Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Robbie Gates
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 17:30:15 +1100
> John Wrenn wrote:
> > sience was every cause has an effect, and the corallary is true: every
> > effect has a cause.
Sorry, i have to jump at this. Not at all germane to the topic
at hand but the above claim is severely logically flawed.
Abstracted, you are saying (A has B) has a corollary (B has A).
Putting aside pedantry about use of language, note that dogs have
legs, but not all legs have dogs.
Instead of corollary you (i think) mean converse, and it is certainly
not the case that converses follow. e.g. If it rains, i take my
umbrella
has converse if i take my umbrella, it rains -- clearly untrue.
I'm not claiming that "every effect has a cause" is untrue, just
pointing out that it in no way follows from "every cause has an effect".
- robbie
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
robbie gates |
apprentice algebraist | http://cat.maths.usyd.edu.au/~robbie
pgp key available |
Subject: Re: Energy, a spacial dimension?
From: nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan M. Urban)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 03:01:06 -0500
In article <582fjv$3o7@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, jeffocal@mail.idt.net wrote:
> Is it possible that energy could be a separate dimension on it's own.
> It would seem logical to assume this because the dimensions of length,
> width, and height give the position of something in our three
> dimensional coordinate plain. However each position in three
> dimensional space is associated with a unique relative energy value
> for that position. This would indicate that to define a position of a
> object in space and time that you should also included a reference to
> it's relative energy position.
Well, you _could_ do that, but it wouldn't really be very physically
meaningful.. as you yourself pointed out, energy is a function of
position, so it is _not_ independent of the spatial dimensions. The
{x,y,z,t} coordinates are all independent of each other, so they are
valid candidates for dimensions. Energy isn't separate from them.
--
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech
Subject: Natural Layers to the Cosmos - What about it?
From: Mountain Man
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 18:17:10 -0800
Here is another post in case you missed the unanswered first one:
Quite obviously there is evident a difficulty of sorts in any form
of theoretical analysis of phenomena in the cosmic-scale environment
(ie: planetary, solar, galactic, etc) by way of quantum mechanics.
Similarly, there is evident an almost reciprocal difficulty in the
use of general relativity and gravitationally derived theories in
the microscopic environment and below (ie: molecular, atomic, sub-
atomic, etc).
In the midst of these two realms of idealised theory concerning
the representation of natural phenomena there exists the plain
and simple "natural environment" or terrestrial environment, in
which we live and breathe and have our being.
Excluding the consideration of technological and man_made
phenomena, for which the specification of design may clearly
be observed by way of patents, etc, there unequivocably
exists a background natural tapestry into which are merged
the compound systematics of all these environments as they
continually interface to each other.
Is it really meaningful to even consider that nature may one day
be reducible to a single (or a set of) theory by considering the
cosmos (and its nature) as a unity to be mapped?
Perhaps in fact, the way nature works is more like a system,
whereby different phenomena and different processes operate
in different and reasonably well defined "levels". If this
theory is to be explored, then the first step is the
establishment of such "layers" of nature as exemplified
above.
I am not intending to be didactic by these comments, and
merely seek some reasoned commentary on the above thread.
All the best for now,
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
Webulous Coordinates: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay: "You shall hear how Hiawatha
prayed and fasted in the forest,
Not for greater skill in hunting,
Not for greater craft in fishing,
Not for triumphs in the battle,
And renown among the warriors,
But for profit of the people,
For advantage of the nations."
- Longfellow (1855)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Burns is trolling for flames, was: Re: Sophistry 103
From: mburns@goodnet.com (Michael J. Burns)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 08:47:18 GMT
David Swanson (dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
: In article <57ulhk$jjs@news.goodnet.com>
: mburns@goodnet.com (Michael J. Burns) writes:
: > ...
: The trouble here seems to me to be quite clearly an over
: hypostatization of antinomian quantum indices, compounded by the
: regressive unreturning of a pardoxically inverted physics envy.
: 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
Humor and insight from an artist. Is this a proxy allowing physicists at
Virginia to devote much needed attention to getting conservation theorems
right? (Special cases do not prove general conservation in the absence of
a potential.)
--
Michael J. Burns http://www.indirect.com/www/mburns/
"We are such stuff "Oh brave new world,
As dreams are made on, and our little life That has such people in't!"
Is rounded with a sleep."
Subject: Re: Can science provide value? (was: Where's the theory?)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:06:26 GMT
In article <582hnt$1rik@uni.library.ucla.edu>, zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
... snip ...
