Newsgroup sci.physics 215142

Directory

[lots of mystefying stuff snipped]
i think i need to restate the "phenomenum" because i'm a bit lost
in the bucket of water precession debate...
if you hold an axle with a spinning bicycle wheel at it's end
and turn on the spot clockwise, do you experience a different
vertical force than if you turn counterclockwise??  does the 
apparent weight of the bicycle wheel and axle change??  if so,
is it because there is a change in the horizontal and vertical 
vectors of the force - or is something strange happening???
cheers
peter  

Michael Ramsey (745532603@compuserve.com) wrote:
: In article <5b3itl$n9g@mn5.swip.net>, mj17624@janus.swipnet.se says...
: >
: > 
: >I think the higgs-theory might explain how inertia arises. 
: >[snip]
: Mathias,
:  Since the USA has shut down the SSC, when does CERN plan to have a collider 
: capable of achieving the necessary energy to produce Higgs particles?
Ask Potts.  He claims to be working on the Higgs problem.  (although I 
seem to recall Higgs having had the most dramatic falloff of support 
since supergravity bit the big one.)
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Sterner (sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu) wrote:
: In article <5b13j1$5qf@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) writes:
: > Doug Craigen (dcc@cyberspc.mb.ca) wrote:
: > : Brian J Flanagan wrote:
: > 
: > : > 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.
: > 
: > : More mass????
: > 
: > More equivalent mass would be correct.  However, if you had a beam of 
: > light of several colours traveling through space, it would be the 
: > distribution of that energy in spacetime that would affect the deflection 
: > due to gravitational lensing.  Different beams sent sequentially with 
: > different energy densities would deflect slightly differently, but the 
: > geodesic for any given beam with a constant energy density would be 
: > constant, so no chromatic aberation would occur in any single beam.
: So you're saying that a "heavier" beam would fall faster than a "lighter"
: beam?  WRONG.  (And don't try to invoke the motion of the lensing object
: due to the passing light ray; I can Heisenberg that deflection away
: faster than you can say "Eddington".)
Indeed it would be wrong of you to intentionally misinterpret my 
explanation that way.
: A light beam of any color or intensity will follow the same trajectory
: around a gravitational lens.
And you remove the light beem from the distribution of mass-energy in 
what manner?
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Weiss  wrote:
>One runs into frequent complaints in these two newsgroups that in the
>United States, math and science teaching aren't what they used to be.
>I refer here to the high-school and elementary school levels.
>This may be true.  On the other hand, I ran across an essay in "The
>World of Mathematics" by H.G.Wells bemoaning poor math instruction;
>and I remember when I was in high-school myself, I happened upon
>translation of a similar complaint from an ancient Egyptian papyrus.
>Anyway, whatever the truth about the U.S., I'd be interested in
>hearing impressions from other countries.  If you, kind reader, were
>educated outside the U.S. and still reside there, what is your feeling
>about the average level of math and science instruction in your
>country?  Has it declined over the years?  How would you assess it
>today?
I went to school in Russia till the 9th grade. I believe that the high
school math education base in there is stronger, mainly because
algebra and geometry are two seperately taught subjects therefore
students amount almost twice the class time compared to American HS
students. By the time I was in grade 9, I was taking a rough equialent
of Algebra II and Geometry II at the same time. If the level of math
education has declined in the past  years in Russia, it is mainly
because of lack of good teachers, because teacher's job in Russia
is highly underpaid and overstressed.
Alex
nwres203@wolfenet.com
------
System report? RAM is ramming, electrons zinging.
All  systems go - or already gone.

Andre C. wrote:
> I'm just a curious reader and found this post interesting but I don't
> know what EPR is. Can you tell me and let me know where I can find
> more information on it?
It stands for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. This paradox was 
meant to show that there are elements of reality that are not 
described by quantum theory - the so called hidden variables. It's 
discussed at length, together with Bell's theorem, in Nick Herbert's very 
readable book "Quantum Reality". ISBN 0-7126-1083-9.
Sylvia.
**** Sending me email? Note, my real email address is sylvia@zip.com.au, 
**** and not as specified in the header.
**** I consistently approach the administrators of systems from which I
**** receive junk mail.

In article <5b11af$gv5@dropit.pgh.net>, Word Warrior
<=green@pipeline.com=> writes
>daveg@halcyon.com (David B. Greene) wrote:
>
>>green@pipeline.com says...
>>>JohnAcadInt  wrote:
>>>
>>>>It might be interesting, for example, to offer prizes 
>>>>for a cancer cure. Say, a billion dollars to the first
>>>>team to crack it. [ I hope nobody is going to complain
>>>>that we couldn't measure the results! Ed.]
>
>>With such a prize we might get more results like those from Saint Luc's 
>>hospital ;-)  After all, what's a little massaging of the data when one 
>>knows the truth!
>
>>>People properly nourished in clean surroundings won't
>>>get cancer at all.
>
>>OTOH, such surroundings mught be impossible to find. If Wickramasinghe and 
>>Hoyle are right, the Earth is constantly being bombarded by space borne 
>>pathogens. How ironic it would be if the late Dr. Carl Sagan was done in by 
>>space, his greatst love.  Seattle has truly been privelidged to host this 
>>great man during his latter days while being treated at the Frd Hutchinson 
>>Cancer center. I believe he gave his least public lecture at the University of 
>>Washington recently.  In spite of his scientific chauvinism and his naivete in 
>>areas beyond his expertise he seemed to have a great love for the human race 
>>and a desire to make science interesting and meaningful to the public.  Wasn't 
>>Sagan the one who warned us of the possibility of nuclear winter. Perhaps in 
>>that regard he helped wind the atomic clock back from the "eleventh hour" and 
>>some debt is owed by humanity to the man's memory.
>
>The immune system is quite capable of fending off damage
>from external sources of damage when it is properly
>fueled and managed.
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>|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.*|
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
The irony of Carl Sagan's "Being done in by Space"; is not quite so
extraordinary as implied; he would have concurred that "Spaceship Earth"
is an illusion, and that the Human ecological niche includes space; all
ecologies contain hazards as well as life support, but the moral seems
to be that for true success an active,capable species' ecological range
should be greater than the extent of the threats to its growth and
development. In our case, that could be taken to support Space
development/colonization as an ecological concept. I fancy Dr Sagan
would have gone along with that idea!
-- 
Michael Martin-Smith

In article <32d679be.1334128@scop.pdev.sco.com>, brianm@ricochet.net
(Brian Moffet) wrote:
>Just because they seem to happen with a similar
>frequency, doesn't mean that they are related.
But it also doesn't mean that they aren't related.
Dennis

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in article
...
> What happens is very simple.  you push on one end and the impact is 
> propagated along the rod at the speed of sound (meaning the speed of 
> sound in the rod material).  Which is way, way slower then the speed 
> of light.
Thanks for your reply:  you've quantified for me the speed of my "molecular
domino effect" (while apparently confirming my mental image of what
happens).  BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the speed of light was involved
in the scenario:  I was just putting an absolute lower bound on the amount
of time necessary for anything to be observable at the rod's other end.
Thanks again.
Jacques.

On 6 Jan 1997 14:11:58 GMT, gmark@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart)
wrote:
>Stephen L. Johnson (sealion2@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Would someone kindly convince me that the alleged Mars rock actually
>: came from Mars.  From what I read in the newspapers and such, the logic
>
>
>The bottom clearly has "Property of Mars" on it.
>
>
>If it were from Earth, it would have "Do No Eat" on it.
Earthlings are notoriously bad typists.
Stephanie
http://www.ecsd.com/~stephani

It means they dont like want yoiu are "saying" ;)
Bruce C. Fielder  wrote in article
<32D6F834.5E60@quadrant.net>...
> I mean, really!
> 

Jeff Wilson (jdwilson@nortel.com) wrote:
: Ken Fischer wrote:
: >         How will you be able to tell if it is a black hole? :-)
: > Only one star in 10,000 has greater than two solar masses,
: > do I read that right?    Does that mean by the time they
: > burn all available fuel, they may be close to the mass of
: > the Sun, and then a supernova would leave essentially
: > not enough to make a black hole?
: Sounds like you might be wanting what's known as the Chandresekhar (sp)
: limit.  This defines the amount of mass in the *core* of a star that
: determines the ultimate fate (white dwarf, neutron star, black hole).
: Note that I said the *core* of the star.  If the core mass is below
: 1.44 solar mass, it will evolve to a white dwarf.  A core mass greater
: than 1.44 but smaller than about 3.5 solar masses will become a
: neutron star.  Anything greater will become a black hole.  There's
: also the possibility that the remnant will completely destroy itself
: leaving nothing.  
       No, I was just pondering the possible percentages
of the number of black holes to total stars (if black
holes exist at all).
: The core size really doesn't imply anything about the pre-death size
: of the star itself.  It could be just about anything (but must, of
: course, be larger than the core size).  
       Considering that most stars only have a mass
several times that of the sun to begin with, I think
that fact restricts the percentage of dense objects.
: A star may undergo mass loss
: of significant amounts at times before ending the fusion process.
: Therefore, the star mass blow *many* solar masses of material away,
: but it just depends on the stability of the star before the SN event.
: I also doubt that you could even say that two different cores of the
: same mass had similar masses before death due to the mass loss stages.
: | Jeff Wilson 
       How sure can we be that stellar collapse modeling
is correct?    I think we need a model of star formation
before we close the case on stellar collapse.
       I think black holes require "attractive" gravitation,
and my problem is, I don't consider gravitation to be
attractive.    There may be a lot of change in thought
about stars in the next few years, the new technologies
of CCD cameras, Hubble Space Telescope, and the new big
Earth based telescopes will provide more data in just
a few years than has been obtained in all past history.
       I am of the opinion that there is a mechanism
that controls the maximum mass of stars, and if this
is true, then a change in some current thought may be
required.
Ken Fischer 

