Newsgroup sci.physics 212074

Directory

>Buckley wrote:
>Subject: Quanta of Separated E & B Fields
>Date: 8 Dec 96 22:06:50 GMT
>We all know that the photon is the quantum of the EM radiation, but if it
>is generated by the interaction of two fields, then what are the quanta
of 
>the magnetic and electric fields in separation. Since these fields are 
>(classically and perhaps QM) infinite in range, is it possible to talk of
>isolating them?
>Tell me all.
>Andy Buckley
Andy, I don't think that is possible.  (E and B) exist as the
(sine-cosine) time rate of change of the other.  In free space (E = cB)
where c is the velocity of light. 
 Interestingly, the traveling wave of EM radiation has a (paradoxical)
(sine-sine) relationship between the (E and B).  
The (sine-sine) (E and B)   can be shown to result (relativistically) from
the EM being the coupling of two conjugate (E, B) and (B, E) in space
quadrature.  It is then relativistic effects that give the optical
illusion * both* (E and B) of the EM radiation go to zero simultaneously. 
This apparent (E and B) disappearance  is, of course,   absurd  (energy
cannot disappear without being replaced with matter).  
The lateral (sine-sine) (E and B) transform into a resulting  Poynting
vector with maximum axial amplitude.  The axial Poynting vector  is then 
Lorentz-Fitsgerald contracted,  as viewed from our stationary frame of
reference, thus causing the optical illusion of the disappearance of (E
and B) we see in the EM traveling wave.  
I have shown these arguments on the web page:
http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home1.htm if you are interested.
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer

Dom,
Basically, your equation (2) is incorrect, "k" should be K-T rather than 
K+T. I prefer not to use T as it is dependent on H and K (equation 6.) The 
correct ones follow:
[hkl] 
and Miller-Bravais by 
[HKTL]
then the geometric relations between them are:
1) h=2H+K
2) k=2K+H
3) l=L
4) H=(2h-k)/3
5) K=(2k-h)/3
6) T=-(H+K)
7) L=l
=============================================================================
 J. K. Chen                     |
 Postdoctoral Fellow            | E-mail: jkchen@mcmaster.ca
 McMaster University            |  Phone: +1-905-5259140 ext.27042 (O)
 Dept. of Materials Sci. & Eng. |    Fax: +1-905-5289295
 Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, CANADA   |   http://mse.mcmaster.ca/faculty/cv/jkchen
=============================================================================   
In article <58f70n$nnq@agate.berkeley.edu> you write:
>
>I'm having a little problem converting Miller-Bravais to Miller and
>Miller back to Miller-Bravais.  It seems that some directions just don't
>exist in both systems.  For example, if miller is represented by:
>
>[hkl] 
>
>and Miller-Bravais by 
>
>[HKTL]
>
>then the geometric relations between them are:
>
>1) h=H-T
>2) k=K+T
>3) l=L
>
>4) H=(2h-k)/3
>5) K=(2k-h)/3; this was incorrectly written as K=(2K-H)/3 previously. 
>6) T=-(H+K)
>7) L=l
>
>...snipped...
>

Cisco wrote:
> 
> What if motion is in circle so as you keep travelling very fast but
> visiting the
> same point more than once.
You still haven't traveled a distance cT. However my notion is still
naive and probably invaild but I was trying to make the point that one
may be able to travel back in time but not interact wit the past.

Mahipal Singh Virdy (virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com) wrote:
: But I readily accept that the World of Abstractions is 
: infinitely vaster than the Physical World.
It isn't. At least it isn't in those fields where one should 
most expect to find abstractions informing practice, such as 
politics, literature and "the humanities"; one finds instead 
the tiresome repetition of fewer basic themes than one might
encounter in one trip to the grocer's -- "significant ideas" 
like "boy meets girl, boy abuses girl, boy turns girl into a
human Pez dispenser" that have been done to death. The world
of abstractions, except perhaps those concerning higher math 
(which I don't comprehend at all), is too fallow and debased
to inspire a flying fuck. Our sterile half-century has given 
only pale imitations of theoretical innovations: in politics
no "thought" but the asinine ravings of one Lyndon LaRouche,  
in theology naught but the extraterrestrial nonsense of "The
Church of $cientology", in fiction only empty wordgames such
as "Giles The Goat-Boy," etc. The physical world in contrast
has profited a plethora of objects -- witness the "obsolete"
clone 486 I'm typing this on that has since its purchase but
17 months ago been superseded in the shops by better, faster
and stronger machines with a far-greater array of "standard"   
gew-gaws. Only these nerds among us have eluded brain-death.
Ecclesiastically,
'TheDavid'
-- 
..........................................................................
if i had enough emotion | This Post Copyright (C) 1996 By TheDavid, UnLtd. 
IF I HAD ENOUGH EMOTION |  http://www.clark.net/pub/thedavid/trythis.html
..........................................................................

Minnie wrote:
> BTW, not every physics Ph.D. can go to Wall Street.
Go, yes.  Work there and make money, no.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens

Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> 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.
I'm thinking some kind of static electric charge.  But I'm only thinking
very vaguely. Maybe the charge keeps them apart or something.
I'm also thinking surface tensions of the material to form the
embedding media.  Maybe when it is liquid it has a surface tension
that will tend to want to insert itself into the spaces between
the fibres, pushing them apart.  Maybe you need to adjust the
surface roughness of the fibres, or the surface tension of the
liquid.
I'm also thinking the fibres and the embedding material should have the
same density.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens

Dear Christian -
At the university level, books for the FE (formerly E-I-T) exam are
always popular. In fact, many univ. libraries won't circulate them
because they "walk".
Of course, I'd love to see you buy one of the books I've written, 
but there are others out there, as well. 
I don't think books for the PE exam are necessary in your collection,
unless you were getting them for professors.
How else can I help?
-- 
Michael Lindeburg, PE, Publisher
Professional Publications, Inc., http://www.ppi2pass.com
(415) 593-9119 ext. 23
"Your comments, suggestions, and (ugh!) criticisms are always welcome."

Patrick van Esch (vanesch@jamaica.desy.de) wrote:
: 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 ?
He may have been overselling slightly.  I'm not an expert on this
business, but from what I understand of the recent duality results, they
don't bring us much closer to the real world.  What's been proven is
that what previously seemed to be five different string theories (type
I, type IIA, type IIB, the heterotic string, and something called
M-theory) are actually just different phases of one underlying theory.
Now, while this is exciting, it doesn't bring us any closer to, say,
deriving the particle content, masses, and coupling constants.  That
probably won't be accomplished until we can make some progress on actually
*solving* this theory, i.e. calculating how the extra dimensions
compactify, etc.  Which seems to be a long way off.
--
Marta Korolev Bobbles Republic of New Mexico Juan Chanson Della Lu Marooned
S ()    ()   ()  Paul D. Shocklee   ()  Princeton University   ()    ()   () 
Peace War Wachendon Suppressors Singularity Tinkers Jason Mudge Vernor Vinge

