Newsgroup sci.physics 212366

Directory

Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Charles Cagle wrote:
> 
> > (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> > sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories)
> >
> > In article <584v3n$76h@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> > glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
> 
> > >What?  The whole history of special and general relativity is
> > >that of running experiments to confirm predictions, such as time
> > >dilation, the equivelance between mass and energy, and the
> > >precession of Mercury.  Antimatter was predicted by quantum mechanics
> > >years before it was identified.
> >
> > BS.  Antimatter wasn't predicted by QM because QM hardly predicts
> > anything.  QM is mostly statistical.  If you knew diddly about what you
> 
> Okay, QED then.  The prediction still came before the discovery.  And can
> I assume tacit agreement about relativity?
> 
> > were talking about you would know this.  The same people who predicted
> > antimatter also expected half the universe to be antimatter and it isn't
> > and they are clueless.
> 
> Clueless?  I guess we're lucky you know why half the universe isn't
> antimatter.  So tell us.
> 
> > > Population inversions were pretty well
> > >figured out long before lasers were invented.  Black holes had been
> > >predicted for years, and we're only starting to get solid evidence that
> > >they exist.
> >
> > Hard to keep from laughing at such doofusness.  'Solid evidence' you say?
> > Black hole theory is nothing but bullshit.  That you and millions others
> > are taken in by it in no way lends validity to this childishness.
> 
> Then you tacitly agree about lasers?  Now tell me why you think black
> hole theory is bullshit, and why there is no evidence of black holes.
> 
> > >  When the cosmic background radiation was discovered it fell
> > >into the predicted range.
> >
> > And actually validated nothing.
> 
> But it wasn't wrong.
> 
> > > Superfluid helium, Bose-Einstein condensation.
> > >I'm sure you could find more if you looked.
> >
> > Superfluidity in helium was a serrendiptous discovery not a prediction.
> 
> Maybe I was wrong about superfluidity.  But you've got to admit that
> Bose-Einstein prediction was dead-on!  Predicted decades ago, it was only
> confirmed recently.
> 
> > There still not an adequate force law to describe the attractive
> > interaction between bosons which have overlapping de Broglie wavelengths
> > as happens in a BEC.  Superconductivity is in a mess as far as expanations
> > go.  Top men are now reluctantly tossing out the BCS theory even though
> > they haven't a good replacement.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you.  Are you saying physics is fallacious because
> they're tossing out the BCS theory, or are you saying the fact that
> they're tossing out the BCS theory proves that physicists do clean house
> sometimes and admit they don't understand something?
> 
> > >There's some cases of physics scrambling to catch up to observation, and
> > >some cases of experimentalist scrambling to keep up with theorists.  It
> > >goes both ways.
> >
> > Mostly it goes in the direction of making up ad hoc theories to try and
> > cover up the ignorances which are shown to emerge nearly every month with
> > new discoveries by planetary probes like Galileo or by discoveries by HST.
> 
> You say this like it's a bad thing.  Of course we're going to be ignorant
> of things we didn't know existed!  You can't make up a theory that
> describes the universe a priori!  So if you find something new, what are
> you going to do about it?  Are you going to ignore it because it doesn't
> fit into your spherical heavens, or are you going to try to understand it
> and fit it into your description of things?
> 
> > >Now, what phenomena is not adequatly explained?
> >
> > Superconduction, Stellar Jets, Ball Lighnting, Planetary evolotion, the
> > emission of em quanta (comprehensively explaining the advanced waves which
> > Feynman and Wheeler knew were required to be emitted backwards through
> > time from the future), the Aharanov-Bohm effect, Electric Charge, Matter
> > creation, Gravity, the Magnetotoroids of planetary bodies (erroneously
> > called Magnetospheres).
> 
> Oh come on now, you really think physics is invalidated because it can't
> explain electric charge or gravity?  And I wouldn't call the problems
> with planetary evolution and stellar jets and magnetotoroids and other
> things a problem with physics until we know it's not just a matter of
> incomplete data.
> 
> Physics is first and foremost a practical science.  While you're
> complaining that it doesn't explain matter creation to your satisfaction,
> other people are using it to help build things that work.
> 
> > >  Are you talking about
> > >things like engines and nuclear bombs and musical instruments and particle
> > >accelerators and lasers and solid-state electronics and radios and neon
> > >signs and the rest of the modern world that surrounds you?  Or are you
> > >talking about things like dark matter?
> >
> > You mention technology like present theory actually produced it when
> > nothing could be further from the truth.  Much of our technology works in
> > spite of the fact that we don't know the elementary details of some of the
> > physics behind it.  Most technology is produced experimentally in the same
> > way Edison did his inventing, poorly and non-predictively.
> 
> My history of physics is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure spark coils
> were built to prove electric energy can be transmitted through the air,
> rather than Maxwell's equations being modified after this was
> discovered.  I'm pretty sure the transistor depended heavily on
> solid-state theory, rather than solid state theory being developed after
> some researchers doped peices of germanium and silicon and stuck them
> together and applied a voltage just to see what would happen.  We all
> know that particle accelerators and navigational satellites cannot be
> properly designed without relativity, and of course relativity predated
> navigational satellites and all but the simplest particle accelerators
> (if you want to give that title to a pair of electrodes stuck into a
> vacuum tube).
> 
> > >The parts that physics cannot adequately explain are still under active
> > >research.  If you want to trash physics, first you have to come up with
> > >something that will help you design bridges and airplanes and x-ray
> > >machines and space probes and everything else that is handled so well be
> > >modern physics.
> >
> > Bogus requirement.  A replacement theory is not required before an old
> > theory is abandoned.  It takes great courage and strength of character to
> 
> No!  It's not a bogus requirement for the very simple reason that people
> are already using physics RIGHT NOW to design bridges and airplanes and
> x-ray machines and space probes and RADAR and microwave ovens and LCD
> displays for notebook computers and faster computers and medical equipment.
> And they're not going to stop just because you say so!  They're going to
> keep on using physics to do their jobs until someone gives them
> something better.  No matter how red in the face you get complaining about
> this state of affairs, engineers are still going to be making money on
> that old theory you hate so much.  Deal with it.
> 
> > admit cluelessness about an area of physics as some top people in
> > superconduction are now doing.
> >
> > >  Then you have to tackle the problems like dark matter and
> > >superconductivity, and you will go through exactly the same process that
> > >physicists are going through right now as you read this.  So really, what
> > >would be the point?
> >
> > If it has to be explained to you - then you are part of the problem.
> 
> I guess I'm part of the problem, then.  So you'd better explain it to
> me.  How will you probe the secrets of nature, and how would that
> approach be different than the currently popular approach?
> 
> > >These shortcomings don't mean it's time to throw anything out, especially
> > >if it's so useful and you have nothing to replace it.  It just means
> > >physics is still a work in progress.  That's the fun part.
> >
> > No.  That's the moron part.  You actually like working with theories that
> > are known to be wrong?  You're not the first.  With attitudes like this
> > small wonder physics is in dire straits these days.
> 
> Of course I like working with theories that are wrong!  If the textbooks
> were only filled with theories that are completely right, than physicists
> would be out of a job, wouldn't they?  All further work would be reduced
> to simple engineering problems.
> 
> That doesn't mean I'll apply those theories that are wrong, insist that
> they're right, and ignore the results when my McGuffin explodes.  That
> just means I'll be trying to correct the mistakes.
> 
> > >Why is that opinion only expressed by people who don't know a Hamiltonian
> > >from a Lagrangian?
> >
> > What would actually lead one to believe that they (these state equations)
> > actually have anything to do with the real physics behind the universe?
> > You are confusing math which is an abstraction of language with the
> > physics which the math would purport to explain.  This half-witted
> > approach to doing physics where physicists have gotten a hard-on over
> > their mathematical inventions lies at the root of most problems in physics
> 
> So you flunked out of advanced mechanics, hmm?
> 
> Do you want to know why I think these state equations have anything to do
> with the real world?  Do you really want to know why I think they're
> worth learning?  Do you?  Okay, I'll tell you.  Are you ready for this
> one?  It's a pretty complicated explanation, but I'll go slow.
> 
> Because they work.
> 
> > today.  For instance it was nitwits who took this approach and developed
> > the idea of a continuum which is a mathematical idea that cannot be
> > experimentally confirmed in the real world of physics.  (Even Einstein
> > began to doubt the validity of the field concept near the end of his life
> > and commented that he considered it possible that the idea of continuous
> > structures was wrong and that if it were, there would go his 'castle in
> > the sky and the rest of modern physics'.)
> 
> I'm beginning to detect some philosophical misunderstandings here.  You
> complain about the math.  But you have to realize that concepts like
> velocity and mass are like a dictionary that translates the real world
> into a logical and manipulatable structure, and back again.  The math is
> not a problem (well, I mean it is a problem, sometimes I truly hate the
> math, but it works right).  Only the translation to and from is a problem.
> 
> And of course continuous structures are wrong.  That's because things are
> made out of atoms!  Atoms are not continuous, they're discrete.
> Electricity is not continuous, they're made of discrete charges.  But for
> most applications it would be just silly, not to mention computationally
> prohibitive, to deal with the discrete nature of matter.  When you're
> designing a radio antenna you don't need to account for discrete charges.
> Good God, man, haven't you ever heard of spherical chickens?
> 
> > >As you look through the history of science you'll find that revolutions
> > >have only been started by people who thoroughly understand the
> > >contemporary theory.
> >
> > Actually this is not true.  Who fully understood Ptolemaic astronomy which
> > was really  ad-hoc?  How can that which is wrong be fully understood?
> > Revolutions have typically been started by loners who took the world on
> > its own terms.   You are suggesting that first one has to fill himself and
> > become skilled in the erroneous dogma and crap promulgated at the world's
> > so-called institutions of 'higher learning' before they have a chance at
> > apprehending truth.
> 
> Actually, yes.  Look at the revolutionaries of science.  Darwin and
> Wallace, Einstein, Maxwell, Newton, Galileo, for instance.  If you don't
> understand the contemporary theory you won't even know what the problems
> are or how to correct them.
> 
> > I wish I could be kinder to people like you but you earn my utter disdain
> 
> Are we getting nasty now?
> 
> > and your dogma should be anathema to those who seek truth.  I have a hard
> > time expressing to you just how morally and intellectually corrupt your
> > comments identify you to be.  Your attitude  epitomizes everything that is
> > wrong with modern so-called 'science'.
> 
> As long as we're judging each other, I'll observe that you seem to have
> some philosophical problem with the experimental pollution and filth of
> the real world that has invaded physics, which should be a beautiful
> realm of pure thought.  You seem to think that anything is a failure that
> isn't completely correct on the first try.  That, and you gave up on the
> math because it was too hard for you.
> 
> Instead of spending all this time uselessly whining about other people's
> work, why aren't you doing your own work?  Why aren't you developing this
> new theory without math that will replace physics?  Or are you just a
> crackpot who talks big and gets upset if other people don't do the hard
> work for you?
> 
> --
> Gouda's good but cheddar's better.
Damn , would love to sit and drink a beer with the two of you . We call
this Phenom a flame. Dont let it get to you . I concur with you 100% on
your attitudes about modern Science,Math,Physics.Have a Nice Day
						Russell Schirrach

