had passed 
:on earth. 
People on Earth would have to find out the same with him what the relativity 
says. And we have already mentioned that problem. 
:You are getting yourself confused now. 
Almost Sir, 
:You say that distances decrease, 
:but are not keeping track of who they decrease for, and who they stay the 
:same for. 
:In relativity, this is extremely important. 
Why if everything should be relative ? 
:Please, understand that if things were as simple as you seem to think, 
:physicists would know it to be so. 
I always try to find the simplest solution. 
:We do not simply believe what we have been taught. By the very nature of 
:our work, we are questioning all the previous theories, looking for holes 
:in them. 
I was trying to understand. 
:If we could send probes to far galaxies, and have them return in our 
:lifetime, we would know this. 
:Try reading a textbook on the subject. this should clear up your 
:misconceptions. 
:Do not rely on teachers, they are there to teach you certain things, and 
:not others. There is no reason to assume that they are experts in 
:relativity. 
I agree here. I just wanted to say I could not find an answer which could 
make me believe in what they were saying. 
:Anthony Potts 
:CERN, Geneva 
Looking forward to further replies, 
Grzegorz Kruk
RAVEN, Sosnowiec, Poland
P.S. to those who ask me who I am: Please read my CV on misc.jobs.resumes

In article <57i8bu$gi7@tierra.santafe.edu>, jti@isleta.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>: jti@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>: >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>: >>jti@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>: >
>: >>>But I have been wondering, perhaps slightly changing the focus,
>: >>>whether even calling something "knowledge" isn't already putting a
>: >>>value on it.  A more primitive kind of value.
>
>: >My point was that "knowledge", what most folks mean by that word, is
>: >already something "valuable".  Nor was I saying that this was foolish
>: >of those folks.  Just observing.
>: 
>: That's fine.  What I was pointing out is that "knowledge" is just a 
>: word, a token if you wish.  It is not that we consider something 
>: valuable because we call it "knowledge", it is that we consider the 
>: thing we call "knowledge" valuable.  And we do so not due to some 
>: foolish superstition but based on accumulated experience.
>
>Nevertheless, it remains a superstition that "accumulated experience"
>is an objective standard for determining the value of something.
>
Would you care to suggest a better standard?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

> >         Now if we look at these circumstances from the particles point of
> > view we see a completely different picture.  To the particle what is
> > actually happening is that its aging proccess is slowing down and the
> > linear accelerator's aging proccess is speeding up.  In other words time
> > is slowing down for the particle and speeding up for the linear
> > accelerator.  This makes it harder to increase the velocity of the
> > particle because we are pushing something that is slowing down in time the
> > more we push it, approaching a relative speed of c.
> 
> Perhaps then one should start from something travelling at the speed of
> light to begin with. A photon comes to mind immediately. Now we know
> that photons can give rise to a particle/antiparticle pair. Since the
> photon is on the fence, and if faster-than-light-particles (and their
> antiparticle counterparts) exist then one would hope a photon would also
> be able to generate them.
> The problem as I see it is :
> a) tachyons can't be detected (or haven't yet been).
> b) if photons suddenly disappeared from our realm of observations,
> would'nt we have noticed it by now ? It would seem like non conservation
> of energy & momentum to us.
> 
> So the only acceptable conclusion seems to me that since we don't see
> photons disappear for no obvious reason, tachyons don't exist.
You are assuming that a photon/photon collission would create a tachyon,
which I do not neccessarily think is true since this field of physics is
really still in its infancy and we don't even really know what a tachyon
is let alone detected one. 
		Eric Converse

Jose Cale:
|> [What are the coefficients B'n in Stirling expansion for gamma(x)?]
|> 
|> I am interested in Stirling _assymptotic_ expansion for gamma(x).
For z -> Infinity with |Arg z| < pi:
gamma(z) ~ exp(-z) z^(z-1/2) sqrt(2 pi) [1 + c1/z + c2/z^2 + ... ]
c1 = 1/12
c2 = 1/288
c3 = -139/51840
c4 = -571/2488320
c5 = 163879/209018880
c6 = 5246819/75246796800
... and so on.  See the book "Advanced Mathematical Methods 
for Scientists and Engineers", by Bender and Orszag, for more 
details.
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>Jeff Inman (jti@santafe.santafe.edu) wrote:
>]: >>> That said, I don't see that there is any "ethical price" particular to
>]: >>> alternative "sciences" which the scientific method can claim to be
>]: >>> above.
