Newsgroup sci.physics 215815

Directory

In article , varange@crl.com says...
>
>> A PhD isn't useless. True, the knowledge you are digging up
>> is very specialised, but the skills you learn while digging
>> are very important: determination, skepticism, thought,
>> rigour, etc.
>
>Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
>than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
>
>-- 
>Cheers!
I would ask how you came to this conclusion and how many persons you 
are familiar with who hold PhD's??  I find that the PhD means exactly 
what it is designed to mean: that the holder has obtained a level of 
expertise in a particular field and that said person can conduct 
research in that chosen field.

In article , Nick Sexton
 writes
>In article <5as1hf$7jm@news.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr 
>writes
>>Rebecca Harris  writes
>>}STARGRINDER  writes
>>}>
>>}>get a life!
>>} 
>>} Hear Hear!
>>
>>Goddess  writes:
>>>
>>>Yeah! I don't see why they bother with these posts on here. Why don't they 
>post
>>>it on some maths chat group?
>>
>> To those of us reading the crosspost in sci.physics or sci.math, the 
>> concern is that completely misleading junk such as 
>>
>>: Comment: Note that atoms (atoms) = atoms
>>:
>>:       It seems that squaring an item (not a unit of
>>: measurement) equals the item.  What do you think?
>>
>> is being posted in k12 groups where it could confuse impressionable 
>> children.  If Kaufman was only talking to teachers, who should have 
>> the sense to ignore him, it would not be quite so bad. 
>>
>
>I'd just like to make a point. To whoever posts the educational stuff.
>Listen up.
>
>k12.chat.junior is a chat group. People talk and stuff. What really
>annoys people here is the educational stuff that gets posted. I don't
>think many people read it, anyway. (And those who do are probably on
>k12.ed.math anyway) So if you want to make us happy, then _please_ don't
>send stuff to this group. s'just a thought.
Don't write 'it's just a thought'! Sweetie, nobody's goin' to listen to ya if ya
say that! You gotta tell em out right. Just like that! It's not just a thought,
cause everybodys thinkin' it, so SPEAK OUT!
-- 
Goddess
The girl who cried "MONSTER!" and got her brother....
E-mail : goddess@segl.demon.co.uk
Homepage: http:/www.segl.demon.co.uk/frances

Alison Brooks  wrote:
> Interestingly enough, while the US was busy getting bogged down in
> Vietnam, the UK was engaged in fighting in Borneo, in remarkably similar
> political situations. The UK military position wasn't as good as that of
> the US; the Borneo border was massively longer than that which the
> Americans had to deal with, and the terrain very much harder.
> 
> Nonetheless, the UK was successful.
> 
> One can debate why this should be; however, there was no great "anti-
> war" debate in the UK. I suspect that this was in part because of
> different attitudes.
The main difference was that there was no land border with a Communist
state a few miles away. The Communist guerrillas in Malaya were forced
to operate entirely on their own resources. The Viet Cong were supported
by hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese troops and lavish quantities
of arms.
The Borneo border was exposed; but the Indonesian side of it is far
more remote from any civilized base area than was the inland border of
South Vietnam. Sarawak was not the key part of Malaysia, and the
infiltrators had relatively little local support. (My understanding
is thyat he Dyaks took to collecting the heads of the infiltrators.)
Also, after 1966, the Indonesian government no longer supported
insurrection in Malaysia, abandoning Suharto's "konfrontasi" and
expelling or killing his Communist friends.
-- 
Rich Rostrom  | You could have hit him over the head with it and he
              | wouldn't have minded. He never did mind being hit
R-Rostrom@    | with small things like guns and axe handles.
bgu.edu       | - Ellis Parker Butler, "That Pup of Murchison's"

mellyrn@enh.nist.gov wrote:
> 
> Why do you call 3.5 billion years of evidence either "slim"
> or "proof"?
> 
> You also denied the existence of transitional forms.  Then
> I have to ask you:  exactly what do you expect a transitional
> form to be?  Why do you think that hypothetical form is a
> better example of what evolution "should" expect, than the
> tons of forms conventionally considered "transitional"?  Be,
> er, specific [sorry about that].
I thought that one of the bigest problems with current theory is the rarity, though not total absense, of 
apparent transitional forms. I am vaguely aware of a few nice examples of gradual drift in some populations, 
with Darwin's finches being a lovely example of mutation in a modern population. I am more vividly aware of the 
vast number of cases where there is no such indication. Admitted that most really old populations are 
represented by so few individuals that it would be surprising to actually see a transitional form. Unfortunatly 
the stable form of the species in the platform time should show a gradually increasing variability as mutations 
accumulate. This would not necessarily show up in the bones, but we should be able to see it in living 
specimins. The lack of evidence here is particularly unfortunate.

In article <5bev5c$114o@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, ale2@psu.edu says...
>
>In article <5bdu4f$agl@interport.net>
>cjc@interport.net (Cheng-Jih Chen) writes:
>
>
>> 
>> Oh, the joys of American anti-intellectualism.  It's been part of
>> American culture that the "common man", with little training but
>> wads of common sense, will go further than someone with advanced
>> training.  While this _might_ have been slightly true back when
>> we were mostly farmers, it certainly doesn't hold in an advanced
>> industrial society.
>> 
>
>Microsoft Bill didn't have a degree did he?
No, he dropped out.  It is certainly possible to be successful and to 
be well educated without a degree, yet it is less likely.  I myself 
dropped out in my senior year (with 140 credit hours and 3 minors 
{chem,bio, biopsych}) and I make a quite comfortable living as a 
Software developer.  

