Newsgroup sci.physics 211710

Directory

Why is mind control also lives control?
(Part Two)
On previous aricle, I have revealed many mind control opeators' secrets
including their curent objective: to manipulate people's healths and
lives in order to eliminate their opponents, enemies and those people
whom the operators dislike.  So, they can secretly eliminate any
dissident or awared people (who know the existence of the mind control
surveillance system & invisible wave weapon) without attracting the
attention of the society. 
Why are the most of victims never awared of being injured or
being manipulated their lives by the mind control operators, while
people are staying at home?!
There are some reasons below:
First reason: Most people are not aware of the mind control surveillance
system in this society.
The mind control surveillance system is too secret to be known by
most of average citizns.  Therefore, most of people will
not suspect that the authorities can spy them in their private home. So
these kinds of people will not suspect that anyone can injure them at
home. 
Second reason:
Even some people know that authority has the surveillancec system to spy
people at home.  However, most of them cannot imaginate that the state
of the art surveillance system can watch people's activities at home as
clearly as the movies on TV no matter day or night (no matter the
lights of people home turn on or not).
Third reason:
Most of people have no knowledge about the state of art invisible wave
weapon (so called nonlethal weapon).
Furthermore, most of people do not know that the operators can use the
advanced Tesla technology to remotely transfer the energy (electromagnetic
wave) to power the emitters of invisible wave weapon to attack people from
everythere.
Forth reason:
Most of people do not know that the invisible wave weapon can be used in
conjuction with the state of art surveillance system to accurately attak
victim's body on any acupunture point.  
Comparing with the below information, we know that using the invisible
wave weapon (so called nonlethal weapon) to attack victims without 
victims' knowing is a fact.
That's because such kind of fact has been admited by our government.
This information is a report on nonlethal technologies, issued by 
the Council on Foreign Relations.
(attachment)---See page 180 on _ANGELS DON'T PLAY THE HAARP_1995 
by Jeane Manning & Dr. Nick Begich)
----------------------------------------------
This report points out that , "The Nairobiv Convention, to which
the United States is a signastory, prohiibits the broadcast of
electronic signals into a sovereign state without its consent in
peace time.
This report opens discussion of use of these weapons against 
"terrorists" and "drug traffickers".  The CFR report recommends 
that this be done secretly so that the victims do not know where 
the attack is from, or if there even is an attack!  There is a 
problem with this approach. The use of these weapons, even against
these kinds of individuals, may be in violation of United States
law in that it presume guilt rather than innocence.  In other words,  
the POLICE, CIA, DEA, OR OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION become
THE JUDGE, JURY  AND EXCECUTIONER. 
-------------------------------------------------
The above information also proves that the invisible wave weapon are
specially designed for the law enforcement to against the terorists 
and durgtrafficekers by government.
It further proves that the invisible wave weapon users are also the 
law enforcement officers.
However, since these career officers (or operators) can use this kind
of invisible wave weapon to attack criminals legally, they also have
chanced to use these kinds of weapon to manipulate people's lives
illegally.
I would remind you the cases which was reported in "Microwave Harassment & 
Mind Control Experimentation" by Jullianne McKinney to prove what I say is 
true. 
(attachment)
 ===========================================================
   One dividual (driven to extremes of stress by ongoing electronic 
harassment focusing on her children) killed one child in an effort to 
protect her from further pain.
   Another individual, during a telephone conversation, was told by an 
employee of a local power company that , if she value the lives of her 
children, she would  drop the her opposition to the company's installation 
of high power lines.  Since receiving that threat, the individual 
11-year-old daughter has been reduced to extrrement of illness which cannot 
be diagnosed.  It's now also apparent to this invidual that her 
three-year-old son is on the receiving end of externally induced 
auditory input. (DoE figures prominently in this case.)
=================================================================
I would like to emphasize some important point for those readers who think 
that the above examples are unusual cases and other people would not be 
subjected to similar harassment.
The two families in this example are average law abiding citizens and 
living in their own home.  Even under such kind circumstances, these 
members of these two families cannot avoid of being spied on.  So, the 
children of these two families cannot avoid being attacked and harm by 
remotely controlled invisible wave weapons (even in the security of 
their own home or staying at hospitals). 
It proves the invisible wave weapon has been used in conjuction with 
the surveilliance system.  Also, both systems can track or attack any of 
the member of these two families with incredible accuracy.  From these 
cases, we know that anyone of us can be also injured or examined in our 
own home or any public building (including cars -- I would emphsize it).
Fifth reason:
 While the operators are using the invisible weapons to manipulate
people's live on low settings, the victims might only feel as if he or
she have been stung by a bee or itch after being attacked.
To avoid the victims from becoming suspcious and awared of being injured,
the operators usually use chronal gun (bullets) which can quickly
penetrate victims' bodies and cause injury.  It can be used to target
acupuncture points, any vital organ such as the heart, liver, kidney,
etc.) without generating obvious pain on the victims.  That's why the
operators alway try to manipulate people's lives at night after their
targets (the people) have fallen asleep.
At the same time, as the victims are being injured, the operators will
also use the mind control surveillance system to read the victims' minds.
Therefore, the operators can check if the victims have been awakened or is
awared of being injured.  In addition, it is also used to monitor if the
operators were successful at injuring the people (to induce the an
illness).
Therefore, the operators can manipulate people's lives, health with
the invisible wave weapon and avoid their crimes (of manipulating
people's lives and slowly eliminating their enemies) from being
discovered.
In the mind control surveillance system, the ability to manipulate
people's lives without victims' knowledge is the most important
qualification for being a career (or undercover) mind control operator.
That's because the operators must be to handle all the people 
whom are being kept under their close surveillance and control and 
without making them suspicious.
With this ability to manipulate people's lives, the operators can achieve
their ultimate goal of keeping people's behaviors well under their control
and elminate those whom the operators dislike or cannot control.
Thus, eventually, the only people who are still alive will become the
loyal subjects of the mind control operators.  However, the most evil in
this mind control surveillance system is that the operators judge
everything with their own will but not according to the law. 
So, some criminals might allow to live normally because the operators 
can control them well, and some law abiding citizens might not
allow to live normally becasuse they against the interests of mind 
control opertors (or some law abiding citizens are being injured
because the operators dislike them).
Since US learned the mind control technology from Russia, the philosophy
of the mind control operators has also inherit the philosophy of
Communism (Materialism & Atheism).
Therefore, these operators are carrying out the social revolution on
the U.S. society with the Communism ideology (Materialism & Atheism). 
They don't believe that our Constitutoion, Law, religion or moral values 
can regulate people's behaviors.  In addition, they are completely
atheist and do not believe in anything other than the powers that they
hold in their hands.   However, they do believe that they can use the
mind control technology to change people's behaviors.
They are controlling people's live with the invisible wave weapon because
they share a same belief in the evil philosophy of Communism (Stalin
and Mao)--The regime's power come frome the nozzle of the gun. 
Absolutely power corrupts absolutely, since the career officers
(operators) can manipulate people's lives, these career officers
(operators) have become the real controllers of people instead of
the position of public servants. To protect their privileges, the
operators will get rid of anyone who is aware of their secrets.  
The most evil is that the law enforcement officers (or operaytors)
will be the judge, jury, and executioner at same time while they use 
the invisible wave weapon to manipulate people's lives.
If our Congress members or the President don't stop these career officers'
privileges, people's lives are threatened in danger.
Since people's lives are not in their's own hands but in the operators'
hands, our freedom, democracy and wealth are only the illusion.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's lives in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies 
  secretly (die as if natural cause).  
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries.
  Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
  control organization.
  (If any law enforcement officer declare anyone as "insane" and 
   the social security department do not put these individual in the 
   welfare program as diable person, then it only represent a kind of
   political suppression or false accusation to discredit someone.
   That' because the local law enforcement is the basic unit of mind
   control)
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Judson McClendon  writes:
>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):
	the quote you use is all very well, but the point remains: the
bible does not give a date. A friend who read the whole of revelations a
few weeks ago told me hat he thought it was implying that the whole
thing was due shortly after it was written. People are always saying
it'll be soon, so why should we believe them this time when they were
wrong all the other times? That's a serious question, by the way, and if
you can tell us why now in particular I'd be very interested.
		G.