>
>mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>]: >> There were many cases of children dying from diabetes because
>]: >> their Christian Science parents believed in faith healing and
>]: >> denied them insulin. Inman would have us to believe that
>]: >> there is nothing ethically wrong about the actions of those parents.
>
>Jeff Inman (jti@santafe.santafe.edu) wrote:
>]: > In deference to your handicap, I'll explain what my statement implies.
>]: > It implies that there may be "ethical costs" associated with the
>]: > scientific method, though it skillfully leaves some room for
>]: > discussion, by remaining inconclusive.
>
>mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>]: Please, do explain to the unsophisticated simpleton such as
>]: myself, in what way medicine incurs "ethical costs" similar
>]: to the ones incurred by Christian science practiotioner.
>
>Jeff Inman (jti@santafe.santafe.edu) wrote:
>]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.  Don't get your undies in a bunch: I'm not
>]claiming that this set of values is somehow superior, or right.
>]That's just the point.  Distinguishing between these sets of values is
>]not something that can be done with science.
>
>  You are trying to avoid maintaining your position. You claimed:
>
>]: >>> That said, I don't see that there is any "ethical price" particular to
>]: >>> alternative "sciences" which the scientific method can claim to be
>]: >>> above.
>
> The particular ethical price payed by those "alternative sciences"
> are people who could be easily saved dying. Medicine does not
> incur this particular price. One counterexample suffices to 
> disprove general claim.
It's not clear whether medicine does or does not incur this particular
price.  If saving sick children means ultimately having to engineer
the destruction of millions of humans (the necessity of this being in
dispute, of course), it is still the same ethical price, with the
slight advantage that you can claim to have been driven to it, but
perhaps an actually steeper cost in terms of the numbers of lives
lost, and the misery incurred.  "Enervating" was meant to imply that
the forestalling of the paying of the ethical cost of people's
"happiness" might ultimately be more costly, in those same terms, due
to the delay in its payment.
It would be equally interesting to examine the case you seem to be
interested in, where the ethical costs in the two systems are
expressed in *differing* terms.  I presume this is so that you can
argue that, while the "alternative" might have some nice things going
for it, it still allows babies to die.  This way, you would be able to
dismiss the potential worth in any "alternative" by appealing to
particular values which are likely to be common in your audience.
But even that, I think, will not work.  Take a look, for example, at
Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" [ObBook].  There you will see
that one might be presented with alternative ethical (or aesthetic)
systems in which *both* of two alternatives have desirable benefits,
and unpleasant costs.  Democracy, as he sees it, offers the lukewarm
but appealing benefits of prosperity and peace, at the cost of any
possibility for certain kinds of greatness, or potent cultural fibre.
"Safe mediocrity" might be the term for it.  The alternative has the
reverse situation, so that you (potentially) get something like
"dangerous greatness".  [Whether he's right or not is irrelevant, if
some case can be found where this kind of conflicted choice is
exemplified.]
I propose that something similar might be argued for the case of
curing sick babies, though this doesn't mean that I disparage the
values underlying the impulse to cure sick babies.
> jti:
>] However, it seems to me that science does operate on the premise of
>] certain kinds of values.  Utility, for example.  "Useless" knowledge
>] is uninteresting to scientists.
>
> That is plain wrong. A great number of scientists work on areas
> which have no realistic chance to be useful, i.e. quantum gravity,
> studied, among others, by one Prof. Sokal of CUNY.
You're not following.  Ideas that elaborate existing theory are still
"useful", in the scientific sense, because they offer the possiblity
of new predictive theory, new experiments on old theory, new kinds of
data, (elaboration of the current metaphysics) etc.
"Useless" data (in the current context) would be, for example, that
Mati Meron thinks some certain artwork is beautiful, or that some book
says that "love conquers all".
> jti:
>] But who said that measuring "ethical
>] costs" must be done from within that system?
>]
>] As someone else pointed out (something like), the glorious progress
>] and advance of human civilization hasn't done much to spare the
>] natural ecosystem that many of us love.  That'd be another example of
>] an "ethical cost".  
>
>  It's false, as well. The more advanced a technology is, the less
> is the harm it inflicts on the environment. 
C'mon, you're just saying that.  Why should technology give a damn
about the environment, any more than science does?  Anyhow, there will
be an interesting paradox if it turns out that allowing more humans to
exist "harmoniously" may put the enironment at greater and greater
risk should some small detail escape control.
> Misuse of science is not its responsibility.
