Subject: Re: 0.999999999999999999999...= 1
From: Erik Max Francis
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:57:32 -0800
[Followups include sci.math.]
Anil Trivedi wrote:
> 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
> >
> >So you have 9 times 0.99999.... is EXACTLY 9. And obviously:
> > 0.99999.... is EXACTLY 1.
>
> This is a very good proof, I like it a lot. If you just thought
> of it, congratulations!
It's a common "motivation" that 0.999... = 1, but it is not mathematically
rigorous.
A better way is to demonstrate it is to derive the formula for an geometric
series, and then compute the sum for 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ... You find
that the answer is 1.
--
Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
&tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
"You must surely know if man made heaven | Then made made hell"
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: Sylvia Else
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 07:41:56 -0800
Alan Mellerick wrote:
> Sounds like the claim by Gunther Nimtz that he has demonstrated in the
> laboratory microwave signals travelling @ 4.7c. Whilst admitting that he
> cannot exactly describe what is happening, he attributes this to quantum
> tunelling.
I vaguely remember this, reported, I think, in New Scientist. Seems to me
there was an accompanying discussion about the difficulty in deciding
where the wavefront actually is, and how this can result in measurements
that seem to imply FTL communication. To be convinced by such a
demonstration, I would want to see the transmission of real data FTL.
Indeed, the data would have to be generated randomly just before
transmission, to obviate the possibility that it had travelled at less
than light speed by some other route.
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.
Subject: Re: Whale strandings->earthquakes? Was: (Re: ...earthquake references)
From: bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 17:18:06 GMT
Paul Oberlander (obrlndr@earthlink.net) wrote:
[...]
: > Hmm, he may have something here. I would be willing to bet that
there
: > was an earthquake someplace in the world with 24 hours of a whale
: > beaching itself. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that
: > there was a major earthquake (above 5) sometime near that point.
: > I would be willing to bet that there will be an earthquake with in 24
: > hours of when I sneeze too!
How many above 5 quakes do you think that there are per year?
: >
: > My point with that absurdity was that you haveto be really careful
: > about the analysis of whatever data you have to try and correlate the
: > whale beachings and earthquakes. Earthquakes are fairly common in
: > some parts of the world, so you'll want to try and have some
: > correlation between the beachings (something else sort of common) and
: > the earthquakes. Just because they seem to happen with a similar
: > frequency, doesn't mean that they are related.
: >
: > brian
:
:
: The US Coast guard is at this moment(Friday morning-Cal time) attempting
: to keep a young whale from beaching itself again after being rescued
: this morning. If your theory has merit perhaps we will see some
: "action" here today.
:
: Paul
Though my question related to any pattern of quakes in Japan following
strandings in New Zealand and whether there might be a pattern elswhere.
Thanks to Dennis for the analysis of responses. Are they trying to
disperse attention? To allow myself the luxury of some wondering: perhaps
human attention may come into world affects - rain dances - any mind
concentration & earthquake lore?
Before tectonic plates were know of, James Churchward went around the
world studying volcanoes and mountain ranges. In his book, "The Second
Book of the Cosmic Forces of Mu" (Warner Paperback 64-887) he gives
maps of gas belts which push up mountain ranges besides causing
volcanoes. The volcanic gas travels along the belts which may become
blocked. Clearance of a block could involve a 'quake. Then the wave of
pressure released travels along the belt and may cause effects further along.
But can this effect be interpreted in terms of the tectonic plates? Think
of a pair of scissors. As you cut the point of cutting moves along the
blades. Do tectonic plates move over one another that way? Perhaps the
modern satellite earth measurement data could be analysed to look for any
such waves. If I were to take John's advice I would keep quiet about this
until I had done a thorough search myself. But I would probably never do it.
Which way are the scissors crossing? If the wales are feeling pressure in
California might there be a _nick_ in the scissors somewhere in South
America which will catch soon? Do waves go north or south or in contrary
directions on either side of the Pacific Ring of Fire. Churchward follows
the `belts' clockwise.
Perhaps this article has been far fetched enough so that the need of the
collective subconscious to disperse it will be minimal. But go for it.
Brian Sandle
Subject: Re: Time and its existance
From: alien.spydr@worldnet.att.net (a. s.)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:47:15 GMT
On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 06:44:18 GMT, daverees@ix.netcom.com (Dave Rees) wrote:
->alien.spydr@worldnet.att.net (a. s.) wrote:
->>On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 06:35:05 GMT, daverees@ix.netcom.com (Dave Rees)
->>wrote:
->>->PriorKW@PriorResource.com (Bob Cecil) wrote:
->>->>On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 03:17:57 GMT, daverees@ix.netcom.com (Dave Rees)
->>->>wrote:
->>->>>craigw1@adnc.com wrote:
->>->>>>On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 01:15:08 GMT, all hell broke loose when
->>->>>>DRees84014@gnn.com (Dave Rees) spewed forth:
->>->>>>>merk077@servtech.com (Gregoire) wrote:
->>->>One cannot go backward or forward in time from our present point in
->>->>existence because those points do not exist in reality.
>
>
->>We are not denying that "time" exists as an intellectual concept,
->>useful for measureing the changes in (the decaying of) existance, we
->>are suggesting that time travel isn't possible in that the "past" does
->>not exist as a physical reality.
->
->
->
->My first question when examining any competing model of space and time
->would be what is the evidence for it? Where does it differ from the
->relativistic space-time model and, where it does, how does it justify
->its version of reality over that of the relativistic space-time model?
