Newsgroup sci.physics 212608

Directory

Peter F. Curran  wrote:
> There IS, or rather MAY be substance to this
> claim.  Although nothing can go faster than
> "c", the speed of light in a vacuum, the speed
> of light is slower as it is passing through 
> matter.  The classic example is "Cherenkov (sp?)
> Radiation" which can be seen in some nuclear
> reactors.  Particles traveling through matter
> faster than the speed of light in that medium
> can cause a radiative effect similar in nature
> to a sonic boom.  I'm told it produces a glow.
Hi,
I'm just a high-school student, but as far as I know, the experiments at
Cologne (and at some American universities, too) really produced
particles, moving faster than the speed of light in vacuum, so at aprx.
4.7 times c. This effect was only possible because of tunneling
particles (eg electrons) through a barrier (tunneling = let things pass
unpassable barriers; or so). So they really transmitted information
faster than light! Quantum effects!
Ciao,
Marco

Rob Pento  wrote:
>Thesis:  There exists an absolute temperature at which a substance
>possess the maximum amount of thermal energy possible.
>Theory/hypothesis:
>1) Given: No form of matter may achieve a velocity greater than the
>speed of light.
>2) Given: Although the measured scale of temperature is arbitrary, it is
>a measure of the molecular activity of a body.
>If the two statements above are true, then there exists a maximum
>temperature limit to which a physical body (regardless of state) can
>achieve.  Since the molecules of a body can not achieve a speed greater
>than light, the maximum limit measured as a temperature must be that
>temperature at which the molecules of the measured body have achieved
>the speed of light.
While the two statements are true the conclusions you have drawn from
them are not. The problem is activity of a body is measured by the
energy of that body not its velocity. So while velocity does have a
limit, energy does not. Consequently, there is no upper bound on
temperature used as a measure of energy.
Now having said that, I would agree there is a temperature limit for
any real substance but this is dependent on the substance. For
example, water won't exist at temperatures of say 10-20 KeV since
collisions between particles will break apart water molecules (or any
other molecule at these temperatures). So the molecular forces for any
given molecule define an upper temperature for which that molecule can
exist. But this is scarely an universal upper temperature limit.

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 08:33:18 GMT, in sci.skeptic, wf3h@enter.net (bob
puharic) wrote:
>"Todd K. Pedlar"  wrote:
>
>
>>There's not much of an argument there;  I'm not so sure you can say that
>>evolution is consistent or inconsistent with other sciences.  Evolution 
>>has not much of anything to do with physics, astronomy, etc.,
>>whatsoever.  
>
>they are all sciences...and all know that the earth and the universe
>is billions of years old, which is what the creationists doubt. sounds
>pretty consistent to me.
Not to mention that most of the support for evolution comes from such
disciplines as biology and comparative anatomy (sorry if that's the
wrong term, but I'm an amateur). The fossil record so beloved of the
creationists is only part of the evidence; evolution would not be
disproven if the fossil record didn't even exist.
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

Charles Cagle (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:
: In article <58ougs$g8q@clarknet.clark.net>, jwalters@clark.net (Jim
: Walters) wrote:
: 
: >  In 
: >other words, you accused NASA of lying when you had absolutely no way
: >of knowing if NASA was telling the truth.  Were your claims based on
: >anything other than a dislike of NASA? 
: 
: This is telling.   If your antagonist had no way of knowing whether NASA
: was telling the truth, as you claim, then neither did NASA.  Which means
: your antagonist was on point.  
Sorry, but I don't see your reasoning here at all.  
Let's see if I can recap the discussion so far.  My antagonist, as you
called him, accussed NASA of lying in the Clementine ice-on-the-moon
report.  In this he made factual errors, including not knowing that the
claims were made by DoD, not NASA (NASA was more or less a junior partner
to DoD in the Clementine project). When someone else brought up the radar
polarization data, my antagonist said he didn't understand the data and
got all in a huff that someone would bring technical details into this
discussion without explaining them.  Since he didn't understand the
technical issues behind the claims, he really didn't have any basis for
calling the claims "lies" (except for pure prejudice against NASA). 
Now for the accuracy of the claims of ice on the moon.  As best I can
tell, your reasoning is that NASA (DoD, really) can't _really_ know if
there is ice on the moon unless they go there.  There is some validity in
this, except that nobody made the categorical claim that there is
definitely ice on the moon.  What was said was that the polarization data
was consistent with several possibilites, but the most likely
interpretation is ice (sulfur is another possibility).  To the best of my
knowledge, these technical statements are 100% accurate. 
Where is the equivalence between these two cases?
: NASA as a wasteful govt' agency needs to be eliminated or cut be
: severely.   Uh what's the problem here, you work for NASA, is that it?
There is some waste involved in any human endevour.  Where is your
evidence that NASA is any more wasteful than, say, where you work?  If you
don't have hard evidence, how do you know that NASA isn't more efficient
than where you work?  You aren't posting from a company account, are
you?  If so, isn't that wasteful and inefficient?  Maybe you should be
"downsized".  
By the way, I don't work for NASA.  However I have lived within commuting
distance of Washington, DC for almost seven years now, and a lot of my
friends and acquaintances are US government employees.  Some of them even
work for NASA.  Like all other human beings, some government workers are
worth their pay, some are not, and some don't get paid nearly enough for
what they do.  There are some really good people working for the
government who could make quite a bit more money working in the private
sector, but who choose public service.  It really pisses me off when some
jerk mouths off about how evil (or lazy, inefficient, etc.) the government
and government workers are without having any real evidence to back it up.
People are people. Even government workers.
-- 
 Jim Walters          
 jwalters@clark.net      "Putting the DOH! in Aikido"                     

>>Can this really be true?  Check out the www.msnbc.com web site for more
>>detail?  They quote a Tc of 77 F!  I wondered if this were a misprint for 
>>77 K, which is the boiling point of nitrogen.  Didn't really appear so 
>>from the story.  Looks like the hottest thing since cold fusion.
Yes, since they say immediately after "about 200 F higher" than
previous materials, which would be correct. Also 77 F = 25 C, 
which is standard temperature. Shoufy maloufy!
>d-orbitals.  Even the p-orbitals are tight.  You need only postulate a 
>mechanism for Cooper pairing in the absence of phonons or excitons, or 
>rationalize superconductivity in the absence of Cooper pairing.  It will 
Are not the perovskite (copper oxide) superconductors thought to work 
by a mechanism other than Cooper pairing?

