Subject: Re: *Repeating* Gamma Ray Burster?
From: sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu (Kevin Sterner)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 18:38:57 GMT
In article <32B8B402.6356@engr.csulb.edu>, Florin Clapa writes:
> Joseph Howard wrote:
> >
> >
> > I _barely_ caught the end of a report today about the
> > GRO (I think) observing a *repeating* gamma ray burster. Did
> > I hear this correctly? Has anyone heard about this? If this
> > is true it somewhat throws a shadow over current mechanisms
> > as to the origin of bursters. (collisions of compact stellar
> > remnants).
> > P.S. This newsgroup has really gotten _wacko_ recently. What gives?
>
> Try: ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1996/96-261.txt
>
> Maybe they're "exhaust" from alien warp engines or ET signals (you can
> pack a lot more info in gamma rays then in radio waves). Just adding to
> the _wackoness_. :-)
Not so wacko, IMHO. My idea is that the bursts are weapon discharges.
The mechanism is some sort of physics process that we haven't discovered
yet, but which is inevitably discovered by any species with a
sufficiently advanced technology.
A common argument against a technological origin for gamma ray bursts is
that they are isotropic on the celestial sphere (i.e. they don't come
preferentially--or perhaps at all--from anywhere in our galaxy, or anywhere
nearby). They all seem to come from cosmological distances; why don't
we see any nearby civilizations?
My solution to this is that the weapon discharges are *very* highly
collimated, on the order of attosteradians. You don't see the hoards
of nearby civilizations, because although they are blasting away
indiscriminately with their weapons, the odds are extremely slim
that even one burst will be aimed directly at us.
The same is true for given civilizations that are at cosmological
distances, but there are so many more of them that the likelihood
of an occasional burst hitting the Earth from that distance is fairly
high. It also helps to remember that the Earth subtends the same
angular width on the sky for a civilization 10 light-years away or
10 billion light-years away, i.e. effectively zero in comparison to
the beam dispersion.
Let's suppose there are 10^7 advanced civilizations sprinkled
throughout those galaxies that are distributed in a grossly non-isotropic
fashion on our sky (say, out to the Virgo cluster). Each civilization
emits a billion bursts per year in an isotropic fashion. Each burst
has one chance in 10^19 of hitting the Earth. Compton GRO will only
see one "nearby" burst in 1000 years. (If Compton is seeing 10 nearby
bursts per year, they probably don't have enough data to distinguish
the observed distribution from an isotropic one, so there is a factor
of 10^4 worth of play in this hypothesis.)
Now how about the "repeating" gamma ray burster? The bursts aren't
constrained to a very small region of the sky (maybe an order of
magnitude larger than the full moon), so it could just be a random
correlation. Or maybe it's just a few lucky shots from one pitched
firefight.
-- K.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner | U. Penn. High Energy Physics | Smash the welfare state!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FORCE ON A WIRE IN A SATURATING MAGNETIC FLUID
From: lbliao@alumnae.caltech.edu (lbliao)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 19:23:50 GMT
I am interested in finding out any papers, books, theses, treatises on the
force on a wire immersed in a saturated magnetic fluid. The force on a wire
is BIL. However, due to the cumulative effect of H's from the wire on the
magnetic dipoles on the saturating magnetic material, the orientation of the
dipoles will be influenced by the H of the wire considerably so that the
force on the wire will not be B_{sat}IL. I have done a first order analysis
and the result is simple, but not enlightening. I believe that work on this
has been done long ago by teams of industrial labs, since this problem has
relevance to the calculation of forces in all kinds of electrical machines.
Specifically, the force may depend upon the diameter of the wire, or the
size of the void containing the bundle of thin wires. The term fluid is used
only to suggest that the situation is isotropic, and that the wire can be
visualised to move through it.
Please contact via email, and you can send TeX, LateX or PostScript files
if necessary to convey the idea.
Thanks a lot!
lbliao
Subject: Vietmath War: need help on physics history
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 19:39:23 GMT
In article
dc@cage.rug.ac.be (Denis Constales) writes:
> In article <597q1g$r5o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I should ask the physicists a historical question and
> > hopefully one of them will answer it. Was there a FLT like problem in
> > Newtonian Mechanics in which none of the Newtonian physicists could
> > answer, and then when QM removed Newtonian Mechanics, that problem
> > disappeared or was easily solved by QM?
>
> (Not a physicist but anyway...) one such problem was that the electron,
> when orbiting along the nucleus according to early atomic models, would
> clearly undergo an *accelerated* motion (centripetal acceleration) and
> therefore radiate electromagnetically and lose energy and ultimately crash
> on the nucleus. This problem is solved by QM by changing all the
> definitions, in a way not wholly unlike Archimedes Plutonium's refutation
> of FLT by changing the definition of "integer"...
> --
> Dr. Denis Constales - dcons@world.std.com - http://cage.rug.ac.be/~dc/
Thanks but that is not the type of history I was looking for. I knew
this.
What I am looking for is "in the middle or peak of Newtonian Mechanics"
where a problem , or question arose and it was difficult to solve, in
fact it was never solved in Newtonian Mechanics. And then along came QM
and with the wisdom of QM, it destroyed or dismissed the original
problem.
The point I am making is that when you are under a "deluded system of
thought" say you playing poker with several cards missing from the
deck, only you think you are playing with the full deck. Same thing
with FLT, a conjecture posed with ill-defined numbers. The conjecture
was never a difficult problem once you realize that the numbers you are
using make-believe.
Perhaps another physics history is better than the Newtonian to QM
transition. Perhaps there is a great analogy in the epicycle theory
that went into the heliocentric theory. Or perhaps biology. There is an
immediate example in the alchemist theory. Remember their goal was to
make precious metal out of base metal and so almost every problem that
they encountered when connected with their ultimate goal was an
exercise in futility.
Anyone know of a problem that arose in Newtonian Mechanics NM when NM
was in its prime or peak and this problem was never solved in NM. Then,
a long time into the future QM starts to emerge and the problem in NM
is still unsolved, but when QM enters the physics world and dismisses
NM, the old problem that was in NM, looking at this old problem through
the eyes of QM, well, it is instantly solved or answered.
