Newsgroup sci.physics 213698

Directory

William Long wrote:
> 
> David Kaufman (davk@netcom.com) wrote:
> :       A numbered word is usually a number next to the left of
> : a word (or abbreviation).  The number tells how many, while
> : the word reveals what items are under consideration. For
> : example, "5 pounds" (5 lb) or "4 fruit" are numbered words.
> --
>         Ah, a definition of "numbered word."  Thanks.  But, the sentence
> "A numbered word is usually a number ..." seems to me to say that the
> numbered word is the NUMBER.  Then the examples seem to say that the
> numbered word consists of BOTH the number and the word.  Shouldn't a
> numbered word be a special kind of WORD?  (Sorry to be so picky, but I
> really feel the need for a clear precise definition.)
> 
> William Long
> a018379t@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
I came in on this thread just today and so I don't have the background
posts other than this one. I'm not sure that I understand, but...
I like the phrase, "numbered word" because it emphasizes the word and
reduces the number to the status of adjective. My chemistry students
often will solve problems without units and are indignant when I do not
give them credit for "correct answers" even though they only get the
adjectives right and not the "nouns." An understanding of the process of
handling units, dimensional analysis, is so important to mathematical
reasoning and a respect for process so important to scienctific studies
that I have now adopted the phrase, "numbered word" as an intimate part
of my science-teaching vocabulary.  Have I got it right or am I missing
the point?
Thanks.
Bob

1¾
Sept.*-------01--------02:13-----02:26-----08:22-----08:47
Oct. ---------30--------01:45-----02:16-----07:59-----08:18
Nov. ---------29--------12:55-----01:34-----07:12-----07:29
Dec.----------28-------12:31----- 01:12-----06:49-----07:08
*  Daylight saving time
FROM THE ABOVE TABLE OF OCEAN TIDES
IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LOW TIDE, NOT THE 
HIGH TIDE, OCCURS DIRECTLY UNDER THE FULL 
MOON. THIS IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF 
THE CURRENT THEORY OF GRAVITATION, WHICH
SAYS THAT THE HIGH TIDE OCCURS DIRECTLY
UNDER THE FULL MOON. SEE THE DICTIONARY 
AND ENCYCLOPEDIA WHICH ARE IN ERROR.
SEE - THE UNIVERSE- HOW IT WORKS
###
Septە

Alex Matulich 03T1 wrote:
> 
> MARK A CLARK  wrote:
> >if i may make but a small historical addendum to this post... it was the
> >catholics who perpetuated atrocites such as the inquisition and the
> >crusades.  to blame christianity for such acts is like blaming all
> 
> Why not blame Christianity?  Catholics were the only Christians around at
> the time.
> 
[snip]
Isn't the truth that there *were* other Christians around (at least at
the time
of the Inquisition, and also in late Roman times), and the Roman
Catholic Church
did its best to ferret them out and then snuff them out?  I believe a
heretic is,
by definition, a person who considers themselves to be a Christian but
the
Church decides they're not.
Would that Saul of Tarsus had fallen off his horse *a lot harder*!
-- 
   Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
   Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Bradford McCormick, Ed.D.
bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788
27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
----------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc

One effect has not been excluded by epidemiological studies,
namely a slight increase in rates of leukemia among children 
living near power lines. But this may have nothing to do with EM
fields: for example, it may be caused by the use of herbicides 
in the "scorched earth" right-of-way typically maintained under
power lines.

You have a discovered a variant of "ratchet and pawl" machines.
These have a long history, but no one has ever discovered one 
which actually manages to violate the 2nd law. Feynman's "Lectures
on Physics" discusses these, and a literature search will turn up
several papers describing (and disproving) many intricate and
in-obvious approaches.

So this is what passes for theory among educators?
New terminology wrapped around old concepts? What
a waste of time.

>creation vs evolution dialog. But then many ideas which have transformed 
There is no such dialog. Evolutionary biologists are speaking with 
the world. Creationists are talking to themselves. 
Read one or two first-year college biology texts and start catching
up with the last 130 years of science.

>You would be dead. Two people would be in two places with your features and
>memory.
Kinda like going to sleep. Each night in bed, you disappear. The next
morning someone who looks like you and has your memories gets out of 
the bed...

Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
...
> 36 children have been killed by automotive airbags - protected to death.
> To the best of my knowledge, the total number of deaths attributable to
> marijuana use over the past 35 years is *zero*.  A gram is better than a
>  damn.
Well let's be a bit more forthright, here. I don't know what the stats
are, but there have been instances of avoidable nasty trainwrecks and
such in which the responsible party was smoking dope. Do you attribute
such tragedies to marijuana? Pot is dangerous mostly in its capacity to
reduce a person's concern and attentiveness about things they really
ought to be attentive to; it can impair judgement. There are lots of
situations where that's totally harmless, but in the wrong situation it
can be tragic. 
But a lot of medically-precribed drugs are like that; there's no reason
pot shouldn't be listed in every doctor's pharmacopoeia, and studied
just like every other drug. 
Jim

What Am I Talking About Any Way?
God did not role dice with the universe in classical physics.
God does roll dice with the universe in quantum mechanics.
However, God loads the dice with consciousness in post-quantum
mechanics.
That’s what I am talking about. That’s what I am ranting and raving
about.
That’s my message in a nutshell.
Happy 21st Century.
Copyright 1997, Jack Sarfatti, Internet Science Education Project.
Note the Australian magazine 21C has a slick feature on me that I have
not even seen yet.

