Subject: Re: Time and its existance
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:51:57 GMT
In article <5b4ofk$ftk@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, daverees@ix.netcom.com
(Dave Rees) wrote:
>[...]
>
>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?
This is a good question. What competing model have you examined
that definitely points out the logical flaw in the spacetime continuum
model? To answer the question allow me to paste below an article I
wrote in another thread in response to Mr. Keith Stein:
In article , Keith Stein
wrote:
> Louis Savain writes
>> Concepts like geodesics and inertial paths in spacetime
>>>>are simply dumb.
> right!
>
>> And no amount of rationalization or
>>>>obfuscation is going to change that.
> right!
>
>> Too bad some of you are having
>>>>trouble grasping this. And also, too bad if some of you take offense.
> right!
>
>> Time is always derived by applying the equation t = d/v.
> Wrong!
>
> Surely the concept 'time' must preceed the concept of 'velocity'.
It may indeed precede 'velocity' but maybe not, as I willingly
concede that our understanding of reality is almost entirely
inductive. In this light, I don't understand how you can be so sure
that time must precede velocity. :-) At any rate, I have what I
think is *deductive* proof that it does not, but being human and
eminently fallible, I'm always willing to change my mind in the face
of strong evidence to the contrary.
When you say that time precedes motion, I assume that you mean that
time is a more fundamental physical concept than motion and that it
can exist independently of motion. Apparently, in your view, motion
needs time. I, OTOH, take the position that time is an entirely
abstract mathematical notion that cannot be divorced from velocity or
change. I think I perfectly understand your position since I used to
subscribe to the same view but I've changed my mind over the years.
Here's the reason:
As soon as you separate time from motion/change, time becomes a
dimension of its own. I call this separation the "reification of
time". You must then explain the concept of the 'passage of time'. I
believe that the phrase 'passage of time', is objectively an oxymoron.
Why? Because the word 'passage' is indicative of some form of travel
or motion. 'Passage of time' then means that, either objects stand
still and time just passes by, or that time stands still and objects
move in time. Whichever way you want to look at it, it is logically
and mathematically impossible for either interpretation to be correct.
The passage of time or the moving of objects along the time dimension
must obey the equation v = t/t. This equation always gives the
dimensionless value 1, which says nothing about change or motion. It
is a meaningless number in and of itself.
> What is your definition for 'v' in the above equation, Louis ?
Well I believe that the traditional way of measuring velocity in
terms of time (as in 'miles per hour' or 'meters per second') may be
intuitive but is highly misleading. It should be the other way
around, i.e., time should be measured in terms of velocity. IOW, if
we create a unit of measurement for velocity called, let's say a
"zeno", time should then be measured in 'meters per zeno'. So then
velocity should be regarded as a mere quantitative phenomenon like
mass or charge. Velocity is a change in position and its measure is
merely a quantitative measure of change. The higher the number, the
faster the change. Time is abstract and is inversely proportional to
velocity. To insist that velocity must be described in terms of time
is not unlike insisting that mass must be described in terms of its
abstract inverse, 1/mass. It is not necessary, IMO.
As an aside, notice that I say "describe" instead of "define". This
is because I'm always taken aback by what I've been calling "physics
by definition". For example, physicists have no qualm about defining
the slowing of clocks as "time dilation", a very injurious practice
IMO, especially since the concept of time is linked to all sorts of
misconceptions. Should not the internal velocity of a clock mechanism
be just that, velocity? Why redefine 'the measure of velocity' to
mean 'the measure of time' and reify time (another absurd practice) in
the process? It's highly unnerving when you think about it because
the confusion that ensues from this "damnable" practice makes it
almost impossible to discuss special relativity. Besides, how can
anyone define nature? Should we not be *describing* it instead of
defining it and be ready to change our description if a new discovery
warrants it? Food for thought.
Having said all that, it pays to revisit the notion of the 'passage
of time' in this new light. We have already determined that time
cannot be divorced from velocity. So from whence cometh our notion
that time passes even in the absence of motion in 3-D "space"? This
is a very disturbing state of affairs, because here we have a
situation where time apparently exists without motion. How can that
be possible if time is abstract and cannot be divorced from motion as
we have shown above? Well it is *not* possible. Logic wins
**always**. There must be motion or velocity somewhere in order to
obtain time. This is inescapable.
To solve this nearly impossible quandary one must postulate motion
along a fourth dimension. And, as we have just shown, this fourth
dimension cannot possibly be a temporal dimension a la spacetime. The
so-called "spacetime continuum" is hopelessly flawed as a model of
reality. So what then? What else is there? Why, a spatial dimension
of course! And here is the bombshell, the piece de resistance so to
speak: The entire matter of the known universe must be moving along a
fourth spatial dimension. More food for thought.
In conclusion and retrospect, the 'passage of time', with its
implication of motion in the word 'passage', is not that far off after
all. There is indeed a passage or a travel taking place, but it is
not a travel in time, but a "travel" along a fourth spatial dimension.
Here I'm careful to put "travel" in quotes because I have very
specific definitions for concepts like travel and motion. Let me just
say for now that I don't believe that motion involves going from one
place to another in an extrinsic substantive space, (thank you Mr.
Zeno!) as I consider myself a staunch nonlocalist and nontemporalist.
>>> What is new in this century is the unification of space and time.
>> Which is the biggest nonsense to ever come out of science.
> right!
>--
>Keith Stein
[My competing model is one that removes the glaringly illogical
concept of motion along a fourth *temporal* dimension with the
infinitely more logical idea of motion along a fourth *spatial*
dimension.]
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: Rolling wheels and forces
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 13 Jan 1997 00:26:45 GMT
Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>>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.
Yes, that's what flipped through my mind first: shouldn't the wheel be
it's own frame of reference? But look at the path, that a drop describes,
which is situated at the rim of the wheel, when the wheel is freely
rotating, compared to the path, when it's rolling (say it doesn't touch
the ground but its moved with the same speed as if). In the first case it
is a full circle and nothing else. In the second case it is a series of
elongated half circles (twice as wide as high). Is this discontinuos
motion not asking for a varying acceleration?
Hmm. It seems I just neglected that a circular path has two components: x
and y axis. And while x may come to a halt and then reverse its direction
to speed up again, y does the same but just with 90 deg offset. And if I
project this cross product of two sinus curves and give x a certain fixed
addendum (i.e. groundspeed), I'll get my elongated halfcircles... Hmm.
Seems right, but doesn't really make me happy.
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: AH+: Sarfatti on Einstein
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:43:44 -0800
On Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field
“The incorporation of optics into the theory of electromagnetism, with
its relation of the speed of light to the electric and magnetic absolute
system of units as well as the relation of the index of refraction to
the dielectric constant, the qualitative relation between the reflection
coefficient of a body and its metallic conductivity - it was like a
revelation ... Maxwell needed only one single hypothetical step -- the
intoduction of the electrical displacement current in the vacuum and in
the dielectrica and its magnetic effect, an innovation that was almost
preordained by the formal properties of the differential equations.”
The fly in the ointment was the “ether” i.e., “empty space as a special
instance of a dielectric body. Matter appeared as the bearer of the
field not space. ... It was the great merit of H. A. Lorentz that he
brought about a change here in a convincing fashion. In principle a
[classical local] field exists, according to him, only in empty [3D]
space. Matter [i.e., Bohmian beables in my post-quantum mechanics]--
considered to exist of atoms-- is only the seat of electric charges;
between the material particles there is empty space, the seat of the
electromagnetic field, which is produced by the position and velocity
[also time derivative of the acceleration for radiation reaction] of the
point charges located on the material particles. Dielectric behavior,
conductivity, etc., are determined exclusively by the type of mechanical
bindings between the particles that constitute the bodies. The particle
charges create the field, which, on the other hand, exerts forces upon
the charges of the particles, thus determining the motion of the latter
according to Newton’s law of motion.