From my knowledge of physics history, the problem of
Action-At-A-Distance is the best I can come up with. Action at a
distance to Newtonian Mechanics is the similar problem that FLT to
Naturals = Finite Integers is. Once QM appeared, action at a distance
was conquered. But in the old Newtonian physics, action at a distance
is never conquerable. Same way with believing in a half baked system of
Finite Integers, you come up with problems that the dinosaur system
starts to leak oil, sputter and totally collapse
Subject: Graduate assistantship available
From: rick@omni.cc.purdue.edu (Rick Millane)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 12:13:03 -0800
GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIP:
COMPUTATIONAL POLYMER PHYSICS
Purdue University
Whistler Center for Carbohydrate Research and
Computational Science and Engineering Program
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1160
Attention: Dr. R.P. Millane
Graduate assistantship available for study towards the Ph.D.
degree in Purdue's Graduate Program in Computational Science and
Engineering. This position would suit someone interested in applying
a sound background in theoretical/computational physics or
engineering to simulation of the conformations, interactions,
and higher-level structure development of industrially important
water-soluble biopolymers. The research project will involve
theory and computational algorithms for polymer modeling
(conformational analysis, statistical mechanics, Monte Carlo
simulation, network formation). Applicants should
have a B.S. or, preferably, an M.S. degree, and have superior
GPA and GRE scores. Interested individuals should contact
Dr. R.P. Millane at rmillane@purdue.edu.
Purdue University is an AA/EO employer.
Subject: Re: Gravitation
From: Geoffrey A. Landis
Date: 19 Dec 1996 20:36:19 GMT
In article <59a2f1$a4i@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> Alan \,
uncleal0@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Try "Gravitation," by Kip Thorne, I believe.
Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.
I'm not sure if I would use this as the first introductory text, though!
Try Wald, _General Relativity_, or Kenyon, _General Relativity_, first.
(General Relativity = the theory of gravity)
______________________
Geoffrey A. Landis
Physicist and part-time Science Fiction writer
Ohio Aerospace Institute at NASA Lewis Research Center
http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis
Subject: Re: Abian vs Einstein
From: mai96ise@studserv.uni-leipzig.de (Udo Stenzel)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 20:43:05 GMT
In <582cr1$gd3@news.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
: (A*) An Abian unit (i.e.,1 Abian) is taken as the mass Mo of the Cosmos at
This means Mo = 1 Abian
: 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,
Now is Mo = 10^n . How do you explain.
So far for inconsistent statements.
: (1) Mo indicates the Mass M (in Abians) of the Cosmos at T = 0 (Abian).
: The following initial conditions are assumed:
: (2) 0 Mo.
: 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
: Abian
: (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 units of Cosmic mass is
: spent to produce T Abian units of Cosmic Time.
Actually not. Not (5) but (A*) expresses the mass - time equivalence,
namely where you introduced the same "Abian-Unit" for mass and time.
: Now Mr. Painter how do you show that (A*), (1),(2),(3),(4),(5)
: lead to a contradiction! How? Equations are there - just show
: how. Those are equations, given explicitly, nothing more explicitly
: can be given! Just show how do you arrive at a contradiction.
No further comment. I see two contradictions - see above.
: As for the units just read (A*). As far as experimental data is
: concerned I said I HAVE NONE since I , as yet have no COSMIC
: MASSMETER. But that is a detail.
: ABIAN vs EINSTEIN refers to the radical difference of the notion of
: TIME between ABIAN and EINSTEIN. For ABIAN, TIME is a manifestation
: of MASS and their equivalence are given by (4) or (5). For EINSTEIN,
: TIME is what the dial of a watch indicates. Why don't you address
: your questions to the followers of the establishment and ask them
: WHOSE WATCH ? THE DIAL OF WHOSE WATCH!!
: For ABIAN, Time is Mass and not a dimension on par with spatial
: dimensions. For EINSTEIN Time is a dimension on par with a spatial
: dimension.
You compare your half-physics to Einstein ?!?
Well you say the Abian formula (4) states equivalence of time and mass just
as Einsteins formula E=m*c^2 states equivalence of energy and mass.
The difference is, that you just wrote on a piece of paper
M = Mo exp(T/(kT - Mo)) with scalar k < 1
and claim, this is somewhat related to reality.
While Einstein first OBSERVED that the speed of light is constant, then
made a (thought-) experiment, and then derived his famous formula.
You don't have anything that leads to (4), except your bias, that time and
mass are equivalent. Then you assume your opinion proved, because you were
able to put it into some formula.
: Just ask the Establishment " the dial of whose watch measures the TIME"
: and let me know their answer. The question is Whose Watch? Post your answer.
: --
In GR it does not matter whose watch measures the time. Every measurement is
correct (thats the whole point of "relativity"!)
-Udo Stenzel
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: mai96ise@studserv.uni-leipzig.de (Udo Stenzel)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 20:43:12 GMT
In <58iunq$vv@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
wrote:
: NNTP-Posting-Host: ccshst01.cs.uoguelph.ca
: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
: Xref: news.uni-leipzig.de sci.physics:167537 sci.skeptic:181275 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:32775 alt.consciousness:29144 sci.physics.relativity:5284
: Steve Thornton (thornton@netidea.com) wrote:
: : A friend called today, said he heard on CBC radio a story about a
: : Univ. of Cologne scientist who had made something go 4.7 times the
: : speed of light. I said nonsense. He asked me to look into it. Is there
: : any substance (no pun intended) to this?
: I too heard this interview.
: He says that he has transmitted information at 4.7c through quantum
: tunneling (he was, apparently, attempting to measure the speed of quantum
: tunneling).
That's what I heard, too.
: The device he used has a filtering effect, however, which may (or may
: not) have created an illusion of superluminal velocity. In certain kinds
: of frequency filtering of goups of QM particles, it is possible to get
: apparently superluminal motion by essentially cutting off the 'back end'
: of a group of particles. The particles with higher velocities in certain
: kinds of experiments are better localised than the slower ones, which
: causes their peak at the detector to arrive sooner than the peak for the
: original group would have, had it been allowed through. This creates an
: apparent superluminal motion where none exists.
