Newsgroup sci.physics 213816

Directory

The limit of 1/x as x --> 0 is infinity.
When you talk about 1/0 directly there is at times a difficulty
connecting it with the general numerical system.  If you wish to be
sloppy, you can say it is infinity without noting limits.  However, it
is usually defined in terms of limits.
a suggestion,
-X

          For Math, Science And Ethics Activists:
             Organize K-12 Students And Others
                   For The Common Good.
------------------------------------------------------------
       What 7 Straight Lines In Plane Are Most Important And Why?
	"the ones that hold the plane together so you don't crash and die"
	~justin

alfonso@frontiernet.net (Alfonso) wrote:
>Do you know any orthodox Jews, Matt?
Excuse me!  It may have escaped your notice, but Matt *is* a Jew!
[I cannot say for certain if he is Orthodox himself, but he certainly
does not strike me as liberal theologically, so it is possible thst he
himself is Othodox].
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

Morphesius@usa.net (Morphesius) wrote:
>	Hawking said that black holes might be observed since there
>are occasions when two particles, any one particle and its
>corresponding antiparticle, spontaneously come into being near a black
>hole. That "spontaneously coming into being" bit sounds like creation
>if I ever heard it.
It may sound like it, but it isn't, at least not in any sense that
Fundamentalist Christian would want to admit to.
This is, in fact, a consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Anything an pop into existance and disappear again as long as it
doesn't "show up" in the overall book-keeping the Universe does.
Formation of particle-antiparticle pairs is how this spontaneous
formation takes place.
Now, if one of these virtual (non-real but extant) particles happens
to pass the event horizon of a black hole it cannot recombine with its
virtual anti-particle any longer. This prevent the counterpart from
disappearing in time, so it must become fully real and detectable,
Since the Universe insists the energy (and certain other properties)
remain constant above the Heisenberg threshhold, this equires that the
black hole lose mass and energy equal to the mass-energy of the newly
promoted real particle.  Ergo, black holes evaporate.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

In article <32ca938f.4435083@news> , wf3h@enter.net writes:
>>A study was done in 1960 to determine the amount of 'cosmic dust' making
>>its way onto earth.
>>So at the time that Scientific Creationism was printed, the data had
>>already been around for years, showing that the moon dust argument was
>>invalid.
>>Any book which puts this forward as an argument is simply shoddily
>>researched. All the other young-earth arguments I have seen have been
>>equally invalid.
>
>yes, well put....unfortunately, creationists are quite effective at
>lying so this info will have little effect on them..they will simply
>make up something else.
As many creationists are fond of pointing out, you can't demonstrate
lying unless you can demonstrate a clear intention to deceive.  That's
what they say.  In Exodus, God says something like "thou shalt not bear
false witness", and then completely forgets to put in the part about
motivation or intention to deceive.  Nor does God say it's ok to
unknowingly retransmit the lies of others.
In this particular case, it seems likely that MARK A CLARK is not aware
that he is repeating lies.  He is a typically undereducated and overly
credulous American college student (?) who innocently believes what he
reads, especially if it confirms his already extant notions about the
nature of things.
However, the tracts and screeds that MARK A CLARK has been reading were
written by men (are there any female creationist authors?) with a clear
intention of deceiving.  They were counting on the fact that MARK A CLARK
is undereducated and overly credulous.  They were counting on MARK A
CLARK being ignorant enough about the phenomena in question that their
ridiculous suppositions would seem to make some kind of sense.  It
appears that they were correct.
MARK, you have been lied to.  Your trust in your elders has been crudely
taken advantage of.  YOU have been played like some kind of an ignorance
fiddle, to which lies are uttered in the hopes they'll be played again. 
Does it upset you at all when people you trust take advantage of you like
this?  It would sure bother me.

In article ,
	Brian J Flanagan  writes:
>
>
>On 31 Dec 1996, Operator wrote:
>
>> 
>> 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. 
So it is arrogant to point out that a tiny part of usenet is rightly
reserved for real science discussions ?  Or...
Do you guys really take yourself serious ?????  *shock*  :-)
>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. 
Lotsa words but I don't get it... out of ammunition ?
              ;-)   
kisses and a Happy New Year,
Patrick.

In theory one could talk about rounding, but significant figures should
also be taken into account.
When you are saying that you have measured a value:
.999999999999999999999 you are saying that you have been able to measure
with a precision of better than +/- .0000000000000000000005.  Since you
included the ..., you can use limits of the reimann sum to show that it
is one.  The statement of the number of digits past the decimal point
can also, however, be used to say how precise your measurements are.  A
measurement of 1.0000 is saying you know the value is probably between
1.00005 and .99995, whereas a measurement of 1 is probably between 1.5
and .5 (with 95%, 99%, or whatever confidence level).
When you consider the ..., you can use the Maclaurin's formula, Taylors
series, or infinite series, or the like, to prove that it will add up to
1.
-X

In article <32C9D644.2ECD@pop.erols.com>, cwthomas@pop.erols.com says...
>
>Hi;
>Thanks for reading this. Does anyone know if its possible to view or
>create holograms with noncoherent light???
>
C. W.,
 holograms are made using coherent light; it's important to capture the phase 
relationships since this is key to the effect.  
Look in the literature for "white light" holograms.  These are holograms 
which can be viewed using normal light.  I have one of a stack of dimes that 
I made back in my optics class up in my bedroom.
--Best regards,
--Mike