If one compares this to Newton’s system, the charge consists in this:
[classical intensity-dependent/form-independent] action at a distance is
replaced by the field, which also describes the radiation. ... one is
struck by the dualism that lies in the fact that the material point in
Newton’s sense and the field as continuum are used as elementary
concepts side by side. Kinetic energy and field energy appear as
essentially different things. This appears all the more unsatisfactory
as, according to Maxwell’s theory, the magnetic field of a moving
electric charge represents inertia. Why not then the whole of inertia?
Then only field energy would be left, and the particle would be merely a
domain containing an especially high density of field energy. In that
case one could hope to deduce the concept of the mass point together
with the equations of motion of the particles from the field equations -
the disturbing dualism would have been removed. .... However, Maxwell’s
equations did not permit the derivation of the equilibrium of the
electricity that constitutes a particle. Only different, nonlinear field
equations could possibly accomplish such a thing. But no method existed
for discovering such field equations without deterioriating into
adventurous arbitrariness.”
Bohm’s form-dependent quantum corrections to the classical field
equations make the latter highly nonlinear in a qualitatively new
non-arbitrary non-classical way. Note Einstein’s phrase “disturbing
dualism”. Einstein’s thinking here is pre-quantum. It is too tied to
ordinary three-dimensional space. Bohm has highlighted the primacy of
configuration space for complex systems of interacting particles. Also
note that the classical intensity is also the field energy density.
There are four form-independent polarization states of the classical
Maxwell field. The classcial Maxwell field is a rocklike “beable” in the
Bohm hidden-variable theory. Two of them (longitudinal and time like)
determine the “near field” like the instantaneous radial static Coulomb
electric field whose intensity drops off as the reciprocal fourth power
of the radial distance from a point charge. In contrast, the “far field”
radiation comes from the two transverse polarizations perpendicular to
the direction of propagation of the radiation. This far field intensity
drops off only as the square of the radial distance from a point-like
nonuniformly accelerating point charge whose maximum displacement is
small compared to the wavelength of the radiation. Since the surface
area of a thin spherical shell centered at this jerking charge is
proportional to the square of the radial distance, it follows that a
constant amount of total flux energy can escape to infinity. Note that
a strictly uniformly accelerating charge does not radiate. If it
radiated, it would violate Einstein’s equivalence principle of general
relativity.
What changes in this classical picture when we add quantum effects? If
we have a system of particles, these particles form a single “system
point” or “beable” in a classical higher-dimensional configuration
space. There is a new kind of form-dependent quantum field at each
possible position of the system point in configuration space. The
effect of this quantum field on its attached material system point, or
beable, does not depend on its intensity only on its form. The intensity
does give the probability to observe a definite property or “eigenvalue”
under special statistical conditions of preparation of an “ensemble” of
identical non interacting systems. The new quantum form field organizes
the energy of the matter that is already there. This new form-field is
nonlocal in the 3D space of the Maxwell field. It connects separated
points in space at the same time in a preferred frame of reference. It
even connects points in space at different times. The nonlocal
form-field glues the particles together in a stable way together with
the classical local intensity electromagnetic field. The classical
electromagnetic Maxwell field by itself without the quantum form-field
is not enough to keep matter diverse and stable.
Unlike the Maxwell field, the quantum form-field has no charges. The
back-action charge of the post-quantum form-field must be a structure
in configuration space not ordinary space. The Fock space of second
quantized field theory involves a coherent superposition of all
configuration spaces for variable particle numbers N. This new
form-field is the seat of the mind in post-quantum mechanics. Mind thus
appears as a fundamental physical part of the universe. Mind is
non-material, but it is physical. The quantum mind does not awake to
post-quantum sentience, subconscious, conscious, and superconscious
until it gets charged up by back-action. Like a battery of “elan vital”,
the sentience of inner immediate felt experience requires the vital jolt
of back-action. The ancients called back-action “the breath of God”, the
“inspiration” etc. :-)
Subject: Re: Rolling wheels and forces
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:43:14 GMT
In article <19970113002400.TAA09479@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>>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.
>
>Yes, that's what flipped through my mind first: shouldn't the wheel be
>it's own frame of reference? But look at the path, that a drop describes,
>which is situated at the rim of the wheel, when the wheel is freely
>rotating, compared to the path, when it's rolling (say it doesn't touch
>the ground but its moved with the same speed as if). In the first case it
>is a full circle and nothing else. In the second case it is a series of
>elongated half circles (twice as wide as high). Is this discontinuos
>motion not asking for a varying acceleration?
>
Oh, it is varying, all right, but in direction, not in magnitude.
>Hmm. It seems I just neglected that a circular path has two components: x
>and y axis. And while x may come to a halt and then reverse its direction
>to speed up again, y does the same but just with 90 deg offset. And if I
>project this cross product of two sinus curves and give x a certain fixed
>addendum (i.e. groundspeed), I'll get my elongated halfcircles... Hmm.
>Seems right, but doesn't really make me happy.
It is right. So, why should you be unhappy?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: Achim Recktenwald
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:26:55 -0500
Alan Anderson wrote:
>
> In <5b11af$gv5@dropit.pgh.net>,
> =green@pipeline.com= (Word Warrior) writes:
>
> >The immune system is quite capable of fending off damage
> >from external sources of damage when it is properly
> >fueled and managed.
>
> Even assuming this to be true (which it almost certainly isn't -- that's
> why carcinogens and ionizing radiation can cause cancer), you can't just
> neglect *internal* sources of damage. Cellular DNA replication isn't an
> error-free process, for one thing.
>
It's not just replication, just simple 'storage'. Double-stranded DNA is
surprisingly stable, but the awful length of the DNA-molecule produces
still an amazing number of naturally occurring mutations.
Just for one single kind of mutation - the spontaneous cleavage of the
N-glycosylic bond between sugar and base - it has been calculated to
happen in every single cell about 10'000/24 hours. The average human has
~10^16 cells, this means just this one kind of mutation accumulates
during a 24h period to 10^20 mutations, or 2.56*10^24 mutations during a
lifepsan of 70 years (I didn't count leap-years :)).
Since nobody and nothing is perfect, not even the celluar
repair-machinery, there are enough potentials for something to go wrong.
Achim
Subject: Re: Do people see colours the same?
From: rwyoung@pacbell.net (Randy Young)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 02:15:54 GMT
On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:23:42 GMT, Christian Martin wrote:
>Is there any evidence that different people see different colours
>(sorry, UK!) the same? For instance, is my 'red' someone else's
>'green'? I have thought about this for a long time, but even if you
>consider frequencies used (say 4.3x10^14Hz), everybody could call this
>'red' while some may see it as my green (but call it red) and some may
>see it as my 'purple' (but call it red).
This has always been something of interest to me. One reason I think
that we may actually see the same color differently is the fact that we
all seem to have different likes and dislikes for colors. Maybe in fact
we all do like the same "apparent" color, but it is different as to what
"real" color looks like that to us. I would guess that the only true
way to find out would be to do a Vulcan Mind Meld and see for ourselves.
;-)
--
Randy Young
rwyoung@pacbell.net
Speaking strictly for myself!
Subject: Vietmath War: If US had been parliamentary, no Vietnam war?