TL ADAMS  writes:
> Point well taken, and I will concur.
> But are you also a country that has had the political will to make
> the hard decisions about disposal site?  Not a rhetorical question,
> I really don't know.
There is a disposal site for the low and medium level waste and it has
been in use for about a decade.
There is a research program to develop a suitable technology for the
high level waste and there is a good proposal on how to handle it. I
dont remeber the exact schedule but there is about 10 years until
somtheing needs to be implemented.
There is realy no decision to take about wether the waste should be
taken care of. It already excists, it has to be taken care of.
If there is no rural district that volunteers for the storage site the
government will have to overrule them and decide on a site. Luckily
there is plenty of ok bedrock in Sweden so there is not only a few
spots, there is no single mountain selected as the very best and only
acceptable storage site. An acceptable storage/disposal technology
cant rely on absolutely perfect bedrock, that would not give adequate
margins for errors.
There is one way to cheat, the spent fuel could be reused in new types
of reactors.
> Me, I say put the stuff into the salt domes, alot safer than the 
> crap that is leaking now.  Fifty years into the program, and
> still no perm solution.  (Yes, I know that the salt dome place is
> just an "demonstration" project.
The proposed Swedish method is to use steel cannisters with a very
thick copper cladding and embedding them in bentonite clay at 500m
depth in bedrock. It is also designed to make it possible to retrieve
the cannisters if future generations would like to reuse the spent
fuel or move it.
> And how do we know that you've not built any nukes. Arn't you
> worried about those shiftless Norgewegioan (sp?), what about those
> sneaky danes.
There were a nuclear weapons program that was abandoned in the sixties
before any weapons were produced and made public a few years ago.
Sweden were situated between Nato and the Warzaw pact during the cold
war, luckily the will to be as military self sufficient as possible
dident extend to getting nuclear arms. *phew* 
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

In article <32B184CB.770A@mail.tds.net>,
	Tim Gillespie  writes:
>Alexander Abian wrote:
>
>> 
>> <(A)   A certain  m  Abian units of Cosmic mass is (perhaps) irretrievably
>> <      lost to move Time forward  T  Abian units
>> <
>> <   ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
>> <
>> < where  Mo  is the mass of the Cosmos at the Big Bang (i.e., at  T = 0
>> < Abian)  and  Mo can be taken as 1 Abian and where  k <1 is a suitable
>> < constant.
>>        This is a fine concept and I belive that sometime in the future
>> some experimental proof of it  would be found.
>>        To understand the practical sense of Abian's idea it is necessary
>> to consider the whole cycle of mass-time and time-mass transformations
>> of the Universe. I think that it is a normal closed system M -> T with its
>> converse T -> M.
>> 
>>  Alexander V. Frolov, P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024 Russia
>>  Tel:7-812-2747877
>> --
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Fascinating! This is a very intriguing treatment of the famous
>Holtzcroft-Wilson lemma. Although this is much more succint. Interesting
It may be more succinct, but it lack the inherent symetry of
bounding the mass-time relation between the exponetially 
decaying delta-limits.  The degree of convergence is still
VERY much in question.
>how the Sommerwick variation renormalizes to unity but still remains
>invariant under a Lewis transform. I wonder how this treatment holds up
>under 3rd law of kinesiodynamics scrutiny. I suspect that it is in
>violation. However it is likely that this violation can be rationalized
>if Aleph-naught is taken to be an nth-order plenum. Very interesting. I
>will have to investigate this myself. I suspect that the calculation
>will involve the Hersor analysis technique, of which I am, ashamedly,
>poorly versed in. Does anyone out there have HA experience who would be
>willing to coach me a bit on it? I can get through the Theissmenn Sum
>without difficulty, but I seem to always get hung up on the Goldstien
>Rule. Any suggestions would be welcome.
>
The Goldstien Rule is often a impediment to full comprehension
of Hersor.  By applying an equivalence transform to the Affine
matrix (theta), you can arrive at a representation using orthogonal
axies.  The second derivative is then clearly visualizable as an
n-space acceleration.  Hope this helps.
>One final observation. The above equation seems to be the result of
>Boesfeld-Unger Limit Lemma Special Hersor Integration Technique.(always
>thought that should be shortened to an acronym, IMHO) Any comments?
>
>Tim
Hah!  A good joke there!  I'll pass it on to the faculty.
 - Pete

In article <32B184CB.770A@mail.tds.net>,
	Tim Gillespie  writes:
>Alexander Abian wrote:
>
>> 
>> <(A)   A certain  m  Abian units of Cosmic mass is (perhaps) irretrievably
>> <      lost to move Time forward  T  Abian units
>> <
>> <   ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
>> <
>> < where  Mo  is the mass of the Cosmos at the Big Bang (i.e., at  T = 0
>> < Abian)  and  Mo can be taken as 1 Abian and where  k <1 is a suitable
>> < constant.
>>        This is a fine concept and I belive that sometime in the future
>> some experimental proof of it  would be found.
>>        To understand the practical sense of Abian's idea it is necessary
>> to consider the whole cycle of mass-time and time-mass transformations
>> of the Universe. I think that it is a normal closed system M -> T with its
>> converse T -> M.
>> 
>>  Alexander V. Frolov, P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024 Russia
>>  Tel:7-812-2747877
>> --
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Fascinating! This is a very intriguing treatment of the famous
>Holtzcroft-Wilson lemma. Although this is much more succint. Interesting
It may be more succinct, but it lack the inherent symetry of
bounding the mass-time relation between the exponetially 
decaying delta-limits.  The degree of convergence is still
VERY much in question.
>how the Sommerwick variation renormalizes to unity but still remains
>invariant under a Lewis transform. I wonder how this treatment holds up
>under 3rd law of kinesiodynamics scrutiny. I suspect that it is in
>violation. However it is likely that this violation can be rationalized
>if Aleph-naught is taken to be an nth-order plenum. Very interesting. I
>will have to investigate this myself. I suspect that the calculation
>will involve the Hersor analysis technique, of which I am, ashamedly,
>poorly versed in. Does anyone out there have HA experience who would be
>willing to coach me a bit on it? I can get through the Theissmenn Sum
>without difficulty, but I seem to always get hung up on the Goldstien
>Rule. Any suggestions would be welcome.
>
The Goldstien Rule is often a impediment to full comprehension
of Hersor.  By applying an equivalence transform to the Affine
matrix (theta), you can arrive at a representation using orthogonal
axies.  The second derivative is then clearly visualizable as an
n-space acceleration.  Hope this helps.
>One final observation. The above equation seems to be the result of
>Boesfeld-Unger Limit Lemma Special Hersor Integration Technique.(always
>thought that should be shortened to an acronym, IMHO) Any comments?
>
>Tim
Hah!  A good joke there!  I'll pass it on to the faculty.
 - Pete

Craig Allen Simons wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Richard F. Hall wrote:
> 
> > Both Science and Religion require faith.  Science requires faith in Nature,
> > Man, or in some cases God.  Even the scientific method and the idea that we
> > can learn more than we know requires a bit of faith.  Besides faith, all
> > humans require:
> 
> Evolution requires a GREAT deal of faith!  I am familiar with the theory,
> got a B in the class, but it is WAY far fetched.  To think that something
> came from nothing and leave it all up to natural processes which also had
> to have a beginning somewhere before the existence of all we know today,
> yet how can natural processes come into existence when there are no such
> processes to expediate such processes. 
You got a "B?" You are clueless on the subject! "Something came from
nothing?" 
What aspect of evolution would that be? I'll give odds you don't even
know 
the common, 1 sentence definition of evolution.  You don't, do you? 
Explaining science to a fundy is like spitting on a fish.

