Newsgroup sci.physics 213498

Directory

Ken Fischer  wrote:
>         Einstein's paper shows that the radiation pressure
> on a perfect reflector is twice what it is on a perfect
> absorber.
>         The equation for the momentum of light is a little
> confusing, at least to me.    The energy from the Sun coming
> through the atmosphere on Earth starts out at about 1400
> watts per square meter and varies at the Earth's surface,
> but about 1000 watts per square meter is used below 50 degrees
> North Latitude, at least, where you are it must vary a lot
> during the year. :-)
Yeah, today was the darkest day of the year, only 6 hours between
sunrise and sunset here in Stockholm...
Anyway, I think I see what you mean now. Assuming 1000 watts per
square meter, using E/c for the momentum lets me calculate the
radiation pressure as the momentum per second and square meter:
1000 watts/ c = 3.33 micro-newtons (per square meter). That's the
value for a perfect absorber, unless I missed something.
All of the lights energy will be transferred to the absorbing object
as kinetic energy K and thermal energy Q. As I understand it light
does not have any "intrinsic" thermal energy, at least not light
that is directed and coherent. The thermal energy Q = E - K.
K in the classical limit equals Mv^2/2, where M is the mass of the
absorber. Radiation pressure (momentum) accelerates M to speed v,
where Mv = E/c (inelastic collision with M >> E/c^2), from which we
can deduce v = E/Mc and K = E^2/(2Mc^2).
Let's say the absorbing object has a mass of 1 gram per square meter:
The kinetic energy imparted by 1000 joules of light energy will be
about 5.6 nanojoules, and all the rest becomes thermal energy.
For a perfect reflector I get approximately K = 2E^2/(Mc^2), or in
this example 22 nanojoules. The reflected light will be redshifted
by a factor 1.000000000022 to account for the transferred energy...
>         A light source can only have the radiation 
> pressure of a perfect absorber, half that of a perfect
> reflector.
For a photon rocket I presume that light would be radiated both
backward and forward. The forward-directed light would have to be
reflected back by an extremely good mirror, so the net effect will
be that all the photonic momentum is used to accelerate the rocket.
I don't know if light radiated sideways will be a problem, other
than the tension in the mirror from the sideways radiation pressure.
-- 
Bjorn Danielsson  
http://www.algonet.se/~bonus

On 12 Dec 1996, Marco Nelissen wrote:
> Anthonie Muller (awjm@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> : It concerns Guenther Nimtz, at the U of Cologne. He demonstrated
> : on a scope how a microwave signal tunnelled through a barrier at a
> : speed faster than light. He used a signal that contained music from
> : Mozart.
> 
> : Note that the barrier constitutes a rest frame. An interesting
> : experiment would be to reverse the outgoing signal using a mirror, and
> : let it return through a second, moving barrier: if the signal tunnelled
> : through this second barrier as well, it could return before it had
> : departed!
> 
> How's that? Although the signal appeared to travel faster than light, I
> don't see how bouncing it back would make it return before it departed.
> Both legs of the journey require a small but larger-than-zero time.
> 
> Marco
> 
> 
Hi Marco
The explanation is most easily done graphically.
Let the photon movement within a resting barrier B1 be instantaneous.
Then it follows from special relativity that a second barrier B2 moving
with a speed v in the same direction as the photons that entered the first
absorber will be at speed zero in the frame F' moving with speed v with
respect to the rest frame F. An object with speed zero in F' lies however
along the x' axis in F'. Light entering B2 in F' at a large distance of O
and O' then can leave B2 near O/O' before it has entered absorber B1.
The graph concerns an  standard x vs (ct) plot:
(I hope this comes over well):
	|   ct   light cone       entering second moving barrier  
	|       /                                  @ 
	|      /                               <    \
	|     /                             <        \ first mirror
	|    /                           <           /
	|   /                         <             /  light cone
	|  @------------->-------------------------@
	| / entering first        <            leaving first barrier
	|/   barrier           <
     O,O'   -----------------------------	
  leaving O                <  
                        <
return  (!!)	     <
         \        <
          \     <
           \  <
            @ leaving second barrier
I could easily give a numerical example.
Obviously much more can be said about this, but I do not know
how far your knowledge of special relativity goes.
The gist is that moving barriers that permit signal transduction 
faster than light permit contact with the past of the rest frame. 
Cheers,
Ton Muller

This whole thread boils down to one thing:  Science is science and
religion is religion.  Scientists work from evidence and religious
adherents work from scripture.  
Scientists don't want to silence religious literalists in this matter but
the literalists would silence scientists if they could...
If you don't like comments like this, why post in sci.physics?
Maria

In article <32BB2173.266A@sundial.net>, Ryals   wrote:
>Cliff Pratt wrote:
> 
>> No, you misunderstand the nature of the constant "c", the speed of light.
>
>
>No, I do not "misunderstand the nature of the constant "c", the speed of
>light."  You are telling me that it is adjustable, therfore, relatively,
>(but not absolutely), correct.
No, READ what I said. I said our MEASUREMENTS of the constant can change
but the constant itself DOES NOT. The reason for this is that measuremants
cannot be made with total accuracy.
You are confusing measurement with value. An example. Achilles races a 
turtle, giving it a hundred yards start. He runs ten times as fast as the
turtle. When Achilles reaches the point where the turtle was the turtle
has moved on ten yards. Achilles covers that ten yards and the turtle
has moved on yard... and so on. 
Now when Achilles catches up to the turtle (which he does, but thats 
another paradox), it is at a distance of 100/9 yards past the 100 yard
line.
Now we can >calculate< the distance exactly 11.1111.... yards, but we
can never measure it exactly. That doesn't mean that the distance is
"relative correct". 
>
>No, the theory "assumes" that the speed of light is universally constant
>and independent of the observer.  If you continually change the value of
>the constant, then you can't ever prove the "assumption" to be
>absolutely, universally, correct?
>
You cannot prove that ANY theory is correct. You can only disprove
theories.
>That is to say that if you can't measure the speed of light in a perfect
>vacuum, then you can just as correctly "assume" that it is infinite there,
>and quite logically too since there isn't any other matter/etc
Unfortunately for this hypothesis, if you assume that the speed of light
in a perfect vacuum is infinite, that conflicts with a number of observations.
It is possible to calculate the effect that matter will have on the speed of 
light, and this is consistent with a constant speed of light, close to
the value actually measured.
>
>What reference frame will you measure it against in a perfect vacuum,
>velocity being relative to...?
>
You are mixing up your frames. You measure the speed of light in your frame.
Someone else moving relatively to you measures the same speed, (within the
limits of observational accuracy.
>A "moving" object in a perfect vacuum is either, traveling at infinite
>speed, or it isn't moving.
>
Huh? Take a small area around an electron. If there is no matter in this
small area, then it is a perfect vacuum. If object in a perfect vacuum can
only move at an infinite speed or be at rest, then how come all those 
particles out there are moving at less than infinite speed?