>
>>>>>OK, here is a more clear-cut case. Consider a functionalist theory of
>>>>>mind. Suppose that to each possible physical state of the brain there
>>>>>corresponds at most one computational state of mind, that the physical
>>>>>and the mental strata alike are causally complete and closed, and that
>>>>>no causal interaction occurs in either direction. Then mental states
>>>>>supervene on observable brain configurations, but neither cause them
>>>>>nor get caused thereby. This view is actually quite popular, though
>>>>>perhaps not as satisfactory as interactionism.
>
>>>>I would say in this case that there are no two stratas, just one, and
>>>>the reason people would like to believe there are two is just their
>>>>unwilligness to give up on the belief that human spirit exists as an
>>>>entity independent of the material body.
>
>>>Note that the above scenario is compatible with there being genuine
>>>psychological laws governing beliefs, perceptions, and volitions,
>>>independently of the physical laws that govern their underlying
>>>neurological base. So a volition would be causally efficacious in
>>>producing a belief, but there need not be any nomological regularity
>>>connecting mental states with brain properties.
>
>>I smell a contradiction here, unless I misunderstood you. First you
>>say that there are two strata, physical and mental, such that there is
>>a mapping of the physical onto the mental ("to each possible physical
>>state of the brain there corresponds at most one computational state
>>of mind"). Now, if the two strata are indeed not interacting, there
>>is no reason, short of divine intervention, why the computational
>>state corresponding to a given physical state will be the same at
>>different times. In the absence of coupling they'll each go through
>>different states independently. The way I see it, such correspondence
>>mandates that either there is a coupling or there is really just a
>>single strata, the physical one, the other existing only in our
>>imagination.
>
>Note that in deriving your conclusion you have appealed to the
>principle of sufficient reason.
Yes, I did. I consider it an unreasonable assumption that two
separate (and changing) systems may maintain a consistent mapping
without any coupling.
> But the postulation of anomalous supervenience of the mental on
>the physical rules out this kind of >explanatory rationalism.
Postulates are dime a dozen and they can be as anreasonable as their
authors wish (read a bit of sci.physics if you don't believe me).
>The claim is that the class of physical
>state-types {P_1,...,P_n,...} underlying any single computational
>state-type C is not characterizable by any common physical property.
Then how do we know that such class exists (yes, I know, it is only a
postulate). Or how do we know that there is an overlying
computational state, maybe said class of physical state types is the
computational state. Not to mention that the biggest claim that can
be made, scientifically, is "no recognizable common physical
property". Somebody asked yesterday a good question regarding a wire
carrying data using TCP-IP protocol. If you know nothing about
information transfer and protocols, can you distinguish such wires
from those that just do nothing, or carry a phone conversation.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Equivalence Principle
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 09:29:03 GMT
Einstein used the equivalence principle to equate the bending of
light in an accelerated elevator to gravity. Can the same equivalence
principle be applied to inertial kinetic energy? In other words, if
gravity and acceleration cause a curvilinear distortion in spacetime,
does kinetic energy and velocity cause a linear distortion in
spacetime? Looking at it this way, an inertial object is moving not
because of an intrinsic kinetic energy, but because it is merely
following the linear curvature in spacetime associated with it or
transferred to it by contact or collision forces. If Einstein's
equations describe the curvilinear distortion of spacetime, then can
the derivative of equation of general relativity describe the linear
curvature of spacetime?
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Abian vs Einstein
From: cliff_p@actrix.gen.nz (Cliff Pratt)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 08:31:03 GMT
In article <582cr1$gd3@news.iastate.edu>,
Alexander Abian wrote:
>
> 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.
>
How can he show that it leads to a contradiction? It is total gibberish
from start to finish.
The definition A* which purports to define the units is not a definition
at all, it is a circular reference, showing nothing...
Subject: Ultraviolet Light Source wanted
From: pavan1@student.monash.edu.au (Paul van den Bergen)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 10:52:26 GMT
Howdy folks,
Umongst other things I am a mineral collector, and I have been
investigating setting up a UV fluoresence display.
As such I am looking for suitable UV lights, esp. short wave UV.