A. MILLER wrote:
> 
> Michael Supp (supp@ridgefield.sdr.slb.com) wrote:
> : I need to know how to define Townsend's 2nd ionoization coefficient. I
> : have the description in words for the coef., but no eqn as to what it is
> : equal to.
> 
> If we are thinking of the same thing ("gamma", the ratio of
> the average number of secondary electrons emitted froma cathode
> for each new positive ion formed in gas {Townsend discharge}),
> / snip /
The T's 2nd ionisation coefficient (gamma) is really defined macroscopically 
as: When a positive ion collides with the cathode there is a probability 
*gamma* that an electron is released from the cathode which is not used for 
recombination with the ion. Using this definition, gamma can be, and has been, 
determined experimentally for a lot of electrode materials. If you are not 
satisfied with experimental interpolation formulae, you need a description 
based on quantum mechanics. Unfortenately, I don't know of any quantum mechanic 
description of gamma.
/Anders
-- 
Anders Larsson         Anders.Larsson@hvi.uu.se
Institute of  High Voltage Research, Uppsala University
Tel: +46 18 532702     Fax: +46 18 502619
URL: http://www.hvi.uu.se

In article ,
Craig Allen Simons   wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Richard F. Hall wrote:
>
>> Both Science and Religion require faith.  Science requires faith in Nature, 
>> Man, or in some cases God.  Even the scientific method and the idea that we 
>> can learn more than we know requires a bit of faith.  Besides faith, all 
>> humans require: 
>
>Evolution requires a GREAT deal of faith!  I am familiar with the theory,
>got a B in the class, but it is WAY far fetched.  
The only thing far-fetched is the story your leaders told you. Evolution
does not resemble the caricature which you draw in the following
paragraph. Indeed, if scientists actually believed anything of what you
claim below, you would certainly be correct in your smug self-righteous
attitude.
>To think that something
>came from nothing and leave it all up to natural processes which also had
>to have a beginning somewhere before the existence of all we know today,
>yet how can natural processes come into existence when there are no such
>processes to expediate such processes.  
Ultimate origins..... Creationists claim God always existed, scientists
may claim that time began with the universe.  Neither has the right to
scoff at the other without being labelled hypocrite.
>This may be difficult for some to
>believe, even when they have put their lives into such a system of random
>processes and natural selection.  
Here you attempt to conflate philosophy of living with a scientific
theory.  Knowing how we came to be does not imply a requirement to live
according to such a process. Such a myth is propagated by creationist
leaders to attempt to paint scientists as a materialistic group of 
hedonistic evildoers. 
>If natural selection were true, wouldn't
>it stand to reason that the human race would know be extinct? How about
>the apes we theoretically evolved from?  If we evolved from them, wouldn't
>they be considered the inferior species, thus they should die off, but
>they're still here!  
No. If caucasian north americans originally came from european stock
should it be surprising that europeans still exist?
Evolution is not a ladder from inferior to superior. It may appear that
way since life was constrained to start at a primitive form.
>I chose to put my faith in God who created all things.  Guess I am just
>stuck in the theological stage! ;)
Why do you constrain God to act in such a gross and deceitful fashion as
implied by creationism? Evolution is a subtle and beautiful process which
is not inconsistent with belief in God.  The majority of North American
scientists are Christian. It is a very small minority of Christians who
are literal creationists.
-- 
Al Scott----Creationist Ironic quote of the Month:  A crap game demonstrates
random events within an established set of possibilities. In the opinion of
evolutionists there was not even such a set of possibilities, just 'kaboom!'.
(Stewart Harris aka tomitire projecting creationism onto science)

lois wyatt  wrote:
>Can this really be true?  Check out the www.msnbc.com web site for more
>detail?  They quote a Tc of 77 F!  I wondered if this were a misprint for 
>77 K, which is the boiling point of nitrogen.  Didn't really appear so 
>from the story.  Looks like the hottest thing since cold fusion.
Get the technical readout when it is published.  One imagines it will be 
hot stuff in C&EN;, Nature, Science, Scientitic American, Discover... plus 
the appropriate refereed journals.
The article mentions a compound containing Li, Be, and H without further 
elaboration.  We have here exceedingly light atoms with no low-lying 
d-orbitals.  Even the p-orbitals are tight.  You need only postulate a 
mechanism for Cooper pairing in the absence of phonons or excitons, or 
rationalize superconductivity in the absence of Cooper pairing.  It will 
be a neat trick either way, or I am missing something crucial to the 
phenomenon.
I reserve judgement until I see the technical specs and the experiment's 
reproduction in another lab.  Then again, it is the Millennium and it is 
time for a massive paradigm shift in science.  Zero point fluctuations of 
the quantum vacuum, anybody?
-- 
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 <58pqvn$5ek@news.nd.edu>, mblack2@yttrium.helios.nd.edu writes:
> 
> The paper (J.P. Bastide, Solid State Comm. 74,5, 1990, pg 355-8) is a review 
> of previously published crystallographic data on lithium beryllium hydrides. 
> In the paper they state that to their knowledge only three attempts have been 
> made to make the compounds as of 1990.  I was wrong in my suspicions though, 
> since the reluctance lies in the danger of working with Be compounds and the 
> high reactivity of hydrides in general towards air and moisture.
Yup.  The mention of Be set off a few bells in my head when I heard the
report.  There would certainly be environmental concerns about using this
stuff.
> One study 
> (Ashby and Prasad, Inorg. Chem. Vol.14, no. 12, 1975, pg 2869-74) formed 
> LiBeH3 by reacting AlH3 and LiBe(CH3)3 in diethyl ether. The reactions were 
> carried out in a nitrogen filled glove box or using typical Schlenk-tube 
> techniques. I would not describe this as trival.
Maybe, but a trained inorganic chemist would.  It isn't particularly
difficult.  Much of this sounds like a fire waiting to happen, but
unfortunately that's true of many things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek         | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist |                for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University  | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)

JMFBAH  wrote:
>
>Here's one.... Does our tendency to categorize ideas as having a dual form
>limit the way we observe physical properties?  
>
Please elaborate.

Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> if
> 
>                             " MASS "  = " LENGTH "
> 
> :-)
> --
> Keith Stein
At one dimension....

odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>    I have an idea, which I am not very clear about and that probably
>does not make sense. Is the magnetic flux field the reaction field of
>the electric flux action field? This seems to be the principle by which
>particle accelerators work. For example in particle accelerator
>spaceship drives, the cosmic particles are accelerated by a magnetic
>flux. Is the propulsion therefore provided by the magnetic flux field
>of the cosmic particles that act on the charges that are producing the
>magnetic flux that accelerate the cosmic particles?
I am not sure I correctly understand your terminology or your
question. You seem to be asking if a magnetic field results from
either moving charge or a time varying electric field. If so, the
answer is yes. The relationships are captured in Maxwell's equations
for the curl of the magnetic field and the curl of the electric field.
An everday example of magnetic fields created from moving charges
would be an electromagnet. 