In the mentioned experiment, the waveform after the tunnel was shown by a
oscilloscope. I can hardly imagine that the back end could be cut off,
cause the waveform looked exactly as before.
: It may be that this is the real cause of the effect, even such a large
: one, if the tunnel is short enough. I rather doubt that he'd have missed
: this possibility, however, because this is precisely the sort of thing
: you'd expect to be the first explanation he'd consider for this rather
: astounding result.
If I remember right, the tunnel in the first experiment (the one with
microwaves) was about 8cm long. In a second experiment (with a laser)
the tunnel was a mirror or the metal coating of the mirror, to be exact.
I dunno, how long a tunnel must be to allow the effect described above.
Another explanation is that SR states, no WAVES can travel at superlumuinal
speed. This includes paticles but it can't be applied to quantum tunneling
because in the tunnel there are no waves. Therefore it is possible, that the
speed in the tunnel exceeds c.
I also heard theories, that the time spent in the tunnel could be zero. This
would mean endless velocity. Even negative velocities could be possible
(the signal exits the tunnel before entering it).
From what I know of the mathematics of the tunneling effect, instant
transmission (endless velocity) sound the most probable.
Subject: Vietmath war: Physics history correct
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 19:57:04 GMT
In article
dc@cage.rug.ac.be (Denis Constales) writes:
> In article <32B8520F.2781E494@commander.eushc.org>, John Votaw
> wrote:
>
> > I think this is a misstatement of how physics progressed. The problem
> > you mention might be better stated as a testable hypothesis: Electrons
> > move around the nucleus in orbits defined by classical physics. A
> > consequence of this would be that electrons lose energy by radiation and
> > would eventually fall into the nucleus. This does not happen so the
> > hypothesis must be wrong. No redefinition going on here. The idea that
> > electrons circulate around a nucleus is not consistent with experimental
> > data -- it is wrong. QM is a completely new theory. So... I don't see
> > your analogy at with 'Archimedes Plutonium's refutation of FLT by
> > changing the definition of "integer" '
>
> QM is a new theory with new definitions; the original contradiction cannot
> even be stated in QM, since there are no linear orbits anymore (but
> "orbitals"), etc. This changing of definitions is similar to AP's, but the
> analogy is limited, as you correctly point out, by the fact that Newtonian
> and QM ultimately attempt to refer to reality and can or could be proved
> false by it, which is (well, arguably) not the case for integer arithmetic,
> except for the discovery of an internal contradiction, which AP has not
> produced (yet, to my knowledge).
>
> Cheers, D.C.
> --
> Dr. Denis Constales - dcons@world.std.com - http://cage.rug.ac.be/~dc/
Thanks, I am well aware of the electrons falling into the nucleus of
Classical or Newtonian physics. Forget I ever mentioned FLT of
mathematics.
What I am looking for , and I want to get it out of Newtonian
Mechanics NM and Quantum Mechanics QM. Even if there is a better case
history in another science or in two other theories of physics. I want
it out of NM and QM.
What I want is NM in the peak of NM, right in the thick and heavy of
NM when it was the supreme physics theory (anyone have some dates here)
perhaps it was the year Newton published the Principia 1687? Anyway,
long before QM , long before 1900 , was there ever a problem that arose
in NM and that problem stayed with NM all the time NM was "the"
physics? Then, as 1900 came along and then as 1930 passed and QM
replaced NM, that old problem in NM just disappeared because it was a
nonproblem all along.
I am looking for the best such case history because FLT in the old
Naturals = Finite Integers is another case of a baloney problem inside
of an ill-defined, imprecise system of intellectual baloney.
The best I am able to come up with was the problem that hit Isaac
immediately, and that problem was Action-At-A-Distance and it was
solved with electromagnetism, but, BUT, EM is Quantum Mechanics.
Analogously, Naturals = Finite Integers accrues these problems that
are never provable simply because Finite Integers was a muddled,
imprecise, ill-defined stick of crap.
Subject: Re: FTL data?
From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 21:25:28 GMT
claybyrd@ix.netcom.com(Elizabeth Barrett) wrote:
> Envision a rapidly rotating neutron star or black hole spreading its
>message across the universe, several times a second. Picture a super
>being, viewing the beam from a polar orientation. The entity would
>see a spot of radiation circle and illuminate planets and stars in
>perhaps a 100 light year radius.
[stuff skipped]
> Would not a viewer on a planet know that the rotating source had
>changed it's rotational speed at the SAME time that another viewer, 200
>light years away was aware of the rotational difference?
There isn't quite enough information here to answer the question. I
several distinct cases.
1) both viewers are exactly the same distance from the neutron star,
at rest with respect to each other and the neutron star. In this case
both would would see the change in behaviour of the neutron star at
the same time.
2) both viewers at rest with each other and the neurtron star but at
different distances from the neutron star. Then the farthest viewer
sees the change in behaviour at a later time than the nearer observer.
3) one or both observers in motion relative to the neutron star. Now
the question cannot be answered until the motion is defined and we
define whose clock is used to determine the time relationship between
events.
> Kinda hokey, I know, but what is the flaw in my reasoning? Is it
>possible that the information about the delta rotational velocity of
>the rotating mass is not really communicated across the universe at
>essentialy infinit speed?
In none of the cases I've outlined above is information transmitted
faster than light. In case 1) information was transmitted from the
neutron star to the viewers. There was no transfer of information from
one viewer to the other. Consequently, even though both viewers see
the same information at the same time information was not transferred
at effectively infinite speeds.
Subject: How to arrive at a new theory
From: singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:36:54 -0800
We've had discussions of "Character of a new theory", and questions like
"Should a new theory explain why?" which various regulars and nearly all
modulators (in sci.physics.research) have taken their shots at but without
arriving at anything like even a meaningful consensus.
The various discussions and opinions are really nothing much more than a
reflection of the whole sense that the physics community is milling around
like a herd of cattle waiting for a direction.
Some believe things are fine just as they are and would bellow out to try
to steady the herd during this dark night, in fact, part of the message is
that all is well and don't worry, it is not night at all and we can see
where we've been and we understand where we are going.
