Newsgroup sci.physics 216202

Directory

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"
What you don't know about Pi can hurt you.  The precision of Pi is 
limited by the experimental abilities of man, same as C.  Any digit of 
Pi can be extracted without knowledge of the previous digits.  This 
statement maybe hard to believe, so I suggest you go to;
      http://www.mathsoft.com/asolve/plouffe/plouffe.html
There you will find information on a paper by Bailey-Bowein-Plouffe 
called "On the rapid computation of various polylogarithmic constants". 
Pi is a physical property of a circle, sphere, hypersphere, 
hyperhypersphere, radiowave, ripples in a pond, earth, sun, moon, the 
iris of your eyeball.  All of these things can not exist without Pi.  
Maybe this suggests two seperate values of Pi, a physical Pi, and a 
mathmatical Pi.
Jim Akerlund

Can anyone kindly tell me what are the factors that affect the radius of 
a step wave?

mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: >       If you have two spheres of the same material, one having
: >twice the radius of the other, and the first has a 1 g surface
: >gravity, the second will have a 2 g surface gravity, and this
: >is true in Newtonian gravitation, and it is true in Divergent
: >Matter.    For the same density material, surface gravity is
: >directly proportional to radius.
: >       If you can buy this, I'll work on the distance part,
:
: I can buy this. But I don't see how the acceleration relates to other
: objects, the hidden outward velocity makes all objects expand at the
: same rate, and it is the expansion that makes the space between
: objects decrease.
        If you are using the physics we observe, only the
acceleration matters, the hidden velocity is totally masked
by the lengthening units of measure.
        Even in the underlying physics, things do not expand
at the same rate, they simply double in the same amount of
time, which means that large objects have to expand faster
than small objects, and higher density objects expand more
by acceleration than by residual velocity.
        The acceleration part of the expansion makes any
expansion non-linear.
: Can you buy this: the attraction of two objects with stationary mass
: centres is independent of mass and distance?
        No, I can't even consider it.    The underlying physics
is meaningless to observations made with physical objects and
in flat space or flat spacetime.
        Divergent Matter is a model of underlying physics, and
is more revealing in that it separates processes into several
different components.
        I consider the fact that Divergent Matter models the
depth of a gravity well as two components, acceleration and
velocity of the surface, and velocity is supposed to be the
cause of time dilation, a fact that surely has some meaning.
        It is much easier to perform thought experiments with
the Earth and a test body, and only the acceleration should
be used unless the full worldline history is considered.
: I am certain that I have proved this in my thought experiment. The
: only thing (that I can come up with) that might save your theory is
: motion of the mass centres. Is that what you're trying to show?
       If objects are separated, they have a velocity of
separation, yes, in the underlying physics, this must be 
considered, else the physics doesn't work.
       Even in Newtonian gravitation you have to be sure
to account for motion of mass centers, except in Newtonian
gravitation, much of the physics is all piled into the
apparent attraction simplification.
       The underlying physics of Divergent Matter involves
more parameters, and is therefore more basic, but in the
process, the unsatisfactory "action at a distance" thing
is eliminated and a workable physical cause is provided. 
: >: >       Photons don't "pull" at large distances.   If they
: >: >did, you could apply pulsating DC to an antenna, and it
: >: >would either push things or pull them depending on the
: >: >polarity.
: >: >       If that works, great, it will make fantastic
: >: >things possible.   
: >:  
: >: Have you heard about electromagnets ? :-)
:
: >         Yes, and I have seen big ones, and they have very
: >little range, and only work on certain materials.
: Photons in action ! They work on electrical charges and some metals
: (in which the atoms behave like small magnets).
: Certainly the range is longer that an atom !
       I don't know how electromagnets work, the range is
more than atomic, but falls off faster than light or gravity.
       And only certain materials are attracted or repulsed,
while gravity appears to work the same regardless of the
material.
: That's my second objection to your theory. Your net repulsion model.
: It is not necessary if your theory can produce orbital motion (can
: it?).
       The net repulsion is still at atomic or molecular
range, it is essentially a contact interaction, that is
why it is additive, and that is how it gets it's great
power in large objects.
       I think orbits are a problem, but I still think
General Relativity has the same problem.
: >         A couple of people feel that electrostatic charge
: >can explain gravity, but I think we would notice the static
: >electricity.
:
: Yes of course. I don't say that. I just say that if photons can
: explain EM, it is possible that gravity could be explained by exchange
: particles as well. These particles would be attractive only and affect
: all mass.
: Mathias Ljungberg
        It is important to separate the propagated spectrum 
of EM from the electromagnet part.
        The propagated spectrum is not attractive as far as
I know, and isn't even very strong at pushing, it carries
99 percent of it's energy in the transverse component, it
will burn through steel, yet will not lift steel against
against gravity.
        I would be only too happy if it was discovered that
an electromagnet could counteract gravity for all known
materials, that would mean that everyone's dreams of space
travel would be easier to achieve.
       But in the meantime, I will have to continue to
study Divergent Matter, and try to see how it can provide
the underlying physics of General Relativity.
Ken Fischer 