**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
**                                                                  **
**                                                                  **
**    TRACS: Training and Research on Advanced Computing Systems    **
**                                                                  **
**                                                                  **
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre is coordinating an EC-funded
project to bring European researchers for short visits to associated
departments in Edinburgh to collaborate on projects involving High
Performance Computing (HPC). The TRACS programme is funded by the
Comission of the European Communities under the Training and Mobility of
Researchers Programme.
TRACS provides:
  * opportunities to visit and work in Edinburgh 
  * access to a wide range of HPC systems, including 
        + Cray T3D (512 alphas)
	+ Cray J90 (10 processors)
        + Sun/SGI Workstation cluster
  * training, support and consultancy on parallel computing
  * accommodation, travel and subsistence expenses
TRACS is open to both academic and industrial researchers who are
nationals of, and working in, an EC member state or an Associated State
(Norway, Iceland and Liechenstein).  Applications will be reviewed by a
selection panel and will be approved on the basis of scientific merit. 
For more information on EPCC and the TRACS programme, see
http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk.  Application forms and further information are
available both in electronic (dvi/ps) and paper formats and can be
obtained from:
                    TRACS Administrative Secretary
                    EPCC
                    University of Edinburgh
                    JCMB, The King's Buildings
                    Edinburgh      EH9 3JZ
                    United Kingdom
                    Tel: +44 131 650 5986
                    Fax: +44 131 650 6555
                    Email: TRACSadmin@ed.ac.uk
The closing date for applications to be considered at the February selection 
meeting is 29 January 1997. 
-- 
         Dr Jean-Christophe DESPLAT   -   Applications Scientist (TRACS)
Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre   -   the University of Edinburgh
JCMB King's Buildings - Mayfield Rd   -   Edinburgh EH9 3JZ - SCOTLAND
         Phone: +44 (0)131 650 6716   -   Fax: +44 (0)131 650 6555
      E-mail: desplat@epcc.ed.ac.uk   -   http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/~desplat

On 20 Dec 1996 03:48:30 -0500, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
This guy watches waaaaaay too much TV.

odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>    Please bear with me in this article because I am not a
>mathematician. Could Einstien's thought experiments be reevaluated in
>light of a theory which suggests that light is bent by velocity? What I
>mean is this: It seems that the basic equation for both SR and GR is:
>x^2+y^2+z^2=ct^2. Could another parameter be substituted for the ct^2
>term? For example, if you substitute a length contraction parameter for
>the ct^2 time dilation parameter, would the equation still be
>consistent with observations?
>Edward Meisner
I think you might consider (sawf) looking into:
X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = (E/h)^2  t^2
in the simple case.
Jim
---
Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules

jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>melanied@erols.com wrote:
>} 
>} Actually, it's usually harder. You end up with tons of responsibility, 
>} but very little authority to carry it out. 
>singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
>>
>>So even the structure of the system is seeped in incompetence.  
> What else would you expect of a system created by the elected 
> representatives of the American people? 

I dont suppose that you have some evidence that the American
government is any more incompetent than any other government?  I
worked in the US gov't and have dealt with other gov'ts.  We seem to
actually be more efficient from what I've seen.
This is, unfortunately, not good news.  We are not efficient.  Merely
less inefficient.
Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, 
wisdom is not truth, truth is not beauty, beauty is not love

Hello:
I am trying to locate a reference for a quote by Werner Heisenberg
that goes something like "One should not work on semiconductors...
they are a messy business...who knows if they even exist."  The
reason for my interest is that I  am currently a doctoral student at
the Georgia Institute of Technology working on the ultrafast optical
properties of III-V semiconductors and finding them a "messy business."
If you have a reference for this quote or know the exact quote, please
post it or e-mail me directly.
Thanks,
Paul Juodawlkis
gt5111b@prism.gatech.edu
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

There is some analogy for letter "psi", Hebrew seven-candles and some
scheme for electrical field force lines that I try to show here:
                           A
              ============================================
              .      .      .      I      .      .      .
                              .    I    .
                      .          . I .          .
                .       .          I          .        .
                           .       I       .
                                 . I .
                    .              I               .
                        .          I          .
                                 . I .
                                   I
                                   I
                                   I
                                   I
                           B       I
In such sort system there is attraction (or repulsion) in one side only
and all system must be moving in unidirectional manner. For case of
attraction direction is B, for case of repulsion, the direction is A side.
The same principle but for mechanics was demonstrated by Mr. Boris Shukalov,
68 years old inventor from Ivanovo, Russia. After 30 years of own research
he completed fine theory and 20 devices are demonstrated real reactionless
motion (i.e. gravitation) that is created by means of asymmetrical mechanics.
I try to find any person or company interested in such sort research. There
is a plan to produce several hundreds simple devices for colleges. Devices
must be moving on the table in horizontal direction or demonstrate the change
of its weight. The question is: Who is interested to spend money for patent
pre-history check before we'll make a patent application together with him?
Who is interested to make a test of a models we have and to make a project
for serial production of it? Who have some business-plan for sale of it?
--- 
 Alexander V. Frolov, P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024 Russia
 Tel:7-812-2747877                          

On 21 Dec 1996 15:54:45 GMT, kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
wrote:
>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...
All I know is that I pulled the article off the CNN page myself, and
there was some discussion about it in the UFO groups.  Here is the
article I got from CNN on the subject:
_______________________
                     It's a bird, it's a
                     plane, it's a
                     mystery ball!
                     December 17, 1996
                     Web posted at: 2:30 a.m. EST
                     SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A
                     mysterious glowing ball of light traveling
                     1/100th the speed of light has been
                     spotted and videotaped in the earth's
                     upper atmosphere, but what it is has
                     scientists puzzled. 
                     Brief footage of the image, which appeared for
about 3/100th of a second at an estimated height of 80 kilometers, was
presented  publicly for the first time Monday at the fall meeting
of the American Geophysical Union. 
                     In a six-frame sequence, the object can clearly
be seen
crossing
                     upwards and left across the field of view, while
retaining its shape
                     and intense glow. 
                     "It's the first and only event of this kind
photographed to my
                     knowledge," said Dr. Dean A. Morss, assistant
professor of
                     Atmospheric Sciences at Creighton University in
Nebraska. Morss
                     is heading a research project designed to
videotape
luminous
                     electrical phenomena, called sprites, in the
upper
atmosphere. 
                     'Clearly moving'
                     Scientists were observing a region of
thunderstorm
activity in
                     western Kansas from a ground observation point in
Nebraska
                     when the mystery ball appeared. Navy Lt. Paul
McCrone, a
                     graduate student at Creighton, videotaped the
image on
August 22,
                     using equipment on loan to the university from
Los Alamos
                     National Laboratory. 
                     "It's clearly something that does not have any
mass.
The angular
                     speed is too fast to be anything at orbital
velocity,"
said Morris B.
                     Pongratz, a scientist with Los Alamos National
Laboratory who
                     has examined the tape. "This guy is clearly
moving." 
                     Morss and his colleagues maintain the ball's
tremendous
speed and
                     apparent lack of mass eliminate many commonly
proffered
                     explanations for unknown objects sighted in the
atmosphere. 
                     "People are seeing new forms, new shapes, all
sorts of new
                     phenomena," Morss said. "It's not traditional
meteorology." 
                     Copyright 1996   The Associated Press. All rights
reserved.
                     This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or
                     redistributed.
                          Watch these shows on CNN for more sci-tech
stories:
                         CNN Computer Connection | Future Watch |
Science &
                                       Technology Week 
_______________________________________________________________                        
                        G ########### P
                     R ####         #### A 
                   E ###    ########   ### C 
                  E ##    ################# K 
                  N ##    ####           ## E 
                   B ###   #########   ### R 
                     A ####         #### S
                        Y ########### ! 
_______________________________________________________________

lrmead@ocean.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead) writes:
>
>Um, yes. Relative to the *ground* the train only slowed a tad (conservation
>of momentum) - its velocity was never zero, nor was the flies.
 Well, the fly's velocity was zero at one point, just about the time
 it ceased being a fly. 
-- 
 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. 

