Newsgroup sci.physics 212035

Directory

My dentist has a hand held unit that he said is a UV light he
uses to harden some of the new plastict type fillings he uses.  I
don't know if it's true but it may be worth a try.  Ask your
dentist about them.
pavan1@student.monash.edu.au (Paul van den Bergen) wrote:
>Howdy folks,
>Umongst other things I am a mineral collector, and I have been
>investigating setting up a UV fluoresence display.
>As such I am looking for suitable UV lights, esp. short wave UV.
>I have read a bit about the subject, and I know I need a low pressure
>mercury tube with a glass capable of transmitting below 240 nm (the
>strong Mercury UV line is around 255nm)
>I have a lamp with a soda-lime glass (comp.???), that gets down to 280
>nm, and I would really like to get the really short 180nm lines too
>For this I really need a fused silica bulb or tube, or an alumina tube
>(if they make them)
>Any suggestions as to where I might get such a tube 
>(I fully expect it to be available as a standard fluoro light type
>bulb, if available at all)
>Note that there are lights available in the 300-400nm range (Black
>light, and black light -blue). (I need these too, but I can already
>get them)
>Email me at 
>pavan1@student.monash.edu.au
>  ########## Paul van den Bergen
>####       # c/- Materials Eng., Monash University
>#  ####    # Clayton VIC 3168 Australia
>####  #    # pavan1@student.monash.edu.au
>  #   ###### ph.  +613 9905 3597
>  #   #      fax. +613 9905 4940
>  #####      meow *cough* feathers
>I feel it is my duty to warn everyone that there is an
>international consortium of powerful people who get   
>together and facilitate the distribution of conspiracy
>theories in order to keep the minds of the masses off 
>the real issues that are affecting the world (whatever
>they may be...)
Delmar, NY
hetlil@rpi.edu

What's the speed at which gravity propogates through space?
How is this speed found?
and how is it determined experimentaly?
Please e-mail and post. I havn't been able to find anthing on it except a book
on gravity with 2000 pages of intergals. blah!
thanks
ascle@orion.alaska.edu
chris

ftilley@goodnet.com (Felix Tilley) writes:
>
>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.
 I don't think it quite fits in the sci.physics FAQ hierarchy.  
 Maybe I should assemble one.  
 You would not do badly to send your children to the university where 
 Prof. Abian teaches mathematics (not physics).  Indeed, since I have 
 a respected colleague who took abstract algebra from Prof Abian, 
 and remembered it fondly, I would not hesitate to recommend that 
 your child take a graduate course in that subject from him.  What I 
 do not know is whether he has retired from that university, a detail 
 that I would need (via e-mail) for such an FAQ. 
 Archimedes Plutonium, fka Ludwig Plutonium, nee Ludwig von Ludwig 
 (as I recall the sequence of name changes) is a dishwasher at 
 Dartmouth (at the Hanover Inn, I believe) or so we have been told in 
 the past.  You would, no doubt, be assured of clean dishes if you dine 
 there while visiting your child.  You would also know that your child 
 would be at an institution that values freedom of expression and 
 access to the internet by both students and employees.  
 Every universtiy has interesting persons on or near the campus, but 
 few have internet access or choose to post to sci.physics.  I rather 
 like that feature of university life even if it sometimes turns off 
 rich alumni or legislators.   
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

What's the speed at which gravity propogates through space?
How is this speed found?
and how is it determined experimentaly?
Please e-mail and post. I havn't been able to find anthing on it except a book
on gravity with 2000 pages of intergals. blah!
thanks
ascle@orion.alaska.edu
chris

Dear reader
I am searching for a lightsource for luminometertubes.
Are there standards available ?
Perhaps you may sende me further information such as 
addresses which I may contact.
Thank you very much in advance
Please mail to:
scharnef@hugo.rz.fh-ulm.de