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 00:56:36 GMT
If the US had been a parliamentary form of government where all
politicians are elected and not these cabinets that linger from one
administration to another and really run the government. Then,
hypothetically, is it highly likely that the Vietnam War would have
never occurred? Or if it had, would not a parliamentary form of
government gotten the US out quicker? One can argue that the US Vietnam
War was chiefly the result of foolish advisors to the president.
Perhaps this is a great research inquiry as to see which form of
democracy is superior-- the US or the UK parliamentary.
In a parliamentary system, the likelihood of foolish advisors doing
so much damage is minimized, I suspect.
Same thing in mathematics, where math is run by the old geezers who
control the math journals. They print and publish the pipsqueak little
progress. And they do their utmost best to keep out anything that is
big, new and exciting and important. In fact, they mostly publish that
which furthers their own self interests or
you-rub-my-hand-I-rub-your-hand.
The clowns that got the US into Vietnam are the same sort of
intellectual clowns that control the mathematics publishing journals
and who hate an idea such as Naturals = P-adics = Infinite Integers.
Subject: Future limitations of Superconductivity
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 00:39:07 GMT
In article <5b9cqd$1j0$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> --- quoting Roald Hoffman, THE WORLD OF CHEMISTRY #14 Molecules In
> Action, 1988 ---
> Chemical reactions..
>
> But how is this really happening, deep within at the molecular
> level. What is going on? Well we know that in reactions, bonds are
> broken or made, and we also know that molecules are constantly moving
> around.
> Could it be that reactions are simply the consequence of molecules
> bumping into each other? What a wonderfully simple idea. That all of
> this complexity in the beaker, or in my body could be simply the
> consequence of random molecular collisions. What is even more amazing
> is that it is true.
>
>
> ---end quoting Roald Hoffman, THE WORLD OF CHEMISTRY #14 Molecules In
> Action, 1988 ---
>
Does the above idea have a name?
> It is nice for me to learn several things in the past week and they
> are all related. Throughout life, as a scientist, I endeavor to juggle
> many things all at once, simultaneously. The worst of me would be to
> have my mind in one thing such as physics, or biology , or a particular
> field of physics. The better choice is to have many, and many more
> irons in the fire. Not distractions, but intellectual endeavors. This
> thing about electrical power engineering started from my desire last
> week to remedy the weak point on my bicycle headlamp, the Sanyo DynoHub
> with its spade-female electrical connector. That went into my seeking
> of Velcro Electrical Connector, which branched into Velcro Electrical
> Lines which branched into devices to convert photon energy into
> electrical energy and the use of fiber optic cable for power
> transmission. That branched into the use of high power transmission of
> x-rays via fiber optics and to reconvert back into electrical energy.
> And that branched into making high power lines obsolete and to use just
> laser transmission.
>
> The above made me realize that in the future the rival competing
> technologies of electrical power transmission will be a fight between
> superconducting lines and photon-to-electricity lines. This fight could
> be as knock-down, drag-them-out sort of fight that happened at the turn
> of our century between Tesla and Edison in the currents war, where
> Tesla's AC won.
>
It is fun for me to be the first to realize what will happen with the
electrical power transmission industry , long before superconductivity
is even practical.
Yes, my crystal ball sees that there will be a rivalry in the future ,
somewhat like the DC and AC currents war of Edison and Tesla. There
will be a rivalry between superconductivity transmission and between
photon-electricity transmission. My bets are already on
photon-electricity transmission. All I need to do is find out the
Efficiencies. I need to find out the efficiency of converting to
photons and then back into electricity. The transmission part is
virtually all solved. We can fiber optic cable photons now, with
virtually little loss in photons.
Perhaps there is a theoretical connection here also. That the minimal
loss in photons is equal to the loss in electricity in a
superconductor. I will have to think more on that.
> This brings me back to why the reason I brought-up the above quote
> from that movie I saw a couple of days ago. I saw it and later, as I
> posted about those electrical inventions, I came to realize that this
> idea of chemistry is untrue, is false. And that idea is related to room
> temperature superconductivity.
>
> Roald talks about random molecular collisions and that the macroscopic
> world is the result of a microscopic world of mere random molecular
> collisions.
>
> Room temperature superconductors may exist. And perhaps even higher
> temperature than room temperature superconductors may exist. But to be
> able to run a high current through them is a different matter.
>
> Do room temperature superconductors exist is unkown as of this
> writing. And if they exist, are they limited by how much current
> carrying capacity?
>
> What does theory say? The BCS theory died a long time ago. My own
> theory that superconductivity is the decomposing of photon messengers
> into neutrino messengers says that superconductivity is a geometrical
> property of a material. This neutrino messenger theory does not impose
> a limitation on the current carrying capacity other than to suggest
> that as more electron flow is applied, that the electrons by their
> number changes the geometrical environment and hence a loss of the
> superconducting state.
>
> Now, here is the connection with Roald Hoffman's statement above
> which I believe is a cornerstone of modern chemistry and physics. But a
> falsehood of science. Consider the Bell Inequality and consider the
> Uncertainty principle with the Planck constant. Chemistry is not the
> macroscopic view of random molecular collisions. Rather instead,
> chemistry is the result of superdetermined and interlinked subatomic
> signals. That there is no randomness,ever, in the entirety of the
> universe.
>
> That somewhere in the number that is Planck's constant in the
> Uncertainty Principle and the numbers of Bell Inequality sits a linkage
> with numbers of 231PU. And in those three groups of numbers rests a
> number that tells how high a temperature we can go in superconductivity
> and how much current it is able to pack.
> Nature has factors. Go heavy on one factor and another factor steps
> in to limit you. Same thing with superconductivity. Get closer to a
> room temperature superconductor and the amount of current it can holds
> gets smaller and smaller.
>
> If superdeterminism is correct then the picture that Roald paints
> above is false, and in place of that picture is the one where every
> atomic collision has been predetermined to happen and that there are
> signals from every single atom with every other atom in the universe.
> This is how it has to be for the universe to have no superluminal
> speeds.
The above makes me think of the connection with 231PU Atom Totality
and the Planck's constant of the Uncertainty Principle and the Bell
Inequality. The linking of those three theories , I speculate, may tell
how warm of a superconductor is possible in this world as well as
telling what other factors go with temperature.
This , I believe is the first time in the history of physics that
anyone has tried to link Bell Inequality and Planck's Constant. The
history of science on the Bell Inequality has been a pitiful record.
Noone has tried to link Bell Inequality, instead, there has only been a
juvenile hissing back and forth as to what it means and whether it
means anything important. Physicists have only deemed the Bell
Inequality with the pathetic tripe of non-locality, a philosophical
tripe at that.
And in fact, biologists if they knew the Bell Inequality would
realize that it destroys Darwin Evolution.
And of course, no physicist or biologist or any scientist can
recognize the importance of the Bell Inequality because they require an
Atom Totality to understand it. Bell Inequality is Superdeterminism and
in superdeterminism there are no --- as Roald Hoffman spoke above ---
random molecular collisions. There is nothing random in the universe,
but instead, everything is connected.
And what I am looking for in the Bell Inequality , Planck constant
and Uncertainty Principle and 231PU Atom Totality, is
interconnectedness. Nothing is random, but everything is
interconnected. Perhaps this is the pilot wave of Debroglie to lash
onto something physical, or perhaps this is the Everret wave.
But the Bell Inequality in order for the universe to have no
superluminal speed must have webs of complete interconnections, where
every atom is connected. Perhaps the neutrino is the connector.
