Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: =green@pipeline.com= (Word Warrior)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 16:21:44 GMT
"Robert Imrie, DVM" wrote:
>~Word Warrior~ wrote:
>> "Robert Imrie, DVM" wrote:
>>Word Warrior wrote:
>> >> People properly nourished in clean surroundings won't
>> >> get cancer at all.
>> > I sincerely hope this is a joke, because there's not the tiniest bit of
>> > evidence to suggest it is true.
>> That's not quite the case.
>Actually, it is the case -- but don't take my word for it.
I could ask somebody from Love Canal, for example.
>> > And there's a mountain of evidence indicating it's false.
>> Specify. Go ahead and cite an example.
>Sorry.
Substantiation unspecified.
> You're going to have to do your homework for yourself.
I have, which is why I mention contaminants and the
inability of the body to cleanse itself of them
adequately as causes of abnormal cell growths.
> I will,
>however, point you in the right direction. If you've got a solid
>background in biology, biochemistry, and genetics, as well as well as a
>good medical dictionary and access to a medical library, you might try
>looking in any basic oncology text. Even some under-grad genetics texts
>discuss the fundamentals of neoplastic transformation and oncogenesis.
>Many basic virology and toxicology texts deal with these issues as well.
Your point remains unsubstantiated.
Nowhere in such literature does anyone attempt to
claim that pollution can't be at least among the
causes of such disease processes, much less
actually offer evidence of such.
>If you don't have a very strong background in the areas I mentioned,
>your best bet would probably be to ask an M.D, a veterinarian, or some
>other science-based medical practitioner to discuss the issue with you.
I've already discussed it with a former department
chair of a university medical school, which is why
I quoted what I did.
>Of course, if you know any geneticists, biologists, or biochemists, they
>would do quite nicely as well. You might learn a lot by asking various
>"alternative" practitioners the same questions, but I advise against it
>-- because most of what you learn is liable to be incorrect. ;-)
Your advice remains without substantiation.
>> So can =you= prove the stupid rock came from Mars?
>Nope. Can't prove it at all. However, having read a summary of the
>analysis to which it was subjected, I think its Martian origins have
>been established with reasonable certainty.
Specify.
>Good luck,
There is no such thing as luck.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Respectfully, Sheila ~~~Word Warrior~~~ green@pipeline.com|
|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: New Bad Astronomy Addition (1/7/97)
From: hyyue@cse.cuhk.edu.hk (Teacher A)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 13:01:31 GMT
Phil C. Plait (pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
> Hello net.folks:
> There is a new addition to my Bad Astronomy page:
> "The Moon appears larger on the horizon because
> you are comparing it to foreground objects."
This is really bad, I mean the book didn't said out the main point.
however, I do not said that the point that the book point out is wrong,
because if the moon is near the horizon, our brain will confuse about the
real size of the moon. but, when this compare with the effect in physics,
such as reflaction, this point is seem to be to minor one.
I gusses, Phil C.plait said this is bad is due to it only said out the
minor point while the miss the main.
In science, if you do so, it is said to be bad.
--
·RÄRµ·°Ý¤p¥Õ¨ß»¡: ½Ð§A§i¶D§Ú,§ÚÀ³¸Ó¨«¨º¤@±ø¸ô?
¤p¥Õ¨ß§i¶D·RÄRµ·»¡: ¨ºn¬Ý§A§Æ±æ©¹¨º¸Ì¨«!
Warmest,
Teacher A.
*************************
* *
* Pager number:77736858 *
* *
*************************
,, ; ;; ,,;;;'
'; ,,;;''' ;;, ,,, '''
,; ';;;''';;; , ;;
,,;''' ,,,, ,,, ,,;;;;;;;;;;; ,;;;' ; ;; ,
''' ,, ,,,'' ,' ;' ,,;;'''';,,;; ,, '' ;' ;' ;;;'
'' ' ,;;' '''' ,,;';;;, ;; ;;, ;; ,;';;,,
,,'' '; ''; ,;;;;;' ,, ;; ;;' ;;;' ;;
, ,''' ;, ,,;;,;;'' ' ' ,;;
; ' ';' ; ,, ;; ;;'';,;'''';, ,;';;
;;,;' ,, ; ,,;;',, ,;' ,;' ;;
' ,' ,,' ,;;' '' '' ' ;;
'; ';;; ';
Subject: Re: Coincidence ! (or what ? :-)
From: thomasl283@aol.com (ThomasL283)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 17:55:30 GMT
> Keith Stein wrote:
>>In article , "Thomas N. Lockyer"
> writes
>>>The mass ratio for both the proton and neutron can be calculated from
just the
>>>fine structure constant, using a geometric model. It's on my web page.
