Newsgroup sci.physics 215690

Directory

In article ,
bob tarantino   wrote:
>
>Leonard Timmons wrote:
>Think of the brilliance of Leonardo.  His genius was not
>limited to the left side of his cerebellum.  His drawings of the internal
>structures of the human body are still in use today, not to mention those of
>water flowing that show details now proven with high speed photography.  
What has Leonardo shown with his water flowing pictures not already seen by the
human eye? I know that when water drips it always drips with one big and one
smaller drop following the bigger water drop. But flowing water? Could 
anyone explain.
/Mvh Peter Smidt
-- 
+=======================================+
"The whole valley is like a smorgasbord."
					-- TREMORS

Brian Sandle wrote:
> 
> I remembered this topic when writing on sci.physics about power line
> health effects - electromagnetic stress - there is currently a thread.
> Whales register the dawn pulse in the earth's magnetic field, do they
> register other magnetic trouble which may indicate an oncoming 'quake?
> 
> Brian Sandle
While it is certainly possible that whales respond to changes in
the magnetic field, since they are primarily auditory animals they
are probably responding to sound.
They probably hear something going on before a quake.  It may be
loud enough to mess up their sonar causing them to make navigational
mistakes.  I understand low frequency sounds can travel thousands of
miles underwater.
Anyway, that's my guess.
--
David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
Software Engineer
Control Data Systems
2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
Fairborn, Ohio 45324
(937) 427-6385

On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, erikc wrote:
> 
> Clueless fucks who write garbageware for a power-mad marketing wizard.
> 
Ooh, are you a little bit jealous that those clueless fucks get all the
money they do, and that they are blissfully ignorant of the fact that
someone who couldn't get their job doesn't like them?
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, April wrote:
> following the path laid before them by their parents'.  Go to college, 
> get a PH.D. and you will be successful!!  But those who aspire to be
> self employed have the guts to risk, suffer failure, and end up
> successful enough to hire degree holders to be their lawyers,
> accountants, financial advisers......get the picture??  
I hate to disillusion you in your academic bashing, but here goes.
The highest earners around are traders in the financial markets. The vast
majority of traders hve a degree in a numerate subject, many have advanced
degrees, such as MBAs.
Whilst you may like to believe that the people with these degrees will
never do as well as the people without, the truth is somewhat different.
Within about three years of leaving college, they can expect to earn
around 300 000 dollars per annum.
From there, it only goes upwards, very very quickly.
Perform well, and you will be on millions per year by the time you are in
your thirties.
This is not an option if you don't have a degree of a suitable standard.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, angus wrote:
> 
> Obviously cultivate a "snotty then thou" attitude".
> 
> 
That makes no sense. Would you care to try typing it again so it can
actually be construed as an insult, rather than some unconnected words put
next to each other.
If someone suggests that working at CERN is going to cause me to have a
higher than normal content of radioactive substances, then they clearly do
not understand what we do there.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On 14 Jan 1997 lamontg@nospam.washington.edu wrote:
> 
> You all sit around and sip tea all day in front of the beam dump, don't you?
> 
Well, only in the summer.
In the winter months, we prefer to up our dose of cosmic radiation,
through decamping to the ski slopes for most of the working day.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

robert.koss@mail.snet.net writes:
>
>   C _appears_ to be a constant.
>
>   Much like the gravitational 'constant' _appears_ to be constant.
 This is the view espoused by Dirac in his "large numbers" hypothesis 
 that argued for non-zero dG/dt.  I am not aware of the present status 
 of the tests, but I am sure we would have heard of non-null results! 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