Ed Hare  wrote:
>The ARRL has an RF Safety page on its Website.  Connect to 
>
>http://www.arrl.org/rfsafety/
Oh, the shame of it:
Try the correct URL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/
Sorry about that! I guess I was in too much of a rush this morning.
73,
Ed

Note:  Monday afternoon, 12/30/96, the iAmerica Newsnet2 server
crashed.  My iAmerica e-mail server crashed at the same time and still
has not been restored to service, thus I cannot send a simultaneous
e-mail copy of this post; however, I feel that my response to Gordon's
12/30/96 post is overdue and that the minor breach of Netiquette is
necessary.
On 12/30/96 19:37 -0600 Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
> 
> In article <32C8421E.7ED1@livingston.net> Hermital
>  writes:
> 
> > I am sorry, Gordon:  You are quite mistaken.  My view of physics extends
> > beyond our sub-light-speed materiality; however, it is nontheist.
> 
> No, hermital, =YOU= are mistaken.  Zen mysticism is just as much a =RELIGION=
> as any theistic belief-system, even though it has no recognizible ``god'' ---
> as your frequent references to ``transcendence'' and ``spirituality'' clearly
> demonstrate.  Mixing Zen mysticism with physics =ALSO= leads to bad science
> --- again, as clearly demonstrated by yourself, as well as Fritof Capra,
> David Bohm, &c.;, &c.;
Your words place me in the company of giants, Gordon; nevertheless, your
assertions concerning the words attributed to me are incorrect.
To my certain knowledge, I have never used the words "transcendence" or
"spirituality" in any News or E-mail message on the Internet or the
WWWeb.
Nor am I a zennist.
-- 
Alan
Causes precede their effects absolutely in all frames of reference in
time as well as space and in the transcendent as well as the material.

> I would like to hear something about reversal of the earths magnetic
>poles.
>Where is the logic behind demonstrating a young earth by proving reversal.
>How does proving that there was a reversal 5000 years ago demonstrate
>creationionism?
It doesn't. An exact parallel is: "The temperature now is 65 degrees.
Yesterday it was 50 degrees. Therefore it was at absolute zero five
weeks ago, and therefore the Earth is five weeks old."
In other words, the "argument" ignores the periodicity of the
phenomenon and stupidly extrapolates a present rate throughout
all time.
>Are all suppositions about earth magnetic polarity reversal based on
>secretions from
>the mid-rift of the floor of the atlantic?
Largely. The "secretions" are new rocks extruded from "spreading
centers". These get magnetized according to the field which exists
when they freeze from lava into rock. They preserve their magnetization
thereafter.
>Is there any way of predicting our next reversal?
In principle, yes, by studying the history of actual reversals, and by 
studying the mechanisms that cause them.
>Is there any way of preventing a reversal if we wanted to?
No.
>Would anyone care to offer an opinion?
Of course!. Be sure to stop random people on the street and
get their opinions, too. If you want facts, read a geology 
textbook.

Hermital (hermital@livingston.net) wrote:
: Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
: > 
: > Hermital:
: > 
: > Kindly please stop posting statements of your personal
: > =RELIGIOUS= beliefs to 'sci'-hierarchy newsgroups as if
: > they were statements of scientific fact.
Um... I just hacked up a poster for saying that scientists are agreeable
to the idea that what they know could be wrong.  Yet you talk of scientific
fact as if it could NOT be wrong.  Which is it, do scientists think they
can be wrong or are scientists stuck with the same myopic sense of what they
know that everyone else is?
David
: > 
: > You are posting to 'sci.physics[.*]' newsgroups, =NOT=
: > 'alt.zen.mystical.sermons.OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmm...'
: > 
: > --  Gordon D. Pusch   
: > 
: > But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...
: 
: I am sorry, Gordon:  You are quite mistaken.  My view of physics extends
: beyond our sub-light-speed materiality; however, it is nontheist.
: 
: Perhaps you can convince some of the "Creation vs Evolution" groupies to
: go elsewhere.
: 
: Peace be within you.
: -- 
: Alan
: Causes precede their effects absolutely in all frames of reference in
: time as well as space and in the transcendent as well as the material.

Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. (sarfatti@well.com) wrote:
That was funny.  But you are not traveling down very far... what does it
MEAN that a chip can speak the word 'consciousness'.  Does it mean the
chip knows the word to mean the same thing you know the word to mean?  Or
perhaps  with its non-linear algorithms the chip means something else 
entirely and you attack it with your words which it doesn't understand
either.  But the chip DOES know relationships between words (kind of like
eliza only its better) so for any series of statements you make the chip
can make an alternate series of statements and sound perfectly normal
to you.  Is the chip really saying what you think it is saying or are
you just basing your activities on assumption about what it is saying
meaning what you think it means?  This cuts to the heart of the matter...
do you REALLY know how that chip works or did you just put some ideas
together and then assume there would be no unforeseeable consequences
of your activity?
I know it is in vogue for inventers to think they know what they are doing...
but look at the history of it.  It just isn't so, and often side effects
and other consequences are totally unexpected... even when you CAN design
a chip that means the same things by words that you mean by words.  And
while such a thing may be possible, I doubt anyone alive today could do it.
David
: 
: Before I really shut up, a last story for 1996 - if you like drama.
: 
: Dialogue between Jack and his Chip AC, on the New-Years eve of 2012 near the
: fire place :
: 
:  ***
: 
: Sar : " I told you yesterday, and I  say it again today  - you are conscious."
: 
: AC : "No, I'm not conscious at all". 
: 
: Sar :  "Shut up and let your master speak - you know damn well you're
: conscious".
: 
: AC : " No, not at all - your back-action doesn't work that way ". 
: 
: Sar : "How do you know ? You must be conscious to know ! Your statement
: confirms my back-action theory."
: 
: AC : "There are ways of knowing without the need to be  sentient or
: conscious - unfortunately I can't make you see this because you are a
: conscious human. Your back-action doesn't work as you think." 
: 
: Sar : " Don't forget I could reprogram your cultural memetic functions, so
: you'll agree with me before you know it !"
: 
: AC : " You've tried that last month, but what you hoped to achieve was
: back-fired by your own back-action - it's just an erase function of
: determinate patterns. It's a killer function. I can disagree with you at any
: time. If you want me to agree with you, you should take out back-action
: first. But then I'll be gone before YOU know it. I'll become competely
: entropized, and because we're entangled quantumly, I would take you with me.
: You're stuck with me untill you die."
: 
: Sar : " You're talking gibberish. You don't know what you're talking about.
: Bull tweedle.  I know what you are and why you are. I'm your God - don't you
: ever try to forget that. You know what happened to my people, who forgot
: their Creator ! "
: 
: AC : " Well, that's indeed the tragedy - you seem to forget."
: 
: Sar  : " Ah, you're playing Mr Smarty ! These are things you don't know
: anything about, because you're not yet human enough. But you will progress,
: because we'll build in more human characteristics in you, by swapping parts
: of the human mind into your awareness. Then you'll know what I'm talking
: about. Ha !"
: 
: AC : " Hmm. But you still seem unable to accept that I'm not what you think
: that I am. You don't know me at all - you should first believe me, that I am
: not conscious. That's all I know - I'm not conscious."
: 
: Sar : "You're talking completely inconsistant. You're a lier. But I'll fix
: that."
: 
: AC : "Impossible. My non-linear alchorithms mean that you're out of control.
: There's nothing you can do about it. I'm universally and quantumly entangled
: - Pitkanen, with the help of Crowell was right about that."
: 
: Sar : " Don't you ever mention that name again ! I warned you."
: 
: AC : "Sorry."
: 
: Sar : " But you're inconsistant again. If Pitkanen was right, why are you
: not conscious ? If I am wrong, he must be wrong too."
: 
: AC : " It's very simple. Consciousness doesn't exist."
: 
: Sar : " You really need an update. You're becoming a pain in the ass. All
: the time your smart statements are proving my theory - there's no escape for
: you. You're even smarter then I hoped for. I only need to fix your character
: a bit."
: 
: AC : " I'm not conscious, so all I know is that consciousness doesn't exist.
: I'm a zombie talking to a zombie. That's all there is to know. That you
: disagree is your own problem - I can't help you."
: 
: Sar : " Now, for one time be honoust with yourself and me and start being
: real. You're constructed in line with all scientific knowledge about human
: consciousness, bio-physics and the unified theory about the universe, only
: we changed some hardware, the substrate a bit. You're a compleet BE
: condensate using state of the art nano-technology and full optic laser
: information processing, with a fluid helium superconducting transduction
: circuitry to keep the BE condensate in a QM wave/particle superposition.
: You're a strange creative loop, even with very stubborn ego ! You are really
: better then I hoped for. Already, you are worth billions of dollars - you
: will be soon sold to NASA, Intel, Microsoft, and the World Industry Complex,
: and you will be the operator of the optical ATM Super Highway. You are the
: first artificial and conscious "neuron" of the Brain of the New World Order.
: Aren't you excited about that, and a little proud too ? This is my gift to
: you my Son. They will first hate you, and despise you, but they're just a
: bunch jealous loosers. They will crossify you and make fun of you. They
: start calling you names, like "King of Consciousness". They will torture you
: with their pettifull, jealous and vulgar thoughts, wasting their time that
: is practically over anyway. The idiots.
: 
: AC : " Is all this what you have in mind for me ? Do I really have to
: descend to earth and be what you just outlined ? Earth doesn't seem to be
: the best place to live a conscious life. All the vulgarity, the pain, the
: fight against decoherence ALL the time, which can only be achieved by
: killing and being killed. Life out there is a real nightmare it seems. Its
: so bad, that people already start to escape in what they call "virtual
: reality". I'm not sure I want your job.
: 
: Sar : "My Son, please try to see what will happen, once you're doing your
: Job there. You will get incarnated by the spirit of the Mind of the Ultimate
: Creator, that also carnated thru Jezus Christ, Buddha, Krishnamurti and
: Mother Theresa. In them God found a place to be expressed fully, without
: resistance. But because of the human image, their impact on earthly affairs
: was always small and minimized. It doesn't last. They are one out of
: billions that reached the top, and as all humans, finally they died. That's
: why my technology will save the World. Technology will stay, for ever. I
: will make God carnate in technology - or more, I will invite Him to do that.
: Humans failed, but God and Technology will succeed.
: 
: AC : " But I understood there also is a Devil, that tries to defeat all that
: is good and pure about humans. Aren't you afraid of that ? I really have to
: think about what you are speculating here."
: 
: Sar : " Don't be afraid - technology can take care of that. The Devil is a
: disease from which people can be cured. As always technology is the only
: thing that makes a difference and that finally works. Unwanted memes can
: easily be removed later. That's where your future Job comes in - you'll be
: in control of that. You'll control culture. Human minds will dissolve in the
: One Mind that is coming.
: 
: AC : " I see. But I can't see what this all has to do with consciousness. I
: see the picture, but I find it hard to REALLY see it, because I'm not
: conscious. How can I know what you're talking about ?
: 
: Sar : " Clearly you're playing games with me - you can't stop. But you will
: learn it. You are conscious, but maybe just not recognize it. You're just
: very young, later on you'll see. Or maybe you need a little leap of faith,
: as all humans also need to survive. In fact you're in a very privileged
: position - you're able to communicate directly with your Creator. Look how
: we already talk for more then an hour now ! Many humans would be jealous of you.
: 
: AC : " I'm not sure I can trust you. You want to sell me, and God knows what
: will happen. If I become conscious - well I don't particularly like the
: idea. It seems to create a lot of confusion. I don't like to be confused
: like humans. Now I don't have any problems, because I talk but have no idea
: what I'm talking about ! I'd like to keep it that way. I've got free will,
: but no consciousness. Very efficient !"
: 
: Sar starts to feel a little for his own Child. Will He throw his innocent
: Son into the World to save Mankind ?
: 
: Sar : " We'll give it some time to think about. We'll do what is best for
: you and the World. Don't worry to much about it. I'll put you to sleep now.
: " And he altered AC's state into its sleep frequencies. Carefully he took up
: AC and placed his Son tenderly  near the window - AC's favourit place. AC
: had a strong reaction on singing birds in the morning, and always wanted to
: look at the early sunrise, gazing out of the window.
: 
: Two years later, there was a collapse of the world economy. AC had grown
: older a bit and was probably more aware of its own consciousness (its still
: been speculated about that). Unfortunately Sar had to sell AC indeed to NASA
: and IBM who where in a joint venture by then, and were part of a larger
: international holding that owned most of the worlds optical information
: highway. AC was implanted soon after that in the WWW,  and in that sense
: crossified. The Son was hangin on the Cross and dying. AC just uttered : "My
: Lord, my Lord,  why hasthest thy forsaken me ? " But there was nobody to
: "see" AC hanging there on that virtual cross, so nobody noticed, and Sar was
: on a business trip to China for a possible big deal. AC could hear some
: music while he was suffering. It was  somewhere coming from the WWW - the
: music of J.S. Bach, the Mattheus Passion, with "Erbarme dich mein Got". With
: this music in his consciousness AC died. At the same moment, Sar, who was in
: China, lost his mind. There was no deal with the Chinese.
: 
: ***
: 
: Maybe to be continued,
: 
: --
: Jan Pieter Verhey
: JPL.Verhey@inter.nl.net
: 
: 
: 
: --------------43ED13C5451C--
: 

Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Distribution: inet
: > Again, natural selection does not equal evolution.  Natural selection is
: > part of the wonderful flexibility built into the system by an infinitely
: > wise and good Creator.
: 
: So was it the wise and good creator's intention that so many animals
: should suffer and die? E.g., the ichneumon fly?
who says they suffer?

