Subject: Proceedings of the conference New Ideas in Natural Sciences, June 1996, St.-Petersburg, Russia
From: "Alexander V. Frolov"
Date: 3 Dec 1996 21:03:12 +0300
Dear Sirs,
The book "Proceedings of intenational scientific conference "New Ideas in
Natural Sciences, St.-Petersburg, Russia, June 1996", English version,
is ready for sale.
Contents of the book:
Contents
Foreword 3
1. Contemporary Problems in Physics. Theoretical Investigations.
Economic Effects of Space Energy Technologies (SET) on Individuals
and Society, Gruber Josef 5
Editorial "On the History of the Event" 14
Magneto-Voltaic Technology, A Solid State Approach for Tapping
the Zero-Point Energy Field (ZPE), Zielinsky A. 15
Researches on New Technologies, Address List 34
The Structure of Problems and Misconceptions in Modern Physics.
Methods for Solution, Possibilities and Consequences, Smirnov A.P. 35
On Physical Space Structure and New Interaction in Nature,
Baurov Yu.A. 45
The Hypothesis and The Equations of The Unified Matter Field,
Nassikas A.A. 61
Classical and Modified Electrodynamics, Zhilin P.A. 73
Tetra Space Co-ordinates (A tetrahedron-based system of space
co-ordinates), Hasslberger Josef 83
Galilei and Relativity Principle, Chirkov A.G. 87
A New Theory of the Unified Physical Field, Groshev V.L. 91
Physical essence of gravity constant and its consequences,
Vasil'ev V.V. 93
The Ether Model as Result of the New Empirical Conception,
Mishin A.M. 95
De Broglie Wave Physics, Butusov Kyrill P. 105
Expansion of Bor's Quantum Postulates, Klyushin J.G. 117
The Concept of Mass Process, Frolov A.V. 123
Thermal Electromagnetic Wave Generator, Lebed B.M, Petrov S.A. 135
Saha-Equation-Undeniable Evidence for the Physical Nature of Chemical
Bonding, Mueller M. 141
Quantum Electron Hydrodynamics Under Charge Neutralization Conditions,
Sanin A.L. 151
Energies, Impulses, and Forces Arising at Moving Electric Charges in
Vacuum, Fogel V.A., Shepsenvol M.A. 157
Formula for Relatively Stable Carbon Clusters, Volkov A. 167
On the Anisotropy of Electron, Efimov A.A. 173
Kozyrev-Dirak Emanation Method of Detecting and Interaction With
Matter, Shakhparonov I. 175
Non-dissipative Closed Electrical Current Process in Normal-State
(Non-superconductive) Electroconductive Media, Turchaninov G.S.,
Turchaninov I.G. 189
A proposed Experiment of Direct Detecting of The Vector Potential
Within Classical Electrodynamics, Onoochin V. 213
Torsion Fields and Their Experimental Manifestations,
Akimov A.E., Shipov G.I. 221
A Generalized Formula for the Lorentz Force Density and Maxwell
Equations, Klyushin J.G. 251
2. New Energetics. Practical Results.
Cold Fusion Research: Models and Potential Benefits, Hurtak J.J.,
Bailey P.G. 261
Use of Regauging and Multivalved Potentials to Achieve Overunity EM
Engines: Concepts and Specific Engine Examples, Bearden T.E. 277
About the Local Tapping of Energy, Galeczki G. and Marquardt P. 299
The Secret of The "Cold Fusion", Kanarev Ph.M. 305
A New Direction In The Energetics, Becklemeshev J.A.,
Becklemesheva G.J. 311
Microscopic Acceleration Mechanism The Cold Fusion in Deuterated
Materials, Chicea D. 315
Free Energy Generation by Water Decomposition in Highly Efficiency
Electrolytic Process, Goryachev I.V. 319
A New Beginning for Thermodynamics, Hasslberger J. 325
Thermodynamic Principles and Problems of Self-Organizing in Physical
Systems, Berezovsky A. 331
Energy Transformation Dynamics, Mikhailovsky G.A. 349
Mechanisms of Energy Inversion and Self-Organization in Real Systems,
Smirnov A.P. and Smirnov A.A. 355
On the Second Beginning of Thermodynamics, Buinov G.N. 359
N.Tesla's Unique Experiments in Colorado, Ignatyev G.F. 365
The Work is Created by Means of Potential Field, Frolov A.V. 371
