Newsgroup sci.physics 216322

Directory

Chris Koenigsberg wrote:
> [...]
> 
> As far as I know, "Resonance" is a behavior of a harmonic system ...
Resonance is certainly a property of an harmonic system, however I
wouldn't take this as a definition, because an harmonic system is
just a special case of a vibrating system. It's easy to make theories
and to compute on harmonic systems, that's why they are mentionned so
often. (Some person said : harmonic oscillator is the same for physicists
as the fly "drosophila" for biologists !).
To talk about resonance, you need :
1) A vibrating system. Given a starting state, this system will "fall"
to some preferred vibration frequency. These ones are called vibrating
modes, and their number and frequencies depend on the internal properties
of the system. However, the very mode toward which the system will go
depends of its starting state, that is : the excitation you give to it
at the beginning.
2) An permanent external excitation, which provides external energy.
(for instance, the battery in a quartz clock).
Now it happens that, for some kinds of external excitations which are
close to vibrating modes, the system may have a very strong answer (just
move your hand in the bath !). This is called resonance.
, or
> "filter", which produces an output waveform, driven by a input
> waveform.
> 
Well, for any system you can talk of "input" and "output". The behaviour
of the "black box" in between will make the difference. Now it's quite true
that if the system resonates, then you have a kind of filter, because the output 
answer will be quite different for some frequencies.
But, let's be aware that, generally, we want filters with smooth or flat
curves. To do this, you have to find systems with many vibrating modes, and
combine them very carefully to "smooth out" the output, so that a whole band
of frequencies will be depressed or enforced. Or you can do it quite an other
way : by absorbtion, for instance.
> Since "resonance" is specifically a property of "filters",
I'm not sure... You seem to define a filter by resonance, I'd say it's
just a mean to get a (bad) filter. (By bad, I mean : not smooth)
> Thus a "Helmholtz resonator" is a filter[...]
> it will "resonate", for ALL frequencies
If you intend to talk of physics or maths, I'm afraid that "resonating for
ALL frequencies" has no meaning ! A resonance is something that happens for
SOME frequencies amongst all the others. Let's not mix up the real world
(yes the violin sounds well) with a mathematical model used to describe it.
It's quite sure that a simple harmonic model doesn't fit the behaviour of
a violin, just for this reason : your hear the violin on a whole band of
frequencies, due to the patient work of violin makers ; a violon sounding
so loud on a few resonating notes would be a very bad one !). Of course,
it may be described by dozens of harmonic systems, with very specific relative
weights and resonance frequencies (the same way you may describe any vector in
a 3D space with a wheighted expression of 3 basis vectors).
> especially for certain frequencies which hopefully are typical ones
> produced by the string (e.g. the pitch of the open strings, and their
> first few harmonic overtones).
When you study resonance, you don't excite the system with "typical"
inputs. On the contrary, you use a wide range of inputs, to study the
the output (and to see that for some special inputs, the output is
quite different ; since you don't know which inputs will resonate,
you have to try the wider possible range).
Hope this helps ! 
-- 
Alain NAIGEON  -  Strasbourg, France  -  anaigeon@club-internet.fr
                       DISCLAIMER :
-my employer's opinions don't reflect mines outside working hours-

Sylvia Else  wrote:
>Alex Tsui wrote:
>> 
>> I was just wondering, suppose two persons were 10 light years away
>> from each other, and they were strong enough to hold a 10 light years
>> long rod that could not be stretched nor be contracted.  if 1 of the
>> person pulls or pushes the rod, will the person 10 light year years
>> away immediately sense the change?  IF he was able to do that, then
>> wouldn't that be regarded as FTL comm?
>Hard to say really. Your supposition of an infinitely rigid rod already 
>places your thought experiment into a universe which is either not 
>described by the theory of relativity, or where causality is not a 
>property. You would have to tell us its actual properties to get a 
>meaningful answer. There can be no such thing as an infinitely rigid rod 
>in a universe where relativity is correct, and causality preserved.
To hell with relativity, there's no such thing as an infinitely rigid
rod in a universe without infinite strength forces.
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick.  ;-)

Dave Monroe wrote:
> 
> 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
The easiest way to make a nuclear weapon is by adding some nuclear 
material to comventional explosives. This is probably enough to create 
a nuclear thread.
Kees T.

>
>Only 0.1% of the American populace holds PHDs; what proof is
>there that they are intellectually superior to the commoners?
>
>When you consider what horrors PHD bearers have inflicted on
>society, can the good people be blamed for desiring leaders
>that are free of PHDs?
>
>-- 
>Cheers!
Your posting sounds a bit like a parnoid rant "..consider what horrors 
PHD ...." .  Perhaps you should consider what a PhD actually is.  It is 
 an advanced degree that indicates that the bearer has achieved two 
things: 1.  A high degree of expertise in a particular field, and 2.  
The provel ability to conduct research in that field (the PhD is a 
research degree and is conferred only on those who successfuly complete 
original research)
Now, a PhD does denote at least a certain level of intelligence but 
does not necassarily denote genius.  I also denotes a rather high level 
of education and knowledge IN A SPECIFIC FIELD.  For example if I have 
a physics question, I would definately listen to a person with a PhD in 
physics.  However, that same persons opinion of politics, mid east 
peace, economics, etc carries no more weight than the opinions of my 
mechanic.  

