Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: mj17624@janus.swipnet.se
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 21:13:25 GMT
kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
> The fact that they have doubled in size does not
>tell us what part was due to acceleration, and what part
>was due to residual velocity of the surfaces.
We don't need to know the components. In the thought experiment, we
don't even need to know T, it just states: given that every object has
a doubling time (that must be the same for all objects), the
attraction is independent of distance (and furtermore, mass).
>The slowing of time allows moving objects to move
>a greater _actual_ distance in each _actual_ unit of time and
>this affects the existing velocities.
> Objects placed in space that appear to us to be
>stationary, actually are movng apart.
We can find out enough by using relative measurements.
> It depends on the density of the meter stick, and
>in order to see the underlying motions, the moving objects
>must move in front of a background grid made of t = 0
>meter sticks. There are no coordinates, and the only
>thing to relate motion and position to is prior motion,
>position and size.
It doesn't matter what the outward velocity and acceleration
are, as long as we know the doubling time. A meter stick will always
be proportional to other objects. A meter is allways a meter.
>: Well, how come that EM is explained by the exchange of
>: photons (in QED)? Magic?
> From what little I know, I think it is very
>short range and they are virtual photons invented to
>provide a working model.
> Magnetism is somewhat the same, falling off
>very rapidly with distance.
Wrong, the electrical force is unlimited and is proportional to 1/r^2.
Magnetism is proportional to 1/r, and it is thus stronger much
stronger in distance than the electrical force (ever wondered how you
can watch TV ?).
> No, it is very difficult to explain, and even
>more so for small objects the same size.
I understand what you mean. But I think the whole concept of a
doubling time must be wrong, it is therefore meaningless to discuss
the components of it.
> I don't think galaxies appear to be accelerating
>apart, I think they are in inertial motion, with the more
>distant ones moving with higher velocity.
Yes, I was wrong, they don't accelerate. But sometimes they can have
greater velocities than light. This would be impossible if the space
between the didn't expand (SR).
> : Big problems:
>: 1. GR and QM are incompatible
>: 2. GR fails to explain reality at microscopic levels, and at high
>: energies.
> I wasn't aware that General Relativity had
>any big problems. There is no reason to think that
>GR has to be compatible, it would just be nice if it
>were.
In microscopic levels some kind of quantisation is necessary, or else
it would be possible to get around certain QM limitations. The fact
that QM can't be applied on GR, suggests that one of them (or both) is
wrong (or at least not fundamental). To be able to explain these
phenomena we must in someway unite the two theories. The super string
theory is an attempt to do that, but since it must create both QM and
GR theories in approximation, it is extremly complicated. If we could
create a QG theory in QM form, we would have no immediate need for a
single theory although it would be much easier to obtain than trying
to unite GR and QM.
>: Other reasons:
>: 1. Since the forces are so similar, it would be nice to have a common
>: structure, so a TOE could be obtained.
> Perhaps DM is the TOE, it just has to be studied.
>There are no forces acting at a distance in gravity, in
>my opinion, that is just the way we were taught.
So where are your expansion theories for the other forces?
>: 2. The principle of equivalence doesn't automaticly lead to GR, it
>: could as well be interpretated in a different way.
>: 3. If GR was proved wrong, SR would still be valid.
> I do not consider Special Relativity to exist
>separate from General Relativity.
They are two separate theories. SR describes relativety at constant
velocities. GR describes accelerated and rotational motion (that is
really a generalisation of SR), but it also states that space-time is
(or rather can be) curved in a way that explains gravity. That second
part, that space-time is curved, isn't necessary for everything else
to work. It is possible to have a flat space-time with forces to
explain gravity.
Mathias Ljungberg
Subject: Re: circuit diagram for bathtub electrocution?
From: trash@magna.com.au (Trash)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 97 12:39:57 GMT
In article <5b0ej6$hga@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, laird@pier.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) wrote:
>cdewick@lios.apana.org.au (Craig Dewick) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>It seems we've thrown a lot of variables out the window here.
>
>If I place a 10 ohm resistor across a 120VAC (60hz here)
>*non*-earth-grounded (just so we can neglect ground for now)
>powerline and toss it in a lake, does everyone in the lake
>die?
