Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 14:49:53 GMT
In article <32B869B6.1015@west.darkside.com>,
TL ADAMS wrote:
>Jim Carr wrote:
>>
>> TL ADAMS writes:
>> >
>> >It must be nice, to be able to draw your boundries around one little
>> >section of the problem and therefore declare the whole industry is safe.
>>
>> It must be nice to draw similarly arbitrary, and unjustified,
>> boundaries to blame one industry for decisions made by another.
>> Should the bulldozer manufacturer be blamed for the child killed
>> by an airbag because it was used to build the road? Do you feel
>> guilt driving a vehicle that was built by a military contractor?
>
>Get real. Public preception is that if plant A kills thousand of people
>in India,
>and Parent Company wants to build plant B in Tenn., then they feel that
>there is
>some connection. If you don't think that the NPI, DOD and ARC were
>entwined like
>snakes on a staff, then weren't alive in those days. You just were not
>there, if
>you can make statements like that. Pad. Gas. Dif. produce material for
>Hanford to
>be made into weapons grade material, Pad. Gas. Dif produced enriched
>material for
>the NPI. If Ford were to produce a model of automobile that killed,
>then I think
>the public would view all of Ford's models with a little hesitance.
>
So your point is that Ford cars do not kill members of the
public? What about Ford's pick-em up trucks? Am I completely
safe in mine?
>>
>> >Yet you lose the battle of public opinion because most people don't
>> >draw such nice little boundries. When they see a nice multibillion
>> >clean-up at a little site like Fernald, maybe they don't have your
>> >distachment to say this is from the "bad" nuclear industry, but we
>> >are the "good" nuclear industry.
>>
>> Only if people are misled by persons like you, who don't tell them
>> why Fernald was built, what it did, and why it was managed as it
>> was. If you leave out the economic incentive the military had to
>> build nuclear rather than conventional weapons -- they only had to
>> pay for the delivery system, not the bombs, from their budget -- you
>> will also omit the reasons your congressman voted to do what was done
>> over a period of decades. None of this has anything to do with
>> commercial nuclear power, as is demonstrated in non-weapons states
>> with a power program, or the need to produce and dispose of large
>> amounts of low-level waste produced for medical purposes.
>
>People like me, you mean us anti-nuclear radical consulting engineers
>who do
>remediations. People like me who have to explain to an angry citizenry
>why a
>certain risk is acceptable, and why it can be clean to "safe" and why
>them that
>done it to them don't have to live with the mess.
>
>Tell ya what friend, why don't you go down to Fountain Square in
>Cincinnati, get on
>your P&G; soap box and explain to the fine citizens why the contamination
>of the
>Miami Valley Aquifer is just their burden for winning the Cold War. If
>you survive,
>then come back and talk to me. There is no justification for the
>sloppiness that
>was hidden under a vale of national defense. We knew beter then, and
>all of the
>historic apologiest like you arn't going to convince anyone otherwise.
>
>Oh, maybe talk to them about why the irradiation experimentation of
>terminal patients
>UC med center (City Hospital at the time) was an acceptable practice at
>the time.
>
>If you don't understand public opinion, don't whine about it when your
>community
>runs you out.
I didn't understand that nuclear power plants were responsible
for medical testing. Thanks for clearing that up.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | When the going gets tough,
| the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |
| E. Blackadder
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: folsomman@aol.com (FolsomMan)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 03:46:54 GMT
wf3h@enter.net wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:15:45 +0000, Michael Martin-Smith
> wrote:
>Thus , in the next Millennium, I can advocate
>>a rapprochement between true religion and science on the New Frontier of
>>Space. Such a Faith strongly resembles aspects of the Bahai,
>funny how all the religions say this without proof. what is there
>about science that makes the theists want to become scientists? we
>scientists dont clamor to become theologians....
The vast majority of religious believers don't clamor to become
theologians, either. Most of them are as ignorant of theology as they are
of science. Can you imagine anyone who actually read the bible while
thinking ending up believing that the scriptures are inerrant?
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 03:59:00 GMT
In article <59f1q6$5bq@thrush.sover.net>, Ron Jeremy wrote:
>
>mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote while furiously backpedaling:
[...]
>: Yes, however, because the nuclear industry resists inspection, and the
>: industry does not want to hear results that may force it to shut down
>: and make repairs.
>
>So tell me why do they have their own auditors and INPO, who the nuclear
>industry created, to go along with our friends at the NRC?
As someone who was one of those auditors created by the nuclear
industry, I have to point out that friesel's statement was more true
than we might like. I was rather chagrined at the superficiality
of the INPO inspection performed at one of the plants I worked at, adn
even more chagrined at our evasive responses to even that.