I have read a bit about the subject, and I know I need a low pressure
mercury tube with a glass capable of transmitting below 240 nm (the
strong Mercury UV line is around 255nm)
I have a lamp with a soda-lime glass (comp.???), that gets down to 280
nm, and I would really like to get the really short 180nm lines too
For this I really need a fused silica bulb or tube, or an alumina tube
(if they make them)
Any suggestions as to where I might get such a tube
(I fully expect it to be available as a standard fluoro light type
bulb, if available at all)
Note that there are lights available in the 300-400nm range (Black
light, and black light -blue). (I need these too, but I can already
get them)
Email me at
pavan1@student.monash.edu.au
########## Paul van den Bergen
#### # c/- Materials Eng., Monash University
# #### # Clayton VIC 3168 Australia
#### # # pavan1@student.monash.edu.au
# ###### ph. +613 9905 3597
# # fax. +613 9905 4940
##### meow *cough* feathers
I feel it is my duty to warn everyone that there is an
international consortium of powerful people who get
together and facilitate the distribution of conspiracy
theories in order to keep the minds of the masses off
the real issues that are affecting the world (whatever
they may be...)
Subject: Re: The Physics of Absolute Motion
From: cliff_p@actrix.gen.nz (Cliff Pratt)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 08:25:26 GMT
In article ,
Charles Cagle wrote:
>
> In the case of physical theories as they stand today, only a blind man
>could not see that they are rife with holes and hodgepodge patches and
>ambiguities and paradoxes and shortcomings.
>
What BS! They are no more hodgepodge and rife with holes than they ever
were. In fact science explains many more facts today than it did a couple
of decades or so ago.
Science has >always< been full of ambiguities, paradoxes and shortcomings.
Far from being a deficiency, this is a strength! It encourages scientists
to seek out answers, to explain the deficiencies...
> Physic's inability to predict new phenomenon or even to adequately
> explain old phenomenon makes it a candidate for the trash heap.
What a one-eyed view! Sure, there are things which cannot be explained,
but there are millions and millions of facts that are explained by
current theories.
It depends what you want a theory to do. A scientific theory is normally
used to explain a particular set of observations. It is not intended to
explain the universe. However, the scientific method is to extend
exisiting theories to data that the theory was not intended to cover.
The miracle is that, a lot of the time, the theory STILL covers the
extended set of facts.
>But what is it that we should toss out? Everything? Heavens no!
>Keep the data but get rid of the theories.
Nope! The theories explain many many facts to the required accuracy. Why
junk them? Newton's theories are still sufficient to track the orbits of
the planets, in most cases. Why junk it?
>
>They hate vacuums of knowledge and as long as one exists they will seek to
>fill it with any handy idea.
>
If a pragmatic theory works, it is a good theory.
>The real fact may be that you have to throw nearly all of the present
>system in the toilet and give it a good flush and start the foundation
>of physics all over to get to the correct or true theory of the operation
>of the universe.
This may be true in a small number of cases, but in the majority of cases
new valid theories are built on the basis of current theories.
You seem to belong to the minority that believes that only ONE theory
should be used to explain physical facts. This is patently untrue.
Einsteinian and Newtonian theories both explain the motion of the planets.
Einstein is "more accurate", but for most purposes Newtonian theory suffices.
Our theories are only a description of the real world, after all.
>
>Just showing that it is a special case, must, of necessity,
>bring the collapse of most of modern physical theory.
>
Not at all. The network of theory that you seem to despise, is an
accurate description of how the universe works. The pragmatic view
is that the theory works, therefore it is in some sense correct.
All else is aesthetics.
If fact QM underlies the whole thing, but it is impossible to solve
the equations for the gross effects. QM is essentially a simple theory,
but using it to explain the real world is not.
Subject: Re: Abian Vs Einstein
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 4 Dec 1996 08:29:39 GMT
Alexander Abian wrote in article
<582cr1$gd3@news.iastate.edu>...
>
> 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.
>
> 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)
>
It's fairly obvious that no one can tell you what to do, and like the
snail in Alice words mean whatever you want them to.
However, in most fields and especially science and math, it is usual to
define and agree on meaning before proceeding.
Most people, define T as time and measure it in a unit known as the second.
Most people use algebra as taught in school and notations are agreed upon.
You don't.
Until you do, repeating null statements will satisfy only you.
Subject: Re: sunburn dosimeters
From: romek@ozemail.com.au
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 09:37:15 GMT
=46orte Photochemical Company from Vac in Hungary does produce such
thing. The first time I saw it it was at Photokina 94. It is called
Suntest (UV test strips), the product barcode 5997255592273. I wasn't
interested in the mechanism, so I didn't ask.