During a routine traffic stop by the U.P.D.,
(blspon@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Brant L. Sponberg)), had an open container
container of the following Quackinol:
}I think everyone else on sci.space.policy has already ground this guy's
}half-baked accusations into dust but I just had to have my turn.  I
}apologize in advance if I accidentally mix up anyone's quotes here; I
}entered this thread pretty late, but I think all these statements are from
}the same person. 
}
}>>>>>       Well, as any number might suppose, I've devoted a bit of time
}>>>>>to considering  lunar exploration, and various means of determining
}>>>>>the useful features of the lunar surface, and subterrain.  NASA's
}>>>>>claim that there's water on the moon in a deep crater, seems on the
}>>>>>face of the claim, simply false.
}
}Point A)  If you're referring to the recent Clmentine lunar south pole
}water ice discovery, NASA may also be announcing it, but it's a team of
}BMDO, Lunar and Planetary Institute, and Livermore scientists and
}engineers that are making the claim.  Clementine was an SDIO, not NASA,
}mission.  Do the required homework before you jump on the anti-NASA
}bandwagon. 
}
}Point B)  The claim of ice of the Moon, although hyped by BMDO et al., is
}still not absolute.  They acknowledge that only one out of four passes
}over the lunar poles produced evidence of ice, that the ice may not be
}composed of water (or it may even be sulfur) and that the amount of ice is
}fairly small (a few football fields sixteen feet deep spread out over
}15,000+ sq. km.).
}
}>>>>>      This is not a difficult matter to determine.  NASA's method of
}>>>>>survery, is that of radar, which cannot determine anything beyond much
}>>>>>beyond dimension.  
}
}Again, it ain't NASA.  And second, the bi-static radar method employed by
}Clementine to make the ice discovery did not (could not) rely on mere
}"dimensions" to positively identify water ice.  Rather, the polarization
}of radio waves bounced off the ice is transformed differently than radio
}waves bounced off rock--hence the inference of water ice.
}
}>whoa, twist, so it is now politically incorrect to ask a simple science 
}>question?  Scary indeed, maybe NASA should have "gotten all the facts 
}>before the launched Challenger."  I can understand why NASA does not want 
}>to be questioned.
}
}Again, maybe you should have "gotten even a few facts" before you engaged
}in oral-podial intercourse.  (And elements of NASA did have all the facts
}before they launched Challenger--they did a poor job of integrating and
}acknowledging them). 
}
}>>>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.
}
}Point A) You're asking NASA to prove a negative--that they don't have more
}information on Mars nanobacterial fossils or lunar ice.  These "prove the
}negative" accusations are typical of the government conspiracy/UFO crowd. 
}Keep a more careful eye on the logic behind your rhetoric in the future.
     All right.   Sir, you do have your quotes mixed up.  Secondly,
you're a pontificating whiner and about as useful as a liberal on
election day.  You whip up yourself in a frenzy about facts, getting
them straight, doing research, and you can't even keep a coversation
straight.  I'd also question your science, but I really don't know the
answers, I'm just seeing what comes up in the net.  Thirdly, if you're
going to use terms like polarized radio waves, explain what they are
and how they change polarity and how they are affected by various
materials.  And don't tell me to look it up  for myself if I want to
know.  First of all, I'll assume you're a former student of Carl J.
Liddick's and playing his game of physics "ball busting" and secondly,
don't know how to talk to average readers, which means you don't have
average understanding.   Here, I'll simplify the social process for
you.  Stick to the facts, get off the personal attacks.
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corporation, et al)
   713-0782    Need a Taxi at Seatac Airport?       713-0782
                  4p.m. to 3a.m. 7-days. 
         Moonbear is a proud sponsor of this post.

jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote:
>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.
Whoa!  The fibers must be mostly evenly spaced and mostly parallel.  It 
is not a question of an image being coherently transmitted rod end to 
end.  Each fiber must be surrounded by a sheath of mostly optically 
homogeneous plastic equal to about 8 times its diameter before it 
encounters the next fiber's sheath.  No boundaries may be visible.  
I didn't write the specs - it was another Uncle.
>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.
Aw, c'mon, the work floor is Affirmatively Action staffed by the 
empowered products of Equal Opportunity American zero-goal education.  
Any process must first and foremost obey the Engineering Prime Directive: 
 KISS.
Thanks for the thoughts.
-- 
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!

I recall thinking it was a virtually pointless exam which required 
no knowledge of mathematics, and where familiarity with odd experiments 
and related formulae was richly rewarded.  Other than that a lot 
of stupid questions like this appeared:
Q: what is the oscillation frequency of a mass m attached to 
   a linear spring (F = kx):
1: m/k 
2: m 
3: sqrt(m/k)
4: sqrt(m^2/k)
Of course, students prepare like mad to write the exam; then get 
their butts kicked in grad school by foreign students (Russian, 
German, Chinese, Canadian) who received *proper* training in 
undergrad school.   
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Evens  wrote:
>Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I'm thinking some kind of static electric charge.  But I'm only thinking
>very vaguely. Maybe the charge keeps them apart or something.
Yo!  100-500 feet of rod/week.  "Vaguely" won't do it.  Even "absolutely" 
is gonna get screwed up.  Do you have any idea what sort of protohominids 
are currently hired for unskilled production?  American zero-goal 
education high school graduates who cannot read their diplomas, tha's 
what.  We can handle the dropouts - they know how to make change of a 
dollar and can therefore be traind out to two decimal places.
>I'm also thinking surface tensions of the material to form the
>embedding media.  Maybe when it is liquid it has a surface tension
>that will tend to want to insert itself into the spaces between
>the fibres, pushing them apart.  Maybe you need to adjust the
>surface roughness of the fibres, or the surface tension of the
>liquid.
The 6 micron fibers are drawn smooth, the liquid monomer will react to 
solid, and wetting attracts fibers together until they touch.  Of course, 
if the fibers do not wet they will not pot as the resin contracts during 
polymerization.
>I'm also thinking the fibres and the embedding material should have the
>same density.
Glass and plastic?
This is exciting!  As more suggestions come in and are submitted to the 
Powers That Be, they have stopped complaining about the current processes 
being evaluated.
-- 
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!

In article <32AC188C.467D@cuhk.edu.hk>, kcfong@cuhk.edu.hk wrote:
> 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?
It varies widely from school to school.  I'd say that good
recommendations can make up for nearly anything, though.  Good research
can also compensate for mediocre grades.
> What differences between overseas application?
I don't know.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

"Ryan G. Fields"  wrote:
>A question to all:
>
>So, my friends and I were sitting around at school, and we were
>wondering about the following:
>
>What happens to a pig if you shoot him into space?  More specifically,
>if you release him from a space capsule in space to prevent him from
>burning up when leaving the atmosphere.  Since he is mostly water, would
>he boil away into the vaccuum?  Or would he freeze first?  What would be
>the last thought to cross his mind?
The lungs, ear drums, and surface capillaries rupture as the eyes 
freeze-dry and the tongue swells.  You may also get gastric, rectal and  
bladder voiding.  The abdomen will swell, but probably not to 
bursting,  The rest of the organism is very well compartmentalized.  
After death it will cool to freezing while dehydrating, then proceed 
mummify over a few year's time.
-- 
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!

Attention: Science Magazine readers and Science Online users.
Beginning in January 1997, access to Science Online will change.
Unlimited access to all features, including full text and abstracts of
news and research articles, ScienceNow daily news service, and Enhanced
Perspectives will require AAAS membership and a modest additional access
fee.
Many features, including job listings, Science Professional Network,
news summaries, Science’s Next Wave, and This Week in Science, will
remain free of charge, but will require registration. 
Current and past Tables of Contents will continue to be available to
unregistered visitors, and searches will still point to
access-controlled information that meets the search criteria, but the
contents will not be made available without the appropriate
registration.
We invite you to continue visiting the site, and hope you will examine
the options for continued use, and choose the one that is most
appropriate to your needs.
If you need more information about Science Online, or the features of
the various options, please visit the site at http://www.sciencemag.org/
You can also contact the membership office of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, the publisher of Science magazine, at
membership@aaas.org for other inquiries regarding Science, Science
Online, or AAAS.