In article <58n7s2$7o7@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Gavin Burnell  wrote:
>> :    Here's a problem. The probability of tunneling decreases 
>> : with density and with the width of the potential barrier. So 
>> : with an infinite density one would have zero probability of 
>> : tunneling occurring.
>
>Leaving aside whether this a suitable model or not, you want to be
>careful to distinguish between the tunneling rate of one particle and
>the rate at which particles tunnel. The latter being a function of the
>number of particles which can tunnel (which is I think the density term).
   It does appear that I have confused myself. When I was writing the reply
I was thinking of a single particle interacting with a barrier which had a
particular density. Hence increased density gives a potential barrier with
a greater 'height'.
>In this case I suspect that the density also comes into the potential
>barrier height, so that an infinte density would imply an infinite
>potential barrier => no tunneling.
   This was what I was thinking of.
Brett

Kevin Sterner wrote:
> 
> I would put my money on it's (danger) 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.
> 
For years now all I've heard on either side is personal opinions and guesses.
Many of which (on both sides) seem to be biased for various reasons.
Sounds like what we need is a good verifiable double-blind study to assess
exactly what the risk really comes out to be.
Of course we will need to find about a thousand people willing to radiate 
themselves for science!              Any volunteers?
Jay

The North American site is somewhere under http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
(there's an obvious link on this page).  I don't know if there's an
Australian site for it; the others are listed on the page I named.
Mark W. Meckes           "True! -- nervous -- very, very dreadfully
mwm2@po.cwru.edu          nervous I had been and am; but why will you
Case Western              say that I am mad?"	       E.A. Poe
 Reserve University	                        "The Tell-Tale Heart"

You might look at a book on "essential oils". I have seen fat books
on the subject and one might point you to the relevant physical
properties of various oils.
Allan Adler
adler@pulsar.cs.wku.edu

: >> Nathan M. Urban wrote:
: >> one of the foundations of the
: >> scientific method is a quest to understand "why" things are the way
: >> they are.  By "why" I mean a clear understanding of the cause for
: >> what we observe.
It's nice when a theory explains all of the good things one
learns in first year journalism: who, what, where, when, why,
how, and so what; but, in my view, the only requirement of
a good scientific theory is that it make specific, 
quantifiable, valid, and unambiguous predictions.
-- Wetboy

Please help me solve an argument that has plagued my friends and I for a long 
time.
We were sitting around one day drinking and telling storiesand someone asked:
What would happen if you drilled a hole through the center of the Earth and 
then jumped into it. BUT there is a "force field" that protects you from the 
heat, and not the pressure.
Now bear with-us we are college students, but aren't magoring in the science 
department. So if you do have an answer please use simple terms and not too 
much technical jargon.
We've asked a few people who are taking physics and maths and have had answers 
from implosion to explosion, to bouncing back-and-forth to infinity.
I finally laid down the law and if we were going to find an answer it would be 
here. So if you can answer this it would solve a 2 year debate.
Thank-you
Willie McDonald
willow@netshop.net

Please help me solve an argument that has plagued my friends and I for a long 
time.
We were sitting around one day drinking and telling storiesand someone asked:
What would happen if you drilled a hole through the center of the Earth and 
then jumped into it. BUT there is a "force field" that protects you from the 
heat, and not the pressure.
Now bear with-us we are college students, but aren't magoring in the science 
department. So if you do have an answer please use simple terms and not too 
much technical jargon.
We've asked a few people who are taking physics and maths and have had answers 
from implosion to explosion, to bouncing back-and-forth to infinity.
I finally laid down the law and if we were going to find an answer it would be 
here. So if you can answer this it would solve a 2 year debate.
Thank-you
Willie McDonald
willow@netshop.net

David B. Greene (daveg@halcyon.com) wrote:
: Scott.Weiser@worldnet.att.net (Scott Weiser) says:
: >sfk@zipcon.net (Shea F. Kenny) >wrote:
: >>had an open container container of the following Quackinol:
: lay off the quackinol hesp
Hey!  It's not 0.5 bad with bitters.
#%^>
: >>}Kevin D. Quitt (Kevin@Quitt.net) wrote:
: >>}: And by the way, the surface of the moon is not a vacuum.
: >>}
: >>}Not a perfect vacuum perhaps, but it would be better (harder) vacuum than 
: >>}that which can be produced in any laboratory on Earth.
: >>
: >>       Huh?  There is nothing difficult about a perfect vacuum sir.
: >Wow!  Hear that all you accredited scientists?  Shea has developed the
: >perfect vacuum!  I wonder if he's got the patent on the process?
: >
: >Oh, wait a minute, I just figured it out....he didn't *develop* the
: >perfect vacuum, he *is* the perfect vacuum....between his ears.
: heh, no wonder there is a giant sucking sound every time he opens his 
: mouth.  Well at least he didn't get lured into dreams of cold fusion, 
: sci-fi boy.
Now now.  He prolly mean it was perfect 'cept for those last few pesky 
air an' water mol'cules.
#%^>
: >Sorry, never mind, it's merely a natural abberation which cannot
: >(hopefully) be duplicated.
: >
: >Which explains his penchant for post sans cogito....
: I thought it was cogito error sum ...
Yeah I know that 2+2 != 5 too.
#%^>
E* (who also knows that perfect vacuum is sublime ;-)
-- 
        *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
        | "No hay mal que por bien no venga." -- Gloria Estefan |
        *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