Others (particularly on Usenet) take this opportunity of freedom of press
to say "over here, listen, we have a new theory that is perfect in glory
and answers everything". But when we listen we don't see a new theory at
all but some old dead one which has been dragged out of the grave and
given a fresh set of clothes (new terminology) which attempts
unsuccessfully to cover the tottering corpse. Back and forth we go
listening to see if something substantial perchance might arise like we
were all awaiting the return of the Messiah only to be disappointed by
those who cry "lo here" and "lo there" and when we give our attention we
find ourselves disappointed again and again.
Some think that a new theory, even a final theory is just around the
corner and we need to collect just a little bit more data to wrap it all
up. We can translate this into the need to build something like the SSC
so we can, for example, corner that darn Higgs particle once and for all.
But is it more data that we truly need? Is data being thought of like
skinniness or money so that the idea is that one can never be too thin or
too rich? Or that there is no such thing as too much data? Or, put
another way, that 'there is never enough data'? Perhaps the answers that
we are all seeking can be found in the data we already have? Newton gave
us the metaphor of bright pebbles on the sea shore. Are we strolling over
the top of the answers that we seek with our eyes fixed on the sky in
search of diamonds when they lie all about in heaps at our feet waiting
for the soul who looks down?
Let us compare big government sponsored science to the wealthy with their
private jets and yachts who really are on a treadmill pursuing their
riches but also who demonstrate the pathetic state of their morals by the
public mess they make of their marriages and families, dysfunctional
children and all. On the other hand many is the story of the joys found
in families of modest and even poor means. These are merely metaphors of
two possible roads to success in physics, the big budget high road and the
small or no budget low road. Is one more correct than the other or is one
more likely to achieve success than the other?
If we can or cannot arrive at a 'final theory' with more data we ought to
at least ask ourselves why or why not?
I'm going to leave those who think that a 'final and virtually perfect
theory' cannot be achieved 'even in principle', to their own devices to
contemplate why they ever entered the quest for knowledge in physics in
the first place.
But to those who remain, we first need to set about thinking just how it
is that we can arrive at this 'final theory'. First let us separate those
who think that a final theory is possible by establishing certain
criteria.
1) Do you, the seeker, believe in absolute truth? If the answer is no
then what are you doing still hanging around here? Without such a thing
as 'absolute truth' the idea of a 'final theory of physics' is
meaningless.
2) Next, how dedicated are you to finding either the 'absolute truth' or
a 'final theory of physics'? What price are you willing to pay? We're
not talking money here but rather addressing questions like "Will you
suffer ridicule, rather than abandon your quest?" Are you willing to be
thought a fool for these principles?
3) Will you entertain the idea that it is possible that the universe
itself is sustained by a supreme and absolute intelligence? Do you
realize that if it is then it may never be possible to obtain its secrets
without first accepting this idea as a central or core idea of the
necessary epistemology associated with achieving a 'final theory'? Do you
realize, likewise, that if a supreme being (God, if you will) does not
exist that relentlessly believing that He does could doom your quest?
4) Do you think that philosophy has a role in guiding the development of a
'final theory'? Or do you reckon that philosophy has no real role to play
in this quest? If you believe that it has no real role then how do you
reconcile such a belief with a belief in the concept of 'absolute truth'?
5) Do you believe mathematics should be used to take a leading role in
conceptualizing physical theory in the sense that mathematics is perhaps
more primal than the physics of waves and particles? Or, do you believe
that mathematics are abstractions of a real reality which can never quite
approach the genuine physics which exists but which it, nevertheless,
purports to model?
6) Certain combinations of answers to the previous questions could imply
that you believe a person must be part physicist, part philosopher, and
part priest and excel in each realm to even hope to come into possession
of 'a perfect and final theory of physics'. Do you believe that such is
the case, or do you believe that a person only need excel in one or two
areas without giving heed to any other area(s)?
7) Do you believe that a correct and final physical theory will also
likely finalize philosophy and religion? On the one hand there are those
who look to 'science' to one day decisively and forever still the voices
who would invoke the role of God in the cosmos by presenting a complete
and logical representation of reality right down to establishing biology
as a necessary branch of physics. On the other hand there are those who
believe that it will be those who espouse godlessness who will forever
have their voices stilled. Which side of this question would you openly
and publicly endorse so that it may be known that the strength of your
character is such that you can be counted on, in the end, to bear the
decision that history will one day mete out.
8) Since most of the questions have had some sort of 'do you believe'
aspect to them, do you consider it possible that what you are or are not
willing to believe (even temporarily) structures both the kinds of
questions that you can ask and the kind of answers that you can perceive?
9) Can you consider the premise that the universe is entirely nonlocal in
the interactions of what appear to be its separate components? Or do you
reject the possibility of nonlocal physics altogether.
10) Do you believe physics is entirely deterministic or even
superdeterministic? If you believe that it is then is there a place for
'free will' in your epistemology, philosophy or religion? If so, where
would that be?
11) Do you think that a final physics can be predictive of new phenomena
or that new technology can be predictively engineered from first
principles?
12) Do you consider it likely that physics must make a radical departure
from previous methods to progess to a 'final theory'.
13) Do you know how data becomes evidence? Do you know how evidence
becomes proof? At what point does data become evidence and at what point
does evidence become proof to you?
Now altogether, how you answer these preceding questions can help you
definitively structure the kind of physicist that you are willing to be.
Moreover, how you answer these questions, if you stick with the logical
extrapolations of your own answers can point you in the direction which
you must go.
Comments? Please also email replies to singtech@teleport.com
--
C. Cagle
SingTech
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: need help on physics history
From: Richard Mentock
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:04:58 -0500
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The point I am making is that when you are under a "deluded system of
> thought" say you playing poker with several cards missing from the
> deck, only you think you are playing with the full deck. Same thing
> with FLT, a conjecture posed with ill-defined numbers. The conjecture
> was never a difficult problem once you realize that the numbers you are
> using make-believe.
What about the old trisection of angle using compass and straightedge?
That was long considered impossible, and was proven impossible in the
nineteenth century. However, if you change the rules just a little bit
(allow the solver to mark on the straightedge, or even to have had a
mark on the straightedge), then the problem is solvable.