Steve Emmett (semmett@adams.patriot.net) wrote:
: Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: 
: Damn,  he found this group!  He and Abian have polluted sci.physics for 
: years and now he's starting here! You thought Nancy was bad - look out 
: for this individual!
He's not new here, either.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Sons, 1989, ISBN 0-471-61912-4  A Bussard ramjet with a scoop diameter of
>2000 kilometers (as in "big) is calculated to have an acceleration of 0.05
>gravities.  At continuous acceleartion that is 10 years to get to 1/2
>lightspeed vs its launch reference frame.  It isn't going anywhere fast.
Thanks for the reference - I'll try and get a copy. I didn't realise that the scoop diameter / acceleration 
ratio was as bad as this.
>>periodic table to hand but I think that still gives you some plausible choices
>Anything past helium requires outrageous temperatures and pressures.  Helium
>makes a poor material of construction.  

>That leaves you with
>magnesium and aluminum.  Look up the stellar synthesis conditions for those
>two metals.
Hmmm.
>>But not from the 'jets point of view - true I don't have much info on wormholes
>Consider "The Forever War."  My personal opinion is that you will be a long
>time waiting for the return.
Another sci fi ref I haven't heard of!
I guess the whole idea is that the 'jet(s) wait(s) for a long time - the guys
that built it don't.
>>>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."  Shit happens!
> V'ger they won't be.
>>V'ger ?
>Re the first and thoroughly awful Star Trek Movie.Oh yeah. 
>>I'd hoped someone would come up with a good reason why closed timelike loops
>>violate causality / conservation of energy etc.
>The problem with a closed loop is starting it.  Where is the free end?free end?
------------------------------------------------------
Tom Thornhill, Ericsson Business Networks, Sweden
"All sufficiently complex systems must also be incomplete,
but designing them still beats real work!"
email: EXTR.QBCTHOL@MESMTPSE.ericsson.se
phone: +46 8 76 40077

dlharm1 (DLHARM1@ukcc.uky.edu) wrote:
: In article <58ppub$gp@camel0.mindspring.com>
: root@command.com (bob) writes:
:  
: >> What makes you think the sea was as salty then?  Calculations based
: >> on  the rate at which salt is deposited in the oceans yeild an age of the
: >> earth not more than about 10,000 years.
: >
: >Where did THAT come from? please advise...
:  
: Looks like some creationist (boob or liar?) is confusing residence time
  why they must be boobs or liars if their opinion doesn't agree with
yours right?
--
            John Gardner
======================================

ph  wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>This is a very very sad post.  No one should ever say they would rather 
>go to hell than do anything.  Just stating this means you believe in hell 
>but you must have no idea what it is like.  
>I have no idea where the conclusion is made that God could be cruel or 
>unjust.  The very fact that God has not struck this person down shows his 
>mercy.  
Sometimes, when reading this off-topic postings, I realize that they
may be off-topic, but they are interesting, however. The central
question of human existence remains: does God exist?
I regret to believe that the answer is negative. And, concerning hell,
it does really exist. and we are already there. Dante saw it clearly.
The inscription over hell's gate -Ye who enter here, abandon all hope-
is the inscription that every newcomer reads as soon as he is born.
Javier
ssta@lix.intercom.es

              For K-12 Students And Others:
      Promote The Neglected Key Ideas Presented Below.
 For Ethics, Organize With 2 Others To Promote These Ideas.
                To Create A Civil Society: 
           Organize To Promote The Common Good.
------------------------------------------------------------
           How Can Atomic Structures Be Explored?
Introduction:
------------
	The distance between 2 atoms in solid elements is 
calculated from x-ray analysis and reported in the "CRC 
Handbook Of Chemistry And Physics". 
	Liquid atomic structures of the elements are more 
difficult to know about.
	The average distance between atoms (or molecules) in an
ideal gas or liquid can be calculated from the following 2 
equations which assume that particles arrange themselves 
into face centered cubic (FCC) structures.
For gas:   d = 5.77600E-10 (T/P)^(1/3)
   Where:  d = [d] meters = distance
           T = [T] Kelvin = temperature
           P = [P] atm    = pressure
For liquid (or gas): d = 1.3292E-10 (M/e)^(1/3)
   Where:  d = [d] meters = distance
           M = [M] g/mol  = molar mass (from periodic table)
           e = [e] g/ml   = density (ml = cm^3)
The above equations were deduced using dimensional analysis.
	The above equations can be used to find the ratio of 
liquid to gas atoms at a liquid surface to examine the 
interactions at the interface. However, this further 
analysis will be for another posted article.
Validity of above equation: d = 1.3292E-10 (M/e)^(1/3): 
------------------------------------------------------
Solving the above equation for density results as follows:
      e = 2.3484E-30 M / d^3
Plug in values for aluminum into above equation:
      M = 26.982 g/mol
      d = 2.863 x 10^-10 m (25 C)
e calculated:   e = 2.7001 g/ml
e experimental: e = 2.698 (25 C)
error = 2/2698 = .07 %
Thus the above equation is shown to work well for aluminum.
Here's a project for students using the above equation:
------------------------------------------------------
      e = 2.3484 X 10^(-30) M / d^3
Plug in values for cadmium into above equation:
      M = 112.411 g/mol
      d = 2.9788 x 10^(-10) m     (at 21 C)
e calculated:   e = 9.9875 g/ml
e experimental: e = 8.650         (at 25 C)
error = 1.3375/8.650 = .1546 = 15.46 %
or 6.47 atoms Cd present per 1 Cd atom missing.
	How can such holes in the solid structure of cadmium be
explained?
A cuboctahedron with 55 atoms has 8 atoms missing from it 
corners. 55/8 = 6.88 atom present/ 1 atom missing. Could the
liquid cadmium be made of such structures?
Cadmium (atomic number 48) has 12 more electrons than the 
noble gas krypton ( A = 36).
Zinc (A = 30) has 12 more electrons than the noble gas argon
and it has also a large number of missing atoms also.
Note: Cd and Zn have the worst case of missing atoms for the
      metal elements. Does 12 excess electrons create atom
      structures in the liquid that freeze into solid
      structures with holes?  Why? How?
Calculate the density for zinc.
-------------------------------
      e = 2.3484E-30 M / d^3
Plug in values for zinc into above equation:
      M = 65.39 g/mol
      d = 2.6694 x 10^(-10) m    (25 C)
e calculated:   e =        g/ml
e experimental: e = 7.133 g/cm^3  (25 C)
error =     /      =        =        %
or      atoms Zn present per 1 Zn atom missing.
Computer project for students:
-----------------------------
	Write a computer program to calculate densities for the
metal elements that are in FCC and HCP structures from the 
above equation to find the number of atoms missing to the 
number of atoms present in solids at 25 C.
Note: For metals that form a BCC structure (at 25 C) the 
      following equation should be used:
       e = 2.1567E-30 M / (ddd)
---------------------------------------------------------
            C by David Kaufman,     Dec. 13, 1996
            Do Good, Be Good, Be One And Go Jolly.
-- 
                                             davk@netcom.com

