Newsgroup sci.physics 211795

Directory

Rich Haller  in
 wrote...
> 
> To be more precise, are there any phenomena in the realm of things
that it
> is reasonable to expect QT to explain that it does not?
> 
> I am NOT talking about the problems involved with integrating QT with
GR,
> and other well established theories, though those are things to be
> considered, I am looking for examples on the order of the
photoelectric
> effect, something nice and clean and simple and 'physics'.
> 
> Rich Haller 
> 
It seems there is no a clear and simple physics effect for student's
circle.
However quantum theory is alive. A row of experiments and
self-contradictions are known which move QT forward. Gravity,
relativity and quantum theory evolve jointly
because of their matter are space, time, universe. 
Try to find works of A.D.Linde. He studies "a quantum universe in
huge". Some quantum and cosmological contradictions are mentioned in
his books.
Eugeny Kornienko

x-no-archive: yes
Silke writes -
-No, Raghu, attacks on you are solicited.
-S.
You must be using a definition of "solicited"
that is totally your own. 
To repeat my earlier observation, rapists
are also completely convinced that
the victim solicited the rape by her
dress or her looks or whatever.
RS

Uhm... First of all the clementine is fully military support. The only
reason NASA knows about it is, they were paid to launch it.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>> jti@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?
>
>I think that they can start by adopting the attitude which science 
>adopted long time ago (and which served it very well), i.e. humility.
>What science in effect says is "no, we don't think that we can get all 
>the answers to all to possible questions, right now.  Lets see what we 
>can answer now, to some level of precision, then we'll see what we can 
>do next, and so on."
[snip]
Well, that is certainly what you say you do, and that is perhaps how
you are willing to look at things when some philosopher tricks you
into a contemplation session, but in practice (an area you seem to be
comfortable with), scientific statements are taken as fact, however
tentative, and usenet threads that suggest there might be some
metaphysical underpinings to what science is and isn't able to see --
those suggestions provoke irritated responses.  They wouldn't do this,
if you were really as flexible about your "knowledge" as you'd like me
to believe.  You are deeply bound to the values that inform science.
Occam's razor, for example, [the notion that an explanation should be
as simple as possible] is often presumed to have some sort of logical
power, whereas, in fact, it is quite obviously merely a heuristic that
may or may not have anything to do with an incremental approach to
understanding nature more profoundly.  In addition, it is unwieldy, as
the "simplicity" of some new piece of theory quite depends on one's
metaphysics.  So it amounts to the justification of one's limitations
as argued from those very limitations.
Reductionism is another heuristic "tool" that may or may not be
necessary, and yet which is frequently promoted as some prerequisite
for "level headed" thinking.
>Virdy:
>>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? Sure, they may be incorrect about 
>>unavailable data==facts but that's a minor point since Science is 
>>self-correcting.
It's only self-correcting to the extent that the things it allows
itself to become involved with (i.e. the "observables"), and the
notions it develops from them, will generate new observables and new
notions which may have bearing on the old.  But there is no reason to
think that this process must necessarily enable investigations to
eventually be mounted in areas that are not readily "observable".
>Yep, you see, that's exactly the scientific mindset.  Closer is 
>better.  Now try to explain it to the crybabies who whine "but I want 
>it all and I want it now."
Now who's arguing with an imaginary opponent?
The point I've been interested in conveying here is that "objective"
scientific observation is informed by a metaphysical substrate
(evolving in some ways, and not in others) which propagates certain
values into science.  I attempted to show that "objectivity" is a
naive term for scientific reasoning, and perhaps you have made my case
better than I did.
Nevertheless, this scientific metaphysics does not have enough
strength to set itself up as the judge of other metaphysical worlds
(or even of itself), which is, I think, what Silke was getting at when
she suggested that science was incapable of producing value.
-- 
"The more you're afraid of them, the more they'll try to get you."

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>jti@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>: I really wanted to answer the above, but didn't find anything wpecific 
>>: enough to be answerable.  So, I'll ask a question instead.  What do 
>>: you mean by "the refusal to make certain kinds of observations"?  Who 
>>: is refusing to do what observations?
>>
>>Does "love conquer all"?
>
>I asked "who is refusing to do what observations"?  The above doesn't 
>seem to be an answer.
I proposed a question to be approached through experiment and
observation.  The question is "does love conquer all?"  Furthermore, I
propose (hypothetically), that you be the one to gather some evidence
for us, along perhaps with many other researchers, and to formulate
whatever hypotheses and theories you can.
Do you refuse?
-- 
"The more you're afraid of them, the more they'll try to get you."

Herve Le Cornec wrote:
> 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.
Herve,
Nice graphs.  However, the data are _not_ incompatible with quantum 
mechanics for at least three reasons.
First and foremost, ionization potentials are not equivalent to orbital 
energies.  The second ionization energy, for example, is the energy 
required to remove a second electron from a singly charged cation. (It 
is not the energy required to remove the second "easiest" electron from 
the neutral atom).  
Second, the "Aufbau" principle is a generalization used to predict the 
*valence* electron configuration of a *neutral* atom.  The 4s orbital is 
usually filled in 4th row atoms because it's lower in energy than the 
3d;  i.e., the intrashell splitting is greater than the intershell 
splitting.  However, as electrons are removed from the atom, the 
intrashell splittings become smaller.  (Recall that for hydrogen and 
other 1-electron atoms, the orbitals of same principal quantum number 
are degenerate, e.g. 3s, 3p and 3d are all degenerate.)  Thus for the +2 
transition metal ions, the 3d orbital is always lower in energy than the 
4s. 
(Actually, M.W. Hanna in _Quantum Mechanics in Chemistry_ points out 
that even the above is not quite true:  "A treatment of orbital energies 
...shows that e(4s) is always greater than e(3d).  This fact is not 
inconsistent...because the energy of the atomic state depends on a 
number of coulomb and exchange integrals in addition to the orbital 
energy."  Furthermore, the simple orbital picture is merely an 
approximate solution to the many-electron atom problem and "in fact, 
they do not represent the quantum states of individual electrons.")
Third, x-ray emission spectra (inner-shell electron transitions) show 
large energy gaps between principal quantum levels (3d < 4s and 4d < 5s) 
for Z between 45 and 90.  In other words, the ordering 3s < 3p < 3d < 4s 
< 4p < 4d < 5s etc applies for inner-shell (non-valence) electrons.  
I would recommend Karplus & Porter "Atoms and Molecules", or F.L. Pilar, 
J. Chem. Ed. 55, 2 (1978) for a more competent discussion than I can 
give.  If you are mathematically inclined, Hanna's book is quite good.
Becky