>
>Assuming "no," we still need to think about the resistance
>within the electrical device and between all points up to
>the body parts in which we're interested.
>
>--kyler
The results for lake experiment might supprise you.
IF the situation was a little more controled, some people
in the lake may be eletrocuted while others only meters away
will not get a shock. There is a place in Australia called,
Lightening Ridge. The reason it got it's name was a farmer
and 140 of his sheep were killed when lightening hit the ground
near them. None of them was hit by the dirrect strike.
The gradient on the ground was enough to kill them.
The current discharge path from a lightening strike would most likely
be in all dirrections from the strike. On the other hand, a falling power
line's return fault current will be, the path of least resistance back to
the hub of the star winding on the transformer at the originating sub
station. The fault current is most likely to be in one dirrection.
The mesh analysis on an average powerline fault might look like
a nasty network of loads.
An appliance that is dropped into a bath, would be looking for
ANY return path. Through the water, dirrectly back to neutral
internal to the appliance (double insulated) causing only a very
small gradient if any in the water. ANY other return path via
drians or taps or people making contact with a metal rail,
or even an internal earth lead inside the appliance WILL (err should)
trip an ELCB.
I do not know what the shutdown time of an ELCB is either,
how fast can the relay contacts in the circuit breaker release ?
It may only take 2ms for an ELCB to detect a fault, and
300ms to break the line. Do ELCB's even use relays or SCR's ?
- Ash
Subject: Re: Astrology: statistically proven now!
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 9 Jan 1997 12:09:36 GMT
Im Artikel <32D413CF.73D3@ccf.nrl.navy.mil>, David Schaafsma
schreibt:
>Also, this is
>less than a 10% fluctuation, which I cannot imagine
>is entirely inexplicable by anything other than men
>asking women what their birth sign is before asking
>them to marry.
As I said somewhere else: it would mean, that out of 2700 pairs fallen in
love, some 200 refrain from marrying, b/c their starsigns are said not to
match. This is higly incredible, as there does *not seem to exist a common
'bible' of astrology saying: If you are a Libra woman thou shallst not
marry an Aquarius. As far as I know the literature, astrology advisers
never say anything like this explicitly, they rather say (e.g.): "Libra
woman do not fall in love with Aquarius men so easily.." or something
'soft' like that. Thus *if* you have fallen in love, you will always count
yourself to the group which nevertheless did and sure will not refrain
from marrying your beloved one. It rather seems that some starsigns do not
fall in love as often as they should statistically. And this is
disturbing.
>I'm also not sure that normalizing
>to the birthrate for different months is a valid procedure.
But I am, and if you are not, then you should read a bit about statistics.
It is a well known fact, that birth rates fluctuate over the year (thus
there being less Lions than Aquarii or so). If you don't correct for this
fact, your results will show the wrong correlations.
>If the distribution was indeed random (i.e, if it was a
>distribution of anything other than humans), then I
>could see that the "month" bins that they occured
>in would be wholly irrelevant.
After correcting for a fluctuant birthrate (thus creating a true random
distribution of birthdates over the year), you should have no correlation
whatsoever (above statistical noise level) for different months (i.e.
starsigns). Unfortunately, this is the case (i.e. there is a correlation,
highly significant, but without reasonable explanation).
>People are indeed
>influenced by these things, astrology included,
>but it's a completely conscious process and has
>nothing to do with the alignment of the planets.
I nowhere referred to the planets, just to dividing people in monthly
groups (i.e. starsigns). People are indeed influenced by superstition,
but please ask your aquaintances and find just *one* example, where
someone DID NOT marry although being in love, b/c he/she read somwhere
(where???) that they shouldn't marry b/c their starsigns don't match. You
won't find such an example. And that leaves open the question: why do they
(ahem, just some of them) stastistically behave as if?
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: zabluda@math.psu.edu (Oleg Zabluda)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 06:08:36 GMT
Ryan Hughes (hughesl1@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: Okay, so just someone explain why that won't work. Thank you.
Your example is absolutely correct and it will work. Let me comment
on it a little.
First of all, an electron can't be on one side of the Earth or the other.
It's always all over the Universe. This is not a nitpicking, see
later. What you call a "position" is a place where the density of
probability is maximal. This, of course, does not have to be a point.
