Newsgroup sci.physics 212912

Directory

"MHL"  wrote:
>It is generally unrealistic or theoretically impossible to have
>superoncuctivity at room temperature. To achieve high Tc's, you'd make
>crazy-like multi Cu-O layers. They could be chemically stable at Liquid N2
>but not at RT!
YBCO is synthesized at 600 C.
All you need for room temperature superconductivity is repeatable 
observation.  The theorteticians will need catch up to the 
experimentalists thereafter.
-- 
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 <32B6235A.C12@emory.edu>, Daniel Schuman  wrote:
> Johnny Chien-Min Yu wrote:
> > Why Is Mind Control Also Lives Control?
> Mr. Yu,
> If the government has this mind control device, wouldn't it be dangerous 
> to talk about it in public?   So essential, that they would use this 
> mind control device on you to shut you up?  
> So, by your continuing to post, you are proving that no such device 
> exists.  Perhaps if you stop posting I'll begin to believe you.
> -Ds
Yes, he should not try and specifically implicate any governmental
authority, and especially not be so unkind to the national cabinet or
Mr. Reno and others. That message certainly infers that people should get
their jobs from foreign competitive trade and industry competitive to
US interests that some universities hope will donate funds or help
support their departments (which is very unfortunate), but uncalled for.
It's tragic that many congressmen, hence many constituencies, do not
value higher education as much as they should. But all of us have to
try harder to help each other towards more wholesome directions, IMHO.

drbeezar@aol.com (DR BEEZAR) wrote:
>Are the quanta of the zero point energy classified as Fermions or Bosons?
>If they are true Bosons, then why only two discreet energy states per
>degree of freedom?
The quanta in question are photons, which are bosons.  Because of 
Heisenberg Uncertainty you get, on the average, a half-photon in every 
vacuum mode which is allowed to propagate.  Constrained systems like 
etalons (e.g., the Casimir Effect) exclude some radiation modes, and 
their interiors "feel" the radiation pressure of the surrounding 
unconstrained vacuum.
-- 
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!

fc3a501@AMRISC04.math.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann) wrote:
>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
>
>Your friend is right, IF you conduct the experiment on a
>flat earth and in a vacuum. There is still an asymmetry:
>someone hit by the dropped bullet won't hit the ground
>as fast as someone hit by the speeding bullet :-)
Do we make the calculation when the first stage fuel tanks are just short 
of full, or just short of empty?
-- 
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 <591j7r$b8f@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>,
LUC BRUNET  wrote:
>
...
>Now, I don't have the exact temperature of the filament, but
>considering the relation: total emissivity = constant*T^4, I though the
>fourth root of VI (voltage*amperage) would be proportional to
>1/wavelenght.  Yet, it doesn't work at all...  
>
>anyone has any insight on why????
>
What fraction of the power going into a bulb actually comes out as light?
Quite low, I think.  If you could directly measure the total light emission
power with some sort of well-calibrated spectrometer, the fourth root of
that might be much closer to what you want.  That way you could avoid
making any assumptions about the bulb efficiency being independent of power.
Warning:  If your spectrometer isn't calibrated (so that you at least know the
relative response curve for various frequencies), your answer might still not
mean anything.
Of course, if you go to that much trouble you can do much more than verify
Wien's law--you can verify the whole emission curve.  Or, more likely,
speculate on why the emission curve you measure isn't QUITE right . . .
Absorption in the glass?  Emissivity varying with frequency?  Etc.
Let's see, how could you do an easy temperature measurement?  Without
assuming anything about blackbody emissions (the T^4 thing is kind of
cheating, since it's basically sitting on the same logical foundation
as the Wien law).
Assume it's a tungsten filament, look up the resistivity of tungsten as a
function of T, measure steady-state R for your bulb at various currents, 
and curve fit.  This is about the simplest thing I can come up with.
Or maybe use a thermocouple.  But where would you put it and how would you
relate its result to the absolute T of the filament?  Well, you could assume
linearity in the heat transfer between the filament and the room, with the
thermocouple some fixed fraction of the way from room temp to filament temp.
But how to independently measure that fraction?  And would it really be
linear if you've got this additional T^4 loss mechanism?  Maybe you could
work out a heat transfer equation with a combined linear and T^4
characteristic, and curve fit that . . . which would also give you some
(shaky) information on the efficiency of the bulb as a function of T.  This
technique might be tricky.  Might require more than one thermocouple in
distinct places, and would certainly require a fair amount of sit-down-and-
think time.  Assuming it would work at all.
If you can get a thermocouple actually on the filament (and not melt it!),
that would be nice.  But I presume opening up and resealing the bulb might
be difficult.
Realize I'm just throwing out ideas--I don't know for sure what'll work best.
Have fun,
breed

Jim Carr wrote:
>  If every person concerned about nuclear waste felt as TL does,
>  the political obstacles to an interim solution would not have
>  delayed that project long enough for technical objections to
>  crop up.  There are some real concerns about the use of salt
>  now, but the biggest problem is getting the stuff there.
Granted, I didn't get into transportaion.  But, since almost no
solutions consider in situ treatment, transportation is a common risk
for any disposal/storage solution.  It may be that the largest problem
with the salt disposal system is transportation, have we adequately
designed transport systems.  Just knowing about what is in some of those
tanker trucks scares me when driving on the interstate.
Yes, there have been some concerns about migration through the salt
layers, about geological stability, about infiltration.  Conversely,
hot water baths with onsite storage over kaurst, is not a pretty picture
either.
> 
>  My own favorite is the "put it back where it came from" solution.
>  The original U ore was radioactive and buried until we mined it.
>  So put equivalently radioactive materials, perhaps glassified,
>  back in those same holes.  The current plans have in mind a system
>  where one can go back in and remove and reprocess if there is a
>  problem during the initial phases, which is why the concentrations
>  are higher and the risk of leakage greater.
We put it back from which it came, but its got a whole new set of
daughter products, with a whole new set of migration potentials. 
No, I still like the salt domes, but always open to new suggestions.
> 
>  Simply "burning" the stuff is even better, but the political
>  opposition to that is even greater than the arguments that are
>  keeping it all in the tanks next to the river.
Dilution is the solution to pollution, eh?  
Unh-ah, I don;t think so.
>

Peter F. Curran wrote:
   
> BTW, time travel IS possible, but only
> into the future...
Indeed.
> ...and only at tremendous
> expense.  Go fast enough, and in the time
> you age a minute, the world will have aged
> 100yrs.  It is only travel into the past
> that upsets causality and denies free
> will.
> 
Nonsense.  As always, fast or slow and by whatever means, when you leave
the present and arrive in the future you are in the omnipresent
transcendental and material "now".
-- 
Alan
Many Internauts quickly discover that equal access to the electronic
resources of the WWWeb neither produces nor guarantees equal results.