In article: <5877us$cdh@news-c1.gnn.com>  glird@gnn.com () writes:
> 
> In article <581p6h$mql@herald.concentric.net> rsansbury wrote:
> >The exact reasoning, eg the GR correction, the time it takes to 
> >communicate between ground and vehicle and the SR correction 
> >leading in the case of the MIR experiment to 26 microseconds, has 
> >perhaps been described by Baird,Stein, or others who take many pot 
> >shots here but I have not seen the complete argument which I 
> >suspect, were it openly layed out would be seen to be flawed.
>   Once clocks of a moving system have been E-sinchronized by use of 
> light signals, such signals play no further role in "time dilation" 
> of one system as plotted by another. Observers of BOTH systems are 
> taken to be present at every point and each such local observer 
> plots his own systems 4 coordinates per event at his point. So the 
> "26 microseconds" it takes for a signal from Mir to reach the 
> ground has no role in the argument.
I think Ralph is quoting Keith Stein's figure of "26us per day" for the 
anticipated time dilation on Mir. The signal transit time would be much 
larger but your technique is correct.
>   What is suggested is that the "time" of a Mir clock be set 
> identical to that of a ground clock, on say January 1. (THIS would 
> need a 26 microsecond correction, when the two systems thus 
> synchronize the two given clocks.) Six months (or maybe six years) 
> later let the "time" of the two differently moving clocks again be 
> compared. IF clocks run slow as a function of their relative 
> motion, the Mir clock will lag behind that of the earth clock by a 
> predictable amount, independently of the changed rate due to the 
> difference in gravity per clock. In principle, that seems simple 
> enough.
>   {Can't do the math on a hand calculator because the fractions are 
> too small and get lost. Anyone want to do it for us?}
If this test were done, there would be 26*365*6 = 57ms clock discrepancy 
after 6 years.
The same argument can be applied to GPS which is far from theoretical! 
The satelites have been in orbit for over 11 years and they were built 
to run slow by IIRC 44.3us per day:
44.3*365*11 = 178ms
Signal travel time is around 70ms when overhead. GPS units are available 
which will give a time reference accurate to around 100ns compared to 
a surface clock.
HTH
-- 
George Dishman
Give me a small laser and I'll move the sun.

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Rich Haller wrote:
> While scientists as emminent as Einstein have been uncomfortable with
> Quantum Theory "God does not play dice...", my impression is that there
> are no known phenomena that it does not explain. Is this correct?
>=20
I'm very glad you asked.
Schrodinger: "If you ask a physicist what is his idea of yellow light, he
will tell you that it is transversal electromagnetic waves of wavelength
in the neighborhood of 590 millimicrons. If you ask him: But where does
yellow come in? he will say: In my picture not at all, but these kinds of
vibrations, when they hit the retina of a healthy eye, give the person
whose eye it is the sensation of yellow."
As with yellow, so too with all colors. Further, Schrodinger's remarks
also apply to the other (so-called) secondary qualities of observation,
viz., sound, heat and cold, tactile sensations, etc. Contemporary physics,
including QM, inherited this problem from the founders of classical
physics. As Galileo put it: "Hence I think that these tastes, odours,
colours, etc., on the side of the object in which they seem to exist, are
nothing else than mere names, but hold their residence solely in the
sensitive body ..."=20
Well, this exclusion of color and so forth from physics was agreed upon by
Newton and Boyle, as well as by Locke and Hobbes. This division of primary
and secondary is (as Hume pointed out) at the very crux of the mind/body
duality which persists to this day in both science and in the popular
imagination. This famous duality bears the name of Des Cartes--for it was
he who systematized the whole mess:=20
"No mathematical object is a more cogent item of knowledge than the=20
=D2cogito ergo sum=D3 . . . Whatever may be the final truth about the realm=
=20
of geometrical bodies, still we know that we doubt, we conceive, we=20
affirm, we will, we imagine, we feel. Hence when Descartes directed his=20
energies toward the construction of a complete metaphysic, this clean-cut=
=20
dualism was inescapable. On the one hand there is the world of bodies,=20
whose essence is extension; each body is a part of space, a limited=20
spatial magnitude,1 different from other bodies only by different modes=20
of extension=D1a geometrical world=D1knowable only and knowable fully in=20
terms of pure mathematics . . . the whole spatial world becomes a vast=20
machine, including even the movements of animal bodies and those=20
processes in human physiology which are independent of conscious=20
attention. This world has no dependence on thought whatever, its whole=20
machinery would continue to exist and operate if there were no human=20
beings in existence at all. On the other hand, there is the inner realm=20
whose essence is thinking, whose modes are such subsidiary processes as=20
perception, willing, feeling, imagining, etc., . . .
In which realm, then, shall we place the secondary qualities? The answer=20
given is inevitable. We can conceive the primary qualities to exist in=20
bodies as they really are; not so the secondary. "In truth they can be=20
representative of nothing that exists out of the mind." They are, to be=20
sure, caused by the various effects on our organs of the motions of the=20
small insensible parts of the bodies." (EA Burtt? Can't find my notes ...)
This feature of Cartesian dualism has been admirably elucidated by Pierre=
=20
Duhem:
  "The nature of body consists only in the fact that it is a substance=20
having extension in length, width and depth." The essence of matter thus=20
being known, we shall be able through the procedures of geometry, to=20
deduce from it the explanation of all natural phenomena. Summarizing the=20
method by which he claimed he dealt with the science of physics,=20
Descartes said: "I accept no principles of physics which are not also=20
accepted in mathematics, for the sake of being able to prove by=20
demonstration everything that I shall deduce from them, and these=20
principles are sufficient, so long as all the phenomena of nature may be=20
explained by means of them."=20
Such is the audacious formula of Cartesian cosmology: man knows the very=20
essence of matter, namely, extension; he may then logically deduce all=20
the properties of matter from it. . . . The mind does not start from the=20
knowledge of phenomena to rise to the knowledge of matter; what it can=20
know from the start is the very nature of matter, and thence the=20
explanation of phenomena."
We find the primary/secondary & mind/matter dualisms alive and well in=20
modern physics, e.g., in von Neumann's *Mathematical Foundations of QM*:
". . . it is inherently entirely correct that *the measurement or the
related process of the subjective perception is a new entity relative to
the physical environment and is not reducible to the latter.* (My
emphasis) Indeed, subjective perception leads us into the intellectual
inner life of the individual, which is extra-observational by its very
nature (since it is taken for granted by any conceivable observation or
experiment) . . .  Nevertheless, it is a fundamental requirement of the
scientific viewpoint=D1the so-called principle of the psycho-physical
parallelism=D1that it must be possible so to describe the extra-physical
process of the subjective perception as if it were in reality in the
physical world=D1i.e., to assign to its parts equivalent physical processes
in the objective environment, in ordinary space. (Of course, in this
correlating procedure there arises the frequent necessity of localizing
some of these processes at points which lie within the portion of space
occupied by our own bodies. But this does not alter the fact of their
belonging to the "world about us," the objective environment referred to
above.) In a simple example, these concepts might be applied as follows:
We wish to measure a temperature. If we want, we can pursue this process
numerically until we have the temperature of the environment of the
thermometer, and then say: this temperature is measured by the
thermometer. But we can carry this calculation further, and from the
properties of the mercury, which can be explained in kinetic and molecular
terms, we can calculate its heating, expansion, and the resultant length
of the mercury column, and then say: this length is seen by the observer.
Going still further, and taking the light source into consideration, we
could find out the reflection of the light quanta on the opaque mercury
column, and the path of the remaining light quanta into the eye of the
observer, . . . and then in the end say: these chemical changes of his
brain cells are perceived by the observer. But in any case, no matter how
far we calculate=D1to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer,
to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is
perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into
two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer."
Well, v. Neumann had a lamentable tendency to state matters in a dogmatic=
=20
way, but he did at least try to address these issues, which have largely=20
been swept under the rug of scientific tradition--despite the fact that=20
color phenomena have received serious attention from the likes of Newton,=
=20
Maxwell, Mach, Helmholtz, Young, Schrodinger and Einstein.=20
Does God play dice? I don't think so. It seems to me that QM is obviously
*incomplete* in its failure to account for secondary qualities--
properties which reliably covary with the EM fields with which they are=20
continually associated.

