Newsgroup sci.physics 214490

Directory

Trish (capuchin@gte.net) wrote:
: Neither of these viruses originate in the wickedness of mankind.  They
: arrived at the depletion of the tropical rain forest.  The depletion of
: the rain forest coincides with man's attitude that the world was created
: to fulfill the needs of man.  This attitute came about with religion.
if i may make just a small remark here, i doubt that any of the arseholes 
chopping down trees for profit can call themselves dedicated christians, 
in the sense that they care what god has to say.  god said care for the 
planet, not exploit it.  

wf3h@enter.net wrote:
:
: .  i think everyone on these usenet groups would be more than 
: >willing to see the evidence you hold secret that will shatter the 
: >creationist dogma once and for all.
: >
: its ironic because i do this all the time. in fact. larry moran has
: complained that i do nothing BUT this.
would i be considered rude if i added that you are supposed to be showing 
how you have dogmatic irrefutable evidence for the origin of the 
universe, and not evidence on why creationism is wrong?
: for you, ill make an exception.
: here is why creationists lie
: 
: 1. they believe in the literal truth of the bible
: 2. they believe the earth is 6000 yrs old
: 3. they believe this is scientific
: 4. they believe that the methods of science should change to reflect
: this
ok, first off, i am a creationist.  now, we can go from there.  i do not 
believe the earth is 6000 years old.  i have remarked to you about that 
before and yet you continue to hold it like some gospel truth (forgive 
the pun).  because some believe it, doesn't mean all do.  because some 
evolutionists believe in radio panspermia does not mean that all do.  
same thing.  now, no christian has ever (unless he was high on something) 
said that the bible is a scientific text.  ergo, no christian believes 
that creation *is* science, as you say above.  creationists believe that 
god supernaturally created the universe.  however, they do *not* believe 
that this is the end of science, and no creationist has ever said that to 
you.  now the literal truth of the bible, yeah.  we go for that.  
however, i must say that i have never heard a creationist say that any 
scientific method at all should change to reflect evolution/big bang theory.
: now, the earth AINT 6000 yrs old. this is a subjective religious
: belief.but creationist SAY this because they believe the bible is
: LITERALLY true. this is a subjective religious belief, not a
: scientific one. since it is false, and since they say its true it is a
: lie. since it is a lie, and they believe revealed religion is
: scientific they will say ANYTHING to help them push their ideology
: that the bible is true.
so you believe that if someone believes a lie, they themselves are guilty 
of lying?  in addition, i would like to offer to anyone who desires it, 
an e-mail exchange explaining why the bible says the earth is far older 
than 6000 years.  my address is above.
: and that is why creationism is a lie
all you say above is that creationists are liars, not that creationism is 
a lie.
: >my computer existing has nothing to do with scientific skepticism. 
: 
: creationist dispute of science is, by definition not scientific. the
: same principles that went into making the computer went into the
: physics that found the universe is 10-15 billion years old; into the
: geology that found the earth is 4.5 billion yrs old, etc.
:  so you are wrong
so a dispute of law is not legal?  a dispute over money is not 
financial?  may i ask where you get your reasoning from?
:  you 
: >merely asked why would any scientist lie (imferring that all scientists 
: >are in fact purely altruistic and would *never ever* have any kind of 
: >self motivation whatsoever, and i proposed two answers as to why  
: >aprticular scientist *may* lie.
: 
: nice projection. your inference is wrong. scientists are not saints. 
i agree.  and finally i have gotten you to do the same.
:   i also did not call them liars, nor 
: >point out particular individuals]
: 
: but creationism does. it says that creationism is science; but if its
: science, why dont scientists accept it? 
 read the above.  noone has ever said that creationism is 
science, and that is the whole of science, and that is the end of it.  
ever.  unless they were highly *highly* deluded.
: >let us examine what you say here.  you say "since creationism is a lie".  
: >in other words, you know it to be false, without any shadow of a doubt, 
: >and with exacting, final experimental data that show it to be thus.  in 
: >the absence of such earth-shattering experiments, i must ask that since 
: >you already believe creationism is a lie, would you not tend to see 
: >things as they would fit in an evolutionist eye?
: 
: creationism is false because it doesnt use scientific methodology. it
: believes revealed religion is scientific. since this is wrong,
: creationism is a lie. as to earth shattering experiments, although
: these have been done and show that creationism is wrong...BECAUSE
: CREATIONISM IS A LIE...creationists will not accept this data. by
: definition they cant. it is science. they do not accept science. thus
: they do not accept the data. as to an 'evolutionist eye' you mean
: 'scientists eye'. since all scientists accept evolution i plead guilty
creationism is false, "because it doesn't use scientific methodology".  
hmmm... well stephen hawking has yet to perform an observable experiment 
on his ideas about the origin of the universe, ergo he hasn't used actual 
methodology, ergo he is false also.  the existance of quarks hasn't been 
actually seen beyond the shadow of a doubt with experimentation, ergo it 
is false.  
whose side are you on again?