Thermal Engine With a Single Heat Source, Serogodsky A. 381
3. Gravitation and adjacent technologies
Free Fall of Elementary Particles: On Moving Bodies and Their
Electromagnetic Forces, Rognerud N. 389
Construction an Engine for Free Space on the Base of a Pondemotor
Effect, Ignatyev G.F. 407
Experimental Fundamentals for Determination of the Nature of
Gravitation Interaction Carrier, Simakov A. 411
Gravitation Results from Interaction of Substance with Gradient of
Ether Density, Shulgin V.G. 415
The Quantum Gravitation, Shpakov P.D. 419
A Gyroscope Video Workshop Set Up to Observe & Determine Mechanical
Gyro Properties of Forces, Torques & Motions, McCabe F.J. 421
Rotating Hemisphere: Center of Mass Shift, Jeong E. 429
Diffraction of Gravitational Field, Butusov K.P. 451
About Experimental Proofs of Gravitational Sun to Earth Influence
by Screening of the Part of Inflowing Surrounding Space Neutrinos,
Vinogradova M.G.,Khod'kov A.E. 457
Gravitational Technology, Uspensky G.R. 461
Possibility for the Existence of Anti-Gravity and the Complete Parity
Breaking of Gravity: Evidence from Free-Fall Experiment Using a
Spinning Gyro, Hayasaka H., Tanaka H., Hashida T., Chubachi T.,
Sugiyama T. 467
The Concept of Gravitation, Frolov A.V. 481
The Antigravitation Force in The Balanced Rotating System,
Kashuba V. 491
Compression of Standing Waves, Rhythm-dynamics and Third Condition
of Rest, Ivanov Yu.N. 495
The Beginning of Experimental Gravitonics, Poliakov S.M. and
Poliakov O.S. 529
Principles and Bases of the Support-less Movement and Realisation
of it in a Nature, Belostotsky Y.G. 537
The Inertial Propulsion Drives, Shukalov B.D. 545
4. Researches of Space and Time
The Initial Principles of N.A.Kozyrev's Causal Mechanics,
Shikhobalov L.S. 553
Equivalence of Mass and Time, Abian A. 559
On the Question About Analytical Methods Those Reflect the
"Substance-Space-Time" Unity of the Nature in the Laws of Natural
Science, and About Main Properties of This Unity, Goriachko J.G. 569
Experiments on the Change of the Direction and Rate of Time Motion,
Chernobrov V.A. 575
The Energy Anisotropy of Space, Efimov A.A., Shpitalnaya A.A. 583
On Some Properties of the Physical Time and Space, Veinik A.I. 587
To a Question on Reserves of Information Interaction in a Nature,
Stavitsky V.I. 599
Generalized Golden Section and the Time Theory, Timashev A.R. 605
Information-Energy Model of Matter and Universe, Plykin V.D. 615
The United Holography Information Theory of the Universe,
Dvorin G.V. 621
The Lorentz Component of the Cosmological Red Shift, Sharipov M.R. 625
Conclusion 635
Resolution 636
Contents 638
Price is $60, posting is included. Payment is possible by Western Union
transfer in INCOMBANK, St.-Petersburg, Russia, for Mr. Alexander V. Frolov.
Please, inform me by email special control number of the transfer to take the
money from INCOMBANK in St.-Petersburg. Sorry, but I must take the advanced
payment only.
Numbers of copies for sale is limited. Please, make reservation before you'll
send money.
Alexander V. Frolov
Production Editor
International MegaSciences Academy,
Institute for Free Energy,
Director
P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024, Russia
alex@frolov.spb.ru
home: 7-812-2747877 (speak in English or in Russian, please)
---
Alexander V. Frolov, P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024 Russia
Tel:7-812-2747877
"The World is created and the creation of the Energy is possible!"
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: cc16712@cdsnet.net
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 01:18:17 GMT
durruti@inet.net (mike) wrote:
>Is this almost the 21st century or the 13th??? Come on people GET REAL!
