Newsgroup sci.physics 212146

Directory

Ken Fischer wrote:
> 
> MW (wtwyatt@mailhost.mnsinc.com) wrote:
> : What causes inertia?  I know a lot of people will say "mass", but why
> : does mass resist when you push it?  What's blocking it?  I mean, if it's
> : space all around it then there's nothing holding it back, nothing to
> : attach to.  I was just curious because we know so much about physics, so
> : there must be an answer.
> : M.W.
> 
Gleick's book on Feynman had a good discussion of the impenetrable mysteries
of physics...
At some point, the 'why' questions become meaningless.
(Feynman recalled his respect at his father's answer of 'nobody knows' as to
his young question why the ball in a wagon keeps rolling after the wagon stops.)
=td=

Alan Douglas wrote:
> 
> >What was the idea? The electrons in the superconductor are
> >free to move, so when you spin in rapidly they're accelerating constantly,
> >and they end up moving at ultrarelativistic speed, suffering a mass
> >increase and producing a noticable gravitomagnetic force? 
> >
> >Or the magnetic fields were enough to confuse the mass meter used, which
> >seems a little more likely.
> 
> But surely others should still try to repeat the experiment, if for no
> other reason than to refute it.  Or is the scientific method only to
> be applied when convenient?
> 
I for one consider this 3-month information brownout to be /prima facie/
evidence that the 'scientific method' is/was a romantic ideal that has found
itself trammelled under the hooves of Mammon.
=td=
'wow such cool imagery; didn't know I had it in me...'

I am trying to find out if one can fill a tube
with *some type* of fluid, cap the tube
and heat it with, say 1800F, and not
have it rupture.
The Magic cooking wand that you stick
in a pot roast, to make it cook faster
may be an example of this. (maybe not)
I would think that if a partial vacuum was also 
in the tube so that the tube was not totally
full of said fluid, that the expansive quality
of the liquid would not rupture the tube?
If the tube was completely full of said fluid,
then it's expansion due to heat would
certainly rupture all but the strongest
of tubes. Neutronium?
This is not really a frivilous question,
for I would like the tube to convect heat
to , say one end of the tube, when that
end of the tube is a extremely cooled..
I am sure this could probably start
a rather interesting argument..
I hope I hope.
dsg

In article <58g81p$6m2@panix2.panix.com> Edward Green wrote:
>More than the existence of inertial mass the
>equivalence to gravitational mass seems to be disturbing.
  As closer examination of Aetvos's data showed a long time ago, 
they are NOT exactly equivalent! [Though the internal mechanism is 
the same, the external causes are not and therefore neither are the 
quantities. Indeed, if my theory is correct, then inertial 
resistance to a push should be slightly greater than inertial 
resistance to a pull, for a given body; and gravitational mass 
should be in the middle of the group.]
Glird    http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> 
> 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.
How about David Copperfield going out with Claudia Schiffer? I can't see
QM explaining that!

 Why Mind Control Is Also Lives control?
(Revise--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 (strike on the top point of brain which control the
ejaculation) cause young victims ejaculation.
I would show readers such kinds of mind machine information below:
In 1953, the mind control program "MKULTRA" began to work.
At the same time, Dr. John Lilly was working at NIH and studying
the brain map--from the variouslocation of brain to find the body
functions in his experimennts.  From the electric stimulation
using, he discover the precise center of monkey's brains that caused 
pain, fear, anxiety and anger.  He has also found some separated
parts of brain  that can controll the erection, ejaclation, and
orgasm in male monkey.   The CIA learned about the research of Dr. 
Lilly and asked him to join them.  The cooperation was quickly ended
because Dr. Lilly cannot tolerate that CIA might use the the remotely
controlled electtrodes strategically  implanted in human brains.
( See detail on page 142-143 on _The Search For Manchurian Candate_
by John Marks)
The enclosed news report will show readers the current sex drive
information.
(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 <679909193wnr@briar.demon.co.uk> George Dishman wrote:
>>   What is suggested is that the "time" of a Mir clock be set 
>>identical to that of a ground clock, on say January 1. (THIS 
>>would need a 26 microsecond correction, when the two systems thus 
>>synchronize the two given clocks.) Six months (or maybe six 
>>years) later let the "time" of the two differently moving clocks 
>>again be compared. IF clocks run slow as a function of their 
>>relative motion, the Mir clock will lag behind that of the earth 
>>clock by a predictable amount, independently of the changed rate 
>>due to the difference in gravity per clock. In principle, that 
>>seems simple enough.
>>{Can't do the math on a hand calculator because the fractions are 
>>too small and get lost. Anyone want to do it for us?}
>
>If this test were done, there would be 26*365*6 = 57ms clock 
>discrepancy after 6 years.
>
>The same argument can be applied to GPS which is far from 
>theoretical! 
>The satelites have been in orbit for over 11 years and they were 
>built to run slow by IIRC 44.3us per day:
>  44.3*365*11 = 178ms
>
>Signal travel time is around 70ms when overhead. GPS units are 
>available which will give a time reference accurate to around 
>100ns compared to a surface clock.
  Seems that enough data is therefore available to answer the 
question: Does or doesn't the Mir clock run slow as a function of 
its velocity? (The Pan Am atomic clock experiment was admittedly 
inconclusive.)
Glird    http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm

In article <679909193wnr@briar.demon.co.uk> George Dishman wrote:
>>   What is suggested is that the "time" of a Mir clock be set 
>>identical to that of a ground clock, on say January 1. (THIS 
>>would need a 26 microsecond correction, when the two systems thus 
>>synchronize the two given clocks.) Six months (or maybe six 
>>years) later let the "time" of the two differently moving clocks 
>>again be compared. IF clocks run slow as a function of their 
>>relative motion, the Mir clock will lag behind that of the earth 
>>clock by a predictable amount, independently of the changed rate 
>>due to the difference in gravity per clock. In principle, that 
>>seems simple enough.
>>{Can't do the math on a hand calculator because the fractions are 
>>too small and get lost. Anyone want to do it for us?}
>
>If this test were done, there would be 26*365*6 = 57ms clock 
>discrepancy after 6 years.
>
>The same argument can be applied to GPS which is far from 
>theoretical! 
>The satelites have been in orbit for over 11 years and they were 
>built to run slow by IIRC 44.3us per day:
>  44.3*365*11 = 178ms
>
>Signal travel time is around 70ms when overhead. GPS units are 
>available which will give a time reference accurate to around 
>100ns compared to a surface clock.
  Seems that enough data is therefore available to answer the 
question: Does or doesn't the Mir clock run slow as a function of 
its velocity? (The Pan Am atomic clock experiment was admittedly 
inconclusive.)
Glird    http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm

On Mon, 09 Dec 1996 12:44:21 GMT, sfk@zipcon.net (Shea F. Kenny)
wrote:
>
>     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.
Terribly sorry to intrude on your thread, but.. There are a lot of
'scientific' groups cross posted here. This translates to a very broad
level of knowledge (specifically dealing with the polarized radio
waves) and there are plenty (i'm sure) of people reading these posts
who have at least some idea of what is being talked about. Others like
myself (a college _student_ ) who can at least decipher most of the
technobable with little trouble don't mind (and actually enjoy)
hearing about things that are mildly vague - it helps us to expand our
minds by causing us to question things (also a scientific and logical
process). The biggest problem on the Internet today is people who
don't have the insight to figure out how to load software to their
computer let a lone try to engage in debate.  They certainly have no
business bothering to read 'scientific' newsgroups (ie. almost any
group that has 'research' in it ;)
  To address another point, you mention that there should be a
sticking to the facts and a lack of personal attacks? Hmm.. what did
you just do? If you felt a need to correct the misquotes, fine, but
you should have left it at that, then i probably wouldn't have
responded either ;)
  Again, i'm sorry to intrude and be off topic, but, well you know, us
thinkers have to stick together.

Richard Herring wrote:
> 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?)
He, now that you speak of it I remember that they were really popular in
France 10-20
years ago. I've never seen them much in the US.
A physics teacher of mine once told us the story of those rubber strips:
Many years ago, somebody came out with this "ion makes you sick" theory.
And he/she
had the idea to sell a metal chain to attach to the body of the car.
This was supposed
to conduct the 'ions' to the ground.
Well, it doesn't sound too stupid up to now, right ?
The trouble was that the chain was making too much noise. So in later
versions of this
hardware piece, they changed it into a (non-conductive) rubber strip !!!
Guillaume "Kill your TV" Dargaud

Some arc welding instruction books claim a temperature of 7000 C
(12000 F) in the arc, which I consider as totally exaggerated.
A temp of 3000-4000 C (7000 *F*) seems more reasonable to me.
Or are the first values determined theoretically by thermodynamics ?
And if yes, how ?
To my opinion it is VERY HARD to measure any temperature above
3500-4000 C (7000 F) with rasonable accuracy, unless blackbody
radiation curves can be obtained which is only possible on stars
(which are nothing but huge spheres of hot gases radiating blackbody
curves, originating from nuclear fusion in their nuclei).
Otherwise a solid is required, either as thermocouple or as 
a filament of an optical pyrometer. Above 4000 C there are no
solids at all. And as electric arcs are no blackbodies at all, 
measuring the temps in an arc is very difficult. 
Flames can however be measured, as the temperature, even of an
oxyacetylene flame is at most 3200 C, so holding a piece of 
tungsten in the flame can be measured by an optical pyrometer.
BTW, about the radiation curves:
It should be possible to make a device (e.g. a CCD ?) which captures
light from a hot object and filters it digitally into wavelength 
chunks of , say, 5 nm. 'Onboard' software can determine whether it 
matches a valid BB curve and when it does, it can calculate a 
temperature belonging to the curve and otherwise 
issue an error message. 
Any ideas on this ?
Klaas

