Newsgroup sci.physics 213920

Directory

Patrick van Esch wrote:
> 
> That's a game of words, isn't it ?  AFAIK, financial markets are fully
>  classical hidden (!) variable systems...
>
    In what sense would you call it classical ?
> I would think that you can throw away all of your actual physics knowledge.
    The details yes. But the general ideas are very mappable.
> The qualities that do matter are probably the fact that one 
> isn't intimidated by unsolvable problems, 
    Paging Captain Kirk
> knows (or thinks to know) how to handle truckloads
> of bad data, is able to misuse computers and finally has develloped a
> remarkable skill in distinguishing what is obviously wrong from what is
> probably wrong but looks good :-)
    hackers ?
> That really makes me think much more of an experimentalist than of a
> theorist :-)
>
    Here you seem to be equating experimental physicists 
    with bean counters. I keep thinking of Faraday. 
Large financial corporations tend to have plenty of 
theorists in house many outside, including physicists 
brought in out of the cold war.

A Logic Problem for Physicists.
	Consider a million magnets randomly placed in empty space.  Due to
attraction and repelling, the magnets begin moving toward or away from
each other depending on the relative orientation of magnets nearby.  Let's
suppose someone starts making observations of these magnets sometime long
after the magnets were first placed in this empty space.  Let this new
observer be called N.  Let's further assume that N cannot not observe the
entire space of magnets all at once.  Instead let's assume that N can only
observe small local regions of this space at any given time.  Furthermore,
assume N has no knowledge of the property of magnets other than what he
deduces from his observations.  When N starts making his observations, he
observes that in all local regions of space the magnets are moving toward
each other.  He never observes repelling.  This is because after the
initial transient condition (which occurred before N started making his
observations), nearby magnets which were repelling have changed their
orientation so that they now attract each other.  This occurs because
repelling results in unstable configurations whereas attracting magnets
result in stable configurations.  So every where N looks (with the
possible exception being at the boundaries of this space), he only
observes magnets moving toward each other.  N therefore concludes that a
force of attraction exists between the magnets.
	Now a great while later, a second observer is able to see the
edges of this space.  We'll call him H.  He observes that magnets at the
edges of this space are moving away from each other.  This occurs because
the initial transient condition has not yet rippled through our space of
magnets.
	Now here's the logic problem.  Given the following choices, based
only on the observations made by N and H, which best describes the
properties of the magnets:
	a)  Magnets in this space only have an attraction property.
	b)  Magnets in this space only have a repelling property.
	c)  Magnets in this space have both a repelling property and an
atttraction property.
	d). Magnets in this space only have an attraction property.  The
observations of magnets moving away from each other made by H resulted
from an initial velocity of the magnets when they were first put in this
space.
	Since we all know about magnets and their properties, we all
choose c as the answer which best describes the properties of these
objects observed by N and H.  However, if we refer to N as Newton and to H
as Hubble we would choose d as the best description.  Why don't physicists
always choose c as the correct interpretation?
	One may argue that repelling due to gravity has never been
observed on earth or in any local region of space.  In our magnet space,
repelling can only occur in local regions of space if someone has the
means of providing a change of orientation between attracting magnets. 
When objects here on earth are hypothesized to be particles, one can
change the orientation of each and every object and correctly conclude
that a change of orientation never produces repelling.  If objects are
hypothesized to consist of waves, this conclusion cannot be drawn.
	I'm working on a conceptualization of physical phenomena in which
there's one fundamental building block and only one physical law.  These
are:
	1.  The fundamental building block of matter is the
electro-magnetic wave.
	2.  All physical phenomena results from the phase alignment of
interacting waves.
These two hypotheses logically result in the conclusion that gravity
repels.  This conclusion is reached by noting that gravity,
electro-magnetism, and the strong and weak forces are fundamentally the
same thing, the different names being given to the different frequency
bands (wavelengths) in which the phase alignment occurs.  Gravity being
the lowest frequency band, electro-magnetism being next, followed by the
weak and strong forces.  Since repelling is easily observed for
electro-magnetism, it must occur in all bands.  
If someone did a mapping of all celestial motion, would repelling be
observed?  Repelling due to gravity is not easily observed on earth,
because we have no means of providing enough spatial separation to reach a
phase change in very low frequency waves.
  	As a side note"relativistic" effects are not due to a curvature of
space-time.  Rather, in this conceptualization of the universe,
"relativistic" effects occur when two objects are frequency shifted
relative to each other.  Two objects with a constant phase relationship
are stationary relative to each other.  Two objects having a relative
velocity have a changing phase relationship.  When the velocities become
great enough, the phase alignment occurs at a different rate, due to the
phase shift of the interacting objects -- Not due to an increase in mass
as hypothesized by Einstein.
Dave Seppala    Email:  DSeppala@aol.com

djfinn@ibm.net (Dan Finn) wrote:
>And thank you for provding us with your thoughts. I can see that we
>are in complete agreement with respect to question of alleged
>'non-thermal' effects and also with respect to overregulation.
The IEEE/ANSI and NCRP standards, on which these regulations are based, 
are all related to thermal effects.  (See the article in January 1997 QST 
for more info.)
>Thus, for the most part, the particular regulations that have forced
>upon the amateur community, albiet without significant amateur
>discussion or opportunity to provide input, at least are by and large
>based on real science. I wonder what your opinion might be in this
>regard, since many amateurs would at least like to believe that these
>regulations have some (thermal) validity, even if we never asked for
>regulations in the first place. 
The FCC is quite free to enact legislation that hams don't ask for. :-)  
However, in this case, the FCC proposed a set of regulations in 1993.  
ARRL and others offered comments.  In August, 1996, the FCC announced the 
new regs, but there were substantial differences from the ones they had 
originally proposed.  This has formed the basis for one of the several 
Petitions for Reconsideration filed by ARRL.
>To the best of my knowledge, even
>"thermal" injuries have been reasonably addressed by amateurs up to
>now by prudent avoidance. Do you see any significant benefit to
>amateur compliance with these IEEE limits? 
The concept of "prudent avoidance" has always required that amateurs 
following it adhere to the limits in the standards, and then some.  
>This development has been very frustrating for many of us, including the
>ARRL, because of the ramrod way in which this requirement was imposed
>based. There's that 50 watt exclusion (but please don't get rid of it.
>Some of us need an easy exclusion to continue doing what we have doing
>for 100 years). We need it because of the overarching requirement that
>has been imposed on us!). One individual dreams up 50 watts and the
>FCC buys it. Most of our transceivers are in the 100W range. 50W seems
>to have been deliberately chosen so that the majority of hams would
>have to 'do something', not based on anything scientific.
Among the petitions filed by the ARRL was a request that we add a 
150-watt exclusion for HF if the antenna is >10 meters from areas of 
exposure.  I could find no case on HF where that combination could result 
in an MPE greater than that permitted.  This "expands the window" of 
those stations presumed to be in compliance.  We considered the same 
thing for 1500-watt class stations, but if we built in the same safety 
margins as we built into the 150-watt exclusion, the exclusion distance 
would have been so great as to potentially cause problems for those who 
had antennas closer. (I can see the local Building Inspector now saying, 
"The FCC rules say antennas closer than 200 feet might not be safe, so . 
 ."
We limited our 150-watt exclusion request to HF because at VHF and higher 
you are apt to find the class of stations and station configuration that 
is apt to exceed the MPEs (waveguides, high-gain arrays, etc.) so it is 
probably best if hams take a look at their stations.  Most VHF operators 
are running 50 watts or less.
>I heard it
>was chosen by 'one person' who allegedly presented himself as a
>"friend" to us, the uneducated hams who obviously do not know any
>better and must be protected from ourselves.
The 50-watt exclusion limit was offered by the FCC.  They have some 
demographic data on amateur radio and when they analyzed it, they 
determined that the majority of hams operated at 50-watts or less, and 
they wanted to make things as easy as possible for us.  If you consider 
the VHF op, the 50-watt exclusion does indeed cover "the majority." 
Do keep in mind, that the 50-watt exclusion, the mobile/PTT operation 
exclusion and, if successful, the 150-watt HF exclusion are NOT exclusion 
from complying with the MPEs!  They are exclusions from the need to 
perform the routine station evaluation requried by the FCC.  Stations 
that fall under this exclusion are *presumed* to be in compliance.
The FCC granted the 1-year delay to hams so they can complete their 
documentation on how to do a routine station evaluation.  ARRL will 
continue to offer them our help.
73 from ARRL HQ,
Ed Hare, KA1CV
ARRL Laboratory Supervisor