Christian_Campbell@brown.edu (Christian Campbell) wrote:
>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.
Here's a start, IMHO, for Chem E topics:
* CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
* Merck Index
* Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook
* McCabe & Smith "Unit Operations of Chermical Engineering"
* Luyben "Process Modeling Simulation and Control for Chemical
Engineers" (BTW, I hear that Luyben and son have a new book... is that
out yet?)
* Numerical Recipes in C/FORTRAN
* Bird, Stewart, & Lightfoot "Transport Phenomena"
As far as Thermo, I have Balzhiser, but I didn't really like it.  I
hear Smith and VanNess is better.
-Karl
+=========================================+
| Karl F. Bloss, Sr. Systems Engineer     |
| Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.          |
| blosskf@ttown.apci.com                  |
| http://www.airproducts.com/             |
| PGP key: http://wwww.enter.net/~bloss   |
+=========================================+
#include  

Christian Campbell wrote:
> 
> 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.
In astrodynamics I really enjoy using "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by 
Bate, Mueller and White.  This is an excellent soft cover book.  For 
designing satellite missions try "Space Mission Analysis and Design" by 
Wertz and Larson.  For the numerical analysis I really use "Numberical 
Recipes in FORTRAN (or C, or Pascal)" by Press, Teukolsky, Vetterling 
and Flannery.  Recently I have read criticism about some of the 
algorithms presented in this book.  Usually for not being the most 
robust or the best answer for specific cases.  However, in general I 
believe it is an excellent book.  The authors explain the theory and the 
basis for their selection and provide ample other references if the user 
needs further guidance.
Jerry Bukley
jwbukley@tasc.com

Herve Le Cornec wrote:
> 
> > I think that if you look further into the references Becky gave, you
> > will see that she is right on all counts.  Just because we were all
> > taught to fill 4s before 3d doesn't mean that that's the whole truth and
> > nothing but the truth.
> >
> > Steven Arnold
> Hi Steven,
> 
> AM I DREAMING ????   "Just because we were all taught to fill 4s before
> 3d doesn't mean that that's the whole truth ..." ??!?!!?! 
> 
> HOW SHALL I DO SCIENCES THEN ?????
>
>
>My discovery gives at last an measurable and real evidence that
>the chemist is right and the QM wrong.
Herve, 
How shall you do sciences?  Start by learning all you can (= The Whole 
Truth) about a field before you attempt to prove it is invalid.  I 
checked 3 QM textbooks and none of them claim that the 4s orbital is 
filled before the 3d orbital, *except* in the limited case of the 
neutral gas-phase atoms of the 4th row of the periodic table.  
The Whole Truth, as Steven and I have pointed out, is that the 4s is 
filled before the 3d only in the special case of the valence shell of 
neutral atoms.  This is the Partial Truth we were all taught in General 
Chemistry.  The Whole Truth is rather more complex. 
In fact, your own web page illustrates this in Fig. 3 of the French 
version (http://www.afuu.fr:80/hcl/aip/p5-8.html).  The 3d and 4s 
energies cross over at Z=3 and then back again at Z=20.  (I don't read 
French very well, but that looks like the energy levels for a 
semi-empirical MO method?  If so, they are numerical approximations of 
QM results for the convenience of computers, and are irrelevant to the 
validity of QM itself.)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  I think "Quantum 
mechanics is wrong" is an extraordinary claim.  
Becky

Introducing Little Ricci 2. Model LR2 is the
world's first limited production, intelligent,
non-computer based, CORE Processing, autonomous
NOID. With visual inputs (non-video) and two
parallel IN parallel quantum processors the LR2
has been designed to provide a real-time
operating model for research, evaluation and
just plain curiosity. The LR2 comes fully
assembled and ready for learning. It has no
programming so it needs no expertise to
operate. In fact, it operates on its own. The
LR2 is provided in a unique way: To find out
more contact NTCE Ltd. by the
Contact Form on line, or write to NTCE Ltd. The
LR2 is offered by NTCE Ltd., UK and is subject to
restrictions available upon request. 
access on line info at:
http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/products.htm
                                  Features
  1.Two Parallel IN Parallel Quantum wave computation processors
     Each using CORE Technology (Patent Pending)which provide a Ratio
     Enhanced memory process in excess (28:1) of input sample rate
     With split input relational to (3) three memory pathways each.
  2.Quasi-Holographic, non-video, vision receptors (Patent Pending)
  3.Neutronics Dynamic System inverted wave protocol (Patent Pending)
     The Non-Current Operating System
  4.Autonomous Machine Learning without programming.(Patent Pending)
  5.Intelligence Architecture provides the machine control of its
     motions.(Patent Pending)
  6.Dual tread tractor drive with independent CORE (Patent Pending)
     control.
  7.STRING memory. NDS CORE Technology (Patent Pending) has been     
     greatly enhanced in this second generation machine with the  
     addition of STRING memory. String memory is one continuous   
     verticle memory stack that is compacted and formed to fit the
     interior dimensions of the noid. Hardware, circuit boards and 
     cables are eliminated.
  8.Base model comes with three minutes of String memory for each     
     Parallel
     IN Parallel split processing pathway giving the overall machine a
     total of 18 minutes of fluid memory. (Patent Pending)(*See memory
     instructions on line graphics of CORE also presented)
  9.Case is light gray fiberglas with all component parts shock 
     mounted for all terrain movement. The noid is moisture protected 
     and ready for learning right out of the crate.
 10.LR2 is shipped via ground motor carrier (too heavy for 
     UPS)complete with instruction manual and a certificate
     for a free copy of The Enticy Papers.
 11.All batteries are included: -1- 9V battery provides the NDS system
     (Patent Pending), -2- 6 volt high cranking amperage batteries 
     provide motor control and interface power.
 12.Motor batteries are rechargable (charger included). The NDS power 
      cell is sealed.
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

In article <01bbdd80$7aee2380$c94d22cf@jaclen.connect.ab.ca> "Intrepid"  writes:
>        This is not a joke. Serious business, guys.  Please read and take
>some action.
>>>>>A group of NEO-NAZIS are trying to form a newsgroup on Usenet called
>>>>>"rec.music.white-power", so that they can get their message of hate out
>>>>>to young people using the Internet. 
So I gather that censorship of individuals and groups is 'ok' if it suits YOUR 
agenda, "Intrepid"?  Is that right? You wish to censor these individuals from 
the Internet and control their rights to access what is essentially a public 
forum????
How very ironic, since one of the cornerstones of the Third Reich & Nazi 
Germany was censorship and control of individuals and information.
Where does it end?
Grab a clue,
Douglas A. Schultz II   
   "Yeah, well, sometimes nuthin' can be a real cool hand."
       - C.H.L.

Bob's bomb factory (download free manual)
Wanna know how the Dutch got through cold winters? By making this
devastatingly simple, but effective fireworksbomb. And if they didn't
catch fire, they would simply make another one. 
Download the step-by-step shockwave manual from my homepage:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bmark
New Year's Eve will never be the same again!