John Murphy:
|> The case I make is that the interference model ignores the properties
|> of the quantised structure of the matter in the slits.
The quantum mechanics of interference surely has nothing to do 
with the detailed material properties of each slit.  My impression 
is that the explanation of interference given in the brilliant 
book 
   "Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals", by Feynman and Hibbs
is both simple and water tight.  In particular, the propagator for a 
"free particle" is described in Chapter 3.  The path integral method 
is most likely the clearest way to explain the Aharanov-Bohm (note 
spelling) effect -- which you allude to in your web page but _cannot_ 
explain.  See, for example, "Modern Quantum Mechanics", by J.J. 
Sakurai.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <32D9711A.6168@hotmail.com>, Drox  wrote:
>That having been said, I still agree that hemp fibers could probably 
>replace a lot of the fibers currently in use for the manufacture of 
>paper and cloth.  Does hemp cloth take dyes well?  The (admittedly few) 
>samples I've seen of hemp cloth have all had a canvas-like texture and 
>"natural" (i.e. very light tan) color.
I bought a pair of hemp hiking boots a couple of years ago (made by
Merrell, in Vermont). The fabric started wearing thin after a few months,
and the boots barely lasted me through one summer of intermittent use. I'm
now wary of buying hemp products that need to stand up to regular use.
-- 
Brad Hurley
Freelance Environmental and Science Writing
31 Gage Street
Bellows Falls, VT 05101-1616, USA
Tel: +1 802 463 9417; Fax: +1 802 463 4217; e-mail: bhurley@sover.net
"Stars know just the proper distance to keep from one another."
-- Howard Norman, _The Bird Artist_

 erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:


Oh. I wasn't grumbling at you...just at life in general [glum emoticon
here].  Your reference to *inserting* pages reminds me of several times
when an enterprising young man in a college lab found he was missing some
stuff in his notebook.  It was a spiral notebook and the notebook was very
carefully unwound, pages were inserted (had been copied from somebody
else's book), and then the spiral was very carefully rewound.  He didn't
do a perfect job, though. Oh, the memories a random note can trigger!
[smiling emoticon here wondering what else has been forgotten]
/BAH

>In article  Keith Stein
>>     Surely the concept 'time' must preceed the concept of 'velocity'.
Louis Savain  writes
>  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.
Well if i were to say that in England you "must drive on left",
i do not mean to imply that it is impossible to do otherwise. 
  I mean that "THIS IS THE CONVENTION" ,Louis, and perhaps there
 is also the implication that IMHO you would do well to stick to it!
> I'm always willing to change my mind in the face
>of strong evidence to the contrary.
        good man yourself!
> Velocity is a change in position
but it isn't Louis, it's a 'RATE OF CHANGE' in position. This is an
important distinguishion, Louis, but i find it impossible to explain
this difference to you, if you don't (already) have 'the time' :-)
> 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.
If clocks really do change rate with velocity Louis, then this is
indeed a confusion of our (my) notion of 'time'. However,I really do
not think this happens Louis. Einstein showed that in order for the
velocity of light to be independent of the velocity of the observer,
clocks MUST change rate, but he never showed that this does actually
happen, and despite the best efforts of Messrs Hafele and Keating,
it still hasn't been shown, to this day, Louis. 
>  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.
and i  apologize for its shortness. I think a club is a good idea.
Louis we could call it.........         " The Eminently Fallible "
                          First meeting will be held at 13.00 m/s :-)
but I'm not sure it's going to work out though Louis,we are just too
different.
 You being Ultra Post Modern, and me the Ultra Arch Conservative eh!
still if you and i could form a club,Louis, we'd be more catholic that
the Catholics even !
-- 
Keith Stein