In article ,
Anthony James Bentley   wrote:
>In article <58s453$2ga@signal.eng.umd.edu>, Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri
> writes
>>
>>The Bureau is correct.  However, it only has data for a limited
>>distance into the earth's crust.  They never claimed anything about
>>the gravitational field further into the earth.  See my post about why
>>.....Do your homework next time before you post.
>>
>
>This was a hypothetical question about fundamental classical physics at
>a naive level, not a discussion of mineshaft technology.
It started that way, but evolved into a more sophisticated
discussion.  If you will follow the evolution of the thread, you will
notice that someone posted a comment that the Bureau says that gravity
increases and concluded that physics is wrong.  I responded to explain
why both the Bureau and physics are right.  Then someone else
responded to the same message to suggest that the Bureau obviously
didn't have a clue because they're a government agency.
>
>The guy you slagged off was quite correct.
No, he was wrong.  It is true that the first order approximation is
that the gravitational field decreases, but when faced with data showing
it increasing, the correct response is not to declare that the people
who did the measurement must be wrong.
-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri				University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instinctive"

Mingyu Cho wrote:
> 
> Hi!!!
> 
>     I'm curious about mathematical and physical meaning of the
> Laplace transform, especially compared with the Fourier
> transform. -- not the definition.
> 
>     Thanx in advance.
I'm not sure what you mean by the physical "meaning" of the Laplace
Transform but I'll give your question a try anyway.  
Laplace originally used the technique in the theory of probability.  It
turned out that this method was especially useful in evaluating
integrals and in solving differential and difference equations. 
Whatever the "meaning" ascribed to the transform technique, Laplace,
Fourier, Hankel, Gaussian (Weierstrass) etc., the idea (in perhaps
simplistic terms) is to multiply your original function of t (the
"generating function") by another function (in this case exp(-st)) which
converges at infinity and integrate over the product usually (though not
always) from 0 to infinity.  There are extensive tables of transforms
available.
What makes many transform techniques particularly useful is that the
general transform of the derivative of a function can be evaluated in
terms of the generating function without specifying it (given that the
transform is integrable).  This means that a differential equation (for
example) can be transformed into an algebreic equation, solved and then
back transformed to give the solution to the problem.  It also means
that one can solve systems of coupled differential equations in the same
way, reduce a partial differential equation to one in a single variable
and handle differential equations in which there are discontinuities
(such as turning on a switch in an LRC circuit, for example).  The
latter example is because the transform of a derivative of a function
contains information about boundry values that must be supplied to solve
the problem.  
You probably know the difference between the Fourier and Laplace
transforms.  The only real criterion for choosing one over the other is
whether or not one technique will solve the problem more easily.  In the
LRC circuit example one might choose to use a Laplace transform to solve
problems involving a DC circuit and a Fourier transform for an AC
circuit but that is not an absolute requirement.
Personally, I have used Laplace transforms to solve coupled chemical
kinetics equations and simple diffusion problems in electrochemistry as
well as moving boundry kinetics.  One can also use Fourier transforms to
solve diffusion (heat transfer) equations but these are most often used
for problems in which at least one part of the problem involves a
periodic function(x-ray crystalography is an example).  Fourier
transforms are used in many areas of spectroscopy because information in
the transformed (time or distance) spectrum can usually be gathered more
rapidly than in the original (frequency or wavenumber) spectrum.  The
more spectra you gather, the more you can reduce the signal-to noise
ratio by averaging them.
There are all kinds of nifty features of transforms that you can read
about.  Convolution theorems (for example) are quite useful if you wish
to study multiple perturbations of a system.  In addition, based on the
mathematical properties of transform expansions, one can define new
(possibly infinite dimensional) spaces whose basis vectors are terms in
the expansion.
I hope this at least partially answers your question.  Remember that
these are tools for solving problems.  As far as I'm concerned, that's
where their "meaning" can be found.
Chuck Szmanda
chucksz@ultranet.com

In article <591kbj$hb@amenti.rutgers.edu> owl@rci.rutgers.edu (Michael Huemer) writes:
>From: owl@rci.rutgers.edu (Michael Huemer)
>Subject: Re: The absurd debate
>Date: 15 Dec 1996 14:42:43 -0500
>realistic@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall) writes:
>>The antithesis of reverence and faith is depression.  This comes from 
>The opposite of reverence is disgust, and the opposite of faith is
>rationality.
>-- 
>                                              ^-----^ 
> Michael Huemer         / O   O \
> http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl             |   V   | 
>                                              \     / 
Very well said, a man who has no reverence is usually disgusted with most 
everything (a very poor place to be psychologically and physiologically 
unhealthy).  As well, rationality will provide comfort and answers as far as 
the limits of our knowledge.  It is beyond that.. in "mystery" that we come to 
rely on whatever "faith" we have.
rich
If you are ready:
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html

Faith
There is a success story of a life long friend of mine
who became a world renowned Scientist in marine
geology.  He stated that he was an atheist and carried
it to a point of being anti-religious.  When we drove
past a church, he would refer to it as a “fortress of the
enemy”.  Yet, he was healthy and happy.  In the
early days of my understanding of the significance
of reverence, he seemed to be an exception.  I must
admit that for a long time it caused me to downgrade
the importance of reverence.
This was the situation until we went for a walk on a
clear December night.  After we had left the house
and our eyes were becoming accustomed to the
darkness, the star bright, moonless night came into
our consciousness.  It was one of those quiet cold
crisp nights when the stars seemed to hang on strings
where we could touch them.  My own heart was filling
with a symphony of the heaven's when I looked toward
him to see if he were appreciating the scene.  He just
turned his face upward, stretched out his supplicant
hands and said: "Waugh!"
My friend held Nature in reverence.  He had risked his
life many times to know Her better.   Thereby, he
manifested his allegiance.  He went to the bottom of
oceans in experimental submarines.  He sailed closer
than anybody to marine volcanoes.  He defied sharks
to dive among reefs.  He subjected his own value of
himself that he might get a closer look at Nature.
He values knowledge of Science above all else and
believes himself to be but one more little phenomenon
in a great wide universe.
Faith in Nature
As the field of Science has enlarged, there has grown
a group of people who place their faith in Nature.  By
the middle of the 1600’s there were a perceptible number
of people who professed to believe that God is natural.
This was almost an anachronism, for at that time it is
doubtful if they understood the difference between
natural and supernatural.  It took a great deal of faith
to say that “all is reality” and “reality is a unified whole.”
Even today, we find ourselves in a galaxy of subatomic
particles the characteristics of which we barely suspect,
to say nothing of understanding.  If we estimate the
energies of the universe, we find we understand, perhaps,
less than three percent.  It takes a great deal of faith to
believe in the unity of reality under those conditions.
Neutrons are hardly slowed by the thick armor of tanks.
We think billions of neutrinos pass through our planet
every second at the speed of light without slowing down.
He have a greatly extended confidence that the laws of
conservation of mass, energy, momentum, and the laws
of entropy and gravity apply there too.  We just don't
know how.
Faith in a supernatural God
We find that most people feel that the destiny of human
souls with whom they identify is at the mercy of supernatural
spirits.  This usually includes the spirit of evil as well as
God.  Despite what anyone may think of this concept, it
has certainly been enduring and has a positive affect on
he lives and societies of those who accept it.  One can
just as easily accept and live by the laws of God and
achieve a happy life if they are the same as the laws of
Nature.  In other words, faith in a supernatural God can
pull a person through situations when nothing else will do.
However this can be a problem when all decisions are
left to the time of some “final day of judgment”, and
philosophical considerations are confined to a rigid
structure that is unyielding to the laws of Nature.
Faith in humanity
There are a great number of people who know a good
deal about the supernatural and the natural who point
out that in the last analysis it is humanity that shapes
its own destiny.  To them nothing counts more than life
and death, and it is people who affect this outcome
more than anything else.  However insecure they may
feel about the course of human events, they feel it is
people who will eventually determine whether we survive
at all, and whether the quality of survival will be worth it.
In a world where most of the people are waiting and
praying for a supernatural spirit to do it for them, in this
life or the next, these pragmatic people must have
enduring faith in human perseverance.
We have said in this chapter that we may succeed with
a faith in one or all of three great fields of thought:
I.  Faith in a natural force, Nature.
II.  Faith in a supernatural force, God.
III.  Faith in humanity, Man.
Logically we may conceive of the fourth proposition in
which an individual may have all his faith in himself.
Experience with reality clearly nullifies the fourth as a
successful approach to a healthy, happy, effective life.
As we will see, it can lead to an alienation.
It does not work.
For those who are ready:
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
improve your faith
rich