On 16 JAN 97 20:59:23 GMT, in sci.skeptic, mellyrn@enh.nist.gov wrote:
>In a previous article, Ewen Charlton  wrote:
>->Dark Dante wrote:
>->> 
>->> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:06:37 GMT, casanova@crosslink.net (Bob
>->> Casanova) found a Biro and scribbled:
>->> 
>->> >On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:41:20 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>->> >=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.com= (     >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<
>->> >) wrote:
>->> 
>->> >>Sunlight is the source of all life on the planet.
>->> 
>->> >Yes, it is
>->> 
>->> No it isn't!
>->> 
>->> What about those organisms that live by feeding off sulphur plumes at
>->> the bottom of the sea?
>->>                Dark Dante Lives On!
>-> 
>-> 
>->Aha, but would these lifeforms have evolved in the first place without
>->the sun's energy? I thought that the 'primordial soup' was the result of
>->chemical reactions caused by either solar radiation or lightning
>->(indirectly caused by sunlight).
>
>What does solar radiation have that nuclear radiation ain't got?
Well, since solar radiation is powered by thermonuclear energy, not a
hell of a lot.
>Ionization is a fun way to stir up chemical mischief, however it's
>caused.
Sure. But I doubt if the Earth's internal heat would be sufficient to
keep the oceans even partially liquid. I could, of course, be wrong;
corrections welcome.
>
>
>---mellyrn
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>speaking only for myself
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

I've been thinking about this one a long time, asked a few people, got no 
satisfactory answers.  Hope you can help.
The Situation:
Your standing in an almost perfect Faraday cage.  There is just one small 
hole in the cage wall big enough to throw a quarter through without 
hitting the wall.  Your Faraday cage is perfectly insulated from the 
ground.  Now your cage gets hit by lightning.  
(Obviously this is an extreme case of being in a car hit by lightning.)
The Physics:
Since you are in a Faraday cage there is no potential gradient inside.  
Therefore no charge enters the cage beyond some skin depth on the outer 
surface of the cage, which we will assume is small compared to the wall 
thickness.
Although there is no potential grad. inside the cage, the entire cage has 
a significant potential with respect to the ground because the lightning 
stroke just dumped 20 C of charge on it.
You and the quarters you are carrying are at the same potential as the
cage, well above the potential of the ground.  When you throw a quarter
out the small hole you should get a spark as the quarter nears the 
ground.  If you could jump out of the cage you should be hit by a similar 
spark, even if you are not in contact with the cage after you jump.
The Problem:
No charge entered the Faraday cage (it is all on the surface of the cage). 
What cause the increase in electrical potential energy inside the cage that 
brings you and the quarters to the potential of the cage?  What changes 
in your physical-electrical state?
Maybe this is obvious to someone, but it has had me stumped for a while.  
Your help is much appreciated.
Pete
---------------
Peter Berdeklis
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto

--- quoting NATURE 9Jan97, The Universe is a Lattice ---
   What are the largest structures in the Universe? On page 139,
Einasto et al report the latest attempt to elucidate the organization
of the Universe on the 100-million parsec scale, by looking at the
three-dimensional distribution of galaxy clusters. Startlingly, they
see hints of a pattern: although the data are sketchy and the
interpretation depends on details of the catalogue of clusters used,
the network of superclusters and voids seems to form a
three-dimensional lattice with a size of ~120 h^-1 Mpc (where h^-1 is
the Hubble constant in units of 100 km s^-1 Mpc^-1).
--- end quoting NATURE 9Jan97, The Universe is a Lattice ---
  The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation MWBR is related to the
distribution of galaxies. In an Atom Totality, the MWBR is perfectly
uniform. Forget about the recent claim that MWBR has fluctuations.
Those are not fluctuations but instead, the limit of precision of our
current measuring devices on MWBR. As the decades go by and newer
equipment is engineered to measure MWBR, then our present alleged
fluctuations will disappear.
  In an Atom Totality, the mass and matter of the universe is perfectly
and evenly distributed in such a way as the electron cloud distribution
of the 5f6 of 231PU is evenly distributed.
  The universe as a Lattice does not make sense in either a Big Bang
theory nor in the Steady State theory.