In article <32DD853F.6988@Prodigy.Net>, crjclark   wrote:
>Imagine an observer travelling at a constant rate of speed in a
>synchrotron.  He is gradually accelerated until he reaches the speed
That's a dumb thing for an observer to do.
>of sound.  Atonal music is playing through loudspeakers located in
Why not on a Concorde, again?
>the synchrotron corridor. When the atonal music resonates, since it
What?
>is moving at the same speed as the observer, all he hears is one
>constant stream of white noise. He is in effect at this point, *at
There's at least 3 leaps here that need to be explained.
1) A listener is traveling at the same speed as a wave front, perhaps
in the same direction.  What does the listener hear from the wave front?
(hint: try "Nothing", as the effective doppler-shift would map *all*
sound to frequency of 0)
2) In what way is the tonality or atonality of the music encoded in the
carrier wave front significant?  
(hint: try "nothing", as you can't get any distinction between one silence
 and another, see No.1 above)
3) What if the motion of the observer kicks up a wind?
(hint: then the entire system will be constantly filled with one big
 "sonic boom" from the motion of the observer, regardless of the state
 of the PA system)
Of course I defer to the real physicists here to supply some more
information like what a "listener in a synchotron" is...
>rest*. In order for the observer to hear different pitches and
>durations, he must be accelerated or decelerated.  Since the observer
>must hear all tones at once if he hears white noise, if he is able to
>distinguish the notes used in the *tone row*, he must note whether he
NB for the physicists here, the term "tone row" has been introduced
here arbitrarily, and has no definite connection with tonality or atonality.
>is accelerating or decelerating.  Then he must identify the notes
>used in the tone row without seeing the score.
Before we get to your questions, I have a more important question:
*Why* must the listener identify inaudible notes used in a structure
the presence of which isn't promised under circumstances in which the
listener is being constantly spun around like a washing machine?  What
fun would that be?  Would a listener at the speed of sound in a
washing machine get any consolation from The Welltempered Clavier
between vomitting and passing out?
>The question is threefold: 1) How does the observer know that white
>noise and the atonal music are equivalent?  2) If the observer hears
>music, is he necessarily *tone deaf*?  3) Epistemologically, are the
>sound waves external to the observer's consciousness, *res extensa*,
>or are they pure resonances in his mind, *res cogitans*?
I think the question about vomitting and passing out needs to be
answered first.
-- 
Matt Fields  URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields

>mnd@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib N Durrani) wrote:
>}                         Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
>}        ( In the name of ALLAH, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
>}  
>}         THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
>}           102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
>Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  writes:
>>
>>Get a good dictionary.  Look up "fetish."
>>
>>Sterculius is giggling; so is Zool, the worm who forever eats his tail, 
>>and the big stack of tortoises - each and every one of them!
I was poking around yesterday on this very subject, and found more
references to Judaism than Islam.  In particular, I discovered the
Rosh Chodesh observances of the new moon.  These are observed primarily
by Jewish women.  Before you giggle too hard, you might take a look
at your own heritage.
The major difference between most religions and Islam vis-a-vis religious
calendars and the start of months is that Islam requires confirmation
that a month has begun and the others take the copout of predicting
when the new moon occurs.  Before electric lighting people took the
night sky far more seriously then most of us do now.  (Note this is
posted in sci.astro - some of us still step outside and look up before
looking down!)
I think one could say that Islam has held to its heritage better than other
religions.
-- 
  <>    Eric (Ric) Werme   <>      This space under reconstruction       <>
  <>    <>                                            <>

Brian Zeiler wrote:
> On 16 Jan 1997 12:14:43 -0700, blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P
> Houghton) wrote:
 > >David Rudiak  wrote:
> >>blair@trojan.neta.com (Blair P Houghton) wrote:
...
> >>>Ball lightning can be created in the laboratory.
> >>No, something LIKE ball lightning can be created in the laboratory.  It's fairly
> >>easy to pump RF energy into an enclosed chamber and get a ball of glowing
> >>plasma.  But turn off the RF and the plasma immediately disappears.
> >Something a lot more like ball lightning than this can
> >be created in the laboratory.  And the only enclosure I saw was
> >a Faraday cage around the electrodes and the slab of material
> >the ball  passed through.
> Any references?  Or is this the Unquestioned Word of Blair?
References would certainly be dandy, so we can all see what the current
state of understanding is. Given the fuzzy "refences" already cited,
however, digging a good one up is likely to require broader help. To
that end I added sci.physics on the chance that one of the regulars
there might point us straight at an appropriately recent good reference
about ball lightning. 
> >I think they can get it to hang around for several seconds.
> >Much like the Wright brothers' first plane.
> Yeah.  I'm convinced by your proclamations.
No less so than by Dave Rudiak's proclamations to the contrary. 
...
> >>You can't open the chamber and
> >>watch your little plasma ball float around the lab for seconds or tens of
> >>seconds, as is reported for natural ball lightning.  Nobody understands the
> >>mechanism of stability.
> >You mean you don't.  You also don't know whether or not
> >nobody else does.
> Note, readers, how Blair Houghton has changed his strategy from making
> unreferenced declarations about plasma balls to making uncorroborated
> proclamations about Rudiak's knowledge of plasma balls.
Rudiak made BZ-type absolutist proclamations about the state of the
science for the entire human race. I'm rather skeptical that he's in a
position to know. 
Jim

michael keenan wrote:
> 
> One product I have seen is a small pump gizmo that screws onto a pop
> bottle as a cap. It is used to increase the pressure inside the bottle to
> prevent loss of carbonation. While that seems reasonable its performance
> has not impressed me. Furthermore, I have had some success preserving
> carbonation by a technique that seems totally opposite, and
> counterintuitive. Upon opening a 2-litre bottle of pop, I squeeze the
> bottle to displace most of the air before putting the cap back on. I
> haven't run any scientific tests yet (e.g. with a control) because I can't
> afford to piss away too much money on pop, but I'm wondering if anyone
> knows whether or not this makes sense. Please email me as I am not on this
> newsgroup often.
> 
> Mike
Air is much more compressible than water so when you squeeze out all the
air
you make it harder for gas to go out of solution into its free form
because
the pressure in the bottle would have to increase a lot more than if
there were
water and air in the bottle. (Such a long sentence!)
So if there is air in the bottle and you increase the pressure by
pumping more
air into it again you're making it harder for the gas in solution to
come out.
(An equilibrum occurs)
Hope this helps,
Mike

