Newsgroup sci.physics 213049

Directory

Matt McIrvin  wrote:
>In article <01bbebbb$2ec206e0$84884bce@stephenw>, "Stephen C. Woodworth"
>
>> When matter approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases towards
>> infinite( so I've heard).
>> since mass is equal to density times volume, the only way I see for the
>> mass to increase is for mass to be added. If my understanding is not
>> flawed, then my question is At what level is the mass added?
>
>There are different notions of "mass" in physics, and the one
>that particle physicists usually call mass actually *doesn't* increase
>with velocity. However, the one you've heard about, sometimes called
>"relativistic mass" (though that is somewhat misleading since it
>implies that others aren't relativistic) is in fact the one that can
>be expressed as a density times a volume. It is the energy density
>divided by c^2.
>
>There aren't new particles being added to the object; the individual
>particles are just (on average) getting more "relativistic mass." I
>say "on average" because they're moving around in all directions even
>when the whole object is at rest, so what happens on the level of the
>individual particles can be kind of complicated.
I suppose another way of expressing this might be to say that if we
insist on using the number called "mass" in certain equations,  then
we find this number increases with velocity for material bodies.  That
kind of does a run around the next question:  "But what is
relativistic mass"?
On the level of individual particles,  I wonder if there may not be a
way to express this as an increased number of particles...  maybe a
convenient frame dependence of the number of virtual particles
swimming aroung an un-virtual particle?   Just a thought.
I wouldn't be surprised

In article <32B2C8B9.7381@erols.com>, melanied@erols.com wrote:
>Charles Cagle wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> 
>> Probably because its easier.
>
>Actually, it's usually harder. You end up with tons of responsibility, 
>but very little authority to carry it out. 
So even the structure of the system is seeped in incompetence.  Successful
businesses know that empowering people by giving them corresponding
authority and power wherein they are charged with responsibility is the
only rational course.
> Instead of giving up you 
>spend lots of extra (un-paid) hours figuring out innovative ways to get 
>things done, because you believe--and know--that that's what the country 
>needs. And no matter how hard you work, or how dedicated you are, you 
>have no chance of any monetary rewards that you can shoot for in the 
>private sector, most of whom are working fewer hours; something your 
>spouse constantly reminds you of.
Sound like your spouse has it figured out while you don't.
>> >People are people. Even government workers.
>> 
>> Gee and I thought gov't workers were parasites.
>
>Now you know better.  The vast majority of governmnet workers I know are 
>pretty damn dedicated, and could be making a lot more outside 
>government, at fewer hours and frustrations.
Except that they are too cowardly to try.
-- 
C. Cagle
SingTech

Hi
Sorry if this is the wrong ng... Does anyone have
any pointers to "vacuum energy production" as
first mentioned (?) in Extracting electrical energy from the vacuum by
cohesion of charged foliated conductors" Physical Review,
Vol. 30B, pp.1700-1702, 15 August 1984?
Your help most welcome by ng & e-mail as the demon
news server is so slow I think it's moving at a high
negative velocity...
-- Rgds, Jerry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis And It's Pandemonium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

: In article <19961217163400.LAA06788@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: SBobst  wrote:
: >Which freezes faster at -10 deg. F,
: >  8 oz of boiling water at 212 deg. F, or
: >  8 oz of water at 70 deg. F?
: >How can I calculate the amount of time it will take both to freeze? :)
 I believe that in the alt.folklore.urban FAQ, they talk about the
freezing rate question. I *think* I remember the FAQ saying something like
there was a more detailed explanation -- perhaps a quantitative
answer too. Worth checking out if you're interested. You might also
check out the rec.puzzles FAQ.
Again, I'm not sure if it'll have what you're looking for but regardless,
they're both fun FAQs to read, albeit long. 
 Good luck.
: -- 
: ___________________________________________________________________
:   Jimmie G. McEver, III	     | Chairman, Student Advisory Council
:   638 Wood Ridge Court       | Internet: gt8952a@prism.gatech.edu
:   Atlanta, GA  30339         | Pager:    (404) 833 - 1077
"TM"

sbennett@gate.net (Stephen  Bennett) wrote:
>Have you tried to model the way in which the act of observing the drips would 
>have an effect on the drips? Perhaps "smaller observational" drips used to 
>extract information from the system, that also change the system being observed?
I think that the description in QM that observation affects things is a
total misnomer.  What physicists mean by "observation" is in fact
"interference".
The drip that falls over the side is the one that is observed as we
cannot see the surface.  So this model is aimed at explaining what is
happening that we cannot see.  Of course we can never confirm it as true
but if we can get a model that has a lot less mystery and is much easier
to grasp then it serves its purpose.
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

But this still only says that we are linear beings
Louis Savain  wrote in article
<32b63bf8.16128657@Pubnews.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <32B5F1CF.720D@gte.net>, Bob Anderson  wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
>   Well, you are essentially repeating something you said earlier.
> Again I ask, why do you seem to think that the non-existence of space
> necessarily entails that nothing else can exist?  It's tantamount to
> equating existence with space.  Where is the proof of this assertion?
> While we're at it, can you point to a single experiment that's ever
> been conducted to show the independent existence of space or time?
> 
> > 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.
> 
>   I agree that there is a process to which one might ascribe the name
> "time" if one so wishes.  That process is called change or motion, and
> it is a real physical process.  From this process, time can be derived
> abstractly by using the simple formula t = d/v.  If one takes a
> quantum minimum value for d and use this value as one's choice of
> distance unit, the equation becomes t = 1/v and one can look at v as a
> measure of the magnitude or the fastness of the change, and at time as
> the inverse of change or velocity.  IOW, time is the inverse of
> motion.  The latter is observed.  The former is not.  Only one needs
> to be fundamental or primary.
>   As far as dimensionality is concerned, one does not need an
> extrinsic substantive space to have dimensionality.  Gottfried
> Leibniz, in direct opposition to Sir Isaac Newton, looked at space as
> "nothing but the nature of the order of things."  IOW, particles have
> intrinsic properties which can be labeled 'position' or 'locality', if
> one so wishes.  In a 3-D universe, the intrinsic position of a
> particle would be a set of three quantities.  Particles in a 4-D
> universe would have 4-faceted intrinsic positions.  Space then, is
> nothing more than an abstract collection of all these positional
> properties, a topos, if you will.  It does not need to have a physical
> existence of its own and there is every reason (such as quantum
> nonlocality) to suppose that Leibniz's view of reality is correct.
> Here are two definitions of space taken from p. 217 of the book,
> "Concepts of Space" by the late great physics professor, Dr. Max
> Jammer:
> 
> "A theory of space conceives space as "substantival" if it ascribes
> spatial positions directly to the individual points of space
> themselves and only in a derivative sense to material particles by
> virtue of their occupation of points of space.  In contrast, space is
> "adjectival" if the spatial characteristics of a material particle
> belong to it in a primary and underived sense."
> 
>   The terms "substantival" and "adjectival" were first coined by the
> late Cambridge philosophical logician William Ernest Johnson.  The
> space of Newton and even that of the more modern relativists, is
> substantival, i.e. it has an independent reality.  The space of
> Gottfried Leibniz is adjectival.  So is mine.  I'm a nonlocalist, that
> is, I don't ascribe locality (as absolutists and most relativists do)
> to a substantive space that is extrinsic to particles.  There is no
> such space.  Does this mean I believe in empty space between
> particles?  No.  Strange as it may seem, I actually believe in a
> particulate aether.  Thanks for your interest in my ramblings.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Louis Savain
> 