That's what happens with FLT and the p-adics. Now, the bigger question,
whether the p-adics are or should be the set of numbers that we use to
view the world, seems to be a question in the domain of physics or
metaphysics.
--
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 21:38:50 GMT
Nathan Boyd (n_boyd@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: David L Evens wrote in article
: <599ffv$sah@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>...
: > Dan Musicant (drmus@aol.com) wrote:
: > : Faster than light, I doubt it...
: >
: > : < : restrictions on content.>> <----- That's an oxymoron.
: >
: > No, it's a legal restriction intended to burn a very specific ISP.
: >
: The expression is not exactly an oxymoron, but rather self-evident. If the
: ISP changes the content for whatever reason, it is an 'edited' message, not
: the original.
Which cannot make a difference to their copyright violation.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: New 1492
From: "ASPS"
Date: 19 Dec 1996 23:14:18 GMT
Object: NEW 1492
On reference to the following ASPS message :
“The ASPS (Associazione Sviluppo Propulsione Spaziale) prototype SC23
based on PNN (Propulsione Non Newtoniana) demonstrates the possibility to
make a propulsion system based on a new concept : propulsion without
expulsion of reaction mass.....”
We have been informed to spread such message without giving essential
explanations.
We want to say that it is true.
Like C. Colombo didn't communicate route for the “New World”, so we, we
won't say “quite all” about our prototype SC23, to actual state. We want to
be well sure that to end only and only ASPS will have got merit either
demerit to have or not produced this innovation in space propulsion.
Situation is splendidly identical to period of Cristoforo Colombo : exists
a “MARE OCEANO” that can't be crossed in quantities terms, i.e. of real
colonization, that is in terms of material ones and men, in quantities
terms of speed and security, in quantities terms of economy and industrial
development.
Mankind has of forehead at large territories that can’t be reach if not in
olimpic terms: planting a flag and escaping, for impossibility, generated
by limitations of system of propulsion, to remain.
Without polemics and mysteries we want to say and repeat that the essence
of our work bases itself on and from experimental logic of few events
tied to the temporary propagation of variable forces (jerk) in mechanical
systems and from the particular use of them in the PNN device SC23.
Without experimental knowledge of such events, it might be produced a
theoretical infinite discussion that ASPS is or not right, either we are
more or less insane.
We can only say: you reproduce if it interests and if you find enough
datas to do, our experiments, and after you will notice that our
affirmation about realization of a system of propulsion without expulsion
of mass of reaction has some probability to be catching on the serious.
From about 4 years old ASPS is searching to make finance of the Operative
Power Device (DOP) of its prototype SC23.
Now it seems that some perspective it is opening itself in search of a
financer.
However they go things within the first January of the 2001 we will publish
all about SC23.
Within that date will be taken a patent of which will be owner members of
ASPS and the possible ones fianncers.
Until that date drawn it to have patience.
Our work has been completed the December 2 1992, when we have found what
we searched.
Already more than 4 years old that we wait for and search to find a
financer of the DOP in terms of “SAFETY” for ASPS.
We want to repeat still that ASPS doesn't searche new Members or
Subscriber to NOVA ASTRONAUTICA .
If they come, well, if they don't come ,better.
We have enough Members able on to defend the property of ASPS patent and
obviously their interests.
Sure it would be better to be more, but always number isn't synonym of
power or right.
At whoever further desires information will be dispatched, via Internet our
article.
The issue lacks of photo and drawings. Photos can be found on the n. 69
,1996 of NOVA ASTRONAUTICA (Official Organ of ASPS).
It is possible to go to find aforesaid text near the Central National
Libraries of Italy or Roma's CNR.
In 1997 it will be opened, like ASPS hopes , a Web page.
ASPS Direction
Subject: Re: Is moving bicycle more easy to balance than static biycle?
From: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Date: 19 Dec 1996 23:12:51 GMT
In article <59cfg0$68l@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>,
Michael McDonnough wrote:
#bfp@bfp.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Putnam) wrote:
#
#>
#>I don't believe it has much to do with gyroscopes or angular momentum
#>because if a bicycle had massless (or very light) wheels it would
#>still be just as easy to ride.
#>
#
#Here's the test: Get a typical bicycle wheel,..put it on an axle, and
#spin it at a rate that you guess "looks" right for human powered bikes.
#Try and twist the axle out of it's position as it is spinning. Surprising
#resistance, eh?
Despite this experiment (and it is commendable to do experiments),
the gyroscopic effect has very little if anything to do with bicycle
stability. David Jones, a chemist, investigated bicycle stability
experimentally some years ago. It was discussed in an article in _Physics
Today_ (April 1970). He built bicycles that had counterrotating wheels
that exactly balanced the angular momentum of the real wheels. They
were quite rideable. He experimented with the steering geometry
and found that steering geometry is the key factor. He was able
to build bicycles that were unrideable because they were too
unstable, and others that were equally unrideable because they
were overstable and couldn't be turned.
You can find this discussed in Chapter 9 of _Bicycling Science_, Second
Edition, by F.R. Whitt and D.G. Wilson (MIT Press 1982).
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bill[a]clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Subject: Re: Frequency-Space paradox?
From: ca314159
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:41:39 -0800
Peter Diehr wrote:
>
> 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.
The relationship is interesting, especially when you
start thinking about sample rates that approach the
frequency of some light you are using in some
effect.
If you start talking about photons being emitted with
some periodicity, then are you also implying that the
periodicity represents a "sample rate" which is different
from the "frequency" of the quanta ? Would you then
have to consider interference and aliasing together
in some double slit experiment say ?
http://search.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?query=ca314159&defaultOp;=AND&svcclass;=dncurrent&maxhits;=100&showsort;=date&site;=yahoo
Subject: Re: Propellant Free Space Drive
From: david8@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L. Burkhead)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 04:07:40 GMT
Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk (Joseph Michael) wrote:
:>In article <594aat$1tv@kira.cc.uakron.edu>
:> david8@dax.cc.uakron.edu "David L. Burkhead" writes:
[ 8< ]
:>>>visualise the photoelectric effect. I see electrons wizzing around a nucleus
:>>>and in comes a photon which dislodges it. Providing it has sufficient energy
:>>>(the work function) it simply takes it out of orbit creating an electron and
:>>>a 'hole' (i.e. an atom lacking an electron). Since the electrons are wizzing
:>>>already, the work function relates to the energy needed to split
:>>>the electron-hole pair. Before and after splitting, the wizzing electron
:>>>does not suffer an acceleration from zero velocity commensurate with classical>:>interpretation. Hence, there is no rise time as such because rise
:>>>times are only commensurate with classical interpretations where electrons
:>>>are accelerated and decelerated from zero velocity.