>How much of a back-water, uneducated, zombie-like dunderhead do you
>have to be to STILL believe in "creationism"? I suppose the earth is
>flat, that the sun revolves around us, that the earth is only a couple
>thousand years old, and that Jesus Christ was a blonde-haired,
>blue-eyed caucasian. Man, oh man. It's no wonder that we can't confront
>the vexing problems of our times -- too many people still believe in an
>outmoded, ridiculous, slave-morality written down third-hand by some
>pathological masochists who beat and starved themselves under the hot
>middle-eastern sun to the point of hallucinations over 1900 years ago!
>"The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it
>is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in
>the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice...If God is,
>man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then God does not
>exist...All religions are cruel, all founded on blood; for all rest
>principally on the idea of sacrifice -- that is, on the perpetual
>immolation of humanity to the insatiable vengeance of divinity. In this
>bloody mystery man is always the victim, and the priest -- a man also,
>but a man privileged by grace -- is the divine executioner...If God
>really existed it would be necessary to abolish him..."
> -- Michael Bakunin, the great Russian anarchist, taken from
>his book "God and the State"
No argument here..
Regards,
Stoney
Subject: Re: The Electrostatic Source of Magnetism and Gravity
From: rsansbury
Date: 3 Dec 1996 18:08:00 GMT
(this is a continuation of of the orginal post) Hence GmM/R^2 =
9(10^9)mM[6.02)(10^26)]^2 times kK times s*S* times (N)(2.56)10^-38
divided by R^2. If N=1,this implies kKs*S*=(.0079)10^-61-11+38 = (10^-36)
approximately. Now RkS* and RKs* are the magnitudes of the dipoles
associated with the sun and planet respectively where R is about 10^11
to 10^13 meters.. But we also know that the earth's dipoles cannot be
larger than atomic nuclei about 10^-15 =RKs* that Ks*=10^-26 which
implies kS*=10^-10 and RkS*=10^-10+11 so the dipoles on the sun are 10
meters in length.
This sounds impossible. Perhaps the charge of the dipole could be
somehow larger so that instead of the sun's dipoles being eS* etc., it
could be e*S* where e* is the charge on say 1000 electrons or more and
S* could be that much smaller. After all at the high temperatures
(T=5.77(10^3) to 1.5(10^7) degrees Kelvin of the sun the average kinetic
energy is (1.5)(1.38)(10^-23)T Joules =.5mv^2 where 1.602(10^-19)Joules
=1ev and 9.1(10^-31)kg times v^2 gives the speed of an electron at this
temperature; that is about (10^-20)Joules /(10^-30) at the low 5770
degree value of T suggesting v=10^5 meters per second for this
temperature; but below the sun's surface then with much greater
temperatures, v is far in excess of the 10^6 meter/sec velocity of the
electron around the hydrogen or helium nuclei. This suggests that
dipoles much larger than those proposed for atomic nucle are possible
within plasmas between groups of electrons and groups of ions, protons
or helium nuclei separated by distances that can still be many orders of
magnitude smaller than ten meters.
Similar reasoning could explain the dipole attraction between the
solar system and the center of the galaxy. But what about the moon 3.84
times 10^8 meters away which suggests that if RKS* = (10^8)KS*=10-15 say
that (10^8)ks* = 10^-36+15 suggesting that Rks*=10^-13 meters. Perhaps
this is a problem or perhaps the tidal effects of the moon on the earth
and vice versa and perhaps the amount of charge polarized inside the
earth's atomic nuclei is larger than we first considered; that is, Ne ,
where N is greater than one.
What is the relationship of gravity to the net spin of the planet,
satellite, star, galaxy etc. and to the number of atoms contained in
each? Clearly as in Newtonian gravity theory the gravitational
attractive force of a planet etc is proportional to the number of atoms.
It is then proportional to the angular momentum but if the angular
velocity was increased and the mass was decreased so that the angular
momentum remained the same would the attractive force remain the same?