On 15 Dec 1996 22:04:57 GMT, curran@remove_this.rpi.edu (Peter F.
Curran) wrote:
>
>Since my initial post in this thread involved the problems 
>with the physics of time travel, then _that_ is the kind of 
>time assumed to be under discussion!  I'm not really sure 
>that there IS another kind of time, anyway!  :)
>
But the central problem of time travel is _not_ with the physics. It's
easy to come up with self-consistent time travel scenarios if you
leave out the human will. The problem arises when the time traveller
_consciously_ tries to violate self-consistency.
>The perceptions we have of time we obtain through 
>our senses and the inherent time limitations of our
>thought processes.
It's not a question of "limitations". Biology can create accurate
clocks where that serves a purpose. It's a question of the way we
experience time being _qualitatively_ different from the way physics
views it.
Physics contains no concept of the progression of time. Backwards is
as valid as forwards in physics.
>  Events scheduled
>in REAL time always occur regardless of our notion
>of what time it is or how much has passed.
And a landmark remains where it is regardless of whether we move to
it's location or not. But travel is not the same thing as distance.
>>
>>That's a cop out. Past present and future are central to our
>>existance. It's hard to think of anything that has _more_ meaning. Why
>>do we remember the past and not the future? Why can't we return our
>>consciousness and fully reexperience a past event, or even try a past
>>decision a different way and see how that comes out? Why are we stuck
>>to the now, even though it's dragging us to our deaths?
>>
>>Now is a real thing. It's as real as pain and harder to ignore.
>>
>
>When I stated that the past, present and future have no meaning, I
>of course meant no inherent meaning.  (No meaning which is common
>to everyone).
On the contrary the experience of past, present and future _is_ common
to everyone though there's not proof everyone has the same "now".
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird:  This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma.  | liberty bell.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm

[Posted to sci.environment]
TL ADAMS  wrote:
>Jim Carr wrote:
>>  Simply "burning" the stuff is even better, but the political
>>  opposition to that is even greater than the arguments that are
>>  keeping it all in the tanks next to the river.
>
>Dilution is the solution to pollution, eh?  
>
>Unh-ah, I don;t think so.
The "burning" he is talking about is fissioning the long-lived
actinides.
The problem with that is that currently, it's too expensive relative
to mining more U.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca         |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <592rvv$b5n@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
> From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: 16 Dec 1996 06:59:11 GMT
> Organization: Netcom
> X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 15 10:59:11 PM PST 1996
> 
>     Maxwell showed that electromagnetism is a sine function. Would
> electromagnetism therefore be a wave in the charge field of a charged
> particle? In other words, charge is a spacetime curvature field.
> Electromagnetism would therefore be a sine wave perturbation in the
> spacetime curvature propagating at the speed of light? Electromagnetism
> is then the undulations of the spacetime metric of the charge's
> spacetime curvature field?
> 
> Edward Meisner 
Hi,
I think you're messing up electromagnetism and gravity. Gravity is
a spacetime curvature field and sine wave perturbations of space time
metric are known as gravity waves. Unfortunately, there is only indirect
evidence for their existance.
Georg

Hi, everyone,
I am writing a paper about Chaos. I would like to concentrate in the
discussion of entropy and the Lyapunov exponent.
However, the content is required to be comprehensive to undergraduates.
Therefore, I have to avoid too much mathemetical derivation as far as
possible. I am in problem of finding some related text for reference.
Especially those article appeared in some journals, ie. Scientific
American, Physics Today, etc. I think they will be helpful as they are
usually desriptive and conceptual.
Anyone has the reference list? 
Thanks for your help!
Fong

Sorry to people who find this inappropriate to their group -- I don't 
know where Ms. Jubran hangs out, and I want her to have a fair chance of 
seeing this....
> >Janet Jubran (jubran@mailhost1.csusm.edu) wrote:
> >: Avoid it "The Man in the Ice".   A lot of speculation.  Not a lot of
> >: substance.  I am waiting, eagerly, for something serious on the ice man.
If you can get to a research library, or a kick-ass public library (like 
a major-city one), look in the British archaeology journal _Antiquity_.  
Sometime in the last couple of years there was a pretty interesting 
article with good B/W photos.  I don't remember the title or the author, 
but since there are only 4 issues a year, a two-year browse won't take 
very long.  Just to be safe you might want to look back as far as 1994, 
but I'd bet that it was a 1995 article.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn "HA HA!  I ain't got no exams this term!" Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
"Hatrack ratcatcher to port weapons...brickbat lingerie!!"
                                               -- Cdr. Susan Ivanova, B5

> The point is not whether it makes algebraic sense but whether it behooves you
> to use that representation in a program.
> 
> If you represent _both_ operands of a complex multiplication as 2x2 matrices,
> and perform the naive matrix multiplication, you are doing twice the
> computational work by computing two redundant values and using more
storage. It
> is a wasteful representation in both time and space.
> 
> You can avoid some of the computational work by allowing one of your operands
> to be a column vector, in which case, a multiplication of (a + ib) * (c + id)
> would be
> 
>         | a  -b | | c |
>         | b   a | | d |
> 
> However, this is still less than optimal. Space is wasted to store the
> left operand, and your compiler will  never  clue in to the fact that in your
> matrices, the upper left is always the same as the lower right and lower left
> is the additive inverse of the upper right. It will generate code to
> redundantly fetch the value 'a' from separate objects, ditto for b.
> 
> I think that this was Bill Stockwell's point; he was not disputing the 
> algebraic correctness of representing complex numbers as matrices, was he?
> 
> Of course, you may not care about efficiency, and using 2x2 matrices can save
> you programming time if a matrix library is already available to you. The
> saving in programming time can be more significant than a saving in memory
> or computing time.
Using matrixes instead of complex nums is interesting when you use matrix
for something other in you programs.
Especially in dealing with anlytic geometry...
If not, better use a+bi... Easier.
-- 
M.TIBOUCHI
Mystical Queror of Transcendental Nums (n'other stuffs like that ;-)
>"e^(i.pi) + 1 = 0", Euler
>The shorter poem if poetry puts real together with imaginary.