owl@rci.rutgers.edu (Michael Huemer) wrote:
>Well, your friend was right.  He didn't give a date, but Jesus did say
>that his second coming would occur during the lifetimes of some of the
>people who were then present.
O.K. all those over 1960(ish) years old put your hands up!!!
Argh! Nobody, then I quess we're all O.K. let the sinning begin
Regards Si,

10-12-96
Recently S.M. wrote to me, calling my attention to his theory of
the "integration of science". The following is my reply:
Dear Mr S.M.
As you hadn't mentioned my own writings, I am not entirely sure whether 
you are familiar with it and write to me in resopnse to some parallels
you discern between your theory and mine. In either case, or any other,  
I will address each point by its relative merit within the framework 
I have outlined. 
Firstly you say:
SM> I bring your attention to my formulation of an hierachical 
    structure....
GF>> So far so good. There is a clear parallel, as my description of 
  >> material formation having these interdependent qualities. Formations
  >> break down infinitely to the dynamic funtion of smaller components,
  >> and conversely they construct outward infinitely into larger, less 
  >> dynamic configurations. 
               **************************************
SM> ...my formulation of an hierachical structure of numbers and arrows
  > which constitutes a paradigm that is logically prior to the 
  > mathemathics and measurements of physics. 
GF>> This idea of "logical priority" is a little obscure in the way you
  >> express it. I suppose you mean by that some sort of ordering system
  >> which is "a priori", that is, not subject to the necessity of 
  >> observational proof. If this is the case, I am tempted to find the
  >> theory speculative. This means that nothing empirical is anchoring 
  >> your findings, to which I have no alternative but to object. This 
  >> entire subject becomes part of a long held debate about our basic
  >> mehodology, and how we may assign credibility to it. 
  >> Aside from that, if you have studied my recent articles, it should 
  >> be fairly clear that the entire framework I describe has its source 
  >> well established observation. I do not deny being an "empiricist",
  >> it can certainly be one of the labels assigned to me, but I'm also 
  >> critical in my methodology, which is underpinned by considerations
  >> from the theory of knowledge. I differ from orthodox approaches in 
  >> that I follow a different path into the subject. The traditional 
  >> approaches seem to come from "below",as it were, aggregating the 
  >> natures of single observations. The problem is that the bases of
  >> fundamental decisions are missing. Assumptions are made on such 
  >> broad issues as space and matter based merely on a hybrid of not
  >> thoroughly enough examined conclusions. In my approach, it is the 
  >> most fundamental issues that are to be sought before we set about
  >> interpreting the peculiarities of single pieces of evidence.  
  >> Admittedly the evidential base has greatly grown over the last few 
  >> generations enabling us to discern the system. Earlier attempts would  
  >> likely have been branded speculative, as your theory at this stage 
  >> appears to be.
                ******************************** 
About your theory you write:
SM> This paradigm is a consequence of the realisation that the nuclear 
  > and gravitational forces are the product of the integration and 
  > dissipation of mass. 
GF>> When I read to here I thought you description to have parallels
  >> to my theory in that there is an integration down the line toward
  >> reduction to the micro scales, and you may, I suppose, call it 
  >> dissipation if you view the system conversely toward its building
  >> toward large scales. But as I read further I realised that wasn't 
  >> it, not at all, as you continue to explain:
SM> Integration includes the concepts of quantization and fusion, 
  > dissipating includes concepts of radiation and decay, and mass
  > entails the "amount of substance". 
GF>> Here it becomes clear that your theory is entirely different from 
  >> mine, having at best, minor correspondences. In my theory mass 
  >> is the result of integration, but I go no further as it constitutes
  >> a long explanation, which in fact you may find in an article I 
  >> posted on newsgroups as early as 1995. For your convenience I shall
  >> post it as a second article entitled "introduction of 95". Another 
  >> article yet to be posted will deal with specific matters such as 
  >> a precise definition of mass and other related issues.  
             ******************************************
As you continue to write:
SM> Space is composed of integrating mass within the dissipation of mass. 
  > which is the way light travels across the Universe, and which is 
  > detected as the red-shift phenomena. 
GF>> If ever I heard a more confusing explanation, I would be equally 
  >> dumbfounded. You firstly write:
SM> Space is composed of integrating mass within the dissipation of mass    
GF>> Previously you described the integrative element as "quantisation and 
  >> fusion", and the dissipative element as "radiation and decay". So 
  >> then, does your above description mean that space is composed of 
  >> so called "quantisation elements and fusion" and "radiation and 
  >> decay" ? So then what does this mean ? Very nebulous indeed, but I can 
  >> tell you one thing : It does not fit in with my theory, in which 
  >> space is an immutable and continuous domain of emptiness, not at all
  >> interactive with matter and its processes, but merely providing a 
  >> domain of room in which material and its processes may operate. 
  >> And of course, all those things you mention: "quantisation", 
  >> "fusion", "radiation" and "decay" can all be attributed to the 
  >> workings of material elements, quite independently of space other
  >> than its existing location within it. 
         *********************************************
Then you go on to write:
SM> Space is composed of integrating mass within the dissipation....
  > which is the way light travels...and which is detected as the 
  > red-shift phenomena. 
GF>> Huh ? So the light travels through this process of integration and
  >> dissipation ? But what is light, and how exactly does it travel ?
  >> These are issues which you fail to explain adequately. You totally
  >> fail in the description of the terms you use and how they may 
  >> interact. As for the red-shift phenomena connection, you miserably 
  >> fail in explaining just how this connection arises. I suggest you 
  >> address yourself to these issues, and may I suggest you read  
  >> my reasons for the redshift-distance relationship. In 95 I posted
  >> articles in which I explained the red-shift to be due to light
  >> travelling through a variety of gravitational fields, thereby 
  >> causing gravitational red-shifts (a well established phenomenon), 
  >> which over very long distances average out from every direction.
  >> Keep tuned to my articles and I will have more to say on this. 
               ******************************************
May I venture to say the rest of your description, after what has been 
said already, can hold no further credibility for me. Nevertheless, for 
other readers I include the rest of your description below with just a few
comments:
SM> Galaxies are fused from space, the bursts of gamma radiation detected 
  > intergalactic space.....
GF>> Can I assume you mean background radiation? But either way it 
  >> doesn't seem to matter. 
SM> ....are exploding embryonic galaxies. The attractive capacity of 
  > the Sun and Planets is counter balanced by the attractive capacity 
  > of space. 
GF>> So then what would be the consequence ? This is highly ambiguous
  >> and entirely divorced from any evidence we actually have. 
SM> The solar system moves through space because it is subject to 
  > gravitational attraction within the Milky Way galaxy, which entails 
  > an increase in the density of space fuelling the nuclear and 
  > gravitational process of the solar system.
  > Atomic stability is dependent upon gravity through the density of 
  > space. This means that Global Warming and ozone depletion may be 
  > a natural consequence of the evolution of the solar system , and 
  > not "greenhouse-gases" and "CFC emissions". 
GF>> Alas for the Ice Age, and the scientific facts which explain global
  >> warming or ozone depletion, or perhaps we may count human 
  >> intervention into the natural evolutionary process also ? Would you 
  >> think with this one you have not gone a little over the top SM ??
  >> In any event I rest my case. 
  >> I'm sorry it had to end like this SM, but nevertheless I would be 
  >> pleased to hear from you if ever again you cared to write. 
Gary Forbat
GF>> So then shall we summarise ? according to your expression of it, 
  >> Galaxies are formed by the effect of background radiation on space.
  >> Then once the galaxies are formed there evolves an internal 
  >> gravitational gravitational attraction which fueld the type of 
  >> interaction which within the galaxy entails an increase in
  >> the density of space, which in turn fuels 
SM> Galaxies are fused from space, the burst of gamma radiation detected
  > 
GF>> How is that ? : by the 
  >>then you go on to refer to the red-shift phenomena as  being 
         ***********************************************
You further write: 
SM> 
  >> mention
SM> 
             **************************************
  Nevertheless, I am 
  >> neither pre-judging your theory, nor intend to offer other than the
  >> superficial criticisms presently before you. 
               **************************************
  >> though my approach is somewhat different from previously held 

