Newsgroup sci.physics 212224

Directory

Yes, we carry all of your books.  Not only am I interested in reaching the
Brown community, but I know that we are the only bookstore in RI that
carries these books.  In fact, we carry all of Professional Publications
books.  For some odd reason, over the past two years, sales in these books
have dropped off.  I've tried posting signs at the local schools where
students take this type of course and the office where they sign up to
take the exams.  Do you have any suggestions as to how we can get the word
out.  We also carry your competitors books(GLP & Engineering Press) and
their sales have also dropped off.
Thank you,
In article <32AC68F4.DB5@pacbell.net>, spdrmnky@pacbell.net wrote:
> 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."
-- 
Christian Eric Campbell
Buyer, Technical Books & Custom Publishing
phone(401)863-2023  fax(401)863-2233

In article <32A0A0A1.E4@ix.netcom.com>,
Judson McClendon   wrote:
>Akshaya Joshi wrote:
>> 
>> I actually believe the devil is a happening dude and he created our
>> world. If he did not then we wouldn't have choas. As there is choas it
>> means that the devil had some hand in forming our world.
>> 
>> Yours
>> 
>> A Raster
>
>Satan had a hand in getting a curse placed on the world, you're right
>about that.
>(Genesis 3:14-19)
> 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this,
>you
> are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the
>field;
> on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your
> life.
> 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
>seed
> and her Seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His
>heel."
> 16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your
> conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall
>be
> for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
> 17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your
>wife,
> and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, `You
>shall
> not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall
> eat of it all the days of your life.
> 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall
> eat the herb of the field.
> 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the
> ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you
> shall return."
>-- 
What a wonderful God? First he places the serpent in the Garden, and
since he is all-knowing he knew they would eat the apple. It was a
set up. He punishes them for eating the apple and gaining knowledge.
God must want us ignorant...like Christians!!  
Then this wonderful God also punishes all others for Adam and Eves
sins. Isn't that wonderful justice? Why doesn't he give each one of
us the same chance Adam and Eve had? Some might not have disobeyed?
If a person acted the way God acts throughout the Bible he would
be considered extremely cruel and unjust. Therefore even if the
Christian God existed as described in the Bible, I would not
worship him, I would spit on him!!  I would rather go to Hell
than worship something so evil.
God = Devil
Steve

Michael Ramsey wrote:
> 
> There are problems with QM.  Nobody can explain very well what causes
> the Schrodinger wave equation to collapse.  There is nothing in the
> mathematics to motivate the jumping between stationary states.  That is,
> QM has a problem explaining why the real world is particulate.  Clearly,
> the math is either not the whole picture, or it is incomplete.
> 
> --Mike
Hey what about the many worlds interpretation.  The MW inperpretation
superceedes any notion of the asymetric collapse.  The MW interpretation
does not so much explain the collapse, but show that the idea of the
collapse is a catagory mistake. perhaps like the word "football-bat". 
QM need not be inpomplete just because it is weird.
Wayne S

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.
How about steric stabilization...
Chemisorb the fibers with a thin layer of polymer, with a reasonably
uniform thickness.  Find a monomer that is a good solvent of the
cladding polymer, such that the length of the dissolved extended 
is greater than the required distance between the fibers at uniform 
spacing.  Include heat-activated catalyst in monomer solution.  Heat:
voila!  Uniformly spaced fibers, with no index gradient in the
interstitial material.
Possible monomers: epoxies.
Peter Mott
.
Take

In article <32A906BE.95C@bestweb.net>, ca314159  wrote:
>     I don't know why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't
> taught in terms of the Fourier uncertainties in most Quantum Physics
> texts since most of the properties like non-commuting variables,
> zero-point energy and parity... seem to have their origins there.
It *is* taught that way in most of the undergraduate texts on QM that I've
seen-- specifically, those which start with the position-space wave
function, as most do.
However, this is not all there is to uncertainty principles, since there
are cases in which non-commuting variables appear that have nothing to
do with the Fourier analysis of a continuous wave function. For instance,
a beautiful example of non-commuting variables leading to uncertainty is
that of the components of spin of a spin-1/2 particle.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