In article <58l5hp$5j3@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> In article <58i8er$g2s@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
> >   Now, picture Loba not as a disc as a fair number of math people would
> > picture it as a disc, and not as a saddle, or horse saddle infinite in
> > reach. But the best way to picture Loba geometry in connection with the
> > Riem geom of balls is to picture Loba as a infinite reach surface of a
> > trumpet. And then to fit one of those p-adic balls inside the trumpet.
> 
>   Today I am thinking that perhaps as a Spring is the best picture.
> Picture Euclidean 3-Space, now to picture Riem geometry of all-adics
> inside that picture each adic-- 2-adics , 3-adics , 4-adics, etc as
> circles. Now to picture Loba geometry in that Euclidean 3-space picture
> a disc. And here is where the Riem geom and the Loba geometry are
> intertwined, they form a spring and its inside. Imagine a spring and
> its windings. Each adic is a winding, a circle and the doubly infinite
> Loba geometry is the inside of the circle. The adic forms the skeleton
> , the circle without an inside. The Loba geometry is the disc, the
> inside of the circle but has missing the outer boundary. Just as the
> Real part of the Doubly Infinite is between .00000 and .99999 only.
> 
>   A test for the correctness of this view is to prove that a spring is
> an essential combination of both Riem. geom and Loba geom. By essential
> I mean you cannot build a spring with only Riem or only Loba geom or
> with Riem + Eucl or with Loba + Eucl. But you can only build a Spring
> from Riem + Loba geometries.  Perhaps there already exists a math proof
> that implies this theorem of mine above if proven true. If not I want
> to call this theorem the AP-Spring-Theorem.
  The title mostly tells it. If the above is correct in toto or even in
parts then what will happen is that the mathematics of the former
string theories, superstring theories and others will be robbed, and
taken to be used for SPring theory. That the cosmic strings are not
strings but springs.
   It is generally the case in physics or math that a subject is
introduced and seldom is the whole new field trashcanned. In the case
of string theories the mathematics built up around this new physics
will be saved and used in SPring theory and the rest of the string
theory trashcanned.
   What string theory was moron about was that it had no physical
entity. Some say its physical entity was strings and even cosmic
strings. In SPring theory the physical entity is atoms and atoms come
in two ways-- particles or as waves. What is the physical entity of a
wave? Noone before me could answer that question. Noone had a physical
entity for a wave. The physics of a string cannot be the physical
entity of the Wave Nature of Matter. What the Wave Nature of Matter is
, is a SPring.
   Thus, I robb all the mathematics to date from string and superstring
theories and anneal that study to the SPring theory.
   Reading my above about that AP-Spring-Theorem where I conjecture
that a spring space is built from the joint effort of Riemannian
Geometry and that of Lobachevskian Geometry, most readers and thinkers
of that new conjecture will be quickly and easily fooled into thinking
that Euclidean geometry can do it also. They are wrong. You must
remember that the geometry is in toto. With the conjoining of Riem and
Loba geom the overall shape or curvature is circular and not flat.  You
may think of embedding a small spring inside Euclidean 3-Space. But
that conjecture is an *in toto space* and that conjecture of mine
implies some intimate and necessary linking of Riemannian and
Lobachevskian geometry. That conjecture of mine above implies that a
3-Space Spring is built from both Riemannian and Lobachevskian
geometries. Although one geometry can be embedded inside another is
besides the issue, is irrelevant. I am talking about the dynamics of
building cosmic springs (not cosmic strings).
   The cosmic view the above gives is that each atom can be viewed as a
particle as most often done. But every atom can be viewed as a cosmic
SPring-- its Wave Nature. And the way to describe each and every atom
as a cosmic SPring is to analyze its two components of P-adics and
Doubly Infinites, where p-adics=Riemgeometry and
Doublyinfinites=Lobageometry.
  The string and superstring theorists will not like for me to robb
them of their mathematics, but that is what will happen. Either that or
their total work is junk.

I am in an honors Physics class in H.S. and I asked my teacher this, but
he didn't know.
Let's say that I am travelling at the speed of light with a mirror in my
hand (flying like superman).  I can understand that I will see the light
leaving my face at c, and that I will see my image in the mirror.  My
question is this:  If I fly past you (whom can be considered
"stationary"), will you see my image in the mirror, or will you see me
catching up to the light leaving my face and not see my image. My teacher,
facing embarresment, told me we can't go the speed of light.  I said, OK
then, theoretically speaking will you see the image.  He replied even
theoretically speaking we can't go the speed of light.  My assumption is
he doesn't believe in relativity then.  I don't know.  ALSO:  If I was
going at velocity c and shine a flashlight perpendicular to me (I'm flying
like superman again), will I see a straight beam of light, and you see a
curved beam??  Any help will be GREATLY appreciated!!
HyprHacker@aol.com
PS- I'm a horrible speller.  Any mistakes, I'm sorry!

Jean-Sebastien Graulich  wrote:
>
>It's quite easy to get either CD2 target or pure H2 gas, but,
>up to now, nobody has been able to provide us with a pure CH2
>target. Does someone know how to produce some?
[Moderator's Note : Unnecessary quoted material deleted. -WGA]
If you really wanted to...
Start with calcium carbide.  Hydrolyze with D-depleted water to make 
D-depleted acetylene.  Hydrogenate with D-depleted H2 to make 
D-depleted ethylene, then Zieglar-Natta that to D-depleted polyethylene. 
Form with heat (140 C maximum ought to do it) in a press between sheets 
of aluminum foil.
I suppose another route would be to exhaustively exchange a diazomethane 
precursor with D-depleted water to get the D out, Then generate 
diazomethane and polymerize to polyethylene with light or copper.  Try to 
avoid blowing up the lab, or killing yourself by inhalation, or giving 
yourself cancer.
If all you need is waxy, film-forming stuff, maybe you could 
exhastively hydrogenate a large condensed polycyclic hydrocarbon to fused 
cyclohexane rings (probably rhodium catalyst).  That could get your D/H 
ratio down by a factor of maybe 3.
-- 
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!