In article <32CB8245.4D45@nl.compuware.com>, C++ Freak
 wrote:
 - Many electronics stores sell pocket lasers for about $50 which are
 - small but powerful for their size.
[snip]
 - They have one thing in common: they are red (635 nm) and monochromatic
 - (my spectroscope shows a single sharp red line).
 - But I know that bluish-green (krypton ?) lasers are common as well,
 - e.g. in discos or on rock concerts. I never saw them
 - offered in pocket size form. 
 - My question is: are  pocket-lasers also available in other colors ?
Your question contains the seeds for the answer -- the Krypton lasers (and
other high-powered lasers) at rock concerts are _gas_ lasers, while the
pen pointers are diode lasers. Laser diodes of reasonable price and
performance are currently available in only red and infrared. Gas lasers
are too bulky and power hungry to be packaged in a pen. Diode lasers are
(generally) too weenie for rock concert type uses, and the He/Ne gas laser
puts out a more visible red anyway.
 - BTW: Another question: why does the spot lit by a laser (the red
 - 635 nm diode one) show a dotted pattern ? The same occurs with
 - 'professional' lasers, also in other colors (e.g. the bluish-green Kr 
 - one) ?
It is a self-interference effect with a name that escapes me at the moment.
For some other interesting "experiments" with a laser pointer-- go out at
night and point it at a distant automobile license plate...
                -- and at a traffic sign
                -- and at a bicycle reflector
NOT RECOMMENDED: pointing it at a police helicopter, or any other armed entity.
-- 
Kirk Kerekes
------------------------
___  ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ _ ____ _  _ 
|__] |___ |__/ |___ |___ |     |  | |  | |\ | 
|    |___ |  \ |    |___ |___  |  | |__| | \| 
                   is Not an Available Option
-----------------------------------------------------------

In article <32CBD7B9.144E@citicorp.com>,
	"Robert. Fung"  writes:
>Patrick van Esch wrote:
>> 
>
>> That's a game of words, isn't it ?  AFAIK, financial markets are fully
>>  classical hidden (!) variable systems...
>>
>
>    In what sense would you call it classical ?
> 
In the same way as a physical system is called classical:
a finite or countable number of degrees of freedom, all function of
a parameter called time, and who all have for every instant t, a certain
value, whether or not we do know that value.
A(t) with A an element of a certain space.
No superpositions a la quantum mechanics, and no relativity of time
a la special relativity... eg, damn boring :)
>> I would think that you can throw away all of your actual physics knowledge.
>
>    The details yes. But the general ideas are very mappable.
Those ideas aren't really physics (ok, guess it depends what you call
physics).  They are a certain intuition for solutions of differential
equations.
>
>> The qualities that do matter are probably the fact that one 
>> isn't intimidated by unsolvable problems, 
>
>    Paging Captain Kirk
          :-)
>
>> knows (or thinks to know) how to handle truckloads
>> of bad data, is able to misuse computers and finally has develloped a
>> remarkable skill in distinguishing what is obviously wrong from what is
>> probably wrong but looks good :-)
>
>    hackers ?
Well, isn't that the most distinguishing characteristic of a physicist ?
Most "successfull" physicists I know are of the hacker kind.   Not only
with computers, also with hardware and analysis.
>       
>> That really makes me think much more of an experimentalist than of a
>> theorist :-)
>>
>
>    Here you seem to be equating experimental physicists 
>    with bean counters. I keep thinking of Faraday. 
I may do so.  I am an experimental physicist, and lots of what I do
can indeed be equated with bean counting :)... actually in a very
litteral sense !
>    
>Large financial corporations tend to have plenty of 
>theorists in house many outside, including physicists 
>brought in out of the cold war.
Well, I can understand it, you know.  After all, the practical problem
solving ability of physicists is usually much higher than that of other
scientists outside of their domain.  It probably has to do something
with the fact that day-to-day working physicists work is always outside
his/her domain !  Most physicists I know aren't really the mechanical
engineers, the electronicians, the chemists, computer scientists,
statisticians and the material scientists they play on TV.
Of course, physicists actually also DO some
physics: usually during coffee breaks.... and on usenet :)
It is probably this having to do all these jobs without ever having
had any course in the field that makes physicists quite all-round
problem solvers/hackers.  (although sometimes professional standards
are lacking a bit :)  but as long as the thing works...)
But all this is much more the case for experimentalists than it is
for theorists.  
cheers,
Patrick.