Im Artikel <5bnv9r$2iv@amenti.rutgers.edu>, owl@rci.rutgers.edu (Michael
Huemer) schreibt:
>Here's a start at that.  Here are some intuitively plausible
>principles that ought to govern the 'confirmation' relation:
>
>1. The observation of an A that is B confirms "All A's are B."
>2. The observation of an A that is non-B disconfirms "All A's are B."
>3. The observation of a non-A is irrelevant to (neither confirms nor
>disconfirms) "All A's are B."
>4. If P is logically equivalent to Q, then whatever confirms P
>confirms Q.
>
>The Ravens Paradox results because we see that these 4 principles,
>which at least appear obviously true, are inconsistent.  For consider
>the observation of a white shoe.  This object is a non-black
>non-raven.  Therefore, by (1), it confirms "All non-black things are
>non-ravens."  But "All non-black things are non-ravens" is logically
>equivalent to "All ravens are black."  Therefore, by (4), the
>observation of a white shoe confirms "All ravens are black."  However,
>by (3), the observation of a white shoe is irrelevant to whether all
>ravens are black.
>
>Thus, one of these principles has to go.  Which one?
Well, the one that is wrong of course ;-) ...  
The 3rd sentence says:
     The observation of a SHOE, which is pink, 
     does not confirm that all ravens are black.
This is obviously correct, b/c even if we examine all non-ravens objects,
we cannot find out, what colour ravens have.
It does NOT say (which you intended it to mean and then opposing it with
the 4th) that:
    The observation of a non-black (pink) object, which 
    is not a raven (shoe) is irrelevant.
B/c if we examine all non-black things and find no raven, we have to
conclude that if there are ravens, then they (between other things) must
be black. Thus only by cheating, i.e. silently reversing the given order
[A -> B] / [non-B -> non-A]  to [non-A -> non-B] you can impose a paradox.
Of course our language is just not precise enough not to fall into such a
trap, but you can see how important the order of things is, when you apply
the reverse to our first non-example: all non-ravens are non-black...
obviously wrong. But apply it to the 3rd sentence and no one will notice
the fraud ;-)
Thus there is no inconsistency, only a language trick, but a nice one :-)
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.

In article ,
Gilfrey  wrote:
>Could someone please inform me of any books that with help me improve and have 
>a better understanding of both math and Physics???
They're a bit dated now, but see what your library has by Isaac Asimov in
the physics and math sections.  They should be clear to someone in High
School but still present enough of the fundamentals to make for useful
reading.
>                                                     I would like to take AP 
>Physics next year, but I was told I would crash in burn if I did not take AP 
>Calc as well.  Please help your input would be very much appreciated.
My high-school didn't offer AP Physics so I can't comment on this
directly, but I did find AP Calc a _big_ help when I took college
physics the next year.  Lots of things in mechanis are much easier to
explain with calculus than without (eg the relations between position,
velocity, and accelleration).
-JS
-- 
Jonathan Stott                      O-                      jjs17@po.cwru.edu
CWRU Dept. of Physics                                    jstott@poly.cwru.edu
School of Graduate Studies                 http://poly.phys.cwru.edu/~jstott/
   An optimist is someone who believes Schroedinger's cat is half alive.

On 12 Jan 1997 03:53:17 GMT, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>Keith Stein  writes:
>>    
>> What happens when AN ELECTRON MEETS A POSITRON IN A VACUUM ?
>>
>>                        +e -> ? <- -e
>
To: physnews-mailing@aip.org
Subject: update.303
From: physnews@aip.org (AIP listserver)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 08:52:38 EST
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE                         
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 303  January 16, 1997
by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
GETTING A PEEK AT BARE ELECTRONS.  Modern quantum
theory holds that the vacuum near an electron is filled with
virtual particles blinking into and out of existence.  Conservation
of energy is not violated in this case because the particles live for
such a short time, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle. And just as it is difficult to view the surface of Venus
because of its thick atmosphere, so a naked electron cannot easily
be studied because of its self-made cloak of virtual particles.  But
physicists in Japan have now partly lifted the electron's veil.  At
the TRISTAN accelerator electrons and positrons collide head on. 
In these reactions events with the highest momentum-transferred-
squared (Q^2) correspond to instances in which the electrons and
positrons got very close to each other.  Unlike the violent proton-
antiproton collisions at Fermilab (where quarks and antiquarks
approach to within 10^-19 m---see Update 299), the electron-
positron collisions at TRISTAN do not involve the strong nuclear
force, and thus the electron's unadulterated electromagnetic
nature can be measured to an unprecedented extent.  In the
closest encounters---as close as 2 x 10^-18 m---the electrons and
positrons could fairly be said to have partially penetrated each
other's clouds. Thereby the TOPAZ detector collaboration
(contact David Koltick of Purdue, koltick@physics.purdue.edu)
has demonstrated, for the first time in a way that does not depend
upon assumptions about the other forces of nature, that as
expected the electromagnetic coupling constant, the parameter
which specifies the inherent strength of the electromagnetic force,
actually increases for very high- Q^2 events (up to values of 3337
(GeV/c)^2).  (L. Levine et al.,  PhysicalReview Letters, 20 January 
1997; see a figure at www.aip.org/physnews/graphics)

In article <32DE8E50.41C6@isc.tamu.edu>, cbayse  writes:
> 
> how many ph.d holders can you name that are remembered as evil, etc.?
>     drawing a blank here
Doesn't Karazdic have a PhD ?  I tend to agree with your point, except that
you go too far; whether someone holds a PhD or not is more or less irrelevant
to whether they are evil or not.
> how many non-ph.d world leaders can you name that are remembered as
> evil, etc.?
>     hitler, stalin, etc., etc., etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek         | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist |                for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University  | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)

Matthew H. Fields  wrote:
>Speaking of bridge resonance, most mechanics 101 classes these days
>show that wonderful film of the bridge that began resonating torsionally
>with the wind, and collapsed about 4 minutes later...  Isn't resonance
>wonderful?
Ah yes, the infamous Tacoma Narrows bridge.  IIRC, it acted the way it 
did because the bridge deck was sufficiently like an airplane wing to be 
subject to aerodynamic forces.
>But I'd never heard that soldiers on a bridge were expected to randomize
>their steps.  Can anybody who has been to boot camp verify that?
I can't confirm that, but I have seen a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge 
under construction.  There was a small wooden bridge that had been set up 
to allow the workmen to get to where they needed to be, and a sign 
bearing the legend "BREAK STEP" was prominently posted at the entrace to it.
Later...
--
                   Ronald M. Carrier -- rcarrier@suba.com
               Graduate Student in Philosophy, Northwestern U.
                  "Philosophy--I'm only in it for the money."