On the first orbital, it's a sphere, for example. I'll continue calliing
this place a "position" for brevity.
Many physical laws are inapplicable for quantum distances
and quantum times. The law of conservation of energy, for example
(birth/annihilation of virtual particles). It shouldn't surprise you now
that neither Special nor General Relativity is applicable for such
conditions either. In particular, faster then light "speeds" or
"information transfer" is perfectly possible. It looks even more
impressive if you are talking in pseudoclassical (not quantum-mechanical)
terms. This is exactly what I am going to do, since this is not a
scientific newsgroup, despite the fact that it begins with sci.
Two more (other then yours) examples:
1. If you create a photon (or an electron) here, you create it everywhere
in the same time. It has a non-zero probability to interact with
something "in" Andromeda Galaxy *immediately*. Information and energy
transfer is instant (I won't get into the physical meaning of very short
times here). It is not very likely to happen over intergalactic
distances, but it happens all the time over atomic distances.
2. An electron transfers from an orbital to an orbital instantly.
It never has an intermediate position. Yes, you can move an electron
"from" one orbital "to" another arbitrary large one, instantly.
You do get an infinitely fast energy and information "transfer".
And so on. I am sure you can come up with a lot of other examples now.
Of course, If you do want to stay with the quasiclassical language, you
can also argue that nothing is being transferred anywhere in case 1 or 2.
Let's say I am at point A. And I transferred something to point B
using the methods 1 or 2. You can argue that I didn't transfer anything
at all. Because whatever I used to create/affect electron or photon in
point A existed in point B as well. So an observer in point B
could observe my original electron/photon as well as all my tools
at all times. And of course the result of my actions.
As you see, the problem is quasiclassical language. It's absolutely
inadequate for describing what is going on, for any purposes but
popularization.
And in the end, I'd like to say that a good mathematical theory
reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is one of the
holy grails of the modern physics.
Oleg.
--
Life is a sexually transmitted, 100% lethal disease.
Subject: =>to Trish: Creation VS Evolution
From: David Sepkoski
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:47:08 -0800
Trish wrote:
>
> MARK A CLARK wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
> > Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,talk.atheism,talk.origins
> > Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,talk.atheism,talk.origins
> > References: <3290F6F2.3781@ix.netcom.com> <56tr1t$c7d@gannett.math.niu.edu> <329332AC.3A8D@ix.netcom.com> <570264$ol4@gannett.math.niu.edu> <3293CF3D.67CD@ix.netcom.com> >
> > Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
> > Distribution:
> > Lines: 42
> > X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
> >
> > Trish (capuchin@gte.net) wrote:
> > : MARK A CLARK wrote:
> > : >
> > : > : > who says they suffer?
> > : > :
> > : > : What?? Oh yea, I'm sure a zebra enjoys being killed and eaten by a pride of
> > : > : lions--who are probably starving and parasite infested themselves. Wild
> > : > : animals do not live lives of comfort and peace like in Disney movies...
> > : >
> > : > thank you for the poignant condescending crap in there. yet i reply,
> > : > nonetheless. so who says they suffer? noone said they *enjoy* being
> > : > eaten, per se, but who can demonstrate that animals don't have an
> > : > instinctual understanding that they are a part of life, and that life
> > : > goes on even if theirs must end. i know it sounds really fringe, but hey.
> > : >
> > : > and do you mean to tell me that, in fact, monkeys aren't the shamans of
> > : > local tribes of talking lions and hyenas? oh, i am aghast!
> > :
> > : The problem here is that humans don't regard themselves as animals. Big
> > : surprise .. we are. The only difference between humans and animals is
> > : the level of intelligence that varies between species ... and the
> > : concept of human self awareness. Self awareness consitutes the need for
> > : a "life after death", otherwise most humans would be miserable creatures
> > : contemplating their own death.
> >
> > there are other differences between man and animals... a developed heel
> > bone, a fully opposable thumb, and fully developed speech (vocal chords
> > and speech areas of the brain). but i digress... implying that
> > self-awareness is but a small or inconsequent distinction, as you *seem*
> > to do (i may have read you wrong), is like saying that red and green are
> > the same color, except for that little shading difference. if
> > self-awareness is the only thing that separates us from other animals, so
> > be it.