31-12-96
revised 1-1-97
Notes on the structure of reality - article 3
(first draft)
by Gary Forbat
Copyright (c) G. Forbat 1996
It may now be convenient to extend and qualify some of the main 
concepts derived from the theory. In the previous essays I described 
a process of material formation which provides the basis for the 
observed material reality. The process operates through a building 
procedure which involves a relationship between the physical 
magnitudes of structures, that is, the volume they occupy, and the 
rapidity of their internal cycles. Moreover, the process is universal, 
ranging over an infinity of scale tranformations from the most 
miniscule sizes to the most gigantic imaginable, in fact infinite in 
both directions. 
But it is not a single dimensional process involving only scale. What 
is peculiar about the sequence is that the smaller structures of
the micro world are highly dynamic due to an extremely rapid internal 
cycle operating to hold it together, and the smaller the structure, 
the more dynamic it is. Dynamics refers to the rapidity of the 
cyclical pulse. As particles break down to the cyclical funtion of a 
number of smaller components, those components will have a 
significantly more rapid internal cyclical rate than those of the 
larger structure they contribute to forming. The atomic structure, 
for instance, comes into being due to the cyclical function of the 
electron in relation to the nucleus. The composition of the electron 
has not yet been penetrated, but the possibilities are few. Either it 
is composed of a very large number of tiny parts, or maybe fewer but 
of a much higher dynamicity. The nucleus, on the other hand, is known 
to break down to combinations of smaller, but much more dynamic parts
known as 'quarks'. Quarks themselves must reduce to even smaller 
components, with cyclical rates of increasingly more rapidity. The
many qualities of quarks testify to a variance of configurations. 
The quantum proportions testify to this very nature. With the 
process of reduction infinite, so with it is the increase in 
dynamicity. 
We are fortunate enough to be able to observe two vastly different 
aspect of the material process. The micro scales of phenomena present 
an integrated view of average behaviour over many billions of cycles. 
Imagine how the solar system would look if billions of planetary 
cycles were pressed into a single second. Theoretically at least, it 
would be possible to simulate the effect by taking a long term video 
of the solar system in motion over many billions of years, and then 
replaying the tape over a matter of seconds. Undoubtedly we could 
make computer image simulations of it much more easily. 
Then there is the almost static view of the process presented 
by the structures of the large scale in their 'real time' cyclical 
movements. Our viewpoint of stellar formations is fashioned from the 
workings of the atomic structure, and compared to the speed and 
capacity of the functioning of our instruments and sensing apparatus, 
the stellar structures are both extremely large and so slowly evolving 
as to be almost static. But now, let's venture to reconstruct in its 
broadest principles the consequences of this infinite sequence of 
structuring, not only to determine the status of our own viewpoint 
within it, but to attempt to discover general principles that may be 
directly affecting us and we are not yet aware of. Firstly, going up 
or down in scale, the specific attributes of structure types that 
occur depend on the interactive possibilities afforded on each  
particular scale. Solar systems of one type or another, whether 
binary or planetary are the almost exclusive forms that may be found 
at the scale of the direct interaction between the most massive 
atomic conglomerations. At this scale of consideration the universe 
can be seen to be interspersed with stellar and planetary matter in 
mutual interaction as solar systems. But we know that solar systems, 
in turn, almost exclusively congregate in the larger massive 
formations of galaxies, occuring in a small number of types. Galaxies 
themseves form clusters with unique characteristics types of their own. 
On the galactic scale of consideration the universe can be seen as 
interspersed almost exclusively by galactic formations. Certainly they 
are the only long term stable forms to be found at this scale. 
In fact we can apply this principle at any level of magnitude. Thus
the universe is interspersed by atoms at the atomic scale of 
consideration but with planetary/stellar matter on a larger scale.
So then, as the process builds to infinity, with each structure type 
occuring in forms and attributes appropriate to interaction and 
formation possibilities at that scale. Each transformation produces 
unique structure types, and there is certainly no likelyhood of the 
same structure type occuring at different levels either in the micro 
and macro scales. 
Both the reduction and its reverse process of expansion runs to infinity,
with the roots of each or any structure traceable in infinite steps
toward smaller scales. But this does not work in the reverse toward the
macro. The reason is that not all structures continue to build outward 
forever. Large sections of it terminate at a certain level, as in the 
case of the structures that intersperse in our seemingly empty spatial  
regions. My findings are that these regions are far from empty. 
The entire spatiality in fact contains a fine invisible mist of matter, 
structured at its highest level to an interactive fabric to form 
a micro infrastructure which sets the framework for the workings of 
our atomic based matterial environment. But only those elements
which participate in further building processes to form the atomic 
base can get through to build outward to form structures on larger 
scales. The rest, indeed a very large portion of micro material,
is lost to further structuring. In this infinite chain of 
expansions it should be expected that terminal stages are reached 
from time to time. Nevertheless, what remains after each of these 
mass terminations is still adequete to reconstruct other equally 
thickly populated levels of structures on much larger scales.    
So what is the status of our material system amid this infinity of 
transformation levels ? On the micro end we observe the process through
a very high integration, but on the macro end it tends toward static. 
With the two directions reflecting merely different aspects of a 
single process, our observational access results from the circumstances 
of our evolution as sensing beings and our relation to the material 
interaction that brought it about. We are a direct product of our 
micro infrastructure and the atomic base. The question remains 
whether ours is the only material environment possible or whether
there may be others ? Perhaps other configurational circumstances can 
exist among an infinity of types which produces alternative material 
bases. 
We need firstly to examine the general circumstances which must be 
present for a material environment. Obviously the most evident 
is the versatility of our atomic structure. It is extremely stable 
and durabile with, stability, regularity, as well as variability in
chemical combination. It is truly like a wonder particle which goes on 
to create a tremendously varied and interactive world of material  
activity. Surely it would be fairly rare to find a scale level of 
structuring where such a useful type of particle is found. 
Nevertheless it stands to reason that in a infinite chain of 
transformations other similarly efficient structure types are bound 
to occur. some may indeed be even more flexible than the atom, or 
perhaps somewhat less so,  but still able to generate a causal 
evolution in its conglomerate forms to create an alternative material 
environment rivalling ours. Of course on the micro scales a funtional
world would evolve extremely rapidly compared to ours, and on the macro 
scales the events would take on gigantic proportions, evolving very 
slowly by our way of looking at it. 
G. Forbat
to be continued in the next article                      

mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: >       The expansion of a balloon of lightweight material
: >certainly cannot be exactly the same as that of a sphere
: >of gold having the same radius, if I thought it could, 
: >I would definitely erase my homepage.
: The time it takes for the balloon to become twice as big MUST be the
: same time it takes for the golden sphere to become twice as big. I am
: sure that you will agree on that! 
       Of course, and a puff of smoke can expand too, but
things having so little mass simply move almost entirely
as a result of velocity, not from acceleration, and it
is the acceleration that we call gravity, the doubling
is simply a secondary effect, although a very important
one.
: From there, it's easy to show that
: the attraction is independent of mass and distance. 
        There is no attraction, the relative accelerations
are a function of mass per unit of volume, and matter just
expands into surrounding space, essentially eating it up,
and filling it in, giving the appearance of attraction.
: The thought
: experiment is valid, and I say again: if objects have a doubling time,
: it is unimportant what the components are because together they must
: allways be the same: the doubling time.
        You are thinking in 3D space, as I said before,
the thought experiment must consider the prior motion
of each object, you cannot just place something somewhere
in space and say there it is, it isn't moving.
        The diagrams and charts you made for the thought
experiment had three objects of unspecified mass, supposedly
stationary, and you only considered the doubling factor,
which is secondary.   Naturally, three objects of unspecified
mass can be in a thought experiment, and you can make them
do anything you want, but you are not talking about Divergent
Matter if you don't consider all of the physics.
: >       The acceleration of gravity of the surface of the
: >Earth is 9.81 meters per second/per second.
: >       The outward radial (upward) velocity of the Earth
: >is either the escape velocity, or a substantial fraction
: >of it.
: >       Both these values are constants in current units, 
: >the acceleration is apparent and observed, the velocity
: >is hidden by the lengthening units of measure (naturally
: >we do not "feel" velocity).
: These values are independent of the distance to other objects, so from
: another objects point of view, the enlargening wouldn't have the same
: effect as newton gravity.
       The only effect you will see in 3D space is the
acceleration, the velocity is a hidden constant.
       I suppose nobody has ever mentioned hidden constants
before, so I am sorry, that is the way the model works.
       Points of view don't count, acceleration of the
surfaces away from the centers of mass does count.
       And you must consider the worldline history of
all objects, if one rocket is at 1000 feet and just
beginning to fall, and a second rocket is at 2000 feet
and starting to fall, then they have different worldlines,
different hidden velocities, and will have different
geodesics.
       The upper rocket obviously had to go faster to
get higher, and the difference between the hidden
velocities of the two rockets produces the vertical
component of geodesic deviation, and is mistaken
for an unexplained acceleration of the two rockets
away from each other due to gravitational gradients.
       These facts are clear and fit observation,
the only question is, will anyone try to understand
that spacetime curvature has a physical cause, and
it is in the different velocities the rockets attained
before beginning to fall, not from some mystical ether
or magical graviton spectrum that we can't detect.
       The two rockets are in inertial motion, they
are not accelerated, there is no attraction.
       The Earth expands with an acceleration, and
people are biased observers.
: >: Wrong, the electrical force is unlimited and is proportional to 1/r^2.
: >         I am not sure what you mean, photons propagate 
: >with an inverse square falloff, I don't know what you mean
: >by "electrical force".
: The Coloumb force, the force between two charged particles. The
: photons are virtual, created from vacuum using the principle of
: uncertainty. The photons with lower energy can exist longer, and
: therefore reach longer. The longer from the charge, the weaker the
: photons.
       I don't know of any "virtual photons" that are
used in any long range model.
: Magnetic waves are waves in the electric field.They arise when a
: charged particle accelerates. In a radio transmitter, electrons are
: forced to accelerate, and thereby create magnetic waves. What you do
: when you recieve radio or TV, is to stick an antenna up in the air.
: The electrons in the antenna are forced to accelerate with the same
: frequency as the transmitter. Then either frequency or amplitud
: modulation can be used to transfer information. TV is transmitted by
: magnetic waves! The fact that you easely can recieve a TV signal in
: spite of the fact that the transmitter can be hundreds of miles away
: proves that magnetism doesn't fall of very fast.
        If TV is magnetic waves, then so is light, the only
difference between microwave photons and light photons is the
frequency.
        Most TV stations put at least 5 megawatts into the
output devices to the antenna, and the effective range is
not very great.
        If you are saying that gravity is em waves, sorry,
that is not possible.
: You state yourself that the doubling time is required in your theory.
: If we can show that any theory with a doubling time won't produce
: correct mass and distance dependance, your theory must be wrong
: (because it requires a doubling time). It really doesn't matter what
: the cause of that doubling time is. 
        It doesn't require a doubling time to work,
it produces a doubling time.    Divergent Matter 
operates by the accelerated expansion of objects.
        A number of other people have published
the same concept, only they concentrate on the
acceleration of the surfaces away from the center
of mass.
        This is what _is_ observed in 3D space,
but I have carried the concept further, pointing
out that there is a residual velocity, and that
the velocity plus the acceleration of the surfaces,
and the lengthening of the units of measure combine
to produce the spacetime curvature of General Relativity.
        The fact that objects in nature maintain an
apparent constant size at standard temperature is
a fact of nature, not something I made up, and for
Divergent Matter to conform to nature, it just happens
that everything has to double in the same interval of
time, but you can't build a viable theory on just
the doubling time.
: I think that I have showed that, and nothing you have said so far has
: made me change my mind.
        I'm still working on ways to present the model
to allow 3D people to understand 4D physics, I won't
give up, but it is a difficult problem, the restrictions
of Usenet text modes makes it more difficult.
: >        There are no galaxies that we know of thatt recede
: >from us at greater speeds than the speed of light, but if
: >you consider that we see galaxies in opposite directions
: >receding at near the speed of light, then you either have
: >to us the Special Relativity equations for adding velocities,
: >or assume that even though they may be moving faster than
: >light away from each other, no _observations_ will result in
: >velocities faster than the speed of light.
: If we just consider relative local motion, you're right. But if space
: expands between galaxies, it would be possible to observe speeds
: faster that light. It is in fact predicted by GR, and it also predicts
: that light would reach us from such sources (despite that they're
: travelling faster than light).
        The only way that space can _appear_ to expand is 
if the galaxies are moving apart.
        And the only thing about light that is definite,
is that nothing can ever be observed faster than it, simply
because the only way we  can observe at a distanxe is by
means of "light" signals.
        I think Divergent Matter suggests that light does
not move at a constant speed, but that we will always see
light at the same speed no matter how we observe it.
        I really question if GR predicts all the things
people say it does.
: SR does not describe accelerated motion. 
       Almost everything in SR is accelerated motion,
the collisions in particle accelerators is accelerated
motion, as is the acceleration imparted to get the
particles up to speed.
: That is why the twin paradox
: really was a paradox until GR was published. The thing GR is about, is
: accelerated motion. 
        No, the thing about GR is gravity, and how matter
affects spacetime.
: Since accelerated motion can't be distinguished
: from gravitation, the theory also predicts that space-time can be
: curved in a way that produces gravity. 
       The only thing that curves spacetime is gravity,
SR does not deal in curved spacetime.
: That GR explains both gravity
: and acceleration is a bit unfortunate, because we can't reject GRs
: gravitation without at the same time rejecting its explanation of
: acceleration. And SR alone is not a complete theory. 
        You keep mentioning that GR is needed for acceleration,
it is not.    I agree SR alone is not a complete theory,
: >         Of course models of gravity in flat spacetime
: >exist, one of them is Newtonian universal mutual attraction,
: >and I would prefer that if I could find the mechanism that
: >reaches from each grain of sand in the universe, and each
: >atom of hydrogen and all other elements, out to all other
: >grains of sand and all other atoms, and pulls on them,
: >inversely proportional to the square of the distance and
: >directly proportional to the mass of each atom, I would
: >immediately forget DM.
: >         I see nothing that can reach out like that,
: >so I have to continue to study Divergent Matter.
: Take another look at QED. In it, photons do just that (of course they
: only affect charged particles, but the principle is the same) 
: Mathias Ljungberg 
       Photons don't "pull" at large distances.   If they
did, you could apply pulsating DC to an antenna, and it
would either push things or pull them depending on the
polarity.
       If that works, great, it will make fantastic
things possible.    But I don't think gravity works
that way.    The principle of pressure differences
in air makes things move, but gravity is a completely
different process.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372 
Divergent Matter GUT of Gravitation http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer 

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> The energy isn't really high enough for the creation of particles.
> Given center of mass corrections etc. you need /gamma of 5-6 or so,
> meaning v/c around 0.98 or higher.
> 
True enough, I stand corrected.

In article <01bbff6a$0d704b60$27152399@jacques>, "Jacques Bensimon"  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in article
>...
>> What happens is very simple.  you push on one end and the impact is 
>> propagated along the rod at the speed of sound (meaning the speed of 
>> sound in the rod material).  Which is way, way slower then the speed 
>> of light.
>
>Thanks for your reply:  you've quantified for me the speed of my "molecular
>domino effect" (while apparently confirming my mental image of what
>happens).
That's indeed what the sound wave is, a "molecular domino".
> BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the speed of light was involved
>in the scenario:  I was just putting an absolute lower bound on the amount
>of time necessary for anything to be observable at the rod's other end.
I know.  So, just to add the last bit to it, you may say that the 
closest thing to a perfectly rigid materiial that's allowed by 
relativity is one in which the speed of sound equals the speed of 
light.  This would match your lower bound.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <5b4tqn$geo@usenet.rpi.edu>, Peter F. Curran
 wrote:
> 
> In article <01bbfdcb$f741e5a0$LocalHost@brian>,
> 	"Brian Tozer."  writes:
> >
> >
> >> >> Here are some paradoxes:
> >> >> Now the negation of "all ravens are black" is "all non-black things
> >aren't
> >> >> ravens".  The two statements are logically equivalent.  
> >
> >Why is not the first word negated?
> >
> >Shouldn't the negation be:-
> >
> >Not all non-black things are not ravens.
> >
> >Brian Tozer
> 
> No.
> 
> You need to think of these sentences in terms of set 
> theory.  He is using R->B is equivalent to ~B->~R.  (Note: ~
> represents negation, -> means implies.)  You can think of 
> the things which are ravens(R) are a subset of the things 
> which are black(B).  This can be pictured as a small circle 
> marked(R) inside a larger circle marked(B).  The ~B->~R
> statement follows from the fact that anything which is 
> outside the (B) circle is neccesarily outside the (R)
> circle since (B) encompasses (R).
> 
> 
> 
>    Pete
> 
Aren't you taking this man far too serious?
Look what he said:
  The negation of A is B.
  A is logically equivalent to B.
Have you got the impression he understands anything of any logic?
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