Christopher Arnold  wrote:
> Any discussion of time dilation requires looking at two frames of
> reference moving with respect to each other at some significant
> fraction of the speed of light.  The twin paradox is an interesting
> case because the two frames of reference are initially, and at the
> end, the same.  Because of this though, Special Relativity (SR) alone
> cannot account for the effects since it deals only with uniform
> motion.  (If the twins only experienced this, they would die together
> on Earth).  It is therefore necessary to move on to General
> Relativity.  
You seem to have mixed up two different questions.
The first question is about where the error lies in the apparent
paradox. The error lies in the assumption that the twin in the
rocket can be associated with an SR inertial frame. The frame for
the rocket twin is not an inertial frame, SR is not valid in that
frame, so the situation is not symmetric. No problem so far.
The other question is how the actual result can be explained,
specifically: how much have the two twins aged when they meet again?
This can be done entirely within SR, using one or several inertial
frames. It doesn't really matter since all will agree on the result.
To say that it is necessary to move on to GR to explain the result
is like saying that it is necessary to consider centrifugal and
coriolis forces in order to explain the motion of a ball rolling
on a spinning disk. This is not the case.
  (snip)
> Higher average velocity compared to what?.  There are only two frames
> of reference.  They define velocity and neither has priority over the
> other.
You can choose *any* SR inertial frame of reference, and you will see
that the rocket twin always reaches a higher velocity than the other
twin during some part of the trip. If you look at it from the non-
inertial rest frame of the rocket twin he will of course have zero
velocity, and you will have to introduce non-physical acceleration
fields that span the entire universe, and then use GR to predict the
correct outcome. But I wouldn't say that the GR approach *explains*
anything here, it only introduces unnecessary complications.
-- 
Bjorn Danielsson  
http://www.algonet.se/~bonus

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:32:26 -0800, Erik Max Francis 
wrote:
>steveb@tds.bt.co.uk wrote:
>
>>   If mass is considered as "condensed energy" does this imply that
>> sufficient energy would exhibit a gravity field?
>
>Yes.  In general relativity the generator of gravity is the stress-energy
>tensor, which, as the name implies, involves energy.  For most ordinary
>circumstances, mass is by far the largest contributor to this tensor, and
>thus that's noe of the reasons that Newtonian gravitation is a
>correspondence theory to general relativity.
>
>>   Or: if I had a battery that happend to contain the same electrical
>> energy as is held in the mass of a planet, would there be a gravity field
>> about the battery??
>
>Yes.
Hi Erik!
Suppose the energy is mostly kinetic.    Accellerate a ping pong ball
to a speed such that its relativistic mass is the same as the rest
mass of the planet Jupiter.   If it passed by Earth at about the
distance of the moon, would it have any effect on earth's orbit?
Regards,
- Jim Harford

crjclark  finally redeems himself for previous
absurdities:
> Flanging, may in, fact be significant here.  The Art of Flange
> might surpass the Art of Fugue in aesthetic significance.
Now, you're talking!
But now we have to digress into a discussion of what "flanging" really
is... If the sci.physics readers haven't totally killfiled us
composers yet, perhaps someone from there can discuss this?
"Flanging" originated in the 1960's when some recording studio
engineer put their thumb on the edge, or "flange", of a reel-to-reel
tape, slowing it down for a moment.
If you mix the original signal with the signal from a delayed tape
echo, and "flange" the tape reel with your thumb, you get an
interesting audio effect.
Typically they would "flange the drums" at the end of a song, on some
60's and 70's albums.
I believe the technical term for a "flanger" is actually a "comb
filter sweep". Please correct me if I'm wrong?
The various waveform cancellations and superpositions, caused by
nonlinear phase difference at different frequencies, from the time
delay between the original signal and the delayed tape, cause the
"comb filter" effect.
That is, there's a collection of narrow, resonant (crjclark's favorite
word again, must be why he likes flanging so much :-0 :-) bandpass
filters (with negative Q resonance i.e. "notch" filters, band "reject"
or "cut" filters), and each of these filters forms a "notch" around
its center frequency. The overall effect if viewed in the frequency
domain is an irregular "comblike" pattern, with notch filters at
multiple center frequencies.
And then, the variable delay, caused by the thumb slowing down the
tape echo reel, causes the "sweeping", i.e. the movement of this comb
filter's notch center frequencies. Since the comb filter is not linear
in phase, the individual notch filters at different center frequencies
are perceived as moving in different ways from each other, so the
sweeping effect is complex and rich in sound artifacts.
Of course now there are effects pedals to implement "flanger" comb
filter sweeps, although they're not quite the same as the good old
thumb on the analog tape reel flange....
Usually the effects pedals use an oscillator for a periodic frequency
sweep, and the rate can be changed by a control knob.
The best, most interesting flanger sound, however, is "manual" rather
than periodically oscillating, i.e. comes when the frequency sweep
parameter is tied to a foot pedal controller, rather than to an
oscillator, sort of like a "wah wah" but a more rich sound.
And the "Wah wah" effect is also a filter sweep, but is generally just
a single, simple lowpass or highpass resonant Q filter, with moving
center frequency, not a complex comb filter? And a "Phaser" effects
pedal is also a single lowpass or highpass filter, like a "wah wah
pedal", but with the center frequency swept periodically by an
oscillator?
OK, did I get it mostly right?
--------------------
Chris Koenigsberg: ckk@pobox.com

Boycott Internet Spam! 