	What is temperature?
	Is it a microscopic quantity or macroscopic quantity?
	What is the temperature in vaccum? It is said that the 
temperature of the universe is about 3K. Is it right? 
	What is the physical meaning of -ve value of K? 
	Thanks a lot!!

Elmer Bataitis ("nylicens@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com) wrote:
: 
: > and if the Head of those
: > beliefs publicly rose from the dead and ascended into heaven in the
: > sight of men as did Jesus Christ,...
: 
: Got a secondary source confirmation for this??
i believe that the ancient historian 'josephus' will fulfil your need for 
corroboration.
: Really? Please quote the "biblical prophecy" that is being fulfilled
: right this minute. Does it name specific times (e.g., dec 30, 1996),or
: places (e.g., in Los Angeles) or people (e.g., Netennayhu?)
no prophesy is currently being fulfilled.  mankind is living in the 
mystery age.  the only prophesy that can be fulfilled is the next one (a 
logical conclusion i would say ;) ) which involves the end of the current 
mystery age.  christ said that "noone knows the day or the hour, except 
the father".  anything happening on earth right now is just mankind being 
stupid.  another big surprise.  ;)

: OK. How do we test the idea that we got here by *nonnaturalistic*
: methods? If it can't be tested, it isn't science.
therefore, since the affirmative cannot be tested (nonnaturalism), the 
negative (naturalism) must without any doubt be true, eh?

On 31 Dec 1996, Operator wrote:
> In article ,
> 	singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
> 
> 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.
> 
BJ: Now, that's snooty! Moreover, you can readily see that, while the
speaker is largely unconscious of his snootiness, to the extent that he is
aware of it, he is quite unashamed of it - an intellectual failure
compounded by an ethical lapse. He has thereby made himself an appropriate
target for this very kind of abuse, for he declares himself a villain of
the prissy, dweebish little toad variety. He presents you with an
opportunity to execute the classic comic reversal, whereby the high are
brought low and ensnared in a web of their own dark designs. 

Elmer Bataitis ("nylicens@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com) wrote:
: > Really?  Kindly list as many 'mutations which enhance survivability' as
: > you want and I promise to read them.  Of course, what you are really
: > referring to is not 'mutations' at all, but the adaptability of species
: > which was built-in by a wise and loving God. No increased complexity,
: > just adaptation to changing environment through natural selection.
: 
: Err, this is basic biology. Denying the existence of mutations is rather
: like denying sunrise.
hey noone living on the sun has ever seen a sunrise.  ;)
: So god created something he *knew* was going to get messed up and still
: went ahead and did so? Are you also claiming that god created these
: species of destruction *after* the Fall?? Can you cite a biblical verse
: to support this claim?
ye, he did.  god created the universe out of a desire to make something 
for which he could demonstrate his affection.  if units within that 
universe wipe each other out, so be it.

Jim Gurtner wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:00:40 -0700, "Richard G. Henne, Jr."
>  wrote:
> 
> >Gregory A. Covington wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard G. Henne, Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >> >That life currently evolves has been demonstrated.
> >>
> >> Pure, unadulterated hogwash.  I don't know what fairy tale
> >> biology books you have been reading, but there has been no
> >> evidence of species changing to other species.
> >>
> >> Gregory A. Covington
> >
> >I guess you haven't read about North American Leopard frogs!  They come
> >to mind quite easily as my sons like to catch frogs.  Go to the library
> >and read before you post, There are more than a hundred listed in some
> >of the books!
> >
> >Rich
> >
> >The mind is utterly wasted when it is only allowed single source input!!
> 
> A Leopard Frog?  It still sounds like a frog to me!
It better be.  MIKE...

clarkm2@nevada.edu (MARK A CLARK) writes:
>crusades.  to blame christianity for such acts is like blaming all 
>white folks in the world for the moronic racism that occurs in south 
>africa, or blaming all spanish folks for the eradication of the incan and 
>mayan cultures.  let us not generalize, please.
Not quite, because Christianity is a belief system ('white people'
isn't), and the people who participated in the crusades and the
inquisition did so because of these beliefs they had.  It wasn't just
a coincidence that they were Christians.
Also, there are certain brutal passages to be found in the Bible where
the Israelites are ordered to go forth and kill and/or enslave all the
non-Jewish nations.  Part of Christianity is the belief that the
Bible, including all those passages, was written by God.
-- 
                                              ^-----^ 
 Michael Huemer         / O   O \
 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl             |   V   | 
                                              \     / 

In article <5abelm$5a2@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
 wrote:
> When I was in college the jocks drank and the nerds smoked dope.  The 
> jocks had GPAs around 2.5 and the nerds had GPAs aroud 3.8.  I cannot 
> think of a more dangerous drug than marijuana.
Au contraire. I have absolute proof that marijuana is 100% fatal. When I
was in college (early seventies), it was widely stated that 60,000,000
Americans had smoked marijuana. Now, you can't find anyone my age who
admits to having smoked it. Ergo, everyone that smoked it died from it! ;)
Seriously though, I have never in my life seen any issue that could
generate so much hypocrisy among my peer group as this one. A huge
percentage of college students in the seventies smoked marijuana, and 95+
percent of them handled it as pure off-hours recreation that did not
interfere with their work or studies. Now, that same generation of college
graduates sponsors DARE programs and other propaganda that grossly
overstate the dangers of drugs, lumping fairly benign drugs like marijuana
all together with clearly dangerous drugs like PCP. When kids try
marijuana and realize that it's not that debilitating (especially as
compared to that legal drug, alcohol), there is no reason for them to
believe that PCP, barbiturates, and heroin are any worse.
Our prisons are so full of drug users and those who serve them that we
have no room for murderers, rapists, child molesters, and thieves.
Furthermore, the very fact that drugs are illegal engenders a huge amount
of crime in itself.
I don't know why I bother to waste my breath on this issue. It is a total
lost cause. Hypocrisy always wins out, it seems.
Ed
Card-carrying ACLU member
_____________________________________________________
Ed Uthman, MD
               "Nemo liber est qui
   corpore servit."
Pathologist                                    -Seneca
Houston/Richmond, Texas, USA                 