rsansbury  wrote:
>  A few months ago I received some interesting responses to a post that 
>speculated that the reason for the red shift of more distant stars etc 
>was not that they were moving more rapidly away from us but that they 
>were so much dimmer thean nearer stars etc.
Well using the standard cosmological model, things with greater red
shift are more distant. This is the meaning of the Hubble constant.
Clearly, more distant objects will be dimmer. So there must be a
correlation (not cause and effect) between brightness and redshift.
The point is there is no mechanism known to link the brightness (i.e.,
the number of photons imaged) and the frequency of the light received.
>  The official view of Steve Willner and others was that although the 
>correlation was almost perfect between dimness and red shift there were 
>other unspecified reasons to prefer the red shift & distance correlation 
>etc. Joseph Lazio said that the speculation was worthless unless I could 
>back this possibility up experimentally.
>  If anyone is interested I have an experiment using a laser diode, a 
>photodiode, a Pockel Cell module, a reflector at 50 feet (about 
>50nanoseconds in light speed) and fast logic circuits that seem to 
>indicate that light speed does vary with the intensity of the source 
>independently of distance. The details are available on request.
I strongly suspect you will find the response time of the photodiode
is a strong function of light intensity. Once you have calibrated the
response time of your photodiode correctly, I am certain you will find
the speed of light is not dependent on the intensity of the source.
Remaining comments based on what is most likely a flawed experiment
deleted.

Peter Mott  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.
>
>How about steric stabilization...
>
>Chemisorb the fibers with a thin layer of polymer, with a reasonably
>uniform thickness.  Find a monomer that is a good solvent of the
>cladding polymer, such that the length of the dissolved extended 
>is greater than the required distance between the fibers at uniform 
>spacing.  Include heat-activated catalyst in monomer solution.  Heat:
>voila!  Uniformly spaced fibers, with no index gradient in the
>interstitial material.
>
>Possible monomers: epoxies.
Gee, Pete, have you ever fabricated anything for net profit?
I think we are going to dip the fiber ends in glue, then salt or sugar 
as spacer.  After fabrication the ends get cut off.  If we use sand the 
production area becomes a beach and OSHA demands lifeguards.  I've seen 
"Baywatch."  As soon as the silcone would arrive we'd be liable re Dow 
Corning.
-- 
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 <58feqt$pvg@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Anco S. Blazev
 wrote:
>Hello Kevin,
>
>Kevin Sterner  wrote:
>
>: I would put my money on its being vanishingly small.  Gofman may be
>: right about the dangers of inhaled radioisotopes, but wrong about
>: the actual level of risk to the public health.
>
>This may hold true for US nuclear power stations, but is totally out of
>context, when applied to other countries.  There are several nuclear
>stations in western Europe, operating with cracked cooling jackets, ready
>to blow up like over-ripe watermelons.  
>
>There are more than a dozen of nuclear stations in Russia, Ukraine,
>Bulgaria and Rumania, which use 30 years old Russian technology, which
>even in its hey days was antiquated and falling apart (I know that from
>personal experience).  Their reactors and auxiliary eqt. are held together
>by glue and adhesive tape -- literally. 
>
>When these will decide to follow Chernobil's example is anyone's guess. 
>But they will!  Sooner, or later!  Because these stations are exploited in
>the real sense of the word, and will be until they die from natural
>causes, or pop-up like brother Chernobil did.
>
>Just an opinion.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Anco Blazev
This is rubbish.  Chernobil(sp) did not just "pop-up".  Chernobil was
being operated outside its' designed operating envelope deliberately as an
experiment, without an in-depth analysis or understanding of the possible
consequences by the operating staff.
Soviet designed nuclear plants have safety systems that protect the plant
from major damage, provided the oversight groups assure the plants are
operated within their design limits (which includes expected or predicted
equipment inoperabilities).  It's just that Western plants (including
Western Europe) have a much greater safety margin built in to the design. 
In spite of the fact that the Three Mile Island accident was very severe
in comparison to expected accidents, the offsite accidental release was a
fraction of the annual allowable normal release from the site.
Aging and poor maintenance are definitely issues to be concerned about. 
But to characterize the present conditions as "ready to blow up like
over-ripe watermelons", thereby leading to an imminent and certain major
accident is irrational and irresponsible.
David E. Price
Senior Safety Analyst
-- 
Evangelizing Macintosh increases global productivity!