[note: news groups trimmed]
> Daniel Benbenisty wrote:
> 
> By the way, as far as a "soul" goes, 
> I'm waiting for a definition that
>
>      1) is not tautological
>      2) can actually be tested (imagine that!)
>      3) is not a fraud (recall the "leaf" and "aura" thread)
If Heraclitus was anywhere correct when, in about 500BC, 
he reportedly commented on this matter by saying ...
  "Divine things for the most part 
   escape recognition because of unbelief."
  "The limits of the soul woudst thou not discover 
   though thou shoudst travel every road: 
   so deep a logos has it."
Thus Mr. Daniel Benbenisty, one could be waiting 
until the proverbial cows come home with conditions
such as the above placed upon the appearance of such 
a definition of the soul of a living being.
Nevertheless, for whatever it is worth to future readers
and the furtherance of such threads, despite the trollish
overtones apparent in the staves of your post, here below
is my own personal observations in this matter:
The soul is part of an eco_system of inner being which
in todays world is often clouded, unknown, undefined and
often regarded as a non_scientific subject, due to the
seeming restriction of (western traditional) science to
consider only the specifications of the outer world of 
nature, and indeed (according to Maxwell) to precude the
consideration of the complex systems of living beings.
I cannot tell you what the soul is but to say it shares
a relationship with the heart and the mind of a living
being in a specific manner, which I would outline 
as follows:
The nature of the Heart:
A living being existent within the terrestrial environment
has a relationship to the terrestrial planet known as earth.
The earth provides the necessary elements of life.
It provides them with air that they might continue to breath.
With water, that they might not perish with thirst.
And with food that they might not perish with hunger.
In response to the (4 billion years of) evolutionary life
manifest on this terrestrial island,
in this cosmic ocean of light fed by the tributary suns.
It is in the nature of living systems to set up internal controls
and regulatory systems in response to their environment.
Positive and negative feeback systems, etc.
The heart was set up in response to the earth.
The nature of the Mind:
Once a living being is grounded (such as the plants) in the
terrestrial environment, the emergence of any furtherance of
understanding concerning the real nature of the environment
is only obtained when the hinterlands of that environment are
recognised and explored.  Evolution - transcendence - of this
terrestrial environment required a capacity to develop a 
capacity to reflect on the nature inherent therein, to be 
able to view the diverse nature of the planetary realms
from a detached (almost objective) perspective, to be able
to gain mastery over some form of mathematical calculatory
faculty, to be able to use a non_terrestrial reference and
to be able to reason beyond the season.
In response to the (4 billion years of) evolutionary life
manifest on this terrestrial island in this cosmic ocean of light,
it is the nature of living systems to set up internal controls
The emergence of the ancient mammalian ancestors was nocturnal.
This extended the living hours of consciousness out of the day.
It slowly shed light on the quantized action of being known as 
sleep and wakefulness, over and above that experienced
by the creatures which were 'dead_to_the_world' during the night.
It exposed them to the contemplation of the Light of the Night.
The mind was set up as an extension to the faculty of heart.
It emerged in response to the awareness of things cosmic.
It emerged as a recognition of a different center of processing,
and by way of the transcendence towards the understanding of 
subtle phenomena.  The mind was set up in response to the moon.
The nature of consciousness:
Consciousness is a binary system of heart and mind.
It has recognition of the terrestrial aspects of existence
through the faculty of the heart, and of the cosmic aspects
of existence through the exercise of the faculty of the mind.
We feel feelings and we think thoughts.
We think about feelings, and we feel about thoughts.
Matters seem easily to assume emotional and intellectual import,
seem drawn to both observation of intuition and reason.
As a tightly coupled dual system, consciousness has arisen
from the binary systematics of the earth/moon (heart/mind) system.
And where is the center (barycenter) of this binary system?
It is located within the heart - within the mantle of the earth.
But are all things therefore terrestrial?
This question prompts us to elucidate the nature of the soul.
The nature of the soul:
At the center of the earth/moon system is the sun - sol.
In terms of eco_systemics, the sun is the center of life.
It is the cosmic fire in the central hearth 
of our local cosmic environment ... warming life itself.
In evolutionary terms it was the mandatory originator & provider.
All emergent life responded to the ecosystemic engine of the sun.
The sun is a cosmic fire - a fouth state of matter - a plasma.
It is the sun which provides the light/energy for the new growth
of life, for the sustenance of the environment.
It is the sun which turns the great water_cycle
It is the sun which provides the light for the moon to shine.
About the sun orbits the earth/moon system.
The sun neither rises or sets, but for terrestrial horizons.
At the center of being there is a life_force, an emanation
which continues to generate the manifestation of life
as long as it is destined to so continue .....
The soul of individual life was set up in response to the sun.
The nature of spirit:
It is said that we dwell in  a materialistic world, and that
material things are the substrate of nature, but this is not so.
For it is clearly seen that it is the nature of the sunshine
which has been responsible for the emergence, sustenance and
continuance of life upon this terrestrial planetary environment
in which we have been born and into which we shall pass away.
The sun is the "spring" or "fountain_head" of this sunshine.
Sunshine is as yet unable to be specified by the intellectual
theories of man's scientific reasoning other than to classify
it into 'the electromagnetic spectrum' - open_ended ...
It is contentiously both a wave and a particle bearing energy.
It is duplicated by technologies in small ranges of its aspects,
but it cannot be seen - YET it makes manifest all things.
Unseen unsung - often unremembered in our cloistered rooms
and within the artifical environments of the non_living,
in no uncertain terms was the 'spirit of life' set up
in response to the sunshine.
Which of all these things discussed above came first?
The question is simplistic - for the observation of nature
would answer that all things were created together ...
is a living being not born to this world all at once?
As such, is the ecosystem of the soul.
And so to conclude my response to your trollish question,
in your activity of 'waiting for a definition' that ....
>         1) is not tautological
I would argue that the one above is stretched tightly
and is very much TAUT - not slack, and involves the full
gammut of our environmental awareness, from our indigenous
roots to our cosmic aspirations - as a natural process.
>         2) can actually be tested (imagine that!)
Imagination is not barren of life, for surely children use
it to wholesome and educational ends.  The scientific testing
of all the above must await the scientist whose ontology extends
beyond that of the mind, and into the roots of the heart, for
it is within the living heart of a living being that the nature
of life is most primal - to a cosmic depth.
>      3) is not a fraud (recall the "leaf" and "aura" thread)
Unless in the tautologous topolgies of intellectual circularites
known as every_day reporting via this or that media, one would
call NATURE itself a fraud, then the above is self_evidently
a non_fraudulent observation of the natural and evolutionary 
processes which are evident in the terrestrial and cosmic 
environments in which we have co_evolved and co_exist.
Hope this provides food for thought,
and substance for reflection.
All the best for now,
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Thematic Threading:     Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
 QuoteForTheDay:        " Still round the corner there may wait
                          A new road or a secret gate, 
                          And though I oft have passed them by,
                          A day will come at last when I 
                          Shall take the hidden paths that run 
                          West of the Moon, East of the Sun."
                          - JRR Tolkien (from 'The Hobbit')
--------------------------------------------------------------------

FolsomMan (folsomman@aol.com) wrote:
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: >        I think 7920 miles should be close enough for
: >your purpose, but I have heard that if the Earth was
: >the size of a billiard ball, it would be just as smoooth,
: >the mountains only 6 miles in height compared to the 
: >diameter of 7920 miles.
: This is almost as good as the toilet vortex direction vs hemisphere
: nonsense.  If you call the diameter of a billiard ball ~2 inches, then a
: feature about 1/1000 of its diameter would be .002 inches.  I happen to be
: familiar with surface roughness standards and I would be very surprised if
: the finish on a billiard ball is any rougher than 16 microinches rms.  125
: microinches is like a bastard file or worse.  Would anyone like to verify
: that a billiard ball has 2000 microinch roughness features?
: Mark Folsom, P.E.
        It would depend on the billiard ball, a new one
may be almost perfect, some  old ones may easily have
.002 scratches, but I didn't mean that too literally,
just that it seems like a futile exercise to try to
draw the Earth to scale, I think the global topography
is exagerated quite a bit.
Ken Fischer 

kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
>egel (koen@via.nl) wrote:
>: One can say also: the clock on earth is travelling relative to the
>: (motionless)
>: clock in the rocket. Speed is relative to a (arbitrary) chosen point of
>: reference.
>: Therefore one can not decide which clock is slower and which is faster.
>: The twin will have the same age when the "earth has been returned to the
>: rocket".
>
>          That's what I thought too, but it seems the 
>brother in the FAQ forgot to run his rocket engines
>long enough to get all the way back to Earth. :-)
>
>Ken Fischer 
The reason the twin on the rocket did not age as much as the twin who
stayed home was the twin on the rocket was experienced acceleration.
The process of acceleration is what slows the clock.  Since the twin
on Earth did not experience the acceleration, his clock remained that
the same speed.