The correct relation is E = hf, where E is energy, h is Planck's constant 
and f is the frequency. You can find a very nice treatment of this 
business in Gamow's *30 Years that Shook Physics*. For a more advanced 
account, you might have a look at Abraham Pais' wonderful books: *Inward 
Bound* and *Subtle is the Lord*. Hope this is helpful.
Regards,
Brian
On 6 Dec 1996, Sriram Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> I have a layman's interest in physics, and I was hoping someone would answer
> this for me. 
> 
> A friend told me that De broglie's equation, "wavelength = h * freq" was 
> just a very simple derivation, or rearrangement of some other earlier 
> equation (possibly from Einstein), but that this simple rearrangement
> put a new spin on the way people looked at this problem.
> 
> Can anyone confirm this, or  emphatically deny this? There's a wager 
> resting on it. 
> 
> Thanks a lot. 
> 
> Sriram
> (sriram@tcs.com)
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 

W R Shefte  wrote:
>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.
>> 
>1. For a wave guide application?...why plastic matrix, need a particular
>Mod of E?
>2. CVD process may be a possibility depending on the actual physical
>requirement of finished part have coated loong graphite fibers for matix
>before...might want to talk to BIRL @ Northwastern in evanston
   1) Buyer specs are not for us to question, merely supply.
   2) CVD won't produce 9500 in^3 of >anything< each week.
If it were easy anybody could do it.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

jaspevacek@mmm.com (John Spevacek) wrote:
>Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
>>
>>"Paul G. White"  wrote:
>>>Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
>>>>The following has arisen in the day-to-day insanity of industrial 
>>>>brouhaha:
>>
>>Guess whose Uncle wants the product.
>>
>No fair!!! First you say it's an industrial headache, then you say it's 
>for Uncle Hillary! 
You got maybe a worse industrial headache?
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> In article  pfraser@dnai.com (Pete Fraser) writes:
>  >
>  > First, apologies if this is inappropriate in this newsgroup.
>  >
>  > I have just read a book called "Before It's Too Late -
>  > A Scientist's Case FOR Nuclear Energy" by Bernard L
>  > Cohen ISBN 0-306-41425-2. This book makes a fairly
>  > strong and seemingly well reasoned case that the dangers
>  > of nuclear energy are grossly exaggerated.
>  >
>  > I am looking for a book or article which is a well reasoned
>  > rebuttal to Cohen's book. Can anybody steer me in the right
>  > direction.
> 
> If I remember correctly, Cohen's book is 1984.  The main anti-nuclear
> books, e.g. Gofman's _Poisoned Power_, are even earlier.  Neither side
> has significantly new arguments.
> 
> Of course, Cohen is right and Gofman is wrong.
> 
Cohen is a physicist or health physicist, Gofman a physician.  Each has spent
a career in the nuclear arena.  Gofman has specialized in the long term health
effects of nuclear radiation.  He was fired from the Livermore Labs, where he
was head of health programs in the 1960s, for exposing health effects from inhaled
or injested radionuclides from bomb testing, not just the external gamma exposure
which was the criterion for health effects at the time.  In my opinion the nuclear
establishment has consistently and deliberately underrepresented the long term
health effects of radionuclide contamination of the environment.  I would put my
money of Gofman.
				Dennis Nelson