Never saw the original, but that might reflect the seattle.general 
newsgroup leading the newsgroup list.  I reordered that list somewhat....
thatll@happen.com (Yeah, Sure) flames 
sfk@zipcon.net (Shea F. Kenny) who apparently 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.  ... 
}     ...       Stick to the facts, get off the personal attacks.
 Ah, right.  
}    ...     I'd also question your science, but I really don't know the
} answers, I'm just seeing what comes up in the net. 
 Jumping in while trailing smoke and flames and an affiliation with 
 "(Moonbear, Lunar Development Corporation, et al)" is not a really 
 effective way to get questions like the following answered.  Better 
 to just ask. 
}  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.  
 Are you familiar with polaroid sunglasses and how light can be polarized 
 by reflection from a shiny metalic surface?  All forms of light, which 
 includes radio waves, are transverse -- meaning they travel like the 
 wave on a rope, which can oscillate up and down or sideways.  That is 
 what is meant by polarization.  
 Many materials are optically active, that is, they affect light of 
 different polarizations differently.  Two that are often used for 
 demonstrations are Karo (corn) syrup and crystals of Iceland Spar. 
 I don't know if there is a detailed theoretical explanation of any 
 of these effects; most are simply known empirically.  That is, AFAIK, 
 the case with radar reflections from ice on planets and comets. 
 If there is a hands-on science center where the original poster lives, 
 I recommend a visit.  Most have the tools to do the sorts of optical 
 demonstrations of polarization effects that I mentioned above. 
-- 
 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. 

Rich Haller wrote:
> 
> While scientists as emminent as Einstein have been uncomfortable with
> Quantum Theory "God does not play dice...", my impression is that there
> are no known phenomena that it does not explain. Is this correct?
> 
> Rich Haller 
What about plasmoids? In http://www.padrak.com/ine/ELEWIS7.html
anomalous phenomena are described that can not be explained by
quantum theory.
-- 
Koen van Vlaenderen

Peter Mott 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.
>
> How about steric stabilization...
> 
> Chemisorb the fibers with a layer of polymer, with a reasonably
> uniform thickness.  This is easily done by washing the fibers
> in a coupling agent, then spraying running fibers thru a polymer
> solution.  Find a monomer that is a good solvent of the
> cladding polymer, such that the length of the dissolved, absorbed 
> extended chains is greater than the required distance between the 
> fibers at uniform spacing.  Include heat-activated catalyst in monomer 
> solution.  Embed fibers into this monomer, heat: voila!  Uniformly 
> spaced fibers, with no index gradient in the interstitial material.
> 
I thought of a variation on the theme:  Chemisorb thin layer of
polymer onto fibers, then cross-linked polymer with e-beam,
gamma radiation, etc.  Embed coated fibers into monomer solution 
of the same polymer, which will swell the coating.  Again, include
heat-activated catalyst, heat.  
Peter Mott
PS. I fixed and clarified my original message.

In article <58ch51$1r2@convolution.eng.umd.edu>, coolhand@Glue.umd.edu
(Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri) wrote:
> Every 4th year is a leap year, expect for
> every 100th year which is not a leap year, expect for
> every 400th year wich is a leap year.
> 
> There is a higher order correction which I forget, but we will almost
> certainly not be using our current calendar system by then anyways.
The higher-order correction is not part of the calendar in use in the
West, but I heard somewhere that it *is* officially part of the calendar
used in Iran. I think it is the additional statement that every 4000th
year is not a leap year. I suppose we'll worry about that when it happens.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

In article <58asvu$pdb@news.asu.edu>, jjtom4@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>         Advice / comments.  What's a "good" score?  
Depends. I thought mine was pretty hot until I came to Harvard and
discovered that almost everyone there had scored higher than I did.
Some of the undergrads were *devastated* about getting scores higher
than mine.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

In article <58hqet$1gb@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu
(Jeff Candy) wrote:
> 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.
The question that really stumped me was one that asked about the sequence
of different pumps that one would use to obtain a particular laboratory
vacuum. My impression was that they asked an intentionally scattershot
collection of questions about different branches of physics, so that very
specialized knowledge would have some chance of being recognized-- they
didn't expect anyone to be able to answer most of them.
I had had a liberal-arts sort of undergrad physics education: lots of
general principles, little nuts-and-bolts knowledge of specifics like what
kind of vacuum pump to use. That hurt me on the physics GRE.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