Revised (October 1995)
This is an introduction to my theory of physics, 
and ultimately of the material reality at large. 
It is a highly condensed and somewhat simplified 
version designed to provide a rapid insight into 
the main issues raised by the theory.  
I look forward to your comments and criticisms. 
Gary Forbat
**************************************************
Copyright (C) G. Forbat 1995, all rights reserved.
**************************************************
The structure of reality is based on the following broad principles: 
SPATIALITY
The dimensions of space and time are interfused in the physically real 
form of 'spatiality'. This comprises the domain of physical reality, 
and this vast emptiness is extended to infinity in all directions. 
The domain of spatiality continues to endure to infinity, that is, it 
has endured in an infinite past and will endure into the infinite 
future. (see arguments for infinity)
MATERIAL 
Within this domain of spatiality exists material and its associated 
material processes. This comprises of both structured material, such as 
substance, as well as material processes such as electro-magnetic 
radiation, or gravitational fields. 
Material and its processes are interactive among themselves and can 
be considered as interchangeable. This interaction creates an 
evolution of material events to which we all bear witness. On the other 
hand, there is no interaction between spatiality and matter. Matter 
occupies space, it does not displace it. Spatiality merely comprises 
a vacant domain which accommodates material and its processes, so the 
two aspects are neither interactive, nor interchangeable. Simply put, 
spatiality cannot affect matter, nor can matter effect the space it 
occupies. 
Though material has some features in common with spatiality, such as 
the three dimensionality of its physical structure, it is in other 
respects quite different from it. The latter forms an unified continuum, 
with no aspects of discontinuity whatsoever, (spatiality, in its overall 
sense cannot be considered in the plural), whilst matter occurs only in 
finite portions, and in discontinuous and gradated patterns. Whichever 
of its forms matter happens to take, whether structured substance or a 
process, in the least, it is always limited by region as well as having 
finite structural duration.  
Material may possess many finite qualities, but it cannot escape from 
its ultimately infinite roots. In several of its aspects, such as its 
overall distribution throughout space, or within its internal structure, 
these infinite roots may be discovered. For instance, internally, 
material substance may be observed to break down into increasingly 
smaller parts. In fact, on present capacity of observation the atom can 
be seen as reducing into several levels of magnitude, firstly into the 
interactive function of the two basic components, the electron and the 
nucleus. The nucleus itself is then composed of two different parts, 
the proton and neutron, which are now seen to reduce further into the 
interactive function of its quark components (not to mention the 
multitude of less stable residual or intermediary parts). In my 
arguments for infinity I show that this system must continue to break 
down further into yet smaller components, and that this process of 
reduction never ceases, continuing in a never-ending chain of 
deconstruction to infinity. This forms a further dimension, and in 
this system matter can have no fundamental basis,(nor does it need to) 
with each stage arising out of the interactive function of a smaller 
set of components.
So much for micro matter. On the larger scales of their massive 
conglomerations, in the relatively vast scales covered by astronomy, 
a system of structuring is also found to exist. But this time, rather 
than reducing into components, it can be seen as expanding outward, 
into increasingly larger scales of structures. This system is presently 
observed to operate on a number of consecutive magnitude levels, 
beginning with the base as solar/planetary systems, which then cluster 
to produce the much larger scale galactic formations. These give rise 
to clusters of galaxies and subsequently their super-clusters, and even 
larger scale levels are already observationally contemplated. In my 
arguments for infinity this outward expanding building process can be 
shown to also continue ever onward toward the infinity of large scales.
So, it may then seem that two independent systems exist, one in 
reduction toward the minute scales of the infinitely small, the other 
ascending into the vast scales of the infinitely extended cosmos. 
One common factor that may be observed is that in both systems the 
stability of the formations are maintained through cyclical interaction 
between the member components of each grouping. Just as the electron 
maintains its cyclical momentum in relation to the nucleus, in the 
stellar based large scale, cyclical motion is expressed in an orbital 
form.   
A more detailed consideration of the macro system reveals a common 
principle in the nature of the cyclical dynamics between magnitude 
levels. At comparatively larger magnitude levels the cyclical pulse is 
found to be less rapid (or slower) than in the smaller scale 
counterparts, or conversely, as the magnitude scale decreases the 
cyclical pulse becomes relatively more rapid. For instance, the 
Earth in our own solar system takes one year to complete its cycle in 
relation to the Sun, but the entire solar system takes some 
200 million years to complete a single one of its cycles as a member 
of the galactic formation. 
The same dynamic principles may be applied to the micro system, when 
the extremely small atomic structure (in relation to the structures 
of astronomy just described) is found to have an enormously rapid 
internal cyclical pulse, the electrons completing many billions of 
cyclical movements in a single second. This extreme dynamicity 
presents a highly integrated facet to our observation, thereby 
displaying a high regularity based on average behaviour over large 
numbers of cycles. The refinement of experimental observation is only 
now beginning to penetrate this integrated facet and the individuality 
of particles are revealed by the statistical nature of their behaviour.  
Now it becomes possible to associate the two systems. The 
stellar/planetary based world of the macro cosmos, with its relatively 
slower cyclical dynamics, presents an almost static view, giving an 
insight into the individuality and variability of cyclical structures. 
The cyclical rate may be slow, indeed almost static from our point of 
view, but over an infinity of time this can only be seen as relative, 
for what may take an electron one second to achieve, a larger scale 
structure could equally achieve over some vast period that infinity 
of time affords. This of course leads to far reaching implications. 
(to be fully explored in the later postings) 
The the two apparently different systems can now be seen as a single 
infinite system, so that the reducing system toward the micro scales, 
and the expanding system of the macro may be seen as merely two aspects 
of an universal dynamic structuring process. The general principles by 
which they may be understood are based on comparative scale and cyclical 
dynamics differences, with the vastly different appearance of the micro 
and macro systems being due to our the location of our viewpoint at a 
particular stage (or rather, sequence of stages) along this infinite 
chain of relations. 
The basic framework for physical reality has now been briefly outlined, 
but the task of reconstructing a full theory of physics has hardly 
begun. This short outline is just an introductory text designed to 
impart a rapid insight into some of the main foundational concepts from 
which the full theory may be generated. As will be seen, there is no 
emptiness in a vaccuum (though this is already somewhat known), but 
rather, there is present an invisible material micro infrastructure 
throughout the entire spatiality (not the so called "ether" concep of 
former times) which is highly regular (from our point of view) and 
interactive, providing the basis of all larger scale material behaviour. 
Ultimately it provides insights and solutions to all aspects of material 
behaviour. 
As will also be seen, Einstein's Relativity is found to be flawed by 
its inverse projection of reality, as though a mask to its face 
(or a cast to its statue), whilst a quantum type physics is actually 
predicted by these findings, so that each of these theoretical bases 
need only a re-orientation to the principles just outlined in order 
to establish their reconciled and permanent form.      
G. Forbat (C)