frank@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning) says:
>daveg@halcyon.com (David B. Greene) writes:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Sure they did ;-)   I'll believe that when I know what my 
>> tax dollar is buying at Area 51.
>
>Oh, I see. In the space of a few weeks, a giant government bureaucracy
>funded and built not one but TWO Mars missions from scratch right after
>the Mars rock data were released.
No, you'd have to go back and add the previous paragraphs (which you snipped) 
as well.  I know that a tough strtch for you so let me help:
[unsnip]
>>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.
[end unsip]
I still don't think NASA discloses information as completely or as timely 
as possible.  Nobbody claimed Mars rock data was directly related to the 
Mars mission but rather it is part of the way NASA seems to work in general. 
As for you, try addressing the issue at hand instead of merely falling off 
the net, you might hurt yourself.
>-- Frank Manning
>-- Chair, AIAA-Tucson Section
rookies ... sheesh
Dave Greene

Jan Pavek  wrote:
>> Hi  Jan
>> 
>> Kinetic energy is defined as the energy that a body posses due to its
>> relative motion so you are correct when you say that energy is there
>> where space is moving and is caused by time consumption. However the
>> properties of energy in regards to dimensional space  are related to
>> its position or what is called potential energy.  For example the
>> energy a mass posses due to its distance from a gravitational source
>> or the height above the surface . The energydepth that Shadows
>> ( http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/shad.htm ) refers to connects the
>> dimensional properties of kinetic energy of motion to that of
>> potential energy.
>> 
>> I hope that this helps to connect the concept of the energy depth to
>> your picture of the Universe.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>Yes that's right, but also the potential energy is caused by moving
>space. Normally two masses are moving to each other. You can only
>meassure their energy when moving, isn't that true?
> Jan
Hi Jan
I would like to learn a bit more about your concept of moving space.
Up until now I had  never given it that much thought. I had always
considered object as moving not space.  In regards to your post,
potential energy is defined as the energy that two mass have relative
to each  other because of their positions.  An example would be the
energy that water in a dam posses because of its height. If you allow
the water to flow out of the dam over a water wheel the energy is
released to the wheel because of the kinetic energy of motion of the
water over it. The water at the top of the dam has the potential to
release energy if it is allowed to move to the lower height of the
water wheel. You can MEASURE the energy of the water as it is moving
the water wheel This is called kinetic energy.  However you can
CALCULATE the energy that the water has due to the height by using the
laws of physics before it is allowed to move.  This would be called
potential energy.
Jeff 
IMAGINATION ILLUMINATES REALITY    Links to the Future
         http://www2.pcix.com/~jeffocal/shadlink.htm
           The Virtual Reader for the vision impaired
            http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/frank.htm

> Sure they did ;-)   I'll believe that when I know what my 
> tax dollar is buying at Area 51
Toilet seats. didn't you know that? 0]

I would like to know where (preferably on-line) I can find, in writing,
the SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) standard requiring
four-year faculty to have a PhD. 
--
				-- Joe Heafner
	*************************************************************
	*      Joe Heafner, Astronomy and Physics Instructor        *
	*       Work:(704)327-7000, x.246 Home:(704)464-1055        *
	*              heafnerj@mercury.interpath.com               *
        *         http://mercury.interpath.net/~heafnerj/           *
        *************************************************************

In article <32a89d2a.609028556@news.dtc.net>,
   wizard@mrinc.com (John Matzen) wrote:
>
>On 5 Dec 1996 09:52:14 -0500, cjc@interport.net (Cheng-Jih Chen)
>wrote:
>
>>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,
>>>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>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
>
>I was told this same thing in [college calc] Physics II.  I didn't
>volunteer to try it in an experiment, though.
>
 O.K. lets all keep up. 1) the original poster (jboutwel in this case I 
think [too many >'s]) staded the rubber tires idea was a MISconception. 2) 
If the thread had not been clipped you would know that the faraday cage 
explanation was given.
Be careful jumping in to the middle of a thread. Try not to forget the old 
secret and a circle game from elementary school.
DAC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Carrell                         All comments above are mine, and
Process Control Engineer              do not necessarily reflect the
Conoco, Inc.                          opinions of Dupont and/or Conoco,
*carrelda*@pore.dnet.dupont.com*      [and why should they]
(return address altered to reduce
adds, remove *'s for real address)

patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>jti@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.
Strictly speaking, this is false.  Science has a record of dealing
with one kind of appearance, and has gooten good at convincing us that
the appearance it is good at dealing with is the only kind we can see.
Another way of saying this is that the metaphysics which underlies the
conduct of science, and the objects with which it therefore deals, has
become very popular because many folks believe that science is good at
dealing with that particular world.
I have picked at this in several ways.  The discussion of Malthus was
meant to suggest that perhaps science is not even very competent at
manipulating the particular, limited, world of appearances with which
it deals.  This was an attempt to bring out the optimism inherent in
the scientific method -- that tools get better and better just as
knowledge does.  This would be undermined if it turned out that the
conditino of life generated essentially insoluable problems.
My critique of "observables" versus "intelligibles", which Mati Meron
stumbled into, was intended to suggest that the world of "appearances"
you keep referring to is somewhat generated by the very set of
poosible tools that science can bring to bear.  Other domains, which
may be more or less "useless", since they may not be easily managable
under the demands of consistency, coherence, controllability,
repeatability, etc -- those domains have a curious way of being
"non-existent".
-- 
"The more you're afraid of them, the more they'll try to get you."