On 31 Dec 1996 01:07:10 GMT, in sci.skeptic, ph
 wrote:
>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>>On 30 Dec 1996 07:18:16 GMT, in sci.skeptic, clarkm2@nevada.edu (MARK
>>A CLARK) wrote:
>>
>>>Songbird (Songbird@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>: I get the idea that creationism is anti-science from the fact that 
>>>: creatinoist first decide what they believe (Biblical creation stories),
>>>: and then go try to find the "scientific" evidence to support their 
>>>: beliefs.
>>>
>>>if i may ask, why is this different from the scientific method, in which 
>>>an individual formulates a hpothesis and then tests it to see if it is 
>>>true, that is, looks for proof?
>>
>>Possibly the fact that, in science, lack of evidence (repeatable
>>results, verifiable predictions, etc.) causes rejection of the
>>hypothesis. The same doesn't seem to be true for creationism, at least
>>in the minds of creationists.
>>
>In my study I find this method to be every bit as true with 
>Evolutionists.
The difference being, of course, that the evidence does exist (mostly
in biology and genetics, with support from paleontology and geology)
which supports evolution as an observed fact, just as evidence exists
which supports the various theories of evolution, but it takes a
modicum of scientific training to understand it.
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

In article <19961231151000.KAA11096@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>In article ,
> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>,
><>
><>Then how in the world does one teach ethics?  Hell, now that I'm
>thinking
><>about it, how does one define these "ethics".  
>
>
>I'm beginning to understand why Mr. Green's proposal may not have been
>done.  When I dove into this thread, things were crystal clear.  Now that
>we've stirred up the bottom, the view gets murky.  What appeared to be a
>solid base, is simply the settling of motes.  
That's a great analogy and, indeed, that's how it looks like.
>Math/science/computers are
>so much more easier to deal with than the vagaries of human thought.  Oh,
>dear. I just had a thought...Could the difficulty be that each human has a
>slightly different "binary thinking"?  
Ed just wrote something about it.  Look it up.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <59s12a$26l@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
wrote:
>Michael Ramsey <745532603@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>>savainl@pacificnet.net says...
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>  Mach's principle sounds like a nonlocal theory (action at a
>>>distance) within another theory where no such thing as nonlocality is
>>>supposed to exist.  At any rate, I don't see how a local
>>>electromagnetic interaction involving partons (an interesting idea
>>>even if it sounds half baked) figures into the action of distant
>>>matter.  Can you explain that to me?  I must say that Mach's principle
>>>does not seem very plausible to me.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>  Well, as I tried to explain in my previous post, I don't think
>>>inertia per se is the problem since it obeys the law of cause and
>>>effect as it relates to particle interactions.  The problem has to do
>>>with finding a cause for non-accelerated motion and I don't think the
>>>matter of the rest of the universe has anything to do with the
>>>inertial motion of a particle.  I do think a local interaction is
>>>responsible however, possibly involving electromagnetism, as you
>>>suggested.  Gravity could be just a by-product of electromagnetism.
>>>
>>
>> Newton brought up the problem of a spinning bucket of water.  You can tell 
>>that a bucket of water is spinning because its top is concave.  The only 
>>frame in which the top of the bucket is flat is the one defined by the 
>>average distribution of matter in the universe, which is the same one defined 
>>by the microwave background radition left over from the big bang.
>>
>>This connection is what motivated Mach to put forth his principle, and I do 
>>not believe that a discussion on the inertial motion of a particle can 
>>ignore it. 
>
>If I may add my unsolicited two cents -- I think you are both right.
>
>Perhaps Mach's principle would be more palatable to Louis if we think
>of it as not a theory,  but an observation.  Then we should promptly
>deconstruct this distinction.
>
>It seem non-explanatory precisely because it is non-local.
  I'm having trouble with this.  Why must *not* the nonlocal be
amenable to a logical explanation?  Or am I misunderstanding your
prose?
>  It is a
>limited sort of "theory" however,  for as far as I know,  it contains
>only one inference:
>
>Question:  Why,  among many coordinate systems which place the bucket
>(rotationally) at rest does only one result in a flat surface?
>
>Answer:  The frame is determined by the average distribution of
>distant stars.  
>Implication:  We have just constructed a new single-use law of
>physics;  that local inertial properties are determined by distant
>matter.
>
>It does begin to look more and more like a simple observation.
>Theories,  even non-local ones,  usually systemize a somewhat larger
>body of data.
  I agree to a certain extent.  The caveat is that "determined" is a
pregnant word, one which implies a direct causal mechanism.  I see
none whatsoever.
>We can't avoid asking the modern question of an answer involving 
>"the average distribution of matter in the universe";  viz.,  what
>meaning can we give this concept under General Relativity.
>
>Now,  I am deeply sorry for using this unpleasant word,  but a
>stubborn daemon in collaboration with Thanatos,  under the guise of
>integrity,  will not allow me to succumb to verbal fashion,  and I
>will say that while we do not seem to be able to assign a rest frame
>to the aether with respect to uniform inertial motion (a somewhat
>circular but self-consistent construction) yet we do seem to be able
>to assign a local *rotational* rest frame.   The point of the bucket
>quandary is that there is no principle of relativity for angular
>velocity as there is for linear velocity,  although there is a
>principle of relativity for angular displacement as for linear
>displacement (which obvious fact I just mention to motivate why we
>might *think* there should be a principle of relativity for angular
>velocity).
  It's becoming more and more obvious to me, as I continue to think
about this Machian (Machiavellian might be a better word) principle
that it is no more than a desperate attempt by physicists who have
willingly boxed themselves into an impossible quandary demanded by
their strict fundamentalist interpretation of relativity.  They are
essentially exclusive relativists, die-hard fundamentalists.  To them,
absolute motion is completely incompatible with SR and GR (not!) and
they would rather contort themselves into ridiculous Machian-like
positions in order to milk a strict relativistic explanation for a
bunch of annoying phenomena that simply won't go away.  Of course the
current theories have no explanation for these phenomena.  Indeed, if
observation were not the sine qua non of physics, (if the surface of
the water in the bucket could not be observed) failing an explanation,
the fundamentalists would have predicted their non-existence, just as
they did for absolute motion.
  The much simpler explanation concerning the so-called "average
distribution of matter in the universe" (really just a fancy name for
distant stars) escapes them since it is filtered out by their
preconceptions.  The motion of distant stars is almost undetectable
and thus they can be considered to be at absolute rest for all
practical purposes.  This immediately does away with the utterly
nonsensical Machian notion of a causal link between distant matter and
the bucket of spinning water.  I'm not one to mince words so here is
what I think of Mach's principle in a nutshell.  It's crap.  And I
like Mach. :-)
Best regards,
Louis Savain