->
That is an excellent "question", and would apply to my position. What is the
evidence that the past, (previous existance) still exists, to be accessed and
entered, physically.
->> As for dimensions, would you agree or no, that there may be lifeforms
->>that exist without time. That for them, nothing changes. All things
->>are as they were and will be?
->
->I firmly believe that all matter/energy in the universe experiences
->the passage of time, people, rocks, protons, etc. Even if a lifeform
->has no capacity to understand or otherwise think about time, I don't
->think it is exempted from aging/changing as time passes.
It is a vague and cryptic theory that there are beings, living in other
dimensions, outside of the passage of time. There are religions that hold to
this premise.
a. s.
Subject: Re: twin paradox
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 17:28:35 GMT
:: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: Even if we consider general relativity, time dilation doesn't occur
:: because of "acceleration", but rather because of depth in a
:: potential, which isn't the same thing. For example, the
:: gravitational acceleration on earth and saturn at the "surface" is
:: nearly equal, but saturn's time ticks slower than earth's, because
:: it's potential well is "deeper".
: lbsys@aol.com Lorenz Borsche
: Well, I came to trust most everything you write, as it seems that you
: know your field well. So I trust you here as well, although it sure
: (intuitively) raises my eyebrows. Would you care to give some more
: details for the uninformed layman? Like what's the level of g on
: Saturn's surface compared to Earth and how much do the clocks slow and
: what is meant with depth of the potential well? Thanks a lot.
Two parter.
First, what's the gravitational acceleration on Saturn's surface.
Well, since saturn's surface is very very fuzzy, this is somewhat
problematical, but look here:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html
Saturn Earth Ratio(Saturn/Earth)
Mass (1024 kg) 568.46 5.9736 95.162
Volume (1010 km3) 82,713 108.321 763.59
Volumetric mean radius (km) 58,232 6,371 9.140
Ellipticity 0.0980 0.0034 28.82
Mean density (kg/m3) 687 5,520 0.124
Gravity (eq., 1 bar) (m/s2) 8.96 9.78 0.916
Escape velocity (km/s) 35.5 11.19 3.172
They've taken "gravity at equal pressures", near as I can tell.
That is, gravity at the "surface" of saturn's visual appearance.
And it's 90% of earth's; that's more or less equal-to-a-single-digit
(if you squint properly).
But there's a big, big difference in the amount of energy it
takes to "escape" earth vs saturn, because that 1g of acceleration
happens ten times further out, and the mass is a thousand times larger.
Second part: what's this "potential" stuff. It's essentially the same
notion as "potential energy"; how much energy is lost lifting something
from saturn's "surface" to "infinity" (or "very far away" in pratical
terms). (Or rather, the potential energy is increased, and the
momentum of the thing-lifted-out is decreased; by convention, binding
energy has a minus sign.) Or, another way of looking at it is that
the "depth in potential" is related to the integral of acceleration
over distance lifted against a force.
The point is, the red shift of a photon "climbing out" of a gravity
well represents the time dilation down at the bottom of that well
where the photon started. Climbing out of saturn's gravity well
takes something like 10 times the energy, and causes something like
ten times the red shift, as climbing out of earth's. Thus, we
conclude that time dilation is ten times larger (unless I've made
some trivial mistake in arithmetic).
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:55:33 GMT
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:43:57 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.org= ( >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<
) wrote:
>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>
>> >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<< wrote:
>>Y'know, it would help readability if you would insert (or leave, in
>>the case of quoted text) blank lines as separators.
>Irrelevant.
Thank you.
*plonk*
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: paradox
From: Norbert Kolvenbach
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:31:44 +0100
Joseph H Allen wrote:
>
> In article <01bbfdcb$f741e5a0$LocalHost@brian>,
> Brian Tozer. wrote:
>
> >> >> 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?
>
> I should not have said negated. The two statements are equivalent, not
> negations of each other. So the paradox should have read:
>
> 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 statement "all non-black things aren't ravens" is logically
> equivalent to "all ravens are black". 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".
> --
> /* jhallen@world.std.com (192.74.137.5) */ /* Joseph H. Allen */
> int a[1817];main(z,p,q,r){for(p=80;q+p-80;p-=2*a[p])for(z=9;z--;)q=3&(r=time(0)
> +r*57)/7,q=q?q-1?q-2?1-p%79?-1:0:p%79-77?1:0:p<1659?79:0:p>158?-79:0,q?!a[p+q*2
> ]?a[p+=a[p+=q]=q]=q:0:0;for(;q++-1817;)printf(q%79?"%c":"%c\n"," #"[!a[q-1]]);}
Hm, sounds curious....
From "all non-black things aren't ravens" it follows, that "all ravens are
black". But the reverse is NOT true, hence no equivalence!
NoKo
"Careful with that VAX, Eugene!"
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:16:18 GMT
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:44:07 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.org= ( >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<
) wrote:
>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>
>> >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<< wrote:
>>
>>>You seem in your haste to indulge faulty logic to have forgotten
>>>the subject, which is how organisms are normally adapted to live
>>>in health under conditions to which they have evolved to enjoy.
>>An organism is "successful" if it can reproduce at a rate sufficient
>>to guarantee a stable or increasing population. If the individuals
>>comprising the population die horribly, even of inherited disease,
>>*after* the normal breeding age, the organism is still successful.
>>Strangely enough, most human cancer occurs *after* the normal human
>>age of reproduction.
>
>Most humans don't even get cancer.