	I have majored in physics in my undergraduate school.  I have been
very good in mathematics.  For example, I could finish math tests that is
designed for a fifty minute class in less than 10 minutes.  So I am
mathematically good.  I have gone through my four years of undergraduate
studies in physics.  I have not enjoyed the basic classes such as
classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism while I was an
undergraduate studnet.  However, I continued through the program and
continued to a graduate school program in physics.   I don t remember any
particular class that I enjoyed while I was in undergraduate school. 
however I have enjoyed a laboratory class in plasma physics and high
energy physics.  so I guess it was the experimental physics laboratory
classes that I enjoyed.
	now that I am in a graduate school, I have to find a reason for me
to continue in this program.  I know that I like science.  I am very fond
of the idea of being the researcher finding out new things in the
universe.  I still haven;t found a field in physics that I would like to
go into.  maybe that s the reason that i m not interesssttd in putting
everything into my classes in the graduate program.  
	anyways, I have done very poorly in my graduate school program
classes.  one class I didn t even pass.  I know I could have put more time
and effort into it but the result doesn t show it.  now I am not sure if
physics is right for me at all.  I know I like to do physics, but I don t
like some of the classes that I have to take.  does anyone else felt this
way/?
	I don t know if it would be wise for me to continue with my
doctors of philosophy degree in physics or change to something else.  I
don t know.  I have already spent my undergraduate school years in physics
and all the time that I spent to stuyding physics at the graduate school
program level, I don t know if I have already put too much into it
already.  to get into any other program will be too late?  I wish that
there is a magic formuila that I could use to find out which career
field/direction that I have to go into.
	I would welcome any suggestions or help from you.
thank you
C.N.
p.s.  e-mail me

"Chris Birch"  wrote:
>I need to calculate the approximate temperatures of particles at ground
>level after being released from a stack at high temperature. I am assuming
>a worst case scenario. The (metallic) particles are released from an 18m
>stack at 1000C and are very small (<10um).  If I assume that the particles
>fall straight to the ground and disregard things like the effects of wind
>and solar irradiation how hot will they be at ground level.
>
>Any help with the above would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Chris Birch
Calculate the number of calories which must be removed to lower a 
particle's temp from 1000 C to ambient.  Unless you have an exceedingly 
dense fall or one which traps the emissions gas plume, they will be at 
ambent temp.  Heck, the things are all surface - even radiation cooling 
will probably do it, much less conduction and convection with the 
atmosphere.  
What makes you think a <10 micron particle which starts at 1000 C will 
fall to the ground?
-- 
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!

Ken Fischer wrote:
> 
> J. Matthew Nyman (timeflux@concentric.net) wrote:
> : I have a quick question.
> 
> : Let's say I fall over a bannister and down to the first floor of a
> : house.  During my fall, technically, I am in free fall, right?
> 
>         Certainly, except for air resistance.
> 
> : In other words, I don't approach the ground - the ground
> : approaches me due to the motion of the Earth.
> 
>         Have you been reading about the Divergent Matter GUT. :-)
> Classical physicists would say you are ready for the guys
> in the white jackets, while Relativists would say you have
> discovered Einstein's Principle of Equivalence, but maybe
> it would be better not to carry it too far, after all, a
> guy in New Zealand says the same thing, and the Earth
> can't be moving both ways at once.
>         But I think you have it right.
> 
Re: New Zealand and New England
The falling person follows a geodesic.  The geodesic followed depends
upon the quantity and location of matter and energy in that region of
space.  For the person falling over a bannister, the major influence
is the earth ... the geodesics are differnet for each falling person,
but each one still tends to point towards the center of the earth!
The problem is that the geodesics being followed intersect the 
surface of the earth (or rather, the surface of the floor!).  I think
it must be a conspiracy of some sort. ;-)
Best Regards, Peter

Check out New Scientist 3/23/96 for magnetic wormhole that
doesn't require exotic matter.
Also, Physical Review Letters 11/11/96 for electrical
wormhole that doesn't require exotic matter either!
Both wormholes are considerd traversable and horizon-free.
Ready to build one?