a. s. wrote:
> 
> 
>   Someone give me their best explaination as to "how"
>  time exists...    As I've suppositionally offered before,
>  my position for the sake of philosophical discussion is that
>  time does not exist in any form beyond that of an
>  intellectual concept.  It has no pysical existance, therefore,
>  it can't be accessed for travel.
> 
If time only exists as an intellectual concept, then space and
everything within space is also only an intellectual concept. Are you
ready to accept this also as a consequence of your first assertion?

In article <58rp31$ov2@news.fsu.edu>, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>  I had some trouble getting the page to load this week, but it is 
>  up now so you can read all about this aircraft, the aptly nicknamed 
>  Vomit Comet, at 
> 
>     http://zeta.lerc.nasa.gov/kjenks/kc-135.htm
> 
>  along with info about the trajectory and some great action photos. 
This plane got a lot of Hollywood publicity when Ron Howard shot significant
chunks of the movie "Apollo 13" in it. Some of the weightlessness in the
movie is genuine; they built a mockup of parts of the interior of the Apollo
spacecraft inside of the plane, and did their acting and filming during the
brief periods of weightlessness.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

That's all...
-- 
 ************************                 
 *  Miguel J. Jimenez   *         O O O            O
 *    -------------     *          O O            -|-
 *   krilim@ibm.net     *        Seville          / \
 ************************        2 0 0 4 
                             Summer Olympics

In <592rvv$b5n@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes: 
>
>    Maxwell showed that electromagnetism is a sine function. Would
>electromagnetism therefore be a wave in the charge field of a charged
>particle? In other words, charge is a spacetime curvature field.
>Electromagnetism would therefore be a sine wave perturbation in the
>spacetime curvature propagating at the speed of light?
Electromagnetism
>is then the undulations of the spacetime metric of the charge's
>spacetime curvature field?
>
>Edward Meisner 
    Is this a miserable idea or a good idea? I was thinking that all
other fields, like the gravitational field and the electrostatic field,
were associated with a particle. It seemed very strange to me that the
electromagnetic field did not seem to be associated with any particle.
I thought that the electromagnetic field might be a pure curvature in
spaetime disassociated from any particle or energy. I don't know why,
but this seemed to me to be very improbable. I then thought that the
kinetic energy of the charged particle was being converted to a quantum
of electromagnetic radiation energy. But I thought: How can an inertial
field, which is just a pure curvature in spacetime, be converted to a
quantity of energy? Here, I also don't know why, I thought this was
very peculiar, because it seemed that energy was being created out of
nothing. I was thinking: How can the electromagentic radiation be
associated with a particle? That is when I came up with the idea above.
I thought that the particle itself is the medium in which the
electromaganetic wave, which the particle radiates, propagates.
However, it is also true that gamma rays can be converted to particles,
which seems to me to be very peculiar. How can a spacetime wave in the
medium of the electrostatic field give rise to a particle? However, the
gamma ray has very high energy, so that the spacetime curvature is
extremely severe and the wavelength very small. I am now thinking that
if the spacetime curvature in the electrostatic field is severe enough
and the wavelength small enough the field will self gravitate and
propagate in an orbital fashion. Therefore, I am now thinking that
there is not only no particle, but also no energy. There is only a
spacetime curvature that has become so severe, and with a wavelength
that has become so small, that it is trapped and forced to propagate in
an orbital fashion.
Edward Meisner

baez@math.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
>In article ,
>Paul Vigay   wrote:
>>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.
>Right.  That's exactly what *didn't* happen.
So tell us what *did* happen.
JeffMo

In 
georg@acds15.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Georg Kreyerhoff     ) writes: 
>
>In article <592rvv$b5n@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) writes:
>
>> From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
>> Newsgroups: sci.physics
>> Date: 16 Dec 1996 06:59:11 GMT
>> Organization: Netcom
>> X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Dec 15 10:59:11 PM PST 1996
>> 
>>     Maxwell showed that electromagnetism is a sine function. Would
>> electromagnetism therefore be a wave in the charge field of a
charged
>> particle? In other words, charge is a spacetime curvature field.
>> Electromagnetism would therefore be a sine wave perturbation in the
>> spacetime curvature propagating at the speed of light?
Electromagnetism
>> is then the undulations of the spacetime metric of the charge's
>> spacetime curvature field?
>> 
>> Edward Meisner 
>
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>
>I think you're messing up electromagnetism and gravity. Gravity is
>a spacetime curvature field and sine wave perturbations of space time
>metric are known as gravity waves. Unfortunately, there is only
indirect
>evidence for their existance.
>
>Georg
Hello,
I have a theory that unifies gravity and electromagnetism. I have not
saved my posts, so I cannot update you on the theory, but I do not
think you would be interested anyway.
Regards,
Edward Meisner