Lorentz invariance as applied to Bohm's implicate order is similar to
Plato's Ideas(forms) applied to the Hilbert Space.  Each Hilbert
Space by definition is finite. Still, there may be an infinite number
of Hilbert Spaces.  
In higher implicate order manifolds, the beables and pilot-waves must
interact and are not necessarily bounded by the speed of light.
One conclusion of the EPR non-local effect is that, indeed,
configuration codes and momentum trajectories are communicated 
*instantaneously*.  Hence, the birth of the instanton.
If the instanton is bounded by non-local bosonic fields, each thought
in the human brain can be traced back to an infinite series which
*converges* in a Cauchy integral.  
When treating matters of thought waves, one must quickly dispel the
notion that nothing travels faster than light.  After all, real
unity is the intersection of Hilbert Spaces.
If we let a Hilbert Space (H) be bounded by the speed of light (c)
then (G), the gravitational constant and Omega, (Big Bang
Singularity) become equivalent.
So then:  Square root of Omega x HcG^2/g^-ij=N summation B over
+infinity and -infinity
where B is the sum total of beables in the Hilbert Space
and N is instanton automorphism.
Craig Clark
 

Im Artikel <32cded24.24331616@news.netspace.net.au>,
rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) schreibt:
>Ray,
>
>Would you entertain the possibility that the Solar oscillations are
>resonating with the planetary motion, due to tidal forces, rather than
>being the cause of the planetary distribution?
>
Excellent question IMHO. But: for a given set of four planets: would one
find a certain 'resonance' for every random distribution? And if the
distribution is not random: why isn't it?
Someone mentioned 'Bode's law'. As my maths are really bad, could someone
put in words, what the theory says and why it 'explains' the given
distribution?
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 , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>The NIH is the National Institute of Health in the states,
>the center for most medical research activity. In 
>recent years there were quite a few scandals having 
>to do with fraud in research either performed at or
>sponsored by the NIH.  
Thanks for clearing up who's who :-)
>Namely, they think that the purpose of research is
>to prove that your theory is right, not to find out whether 
>your theory is right (which is what it should be).  This little 
>difference is dangerous.
Could all easily be avoided by using a Popperian approach: try to
*disprove* your hypothesis (and that's still in the range of our present
discussion: the fundamental asymmetry between something and it's
negation).
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 , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>>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!
>
>"But Brutus and Casius say so.  And they're honorable men"
Reminds me of a Berlinian derivation of one famous German saying to make
it fit in the 'dark ages' some sixty years ago:
The original saying is: "Luegen haben kurze Beine" (Lies do have short
legs, meaning they won't go far). Now the 'Secretary of Propaganda'
(Official title!) Joseph Goebbles was known to limp because of a gumpy
leg. Thus the Berlinian with their sharp sense of humour said (very
quietly whispering this only into good friends ears): "The lie has a short
leg". Public wisdom, for which you could go to jail... dark ages, as I
said....
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 <32c6da5b.3660544@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, ericf@central.co.nz
(Eric Flesch) schreibt:
>Jonathan Scott gave a pretty good summary as follows:
[Quoting JS]
Note that the 100% correlation on its own does not require any magic. This
is compatible with the deterministic idea that photons "really" have a
specific direction given by an internal "hidden variable".
The real magic occurs in the mixed states, where the polarizers are
neither parallel nor perpendicular to one another. If you assume that the
results at one end are not affected by the polarizer angle at the other
end, you get an impossible situation.
If A(0), A(22.5) and A(45) are the possible result sets (lists of H or V
results) from measuring matched photons from the same experiment at
detector A, at angles 0, 22.5 and 45 degrees from a reference direction,
and similarly for B at the opposite end of the same experiment, then you
have the following predictions of quantum mechanics:
1.  A(0)    is 100% the same as B(0)      (correlation 1)
2.  A(22.5) is  85% the same as B(0)      (correlation 0.707)
3.  A(22.5) is  85% the same as B(45)     (correlation 0.707)
4.  A(0)    is  50% the same as B(45)     (correlation 0).
This means that
B(0)     is 15% different from A(22.5)  from 2.
B(45)    is 15% different from A(22.5)  from 3.
so B(0)  is not more than 30% different from B(45).
but B(0)     is     identical to A(0)       from 1.
so B(0)  is 50% different from B(45)    from 4.
which is impossible if it is not more than 30% different.
So far, the experiments show that the quantum mechanics predictions work,
and Bell's theorem says that it is impossible to find a local
deterministic explanation for this.
[End quote JS]
Thanks, Eric, to briefly quoting what brings it to the point. Now I do
have a question or two, and a suggestion how to explain the inequality
(boy oh boy, I must be nuts ;-)
The question: Do we measure in fact the 50% for the 45 degrees setting and
the 85% for the 22.5 setting? If this is so (as I guess), my suggestion
is: We are not allowed to simply add two 22.5 set results (thus giving 30%
miss) and say this is unequal to the 45 set result (50%). Because: it is
NOT the same pairs we are measuring. Actually each 85% result contains
pairs, which would not show up, when we could exactly reproduce the pair
production, but would have set both polarizers with an offset of 22.5. To
illustrate this effect see the sinus curves below:
=======================================
                        o
#                             o
        #                         o
                #                    o
                        #             o
*                             #      o
        *                         x
                *             o      #
                        $             #
                o             *      #
        o                         x
o                             #      *
                        #             *
                #                    *
        #                         *
#                             *
                        *
========================================
Both the o-curve and the *-curve cross the #-curve at the points marked
'x', which give a high value (e.g. 85%), but the crossing point of 'o'
with '*' (marked '$') is remarkably lower (e.g. 50%) and obviously lower
than two times the difference between peak level (100%) and the
'x'-points.
If this is all stupid, don't flame me (and don't tell me to read the faq -
I did), just tell me we're I'm wrong. Thanks.
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 <5a8d9u$78s@newsman.murdoch.edu.au>,
   jnorthct@central.murdoch.edu.au (J Northcote) wrote:
[I recently read David Bohm & David Peat's (1987) book, "Science, 
Order
[and Creativity," which argues that science should be a creative
[enterprise without constraints on free cognitive play.  I was
[wondering what people's views are on this issue.  Are there dangers 
in
[an 'anything goes' approach to theoretical formulation?  I am also
[interested to know where the authors might have obtained the 
following
[quote by Ernest Rutherford, who is said to have replied when asked
[about the new development in quantum theory: 
[
["There is only one thing to say about physics: the theorists are on
[the hind legs and it's up to us to get them down again."
[
[What exactly did Ernest Rutherford mean by this metaphor?
[
[
[
  He meant that experiments are as important as math.

lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> Someone mentioned 'Bode's law'. As my maths are really bad, could someone
> put in words, what the theory says and why it 'explains' the given
> distribution?
Bode's law as originally proposed (see Physics of the Earth, Stacey, 
1992), was a simple progression that matched the distribution of
planetary radiuses (sic).  It doesn't explain anything, but many 
have tried to explain *it*, in terms of physical interactions that
might result in a regular spacing.  This is like the situation in
chemistry where regularities in the spectral lines were eventually
explained by quantum mechanics.
Bodes law was of the form (a + b * 2^n) where n is 1,2,3,...(Earth
is 3).
My post about Bode's law was that it is improved if you just
assume that the *periods* of the planets double each planet, with
*two* asteroid belts.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Anonymous wrote:
> 
>  snelson@hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
>  s> I am a tree-hugging, crystal-rubbing, New-Age flake.
>  s> I'm also a bonafide Ph.D., a scientist.
> 
> Obviously not a physicist!
> 
>  s> I suggest you pick up a few books on crystals (scientific or
>  s> otherwise) and thumb through 'em.
> 
>  s> Can you say "piezoelectric crytals"?
>  s> Can you say "diflexion crystals"?
> 
> Sure, no problem.
> 
>  s> You see, it is a scientific, documented Fact that crystals can
>  s> transform one type of energy into another.
> 
> Spectacularly, but within narrow limits.
> 
>  s> They can store energy....ALL TYPES of energy.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
>  s> In other words, they
>  s> can be PROGRAMMED like your little Dell.
> 
>  s> Crytals are special and I'll rub 'em if it feels good, hoss.
> 
> OK, "Doctor," now explain to us "scientifically" how the piezoelectric
> effect of random, low-grade geological crystal specimens selected for
> their cosmetic appearance can be "programmed" by finger rubbing to
> produce specific disease cures, advanced "spiritual powers" or
> communication with a putatively deceased maiden aunt.
May I add my 2 sents? sense?
What's that poem that speaks of uncounted worlds in every grain of sand?
Or something like that.
My 'Galaxy Model' for the atom indicates that the next great Age will be 
the 'Age of Crystals'. You can access it and my gravity theory at
http://www.petcom.com/~john but basically it says that the smallest
complete unit IS the atom, and the smallest unit of the atom is another
atom. Galaxies are atoms and vice-versa. Atoms are complex spinning
discs containing life and intelligence and galaxies are spherical over
time; their spinning discs revolving like a coin spinning on the table.
Crystals are atoms whose discs are revolving in tandem- sharing their
energies somehow. Imagine millions of Milky Ways connected in a lattice
like a diamond. Would their be any more potential? Orrrr... do WE have
the potential to imagine more than our own 'stellar' accomplishments?
Do you?

  In reading the 5 replies(Jan 1, '97) to this earnest question, no one
really gave this person a true answer, but merely gave interpretations of
their learned reasoning. 
  What light is, cannot come from a lesson, rather from a lifetime of
contemplation on the "subject". 
  In my 6o years of this contemplation, and the absobtion of many
interpretations, it is my conclusion, "LIGHT" is a subject of an higher
dimension, which does not travel, rather emerges, as an opportunist, when
given the chance to emerge.
  Humankind does not possess the mechanism(s) to see beyond this
transposition, so we use all sorts of reasoning to explain its function,
without ever really giving answer, such as the finality of 2+2=4.   Light,
being of this greater dimension, does not tally with our slow archaic
mathematics or reasoning. We have to seek the reality of light by use of a
mathematics of that higher dimension in which light itself resides, and
not by use of our simple, uncomplicated, 3-dimensional system with
illusionary vectors added to satisfy our lack of higher reasoning.
  This higher mathematics begins with the newly formed dual-coodinate
systems at body center of the cube in 4-space.
If one draws a cube, then drags an image of that cube from the original to
"d" in an adjacent area, yet hold connection lines from the nodes of the
original to the likewise nodes of the image, you then have a cube in the
4th-dimension. If you build a "model" of this figure from wooden coffee
stirrers, you will see at body center of this figure, the two, opposite to
each other, dual 
4-space simplices.
 It are these incongruently inversed dual systems that is the doorway of a
mathematics in the necessary higher dimensions, where light becomes not a
wave or a partical, but a form of matter, just as is the sound of gravity
is a form of matter, in these higher dimensions. Then, the question, "What
is light?" becomes an answerable approach along proper reasoning, rather
than the robotized reasoning from a gaggle of students funneled thru the
same educational system, possessing the same answers as all those before
and after, yet, no one really giving an answer to a very simple question.
  Now that you have the math, the answer should be as simple as 2+2=4. If
it is not, then, you are in the wrong class.
   Rossi d'Providence  RJRossi@aol.com  Jan 1, 1997

In article <32CA9B39.6B5B@efgh.net>
Anonymous  writes:
> Quantum mechanics utterly breaks down, when it tries to predict the
> number of vortices that are observed, when I try to stir coffee in my
> coffee cup with my finger.
> 
> -X
Then use a spoon!