In article <32DE3E76.390F@europa.com>, Jim Akerlund  writes:
>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"
>
>What you don't know about Pi can hurt you.  The precision of Pi is 
>limited by the experimental abilities of man, same as C.  
No, it isn't.  Check the same source you suggested.  Then suggest a 
procedure for determining the 20th digit of C.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> Im Artikel <5bg47i$dc7@dscomsa.desy.de>, vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick
> van Esch) schreibt:
...
> >: my prediction: the constraint gyro will 'fall' just as slow as the non
> >: constraint one (which does fall in the end, doesn't it). Whilst doing
> this
> >: it will work its rotational energy up against friction (just like the
> >: other one)....
> >
> >Nope.  If it is really constrained (and that's the trick: it 
> >might be that a gyro seems to be constrained, but 
> >actually the bindings are loose enough to allow the
> >(very tiny) nutation motions - the point Russell was 
> >talking about) the "gyro" will fall like a stone, no 
> >matter how hard it is spinning.  Of course, when
Well, the spinning rate always has *some* effect, unless
the system's total moment of inertia is infinite.  Otherwise,
angular momentum could not be conserved.  In my hypothetical
system, I was really imagining an infinitely massive Earth
rigidly connected to the gyro's mounting; only then could
falling occur without (at least a very tiny) nutation.  But 
of course, such a system is impossible anyway.
> >falling, it will exert a HUGE torque on the bindings
Infinite torque (in the ideal case).  Any torque acting
perpendicular to the pivot has zero component parallel to
the torque due to gravity; hence no finite magnitude will
suffice to resist gravity.  
It's exactly like asking what happens if you hang a weight 
from a (hypothetical) perfectly horizontal clothesline.  
Impossible; the tension is infinite.  Of course, any real 
system will distort in some way to make the tension finite.
And so, also, the torque.
> Hmm. Couldn't we use this HUGE torque to turn a generator???? :-)  I knew
Yes, you could.  But once it turns the slightest amount,
the torque is no longer infinite.  You will get finite
work out of your generator, no more than that provided by
gravity and by loss of rotational energy in the gyro.
> the fish would come back one day. You ever said that father eskimo had no
> problem whatsoever to stop the pot from turning around, there would be no
> torque excerted and thus no generator driven. Gotcha! No? Shit :-(....
Sorry, this must be a reference to a joke that hasn't arrived
yet on my newsserver.  going on...
> >(and if those bindings give in, well, then the nutation
> > will be possible and the gyro will again act as a real
> >gyro).  But if the binding holds it will drop.   
> How many mechanical experiments did you ever do in your life?
Ok, ok... this is really not such a hard thing to do.  First
the nonrotating gyro:  Release it, it falls on its pivot and 
oscillates (as a pendulum) until it damps out in a vertical
position. 
Now give the gyro a tiny spin, and do the same experiment.
Is there a detectible difference?  Not if the mass, i.e.
the gravitational torque, is large enough to make the spin
negligible by comparison.  (Surely you don't claim it will 
stay magically aloft at *any* rate of spin?)  Note that
the twist in the pivot will oscillate as the gravitational 
torque reverses itself due to the pendulum motion.  But
let's say this is still not detectable, our spin is so slow.
Put the whole apparatus on a frictionless turntable and do
it again.  Again, no detectable difference, assuming that
the moment of inertia about the vertical axis is moderate.
Only when we increase the gyro's spin does the oscillation of
the turntable start to become noticable.  In fact, at some
rate of spin -- not very fast, indeed -- the gyro's initial 
fall will stop before it reaches vertical, and the turntable 
will (jerkily at first) precess in one direction only, instead
of reversing direction.  When the oscillations damp out, the
gyro will be at some angle between vertical and horizontal,
precessing stably around on the turntable.
Get the gyro up to 3000 rpm, and it will still oscillate when
you drop it; but hardly perceptibly, barely below horizontal.
The turntable will move at its final precession rate practically 
instantaneously, and the angle of the gyro will stabilize only 
slightly below horizontal.  Clearly, it's "working like a gyro".
Now, add mass to the turntable to increase its I, and repeat
the family of experiments.  You will find the same behavior
occurs, but greater spin is required to produce the same effect
on the heavier turntable.  At some value of I, you could set 
the gyro spinning at, say, 1 rpm and still not detect any 
difference from "normal" pendulum behavior.
The same applies to 3000 rpm, except that the turntable would have 
to be much heavier.  I'm certain the Earth is of sufficient mass!
But as has repeatedly been pointed out, no known materials would 
permit such an experiment to go that far.
> >Those nutation motions (which contain the whole 
> >secret of the gyroscopic effect) are really really tiny.
Yes, for the original poster's 3000 rpm gyro.  Note that our
intuitions are helped by considering slower spins, for which
the nutation is clearly visible.  Like a wobbly top.  At a
slow enough spin, the nutation looks like a pendulum swing.
> How tiny? I mean, is there anything you can say like: if your gyro's axle
> has a length of 10 cm and is spinning at a rate of x rpm with a disc
> weighing y kg, then the free end of the axle is not allowed to nutate more
> than 0.x mm to make the thing drop like a stone? But if it can nutate
In principle, the slightest rotation will cause it to drop
differently from a stone.  But not *perceptibly* different, 
given appropriate parameters.  My point, admittedly strained,
was that given perfect materials, there are always some such
parameters, whatever the gyro's spin rate might be.
> about 1 mm, it will happily keep itself up more or less? Sorry, but to
> anyone with a little bit of mechanical intuition, that sounds rather
> ridiculous. Yeah, I know, gyros are ridiculous :-)
Not ridiculous.  They just seem to have a mind of their own,
sometimes.  And they *will* have their way. :-)
> Cheerio
> The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
> Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
> __________________________________
> Lorenz Borsche
> Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
> be added to any commercial mailing list.
> Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
--
Russell Blackadar,   russell@mdli.com

Hello,
Could anyone please explain to me the principle of
"charge transfer absorption", which occurs in crystals
somewhere in the ultraviolet. References are welcome,
too, of course
Thanks,
			Thomas

Gregoire wrote:
> Perhaps to awaken in the Absolute Present (which is, of course, already
> here and now), one would have to *see through* a lifetime's worth of
> illusion-building.
Thanks for the nice post.