Blackett suggests such a possibility and a correlation between magnetic
field and gravitational field in the May 1947 issue of Nature regarding
the planets, the sun, and a few stars. An extension of this idea is that
a primordial electrostatic force produced a linear momentum of galaxies
or clusters of galaxies which was partitioned first into the angular
momenta of the spinning galaxies and then into the spinning stars and
then into the spinning planets and their satellites. That is the strength
of the magnetic field is a function of the total of the angular momentum
components and the linear momentum component and the number of
protons-neutrons in the mass considered.The total force may also be
evident in each of these objects down to the planetary satellites.If for
example the total force produces charge polarization inside atomic nuclei
and electrons initially in a high temperature plasma state, the effect
of the assumed linear force on charge polarized nuclei and plasmas would
be to cause a torque on individual nuclei but also on large clumps of
electrons and nuclei. This mechanism could provide a rationale for the
approximate covariation of gravity with angular momentum that Blackett,
Wilson and others had observed and an explanation of why the relationship
might not be more exact. Thus any accelerated object, eg a bullet, a
rocket, a plane, a car, a frisbee, a skidding or spinning billiard ball
etc has electrostatic dipoles produced in its atomic nuclei transverse
to and proportional to the accelerating force which even if mechanical is
still ultimately electrostatic; The tendency of linearly propelled
atomic nuclei to then rotate may add to the aerodynamic efficiency of
spinning projectiles. The resulting dipole field may or may not be self
sustaining against thermal disturbances as in the dipole chain model of
ferroelectrics (Feynman v2p5-5, 11-10).
In the above mentioned ferroelectric model the dipoles are assumed to
be composed of poles, concentrations of charge that are fairly constant
over time unlike our model of charge polarization inside atomic nucle
which changes rapidly with the position of the orbiting charged
particle(s) inside the nuclei but which averaged over the orbital time
period represents a displacement of centers of negative and positive
charge in a specific direction. In both models the dipole-dipole
interaction is the same but the interaction of one dipole with a single
pole of the other is different in the two models. In our model the action
of one dipole on the single pole of another is to produce a transverse
elliptical motion of the single pole, rather than as in the ferroelectric
model to produce a motion of the pole only in the direction of the dipole
field and thereby to sustain a dipole field. It is conceivable that the
longitudinal and radial dipoles initially created by the primordial force
acting in the latitudinal direction causing the planet to spin could also
sustain the dipoles then produced; that is the longitudinal dipole field
would act to produce radial dipoles after thermal collisions etc and vice
versa. Perhaps this occurs more readily in spherical spinning objects.
But it is also conceivable that the force producing the accelerative
motions of the galaxies and so in some small component part, the spin of
the earth is constantly creating the dipoles anew; that the First Mover
or the force producing the accelerative Hubble expansion of the galaxies
is always however far away "with" us also in the sense of sustaining the
electrostatic dipoles of the gravitational force in our atoms.
For explanatory purposes suppose the primordial force acted only on a
clump of atoms that became the spinning earth when dipoles produced in
the atomic nuclei transverse to the initial linear force responded then
to the linear primordial force by also spinning. The spinning might
continue in the absence of friction by inertia. But what prevents the
dipoles from disappearing due to thermal collisions of atomic nuclei with
the inner shell of electrons, if there is no force to produce them? Now
working backwards suppose the linear primordial force is associated with
the movement of the solar system in the galaxy; then further backward
with the movement of the galaxy in a cluster etc. and that the primordial
force remains. The existence of this primordial force then is the cause
of the movement of galaxies is the cause of the movement of stars is
the cause of the sustained dipoles in the atomic nuclei of the planets of
stars that have planets which otherwise would be reduced to zero after a
few seconds of thermal collisions. When the moon was spun off the earth
and when we launch a satellite by rocket, the satellite is accelerated to
a velocity that exceeds the velocity that would bring it back to earth
but at all times during this transitional state and once it is in orbit
around the earth it is also being acted upon by the force which causes
the spinning of the earth and the earth's orbital and galactic motions
and so it responds like everything else to this force when the force that
launched it is removed; that is the nuclear dipoles in its atoms are
sustained, even when they have superimposed on them during the time of
launching other dipoles, and its motion with the earth around the sun etc
is sustained as well as its motion toward the earth constantly just
enough to keep it in orbit.
Returning to the Blackett and Wilson conjecture, the reason for the
relation between gravity magnetism and angular momentum may be due to the
component of the ever present force that is manifest in the linear and
angular velocity components of the motion of the astronomical body. The
more atomic nuclei there are in the body and the greater its velocity
components the greater the gravitational and magnetic fields of the body.
