Newsgroup sci.physics 214265

Directory

"Paul G. White"  wrote:
>folsomman@aol.com (FolsomMan) wrote:
>>"Paul G. White"  wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>>Bull!!  Each eye sees itself, as the original poster's experience
>>demonstrates.  Just put your good eye where the bad eye would be if it
>>were looking too and see what you see then.  If one had two differently
>>colored eyes, it would be easy to demonstrate for any binocular types.
>
>
>>Mark Folsom, P.E.
>>Consulting Mechanical Engineer
>No, you're wrong. Each eye sees itself in a straight-forward mirror. In a
>retroreflector each eye sees the other eye. Draw a diagram and see for
yourself. Or 
>set two mirrors at 90 degrees to each other and look into the vertex. 
Two mirrors do not a retroreflector make.  Also, if you use two
second-surface mirrors at a right angle, you can't see anything right at
the center, so you would miss the phenomenon I am talking about.
>Try shutting one eye and see what you see. It's different from a plain
mirror.
If the retroreflector is wider than the distance between your eyes and is
centered between your eyes, you can see the opposite eye with each eye
looking straight ahead.  But the image of each eye will be visible to
itself in the center of the rr, and this applies to large and small rr's.
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer

Hicks wrote:
> 
> Diana Newman wrote:
> >
> > Now that it is happening, science is very good at explaining the
> > methodology of the spread of "plagues". However, no scientist in the
> > world PREDICTED these things. Scientific reasoning came after the fact,
> > not before it. The predictions came from the mystics. You need to get
> > your time-lines straight. (G)
> 
> ..and of course, Science hasn't been able to predict anything else..
> 
> > As to that, if I said to you; "the sun will rise in the morning because
> > I have sacrificed a goat tonight"---does the silliness of my sacrifice
> > mean that the sun will NOT arise in the morning?
> 
> No, it just means that the sun would rise whether you sacrificed a goat
> or not..
> 
> > If the prediction of plagues is percieved to be because of the
> > wickedness of the people (and be real here...if there wasn't so much
> > promiscuity going on, homo AND heterosexual, would AIDS have become
> > quite such a problem?) does that invalidate the fact that plagues have
> > indeed arrived?
> 
> ...and if there weren't so many rats, would the black plague have become
> such a
> problem?.. how wicked to let rats breed like that...
Exactly ... and there are too many wicked people sneezing down here in
Florida.  We've got a nasty flu bug going around.
Trish

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:29:26 GMT, kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
wrote:
-
>Michael Ramsey (745532603@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: In article <32C5634D.2DA2@ibm.net>, elvisum@ibm.net says...
>: >Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Newton's First Law of
>: >Motion clearly state that: "An object at rest and an object in motion
>: >will continue in motion with a constant velocity (that is in a straight
>: >line) unless it experiences a net force."  This simple statement
>: >provides an explanation for the cause of inertia.  Any object in motion
>: >(or at rest) will resist any change in its motion unless acted upon by a
>: >net unbalanced external force.  Because of Newton's Third Law of Motion,
>: >whatever causes this net unbalanced force will also feel an equal but
>: >opposite force. Therefore, these two laws explain why an object refuses
>: >to move, and why when one applies a force on an object, one feels a
>: >resistance.  There is no need to create "other" explanations because
>: >these two have been repeatedly validated by numerous experiments.
-
>: But why does it resist the amount that it does?  Why is the universial
>: gravitational constant 6.673^-11 N(M^2)/(Kg^2)?  
-
Who said that it had to be constant or universal? ;-)
Here-and-now, it's pretty stable (by definition), but if G is a
measure of background mass-density once obvious local variations in
mass-density have been cancelled out (i.e. G as a variable, changing
value over cosmological timescales), then we'd hardly expect to see it
change perceptibly from year to year.
Unless we looked at distant matter, and expected the signals to have a
redshift increasing with distance (decreasing over time) due to the
equivalent of a gravitational gradient between "then" and "now". 
-
But gravitational-domain Hubble shift is another story...  
-
>: Why is the inertial mass 
>: equal to the gravitational mass?
-
If you model inertia as a property that depends on the existence of
background mass, then a local increase in mass-density results in a
local increase in inertia (gravitational redshift). 
Then, an imbalance in mass-distribution results in an imbalance in the
inertia of a test-particle, so that it feels "more" inertia towards
the local region of higher density. It's inertial path deviates
towards this region, and - bingo - you've reinvented gravity as the
effect of inertia. 
-
After that, equivalence isn't particularly surprising
-
Different physicists seem to have different opinions as to how far GR
goes down this route. This is how a fully Mach-compliant theory should
behave, but the current implementation of GR is allegedly not quite
Mach-compliant...
-
>         The internal energy of an object having mass is
>what determines how much it resists acceleration, it does
>make sense for the resistance to acceleration to be a
>function of the internal energy, as mass is the name for
>resistance to acceleration.
-
BTW, Have you tried modelling inertial mass as a radiation pressure
effect?
-
If you take a thermos flask full of light, the light contributes to
the flask's inertia. Try to push the flask away, and the internal
radiation piles up at your end of the flask and the concentration of
light at the pushed end of the flask presses back against your hand.
It's a transient effect, because contact with the accelerated
flask-end brings the light (protesting) into the new flask frame, and
the thing reaches equilibrium /very/ quickly. 
After that, if you try to take the motion away again by grabbing the
flask, the light then piles up again at the front end, resisting your
applied deceleration. 
-
The exact amount of resistance depends on your assumptions about the
way that light propagates, as this in turn affects our choice of
equations for the way that the length of a moving flask is seen to
change. The relationship between the wavelength of captive light and
the dimensions of the flask that contains it must be the same for all
observers (think of a standing wave), so the observed energy of the
captive light (and therefore its mass) is inversely proportional to
the observed length of the flask along the direction of travel.
If the flask is seen to contract, then the wavelength of the captive
light must be "seen" to shorten by the same amount, and must be
observed to increase in energy by the same ratio (E=h/lambda).
-
The general rule is that the observed length-change is exactly
proportional to the frequency-change seen in light emitted by the
object, so if we assumed that the simple Doppler shift law f'/f =
(c-v)/c was correct, then the overall additional resistance to applied
force caused by the relative velocity of the flask wrt the observer
(who is also applying the force) would be given by 
	m'/m = (c-v)(c+v)/c^2
	m'/m = 1 - ( v^2/c^2 )
, over the round trip.  
-
Alternatively, you can use the SR shift equation and get precisely the
same round-trip relationship.
-
Both formulae generate an averaged root-product effect of 
	m'/m = root[1 - v^2/c^2]
for a single idealised frame transition.
-
If you believed in a "non-flat" propagation model then the effect of
trying to artificially "flatten" the coordinate system by
superimposing the forward and backward shifts together and then
rooting the result, to create an (anisotropic) Cartesian coordinate
system with a rather more polite set of axes, would be to reproduce
Einstein's special theory. Hiding the remaining "curvature" attributes
would then give you the Einstein clock-synch method, the SR
velocity-addition formula, and so on.
-
Pick whichever version you like best.
- 
>         The gravitational constant is just a measured ratio,
>the actual underlying cause of gravity is more complex, 
-
Yup
-
>as
>the listed gravitational constant is only valid for spherical
>objects, unless very complex summation is done on every
>indivitual particle.
>         Gravitational mass is a Newtonian artifact, it
>actually is not an attribute of matter, it is required
>if the F in Newtonian formulas is used, otherwise it
>is meaningless.
>         General relativity precludes gravitational mass
>(if there was such a thing) from being different than
>inertial mass, Einstein's Principle of Equivalence sets
>up circumstances so that the same attribute of matter
>answers to either name.
>: There are many unanswered questions.
>         Yes, but let's try to answer them.
Yup! 
_________________________________________________
E=mc˛ Pages:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/emc_main.htm
_________________________________________________

