Newsgroup sci.physics 214184

Directory

In article <5anhqr$lp9@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, mikem@u.washington.edu (M. Martin) wrote:
>      Because four-tensors such as the Riemann Tensor are 
> difficult to work with, the Ricci tensor is also 
> considered a convenient substitute for Riemann, as none 
> of the essential curvature information is lost in the 
> contraction.
Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "essential".  You lose
all that Weyl curvature information..  like gravitational waves..
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

Bill Oertell wrote:
> 
> Joe Quellen wrote:
> >
> > There was a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert's manager complains that his laptop
> > is too heavy, so Dilbert suggests that he delete some files from the hard
> > drive to make it lighter.
> >
> > Ever since seeing it, I occasionally ponder whether it is ever-so-slightly
> > possible.  Assuming the file was deleted securely, and not just the directory
> > entry, do '1's have a very tiny weight difference from '0's, and is it more or
> > less?
> 
>    No.
> --
> 
>                                  Bill
>  ------------------------------------
> | If everything is possible,         |
> | nothing is knowable.  Be skeptical.|
>  ------------------------------------
Some years ago there was an article in Scientific American
that speculated about the the prevalence of right-handed (?)
molecules in the biological world could be derived from
an energy difference of 10^-13 that arises because the
weak force component in the electro-weak interactions is
not right-left symetrical. I do not know if this effect 
could affect the ferrite crystals on a hard drive however.

Keith Stein  writes:
>
>                      1836.152701
                                   +/- 0.000037
>WHY? 
 Good question.  But it is a particle physics question, not nuclear 
 physics, since it concerns the relationship (if any) between the 
 hadronic and leptonic sectors -- since this is the ratio of the 
 proton mass to the electron mass. 
 Note that the other comment about the magneton ratios is a tautology 
 because those are defined to be e hbar / 2 M. 
-- 
 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 <5anekj$d3c@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
george blahusiak  wrote:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <32CB2885.1BD@ghgcorp.com>, jack wright  writes:
>>>Patricia Schwarz wrote:
>>	... snip ...
>Much snipped by others
>>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).
>Really?!?!?!
Really.  The government has no obligation to do anything intelligent.
In a pure democracy, 51% of the population could decide that to kill
off or enslave the other 49%.  Any government without external threats
can do anything it wants and can manage to do and get away with it.
>I always thought the purpose of govt was the benefit of the governed.
>And you say you are writing from uchicago? Surely you jest.
Even this was not stated in the Declaration of Independence, but it
was close.  I believe that Jefferson was out of the country when the
Constitution was drawn up.
This may be a philosophical principle, but as such it is not attatinable.
There is no way that a self-consistent means of making decisions by 
individuals and by society can exist without being dictatorial.  This
is a relatively easy mathematical result, from a weak definition of
self-consistency.
>Second, the first principle of good decision making, and I think I
>should include the govt here, is to GET THE FACTS. It is a
>fundamental, like life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which,
>if memory serves me, appears somewhere else as well. If you have to
>spell it out using words of less than 5 letters you have missed the
>point.
The other thing needed in decision making is what I consider the
definition of statistical decision theory:
	It is necessary to consider all consequences of the
	proposed action in all states of nature.
>Perhaps one might suggest a reading of Aristotle's Ethics. That goes
>for any scientist, not to mention everyone else.
And one should also read the very simple ideas I have stated.  A fair
version can be found in a book by Clemen, _Making Hard Decisions_.
One which gets to the foundational material faster is _Decision 
Analysis_ by Raiffa.  Much damage has been done by those who do not
consider the consequences, especially those who want to impose their
values on others.
Here are tow examples of the failure to realize the consequences.
It was necessary to tear down public low-income housing, as it was
having almost the opposite effect of that intended by the social
workers and those who thought like them.  Another was the S&L;
debacle; the problem was that any manager interested in maximizing
the returns to those putting money into their banks had to do 
what increased the problem.
-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (317)494-6054   FAX: (317)494-0558

Ken Seto states in his theory of MODEL MECHANICS
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html the following.
The constancy of the speed of light is supported mainly by an
arbitrary definition for a second and the assumed concept of length
contraction. The definition for a second in different inertial frames
is not the same. The difference is that the duration of a second is
different in different inertial frames and this is also known as time
dilation. The defined second in combination with the properly
contracted length (assumed) will give the same value for light-speed
in all frames.
Could you kindly elaborate on the definition of for a second according
to the MODEL MECHANICS. Specifically why or what the physical reason
for  "The definition for a second in different inertial frames is not
the same." NOTE I appreciate it if you could give me an answer based
on the qualitative aspect of MODEL MECHANICS instead of quantitative.
In suffered a head injury that make all mathematical derivations very
difficult to understand.
Thanks Jeff  
IMAGINATION ILLUMINATES REALITY    Links to the Future
          http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/shadlink.htm
           The Virtual Reader for the vision impaired
            http://shell.idt.net/~jeffocal/frank.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 08:45:39 GMT, in <32ce0df7.4045774@Pubnews.demon.co.uk>
          savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote.....
>   This is indeed the standard GR interpretation of gravity but I do
> have a major problem with the curved spacetime explanation which I
> hope Mr. Ramsey can clarify.  Given that,
>
>   a) Spacetime is 100% motionless, i.e., nothing moves in spacetime.
>   b) Spacetime is an abstract collection of events.
>
>   (Since a and b are both true, contradict at your own risk.)
>
>   Questions:
>
>   1) If a is true, how can anything have an inertial motion in
> spacetime?
If the world-line of the body follows a geodesic, then locally the geometry
around it falls into locally Lorentz form, with the world line forming a
time axis.  This is locally equivalent to unaccelerated motion in empty
space, and is hence inertial roughly by definition.
The proper, or subjective, time of the body means that its experience of
the present increments along the world-line in space-time in a manner
conventionally labelled as motion.
>   2) If b is true, how can an abstract non-physical structure have a
> physical/causal influence on anything?
The answer depends to a large extent on how concerned one is beyond how
well the equations do at predicting the outcomes of experiment.
Space-time as treated mathematically is the convenient abstract set of
events (with certain plausible geometric and topological properties) that
forms our best model for approximating the behaviour of the universe at
large.
I can't really address your points further than that, because it seems that
there is a significant amount of semantic quibbling in the way over the way
in which the identification of mathematical tools of proven worth in
predicting experiment with the universe out there is expressed; your point
(a) above being a clear indication of this semantic foible.
>   Question 2 is important because, when the motionless nature of
> spacetime is pointed out to them, certain GR physicists respond by
> saying that what is really meant is that falling objects have inertial
> motion in 3-D space because they are physically constrained by their
> spacetime geodesics.  This nonsense explanation notwithstanding, it
> remains that a falling object is not observed to be in inertial
> motion:  It is accelerating in 3-D space!  Surprise!  GR physicists
Locally, its path is as straight as possible in space-time, with the
time-component of the space-time curvature being significant.  If no
external forces act, then, effectively by definition, a body will follow a
geodesic path.
> say that the curved spacetime inertial path (geodesic) is the only
> explanation for the known fact that the falling objects do not "feel"
> their own accelerations.  Poppycock!  What is wrong with the obvious
> and simple explanation that the gravitational force is applied to
> every part of a falling object equally?  To the falling object this
You then have to explain how this mysterious action at a distance occurs,
having rejected a much simpler local mechanism.
- --
   ______                                  http://www.windsong.demon.co.uk/
  / __/ /____ _  _____Gilham   PGP fingerprint 6A 0E 8B EE 66 7C 69 72
 _\ \/ __/ -_) |/ / -_)                        21 99 C5 B6 7B 4D 96 1B
/___/\__/\__/|___/\__/@windsong.demon.co.uk    (PGP preferred on principle)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.63ui
iQCVAwUBMs6dLbiuOxyD0TQxAQFLCQQA15uCJp08IR4/XqiRNJXXXIH4CBFdXLs8
34jlVJGNgzIASh2B0DSykJVSO2gBq+T+Oz7/cv/8+EQ0igbTlxZHFtnRvqaSw5Z6
Swie70Kp2ZX+BOHaioyettcAcz2pshJgY8ytQWU7KJGLZTap01YTaUf9AKjN40Qt
c56o13Y7y4A=
=7I7x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F6F205B3A12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello,fellow physicists.I have a problem with my physics topic which is
about the Bernoulli principle.I know that according to the principle,the
pressure of a flowing liquid will decrease in accordance with its
increasing speed.
In the attached JPEG file,two contradiction exists.In figure [A](in the
attachhment),air flows through a tube which slows down from left to
right and makes the water levels in the vertical tubes different because
of increasing pressure.However,my physics teacher says that,in this
situation,air speeds up from left to right, resulting in water levels
similar to figure [B](in the attachment).
When I refer to the reference book,it supports figure [A].This gives me
a lot of headache.Please solve the problem for me.
-- 
VELAN S/O RAMALINGGAM
Whatever it is,go for it!
Life is a challenge.Face it!
--------------F6F205B3A12
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="bernoulli.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="bernoulli.jpg"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=
--------------F6F205B3A12--