I am a six grade student and I need to know about Newton's Third Law in
plain English please.  I would also like to know how it applies to bouncy
balls.
Please leave a message and tell.  I'M IN DESPERATE NEED!!!!
Thank You
Scott Tindle
P.S.  You could also e-mail me at STindle@aol.com

In article <32DE2D18.1D3D@cdc.com>, Dave Monroe  writes:
>Saw on the CBS evening news last night where
>the US shipped 80 grams of plutonium to Viet Nam
>prior to the war for one reason or another.
>When the commies overran the south, our guys
>grabbed the wrong container and the Viet Cong
>were left with the goods.
>
>Anybody know if 80 grams of plutonium could be
>used to make a small weapon?
>
No, that's too little.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <32DB7945.234@lanl.gov>
"Rebecca M. Chamberlin"  writes:
> Absorption of a neutron by U-238 leads to two beta decays to form 
> Pu-239.  One particle in, two particles out.  Hmmmm....sounds like 
> entropy is increasing.
> 
> BTW the neutron could come from the spontaneous fission of U-238 (a 
> minor, but non-zero probability event).
  My Gedanken Experiment does not need to go into specifics. It is the
fact that if you take say 1 atom of uranium in isolation and no other
surrounding energy exists. And when that one atom of U decays, if the
2nd law is a correct law of physics, then the new decay products would
never be an atom of neptunium. It is hard to visualize this happening
with one atom of U. But take 2 atoms of U or a sample of 10^22 where no
other surrounding energy exists. If the 2nd law were correct, given any
future time there should never be any higher atomic number there than
uranium. But alas, there is.
  The 2nd Law is in need of repair and it needs an additional term
which up to now has been unrecognized. The 2nd Law in fact mirror
images the process of radioactivity decay and growth. Up until now,
people have only seen and respected the decay portion and they have
utterly overlooked the radioactive growth portion of radioactivity.

In article ,
Troy Varange  wrote:
>
>Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
>than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
>
	Ha!  "You're not a `common man' --- you're just a `mediocrity'!!!"
	What bothers me most is that it was a ton of Ph.D.'s that built
the very same internet that allows you to transmit your own particular
style of brain-death to way more people than deserve it.
>Cheers!
 ,oooooooo8    o     ooooo@math.niu.edu  -==-  http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/
o888'   `88  ,888.    888   
888         ,8'`88.   888 "Hey, you got your chocolate in my cod liver oil!"
888o.   ,oo,8oooo88.  888 "Hey, you got your cod liver oil in my chocolate!"
`888oooo88o88o  o888o 888                       -Common occurrence in the
___________________8o888'________________________days before peanut butter__

In article <32DCDB84.41C67EA6@clipper.ens.fr>
David Madore  writes:
> Adeles and ideles are *not* "tourist curios knick knacks". They play an
> essential role in number theory, but also in the geometry of algebraic
> curves (number fields and function fields have a lot in common). They
> are used extensively in the so-called "class field theory". And,
> needless
> to say, they are a central tool in Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's
> Theorem
> (I'm saying this to annoy you, of course).
 Several parts of mathematics are inventions whose ultimate aim is to
plaster a mirage illusion. I do not know the word for "mirage" in
French, do you David?
  Sure Andy uses these contraptions because he has to circumnavigate
clear around the Earth via the poles just to get to his backyard.
  If FLT were a true math statement here is the proof.
  For exponent 2 there exists an N and M such that N+N= N*N= M. This N
and M form a building block in order to build the *smallest P-triple*
for exp 2.
  For exponent 3 and greater, in order to build the smallest P-triple
we need an N and M such that kN=N^k=M, but no such N and M exists for 3
and greater. Hence Fermat's Last Theorem.
  The reason that is not the proof of FLT is because Naturals = Finite
Integers is imprecise mathematics. Naturals = P-adic Integers is the
truth. And there exists N and M of kN=N^k=M for exponents greater than
2.
  The invention of all of that malarkey you speak of David is a
invention of gobbledygook, of smoke and mirrors to hide and cover up
the fact that FLT is genuinely a false math statement. Wiles proof is a
mirage, and you eat it up David like a debauched croissant lying in the
gutter.
   Has any physicist operated a Foucault pendulum from the Eiffel Tower?

mellyrn@enh.nist.gov wrote:
: In a previous article, Ewen Charlton  wrote:
: ->Dark Dante wrote:
: ->> 
: ->> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:06:37 GMT, casanova@crosslink.net (Bob
: ->> Casanova) found a Biro and scribbled:
: ->> 
: ->> >On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:41:20 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
: ->> >=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.com= (     >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<
: ->> >) wrote:
: ->> 
: ->> >>Sunlight is the source of all life on the planet.
: ->> 
: ->> >Yes, it is
: ->> 
: ->> No it isn't!
: ->> 
: ->> What about those organisms that live by feeding off sulphur plumes at
: ->> the bottom of the sea?
: ->>                Dark Dante Lives On!
: -> 
: -> 
: ->Aha, but would these lifeforms have evolved in the first place without
: ->the sun's energy? I thought that the 'primordial soup' was the result of
: ->chemical reactions caused by either solar radiation or lightning
: ->(indirectly caused by sunlight).
: 
: What does solar radiation have that nuclear radiation ain't got?
: Ionization is a fun way to stir up chemical mischief, however it's
: caused.
Solar radiation is GOOD, nuclear radiation is BAD.  Ain't you got
any pc?     ;-)
     ------- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

jkodish@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
>Ok, folks, here's the nub of the question. Is the effect of the twin 
>paradox really due to accelleration at all? 
>Well, the answer I suspect is, yes and no......
>Why no? Imagine a cylindrical space. One twin sets off in one direction,
>the other stays home....
>The moving twin circumnavigates the universe..(the round direction), and
>returns to his starting point (in space)...The twins compare clocks....
>Does the twin paradox occur? Probably, since it is the "length" of the 
>interval Integrate[ds] that determines these things...
>
You lost me.  How does this scenario alter the effect?  The voyaging
twin must still accelerate to very near the speed of light to
accomplish this feat in one life time.
CA