In  realistic@seanet.com (Richard F.
Hall) writes: 
>Umm - hello, Richard.  Could ya kinda, y'know, trim the headers a bit?
This really isn't appropriate to the sci.skeptic forum.  Thanks.
Bill
>Faith
>
>There is a success story of a life long friend of mine
>who became a world renowned Scientist in marine
>geology.  He stated that he was an atheist and carried
>it to a point of being anti-religious.  When we drove
>past a church, he would refer to it as a “fortress of the
>enemy”.  Yet, he was healthy and happy.  In the
>early days of my understanding of the significance
>of reverence, he seemed to be an exception.  I must
>admit that for a long time it caused me to downgrade
>the importance of reverence.
>
>This was the situation until we went for a walk on a
>clear December night.  After we had left the house
>and our eyes were becoming accustomed to the
>darkness, the star bright, moonless night came into
>our consciousness.  It was one of those quiet cold
>crisp nights when the stars seemed to hang on strings
>where we could touch them.  My own heart was filling
>with a symphony of the heaven's when I looked toward
>him to see if he were appreciating the scene.  He just
>turned his face upward, stretched out his supplicant
>hands and said: "Waugh!"
>
>My friend held Nature in reverence.  He had risked his
>life many times to know Her better.   Thereby, he
>manifested his allegiance.  He went to the bottom of
>oceans in experimental submarines.  He sailed closer
>than anybody to marine volcanoes.  He defied sharks
>to dive among reefs.  He subjected his own value of
>himself that he might get a closer look at Nature.
>He values knowledge of Science above all else and
>believes himself to be but one more little phenomenon
>in a great wide universe.
>
>Faith in Nature
>As the field of Science has enlarged, there has grown
>a group of people who place their faith in Nature.  By
>the middle of the 1600’s there were a perceptible number
>of people who professed to believe that God is natural.
>This was almost an anachronism, for at that time it is
>doubtful if they understood the difference between
>natural and supernatural.  It took a great deal of faith
>to say that “all is reality” and “reality is a unified whole.”
>
>Even today, we find ourselves in a galaxy of subatomic
>particles the characteristics of which we barely suspect,
>to say nothing of understanding.  If we estimate the
>energies of the universe, we find we understand, perhaps,
>less than three percent.  It takes a great deal of faith to
>believe in the unity of reality under those conditions.
>Neutrons are hardly slowed by the thick armor of tanks.
>We think billions of neutrinos pass through our planet
>every second at the speed of light without slowing down.
>He have a greatly extended confidence that the laws of
>conservation of mass, energy, momentum, and the laws
>of entropy and gravity apply there too.  We just don't
>know how.
>
>Faith in a supernatural God
>We find that most people feel that the destiny of human
>souls with whom they identify is at the mercy of supernatural
>spirits.  This usually includes the spirit of evil as well as
>God.  Despite what anyone may think of this concept, it
>has certainly been enduring and has a positive affect on
>he lives and societies of those who accept it.  One can
>just as easily accept and live by the laws of God and
>achieve a happy life if they are the same as the laws of
>Nature.  In other words, faith in a supernatural God can
>pull a person through situations when nothing else will do.
>However this can be a problem when all decisions are
>left to the time of some “final day of judgment”, and
>philosophical considerations are confined to a rigid
>structure that is unyielding to the laws of Nature.
>
>Faith in humanity
>There are a great number of people who know a good
>deal about the supernatural and the natural who point
>out that in the last analysis it is humanity that shapes
>its own destiny.  To them nothing counts more than life
>and death, and it is people who affect this outcome
>more than anything else.  However insecure they may
>feel about the course of human events, they feel it is
>people who will eventually determine whether we survive
>at all, and whether the quality of survival will be worth it.
>In a world where most of the people are waiting and
>praying for a supernatural spirit to do it for them, in this
>life or the next, these pragmatic people must have
>enduring faith in human perseverance.
>
>We have said in this chapter that we may succeed with
>a faith in one or all of three great fields of thought:
>
>I.  Faith in a natural force, Nature.
>II.  Faith in a supernatural force, God.
>III.  Faith in humanity, Man.
>
>Logically we may conceive of the fourth proposition in
>which an individual may have all his faith in himself.
>Experience with reality clearly nullifies the fourth as a
>successful approach to a healthy, happy, effective life.
>As we will see, it can lead to an alienation.
>It does not work.
>
>For those who are ready:
>http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
>
>improve your faith
>
>rich

Shawn Maddock   wrote:
>[...]
>[1]What non-regular convex n-gons will tile the plane? [2]What
>combinations of regular polygons will tile the plane? [3]What
>combinations of any type of polygon will tile the plane? 
>[...]
[1] Voronoi diagrams are fun, but not all tilings result from them. For
example, parallelograms which are not rectangles do not tile as Voronoi
cells. All convex quadrilaterals tile. 
For pentagons and hexagons, there are many examples, and I don't see a
better way than to go through the cases. I would guess that any polygon
of this sort that tiles can do so periodically with small index, but that
is nontrivial. 
[2] The angles around each vertex must add up to 360 degrees, so the only
possibilities are to use 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12-gons. Note that using a single
octagon requires one to use only squares and octagons, and the only
flexibility is to subdivide squares. Then again, subdividing squares into
squares can be done in surprisingly complicated ways, e.g., with no two
smaller squares having the same size. See van Lint and Wilson's _A Course
in Combinatorics_. 
Note that dodecagons can be subdivided into 1 hexagon, 6 squares, and 6
triangles. This was actually a Putnam problem some decades back; I suppose
full credit was given for, "Ok. I see it."
[3] It is known that there can be no algorithm to decide whether a set of
polygons can tile.
Followups redirected.
Douglas Zare

In article <32b6f53a.11135050@Pubnews.demon.co.uk>,
Louis Savain  wrote:
>In article <592e1o$1e6@usenet.rpi.edu>, nospaam@pascal.stu.rpi.edu
>(Peter F. Curran) wrote:
>
>>In article <32b5b39e.3988264@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>	alien.spydr@worldnet.att.net (a. s.) writes:
>>>On 14 Dec 1996 22:54:55 GMT, curran@remove_this.rpi.edu (Peter F.
>>>Curran) wrote:
>>>
>>>->In article <58v7us$hht@trojan.neta.com>,
>>>->	blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton) writes:
>>>->>Peter F. Curran  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>->>> Time exists independently of us, and our minds
>>>->>>were never intended to be accurate chronological measuring
>>>->>>devices.
>>>
>>>  Someone give me their best explaination as to "how"
>>> time exists...    
Abian answers:
Time exists as a mass which displays inertia to change.
 As everything else, TIME also has the tendency of maintaining the
status quo of its present instant.  This is another way of saying that
Time has inertia and is another manifestation of Mass.  In fact, there
is an equivalence of Mass and Time. However, Time moves throughout the
entire Cosmos and to overpower of Time's tendency of maintaining the
status quo of its present instant 
(A)  A certain  m  Abian units of Cosmic mass is (perhaps) irretrievably 
     lost to move Time forward  T  Abian units 
(A*) An  Abian unit (i.e.,1 Abian) is taken as the mass  Mo of the Cosmos at 
     the Big Bang, i.e., at  T = 0 Abian.  For practical considerations
     Mo can be taken as  1O^n  (for a suitable  n) Abian units. Thus,
(1)  Mo indicates the Mass  M  (in Abians) of the Cosmos at T = 0 (Abian). 
  So, by TIME, I mean an absolute Cosmic Time which  is as much of a
universal entity as Mass is.
 Clearly (A) violates the "Conservation of Cosmic mass-energy Law".  But
the latter was never, never proved.
 In view of (A), it is natural to assume that mass  M  of the Cosmos
decreases exponentially with the passage of Cosmic time  T.  Moreover,
since I believe that the Cosmic mass which is spent to move Time forward
is lost irretrievably, and since I believe that Cosmos will never
vanish, I assume that 
(2)  0   0  in (3).  Therefore,  M
decreases exponentially with the passage of Cosmic Time  T.
 Let us observe that by (2), we have  T < Mo.  Nevertheless,
substituting  T = Mo in (3) we obtain  M = Mo exp 1/(k-1).  This must be
interpreted as saying that the Cosmos will never vanish and its mass
will always be greater than  Mo exp1/(k-1).
  The value of the scalar  k  in (3) must be determined experimentally.
Of course difficulties are to be expected since (3) involves the mass  M
of the Cosmos at various cosmic times  T. This circumstance is at
present the most vulnerable point in (3) - not conceptually, but as far
as quantification is concerned.  I wish there be a "Cosmic Massmeter" to
determine  M  appearing in (3).
  Next, based on (3), we give a mathematical formulation of  m mentioned
in (A).  From (A) it follows that   m = Mo - M  where  M is given by (3).
Thus
(4)   m  =  Mo - M  =  Mo (1 -exp( T/(kT - Mo)))
>from  which it follows   1 - (m/Mo) = exp (T / (kT - Mo))  and therefore
(5)  T = -Mo(Log (1 -(m/Mo))/(1 - k Log(1 - (m/Mo)) 
     where Log is the natural  e-log.
  We note that (4) as well as (5) expresses the equivalence of Mass and
Time.  For instance they say that   m  Abian units of Cosmic mass is
spent to produce  T Abian units of Cosmic Time.
   No pretenses are made that (3) is the best possible formula,  Far
>from  it.  I devised it as an attempt to give a mathematical formulation
to the assertion of the  "Equivalence of Mass and Time" which I believe
is the case contrary to all the accepted concepts of time by the
past and present establishments of Physics and Astronomy.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
       ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS  AND EPIDEMICS
       ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT  
                     TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)