Hi. I would like to ask a question on the theory of error calculations.
Situation:
When adding two variables 
x1 and x2 with systematic errors dx1 and dx2,
the error of the result is the arithmetic sum of dx1 and dx2:
dx1 + dx2
When adding two variables 
y1 and y2 with statistical errors sy1 and sy2,
the error of the result is the geometric sum of sy1 and sy2:
SQRT( SQR( sy1 ) + SQR( sy2 ) )
Question:
How do the errors add up if x1 were to be added to y1 ?
As far as I know there is nothing in between the arithmetic
and the geometric sum.

In article <5asb6a$ma6$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
 > 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
Eh?  Did you read what I wrote after the sentence above?  If there *is*
a prime, there is no field.  In the 3-adics 3 is the only prime (%), but
because there is a prime there is no field.  In a field every element
except 0 has a multiplicative inverse; there is no inverse of 3 in the
3-adics.  There is no inverse of p in the p-adics.  In the rationals for
instance 3 is *not* prime.
--
% Prime in the sense of prime ideals.  Not in the sense of: there are
no a and b such that a.b = 3; because there are such a and b
(for instance: 2 * ...11111111120 = 10 = 3 in the 3-adics).  My previous
proof was a bit wrong however.  If there is an element with a multiplicative
inverse there is no prime in the traditional sense.  That was what the
original proved, but in that sense 3 is not even a prime in the 3-adics.
However, an element without multiplicative inverse can still generate a
prime ideal (as is the case with p in the p-adics), but in a field there
are no such elements.
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