In article ,
Anthonie Muller   wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, I H Spedding wrote:
>
>> 
>association. However, during deja vue I do not feel that I
>recognize something, but I feel that I experience something for a
>second time. The first experience (with which the contemporary
>experience is compored) is however often vague, and I often
>wonder whether this first experience was during a dream or not.
>During recognition one is in general sure on whether one (1) has seen it
>before, or (2) has not seen it before, or (3) whether one is unsure. Such
>a division is not typically made during deja vue. (I do not find this a
>strong argument myself, by the way). 
>I have the impression that deja vue occurs especially upon
>relaxation from a state in which one is very busy. Deja vue is also dream
>like in this respect that the details of the experience are easily
>forgotten. 
>
>On the other hand - we might be able to look in the future, but there
>might be a physical law that permits us to do so only in a
>random way. 
then again, maybe deja vu[e?] results from a telepathic[?] commlink
between ourselves in the future[transmitter] with ourselves in the
present[receiver] using tachyons? But tachyons are repelled by tardyons
(which make up the brain among other things) so this commlink would then
have to be at another level (dimension?) between our soul in the future
with our soul(life-energy) in the present?
Justy

> 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.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Well, I guess I told my biology students wrong all those years.  Honestly though
I didn't know snakes ate dust.  -- I think verse 14 is a good measuring tool
for the scientific accuracy of the Bible. The authors were repeating hearsay 
and myths and anyone who thinks the Bible us inerrant is some kind or head-case.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> > > 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)
----
Century Telephone

Craig Allen Simons wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Richard F. Hall wrote:
> 
> > Both Science and Religion require faith.  Science requires faith in Nature,
> > Man, or in some cases God.  Even the scientific method and the idea that we
> > can learn more than we know requires a bit of faith.  Besides faith, all
> > humans require:Comments from Jerry:
    The reason that we learn more than we know is that the mind of a few
men reach upward toward the mind of God and come back with revelation. They
think they have discovered something new under the sun but all they have
discovered is what has already been known by the God of the Universe.
> 
> Evolution requires a GREAT deal of faith!
Evolution requires no faith. The mind of Darwin saw the truth. Man is an
evolved species. However the entire process requires feedback from the
mind of God. Thus man evolves to be man over a long period of time. It
takes God a billion years to make a man. Yet this evolved man has been
created by God.
  I am familiar with the theory,
> got a B in the class, but it is WAY far fetched.It is not far fetched it is merely incomplete. God has been left out of
the equation but Darwin understood the basic process.
  To think that something
> came from nothing
There are properties of memory within space and time which are not yet
fully understood by scientists today. Man came from the memory of man.
 and leave it all up to natural processes which also had
> to have a beginning somewhere before the existence of all we know today,
> yet how can natural processes come into existence when there are no such
> processes to expediate such processes.There are higher processes which inititate the lower processes. Thus the
evolutionary process is triggered by other processes which set up the
ability of the lifeforce to reincarnate the living into the dead and then
to improve the dead and return it to the living. Thus at various times in
the history of mankind, the new born were different from their parents.
Thus a higher process controlled the lower process which Darwin saw. He
saw the survival of the species but he didn't see the higher process which
controlled the changes to the species.The higher processes were set before
this Universe was born. Mankind is dealing with an extremely superior entity.
Thus the God of the Universe is the God of the evolutionary processes.
  This may be difficult for some to
> believe, even when they have put their lives into such a system of random
> processes and natural selection.The processes are not random. Natural selection provides a means of purifying
the higher processes and provides adaptability since man on all Earths are
similar but are adaptive. Thus the entity man appears all over the universe
but the process is adaptive and natural selection insures the survivability
of the species all over the universe. Thus the same process is used everywhere.
  If natural selection were true, wouldn't
> it stand to reason that the human race would know be extinct? 
I do not see why you say this.
  How about
> the apes we theoretically evolved from?
The apes or other creatures we evolved from were a specific chain from a
special evolutionary path. Surely they looked similar to other apes but
the higher process pays particular attention to insure that the species 
man is special. Thus we come from apelike beings which could coexist with
other similar creatures but it is most likely that our species did not
have sexual relations with the apes or children from the apes. Thus man
comes form man's apes and not the general population.
   I am not a hundred percent certain of this but it appears that God wanted
to keep man separate from the animals and thus only our animals or preman was
acceptable to God. Thus we evolved from the sea in a separate chain of life.
Otherwise we would be the same as the animals and God wanted man to be higher.
Thus we evolved from an animal creature but this creature was man. We have
not been tainted in the process with sexual relations with the animals.
The Bible implies that God made man separate and distinct, thus the process
for the production of man must be separate and distinct.
  If we evolved from them, wouldn't
> they be considered the inferior species, thus they should die off, but
> they're still here!
>We evolved from our own apes.
> I chose to put my faith in God who created all things.
It is a true statement but God is the God of evolution.
  Guess I am just
> stuck in the theological stage! ;)
> 
> Thoughts and ponderings,
> Craig

Bill McBride wrote:
> I have heard of "field mills" but am unable to locate any reference
> material explaining their operation.
A while back I did a patent search at:
  http://patents.cnidr.org:4242/access/access.html
using the keywords 'electrostatic' or 'field mills' -- can't remember
which, and got a hit for a patent within the last few years.  That will
explain one implementation.  
  One way to look at a field mill is that it is a physical capacitance
changing mechanism.  So if you put charge on two plates and then then
change their physical capacitance to themselves or the environment, the
voltage on the plates will change.  A field mill was in the NOVA
presentation on lightning.  A coffee can sized thing with a rotating
segmented can inside (the varible capacitor.)  They then sent it up on a
balloon to measure the cloud charge.
  The handheld DC electrostatic meters for ESD control in factories are
little field mills using piezoelectric diaphrams or vanes to vary the
capacitance to the object to be measured.  The voltage is amplified and
detected synchronously to yield field strength.  The basic modulator
(filed mill) is buried inside most "Xerox" like copiers in order to
control the charge put on the copy belt/drum.  TDK and Murata, among
others, make this modulator.
  Hope this helps.
_____________________
Charles R. Patton   patton_c@a1.wdc.com

Marco Nelissen (marcone@xs2.xs4all.nl) wrote:
: Anthonie Muller (awjm@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: : It concerns Guenther Nimtz, at the U of Cologne. He demonstrated
: : on a scope how a microwave signal tunnelled through a barrier at a
: : speed faster than light. He used a signal that contained music from
: : Mozart.
: : Note that the barrier constitutes a rest frame. An interesting
: : experiment would be to reverse the outgoing signal using a mirror, and
: : let it return through a second, moving barrier: if the signal tunnelled
: : through this second barrier as well, it could return before it had
: : departed!
: How's that? Although the signal appeared to travel faster than light, I
: don't see how bouncing it back would make it return before it departed.
: Both legs of the journey require a small but larger-than-zero time.
If you were in the correct frame relative to the rest frame of the 
barrier, you would observe causality violation of this type, IF the 
effect is in fact real and not an artifact.  That's the reason for the 
second barrier being moving:  If it has the right motion, in the frame of 
the lab, causality would be violated during the second tunneling, while 
in the frame of the second barrier, causality would be violated during 
the first tunneling.
I still think that the IF up there is a pretty big one.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Vigay (PVigay@bohunt.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article ,
: Anthony Potts  wrote:
: > You are confusing two different experiments here, just as the person
: > carrying out the experiment did. First, he showed that particles quantum
: > tunneled at greater than the speed of light. Secondly, he showed that
: > using particles passing through the barrier, you could carry a signal.
: > 
: > He most definitely did not show that the signal thus carried was
: > travelling faster than the speed of light.
: Perhaps you could explain your reasoning further. I'm a bit confused. If you
: send a signal (in this case Mozart) and it is received somewhere in a quicker
: timeframe than the speed of light (easily measured, knowing the speed of
: light and the distance between the sensors), then presumably that signal has
: travelled at a rate exceeding C.
What Potts is claiming is that it is not possible for the signal carrying 
the Motzart signal to propogate through the tunnel faster than light 
while carrying the information.
The flaw in this claim is that if this were so, then it would not be 
possible to detect the signal itself having passed through the barrier at 
superluminal speed, regardless of any information carried on it by 
whatever encoding scheme, because the emergence of the signal itself 
carries the information that it was sent.  Therefor, even if only the 
existence of the signal is detectable, causality is still violated IF 
this is in fact a truely superluminal signal and not an artifact of 
filtration in the tunneling process.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (uncleal0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: "Simon"  wrote:
: >Can laser cut the mirror, coz light can reflected back.?
:    1) cut it from the back side,
 But the glass isn't the problem, it's the thin film of the shiny stuff
that reflects(right?). So, either way, you'd have the same problem unless you
assume that the heat of the laser burning thru the "opaque" part of
the backside burns through the reflective stuff without the beam
directly coming into contact with the reflective film. (or did I just
get this totally wrong)
: -- 
: 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!
"TM"

brian artese  (b-artese@nwu.edu) wrote:
]>] The use of specifically violent metaphors among Sokalites is very
]>] consistent with Right Man syndrome, especially when one of its
]>] sufferers encounters someone who doesn't believe he's got Reality in
]>] his back pocket.  The Right Man is only *ostensibly* arguing with
]>] what he thinks is poststructuralism (he thinks it's some kind of
]>] radical subjectivism) -- but the real reason he invites you to step
]>] out his window, or walk out into the street, or stand under a falling
]>] piano, etc., is to convey this message:  "Your death will prove that
]>] I'm right."  It's no coincidence that this is the exact same answer
]>] that a master gives to his rebellious slave.  The master is utterly
]>] flummoxed by the presumption of the rebellion.  "Are you suggesting,"
]>] says the Right Man, "that I am *not* the master of your reality,
]>] *not* the all-knowing overlord of the world in which you live?  Don't
]>] fool yourself, slave: Nothing you do escapes me, nothing you think
]>] can escape my ken.  You will not escape me, fool.  You will die in my
]>] domain, and your death will prove that I'm right."
]
]Michael:
] 
]> What a deep, original thinker you are, Mr.Artese. 
]
]Thank you ... thank you very much.  no... no, that's enough, really ... 
] ... thank you...
]
]> I am overwhelmed
]
]no, please ... sit down, please ... thank you...
 There is a Russian saying, that persons of depressed cognitive strata
 tend to confuse spit into their eyes with natural precipitation.
]> even though a few nagging doubts about your "analysis" remain;
]> namely, in the case of master and slave it is the master who does the
]> killing. In case of 21 floor window, it's hard, impenetrable nature
]> of earth and curved nature of spacetime near it. So, who is
]> the master in the latter case? 
]
]Well, clearly it's the one who has appointed himself priest, giving 
]sermons from the Book of Reality.  For who else will explain to the 
]heathen the Final, ultimately True way to talk about reality?  Who will 
]tell him that that phenomenon over there is *not* ultimately a sculpture 
]of Balzac -- rather it is, ultimately, "curved spacetime"?  Who will 
]exhort the heathen for suggesting that the phenomena is not *ultimately* 
]either one?  Who will flout him for spitting so at Truth and 
]Objectivity?
 You forget that walk out of 21st floor window has similar results whether
 you undertake it following my invitation or out of your own superior
 wisdom. So who is the master here again ? And why did you bother to 
 eradicate your original rant - it couldn't be that the flaw in it
 is exposed, could it ?
]> And, does someone inviting you to transgress his window imply that he 
]> is not subject to the same master ? 
]
]Yes -- in the same way that the priest confirms to the pagan that 
]they're both subject to his single, univocal God.
 Yet another flaw in your reasoning is that I intend to convert you. On
 the contrary, I am firm believer in supplying sufficient quanitities of
 rope to all who ask.
-- 
ABILITY,n. The natural equipment to accomplish some small part of the meaner
           ambitions distinguishing able men from dead ones.
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

 Lemme begin by saying I'm not expert and so bear with me if I got 
some things wrong.
  The way I understand it, dark matter (dm) was concocted to 'correct'
the problem with the rotation of our galaxy vs. the mass
concentration with respect to the distance from our galaxy's center.
It turns out that this dark matter is spread 'weirdly' through the
galaxy -- it's spread out like a halo so that there's more of the
stuff near the edge.
First question. We're near the edge of our galaxy, why don't we notice
any dark matter around us? Given that it makes ~9/10 the total mass
and probably more locally, since we're in an area of greater concentration,
there should be loads of dark matter.
2) one of the going theories is that WIMPS (neutrinos?) from stars
makes up for some or all of the dark matter. If that's the case,
why would there be a halo? Shouldn't most dark matter be near the
center as that's where the greatest concentration of stars is?
2a) there's alot of debate on whether neutrinos, a possible candidate
for (dm) are massless or not. Whether they is or ain't, someone
pointed out to me that they  still attract objects gravitationally. So
what's the big deal if they ain't?
3) if dm is a halo and is massive, shouldn't the matter we can see
be distorted so that our galaxy would have a bright ring where 
the stars are being pulled in by the dm halo? (when I say "matter ...
distorted" I mean shouldn't the concentration of matter be distorted. 
Apologies for the wording) 
So, what's the answer to these questions?
There was talk about gravity not working the way we think it does
that either at large distances it falls off differently then we
theorize presently.  Anything to this?
Thanks,
"TM"

abert@cinternet.net wrote:
> 
> A friend of mine swears that he was taught this.  A bullet fired from a gun held perfectly horizontal, would hit the
> ground at exactly the same time as a bullet (the same mass) held at the same hight as the gun and dropped straight
> down.  I told him he was nuts.  Am I right or wrong?  Thanks, abert@cinternet.net
   He is right.  The acceleration of gravity is independent of
horizontal motion, air resistance not withstanding.  A bullet derives no
lift from the airflow, under normal conditions.  Should it somehow
acquire a nose-up attitude, then certainly it'll experience aerodynamic
lift as a result of its angle of attack.
   The height from which most firearms are fired makes the earth's
curvature a non-factor.  Yes, the difference is calculable, but close to
immeasurable.
   An interesting variation to this questions is: what happens if the
bullet is fired at such a velocity that it falls at the same rate at
which the ground curves underneath it?  Answer: it's in orbit.  What
happens if you then increase the bullet's velocity?  Answer: unless the
bullet's speed is greater than 25,000 mph, it'll be in an elliptical
orbit with it perigee at the muzzle.
-- 
                                 Bill
 ------------------------------------
| If everything is possible,         |
| nothing is knowable.  Be skeptical.|
 ------------------------------------

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:32:21 +0100, Laurent LE GUILLOU
 wrote:
>Bonjour,
>
>  Un physicien peut-il me venir en aide ?
>Je cherche a mettre en evidence experimentalement les effets
>piezoelectrique direct et inverse, et je me pose beaucoup
>de questions d'ordre pratique.
>
> - Pour l'effet direct, comment faire concretement ? 
>Avec quel genre de materiel appliquer une contrainte importante 
>sur le cristal, avec quel dispositif ? un gros levier auquel on
>accrocherait un poids,  comme ca ... ?
>
>        |\
>  Force | \  Levier
>        |  \  
>        V   \
>        P   |\
>            | \
>            | |\
>            | | \
>            |_|  \
>         ____v__  \
>        |cristal|  o         
>
>
>Et comment mesurer la polarisation qui apparait ?
>
> - Pour l'effet piezo inverse, comment mesurer la deformation du
>cristal ? il s'agit d'un effet de l'ordre d'une dizaine de microns
>a tout casser : (a moins que je ne me trompe...)
>
>  En effet, 
>                 e   =  d      E
>                  ij     ijk    k
>
>  avec d (module piezo) de l'ordre de 10^-11 a 10^-10, 
>E (champ applique) de l'ordre de 100V/mm soit 10^5 V/m,
>donc la deformation e a mesurer est de l'ordre de 10^-6 a 10^-5 m, 
>ce qui est plutot petit... j'envisage bien la possibilite de
>mettre en evidence cette deformation avec des methodes optiques
>(interferometrie), mais c'est plutot lourd en materiel... et le
>resultat me semble bien incertain (longueur d'onde du visible 0.4
>a 0.8 micron ; si la deformation est un peut trop faible (ordre
>du micron), ca risque d'etre tres dur...)
>
>Si l'un de vous peut me venir en aide en me donnant quelques
>suggestions pour mener a bien ces experiences, je lui en serais
>tres reconnaissant...
>
>
>
>                                Laurent LE GUILLOU
>                                Etudiant en Licence de Physique
>                                Universite du Maine, France
>                                llg@lola.univ-lemans.fr
Translated by French Assistant for anyone who wants to tackle it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
  Could a physicist come me in helps?
I seek to put [experimentalement] the effects in evidence
direct and inverse [piezoelectrique], and I put me a lot
of questions of convenient order.
 - For the direct effect, how make concretely? 
With what kind of material apply an important constraint 
on the crystal, with what device? a thick lever to which one
would hang a weight, like it.?
        |\
  Strength|\ Lever
        |\  
        V\
        P|\
            |\
            ||\
            ||\
            | _|\
         ____v__\
        | crystal| o         
And how measure the polarization who [apparait]?
 - For the effect inverse [piezo], how measure the distortion of
crystal? he was about an effect of the order of a ten of microns
have all break:  (unless I is mistaken.)
  Indeed, 
                 e= d E
                  [ij] k [ijk]
  with d (module [piezo]) of the order of 10^ 11 has 10^ 10, 
E (field applies) of the order of 100V/ [mm] is 10^ 5 V/ m,
therefore the e distortion has to measure is of the order of 10^ 6 has
10^ 5 m, 
this who is small [plutot]. I consider the possibility well of
putting this distortion in evidence with some optic methods
 ([interferometrie]), but it is heavy [plutot] in material. and the
result seems me very uncertain (length of wave of visible 0.4
have 0.8 micron; if the distortion is a can too weak (order
of micron), it risks being very hard.)
If the an of you could come me in helps in me giving some
suggestions in order to carry through these [experiences], I would be
him of it
very thankful.
                                Laurent The GUILLOU
                                Student in License of Physics
                                University of Maine, France
                                [llg]@ [lola.univ lemans.fr]

In article <19961214005011236022@peu-19.pf.eunet.de>,
	Marco.Binder@p-net.de (Marco Binder) writes:
>Peter F. Curran  wrote:
>
>> There IS, or rather MAY be substance to this
>> claim.  Although nothing can go faster than
>> "c", the speed of light in a vacuum, the speed
>> of light is slower as it is passing through 
>> matter.  The classic example is "Cherenkov (sp?)
>> Radiation" which can be seen in some nuclear
>> reactors.  Particles traveling through matter
>> faster than the speed of light in that medium
>> can cause a radiative effect similar in nature
>> to a sonic boom.  I'm told it produces a glow.
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm just a high-school student, but as far as I know, the experiments at
>Cologne (and at some American universities, too) really produced
>particles, moving faster than the speed of light in vacuum, so at aprx.
>4.7 times c. This effect was only possible because of tunneling
>particles (eg electrons) through a barrier (tunneling = let things pass
>unpassable barriers; or so). So they really transmitted information
>faster than light! Quantum effects!
>
>Ciao,
>
>Marco
Hi Marco,
    Thank you for the clarification!  The original
post had expired before I saw it.  The tunneling effect
is used in some semiconducting devices whereby quantum
effects allow electrons to pass a potential energy
barrier which would otherwise block all current in
that direction.  As such, I'm not quite sure the
common notion of "traveling" really applies...  Because
of the uncertaincy principle, there is a probability
that the electron will be DETECTED on the far side of
the barrier, even though it's exact position is
unknown.  I'd need to read the article(s) in question
before I really understood what they were claiming.
   - Pete Curran
     Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.

Jared James wrote:
> 
> Hello!!
> 
> A friend and I were reading the paper the other day, and noticed a
> artical about two guys who were out frog gigging and on the way back
> their headlights went out due to a blown fuse.  Looking for something to
> put in the fuse holder, they found a .22 round on the floor, decided it
> would work and put the round in the fuse holder.  A few min later, the
> round dischared and hit the driver in the groin area.  Yes, this really
> did happen!! :)
> 
> Now the question that we have talked about is this:  What was the
> velocity of the bullet?  He thinks that the round was travling at the
> same speed as if it were fired from a rifle or a hand gun.  I don't
> think so.  However, neither one of us are physic majors, but I think
> that it should not be that hard to prove that the round was not going
> that fast.  I think it has to do something with the expanding gases in
> the rifle chamber that gives the bullet the high velocity.  He says that
> has nothing to do with it!
> 
> I know this sounds trival, but thought somebody might get a kick out of
> the story and help us find out how fast was the round was going.  Please
> respond either here or at jjames69@mail.idt.net.
    First off, most rounds will "cook off" after reaching 500-550
degrees.  Depending on what fuse we're talking about, it could be
conducting over 30 amps.  I think that'd be enough to cook off most
ammo.  Rather quickly, I might add.
    Without a barrel to contain the gas from the ignited powder, there
is very little velocity gained by the bullet.  The only shove the bullet
gets is the very little pressure it took to break the relatively thin
brass.
-- 
                                 Bill
 ------------------------------------
| If everything is possible,         |
| nothing is knowable.  Be skeptical.|
 ------------------------------------

casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) writes:
>Not to mention that most of the support for evolution comes from such
>disciplines as biology and comparative anatomy (sorry if that's the
Good point.  I've heard the subcutaneous degenerate hind limbs in the
larger constrictors cited as an example.  That is:  The larger snakes
have, under the skin, degenerate back legs, which serve no purpose.
The biological explanation is that the snakes evolved from lizards,
and have not yet lost these no-longer-useful parts.
&,l?oy
-- 
                                              ^-----^ 
 Michael Huemer         / O   O \
 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl             |   V   | 
                                              \     / 

In <58si31$lfn@hacgate2.hac.com> browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe) writes: 
>
>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>
>>    I have an idea, which I am not very clear about and that probably
>>does not make sense. Is the magnetic flux field the reaction field of
>>the electric flux action field? This seems to be the principle by
which
>>particle accelerators work. For example in particle accelerator
>>spaceship drives, the cosmic particles are accelerated by a magnetic
>>flux. Is the propulsion therefore provided by the magnetic flux field
>>of the cosmic particles that act on the charges that are producing
the
>>magnetic flux that accelerate the cosmic particles?
>
>I am not sure I correctly understand your terminology or your
>question. You seem to be asking if a magnetic field results from
>either moving charge or a time varying electric field. If so, the
>answer is yes. The relationships are captured in Maxwell's equations
>for the curl of the magnetic field and the curl of the electric field.
>
>An everday example of magnetic fields created from moving charges
>would be an electromagnet. 
>
    Would there therefore be such a thing as inertial flux?
Regards,
Edward Meisner

    Here is an alternative explanation for relativistic mass increase
in particle accelerators. Magnetic flux propagates at c. The number of
magnetic field lines that cut across a charged particle moving at high
speed is less than the number of field lines that cut across a particle
at low speed. For example, for a given distance d, if the number of
magnetic field lines that cut across a particle moving at 100 meters
per second is, say 100, then the number of field lines that cut across
a particle moving at 1,000,000 meters per second, would be, say one,
for that same distance. The work done on the faster particle is much
less than the work done on the slower particle. The change in kinetic
energy of the faster particle would therefore be much less than that of
the slower particle.
Edward Meisner

In article <850474864snz@stellar.demon.co.uk>,
Joseph Michael  wrote:
>In article <58nrv9$ht7@kira.cc.uakron.edu>
>           david8@dax.cc.uakron.edu "David L. Burkhead" writes:
>>     A single ring is still a current loop.  The only difference is
>>that you need a higher current with a single loop than with multiple
>>loops to produce a given field strength.
>
>Not the only difference - with this system, time of flight is important
>and big coils will NEVER work in comparison single rings even if they
>had zero inductance.
>
>>     So you use an optical switch that includes the current source
>>function.  The only thing you've managed to accomplish, physically, is
>>to reduce the efficiency of your photon drive still more since neither
>>laser nor photocell are terribly efficient energy converters.
>
>No! Where's the optical switch, where's the current source?
>I think what you are doing is responding to what you are reading sentence by
>sentence. Read the whole chapter and verse and then respond.
>There are no switches and no current sources. Simply photocells.
>No good approximating it that way either because that is not what
>happens in the quantum world of the multi-segmented photocell ring
>illuminated by laser light.
You're getting too hung up on the engineering details.  I visited the web
site, and in essence that drive is no more than a parallel pair of current
loops with a controlled current, seperated by a noninteracting rigid body.
Everything else is just trying to make it work.
You can make it a step more abstract by considering a single current loop
with a controlled current, and see how it interacts with a series of
incoming plane waves.  Then it becomes a problem suitable for a first-year
grad student.
Of course this much simplified model won't give you much of an idea of the
performance or construction of the engine.  But it's quite sufficient for
determining if all of that is worthwhile.
-- 
"Knock off all that evil!"

    Here is an alternative explanation for relativistic mass increase
in particle accelerators. Magnetic flux propagates at c. The number of
magnetic field lines that cut across a charged particle is greater for
a slow moving particle than for a fast moving particle. For example,
for a given distance d, the number of magnetic field lines that cut
across a particle moving at ten meters per second, might be say 100,
while the number of field lines that cut across a particle moving at
1,000,000 meters per second might be say 1. The work done on the slower
moving particles is therefore greater for the slower moving particle
than for the faster moving particle. The change in kinetic energy of
the slower moving particle is therefore greater than the change in
kinetic energy of the faster moving particle.
Edward Meisner

In article <32B1F788.5AE4@earthlink.net>, jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
>Craig Allen Simons wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Richard F. Hall wrote:
>> 
>> > Both Science and Religion require faith.  Science requires faith in Nature,
>> > Man, or in some cases God.  Even the scientific method and the idea that we
>> > can learn more than we know requires a bit of faith.  Besides faith, all
>> > humans require:
*Science,* correct and propper science that is, by definition excludes faith 
entirely. It's the antithesis of such.
The scientific method is to go from observation to logical conclusion. 
*Faith requires the conclusion as a primary.*
The only sort of "science" requiring faith is pseudo-science, astrology, 
UFO's, ESP, and the like--close kin to most religious teachings.
>> Evolution requires a GREAT deal of faith!  I am familiar with the theory,
>> got a B in the class, but it is WAY far fetched.  To think that something
>> came from nothing and leave it all up to natural processes which also had
>> to have a beginning somewhere before the existence of all we know today,
>> yet how can natural processes come into existence when there are no such
>> processes to expediate such processes. 
Amusing. No valid science, that I am aware of, has ever come to a conclusion 
on any first causes or origins. Valid science takes the position that 
existence exists. What is, is. So far as we can observe, we can attempt to 
explain. But beyond any observable point, a big bang for instance, no 
observation is possible, and thus, science does not apply. There is 
literally no way to draw any conclusions concerning any moment preceding the 
big bang--if indeed that theory holds up to scientific scrutiny.
The one explicitly proposing something from nothing is you. You are putting 
forth the notion of "creation," of something by something. Well then, you 
who are stuck on the notion of creation, who/what created your creator?
If your answer is that your "creator" is eternal, then what is so difficult 
about at least considering the notion that perhaps existence itself is 
eternal, with no prior causes whatsoecver?
I rather suspect though that we would have come full circle. That is, what's 
been exposed is your faith, in disregard of science. So, just admit it. 
You've got faith. We can all then take comfort in your eternal and 
self-imposed ignorance and then save ourselves the time in responding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Nicholas Rich         Sachs, Savage & Noble      http://www.ss-n.com
 nrich@ss-n.com     Debt Reduction Professionals         adr@ss-n.com
We reduce business debt at light speed: invoices; disputes; lawsuits
judgments; problem cash-flow; voluntary debt or company liquidation
without Bankruptcy; all "out-of-court" and always *results-only* fees.
Earn substantial referral fees . http://www.ss-n.com/referral.htm
(Free) Become an affiliate and earn 6 figures working from home.
Other opportunities available as well . http://www.ss-n.com/wanted.htm