In article <58irc6$hl7@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, msking1@ix.netcom.com(Stephen Paul King) wrote:
> >Wald says that in linearized gravity, the gravitomagnetic
> >acceleration, analagous to the electromagnetic acceleration, is given
> >by:
> >     a = -E - 4v x B
> >E and B are defined in terms of the so-called gravitomagnetic
> >4-potential in the same way that they are defined for E&M; in terms of
> >the potential.
> Umm, would there be something akin to the vector and scalar potentials
> involved?
Yes, it's just the same as in electromagnetism.  Of course, all of this
only holds in the linearized approximation; a flat-spacetime vector
theory doesn't work.  The general case requires general relativity.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

In article <58cqbd$8du@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, nurban@vt.edu wrote:
> I heard that the _average_ for Caltech was around 830 or so..
> disgusting, isn't it?  :)
This is interesting-- everyone's quoting numerical scores. I don't
even *remember* what I scored in those terms; all I remember is the
percentile. What are these numbers in typical percentile terms?
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> 
> Peter Mott  wrote:
>>
>>How about steric stabilization...
>>
>> Chemisorb the fibers with a thin layer of polymer, with a reasonably
>> uniform thickness.  Find a monomer that is a good solvent of the
>> cladding polymer, such that the length of the dissolved extended
>> is greater than the required distance between the fibers at uniform
>> spacing.  Include heat-activated catalyst in monomer solution.  Heat:
>> voila!  Uniformly spaced fibers, with no index gradient in the
>> interstitial material.
>>
>> Possible monomers: epoxies.
> 
> Gee, Pete, have you ever fabricated anything for net profit?
Well yes, but not lately.  But I do believe you can use my recipe 
in an injection moulding machine, with the mould arranged 
vertically.  The vertical arrangement will take bouyancy out
of the equations.  The spacing is established at the ends with a jig,
to be cut off later just you suggest.  After loading the mould with 
the fibers, you charge with a coupling agent, drain; then with
a polymer solution, drain; then with the monomer, heat, then
remove your newly cast rod.  You could do the whole process 
pretty fast.  There is nothing expensive about the materials.
I believe that this can be quite profitable, and can easily 
produce 10' rods in commercial quantities.  
> I think we are going to dip the fiber ends in glue, then salt or sugar
> as spacer.  After fabrication the ends get cut off.  If we use sand the
> production area becomes a beach and OSHA demands lifeguards.  I've seen
> "Baywatch."  As soon as the silcone would arrive we'd be liable re Dow
> Corning.