"Allen R. Sampson"  wrote:
>
>One, really huge hole in this discourse.  It would be impossible to 
>keep a secret like that in the U.S.  
Yes, I believe that your words is absolutely right!
That's because the press in US can always rexpose such kinds of secrets.
However, such kind of news will be also denied by the mind control
opeators (or cooperators) and people will also be misled to treat it as
a joke. 
I would show readers the insider information of mind machine which
had been exposed by the NATIONAL ENQUIRE below.
(attachment)
=============================================
    In June 22,1776,  The National Enquirer reported an insider 
information:    
It said that Since 1973 the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) had 
been sponsoring a program to develop a machine that could "read minds from a 
distance" by deciphering the brain's magnetic waves. 
A scientist involved in the program had declared that the ultimate goal 
of his work was to exercise control over the brain. 
   ( See the book "Zapping of America" By Paul Brodeur)
=================================================
   The above report mentioned that in 1973, they developed a Machine 
which could read minds from a distance by  deceiphering the brain's  
electromagentic waves.   This report proved the EMR mind machine of CIA have 
been invented in 1973 and then under the support of the budgets of ARPA for 
further research and development.
It does prove that the press of US could always expose such kinds of
secrets.  However, after the mind control operators(or cooperators)
deny it and misled people, such kind of insider information will be
forgotten by our people in the society.
Recently, the press of UK and US also report the advanced mind machine
(infrasound mind machine) to general public.
I would show readers such kinds of information below.
(attachment)
================================================
The following article which appeared in the U.K. magazine, LOBSTER,
in June 1993, is reproduced at the request of the author.
(LOBSTER magazine, which specialises in intelligence and conspiracy
matters, is published twice yearly.)
       NON-LETHALITY: JOHN B. ALEXANDER, THE PENTAGON'S PENGUIN
                          By Armen Victorian
On April 22, 1993, both BBC1 and BBC2 showed on their main evening news
bulletins a rather lengthy piece concerning America's latest development in
weaponry - the non-lethal weapons concept. David Shukman, BBC Defence
Correspondent interviewed (Retired) U.S. Army Colonel John B. Alexander and
Janet Morris, two of the main proponents of the concept (1). The concept of
non-lethal weapons is not new. Non-lethal weapons have been used by the
intelligence, police and defence establishments in the past (2). Several
western governments have used a variety of non-lethal weapons in a more
discreet and covert manner. It seems that the U.S. government is about to take
the first step towards their open use.
JANET MORRIS
Janet Morris,....has been a member of the New York Academy of Sciences
since 1980 and is a member of the Association for Electronic Defense. She
is also the Research Director of the U.S. Global Strategy Council (USGSC).
She was initiated into the Japanese art of bioenergetics, Joh-re, the
Indonesian brotherhood of Subud, and graduated from the Silva course in
advanced mind control. She has been conducting remote viewing experiments
for fifteen years.
 She worked on a research project investigating the effects of mind on
probability in computer systems. Her husband, Robert Morris, is a former judge
and a key member of the American Security Council (33).
In a recent telephone conversation with the author (34), Janet Morris confirmed
John Alexander's involvement in mind control and psychotronic projects in the
Los Alamos National Laboratories. Alexander and his team have recently been
working with Dr Igor Smirnov, a psychologist from the Moscow Insitute of
Psychocorrelations. They were invited to the U.S. after Janet Morris' visit to
Russia in 1991. There she was shown the technique which was pioneered by the
Russian Deparment of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy. The Russians
employ a technique to electronically analyse the human mind in order to
influence it. They input subliminal command messages, using key words
transmitted in "white noise" or music (35). Using an infrasound very low
frequency-type transmission, the acoustic psycho-correction message is
transmitted via bone conduction - ear plugs would not restrict the message. To
do that would require an entire body protection system. According to the
Russians the subliminal messages by-pass the conscious level and are effective
almost immediately.
..............
=====================================
Current US news reports also continuely tell us that the infrasound
mind machine and infrasound weapon has been developed successfully in 
US.
I would show you such kind of information below.
(attachment)
=================================================
NEW WORLD ORDER E.L.F. PSYCHOTRONIC TYRANNY
  By: C.B. Baker  YOUTH ACTION NEWSLETTER  ISSUED DECEMBER 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------
 The 3\1\93 issue of Time Magazine reported: "American and 
Russians are discovering common interest...MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 
The Jan. 11-17, 1993 issue of DEFENSE NEWS reported that U.S. political and 
military officials are obtaining Soviet mind-control technology.  The Soviet 
KGB "capability, demonstrated in a series of laboratory experiments dating 
back to the mid-1970's, could be used to suppress riots, CONTROL DISSIDENTS, 
demoralize or disable opposing forces and enhance the performance of friendly 
special operations teams, sources say."
The 4\94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported that Janet E. Morris and her 
husband Christopher C. Morris "have been involved in promoting a
psycho-correction' technology, developed by a Russian scientist, that
is INTENDED TO INFLUENCE BY MEANS OF SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES EMBEDDED IN
SOUND OR VISUAL IMAGES." In 1993, "the Morrises organized a 
meeting in which the technology was demonstrated for U.S. 
scientists and officials by its Russian inventor." (Infrasound mind
machine--Alan Yu note)
Defense news reported that on Dec. 15, 1992, Janet Morris stated 
that she and the Richmond, Virginia-based International Health-line
Corporation "have briefed senior U.S. intelligence and Army officials
about the Russian capabilities, which Morris said could include
hand-held devices for purposes of special operations, crowd control and
anti-personal actions." 
Morris reported that this particular weapon (Infrasound weapon--Alan
Yunote) creates "BONE-CONDUCTING SOUND WAVES that cannot be offset by 
protective gear These devices appear to work at the Very Low Frequency
(VLF) spectrum, the same frequency range as generated by the sinister U.S. 
Gwen (Ground Wave Emergency Network) system of transmitters.
DEFENSE ELECTRONICS reported that a Richmond, Virginia firm, 
Psychotechnologies (believed to be closely tied to the CIA and the FBI)
has purchased the American rights to the Soviet mind-control devices.
===========================================================
However, above kinds of news reports will be intentionally denied by 
mind control operators or cooperators in the society.
Sometime they even accuse one is crazy if one mention such kinds of
information to our society.
>A few years max before the plastic 
>model manufacturers retail a model of it.
>
Even based on your logics, the mind control and weather control
technology still can be proven successfully developed and used.
That's because many Japanese and American computer games already include
aspect of weather control and mind control. 
However, beside I have handled the classified document about mind machine 
in Taiwan National Defense department while I was a lieutenant colonel
in 1984.
I would use the information of US Airforce to prove that
the technology of mind reading indeed exist. 
(attachment)
==========================================
The _RADIO FREQUENCY DOSIMETRY HANDBOOK_ publishedby U.S. Air 
Force in 1986 has proven that reading human mind is not
the problem and they just want to increase the speed of mind reading
in order to know a target's reaction while this target is being
input with subliminal message (see detail on page 189, _ANGELS
DON'T PLAY THIS HAARP_ by Jeane Manning & Dr. Nick Begich).
=======================================
We know that military eduction and trainning must base on the facts,
if not, they will lose the war in the battle field.
Therefore, the Air-force handbook has proven that mind reading is 
not a problem.
Therefore, from the insider informastion on Nation Enquire News
report, the classified document of Taiwan national defense department,
the US Airforce _Radio Frequency Dosimetry Handbook_, have all told
us a fact--The technology and device of min reading indeed exist.
>Allen R. Sampson
>Advanced Research Systems
>317 North 4th. Street
>St. Charles, IL 60174
>PH 630.513.7093   FAX 630.513.7092   Email: ars@sem.com   
>WWW: http://www.mcs.net/~ars/index.html
>repair and maintenance services for analytical instrumentation"Allen 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's lives in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies 
  secretly (die as if natural cause).  
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries (In Taiwan, the mind machine is translated as "Psychological
  Language Machine."  In the Mandarin sounds as "Sin_Lee_Yue_Yan_Gi")
  Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
  control organization.
  (If any law enforcement officer declare anyone as "insane" and 
   the social security department do not put these individual in the 
   welfare program as diable person, then it only represent a kind of
   political suppression or false accusation to discredit someone.
   That' because the local law enforcement is the basic unit of mind
   control)
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Yu wrote:
>> From: alexchen@cco.caltech.edu
>> To: caesar@UDel.Edu
>>..................... 
>> I have handled a military classified document of Taiwan in 1984, 
>>while
>> I was a lieutenant Colonel in National Defense Department serving 
>>in the highest audit center for the Taiwan Defense Department.
>> 
>> This document indicated:
>> Tawan has purchased the mind machine from United States (Taiwan
>> translated the name of the mind machine to psychological language
>> machine.  Phonetically prounced in Mandrian Chinese:  "sin_ lee _yue_ 
>> yan_ gi").
>> 
>[big snip]

Ryals wrote:
>>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.
Ryals wrote:
>>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. 
Peter Diehr wrote:
>What have you missed? You've missed the fact that we don't use "outer space" 
>as our reference for vacuum. "Modern" approaches to measuring the speed of 
>light are done in the laboratory, where we can manufacture and measure the 
>quality of the vacuum.
>You might want to do some research on the quality of the vacuums
>so produced. 
>But let's pass over that, 
No, let's not.  I didn't miss that idealistic fact at all, nor am I missing 
the fact you appear to think that either, the lab is God, or you are not 
speaking in terms of absolutes as I am.
Every single point that you attempted to make is entirely dependent, (as is 
the constant), on current technological capabilities which are impressive by 
human standards but ain't squat compared to nature's infinite technology.
You have also apparently completely missed that fact that technology, (and not 
Mr. Einstein's theory), is the real point to this post.  Mr. Einstein's theory 
is merely a casualty of course here and I made every effort not to trod 
heavily on anyone's toes, but apparently some run barefoot around here.  
The sad fact of the matter here is that everyone thinks, and has thought since 
time began for the human race, that technology is the end rather than the 
means TOWARD an impossible goal.
As technology grows we move toward the *unattainable* absolute but you can't 
get there from here regardless of how many times that science declares that 
atoms are the smallest, we humans have manufactured "near-perfect" vacuums, or 
that we can ever assume that we have attained the infinite technological 
ability to measure and then declare that we have reached any given absolute in 
nature.
When you assume human technological absolutes,  you assume the worst, but 
don't let my opinion sway you, let history prove my point for me.  How many 
times now has science retracted absolute declarations as technology inevitably 
catches them?  Does no one ever learn from our repetitive mistakes?
I don't care how many zeros you can wrangle out of technology, it is still 
"light-years" away from infinity, (for lack of a better example), and your 
statement on...
                   "the degree of precision that we can measure"
                             is "near"-exactly my point.
Mr. Einstein's theory is relatively correct and it will always remain 
relatively correct since you will *continue* to adjust "c", (regardless of how 
long the period in between adjustments is), as technology improves, but the 
values WILL constantly-change with technology and by that fact you cannot ever 
prove or rightfully declare that the *assumption* is a universal constant.
Absolutes are ideals that do not really exist.
Light speed in a ***GLOBAL*** vacuum is 0^0.
Rick

jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> It is very cold at the bottom of a crater that is in perpetual
> shadow at the south pole of the Moon.  Details are in the article.
Some time ago I read (I think in _Science_) a serious proposal that
there is ice on _Mercury_, preserved by similar conditions -- I
presume since the planet was formed.  Weird.
---  Joe Fineman    jcf@world.std.com
||:  The starting point of conversation is contradiction.  :||

ca314159 wrote:
> 
> Peter Diehr wrote:
> >
> > Robert. Fung wrote:
> > >
> > > If these references aren't convincing enough, I'd like to hear
> > > constructive or corrective comments:
> > >
> > > [1] This is referred to as "aliasing" in DSP,
> > >     in physics it's called "interference".
> > >     A related effect is superheterodyning
> > >           http://www.antique-radio.org/terms/shetrod.html
> > >     which applies equally well to light waves:
> > >
> >
> > Physicists call "aliasing" ... aliasing!  It is always caused by
> > the same thing: undersampling.  That is, you are not sampling
> > fast enough.  The undersampled data then has the wrong frequency
> > components.
> >
> > Best Regards, Peter
> 
> 
> Here's some source that shows some interesting "aliasing".
> Which looks remarkedly like "interference".
> 
Let me repeat: term "aliasing" refers to the effect (or artifact)
obtained when you sample a datastream at less than the Nyquist 
frequency.  The idea is very simple: if you have a series of square
pulses which are being generated at 10 times per second, and you
(by accident) sample the data at exactly 10 times per second,
you will see ... not a square wave ... but a flat line!  And 
depending upon your relative phase (wrt the pulses), you will
see +1, -1.  You will get different results over several trials.
If you do a Fourier transform of the data (which is a time series,
and is called time-domain data), you will get the frequency 
components of the data.  But the high frequency components have
been "aliased" into the lower frequencies, and so the frequency
spectrum is incorrect.
The Nyquist limit is 1/2 of the frequency of the highest frequency
component that you are sampling.  Practically speaking, there is
always some bandwidth limitation to the power in the spectrum, and
you can make the cutoff anytime the power gets low enough so that
the affect of aliasing is "lost in the noise", so to speak.
You should be able to see that sampling our square wave above
at 20 times per second will give a "true picture" of the wave.
Well, almost ... if you decompose the wave by means of a Fourier
transform, you are taking it apart in terms of sinusoids. By this
method you will find that the square wave contains frequency 
components of all orders, beginning with a fundamental of 10 Hz,
and continuing through all of the harmonics.
> Are you saying there is a difference between the two,
> or that physicists sometimes call "intereference", "aliasing" ?
> 
Yes, these are two different terms.  Interference is what you get
by adding two waves together (this will be a vector sum, in general).
"Beats" are what you get when you add two waves of different 
frequency. The URL that Robert. Fung referenced is about the 
heterdyne technique, which uses beats to transmit and recover
information.  I use a lock-in amplifier in my lab work, which employs
this technique to recover data (from the noise) at a particular
frequency ... the frequency of my inputs.
Aliasing is closely related to "beats".  But the term isn't 
applied when we are adding two waves together ... it is only used
when we are sampling a wave.  When I do numerical modeling, it is
clear that the sampling process can be though of as another wave,
which beats against the datastream.
So the affects are related.
One good application of aliasing is in building and using a 
stroboscope.  
An interesting example often occurs in the movies ... especially
old Westerns, where the wagon wheels appear to be going in slow
motion, and often are rotating in the wrong direction!  Yes, this
is caused by aliasing ... the frame speed is less than the rotational
speed of the wheels.
Best Regards, Peter

Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
> 
> In article <32B5EF3F.958@livingston.net> Hermital
>  writes [in part]:
> 
> > H:  One can travel to the past only in memory or imagination.
> > H:  After all, actual atoms never leave the omnipresent "now".
> > The future is always becoming the future, and the past abides
> > only in memory.
> 
> *My* memories are not *your* memories.
Subjectively, experientially true.
> 
> *My* subjective perception of the passage of time may not be the same
> as *your* subjective perception of the passage of time.
You are inappropriately comingling experience and time.
> 
> So =WHY= do you expect me or any one else to believe that *my* ``now''
> and *your* ``now'' are the =SAME= ``now'' ???
You may believe whatever you choose to believe.  You are again
inappropriately comingling the objective and the subjective.  The
omnipresent *now* encompasses both transcendental and material
experiential realms of being.  In each realm of being you control you
and I control me; thus, while we share the same objective transcendent
and material *now* in time, the subjective aspects of experience are
unique to each individual.
> 
> Especially when *my* ``now'' is not even the same ``now'' =I= experienced
> when I was typing "now" in my previous rhetorical question ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
True.
> IMO, the =MOST= significant single conceptual revolution introduced by
> Einstein was the realization that every observer's ``now'' is a PRIVATE,
> subjective matter; ``now'' cannot even be objectively and meaningfully
> =DEFINED= for anything but a point-event; ``distant simultaneity'' is
> thus a void and meaningless concept, incapable of any operational
> determination, and devoid of any objective significance.  It is an
> oxymoron; a meaningless combination of english words --- just as are
> the phrases ``spherical cube'' or ``five-sided triangle''...
> 
SR and GR describe only phenomenological materiality and have nothing to
say about transcendent or ontological realms of being.  Perhaps 21st
century science will investigate the transcendent as well as the
material.
> --  Gordon D. Pusch   
> 
> But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
-- 
Alan
When you have a quiet moment, seek egolessness and remember that the
human body and nervous system are merely the organic user interfaces
that interpret holonomic materiality for a unique transcendental entity
that emerges reciprocally within the pre-existing vital energy of
uncreated absolute pure being.