James Davenport (masjhd@bath.ac.uk) wrote:
: Yes, there is a sad mathematical fact here.
: The standard real numbers are a subset of the standard complex numbers,
: but this is NOT TRUE of their compactifications (which is really what we
: are talking about here), since R needs a 2-point compactification (+oo and
: -oo  
"Needs"?  There is a standard construction for a compactification
of any locally compact Hausdorff space by adding a single "point
at infinity" and defining a suitable topology. If the space was 
already compact before the construction, then this "one-point
compactification" is in fact (homeomorphic to) the topological
co-product of the space with a singleton.
In the case of R^n (n>0), this construction leads to (a space
hoeomorphic to) the n-sphere S^n. One way to see this is via
stereographic projection.
What about other compactificiations, such as Stone-Czech
or Bohr compactifications?
: whereas C needs a 1-point compactification (projective oo).
: To my mind, this sad mathematical fact means that hardware should concentrate
: on standard R (which can therefore be extended to standard C in the cartesian
: way) and leave the interpretations of infinity to software, since no one
: interpretation will suffice for both R and C (unless we also build C and
: its 1-point compactification in).
: 
In fact, the standard (Alexandrov) compactification mentioned above
when applied to the (real) plane of complex numbers (as distinct from
the complex plane C^2!!!!!) yields the Riemann sphere. Embedding
R in C as the complex numbers invariant under complex conjugation
leads to an embedding of the 1-point compactication of R into the
Riemann sphere as a "longitudinal great circle".
d.A.

rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) writes:
> tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu (Tim Hollebeek) wrote:
> 
> Actually the object of my complaint was not that Baez does not read my
> theory, but that, as a moderator, he refuses a post which is a factual
> answer to someone's question.  His original reason was that I mentioned
> the harmonics theory, but he declined the altered version (where I
> didn't mention it) also and stated that the post was wrong.  I have
> challenged him to state which part is wrong, as it is all based on
> established knowledge and logical deductions.  His total silence on this
> attests to the fact that he cannot produce a single piece of evidence
> that I am wrong.
Well, whenever I asked John Baez a question I always got a sensible
response sooner or later. Perhaps he's busy, perhaps he's holidaying,
or perhaps he's trying to answer your question and while doing so
became bogged down in mathematical detail, which, perhaps, will prove
you right after all!
The very fact that he makes an effort and reads this insanely huge
news group, while having to prepare lectures and look after his
students at the same time, makes him a saint. 
Perhaps he's got a flu.
-- 
 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

 Note followup to sci.physics; this is not math. 
"Risto Lankinen"  writes:
>
>Doesn't this also mean that the definition of meter is at most as
>accurate as the definition of second?  
 And the means of measuring the speed of light.  
 The shift from the use of a physical artifact (a platinum-iridium 
 bar in Paris) to the present system was made because those 
 measurements (c and a frequency) can be made much more accurately 
 (better than a part in 10^9) than any comparison of two bars 
 of metal.  There is a similar effort underway to replace the use 
 of a lump of metal for the mass unit. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

In article <5bdjm3$277@cwis-20.wayne.edu>,
Michael Edelman  wrote:
>Peter Smidt (smidt@dd.chalmers.se) wrote:
>
>: Strange... Shouldn't the Mars atmosphere change at least a little bit during
>: all that millions of years
>
>No. Why should it, particularly if there's no life?
The Mars rock proves there has been life on Mars??!??!?
But if there has been/is life on Mars shouldn't the atmosphere change 
a least a little bit.
Or if some asteroid crashes into the atmosphere, a lot of dust would 
turn up and change the atmosphere.
-- 
+=======================================+
"The whole valley is like a smorgasbord."
					-- TREMORS