Willie McDonald wrote:
> 
> Please help me solve an argument that has plagued my friends and I for a long
> time.
> 
> We were sitting around one day drinking and telling storiesand someone asked:
> 
> What would happen if you drilled a hole through the center of the Earth and
> then jumped into it. BUT there is a "force field" that protects you from the
> heat, and not the pressure.
> 
> Now bear with-us we are college students, but aren't magoring in the science
> department. So if you do have an answer please use simple terms and not too
> much technical jargon.
> 
> We've asked a few people who are taking physics and maths and have had answers
> from implosion to explosion, to bouncing back-and-forth to infinity.
> 
> I finally laid down the law and if we were going to find an answer it would be
> here. So if you can answer this it would solve a 2 year debate.
Does *not* protect you from the pressure?  At the center of the Earth,
the pressure is horrendous. You die.
IF you had a hole drilled through the center of the Earth, *and* the
hole was lined, insulated, and a vacuum (no air resistance), a person
jumping into the hole would pick up speed until they reached the center
and then they would decelerate until they just reached the other side--
in about 40 minutes.  That's just how long a low-flying satellite
would take to reach the other side of the Earth (assuming no air
friction) and that is not a coincidence.  After reaching the other side,
they would fall back through, over and over.  If there were friction,
they'd lose height on their returns, and would eventually come to a 
stop at the center.  
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Few movies try to depict Heaven simply because religion is deplete of
scientific meaning. About the closest that the movies have come is
JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS or CLASH OF THE TITANS.
  The Bible which is supposed to talk about Heaven is mostly gibberish
on the subject.
  Until now, there was never any sort of mental picture of Heaven.
Well, I got stuck in a creative mode. Seems as though all of my movies
so far are too much alike. So I need a new type of
sci-fi movie to go along with my
others. They seem too typical of an AP movie and should someone walk
into
the middle of one of them might remark, ah, an AP movie. We can
immediately spot a  Rolling
Stones song or a composer like Handel or a modern new wave of Vangelis
after hearing just a brief few seconds. So I want to see if I
can break out of that creative Mold I am in and see if I can create a
movie that is atypical of a previous AP movie. A new wave AP movie is
attempted here. I think I have found it in this movie how to break out
of my old mold and it will be modified and grow and when finally in a
good form I will add it to my other movie collections.
  You know how in some movies they sandwich themes into the
storytelling. Such as (1) The Beginning  (2) The Affair etc. I think I
need to do that touchful art in my movie with titles such as (1) Who
God and gods are  (2) When you Enter Heaven  (3) Heaven's Judgement 
(4) Purpose of Life   (5) Superdeterminism (6) Fields of Elysium   (7)
Reincarnation.  Well, sort of those titles, have not decided them yet,
nor their order. I have to edit, polish and refine this movie. This is
the first time a major movie will depict Heaven as to what Heaven is
really like.
                       HEAVEN's TV
  [curtain is drawn, credits cited and a passage that reads " Based on
the story and theory of Archimedes Plutonium. 
Play some Vangelis music right about here, chariots of fire
would be nice since it was far too good for that running movie]
                (1) Who God and the gods are
  [play the music by Strauss, the piece played in 2001, that music was
far too good to be played for that movie 2001]
    Show a hydrogen atom then a helium then the next element then the
next. Show these atoms successively nuclear growing into plutonium. 
   Show 231PU this is God. This is Everything. Show a dot of the 5f6
electron cloud. This dot is the Milky Way Galaxy. Show the dot being
magnified. Now we see the stars of the Milky Way and magnified more we
zoom into the Solar System and finally Earth.
   Go back to the 231PU and show the Nucleus. Zoom into the Nucleus.
View the 94 Protons among the 137 Neutrons. These 94 Protons are the
lesser gods because they control the electrons. You can sort of picture
some of the other electrons not the 5f6 electrons as perhaps devils. 
   In the beginning, . . . [Play some Vangelis Antarctica music here]
      In the beginning were atoms,   in-between were atoms, and in the
end there will only be atoms.
    All is atoms, and nothing else exists. Only atoms exist.
                   (2) When you Enter Heaven 
[enact a scene of someone entering Heaven]
   Show a man and woman both entering Heaven. Heaven is located in the
Nucleus of 231PU. Heaven is the place of the Protons. A Proton
individually is some fantastic ball of engineering capable of
controlling every atom of an Electron that is assigned to that specific
Proton. Thus we must imagine some exquisite house where inside are
exquisite equipment that controls, yes, controls a large numbers of
atoms  in fact every atom of that Electron. This house is not fixed or
resting permanently but instead can
move and change forms and communicates with the other 93 Protons and
the 137 Neutrons of 231PU and even (perhaps devil way) with the other
93 Electrons.
   So, when we enter Heaven we can go to one Proton house or we can be
judged in front of all 94 Protons with the 137 Neutrons there also.
   Now, at the moment of entering Heaven , we are no longer flesh and
blood and bone. We are just a soul. But a soul is composed of photons
and
neutrinos and they are bundled together into what looks like you in
your past life only we appear like a multicolored light bulb. (So here
we have special movie effects of a person but who looks like a bunch of
light beams zipping around. It is me only light zipping back and forth.
So a soul is a state of energy of photons and neutrinos zipping back
and forth and which looks like me in my past life. In Heaven, all life
forms are this photon/neutrino plasma. Here in Heaven one can see a
insect, a grass, a tree , a dog and past friends of their photon and
neutrino souls. These photon
neutrino souls are all the thoughts that the former lifeform had
throughout its life. All of these forms are bundled lights.
                        (3) Heaven's Judgement
      Upon death, we all go into the Nucleus of 231PU and are judged by
the 94 Protons. They weigh the good and the bad of your previous life
and with that verdict decide how to rebundle your photon/neutrino soul
for your next reincarnated life. Show a fish being judged by a Proton
who decides to reincarnate the fish as a human and that human loves to
fish in his new lifeform.
The photon/neutrino soul is the part of you that lasts the longest. If
you were predominantly good in your past life, you will be granted your
wish. All of us in our lives have a wish of what we will be next,
whether we know it or not. My
wish was to be a physicist/engineer on a planet of the most advanced
life in the 5f6, where my specialty is microsecond pulsar
communications and which obviously is not Earth.
               (4) Purpose of Life
   The purpose of life is to serve our God---- an atom -------- 231PU.
And since our God is an atom, and nothing but atoms exist, then it is
its desire that we were created to manufacture more atoms, different
atoms
from existing atoms. We are the cold stars of the universe as compared
to the hot stars. We are here to nucleosynthesize. Stars are hot
nucleosynthesis and life if cold nucleosynthesis.
[here play the song BREATHE IN ME BREATH OF GOD, only have a female
singer sing my lyrics]
  Carbon in us
  Carbon of Plutonium
  Fill us 
  With life 
  anew
  That we my love
  What thou dost love
  And do, what thou
  Superdetermines us to do
  Plutonium in us
  Atom Plutonium
  thus shall we never die
  but live with thee
  part in thy Electron infinity
  part in thy Proton divinity
  Atom
                (5) Superdeterminism
  [This section of the movie is very important for after seeing this,
the concept of superdeterminism will be a household word the world
over. The word the world over. The God of the Bible is a
'let-things-alone' old bearded man. He lets man/woman do whatever they
do. The God of 231PU is the exact opposite. Everything, yes, everything
is ordained and controlled, from the very thoughts that we have to
every action
that we do, even our prayers. Even our very thoughts that we are free
to do as we want, was in fact ordered
up by the Protons of 231PU. The supreme identity, the supreme being is
231PU and the lesser gods are the 94 Protons.
  (Show in this movie how the Protons control my every thought while in
Heaven itself. And how they control every thought of others around me.
Show elaborate machinery of a Proton or the 94Protons and show perhaps
some influence by the 137Neutrons and some interference by the 94
Electrons. Perhaps in the movie show the supreme deity of 231PU itself-
everything come to make the final decision on a matter to be performed.
The important thing
is to show that all that is done was predetermined to be. One can show
perhaps the Debroglie 'guiding wave' which guides the wave of the
'present' to where it must be in the 'future'. And one can show 231PU
as a log spiral where every angle is equiangular and every point of the
spiral must be in an exact place in time or else the spiral does not
exist. A log spiral is "perfection" of form and that is what god is,
perfection of form, all atoms must be in the right place at the right
time for the log spiral to spiral logarithmically outward and grow.
God, 231PU grows perfectily and its growth is our future and its growth
is what we study and learn as physics, physical laws are the seeing of
god on a daily basis. 
   Somehow incorporate the above points into the movie, oh yes it is a
expensive movie, but so much to think about, and it must be 4 hours
long to incorporate this movie odyssey.)
  I had died, and gone to Heaven. I had appeared before the 94 Proton
Gods. They took the form of 94 gods that I had read in mythology and
was infatuated with. That is, if I could see the machinery I would see
that they wanted to think of these 94 forms of god. If they wanted me
to see god as Jesus and a old bearded man then I would have seen a
Jesus and a old bearded man of God at my Judgement. But I was not
infatuated with them for in my youth and later when I discovered the
Atom Totality, my gods  were Pluto,
Zeus, Ceres, Persphone, Hera, Mercury, and many others. And at my
judgement seat in Heaven they kept my image of god that I had held on
Earth in my last years. Some Hindu gods
, Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu and Nordic gods of Thor were also present.
I did not ask questions and figured that the Protons had appeared in a
form as to what they wanted my mind to appear as. The Protons had put
into my mind what the gods will look like when I see them. I asked
another soul, a woman who had died and gone to Heaven who I met in the
Fields of Elysium after the Judgement Seat, I asked her the question
who presided over her
judgement seat and she said
God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost and Mary. And I asked
her if there were others there also? She said yes. How many I asked
her. I did not count them. Something like a hundred. I thought then
that one of the reasons 231PU forced so many people back on Earth to
accept
the God and Jesus religion because it was easier on the Protons when
people come to Heaven that the Protons can quickly and expediently take
the form of a old man and a young Jesus. If 231PU made Earth's religion
that of its true form of physics, why as soon as people arrived in
Heaven the Protons would have to go into teaching people advanced
physics which is a burden, I thought. And what about the lifeforms that
were not human, what god appeared at their judgement seat, certainly
not a Jesus but something far more simple. And in the future, the gods
of heaven will probably advance beyond the simplistic Jesus or the more
advanced form of Zeus and Hera and the other Greek gods and approach
the true likeness of god-- Protons, or the Almighty 231PU. 
   So why did not the Protons at my judgement seat
appear as physics protons? I do not know, perhaps it was easier to
appear as a Zeus and the Greek gods than to appear as a huge elaborate
precise machinery that I could not possibly comprehend or fathom. I
thought to myself (show some Protons shooting these thoughts into my
head via neutrinos) if they showed themselves as they really were, it
would upset the perfect spiralling-out, the growing of 231PU itself, it
would be a display ahead of its time and thus break some physics law,
and thus it is forbidden to show any human what a undisguised Proton