In article <5947uk$e6e@cutter.cfw.com>, moorej@cfw.com (JeffMo) wrote:
> baez@math.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
> >In article ,
> >Paul Vigay   wrote:
>>>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.
> >Right.  That's exactly what *didn't* happen.
> So tell us what *did* happen.
This may be helpful:
[http://lal.cs.byu.edu/ketav/issue_3.2/Lumin/lumin.html#quantum]
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
As with any theory, scientists require that an experiment be the
ultimate source of information regarding the actual interaction time for
a tunneling particle. But until recently, time measurement devices and
experimental apparatus were not sufficient for the making of the precise
measurements that these quantum mechanical experiments would require.
About ten years ago, Steven Chu and Stephen Wong at AT&T; Bell Labs in
New Jersey measured superluminal velocities for light pulses traveling
through an absorbing material (_Brown 27_). In 1991, Anedio Ranfagni et
al at the National Institute for Research into Electromagnetic Waves in
Florence, Italy measured the speed of propagation for microwaves through
a "forbidden zone" inside square metal waveguides. The reported values
were initially less than the speed of light, until the experiment was
repeated in 1992 with thicker barriers (_Brown 27_). Also in 1992,
Gnnter Nimtz and colleagues at the University of Cologne reported
superluminal speeds for microwaves traversing a similar forbidden region
(_Brown 27_).
In 1993, the most solid experimental evidence came from Chiao and his
colleagues Aephraim Steinberg and Paul Kwiat at the University of
California at Berkeley. Using the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer (see
Figure 4.3), they were able to measure the tunneling times of visible
light. According to Brown, "the researchers found that the photons
that tunneled their way through the optical filter arrived 1.5
femtoseconds sooner than the ones that traveled through air. The
tunneling photons seemed to have traveled at 1.7 times the speed of
light" (_Brown 29_).
Similar experiments by Ferenc Krauss et al at the Technical University
in Vienna in October of 1994 "strongly suggest that as they
progressively increased the thickness of the barrier the tunneling time
saturated toward a maximum value" (_Brown 30_). In March of 1995, at a
colloquium in Snowbird, Utah, Nimtz announced that he had sent a signal
across twelve centimeters of space at 4.7 times the speed of light. The
signal was a modulation in the frequency of his microwave source
matching Mozart's 40th Symphony (_Brown 30_).
This announcement caused several respectable physicists to re-think the
definition of a signal. Even Chaio and his colleagues were adamantly
opposed to describing Nimtz' work as the sending of a signal (_Brown
30_).
IMPLICATIONS - SIGNALS AND CAUSALITY
Admittedly, however, Nimtz had sent something. Why was the bar of
Mozart's symphony not a signal? The answer to this lies in the question
of causality, and the concept of smoothly varying functions. If a wave
packet's shape upon incidence is smooth and well- defined, it is a
straightforward calculation to determine its shape after transmission.
Because the final shape can be mathematically determined, the causality
principle does not restrict the travel speed of the packet. Basically,
since no useful information is being transmitted, it would not be
possible to use the transmitted wave packet as a signal to shut off the
original incident signal. Because of this, most scientists would not
consider a smoothly varying function to be a signal.
In fact, Chaio and Steinberg were quick to point out that Nimtz'
symphony was not a signal, but simply a smoothly varying pulse. It was
predictable in its shape from the beginning. A sudden change in the
shape would still travel at only light speed, and only a sudden change,
according to Chaio, could be regarded as a signal (_Brown 30_).
As quoted by Brown, Chaio noted "Einstein causality rules out the
propagation of any signal traveling faster than light, but it does not
limit the group velocity of electromagnetic propagation" (_Brown 30_).
Other sources commenting on this idea of superluminal particle travel
have similar conclusions. Landauer notes that "the few transmitted
photons [in Chaio's experiment] arrive earlier than the velocity of
light would allow . . . [however] that velocity is presumed not to
represent the retardation between a cause and its effect" (_Landauer
1993_).
Though some scientists see hope of faster-than-light signal transmission
with the work of Chaio, Nimtz, and others, there is much debate focused
on the definition of a signal. The experiments conclusively show that
music or photons can be sent faster than light, but only if a
mathematical prediction of the results could be made in the first place.
Most physicists still insist a "signal" is something which conveys
unpredictable information, or that which would give rise to causality
problems at superluminal velocities, but the results of the experiments
are still astounding. "Einstein causality . . . does not limit the group
velocity of electromagnetic propagation" (_Brown 30_), and with this,
experimental verification of the existence of superluminal particle
travel is found.
__
V. CONCLUSION
"Einstein causality rules out the propagation of any signal traveling
faster than light, but it does not limit the group velocity of
electromagnetic propagation." - Chaio
After considering the mathematical possibility of motion faster than
light, we have concluded that Einstein Causality does not allow for the
superluminal transmission of any useful information. In other words, one
cannot send a signal backwards in time, ruling out all time travel and
similar cause and effect disturbances. However, through the work of
Chaio and other experimental physicists, conclusive evidence is given
for faster-than-light transmission of smoothly varying functions such as
that of a particle wave packet. This means that it is indeed possible
for an object to have a velocity greater than that of light.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

George Dishman (george@briar.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[snip]
: -- 
: George Dishman
: Give me a small laser and I'll move the sun.
take the one out of your cd player man.
Dylan Miracle
Give me a small laser and I'll burn a small hole