Regards,
Roman Kielich
On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 02:44:04 -0500, rapierbit@mindspring.com wrote:
>I am aware of a couple of integrating sunburn dosimeters. One is
distributed
>by enzoneusa, known as a "sunburn indicator patch." Another is made
by (or
>perhaps just distributed by) OFIL Ltd.
>
>Does anyone know what the active photochromic material is in these
indicators?
>
>Some patent searching has turned up the following possibilities:
>
>"complex of a leuco dye and animal-derived serum albumin"
>
>Other key words include mercuration, malachite green, methylene blue,
so I get
>the big picture, but I don't know if any of the mentioned products
actually
>utilize any of these.=20
>
>Does anyone care to give a simple tutorial on usenet (say, 10 lines)
about=20
>this technology and its limitations. Or maybe a good reference or
two?
>
>
>'preciate the help
>
>
>Stefan Jeglinski
ffff,0000,0000romek@dot.net.au
0000,0000,ffffromek@ozemail.com.au
Lane Cove Australia
---How can one little insulated wire bring so much happiness! - Homer =
Simpson---
Subject: New Scientific Product Search Engine
From: "Joe Bumgarner, Jr."
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 06:42:32 -0500
"Take a Minute, Save an Hour!"
Looking for a hard-to-find product?
Tired of voice mail, fuzzy faxes, phone tag?
Need to contact a vendor?
Then…
Search our database of over 5000 laboratory suppliers. Use SciMail(SM)
to broadcast requests for price quotes, literature, technical/sales
assistance, and more!
Send SciMail… It’s Smart. It’s Easy. It’s FREE!
"http://sciquest.com"
SciQuest - It’s about YOUR time.
We also value your feedback and support so much that we want to give you
free stuff for it!! It's our way of saying thanks for taking the time to
help us. After using our site, go to the "Free Stuff for Feedback"
button and fill out the feedback form. You will receive a free SciQuest
T-shirt or hat if:
-you make a suggestion to improve our site and we adopt your idea.
-we use your email comments in our marketing materials.
-you get a qualified vendor to register online.
-you convince five new users to become a SciQuester (have them put your
userid or name in the Other text box when asked "How Did You Find Out
About SciQuest?" on the "Be a SciQuester" membership form).
-you post a message to a Usenet group or Listserv telling your peers
about SciQuest. send an email to the Site Director
(sqsitedirector@sciquest.com)with the details of the message and which
groups you posted to.
____________________________________________________________________
Joe Bumgarner, Jr. SciQuest - "Internet Solutions for Science"
jbumgarner@sciquest.com "http://sciquest.com"
Site Director
Phone: 919-732-5813 FAX: 919-782-3123
____________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: EVERYONE READ THIS, VERY IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: peter.kruse@psychologie.uni-regensburg.de (Peter Kruse x3775)
Date: 04 Dec 1996 12:40:35 GMT
this really does not belong here, but...
In article <32A0B6B3.2B34@mad.scientist.com> Jeff Power writes:
> Jean-Michel P. Decombe wrote:
> >
> > I see no reason to vote NO as long as they don't crosspost unrelated stuff
> > to my favourite newsgroups, just like YOU do.
> >
> > Whatever happened to freedom of speech? You can't bar people from having
> > (even lame) opinions. Your mission, should you accept it, is to convince
> > them that they're wrong : ). Well good luck, in my case I'd rather ignore
> > them.
>
> Here, here. Someone with a brain. (Just my opinion.)
>
What did you learn from history?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter.Kruse@psychologie.uni-regensburg.de
http://www.psychologie.uni-regensburg.de/peter/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Re: A photon - what is it really ?
From: ca314159
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 08:06:09 -0500
Peter Diehr wrote:
>
> Ray Tomes wrote:
> >
> > jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> >
> > >Peter Diehr writes:
> > >>followed by a theoretical procedure that showed how black body
radiation is
> > >>distributed. Nobody understood what this all meant, including
Planck (1900).
> >
> > > This was a derivation, where Planck assumed the radiation could
only
> > > be emitted in discrete packets carrying energy given by some
constant (h)
> > > times the frequency. It was thought to be an ad hoc assumption
about
> > > matter, not light, at the time.
> >
> > Why is not still thought to be a property of matter rather than
light?
> >
>
> The relationship is (Energy) = (Planck's Constant) * (Frequency),
> so it is a statement about waves in general, no matter how they
> are produced.
>
> However, most common applications are certainly interactions between
> matter and light ... such as the photoelectric effect.
>
> But it is the relationship itself that is thought to be universally
> applicable. Planck's original concept was that it applied to the
> bulk material (atomic oscillators in the cavity). He did not
consider
> that it applied to the waves in transit.
>
> Best Regards, Peter
h is an angular momentum isn't it ? Isn't h the equivalent of
polarization
for de Broglie waves. quarks have spins of some mulitple of h.
Stern-Gerlach filters act for deBroglie waves like the polarizing
filters for EM.
In electromagnetic waves the spin / polarization of the wave is
determined
by the relative amplitudes and phases of the electric and
magnetic field
strengths. Is then h expressible as some equivalent state of
amplitudes
and phases of some orthogonal pair of functions ? Which functions
?
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: moorej@cfw.com (JeffMo)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 13:54:01 GMT
Darrell Parker wrote:
>>
>> So the only acceptable conclusion seems to me that since we don't see
>> photons disappear for no obvious reason, tachyons don't exist.
>>
>> John
>What do you mean photons do not disappear? Measure the number of photons
>Pn as they exit the emitter source then measure them at a distance D, in
>a near vacumn. Guarantee, you will have a measureable loss. You will
>definitely have a measureable loss if this experiment is done outside a
>vacumn, since photons can interact with certain types of matter, ex.
>certain atoms absorb photons and are raised to a higher state of energy.
>Though their mass may not disappear, their exsistence as a photon will
>be terminated.
Haven't been following this thread much, but he did say:
"...disappear for no obvious reason..."
Perhaps you should try again, Darrell.
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
Subject: Re: Abian vs Einstein
From: Steve Jones - JON
Date: 04 Dec 1996 10:46:50 +0100
Oh boy I'm replying to this crap again... please note followups
abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
[snip]
>
>
> (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
> where "
> Based on the above considerations, I propose the following equation to
> describe the relationship between M and T
>
> (3) M = Mo exp(T/(kT - Mo)) with scalar k < 1
This is the bit that tells us that M tends to a limit, and as you assert
the relationship that it takes M Abian units of mass to move T forward
the terminating condition will be when there is not mass left. This condition
also leads to the assertion that as M can be 0 then Mo can also be 0.
Thus (2) is reduced to
0 <= T <= Mo => M => 0
and as we know that for a given Time T MUST be 0 the following condition
is possible within your model.
0 = T = Mo = M
> 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!!
ANY WATCH ABIAN, any watch, it depends not on the watch but on the
frame of reference of the watch.
Care to refute me ? Or do you want to resort to mindless screaming ?
Steve Jones
Subject: Re: help-time dependent perturbation
From: Joel Singerman
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 08:45:26 -0800
Jim Goodman wrote:
>
> Joel Singerman wrote:
>
> >Can anyone help find the interaction time of a photon with a free or
> >almost unbound charged particle? Thanks.
>
> Einstein's GR bending of light prediction has been confirmed by sawf.
> It is based on the interaction of charged particles with a photon. The
> article can be found at the sawf web page below under articles-photon.
>
> Jim
>
> ---
> Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
> sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules
> Thanks for the response, Jim. I checked out your net pages, though, and
couldn't figure out a way to calculate what I'm looking for.
unless I've overlooked something in the derivation, sawf seems to be a
semi-empirical program for calculating classical qm results for chemical
systems, similar to CNDO, INDO, NDDO and some of the others available on
the QCPE, if that august body still exists. Am I wrong about this?
Joel
jas99@mail.idt.net
Subject: Multiple Universes
From: John Christian
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:58:58 +0000
Hello all,
I have just watched a Horizon program(me) on time travel, and it
included some discussion of multiple universes. This subject really
works me up every time I come across it. I'm sure the flaws are
glarlingly obvious. Could someone tell me why I'm wrong (or that I'm
right?). I'm that mythical beast the educated layman, so an explanation
at New Scientist/Scientific American level would be preferable to Nature
level+!
I toss a coin. I choose to go left or right based on the result. Two
actual real universes are spawned, one for each choice. This sort of
example crops up over and over again. The trouble is they alway use a
simple 50/50 choice. When you are thinking about quantum events there
are a lot of different probabilities. So the universe that has my
keyboard suddenly jumping 1cm to the right must be in some way less
probable, less real, than many others.