really looked like.
   At the judgement seat my good and bad on Earth were weighed. And I
was shown scenes of my former life in front of Zeus and the other 94
gods in the discussion of my judgement.
  I addressed them as "Your Atomness" or "Majestic Proton" or "Proton
on High".  Show the Proton exquisite machinery shooting photons into my
head making me think and say these things.
Whenever there was a question about my former life or some emphasis
that one of the 94 gods wanted to make on me, then a scene,
all-true-to-life , in sound and in color were displayed in full, right
there before me and the others presiding.
  My 'good' in service of 231PU far outweighed my 'bad'.  (Show one of
the Proton gods talking to another about an evil incident of my life
where I had done some evil and the Proton God, Hera tells Apollo that a
Electron god, a mischevious devilish Electron god had interfered with
the messages shot into my head forcing me to do the evil I had done on
Earth. Show Hera exclaim to Apollo that a Electron god had forced me to
commit the evil. 
  My judgement was over and they granted me my wish. I wished not to
ever return to Earth, but to go to an advanced alien planet and be an
engineer of pulsar signals, a civilization far more advanced than
humans on Earth and who would one day come to Earth and take them over.
In
the ensuing days I was to rest and wait for a message by Mercury Proton
in the TV room in Heaven before my photon/neutrino
soul was rebundled and go to my new planet which was out there in the
5f6
Electron space. Perhaps this had something to do with the 94 Electrons
and that the verdict of my judgement still waited on the final word of
231PU after hearing the word by the 94 Protons, 137 Neutrons, and 94
Electrons. I did not know, and anyway those were my last thoughts as I
walked out of the Judgement hall and into the Fields of Elysium.
    (6) Fields of Elysium
   The Fields of Elysium is the waiting area here in Heaven before my
photon/neutrino soul is rebundled and before I am alive and well out on
my new planet.
 And my adjourn in Heaven and Fields of Elysium in particular is
timeless. At least that is what I thought (show the Protons making me
think this). One day in the nucleus could be 1 day or a million years
on Earth. There seemed to be no time here in Heaven, no anxiety, no
demands, no schedules and no work.
   So I wandered over to see the environs of Fields of Elysium and I
saw the most beautiful flowers in amongst clover. There was a crowd
gathering near a fancy building looked like the building I designed
back on Earth that was immense in size and looked like a huge daisy
flower only each petals was differently colored and was made of some
plastic with a thin film of a metal that permitted light through. Here
in Heaven it is always brightly lighted. Inside it looked like a movie
theater back on
Earth. It was sort of like that a big screen on the wall and everyone
was watching little TV sets in carrels.  I suppose the big one on the
ceiling was to direct people. I wanted to go back outside and did so. I
wanted to see if any aliens were present so that I could ask them
questions
about their planet, where I was expecting to go to next. I did not find
any and it seemed that I was in a part of Heaven that was only humans.
Think of that a human heaven and another heaven for aliens of planet x
and
another for aliens of planet y. And the plants and animals and insects
were here also in heaven. But these insects do not bite. They were just
light and I could stick my light finger right through them as if
nothing happened. Oh well, I did not want to think deeply here in
Heaven, because I would not remember it when I got to my new planet.
    I wandered back to the TV building and asked a person who was not
too preoccupied what is playing. You must be new here? Yes I told him,
arrived yesterday or so I thought. I told him I had lost track of time.
He laughed and said, son, there is no time here in Heaven, relax.
    He comforted me by giving me the answers I wanted. Seems as though
he was prepared for every one of my questions. Anyway, I found out that
the TV building had every and any scene that had happened on Earth up
to my death. So I went in to sit at a TV and started to dial in the
time on Earth. I had forgotten how I died so I dialed into my life and
watched it all over again. Seemed as though my memory came back to me.
A scientific urge came upon me and I was curious how Earth was first
formed and the first appearance of life on Earth, I fast rewound the
dial to get to primordial Earth. Could not find it. Oh well, tired of
looking at this and my eyes became tired so dialed for the first life.
Do not know if I had skipped the first life or not and
was bored seeing plankton and algae of the sea. Rewound it again and
again, but saw the plankton. Perhaps these TVs are so detailed that to
find a scene of first life on Earth would take too long or perhaps my
assumption that there was a first life was wrong. That life existed on
Earth for as long as Earth existed. Oh well, went outside into the
meadows for a break.
   When I returned to the TV building I wanted to check-up on my theory
back on Earth that the dinosaur extinction was caused by the Superior
Design of the mammals and sure enough I saw the mammals eating the eggs
of the
dinosaurs in many scenes. And I did see some volcanoes in India and the
meteor that struck Earth in the Caribbean but most of the dinosaurs had
already been extinct by 100,000 years earlier and the few remaining
ones were extincted by those rat-like mammal egg eaters. My eyes
started getting tired from all the fast forward and fast rewind. I went
back out into the meadows and looked and saw this mountain. Nightfall
was coming and went back to the
TV building and tonight I wanted to entertain myself and see my past
life as Archimedes. I dialed in my life as Archimedes in Ancient Greek
times. That was fun to watch and flashes of memory returned to me.
  Then I decided to check my hunch about another famous person around
the time of Archimedes, that of Jesus. I remembered while I was a human
back on Earth that I had
concluded Jesus was a Essene revolter who was the medicine man of a
clan of fighters. He had morphine in his medicine bag and so many of
his tales or stories about him revolve around the fact that he
overdosed his
patients and himself on morphine. So I set the sensor to fast forward
around the year 34 AD.  And I watched the TV. Saw Jesus eating sleeping
going to the bathroom, making love to his wife Mary Magdalene. I had
remembered about a Catholic priest in the 12th century known to have
had evidence that Jesus was an ordinary man, an Essene revolter who was
crucified but actually escaped with Mary Magdalene, his wife and with
her father escaped the Romans and returned back to England. Her father
was a mining official and Jesus had spent many of his young years
mining because he loved Mary Magdalene. So, there was no resurrection
or ascension that followed the crucifixion. There was an escape. And I
watched it on the TV just as if I were there.
    Thing about Heaven is there is no need for eating or sleeping or
washing. There is no time.  Things just seem to happen.
    I returned often to the TV building and was spending more time in
the TV building than outside in the pristine fields and meadows and
mountains.
    Finally I became inquisitive of other souls, excuse me, people in
the TV building for I had noticed that most of them seemed to be
watching the same stuff.  I started to ask around and found out most
people were watching the Vietnam War. Now if my Earth memory does not
fail me, it seems as though that war lasted for around 10 years.
Seems as though I am losing track of Earth time. 
    Most people were watching the Vietnam War. Here in Heaven if you
dial a time and place on Earth such as 1965 Saigon Vietnam then the TV
shows all sorts of happenings all around Vietnam, true happenings as if
you were there and just eavesdropping. Of course
the real people on the TV would not know you are watching them. The TV
had sensors which by the motion of your hand or finger you could fast
forward, or rewind , or slow or pause. So one moment you can be
in Saigon and another moment in the Tet Offensive. You can fast forward
or replay or slow down the action. 
[Show here in the movie actual live color scenes with sound of the
Vietnam War, such as in VIETNAM: A TV HISTORY or in DEAR AMERICA
documentaries. This section of the movie will be a beautiful contrast
between Heaven and Earth. I want this contrast. Many people have asked
the question, well if the god of the Bible is so kind, why does he make
war like Vietnam war, or why does he not stop them? I want this
contrast in the movie to tell people that god has war and killing
because everything possible is god. That god is physics, the motion of
atoms, that our stay on Earth is but a temporary stay and that all of
us serve 231PU our god. Whether it makes us fight and get killed in a
war or whether it makes us a scientist, all is in its service whether
we recognize it or not.]
   A lot of TV watchers there in Heaven seemed stuck on Vietnam and I
asked them. Why Vietnam? And some said, they had died in that war. 
Some said they loved Vietnam TV because all of the human emotions are
expressed. Look, I can go on a patrol in the jungle and look for booby
traps or see action and then go into Saigon and go into a whore house
and see lust of sex. I can get a full gamut of human emotions and
feelings and actions compressed in 10 years of Vietnam. (Again, show
behind the scenes, the Proton gods forcing us what to think and what to
watch. Show some elaborate engineering machinery which shots photons or
neutrinos into our brains and forcing us to think what we think.)
Vietnam is definitely the best TV show down here in Heaven because you
did not have to play with the rewind or fast forward or controls as
much.
 [ A movie footnote: the US military
ought to have a rating like a gunners-mate or a radioaman for a
in-field-filmer, a person whose major duty is to film the others in
action]
   Then, one day I was beckoned from my couch from watching Vietnam. I
rose and followed this sleek beautiful women who I had never seen
before. Her dress sparkled and her form was ravishing and she wore a
cowboy hat and she tipped it and she had no hair. Who I instantly fell
in love with. She escorted me to a building I had never been before and
she opened the door to this building and said in a voice that sounded
like music, and
as soon as I stepped inside I was falling, falling,
into this huge large machine. Reminded me of a physics accelerator back
on Earth. The most advanced physics machine 
on Earth. And I was gone. My photons/neutrinos were
being stripped from me, photon and neutrino one-at-at-time from inside
my soul, and these individual photons and neutrinos were being shot one
by
one into space, mostly in one direction it appeared. Most were shot
into the direction of this galaxy and a planet in that galaxy. I
suppose
that was my newly reincarnated life and my new planet home.  I was
reincarnated as a advanced alien on a planet in a galaxy. Perhaps the
Protons will shot a neutrino or photon into my new reincarnated life as
an alien that reminds me of my previous past life as Archimedes
Plutonium back on Earth? Perhaps?
 IN THIS MOVIE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to display the backdrop of
Heaven-- one of the 94 Protons as one huge gigantic clockwork
machinery. Some machinery that is elaborately complex. The internal
structure of a Proton is something like a whole universe that is
nothing but machinery so complex that we can hardly imagine it. The set
must look like a Proton is an exquisitely precise
machinery. Not only precise engineered machinery at the end where I
fall into this accelerator, but everything in Heaven is one huge
elaborate machinery for the Protons in the Nucleus of 231PU keeps tabs
and control of the 94 Electrons, everything that exists in the
electrons
and everything that happens in the electrons. Thus show elaborate
machines , for more sophisticated than anything we have seen. In fact,
Heaven is one huge gigantic clockwork precision laboratory whose
overall purpose is to control what happens out in the 94 Electron space
and mass. And that is why Protons have little space but a lot of mass
is because it is one huge complex machinery and why an individual
electron is mostly just space because the machinery of a Proton must
control all the atoms inside an Electron space. You see, an Electron is
mostly empty space with matter at a low density, a low density so that
the Protons can control that matter in the electron space.
[play Handel's Messiah by a choir and sing my lyrics]
   ATOM PLUTONIUM
And it shall nucleosynthesize forever and ever
Forever, and ever
Atom Plutonium, Atom PLutonium
Atom of Atoms, forever and ever