In article <32CA97DE.2351@efgh.net>
Anonymous  writes:
> What Medium does light require?
> 
> space-time
> 
> -X

In article <01bbf7f4$38e78b00$e20786c2@default>, "hans"  wrote:
>Hello i'am very interested in the following.
>I destilate alcohol at my home but i don't know if alcoholvapour is heavier
>than air, this i want to know for explosion or fire safety.
Yes, alcohol vapor is heavier than air. However, the extent to which it
will readily collect like say a gasoline vapor depends on what alcohol you
are dealing with. What I am getting at is methanol vapors will be lighter
than ethanol vapors. 
For example, methanol has about the same molecular weight as air being
somewhat less than O2 but more than N2. So, it will not have the same
tendancy to collect as say gasoline vapors.
In any case, there is a real fire hazard with any of these vapors. You need
to be very careful.
-- 
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."

I just heard Fritjof Capra on KQED Forum. While I think he is doing good
things with his Eco-Literacy Program on the physics level he has been
writing the same book over and over for the past 20 years - and making
lot's of money doing it! :-)
Specifically as my http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/qmbeynd.html
shows, Bohm has done the physics of wholistic systems theory much better
than any one. Specifically, while ultimately monism from quantum Hilbert
space may be primary, as a practical matter the mind-matter dualism in
the Bohm pilot-wave/hidden-variable theory works very well. With the
addition of back-action one sees in detail the nonlinear creative
nonlocal interconnectivity that Capra talks about in vague ways. The
advantage of Bohm's way is the spin-off in practical technology.

Excuse my nineteen-sixties Newtonian physics.  It will become obvious
from my terminology that I am not a physicist, but I read this
newsgroup regularly and with avid interest, and I know from lurking
here that you are pretty good at deciphering amateurish input.
I would like to know why this flying saucer won’t fly.  Many of you
have seen drawings of it.  I have seen it published in books for many
years, and I know that if the authors had the slightest inkling that
it would work they would be selling flying saucers, not books.  So my
problem is not that it won’t fly, but understanding *why* it won’t
fly.  I suspect an understandable answer lies in relativity physics,
which I am just learning about.
The saucer consists of a frame upon which is mounted a flat disc which
is affixed so that it can rotate in a horizontal plane.  Upon the disc
are mounted several (let’s use three, for balance) flywheels with
their shafts parallel both to the face of the disc and a radius.  The
flywheels are equidistant apart (the angles formed by their shafts are
equal and the shafts are of equal length).  The flywheels are powered
by a motor of some sort, and another motor is connected to the frame
so that it can rotate the disc, and yes, there must be some method of
countering the helicopter effect, perhaps with a smaller identical
saucer setup mounted perpendicular to the plane of the main saucer.
So that’s the device. 
Now here’s what I know about flywheels.  If I have a gyroscope on my
desk and I hold it vertically and start the flywheel spinning, then if
I get the flywheel spinning fast enough I can release my hold on the
gyroscope and it won’t fall over.  Though it appears to me that it is
standing still, it’s not really, as I will soon find out when the
flywheel slows down enough.  As its rate of spin decreases, the free
end of the shaft of the flywheel begins to rotate in an
ever-increasing spiral until the gyroscope falls over.  This spiral
rotation began as soon as I let the free end of the shaft go, although
the spiral movement was imperceptible until the flywheel slowed
enough.  The rotation is a spiral only because the flywheel is slowing
down, and if I had a motor-powered flywheel I could make the free end
of the gyroscope rotate in a circle by keeping the rate of spin of the
flywheel constant. 
If I have a rotating flywheel with one end of its shaft fixed at a
point and I cause a force to act against the free end of the shaft in
a direction perpendicular to the centerline of the shaft,  then the
free end of the shaft will move at a 90-degree angle from the
direction of the force and in the direction of the rotation of the
leading edge of the flywheel.  I understand this and I can visualize
why it does so.
I have never found a name for this force, but the phenomenon it causes
is called precession, so, until flamed, I’ll call it the precessional
force.  This precessional force is what causes the rotation of the
free end of the shaft of the gyroscope on my desk, and that rotation
is called precession.  I know that the precessional force is strongest
when the length of the shaft from the center of the flywheel to the
fixed point is equal to the radius if the flywheel, and weakens
proportionately as this part of  shaft lengthens or shortens.  This
has a bearing on the design of the flying saucer.
Now that I know about precession, I know that the gyroscope wasn’t
standing still after all, and the spiral (or circle) is not smooth.
What occurs is that, as soon as I let go of the gyroscope, gravity
exerts a force on the flywheel, and since it is never perfectly
perpendicular, it tries to fall over, meaning that the free end of the
shaft moves in a direction perpendicular to the centerline of the
shaft.  But then the precessional force causes it to move in a 90
degree direction, and then gravity pulls at it again, etc.  So the
rotation spiral is not a smooth curve but an infinite series of
pull-react events that just appear to be smooth.  As the rate of
rotation of the flywheel decreases, the reaction weakens, and the
gravitational pull, which is constant, gradually increases the size of
the spiral.  I think I understand this correctly.
Now, if I hold the spinning gyroscope horizontally in my hand by one
end and move it horizontally in the correct direction, the
precessional force will cause the free end of the gyroscope to move in
an upward direction, and the precessional force is so strong that it
overpowers my efforts to prevent it from doing so.  In fact, if I have
a powered gyroscope, the force is strong enough to move the weight
(mass?) of the entire system in an upward direction with what might be
enough force to lift not only that system, but if I had several hands
and could hold several large gyroscopes, there might be enough force
to also lift me as well.  Bingo!  It is this strong upward force that
*should* power the flying saucer in an upward direction.
Now, can you explain why the flying saucer, rotating in the correct
direction and with its flywheels spinning at a sufficient rate, will
not lift itself against the earth’s gravity?  Also, if the answer has
something to do with gravity itself, then can you also explain why it
wouldn’t propel a system in gravity-free space?  
This thing is easy to visualize, and hard to verbalize, and I hope I
have been successful in explaining it to you.  I hope this is worth
your time, and I am looking forward to, and appreciate, your response.
Ramone
rrmerritt@worldnet.att.net           