Set
>>>your computer to double precision and check it out!
>>>Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm
>
>>Thanks Tom.
>>
>> I very rarely go surfing,but this I GOT TO SEE. It sure sounds GREAT!
>>Just what I was after. Thanks Tom.
> Sorry to say this Tom, but couldn't find any computer program on
>your web page, but perhaps I missunderstood. If you really do have a
>program which derives the proton/electron mass ratio, I would really
>like to see it. Could you perhaps post it onto this thread Tom ?
--
>Keith Stein
Keith; The equations are summations and you will need to insert them into
some math software
that will accept them. I use Mathcad and simultaneously calculate both
dimensionally and
numerically. I am not a mathematician, but I find that the math software
is a great leveler. There
is a computer program in the book, but it is 400 lines of code and does
the summations as a loop
subroutine.
This news group format is not good for typing equations, that is why they
were put up on the web
pages. I would rather refer to the web page, for the equations, rather
than clutter the news
group with long posts.
Several people have used the information on the web page and have said the
model works as
advertized. By doing the work, it makes the results more dramatic for the
reviewer.
BTW: Experimentally, the final ultimate decay products for any decay are
just electrons and
neutrinos (and the stable proton). This model shows that good results are
possible by reversing
the process. The proton and neutron models are composed of electrons and
neutrinos, and are
the first models to ever give the mass and difference in mass between the
proton and neutron.
Further, the model requires the known decay electron and neutrino when
the neutron decays into
a proton. Not only that, but the model's scaling gives the mass
contribution of the decay electron
and neutrino, exactly. The decay includes the electrical potential energy
between the electron and
neutrino, when part of the neutron, thus giving the model's approach
credibility.
There is no question that this model is A correct model, the computer
tells us that. The only
debate is; is this model THE' correct model.
The standard quark model is no competition, because the quark model
simply does not work at
this level of ordinary matter.
Regards: Tom. http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: bob tarantino
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:46:26 GMT
Leonard Timmons wrote:
>
> 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.
Wil Milan wrote:
I wasted a couple of years majoring in psychology, so I probably know
the holes in psychology better than most. And there is much to criticize
about modern psychology. Some aspects of it are quite well established
and quantifiable, however, and modern IQ tests are much better in this
regard than you may realize. In fact, the repeatability and
verifiability of IQ measurements are probably much better than the
determination of distances to distant galaxies, and we definitely still
consider that science.
I have some real misgivings about IQ tests and how they're interpreted
and used, but it's not all junk either.
Wil Milan
======================================================
I believe that this topic is directly related to how people relate to the
possibility of Extraterrestrial life. One might ask a person "If jack's son
is my son's father, how am I related to Jack"? The person who answers "his
son" would probably have a higher IQ that most. However, how many could
intuitively see the symbolism of the pathway painted in the background of the
"Mona Lisa" by DaVinci? Are they related? Logical and creative reasoning are
very different and directly related to the determination of the validity of
evidence. Consider the following from a recent issue of "Psychology Today":
"Creative people alternate between imagination and fantasy, and a rooted sense
of reality". "...Great art and great science involve a leap of imagination
into a world a that is different from the present. The rest of society often
views these new ideas as fantasies without relevance to current reality. And
they are right. But the whole point of art and science is to go beyond what
we now consider real and create a new reality. At the same time, this
‘escape’ is not into a never-never land. What makes a novel idea creative is
that once we see it, sooner or later we recognize that, strange as it is, it
is true. Most of us assume that artists-musicians, writers, poets,
painters-are strong on the fantasy side, whereas scientists, politicians, and
business people are realists. This may be true in terms of day-to-day routine
activities. But when a person begins to work creatively, all bets are off."