In article: <01bbe667$a5c6a6a0$03ccaec7@default>
  "Peter De Baets" <102767,3246@compuserve.com> writes:
> 
> Can someone help me understand relativity by solving this problem?:
> 
> Planet "X" is moving in a given direction at .75*C relative to an observer
> on planet "Y". Planet "Z" is moving in the opposite direction as planet 
"A"
> also at .75*C relative to the same observer on planet "Y" (C is the speed
> of light).
> 
>                     <---Z
>             Y
> X--->
> 
> What is the velocity of planet "Z" relative to an observer on planet "X"?
> 
> 
> My guess would be 1.5*C, but I understand that there are no velocities
> greater than C, so, this can't be (???).
From the relativity faq:
 w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2)
   = 0.96c
-- 
George Dishman
Give me a small laser and I'll move the sun.

Tom Thornhill  wrote:
>Lets suppose that we build a Bussard ramjet,
Not good enough.  See "the Starflight Handbook" for an analysis of flight 
physics.
> cunningly constructed to 
>reproduce itself ( fusion reactors could be tweaked to produce heavy 
>elements albeit slowly  ).
Then, we suspend the laws of physics.  Things stop at iron.
> We then program the ramjet to fly off and 
>find the sort of black hole which may contain a wormhole, breeding 
>along the way. Once it gets to through the wormhole
Which requires an infinite duration of time as viewed from an external 
frame of reference.
> it needs to have 
>some way to work out where / when it is, and work out what the 
>rules for wormhole travel are. Once the ramjet has worked out how to 
>do it ( or more likely its distant offspring have ), it/they try and 
>make it back to Earth.
If they are that clever they aren't coming back except en amsse with a 
slightly modifed Prime Directive:  "We have come for a piece of all 
mankind."  V'ger they won't be.
 Thus we send off one ramjet and get its 
>descendants back after a short delay - hopefully the smarter ones will
>work out how to form a closed timelike loop to get back to near the point
>in spacetime where the original ramjet left.
Sure.  why not?  We've come this far.  My willing suspension of disbelidf 
now needs a truss.
>Now I'm not saying this is entirely practical ( cost, dubious chances of
>forming the closed timelike thingies, feasiblilty of building self
>reproducing ramjets, danger of mutant embittered offspring flying through the 
>solar system, minimal chance that the original idea of getting back to
>earth would survive generations of kludged reproduction ), can anyone see a 
>reason why it's impossible? 
"If Grandma had balls she'd be Grandpa," (old Yiddish saying).
-- 
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!

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?
>For example, _before_ QT there were things like the ultraviolet
>catastrophe, and the photoelectric effect that were not explicable under
>pre-QT (aka, classical) physics. Are there any such phenomena, however
>'trivial' that QT cannot explain?
>Rich Haller 
I really wish I was still involved in Physics :(

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>	... snip ...
My apologies for a tardy reply.  I have little motivation for
defending a position I find implausible.  However it certainly
deserves more consideration than you have granted.
>>>>>>OK, here is a more clear-cut case.  Consider a functionalist theory of
>>>>>>mind.  Suppose that to each possible physical state of the brain there
>>>>>>corresponds at most one computational state of mind, that the physical
>>>>>>and the mental strata alike are causally complete and closed, and that
>>>>>>no causal interaction occurs in either direction.  Then mental states
>>>>>>supervene on observable brain configurations, but neither cause them
>>>>>>nor get caused thereby.  This view is actually quite popular, though
>>>>>>perhaps not as satisfactory as interactionism.
>>>>>I would say in this case that there are no two stratas, just one, and 
>>>>>the reason people would like to believe there are two is just their 
>>>>>unwilligness to give up on the belief that human spirit exists as an 
>>>>>entity independent of the material body.
>>>>Note that the above scenario is compatible with there being genuine
>>>>psychological laws governing beliefs, perceptions, and volitions,
>>>>independently of the physical laws that govern their underlying
>>>>neurological base.  So a volition would be causally efficacious in
>>>>producing a belief, but there need not be any nomological regularity
>>>>connecting mental states with brain properties.
>>>I smell a contradiction here, unless I misunderstood you.  First you 
>>>say that there are two strata, physical and mental, such that there is 
>>>a mapping of the physical onto the mental ("to each possible physical
>>>state of the brain there corresponds at most one computational state 
>>>of mind").  Now, if the two strata are indeed not interacting, there 
>>>is no reason, short of divine intervention, why the computational 
>>>state corresponding to a given physical state will be the same at 
>>>different times.  In the absence of coupling they'll each go through 
>>>different states independently.  The way I see it, such correspondence 
>>>mandates that either there is a coupling or there is really just a 
>>>single strata, the physical one, the other existing only in our 
>>>imagination.
>>Note that in deriving your conclusion you have appealed to the
>>principle of sufficient reason.
>Yes, I did.  I consider it an unreasonable assumption that two 
>separate (and changing) systems may maintain a consistent mapping 
>without any coupling.
Note that this need not be a gratuitous assumption.  For example, a
computational theory of mind might be empirically corroborated by
exhibiting a deterministic computing device that were behaviorally
indistinguishable from a human intelligence.  From its construction we
would know it to be causally complete and closed in the computational
stratum; and yet by the Goedel- Penrose argument, its computational
structure might be inscrutable.
>> But the postulation of anomalous supervenience of the mental on 
>>the physical rules out this kind of explanatory rationalism. 
>Postulates are dime a dozen and they can be as anreasonable as their 
>authors wish (read a bit of sci.physics if you don't believe me). 
Reasonable postulates can be corroborated by various kinds of
evidence, or even adopted for methodological reasons.
>>The claim is that the class of physical
>>state-types {P_1,...,P_n,...} underlying any single computational
>>state-type C is not characterizable by any common physical property.
>Then how do we know that such class exists (yes, I know, it is only 
>a postulate).  Or how do we know that there is an overlying 
>computational state, maybe said class of physical state types is the 
>computational state.  Not to mention that the biggest claim that can 
>be made, scientifically, is "no recognizable common physical 
>property".  Somebody asked yesterday a good question regarding a wire 
>carrying data using TCP-IP protocol.  If you know nothing about 
>information transfer and protocols, can you distinguish such wires 
>from those that just do nothing, or carry a phone conversation.
Classes exist as long as all their members exist.  The only way to
distinguish data from noise is by parsing it into code.  Whereas the
rules for such parsing can be assumed to exist in cate of artefacts,
no such assumption is empirically warranted in the general case of a
natural object or process.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