On 6 Jan 1997, Stephen L. Johnson wrote:
> Would someone kindly convince me that the alleged Mars rock actually
> came from Mars.  From what I read in the newspapers and such, the logic
> goes like this:  Once upon a time (note the fairy tale beginning) some
> large object must have smashed into Mars, dislodging some rocks which
> eventually landed in Antarctica.
Once upon a time many objects have crashed into Mars. The pictures sent
back by the various orbiters show many many craters, which is usually the
result of an object hitting a planet.
> Seems to me this line requires a lot to swallow.  If an object got
> caught in the Mars gravity web and spiralled in to impact, it means in
> the first place that the object did not have enough velocity to escape
> the Mars gravity. 
No, you seem to misunderstand how these collisions work; many of these
collisions will have hit Mars at a velocity beyond its escape velocity.
They didn't "spiral in;" they just came along at several km/sec and
hit.
> To think that it could impart such velocity to a
> rock, or to several, is stretching it, or so it seems to me.  After
> all, the object would have lost some energy due to friction, making it
> even more unlikely to have retained the energy required.
Also, although I haven't checked the literature (*) to see if it is the
case, an asteroid hitting at less than escape velocity might still create
circumstances under which a rock might reach escape velocity. There is
more than enough momentum _and_ energy in an impacting asteroid to put a
few measely rocks at escape velocity: the details of whether or not it
actually happens, I think, depend on the speed of sound in the various
projectiles (rocks and asteroids). AFAIK, though, most scenarios aren't
dependent on these mechanisms. There are lots of things that have hit
Mars (and Earth) at beyond escape velocity. There are even films of it.
(For instance, the Lost City meteorite).
> Maybe I'm missing a few rocks in my head, too, but truly you might be
> doing the public a service by explaining how such an event could
> happen.
I think the answer to both of your questions right there is _yes_.
BUT:
* Footnote:
There were articles and papers in the open scientific literature
about how Mars rocks might wind up on Earth long before someone said
they might have life.
Frank's in the business, he can probably quote you chapter and verse.
So it's not like I'd be doing any public service besides saving someone
from going to the public library. It may be possible that you're from
Seattle, since you posted to seattle.general, in which case I may be 
being a little hard on you: you probably don't have a public library any
more, now that the forces of nature have risen up to persecute
Microsoft... but then again maybe you shouldn't have waited so long before
running him out of town.
> Regards,
> 
> stephen
Phil Fraering    The above is the opinion of neither my internet
pgf@acadian.net  service provider nor my employer.
wrk: 318/2699112 "Some days just aren't worth the trouble
home:318/2619649  of chewing through the leather straps."

Wil Milan wrote:
> 
> R. Tang wrote:
> >
> > In article <32D0041A.33F0@airdigital.com>,
> > Wil Milan   wrote:
> >>
> > >Did you read it? _The Bell Curve_ is a product of the "scientific
> > >community.
> >
> >         It is NOT.
> 
> Sure it is. The data and methods used by Murray and the late Herrenstein
> are conventional in every way, the same stuff I was taught when I was a
> psychology major at a major university more than 20 years ago. The
> methods for gathering and analyzing the data were very conventional and
> quite un-controversial. Their *conclusions* and corollary conjectures
> upset some people and I am not here to take a position on them one way
> or the other, but there is no denying that _The Bell Curve_ is social
> science done using very conventional methods.
> 
> Debate the conclusions and disagree with the authors if you like, but
> let's not try to say that this is not science. It's science you don't
> happen to like, but that doesn't mean it's not science.
Science is not digital, but analog.  Some science is very good at 
describing the world and predicting its future state.  Other sciences
are not very good.  By most any measure the science of psychology 
when used to describe and predict the behavior of human beings is
not very good.  It is so bad that it fails my "good enough to 
pay attention to" test.  Psychology is now where astronomy was 
before the invention of the telescope.  You should take its descriptions
of human beings and their mental states with a chunck of salt.  You 
should take its predictions of human behavior with a crystal about 
ten times as large.
This is where _The Bell Curve_ fails.  It depends on psychology.
Let's take the intelligence test as an example.  Let's consider
human beings to be fractals (2 dimensional).  Now a psychologist
comes along and develops a test to classify all fractals.  Since
he has no idea what a human being (oops! I mean a fractal) is,
he develops an arbary test based on his little understanding.
He notes fractal outcomes in life and devises a test that 
allows a thumbnail prediction of those outcomes.  His test
produces a number which he calls fractal dimension.  Most 
human fractals have a dimension of about 100.  It is better
to have a higher fractal dimension than a lower one.  Higher
fractal dimension correlates well with success in life since
the test was developed based on outcomes.
What the psychologist has failed to do, however, is justify
the use of the phrase "fractal dimension".  So we find a
psychologist and ask him, "What is a fractal?"  He doesn't
know, but can give us a treatise on the subject.  We decide
after reading the treatise, that he really does not know 
what he is talking about.  We are then at a loss as to how
he could ever even hope to measure the dimension of a fractal.
Even if he came up with a test, we would be forced to ask
ourselves where the theory is that assures us that all
fractals have a dimension.  Even if this were true, we are
still left with the fact that highly different fractals
can have the same dimension and that we STILL don't know
what there is about a fractal that makes it succeed in
life.  We do have a correlation, however.
You can pay attention to this type of data if you want
to.  But I would rather let someone read the bumps on 
my head.
-leonard
P.S.  What is the dimension of a 2D fractal?