No, I'm not into NewAge and all that. But I ever wanted to have a simple
YES or NO on Astrology, as with all our data collections and a little bit
of statistics it should be easy to give that. Now someone recently did
exactly that - and proved beyond any doubts, that there are statistic
significances, which give credit to Astrology.
Gunter Sachs is heir to the well known 'Fichtel & Sachs' motor company.
Having sold it he has money to fulfil personal dreams without end. He also
(in his time) was a well-known european playboy (who once won the Cresta
Run, a murderous ice sledge race and once was married to french actress
Brigitte Bardot). But by now he has calmed down and is a well reputated
photographer living in Switzerland pursuing interests in a lot of fields.
One of his interests was to answer the above question.
The fact, that since a few years back, the birth dates of bride and
bridegroom are registered in Switzerland, together with a general
population census taken in 1990, allowed to put together all statistical
material, that was needed to find out, if a very personal question:
"Should I marry him/her?" is influenced by the star sign.
Now, physicists and astronomers and all of you, who believe in equal
rights and equal chances and do not believe in esoterics: FASTEN SEAT
BELTS.
Gunter Sachs let some researchers of the University of Munich analyze the
data. There are 144 combinations (12x12 star signs) that people could
marry. The given dataset was ~375000 marriages, thus giving statistically
trustworthy results with low aberration levels. Now  first they normalized
for the fluctuation in birthrate throughout the year (otherwise giving an
overweight on spring/spring or autumn/spring or autumn/autumn
combinations). Then they looked at the distribution. Lots of combinations
where absolutely in the normal statistical noise range. But some
combinations where highly significant over- or underrepresented. One cited
example was Stier-Frau vs. Wassermann-Mann (don't know the english
expressions), which should have had an expected value of 2705 marriages,
but came up with 2540. For such a huge sample this is a highly significant
aberration way over noise level.
To prove that significance to be true, the Suisse group arround Sachs
scrambled the data (they split the year into it's 52 weeks, reassembling
artificial starsigns from not connected weeks picked at random) and let
the Munichians analyze again. Exactly what you'd expect: a non
significant, purely random distribution was the result.
Now Sachs is a cautious man and doesn't say HOW to interprete the result.
He also didn't analyze, if the results found would match what is commonly
predicted by Astrology about the attraction of star signs at one another.
But he will come up with a more profound and wider analysis touching other
personal aspects too (like success in life, suicidal tendencies etc.) and
I'll be the first one to read it.
BTW: I took this information from an article in the weekly newspaper "Die
Zeit" from 2nd Jan 1996... and I hope I remembered the figures about right
:-)
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 <32CFD1D1.7168@vasilisa.com>, welshwytch
 schreibt:
>I was not asking whether the President is required to listen to
>scientists.
>
>I was asking why no *scientists* had spoken up in the first place.
>Just purely regarding the issue of "politically forbidden research"
And, indeed,  this is what the scientific community should have done:
spoken up. Loud and clear. Have this as an example why speaking up is
viable, even if it's not your field, that is endangered:
Martin Niemöller, protestant preacher and member of Parliament in Germany
in the 30ies for the conservative CENTRUM party has put it into words
once:
"When Hitler first threw out the communists we didn't object. They where
atheists and our natural enemies, so why should we speak up. When he drove
the  Socialists out of the house, we didn't speak up, as they where our
main political opponents, so why troubling ourselves with it. When finally
Hitler threw us out, there was no one left to speak up for us anymore."
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.

"Tom"  writes:
>
>Apparently absorption/emission of photons happens only in quanta of
>specific energies. 
 Yes. 
>I can understand the emission side, but it seems to me
>that photons of the exact energy required for absorption would be extremely
>rare due, for example, to relative movement of the emitter and the
>absorber. (Relative motion changing the wavelength/frequency and therefore
>the energy of the photon, as in red shift).
 And a good thing, too, or I would not be able to see the photons coming 
 off of my computer screen through the glass and air between it and my 
 eyes, not to mention the stuff inside my eyes.  
 You are probably wondering why you can't see through a wall.  That is 
 because the molecules have far more complex level schemes than the 
 simple atomic levels you have seen in books.  These, along with 
 "kinematic broadening" (the shift you mention parenthetically above) 
 and effects when molecules form a solid object, can produce a level 
 scheme that looks like a solid band so a wide range of photon energies 
 are absorbed and only some are scattered. 
-- 
 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. 

"Lee Pugh"  writes:
>
>Where is the logic behind demonstrating a young earth by proving reversal.
>How does proving that there was a reversal 5000 years ago demonstrate
>creationionism?
 That is not the argument they make.  They assume the field is changing 
 linearly and extrapolate it backward to 'prove' creation had to happen 
 6000 years ago.  When I heard a creationist make this argument at a 
 public forum, I interrupted him and asked "What model are you using 
 to produce a linear change in the field?" and he answered "Because 
 God made it that way!".  That is the scientific logic they use. 
 They do not accept that a cyclic process has taken place.  What is 
 there was made that way -- perhaps as a test of faith. 
>Are all suppositions about earth magnetic polarity reversal based on
>secretions from the mid-rift of the floor of the atlantic?
 No.  There are other spreading centers, and also data from lava flows 
 that can be dated independently.  A geology newsgroup or textbook 
 would tell you a lot about this subject. 
-- 
 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. 