On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Robert Mattingly wrote:
>   rbarnett@alcor.usc.edu (rbarnett)
> wrote:
> 
> >I was doing some research into ball lightning and came across an
> >interesting experiment.  > >>
> > Cavity-formed plasmodes
> >can be made by putting a 2-inch burning candle in a home kitchen microwave
> >oven. 
> >
> >I am wondering if anyone has tried this for themselves. ...
> >ball lightning float around within the inside of the oven?  If so, does
> >anyone have an explanation to why this occurs? 
> >
> >Thanks much, please respond via e-mail to my address. 
> >
> >rbarnett@usc.edu
> >
> >P.S.> If you destroy your kitchen microwave oven by testing out this
> >experiment; I am not responsible for any damages.
> 
> I have no explanation, but it does indeed work.
My explanation: a microwave heats anything that is a good conductor. A
flame can also be a good conductor (this is for instance applied in
analytical chemistry in detectors for gas chromatography: in this
literature one might find additional data). So a flame will absorb energy
from the microwaves as well, which may stabilize the flame even when it is
not connected to the candle any more. One could check this by experiment. 
I believe that microwave heating has also been proposed for nuclear fusion
experiments. It would obviously be of interest to 'catch' the flame, but I
have no idea what kind of geometrical set up would permit this. One could
'push' the flame with pressured air. 
Has anyone else a suggestion?
(In a previous message I already stated that this may be a dangerous
experiment when the microwave interior contains polymers like my microwave
does).
Ton Muller

Alan Atwood wrote:
}  
}  Just a quick question on the sizes, (diameter ), of subatomic
}  particles. Or at what magnification do we leave the atomic and enter
}  the subatomic world?
Doug Craigen  writes:
>
>Atomic sizes are in the ballpark of 10^(-8) cm.  Nuclear sizes are in the 
>ballpark of 10^(-12) cm with individual protons or neutrons being 
>approximately 2*10^(-13) cm in diameter.
 I think the nuclear numbers are easier to remember if you use standard 
 SI units, where sizes are all measured in fm (femtometers = 10^{-15} m). 
 Nuclear radii are all a few fm given by roughly (1.2 fm)*A^{1/3} where 
 A is the atomic number.  Neutron and proton radii are about 0.8 fm, so 
 remembering ~ 1 fm is a good reference point. 
 I learned atoms as Angstroms, so I find 0.1 nm much harder to remember. 
-- 
 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. 

In article ,
David Kastrup   wrote:
Abian answers:
  To check that, say,  12/4 = 3  is true, it must  pass THE ACID TEST,
i.e.,
                      whether or not    4 x 3  = 12
  So,  6/3 = 2 because it passes the acid test  3 X 2 = 6
   7/3  = 2   is false  because it fails to pass the acid test   3 x 2  =/= 7
NOW,
      1/0   is meaningless since  for no  real number  1/0 = r could possibly
pass the acid test for any real number  r.  Indeed  0 x r = 0  and is never 
equal to  1.   So  1/ 0  CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A REAL NUMBER.
And, please, please, please,please   INFINITY  is NOT a real number.  A real 
number must be expressible by  a decimal representation.
In connection with division by 0 the only possibility is    0/0  because
it passes the acid test.   Thus,  0/0 =  4  since  0 x 4 = 0  but so are
true any of the equalities  0/0 = -4,  0/0 = 6.76   0/0 = 8.93.  Thus,
0/0  is not uniquely determined and for that reason  0/0 is also should
be forbidden to use.  UNLESS there is a decree  to define  0/0, say
1 or say  0  (or for that matter even  0/0 = 10.  However, the natural
two candidates are  1  or  0 because   a/a = 1  for every  nonzero  a
and  0/a =  0  also for every nonzero  a).
And, please, please , please  DO NOT talk about where the limit of f(x)/g(x)
involves considerations involving  0/0.  In the above we are talking
strictly  concerning  0/0 where  no functions or limiting processes are
involved.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
       ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS  AND EPIDEMICS
       ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT  
                     TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)

Please note: copy & followups to s.p.relativity
In article: <32BAD08B.1012@mad.scientist.com>
  wo-fat  writes:
> 
> Brandon Berg wrote:
> > 
> >     I was wondering...What would happen if you were traveling near the
> > speed of light, ...
as measured by whom ? There is an implied observer here.
> >             ... 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?
I assume this means the simple addition exceeds c.
> >     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, ...
Most bullets leave the gun at around the speed of sound. This would be the 
speed the shooter would measure.  There is no reason why this would change 
just because someone (the implied observer) is watching you and he happens 
to be travelling away from you at nearly c.
> >                         ... 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.
[to Brandon]
Above you said _near_ the speed of light which is fine but here you say you 
asked the teacher about travelling _at_ the speed of light. He probably 
changed the numbers he added to show you that you can never reach c.
Incidentally, twice you mentioned "absolute speed" which has no accepted 
meaning. You need to define the observer to define speed.
> >                     Thanks,
> >                     Brandon Berg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ...well "spin doctors", the follow ups to Brandon Bergs post seem to be 
> evading the issue with alot of double-talk...
[to wo-fat]
Ok, no double talk but clear definitions of the speeds involved.
>                                           ...to put his post in its 
> fundamental terms he is basically asking, What speed does the bullet 
> experience?...
That's easy! The bullet measures the speed of the bullet as zero. It never 
gets away from itself.   :-)
>         ...since the gun and shooter are traveling at the speed of 
> light, what happens to the bullet...does it just sit at the end of the 
> barrel waiting for shooter and gun to slow down below the speed of 
> light?...rather than violate Relativity does it disentagrate rather than 
> travel faster than the speed of light???............
Brandon said "near the speed of light", not "at the speed of light".
Uncle Al already answered with the relevant formula:
In article: <59cu39$kp0@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
  Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  writes:
> 
> V1+V2 = (V1+V2)/[1 + (V1V2/C^2)]  
Let's use a very high speed gun firing the bullet at 0.9c and let the 
shooter be travelling at 0.99c as measured by the observer.
Clear definitions:
V1 is the speed of the shooter as measured by Brandon's implied observer.
V2 is the speed of the bullet leaving the gun as measured by the shooter.
The speed of the bullet as measured by the observer is then:
(0.99 + 0.9) / (1 + 0.99*0.9) = 1.89 / 1.891 = 0.99947118c
HTH
-- 
George Dishman
Give me a small laser and I'll move the sun.

Does anyone have any information on any treatment of this problem.  I've
only heard of rumor and speculation.  Please respond with any articles
or books discussing theory or experimental conclusion.