In article <19970107113200.GAA27231@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>>And this of course depends on the intelligence of the electorate,
>>>unfortunately....
>>
>>Democracy is a very just system.  People get the government they 
>>deserve :-)
>
>I never liked that quote - although it's whitty and all that, but in
>essence it says, that the weak (and poor in mind) are responsible for
>choosing leaders which they cannot control effectively and thus are
>rightfully betrayed and tricked by them.
Then who is responsible.  God?  Aliens?  But wait, don't reply yet.  I 
think you miss what this phrase really says.  It is not a condemnation 
of Democracy, by any means, on the contrary, it is a high praise.  
I'll get to it in a moment.
>
>How did the average decent american did deserve a crook like tricky Dicky
>Nixon? 
People called him Tricky Dicky 20 years before he had been elected 
President.  The knew what he was.  They voted fro him nevertheless.
>How did the world (and the US) deserve a man like former secr. of
>defense McNamara, who after 30(!)  years finally admits, that the US
>engagement in Vietnam was based on no knowledge of the far east at all and
>was the wrong thing to do. How many young and hopeful americans came home
>'in a box' because of a few mens arrogance (meaning *deliberate*
>illiterateness) - and why did they deserve to die young? 
McNamara was made Secretary of Defense by Kennedy, whom the people 
elected president because he didn't sweat an TV as much as Nixon.  
That was the determining factor.  Do you see the point?
>
>Please elaborate the "justness" of this principle.
I'll reply to the next thing first.
>
>In the 'Bill of Human Rights', one right has been forgotten: it's the
>right to be governed by decent, honest people.
No, there is no such right.  You can state it but a right without a 
mechanism to achieve and maintain it is meaningless.  It is like 
stating "everybody has the right to be happy".  So, what he's supposed 
to do if he isn't?  Sue the people?  The government?  Mother Nature?
At most you can say "people have the right to pursue happiness."  
Still vague, but within some limits can be assured.  No guarantees of 
success, mind you.
So, the right you state sounds good but doesn't mean much.  At best 
you can say "people have the right to pursue a decent, honest 
government".  And what mechanism shall you use to give a meaning to 
this right?  I can think of no better than the right to pick their 
government and to replace it if it is found inadequate.  As it used to 
be called, "the right to hire and the right to fire".  I.e. democracy.
But, just like with the right to pursue happiness, democracy doesn't 
guarantee success.  You've to work on it.  So, when people who, 
while buying a car or a VCR, may spent weeks researching the marke and 
collecting detailed information before they reach a decision, when 
same people vote somebody to office based on his hairstyle, his baby 
kissing ability or just because he promised them goodies, then they 
failed to use the power given to them and they'll get the government 
they deserve.
Here is a little story.  In 1977 the Labor Party in Israel lost the 
elections (justly, by the way) and the right wing Likud formed a 
government.  They didn't get a majority, mind you (no party in Israel 
ever does) but they got a solid 43-44 % which was enough.  Anyway, 
they started reorganize the economy and reorganized it so "well" the 
within two years we had near 200% inflation.  This didn't make them 
very popular and the antiinflationary measures they introduced even 
less so.  Therefore, by January of 1981 their public support dropped 
to some 15%, and the elections were scheduled for springtime.  So, 
they made a "bold" move.  They drastically reduced taxes on color TVs 
(at that time the taxes on consumer electronics in Israel were 
extremely high, some 200%).  Suddenly everybody and his uncle could 
buy a color TV.  And, within few month their public support climbed 
back to above 40%, all the failures were forgotten and they won the 
elections again.
But, that's not the end of the story.  Two years later the inflation 
hit 1000% (yes, it is one thousand), and the economy ground to a halt, 
hurting badly all the proud owners of the new color TVs.  So, don't 
you think they got what they deserved.
OK, so now it is back to the saying about democracy and its 
"justness".  What this saying says in effect is the following:  In 
democracy people ore the sovereign.  They have the ultimate right and 
the ultimate power, the power to chose who'll govern.  But, with rights 
come responsibilities and obligations.  Being a sovereign doesn't just 
mean the power to decide, it means also the obligation to live with 
the consequences of your decisions.  And if you screwed up, you pay.  
Sovereignty is responsibility.
In an autocratic regime people may claim that they're not responsibel 
for what's happening wince they had no say in it.  Not so in 
democracy.  They have the power and they have they say.  So when they, 
in effect, abuse this power by not taking it seriously, than whose 
fault it is?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Fred McGalliard  wrote:
>Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> I thought the idea of a Christian challenging a Jew about
>> Jewish theology to be a little bit, umm, inappropriate.
>
>Dear Stan. By extension, this argument implies that it would be inappropriate for a quantum physiscist to 
>address a question of chemistry.
This doesn't seem quite the same to me.  Theology is a matter of
beliefs, and it seems to me that those who actually *hold* a set of
beliefs are better qualified to say what they are than somebody who
holds other beliefs.
Or do you really think a statement to the effect of "you really don't
believe that, what you believe is .." is generally useful?
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