On Wed 1/1/97 12:54 GMT Lee Kent Hempfling wrote:
   
> A person who is confident in their knowledge tends to need to rant and
> rave when others won't listen.
Hello, Lee:
Your statement affirms only one of many possible responses a confident
person may exhibit in the given situation.
-- 
Alan
When you have a quiet moment, seek egolessness and remember that the
human body and nervous system are merely the organic user interfaces
that interpret holonomic materiality for a unique transcendental entity
that emerges reciprocally within the pre-existing vital energy of
uncreated absolute pure being.

In article 
jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:
> In article <141421356237310@einsteinium.universe> Carl Friedrich Socrates Einsteinium  writes:
> < In article <32BEC8B2.794BDF32@clipper.ens.fr>
> < David A. Madore  writes:
> < 
> < > example, is one allowed to ask the question of whether Finite Integers
> < > satisfy Fermat's Last Theorem?
> < 
> < This is as ridiculous as asking how many angels can stand on
> < a pin head, or how many letters will fit in a cubic centimeter.
> 
> Why is it ridiculous?  Tell us, does the number ...00001 exist?
> What about ...0002 ?  If you can conceive such numbers (I have no
> doubt that you can) then there CAN'T be anything "ridiculous" about
> asking whether such numbers satisfy  a^n + b^n = c^n .
> -- 
> Jan Bielawski
> Molecular Simulations, Inc.   )\._.,--....,'``.       | http://www.msi.com
> San Diego, CA
  Say Jan, I used to live in Coronado and could use some (free)
pictures for my website autobio, of that Naval station situated across
from Hotel Del, a little ways down south of Del where I went to SWOS
school. I would love a picture of the waters from that Natl Monunment
there? Cabrillo?  Also a picture of the Naval Base where all the ships
are docked.  If possible, send to Archimedes Plutonium, c/o Dartmouth
College, Hanover NH 03755 and it will get to me.
  Good to see that you Jan are not one tracked, like a RR but instead
can lift yourself up from off the track and go another direction, as
per, Democritus Uranium and cubic cm.
  The question put to you was -- is -- is Quantum Physics a redefining
of Newtonian Physics.
  In another thread Einstein Dysprosium in Vietmath will be another
article and I hope to seek out the help of Colin Douthwaite in possible
ascii art of this.
  This is just the start and where it will end is a collection of
Physics to Math Analogies showing that Naturals = P-adics

In article <5aedhv$po1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   In another thread Einstein Dysprosium in Vietmath will be another
> article and I hope to seek out the help of Colin Douthwaite in possible
> ascii art of this.
--- quoting from THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE ---
There are two possibilities. One of them  is this. The 
loop is held stationary,  not moving, and I take the magnet and I move
the magnet into the loop. That causes the current to flow. Now that
case  the charges in the   loop were not themselves in motion, so it
can't have been the magnetic field of the bar magnet  that made them
move 
but since they did move
There therefore was an electric field and so we conclude that 
a changing magnetic field, moving the bar magnet, created an electric
field. And that of course was Faraday's great discovery of
Electromagnetic Induction in the 19th century.
And that is one explanation of that experiment.
Now there is another completely different, independent explanation and
that goes this way.  Suppose instead I hold the bar magnet stationary
and I move the loop.  Now of course exactly the same thing happens. But
in this case we have no moving magnet,    no changing magnetic field ,
but instead, the charges in the loop are moving because I am moving the
whole loop.  They have the velocity v and this velocity crossed into
the magnetic field of the bar magnet gives us a force  which causes the
current to flow and that also describes perfectly well  the experiment
that we just saw.   So those two different phenomenon that is to say
this, loop stationary and magnet moving and this,      
magnet stationary and loop moving are actually two completely distinct
independent phenomenon that have completely different  explanations.
When Albert Einstein saw that he said look guys, you just got to be
kidding any yoyo can see that those two things are the same thing .  So
it was this simple little experiment that was really the starting point
of the theory of relativity,  not the Michelson Morley experiment. Not
some exotic  experiment to detect the motion of the Earth through the 
ether. But this simple little phenomenon  that of course everybody knew
about, but which disturbed nobody else , except , Albert Einstein.  And
what disturbed Einstein was not that we had difficulty explaining this
phenomenon this equation explains them perfectly in every case. What
disturbed Albert Einstein was the lack of inner perfection of the
theory and what he did in response was to produce a theory the Special
Theory of Relativity which had just that kind of inner perfection.
--- end quoting from THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE ---
  The inner perfection
How many people can see that the Successor Axiom of the Peano Axiom
System
  is the same identical Series 
as the Series of the definition of what a P-adic, (an Infinite Integer)
is.
So far, I am the only and the first human to see that these two are
identical.
What does this mean? It means that Naturals are the P-adics and that
the old Finite Integers were a imprecise and foggy unclear concept.
Physics has inner perfection, and math does also, but of course math
has inner perfection for all of mathematics is but a minor subset of
physics. Math is physics only where the experimentation is usually just
pen and paper. And no math theorem (theorems are fancy words for
physics experiment using just pen and paper). No math theorem is as
important as any physics experiment. Let me say that another way. All
physics experiments are more important than any math theorem
(experiment) because all physics experiments usually draw more than pen
and paper and imagination into the experiment itself, and in the case
of the above physics experiment they draw from the world magnets and
loops and electrical devices.
  Would Colin Douthwaite or someone please draw a ascii picture of the
professor moving a bar magnet through loop and then loop through bar
magnet. Sincere thanks