In article <32CB8245.4D45@nl.compuware.com>, klaas@nl.compuware.com 
says...
>
>BTW: Another question: why does the spot lit by a laser (the red
>635 nm diode one) show a dotted pattern ? The same occurs with
>'professional' lasers, also in other colors (e.g. the bluish-green Kr 
>one) ?
>
the dotted pattern you see is a interference pattern on your eye
and is not directly related to the laser it self.
you can see this when you move your head, the dotted pattern 
wil change.
Raymond
raym@si.tn.tudelft.nl

RJ  wrote:
>If I travel at light speed, would I see space contract to zero? And if
>so, and if space has a positive curve, would I perceive myself as being
>in the same place all the time?
>Rick
Massed objects cannot travel at lightspeed - there is a mathematical 
singullarity at c in beta.
As time increasingly slows with approach to lightspeed, your thought 
processes would asymptotically grind to a halt as perceived by an outside 
observer.  I admire your relative velocity.
The blue shift would be a pisser.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Rotation or spin if employed in flying saucer design is likely
related to stability in flight rather than the generation of
motive force. Having said that I would not altogether rule out
such spin being related to the generation of motive force, since
the stablility gained by employing rotation may be a happy
coincidence.
Of particular interest is the saucer shape and rotation concept
in the design of such craft. UFOs have been reported to be able
to turn right angles at high speeds. This suggests the ability
to instantaneously change frames of reference. The saucer shape
would allow the front of the craft to be repositioned through
a simple rotation of the craft, so as to point in the direction
of travel, unlike our more familar aircraft which must be
turned in an arc in order to change the direction the front of
the craft is pointed.
The instantaneous change of reference frame is further suggested
by the g force loads one would expect from the manouvers these
things are purported to execute. Only if all parts of the 
craft and its contents were able instantaneously shift reference
frames, would such manouvers be possible.
I have some ideas on how this might be accomplished. However,
they are highly speculative at this point and not properly
discussed in sci.physics.
Regards, Ron Gorgichuk

Pramana wrote:
> 
> THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION THEORY AND POST-QUANTUM PHYSICS
> 

> 
> The Ultimate Unification Theory is a Trinity, comprising of:
>         1. The Law of One-ness
>         2. The Law of Polarization
>         3. The Law of Interrelationship.
> 
> In my thesis paper, I went quite some lengthy discussion about Eintein’s
> relativity theory and Quantum Physics, (though I am not a physicist), to
> prove that the whole cosmos is nothing but undivisible One-ness. (please
> read “One-ness” as in a mystical term)
> 
> Within the infinite One-ness, there are polarities due to the Law of
> Polarization, which is also known as The Law of Universal Freewill. And
> everything we call reality, is nothing but only result of the
> interactions between polarities. It’s The Law of Interrelationship,
> which is based on the principle of resonance and induction.
> 
> The Ultimate Unification Theory uses a ‘formula’, which is a cross
> within a circle. The Circle symbolises the One-ness, while the cross
> symbolises the two basic interrelationships. The horizontal axis
> symbolises the subject/object interrelationship, which I coined the name
> ‘exoteric line’, while the vertical axis symbolises the internal,
> mind/brain or spirit/matter interrelationship or the ‘esoteric line’.
> 
> The materialistic science ignores this ‘esoteric line’, or this vertical
> interrelationship. I mentioned in my paper, that he facts are already
> there, as in the Jungian Psychology (the interactions between human
> behavior and the collective unconscious / the Archetypes), as well as it
> was proven by Rupert Sheldrake with his Morphogenetic field.
> 

> 
> Happy New Year to you all!
> 
> in LIGHT + LOVE
> 
> Pramana
> 
"Pramana",
	I am curious as to which religion you derived most of your
ideas. It appears to be *very* Theosophical. (Kabbalistic or maybe
Gnostic.) This is not a "cheap shot", as I am really curious. I will
read your homepage material soon.
	Thanks,
		Tim

Bill Oertell  wrote:
>I understand the vapor from some alcohols can get through some
>plastics.  I'm not sure on this, but it's worth investigating, so I'd
>keep anything with alcohol in it in a glass container.
>-- 
You lose about 20 grams/day of gasoline by diffusion through your 
polyethylene automotive gas tank, which exceeds the spec of your Federal 
exhaust emissions standards by an order of magntiude.  It isn't a bug, 
it's a feature
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Keith Stein  wrote:
>
>>Keith Stein  wrote:
>
>>>                      1836.152701
>>>WHY? 
>
>In article <5ac5f9$5n0@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, Alan  writes
>
>>It's the ratio of the Bohr to the nuclear magneton.
>
>
>  I honestly never knew that Alan,
If you look in just about any newspaper, in the obituaries, you will find 
that people invariably die in alphabetical order.  Does God exist or 
what?
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <5acn5t$pk4@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) writes:
: >Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com) wrote:
: >: 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.
: >
: >What is the evidence for that?
: >
: >I thought that power line workers were at risk of leukemia, too.
: >
: Based on what?
Well quickly checking now I see a lot of citations in "The Great Power 
Line Cover-Up" by Paul Brodeur.
: 
: >Though I admit that the magnetic fields from those high voltage lines in 
: >the studies are less than that from the low tension close proximity 
: >lines. The distances from the lines taken in the studies allow for fields 
: >down to much lower than the 2 milli-Gauss very common but often exceeded 
: >in domestic situations. So I suspected just a country city variation, in 
: >the study, that is, with its farm chemicals.
: >
: >But how can a study which uses a normal 2 milli-Gauss background as a control
: >for something much lower be a real study? Is there an effect other than 
: >magnetic - HV lines do make noise on car radios.
: 
: Yes, there is another effect.  It is the well recognized fact that you 
: can scare people into funding you.  Nothing new about it.
: 
: Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
: meron@cars.uchicago.edu		
                                | chances are he is doing just the same"
Though Brodeur says the government and power companies are trying to play 
down the risks.
I can't spend too much time here & maybe there are better studies to 
quote in the book.
page 255:
Ahlbom & Feychting...
Children living at > 1 milligauss had twice risk of leukemia compared to 
children living at < 1 milligauss.
    "       "      > 2    "          3 times "
    "       "      > 3        nearly 4  "    ".
Brian Sandle

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read". You can find the software to process these notices with some
newsreaders at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW site: http://www.cm.org.
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers, with byte counts:
  2  4603  Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
     4603 bytes total. Your size may vary due to header differences.
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.93
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Count: 2
Notice-ID: spncm1997001130624
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<5aehs0$qgt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.math
	sci.physics
	sci.logic
<5aejuk$48u@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.math
	sci.physics
	sci.logic
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMsuy0oz0ceX+vLURAQGTKwP+P/LMHjH2DTY+UcT56h1bkqLLU5vB+cr/
hP12bkCpCewHS78HtYutrkpJsYTUJ7InCBrYK74IV0HRNZ5cTGbXNlsvJwlF55uI
NCHatUynBodXFRqNhLBCbAZwbIbPFfrPqzyPqTBck0/ttYRJEqjFut2zpbN6oVzc
M6R51howoN8=
=XrYz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