On my desk you will find;
Mechanical Engineers Handbook, aka "Marks", Beaumeister/McGraw-Hill
Standard Handbook of Machine Design, Shigley&Micshke;/McGraw-Hill
Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain, Young/McGraw-Hill
Mechanical Engineering Design, Shigley&Mischke;/McGraw-Hill
Design of Machine Elements, Spotts/Prentice-Hall
Christian Campbell wrote:
> 
> 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

John Samson (j.h.samson@lboro.ac.uk) wrote:
: 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.
         Gentlemen there is _no_ such thing as "gravitational mass"!
Newtonian gravitation requires it, gravity does not, General Relativity
postulates that it does not exist.
         While it can be stated that they are equal or identical,
that refers to Newtonian gravitation.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372 
Divergent Matter GUT of Gravitation, HTTP://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer

In article <58ckn2$34r@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   If I ask you to multiply or divide or add or subtract two points on
> the Real line that is easy because there is a 0 to fall back on. But
> what happens when I ask you to multiply or divide two points on a
> circle (Riem geom) or two points on a saddle (Loba geom).
>    So then David, tell us how you multiply two points, your two points
> of  
> 
> square of ...111111.1111... which are two points of Loba geometry, say
> two 
> 
> points on a hyperbola.  Go ahead and multiply them.
  Try this. On the Real number line two points multiplied gives another
point because we have 0.000....  as a reference.
  So the trouble with squaring ...111111.1111... is that we have no
reference in Loba geometry. And although we have ....00000.0000..... as
a point in that geometry, apparently multiplying by ....0000.000... in
Loba geometry does not always give ....0000.0000....
  So how do we build a reference point? In Euclidean Geometry it is so
obvious that it escapes the attention of most since 0 is the
intersection of the three axes of Reals, i , and j.
 So is there a reference point in Loba and Riemannian geometry that
allows us then to multiply in those geometries? Of course there is,
once you picture those geometries. And you need Quantum Physics to
picture them.
  Riemannian geometry is elliptical or circular in the special case.
But not only is it the surface of a sphere that is its trademark or
hallmark. It is also its discreteness. Euclidean geometry is
continuous. Riemannian geometry is discrete and the way to picture that
is that the p-adics or better called All-adics are discrete. The
2-adics are one ball discrete from the 3-adics which is another ball,
discrete from the 4-adics which is another ball. So if you want to
picture the All-adics, you can picture a large number of discrete
balls. You could even say that the 2-adics are a particle and that the
3-adics another particle distinct. But let me get to the Loba geometry
of doubly infinites.
   You look at a doubly infinite such as 
           ....111111.1111........
  and you can sort of think of the leftward string as a p-adic and the
rightward string as a Real. Sort of look at a Doubly Infinite as a mix
or hybrid of a p-adic and a Real number. But it is not. It is a number
that is a point in Loba geometry and has no resemblance to a Real or
p-adic or a hybrid of the two. This is David's mistake. He has to see
every number as a Real number.
   So what is the square of the Doubly Infinite number
.....1111.1111....
The square of any point in Euclidean 3-Space is easy because we have
the 0.000..
as a reference point and then can define a vector product or dot
product. But what would a reference point in Loba be?
   Picture the Riemannian geometry as a infinite series of balls, each
one of those adics forms a ball, the surface of a sphere.
  Now, picture Loba not as a disc as a fair number of math people would
picture it as a disc, and not as a saddle, or horse saddle infinite in
reach. But the best way to picture Loba geometry in connection with the
Riem geom of balls is to picture Loba as a infinite reach surface of a
trumpet. And then to fit one of those p-adic balls inside the trumpet.
   Thus for squaring   ....11111.111....  we would have to know what
p-adic is the .....11111. portion. Is it a 2-adic. We need no
additional information about the Real portion of .1111111 except to
know where the decimal point is and the radix point in the string is.
  Now then, do you have the trumpet in mind with a p-adic ball inside?
Now we can begin to see and look for a point of reference for the
Lobachevskian geometry. A point of reference as useful to Loba geom as
0.0000.... is useful to Euclidean Real geometry and allows us to
multiply in Euclid geometry without any difficulty at all because we
take for granted that 0 reference point. In Loba. geometry the
reference point is a bit trickier. And the reference point is probably
imaginary to the Loba geometry. We have two imaginary numbers in Real
Numbers in order to get us a Euclidean 3-Space. So the fact that we
need an imaginary number in Loba geometry in order to 
    Collate any two Doubly Infinite numbers
is not new.
   So David, I am not going to do all the work here. Let me see you
arrive at some decent multiplication after telling me what p or n adic
string is your
...........11111111111111111111.   ? Is that a 2-adic or a 3-adic or
10-adic?
 Once you have specified which adic that is, then make a reasonable
guess as to what a point of reference would be with a adic ball inside
a larger object of a Loba Trumpet, the surface of a trumpet.  Once you
specified the point of reference, and make your specification so good
that it is applicable to all 2-adics if your ball is a 2-adic.
  Once you have that special point of reference for Loba geometry, then
you can multiply or square your ....1111.1111.... and arrive at another
Doubly Infinite number.
  As I stated earlier, it is very important to recognize that in Doubly
Infinites as well as in Loba geometry that when you multiply by
...0000.0000... which we think is the zero of Reals but is not. It is
important to recognize that in Loba the product of ...000.0000.... is
not .....0000.0000..... In Reals, the product of any Real by 0 is of
course 0. And the physics behind that Loba product of a zero being not
zero is important, for it means to say you can get something out of
nothing quite naturally.
  So give the above your best shot there David Madore. Remember, the
world is watching.

    Newton's Law states that for every action there is a reaction.
Perhaps in contact or collisional interactions this can be reduced to
the principle that no two abjects can occupy the same place at the same
time? As one object or atom in motion approaches a stationary atom or
object, it decelerates? For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. The rate of change of decrease of the inertial field of the
moving atom as it decelerates equals the rate of change of increase in 
the inertial field of the stationary atom as it accelerates?
Edward Meisner

Dom,
Basically, your equation (2) is incorrect, "k" should be K-T rather than 
K+T. I prefer not to use T as it is dependent on H and K (equation 6.) The 
correct ones follow:
[hkl] 
and Miller-Bravais by 
[HKTL]
then the geometric relations between them are:
1) h=2H+K
2) k=2K+H
3) l=L
4) H=(2h-k)/3
5) K=(2k-h)/3
6) T=-(H+K)
7) L=l
=============================================================================
 J. K. Chen                     |
 Postdoctoral Fellow            | E-mail: jkchen@mcmaster.ca
 McMaster University            |  Phone: +1-905-5259140 ext.27042 (O)
 Dept. of Materials Sci. & Eng. |    Fax: +1-905-5289295
 Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, CANADA   |   http://mse.mcmaster.ca/faculty/cv/jkchen
=============================================================================   

In article <32ABC8B1.4134@worldnet.att.net>,
Dave Arnold   wrote:
>I remember an article a few years back that an astronomer from Univ. of
>Azrizona did on something similar to this.  He thought that galaxies
>gave off different shifts due to the formation rather than speed.  The
>guy's name was Taft, but I can't remember exactly what issue of Popular
>Science(?) that it was.  I could look around here....
I believe you are referring to Tifft.
Phil

Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: 
:  Think of back when France wanted to colonialize Vietnam, a
: civilization just as old as France. Of course the French considered
: everything that was not French as primitive and that the only
: "standard" had to be White-AngloSaxon-Christian and French.
I thought anglo-saxons had to be from England. Someone
correct me if I am wrong.