[...]
>: My experience with this attitude is direct, and it can be seen here on
>: the internet as well. If you say anything that calls into question the
>: safety of a nuclear plant, either physical problems such as detection of
>: a growing crack in an inlet nozzle or procedural problems such as having
>: test results disregarded or misreported by management, you get jumped on
>: by the vehement defenders of the Holy Ark both at the plant and in your
>: own company (if you work for someone else - keep it up and you won't for
>: long). There is a solution, and a good one in my opinion, but it won't
>: happen in this country.
>
>Ah, I saw it Usenet so it must be true.
Unfortunately, I have seen the same sort of things in my experiences at
the five nuclear plants or construciton sites I have worked at in QA.
And I'm a supporter of nuclear power.
Mark, I was pleasantly suprised
>when you realized the error of your earlier postings but now see you haven't
>changed your spots. Heaven forbid you imply that there may be management
>idiots who work in the utility industry. We've got to "pass" the MMPI
>and I'm sure that weeds out all the undesirables. Did I miss your
Uh. The MMPI is a joke among knowledgable psychologists. Except for the
ones who make money administering it.
>solution or is my server just selectively editing all the cohernet
>anti-nuclear arguemnts to protect my fragile little world. This thread
>is fast approaching talk.* status. Anytime you want bring out of the
>"it's bad"/"no it's not" woods just let me know.
Nuclear energy can be a good, but some of the handling of it is bad.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: Should a theory explain why?
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 00:36:22 -0500
Matt McIrvin wrote:
>
>The Lagrangian formalism of general relativity, in particular, is
(line inadvertently cut)
>Einstein's field equation. Indeed, to me it's so elegant that I consider it
>as much of a "reason why" as Newton's laws. Spacetime evolves in the
>absence of matter so as to extremize an action obtained, more or less, by
Just out of curiosity, when you say "spacetime evolves" do you mean
"take a particular space-like slice and see what happens" or some
looser sense of evolves meaning "it works out that way"; i.e., it
works out that this action is extremized when we take the (static)
view of the 4-dimensional manifold?
>summing up the Gaussian curvature over spacetime. Other matter fields'
>interactions come from just plugging curved-spacetime generalizations of
>Lagrangians we already know and love into the same equation! There are
>complications, but the fact that the basic principle can be stated in two
>fairly simple sentences strikes me as just amazing.
>
>> Is being simplified enough to explain why a good thing in a theory?
>> Good or not, it is and always will be looked for in new theories. I
>> have yet to hear somebody dispute Occam's Razor as a tool for
>> identifying useful theories.
>
>People (particularly grand-conspiracy theorists) actually dispute it fairly
>often, but they tend to have little luck promoting their objections. One
Hmm... I don't think I've quite graduated to the elite class of
"grand-conspiracy theorists", but I do often feel that Occam's razor
is misused -- or invoked when from my point of view, it really does
not have much to say.
>could justify it on the basis of common sense, but a lot of things violate
>common sense.
>
>Objectors to the Razor tend to argue that the simplest theory is often
>wrong. That is true, but it completely misses the point. The best
>justification of this principle I can think of is that it *facilitates* the
>conduct of science as a self-correcting enterprise.
>
>Suppose we assume that two theories explaining the same body of data, one
>of which clearly contains more theoretical entities than the other, are
>equally likely to be correct. Simpler theories still possess two distinct
>advantages in this case.
You beg a lot of fundamental questions by the meaning of that innocent
looking phrase "equally likely to be correct", but continue...
>First, they often make more definite, testable predictions than more
>complex theories about data *not yet* obtained. (Indeed, scientists often
Can you be a little more concrete here? I feel you have some
definite example in mind. It sounds like you are talking about curve
fitting: I.e.; suppose one "theory" consists of the assertion that
the data is to be fitted by a function of form F(X;a,b), while
another hypothesizes the correct form is G(X:c,d,e,f). Here the
functional forms are fixed but the small latin letters are
"parameters of the theory", to be determined by experiment.
So if we have some amount of data it might be sufficient to
pin down a and b to good precision and hence make the form F( )
stand or fall on new data -- there is no more adjustment room. G( )
on the other hand may allow revised estimates of the.... aw shoot,
man! You know perfectly well what I mean. Does that about map it?
>speak more of "predictive power" than of simplicity.) That means that the
>simpler theory is easier to test, and if the predictions are borne out, it
>is likely to imply a broader and more useful range of statements about the
>world.
Assuming my interpretation of your language is correct, I see "easier
to test", in the sense that a given dataset provides a tighter test
of the theory with fewer adjustable parameters, but I am not sure
what you mean by the last sentence.