In article <01041997174432umw@windsong.demon.co.uk>, 
Steve@windsong.demon.co.uk says...
>
>-----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.)
Note the following list of topics to *not* bring up at parties:
1. Politics
2. Religion
3. What is time?
a) above is not a strictly true statement.  The world line is the “history” 
(past, future, and present) of the motion.  You jump in at any point on 
the t-axis and that point becomes "now".  However the physical 
theories (especially field theories, like GR) provide equations which tell 
you how the system will evolve as a function of time.
Still, in GR, time *is*.  There is no explanation for the passage of time 
we all experience.  To us, time flows.  This flow is not explained by GR.
b) above may also not be true.  It depends on what you mean by "abstract". 
Since there are equations which define the time evolution of the system
the events are in theory predictable .
Folks who think about the arrow of time usually look to the second law of 
thermodynamics and irreversible physical processes that increase entropy.
With the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, the boundary conditions of 
the universe determine the arrow of time. 
With the many worlds interpretation of QM, history doesn’t exist, only our
record of it.  Only now exists without the concept of trajectory through 
space-time.
It is safe to say that time remains a mystery.
>>   Questions:
>>
>>   1) If a is true, how can anything have an inertial motion in
>> spacetime?
>
>> [snip]
>> 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.
>
Thank you Steve!  I would add that gravity follows an inverse-square law.  
How exactly would Louis explain how something that varies with distance
could apply a force "...to every part of a falling object equally?".
--Best regards,
--Mike

electronic monk wrote:
> 
> 
> like i said before, we can think of zero having levels in the same way
> that we can think of infinity as having levels.  if we think of zero
> only as a limit, then it will make sense.  x^2 > x for all x>0,
Huh?  Since when is (1/2)^2 > 1/2 ?????
> and then we could say 1/(x^2) > 1/x for all x>0.
Huh?  Since when is 1/(2^2) > 1/2 ?????
>so, lim 1/(x^2) as x-->0+  >  lim 1/x as x-->0+.
Not so.  lim x-->0+ [1/(x^2)] = +infinity (the limit does not exist.
*Even if* lim x-->0- = +infinity, which it does)
and lim x-->0+ (1/x) = +infinity (the limit does not exist)
Remember, when we write +infinity or -infinity as an answer to a limit
problem, we are really saying, "The limit does not exist."  The infinity
part tells us the reason *why* the limit does not exist.
Of course, none of this really has anything to do with why 1/0 is
undefined.  What number can you multiply by 0 and get an answer of 1? 
Infinity?  Nada.  Infinity is not even a number.  'Nuff said.
____________________________________________________________
Darrell Ryan
  e-mail             dryan@edge.net
  personal website   http://edge.edge.net/~dryan
  company website    http://www.edge.net/stmc

In article <5atcs1$hfl@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>, rnh@gmrc.gecm.com (Richard Herring) says:
>
>Wavicle (wavicle@calweb.com) wrote:
>
>>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
>                                                 ^^^^^^time
>
>>substance, and for different photon energies, this path is different.
>>Lower energies are bent less than higher ones.  As a result the light
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>or vice versa. (And it's more directly related to frequency than energy.)
>
There is no difference between the frequency and energy of
light.  They are equivalent terms describing the same
attribute of light.
David Smyth
CPL
University of Queensland