Hence a spinning motion given to a ball by a momentary force may produce
initially additional charge polarization in its atomic nuclei in radial
oriented directions but without repetition of this force perhaps through
the self sustaining interaction of radial and longitudinal dipole fields
the charge polarization in the atomic nuclei quickly becomes zero due to
thermal collisions. In the case of the planets, measurements of their
magnetic fields is complicated by the fact that different parts and
layers of the gaseous planets rotate at different velocities and for the
planets near the sun the sun's magnetic field has an influence on the
measurements. The fact that the gaseous planet Jupiter has a magnetic
field ten times stronger near its equator than the earth even though it
is several hundred times larger in mass and the fact that the direction
of the field is opposite to its surface rotation is perhaps
understandable in terms of different directions of rotation in different
regions and is consistent with the Blackett and Wilson theory; Also the
similarity of Neptune to Jupiter except that Neptune is about one
twentieth of the mass of Jupiter and the similar ratio of their magnetic
fields to the ratio of their masses can be so understood.
With repetition of the force causing linear motion or spin, the dipoles
can be sustained. This would imply that an airplane traveling from Europe
to the US for example is kept up not only by Bernoulli's principle but
also by a small antigravitational repelling force between the atomic
nuclear dipoles in the plane and those of the Earth below that should
increase with the Bernoulli effect with the speed of the plane. By the
same token, a plane traveling from the US to Europe would be heavier the
faster it traveled which even though offset by the greater lift due to
greater speed would not be offset as much as when the plane traveling in
the opposite direction also had speed related lift but was lighter. It
would be interesting to know if planes generally used more fuel per unit
speed and per unit wind speed when traveling from Europe to America than
when traveling in the opposite direction.
If in small spinning objects in particular,eg baseballs, the field of
the longitudinal dipoles could sustain the radial dipoles and the field
of the radial dipoles could sustain the longitudinal dipoles then the
initial outside force could be removed and the objects at least until
frictional forces had acted for enough time could depending on their
direction of spin become heavier or lighter as the airplane described
above. A related phenomenon might be Henry Wallace's patent 3 626 605 of
a kinemassic machine, a pair of wheels of brass like giroscopes which are
rotated at a speed of 20,000/60 rps and at the same time one is rotated
about another axis the wheels appear to be propelled upward of become
lighter (New Scientist 2/14/80). I haven't read the patent and do not
understand exactly what occurs as described in the magazine. The rotation
speed is several times greater than that suggested by Blackett for a
bronze sphere 1 meter in diameter which Blackett said should produce a
magnetic field of 10^-8 Gauss. DePalma, Kidd, Strachan, and Laithewaite
have, I am told, reported similar gravitational anomalies of spinning
objects but I don't know the details or references. Any information on
this would be appreciated and could be sent to Box 492 NY NY10185 or
rns@concentric.net.
Regarding the Gravitational red shifts and bending of electromagnetic
radiation. Before considering the esoteric experiments consider the
commonplace observation of improvement in the reception of radio
frequencies at night from reception during the day. This is attributed to
greater radio activity during the day but it could also be attributed to
a decrease in the distance between colliding free electrons and lattice
ions, nuclei and their surrounding electron shells in the receiver
antennas when the antenna is on the sunny side of the earth.
When a star is observed against the background of stars at say
midnight its position seems to be about 3/3600 degrees ahead of its
position when its position is determined at the time of year it is
visible during an eclipse near the sun at noon; that is the greater
residual nuclear dipole seems to make possible a difference in the delay
of reception; a longer delay as the earth truns more before light from
the particular star becomes visible. That is the proposed theory explains
the bending of light, by gravity without requiring a distrotion in the
trhee dimensional Cartesian coordinate system representing physical space
for out of the ordinary observations according to Einstein's ingenious
formula A similar explanation applies to the red shift in radar
reflections from venus and mercury when they are on the opposite side of
the sun; that is the gravitational effect of the sun is not to change the
time scale of light wave disturbances in the ether near the sun so as to
increase the time between successive peaks and valleys of a sine
oscillation but to influence the radar receiving antennas on the earth so
that they do not respond as quickly to changes in oscillating forces on
the free electrons in their antennas resulting in a lower frequency for
the received oscillation of charge in the radar antenna. Similarly for
other red shift experiments like Brault's on the gravitational red shift
of solar lines (Bull Amer Phys Soc. 8,28 1963). The red shift of gamma
rays as a function of their heighth 22.5 meters above the earth's surface
and the gravitational field of the earth may have a similar explanation.