In article <58crih$hmm@news.doit.wisc.edu>
hetherwi@math.wisc.edu (Brent Hetherwick) writes:
> 
> C'mon, Archie, what's the square of ...1111.1111... ?  You've been 
> constantly bitching about how EVERYONE ELSE needs to learn how to 
> multiply your goddamn p-adics, so you had right well better be up to the 
> task.  Stop mouthing off and put your money where your flapping gums are, 
> you infantile cretin.
>  
> Note that if you keep insulting all those who question you, then at 
> SOME point, SOMEbody's gonna come over to your house and knock you into 
> next week: it's just a matter of time.  Not all math geeks are weak-ass 
> shits like you, y'know.
  This is what I mean about a career in mathematics and in the USA. A
career in mathematics is the social and academic equivalent of
perpetually fighting a Vietnam war. We see it in the Unabomber. We see
it in Andrew Wiles disregarding the Calif. math journal and publishing
in his own hometown journal and then ignoring all complaints about his
alleged proof.
  And we see it in University of Wisconsin. Tell us there Brent
Hetherwick, how much money have you spent already in your so-called
education and why they never taught you any manners there at Univ. of
Wisconsion for that type of language is a fair cross section of the
type of language and education math people earn here in the USA. Now
some people in foreign countries who are thinking of coming over here
to school in the USA and studying math think about the muggings after
class or the fights in class. And they may think that Univ. of
Wisconsin is out in the sticks and not at all like Harvard or Princeton
but that is not true. There is blight, and high cost of education there
as well as at Univ. of Wisconsin. And the language that Brent displays
is somewhat toned down from a Freshman to Junior, he is probably a
senior or even a math graduate student.

Patrick van Esch wrote:
> 
> Rich Haller (rhaller@ns.uoregon.edu) wrote:
> 
>  are there any phenomena in the realm of things that it
> : is reasonable to expect QT to explain that it does not?
>...
> No.  None at all, as far as I know,...
Sorry. I do not agree at all. I am not working in the field, which would probably imply I was a teacher, but I 
have been thinking fairly heavily about QM for a very long time. I think the problem is that QM provides a 
surprisingly usefull mechanism, especially considering it's simplicity. But it does not provide sufficient 
understanding of why it should work to lead us to an understanding of what exactly can be done with it. An 
example might help. The model used for standard superconductors, Cooper pairs as I recall. You can't exactly 
say that QM doesn't work here, but you must ask, Why do Cooper pairs exist at all, if they do, and why not for 
the HT superconductors, which I seem to remember use a different mechanism, And if Cooper pairs, and HT 
whatevers, then what else may exist? Can I force QM arrays of thousands of electrons, or other particles? You 
see that QM offers a mechanism, and under some conditions permits calculations, but as a theory it is a bit 
parsimonious. Sort of like a list of all english words is to Shakespear. We may not exactly have found any 
clear case where only  will express the play, but that does not make QM a TOE.

ascle@uaa.alaska.edu wrote:
> 
> What's the speed at which gravity propogates through space?
Dear Chris. Gravity is not actually known to travel at all. It may be deduced that it probably travels at 
C, in waves, because we have a lot of experience with things that do that, sort of. It is very unlikely 
that it propagates at any other speed, for a number of vague reasons. The experiments that are looking for 
gravity waves seem to be just a bit too clumsy, if they really exist. Any way, they have not confirmed any 
dipole moments from local events that we could match up.

In article <2sbuc4knu8.fsf@hpodid2.eurocontrol.fr>,
iastate       >>From@abian          Steve Jones - JON   wrote:
>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 Ei.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 apologize.
>
>Steve Jones
>
Abian answers:
   You please apologize!
   Why don't you read the postings more carefully!!!  Don't you see
the difference between   m  (small m)  and  M  (capital M) ?????
The equation relating  M (mass of the Cosmos) to  T  (time of Cosmos)
I have  repeatedly, repeatedly given as:
(3)   M  = Mo exp(T/(kT - Mo))   with scalar  k < 1
And, I have repeatedly repeatedly introduced
                   m = Mo - M
and I have repeatedly,  stated  that:
(4)   m  =  Mo - M  =  Mo (1 -exp( T/(kT - Mo)))
and I have repeatedly, repeatedly stated that (4) indicates that:
(A)   A certain  m  Abian units of Cosmic mass is (perhaps) irretrievably 
      lost to move Time forward  T  Abian units 
So, Mr. Jones  why don't you read the posting more carefully and stop 
making incoherent statements:  I repeat and repeat again:I never claimed
that  "it  takes  M Abian units of mass to move T  forward .....
But I repeatedly stated that  m  (as appearing in (4)) abians are used
to move Time forward  T  Abian units.
 Mr  Jones  m, m, m, m,... as appearing in (4)  Not  M, M, M, M,...
which appears in (3) !!!
 Now, Mr. Jones you apologize by posting (do not e-mail me anything)!
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
       ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS  AND EPIDEMICS
       ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT  
                     TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)

In article <58f70n$nnq@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Dom   wrote:
>1) h=H-T
>2) k=K+T
>3) l=L
>
>4) H=(2h-k)/3
>5) K=(2k-h)/3; this was incorrectly written as K=(2K-H)/3 previously. 
>6) T=-(H+K)
>7) L=l
>
This can't be right.  The first transform is not the inverse of the second.
2 and 6 imply k=-H.  The simplest way to fix it is to change 2 to k=K-T.
>Now, if you use those relations to convert a [100] to its Miller-Bravais
>representation you get [2,-1,-1,0] as expected and you can (obviously)
>perform the reverse transformation to give back the original indices.
Not the way you've written it.  The reverse transformation would give you
[3,-2,0] unless you fix the sign in 2, in which case it turns into
[3,0,0], which of course is the same direction as [1,0,0].
Have fun,
breed

thedavid@clark.net (Fluffy CenoBunny) writes:
: Mahipal Singh Virdy (virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com) wrote:
: 
: > But I readily accept that the World of Abstractions is 
: > infinitely vaster than the Physical World.
: 
: It isn't. At least it isn't in those fields where one should 
: most expect to find abstractions informing practice, such as 
: politics, literature and "the humanities"; one finds instead 
: the tiresome repetition of fewer basic themes than one might
: encounter in one trip to the grocer's -- "significant ideas" 
: like "boy meets girl, boy abuses girl, boy turns girl into a
: human Pez dispenser" that have been done to death.
But that's already two more ideas than the single "there's a bunch of
inert stuff out there and you find out about it only through
repeatable experiment, and dispassionate reasoning".
But this contest seems pretty innane.  One single very fertile
abstraction, for example, is that the Physical World and the Abstract
World are not as readily separable as might be supposed from a quick
peek at the latest issue of Physics Today.  One can get a lot of
mileage out of this one abstraction.  Even a hundred years later, it
still zooms over the heads of some very intelligent physicists.
-- 
"The more you're afraid of them, the more they'll try to get you."