:>>>No flames on this paragraph please! I did my best! :-)
:>>
:>> I don't doubt that you did your best. Trouble is, it's wrong.
:>>Just a simple bit to show how: The electrons may be freed "instantly"
:>>but they are "whizzing" in random directions at the moment of release.
:>>That means that the _net_ drift current caused just by the release is
:>>zero. However, when you have a PN junction nearby, you have a local
:>What do you mean nearby? This is happening in the PN junction within the
:>extent of the space charge.
:>>field gradient. This field gradient imposes a net acceleration on the
:>>charges thus released. And it is from this that you get a net
:>>current.
:>>
:>> That's just one of the things you overlook.
:>Good grief again! There is misunderstanding here... The electrons
:>are freed and they jump from atom to atom as femtosecond phenomena.
:>Because the drift velocity is cm/second phenomena, the imposition
:>of drift velocity is instantaneous. Thats because the atoms are already
There is a major misunderstanding here, certainly. However, you
have it wrong as to who is making it. You are making the entirely
incorrect assumption that you can simply take the action of individual
electrons and assuming that they reflect the net of a great many
electrons in all particulars.
:>bathed in the field of the PN space charge. The concept of "..a net
:>acceleration on the charges thus released..." is meaningless.
Incorrect yet again. Since they are bound the acceleration may
occur in discrete jumps rather than continuously, but it's still an
acceleration. And it doesn't matter whether it's already in the field
or not. If a localized charges is made free to move within an
electric field it begins to accelerate. The net acceleration is
simply the vector change in the momenta of the electrons that are free
to move. That is hardly a "meaningless" concept. If you think it is,
it reflects pretty poorly on your own knowledge of physics. Think of
it like a gas: the particles have a lot of random motions (the
results of being released from that "whizzing" you talk about--they
are released in a random direction). However, if a pressure gradient
exists (electric field) the particles will tend to be pushed a bit
more in one direction than the other. They'll still have the random
motion but the vector sum of all that momentum will start to increase
in the direction of decreasing pressure. Observed from outside, the
gas will begin to flow (current) at an increasing speed. Thus,
although individual molecule momentum changes (through the mechanism
of collisions) may be, for all practical purposes, instantaneous, the
gas as a whole behaves classically.
David L. Burkhead "If I had eight hours to cut down
david8@dax.cc.uakron.edu a tree, I'd spend seven sharpening
FAX: 330-253-4490 my axe." Attributed to Abraham
SpaceCub Lincoln
http://GoZips.uakron.edu/~david8
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: Wiles looney tune
From: jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:29:56 GMT
In article <597mae$t46@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
I wrote:
< > 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.
< > --
<
< FLT asks for all ...xyz.
No. It asks for ...0000xyz.
< And the p-adics are not a set separable between ...000abc and ....xyz.
What does it mean "not separable"? Are you saying that it in
principle makes no sense to say something like: "Let x be equal
to ...00005"?? If one *can* say something like this then one *can*
ask questions about such numbers, like Fermat did.
--
Jan Bielawski
Molecular Simulations, Inc. )\._.,--....,'``. | http://www.msi.com
San Diego, CA /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. | ph.: (619) 458-9990
jpb@msi.com fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' | fax: (619) 458-0136
#DISCLAIMER******************************************************************#
+Unless stated otherwise, everything in the above message is personal opinion+
+and nothing in it is an official statement of Molecular Simulations Inc. +
#****************************************************************************#
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:05:09 GMT
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:52:08 -0400, in sci.skeptic, pzayas@prtc.net
wrote:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 05:59:53 GMT, in sci.skeptic, "Tracy Bell"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >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).
>>
>> Which we know to be true because the authors said so. Do you see a
>> logical flaw here? Didn't think so...
>>
>> >>
>>
>> (Note followups, if any)
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
>> the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
>
>Kayku pzayas@prtc.net
>
>Christianity, like all other religions, is based on faith, not on the
>credibility of the authors of the Bible. As, a Christian, I do not see
>any problem in questioning the Bible and Christianity just like any
>other book or dogma. Freedom to do so is part of my faith. Faith,
>however, cannot be questioned for it is not borne out of logic.
For a truly religious person, this is correct. However, far too many
of the creationists who post their blather seem to disagree, since
their faith isn't strong enough to stand on its own without bogus
"scientific facts" to support it. It's really a pity their faith is so
weak, since there is no real disagreement between *real* science and
faith; they don't inhabit the same reality.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: TL ADAMS
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:54:07 -0500
Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>
> >> "burning" in this context means "converting the isotopes into less
> >> dangerous elements". It is not "oxidation". I wonder how many Average
> >> Citizens have the same mis-understanding?
>
> >So you mean irradiation of the isotopes with alpha particle or neutrons
> >until the material is in a stable isotope form. Not a technique that
> >I've ever seen mentioned on any site remediation.
>
> Sorry, I thought we were discussing destruction of weapons-grade
> plutonium. My mistake.
Oh! That makes sense then, you were talking about the the destruction of
plutonium.
Actually, the original thread was about were there any real risk factors
or concerns
about the use of Nuke power, after some sacriney nice-nice post, I
countered in with
the problamatic cost of decommsioning, spent fuel stock-piling (ie
disposal), contamination from the enrichment process and the disposal
problems at low and
medium level licensed sites.
I also vented my general observation that ARC/DOD had been so closely
entwined,
that in my mind that I could not separate the the really bad stuff that
has occurred at DOD sites from the Nuke Power Industry. The current
bunch in the NPI industry,
many who worked in the NPI foggy days of prehistory, ie the Cold War
that ended
in 1988, wish to distance themselve from all weapon production
activities.