sealion2@ix.netcom.com(Stephen L. Johnson) wrote:
>Would someone kindly convince me that the alleged Mars rock actually
>came from Mars.  From what I read in the newspapers and such, the logic
>goes like this:  Once upon a time (note the fairy tale beginning) some
>large object must have smashed into Mars, dislodging some rocks which
>eventually landed in Antarctica.
>
>Seems to me this line requires a lot to swallow.  If an object got
>caught in the Mars gravity web and spiralled in to impact, it means in
>the first place that the object did not have enough velocity to escape
>the Mars gravity.  To think that it could impart such velocity to a
>rock, or to several, is stretching it, or so it seems to me.  After
>all, the object would have lost some energy due to friction, making it
>even more unlikely to have retained the energy required.
>
>Maybe I'm missing a few rocks in my head, too, but truly you might be
>doing the public a service by explaining how such an event could
>happen.
>
>Regards,
>
>stephen
There is a theory that a planet existed between Mars and Jupiter. This
planet exploded and pieces of it went everywhere and the larger pieces
of it became asteroids and comets. Pieces of the exploded planet could
easily of fallen to Earth. It may be the Mars rocks are actually
pieces of an exploded planet. For more info on the exploded planet
theory see:
         http://www.planetarymysteries.com/vanflandern.html
--
Brian
cybroid@mindspring.com
http://free.websight.com/L_2/

http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/lfewodth.htm

morlan@centuryinter.net wrote:
> 
> > wf3h@enter.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Judson McClendon
> > > >
> > > >And you have just proved that you cannot think.  God exists or not
> > > >entirely without the consent or recognition of the scientific
> > > >community.  Sticking ones head in the sand does not make God go away.
> > >
> > > fine. prove it. if we use your logic we'd still be living in caves.
> >
> > Prove that sticking ones head in the sand does not make God go away, or
> > prove that God exists?  The former would be self-evident, I should
> > think.  One could not prove God's existence to a skeptic, though there
> > is plenty of evidence for one who is open. (Romans 1:20,21)
> >  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are
> >  clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
> >  eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
> >  21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
> >  nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their
> >  foolish hearts were darkened.
> >
> > > >If you see millions of transformed and healed lives, as you do in
> > > >Christianity,
> > >
> > > judson...thats what every religion says...its not even original
> >
> > Ah!  But the real question is, do they deliver?  I know personally that
> > Jesus Christ is exactly Who the Bible says He is.  I also know many
> > other people who know this as well.  Perhaps you would like to meet some
> > of them?  I'll be happy to introduce you.
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> The day will come when you will be ashamed and want to deny you ever made the
> above staktement    James
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> > --
> > Judson McClendon          This is a faithful saying and worthy of all
> > Sun Valley Systems        acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the
> > judsonmc@ix.netcom.com    world to save sinners  (1 Timothy 1:15)
Unfortunately, you have said nothing in defense of Creation at all. 
Basically, to evolutionists, what you have stated is almost delusional,
as if you are stomping your feet on the ground in a tantrum and shouting
"There is a God .. there is there is I know it!"
As strongly as you feel, there is a better way to approach the subject.
You see .. to us, your religion is just one of the many religions that
have come about throughout the years.  To us, it is the same as ancient
Greek, or Egyptian mythology.  Your quoting biblical text is very
similar to quoting accounts of Homer's "The Odyssey".  
Let's talk on common ground so we can understand each other.
Trish

In article <01bbfc31$671447c0$fdac11cf@lucasea-home>, "Eric Lucas"  writes:
>
>
>Coop  wrote in article
>...
>> 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.  
>
>And this of course depends on the intelligence of the electorate,
>unfortunately....
Democracy is a very just system.  People get the government they 
deserve :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

On 6 Jan 1997 07:04:00 GMT, sealion2@ix.netcom.com(Stephen L. Johnson)
wrote:
>Would someone kindly convince me that the alleged Mars rock actually
>came from Mars.  From what I read in the newspapers and such, the logic
>goes like this:  Once upon a time (note the fairy tale beginning) some
>large object must have smashed into Mars, dislodging some rocks which
>eventually landed in Antarctica.
>
>Seems to me this line requires a lot to swallow.  If an object got
>caught in the Mars gravity web and spiralled in to impact, it means in
>the first place that the object did not have enough velocity to escape
>the Mars gravity.  To think that it could impart such velocity to a
>rock, or to several, is stretching it, or so it seems to me.  After
>all, the object would have lost some energy due to friction, making it
>even more unlikely to have retained the energy required.
>
>Maybe I'm missing a few rocks in my head, too, but truly you might be
>doing the public a service by explaining how such an event could
>happen.
>
>Regards,
>
>stephen
OK, let's assume the object that smashed into Mars was a comet, or
something similar.  The object will have had a high velocity of its
own before hitting Mars.  It didn't have to just fall onto the Martian
surface, it could have been travelling at a high rate of speed and
just run into Mars.  This type of object could easily have passed
nearby to Mars without spiralling into Mars' gravity field.
Also, the object will transfer a great deal of energy to Mars.  This
energy may not be able to free the entire object from Mars' gravity,
but it can transfer enough energy to a small Martian rock to allow the
rock to leave Mars' gravity.
I'm not sure how the scientists decide that a rock found on earth is
actually from Mars, perhaps someone familiar with this process can
provide more detail.
Dan
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!" Kang

David Sepkoski  wrote:
}Trish wrote:
}> >
}> > And when they do that they have to support it to their involuntary
}> > audience's  satisfaction.
}> >
}> 
}> There is a problem when certain school districts in the midwest
}> (Tennessee in particular) do not allow the children to be taught basic
}> (and proven) theories of evolution .. preferring instead, religious
}> doctrine.  Freedom of religion is everywhere.  Unfortunately, science is
}> not always welcome.
}> 
}> Trish
}This may be a bit of a trivial point, but Tennessee is most assuredly
}NOT in the midwest.  It is the south.  People in the midwest may be
}religious, but generally are not opponents of evolution in the schools.
I'm really surprised at you people.  Where is your skepticism.  "...basic
(and proven) theories of evolution..."  My, My!  Your education is really
shortchanged.  I suggest you read some of the more recent research from
information theory.  Indeed, I suggest you read "Darwin on Trial" and
"Darwin's Black Box."  Both are at your local bookstore...Read those and
you'll really be a skeptic.