Joe Quellen (quellen@azstarnet.com) wrote:
: There was a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert's manager complains that his laptop 
: is too heavy, so Dilbert suggests that he delete some files from the hard 
: drive to make it lighter.
: Ever since seeing it, I occasionally ponder whether it is ever-so-slightly 
: possible.  Assuming the file was deleted securely, and not just the directory 
: entry, do '1's have a very tiny weight difference from '0's, and is it more or 
: less?
I can't think of a reason a 1 would weigh differently than a 0, but
there still will be a difference:
A sequence of alternating magnetic polarity bits on a hard disk contain
more energy than a sequence of same-polarity bits.
Consider that you must *push* a magnet toward a magnet aiming the opposite
direction, but you can *extract* energy from a magnet as you place it
among other same-direction magnets. Therefore the energy required to write
a bit to the hard disk depends on the direction of the other nearby bits.
Since energy gravitates, a sequence of alternating bit patterns
(alternating 1's & 0's) will weigh more than a sequence of same-state bits
(all 1's or all 0's). So on a secure system (where the data is
overwritten) there will be a difference in weight.
This also assumes a bit is written as a single pulse to the hard disk. 
Some recording methods write a series of pulses to represent one bit. If
the duty cycle of the pattern is 50%, then each bit weighs the same.
Quantum mechanically, there is also the consideration that a bit of
information must contain at least a certain energy. Some contend that this
means only "orderly" information (there is no such thing as "disorderly" 
information). But the common belief is that random data weighs the same as
orderly data--especially because we have no scientific definition of
random vs. orderly!
Kelly Loum

Louis,
   Yes, to me the concept of time is "change". It is an abstract 
   concept as you pointed out below. The t = d/v is a useful ratio but
   the fact about time itself should be kept straight.
   Great explaination.
Regards,
-Pdp
>  The problem for GR physicists is that their standard explanation of
>gravity as a physical effect of spacetime curvature becomes highly
>suspect if spacetime is abstract and non-existent.  GR physicists
>should stop preaching their "spacetime geometry causes gravity" gospel
>because it makes them look bad.  Gravity is not the result of
>spacetime geometry because, again, spacetime is an abstract collection
>of events.  Concepts like geodesics and inertial paths in spacetime
>are simply dumb.  Very dumb.  And no amount of rationalization or
>obfuscation is going to change that.  Too bad some of you are having
>trouble grasping this.  And also, too bad if some of you take offense.
>  It's important here to say a few words about time.  Time is a simple
>abstract ratio as seen in t = d/v.  This is not just an equation.  It
>is an identity.  Time is inversely proportional to motion or change.
>If one chooses one's units of measurement properly, one can change the
>equation for time to be simply t = 1/v.  Time is then merely the
>inverse of velocity.  I like to look at it as the inverse of change.
>Time does not exist separately from change.  It is an abstract concept
>obtained mathematically from change.  If there is no change, there is
>no time.  Of the two, only change or velocity is observed to exist.
>That is all one needs in order to get 1/v.
>  So why does one sense the existence passage of time even if one is
>not moving spatially in any of the 3 dimensions.  Well since time
>cannot be divorced from motion or change, and since the time axis is
>illogical, one must look for change elsewhere.  To explain this
>intuitive notion of time, I postulate the existence of a fourth
>*spatial* dimension along which the entire known universe is moving.
>  How did time get to be given a separate existence of its own even in
>the face of an unforgiving circularity, is one of those curiosities of
>science that future historians and psychologists will probably study
>and debate for centuries to come.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Louis Savain
>
>"O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
>And men have lost their reason."  W.S.

Im Artikel <32cc0be8.530263@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, ericf@central.co.nz
(Eric Flesch) schreibt:
[I wrote]
>>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.
>(illustrated with sine curves)
>
>Your sine curves are correct, as is your observation that different
>pairs are measured for each configuration.  However, your suggestion
>that "we are not allowed to" derive certain conclusions because of
>this does not, and cannot, follow.  These hit-miss rates are
>statistically observed, and under any classical experiment the "Bell's
>Inequality" (which is really just a basic mathematical statement) must
>be upheld.  Given the actual experimental results, I think the best
>wording of your interpretation would be that fundamental statistical
>processes do not work at the quantum level.  That is, in the classical
>experience, the whole is the sum of its parts, but that appears not to
>be the case at the quantum level.  Further exploration of this view
>may provide an alternative to the FTL explanation of the Bell's
>results.
Hmm. It's not that I do not believe in Erics words, but I thought, there
was more behind all the ballyhoo about Bell's Inequality.
Would someone, please, do confirm, that the whole thing is as simple, as
it is set up in the resp. posts between Eric and me?
And: Can anyone explain how the idea emerged, we could just simply *add*
those results from two small angles to get the same as from the wider
angle? 
Because in 'Mengenlehre' (sort of new maths, which is taught in primary
school for about ten years now) just as well as in real life, there is
enough examples, that we cannot - and we don't need the pompous
differentiation between classic and quantum physics - all said under the
assumption that the above cited is true. Let me try to explain, how I
understand it:
The polarizer is a bit like a slit of a european mailbox: You may put in
flat envelopes of different formats horizontally and to a lesser degree
inclinated. Now if you measured the possibility if an envelope gets
through, it is a function of it's aberration of horizontalness as well as
it's size (the smaller the more inclination is allowed), thus towards more
inclination, there will be more misses. I should guess, that this is
exactly true for photons passing a polarizer: the more they are inclined
vs. the pol. plane, the less of them will get through. That correct?
Placing a second slit behind the first with an inclination of a certain
angle will produce slightly more misses - of course about the same for the
inclination on both sides. But combining bot inclinations would only let
'small' envelopes being exactly horizontally through and the level of
misses will be much higher than expected, if we would have only counted
"fits" vs. "doesn't fit" and doubled the misses.
Now that all cannot be that simple, and I'd like to know, where I'm wrong.
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 <32CE5131.579@tm.net.my>, Velan Ramalinggam 
schreibt:
>Hello,fellow physicists.I have a problem with my physics topic which is
>about the Bernoulli principle.I know that according to the principle,the
>pressure of a flowing liquid will decrease in accordance with its
>increasing speed.
>
>In the attached JPEG file, ....
Well, first of all:  posting a picture to a non-binary newsgroup is
against netiquette and *IF* you do, think of old DOS when creating a
filename: 8.3 chars is the max. valid filename, thus BERNOULLI.JPG (9.3)
is NOT!  - but I have to say, that the picture was nicely coloured ;-) and
also illustrated your problem very well (I've been using WINCODE for
decoding and found the option of decoding from pinboard coming in very
handy). 
>two contradiction exists.
Indeed: both pics are wrong :-)
>In figure [A](in the
>attachhment),air flows through a tube which slows down from left to
Why should it slow down? The diameter of the tube does not vary at all.
>right and makes the water levels in the vertical tubes different because
>of increasing pressure.However,my physics teacher says that,in this
>situation,air speeds up from left to right,
Same again: why should it speed up?
>resulting in water levels
>similar to figure [B](in the attachment).
>
>When I refer to the reference book,it supports figure [A].This gives me
>a lot of headache.Please solve the problem for me.
Your headaches are because in a evenly tube, there will be just no effect
(aside from the same(!) effect on all three vertical tubes due to the
fact, that inside the tube air is moving thus creating a pressure
difference (=lower) to the outside air pressure). The effect *is like
shown in A, *if the tube is gradually opening up in direction of air flow.
If it is constricting, you'll get B.
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.