-----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:
  1  3712  Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
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: 1
Notice-ID: spncm1997007065459
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<5av31r$su4$1@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
iQCVAwUBMtNExoz0ceX+vLURAQGB8QP/TPEbCDERsUqkmbvxZ8nr5OpL5JSV4Y3U
7igb3/TOJwrJ1/FsSM7l5/DdB8dFmPMeS7tBhum/iAARia/npT72qgrSOQaGyjM2
iQrwu3ImVnmLt9N0u/kz6DnWpCHMsIbTvYMJwN8iRh78nFFmXaMFDjE0JuivqPg8
mT/RyU7zFA4=
=fIvC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:
> 
> > I have never understood where the E = hbar/T comes from.  
> 
BJ: Usually one sees it as E = hv, where h is understood to be hbar
(because I'm too lazy to write hbar all the time) and v is the frequency. 
It is, of course, directly related to the uncertainty principle, of which
one common formulation is h ~ (delta E delta t). (With more apologies for
the limitations of the medium.) As you no doubt realize, E = mc^2 = hv,
and so we have a ready connection to relativity. 
> I think it is motivated by the uncertainty principle (of course there
> are problems with defining a Hermitian time (and phase) operator. But it
> works in perturbation theory. Bohm, Aharanov et al., have papers on it
> that would be interesting to discuss when we have time.
> 
> > I am familiar
> > with quite a lot of Penrose's work and his papers are usually quite lucid,
> > but I still have not seen where this formula comes from.
BJ: I seem to remember that Gamow's classic *30 Years that Shook Physics* 
treats this business in a highly accessible way.
> > 
> > As for Jack's back action, I have done some work to demonstrate what is a
> > feedback mechanism in quantum mechanics.  I need to find some time to write
> > this up.  It really involves the propagation of a fluctuation in a manner
> > that is not Markovian.  I have some more work and calculations on how
> > self-referential loops can exist in this setting.  To be honest this is
> > all I think there really is to this business.  It seems to be a reasonable
> > model for quantum consciousness, yet nowhere is there any proof that
> > consciousness is quantum mechanical or that this is how it is structured
> > if it is quantum mechanical.  My attitude on this is decidedly
> > conservative.
> 
BJ: You are right to be cautious, but it seems clear to me that you have a
good nose. As to rigorous "proof", well ... that is a ways off. I believe
it is fair to say that, at this pass, those of us in the quantum
consciousness camp are generally proceeding by way of reasoned analogy and 
induction - or the odd inspiration - which is fine, for now. On the other 
hand, I do happen to have a simple proof which I will be happy to 
trot out at the slightest provocation.
> There is a solid argument by Stapp that consciousness is not possible in
> classical physics except as an ad hoc postulate.
BJ: Right. This is old news to anyone but a physicist, but Stapp does a 
fine job explaining why it must be so in terms that scientists can 
understand.
> There is a long history of connecting quantum phenomena with mind
> starting with Bohr himself and with Sir James Jeans who called the
> quantum wave function "mind stuff". Bohm has very convincing arguments,
> some of which I have quoted in this thread on "active information". 
BJ: Eddington, B. Russell, Schrodinger and Wm James are also good on this 
point.
> 
> Bohm clearly shows that nonlocality plus the
> form-dependence/intensity-independence are desiderata for any theory of
> mind. Operating from the premise of "more with less", it is clear that
> one should attempt a theory in which the quantum properties of matter
> are thoughtlike in a fundamental sense. I use "fundamental" the way
> Chalmers does. In this, Stapp, Penrose, Herbert, Wolf, Josephson, myself
> and others are all in qualitative agreement. 
> 
BJ: And high time, too. Now! We need to be a lot more clear about which
"properties of matter" we wish to include in the official ontology of QM. 
(This is an essential point which these other guys usually shy away from
because the implications are too weird.) (This is where I come in;)
> Mind is right there. There is plenty of room for mind as a fundamental
> physical phenomena "at the bottom". But, conscious mind is not possible
> in the world of classical necessity or in the world of quantum chance.
> It requires the post-quantum back-action on the edge between chance and
> necessity (in Monod's sense). 
> 
BJ: So how is back-action different from regular old feedback and/or 
self-referentiality?
> This is a pretty elegant Zen-like theory with Einstein's sense of
> "naturalness" and "inner perfection" that demystifies all the nonsense
> on the subject. It is science. It is testable. It makes surprising
> predictions e.g. conscious superfluids given appropriate I/O sensors. It
> is compatible with the idea that the Frohlich modes in microtubules are
> the physical seat of the soul. It is compatible with Worden's very
> interesting model on how the brain constructs internal representations
> of the 3D world.
BJ: After brooding over this one for some while now, I am now willing to 
pontificate to this extent: Perhaps a kind of Bose-Einstein condensate is 
at work. Possibly the microtubules do provide a fine architecture for the 
mind/brain. This is work for the experimentalists.
> > 
> > Maybe, but maybe not.  The earliest ideas of collapse seemed to bring an
> > element of observation, or even consciousness, into the picture.  This has
> > caused some physicist, such as E. Wigner, to posit that quantum mechanics
> > plays a role in consciousness.  I state that there is no proof that QM
> > plays an active role in consciousness, but there are some compelling
> > reasons to think that it might.  Check out Stapp's web sight for a more
> > complete arguement.  In effect a classical "nearest Neighbor" approach is
> > not capable of giving the sort of wholeness of the integral mind the
> > quantum locality appears to be capable of.  
BJ: Stapp's book is out, too.
Now it might be that classical
> > mechanics has some cards up it sleeves.  After all the recent development
> > in chaos theory has lead to a wide frontier in classical mechanics.  It
> > might be that there are other aspects of Newtonian-Hamiltonian mechanics
> > that we are deaf and blind to.
BJ: Somebody hold me back.
> 
> No classical chaos theory will not do by itself. Classical chaos still
> depends exclusively on form-independent/intensity-dependent forces. 
BJ: Not too hasty, tho' ...
If
> you read Bohm on "active information" you will get my point. One needs
> the nonlocality and form-dependence (i.e. context-dependence) and
> intensity-indendence as necessary features of mind. One also needs
> back-action. In short,
> nonlocality, form-dependence/intensity-independence, and back-action
> form a sufficient set of physical conditions to solve the hard problem
> of mind-brain theory as a purely physics problem. 
> 
BJ: No, not sufficient, but pretty good for now. 
> > 
> > Don't worry about this destroying intellectual institutions.  The
> > politically correct left and the patriotically correct right have made far
> > greater steps in the destruction of academia.
> 
BJ: In the end this business will transform our intellectual view of the 
world.
> I will second that. We gallant few here on the World Wide Web are the
> hope of the future. The old tenured physics farts have sold their souls
> for their retirement plans. They are not the men they used to be. They
> have failed to create a young generation to take their place.
> 
BJ: Too harsh! I like to think of myself as a monster of their creation. 
After all, where would I be without generations of academicians offering up 
their treasures for my bewilderment?