In article <32AB51FC.23F9@mail.med.upenn.edu>,
Ryan G. Fields  wrote:
>What happens to a pig if you shoot him into space?  More specifically,
>if you release him from a space capsule in space
I don't know about pigs specifically, but I'd guess it's similar to what
happens to humans and dogs:
"The Eustachian tubes are forced open at the onset of the decompression and
give little discomfort.  There is no change in intra-ocular pressure.  The
effects of the expansion of intestinal gases depend on the rate of
decompression.  At slow rates they can move along the intestinal tract,
producing flatus and belching.  With explosive decompression there is severe
abdominal pain, distension, and cramps, but no flatus or eructation.  If
the airway is obstructed, if the rate of decompression is so rapid that the
lungs cannot decompress through the trachea, or if the pressure change
exceeds 80mm mercury, the alveoli will rupture and therer will be
hemorrhages, mediastinal emphysema, and air-embolism.  The major effect of
explosive decompression is intensification of anoxia.  Human studies show
that explosive decompression followed by immediate repressurization is
tolerable and causes no injury.  Dogs become unconscious in 10-12 seconds
but recover after exposures lasting up to 80 sec.  They usually die after
a 90 sec exposure."  Source: "Space Medicine", U. Slager, 1962.
Ken Shirriff  shirriff@eng.sun.com  http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~shirriff

In article <58na31$osm@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
   Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
>"Cris A. Fitch"  wrote:
>>Hi Folks,
>>	I heard a news report (CBS Radio) on a French team which
>>had announced the production of a powder which would superconduct
>>at room temperature.  Has anyone heard of this, or have more info?
>
>Since grain boundaries would render the stuff uselessly lossy, one 
not so fast... the low temp SC are rife with gb (grain boundaries) and so are 
the BSSCO tapes. In fact in low temp SC (Nb_3Sn etc.) the gb and dislocations 
act in such a way as to increase the amount of current the sample can carry
losslessly.
I did read that the sample contained Li,Be and H, and that the SC
was not independently confirmed.  Some searching on the web found that one 
of the authors (Jean-Pierre Bastide) published a paper on LiBeH_3 and LiBeH_4 
in 1990.  I suspect that these compounds only form under conditions not 
commonly experienced in most labs, i.e. high pressure and temperature.
The report also mentioned submission for publication in the Proceedings of the 
Academy of Sciences in Paris.
Marc

Hi! I'm a high school student trying to write a report on superconductivity
but all my research has turned up is impossible for me to understand. Could
someone here give me an explanation on why/how it works or tell me where to
find one? (e-mail preferred)
--
Greg Fung

Skuld's Lover  wrote:
>One of the most interesting and arguably the most romanticized aspects of
>general relativity is the concept of the black hole. Unfortunately while
>relativity predicts the existence of a body so massive that mass/energy
>cannot escape from it, the mathematics break down when you attempt to describe
>the body itself. You get a singularity, a body with wonky features like
>infinite density, infinitely small volume, resulting in infinite curvature of
>space, etc.. This is extremely ugly, however we have had to live with it as
>that is what the math yields, and there was nothing to suggest otherwise.
Fortunately, this is probably not correct although it is a common
misconception. A black hole is, by definition, an object that is smaller
than its event horizon (or, equivalently, an object with an escape velocity
larger than lightspeed). When you consider the easyest case of a
non-rotating and non-charged black hole, you get OUTSIDE the black hole the
Schwarzschild metric. If you use this metric also inside the event horizon,
you do indeed get infinities.
However, there is NO apparent reason why one should believe that the
exterior metric is valid inside the horizon. The only reason one could give
is that we are unaware of any force capable of stopping the black hole from
continuous collapsing, but since in this domain it is very probable that
quantum gravity becomes dominant that doesn't say much. If quantum gravity
can stop the collaps is unknown since we don't know how quantum gravity
would work.
Therefore, although it need not be impossible that a black hole is an
object with infinite density, this is certainly not predicted by current
physics.
>However recent experimental observations of an effect known as quantum
>tunneling may necessitate an alteration of theory which appears to do away
>with the singularity entirely.
Quantum tunneling is already known for quite some time. For example, the
scanning tunneling microscope uses the effect. And most quantum physics
books for introductory courses at universities deal with it (for example,
it is described in Alonso-Finn part 4).
>Quantum tunneling is an effect in which a particle, when accelerated with
>sufficient energy towards another particle, exhibits a measurable
>probability to not interact with the particle in a typical fashion and
>instead "tunnels" through the particle, reappearing on the other side.
Well, if you replace "another particle" with "finite potential barrier",
this is correct.
>Now, given that the probability of tunneling increases with density, in a body
>with infinite density the particles making up the body would exhibit an
>infinite probability to tunnel, thusly a body of infinite density is
>impossible!
I don't know where you got the text about density, but this is not correct.
there are quantum effects important when a star breaks down, the uncertanty
principle and the Pauli exclusion principle play a role. But one can show
that the repulsive efects of these quantum effects become insufficient
above certain limits (the Chandrasekar limit, above which a white dwarf
becomes a neutron star, and the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, above which a
neutron star becomes a black hole).
>If you can refute this please post publically but CC: in email.... Then I 
>can formulate a "Sorry I was an idiot" followup. :-)
There is a huge difference between idiot and ignorant.
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers        (*)  For Physics and science fiction information:
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl  (*)  http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.  PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1

Can laser cut the mirror, coz light can reflected back.?

Michael Huemer wrote:
> 
> gtclark@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
> 
> >       the quote you use is all very well, but the point remains: the
> >bible does not give a date. A friend who read the whole of revelations a
> >few weeks ago told me hat he thought it was implying that the whole
> >thing was due shortly after it was written. People are always saying
> 
> 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.
Jn 21:20-23.  {21} Peter turned around at that, and noticed that the
disciple whom Jesus loved was following (the one who had leaned against
Jesus' chest during the supper and said, "Lord, which one will hand you
over?").  Seeing him, Peter was prompted to ask Jesus, "But Lord, what
about him?"  {22} "Suppose I want him to stay until I come," Jesus
replied, "how does that concern yyou?  Your business is to follow me." 
{23} This is how the report spread among the brothers that this disciple
was not going to die.  Jesus never told him, as a matter of fact, that
the disciple was not going to die; all he said was, "Suppose I want him
to stay until I come [how does that concern you]?"
God bless,
Peter

Fred Alan Wolf wrote:
> Jack,
> 
> Brinkley is not a fraud.  I have no way of course of proving that, but I
> do know him.
> 
> Fred
That's good to hear. My intuition is that he is not a fraud. If he is
not, his case is the Michelson-Morley experiment of my post-quantum
back-action conjecture that evades Eberhard's theorem and permits the
local decoding of nonlocally stored messages in entangled states of
Hilbert space.
The alleged fact that his precognitions were so precise, so
reproducible, that he was consistently able to beat gambling odds and
make lots of money is a challenge to guys like The Amazing Randi, Victor
Stenger, Leon Jaroff, Murray Gell-Mann & Co. Why hasn't Skeptical
Inquirer investigated Dannion Brinkley and Dr. Raymond Moody? The movie
with Eric Roberts was quite good on Fox Channel 2 last night. Brinkley
is a much more interesting case than Uri Geller ever was. I would like
to meet Brinkely. Does he still have his precognitive ability? I was
really impressed by the "Wormwood" story. Doesn't that term also appear
in C.S. Lewis's "Screw Tape Letters"?