    We know that the velocity of charged particles creates a magnetic
field. My hypothesis is that the velocity of mass, kinetic energy,
creates a kinetic field. The magnetic field acts self-referentially on
the charge that is createing the magnetic field. For example, in a
tokamak, the current in the plasma creates a magnetic field that
confines the charges that are producing the magnetic field. In the same
way, the kinetic energy field acts self-referentially on the mass that
is producing the kinetic field to cause inertia.
Edward Meisner

In  columbus@pleides.osf.org (Michael Weiss) writes:
>Mathematicians, on the other hand, *have* screwed up because of lack
>of rigor.  A famous example was Cauchy, who "proved" that the sum of a
>convergent series of continuous functions was always continuous.
>The Cauchy mistake is rather amusing, because (1) Cauchy is sometimes
>(falsely) credited with having put calculus on a firm foundation,
>banishing the infinitesimals; (2) Cauchy's "proof" used
>infinitesimals; (3) mathematicians first realized Cauchy's proof was
>all wet because of examples with Fourier series, about as
>down-to-earth a piece of mathematics as you can ask for.
Actually, the story of this theorem is a little bit more confusing. At the
time when Cauchy published his "result", Fourier series were known for at
least ten years. Some years later, Abel wrote in a footnote in a paper on
Fourier series something like "This seems to be a counterexample to a
theorem of Cauchy." But Cauchy rejected this critic, he calculated, using
infinitesimals, that Abel's series was divergent at x=1/n if n is an
infinite natural number. Cauchy wasn't an idiot, but he used a mysterious
concept of real numbers.
Hauke Klein.

Hi, all, hi Jim.
> [...]
> 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.
> [...]
The more you hold on the G sound the lower the detected signal becomes.
The
fact is that the spectrum is changing continuously, because you are
changing
the time-dependent signal f(t) and you need to perform another Fourier
Transform
for every instant.
What I think you do is to perform the Fourier Transform at the beginning
of
the play and you expect that to be constant and forever. Obviously this
cannot
be true, and you have to compute a new Fourier Transform as soon as the
f(t)
function varies.
> [...]
> paradox.  But that's not how I remember learning Fourier analysis...
> [...]
Well, as well as the spectrum, we are always learning... ;-)
Regards,
Antonio Vieiro
Applied Electromagnetics Group
Applied Physics Dept.
University of Santiago de Compostela
15706.- Spain
antonio@faraday.usc.es

Jim J Moskowitz  in
<588b8r$c1d@netnews.upenn.edu> wrote
> Perhaps I'm just mistaken in my belief that the
frequency-decomposition of
> the sound wave is fixed over time.  
Right. Time interval is absolutely needed for making a Fourie
transform.
Imagine that the interval is 1/1000sec while you play A1 note having a
period
1/440sec. The sound within 1/1000sec isn't harmonic. 
Real harmonic sound is an infinite sine wave.
A Fourie row gives us a simulation of some wave with 1000Hz main tone. 
A Fourie integral gives us a frequency distribution of some sound which
consists of infinite silence, then a 1/1000sec bit of note A1, then
another infinite silence. This sound isn't look like A1 note.
No "Fourie detector"  is possible which can do Fourie transform before
needed time interval is finished.
Eugeny Kornienko.

I belive there are some not huge genetic types of persons which are
able for
healthy life. (Note that about 10% of people are hardly ill.)
Put the case that such healthy genetic types are about 1000.000.  
Hence there are about 5000 double persons of each type on the face of
the Earth. 
I had met persons look like my friends many times. 
Eugeny Kornienko