Er, so what? How does this address the point I made above?
>
>>>"The heavy metal and organic constituents of air pollution include
>>>many chemicals known to be carcinogenic ... According to industrial
>>>reporting required by the EPA, 650,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants
>>>(air toxics) were released in the United States in 1992. The presence
>>>of tace amounts of these chemicals in air may be responsible for a
>>>significant portion of the cancer observed in humans."
>>>Bernard Nebel, PhD Duke, Richard Wright, PhD Harvard,
>>>"Environmental Science: The Way The World Works" 5th Edition
>>>Prentice Hall 1996
>>>That's just the contaminants in air.
>>>Those in food and water add effects.
>
>>Of course, the fact that environmental pollutants increase the risk of
>>cancer in no way implies that they are the sole cause. Or do you have
>>citable evidence, rather than opinion, to the contrary?
>
>
>Do you claim there must be some other cause for cancer
>than carcinogens?
Since you haven't defined what *you* consider to be carcinogens
(although you *seemed* to say that excessive exposure to the UV in
sunlight was *not* carcinogenic, for which you provided no evidence),
it's rather difficult to address this in a meaningful way.
>
>
>You make unsubstantiated claims.
*You* claimed that cancer wasn't possible without exposure to
carcinogens, specifically industrial pollutants; you provided no
evidence for this claim. What was that about "unsubstantiated claims"?
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>|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.*|
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: "FORBIDDEN SCIENCE," excellent anti-skept book!
From: mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:20:53 GMT
In article <5b8e13$g5f@rainbow.rmii.com>, kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt
Foster) wrote:
> Gee, ain't science awful? Well, maybe not. Note that the above says
> that (1) the evidence gathered in one experiment was made available for
> later scrutiny, (2) the result was tested by other observations.
Indeed, the myth being exposed here is not general relativity or the
usefulness of scientific procedures, it's the idea of science as a
collection of single crucial experiments that make or break theories
and stand for all time. People who, for instance, attempt to attack
special relativity by debunking the original Michelson-Morley experiment
have fallen prey to this mythology, perhaps in a science class.
--
Matt McIrvin
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: density4@cts.com (Blue Resonant Human)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:40:25 GMT
The Martian Meteorite:: A Fourth Density Perspective
====================================================
There has been much chatter regarding NASA's announcement
of a Martian Meteorite containing rudimentary microbial life forms.
Finding myself Immensely Concerned over the National Security
Implications of this Strange and Baffling Matter, I prepared an
immediate briefing which I presented (along with those of my Holy
Associates) straightaway before the High AAViarian Counsulate.
The conclusions we arrived at were simply staggering.
While some Theories hold that a piece of Mars accidentally broke
off and somehow managed to hurl itself Earthward, we find these
Theories to be Entirely Plausible yet perhaps overly prosaic and
marred by culture-bound reasoning.
There appears to be a sort of developmental plateau wherein
planetary species eventually and inevitably look towards the
Heavens and -- full of Awe and Wonder -- ask the Profound
Existential Question, "Is there truly life on other Planets?"
This, in fact, is what has birthed and nurtured our own SETI
(and latter-day CSETI) programmes. Yet such questions and
methodologies may not be confined to this planet alone.
In the case of the Enigmatic Martian Meteorite, we find it far more
likely that this is a clear case of a Martian-Based SETI endeavour.
The Martians, it appears, have opted for a more direct approach
than we; choosing instead to pick up Martian Rocks, spit upon them
(to implant the DNA-Encrypted Contact Message) then throw them
*very* hard in the direction of Earth.
Now here is where it gets *really* interesting. Because only the
Strongest Martians can actually toss the Planetary Fragments (i.e.
the Spittle-Laden Martian Rocks) with enough force to break free
of the strong Martian Gravitational Field (the weaker Tossers
having their Rocks fall back in dismal failure to the surface of
the Red Planet), we observe the Quantum Mechanics of a Darwinian
Selection Mechanism at play -- only those Martian Rocks with the
Highest Grade of Martian Spittle making it as far as our Terran
Scientific Laboratories.
This is our theory anyway.
-Blue Resonant Human, Ph.D.
http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/index.html
Subject: Re: Science Versus Ethical Truth.
From: mlerma@math.utexas.edu (Miguel Lerma)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 20:35:50 GMT
Mark Lee (mlee@rich.k12.ut.us) wrote:
> Miguel Lerma wrote:
> > Clearly the observation of our world rules out the existence of a being
> > with the following three attributes:
> >
> > 1. All Powerful.
> >
> > 2. All Loving.
> >
> > 3. All Knowing.
>
> The only clear thing, Mr. Lerma, is that you arrive at your conclusion
> based on the tinting of your observations due to your own set of
> strengths, weaknesses, pains and joys. I have no difficulty in
> believing that an (omni)2 God could allow man to exercise his agency to
> love and harm, and examine the bill of accountability at a later time.
> Your note is nonetheless interesting.
I think that is the classical "explanation" that God allows evil
because it is a consequence of a greater good: human freedom. I find
that explanation hard to support. First, some evil has natural causes,
for instance earthquakes and floods. On the other hand, human freedom has
limitations, for instance I cannot bend a bar of steel with my bare hands.
It has also psychological limitations, for instance I cannot kill my wife,
not because I am physically unable to do it if I wanted, but because I am
unable to _want_ such a thing. An All Powerful-Loving-Knowing being should
have the ability of designing the proper limitations to human freedom to
avoid evil, without preventing us from being free in everything else.