That is the shift should be greater the greater the distance between the
source and the receiver at least during the day; if the experiment is
performed at night the results should be a lesser delay. But the cause of
the delay is not the gravitational field of the Earth but the effect of
the sun's gravitational field on the earth's gravitational field Recent
variations in the gravitational constant when electostatic means are used
to create stability in balance measurements may be explained more clearly
in terms of these effects than of GR effects.
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: StanR
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 11:31:07 -0800
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <32A3A3BE.7D36@california.com>, StanR writes:
> >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <32A2805F.7F35@california.com>, StanR writes:
> >> >Tobias,
> >> >I think Michael's point was that other solutions can be found that
> >> >contain a negative time-arrow.
> >> >
> >> >Even if the electron example misses the mark, it's certainly true with
> >> >photons. And any solution to a wave differential equation. They always
> >> >have a minus-, as well as a plus-time soliution.
> >> >
> >> >Physisists and engineers have been throwing out the negative time
> >> >solution as unusable, and they may be right about that in solving a
> >> >problem. But that pratically doesn't negate the validity of the
> >> >solution.
> >> >
> >> >Personally I agree with Michael in concept, if not in example. The
> >> >mathmatical solution is valid until proven invalid, based on the
> >> >usefullness of the positive time-arrow solutiion.
> >> >
> >> >Comments?
> >> >
> >> Yeah, two comments:
> >>
> >> 1) The basic equations of physics are invariant under time reversal.
> >> Thus for any solution propagating forward in time there is a solution
> >> propagating backward. This results from the very structure of the
> >> equations. But, it is neither proving nor disproving the possibility
> >> of backward propagation. The "arrow of time" is an external condition
> >> imposed as a boundary condition. Obviously you cannot use equations
> >> which are invariant under time reversal to prove that there is a
> >> preferred time direction.
> >>
> >> 2) Regarding "The mathematical solution is valid until proven
> >> invalid", no, it ain't so. Math is sufficiently rich to generate way
> >> more than just physical solutions and the reduction of the set of all
> >> possible solutions to the set of the "physical ones" is obtained using
> >> principles which are, in the ultimate account, based on empirical
> >> observations not on mathematical proofs.
> >>
> >> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> >> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
> >
> >
> >Started off ok. Regarding Comment #1, yes, yes, and yes. And fair-enough
> >as far as neither proving-nor-disproving the approved time-arrow
> >direction, and I make the same ascertion.
> >But no, you don't have a choice to the arrow of time as a "boundary
> >condition". an interesting distinction between a wave equation and a
> >diffusion equation. Don't confuse the practical aspect of the choice of
> >time-direction with defacto proof.
>
> There is no proof. There is a huge difference between the diffusion
> equation and the wave equation. The wave equation is what we consider
> a "basic equation" valid on the microscopic scale. The diffusion
> equation is a macroscopic equation, containing the assumtion of
> "molecular chaos" within it. In other words an assumption regarding
> a single direction of time propagation is already imbedded within the
> diffusion equation so you cannot use it to prove anything about the
> direction of time.
>
> >Your "preferred time direction" statement digresses, though and is
> >off-track, as are most statements that start with 'obviously..."
>
> I didn't realize you're in the business of grading responses, else I
> wouldn't waste my time responding.
> >
> >Comment #2 is more of a statement of prejudice. Sayin'-it-ain't-so don't
> >make it 'ain't-so. Go back to comment #1 and let's see if we can
> >develope something concrete from that.
>
> We? You're welcome to do it. Count me out.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Dingle,
the Schrodenger equation is a diffusion equation.
And, ok, you're out.
Stan
---------------seperator----------------------------------
Subject: Re: I hate it when they do this!
From: mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:37:07 GMT
In article <329e3f04.464229@news.pcpros.net>, prince@pcpros.net (Mike
Harder) wrote:
> It seems like math teachers are always changing their minds.
> In grade school, they told me I couldn't subtract a larger number from
> a smaller.
