Newsgroup sci.physics 211264

Directory

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> 
> In article <329F1E9E.100C@ix.netcom.com> tsar@ix.netcom.com writes:
> >> May be, but the probability is low.
> >Perhaps. Even assuming so though reflects the possibilty.
> 
> Who bothers about a minimal probability? As a reasonable probability,
> compute the probability of total conspiracy of all people around you
> against you.  You cannot completely exclude this possibility. Any
> possibility below this (not so low compared with numbers like 10^-14)
> probability you can neglect as paranoia.
> 
A reasonable probability is the only one worth considering. Nothing
unreasonable is worth a thought. Obviously most probabilities can
be ruled out.
> >> Really? What has been predicted by "totally false" premises with
> >> comparable accuracy as the accuracy modern science predicts?
 >However, to cite an example how about aberration of starlight? It
> >can be predicted with Newtonian physics quite as readily as Einsteinian
> >physics ... but c is either a constant or it is not.
> 
> Yeah, this is the difference and the problem of your understanding of
> science. Current science doesn't reject Newtonian theory as totally
> false.  It is a good approximation, and not completely false.
> 
It has nothing to do with my understanding of anything except the
foundation of the argument. Either c is a constant or it is not.
In other words either Newton's premise of invariant time is accurate
or Einstein's is accurate. Both resolve the phenomena of
aberration quite handly, but only one model can be accurate with
respect to it's premises ... or neither can. 
This has nothing to do with neglecting relavitivistic effects at low
speeds and using the Newtonian model for calculations. Or using 
models which deliver aproximations.
> Astrology is rejected as totally false - the only common sense part in
> it which is accepted is that the moonlight has an influence on many
> biological cycles and that the time of birth in the year - which
> defines the whether in a very critical period of life, the first year
> of life - may have influence on a lot of things.  The reason for
> rejection of Astrology - different from Newonian theory - is the
> relation to experimental verification.
> 
Among other things. I don't think there's even any actual relation to
the location of the stars wrt the person's time of birth anymore, i.e.
the astronomical part of astrology isn't doesn't even have a claim
to accuracy. Any verification is simply coincidence ... coupled with
a broad prediction. It can be easily shown that "you will have trouble
in your life" is a prediction that most will verify, but it is derived
from false premises ... there is no cause and effect relationship.
> >Or will Schrodinger's cat be alive or dead?
> 
> QM predicts that it will be dead with some probability, else alive.
> 
If and when you open the box the cat will be dead OR alive, 
solipsists notwithstanding.
> >but c is either a constant or it is not.
> 
> No. If current theory considers it as a constant, it means, it is
> approximately constant.
> 
In the sense of velocity of light being Galilean or Einsteinian, one
or the other is correct ... or neither is. There is no aproximate 
answer to this question that I can see.
> >Or do you think you can develop a model to explain a natural
> >phenomena that works well but in which the premises are false?
> >If not why not?
> 
> Every theory makes some basic assumptions. Every theory may be
> replaced in future by a better theory. In the better theory, the
> premises are not true, but nonetheless good approximations for some,
> well-defined, situations.
> 
Why would you postulate things which you did not believe to be true,
develop a model, test it's predictive value, and never question 
the premises ... which you knew "probably" weren't true anyway?
I don't believe this is an accurate picture of the scientific
method. Scientists would not limit their queries so dramatically.
Postulates are selected because they are reasonable, models are
built and then tested to confirm the postulate ... not the point
of the predictability. It's the correctness of the postulate
which important to understanding of reality ... not simply the 
fact that the model delivers some number. 
Please show a case of any scientist that had/has no interest 
in the truth of the postulates of his theory.
> >If
> >you don't rule out alternate (rational) explanations how do you
> >know what's real?
> 
> There are always a lot, even an infinite number, of other rational
> explanations which cannot be excluded.  We have no chance to exclude
> them. We consider always only a short number of them - the
> alternatives which survive some basic criteria, for example Occam's
> razor.
> 
That's what I said, you simply qualified it.
> In this sense, we never know what's real. We only have a "best current
> explanation" - in the best case. Usually we also have some data
> without any nice explanation.  We know only that this "best explanation"
> allows to predict a lot of usuful stuff. That's all.
> 
I'd say we know mostly what's real. In this sense science is far ahead
of it's own philosophical base for verification. Scientists know the
data is real, and in most cases they know it cannot have be derived
unless the axioms they are using are correct. The process is not fool
proof, but it's quite sure. It's at the more outer edges of unverified
predications that one might reasonably look for improvement of
theoretical understanding. This is not an indictment of science, it's 
a rational way to proceed. To say that there's no validation of any
knowledge though is simply incorrect .... and leaves the door open
to any form of foolish beliefs as competitors. 
> >I'm not talking about religious alternatives at all. Or even questions
> >about "why" is the universe. I'm speaking of different realistic models
> >giving the same predictions. They cannot both/all be correct.
> 
> They are all more or less correct models. In this case, none of them
> is correct. But the really increasing success of predictions compared
> with the past makes us believe that we approximate the truth better
> with each step of progress.
I disagree. Science is the means to dispense with fantasy.
> 
> >Kant was wrong about many things ... so was his daddy Plato. I'm no
> >expert, and I'm not certain about a lot of properties, but I am
> >certain that certain properties exist. And that existence (reality)
> >is knowable ... despite whether we every know it. (I don't mean
> >everything is knowable ... there's no omniscient possiblity).
> 
> I have a similar position. But even if we know it, we cannot be
> certain that we know it.
> 
This is the oldest philosophical argument in the world. Plato on
one side and Aristotle on the other .... together with all their
children. The most you can do on this point is state your position.
Mine is existence is real, knowable, and some certainty is possible,
especially ostensively.
> >> To tell you the truth: I'm very certain that my theory is the better
> >> one, without any experiment ;-)
> 
> >That's a start. Now if you can "show" that you can pick up the prize! :-)
> 
> What if I'm certain that I cannot "show" that?
> 
I doubt that you can convince without demonstration.
W$

