Newsgroup sci.physics 211006

In <329F5BFE.4F7@mail.ic.net> Peter Diehr  writes: 
>
>Allen Meisner wrote:
>> 
>> Peter Diehr said:
>> >
>> >Restating things, the curvature of the beam is a measure of the
>> >acceleration.
>> 
>>     Yes, that is what I am saying. We have discovered the
acceleration
>> of the ship! It is the real acceleration with respect to nothing but
>> the light, which is the absolute rest frame.
>> 
>
>Isaac Newton was the first to point out that accelerations are 
>absolute ... and classical mechanics is based on that.  Now you
>are saying that because we can determine the acceleration from 
>the curvature of the light beam, then we must also be able to
>determine an absolute velocity.
>
>Let's check this out:  
>_     _
>a = d(v)/ds, where I'm now using s as the arc length of the path
>of the light beam. We have found the acceleration of the light
>beam.  Are we correct in equating this with the acceleration of
>the ship?  It seems to be, since the bending of the beam is due
>to the acceleration of the ship.
>           _
>Now to get v we have to integrate wrt s, the arc length.  When
>we do this, we get an arbitrary constant for each spatial 
>dimension:  that is, we get 
> _   _
> v + c, the desired velocity of the ship, plus another, unknown,
> arbitrary velocity.
    Not an arbitrary constant, but the instantaneous velocity since the
ship is accelerating and the velocity is changing with respect to time.
The "arbitrary constant" is the slope of the curve, which gives you the
instantaneous velocity at that point in time. At t=0 the velocity is a
certain value. At t=1 the velocity has increased, because the ship is
accelerating. At t=2, the velocity is greater than at t=1. Each time
value is a point along the curve. If you take the derivatve at that
point you get the instantaneous velocity at that point in time.
Best Regards and thank you,
Edward Meisner
  These are a function of the path of the 
> beam, say from when the beam began (s=0), until it hits the
> other bulkhead (s=total trip).
>
>So how can we identify what the absolute velocity is? It seems
>to be as far from our grasp as ever it was.
>
>
>
>>  Yes, that is what I am saying, but the velocity is the velocity of
>> the ship not the light. We have now discovered the absolute velocity
>> of  the ship. This is the real velocity wrt nothing but the light,
>> which is the absolute rest frame.
>> 
>
>Sorry, but all we have is a velocity relative to something.  We can
>fix the arbitrary constant only by providing further information. 
>The only other information I know of is the observation of things
>outside the ship ... such as the space buoys ... and that leads us 
>back to relative velocities again.
>
>Best Regards, Peter

On 29 Nov 1996, Peter Verthez wrote:
> Justo.A.Chamas@dartmouth.edu (Justo A. Chamas) writes:
> : In article <572ebg$ipp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> : Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> : 
> [meaningless crap from AP deleted] 
> : 
> : Dear Sir,  
> : Could you please stop filling these newsgroups with utter gibberish? 
> : Also, I would beg of you to be more polite with the users at Kiewit at
> : Dartmouth!
> 
> Why don't we just put AP in our killfile ?  I've done it, and I don't see
> any direct messages anymore from him in sci.math.  Unfortunately, responses
> to AP are not automatically killed this way, so this means that everybody
> should stop responding to him in this newsgroup to make this really work.
> 
> I am aware that some newsreaders don't support killfiles, but at least we
> can save some bandwidth by not responding to him.
	I believe the reason may be that those people who can't kill AP's 
messages just can't help but try to argue with him on occasion, because his 
sense of "logic" seems so very easy to refute. Of course, we must appear the
same to him, so it is ultimately futile...
Niel de Beaudrap
----------------------
jd@cpsc.ucalgary.ca