Jeff Inman wrote:
> 
> patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
> >jti@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
> >>patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes: [...]
> Patrick:
> >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.
> 
> My point, maybe just a suggestion, is that claiming that the universe
> is consistent (etc) amounts to an argument about Nature, what it is.
> You serve Truth, in this sense, because you are convinced that facts
> must reveal themselves in certain ways (e.g. by being consistent).  I
> do not have to disagree with this to point out that it is an
> unsupported assumption [...]
The assumption produces the products of science. It is only "unsupported" 
if the products of science are not real; or if they are real, but not 
worthwhile. Which claim do you assert, Jeff, and can you support it?
- Noel

Bill Simpson  wrote:
>If I deliver a weak flash from
>a) LED
>b) diode laser
>what distribution do the photons follow?  (If it matters, the flash
>duration will be on the order of microsec to say 100 millisec)
>(BTW, is it possible to deliver short pulses from an "ordinary" laser?
>I looked at Melles Griot and it appeared the answer was "no")
There are many ways to modulate lasers. There are many types of lasers
that might be called ordinary today but each has its ows curiousities.
A HeNe  (Helium-Neon) continueos gas laser (standing for all cw
gas/plasmalasers) would be modulated poorly by switching on and of the
supply. The plasma is hard to ignite.
some types of these glass plasma tubes are however thin (2 mm internal
diam. and 6-7 mm external diam) and it is possible to disturb the
plasma with a magnetic field from a coil, so the allignment for the
discharge with the mirrors is less effective for lasing. an external
shutter could be used like an LCD shutter (best 200 us) or a pockels
cell (better then 100 ns)
CW lasers are diodelasers. They are not hard to switch and have
virtually no limitation to switching by supply-interruption. It is bad
for these lasers to be overpowered even for a very short time. The
optical facets/mirrors at both sides of the laser are vulnerable to
optical damage and you turn a laser into a poor LED by that.
It might be an idea to have a nice constant supply current and bypass
the laserdiode by a switch (transistor, unipolar or FET) to divert the
current. 
Don't reflect (a fraction of) the beam back into the laser. The
laser-cavity is redefined and tends to get instable unless you know
what you're doing.
>If the light is from a tungsten filament, I know that the resulting
>stream of photons is a spatiotemporal Poisson process (approx).
>Therefore the distribution of photons in a flash is Poisson.
>Are LED and diode laser giving rise to spatiotemporal Poisson processes?
>If not, what?
>Finally with incandescent light and image of fixed size, one can vary the
>total number of delivered photons by
>- use fixed "intensity", vary pulse length
>- use fixed pulse length, vary "intensity"
>In both cases the number of delivered photons is distributed as Poisson
>(due to spatiotemporal Poisson process).  Will this also be true for
>LED and diode laser?
>I have a poor physics background.  Can anyone suggest references?  I have
>Louden, The quantum theory of light.  Usually it is over my head, and
>it does not discuss LEDs or diode lasers.
>Thanks very much for any help.
>Bill Simpson
The following disclaimer was written by a company lawyer.  I take no responsibility for it.
Standard Disclaimer______________________
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
E-mail H.M.M.deJong@Phys.TUE.NL
Homepage http://www.etp.phys.tue.nl/herman/herman.htm
Phone (031) 40 2473472  Fax (031) 40 2456442
Snail Eindhoven University of Technology, Dept. of Phys.
P.O.Box 513
5600 MB  Eindhoven
The Netherlands

Hello World,     [see   http://www.afuu.fr/hcl]
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 4s, 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

In article <587agu$gc3@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, uncleal0@ix.netcom.com (Alan 
\Uncle Al\ Schwartz ) dusted off the quill, prised open the inkwell and 
wrote...
>
>The following has arisen in the day-to-day insanity of industrial 
>brouhaha:
>
>You have a mostly parallel bundle of 200-1000 glass fibers about 6 
>micrometers in diameter each, The bundle is between one and ten feet long 
>(negotiable). You want to pot, pultrude, injection mold, or otherwise 
>imbed the fibers (here comes the kicker) more or less evenly distributed 
>in space (equidistant from each other) still more or less parallel, in a 
>plastic rod (methacrylate, polycarbonate, almost anything transparent) 
>one inch in diameter.  You need 100 feet of rod/week, then possibly 500. 
> Bonus points for continuous ten foot lengths.
Use a laser to drill the holes then leave a block of cold glass to flow into 
the holes (hot glass would melt the plastic).
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