In article <57tkqo$q11@netnews.upenn.edu>, Silke-Maria  Weineck  wrote:
> Mahipal Virdy wrote:
[trim]
>: Please read that moggin states that Silke thinks "... certain answers is
>: lucky." The word "lucky" implies having a positive aspect. Unless the word
>: has been redefined without me being notified, I can only conclude Silke
>: agrees with moggin's message. So, if I have done Silke grave damages in
>: misrepresenting her "wants", I do apologize. 
>
>Since when does "you're lucky" mean "I wish my discipline were like 
>yours?" It's nice to be in a discipline that can answer questions with 
>little residue of doubt; it's even nicer to be in a discipline that you 
>care deeply about. And if the discipline I care deeply about doesn't 
>produce unambiguous answers, then that doesn't mean that I wish the 
>disci;ine were different.
It's well established that our words of the natural languages lend
themselves to many interpretations. My point is that I wasn't out to
distort your expectations. If I paraphrased something and missed a minor
fact here or there, then it's merely polite of you (or anybody) to state
your expectations --- to the best of your ability Today. Nobody knows
what tomorrow brings. So everything is conditional. No one's saying that
everything you claim about yourself even _once_ is forever your crown of
thorns. 
Btw, Science --- especially theoretical physics --- does not produce
unambiguous answers. The only thing "certain" science claims is that
predictions must agree with observations --- quantifiably. But beyond
this, Science is as difficult and creative an intellectual venture as
there ever was.
>But Silke, where do 
>you get : the idea that I am a "science advocate who is into downright
>: distortion"? Firstly, you obviously never understood the science-camps
>: message here that personality bashing isn't helping anyone. 
>
>Tell Wiener, Hully, Borsche, and the rest; I'm sure they'd love to hear 
>from you.
Look at what the world has come to when I might have to justify Wiener's
style --- a style I admittedly despise. And he knows it. Still, Mathew
knows his stuff eventhough he's not patient about sharing his knowledge.
Hi Hully. Hi Borsche. Aren't we all peas-in-a-scientific-pod? ;-)
>The mere
>: fact that I *TRIED* to understand your position by expressing my take
>: upon it should give you reason to make a positive clarification. It's
>: not too difficult a feat to accept that nobody in all of existence ---
>: besides moggin maybe --- is keeping track of everyone's opinions here.
>: But you have time to type out insults and pass pronounciations of
>: incompetency. 
>
>That's downright bizarre. We've seen science (or "science") types post 
>here for months harping on the alleged incompetence of Derrida, Deleuze 
>etc.; when moggin or I or a handful of others point out that the 
>comments usually bespeak ignorance of Derrida (and therefore 
>incompetence to comment on his statements), we're oh-so-bad. That's, to 
>put it delicately, a manifestation of double standards.
This really is a key point with you. It's reasonable that people
shouldn't comment on the works of Derrida if they've never read them. I
totally agree with you. But you seem to hold the position that reading
Derrida should be mandatory for even physicists. This is extremely
unfair for you to expect. Consider that you yourself are not immune from
commenting on science/scientists while at the same time your fascination
with both is that of an interested but uninvolved onlooker. Certainly,
you don't claim to have read, for the sake of a specific, "Advanced
Engineering Mathematics" by Wylie&Barrett.; And if scientists kept
harping on you for being incompetant for not having worked out the
problems in AEM, you'd feel pretty frustrated. Yet Silke, you are doing
the exact same domination ritual with your insistance that Derrida be
everyone's forte. 
>All I can gratuitously insult you with is that I am glad I
>: didn't have the misfortune of being one of your pupils. At whereever you
>: say you teach. 
>
>But if you had been, you'd have learned a few things about literary 
>theory. 
The insult was gratuitous. Since you can dish them out, so can I. In
either case, they serve no useful purpose. As to learning literary
theory, I might actually like that. I really do spend a lot of time
writing to generate literature that others might theorize about. If I
don't succeed in my entire life, at least I have the good sense of
knowing that I died *writing*.
>: Since I called you "Immortally Bitch(y)" as a rhetorical experiment, and
>: I did notice you were offended by the mere _idea_, 
>
>more silly distortions. I've publicly stated that there's nothing 
>wrong with being a bitch. You're indulging your fantasies of how a 
>girl should react.
Your a girl?					:-) Joking I am.
>[...]
>: Secondly, you asked me what my "contribution" here was. First, let me
>: state how astonished I am at your acknowledged ignorance. How dare you
>: not be aware of my work! [That's a joke Silke. A joke! JOKE. Get it? ...
>: nevermind, others will. Can you say "ha ha" Silke? Try it.]
>
>So your standars of humor are up to your standards of reading usenet 
>exchanges. Haha.
Actually I was born funny! 
As for Usenet, it can indeed be very PROductive. One has to be skilled
at weeding out the signal from the noise. Very scientific that!
Usenet is a medium of exchanging ideas/information. It does work! Sure
it lacks the credibility of printed matter --- because those who rely on
the printed word for their livelihood say so. I see no conflict of
interest [t]here. IMO, Usenet/WWW is a publication. The credibility of
the content stems from the posters' work. No intimidation by the few
editors/publishers who own the printing presses. Can't you just smell
the FREEDOM. Ahhh.... what a breath of fresh A-I-R. Enjoy.
>: If you really want to see my work and my piece of the pie contribution
>: to the realm of literature and physics, read my webpage. 
>
>I want to know what your contribution to  this thread was; I have 
>contributed quite a bit of clarification on the original Derrida 
>quote. You? Okay, you don't have to answer that.
My contribution to this thread is not really important/relevant. And
moggin is strictly restricted from singling out any single sentence from
my paragraphs! :-) I am one of the few readers who sat back and simply
read the exchanges taking place in these three months long dilemma. Only
recently did I engage in discussion. The clarifications you made
regarding Derrida were helpful if not _specifically_ enlightening. The
amount of time/rhetoric spent talking *around* Derrida's {center, game,
constant} and their localized meanings were amazing. It's like each key
word has been redefined. It takes a mental acrobat to get his message.
If it is that much work, I contend that there was no message to get. 
Indeed, Derrida isn't exactly trying to say something _to_ scientists.
He's just talking about Science since he might've been influenced by its
successes. Who knows really. But if those who've read him can't
paraphrase him, then outsiders can hardly be blamed for mocking those
that seemingly cherish him. It's all genuinely FuN.
To this thread, my contribution was to bring in a secondary voice to
nullify the annoying tension/hostility that was in the undercurrents of
all the exchanges. I diffused the hostility at the expense of having
suffered some. But so what. Mere words right? As I recall, a major
premise that resulted from these exchanges is that "words can not a
message convey". Why? Because you who are literary theorists failed to
successfully communicate! If that doesn't strike you as impeccably
ironic, then I must say you take the written words of dead-guys way
tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo SERIOUSLY. So, relax.
Mahipal |meforce>	http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/

In article <57nc7r$jsb@curly.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@curly.cc.emory.edu 
(Lloyd R. Parker) dusted off the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
>
>Again, not correct.  I'm not aware there is any international "metric 
>commision."  In the US, "meter" is THE correct, official spelling.  
>What's next, claiming "aluminium" is the only correct spelling?  Or 
"colour"?
Er, Aluminium IS the correct spelling according to IUPAC. But, then again, 
what do they know? They reckon sulphur should be spely sulfur.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

Maybe I am wrong, let me check, oh no...I was right...
How in the world did CREATION VS EVOLUTION get posted to sci.bio.misc?
Last time I checked, sci meant science.  This debate belongs in
talk.origins.   I would realy be interested in hearing "scientific"
evidence supporting God.  Until that juncture in the space-time
continuum occurs, however, please  quit "trolling" and stop rambling
on.
"And man created God is his own image..."

In article <57itv7$74l@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
...
>     Mr. Diehr, you have just proved my point, haven't you? If under
> acceleration you see the light curve back, then under constant velocity
> you will see it go diagonally back.
*Wrong*
Under constant velocity you will see it go straight in some direction.
That direction could be diagonally forward, diagonally back or perpendicular
depending on your choice of inertial frame.
Free hint:  When you worry about direction in four-space, you've got
four dimensions to think about, not three.
	John Briggs			vaxs09@alpha.vitro.com

I happened to think of this yesterday and it would be interesting to
hear what you think of it.  I'm sure some people will just dismiss it
as mathematical nitpicking. Anyway, consider a a two dimensional
infinite square well in QM. The Schroedinger equation is in that case
d^2f/dx^2+d^2f/dy^2=c*(V(x,y)-E), where f is the wave function and c
is a constant. At the boundary of the potential well, the RHS is
infinite, which means that the second derivatives of f are
discontinous. This in turn means that the mixed partials of f are not
necessarily equal, so the commutation rule [p_x,p_y]=0 may not be
satisfied, so there's something strange going on here. Have I made a
mistake somewhere?
Johan Braennlund
m94jbr@student.tdb.uu.se

In article <01bbd8e4$da50eba0$7703bdca@p133> "kpchoong"  writes:
>At the time of the Big Bang, the mass (density) and curvature of the
>universe was infinite ... correct? And because of that, the Theory of
>Relativity broke down, unable to cope with infinite numbers, called a
>singularity ... correct? 
Approximately. GR probably breaks down even some time after the big
bang and has to be replaced by quantum gravity to predict correctly
the things which happen before that time.
Don't worry, the big bang remains to be a big enough bang to justify
this name. But the singularity itself it only a mathematical effect,
not a physical prediction.
>This means that if there were events before the
>Big Bang, 
It is meaningless even to speak about such moments. We have no theory
about this part of the universe. We know that some time backward the
universe was in a state which cannot be described by GR because of
quantum effects. What's all.
>Now please explain to me why this is of significance and the past events
>before the Big Bang cannot be predicted. 
Even the events immediately after the big bang have not yet been
predicted. Because we have no relativistic quantum theory of gravity
yet.
>And also, what is this
>predictability corresponding with the Theory of Relativity ... why does it
>break down? Thanks. 
We will know more about why it breaks down after we have found quantum
gravity.  All what people tell now is speculation.
Ilja
-- 
Ilja Schmelzer,  D-10178 Berlin, Keibelstr. 38, 
my ~:		 http://www.c2.org/~ilja
postrelativity:	 ~/postrel/index.html

edwardsg@cc5.crl.aecl.ca wrote:
>: Hi,
>: 	Can anyone send me the full text of the poem whose first stanza is:
>
>: 	If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
>: 	And the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
>: 	And the address of the memory makes your flopppy disk abort,
>: 	Then the socket packet pocket has an error to report.
The original is at
http://www.gsm.cornell.edu/staff/Gene/clocktower.html
Watch out! Many shortened versions have been circulated, but this
one is the original. Someone chopped off the original author's
name (which they shouldn't have) and chopped off a few verses
and put it on the internet.
Simon
\/\/Don't use the email address in my header: it's wrong!\/\/

In article <32A1C461.5F0D@ix.netcom.com>, 
wrote:
[big snip]
Maybe I can satisfy you if I rephrase:
  IMHO, nothing is sure and not even that, at least that's what I think!
Would that be satisfactory?
> W$
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I know that all I know is what I know, including that I
do not know what I do not know.