Does this mean that the pursuit of truth has no relation to the world
as it actually is?  That theory is pure generalization (indeed, an
effort to generalize more and more completely), and has no connection
with particulars?  I suspect that you or your successors will
eventually change this aesthetic, perhaps after noting the strange
tar-baby relationship with the actual environment.
>
>]: >> jti:
>]: >>>  I guess it
>]: >>>  just doesn't interest me whether you grant people "worthiness of
>]: >>>  soul", when you dismiss them anyway.  As you say, they may be worthy
>]: >>>  souls, but you aren't buying any trips on their airline.
>]: >>
>]: >> If Inman is consistent in this pont of view, and if he grants
>]: >> every person equal value, he then is obliged by logic to
>]: >> grant the request of anyone who, say, asks him to
>]: >> donate a large sum of money.
>]: >
>]: > Perhaps if you reread my statement, a laborious process no doubt, you
>]: > will see that you have misunderstood what I was saying.  Just perhaps.
>]: > I make the point inconclusively.
>]: 
>]: In other words, you retract from the high ethical ground you assumed
>]: before as soon as implications are pointed out to you.
>]
>]First, what "high ethical ground"?
>
>
>Jeff Inman (jti@pajarito.santafe.edu) wrote:
>]: >>>  I guess it
>]: >>>  just doesn't interest me whether you grant people "worthiness of   
>]: >>>  soul", when you dismiss them anyway.  As you say, they may be worthy
>]: >>>  souls, but you aren't buying any trips on their airline.
>
> Clearly, you imply that such a practice is wrong.
Not clear at all.  You misunderstood me to be arguing for the case
that all people are equally worthy, even though I explicitly noted
that this was not what I meant.  You snipped that bit.  Did you
think I didn't intend to say it?
My case was that it seemed inconsistent to claim to respect the
possibility of some kind of "worth" in every alternative, and yet to
order the value of those alternatives.  (I don't even presume that
inconsistency necessarily constitutes a failure, but nevermind that.)
What was being done was that the existence of a metric was being
covered over with some "higher moral ground", as you would've put it.
I felt that Mike Morris (who I was talking to when this started with
you) was hiding the fact that he really did have some values by which
he judged the alternatives.  What's wrong with that?  Nothing!!  But
one point of this thread, as I saw it, was to examine the possibility
that such hidden valuations underlie many judgements that are claimed
to be objective and rational.  That even "reason" has some valuations
it brings along.
My comment, therefore, was intended to reveal.  It's a mode I like,
for some reason.
>]Second, what "retraction"?
>
> Saying that one makes a point "inconclusively" sounds like making
> sure one can always escape logical consequences of one's point.
>
>]The particular point I was making "inconclusively", in the latter
>]snippet, is that you might better understand what I was saying in the
>]earlier snippet, if you reread it.
>
> It seems that you are wriggling.
No.  It's just what it says.  I was addressing what I thought might
have been the root of your misunderstanding about my use of the word
"inconclusively".  And it seems I was correct in thinking that you
understood me to be saying I didn't really have any interest in
standing behind the claim that all perspectives are equally worthy.  I
have already explained that that (about equal worth) is not even what
I had been saying.  But, furthermore, you have failed to understand
that my statement about what my "inconclusively" applied to was not
that point, but the other point: that you might understand all this
better if you re-read.  That point, obviously, was well justified in
its inconclusiveness.
But, meanwhile, I thought "inconclusivenes" was the wonderful quality
that freed science from being stuck in any metaphysics, according to
you all.  Did you disagree with Mati Meron that science "makes no
claims" to approach absolute, capital-T Truth?  Doesn't this mean
that science itself always remains inconclusive, where any absolute or
final statements are needed, about anything?
My argument with mmorris was that just this "inconclusiveness" which
scientists claim as their special liberator is its own kind of
taskmaster, and is a kind of valuation.
Happy Thanksgiving.
-- 
"What's a mook?"
"A mook, what's a mook?"
"I don't know."
"What's a mook?"

Alex Matulich 03T1  wrote in article <57i45b$d0h@sparky.navsea.navy.mil>...
> [posted and emailed]
> 
> Todd Smethers  wrote:
> >rango1@ix.netcom.com says...
> 
> >>The simplest life form contains over 500 amino acids. For these to
> >>link up by chance has been calculated to be about 10 to the 123rd
> >>power.
> [...]
> >>The formation of life requires even yet more. DNA creates a genetic
> >>code to form the building blocks of life itself. Scientist have
> >>calculated the odds of a single DNA gene forming by chance to be about
> >>10 to the 155th power.
> 
> >Nicely put Jim but how does it not support the existance of a creator?