> >
> > : As well .. if animals have an instinctual understanding of life, then
> > : that is something that humans must have at one time possessed and lost,
> > : or animals are way beyond our conceptual level of understanding. I
> > : gives you something to think about.
> >
> > i would not doubt that animals have an innate understanding of the cycle
> > of life far greater than most people on the face of the planet. and i
> > don't see any reason why they shouldn't.
>
> Do you imply that humans have the ability of an "afterlife" because we
> have fully developed speech? The differences I discuss are non culture
> related and non physical. Hell .. we can probably toss out self
> awareness as well. Chimps have self awareness.
>
> Trish
Trish,
I'm not sure who you're replying to about the ego (me or Mark A. Clark).
I HOPE it isn't me.
D. Sepkoski
Subject: Re: deciding on a career
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:10:29 GMT
On 9 Jan 1997, DanH999999 wrote:
> I'm 25 and recently started school. At first I thought about going into
> comp. sci.
> but what I am really interested in (and always have been) is physics. but
> I have questions what do you do with a degree in physics, besides go on to
> a Phd and become a phyicist or teach? I am married and have a kid on the
> way and don't know if I have that many years to devote to school.
> Between a B.S. and a Phd. how do you earn money?
> After you finish school how much money can you expect to make(although
> this is not really a major deciding factor).
> I would appreciate hearing from any one who has a degree, or just some
> answers.
>
Well, although it seems a terrible thing to some people when a physicist
decides to go off and earn a decent amount of money, there are many jobs
that pay reasonably well after a physics degree. You can easily find a job
in accountancy or finance, for example. You can work in the financial
markets if your degree is of high enough quality, and if you can show that
you are good enough for the job.
One word of caution, though. Think very carefully about what it is you
like about physics. If you are interested only in the grand ideas of
cosmology, unifying the forces, or looking for ultimate answers, you will
find very little of this in your degree course. Rather, you will learn
about the propagation of X-rays through crystals, Debye's theory of
specific heats, rotational energy states in a nucleus, and how much you
can expect a gas to cool when you release it through a porous plug.
Personally, I found all this stuff fascinating, but it is a long way
removed from the physics that you learn about through reading a book by
Hawking. Many degrees do a good job of beating the enthusiasm out of you.
For example, in relativity, you will not sit and discuss at length what
the twin paradox means, you will rather work out the threshold energy for
a proton impinging on a stationary target to create a proton antiproton
pair.
I recommend that you go get a hold of a copy of the standard text for the
course you are thinking of taking (it might seem expensive, but compared
to three years of your life, it's a snip), and see if you find the stuff
interesting.
If you still do, and you want to do it, go for it. Physicists are
virtually never out of work once they get a degree, and there is a whole
world of specialisation waiting for you afterwards.
Good luck,
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Subject: Magnetic field around a wire....
From: rpaetsch@aol.com (RPaetsch)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 13:31:59 GMT
Hi there,
In a test I made a mistake (my teacher says), which I don't understand. It
would be very nice, if you could help me. Sorry about the worse english,
I'm a German...
Through two wires, there is a fluency of I_1=100A and I_2=10A. They are
0,5 cm apart and at a length of 0,2m the magnetic field plays it's role.
I thought:
F=B*I*s s is the wire length in the
magnetic field
B=u_0 * I^2*s
--------
2 Pi r
So the force F=u_0* I^2 s
---------
2 Pi r
As one wire-magnetic-field takes it's effect on the other, and the other
takes it's effect on the first one, I wanted to calculate the force F_1
and the force F_2 to a Force F_all, which would be:
F_all=u_0 * s * ( (I_1)^2 + (I_2)^2 )
------- -----------------------
2 Pi r
My teacher said, that would be wrong, because the action=reaction
(actio=reactio of Newtons axioms). But I can't understand, why there
shouldn't be a difference between a 10A, 100A or 10.000A second wire.....
Why don't the have to be added?
Or has my teacher made a mistake? Please, help me!!!!
Thanks a lot previously,
Robert
Subject: Re: Another defender of science arises
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 9 Jan 1997 12:09:45 GMT
Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
[real nice examples about a stupid public in the country populated with
the worlds most intelligent people woefully snipped.... ;-]
>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.