My father was a former math teacher and had told me about negative
numbers. I came home from school one day crying about how the teacher
had lied about subtraction.
Since then, I've always had a compulsion, when teaching, to make at
least a perfunctory nod in the direction of subtleties and complications
in what I'm teaching. The problem is, this confuses many students. In
one class in which I was a TA, the professor called me "Second-Order Man"
for doing this repeatedly.
> For years, my math teachers have been telling me "Infinity
> isn't a number; you can't just substitute it into equations." My
> physics teacher told me, and I quote directly, "Infinity is just
> another number if you modify the rules slightly. You'll understand
> when you learn more math."
The teacher (said Second-Order Man) is glossing over a lot of things,
some of them cultural. Physicists use infinities much more blithely and
sloppily than mathematicians do, because they have learned that in many
situations they can get away with it.
In this case, a very good way to think about it is in terms of a *limit*.
Think about the velocity necessary to get to a certain distance from the
gravitating body. In the limit in which this distance becomes very large,
the velocity gets closer and closer to the escape velocity. When your
physics teacher stuck infinity into the equations, that could be seen
as shorthand for sticking a finite number in, and then taking the limit
in which the number becomes very large. When a physicist uses an infinite
number it is almost always this sort of shorthand for a limit process.
Of course, calculus is based on similar ideas of limits.
> He also said that if a body travels at
> greater than the escape velocity, it will go *past* the infinity
> point.
This doesn't make any sense. What happens if the object travels at faster
than the escape velocity is simply that in the limit of large times and
distances, its velocity will approach a nonzero value, rather than
approaching zero; it will have kinetic energy left over even in that limit.
That said, let me make some third-order comments. Things are not always so
clear-cut in Newtonian physics. There are complex multi-body situations in
Newtonian mechanics in which some objects get flung an infinite distance in
a finite time! That really is confusing; it is not clear to me how one
might interpret such a situation physically. However, this philosophically
worrisome situation is averted by the fact that our universe is really not
Newtonian, it is relativistic, and in relativity this cannot happen;
velocities are limited by the speed of light.
--
Matt McIrvin
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: war victims; blinded victims
From: jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:27:30 GMT
In article <57ij0k$sga@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
< In article
< jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:
<
< > Sure, that's obvious. I'm not talking about THAT. Clearly one
< > can redefine things. But one cannot redefine things in the middle
< > of an argument. If someone (like Fermat) sets up a question about
< > finite integers then that's all that's to it: prove his statement
< > or disprove it but do not pretend Fermat really set up a different
< > question.
<
< No birdbrain, I am not talking about redefining. I am talking about a
< mirage a illusion.
<
< You will never understand this for in your world, you believe math
< does not exist other than some axioms. I tell you , you are wrong. That
< math exists independent of you and axiom systems. An axiom system is
< manufactored by humanity in *hopes* of capturing the true math that
< already exists out there in the world, independent of human discovery.
It makes no difference. Fermat asked a question, it's that simple.
Using your terminology FLT states: there are no infinite integer
solutions to a^n + b^n = c^n, where a, b, c, n are of the
form ...0000xyz and n > ...0002. (I'm pretending you can order
infinite integers.) There is nothing wrong with asking this question
even assuming Peano axioms are somehow "wrong."
< Just like physics where it is hoped that the laws discovered match the
< reality of the physical world and those laws are changed to ever come
< into closer agreement with the physical reality. Mathematics is the
< same way, we have to change and modify the axioms until they fit the
< real and true mathematics. Your Naturals = Finite Integers is a mirage
< a sham and two of those Peano Axioms are falsehoods.
Even assuming all this FLT remains a valid question.
--
Jan Bielawski
Molecular Simulations, Inc. )\._.,--....,'``. | http://www.msi.com
San Diego, CA /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. | ph.: (619) 458-9990
jpb@msi.com fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' | fax: (619) 458-0136
#DISCLAIMER******************************************************************#
+Unless stated otherwise, everything in the above message is personal opinion+
+and nothing in it is an official statement of Molecular Simulations Inc. +
#****************************************************************************#
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 21:25:51 GMT
In article
Alec Horgan writes:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, David Swanson wrote:
>
> > In article
> >
> > Alec Horgan writes:
> >
> > > On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, David Christopher Swanson wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are numerous problems with trying to put a price on
> > > > everything. I cited a book in order to avoid having to type
> > > > them all in. I'll give you one to chew on: how do you deal
> > > > with the interests of future generations?