Rich Rostrom (R-Rostrom@bgu.edu) wrote:
This has some bizzare follow-ups. If I could change them I would
but my poster will not let me. I apologise to the readers of all
the groups that got stuck on this list. How it happened I don't
know but I hope everyone will remove all but s.h.w-i if they can.
: > Interestingly enough, while the US was busy getting bogged down in
: > Vietnam, the UK was engaged in fighting in Borneo, in remarkably similar
: > political situations. The UK military position wasn't as good as that of
: > the US; the Borneo border was massively longer than that which the
: > Americans had to deal with, and the terrain very much harder.
: > 
: > Nonetheless, the UK was successful.
As I point out to Richard Rostrum below you are confusing the 
Emergency with the Confrontation. The fighting in Borneo was
against Indonesian "volunteers" aiming to create a Greater
Indonesia. Malays and Indonesians being more or less the same
people. The British fought the mostly Chinese Communist Party
of Malaya (ie excluding Borneo) in Malaya itself. The British
military position was excellent not only did the Communists have
no land border with friends on the other side, as Mr Rostrum
points out, but the Chinese Communists got little to no support
A
from the majority Malay community in Malaya. The British also 
had their own administration which was tolerably corruption free
and had many local links. Above all the British kept the military
under civilian control whereas the greatest failing in Vietnam
was that the American military was not only a law unto itself
(whatever people say about fighting from Washington) but each and
every branch of the military did what it liked without reference
to and often in defiance of what everyone else was doing. Finally
the British "won" but only at the price of leaving Malaya to the
Malays. They defeated the Communists but they were forced out of
Malaysia. How is that a victory?
: The main difference was that there was no land border with a Communist
: state a few miles away. The Communist guerrillas in Malaya were forced
: to operate entirely on their own resources. The Viet Cong were supported
: by hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese troops and lavish quantities
: of arms.
I think there is some confusion here between the Emergency fought 
mostly in Malaya and Confrontation witht Indonesia fought in Borneo.
They are two separate struggles. Borneo does and did share a land
border with Indonesia which did supply the "rebels". The Communist
Party of Malaya only shared a land border with Thailand. As a sign
of how short the Communists were when it came to weapons the British
were able to keep files of *each* weapon they had and keep track of
where they were. Not all of them all the time but pretty much all 
of them.
: The Borneo border was exposed; but the Indonesian side of it is far
: more remote from any civilized base area than was the inland border of
: South Vietnam. Sarawak was not the key part of Malaysia, and the
: infiltrators had relatively little local support. (My understanding
: is thyat he Dyaks took to collecting the heads of the infiltrators.)
This is not the Emergency (anti-Communist) fighting but the later
Confrontation with Indonesia. The Communists did not take part in
this. Notice that the Malayan Communists were mostly Chinese and so
had little support in the Malay community during the Emergency.
: Also, after 1966, the Indonesian government no longer supported
: insurrection in Malaysia, abandoning Suharto's "konfrontasi" and
: expelling or killing his Communist friends.
Indonesia never gave any support to the Malayan Communists. The
idea that Suharto had many Communist "friends" is a myth and the
Confrontation is a separate issue.
Now you would never make that mistake in this country as our War
Memorials list the two separately. We sent soldiers to both and
had a few minor casualties. 
Joseph
-- 
      "Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth"
                        - President Bill Clinton

Dave Monroe  wrote:
>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?
Even with tritium boost and implosion tamper, the critical mass for 
WEAPONS GRADE plutonium is 1/7 the volume of a Coke can.  Given its 
density, that is kilograms.  The isoptopic distribution is very 
important.
The toxic radiological hazard from ingestion is incredible.  The weapon 
forthcoming would not be a nuclear device, it would be a bunch of aerosol 
cans.  Think about infiltrating a deodorant manufacturer.
Vietnam is subject to a much more compelling cultural weapon - the 
affluence of capitalism.  If they were clever they would trade the Pu for 
a few million dollars of Federal aid, as did North Korea (which did it on 
the $billion scale.  Clinton is a limp dick).
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Blind faith is overated, and very dangerous when the terrain is rough.
wrote:
> 
>  LADIES & GENTLEMAN !!!!
> IT'S THE BATTLE OF THE MILLENIUM !!!!
> CREATION VS. EVOLUTION!!!
> 
> This is going to be a caged, no holds barred match, to the death!!!!
> 
> In one corner we have EVOLUTION, who brings with it an assortment of
> weapons, including : records,  fossils, actual proof, and even a bit
> of faith & belief.
> 
> In the other corner we have CREATION, who brings---wait a minute,
> CREATION is pulling something from out of a sack, it's a....it's a....
> It's a book ?!?  CREATION has brought a book to use in battle. And yes
> a bit of faith & belief.
> 
>  It's unbelievable the way they are going at each other folks !  It's
> a battle royal.  Who will win this grudge match?  Who will suffer from
> their loss?   We may never know.  Let's watch & see, and pray ours is
> the victorious one, which ever that may be.
The dot product of orthogonal vectors is zero.

Hi!
What current is necessary to heat a filament with a specific electrical
resistance; diameter and length (full length, not as a helix) are given
(e.g.
in a tube) ?
Thanx for any answer !!!!
Heiko
heikofy@aol.com

    Can the EPR phenomenon be used to set clocks simultaneouly? After
all the measurements are simultaneous and no information would be
transferred. Could both clocks be started at the precise moment of
measurement?
Edward Meisner