Hmm, hmm. Someone wisely once pointed out, that a right granted is just a
right in the hands of those who are enabled to use it. E.g. the right to
built a house is a right only, if you have money (space) enough to do so.
If not, this right has no meaning for you, wether it's granted or
forbidden.
Now let's dig out a glacier man like the Oetzi, awaken him and give him
the keys to the Toyota Landcruiser with 285 HP, waiting right there on the
glacier ready for our poor ancestor. Now you explain that Oetzi has the
right to drive off with this car, but "with rights come responsibilities
and obligations." .. "And if you screw[ed] up, you pay."
So Oetzi pushes on the accelerator, the Landcruiser jumps over the edge
and you, a few seconds later, regarding the debris, brake the deadly
silence with the classical quote: "Sovereignty is responsibility."
IMHO it is unethical to grant sovereignty to someone, who is not enabled
to make real use of it, and then leave him alone with it (remember Jossele
and the number game?). Of course we could make laws, which tie up
politicians in a way, they can't get away with betrayal etc. or at least
strengthen this way a bit. Like that: In Germany, if your in Parliament,
you may as well be a member of the board of a huge enterprise or a bank,
or you may have a consultant contract etc. Who is so naive to think, that
this is NOT misused in the way, that this politician will try to use his
influence to do 'his' company something good? Why not say: The day you get
elected we pay you a very decent wage (it's 10.000$ over here), but you
will have to refrain from any other economical activity? And to ensure
this, you have to publish your tax forms. Yes, of course, that's hard to
swallow, but the one who wants to govern me, has to pay a price for this
power.
>>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.
I think you should read the human rights first..... ;-). *All of the
claimed 'human rights' are purely 'stated' and none are granted by nature
nor is there any mechanism given to achieve or maintain them. This is left
to the legislature of the respective country.
>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.
Sorry, but that doesn't fit. We may not be able to precisely define what
'decent and honest' is, but we can draw a line at least, where it is
illegal (and there should have been no way to pardon Tricky Dicky for his
crockery and McNamara should be jailed for having caused the death of ten
thousands of soldiers by ignorance - any trucker who is caught speeding
would be very, very responsible if he caused a fatal accident b/c of his
ignoring the speed limit, so why is Mr McNamara NOT responsible for making
decisions bare any knowledge about the facts?).
But try to define 'happiness'. And how come, that even with this 'right'
granted in the US, people defining their happiness in smoking pot, are not
allowed to 'pursue' their happiness then? No, no, a stated right to be
governed by decent, honest people of course would call for legislative
action, and that's what's needed. Otherwise those who govern us, will
remain to be uncontrollable just like in the past.
>No guarantees of success, mind you.
Never, that's for sure. But still we have to try :-)
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:27:49 GMT
On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tim Harwood wrote:
>
> York uni a failure?
>
> My school offered me the chance to apply to either Oxford or Cambridge to do
> either Economics or History based upon by exam grades.
>
Is that supposed to be some kind of boast?
Anyone can apply to Oxford or cambridge. Im my day, all it took was the
willingness to stump up the ten pounds fee. A degree in History or
economics is hardly anything to shout about, either. Not when you are
posting to a physics newsgroup.
> The fact I declined simply reflects my belief there is more to life than
> work, and I appreciate the larger amounts of free time I have at York. Time
> I use to do things like learning Spanish and reading science books.
>
More free time?
How peculiar. Whilst I was at Oxford I had time to row, box, play hockey,
drink, and all the associated passtimes.
On top of that, I was on holiday from the place for 28 weeks of the year.
Six weeks at Christmas, six at easter, sixteen in the summer.
basically, you are very much mistaken if you think that you have gained
yourself free time by avoiding Oxford. Hell, I only had two hours
timetabled per week pretty often. I doubt that you have that at York.
> Anyway, have you looked at the various uni. league tables in England?
> Frankly to suggest York is a place for failures and dropouts only
> demonstrates your ignorance.
>
No, York is not a good university. Academically it is mediocre,
aesthetically, it is abhorrent. It has a stagnant pool as its centrepiece.
I too had the choice of York or Oxbridge. I can tell you, When it comes to
getting a job, York is not the first place that employers are looking for.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 15:26:42 GMT
In article , Anthony Potts writes:
[ Changes in the speed of light ]
|> I seem to recall reading this as well. Basically, the story was
|> that if we look at the speed of light measurements that have been
|> carried out at different times, we find that some time in the past
|> (it can't be more than a few decades I think) the measurements were
|> significantly different to those carried out recently. Supposedly
|> the effect was to great to be accounted for by experimental errors
|> (and all the results at the time agreed with each other, it wasn't
|> just that they had a greater spread), and is somewhat of a mystery.
|> Unfortunately, being in a newspaper rather than a journal, the details
|> were somewhat sketchy.
Sounds like a rehash of the work of Barry Setterfield, and his ad-hoc
speed of light equations. Not worth the paper they're printed on, if
you ask me.
Observations of SuperNova 1987a over the last decade show conclusively
that the speed of light was the same 165,000 years ago (and 165,000
light-years away, approximately) as it is today. Neither Setterfield,
nor various Newspapaer and Tabloid reporters, have provided an
argument against the SN1987a evidence.
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood christw@lexis-nexis.com cats@CFAnet.com
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
From: Robert F. Heeter
Date: 9 Jan 1997 11:54:09 GMT
Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer: While this section is still evolving, it should
be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute
it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
# Written/Edited by:
Robert F. Heeter
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
# Last Revised February 26, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A. Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Contents
This file is intended to indicate
(A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists,
(B) what it discusses,
(C) how to find it on the Internet, and
(D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
research. Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which
explains much of the jargon of the field. The Conventional
Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide
answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions
about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and
other resources for those interested in learning more. The
Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
brief explanations of the language of the field.
* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
(primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and
muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion). I
have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
as possible, while still covering everything I felt was
important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
* 4) How to Use the FAQ:
This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately). Hopefully it
will not be too hard to use. Part (C) below describes how to find
the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.
* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:
This is an evolving document, not a completed work. As such,
it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.
This document should not be distributed for profit, especially
without my permission. Individual sections may have additional
restrictions. In no case should my name, the revision date,
or this paragraph be removed.
- Robert F. Heeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)
Section 0 - Introduction
Part 1/3 - Title Page
Table of Contents
How to Find the FAQ
Current Status of the FAQ project
Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
Part 3/3 - Revision History
Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power
Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding
Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)
Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
Section 6 - Recent Results
Section 7 - Educational Opportunities
Section 8 - Internet Resources
Section 9 - Future Plans
Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List
Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
Part 0/26 - Intro
Part 1/26 - A
Part 2/26 - B
[ ... ]
Part 26/26 - Z
---------------------------------------------------------------
*** C. How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
### The FAQ about the FAQ:
### How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************
* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)
(A) World-Wide Web: http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html
(B) FTP: rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq
* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups
Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers,
sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to
find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading
sci.physics.fusion periodically. (Please note that not
all sections are completed yet.) Because the FAQ is quite
large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.
All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official"
distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers,
and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by
waiting long enough.
* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):
Several Web versions now exist.
The "official" one is currently at
We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server
() soon.
There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions
from the newsgroup postings. I haven't hunted all of these down
yet, but I know a major one is at this address:
Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
automated software from the newsgroup postings. In particular
we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary,
so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.
(Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
much of the WWW development.)
* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro
All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP
from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu. The
address for this archive is:
Please note that sections which are listed above as having
multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are
stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro.
Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
given above is the easiest to use.
There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
many of which carry the fusion FAQ. These are listed below.
* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)
There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
at the bottom of this file.
* 5) Mail Server
If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the
rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message
to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
in it (cut-and-paste if you like):
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit
The mail server will send these two introductory
files to you. You can then use the outline (part2)
to determine which files you want. You can receive
any or all of the remaining files by sending another
message with the same general format, if you substitute
the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the
part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.
* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer:
Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.
Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.
Sections which are still being drafted are only
posted to sci.physics.fusion. If there's a section
you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know
what's up with it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Written FAQ Sections:
Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
being written. Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
remain to be completed.
Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and
confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on
international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.
*** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***
* 2) Building a Web Version
A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
especially aesthetic) exists now. Would like to add graphics and
cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and
to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).