-----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  7503  Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
     7503 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: spncm1997004125545
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<5amupa$6u6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.chem
	sci.physics
	dartmouth.alt.employees.discuss.procedures
	alt.sci.physics.plutonium
	alt.society.labor-unions
<5an0kr$t9s@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
iQCVAwUBMs+k1Iz0ceX+vLURAQGgnAP+Iy355otamwqR3JzWhf7l6dLmOq6jqvkg
KCXsOUMfshnthcWMhEBqia7Aof2Z210d099KMXiYAx9Ad/15R3aCW6v+yBRFtSZs
YiJR4GRIRsEZw8pq6LLlCeDXgCif5PUob9HEYPJ2RiB2XHYwLK5RROLD7FYwmsyZ
c7Wtvi7Q4NY=
=xP7s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Frank Crary wrote:
> 
> In article <5an19l$75h@news.istar.ca>, Dave  wrote:
> >Hi. I have been reading some of the articles on the Mars rock but I
> >have never seen any response as to if it really came from Mars.
> >If they brought it back from a mars lander or rover I could see this,
> >but  this so called mars rock was found on Earth.
> 
> The reasons to think it came from Mars are referenced in the
> published papers, although they are not discussed in detail.
> Basically, the ratio of stable oxygen isotopes can be used
> to link different rocks together. The ratios of all terrestrial
> rocks fall along a theoretically predicted line; different
> classes of meteors fall along distinctly different lines.
> The Mars (or SNC or SNAC) meteors all fall along the same
> line, indicating that they all came from the same parent
> body, and that this body was not the Earth or Moon. Two
> of these meteors (although not the one evidence of possible
> life was found in), contain trapped bubbles of gas. This
> gas exactly matches the composition of the martian atmosphere,
> as measured by Viking, down to trace elements. It does not
> even vaguely match any other atmosphere in the solar system,
> nor the sort of gas you would expect to get from heating up a
> rock. So there is solid evidence that these meteors, including
> AHL-84001 (the one with possible evidence of life) all
> came from the same place. There is equally solid evidence
> that that place was Mars.
> 
>                                                       Frank Crary
>                                                       CU Boulder
Or, rather, gaseous evidence! Hoyle and Wickramsinghe are a little
grander in 'their' designs, though, aren't they? It has always seemed 
to me silly to deny the design argument simply because one cannot
quite rationalise it or it is regressive or someone one does not like
might colonise it. The natives of the New Guinea mountains have a 
curious cosmology, you know. They construct airstrips to attract
the cargo planes carrying food and consumer goods they 'saw' conjured
up by airforce personnel in WW2 - modeling hangars and radios and 
beacon towers out of wood and leaves. We generally tend to ignore
metaphysics on the grounds that metaphysical propositions cannot 
be shown to be true or false.  Yet there is no logical reason why 
we might not bear the relationship to an 'X' that the New Guinea 
natives bear to us.  It is this relationship that makes metaphysics
necessary and important.  Thus we find that the ablest thinkers 
merely explore a line of thought or action in its logical and in 
its empirical consequences ( in the case of Russell or Whitehead,
for example). Although there is ultimately no measure of success 
in anything, we may agree upon shared goals and together create
the means to reach them. Such goals will be meaningless unless we
can state them clearly, or, in other words, operationally define 
them, and establish an agreed system of measurement in relation to
our distance from them.  The goals we seek are always the result of
a value judgement, and thus there is no such thing as a fact - and 
no system without an aim. 
The pereceding reflections may help to explain why the glorification
of science in, say, the works of Sagan, are of no use at all in
social planning.  The products of science offer us only better and 
quicker ways of doing things.
Kind rgds
JohnM