Dennis & Denise Nelson  writes:
>
>Perhaps the source of the contamination was leakage of radioactive 
>products from the underground 
>test site at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians.  
 I doubt this would stand out for two reasons.  First, the debris 
 from an old fission explosion would be intermediate to those from 
 a prompt critical reactor explosion and a recent fission device. 
 It is usually the short-lived nuclides that indicate a fission 
 explosion took place recently, and you would not see those from 
 Amchitka.  Those are what indicated the Chernobyl accident was 
 quite different from TMI.  A reactor also contains lots of stuff 
 that is bred over time, but that may not travel a long distance. 
 Here in Tallahassee, Iodine from Chernobyl was observed but the 
 Cs was lost in the Cs remaining from pre-1963 atmospheric tests. 
 Other products were too rare to stand out but were seen in Sweden 
 and other places closer to Chernobyl or the main path of the cloud. 
 The other reason is the amounts characterized as leakage from 
 an underground test are normally only detected around the site. 
 A careful report would have included such details as monitoring 
 location and amounts detected. 
>A recent article in the Washington Post said that
>the test site is leaking even though the AEC quaranteed the integrity 
>of the site for at least 100 years.  
 Not too surprising.  ;-)  However, I doubt it would stand out in 
 Vancouver, or that it got into their water via ocean currents. 
> Can anyone explain why the background radiation in San Diego, 
>CA is about three times as high as that measured in the Washington, 
>DC area?  
 I would suggest you start by asking a geologist.  Geology usually 
 explains the largest variations in background radiation.  If you 
 suspect something like ocean transport, you could compare with other 
 coastal cities that would see the same source and examine the specific 
 data -- which should itemize the radiation by type and amount. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Doug Craigen  writes:
> 
>|  Must be surface water.
>
>Yes.  Vancouver gets its good water by collecting from watershed up 
>in the mountains to the north of the city.  Rain and glacier basically, but
>quite vulnerable to contamination from the atmosphere.
 Relevant information would be whether Vancouver got rain during the 
 time the Chernobyl cloud passed over the area, and what exactly they 
 used as an indicator for the contamination.  There is always a chance 
 that glacier meltwater from a period of heavy testing in the late 50s 
 or early 60s came into the reservoir, but (as in my comments about 
 Amchitka) the nuclides would be different from such an older source. 
 BTW, it is interesting to read about the Amchitka test.  My dad did 
 baseline surveys on that island in 1950 when there were plans to do 
 some tests back then.  He found it a rather forlorn place, but as 
 a SeaBee during the Korean conflict, there were worse places to be. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Big Ears  wrote in article
<32AB8DD9.604@cuhk.edu.hk>...
> Esa Sakkinen wrote:
> > In my model there are point-to-point connections in 3D-space.
> > By means of space structure itself spatial units keep energy
> > in causal order. 
> 
> It seems to be an important proposition here. Sorry for my ignorance,
> any reference text about this? It seems really like a new school in
> viewing Mach.
Theory is under construction - no publications yet.
> > When packet of energy moves at speed of light
> > it has no inertia in direction of motion, but it has inertia
> > besides! If light goes around itself it becomes to particle
> > and gets inertia in all directions. So light can't take care
> > of causal order in direction of its motion. Photon exists only
> > in 2d-section of universe (plane towards its ray). Inertial
> > plane for single photon can be distorted (I think) but when
> > plane achieves direction of light ray single photon will
> > continue as particle...
> 
> Do you mean, in the direction of polarization an EM wave packet gets
> inertia as energy varies in that direction?
> 
> Fong
You got it.
Esa

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> Abian answers:
> 
>  Again, you are making incoherent statements.  I never claimed that  "it
> takes  M Abian units of mass to move T  forward .....
>
Ummm really ? 
>Subject:      Abian vs Einstein
>From:         abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
>Date:         1996/11/29
>Message-Id:   <57ldu8$a9r@news.iastate.edu>
>Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
>Newsgroups:   sci.skeptic,alt.postmodern,talk.origins,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-Theories
>
>
>(A)  A certain  m  Abian units of Cosmic mass is (perhaps) irretrievably 
>     lost to move Time forward  T  Abian units 
So ignoring anything put in brackets this means that mass is lost
to move time forward...
Now please apologise.
Steve Jones

On 8 Dec 1996, Danh Dang wrote:
> What does a person do with a physics degree anyway??
> 
> 
> A half hearted Junior physics major.
> 
Well, a physics degree is good. One from harvard is better.
it depends what you want from life, as there are several very didtinct
routes.
One way to go is to become a professional physicist, and go into research
for research's sake. Alternaitively, go and do research for a company who
will pay you better than the universities will. These jobs are not too
common, as people tend to prefer engineers, chemists, and so on.
You can become a programmer, if you fancy that, or an accountant or a
lawyer, after some conversion work.
In my case, accountancy would be the very last resort, if I failed at
anything else.
There are also jobs for scientific consultants, where you go around
solving problems for businesses. This appeals strongly to me, but again,
places are limited. Your Harvard background will always help in cases
like that.
Finally, there is the big money route, which will take you into the
financial markets. Here, you have a few options. You can carry out the
research for the traders, looking into market features, and so on. You can
also go into sales, where you put the trades through for the traders. This
requires good interpersonal skills, as well as very good numeracy. At the
top of the pecking order, however, come the traders themselves. Physics is
the ideal degree for a trader, as the job requires an extremely high level
of numeracy.
As a trader, you would get to decide what price you buy and sell at, when
people want products. You would also get to trade things on your own
initiative.
This job is extremely highly skilled, very meritocratic, and very volatile
(fail, and you're out). The upside is, of course, that you are paid
extremely well for your time. It is the norm for taders at top banks to be
on several hundred thousand a year by their late twenties, and the numbers
just keep heading upwards. A couple of folks I know of in London recently
retired in their early thirties, after pulling in in excess of $8 million
each per year.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