This fits in with observed reality. We all know and expect that the
world will carry on in it's broadly Newtonian way without totally
bizarre things happening. If there are all these universes why do I
always find myself in the sensible one?
I see the macroscopic universe as being the sum of all of these possible
universes. The strange ones add little, and will tend to cancel out
(the keyboard jumping 1cm to the left cancels the to-the-right one). So
in the end there is a single objective universe, and it's only if you
look very closely you discover that it's slightly fuzzy.
Also with this viewpoint it seems a bit much to call the other
possibilities other universes. They're not something you can have an
independent existence in, just possible states of this single universe.
So what's wrong?
TIA
John
--
John Christian - mail:john@presentd.demon.co.uk
AirSculpture
Try out WebMaze at
Subject: Re: Flying saucer
From: do719@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron Gorgichuk)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 13:32:13 GMT
> I need a good material to build a flying saucer !?! please
> help me ( i'm serious) / Ruda
I do not know if I am taking too literal a meaning, but
it seems you are asking for an appropriate substance with
which to build a flying saucer. Either that or you are
looking for reference material on how to go about creating
a propulsion system for a flying saucer.
In the first case, I suppose it would depend on the
engineering constraints of what you expect your flying
saucer to do, combined with the characteristics of the
propulsion system. Your material would need to be compatable
with the propulsion system and the forces you would expect
such a system to impart on the structural components of
the craft.
If you are expecting an answer concerning building material,
then first you must specify the characteristics of the
propulsion system. You might be better served by consulting
an engineering news group.
Now if the second case is true and you are looking for
information on how to go about creating an unconventional
propulsion system for a flying saucer, then it is unlikely
that you will get a useful answer. Ask yourself why we are
still using rockets, and jet engines.
Regards, Ron Gorgichuk
Subject: Re: Time travel? What about Deja Vu's?
From: Joel Singerman
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 09:36:31 -0800
eram wrote:
>
> I was just curious after reading all the informative and left-brain
> exercises i have read on these ng's, about deja vu's, the feeling of
> having experienced an event already.
>
> My simple little postulation deals not with physics but rather a spiritual
> (please hear me out,i know some of you are chuckling right now) matter. I
> was with a group of intellects (being a doctor, i feel any engineer i
> come across is an intellect!, all those equations!)one night and we were
> speaking about time travel and AI (artificial intelligence, anything
> really!) and I came up with quite spontaneously the idea that when we
> daydream, we, or our souls,are actually jumping around the time-space
> continuum and landing or, stopping at an arbritary point, past present or
> future. Just a thought. Has anyone ever considered deja vu's as true
> time-travel. Any comments are greatly appreciated.
>
> Asif Khan MD
Freud wrote a wonderful essay about deja vu. Worth reading. And he
didn't need spiritual time travel to explain the phenom.
Joel
Subject: Re: VERY IMPORTANT!! PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
From: hot_keys@connectnet.com (Shawn Constable)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 07:11:24 -0700
In article <32A4DAE7.38C0@chat.carleton.ca>, kmacdona@chat.carleton.ca wrote:
> Jay, this gives me the oportunity to ask a question I've wanted an
> answer to for a while. If an NG about racism was defeated, how were the
> pedophilia & binaries.teen.sex(or whatever it's called) & like groups
> allowed to come into being. My first thought was that they were
> originally intended f/discussion, but then became overridden
> w/pedophiles. This scenario, though, doesn't explain the binary NGs
> that feature child/teen sex.
those are alt.* s this is rec.*
ANYONE can create an alt.* w/whatever they want (well almost anyone).
Subject: Re: High School Physics Problems
From: jnaylor@southwind.net
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 09:41:10 -0600
In article <32A4BCF1.2E74@california.com>, stanr@california.com wrote:
>Mike Lepore wrote:
>>
>> (what's constant) = (what got smaller) X (what had to get bigger)
>
>
>Mike,
>This is one of the few statements I've seen in this group that is
>actually pleasing.
>Thanks for posting it. I like it vey much.
>Stan
I enjoyed it too, Stan & Mike. For a fuller treatment, see Rupert
Sheldrake's "Seven Experiments That Could Change the World" (A Do-It
Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science) ISBN 1-57322-014-0. While looking
this up, I noticed that Putnam Berkely's web site is at
HTTP://www.berkley.com
I'm not connected to them in any way--just enjoyed the book.
--
Jim
jnaylor@southwind.net
Subject: On-Line Books
From: Mark Griskey
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 09:09:29 -0800
The National Academy Press, the publisher of the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council,
Institute of Medicine, has put 1000 science, engineering, and health
books on-line in their entirety free for the reading. You can find them
in the "Reading Room" section of the site. The URL is:
http://www.nap.edu
There is also a low bandwidth version:
http://www.nap.edu/low/
This is a great resource, so be sure to check it out.
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Light Source wanted
From: renato.bugge@fysel.unit.no (Ja det er MEG!)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 96 15:49:06 GMT
In article <583hkp$n7l@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, pavan1@student.monash.edu.au (Paul van den Bergen) wrote:
>Howdy folks,
>Umongst other things I am a mineral collector, and I have been
>investigating setting up a UV fluoresence display.
>As such I am looking for suitable UV lights, esp. short wave UV.
>
>I have read a bit about the subject, and I know I need a low pressure
>mercury tube with a glass capable of transmitting below 240 nm (the
>strong Mercury UV line is around 255nm)
>I have a lamp with a soda-lime glass (comp.???), that gets down to 280
>nm, and I would really like to get the really short 180nm lines too
>For this I really need a fused silica bulb or tube, or an alumina tube
>(if they make them)
>
>Any suggestions as to where I might get such a tube
>(I fully expect it to be available as a standard fluoro light type
>bulb, if available at all)
You probably need a deuterium lamp which emits UV mostly
from 180nm and up (with the main peak at 225nm). Try
Instruments S.A.Inc.,
JOBIN YVON/SPEX Division (France and US)
They also have a phone number in Germany: 89-4603001.
Hope this helps..
Renato Bugge
Subject: Re: Prof. Abdus Salam
From: rmichael@nwu.edu (Bob Michaelson)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 15:44:37 GMT
In article <32A4F565.103D@academy.edu>, aristotle@academy.edu says...
>
>George Torrieri wrote:
>> In my experience scientists in general and physicists in particular tend
>> to be the most tolerant and peace-seeking people around;
>> Abdus Salam was a great example.
>>
>> In Israel some of the most enthusastic supporters of the peace movement
>> tended to be research scientists as well, and contacts between Israeli
>> and palestinian scientists were ALWAYS present, sometimes the only
>> contacts between Israelis and palestinians at the time (I know an Israeli
>> graduate student working under an arab supervisor)
>>
>> Moreover, Remember Einstein's efforts against the nazis and Sakharov's
human
>> rights battle?
>>
>> The world would definitely be a better place if physicists ruled it.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> GT
>> --
>> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0064
>
>Everyone knows that physicists are the smartest and most peace-loving
>individuals of the human race. They are definately the highest form
>of intelligent life on this planet.
>
>- Aristotle
Although there are examples such as Salam, Sakharov, Einstein etc. of
benign physicists, there have, alas, been all too many examples such as
Philip Lenard (or today, Yuval Ne'eman) of the physicist as fascist scumbag.
Bob Michaelson
rmichael@nwu.edu
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: matuli_a@marlin.navsea.navy.mil (Alex Matulich 03T1)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 15:29:46 GMT
Jim Upchurch wrote:
>> These probability calculations are meaningless because they ignore the
>> laws of chemical bonding. The processes are not random, some combinations
[...]
>These computations are approximations based on various scientific
>information. The point being the numbers are excedingly high,
You quote an entire article that you simply ignore and then repeat the
same thing over again, right after the article that refutes your point?
This is exactly what I would expect from a creationist.
The probability computations ARE approximations, yes, and BAD ones,
because they are NOT based on various scientific information. Read
the previous article. Read the references in it. Educate yourself,
and then come back with an intelligent argument. Bogus probability
arguments just make creationists look foolish. Creationists are capable
of doing much better. If they want to be taken seriously by the
scientific community, they HAVE to do better.
>How about the first law of thermodynamics ? Matter cannot be created or
>destroyed, only altered. Where did everything come from ? Always here ?
>But no way could there be a God ?
Another obstinate refusal to appreciate Occam's razor. (And if you didn't
understand that comment, again, educate yourself before posting.)
I don't say there's no way there could be a god. It's just that a deity
is simply not necessary for explaining various physical phenomena. Any
number of gods can exist if they want to... they're just irrelevant.
--
"These are MY words, not my employer's" /|
-- Alex Matulich -- __. __=#|| ___ _o--
matuli_a@marlin.navsea.navy.mil ____##_/_____|==###===###____
\____________________________\
Subject: Re: HELP
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 09:55:34 -0600
kamla wrote:
>
> THANKS FOR HELP
>
> I need some info relating to clarity of electromagnetic signal, or radio
> signals. What factors effect it and why?
- various design features of the transmitting and receiving equipment
(electronics, modulations schemes, error detection/correction schemes)
- background noise (e.g. thermal noise, ignition noise...)
- interference from other sources at nearby frequencies which are either
very powerful or very close
- signal strength variations due to distance
(approximately 1/r^2 nearby, 1/r^4 far away, 1/r^6 over the horizon)
- signal strength variations due to obstacles
- signal strength variations due to "multipath fading" (standing
wave patterns set up by multiple reflections lead to variations
of approximatley 10 dB over distances comparable to the wavelength)
In the case of mobile communications (e.g. cellular phone, especially in a
car) the last two effects can lead to huge rapid fluctuations in received
signal strength.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| Need help in physics? Check out the pages listed here: |
| http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/physhelp.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Converting material wavelength -> wavelength in vacuum
From: lusardi@acsu.buffalo.edu (Christopher Lusardi)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 16:36:42 GMT
Does the below information convert a wavelength to a wavelength in free space?
You need the refraction index n_1 of the material from which you want
to convert. Then
l_0 = l_1*n_1
where l_0 is the free-space wavelength and l_1 the wavelength in the
material.
Thanks,
Christopher Lusardi
--
| _/_/_/ _/ Email Me| To Win http://www.riddler.com/Want SMILEYS ask me!
| _/ _/ | I got them a while back from gopher gopher.ora.com
| _/ _/ | Fun things for information are : xarchie, xgopher,
| _/_/_/ _/_/_/ | xmosaic, xwais, http://lycos.cs.cmu.edu etc.
Subject: EPR Question
From: William Clark
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 10:39:09 -0500
First, two disclaimers, and then a question.
Disclaimer 1: My memory works in strange ways. I've read more variations
on theoretical setups, all of which have called themselves the "EPR
Paradox" than I can consistently remember. Hence the reason I'm posting
to this group... I recall one particular formulation that I can no longer
find, and suspect (from the alternative forms I've encountered in looking
for it) that it may have been completely off-base.
Disclaimer 2: I haven't posted to Usenet in quite a while. When I left
(mostly because of the signal/noise ratio getting out of hand), the
current fashion was to flame posters who requested replies via email
rather than inside the group. That always bothered me, since I remember
a time when the exact opposite was true, and will stick to that
philosophy. Please direct all your followups to me via email. I will
post a summary of all the responses back to the group. Long ago, this
was meant to cut down on the babble and repetition in the group, but now
I don't really think there's anyone left who cares, including me. Post
followups to the group if you like, but please mail them to me directly
as well, as I'd like to at least pretend that I'm following the old
rules.
Question:
I vaguely remember a version of the EPR experiment that implied
controllable instantaneous information transfer. I know that no
information can be sent, and this was actually the point of the author of
the publication, but a specific formulation was chosen so that the author
could point out how easy it is to misunderstand what was going on.
The experiment involved measuring two different properties on the
suitably separated particles. Let's just say that the properties were
color and spin, and could have values of White/Black and Up/Down. The
setup was such that if experimentor A (with particle A) measured Color,
and experimentor B (with particle B) measured Spin, then B's measurement
would be down. Similarly for an entire range of possible measurements.
My problem is this: either I'm remembering the experiment horribly
wrong, or I see a possible problem with the formulation. The
measurements were supposed to be time-independent, but I don't see how
that could be the case. Let's say B measures Spin and finds it to be Up.
Then B knows that A did NOT measure Color. Well, in the formulation I
remember, there was no need for A to have actually performed the
measurement prior to B for the correspondence between measurements to
hold, so why couldn't B, after determining that A could not have (or will
not) measure Color, travel to A's location and have A measure Color? I
don't recall if any restrictions were placed on the time intervals by the
author, but if the available time frame for A to make measurements and
still have the correlations between measurements hold (on which B was
depending when B concluded that A did not measure color) *must* occur
within the appropriate light-cone (so that B could not transmit
information to A that could possibly produce a paradox), then I can rest
more easily. But does any such restriction exist? Or am I simply
remembering this all wrong?
Bill Clark
Salomon Brothers Incorporated
7 World Trade Center
New York, New York
My views do not blah blah blah... Salomon.