TITLE       Lead Installer
DEPARTMENT  Technical Support
Position ID:  K10
Client Location:  MD
POSITION:  Supervise the installation of all products and associated
ancillary superstructure and cable  by installers and subcontractors.
Verify the completion of in process QA, perform quality audits, perform
basic shelf turn-up. Mark drawings. Write MOP's. Attend pre-installation
meetings.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*    Supervise the installation of the following by subcontract & Client
installers:
     * Power cable
     * Relay racks & super structure
     * Al cable (coax & twisted pair)
     * Optical jumpers (SC & FC)
*    Write methods of procedure (MOP's)
*    Perform quality audits
*    Attend pre-installation meetings
*    Perform basic shelf turn-up & provisioning
*    Write & submit project status reports
SKILLS
     Computer literate
     Able to read Bell system office drawings
     Supervision, union experience a plus
     Fiber cleaning & handling
     Erection of superstructure
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
*  Able to follow up
*  Attention to detail
*  Able to work wit @e & skill
*  Self motivated
EDUCATION/ EXPERIENCE
*     installation supervision experience, preferably in a demanding RBOC
environment, 3+ years
*     Associate degree a plus
*     Knowledge of installation practices & standards essential
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
TITLE          Electronic  Process  Engineer
DEPARTMENT     Manufacturing
Position ID:  K11
Client Location:  MD
POSITION SUMMARY:  Supports day-to-day technical production of electronic
assemblies. Is a key member in the transition team bringing products into
the manufacturing arena.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*  Resolve technical issues directly, or through available resources, for 
    the assembly of electronics subsystems.
*  Transition products from an engineering phase to a production phase.
*  Develop appropriate processes for high quality production..
*  Research and make recommendations for capital equipment relating to 
    the assembly and testing of electronics subsystems.
SKILLS
*  Electronics component production experience (surface mount, through 
   hole, troubleshooting to various degrees.)
*  Experienced with high reliability soldering and techniques.
*  Manufacturing and process engineering experience.
*  Technology transfer experience.
*  Contemporary communication and leadership skills.
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
*  Attention to detail.
*  organized.
*  Motivated to excel.
*  Ability to learn from mistakes.
EDUCATION / EXPERIENCE
*  Four year degree in a technical discipline or equivalent experience.
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
TITLE       Tech Support Engineer
DEPARTMENT  Customer Support
Position ID:  K12
Firm Location:  MD
POSITION SUMMARY:  system level testing, trouble shooting, on site and
telephone technical support on all CLIENT products.
ESSENTIAL, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*   Perform system level test & turn up of all current and future firm
    products.
*   Provide on site and telephone technical support on all firm
    produce.   Much of this work.  Much of this work during "maintenance 
    windows"  typically between 12 midnight and 6:00 am,
*   Communicate with engineering and manufacturing on problems found 
    in the field.
*   On call duty on evenings and weekends,
SKILLS
*  General understanding of the fiber optic transmission business,
*  Familiar with the use of various test equipment.
*  Systems level trouble shooting on fiber optic telecommunications 
   transmission equipment,
*  Knowledge of computers and data communications. UNIX/Sun and IP 
   network experience a plus.
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
*   Able to work well with customers In potentially stressful situations.
*   Must be punctual and able to accept continuous unusual work hours.  
    Typically there will be very short notice. For example, a support call 
    might be received at 10:00 PM with a requirement to be on site any 
    where In the world ASAP.
EDUCATION EXPERIENCE
*  Associate degree or military equivalent.
*  Three years experience with the operation of fiber optic transmission.
   equipment. Preferably in technical support with an equipment vendor,
*  Problem solving experience with SONET ring transmission equipment 
   and associated fiber optic facilities.
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
 TITLE               Instructor
DEPARTMENT          Customer Support
Position ID:  K13
Firm Location:  MD
POSITION SUMMARY    Perform training classes at the training center and in
the field. Produce and edit training course materials.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*   Perform training Classes at the training center and in the field on all 
    current and future firm products.
*   Schedule contract and demand based training classes.
*   Produce and edit training course materials.
*   Validate equipment manuals.
*   Provide back up to the technical support department for telephone or 
    on site technical support,
SKILLS
*   General understanding of the fiber optic transmission business.
*   Excellent communication and presentation skills.
*   Familiar with the use of various test equipment.
*   Experience trouble shooting fiber optic transmission equipment.
*   Experience with computers and data communications. UNIX/Sun 
    and IP network experience a plus.
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
 *   Able to effectively work with many different levels of students.
     Willing to travel.
EDUCATION EXPERIENCE
*   One plus years technical training experience,   Preferably with an 
    equipment vendor or Network provider.
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
TITLE  Optical Network Architect
DEPARTMENT  Lightwave Systems Development
Position ID:  K14
Firm Location:  MD
POSITION SUMMARY 
Help design and develop next generation lightwave networks.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*   Develop and characterize network architectures that exploit the befits 
    of dense wavelength division multiplexing technologies.
*   Provide architectural inputs into ongoing product development 
    activities.
*   Help inform customers about unique characteristics of photonic 
    networks.
SKILLS
*   Ability to perform detailed network design tradeoffs including those 
    involving capacity, thruput, and availability calculations.
*   Familiarity with switching and queuing theory required,
*   Familiarity with detection and estimation theory a plus.
*   Excellent writing and presentation skills.
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
*   Understanding of the fundamentals of photonic networks and 
    inherent performance constraints.
*   Understanding of today's fiber optic network and system architectures 
    including SONET and ATM.
*   Understanding of automatic protection switching systems and fault-
    tolerant network architectures.
*   Insight into the interaction of developing technology and evolving 
    system designs and network architectures.
EDUCATION/  EXPERIENCE
*   MS/Ph.D. with 5 years experience in advanced optical communication 
    system & network design.
*   A recent Ph.D. with particularly relevant thesis work will also be 
    considered.
*   Participation in any of the ARPA/DoD/NSF sponsored optical network 
    consortia is a plus.
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
TITLE:  PCB CAD DESIGNER
DEPART:  Mechanical Eng & Eng Services
Position ID:  K15
Firm Location:  MD
Position Summary:  
Conduct Design and Layout of PCBıs Using Latest CAD Tools
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*  PCB CAD DESIGN USING PADS OR OTHER LATEST TOOLS.    
   GENERATE SCHEMATICS AND BOARD LAYOUT, ART WORK, 
   GERBER FILES.
*  INTERFACE WITH ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL DESIGNERS 
   FOR BOARD INPUT. INTERFACE WITH LAB ENGINEERıS AND 
   MANUFACTURING.
*  MAINTAIN AND UPDATE BOARD DESIGN DOCUMENTATION.
*  LIAISON WITH BOARD MANUFACTURERS AND ORDER BOARD
   PROTOTYPES-
SKILLS
*   WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF IBC -STANDARDS, AND CURRENT 
    BOARD DESIGN AND FABRICATION-NON TECHNIQUES.
*   MUST BE WELL VERSED WITH PADS AND VIEWLOGIC SOFTWARE. 
    WORKING EXPERIENCE WITH MENTOR (GRAPHICS, CADENCE, 
    AUTOCAD, AND PROENGINEER DESIRED. FAMILIAR WITH 
    ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE.
*  ABLE TO WORK ON DIFFERENT PROJECTS, REQUIRING MULTIPLE 
    SKILLS.
CHARACTERISTICS
*  MUST BE A TEAM PLAYER
*  BE ABLE TO ADAPT TO VARYING WORKLOADS, AND TASK 
   REQUIREMENTS.
EDUCATION / EXPERIENCE
*  COLLEGE DEGREE AND/OR ADVANCE COURSES IN BOARD 
   DESIGN & DRAFTING
*  FIVE TO TEN YEARS PCB DESIGN AND LAYOUT EXPERIENCE
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
TITLE  MECH ENGR
DEPARTMENT:  MECHANICAL ENG & ENG SERVICES
Position ID:  K16
Firm Location:  MD
POSITION SUMMARY:  
CONDUCT MECHANICAL DESIGN, AND RESOLVE PRODUCTION ISSUES FOR EXISTING PRODUCTS
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*   MECH DESIGN UPGRADES OF EXISTING PRODUCTS.
*   NEW TECHNOLOGY AND CADTOOL DEVELOPMENT
*   MANUFACTURING, PROCUREMENT, CONFIGURATION AND       
     MATERIALS SUPPORT FOR EXISTING PRODUCTS.
SKILLS
*   MUST BE WELL VERSED WITH PRO ENGR DESIGN PACKAGE
*   WELL VERSED IN PRODUCTION METHODS FOR 
    TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS
*   GOOD PROBLEM SOLVING TECHNIQUES AND COMMUNICATION 
    SKILLS
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
*   MUST BE A TEAM PLAYER-
*   BE ABLE TO ADAPT TO VARYING WORKLOADS. AND TASK   
    REQUIREMENTS.
*   HANDS ON EXPERIENCE OF MECHANICAL MODIFICATIONS.
*   GOOD COMMUNICATION SKILLS, AND ABILITY TO QUICKLY 
    RESOLVE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING ISSUES-
EDUCATION / EXPERIENCE
*  GRADUATE DEGREE IN MECH ENG, MASTERıs PREFERRED
*  5 YEARS OF DESIGN AND PRODUCTION EXPERIENCE IN 
   PACKAGING OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
Title:  Engineer II
DEPARTMENT Passive  Optics
Position ID:  K17
Firm Location:  MD
POSITION SUMMARY:  Run day to day operations of passive optics test,
evaluation, qualification and reliability lab
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*  Optical testing of optical components, subassemblies and modules for 
   use in firm products,
*  Environmental and reliability testing of optical components, 
   subassemblies and modules.
*  Formal reporting of results, and maintenance of testing notebooks (for 
   ISO 9000)
SKILLS
*  Familiar with  general laboratory techniques and data analysis
*  Computer literate with some programming and interfacing, ability for 
   laboratory automation.
*  Optical and Electronics knowledge
*  Fiber Optic handling
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
*  organized
*  willingness to team
*  willingness to take responsibility
EDUCATION / EXPERIENCE
*  B.S. or equivalent in preferably in physics, electrical engineering, 
   mechanical engineering-
OR
*  Previous work in QA-like or fiber optic test laboratory. (this would 
   require change of job title)
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
TITLE Laboratory Technician
DEPARTMENT Photonic Technologies
Position ID:  K18
Firm Location:  MD
POSITION SUMMARY - Set up and run day to day operations of photonics
qualification test lab and environmental/reliability facility.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*   Build laboratories and automate testing procedures.
*   Set up, run and monitor experiments.
*   Maintain qualification and ISO compliance of laboratories.
*   Maintain databases.
SKILLS
*     Laboratory measurement techniques.
*     Computer automation of test measurements.
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
 *   Fiber handling and splicing skills.
 *   Knowledge of fiber optic components.
EDUCATION/ EXPERIENCE
*   Associate degree in electronics, optics or computer automation
     Or experience in same.
*   experience with fiber optic components also desired.
Evolution/Metropolitan Technologies (Recruiting/Staffing Firm)
Technical Coordinator:  Murray Newcomb (UNIX C since 1983)
Account Manager:  Karen Nisky
email:  desma@iquest.net
FAX:  317.289.1468 
(Best is character text, left justified, embedded in the body of an email)
TITLE          Senior Engineering Technician
DEPARTMENT     Electronic Systems
Position ID:  K19
Firm Location:  MD
POSITION SUMMARY:  Product Development Lab technician supporting design
engineers in development and test of microprocessor, digital and analog
circuits.
Essential DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
*  Troubleshoot and testing of digital and microprocessor based    
   circuits to component level. Some Analog circuit testing and 
   troubleshooting will be required.
*  Build-up of test boards and circuits
*  Module and system level testing
*  Prototype assembly
SKILLS
*  Troubleshoot digital circuits (minor analog) to the component 
    level. Specific skills with microprocessor based designs 
    preferred
*  Familiarity with TTL, LSTTL, CMOS, HCMOS, logic families.
*  Familiarity with programmable logic (PAL, EPLD, FPGA) and 
    programmable memory devices (ROM, E/PROM, FLASH).  Thorough 
    understanding of Boolean logic.
*  Read schematics and identify components
*  Debug microprocessor based electronics.  Familiarity with 
   firmware and Assembly and higher level language programming.
*  Ability to use test instruments such as DVM, Oscilloscopes, and   
    Logic Analyzers
*  Prototype assembly, wiring and basic soldering skills
*  Familiarity with surface mount package types.
DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS
*  Detail oriented individual with good interpersonal skills
EDUCATION / EXPERIENCE
*     AAS in Electronics and 2 years experience. More experience preferred.