Kevin McLaughlin wrote:
> 
> Glen Moore (glen_moore@uow.edu.au) wrote:
> : Phil
> :
> : You write
> : "There is a new addition to my Bad Astronomy page:
> :
> :         "The Moon appears larger on the horizon because
> :          you are comparing it to foreground objects."
> i have been told it is an effect of the light travelling through a
> thicker atmosphere which is also a different shape to that through which
> you view the moon when overhead. though this would produce a distortion
> along one axis only, i would have thought.
Except that photographs of the moon at the different times seem
to indicate that there is no atmospheric effect--that the illusion
is an artifact of our mind.  The photographs, as they've been
described to me, show that the measured moon disk size is as 
expected.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Im Artikel <5b9ah6$hft@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Alan \"Uncle Al\"
Schwartz  schreibt:
>>
>>One therefore is given to presume that,
>>
>>   1) everybody, on the average, sees the same color from the same 
>>stimulus, and
We seem to have red, green and blue receptors. To work out if the
stimulus is the same in each case, you have to take the total
light path  lens --> humour --> retina   and see if the absorptions
of the different components match exactly for all human beings.
If the absorbivity of these components is determined by fundamental
physics properties, then it's probably true to say that someone's
"red" receptor is sensitive to the same range that someone else's
"red" receptor is. On the other hand, if the absorption and
stuff is determined by a complex mix of biochemicals, it's probably
true that it varies between people. No two people have exactly the
same biochemistry. Skin pigment is just one of many substances
which vary from person to person.
There is also growth and development to consider. The ratios of
stimuli reaching the nerve cells of the brain depends on relative
populations of different colour receptors in the retina. Different
biochemical environments during growth are going to change this.
Simon

Jan Zumwalt wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry if I am way off base and intruding. I only caught a small glimpse
> of your discussion but...
> 
> I saw an article about 5 years ago in a scientific magazine written by a
> NASA mathematician paid to consider the problems encountered in near light
> speed travel. The gist of the article included a computer program that
> showed what objects would look like at various speeds.
> 
> The most interesting aspect to me professionally was the observation of
> electrical circuit response at those speeds. For instance at about .75c
> computer response of electronic equipment would become prohibitively slow
> for connections in access of 300ft. Based on your discussion I think this
> Conflicts to one of your opinions but I'm not sure.
> 
-snip-
I don't think the article you read was a very serious one. As stated in
the postulats of theory of relativity, there's no way to distinguish
between any two inertial systems. If the computer is not moving with
respect to an inertial frame of refference, it has to perform the same
as on Earth or anywhere else. No slowing down or whatever.
-- 
\    / | --+--   | | |-\   /\   |-\ |-- /-\ | / \ /
 \  /  |   |     |-| |_/  /--\  | | |-  |   |/   |
  \/   |   |     | | | \ /    \ |_/ |__ \_/ | \  |
vitek@geocities.com

Anthony Potts:
|> The highest earners around are traders in the financial markets. The vast
|> majority of traders hve a degree in a numerate subject, many have advanced
|> degrees, such as MBAs.
|> 
|> Whilst you may like to believe that the people with these degrees will
|> never do as well as the people without, the truth is somewhat different.
|> Within about three years of leaving college, they can expect to earn
|> around 300 000 dollars per annum.
|> 
|> From there, it only goes upwards, very very quickly.
|> 
|> Perform well, and you will be on millions per year by the time you are in
|> your thirties.
|> 
|> This is not an option if you don't have a degree of a suitable standard.
The best traders at present are not typically Ph.D.'s.  The best 
quantitative analysts are.  A "good" trader for BZW (Barclay's) on 
Wall Street will make about 1,500,000 US per year, although it is 
a very tough job to be a "good" trader.  A good quant. will make 
about 500,000 US per year.  Enough to see you through the stress, 
chain-smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse and heart disease to come?
Seriously, because of the presence of physicists in the financial 
world, there is less "guess-work" than a decade ago.  Consequently, 
price margins are much smaller, and substantial profits can 
only be obtained by trading in huge volume.  
After a relatively low threshold (say, well below 100,000 US per 
year) more money has only a weak influence on happiness.  I'm 
sure lots of traders would pay a fortune to have a nice physique, 
or to be as happy as the surfer they see on rare occasion at the 
beach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