Hello World,
I'm happy to announce that you will find a new site dedicated to the
knowledge of atomic structures, with experimental and theoretical
improvements :
                * Ionization
                * Beta decay
                * Atomic mass forecast
                * Diffraction of classical particles
                * Unified Theory
                * ... 
See   http://www.afuu.fr/hcl
Friendly Yours
HCl

Hi,
Last friday we had a seminar by someone called
Alexander Sevrin, who became head of the
department of theoretical physics over here
recently.  He gave kind of overview on superstrings,
and, well, his conclusion is that superstrings
is in good shape to say the least to be a theory
that spontaneously generates GR, and the SUSY-ized
standard model.  It all had to do with a recent
discovery that accepting supersymmetry, the miriads
of different theories that were around have been shown
to be in some way or another dual of each other.
Of course - I'm an experimentalist - I don't even
know the name of the field of mathematics to which
this kind of theorems belongs.
But the way he presented it, it surely looks promising !
Any opinions ?  Was this overselling the business,
or are we finally there ?
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (uncleal0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: The following has arisen in the day-to-day insanity of industrial 
: brouhaha:
Always being one to walk around a problem if I can, how about this
solution.  
Bundle the fibers as best you can, without paying much attention
to order.  Put a CCD with the equivalent resolution at one
end and inject a raster image at the other (you will have to
use a few rasters to do the job).  Since you know the images
you injected, you can construct the transform matrix to recover
the image at the other end.  Then you have a mapping from
input to output, and can use a small computer to run your
device.  This solution will work if there has to be some
sort of electro-optic device at one end anyhow.  If the 
device has to be 'two way' the optics at each end will be
more complicated but should work anyhow.  
To achieve the required resolution it might be necessary
to use more fibers than are called for in the original
RFP.
Another solution:
This one is more speculative.  Make spaghetti.  Fabricate
two mirochannel plates, one with holes exactly the size
of the fibers, the other with larger holes.  Place them
some distance apart and parallel on a jig and force your
polymer out the one with larger holes at the same rate
you are drawing the fibers through.  Arrange the physical
conditions on the far side of the apparatus so that the
polymer solidifies.
josh halpern

ca314159  wrote:
> 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.
Can anybody recommend a good *elementary* text that explains this in
detail?
It sounds like he's saying that these supposedly "mysterious" quantum
effects are really nothing but consequences of the use of *waves* (in
Fourier superposition) to describe the behavior of particles.  Can that be
right?
.

                       IF
                If pigs could fly,
                i don't think that
                they would utilise
                propellor frount 8
                and aft..........8   
i think they would come with an anus of each trotter,and a natural
supply of methane, sufficient for relatively short journeys across
rivers, or motorways etc.More in the fashion of the famous British
flying bed-stead.
-- 
Keith Stein

if
                            " MASS "  = " LENGTH "  
:-)
-- 
Keith Stein

The University of Nebraska is offering a Research Experience for 
Undergraduates in Nanostructured Materials Program for summer 1995.
This is an interdisciplinary program involving students in physics,
chemistry, materials science, and chemical, electrical and mechanical
engineering.  To be eligible for the program, you must:
1)  be a junior or senior in fall, 1997
2)  be enrolled in a program leading to a bachelor's degree in a 
science or engineering, but not have received a bachelor's degree in 
any field
3)  be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
(NSF's rules)
The program includes a $2800 stipend, room and board, and travel 
expenses.  For information and an application form, write:
REU Program in Nanostructured Materials
c/o Center for Materials Research and Analysis
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE  68588-0113
cmrareu@unlinfo.unl.edu
or see our web site at http://www.unl.edu/physics/REU/reu.html, which 
has an on-line form to request an application
Dr. Diandra Leslie-Pelecky
Assistant Professor of Physics

Esa Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> Theory is under construction - no publications yet.
> 
Wow! Great! Do you have any paper published which contain a similar
idea? May I know where are they?
By the way, your idea makes me feel it's dealing with the mass - energy
equation! Wow!
Wish you a great success!
Fong

Nathan M. Urban wrote:
> I was speaking of incoming grads.  I must have been looking in an old
> book.  Now I'm really depressed.  Guess I won't be going there.  :)
> 
> (Actually, I know someone who went there with mid-700's, but he had
> excellent grades, recommendations, and research to make up for it.)
> --
> Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech
So, which of the above, the GRE results, on the subject, Logic, Math,
English papers, hte recommendations, research, etc. are the most
important in choosing a student?
Besides, how are their weighting?
What differences between overseas application?
Fong

Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> In a gravitational field plus an atmosphere a solid will cool by
> conduction, convection, and radiation.
> 
> In a micro-g field there is no convection, and in a vacuum there is no
> conduction.  Radiation is not a kinetically efficient way to cool a
> solid.
Hm... Do we need to think of their relative rate...
A black body radiate in a faster rate than a shiny body, right? But, how
will be the rate of radiation affect by the surrounding?
By the way, what is the weighting, rating of these three methods of
interaction? Is there else method? How can you verify?
Fong

Doug Craigen (dcc@cyberspc.mb.ca) wrote:
>I car pool with a guy who has a conductive rubber strip hanging down to the 
>road under his car.  He got it at "Canadian Tire", I don't know where you'd 
>buy one in the US.  The reason has nothing to do with lightning however, it 
>is supposed to affect ionization of air in the car, and thereby help people 
>who get carsick.  He says it has helped his daughter a lot.  Now that I know 
>about these strips I see quite a few vehicles with them.  
>Does anybody know if this is another "snake-oil" type product, or whether it 
>really does anything.  According to John's remarks above, it doesn't sound 
>like it would do much more than the tires already do.
It works nearly as well as making the patient sit on a sheet of
brown paper. (Perhaps the paper gives off ions to?)
--
Richard Herring      |  richard.herring@gecm.com | Speaking for myself
GEC-Marconi Research Centre                      | Not the one on TV.

I am a buyer of technical books at Brown University.  So, I thought I'd go
to the people who read these books to find out which books are "must
have's!"  If you have any suggestions, please e-mail me.  I am
particularly interested in recent non-computer titles, but I also stock a
number of technical classics.
Thank you,
-- 
Christian Eric Campbell
Buyer, Technical Books & Custom Publishing
phone(401)863-2023  fax(401)863-2233

-----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  4702  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: spncm1996343064532
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<58cosm$nvo@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.logic
	sci.physics
	sci.math
	rec.arts.movies.current-films
@@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
iQCVAwUBMqu1jYz0ceX+vLURAQHAsgP/SGIIYzl+it8mhDDmBaAMqXiziV2PKfCm
7h83L2xcjZjYIegY4B8LCtbTbjfQVnjfnAFocl1rDUu+V5O2xKMPAXsAtQX7RqS6
JM5yZGbDzKePB0Inj2cOBcI8UYpCuotKRngzzV2xZ9bTZuuO3lwlcXFGhNsoMlPX
fhnKtHsKbf4=
=1Dx0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

mikemck@gate.net wrote:
: 	Forgive an amateurish inquiry.
: 	Am filling below-ground-level swimming pool from above-ground 
: spigot, using public water supply and garden hose. If hose outlet is at 
: pool 
: bottom, will weight of water above it retard flow, or will "water seeks 
: its level" 
: prevail?
: 					Mike McKinney
: 					mikemck@gate.net
       It will fill the pool ok, if that is the question,
provided the pool is not higher than the house.
       And siphons only work to lift water about 25 feet,
if you want to drain it.
       Sounds like a big water bill though, it will pay
to have a good swimming pool water test kit and maintain
adequate clorine and ph levels even though the pool is
not used regularly.   Isn't it too cold for swimming now?
Ken Fischer

Kevin Magruder (magruder@onr.com) wrote:
: Would someone explain the following?:
: Why would the weight of a person standing on the earth increase
: should the earth rotate faster, yet that same person, in a 
: space station, would decrease should the space station rotate
: faster?  I am confused, given that weight is a function of
: gravity and mass.  Any takers on this one?
       I think you have it backards. :-)
       The Earth rotates, and at the equator a person
weighs less, although the measurement is offset some
due to the fact that the Earth is flattened at the poles.
       And I don't know how you got that a person would
weigh less inside a rotating space station if his feet
were pointing away from the center.
Ken Fischer

Bonjour a tous,
Je recherche des paradoxes scientifiques ! Je m'explique : la science
permet souvent d'etablir des resultats qui defient completement le sens
physique voire le bon sens commun. Par exemple, quel non scientifique
irait s'imaginer qu'un avion est plus petit en vol qu'au sol ?
Par consequent, quel que soit votre domaine, si vous connaissez de pres
ou de loin, des "phenomenes", quels qu'ils soient, qui peuvent paraitre
surprenants au commun des mortels, je vous remercie de me les decrire.
Je recherche d'autre part des pieds-de-nez scientifiques, du type de la
demonstration mathematique (truquee heureusement) de 2=1.
N'hesitez pas a m'envoyer vos suggestions, tout m'interesse ...
Merci d'avance.