The difference here is between divergent and convergent thinking, and I
believe that IQ tests are now being re-written to adjust for these different
types of approaches. Think of the brilliance of Leonardo. His genius was not
limited to the left side of his cerebellum. His drawings of the internal
structures of the human body are still in use today, not to mention those of
water flowing that show details now proven with high speed photography. One
of the NASA scientists who was working on the Mars rock took pictures of it
taken by electron microscope home and asked his teenage daughter what she
thought it was. She replied "bacteria".
-bob tarantino
Subject: Re: Harmonic Resonance
From: gtaylor@shell1.msn.fullfeed.com (Gregory Taylor)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 14:56:44 GMT
In article <5aue6b$6q4$1@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
>Actually, evidence has it that "Aboriginals" of other cultures who have
>no prior exposure to Western music do *not* catch on to it right away.
Some emailed me to ask if I was the person who'd been going on at some
length on the notion of "universal" musical features over in rec.music.
classical a while back. Reading through this thread, I guess I know why
they'd ask. I beg the indulgence of those of you who've seen this before
(seems like I wind up posting it once a year), but it seems to me that
this is somewhat germane to the point that Matt is making (he's entirely
right, incidentally - there's a nice story about a Balinese audience
hearing their first Beethoven told by Colin MacPhee in (I think) "A
House in Bali" in which the comment at length *not* upon the features of
the work, but what it lacks - a drummer to provide some order and a little
refinement of the soul on LvB's part (as evidenced by the chaotic and
"wailing" quality of the work). There's also the story about a missionary
bunch in Shanhai trying to figure out why their congretations had "Yes,
Jesus Loves Me" down pat but seemed unable to recognize the "greatness" of
"Guide Me, Oh Thou Great Jehovah...."
One of the quickest ways to look at "universal" features is to listen across
cultures. A questionsposed by this idea that we judge a work of music only
by some appeal to a vague notion like "beauty" which is an "objective"
quality of "what we hear" winds up touching on what happens when we
"hear" work whose codes are hidden from us by cultural difference. Of course,
our own experience tells us that we can really enjoy or be moved by all kinds
of thing which are *way* outside of our cultural frame of reference - work
which, if we're pretty suspicious, might actually have nothing to do with the
same criteria for quality that a "native" listener might "hear." To the extent
to which we might be uncomfortable with the idea of simply pitching out any of
those things we'd need to know to modify our judgments of quality, a likely
course to pursue would be to take the notion that we "just hear" something,
and to then wonder about what features of the "music" we listen to might be
thought of as somehow "universal." In order to do this, we look at musical
behaviour as it exists in the world. The other approach is to wonder about a
kind of universalism of perception (i.e. music cognition). I'm sure that
there are lots of other folks better qualified to discuss this than me. But I
am interested in and have done some study on the way that the question of
this idea of universals has been talked about by Ethnomusicologists; that
study has had a considerable effect on how I think about *lots* of different
kinds of human activities.
A while back, there was a similar kind of discussion over in
rec.music.classical which forced me to do some reading and dig out some old
lecture/paper/presentation notes from the days when my beloved was doing her
Ph.D. at Cornell. It looks like it dates from '82 or '83. While the historical
portion is probably a good summary of the notes from the field, it ought to
be pointed out that this is in no way exhaustive, and could maybe use an update.
I owe a fair amount of credit to some presentations by Merriam and
Bruno Nettl, who get quoted extensively here. It is *they* who are the
thinkers here, with me merely the amanuensis. I've run the stuff here past
some folks who're still quite active in the field, and the feedback I got is
that it's still a pretty reasonable account of the status of the idea of
"universals" as hunted for by the larger community of Ethnomusicology. One
friend claims that there's a back issue of the journal "Ethnomusicology"
from the late 70s/early 80s dedicated to these issues.
Of course, the interesting thing to contemplate is that our Ethnomusicological
forebearers went out into the world to gather data for and (they thought)
to codify precisely the kind of wooly "objective" features that we'd need to
have to make sweeping claims about the "universal" features of a given musical
feature. They were, in fact, *sure* it was out there when they left. However,
they actually went out and looked, and what they found altered their views.