On 6 Jan 1997, Esa Sakkinen wrote:
> Why light do not disperse noticeably when bending in gravitation lens?
> Light is kinda white light although a little bit redshifted.
> 
> I think I know answer but I want to get more or better information.
> Could you help me?
> 
> Esa
> 
BJ: Wonderful question! I would bet big $ that a gravitational lense can
produce chromatic aberrations. For the sake of simplicity, take a constant
G: Blue light, having more energy than red light, and thus more mass, will
be deflected more strongly. Someday I mean to inveigle Baez into giving a 
tensor representation of this phenomena - color and all. (If you listen 
carefully, you can hear him screaming even now.)

cybroid@mindspring.com (Brian) wrote:
>"John D. Gwinner"  wrote:
>>Brian  wrote in article
>><32d1bc08.3611023@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>I thought that's quite an old theory, and no longer much in vogue.  The
>>current theories are that the asteroid belt was a planet that did not form
>>out of planitesimals during the Solar System accretion phase, probably due
>>to harmonic effects of nearby Jupiter.
>Yes, it is an old theory.
Van Flandern has posted about his theory on the net before.  His
theory is readily falsified, although he never admitted it.  In
particular, oxygen isotope evidence from meteorites show that they
could never have been part of a single planet-sized parent body, as do
the small-scale isotopic heterogenieties in CAIs from carbonaceous
chondrites.  Uranium dating of meteorites show that they are far older
than VF's theory admits (over 4 billion years vs. a few tens of
millions.)  He responded to these fatal objections by vague allusions
to nuclear effects from the explosion, but didn't explain what those
could be -- not surprising, since general arguments show they can't
work.
	Paul

gOn Tue, 07 Jan 1997 10:58:03 -0500
ca314159 
as message <32D2728B.2A4B@bestweb.net>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
[snip]
>|   Something to be said for the NASA like attention to detail is
>|the classical managment control of quality, whereas long-term quality
>|these days is useless when obsolescence rules. Look at all those
>|beutifully engineered IBM XT's built to last forever; lying in the
>|dumpsters.
At least all those XT's and AT's make good, almost free raw material (people
sometimes pay me to take them off thier hands) for all sorts of dedicated
little computer projects.
Erikc -- firewevr@insync.net
Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
Wanna see how sick some fundies are?
http://www.christiangallery.com/    (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger (sicker than ever)
/* Finest Christian porn on the 'Net */

In <5auv7h$a7u@clarknet.clark.net> prb@clark.net (pat) writes:
>Yes the ground current will flow from the appliance into
>drain pipe.  however, a voltage gradient will be created
>in the water, which will run through all submerged parts of
>the victim.  for instance victim standing.
Now this reminds me of an interesting issue - the one about earth-leakage
core-balance relays, and how they are the 'supposed' panacea of electrical
safety.
The standard reasoning for installing them (BTW, here in Australia they are
compulsory for all new and refurbished buildings) is safety when using power
tools, and satefy around wet environments. Particularly bathrooms.
Now, most new buildings, especially residential buildings, use plastic
piping. So, how can an ELCBR protect you in a plastic bathtub with a
*plastic* drainpipe? It can't, because there is no earth through the
drainpipe, so there is no earth leakage current to detect. However, the
person in the water will definitely be electrocuted because the water is
still forming a path from active to neutral, with the person in question
immersed in this water.
>a similar problem exists for sub-station workers for the
>power company.  a failure of high-tension in a transformer
>creates gradient voltages in the soil, sufficient to kill the
>workers.  sub-station workers are trained to take small steps
>and keep their feet together to minimze risks.
I drive electric passenger trains around Sydney for a job, and I've seen
some very nasty side effects of earths coming astray, etc. Our system is
1500 volt DC BTW.
Regards,
Craig.
-- 
            Craig Dewick. Send email to 'cdewick@lios.apana.org.au'
   Point a web browser at 'http://lios.apana.org.au/~cdewick/sun_ark.html' to
       access my collection of Sun information and links to other places.

In article <32C79094.6BE0@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>, 
klaus.kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de says...
>
>Michael Ramsey wrote:
>> 
<< In article <32C4F30D.69F1@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>,
<< klaus.kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de says...
<> and into the past).  These waves provide a feedback mechanism which allows
>> distant matter to "push back" and resist the acceleration of matter, thus
>> producing inertia. 
>
>I don't think that this is a supportable statement.
>After all, it is an *interpretation* of a theory, viz. quantum 
>mechanics. Which means, it is the *same* theory, not making
>any predictions different from those of quantum mechanics.
>And I don't believe that quantum mechanics implements
>Mach's principle. It does much less so than general 
>relativity which has at least some Mach-like elements
>(such as the Lense-Thirring effect, for example).
I understand your point.  Still, one of the predictions of the Transactional
interpretation is ... inertia.  Interesting that it also explains the 
two-slit result.  It is consistent with the hypothesus (SR) that the 
photon doesn't experience time.  Just about all of the quantum puzzels find a 
straight forward explanation without losing history (Many Worlds) or needing 
a brain to cause the wave function to collapse (Orthodox).
Occam's razor.  Still, there might be some testable predictions.  The work 
with Quantum non-interaction measurements should shed more light on exactly 
what is being blocked.  Maybe de Broglie-Bohm's pilot wave interpretation 
will win.
I can't wait!
--Best regards,
--Mike

In article <19970107141600.JAA29660@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>In article  ,
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>,
><>In article ,
><> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
><>
><>, ca314159
><< writes:
><><>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
><><>> 
><><>> No contradiction here.  You are free to select any set of
>generalized
><><>> coordinates you wish (within some broad limits at least.  Once
>you've
><><>> selected some set then the Lagrangian will give you the conjugate
><><>> momenta (it is not the coordinates that are conjugate one to another
><><>> but the coordinates and the momenta.
>>><>> 
><><>    Does all this stem from the fact that differential measurements
><><>    are implied ? In the sense that one doesn't measure an EEG using
><><>    two electrodes but instead three (or more) to obtain common
><><>    mode rejection. Similarly interferometry and double slit 
><><>    experiments have this dualism built into them. Isn't this
><><>    complementary nature of certain variables resulting from
><><>    the elimination of an absolute frame of reference then ?
><>
><><><><><><>
><>Isn't it because we only perceive existence in 3-d (length x width x
><>breadth)?
><>
>
>If our perception of the physicality of the universe were in four
>dimensions, we would be describing relationships of the physical
>properties with third order differential equations, wouldn't we?
>
No, why.  The SR space is 4D and physical processes are still 
described by second order differential equations.  On the other hand 
you've 4th order equations in elasticity, though it works in a 3D 
space.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"