In <5982lv$hqm@ux2.accesscom.net> jim.goodman@accesscom.net (Jim
Goodman) writes: 
>
>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>
>>    Please bear with me in this article because I am not a
>>mathematician. Could Einstien's thought experiments be reevaluated in
>>light of a theory which suggests that light is bent by velocity? What
I
>>mean is this: It seems that the basic equation for both SR and GR is:
>>x^2+y^2+z^2=ct^2. Could another parameter be substituted for the ct^2
>>term? For example, if you substitute a length contraction parameter
for
>>the ct^2 time dilation parameter, would the equation still be
>>consistent with observations?
>
>>Edward Meisner
>
>I think you might consider (sawf) looking into:
>
>X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = (E/h)^2  t^2
>
>in the simple case.
>
>Jim
>
>
>---
>Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
>sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules
>
>
    Doesn't (E/h)^2 equal frequency squared? E=hf, f=E/h. However you
have given me another way of looking at this problem that might work
much better than the ideas I put forth in subsequent posts. Thank you
enormously. For example, to get c you could use the formula:
                            E=hf
                            E= (h*wavelength)/c
                            c= h/(E*wavelength)
    Then, if length contracts, E increases, keeping c constant and at
the same time, allowing us to save invariant time! This approach,
combined with relativistic charge increase to account fot the increased
energy of the photon, is in my opinion the complete solution to the
"problem of time." Time is absolute. Length contracts and all is well.
Thank you again. Have a wonderful Christmas.
Best Regards,
Edward Meisner
Best Regards,
Edward Meisner

In <59hqcc$8h9@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes: 
>
>In <5982lv$hqm@ux2.accesscom.net> jim.goodman@accesscom.net (Jim
>Goodman) writes: 
>>
>>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>>
>>>    Please bear with me in this article because I am not a
>>>mathematician. Could Einstien's thought experiments be reevaluated
in
>>>light of a theory which suggests that light is bent by velocity?
What
>I
>>>mean is this: It seems that the basic equation for both SR and GR
is:
>>>x^2+y^2+z^2=ct^2. Could another parameter be substituted for the
ct^2
>>>term? For example, if you substitute a length contraction parameter
>for
>>>the ct^2 time dilation parameter, would the equation still be
>>>consistent with observations?
>>
>>>Edward Meisner
>>
>>I think you might consider (sawf) looking into:
>>
>>X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = (E/h)^2  t^2
>>
>>in the simple case.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>---
>>Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
>>sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules
>>
>>
>    Doesn't (E/h)^2 equal frequency squared? E=hf, f=E/h. However you
>have given me another way of looking at this problem that might work
>much better than the ideas I put forth in subsequent posts. Thank you
>enormously. For example, to get c you could use the formula:
>
>                            E=hf
>                            E= (h*wavelength)/c
>                            c= h/(E*wavelength)
>
>    Then, if length contracts, E increases, keeping c constant and at
>the same time, allowing us to save invariant time! This approach,
>combined with relativistic charge increase to account fot the
increased
>energy of the photon, is in my opinion the complete solution to the
>"problem of time." Time is absolute. Length contracts and all is well.
>Thank you again. Have a wonderful Christmas.
>
>Best Regards,
>Edward Meisner
>
>   The problem now is that we must find another expression for ct^2,
since time is now absolute. Can you tell, how we can get a length
contraction formula that we could substitute for ct^2. I guess we could
decrease the distance in c, but that would be cheating since c must be
constant. It would nevertheless work, but obscures the true reason and
mechanism for length contraction.
Best Regards,
Edward Meisner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                    
>
>Best Regards,
>Edward Meisner

In article <32AF91B1.629E@well.com> "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."  writes:
>From: "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D." 
>Subject: Re: Brinkley's Precognitions?
>Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:01:37 -0800
 I was
>really impressed by the "Wormwood" story. Doesn't that term also appear
>in C.S. Lewis's "Screw Tape Letters"?
It occurs in Revelation, where a "star called Wormwood" is supposed to fall to 
Earth and cause all kinds of problems.  The name Chernobyl apparently refers 
to a species of Artemisia (the wormwood genus), of which quite a bit was made 
in the aftermath of the accident there.  Another possible translation of 
Chernobyl, however, is "Black Place," while the local name for wormwood in the 
Chernobyl region is "polyn."  It's all a bit tangled, really, like most 
so-called prophecies.
David

In article <59f55f$ioe@news.fsu.edu>, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu says...
>
> 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?  
Given the particle notion of physics, I find no reason.  Given that particles 
behave like waves at times, I find this leads to a universe with properties 
that appear to be similar to those of fluid dynamic behaviors, which is what 
Maxwell used in his derivations.  So, from the notion of a fluid dynamic 
universe with an intensely packed quantum vacuum, it seems an obvious and 
necessary thing that this be so.  
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. 
Explicable implies our minds can perceive it and explain it.  Understandable 
implies that *some* mind could perceive it.  I think it is absurd to think 
things exist without reason or that they manifest without cause.  I find it 
easy to accept and think that our instruments do not measure all that is 
taking place.  In fact, I find it absurd to think that they could there are 
not a whole host of things that are taking place that we do not measure at 
the scale of the quantum vacuum.
Our accelerators do not probe the quantum vacuum at scales beneath the sub 
atomic any better than Browns microscope probed the motions of water 
molecules disturbing his dust particles.  Why should we think there is 
nothing going on at the Planck scale that is invisible to our instruments 
which are themselves made of atoms larger than that scale?
Ross Tessien

Im Artikel <19961220150300.KAA06378@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com
(JMFBAH) schreibt:
[Ed asked]
>I have never figured out why I miss the off-by-one bugs.  I know they are
>there...I just don't see them.  My solution is a very sloppy one; I do a
>SOSGE* instead of SOSE and an AOSLE instead of an AOSL.  Egad..I get this
>feeling that I've done it again.
>
>*SOSGE-machine language for Subtract One from accumulator and Skip if
>Greater than or Equal to 0
When I write loops I never use '>=' or '<="  -  because I always get that
off-by-one bug then :-). So for me a loop from 1 to 10 starts at x set to
0, loop while x < 10, add 1 ... endloop. Works miracles. I hate those
double conditions like you named them. I think they are inhuman: we don't
think like that.
BTW: I always thought that binary thinking is one of the great mishaps to
the world. What is black? The best black we can get is 3 Kelvin. What is
white? 6000 Kelvin of sunlight? 20000 Kelvin of the blue sky? And then
there is also the problem of negations not being the oppposite (but being
taken as like: You're not my friend? Ha, you're my enemy!). The world
comes in shades and in colours and continua. The endpoints are seldomly
reached. It sure helps to say, wow, this is hot, or, huh, it's cold today
- but only b/c we all know that there's a whole lot of unsaid code coming
with it.
I do want to throw in an old idea of mine: The things we think to be
binaries are often continua, and most of them have a precise starting
point, *but the opposite end is open. Take your black and white: black is
clear: 0 Kelvin, but white is open to infinity. Take speed, take pressure,
.... We are installing opposing points merely rendered to our human
senses. Thus we have "underpressure" and "to suck in" and other silly
misleading expressions like that.
BBTTWW: The language example is from Japan, and it's the L (right next to
K, just you're one-off-bug :-)))
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

What about GRAVITY travelling faster than the speed of light?
Is gravity just 'graviton' particles travelling AT the speed of light or
is it the instantaneous bending of space time.  If it is the latter then
could not information be passed by varying gravity somehow ?
Nick.