JMFBAH  wrote:
>erg@panix.com (Edward Green) asked me to elaborate the following
>statement:
>
>JMFBAH  wrote:
>>
>>Here's one.... Does our tendency to categorize ideas as having a dual
>form
>>limit the way we observe physical properties?  
>>
>It seems that from the time we're babies, we are taught that existence has
>a dual nature...black/white, on/off, zero/one, right/wrong, etc.  The
>"duality-ness" of this training lays down a pattern on our brains (note
>this is a speculation of how our brains "get trained") in such a way that
>it becomes very difficult to see a "triunary-ness" pattern.
Ok,  I see what you mean now.   It has recently occurred to me that we
may be hard-wired for binary thinking also.   I tend to think
hard-wired rather than trained,  but of course I can't really back
this up.   When this thinking manifests in its purest,  most primitive
form,  you have the classic white/black,  us/them,  good/bad
dichotomies.  (In this connection I have thought that the
"black,white" description of skin color is really the worst one
possible).
I was thinking that a philosopher is just someone who is able to
entertain a lot of binary classifications simultaneously!   I mean,
after all,  you can represent categories of any desired degree of
fineness with enough binary bits.  In this regard I don't think there
is anything inherently "wrong" with binary thinking,  only sometimes
in stopping at the first cut,  the first dichotomization.  So many
people seem to in so many problems.
Many decisions facing both primitive and modern humans seem to require
a binary decision:  fight or flight,  pursue the prey or let it go,
take the job or not,  marry this person or not.  This suggests we may
have been hardwired for certain primitive binary decisions -- friend or
foe,  for example.  How many times have you found yourself making a
spot judgment whether you "liked" someone or not?
I am interested in you "off by one" programming story.  I have a
similar problem.  When I am trying to count the number of items in a
partition,  I always have to stop and work it out carefully -- how
many years between 1879 and 1921,  for example?  Well,  let's see;
between 1920 and 1921 there is one year,  if you mean between the same
dates,  or else two,  if you mean counting the years at the end!  And
so forth.  It never seems obvious or natural to me -- that little
thinking daemon never got programmed at the time all my neurons were
soft and unformed and trying out programs.
Can our hard-wired or learned ways of thinking influence our
understanding of physics?  Absolutely;  I don't think there is any
question.  I think the limits can be overcome however by patience,
an open mind,  and by thinking carefully about what you are doing.
>For instance,  I know that my brain is "wired" in such a way that,
>whenever I program a loop, I will always have an off-by-one bug.  No
>matter how much I look at the code, examine it, test it, etc., I will
>always have that bug.  So I have learned that it is impossible for me to
>see this bug and I solve the problem by having another programmer look at
>my loops [a resigned emoticon here].
Hmm.   Instead of just noting that it comes out "off by one" have you
ever tried to understand in detail just where you went wrong,  or have
another programmer show you,  assuming he catches it?   I would think
that like my counting the years glitch,  while you may not be able to
fix the original short in your thinking,  you could build a
methodical way around it.  Well,  that's what you have done;  you use
an outside brain to check it!   I bet you could find a way of checking
this yourself,  though.
>I also seem to remember that someone discovered that a language had
>different sounding Ks to it. (I think it was a k; it was some kind of
>sound.)  Anyway, if a baby was exposed to the language, it could discern
>the differences.  If one was exposed to the language after a certain age,
>that person was never be able to hear the different sounding Ks.
Yes.  This fits in with my mental daemon idea.  When your brain is
soft and pliant and young,  you can burn in the eproms in ways you
can't when you are older -- although you can still learn,  and I
suspect often find work-arounds.  I think the idea of a window when we
are genetically programmed to learn language,  any language,  and
during which we can learn to "speak like a native",  is well known.
>My argument is that, if the above is true, then our observances of
>experiments may be limited by how we learned as a child.  We could be
>essentially blind to a physicality until someone points it out to us.
I agree.  I think we all have lots of blindspots.  
> Arrgghhh! I hate this mode of communication--it is so clumsy!
I on the other hand took a touch typing class in junior high school --
basically on the urging of a friend's mother that we "never know when
we might not need it".  Well,  she was right.  Now I can blather with
abandon on the Usenet.  You never do know where a skill might not come
in handy.  Thank you,  Mrs. Charles!

--- quoting SN, 7DEC96, p357 in parts ---
RADIO SEARCH FINDS FEW DISTANT QUASARS
...that the number of quasars starts dwindling beyond a redshift of 3.
--- end quoting SN, 7DEC96, p357 in parts ---
  Neither the Big-Bang theory nor the Steady-State theory can live with
the Tifft quantized galaxy distances.
  Now we have quantized quasar distances starting to be reported. I am
happy to say that the Atom Totality theory is the only theory that can
handle all of these paradoxical observations.

These two claims were two claims of my recent patent application for
room temperature superconductors.
5. a room temperature superconductor arising out of the BioWorld, 	i.e.
an organic superconductor found in plant material such as 	aspen tree
material, and venus flytrap material, and in the 	photosynthesis
process of plants comprising of the most 	general compound C-O-Mo, or
C-O-V, and
6. a room temperature superconductor arising out of the BioWorld, 	i.e.
an organic superconductor found in human brain material of 	the most
general compound C-O-Li, and
In the news this week is news of a possible room temperature
superconductor powder as witness to this news.
--- quoting SCIENCE ---                                                
                            12 December 1996, 6:47 PM 
             Room-Temperature Superconductivity? Not Yet
Paris--A French newspaper yesterday claimed that scientists here may
have discovered a room-temperature superconductor. But in interviews
with members of the team that reportedly found this Holy Grail of
materials science, ScienceNOW has learned that a bona fide breakthrough
is
far from certain. "We have no proof at all that the compound is a
superconductor," says Alain Mauger of Paris University.
What Mauger and colleagues from the National Institute of Applied
Science
in Lyon, the Atomic Energy Commission in Paris, and the National Center
of
Scientific Research in Meudon have found, they say, are magnetic
anomalies suggestive of superconductivity in LiBeH3. The compound is
one
of a family of materials, the lithium-beryllium hydrides, best known as
potential rocket fuels.
The researchers found that when the compound is cooled to 298 kelvins,
roughly room temperature, its magnetic properties change in a manner
that depends on the surrounding magnetic field. The same unusual
effect,
called magnetic irreversibility, is seen in the familiar
copper-oxide-based
superconductors at the temperatures where they become superconducting.
The French group has also measured a change in the specific heat--the
amount of heat stored--in LiBeH3, an effect also seen in copper
superconductors at their critical temperatures. The team describes its
findings in a paper submitted to the Proceedings of the French Academy
of
Sciences.
Purdue University theorist Albert Overhauser had predicted about a
decade ago that LiBeH3 might be a room-temperature superconductor.
However, shortly thereafter, work in Paul Chu's lab at the University
of
Houston failed to find any traces of superconductivity in this
compound.
The French group isn't ready to claim that they've succeeded. For one
thing, they haven't measured the electrical resistance of LiBeH3--key
to
any determination of superconductivity. The news apparently leaked out
prematurely when a project grad student defending his thesis dropped
hints that the compound might be a room-temperature superconductor in a
talk attended by a local reporter for the Lyon Figaro newspaper. The
Reuters wire service alerted the rest of the world to the supposed
breakthrough. "We are scandalized by the alerting of the press, before
our
paper is even accepted by our peers," says Mauger. "It was done much
too
early, and we consider this a grave error." The French Academy of
Sciences
will meet on Monday to decide whether to release the paper to the
press.
--- end quoting SCIENCE ---
  According to my theory that superconductivity is a altogether
different phenomenon than is conductivity.
   In conductivity the signalers of telling the electrons to move at
the other end of the wire are photons. Silver is the best reflector of
light and not by coincidence the highest electrical conductor.
    In superconductivity the signalers have broken-down from photons to
that of neutrinos which tell the electrons at the other end of the wire
to move. The reason that cold temperatures allow superconductivity is
because the cold temperatures make the atoms of the compound, certain
of those atoms into a geometry that is conducive of photon to neutrino
signaling. Carbon buckyballs is a geometrical phenomenon that like a
double slit experiment turns photon messengers into neutrino messengers
with no resistance. Therefore what  is wanted for a room temperature
superconductor is to find an element, not a compound for the compound
only helps to order the geometry just as the very coldness orders the
geometry. The seat of superconductivity is not cold temperature or some
special compound but the seat is to get the geometry that turns photons
into neutrino messengers. Theoretically, looking at the chemical
elements, all of them are superconductive which means that all of them
are superconductive provided if you make them into a geometry that
splits the photons into neutrinos. So far we have found two factors,
two factors that facilitate or aid in the geometricizing of elements to
turn them into superconductors. Those two factors are very cold
temperatures and the other is to compound the elements. The compounding
of elements aids in the getting a handle on the geometry, by
stabilizing the form. Very cold temperatures also helps to rigidly
stabilize the form.
  So then, silver is superconductive once you compound it and freeze it
to a geometry that splits the photon messengers of conductivity into
neutrino messengers of superconductivity. Before my teachings, it was
thought that silver may never by superconductive in element or in
alloy.
  The recent news above will trespass onto my patent claims.
  The human, and the animal body requires lithium as an essential
element. It is in the brain where lithium is vital. Here is an
experiment, a very cruel experiment. Deprive a human of all lithium to
the body and eventually that person, as the lithium content diminishes,
so also does the thinking. No lithium in a human body and the body goes
into a state of unconsciousness.
   Why is lithium essential to the brains of all animals? Because
lithium is the brain locus element of receiving photons, neutrinos into
the brain and permits the animal to think.
   The element that serves as the brain locus for plants is molybdenum.
Molybdenum is to plants what lithium is to animals. Both serve as the
brain locus elements, receiving photon and neutrino messages from the
Nucleus of 231PU and processing those photons and neutrinos. Every one
of our thoughts is a processed via lithium of photons and neutrinos
shot into our brains.
  It is my claim in that patent pending that the elements of lithium
and molybdenum when they have a "proper" geometric form, perhaps
buckyball shape or perhaps a blackbody cavity shape with a double slit
whose spacing is such that it divides an incomimg photon into the
hollow sphere and re-emerges out of the double slits as two neutrinos.
This is the physics of superconductivity. 
  That other crap of phonons , excitons , exons and other gibberish is
fairy-tale exotica. When physicists have no clue as to what is going
on, they invent these word baloneys, and the usual suckers bite and eat
it. 