In article <5a96q0$fa3@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU
(Chuck Karish) wrote:
>In article ,
>Charles Cagle  wrote:
>>>BTW, when did this expansion/flood event happen on the earth 
>>>anyway?
>>
>>Since the underlying mechanisms for dating rock are fraught with
>>unsupportable assumptions which have their foundation in the whole
>>theoretical construct associated with belief in the accretion of elements
>>which were remnants of a supernova explosion it is difficult to date with
>>any reliability.  My personal opinion which is unsupported by anything
>>other than scriptural records would place the flood at about 4600 years
>>ago.  So most of the significant expansion came during and after that
>>time.  This is certainly at great odds with modern radiologic dating
>>methods and so would be subject to considerable derisive comment.  Save
>>it.
>
>Mr. Cagle has been masquerading for several months as an amateur
>scientist trying to stick up for scientific ideas that have been
>unfairly neglected.  
Not masquerading at all.  I have openly proclaimed my 'amatuer' status in
geology.  And my personal experience is not that some scientific ideas
have been 'unfairly neglected' (Carey's hypothesis) but rather that the
very idea of earth expansion is anathema to many in geology's academia not
for the reason that it is demonstrably wrong but rather because it
threatens to make fools of the minions who preach the false geotheology of
subduction.  My argument has nothing to do at all with 'unfairness' but
rather with plain bad science that is rammed down the public's throat by a
cadre of fools following fools who are clueless as to what constitutes a
reasonable and substantive theory.
>He has finally admitted his real agenda: to throw
>up a smokescreen thick enough to make his invented creationist
>pseudo-science equally credible with real science.
Note that I stated that what Karish is referring to, was my personal
opinion.  Apparently, Karish thinks it convenient to ignore this.
>He started out with some outright lies to establish his credibility,
>claiming to have several government contracts to do mathematical
>calculations.  He never referred to these contracts again after he
>was asked for details.
Karish, I can stand all kinds of name calling but this is slander and
defamation because I never made mention, ever, of having government
contracts to do mathematical calculations.  Why would I?  I have never had
anything to do with any goverment contracts.  And...I am not a
mathematician so there is little point in presenting myself as such (which
I have never done).  I believe you have me mixed up with some other
poster.  I expect an immediate retraction of your lie and a public
apology.  
>His principal strategy is the one other creationists use to try to
>impeach evolution.  He dredges up old differences of interpretation
>among scientists and he ridicules current speculative hypotheses, then
>claims that the lack of perfection that he's demonstrated invalidates
>all the related science.
These 'old differences' of interpretation are merely witness to the fact
the these days most science (in the theoretical realm) is done by
consensus.  The consensus typically has to do with fundamental assumptions
which cannot be 'scientifically' verified.  The reason that I ridicule
'current speculative hypothesis' is simply because much of what is only
'current speculative hypothesis' is commonly taught in a vacuum without
the voice of competing ideas or explanations.  These so called 'current
speculative hypothesis' have a way of become unquestioned foundational
assumptions and the next thing you know people like the late Dr. Sagan are
on PBS preaching it as the gospel truth.  Since you are unable to clearly
see the line between what is raw data and the intrepretaton of that data
it seems you have completely missed what 'science' is all about.  I argue
that you and others have attempted to redefine 'science' so that you can 
attach the label of 'scientific' to reams of utter nonsense which have no
actual basis in 'true science'.  Lack of perfection does not invalidate
all related science, but lack of adhering to a reasonable and consistent
epistemological framework does.
>His preferred cosmology seems to rest on the observation that matter
>can be created from energy under certain conditions.  
Since these are very sloppy terms (in the way that you use them) I would
disagree I have stated it precisely so.
>When he's asked
>to tell us where the energy comes from to accomplish this, he changes
>the subject.
That's not true, Karish.  I have avoided some details because of a pending
patent and have stated that several times.  I have also stated that I will
publish more details as soon as the patent is granted.
>When he's asked to elaborate on his claim that matter created
>spontaneously or sprayed onto the Earth's surface from a jet of cosmic
>plasma forms itself into a complex of minerals that seem to record a
>long history, he changes the subject.
It is evident that you have failed to search usenet for my explanations
which I have tendered from time to time.  And your inability to
rearticulate in a comprehensible manner what you think I have stated is
pathetic.  Your puerile attempt to belittle or obfuscate what I have
actually stated only erodes your credibilty with those who have followed
our posts.  Just so you get it clear let's go over it one more time. 
Magnetotoroidal structures are representative of a stable archetypal form
which is abundantly created  in stellar environments.  These forms of
matter are ubiquitous in the universe and can occur at various scales. 
These magnetotoroids create self similar minatures of themselves in their
core for the reason that the conditions (monoenergetic electron beam
state) which brought about their own creation also exist in their own
cores.  These minatures are neutrons.  The large scale magnetotoroidal
archtype forms (MTAFs) which are ejected from the sun into interplanetary
space are cyclical or oscillatory and produce copious amounts of neutrons
during one phase of their oscillation (when their current vector is
poloidal).   The neutrons can beta decay to protons and electrons.  The
MTAF itself is really a super macroparticle of immense scale and hence
possesses its own gravitational field.  The MTAF's gravitational field
keeps the neutrons (and subsequent protons) it has produced localized by
inducing overlapping quantum states (same thing as gravity).  These
overlapping quantum states in the core allow the production by fusion of
virtually every element in the periodic table.  The continued localization
of the produced mass permits chemical interactions and the subsequent
build up of complex molecules the accumulation of which represents the raw
mass of a newly forming planet.  In the early stages such a structure
would be termed a comet while in later stages it might be called a
proto-planet or planetoid, or finally a planet.  Since there is a time
dilatation effect as the core of a MTAF is approached, transuranium
elements may be assembled and exist in a relative stable state near the
core.   This model necessitates that planets grow and expand not through
the accretion of interstellar dust grains but rather by a completely
different process altogether.   If this model is true then subduction is
pure hokem and every radiologic process used to determine the age of our
planet or the age of rocks by measurement of isotope ratios is shown to be
hopelessly unreliable and unrelated to actual ages.  Now do I become a
creationist because I can see that in the core of every neutron is a
region of absolute dilatation of time so that once could say that in the
core of every particle is eternity?  Or am I a creationist because I
believe that the Living God sits in the midst of eternity? Or am I a
creationist because there is experimental evidence of nonlocal
interactions (the Aharanov-Bohm effect).  Or perhaps I am a creationist
because I see the glory of the handiwork of God in all of His creations
and workmanships.  Or maybe I'm labeled a creationist because the Living
God who loves all of His children did not turn me away when I diligently
inquired to obtain a knowledge of the things that are, the nature of them,
and to know God?
Well just so you know Karish, and any others who might wish to make an
issue of this:  I cannot turn away from the Living God who has most
excellently taught me the mysteries of the cosmos.  But I can turn away
from a fraudulent academia which claims expertise where they are bereft of
insight.  I have been jealous for my God and will continue to be jealous
for Him until I see His enemies all bow down and acknowledge Him.  Why
don't you come out of the closet Karish and openly acknowledge your hatred
of the Living God?   Let's get you on record, one way or the other. 
Either be on the Lord's side or against Him - but plainly declare whose
side you are on and whom you will serve.   Will you serve academia and
falsehood or will you serve the Living God?  Think carefully, Charles, for
it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God..
>When he's asked to explain why we should pay attention to his ad hoc
>alternatives to extremely successful (in terms of usefulness)
>scientific paradigms, he launches into a tirade to the effect that it's
>impossible to understand the inner truth about the universe without
>accepting input from the living God.
You use of perjoratives in this post make your arguments appear as they
normally do, i.e., hysterical.  But if acknowledging that I am convicted
that the inner truth of the universe is not comprehendable except through
God's insight labels me as coming out of the closet then I have news for
you.  I have long maintained this position and will continue to maintain
it.  That you would that man be the measure of all things is your
particular sadness, not mine.  However, I'm not associated with other
'creationists' nor do I necessarily believe their particular theological
interpretations.  What I do know, Dr. Karish, is that the Living God is
able to reveal the secrets of the universe to whom He will without regard
to their academic credentials.  That this remains incomprehensible to you
is plainly evident.  But please don't assume that accusing me of standing
up and acknowledging thanks to God, the creator of the heavens and the
earth and all things that in them are that you bring shame to me.  Your
mockery only brings shame to you.
>His cosmology is creationism in its purest form.  
Somehow you seem to think this is bad.  You have your priorities, like
your science, quite mixed up.
>He has no interest in
>science except to discredit it as much as he can.
This is absolutely not true.  Science, like any tool or process is quite
useful to man and has become a powerful servant.  But my argument has
never been against 'science' per se, but rather against bad logic,
unfounded and unsupportable assumptions, and against the décollement of
philosophy from the postion or function of guiding advancement in
physics.  My argument has been against the 'unscientific' assumptions that
establishment science has yielded to on a broad range of fronts in the
various disciplines and subdisciplines and against bureaucracies of modern
science which have given little value in return for value tendered by
unsuspecting taxpayers and the taxpayers servants (lawmakers).
>And to his expected rebuttal, which from experience I expect to include
>insights along the lines of "I can't possibly discredit science more
>than you welfare queens in lab coats have done" and "You aren't even a
>pimple on the ass of a real scientist", I can only smile.
Do smile, because in your cleverness, you have stated the case against
yourself with clarity and rare insight; for you.
C. Cagle
SingTech
-- 
C. Cagle
SingTech

e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (Ed. Pearlstein) wrote:
> 
>      One of my eyes is good and the other is very bad (amblyopia).  
> So when I look into a retroreflector I see my good eye looking back 
> at me. 
>      What is seen in a retroreflector by a person with equal eyes? 
>
>
If you looks straight ahead, the right eye sees the left eye and the left eye the 
right. Thus you see your image as someone else would see it rather than 
mirror-reversed.
PGWHITE