Okay, here's a question:  If you have a sprinkler and put it
underwater so it sucks in water instead of squirting it out, would it
rotate in the same direction as before, in the opposite direction?
This is the same problem from "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" that
a lot of you may be familiar with.  I've heard arguments for all three
sides, and they all sound pretty good.  Feynman tried it, and said it
didn't move at all (right before it exploded), but my physics
professor this semester said he tried it too and it moved in the
opposite direction, and Feynman was wrong.  Does anyone know which way
is the correct way?  Has anyone else tried this?
Kevin Marshall
kbm118@psu.edu

Beer or water will get colder faster in the freezer. The higher the difference in
temperature the faster the heat transfer. A glass of cold water and a glass of hot
water being placed in the freezer at the same time the cold water will freeze first.
The hot water will cool down faster (loose more in in the same time) but won't freeze 
first.

Tania Piper  wrote:
>You should check out the web site at:
>this site has heaps of info on creation!!!!!
uh, why should i waste my time reading lies? if you are so gullible as
to believe creationism, i have a bridge to sell you.

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:54:35 -0800, Tania Piper  wrote:
>You should check out the web site at:
>
>http://www.on.net/users/mec/answers/63_cre.htm
>
>this site has heaps of info on creation!!!!!
As others have noted, anyone who is going to put up such a web page
should take some responsibility for the accuracy of the statements on
the page.
The author of this page is either an intentional liar or someone who is
so completely unwilling to learn that they are liars by intentional
ignorance. Please pay no positive attention to it.
===========================================================
The talk.origins faqs are at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/

N. Rezmerski wrote:
> Yeah, I don't know why the creationists keep citing this claim
> as evidence for the flood.  Logically, if the flood killed everyone
> but Noah and his family, friends, attorneys, pets, etc., then
> everyone who is alive today must be descended from them.
> 
> That means no matter where they live in the world, their flood
> story must have been brought there by someone descended
> from Noah et al, and they were all in one place during the flood!
Also, if the "flood" really happened as described and the earth were as
young as is claimed - we would all look like Noah.  His family would
have left us with a pretty small gene pool, would it not?
The vast diversity in the human species is certainly the most effective
argument against the literal interpretation of the "flood" myth.
Chuck Szmanda
chucksz@ultranet.com

Well - there were ten notes in this thread today and not one creationite
wrote a word about the second law of thermodynamics or entropy or the
like as a refutation of the evolutionary process.  This is good - we're
making slow but sure progress.  
Next we might get some creationite to admit that the various dating
methods have nothing obviously wrong with them.
Chuck Szmanda
chucksz@ultranet.com

In article <32AF7EFD.2C0F@mindspring.com>,
Richard Mentock   wrote:
>
>IF you had a hole drilled through the center of the Earth, *and* the
>hole was lined, insulated, and a vacuum (no air resistance), a person
>jumping into the hole would pick up speed until they reached the center
>and then they would decelerate until they just reached the other side--
>in about 40 minutes.  That's just how long a low-flying satellite
>would take to reach the other side of the Earth (assuming no air
>friction) and that is not a coincidence.  After reaching the other side,
>they would fall back through, over and over.  If there were friction,
>they'd lose height on their returns, and would eventually come to a 
>stop at the center.  
>
The hole couldn't be straight down--think Coriolis force.  In an inertial
frame in which the earth's center of mass was stationary you'd have an
initial eastward velocity of hundreds of km/hr, unless you were really
close to one of the poles.  If the hole is straight down and not at 90
degrees latitude, you eventually start bouncing off the walls.  Not hard,
but enough to mess up the simple answer.
Have fun,
breed

[yatta-yatta faulty explanation of low frequency photon drive deleted]
You get two chances to convince the world:
1. Build a demonstrator. You don't need GaAs cells to demonstrate the 
   effect on a reduced scale; they're just an excuse to do nothing.
2. Show us a complete calculation of the thrust of the thing. You do 
   attempt this, but start by saying "EM waves are too weak to carry 
   momentum" and then ignore the momentum carried away by the EM field. 
   Unfortunately this is counter to quantum electrodynamics and 
   relativity, and it's the only mechanism by which your drive can 
   produce thrust. So your calculation is wrong from the start. Take 
   this challenge: calculate the thrust of your drive while taking 
   account the momentum of EM radiation. The exercise will be very 
   educational.

It should. Laying it down and turning it would also speed up the process.
Peter M. Dunphy  wrote in article
<58mneg$785@agate.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> I have what I beleive is much more relevant physics/home repair question:
> 
> Does beer (at room temp.) get colder faster in the freezer (as most of us
> tend to believe), or are you just as well of to put it in the fridge 
> because it makes no difference?
> 
> Peter D.
> 
> 
> In article <32AA67B3.2FAA@Seus.com>, Ol'Nasty@Seus.com says...
> >
> >I see from DejaNews that there was a spirited thread in this group about
> >a month ago about whether or not hot water freezes faster than cold
> >water. I'd leave it alone except for the fact that the last word seems
> >to have been gotten by a group of posters who were not only wrong, but
> >nastily wrong.
> 
> 

Carl Porter wrote:
> 
> Beer or water will get colder faster in the freezer. The higher the difference in
> temperature the faster the heat transfer. A glass of cold water and a glass of hot
> water being placed in the freezer at the same time the cold water will freeze first.
> The hot water will cool down faster (loose more in in the same time) but won't freeze
> first.
Better read the FAQ
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/hot_water.html
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Steve Courton wrote:
>
> 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?
Hi!  Good questions!
Briefly here is my understanding of this.  Adam&Eve; serve as a
metaphor.  The ability to reason is inherent to mankind, the rational
animal.  With the ability to reason comes the knowledge of what is right
and wrong.  Sin is what goes against God, and Original Sin is the
knowledge of right and wrong, which allows us to go against God.  It is
radically different from all other sin because Original Sin is not of
our volition, but rather Original Sin is our ability to choose.  It is
sin that brings death because we break from God, the source of all
life.  Original Sin is referred to as the Felix Culpa, or happy fault,
because in it we are more blessed than other animals.  In Jesus Christ
the bonds of sin and death are broken, and we can choose His life and
love.  God has made us not to be ignorant but to choose good.  God gives
each of us the choice to enter into a relationship of love with Him.
God bless,
Peter
> 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

Buckley wrote:
> 
> We all know that the photon is the quantum of the EM radiation, but if it
> is generated by the interaction of two fields, then what are the quanta of
> the magnetic and electric fields in separation. Since these fields are
> (classically and perhaps QM) infinite in range, is it possible to talk of
> isolating them?
> 
There is really only one electromagnetic field ... the Maxwell equations
are trying to tell you how the electric and magnetic phenomena are 
interconnected.
In fact, the specific mixture of electric and magnetic contributions to
the field appears differently to different observers; this is a 
relativistic effect.  The only aspects that are constant is the sum
of the squares of the individual field intensities (E^2 + B^2), and
their projections upon each other (E.B).
These "invariants" limit the possibilities somewhat. Thus if you are
in the presence of a static electric field with no magnetic components,
nobody else, no matter how they are traveling, can see any magnetic
field _unless_ it is perpendicular everywhere to the remaining
electric field.
Best Regards, Peter
squares of the in

ascle@uaa.alaska.edu wrote:
> 
> What's the speed at which gravity propogates through space?
> How is this speed found?
> and how is it determined experimentaly?
> Please e-mail and post. I havn't been able to find anthing on it except a book
> on gravity with 2000 pages of intergals. blah!
> thanks
> ascle@orion.alaska.edu
> chris
It travels at c.
Look for books by Clifford Will ... one is for a lay audience, 
"Was Einstein Right?", while another goes over the experimental
evidence in more detail ... you'll have to look in a university
library for this second one. Sorry, can't remember the title.
Best Regards, Peter

glird@gnn.com wrote:
> 
>   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.)
> 
Who admits that?  And for that matter, why isn't the GPS data
sufficient?  Or the other tests described by Clifford Will in
"Was Einstein Right?"
Best Regards, Peter

Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
It takes time to get together stuff for an experiment ... time and
money.  And it should be done by somebody that understands the 
equipment and methods necessary for the experiment.
While many people may be aware of this result, they may also
be waiting to hear from the original lab as regards their own
direct followup, which would include details of the experimental
setup, and a careful analysis of systematic errors.
There is hardly any need to rush, since the truth doesn't change
from day to day or even month to month.  But it is good to be
prepared to do a good job.
Do you have any idea of what it would cost (in time and materials)
to do this experiment? I don't.
Best Regards, Peter