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:14:06 -0800
David Sepkoski 
as message <32DD72CE.7F09@earthlink.net>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
[snip]
>|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"
.........................................................rigorous
Sorry, couldn't help it  ;-)
>|educations.  That is simply not the case.
>|
>|DS
Erikc -- firewevr@insync.net
Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
Wanna see how sick some fundies are?
http://www.christiangallery.com/    (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger (sicker than ever)
/* Finest Christian porn on the 'Net */

John Murphy  wrote:
>Vincent Lewis wrote:
>> John Murphy wrote:
>> > Whoa- hold on, the Bahai are extremely anti-scientific when it comes
>> > to evolution. They flatly refute it! Some Science.
>> 
>> Whoa- hold on. That's incorrect. Baha'is do not refute evolution. We
>> support the theory of evolution. I don't know where you got that idea.
>> The Baha'i Faith encourages that its followers study science if they so
>> choose (as I am doing).
>> 
>> [rest snipped, as it is based on John's misconception about the Baha'i
>> Faith.]
>I got the Idea from a representative of the Baha'i faith who was
>generous in coming along to and Auckland University Atheist's meeting.
>She was quite adamant that human beings did not evolve. What's
>going on?
I wonder. . . 
1.   What is this triope doing on alt.physics.newtheories?
2.   Bahai advocates the independent individual investigation of truth
3.   You don't seem to have bothered.
4.   You mean you dont have any flakes in atheism?
	There are people in any religion who misdescribe it.
Ciao
Independent thinker.

In article <5b3f3c$5qs@news.fsu.edu>, jac@ibms46.scri.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 think it *was* invented as a teaching tool, in the days when
primitive versions of Fortran were the dominant computer languages.
This is why BASIC in its original form resembles a simplified version
of those horrible ancient Fortrans. Of course, the reason BASIC got
implemented on so many early personal computers probably had more to
do with ease of implementation.
(I once wrote a (for me) big piece of software in the relatively
luxurious VAX Fortran so that it very structured and easy to debug, and
then had to ruin it until it was standard Fortran 77. And Fortran
77 is *far* from the worst kind.)
Better stuff, such as Algol, has existed for a surprisingly long time.
Pascal is essentially a simplified Algol, and C is another distant
Algol-descendant.
BTW, I'd guess that many BASICs *will* evaluate 2^(1/2) as 1 unless you
stick a decimal point in somewhere. The Atari BASIC I grew up on wouldn't,
because it had no integer variables-- even line numbers in GOTO commands
were treated as BCD floating point!
The language I use most these days is Mathematica's, and it would never
do anything so unmathematical by default...
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

In article 
R-Rostrom@bgu.edu (Rich Rostrom) writes:
> The entire cabinet is replaced when a new President comes in, as
> a rule. No cabinet level officers have been retained through a change
> in Presidential party since at least the early 19th century, though
> some have stayed on into a same-party successor's term.
I heard that in parliamentary democracy all cabinet officials could
face a vote of no confidence which requires an election in a short
time. Thus , perhaps the Vietnam era of the cabinet of McNamara,
Rostow, and the other *Brightest & Best* (book written on that subject)
could have been called for a election due to lack of confidence.
  I keep hearing these terms that in the US democracy system there is a
_Shadow government_ that really runs the show and that they are seldom
changed but stay there from one term to another.

In article <01bc01b0$0a8213a0$c7cebe84@sirius.osi.varian.com>
"Albie"  writes:
> I guess you live in the good ol' USA.
> Australia has a parliamentary form of government under the same system as
> the UK.
> Australia attended that war.
 I think I have seen every US movie pertaining to Vietnam. Australia
has an excellent movie industry. I liked Gallipoli. Has Australia
produced any movie on their involvement in Vietnam? Please list as many
titles as you can

In article 
mbusse@midway.uchicago.edu (Marty Busse) writes:
> And then there's the fictional example of PM Urquhart, who starts a war 
> in Cyprus to build his memory, the phrase "Frances, this could be our 
> Falklands" dripping from his wife's lips.....
I don't understand the above. But perhaps the better comparison between
a parliamentary UK system from the US system is to make economic
comparisons. Some comparison that does not involve the fact that the US
dollar is a world currency. Perhaps there is some unbiased measuring
rod, an economic rod, that compares UK to US systems.
  Perhaps one easy degree of comparison is the cost of government per
the two societies. Some data as to cost of government per capita for US
and UK.
  I would think that if the UK got some great politicians in, they
could last for 20 years in office and so that saves the UK of these
billious costs of elections every 4 years in the US.
  Anyone have a cost analysis between UK govt and US govt?

In article <5bhqto$ru8@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
coriolan@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius) writes:
> Although the Democrats bear the ultimate responsibility for bogging the
> US down in Vietnam, they did so in no small part to avoid looking
> "soft" in the face of Republican criticism; Republicans were inclined
> to hold a harder line.
> 
> I;m not sure this dynamic would have been any different under a
> parliamentary system.
> 
>     - CMC
Perhaps it is better for the world that each country has a different
form of government. Like trying to impose one language on every nation.
And perhaps it is impossible to have every country government the same.
Perhaps the new Russian democracy will teach some new tricks to the old
democracies.