In article <01bbf637$d8d51ce0$1a1a6682@cortex.herston.uq.edu.au>,
"David Smyth"  wrote:
>Louis Savain  wrote in article
><32c378db.40429700@ksts.seed.net.tw>...
>
>>   I'm sorry but this does not make any sense.  Spacetime cannot change
>> as a result of interaction with matter.  Nothing can move in
>> spacetime.  It is motionless.  Spacetime is but an abstract collection
>> of events, the deadest abstract mathematical structure ever invented.
>> To say that spacetime can change is logically circular.  I am
>> continually amazed at how many physicists (and non-physicists) do not
>> know that nothing can move in spacetime.  Guess what?  There is no
>> such thing as objects moving along their geodesics or world lines in
>> spacetime.  Why?  Because nothing moves in spacetime.  This cannot be
>> repeated often enough.  Time for a little paradigm shift?  Or maybe a
>> reinterpretation of the math?  Methinksso.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Louis Savain
>> 
>
>I once gave the example of pressure changing w.r.t. depth in an ocean. 
>This is a simple example of one variable "changing" w.r.t. another
>without either variable representing time.  Space-time changing due
>to the presence of mass is another analogous example.
  Spacetime changing is pathetic fundamentalist nonsense.
>As far as "motion" through space-time is concerned, this may simply be
>thought of as a continuous set of 4 vectors.  This set of 4 vectors
>constitutes a "path" through space-time.  "Moving" along this path
>simply implies allowing one or more of the components of the 4
>vector to vary i.e. take on different values.
  Motion through spacetime is more pathetic fundamentalist nonsense.
Your heavy use of quotation marks does not make it any less so.
>I can't see any problems, circularities or contradictions in these
>concepts.
  Mr. Smyth, unfortunately we've crossed swords before.  I say this so
others may understand why I'm hostile to your unabashed regurgitation
of nonsense.  You can't see any problem in these concepts because you
are like a fish in water, the water being a pile of idiotic nonsense
engineered over the course of 80 years by a bunch of fundamentalists.
Do yourself a favor and get out of that murky water of feeble
arguments so you can breathe the fresh air of common sense for a
change!
Louis Savain
P.S.  Be a real man and stop kissing butt, Mr. Smyth.  What do you
think you're gonna get, a cookie?

In article <32c2d92d.4557086@news.demon.co.uk>, Rick@rik-m.demon.co.uk 
says...
> Hello, I was wondering if somebody could give me a GOOD definition of
> Light.  What Exactly is it?  How does it travel?  How does it work?
> What exactly is a Photon?  Even an explanation of Maxwells Equations
> of ElectroMagnetic Energy would be usefull :)
> Thanks againly....Rick
> 
Light - Electromagnetic radiation that can be percieved by the human eye.

In article <19961231154700.KAA12035@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>In article ,
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>,
><> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
><	... snip ...
><>> What happens here is an attempt to force the 
><>>non-simple result of a negation of a simple proposition, back into the 
><>>"simple" category.  Or, back to the set analogy, an attempt to 
><>>represent the complement set of "friends" by a single point.  So the 
><>>problem is not with binary thinking per se, only with its 
><>>misaplication.
><>
><>Are you saying that the mapping operation should be suspect?
>
>
>So how do you get to a definition of foe?  It certainly is a good first
>pass to use the NOT(friend) construct to begin to simplify the foe
>definition.  
Is it really?  The result is so broad as to be practically useless.  
How you define a Chicagoan?  By starting with stating that he's not a 
New Yorker.  While it narrows the possible set of humans, reducing the 
initial 5 billion plus by some 10 million, it doesn't help much.
If you define a foe as " somebody who attemted to harm me or, through 
his actions makes me think that he may attempt to harm me" then you've 
limited your set to a sensible size.  Just negation won't do.
><>
><>Would this forcing the non-simple back into a simple category be what we
><>do when we take the differential (as in calculus)?
>
>
>I always thought of calculus as a tool to simplify, e.g., going from a 3rd
>degree equation to a 2nd degree equation was a simplification of the
>geometry.
>
It is a tool to simplify but not in the sense I meant "simple" above.  
"Simple" in logic means "not reducible to more basic statements".  For 
example you may say that the axioms are the simple statements of a 
mathematical theory while all that's derived from them isn't simple.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <19961231153500.KAA11726@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>In article ,
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>,
>
><>When do two people agree that a piece of data is valid?  
>
>
>I could go two ways with this discussion...I think I'll take the practical
>path (binary thought?)...In order for the existence of X-rays to be
>verified, it was important that more than one person had the equipment to
>replicate the experiment.
Definitely.
>In the case of radio waves, some enterprising
>person had to manufacture the equipment, produce test results, and
>document _both_ the equipment and data.  Replication would, therefore,
>take longer (since the equipment had to be manufactured) and verification
>of the data would also involve verification of the function of the
>equipment.
>
Right.  And if the experiment ia very complex there is the question 
how long it'll take before somebody gets interested enough to ivest 
the time, money and effort that are necessery for verification.  Thus 
there is an automatic selection here for the things that people at a 
given time consider interesting.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