Comments on various digressions of tsar's.
Main point in another post, <849314810@sheol.org>.
: tsar@ix.netcom.com
: You see throopw did understand what I was saying well enough ...  
: as I suspected. 
Never said I didn't understand.  Tsar brings in this "understanding"
stuff out of the blue.  Oh, perhaps he has *some* claim of relevance,
since I said his coining Yet Another Usage Mid-Discussion was
obfuscatory and counterproductive; but I never said I didn't
understand it.  Just that it would, over time, tend to promote
misunderstanding.  So, tsar can "suspect" I "understood well enough".
Fine by me: I never claimed otherwise.
:: The fact that he's wrong seems clear enough. 
: Only to someone who shares throopw's position. 
Really?  Anybody out there except tsar who doesn't realize
that "absolute" wasn't and isn't being used as tsar claimed?
:: His subsequent meanderings are non-sequitur, but seem clear enough. 
: What could be more "meadering" and "non-sequitor" than this?
Tsar's digressions, of course.
: throopw claimed my meaning of the term was "invented".  Of course
: nothing was invented (as pointed out before ...  but also clipped),
: rather it was shown that the above is a common usage of the term. 
"Was shown?"  How?  By whom?  Certainly in this context,
tsar's voice is a lone one in claiming that "absolute" 
(again, in this context) does not mean "observer invariant".
: Now the point that appears to have escaped throopw is the fact of an
: ongoing discussion over the term "absolute". 
No, that point hasn't escaped me.  Tsar's claim about how absolute is
used in this context is still wrong.  Find me somebody (besides tsar)
who has actually used it tsar's way in the recent discussion, and I'll
pick my amazed jaw up off the floor and say "gosh, you were right, tsar,
and I was wrong".  But every use I've seen, by bjon, by glird, by pusch,
by volpe, by me; in short *every* use by *every* continuing participant
(except tsar's stuff on this recent thread) has been "absolute" meaning
"observer independent". 
Again, show me who used the term differently, and where.
: I therefore suggested that a better term to use for "non-absolute" and
: "absolute" measurements within frames was "variant" and "invariant". 
: This suggestion in hopes that the issue of an "absolute" frame could
: be more easily separated from the idea of "absolute" measurements
: withing frames ....  as one concept has nothing (in this sense) to do
: with the other. 
: 
: Quite simple really. 
Sure.  Who could possibly object?  Why tsar's wisdom and kindness show
forth from his account of his deeds, as a beacon guiding the weary
thinker to safe harbor.
Um... except that's not what tsar actually said.  Let's trace back
the context to include the context before tsar's first contribution
to the thread:
:::::: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
:::::: <562fsc$c3c@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
:::::: It can be called "proper time" or "schnopper time," but the simple
:::::: fact is it is an absolute beat, not in any way observer-dependent. 
::::: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
::::: <847566380@sheol.org>
::::: Right.  And it in no way establishes that there must be an absolute
::::: time, and absolute velocity, or an absolute length or distance, as
::::: bjon so often (and so incorrectly) claims.  Bjon wants an
::::: absolute-beat- that-changes-with-absolute-velocity.  But such a
::::: scheme is superfluous. 
:::: tsar@ix.netcom.com
:::: <32851AB8.442D@ix.netcom.com>
:::: The terms here are a bit misleading at best.  If SR is correct then
:::: time dilation wrt some particular observer gives an absolute value
:::: to that observer's time.  Same for a particular length ...  if SR is
:::: correct then the length wrt a particular observer is an absolute value. 
:::: I think what you're looking for here is "invariant" time or
:::: "variant" time.  Invariant time has the "same" absolute value for
:::: all observers, while variant time has an absolute value for each
:::: particular observer ...  until you get into FTL discussions. 
::: Klaus Kassner
::: This is also misleading, one might even consider it nonsensical. 
::: Because the meaning of "absolute" is simply "independent of
::: observer";
:: tsar@ix.netcom.com
:: <329A4A10.4340@ix.netcom.com>
:: No the meaning of "absolute" is "unqualified" and/or invariant within
:: the frame of the particular observer.  He has no means to determine
:: anything else except by stepping out of his frame.  Regardless of his
:: movements his time rate and length are fixed ....  absolutely ...  for him. 
: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
: <849128483@sheol.org>
: 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. 
Now, in the light of 20-20 hindsight, and with tsar's explanation
of his intent in mind, we can see that in <32851AB8.442D@ix.netcom.com>,
tsar advises switching terminology on the grounds that it is "misleading".
But tsar's own plea to switch terminology is itself misleading (demonstrably
so, since it misled everybody who read it), because it sounds like it is
claiming that SR models time dilation as an absolute.  The subsequent
brouhaha hinges on this.  One exchange later, in <329A4A10.4340@ix.netcom.com>,
tsar does his own cause further damage by continuing to phrase things
as ``the meaning of "absolute" is'', without making it clear that he's
importing a generic meaning into a specific context.
It all comes down to this.  Tsar claims "it was shown that [invariant to a specific observer only] is a common usage of the term".  But this has
not been established, and is unlikely on its face.  The common use is more like the dictionary "independent of
arbitrary standards of measurement"; the entire issue of "invariance"
and the possibility of relativistic effects is an UNcommon usage, and
the term has always meant "observer invariant" in that context, because
observers are arbitrary.
So, tsar's claim of pouring soothing oils on the trouble waters
may well express his intent.  But his claims, even in context,
are wrong; he hasn't established a common usage of "absolute",
and he hasn't established that anybody was mislead.
And he remains flat wrong when he says that ``the meaning of "absolute"
is "unqualified" and/or invariant within the frame of the particular
observer''.  That's simply not what it means, neither in "common use"
nor in this context. 
Not to mention tsar's butchering the customary meaning of "invariant".
: [..If..] throopw or others wish to continually nitpik over whether
: times/distances can ever be "absolute", this is fine also.  If so we
: need to then be very careful to calculate or state ALL factors
: effecting each and every experiment, and stop assuming for the
: discussion that there's any ONE time or distance that can be given for
: any travel by any object. 
: For our own use here we'll then know that all these message headers
: giving the times our messages were sent are not really "absolute"
: times, but only ....  only what throopw?
Give credit where it's due.  Tsar can whip up a really, really
impressive know-nothing irrelevant superfluous digression, yessir.
And by the way tsar, "affect" would be a better usage than "effect" above.
"Factors affecting", not "factors effecting".
I also note in passing that tsar is again confusing me with somebody who
nitpicks over whether times/distances can ever be absolute.  I'm
only a fellow who nitpicks over whether absolute distances (by which
I mean observer-invariant or observer-independent) space and time
measures are part of the SR model.  (They aren't, bjon notwithstanding.)
: Within the context of my overall remarks it was always clear that for
: the purposes of the discussion I suggested the better terms were
: variant and invariant ....  they still are unless one is willing to
: expand the discussion to account for each and every movement by each
: and every object ...  as all moving objects have their own frame.  In
: fact by this method how would one even be able to assume two objects
: are at rest wrt each other?? How would this be "more productive"?
"All moving objects have their own frame?"  And this is supposed to
cause some difficulty in determining whether two objects are at
relative rest?   Pfaugh!  Irrelevant, meaningless gibberish.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