Note that "accountability at a later time" only makes sense to prevent
harmful behavior when it cannot be prevented afterwards. That is a
feature of limited beings, such as humans. We have laws to punish
stealing, for instance, but we first try to prevent it by locking
our doors, and trying to educate people to avoid such behavior.
But we know that we cannot prevent always harmful behavior, and
that is why we need to resort to punishment. A "perfect" being would
have no difficulty preventing undesirable behavior without resorting
to later punishment.
Finally you can claim that after all we cannot understand how God
makes His decisions because that is a mystery above our capability
to understand. I have trouble with this claim too. People who claim
that, seem to know very well God's will, up to the point to dare to
speak in His behalf, which seems to me an indication that those people
are not sincere after all. On the other hand, if we are made at God's
image, He should not be so hard to understand, because we should share
some similarities. At least we should expect to share the same logic.
Otherwise, not only my note would be uninteresting, but anything that
anybody can say or conceive about God would be useless. So, let's forget
the subject and talk about something else.
Miguel A. Lerma
Subject: Re: Idle query: how good are math and science teaching outside the U.S.?
From: "M.LJoyce"
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:29:36 +0000
In article , Michael Weiss
writes
>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.
>[snip]
>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 was educated in the U.K. and am now back at university as a mature
student (30+) reading engineering. I feel my earlier education,
mathematical, has stood me in very good stead for the engineering math I
am now studying. This may be due to the interest I have always
naturally had in the subject and the impression left on me by the tutor
I remember as my first 'real math' tutor, an excellent old fellow who
could prove to green 13 year olds that 1 = -1 and showed us how to tell
the time by the stars. But on a wider scale, the majority of my peers
find math much harder and generally it is the 'dreaded' subject, much
down to the fact, in my opinion, that their background in math is not on
a par with mine. I was fortuneate enough to have won scholarships to
private schools, whereas my fellow U.K. students went through the state
system.
There is much of a hullabaloo in govt. circles at the moment in the U.K.
regarding the standards of secondary education, particularly math and
the use of calculators. It is being considered that the use of
calculators should be limited to time saving rather than thought
replacing, remember log tables ? An execellent idea, banning
calculators, how many of the youngsters at McDungalds could could add up
your bill and give you the correct change today (till-less), let alone
tell your hypotenuse from your your hyperbole ? Indeed the latest point
of dispute is the programmable calculator in degree mathematics, which
is another topic altogether.
So the moral of this story is don't give the bell-boy a £5 tip if three
of you check into a motel, especially if you are under 18.
Anyway, I still can't figure the inverse Laplace transform of
s^2/(s+a)(s+b), any help ?
P.S. Is there a DERIVE fan club out there, or has windoze got you all
MATLAB ?
--
Martin@kimmi.demon.co.uk
"the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe"F.Z.
Subject: Re: Frequency-Space paradox?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:47:47 GMT
In article <19970112154500.KAA24129@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jmfbah@aol.com (JMFBAH) writes:
>In article ,
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>,
><>
><>If our perception of the physicality of the universe were in four
><>dimensions, we would be describing relationships of the physical
><>properties with third order differential equations, wouldn't we?
><>
><
>Oh, I'm thinking about spatial dimension without time as a piece of the
>description. For years, I've been making the assumption that time is a
>4th dimension of space. Then, thanks to something Uncle Al said, I
>questioned that assumption. At the moment I'm trying to rethink "how
>things look" versus "how things move". "How things look" is a spatial
>description. "How things move" is a comparison of two samples of "how
>things look" taken at different times. Hence, my suggestion that, if we
>could perceive how things look in 4 dimensions, the descriptors would be
>expressed mathematically in 3rd order differentials.
And I repeat that there is absolutely no relationship between the
dimensionality of a space and the order of differential equations
which may be used to describe processes in this space.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Condemnation of Atonality
From: crjclark
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:51:11 -0800
There is a spectre still haunting the civilized world: it is the
spectre of atonality. Atonal music cannot adequately be condemned.
To give a thorough condemnation of atonality would require a formal
elucidation of *all possible relationships* which have caused the
phenomenon. Not even complexity theory could discuss the genetic,
psychological, physiological, neurological, philosophical,
anthropological and cultural deteriorations which have contributed to
the existence of atonality.
*Peer approval* programs have contributed to a small band of
ideological demagogues inculcating the masses with ideas on
*musicological correctness*. Atonal music enthusiasts have spread
massive harm to the audience by offending their sensibilities and
hurting their ears. Personality disorders are encouraged by
advocating and educating an entire class of atonal charlatans who
have deluded themselves into thinking that they are *composers*.
Atonal music is a violation of all rational aesthetic values.
Consonance is not a culturally conditioned relativistic phenomenon.
When waves combine in a certain way, they produce symmetry and
resonance. The universal existence of 2nds in virtually all musical
cultures establishes beyond all reasonable doubt the objective
independent existence of musical self-organization. This
self-organization transcends any feeble attempt of serialist
criticism to defend itself from the inexorable march of absolute wave
functions.
The move towards the *irrational* in philosophy and physics is
evidenced everywhere. There was also a movement towards the
irrational at the dawn of the Dark Ages. People who call themselves
*physicists* write papers which are incomprehensible to their own
colleagues. Philosophers ramble on about *memes* and *logic* and
never once even mention *absolutes* or *universals*. Such ignorance
is not only lamentable, it is deplorable. If Lorentz invariance is
not a *universal* constant more immutable than the speed of light, I
defy any physicist anywhere to prove that such invariance does not
occur everywhere in space, in exactly the same way, every time it
occurs. For if Lorenz invariance was not a fact of natural law,
then all the stars would look different. But for some *invariant*
reason, the stars all look the same.