* 3) Nuts & Bolts -
I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the
rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.
* 4) Status of the Glossary:
# Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.
# Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
Technical Information.
# Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)
# World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.
# Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.
# Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists,
scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out
what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet
soup." Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those
"trivial" words we use every day. The glossary and FAQ should be
useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences. Students will
also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)
Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:
[ Note that the connection type is on the left. I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]
Belgium
-------
gopher cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
anonymous FTP cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
mail-server listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be get avail faqs
Canada
------
gopher jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70
Finland
-------
anonymous ftp ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm
France
------
anonymous FTP grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
gopher gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
mail server listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Germany
-------
anonymous ftp ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
gopher gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
gopher.uni-paderborn.de
mail server archive-server@Germany.EU.net
ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
World Wide Web http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
FSP ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
gopher index gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP
Korea
-----
anonymous ftp hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers
Mexico
------
anonymous ftp mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers
The Netherlands
---------------
anonymous ftp ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
gopher gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
mail server mail-server@cs.ruu.nl
Sweden
------
anonymous ftp ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet
Switzerland
-----------
anonymous ftp ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
anonymous UUCP chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
mail server archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
telnet nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"
Taiwan
------
anonymous ftp ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
mail server ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw
United Kingdon
--------------
anonymous ftp src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
FSP src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
gopher src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
mail server ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
telnet src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
World Wide Web http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/
United States
-------------
anonymous ftp ftp.uu.net:/usenet
World Wide Web http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 07:14:29 GMT
In article , briank@ibm.net (Brian
Kennelly) wrote:
[Reposting via new server. Sorry if double post]
>In article <32cfba51.456049@Pubnews.demon.co.uk>,
>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>In article , briank@ibm.net (Brian
>>Kennelly) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <32cdd17f.3188322@news.pacificnet.net>,
>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>>In article <32C9407F.39E9@cdc.com>, Dave Monroe
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Steve Gilham wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm moving along the time axis at about 1 second per second. How
>>>>>> about you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It all depends on what I'm doing. Sometimes a second is gone all
>>>>>too quickly, other times it seems to drag on . . .
>>>>
>>>> It does not depend on anything. There is no motion along the time
>>>>axis for the simple reason that the time axis does not exist and the
>>>>time axis does not exist because it is a entirely circular concept. It
>>>>should be used only in an abstract fashion for the convenience of
>>>>visualization. Sorry if the spacetime physicists forget to mention
>>>>that obvious fact in their books. The glaring circularity of motion
>>>>along the time axis notwithstanding, an awful lot of people cannot
>>>>seem to grasp it. Could it be that the teachers themselves didn't see
>>>>fit to mention it because they themselves never saw it. Such a waste
>>>>of minds! Wake up folks!
>>>>
>>>
>>>I do not agree that the time axis does not exist. In what sense is a time
>>>axis a circular concept?
>>
>> As long as the time axis is used as a mere visualization or mapping
>>tool, there is no problem. That is exactly what it should be used
>>for. The time axis becomes circular when it is reified, i.e., made
>>part of reality. Once you do that, then you must explain the motion
>>of bodies along the time axis since obviously they cannot stay at one
>>point in spacetime. I've already given a simple irrefutable proof for
>>why it is impossible or illogical to move along the time axis. Read
>>it again.
>
>I've not seen such a proof.
You're not looking hard enough. Could it be because you don't want
to find it? You even responded to the post where I wrote it. Denial
mode eh?
>It seems much more illogical to not move along the time axis than to move
>along it.
It may seem so to you because you apparently have been raised and
nurtured on spacetime. Too bad. It remains that nothing can move
along either a time axis or in spacetime. Denying this truth will not
make it go away. It is as strong and immovable as the rock of
Gibraltar. Stronger, as a matter of fact.
>If your argument is that motion along the time axis is impossible because the
>time axis doesn't exist, you will have to give a rationale.
That is not my argument at all. My argument is simply that the time
axis cannot exist in reality because nothing can move along the time
axis, contrary to what one would normally expect if such an axis
existed. Why the obvious attempt at misrepresenting my position?