I've made what I think might be an interesting observation pertaining to
previous discussions concerning the speed of light and absolutes in
nature.
Mr. Eintein's theory assumes that physical laws are identical in all
frames and that the speed of light in a vacuum, "c", is constant
throughout the universe.
This constant speed was first measured in 1676, by Ole Roemer after he
observed that light speed is finite in outer space, based on the fact
that the moons of Jupiter appear to move slower the further away that
they get from the Earth.   He realized that light must travel its
greatest distance to reach the Earth when a moon orbiting around the
planet is at its furthest point from Earth.  From this he derived the
finite speed of light in this "vacuum" and this constant speed, (which
has since been verified to a finer degree of accuracy), is the basis for
Mr. Einstein's constant.
The speed of light through a given medium is then determined by the
"constant" divided by the refractive index of that medium.
Now, even the most avid empty space supporters will concede that outer
space isn't completely empty, containing hydrogen and other particles to
some varying level of density.  At best, this makes outer space relative
space or at least a relative vacuum, rather than an absolute ideal.  If
it isn't an absolute vacuum, then it doesn't absolutely fit the implied
ideal.  If it isn't an absolute vacuum, then is isn't really a vacuum,
only relatively.  Since an absolute vacuum doesn't/can't exist, then the
claim can't be absolute.
Right?
The speed of light should be measured in outer space in the same manner
that it is measured within any other refractive medium and it should be
the constant divided by the refractive index of this medium, no? 
Obviously this is deceiving where outer space is concerned since the
index begins here and the index is, therefore, based on a relative frame
rather than an absolute frame, though it is widely considered to be an
absolute law.
This is like saying that you can measure a relative frame and call it an
absolute frame.  This particular case is SORT OF anti-analgous to saying
that you can determine the absolute speed of a racing car by measuring
its average linear speed as it races through a series of curves that are
just undetectable from your perspective.  You then compare this
relative-absolute speed against the cars speed through a host of
comparatively more obviously curved tracks and build an index from your
relative-absolute reference frame, increasing the levels of your
refractive index from the perspective of your established frame as these
tracks get curvier.
That serves a fine purpose in as much as it establishes a basis for
measurement but it doesn't define an absolute universal constant.
Unless I am missing something huge here, this ideal constant is only
semi-fixed and is not a physical reality beyond the applicable medium
since outer space isn't a perfect vacuum.  From this it seems more
likely that the speed of a photon, or any other single particle of
matter in motion in a global vacuum is infinite, slowed only, and
entirely relative to, other matter and/or its effects.  This isn't
necessarily contrary to Mr. Einstein's assumption that physical laws are
identical in all frames but it appears to me anyway that his extremely
valuable constant is only true from within our own level or from our
technological viewpoint which is limited to falling well within our
local system of forces.
In other words, it is no different than any other system existing within
the relative confines of nature and e=mc^2 is relatively accurate.
Rick
If it isn't an absolute vacuum then it isn't really a vacuum, only
relatively.

Miguel  wrote:
>That's all...
>-- 
>
> ************************                 
> *  Miguel J. Jimenez   *         O O O            O
> *    -------------     *          O O            -|-
> *   krilim@ibm.net     *        Seville          / \
> ************************        2 0 0 4 
>                             Summer Olympics
>
You may be interested in "The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence M. Krauss
(Chairman of the Physics Dept. at Case Western Reserve). Several 
interesting points in the book.
RE: your question,.. several interesting observations. One is the 
information required to "transport" the "reassembly instrustions" for 
something as simple as a 50 kilo human. At an estimate of 10^28 atoms, 
for which you need to read, store, transmit, receive, and store (even 
before you "reassemble") - all of the location (x,y,z), internal state 
(energy, spin,..many other qualities),..and all the interactions between 
all atoms,...you can see that there is FAR too much information to deal 
with,..even assuming you can gather all of the information (uncertainty 
fixed with "Heisenberg Compensators" and all). 
And I suspect this is the beat case method. Other methods would require 
the transmission of the matter (convert to energy first),..as well as the 
"reassembly data", plus the energy -> mater conversion at the other end.
Seems that even with the ability to gather the information,..dealing with 
the data becomes kinda difficult.
Just a thought

You know, pessimistic attitudes get us nowhere.  If there is no hope in
the world, as you seem to believe, then there is no real point to
living. If we are in hell, how could it get any worse?  IMO, Hope comes
from the little things in life that make one happy, not the promise of
heaven, or fear of hell(neither of which I believe in).

Paul D. Shocklee  wrote in article
<58thkc$4bi@cnn.Princeton.EDU>...
> mari0021@maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote:
> : In article
,
> : Anthonie Muller   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. 
> 
> : 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?
> 
> Yeah, that's *much* simpler. :)
> 
> --
> Marta Korolev Bobbles Republic of New Mexico Juan Chanson Della Lu
Marooned
> S ()    ()   ()  Paul D. Shocklee   ()  Princeton University   ()    ()  
() 
> Peace War Wachendon Suppressors Singularity Tinkers Jason Mudge Vernor
Vinge
> 
Well and what about if the deja vue is only an internal error of our brain;
the way we think can be represented like a computer with 2 processors there
is a concient part
that make the process and a second processor that organize everything that
is pass to by the 
first part, and this is the sub conscient.
what if the sub consciente goes to store an image before it was sent by the
conscient because the conscient part is to much things to do like some
problem that make us concern about
and when then conscient finally send that image to be store the sub
conscient when it goes to establish the relactionships it finds that that
image is already there and send that information the the conscient part
making us thinking that we had already experiment that situation
sorry 'bout my english and send me some comments to paulojl@adm.iseg.utl.pt

In article <32B5A1BE.6173@gte.net>, Bob Anderson  wrote:
>a. s. wrote:
>> 
>>   Someone give me their best explaination as to "how"
>>  time exists...    As I've suppositionally offered before,
>>  my position for the sake of philosophical discussion is that
>>  time does not exist in any form beyond that of an
>>  intellectual concept.  It has no pysical existance, therefore,
>>  it can't be accessed for travel.
>> 
>If time only exists as an intellectual concept, then space and
>everything within space is also only an intellectual concept.
  Well, if there is no space (as defined by physicists) "within space"
is a meaningless concept.  If there is no space, there is neither a
'within' or a 'without' and notions that call for an inside or an
outside to the universe are also meaningless.  Why do you seem to
think that the non-existence of space necessarily entails that nothing
else can exist?  I don't see that at all.
> Are you ready to accept this also as a consequence of your first assertion?
  Very interesting question.  My answer, strange as it may seem to
some, is a resounding YES with the following caveat.  I am convinced
there's neither space nor time as defined by physicists.  Only
particles and particle interactions exist.  'Particle interactions"
is, IMO, is just another way of saying "change".  Space and time are
abstract though useful concepts that emerges from the interactions of
particles.  The types of the interactions are determined by the
intrinsic properties of the particles.  I believe the universe is not
at all unlike a massively parallel cellular automaton.
Best regards,
Louis Savain