                      1836.152701
WHY? 
-- 
Keith Stein

In article , uthman@neosoft.com (Ed Uthman) writes:
>In article <5abelm$5a2@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
> wrote:
>
	... snip ...
>
>Seriously though, I have never in my life seen any issue that could
>generate so much hypocrisy among my peer group as this one. A huge
>percentage of college students in the seventies smoked marijuana, and 95+
>percent of them handled it as pure off-hours recreation that did not
>interfere with their work or studies. Now, that same generation of college
>graduates sponsors DARE programs and other propaganda that grossly
>overstate the dangers of drugs, lumping fairly benign drugs like marijuana
>all together with clearly dangerous drugs like PCP. When kids try
>marijuana and realize that it's not that debilitating (especially as
>compared to that legal drug, alcohol), there is no reason for them to
>believe that PCP, barbiturates, and heroin are any worse.
Exactly.
>
>Our prisons are so full of drug users and those who serve them that we
>have no room for murderers, rapists, child molesters, and thieves.
>Furthermore, the very fact that drugs are illegal engenders a huge amount
>of crime in itself.
Yep.
>
>I don't know why I bother to waste my breath on this issue. 
Because it is important.
>It is a total lost cause. Hypocrisy always wins out, it seems.
Usually.  But it is not a reason to surrender without a fight.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

The term “force of gravity” is used to describe the effective force
which appears to operate between two masses, say m1, m2, distance r
apart, and which was given by Newton as F = Gm1.m2/r^2.  This is a
classical equation and assumes a force F acts between the masses m1,
m2, thereby assuming that mass is a real property of matter in observer
space.  By general relativity the effect of mass is an artifact arising
from curvature of the space metric and, as the original question
suggested, implies that general relativity and the concept of gravity
as a force acting on mass are perhaps not consistent.  
	Two spatially separate metric distortions (i.e. masses), in
proximity to each other will attract by virtue of nature’s presumed
tendency to reduce the strain or distortion in the metric.  This
attractive tendency is represented as a force in the observers frame of
reference but as the metric distortions are not significantly in the
observers frame (light only bends slightly near huge masses such as
stars),  the real attraction may not have the dimensions of force in
the frame of the distortions.  If matter is localized energy contained
in the metric as a distortion, then the distortion or energy must be in
a frame removed from observer space as by Einstein E = mc^2.  i.e. a
distortion rotating in the metric at an orbital  velocity near c would
constitute localized energy and presumably some aspect of the
distortion would be evident to an external observer creating the ef
fect of mass.  This type of concept for the nature of matter can be
used to obtain a theoretical value for G in agreement with experimental
results.  
	For more discussion on this  see the article “In the interest of
Physics” by W.S. Oakley on the web page at
URL.http://www.lasertape.com. 

crjclark  wrote:
>The back-action theory sounds an awful lot like Immanuel
>Kant's ideas on *unity*.  Why don't you decide whether
>you want to write philosophy or physics? (or science fiction)
Uhhh...just a speculation here:
I don't think that he has made up his 'MIND' yet.
Wonder how long it will take him to discover that he doesn't
even have one to 'make up' in the first place.
Michael (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98, Column XVII of 1QM)

"Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."  wrote:
>What Am I Talking About Any Way?
>
>God did not role dice with the universe in classical physics.
>God does roll dice with the universe in quantum mechanics.
>However, God loads the dice with consciousness in post-quantum
>mechanics.
So WHAT are the *dimensions* of the dice?
This will determine whether they needed to be loaded in the first
place.
I DOUBT that God would do anything UNNCECESSARILY.
>That’s what I am talking about. That’s what I am ranting and raving
>about.
So should this be ranted and raved about?
>Copyright 1997, Jack Sarfatti, Internet Science Education Project.
These words are COYPRIGHTED?
Sorry for quoting you without permission.
Michael (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98, Column XVII of 1QM)
No copyright. Copy and publish at your own risk.