ben wrote:
> 
> Hi people,
> 
>         My name is Ben, and I have a friend in elementary school who
> needs some help for a science project. Using materials available around
> the home, she must keep a single regular-sized ice-cube from melting for
> 5 hours. Nothing commercial such as igloo ice packs, or iceboxes are
> permitted.
I assume a thermos is not allowed.
>         She's tried stuff like saran wrap, styrofoam bowls and wood
> chips, but the cube is completely melted by the end of the 5 hours.
>         If anyone has any tips or suggestions, they would be greatly
> appreciated.
I would have thought that if anything around the home would do it, styrofoam 
would.  The first thing is to surround the ice cube completely and closely.  
Double or triple walling (with an air gap in between) is an idea to try, as 
is Aluminum foil lining to reduce radiative heat transfer.
Beyond this, one may push the project definitions a bit.  What about wrapping 
a damp paper towel around the final container - evaporation keeps it and 
therefore the outside of the container cooler than the rest of the room.  
The colder you can keep the outside of the container, the longer the ice 
cube will last.  What about immersing the final container in a bucket of cold 
water from the tap?
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Looking for words of wisdom by a Physicist?                  |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/quotes.html           |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

Several years ago PBS presented a series of lectures taped at 
CalTech called the "Mechanical Universe".  There's also a series 
of Feynman lectures on video as well.  Does anybody know how I 
can obtain these videos?.
Please e-mail me if possible.
Thanks in advance.
-- 

erikc (fireweaver@insync.net) wrote:
: czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca posted from: alt.atheism:
: >|(Singing)
: >|
: >|Immanuel Kant was a real pissant,
: >|Who was very rarely stable,
[Snippage]
: Where does this song come from?
I got it from the video of "Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl".
--
******************************
   Me fail English?
   That's unpossible!
             - Ralph Wiggum
******************************

On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:39:36 GMT, Ken Fischer wrote:
: Trevor Fulton (fulton@skatter.usask.ca) wrote:
: : On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:13:08 GMT, Ken Fischer wrote:
: : :         Another frustration I have, is that everybody
: : : on the surface of the Earth are accelerated at 1 g
: : : constantly, but they don't know it. :-)
: 
: : You are correct in saying the everyone on the surface is _constantly_ 
: : accelerating, but not at 1g.  The constant acceleration arises due to the
: : rotation of the Earth about it's axis and is equal to approx. 
: : 0.034 m/(s^2) or 0.34% of g.
: 
:         That may be part of at the equator, but I'm at 
: 38 degrees North.
: 
You're right Ken, but I can explain.  See, while I was writing that previous
post, I was day-dreaming that I was actually at the Equator 
(3 straight weeks of < -30C weather will do that to a guy ;-)).
The figure I quoted previously is for equitorial latitudes.
One may calculate the acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth at
any latitude on the surface by the following:
	a = R*sin(theta)*((2*pi)/86400)^2
where:
a is the acceleration in question
R is the mean global radius: 6370 km
theta is the azimuth angle(=90 deg at the Equator)
Cheers
-- 
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Trevor Robert Fulton                | fulton@skatter.usask.ca | 
| Saskatchewan Accelerator Laboratory | Phone:   (306) 966-8520 |
| Saskatoon, Sask.                    | Fax:     (306) 966-6058 |
+-------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| "A chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs."         |
|   -- John Gribbin --                                          |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
The opinions I've expressed are mine alone.
-=-

Slawek Goetz (sgoetz@ecs.fullerton.edu) wrote:
: Hi
: How did Newton come up with F=m*a. What experiment did he do?
: Any help is appreciated
Well, if you try accelerating any mass you'll find you need more power to do so 
the larger the mass gets. I'm sure you can devise a simple experiment to verify 
this. Since the power is linearly dependent on the mass (for given a) there is 
only one possible mathematical relation.
Hope this helps,
Ralf
: e-mail: sgoetz@titan.fullerton.edu
--