In article <32A7F8A2.46E6@mail.eskimo.com> Noel Smith  writes:
>Jeff Inman wrote:
>> 
>> patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>> >Science is a game; one that relies, fundamentally, on the *assumption*
>> >that the universe is both consistent and as-we-perceive-it.
>> 
>> My point, maybe just a suggestion, is that claiming that the universe
>> is consistent (etc) amounts to an argument about Nature, what it is.
>> You serve Truth, in this sense, because you are convinced that facts
>> must reveal themselves in certain ways (e.g. by being consistent).  I
>> do not have to disagree with this to point out that it is an
>> unsupported assumption [...]
>
>The assumption produces the products of science. It is only "unsupported" 
>if the products of science are not real; or if they are real, but not 
>worthwhile. Which claim do you assert, Jeff, and can you support it?
Oh, hell, even I have no problem with someone claiming that the products
of science aren't "Real"; if the entire world I percieve is simply a
product of a mad neurologist's wires, then certainly my T-1 link
and my toaster oven are.
Sure, it's an unsupported assumption.  I've been saying that for some
time.  But it's not an *unwarranted* unsupported assumption.
	Patrick

Ken H. Seto  wrote:
>description of a  new type of ultimate particle. The motion of this
>particle gives rise to all the observed particles in the universe.
What about yet unobserved particles?
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers        (*)  For Physics and science fiction information:
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl  (*)  http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.  PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1

Here's what I made: a simple, step by step manual for a fireworksbomb as
used by old Dutch anarchists. 
Easy to make, succes guaranteed. 
Download the installer at my homepage: http://www.xs4all.nl/~bmark
Warning: this bomb tends to be a bit unstable. You won't be the first to
be walking around with a few fingers missing.

On 5 Dec 1996, Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> The following has arisen in the day-to-day insanity of industrial 
> brouhaha:
> 
> You have a mostly parallel bundle of 200-1000 glass fibers about 6 
> micrometers in diameter each, The bundle is between one and ten feet long 
> (negotiable). You want to pot, pultrude, injection mold, or otherwise 
> imbed the fibers (here comes the kicker) more or less evenly distributed 
> in space (equidistant from each other) still more or less parallel, in a 
> plastic rod (methacrylate, polycarbonate, almost anything transparent) 
> one inch in diameter.  You need 100 feet of rod/week, then possibly 500. 
>  Bonus points for continuous ten foot lengths.
> 
> If your answer touches screens, channel plates, or swellable terminal 
> pottings - it's been tried.
How far apart?
How about spray paint? Paint them all evenly, bundle them up, then heat
the clever paint you have, so that it becomes sticky, and voila.
CERN, Geneva

Do photons (or any other particle you care to mention) "tunnel" through
space even when there is no "barrier" in place ? If so, how come that guy
who compared the "speed" of microwave transmission through air vs
waveguide did not detect tunnelled photons passing through the air at a
similar "speed" as through the "barrier" ? Or did he ?
If photons do NOT "tunnel" across distances when there is no barrier in
place, why not ?
Please forgive my (no doubt obvious) question, I'm not a physicist.
Nick Bolo

My physics professor asked me if I might ask on the net if anyone knows of a 
good satellite motion lab for an introductory college physics class.  It would 
need to be rather simple and cheap to do as this is just a small community 
college.  This is for the first quarter of the class, so it can't be too complex 
and it needs to fit in a 2 hr period.   Any suggestions, it's just no fun going for 
two weeks without a lab when we are in that section.  Thanx in advance. :-)
  Stewart Matthiesen

In <5887fq$31p@play.inetarena.com> nx56@inetarena.com (jmc) writes: 
>
>In article <584m61$5c7@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>   odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>
>[    If kinetic energy causes a linear bend in spacetime, then SR can
>[not be applied to inertial frames, because SR only works in flat
>[spacetime. 
>[Edward Meisner
>
>
>Spacetime is non-Euclidean in SR; it is not flat.  It is true that 
>gravitational fields are not handled by SR, but that is a different 
>matter.  
    Special Relativity cannot be applied to the linear distortion of
spacetime caused by kinetic energy. This is because the kinetic energy
of an object is different for each observber under special relativity.
This would mean that there are an infinite number of linear distortions
in spacetime for any object, which is impossible. In other words, the
linear bending of spacetime is real and independent of any observer. My
guess is that the spacetime curvature of gravity and the linear bending
of kinetic energy are caused solely by length or space contraction or
expansion.
Regards,
Edward Meisner

I am interested in software where you can simulate al kind of situations in physics..
who can give me such an www adress ?

I was reading an article in Quantum (the US/Russian student physics magazine)
that got me thinking about Fourier decomposition, and I've run into what
seems to me a paradox.  I'm hoping you can show me what I'm doing wrong.
The article in question talked about uncertainty in physics, and used as one
example the old "no instrument can make a pure note, because unless it plays
the note for an infinitely long time there will be some other frequencies
in its Fourier decomposition" case.  A wave that's localized in space (or 
time) must have a frequency distribution.
So if I play a G for a second and have a sensitive instrument that is set to 
detect a frequency a thousandth of a Hertz lower than G, that instrument
should be able to detect something (Note, i just picked G and 'a thousandth
of a Hz' randomly -- if I should have actually picked other frequencies, like
an octave above G, please make whatever change is necessary for my gedanken
detector to pick something up).  Now, how much it can pick up should depend
on the duration of the note I play; a G held for ten minutes will be more
mono'chromatic', and the detector should pick up less on its non-G frequency.
BUT, doesn't this imply that the detector 'knows' in advance for how long I'm
going to play the note?  Doesn't the frequency-decomposition depend on how
long the note is _going_ to be held??
Perhaps I'm just mistaken in my belief that the frequency-decomposition of
the sound wave is fixed over time.  If it changes, from broadband
discontinuity-noise at the instant the note begins, to smooth regularity
(maybe even mono'chromaticity'??) as the note is playing, there's no
paradox.  But that's not how I remember learning Fourier analysis...
Any answers, thoughts, mockery and derision cheerfully accepted,
Jim (no longer a student, but still curious)
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
     Jim Moskowitz (jimmosk@seas.upenn.edu)
                     Visit the Unknown Composers Page:
                           http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~jimmosk/TOC.html

Ken MacIver (nanken@tiac.net) wrote:
: jude@smellycat.com (Jude Giampaolo) wrote:
: 
: >In article <5876ha$t8b@nw101.infi.net>, tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) wrote:
: 
: >> moggin (moggin@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >> : 
: >> :    Science as the Grand Funk Railroad of the disciplines?  I think 
: >> : you're on to something, there.
: >> 
: >> Get thee behind me, Mark Farner. Free Lee Otis.
: >> 
: >> "I'm sad and blue cos I can't boogaloo,
: >>  gimme gimme dat ding"
: 
: >The Pipkins are nice and all but this subject is now way off topic for
: >sci.physics.....
: 
: Oh, no, good heavens!  We'll have to get someone to speak to Samsel
: about this.
Huh? Oh, yes.... the aspect of po-moetry emotion... herrumph..
Question: Was Po-Mo thought developed by law schools to hone the brains 
of the up-and-coming abogadoes & barristry?
Seems like it to me.
tejas@infi.net
          "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails"
                                 Robert Earl Keen

Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: 
: Sure, it's an unsupported assumption.  I've been saying that for some
: time.  But it's not an *unwarranted* unsupported assumption.
The essence of the WONDERBRA?
-- 
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net  "Took all the money I had in the bank,
                               Bought a rebuilt carburetor, 
                               put the rest in the tank."
                                USED CARLOTTA.. 1995

In article <587m5d$am2@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:
>
>>>>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.  
>
>But, yes.  It is.  If this "knowledge" is nothing without the notion
>that appearance has some relation with Nature, and science presumes
>that "knowledge" is worth persuing, then this amounts to an assumption
>that science is at least on the scent trail of Nature.
Well, yes.  And if pigs had wings, they could fly.  This "knowledge" 
can stand and fall on its own merits, without recourse to Nature, as
it permits anyone who cares to predict how the world of samsara behaves
by observing other bits of samsara.  *IF*, for some reason, you want to
make a prediction about the world of appearances, science has a track
record of being successful at doing so.
Most of us are more comfortable when we have the illusions of food
and clothing around our illusionary bodies.  So we might want to
predict ways of making the illusionary world bring forth illusionary
food.  But this doesn't mean anything about Reality, or even that
illusionary food is "good" in itself.
>
>>>>Science just seems to be the most effective
>>>>way that has yet been found to produce knowledge.
>
>Here you confirm my suspicion, above.  If you don't suppose that
>"knowledge" has some real fundamental truth value, then how can you
>possibly propose to measure the effectiveness of something that
>produces it?
Observationally; look at the track record.
>If one holds observation to be linked to Nature,
which one doesn't...
>and holds Nature to have certain necessary properties,
which one doesn't...
>and uses this view to identify himself and his place among things,
which one doesn't...
> then observation has some kind of value.
How many false premises can you stick together?
>
>Patrick:
>>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.  
>
>My point, maybe just a suggestion, is that claiming that the universe
>is consistent (etc) amounts to an argument about Nature, what it is.
Nope.  First, it's not a claim, it's an *assumption.*   Do you
see what I'm saying above about false premises?
Science *assumes*, as a working foundation, that the universe is
consistent and perceptible.  This assumption is, tautologically, either
true or false -- if it were true, then science *would* study Nature and
produce Truth.
If, on the other hand, if it's false, then scientists are indulging in
hypothetical reasoning.  There's nothing particularly wrong with
hypothetical reasoning, except that it doesn't (necessarily) reflect
Reality.  And since science doesn't address Reality, that's not a
problem except for people who insist that it *SHOULD* address Reality.
Which, fundamentally, it can't and doesn't.
>I am saying, and I
>think I have legitimately drawn it out of your statement about
>assumptions, that while you claim to be dealing only in uncomitted
>speculation about appearances, it remains true that you posit that
>there is a Nature underlying those appearances, and that it is
>consistent, and that this consistency is reflected in observation.
You have not, sir.  You've indulged in a significant amount of hypothetical
reasoning that states, circularly, that *if* I believed that science
pursued Truth, then I must believe that science pursues Truth.
	Patrick

I've got a question that I have to do for physics home work but I cannot
figure it out, can anybody help me:
Q: Discuss the Electocardiogram and how it pertains to Electrostatics.
Thank you for any help you can provide.
							Tylor

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read". You can find the software to process these notices with some
newsreaders at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW site: http://www.cm.org.
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers, with byte counts:
  1 18563  Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.93
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: spncm1996340121915
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<5888ok$b1p@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics.electromag
	sci.physics
	sci.geo.geology
	sci.bio.misc
	sci.astro
	sci.math
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMqgPRIz0ceX+vLURAQGnDQP9EbpgJgY0TZrcfyZ4ryn8wPgMYXhj9TPc
PXRyLfJ7hbG1UEjUOOObGGHzbkrcQvXHpl15h1+ho4yDybcUQrC2wpPiKqPdQ0Si
NvTdrcun8mgltZS0ToPR8+dEHxxu64Iv2MW7jWqjys1YW9zaWJu2PD1kCIm8f7u+
0xkK3Xvprvk=
=Oa0W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
Knit one Purl one
Why not use textile fibre technology and spin/weave/plait the fibres
into a "rope"?
Encase the rope in a plastic sheath and voila! 

Perhaps even more effective would have been 2 5mg doses of Placebo . . . 
In article <32A6E003.12E@sodalia.it>, Stefano Cirolini  says:
>
>John Savage wrote:
>> 
>> 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.)
>
>My cousin used to suffer from car sickness as a boy.
>Then they added a metallic strip to ground the car and his
>disturb was healed.
>
>Perhaps even small electric fields may influence health ?
>
>-- 
>     Stefano Cirolini       | >>  MELINDA MIGLIORA LE MELE  <<
>cirolini@sodalia.sodalia.it | (le buone mele della Val di Non)
***********************************************************************
*  =8^)       - Si vis pacem, parabellum                              *
*  Steve      - "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence.  It   *
*  Swartz         is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and *
*                 a fearsome master."                                 *
*  NRA Life   - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the      *
*  AFA Life       security of a free State, the right of the people   *
*                 to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.      *
***********************************************************************

In article , kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) writes:
|> rsansbury (rns@concentric.net) wrote:
|> :   The basic idea here is that gravity may be due to radially oriented 
|> : electrostatic dipoles inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the negative 
|> : pole, with some multiple of the electron's charge, is the inner pole and 
|> : the outer pole has enought positive charge so that the total charge is 
|> : that of a proton; the distance between  oppositely charged poles is 
|> : between 10^-12 and 10^-18meters inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the 
...
|>         Gravity is without question caused by electromagnetism,
|> but certainly _NOT_ by a long range attraction, which seems to
|> be what you are saying.
Nevertheless, a long range attraction must result to qualify as a model.
A much simpler mathematical construction is to consider how the dipole
distribution would evolve on its own.
Let's start with 2 dipoles not stuck to each other, but within range
all the same.  If they happen to be oriented parallel initially, they'll
repel and move apart, weakening the repulsion.  If they happen to be
initially antiparallel, they will attract and stick together, resulting
in net zero moment.  More likely is that they will be at some angle
initially.  In that case, the mutual torque will cause them to align
anti-parallel and come together again.  The attractive orientations
thus outnumber the only repulsive orientation.
If we began with 3 dipoles, attraction follows in like manner, except
that when the dipoles come togther, the moments cannot cancel out.
If we begin with more dipoles, chances are that they will never quite
get to bind together in a tight bundle, like old fashioned match sticks
in a box, but will bond at their ends to make a lattice structure.
Thus, we can construct a scenario where dipole moments can result
in net attraction and yield something that resembles solid matter, and
even the 1/r^2 character follows from the spherical symmetry in the
large number limit.
The construction comes from iron filings-in-oil demos that someone
called Newman(*) used to give in the 70s to explain his theory of gravity.
Any such model is not useful, however, unless you can also prove
it to be the only possible solution, or that quantum gravity must
lead to physically indistinguishable results.  Proof of the latter kind
appears to be unlikely at present.
--
(*this is merely an acknowledgement of an idea, not a call for debate
on divergent matters!)
===========
employers disclaimed as usual.

