Newsgroup sci.physics 213646

Directory

In article <32c2f5c7.68990449@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, John or Jenn Ridley
 writes
>>>.........
>>>> On a related issue, is it true that the full moon shines more in
>>>> winter? My reasoning is that the moon is higher in the sky, in the
>>>> same way as the sun is higher in summer.
>>>
>>>That is precisely correct.
>>>
>>
>>correct presuming you live in the northern hemisphere presumably.
>>
>
>No, correct anyway.  He said in the winter, not in December.  If you
>live in the southern hemisphere, winter is offset 6 months from the
>northern hemisphere winter.
>---
>John Ridley
>jridley@ix.netcom.com
Good point!
I forgot Oz have there summer in winter
I plead temporary insanity brought on by xmas alcoholic poisoning
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes":-Oscar Wilde 
mark@mkg1.demon.co.uk
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

Im Artikel , pusch@mcs.anl.gov (Gordon D.
Pusch) schreibt:
>It's ``gedankenexperimentung,'' which is a German word that is usually
>translated as ``thought-experiments'' --- by which I understand Einstein
>meant something like ``experiments carried out inside one's mind,'' more
>or less (native German-speakers are please invited to correct or
comment).
Well, if you are begging for it: the 'ung' at the end is a bit overdone,
although we Germans do have a tendency to put everything into a noun by
adding 'ung' - only "Gedankenexperiment" is a noun itself yet, thus.....
>In English, a much better translation might be ``imaginary experiments,''
>but the person who first literally translated ``gedankenexperimentung''
>into ``thought-experiments'' apparently lacked a sense of poetry, and 
>we've been stuck with it ever since... :-/
Yeah, and the same goes for the "Uncertainty Principle". In German it is
usually referred to as "Unschaerfe-Relation", where "Unschaerfe" is a noun
to 'not sharp, not precise', and relation is just what it is. 'Unschaerfe'
is usually used on photographs ('blurred') and it gives a vivid picture of
what Heisenberg had in mind. The analogy of opening the aperture and thus
loosing the depth of field comes in handy....
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.

Im Artikel <5a6rt0$394@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
schreibt:
>     "Oft perambulates the spotted intensifier".
>
>Actually -- this is a bad example!   I was going to say obviously
>this is not 'true',  so that we then have
>
>     Not (Oft perambulates the spotted intensifier)
>
>is true,  but any attempt to break open the sentence atom and move the
>negation inside simply creates more nonsense...
>
>     Seldom perambulates the spotted intensifier.
>
>     Oft sits the spotted intensifier.
>
>     Oft perambulates the un-spotted intensifier...
>
>And so forth.  Well,  it does nicely illustrate your central point --
>that (just) because a sentence fails to be true,  no particular 
>grammatical negation of it need be true.
You must have had a tremendous fun writing down those lines - well at
least I had, I laughed my brains off, so unfortunately there's not much
left of it...
Good that we have a new year coming, I get new brains every years, you
know....
Seriously, that was a splendid post, and it added to the confusion on the
subject quite a bit, which is, why it was so entertaining :-)
So you say, that there is another problem adding to the stated one of
negations being misrepresented by common language: any negation of a false
statement is hold true, even if it must be wrong b/c the false statement
was nonsense anyway. Hey, have you ever heard of 'propaganda'? I think,
this is one of the great tricks: to prove your own position, negate a
reversed (and clearly false) position - whooopy, your position comes TRUE!
Dictators, beware of the sci.phy.regulars, they know you!!!!!
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.

Im Artikel <19961230152500.KAA10135@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com
(JMFBAH) schreibt:
>
>Well...maybe just a tad...I care; a handful of reasearchers care (they
are
>gathering their own data now).  My outrage is that the man didn't copy
the
>bloody data and then edit it.  All that information is gone with a sweep
>of a bit brush.  This man is still there; so, I guess, when I said
"noone"
>I meant not any who should do something about this renegade.  Hmmm.....
we
>are getting into that not(friend) discussion. 
Hmmm, doesn't sound too good. Remember this world-renowned twin researcher
who had made up most of his data??
Would anyone care to tell me what NIH is, and what is up with those data?
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.

In article <199612291847505411143@du135-0.ppp.algonet.se>,
	bonus@algonet.se (Bjorn Danielsson) writes:
>Patrick Van Esch  wrote:
>> Well, the trick is changing the point of view.
>> As you probably know, the gravitational potential of say, a planet
>> is a conservative field, meaning you cannot get any energy out of
>> it.  
>
>But if you have more than one body, like the system consisting of the
>Sun and Jupiter, you *can* get energy out of it!
Mmmm, I probably expressed myself very poorly.  I meant:
given a time-independent scalar gravitational potential V(r, theta, phi)...
What you are saying is of course correct, but there is no static
potential anymore (that is only function of the space coordinates
of a test particle).
>
>>   You can exchange kinetic and potential energy but if you come
>> from far away, and go far away again, you shouldn't be gaining 
>> anything.
>
>True if you are looking at a single static "gravity well".
>But a comet that enters the solar system can exit at a higher speed
>if it passes the right planets in the right way.
Yes, but I was considering only the interaction of one testobject
and one planet  (which is, what the slingshot effect is all about).
And I wanted to stress that _as seen from the point of view from
the planet_ nothing is gained.  But we're not looking from the
point of view of the planet, and hence in another coordinate
system the "nothing gained" doesn't have to hold.  If set up
properly, one can gain kinetic energy of the object (of course
at the expense  of the kinetic energy in the same system of the
planet).
I don't think it is necessary to consider multiple gravitational
interactions a la Saari and Xia to explain the slingshot effect
as it is used today.
But I expressed myself very poorly.
cheers,
Patrick.
>
>-- 
>Bjorn Danielsson  
>http://www.algonet.se/~bonus