Thus, Einstein attacks action-at-a-distance with: “If one accepts the
concepts of space (including geometry) and time without critical doubts,
then there exists no reason to object to the idea of action at a
distance, even though such a concept is unsuited to the ideas one forms
on the basis of the raw experience of of daily life.”
Einstein remarks that the requirement that “forces depend only on the
coordinates (and not, for example on their derivatives with respect to
time) ... is not very natural...” Phenomenological friction forces with
the irreversible arrow of time depend on the first time derivative. Also
look at the force of radiation reaction.
Einstein adds a second argument against the kind of intensity-dependent
form-independent classical action at a distance as it is found in
Newton’s law of gravitational force which practically speaking is very
useful and accurate for travel between the planets, for airplanes,
ships, boats, cars, machinery of all kinds etc.
“Within the framework of [Newton’s] theory alone it is entirely
arbitrary that the forces of gravitation (and electricity), which come
from one point, are governed by the potential function 1/r ... it has
long been known tht this function is the spherically symmetric solution
of the simplest (rotation-invariant) differential equation Laplacian of
the potential = 0; it would therefore not be far-fetched to regard this
as a clue that this function was to be considered as resulting from a
spatial law, an approach that would have eliminated the arbitrariness in
the force law. This is really the first insight that suggests a turning
away from the theory of action at a distance, a development that -
prepared by Faraday, Maxwell and Hertz-- really begins only later in
response to the external pressure of experimental data.”
Note here that there are three really different ideas of action at a
distance -- the classical version,  the quantum version, and the
post-quantum version. Einstein above, and also Wheeler and Feynman in
their classical delayed action at a distance both to the future and to
the past light cones, are talking about classical form-independent but
intensity-dependent classical action at a distance. In contrast, Bohm is
talking about quantum form-dependent but intensity-independent action at
a distance. Eberhard’s theorem asserts that conservation of quantum
probability current densities in configuration space precludes the use
of quantum action at a distance, nonlocal in ordinary 3D space and time
as a direct communication channel. In contrast, post-quantum action at a
distance informed by a direct back-action from the rocklike classical
beable to its attached thoughtlike quantum pilot-wave, violates
Eberhard’s theorem because the quantum currents are no longer conserved
in configuration space. That is, the quantum analog to the classical
Liouville theorem in classical statistical mechanics is violated.
Indeed, this post-quantum friction provides the arrow of time and is the
dynamo of creative thought driving the advance of civilization.

On 6 Jan 1997 14:11:58 GMT, in sci.skeptic, gmark@grayfox.svs.com (G.
Mark Stewart) wrote:
>Stephen L. Johnson (sealion2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Would someone kindly convince me that the alleged Mars rock actually
>: came from Mars.  From what I read in the newspapers and such, the logic
>
>
>The bottom clearly has "Property of Mars" on it.
>
>
>If it were from Earth, it would have "Do No Eat" on it.
No, only if it were from the US.
(Anyone wanna buy some lawyers?)
>
>
>GMS
>http://www.svs.com/users/gmark
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

>>       All auto radios that used vacuum tubes had to have
>>mechanical vibrators to run the boost transformers that
>>made the B+ for the tubes, and B+ was at least 60 to 90
>>volts.
>
>Weren't there some 1950's hybrid car radios that used +12v-plate tubes for
>the low-signal stages and a germanium power transistor for the output
>stage?  I vaguely recall reading something like that.
There certainly were, and nobody on earth has the tubes for them.  The 
tubes were probably as nifty as tubes ever got: they had extra 
acceleration electrodes and did indeed have a plate voltage of 13.8 volts 
or so.  Getting rid of that vibrator made everyone happy for a while.  
Now, of course, every auto stereo amplifier has a dc-dc converter.  
  The output used a big old germanium transistor that worked through an 
output transformer.  This was a pretty bulletproof arrangement.  The 
reason for the hybrid construction was, I think, that high-frequency 
transistors were difficult to manufacture for a while.  So they used 
tubes for the rf and if stages, and the big transistor to run the 
speaker.  
                              Mark Kinsler

hi all,
a few years ago i saw an amazing demo of "gyroscopic force".
this guy had a 30kg flywheel attached to an axle that he held
in two hands.  another bloke came in and spun the wheel up to
3000rpm with a modified electric drill.  the first bloke then
began to turn slowly on the spot and then dropped one hand from
the axle.  he then waved this 30kg weight in slow circles over 
his head using one hand and no effort at all...  while he kept
the thing moving it was effectively weightless (or that's what
he said anyway!!).
i still don't really get how this demo worked - was it for
real??  i have often wondered why it is not possible to put
a number of gyroscopes at the end of the spokes of a big wheel
and have it float off into the distance.  does anyone know 
what the problem is??
cheers
peter

David Kaufman (davk@netcom.com) wrote:
>                 What Is Ethical Truth?
[...]
Good try. Next explain to us how your parents told you an ethical truth 
when they told you that Santa Claus travels in a sleigh, but since that 
way he could not visit 100 million of homes in one single night then he 
must actually use a personal airplane.
Clearly the observation of our world rules out the existence of a being 
with the following three attributes:
1. All Powerful.
2. All Loving.
3. All Knowing.
Next you decide to solve the contradiction by removing attribute 
number 1. Why not number 2, or number 3? Or all of them and admit 
that such a being is just a version of Santa Claus for grown ups?
Miguel A. Lerma

David Sepkoski wrote:
> 
> Trish wrote:
> >
> > > >It isn't up to us to prove it to YOU, though. We believe that there is a
> > > >God. We feel that we have enough "proof" to support that belief. The
> > > >fact that our basis for belief isn't good enough for you is irrelevant
> > > >to OUR belief.
> > >
> > > As long as you keep your beliefs to yourself then you are correct.
> > >
> > > However as soon as (generic) you start making claims based on it,
> > > evangelising etc then you *do* have to justify it to your audience.
> > >
> > > >Therefore, we most certainly do not have to prove that God exists. We
> > > >feel we have that proof already, enough for us. Your problem is that you
> > > >think we have to prove His existance to YOU before WE are allowed to
> > > >believe. Isn't that a bit, oh, arrogant?
> > >
> > > Duh... Nobody would give a flying freak what christians believed if they
> > > kept it to themselves. But they don't. They evangelise it. They try to
> > > get parts of their dogma taught as fact, etc.
> > >
> > > And when they do that they have to support it to their involuntary
> > > audience's  satisfaction.
> > >
> >
> > There is a problem when certain school districts in the midwest
> > (Tennessee in particular) do not allow the children to be taught basic
> > (and proven) theories of evolution .. preferring instead, religious
> > doctrine.  Freedom of religion is everywhere.  Unfortunately, science is
> > not always welcome.
> >
> > Trish
> This may be a bit of a trivial point, but Tennessee is most assuredly
> NOT in the midwest.  It is the south.  People in the midwest may be
> religious, but generally are not opponents of evolution in the schools.
I was under the impression that evolution has no proven samples to bring
to the debate table.