Andrew Davis (alexicon@ziplink.net) wrote:
: 	Also, am I crazy (obviously)? I know when setting circuit 
: breakers in house wiring you should 'even' out the loads between one
: phase and the other, so there should be the same # of breakers on one
: side as the other...... But there must be a time when I
: 'm using a lot of current on one side, and my neighbor(s) just happen to
: be using a lot on the other phase..... So ~50 amps is being carried by
: the copper pipes?????  Just a thought....Andrew
        There should be two insulated cables and one bare
cable in your 220 volt service entrance cable, the bare
wire is the ground.
        But there is always a danger of an open ground,
that is why house trailer homes are required to have
4 or 5 conductors on washing machines. :-)
Ken Fischer 

cc: ben
BE>From: ben 
BE>    My name is Ben, and I have a friend in elementary school who
BE>needs some help for a science project. Using materials available around
BE>the home, she must keep a single regular-sized ice-cube from melting for
BE>5 hours. Nothing commercial such as igloo ice packs, or iceboxes are
BE>permitted.
BE>    She's tried stuff like saran wrap, styrofoam bowls and wood
BE>chips, but the cube is completely melted by the end of the 5 hours.
BE>    If anyone has any tips or suggestions, they would be greatly
BE>appreciated.
Did she try styrofoam bowls *packed* in more ice with another styrofoam
bowl around the outside?  And if that doesn't work, how about another
layer of ice and styrofoam?
                                           - Robert -
                                    robert.macy@engineers.com
 * OLX 2.1 TD * Ground beef:  a cow with no legs.

In article <32DAB2D9.7B09@boeing.com>, Fred McGalliard  writes:
>The thermodynamic efficiency of a car is down around 10-20% isn't it? 
No, not that bad, the average efficiency is around 30% (overall, not 
just thermodynamic).
>This is because the detonation of the fuel air mixture is not all that 
>efficient at getting coupled to the piston. 
It is quite efficient.  The main limitation is running temperature.
>A turbine can work at a higher efficiency by using a much hotter 
>interaction with the first turbine blade.
True.  But a turbine is efficient only over a limited range of loads, 
way more limited then the internal combustion engine.
> Even with the loss of due to the conversion process, the fuel cell 
>is much more efficient than any normal mechanical converter because 
>the effective input temperature is not limited by the 
>melting point of the machine.
Depends how efficient is the conversion process.  Do you have numbers?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
Until you have some new explanation, I think it is meaningless to
discuss with you. I think I have made my point (although you don't
understand it), and you keep repeating the same statements over and
over again. 
>        I'm still working on ways to present the model
>to allow 3D people to understand 4D physics, I won't
>give up, but it is a difficult problem, the restrictions
>of Usenet text modes makes it more difficult.
You can send a binary file. I'm curious to see if you really can
explain dependance of mass and distance.
>: SR does not describe accelerated motion. 
Sorry, guess I was wrong.
>: Take another look at QED. In it, photons do just that (of course they
>: only affect charged particles, but the principle is the same) 
>: Mathias Ljungberg 
>       Photons don't "pull" at large distances.   If they
>did, you could apply pulsating DC to an antenna, and it
>would either push things or pull them depending on the
>polarity.
>       If that works, great, it will make fantastic
>things possible.   
Have you heard about electromagnets ? :-)
> But I don't think gravity works
>that way.    
I see no reason why not.
BTW, when I referred to the strong nuclear force, I meant the weak.

There is one thing I don't understand about gravity waves. The theory
says, that similar to electrical charges, mass will radiate waves when
it's accelerated. This energy loss has been detected in double star
systems, where the two stars rotate very fastly around each other. Now
comes the question : how can gravity waves be produced in these
systems, when they according to GR are inertial systems just following
geodetic paths in space-time?
Mathias Ljungberg

savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>> The motion is in
>>space in a time axis, but since time is relative space and time is
>>tied together in the space-time.
>  I am not sure if you meant this abstractly but there is no
>independent time axis in reality.  Sorry.  A time axis is 100%
>illogical because it forbids the motion of objects from one point in
>time to the next
If you look at it as an axis, yes (the object would seem to be
stretched out along the axis), but we perceive time like it is flowing
from moment to moment. Motion is really difference in position of an
object in two different moments in time. The fact that each observer
has an own time axis makes things a bit more complicated, but the
principle is the same. 
> which would be obviously required if there were a
>time axis.  I realize that here you are referring to the relativistic
>concept of time dilation, but what does it really mean to say that
>time is relative?  I am sure you know that time dilation was
>specifically (and wrongly) defined to mean the slowing of a moving
>clock as seen by an observer when compared to his own clock?  Let me
>see now.  The velocity of the internal mechanism of a clock slows down
>and that is interpreted or defined to mean 'time dilation' even though
>there are two other possible variables involved in the process, namely
>v and d.  Assuming that only one of those variables can change at a
>time to account for the slowing, the clock can slow down for up to 3
>possible reasons:  1) d can contract, 2) v can decrease, or 3) t can
>dilate.  So my question to you is this:  Is time dilation a prediction
>of SR or is it a mere postulate? 
I think it's a prediction, because length only contracts in the
direction of motion.
>> however our experience tell us
>>that certain events only can happen if they are preceded by a special
>>event.
>  One of those events is the constraining of moving body to a curved
>path.  Logic tells me that, in order to constrain, one must have a
>constrainer and a constrainee.  We know what the *constrainees* are,
>physical objects.  Are you saying that the *constrainer* is the
>spacetime metric?  If you are, then you and I disagree strongly.  An
>abstract metric could not possibly have a constraining effect on
>matter, even if Mr. Einstein himself said it.  That was my point in
>asking question 2.
Theoreticly, I see no reason why this wouldn't work.
>  I agree that acceleration by itself is not force.  But acceleration
>of a mass certainly involves force and that is too bad for the GR
>physicists because Sir Isaac Newton had already defined it as such
>with 'f = ma'.  Physics by redefinition to fit a flawed interpretation
>is not my cup of tea.  Inertial path through a non-existent/abstract
>spacetime is not going to change that.  GR's distorted definitions
>notwithstanding, the cause of gravity remains a mystery.
>  Having said that, let me add that I am not sure whether you are
>merely repeating the standard GR explanations or whether you are
>agreeing with them.  If the latter, then we disagree.  GR should be
>seen as a clever mathematical system for the prediction of motion.
If you read my other articles, you will see that I am speculating on
other alternative explanations for gravity. The reasons are simply
put:
1)  GR is unable to explain phenomena in the microscopic level and
phenomena that involves high energies.
2)  GR is incompatible with QM
3)  GR is very different from the explanations of the other forces.
4)  The principle of equivalence doesn't automaticly lead to GR.
5)  If another gravitation-theory should be constructed, SR would
still be valid.
 As an answer to your question, I can say that I think SR is correct,
and I agree that GR can explain most things very well (everything you
object to at least). However, it may not be the only theory that can
explain all this, and it has certain limitations (as described above).
 So I don't object to the theory because I don't like its concepts or
anything like that (I do like them actually), I don't think such a
discussion would prove to be very fruitful. 
If GR just is a mathematical theory or an explanation of reality
remains to be seen.
Mathias Ljungberg 

[ Article crossposted from sci.physics.particle ]
[ Author was Tatiana Nickolaievna Teslenko ]
[ Posted on 6 Jan 1997 22:03:22 GMT ]
[ Article crossposted from sfu.general ]
[ Author was Tatiana Nickolaievna Teslenko ]
[ Posted on 6 Jan 1997 21:55:16 GMT ]
	MATH / PHYSICS / TUTOR
*  Ph.D. in Math and Physics - 1983
*  10 Years of Teaching Experience
*  Excellent References from the Leading Canadian,
   USA and W.European Professors
*  All Curriculum Courses in PHYSICS and beyond
*  All High School, College and U. Students Welcome!
*  Please Call Andy@(604)454-9293 or email tnteslen@sfu.ca

Jos Dingjan (jos@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl) wrote:
: Sylvia Else wrote:
:  
: > I vaguely remember this, reported, I think, in New Scientist. Seems to me
: > there was an accompanying discussion about the difficulty in deciding
: > where the wavefront actually is, and how this can result in measurements
: > that seem to imply FTL communication. To be convinced by such a
: > demonstration, I would want to see the transmission of real data FTL.
: > Indeed, the data would have to be generated randomly just before
: > transmission, to obviate the possibility that it had travelled at less
: > than light speed by some other route.
: I vaguely remember seeing some program about this on the tube. They sent
: Mozarts x'th FTL (or so they claimed). It had a certain vinyl-quality
: (nothing like that crisp CD sound) but you could still recognise it. Now
: if I only could remember the program...
I heard that on the CBC radio program _As It Happens_.  They probably 
have a mention of it on their web page on the CBC Radio web site.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <32DAB2D9.7B09@boeing.com>, Fred McGalliard 
 writes:
>>The thermodynamic efficiency of a car is down around 10-20% isn't it? 
>
>No, not that bad, the average efficiency is around 30% (overall, not 
>just thermodynamic).
>
>>This is because the detonation of the fuel air mixture is not all that 
>>efficient at getting coupled to the piston. 
>
>It is quite efficient.  The main limitation is running temperature.
>
>>A turbine can work at a higher efficiency by using a much hotter 
>>interaction with the first turbine blade.
>
>True.  But a turbine is efficient only over a limited range of loads, 
>way more limited then the internal combustion engine.
>
>> Even with the loss of due to the conversion process, the fuel cell 
>>is much more efficient than any normal mechanical converter because 
>>the effective input temperature is not limited by the 
>>melting point of the machine.
>
>Depends how efficient is the conversion process.  Do you have numbers?
Ballard are claiming 60% on their H2 fuel cell.
Of course you have to ask where the H2 comes from :-)