A request for information.
Searching through one of the "bibles" of physical and chemical constants
today at school, one of the pupils came across two different values given
for absolute zero (on facing pages funnily enough): -273.15 deg C and -273.16
deg C.
Can someone e-mail me (please do not post 'cos I won't see it) the currently
accepted value for absolute zero?
MTIA
John Barrow
:-)

nesonas@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I would like to know why would someone use an electronic voltmeter as opposed to a D'Arsonal (moving coil) voltmeter?
> 
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>       http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet
There are genearally 3reasons for using a digital voltmeter.
The D'Arsonal voltmeter tends to have a lower input impedance for low 
voltage values.  For higher voltage values the series resistance tends to 
run the impedance up, but the digital generally has higher impedance at 
low values.  This produces less disturbance of the signal being measured, 
particularly in modern low power circuits.
The D'Arsonval voltmeter is less accurate.  Typical accuracy for a good 
D'Arsonval Volt-Ohm-Milliameter (VOM) is 2% of full scale.  Typical 
accuracy of very cheap digital VOM is 2% of full scale.  The relatively 
inexpensive digital VOM's used by most technicians run around 0.5% 
accuracy.  
And finally is ruggedness.  A D'Arsonval voltmeter is a delicate 
instrument.  If you ever saw one dropped from 10 to 20 feet in the air 
you would understand that, but even smaller shocks can very easily 
destroy the accuracy of the movement.  A modern rugged digital VOM would 
probably not even notice a 10 foot fall, if the case didn't land on a 
corner.
Hope this helps.
Bill Gill

Dave Monroe wrote:
> The real message is that God wants us to be good but can't make us be
> good.  Despite God's best efforts, he can't make us be good.
No.  The real message is that God wants US to CHOOSE to be good.  What
good is creating
beings in your own image if we HAVE to (are preprogramed) to be good and
worship the creator.
We show our character, our desire to be like the creator by choosing to
be good... not
by being puppets.

In article <57t0bo$26g@ren.cei.net>, Lee Kent Hempfling 
writes
>Ian Robert Walker  enunciated:
>
>
>>>  WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE TAKE A FEW CLOCKS UP TO THE MIR SPACE STATION ?
>>>              ,to see if Einstein (or Newton) was right
>
>>Experiments seem to have a habit of failing to show Einstein and SR/GR
>>as being wrong. Repeating an experiment which agreed with SR might show
>>it wrong the next time you do it, but what if it doesn't? What you need
>>is a new experiment, have you any in mind?
>
>I'll offer a situation for consideration at this point:
>Observational experimentation: (That which lends to the credibility of
>disapproval of an observation) tends to fit the observation.
I think you are saying that observations fit the observation.
>Einstein's field equation and e=mc^2 are correct but essentially are
>observational conclusions.
Well, yes, but the worth of a theory is that it makes testable 
predictions. This SR does.
> So what is being proven or disproven is the
>observation.  
Not so, time dilation is a prediction of SR based on Maxwell.
>What I am most interested in at the moment is what the
>fair lady scientist's objections are to GR. The notion of time........
>a logic argument....please... have at it!!!!!!!
I too would like to know the objections to SR, then I can offer argument 
for or even be convinced by them.
-- 
Ian G8ILZ                   on packet as G8ILZ @ GB7SRC
I have an IQ of 6 million,  |  How will it end?  | Mostly
or was it 6?                |  In fire.          | harmless