soltherm@chatlink.com (renewable ) wrote:
>
>
>
>dsg
>I am trying to find out if one can fill a tube
>with *some type* of fluid, cap the tube
>and heat it with, say 1800F, and not
>have it rupture.
Of course.  Fill the tube with the fluid called "air", and there will
be no problem, since it will only expant about three times at that
temperature.  Or, make the tube extremely thick, so that it's strong
enough to resist any explosion.  Either works.
I would think that if a partial vacuum was also 
>in the tube so that the tube was not totally
>full of said fluid, that the expansive quality
>of the liquid would not rupture the tube?
What's with the patent lingo here, anyway?  Look...your boiler stands
a good chance of exploding unless you design and build it properly.
This is not really a frivilous question,
>for I would like the tube to convect heat
>to , say one end of the tube, when that
>end of the tube is a extremely cooled..
Did you recently get a law degree or something?  Been reading too many
patents?
>If the tube was completely full of said fluid,
>then it's expansion due to heat would
>certainly rupture all but the strongest
>of tubes. Neutronium?
Like I said, not if the fluid is air or another gas.  Gasses as well
as liquids are all fluids.  Even if the tube was full of water the
maximum force would be a few thousand psi.  The steam will just occupy
the same volume.
I am sure this could probably start
>a rather interesting argument..
>I hope I hope.
You troublemaker.   :->
Anyway, seems rather moot to me.  What is your point?
Cheers,
Gene A. Townsend