In article <59dmvc$j52@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, ale2@psu.edu (ale2) wrote:
>In article <32b9e019.53394783@aklobs.org.nz>
>rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) writes:
>
>
>> 
>> 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".
>> 
>
>Start your own  moderated news group, i'll help. Then you and i would
>have POWER, and a lot more work to do!
Power is not the point.  Honesty and integrity are the points.  And Baez
and Bunn each demonstrate they lack both.  We know that moderating a
newsgroup is work.  And the point of moderating a newsgroup should be
related to keeping things civil by not allowing flames and trying to keep
posts somewhat on topic.  But a newsgroup is not supposed to be a private
mailing list, it is supposed to be a forum dedicated to furthering the
interests of the topic/name of the newsgroup itself.  Baez uses it as a
personal platform to pontificate about his particular mathematical
interests which sometimes only peripherally falls in the realm of
physics.  Bunn merely lacks the wit to do anything other than follow
Baez's lead.  Both these guys are sharp mathematicians but both are both
grieviously lacking the philosophical depth to analyze what might or might
not be good ideas in physics.   They are out of their league.  I should
think these jackasses ought to form a group called
alt.sci.baez.pontificate.suck-up and get the hell out of
sci.physics.research.
-- 
C. Cagle
SingTech

Charles Cagle wrote:
> 
> Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> 
> > The number one most important step is to formulate your hypothesis in
> >a falsifiable form.  You must be able to make some prediction that 
> >can, at least in principle (even if engineering difficulties currently 
> >prohibit it) show your hypothesis is false by not giving you the
> >results you expect.  This is the fundamental difference between
> >science and disciplines like theology.
> 
> Then there is an open endorsement to the concept that there is no such
> thing as 'absolute truth'.   Because if there were absolute truth it
> could never be falsified nor could one cobble up a test to disqualify
> if from the realm of absolute truth.  This is a variant of Russell's
> Paradox.  If you were in possession of the 'absolute truth' or perfect 
> universal theory then you would not be able to logically derive any 
> test except tests which would confirm it.  Even if you could do the
> most miraculous things in the world which science had not even yet 
> dreamed of with certainty then this perfect universal theory could not 
> cut the mustard if cutting the mustard meant to be falsifiable.
If you could do with certainty the most miraculous things in the world,
and no other theory could do the same, then in what sense would this
theory not cut the mustard? - I am presuming the "things" you could do
are observable results that pretending theories could not duplicate, in
which case all theories were falsifiable but yours was the only one that
was confirmed by having never predicted an incorrect (false) result.
In my understanding, the only instance in which a theory is disqualified
by the non-falsifiable criterion is when it postulates an action
mediated by an entity or facilitator that could not even in principle be
directly or indirectly observed, for example, a theory that the universe
is awash in particles that do not interact in any way with the matter
and energy we can actually detect - in that case there would be no
observable distinction to enable us to determine whether the theory is
correct or false, and it is the self imposed constraint of science that
such determination be made on the basis of observable results.  That
doesn't have to mean that there are no other valid ways of making such a
determination, e.g., the use of philosophical criteria, but merely that
science is restricted to criteria that have a physical, observational
basis.
LR
> This 
> requirement stands as the insidious guardian of truth not as a beacon 
> to lead you to it but rather to forever prevent you from obtaining it.
>

David L Evens wrote:
> 
> robert.koss@mail.snet.net wrote:
> 
> :    Whats the time dialation on a particle moving at 4.7C?
> 
> :    Think about it
> 
> The SR transforms may not be valid for v>c in any event.  There is no
> experimental evidence for or against the simple extension of them beyond
> the singularity at v=c.
True. Nevertheless, regardless of what the notion of "proper time" means
for a superluminal partical, such particles can be used to send
information into the past, which is why they are generally considered to
be ruled out.
--
Chris Volpe			Phone: (518) 387-7766 
GE Corporate R&D;		Fax:   (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8 			Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
Schenectady, NY 12301		Web:   http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr

Judson McClendon  wrote:
>Picardy wrote:
>> 
>> >> > 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?
>Your point is well stated.  If the Bible is only the work of men, then
>why would we put any more stock in it then in any other book?  On the
>other hand, if the Bible is truly inspired by God as it claims to be
>("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." 2 Timoth 3:16) and
>God cannot lie ("in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie,
>promised before time began," Titus 1:2), and if the Bible has been
>faithfully preserved through the ages, then it deserves our attention. 
>Okay, what do we know about the Bible which would support the latter
>conclusion?  I'll list a few things which I know to be true about the
>Bible, all of which you can research and verify if you really want to
>know the truth, rather than support a particular opinion.
>1. The Bible, unlike other books which you refer to above, is absolutely
>historically accurate.  Again and again over the years people have
>attacked the Bible because it mentioned some person (eg. Sargon II of
>Assyria) or event or location which was otherwise unknown or thought to
>be other than the Bible described, only to be proven wrong and the Bible
>correct when further evidence was discovered.  If you take the time to
>look you will find that this has happened so many times as to become
>almost monotonous.  As time passes the number of historical points on
>which people challenge the Bible has DECREASED, not INCREASED.  The
>opposite would be happening if the Bible truly contained such errors.
This is utter crap and nonsense.  The bible itself proves that it is false
by directly contradicting itself.  Read the genealogies of Jesus in the
Gospels;  the two genealogies agree only on the first and last names
(David and Joseph) and on none of the others---even the number of
generations is greatly different.  Also, the accounts of the resurrection
contradict each other, as do the two stories of creation in Genesis, among
hundreds of other examples.  But only one contradiction is necessary to
prove that your assertion is false, as is your bible.  It was written by
men and men have blinded themselves to truth to believe it.
>2. A large part of the Bible, approximately two thirds, is prophetic,
>and the prophesies are absolutely accurate.
>...
More utter nonsense.  There are prophecies in the bible that are
contradicted in the bible.
>...
>4. Agreement between Biblical manuscripts is so close that if you placed
>all the known discrepancies in a single manuscript the differences would
>be so trivial as not to affect a single point of Biblical doctrine. 
>We're talking spelling of a name, things like that.  Bible critics used
>to say "well, we know the manuscripts you HAVE are in close agreement,
>but if we had truly ancient copies you would see a lot of change".  At
>least, they used to say that until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found
>consisting of many manuscripts, some around a thousand years older than
>extant copies (all Old Testament, of course).  The're essentially
>identical to known manuscripts and truly quelched that argument.  If you
>study how the Hebrew scribes made copies of the Scriptures you will
>understand why.  To say they were extremely careful doesn't begin to
>convey the reality.
>I know the above things to be true because I have invested the time and
>energy verifying them for myself.  What you make of them is up to you,
>of course, but one who rejects them out of hand is being intellectually
>(at least) dishonest.
This stuff is so obviously false, you must be a member of Liars for
Jesus!!!  Or maybe you started it.
>...
Bullshit all.
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer

Rodney Small  wrote:
>Blair P Houghton wrote:
> 
>> ...billions and billions of tears...
> 
>>                                 --Blair
>>                                   "...one more star in the heavens..."
>I agree with your sentiments, but one question:  Dr. Sagan claimed that 
>he never said "billions and billions of stars", but that Johnny Carson 
>joked about him saying that, and most everyone thought that he 
>had said it.  Does anyone know whether he said it?  Thanks.
I personally recall him saying "billions.." but I can't recall hearing him
say "billions and billions..."
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer

Judson McClendon  wrote:
>wf3h@enter.net wrote:
> 
>> Judson McClendon  wrote:
> 
>> >You can analyze until doomsday and the
>> >ABSOLUTE MOST you can ever show by science is that your model (ANY
>> >model) is consistent with the facts.  You can never, ever PROVE
without
>> >direct observation that your model MUST have been the case.  So you
>> >think it is 'un-Christian' to believe the Bible means what it clearly
>> >says?
> 
>> well, then, how do you "prove' the bible is true?
>One cannot 'prove' that the Bible is true, in the sense that you mean. 
>It is accepted by faith.
Even though you can't prove that it is true, you can prove that it is
untrue.  All you have to do is read multiple passages in the bible which
refer to the same thing.  Such as Jesus' paternal genealogy as related in
the gospels.  Once you see that it contradicts itself, there is no
escaping the fact that the bible is false.
>> >That is a very strange position to take for someone who stakes
>> >their eternal salvation on the truth of Jesus Christ as revealed in
>> >Bible, don't you think?
> 
>> that's why science has nothing to do with religion. creationism is
>> religion.
>Science has nothing to say about religion.  On the other hand, induction
>and inferrence alone, without observational verification, can't 'prove'
>a single thing.  Science certainly cannot 'prove' that God does not
>exist, nor, as so many mistakenly believe, can science 'prove' that did
>or did not happen.  It is strange to me the blindness of so many
>evolutionists 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). 
>You can't just eliminate Biblical Creation just because you can't prove
>it one way or another!
Science can say that the biblical story of creation is utterly
inconsistent with the millions of fossils that have been carefully and
skillfully excavated and catalogued and studied in the past couple of
centuries.  That means that either the rocks lie or your little book of
tribal legends lies.  If god made both, then he lies.  Science can say
that the ages of rocks on earth absolutely contradict the biblical
story(ies) of creation, as does the light that has been coming to us from
distant galaxies for billions of years.  Science (specifically
anthropology) can tell us that all prescientific cultures have a creation
myth, and that they all disagree.  The trouble with you cretinist jerks is
that you want ours to be a prescientific culture.  All of astronomy,
physics, biology, history, anthropology, geology and many other sciences
are arrayed against your little creation myth.  The fact that some men
wrote your myth down in a book and you still treasure it is vastly easier
to explain as an error (willful ignorance and superstition is really
common) than is all of the science of the last four centuries.
>> >> I
>> >Sure it works, 'for some things'.  The problem with evolution is
trying
>> >to take inference and use it to prove something which is absolutely
>> >impossible to prove with inferrence.
> 
>> evolution is consistent with other sciences. do you doubt them too?
>> why pick on evolution? how about physics? medicine....
>My major was physics and math.  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.  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. 
That's because anyone with even a passing familiarity with the facts knows
that biblical creation is utterly contradicted by the facts.
>The absolute MOST which can be done is show that the evidence could be
>interpreted to be consistent with either of the positions.  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.  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, let alone PROBABLY evolve!  And the talk of
>'missing link', (as if there were even a chain to have any links to
>start with!) is beyond rediculous to the absurd.  This ranks right up
>there in the 'Big Lie' category: 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'.  Good fruit, that.
You're either lying about the facts or lying about your knowledge of them.
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer

: "The Sequence"  wrote:
>I been meaning to ask Are their any Non-linear beings here?
Michael McDonnough (binkley@katz.com) wrote:
There were a few tomorrow, ... check back yesterday.
1. How about that "Luke Conlin" guy elsewhere in this thread ?
2. If you are "sequential" doesn't that make you "lineal" ?
3. Try alt.kibology if you want to see nON-LINEar.
4. "Massive bifurcation", as that great physiotomist L. Ron Inean,
   inventor of the pineal glanduloa virus, uh, said.
5. When something is moving it can't quite be said to be in the same
   timeframe as something (relatively) non-movie.  Oops I mean
6. Closure.  We need some Closure round here.
6. Time is donutty, knotty:  
           It depends how you slice it.  Against the grain?
VI  19:43 sat21dec96   "BEND!   BEND!   BEND!" -- Uri Geller peaking.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      May the best hallucination win.
          I want a God who takes responsibility for His mistakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How come Uri Celler only )bends( spoons not  s t r e t c h e s  them?
Or bend forks ((( !!! tines !!! ))) ?
TINE DILATION
As in Seventine, but later on that, neuf sept.
Space Dilation.  Phase Distortion.  I mean, Shape Dilution.  Never minds.
VI  19:53 sat21dec96 999chars!  Rah Rah Rah haR haR haR
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      May the best hallucination win.
          I want a God who takes responsibility for His mistakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further deduction about the "problem of Federal Building Bombing".
(attachment)-See detail on the December 1996-January 1997 NEXUS 
     Magazine
========================================
5. That bombs were found inside the building, while largely unknown, 
is no secret.  It was reported widely on CNN and local news broadcasts
on the day of the blast.  Rescue operations were called off each time
a bomb was found (i.e., up to four times), and Army bomb-disposal units
worked to defuse the bombs.   The bombs were found by bomb-sniffing
dogs, which indicates that the bombs contained explosive material.
(It means that the the authorities at least found four explosive
materials--Alan Yun note)
6. KFOR-TV in Okalahoma City reported that two or more of the bombs found
inside were "far larger in magnitude than the first that went off inside
the building" (remember that seismic readings measured two blasts).
A terrorist expert, Dr. Randall Heather, then spoke, saying, "We have 
both of the bombs that were defuse at the site and they are being taken
apart." 
One must assume, however, that these bombs were eventually misplace by
the FBI, as is common.  The news coverage went on to say that another bomb
was found strapped to a colum next to the day-care cenntre. 
It is important to note that such a column-strapped bomb is consistent
with the blast pattern damage seen, which brigadier General Partin, one of
the top munitions experts in the world, says is not consistent with an 
ANFO (ammonium nitrate fuel oil) truck bomb.  He says that demolition
charges had to be placed on the columns-and, sure enough, one was found
that failed to go off. But, like all these bombs, they just seemed to
disappear into oblivion along with any continuig media reports or serious
enquiries about  these bombs.  We are to believe that the building was
gutted by a lone nut with a magic ANFO bomb-case closed!
=================================================
According to above information, it has proven that four unexploded
materials are found in building (at least two exploded bombs has been
proven by Dr. Randall Hearter at that time).
The another unexploded bomb was found on the cloumn next the day-care. 
According to the general Partin' (the munitions expert) words, the column
-strapp bomb is consitent with the blast patern damage seen.
According to previous news report, we only know that McVeigh use the ANFO
truck bomb to bomb the federial building.
However, detail information have told us that there are other
unexploded bombs found in the federial building.
If the criminal suspect McVeigh only use the ANFO trcuk bomb in the
bombing, we must request the authorities (or FBI) to hand over
these four (at least two) unexplode bombs to the court in order to find
the other hidden criminals.
That's because Tim McVeigh only be accused to use the ANFO truck bomb in
this federal building bombig.
Since the column-strapped bombs should be used in this case, it has proven
that there are other hidden criminals in this case.
We would like to know that who can easily sneak into the federal building
to strap bombs to the columns.
Furthermore, such kind of action could probably only be done by
professional demolition teams but not made by an inexpereienced 
criminal. 
Assuming McVeigh only use the ANFO truck bomb to attack the federal
building, I would make the dedcution below:
Deduction of Alan Yu:
==========================================
If the McVeigh only use the ANFO truck bomb to attack the federal
building, then the unexploded bombs which had been found in building 
should be placed by other criminals.
Could there be other criminals in this cases?
Yes, I do believe so, if McVeigh only use the ANFO truck bomb to attack
federal building.
Why?
That's because the authorities had found at least two unexploded bombs in
the building and one of an unexploded bomb was found strapped to the cloum
(next to the day-care centre).
According to New York Time report (report on Internet): McVeigh claim that
he didn't know that there was a day-care centre in the building.  He 
learned about it only after reading newspaper and found out many children
were killed.
If the above news is true, then the bomb which was found on the column   
next to the day-care centre should not be placed by McVeigh. 
That's because McVeigh should know there is a day-care centre in
the federal building, if he placed the bomb on the column next to
the day-care center.
Therefore, the criminal who placed the bomb on the column (next the
day-care centre) are obviously inhumane criminals and intentionaly
try to kill those children.  If this bomb was not placed by McVeigh,
then who did place it and why was that criminal trying to kill these
children?
If McVeigh only use the ANFO truck bomb to attack the federal building,
then it is obviously that there are other hidden criminals who place other 
bombs in the building.  That's because the authorities have found other
(at least two bombs) unexploded bombs and one of them was found on the
column of building.
According to the general Partin' words (munitions expert), the
column-strapped bomb is consistent with the blast pattern damage seen.
Therefore, such kind of action should be made by the expert who has the 
professional knowledge to demolish building with explosives.
If McVeigh is an expert in this field, then it could be placed by
him.    However, Why did the FBI only report that McVeigh use the ANFO
truck bomb to attack the federal building?!
If this column-strapped bomb is not placed by McVeigh, who should be the
hidden criminals?
In my own opinion, if there are another hidden criminls in this case, they
should be the mind control operators.   That's because the operators could
use the insider information of knowing Mcveigh's intention and try to make
the explosion worst.  
Why?
If McVeigh only used the ANFO truck bomb in this case, the demolition
charge might not cause too much damage. 
To increase people's fears to criminal in order to increase the security
system budgets and manpowers, the operators could and might placed more
powerful bombs in the building to cause the worse damage.
That's why the authorities had found a unexploded bomb from the column of
building because such kind of column-strapped bomb can easily destroy the
whole building. 
Also the hidden criminals intentionally placed the bomb on the building
column which is next to the day-care center.  Therefore, it obviously
show the criminal's inhumane intention to target children.  Therefore,
the general public will be more angry and fear these criminals.  So, the
publics will agree to increase manpower and budgets of the security
system.  Such type of actions is similar to that of the operators' actions
because these operators know how to use crisis to create fear and panic in
people.  
And that's why the seismic reading measure two blasts.  That's because
the operators could set off another bomb remotly right after McVeigh's
ANFO truck bomb exoploded. Therefore, the operators can creat more damage
to the ferdeal building.
If this column --strapped bomb was placed by McVeigh, he could not deny
that he didn't know that there was a day-care center in the building.  
That's because the column-strapped bomb was placed next the day-care
center and was supposed to destroy the whole building (According to New
York Time news report--, McVeigh claimed that he didn't know a day-care
center was in the federal building and surprise to learn it from news
paper).  
Therefore, we must ask who did placed those more powerful bombs in
the building and on the column if McVeigh only used the ANFO truck bomb 
in this case.
==============================
Dear Citizens,
     The mind control opeators are controlling people's lives with 
the invisible wave weapon.  They dare to do many incredible things 
because they can secretly eliminate anyone with the invisible wave 
weapon.   The former Presiden Eisenhower had worried that some ambitious 
officers would intentionally increase people's fears to enemy in order 
to extend these ambitious officers' power and influences.
Since these career officers (and undercover operators) use the 
mind control surveillance system to control people's lives, they 
have become the most powerful persons in our society.
To increase the security system budgets and manpowers, they could use  
any under control's criminal case to creat more serious damage in 
order to scare unawared people.
The unsolved crime of Olymopic central park explosion had appeared 
that the authorities can not find the real criminal.
If the Olympic central park explosion is really created by the mind
control operators (as I deduced in a post on the day after the bombing),
I will deduced that the authorities can never capture the real criminal
even they reward ten million dollars.
That's because such kind of crime is a typic mind control operaytotrs'
action-- to increase people's fears to criminals in order to extend these
career officers and undercover operators' real power (by increasing the
budgets, manpowers, and more powerful invisible wave weapon in the
security system, while other federal department reducing their budgets).
However, American people still have chance to catch these hidden
criminals (the corrupted career officers and operators) from the 
Federal building bombing case.
Now, we must request our government officers tell us the truth in the
Federal building bombing case.
Why did the authorities only accuse Tim McVeigh using the ANFO truck 
bomb to attack federal building and deny the column-strapped bombs
was used inside the building?
If McVeigh only use the ANFO truck bomb in the case, then the hidden
criminals must be found.  
That's because such kind of column-strapped bombs can destroy the 
whole building and kill more people in this case.
Therefore, the hidden criminals have committed more serious crimes to
murder those federal employees and children.  Since these hidden 
criminals could commit more seriopus crimes and kill more victims in this
federal bombing case, it has proven that Tim McVeigh might be only a
under controlled criminal.
That's because many evidences have proven that the authorities were
in control of this criminal case from the planning of the bombing 
until it had happened. 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's lives in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies 
  secretly (die as if natural cause).  
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries (In Taiwan, the mind machine is translated as "Psychological
  Language Machine."  In the Mandarin sounds as "Sin_Lee_Yue_Yan_Gi")
  Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
  control organization.
  (If any law enforcement officer declare anyone as "insane" and 
   the social security department do not put these individual in the 
   welfare program as diable person, then it only represent a kind of
   political suppression or false accusation to discredit someone.
   That' because the local law enforcement is the basic unit of mind
   control)
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <32BAA151.4D28@mindspring.com>
> Richard Mentock  writes:
> 
> > >   Is Quantum Mechanics a redefining of Newtonian Mechanics *in your
> > > eyes or in your mind* ?
> >
> > Neither.  QM does not redefine Newton.
> >
> 
>   What do you mean by neither. That was a singular question. Do they
> teach logic where you come from, or do they have showers where you
> live? That is a double question.
> 
> > Now I have a question that I asked you before that you haven't answered.
> > Can you solve FLT without p-adics?
> >
> 
>   I am the supergenius around here. I am the one who has the big new
> important ideas. You, you are just a young dumb whippersnapper. I am
> the one who asks the questions, not you. Is that clear?
Clear.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) wrote:
>In article <598qqi$ovn$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>, Douglas Shaw
><101760.521@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> I am constantly amazed by the idea that sending things faster 
>> than light is necessarilly sending them back in time.
>It is not necessarily sending them back in time, to *everyone*.
>However, in some reference frames the signal *does* go back in
>time. According to relativity, if you can do this in one frame
>you can in principle do it in any frame-- and even use a relaying
>procedure to send signals back into your own past.
>So although signals that are sent faster than light would not always
>be sent back into your past, the ability to do so, combined with
>relativity, would *imply* that such signals *could* also be sent.
>Unfortunately, most simple descriptions of this omit part of the
>argument and turn into nonsense, which is what is confusing you.
Agreed that it is nonsense.  You cannot use relativity to do
calculations about different frames of reference if FTL is possible
because relativity assumes that FTL is not possible.  It is the same as
starting with 1=1 and 1 not= 1 as premises ... you can prove anything.
If FTL exists then there must be a preferred reference frame for light
travel (that is, the rest frame of the luminiferous ether can be
determined) and there is no problem with causality.
-- 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