In article <5bh510$8dj$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   Thanks for teaching me some more about p-adics, Dik. I am trying to
> see if this imaginary 3', the multiplicative inverse of 3 in 3-adic
> Integers possesses any of the characteristics that i possesses for
> Reals? Could there be some e^i pi = -1, for 3' ?
> 
>    Could there be one and only one imaginary integer to cover all Z_p
> that would make all of the Z_p-adics a field. Or do I need to append a
> 3' to 3-adics, a 5' to 5-adics. Thereby requiring an infinitude of
> imaginary integers.
Add the imaginary prime multiplicative inverse to a Doubly Infinite say
for example the 3-adic Doubly Infinite
     ...00010.393939....
Would these Doubly Infinites form a field?

fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>In article <330b05df.243594746@aklobs.org.nz>,
>Ray Tomes  wrote:
>
>>However if I could prove that the waves came from out there then your
>>composition might not be original at all and you could be infringing the
>>universes copyright!
>
>Ah, but then I'd apply your proof to itself and prove that you couldn't
>share it with me without infringing the same copyright! :-)
Nice one, but then I would plead that the universe made me do it  8^)
Of course the Judge and Jury might do the same!
-- 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

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:46:39 -0500, drgnfist 
wrote:
> Creation
>gets the upper hand and is dealing some major blows to Evolution. 
well since it isnt science it cant get the 'upper hand' because its a
lie

electronic monk (donniet@sqruhs.ruhs.uwm.edu) wrote:
: 
: like i said before, we can think of zero having levels in the same way
: that we can think of infinity as having levels.  if we think of zero
: only as a limit, then it will make sense.  x^2 > x for all x>0, and then
: we could say 1/(x^2) > 1/x for all x>0.  so, lim 1/(x^2) as x-->0+  > 
: lim 1/x as x-->0+.  this means simply that x^2 approaches zero much
: faster than x does, so when i say level of zero, i just mean how fast a
: function approaches zero.  but, like i said before, if 0 always equaled
: 0, then 0/0 = 1, which it doesn't.
: 
I hope you do ot find my bluntness too offensive, but this
is absiolute nonsense. 0 is an honest-to-goodness number.
As such it has equal rights with other numbers, and like any
other numbers it turns out to be the value of a limit
in many different ways.
I mean there are "levels of 7" by your argument, since 7
is a limit:  look at (7x-(x^2))/x as x tends to 0
or (7x-1)/x as "x tends to infinity".
I'm afraid that what you have posted seems like a collection
of partial recollections from someone who has been the
victim of the sort of miseducation Herman Rubin has
riled against in this newsgroup.
d.A.

walkey@doe.carleton.ca (David J. Walkey) wrote:
>Does anyone have a suggestion as to where I might find data for the
>effect of doping on the thermal conductivity of Silicon? Thanks in
>advance for any and all suggestions.
O.64  W/cm*C 
But the effect could be changed by the transmition of I.R. through it, in
proportion to the scatering but not vary significant compaired too the heat pump
or refrigeration effects. ( eg . solid state coolers ). What persentage of those
atoms are going to be shiny ( like gold ).
Maybe some else Knows the real answere.  :)
>Dave Walkey
>Dept. of Electronics
>Carleton University
>Ottawa Ontario Canada