Ramone (Ramone@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
[snip the first part for now]
: Now here's what I know about flywheels.  If I have a gyroscope on my
: desk and I hold it vertically and start the flywheel spinning, then if
: I get the flywheel spinning fast enough I can release my hold on the
: gyroscope and it won't fall over.  Though it appears to me that it is
: standing still, it's not really, as I will soon find out when the
: flywheel slows down enough.  As its rate of spin decreases, the free
: end of the shaft of the flywheel begins to rotate in an
: ever-increasing spiral until the gyroscope falls over.  
       I think a few more experiments with good toy
gyroscopes will answer some of your questions better than
words from Usenet.
: This spiral
: rotation began as soon as I let the free end of the shaft go, although
: the spiral movement was imperceptible until the flywheel slowed
: enough.  The rotation is a spiral only because the flywheel is slowing
: down, and if I had a motor-powered flywheel I could make the free end
: of the gyroscope rotate in a circle by keeping the rate of spin of the
: flywheel constant. 
        No, the spiral is the precession that occurs when
gravity is exerting a force, and the precession results,
when the axis was vertical, gravity was acting on both
ends equally.
        First try having the axis of the gyroscope horizontal
with the ball end in a depression on the end of a vertical
rod.    In this position, you  must let  the gyroscope
precess, and the horizontal axis will stay horizontal.
        All this means is that in order for the unsupported
end not to fall, the precession transfers the acceleration
of gravity on the free end to the rotation.
        Then you can have the gyro spinning with the axis
vertically, and hit the top or bottom sideways with a
hammer, the axis will stay vertical even though the gyro
is knocked sideways.
        I think Edmund Scientific has gyros, if you need
their address, please let me know.
        But there is no way a gyro can do what you want,
at least I don't think so, because my opinion of how
gravity works prevents any kind of antigravity, sorry.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372 
Who's Who of American Inventors  Fourth Edition  1996-1997
Divergent Matter GUT of Gravitation http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer 

In article <59u8vk$e6f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   So tell me David, is ....0002 the one and only one adic (take any
> adic) which solves this encoding----   (2+2)^1/2 = (2X2)^1/2 = 2  ???
Is there a p-adic analogous to the Real 2.00...  ?
Every p-adic represented as ...002, say the 3-adic or the 5-adic or the
19-adic are all different. But is there a special and unique p-adic
number which is analogous to the Real 2.00... and which satisfies  
    (2+2)^1/2 = (2X2)^1/2 = 2
And ,     ((N+N)^1/N) = ((NxN)^1/N) = N
   reduces to     (N+N) = (NxN) = N^N = M, provided if proper p-adic
definition of exponential and logarithmic
Anyone know that geometrical picture results when one takes only
p-adics, no n-adics, just p-adics and keeps the digits fixed and then
makes a geometrical explanation of these numbers.
  For example take the p-adic number of ....0002 in 3-adics, then
5-adics, then 7-adics ad infinitum. Keeping the _2_ fixed and varying
the adic. What is the geometrical result? 

In article <59u8vk$e6f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> >> (2+2)^1/2 = (2X2)^1/2 = 2
> 
> I know that, but tell me is ...0002 the only adic with that encoding.
> The encoding
> ((N+N)^1/N) = ((NxN)^1/N) = N  is ...00002 the only adic with that
> encoding?
> 
> Back in 1993, I _learned_ that ...00002 was not the only adic of the
> encoding
> 
>    k N = N^k as evinced here:
> 
> >>FLT; however, you may be interested to know that other solutions 
> >>are possible if you allow those left-infinite decimal strings that 
> >>we discussed earlier. When k=4, there is a unique nonzero solution 
> >>to N+N+N+N = N*N*N*N = M. Here is the answer, worked out to 60 
> >>
> >>  N = . . .8217568575974462578891103859665245689398767183
> >>            82655349981184
> >>  M = . . .2870274303897850315564415438660982757595068735
> >>            30621399924736
    ((N+N)^1/N) = ((NxN)^1/N) = N
of course that has a unique solution in Reals/Complex of 2.000...
    (2+2)^1/2 = (2X2)^1/2 = 2
And ,     ((N+N)^1/N) = ((NxN)^1/N) = N
   reduces to     (N+N) = (NxN) = N^N = M
  Is there a p-adic, forget all composite adics.
which satisfies (N+N) = (NxN) = N^N = M and where there is not a unique
solution?  If the answer is that there exists no unique p-adic then the
Riemann Hypothesis is False.
  The proof of Riemann Hypothesis as a true theorem depends on 2.00...
being the unique solution to (N+N) = (NxN) = N^N = M. If there are no
p-adic unique solution means that RH was false all along.
  The Euler formula is a multiplication and use of prime integers. IN
the P-adics there are an infinitude of primes , and for 2-adics it is
2, for 3-adics it is 3 and 5-adics it is 5 and so on ad infinitum.
  I posed this question to David Madore before start of the holidays,
and I pose it again. Can you adequately define exponential and
logarithm in p-adics?
  What solutions exist for (N+N) = (NxN) = N^N = M in p-adics?