The ideological paradigm of such a notion as *atonal* music must
be called by its proper name: noise. Atonal music as such does not
exist. For there can be no music that is not at least 51% consonant.
There is nothing more insidious than seeing one atonal composer
patting another one on the back and saying, "nice job." There could
not be a more perverse encouragement of *failure*.
MIDI has contributed to the possible extinction of the composer
of orchestral music. While there is much that is good about
contemporary film and television scores, in that there is a *healthy
move away from atonality*, there is also much that is bad in the
sense that the purity and quality of orchestra music is lost to
inferior cheaper machine music.
Let us hope that more producers in the future will insist on
orchestra music for film and television, and let that music be of a
tonal and primarily consonant nature. Otherwise, the quality of film
and television will continue to deteriorate along with the quality of
music in general. The unfortunate circumstances of the music
industry cannot be condoned with apathetic Cage-like silence.
Rather, let silence be condemned as fiercely as atonality.
Craig Clark
Subject: Re: How does an armored tank move?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:59:01 GMT
In article <19970112161600.LAA24950@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>>And a question here: does that mean, that the centrifugal force (e.g.
>>>driving the raindrops off the tyre) is also highest at the top of the
>>>wheel?
>>>
>>Not the highest centrifugal force, but the highest velocity, relative
>>to the ground. So they indeed fly the furthest.
>
>Yes, highest velocity of course. What about centrifugal force on a rolling
>wheel: Is it the same at all points of the wheel? Like: at the backside
>(going upwards) we have the additional forward motion seemingly separating
>the drops from the wheel compared to the front side (going downwards)
>where the forwarding motion seems to recapture the drops??? What about top
>and bottom?
>
The centrifugal force is the same all around. Think about it this
way: the fact that the wheel is rolling on the groun is irrelevant,
it could just as well rotate above the ground while being moved
forward by other means (being put in a moving car, for example. Now,
if you just hold the center of mass stationary and rotate it, the
centrifugal force is the same, all around the rim. Now, lets give it
a forward motion at constant velocity. This is just a transformation
to another inertial frame, so no new forces are introduced and the
centrifugal force still remains the same all around the rim.
But, you've to remember that in the full analysis there are three
forces involved, each acting in a different direction. You've gravity
pointing down, centrigal force radially and aerodynamic drag, in
general against the direction of motion but with added turbulence
which may cause funny effects. These three forces add up along the
rim in a pattern which may vary a lot from one point to another. I
would guess that a full analysis (one that includes drag) will be
rather complicated.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: PH.D.s are useless
From: varange@crl.com (Troy Varange)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 12:34:32 -0800
> A PhD isn't useless. True, the knowledge you are digging up
> is very specialised, but the skills you learn while digging
> are very important: determination, skepticism, thought,
> rigour, etc.
Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
--
Cheers!
Subject: Re: Harmonic Resonance
From: ianosh@mv.itline.it (Francesco Iannuzzelli)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 01:53:54 GMT
fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>Very interesting, Francesco, but then why was the third considered
>dissonant for a thousand years?
In fact the third is not a stricly consonant interval.
In our experiments the fourth looks more consonant than the third to
our little neurons. It's also interesting that there's no difference
between major and minor third.
However the fifth and the octave are the most evident ones, while the
other consonant intervals (fourth, third, sixth, second) come in this
order while the other ones (dissonant) come much after.
The last one is the tritone (of course).
What is interesting is that the learning process is completely casual
and perfectly distributed among the various notes, it has not been
"driven".
When we (me and a friend of mine) started this work we had two aims:
the consonance of fundamental intervals (octave and fifth) that are
common to every culture, and the construction of the "basse
fondamentale", as said Rameau, "ce guide invisible du Musicien".
This could be off-topic, so I'll try to be short.
Maybe you know that we can justify all the harmonic choices in the
history of music if we assume that we're able to construct a third
sound from two ones we're listening. This third sound is the
difference between the two frequencies: Tartini tried to find it in
the instruments, some other in our external ear, many other used
harmonics to explain this; all this explanations are wrong, as it has
been demonstrated (not by me!), that these sounds aren't hearable.
We say that this sound is generated by a neural process, and this is
dued to the organization of memory. In other words we're able to treat
"forms" and we recognize them when they appear in different way.
In psychology you could call this "gestalt", and you can find many
many similarities with eye's activity.
We've just put together some few neurons (not really!, a simulation by
computer) and they were able to associate to two sounds their
fundamental bass, corresponding to the difference of tones.
This could explains the development of occidental music, with the
third introduced to form chords.
They (first Zarlino) said that this was caused by the presence of the
harmonics; the third is the fifth harmonic, but we cannot hear it!
Instead consider the difference between a third and an octave: it's an
octave. So you can explain the introduction of third.
Our neurons behave in this way, recognizing the differences between
tones not "making counts" (our brain is not a computer...) but in an
associative way.
Why this happened after thousand years?
Well, we must consider also other factors, the psychoacoustic
influence: the octave and the fifth are the basis, the rest comes
after.
And it came in different contexts: the occidental one, with
polyphonism, was obliged to develop a way to "fit sounds together".
This has not been necessary for other cultures (eastern, arabian,
african).