Richard A. Schumacher  wrote in article
<5b715j$kgb@starman.rsn.hp.com>...
> 
> I wrote carelessly. I did not mean, "gravity disperses light
> by a different mechanism than does a prism", I meant, "gravity 
> does not disperse light at all".
> 
Now you seem to wrote even more carelessly. You should mention
a theory for your arguments. No one here can't say any exact
about reality - we observe and create theories and models
(and interpretations) for suriving in reality :-)
Esa

In article <5aq850$s0t@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Stephen L. Johnson  wrote:
>Would someone kindly convince me that the alleged Mars rock actually
>came from Mars.  From what I read in the newspapers and such, the logic
>goes like this:  Once upon a time (note the fairy tale beginning) some
>large object must have smashed into Mars, dislodging some rocks which
>eventually landed in Antarctica.
Actually, many SNC (or SNAC or Mars) meteors have been found in
other places, some have been seen falling out of the sky, and
one actually hit and killed a dog on impact, in Egypt. Antarctica
is just a good place to find meteors in general, since certain
sorts of glaciers cause anything that hit the surface of the
ice to become concentrated in particular locations. The SNC
in question, Allen Hills 84001, just happens to be one of the
SNC meteors found in the Antarctic.
>Seems to me this line requires a lot to swallow.  If an object got
>caught in the Mars gravity web and spiralled in to impact, it means in
>the first place that the object did not have enough velocity to escape
>the Mars gravity.
If it "spiraled in to impact", yes. But the vast majority of 
impactors do not get "caught in the [planet's] gravity" like
that. They simple approach the planet, and would go on and
leave the planet's vicinity, except for the fact that the
planet got in the way. These impactors, orders of magnitude
more common than impacts from captured objects, will 
_always_ hit at greater than escape velocity. If they hit
with about three times escape velocity (meaning that they
approached Mars at about 10 km/s or more, which is uncommon
but quite possible), then the impact is likely to eject
a sizable quantity of rocks at more than Mars' escape velocity.
(And would also eject them without being heavily shocked,
which is the case for the SNC meteors.) 
>Maybe I'm missing a few rocks in my head, too, but truly you might be
>doing the public a service by explaining how such an event could
>happen.
Well, I just did (without all the technical details.) If you
want more, I could point you to the papers on the subject.
But you probably want to know why we think these meteors
came from Mars, as opposed to some other body, as well. 
Actually, the people who model ejecta from impacts wanted
to know that, and didn't seriously look into how these meteors
could come from Mars until they were convinced that they
had. The evidence takes two steps. First, the stable isotopes
of oxygen are a sort of "fingerprint" for the parent body.
Everything on Earth has oxygen isotope ratios that fall 
along a specific line predicted by theory. Meteors do not,
but they various classes of meteors each fall along a 
different but similar line. Within a class, all the samples
(terrestrial, lunar or meteor) have isotopes that fall
along a line predicted by theory, but each class falls
along a different line. That identifies all the samples
in a class as having come from the same parent body.
All the SNC (or SNAC or Mars) meteors are part of a 
distinct class, whose isotope ratios show that they
all came from the same parent body, and that that
parent body was not the Earth or Moon. Second, two
of these meteors contain bubbles of gas trapped in
glass-like material. The composition of this gas
exactly matches the atmosphere of Mars, as measured 
by the Viking spacecraft. It does not match the
atmosphere of any other planet, nor the gases that
would be produced by heating rocks to a high temperature.
So we know that two of these meteors came from Mars
and that they all came from the same parent body.
I.e. they all came from Mars.
                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

OK, I'll be the one to talk money.
First off, Anthony is absolutely right when he implies that you need a
fascination with physics.  No amount of money can make up for doing what
you hate.
Don't worry now about a BsC or Phd; when you have your BsC you'll know
whether you want to get your Phd!
Monetarily, a Phd will earn (eventually!) three times the salary of a
BsC, adding up to a fair pile of cash over thirty years.  But, they EARN
the money, with sweat and hours.
On the plus side, it beats heavy lifting.
> 
> CERN, Geneva

Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> On 8 Jan 1997, Gregory Fromer wrote:
> 
> > Hey all..
> >
> >       I have been having some trouble understanding some math principals
> > and operations that are used in physics formulas.. Like for instance:
> >
> >       1/2MV^2 for kenetic energy
> >
> > What exactly is the purpose of squareing the velocity times the mass and
> > finding half of that? What is the purpose of squareing the velocity, and
> takeing half of the system?
> 
> The reason we have a squared ter, if that is what you are asking, is that it is the result of integrating the force needed to accelerate a massive object from zero. Integration brings in the squaring, and the factor of 1/2..
Once again I find myself following an excellent answer by Anthony, which
is starting to feel like a bit of les majesty.
Nonetheless, If you were wondering why the universe conspired to make
kinetic energy dependent upon the square of the velocity, I would say
"God knows" - and I mean that in a philisophical sense.  Anthony (again!
- damn it) probably comes closest when he describes integration from a
nonmoving to a moving object (I know this is a horrible way of phrsing
it in english, please don't write) but the fact is, nobody really knows
"why".  After all, "why" do things fall to the ground?  We all know they
do, and we know that kinetic energy equals one half times the velocity
squared.  It works, and foolish people like me can trace the calculous
backwards, but "why"?  Ask god.

In article <32D6F217.4A6B@quadrant.net>, "Bruce C. Fielder"  writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> The energy isn't really high enough for the creation of particles.
>> Given center of mass corrections etc. you need /gamma of 5-6 or so,
>> meaning v/c around 0.98 or higher.
>> 
>True enough, I stand corrected.
However, I noticed that I underestimated the damage potential a bit.  
While not enough for particle creation, the velocity is high enough to 
break nuclei to pieces.  So one can expect a shower of neutrons which, 
in turn, will activate some of the surrounding stuff.  Fortunately, 
since nuclear cross sections are so much smaller then atomic ones, 
most of the energy will be dissipated in purely electromagnetic 
interacions, creating a pretty hot plasma and lots of x-rays.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Im Artikel <5b38ir$cu@colossus.holonet.net>, russell@news.mdli.com
(Russell Blackadar) schreibt:
>And btw, he was not waving the gyroscope -- he was simply following
>the gyroscope's own motion, i.e. its precession.
Yup...
>  He would not have
>been strong enough to stop it even if he tried
who knows?
> -- but if he were
>capable of such a feat, and did it, the loose end 
>of the gyro would have fallen downward normally. 
Are you sure about that? We're talking of, let's say a gyro whichs
horzontal axis is bolted on one end, thus the whole axis could only move
up or down rotating around the bolt like a signal arm, ok?
So: Does it make a difference (in falling down) if the flywheel is
spinning or at standstill? Intuitively I'd say: YES - what's your opinion?
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.

Sir Terrance of SAL  wrote in article
...
> On 10 Jan 1997, Esa Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> > I think that light loose its energy in denser space. It is seen as
change
> > in path of light beam and as red-shifted photon.
> 
> The "density of space" ? I don't know what you mean...If you refer to
> matter density, it is practically zero in vacuum. (~1 particle / cm^3).
I may have meant "density of inertia in space" or something like that.
> Red-shifting is different from refraction they are in no way related,
save
> that they both occur in light.
Yes, generally speaking yes.
> > In prism objects(atoms and electrons) have relatively small mass, near
> > scale
> > of energy of photon. So there can exist little pulling force of light
that
> > have a significant effect on particles in prism. Different frequencies
of
> > light 
> > (=different energy levels) have smaller or greater effect on particles
//
> > Conservation of energy -> dispersion of light. In case of gravitational
> > lens 
> > pulling force (or curvature of space) of light is so nonexistent and
> > interfered
> > that no dispersion can be observed.
> > 
> > Esa
> > 
> I am not sure what you are getting at here, but one thing that is true is
> that the permittivity of vacuum is equal to \epsilon_0 meaning the index
> of refraction of empty space (regardless of gravitational fields, which
> are not electromagnetic) is 1. 
> 
> The case may be different around a gravitating body which also produces
> large electric and magnetic fields...
> 
> -Terry-
> 
In my theory *all* forces (and fields) are based on the same origin; so
called
'space pressure'. Force is dependent on 'space-embrios' of energy packets
and
relative distance between two of them. The causality allows space and
energy
to tune according wave-like geometry. The causal connections are not
dependent
on time (illusion of conscious observers) but they are measures like
dimensions.
I have managed to explain repulsive forces, particles,... many things in 
satisfactory filosofical and mathematical way. But I am seeking phenomena
or 
experiments that could brake down my ideas... ...And of course I'm listing
some
new predictions that would prove something...
Esa