In <5bktgs$1s2@nntp1.u.washington.edu> hillman@math.washington.edu
(Christopher Hillman) writes: 
>
>In article <5bj9ia$562@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen Meisner) writes:
>
>|>     Ok Mr. Hillman, what I would like to ask now is whether the
>|> topology of the velocity space is responsible for the inertial
motion
>|> of a body in the same way that the topology of the gravitational
field
>|> is responsible for the acceleration of a body.
>
>I can't understand what you have in mind here.  In the case of the
>acceleration of a body, it would be more correct to say that the
>GEOMETRY of space-time is modified by the presence of a
>massive body.  The topology of space time can have global effects, but
>acceleration is a local phenomenom, and because all space-times are
locally
>homeomorphic to R^4 the TOPOLOGY must be irrelevant to any such
phenomena.
>Curvature and the presence of matter in some region of spacetime are
>both local phenomena.
>
>|> Why does a curvature in space time constrain an object to move?
>
>I think you still have a misunderstanding here.  Nothing physical
MOVES in
>space-time; rather, the mental idea of a body being represented by a
>"moving point" is replaced by the idea of a body being represented
(throughout
>its existence) by a "world line", a (possibly non-straight) curve in
space-time.
>The "length" between two points (events associated with a time and a
spatial
>location) on such a curve is interpreted as the time interval between
these
>events as measured by a clock carried with the body during its motion.
>
    Do you mean that the worldline of a body preexists in some sense
and that it is only because our cognition of reality is temporally
limited by our senses that the illusion of motion arises? If we could
be present throughout time, we would see a continous picture of the
body stretching from the infinite past to the infinite future? This is
very counterintuitive. I must admit that I do not like it. Here is
another idea. Time dilation or length contraction, whichever you
prefer, creates a gap in space which stresses or stretches space. The
body is contrained to move in order to reduce the gap and therefore the
stretching and stressing of space. Is this a plausible expalnation? I
admit that it is highly speculative, but it is simple and elegant. 
Regards,
Edward Meisner
>Given these assumptions, it is reasonable to ask how gravitation can
be
>intrepreted as an effect of the curvature of the space-time.  The
simplest
>answer is by analogy: on a sphere, the shortest distance (along any
curve
>constrained to lie on the surface of the sphere) between two points
lies
>along one arc of a great circle (a circle of maximal radius such as
the
>equator).  For instance, all LONGITUDE lines on a globe are geodesics
>(shortest length curves) in this sense, but of the LATITUDE lines,
only
>the equator is a geodesic.
>
>Now consider two parallel geodesics (straight lines) in euclidean
space.
>As we all know, these lines remain parallel all along their length.
>Contrast two longitude lines on a globe.  They start off being
parallel
>(imagine two travelers going North starting at the equator, for
instance) but
>thereafter they CONVERGE (eventually meeting at the North pole).  This
>convergence of initially parallel geodesics is one effect of the
(positive)
>curvature of the globe.  This is a LOCAL effect because you can detect
>convergence no matter how close the initially parallel geodesics are
to
>begin with.
>
>Going back to the computation in which two particles were falling
radially
>toward a massive object, the closer one pulls ahead as time increases.
>Remember that in the space time picture we replace the
>idea of two moving points with the idea of two world-lines which,
since
>no forces other than gravity are acting, we are assuming are
geodesics.
>Then, the "pulling ahead" of the closer particle appears as DIVERGENCE
>of initially parallel geodesics, and this divergence corresponds to
the
>(negative) curvature measured by one component of the curvature
tensor.
>
>|> is time dilation the only explanation for the Lobachevsky
curvature?
>|> I must admit that I can
>|> not see how this is so. Wouldn't time dilation give you the flat
>|> spacetime of SR and the Lorentz metric?
>
>I addressed several separate issues in seperate postings, one of which
>concerned general relativity and the rest special relativity, in which
>only flat spacetime is considered.  The "velocity spaces" I described
>in one of these postings are indeed surfaces of constant curvature,
but
>they are the exact analogs in Minkowsky space (flat t^2 - x^2 - y^2 -
z^2
>metric) of the sphere, which is the surface of constant distance from
>the origin in ordinary space (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 metric).  In the case
>of Minkowsky space, it turns out that the analogous surface of
constant
>distance from the origin has three parts, two copies of hyperbolic
space
>(only one of which is the velocity space for ordinary particles)
>and the tachyon velocity space.  If you have a book discussing
analytic geometry
>look at the figure depicting a hyperboloid of two sheets--- this
>is the three dimensional analog of the copies of hyperbolic space,
>and consists of two copies of the Lobachevsky plane-- and look at the
>figure depicting a hyperboloid of one sheet--- this is the three
dimensional
>analog of the tachyonic velocity space. 
>
>Hope this clarifies things!
>
>Chris Hillman

In article <32E00B4A.BA1@club-internet.fr>, Naigeon Alain  writes:
> If you intend to talk of physics or maths, I'm afraid that "resonating for
> ALL frequencies" has no meaning ! A resonance is something that happens for
> SOME frequencies amongst all the others. Let's not mix up the real world
> (yes the violin sounds well) with a mathematical model used to describe it.
> It's quite sure that a simple harmonic model doesn't fit the behaviour of
> a violin, just for this reason : your hear the violin on a whole band of
> frequencies, due to the patient work of violin makers ; a violon sounding
> so loud on a few resonating notes would be a very bad one !). Of course,
> it may be described by dozens of harmonic systems, with very specific relative
> weights and resonance frequencies (the same way you may describe any vector in
> a 3D space with a wheighted expression of 3 basis vectors).
Now we're getting into the realm of fourier analysis.  It can help you 
understand why a viola and violin playing the same note (same fundamental 
frequency) sound very different.  Of course, it doesn't take a rocket 
scientist to figure out that the size/shape/material of the violin/viola 
body cause the differnce in timbre, but if you want a 
mathematical/physical explanation, look up fourier analysis!
- Pinney Colton
(not an expert on the topic--just learned it in class a couple days ago!)  

Vincent Johns  writes:
> BTW, limited memory is no reason not to use FORTRAN, etc.; I used
> FORTRAN on a Control Data 160 computer with 6K bytes of memory 
> augmented by some virtual memory (in the form of punched paper 
> or Mylar tape).  It wasn't blazingly fast, but it produced useful 
> results.
If you have paper tape for virtual memory, thrashing becomes
entirely more interesting, I bet.
-- 
David Kastrup                                     Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de       Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f=FCr Neuroinformatik, Universit=E4tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germa=
ny

ale2@psu.edu (ale2) wrote:
>I am offering a staggering $7 (US) prize money for the best "drawing"
>of an electron (what is best will be explained below). This contest is
>open to all; crackpots, amateurs, professionals (professors seeking
>tenure should use a pseudonym), AP, and AA, anyone, from anywhere!
>
>The Rules
[snip]
>In an inhomogeneous magnetic field a beam of hydrogen atoms will be
>split into two beams and only two beams.
[snip]
4 beams.  One major split for the spin quantum numbers of the electrons, 
each major split into a minor (1/1836 of the major division) for the spin 
quantum numbers of the protons.  Don't forget the Lamb Shift.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

> Teller committed the unspeakable horror of insisting that "He who
> wants peace should prepare for war" thus making him the favorite
> whipping boy of wishful thinkers around the world :-)
> 
how terrible.
> As for Pol Pot, we're talking about real horrors.  Check out "Khmer
> Rouge", in Cambodia.
>
ok, but how did his ph.d effect this?
i have a feeling that if someone is a rotten person, they will be one
regardless of whether they have a degree or not.