 Why Mind Control Is Also Lives control?
(Part Five)
"What kinds of artificial diseases could be induced on old people
or young people by mind control operatrs?"
I have stated that current mind control system are also lives 
control system.  Therefore, the operators will distinguish people's 
lives into different groups in the society.
After operators have distiguished people's lives into young or old 
group, the operators will induce different diseases to these two 
different group people. 
To maniplate the old people's lives in the society, the operators 
always use the invisible wave weapon to induce the the Parkinson's
disease or Alzheimer's disease on them.
I would clarify it now.
12/31/95,  the chinese WORLD JOURNAL reported a news article 
from NEW YORK TIMES.  It is as below.,
========================================================
"The Alzheimer's disease and the Parkinson's disease are horrible
However, reducing the bad condition, one must take medician with 
strong struggle will."
There are five hundred thousand to a million people who have 
Parkinson's disease in US.   This is an unknown nervous system
disease. There are fifty thousand people--almost over fifty years
old --appear the symptoms of it or count as Parkinson's disease for
unknown reason.
Parkinson's disease will happen when people lost the brain cells of 
central nervous system which control movement.  Such kinds od cells 
can produce the so called "Dopamine" material which can transmit the 
brain's command to impair normal motor skill.  If people lack the
Dopamine, they will appear shake uncontrollably (tremor), muscle
stiffness (spasm), slow movement, lost of equilibrium (cannot 
maintain balance), sometimes incorrectly spoken of as "palsy" ,etc.
Generally the early symptoms are not so clear, however, the physical 
condition will be deterioriate annualy. one third of patients will 
also develope the Alzheimer's disease.  The patients who have 
Parkinson disease are three times more likely than normal elderly
to develop Alzhemiser's disease.......
==========================================
According to above report, We know that the Parkinson's disease is a 
unknown nervous system diusease.   It is mostly caused by losing the 
brain cells of central nervous system which can produce the "Dopamine." 
Why is it a unknown nervous system disease?
That's because medical community cannot find the real reason why 
people lost this kind of brain cells.
Now, I would further clarify my words below.
I didn't say that the Parkinson's disease must be caused by mind 
machine operators' attack.  However, I say that the machine operators
can use the chronal gun to damage the tissues of brain cells of central
nervous system directly or the realated acupuncture point to cause the
victims appearing the symtoms of Parkinson's disease.
The enclosed information proves that the acupuncture point of
human body can introduce onto the human brain nervous system. 
(attachment)
======================================
The 1988 book, PSYCHIC WARFARE--FACT OR FICTION, edited by John 
White, carried several articles by Thomas E. Bearden, leading U.S.
expert on Soviet Tesla and psychotronic weapons. In his article
titled, "Soviet Psychotronic Weapons, A Condensed Background,
" Bearden stated: "The psychotronic patterns/effects can be
modulated onto electromagnetic signals, even of very low intensity"
(such as ELF and VLF), "and still affect living systems because of the
KINDLING EFFECTS; i.e. the psychotronic virtual state modulations are
stripped off by a living system (IN THE ACUPUNCTURE POINTS NEAR THE
SURFACE OF THE SKIN) and introduced onto the human nervous system
where they begin to superpose coherently as time passes. Such
collection eventually reach the quantum threshold and OBSERVABLE
PHYSICAL CHANGE RESULTS."
"...By modulating psychotronic (PT) signals onto electromagnetic 
(EM) carriers, visible light squelching can be overcome. The PT
modulations are then delivered to the bio-logical (or material)
targets through the light--photons go right through other photons
without interaction except in the most extreme cases--and ACTIVATE
THE ACUPUNCTURE POINTS." Soviet physicist, "Victor Adamenko,
discovered that acupuncture points form plexuses or groupings, THAT
ARE FREQUENTLY SENSITIVE. Further, these plexuses are coordinated
with and to specific body locations. BY CHOICE OF FREQUENCY, ONE
CAN THEREFORE DETERMINE WHAT PART OF THE TARGET'S BODY IS EFFECTED."
(The New World Order & ELF Psychotronic Tyranny by C. B. Baker)
=====================================================
So the patients with Parkinson's disease might be developed because 
natural causes but the reasons of such cases belong to unknown. 
On the other hand, we know that the mind machine operators can use 
the invisible wave weapon ( such as chronal gun) to creat
artificial Parkinson's disease patients.
  The reason is that their chronal gun bullets can damage the 
tissues of brain cells directly.   If the operators destroy the 
enough brain cells (which control motor skill) of people, then the
victims can also have the symptoms of Parkinson's disease ( If the
patients really have parkinson disease, it is the disease that destroy
the brain cells.  If the victims of machine operators have the 
symptom of Parkinson disease, thge brain cells are destroyed by chronal
gun bullets).
The operators also can use the chronal gun bullets to strike on the
people's acupiuncture point (which is realted with brain neverous 
system) to induce the system of Parkinson (such kind of acupuncture 
points are most on the back of head).
Furthermore, If the victims ages are over fifty, the machine operators 
will try to induce the artificial Parkinson disease to these victims 
(By taking the advantage of existance of Parkinson disease, the
operators can attack the victims' brain to induce the artificial
Parkinson's disease. It can destroy people without attracting other
people's attention).
 Also the machine operators can use their invisible wave weapon to 
attack the old victim' memories to induce the artificial Alzheimer's
disease.  That's because their chronal gun or infrasound weapon can
damage or destroy the victims' brain cells that store the memories.     
So the Alzheimer's disease might be resulted by natural cause. 
However, this kind of disease also can be taken advantage by the
mind control operators.
The operators can destory the old victims' memories with the
invisible wave weapon ( such as chronal gun or infrasound) without
attracting other people's attention.
Some operators will also use the invisible wave weapon to induce the
kidney faliure or heart failure disease on old people.
Such kind of injury will be used the chronal gun (on low set) or
infrasound to attack the kidney of old people in order to avoid the
attention from victims.
That's because old people got the kidney failure disease or heart 
failure disease to die will be easily accepted by others as if
the natural death (which is caused by natural factors).
Therefore, the operators can commit their crime without attracting 
the attention from the society.
To manipulate the young people's lives, the operators frequetly use the
mind machine to induce the artificial sex dreams and then use the 
chronal gun to cause young victims ejaculation.
I would show readers such kinds of mind machine information below:
(attachment)
============================================
DEFENSE ELECTRONICS reported that a Richmond, Virginia firm,
Psychotechnologies (believed to be closely tied to the CIA and the FBI)
has purchased the American rights to the Soviet mind-control devices.
DEFENSE ELECTRONICS described a spring, 1993 meeting between Clinton
Administration officials and Soviets psychotronics experts, including
Dr. Igor Smirnov. Amongst the U.S. agencies represented at the meetings
with Smirnov were the FBI, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and
the Advance Research Projects Research Agency (ARPA). Clinton
Adiministration officials wanted "to determine whether
psycho-correction...programs COULD BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
These devices could be used to AFFECT JUDGMENT OR OPINION OF
DECISION-makers, KEY PERSONAL OR POPULACES."
Also meeting with the Soviet psychotronic experts, were officials from
the giant Trilateral-allied international corporations, such as Genweral
Motors and researchers from the National Institute of Mental Health. 
The 3\23\94 WASHINGTON POST reported: "The Pentagon and the Justice
Department have agreed to share state-of-the-art military technology with
civilian law enforcement agencies, including exotic 'non-lethal'
weapons."
The 4\94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported: "Federal researchers 
are now investigating a broad array of non-lethal devices
including...LOW-FREQUENCY 'INFRASOUND' GENERATORS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO
TRIGGER NAUSEA OR DIARRHEA,...electronics-disrupting pulses of
electromagnetic radiation..and biological agents that can chew up crops."
To help promote the U.N. global dictatorship, Soviet KGB scientist have
recently been working at various U.S. advanced weapons facilities, such
as Lawrence Liverpool and Los Alamos Laboratories. In November, 1993, a
three day top-secret non-lethal weapons conference took place in the
Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. The
meeting was attended by Attorney General Janet Reno, numerous scientist,
military weapons experts, intelligence officials from state and local
police departments. The main purposes of the meeting was to prepare
leading law enforcement officials for the use of psychotronic
mind-control weapons.
Amongst the subjects covered at the conference were "RADIO-FREQUENCY
WEAPONS, HIGH POWERED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY, ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY" (used to
transmit subliminal voices into a victims head), VOICE SYNTHESIS, and
APPLICATION OF EXTREME FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS TO NON-LETHAL
WEAPONS." Col. John B. Alexander, Program Manager for Non-Lethal
(psychotronic) Defense, Los Alamos National Laboratory, served as
conference chairman.
The 8\22\94 NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE reported on a secret Arlington, Virginia
meeting between experts from the FBI's  Counter-Terrorism Center and Dr.
Smirnov, whose work was described in the publication: "...Using
electroencephalographs, Smirnov measures brain waves, then uses computers
to CREATE A MAP OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS AND VARIOUS HUMAN IMPULSES, such as
anger or the sex drive. Then through taped SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES, he claims
to physically alter the landscape with the power of suggestion."
(New World Order & ELF Psychotronic Tyranny by C. B. Baker)
===========================================
Such kind of crime will be mostly induced on young people because 
young people will easily be misled to enjoy the sex dreams and
ejaculation.
However, such kinds of man-made sex dreams and ejaculations would be
induced frequently to yound victims in order to waste their enery.
Furthermore, the operators wil use the chronal gun or
infrasound to weak the young victim' kidney.
After using above method, the operators can esaily weaken the young 
people's sex abilities. Some young victims will be even driven to mad, 
if these young victims cannot stop the man-made ejaculation everyday. 
The operators will also use the chronal gun to injure the young 
victims' brain or memories to induce the stupid yound students.
This way, the operators can also interfere with the young people's 
normal lives while they are still learning in school. 
The mind control operators are currently enjoying the above
law's privileges to manipulate people's lives.
The mopst evil is that the operators judge eveyone or everything 
according to their own will but not according to the law.
The operators are the judge, jury, executioner while they use the
invisible wave weapon on our people. They are over authorized , work
secretly and have become the most powerful group in the socirety.
If our President or Congress members don't stop these operators' 
crimes right now, they will not be stoped by anyone.
These career officers and operators will become the real controllers 
of people and haver more power than anyone else because they are really
controlling people's lives.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's lives in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies 
  secretly (die as if natural cause).  
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries (In Taiwan, the mind machine is translated as "Psychological
  Language Machine."  In the Mandarin sounds as "Sin_Lee_Yue_Yan_Gi")
  Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
  control organization.
  (If any law enforcement officer declare anyone as "insane" and 
   the social security department do not put these individual in the 
   welfare program as diable person, then it only represent a kind of
   political suppression or false accusation to discredit someone.
   That' because the local law enforcement is the basic unit of mind
   control)
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article <58g8g3$s7@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>,
Nathan M. Urban  wrote:
>
>(Actually, I know someone who went there with mid-700's, but he had
>excellent grades, recommendations, and research to make up for it.)
Yes, all my professors tell me that grades, recommendations and
research experience can make up for less than ideal test scores.  Of
course it's easy for them to talk, most of them scored over 900.
-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri				University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instinctive"