As it started out, the idea of musical universals was a seductive view - while
all the customs of the world multiplied and got strange and so on, we could
always fall back on this notion that "music" was intelligeable to *everyone.*
The guiding assumptions of this suggested that there was only one set of
"universal" rules of music [at that time, they were thought to be rooted more
in acoustics rather than neurons] which were universally valid - either because
all "other" kinds of music were either degenerative (or generative) stages
or because X was the only "true" music.
But that's the late 19th century [Romanticism, Colonialism, cultural imperial-
ism, etc.]. By the twentieth century, the data started to come in from the
field in earnest. It continues to. By the time we start getting the field data
back and the major figures of the field in the early-mid 20th c. start
writing, the ethnoids look at the data and - surprise! - they don't buy
the notion. This includes Sachs, Jaap Kunst, Merriam, Hornbostel. In fact,
it's not until really the late 60s/early 70s that ethnoids like Mantle Hood
and John Blacking really got into things again. In part, that return to
the question is prompted by developments *outside* of the data itself, most
notably linguistics as Noam Chomsky did them, Structuralism, etc. Some folks
might say that the Ethnomusicology of the 1960s couldn't happen until the
antiuniversalism which arose from the field work of the early part of the
century had established itself and then began to overstate its case, with the
new interest being refined and restated.
It's safe to say that folks who looked into the subject in the the 60s found
themselves in a similar position to those folks who discuss the experimental
evidence which suggests that the brains of men and women are hardwired
differently; In addition to having some difficulty building from the low
level to high level of function, they additionally had to account for a fair
amount of empirical data that undercut a strictly determinist view - it simply
appeared that there was as great a range of behaviour and competence *within*
the groups of like-wired individuals as *across* the boundaries, and that
the cultural or environmental "non-universals" seemed to have much more to
do with that. The "universals," once discovered, just didn't get folks the
distance that the Universalists claimed.
If, as ethnomusicologists during this century have had to do, you wind up
with data that doesn't support the naive 19th century Universalist view of music
in which different kinds of musical behaviour are more or less waystations on
the way to the [fill in dominant bias], what problems obtain? It seems like
there are two basic problems:
1. Coming up with some kind of conceptual framework that's sufficiently broad to
be useful across any imaginable cultural or temporal difference.
2. Coming up with the specific thing that all musics have in common.
As they did it, ethnomusicologists wanted to find those features
that are ubiquitous, actually *fit* the definition of music, and as a final
bit of work, exclude what could be regarded as music but isn't actually done.
In short, define the outer boundaries and then tell us what's really in the
circle as empirically verifiable human practice. That's rather a tall order,
and might suggest why one would be circumspect undertaking such an activity.
In the anecdotal sense, I find it much simpler to begin from the simple
observations that definitions are done by persons, and to look at the community
and context in which human activity occurs; much simpler.
I'd like to return for a minute to the "ubiquity" aspect of the discussions that
ethnoids have about musical universals. What us poststructuralist types would
call a "totalizing discourse" would train their heat seekers on that right away
in terms of talking about what it means. Are those universals things which are
present in every instant of musical sound [that obviously is connected to the
definition of music]. Having set up the universal, one ought to be able to
instantly distinguish it from all other kinds of sound - silence (!?), speech,
insects, machinery, wind. Even if you don't believe the anecdotal evidence of
your own ears [which are occasionally fooled by mimicry of any number of sorts],
all that data collecting from up and down the world seems to add up to nearly
every ethnoid I ever met as "not bloody likely" for an outcome.
Beating a hasty and well-advised retreat, the bruised universalist might
recoup by asking whether there is anything which is present in every example
of musical behaviour. The basic units. Note that we're not going for the grand
sweep of knotted ganglia; all we want is a list of what everyone who
says they do music has in common with everyone else. I resort again to my old
lecture notes from this symposium on musical universals that must date from
when my wife was at Cornell. The list is even more dreary than I remember it,
and I'd really hoped that I'd written down some of the more interesting
exceptions to what seemed to me at the time to be patently obvious things
that everyone did. From the vast store of Ethnomusicological data, here's a
reasonably agreeable list:
More or less clearly marked ends and beginnings.
Variable levels of simplicity and complexity.
The musical thing is composed of sub-things.
There is always more than one minimal unit [Cage has three sections in 4'33"]
The sub units may be exchanged for one another to make new things.