rafael cardenas huitlodayo wrote:
>Michael Zeleny wrote:
>>More shoddy thinking.  According to Monod, teleonomy is a real
>>attribute of apparent goal-directedness of all living organisms.
>>His theory is neutral between a naturalistic explanation of this
>>phenomenon in terms of efficient causality, and a teleological
>>explanation in terms of final causality.  On either alternative,
>>moral values can be inferred from the facts, respectively along
>>the Epicurean and Aristotelian lines, without any transcendental
>>leap.
>But you (or Monod) admit that they are _alternatives_.
So?
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

rafael cardenas huitlodayo
>Michael Zeleny wrote:
>>It is gratifying to choose the right word.
>>Have it your way.
>>
>>Cordially, 
>Is that the right word?
Decidedly.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>No, the point rather is that none of these speculations will lead 
>>>>>>>>>you to the morally good; unless you want to assign moral goodness 
>>>>>>>>>to the mating dances of mosquitoes. Once we are in a framework 
>>>>>>>>>where every action is determined by considerations of survival, 
>>>>>>>>>we are in a framework that doesn't admit of the opposition of 
>>>>>>>>>good and evil. 
>>>>>>>>The mating dances of mosquitoes are undeniably good for the mosquitoes.
>>>>>>>"good" and "good for something," as you know, are not synonyms.
>>>>>>Neither are "true" and "true in a language".  So how does this
>>>>>>relate to the question of whether science can provide value?
>>Not too clued in about logic, are you?
>Have you taken to critique your own statements? Perhaps you could have a 
>newsgroup all to yourself, as well =-- make it moderated.
I am commenting on your failure to understand that good for a kind is
a good, just like truth in a language is a truth.
>>>>>>>>My personal disdain for all immanent approaches to morality in no way
>>>>>>>>warrants me to dismiss an entire spectrum of philosophical treatments
>>>>>>>>of values with a foot-stomping snit fit.  Obviously, your intellectual
>>>>>>>>standards differ.  So who is arrogating moral certainty now?
>>>>>>>Not me; I'm just arguing a different tradition.
>>>>>>I am fascinated by the implication that rationality is regimented by
>>>>>>belonging to different traditions.  In my simplicity I thought that
>>>>>>this kind of thinking went out of fashion in 1945.
>>>>>My, you really _do_ feel cornered.
>>>>You are projecting again.
>>>Silly boy. Godwin's law applies to you as to anyone else. But since you 
>>>bring it up, "moral certainty" was surely a defining characteristic of 
>>>the Nazis.
>>My point precisely.  Nice to see your intellectual advance towards
>>the "so's your mother" form of argument.
>You're getting ever more confused as to who is making your arguments. 
>It's a form of progress, I'd wager. Keep it up.
What I said.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

>  
> But if we can't detect tachyons, and since the only things they may
> interact with are particles with zero rest mass. Then if we hope to
> detect them we can only do so by observing the zero rest mass particles.
> If nothing peculiar happens to them then either tachyons don't exist, or
> they can have no influence on our universe (which in a way is the same
> thing).
> John Jacq
> --
>
We can't detect quarks....but we theorize they exist. 

> 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
>
Isn't your moving laser acting like a pulse? Then are not some spots on the
moons surface not receiving any photons? Perhaps it only appears to be
'moving', or perhaps I am wrong.

In article <57n18e$dc4@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>
>>In article <57fq3h$qpj@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
>>bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>>>devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote [in part]:
>>>
>>>[bjon]
>>>>: A rod is passing two SRT observers. This rod's speed is fixed (it will
>>>>: not accelerate). The observers obtain two different values for the
>>>>: rod's length. Why?
>>>
>>>>The observers are moving relative to each other (and calculating their 
>>>>relative motion from the information contained in the differences in 
>>>>their observations of the length of the rod is a straight-forward operation).
>>>
>>>>Remember:  Neither spacelike positioning nor timelike ordering of efvents 
>>>>is invariant between frames.
>>>
>>>The difference in rod lengths is absolute, and cannot be caused by
>>>mere relative motion.
>
>>You are demonstrably wrong.  The difference in measured lengths is due to a
>>difference in the measurement process, due to the relative motion.
>
>Why the difference in the measurement processes?
>How can mere relative motion make any real difference?
>What is it about their relative motion that causes them to obtain two
>different rod lengths?
>
As you are aware, the clocks will be synchronized differently in the two
reference frames.  The difference will depend on the relative motion of the
two frames, and accounts for the difference.  My objection is to your claim
that there is something absolute in the different measurements or in each
reference frame taken singly.  The only velocity that appears in the
comparison is the relative velocity of the observer and the rod, never a
velocity that could be considered "absolute".