In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>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.
Depends on the type of weapon.... 80 grams of plutonium could make a
whole lot of people die of cancer.
-- 
John A. Stanley                      jstanley@gate.net
        "Hey! You got your razor in my wager!"

michael keenan  wrote:
>
>One product I have seen is a small pump gizmo that screws onto a pop
>bottle as a cap. It is used to increase the pressure inside the bottle to
>prevent loss of carbonation. While that seems reasonable its performance
>has not impressed me. Furthermore, I have had some success preserving
>carbonation by a technique that seems totally opposite, and
>counterintuitive. Upon opening a 2-litre bottle of pop, I squeeze the
>bottle to displace most of the air before putting the cap back on. I
>haven't run any scientific tests yet (e.g. with a control) because I can't
>afford to piss away too much money on pop, but I'm wondering if anyone
>knows whether or not this makes sense. Please email me as I am not on this
>newsgroup often.
The system reaches equilibrium when the fugacity ("leaving tendency) of 
carbon dioxide in the liquid phase equals its partial pressure in the gas 
phase.
  1) A pump to pressurize the container is meaningless unless it pumps in 
CO2.  If you do the physical chemistry, adding inert gas pressure to the 
gas phase >increases< the fugacity of CO2 in the liquid phase - you lose 
more of it.  (Wine gizmos blanket the liquid with nitrogen to prevent 
oxidation).
  2) Collapsing the container is mostly meaningless.  Exsolving CO2 will 
reinflate it and you are back where you were.
The diffusion rate of CO2 through bottle-grade PET is 
0.30 [(cm^3)(cm)]/[(cm^2)(sec)(cm-Hg)] at 20 C.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Jonah Barabas wrote:
>  When real music was
> being composed, between the years 1500 to 1650, 
Glad to finally have a definition of 'real music'.
Pfeh. If it's an air sculpture, it's music.
Instructions:
  1) Hit 'start'
  2) Do something
  3) Hit 'stop'
Composition complete. You may now fool your friends
with the results. 
John
All opinions are solely mine
"Music is the best" - Zappa

In article <5bnv9r$2iv@amenti.rutgers.edu>, owl@rci.rutgers.edu (Michael
Huemer) wrote:
[...]
>Here's a start at that.  Here are some intuitively plausible
>principles that ought to govern the 'confirmation' relation:
>
>1. The observation of an A that is B confirms "All A's are B."
>2. The observation of an A that is non-B disconfirms "All A's are B."
>3. The observation of a non-A is irrelevant to (neither confirms nor
>disconfirms) "All A's are B."
>4. If P is logically equivalent to Q, then whatever confirms P
>confirms Q.
>
>(The first three principles are collectively called "Nicod's
>criterion".)
>
>The Ravens Paradox results because we see that these 4 principles,
>which at least appear obviously true, are inconsistent.  For consider
>the observation of a white shoe.  This object is a non-black
>non-raven.  Therefore, by (1), it confirms "All non-black things are
>non-ravens."  But "All non-black things are non-ravens" is logically
>equivalent to "All ravens are black."  Therefore, by (4), the
>observation of a white shoe confirms "All ravens are black."  However,
>by (3), the observation of a white shoe is irrelevant to whether all
>ravens are black.
>
>Thus, one of these principles has to go.  Which one?
It seems that there should be a difference between proving/confirming
relations between members of finite sets and those of infinite sets.  If
there are a finite number of objects, then confirmation of "All non-black
things are non-ravens" does indeed make progress toward proving that all
ravens are black; in principle, if the process were continued until all
non-black objects were tested, we would have the complete proof.  But if
there are an infinite number of such non-black objects, then little, or
perhaps even no progress at all has been made.
$.02 -Ron Shepard

In article <5bmfpp$7ae$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   I understand the law very well. My favorite view of it is to think of
> it as a "dispersal". I read this though a long time ago in a book.
> Instead of dispersal, I like to think of the 2nd law as a Diffusion.
> And I am hopeful of connecting the 2nd law to Quantum Mechanics which
> has never been done before. If you know the Schroedinger Equation, it
> has roots in mechanics from diffusion equations. See Feynman Lectures
> of how the Schroedinger Equation has similarities to the diffusion
> equations.
  Noone has connected thermodynamics with QM. Here I am going to start
on the road of connecting the physics body of knowledge of
Thermodynamics with QM.
  The first connection is the fact that the 2nd law is a diffusion
phenomenon. And the Schroedinger Equation is a diffusion phenomenon
also.
> The two
> forms of entropy are not unlike the conjugate duals of the Uncertainty
> Principle. In fact, in physics, in the future, there will be
> experiments which increase the proportion of 'decreasing entropy' to
> that of 'increasing entropy'. This may be achieved in different states
> of matter.
   The second connection is the realization that there is not one form
of entropy but an opposite to entropy, and let us just call them
Disorder and Order. And these two are quantum duals such as
wave-particle. I prefer radioactive decay to radioactive growth for
those two aspects of radioactivity displays this disorder to order in
the best way. And since these two aspects are quantum duals, they
follow the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle also in a relationship of 
                    R_decay X R_growth >= plancks constant
   Therefore, I have connected the 2nd law to Quantum Mechanics. And if
my above is true, which I am confident that it is. Then someone can
experiment with a pure 100% block of uranium and test it after a set
time to find out how many atoms of neptunium and plutonium and higher
exist within this block. Factor out cosmic interference into the
experiment. Then, one can correlate the numbers of atoms of uranium and
lesser atomic number with the numbers of higher atomic number. And it
should be discovered that the planck's constant , as well as the
Schroedinger Equation and the numbers of thermodynamics correlate, 
provided that an additional term is appended to the 2nd law of
thermodynamics.
   There, there is a first test of the fakery that is the 2nd law. For
when the above experiment is done which eliminates cosmic proton
interference, then , if the 2nd law were correct there should be no
neptunium nor any plutonium in that sample. But I can tell you here and
now, that the sample will turn up a lot of atoms greater than uranium,
and the reason for these more Ordered atoms existing in that sample is
the same reason that no image is 100% perfect because light comes in
both particles and waves and the closer you inspect the more you will
see a fuzzy image. The existence of Np and Pu from a 100% ore of U is
that tradeoff in the Uncertainty principle
   So, all of you dumb quacks who think you know the 2nd law and who
think you are scientists, go out and perform the above and see the
correlations firsthand. Don't tell me that the 2nd Law is a great true
law just because a million professors of science before you have all
chimed in agreement that it is correct. Perform the experiment of
taking a 100% uranium block and seeing what atoms are there after a
year elapsed time. Do the experiment