Joseph H Allen  wrote:
Thanks for a wonderful post.  Definitely a saver.  I thought I was
above all this pernicious paradox stuff,  but one of them really caught
me off guard.  You provide a clue to the resolution in another case
though (I refer to the test paradox and Goedel's example).  And now of
course I follow everybody else's lead,  and promptly ignore what they
wrote so I can show what a clever fellow *I* am.  :-)  I strive to
entertain,  however...
>Here are some paradoxes:
>
>-- black ravens
>
>Suppose you say that all ravens are black.  How do you know?  You've seen,
>say, 100 ravens and they were all black so you infer that all of them are
>black.  Each additional black raven you find adds support to your
>generalization.
>
>Now the negation of "all ravens are black" is "all non-black things aren't
>ravens".  The two statements are logically equivalent.  Thus all of the
>non-black things you find which aren't ravens (your red coat, the white
>ceiling, etc.) also support your generalization that "all ravens are black".
>
>Now this sounds silly, but it is actually logically correct.  If you lived
>in a universe where most things were black ravens, it would be easier to
>show that "all ravens are black" by looking at the few non-black things and
>making sure that none of them are ravens.
Hardly so much a "paradox" as merely unexpected?  It doesn't seem
disposed to cause any serious cognitive dissonance.  It does remind me
of a book I cast into the outer darkness,  by one John Burridan,  a
scholastic.  I picked this book up for 50 cents on a sale table,  and
finally one day,  cleaning my bookcase,  demanded it give an account of
itself.  Several hours effort left me none the wiser,  although I did
at least glean the general idea that he was debunking paradoxes.  It
seems to have been what he did for a living.  
I do remember some of the cases involved "white monks" and "black
monks" however,  which beyond the general theme is particularly evoked
by your crows.  One of the other respondents (I peeked) says
this is a standard example in some literature,  so I wonder if it can
be traced back to Dr. Burridan and his monks.  His terminology however
does *not* seem to have survived,  which made him opaque.
>-- all statistics are hooey
>
>Suppose a medical researcher tests a new drug in two different towns.  In
>both towns he finds that the drug is more effective than the standard
>treatment:
>
>		      Town #1			      Town #2
>		Old		New		Old		New
>Not effective:  950 (95%)	9000 (90%)	5000 (50%)	5 (5%)
>Effective:	50 (5%)		1000 (10%)	5000 (50%)	95 (95%)
>
>Thus in town #1, 10000 people used the new treatment and 1000 people used
>the old treatment, and in town #2, 10000 people used the old treatment and
>100 people used the new treatment.
>
>In both towns the new treatment was about twice as effective as the old
>treatment.
>
>Now suppose we combine the studies into a single result to find the overall
>effectiveness:
>
>			Old		New
>Not effective:		5950 (54%)	9005 (89%)
>Effective:	 	5050 (46%)	1095 (11%)
>
>Now we see that the old treatment was in fact more than 4 times as
>effective as the new treatment!  So which statistic is right?
I recently ran across this in,  of all places,  _The National Review_,
a conservative magazine.  The example there was... let me see... 
something inflammatory about the number of first generation
immigrants on public assistance I think.  Letter writer B invoked one
side,  and author A responded "You ninny!  That's just ________'s
paradox.  Don't you know anything?"  The message to me seems to be;
it's a good case against thinking in slogans.  "Twice as effective"
sounds meaningful -- at least if you are not in the habit of
questioning what seeming meaningful phrases mean.   It's right there
in the numbers!   Unfortunately the numbers do not come with rules for
correct inference attached to them.  
You can see in town #1 that although the new treatment was "twice as
effective",  they were both overwhelmingly ineffective,  while in town
#2 the old treatment was solidly split with a large sample,  while the
overwhelmingly effect new treatment had a tiny sample!   Perhaps we
should be suspicious from the wildly unbalanced sample sizes in town
#2 whether this was really an unbiased selection...
But understanding how the numbers can accommodate these seeming
contradictions doesn't completely clear up the confusion:   If we
*knew* the recipients of the new treatment in town #2 were chosen
without bias,  which treatment would we choose based on this sample?
Should we say a sample of 100 is too small to switch from the old
tried and true indifferently effective treatment?  We could multiply
all the numbers by 10,  or 1000 for that matter,  and construct an
equivalent example.  In this case we might note though,  that if the
old treatment "really" is marginally better,  as the combined numbers
suggest,   then we must have been *unbelievably* unlucky to pick such
skewed samples.   In fact,  the presence of bias or some confounding
factor seems overwhelmingly likely,   even with the given numbers.
>-- surprise test
>
>One day your professor says that there will be a test next week, but that
>you won't know which day it will be until you walk into class and it is
>announced.
>
>Being the logical thinker that you are, you decide that there really can't
>be a test at all next week since the professor's statement seems
>contradictory: The test can't be on friday, because if there's no test by
>the end of class on thursday you will know that the test has to be on
>friday, but the professor said that you wouldn't know until you walked into
>class.  Likewise the test can't be on thursday, because you know the test
>can't be on friday, and if you haven't had the test by wednesday you would
>know it was on thursday before class.  Likewise for wednesday and tuesday. 
>This leaves monday: but this is also impossible, because you can't know now
>that it's going to on monday (you can only know when you walk into class and
>the test is announced).  There has to be a test sometime you think, because
>the processor said there would be one!  Ack!
>
>Well, wednesday finally comes a long and the professor announces that there
>will now be a test.  It seems his statement wasn't contradictory after all
>(there was a test and you didn't know when it was until you walked into
>class).
You got me!   This caused dissonance.   The feeble answer I eventually
came up with is...  Well,  look at the next one:
>-- Godel's theorem
>
>The liar's paradox is truly a paradox.  The statement "This sentence is
>false" can not be resolved without amending logic in some way.
>
>Godel's theorem, however, is not a paradox.  Godel states that there are
>true statements which can not be proved to be true.  As an example, he
>states the true sentence: "This sentence is not provable".  This sentence
>brushes against the liar's paradox, but does not actually fall into it.  The
>sentence is in fact true: if you could prove the sentence you would have a
>contradiction, thus it can't be proved- which is exactly what the sentence
>says.
>
>Hence Godel is able to say that there are true sentences in any formal
>system which can't be proved to be true.  So what's the difference between
>knowing a statement is true and proving a statement is true?
Can't be proved within some specified formal system.  True in a larger
system.   So the statement about the tests was nonsense within the
system of rules the student attempted to apply,  but true in some
other sense,  and partially for the very reason that it was nonsense!
Because it led to a contradiction in the student's chain of logic he
really *didn't* know when the test would be,  because the statement
lacked a truth value in the system of sentences he was implicitly
using.  Similarly,  "This statement cannot be proved" lacks a truth
value within  the system of sentences wherein we might prove it.
Actually,   the insidious quality of these two examples seems to come
from sentences that are homonyms -- that is,  they really represent
*two* sentences with different meanings,  but that look the same:
different meanings,  because implicitly in different dialects.
And the fact that one of the homonyms pair is nonsense -- cannot be
assigned a truth value in its own dialect -- gives a value of *true*
to its identical twin,  in *its* dialect!
This is one of the most confusing things I have ever thought about in
my life.  I hope you are pleased with yourself.  :-)  It's worse,
much worse than the liar's paradox,  which can simply be dismissed as
not meaningful.  To tell the truth,  I don't even get a complete
feeling of resolution on the student's paradox.  But that's ok.  Most
people do not resolve their cognitive dissonance in respect to most
paradoxes,  in my observation.   They learn some phrase to speak over
it to remove the demon,  like "The set of all sets is too big to be a
set";  which at best expresses one resolution;  and thereafter simply
repress the dissonance.  
The five day week merely makes the student's paradox longer, by the
way.  Just say "There will be a dance this weekend,  but you will not
know before the announcement the day of the dance".  Then reason:
"If not on Saturday,  then I would know it must be on Sunday before it
is announced,  hence it cannot be on Sunday,  but must be on Saturday -
- but now I know it will be on Saturday,  so it cannot be on Saturday!"
Hence we really have no information -- or so I try to smooth it over.
This is what Lucifer told the rebel angels to distract them from
thinking about god.  The devil is in it.
Actually... the theological aspect does suggest an analgesic.  Part of
the problem is that the instructor is god.  His statement can be
analyzed into two parts:  (1)  There will be a test next week  (2) You
will not know when it is going to be until the day of the test.  If we
simply translate the latter as "I am not telling you which day",  then
there is no problem.  It is when we attempt to give a truth value to
his prediction "what we will know" that we have a problem.  How does
he know what we will know?  He knows he intends to give a test.  He
knows his own intention,  but he does not know the future state of our
knowledge.  Maybe we have bugged the faculty lounge.
No,  there is still something too facile.  It is also in the choice of
words "to know".  If he merely said "you will not be able to predict
ahead of time what day it is on"...   no,  that still does the trick.
But predict from what?  From the statement itself.  That is the only
information given... ah... closer to the mark.  There is a kind of
nest of prediction here which eventually intersects logical
contradiction...  and we can't predict when the chain will be broken.
This certainly has the self-referential property of all good paradox.
And this is absolutely the worst example I have ever heard!  It puts
my brain in an infinite loop.   ^C^C^C
>-- Zeno's paradoxes
[...]
>A similar demonstration of this problem is as follows:  Suppose you have a
>light with a single button: when you press the button, the light goes on and
>when you press it again, the light goes off.  Suppose you press the button
>after each fraction which Achilles crosses: at the 1/2 mark, at the 3/4 mark
>and so on.  Will the light be on or off at the end of the race?
Phew.  That's easy -- undefined.  The sequence 0,1,0,1,... does not
approach a limit.
>[I found these in the Paradoxicon by Nicholas Falletta]
Or perhaps that was the Necronomicon?