>Second, suppose that a counterexample to a theory is found. Then the effort
>of modifying the theory to accomodate the counterexample is usually more
>enlightening, the simpler the theory is to begin with. We end up knowing
>more about limiting cases of the broadened theory. If the more complex
>theory (or some other theory entirely) ends up being the right one all
>along, then the theoretical apparatus developed to study the simpler theory
>will still be useful to describe simply the limit in which it still holds.
>This can be of great practical value.
Ok, I'll buy this. You are saying that if Newton's rival Grosswit
came up with a competing theory that involved the constancy of the
speed of light for a class of observers he for some reason called
"inert-full", that the rule of thumb embodied in Occam's Razor would
prescribe patting Grosswit on the wig, thanking him for his effort,
and politely filing away his contribution in the dusty tomes (no, not
the Ray Tomes) of science. Well, maybe I even agree. Since 17th
century experimentalism had no way of distinguishing between these
cases there would be no reason to carry around the mechanism of the
more complicated theory, though poor Grosswit might pound on the table
and exclaim "But it fits all the data!".
*Here a lightbulb goes off*
You know, what I get out of this is that there may be two ways of
approaching science. One may arise from a need to explain the
data from as deep a level as possible, the other from a desire to
explain existing data as parsimoniously as possible. This amounts
to a personal choice of style, and as such is beyond reason. The
"deep explainer" wants to propagate hypotheses as far downward as
possible; the parsimonist wants to trim hypotheses off as far *up* as
possible. They have different goals -- which should not cause any
dispute, so long as the different goals are out in the open.
It's only when they begin blaspheming against each other's religion...
the parsimonist calling the deep explainer's tentative deeper
hypotheses by the awful fighting words "pink unicorn" (which is grounds
to dismiss charges of 2nd degree assault in 28 states), implying that
the desire to fill in the theory from below has driven the deluded
explainer to employ words of no meaning and hypotheses from nursery
rhymes... it is then that the trouble starts.
Thank you for explaining that to me, Matt.
Ed Green
Professional Amateur
Subject: Re: SR, GR, and Time Dilation
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 05:30:57 GMT
In <59fnpi$sam@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes:
>
>In <59fldg$lhl@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
>Meisner) writes:
>>
>>In <59fjl5$oun@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
>>Meisner) writes:
>>>
>>> In order to keep the speed of light constant Einstein had to
>>assume
>>>time dilation. I am wondering if there is another way to save
>constant
>>>c. For example, what if we start with Maxwell's equations and solve
>>for
>>>the speed of light in terms of electric and magnetic flux. We can
>then
>>>substitute this expression for the speed of light into the equations
>>of
>>>SR and GR. Therefore, there might be another way to keep the speed
of
>>>light constant, e.g., by assuming charge dilation or some other
>factor
>>>in Maxwell's equations.
>>>
>>>Edward Meisner
>>
>> What if relativistic mass increase, was really relativistic
charge
>>increase?
>>
>>Edward Meisner
>
> I would like to amend this by saying there would have to be both
>relativistic mass increase and relativistic charge increase.
>
>Edward Meisner
Relativistic charge increase seems to be supported by experimental
evidence. I read in a posting by Brian Jones that magnets are strained
by particles moving at relativistic speed. Now, the force on the magnet
due to the charged particle is a function solely of charge. The
relativistic mass increase of the charge will therefore have no effect
whatsoever on the force that the charged particle exerts on the magnet.
The only explanation for the strain is therefore that the charge of the
particle has increased.
You can keep c constant by assuming charge increase. For example,
we know there is relativistic length contraction. Therefore the
denominator in the d/t=c equation must decrease in order to keep c
constant. We can solve first for c in Maxwell's equation. Then if we
solve for distance, we must account for its decreased value. I think
one way of doing this would be to increase the value for charge. In
this way time is kept constant.
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: war victims; blinded victims
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 05:32:10 GMT
In article <32B98C91.2839@mindspring.com>
Richard Mentock writes:
> I'm so stupid, I studied math instead of business.
> I'm so stupid, I believed my senator and governor.
> I'm so stupid, I'm responding to this. I'm so stupid, but it's fun.
>
> --
> D.
>
> mentock@mindspring.com
> http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm
Oh I can believe it Mr. Mentock. So let us see you in action.
Tell me if this proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes, indirect proof
is a valid proof or an invalid proof. I kind of think you would have
been better off majoring in business.