Hello,
I'm a physics student and I have been assigned to a project that
requires me to build a catapult.  I really need help with the design!
It has to be no taller than 1/2 m (including trajectory phase) and
have a mass of no more than 1 kg.  Any help available would be
*greatly* apprieciated!  Thank you!
- Trey B.  .... blank@mont.mindspring.com

In article <32CE071D.7FB3@vasilisa.com>, violette@vasilisa.com wrote:
>Another defense of science from a non-scientist while scientific
>organizations all over America sit quietly on their hands:
>
>From the NORML news of Jan.2, 1997, at http://www.norml.org/
>BIG SNIP
>Can a President get away with saying "You have not done enough research" 
>AND "You are not allowed to do any research" at the same time to the
>same public?
        Of course he can, he's a politician not a scientist!  What did you 
expect?  Politicians pick the studies that back up their policy and discard 
the rest.  This is nothing new.  I don't condone it, but until we see someone 
truly intelligent and courageous in public office it will continue.  
>
>I mean can he do it without getting roasted by people and organizations 
>dedicated to promoting science?
        Orginazations are by their nature political, not scientific.  It is 
not in their best interest to challenge America's drug policy, so they do 
not.  Clinton will be roasted by individuals and orginizations not on the 
goverment dole, I doubt anyone else.
>Let's see. Call it an experiment to see how submissive and jaded and
>cynical American science has become in the PostModern Era.
>         
>Will science organizations pass this test?
        I will wait and see, but probably not.  Remember, some of these 
"organizations" were all too happy to offer doctored studies to support the 
WOD. 
>Or is it really all just about money and jobs now and "science"
>has become meaningless even to scientists...?
        Oh, it's been heading that way for years.  Stockpiling nuclear weapons 
make no scientific sense, yet I see very few scientists complaining about.  Or 
quitting their jobs building them.  When it comes down to scientific ethics or 
survival, ethics loses.
>-patricia
        Coop

A solution to this whole thing was found! There will be a mandatory
meeting of Inn employees to iron out Discrimination and Harrassement in
the workplace.
This is good news to me for I now can end these posts and get back to
my first love of physics and engineering. But before I leave this
subject I want to comment on one experience that has become valuable to
me in my life. It was while at OCS, Officer Candidate School in the
Navy which is sort of like a miniature College for Officers. We took a
lot of courses and one of the courses that the US Navy taught us was a
course dealing in Leadership. It taught us various styles of leadership
and my memory had the "hard-nose style" at one end of the spectrum and
(I forget the name) of various other styles of leadership. In fact, my
whole memory of this course is now rather vague. But I do remember us
candidates reading various psychological abstracts of leadership
styles; reading scenarios of enactments of what various leadership
styles would do in various situations. When I took this course at OCS
and I felt the hard-nose style was the best, and imho most other
candidates probably felt the same, that the leadership style that is
the best is the hard-noser. Then, much later, at my ship I chitcanned
the hard nose style of managing people. I came to the conclusion that
the best style of leadership of people is one in which is far removed
from being a hard-noser. That the hard nose style of leading is a style
that is only appropriate rarely, and being in the military , a hard
nose leader is appropriate more often than in civilian life. In fact, I
have now in my wiser age come to the conclusion that adopting a hard
nose leadership style is the worst style to adopt. For, although this
style gets immediate action and results, this style has the brute
results of immortalizing ones mistakes. Naturally, us young candidates
would gravitate towards the hard nose style and perceive the other
styles as softer. This is a mistake. The Navy , wisely did not
emphasize one style over another. It only impressed us that we would
probably use all styles in our Navy career.
      I sincerely hope that the US Navy and other military
organizations continues to teach its officer candidates this valuable
course. It has meant a lot to me as I am rechecking that taught
knowledge against my own experience in the workplace. And I wish I had
paid more attention when I was taking that course at OCS in Newport,
Rhode Island. For it has meant a lot to me in my life. There are quite
a few formal classroom courses in my life, not only at OCS but at
College and High School where I was forced to take a course, did not
think much of the course at the time and only later in life come to
appreciate the valuableness of that course.
  In regards to the Hanover Inn, I do not know if at Cook School, and
it is coincidental that at Newport Rhode Island exists a major cook
school, which I believe the name is Johnson and Wales. Anyway, I do not
know if they teach courses such as various leadership styles. If they
do, good on them and if they do not, I would sincerely like to
recommend to J&W; and many other schools that train specialized skills
where their students will one day be "boss-leaders" in a workplace.
Such a course would be invaluable and to my mind *Necessary* for a job
that a person is a boss of say 10 or more people.
   And it happened not once but many a times in my Navy career, albeit
a short career that was. It happened often that as a young officer
faced with a problem of officer to enlistee, where I was called upon by
a superior officer to make account of myself -- in other words I had
screwed up ( the Navy standard term for this involves a four letter
word) -- the upshot was that the superior officer would home into the
fact (he knew we all had that leadership course). The superior officer
would home into the fact that Ensign Ludwig, you screwed up with these
enlisted, did you not remember your Navy training in how to be a
leader?   
   So you see, that Navy course in how to be a leader was a constant
source of reference. And now, as I approach the wise age of 50 , I feel
that the best style of leadership is that other end where we perceived
the leader as perhaps soft, but it was not a soft style, nay, it was
the style where you are concerned more over the people you are dealing
with rather than the equipment and the hardware and the hard nose
style.
   I hope the US Navy and the other military schools continue to teach
that course style-of-leadership to their young officers. It was to
become one of my most valuable lessons.
  And now I can get back to my first love of doing science and
engineering.

Tim Harwood  writes:
>It was revelaed in the Sunday Times over Christamas, those with a PH.D. 
>in economics are 40 % worse at economic forecasting that those without.  
>( This is absolutely true, don't flame me for this, read David Smiths 
>round-up of the economic forcasts for 1996 ).
>Confirmed what I've always thought, academics with lots of with initials 
>after their names can't see the wood for the trees. Lost in irrelevant 
>detail, they lose all track of reality.
Sorry. This says something about economics Ph.D.s which I am 
prejudiced to believe. In general, Ph.D.s are solid evidence 
that one went to school longer than most others and eventually
irritated the powers that be enough to send you away. The
longevity is not so good. Being irritating is. On the balance,
it's a wash with some very good and very bad exceptions.
For example, a new Ph.D. with the initials AM is a damn fine
sort, was before his degree and probably still is.
--Wade