745532603@compuserve.com (Michael Ramsey) wrote:
>In article <5ae47s$7lg@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, uncleal0@ix.netcom.com 
>says...
>>
>>"Tao, Ju-Zhou"  wrote:
>>>I just read an article on a recent experiment mesuring the Casimir
>>>force:
>> [snip]  
>>What are the origins of the gravitational and inertial masses of 
>>an object?  Einstein postulated the shape of space creates 
>>gravitational geodesics.  The Weyl tensor describes curved 
>>space-time in teh absence of matter (e.g., graviational waves 
>>and black holes).  Inertia's origin is up for grabs.
>>
>>Why are the two masses always rigorously identical?  This is the 
>>Equivalence Principle, the underlying assumption of General 
>>Relativity.  All objects no matter what their composition, 
>>density, or configuration fall at the identical rate in a given 
>>gravitational field.  Force equals mass times acceleration.  
>>There are no asterisks and footnotes.  Life would be more 
>>interesting were the Equivalence Principle broken.  General 
>>Relativity would topple.  We might find a path into the universe 
>>at large in real time and within our technological grasp.
>>
>>Dr. Bernhard Haisch posits that inertial mass derives from an 
>>accelerated body's interaction with ZPF, 
> 
>First, great post.  Second, would the vacuum and its ZPF then form an 
>aether? Does Dr. Haisch’s theory address the photon’s interaction 
>with the ZPF (i.e. why is c the limiting velocity?)
>
>Is there any tie in with Mach's conjecture?
>
>Are there any deeper ties that would shed some light (no pun 
>intended) on the Aspect experiments?
The stuff is extensivly published under "stochastic electrodynamics."  
Among the interesting results is that the speed of light can exceed 
standard c perpendicular to a Casimir stack.  Kewl.
Look up work by Berhard Haisch, Rueda, Hall Puthoff, Robert Forward...
The Millennium is coming.  We need new physics.  If good business 
practice didn't eliminate risk from research grants, we might get it.  
(BTW, these guys are hardcore, mainline, orthodox physicists - none of 
that Tampere crap.)
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article  Keith Stein  writes:
>From: Keith Stein 
>Subject: Coincidence !      (or what ? :-)
>Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:42:12 +0000
>>Keith Stein  wrote:
>>>                      1836.152701
>>>WHY? 
>In article <5ac5f9$5n0@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, Alan  writes
>>It's the ratio of the Bohr to the nuclear magneton.
>  I honestly never knew that Alan,
Keith: Uncle Al gave us the indirect method for measuring the dimensionless  
mass ratio for the proton you quoted.  Actually, the direct method is the 
measurement of the cycltron frequencies for both the proton and electron under 
the same conditions.   The value now acepted is based intirely on one 
experiment done about 15 years ago by some West German experimenters and 
adoted by NBS (now NIST) and promulgated by the CODATA publications.
>(but that only deepens the mystery)
The mass ratio for both the proton and neutron can be calculated from just the 
fine structure constant, using a geometric model.  It's on my web page. Set 
your computer to double precision and chack it out!
>-- 
>Keith Stein
Regards: Tom:  http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm

"Pramana",
	Never mind my previous post. I went to your home page and found
reference to Helen Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine". I assume, then,
that
the answer to my question as to what religion you are based in is
"Theosophy".
	Although I am interested in religios views and beliefs on the
various aspects of the universe, I'm not sure that the relativity
board is an appropriate place for this discussion. Anyway, I will now
go and read your home page material more thoroughly. I perform nuclear
engineering services by trade, so I am very based in "hard-science.
Nonetheless, I try to keep an open mind. "No discpline is an island" :_)
	Bye for now,
		Tim
>

The precession force only exists when one end of the flywheel
is fixed in space. The flywheel(s) in the "flying saucer" are
not fixed by anything, so they generate no net force against
gravity, so the saucer falls. Energy and momentum remain conserved.

"Lord of the Flies"  writes:
>
>Here I too must state that the moderators at s.p.r. are some of the poorest
>physicists I've encountered.  
 One of them is probably the best physicist (certainly one among a few) 
 you will encounter on Usenet.  Authoring a respected book is a big gold 
 star in my system.  Moderation is intended to maintain a high s/n ratio 
 and a low rate of articles and they do a pretty good job considering 
 that it is not exactly a formal refereeing process. 
>It is unfortunate that in this field there
>are people like those two who are clearly self-important.
 This makes me suspect limited contact with physicists.  Go to one 
 national meeting and you will encounter some serious prima donnas. 
 You need a log scale to rate the orders of magnitude of arrogance 
 among the *truly* self-important.  And no, I will not name names. 
>The Internet in all its glory provides something most environments are
>incapable of:  free speech.  
 Right.  APS meetings are another.  But APS meetings have invited 
 sessions as well as ones open to every member (and anyone else who 
 can get a member to submit the abstract), and anyone can attend. 
 sci.physics and the other un-moderated newsgroups are open, while 
 s.p.research provides a moderated forum.  Like all newsgroups, this 
 was created by a vote of the people. 
>Science thrives on the imagination,  the
>questioning of the establishment.  It's jokers like those two , who support
>the "establishment" that help slow the progress of science.  
 That is why there are open sessions, like this one. 
 I am, as always, reminded of the dismissal (in a footnote, no less) 
 of Glashow's "charming" ideas by the theory rapporteur in April 1974. 
>                   ....                                 Tomes posts are
>filled with facts and observations, not "overly speculative" ideas by any
>standard.  It clear to me that Baez and Bunn are really trying to push
>their own ideas.
 It is very easy to create an alt.physics.tomes newsgroup to give those 
 ideas a place for focused discussion, if you wish to do so.  
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

In article <32CB8245.4D45@nl.compuware.com>,
C++ Freak   wrote:
>Many electronics stores sell pocket lasers for about $50 which are
>small but powerful for their size. They are usually operated by
>2.5 Volts (2 AAA batteries) and draw only 60 mA, but the beam
>has a low divergence (1 mrad) and reaches easily over 300 meters
>(1000 ft) far away. I am talking about the 5 mW ones.
>They are sold as pointers in a pen-shaped package.
>They have one thing in common: they are red (635 nm) and monochromatic
>(my spectroscope shows a single sharp red line).
>But I know that bluish-green (krypton ?) lasers are common as well,
>e.g. in discos or on rock concerts. I never saw them
>offered in pocket size form. 
>My question is: are  pocket-lasers also available in other colors ?
>
>BTW: Another question: why does the spot lit by a laser (the red
>635 nm diode one) show a dotted pattern ? The same occurs with
>'professional' lasers, also in other colors (e.g. the bluish-green Kr 
>one) ?
The only other color laser that is suitable for portable, battery
operation is rather expensive. This is obtained by exciting an Nd:YAG
laser rod with an infrared laser diode and piping the infared Nd:YAG laser
output through a frequency-doubling crystal. The whole contraption is
called a "frequency-doubled, diode-pumped Nd:YAG laser". The output is 632
nm ... bright green. Efficiency is pretty poor, the the maximum output
that is reasonable from a battery-operated Q-switched power supply is
about 1 mW. But to the eye this appears MUCH brighter than even a 5 mW,
635 nm red diode.
Handheld battery-operated specimens have been sold for $900 - $1500 over
the last few years. Prices are coming down, as sealed ultraminiaturized
modules from Asia hit the market. For example, see
htpt://www.crystalaser.com
-- 
Mike Schuster      	|	70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
schuster@panix.com 	|	schuster@mem.po.com 