Hi
I'm trying to get a copy of the sci.physics FAQ, but it doesn't come up
in the listing for the newsgroup, so I'm not entirely sure where to get
it. If you can help, please let me know
Thanks,
Jeremy Sear
(jsear@melbpc.org.au)

[Original post cancelled; let's see if I can read a little more carefully
this time.  Crossposted to sci.physics; followups directed there, only.]
dmkangasrn@aol.com wrote:
>    Greetings.  I am trying to locate the equations that explains the
> earth's rotation and gradual slowing.
The rotational slowdown is caused by tidal friction between the Earth and
the Moon.  I'm sure there are papers that have quantified the rate; a web
search would probably be appropriate here.
> My hope is to take this equation and use it to
> extrapolate the beginning of the earth.  Originally I believe the earth
> had a 360 day year.
360-day year?  It's the _rotation_ of the Earth that's slowing down, not
the _revolution_.
-- 
                             Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
                              Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
                         San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
                                 &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
         "But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"

[distribution expanded from sci.physics.relativity to include sci.physics
 and sci.physics.research]
Nathan M. Urban wrote:
> Marty Tysanner wrote:
>> Nathan M. Urban wrote:
>> one of the foundations of the
>> scientific method is a quest to understand "why" things are the way
>> they are.  By "why" I mean a clear understanding of the cause for
>> what we observe.
> I saw a quote somewhere that said something along the lines of, "While
> we are still confused about physics, we feel that we are confused about
> a higher level of more important things."  With gravity, we went from
> "things fall" to "the force of gravity" to "spacetime curvature".  None
> of those are really a "why", they're all just how's.  Physics is
> fundamentally of a descriptive nature.  It merely states what is, and
> presents a model of this.
I suspect on this point there is a fair amount of agreement between us
that may not be obvious.  Please re-read what I meant by "why".  "Why"
and "how" often can be (and are) used interchangeably.  Many
physicists explain in lectures, comments and books reasons "why" in
terms of equations or physical principles.  For example one might say,
"An electron/positron annihilation produces two photons instead of one
because that is necessary to conserve both energy and momentum."  You
gave another example, that of gravity being due to spacetime curvature.
Some people will say this is "how," some will say it is "why" and most
people will say both "why" and "how" at different times depending on
the context of the conversation and what word comes to mind at the
moment.  I would be very surprised if you too don't often respond to a
"why" question with an explanation from a theory or principle that
involves no theology or philosophy.
Unfortunately, definition of terms is very important, and failure to
have a common understanding of the meaning of key words causes a
great deal of misunderstanding and wasted time.  In your response,
you appear to associate "why" with "intent by God or Nature" but I
associate "why" with the cause behind an observed effect.  We are
probably talking past each other.
For the sake of future understanding, I do not think that physics
can explain God or any intent by God, nor should it try to do so.
Physics should restrict its inquiry into the "why" of nature to the
realms of directly or indirectly observable physical phenomena and
its physical causes.  And fundamental postulates whose reasons "why"
are unknowable (by physics at least) must unavoidably underlie the
entire framework of physical theory because there is no physically
knowable, fundamental reason why physical reality must exist at all.
(I would call this statement a fundamental postulate.  Does Knowability
Postulate have a nice sound to it?)
>> I can't believe you think physical theory has reached such an exalted
>> state that no further improvement is desirable (and hence there is no
>> longer a reason to ask "Why?");
> I don't think that.  I just don't think it is possible for there to be
> an ultimate "why".
This is a clever trick in your argument:  take my statement and make it
appear more extreme than it is in order to refute it more easily.  Nice
try. :-)
Your key word here is "ultimate".  With that I definitely agree, as you
can see (some duplication of my previous post because you snipped it in
your reply):
   I believe you are entirely correct in your statement that at some
   level we will arrive at a point where we cannot make any further
   progress in understanding "why" and must accept that "that is the
   way things are."  At the very least, that will come when the most
   fundamental postulates are stated.
Knowing when we have reached the most fundamental postulates, and
therefore when we can stop asking "why?" is difficult.  Is it
knowable when we have reached this point?  This is a very relevant
question that has no simple answer.  I have some ideas on the
subject and am sure others do as well, but would prefer to leave
the topic for another time because it is quite involved.
Removing the word "ultimate" from your reply, it appears we agree in
principle.  Any disagreement is likely to be to what extent we can
(or should) try to understand the "why" (underlying cause or mechanism
in my definition of terms) behind what we observe.
>> I think their desire for understanding
>> is fair and good, even if physics does not yet have the answers they
>> seek.
> Of course.  It's just that physics need not necessarily have those
> answers.
Your key word here is "need."  This is a statement of your own belief
about how far physics should go in searching out answers, but is a
vague one since you don't elaborate on how far physics should go.  If
you had used "does" instead of "need" it would seem we are in complete
agreement, since then it would be a statement about the current state
of physics rather than the way physics can be in the future.  If you
will elaborate on how far you think physics should go in searching out
the underlying causes/mechanisms for observed phenomena it probably
will help me better understand your view.
>> Sure, it is frustrating to admit that one doesn't know "why" something
>> is the way it is.  Sure, it is often more productive in science to
>> suspend one's disbelief in order to investigate an idea; that is
>> merely keeping an open mind which is so vital to learning the "truth."
>> Sure, it is often necessary to accept some things we don't understand
>> in order to proceed with our quest for understanding what we can; to
>> do otherwise will merely drive us crazy or block progress, especially
>> in the often puzzling and seemingly paradoxical world of physics.
>> But none of these ways of handling what we don't understand imply we
>> should stop asking "why?".  We just have to keep plugging away in
>> hope of progress, keeping an open mind and accepting reality the way
>> it is rather than the way we think it should be; I doubt that you
>> disagree with this.
> Right.
>> Proponents of alternative theories often seem philosophically opposed
>> to accepting theories because they don't think nature could REALLY work
>> the way the theories say it does.  Unfortunately, it often seems these
>> people have not taken the time to fully understand all the reasons WHY
>> these theories have become accepted.
> Yes, this is very representative of those with alternative theories on
> this newsgroup.
>> The more one learns, the less
>> stupid or gullible scientists appear...  However, I think this attitude
>> is similar in many ways to the way many adolescents and young adults
>> think.  Their minds are expanding, but they haven't yet learned enough
>> or gained the wisdom to realize that the current authorities in science
>> have probably struggled with the same questions they have, and have
>> felt compelled to reluctantly accept conventional thought because based
>> on their accumulated understanding (quite a bit more than the casual
>> dabblers that often produce "alternative" theories) it explains reality
>> better than anything else they know of.
> Yes, exactly.
>>>> Only descriptions
>>>> of motions and time in relatively-moving observer's frames.  This
>>>> cannot qualify as explanation or understanding in any sense of these
>>>> words.
>>> The "ultimate" explanation you want is not attainable.  Only
>>> "explanations" that you are more comfortable with.
>> I get the impression the "ultimate" explanation he seeks is a model
>> that shows the underlying mechanism for the equations.  Is this so
>> unreasonable?  Unavailable at the present time, yes, but unreasonable?
> I think so.  For example, there are no explanations of "why" particles
> follow geodesics in spacetime, or "why" they are influenced by forces,
> or anything like that.  Our concepts of "causes" of motion as spacetime
> curvature and forces may be replaced by new descriptions, but they won't
> be able to provide a "why" either.  Just a more satisfying description.
Again, I think you are stating current limitations of physical
understanding and making an unfounded leap of logic to a statement
about what is possible.  A statement about what is possible is
necessarily a postulate, and postulates don't logically follow from
anything else; they are starting points in a chain of reasoning.
Continuing...  If by a more satisfying description you mean a more
complete theory, I would probably agree.  But I think a reasonably
complete theory also explains the "why" behind the phemomena it
describes; I will elaborate on this in a moment.
>> If we don't demand more than a mathematical description of what we
>> observe, we probably won't get it.
> That is all we can get, as far as I'm concerned.  All we can do is
> observe what happens, and formulate a set of rules to describe that.
> None of this is able to tell us why anything happens.  You may take a
> model, say the force-field model, and say "motion is caused by forces",
> but that doesn't really count as a "why" in my book.
Let us take another example:  Why does the pressure of a gas increase as
as the temperature increases?  To one who knows nothing about kinematics
or the atomic nature of matter, this could very well constitute a
mystery.  Such a person could hypothesize that some magical, unknown
process transforms heat into more gas.  If no method were known to test
such a hypothesis it could become a fundamental postulate in that
person's theoretical framework.  But the "why" can be intuitively
understood once a person becomes familiar with kinematics, the the
atomic constitution of gases, kinematics and so on.  One can even see
the reason (i.e., intuitiveness) for using statistical models to
describe gas behavior, even though one knows the gas is composed of
discrete atoms rather than some magical substance that behaves
probabilistically.  In other words, the mystery came from a failure
to understand the underlying causes rather than any inherent 
unknowability of the "why" behind the process.
I can extend this analogy to quantum theory.  The probabilistic nature
of quantum mechanics may very well be a macroscopic manifestation of
some understandable process that occurs at a lower level, and our
failure to recognize it as such may indicate a gap in our
understanding rather than the fundamentality of quantum mechanical
postulates.  Similarly, relativity and electromagnetics could be
macroscopic descriptions of underlying, yet understandable processes.
If true, what now is mysterious and unintuitive could become very
clear and intuitive once we know more, and these theories would be
derivable from even more fundamental theories.
This seems to get at the core of the discussion.  If one is convinced
a postulate is fundamental, one sees no point in trying to understand
the "why" behind the postulate.  If one entertains the possibility
that the postulate may not be fundamental, then one sees that pursuing
the "why" may lead to a breakthrough in scientific understanding that
clears up a lot of mystery and opens new areas of inquiry.  In truth,
we don't presently know (and perhaps never will) whether the postulates
that underlie relativity and QM theories, for example, are fundamental.
Currently I see no good reason for believing they are because I have
heard no compelling argument for their fundamentality.  Perhaps you
have?
> After all, what is intuition but our summed
> experiences of everyday phenomena?
I don't think intuition needs to be restricted to everyday phenomena.
At the least it includes a combination of conformity to one's
conceptual framework (everyday phenomena is a subset of this) as well
as understandable derivations or extrapolations from that framework.
> How can we possibly require a
> physical theory that describes pheonomena far outside of our observable
> experience to be intuitive?  For that matter, there needn't even
> necessarily be an ultimate theoretical model that is even
> understandable to human beings.  (I like to think there is, but what do
> I know?)
As you seem to agree, we can't "require" anything that is outside our
control, and certainly the laws of nature fall into that category...
I think we can require a physical theory to be consistent and
derivable from postulates and more fundamental theories, but I don't
think we can require anything for the fundamental postulates beyond:
   (a) Fundamental postulates must exist,
   (b) the postulates are orthogonal (not contradictory or overlapping),
   (c) the theories that descend from them have been tested as well as
       currently possible and appear to represent observation acurately,
       and
   (d) the postulates appear to be truly fundamental.
This is a tall order, especially determining that the postulates appear
to be truly fundamental.  As mentioned earlier, I see the question of
knowing when to stop looking for something more fundamental as an
involved but interesting subject that would make a good topic for
another time.
The attainability of an ultimate theoretical model is another good
topic for another time.  It seems this really boils down to whether
or not we can figure out what the truly fundamental postulates are.
From those, a consistent and complete model can come.  I believe the
fundamental postulates will be fairly simple, probably describing basic
physical properties that are not "wierd" and a single source of physical
activity/energy that also is not "wierd;" hence the ultimate, complete
theory would indeed be intuitive.  I know this does not seem to be the
case at the present stage of physical understanding.  It is merely my
personal opinion that may change over time.
> --
> Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech
Regards,
Marty

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote in article 
> If the Earth spins faster, centrifugal force increasingly opposes 
> gravity.
> 
> If a space station spins faster, where centrifugal force is the primary 
> local acceleration, you will have more of it, eh? 
>
Unless he is standing on the outside of the space station, in which case he
better have magboots.
> -- 
> 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!
> 
> 
>