rafael cardenas (raf379@bloxwich.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: theurgy wrote:
: 
: > Here, let me show you: Hmmm, lessee, comes out that 1 mature salmon =
: > 54.2 pounds of newsprint.
: 
: Just _think_ of all the baklava you could make out of that.
Newsprint balaclavas? Not in the rain. Nossir!
-- 
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net  "Took all the money I had in the bank,
                               Bought a rebuilt carburetor, 
                               put the rest in the tank."
                                USED CARLOTTA.. 1995

In article , 
kkingsto@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us says...
>
>The question is what is the relationship between the depth of water and
>the water pressure at that depth? I am a ninth grade student and it is
>mandatory that I have an internet reference for my project. Any
>information that you could give me about this question would really be
>appreciated. 
>
>      Thanks for your help, 
>            Brian Trevisan
Brian -
Pressure = given Force divided by given Area  (P=dF/dA)  (1 Pa = 1 N/m^2)
The pressure within an incompressible fluid depends linearly on the depth.  

"Jesse Nelson"  enunciated:
>Jonas Mureika  wrote in article
>...
>> In article <849654762snz@darkblak.demon.co.uk>,
>> Ian Day  wrote:
>> >In article <32A4275A.1F92@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl>
>> >           jos@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl "Jos Dingjan" writes:
>> >
>> I think that this delves into notions and workings of the brain that we
>> cannot comprehend, simply because we're looking at them from the wrong
>point
>> of view (i.e. physical, scientific analysis).  
>I definitly agree!!
I will agree with the wrong point of view but the point being used for
the observation of the frame of reference is binary thinking.
> 
>Are we really just the
>> sum of our synapses?  Is the brain really just a complicated circuit?
>Not just a complex circut, but a butiful marriage of circutry and concious
>organic matter.
Whoa.......there is no use in using logic in the argument we are going
to define consciousness as some form of matter state.
>If you were top think of the brians basic function. Relaying and filtering
>electric impulses it is easily compared to modern circutry with and/or
>gates. 
The brain's basic function is not relaying and filtering. Your radio
does that. Its basic function is combinatorial mean sum computing of
waves (wavelets) it just looks like a particle thing.
>The one thing that the brain has(Besides computation power, and storage)
>that cannot be reprodeced in a lab is data write and retrival from organic
>material.(spirtuality aside)
What difference does the medium provide? None. A binary computer can
be made out of (and it has been done) tinker toys. Terms like 'data
write and retrieval' are binary thinking. 
>I'm sure this is a compareason made before, but i'll reitterate.  
>Look at this marvel of technology that YOU  are using this very instant.
>The Internet!!!
>it is a very large scematic of the very procceses of  the brain.
NO it isn't. The interenet is a very good analogy to the way people
thought the brain was wired many years ago. One computer connected to
another computer with NO coherency and no binding.
And what does this have to do with time travel and deja vu anyway?
Come to think of it what do they have to do with each other?
>Jesse Nelson
>jessen@sprynet.com
> 
> 
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

In article <5DEC96.20170740@cc5.crl.aecl.ca>, edwardsg@cc5.crl.aecl.ca
writes
>I was overly terse.  I am assuming that, though each universe might be
>equally 'real', they are not all adjacent.  There are no weird things
>which can happen to me which require only one quantum jump.  They all require
>uncountable numbers of co-operating jumps in the same direction.  In real
>life, after a large number of successive random jumps, I'll my finishing
>location is almost certain to be close to my starting location ('close' with
>respect to the maximum possible distance).  Thus you don't end up in a 
>strange universe because it's too far away and you are moving erratically.
>This feels the same to me as saying that you won't see a monkey at a
>typewriter produce Shakespeare.  It requires too many consecutive correct
>guesses.
Feel free to tell me to get lost if I'm overlabouring this.
All of these future states are adjacent to the present state.  I'm not
talking about jumping between one reality and a (possibly distant) one
but the branching that (allegedly) happens when an event occurs.
This may be me not grasping QM sufficiently.  Doesn't the jumping
keyboard just represent one possibility (all particles jump
simultaniously) rather than a coordinated sequence?
>This feels the same to me as saying that you won't see a monkey at a
>typewriter produce Shakespeare.  It requires too many consecutive correct
>guesses.
If you get into infinite monkeys, the rules change though.
John
-- 
John Christian - mail:john@presentd.demon.co.uk
AirSculpture 
Try out WebMaze at 

In article <19961206001000.TAA09237@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kramsay@aol.com writes
[Major snippage follows:]
>
>John Christian:
>|I toss a coin.
>It doesn't strike me as a very good example.
Not mine.  I'm not trying to support this view, but to explore why I
think it's wrong.  I know any macroscopic example will be no more than a
loose model.
[...]
>
>In a sense, yeah.
>
>It is actually a bit misleading to talk about these "universes" as if 
>they were discrete individuals.
People do.  If the answer is that they're a few dodgy crackpots who the
pop-sci people drag out, fine.  Although I'm still interested in probing
my reasons for concluding the same, as long as you're willing to give me
your time.
> There is no canonical way to divide
>up the universe (according to this type of theory) into "universes",
>unless you make up some rule for how to do it yourself.
[...]
>
>Take reality and divide it into two parts (as it were), the one where your
>keyboard leaps to the right 1 cm., and the other where other things 
>occur instead. It is possible to divide each of these parts into smaller
>pieces ad nauseum. If there were a fixed number "N" of individual discrete
>"universes" and the keyboard lept to one side in n of them, you might 
>expect to see it happen with probability n/N, right? But without supposing
>the discreteness of the "universes" it makes sense instead to divide up
>the universe (in a sense) into a lot of pieces which are in some sense the
>same "size" or "magnitude".
>
>If you do that, then the pieces which have your keyboard making this
>little jump are few in number. Alternatively, we can say that the
>magnitude
>of the "chunk of reality" in which the keyboard does this was, to begin
>with,
>much smaller than the other piece.
>
[...]
Remember, I'm trying to disprove the idea that universes split off at
every (quantum) decicision.  The people promoting the idea have decided
how you split the multiverse.  For every state of the universe at t,
there is an infinite number of possible universes at time t+1, one for
every possible set of quantum states.
>
>|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?
>
>Well, there isn't just "one" sensible one.
But experience tells me that I will continue to exist in ones that not
only support a normal existence, but "stick to the rules" as far as we
can see (at a macro level).
>
>|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.
>
>Things are stranger than that, however. Fuzziness suggests a kind of
>coherence, and a tendancy to remain "close together" which you only
>get by using another theory (which typically has such a feature installed
>for the specific purpose of ensuring that there is only one universe
>according
>to it).
Well maybe that theory is right!  
>
>|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.
>
>Whether you think of them as "universes" or not is a matter of taste.
I don't think so, not when people talk about them as places to park your
time machine.
>But the "actuality" is not postulated just on the basis of their being
>"possible states", but on their being "occupied" states, in the sense
>of quantum theory. Of course not everyone buys that this prediction
>makes good sense. It goes all the way back to Schroedinger and his
>hypothetical cat, which he called "ridiculous". It seemed to him that
>having both sorts of cat-states at once was unacceptable.
>
>The program was alluding to work by people who not only accept the
>Schroedinger's Cat scenario as acceptable, but accept a speculative
>possibility of time travel too! The time travel idea is due to some 
>speculations about gravitation (general relativity). If you combine the 
>theories in this way, one can try to work out mathematically what the 
>predictions are. People thought this particular way that general
>relativity
>and quantum theory dovetailed cute, in a kind of science-fictional way, 
>which is why you hear about it. 
Schroedinger's Cat...
I knew I'd get started on this one!  I find it impossible to believe
that a conscious observer is needed to resolve the superimposed states.
It seems much more likely that the act of measuring is what is needed,
i.e. amplifying quantum events to a macroscopic level.  If this is so,
then you can't build the device to release the poison without measuring
the event.  The assumption that you can build such a gadget is what
makes it an apparent paradox.  This also helps resolve Witgners(?)
friend (replace cat with human).
Back to the multiverse...
I have come across the idea many times before and always wanted to poke
holes in it.  The use in time travel has little relevance, except to
emphasise that there are people whole belive that these universes are
real enough to live in.  Actually, if you could choose the reality you
went to, it would be much more fun than boring old time travel!
>
>I remember looking at a famous paper 
>in which the author tried to see how the usual "grandfather" paradox
>can be compatible with a solution of general relativity which appears
>to have time travel in it. (Perhaps someone has a reference handy.) He
>imagines a billiard ball aimed at a wormhole in such a way that one 
>expects it to reemerge from the other end at an earlier time, and knock
>its previous self aside, so it fails to go into the wormhole. In all the
>cases
>he tried, there was a solution which got around the problem somehow.
>Some wormholes are unstable and never get into the right position to allow
>it. In some solutions, the billiard ball is nudged just enough so that it
>goes
>into the mouth of the wormhole at an angle; the emerging billiard is no
>longer
>aimed directly at the entering one, and instead just gives it a slight
>nudge....
>This business about quantum superpositions is just the latest discovered
>way that this curious combination of theories works out in spite of
>seeming
>impossible.
Horizon covered this, I'd have liked much more depth.  They also skipped
over free-will rather glibly (I choose to fly, but I can't).  I'd like
to see the force of nature that deflects the bullet in action!
>
>Keith Ramsay
>
-- 
John Christian - mail:john@presentd.demon.co.uk
AirSculpture 
Try out WebMaze at 

In article <5870gi$l80@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Patrick Juola  wrote:
> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
[trim]
>>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?
"Not Science's Problem"? OK, I suppose. Speaking for myself only, and
used to be called a scientist by engineers around me, plus a little bit
of educational credentials... A scientist's concern aren't so distinctly
confined within some ToBeResolvedDomain. I don't much appreciate others
telling scientists what the domain of Science is. There really is such
an entity as the Science of {Philosophy, History, ..., Taxi Driving}.
Science is the infrastructure underneath and around everything. 
Now, according to your paragraph above, how can philosophers do better
with or without knowledge of science? That's an unresolvable question.
But since philosphers are a tadbit concerned about Existence, they are
forced to deal with physical entities. But I readily accept that the
World of Abstractions is infinitely vaster than the Physical World.
However, the understanding of the physical world is MANDATORY for the
philospher to survive within for him/her to do "thinking". Ergo, Science
is key. So, knowing Science can only _help_ the philospher(s), IMO.
>>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.
My imagination plenty long.
Beauty, self-consistency, ...? Not once have I ever suggested that
Science lacked these attributes. Nor would I want to. In the same
breath, I'm not accusing other disciplines as lacking these attributes.
Other than this, I don't have time for personal attacks/praises right
now. Perhaps another time?
>>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
C'mon Patrick, you darn well know that the math is not "mine" ;-). I'm
trying just to make a point as clearly as I know how using the tools I
had resources enough to learn. Hopefully, tools which many others might
readily understand or relate with. The Beauty of Math is that it works
perfectly regardless of how weak man's understanding of it might be. And
one can't blame the "math" for misformulated problems/expressions. But
I'm bordering on entering a grey area of better "Notational
Representationalism" that isn't relevant --- ultimately.
I understand what your point is about being "actually wrong" because XM
and XT are not *identically* XA. Hecht, they have different names for
starters. ;-)
But when we measure something, it is a close measurement of what
actually is. For instance a man is six feet tall on relatively warm days
and is shorter as the temperature falls. Indeed, accuracy is not
overbearingly critical. The number of men on a surface of a planet can
be counted. Etcetra. These attributes of men and their numbers is a
subset of all that is in a philosopher's domain. As is the number of
stars in the sky. Ultimately, Science provides a roadmap for the
territory the philosopher travels. Without a proper roadmap of the
territory, a man's not getting anywhere fast. So, if --- as Mati
suggests --- some want quick and accurate answers to "things as they
are" then they are in for a certain disappointment. But hey, I'm not
telling philosophers what their *domain* is or ought be, I'm just
clarifying the misconceptions and misrepresentations of Science and its
domain that "I understand". Along the way, I hopefully will end up
making a lasting contribution somewhere to somebody. Who knows really.
The whole notion of science only getting "things as they _appear_ to be"
rather than what "they _actually_ are" borders on the insane. I mean, do
philosphers really think that all of Existence is somekind of conspiracy
(and I don't mean "illusion")? How are the Physics of Nature conspiring
to mislead us --- so much so that we would utterly miss the Actual? 
Mahipal |meforce>	http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/

Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@ocean.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: Troy Dawson (td@twics.com) wrote:
: : Got your attention at least...
: : 
: : My question to the world is why, 4 years after the initial
: : write-up in Physica-C, a year after the Modenese paper,
: : 3 months after the D. Telegraph article, and 2 monhts after
: : the BusinessWeek article, has:
: : 
: : there been *no* friggin' replication of Podkletnov's anti-gravity
: : experiment posted to Usenet? ? ?
: : 
: : Is it Ignorance? Apathy? Laziness? Lack of Resources? Caution?
: : Fear? ....
: None of the above. The original result was most likely bogus; there is
: no result to replicate.
It seemed quite a specifically-posed bogus result; noting the drop in
air pressure on floors above the machine would be surprisingly good
reasoning in a science-fiction novel.
What was the idea? The electrons in the superconductor are
free to move, so when you spin in rapidly they're accelerating constantly,
and they end up moving at ultrarelativistic speed, suffering a mass
increase and producing a noticable gravitomagnetic force? 
Or the magnetic fields were enough to confuse the mass meter used, which
seems a little more likely.
: -- 
: Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) 
: ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
: http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html 
--
Tom
The Eternal Union of Soviet Republics lasted seven times longer than
the Thousand Year Reich

If anyone has an FAQ on these two nitwits,please let me know.  I would not
want my children attending the universities where these dish washers
operate.
Felix Tilley
ftilley@goodnet.com

On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Johan Wevers wrote:
> Ken H. Seto  wrote:
> 
> >description of a  new type of ultimate particle. The motion of this
> >particle gives rise to all the observed particles in the universe.
> 
> What about yet unobserved particles?
> 
Would Seto care to tell us the width and mass of the Higgs, do you think?
Also, perhaps he can tell us if supersymmetric particles exist, and if so,
what is the mass of the ilghtest sparticle?
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On 3 Dec 1996, James Massa wrote:
> Time dilation as Einstein explained it reads...
> Gamma = (1- v^2/c^2)^-0.5
> T = Gamma * Tp 
> 
> As explained to me ... the reason the light barrier exists is due to when v
> is greater then c Gamma is less then 1. Thus you are going back in time.
Not quite, gamma becomes  imaginary, not negative, and not less than one.
Paul Williams  -  Probably....            *****  ***** ***** ****                
paul.williams@st-catherines.oxford.ac.uk  *    * *     *     *   *
paul.williams@stcatz.ox.ac.uk             *****  ****  ****  ****
willimsp@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk        *    * *     *     *  *
pjw@k2.stcatz.ox.ac.uk                    ****** ***** ***** *   *

In article <589bbg$jp8@tel.ast.lmco.com> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>In article <5870gi$l80@news.ox.ac.uk>,
>Patrick Juola  wrote:
>> virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>[trim]
>>>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?
>
>"Not Science's Problem"? OK, I suppose. Speaking for myself only, and
>used to be called a scientist by engineers around me, plus a little bit
>of educational credentials... A scientist's concern aren't so distinctly
>confined within some ToBeResolvedDomain. I don't much appreciate others
>telling scientists what the domain of Science is.
Well, I'm not an "other"; I'm a card-carrying (actually, it's in the
bottom of my filing cabinet) scientist myself...  It's not a question
of what someone's "concerns" are, it's a question of the tools at hand.
Science proceeds through theorization and falsification -- if you
can't falsify a theory, then it's fundamentally Not Science[tm], even
though it may be a brilliant piece of conceptual work.  
>>>Consider the following three arbitrary 
>>>rank state vectors:

>I understand what your point is about being "actually wrong" because XM
>and XT are not *identically* XA. Hecht, they have different names for
>starters. ;-)
>
>But when we measure something, it is a close measurement of what
>actually is. For instance a man is six feet tall on relatively warm days
>and is shorter as the temperature falls.
This is actually an analogy I can work with.  How do you *know* that
the length of a ruler is constant?  Supposing that I were to say to
you that the "actual length" of everything in the universe were
expanding and contracting on a cyclic (say, a weekly basis) -- we'll
ignore, for the moment, the strong possibility that I were psychotic,
but instead refute the claim on its merits.
You can't.  Because *everything* in the universe, including inter-object
distances, is changing scale, there's nothing that you can compare it
with.
Similarly, if I were to say that the half-life of a free neutron is
12 minutes, the only way you could measure it is by reference to a
known clock.  Simple SR says that you can't trust a clock (or a ruler)
unless you know its reference frame -- why can't the universe run slow
on Thursday and fast on Friday?
My hypothetical "theory" that "length" cycles weekly is unfalsifiable.
There's no experiment you can do to disprove it -- and no observation you
can make that would either confirm or disconfirm it.  This doesn't make
the theory, or the question, go away -- it just means that it's not one
that can be addressed "scientifically."
>The whole notion of science only getting "things as they _appear_ to be"
>rather than what "they _actually_ are" borders on the insane. I mean, do
>philosphers really think that all of Existence is somekind of conspiracy
>(and I don't mean "illusion")? How are the Physics of Nature conspiring
>to mislead us --- so much so that we would utterly miss the Actual? 
How could you demonstrate that it weren't?  That's the whole point.
	Patrick

In article <32A3A319.7DFB@gasbone.herston.uq.edu.au>, 
 writes:
> Path: 
myth.vianet.on.ca!cdc2.cdc.net!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!h
owland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!bunyip.
cc.uq.oz.au!not-for-mail
> From: Warlock 
> Newsgroups: 
sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.part
icle,sci.physics.electromag,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.relativity
> Subject: Re: Time travel? What about Deja Vu's?
> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 14:48:42 +1100
> Organization: Twisty and turny
> Lines: 17
> Message-ID: <32A3A319.7DFB@gasbone.herston.uq.edu.au>
> References: <511vlk$g6p@hil-news-svc-3.compuserve.com> 
<01bbc62c$da817b00$7ec4abcf@default> <559962$b66@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com> 
<327FA357.2302@warwick.net> <1996Nov6.152919.21597@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> 
<566nn1$68a@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3287D614.2D0E@stud.man.ac.uk> 
<3293AE89.38CB@mail.utexas.edu> <3296AB2C.6152@airmail.net> 
 
<329D1563.41D8@zip.com.au> <329DB72E.4695@ozemail.com.au> 
<329E1350.FDD@eduserv2.rug.ac.be> <329F9D63.6568@ozemail.com.au> 