In article <5ablvn$j1m@starman.rsn.hp.com>, schumach@convex.com says...
>
>>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...
>
Hmm.  Then who has the dreams?
>
Jim Glass

Patricia Schwarz wrote:
> 
> I want to hear from anyone from the AAAS on the science
> question. If you want to spout off about legalization issues
> in general, please go to alt.drugs.pot, that is all they do
> there.
> 
> But I want to know -- where are all the pro-science organizations
> now when Clinton is openly claiming that medical marijuana laws are
> impeding the process of scientific decision-making, when he himself
> has forbidden the clinical research that has been proposed and
> sat the table for the last five years?
> 
> They literally said, "This research is not needed because
> the law already tells us what we need to know on this issue."
> 
> Where is the AAAS on this question??? Where is the APS, the
> NAS, where are all of our defenders of science here????????
> 
> Where do the Skeptics stand? Where does Mr. Sokal stand,
> is he silent here becuase he can't play a prank on impoverished
> philosophers to make his point?
> 
> Where are Ed Witten and David Gross, who talk tough against
> postmodernism as well? Where are they when a real scientist
> is told he can't do real science because the results of the
> experiments have been decided in advance by government policy?
> 
> I'm not hearing any answers here, just cheap diversions that one
> can have literally miles of in the drug groups.
> 
> Has American science fallen into moral slumber? Are scientists
> only capable of attacking the less powerful such as humanities with
> 1/100th the budget?
> 
> You can find out a lot about peoples' true dedication to
> pursuit of truth if you ask them to take a little bite at
> the hand that feeds them.
> 
> No, scientists in this case are only happy to bite the
> hands of starving humanities, there is not enough real
> moral courage left in American science to stand up to
> the government on anything sibstantial where grant blackmail
> can be used.
> 
> Clinton is threatening to arrest doctors. Even some doctors are
> caving in to his coercion. So I can understand that American
> scientists are too terrified to make even the smallest PEEP
> here.
> 
> -patricia
your point must be political, because i don't get it.

DRees84014@gnn.com (Dave Rees) writes:
>
>The November 1996 issue of Scientific American has a thought-provoking
>article entitled "Qauntum Seeing in the Dark".  
>
>Apparently, a few clever physicists (Kwiat, Weinfurter, Zeilinger)
>have figured out how to take the "path not taken" phenomenon in
>quantum experiments and utilitize it to permit detection of objects
>without anything (light, particles, or anything else) interacting with
>those objects. 
 Not quite.  You can tell there is something there (a fraction P of 
 the times you try) without interacting with it -- in a certain 
 sense *because* you don't interact with it -- but you will interact 
 with it a fraction 1-P of the time.  What they do is use a clever 
 way to increase P so it approaches (but never equals) 1. 
>The "path not taken" question is the one raised in the by-now-classic
>splitter experiment wherein blocking one path in the experiment
>produces a different result (i.e. no interference pattern) even if no
>particle is detected on the blocked path.  
 I think this will all sound a bit less mysterious if we consider the 
 classic black-disk scattering problem in quantum.  This has the 
 same property: you can tell the disk is there, and all of its 
 features, from the particles that do not interact with it.  A single 
 particle that is deflected from the initial beam direction suffices 
 to tell you it is there -- but no "interaction" is required for the 
 deflection, only the *possibility* of an absorption reaction if it 
 does encounter the disk.  
 Indeed, we learn nothing about the black disk from the particles 
 that interact with it; everything we know comes from the scattered 
 particles that do not interact with the disk.  ;-)  
 Not too much new here, since this method of analysis was widely used, 
 before powerful computers came along, to study reactions where the 
 interactions are fairly short range and absorption is strong (as is 
 the case for 160-200 MeV pions and medium-to-high energy heavy ions) 
 so sizes can be deduced pretty well from a black-disk interpretation 
 of the scattering cross section.  Only a small fraction of the scattered 
 particles 'interact' with the nucleus, leading to deviations from the 
 black disk result. 
 What is new in this paper is a scheme to increase the probability 
 of the "misses" over that for the simple case -- and an experiment 
 that shows the effect can be realized in the laboratory. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

In article <5afm30$bsm@panix2.panix.com>,
   erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
[In article <59vcad$pea@play.inetarena.com>, jmc  
wrote:
[>>   odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
[>> SR applies only to flat spacetime.
[>
[>
[>Note: the word "flat" in regard in spacetime means this:
[>   
[>        Euclidean=flat
[>        non-Euclidean=curved.
[>
[>
[>Therefore it is incorrect to say that SR applies only to flat 
[>spacetime; SR spacetime is non-Euclidean, i.e. not flat.
[
[This is a new one on me.  I have it on good authority that I am a
[certified crank,  but I have communicated with many certified
[mainstream people here,  and they all seemed to accept the usage 
"flat
[spacetime" as being the space time of special relativity (i.e. in the
[absence of gravitating matter),  without comment.
    Thanks to you and the others who pointed out that the definitions 
which I gave were not correct.
    As I understand it now, space-time is considered flat 
      a. in the case of SR uniform movement in a straight line
  and b. generally, when the Riemann-Christoffel tensor is zeroes.
    Is it true that, strictly speaking, space-time is not flat in the 
SR problems often discussed in this group?
    For instance, the twin problem involves more than uniform movement 
in a straight line.  
    And in general isn't it true that the Riemann-Christoffel tensor 
is not zeroes even in 'empty' space, that spacetime between the stars 
is curved? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read". You can find the software to process these notices with some
newsreaders at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW site: http://www.cm.org.
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers, with byte counts:
  3  7529  Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
     7529 bytes total. Your size may vary due to header differences.
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.93
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Count: 3
Notice-ID: spncm1997002002228
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<5afk2e$7q2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.math
	k12.ed.math
	k12.ed.science
	k12.ed.soc-studies
	sci.physics
<5afked$7q2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.math
	k12.ed.math
	k12.ed.science
	k12.ed.soc-studies
	sci.physics
	alt.sci.physics.plutonium
<5ahdll$27r@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.math
	sci.physics
	sci.logic
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMsxRRoz0ceX+vLURAQEgNAQApIdJsRcgI2FkLz4FRk6qd2gcxWflfYiV
arx5Pe80QpJtpjR/hgrhczX/zOMTWCsHK1lOnhvDaB/yQjUNzC9AunqCh5lB2AaF
zsbWD76u/36WJSXGTyAaMs+kpC/wfX3xFhcGqEQrr8mcHcyATwUzkxNGNvXQC2Qr
a75kt6VNw/4=
=1Tag
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bonehead wrote:
> 
>
> REPLY:
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by a transcendent configuration?
In David Bohm's phycis, the implicate order provides "beables" which
provide pilot guidance waves for all elementary particles.  Lorentz
invariance would be one example.
> 1.)     Energy and mass do not 'ultimately become' equivalent as a result of
> resonant phenomena, at least in terms of special relativity physics. Their
> equivalence hinges on the treatment of kinetic energy (actually the *mass*
> portion of the kinetic energy equation) under the Lorentzian
> transformations. Maybe I'm misreading what you are saying. If so please
> clarify.
I think any oscillation has harmonic resonance.  Any conversion gives off
radiation, the radiation oscillates, and there is resonance on some level.
> 2.)     What do you mean by 'the two basic processes'? Are you saying that
> somehow the mass-energy equivalence is more fundamental than any other
> aspect of physical reality?
Absolutely.  It's like particle and wave.  Gravitational constant and
values for Omega.  Mind and matter.
 >
> REPLY:
> Are you saying that there is substantial energy to mass or mass to energy
> conversions involved in the transmission of sound vibrations (music) as it
> proceeds from source to destination? If so, where is the resulting mass if
> the kinetic energy of the air molecules are being converted? Sound waves do
> not become mass nor do plucked violin strings loose mass and turn into
> energy except perhaps on some infinitesimally small quantum scale.
I see music as both particle and wave.  Perhaps the particle part is
only a neuron configuration, but it has some palpable reality as mass
before it bcomes sound waves.  Congnition as waves, particle as memory.
Particle as visual cue, sheet music, neuron configuration of an improvisation,
I think it can always go both ways.
>  >
> Reply:
> If by music you just mean alternating compressive and rarefactional
> disturbances in some host medium then *composer* and *observer* are without
> meaning and music is just any vibrations. If you require that those
> rminism issue.
The composer and the observer are often without meaning.  But they still have
objective existence. 
> 
>Craig Clark