> 
> This is exactly the kind of creationist arguments that a previous poster
> was complaining about: misinformed, ignorant, derived from a religious
> tract instead of real scientific data.  And creationist never trouble
> themselves to understand the issue, preferring instead to repeat the same
> old tired arguments based on ideological dogma.
> 
> These probability calculations are meaningless because they ignore the
> laws of chemical bonding.  The processes are not random, some combinations
> are more likely to occur than others, and some combinations are more
> stable than others and persist longer.  Calculating the probability that
> DNA would form by a chance sequence of random events is about as useful as
> calculating the probability that an elephant will materialize out of thin
> air.  NONE of these so-called probability calculations takes into account
> the fact that the formation of molecules is not random.  When you do, then
> the probability becomes quite high.
> 
> If you want to see a more complete analysis of
> the creationist probability argument, go to
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/
> click on Chapter 4, then search for the word "probability" and read a few
> screenfuls.  earth.ics.uci.edu:8080 (the talk.origins FAQ archive) may
> have some information on this also.
> 
> -- 
> "These are MY words, not my employer's"     /|
> -- Alex Matulich --                __.  __=#||  ___   _o--
> matuli_a@marlin.navsea.navy.mil ____##_/_____|==###===###____
>                                 \____________________________\
  These computations are approximations based on various scientific information.
 The point being the numbers are excedingly high, virtually impossible odds to 
overcome without a creator. If the Ford motor company says there is a
1 in 1000 chance you'll die without a seatbelt on, do you conduct your own 
experiment ? 
   I personally don't need a master's degree in statistical analysis to
realize the fact there is too much complexity for the mechanics to happen by 
chance. I believe the misinformation comes from the other side of the isle, and have
been " informed " all thru 17 years of education. I believe the arguments for
evolutionary theology is getting old and more and more difficult to swallow the 
more we learn about nature.
  How about the first law of thermodynamics ? Matter cannot be created or destroyed,
only altered. Where did everything come from ? Always here ? But no way could
there be a God ?
jim

Tobias LIndstr�m:
|> I haven't read the text that you are refering to but I know that
|> Feynman suggested that certain problems in physics could be solved if
|> you asumed that particles could travel backwards in time. 
As has been pointed out, the "backwards propagating electron" is a 
nonphysical interpretation (which was first proposed by Stueckelberg 
in 1941) motivated by the symmetry properties of the electron/positron 
wavefunctions.  In the time-ordered graphs, it is either a virtual 
electron or a virtual positron which moves strictly forward in time.   
|> Feynman worked on these problem as a post-doc student sometime 
|> around 1936
Actually, the problem you are referring to is classical radiation 
from an accelerated charge -- in this case an electron.  Feynman 
as a "grad student", not a post-doc, worked this out in terms of 
half-retarded and half-advanced potentials.  Normally, when the 
boundaries are at infinity, an "outgoing wave" boundary condition 
is used.  This yields a strictly retarded potential.
|> together with another physicist whose name I can't remember. 
His advisor was Wheeler.
|> The problem with this solution was that it didn't work if you 
|> tried to include certain quantum-effects.  
Wheeler worked on this to no avail.
|> As far as I know Feynman has not yet solved this problem 
|> (and personaly I don't think he will). 
Safe bet.
|> You can read about this in the book "Surely you're joking, Mr Feyman".
|> (This was the first problem Feynman worked on as a post-doc student.
|> It was also the first problem he described to an audince. Since
|> Feynman was working at Princton there were some pretty famous
|> scientists in the audience, for example Einstein, Bohr and Fermi.) 
Pauli, Russell, von Neumann, Wigner, Einstein according the the 
section "Monster Minds" of _Surely You're Joking ..._.
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Cosgrave (ncosgrave@atlantic.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
: On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:53:37 GMT, fireweaver@insync.net (erikc) wrote:
: >>>|God is like a shamrock - small, green, and in three parts.
: 
: >Isn't that the same argument that Saint Patrick used to convert the heathen in
: >Ireland?
: 
: That reminds me of a line from one of John B. Keanes plays,  I think
: it was The Field, in which the local priest states that Ireland really
: has just a veneer of Christianity, and that if you scratch the surface
: you'll more often than not find a pagan underneath :-)
: 
: >Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
: >diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
: 
: Yep, that goes not only for christian fundamentalism, but also for
: Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism.  Fundamentalism is fundamentally
: flawed.
  You forgot to include Jewish Fundamentalism.: 
: Regards,
: Noel
: