Newsgroup sci.physics 211561

In message <32A615D.6093@mail.idt.net> Jeffrey O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
> Hermital  wrote:
> >Matter is confined to the sub-light-speed spacetime continuum that we
> >are pleased to call our material universe and consciousness is the
> >underlying energy that contains and sustains all existence including
> >itself.
> 
> >Egoless pure consciousness, unconditioned pure energy, uncreated
> >absolute pure being pre-exists:  All else is supervenient.
> Hello Alan
> 
> Our consciousness is confined to the sub-light-speed  space time
> continuum that we are pleased to call our material world.  Our
> intellect is confined to a universe that we are pleased to call our
> imagination which is the underling energy that contains and sustains
> human kinds spirt
> 
> Experimentation is consciousness, unconditional adherence to
> experimental data is science: All else is supervenient  :)
You need to broaden your perspective, Jeff.  Your paraphrases address
only phenomenological consciousness and human intellect.  As human
beings, we need to get beyond anthropocentric views of experience and
existence and scientifically investigate the transcendental as well as
the material.
You address only the material aspects of conditional relativity and fail
to consider the underlying ontological ground of being, the egoless pure
consciousness, unconditioned pure energy within which all conditional
relativity emerges.
As the 20th century ends, the material realm is acknowledged as the
purview of scientific inquiry while the transcendental realm has been
described only through myth and religion.  Perhaps 21st century science
will investigate the transcendental as well as the material.
We all have a long way to grow, Jeff.
Keep on keeping on.
-- 
Alan
Phenomenological consciousness does indeed emerge within conditional
relativity; however, all conditional relativity emerges within the
underlying unconditional pure consciousness that contains and sustains 
all existence including itself.

[grin] Don't be so judgemental, man. They do have a clue, at least in
the Flood part. Haven't you noticed that every culture in the world has
an ancient story of great flooding?
cc16712@cdsnet.net wrote:
> [laughter]  Anyone who really studies science knows the bible hasn't a
> clue.
> Regards,
> Stoney
-- 
Minnie
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/6863

In article <5854n7$108@tierra.santafe.edu>, jti@isleta.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>>jti@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>>>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>
>>Nope.  Scientists study, at best, "nature, what it appears to be",
>>and more accurately, "nature, what it can be demonstrated NOT
>>to appear to be."
>
>Isn't there a bit of irony in such a definition, when "demonstration"
>must presume that Nature reveals itself in certain kinds of ways?  In
>other words, no matter how much you might intend to be selflessly
>reflecting the facts of observation in your polished lens, by claiming
>to demonstrate something about that observation I think you are making
>an implicit statement about how things are objectively revealed.  This
>is an implicit statement about Nature, what it is.
>
Here he goes again.
>But you are right about my inflammatory quality.  As you know from
>other discussions, I actually have quite a high esteem for science.
>My pressing on the objectivity of "science" is trying to get at
>several different issues at once.  One of them is the hubris that
>claims at once to be objective and yet superficial.  Hence, the
>quote-marks.  Real science, it seems to me, would make a study of its
>own limitations, concetrating, for example on the role that
>interpretation plays, with an emphasis on motivation.
>
All of which translates to "I really dislike science but I want to 
sound like an intellectual when I state it."  Real science is what 
scientists are doing.  As kibbitzers who stand on the sidelines 
offering their "helpful" suggestions on how scientists should proceed, 
these are worth than useless.  If you think you can do better, do it 
yourself.
>>
>>If you want to claim that calling something "knowledge" is putting
>>a value on it, go ahead.  But it's neither a value created by nor
>>internal to science.  Science just seems to be the most effective
>>way that has yet been found to produce knowledge.
>
>This complicates things if I interpret your previous statements to
>mean that science doesn't actually produce knowledge either.  (If
>"knowledge" would reliably pertain to how things are.)  
No, knowledge pertains to things as they appear to be.  Concern with 
"things as they are" is in the province of philosophers and 
theologians.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <32A39D16.124A@ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Oertell   wrote:
>Dr L S Karatzas wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> any ideas on how the purple flash phenomenon works, that occurs when the
>> sun sets?
>> 
>   I've witnessed a green flash once but never a purple flash.  Always
>thought it had something to do with refraction, but I was never sure.
Under extremely clear conditions, green flashes turn blue and then
violet (strictly: violet, not purple).  They are due to the *dispersion*
of atmospheric refraction, which makes the shorter wavelengths of the
solar image the last to disappear.
I've seen a nice violet flash photo taken by my co-author Pekka
Parviainen.  I have a good green flash picture posted on the Web at
	http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/research/sandiego.html
An earlier poster in this thread mentioned Minnaert's book.  Though it's
better known than the original sources, everything Minnaert said about
green flashes was taken from the earlier book on the subject by Mulder,
and from the doctoral thesis of Pieter Feenstra Kuiper.  Since then, 
there have been a number of photographs published in the book "The Green
Flash and other Low Sun Phenomena" by D.J.K.O'Connell; but O'Connell
unfortunately repeats an errors from Feenstra Kuiper's thesis, and
incorrectly asserts that the phenomena photographed arose in the upper
atmosphere (they are in fact due to thermal inversions in the marine
boundary layer).
There are perhaps 5 or 6 distinct types of phenomenon called "green
flash", not just the 3 distinguished by Mulder and Minnaert.  Much work
remains to be done on these complex and beautiful phenomena.
-- 
A.T.Young                      aty@mintaka.sdsu.edu
Astronomy Department
San Diego State University
San Diego CA 92182-1221

In article <32A61774.432C@mail.ic.net>,
Peter Diehr   wrote:
>oliver.thylmann@mail.oph.rwth-aachen.de wrote:
>> 
>> Physicists don´t use mmathematics  as real mathematitians do. They
>> simply use it to their requirements. You have to realise, that you can
>> do some things, which realy cannot be done if simply looking at the
>> deffinitions by mathematitions.
>
>This is certainly true!
>
>> e.g.: dy/dx*dx/dt = dy/dt
>> After the deffinition this cannot be done, but it will lead to the
>> correct result.
>> 
>
>But you _can_ do this! It is just an application of the chain rule
One that we used in class goes something like
   dy/du   dy dw
   ----- = -- --
   dx/dw   du dx
I can't remember where this came from, it was part of a derivation.  That
kind of operation would make a mathematician cringe.  But the professor
was careful to point out that in this case we could get away with it.
In another class we were solving an equation in quantum mechanics.  And
the professor pointed out that there are zeroes here and here and here,
and now we can solve the problem without having to wade through the usual
math.  Solving partial differential equations experimentally, gotta love
it.
Fourier series are another one.  A mathematician can come up with
functions that can't be expanded as a Fourier series.  But we just don't
deal with that kind of thing in physics, so most physicists don't even
know how to determine if an answer exists, they just know how to find one.
-- 
Gouda's good but cheddar's better.

logical Scientist lover wrote:
> 
>  The work I have done suggests that Energy is universal in type
>  and that its "condensation" states which we call the Elementay
>  Particles of Mass obey a simple fifth power law!
>  It would seem that Energy  ontainment (mass) is much more
>  geometrically oriented than expected.

Woah, woah, woah. Way beyond my league (see the response to Hermital).
I don't suppose you could repeat that in laymans terms could you?
Thanks
	Lee
-- 
Sitting here like wet ashes, with X's in my eyes,
And drawing flies.

In article <1996Nov28.053338.4324@lafn.org>
ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings) writes:
> well, that was very evocative & touching, even coming from you!
> 
> >  This documentary movie is based on the book, "Dear America: Letters
> >Home From Vietnam" Edited by Bernard Edelman for The New York Vietnam
> >Veteran Memorial Commission.
  Is there an opinion poll out there. Would you rather see the Vietmath
series right through Xmass or should there be an hiatus until the
students come back. Personally I prefer the students to ask their
professors whether Naturals can be p-adics. I love to see a frightened
math professor be put up against the wall. Ask him how many primes
there are in Naturals = p-adics. I always thought the preoccupation
that Number theorists give the primes as a neurotic shizophrenic
psychosis. Does anyone remember that report from England where a
researcher found this chemical affecting disease that makes a fetus
born without a head if too little and if too much it is all head with
no body? I believe he called the protein a "nogg".

In article <32a4ec82.754144@news.primenet.com> thomason@primenet.com writes:
>GO SUNDEVILS
>BKT(SS)
You misspelled it. That's SCUMDEVILS.
:-)
Sue
------------------------------------------
Sue Thing 	plburton@mail.goodnet.com
Those who do not learn from history
are doomed to repeat it next semester.
------------------------------------------

In article <585i2g$g48@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   Is there an opinion poll out there. Would you rather see the Vietmath
> series right through Xmass or should there be an hiatus until the
> students come back.
Get it out of here and on cable TV where it belongs, i suspect you (AP)
would be a "natural" on the screen!

Potential energy is measured in terms of an object's relative height.
Jeffrey O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
> In other words is it possible that our universe consists of four
> spacial dimensions plus time. These four spacial dimensions would be
> length, width, height and theenergydepth.
> 
> Your coments would be appreciated.
-- 
Minnie
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/6863

Hello World
It has been proved with experimental evidences that 
the 3d configuation of the atomic structure is hosted 
before the 4s. The same notice is also true for 4d and 5s.
Evidence at        http://www.afuu.fr/hcl
HCl

Hello World,
Few times ago we reported an unknown experimental fact : the very simple
distribution of the atomic ionization potentials (AIP) with report to
the atomic number. 
We have completed our set of datas with all the available one for atoms
with atomic number <= 54.
After a brief description of the new observable facts, we show that they
are not totaly compatible with the forecasts of quantum mechanics (QM)
about the atomic structure. 
__________!!!!!!!!! MOST IMPORTANT  !!!!!!!________________
The main difference concerns the populations of the 3d and 4s
configurations : the experiment shows that 3d is hosted before 4d, at
the contrary of what QM says. The same remark seems also true for 4d and
5s.
___________________________________________________________
Please do find all datas, figures tables and explanations at :
         http://www.afuu.fr/hcl
Friendly yours.
HCl

You can now treat yourself to a FREE technical book in computer science, 
the internet, biotechnology, chemistry, engineering, physics, or any 
other technical subject just in time for the holidays.  Book values up to 
$120.00.  For details contact danmor@netmedia.net.il

Jeffrey O'Callaghan 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.  This energydepth would to be
> parallel and co-terminal to all three of the dimensions of spacial
> dimensions of length width and height.
> 
> In other words is it possible that our universe consists of four
> spacial dimensions plus time. These four spacial dimensions would be
> length, width, height and theenergydepth.
> 
> Your coments would be appreciated.
> 
> Jeff
Energy is only there where space is moving, what is caused by time
consumption. So the energy dimension would not fit into our picture of
the Universe.
 Jan
---
I know I'm not a brainy one, but I'm working on it!
Jan Pavek \|\*(:-)
mailto:p7003ke@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
surfto: http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke
"Why don't we see it as it is? A flower, a tree, a mountain, a bee ..."
"Do you realize the power of the dream?..."

Seeking the importer who are interest to sell the Densitometer made in 
China. Measuring range up to 5.O.D. Details will be send upon request. 
Any interest parties please contact us directly
conneng@hkstar.com 
-- 
MZ�

Alexander Abian  writes:
>  For EINSTEIN,
>TIME  is what the dial of a watch indicates.
>  Why don't you address
>your questions to the followers of the establishment
I'm not quite sure who that question is addressed to,Mr Abian,
but it is a good question, and the next one is even bettA Alexander:
> and ask them
>WHOSE WATCH ?
Right, if watches behave in the manner proposed by Einstein,rather
than as defined by Newton,then i think that there would indeed be
a problem with the Einstein (/Newton) definition of time, as that
what is measured by a witch,because, as Alexander (nearly) asked:
                    "THE DIAL OF WHICH WATCH WOULD THAT BE THEN ?"
keith stein

In article <5854n7$108@tierra.santafe.edu> jti@isleta.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>>jti@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>>>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>
>>>>I think you're being unnecessarily inflammatory in your characterization
>>>>of "science."  As has been pointed out repeated, by Mr. Meron among
>>>>others, "science" does not pretend to "lay claim to `truth'" -- quite
>>>>the contrary, most of the posters have been making the statement that
>>>>questions about "truth" are OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of science.  Science is,
>>>>of course, quite prepared to address and demonstrate falsity -- but
>>>>an absence of demonstrated falsity doesn't equate to truth, as is
>>>>taught in the first week of any statistics course.
>>>
>>>Maybe I have misunderstood, after all.  Are you telling me that you
>>>have no claims to be studying "Nature, what it is"?
>>
>>Nope.  Scientists study, at best, "nature, what it appears to be",
>>and more accurately, "nature, what it can be demonstrated NOT
>>to appear to be."
>
>Isn't there a bit of irony in such a definition, when "demonstration"
>must presume that Nature reveals itself in certain kinds of ways?  In
>other words, no matter how much you might intend to be selflessly
>reflecting the facts of observation in your polished lens, by claiming
>to demonstrate something about that observation I think you are making
>an implicit statement about how things are objectively revealed.
Well, I suppose it's your perogative, along with Humpty-Dumpty's, to
reinterpret words in whatever fashion suits you.  And tell me, Mr. Inman,
what color is the sky in your world?
>>If you want to claim that calling something "knowledge" is putting
>>a value on it, go ahead.  But it's neither a value created by nor
>>internal to science.  Science just seems to be the most effective
>>way that has yet been found to produce knowledge.
>
>This complicates things if I interpret your previous statements to
>mean that science doesn't actually produce knowledge either.  (If
>"knowledge" would reliably pertain to how things are.)  I was thinking
>that you meant Knowledge, but really you just meant "knowledge".  If
>you're willing to concede that, then it seems to me less controversial
>to allow you to say you attach no value to what you produce.  If this
>bothers you, then I'll suspect that you regard your "knowledge" as
>Knowledge, after all.
This is rank nonsense.  Either I believe that science produces Knowledge,
or I attach no value to the works of science?  I, personally, attach
value to many things -- the beauty of a sunset, the harmonic complexity
of a violin concerto, the depth of complexity of an Eco novel, or the
enriching symbolism of a painting by Bosch.... none of which are values
that I necessarily expect to share with any one person, nor are they
values internal to (e.g.) the novel itself.
I also value science.  As a mathematician, I appreciate the beauty of
precision of thought that it demands; as a sybarite, I appreciate the
conveniences that have been produced by people acting in the name
of "science"; as a scientist myself, I appreciate the fun of continual
puzzle-solving.  None of these values are things that are only found
in science -- one can be a brilliantly-precise philosopher or novelist,
for example.
Science is a game; one that relies, fundamentally, on the *assumption*
that the universe is both consistent and as-we-perceive-it.  The
distinction between knowledge and Knowledge is airbrushed over as one
that can't be answered within science.  Similarly, questions like "good
and evil" or "beautiful and ugly" are airbrushed over.  This doesn't mean
that those questions aren't important, but they're simply not addressed
by science.  Science, then, will demonstrably produce "knowledge" --
descriptions of how observations of the world have been consistent in the
past and predictions of they will continue to be consistent in the future. 
If you want to equate this with Knowledge, go ahead, lots of ill-informed
people do.  If you want to explicitly deny that this is Knowledge, lots
of ill-informed people do that as well.
What I will not permit you to do (in the sense that if you try to do it,
I will dismiss you from my consideration as a rational, thinking being), is
commit case confusion.  If you think that a pursuit of knowledge means
that Knowledge is valued (or similarly that one has to both believe in
and value Knowledge to be able to scientifically address knowledge), then
you're (at best) committing a fallacy of equivocation.
	Patrick

In article <32A52EAD.99A@nwu.edu> brian artese  writes:
>lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Mind you, no one has ever seen [Silke] leading a proper argument
>> (at least at sci.physics that is). If she is invited to do so, she
>> drops out quicker than you can say 'hey wait...'. She's been
>> caught countless times to make false accusations and stupidly
>> insulting comments. If there's any real knowledge to her, she is
>> hiding it very well.
>
>[T]here is obviously no better testimony of a writer's 
>success in out-arguing her opponents than this kind of unsolicited 
>personal attack.
I'm afraid that I don't find this "obvious" at all.  I grant that
these statements can be evidence that someone finds her to be out-arguing
them.  However, they can also be evidence that she's not actually
out-arguing at all, merely repetitively making the same well-practiced
but unsubstantive rhetorical flourishes.
As it happens, I disagree with lbsys@aol.com's assessment of Ms. Weineck;
she's the only one of the deconstruction theologians who recognizes
the difference between (logical) argument and rhetoric.  She's often
wrong, but that's a large step up from many of the others who can't
write substantively enough to be wrong.
	Patrick

I think the Theory of Relativity has already been verified and proved in
the experiment of fast travelling, high energy particles.
Ian Robert Walker wrote:
> >>>  WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE TAKE A FEW CLOCKS UP TO THE MIR SPACE STATION ?
> >>>              ,to see if Einstein (or Newton) was right
-- 
Minnie
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/6863

Jaya Chakrabarti wrote:
> 
> : Gravity doen't have a negative or a positive charge it attracts
> : everything with mass, and since anti matter has mass but an opposite
> : charge to conventional matter it is attracted to other masses in the
> 
> I guess that the original poster got a bit mixed up between the
> concept of anti-matter (a reality) and anti-mass/gravity (currently
> more to do with StarTrek perhaps than science).
> 
> Incidentally, has anyone had an update of the possible publishing
> of a paper claiming to have induced a 2 percent weight loss for
> an object using superconductivity?   I understand it has been
> withdrawn several times already..
> 
> Jaya
> 
> My opinions are my own - the rest of you can go get your own.
> 
> ************************************************
> Anti-gravitists are awkward people - they simply
> refuse to be held down..
>                         Anonymous
> ************************************************
In any case it still would not make any difference even if negative
masses existed. A small negative mass near a large positive mass (say
the earth) would undergo a repulsion, but by Newton's laws , a force
applied to a negative mass would cause the mass to move in the opposite
direction to the force, hence it would still fall down to earth.
So much for levitation and antigravity shields applications.
--

jboutwel@access.k12.wv.us writes:
>As a side note.  Another common misconception is that you are safe inside a car
>during a lightning storm because of rubber tires.  This is false.  Consider,
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wasn't aware of this being a common belief, though I can understand that
it easily could be.
>If anything, the tires increase the danger.  That's
>why many gas tankers have chains they drag with them.  They want a gound
>conduction to ground.
Ah, that takes me back a few years! But I haven't seen a fuel tanker
dragging a chain for 15 years or more. I expect they realized that the
last thing they needed was a constant stream of sparks underneath their
highly inflammable load.
Vehicle tyres have lampblack (powdered carbon) added to make the rubber
conductive, so dragging a conductive-rubber or metal strip is no longer
needed. (All the same, it leaves me purplexed as to why I sometimes get
a jolt when walking up to and opening a car door in the Winter. I'd guess
that I have accumulated a charge and touching the door handle earths it
rather than the original cause of car-door-jolts which arose from the
vehicle accumulating a charge and its tyres insulating the charge from
ground.)
--
John Savage      koala þ sydney.dialix.com.au     <-- use this address

In article <4DEC96.15054704@cc5.crl.aecl.ca>, edwardsg@cc5.crl.aecl.ca
writes
Thanks for the reply Geoff.
[snip me]
>: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?
>
[snip me, and you]
>That said, I think your logic is faulty when you wonder why super-strange
>things never happen to you.  The reason they never happen is because the
>probabilities are too low.  Multi-universe theory doesn't change this logic.
>
>GeoffE
Doesn't it?  I was thinking along the lines of: either each universe is
equally real, in which case you'd expect strange things to happen to you
no matter how improbable; or each universe has some quality of reality
which is some way related to it's probability, in which case a single
objective universe sort of falls out.  When people talk about travelling
back in time and protecting causality by going to a different universe
they are clearly talking about ones with very real reality (!), and
that's the kind of thing I feel doesn't work (I know intuition falls
down around here!)
John
-- 
John Christian - mail:john@presentd.demon.co.uk
AirSculpture 
Try out WebMaze at 

RESUME:
Marc CLEMENT
Nationality: French
Date of birth: Jun 10 1969 in Creil (France)
Home: 26, rue Rochebrune
F-75011 Paris, FRANCE
Tel.: ++ 01 49 29 93 75
e-mail: damm_mc@worldnet.fr
or: cobo@nicom.com
Artist multimedia, professional musician
Expert on new multimedia technologies (Macintosh and PC)
Deep knowledge on professional software (Mac and PC):
Photoshop, XPress, Premiere, Director, Dimension, CorelDraw, Apple Media 
Tools, Studio Vision AV, NoteWriter, Cubase, Encore...
Recent professional expertise:
Multimedia works for IRCAM, the national French academy of music of Paris, 
the Sorbonne, AIRCO-France...
Design and conception of multimedia applications for the French Air Force.
Design and conception of an internet site for the DIAM Inc company.
Computerized engraving for great editors like DURAND ed., BILLAUDEOT ed., 
AMPHION ed., les Musiques de la Boulangère, French ministry of culture, 
Pierre BOULEZ, the SACEM...
95-96: D.I.A.M. Inc. vice-president (Diffusion Internationale 
d'Applications Multimédia), American company in Washington, DC. This 
company is expert in multimedia design and developments.
1995: Manager of D.A.M.M. ((Diffusion d'Applications Musicales et 
Multimédia) French company, Paris). This company is expert in multimedia 
design and developments.
Restoration for the Sorbonne of an ancient manuscript (middle of 18th 
century).
91-94: Music edition of learning method for SMI. Engraving musician for 
'les Musiques de la Boulangère' (Paris). Reediting of JS BACH 
compositions. Pianist and arranger on the Art-Gus group, concert in the 
Palace (Paris). Musical arrangements for the SACEM (Paris).
Studies (1976-1991): Classical music academy of Salon de Provence, Yamaha 
music academy of Toulouse, student of Jean-Philippe DELRIEU (organ, 
Balma), student of Frédérick MARTIN* (contemporary composition, musical 
writing, Paris), student of Nebojsa PETKOVIC (piano, Paris), student of 
Jean ROBERT (classical musical writing, arrangements, Paris), student of 
Georges KAN (music on the computer, Paris).
Courses: Technical multimedia course (1995) in Washington DC, professional 
software course on Photoshop, Xpress, Premiere and Dimension with SMI 
(1993-95), communication course with Yamaha (1994), course about new 
communication technologies (Internet) with SMI (1994-95)...
Language: French, English plus technical English.
What's more: musical composer, pianist and arranger, expert on writing 
music. Deep knowledge on computerized music and graphical Art. Ready to 
create Internet site (HTML). Ten years of experience in Art and multimedia 
developments. Great experience in contemporary engraving music. Multimedia 
expert on the both systems Mac and PC.
Driving license car (1992) and motorcycle (1992).
Dynamic, ambitious, skilled, practicing sport (martial Art, athleticism).
*Awarded from Villa Medicis, Rome.
Messieurs,
With a powerful expertise in the professional multimedia world, I'm 
particularly adapted to work on CD-Rom development, perform music, design 
interface, bring many services in multimedia environment under Mac and\or 
PC.
I'm fully able to bring professionals works on music and multimedia in 
general, with a high final quality (please, check up my resume).
I'm seeking for an employment on a multimedia and\or music firm in CA.
Please, could you consult my resume or give him to the concerned person.
I integrate myself rapidly on workers groups. I'm very skilled on 
multimedia design and development, under the greatest multimedia 
environment (Adobe, Macromedia, Opcode, Steinberg and more...).
I've strong expertise with the most important music software (recording 
MIDI/AUDIO, engraving scores, orchestration, arrangements...) plus ten 
years of professional practice in music profession.
I execute easly all micro edition works, jacket and packadging (Quark 
XPress, Adobe...).
Because I did work as manager in France, I'm still in touch with many 
potentials clients (particular or company) in Europe.
I'm keeping personal hybrid CD-ROM who contains large customers data 
sheets (at least 4000 musicians and multimedia/musician firm), many 
multimedia realizations, original musical compositions and all the tools I 
need to create multimedia products!
I'm ready to develop internet sites (HTML, Macromedia shockwave) and did 
start to learn JAVA.
I'll examine all serious propositions.
Ready to move in USA (CA), NL, Canada, England, Australia.
Please, feel free to contact me:
by phone in PARIS, FRANCE: ++ 01 49 29 93 75
To be sure that I receive quickly your message, please use my Email.
Email France: damm_mc@worldnet.fr
or USA: cobo@nicom.com
With my best regards,
Marc CLEMENT

I can't do that. I'm not a nazi in the least but to refrain someone from
their right of religion and freedom of speech would make me a hypocrate.

You can now measure 8 independent thermocouples (C,E,J,K,T,R, & S types)
simultaneously with your PC using either DOS or Windows at low cost.
Temperature monitor plugs directly into serial port of PC for direct 
display of temperature vs. time in either tabular or graphic format with 
data storage to disk. The monitor comes complete with software program 
for PC.  For further details contact Lazar Research Labs. Inc. at 
1-800-824-2066 in the U.S. or email service@lazarlab.com or fax 
1-213-931-1434.

In article <199612051211.XAA00551@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>,
John Savage  wrote:
>jboutwel@access.k12.wv.us writes:
>>As a side note. Another common misconception is that you are safe inside a car
>>during a lightning storm because of rubber tires.  This is false.  Consider,
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, I had thought that a car is relatively safe because the
metal frame of the car acts as a faraday cage.  But that was something
told to me in my high school physics class, so take it for what it's
worth.  Rubber tires never came up in that discussion, just faraday
cages.

Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> David Hultgren wrote:
> >
> > Judson McClendon wrote:
> > 
> >
> > > Is it strange, then, that we see these very signs about us in the world
> > > today?
> >
> > Same have been said numerous times in history, especially every new
> > century... (wanna bet against 1999 being a incomebringing year for the
> > doomsayers?)
> 
> No doubt.  But uniformitarianism and men's doubts about creation and the
> Genesis Flood were prophesied almost 2000 years ago (2 Peter 3:3-10):

Sigh, You could also use the doubt we have on the earth being a flat circle
with pillars in its four corners(!) to "prove" that THE END IS NEAR(TM)
With citates people can (and have tried to) prove anything! Its when people
starts to believe those citates that things starts to be dangerous (it usually
stopps with a lot of people losing lifes and/or cash), there is a part of
the bible against propeties, read that...
I doubt that I will have any effect on You what so ever (creationists
seems teflon-treated against science facts). But all this long bible 
citating aside have You never wondered why Your god seems to work so hard to
remove and hide all evidence of the flood, or for a young cosmos?
It cant be to "refuse to prove his existsence", a small, young universe
would not nessesary prove a christian god! All modern christian scientists is 
have no problems discerning between what should taken by the letter and whats
a myth. Is Your faith that weak that You have to believe in the creationists
religious charlatans? They are not only lying, they are doing it for $$$
or for a misguided attemt to convince scientifically uneducated people
to their particular flavor of christianity.
They are frauds, dont equalise their psedo-science to christianity, You will
only get hurt when/if You get a education and realises what bastards they realy 
are!!
Science doesnt either prove or disprove god (at least not yet, come back in a
couple of centuries and maybe...) but it has shown that without serious doubt
(such as the "lying god" hypothesis, that god is actively "covering his tracks")
that a letter by letter interpretation of the bible in the genesis is false.
Lastly, Your continuing JW-style citates from the bible (people getting more evil, less
faithfull a.s.o.), have been used many times already (esp. during the middle ages)
I do actualy prefere todays situation in "evilness" over that time.
DH.

On Wed, 04 Dec 1996 15:18:26 -0800, logical Scientist lover
 wrote:
>Warlock wrote:
>> 
>> Does anybody believe that there is ultimately a single type of
>> energy/matter that is the foundation for everything? Or is matter
>> infinite, always being made up of a smaller part?
>> 
>> I realise that this a purely hypothetical exercise, but am interested to
>> view peoples thoughts on it.
>> 
Look up my website  for  a
description of a  new type of ultimate particle. The motion of this
particle gives rise to all the observed particles in the universe.
Ken seto

I am looking for a clear, concise statement and proof of Bell's Theorem.
I know I read one - with an elementary proof - about 5 years ago
but I do not remember the reference.
Can you help?
Please reply to me personally rather than to the newsgroup.
Thanks.

In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
wrote:
>In article <57f45p$1d1@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\"
>Schwartz  writes:
>>erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>>>In article , 
 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hey, don't let anybody confuse you with the "you need GR to understand
>>>>it" stuff, you really don't.  And the above is fine, if you multiply 
>>>>by the mass of the bulge and develop in series, you'll get something 
>>>>proportional to
>>>>
>>>>	m*dr/r^3
>>>
>>>Hey,  linear,  1/r^3... what's a few powers of r among friends?? 
>>>
>>>>which is just the standard dipol field, with m*dr being the dipol 
>>>>moment.  To do it really right you've to use vectors and you get 
>>>>scalar products, i.e
>>>>
>>>>	m* (r /dot dr)/(abs(r))^4
>>>>
>>>>but these are technicalities.  And it doesn't even take a lagrangian
>>>>(though I can probably get you a used one, real cheap, slightly dented
>>>>but just put a new tranny in it, it'll run like new)
>>>
>>>Well,  ok;  throw in a full tank of gas and you got a deal.
>>>
>>>Hey...  I smell a sci.fi short story here.   The astronaut is trapped
>>>inside a spherical shell of matter,  with one hole.  The perturbation
>>>of cutting the hole out of the shell creates an effective repulsive
>>>field.  How does he get out?  Of course the inside is smooth,  and
>>>his thrusters are broken...
>>
>>
>>He gets out in the usual manner.  Male astronauts are naturally supplied
>>with a steerable thruster and a periodically refilling liquid propellant
>>tank.  Female astronauts are not Mil-Spec.  Thrust vectoring must be 
>>accomplished through externally configured instrumentatility. 
>>
>(Smacking forehead), That's it.  Trust Uncle Al to provide a simple 
>and elegant solution.
[emoticon here with tears of laughter rolling down its face]  And who gets
to do the cleaning up?  That female astronaut.  Now, how does she get out
after dealing with the mess?  By ignoring the hole.  It's guaranteed that,
the more you try to ignore it, the more it insists on bugging you.
/BAH

Jeff Baldwin wrote:
> 
> eram  wrote:
> [....]
> >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.
> [...]
> 
> 1) When you daydream, an objective observer can see than you indeed
> are not anywhere but still right there. "You" are not out of your
> body. If the objective observer nudges you during a daydream.... there
> you are. The experience of a daydream can be vivid or just semi-real
> indicating a continuum of experience .... all of which takes place in
> your body.
Yeah, but on the deep-deep level we still don't/can't get a clear
picture of what's really happening. Our monkey brains are good
at looking at the macro/time-sequenced thermodynamically-correct
world, but the electron interference paradox shows that there's
definitely *not* this time-sequencing happening at lower/higher
levels of existence.
Never forget that sensing the future would be an extraordinary
evolutionary advantage.
(Like the ability to somehow gauge that a brain nearby is directing
its attention at you...)
> 2) I study and model simulated nervous system structures. From what I
> have been able to learn, deja vu is largely a chemical phenomena which
> deals with sensations and perhaps slight differences in frequencies of
Yes, this could be true too. The actual stimulus could kick in the
false re-memories of doing this vu part.
=td=