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> In article <2sbuc4knu8.fsf@hpodid2.eurocontrol.fr>,
> iastate       >>From@abian          Steve Jones - JON   wrote:
> >abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> >> Abian answers:
> >> 
[snip]
> >>  Again, you are making incoherent statements.  I never claimed that  "it
> >> takes  M Abian units of mass to move T  forward .....
> >>
> >
> >>(A)  A certain  m  Abian units of Cosmic mass is (perhaps) irretrievably 
> >>     lost to move Time forward  T  Abian units 
> >
[snip]
> >Now please apologize.
> >
> >Steve Jones
> >
> 
> Abian answers:
> 
>    You please apologize!
Ummm now why would I have to ?
> 
>    Why don't you read the postings more carefully!!!  Don't you see
> the difference between   m  (small m)  and  M  (capital M) ?????
Is this yet more rubbish from you mouth...
So if you remove m Abian units from M...
M(n) = M(n-1) - m.
So this means that M is decreasing as well.
So care to retract and apologise ?
> and I have repeatedly,  stated  that:
> 
> (4)   m  =  Mo - M  =  Mo (1 -exp( T/(kT - Mo)))
> 
Ah so as at T(0) M = Mo then M must be a decreasing entity or
Mo must be zero.
So you state it yourself M reduces by amounts of m for each decrease in T
At least understand basic arthimetic. 
Steve Jones.