In article <32CB2885.1BD@ghgcorp.com>, jack wright  writes:
>Patricia Schwarz wrote:
>> 
	... snip ...
>> 
>> But I want to know -- where are all the pro-science organizations
>> now when Clinton is openly claiming that medical marijuana laws are
>> impeding the process of scientific decision-making, when he himself
>> has forbidden the clinical research that has been proposed and
>> sat the table for the last five years?
	... snip ...
>> 
>> Clinton is threatening to arrest doctors. Even some doctors are
>> caving in to his coercion. So I can understand that American
>> scientists are too terrified to make even the smallest PEEP
>> here.
>> 
>> -patricia
>
>your point must be political, because i don't get it.
No, actually I think that there is a scientific point here too.  Let 
me point out a few things.
1)  As somebody pointed out already, scientists are not a unified 
political body and shouldn't be expected to act as a body on political 
issues.
2)  The government is under no obligation to base its decisions on 
scientific considerations.  There is no place in the Constitution 
where it says "The government shall not enact a law without the 
advice and consent of the scientific community".  The government is a 
political body and has the right to ignore any scientific 
recommendation and consideration if it choses so (whether it is smart, 
that's another story).
So, in view of the above, why do I claim that there is a scientific 
point here.  Because there is a strong tendency, on part of the 
government to use "scientific research results" as a partial 
justification for various initiatives and, to the best of my memory, 
lots of such claims were floated around the "War on Drugs".  Now, if 
it happens that such research has been "doctored", that contradictory 
results were ignored or that studies having the potential to 
invalidate said research have been banned, in short if the quoted 
research is of dubious and questionable quality, then yes, the 
scientific community should object, strongly and publicly.  Not to the 
proposed law or initiative, since this is a political matter, but to 
the claim that it is based on "science".  It is not just a matter of 
ethics (and it is probably a waste of time to appeal to ethics 
anyway), but of self interest.  Regardless of any political beliefs 
individual scientist may hold, we all have a vested interest in 
maintaining and protecting our credibility.  Thus, in cases like those 
I've mentioned above, it is in the best long term interest of the 
scientific community to issue a statement to the effect "proceed if 
you wish but don't mix our name in this".
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

tricer@news.HiWAAY.net (Richard Trice) wrote:
>: Yeah, it would! You think all frogs are the same species? All fish?
>: All deer? Oh God, my bloodpressure!
>: Slim
>
>Of course they are all the same species... otherwise how would Noah have
>gotten all of them on the ark!
Please say you're joking about the ark part.
Proto

I read the recent Sci-American article about the measurement of
something without interacting with it...  I believe I got the gist of
the article, but something has been bothering me about all of these
things.   They depend on the path of a *single* photon.   
My simplest question (maybe) is how do you measure/create a *single*
photon.
My more difficult question is assuming you have a single photon and it
is pointed at a mirror, how does the photon know which direction to be
reflected?   IE, if a mirror is at a 45 degree orientation how does
the photon's reaction with something that will be as ultimately small
as an atom on the surface of the mirror (or something even smaller),
how is the orientation of the mirror manifest itself at that level so
that the photon *knows* to be deflected at a complimentary 45 degree
angle?
Or it the mirror is facing you directly....   What happens to the
photon? My understanding is that it would increase the quantom level
of the sphere of the atom it intersects with, be destroyed, and then
the quantom level would fall instanseously and squirt a *new* photon
right back at you.   how does it know which *direction* to squirt the
photon? Does this happen with *no* energy loss?  If there is an energy
loss can you measure it?
And my final question. for now...  Now that we are measuring distant
galaxies, and we are finding through doppler red shift of the light
that these galaxies are moving at speeds we wouldn't think possible
for matter, is it possible that what we are witnessing is *NOT*
Doppler shift but *fatigued* photons?   By *fatigued* I mean that over
a *great* period of time the energy in a photon eventually sheds away,
and since it cannot give up *speed* it has to give up frequency.
Hence things that are farther away SHOULD shift towards red, just
based on the time that the photon exists...
Cheers
John
I hope I don't lose my shoes because my goose is loose.