In article <5av16l$5lg@news.nevada.edu>,
MARK A CLARK  wrote:
>Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,talk.atheism,talk.origins
>Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,talk.atheism,talk.origins
>References:  <3290F6F2.3781@ix.netcom.com> <56tr1t$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.  
Primatologists have been studying these very questions.  One gorilla,
having been taught sign-language, was taught the symbol for "death"
by associating it with insect he just smushed.  Asked something like,
"what would will happen after you die?" he replied, "I will go to
warm, comfortable hole in ground."  I guess that qualifies as a need
for a "life after death" (you can't be warm and comfortable unless you
are conscious enough to feel).
>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.
I would go back to that shade analogy.  When I look at the wide
variety of levels of self-awareness demonstrated among humans alone,
I realize that "self-awareness" is a relative term.  Surely there are
things occurring in our own minds which we cannot completely fathom -
this would make us all "un-self-aware" to some degree.  To use a
thought experiment, there could be immensely intelligent aliens
somewhere that would look at us much the way we look at worms.  They
might not call us "self-aware."
Furthermore, chimps have been shown to have a "theory of mind," which
is the ability to form a working model of someone else's mental
processes and draw a parallel to one's own mental processes.  This
strikes me as quite advanced and human.
>: 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.
Sorry, but I don't really see any reason why they should.  That may be
like saying that a penicillin mold has a far greater understanding of
disease than humans do.  Of course if you want to play around with the
definition of "understanding..." ;-)
-Dan

As an FYI, John Cramer has placed his TI paper on the web.  It can be
accessed at:
  http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
--Best regards,
--Mike

>Heiko Schroeder <101544.401@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>>Consider     10 times 0.9999999.... is  9.9999999... and really
>>              1 times 0.9999999.... is  0.9999999...  :-) .
>>And now       9 times 0.9999999.... is obviously the difference of
>>              10 and 1 times 0.99999.... and that is: 9
(I never wanted to get engaged in this thread, and I'm sure making a fool
out of me ;-)
  9.999...9990  (10 x 0.999...999)
- 0.999...9999  (1 x  0.999...999)
==========================
  8.999...9991
Thus the difference between 10x9.99.. minus 1x9.99.. and 9 is exactly what
it should be: just 9 times the difference between 1.000...000 and
0.999...999 =  9 x 0.000....0001 (= 0.000...0009)!
Prove:
   8.999...9991
+ 0.000...0009 (9 x 0.000...0001)
===========
  9.000000000
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.