Steve Courton wrote:
> 
> In article <32A0B403.4CBA@ix.netcom.com>,
> Judson McClendon   wrote:
> >
> >You haven't studied the Bible carefully.  If you study the original
> >Hebrew for Psalm 104:6-8 you will see that it can be understood to say
> >that the mountains 'stood up' and the valleys 'sank down' when 'at your
> >rebuke the waters fled' (referring to God).  Many Bible scholars
> >understand it this way: At the flood the ocean floors may have lifted
> >somewhat, and possibly the mountains were lower, or lowered as well.
> >Perhaps this is what is meant by the 'fountains of the great deep' in
> >Genesis 7:11 and 8:2.  When the flood left, the reverse transpired, as
> >described in Psalm 104 above.  Note that if this happened, there would
> >be truly mind-boggling 'tidal waves', maybe 1000 feet high, which would
> >come crashing across the continents, sweeping all before them.  Untold
> >billions of tons of animals and plants would be swept into huge piles
> >and covered up.  Rich material for fossil, oil and coal formation, no?
> 
> Lets see, 1000 foot tidal waves hits wooden ark, can you guess what the
> result is? Not to mention there will be more than just one tidal wave.
> 
> Of course the whole ark story is stupid, a few flaws are below:
> 
> 1) Humans living extremely unrealistic life spans before flood.
> 
> 2) Wouldn't it be simpler to just kill all the unjust humans. Why wipe
>    out all the innocent animals.
> 
> 3) No way to get animals from all parts of the world to ark and back to
>    there native lands. Also problems with food for carnavores and genetic
>    diversity.
> 
> 4) ALL scientific evidence contradicts ALL parts of the story.
> 
> 5) Difficult to beleive all races came from Noah's family.
> 
> 6) Really unrealistic to beleive that only Noah was good, every one
>    else evil.
> 
> 7) Why was God mad? Isn't he all knowing. He then should have known
>    this would happen. It's his fault for not making us better in the
>    first place. Its like I purposely made a robot that I knew would
>    disobey me, is it then right to get mad at the robot or get mad
>    at its creator?
> 
> 8) All sea life would die since old habitats would be in no-light
>    zone and silt would kill them also.
> 
> 9) What happened to fresh-water fish? Was the new water salty or
>    fresh? Both fresh and salt water species couldn't survive.
> 
> 10) Where did water come from, where did it go? Why didn't the polar
>     ice caps melt?
> 
> I am sure there are many more flaws, these came off the top of my head.
> In fact I doubt there is a single realistic sentence in the entire
> story. Only a moron could believe something so stupid.
> 
> Steve
Comments from Jerry:
   People believed these stories long ago. Thus the stories were quite
brilliant. They were not stupid stories, the people were merely uneducated.
Where would you find people to believe these stories today? You wouldn't
find any educated Jews believing their own stories. Many educated Jews
believe in God but the stories are merely moral myths.They were there to
impress the ignorant that one must fear God or be killed. The Christian
stories had the same theme but instead of death as the punishment they
went a step further to punish people with eternal torture for not obeying
God.
  It is basically the same thing. The great flood recorded upon the walls
of caves far from the scene and from many peoples actually occurred. Thus
a real flood became the basis of the flood story. And of course the Jews
turned the real event into punishment from God upon mankind.
   Our little evolved species is being punished by the God of the Universe
because we are not perfect. Thus the God of LOVE kills us over and over
again and even tortures us forever because we are not perfect.
  The Jewish God is like an evil man who kicks his dog go death. The
Christian God is even worse, he kicks his dog to death and then has the
dog come back to life so he can kick the dog to death over and over
again.
  No wonder why the best minds of this Earth turned away from the Churches
long ago never to return. The best minds had ethical minds which could
not relate to an unethical God. Certainly the rapist and murderer and
child molestor could find comfort in the forgiveness of the unethical
God who could torture the ethical atheists for all eternity.
  Yet as we move away from such madness and marvel at the creation we can
only realize that the Prophets of old were only the Prophets of old and
they had no real understanding of God and the Universe. The Prophets of
old were merely products of their times. They lived in an age when man
was just a barbarian. They lived in an age of ignorance and mythology
and stupidity. The Bible was a superior book of the time. Yet as we look
upon the Bible of old, we see how ignorant the people really were as 
compared to modern man. We have come a long way. Today we will not listen
to the story of Noah and the Ark. Today we will not listen to unethical
God concepts which destroy all mankind or which punish the ignorant and
innocent forever. We have come a long way from that. Yet some still preach
these things. They attempt to keep man down. Yet more and more man walks
away from untruth.
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of Truth)

    I am having reservations about this theory. However, I am still
entertaining hope that it will pan out. Here is a longshot. Would it be
possible to isolate the expression for kinetic energy in the equation
of General Relativity and solve for this expression in terms of the
spacetime curvature? This might be very interesting. Could someone tell
me if this is possible?
Edward Meisner

Hi there,
I am looking for informations about Kurt Diebner, a german  nuclear
scientist during WW II.
I cant find any book about him, and be interested, what happened after
war to him.
Could anyone give me some infos? All I know, is, that he was doing at
last nuclear research in Stadtilm, came with the other scientists to
USA, and then ends the story...
Thanks in advantage,
See you,
Harry
Underground Systems of World War II:
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1325

mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
[re: absurd debate over which produces more ideas, humanities or science]
> No, silly. The issue here is what provides richer ground for innovation
> and improvement. One observes that refusal to describe the nature
> in terms of final causes produced 3 centuries of continious improvement
> in human condition. Food production per capita, average lifespan, 
> any other quality of life indicator have been improving ever since
> modern science appeared. 
How many ideas is that?
> jti:
>] 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. 
>
> You are welcome to illustrate the alleged fertility of this idea. Please
> note, that rivers of verbiage found in humanities' publications
> does not really count.
Right.  "Go ahead and make your case, but don't expect me to listen to
you."  The debate boils down to whether you can lump all love poems
into some single concept like "boy meets girl" or whether there are
distinct features of a complex terrain.  The same, obviously, goes for
physics.  Does it all boil down to "boy examines stuff" or do you want
to see some kind of detail?  I told you it was idiotic.  By claiming
one or the other, we merely emphasize our lack of imagination for the
other.  (Though, of the two of us, I'm the one who sees this.)
>] 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.
>
> While others, who bother to take notice, then go ahead and demonstrate
> that output of such idea is no different from random gibberish.
Nobody would deny your expertise in the field of gibberish.  Whether
anything can be random or not is another question, for which I suspect
you are not well prepared at all.  On the average then, your
pronouncements concerning this question may resemble a coin toss.
-- 
"Such a long long time to be gone, and a short time to be there."

Shea F. Kenny (sfk@zipcon.net) 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
Oh, you mean he is extremely useful.  :-)
: 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
This can become difficult in a thread full of "he said, she said".  He did
acknowledge the possibility, and appologized up front for any error he
might make.
: 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.
Hmm.  There are really two ways one can make the accusation that NASA was
lying.  One is to look at the facts and decide that not only are the
conclusions presented are not only wrong, but are so obviously wrong that
a simple error is out of the question.  The other way is to go "
NASA is a guv'm'nt group.  Must be lyin'. ".
You freely admit to ignorance of the science underlying the claim, but
take the view that NASA is lying.  That makes it pretty clear to me which
approach you used.  
Then you turn around and have the gaul to turn around launch a personal
attack and end with "Stick to the facts, get off the personal attacks."
It is painfully obvious that you never bothered to aquaint yourself with
the facts, and insist that somebody teach you what you should have
understood before you ever accused NASA of fraud.  It is innoccent until
proven guilty - even when the US government is involved.
-- 
 Jim Walters          
 jwalters@clark.net      "Putting the DOH! in Aikido"                     

Steve Courton wrote:
> 
> In article <32A0A0A1.E4@ix.netcom.com>,
> Judson McClendon   wrote:
> >Akshaya Joshi wrote:
> >>
> >> I actually believe the devil is a happening dude and he created our
> >> world. If he did not then we wouldn't have choas. As there is choas it
> >> means that the devil had some hand in forming our world.
> >>
> >> Yours
> >>
> >> A Raster
> >
> >Satan had a hand in getting a curse placed on the world, you're right
> >about that.
> >(Genesis 3:14-19)
> > 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this,
> >you
> > are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the
> >field;
> > on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your
> > life.
> > 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
> >seed
> > and her Seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His
> >heel."
> > 16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your
> > conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall
> >be
> > for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
> > 17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your
> >wife,
> > and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, `You
> >shall
> > not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall
> > eat of it all the days of your life.
> > 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall
> > eat the herb of the field.
> > 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the
> > ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you
> > shall return."
> >--
> 
> What a wonderful God? First he places the serpent in the Garden, and
> since he is all-knowing he knew they would eat the apple. It was a
> set up. He punishes them for eating the apple and gaining knowledge.
> God must want us ignorant...like Christians!!
> 
> Then this wonderful God also punishes all others for Adam and Eves
> sins. Isn't that wonderful justice? Why doesn't he give each one of
> us the same chance Adam and Eve had? Some might not have disobeyed?
> 
> If a person acted the way God acts throughout the Bible he would
> be considered extremely cruel and unjust. Therefore even if the
> Christian God existed as described in the Bible, I would not
> worship him, I would spit on him!!  I would rather go to Hell
> than worship something so evil.
> 
> God = Devil
> 
> Steve
What you say is true. Most ethical human beings want nothing to do with
an unethcial God. Yet God is quite ethical and worthy of worship. And you
worship this God by caring for the Earth, studying science and mathematics,
getting interested in astronomy, becoming a teacher, a doctor, an artist,
a musician, etc. Mumbling things in Church that make no sense is hardly
worship. 
  The Bible comes with communication between the Jew and the collective
soul of the Jew. I AM is merely the little desert God of the Jews which is
the Jewish ancestors. Thus the Jew speaks to his tribal ancestos and they
tell him to obey the tribal laws. This is the same message that all the
other tribal religions receive. It is merely extrasensory perception of the
collective of the dead.
  I AM is an evolved entity and moves forward with us. Thus the intelligence
of the collectives of the dead increase with time. Today the same God
understands that the Earth is not flat and that the stars will not fall from
the Heavens. At the time of Jesus, I AM only understood that stars where 
little specks in the sky. 
   I AM is merely a property of space and time. The living die and the 
memory of the living exists in space and time. This memory becomes life
anew from a collective sense. Thus the Prophets of God dealt with a
scientific property of space and time and not the creator of space and
time.
  The God of the Universe is a higher level. This level of God is concerned
with MAN and the continuity of the creation all over the Universe. It could
care less what the little individual thinks. Each of us is only one little
part of the creation over one little part of time.
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of Truth)

Gentlemen;
Have the people at cern in Switzerland developed small amounts of
anti-matter?  If so does the combination of matter and anti-matter
create great amounts of energy or do they neutralize each other out.
If there combination would create energy would it be possible to
develop a model rocket using an anti-matter propulsion system?  Would
this propulsion be greater than current chemical propellants?  I assume
some type of magnetic field would be needed to contain the
matter,anti-matter combination.
Please e-mail your response to:   Kalish1@ix.netcom.com
Thanks;
Brian

I wish any one could help me and send me a LaTeX or DVI file explaining this
principia to me. I'm a freshmen at the University of Seville.
Ps. I will send an E-X-mas card

Bill Simpson wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Wayne Shanks wrote:
> 
> > a wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe that laser photon statistics and LED photon statistics are
> > > > Poisson statistics.
> > > >
> > > > The only difference between a laser and an incandesent source is that
> > > > all the photons in a laser are of the same frequency and phase locked to
> > > > each other.  these two properties are what makes a laser a laser.  A LED
> > > > is like a laser except that the light is not all the same phase.
> > > > Incadesent light is of many frequencies and random phase.  If you are
> > > > just talking about the the photon counting statistics then the laser the
> > > > LED and the lamp are the same.
> > > >
> > > > Wayne S
> > >
> > > A single-frequency laser source will exhibit poisson statistics.  However,
> > > an LED will have a Gaussian distribution.  This is related to the fact
> > > that there are many uncorrelated random processes happening.  According to
> > > the Central Limit Theorem, whenever you add up the contributions of many
> > > random processes (regardless what distribution they are, in our case
> > > Poissonian) you'll end up with a Gaussian distribution (assuming that the
> > > processes are uncorrelated.)
> Incandescent light is also "random" ("chaotic" is the term Louden uses),
> yet its photon statistics are not normal.  I don't get it.
> > >
> > > If you have a multi-longitudinal mode laser you'll also get Gaussian statistics.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >
> >
> > Very interesting....so you mean to say that the interval between photons
> > hitting a counter is normally distributes about some mean interval for
> > light emitted by a LED?  or are you talking about some other coralation?
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> By "Poisson distributed" one means:
> "the number of photons delivered by a particular flash is a realization of
> a Poisson random variable with some mean"
> To measure this you would have a histogram with the count on the y-axis
> and the number of photons delivered on the x-axis.
> 
> By "normally distributed" one means "the number of photons delivered by a
> particular flash is a realization of a normal random variable with some
> mean and variance".  I hope this is what was meant.
> 
> The statement about interevent intervals is  wrong, it seems to me.
> (For example, Poisson distribution does NOT refer to distribution of
> interevent times for Poisson process.  Interevent times for Poisson
> process distributed as exponential!  Not sure how normal distribution for
> photons would affect interevent times)
> 
> BTW I realized after posting initially that incandescent light is not
> Poisson distributed, strictlt speaking.  It is approx Poisson only if the
> observation interval is much longer than the coherence time (whatever that
> is).
> 
> Where can I read more about LEDs and photon statistics?
> 
> Thanks for all the responses.
> 
> Bill Simpson
With some diode lasers and very low noise current supplies, you can get
number 
squeased light in which then variance in the number of photons per
second is 
less than predicted by Poisson statistics and which by the Heisenberg
Uncertainty principle has increased phase noise.  The inter-photon
distribution is then not 
exponential but a delta function for perfectly number squeased light.
Any loss in
the optics or detector will rapidly destroy the squeased state with a
50% loss
destroying all squeasing!  Unfortunately I don't know a good reference