BEYOND NUMERACY, John Allen Paulos, Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1991, a
BORZOI BOOK
--- quoting Page 95 of Paulos book ---
The mathematical logician Kurt Goedel was one of the preeminent
intellectual giants of the twentieth century, and, assuming the
survival of the species, will probably be one of the few contemporary
figures remembered in 1,000 years. A number of recent books about him
notwithstanding, this judgement is not a result of hype or an incipient
fad (although it is made infinitesimally more acceptable by the
similarity among the words "God," "Godel," and "Godot"). Neither is it,
despite a tendency for all disciplines to foster professional myopia, a
case of mathematicians' self-congratulation. It's simply true.
--- end quoting page 95 of Paulos book ---
--- start quoting Page 185 of Paulos book ---
" Euclid showed, however, that there is no largest prime and that
therefore there are an infinite number of primes.
Euclid's demonstration of this is such a beautiful example of what is
often called an indirect proof that I will risk arousing your
mathematical anxiety and reproduce it. We assume at the outset that
there are only finitely many primes and try to derive a contradiction
from this assumption. Thus, we list the prime numbers 2, 3, 5, . . .,
151, . . . P; P we will take to be the largest prime number. Now form a
new number N by multiplying all the primes in the above list together.
Thus N = 2 x 3 x 5 x . . . x 151 x . . . x P.
Consider the number (N + 1) and whether 2 divides it evenly (with no
remainder) or not. We see that 2 divides N evenly since it is a factor
of N. Therefore 2 does not divide (N +1) evenly, but leaves a remainder
of 1. We see also that 3 divides N evenly since it too is a factor of
N. Therefore 3 does not divide (N + 1) evenly, but also leaves a
remainder of 1. Similarly for 5, 7, and all the prime numbers up to P.
They each divide N evenly, and therefore each leave a remainder of 1
when divided into (N +1).
What does this mean? Since none of the prime numbers 2, 3, 5, . . .,
P divides (N +1) evenly, the number (N + 1) is either itself a prime
number larger than P, or it is divisible by some prime number that is
larger than P. Since we assumed that P was the largest prime number, we
have a contradiction: We have established the existence of a prime
number larger than the largest prime number. Therefore our original
assumption that there are only finitely many prime numbers must be
false. End of proof. QED.
--- end quoting Page 185 of Paulos book ---
Tell me Mr. Mentock, whether you think Paulos has given a valid proof
of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes? My god PU, I love being alive!
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: war victims; blinded victims
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 05:39:40 GMT
In article <59dtrd$cu8@svin12.win.tue.nl>
Andre Engels writes:
> "I am poor at mathematical reasoning, but poorer still are you at
> understanding what I write."
I know this. But the trouble is that you don't know this. And I care
little in what you write.
So here, let me show you something. Tell me, yes, tell me if you think
this proof by G.H. Hardy is a valid proof or not.
--- quoting A MATHEMATICIAN'S APOLOGY by G.H. Hardy pages 92-94 ---
I can hardly do better than go back to the Greeks. I will state
and prove two of the famous theorems of Greek mathematics. They are
'simple' theorems, simple both in idea and in execution, but there is
no doubt at all about their being theorems of the highest class. Each
is as fresh and significant as when it was discovered-- two thousand
years have not written a wrinkle on either of them. Finally, both the
statements and the proof can be mastered in an hour by any intelligent
reader, however slender his mathematical equipment.
1. The first is Euclid's (Elements IX 20. The real origin of many
theorems in the Elements is obscure, but there seems to be no
particular reason for supposing that this one is not Euclid's own)
proof of the existence of an infinity of prime numbers.
The prime numbers or primes are the numbers (A)
2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,... which cannot be resolved into smaller
factors. (There are technical reasons for not counting 1 as a prime.)
Thus 37 and 317 are prime. The primes are the material out of which all
numbers are built up by multiplication: thus 666 = 2x3x3x37. Every
number which is not prime itself is divisible by at least one prime
(usually, of course, by several). We have to prove that there are
infinitely many primes, i.e. that the series (A) never comes to an end.
Let us suppose that it does, and that 2,3,5,..., P is the complete
series (so that P is the largest prime); and let us, on this
hypothesis, consider the number Q defined by the formula Q =
(2x3x5x..xP) + 1. It is plain that Q is not divisible by any of
2,3,5,...,P; for it leaves the remainder 1 when divided by any one of
these numbers. But, if not itself prime, it is divisible by some prime,
and therefore there is a prime (which may be Q itself) greater than any
of them. This contradicts our hypothesis, that there is no prime
greater than P; and therefore this hypothesis is false.
The proof is by reductio ad absurdum, and reductio ad absurdum,
which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons.
It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may
offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician
offers the game.