In article <57n180$dc4@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>>>[bjon]
>>>>>A rod is passing two SRT observers. This rod's speed is fixed (it will
>>>>>not accelerate). The observers obtain two different values for the
>>>>>rod's length. Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>[Kennelly]
>>>>I assume that you are giving the observers different speeds relative to the
>>>>rod. 
>>>
>>>Yes.  Otherwise they are essentially the same observer.
>>>
>>>> They get different values because they measure the rod differently.
>>>>E.g., they measure the proper time for the rod to pass them and multiply by
>>>>the rod's relative speed.  As they are in motion relative to each other, each
>>>>measures the proper time between different events, so they get different
>>>>values.  There are other ways as well.  In each case the length determined
>>>>depends on the proper length of the rod and the relative speed of the rod and
>>>>the observer, but it does not depend on the rod's speed or the observer's
>>>>speed separately.  
>>>
>>>Since the rod's speed is constant, the observers must cause all of the
>>>difference. We know that the observers have only  two kinds of
>>>instruments,  rods and clocks.  The simplest method of getting the
>>>length of a passing rod is just to use two clocks to locate the rods
>>>end points at the same time per the two clocks.  It is well-known that
>>>even this very simple procedure results in different rod lengths per
>>>the two observers.
>>>
>>>If we  look closely at this method, we see that the entire measurement
>>>consists solely of two time readings (given by two clocks which locate
>>>two points on the observer's frame that give him the rod's "length" as
>>>he "sees" it).
>>>
>>>We can now ask : Why do the observers' clocks yield different rod
>>>lengths?
>>>
>>>Here is a (necessarily crude) diagram that shows why:
>>>
>>>
>>><----  ============= passing rod==================
>>>
>>>LBclock                              RBclock     ------>
>>>reads 0                               reads -1
>>>
>>>LAclock                                           RAclock     ---->
>>>reads 0                                            reads -1
>>>
>>>Given Einstein's method for setting clocks, the observers' clocks are
>>>not truly synchronized (as Newton's would be).   SIncet the observers
>>>have different absolute speeds (or different speeds relative to the
>>>same rod), the clocks for each are set differently, with B's (the
>>>faster observer) being more out of sync. (or ,  as in  the picture,
>>>being closer spatially when temporially identical).
>>>
>>>As I said above, all each observer needs is a pair of identical clock
>>>readings.  In the diagram, these two readings will be zero for both
>>>observers (for simplicity's sake).   But note that these zero readings
>>>don't occur absolutely simultaneously for either observer (and this is
>>>due to Einstein's relative synchronization of clocks).   In fact,  the
>>>B observer's two zero readings don't match the A observer's two zero
>>>readings.
>
>>Each pair of readings occurs simultaneously for one observer.
>
>Each has a zero reading for a rod end but obviously (as shown above)
>each of the zero readings for A do not occur absolutely
>simultaneously.  Therefore, A's clocks are not absolutely
>synchronized. Therefore, they differ absolutely.
>
You begin by assuming that you have a system that measures absolute time, then
conclude that the results show that there is an absolute difference.  From A's
point of view, the clocks are correctly synchronized.  No experiment will ever
show differently.  There is no way, without first assuming that some other
reference system is "absolute" to show that A's clocks are not "absolutely"
synchronized.  
When A's clocks read the same time, they are simultaneous. The fact that they
are not simultaneous to some other observer does not mean that they are not
absolutely simultaneous, it shows that there is not such thing as "absolutely"
simultaneous.
>>This method gives the same result as my example, but I used only one clock
>>for each observer.  The discrepancy between observers occurs because the each
>>will say that the other's clock moved between readings.  Nothing absolute is
>>needed in either method.
>
>Your method used two clocks to get a speed. Just merely seeing a clock
>move relative to you obviously can do nothing to cause a real
>difference.
>
It is true that two clocks are required to determine a speed, but that does
not invalidate the method or the argument.  
The clock's relative motion causes a very real difference in the measured
quantity.
If you assume that the difference is due to an intrinsic shortening of moving
rods, then the conclusion would be that the rod is measured longer by a
moving observer.  The rod was at rest, and the observer's measuring rods, etc
would have been contracted. 
>>>
>>>An observer sees the rod's front end at his Left Clock when this left
>>>clock reads zero.  According to the proper prescription for
>>>determining the rod's length, the rod's other end must be at a clock
>>>that also reads zero.  In the above diagram , this has not happened
>>>yet, but will happen when the rod's right end meets  the Right A
>>>Clock.   The x distance between these two clocks gives the A observer
>>>his rod "length."  Then the rod's right end will hit the B observer's
>>>Right Clock when this clock finally reads zero.  This B rod length is
>>>somewhat shorter than A's measurement.
>>>
>>You explicitly assume that there is an absolute time reference, so any
>>conclusions depend on your assumption.  
>
>In what way did I assume this?
You made the analysis from a reference frame that saw A as moving and assumed
that that frame's time reference was somehow special. That assumption led to
the conclusion that A's clocks were not absolutely synchronized.
Your analysis of the measuring process was correct, but your conclusions
reflect your assumption, and are not inherent in the phenomena.
>The diagram is clear.  Unless the clock readings for A differ
>absolutely, A will not get a shortened length but will get the rod's
>rest length (as happens in Newton's universe where clocks all match
>due to the assumption of absolute synch.)
>
Differently moving observer's clocks will differ.  This does not reveal
anything about absolute velocities.  The difference only shows up when
comparing two reference frames, and it depends only on the relative velocity
of the frames.  
>>>Note that this real difference in measured rod lengths is due to a
>>>real difference in the observers' clocks.  And the root cause is that
>>>the observers had different absolute speeds when they used Einstein's
>>>clock-setting procedure, making their clocks differ absolutely.
>>>A real difference in measured rod length has to have a real cause.
>>>And the difference is real because the observers have permanent marks
>>>(clock locations) on their frames that represent the rod's measured
>>>length.
>>>
>>No need to involve absolute speeds to reach your conclusions. 
>
>You obviously have no other reason.
>
I have no reason at all to involve absolute speeds.  The difference in the
measurements reflects the difference in the reference frames, not anything
absolute or intrinsic to each frame alone.
>>>If both observers used Newton's absolutely synchronized clocks, they
>>>would  find the same length for the rod no matter what the relative
>>>speeds may be.  This shows that the immediate cause of the different
>>>rod lengths is the lack of absolute synchronization, and that it is
>>>not merely a relative speed thing as you said.  And since the two
>>>observers get different lengths for the same rod, their clocks must be
>>>synch'd differently.   The only thing that could cause this difference
>>>is a difference in their absolute speeds.
>
>>This is an invalid conclusion.  The difference between the clocks depends only
>>on their relative speeds. 
>
>Sure, just keep on repeating this and maybe it'll come true.  Not!
>Why is this conclusion "invalid"?
My statement is true, whether you like it or not.  The conclusion that the
difference between the clocks is dependent on the absolute speeds is invalid
because it is not reflected in the physics or in the equations that describe
it.
If you read "difference in their absolute speeds" to mean relative speed,
then your conclusion can be rendered as "The only thing that could cause this
difference is their relative speed".  The absolute speed that you introduced
has cancelled out, and could have had any other value to begin with.  The
simpler interpretation is that there is no particular "absolute speed".