Marc Verkruysse (mverkruysse@club.innet.be) wrote:
: Re: The Electrostatic Source of Magnetism and Gravity (and
: gravitomagnetism)
: Ken Fischer wrote:
: >              I'm afraid I do not know what gravitomagnetism is.
: Then I fear that I understand that you don't see what I mean basicly.
        Correct, I have seen the word several times, I
think it is used more in Europe than here.
: > I do not believe that gravity has anything to do with the long
: Believe, believe: We need facts ! (I don't want to become rude, I used
: the word believe also )  As I said facts are extremely difficult to get
: for socalled gravitomagnetism.
        Very little is known about how gravity works, if that
is what you mean, I agree.
: I guess by gravitomagnetism, we  understand the extra forces exerted
: between moving bodies, superposed upon static gravitational forces.
: Those forces could (could) exist and could be analogue to magnetical
: forces caused by moving charges.
        I am not aware of anything like that, gravity seems
pretty consistent when experiments are made with either
1 gram test particles, or light/radio wave signals.
: > range electromagnetic spectrum, and I do not think that nature
: > would have two long range interacting systems, one for transfer
: > of energy, and the gravity one for "attraction" between material
: > bodies, the fact that even massless particles are affected by
: > gravity shows that there is no attraction and no gravitational
: Since Einstein, all mass is concerned, metaphorically spoken, to be
: 'frozen energie'. Even massless particles have energie and Einstein
: prooved that energie and mass are equivalent so ...
       I suppose frozen energy is a good term, because if
anything gets hot enough it turns to photons.
: > mass, gravity is just something the object causing the apparent
: > attraction is doing.  
: That something has never been explained. What's the real origin of
: gravitation ? I wouldn't know, if you would ask me; sorry but I have
: hundreds of physicsbooks at home, and I read a lot of them thoroughly.
       As far as I know, that is correct, and that is why 
there are so many pet theories around now.
       My only remark, is that whatever causes gravity,
has to produce results that we observe that are pretty 
close to what General Relativity predicts.
: >        If there is one thing I can be sure of, it is that there
: > are  no  gravitational signals.
: What about gravitons and gravitational waves ? I guess those do not
: exist either?
        They haven't been detected yet, so I am waiting 
anxiously to find out.
: >         I guess you are not talking about gravity here, merely
: > accelerating a test object with an external force.
: Oh no, by F and F' I do not mean the external forces causing the
: acceleration. See a few lines above this one:  NO !
: I am talking about the secundary forces that could exist as a
: consequence of relative motion between masses. I should have mentioned
: the relativeness of motion. If a mass is moving with respect to other
: masses in the universe (take ALL masses into account, if you don't mind,
: then the other masses (all masses of the universe)are moving with
: respect to our test mass. Those masses are far, very far away, I know,
: but the total mass is rather huge, if you ask me.  
       But most of that mass is _so_ far away, we do not
even know for sure that inertia is even precisely correct
relative to all the other masses.
       And I would think that if inertia depended on masses
other than the accelerated object, then nearer masses would
have more of an effect than far masses.
: >         But F = ma does not hold true in all cases, Mach was
: > wrong about inertia.
: So, I would be glad to hear from you where I can read some proofs of
: your statement. I mean this, without ironicallity (is this good
: english?) 
           I think "irony" would be correct, and yes, it
certainly seems ironical that F = ma is so useful and
correct in Newtonian mechanics, but is not correct in
relativistic problems, or where gravity is concerned.
           I think most relativity texts mention that
F = ma is not always precise.
: Maybe you say so because the results of the experiments where
: almost unmeasureably small... and he could not do this with Cavendishes
: 'torture' balance.  
: Mach was, I believe, one of the first people to think (another bad word
: in our scientific world) that inertia was caused by the masses of the
: universe, trying to hold test masses into their grip (I hope my english
: is good enough, my french or german is not much better, and as you, have
: an english sounding name, Ken, I guess, you do not speak dutch,my native
: language)
        No, but I do know someone who could possibly translate. :-)
Actually, you are doing fine, I am just trying to sort out
what we do know about gravity and what we don't know, and
try to sneak in some of my own ideas once in a while. :-)
: > I don't know of any forces acting on an object having
: > a constant velocity, or rather, an object in inertial motion,
: > ie. not accelerated.    In fact the term "constant velocity"
: > infers a measured velocity relative to something, and that
: > something needs to be specified.
: In the physics books you can find the proofs of objects in inertial
: motion causing forces on each other: electrical charges!
      Yes, and they have been pretty well explored, and as
far as I know are separate from gravity.
: My (sorry, Mach's ) theories implicate that masses could behave like
: electrical charges and that their movement (sorry, relative movement )
: or acceleration could cause forces similar to those we call magnetic
: forces. 
        I believe that there is mention of something like
that in General Relativity, but it doesn't seem to have
been explored very much.
        I think I have read that it is "theorised" that
a moving or rotating mass is supposed to cause other
masses to move by some mechanism related to gravitation,
but I am not aware of any experiments on that, and the
same with "frame draging".
        There are a number of effects in General Relativity
that cause things to _appear_ to be doing something, but
it is not completely clear what the actual underlying
processes are, and we can only observe with the tools
we have.
: >          If by gravitomagnetism, you mean "attraction of gravity",
: > then that is a misconception enjoined in by all (except me, I
: > suppose), there just isn't any "attractive" forces at long
: > range.
: I guess you have your own theories ?
        I thought you would never ask. :-)   Yes, and things
are getting to the point that I need to put the Divergent
Matter theory/model in my home pages so that it doesn't clutter
up the newsgroups.    I think I did post it here a couple
of days ago.
: > : When you realize that we need a huge
: > : mass (the earth, the sun ...  ) to prove the gravitational forces
: > : excerted by to masses to each other then the proofs for gravito-
: > : magnetical forces are even more far away.
: > 
: >          Not really, small instruments that can sit on a table
: > can measure the apparent gravitational "force", it is a
: > Cavendish torsion balance. 
: I know this detail, Ken, as a matter of fact,I can show and demonstrate
: this instrument to my students. I guess my saying was a bit too simple.
        I think that gravitational forces experiments
with the Cavendish balance can be done several ways.
        You can try to measure the apparent "attraction"
between masses, or you can try to calculate the constant
of gravitation (big G) by measuring a ratio.
        But, unfortunately, the Cavendish torsion balance
is not a direct measurement, it depends on oscillations,
and seems to contradict the concept that objects in freefall
are in inertial motion and not accelerated. 
: > : This seems to me the main
: > : reason that gravitomagnetism and its proofs for gravitation is
: > : not yet covered by our schoolbooks !
: > : Marc VERKRUYSSE, Belgium
: > 
: >        I have a schoolbook called "Gravitation", and it pretty
: > much says that falling objects are not accelerated by gravity,
: > the freefalling objects are in inertial motion, which means
: > "not accelerated".  [MTW]
: >        This book is 1200+ pages and is meant for college
: > seniors and graduate students, and I have another schoolbook
: > called "Relativity Theory, concepts and basic principles",
: > by Amos Harpaz, who thinks that General relativity should
: > be taught much earlier so that students do not become so
: > infatuated with Newton's mutual attraction gravitation.
: >        It is inconceivable to me that college graduates
: > can believe in long range attractive forces that work by
: > some mystical unkmown mechanism.
: >        I can only think that both gravity and inertia
: > are intrinsic properties of matter, and that neither
: > gravity, nor inertia, are produced by distant matter.
: Remember that curvation of space is caused by the presence of ... matter
: in the universe... The general theorie of relativity is a model to
: explain things. But what are the causes of it all ... matter!  What is
: matter ? oh, I know, 'frozen energy'. I liked the courses of general
: relativity and relativistic quantum mechanics, many years ago. You won't
: believe it but I am a fan of Albert E.
      Then you surely are aware that the external gravitational
field is considered to be primarily "geometrical", and I take
this to mean that it may not require any mediating particles.
: (My only purpose of dropping in, Ken, is trying to help physics a bit
: further. I am not God, who (I hope ) understands everything already.)
: (I also like the psychologic behaviours in our messages too each other:
: I am not only interested in physics but also in psychology and human
: behaviour, morals, philosophy and history) 
: Regards
: Marc Verkruysse.
      I am only interested in gravity, and learning how it
works, and I am willing to try to understand others ideas,
and I hope somebody can do something to increase our "hard"
knowledge of gravitation.
      I receive many messages from people about gravity,
and some not only speculate as I do, they actually try
to do experiments to learn more about gravity.
      We are all in the same boat when it comes to what
we know or don't know about gravity.
Ken Fischer