In article <32CB4169.49@rad.net.id>, bpramana@rad.net.id wrote:
> THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION THEORY AND POST-QUANTUM PHYSICS
[snip, and newsgroups somewhat trimmed]
> The Ultimate Unification Theory is not only the Unification of all
> physical laws (in contrast to the Theory of Everything), but also the
> psychological and the spiritual laws as well. It is simply the basic
> fundamental law of our Cosmos as a totality.
> 
> 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.
[snip again]
So basically, in strawman form, what your unification theory says is:
     1. some stuff exists in the universe
     2. not all the stuff is the same
     3. the stuff does some things
I'm not terribly impressed by your summary.
To save me the trouble of trying to decipher your full theory, would
you please just tell me if it makes a single testable prediction, or
does it just describe things in handwaving terms that can be
redefined more or less at will to match whatever we find?
Thanks.
+------------ Edward Keyes, mistered@1stresource.com -------------+
|............. http://www.1stresource.com/~mistered/ .............|
|.... DaggerWare: "small, sharp, and with a heck of a point!" ....|
+- "A little inaccuracy saves a world of explanation." C.E.Ayres -+

In article <5aq262$c5t@server1.erinet.com>,
David E. Weldon, Ph.D.  wrote:
>I'm really surprised at you people.  Where is your skepticism.  "...basic
>(and proven) theories of evolution..."  My, My!  Your education is really
>shortchanged.  I suggest you read some of the more recent research from
>information theory.  Indeed, I suggest you read "Darwin on Trial" and
>"Darwin's Black Box."  Both are at your local bookstore...Read those and
>you'll really be a skeptic.
	Well, if you knew nothing about biology, chemistry or geology,
you'd be one.
	For those of us who have DONE a little of these science, neither
DARWIN ON TRIAL or DARWIN'S BLACK BOX will provoke anything but snorts of
laughter or contempt.
	And as for being short-chaged in their education....I'd ask for
your money back if I were you...(or were you not aware that evolution,
speciation and population changes HAVE been observed in nature?).
-- 
Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director  PC Theatre
	Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue: 
	http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes

DON. HANSHAW wrote:
> 
> David Sepkoski wrote:
> >
> > Trish wrote:
> > >
> > > > >It isn't up to us to prove it to YOU, though. We believe that there is a
> > > > >God. We feel that we have enough "proof" to support that belief. The
> > > > >fact that our basis for belief isn't good enough for you is irrelevant
> > > > >to OUR belief.
> > > >
> > > > As long as you keep your beliefs to yourself then you are correct.
> > > >
> > > > However as soon as (generic) you start making claims based on it,
> > > > evangelising etc then you *do* have to justify it to your audience.
> > > >
> > > > >Therefore, we most certainly do not have to prove that God exists. We
> > > > >feel we have that proof already, enough for us. Your problem is that you
> > > > >think we have to prove His existance to YOU before WE are allowed to
> > > > >believe. Isn't that a bit, oh, arrogant?
> > > >
> > > > Duh... Nobody would give a flying freak what christians believed if they
> > > > kept it to themselves. But they don't. They evangelise it. They try to
> > > > get parts of their dogma taught as fact, etc.
> > > >
> > > > And when they do that they have to support it to their involuntary
> > > > audience's  satisfaction.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is a problem when certain school districts in the midwest
> > > (Tennessee in particular) do not allow the children to be taught basic
> > > (and proven) theories of evolution .. preferring instead, religious
> > > doctrine.  Freedom of religion is everywhere.  Unfortunately, science is
> > > not always welcome.
> > >
> > > Trish
> > This may be a bit of a trivial point, but Tennessee is most assuredly
> > NOT in the midwest.  It is the south.  People in the midwest may be
> > religious, but generally are not opponents of evolution in the schools.
> I was under the impression that evolution has no proven samples to bring
> to the debate table.
Perhaps you should do a bit of reading then. Start with the talk.origins 
FAQs and take it up from there: 

Wavicle  wrote in article
<5as6f9$naj$1@news.calweb.com>...
> 
> To the best of my understanding, light does not break apart when being
bent
> in a gravitational lens because the light itself is not being bent.  The
> light is traveling in a straight line, and space-time is bent.  Since
> space-time bends all wavelengths of light equally, no color separation
> occurs.
> 
> In a prism, the light chooses the path of least energy through the
> substance, and for different photon energies, this path is different.
> Lower energies are bent less than higher ones.  As a result the light
> breaks into different colors depending on how much bending the photons
> experience.  This model predicts that if you took all these diffracted
> colors and sent them through an identical prism, they should bend back
> to where they were, and indeed this can be experimentally shown to be
> true.
Ok. Why do the slower objects change their paths (bend) the more the
greater
mass they have? I don't like the story about bending time.
Esa

lbsys@aol.com wrote in article
<19970105121200.HAA19927@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
 > 

> "Should I marry him/her?" is influenced by the star sign.
I assume this is the question asked by the researchers.
I have snipped a lot of the post but nowhere does it mention what the
answer is, just that there were significant correlation's.
How does the study show that astrology has any answer? Should and did are
different things.
How does the study show that any correlation has any validity? 
How was it determined that the group studied did not consult such charts
before getting married?
How does a percentage of the group doing this affect the results?
Which school of astrology was used? I'm a dragon in Chinese, a Leo in one
of the western schools.
My real sign is usually "Not occupied"