Quantum Theory has failed nothing. Any calculation that has been
done right has corraborated with experiments. One should make
a distinction between interpretation and theory itself. The trouble
is that people always try to interpret quantum theory in classical
picture since we humans live in the macroscopic world. 
The other thing to remember is that mathematically we can't
really solve anything except those grossly simplified models and
those with crude approximations. Therefore we are not short of bad
papers.

In article <57lafm$ciq@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, posted to
sci.physics.research "Antonio O. Bouzas"  wrote:
>In article <56o811$gjb@news.dtc.hp.com> weeks@dtc.hp.com (Greg Weeks) writes:
>> I don't understand Coulomb's law.  I don't mean in some deep philosophical 
>> sense.  I'm referring to a complete lack of understanding in the context 
>> contempory physics.  For all I know, like charges could attract each other. 
>No, they couldn't.  If like charges attracted -and opposite charges 
>repelled- each
>other, QED's vacuum would be unstable against pair 
>production.  This is Dyson's
>argument why QED's perturbative series 
>cannot be convergent.
I responded:
CC:   I would offer the following challenge: 
CC:   
CC:       Find a single experiment on record anywhere which confirms
CC:       that Coulomb's law holds true for fundamental charged particles
CC:       which do not have relative motion with respect to one another. 
CC:   
CC:          p.s. (Hint: you won't find one.) 
CC:   
CC:   The reason is simple; Coulomb's law is a 'special case' which is
CC:   applicable only to fundamental charged particles which have a
CC:   significant relative motion with respect to one another.
CC:   Quantifying this: Only when charged particles have a 'common' de
CC:   Broglie wavelength which is less than the interparticle distance
CC:   will their interaction conform to Coulomb's law. 
CC:   
CC:   Note: A 'common' de Broglie wavelength is arrived at by
CC:   momentarily 'inventing' a unique frame which allows for the
CC:   distribution of velocities for particles of unequal mass to
CC:   arrive at a unique 'common' solution. 
CC:   
CC:   If their 'common' de Broglie wavelength is equal to or greater
CC:   than the interparticle wavelength then like charged particles
CC:   will demonstrate an attractive interaction and unlike charged
CC:   particles will demonstrate a repulsive interaction. 
CC:   
CC:   In either case the forces involved are nonlocal which means they
CC:   apply to gravity and more. 
CC:   
CC:   Now before you reject this out of hand, I suggest that this
CC:   analysis actually will solve more problems in physics than it
CC:   may, at first, appear to produce. Out of it can proceed all known
CC:   forces (weak interaction, strong, Cooper Pairing, Bose-Einstein
CC:   Condensate attraction/dispersion force) even including a quantum
CC:   gravity without large objects. 
CC:   
CC:   Best Regards, 
CC:   
CC:   C. Cagle SingTech
Warren Anderson, a co-moderator of sci.physics.research wrote:
::   Dear Charles, 
::   
::   I regret to inform you that the contents of this article (appended
::   below) are too speculative for sci.physics.research. 
Note: now appended above:
::   Sincerely, Warren G. Anderson sci.physics.research co-moderator
I responded:
::   Dear Warren, 
::   
::   I'm glad I have your rejection on record about this. I'm sure you
::   won't mind if I quote you if the premise of my post (for which I
::   have some experimental evidence) is correct, right? 
::   
::   But strings and absurdities about 26 dimensions, [as if
::   fundamental physics would actually follow the lead of
::   mathematicians (who are bright in their skills but dim in their
::   wisdom)] however, is *not* too speculative? Is that it? 
Note:  John Baez and Ted Bunn who are Warren's co-moderators on
sci.physics.research frequently engage in outrageous speculations for
which there exists no proof whatsoever.  They have been using
sci.physics.research as a private formum where they can direct the content
of proffered postings away from questioning the wisdom of mathematical
dominance of modern physics and away from any discussion of nonlocal
physics.    This is a little irritating because they can offer no
demonstration that their own wild 'speculations' have any proof but
nevertheless they think themselves fit to censure anyone who would
question their wisdom or lack thereof.  I'm not saying these fellows are
not intellectually gifted, I'm merely pointing out that such gifts like
high IQ (which they no doubt have) bear no relationship whatsoever to
wisdom, which I think they lack.  So this post is somewhat of a protest
against the heavy-handedness of Bunn, Baez, and Anderson and the way that
they manifestly use the sci.physics.research newsgroup not as a means to
attempt to actually further research in physics but rather as a vehicle by
which they can act the pedants to members of usenet.  Neither Bunn nor
Baez can be counted on to answer these charges because they actually lack
the courage to bring this issue out in the open, which issue is that they
post volumes of unmitigated mathematical nonsense on the internet and love
to hold forth as experts re:mathematical physics when the fact remains
that neither have ever contributed a single thing of value to the physics
community.  Moreover, my accusation is that they kill every post that I
make which attempts to bring the issue of nonlocal interactions between
charged particles to the forefront.  Who can tell what other posters they
prevent from engaging in similar discussions? Inasmuch as there exists a
great deal of experimental evidence conducted by such companies as IBM
which confirms the reality of nonlocal physics (Aharanov-Bohm effect) it
is difficult (and they won't explain their reasons for rejection other
than to use their old saw 'too speculative') to understand why they refuse
to let this topic develop in the sci.physics.reseach newsgroup.  But the
reason that they have avoided the flowering of nonlocal physics
discussions really can be found in the core of their own philosophies. 
Nonlocalism destroys field theory by replacement of continuous structures
with the discrete potentials which Aharanov and Bohm established as
'richer in properties than the fields'.  If field theory is wrong then the
life works and all of the intellectualizations which characterize both
Baez's and Bunn's careers are shown to be worthless tripe.  I'll gladly
bluntly expose these frauds while the rest of usenet is too cowed by them
to say anything against them.  I'm confident that they  won't answer
because they have no defense.  I once thought Baez was a valuable asset to
our nation.  I know now that I was mistaken. 
I continued my response:
::   Perhaps you might list exactly what it is that you find too
::   speculative? Certainly not the challenge to find an experiment
::   which demonstrates that Coulomb's law hold's true for fundamental
::   charged particles which overlap in momentum space? The fact is
::   that it doesn't hold true under those conditions and when we
::   attempt to maintain the overall validity of Coulomb's law in plain
::   sight of experimental evidence to the contrary we end up
::   generating theoretical complexities. Think about it,
::   Warren...Coulomb's law was experimentally derived by observing the
::   interactive behavior of massive objects like pith balls which were
::   charged (meaning they had either an excess or dearth of electrons
::   from neutral). In our very thermal world does the term 'static'
::   make much sense at all when referring not to a pith ball itself
::   with respect to the frame of the laboratory but rather to the
::   charges which we conceive to be swarming over its surface? And at
::   what rate do these electrons move? At 20 degrees C. their average
::   speed is over 100,000 m/s. Does this qualify as 'static'? Since we
::   understand that these particles are so dynamic do you think it
::   makes sense to leave out of consideration the dynamics of charges
::   when formulating laws which are supposed to be descriptive of
::   their interaction? But this is exactly the situation that exists
::   in modern science regarding Coulomb's law. 
::   
::   Weeks' plea needs an answer that makes sense and I'm the only one
::   who has provided an answer which basically states "Stop believing
::   in Coulomb's law because it is wrong as a 'general case' and is
::   only suitable as a 'special case' for dynamically interacting
::   particles.
Best Regards,
email responses welcome to singtech@teleport.com
-- 
C. Cagle
SingTech