Why would you want to destroy weapon grade plutonium?
Subject: Re: The absurd debate
From: realistic@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:16:47 MST
In article <598c0d$nph@amenti.rutgers.edu> owl@rci.rutgers.edu (Michael Huemer) writes:
>From: owl@rci.rutgers.edu (Michael Huemer)
>Subject: Re: The absurd debate
>Date: 18 Dec 1996 04:03:09 -0500
>realistic@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall) writes:
>>Very well said, a man who has no reverence is usually disgusted with most
>>everything (a very poor place to be psychologically and physiologically
>Well, no. I said the opposite of reverence is disgust, but that
>doesn't mean that a person who lacks reverence must be disgusted. The
>opposite of "obese" is "emaciated", but that doesn't mean that
>everyone who is not obese is emaciated (and vice versa). The opposite
>of 'ocean' may be 'desert', but that doesn't mean every place on earth
>that's not an ocean is a desert.
^-----^
> Michael Huemer / O O \
> http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl | V |
> \ /
Mr. Huemer:
I hadn't given much thought to disgust and faith until I read your comment,
but just like the other examples you give about "oceans" and "fat", it seems
to be a continuum; where there is less reverence, there is more disgust, where
there is more reverence (as has been described in earlier postings] there is
more patience, consideration, group oriented, goal oriented, etc behavior.
It's not just that disgusted people are unhappy, it's that there is
now such a direct line to the root of their unhappiness. Actually, the more I
consider your comment about disgust, the more I think you are more ready than
you think. (Therefore, we are.)
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
P.S. What made you think of disgust?
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Mike Secorsky
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:57:11 -0700
Trish wrote:
>
> 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
Actually, the Norse god Loki is much more fun at parties. ;})
Subject: Re: Baez & Bunn >> Re: Help me believe in Coulomb's law
From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:41:15 GMT
singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
[regarding a post to s.p.r which was rejected by Warren]
>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.
Charles, I have not looked in detail at your rejected post, but would
partially agree with your comments here.
It is true that wild speculations are aired, though not generally by Ted
Bunn. At the same time articles are rejected under the pretext of being
"too speculative" when the real reason is that they do not use the
jargon and model of the "establishment". The charter of
sci.physics.research does NOT include "too speculative" as a valid
reason for rejection, and that is entirely appropriate. Physics depends
on speculation to advance, and as long as it is not misrepresented as
facts then speculation is to be encouraged.
The charter has a category "not even wrong" which to me means confused
and incoherent. That is a valid reason for rejection but is not
applicable to many of the posts rejected.
The fact is that articles are rejected which are not speculative simply
because they are "not invented here" (here being universities) and even
when there is a mass of supporting evidence, simply because the
moderators are unwilling to look seriously at the material. They are
unwilling to enter into debate on the matter and will not put forward a
single scientific argument against the posts.
The moderators are in fact passing judgement without trial. That is the
sort of behaviour expected from the Spannish inquisition not from
scientists. All that I can say in their favour is that the change in
moderators more recently has at least meant that they are now polite.
I had a recent post rejected because it mentioned "harmonics theory".
Apparantly the mere mention of a theory is too speculative, and that in
turn is the moderators twisted interpretation of "not even wrong".
-- 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
Subject: College Prof, Or SUPER VILLAIN!
From: jaffo@onramp.net (Jaffo)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:36:58 GMT
I'm watching Spider Man cartoons in the afternoons lately. Not remarkable
in itself, but I think it's affecting my thought processes.
This is the first episode with Doctor Octopus, and I can't help but
compared Doc Oc with some of my previous college professors.
Have you ever been sitting in class, listening to some eccentric whino rant
and rave about something, and thought to yourself, "This guy would make a
great Super-Villain!"
Some goofy Physics prof with a bowl cut and rumpled clothing starts ranting
about scientific applications of nuclear power and I'm just waiting for him
to say, "And with this device, I CAN CONQUER THE WORLD! They LAUGHED!
They all LAUGHED AT ME! BUT I'LL SHOW THEM!!! MUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"Let's see them laughing when I DESTROY THE EARTH'S SUPPLY OF
PLUTONIUM!!!!"
Last year, I actually had one guy, a Physics TA I was sucking up to, tell
me there's a sekrut corporate CONSPIRACY that keeps SUPER-EFFICIENT cars
off the market. It's all about the EVIL OIL COMPANIES you see. They make
us drive expensive, gas guzzling cars so they can keep their EVIL CORPORATE
PROFITS!!
This was the same guy who told me there was a grand academic conspiracy to
keep Christians out of science-related fields. This guy had a special
theory that proved that EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION IS WRONG!
And they let people like this manipulate the impressionable minds of our
young. How many tender young co-eds have already fallen under the spell of
this EVIL GENIUS!
Jaffo
--
"Nothing livens up sex like knowing you're being videotaped." - Duckman
Jaffo's Home Page - http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Net.Legends Mirror - http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/nl/
Kibology Posting Archives - http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/archives.html
Join Jaffo's AOL Invasion Force! Email jaffo@onramp.net for details!
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: malkinb7@mindspring.com (Michelle Malkin)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:58:02 GMT
Mike Secorsky wrote:
>Trish wrote:
>>
>> 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
>Actually, the Norse god Loki is much more fun at parties. ;})
So is the later version of Pan.
Subject: Relativity
From: brberg@ix.netcom.com(Brandon Berg)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 00:54:20 GMT
I was wondering...What would happen if you were traveling near the
speed of light, and fired a gun straight ahead, so that the combined
totals of the speed of your vehicle and the relative speed of the
bullet would exceed the speed of light?
Obviously, the bullet wouldn't exceed the speed of light. Would it
inch foward slowly, or would would it just fall down(this is relative
to the person with the gun, not absolute speed)? I asked a physics
teacher, and he said something about it only moving at 87% of the speed
of light, which makes absolutely no sense to me, because person who
fired the gun was already going at the speed of light...I don't see why
the bullet would slow its absolute speed.
Thanks,
Brandon Berg
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: steve eric cisna
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 19:00:29 -0600
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Matt Pillsbury wrote:
> Tracy Bell wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Read Genesis and you will see that God has existed for ALL men since the
> > beginning. And surprise surprise the order of creation follows the order
> > theorised in evolution.
