Newsgroup sci.physics 215894

Directory

Tim Harwood  writes:
>
>That message was posted by someone who scored in the top 2% of the 
>population in his school finals ( we call them A-levels in England ) and 
>is now looking towards obtaining a 2/1 degree.
 You might want to reconsider. 
 Soon you will have initials after your name, and, as a result, discover
 that *you* got lost in irrelevant detail and lost track of reality. 
 ;-) 
-- 
 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. 

kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster) writes:
> :   And if you shift right the letters HAL you will get his dady's name.
> :
>   "Hal (for *H*euristically programmed *AL*gorithmic computer, no less)
> was a masterwork of the third computer breakthrough. ..." -- "2001 a space
> odyssey" -- a novel by Arthur C. Clarke
>   The fact that shifting ther letters by 1 gives "IBM" is simply a
> coincidence.  Arthur C. Clarke says so.
And do *you* seriously believe Clarke in this question?
--
Jon Haugsand
  Dept. of Informatics, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, mailto:jonhaug@ifi.uio.no
  http://www.ifi.uio.no/~jonhaug/, Pho/fax: +47-22852441/+47-22852401

In article <199701132137125340550@du141-6.ppp.algonet.se>, bonus@algonet.se
(Bjorn Danielsson) wrote:
> I haven't seen the complete GR derivation of the 1.75 angle, but my own
> hunch is that the difference from the newtonian path is due to time
> dilation in the relativistic model.
Actually, it's closer to the other way around. Variations in gravitational
time dilation can be seen as *causing* Newtonian gravity in the appropriate
limit. The factor of 2 for the photon comes from the fact that, roughly
speaking, there is also spatial curvature in the vicinity of the sun. The
faster something is moving, the more sensitive it is to the spatial part of
the curvature. In the limit of the speed of light, variable time dilation
and space curvature have effects of equal size on the deflection of a
projectile.
(These statements are all coordinate-dependent, of course; they're true if
one uses Schwarzschild "space" and "time" coordinates.)
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

                 Unified Field Theory!!--What FOUR Forces????                      Why the waste of time trying to unite the four forces of nature.                1:The Nuclear Strong                                                             2:The Nucle
ar Weak                                                               3:The Electromagnetic                                                            4:Gravity???                                                                      Although the Newtonian
 concept of Gravity being a Force as given by the equation F=GxM1M2/R^2 is accurate to a degree,Einstein replaced this deplorable Action at a Distance concept(even Newton was not comfortable with this idea),by GR.His theory shows us that matter do not att
ract because of some mysterious force,but rather due to the notion that mass warps the spacetime it occupies causing it's Geometry to be non Eculidian.Using the Geometry of Bernhard Riemann and Nikotai Lobachevsky he came up with his equations which descr
ibe the   metric of space in the vicinity of matter(and the overall universe).Thus Gravity is NOT a force but a property of the Geometry of space.We like to think of it as a force when it suits our needs as in the case of Unified Field Theory(and I must a
dmit it has a great deal of attraction{no pun intended},to talk of unifying the four above mentioned phenomena as a manifestation of one central idea,it's wrong to try and do this).The first three are unified but Gravity just don't fit here.In short we ca
n't have our cake and eat it too.We must give up the notion of Gravity as a force or either redefine the other 3 in terms of a distortion of Space or drop GR.                                                                                                 
                                                                   George Penney
                                                                                            

		     A Solution to the Einstien-Podolsky Paradox.                  This is a solution based on 4D Space.If a Flatlander lived in his 2D universe which consisted of a flat plane and we intersected it with a circular ring which say was spring loaded so we
 could make it bigger or smaller at will.Now if we laid this rind flat on his plane,he would see a circle,if we now lift the ring out of his plane so it is inclined 90 degrees to his plane he would see two points (or dots),seperated by the dia of the ring
.We then rotate the ring(say clockwise),perpendicular to the plane,he would observe them moving in unsion in his space,but not conected.He would conclude they obayed some law(such as a force between them that made them move in unsion).He then positons him
self on one of the dots(lets say one is blue and the other red,he's on the blue dot).He can't visalize why they move together as he is in 2D-space.We then make the dia of the ring larger so the dots are further apart,he still can see both and that they ar
e moving in unsion.Everytime the blue dot moves so dose the red dot.Then we slowly increase the dia so it's dia is 6x10^8M in dia(The speed of light in his universe is 3x10^8M/S,also we can rotate the ring as slowly as we like). We now reverse the rotatio
n of the ring CCW and although he cant observe both the blue dot (which he is on),and the red dot simaltanesly he just knows that the red dot has also reversed it's direction.But he reasons how can this be since information can't travel between them at gr
eater than the speed of light?? Note now that the flatlander now has a paradox the same as the Einstien-Podolsky paradox.Two pairs are communicating information(as QM would predict),but faster than the speed of light)??.Of course what he dont know is that
 the pairs are connected in 3D-Space.If he did he can conclude that Reletivity and Quantum Mech are not in violation of each other!!!.Thus we have a resolution of this paradox.The same would apply if we had this paradox in our 3D-Space and concluded that 
the pairs are connected in 4D Space.                               				              In working out this solution I also noticed a peculiar property of partical spin in 4 or higher dimensional spaces.It goes as follows:--- First lets discuss some aspects 
of an n-dimensional object intersecting an (N-1)-dimensional space. I'll do this by going back to the flatlander and our 3-space.In the flatlander's universe his circle is the same to him as our sphere(Keep this in mind) in that he can't enter his circle 
without breaking it's circumference(lets assume his circle is not solid inside like we would have if we shaded the circle inside).To us in 3-space we could step inside his circle without breaking the circumference due to the fact that we have access to 1 
more dimension than he has.His circle is the same as our 3D hollow sphere,we woudn't be able to enter our sphere without breaking it's surface but it could easily be done from  4D-space because in 4-space our 3D-sphere would be equivalent to their 4D circ
le.Now if we inter- sect the 2d circle with out sphere perpendicular to and in the center of his circle passing the sphere down through the plane of the circle,if he were inside he would see a dot that would become a small circle that would get bigger in 
dia as we continued to pass the sphere through the 2D circle--- (let the dia of OUR  sphere = the dia of his circle),midway through our sphere would form a concetric circle with his own,then start to decrease in size back to a point and finaly dissapear c
ompletly!!.This would seem very odd to him as all he is observing are cross sectional pieces of our sphere at any one instant in time.It would be the same as if we saw an object suddenly appear in our 3-Space,continualy change shape and then dissapear.We 
can get even stranger effects if we intersect irregular shaped geometric objects from higher spaces into lower spaces.Of course the flatlander can't visualize our sphere due to his restriction of being confined to his 2D universe,however he can construct 
the laws of 3D-Space Geometry based on the cross sections that he seen of our 3D objects Similerly we can construct the laws of 4D-Space and N-Dimensional Spaces and their Geometries.                                                                  Keepin
g this in mind let's get to rotation or spin properties of 2D space and 3D space,then apply this to higher spaces.If we rotate the Flander's circle or if HE rotates what he considers to be his SPHERE it can only rotate in TWO directions(CC or CCW) or if y
ou like it can rotate one way or the other[for the terms CC & CCW can interchange depending on where you view the rotation from in space].Now if we in 3-Space take the circle(----- his sphere)and rotate it down- ward(around it's dia) into the plane of his
 2-Space and perpendicular to it we can rotate it in two more directions in our 3-space!!He would observe two points seperated by the dia of his sphere that would be stationary.Again he would not be able to visualize that the circle(his sphere) had TWO mo
re modes of rotation or spin in 3D-Space!From this it follows that a sphere in our 3D-Space which has only 2 directions of spin would have MORE than 2 directions of spin in 4Space and even more in higher dimensional spaces.Like the Flander this goes again
st our common sense(common sense being that layer of predudice layed down prior to the age of 16---I could'nt resist getting that in).Also we would not be able to mentaly visualize this.(unless we were Charles Hinton who claimed he could  visualize 4D obj
ects such as Hypercubes and so on).                                                                                                                                   George Penney
                                                                                                                                                                            
George Penney

Hi Guys!
  Having just come across this ng, I'd like to just check up where the 
"light: waves or particles?" issue is at.
  I have a simplified view.. based on the observation that events may 
demonstrate properties.
  How about: light has the EM fields to give it "wave-nes", and at any given 
time the wave-fronts of these two fields will intersect at a point event. This 
point event may well demonstrate the properties of a pure point i.e. 
"particle-ness".
  Is this.. just too simplistic?
?:^) SteveB
Steve Broderick
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
>In article <5bf6qq$sah@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, lamontg@nospam.washington.edu writes:
>
>|> What's confusing me is the seminar I went afterwards to where I
>|> could swear that computer simulations were suggesting that the
>|> comet got captured by Jupiter appx. on the order of 100 or so years
>|> ago (undetermined due to chaotic effects -- this was just a monte
>|> carlo statistical average).  Of course, it wasn't in anything
>|> resembling the orbit of a jovian satellite...
>
>Not so much captured as a Jovian satellite, but captured as in bound
>to the inner solar system, perhaps?  
No, my understanding was captured by jupiter.  In a highly eccentric, almost
parabolic orbit (a "comet-like orbit" only with jupiter at the center rather
than the sun) which was perturbed (by the sun?) and caused it to make a closer
pass and break up, then do a nose-dive on the next pass...
I might be remembering it wrong, but that's what I remember...
-- 
Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu) ->note spamfilter<-
"First consider a spherical chicken..."  ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
unsolicited commercial e-mail->contacting your ISP to remove your net.access

In article <32d94358.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>, Simon Read  says:
>
>fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
>>No. S/L-9 was a very unusual exception. It was captured by Jupiter,
>
>"Captured" means it stopped being in sun-orbit and started being in
>Jupiter-orbit. This simply didn't happen. Compare Shoemaker-Levy's
>approach speed with the speed of Jupiter's satellites relative to the
>collision. S-L 9 was travelling MUCH faster, hence couldn't have
>been in orbit round Jupiter.
But SL9 was in an eccentric orbit where it's speed on approach to jupiter
would be expected to be higher than the speed of the jovian satellites.
-- 
Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu) ->note spamfilter<-
"First consider a spherical chicken..."  ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
unsolicited commercial e-mail->contacting your ISP to remove your net.access

In his book, "Phatic Communion," Bob Dobbs quotes extensively from 
Lyndon "Loonier than a Luddite" LaRouche (in a dialogue on the 
odd-numbered pages with someone else on the even-numbered pages) in a 
diatribe against atonality (Webern in particular) that rivals the 
self-serving attitude of current members of the Congressional G.O.P. 
delegation in their efforts at damage control.
Maybe Newt can join L.L. in his jail cell, and they can commune with the 
spirit of John Kirkpatrick.... (inside joke).

In article <32D50D92.415E@erols.com>,
Dennis Nelson   wrote:
>Jim Carr wrote:
>> 
>> Jim Carr  wrote:
>> |
>> | It was refined, and of course it was not *in* a critical mass or it would
>> | no longer be there.  Forming it into the proper shape, and assembling
>> | same, is the only 'problem' one must solve.  But the main issue has to
>> | do with the cavalier way this stuff was handled at Rocky Flats.
>> 
>> Mike Pelletier  wrote:
>> }
>> } I was under the impression that plutonium at its normal density could not
>> } be assembled into a critical mass, which is why they used the implosion
>> } design to increase the density of the plutonium core to force it to a
>> } higher, supercritical density.
>> }
>> } Is this incorrect?
>> 
>
>Yes this is incorrect!  Have you heard the story of Louis Slotin at Los Alamos?
>The "geniuses" at Los Alamos often performed experiments called "tickling the
>dragon's tail" wherein they created momentary critical masses of U-235 and
>Pu-239 by dropping a smaller piece of fissionable material on a wire or pendulum
>through a larger piece of the same material.  During the instant that the two
>pieces were together a critical mass was achieved and the growth of the chain
>reaction was monitored using neutron detectors placed geometrically around the
>apparatus.  After a few times when they were successful in not blowing themselves
>up they got a little careless; that's where Slotin came in.  They found that in
>addition to assembling critical masses on wires, they could also make a
>subcritical mass go critical using neutron reflectors.  Slotin had a subcritial
>spherical mass of substance 39 (code for element 9(3), atomic weight 23(9)) around
>which he had placed a Be reflector in the form of a hollow shpere.  As 
>Slotin attempted to lower the upper half of the sphere over the lower half
>containing the Pu the screwdriver blade, which he was using to hold the two
>halves apart, slipped.  The two reflector hemispheres fell together.  In that
>instant Slotin and the other 7 people in the room saw a blinding purple flash.
>Slotin and I think one other had been lethally irradiated, although it took 
>him two weeks to die.  Slotin disassembled the reflectors by hand, and although
>there had been no explosion there had been a criticallity event and a chain
>reaction.  Alvin Grimes was in the room with Slotin and survived because 
>Slotin's body shielded him from the highest radiation fluxes.  Grimes
>subsequently became the manager of the Nevada Test Site and thought himself
>immune to radiation.  Perhaps this accounts for the cavalier manner in which
>the bomb testers treated radiaoactive fallout episodes from their "gadgets."
>
   It was element 49.  The atomic number of plutonium is 94, not 93.
>
>> hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>> >
>> >No.
>> 
>>  Did you miss the double negatives?
>> 
>>  The answer below is correct, and correctly contradicts the statement
>>  that you cannot form a critical mass of plutonium at normal density.
>> 
>> >Implosion is used precisely because plutonium can easily go critical.
>> 
>>  That is, as reiterated below, the objective is not just to get a
>>  critical mass, but to hold it together long enough that it goes
>>  through the 80 or so chains and explodes.  You can make a mass
>>  that is subcritical react just by getting close enough that your
>>  body helps reflect and moderate the neutrons.
>> 
>> >Bits of the core are arranged in a sphere and imploded to a single mass
>> >to allow criticality to occur. They must be violently assembled because
>> >if gently done the mass will go critical before tightly assembled, and
>> >a low grade nuclear explosion will occur, scattering most of the
>> >plutonium uselessly around.
>> 
>>  Or you could arrange it in a reactor and control it, if you wanted
>>  that chain reaction to continue at a low rate for a long time.
>> 
>
>The idea of using Pu in a reactor core has been around for a long time but
>it has had numerous problems.  The use of mixed oxides fuels of Pu, U and
>perhaps Th has been tried with limited success.  Because of the different
>neutron dynamics, these mixed oxide reactors must use liquid metals not
>water for coolants.  The DOE finally pulled the plug on the integral fast 
>breeder reactor at Chalk River.  Another Pu fueled reactor Fermi II melted
>down outside Detroit barely averting a catastrophe.  The fuel fabrication
>plant where Karen Silkwood worked in Oklahoma made mixed oxide fuel elements.
>It was her exposure of quality control problems in these fuel bundles which
>got her first contaminated with Pu and then murdered.
>
>
>Dennis Nelson
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III            |  When the going gets tough,
                                |  the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com   |
                                |                    E. Blackadder

In article <5bdkgq$3p5@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
>Consider the body armor debate between kevlar (aromatic polyamide) and 
>Spectra (gel-drawn polyethylene).
On my office's wall I have a huge table showing data of all known fibers.
You can use it to get a rough idea but you have to consider the infinite
number of variations in
fiber construction
fiber blending
fabric construction (weaving, knitting, warp knitting, nonwoven)
fabric finishing
in order to choose the right material.
It is not quite trivial but sometimes one finds an approach to a
solution,-)
Regards
Peter

On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Ralph Muench wrote:
> >Patrick
> >Donovan Hawkins
> >breed
> >Anthony Potts
> 
> Thanks guys. You have been a great help.
> I think I know what to do now...
> 
Well, that's a pleasant change from just being called an arsehole when I
profer advice.
Something fishy must be going on here.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

davis_d@spcunb.spc.edu (David K. Davis) wrote:
>Pi, I believe will be discovered by intelligent life where ever and whenever it arises.
No.  Intelligent life will discover 6.283193... or 2pi.
-- 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

tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote:
...
>If, however, the two craft then head away from one another at near c, neither 
>craft would ever be able to see any light emitted from the other.  They would 
>both be outside of each others light cones.  Thus, one might be inclined to 
>say that those two craft were speeding away from one another at greater than 
>c, because they were headed away from one another and because they were 
>outside of their respective light cones and would continue to be outside of 
>each others light cones until time equals infinity (provided that the 
>universe is flat or open, ie continuing on as it is right now with the Hubble 
>expansion, since we are discussing things happening now).
Ross this is very interesting because it allows (in principle) a test
between two ideas which I thought might be equivalent.
I believe that the redshift is not expansion but is due to atomic
transitions getting bluer with time, and so making distant galaxies seem
red by comparison even though they are not receding.
If I am right then your proposal of distant galaxies speeding away would
lead to the two redshifts (recession and Hubble) being multiplied as
(1+z1)*(1+z2) ==> (1+z)
and the spaceships would still be visible.
Not an easy test, but maybe there is some equivalent one.
-- 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

Does this experience sound familiar to you?
(pointless example following)
I'm a chess problem composer, and I sometimes
do it even in my dream. Too bad that when I
awake, my problem is cooked and nothing works.
So: Did you ever dreamt up some nobel-prize
worthy theory, just to realize after awakening
that it violates five conservation laws
and the data too?
-- 
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 
fc3a501@math.uni-hamburg.de              PRIVATE EMAIL 
fc3a501@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de     BACKUP 
reddmann@chemie.uni-hamburg.de           SCIENCE ONLY

Robert Temple wrote:
> 
> wf3h@enter.net wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 21:19:33 GMT, Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>---snippity snip----
> >>This said, where science falls into the category of religion is not in
> >>the hard physical sciences (mostly cause and effect observations)  Let's dispense with the red herring that
> >>the slim proofs of Evolutionary Theory can be equated to the easily
> >>observable dropping of a ball or boiling of some water
> >
> >nice of you to tell us scientists what we do and dont believe. im a
> >chemical physicist and to me, evolutionary biologists are
> >scientists...so you have to prove your idiotic assertion that the
> >creationist religion is science. why is SUBJECTIVE belief OBJECTIVE
> >science?
> >>translates to is "I've looked it over and my guess is better than
> >>yours because I know more than you and a lot of other people that
> >>think like me, agree with me."
> >>
> >
> >does your computer work? did we put people on the moon? sounds like
> >science works to me.  there aint NO creation scientists...there are
> >PLENTY of evolutionary biologists who ARE scientists
> >
> >
> and so many people neither Creationists nor scientists take
> Evolution as a religion.  --enough to make scientists and
> creationists both blush purple.
Is evolution a process? -If so, does it have positive or negative
entropy? Can it be duplicated by repeatable physical experiments? -Or is
it a series of "singularities" where life come into being and go out of
existance, like a zero-body propogator?  John

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, David B. Greene wrote:
> OK, Anthony, we know exactly what you do at CERN and it is no use trying to 
> hide it!  You make the American based scientific establishment glow green 
> with envy, dammit!
> 
Well actually, there is a large US contingent in the collaboration which I
am a part of.
Since the cancellation of the SSC, CERN is the best place for a lot of US
scientists to carry on their work.
It is an international facility, not solely restricted to European
scientists.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> > The highest earners around are traders in the financial markets. 
> 
> No they aren't. The highest earners around are people who start their
> own businesses. Did Sam Walton or Bill Gates make their money trading
> on the Nikkei? Nopers.
Earning a wage and capital gains are two very different things. Traders
are up with the very highest wage earners on the planet.
As I said previously, many of my friends are on their mid twenties, and
earn hundreds of thousands per year trading.
Yes, people who market their own products might get more, but you can bet
that there are many more millionaires made through trading than from
collecting any other sort of wage.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> > All the traders I know seem to be pretty laid back about the whole thing.
> 
> Of course. They are usually playing with someone else's money, and
> get their commission either way.
> 
You are wrong about this. The majority of the salary is bonus, which is
performance related.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Ed Strong wrote:
> 
> Sounds like a neat project. I'm strictly amateur, but I'd say
> you want to prevent heat transfer through convection, conduction,
> and radiation. Tape a magnet to the cube and use an opposing magnet
> to levitate it, eliminating conduction. Put this assembly inside
I am afraid that this is not possible as you state it.
There is no stable levitating configuration of permanent magnets. You
either have to have a varying field, of at least one contact point with
something else.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

In article <32DAB94B.7D72@physics.com> Heisenberg  writes:
>Why is it that those who are so ardently for atonality (and nihilism
>in general) are Jews, or are led by Jews?  If my memory serves me
>correctly, wasn't the inventor of atonality Schoenberg, a Jew?
>
>Why are you Jews so bent upon destroying traditional Western culture?
>I must say, you've done a pretty damn good job so far.
What the hell is this crap?  Please tell me you're joking.
>- Heisenberg
** The Lord Leto II *** God Emperor of Arrakis **
*  Check out my and other Yamaha XG MIDI files: *
*      http://www.ids.net/~marshall/xg.htm      *
* "Conscious of the pain     Pass off as humane *
*  White coat seems so clean Most dirt bleached *
*  out of greed" -- Skinny Puppy, "Testure"     *

I'm proposing a completely new model of the process
that occurs in the twin slit experiment.
The key feature is that the slits are a quantum object,
much like an atom, and can only exchange a particular
spectrum of energies and momenta with the particle
beam. Very like the way an atom can ony exchange a
ceratain spectrum of energies and angular momenta.
It is shown how you can use the mathematical representations
of quantum theory to model the properties of the matter in 
the slits. Further, this model predicts the correct spectra
in both the single and twin slit cases.
Take a look
  http://www.murphy.gen.nz/murphy/sham_idx.htm
I'm in need of feedback as to how this stuff is
"coming across" so that I can put forward a clearer
presentation.
I'm Standing for...
No more interference! No More Collapse!
Ding Dong the cat is dead!
John

Hi Guys!
  A silly question.. perhaps.
  If mass is considered as "condensed energy" does this imply that 
sufficient energy would exhibit a gravity field?
  Or: if I had a battery that happend to contain the same electrical 
energy as is held in the mass of a planet, would there be a gravity field 
about the battery??
?:^) SteveB
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

cmartin@hotdog.demon.co.uk (Christian Martin) wrote:
>Is there any evidence that different people see different colours
>(sorry, UK!) the same?  For instance, is my 'red' someone else's
>'green'?  I have thought about this for a long time, but even if you
>consider frequencies used (say 4.3x10^14Hz), everybody could call this
>'red' while some may see it as my green (but call it red) and some may
>see it as my 'purple' (but call it red).
There is no way that we can tell what happens in the conscious part of
the perception.  However as far as physical detection most people are
the same and have the same three types of receptors.  The exact nature
of response to various wavelengths of each type of receptor is
accurately known.
However some people are colour blind and only have two types of
receptor.  They most definitely see colours differently.  The most
common form of colour blindness is red/green.  Recently it has been
discovered that some people have one of the receptors different and so
have a different response.  I think that this is in the blue end of the
spectrum.
-- 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

mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) wrote:
>In article <32d7780e.110114@news.mclink.it>, mc9350@mclink.it wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> I heard that once ( in a geolocical era, maybe the Eocene, but I'm not
>> sure ), our planet had a ring similar to that of Saturn. Does anyone
>> know anything more?
>A currently popular theory about the origin of the Moon is that, at
>some point very early in its history, Earth was hit by an object
>about the size of Mars. This probably created a disk of material
>orbiting the Earth, made (if I recall correctly) mostly of the outer
>layers of the impactor. The disk eventually accreted into the Moon.
The earth still has a ring around it.  It is very faint but is visible
on clear nights at low latitudes as the zodiacal light.
-- 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

pudding@iinet.net.au (Ned) wrote:
>This led me to consider the following: on each and every wave
>there are smaller waves, upon these are smaller wind ripples
>and so on.Would it be likely that the ocean as an entity as a whole
>behaves according to a formula which is fractal in nature, whose
>number of constantly varying discrete states is infinite? 
>The same analogy could be drawn for everything we encounter;
>the growth of a tree, the reproduction of a species, the flickering
>of a flame, you get the idea. What I am really getting at is whether
>this type of description could be used to define entities throughout
>the universe eg the formation of galaxies, stars within the galaxies,
>planets around the stars, life on the planets etc.
I believe that the universe is nearly fractal but not chaotic.
The Harmonics theory uses simple assumptions about waves developing
harmonics to arrive at an almost fractal pattern which is found to very
accurately predict the structure of the universe from the scale of
galaxies down to subatomic particles.
See the URL below for all the details.
-- 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

In a previous article, daveg@halcyon.com (David B. Greene) wrote:
->potts@cms5.cern.ch says...
->>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.
Amen!
->OK, Anthony, we know exactly what you do at CERN and it is no use trying to 
->hide it!  You make the American based scientific establishment glow green 
->with envy, dammit!
O, *well* said, David! ;-)
One amendment, though --  make that the American *accelerator*
establishment.  The CNRF (Cold Neutron Research Facility) here
at NIST (where I *do* have a chance of picking up a few extra zippy 
atoms), is the finest in the world in *its* field.
---mellyrn
----------------------------------------------------------
speaking only for myself

Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> 
> > Anthony Potts wrote:
> >
> > > The highest earners around are traders in the financial markets.
> >
> > No they aren't. The highest earners around are people who start their
> > own businesses. Did Sam Walton or Bill Gates make their money trading
> > on the Nikkei? Nopers.
> 
> Earning a wage and capital gains are two very different things. Traders
> are up with the very highest wage earners on the planet.
That statement I will certainly agree with. However, it is not what you
said before.
> As I said previously, many of my friends are on their mid twenties, and
> earn hundreds of thousands per year trading.
I believe it. I also have a number of friends in consulting in their 20s
who make several hundered thousand dollars in consulting. The starting
salary at a place like Booz-Allen or McKinsey is over $100,000 per
annum, and increases are pretty sharp after that. 
> Yes, people who market their own products might get more, but you can bet
> that there are many more millionaires made through trading than from
> collecting any other sort of wage.
Not in this country, actually. There was actually a study done of
millionaires in the US by, I believe, the Census Bureau, and they found
that about 60-70% of them made their money owning businesses, some of
them as mundane as vacuuming septic tanks.
--------------------------------------
Nolite perturbare circulos meos
Joseph Edward Nemec                    
Operations Research Center	         
Room E40-149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
nemecj@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/

 [Not sent to s.p.research due to screwy posting software on campus. 
  Someone can send it there if they wish.]
"Esben Andresen, Lunde"  writes:
>
>I've read an article about neutrinos in a scientific magazine. 
>It said the following about neutrino detectors:
>
>Neutrinos emitted from the Sun collide with electrons from Chlorine-31 atoms, 
>and this makes the electrons move even faster than light.
 This is not how the Chlorine detector in the Homestake mine works. 
 The Cl-37 is struck by an incoming neutrino and the *nucleus* undergoes 
 an inverse beta-decay reaction: neutrino + Cl-37 --> Ar-37 + electron.
 Ar-37 is radioactive with a 34.8 day lifetime, so the Argon gas can 
 be swept out of the liquid and counted by looking for this decay. 
 The Gallium detectors work on a similar principle with a different 
 nucleus as the target.  
 As described in another article, using Cherenkov light from electrons 
 moving faster than c/n in water is the principle used in the big 
 detector at Kamiokande (Japan), which is one of several detectors 
 originally built to look for proton decay.  The electrons come from 
 elastic scattering of neutrinos from electrons, leading to the original 
 question.  The new detector called SNO (in Canada, of course) will 
 use this reaction *and* inverse beta decay of deuterium to do a pair 
 of complimentary experiments in the same detector. 
 SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) is on the web, at 
    http://snodaq.phy.queensu.ca/SNO/sno.html
-- 
 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. 

Is anyone aware of any confrences that will be held between
March 7th to 16th, specifically ones suitable for upperlevel
undergraduates or begining graduate students?
thanks for any help,
jay
jgwacker@iastate.edu

In article <5bdmte$3p5@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  wrote:
>If you try to snap a kevlar thread you will cut off your fingers.  Make a 
>simple overhand knot and it will shatter like glass. After the first 
>bullet hits,
Take a knife instead of a bullet,-)
15 years ago I made a motorcycle suit. Testing abrasion resistance of 30+
materials I found the performance of Kevlar pretty poor.
I made a sandwich of combined materials - it worked but did not have the
aura of leather so I did not get rich from it,)
Regards
Peter

On 13 Jan 1997 10:12:59 GMT, lbsys@aol.com  wrote:
>>all seem to have different likes and dislikes for colors.  Maybe in fact
>>we all do like the same "apparent" color, but it is different as to what
>>"real" color looks like that to us.
>
>So you would argue, that my left eye does like 'green' more (or less?)
>than my right eye? (they see green differently, as I posted last week).
I would agree, or as Hunter used to say "It works for me!"  ;-)
-- 
Randy Young
rwyoun1@pacbell.com
Speaking strictly for myself!

On 14 Jan 1997, Nial Tanvir wrote:
> I think that either music or speach is an equally good signal.
> However, I seem to recall an "explanation" of this experiment to
> the effect that the receiver is actually extrapolating the signal
> in some way, thus giving the impression of faster than light travel.
> Given the tiny time delay, the music still sounds reasonable.
> 
The way this experiment was presented on the television it looked woefully
inadequate for showing that the signal was being propagated at faster than
the speed of light. They showed evidence that tunneling was happening
faster than light, which I don't think is anything particularly
spectacular, but nothing more.
Basically, the fact that phase velocity, group velocity and signal
velocity are all different was not accounted for. There was absolutely no
proof that the signal velocity was exceeding the speed of light. All that
they showed was that the signal could pass through the solid block, not at
which speed it could do this.
I have seen other eminent scientists make a complete fool of themselves
through a lack of necessary knowledge in the past (gyroscopic propulsion
being put forward by someone from my very own institute), and it certainly
looked as though this could be the case with the FTL communication.
It might be true, but there was not even a hint of this being fact in the
television show. 
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

Edward Green wrote:
> 
> John   wrote:
> 
> >Seems I've seen a lot of dust on unpainted metal fan blades and squirrel
> >cage rotors. If the blades were grounded, then electrostatic attraction
> >would be ruled out as the *only* cause for dust accumulation.
> >
> >In addition to dust in the air I'll bet there are cooking oil vapors
> >etc. which could deposit on the blades and glue the dust in place.
> >
> >Even though the blades may have small area compared to other dust
> >collecting devices, like CRT screens and knick-knacks, the motion of the
> >blades sweep out larger areas over time. Some mean free path calcultions
> >are in order.
> >
> >This sounds like a good science fair project or PHD thesis topic(%>)
> 
> By all means... and in the more excruciating detail the better.  :-)
> 
> I second the cooking oil mechanism.  The distinction between dust
> held in place merely by static attraction and dust glued into a fiber
> reinforced mess by oil residue can be observed at once by someone
> cleaning the nasty thing.  I suppose this is why practical observation
> is called "getting your hands dirty".
> 
> Still,  perhaps like CRT's there is a dual mechanism.  Static fields
> may increase absorption cross-section,  condensed atmospheric
> pollutants keep the dust glued in place.  But in the case of a fan,  I
> would think airflow would be the major explanation of increased cross
> section -- as you say a detailed analysis should look at a detailed
> fluid dynamics simulation of flow ;).  Wait!   Here is the explanation
> of why fan blade dust seem to be more oily than other dust in the same
> environment:  The large airflow simultaneously gives them a larger
> capture opportunity,  but only for material that can stick to them in
> the wind.  So first we condense out the oil vapor,  then we stick
> some dust fibers to it,  then more oil vapor,  until we have a real
> yuckster.  If you place a ceiling fan near the kitchen,  where warm
> air laden with cooking residue would find itself first,  this
> completes the picture.
Perhaps the use of silicon/fluorine coatings on the blades could help
shed light on this aspect. Reducing the surface tension would reduce the
amount of oil wetting out on the blades and thereby adhering to them.
John
-- 
A desk is a terrible spot to view the world from.

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:57:37 -0800, johnbarra gots
 wrote:
>
>Is evolution a process? -If so, does it have positive or negative
>entropy? Can it be duplicated by repeatable physical experiments? -Or is
>it a series of "singularities" where life come into being and go out of
>existance, like a zero-body propogator?  John
sure is repeatable in the lab. according to the recent 'horizons' in
the washington post speciation has been observed in the lab...check it
out yourself

> This is probably because marijuana is a "pleasurable drug" and as
> such is seen to be decadant, therfore bad, therefore we must
> protect those who cannot make an informed choice (like all those
> adults of sound body and mind out there) Why tobacco and alcohol
> are not included is anyones guess.
> 
Money is why. The alcohol and tobacco interests have lots of it, and want more
of it, so they spend heavily (as in buying political influence) to keep the
rules unchanged. The people who have gotten rich off of illegal drugs want
drugs kept illegal because they will lose control of a lucrative market if 
prohibition gets repealed, so they spend heavily (as in buying political influence)
to make sure the rules don't get changed. The victims, as usual, are the ones the
politicos are supposedly protecting, namely the public. First, the public is denied
access to highly useful substances. Second, the public has to pay the drug
warriors for the damage they do to the public's interests, and third, there is the
actual social damage caused by the War (faugh!) on Drugs. The worst of the damage
caused by drug is caused by those who are supposedly protecting the public from it's
own stupidity.

xxx

jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
| 
|    ...       You can tell there is something there (a fraction P of 
|  the times you try) without interacting with it -- in a certain 
|  sense *because* you don't interact with it -- but you will interact 
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 BTW, you might find it helpful to think about this statement. 
|  with it a fraction 1-P of the time.  What they do is use a clever 
|  way to increase P so it approaches (but never equals) 1. 
daverees@ix.netcom.com (Dave Rees) writes:
>
>It makes me wonder if there is a limit in this case (say, perhaps, at
>least one particle interaction)?  
 No.  That was the point.  Consider the double slit system -vs- the 
 single slit system.  If you put one photon through and it is detected 
 at a point where there would be zero probability if it was single 
 slit diffraction, then you *know* both slits were open. 
>Or can the detection apparatus work
>with any fraction (1-P) arbitrarily close to zero?  Is it possible to
>have a case where, perhaps just by chance, the detection occurs with
>no particles interacting with the object whatsoever?
 That was their point (did you miss the bit about the bomb in the path?), 
 although (1-P) cannot be exactly zero in their design -- and I think in 
 principle -- they actually did the experiment.  Indeed, you only detect 
 a photon if it did not interact.  
>I don't know much about the history of this line of experimentation,
>but I gathered from the article that it was not commonly realized that
>the interaction-free detection percentage could be manipulated as in
>the experiment (or that it was even impossible in principle).  
 Exactly.  They realized it could be done, did it, and wrote it up. 
>It just
>makes me wonder if there aren't other tricks waiting to be tried which
>the conventional quantum wisdom says are impossible.  
 Neither of the tricks they used were considered impossible, as my 
 example above and the one about black disk scattering was intended 
 to show.  In particular, the Quantum Zeno trick (the real key to 
 this) was a result of someone trying to disprove the "quantum 
 weirdness" that repeated observations can keep a state from 
 decaying (the watched pot principle) and finding that QM worked.  
-- 
 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 <5b3f3c$5qs@news.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr  wrote:
> Pascal was invented as a teaching tool.  BASIC was invented so you 
> could write very crude programs on exceedingly primitive computers, 
> AFAIK.  If it was invented as a teaching tool, who is guilty? 
I have read that the original purpose of BASIC was to teach beginning
programming students about concepts of assembly language, hence the
line numbers, the global namespace, and the lack of structured
programming concepts.
-- 
Dave Seaman			dseaman@purdue.edu
      ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
    ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++
++++ see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++

Randall E. Robie wrote:
> 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?.
Last I heard, you can get books, lecture notes, and videotapes from the
organization by calling 1 800 LEARNER.  I have no idea exactly what they
offer or how much it is, but that's the only lead I've ever seen.
> Please e-mail me if possible.
Posted and emailed.
-- 
                             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 man made hell"