In article , depreej@lincoln.ac.nz (Depree, Jonathan A) writes:
>In article  meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
>>Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 22:18:20 GMT
>
>>In article <5ap7ld$6m2@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, gwangung@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) writes:
>>>
>>>       Have you read the reviews of the book in Nature pointing out the
>>>egregious statistical errors and outright distortions in the book?
>
>>I did.  And while I could point on some errors in the book, I would 
>>not, by any means, call them egregious.  As for the review in Nature, 
>>there is curently no shortage of "PC scientists".
>
>>To the point, the book presents some data which is real.  This part is 
>>science.  As to the possible interpretations of the data, as well as 
>>implications for the future, here there is a wide room for argument 
>>and certainly the interpretation the authors present is not the only 
>>one possible (neither they claim it is).  But, rejecting off hand the 
>>data and the interpretation because they don't agree with one's world 
>>view is an act that has nothing to do with science.
>
>As far as I know, 'The bell curve' was not rejected out of hand. It was 
>analysed by the scientific community, who decided that there was a great deal 
>of sloppy science and that the conclusions weren't justified. That is how 
>science works.
>
I wouldn't even say that much.  The data is a pretty honest data.  As 
for conclusions, yeah, one certainly cannot state that the data is 
sufficient to prove them.  To say that they were disproved or rejected 
(other than on non scientific grounds) though, is false.
>The point about "PC Scientists" is well taken, but remember that as well as 
>"PC" we each carry around our own form of political correctness. There is a 
>constant danger that the work you do and the data you report is colored by 
>what you want to find. 
Definitely.  Can hardly be avoided, given human nature.  That's why, 
when analyzing any work, there are two separate questions one should 
ask:
1)  Is the data itself collected and reported honestly (mind you, that 
even if it is, that still doesn't mean that it is meaningful).
2)  Does the data support the conclusions.
In the case of "The Bell Curve" I would say that the answer to (1) is 
yes.  As for (2) an honest answer is "not enough information for a 
reliable conclusion".  However, the thesis brought in the book cannot 
be dismissed as a posible hypothesis.
Any policy must be based on reality, not wishful 
>thinking. As Richard Feynman said "Nature cannot be fooled".  
Right.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <19970107050700.AAA20205@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
KRamsay  wrote:
>
>Is another part of the tube somewhat weak, so that it can bulge out?
>
>Keith Ramsay
>
Doesn't matter.  What would cause it to bulge out more than usual if not
increased pressure?
If the tube has a leak, the pressure would go up when you first squeeze it,
then go back down as the air escapes.
I can't think of a simple way the pressure would initially go down--seems 
the thing would have to be unstable to begin with.  LeChatelier's principle 
and all that.  You'd have to cheat somehow.  Like use a fast-acting sensor/
pump combination to pull air out as soon as it senses your hand applying
pressure.  Or something even more silly.
Never mind.  Not very coherent today.
Have fun,
breed

In article <5abh5j$l3h@news.fsu.edu>, jac@margit.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>davk@netcom.com (David Kaufman) writes:
>>	Why not have our best teachers on TV, showing how to teach all
>>grade levels in math and science? 
>
> Why not have them in the classroom, actually doing it and serving as 
> mentors to the apprentice science teachers?  We already have some 
> pretty good ones on TV, but it has to carry over into the schools to 
> be effective as a learning tool. 
In the late 50's the Louisville, Ky. Board of Education instituted a few closed 
circuit TV classes, to try and place the best teachers in front of more 
students. My favorite Jr. High School science teacher was selected as one of the 
best. I was saddened to see how his best trait, interpersonal interaction with 
students, was stiffled by the remoteness imposed by the camera. It was difficult 
to feel the excitement he could infect a class with when he was in that little 
box. It was frustrating not to be able to raise my hand and ask him directly for 
a clarification..., to spark that ad lib interplay which always led to fresh 
modes of explanation, and made the student feel part of the learning process, 
not just a spectator. 
I do see a roll for TV education, but a mass voluntary audience is not likely to 
tune in to a classroom like show. Nova, Cosmos, Nature, and their like, do a 
good job of educating, but they hide the experience inside a sense of 
entertainment. The degree to which learning is achieved is not easily measured, 
so good teacher in a controled classroom environment, with high standards set, 
is the best proven way to increase student performance.
At least that's what I think,
Steve Bennett

In article <5aq850$s0t@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
sealion2@ix.netcom.com(Stephen L. Johnson) wrote:
> Would someone kindly convince me that the alleged Mars rock actually
> came from Mars.
This has been answered many times in these newsgroups.
The short answer is that the ratio of the different isotopes
of oxygen in the rock has a distinctive "signature" that has
been identified as coming from Mars.
Paul

Isn't this thread somewhat like the 16th or 17th century debate as to how many 
bits (or something) could dance on the head of a pin? Fun, but you could be 
burned at the stake?  (-_^)

In article <5ao9be$jqk@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, pdp@ix.netcom.com (Pdp) says:
>
>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
>
Time is orthogonal to the three spatial coordinates.  This implies
time may vary without the any of the three spatial coordinates
changing. And vice versa.  This implies also that if we fail
to record the time of an event this information cannot
(in general) be derived from the spatial information of
the event under observation.  In order to distinctly specify
an event in this particular universe we require FOUR
orthogonal pieces of information.  One of them is the
time of the event.
Time is abstract in the sense that it is measured
somewhat differently to the other three spatial coordinates.
But the time coordinate is (is general) equally important as
the three spatial coordinates when making observations.
If time were not orthogonal (and independent of) the
three spatial coordinates then bus timetables would
only have departure and destination locations.
Adding the times of departure and arrival would be
pointless.
David Smyth
CPL
University of Queensland

lamontg@nospam.washington.edu wrote:
> 
> I didn't say that the bible says it, I said that people still believe
> it...
I know a woman who believes men have never left the Earth, but I don't
think that's the fault of NASA. Neither is it much of a criticism of the
Bible that some misuse it or misunderstand it.
Wil Milan

Is another part of the tube somewhat weak, so that it can bulge out?
Keith Ramsay

>
>Suppose you take the tube out of the tire of your bicycle and
>inflate it with some air.
>
>Now you squeeze the tube a bit with one hand.
>
>Is it possible that the air pressure in the tube *decreases* by
>doing this?
>
>Mark van Hoeij
Yes. Just make sure the valve cap is not on, or there is a hole in the
tube.
-Ryan

In article <5ar34o$3sh@orm.southern.co.nz>, bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian
Sandle) wrote:
> I think I heard it on BBC Science Magazine about 2 years ago. They align 
> with the magnetic pulse each morning.
Again, what magnetic pulse? Do you understand enough about electricity and
magnetism to understand how a pulse like that might behave, where it might
come from, and how you might measure it? 
How do you know the whales don't just greet the sun or something? They 
have got eyes, you know.
--timberwoof@themall.net
-
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610
-
Unsolicited commercial Email delivered to this address will be
subject to a $1500 charge. Emailing such items, whether manually or
automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms & conditions.