In article <5acngd$eqv@juliana.sprynet.com>, 745532603@compuserve.com
(Michael Ramsey) wrote:
>In article <32c35915.32294712@ksts.seed.net.tw>, savainl@pacificnet.net 
>says...
>> [snip]
>>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.  
>
>They are not at rest (hint: universal expansion).  But even granted ...
  You don't know that they are not at rest.  Self-assurance on the
part of theorists notwithstanding, universal expansion is far from
being proven, IMO.  But that's another story.
>>This immediately does away with the utterly
>>nonsensical Machian notion of a causal link between distant matter and
>>the bucket of spinning water.  
>
>You lost me here. Why would "fixed stars" replacing the "average distribution 
>of matter in the universe" do away Mach's principle?  
  I never intended to imply that Mach's principle is rendered invalid
by the substitution you mentioned.  I meant to say that all one needs
to do to explain the curved surface of water in a spinning bucket is
to postulate the existence of an absolute "frame."  As simple as that.
Postulates are not the exclusive domain of the exclusive relativists.
If most relativists are willing to stand on their heads and do a
neutron dance rather than postulate the obvious, that's their
business.  I am not constrained by such self-imposed shackles.  It
makes eminent sense to me that if absolute motion exists (I don't
happen to agree with exclusive relativists that absolute motion is at
odds with the principles of relativity), the motion of distant stars
is so imperceptible from our vantage point as to render their frame of
reference indiscernible from a postulated absolute frame.  So, given a
postulate of "absolutivity", it is not surprising, to me at least,
that "fixed stars" seem to have a connection with inertia.  The
connection is indirect and is just one more evidence in favor of
absolute motion.
Best regards,
Louis Savain

In article <5aalj3$ejj@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>, steveg@uk.gdscorp.com
(Steve Gilham) wrote:
>savainl@pacificnet.net wrote:
>>   Velocity in time is not nonsense?  If you mean motion along the time
>> dimension, this would be bordering on the preposterous.
>
>I'm moving along the time axis at about 1 second per second.  How
>about you?
  Pure nonsense.  Sorry.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
"O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason."  W.S.

In article <32C9407F.39E9@cdc.com>, Dave Monroe 
wrote:
>Steve Gilham wrote:
>> 
>> I'm moving along the time axis at about 1 second per second.  How
>> about you?
>> 
>
>It all depends on what I'm doing.  Sometimes a second is gone all
>too quickly, other times it seems to drag on . . .
  It does not depend on anything.  There is no motion along the time
axis for the simple reason that the time axis does not exist and the
time axis does not exist because it is a entirely circular concept. It
should be used only in an abstract fashion for the convenience of
visualization.  Sorry if the spacetime physicists forget to mention
that obvious fact in their books.  The glaring circularity of motion
along the time axis notwithstanding, an awful lot of people cannot
seem to grasp it.  Could it be that the teachers themselves didn't see
fit to mention it because they themselves never saw it.  Such a waste
of minds!  Wake up folks!
Best regards,
Louis Savain
"O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason."  W.S.

In article <32CA9D09.4667@efgh.net>, Anonymous   wrote:
>The limit of 1/x as x --> 0 is infinity.
>
>
>-X
If x is real and approaches zero through positive numbers,
then the limit is +infinity; however, if it approaches
zero through negative numbers, then the limit is -infinity.
Herb
-- 
 Herbert I Brown  hibrown@math.albany.edu  (518) 442-4640
 Math Dept,  The Univ at Albany,  Albany, NY 12222  
----------------------------------------------------------