Yousuf Karamali (yousuf@interlog.com) wrote:
: Indeed, something unusual has to explain it which is not provided by 
: SR_GR. Something that we cannot imagine. A radical change in the existing 
: molds of conceiving our physical world. The argument of light flying a 
: curved path in the spacetime continuum to be responded, the strong 
: gravity field generated by adhering physicists of Special Relativity has 
: to be escaped.
: Yes, solution has been found already. it is called "Theory of C-Vector 
: Reference Frame." It gives a response to the argument of bending of light 
: near massive objects and opens a hole for beautiful Physics to esacpe the 
: imprisoning orbit in the gravity of SR_GR.
: Yousuf Karamali.
       Yet another theory (of everything?)? :-)    Please
post at least the abstract, in alt.sci.physics.new-theories
if possible, or here, or sci.physics.relativity.
       I collect gravity theories, or theories that include
a mechanism for gravitation, so please feel free to email
me.
       But email must contain plain text files, ASCII
characters 32 to 127 (decimal) only, or attachments of
plain text files, or in PKZIP files.
       I think I only have a one meg mail box, so send
a short email telling me what you are sending in case
it bounces because my mailbox is full.
       I would also like to see the various pet theories
and their respective supporters names made available
occassionally, so anyone interested in maintaining such
a list, or being included in it, please email me.
Ken Fischer