In <01bbfb40$b71b02a0$0963a098@ic.net.ic.net> "Peter Diehr"
 writes: 
>
>
>
>Allen Meisner  wrote in article
><5ajnbg$oe4@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>>     I must admit that I am completely at a loss as to why it is so
>> difficult to quantize gravity. All one would have to do is find
>the
>> mass analogs of the electric and magnetic fields. The electric
>field is
>> kq/r, so the mass analog is Gm/r. I don't know what the mass
>analog of
>> the magnetic field is. Then solve for the mass analogs of the
>electric
>> and magnetic fields in terms of the space curvature, using the
>> gravitational equation for General Relativity. Then substitute
>these
>> expressions in Maxwell's equations, or in any electromagnetic
>equation
>> you prefer.
>> 
>
>You've not done your homework!
>
>Ordinary quantum mechanics is based upon a linear partial
>differential equation
>(Schroedinger's equation).  This accounts for the existance of
>superposition of
>states.
>
>Maxwell's equations are also linear partial differential equations. 
>The quantization
>is straight forward, as such things go.
>
>However, the correct equations for gravitation are not Newton's
>(which you give),
>but Einstein's.  And the field equations for General Relativity are
>non-linear
>partial differential equations.  It is the non-linear characteristic
>that makes
>quantization so difficult.
>
>If one takes a linearized version of General Relativity, which would
>be an 
>approximation valid for weak gravitational fields (e.g., our local
>neighborhood,
>but stay away from neutron stars and black holes!),  the
>quantization of the
>metric results in the fictitious _graviton_ particles.
>
>So the easy work was done long ago.  
>
>Best Regards, Peter
>
>
    I realize that Newton's equations are not the correct ones for
gravitation. That is why I suggest isolating the mass analogs of the
electric and magnetic fields in the eqations for GR, solving for them
in terms of the space curvature and substituting the resulting
expressions in the electromagnetic equations. Superpositions are not
necessary. There can be more than one stress at a particular point in
space. Engineers know this. Creative and destructive interference are
the overlapping of these stresses in space. You do not have to
superpose the waves. The waves simply overlap each other creating
regions where the stresses cancel each other and regions where the
stresses augment each other. They are still separate stresses. They do
not form one aumented thing or one canceled thing. They simply act at
the same point in space at the same point in time. You do not need
differetial equations for this. You simply allow the stresses to
overlap each other, which might be a simple algebraic process.
Regards,
Edward Meisner
Regards, 

JohnAcadInt  wrote:
>It might be interesting, for example, to offer prizes 
>for a cancer cure. Say, a billion dollars to the first
>team to crack it. [ I hope nobody is going to complain
>that we couldn't measure the results! Ed.]
People properly nourished in clean surroundings won't
get cancer at all.
[re: equilibrium]
"a state such that if a small modification different
from that which will otherwise occur is impressed 
upon a system, a reaction will at once appear
tending toward the conditions that would
have existed if the modifications had
not been impressed."  ~Pareto
Send the check to:
Sheila Green RD1 Freedom PA 15042-9661
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Respectfully, Sheila          ~~~Word Warrior~~~         green@pipeline.com|
|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: Yousuf Karamali 
: I am hopeful that new theories that challange SR are on their way out. 
One can only hope.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com
--
      "You can't put too much coolant on a nuclear reaction."
                   --- SNL sketch

Scientific American recently had a write-up on Catapults.
Recently meaniing within the last five years.
They launched a small car.
Mike Twomey
blank@mont.mindspring.com wrote:
: Hello,
: I'm a physics student and I have been assigned to a project that
: requires me to build a catapult.  I really need help with the design!
: It has to be no taller than 1/2 m (including trajectory phase) and
: have a mass of no more than 1 kg.  Any help available would be
: *greatly* apprieciated!  Thank you!
: - Trey B.  .... blank@mont.mindspring.com

Tim Harwood  wrote:
>It was revelaed in the Sunday Times over Christamas, those with a PH.D. 
>in economics are 40 % worse at economic forecasting that those without.  
>( This is absolutely true, don't flame me for this, read David Smiths 
>round-up of the economic forcasts for 1996 ).
>
>Confirmed what I've always thought, academics with lots of with initials 
>after their names can't see the wood for the trees. Lost in irrelevant 
>detail, they lose all track of reality.
The "science" of economics is based upon unfounded assumptions and is 
embodied within an unvalidated mathematical framework.  Consider Soviet 
central planning or the US Ford administration's "Whip Inflation Now."  
You couldn't cook up bigger disasters if you put a government in charge.
So, what else is new?
The Federal Reserve Board has un-Officially adopted an intricate and  
impossibly subtle economic analysis to keep the America alive - they 
twist and diddle to keep the dollar price of gold stable.  Not much in 
the way of publishable analysis there, is there?
-- 
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!

On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Kevin Brown wrote:
> On 31 Dec 1996 01:06:29 -0500, "Nick Halloway"@zifi.genetics.utah.edu
> wrote:
> > I read a description of a special-relativity reason for the orbit of 
> > Mercury to precess.  It was, that Mercury is moving faster when close 
> > to the sun, so its mass is higher, and this distorts the orbit.
> >
> > I'm puzzled -- when Mercury is close to the sun, it has more kinetic 
> > energy and thus mass-energy from that.  But when Mercury is far from 
> > the sun, it has gravitational potential energy.  This potential energy 
> > also has mass-energy associated with it, doesn't it?...Why then would 
> > there be an orbital distortion, if there's extra mass both when Mercury 
> > is close to the sun and when it's far away?
> 
> This is a good - but somewhat tricky - question.  The problem is to
> explain how gravitational orbits would work if they were governed by
> special relativity, which they aren't.  If we try to treat Newtonian
> gravity in the context of special relativity we find that some changes
> are unavoidable.  This isn't surprising, because SR requires Lorentz-
> invariance whereas Newtonian gravity propagates instantaneously.  So
> we have to make some change in the definition of the gravitational
> potential.  However, there's more than one way of trying to do this,
> so the result is not unique, i.e., we can't say THIS is how gravity
> would work under just special relativity.  There is a range of
> possibilities, none of which (as it happens) agree exactly with
> experiment.
> 
> First we need to agree on what it means to treat gravitational orbits
> in the context of special (not general) relativity.  Presumably this
> treatment will be distinct from Newtonian physics by being Lorentz-
> invariant, but it will be distinct from general relativity by having
> a flat spacetime.  
Yes, this is probably what's meant.
> With those restrictions we could try to define
> the gravitational potential as a scalar field, a vector field, or
> a tensor field (or maybe something else?).  The scalar and vector
> approaches don't work out well at all.  For example, neither of them
> will give you any bending of light rays.
> 
> Even focusing on just the tensor field approach, there are many
> different ways of trying to make it work.  The best of these theories
> is described in Chapter 7 of Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, where they
> propose a definition of the stress-energy tensor (including a particle
> component and an interaction component) and apply this to construct
> the Hamiltonian for a nearly circular orbit of a point particle.  The
> result is 4/3 the precession that is predicted by general relativity
> (and observed in the solar system).
> 
> The specific question was whether special relativity implies a 
> secular change in the effective gravitational mass of a planet in an
> elliptical orbit, but of course the answer to this is very sensitive
> to precisely how you define the gravitational potential, and this is
> what's most is ambiguious about special-relativistic treatments of
> gravity.  In fact, the inability to make logical sense of gravity
> in the context of special relativity was one of the main motivations
> for the development of general relativity.  Also, even if you suppose
> that the effective gravitational mass of a planet varies with time, it
> isn't clear that this would necessarily perturb its orbit, because
> presumably (?) its inertial mass would always equal its gravitational
> mass.  If Galileo had dropped a time-varying mass from his tower, it
> wouldn't have affected the time to fall.
If the mass is increased, though, the planet will be moving somewhat
slower than it would classically, so it would be close to the sun for
longer and would tend to be pulled towards the sun ... so the perihelion
would advance.  
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that, with either special or general
> relativity, the shape of the orbit of a point test particle (assumed
> small enough that it doesn't significantly contribute to the overall
> gravitational field) is independent of the mass of the particle, i.e.,
> the Equivalence Principle must apply even with special relativity,
> so the shape of the orbit is determined by the "shape" of the
> gravitational potential (or spacetime metric) in that region of
> spacetime.  Any object with a given initial position and trajectory
> will follow the same path, regardless of whether its "mass" is
> changing.  This would be as true in special as in general relativity.
> 
> Having said all that, could you tell me where you read the explanation
> about changing mass causing orbital precession?  I'm curious to see
> how that could work without violating the Galileo-Einstein Equivalence
> Principle.
It was in "The Great Design: Particles, Fields and Creation"
by Robert Adair.  He says:  "If we include the effects of the Special
Theory of Relativity, the planet will be heavier at the perihelion than
at the aphelion.  It will ... change the position of the axis of the
ellipse ... for Mercury, ... [there are] 43 seconds of arc unaccounted for
classically.  The mass increase at the perihelion, which follows from the
Special Theory, accounts for 7 seconds per century; but Einstein's 
General Theory ... predicts 42.9 seconds per century".  
So ... where is the mass-energy which comes from gravitational potential
energy located?
-- Nick Halloway
The "From:" address on this message won't work.
You can reach me by e-mail; my account name is snowe, my domain name is
rain.org
No unsolicited bulk e-mail!