Judson McClendon wrote:
> I have quite a bit of respect for scientific fact.  Unfortunately, many
> people desire to claim certain 'interpretations' to be actual facts.
> There is quite a difference.  For example, you can speak to a rock, but
> it won't speak back.  It will not say to you "I am xxx years old".  You
> must INFER the age of the rock through some logical process.  Your
> inference might be correct, but you CANNOT KNOW for sure unless you
> observed the rock's formation.  I have spent quite a lot of time looking
> at the factual evidence of the fossil record and other related
> evidence.  This evidence is far better explained with fewer
> inconsistencies by a creation account than by evolution.  It is not that
> God hides the evidence, it is that evolutionists have blinded their eyes
> to any other interpretation.  The Bible clearly foretold that this would
> be, as I mentioned in the post you responded to. (Romans 1 and 2 Peter 3
> are good examples)
Dating methods are reproducible.  Are any of your contentions
reproducable?  I'd say there in much more substantive evidence
supporting Ar/K dating than either of these.  In fact, there is *no*
tangible evidence for a creation model.  Has it been exposed to the
sci-meth?  Sure, oberservations are made, and hypotheses have certainly
been put forth.  But can you name *one* experiment conducted that
supports a creation model?  Is there a "creationist method" that
creationists follow to provide evidence in support of their
contentions?  As a Christian, I find the creationist movement to be
quite un-Christian.  It's really ironic that a faith the holds truth in
such high regard can have members with such disregard for the facts.  I
can understand why lay people believe (because they've been deceived by
"creation scientists"), but the professional scientists who ascribe to
creationism have *no* excuses.
Inference works.  If it didn't, we'd still be picking berries and
scavanging carcasses just to survive.  
[snip]
> Anyway, God TOLD us
> that He created everything.  If we ignore what God plainly tells us, how
> does that make God a liar?
Does Genesis tell us the *mechanism* of creation?
I've a simple question for you.  I've asked this many times of
creationists, and not one has had an answer.  If Adam and Eve were
created in the literal sense of Genesis, and we are all decendents of
them, then there can be, *at most*, only 4 alleles for any give genetic
locus.  Yet we know for a fact that many loci are represented by more
than 4, and some are represented by *dozens* of alleles.  
[snip]
> --
> Judson McClendon      judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
> Sun Valley Systems    http://www.netcom.com/~judsonmc/sunvalley.html
Tony

In article <58f0q2$86f@mari.onr.com>, magruder@onr.com says...
>
>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?
OK, I'll bite.  Not sure what you're referring to, but
perhaps you mean "the sensation of weight", which feels different
(it has to do with how hard the floor is pressing on you) when
your acceleration changes.  For instance, in free fall (an
elevator, a steeply descending plane) you feel weightless.
In the case of rotation, centrifugal force is a useful
concept to think about this (even though not really a "force" but
a description in the rotating frame of other phenomena).
Given this, I'd say you feel lighter when the earth rotates faster,
and heavier for the space station.  That's because the centrifugal
force pulls you AWAY from the earth's surface, but pushes you down
TOWARD the space station's outer wall, which is what constitutes
your "floor" in space.
----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Poe                               
Q & D Software Solutions              Johns Hopkins University
POB 10058, Silver Spring, MD 20914    Dept. of Math. Sciences
qnd@dgsys.com                         poe@jhu.edu
We sell solutions, not just advice.
------------------------------------------------------------

In article <58hqi2$dbh@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz   wrote:
>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.
>
Nice! I hadn't thought of that: Using the net as a source of
wildly off base suggestions to make your own stand out.
Shows my lack of imagination. :^)
Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen.Belleman@cern.ch

In article <587d4m$dgh@agate.berkeley.edu>, rmarkd@uclink2.berkeley.edu 
says...
>
>James Massa (farwalkr@mosquito.com) wrote:
>: My physics III professor could not answer this one. Could there be a wave
>: that travels as both energy and matter?  Just have enough energy to 
become
>: matter but unstable enough to break down into energy again.  I don't know
>: what the implications of such a wave would be. It was just a question 
that
>: popped into my head why we were reviewing Einstein's postulates.
>:                               -Jim
>
> I'm not sure if this is correct but if you're talking about an energy
>'wave' and matter, the energy wave has to move at 'c' and matter can't
>move at 'c'. so I guess no.  
>
>You could also mean something like a resonance (like pair production,
>then annihiliation). Take an energetic photon, it produces an
>electron/positron pair, they then annihilate into energy which 
>produces an e+/e- pair which annihilates.....  I don't think this
>can happen as mother nature would probably not be so fickle minded.
>More likely than not, in order to have what you want (or what I gather
>you asked) the particles would have to be continually coerced. 
Isn't this the description of the early universe in big-bang theory,
at the point where matter starts condensing out?  That is, matter
and energy going back and forth?
Also, doesn't QED (quantum electrodynamics) have this sort of pair
creation/annihilation going on in the vacuum all the time?
----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Poe                               
Q & D Software Solutions              Johns Hopkins University
POB 10058, Silver Spring, MD 20914    Dept. of Math. Sciences
qnd@dgsys.com                         poe@jhu.edu
We sell solutions, not just advice.
------------------------------------------------------------