Quantum physics, space-time continuum, matter/antimatter, relativity,
time travel, astrophysics,...
Please send me it !
Thanks.
Gaëtan MERCENIER - satnet01@tornado.be -
http://www.tornado.be/~satnet01/satnet.htm

In article ,
	singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
>   
>   >> > >> > Power is not the point. Honesty and integrity are the
>   points. And Baez >> > and Bunn each demonstrate they lack both. >
>   >BJ: This is clearly unfair and unkind. Baez & Bunn are
>   exceptionally >honest and integrated. 
>   
>   The hell you say! Why defend such jackasses! They know damn good and
>   well that they are unfit to moderate the sci.physics.research
>   newsgroup because they have too much of a vested interest in
>   controlling the subject matter. And my accusation is not out of
>   line. It is on point. Crude, direct, and angry. Whenever I see
>   injustice I feel anger. 
>   
What you kids seem to forget is that a tiny bit of usenet
is reserved for real science.  It is such a tiny bit it really
shouldn't bother anyone and people like John put in a lot 
of time to keep that little corner a bit tidy.  You have
99% of usenet to play, so please leave those few people who
want to discuss science their little bit of space. 
It is no injustice.  It is simply: children not allowed.
     :-)
cheers,
Patrick.

This really isn't a physics question as much as it is an engineering 
question. And the answer is standardization. 
In article ,
Kendall P. O'Donald  wrote:
>The subject line says it all really. But to elaborate a little...
>
>Most cars that I'm aware of are negative ground though I've read about some
>American made farm tractors from the 1940's were positive ground as were some
>cars. 
>
>Also, I understand that some cars made in Britian are still positive ground.
>(Is this really true?)
>
>What is it that made the American industry settle for negative ground? I'm
>stumped -- Pointers angone?
>
>-Kendall

In article , Ken Fischer  wrote:
[snip]
>and negative ground makes sense regardless of which
>way the current flows, it doesn't make sense to have
>the frame of the automobile "positive".
Why is it a "negative ground makes sense"?
What's the advantage? 

On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, mark green wrote:
> In article <59m02r$jpo@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>, Steve Gilham
>  writes
> >cirolini@sodalia.it wrote:
> >> On a related issue, is it true that the full moon shines more in
> >> winter? My reasoning is that the moon is higher in the sky, in the
> >> same way as the sun is higher in summer.
> >That is precisely correct.
> 
> correct presuming you live in the northern hemisphere presumably.
> 
I would have thought that the sun is higher in the summer in the southern
hemisphere also.  Isn't this part of the definition of summer?  There was
no mention of any particular calendar month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric B. Burgh				e-mail: musashi@pha.jhu.edu
Department of Physics and Astronomy		ebb@jhu.edu
The Johns Hopkins University		http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~musashi
Baltimore, Maryland			Office: x4123
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From one thing know ten thousand things."--Miyamoto Musashi, Gorin No Sho 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting version of "Maxwell's Demon". The standard answers are in the 
undergraduate texts.

wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) says:
>In article <32C67E41.31C2@sonic.net> Len  writes:
>
>>In case you didn't know Jesus, the Christ, as a FRUITCAKE, and a 
>>CRACKPOT, and
>>STUPID, 
>On a hot summer afternoon, I'd sooner split a six-pack with Christ.  People 
>who talk in capital letters are not usually happy with themselves and not 
>generally fun to be with.
>
>Bill
Maybe. Only Jesus could turn the six-pack into a dozen 
kegs and as many packets of salt 'n vinegar chips as could feed 
a multitude. Even then, he'd say "Do you have a beer? Give it
to a man who has none. Give him also your crisps.
Then you'd get into a benign conversation about whether the 
woman at the next table had nice legs or not. First he'd slap
you down for adultery, and add a few words about grinding and 
gnashing of teeth. You'd say "Sure, but hey, I like her legs--
that's just my opinion", to which he would humourlessly retort, 
"He who is not for me is against me."
Then you'd have to cop all the women coming up and wiping his 
feet with their hair. Hypocrisy!
Not to mention his jokes. "Did you hear the one about the prodigal
son?..." Sense of humour? How many times was Jesus noted as 
having a good belly laugh in the gospels. (Or anywhere else for 
that matter).
So to placate him, you'd offer to pay for the next round, take out 
a fifty, and get a lecture about rich men and camels.
BTW, don't invite your sister to this pub session, for Jesus will
say, "He who does not hate his family cannot be a disciple of 
mine".
No thanks! Now Paul, by contrast -- take him along with a few
mates, get him a bit pissed and you'll have a riot!
John I would avoid -- he was more your dope fiend/ acid head type.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[[