What is zero-point energy in the harmonic oscillator ?
Can we say "it has zero-point energy fluctuation" ,even the
particle is in his energy eigenstate( deltaE = 0) ?

> From:         Joseph Edward Nemec 
> Date:         1996/11/26
> Message-Id:   <329AEE46.B0CE91@mit.edu>
> Newsgroups:   alt.nuke.the.USA,soc.culture.british,sci.physics
> X-Mailer:     Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.11 i586)
> 
> Dan Browne wrote:
> 
> > You're a cheeky bastard Joe... he's english as far as I know. Get it
> > right.
> 
> Go to his web page and look for yourself. He's got some gifs of his
> family tartan. They're quite lovely, actually, for a school girl's
> uniform.
'specially if they're mini skirts... mmmmm
Cheers,
Dan

In article <57ajec$dqj@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, kalish1@ix.netcom.com(brian stewart ) wrote:
> Is it possible for gravity to be so great that it can bend time and
> space.
Gravity IS the bending of time and space.
> Also, if you could produce a great anti-gravitational force
> would it be able to bend time and space.
Since that would be a gravitational effect, yes.
> Last but not least could a
> space vehicle use an ant-gravitational propulsion system to approach
> light speed and then bend space and time to achieve a distance of 4.3
> light years in say just two earth days.
The Alcubierre warp drive is a proposal to do that sort of thing by
bending spacetime in the appropriate way.  Unfortunately, it requires
the use of negative matter (which one could consider to be
"anti-gravitational", I suppose).
> Is there a major effort in the scientific community to find a way of
> traveling "faster" than light even though you are doing it by bending
> space and time.
Not a major effort, no.  Every once in a while some physicist like
Alcubierre or Forward will play around with the idea.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

> From:         Joseph Edward Nemec 
> Date:         1996/11/25
> Message-Id:   <3299A7EE.6BF9153F@mit.edu>
> Dan Browne wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps in the UK, but how and why should they enforce that defunct
> > law over here /specially when the perp and the victim are non-Brits?
> 
> The perp is a Brit. And the fact that he is in the United States means
> that I could sue him for "emotional damages" if I wanted.
> 
> Have you got a million dollars lying around, Dunc? I'm thinking of
> calling my lawyer to see if I can make any money off of your absolute
> stupidity.
> 
But probably a waste of time, 'cos I'm betting he's a little bit 
lightweight in the fin and chiwawa department.
Cheers,
Dan

Joseph Edward Nemec  wrote:
>Duncan Stewart Matheson wrote:
>
>> > Running away, eh?
>> >
>> > Bye bye. Don't let the door hit you on the ass.
>> >
>> 
>> Finished my Masters degree, thanks very much. When are you done with yours
>> Joe???
>
>I finished it in October. It's my second. I did mean to get it done in
>May, but my research for my Ph.D. was going so well that I delayed it.
>
>Wanna read my thesis?
>
>> Byeeeee,
>> Duncan.
>
>Yeah, good riddance. Give the sheep in Scotland my regards, and tell
>them
>I don't approve of what you people do to them. I am sure they don't
>either,
>and wish you would simply eat them like the rest of the world.
Joe I think you're starting to lose the place mate. As I stated before: 
he's english. He even says so himself. Warm yourself a nice glass of milk 
and get some rest.
Cheers,
Dan