Some redundancy prevails, some repetition, some variety, and that groups
of persons practicing these behaviours articulate them by means which may
slightly resemble texture, rhythm, or sequences of pitched or non-pitched
material [this was a hotly contested issue, particularly when one of the panel
used the word "melody" and there was considerable anecdotal discussion
about whether or not culture X has a concept of "melody."]
I saved the most interesting for last, and my notes are a little cryptic,
so I could be off a bit. The panel seemed to agree that there was some level
of simplicity and complexity beyond which the large majority in a kinship group
or culture do not venture; There seems to be a widespread tendency for some
kind of perceptual bandwidth - even if a culture's definition of musical
behaviour is broad, many do not venture to the edges of the definition.
There's a third approach which follows the sensible pullback from *that
outpost of universalism, and at that point I can start to pay more serious
attention to it.
The battered Universalist draws back, wisely regroups, and heads for what
might be seen as safe harbor; Are there any sorts of things that are
found in each musical system? [we're talking about plural *musics* here,
of course] Are these musics or [if you want to go to the wall for a definition
that describes music as a language (not me, boss. That lifeboat's *way* too
leaky)] dialects somehow in some way alike? Are there any individual
characteristics which are present in all of 'em? They don't have to be
found in "every" musical behaviour, just within the broad categories of some
"group" [I'll avoid the rows that ensue the moment one starts creating
"boundaries" for social groups and "run roughshod" over what I think is
an interesting and valid line of discussion].
I think that this is more or less the view that ethnomusicologists began to
pursue in earnest when they returned to thinking about "universals" in the
70s. At this point, it ought to become clear *why* it might be possible to
describe the possibility of cross-temporal and cross-cultural features in
a less boneheaded manner; it quite simply allows for the discussion of
both "acoustical" and "behavioural" parts.
So, what appears from the fieldwork on *this* one? No as much as one might
imagine, actually; here, from my copious notations, is what shows up:
1. It would appear that all cultures have singing.
2. In the vast majority of those cultures, there's a primary melodic interval
that bears a vague resemblance to something in the territory of a major
second [and I'm playing *extremely* loose with observations about tuning
here in the interests of charity] - that is, between 75 to 250 cents
somewhere. It's actually rather rare to even find cultures in which
pieces progress exclusively by thirds or fourths, or half or quarter
tones. In fact, the musics of the Native South American populations are
of interest precisely because *they* do.
3. Pieces tend to descend at the end. The data suggest that they're not
all uniform in terms of their beginning, however.
4. Some internal variation and repetition occurs.
5. They have a structure based on the length of events and dynamic stresses.
Not exactly earth-shaking, huh? But by now, we're starting to talk about
the observations of "behaviour" as a social phenomenon also. So, what kinds
of "universals" in the sense I defined above might ethnoids agree on in
terms of the ways that people in groups conceptualize music? Obviously,
the literature I'm familiar with discusses and disputes on *this* kind of
question at great length. Here's what seems to be a short and relatively
uncontroversial list:
1. "Musical behaviour" is associated with the supernatural.
2. "Musical behaviour" is composed of artifacts or objects of units which
tend to be uniquely identified. This identification takes a dizzying
variety of forms; by performer, by ritual, by place, by creator, by
object, by title. One doesn't merely sing. One sings *something.*
3. There are associations made between speech, dance, and musical behaviour.
4. When viewed as self-contained system, various musics have some common
properties in terms of the systems themselves; differential levels of
musicality [this is considerably broader than the talent/profession
aspects of the question], tradition-carrying networks, and something
resembling the idea of a "repertoire."
And at *this* point, the clever and well-read ethnoid back from the field or
at least cognizant of the rest of the world starts studying the extent to
which the social dynamics of musical behaviour as a cultural activity start
doing interesting things like, say, producing bodies of work which run
contrary to the "universal" "acoustic" phenomena I mentioned earlier.
I think that some interesting work in the field involves looking
at the ah... "statistical universals" [we all more or less do this some of
the time when we say we are talking about music]. I came away from looking
and reading with the rather simple conclusion that the looking at musical
behaviour as a social construction tended to take me much farther then
building my edifice out of the amazing "universals" which all that field
work brought home during this century. That's (in part) how I got here, and
it's also one of the reasons that I tend to get a bit itchy when I hear
talk which presupposes universal effects..