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>jti@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:
> jti:
>>I guess one problem is that you don't understand what is meant by the
>>verb "to value", in this context.  It means more than merely to attach
>>personal emotional identification with.  This is where the trick for
>>"science" lies.  By emotionally distancing oneself from something, one
>>does not illustrate a lack of valuing of that thing.  Thus, even the
>>results of supposdely dispassionate investigation can still be said to
>>be valued.  Valuing merely implies that one places something into a
>>metaphysical continuum.
>
>In your definition, perhaps.
I was explaining to you the meaning being used in the title of this
thread.  It was used in a sentence by a philosopher.  If you are going
to claim that philosophers should learn some science before they try
talking to you about it, maybe you should return the favor?
The point, which has gotten lost, was that science does not *create*
value.  A subtle clarification is possible if one realizes that this
does not mean that science does *have* values.  It imports them, and
exports them, but is in no position to study them.  At least not as
currently constituted.
>jti:
>>My point, maybe just a suggestion, is that claiming that the universe
>>is consistent (etc) amounts to an argument about Nature, what it is.
>
>No, not an argument, just an accumulated experience.  Yes, I know that 
>according to you experience is just a superstition.  
What fukkin planet are you on, Mati?  Can you really read these
messages I've been composing so carefully and continue with your
bland, idotic, one-liner retorts?  Don't you ever get curious about
what I might be saying?  I haven't said that accumulated experience
was a superstition, but just that attributing value to it was not a
*logical* thing to do.  To understand the difference, you'll have to
think.  Perhaps you'll even need to read something.
>But I much prefer 
>to rely on experience than on meaningless verbiage, no matter how 
>profound it is made to sound.
How nice for you.  You can start by thinking about what you say.
>>I do not have to disagree with this to point out that it is an
>>unsupported assumption,
>
>"Unsupported by philosphers" you mean?  And who cares about a support 
>by philosophers.
There was a time when physicists called themselves "natural
philosophers".  I guess that was back when they still thought about
what they were doing.
>> opposed to the possiblity that one selects a
>>mode of interpretation of things which is consistent with his
>>expectations of consistency.  Kinds of facts that would undermine this
>>mode of experience are "unscientific".
>
>Lets hear some facts undermining the relativity, or Maxwell's 
>equations for this matter.  You keep mumbling about science ignoring 
>facts but I'm yet to hear what facts are being ignored.
I am presuming you have some imagination.  My mistake.
>>It seems to me that the kind of assumption you subscribe to (which I
>>haven't exactly denied, in my own case, by the way) must require you
>>to treat quantum mechanical issues as being mere interpretations of a
>>mathematical model, rather than as descriptions of nature.  (I'd
>>actually be gratified to learn that this is what physicists do, but I
>>know there are those who insist that QM is a description of Nature.
>
>It is a description of Nature in the sense of being consistent with 
>our observations of Nature, so far.  If you ask me "is this the way 
>Nature actually works or is it just a mathematical model of a specifis 
>layer of nature we perceive?" my answer will be "I don't know".  Which 
>is the one thing the whole "philosophy" crowd seems unable to learn, 
>the readiness to admit to "I don't know".
I don't know about the others, but what I have been busy with is
noticing that saying "observations of Nature" contradicts your claim
not have an opinion about whether your observations pertain to Nature
or not.
I'm getting bored with this particular circular treadmill.  Let me try
to make a subtle point yet again, and see if I can communicate.  The
interest in suggesting that Nature may be removed from your
observations of it is *not* directed towards the Cartesian/Hume-ian
thing about "how do we know what, if anything, is really out there?"
That is not what I'm getting at.  You have been trouble with this
since you seem to think this is the only thing philosophers could
possibly wonder about "reality".
Another, more sophisticated, question is about how one's metaphysics
influences his physics.  Further afield, one might even wonder why one
has chosen a particular metaphysics.  I wasn't going that far.  At
least, not only to there.  I was just curious about how the definition
of what the "observables" *are* seems to make a big difference.  I
presume this follows from one's metaphysical tastes and/or needs.
I can observe lots of things that science can't or won't treat.  Do
such things exist?  Are they even "observable"?  You asked for an
example already, in another post, and stumbled over my response.  I've
straightened that out now, I think, and we can deal with it there.
>>And even if one says "interpretation" one still presupposes that there
>>is something being interpreted.)  
>
>Yes.  So, what's the problem?  Is it that "we can't actually prove 
>that there is something out there".  
No.  The point was that even by "interpreting" one presupposes some
things about what it is that is being interpreted.  Even before
"interpretation commences, he has already formulated some ideas about
what is possible.  One has a notion of "physicality", for example.
>>What are facts?
>>
>Why won't you answer it.
Very well.  Facts are things which are "observable".  It's a paradox,
see, because only some kinds of observations are "observable".
>>As Moggin once tried to point out, "mass" is not the same thing now as
>>it was 300 years ago.  The moon is not the same thing, either, for
>>example.
>>
>Really?  Why?  They are the same thing, only our knowledge of them 
>changed.  
These changes in knowledge are changes in metaphysics, too.
The moon is no longer the same thing.  Not at all.
-- 
"The more you're afraid of them, the more they'll try to get you."

Remember the experiment in which NASA tried twice and failed both times
to unwind a long cable in order to generate electricity.  I believe the
principal was that the motion of the cable through the earth's magnetic
field would cause electricity to be generated. 
	Does anybody know the ultimate purpose of this experiment?  Was it to
do the reverse of the experiment - to force electricity into the cable
in order to generate motion?  Generating electricity with the cable
would cause the orbit to decay more rapidly.  However, electricity
easily generated by solar panels could be forced into the cable in order
to prevent the decay of the orbit.  This is just a guess.  Does anyone
know if this is in fact what they were trying to do?
jreimer

Archive-name: physics-faq/where-to-find-it
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-modified: 11 October 1996
                 Where to find the Physics FAQ
                 =============================
The Physics FAQ provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions
appearing in the sci.physics.* newsgroups, especially:
   sci.physics
   sci.physics.particles
   sci.physics.research (moderated)
   alt.sci.physics.new-theories
If you are new to these newsgroups you should take a look at the
Physics FAQ before posting questions. It is now available on the 
World Wide Web *only* and is located at these sites:
North America: 
   http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/faq.html
   http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/faq.html
   http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/physicsfaq/faq.html
Australia:  
   http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/physoc/physics_faq/faq.html
There are a number of other more specialised FAQs for
these and other physics newsgroups. Many of them are
mentioned in the Physics FAQ article: "An Introduction 
to the Physics Newsgroups", which can be found here:
North America: 
   http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/newsgroups.html
   http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/newsgroups.html
   http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/physicsfaq/newsgroups.html
Australia:  
   http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/physoc/physics_faq/newsgroups.html

    Is gravitomagnetism responsible for inertia? The idea sounds
plausible. However, I am having difficulty formulating this
mathematically. The gravitational field would be given by Gm/r as an
analog to the electric field, kq/r. But what would the gravitomagnetic
field look like as compared to the magnetic field? Could someone tell
me?
Edward Meisner

In article <32a7b796.56554c43414e@vulcan.xs4all.nl>
           johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl "Johan Wevers" writes:
>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?
I'm a bit worried here - some theories simply don't look/address these!
The smallest thing I have 'seen' is about 10e-26 metres. Thats
sort of in the region of an atom's atom's atom - or a quark's quark.
Its not going to be seen in colliders because the energy involved is
millions of times larger.
I'm talking about those rare cosmic rays with 10e20 eV energy (enough
to kick a cricket ball one meter in the air).
If you go by 1eV = 1 micron, then 10e20 eV is about 10e-26 metres.
Since atoms are about 10e-10 metres, we can begin to see the awsome
difference in scales..
Although nobody knows were cosmic rays come from, it has a spectrum
and that spectrum could be that of particles that are 10e-26 in size
or smaller! Just like hydrogen, the spectrum gives away details of
internal structure.
.--------------------.                        .--------------------------.
|  Joe Michael        \______________________/  Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk  |
:                                            \__________________________/:
|  Futuristic  .  Shocking  .  Mind Blowing  .  Shape Changing Robots    |
:-------.                                                                :
|        \         http://www.stellar.demon.co.uk/                       |
`---------+--------------------------------------------------------------'