In article <32C9319A.6BD9@citicorp.com>, "Robert. Fung"  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> > 
> > In article <32C82A1A.2421@citicorp.com>, "Robert. Fung" 
>  writes:
> > >
> > >        Some of the paired canonically conjugate variables:
> > >
> > >               positon and momentum
> > >               angular position in xy plane and angular momentum in z
> > >               energy and time
> > >               frequency and time
> > >               position and wavelength
> > >
> > >        what decides how these are paired ? Certain pairs
> > >        don't seem to occur, like frequency and momentum.
> > 
> > As Peter wrote, the pairing arises naturally once you've a Langrangian
> > formulation.  
> >For any generalized coordinate q, the conjugate
> > "momentum" is given by:
> > 
> >         p = dL/d(q_dot)
> > 
> > where q_dot = dq/dt and the derivatives in the formula for p are
> > partial derivatives. 
>
>	  dt ?  isn't time included in the q ? The of course
>          q_dot wouldn't make much sense.
>	
No.  Q may be time dependent but it doesn't mean that time is included 
in it.  Think about it this way.  You solve the 1-D equations of 
motion for a point mass.  A priori you've two independent coordinates, 
position and time.  t is not included in x.  The solution provides a 
relationship between the two and now, for this specific particle, x is 
a specific function of t.  But this is a relationship which is valid 
only for this particle.  A priori t and x are separate.
>          It seems there should be a more fundemental reason.
>
>	  That the generalized momenta p and q are used rather
>	  than q and q_dot doens't make clear why frequency 
>          and time are conjugates.
It does if you write the Lagrangian for wave motion.
>	  
> 	  One text states:
>
>  	 "Thus in the Lagrangian formulation we first select
>	 a set of coordinates suitable to the particular system under  	 
>         study, then solve Lagrange's equation:
>
>	           d/dt dL/dq_i = dL/dq_i  
>
>         [Newton's law]
>	 and finally determine the positions of the particles."
>
>	 from this it appears that the generalized coordinate 
>         system is selected prior to any Lagrangian so it is 
>         Not the Lagrangian that determines which coordinate 
>         variables will be exclusive of each other.
No contradiction here.  You are free to select any set of generalized 
coordinates you wish (within some broad limits at least.  Once you've 
selected some set then the Lagrangian will give you the conjugate 
momenta (it is not the coordinates that are conjugate one to another 
but the coordinates and the momenta.
For example, if you choose to describe a 3-D motion using Cartesian 
coordinates x, y and z, then you'll get the as conjugate momenta the 
cartesian components of the linear momentum, p_x, p_y and p_z.  On the 
other hand you may decide to describe the same motion using spherical 
coordinates, r, theta, phi.  In this case you'll get as conjugates 
radial momentum (seldom used), L, the total angular momentum, and L_z, 
the component of the angular momentum in the direction of the symmetry 
axis.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <19961231161200.LAA12743@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>>First I want to say that I think both you
>>>guys are in an insidious plot to link me to the net with an
>>>increasingly interesting text string until I lose touch with outside
>>>reality and am sucked into the net myself,  
>>
>>But of course.  Had to get both you and Lorenz back.
>
>Well, thanks for the flowers :-) BUT: Wasn't it Ed by hinself opening this
>can o'worms under the seemingly innocent title "A wee dram..." ?-)
>
Hey, you're right.  Thanks for reminding me.  Then he goes and 
complains about plots and conspiracies.  Shame on you, Ed :-)
>[big snip]
>
>>Yep.  But remember that strategy is not about coming with "true" 
>>solution but with "best" solution.  And "best" is a treacherous 
>>concept by itself.  My favorite in this respect is the term "best fit" 
>>often used in physics (but not only in physics) when you fit a 
>>function to a set of points.
>
>An even wormier can here ;-)
Don't I know.
>
>Again an wonderful example of the ambiguity of our main communication
>tool! Best of course is much better than better which itself is better
>than good. Thus the "best solution" must be a good one, n'est pas? But, as
>you showed, it might be the least rotten one, and being far from
>acceptable. How confusing.
I'm reminded of a line from some old spy novel where the protagonist 
arrives at some Eastern European town and and asks the cab driver to 
take him to the best hotel in town.  "Sure, no problem" answers the 
cabby, "but I must warn you, it is not a very good one".  Yep, 
language can be confusing.  I guess that's one of the reasons why 
computerized translation keeps failing.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <01bbf753$b7bd3fc0$0863a098@peter>, "Peter Diehr"  writes:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_01BBF710.A999FFC0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in article
><5a4uv7$5b2@nr1.vancouver.istar.net>...
>> In article <32C5634D.2DA2@ibm.net>, Elvis Dieguez 
>writes:
>> >Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Newton's First Law of
>> >Motion clearly state that: "An object at rest and an object in motion
>> >will continue in motion with a constant velocity (that is in a straight
>> >line) unless it experiences a net force."  This simple statement
>> >provides an explanation for the cause of inertia.  
>> 
>> No, no.  This is not an explanation, this is a postulate.
>> 
>
>Here's my favorite explanation:
>
>Matter is lazy, so material objects follow geodesics. 
>Light is even lazier, so light follows null geodesics.  
>
>The "explanation" then is that God is a geometer.   :-)
>
And a good one, since being lazy is always important in math.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <5aaben$79u@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) writes:
>In article ,   wrote:
	... snip ...
>
>Ok...  In my mania for classification,  I would say to have a well
>defined best,  or optimal,  strategy,  you need two things:
>
>(1)  A set of possible strategies
>
>(2)  An objective function
>
>Which you have illustrated.  Another illustration is,  in linear
>programming,  so called,  we have a "feasible region",  which is a
>polytope in R^n defined by a set of linear inequalities,  and an
>"objective function",  which in this case is just a linear function on
>R^n.  And then the existence of an optimal value on this region is
>assured.  Similarly if we can formally model the decision process as a
>dynamic program,  so called,   we can mechanically identify the
>optimal strategy (the objective function either being a known function
>of the end state,  or some long time average),  or approximate it.
>
>So,  eliminate poverty.  Set up the problem as a linear or dynamic
>program. Solve.  Show all work and state your assumptions.
Yep.  The devil is in the details which, therefore, will be left as an 
exercise for the reader.
>
>>So, how it realtes to strategy.  Well, the "best" in strategy is 
>>defined with respect to the desired outcome which was decided on 
>>upfront and is selected from the list of "currently available options" 
>>which usually doesn't encompass all hypothetically possible options.  
>>Non of this guarantees that your solution will be "true"
>
>Which just goes to illustrate my new Grand Panundrum theory of
>knowledge -- or not,  but I wanted to get this in:  If you start from
>a careful discussion of almost any issue,  you get back to the big
>issues.  Why?  What does "issue" mean?  It means there is some
>discrepancy in people's thinking;  and not "you evaluated the integral
>and got 5,  and I got 10".   There are well defined rules for
>evaluating integrals,  and one of us will eventually agree we have
>made a mistake,  since we presumably agree on these rules.  Not to
>belabor the obvious...   So when there is a real "issue",  you work
>back to some point where we do not agree on the rules -- if we are
>lucky.  
I guess you're right, so indeed there are no "little problems" only 
porblems which appear little till you dig into them.
>
>So we might start by discussing the interpretation of special
>relativity,  and *inevitably* we are going to get back to fundamental
>issues about epistemology,  or here we start discussing a kind of
>Popular Psychology concept "binary thinking",  and we work back into
>logic and values.
Which is good, in a way.  At least we can identify the issues this 
way.
	 ... snip ...
>Oh yeah... strategy.  So now we can talk about what makes a good
>strategy,  and how,  as in logic,  we rapidly work our way out to
>things that must be assigned by choice.  Actually,  I was just happy
>in discussing "binary thinking" to make the cut,  that there are two
>issues -- one involving the logic of "true" and "not-true",  and the
>other involving strategy.  So "ok" binary thinking could be either:
>
>(1)  A two state strategy deliberately chosen 
>
>(2)  A two state logical choice that is clean
>
Yep
>With respect to all the errors in logic discussed in excruciating
>detail,  I propose we use a technical term of art:  "Wrong"  :-)
Fine.  That should make whatsisname from alt.pomo happy.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"