Mahipal Singh Virdy (virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com) wrote:
: In article <57tkqo$q11@netnews.upenn.edu>, Silke-Maria  Weineck  wrote:
: > Mahipal Virdy wrote:
: [trim]
: >: Please read that moggin states that Silke thinks "... certain answers is
: >: lucky." The word "lucky" implies having a positive aspect. Unless the word
: >: has been redefined without me being notified, I can only conclude Silke
: >: agrees with moggin's message. So, if I have done Silke grave damages in
: >: misrepresenting her "wants", I do apologize. 
: >
: >Since when does "you're lucky" mean "I wish my discipline were like 
: >yours?" It's nice to be in a discipline that can answer questions with 
: >little residue of doubt; it's even nicer to be in a discipline that you 
: >care deeply about. And if the discipline I care deeply about doesn't 
: >produce unambiguous answers, then that doesn't mean that I wish the 
: >disci;ine were different.
: It's well established that our words of the natural languages lend
: themselves to many interpretations. My point is that I wasn't out to
: distort your expectations. If I paraphrased something and missed a minor
: fact here or there, then it's merely polite of you (or anybody) to state
: your expectations --- to the best of your ability Today. Nobody knows
: what tomorrow brings. So everything is conditional. No one's saying that
: everything you claim about yourself even _once_ is forever your crown of
: thorns. 
Rest assured that I don't think of you as a thorn in my flesh; had you 
read the exchange between Anton and me with any degree of care, however, 
this misunderstanding would not have arisen; I'm quite willing to take 
responsibility for making ambiguous statements that then get 
misunderstood -- this is not the case here.
: Btw, Science --- especially theoretical physics --- does not produce
: unambiguous answers. The only thing "certain" science claims is that
: predictions must agree with observations --- quantifiably. But beyond
: this, Science is as difficult and creative an intellectual venture as
: there ever was.
The example was of how much fuel does an airplane need to get from a to b.
: >But Silke, where do 
: >you get : the idea that I am a "science advocate who is into downright
: >: distortion"? Firstly, you obviously never understood the science-camps
: >: message here that personality bashing isn't helping anyone. 
 >
: >Tell Wiener, Hully, Borsche, and the rest; I'm sure they'd love to hear 
: >from you.
: Look at what the world has come to when I might have to justify Wiener's
: style --- a style I admittedly despise. And he knows it. Still, Mathew
: knows his stuff eventhough he's not patient about sharing his knowledge.
So what? I know my stuff, too.
[...]
: >The mere
: >: fact that I *TRIED* to understand your position by expressing my take
: >: upon it should give you reason to make a positive clarification. It's
: >: not too difficult a feat to accept that nobody in all of existence ---
: >: besides moggin maybe --- is keeping track of everyone's opinions here.
: >: But you have time to type out insults and pass pronounciations of
: >: incompetency. 
: >
: >That's downright bizarre. We've seen science (or "science") types post 
: >here for months harping on the alleged incompetence of Derrida, Deleuze 
: >etc.; when moggin or I or a handful of others point out that the 
: >comments usually bespeak ignorance of Derrida (and therefore 
: >incompetence to comment on his statements), we're oh-so-bad. That's, to 
: >put it delicately, a manifestation of double standards.
: This really is a key point with you. It's reasonable that people
: shouldn't comment on the works of Derrida if they've never read them. I
: totally agree with you. But you seem to hold the position that reading
: Derrida should be mandatory for even physicists. 
Where do you get that? I've stated repeatedly that I take Derrida's 
writings to be highly specific, and that understanding him requires 
extensive background in continental philosophy. I merely request that 
those _commenting_ on him manifest rudimentary knowledge of his work.
This is 
extremely
: unfair for you to expect. 
It would be, but since I don't expect it even one little bit, I will 
have to decline engaging your fantasies of my desires vis-a-vis 
physicists any further.
Consider that you yourself are not immune from
: commenting on science/scientists while at the same time your fascination
: with both is that of an interested but uninvolved onlooker. 
Not true; I have never judged the claims of physics or physicsts as 
they ascertain to physics.
Certainly,
: you don't claim to have read, for the sake of a specific, "Advanced
: Engineering Mathematics" by Wylie&Barrett.; And if scientists kept
: harping on you for being incompetant for not having worked out the
: problems in AEM, you'd feel pretty frustrated. 
No, I feel greatly amused.
Yet Silke, you are doing
: the exact same domination ritual with your insistance that Derrida be
: everyone's forte. 
Nonsense. 
[...]
: >: Since I called you "Immortally Bitch(y)" as a rhetorical experiment, and
: >: I did notice you were offended by the mere _idea_, 
: >
: >more silly distortions. I've publicly stated that there's nothing 
: >wrong with being a bitch. You're indulging your fantasies of how a 
: >girl should react.
: Your a girl?					:-) Joking I am.
Haha (see how cooperative we bitches are).
[...]
: Indeed, Derrida isn't exactly trying to say something _to_ scientists.
Straight.
: He's just talking about Science since he might've been influenced by its
: successes. 
He's answering a question posed to him by a colleague. His essay doesn't 
deal with science at all.
[...]
S.

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>: Im Artikel <57tkqo$q11@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
>: (Silke-Maria  Weineck) schreibt:
>: [Mahipal]
>: >: Firstly, you obviously never understood the science-camps
>: >: message here that personality bashing isn't helping anyone. 
>: >
>: >Tell Wiener, Hully, Borsche, and the rest; I'm sure they'd love to hear 
>: >from you.
>: I sure don't speak for the others, but for myself I say just this:
>: Being an atheist I downright refuse the idea of "turning the other cheek"
>: when someone is trying to hit me. You very well know, that it is you and
>: always you, who starts flames with being bitchy (and you're proud of it,
>: as you state yourself). 
>Du kleiner Geschichtsklitterer, Du...
ObSong:  Bobb B. Soxx & the Blue Jeans, WHY DO LOVERS BREAK EACH
OTHER'S HEARTS
ken

In article <01bbd8e3$97a6fde0$7703bdca@p133> "kpchoong"  writes:
>Is 4 dimensional Space-Time flat? Or is it warped and curved? Or is it
>because we can only 3 dimensioanally, making Space-Time flat to our eyes? 
Don't think there is too much behind the so-called "curved space-time".
If you measure the sum of angles in a triangle, and you obtain
something different from 180, so can call the space "curved".  This
tells nothing about the reasons. It may be simply a distortion of our
measurement instruments caused by gravity, similar to the distortion
of a usual ruler by temperature. 
We don't know, nobody knows, if this "curvature" is more than such a
distortion of our measurement devices on a flat hidden background, but
something "really" curved in some strange sense.
Ilja
-- 
Ilja Schmelzer,  D-10178 Berlin, Keibelstr. 38, 
my ~:		 http://www.c2.org/~ilja
postrelativity:	 ~/postrel/index.html