Alan Anderson wrote:
> 
> If you're going to start arguing conscious design of organisms, we have
> just lost the possibility of rational debate.  By invoking supernatural
> causes, you deny the ability of scentific reasoning to explain nature.
The concept of design is discussed in biology all the time. Whether the
design is due to an intelligent Designer or the end product of stepwise
natural refinement is interesting to consider, but is not relevant to
evaluating the end product. Logically *any* viewpoint can be discussed
rationally, though of couse one can always be unwilling to do so.
Wil Milan

people should stop reading this pseudo-scientific nonsense by mr 
savain. his whole cock-eyed view of the world totters on some 
patently nonsensical base assumptions. for example, we have 
statements like "newton defined force as f = ma". he did no such 
thing. he defined force as f = dp/dt which is in general not the same 
thing at all. mr savain's endless rantings about time are based on 
the assertion that one could define time as t = d/v. this, like most 
of his postings, is drivel. t = d/v is not a definition, it is an 
EQUATION (valid only in a non-relativistic domain, with constant 
velocity v). the relevant DEFINITION is v = dx/dt. an inability to 
understand the difference between a definition and an equation is 
just one of mr. savain's painful inadequacies.

Matthew H. Fields wrote:
> 
> I especially like the 51% consonant figure.  That takes out almost all
> the works of J.S.Bach (consonant only at the very last chord), for instance.
> 
> --
> Matt Fields  URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
Bach is 100% consonant.  He is a good model to base modern music
upon.  His counterpoint and well-tempered scales are the basis for
all music today.  He is the grand-daddy of them all, the leader of
the band, the consummate contrapuntalist.
But let me define consonance.  It is impossible for me to write a
dissonant melody.  The 12 tones are such that virtually any
combination can be made consonant by good harmony and counterpoint.
As far as harmony goes, the established chords including 2nds through
13th including all diminished, augmented intervals with suspensions,
constitute a potential consonance.
Consonance can only be defined by resonance.  That is, the more
harmonics in common, the more consonance.  The more beats, the more
noise, the more dissonance.  The 51% figure only applies to an
overextended use of non-triadic harmony.  Actually, let me state it
in another way:
Good music bases 99% of its melodies on major and minor scales, Greek
modes and their derivatives, pentatonic or any formal scheme of scale
based on intervals other than seconds.  Harmonies must essentially be
derived from major and minor triads, or superimposed seconds, which
when inverted become 7ths.  There are only 3rds, 6ths, 2nds, 7ths,
and ultimately a 4th and 5th is a stacked 3rd or 2nd, so by all
rights there are only 2nd and 3rds stacked upon each other.
If microtones are included, there are more potentials for consonant
harmonies *provided they obey the laws of resonance*.
All harmony is periodic selection of scale intervals.  By using only
three degrees of freedom in any key signature, you can construct
almost any chord based on triads.  What you take out is often more
important than what you leave in.  A pure thirteenth can be viewed as
a 6th doubled, omit 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th
Craig Clark  


what he actually came up with is F = dp/dt. he didn't do an 
"experiment" to determine this - it is a _definition_ of F.
richard

savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
(sip)
>[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
You should check out my page. I have thought along the same line.
           ___       ___
              \     /
               \JAL/      HUBBLE TROUBLE
                \ /
                 ~   http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5473/

Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
> 
> In article ,
> musashi@pha.jhu.edu (Eric Burgh ) dusted off the quill, prised open the
> inkwell and wrote...
> >
> >On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, mark green wrote:
> >
> >> In article <59m02r$jpo@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>, Steve Gilham
> >>  writes
> >> >cirolini@sodalia.it wrote:
> >> >> On a related issue, is it true that the full moon shines more in
> >> >> winter? My reasoning is that the moon is higher in the sky, in the
> >> >> same way as the sun is higher in summer.
> >> >That is precisely correct.
> >>
> >> correct presuming you live in the northern hemisphere presumably.
> >>
> >I would have thought that the sun is higher in the summer in the southern
> >hemisphere also.  Isn't this part of the definition of summer?  There was
> >no mention of any particular calendar month.
> >
> 
> That's what I thought at first. Then I thought about it.
> 
> Imagine the Earth, Sun and Moon at full Moon on June 21st at 12 Noon GMT.
> The Sun will be at it's highest point in the sky in the Northern hemisphere.
> At the same time the Moon will be at it's highest point in the Southern
> hemisphere. Because, in June the South Pole is pointed away from the Sun it
> is pointing towards where the Moon is when we can see it.
So the moon is highest in winter ... I thot that was what everyone was
saying ...  Its a real pain cause the moon is up for two weeks, roughly
centered around full.  So (barring clouds) you can do dark sky observing
for two weeks continuously, but then you have to quit for two weeks as
the darn moon just goes round and round and round ... no partial nites.