Nathan M. Urban (nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu) wrote:
: In article <58dpn8$aie@play.inetarena.com>, nx56@inetarena.com (jmc) wrote:
: > It is a mistake to say that Einstein's theories predict black holes, 
: > or are used to model them.
: Funny, tell that to 80 years worth of relativists.  I guess they must
: have misunderstood Einstein's theories.
       I am not contradicting this, I just don't have any
references to "black holes" before 1960 something or other
and Hawking's prize winning essay in the Gravitation Research
Foundation's contest.
       If you know of a reference to "black holes" before
1960, please let me know.
Ken Fischer

Allen Meisner (odessey2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:     I am sorry. I posted this idea too hastily. It is obviously wrong.
: A gravitomagnetic field would exert a force on an object. The object
: would therefore be accelerated and will not remain at a constant
: velocity. However, this does show nicely that an inertial field can be
: self-acting, i.e., the object can be acted upon by its own inertial
: field.
:     There is a question however. What exactly is the accounting of the
: total energy of a nuetral body or charge? For a neutral body, the total
: energy would have to take into account the gravitomagnetic field and
: the inertial field. The  two fields result from the velocity of the
: mass and therefore originate from external impulses. They must be input
: from an external field or by contact forces. So for a nuetral body, the
: total energy is gravitomagnetic field+inertial field. The eqaution
: would be:
:                     ? +.5mv^2
        Before this goes too far, I suggest that anyone really
interested in understanding Kinetic Energy search for a definition
in a formal text or encyclopedia that includes the statement:
Kinetic Energy is a mathematical representation of the "energy
required to bring one object to rest in another object's rest frame".
       And this mathematical relationship only exists between
those two objects, it is relative.
Ken Fischer

We know that energie , angular momentum etc. are quantumized ...
The question is : Why isn't displacement quantumized ?
Maybe that's why the uncertainty of heisenberg dx dp = h/2 exists ???
Any suggestions ?

Dave Arnold  wrote:
correction
>> 
>>
>>    This by no means implies that the blue shift of some stars and the red
>> shift of other stars _may not be due_ entirely or in part to components of their
>> motion away from the earth.
>>   So the Big Bang theory may be salvageable but probably not.
>
>

john baez  
[...]
> 
> In 1983 John Conway published a paper where he showed various 
> amazing things; this is now Chapter 27 of the above book.  First, 
> he shows that the fundamental roots of the even unimodular Lorentzian 
> lattices in dimensions 10, 18, and 26 are the vectors r with r.r = 2
> and r.v = -1, where the "Weyl vector" v is
> 
> (28,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)
> 
> (46,0,1,2,3,......,16)
> 
> and
> 
> (70,0,1,2,3,......,70)
> 
> respectively.  
> 
> They all have this nice ascending form but only in 26 dimensions
> is the Weyl vector lightlike!   
> 
It can't be just the ascending part.  A little calculation shows that in
most dimensions there is a light-like vector:
(x,y,1,2,3,...,n-2) with integral x,y.  If the dimension is wrong for this
( congruent 5 or 6 mod8, if I remember - I lost my notes) then there are
integers x,y with (x,y,2,3,4,...n-1) lightlike.
I will have to check out the Conway Sloane book, I guess.
Cheers
Michael

Lee Wai Kit wrote:
> 
>         Is the earth a closed or a opened system?
The terrestrial environment of the planet Earth is firstly actually 
part of the earth/moon binary system, as is evidenced by the diurnal
tides.  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this environmental
"layer" of phenomena is permanently interfaced to the environment of
the cosmos where the local prevailing conditions of "nature" are
governed by the sun.
In nature, there are no such things as closed systems.
Closed systems are man_made inventions which do not 
reflect any known natural occurring phenomena, but 
are an asymptotic approach to an ideal of the 
intellect of man.
IMO.
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Thematic Threading:     Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
 QuoteForTheDay:        "You shall hear how Hiawatha
                         prayed and fasted in the forest,
                         Not for greater skill in hunting,
                         Not for greater craft in fishing,
                         Not for triumphs in the battle,
                         And renown among the warriors,
                         But for profit of the people,
                         For advantage of the nations."
                                                 - Longfellow  (1855)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"problah"  says:
>
>> 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 knew it was money down a hole!