Judson McClendon  wrote:
You can analyze until doomsday and the
>ABSOLUTE MOST you can ever show by science is that your model (ANY
>model) is consistent with the facts.  You can never, ever PROVE without
>direct observation that your model MUST have been the case.  So you
>think it is 'un-Christian' to believe the Bible means what it clearly
>says?  
well, then, how do you "prove' the bible is true?
That is a very strange position to take for someone who stakes
>their eternal salvation on the truth of Jesus Christ as revealed in
>Bible, don't you think?
that's why science has nothing to do with religion. creationism is
religion.
>> I
>Sure it works, 'for some things'.  The problem with evolution is trying
>to take inference and use it to prove something which is absolutely
>impossible to prove with inferrence.
evolution is consistent with other sciences. do you doubt them too?
why pick on evolution? how about physics? medicine....
>

x-no-archive: yes
sfk@zipcon.net (Shea F. Kenny) wrote:
[] }[...]     The biggest problem on the Internet today is people who
[] }don't have the insight to figure out how to load software to their
[] }computer let a lone try to engage in debate.  They certainly have no
[] }business bothering to read 'scientific' newsgroups (ie. almost any
[] }group that has 'research' in it ;)
[]
[] 	How quaint.  They have every RIGHT.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled business -- I hope you get help soon.
[] }  To address another point, you mention that there should be a
[] }sticking to the facts and a lack of personal attacks? Hmm.. what did
[] }you just do? [....]
[]
[] 	I  know what I just did clown.   I corrected your presumptuous
[] behavior.  That's not a personal attack, dork.  It's social
[] responsibility.
Even when supremely hypocritical?
I recommend the following -- it's just for you:
	Intense Psychiatric Treatment
	Koskins, David J. Phd
		Cognitive Therapy
		Panic Attacks - Phobias
		Group Therapy (this will be difficult for you, I know).
		Depression - Habit Control
		Evening Hours * Insurance Eligible
	1001 Broadway ---- 323-0905
			from US West Yellow pages, under Psychologists
			(really!)
			Leave the pepper spray in the car
----
"Great Tambourine overdub! Now where's that smokin' guitar solo
 we recorded last night?"                    -- George Petersen
  ............................................................
     Remove X's from my email address above to reply 
chrisshe@microsoft.com -- Snohomish, WA. -- Studio Ponderous
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

In article <591njn$pkt@decaxp.harvard.edu>
mazur@abel.harvard.edu (Barry Mazur) writes:
> In article <58697e$ba@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
> psd@pcae.hep.phy.cam.ac.uk (Peter Swinnerton-Dyer) writes:
>
> It makes no difference.  Fermat asked a question, it's that simple.
> Using your terminology FLT states: there are no infinite integer
> solutions to  a^n + b^n = c^n,  where  a, b, c, n  are of the
> form  ...0000xyz  and  n > ...0002.  (I'm pretending you can order
> infinite integers.)  There is nothing wrong with asking this question
> even assuming Peano axioms are somehow "wrong."
> 
> < Just like physics where it is hoped that the laws discovered match the
> < reality of the physical world and those laws are changed to ever come
> < into closer agreement with the physical experiments. Mathematics is the
> < same way, we have to change and modify the axioms until they fit the
> < real and true mathematics. Your Naturals = Finite Integers is a mirage
> < a sham and two of those Peano Axioms are falsehoods. 
> 
> Even assuming all this FLT remains a valid question.
> -- 
  I thought you were sticking with Andrew Wiles, there, Barry? Or have
you come to commonsense and joined Andre' Weil who knows Wiles FLT is a
fake?
  FLT asks for all ...xyz. And the p-adics are not a set separable
between ...000abc and ....xyz.
   Most math people discuss about mathematics not from the vantage
point of "clear understanding" but from the stance of "habit". The
habit of "finite integers" has polluted the world for as long as
civilization has existed. It began to crumble and tumble in 1993. Wiles
is just a opportunist colonialist in math as were the French and later
the Americans in Vietnam. History is unkind to colonialists.

H. S. Kalsi wrote:
> 
> (Sorry if this is a repost, but first and second times didn't work I think.)
> 
> Greetings Everyone,
> 
> Something I've been wondering about for ages:
> 
> What MEDIUM does Light REQUIRE to travel?
> 
> (ie. sound requires air or other solid matter to transmit waves, etc. but
> how about light?).  Light does travel through a vacuum, but does that mean
> there really is _nothing_ there and that light doesn't need a medium or something
> else?  Hopefully my question has been clear.
> 
> Looking forward to any and all responses.  Thank You!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> H. S. Kalsi
> hsk@microplex.com
>>
>>
>>.....Planck's Constant, or the concept of universally uncertain 
capacitance.....