Few movies try to depict Heaven simply because religion is deplete of
scientific meaning. About the closest that the movies have come is
JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS or CLASH OF THE TITANS.
  The Bible which is supposed to talk about Heaven is mostly gibberish
on the subject.
  Until now, there was never any sort of mental picture of Heaven, now
until.
Well, I got stuck in a creative mode. Seems as though all of my movies
so far show too much common thread of me. So I need a new type of
sci-fi movie. to go along with my
others. They seem typical of an AP movie and should someone walk into
the middle of one of them might remark, ah, an AP movie not knowing the
title or maker. We can immediately spot a  Rolling
Stones song or a composer like Handel or a modern new wave of Vangelis
after hearing a brief few seconds. So I want to see if I
can break out of that creative channeling that creative Mold and see if
I can create a
movie that is atypical of a previous AP movie. A new wave AP movie is
attempted here. I think I have found it in this movie how to break out
of my old mold and it will be modified and grow and when finally in a
good form I will add it to my other movie collections.
  You know how in some movies they sandwich themes into the
storytelling. Such as (1) The Beginning  (2) The Affair etc. I think I
need to do that touchful art in my movie with titles such as (1) Who
God and gods are  (2) When you Enter Heaven  (3) Heaven's Judgement 
(4) Purpose of Life   (5) Superdeterminism (6) Fields of Elysium   (7)
Reincarnation.  Well, sort of those titles, have not decided them yet,
nor their order. I have to edit, polish and refine this movie. This is
the first time a major movie will depict Heaven as to what Heaven is
really like.
                       HEAVEN's TV
  [curtain is drawn, credits cited,... based on the story and theory of
  Archimedes Plutonium ,  play some Vangelis music, chariots of fire
would be nice since it was too good for the running movie]
                (1) Who God and the gods are
  [play the music by Strauss, the piece played in 2001, that music was
far too good to be played for 2001]
    Show a hydrogen atom then a helium then the next element then the
next. Show it nuclear growing into plutonium. 
   Show 231PU this is God. This is Everything. Show a dot of the 5f6
electron cloud. This dot is the Milky Way Galaxy. Show the dot being
magnified. Now we see the stars of the Milky Way and magnified more we
zoom into the Solar System and finally Earth.
   Go back to the 231PU and show the Nucleus. Zoom into the Nucleus.
View the 94 Protons among the 137 Neutrons. These 94 Protons are the
lesser gods because they control the electrons. You can sort of picture
some of the other electrons not the 5f6 electrons as perhaps devils. 
   In the beginning,
      in the beginning were atoms,   in-between were atoms, and in the
end there will only be atoms.
    All is atoms, and nothing else exists. Only atoms exist.
                   (2) When you Enter Heaven 
[enact a scene of someone entering Heaven]
   Show a man and woman both entering Heaven. Heaven is located in the
Nucleus of 231PU. Heaven is the place of the Protons. A proton
individually is some fantastic ball of engineering capable of
controlling every atom of an Electron that is assigned to that specific
Proton. Thus we must imagine some exquisite house where inside are
exquisite equipment that controls large numbers of atoms outside the
house. This house is not fixed or resting permanently but instead can
move and change forms.
   So, when we enter Heaven we can go to one proton house or we can be
judged in front of all 94 Protons with the 137 Neutrons there also.
   Now, at the moment of entering Heaven , we are no longer flesh and
blood. We are just a soul. But a soul is composed of photons and
neutrinos and they are bundled together into what looks like you in
your past life only we appear like a multicolored light bulb. It is me
only light zipping back and forth. So a soul is a state of energy of
photons and neutrinos zipping back and forth and which looks like me in
my past life. In Heaven, all life forms are this photon/neutrino
plasma. Here in Heaven one can see a insect, a grass, a tree , a dog
and past friends of their photon and neutrino souls. These photon
neutrino souls are all the thoughts that the former lifeform had
throughout its life.
                        (3) Heaven's Judgement
      Upon death, we all go into the Nucleus of 231PU and are judged by
the 94 Protons. They weigh the good and the bad of your previous life
and with that verdict decide how to rebundle your photon/neutrino soul.
The photon/neutrino soul is the part of you that lasts the longest. If
you were predominantly good in your past life, you will be granted your
wish. All of us in our lives have a wish of what we will be next. My
wish was to be a physicist/engineer on a planet of the most advanced
life in the 5f6, where my specialty is microsecond pulsar
communications and which obviously is not Earth.
               (4) Purpose of Life
   The purpose of life is to serve our God---- an atom -------- 231PU.
And since our God is an atom, and nothing but atoms exist, then it is
its desire that we were created to manufacture atoms, different atoms
from existing atoms. We are the cold stars of the universe as compared
to the hot stars. We are here to nucleosynthesize.
[here play the song Breathe In Me Breathe of God only with my lyrics]
  Carbon in us
  Carbon of Plutonium
  Fill us 
  With life 
  anew
  That we my love
  What thou dost love
  And do, what thou
  Superdetermines us to do
  Plutonium in us
  Atom Plutonium
  thus shall we never die
  but live with thee
  part in thy Electron infinity
  part in thy Proton divinity
  Atom
                (5) Superdeterminism
  [this section of the movie is very important for after seeing this,
the concept of superdeterminism will be a household word the world
over. The word the world over. The God of the Bible is a
'let-things-alone' man. He lets man/woman do whatever they do. The God
of 231PU is the exact opposite. Everything, yes, everything is ordained
and controlled, from the very thoughts that we have to every action
that we do. Even our very thoughts that we are free was in fact ordered
up by the Protons of 231PU. The supreme identity, the supreme being is
231PU and the lesser gods are the 94 Protons.
  I had died, and gone to Heaven. I had appeared before the 94 Proton
Gods. They took the form of 94 gods that I had read in mythology and
was infatuated with. If I had been infatuated with Jesus and God as a
bearded old man then I would have seen a Jesus and a old bearded man of
God at my Judgement. But I was not infatuated with them for in my youth
and later when I discovered
the Atom Totality, my gods  were Pluto, Zeus, Ceres, Persphone, Hera,
Mercury,
and many others. Some Hindu gods , Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu and Nordic
gods of Thor were also present. I did not ask questions and figured
that the Protons had appeared in a form as to what my mind expected
them to appear as. The Protons had put into my mind what the gods will
look like when I see them. I asked another soul, a woman who had died
and gone to Heaven who presided over her judgement seat and she said
God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost and Mary. And I asked
her if there were others there also? She said yes. How many I asked
her. I did not count them. Something like a hundred.
   At the judgement seat my good and bad on Earth were weighed. And I
was
shown scenes of my former life in front of Zeus and the other 94 gods.
Whenever there was a question about my former life or some emphasis
that one of the 94 gods wanted to make on me, then a scene,
all-true-to-life , in sound and in color were displayed in full, right
there before me.
They granted me my wish. I wished not to ever return to Earth, but to
go to an advanced alien planet and be a engineer of pulsar signals. In
the ensuing days I was to rest or wait or something here in Heaven
before my photon/neutrino
soul was rebundled and go to my new planet out there in the 5f6
Electron space. Perhaps this had something to do with the 94 Electrons
and that the verdict of my judgement still waited on the final word of
231PU after hearing the word by the 94 Protons, 137 Neutrons, and 94
Electrons. 
    (6) Fields of Elysium
   The Fields of Elysium is the waiting room here in Heaven before my
photon/neutrino soul is rebundled and I am alive and well out on my new
planet.
 And my adjourn in Heaven and Fields of Elysium in particular is
timeless. One day in
the nucleus could be 1 day or a million years on Earth. There seemed to
be no time here in Heaven, no anxiety, no demands, no schedules and no
work.
   So I wandered over to see the environs of Fields of Elysium and I
saw the most beautiful flowers in amongst clover. There was a crowd
gathering near a fancy building looked like the Taj Mahal back on Earth
but it was stained glass. Inside it looked like a movie theater back on
Earth. It was sort of like that a big screen on the wall and everyone
was watching little TV sets in carrells.  I suppose the big one on the
ceiling was to direct people. I wanted to go back outside and did so. I
wanted
to see if any aliens were present so that I could ask them questions
about their planet, where I was expecting to go to next. I did not find
any and
it seemed that I was in a part of Heaven that was only humans. Think of
that a human heaven and another heaven for aliens of planet x and
another for aliens of planet y. And the plants and animals and insects
were here also in heaven. But these insects do not bite. They were just
light and I could stick my light finger right through them as if
nothing happened. Oh well, I did
not want to think deeply here in Heaven, because I would not remember
it when I got to my new planet.
    I wandered back to the TV building and asked a person who was not
too preoccupied what is playing. You must be new here? Yes I told him,
arrived yesterday or so I thought. I told him I had lost track of time.
He laughed and said, son, there is no time here in Heaven, relax.
    He comforted me by giving me the answers I wanted. Seems as though
he
was prepared for every one of my questions. Anyway, I found out that
the TV building had every and any scene that had happened on Earth up
to my death. So I went in to sit at a TV and started to dial in the
time on Earth. I had forgotten how I died so I dialed into my life and
watched it all over again. Seemed as though my memory came back to me.
The scientist urge came upon me and I was curious how Earth was first
formed and the first appearance of life on Earth, I fast rewound the
dial to get to primordial Earth. Could not find it. Oh well, tired of
looking so dialed for the first life. Do not know if I had skipped the
first life and
was bored seeing plankton and algae of the sea. Rewound it again but
saw the plankton. Perhaps these TVs are not that finely tuned. Oh well
, went outside into the meadows for a break.
   When I returned to the TV building I dialed in the
extinction of the dinosaurs for I had thought up a test to see if the
TV was finely tuned. I would try the test on the dinosaur extinction
and saw the mammals eating the eggs of the
dinosaurs in many scenes. My eyes started getting tired from all the
fast forward and fast rewind. I went back out into the meadows and
looked and saw this mountain. Nightfall was coming and went back to the
TV building and tonight I wanted to entertain myself and see my past
life as Archimedes. I dialed in my life as Archimedes in Ancient Greek
times.
That was fun to watch and flashes of memory returned to me.
  Then I decided to check my hunch about another famous person around
the time of Archimedes, that of Jesus. I remembered that I had
concluded Jesus was a Essene revolter who was the medicine man of a
clan of fighters. He had morphine in his bag and so many of his tales
or stories about him revolve around the fact that he overdosed his
patients and himself on morphine. So I set the sensor to fast forward
around the year 34 AD.  And I watched the TV, saw Jesus eating sleeping
going to the bathroom, making love to his wife Mary Magdalene. I had
remembered about a Catholic priest in the 12th century known to have
had evidence that Jesus was an ordinary man, an Essene revolter who was
crucified but actually escaped with Mary Magdalene, his wife and with
her father escaped the Romans and returned back to England. Her father
was a mining official and Jesus had spent many of his young years
mining because he loved Mary Magdalene. So, there was no resurrection
or ascension or the other goobley-gook stuff that followed the
crucifixion. There was an escape. And I watched it on the TV just as if
I were there.
    Thing about Heaven is there is no need for eating or sleeping or
washing. There is no time.  Things just seem to happen.
    I returned often to the TV building and was spending more time in
the TV building than outside in the pristine fields and meadows and
mountains.
    Finally I became inquisitive of other souls, excuse me, people in
the TV building for I had noticed that most of them seemed to be
watching the same stuff.  I started to ask around and found out most
people were watching
the Vietnam War. Now if my Earth memory does not fail me, it seems as
though that war lasted for around 15 years.
Seems as though I am losing track of Earth time. 
    Most people were watching the
Vietnam War. Here in Heaven if you dial a time and place on Earth such
as 1960 Saigon Vietnam then the TV shows all sorts of happenings all
around Vietnam,
true happenings as if you were there and just eavesdropping. Of course
the real people on the TV would not know you are watching them. The TV
had sensors which by the motion of your hand or finger you could fast
forward, or rewind , or slow or pause. So one moment you can be
in Saigon and another moment in the Tet Offensive. You can fast forward
or replay or slow down the action. 
[here in the movie show actual live color scenes with sound of the
Vietnam War.]
   A lot of TV watchers there in Heaven seemed stuck on Vietnam and I
asked them. Why Vietnam? And some said, I had died in that war. 
Some said they loved Vietnam TV because all of the human emotions are
expressed. Look, I can go on a patrol in the jungle and look for booby
traps or see action and 
then go into Saigon and go into a whore house and see lust of sex. I
can get a full gamut
of human emotions and feelings and actions compressed in 10 years of
Vietnam.
Vietnam is definitely the best TV show down here in Heaven because you
did not have to play with the rewind or fast forward or controls as
much.
 [ a movie footnote: the US military
ought to have a rating like a gunners mate or a radioaman for a
in-field-filmer, a person whose major duty is to film the others in
action]
   Then, one day I was beckoned from my seat from watching Vietnam. I
rose and followed this sleek beautiful women who I had never seen
before. Who I instantly fell in love with. She opened
the door to this building and said a voice that sounded like music, and
as soon as I stepped inside I was falling
into this huge large machine. Reminded me of a physics accelerator back
on Earth. And I was gone. My photons/neutrinos were
being stripped from me , photon and neutrino one-at-at-time from inside
my soul, and these individual photons and neutrinos were shot one by
one into space, mostly in one direction it appeared. Most were shot
into the direction of a galaxy and a planet in that galaxy. I suppose
that was my newly reincarnated life.  I was reincarnated as a advanced
alien on a planet in a galaxy.
[play Handel's Messiah and sing my lyrics]
   ATOM PLUTONIUM
And it shall nucleosynthesize forever and ever
Forever, and ever
Atom Plutonium, Atom PLutonium
Atom of Atoms, forever and ever