Brownian Motion and Pointlike Photon Shot Noise
“The success of the theory of the Brownian motion showed again
conclusively that classical mechanics always led to trustworthy results
whenever it was applied to motions in which the higher time derivatives
of the velocity are negligible.”
Feynman has pointed out that the classical mechanical description of the
electromagnetic radiation reaction requires higher time derivatives of
the velocity of the radiating charge. A uniformly accelerating charge
will not radiate transverse waves to the far field. Such radiation would
violate Einstein’s equivalence principle of general relativity. The time
derivative of the the acceleration vector of the point charge is
responsible for all classical electromagnetic radiation.
“... in a space filled with radiation a freely moving (vertically to its
plane), quasi-monochromatically reflecting mirror would have to go
through a kind of Brownian movement, the mean kinetic energy of which
equals (1/2)(R/N)T ... If radiation were not subject to local
fluctuations, the mirror would gradually come to rest because, owing to
its motion, it reflects more radiation on its front than on its reverse
side. The mirror, however, must experience certain random fluctuations
of the pressure exerted upon it because of the fact that the wave
packets, constituting the radiation interfere with one another. These
can be computed from Maxwell’s theory. This calculation thenm shows that
these pressure variations (especially in the case of small radiation
densities) are by no means sufficient to impart to the mirror the
average kinetic energy (1/2)(R/N)T. In order to get this result one has
to assume rather that there exists a second type of pressure variations,
not derivable from Maxwell’s theory, corresponding to the assumption
that radiation energy consists of indivisible point-like localized
quanta of energy hf [and of momentum hf/c, c = velocity of light], which
are reflected undivided. This way of looking at the problem showed in a
drastic and direct way that a type of immediate reality has to be
ascribed to Planck’s quanta, that radiation must, therefore, possess a
kind of molecular structure as far as its energy is concerned, which of
course contradicts Maxwell’s theory. ... This dual nature of radiation
(and of material corpuscles) is a major property of relity, which has
been interpreted by quantum mechanics in an ingeneous and amazingly
successful fashion. This interpretation .. appears to me to be only a
temporary expedient ... neither mechanics nor electrodynamics (except in
limiting cases) claim exact validity .. Gradually I dispaired of the
possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive
efforts based on known facts. The longer and more desperately I tried
the more I came to the conclusion that only the discovery of a universal
formal principle could lead us to assured results. The example I saw
before me was thermodynamics. The general principle was there ... The
laws of nature are such that it is impossible to construct a perpetuum
mobile (of the first and second kind)....”
The total fluctuation in the black body radiation field, according to
Einstein, consists of a classical wave noise, used in Hanbury Brown
Twiss intensity radio telescope interferometry to measure the angular
size of stars accurately in spite of the turbulent atmosphere, and the
quantum particle or photon shot noise. The root mean square fluctuation
of the wave noise Fourier component is proportional to the mean photon
number in the signal. The root mean square fluctuation of the
corresponding shot noise is Poisson proportional to the square root of
the mean photon number. The mean photon number is the average energy in
the mode divided by hf.
Bohm explains the quantum wavelike behavior of “rocklike” classical
point particles as the intensity-independent/form-dependent
“thoughtlike” force from an objective nonlocal “quantum potential”
emanating, the the Kabbalistic sense, from Hilbert space to
configuration space. He also explains the quantum pointlike “photon”
behvior of “rocklike” classical electromagnetic fields as a similar
thoughtlike force from a quantum “super-potential” making the
electromagnetic field equation highly nonlinear in a nonlocal
form-dependent way. The entire classical field configuration of the
Maxwell field tensor Fuv over all 3D space at a given moment, in a given
special relativistic frame of reference, is pictured as a single “system
point” in an infinite dimensional field configuration space analogous to
the classical point particles in a finite dimensional configuration
space. The word “super” is used by Bohm in exactly the same way that
Wheeler uses it in quantum gravity theory where the domain of the
Wheeler-DeWitt quantum wave function of the universe is the
configuration space called “superspace”. Each point of
infinite-dimensional classical Wheeler superspace is an entire field
configuration of the 3D metric tensor gij in the ADM canonical formalism
augmented by shift and lapse functions to pass from 3D to 4D curved
spacetime. A given path in Wheeler superspace is a possible history of
the universe. It will have a Feynman quantum amplitude.

"Esa Sakkinen"  wrote:
>I claim that our Moon can't stay on 
>the same orbit around Earth as 
>a space shuttle :-)
If you consider putting either one in orbit then you are right.
That is because of the centre of mass moving.  However if you put them
in orbit at the same time (e.g. by landing the shuttle on the moon) then
you are wrong.  They will orbit together.
In the case of seperate light rays then the effect that you alude to is
correct but extremely small.  The centre of mass of a photon and the sun
is not very much affected by the photon's colour.
However if both photons pass at the same time then this does not apply
which is the normal situation when we observe a gravitational
diffraction of light.
Of course the photons may affect each other differently, but that's
another story  :-)
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> 
> Leonard Timmons  wrote:
> >Is the duality between mind and matter equivalent
> >to the duality between numbers and numerals?
> 
> The duality between mind and matter is isomorphous to the duality between
> fish and bicycles.
Hey, I think you are making fun of me.  Someday, when I start taking myself
seriously, I'm going to be upset. ;-)
In the mean time, though ...
Does anyone out there believe that numbers (not numerals) actually 
exist (what ever that means) and on what basis are you making that 
claim?
My second question:  Does anyone out there believe that numerals
actually exist and on what basis are you making that claim?
Go ahead, make fun of me.  I can take it.
-leonard

ianosh@mv.itline.it (Francesco Iannuzzelli) wrote:
>fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>>Very interesting, Francesco, but then why was the third considered
>>dissonant for a thousand years?
>In fact the third is not a stricly consonant interval.
Pythagoras made a mistake and thought that the third should be tuned to
a ratio of 81/64 and that is dissonant.  So it was dissonant for over a
thousand years!
Galilei showed that it should be 5/4 and not 81/64.  That is consonant.
In the equitempered scale the error in a third (a ratio of 1.26 instead
of 1.25) is much greater than in a 4th or 5th so it is still a bit
dissonant.  A true 5/4 sounds good though.
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>Alll very well, but I'm a particular pattern of waves with the ability
>to remark that my compositions are my own (in a different sense than
>you mean perhaps).  So the "universal resonance" defense won't impress
>either me nor my lawyers should you rip off my compositions.
Lawyers have a dreadful pattern of waves.  Don't let them near me!  :-)
>If you want to feel that you are a wavicle and your compositions are
>harmonics of yourself or whatever floats your boat, fine, so long as it's
>clear that this does not eliminate nor even impinge upon earthly ethics.
>A human life is too rare and special a pattern of wavicles to waste or
>delete at random,
Nothing is random.  It all follows precisely from simple rules.
>...   and likewise the sound patterns such a human might
>cause to be realized in the world. Or in other words, piles of words
>with references to mystics posing as physicists like David Finkelstein
>et all don't in any way weaken my resolve to enforce my copyrights!
Your waves have gotta do what your waves gotta do  :-)
However if I could prove that the waves came from out there then your
composition might not be original at all and you could be infringing the
universes copyright!
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

>> >From: "hanson" 
>> >Subject: Hubble Constant & Cosmic Background Temp.
>> >Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:15:51 GMT
>> 
>> >Hubble's constant (H) & the Cosmic Background temp. (Tb)
>> >appear to be the simple products of few physical constants.
>> >The equations obtained and their numerical solutions  are
>> 
>> >Tb = 2/(3k) * a^2/4 * e^2/r  = 2.8 K
>> 
>> >H = [3/2 * k*Tb * a^2/4] / (N*h) = 1.93E-18 /s  or  59.6 km/s per mps 
>>                              
>> >a = 7.29...E-3 Finestructure constant
>> >r = 5.29...E-9 cm, Hydrogen-Bohr radius
>> >e^2=2.30...E-19 grcm3/s2, (e-charge)^2
>> >k = 1.38...E-16 grcm2/(s2 K), Boltzman
>> >h = 6.62...E-27 grcm2/s, Plank's constant
>> >N = 6.02...E+23 Atoms/Mole, Avogardo's Number
>> >Hubble conversion
>> >= 3.08572...E+19 from 1/s to km/s/mps
someone noted
>> N (Avogadro's Number) ist not an physical constant as e.g. the value of e
You can solve the problem of Avogadro's number by using Mp (mass of
proton) instead of 1/N.  That will tidy up that problem.
However your equation is totally wrong because the units do not give the
correct units for H which should be (1/time).
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

>> >From: "hanson" 
>> >Subject: Hubble Constant & Cosmic Background Temp.
>> >Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:15:51 GMT
>> 
>> >Hubble's constant (H) & the Cosmic Background temp. (Tb)
>> >appear to be the simple products of few physical constants.
>> >The equations obtained and their numerical solutions  are
>> 
>> >Tb = 2/(3k) * a^2/4 * e^2/r  = 2.8 K
>> 
>> >H = [3/2 * k*Tb * a^2/4] / (N*h) = 1.93E-18 /s  or  59.6 km/s per mps 
>>                              
>> >a = 7.29...E-3 Finestructure constant
>> >r = 5.29...E-9 cm, Hydrogen-Bohr radius
>> >e^2=2.30...E-19 grcm3/s2, (e-charge)^2
>> >k = 1.38...E-16 grcm2/(s2 K), Boltzman
>> >h = 6.62...E-27 grcm2/s, Plank's constant
>> >N = 6.02...E+23 Atoms/Mole, Avogardo's Number
>> >Hubble conversion
>> >= 3.08572...E+19 from 1/s to km/s/mps
someone noted
>> N (Avogadro's Number) ist not an physical constant as e.g. the value of e
You can solve the problem of Avogadro's number by using Mp (mass of
proton) instead of 1/N.  That will tidy up that problem.
However your equation is totally wrong because the units do not give the
correct units for H which should be (1/time).
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

Bruce C. Fielder (bfielder@quadrant.net) wrote:
: I'm shamelessly moving into this (hopefully well explained) thread to
: ask a question which has recently bothered me:
: If the gravitation of a black hole is such that anything falling into a
: black hole will have its "time" slowed the closer it comes to the event
: horizon, how does the thing form in the first place?  Surely as the
: original mass contracts, it should slow (from our point of view) until 
: the original mass remains "waiting" (sorry about all the quotation
: marks) at the event horizon?
: As far as I can see, the same should hold true with the mass inside the
: (soon to be) event horizon; the acceleration and gravity increases and
: slows the time to infinity.  So how does the thing ever form in our
: universe?
From the point of view of a distant observer, it doesn't exactly complete 
forming.  What happens is that it becomes closer and closer to the final 
state, with the image of this process being spread out over an 
arbitrarily long period of time as measured by a distant observer.  (For 
an observer collapsing in with the surface of the collapsing body, of 
course, this diesn't prevent the black hole from forming from their point 
of view because time dilation for them and the surface is identicle.)
Applying a little QM explains why this never-quite-formed black hole gets 
to look black anyway:  The surface has some temperature from its own 
point of view, and so is emiting photons of any given energy at some rate 
from its own point of view.  When you apply the redshifting and time 
dilation effects to the energy and emmision frequency of this emited 
radiation, however, it turns out that the emission becomes arbitrarily 
sparse and arbitrarily reddened as time passes.  For any finitely large 
detection threshhold, the emmision frequency and emmision energy of the 
radiation that escapes the collapsing body always falls below it within 
finite time.  Thus, the collapsing body can become arbitrarily like the 
ideal black hole final state.  (In models that attempt to incorporate 
quantum effects, it turns out that after finite time, Hawking radiation 
begins to outshine the radiation from the time-dilated surface, so it 
effectively becomes lost in the emmision noise.)
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <5bhb7c$7s3@morgoth.sfu.ca>, gay@sfu.ca (Ian Gay) writes:
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <32DAB2D9.7B09@boeing.com>, Fred McGalliard 
> writes:
>>>The thermodynamic efficiency of a car is down around 10-20% isn't it? 
>>
>>No, not that bad, the average efficiency is around 30% (overall, not 
>>just thermodynamic).
>>
>>>This is because the detonation of the fuel air mixture is not all that 
>>>efficient at getting coupled to the piston. 
>>
>>It is quite efficient.  The main limitation is running temperature.
>>
>>>A turbine can work at a higher efficiency by using a much hotter 
>>>interaction with the first turbine blade.
>>
>>True.  But a turbine is efficient only over a limited range of loads, 
>>way more limited then the internal combustion engine.
>>
>>> Even with the loss of due to the conversion process, the fuel cell 
>>>is much more efficient than any normal mechanical converter because 
>>>the effective input temperature is not limited by the 
>>>melting point of the machine.
>>
>>Depends how efficient is the conversion process.  Do you have numbers?
>
>Ballard are claiming 60% on their H2 fuel cell.
>
>Of course you have to ask where the H2 comes from :-)
That's exactly the point.  We should compare full efficiencies, not 
partial.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Jay A. St. Pierre wrote:
> 
> 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
There's certainly a good way to test if static electricity is the
leading contributor.  Scrape the paint off of a metal-bladed fan, ground
the casing, and compare it with a wood-bladed one.
Though static is probably a big factor, I think there have to be other
mechanisms at work (since I've never noticed much of a difference
between wood and metal -- they all look disgusting after a while).  When
the fan is moving, the airflow over the blades (somewhat like the flow
over an aircraft wing, except that you don't want your fan to have any
lift) may increase the cross-section for dust to actually hit the fan,
thereby increasing the probability of sticking.
The static explanation is certainly true of your TV set, but in that
case the static buildup is due to the nature of the phosphor (it's
actually getting electrons shot at it!).  The TV set can build up a
great deal more charge than any moving object like a fan.
-- 
David T. Schaafsma, PhD
Optical Sciences Division, Infrared Materials Group
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC

On 14 Jan 1997 10:15:03 -0700, in sci.skeptic, Wil Milan
 wrote:
>> You need a reference here. A charitable reaction to a failure to
>> produce one would be to call you a misguided fool.
>
>Egad, folks, can we turn down the flame temperature around here? Can we
>not disagree and question without waving cocked pistols and hurling
>verbal spears?
Well...this *is* Usenet...
>
>I don't mean to single out the comment above, for there have been many
>such in this discussion. I'm just pleading for a little civility. It
>would benefit us all, I think.
Probably. But I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.  ;-)
>
>Wil Milan
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

In article <32DB0B90.3A6F@quadrant.net>, Bruce C. Fielder  wrote:
)I'm shamelessly moving into this (hopefully well explained) thread to
)ask a question which has recently bothered me:
)
)If the gravitation of a black hole is such that anything falling into a
)black hole will have its "time" slowed the closer it comes to the event
)horizon, how does the thing form in the first place?  Surely as the
)original mass contracts, it should slow (from our point of view) until 
)the original mass remains "waiting" (sorry about all the quotation
)marks) at the event horizon?
)
)As far as I can see, the same should hold true with the mass inside the
)(soon to be) event horizon; the acceleration and gravity increases and
)slows the time to infinity.  So how does the thing ever form in our
)universe?
You are confusing proper time and time as measured by an observer. The
collapse proceeds very speedily in proper time (i.e. time as actually
seen by the one falling into the black hole). You might investigate the
Kruskall coordinates for a black hole.
Mike
-- 
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I don't speak for DSC.         <- They make me say that.

Edward Green, Mati Meron:
Have you ever seen the book The Evolution of Physics, by Einstein
and Infeld?  Here it is, on p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.):
(CS means coordinate system)
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the
views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. 
Either CS could be used with equal justification.  The two sentences,
'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the
earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions
concerning two different CS."
Sharp cookies.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: : John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
: : On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
: : Plato, they say, could pack it away, 
: : Half a pint of whiskey every day, 
:          ^^^^
: Apologies to all -- that should have been "crate", if I finally remember
: the song correctly...
In the version on _Monty Python Sings_, I think Plato is said to stick it 
away.  Same on the version in _Live at the Hollywood Bowl_.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <5bgn23$kqj@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> My favorite rant on this for the moment is that in the absence of
> dynamics the idea that "the earth goes around the sun rather than
> the sun around the earth" is without operational content -- therefore
> if we insist that in the time of Galileo it should have been
> obvious to people not blinded by theology that the earth "really does
> go around the sun",  we are being about as blind as the churchmen who
> persecuted him.
I like the "in the absence of dynamics" proviso. It reminds me of
Heisenberg's insistence at the end of his life that, without a good
dynamical theory, the statement "hadrons are made of quarks" meant little.
IMHO he was right. Of course, the requisite dynamical theory (QCD) existed
and was receiving some vindication by the time he said that.
On the other hand, the statement is not quite without operational content
if one knows about geometric optics and makes a few other hypotheses about
astronomy. For example, if you believe that the stars are at varying
distances (an easy, if not self-evident, conclusion if you've looked at the
Milky Way through a primitive telescope), it is possible to look for
stellar parallax. Of course, the stars are so far away that this was not
feasible in Galileo's time. Actually, I think that the absence of visible
parallax was taken by some (Tycho Brahe?) as a falsification of the
Copernican hypothesis.
My favorite operational criterion for this involves the inverse
experiment, in which an astronomer in another solar system looks
at how much the Earth and Sun wobble. But that is not terribly feasible
for us.
> Also in practice,  I find those who would wield the razor inevitably
> have resort to some phony example involving invisible mythical animals
> (apparently feeling mere invisibility is not fine enough).  In a
> real case,  like your example of Newtonian vs. Einsteinian gravity,
> the distinction is hardly so clear cut.  Also,  in my limited
> experience,  mature scientists hardly ever wield this argument,
> realizing that the implication of belief in invisible mythical
> beasts is an insult to intelligence.
How scientists typically wield it, in my experience, is by ignoring
any theory whose disagreements with experience are dealt with by
piling on what Langmuir called "ad hoc explanations thought up on
the spur of the moment." It's not so much the number of hypotheses
already extant, as whether the theory has to accumulate hypotheses
indefinitely in order to remain alive.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

In article <32D4B8DB.8FE@satech.net.au>, Jonny   wrote:
>Hey guys, this is a physics site! If you want religious clap-trap
>go to those pages.
>Please don't argue with creationists. Don't you know that they ALWAYS
>win! Their ultimate answer, to beat all arguments, is that their god can
>do anything! Theirs is NOT a science...it's pure dogma. You take it or
Oh, yeah?  Yeah?  Well, my god can beat up your god!
-- 
        "But you can't let the package hide the pudding; evil is just
plain bad.  You don't cotton to it.  You've got to hit it in the nose
with the rolled-up newspaper of goodness.  Bad Dog!  BAD! DOG!"
     - The Tick

Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
> Correct, but in most common cases the net shift will be
> negligible. For exaple, light from Jupiter does not appear
> significantly red or blueshifted to an observer on Earth.
Well, naturally -- but then it's important to make a distinction between
zero and insigificant.  I was just making sure I wasn't totally
misunderstanding your point.
-- 
                             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"

mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
: There is one thing I don't understand about gravity waves. The theory
: says, that similar to electrical charges, mass will radiate waves when
: it's accelerated. This energy loss has been detected in double star
: systems, where the two stars rotate very fastly around each other. Now
: comes the question : how can gravity waves be produced in these
: systems, when they according to GR are inertial systems just following
: geodetic paths in space-time?
: Mathias Ljungberg
        I have other questions about how they can be produced,
especially in symmetric interactions.
        Since kinetic energy is not an intrinsic attribute
of an object, how can radiating gravity waves alter the 
velocity of the stars?    I could see it if they lost heat,
or lost mass, but how would emitting gravity waves slow them?
Ken Fischer 

"Miguel Tavares"  wrote:
>Space itself expands inside what?
>In relation to what?
>If, by deffinition, there is no external reference, no "outside" that
>expanding space, isn't such expansion the same, or equivalent, as a general
>and proportional contraction of everything contained in that same space?
>The Big Bang theory looks childish to me.
It is go to( soc.culture.scientists) and read about the little bang.
If your news server dont have soc.culture.scientists post again.
And I'll drop it in here.
gator

In article <32DC43E0.102@mindspring.com>, R M Mentock  writes:
>Edward Green, Mati Meron:
>
>Have you ever seen the book The Evolution of Physics, by Einstein
>and Infeld?  Here it is, on p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.):
>(CS means coordinate system)
>
>"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the
>views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. 
>Either CS could be used with equal justification.  The two sentences,
>'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the
>earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions
>concerning two different CS."
>
>Sharp cookies.
>
Very much so.  On a side note, it is interesting how often in the 
history of science differences which, with a bit of good will and 
effort, could be accommodated within a single encompassing world view, 
give instead rise to a "violent struggle", as mentioned above.  Just 
like Usenet :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <19970114090000.EAA19946@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> 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?
I don't recall how many standard deviations the effect is, but... how many
correlations did they examine before finding these? If you examine enough
possible correlations, you *will* find some that are statistically
significant, even if there is no causal agent involved.
For example, remember the big Swedish study on electromagnetic field
exposure and cancer? They studied several cancers, and a couple revealed
correlations with EM exposure that were significant (resulting in alarming
headlines in the newspapers), but *as a whole* the result of the study was
not much different than one would expect from chance. The positive result
found might be quite improbable, but finding *a* positive result is much
less improbable.
That is why, usually, more attention is paid to significant correlations in
situations where you have some other reason, such as a sensibly
hypothesized mechanism or previously found data, to expect the *specific*
result found. (Do the anticorrelations found actually correspond to
incompatibilities alleged by a consensus of astrologers, or is the only
connection to astrology that they are star signs? Is there even such a
thing as a consensus of astrologers? I get the impression that their
predictions are notoriously divergent.)
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

John  wrote in article
<32D44709.6A9F@lancnews.infi.net>...
> Guy Nussbaum wrote:
> > 
> > is there any work being done trying to determine if our big bang
> > is not actually the first, but one of many?
> > It is almost impossible to prove something like this, but I think it
might
> > be possible,
> > and if possible can also be explained as a phenomena of other theories
and
> > forces,
> > but first I would like to know if this is even being thought of
> > 
> > Thank you
> > 
> > Guy Nussbaum
> I think one of the Popes asked S. Hawking not to look any further back
> than our Big Bang, so another conspiracy was born.
> John
i am not kidding, how should i take this as a joke, or are you being
serious? 
and if you are being serious.. where did you hear it?
 from what i understand hawkings is claiming it's hard (nearly impossible)
to go any further then 10^ -43 second 
(or something like that) back into the big bang

	I am a Junior in Highschool and am taking a Physics course.  I find the class 
very interesting and thus far have a B+ in there, which I am hoping to bring 
up to a solid "A".  Since I find the topics in my class fascinating I thought 
perhaps I would like to get a career in this field.  However, I am wonder if I 
my math skills will slow me down etc.  I am currently in Algebra 2 with Trig.  
Could someone please inform me of any books that with help me improve and have 
a better understanding of both math and Physics???  I would like to take AP 
Physics next year, but I was told I would crash in burn if I did not take AP 
Calc as well.  Please help your input would be very much appreciated.
Thanx in advance.

        Entropy?-The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics                                    						                                     The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as:Natural processes tend to move toward a state of greater disorder or greater entrop
y.One example being if you put a layer of salt in a jar and cover it with a layer of pepper,when you shake it you get a through mixture no matter how long you shake it,you will not get it to seperate  again into two layers.                                
          This is not correct and I disagree with it.The falecy lies with our concept of how we define Order and Disorder.In regard to the example given above(Lets assume the grains of salt and pepper are of the same size and density{I don't like playing 
with loaded dice}),when you shake the jar the probability of any paticular grain of salt or pepper occupying it's former position in the jar are no more astronomical than if they returned to their original positions Thus there is nothing special about the
 first configuration of the particles!!!.It all depends on how we preceive what is order and what is disorder.Let me clarify this somewhat a little further.My desk is what some people(especially women),would call a complete mess or state of disorder.Now I
 know right where to lay my hand on things,but my wife is appaled at the "mess" and when I go out she tidies everything up nice and neat.Now when I come home I'm furious because I can't find a dam thing.To me NOW everything is in a total mess or state of 
disorder.Another example is the following---Consider four people seated at a table with a deck of cards(playing Bridge,if you don't know the game it dose not matter you'll get the point anyway).The deck is thoroughly  shuffeled and 13 cards are dealt to e
ach person one card at a time.To their amazement when they look at their cards each person has a complete suit,not only that but there all "in order",eg the spade ace being the first card followed by the spade king on down to the spade two and the same fo
r the other people with the other 3 suits.They all get up and leave the game saying the dealer riged the deck for the odds of this ocurring would be as astronomicial as would be for my spelling to be correct.But in fact there's nothing unique about this d
istrabution of cards,for if the deck were reshuffeled and dealt again(this time each person getting a so called"random"distrabution of cards),the probability on any other redeal of receiving this identical "random" hand are just as high against the odds!W
e are the ones who place a unique state of order on the first hand,because it is we who are RIGGING the rules(or laws if you like),mother nature assigns no special uniqueness to that first hand...As human beings we are instintively preprogramed to look fo
r so called patterns in nature in order to   survive,but the cosmos is completly indifferent to this so called increase in entropy,it has no meaning for her.                         				Therefore while to us the 2nd law of thermodynamics is valid,but on a
 grander scale it is meaningless!!!                                                                                                                                                                     George Penney                                          
                                                                                       

Andrew Davis  wrote: > Too bad ol' Benjamin Franklin
got it wrong when he decided to to designate the glass rod positive + and
the piece of amber negative -. Electrons should be the (+), as they do the
'work'... This has screwed up EE's for centuries.....!! 
Hasn't bothered much of anyone really, and it has nothing whatever to do 
with negative vs. positive grounds.  Electrons don't do the "work" any 
more than positive ions in most conductive devices: nobody  
worried about positive vs. negative current flow until it was necessary 
to teach vacuum tube theory quickly to technicians during World War II.  
Thus, to this day "technician" rank texts use negative current flow, 
while physics and "engineer" rank texts use positive current flow.  
                                 Mark Kinsler  

Andrew Davis  wrote: > Also, am I crazy (obviously)?
I know when setting circuit breakers in house wiring you should 'even' out
the loads between one phase and the other, so there should be the same #
of breakers on one side as the other...... But there must be a time when
I' m using a lot of current on one side, and my neighbor(s) just happen to
be using a lot on the other phase..... So ~50 amps is being carried by the
copper pipes?????  Just a thought....Andrew
That's why there's a neutral wire, and when it breaks you'll get strange 
and wondrous things happening in your house.  The neutral carries the 
difference current.  
                               Mark Kinsler