Allen Meisner wrote:
> 
>Peter Diehr said:
> >
> >Let's check this out:
> >_     _
> >a = d(v)/ds, where I'm now using s as the arc length of the path
> >of the light beam. We have found the acceleration of the light
> >beam.  Are we correct in equating this with the acceleration of
> >the ship?  It seems to be, since the bending of the beam is due
> >to the acceleration of the ship.
> >           _
> >Now to get v we have to integrate wrt s, the arc length.  When
> >we do this, we get an arbitrary constant for each spatial
> >dimension:  that is, we get
> > _   _
> > v + c, the desired velocity of the ship, plus another, unknown,
> > arbitrary velocity.
> 
>     Not an arbitrary constant, but the instantaneous velocity since the
> ship is accelerating and the velocity is changing with respect to time.
                     _
The constant vector, c, is the constant of integration.
> The "arbitrary constant" is the slope of the curve, which gives you the
> instantaneous velocity at that point in time.
                           _                        _      _
No, now you are describing v.  But we have measured a, not v!
That is what we get when we measure the curvature: the acceleration.
We can only tell the direction of the velocity, but not its 
magnitude from the information given.
> At t=0 the velocity is a
> certain value. At t=1 the velocity has increased, because the ship is
> accelerating. At t=2, the velocity is greater than at t=1. Each time
> value is a point along the curve. If you take the derivatve at that
> point you get the instantaneous velocity at that point in time.
> 
We seem to have a calculus problem now ... or perhaps a problem of
interpretation. What is it that we are measuring here? Certainly 
the velocity is increasing, because of the acceleration.  Suppose
we again take a simplified example:  let's roll balls across the 
floor of a moving train, transverse to the direction of travel.
With the modern "seemless rails", we aren't supposed to get any
clickety-clack, so we have a simulacrum of an inertial reference
frame while we are on the straightaway on level ground, and the
train is holding a steady speed.
Now suppose we've dusted the floor, so that each ball rolled leaves
a visible track.  When we begin, the train is moving at a constant
velocity (straight ahead, fixed speed).  So the track of the ball
is a straight line across the floor.  Now the train begins a 
gentle, constant acceleration.  We note that the balls now curve
towards the rear of the compartment.  By measuring this curvature,
we can ascertain the acceleration.
Bravo! So we can determine from this the incremental change in
velocity ... after so many minutes, we can compute the total 
increase in velocity obtained: delta v = a*t.
But unless we already knew the original speed of the train,
we have not got a way to say how fast we are going wrt the rails
below.
To determine that, we must look out the windows, and establish
our ground speed by means of landmarks (counting the rate at
which the telegraph poles go by, or counting the rails, etc.).
So let's go back to the point of difference: do you think that
we can find the initial velocity of the ship because I have made
a calculus error (i.e., that I should be able to determine the
velocity at t=0 from the data given), or that you are claiming
some other physical evidence that I have ignored?
Best Regards, Peter

Brian Zeiler  wrote in article
<3299acbf.149960354@news.primenet.com>...
Get a life
> 

In article <57nm97$1ao2@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:
>>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>>	... snip ...
>
>>>>>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.
>
>>>I would make a distinction between observables and intelligibles.
>
>>That may be legitimate.  Question is, can one have definitions of 
>>observables and intelligibles, leaving no grey areas in between?  
>>Somehow, I doubt it.
>
>I am not proposing an exclusive dichotomy.  Tables and chairs might be
>observables, beliefs and desires might be intelligibles, and elementary
>particles might be both at once.  The key point is that causal efficacy
>might be restricted to a kind that cannot impinge on material objects.
>Thus psychophysical parallelism claims that each class of entities is
>restricted to causal interaction with its own kind, and hence no mental
>entity or event can produce a measurable physical effect.
>
Make it "no direct physical effect".  A belief in ideology fits under 
intelligibles in this scheme.  Same belief may prompt somebody to push 
a button resulting in the launching of a missile, which may result in 
quite measurable physical effects.  But, yes, for the intelligible to 
have such effect there is a need for an entity which can process 
intelligibles and interact with observables, i.e. the human mind.  
Hey, I think I'm beginning to like it, though there are still lots of 
loose ends.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <01bbde6e$d98bb080$6b441ecc@nathanbo>, "Nathan Boyd"  writes:
>
>
>>  
>> But if we can't detect tachyons, and since the only things they may
>> interact with are particles with zero rest mass. Then if we hope to
>> detect them we can only do so by observing the zero rest mass particles.
>> If nothing peculiar happens to them then either tachyons don't exist, or
>> they can have no influence on our universe (which in a way is the same
>> thing).
>> John Jacq
>> --
>>
>We can't detect quarks....but we theorize they exist. 
Not quite true.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Peter Diehr (pdiehr@mail.ic.net) wrote:
[...]
> > He also said that if a body travels at
> > greater than the escape velocity, it will go *past* the infinity
> > point.  I'm confused!  Please help me sort this all out.
> Well, on this last point, I'd say that you misunderstood what
> your instructor said, for this certainly isn't so.
There is a possible interpretation of that claim. When the 
movil travels exactly at the escape velocity, its speed 
approaches zero as time goes to infinity. Probably he would 
express this by saying that the speed of the movil "becomes" 
zero at infinity. But if the movil travels faster than the 
escape velocity, then its speed tends to a non zero limit. 
So in some sense, the movil "keeps moving at infinity".
Perhaps this is slightly off-topic, but the above discussion 
reminds me the theoretical situation of a movil entering a 
black hole through a time coordinate equal to infinity, hence 
after having been traveling for an infinitely long time. Actually 
in general relativity there are coordinate systems containing 
points with time coordinate equal to infinity.
Miguel A. Lerma

Hear ye, year ye! Archimedes Alumunium proved by preponderance of evidence the 
non-existence of infinitely many primes.
          /////
         | @ @  Archimedes Alumunium
         C  _)
          \ o

In article <329A2686.4C03@dpie.gov.au>,
   Sean Downes  wrote:
>Judson McClendon wrote:
>> 
>> Phil Hetherington wrote:
>> >
>> > I think that it would do a lot of people a lot of good if they would just
>> > read something like that excellent publication "Scientific American" for
>> > twelve months or a couple of years -- some might need to read it for 
longer!
>> [snip]
>> 
>> I read Scientific American from the time I was 10 until I was 30.  I was
>> completely convinced that evolution was true, and argued such many
>> times.  I had to be drug, kicking and screaming, away from that position
>> by the evidence.  Why don't you read the Bible for 20 years, and I'll
>> have more respect for your position.
I, as has Phil, been a long time reader ( me since 1965) of Scientific 
American.
In the period that I have been purchasing this excellent magazine I have 
followed the advances in many many fields and disciplines of science.
The Bible, while, in itself a collection of middle Eastern mythology, does not 
fill any other useful purpose in todays world.
For example
Were it to have pointed to the Antipodes or have remarked upon the fact of 
binary star systems instaed of getting the number of grasshopper legs wrong 
you -might- have a point.
Alas no.   
>I did, but then I found that Scientific American contained far more
>truth and far fewer inconsistencies!
That's about my summation.
Regards

: >It is quite true that statements yield no meaning when they are not
: >understood.  
Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I think that is true. I don't think it applies. If you want to claim
: you have any meaning by your post then rephrase it and repost. 
Oh gosh - hard work you ask for!  But it is all a simple application of
Spinoza, Freud, and Godel.
: >Perhaps you are unaware of certain meta-mathematical
: >categories into which general relativity and quantum mechanics fit.
: I am unaware of these properties. Do they exist or are you making them
: up? I think it is the latter.
I covered this in a senior paper some years back (yes, in physics).
If curved space is the Spinozan single substance of the universe, then it
follows that there are no natural boundaries - no natural categories and
no possibility of a self-referential science.  Geometry does not provide a
code for study of geometry.  And the finite axiomatic content of geometry
generates no need for the novelty contained in new quantum states.  This
determinism is indeed quite friendly to the authoritarianism favored by
the right wing (a matter of observation).
But if quantum states or their transitions are the stuff of the universe,
then Godel's work applies and the universe is very different from
geometry.  Lande derives quantum theory from consideration of certain
paradoxes of categoricity - avoiding the conflict of causality and
lawfullness in the thought experiment of dropping ping-pong balls on a
knife edge.  The quantum logic school also treats quantum states as
propostions.  So, a categorical and self-referential unniverse makes
Godel's proof relevant to physics.  And the measure of autonomy evident in
a quantum transistion meets the demand for continued novelty in Godel's
proof of the need for new axioms in a consistent arithmetic.
: >What is the nature of the problem that my post shows?  
: That using scientific words and concepts in a non-scientific domain
: can easily lead to nonsense. If that was not the point, then it is
: just a true statement.
Yes.  Spinoza argues that the purpose of science is to contribute to the
totality of knowledge needed to develope ethics and public policy.  But
academic physics is not far enough along to contribute reliably.  I don't
think anyone wants to be governed by a cosmic legislature.  Can anyone
take seriously the notion of a physical law?
: Don't know of any such taboo or any reason I would care about your
: violating a right-wing taboo. I am not aware on any attempt to apply
: reason to ideology. I am also unaware that ideology is the topic of
: discussion. And finally I did not know that you were making an attempt
: to apply logic.
Sokal seems actually concerned with an application of science to ideology.
If not, then I am.
An argument (in the spirit of Spinoza) compelling in its simplicity is
that errors in physics cannot be prevented with any certainty from
propagating to other disciplines, and thence to ethics and public policy.
For all B, A and not A implies B.
: Matt Silberstein
: -------------------------------------------------------
: Though it would take him a long time to understand the principle,
: it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
: Mark Helprin
-- 
Michael J. Burns                            http://www.indirect.com/www/mburns/
  "We are such stuff                             "Oh brave new world, 
   As dreams are made on, and our little life     That has such people in't!"
   Is rounded with a sleep."

--- quoting in part, DISCOVER, Dec96 ---
            MYSTERY OF THE MISSING STAR
   On February 23, 1987, an unprepossessing star called Sanduleak
-69degrees202, which had sat without incident in the southern skies for
eons, suddenly blew itself to bits in the most spectacular supernova to
be seen in nearly three centuries. SN1987A, as Sanduleak was now
designated, was the closest supernova to our solar system ever to be
observed with modern telescopes, and it offered astronomers an
unparalleled view of the death of a massive star. it also gave them
dramatic, unequivocal confirmation of what by then had become the
"classic" theory of supernova explosions. There was only one problem.
Something fundamental was missing from SN1987A. Nine years later, it's
still missing.
   According to the classic theory, there should be a neutron star
where Sanduleak used to be. Neutron stars are "dead" stars, stellar
cinders made of neutrons squeezed through the bars of their atomic
cages and thus able to achieve extraordinary densities-- a neutron star
just 10 [km, all science reporting should be done in metric] across
contains as much matter as our sun. Physicists don't know very much
about how these odd beasts behave, but they know that the stars usually
appear in the sky as pulsars, rotating stars that project beams of
intense radio waves into space, like cosmic lighthouses. In the case of
SN1987A, however, no pulsars have been detected.
  The only alternative suggested by classic theory is that Sanduleak,
rather than forming a neutron star, collapsed into a black hole, but
.....
.....
  When conventional wisdom falls so far short of explaining what
astronomers see in the sky, it often means that it's time for some
radical new idea. Such ideas usually come from the younger, hungrier
researchers in astrophysics, the new who are struggling for job,
tenure, and reputation and who, by virtue of the youthful combination
of inexperience and exuberance, are apt to see old problems in a new
light. SN1987A is no exception, at least not in its demand for novel
explanations.
--- end quoting in part, DISCOVER, Dec96 ---
  I retained the paragraph about younger researchers to contrast what
type of paragraph I usually write in a slot like that. For the article
proceeds to discuss how two birdbrains, Hans Bethe and Gerry Brown
claim a black hole is there where Sanduleak used to be.
  I must add this nice data information to my web site under the
proving that neutron stars are a fakery. These stars are not neutron
stars but heavy element stars such as cobalt-nickel-copper-zinc all the
way up to heavy thorium-uranium stars. That is why you do not see a
neutron star. There are no neutron stars and no black holes. Nature
goes in one direction-- heavier build-up. Nature never goes in the
direction of degeneration. Nature goes up, not down. When too much mass
builds up in a star it explodes away in a supernova. Nature never goes
down into a neutron star nor down further to a black hole. Supernovas
are the limit of matter concentrations, not neutron stars, nor black
holes. Both neutron stars and black holes were fictions.

 I am growing fond of Mr. Harvey E. Behrend -- primary examiner to my
two patent applications --, of the United States Patent Office.
  Today I received word back from my years-ago application for a room
temperature superconductor and when I opened the package I was really
surprised and excited that Mr. Behrend was again the examiner of this
patent application. This was my second patent application, my first was
on 
neutron-fusion and my second was on this room temperature
superconductivity.   
  Somehow I imagined the patent office as a huge building and a whole
bunch of clerks with paperwork and various different 'sciences' in
various different sections of the building. And I thought that
neutron-fusion engineering would be a different section from
superconductivity and next month when I mail in my CLONING HUMANS
patent application I would think a different section with a different
examiner would be inspecting my package.
  So you can see my surprise that Mr. Behrend who examined my
neutron-fusion patent has now examined my superconductivity patent.
Maybe the case is that examiners are not ordered as to a specific
science, but rather they are ordered as to the person or organization
that mails in the patent application?
  Will Mr. Behrend do the honors of examining my Cloning Humans patent
application sometime in the future? I would not mind it. However I do
ask of Mr. Behrend a personal favor. He has included a picture of me
from THE DARTMOUTH 12July1991 on all of my previous patent claims with
a couple of paragraphs talking about this picture. Please Harvey, I
have that picture, please omit that in all future correspondence. As
for the other three, why thanks:
  (1) 5,028,786 2JUL91 Da Silva et al ARRAY FOR A NUCLEAR RADIATION AND
PARTICLE DETECTOR  Univ of British Columbia
  (2) 5,177,056 5JAN93  Hilti et al  PLASTICS COMPOSITION CONTAINING
SUPERCONDUCTORS,  Ciba-Geigy
  (3) 5,457,086 10OCT95 Rigney, II  SUPERCONDUCTING COMPOSITE FOR
MAGNETIC BEARINGS  Allied-Signal
I quote from US examiner Mr. Behrend:
" "arising out of the BioWorld". For example, it is not clear is such
means that the claimed superconductor already exists or, if something
must be done to the recited "material" to form or make the claimed
superconductor. "
 Many rejections, but I do not mind them.
Mr. Behrend later writes:
" The specification on pages 52 and 53 states that in the distant
future (in approximately 20000 years), one will be able to bicycle or
ride a train into outer space using said superconducting roads,
highways or rails (such in itself clearly indicates that at present,
there is no operative system which would accomplish such and, such is a
clear indication that undue experimentation would be required to
produce an operative embodiment). "
  Please Mr. Behrend, I do not mind rejections of claims or whatever.
Just try to "lighten-up" on your patent examinations. I like to add
prose and poetry to my patent applications. Logically, both of us knows
what good is a patent in 20000 years from now, but I added that passage
as relief from the hard core facts, data and boring little stuff.
Harvey, you cite a lot of " Applicant is advised of such and such or
applicant is reminded, or See  USPQ , etc, etc".  I do not think there
is any citations or laws against putting in flowery prose or , flowery
lines of imagination , or even poetry into a patent claim. Not in your
35 U.S.C. 101 or any of your other codes of writing patents. So, please
lighten-up for I am not going to stop putting in flowery imagination or
even poetry in my next future patent applications.
Let me quote some of the best of Mr. Behrend's examination:
 ".... be manufactured from the neutrinosynthesis material."
 I believe you made up that word Harvey, "neutrinosynthesis", not me,
but I like it.
"Mathematical relationships or algorithms per se, are non-statutory
subject matter. 
  Things occurring in nature which are substantially unaltered, are
non-statutory subjects matter. See Ex parte Grayson, 51 USPQ 413. "
 From what I understand, you can patent algorithms.
So, in summary, thanks for news on my superconductivity patent
application, I was getting a little worried as it seemed like some
years ago that I heard anything about it.  I have 3 months to reply to
this dated material of 11/18/96.
  Postscript: hopefully one of these days the US Patent Office is
accessible for communication via email or by the Net.

Are there nuclei consisting of neutrons only?  What is the greatest
weight of such nuclei recorded? 
--
 ____________________________________
|                                    |
| Branimir Dolicki                   |
|                                    |
| bdolicki@tel.hr                    |
| bdolicki@ifs.hr                    |
|                                    |
 ------------------------------------

>Now here is the one law in the harmonics theory from which everything
>about the universe derives:
>
>      The universe has an initial oscillation which creates
>      harmonics and each of the harmonics does the same.
Are you talking about electromagnetic waves, or what? Can I measure
these oscillations?
Ian Tresman

                   The one Field Theory,
                 is necessary to the Person!?
   Whether the one Field Theory (OFT) Is necessary to the Person,
above(over) which great Einstein worked up to the last days? The
scientist
has left to followers a question and problem.
The spectrum of the answers on a question will be: from YES to NOT.
However in conditions of limited resources of our Planet and
activity of the Person a median of the answers is in area "YES".
We created a Method Matrixed of Systematics. A ensemble multileveled
of matrixes, represents OFT.
What you expect from practical use of the theory?
Who will answer at this two questions, will receive the summary 
of the theory.
Example of the answer:
1. Y (N)
2. I Want determine a structure of time (other your text)
Yours faithfully   L.Fylinski & R.Rynkovski
e-mail: sashaaj@hotmail.com
e-mail: sashaaj@hotmail.com