Hermital wrote:
> 
> On Fri 12/27/96 21:38 -0800 Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > CORRECTION the URL is
> >
> > http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/pq/pq1.htm
> 
> An excellent synopsis of your basic premises sans mathematical
> formulae.  Extraordinary.
> 
> Well done.
> --
> 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.
I have far better things to do with my time, but what the hell.
I went to this page and about half way through realised that this
must be another 'Sokal' type hoax. Saying lots, using the words from
physics and math, but saying and proving nothing.
Some pages were simply undergraduate physics. Some were philosophy
and religion. Some his opinion without proof.
His thought-like and rock-like definitions were just plain silly.
If you mean particle/wave duality say it. If not, explain what you mean.
Try giving some references on each page when you state things like
'so and so said ..."
Your page on back-action consciousness is simply your opinion.
You seem to lack the theory and math to back that opinion up.
That's not physics. It may come under philosophy.
Ditto Seat of the soul.
You do seem to know all the right words.
The rest was just silly.
I definitely think this is a 'Sokal' type hoax.
Just my opinion. Now back to the real world.
Iain.

In article <5apiiu$kir@camel1.mindspring.com>
blank@mont.mindspring.com writes:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm a physics student and I have been assigned to a project that
> requires me to build a catapult.  I really need help with the design!
> It has to be no taller than 1/2 m (including trajectory phase) and
> have a mass of no more than 1 kg.  Any help available would be
> *greatly* apprieciated!  Thank you!
> 
Check last years issues of Scientific American magazine, they had an
article about a type of catapult. If you are a student then you should
have access to a library, learn how to get information from it.

Tim Hollebeek wrote:
> BTW, don't reply to this; I probably won't see it.  
OK bwana ... whatever U say.
> I just happen to
> have just gotten a new computer, and I haven't downloaded my killfile
> yet.  This thread is odd in that it is almost entirely composed of
> people from the aforementioned file.  So Baez isn't the ONLY person
> who thinks you bunch have very little to offer as far as scientific
> discussion goes.  
What a troll ... talk about head_size ....
> I must admit, a few posts in this thread have
> given me a giggle or two, 
Good for you Tim .... your sense of humour 
needs a good work_out by the sounds of things.  
Giggle on ....
>  I got through the first page at one point, 
>  and quit after the number of obvious errors,
>  fallacies, and twisted logic became obvious.
Care to share these masterful observations with the plebs?
Of course not?  More important errands to be run for the
benefit of the mob eh?
Fair enough.
Pete Brown
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics,    Australia
Thematics:              Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay:        "What sense or mind have they?
                        They put their trust in popular bards 
                        and take the mobs for their teacher, 
                        unaware that most men are bad,
                        and the good are few."
                          - Heraclitus (about 500 BC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <5an0kr$t9s@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> But the pattern is this:   If FLT were a true statement of math, then
> the proof of FLT would be that if false then there exist a number N
> such that N+N+N = N*N*N = M to form a building block number for a
> P-triple. But of course with Naturals being the p-adics there does
> exist these numbers that satisfy kN= N^k. 
 Here I am not very clear. So let my redo that.  If the Finite Integers
were not some ficticious ghostly absurdity. If the Finite Integers
existed such as people cats and dogs and p-adics and Reals. If the
Finite Integers existed such as atoms exist, and not like Green
Martians or fire breathing dragons. But the Finite Integers do not
exist and are Green Martians and fire breathing dragons.
   Quantum Mechanics exists. Reals+i+j exists. P-adics exist. 
Newtonian Mechanics does not exist. And Naturals = Finite Integers does
not exist.
  If Finite Integers did exist, then this must be the proof of Fermat's
Last Theorem.
   For exponent 2, FLT has solutions because it has a building block to
build a smallest P-triple. That building block is N+N = N*N = M which
of course is the Finite Integer of 2 and you can see this 2 in the
smallest P-triple (3,4,5) because 2+1,  (2+2)  and the (2+2) +1 . The
FLT equation is a use of addition and multiplication and so is
N+N=N*N=M
   If the Finite Integers existed as a true mathematical entity such as
the Reals of Mathematics exists or the P-adics exist.
   Then the proof of FLT would be this:
    For exponent 3,  N+N+N=N*N*N= M,  (encoding kN=N^k), since no
Finite Integer exists to satisfy the building block, then no smallest
P-triple exists. And for exponent of 4 or larger the same follows.
Therefore FLT, QED.
   The reason that the above is not the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem,
is because FLT is a conjecture on a set of objects which do not exist.
Finite Integers is as ficticious as a conjecture on how many boilers a
fire breathing dragon possesses. As ficticious of a conjecture as
worrying about what Columbus's ships would fall off of the Flat Earth
once Columbus reached the edge.
   Ask your math professor to define "Finite". Ask him how the endless
adding of 1 in the Peano Axioms stops these numbers from going into the
Infinite Integers. The world of mathematics as of 1997 wants to ignore
all of this because it shows how awfully stupid and ignorant the math
intelligensia is. And how dictatorial that community is. Ask Andrew
Wiles to define Finite. Ask Andrew Wiles why there is no Mathematical
Induction proof of FLT when FLT asks for _All Finite Integers_ and
because it asks for All Finite Integers entails that a Mathematical
Induction proof of FLT exists.   --- My above hypothetical proof is a
Mathematical Induction proof if you, the reader,  had not noticed that.