>> The problem for GR physicists is that their standard explanation of
>>gravity as a physical effect of spacetime curvature becomes highly
>>suspect if spacetime is abstract and non-existent. GR physicists
>>should stop preaching their "spacetime geometry causes gravity" gospel
>>because it makes them look bad. Gravity is not the result of
>>spacetime geometry because, again, spacetime is an abstract collection
>>of events. Concepts like geodesics and inertial paths in spacetime
>>are simply dumb. Very dumb. And no amount of rationalization or
>>obfuscation is going to change that. Too bad some of you are having
>>trouble grasping this. And also, too bad if some of you take offense.
>
>I don't take offense, but I disagree with you strongly.
You have chosen poorly which side of the argument to be on. You
have chosen the loosing side.
> The assertion that
>spacetime is non-existent appears to be false, so the rest of your argument
>doesn't matter.
It only *appears* to be false but it is as true as the fact that you
are reading these lines. Spacetime is not just non-existent. It is
non-existent because it involves a glaringly illogical concept called
"motion along the time axis." One day you'll see it. Right now, you
are just blinded by your training.
>> It's important here to say a few words about time. Time is a simple
>>abstract ratio as seen in t = d/v. This is not just an equation. It
>>is an identity. Time is inversely proportional to motion or change.
>>If one chooses one's units of measurement properly, one can change the
>>equation for time to be simply t = 1/v. Time is then merely the
>>inverse of velocity. I like to look at it as the inverse of change.
>>Time does not exist separately from change. It is an abstract concept
>>obtained mathematically from change. If there is no change, there is
>>no time. Of the two, only change or velocity is observed to exist.
>>That is all one needs in order to get 1/v.
>
>Various kinds of change and different motions occur at different rates, but
>they can be described by a single concept of time.
So? Time is always derived by applying the equation t = d/v. As
much as you would want to change that fact, it is not going to happen.
You can scream till you are blue in the face that time is obtained
from clocks, but it still remains that t = d/v. Only motion is
measured. Motion is fundamental. Time is derived. The amazing thing
here is that, here we have a clear case of something (time) that is
never observed, and all the while the physicists who would normally
rail against the existence of absolute motion, are willing to go
against their own edict, by assuming its (that of time) existence.
Strange thing, this physics. Politics as usual, I guess.
> Time would seem to be
>more fundamental even if the measurement of time requires the observation
>of change.
I fail to see how that follows from the above premise. Besides,
this argument is moot since the time axis is illogical to start with.
Here a new concept for you: There is only the "now". Well, it is not
so new after all.
>> So why does one sense the existence passage of time even if one is
>>not moving spatially in any of the 3 dimensions. Well since time
>>cannot be divorced from motion or change, and since the time axis is
>>illogical, one must look for change elsewhere. To explain this
>>intuitive notion of time, I postulate the existence of a fourth
>>*spatial* dimension along which the entire known universe is moving.
>
>So, you replace the time dimension with an unobservable spatial dimension?
>How does that improve things?
I am not replacing the time dimension at all. The time axis is not
only *not* observable, it cannot logically exist. A spatial dimension
would be a monumental improvement because, unlike the time axis, it is
logically consistent.
>> How did time get to be given a separate existence of its own even in
>>the face of an unforgiving circularity, is one of those curiosities of
>>science that future historians and psychologists will probably study
>>and debate for centuries to come.
>
>The concept of the separate existence of time is (at least) as old as Man,
>and does not involve circularity.
So say you but the circularity is there for a lot of people to see
including your fellow physicists. I don't see you contradicting them.
Why pick on me alone? Pick also on those physicists who have had the
courage to acknowledge that nothing can move in spacetime. My hat is
off to them. Bravo! Sorry if you can't see it Mr. Kennelly. I pray
that one day, the spacetime scales will fall from your eyes and that
you too will see the illogic of spacetime. Believe me, it is a truly
liberating experience. New wonderful vistas of progress and
understanding suddenly open up out of the thick fog of a myriad
obsolete ideas. It is akin to being lost in the wilderness for ages
and then suddenly being found. It could be a Zen type thing. I don't
know. :-)
> What is new in this century is the unification of space and time.
Which is the biggest nonsense to ever come out of science. Very sad
when you think about the wasted minds and the wasted time.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