Anyway, there are numbers in the Bell Inequality and numbers in
Planck constant and numbers in Uncertainty Principle and many numbers
in an atom of 231 Plutonium. Pondering all of those numbers, I
conjecture there is a link which will give insight into the best
superconductor temperature available to the world and what this
temperature is dependent upon. Reason: superconductivity is a special
form of communication of the atoms in the superconductor and the rest
of the universe. I probably will not make much progress in my life on
this idea and so I throw it into the next generations.
Subject: Re: [Fwd: A NEW SCIENTIFIC BREAK THROUGH ???]
From: John Murphy
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:26:04 +1200
Ray Tomes wrote:
>
> John Murphy wrote:
>
> >Ray Tomes wrote:
>
> >> Who needs 'post-quantum back-action'?
>
> >> Instead of saying that quantum events happen randomly and send out waves
> >> that travel back in time it makes a lot more sense to say that when
> >> enough e/m energy converges at one location then a quantum event occurs.
>
> >No it doesn't because your harmonics "theory" doesn't provide answers to
> >even simple quantum behaviours. Cycles apon cycles - sound familiar?
>
> I never mentioned the harmonics theory. You have not addressed what I
> did say.
Ok, the notion that you express, - that when
"enough e/m energy converges at one location then a quantum event
occurs."
does not provide the slightest bit of sense. Sorry, I should have
left mention of Harmonics theory out - I'd sort of "collapsed" my
concept of
your work with what you said above.
I still say the this concept does not provide any quantitative details
of the
following:-
> >E.g. poton angular momentum, Zeeman Splitting, The fine-ness of
absorption
> >spectra, the photoelectric effect, Compton effect etc.
> You are mistaken. The harmonics theory predicts that the strongest
> levels of structure in the universe will be at scale ratios of near
> 34560 to each other.
What has the levels of structure to do with the specific examples above?
> This is observed as the sequence: obs.universe,
> galaxies, stars, planets, moons, .. cells, atoms, nucleons, quarks.
>
> It is also expected that because matter is distributed in this way, then
> any waves will be modulated by the various levels of structure that
> exist. This is why if you start from the electron you will find that at
> ratios of ~37500 above its wavelength you will find the sequence:
> electron, (inverse) Rydberg constant, fine structure and hyperfine
> structure. Here are the numbers:
>
> Electron Compton wavelength [h/m_e/c] 2.43*10^-10 cm
>
> 1/Rydberg constant (i.e. wavelength of photon associated with jump of
> electron from 1st orbital to free state) [1/R] 9.12*10^-6 cm
>
> Scale of fine structure [2/alpha^2/R] 0.342 cm
>
> etc
Pretty numbers, now what about showing how the Compton effect
works in your model. Or maybe absorption spectra? You could
take a leaf out of your own book and answer the question.
John
Tired of Schroedinger's cat leaving you half dead?
Conciousness induced collapse leaving you let down?
Try out "Is Wave/Particle Duality a Sham?"
http://www.murphy.gen.nz/murphy/sham_idx.htm
for some straight questions about quantum theory. ;-D
Subject: Re: "What causes inertia?
From: ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 21:09:55 GMT
On 8 Jan 1997 04:40:11 GMT, Michael Ramsey) wrote:
>ericf@central.co.nz says...
>>The current belief that the cosmological red-shift correlates to
>>actual recession is the corner stone of the entire Big-Bang argument.
>>Remove this one correlation, and all the rest falls down like a house
>>of cards.
>
>...saying “Take your best evidence away and your hypothesis falls” is
>a hypothetical of little value.
It has value when the "best evidence" rests on a single assumption.
So it's a double-layer cake: Big-Bang depends entirely on the belief
that the galaxies are receding, and this in turn rests entirely on the
belief that the cosmological red-shift equates to recession. Kick
away the feet of clay and your golden idol falls. There's value
there.
>If the universe isn’t expanding then it is either collapsing
>or is static.
Your statement makes hidden assumptions about the macroscopic nature
of the Universe, one assuption being that has boundaries by which it
can be sized. Take these boundaries away and your statement is wrong.
> The “Einstein Static Universe Solution” was dropped with
>relief when the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered
>and interpreted as expansion.
Ouch! You're a revisionist, Michael !!
>Even the next best contender, the steady-state theory, has adjusted to
>include expansion. I have not suggested that we are at the end of history.
>What motivated the "come to the end of the road now?" statement?
Again, if cosmological red-shift does not equate to recession, then
some "new physics" is needed to explain it. It has always been thus.
I am simply saying that it is reasonable to suppose that such "new
physics" is still out there, waiting for us to discover it.
>I ask a second time, how does having a fixed frame explain the
>flatness of the bucket of water? How does the fixed frame create the
>effect?
The fixed frame creates no effect, and the water's surface is flat as
that is the surface of minimum energy. Isn't that obvious?
If we posit some sort of absolutist rotational frame (a la Penrose)
then it is clear that "absolute" rotation causes concavity of the
water's surface. But it is one thing to observe that all matter
appears to follow this rule, it is another to thereby conjecture that
matter is the source of that rule. It actually creates an additional
layer, where the aggregate of matter causes the absolute rotational
frame which provides the inertial reference. It is simpler to start
off with the absolute rotational frame as a fundamental law. So, one
could actually attack Mach's Principle with Occam's Razor.
Eric
Subject: Re: A few dark matter questions
From: ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 21:09:57 GMT
On 7 Jan 1997 15:45:12 GMT, kunk@perseus.phys.unm.edu () wrote:
>Bayes, of course, wrote a perfectly sensible theorem addressing the
>inclusion of prior results in calculation of probabilities. It allows
>us to make sensible statements about the probability of a concluded
>event, which we all do instinctively anyway. The only use of Bayes
>theorem of which I am aware in my field is in an analysis of the
>neutrinos detected from SN87A.
The heart of Bayesian analysis is that the experimenters' expectations
actually influence the final data collected, as the experimenters
select among the methods and results, consciously or unconsciously.
Thus, the value of the electron's charge started with Millikan's
value, and slowly drifted to its present value with a succession of
measurements in which the researchers' results were influenced equally
by the "real" value, and the values garnered previously.
There is no more fertile ground for this sort of "science" that the
Big Bang territory, where experimentation is almost moot and
theoretical conjectures are formulated on the most subjective bases.
Anyone who has goodly experience both with the "scientific method" and
"people's methods" will know that Big-Bang is nothing but modern
science's biggest plank-walk before the drop into historical oblivion.
Big Bang is a big joke. So when can we all start laughing? :-)
Eric
Subject: Re: IS THERE A CASE FOR THE ELECTRIC CAR?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:51:51 GMT
In article <5bc0ib$16ou@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, ale2@psu.edu (ale2) writes:
>In article <32da5200.2327475@news.interlog.com>
>borism@interlog.com (Boris Mohar) writes:
>
>> On 12 Jan 1997 05:29:23 GMT, ale2@psu.edu (ale2) wrote:
>>
>> >I think the hybrid car (small engine powered generator + batteries +
>> >electric motor) is the way to go for the short term.
>>
>>
>> Chrysler is working on a system that converts gasoline to hydrogen
>> and feeds that the fuel cells. The conversion is on board.
>>
>
>Sounds like a good idea also, if the efficiency is high enough?
Sounds like a bad idea, since the efficiency cannot be high. You just
took the standard process of extracting energy from gasoline (by
burning it) and added fewo more steps, i.e. extract the hydrogen, then
oxidize it in the fuel cell to generate electricity, then use the
electricity to drive mechanical motion. What do you think this shall
do to the overall efficiency.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Atonality
From: tagutcow@nr.infi.net (Robert Caponi)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 23:05:07 GMT
Oh my God, this is crazy stuff. I usually wouldn't respond to something
like this, but...