"CHI CHI"  wrote:
>George Black  wrote in article
><329ffa8d.0@harold.midland.co.nz>...
>> In article <329A2686.4C03@dpie.gov.au>,
>>    Sean Downes  wrote:
>> >Judson McClendon wrote:
>> >
>If we are going to argue our case, we should use more sources than one book
>or magazine.  Scientific American is not the only source of information.  I
>find that sociologists and anthropologists greatly enforcing the theory of
>evolution, but they can never claim that it is nothing more than a theory. 
>Astrologists and physicians are more apt to acknowledge that God exists
>because they see how complex the universe and the human body are and they
>know these did not come together by happenstance, they were planned,
>formed, and organized.  Anyone who really studies real science knows that
>it only proves the Bible to be right.
[laughter]  Anyone who really studies science knows the bible hasn't a
clue.
Regards,
Stoney

Akshaya Joshi  wrote:
>I actually believe the devil is a happening dude and he created our
>world. If he did not then we wouldn't have choas. As there is choas it
>means that the devil had some hand in forming our world.
>Yours
>A Raster
Ah, so you did post here.  Great!
Regards,
Stoney

In article <32A0B403.4CBA@ix.netcom.com>, Judson McClendon  writes:
> > woman does not appear until the end of the week as an after-thought. You
> > can’t have it both ways if you take it literally.
> 
> Even a casual reading of Genesis 1,2 shows that Genesis 1:1-2:5 is
> clearly a chronological description and Genesis 2, beginning with v5 is
> a logically related description (men added the chapter divisions, not
> God).  To read that text and argue otherwise borders on being
> disingenuous.
From which we may take it that everyone who read the Bible prior to
Darwin was a "casual reader"? 
If not, please cite three (3) Christian writers prior to 1850 who characterize
Genesis 1 as a chronological account, and Genesis 2 as a "logically
related description" - whatever that means. (If it means Genesis 2
is organized on a logical, rather than a chronological, basis, could
you please share with the class what that logical ordering is? And
give those three pre-Darwin quotes to show that it has always been
the most natural reading, that any other reading is "disingenuous".)
Even one cite would be interesting.
The fact is that Genesis 1 presents a logical, not a chronological,
ordering - although its writer may have thought of the two as coinciding.
On the first three days God creates places (sky, sea, land); on the
second three days He creates inhabitants for those places (the sun,
moon and stars; water creatures; land animals.) The logical order is neat
and poetic, even for the majority of Christians who accept evolution.
The chronological order is scientifically false, even if evolution were
discarded.
To pretend that all Christians in all times have believed that the
Genesis stories were literally true, that there was a temporary layer
of water somewhere between the atmosphere and the moon, that
Noah included on the Ark not one of each species but only one of each 
genus or family or order or something, that the events in Genesis 2 
are not given in chronological order, and on and on...
That pretense doesn't just *border* on being disingenuous. Men added
these creationist epicycles to scripture, not God.
What fundamentalists are touting today as God's Eternal Truth was pretty
much all of it invented last Thursday. Or thereabouts. The pace of
reinvention of what constitutes "plain Bible truth" has never been
more furious than it is today. I'll take my Christianity in a less
frantic flavor, thank you. A nonliteral Genesis was fine with Saint
Augustine; I don't see why it shouldn't be fine with me.
-- 
Royce Buehler	buehler@space.mit.edu	(617)-253-9766
  "Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels"
	-- Pierre Delalande

Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> Olivier Glassey wrote:
> [snip]
> > But, according to W. Greiner
> > (German scientist), the day is today only 0.0165 seconds
> > longer than 1000 years ago
> [snip]
> 
> No doubt Herr Greiner discovered this from the meticulous records made
> from those ultra precise clocks around 1000 AD? ;)
> --
> Judson McClendon
> Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
One of those ultra precise clocks would be an eclipse.  I under-
stand that by comparing ancient reports of eclipses with modern
predictions, and then dividing the difference over the inter-
vening years, it is possible to calculate how much the day's
length has changed.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer   Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
Communications
email: cramer@dlcc.com web page: http://www.cs.sonoma.edu/~cramerc
Opinions are strictly my own; DLCC doesn't pay me for non-technical
opinions.

In article <19961124220600.RAA28156@ladder01.news.aol.com>, evl@aol.com wrote:
>In these "religion vs science" dicussions I've seen the word "Truth" alot.
> I'm wondering if those who uses this word realize that NO ONE - no
>physicist, no philosopher, no christian, no person smart or dumb, has a
>coherent theory of truth (unless they have been keeping to to themselves).
Utter hogwash.  Even if it be shouted from the housetops who would hear? 
Your comment is highly subjective.  You haven't heard it so no one has it,
is that it?  But I do give you credit that you posit that those who may
have it are keeping it to themselves.  It is difficult to give away.  So
few actually want it.
>When I say "theory of truth" I dont mean "is the Bible True or not" I mean
>the the very idea of what "Truth" is, what constitutes it, what kinds of
>things can have the property of truth, can all truths be verified in some
>way and if so, how,...  The very idea of Truth is not well understood by
>humans. 
Of course, what are the properties of truth you ask.  For one thing
'truth' is eternal.  For the next, what you presently see in the world is
not truth but has sprung from truth.
> But, of course, anyone who has thought about this, read a little,
>would know that this has been a topic thought about for centuries by many
>very smart people with no resolution.  This isn't my little opintion, go
>ask any philosopher from the smallest community college to Harvard. That's
>why it kills me when someone goes babbling about what is or is not true -
>not only is the idea itself ill-defined, but have the audacity to think
>they somehow have more insight into how the world is than individuals past
>and present who have spend lifetimes studying topics that require more
>intelligence than anyone visiting one of these NGs (including myself) has.
>
>Eh, but what do I know...
Right.  What the hell do you know? Obviously, from your statements above
you think it takes intelligence to apprehend truth.  You are confused. 
You have intellectual gifts mixed up with wisdom; there is no relationship
between IQ and wisdom except that generally one with a high IQ has wisdom
inversely proportional.  But this is not a fixed relationship which would
imply that all those with low IQ would be filled with wisdom nor that an
intelligent person would be bereft of it. Somehow you think a lifetime
which has the 'external appearance' of devotion to the truth actually
should yield fruit.  Wrong.  This is the fruitless fig tree in full leaf. 
Let it be cursed.
To apprend truth you must become one with it.  Did you think there was
another way?
-- 
C. Cagle
SingTech

In article ,
myers@netaxs.com (Paul Myers) wrote:
>Gee, sorry, but you really missed the entire point of this post. The second,
>quoted paragraph isn't really significant; the first paragraph, which
>summarizes a day in the life of Dr. Sarfatti as a series of Capitalized
>Events at really cool places in the Bay Area was the thematic center of
>this message. You weren't supposed to criticize the content of Nicholson
>Baker's prose, you were supposed to say, "Thanks, Jack! I was overjoyed to
>learn what you had for dinner on the 26th of November, 1996!"
>
>Just doing my part to make sure the messages in sci.skeptic stay on topic...
Finally, someone else who sees that Sarfatti is driven by the external
world in an attempt to validate his miserable existence.  Sarfatti would
shoot off into space if the names he drops could be dropped with inertia
so that Newton's reaction law would be fulfilled.  He actually must
believe that it somehow does propel him upwards in our minds to see him
associated with notable people or places.  It doesn't.
-- 
C. Cagle
SingTech

Johan Braennlund (m94jbr@sabik.tdb.uu.se) wrote:
: I happened to think of this yesterday and it would be interesting to
: hear what you think of it.  I'm sure some people will just dismiss it
: as mathematical nitpicking. Anyway, consider a a two dimensional
: infinite square well in QM. The Schroedinger equation is in that case
: d^2f/dx^2+d^2f/dy^2=c*(V(x,y)-E), where f is the wave function and c
: is a constant. At the boundary of the potential well, the RHS is
: infinite, which means that the second derivatives are
: discontinous. This in turn means that the mixed partials of f are not
: necessarily equal, so the commutation rule [p_x,p_y]=0 may not be
: satisfied, so there's something strange going on here. Have I made a
: mistake somewhere?
: Johan Braennlund
: m94jbr@student.tdb.uu.se
Consider the infinite well as the limit of a high but finite well as the
height goes to infinity. At all stages of this process the above commutator
is identically zero. The infinite well is really an abstraction which does
not exist in nature (though some high wells do exist).
-- 
Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 

William M. Cornette wrote:
> 
> > Capella  wrote:
> >
> > >Most of the world including most christians consider the Genesis account
> > >a metaphor to explain the introduction of original sin...
> > >
> > >Only a few fringe element fundamentalists are concern about this story
> > >being taken literally anymore.
> 
>         Nothing personal, but Genesis (Breishiet in Hebrew) is a Jewish text
> first -- and the Jewish interpretation of Genesis does NOT involve
> original sin -- that is solely a Christian "spin" on the document.
> However, except for Orthodox interpretations, many Jewish sources feel
> that the story is largely allegorical.
>         As far as "most of the world," I doubt if most of the world
> (excluding Christians) have given it much thought.  What I am trying
> to point out, is that Christians are not "most of the world."
> 
> Bill Cornette
Good points and you have my apology...
I am sorry, I didn't specify that I meant:
Most of the world's religious personal that use the Bible think of Genesis
as a metaphor, the majority of Christians believe that Genesis is a metaphor
for the introduction of original sin.
For those that are not familiar with the word "allegorical", the way it is used
above means that Jewish sources (except Orthodox) believe Genesis was a symbolic 
story of truth, not a literal one...
-- 
Capella         
Dallas, Texas

This is to announce our Half Price Holiday Sale on our loudspeaker design
software "The Speaker Design Toolbox", now only $99.00!
Our FREE DEMO version is a great teaching aid for demonstrating how
loudspeakers work.
You can learn more about our speaker design software for Windows 95 and
the Mac OS by visiting  our web site at:
     True Image Audio
     http://members.aol.com/spkrtools
If you take advantage of this sale you will also be entitled to a FREE
UPGRADE to version 2.0 of the program.
Cheers,
John Murphy

I apologize for the jibberish that your groups have been 
subject to inappropriately, when we reply to religious
cyber missionaries, every once in awhile we forget to
edit their crossposting list.
I have posted requests to their groups to end this
inappropriateness and I pledge to limit this to
appropriate groups in the future.
-- 
Capella         
Dallas, Texas

hi everybody ...
My grand father ,during the ww2 has made a little explosion motor with the
help of a french book from Charles Lavauzelle which speak about mecanic and
electricity for the officier .
so if someone has heard about this book please e-mail me :
lerayefo@worldnet.fr
thank you in advance..... ( a french in need )   :-)

In article <01bbdd80$7aee2380$c94d22cf@jaclen.connect.ab.ca>, "Intrepid"  writes:
|> 
|> 	This is not a joke. 
no - it is old, out of date and long since settled.
Don't bother passing around posts like this that are undated - they
are almost without doubt zombies from the past.
pat

thierry philipovitch wrote:
> 
> I have to study the water temperature of a lake, knowing some parameters
 etc etc....
> hydrodynamical ) problem.
> 
> Any suggestions would be appreciate,
> 
try looking in 
Fischer et al 1979 Mixing in Inland & Coastal Waters
Hutter 1984  Hydrodynamics of Lakes...esp paper by 
Heaps
Imberger & Patterson's paper in  
\ref{Imberger, J. and J.C. Patterson}{1990}{Physical 
Limnology}{\it Advances in Applied Mechanics}{\bf 27}
{303-473} 
for lake modelling try looking up John Patterson's 
papers on DYRESM....there are a number of other
models around as well.
And I recall seeing a new text on Limnology which
had a really good looking chapter on physical limnology...
can't remember title tho. 
cheers
c
-- 
Craig Stevens:  Air-Sea Interaction
Natl. Inst. Water & Atmos. Research
po box 14-901 Kilbirnie WGTN   New Zealand
fx 64 (0)4 386 2153  ph 64 (0)4 386 0476

In article <29NOV96.21072738@cc5.crl.aecl.ca>, edwardsg@cc5.crl.aecl.ca wrote:
>         Can anyone send me the full text of the poem whose first stanza is:
> 
>         If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
>         And the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
>         And the address of the memory makes your flopppy disk abort,
>         Then the socket packet pocket has an error to report.
I'm going to guess you'll get a better response in rec.humor than sci.physics.
Please note followup......
-- 
Jude Charles Giampaolo        'I was lined up for glory, but the
jcg161@psu.edu                    tickets sold out in advance'
jude@smellycat.com      http://prozac.cwru.edu/jude/JudeHome.html

In article: <32A1B89A.75BB@mail.ic.net>
  Peter Diehr  writes:
> 
> Allen Meisner wrote:
> > 
> > Peter Diehr wrote:
> > >
> > >So the bottom line is that you believe that light has no inertia.
> > >No doubt this is because inertia is generally conceived as being
> > >a mechanical property, proportional to the mass.
> > >
> >     Right. I appreciate your effort to understand. This is my arbitrary
> > assumption. But special relattivity makes the opposite assumption. You
> > can only decide between the two by experiment since they are both
> > self-consistent. We could have been talking at cross purposes forever,
> > but you have correctly recognized my assumption. I would like to thank
> > you again. Being understood is the essential thing, even if I am wrong.
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Edward Meisner
> 
> Your welcome!
> 
> It would be nice to see some other people's comments on all of this.
> 
> But I'm sure that the experimental results are on the side of SR. ;-)
> 
> Best Regards, Peter
In article: <57aglh$3o4@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
  odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
[snip]
>
>     But please, don't you realize that you have made an assumption that
> is unwarranted here. How do you know that observer A will see the laser
> beam will travel in a straight line in the direction it is pointed.
> That is an assumption and not only a mere assumption, but an assumption
> that light has inertia.
The fact that photons transfer momentum is well proven and I believe
usefully exploited in laser containment systems.  Conservation of momentum
tells me that the laser pulse will continue to travel in a straight line
perpendicular to his line of flight as seen by observer A, and at the
angle shown in the diagram by observer E.
-- 
George Dishman
Give me a small laser and I'll move the sun.

In article: <32A1B89A.75BB@mail.ic.net>
  Peter Diehr  writes:
> 
> Allen Meisner wrote:
> > 
> > Peter Diehr wrote:
> > >
> > >So the bottom line is that you believe that light has no inertia.
> > >No doubt this is because inertia is generally conceived as being
> > >a mechanical property, proportional to the mass.
> > >
> >     Right. I appreciate your effort to understand. This is my arbitrary
> > assumption. But special relattivity makes the opposite assumption. You
> > can only decide between the two by experiment since they are both
> > self-consistent. We could have been talking at cross purposes forever,
> > but you have correctly recognized my assumption. I would like to thank
> > you again. Being understood is the essential thing, even if I am wrong.
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Edward Meisner
> 
> Your welcome!
> 
> It would be nice to see some other people's comments on all of this.
> 
> But I'm sure that the experimental results are on the side of SR. ;-)
I had already replied to Allen in the relativity group where this 
seemed more appropriate but got no response:
In article: <261330092wnr@briar.demon.co.uk>
  George Dishman  writes:
> 
> In article: <57aglh$3o4@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
>   odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
> [snip]
> > 
> >     But please, don't you realize that you have made an assumption that
> > is unwarranted here. How do you know that observer A will see the laser
> > beam will travel in a straight line in the direction it is pointed.
> > That is an assumption and not only a mere assumption, but an assumption
> > that light has inertia.
> 
> The fact that photons transfer momentum is well proven and I believe 
> usefully exploited in laser containment systems.  Conservation of momentum 
> tells me that the laser pulse will continue to travel in a straight line 
> perpendicular to his line of flight as seen by observer A, and at the 
> angle shown in the diagram by observer E.
The classic example often given is the radiometer but this tends to 
get confused as most operate by theraml effects in a partial vacuum 
rather than true radiation pressure. I believe a test was done 
using a high vacuum just to prove it but I couldn't give a reference.
-- 
George Dishman
Give me a small laser and I'll move the sun.