---end quoting A MATHEMATICIAN'S APOLOGY by G.H. Hardy pages 92-94 ---
Simple question there for you Andre Engels, is that a valid proof or
not?
Tell us, li'l math birdbrain.
Subject: Re: A wee dram o' Philosophy...
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 00:54:30 -0500
JMFBAH wrote:
>
><> Arrgghhh! I hate this mode of communication--it is so clumsy!
>
>Oh! I wasn't referring to the mechanics of typing; I simply meant that
>writing is such an imprecise language to communcate theories, conclusions,
>and speculations. If we were talking face-to-face, I could figure out if
>you understood my lingo and modify what I say "on the fly" so that
>communication is established. I've been mentally editing what I say in
>this newsgroup because not many would understand my lingo; the opposite is
>also true...I don't completely understand your lingo, probably because I'm
>missing a teensy bit of math.
I read you. We are missing the "dumb look" that is a signal to the
speaker that we have NO CARRIER. Still I find if you communicate with
the same person over time via text you gradually achieve a lingo
compatible style of communication. Maybe the adjustment period is
longer.
>After your reply, however, I have concluded that you may have a knowledge
>about computing so I can use this area's terminology as an allegory when
>trying to describe what my current theories are. As a side note, I'm not
>proposing that the brain stores/retrieves things as a binary operation.
I didn't mean to imply that either. But we often seem to react to
binary classifications of our environment -- which I think was your
original point.
>My current observations has me questioning my perceptions of light, time
>and this 3-d space I see.
>
>Part of my difficulties is that I have a "spatial handicap" [emoticon here
>with tongue in cheek]. I have problems thinking of waves and particles
Don't worry about it. It's just symptomatic of the absence of a
coherent set of concepts -- not *calculational rules* -- concepts.
At least that's my pernicious world view.
>_at the same time_. Another problem I have is thinking about light and,
>when I think I've figured it all out, I look at the stars and all my wisps
>of ideas disappear, confusing me entirely.
I am a city boy, and I spend almost all my time in the city, and so
on those rare situations when I find myself in the deep country on a
clear crisp night I find the vastness and grandeur of the clear
night sky, with apparently millions of stars, overwhelming. The
daytime sky shields us from the cosmos; the night restores our
connection with it.
An appropriate note following Carl Sagan's death.
Ed
Subject: Re: College Prof, Or SUPER VILLAIN!
From: abostick@netcom.com (Alan Bostick)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 06:27:10 GMT
bweiner@muon.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
>jaffo@onramp.net (Jaffo) writes:
>: 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!"
> If you ever go to grad school, you may realize that College Prof
> often _implies_ Super Villain.
This means, of course, that Graduate Student implies Thick-Witted Cannon
Fodder Henchman.
>: 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!
> Rest easy, young man! Modern SCIENCE has PROVEN that it is
> ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for Physics TAs who are that GEEKY to
> impress tender young coeds, no matter how hard they try!!!!
> Or, as we in the Phys Biz like to say, there's "zero cross-
> section." If you know what we mean. And we think you do.
Maybe with the coeds. But I remember a party thrown by one of my
professors at which attended a genuine Bevy Of Gorgeous Physics Groupies.
Just my luck, I was coming down with a bad cold that night, and couldn't
take advantage of what would otherwise have been good fortune.
Alan "Remember to keep taking that Vitamin C" Bostick
--
Alan Bostick | I'm not cheating; I'm *winning*!
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | Emma Michael Notkin
news:alt.grelb |
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
Subject: Re: Why is faster than light so wrong?
From: us029555@mindspring.com (Denny)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 06:43:57 GMT
In article ,
Anthony Potts wrote:
> On 20 Dec 1996, Denny wrote:
>
> >
> > Very similar things were said about the speed of sound. Yet it was passed.
>
> I am afraid that you are wrong about this. It was never said that there
> were physical laws which disallowed faster than light travel. It was only
> ever an engineering problem. Things have always been known to travel
> faster than sound (well, for a lot longer than we have been trying). For
> example, the speed of light was known hundreds of years ago, and was well
> over that of sound.
>
> >
> > All the speed of light is, is the speed at which light particles (photons)
> > travel. Nothing more, nothing less.
> >
>
> I am afraid that you are wrong again. It is a limiting speed in our
> physical laws. Peculiar things happen as you approach that speed, which
> stop you from accelerating beyond it. It is not just the speed of photons,
> and nothing more.
>
> For a start, we see things travelling faster than certain photons all the
> time in high energy physics, but never faster than C.
>
> We accelerate particles up to massive energies, yet still, they do not
> exceed c.
>
> This time, it's not a technological challenge, it's a law of physics.