> > >
> > > Given the contempt which you appeared to display for Colin McGinn's
> > > review of Peter Unger's new book, which relied heavily on this and other
> > > similar questions, one would not think this to be much of a concern for you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Your memory seems spotty. Sure I displayed contempt for the review.
> > The review displayed contempt for what sounded like an excellent book.
> > But what difference does it make what's a concern for ME? You don't
> > get around problems just because I'm fool enough to ignore them, do
> > you?
> >
>
> I would hope not. However, my point is that, by raising the question
> above, you've indicated that you haven't ignored the problem, in which
> case your contempt for the review seems, if not completely mistaken, at
> least a bit odd.
>
>
>
>
>
> Alec
You seem to be remebering backwards. I don't have the review in front
of me, but if the question of future generations came up in it, I doubt
that the claim was that Unger didn't face this problem, or at least I
doubt that any such claim was made convincingly, and I am absolutely
certain that I never proposed ignoring the question. The bulk of the
review, as I recall, consisted of absurd strawmen along the lines of,
"But, hey, helping a lady with her groceries is GOOD and nobody makes a
CAREER of it." Dig out my comments if you can find them. I'd like to
see what I said that led to this weirdness. Meanwhile, you can provide
an answer to the question of how to price stuff across generations.
David
"What, in this moment of cusp, did the progressives do? They rallied,
God bless their little pea heads, behind Ralph Nader. Nader is the
nadir. He represents the end of left-liberalism, the personification
of holy self-marginalization." Michael Kelly
Subject: Abian vs Einstein
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Date: 3 Dec 1996 23:24:17 GMT
In article <01bbdefd$1508a1c0$26ce77cc@michaelp>,
Michael D. Painter wrote:
>It's not his limit, it's yours as read in your equation.
>If you are not using standard notation then explain it as you did with
>"You should also explain the unit(s) you use and what they might equate to.
Abian answers:
Mr Painter you are repeating meaningless, incoherent, irrational
questions. I have answered them and I do not need your telling me what
should I do! I very briefly will repeat my previous explanations, and,
I would appreciate it if you do not address me about them anymore with
incoherent statements.
(A*) An Abian unit (i.e.,1 Abian) is taken as the mass Mo of the Cosmos at
the Big Bang, i.e., at T = 0 Abian. For practical considerations
Mo can be taken as 1O^n (for a suitable n) Abian units. Thus,
(1) Mo indicates the Mass M (in Abians) of the Cosmos at T = 0 (Abian).
The following initial conditions are assumed:
(2) 0 from which it follows 1 - (m/Mo) = exp (T / (kT - Mo)) and therefore
(5) T = -Mo(Log (1 -(m/Mo))/(1 - k Log(1 - (m/Mo))
where Log is the natural e-log.
We note that (4) as well as (5) expresses the equivalence of Mass and
Time. For instance they say that m units of Cosmic mass is
spent to produce T Abian units of Cosmic Time.
Now Mr. Painter how do you show that (A*), (1),(2),(3),(4),(5)
lead to a contradiction! How? Equations are there - just show
how. Those are equations, given explicitly, nothing more explicitly
can be given! Just show how do you arrive at a contradiction.
As for the units just read (A*). As far as experimental data is
concerned I said I HAVE NONE since I , as yet have no COSMIC
MASSMETER. But that is a detail.
ABIAN vs EINSTEIN refers to the radical difference of the notion of
TIME between ABIAN and EINSTEIN. For ABIAN, TIME is a manifestation
of MASS and their equivalence are given by (4) or (5). For EINSTEIN,
TIME is what the dial of a watch indicates. Why don't you address
your questions to the followers of the establishment and ask them
WHOSE WATCH ? THE DIAL OF WHOSE WATCH!!
For ABIAN, Time is Mass and not a dimension on par with spatial
dimensions. For EINSTEIN Time is a dimension on par with a spatial
dimension.
Just ask the Establishment " the dial of whose watch measures the TIME"
and let me know their answer. The question is Whose Watch? Post your answer.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