As said Schoenberg, every musical explanation must be also
psychological.
I underline "also".
Excuse my hurried english, bye!
Francesco
'_ Francesco Iannuzzelli
| ) ianosh@mv.itline.it
__|/ PGP keyID 0xE01BCA6D
\ | http://www.map.it/ianosh
\| <<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'
Subject: Re: Harmonic Resonance
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 21:45:22 GMT
In article <32d83a01.1055306@news.interbusiness.it>,
Francesco Iannuzzelli wrote:
>fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>
>>Very interesting, Francesco, but then why was the third considered
>>dissonant for a thousand years?
>
>In fact the third is not a stricly consonant interval.
>In our experiments the fourth looks more consonant than the third to
>our little neurons. It's also interesting that there's no difference
>between major and minor third.
Ah, but for another 600 years the fourth was considered strictly
dissonant, while all thirds were considered consonant. Why so?
>When we (me and a friend of mine) started this work we had two aims:
>the consonance of fundamental intervals (octave and fifth) that are
>common to every culture, and the construction of the "basse
You must be careful not to build circular or false assumptions
into your neural and cochlear model. In particular, the question
of what neural response counts as "consonance" or "dissonance"
might beg such questions as "what is pleasure".
Is the 3:2 ratio (fifth) found in either of the two scales
of Javanese music? (one uses 5 of the 7 tones in 7-tone equal
temperment, and I forget how the other one works)
>fondamentale", as said Rameau, "ce guide invisible du Musicien".
>This could be off-topic, so I'll try to be short.
>Maybe you know that we can justify all the harmonic choices in the
>history of music if we assume that we're able to construct a third
>sound from two ones we're listening. This third sound is the
I'm aware of the acoustical phenomenon but not of a scientific
connection between that and the various syntaxes and styles in which
harmonic choices are made.
>harmonics; the third is the fifth harmonic, but we cannot hear it!
I can hear the fifth harmonic in many instruments, particularly
human voice and organ pipes. And I can hear the lower tritone
and other tones in carillon bells sometimes... so?
--
Matt Fields URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
Subject: Re: Whale strandings->earthquakes? Was: (Re: ...earthquake references)
From: Paul Oberlander
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:20:44 -0800
Brian Sandle wrote:
>
> Paul Oberlander (obrlndr@earthlink.net) wrote:
> [...]
> : > Hmm, he may have something here. I would be willing to bet that
> there
> : > was an earthquake someplace in the world with 24 hours of a whale
> : > beaching itself. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that
> : > there was a major earthquake (above 5) sometime near that point.
> : > I would be willing to bet that there will be an earthquake with in 24
> : > hours of when I sneeze too!
>
> How many above 5 quakes do you think that there are per year?
>
> : >
> : > My point with that absurdity was that you haveto be really careful
> : > about the analysis of whatever data you have to try and correlate the
> : > whale beachings and earthquakes. Earthquakes are fairly common in
> : > some parts of the world, so you'll want to try and have some
> : > correlation between the beachings (something else sort of common) and
> : > the earthquakes. Just because they seem to happen with a similar
> : > frequency, doesn't mean that they are related.
> : >
> : > brian
> :
> :
> : The US Coast guard is at this moment(Friday morning-Cal time) attempting
> : to keep a young whale from beaching itself again after being rescued
> : this morning. If your theory has merit perhaps we will see some
> : "action" here today.
> :
> : Paul
Well you got one correlation. A whale in So. Ca. and the Mexico 6.8
event. Now all you have to do is see a repeat of this correlation about
1000 times to have a testable hypothesis, then you can go on from there.
Paul
--
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent" Viktor
Frankl
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: nomailmer@prostar.com (Shea F. Kenny)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:50:53 GMT
During a routine traffic stop by the U.P.D.,
(fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)), had an open container
container of the following Quackobabble:
}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
Well, I'm not buying until I see the goods. What are the
isotope ratios for the Earth, Moon, Mars and the meteorites? I've
heard not even the ratios match in the meteroite and what was found on
Mars. But even then I probably won't be all that convinced since it
seems so unlikely that chemical composition would be so uniform for
the whole planet body. It could be, but it just seems a bit strange.
Now, for surface rocks it would be different, because of the different
atmospheres. But it seems strange that subsurface rocks would be much
different, body to body. Very roughly speaking of course.
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corporation, et al)
Moonbear is a proud sponsor of this post
Subject: Re: Marijuana science is interesting!!!
From: georgeb@p085.aone.net.au (george blahusiak)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 23:28:43 GMT
Someone wrote...
>Rubbish. Where in the Constitution, which is the only permanent document
>that describes what the government has an obligation to do, does it say
>that the government should study the facts? You feel that they should, and
>I feel that they should, but it's terribly arrogant to assume that just
>because 2 people (or 10 or 100 or 1,000, or even 100,000,000 people) feel
>that they should, that it is their behest to do so.
Since this is first and foremost a science group, may I try to apply a
little logic to this debate?
By definition, one of the principle requirements of the state of being
known as 'adult' is that an individual makes decisions based on
intellect, i.e., facts. It is, if you'll pardon my use of the phrase,
an inalienable right. The other states, BTW, are 'parent' (do as I
say) and 'child' (decisions based on emotion).
If a govt does not make decisions based on the facts, or study the
facts, or whatever, then you also have to accept the fact that govt is
not behaving in an 'adult' fashion, within the normally acecepted
definiton of the word. Of course any govt is perfectly entitled to do
this, but it doesn't say much for such a govt, and if I were the govt
I certainly wouldn't want to admit to it much less be seen acting in
such a manner.