Rather, the laws of physics as we (humans) KNOW them.
Check through a newspaper morgue sometime. You will find SCIENTISTS
saying that certain things were IMPOSSIBLE from the particular laws and
theorum that were in effect at that time...
"No human being can travel in excess of 50 mph."
"It is impossible to run a mile in under 4 minutes...the heart would explode."
"A V-8 engine will not work, physics will confirm this".
And, finally...
"It is theoretically impossible for a human to travel in excess of the
speed of which sound travels..." (Aristotle)
One last quote: "The more we know, the more we know we don't know".
In Unconditional Love,
--->Denny
For Everything From Handwriting Analysis to UFO's, Check Out...
http://www.awareness.com
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
Support Legalization of Consensual Intergenerational Relationships!
Join MIRSO (http://www.denny.org/mirso.html)
For Info Pack, Send $5 to: MIRSO, PO Box 56057, Hayward, CA 94545
Subject: Re: College Prof, Or SUPER VILLAIN!
From: elibalin@panix.com (Eli M. Balin)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 02:00:42 -0500
In article <32c5dcdc.5121284@news.onramp.net>, Jaffo wrote:
>
>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!"
I had an astronomy professor who might have. He had hair which was sort of
like the heads of the aliens from "Mars Attacks," and described
everything, especially stellar evolution, as "Jazzy."
His most insidious creation as an Evil Genius was the "Globuster Cluster,"
which looked like a harmless typo to the unaware rabble, but in truth, was
a DEADLY DOOMSDAY DEVICE capable of MASSIVE ACTS OF DESTRUCTION on an
INCONCEIVABLE SCALE!!! It was certain that it was only a MATTER OF TIME
before he trained the HORRIBLY DESTRUCTIVE GLOBUSTER BEAMS on BELGIUM, as
a MERE EXAMPLE of the TERRIFYING POWER he would wield if the world did not
meet HIS DEMANDS!!! It was, as he put it, "JAZZY!!!!!"
-Eli "The GLOBUSTER is JAZZY BEYOND DESCRIPTION!!!" Balin
--
elibalin@panix.com http://www.panix.com/~elibalin/
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: wf3h@enter.net
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 07:39:29 GMT
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 15:43:40 -0600, Judson McClendon
wrote:
>wf3h@enter.net wrote:
>>
>> >> well, then, how do you "prove' the bible is true?
>
>One cannot 'prove' that the Bible is true, in the sense that you mean.
>It is accepted by faith. Science has nothing to say about religion
well at least we're making some progress here...
Science certainly cannot 'prove' that God does not
>exist, nor, as so many mistakenly believe, can science 'prove' that did
>or did not happen
sigh...and just when i had some hopes for you...one of the basic rules
of logic is that YOU CANNOT DISPROVE A NEGATIVE. you can't disprove
there are no green blimps holding up traffic on mars...
. It is strange to me the blindness of so many
>evolutionists
you mean scientists. prove that we are blind. you made a statement now
prove it. why are creationist/religionists somehow blessed with this
superior insight that we dumb scientists missed? does your computer
work? invented by dumb scientists you know...
to the 'leap of illogic' which they make when they proceed
>from "science cannot prove nor disprove God" (true) to an a priori
>assumption that therefore there WAS NO Divine creation (unprovable).
wrong. science is silent on the proof of god. since it is silent there
is no evidence to support divine creation...again YOU CAN NOT DISPROVE
A NEGATIVE...
>You can't just eliminate Biblical Creation just because you can't prove
>it one way or another!
jesus, if this is the core of your argument you better take up basket
weaving. I CAN prove that biblical creationism is nothing BUT
religion...how? because ONLY BIBLICAL LITERALISTS believe it. thus
they are acting from a completely subjective motive to prove the bible
is true. think about this: if you go into court and no one can prove
you GUILTY then you are NOT guilty. there is no third "limbo" type of
guilt/not guilt world. similarly an idea either has evidence for it,
or it is disproven. if it has nothing either way, then its just a
guess...nothing more.
>
I also know that in the last 150 years there have been uncounted
billions of manhours spent trying to>understand the observed facts in
terms of evolution.
right...because we scientists learned that was the way to go.
At the same time
>there has been only a tiny, insignificant fraction of that time spent
>trying to understand those same facts in terms of Biblical Creation.
thats because it's religion. why would someone who is NOT a biblical
literalist waste his/her time on religion?
>The absolute MOST which can be done is show that the evidence could be
>interpreted to be consistent with either of the positions.
wrong. one is religion, the other science.