On 17 Jan 1997, Matthew H. Fields wrote:
> 
> 
> But I'd never heard that soldiers on a bridge were expected to randomize
> their steps.  Can anybody who has been to boot camp verify that?
> -- 
> Matt Fields  URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
> 
BJ: I haven't been to boot camp, but it makes good sense to me. 
[Standard disclaimer]

In article <32DD853F.6988@Prodigy.Net>, crjclark   wrote:
>Imagine an observer travelling at a constant rate of speed in a
>synchrotron.  He is gradually accelerated until he reaches the speed
>of sound.  Atonal music is playing through loudspeakers located in
I forwarded this posting to a harpsichordist and she suggested
that we try this experiment out on you, Craig.  How about it?
-- 
Matt Fields  URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields

Peter Kerr wrote:
> 
> > rick wrote:
> > > Can anyone really define "tonality"?  I've taken the obligatory courses
> > > in school that purported to teach it, but no one can really
> > > tell how Mozart's music works, or Beethoven's or Bach's.
> snip
> 
> rick is someone who takes a glass of wine occasionally with a meal,
> The bulk of serious posters on this group IMHO are professional winetasters.
> 
> Hearing music, like drinking wine, is a complex sensory perceptive
> process, with emotive responses. It is relatively easy for a person to be
> trained, and after years of experience, to taste/listen and analyse the
> wine/music into its chemical/acoustic components.
> 
> I often wonder how easy it is for those people to switch off their
> professional attitude and just enjoy the experience. Mozart et al wrote
> their kind of music because their audiences liked it, and because it came
> easily to them. The gift of being able to write that kind of music without
> having to pick up a slide rule and analysis sheet should be a rich field
> for psycho-acoustic research.
> 
> --
> Peter Kerr                        bodger
> School of Music                   chandler
> University of Auckland NZ         neo-Luddite
Oh, sorry.  My tirade was in favor of using scales of increments other
than the twelve tone scale, or in favor of using the quarter or eighth
step, not necessarily against atonality.

Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, April wrote:
> 
> > following the path laid before them by their parents'.  Go to college,
> > get a PH.D. and you will be successful!!  But those who aspire to be
> > self employed have the guts to risk, suffer failure, and end up
> > successful enough to hire degree holders to be their lawyers,
> > accountants, financial advisers......get the picture??
> 
> I hate to disillusion you in your academic bashing, but here goes.
> 
> The highest earners around are traders in the financial markets. The vast
> majority of traders hve a degree in a numerate subject, many have advanced
> degrees, such as MBAs.
> 
> Whilst you may like to believe that the people with these degrees will
> never do as well as the people without, the truth is somewhat different.
> Within about three years of leaving college, they can expect to earn
> around 300 000 dollars per annum.
> 
> From there, it only goes upwards, very very quickly.
> 
> Perform well, and you will be on millions per year by the time you are in
> your thirties.
> 
> This is not an option if you don't have a degree of a suitable standard.
> 
> Anthony Potts
> 
> CERN, Geneva
Since you so clearly did not understand the point of my article, let me
rephrase it as bluntly as I can.
You do not need a PH.D. in order to be successful.
Success is an ambiguous term, choose your own definition.
You can own a small business and be successful.
A PH.D. may be useful for some, but is not the end-all be-all in terms
of achieving wealth i.e. success by mine(and Webster's) definition.
I don't consider "academic bashing".  I do consider the defense of all
those who are successful who are not PH.D. holders.

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> 
> Randall E. Robie wrote:
> 
> > Several years ago PBS presented a series of lectures taped at
> > CalTech called the "Mechanical Universe".  There's also a series
> > of Feynman lectures on video as well.  Does anybody know how I
> > can obtain these videos?.
> 
> Last I heard, you can get books, lecture notes, and videotapes from the
> organization by calling 1 800 LEARNER.  I have no idea exactly what they
> offer or how much it is, but that's the only lead I've ever seen.
It's around $500 for a set of all the tapes.
> > Please e-mail me if possible.
> 
> Posted and emailed.
> 
> --
>                              Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
>                               Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
>                          San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
>                                  &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
>      "You must surely know if man made heaven | Then man made hell"

On 16 Jan 1997 13:30:01 -0800, John Ladasky at ladasky@leland.Stanford.EDU 
wrote
>
>In article <5bj34s$kal$1@mrnews.mro.dec.com>,
>Len Fehskens  wrote:
>>On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:14:51 +0000, Phil Cope  at Phil.Cope@smallworld.co.uk 
>>wrote
>>
>>>** use of 'Newspeak' (1984 - George Orwell) intentional here
>>
>>I believe that's Brave New World - Aldous Huxley.
>>
>>len.
>
>        I agree with Phil -- it's Orwell.
Indeed it is.  Should have looked it up first, but all my dystopian literature 
is still packed from a recent move.
len.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> 
>   My Gedanken Experiment does not need to go into specifics. 
No of course not.  We wouldn't want any pesky little facts to get in the 
way.
Have a nice day.  
Becky

In article <32DFEE55.446B@isc.tamu.edu>, cbayse  writes:
>> Teller committed the unspeakable horror of insisting that "He who
>> wants peace should prepare for war" thus making him the favorite
>> whipping boy of wishful thinkers around the world :-)
>> 
>
>how terrible.
>
>> As for Pol Pot, we're talking about real horrors.  Check out "Khmer
>> Rouge", in Cambodia.
>>
>
>ok, but how did his ph.d effect this?
>
I'm sure it didn't.
>i have a feeling that if someone is a rotten person, they will be one
>regardless of whether they have a degree or not.
Exactly.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

    Would fiber optic cables become superconductive at low
temperatures?