On 9 Dec 1996, Ayhan Cicek wrote:
> We know that energie , angular momentum etc. are quantumized ...
> The question is : Why isn't displacement quantumized ?
> Maybe that's why the uncertainty of heisenberg dx dp = h/2 exists ???
> 
> Any suggestions ?
> 
>  
It very likely is, but the scale of such quantisation is so small that we
do not yet have any observable effects arising from it.
If you combine the fundamental constants in such a way as to have an
amount with it's units being the units of length, then it is assumed that
this length has a pretty fundamental meaning. Below this length, it does
not make much sense to talk of displacements.
Try it for yourself, you have constants such as C, h (or h_bar), the mass
of the electron, e, and so on.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

crebigsol@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Please help!  A solution is needed for the following matter regarding
> relativity.
> 
> Relativity states that the quotient of the circumference of a circle
> divided by the diameter can be measured as greater than pi (3.14159265…),
> if the measurement is done with rigid moving-rods along the circumference
> of the
> circle.
This is a question which I have spent many an hour contiplaiting. First
I thought the circumference contracted, then I read where A. Einstien
said the circumference expanded. I now do no believe either (for now).
The reason is if I tak a charge and spread it out along the rim of a
circle of radius R which is at rest then start rotating this charge
distribution into a circle of radius R the total charge will stay the
same which means the charge density is the same (radius is still R).
This now implies the circumference is the same. The idea here is that
the length element ds is accelerating and not in uniform motion so that
the Lorentz conditions do not hold. 
I have heard that there is going to be an article in the American
Journal of Physics soon on this very same subject. The authors name is
Klauber.
Peter M. Brown

In article ,
OX-11  wrote:
>Sorry, the only measurements of the mass of antimatter have related t an 
>anti-particles' inertial mass, which has bben found to be the same as a 
>positive mass particle. But, this does not say anything about antimatters 
>gravitational mass. It could still be negative... 
>
>That antiapple couls still fall up when dropped. 
Doesn't the Eötvös experiment and its later re-analysis give some bound on
a long-range (fifth-force) interaction coupling to baryon or lepton number? 
Negative gravitational mass for anti-matter would also imply that gravity
couples differently to the stress-energy tensor, gluons, pions, photons,
whatever, in anti-nuclei, which doesn't sound very plausible.
-- 
John Samson, Department of Physics,       Lost Consonants 1:
Loughborough University, UK               I fear geeks bearing .gifs
Home page  http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ph/jhs/index.html

What is the current research concerning Bose-Einstein? Have they
started using different elements other than sodium, chromium, and
rubidium? This subject has always caught my interest, so feel free to
get as detailed as you want, I'll try not to get lost in the rhetoric.
Just wanting to know................
-- 
Lundy R. Holland                      | holland@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
Experiment Control Engineer	      | holland@xsystem.nascom.nasa.gov
Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer	      | holland@bastet.gsfc.nasa.gov	
                _  _____  _______    __________________           
               / |/ / _ \/ __/ _ \  / ___/ __/ __/ ___/             
              /    / _  /\ \/ _  / / (_ /\ \/ _// /__                
             /_/|_/_//_/___/_//_/  \___/___/_/  \___/

PLOTTER is a shareware Data Plotting and Analysis program for
MS-DOS computers. It is designed for scientists, engineers and
researchers who need to graph and evaluate ASCII data sets.
Key Features in PLOTTER:
* Fast Data Plotting
  - Two ASCII Data File Formats
  - Up to 60,000 Data Values
  - Full Screen Data Editor
  - X-Y or Semi-Log Plots
  - Data Value Cursor
  - Plot up to 9 Data Sets
  - Flexible Plot Labelling
  - Save Plot Screens to Disk
* Curve Fits
  - Least Squares Polynomials
  - Cubic Splines
  - Automatic Regression Fits
  - Fit up to 9 Curves
  - Save Curve Fits to Disk
* Spectral Analysis
  - Up to 16384 Point FFT's
  - Hanning & Flat Top Windows
  - Save Spectra to Disk
* Data Manipulation
  - Digital Filters (Notch & Pass)
  - Change Scaling & Offsets
  - Smoothing
* Printer and Mouse Support
  - HP Laserjet Compatible
  - Epson Compatible
System Requirements for PLOTTER:
- PC/AT Compatible Computer.
- Math Co-Processor Recommended.
- 640K RAM. CGA, EGA or VGA monitor.
The PLOTTER Home Page:
- http://members.aol.com/wellscom/plotter.htm
The registration fee for PLOTTER is $25 (including S&H;).
Unlimited site licenses are available for $185.
+-------------------------------------+
Robert Lindsay Wells + WellsCom@aol.com
+++ http://members.aol.com/wellscom +++
+-------------------------------------+