No it doesn't. There was never abundant plant life before there were
animals. Of course, there was no plant life at all before the sun, but
that's a story for another day.
Of course you can believe everything "just
> > happened" if you want,
Isn't that sort of what you believe?
I don't really care. I'm just saying not all
> > Christians believe the two can't mesh together.
>
> Oh, so evolutionary theory states that birds evolved before land
> animals? Do you smoke crack? Or are you simply making claims for what
> the theory of evolution says w/o actually knowing a damn thing about it?
>
> --Matt Pillsbury
>
>
Steve
Subject: Re: HELP Newtons 3 Law
From: mjrust@erols.com (Mike Rust)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 01:26:21 GMT
In article <32B754E6.747F@zxzxz.net>, Mike Lepore wrote:
>> } Im studying for my A-Levels but what I cant understand is why
>> } if you have an equal and opposite force, do you get an acceleration?
>
>Only the force _on_ something accelerates it, not the force
>exerted _by_ something. Force A on B equals force B on A,
>in magnitude, but they don't add up to zero becuase they are
>acting on different objects.
>
>Many people mess this up when drawing a free body diagram.
>Choose one object of interest and only include the forces
>acting on it. Reaction forces exerted by it are irrelevent.
>
>
Yup. I would also point out that there is a bias in our language that
reflects a psychological reality rather than a physical reality. We say that
"we push on the ball" because we view ourselves and other human beings as
animate entities that cause events to occur. In a physical analysis of the
situation using Netwon's Laws, however, there is no distinction between the
object being pushed and the object that is doing the pushing. Instead of
saying "I pushed the ball", it might be clearer to think of it as the "My hand
and the ball came into interaction." It is Newton's Third Law that describes
the character of that interaction, in particular it consists of a force
couple: two equal and opposite vectors.
Mike Rust
mjrust@erols.com
mrust@tjhsst.edu
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: tmkoson@umich.edu (Todd Matthew Koson)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 02:36:58 GMT
Tracy Bell (Bellt@dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:
: Trish wrote in article <32B75C5E.24A7@gte.net>...
: > bob puharic wrote:
: > >
: > > "Todd K. Pedlar" wrote:
: > >
: > > >There's not much of an argument there; I'm not so sure you can say
: that
: > > >evolution is consistent or inconsistent with other sciences.
: Evolution
: > > >has not much of anything to do with physics, astronomy, etc.,
: > > >whatsoever.
: > >
: > > they are all sciences...and all know that the earth and the universe
: > > is billions of years old, which is what the creationists doubt. sounds
: > > pretty consistent to me.
: >
: > 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.
: Read Genesis and you will see that God has existed for ALL men since the
: beginning. And surprise surprise the order of creation follows the order
: theorised in evolution. Of course you can believe everything "just
: happened" if you want, I don't really care. I'm just saying not all
: Christians believe the two can't mesh together.
Then the earth was created BEFORE the sun? This is in Genesis: somthing
about let there be light, right AFTER the heavans and the earth. Perhaps
you can clarify this for me and the rest of the WORLD. --
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: Josh
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:19:52 -0800
Nathan Boyd wrote:
>
> The particles 'speed' as measured by another FOR. I don't think anyone can
> prove there exist no particle with relative motion faster than light.
> Physical laws don't preclude FLT, but there is no way to detect them.
>
> Sylvia Else wrote in article
> <32BA0206.7A8A@zip.com.au>...
> > Bruce Butkus wrote:
> >
> > > But, Could you not use those hasards to your advantage?? If you aimed
> > > near, the gravity would pull the near light speed particle in faster,
> > > thus bringing it past the spped-of-light point??
> >
> > What a bizarre notion! No - regardless of the mass of the object creating
>
> > the gravitational field, the particle's velocity will never exceed the
> > speed of light.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> >
If you didn't get my posting earlier then here it goes again! Someone
said earlier that the speed of light was relative to an observer, I beg
to differ. The theory of general theory clearly states that the speed
of light is always constant no matter what reference frame you are in,
even if you are traveling at the speed of light! Also it was stated
that to travel faster than light you would have to eliminate the
apparent mass of the object you are accelorating, this is correct and
there is a way to do it!
Stay with me if you will while I explain! If you set up a strong
gravitational feild (granted we don't know how to do that yet) around
your object so that it warps space then you can eliminate the apparent
mass by "pinching off" from the known universe into your own "baby
universe". This in effect will now only eliminate your apparent mass
but if you remain stationary within your "baby universe" there is no
time dialation or inertia! It almost seems too good to be true! Now
there is still one more problem, getting your "baby universe" and thus
you to the c. barrier and beyond.
We know that the galaxies on the other side of the obserable universe
are moving away from us at velocities that greatly exceed the speed of
light, however if you were to put clocks in those distant galaxies it is
reasonable to expect that they will all keep the same time. The reason
being is that they remain stationary to their LOCAL reference frames.
And as long as you are traveling "globally" and not "locally" it is
possible to break the c. barrier. However there is one major road block
(despite the enormous amounts of energy required) and that is a
"negative energy" must be observed by at least one observer. For a
better understanding of "negative energy I suggest that you read
Kip Thornes "Black holes and Time warps: Einstines Outragous Legacy" or
Stephen Hawkings book "Black holes and Baby universes". Then you will
understand the complications involved with "negative energy" to a better
degree.
Next is to get you up to the speed of light barrier. Imagine if you will
the gravity feild surrounding you can contract space in front of you,
thus shortening the distance between you and your destination, and
having space expand (this is where "negative energy" comes in) behind
you increasing your distance from your point of departure. As long as
you do this contracting and expanding of space on a "global" scale
versus a "local" scale then it allows FTL travel!
I don't know if what I've said makes much sense to you, all I know is
that I know how it works in my head. If you want to flame me for any
discrepancies feel free to do so, I just leave this disclaimer. I am not
a physicist (like no duh!) and I have only studied physics for the past
four years. I am interested in any comments that you have however, and
if you have any helpful hints or things you think I can learn I am open
to hear about them.
My E-mail address is: joshac@nextdim.com