Note:  See attached article.
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:42:22 -0500 "Peter F. Curran" 
 wrote via e-mail:
Hi Alan,
PFC:    An excellent point!  It strikes me as the temporal
equivalent of the expression: "No matter where you
go...  there you are!".  :)
H:  You have grasped the precise nub of the matter.
PFC:    I agree that "whenever you go it is now", but in
what way is my thought experiment effectively different
from what is commonly known as time travel, specifically
time travel into the future?
H:  Each and every particle of each and every individual abides 
in the present instant of time moment by moment; however, that 
which is commonly thought of as time travel is, in fact, not the way 
time or materiality works.
PFC:  Even in science fiction,
those who have traveled into the future, (or past),
think of themselves at "now".
H:  One can travel to the past only in memory or imagination.
PFC:  After all, the traveler's actual atoms will not be
as old as the other atoms in the universe!
H:  After all, actual atoms never leave the omnipresent "now".
The future is always becoming the future, and the past abides 
only in memory.
  - Pete
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:37:02 -0800 hermital@livingston.net
(hermital) wrote in the alt.sci.time-travel newsgroup:
> Peter F. Curran wrote:
>
>    
>
> > BTW, time travel IS possible, but only
> > into the future...
>
> Indeed.
>
> > ...and only at tremendous
> > expense.  Go fast enough, and in the time
> > you age a minute, the world will have aged
> > 100yrs.  It is only travel into the past
> > that upsets causality and denies free
> > will.
> > 
> Nonsense.  As always, fast or slow and by whatever means, when you leave
> the present and arrive in the future you are in the omnipresent
> transcendental and material "now".
> -- 
> Alan
> Many Internauts quickly discover that equal access to the electronic
> resources of the WWWeb neither produces nor guarantees equal results.
>

I have several hundred Helium Neon LASER tubes for Sale. Tested (.5mW to 
2mW)These are factory seconds which were originally designed to be used in 
Spectra-Physics barcode scanners.
single $7.00 each,two for $12.00, three for $15.00
You pay all postage and shipping.
Special Pricing for bulk orders.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

William Mayers (ham@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In  realistic@seanet.com (Richard F.
: Hall) writes: 
: >Umm - hello, Richard.  Could ya kinda, y'know, trim the headers a bit?
: This really isn't appropriate to the sci.skeptic forum.  Thanks.
: Bill
Umm...  Hi, Bill.  When you're posting a followup could ya, y'know, _not_
repost the entire article you're responding to, especially if your
response is not addressing anything in the article itself?  Thanks. 
-John

Ken Fischer wrote:
> 
> Troy Dawson (td@twics.com) wrote:
> : At some point, the 'why' questions become meaningless.
> 
>         This is not even reasonable logic, it seems to me to
> reflect either egotism or vanity, attempting to relay the
> incorrect impression that "if my colleagues and I haven't
> figured it out, then it is not possible to figure it out".
I think you miss the point.  No one is claiming that if it hasn't been
figured out, then it can't be figured out.  What they are saying is that
sure, there may be a reason that the universal law of gravitation holds,
and there may be a reason that the speed of light is the same regardless
of the reference frame, and there may be reasons for those reasons, but
at some point, we must (at least by the thinking of most sane people)
hit a wall where our reasons for reasons for reasons are so fundamental
in and of themselves that there is no ``reason'' for them.
> 
> Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 
> 5,488,372
Congratulations on your patent.
Hope this helps.
Scott Blomquist.
-- 
 __
/  \ __ _ _|__|_  Scott Blomquist  KC5WJN
`--./  / \ |  |   mailto:sblomqui@umr.edu
\__/\__\_/ |  |   http://www.umr.edu/~sblomqui/

JMFBAH wrote:
> 
> Peter Diehr  wrote:
> 
> 
>      
> Can I conclude that (E^2 + B^2) = C^2  ?
> 
Sorry; that should have been the _difference_ of the squares of the
individual field intensities (E^2 - B^2).
I did state the other invariant correctly: E.B.
Best Regards, Peter

Louis Savain wrote:
> 
> In article <32B5A1BE.6173@gte.net>, Bob Anderson  wrote:
> 
> >a. s. wrote:
> >>
> >>   Someone give me their best explaination as to "how"
> >>  time exists...    As I've suppositionally offered before,
> >>  my position for the sake of philosophical discussion is that
> >>  time does not exist in any form beyond that of an
> >>  intellectual concept.  It has no pysical existance, therefore,
> >>  it can't be accessed for travel.
> >>
> >If time only exists as an intellectual concept, then space and
> >everything within space is also only an intellectual concept.
> 
>   Well, if there is no space (as defined by physicists) "within space"
> is a meaningless concept.  If there is no space, there is neither a
> 'within' or a 'without' and notions that call for an inside or an
> outside to the universe are also meaningless.  Why do you seem to
> think that the non-existence of space necessarily entails that nothing
> else can exist?  I don't see that at all.
> 
> > Are you ready to accept this also as a consequence of your first assertion?
> 
>   Very interesting question.  My answer, strange as it may seem to
> some, is a resounding YES with the following caveat.  I am convinced
> there's neither space nor time as defined by physicists.  Only
> particles and particle interactions exist.  'Particle interactions"
> is, IMO, is just another way of saying "change".  Space and time are
> abstract though useful concepts that emerges from the interactions of
> particles.  The types of the interactions are determined by the
> intrinsic properties of the particles.  I believe the universe is not
> at all unlike a massively parallel cellular automaton.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Louis Savain
Your concept of space and time is interesting, Louis. However, I find it
confusing. If any one of the four dimensions of space-time could be
removed, the physical universe would not exist. Particles would not
exist, and no force would exist without time. Therefore particle
interactions would not occur. Gravity or any other force would not be
present. All force between three dimensional objects is an action
through time.
Boba

odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote in response to Nathan
Urban:
>    I think you are mistaken. By definition, the fields must be turned
>on and off, or rapidly switched to generate magnetic flux. The flux is
>therefore zero for a long enough time to make a difference to
>relativistically moving particles. In addition, the static magnetic
>field lines that the charged particle cuts through will produce a force
>that is orthogonal to the direction of motion and therefore will not
>accelerate it, but only change its direction. Moreover the current must
>not only be switched but also overcome ohmic resistance. I've heard it
>described that one section of coils pushes the particle while the next
>section pulls the particle. In order to do this the fields must undergo
>a time-varying change of state. This requires a much greater time in
>comparison to a faster moving particle than in comparison to a slower
>moving particle. 
While it is true particle accelerators such as those used a Fermilab
use electromagnetics turned on and off this really has nothing to do
with the ability to accelerate particles. As others have previously
mentioned, it is the electric field that is used to increase the
particle velocity. The magnetic field is used to bend the particle
path in order to reduce the physical length of the acclerator.
In prinicple a linac can accelerate a particle to any arbitrarily high
velocity with out the usage of any magnetic field by simply building
it long enough. In practice, there are very real limits on how long a
linac can be built.
Secondly, this idea of magnetic lines of flux is really nothing more
than a convienent mathematical fiction. A charge particle moving
through a magnetic field sees a continsous force given by v X B. It
doesn't feel this force as it crosses a "line" of magnetic flux and
then feel no force between "lines".