In article <32D986FF.3377@Prodigy.Net>, crjclark wrote:
** There is a spectre still haunting the civilized world: it is the
** spectre of atonality. Atonal music cannot adequately be condemned.
Been reading the "Communist Manifesto", eh?
** 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.
...and has contaminated the way we see the world and our prose style. As
is the question raised by communist tomes, why has this malaise not
affected the writers' judgement. I would much prefer living in this
century than the last as far as intellectual life is concerned.
** *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
I don't have any friends who listen to atonal music on a consistent basis
and I don't foist it onto them (though I recently made a mix tape for
one.) I'm not doing it for peer approval. In fact, the most intelligent,
witty, gorgeous people I know don't give a whit for art music of any
stripe.
** advocating and educating an entire class of atonal charlatans who
** have deluded themselves into thinking that they are *composers*.
...some of them very good ones, IMO.
Why are you so dismissive with the opinions of those who honestly say they
listen to and enjoy "atonal" music? Is it not enough just to condemn
atonality for yourself (which you would be well within your rights to do)
but to call composers charlatand and listeners liars?
** 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
I just might agree with you here.
** 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.
Not all atonal music is consistently dissonant not tonal music
consistently consonant (can you spell "Grosse Fugue"?) Even if we accept
the acoustic primact of dissonance and consonance, how would that
necessarily make consistently dissonant music unlistenable? I think of it
as just another tool a composer can use for expressive purposes; just like
register, rhythm, and timbre.
** colleagues. Philosophers ramble on about *memes* and *logic* and
** never once even mention *absolutes* or *universals*. Such ignorance
I can't claim to be completely conversant in contemporary philosophical
jargon, but "meme" doesn't strike me as a philosophical term (it was
invented by as biologist, I've read on this group.) Logic is a pretty
basic part of philosophy. "Absolutes" and "universals", however, are terms
that are steeped in ambiguity.
** 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.
I can't claim to know alot about physics, but I'll side with Einstein
(peer approval, you see.)
** The ideological paradigm of such a notion as *atonal* music must
** be called by its proper name: noise. Atonal music as such does not
...and "noise" is...?
** 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*.
And what about when one atonal composer tells another, "boy, that really
sucked."
** 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.
I think we're living in a golden age of quality television. So there.
**
** Craig Clark
Why not spend more time listening to the music than constructing absurd
theories with which to attempt to debunk it.
--
T.W.I.D.N € http://www.infi.net/~tagutcow/
Subject: Re: utopia? A+
From: dcs2e@faraday.clas.virginia.edu (David Christopher Swanson)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 23:00:00 GMT
In article <32d980d8.66060136@news.gte.net>
wheels97@gte.net (grace) writes:
> This is beautifully written, thoroughly thought-out work! Is it
> published? It SHOULD be. I agree so completely with these last two
> paragraphs (at least) that I could kill you for having written them
> before I got around to it. I give it top marks.
> Too bad I'm nobody, eh?
>
> G
>
> Seriously, well done!
Hey, thanks. Do feel free to publish it. Actually, at the time I
wrote it, I sent it to a pretty inappropriate magazine, The New
Republic. They didn't print it, but did print something like the next
three letters to the editor I wrote them (I send them several per
week).
DCS
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~dcs2e
"There is a new race in America. I am a member of this new race. It
is neither white nor black nor in-between. It is the American race,
differing as much from white and black as white and black differ from
each other." Jean Toomer, 1923.
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:38:28 GMT
In article , Keith Stein
wrote:
> Louis Savain writes
>> Concepts like geodesics and inertial paths in spacetime
>>>>are simply dumb.
> right!
>
>> And no amount of rationalization or
>>>>obfuscation is going to change that.
> right!
>
>> Too bad some of you are having
>>>>trouble grasping this. And also, too bad if some of you take offense.
> right!
>
>> Time is always derived by applying the equation t = d/v.
> Wrong!
>
> Surely the concept 'time' must preceed the concept of 'velocity'.
It may indeed precede 'velocity' but maybe not, as I willingly
concede that our understanding of reality is almost entirely
inductive. In this light, I don't understand how you can be so sure
that time must precede velocity. :-) At any rate, I have what I
think is *deductive* proof that it does not, but being human and
eminently fallible, I'm always willing to change my mind in the face
of strong evidence to the contrary.
When you say that time precedes motion, I assume that you mean that
time is a more fundamental physical concept than motion and that it
can exist independently of motion. Apparently, in your view, motion
needs time. I, OTOH, take the position that time is an entirely
abstract mathematical notion that cannot be divorced from velocity or
change. I think I perfectly understand your position since I used to
subscribe to the same view but I've changed my mind over the years.
Here's the reason:
As soon as you separate time from motion/change, time becomes a
dimension of its own. I call this separation the "reification of
time". You must then explain the concept of the 'passage of time'. I
believe that the phrase 'passage of time', is objectively an oxymoron.
Why? Because the word 'passage' is indicative of some form of travel
or motion. 'Passage of time' then means that, either objects stand
still and time just passes by, or that time stands still and objects
move in time. Whichever way you want to look at it, it is logically
and mathematically impossible for either interpretation to be correct.
The passage of time must obey the equation v = t/t. This equation
always gives the dimensionless value 1, which says nothing about
change or motion. It is a meaningless number in and of itself.
> What is your definition for 'v' in the above equation, Louis ?
Well I believe that the traditional way of measuring velocity in
terms of time (as in 'miles per hour' or 'meters per second') may be
intuitive but is highly misleading. It should be the other way
around, i.e., time should be measured in terms of velocity. IOW, if
we create a unit of measurement for velocity called, let's say a
"zeno", time should then be measured in 'meters per zeno'. So then
velocity should be regarded as a mere quantitative phenomenon like
mass or charge. Velocity is a change in position and its measure is
merely a quantitative measure of change. The higher the number, the
faster the change. Time is abstract and is inversely proportional to
velocity. To insist that velocity must be described in terms of time
is not unlike insisting that mass must be described in terms of its
abstract inverse, 1/mass. It is not necessary, IMO.
As an aside, notice that I say "describe" instead of "define". This
is because I'm always taken aback by what I've been calling "physics
by definition". For example, physicists have no qualm about defining
the slowing of clocks as "time dilation", a very injurious practice
IMO, especially since the concept of time is linked to all sorts of
misconceptions. Should not the internal velocity of a clock mechanism
be just that, velocity? Why redefine 'the measure of velocity' to
mean 'the measure of time' and reify time (another absurd practice) in
the process? It's highly unnerving when you think about it because
the confusion that ensues from this "damnable" practice makes it
almost impossible to discuss special relativity. Besides, how can
anyone define nature? Should we not be *describing* it instead of
defining it and be ready to change our description if a new discovery
warrants it? Food for thought.
Having said all that, it pays to revisit the notion of the 'passage
of time' in this new light. We have already determined that time
cannot be divorced from velocity. So from whence cometh our notion
that time passes even in the absence of motion in 3-D "space"? This
is a very disturbing state of affairs, because here we have a
situation where time apparently exists without motion. How can that
be possible if time is abstract and cannot be divorced from motion as
we have shown above? Well it is *not* possible. Logic wins
**always**. There must be motion or velocity somewhere in order to
obtain time. This is inescapable.