>I suppose that person has never heard a song, been to a movie with a
>dramatically linked soundtrack, or seen any television.
>
>The very notion of music moving the emotions is foreign to some people.
>To others, the link between music and emotions operates powerfully
>along routes largely unknown in the west (could you pick out the
>raga of odiousness?).
>
>
>--
>Matt Fields URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
--
When I pronounce the word Future,/the first syllable already belongs to the
past./When I pronounce the word Silence,/I destroy it./When I pronounce the
word Nothing,/I make something no nonbeing can hold./ (Wislawa Szymborska)
Gregory Taylor WORT-FM URL:http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/~gtaylor/RTQE.html
Subject: Re: circuit diagram for bathtub electrocution?
From: Chris Crochet
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:19:37 -0800
Jan Zumwalt wrote:
>
> I found this discussion quite interesting as I have chosen to add a section
> on electronic safety to my web. Misconceptions such as are found here could
> prove potentially quit dangers!
>
> 1) Only pure distilled water is non conductive, tap water makes a very good
> conductor due to contaminants and mineral content. Therefore a person in
> contact with an electrical device in water is as good as touching it.
Not always. Baton Rouge tap water is, in fact, pure enough that it is
an extremely poor conductor.
> 2) Electricity does not have to travel "through" a person to be lethal.
> Most things including our bodies have capacitance, death comes quit easily
> from "charging". ^0 cycles is particularly dangerous since human
> capacitance is very responsive to this frequency.
>
> 3) While a direct current of 200ma is considered the minimum current
> necessary DIRECTLY across i.e. in contact with the heart, to kill in
> practice it takes several amps externally to become lethal. There are
> exception of coarse. For example I saw an electrocution killed from bending
> over a 110v light switch and the contacts touched his forehead. He died in
> several minutes. This is a good example of electricity NOT traveling
> THROUGH the body, as he was on a dry tiled floor!
He must have been contacting a ground *somewhere*. 120Vac cannot kill
you by contact with one wire. One wire fatalities are only possible
with much higher voltage or frequency sources. Note that concrete and
similar compounds are often, depending on composition, very *good*
conductors, contrary to popular belief.
> 3) Even if a person does not die instantly from immediate electrocution,
> they very may well soon die there after. As we all know, electricity
> travels the path of least resistance. Small voltages travel less than an
> inch or two (say 400V) before resistance does them in - at best traveling
> through nerve fibers which make great conductors.
>
> On the other hand high voltages prefer to penetrate to the bone marrow
> which then offers even lower resistance. I do not know the reason for this
> and except for the facts would consider it unreasonable. Now, when a person
> receives a high voltage jolt(guessing 1000+) they very well may live, that
> is for 5-7 days. The bone marrow is completely killed and the body
> degenerates from lack of blood cell production. I have seen persons that
> have received 2000v jolts that severed their fingers (thus saving their
> lives) but required amputation of both legs and arms due to bone marrow
> destruction.
Actually, the most common cause of post-electrocution death is liver and
kidney failure. When tissue of any kind is damaged by electricity, it
releases a gummy compound (I forget the name) that, eventually, will
clog those two organs up and kill them.
> Epilog
> The electric chair has drawn considerable criticism for its humanness
> because it uses about 500V. Onlookers and medical professional attest that
> death frequently is excruciating and sometimes prolonged. There have been
> instances of persons receiving 3-5 shocks of 10-15 seconds with apparent
> conscience.
>
> I hope this shows the seriousness of safety shows
> A persons
> --
> Hope this helps!
> ----------------------------------------------
> Jan W. Zumwalt - Engineer
> Computer Information Systems
> zumwalt@alaska.net
> http://www.alaska.net/~zumwalt
> *****************************************************************
> * Beware the man of one book. - Chinese proverb *
> * The only real equality is found in a cemetary. - German *
> * The one thing not so common, is COMMON SENSE! -USA *
> * Beware the opinion of a person who has used only one OS! -JZ *
> *****************************************************************
>
> bwsmith@cadsmith.com wrote in article <5atduv$sbo@mozart.jlc.net>...
> : In article <5arhiv$o0b@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
> : laird@puritan.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) wrote:
> : >Over lunch, the topic of bathtub electrocution came
> : >up (from a scene in a movie). I've thought about it
> : >a few times, but I've never gotten a good grasp of
> : >the circuit involved.
> : >
> : >O.k....let's say that you're in an insulated (enamel-
> : >coated?) bathtub with (grounded) metal drain. The
> : >tub is filled with water to some height. A non-
> : >waterproof device connected to 120VAC mains is dropped
> : >in the tub with you. What happens?
> : >
> : Interesting problem. However, most newer homes now being built with
> : fiberglass tubs and plastic drain pipe.
> : Is there an alternative method perhaps delivering the voltage thru the
> supply
> : pipes, say when the subject reaches for the faucet? How about closing
> the
> : circuit in fiberglass tub? Could you employ wiring to metal towel rack
> : adjacent to tub?
> :
> : BW Smith
> :
> : >As an extreme, consider a person standing in the
> : >tub at the opposite end from the drain. The water
> : >is ankle-deep. The electrical device is turned on
> : >and placed right on top of the drain. I wouldn't
> : >expect a fatal outcome.
> : >
> : >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
> : >paths to ground which *don't* go through the heart
> : >is not going to cut it.
> : >
> :
> : ================================================
> : CADSmith Studio~~Design Services For The Building Industry
> : http://www.cadsmith.com/ ==== email: bwsmith@cadsmith.com
> :
Subject: Re: Time and its existance
From: Hermital
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:23:35 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------B5B33ACF20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello, David:
Has something happened to your e-mail server? See attachment for the
result of my effort to send you an e-mail message.
--------------B5B33ACF20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="MONROE.WRI"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MONROE.WRI"
From - Wed Jan 08 13:08:43 1997
Return-Path:
Received: from cdshub.cdc.com (mailhub1.cdc.com [129.179.161.9])
by nt2.iamerica.net (post.office MTA v1.9.3b ID# 0-11694)
with ESMTP id AAA589 for ;
Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:04:34 -0600
Return-Path: <>
Received: by cdshub.cdc.com; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 12:58:52 -0600
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 12:58:52 -0600
From: Postmaster@cdshub.cdc.com
To: hermital@livingston.net
cc: Postmaster@cdshub.cdc.com
Subject: Undeliverable mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="=_mh.ndn.12d7.0254.32d3ee6c_="
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 3337
--=_mh.ndn.12d7.0254.32d3ee6c_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Your message was not delivered to the following recipients:
David.Monroe@cdc.com: User unknown
--=_mh.ndn.12d7.0254.32d3ee6c_=
Content-Type: message/delivery-status
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reporting-MTA: dns;cdshub.cdc.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;David.Monroe@cdc.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
--=_mh.ndn.12d7.0254.32d3ee6c_=
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Received: from [207.22.194.10] by cdshub.cdc.com with ESMTP; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 12:58:52 -0600
Received: from tel_ppp0036.livingston.net ([207.22.211.35])
by nt2.iamerica.net (post.office MTA v1.9.3b ID# 0-11694)
with SMTP id AAA454 for ;
Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:04:08 -0600
Message-ID: <32D40AC3.7185@livingston.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 12:59:47 -0800
From: hermital@livingston.net (hermital)
Reply-To: hermital@livingston.net
Organization: Consciousness/Holographic Paradigm
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.time-travel
To: Dave Monroe
Subject: Re: Time and its existance
References: <511vlk$g6p@hil-news-svc-3.compuserve.com> <01bbe547$3d5d8b40$4b0d44ab@prsingh-pc.cisco.com> <32AC5F38.148@space.mit.edu> <01bbe79d$612c5e40$bad044ab@prsingh-pc.cisco.com> <58nc7i$dhp@usenet.rpi.edu> <32b3dd69.10131602@news.demon.co.uk> <58s7it$lir@usenet.rpi.edu> <58uutc$q7i@usenet.rpi.edu> <58v7us$hht@trojan.neta.com> <58vb7v$qoq@usenet.rpi.edu> <32b5b39e.3988264@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <59q63r$q2@news-e2c.gnn.com> <32D3E403.5059@cdc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Wed 1/8/97 13:14 -0500 Dave Monroe wrote:
>
> D J Green wrote:
> > This is a contradiction, and shows that outside and before the Universe,
> > nothing could exist. It's my way of disproving the existence of God
> > incidentaly, since nothing could not have formed the Universe from the
> > outside.
> >
>
> Interesting how two people can perceive the same situation
> and draw two opposite conclusions. I've always thought
> that since some force had to set the universe in motion
> in the first place, it would have to have been God. The
> order to 'start' the universe would have to have come from
> outside - assuming there was ever a time it did not exist.
There is, of course, at least one other possibility, Dave.
The scientifically rational Holographic Paradigm describes our
sub-light-speed material universe as a hologram within a hologram within
a hologram, thus the universe did come from something, there was a time
that our universe did not exist, it was started from outside and that
which human beings call God is now also known to be a synergistic
hologram.
--
Alan
When you have a quiet moment, seek egolessness and remember that the
human body and nervous system are merely the organic user interfaces
that interpret holonomic materiality for a unique transcendental entity
that emerges reciprocally within the pre-existing vital energy of
uncreated absolute pure being.
--=_mh.ndn.12d7.0254.32d3ee6c_=--
--------------B5B33ACF20--
Subject: Re: Infinitude of Primes in P-adics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 17:46:44 GMT
From dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Organization CWI, Amsterdam
Date Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:23:21 GMT
Newsgroups sci.math,sci.physics,sci.logic
Message-ID
References 1 2 3
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
This is a problem of *timing*. And a problem of timing is a big deal in
mathematics because mathematics is the science of precision.
Yes I read your previous message.
But you Dik assume that 3 is prime in the first place, do you not, in
order to construct the 3-adics.
Now, then, you construct the 3-adics and I say that the 3 is prime.
But you , Dik , accuse me of saying 3 is not a prime if 3-adics is a
field.
I say to you Dik that we get the primeness of 3 from the special set
of Reals of this set { ...., ..., ...002- , ....002+, ...003+,
....005+,....}
I start with the Reals, and you Dik, I do not know where you started
from. Those special class of Reals, the Whole Reals are prime in Whole
Reals.
So, if 2 or 3, 5, is not prime then Dik, how in the world can you
even start to construct the 2-adics or 3-adics or 5-adics.
Personally I think this is a major problem of mathematics. Everyone
is saying these absolutist things that 3-adics is a field and yet they
do not want to recognize that 3 is prime in order to prove that it is a
field. And after they have proved that 3-adics is a field , they then
want to forget that 3 was prime in the first place in order to prove
that it is a field. All a bit hypocritical, I would say.
So Dik, please tell when in the discussion you want to claim 3 is a
prime number in order to prove 3-adics is a field, and then, when do
you want to renounce that 3 was prime so that you can say that the
3-adics is not a field?
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: Clark Dorman
Date: 08 Jan 1997 11:43:49 -0500
Wil Milan writes:
> jenner wrote:
> >
> > I'll let his TV series, his published works, and his
> > Pulitzer speak for him.
>
> I don't doubt Sagan was a bright guy, but bear in mind that TV ratings
> and Pulitzer prizes are determined by people who are largely ignorant of
> science. Thus Sagan's Pulitzer for _Dragons of Eden_ may be considered
> praise of his writing style, but not the accuracy of the material, which
> was sometimes questionable and at times flat-out wrong.
Sagan was wrong on some things, but aren't we all. I believe that the
catagory for which Sagan won his Pulitzer I believe was not in journalism or
music, but was in the non-fiction catagory. I'd like to think that this
Pulitzer would not be delivered by a bunch of scientific illiterates. The
jurors for last years prize were:
Susan Sheehan, author, journalist, Washington, D.C. (Chairman); Alan
Lightman, author, professor of Science and Writing, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology; Brigitte Weeks, editor-in-chief, Guideposts
Dr. Lightman, at least, teaches in the Physics department at MIT as well as
being in the Humanities department. The other two don't seem to have a lot
in the way of science credentials though they do seem to be good writers.
Look at:
http://www.guideposts.org/authors/authors.weeks.shtml
and
http://www.jazzie.com/ebbco/schpsy.htm
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/atv/atv11pgm-1
On the other hand, they really did deliver the prize to a wonderful work:
"The Beak of the Finch" by J. Weiner, published by Knopf.
--
Clark Dorman "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/D.html -Francis Crick