I have the following books for sale.  Postage to a US address will be $2 
for the first book, $0.50 for each additional book.
Regards,
Gail
infomedx@oneworld.owt.com
http://www.owt.com/infomedix/nukecat.htm -- Nuclear Sciences catalog
======
Alexanderson (editor).  FERMI-1 New Age For Nuclear Power.  A history of 
the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Project.  1979.  The American Nuclear 
Society, 454 pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good....$15
Attix, Frank H.  Luminescence Dosimetry.  Proceedings of International 
Conference on Luminescence Dosimetry Stanford University, June, 1965. 
1967.  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Conf-650637, Division of Technical 
Information, 514 pages, soft cover. Address stamp, torn corner and water 
damage front cover and minor water damage in text (all pages tight)....$8
Benedict, Manson and Thomas H.Pigford.  Nuclear Chemical Engineering. 
1957. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 594 pages, hard cover.  Good with 
owner's stamp on inside front and back covers and first and last blank 
pages....$15
Beyer, R.T.  1949.  Foundations of Nuclear Physics.  Facsimiles of 
thirteen fundamental studies as they were originally reported in the 
scientific journals.  Dover Publications, Inc, New York, NY,  272 pages, 
soft cover.  Very good with name written on first page....$10
Boussard, Daniel. 1968.  Les Accelerateurs De Particules. . Que Sais-Je? 
Le Point Des Connaissances Actuelles No 1316.  Presses Universitaires De 
France, Paris, France, 126 pages, soft cover.  Good....$6
Bureau of Naval Personnel.  Basic Nuclear Physics.  NAVPERS 10786.  1958. 
 Soft cover, 262 pages.  Good with name written on front cover and first 
page....$10
Cork, James M.  1947.  Radioactivity and Nuclear Physics.  First Edition. 
 D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, NY, 313 pages, hard cover.  
Very goodwith pencil writing on inside front cover and a few pages with 
pencil notes or underlining....$18
Countryman, M. Alden.  Exploring the Mysteries of Physics and Chemistry. 
 1938.  University of Knowledge, Inc., Chicago, IL, 384 pages, hard 
cover.  Good with slight separation of front cover from spine and fading 
of lettering on spine.  Chapters include: Radium and Radioactivity; 
Cosmic Rays; The Secrets of the Atom....$15
Curie, Eve.  1938.  Madame Curie. A Biography (translated by V. Sheean). 
 Doubleday, Doran & Company, Garden City, NY, 412 pages, hard cover.  
Good with slight wear and spotting on spine and front cover, name and 
date written in ink on inside front cover and no dust jacket; 32 B&W; 
photographs....$18
Curie, Eve.  1938.  Madame Curie. A Biography (translated by V. Sheean). 
 Doubleday, Doran & Company, Garden City, NY, 412 pages, hard cover.  
Very good with wear and tears in dust jacket; 32 B&W; photographs....$20
Davis, Nuel Pharr.  Lawrence & Oppenheimer.  The Fateful Story of Ernest 
Lawrence and Robert Oppenheimer.. 1968.  Simon and Schuster, New York, 
NY, 384 pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good with stampand signature on 
first blank page and small tear on back dj....$10
Dean, G.  1957.  Report on the Atom.  What You Should Know About the 
Atomic Energy Program of the United States (author was Chairman of U.S. 
A.E.C. from 1950-1953; 16 B&W; photographs of early nuclear facilities), 
Second Edition.  Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY, 359 pages, hard cover.  
Good ex-library copy with partial separation from cloth spine; all pages 
tight....$15
Dupuy, Gaston. 1968. Radioactivite Et Energie Nucleaire. Que Sais-Je? Le 
Point Des Connaissances Actuelles No 33. Septieme Edition.  Presses 
Universitaires de France, Paris, France, 127 pages, soft cover.  
Good....$6
Ford, K.W.  1963.  The World of Elementary Particles.  Blaisdell 
Publishing Co., New York, NY, 246 pages, hard cover.  Very good with 
fold-out and name written on inside cover and first blank page....$15
Gaines, M.  1973.  Atomic Energy.  Knowledge Through Color No 33.  Bantam 
Books, Toronto, Canada, 159 pages, soft cover.  Very good....$3  (2 
copies available)
Glasstone, S.  1956.  Principles of Nuclear Reactor Engineering.  D. Van 
Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 861 pages, hard cover.  Good with owner's stamp 
on first blank page, moderate wear along edges spine and half inch cut 
along top spine....$20
Glasstone, S.  1958.  Principles of Nuclear Reactor Engineering.  D. Van 
Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 861 pages, hard cover.  Good with partial 
fraying of outer cloth covering along edges of spine and wearing along 
edges and corners of front and back covers; name written on first blank 
page....$20
Glasstone, S.  1958.  Sourcebook on Atomic Energy.  D. Van Nostrand 
Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ, 640 pages, hard cover.  Very good with name 
written in ink on first blank page....$18
Glasstone, S. and R.H. Lovberg.  1960.  Controlled Thermonuclear 
Reactions.  An introduction to theory and experiment.  D. Van Nostrand 
Co., Princeton, NY, 523 pages, hard cover.  Vry good with a few wrinkled 
pages in center of book....$20
Glasstone, Samuel and Alexander Sesonske.  Nuclear Reactor Engineering.  
1963.  D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 830 pages, hard cover.  Good with 
light wear alongedges covers and spine and name written on inside front 
cover....$18
Glasstone, Samuel.  Principles of Nuclear Reactor Engineering.  1961.  D. 
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 861 pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good with 
owners name on first blank page....$20
Glasstone, Samuel.  Sourcebook on Atomic Energy.  Second Edition. 1958.  
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 641 pages, hard cover.  Good with owners 
stamps on first blank page....$15
Glasstone, Samuel.  Sourcebook on Atomic Energy.  Second Edition.  1958. 
 D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 641 pages, hard cover.  Good ex-library 
copy....$14
Harnwell, G.P. and J.J. Livingood.  Experimental Atomic Physics.  1933.  
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 472 pages, hard cover.  Good with owner's 
stamp on inside front cover and writing on first blank page....$20
Hecht, Selig.  Explaining The Atom.  1950.  The Viking Press, New York, 
NY, 205 pages, hard cover.  Good with address written on first page and 
name written on page of text....$10
Hoag, J.B. and S.A. Korff.  1961.  Electron and Nuclear Physics. Third 
Edition. D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ, 522 pages, hard cover.  
Very good with name written on top of first page....$15
Hughes, D.J.  Pile Neutron Research.  1953.  Addison-Wesley Publishing 
Company, Inc., 384 pages, hard cover.  Good with remnants of insert on 
inside front cover and owner's stamp on first blank page....$15
Hughes, Donald J.  The Neutron Story.  Exploring the Nature of Matter.  
1959.  Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, NY, 158 pages, paperback. 
 Good ex-library copy....$4
Hurst, G.S. and J.E. Turner.  Elementary Radiation Physics. 1970.  John 
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 166 pages, hard cover.Very good with owner's stamp on 
first blank page....$10
Hurst, R. and S. McLain (editors).  1956.  Progress in Nuclear Energy. 
Series IV.  Technology and Engineering.  Reactors Coolants, Moderators, 
Heat Transfer, Reactor Chemistry and Corrosion of Reactor Materials.  
Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 420 pages, hard cover.  Very good 
ex-library copy with stamps on first blank page....$15
Infeld, L.  1950.  Albert Einstein.  His Work and Its Influence on the 
World, First Edition.  Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, 132 pages, 
hard cover.  Very good with torn dust jacket....$20
Inglis, David Rittenhouse.  1973.  Nuclear Energy: Its Physics and Its 
Social Challenge.  Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA, 395 pages, 
softcover.  Good....$7
Jacobs, Alan M., Donald E. Kline and Forrest J. Remick.  Basic Principles 
of Nuclear Science and Reactors.  1960.  D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 
262 pages with foldout chart of the nuclides, hard cover, dj.  Good with 
wear and several small ters dj....$15
Kocher, David C.  1981. Radioactive Decay Data Tables.  A Handbook of 
Decay Data for Application to Radiation Dosimetry and Radiological 
Assessments. Technical Information Center, US Department of Energy, 
Springfield, VA, 220 pages, softcover.  Very good....$15.
Lapp, R.E. and H.L. Andrews.  1956.  Nuclear Radiation Physics.  Second 
Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ, 532 pages, hardcover.  Very 
good with name and short message on upper cover page....$20
Lederer, C.M., J.M. Hollander and I. Perlman.  1967.  Table of Isotopes. 
Sixth Edition.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 594 pages, hard 
cover (8.7" x 11.2" format).  Very good....$15
Loeb, Paul.  Nuclear Culture.  Living and working in the world's largest 
atomic complex.  1982.  Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc., New York, NY, 
255 pages, hard cover, dj.  Vry good with dedication written on first 
blank page....$8
Lumb, Ralph F (editor).  Management of Nuclear Materials.  1960. D. Van 
Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ, 516 pages, hard cover, dj.  Very 
good with address stamp on inside front and back covers and several small 
tears on edges of dj....$18
Miller, Saunders.  The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power.  1976.  
Praeger Publishers, New York, NY, 151 pages, hard cover.  Good ex-library 
copy....$10
Millikan, Robert Andrews.  1935.  Electrons (+ and -), Protons, Photons, 
Neutrons, and Cosmic Rays.The University of Chicago Science Series, 
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 492 pages, hard cover.  Very 
good with name and address written in ink on top inside front cover and 
first blank page.  This is a beautiful copy of a classic book written by 
Millikan (1868-1953) who was given the Nobel Prize for his determination 
of the electric charge for electrons; also written only two years after 
the discovery of neutrons by Chadwick (1932)....$50
Moller, C.  1962.  The Theory of Relativity.  At the Clarendon Press, 
Oxford, UK, 386 pages, hard cover.  Very good with name written on top of 
first blank page....$20
Murray, Raymond L.  Introduction to Nuclear Engineering. 1955. 
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 418 pages, hard cover.  Good with owner's stamp on 
first blank page....$15
Murray, Raymond L.  Nuclear Reactor Physics.  1957.  Prentice-Hall, Inc., 
317 pages, hard cover.  Good with slight fading along spine and owner's 
stamp on first blank page....$15
Novick, Sheldon.  The Careless Atom.  1969.  Houghton Mifflin Company, 
Boston, MA, 225 pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good....$8
Pollard, E. and W.L. Davidson.  1946.  Applied Nuclear Physics. John 
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 249 pages, hard cover.  Another fascinating 
book in ninth printing of 1942 first edition. Contains the current 
understanding of nuclear physics the same year as the first controlled 
nuclear reactor demonstration at the University of Chicago (1942) that 
preceded the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear power....$35
Price, W.J.  1964.  Nuclear Radiation Detection.  Mc-Graw Hill Series in 
Nuclear Engineering.  McGraw-Hill Book Co., New york, NY, 430 pages, hard 
cover.  Very good with name written at top of first blank page....$15
Price, William J.  Nuclear Radiation Detection.  Second Edition.  1964.  
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 430 pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good with 
owers name on first blank page....$12
Price, William J.  Nuclear Radiation Detection.  Second Edition.  1964.  
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 430 pages, hard cover.  Very good with owner 
stamp and signature on inside front cover....$12
Proceedings of the Topical Meeting on New Horizons in Radiation 
Protection and Shielding, April 26 - May 1, 1992, Pasco, WA.  New and 
unopened in shrink-wrapped covering....$10
Racah, G (editor).  1962.  Nuclear Spectroscopy.  Proceedings of the 
International School of Physics -Enrico Fermi-, Academic Press, New York, 
NY, 258 pages, hardcover.  Very good....$20
Rice, Francis Owen and Edward Teller.  1949.  The Structure of Matter.  
First Edition.  John Wiley & sons, Inc., New York, NY, 361 pages....$25
Romer, Alfred. The Restless Atom.  The Awakening of Nuclear Physics.  
1960.  Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, NY, 198 pages, paperback. 
 Good ex-library copy....$4
Schmidt, Fred H. and David Bodansky.  The Energy Controversy. The Fight 
Over Nuclear Power.  1976.  Albion Publishing Company, San Francisco, CA, 
154 pages, soft cover.  Very good....$6
Schultz, M.A.  1955.  Control of Nuclear Reactors and Power Plants.  
McGraw-Hill Series in Nuclear Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New 
York, NY, 313 pages, hard cover. Very good with name imprinted on first 
blank page....$20
Segre, Emilio, Gerhart Friedlander and H. Pierre Noyes (editors).  Annual 
Review of Nuclear Science.  Volume 16. 1966. Annual Reviews Inc., 671 
pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good with small tears dj and name written on 
inside front cover....$15
Segre, Emilio, J. Robb Grover and H. Pierre Noyes (editors).  Annual 
Review of Nuclear Science.  Volume 19.  1969.  Annual Reviews Inc., 635 
pages, hard cover, dj. Very good with name written inside front 
cover....$15
Segre, Emilio, J. Robb Grover and H. Pierre Noyes (editors).  Annual 
Review of Nuclear Science.  Volume 20.  1970.  Annual Reviews Inc., 613 
pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good  with small tears dj  and name written 
inside front cover....$15
Segre, Emilio, J.Robb Grover and H. Pierre Noyes (editors).  Annual 
Review of Nuclear Science.  Volume 22.  1972.  Annual Reviews Inc, 506 
pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good with name written on inside front 
cover....$15
Semat, Henry.  Introduction to Atomic Physics.  Revised and Enlarged.  
1952.  Rinehart & Company, Inc., Publishers, New York, NY, 412 pages, 
hard cover.  Good with stamp and signature and writing on first blank 
page, address on last blank page and slight fading of lettering on over 
and spine....$15
Shleien, Bernard.  The Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook.  
Revised Edition.  1992.  Scinta, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, 734 pages, hard 
cover (8.7" x 11.2" format).  Very good....$20
Soodak, H. and E.C. Campbell.  1950.  Elementary Pile Theory.  John Wiley 
& Sons, New York, NY, 73 pages, hardcover.  Good with name and notes on 
first three cover pages....$20
Spiers, F.W. and G.W. Reed (editors).  Radiation Dosimetry.  Course 30.  
Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi".  1964. 
 Academic Press, 308 pages, hard cover, dj.  Very good....$15
Stephenson, R.  1958.  Introduction to Nuclear Engineering.  Second 
Edition. McGraw-Hill Serie in Nuclear Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 
New York, NY, 491 pages, hard cover.  Very good with moderate fading 
along spine and name written on first blank page....$20
Stoller, Roger E., Arvind S. Kumar and David S. Gelles (editors).  
Effects of Radiation on Materials: 15th International Symposium, STP 
1125.  1992.  Americann Society For Testing and Materials, 1323 pages, 
hard cover.  Very good....$20
Stranathan, J.D.  The "Particles" of Modern Physics.  1942.  The 
Blakiston Company, 583 pages, hard cover.  Good....$25
Taylor, J.W.R. 1972.  Rockets and Missiles.  Knowledge Through Color No 
30, Bantam Books, Toronton, Canada, 159 pages, soft cover.  Very 
good....$3
The League of Women Voters.  The Nuclear Waste Primer.  A Handbook for 
Citizens.  1985.  Nick Lyons Books, New York, NY, 90 pages, soft cover.  
Very good....$4
Thie, J.A.  1963.  Reactor Noise, An AEC Monograph and American Nuclear 
Society publication, Rowman and Littlefield, New York, NY, 262 pages, 
hardcover. Good with small tears along edges of dust jack and two small 
areas of blacked out names on cover pages....$20
Thompson, T.J. and J.G. Beckerley (editors).  The Technology of Nuclear 
Reactor Safety.  Volume 1 Reactor Physics and Control. 1973. The M.I.T. 
Press, Cambridge, MA, 743 pages, hard cover (7.2" x 10.2" format). Good 
with name written on first blank page....$18
Weisman, Joel.  Elements of Nuclear Reactor Design.  Second Edition.  
1983.  Robert E#. Krieger Publishing Company, 512 pages, hard cover.  
Very good....$18
Whyte, G.N.  1959.  Principles of Radiation Dosimetry.  John Wiley & 
Sons, New York, NY, 124 pages, hard cover.  Very good with name written 
on top of first blank page....$15