To solve this nearly impossible quandary one must postulate motion
along a fourth dimension. And, as we have just shown, this fourth
dimension cannot possibly be a temporal dimension a la spacetime. The
so-called "spacetime continuum" is hopelessly flawed as a model of
reality. So what then? What else is there? Why, a spatial dimension
of course! And here is the bombshell, the piece de resistance so to
speak: The entire matter of the known universe must be moving along a
fourth spatial dimension. More food for thought.
In conclusion and retrospect, the 'passage of time', with its
implication of motion in the word 'passage', is not that far off after
all. There is indeed a passage or a travel taking place, but it is
not a travel in time, but a "travel" along a fourth spatial dimension.
Here I'm careful to put "travel" in quotes because I have very
specific definitions for concepts like travel and motion. Let me just
say for now that I don't believe that motion involves going from one
place to another in an extrinsic substantive space, (thank you Mr.
Zeno!) as I consider myself a staunch nonlocalist and nontemporalist.
>>> What is new in this century is the unification of space and time.
>> Which is the biggest nonsense to ever come out of science.
> right!
>--
>Keith Stein
I am glad I got only one wrong assertion out of five in your
judgement. That's something to be happy about. :-) Maybe we should
form a club. But then again, maybe not, as I'm sure you'll find new
things to disagree with in this article. :-) I apologize for its
length.
Best regards,
Louis Savain
Subject: Re: Particle physics question
From: 745532603@compuserve.com (Michael Ramsey)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 02:50:11 GMT
In article <32D103B5.74F3@cybergate.net>, jszorady@cybergate.net says...
>
>Armed with enough particle physics knowlege to be dangerous, I have
>a question regarding particle accelerators. My basic understanding
>is that they take atoms or parts of atoms and get them moving real fast
>with electromagnetic force and then slam them into somthing causing
>them to fuse with or shatter making other pieces parts. Well, having
>read "A brief history of time" and understanding about half of it,
>how much energy would it take to smash some heavy particles together
>and create a very small black hole ?
>
> [snip]
In article <32D103B5.74F3@cybergate.net>, jszorady@cybergate.net says...
>
> [snip]
>... how much energy would it take to smash some heavy particles together
>and create a very small black hole ?
> [snip]
Jim,
The Schwarzschild solution is an exact solution of the Einstein field
equations. In this solution, the critical value is Rs=2m. Rs is the
radius at the surface. The mass m is given in
geometric units. It is related to the mass M in the equation
m=GM/c^2, where G is the Gravitational constant and c is the
speed of light.
Distance can be measured in terms of light travel time
d*=d/c
So can mass by the equation
*m=m/c
Following Ellis, the earth’s mass=6*10^27 g <=> 0.44 cm <=> 1.5*10^-11 s
=(6*10^24) * (6.673*10^-11 N-m^2/kg^2)/(2.998*10^8 m/s)^2
= .0044 m or .44 cm
(.0044 m) / (2.998*10^8 m/s) = 1.467645096731*10^-011 s
rounding up, you get m=1.5*10^-11 sec
The earth’s avg. radius = 6.38*10^6 m = (6.38*10^6 m) / (2.998*10^8 m/s)
= 2.128*10^-2 sec
Therefore Rs = 2.128*10^-2 s >> 2*(1.5*10^-11 sec) which is why the
earth is not a black hole.
The mass of a proton is 1.672*10^-27 kg and its radius is about 5*10^-16
m.
You can run the numbers to see how much more mass would be required to
form
a black hole. Remember,
E=mc^2
And particles are created by causing enough energy to be present to allow
the particle to form.
Hawking has studied microscopic black holes. They may "evaporate" away.
--Have fun,
--Mike
Subject: Mol. Wt. Calculating Sofwater by M. Monroe, Windows Version 3.2
From: monroem@UWYO.EDU (Matt Monroe)
Date: 12 Jan 97 16:24:13 MST
Version 3.2 of Molecular Weight Calculator for Windows now available.
New Features: Allows use of abbreviations as custom elements in
formula finder.
For Percent Solver, added display of differences
between target percentages and obtained percentages.
Changed comment delimeter to be a semicolon in the
MWTWIN.INI file and the .DAT files.
Added detection of a mouse click to stop the percent
solver and formula finder.
Why is it better than other programs available? First of all it's
free, yet fully functional. I feel it is very powerful, more functional
and more user friendly than other molecular weight programs I've found
over the net. I'm making it available for others so that they can use it
in their research and studies. Plus, the program is fully Windows 95
compatible (beside Win 3.x). The Dos version is also still available.
AVAILABILITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Version (MWTWin v3.2)
The program is available via the web at http://plains.uwyo.edu/~monroem/ or
at http://www.coast.net/SimTel/win3/chem.html and
http://www.cdrom.com/simtel.net/win3/chem.html and
http://www.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/win3/chem/ in the mwt3_2.zip file.
The program is also available via Anonymous FTP at ftp.coast.net under the
SimTel/win3/chem/ directory in the mwt3_2.zip file, at ftp.simtel.net under
pub/simtelnet/win3/chem/ in the mwt3_2.zip file, and ftp.osc.edu under the
pub/chemistry/software/MS-WINDOWS/Molecular_Weight/ directory in the
mwt3_2.exe or mwt3_2s.exe files.
Dos Version (MWT v2.87)
The program is available via the web at http://plains.uwyo.edu/~monroem/ or
at http://www.coast.net/SimTel/msdos/chemstry.html and
http://www.cdrom.com/simtel.net/msdos/chemstry.html and
http://www.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/chemstry/ in the mwt2_87.zip file.
The program is also available via Anonymous FTP at ftp.coast.net under the
SimTel/msdos/chemstry/ directory in the mwt2_87.zip file, at ftp.simtel.net
under pub/simtelnet/msdos/chemstry/ in the mwt2_87.zip file, and ftp.osc.edu
under the pub/chemistry/software/MS-DOS/Molecular-Weight-Calculator/
directory in the mwt2_87.exe file.
As a final option, I can mail you a UUEncoded or MIME encoded version
via e-mail; just drop me a line.
Please see my home page for the Dos version features.
As for the Windows version, ...
FEATURES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi Line Display Display of up to seven formulas with their molecular
weights simultaneously.
Percent Composition Percent composition of up to seven formulas.
Parentheses Are Allowed Handles up to 4 layers of embedded parentheses.
For example, (CH3)3CH2CH3 is equivalent to CH3CH3CH3CH2CH3.
Hydrates or other appended compounds are allowed.
For example, FeCl3-6H2O.
User-definable abbreviations Default abbreviations are included for common
parts of compounds, including amino acids. See full list.
For example, PhCl = C6H5Cl and HOac = CH3COOH.
Smart Case Conversion The program will automatically convert lowercase
letters to uppercase where appropriate for ease of entering a formula. Exact
case matching and non-conversion are also available.
Edit and save abbreviations while program is running.
Isotopes are recognized using the following notation:
^13C is Carbon-13
C6H5^18OH is heavy-oxygen (Oxygen-18) labeled phenol
Feature of weighting parts of a compound relative to the other parts.
For example,
[.2Na]Cl would have a weight of 0.2*22.989768+35.4527=40.0507
NaCl-[.5H2O] would have a weight of
22.989768+35.4527+0.5*(2*1.00794+15.9994)=67.4501
Percent Solver mode for finding the value of "x" in a compound that satisfies
user-specified percent composition requirements.
Edit and save elemental values while program is running.
Accuracy of the final digit of the molecular wt. and percent composition.
Capability to set optional features at the command line when starting the
program.
Capability of saving options as defaults and automatic loading of the saved
options upon program start.