> NNTP-Posting-Host: sulboyle.slip.cc.uq.oz.au
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
> Xref: myth.vianet.on.ca sci.physics:84961 sci.astro:45186 sci.skeptic:94372 
alt.sci.physics.new-theories:19430 sci.physics.particle:8222 
sci.physics.electromag:8477 sci.space.policy:34363 sci.physics.relativity:3597
> 
> 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.
> 
> I recently heard a nice little theory that everyone has a dominant eye.
> Sometimes the image from the dominant eye to the brain arrives a
> critical time period before the image from the recessive eye, thus
> creating the feeling that you have seen this scene before because you
> have.
> 
> I dunno, it works for me...
> 
> -- 
> Sitting here like wet ashes, with X's in my eyes,
> And drawing flies.
> 
Our whole body is a sensing mechanism,sometimes our body senses info prior to 
our brain mind bringing it to a conscious level. When it does arrive we get 
deja vu, a memory of the orignal cognition, I dunno 

In article <5887fq$31p@play.inetarena.com>, nx56@inetarena.com writes:
> In article <584m61$5c7@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>    odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
> 
> [    If kinetic energy causes a linear bend in spacetime, then SR can
> [not be applied to inertial frames, because SR only works in flat
> [spacetime. 
> [Edward Meisner
> 
> Spacetime is non-Euclidean in SR; it is not flat.  It is true that 
> gravitational fields are not handled by SR, but that is a different 
> matter.  
Well, you have to be careful here, since it GR discussions "flat" is
often used to mean (erm, the term escapes me), i.e. free from gravitational
influence, which is *not* Euclidean, as you correctly point out.
So your first sentence (which assumes "flat" == Euclidean) is an non sequitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek         | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist |                for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University  | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)

gfp@sarnoff.com wrote:
> 
> NASA says there is water ice on the Moon???
> 
>  I thought the Moons atmosphere is nearly a hard vacuum, and ice
> sublimes in a hard vacuum.Or is the temperature so low that it is
> below the triple point, on the ICE side?
Precisely.  In a crater on the shaded side of the moon.  At a low enough 
temperature the sublimation rate is low.  I would guess that since the 
kinetic energy of the gases is low the gaseous molecules don't get far 
before falling back down to the surface.
Rather than trusting me and my guesses though, why not check out the 
Science Magazine article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/science/scripts/display/full/274/5292/1495.html
also there is information on clementine at:
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clementine.html
There is also a spoof interview with astronauts  Neil Armstrong and Buzz 
Aldrin about who first noticed ice on the moon.  The URL is 
http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/iceonthemoon/iceonthemoon.html
or you can find a link to it on my humor page (below).
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
|    http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html                |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

In article <1996Dec5.203758.27222@atl.com>,
Darkstar  wrote:
>In article <585l9h$jhm@news1.halcyon.com>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) says:
>>
>>    sfk@zipcon.net (Shea F. Kenny) writes:
>>
>>>       Well, as any number might suppose, I've devoted a bit of time
>>>to considering  lunar exploration, and various means of determining
>>>the useful features of the lunar surface, and subterrain.  NASA's
>>>claim that there's water on the moon in a deep crater, seems on the
>>>face of the claim, simply false.
Just so you know, the project Clementine is mostly military-sponsored.
That's why the Pentagon held the press conference. Saying it is
NASA alone does not help credibility here.
Incidently, the people who analyzed the data were very wary of 
releasing it until they had verified it. That's why you need to go deeper
than simply the "face of the claim".
>>>      This is not a difficult matter to determine.  NASA's method of
>>>survery, is that of radar, which cannot determine anything beyond much
>>>beyond dimension.  
This has already been shown by others to not be true.
>It may be able to tell a few things 
>about the composition due to the intensity of the returned signal but it 
>is still conjecture that ice has been found.  
This is true of course. We won't know it's ice until we get spectropgraphic
readings, or a physical sample. the evidence is excellent that it is ice,
however.
>One question raised that I 
>would like to see answered is:  If it is ice, why has it not sublimated by 
>now, being in a vacum?
The article in Science news has references which talk about how ice
on the Moon "could be stable over geologic time". Why not get all the
facts before you post?
As someone else replied, the article is at:
>>        If you're willing to read the article in Science magazine
>>article at:
>>http://www.sciencemag.org/science/scripts/display/full/274/5292/1495.
>The thing that really bugs me about NASA is that they dribble out bits 
>of information at such times as to maximize funding potential. The do 
>this all the time, a bit here a bit there, like with the mars rocks. 
>They should be more free in diseminating scientific information to the 
>taxpaying public instad of treating that information as though it was a 
>commodity.
They released the data after they had spent enough time analyzing it.
No sooner, and no later. Also note that the principle authors of the paper
are not NASA, but military, since Clementine was a spinoff of SDI.
Also, the Mars rock data was also released once they were confident
of their results. Note that the Global Surveyor and the Pathfinder
were already funded, built and awaiting launch.
-- 
* Phil Plait, Pee Aytch Dee       pcp2g@virginia.edu 
* My home page-- http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~pcp2g/home.html
*      -->  Humor, supernovae, Bad Astronomy, Mad Science
*           and my daughter Zoe.

lajoie@eskimo.com wrote:
: In article <586iq1$ct6$5@news.sas.ab.ca> czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:
: >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.
: A similar "flood" exist in Objibwa legend as the Biblical 
: flood. The Objibwa are hardly agrarians, being rather
: poor corn farmers.
...They were farmers, but not agrarians...ooookay...
: It is also part of the legend that the first Objibwa man
: was offered a 'holy book' from the great spirit. 
Boy, I would *love* to know your sources!  Let me guess -- you "heard that
somewhere".  News for ya, smart guy -- The Objibwa, the Cree, the Souix
(sp?), the Hopi, the (fill in name of tribe) wouldn't have known a book if
one lept up and bit 'em on the ass -- *they had no alphabets*, no written
word, no nuthin'!  I know that some guy (wasn't it Sequoia, or something
like that?) did make a go of a truly indian alphabet, but that was looong
after whitey came around.
(BTW, to all out there with a similar interest, if I *am* remembering my
facts incorrectly, and any of the North American tribes, *did* have a
written language, please direct me to the proper references.  Thanx.)
Now, after some early preachers came around tryin' to convert the
heathens, I *can* see them coming up with a bowlderized version of what
the pale-faces are forcing on them, likely in the hope that they (the
pale-faces) would lighten up and/or go away already!
--
******************************
   Me fail English?
   That's unpossible!
             - Ralph Wiggum
******************************

> Hi Herve
> 
> I think I read something like this in the book of James E. Huheey
> 
> Ciao Chris
Thank you Chris, but You'd better look at it once again to
see that there nothing like it.
Friendly yours
HCl