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Dave Monroe wrote:
> >         If anyone has any tips or suggestions, they would be greatly
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance   :)
> > bensayo@ibm.net
> 
> I remember Union Carbide used to use layers of foil and paper to keep
> liquid nitrogen cold for long-haul rail transport.
> 
> Try 5 pieces of aluminum foil and 5 pieces of brown craft paper in
> alternating layers.
> 
> Good luck.
> --
What you are going to have to be very careful about is the heat capacity
of the insulation. If the insulation itself starts off at room
temperature, then there will be enough heat in it to melt the cube if you
use the wrong materials.
My suggestion would therefore be to go for a low density insulator, such
as expanded polystyrene. If it is allowed, chill the insulation first, as
this will make a big difference. 
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster) wrote:
} 
}   "I am a HAL Nine Thousand computer Production Number 3.  I became
} operational at the HAL Plant in Urbana, Illinois, on January 12, 1997."
} --  "2001 a space odyssey" -- a novel by arthur C. Clarke
borism@interlog.com (Boris Mohar) writes:
>
>  And if you shift right the letters HAL you will get his dady's name.
 Anyone who knows computers knows there are not many from that 
 company on the list of super-fast ones, particularly in the 60s. 
 If you recall the number scheme used by CDC, wherein the Cray 1 
 would have been the 8600, you are a bit closer, since that would 
 have put a 9000 series in the 1990s.  However, the model machine 
 was the Illiac IV (note the place of origin), which once sung 
 "Daisy".  [Thanks, CNN, for that factoid.]
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

Conny Andersson (ccontour@algonet.se) wrote:
: Once read i an old book that the relative size or volyme of
: waterparticles in fog follows discrete steps, like 1:2, 1:3 etc.
: This fact not mentioned in newer books. Anybody knows anything about
: this "quantisation" of fog?
:
  I suppose this might occur to a limited extent in a fog or cloud
composed of droplets of small uniform size, by simple coalescence -- a few
of the droplets sticking together.  However, there are scads of mechanisms
affecting the situation -- density, type and size of condensation nuclei;
whether there are supercooled water droplets, supersaturated air, or ice
crystals; wind speed; pressure and temperature gradients, etc.  And, of
course, when droplets (or ice crystals) become large enough, they'll fall
as precipitation.
  Curiously, a different mechanism for precipitation was discovered first.
The German meteorologist A.L. Wegener pointed out in 1911 that water vapor
pressure over (supercooled) liquid water was greater than that over ice at
the same temperature.  This means that, in a cloud containing both
supercooled water and ice, there is a vapor pressure gradient for water to
migrate from the former to the latter.  This idea was elaborated by
Bergeron in the mid 1930's and confirmed by Findeison from analysis of
upper-air observations in Northern Europe, in the late 1930's.  It was
even proposed that all raindrops were formed in this way.  It was
observed in the 1940's however, that rain also fell from clouds which were
above the freezing point, which led to the proposal of coalescence as an
additional mechanism in forming precipitation.  I'm not sure how old the
book you consulted is, but you might check its vintage against the
preceding.
  You might look at "Field Guide to the Atmosphere" (where I found
the W-B-F and coalescence theories) and/or some of the references cited
therein.