In article <32d94358.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>,
Simon Read   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.
I am very well aware of the meaning of orbital capture.
>...This simply didn't happen.
It most certainly did. I don't feel like digging up the references
for you, but I can promise you that it was captured. I was at
the 1993 AAS/DPS conference where planetary scientists were planning
the observations of the impacts, and I've listened to dozens on
talks on the subject. As a graduate student working on planetary
science and Jupiter in particular, I've seen so many papers and
conference presentations about the impacts that I'm getting
really sick of them. But, if you don't believe me, there is
an easy way to settle this: I will make a bet with you, for
any amount over $250 and under $25,000, and get in touch with a 
laywer to handle putting the money in trust to make sure we both 
actually pay up (the only way I can think of to assure an online bet.)
That's how much it will cost you the get me to do the research for
you and prove you are wrong.
>...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.
No. Jovian escape velocity at the surface is around 70 km/s, and
S-L 9 hit with just under that velocity.
>If S-L 9 was in orbit around Jupiter, then its crash into the atmosphere
>would have been different: it would have come in at a very shallow angle,
>skimming along for a while and gradually dropping in.
No. As well as braking up the comet, the tidal forces from the
next-to-last perijove also altered the comet's orbit, so that
it went in at about a 45 deg angle.
>>No, the plumes from the S/L-9 impacts extended well above Jupiter's
>>atmosphere. Whether the debris got back to Jupiter depends on
>>the velocity of the debris and Jupiter's escape velocity, not
>>atmospheric drag.
>Atmospheric drag refers to a rock going through Jupiter's atmosphere
>all the way to the surface, then producing an impact rock which has
>to come all the way back up through Jupiter's atmosphere...
That would be a really good trick, since Jupiter doesn't _have_
a solid surface.
>The comet landed with more than Jupiter's escape velocity, and
>you're implying that NOT A SINGLE ATOM FROM THAT COLLISION had
>enough velocity to be beyond escape velocity.
The comet impacted with slightly less than jovian escape velocity,
and I am implying that no solid material (one) survived the impact 
without being vaporized (not a bit surprise considering the impact 
velocity) and (two) was ejected at escape velocity.
>OK: a question: what's the density of Juipter's atmosphere
>near the bottom? Compare that with the density of the rock
>making up the comet. The comet had to go through a lot of that
>atmosphere.
We don't know how deep the comet got, but no estimate has it
going deeper than the 25 bar level. Before you get to anything
that might even be called a liquid within Jupiter, you have to 
get above a million bars. 
                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> 
> Archimedes, Newton, Euler, Gauss and Galois are great mathematicians.
> I have heard that the greatest mathematician of all times is a Russian
> mathematician called Maplev, who is still living, presumably in Canada.
> Is this true, and what are the contributions of Maplev?
Ha, here's her homepage:
http://www.maplesoft.on.ca/Products/MapleV/MapleV.html
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Minkowski’s spacetime geometry
“Before Minkowski ,, it was necessary to carry out a Lorentz
transformation on a law to test its invariance under such a
transformation; but he succeeded in introducing a formalism so that the
mathematical form of the law itself guarantees its invariance under
Lorentz transformations. ... he achieved the same thing for the
four-dimensional space that the ordinary vector calculus achieves for
the three spatial dimensions. He also showed tht the Lorentz
transformation ( apart from a different algebraic sign ...) is nothing
but a rotation of the coordinate system in the four-dimensional space.”
An inconsistency, or an incompleteness ? --  Godel’s theorem in the
special theory.
“... It is striking that the theory .. introduces two kinds of physical
things, i.e., (1) measuring rods and clocks, (2) all other things, e.g.,
the electromagnetic field, the material point, etc. This, in a certain
sense, is inconsistent; strictly speaking, measuring rods and clocks
should emerge as solutions of the basic equations (objects consisting of
moving atomic configurations), not, as it were, as theoretically
self-sufficient entities. The procedure justifies itself, however,
because it was clear from the very beginning that the postulates of the
theory are not strong enough to deduce from them equations for physical
events sufficiently complete and sufficiently free from arbitrariness in
order to base upon such a foundation a theory of measuring rods and
clocks. If one did not wish to forgoe a physical intepretation of the
coordinates in general (something that, in itself, would be possible),
it was better to permit such inconsistency -- with the obligation,
however, of eliminating it at a later stage of the theory. But one must
not legitimize the sin just described so as to imagine that distances
are physical entities of  special type, intrinsically different from
other physical variables (‘reducing physics to geometry,’ etc.).
New non-Newtonian predictions of the special theory.
“(1) There is no such thing as simultaneity of distant events;
consequently, there is also no such thing as immediate action action at
a distance in the sense of Newtonian mechanics. Although the
introduction of actions at a distance, which propagate at the speed of
light, remains feasible according to this theory, it appears unnatural;
for in such a theory there could be no reasonable expression for the
conservation of energy. It thereore appers unavoidable that physical
reality must be described in terms of continuous functions in space. The
material point, therefore, can hardly be retained as a basic concept of
the theory.”
For example, the classical Lienard-Wierchert retarded potential solution
for a moving charge whose influence is on the frame-invariant forward
light cone replaces the Newtonian-type Coulomb potential. When the
charge is at rest, there is no operational way to tell the difference
between it and the old Newtonian type of potential. It’s as if it were
instantaneous. On the other hand, when we get to quantum
electrodynamics, where the Coulomb force is due to the exchange of
virtual longitudinal and timelike polarized photons, Feynman does
explicitly write that this non-radiative near-field force is
“instantaneous” presumably in the rest frame of the source charge
generating the field. The reason for this is that virtual photons can
actually move faster than classical light. They are not confined to the
classical light cone. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a classical
theory formulated before quantum mechanics. It is still true, of course,
that the instantaneous character of the force is not frame-invariant,
but it will be “spacelike invariant” i.e. outside the local light cone
in all frames, though not “simultaneous” in all frames as it would be in
the Galilean relativity of Newtonian mechanics. That is Einstein’s
essential idea here.  In other words, there is no violation of
Einstein’s main point here that there is no such thing as absolute
simultaneity. But the “virtual photons” that form the quantum
fluctuations of the near electromagnetic field extend from the
slower-than-ight timelike region inside the light cone to the
faster-than-light spacelike region outside it. However, it appears that
these faster than classical light near-field virtual photons cannot be
used to send practical superluminal messages.

Jonah Barabas wrote:
> 
> 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.
You are one of the most funniest man on the internet.
Just make sure you don't take it too seriously what you say.
hehehe
-- 
       	-----------------------------
	http://www.getgames.com/    (the place to get games)
	-----------------------------
| Info:
| mailto:daniel@technohouse.com
| Phone: (914) 684-0828
| Fax: (914) 644-8070
http://www.technohouse.com/ 
http://www.relaxed.com/ 
http://www.imcworld.com/
http://clubwearhouse.com/