ZBA2410  wrote in article
...
> > 
> > The one other problem - how do you obtain enough energy to reach c let
> > alone exceed it?
> > 
> Who still thinks that nothing can travel faster than c???  C is just a 
> relative velocity, that's all.  There are probably particles out there 
> travelling THROUGH  our known matter at velicities 1000000x that of c!
> (And we would never know because there is no way to prove it...)
> It is possible to exceed c, but it would be easier by reducing the total 
> mass of the object in question - this would require less energy.  
If you knew anything about relativity you would not that it is based on the
fact that c is NOT a relative velocity.  c is the same when viewed from any
frame of reference.  As you approach c mass increases until it reaches
infity at c.  Since you would need an infinite amount of energy to
accelerate an infinite mass and there is a not an infinite amount of energy
in this universe than you cannot travel faster than c.  
> However, you face the problem of gravity wells and cosmic debri that 
> would - even sitting still - would render your FTL object destroyed.
> There would have to be a way of avoiding hazards such as these, while 
> maintaining a course straight as possible...
> 
I think you've been watching Star Wars a bit too much.  Han Solo gives Luke
this same speech on board the Millenium Falcon while the computer is
plotting his course around all these hazards.  

They will be missed.  When is the wake?
I have long had the feeling that your various classical theorems of
differential geometry,  all having the basic form of the fundamental
theorem of calculus  "Stuff evaluated over interior of region equals
other stuff evaluated over the boundary"  must be special cases of some
general Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,  which could probably be
written in some suitably terse form,  like   "Q = T".
Unfortunately my mathematical education stopped before I found out
what this meta-theorem would be.

In article <32A84B64.4E15@wam.umd.edu>, Wayne Shanks  wrote:
> Yebo Chen wrote:
> > 
> > Rich Haller  writes:
> > 
> > > Are there any such phenomena, however
> > >'trivial' that QT cannot explain?
> > 
> > I'm sure there is, or else theoretical physicists would be out of a job.
> > But seriously, I do believe that gravitation has not be fully unified with
> > quantum mechanics.
> 
> 
> I think Mr Haller is asking for a prediction that quantum makes that has
> been experimantally found to be false.  Current quantum theory is
> incomplete , but what it can predict it seens to hit the nail on the
> head.  I do not know of any experiments where quantum has explicityy
> failed.  Posibly the solar nutrino deficit, but there are many problems
> with the experiments to cloud the results, and a new theory of nutrino
> oscilations may explain the disagreement.  I can think of no uniquely
> "quantum" expermiment that has failed.
Thank you Wayne, that is basically what I had in mind though my emphasis
is on observed phenomena which it does not predict correctly, rather than
predictions that it makes that turn out to incorrect. That seems to me to
be roughly the same thing from two different POVs.
If I may return to the examples I gave, that of ultraviolet catastrophy
and the photoelectric effect (one might also add, I guess, the prediction
of classical theory that electrons bound to atoms should radiate and
spiral into the nucleus), it seems to me that there were indications that
despite the claims of emminent physicists that it was all over except the
calculation of constants to more decimal points that there were things
amiss. There does _not_ appear to be a similar situation in regard to QT
at present. It doesn't explain _everything_, but what we have a 'right' to
expect it to predict, it does, and with great precision. This includes
Bells theorem and the confirmatory experiments like Aspect.
Yes, it hasn't been integrated with GR, and this is not something to be
taken lightly, BUT, what we seem to have to accept is that WHATVER WE COME
UP WITH WILL HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MATH OF QT.
As I understand it, GR has its Newtonian equivalent as a 'special case'.
Likewise, it seems inescapable to me that there is something in QT that at
the very least will have to be a special case of whatever supplants it.
I just wanted to make sure that nothing has surfaced recently to bring
this into question and it would appear that nothing has...
Rich Haller 

Noel Smith  writes:
>Jeff Inman wrote:
>> 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!  It just hasn't been as much fun around here without you.
Patrick Juola, for example, proclaims the value of saying "I don't
know".  Not much to argue with, see?  And Mati is only interested in
practical things, so it's hard to trick him into seeing that he takes
a stand.  But you!  Your every statement has a secret craving to be
pushed into declaiming about life, liberty, etc.  And deregulation, I
suppose, though I haven't given you much opportunity to talk about
that.  The divine justice of REASON, great saviour of mankind.
So, naturally, here we are, in a thread about science, which has
become partly a thread about reason.  But, your question about whether
something is "real" is several steps behind the train.  We're
wondering about whether there is some scientific way to define
"reality", which honestly resists any claim to being final, or, more
importantly, without making any claims as to what Reality must be.  Is
it really possible to be entirely tentative?  Or doesn't even
tentativity make the claim that it is "the most effective and
therefore powerful tool with which to apporach knowledge" ?  (And also
implies therefore that it approaches Nature).  Thus even tentativity
is a kind of assertion.
Like I said, I don't necessarily object to those values.  But it seems
to me that there are metaphyscial premises underlying such a view of
things.  And so physics imports certain kinds of valuation from its
own metaphysics.
Is a poem (or whatever aethetic sense it evokes) real?
-- 
"The more you're afraid of them, the more they'll try to get you."

patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) 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 [...]
: Sure, it's an unsupported assumption.  I've been saying that for some
: time.  But it's not an *unwarranted* unsupported assumption.
You have misunderstood me if you think I'm trying to say science is a
crock.  What I've been getting at is that the "warrantedness" of its
method, premises, and conclusions, is an invisible valuation, and that
it derives from metaphysics.
-- 
"The more you're afraid of them, the more they'll try to get you."