In article ,
Paul Z. Myers  wrote:
>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?
I would need pretty good odds to take such a bet. How about a million
to one? (I'm assuming that the Ph.D. requirements in the USA are similar 
to those in the rest of the world. All bets are off if that isn't the case.)
(-:
Larry Moran

Sylvia Else 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.
Yes.  In that experiment, no actual physical particle is travelling
faster-than-light; this even in stated clearly _in the abstract of the
paper_.
> 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.
Even with the EPR paradox, which is truly non-local phenomenon, you can't
use it to transmit information.  As such, it doesn't really constitute
faster-than-light travel of anything meaningful (which is why the phrase
"non-local" is preferred to "exhibiting faster-than-light
travel/communication".  Plus it's shorter :-)).
-- 
                             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"

JMFBAH wrote:
> There is a fact that people rarely talk about.....the current government
> in the U.S. is really one that has been elected by a minority of the
> voters.  Assume that  50% of the registered voters vote.  The candidate
> that wins gets 50% the votes (it is usually less).  At most, only 1/4 of
> the population decided who should run the country.
No, (using your example) 50% of the populated _decided_.  It's at most 25%
that were _right_.
-- 
                             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"

Peter Diehr wrote:
> > Black Holes in the GR sense remain hypothetical.
> 
> You haven't been following the news very closely, have you?
There is still no positive, undeniable evidence that a black hole exists.
I think it's safe to say that most physicists are pretty sure there exist,
an we have some convincing candidates, but there isn't quite the degree of
certainty yet that would warrant your objection.
-- 
                             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"

In article <5ba3c1$268c@elmo.cadvision.com>, S Martin
 writes
>I suppose you're including Ophiuchus, eh? Well, the Greeks started out
>with 11, then detached the Scorpion's claws from Scorpius and made it into
>Libra, to make the Zodiac a nice round number. It's still a better
>star-picture if you imagine Libra as the claws. Otherwise, (as people as
>learned as Dickinson complain) Scorpius just looks like a fish-hook.
Part of the Sun's disk (although not its centre) is also in Cetus for a
few hours each year!
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, U.K. e-mail: chris@skymap.com
Creators of fine astronomy software for Windows.
For full details, visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com

lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Im Artikel , trivedi@yukawa.uchicago.edu
> (Anil Trivedi) schreibt:
> 
> >Interesting, but it really does not show anything more than
> >people believe in astrology and may have married accordingly.
> 
> No. That would put much too much weight on astrological believe in the
> public. It would suggest that some 7% of certain couples in love do NOT
> marry, b/c they fear, that their starsign don't match - highly unlikely.
> Much more likely, that they do not marry b/c they initially do not fall in
> love.... but why?
No.  Most of us have heard many times over what our personality should be 
based on starsigns.  No deliberate decision to use this in choosing a mate 
is necessary for the 7% statistic, all that is required is that the 
presence of astrology has had a significant impact on people's character 
development.  But then again, I'm just a typical Aquarius ;->
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen                                                 |
|                                                              |
| Looking for words of wisdom by a Physicist?                  |
|    http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/quotes.html           |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

In article <32DB9C3F.AF7@mindspring.com>,
   R M Mentock  wrote:
>Kevin McLaughlin wrote:
>> 
>> Glen Moore (glen_moore@uow.edu.au) wrote:
>> : Phil
>> :
>> : You write
>> : "There is a new addition to my Bad Astronomy page:
>> :
>> :         "The Moon appears larger on the horizon because
>> :          you are comparing it to foreground objects."
Actually, that's not too far from the truth.  
Think of the sky in terms of degrees.  Even if you only have 120 degrees of 
sky (with buildings, hills, trees, etc.), when the moon is in the "middle" of 
this, it's only 1/240 the angular size.  Now if you compare that to a couple 
of trees that are separated by only 5 degrees of arc, the moon is 1/10 the 
angular size... so it will look bigger by comparison.
I did some measurements of the objects in my neighborhood from my regular 
viewing area so I could compare the angular size of the moon to these objects. 
It really seems that it is by comparison that the moon looks bigger on the 
horizon.  I suppose I could be wrong but it seems reasonable.
  --Jim Craig