By the same token, if you live in a democracy any complaint about the
govt is, by definition, a complaint against the voters who elected
that govt, i.e., self, irrespective of whether the individual voted
for the incumbents or not.
If your govt is not behaving in an adult manner, then it also follows
that the voters who elected that govt are not behaving in an adult
manner.
How does your govt perform?
I repeat, if you don't like it, move out.
Someone else wrote...
>Where? Where can the millions of Americans, and also those of other
>countries, go? The Puritans were able to move to Massachusetts; the
>believers in religious freedom to Rhode Island; the Catholics to
>Maryland; the Quakers to Pennsylvania; the Mormons to Utah.
Pardon? Am I to understand that the United States is the only country
in the world? That other countries do not have a 'wild west' or
'frontier', which, in fact, the US does not have either, having lost
its virginity years ago, does not mean one cannot move there.
George
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: ale2@psu.edu (ale2)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 23:43:04 GMT
In article
varange@crl.com (Troy Varange) writes:
> > A PhD isn't useless. True, the knowledge you are digging up
> > is very specialised, but the skills you learn while digging
> > are very important: determination, skepticism, thought,
> > rigour, etc.
>
> Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
> than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
>
But who gets hired at Microsoft Corp.?
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Atonality
From: ladasky@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Ladasky)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 16:08:36 -0800
Greetings, Craig Clark,
Practicing your trolling skills?
--
Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
Subject: Re: Speed of Light
From: mccoyje@wku.edu
Date: 9 Jan 97 10:08:49 -0600
In article <32D17201.A85@sqruhs.ruhs.uwm.edu>, electronic monk writes:
> while, but the back and sides would be lit right away. it would be a
> pretty cool sight, actualy.
Actually, it wouldn't. It would look pretty much the same as turning on a light
here on Earth. Why? Because, as you've stated, time has slowed for you...so your
perception has slowed as well. You would perceive the light hitting both walls
at the same time, because it is moving at the speed of light. It would take you
longer to perceive it hitting the wall than it would take the light to reach the
wall.
> it would feel really weird also cause any
> forward movement by your arms or legs would be slowed to an almost
> stop.
Same arguement as above. It would feel pretty normal to you, with the possible
exception of EXTREME fatigue due to exertion...but I'm not quite sure about that
since all parts of your body (including muscles) are becoming more massive.
> you might actually age faster than other parts of your body.
I do not think the difference in aging would be that obvious to you...it may not
be obvious at all. As a side note, does anyone else remember the episode of Star
Trek: TNG where they came across a phenomenon which prevented the warp fields in
certain areas? Geordi, Picard, and Data (I think) were in a shuttlecraft, and
the fruit on the table rotted instantaneously (because the warp field couldn't
protect it from time outside the shuttle). Sorry...I had to go there. :)
> but
> it would take a REALLY long time for you to tell anybody about it cause
> you would age much slower then the rest of the universe and perhaps
> thousands of years would pass before you slow down, when to you, the
> trip was only a few minutes.
>
> you should read some more relativity stuff.
>
> > Oh well I've said my piece... I'll go baracade my mail box against
> the
> > ensewing onslaught of flames I expest to recieve from this....
> >
> > --
> > Live from Phoenix, Arizona!! (Recorded Earlier)
> WVVVVVVVVVW
> > Closed Captioned for the Hearing Impaired ³
> ³
> > (((> Stereo Surround <))) ³
> ³
> > _____________________________________________________oOOO_C (ù) (ù)
> D_OOOo__
> > Mike Tuttle __ __ ____ ___
> ___ ____
> > charon@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ /
> /_ /
> > / / \ / / / / /__ / \/
> /___ /
> >
> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>
>
> electronic monk
Subject: Re: Infinitude of Primes in P-adics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 23:36:04 GMT
In article
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:
> But the 3-adics are *not* a field. Please read what I write on occasion.
> The 3-adics are *not* a field because 3 has no inverse in the 3-adics.
> Moreover, 3 generates a prime ideal in the 3-adics and can be seen as a
> prime in the 3-adics. (In a field, by definition, *all* elements except
> 0 have a multiplicative inverse. Show me the inverse of 3 in the 3-adics
> if you want it to be a field.)
> --
> dik t. winter
Different primes p, q, then p-adics not isomorphic to q-adics, but
p-adics have a multiplicative inverse in the q-adics
----
From: baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: p-adic numbers in physics
Date: 14 Oct 1993 18:58:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <29k7h4$oj6@galaxy.ucr.edu>
References: <12OCT199315475102@csa3.lbl.gov>
<29ig75$n2i@amhux3.amherst.edu>
In article <29ig75$n2i@amhux3.amherst.edu> mkrogers@unix.amherst.edu
(Michelle Rogers) writes:
> I was told Manin has suggested that string theory
>be done over the ring of adeles -- combination of
>the p-adic and real and complex fields. But what
>I know about the adeles does not make up for my
>ignorance of string theory.