Easily Cut, Copy, and Paste information between the Molecular Weight Calculator
and other Windows applications.
Mole/Mass Converter for easily translating moles to mass (kg, g, mg, pounds,
ounces) and back.
Formula Finder for finding possible compound empirical formulas for a given
molecular weight or for a given set of percent composition data.
Capability of printing results.
Extensive On-Line Help and Error Checking
THE AUTHOR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contacting the Author
You can contact me by E-mail at Monroem@UWyo.Edu until I graduate in May 1997.
After that, E-mail BPat@UWyo.Edu for information on my whereabouts.
About the Author
I am an undergraduate chemistry major at the University of Wyoming in Laramie,
Wyoming. I plan to attend graduate school and aim to obtain a doctorate in
chemistry. I taught myself to program in BASIC on an Apple //c (with 128 Kb
of Ram and no hard disk) in 1986 during 6th grade. Since then, I have updated
to GW-Basic, then QuickBasic v4.5, QuickBasic v7.1 for DOS, and now Visual
Basic 3.0 for Windows. I am familiar with C, and, though I know it is much
faster than Basic, I stick with the various forms of Basic since I am much
more comfortable with the language. I have also been told that Visual Basic
is easier to learn than Visual C, and, in fact, I taught myself Visual Basic
in two days.
/============================================================================\
I was goin' Chopin', but I forgot my Lizst! Had to go Bach to get it.
What are the following?
Matthew Monroe Black Angus : Black Angus
Chemistry Major Black Angus : Texas Longhorn
University of Wyoming Black Angus : Brown Swiss
-------------------------------------------------
monroem@uwyo.edu Homogeneous Catalyst : Heterogeneous Catalyst
/----------------------------------\
| http://plains.uwyo.edu/~monroem/ | This tagline is umop apisdn.
\============================================================================/
Subject: Dust on a fan
From: stpierre@saiph.Colorado.EDU (Jay A. St. Pierre)
Date: 13 Jan 1997 03:53:34 GMT
I came across the following explanation at
http://www.imponderables.com/new1.html on Jan. 12, 1997. It purports to
explain why fans (ceiling fans in particular) get so dusty. I am
wondering if the explanation is complete. It seems to me that static
electricity is insufficient to explain why the dust can continue to stay
on the fan; I thought this had to due with fluid dynamics, in particular
that the air flow near the surface of the fan can be quite low even
though the fan may be generating quite a strong breeze.
Please e-mail replies. Thanks.
-Jay
----------
Why Do Ceiling Fans Get Dusty?
You'd think, says reader Loren Larson, that the constantly turning blades
would throw off any incidental dust that accumulates on a ceiling fan,
particularly the blades of ceiling fans. But you'd be wrong. Ceiling fans
seem to be dust magnets.
Your house or apartment, we say without insult, is full of dust. In the
hair-raising first chapter of the marvelous The Secret House, David
Bodanis notes that tens of thousands of human skin flakes fall off our
body every minute.
"Luckily" for us, there are millions of microscopic mites in our abodes,
insects that dine on the skin that we shed. Bodanis estimates that just
within the average double bed mattress, two million dust mites live on our
discarded skin and hair. Each mite defecates perhaps twenty times a day;
their fecal pellets are so small that they float in the air, circulating
around the house. Despite the millions of insects who depend upon our
shedding skin for their survival, human skin and hair is by far the
largest component in the dust found on ceiling fans and throughout the
house. Makes you want to run out and get an air filter, doesn't it?
Ceiling fans create a tremendous amount of air flow, and dust is thrown
around the room. But much lands on the fan and its blade, and just seems
to sit there. Charles Ausburn, of Casablanca Fan Company, pleads guilty,
but with an explanation:
"The air always has a great deal of dust in it -- larger particles
that you can see, and also microscopic ones. Over time, a large
volume of the circulating air hits and collects on the blades of the
fan. People often ask why spider webs and dust can be seen on
the fans. But they must understand that there is a lot of dust in
the circulating air."
But the accumulation of dust on a given object is not random. Most dust
particles carry an electrical charge, and therefore can be attracted to
one another (a dust ball is simply an accumulation of charged dust
particles that have a fatal attraction). Physicist Chris Ballas, of
Vanderbilt University, explains:
"The charged dust particles are attracted and cling to any
surface that develops a charge. This can be electrical
equipment, which directly carries electric current) or a surface
subjected to frictional forces, which result in a static electricity
build-up. The latter is the case for ceiling fans. As the blades
rotate, they experience frictional forces as they `rub' against the
air; this knocks electrons around, causing the blades to build up a
net charge. The charged dust particles then stick to the charged
areas of the blades.
"The leading edge of the blades usually develops the thickest
layer of dust. That's because the leading edge [the edge first
cutting the air as the blade spins] encounters the most friction
and develops the largest charge.
"So the dust doesn't collect on the blades simply by `falling' or
landing on them. The electrical-attraction effect also plays a
large part. This same effect explains why some vertical surfaces
also get quite dusty (television and stereo equipment, for
example). The dust doesn't just fall off these surfaces -- it
sticks due to the electrical attraction."
Submitted by Loren A. Larson of Orlando, Florida. Thanks also to Crystal
Lloyd of Perryville, Kentucky.
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 03:05:22 GMT
In article <5b9hqe$2m7@juliana.sprynet.com>, 745532603@compuserve.com
(Michael Ramsey) wrote:
>In article <32d6d3f9.14517305@news.pacificnet.net>, savainl@pacificnet.net
>says...
>>
>>In article <5avcni$4qv@juliana.sprynet.com>, 745532603@compuserve.com
>>(Michael Ramsey) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <01041997174432umw@windsong.demon.co.uk>,
>>>Steve@windsong.demon.co.uk says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 08:45:39 GMT, in
><32ce0df7.4045774@Pubnews.demon.co.uk>
>>>> savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote.....
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>Note the following list of topics to *not* bring up at parties:
>>>1. Politics
>>>2. Religion
>>>3. What is time?
>>>
>>>a) above is not a strictly true statement.
>>
>> That's a funny one.
>
>See what I mean? People get cranky when the topic turns to what is time!
Well, I apologize for my crankiness. It's just that recently it had
dawned on me that the damage done by the "spacetime continuum" model
of reality is so devastating and so ubiquitous, that I was beginning
to despair of ever seeing a correct fundamental understanding of
reality in my lifetime. I realize now that the task, even though
daunting, is not insurmountable. Pardon me for using your article as
a way of relieving my frustration in this regard.
>>> The world line is the "history"
>>>(past, future, and present) of the motion. You jump in at any point on
>>>the t-axis and that point becomes "now". However the physical
>>>theories (especially field theories, like GR) provide equations which tell
>>>you how the system will evolve as a function of time.
>>
>> And how is that possible if nothing moves in time, Mr. Ramsey? The
>>moment you postulate the existence of a time axis you must also come
>>up with an explanation for how physical objects are going to move
>>along that axis. Because, obviously they have to move. Can you do
>>that Mr. Ramsey, can you explain how objects physically move along the
>>time axis and still stay on the right side of logic? If you or any
>>other physicists think you can, please don't hesitate to tell us on
>>this forum, as I would love to volunteer to show you the simple error
>>of your ways.
>
>Calling me Mr. Ramsey makes me look around for my father (or for a kid in
>my son's day care). Mike will do in the future.
Well lately, I've taken to using the 'Mr.' epithet (not exclusively)
for anyone whom I suspect is merely regurgitating or defending the
fundamentalist line at all costs. If you are offended by it, I'll
just call you 'Mike'.