Okay, somebody tell me why this wouldn't work.  I want a better answer 
than "shut up", so I figured I'd come here.
I wanna know why you couldn't use some of the stuff hinted at by the EPR 
thought experiment to make an instantaneous communicator.  Here's how I
understand the EPR experiment:
	Take two particles that are linked (perhaps they were paired 
electrons in a single orbital.  Their spins are opposite).  Then 
separate them.  You'll have two electrons, each with a .5 probability of
+1/2 spin, and .5 P of -1/2.  Take them to opposite sides of the globe,
and measure one of them.  Say you find that it's +.  You've taken it
from .5 P to 1P.  You changed it.  That's okay, cuz you measured it.
However, you also know that the other electron (on the other side of 
the world, or heck, on another planet!) is -.  You've changed it from 
.5 to 1 without doing anything to it!
Okay, we'll pretend that I understood that experiment correctly.  Here's
where I get really crazy.  Isn't there some stuff that behaves 
differently depending on whether or not you've measured it?  Maybe an
electron with a .5 probability responds to a magnetic field differently
than one with 1P.  Something like that.  If _all_ of that's true (fat
chance), could you build some sort of device where you could take one
of a pair of linked particles and figure out whether the other one is
being measured?
Awfully far-fetched, I know.  But what do you expect, I'm just a kid.
If (I noticed I used that word an awful lot) you can measure whether 
your partner on the moon is measuring some property of a particle, then
you can repeat things like that to form binary communication.  1 when
the particle is being measured, 0 when it's not.
Okay, so just someone explain why that won't work.  Thank you.
Seeya :)
--Ryan Hughes

In article <5ahc48$ilq@news.snet.net>,
	robert.koss@mail.snet.net writes:
>
>   I have read a tiny bit about super-strings, but none of the physics
>   books I have (literally dozens) goes into any detail at all. (is it
>   that hard to understand?)
I think so :-)
Depends on your mileage of course.  Are you fluent in quantum field
theory ?   (not the pictures, but the calculations, how to treat the
divergencies - although I think that part actually gets easier in
string theory - how to tackle the apparent gauge dependencies ... )
I, for one, am not really.  I know the basics and can, with some difficulty,
follow certain calculations, but I'm far from being an expert on it, so
I don't even attempt at string theory.
Don't forget that there is usually a separation of 3-4 years of full-time
studying between the level of mathematical sophistication needed to understand
popular works and professional literature.
cheers,
Patrick.

In article <5asb6a$ma6$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>    The function, for example , one branch of the tangent function is a
> algebraic Field.  What are the other parts of the graph (the points
> underneath the tangent function as an algebraic structure. That is 2nd
> dimensional but in third dimension (only existing true dimension) the
> surface of a sphere would be the 2-adics and all of its composite
> 2-adic associates would form the inside of this 2-adic sphere surface.
Perhaps the n-adics the composite adics such as 6-adics , 10-adics,
14-adics ad infinitum are not the inside of a sphere. Perhaps they are
the outside of the sphere surface that is the 2-adics. Thereby, the
prime adic forms a Riemannian sphere surface and the associated
composite adics of that particular prime adic forms the outer regions
of that sphere surface caused by that prime-adic.
  Then, the Doubly Infinites of the 2-adics forms the disc or inside of
the 2-adic sphere. 
   The 2-adics forms a Riemannian sphere surface, the 2-adic composite
associated adics of 6-adics etc forms the outer regions of that 2-adic
surface and is still Riemannian geometry.
   The 2-adics Doubly Infinite where the leftward string is 2-adics
forms a disc inside the 2-adic Riemannian sphere and is Lobachevskian
geometry.

In article <32C838A6.659A@showme.missouri.edu>
Brian  writes:
> Archimedes writes:
> > These two claims were two claims of my recent patent application for
> > room temperature superconductors.
> > 
> > 5. a room temperature superconductor arising out of the BioWorld,       i.e.
> > an organic superconductor found in plant material such as       aspen tree
> > material, and venus flytrap material, and in the        photosynthesis
> > process of plants comprising of the most        general compound C-O-Mo, or
> > C-O-V, and
> > 6. a room temperature superconductor arising out of the BioWorld,       i.e.
> > an organic superconductor found in human brain material of      the most
> > general compound C-O-Li, and
> > 
> This would indicate that no such breakthrough has been verified, even by
> the group which inadvertantly advanced their data.
--- quoting in parts McGraw-Hill SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, vol 11, 1992 ---
Molybdenum is an essential trace element in soils and in agricultural
fertilizers. Molybdenum atoms have been found to perform key functions
in enzymes (oxidases and reductases, with particular interest being
directed toward its role in nitrogenase, which is employed by bacteria
in legumes to convert inert nitrogen (N2) of the air into biologically
useful ammonia (NH3).
   Molybdenum is widely distributed in the Earth's crust at a
concentration of 1.5 parts per million by weight in the lithosphere and
about 10 parts per billion in the sea. 
   CHEMISTRY. Although Molybdenum is closer to chromium in atomic
weight and atomic number, its chemical behavior is usually very similar
to that of tungsten, which has nearly the same atomic radius. (This is
due to the so-called lanthanide contraction in which atomic radii
decrease...
   Molybdenum atoms contain six valence electrons ...  Molybdenum forms
a very large number of compounds with oxygen. Low-valent molybdenum
[for example, Mo(CO)6 and Mo2, Mo3, and Mo6 clusters] has a very rich
organometallic chemistry, including clusters that are being studied as
models for molybdenum metal surfaces that catalyze organic reactions
employed in industrial syntheses and oil refining.
   SUPERCONDUCTORS: Mo6S8 clusters.
... These materials, which form so-called Chevrel phases having
superconducting properties, ...
   ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS. Mo(CO)6 is a stable octahedral complex of
Mo(O). . . It is the starting material used in the production of a
large variety of organometallic molybdenum compounds containing single,
double and triple Mo-C bonds ... including mixed metal complexes.
   Molybdenum in low oxidation states forms very stable bonds with
p-acceptor ligands such as CO
   BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. The versatility of molybdenum in accommodating a
large variety of structures, oxidation states, and polynuclear
complexes makes it a prime candidate for the active site in enzymatic
processes involving molybdoproteins in enzymes and cofactors. During
the reduction of N2 to ammonia by nitrogen-fixing organisms, protons
are reduced to H2, and adenosinetriphosphate (ATP) is hydrolyzed to
adenosinediphosphate (ADP); N2 must bind to an active site and be a
receptor for the transfer of  both electrons and protons. Each of these
functions can be performed or facilitated by molybdenum atoms or ions
in other systems, making this element a prime target for research on
nitrogen fixation. A list of enzymes that contain molybdenum, their
properties, and functions is given in Table 2.
   Figure 4 shows the structure of the iron-molybdenum-sulfur cluster
found in a protein that serves as an Fe-Mo cofactor in several enzymes.
The role of molybdenum in nitrogenase has been of great interest.
--- end quoting in parts McGraw-Hill SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, vol 11, 1992
---
The geometry of Molybdenum, and Lithium are such that bioworld room
temperature superconductors exist.