BlackBeard (this@reader.makes.me.doThis) wrote:
: Did I mention the difference between ASU wimmin and the trash?
: ;)
	Lemme guess. BlackBeard can manage to pick up the trash? :-)
p.s. Seeing how this is cross-posted all over heck, and most people don't 
seem to appreciate the level of wit here at sci.naval, perhaps we should 
quit this thread before we manage to alienate the rest of the scientific 
hierarchy.
regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J Forsberg  at  aufsj@imap2.asu.edu                Wizard 87-01

Minnie (mhlynn@geocities.com) wrote:
: [grin] Don't be so judgemental, man. They do have a clue, at least in
: the Flood part. Haven't you noticed that every culture in the world has
: an ancient story of great flooding?
*Every* one?  Liar! (But I know what you mean ;))
Does this suprise you?  Every (well, most every) civilisation started up
where the crop-planting was best, and where was that?  You guessed it --
on and along river banks and flood plains!  Wanna know something else?
Floods happen!  Where do they happen?  on and along river banks and flood
plains!
So it's not suprising that a particularly large flood experienced by any
of these civilisations should become legendary, and of course, larger and
larger in the re-tellings.
But if you are suggesting, even for a second, that the story of the
biblical flood is the literal truth...well, then you're pretty much 
beyond hope.
--
******************************
   Me fail English?
   That's unpossible!
             - Ralph Wiggum
******************************

On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Judson McClendon wrote:
> Royce Buehler wrote:
> > 
> > Judson McClendon  writes:
> > 
> > >
> > > 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"?
> 
> So, the fact that Genesis 1:1-2:5 is literally FILLED with references,
> both direct and indirect, to time and sequence (constant references to
> 'evening and morning', and the word 'then' is used 12 times), and
> Genesis 2:6-25 there is only two uses of the word 'then', only the
I trust you consulted the Hebrew texts before making this assertion?
-- 
Stephen P. Victor                  svictor@compassnet.com
Houston, Texas USA     http://www.compassnet.com/~svictor
"At a certain season of our life we are accustomed to
consider every spot as the possible site of a house."
Thoreau, Walden

In article <586ru7$qpl@tel.ast.lmco.com> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>In article ,   wrote:
>> jti@isleta.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>>>This complicates things if I interpret your previous statements to
>>>mean that science doesn't actually produce knowledge either.  (If
>>>"knowledge" would reliably pertain to how things are.)  
>>
>>No, knowledge pertains to things as they appear to be.  Concern with 
>>"things as they are" is in the province of philosophers and 
>>theologians.
>
>Though I share Mati's semi-frustration with this issue, I must point out
>that this is exactly the kind of sentiment that gets scientists in
>trouble in the POV of philosphers and theologians. My concern is a
>simple one: *How* can the philosophers and theologians make a better
>assessment of "things as they are" when they are inadequately versed
>with the Science of Nature?
Um, to be blunt, this is "Not Science's Problem[tm]"  Or, to put it
another way, how can philosophers make a better assessment of
"things as they are" if they *ARE* adequately versed, since the
two fields address entirely different domains of knowledge?
Scientific methods and evidence are entirely inadequate to address
the question of "things as they are"; why do you expect scientists to
be able to solve these problems and not, for instance, taxi drivers?
>See, one can't really STOP at saying scientists study "things as they
>appear to be". IMHO, scientists can't help _but_ pursue "things as they
>are". What _else_ is there to pursue?
Um, beauty, self-consistency, useful applications within the world
of "things as they appear"?  Lack of imagination on your part does not
an explanation make.
>Consider the following three arbitrary 
>rank state vectors:
>
>X_Measured == XM	Things as they are measured to be
>X_Theoretical == XT	Things as they are theorized to be
>X_Actual == XA 		Things as they are
>
>XM - XA = 0_MA		The difference between Measured and Actual
>XT - XA = 0_TA		etctera... only T instead of M
>
>Subtracting these two equations yields:
>XM - XT = 0_MA - 0_TA == Zero Ideally.
>
>Notice how the "Actual" seems to drop out. :-)
Your math is slipping.  All this says is that XM gets arbitrarily close
to XT -- which are both an arbitrary (but ideally identical) distance
from the "Actuality."   XM could be completely and utterly different
from XA and your math would still hold -- and science would have a
complete, accurately, reproducible, and "Actually wrong" theory of
everything.
	Patrick