Anthony Potts (potts@cms5.cern.ch) wrote:
: We already know that the inertial mass of antimatter is the same as that
: of matter, but there is still room for debate on whether its gravitational
: mass is the same.
This is a little tricky, since you have to be careful about
what you mean by "antimatter."  For example, I'm pretty sure
(though I don't have the reference at hand) that there's good
evidence that neutral kaons and their antiparticles have the
same gravitational mass.  There is certainly good evidence
that electrostatic binding energy has positive gravitational
mass, as does nuclear binding energy; it would take some odd
contortions to say that binding energy is "matter" and not
"antimatter."
On the other hand, I believe there have not yet been any clean
tests of whether antileptons and antibaryons have positive
gravitational mass.  This is certainly worth knowing.  Does
anyone know what's happening with the CERN antiproton experiment?
Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu

czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>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.
Here appears an inappropriate place to bring up one of *my* crackpot
notions:  That the flood story (might have) originated from the end of the
last ice age.  There were fairly large areas in the middle east that went
from bottom land during the ice age to sea bottom afterward.  I think the
time frame was 11,000 to 12,000 years ago.  The biblical flood story was
written sometime between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago, and I personally have
seen evidence that oral traditions can retain a trace of real (meaning
corroborated, i.e. the explosion of Mt. Mazuma which created Crater Lake)
events out to at least 7,000 years.  The flood story could just be a
distorted legend that recalls the rising of sea levels at the end of the
last ice age.
Anybody got facts to disillusion me?
Mark Folsom

Jan Pavek
At your web site Gravi's place
http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke/WWW/gravity.html
You defined the motion of space as the movement of particles in space.
When a particle of space is moved e.g.  through pushing, it passes its
energy to its neighbors. That can be also observed on  atoms or normal
matter. Hence there has been created a movement of energy which is
equivalent to the speed of light. Therefore this means nothing more
than light or radiation.
You also mentioned  that space is composed ether which consists of
energetic particles. Their appearance and where they come from is left
open. Hence this particles build a formation with a particular shape
how you can imagine the Universe as a kind of ball in which the energy
particles are floating. This body consequently can have holes and
parts with accumulated particles.
What are the properties of these particles. It would greatly help us
in understanding your idea if you could give us some information on
them.
Jeff
IMAGINATION ILLUMINATES REALITY    Links to the Future
         http://www2.pcix.com/~jeffocal/shadlink.htm
           The Virtual Reader for the vision impaired
            http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/frank.htm

Jim J Moskowitz wrote:
> 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??
    I don't know why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't
taught in terms of the Fourier uncertainties in most Quantum Physics
texts since most of the properties like non-commuting variables,
zero-point energy and parity... seem to have their origins there.
Frequency of a signal gets mapped over into statistical 
frequencys and so probabilities wave-functions will also 
display these uncertainties as any abstract wave would.
For the general fourier transform, 
if N is the number of samples being transformed, this deterimes
the number of resulting frequency buckets and their
bandwidth = SAMPRATE / N / 2 
e.g. if N=128 then 8000/64= 125hz for each band in the spectrum
0-125, 126-250 ...
Half the N values are not used; these are the negative frequencies. 
For cosine waves (even functions) where cos(x)=cos(-x), the 
amplitudes A for frequency f are A(f)=A(-f) but for odd functions 
like sines where -sin(x)=sin(-x) and so sin(-fn)=-sin(ft)=sin(ft +- PI)
there is a 180 deg phase shift.
If SAMPRATE is the number of samples per second, then
total bandwidth = SAMPRATE / 2 which is the range of 
frequencies covered by the spectrogram 
e.g. 4000 hz for 8000 hz sampling rate.

In article <58aeiq$j90@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> I have long had the feeling that your various classical theorems of
> differential geometry,  all having the basic form of the fundamental
> theorem of calculus  "Stuff evaluated over interior of region equals
> other stuff evaluated over the boundary"  must be special cases of some
> general Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,  which could probably be
> written in some suitably terse form,  like   "Q = T".
> 
> Unfortunately my mathematical education stopped before I found out
> what this meta-theorem would be.
It's not clear to me whether you know what this "meta-theorem" is, and are
just recounting your intuition about its existence, or whether you are
saying that you think that such a theorem should exist but still haven't
found out if it does.
In case you meant the latter, then I should tell you that such a theorem
does exist, and is called the (generalized) Stokes theorem.  In case you
meant the former and already knew about that theorem, then maybe someone
else who reads this who didn't know it before will now.  :)
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

jeffocal@mail.idt.net (Jeffrey O'Callaghan) wrote:
Note: I forgot to memtion that this post is in response  my courisity
about Jan Pavek reference to  "the motion of space"  in the thread
Energy a spacial dimemsion?  which   appeared on 12-6-96 in this news
group
>Jan Pavek
>At your web site Gravi's place
>http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~p7003ke/WWW/gravity.html
>You defined the motion of space as the movement of particles in space.
>When a particle of space is moved e.g.  through pushing, it passes its
>energy to its neighbors. That can be also observed on  atoms or normal
>matter. Hence there has been created a movement of energy which is
>equivalent to the speed of light. Therefore this means nothing more
>than light or radiation.
>You also mentioned  that space is composed ether which consists of
>energetic particles. Their appearance and where they come from is left
>open. Hence this particles build a formation with a particular shape
>how you can imagine the Universe as a kind of ball in which the energy
>particles are floating. This body consequently can have holes and
>parts with accumulated particles.
>What are the properties of these particles. It would greatly help us
>in understanding your idea if you could give us some information on
>them.
>Jeff
>IMAGINATION ILLUMINATES REALITY    Links to the Future
>         http://www2.pcix.com/~jeffocal/shadlink.htm
>           The Virtual Reader for the vision impaired
>            http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/frank.htm
IMAGINATION ILLUMINATES REALITY    Links to the Future
         http://www2.pcix.com/~jeffocal/shadlink.htm
           The Virtual Reader for the vision impaired
            http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/frank.htm

In article <587v0p$ev7@gateway.tcs.com>, sriram@iwase.tcs.com (Sriram Srinivasan) writes:
> A friend told me that De broglie's equation, "wavelength = h * freq" was 
> just a very simple derivation, or rearrangement of some other earlier 
> equation (possibly from Einstein), but that this simple rearrangement
> put a new spin on the way people looked at this problem.
> 
> Sriram
hmmm....
   e=mc^2 (einstein)
   e=hf   (planck)
hey...
   hf=mc^2 (de broglie)
that's how i see it anyway!!