In <59hsvl$4td@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes: 
>
>In <59hqcc$8h9@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
>Meisner) writes: 
>>
>>In <5982lv$hqm@ux2.accesscom.net> jim.goodman@accesscom.net (Jim
>>Goodman) writes: 
>>>
>>>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>>>
>>>>    Please bear with me in this article because I am not a
>>>>mathematician. Could Einstien's thought experiments be reevaluated
>in
>>>>light of a theory which suggests that light is bent by velocity?
>What
>>I
>>>>mean is this: It seems that the basic equation for both SR and GR
>is:
>>>>x^2+y^2+z^2=ct^2. Could another parameter be substituted for the
>ct^2
>>>>term? For example, if you substitute a length contraction parameter
>>for
>>>>the ct^2 time dilation parameter, would the equation still be
>>>>consistent with observations?
>>>
>>>>Edward Meisner
>>>
>>>I think you might consider (sawf) looking into:
>>>
>>>X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = (E/h)^2  t^2
>>>
>>>in the simple case.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>---
>>>Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
>>>sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules
>>>
>>>
>>    Doesn't (E/h)^2 equal frequency squared? E=hf, f=E/h. However you
>>have given me another way of looking at this problem that might work
>>much better than the ideas I put forth in subsequent posts. Thank you
>>enormously. For example, to get c you could use the formula:
>>
>>                            E=hf
>>                            E= (h*wavelength)/c
>>                            c= h/(E*wavelength)
>>
>>    Then, if length contracts, E increases, keeping c constant and at
>>the same time, allowing us to save invariant time! This approach,
>>combined with relativistic charge increase to account fot the
>increased
>>energy of the photon, is in my opinion the complete solution to the
>>"problem of time." Time is absolute. Length contracts and all is
well.
>>Thank you again. Have a wonderful Christmas.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Edward Meisner
>>
>>   The problem now is that we must find another expression for ct^2,
>since time is now absolute. Can you tell, how we can get a length
>contraction formula that we could substitute for ct^2. I guess we
could
>decrease the distance in c, but that would be cheating since c must be
>constant. It would nevertheless work, but obscures the true reason and
>mechanism for length contraction.
>
>Best Regards,
>Edward Meisner
>>
>>
>>  I think I have this completely figured out. Since it is the
wavelength term whose values decrease we can simply solve for
wavelength:
>>                          E = h/(wavelength*c)
                            E(wavelength*c) = h
                            wavelength = h/Ec
    Now, we derive the equation for the decrease of the wavelength. I
don't know how to do this, but it should be equal to sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
This is a dimensionless number. The we simply substitute into the basic
equation of GR and SR. C is constant. Time is invariant. Therefore:
                x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = ct^2 * the dimensionless number above
>>  This is not completely right because the amount that the time slows
in SR and GR is squared-ct^2. However, I don't know how to derive the
correct eqaution. You could probably do this:
                ct*dimensionlesss number = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)
Edward Meisner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                    
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Edward Meisner
>

In article <32b85f48.10988681@news.demon.co.uk>,
	malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>On 17 Dec 1996 01:11:22 GMT, nospaam@pascal.stu.rpi.edu (Peter F.
>Curran) wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>You also have self-consistent scenarios with people
>>traveling into the future, without having to impair
>>free will.
>
>Time travel to the future never creates problems, seeing as how we do
>it all the time.
>
I've had many discussions in other areas of this
thread where I've had to conceed that there is
only one universal "now", (at least that we
have evidence for).  Further, relativistic
travel also never removes you from the universal
"now",  so in a sense we can not arguably be 
"traveling".
>>  I agree that travel into the past could
>>never be reconciled with free will.
>>
>
>It might, perhaps, if it resulted in an active thwarting or suspension
>of free will.
>
Hmmm, this seems the very antithesis of "free will"....
>>
>>>Physics contains no concept of the progression of time. Backwards is
>>>as valid as forwards in physics.
>>>
>>
>>That is not true. the increase of entropy provides a clear
>>arrow of time's direction. 
>
>But that arrow is completely arbitrary. Entropy increases because it
>was so low at the big bang it didn't have anywhere else to go. So the
>arrow of entropy points away from the big bang.
>
No.  From an ordered state there are MANY equally disordered
states we can move towards as time moves forwards.  In the reverse 
direction, the probability of becoming more ordered occuring 
repeatedly each step as the universe gets younger is vanishingly 
small.
>> In communication systems, we use
>>the notion of causality to show that it is impossible to
>>create a perfect frequency filter.  (You'd have to know about
>>a signal before it arrived).
>
>I think you'll find that an equivalent, acausial explanation is that a
>finite pulse of a given frequency does not have a single pure
>frequency under fourier analysis.
The transformation, Laplace or Fourier, doesn't matter.  As you 
receive the first datum of a signal, you have no idea if it is
a high frequency signal, or a low frequency signal with a larger
amplitude.  A perfect step response in frequency filtering is not
possible.
>
>>
>>Your notion of the experience of time is completely internal
>>and has no bearing on those around you.  So what if time
>>seems to pass more quickly when you are having fun?  What
>>is the big deal?
>>
>
>The deal, in this case, is that our experience of time is not
>imperfectly linear but systematicly and purposively non-linear.
>
In what context are you using linear here?  To me, linear means
a system f(x) where f(a)+f(b)=f(a+b), and cf(x)=f(cx).  As you
have never been inside anyone's head but your own, and would
be unable to accurately determine your own experience of time
objectively, how is it you are able to come to any conclusions
other than people's sense of time is inaccurate.?
>>
>>You used the word "experience" above, where I used the word 
>>"meaning".  Your statement has nothing to do with mine,
>>even though you've phrased is as though it were a
>>rebuttal.  Just what is it you are attempting to say?
>>It is not at all obvious from your responses.  Please,
>>if you like, make a single statement you'd like me to 
>>address.
>>
>
>I think maybe we don't have quite the same meaning for the concept of
>"meaningful". Meaningful concepts are those of explanatory value.
>Subjective things, if they help us to explain and understand similar
>experience, are no less meaningful than "objective" ones.
>
>If we're discussing the interface between consciousness and the
>material universe _of course_ we are going to be using subjective
>concepts. That's what subjective means.
>
>What I'm saying is this. In a universe without consciousness "past",
>"present" and "future" would not exist. Causality would not exist.
>
I disagree.  I think you place to much stock in our importance, the
same way the ancients felt the sun must revolve arounfd the earth.
The universe, in my opinion, exists totally externally of human
or other consciousness.  A video camera, running after we were
all extinct, would still record evens like erosion starting
landslides.  The universe doesn't need us.
   - Pete

Hi Louis,
    I have enjoyed your point of view regarding time travel, and in
part because of your views I have changed my position.  Previously I
had regarding time "travel" into the future as being a theoretical 
possiblility via the relativistic effect.
    I would still call the relativistic effect "Time Travel", in the sense
that it fulfills all the criterion expected by the popular notion, but I
now conceed that in effect one is not really "traveling" through time as 
there is only one "now".
    However, despite any physical evidence that travel through time is
possible, I feel that it is unjustified to say that such a thing could
never exist.  There is no justification which you can present which
would violate the idea that time is an equivalent 4th dimension to the
other 3, other than we cannot detect it as such.  If we assume we are
all complex automatons, there is not even a conflict of free will.
    I agree that it is unlikely, but surely you cannot dismiss it as
"Sci-fi" and such....
   - Pete Curran

Jim Carr wrote:
> 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?  
It is not possible to do this.  It is only possible to 
define man_made experimental phenomena, and then only
within limits.  In nature, there is no such thing as a
complete analytical description.
>  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.
Nature - any of its myriad phenomena - is *NOT* explainable.
That which is not man_made still defies description.
QT fails to explain reality, but it does a nice job
of experimental scientific data, which concentrates
only on small limiting subsets of the available cosmos.
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Thematic Threading:     Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
 QuoteForTheDay:        "You shall hear how Hiawatha
                         prayed and fasted in the forest,
                         Not for greater skill in hunting,
                         Not for greater craft in fishing,
                         Not for triumphs in the battle,
                         And renown among the warriors,
                         But for profit of the people,
                         For advantage of the nations."
                                                 - Longfellow  (1855)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <32BC6A85.36A3@umd.umich.edu>
"Mathew P. Lamita"  writes:
> Does anyone have any information on any treatment of this problem.  I've
> only heard of rumor and speculation.  Please respond with any articles
> or books discussing theory or experimental conclusion.
> 
If you followed the whole thread you would know to check in the
American Journal of Physics, no dates given but you should be able to
track it down with just that information. Not much help %^(