Im Artikel <32CAB5B0.78FD@mindspring.com>, Richard Mentock
 schreibt:
>Bode's law as originally proposed (see Physics of the Earth, Stacey, 
>1992), was a simple progression that matched the distribution of
>planetary radiuses (sic).  It doesn't explain anything, but many 
>have tried to explain *it*, in terms of physical interactions that
>might result in a regular spacing.  This is like the situation in
>chemistry where regularities in the spectral lines were eventually
>explained by quantum mechanics.
>
>Bodes law was of the form (a + b * 2^n) where n is 1,2,3,...(Earth
>is 3).
>
>My post about Bode's law was that it is improved if you just
>assume that the *periods* of the planets double each planet, with
>*two* asteroid belts.
Thanks very much, quick and precise, and even I understood it this time
;-). So there is a regular pattern just as Ray suggests. And as it
happens, it would match what any string instrument player learns, wouldn't
it? Usually one should think, that *if a law is found, lots of people
should be interested in an explanation behind it. Well, in case of Newtons
'action at a distance' it took some years, and there's people claiming,
that Einsteins explanation is not the real one. Hmm. Anyone else confused
but me :-)
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 <32ccc0e8.8298262@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Ramone@worldnet.att.net (Ramone) schreibt:
>
>If I have a rotating flywheel with one end of its shaft fixed at a
>point and I cause a force to act against the free end of the shaft in
>a direction perpendicular to the centerline of the shaft,  then the
>free end of the shaft will move at a 90-degree angle from the
>direction of the force and in the direction of the rotation of the
>leading edge of the flywheel.  I understand this and I can visualize
>why it does so.
In the above paragraph your answer is hidden:
... its shaft fixed at a point ....
Where is the point, the flying saucer is fixed to? All the rotation given
can only prevent the saucer from topping over (thats why bullets are made
to turn around the path-of-flight axis), but nothing can prevent it from
just falling down. Any movement, a gyroscope will evade to make, is an
angular one (except in direction of its own axis, no prevention there),
but towards a straight one in either of its 3 axis a gyro behaves just
like any other lump of matter.
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 <19970101151400.KAA11186@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>In article , 
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>,
>
><>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.  
>
><
>
>With the above definition of foe, I agree.  But this definition of foe has
>the constraint of events in the past (experience).  Nothing has been
>defined in terms of events that may happen in the future (prediction). 
>Therefore, isn't the NOT(friend) = foe construct valid for all time t as a
>first pass?
It depends.  You always have to weight the risk of false positives 
versus false negatives.  By ignoring the possibility that somebody may 
be a foe, until evidence is provided, you expose yourself to danger.  
By considering as a foe somebody who isn't, you may eventually turn 
him into a foe.  So circumstances are important.  Suppose you live in 
a very violent and agressive society, where there is a significant 
chance that any stranger may be dangerous.  In such situation it'll be 
prudent to consider any NOT(friend) to be a foe until proven 
otherwise.  On the other hand, in a very peaceful society the opposite 
approach may be better.  So, you really cannot escape getting past 
experience into consideration, though now it is a more generalized 
past experience.
>
>[P.S. There is a method to my madness, but, if you wish to stop, just let
>me know.]
>
Its OK, we're all mad here.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <19970101183200.NAA16378@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>>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!
>>
>>"But Brutus and Casius say so.  And they're honorable men"
>
>Reminds me of a Berlinian derivation of one famous German saying to make
>it fit in the 'dark ages' some sixty years ago:
>
>The original saying is: "Luegen haben kurze Beine" (Lies do have short
>legs, meaning they won't go far). Now the 'Secretary of Propaganda'
>(Official title!) Joseph Goebbles was known to limp because of a gumpy
>leg. Thus the Berlinian with their sharp sense of humour said (very
>quietly whispering this only into good friends ears): "The lie has a short
>leg". Public wisdom, for which you could go to jail... dark ages, as I
>said....
>
I gather you had to make really sure that the person you whispered to 
was indeed a friend.  Yep, dark ages indeed, and it wasn't that far 
back.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <19970101153500.KAA11730@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>In article,
> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>,
>
><>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.
>
>
>Given our parallel conversation about the NOT(friend) = foe...
>If I understand how funding a research project works, stuff is getting
>expensive these days, requiring lots of money.  
Very much so.
>Getting money requires time and effort, which is finite.  
Indeed.
>So getting money takes away an amount of time/effort from the research.  
More than you can imagine.  Lots of people are so busy getting money 
that they've no time whatsoever left for research.
>To maximize research time/money, only the projects that are "acceptable" 
>to a bureaucracy are funded.  This is disconcerting.  
"Disconcerting" is an understatement.  "Potentially disastrous" is 
more like it.
>I propose that bureaucrats also take Mr. Green's course (a smiling 
>emoticon here).
Couldn't agree more.  But, how to make it happen?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <19970101183200.NAA16368@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>>The NIH is the National Institute of Health in the states,
>>the center for most medical research activity. In 
>>recent years there were quite a few scandals having 
>>to do with fraud in research either performed at or
>>sponsored by the NIH.  
>
>Thanks for clearing up who's who :-)
>
>>Namely, they think that the purpose of research is
>>to prove that your theory is right, not to find out whether 
>>your theory is right (which is what it should be).  This little 
>>difference is dangerous.
>
>Could all easily be avoided by using a Popperian approach: try to
>*disprove* your hypothesis (and that's still in the range of our present
>discussion: the fundamental asymmetry between something and it's
>negation).
>
Yep.  But, in an environment where the primary function of a 
researcher is to secure funding (see the parallel track of this 
discussion, with JMFBAH), disproving you hypothesis is considered 
bad politics, as it tends to displease the bureaocrats.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <5aeect$hij@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> How many people can see that the Successor Axiom of the Peano Axiom
> System
> 
>   is the same identical Series 
> 
> as the Series of the definition of what a P-adic, (an Infinite Integer)
> is.
Let us define a p-adic, p is prime and there are an infinitude of
primes. These primes come from the Real+i+j system in 1.00..., 2.00...,
3.00..., 4.00..., ad infinitum of 2.0..., 3.0...,5.00... ad infinitum.
  P-adic is a Series defined as such (where the radix point and the
finite portion is finite since p-adic is prime)
......... (a_2)p^2 + (a_1)p^1  + (a_0)p^0 +  (a_-1)p^-1 + ... +
(a_-r)p^-r  
where a_i element {0,1,..,p-1}
For example ....231.4 in 5-adics is 
  ....... 2x5^2 + 3x5^1 + 1x5^0 + 4x5^-1
 YOU CAN REPRESENT EVERY P-ADIC AS A SERIES
..........+ 5^3 + 5^2 + 5 + 1 
Peano Successor Axiom is a Series of adding 1 endlessly
Peano Successor Axiom
....... + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
Both the definition of a p-adic and the Successor Axiom are identical  

John Sefton  chimes in with more nonsense:
>Anonymous wrote:
>> 
>>  snelson@hawaii.edu wrote:

>May I add my 2 sents? sense?
Cents, dimbulb.  Or, in your case, scents, since you're stinking up
the newsgroup with your drivel.
>My 'Galaxy Model' for the atom indicates that the next great Age will be 
>the 'Age of Crystals'. You can access it and my gravity theory at
>http://www.petcom.com/~john but basically it says that the smallest
>complete unit IS the atom, and the smallest unit of the atom is another
How interesting!  You're only a half-century or so behind the curve,
JohnBoy.
>atom. Galaxies are atoms and vice-versa. Atoms are complex spinning
>discs containing life and intelligence and galaxies are spherical over
>time; their spinning discs revolving like a coin spinning on the table.
>Crystals are atoms whose discs are revolving in tandem- sharing their
>energies somehow. Imagine millions of Milky Ways connected in a lattice
>like a diamond. Would their be any more potential? Orrrr... do WE have
Yeah, right.  Where do all these maroons come from, anyway?
--
glenq@cyberhighway.net
"GLEN QUARNSTROM" for all my Bell-Basher Fans.