I have yet
>to see a piece of evidence (not interpretation of evidence, mind you,
>but actual evidence) which caused anything like the difficulties to the
>Creationist position which are presented by many pieces of evidence to
>the evolution position.
thats because, since creationists are arguing religion..they build the
argument so it cant be falsified...they will say ANYTHING to prove the
bible true. science takes a back seat to religion.
There is not one single piece of evidence, for
>instance, which presents to the Creationists such difficulties as
>explaining how such things as sexual reproduction or the human eye could
>even POSSIBLY evolve,
uh, how about the big bang....independent confirmation of an old earth
from geology, astronomy and biology...do you think we scientists make
this up? answer this question: why would we do this. i bet you
completely IGNORE THAT question!
This ranks right up
>there in the 'Big Lie' category:
so scientists are liars. ok big mouth, prove it. where are the notes
on the meeting where scientists got together and decided to lie...i
musta missed that one.
when you have absolutely no evidence,
>act as if you do anyway and repeat it often anough and people will
>believe you. It works, too. Read up on Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler.
>They both used evolutionary thought as part of the foundation for their
>'theories'.
ah, here we go...science = naziism....you guys are more desperate than
i thought. the nazis perverted science, JUST LIKE CREATIONISTS ARE
DOING... .to serve a subjective cause. and conservative xtians under
the guise of social darwinism found it useful too...the social
consequences of a scientific idea do not have any bearing on that
idea's truthfulness....an analogy; lets assume evolution is evil as
you say. saying it must be false cuz the nazis used it is like saying
physics cant be true or we'd be able to build very destructive
bombs....got news for you, sport....
evolution is a fact. creationism is religion. I know one more fact:
YOU WILL IGNORE the questions about:
1. why only biblical literalists are creationists
2. why scientists accept evolution.
that's a fact!
Subject: Re: Are there any phenomena that Quantum Theory fails to explain?
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 22:49:19 GMT
Jim Carr wrote:
|
| Fred McGalliard writes:
| >
| > .... I think the problem is that QM provides a
| >surprisingly useful mechanism, especially considering its simplicity.
| >But it does not provide sufficient understanding of why it should work
| >to lead us to an understanding of what exactly can be done with it.
|
| How is this different from the situation with classical mechanics?
bflanagn@sleepy.giant.net writes:
>
>BJ: You are no doubt familiar with Feymnan's remark to the effect that
>"... no one understands QM"?
Sure, but that is not the same as saying you don't know what to
do with it. Anyway, I was asking about the "why" question, which
is not any different from the same question for classical mechanics.
Why should it be possible to describe the world with differential
equations obtained from a Lagrangian? Why should it be explicable
in the first place? It does not have to be, and many people think
all sorts of things can happen without a physical explanation.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: Is moving bicycle more easy to balance than static biycle?
From: gtebby@aol.com
Date: 21 Dec 1996 09:02:35 GMT
In article <59bu10$db0@netnews.upenn.edu>, sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu
(Kevin Sterner) writes:
>If the bicycle isn't moving, the wheels aren't turning, so it falls
>over more easily.
>
>
True, but not the main mechanism, otherwise it would be easy to balance a
bicycle going fast on ice. When the bicycle is moving, you can correct an
imbalance (say to the left), but steering to the left. The centrifugal
force then pushes you right to correct the problem. The slower you go, the
tighter the turn you need to make up the force, so the more the handlebars
move, and the more difficult it is to balance.
Graham
Subject: Re: Lightspeed constant... (why isn't this on a more relevant newsgroup)
From: ,@,., (R Fleming)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 07:35:39 GMT
pdelong@superlink.net wrote:
[...]
> model, where any given material is made-up of a collection of molecules,
> the light entering one side of a material gets absorbed and re-emitted
> many times successively by many of the molecules in-between before
If this is what happens, a) why isn't the light scattered at every
absorption/emission, and b) why is polarization preserved (or slowly
rotated, in some cases). I think you will find that the em waves travel
slower in matter because the matter alters the electrical properties of
space. In fact, the refractive index of any material (ratio of lightspeed
in vacuo to speed in that material) is exactly equal to 1/sqrt(relative
permeability x relative permittivity). Ignoring dispersion and such, for
the moment.
[...]
> being a constant, meaning the speed of light in a vacuum. And in light
> of the above explanation (sorry, no pun intended) that's the *only*
> speed it ever travels at. [...]
No, this isn't correct. A very simple example of light travelling, in
vacuo, at a speed less than c, is in a microwve waveguide. The product of
group velocity and phase velocity always equals c^2, but group velocity
(the speed the energy, photons, and all the other real stuff is doing) is
always less than c. In the limit of the wavelength approaching the
critical dimension of the waveguide, the group velocity can drop to near
zero (in principle; since c is so darn fast, to get v_g down to a "normal"
speed, wavelength would need to match critical dimension very closely
indeed).