What I know about everything else combined does not make up for my
ignorace of adeles OR string theory! :-) But. . . I think Witten
came before Manin in pondering "adelic string theory." Let me briefly
impart my minute understanding of his subject. Besides the usual notion
of absolute value on the rational numbers - let us call this |
|_{infinity} for some odd reason - there are a bunch of others called |
|_p, one for every prime number p. These also satisfy the triangle
inequality etc., so one can complete the rational numbers with respect
to these absolute values (i.e., make sure Cauchy sequences have limits)
and get a field, the p-adics, just as one can complete the rationals
with respect to the usual | |_{infinity} and get the reals. It is
actually nice to think of the reals as the p-adics where one uses the
prime p = infinity. One nice fact is that if one takes any rational n/m
and takes the product of |n/m|_p as p ranges over all primes, including
the prime at infinity, one gets 1. Or in other words, one can express
|n/m|_{infinity} in terms of all the |n/m|_p. This can be used to
reduce certain calculations in the real numbers to lots of calculations
in the p-adics. "Great," the physicists must be thinking, "instead of
doing one calculation in the real numbers I only have to do infinitely
many calculations in the p-adic numbers. That's really progress!" :-)
But the point is that if one is a sufficiently number-theoretic kind
of person this can actually make certain calculations doable. Witten
saw how to do this with certain calculations in string theory (I don't
know if he was the *first*). The way to systematically keep track of
such problems is with adeles, which are a beautiful big fat sort of
number simultaneously. So people got interested in "adelic string
theory." Manin, a mathematician who has done a lot in number theory,
gauge theory, and quantum groups (and has written a textbook in
mathematical logic, and is a very nice guy to boot), wrote some stuff
suggesting that maybe nature really *does* like p-adics just as much as
the reals.
----
From: brock@ccr-p.ida.org (Bradley Brock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: p-adic numbers in physics
Date: 15 Oct 1993 11:39:09 -0400
Organization: IDA - Center for Communications Research, Princeton
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <29mg6t$ft@tang.ccr-p.ida.org>
References: <12OCT199315475102@csa3.lbl.gov>
<29ig75$n2i@amhux3.amherst.edu> <29k7h4$oj6@galaxy.ucr.edu>
In article <29k7h4$oj6@galaxy.ucr.edu>, john baez
wrote:
> In article <29ig75$n2i@amhux3.amherst.edu>
> mkrogers@unix.amherst.edu (Michelle Rogers) writes:
> One nice fact is that if one takes any rational n/m and takes the
> product of |n/m|_p as p ranges over all primes, including the prime
> at infinity, one gets 1. Or in other words, one can express
> |n/m|_{infinity} in terms of all the |n/m|_p. This can be used to
> reduce certain calculations in the real numbers to lots of
> calculations in the p-adics.
One must be a little careful here to normalize things properly. In fact
define |p|_p=1/p and |a|_p=1 if gcd(a,p)=1 and extend the definition to
all rationals by the multiplicative property |ab|_p=|a|_p|b|_p. With
this definition the product over all "absolute values" is one. Hence,
two numbers are close p-adically if their difference is divisible by a
large power of p.
One interesting thing about p-adics is that it takes more steps to get
to a complete algebraically close field. For the usual absolute value
the process takes two steps, namely complete the rationals to get the
reals and then algebraically close the reals to get the complexes.
However, in the p-adics this process takes four steps (if I remember
correctly), namely one needs to complete the rationals to get the
p-adics Q_p then algebraically close the p-adics to get \bar{Q_p} which
is not complete and then repeat both steps again. See KoblitzÕs book on
p-adics for details.
Some calculations in the rationals cannot be reduced to calculations in
the p-adics. For example a rational curve, i.e. a curve of genus zero,
has a rational point iff it has a p-adic point for all p. However, if
the genus>0 this is no longer true. For example, the Fermat curve has
p-adic points for all p but no rational point.
--
Bradley W. Brock | ÒAll they asked was that we should
brock@ccr-p.ida.org | continue to remember the poor, the very
IDA/CCR Princeton, NJ | thing I was eager to do.Ó - a Tarsian
tentmaker
----
Are we talking about different algebraic fields, Dik?
Subject: Re: Speed of Light
From: mccoyje@wku.edu
Date: 9 Jan 97 15:05:29 -0600
In article <5b2u74$iju@btmpjg.god.bel.alcatel.be>, pver@nemdev26 (Peter Verthez) writes:
> Now, isn't this something similar like the above ? It is the *observed*
> mass that is infinite, but the real mass stays the same, doesn't it ?
> That's why I have problems with the statement that the speed of light
> is the maximum possible speed, but perhaps I'm overlooking something else.
Observed by whom? If you are travelling at .999c, then you observe your mass to
be the same as it always was. Someone else (travelling at, say, .990c) would
observe your mass being much more than you would. So, it is your statement above
that is backwards:
It is the REAL mass that is infinite, but the OBSERVED (by the one travelling
c) mass stays the same.
The word observed is very vague in this field, because you must determine what
frame of reference the target is being observed FROM.
>
> Any reactions ?
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Peter Verthez Software Engineer
> Email: at work pver@bsg.bel.alcatel.be
> at home pver@innet.be
> This post is personal and not related to any company whatsoever.
> ==========================================================================
>
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: myers@netaxs.com (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:09:42 -0500
In article , varange@crl.com,blah@blurgh.bleah.retch wrote:
> > A PhD isn't useless. True, the knowledge you are digging up
> > is very specialised, but the skills you learn while digging
> > are very important: determination, skepticism, thought,
> > rigour, etc.
>
> Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
> than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
>
Anyone care to place any bets that Mr. Varange does NOT have an
advanced degree of any kind?
--
Paul Myers Department of Biology
myers@netaxs.com Temple University
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/ Philadelphia, PA 19122