>How do you explain something moving along a space axis? If you have a
>calendar, how do you explain the flipping of pages, or the movement of
>the hands of a clock?
It is just a change in position, that's all. Only the change is
real. Time is just the inverse of change, an abstract notion. To
insist that motion must be explained in terms of time is just as
absurd as insisting that the mass of an object must be explained in
terms of its inverse, 1/mass. As far as the intuitive notion of the
passage of time is concerned, it too, must be accompanied by motion,
as time cannot be divorced from motion. Check out the thread "Time
and its existance" where I explain this in more detail.
>[...]
>
>I am a consultant and not employed as a physicist. I have had some formal
>training. It is the nature of consulting to "teach". I apologize if my
>tone came across in a way that irritated you.
Well, I may have mistaken you for one of those "arrogant snot nosed
physicists" as Dr. Michio Kaku (of superstring fame) have described
them.
>You have me the wrong way around. I am not trying to tell you
>how things work; rather I am trying to figure this stuff out myself.
It seemed more like you had already accepted the party line and were
defending it at all costs.
>Exchanges on the forum help me think. Trying to explain something to
>somebody forces me to carefully marshal my own arguments which in turns
>helps me to better understand the material. I guess it is ultimately
>selfish, even though others may also benefit.
OK.
>>Do you believe in the physical
>>existence of a time axis, Mr. Ramsey? Better yet, do you teach others
>>that there exists a physical time axis?
>
>I experience time flowing from past into the future with this
>thing called "now" where I can actually affect things. I can't affect
>things in the past from "now". Likewise, I can't affect the future
>until it becomes "now".
I agree.
>A motion picture film is a good model of what GR takes to be space-time.
>You can cut each frame, stack them so that earlier frames are below later
>frames, then glue them into a block. Objects moving relative to the camera
>will trace out a trajectory with the time axis going up. GR says nothing
>about the motion picture projector which causes a single frame to appear
>on the screen 32 times a second. By analogy, GR doesn't explain the flow
>of time either. That doesn't make it a bad model, just silent on an aspect
>that interests the both of us. Clearly more can be said about the nature
>of time.
This picture of reality as a historical map or record is indeed
powerful as an analysis tool. It is not however a model of reality.
It could not reflect reality because, as I've written elsewhere, it
reifies time into a dimension and *that* is illogical. Why? Because
as soon as you reify time into a physical dimension as required by the
model, you must give a logical explanation of how objects can move
along the reified time dimension. In order to move in time, objects
must obey the velocity equation v = t/t, a nonsensical equation that
says nothing about motion at all, let alone motion in time. So to
squarely contradict your conclusion above, the spacetime continuum is
a *very bad* model of reality. GR does not explain the flow of time
because the spacetime continuum model of GR forbids it. Can you
reconcile that with reality and still hold on to a reified time
dimension? I don't think so.
Do I reject GR entirely because spacetime does not reflect reality?
No. But I do reject the notion that GR gives an explanation of
gravity in terms of inertial path through curved spacetime. How can
that be if the spacetime of GR is but an abstract map? GR therefore,
(as I wrote somewhere else) "just like Newtonian physics before it, is
but a descriptive theory based on observations for the purpose of
predicting the motion of bodies. Its predictive power stems entirely
from the application of inductive extrapolations and not from some
deep understanding of the causal mechanisms at play." How can the
curved spacetime of GR have a causal influence on particles of matter
if it is not physical.
>Oh yes, I do believe GR's representation of space and time as geometry is
>a powerful model. I have no problem with viewing the block of film as a
>legitimate model for space-time. I also believe that the question of what
>is time remains to be satisfactorily answered. My apologies to your
>statements to the contrary.
Well we could not disagree more. The spacetime continuum cannot be
a model of reality as I've just demonstrated.
>>>With the many worlds interpretation of QM, history doesn't exist, only our
>>>record of it. Only now exists without the concept of trajectory through
>>>space-time.
>>
>> I don't need a many world interpretation of QM to tell me that.
>>Simple irrefutable logic tells me that. What is strange is that this
>>simple logic escapes many of the great minds of twentieth century
>>physics. Go figure.
>>
>>>It is safe to say that time remains a mystery.
>>
>> It is *not* a mystery. *You* make it a mystery with the flawed
>>logic of your spacetime continuum. Worst, you make it into a joke.
>>Time has been known to be 'd/v' for centuries if not millennia, a
>>simple abstract mathematical ratio. Time is simply the inverse of
>>change, a purely abstract notion. Where is the mystery in that?
>
>Sorry, but what you just said is a mystery to me.
Are you saying that 'd/v' is a mystery? In what way is it a
mystery? I suspect that you are seeing time through tainted spacetime
spectacles, but I could be wrong.
>
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: David Sepkoski
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:47:39 -0800
Valk wrote:
[snip]
> I did NOT say the Catholic church isn't a christian institution, I
> pointed out that the church is not the FAITH but a vessel of the
> faith. I'm saying that the Catholic church has no right in preventing
> science and saying that it (science) is "against" God.
>
> Take for eg. the imprisonment of early scientists for saying that the
> earth is round etc. and more recently (1981) the pope told scientists
> that it was okay to study the evolution of the universe but that they
> should not study the Big Bang because it was the moment Creation and
> therefore the work of God.
> What I want to know is where does he get the right to restrict the
> scientists in what they may or may not study and where in the Bible
> does he get his motivation?
How exactly is the Pope "restricting" scientists? Torquemada has been
dead for a long time, and I don't think a whole lot of scientists stop
practicing their discipline because the Pope issues a bull on some
subject or another. In fact, proclamations that the Pope makes are
generally intended to inform Catholics about what is and is not
considered doctrine by the Vatican. It does not necessarily apply to
non-Catholics, and plenty of practicing Catholics simply ignore the Pope
one these and many other issues (birth control, homosexuality). I think
that its awfully naive of you to compare this to the Catholic church's
actions in the 16th century. Even back then, however, I think that the
issue was far more complex than a simple "supression of knowledge." How
much do you really know about this subject?
D. Sepkoski
Subject: Re: Basic Particles/Waves again!
From: Zdzislaw Meglicki
Date: 13 Jan 1997 15:21:59 +1000
jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
> Mike Norris wrote:
> There is nothing absurd about the pattern on a photographic plate.
> You are not forced to accept the existence of an image on the plate
> by the theory; the theory predicted the observed fact that the pattern
> produced by electrons and x-rays are the same under given conditions.
>
I think that where the theory gets really muddy is in the explanation
of why this diffraction pattern is made of lots of tiny dots,
which pop up on the plate apparently at random. It is here that we
enter the realm of *interpretation* of quantum mechanics, which is
a somewhat religious issue. Schroedinger or Heisenberg equations
really say nothing about it.
If I am not mistaken, the commonly accepted *lore* is that we are not
supposed to inquire into this aspect too deeply, since QM, as a mathematical
theory, is just fine, and what it does not explain can be swept under
the carpet or hand-waved away.
On the other hand, some very interesting insights into "the nature of
being" have been gained by those, like Bell, for example, who
inquired, perhaps against the advice of their wiser colleagues.
Various quite insightful and tricky experiments that followed confirmed
QM's predictions, but because of Bell's work, we can now appreciate
much more clearly how very strange a theory QM really is!
--
Zdzislaw Meglicki, gustav@qpsf.edu.au
Queensland Parallel Supercomputing Facility,
Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia,
fax: +61-7-3875-6650, tel: +61-7-3875-6789