Jonah Barabas wrote:
> 
>
> Guess One
> Are you describing the top level of the discipline of music proposed by
> Boethius (musica mundana -- the music of the universe) in "De institutione
> musica"?    In other words, are you saying that the Universe actually
> vibrates and makes music due to the motion of the stars?  Also, if you are
> saying this, do you extend it to say that the act of composing is realizing
> the music of the Universe?   That would be similar to Socrates and
> learning(he thought learning was remembering what we knew before birth).
Essentially, though I haven't read Boethius, but I will have to, I would say
yes, a composer's music is really the Universe's.  All the oscillations in
galaxies and stars ultimately arrive in the human mind as harmonics.  Penrose
and Nanapolous are working on this, incorporating string theory into theories
of the mind.
> 
> Guess Two
> Are you saying that the structure of the Universe makes a type of harmony
> (from its root ar -- to fit together)?  As a system, it has a type of
> harmony.  Therefore, it is a type of music.
Yes again.  The harmonies are everywhere.  There is magnificent order and
structure.  The notes of music are like elements.  They configure themselves
in self-organizing non-linear patterns, just like plants and foliage.
> 
> Guess Three
> Are you stating the above as an imagery tool to be used when composing?
> BTW, it is a beautiful image.
> This would be like singers picturing singing through the top of their head
> to stay on pitch.
Yes, I'm all for the use of imagery.  However, I feel that music produces
the imagery, not the other way around. You could put a Kandinsky on the piano
and play it and it might work wonders.  The interesting thing about music
is that it produces so much imagery and so much thought which is non-musical
in nature. That's why Jimmy Page said it's more than just the notes.  Yet, 
if you think of a beautiful woman while composing, you get some nice music
sometimes. 
I think all three defintions work just fine.
Craig Clark

Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
> 
> In article  meloan@netcom.com
> (Steve Meloan) writes:
> 
> > Can anyone tell me the name of the thought experiments that Einstein
> > used to perform (such as riding on a train going the speed of
> > light)?  I seem to recall that it was something like "Godonkin."
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> It's ``gedankenexperimentung,'' which is a German word that is usually
> translated as ``thought-experiments'' --- by which I understand Einstein
> meant something like ``experiments carried out inside one's mind,'' more
> or less (native German-speakers are please invited to correct or comment).
> 
Exactly right ... but the spelling is "Gedankenexperimentierung".
> In English, a much better translation might be ``imaginary experiments,''
> but the person who first literally translated ``gedankenexperimentung''
> into ``thought-experiments'' apparently lacked a sense of poetry, and
> we've been stuck with it ever since... :-/
> 
"Gedanken" are "thoughts" ... literally. It comes from "denken" which
means "to think" ... thus "Gedanken" means "to think the thought".
W$

ibokor wrote:
 > 
 > Anonymous (abcd@efgh.net) wrote:
 > : The limit of 1/x as x --> 0 is infinity.
 > :
 >  
 > If you're talking about the real numbers, then
 > what you have claimed is not true.
 > 
 > Even if you were to be sloppy about the use
 > of the word "limit", there would still not be
 > a limit, since if x is negative, so is 1/x
 > and if x is positive, so is 1/x. Hence the only
 > possible limit would be 0, the limit would
 > have to be non-positive and non-negative.
 >  
 > d.A.
lim   1/x = oo
x->0+
lim   1/x = -oo
x->0-
hence
lim   1/x = DNE
x->0
it does not exist because it is different from the left than from the
right.  but both limits ARE infinite, meaning that 1/0 is an infinite
number, either +oo of -oo.  limits were made to evaluate functions at
infinite and indeterminante values, that is their point in existance.
electronic monk

IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
> 
> "Gregory A. Covington"  wrote:
> 
> >Larry Kurka wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> >> The second part of the statement "...just as the evolutionist
> >>does the same with an evolutionary description."  This is of
> >>course incorrect.  The scientist does not start with the idea
> >>of evolution and then apply the evidence in such a way as to
> >>support the idea.
> 
> >Hogwash!  Do you think that Darwin's observations came before
> >the theory of evolution?  That is absolutely false.
> 
> They did come before! Have you read Darwin? Have you read any of the
> many books on Darwin and his activities? He put in YEARS of
> observation and research before writing the "Origin of Species". I
> prefer to believe you're misinformed rather than lying.
> 
Actually, Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus (a physician and
naturalist), proposed a theory of evolution in the 1790s.  As a child,
Darwin became quite familiar with his grandfather's hypothesis.
Here's the thing, Darwin may have used either his grandfather's ideas or
his own as working hypotheses - but he was very strict about employing
the scientific method.  There is no question that he pursued his work
honestly and rigorously.
Chuxk Szmanda
chucksz@ultranet.com

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote in article
<5agsra$t26@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
> Keith Stein  wrote:
> >
> >>Keith Stein  wrote:
> >
> >>>                      1836.152701
> >>>WHY? 
> >
> >In article <5ac5f9$5n0@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, Alan  writes
> >
> >>It's the ratio of the Bohr to the nuclear magneton.
> >
> >
> >  I honestly never knew that Alan,
> 
> If you look in just about any newspaper, in the obituaries, you will find
> that people invariably die in alphabetical order.  Does God exist or 
> what?
That is amazing. My father outlived my mother by several years. His first
name started with A and hers with M.
She should have divorced him and gone back to her maiden name which started
with V.
Sincerely,
Zorn ZZZZ.
> -- 
> Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
> UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
>  (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
> 
> 
> 

In article <01bbf20a$07531220$82665fa8@hal>, shitou@hinet.net (D.E. Franks ) 
dusted off the quill, prised open the inkwell and wrote...
>
>
>No, i believe he meant excluding, because the planets would add a
>significant amount of light.
>
>Never tried reading myself, but do know that, if the skies are dark, and
>Venus is very bright, you can see shadows cast by trees in the snow from
>the light of that planet. At least i'm pretty sure i've observed this; the
>effect is subtle and snow can be less than flat so...
>
>        D.E. Franks
Yeah. But light from Venus ain't STARlight. The original statement was "you 
can read by STARlight".
Of course, a real pedant would say that reading by starlight is very easy. 
indeed you only need one star - as long as it's very close like the Sun.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

Patricia Schwarz (violette@vasilisa.com) wrote:
: BBrian Sandle wrote:
: 
: > : Then cannabinoids are undoubtedly good for the hippocampus,
: > : check out the research on the syntehtic cannabinoid HU211
: > : which as a brain anti-inflammatory reduces neural damage from
: > : hypoxia by up to 50%
: > 
: > No, no, for someone whose breathing has been reduced it is no good to
: > tell them that they will only suffer half the damage.
: > 
: 
: You really are confused aren't you? 8-}
: 
: Marijuana does not work by hypoxia, it does not work like a
: "dirty drug", it was discovered in 1986 that it works through
: a system of chemoreceptors that account for its effects.
: 
: There is no hypoxia involved whatsoever in the action of
: cannabinoids and this is certain.
What I asked is that if they reduce muscular irritablity why not breathing?
I think that there is some evidence that they may cause foetal hypoxia, 
though I'm not sure of the mechanism. So your suggestion would be to do 
what then?
[...]
: 
: Cannabinoids including those in marijuana act through a unique
: receptor system with unique properties. So marijuana is in
: fact far more comparable to a tricyclic anti-depressant than
: it is to, say, alcohol. Tricyclic anti-depressants act mainly
: through the serotonin system. Well, here we have a whole
: newly-discovered receptor system to use medically.
: 
: It's pretty fascinating. What did this system evolve for?
: What does it do? And what disorders might be caused by
: not having the proper gene for expressing natural cannabinoids?
: 
: This is all pretty intriguing stuff folks. It's not a "dirty
: drug" i.e. something that acts like alcohol. Cannabinoids
: are manufactured by the brain and immune system and they
: play a vital role in all animals including humans.
: 
: Look, Brian, your own brain is already full of anadamide, which
: is the natural analog of THC.
: 
: So if THC causes brain damage as you say, I guess we're all
: BORN DAMAGED THEN. Because the code for producing cannabinoids
: was encoded in your genes, babe, many millions of years ago.
: Whether you like it or not, your health depends on cannabinoids
: manufactured in your own head. THis is just a fact. But one
: that has yet to reach the stage of being understood by large
: numbers of scientists outside the cannabinoid field.
As a physicist you should understand threshholds of activity.
& I know there is a tremendous desire to be different/more perceptive. 
But to try to urge nature on has lots of risks since there are factors 
not known. As I said I believe that you are urging men on to a backwards 
path. And unborn children.
Brian Sandle