>>  For EINSTEIN,
>>TIME  is what the dial of a watch indicates.
>Alexander Abian  writes:
>>WHOSE WATCH ?
Keith Stein writes
> definition of time, as that
>what is measured by a witch,
Whoops ! That should be>>>>>>              what is measured by a "WATCH" 
,witch is a different question altogether !     So let us consider this
now,toghther now. When we speak of time,together we probable mean quite
different things..........
Miss take not my meaning here. Let us be quite clear........ We are not
together entirely.Yet......   ...................returning to our quest-
ion. What is an ion ? Well it may sound like a silly question,but really
it is FUNDAMENTAL. Can we know what an ion is ? Another silly question ?
Perhaps, but the point is that WE CAN KNOW !,at least, We can know the 
" Mass " of the ION, and we can know the "Charge " on the ION, and
that's really about all
there is to know 
about ions.
-- 
Keith Stein

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  writes:
>
>NASA is a travesty of bureaucratic incompetence, prostituted engineering, 
>budgetary malfeasance, political patronage, and goddamn stupidity.  
 So you must find it ironic that it was a DOD-funded satellite from 
 the Ballistic Missle Defense Organization (if SDI was known by that 
 moniker back when the mission was flown) that made the discovery 
 after analysis by another group of researchers.  
 Uncle Al, which are worse, DOD contractors or NASA contractors? 
-- 
 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. 

Troy Dawson (td@twics.com) wrote:
: Got your attention at least...
: 
: My question to the world is why, 4 years after the initial
: write-up in Physica-C, a year after the Modenese paper,
: 3 months after the D. Telegraph article, and 2 monhts after
: the BusinessWeek article, has:
: 
: there been *no* friggin' replication of Podkletnov's anti-gravity
: experiment posted to Usenet? ? ?
: 
: Is it Ignorance? Apathy? Laziness? Lack of Resources? Caution?
: Fear? ....
: 
Replication...Do you know how much time it takes to get rid
of all the pesky dreck effects connected with this experiment?
Pons-Fleischmann should be a warning to all,eh?
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

Ken Fischer (kfischer@iglou.com) wrote:
: 
:         Anyway, you would have to have antimatter dirt,
: antimatter fertilizer, antimatter water and antimatter
: trace chemicals to grow an antiapple anyway, and
: I don't think you have any antiapple seeds. :-)
: 
You could try antipasti :-)
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

Terrence W. Zellers (zellert@voicenet.com) wrote:
: Kevin McLaughlin wrote:
: > 
: > Chaotic Resonance (cr@dreamland.net) wrote:
: > : On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:22:24 GMT, jcherepy@mindspring.com (Bill
: > : Cherepy) wrote:
: > :
: > : >
: > : >After reading all the various posts about the "face" on Mars,  decided
: > : >to take an image and do some processing on it. I must say I was
: > : >surprised at the results. If you want to see what they are, I present
: > : >the image without comment at:
: > : >
: > : >http://www.mindspring.com/~jcherepy/face.gif
: > okay, i admit, it was me who put the face on mars. had you all fooled,
: > didn't i?
: > kev.
: 
: Duh!  I really thought it was Alfred E. Neuman there!  You sure had me
: fooled. . . .
: 
Does that mean the "E" stands for mc^2?
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

Peter De Baets wrote:
(u+v)/(1+uv)
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Nick Cummings wrote:
> 
>         I've never studied relitivity, but based on what I know general
> relativity says the Lorenz transformations, and indeed all of special
> relativity, are only a special case for inertial frames (at constant
> velocity.
><...snip...>
>
>         In all the examples you used with people making round trips to other
> planets and accellerating in and out of earth's "rest" plane (as you
> know earth is actually a non-inertial frame), one cannot use the Lorenz
> transformations to predict.  One must use a more general form that
> includes the Lorenz transformations as a special case for a=0. 
>
Please take a look at the SCI.PHYSICS FAQ.  It certainly is possible
to deal with accelerated reference frames in SR ... just as it is
possible to do it in Newtonian mechanics.  In fact, the techniques
are similar. 
So the rest of your comments are either erroneous or besides the point.
Best Regards, Peter

Jim Carr wrote:
> 
> >there been *no* friggin' replication of Podkletnov's anti-gravity
> >experiment posted to Usenet? ? ?
> 
>  I would prefer that it be published.  According to press reports,
>  the small group at UA-Huntsville is working on it.  It takes some
>  time and care to make such a large ceramic superconducting disk.
>  When they do get a result, I expect they will publish first and
>  might (maybe) put the preprint on a preprint server.  That would
>  be the place to watch, not Usenet.  AFAIK, none of the people
>  involved in that work post in s.p or s.p.relativity (where it
>  would be most likely to be presented if at all).
Thanks!
As I've been posting elsewhere I'd wish science would 'loosen up' a bit
& people would feel freer to post preliminary results (couched as such).
I see a real 'nomenklatura' thing happening in science; there's not enough
jobs, so the people who want to contribute to the field have to play politics
just as well as do science.
Sad.
=td=