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: RBSmith
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 06:45:22 -0500
TL ADAMS wrote:
>
> Calling some of that stuff at Hanford "stored" is being very generous,
> dumped
> into leaking pits is a little more accurate. But, you are right, they
> have
> plenty of material in storage that could be used.
Granted, there are problems with the storage tanks, but monitored steel tanks are
more than "leaking pits"
> AEC begat NRC begat Department of Energy, nuclear sounded better than
> atomic, energy
> sounds even better. Same people, different hats, better press.
>
> Alas, one of the problems of democracy is public opinion.
Just for the record:
the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) was name changed to ERDA (Energy Research and
Develop Administration), which was elevated by Jimmy Carter to Department status
(Department of Energy - DOE)
The following is quoted from the NRC (Nuclear Reglatory Commission) Homepage
(www.nrc.gov)
We were established by Congress as an independent agency in January 1975 through the
passage of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 . The NRC was given a mandate to
take over from the former Atomic Energy Commission responsibility for regulating
various commercial, industrial, academic, and medical uses of nuclear energy.
RBSmith rbsmith@home.ifx.net
I assume that ERDA was a part of the ERA 1974.
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: RBSmith
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 07:01:32 -0500
Jim Carr wrote:
> I read the numbers in an article presenting the data in the context
> of other numbers (like the amount of weapons grade Pu stored there
> and the scope of the cleanup problem at the really badly managed
> sites) which implied that there should have been none up there.
> The presence of several critical masses of Pu in the air ducts of
> one building where people worked regularly ... makes you think it
> was run by the folks who ignored poison gas alarms in Iraq.
I do not know the article you are refering to, but you must have either
misinterpreted their statements, or the article was dealing cavalierly with the
facts. If there had been "several critical masses of Pu" in the ductwork, there
would have been considerably more press attention than a footnote in some obscure
article. (perhaps a sum total weight, spread over hundreds/thousands of square
feet of duct surface, that equaled a/several critical mass - IF it were refined,
machined into the proper shape, and moderated??)
> Would not surprise me. The radiation level in the main facility
> is mind boggling. The concrete was destroyed by it.
More likely it was the acid fumes from the process that attacked the concrete,
not specifically the radiation. Concrete works well with radiation (in many
instances it is the medium of choice for shielding) but is not worth a flip in
an acid environment.
RBSmith rbsmith@home.ifx.net
Subject: Re: Frequency-Space paradox?
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:15:12 -0500
ca314159 wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Light frequency is due to the frequency of the oscillator that
generates the light (i.e., the rate of shaking of the charges).
This is from a classical description of light, starting with
Maxwell's equations. Optical frequencies are very, very fast.
The corresponding wavelengths are much easier to measure. But
the product of frequency and wavelength gives the speed (in that
medium), so knowing one you can infer the other.
> 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 ?
>
>
The frequency of a photon is "just" another number for its energy;
by the Planck relation, E=h*f. The rate at which the photons are
generated is unrelated to their natural frequency.
The double slit experiment usually deals with the total pattern
after exposure. There is no "periodic sampling rate", and so
aliasing doesn't apply. All you get is the interference between the
photons.
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: Big light ball filmed at Creighton
From: kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
Date: 21 Dec 1996 15:54:45 GMT
Brian Zeiler (bdzeiler@primenet.com) wrote:
: Does anybody have more info on that light ball filmed by a Creighton
: grad student last week, as reported by CNN? It reportedly was moving
: in the upper atmosphere at 1% of the speed of light and was somehow
: presumed to have been "massless". It was filmed by a network of
: cameras set up to detect sprites and jets.
: I'd be interested in any more info on this phenomenon. Also, how did
: they determine that it was "massless"??
:
If you heard the CNN report yourself, you might try going to a library
to seek newspapers from the area in question. You might also direct
inquiries toward CNN to the effect, "Hey guys, you sure about this?"
If you didn't hear the report yourself, you might instead ask CNN
whether there WAS suchy a report.
OK, now to the particulars: 1% the speed of light, going through the
upper atmosphere. How could that be known? And if true, how long would
an object going so fast remain anywhere near the earth? Massless?
Indeed, how could that be determined optically? And let's see, sprites
and jets are associated with thunderstorms. Geography isn't my best
subject, so I'll ask a really stupid question. Is Creighton experiencing
thunderstorms at this time of year? 'Cause if they're not, I doubt that
camera network would be ready to roll at a moments' notice...