In article 
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:
>  > Let me recap here some facts :
>  >    p-adics form a field
> 
> No.  Obviously, if there *are* primes you do not have a field.
3-adics form a field, 5-adics form a field
any p-adic where p is prime forms a field
>  >                         (1) the conglomeration of P-adics as this set
>  > {2-adics, 3-adics, 5-adics, 7-adics, ....
> 
> I am still extremely unsure what your definition of "conglomerate" is.
> Suppose a is a 2-adic and b a 3-adic; how do you define a+b?
 Conglomeration = set. Set of all prime-adics {2-adics, 3-adics, ....}
 Instead of conglomeration, I am going to define a branch of the
tangent function, taking a branch of the tangent function that curve is
the 2-adics, and the next branch will be the 3-adics, another the
5-adics and so on. All of the points of the 2-adic branch of the
tangent function will be 2-adic numbers.  But this is not the big deal
in this program. Now in this graph of the tangent function, each branch
is a function , but now consider all the points in that specific branch
itself, then all of those points do not make a function. Correspond all
of those points with the prime-associated-n-adic. Here are some prime
associated n adics for the 2-adics 6-adics, 10-adics, 14-adics etc.
   Why do this program? Answer is threefold. To connect adics with
geometry. And another reason is to find, or discover what the
composite-adics are. Third reason: in a way, algebraic structures
fields, rings, groups should be connected with simply a function and a
graph.
   The function, for example , one branch of the tangent function is a
algebraic Field.  What are the other parts of the graph (the points
underneath the tangent function as an algebraic structure. That is 2nd
dimensional but in third dimension (only existing true dimension) the
surface of a sphere would be the 2-adics and all of its composite
2-adic associates would form the inside of this 2-adic sphere surface.

Kyler Laird (laird@puritan.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: Over lunch, the topic of bathtub electrocution came 
: up (from a scene in a movie).  I've thought about it
mineral content of water is a large factor
as I recall distilled water is considered to be a insulator
and not conductive.
: 
: 	5.	electrical device's internal circuit
: 			low.  Even if off, if the
: 			"hot" line is exposed to water,
: 			it's likely that "neutral" will
: 			also be exposed.
:
on or off it doesn't realy matter the non water proof device
will get wet at the switch and conduct to the water.
: 
: It seems to me that in order to get a fatal
: outcome we need to get current to flow through the
: person's heart.  Providing lots of low-resistance
-- 
I've heard  5 miliamps will do it.
the movie sceens of someone throwing a appliance in the tub
and the person being electroucted I don't believ will happen.
While I don't care to try my theory myself, the path needs to
be through the persons body, the path most likely taken will
be direct to the drain, till the breaker blows, or lines burn out.
   High power linemen (persons) typically work on hot high voltage lines,
they themselves may be at 1000 or more volts, but due to being WELL
insulated from ground they are not electrocuted. Same for all the birds
landing on a single wire.  Some times I see a well done squirrel that has
come ACROSS the connection to the lamp hanging off the pole. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the US, preserve health care for all. Call/write your state and federal
reps'  The middle class and the poor need medicare/medicaid , not cutbacks!
HMO's can be HELL to deal with, and don't provide many needed services!
 CALL/WRITE TODAY!

brett@sr.hp.com (Brett Carver) wrote:
>That's because Hollywood doesn't have a clue.  They do whatever LOOKS good.
>That's correct.  A TV/Radio/whatever thrown/falling into a tub isn't
>going to kill the person (just don't pick it up!!).  On the other hand,
>setting in a tub and reaching out to touch the item will make you a
>direct path to ground, be prepared for a 'shocking' experience.
OK, I just had to respond to this!   I am a film director.  I'm
constantly looking for stuff like this to throw into a film here and
there -- facts that are "blurred" by the  frequent need to present
events in a dramatic setting.
So.......what really does happen when that radio or hair drier falls
in?  The notes here clearly indicate that it won't cause death.  Will
it cause anything?  Tingling?  A hearty zap?  Nothing?  Would love to
know the answers to add this to my notes.
Now, (you know this was coming) to explain (not necessarily defend)
the incorrect portrayal of various "facts" in film and television.  As
directors, we're always looking for a path to an audience's emotional
core.  Unfortunately, the quickest way to those places is to rely on
the fears that were imposed on us as we were growing up.  These are
implanted in our brains as survival tools.  Whether the facts behind
the fear are valid or not, it's still a fear, which is an emotion,
which gets you right where I want you. 
 You may notice, however, that the weaker the basic story in a film,
the more it will rely on these "parlor tricks" to keep the majority of
the audience interested.  
So, what would really happen?

In article <5asb6a$ma6$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>    Why do this program? Answer is threefold. To connect adics with
> geometry. And another reason is to find, or discover what the
> composite-adics are. Third reason: in a way, algebraic structures
> fields, rings, groups should be connected with simply a function and a
> graph.
 One should be able to take a graph, a function and point to this graph
and point out various algebraic structures in the graph itself. Take
for example a  linear function. Then the line of that function
represents a Field. Then, some of the rest of the graph is a Ring,
another portion is a Group etc.
  What I am looking for is what is the most Complex and Complicated yet
meaningful Algebraic structure when I amass all of the prime-adics and
composite-adics together. Note the word meaningful. I suppose it is a
Geometry. That the highest algebraic structure is a geometry and we
have only three of those-- Riemannian, Lobachevskian, and Euclidean. A
Field, a Ring, a Group, etc all of these algebraic structures are parts
of a geometry.
   I need to know what is the highest meaningful algebraic geometry
when I pile all the adic forms together, both prime and composite
adics. I think the answer is that it forms a geometry.
   Now, let us look at Euclidean geometry since we know it well. Do the
points as Reals+i+j  do those points form a Field? Can some of them
form a Ring? Can some of them form a Group? But the highest algebraic
structure of Euclidean 3-space is Euclidean geometry itself.