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.
What I don't understand, is how creationists can dispute it at all. 
What do we need to do .. dangle a few austolopithecus bones in plain
view of all?  The fact stands that man was alive long before the
Christian God was a glimmer in the eye of humanity.  I really don't
understand the Creationist view at all.  It makes no sense.

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.
If I might interject .. I believe that Steve is trying to say that IF
the Christian God does exist, then he would rather be in hell than fall
at the feet of such an arrogant God.  Case in point .. he doesn't
believe that the Christian God exists.  And in fact, I agree with him.
All one has to do is open a bible .. and one sees divine arrogance
written all over the place.  If one were to believe in such a God, I
would suggest the famous Zeus of the Greeks.  He was far more
interesting.
Trish

    Please bear with me in this article because I am not a
mathematician. Could Einstien's thought experiments be reevaluated in
light of a theory which suggests that light is bent by velocity? What I
mean is this: It seems that the basic equation for both SR and GR is:
x^2+y^2+z^2=ct^2. Could another parameter be substituted for the ct^2
term? For example, if you substitute a length contraction parameter for
the ct^2 time dilation parameter, would the equation still be
consistent with observations?
Edward Meisner

In article 
jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:
> It makes no difference.  Fermat asked a question, it's that simple.
> Using your terminology FLT states: there are no infinite integer
> solutions to  a^n + b^n = c^n,  where  a, b, c, n  are of the
> form  ...0000xyz  and  n > ...0002.  (I'm pretending you can order
> infinite integers.)  There is nothing wrong with asking this question
> even assuming Peano axioms are somehow "wrong."
 Was Quantum Mechanics a redefining of Newtonian Mechanics? FLT asks
for all integers, not some but all. And ....5555 is an integer as well
as ...00005

"Monitores de Inform�tica"  wrote:
>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
When i get deja vu, i know i have seen it before.  Sometimes i
remember vaguley how long ago, sometimes 2 weeks ago, maybe 2 years
ago.  But Deju Vu (for me at least) sometimes is not caused by a
situation or sight of something straight on, but it could be somtimes
an image of the shapes of some of the shadows, sometimes the position
of some people walking by. But i always know i have seen this sight
more than once in my life.  What i am trying to say is, maybe Deja Vu
is just your brain trying to remember somthing you have seen many a
times before.
Jye, The Theoretical One
Send Comments to:
Jyex@juno.com

Picardy  wrote in article
<32b4c526.12600630@192.168.0.1>...
> 
> >> > Anyway, God TOLD us
> 
> Don't you mean the men who wrote the Bible told us. If the writers of
> the Bible are any thing like the writers US history, heaven help us.
> In just found out that many things like Paul Revere's Ride, How the
> early settlers lived and dressed, what kind of people were on the
> mayflower, etc, were highly exagerated or just plain wrong. All this
> distortion took place just a few hundred years. With the bible we are
> talking about thousands of years and many parts of the bible were
> probably handed down by word of mouth for hundreds of years before
> they were even put to printed text. If there is one thing more vague
> than some of the stuff in the bible it's it origins. So little seems
> to be known about this book but yet it is accepted without question.
> The logic behind this escapes me. Word of God or word of man, which is
> it? 
> 
> Just some thoughts...
> 
> Picardy
> 
The Bible was written by people who were told what to write by God (ie:
dictation). 
> 

In article <5975od$si3@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> I suppose another way of expressing this might be to say that if we
> insist on using the number called "mass" in certain equations,  then
> we find this number increases with velocity for material bodies.  That
> kind of does a run around the next question:  "But what is
> relativistic mass"?
I prefer to think of it as just being the energy, divided by a
constant so as to get mass units out. The sense in which it measures
the amount of "stuff" in there is just that the momentum scales with
it, and consequently it gets harder to shove something around when
it increases (though not quite in the Newtonian way).
> On the level of individual particles,  I wonder if there may not be a
> way to express this as an increased number of particles...  maybe a
> convenient frame dependence of the number of virtual particles
> swimming aroung an un-virtual particle?   Just a thought.
I don't think that that's it, since transition amplitudes, which
are what you compute with virtual particles, can be defined (and are
usually defined) to be Lorentz invariant.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

Scott Blomquist (sblomqui@umr.edu) wrote:
: 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.
        Have we reached the point where we know the fundamentals?
I think anyone who answers yes is going to miss out on a lot of
fun trying to find more fundamental physics, and the satisfaction
of finding more.
        But I would rather let that pass, and focus on the rest
of what I said;
        "Inertia certainly has a physical cause, as does gravity,
and it most likely is less complex than the ideas of Mach and
Newton regarding inertia and gravitation."
and;
        "I would hope that everyone would try to explore new
concepts, discuss and criticize them, but not be the judge
and jury on what is possible."
[unquote]
        I can't tell you how important I think discussing 
any part of physics is.    I know that a great deal more
can be done, and I think that there is more to learn than
we already know.    We need to try, and try, and try, even
when it seems we have hit a wall.
Ken Fischer

Nathan M. Urban (nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu) wrote:
: abstract concepts involved.
: -- 
: Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech
I haven't tried the Alcuburie geodesics yet, but it can be pretty
difficult to actually solve the equations for certain geometries.
You might get an idea of general behavior, or be able to do it
numerically.
--
-Jason Kodish
"Never seek to engage in a confrontation, but forced upon you,
never fear a confrontation."-Grand Master Simon

In article <597fcc$gkv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> --- quoting SN, 7DEC96, p357 in parts ---
> RADIO SEARCH FINDS FEW DISTANT QUASARS
> 
> ...that the number of quasars starts dwindling beyond a redshift of 3.
> --- end quoting SN, 7DEC96, p357 in parts ---
> 
>   Neither the Big-Bang theory nor the Steady-State theory can live with
> the Tifft quantized galaxy distances.
> 
>   Now we have quantized quasar distances starting to be reported. I am
> happy to say that the Atom Totality theory is the only theory that can
> handle all of these paradoxical observations.
could you explain the Atom Totality theory?
-- 
Luke Conlin
Tufts University
lconlin@emerald.tufts.edu

   In a 1950 letter to Shroedinger Einstein said,
  "You are the only contemporary physicists, besides Laue, who sees
 that one cannot get around the assumption of reality - if only one
 is honest. Most of them simply do not  see what sort of risky game
 they are playing with reality - reality as something independent 
 of what is experimentally established."
Present relativists have abandoned Einstein's mature judgement in 
favor of the Minkowskian doctrine that "reality_whateverthatmeans" 
is nothing but the measurements themselves. This series of postings 
will now prove that Einstein was right {this time}. In so doing, it 
will - sad to say - eliminate the special theory of relativity. As 
written in TPP 2: "Having begun and lived via imaginary 
experiments, Einstein-Minkowski STR is about to die via the same 
device."
  The entire article from which these postings will be taken is 
about 24 pages long, thus is too large to post all at once. Anyone 
wishing to preview it can find it (next week) via a browser, at     
          http://members.gnn.com/glird/tpp2.htm
Glird    http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm