Newsgroup sci.physics 216014

Directory

	The author of the following would greately appreciate any 
SUBSTANTIATED criticism from physicists and chemists on the issues presented 
below.
	Please send all feedback to  Solon@asu.edu.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	It is widely accepted that our Universe consists of positive and 
negative charges, however it lacks one tiny detail: unanimity of opinions 
as to what these charges are.  I will show later on that they are only 
and exclusively electrons and positrons.  So-called "elementary particles"
known today - leptons, bosons, hyperons, etc. - ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE 
INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS OF HIGH-TEMPERATURE BOMBARDMENT OF THE NUCLEUS.  
They have no natural stability, like electron and positron have.  
Electrons and positrons have the highest specific charges from among over 
300 elementary "ghost"-particles.  They are unexterminable and fill the 
space at random.  But their spatial distribution is never changed because 
an empty space is dielectric.  When interacting electric fields of these 
charges sum up to form, respectively, spatial charges "+" of positrons 
and "-" of electrons.  The space in between the charges is imbued with 
electric field lines self-emerged from numerous electron-positron pairs, 
or NEUTRINOS.  Their terminal charges are equal to qv+ = 0.16 * 10~42 C  
and  qv- = 0.16 * 10~42 C connect them, respectively, to the spatial "+" 
and "-" charges, and in this manner the spatial material electric field 
is self-emerged.  These charges store and under interaction with the 
field give out all the information about any phenomenon: from gravitation 
to restructuring in lattices.  Primary self-attraction of charges yields 
self-motion of electron and positron, and thus an oblate 
electron-positron pair = MATTER = NEUTRINO is self-emerged.  Great 
velocity of attraction between those pairs is born, and energy is 
released when pairs collide.  Being a matter, neutrino has both CHARGE 
=  qv+/- = 0.16 * 10~42 C  and  MASS = m = 0.43 * 10~34 kg.  Since qv+ 
and qv- charges are unexterminable, hence mass is also unexterminable.  I 
determine MASS in THE ONLY POSSIBLE AND CORRECT WAY as A MEASURE OF 
INTERACTION BETWEEN THE ACTING ELECTRIC CHARGE OF A MATERIAL BODY AND 
GEOELECTRIC FIELD.  I must stress that no similar approach has ever been 
suggested in the available literature.  
	Therefore, NEUTRINO IS NOT a hypothetical particle as modern 
physics states, but REAL NON-EXTERMINABLE MATTER, THE BASIS OF THE 
UNIVERSE.  
	From multiple neutrinos, through self-attraction of their 
microcharge fields, a neutron (n) is generated.  It is further attracted 
to positron e+ producing proton (p).  That is why PROTON and NEUTRON are 
ESSENTIALLY ONE AND THE SAME PARTICLE WITH ONLY POSITRON CHARGE DIFFERING.
	The above considerations allow for explaining such a phenomenon 
as self-production of chemical elements in the Universe - from the 
simplest atom to transuranium elements - solely in terms of electron, 
positron, and neutrino charges.  
	My observations show instability to be inherent in all the 
elements of Periodic System and hence in all objects of the Universe.  
Instability is directly proportional to the number of the atomic orbital 
electrons.  It is a NEW UNDENIABLE FACT whose validity I claim and insist 
upon, because exposure nature in the research was identical to the nature 
of objects under study.  
	Transmutation of atom involves continuously liberated 
RADIATION-FREE INTRA-NUCLEAR ENERGY.  Released into the surrounding space 
are also orbital electrons, proton's positrons, certain number of 
neutrinos and anti-neutrinos as structural material for further 
self-generation of new elements.  The process of self-generation and 
transmutation of objects in the Universe are interconnected and proceed 
under LOW TEMPERATURES.  Our Universe is constant in its dynamics, 
self-emerging and transmuting in a circle.
	Here are summarized the concepts introduced by my theory:
1)	NUCLEI OF ALL ELEMENTS CONSIST EXCLUSIVELY OF PROTON-NEUTRON PAIRS.
2)	INSTABILITY IS INHERENT IN ALL ELEMENTS.
3)	TRANSMUTATION PROCEEDS UNDER LOW TEMPERATURES ONLY.
4)	SELF-GENERATION AND TRANSMUTATION CONSTITUTE A SINGLE CONTINUOUS 
	CIRCULAR PROCESS OF UNIVERSAL CHANGES.
5)	SPATIAL FIELD OF THE ELECTRIC CHARGES IS THE BASIS FACTOR WHICH 
	GOVERNS ALL THE PHENOMENA AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS.
			A LIST OF CHALLENGING ISSUES
		WHICH ARE RESOLVED ADOPTING CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
			OF THE NEW PHYSICS BY G.S. RABZI.
1)	Physical essence of gravitation mechanism and zero gravity is 
	disclosed.  TWIN PARADOX is explained.
2)	Gravity in spacecrafts can be induced.
3)	Possibility arises to determine neutron charge which provides for 
	gravitational acceleration and magnetic moment.
4)	Explanation is found for the physical essence of the CAVENDISH 
	experiment on determining the Y constant in the Newton's gravity   
	equation.  It is interaction NOT of ball masses but of THEIR DIPOLES.
5)	Gravitating mass and inertial mass are proved not equal.
6)	Four known types of interactions are proved to be DERIVATIVES of 
	the basic and unique interaction provided by Nature - ELECTRIC CHARGE
7)	Many interactions in the Universe can be described without constants.
8)	Elements' atomic size can be calculated without approximations.
9)	Disclosed is the origin of half-life stability of elements mass defect
	stability.
10)	True origin of "+" and "-" charges in the DIRAC equation is shown.
11)	Revealed is interference in the Michelson experiment and the resulting
	inconstancy of absolute velocity C=300,000 km/sec.
12)	Explained is the cause of light beam aberration from a star to 
	the observer on the Earth.
13)	Explanation is found for heavy ions to be retained at sufficient height
	from the Earth surface.
14)	Found is the way to generate transuranium long lasting elements.
15)	Atomic nuclei can be constructed from nothing else but 
	proton-neutron pairs; origin of the nucleons motion and their 
	trajectories can be determined. 
	These are only few of the issues that can be understood and 
effected should the above concepts be accepted by Science.
	As soon as these days we can diversely use energy released during 
transmutation in bodies and substances.  I currently have designs of the 
devices that :	
	a)	Help utilize the energy of fission particles to obtain 
		heat energy in the units made pre-included constituents 
		of heat-generating circuit of heat power plants;
	b)	Enable immediate production of electric energy as by-product  
		of LOW-TEMPERATURE TRANSMUTATION.	
	People do not realize what power can be controlled should the New 
physics be accepted.

"c" is valid, though most of Einstein's findings are "inverted" to the 
reality. This is a direct consequence of the theory which begins something
like this:
31-12-96
revised 1-1-97
Notes on the structure of reality - article 3
(first draft)
by Gary Forbat
Copyright (c) G. Forbat 1996
It may now be convenient to extend and qualify some of the main 
concepts derived from the theory. In the previous essays I described 
a process of material formation which provides the basis for the 
observed material reality. The process operates through a building 
procedure which involves a relationship between the physical 
magnitudes of structures, that is, the volume they occupy, and the 
rapidity of their internal cycles. Moreover, the process is universal, 
ranging over an infinity of scale tranformations from the most 
miniscule sizes to the most gigantic imaginable, in fact infinite in 
both directions. 
But it is not a single dimensional process involving only scale. What 
is peculiar about the sequence is that the smaller structures of
the micro world are highly dynamic due to an extremely rapid internal 
cycle operating to hold it together, and the smaller the structure, 
the more dynamic it is. Dynamics refers to the rapidity of the 
cyclical pulse. As particles break down to the cyclical funtion of a 
number of smaller components, those components will have a 
significantly more rapid internal cyclical rate than those of the 
larger structure they contribute to forming. The atomic structure, 
for instance, comes into being due to the cyclical function of the 
electron in relation to the nucleus. The composition of the electron 
has not yet been penetrated, but the possibilities are few. Either it 
is composed of a very large number of tiny parts, or maybe fewer but 
of a much higher dynamicity. The nucleus, on the other hand, is known 
to break down to combinations of smaller, but much more dynamic parts
known as 'quarks'. Quarks themselves must reduce to even smaller 
components, with cyclical rates of increasingly more rapidity. The
many qualities of quarks testify to a variance of configurations. 
The quantum proportions testify to this very nature. With the 
process of reduction infinite, so with it is the increase in 
dynamicity. 
We are fortunate enough to be able to observe two vastly different 
aspect of the material process. The micro scales of phenomena present 
an integrated view of average behaviour over many billions of cycles. 
Imagine how the solar system would look if billions of planetary 
cycles were pressed into a single second. Theoretically at least, it 
would be possible to simulate the effect by taking a long term video 
of the solar system in motion over many billions of years, and then 
replaying the tape over a matter of seconds. Undoubtedly we could 
make computer image simulations of it much more easily. 
Then there is the almost static view of the process presented 
by the structures of the large scale in their 'real time' cyclical 
movements. Our viewpoint of stellar formations is fashioned from the 
workings of the atomic structure, and compared to the speed and 
capacity of the functioning of our instruments and sensing apparatus, 
the stellar structures are both extremely large and so slowly evolving 
as to be almost static. But now, let's venture to reconstruct in its 
broadest principles the consequences of this infinite sequence of 
structuring, not only to determine the status of our own viewpoint 
within it, but to attempt to discover general principles that may be 
directly affecting us and we are not yet aware of. Firstly, going up 
or down in scale, the specific attributes of structure types that 
occur depend on the interactive possibilities afforded on each  
particular scale. Solar systems of one type or another, whether 
binary or planetary are the almost exclusive forms that may be found 
at the scale of the direct interaction between the most massive 
atomic conglomerations. At this scale of consideration the universe 
can be seen to be interspersed with stellar and planetary matter in 
mutual interaction as solar systems. But we know that solar systems, 
in turn, almost exclusively congregate in the larger massive 
formations of galaxies, occuring in a small number of types. Galaxies 
themseves form clusters with unique characteristics types of their own. 
On the galactic scale of consideration the universe can be seen as 
interspersed almost exclusively by galactic formations. Certainly they 
are the only long term stable forms to be found at this scale. 
In fact we can apply this principle at any level of magnitude. Thus
the universe is interspersed by atoms at the atomic scale of 
consideration but with planetary/stellar matter on a larger scale.
So then, as the process builds to infinity, with each structure type 
occuring in forms and attributes appropriate to interaction and 
formation possibilities at that scale. Each transformation produces 
unique structure types, and there is certainly no likelyhood of the 
same structure type occuring at different levels either in the micro 
and macro scales. 
Both the reduction and its reverse process of expansion runs to infinity,
with the roots of each or any structure traceable in infinite steps
toward smaller scales. But this does not work in the reverse toward the
macro. The reason is that not all structures continue to build outward 
forever. Large sections of it terminate at a certain level, as in the 
case of the structures that intersperse in our seemingly empty spatial  
regions. My findings are that these regions are far from empty. 
The entire spatiality in fact contains a fine invisible mist of matter, 
structured at its highest level to an interactive fabric to form 
a micro infrastructure which sets the framework for the workings of 
our atomic based matterial environment. But only those elements
which participate in further building processes to form the atomic 
base can get through to build outward to form structures on larger 
scales. The rest, indeed a very large portion of micro material,
is lost to further structuring. In this infinite chain of 
expansions it should be expected that terminal stages are reached 
from time to time. Nevertheless, what remains after each of these 
mass terminations is still adequete to reconstruct other equally 
thickly populated levels of structures on much larger scales.    
So what is the status of our material system amid this infinity of 
transformation levels ? On the micro end we observe the process through
a very high integration, but on the macro end it tends toward static. 
With the two directions reflecting merely different aspects of a 
single process, our observational access results from the circumstances 
of our evolution as sensing beings and our relation to the material 
interaction that brought it about. We are a direct product of our 
micro infrastructure and the atomic base. The question remains 
whether ours is the only material environment possible or whether
there may be others ? Perhaps other configurational circumstances can 
exist among an infinity of types which produces alternative material 
bases. 
We need firstly to examine the general circumstances which must be 
present for a material environment. Obviously the most evident 
is the versatility of our atomic structure. It is extremely stable 
and durabile with, stability, regularity, as well as variability in
chemical combination. It is truly like a wonder particle which goes on 
to create a tremendously varied and interactive world of material  
activity. Surely it would be fairly rare to find a scale level of 
structuring where such a useful type of particle is found. 
Nevertheless it stands to reason that in a infinite chain of 
transformations other similarly efficient structure types are bound 
to occur. some may indeed be even more flexible than the atom, or 
perhaps somewhat less so,  but still able to generate a causal 
evolution in its conglomerate forms to create an alternative material 
environment rivalling ours. Of course on the micro scales a funtional
world would evolve extremely rapidly compared to ours, and on the macro 
scales the events would take on gigantic proportions, evolving very 
slowly by our way of looking at it. 
G. Forbat
to be continued in the next article                      

jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
| .............snip.............................
| 
|  Comparing Economists with Engineers or Physicists, like the PhD who 
|  invented the transistor or the developer of a medical cyclotron, is 
|  not a particularly logical approach to the analysis of the value of 
|  an advanced degree. 
rjk@laraby.tiac.net (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
>
>	Then pray sir, what is a logical approach?
 If you wish to make conclusions about all persons with letters 
 after their names, then you should examine a representative sample 
 of such people and how well they do at their profession compared 
 to others.  You cannot conclude anything about the training of MDs 
 from a study that says PhD Economists are not good market analysts, 
 as was done in the overgeneralization I commented on. 
 All you can conclude from that study is that an economics degree does 
 not prepare you to be a good stock picker.  You cannot conclude that 
 you would do better going to a barber than an MD for heart surgery. 
-- 
 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. 

That's funny, when I imagined the observer, she had the good sense
to realize she was getting dizzy, so she jumped off the ride at about
4 mph (that's about 7km/h)
-- 
Matt Fields  URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields

Greg Adams  wrote in article
<32D9816C.2DB7@adclegal.com>...
> I apologize if this gets doubly posted. I tried to post it a few
> days ago, but working under Win 95 is always a crap shoot.
> 
> ===================
> 
> Sometime ago I had occasion to review the conservation of momentum
> equation and the continuity equation at the same time and was
> struck by their similarity. After some playing, I was able to
> convince myself that one could obtain the conservation of momentum
> equation from the continuity equation, if one were not too
concerned
> about rigorousness and logical validity.
> 
> I have been unable to find any references to this connection in
> any of my books, or the s.p. FAQ. Does anyone know of any books
> or articles that talk about this subject.
> 
> Thanks.
> Greg
> greg@adclegal.com
> 
Every continuity equation has an associated conserved quantity. 
This idea is
gone over in detail in text books on advanced mechanics.  For
example,
Goldstein, "Classical Mechanics".  I think it is covered in chapter
9.
Best Regards, Peter

Miguel Lerma wrote:
> 
> Christopher Hillman (hillman@math.washington.edu) wrote:
> [...]
> > Nonetheless, a particle falling into the BH (or the matter of the star
> > itself as the hole is being formed) experiences nothing strange as it passes
> > through the event horizon.  The event horizon is an artificial mental construction
> 
> Let me ask a follow up question. In Schwarchild's coordinates the
> particle passes through the event horizon at time t = infinity.
> However, Hawking has shown that a black hole cannot last until
> t = infinity, it will evaporate first. If by the time the particle
> enters the black hole it does not exist any more, how can it do it?
> Someone told me that the "paradox" comes from an improper mixture of
> classical and quantum physics, but I would appreciate any more detailed
> explanation about how matter can fall inside an evaporating (non rotating
> and non charged) black hole.
> 
> Miguel A. Lerma
Hi Miguel,
I'm not really a black hole expert, but I'll take a stab.  The particle
appears frozen on the horizon (to an outside observer, if they could
actually 'see' a particle on the horizon) because time at the horizon is
infinitely dilated in the observer's frame.  From the particle's
viewpoint however, it plunges right on through to the singularity in
very short order.  If the black hole were to eventually evaporate and an
outside observer was nearby to see it, I don't think they would *ever*
see the particle fall through the ever diminishing event horizon.  I'm
guessing (though I admit I haven't thought about this one much) that the
observer would see the particle disappear at the same moment the horizon
disappears.  This way "t = infinity" might be said to be the same as
"the moment will never come".  Okay, so I'm out on a limb here. :) 
Anyone else?  
-----------------------------------------------
    Mick Spencer  mailto:nspencer@epix.net
    http://www.epix.net/~nspencer/
    ... Heisenberg may have slept here ...
-----------------------------------------------

Is a synchrotron anything like an electron accellerator?
Why would you put a person in one of those when the speed of sound
is so slow and a person is so massive? You could take a person
to the speed of sound using a Concorde.  But if you really want
to be spun up to the speed of sound in a washing machine, you
can have it.  If you want to listen to Bach under those
circumstances, that'd be fine by me.
-- 
Matt Fields  URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields

In article <19970115182400.NAA13185@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> They used data from 350.000 couples having married in Switzerland since
> 1990. As there is 144 possible combinations of starsign and sex
> ([12+11+..+1]x2 = 156 minus 12 (equal sign combinations not to be counted
> double for male / female) = 144), the average combination should contain
> ~2430 people. This of course had to be normalized for a known fluctuation
> in the birth rate over the year, which was done by means of data of a
> microcensus. Then the significance of aberrations was tested against
> statistical mean values. Most combinations showed no aberrations outside
> noise level, but some did to a high degree. One example given was, that
> 2735 "taurus" man should have married "fish" woman, and a value of 2680 or
> 2790 would have been accepted as noise, but the real value of 2540
> remained absolutely unexplained.
I get a probability of about 1 in 5000 that there would be an
anticorrelation at least that strong for this combination as a result of
chance.
On the other hand, the probability of getting a chance anticorrelation *or*
a chance correlation this strong for *any one* of the 144 combinations is
about 1 in 36, if my calculations are correct. That's not so much
overwhelming as somewhat unusual and possibly suggestive (whether of a real
effect or of some sort of bias, I don't know).
Of course, they apparently got more than one significant result, so that
would correspondingly decrease the probability. 
> To prove that this was not a random effect, they reassembled the data by
> constructing "virtual starsigns" out of different not connected weeks
> throughout the year. A run on these data showed an absolute 'normal'
> statistical behaviour in all groups, as would have been expected for a
> sample that size.
If the result was statistically improbable but not *terribly* improbable,
it's not inconceivable that they could get an effect for the actual
star signs but not for the controls, simply by chance.
> Thus the author of the study suspects a very old general knowledge about
> certain 'types' of people related to their month of birth. He is going to
> try his data vs. things like suicide, occupation etc. This could become
> very interesting IMO - as especially a study on suicide (by Emile
> Durckheim) is nowadays seen as the startup of a new science: sociology. 
Since the study didn't involve any of the more complicated astrological
indicators, such as what planet was in what house when, it could just
have uncovered something completely unrelated to astrology, such as a
relation between personality type and the season experienced in
infancy. But in the absence of a proposed mechanism to test, the best
thing we can do, I suppose, is to look for replication of the result.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

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?
The geodesics change as the masses move allong them.  This is part of why 
quantising gravity is so dofficult:  The distribution of mass-energy and 
the curvature of spacetime are coupled in a non-trivial manner.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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 <5bjrkk$r1h@news-central.tiac.net>, conover@tiac.net (Harry H
Conover) wrote:
> ben (bensayo@ibm.net) wrote:
> : Hi people,
> : 
> :       My name is Ben, and I have a friend in elementary school who 
> : needs some help for a science project. Using materials available around 
> : the home, she must keep a single regular-sized ice-cube from melting for 
> : 5 hours. Nothing commercial such as igloo ice packs, or iceboxes are 
> : permitted.
> :       She's tried stuff like saran wrap, styrofoam bowls and wood 
> : chips, but the cube is completely melted by the end of the 5 hours.
> :       If anyone has any tips or suggestions, they would be greatly 
> : appreciated.
> :                                                                       
> : Thanks in advance   :)
> : bensayo@ibm.net
> 
> 
> Try placing it in the middle of a box of fluffy dry sawdust.  This is
> how winter cut ice was traditionally preserved through late-summer for
> many hundreds of years.
> 
> Would it work on block ice as small as a modern icecube.  Dunno.  
> Try it.
> 
>                                             Harry C.
Is some spare ice permitted? One way would be to surround it with a wrap
filled with crushed ice and salt. The chemical reaction between the ice
and the salt (melting and dissolving into it) needs energy, the energy
is taken from the surroundings in the form of heat. I have personally
managed to completely deep-freeze a coke with a small amount of snow and
some salt in a couple of minutes, and once in a lab I reached a stunning
-30° C (that's -22° F !) mixing a snowball and a couple of spoons of salt
in a jar. Damn near destroyed the thermometer!
-- Johnny

Luke Conlin wrote:
> 
> In article <32da4830.8899155@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> alien.spydr@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 06:44:18 GMT, daverees@ix.netcom.com (Dave Rees) wrote:
> >
> >
> >  That is an excellent "question", and would apply to my position. What is the
> > evidence that the past, (previous existance) still exists, to be accessed and
> > entered, physically.
> >
> >
> >                             a. s.
> There is theoretical evidence:  If you travelled so that on a light cone
> diagram  the velocity slope would be greater than 90 degrees, you would
> travel backwards in time.  Alcubiere found a way to theoretically do this
> by manipulating space-time.
> 
> --
> Luke Conlin
> Tufts University
> lconlin@emerald.tufts.edu
Question..  Isn't time only a thought process??  Therefore if one is
able to eliminate that concept, isn't it feasible for time to be
eliminated?
Earl Curley
psychic@globalserve.net
http://www.webdesign.ca/

In article <32dbc022.17460877@aplnews> Matt Feinstein wrote:
>In fact, force is, from the standpoint of logic-and-axiomatics, an
>undefined concept in classical mechanics.  
  How true, alas.
>
>This is not to say that we don't know what force is;
  If you think not, please define "force" WITHOUT an (undefined) 
equation.
glird

David K. Davis wrote:
> 
> Leonard Timmons (ltimmons@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : 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.
> 
> I would say he's spoking fun at you.  But you have to expect this if you
> ask metafishical questions.  At least you didn't fall for it hook line and
> sinker.
I know he's making fun.  But I am being sarcastic.  But in any event
my question was badly formed.
> If you mean to be serious, I would say first that numerals are just
> notation for numbers and are therefore social constructs.
I understand this.  But in the absence of humans, could a collection
of particles, for instance, form a numeral?  That is, would some other
form of matter react to the collection's number?  I guess your social
definition of numeral dismisses the possibility of an existence separate
from humans.  But even this is important, since if chimps can understand
numerals, at what level of intelligence is the concept not
understandable?
> Numbers,
> however, have a significance beyond social convention. Pi, I believe
> will be discovered by intelligent life where ever and whenever it arises.
> Matter and reality inhabit the space of abstract logical possibility.
I guess this is what I am trying to get at.  Is this space just a 
figure of speech, or is it more real than that?
> The
> most elementary and accessible parts of this space are known to us as
> mathematics.
-leonard

John Wilkins wrote:
> While I'm not exactly sure of the European
> practice (I understand it's *much* more rigorous), the Anglo tradition,
> followed in Australia, roughly works out to Anglo Masters (by research)
> equals US PhD in years of post-secondary study. It's not exact because
> you have that confusing Junior College thing. That's not to denigrate US
> PhD's, because the standard of work is most likely the same, but US
> graduates are typically a few years younger than ours and the UK.
> 
> I only know this because I once worked in a university that had to
> accredit Australian degrees for Aussie postgraduates and post-docs in
> the US.
Actually, you're dead wrong about that.  In the English system, a BA
takes about 3 years, compared to the US 4 (don't even worry about junior
college--most people who go on to grad study start at a 4 year college
or university).  The English BA takes less time because it is more
specialized, and it is perhaps fair to say that in the individual
subject of the student's major, an English BA is slightly better
prepared.  Remember, however, that the US higher educationial system is
modeled after the German system, and a US BA generally has to study a
wider range of subjects during their undergraduate education (liberal
arts).  The English MA and PhD are generally more exclusively
research-oriented than their counterparts in the US, involving less
classwork (a US MA will normally include 1 yr of required courses, the
PhD 2-2 1/2 yrs) but make no mistake, an equivelant time will be spent
in the US researching and writing the dissertation.  A US PhD might take
an average of 5 years to complete (even after a Masters', in some cases)
while a UK PhD may only take 3 years, even without a MA.
So, in the final tabulation: US--4yrs BA, 2yrs MA, 4yrs PhD = 10 yrs.  A
US student is 28-30yrs old upon completion, assuming they have taken
minimal time off from school.  UK--3 yrs BA, 2 yrs MA, 3 yrs PhD = 8
yrs.  You can see that it is UK PhDs that take less time.
I'm not evaluating the merits of either system--I've studied in both,
and found each to be rewarding in different ways.  But there seems to be
a myth outside of the US that we in America have "less rigerous"
educations.  That is simply not the case.
DS

On 1997-01-15 kfischer@iglou.com(KenFischer) said:
   >I am very discouraged considering the number of
   >different opinions regarding the twin paradox.
   >I agree that there is no apparent reason that
   >relative velocity should make one clock slow, I don't
   >even understand how to decide which clock should run
   >slow because I don't know which one is moving, because
   >I don't know what not moving would be.
   Isn't there a considerable difference between time dialation as
   measured by the dopler effect of light, and time dialation as created
   by acceleration?
   >This does allow me to wonder if then the ticks
   >of a clock would vary according to some formula using
   >the speed of light as a maximum velocity, but I still
   >feel that an observer with the clock will still have
   >60 heartbeats per minute as usual.
   He will!
   He will forever percieve a normal minute, and those outside will
   forever percieve a normal minute. (whats normal anyways? 1 Mississippi
   2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, .... 60 Mississippi - thats a normal
   minute)
   The perception of the passage of time is different from the passage of
   time itself.
--: the individual is smarter than the mob - but the mob still rules
Net-Tamer V 1.08 Beta - Test Drive

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:04:02 GMT, lamoran@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (L.A.
Moran) wrote:
>
>The real reason why there's no derogatory term for Canadians is that there
>is never any need for such a term.
>
>
>Larry Moran
who was it that said canada could have had english govt, american know
how and french culture....instead they got english know how, american
culture and french govt....:-)

In article <32cdf16e.175256664@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>
B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
> Although it is miserable to point out such a harsh reality,
> you are better prepared by acknowledging it, and moving 
> forward to whatever future awaits. Dartmouth have been
> very fair to you, but sometimes the milk of human kindness
> does run out - especially if personalities become involved....
 I do not see it that way. I see it as the fact that Dartmouth has
received a genius working at the price of a potwasher. Dartmouth has
never lead the world in bigtime science. The kind of science I have
done for 7 years-- Atom Totality, superconductivity, biology, cloning,
physics, Naturals = P-adics and a score of others. All revolutionary
ideas. The kind of ideas someone would expect to come out of Princeton
Advanced Study where they pay so-called experts to fetch these kinds of
new ideas, and are payed handsomely to do so. But nothing of importance
has come out of Princeton Advanced Study. The stuff that comes out of
there is wallflower stuff which grabs the newspapers but is quickly
forgotten as the trash it is. And to think, that Dartmouth got me for
the price of a potwasher. I got the short end of the stick, but I am
not complaining. Almost everyone else thinks that Dartmouth gave me
milk and honey and they perceive that because they think none of my
work is true, or has merit. But given time, they will find that I was
correct and they were wrong.
   But I am taking the necessary steps of getting my website saved
should the worse come. And I doubt that any private carrier would
accept me for a Net account, and so, I am looking for a log-on site,
where I can log on and post to the Net without having an account.
Anyone know of such a site?

In article <5bhpbg$hfq@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen Meisner) writes:
>     Mr. Hillman, you explained in another post that mass and kinetic
> energy both contribute to the mass-energy of a particle. A body is
> therefore its total mass-energy. You stated in another post that the
> velocity space of a body is a Lobachevsky geometry. Mr. Archimedes
> Plutonium has stated that the Lobachevsky geometry does not have a zero
> reference point. Since a body with constant velocity has a non-zero
> slope in the Loba geometry, it therefore has a potential energy? The
> start metric of the potential energy can then be calculated because the
> Loba geometry does not have a zero reference point? Could the relation
> between the potential energy and inertial energy be the same as the
> relation between the electric and magnetic fields? The potential field
> induces an inertial field and the inertial field induces a potential
> field: potential flux thereby inducing inertial flux? Since a body is
> nothing but the mass-energy given by the sum of mass and kinetic
> energy, then the motion of a macroscopic body is therefore the
> potential-inertial propagation of the mass?
> 
> Regards,
> Edward Meisner
 I do not know if this counts as a Deja Vu experience. But on Tuesday I
glanced the articles of Science Times , The New York Times 14JAN97 with
the front page title  "New Findings Suggest Massive Black Holes Lurk in
the Hearts of Many Galaxies".
  And I thought to myself how propagandish are all the science
journals, magazines and newspapers for the past 30-50 years in this
Black Hole reporting. I suspect that there is not one article published
in the last 20 years that argues no black holes exist. I suspect that
reporters want the world to believe these black holes from the sheer
flooding of the news media.
  But I am happy that it has been all one sided. For when the day comes
that the world realizes all of this black hole stuff was fakery. That
all science reporting will have to change drastically.
   Not one dissident report to black holes has been permitted in
NATURE, in SCIENCE, and all others for the past 20 years. Propaganda at
its finest. Suppressive communism of science.
  Black Holes from 1950 (probably earlier) that science journals and
news reports have not permitted one contrary opinion regarding the
existence of black holes. All have been in 100% foregone conclusion
that these black holes exist and are numerous. It looks like I am the
sole person in the world saying that black holes are pure hogwash, for
they violate not only Pauli Exclusion principle but the violate all of
physical laws. But that is fine, for my day of glory in the future will
be that much more enormous.
   I am appealing to anybody to form a club, a science club whose
members are those who believe in the non existence of black holes and
sees these objects as science chimeras. Let us band together and start
turning back the tide on this fakery.

On 13 Jan 1997, Lord of the Flies wrote:
> > : Wrong for special relativity's model of the twin paradox.  Because the
> > : twins weren't both in uniform motion.  One accelerated.  In special
> > : relativity, while velocity is relative, acceleration is not. 
> > 
> > : Look it up if you don't believe me.  Say, the relativity FAQ at
> >          I may have gotten this from an old article,
> > but which is it, velocity or acceleration that causes
> > time dilation, I mean true slowing of clocks so they
> > never read the same time when brought back together,
> > even the ticks may coincide.
> > 
> > Ken Fischer 
> 
> Well Ken,  the answer about the acceleration is both.  Both acceleration
> and velocity cause time dilation.  For acceleration, the time dilation will
> change with time.  It is the acceleration which resolves the problem of the
> twin paradox.  This is well documented as it is considered a very good
> relativity problem.
How does acceleration cause time dilation? Why can't we just take a
function that relates speed (which will always be a non-negative number)
to dilation and integrate? The result will be a non-negative number, which
should be "obvious," though I can't come up with a proof on the spur of
the moment. So, if you go away from me, I will see your clock going slower
at each point of your journey, except when you turn around and come back.
Therefore you will have aged less than I have. However, you can make the
same calculations and conclude that I have aged less than you.
I don't see how acceleration is going to solve the issue. Suuppose you
leave, accelerate to 0.9c, coast for a year, decelerate, turn around,
accelerate to 0.9c for the most of the return trip, decelerate, and
finally come home.
Now run the calculations with the same, except that you coast for two
years in each direction instead of one.
Let me know what you find out!
Frank Forman
frank@clark.net
"It is a far, far better thing to be firmly
anchored in nonsense than to put out on the
troubled seas of thought" - John Kenneth Galbraith

Einstein 12
“The presuppositions of the existence (in principle) of (ideal, or
perfect) measureing rods and clocks are not independent of each other: a
light signal that is reflected back and forth between the ends of a
rigid rod constitutes an ideal clock, provided that the postulate of the
constancy of the light velocity in vacuum does not lead to
contradictions. According to the rules of connection, used in
[Newtonian] physics, between the spatial coordinates and the time of
events in the transition from one inertial system to another, the two
assumptions of
(1) the constancy of the light velocity
(2) the independence of the laws (thus especially also of the law of the
constancy of the light velocity) from the choice of inertial system
(principle of special relativity)
are mutually incompatible (despite the fact that both taken separately
are based on experience).”
Einstein is saying that his principle of special relativity i.e., the
speed of light in vacuum is the same exact number c = 186,000 miles/sec
in all inertial frames moving uniformly relative to each other is
incompatible with the Galilean relativity equations of frame
transformations based on Newton’s axiom of absolute time. These Galilean
equations are (in one space dimension)
x’ = x - vt
t’ = t
where x’ is the position of event E at time t’ in a frame S’ moving with
constant relative velocity v  relative to frame S where that same event
E has position x at time t. Note that t’ = t is the mathematical
statement that Newtonian time is absolute. It is impossible for the
speed of light to be the same number c in both frames S’ and S. For
example, suppose the light signal is sent to the right at speed c in
frame S. Frame S’ also moves to the right trying to catch up with the
light signal. The speed of the light signal dx’/dt’ in frame S’ is,
according to the Galilean equations
dx’/dt’ = dx/dt - v = c - v
which contradicts Einstein’s (2). The Michelson-Morley experiment showed
that the above Galilean equations were in fact wrong for very sensitive
optical interferometeric measurements. We do not notice this failure in
ordinary experience because c is so big compared to speeds of things
relative to the Earth’s surface. Even the speeds of the planets and
comets around the Sun are very small compared to c. It took almost
another 20 years before Einstein explained exactly why they were wrong.
Einstein, however, was not initially motivated by the Michelson-Morely
experiment, but, rather, by a disturbing asymmetry in Maxwell’s
equations when forced to conform with Newton’s mechanics. It was like
trying to force a square block in a round hole.
“The insight fundamental for the special theory of relativity is this:
The assumptions (1) and (2) are compatible if relations of  new type
(“Lorentz transformation”) are postulated for the conversion of
coordinates and times of events. With the given physical interpretation
of coordinates and time, this is by no means merely a conventional step
but implies certain hypothesises concerning the actual behavior of
moving measuring rods and clocks, which can be experimentally confirmed
or disproved.”
This last point is important because Poincare and Fitzgerald got
fragments of this before Einstein understood the whole, but they tried
to interpret it as “merely a conventional step” and so they missed the
equivalence of mass to energy. The explosion of the atomic bomb in 1945
was more than a “conventional step”, as is the energy production of
stars, both of which depend on Einstein’s insight here for their proper
explanation as well as manipulation and control. Every fundamental
discovery in physics has profound technological spin-off unforseen at
the time by the discoverer.
“The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is
contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with
respect to Lorentz transformations (for the transition from one inertial
system to any other arbitrarily chosen inertial system). This is a
restricting principle for natural laws, comparable to the restricting
principle of the nonexistence of the perpetuum mobile that underlies
thermodynamics.”
Perplexed by Deep Pockets Chakra’s Quantum Healing?
Here is the Right Stuff
Rabbi Jacob Sarfatti’s Twelve Step Program to Enlightenment :-)
Note the great weight Einstein gives to the classical second law of
thermodynamics. The great principles of physics are IMHO:
1. The action is an extremum.
2. The action is quantized.
3. The classical special and general principles of relativity.
4. The classical second law of thermodynamics.
Note 1 and 4 may be two aspects of a single principle as noted first by
De Broglie that thermodynamic entropy is action in Hawking’s imaginary
time.
5. The classical principle of gauge invariance.
6. Noether’s theorem connecting continuous symmetries with conserved
observables.
7. The quantum superposition principle.
8. The Dirac-Feynman connection of the quantum amplitude to the
classical action of a history.
9. Nonlocal permutation quantum symmetry of identical particles leading
to Bose-Einstein condensates and the Pauli-exclusion principle for the
diversity and stability of ordinary matter.
10. Bohm’s reinterpretation of the quantum principle in terms of a
thoughtlike quantum pilot-wave and a rocklike classical hidden variable
or “beable” and his discovery of the
form-dependent/intensity-independent nonlocal quantum force of thought
on classical matter.
11. Bell’s theorem, that any theory compatible with the statistical
predictions of quantum mechanics must be nonlocal if there is to be a
unique objective classical reality.
12. The post-quantum back-action principle which breaks the chains
restricting thought and matter to both classical determinism and quantum
randomness, unifying them into a sentient self-determining higher-level
living whole greater than the reductionist sum of their dead lower-level
parts.? (Maybe - let experiment decide, but that will take many years.)

osniezko@rogers.com wrote:
>In article  mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) writes:
>>From: mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie)
>>Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
>>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 17:02:32 -0800
>>In article <32D83882.6B70@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins 
>>wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> So far as alcohol goes, yes, it was right. However, please note that 
>>> about 50% of the aforementioned thinking sots were either Yanks or Brits 
>>> or Canadians (wot's the derogatory terms for them?). And I only know 
>>Canucks?
>There is also "cakes" as in "mungie (sp?) cakes"
Frostbacks, cheese heads.....
Geo
If atheism ever becomes a capital offense,
then I want to be regarded as the Charles Manson
of atheism. - Geo

wf3h@enter.net writes:
>who was it that said canada could have had english govt, american know
>how and french culture....instead they got english know how, american
>culture and french govt....:-)
Ah... that's Quebec.
Sean

I am a physicist trying to find more information on the behavior of a fluid 
jet tha becomes unstable due to large finite disturbances. I am particularily
interested in a jet of supersonic gas in air and in a very high speed jet of
liquid in air. 
 I found some stuff about "wave-like" or "snake-like" instabilities for liquid 
jets in Levich's "Physicochemical Hydrodynamics" but it's not exactely what 
I'm after.
I would really appreciate if you can indicate some basic articles or books
on the matter, besides the "classics" of Taylor and Weber. By the way, do
you know of any English or French translation of Weber's article "Zum
Zerfall eines Flussigkeitsstrahles" appeared in Zeitschrift fur angewandte
Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 11, No.2, April 1931 ? Or are there other
articles by Weber on the same subject?
Thank you in advance.

In article <5bkl9r$pqv@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, cliff_p@actrix.gen.nz (Cliff Pratt) writes:
>>
>Your point? There is no theory that says that the earth has a constant
>value. However there are theories that require C and Pi to be constant.
You're confusing matters which don't belong together.  C is a physical 
constant, Pi is a mathematical one.  These are different things.  To 
wit, C is postulated to be constant and so far all experiments confirm 
this.  It may remain so or it may change.  Pi, on the other hand, is a 
defined constant and as such it is guaranteed to remain constant till 
the end of eternity.
That's also where the previous poster erred, wrapping together the 
facts that both C and Pi aren't known with an infinite precision.  
Again, different story.  While Pi can never be known with infinite 
precision, it can be calculated to an arbitrary number of digit.  As 
for C, the precision is limited by experimental abilities.  As I said, 
different story.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

crjclark  wrote in article
<32D986FF.3377@Prodigy.Net>...
In the spirit of my hero, Jonathan Swift, I would like to make a modest
modal proposal.
As we all know the intense the genetic,  psychological, physiological,
neurological, philosophical,
anthropological and cultural deteriorations have contributed to the
existence of atonality.   The deterioration is not only manifested in
music, but in every aspect of the human experience.  When real music was
being composed, between the years 1500 to 1650, literacy was in its golden
age.  Every man, woman, and child would spend nearly every waking hour
reading and contemplating the nature of the universe, beauty, and truth. 
They could do this because each one of them had enough servants to tend to
their everyday needs.
Universal truth and love flowed through the land like a song on a summer's
day.  For example, the love and compassion that was demonstrated on St.
Bartholomew's day in France is an example we should all follow.  Can we
return to this golden age? Yes, I believe we can -- if we have the courage.
As we all know, the evils of 20th century music are everywhere.  It is
common knowledge among police officers in the continental USA that George
Crumb is a favorite in every crack house.  In my own city, just yesterday,
it was reported that the theme from Bartok's 3rd string quartet was being
hummed during a drive-by shooting.   Is this merely a coincidence? I think
not.   It is the music that is driving them to this point of desperation.
I propose that we take a vote, here and now, to seize control of the music
of world.  We can start with the conservatories, orchestras, chamber
groups, and work our way to the popular media.    We can do it with a
little stealth.  Silently, each one of us will take our place in the
positions of power until the appointed day.
On the appointed day we start phase one of our campaign. "All Music is
Equal", we say.  Once we have them thinking this, we change it to "All
Music is Equal, But Some Music is More Equal Than Others".   Once the
population is comfortable with this, we change it to "All Music is Equal,
But Modal Music is More Equal Than Others".   After they are comfortable
with this, we change it to "All Modal Music is Equal, Everything Else is
Nothing".   At that point, we have won the salvation of the human race by
sending them back a safe distance from the evils of the now extremely
popular atonal music.
Respectfully
Jonah Barabas
Apologies to both Swift and Orwell for clumsily lifting of ideas.

In article 
 writes:
> These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
> a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
> "already read". You can find the software to process these notices with some
> newsreaders at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW site: http://www.cm.org.
> 
> Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers, with byte counts:
>   1  1810  Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
  I need to know if this site is available for me to log on, without an
account in order to post to the Net? If Dartmouth pulls my account, I
need another site to log on where I can post to the Net

In article <32DB5E16.167E@physchem.ox.ac.uk>, Malcolm Walters
 wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alot of baloney snipped
   Gentlemen,
   This man is looney tunes.  He's been posting this drivel on other
newsgroups for quite a while.  If we all ignore him he'll eventually go
away.
-- 
Kirk Mueller    kdmueller@ccgate.hac.com
Hughes Aircraft Co., Sensor and Communications Systems Segment
El Segundo, CA 90245

In article <32DD853F.6988@prodigy.net>, crjclark   wrote:
>Imagine an observer travelling at a constant rate of speed in a
>synchrotron.  
Ok, got it.
>He is gradually accelerated until he reaches the speed
>of sound.  
Gotcha.
>Atonal music is playing through loudspeakers located in
>the synchrotron corridor. 
Right, ok.
>When the atonal music resonates
                       ^^^^^^^^^
Oops, you lost me.  Could you explain what it means for atonal music
to resonate?  Could you do it precisely?
In fact, do these two things in this order:
(1) Explain what 'precision language' means to you.
(2) Explain what it means for atonal music to resonate.
Thanks!
MM

Faster than light travel is not possible. At the same time nor is Einstein's
Relativity viable. These are consequences of the theory which begins 
something like this: 
31-12-96
revised 1-1-97
Notes on the structure of reality - article 3
(first draft)
by Gary Forbat
Copyright (c) G. Forbat 1996
It may now be convenient to extend and qualify some of the main 
concepts derived from the theory. In the previous essays I described 
a process of material formation which provides the basis for the 
observed material reality. The process operates through a building 
procedure which involves a relationship between the physical 
magnitudes of structures, that is, the volume they occupy, and the 
rapidity of their internal cycles. Moreover, the process is universal, 
ranging over an infinity of scale tranformations from the most 
miniscule sizes to the most gigantic imaginable, in fact infinite in 
both directions. 
But it is not a single dimensional process involving only scale. What 
is peculiar about the sequence is that the smaller structures of
the micro world are highly dynamic due to an extremely rapid internal 
cycle operating to hold it together, and the smaller the structure, 
the more dynamic it is. Dynamics refers to the rapidity of the 
cyclical pulse. As particles break down to the cyclical funtion of a 
number of smaller components, those components will have a 
significantly more rapid internal cyclical rate than those of the 
larger structure they contribute to forming. The atomic structure, 
for instance, comes into being due to the cyclical function of the 
electron in relation to the nucleus. The composition of the electron 
has not yet been penetrated, but the possibilities are few. Either it 
is composed of a very large number of tiny parts, or maybe fewer but 
of a much higher dynamicity. The nucleus, on the other hand, is known 
to break down to combinations of smaller, but much more dynamic parts
known as 'quarks'. Quarks themselves must reduce to even smaller 
components, with cyclical rates of increasingly more rapidity. The
many qualities of quarks testify to a variance of configurations. 
The quantum proportions testify to this very nature. With the 
process of reduction infinite, so with it is the increase in 
dynamicity. 
We are fortunate enough to be able to observe two vastly different 
aspect of the material process. The micro scales of phenomena present 
an integrated view of average behaviour over many billions of cycles. 
Imagine how the solar system would look if billions of planetary 
cycles were pressed into a single second. Theoretically at least, it 
would be possible to simulate the effect by taking a long term video 
of the solar system in motion over many billions of years, and then 
replaying the tape over a matter of seconds. Undoubtedly we could 
make computer image simulations of it much more easily. 
Then there is the almost static view of the process presented 
by the structures of the large scale in their 'real time' cyclical 
movements. Our viewpoint of stellar formations is fashioned from the 
workings of the atomic structure, and compared to the speed and 
capacity of the functioning of our instruments and sensing apparatus, 
the stellar structures are both extremely large and so slowly evolving 
as to be almost static. But now, let's venture to reconstruct in its 
broadest principles the consequences of this infinite sequence of 
structuring, not only to determine the status of our own viewpoint 
within it, but to attempt to discover general principles that may be 
directly affecting us and we are not yet aware of. Firstly, going up 
or down in scale, the specific attributes of structure types that 
occur depend on the interactive possibilities afforded on each  
particular scale. Solar systems of one type or another, whether 
binary or planetary are the almost exclusive forms that may be found 
at the scale of the direct interaction between the most massive 
atomic conglomerations. At this scale of consideration the universe 
can be seen to be interspersed with stellar and planetary matter in 
mutual interaction as solar systems. But we know that solar systems, 
in turn, almost exclusively congregate in the larger massive 
formations of galaxies, occuring in a small number of types. Galaxies 
themseves form clusters with unique characteristics types of their own. 
On the galactic scale of consideration the universe can be seen as 
interspersed almost exclusively by galactic formations. Certainly they 
are the only long term stable forms to be found at this scale. 
In fact we can apply this principle at any level of magnitude. Thus
the universe is interspersed by atoms at the atomic scale of 
consideration but with planetary/stellar matter on a larger scale.
So then, as the process builds to infinity, with each structure type 
occuring in forms and attributes appropriate to interaction and 
formation possibilities at that scale. Each transformation produces 
unique structure types, and there is certainly no likelyhood of the 
same structure type occuring at different levels either in the micro 
and macro scales. 
Both the reduction and its reverse process of expansion runs to infinity,
with the roots of each or any structure traceable in infinite steps
toward smaller scales. But this does not work in the reverse toward the
macro. The reason is that not all structures continue to build outward 
forever. Large sections of it terminate at a certain level, as in the 
case of the structures that intersperse in our seemingly empty spatial  
regions. My findings are that these regions are far from empty. 
The entire spatiality in fact contains a fine invisible mist of matter, 
structured at its highest level to an interactive fabric to form 
a micro infrastructure which sets the framework for the workings of 
our atomic based matterial environment. But only those elements
which participate in further building processes to form the atomic 
base can get through to build outward to form structures on larger 
scales. The rest, indeed a very large portion of micro material,
is lost to further structuring. In this infinite chain of 
expansions it should be expected that terminal stages are reached 
from time to time. Nevertheless, what remains after each of these 
mass terminations is still adequete to reconstruct other equally 
thickly populated levels of structures on much larger scales.    
So what is the status of our material system amid this infinity of 
transformation levels ? On the micro end we observe the process through
a very high integration, but on the macro end it tends toward static. 
With the two directions reflecting merely different aspects of a 
single process, our observational access results from the circumstances 
of our evolution as sensing beings and our relation to the material 
interaction that brought it about. We are a direct product of our 
micro infrastructure and the atomic base. The question remains 
whether ours is the only material environment possible or whether
there may be others ? Perhaps other configurational circumstances can 
exist among an infinity of types which produces alternative material 
bases. 
We need firstly to examine the general circumstances which must be 
present for a material environment. Obviously the most evident 
is the versatility of our atomic structure. It is extremely stable 
and durabile with, stability, regularity, as well as variability in
chemical combination. It is truly like a wonder particle which goes on 
to create a tremendously varied and interactive world of material  
activity. Surely it would be fairly rare to find a scale level of 
structuring where such a useful type of particle is found. 
Nevertheless it stands to reason that in a infinite chain of 
transformations other similarly efficient structure types are bound 
to occur. some may indeed be even more flexible than the atom, or 
perhaps somewhat less so,  but still able to generate a causal 
evolution in its conglomerate forms to create an alternative material 
environment rivalling ours. Of course on the micro scales a funtional
world would evolve extremely rapidly compared to ours, and on the macro 
scales the events would take on gigantic proportions, evolving very 
slowly by our way of looking at it. 
G. Forbat
to be continued in the next article                      

In article <32da4830.8899155@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
alien.spydr@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 06:44:18 GMT, daverees@ix.netcom.com (Dave Rees) wrote:
> 
> 
>  That is an excellent "question", and would apply to my position. What is the
> evidence that the past, (previous existance) still exists, to be accessed and
> entered, physically.
> 
>
>                             a. s.
There is theoretical evidence:  If you travelled so that on a light cone
diagram  the velocity slope would be greater than 90 degrees, you would
travel backwards in time.  Alcubiere found a way to theoretically do this
by manipulating space-time.
-- 
Luke Conlin
Tufts University
lconlin@emerald.tufts.edu

Can someone tell me what physically a violin does when we play it?  
How a vibration of the string vibrates the sound box and the plates...
and ......
--
Posted using Reference.COM                         http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post         Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.

On 12 Jan 1997 18:47:21 GMT, "Peter Diehr"  wrote:
>Eric Flesch wrote in article
>> Your statement makes hidden assumptions about the macroscopic
>>nature of the Universe, one assuption being that has boundaries by
>> which it can be sized.  Take these boundaries away and your
>> statement is wrong.
> 
>Under GR, the universe is expanding, but there are still no
>boundaries.
...  (etc etc)
Yeah Yeah OK, look, I meant "boundary conditions", OK?   Examples of
such boundary conditions are total volume, diameter, etc, all right?
sheesh...   :-(
Eric

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:51:30 -0600, steveb@tds.bt.co.uk wrote:
>  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.
Light is composed of photon particles which move in probability-based
wave-like patterns.  The photons themselves have no wave-like
properties, they are just particles.
Eric

|| Does this experience sound familiar to you?
|| 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?
Yes, it has happened to me.  Usually it occurs in that half-and-half
awake-sleep state that one gets into after pulling an all-nighter cramming
for a Calculus final.
Sometimes the proofs seem feasable, but most of the time they are just
silly - like the time I thought I had proven (by thinking about
intersections of graphs) that all numbers were equal to 3.
-Mike
___________________________________________________________ 
Michael Anttila aka PsychoMan of Craw Productions 
2B Pure Math / Computer Science at U. of Waterloo, Canada
E-Mail:   manttila@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
Homepage: http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~manttila/
Craw Productions: craw@magi.com, http://www.magi.com/~craw/

The reason is quite simple.  Check out
http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics
and ask for a email copy of Correlational
Opponent Processing.  Ron Blue

wf3h@enter.net wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 21:19:33 GMT, Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >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?
The idea that religion equals Christianity may be too narrow a view for
these arguments.  Religion is no more than a system of beliefs --
subjective or objective.  In order for a scientist to begin research,
some existing ideas must be accepted as fact.  That doesn't necessarily
mean that they are.  And invariably, the theories of one generation
have to give way to the "facts" of the next.  That may not be religion
in the popular sense, but it does necessitate a kind of faith.
I would tend to agree with Michael Talbot's assertion:
    We ARE addicted to our beliefs and we DO act like addicts when
    someone tries to wrest from us the powerful opium of our dogmas.
    (The Holographic Universe, p. 6)
Mind you, that statement could apply to those on both sides of this
argument.  However, I think that your feverishly sarcastic reply
betrays your own insecurities regarding your scientific beliefs.
(...and I am a scientist, not a creationist)

Yeah, he made a mistake.  Change the '^' (caret) with a "~" (tilde). 
The tilde is commonly used as a first character for a user's address
space in  web servers.  Good luck, looks to me like a lot of ---- to
wade through.
Keith Holden wrote:
> 
> Ron Wormus wrote:
> >
> > For a present day eample of opposition to the accepted wisdom take a look at these files:
> >
> >                 http://www.europa.com/^rsc/physics/B3/evans
> >
> > ___RonIs there an error in the URL? I get a not found error message.
> 
> kah
-- 
Allen R. Sampson
Advanced Research Systems
317 North 4th. Street
St. Charles, IL 60174
PH 630.513.7093   FAX 630.513.7092   Email: ars@sem.com   
WWW: http://www.mcs.net/~ars/index.html
repair and maintenance services for analytical instrumentation

On 1997-01-15 01bc018d$a10e0b80$ee26efa8@jblood said:
   >How does acceleration cause time dilation?
   One must first realize that whenever something exists, it contributes to
   space-time. The something (particle, John Doe, Nike Sneakers.. whatever)
   has a field that interacts with the fields of everything else.
   >Why can't we just take a function that relates speed (which will always
   >be a non-negative number) to dilation and integrate? The result will be a
   >non-negative number, which should be "obvious," though I can't come
   >up with a proof on the spur of the moment.
   Einsteins equations model time dialation pretty damn well, I don't see a
   need for a new theory until we can discount the old one first.
   >So, if you go away from me, I will see your clock going slower at each
   >point of your journey, except when you turn around and come back.
   >Therefore you will have aged less than I have.
   That is one big illogical 'therefore'.
   When he turns around and comes back, you see his clock speed up again
   don't you? In the end your clocks sync back up (all other things being
   equal) ...
   This is a different effect than time dialation. It is called the dopler
   effect.
   Time dialation is
        1) Thermaodynamics speeding up/slowing down
     or 2) An actual change in rate of passage through a dimension called Time.
  ..or maybe something else entirely..
  But its not a doppler effect.
--: 'jury' .. 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty
Net-Tamer V 1.08 Beta - Test Drive

In article <5bgr30$jfg@mn5.swip.net>, mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
> According to Hans-Uno Bengtssons book "Kvarken och Universum" (highly
> recomended, contains both explainations and mathematics), half of the
> angle is due to time dialation and half to space curvature. The result
> of the newtonian equation responds to the time dialation bit, so the
> difference that GR predicts has to do with the curving of space.
Right. (Actually, it's *all* due to curvature-- *spacetime* curvature.
But half of it is due to spatial curvature, and the other half can be
expressed as variable time dilation.)
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <5bkl9r$pqv@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, cliff_p@actrix.gen.nz (Cliff Pratt) writes:
>>>
>>Your point? There is no theory that says that the earth has a constant
>>value. However there are theories that require C and Pi to be constant.
>You're confusing matters which don't belong together.  C is a physical 
>constant, Pi is a mathematical one.  These are different things.  To 
>wit, C is postulated to be constant and so far all experiments confirm 
>this.  It may remain so or it may change.  Pi, on the other hand, is a 
>defined constant and as such it is guaranteed to remain constant till 
>the end of eternity.
>That's also where the previous poster erred, wrapping together the 
>facts that both C and Pi aren't known with an infinite precision.  
>Again, different story.  While Pi can never be known with infinite 
>precision, it can be calculated to an arbitrary number of digit.  As 
>for C, the precision is limited by experimental abilities.  As I said, 
>different story.
>Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
>meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
E(electron) = C threre for a mathematical constant.
gator