In article <32DE67E8.5288@lsl.co.uk>, Ewen Charlton   wrote:
>> >>Sunlight is the source of all life on the planet.
>> What about those organisms that live by feeding off sulphur plumes at
>> the bottom of the sea?
>Aha, but would these lifeforms have evolved in the first place without
>the sun's energy? I thought that the 'primordial soup' was the result of
>chemical reactions caused by either solar radiation or lightning
>(indirectly caused by sunlight).
That's not the current theories, but it was the common view about
five years ago. All it really takes for life to evolve is complex
carbon chemicals and an energy source. Before the discovery of
deep sea life near volcanic vents, everyone was saying that
sunlight or lightning was the energy source. For several years
after that discovery, no one seriously looked at the alternatives.
Now scientists in the field acknowledge that the geothermal
heat from the vents is sufficient for life to evolve. Based on
their DNA, it is pretty clear that the deep sea/vent life
did not evolve independently from life on land or the sea
surface, but there are now a fair number of scientists
who argue that life first evolved near deep sea vents and
spread from there. 
                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Saw on the CBS evening news last night where
the US shipped 80 grams of plutonium to Viet Nam
prior to the war for one reason or another.
When the commies overran the south, our guys
grabbed the wrong container and the Viet Cong
were left with the goods.
Anybody know if 80 grams of plutonium could be
used to make a small weapon?
--
David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
Software Engineer
Control Data Systems
2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
Fairborn, Ohio 45324
(937) 427-6385

> 
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Craig@World of Pain MUSH
> Maeglhachel@Elendor MUSH
> WWW HomePage @ http://www.uni-giessen.de/~g804/
> for more info: FINGER Karl-Heinz.Beckers@x500.uni-giessen.de
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I believe there is food for thought in the question I posed both
with respect to entropy, and how we consider the life event of species
that are now extinct, or will be extinct. -Process or singularity? -What
does it imply for life?  Haw does one treat evolution as a process with
integrated positive and negative entropy property? -Simultaneous
increase in order AND dis-order? Or is the nature of evolution more like
a string of singularitie?  A living 'super-string', that bridges time? 
John

Archimedes, Newton, Euler, Gauss and Galois are great mathematicians.
I have heard that the greatest mathematician of all times is a Russian
mathematician called Maplev, who is still living, presumably in Canada.  
Is this true, and what are the contributions of Maplev?
-- 
   Pertti Lounesto         Pertti.Lounesto@hit.fi 
                           http://dopey.hut.fi/staff/lounesto.html.en

Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<< wrote:
> 
> >
> > Sunlight is the source of all life on the planet.
> >
> Idiotically wrong. There are creatures who live in deep sea vents whose
> energy and nutrients are not dependent on sunlight in any way shape or
> form.
> 
> I suggest that you stay away from biology, it obviously isn't your strong
> suit.
> 
> Anthony Potts
> 
> CERN, Geneva
Well, my question in this matter would be, did the ancestors of these
creature come into being and evolve at these vents, or did they come
into being as a spin-off of the ecosystem powered by the sun. If their
ancestors came from the solar-powered ecosystem, they would not ever
have existed, save for the sun.
Then again, was not the power of the sun responsible for the nature of
planetary formation, putting everything into a kind of fractional
distillation, so that we have rocky planets in the inner system and gas
giants and lots of ice towards the outside...
In which case, the nature of the earth is owed to solar power, and since
the nature of the earth resulted in volcanism, the creature living at
vents exist due to solar power.
Maybe I'm being too much of a sophist, though.

mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin) wrote:
>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, some time ago I put forward a proposal in sci.physics concerning a
possible relativistic mechanism for planetary alignments to affect the
solar interior.
It is well established that there are correlations between planetary
alignments and variations in sunspots, but the previously proposed
mechanisms (tidal forces and the motion of the sun about the COM of the
solar system) just don't work.  I can get a 0.66 correlation between
planetary forces and sunspot numbers using my calculation.
My proposal depends on the fact that e/m waves are deflected twice as
much by gravity as what slow moving matter is.  The effect of this is
that randomly moving photons in the centre of the sun have their
momentum vector "accelerated" twice as rapidly as randomly moving
particles (ignoring the slight relativistic effect of their velocities).
So if we consider Jupiter's effect on the sun, then the photons are
falling towards Jupiter at twice the acceleration of the matter.
It may seem that the effect is far too small to achieve anything, but
remember that s = 1/2 a t^2 and in this case t will be 6 years (the time
that Jupiter remains above the solar equator)!  The answer is that the
solar radiation will be affected by of the order of 0.1 to 1%.
There are some other considerations such as:
1. The momentum of photons is shared with particles in a very short time
frame.  Therefore the important factor is the proportion of energy that
is photons as a ratio of all energy.  According to my calculations it is
about 10^-5 in the core and ~0 at the surface.
2. The sun's rotation, which means that as fast as Jupiter starts to
cause convection it is undone by the rotation.  However the sun's
equator is at 6 degrees to the solar system plane and so there is a
resultant vector which is 1/10th the strength in the N or S direction.
3. Maybe the 2 times effect is only 2 of the 3 directions and so the
effect is actually 5/3 not 2.
Previously Jonathan Scott said that there is no 2 times effect (he
thinks).  However I have seen books where the 2 times effect is stated
as not just a reference frame effect (according to some experts).
I would appreciate your comments on the above, in particular whether
confined photons do accelerate at twice the rate of slow particles.
My formula are shown on my web pages at
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt104.htm
and the sunspot results are at
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt106.htm
I think that I have used mass meaning relativistic mass in the old way
and that this should be converted to E/c^2 but otherwise it is OK.
-- 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

What is the distance between quarks in a nucleon?
Is there some experimental or theoretical value for this?
-- 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