Ted Rosen  wrote in article
<5af40p$nbe$1@barad-dur.nas.com>...
>  
> 
> > snelson@hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> > 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"?
> 
> 	Hmmm. . . since my monitor and TV use piezoelectric crystals as a
> stable frequency source for chroma and stereo seperation, can I just
> rub my face on the CRT and get all the lovely beneficial effects?
> 
> 	Will good fortune, money and love interests quickly follow if I merely
> bring home a box of crystal oscillators from work and pour them all
> over my nude body while John Tesh music ululates dully in the
> background?
> 
> 	- TR  
Yes, but you need to send (me) lots of money first.

IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
> "Larry Kurka"  wrote:
> 
> >Gregory A. Covington  wrote in article
> ><32C81ED0.581E@ex1.wes.army.mil>...
> [snip]
> >> Gregory A. Covington, PE
> >>
> >Oh! Look everyone!  Gregory can put letters after his name.  I know I'm
> >impressed.  Doesn't that make him important, wise, and knowledgeable.
> 
> >Larry L. Kurka, AA, BS, MA, MCP
> 
> I hate it when they append PE!
> 
Ok, what's the  PE stand for? Printers Error? Prince Edward Island?
Physical Educator? The seventeenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet?
Probable Error? Professional Engineer? What??
Thank god I got a BA. I'd hate to think of what having "BS" after my
name would do to my credibility...
I know, I know, it would probably force me to work on my master's to at
least hide the BS in the forest of letters. ;-)
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis              “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services                                       -Hobbes
716-442-2884                                 
******************************************************************

Wilkins asserts two things: first, he disagrees with my assesment of the 
distinction between science and religon; and second, he disagrees whith my statement 
that evolution should be discarded if a counterexample is found. As for the first point, 
I wrote:
> >         The distinction between science and religon is arbitrary (hence really > > > 
> should not be discussued), but well defined. Religon is a belief system that is not > 
> science in a form resembling that today.
	Wilkins replies:
> I disagree that science and religion are arbitrarily distinguished. An
> arbitrary distinction is one that is entirely subjective - that is, it
> does not correspond to a 'natural' reality independent of interests of
> the person doing the distinguishing.
> 
> There are some quite non-arbitrary distinctions between (western,
> theistic or deistic) religion and science. One is that science is an
> iterative and experimental process, refining explanations on the basis
> of common experience. Religion is based on unrefinable basic beliefs. To
> illiustrate: science can be (and has been) revised such that there is
> nothing left of the starting assumptions of a field or theory. In
> religion this is by definition not possible (which is not to say that
> religions do not evolve; just that religions are doctrinal 'essences'
> that cannot be totally revised and still 'be' the same religion).
	The crux of his arguement seems to be that religons do not evolve. I do not 
think this is so. Looking at any religon with a recorded history, or at any mainstream 
analysis of the subject, one will observe a distinct change over time. If anyone 
disagrees, tell me. For example, in the Judeo-Christian religons distinct changes occur.
Christianity itself evolved directly from Judiasm, which in turn was influenced, during 
its long history by many sources, including zoroastrianism. This fact is mirrored by the 
recording of religious history in parallel with geneology. For example, Arab culture and 
religon's divergence is represented by the birth of Ishmael (mothered by Hagar). While 
it is true that if a religon is changed radically, it is no longer called the same name. 
But science does the same. A radicaly different scientific hypothesis than the one 
preceding it has a distinct name as well. This can not be taken as proof that science 
and religon do not evolve, only that thier names evolve in parallel. *The* major 
distinction between "science" and "religon" is that science appears to fit my previously 
stated (loosely) criteria better than religon.
	As for Wilkins' other point, I believe that the problem is lack of clarity on my 
part. I wrote:
> >         In short, by our basic modes of truth evaluation, evolutionism appears to be
> > better than all current alternatives. If an example that can't be explained by 
> > evolution comes up (I have yet to see one, despite claims to the contrary), the     
> > theory is dead and needs a replacement.
	And Wilkins replied:
> While I appreciate your viewpoint, I think it is wrong. A theory is not
> abandoned on the basis of a single anomaly, something that has been
> appreciated since Kuhn, but was noted by Pierre Duhem in 1915. As
> Dennett said, Darwinian evolution theory routinely takes the challenge
> to explain things that its opponents say cannot be explained, but the
> explanation may be some time coming.
	I was refering to actual anomalies. An observation that *appears* to contradict 
a well established theory generally does not. If a signifigant number of unexplained 
observations acumulates, or if these alleged anomalies are sufficiently baffling, THEN 
the theory would need replacing because the probability that at least one of the 
observations would be a true counterexample would be very high. Of course, the number of 
apparent counterexamples necessary to cast doubt on the theory would increase. Also a 
theory can only be replaced if a suitable replacement exists. A good example would be 
the development of cosmology. Although physicists knew of problems inherent in thier 
"laws" (and so the theory was obviously flawed), Newtonian mechanics was not replaced 
until the advent of relativity many years later. If evolution holds, all the so-called 
counter examples should *eventually* be explained, as all have been so far. Sorry for 
the confusion.

I'm looking for ideas and information regarding projects that I could
assign to my high school physics class.

In article <32CC15A8.1FF6@c220.unimo.it>,
  Albertino Bigiani  wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> Is pressure (force/surface) a scalar or vector?
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Albertino Bigiani
-----------
Carro Albertino,
The pressure is a scalar field. In Euler equation, one uses its 
gradient. It is also a macroscopic quantity (from the point of view of 
thermodynamics). Its units are identical with the units of the energy 
density (why ?). Force is a sort of a vector, surface could also be 
oriented ant hence, a vector, too. then pressure is something like the 
scalar product of these two vectors.
Regards, 
Andy
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet