Newsgroup sci.physics 216490

Directory

	Hello!
I am looking for some interesting topics to present on my seminar. I
am mainly interested in topics related with acoustics, measurement
techniques but other topics are welcom aswell.
So please tell me what is hot and interesting and wouldn't bore my
colleagues to death. ;)
	Bye, Mike...
 - Miha Tomsic Mike -- C. na postajo 55 -- 1351 Brezovica pri Lj. -- SLOVENIA -
 - home-made -- electronics -- music -- industrial -- physics -- net -- linux -
 - phylosophy -- poetry -- arts ---- Lower Parts of Abdomen ---- Josef Banale -

Im Artikel <5borl7$202@colossus.holonet.net>, russell@news.mdli.com
(Russell Blackadar) schreibt:
>lbsys@aol.com wrote:
>> theory. Do you "understand" that your suggestion (...if the bolts are
>> rigid enough, it'll drop like a rock...) sounds really
counterintuitive?
>> Is there the tiniest possibility that the eqns do have a second
solution?
>> Anything like that?
>
>No.  But let me try to soothe your intuition.  Think "pendulum",
>not "rock".
Yeah, well, I thought like a piece of rock fixed to a stick which is fixed
on one end into bearings :-) - sort of a Fred Flintstone pendulum, right?
>Note that the gyro's initial, infinitesimal motion *is* straight down,
>like a pendulum.  (There is nothing holding it up!  So how else could 
>it move?)
Hmm, Hmm. Visualizing it: If the mounting on one end does give way (to a
full circle), the other end would describe a path circling down, sort of a
spiraling cone, right? Now what you are saying is: As long as it is
allowed to circle, it'll come down like moving on a not to steep slope.
But let's put a concrete boulder in the way, stopping the axle from
circling. No it's gonna drop like a pendulum (which indeed is much
quicker). Where as I see it still acting like being on that slope, thus
gently coming down (the faster of course, the slower it spins).
BTW: I liked your example about that turntable. Meanwhile you should know
why :-)
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.

Im Artikel ,
shepard@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard) schreibt:
>It seems that there should be a difference between 
>proving/confirming relations between members of 
>finite sets and those of infinite sets.
But it is not entirely clear that the non-A are infinite. Might as well be
the A...
>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.
Very true, but nothing of  this could be assumed (see above). The sentence
"If I find an A, which is B, does confirm 'All A are B' " is valid for
both finite and infinite set, as it merely says: it does not not
disprove....
But you are on the right track, as you intuitively reversed the question
into the right order saying "I found a non-black thing, which is a
non-raven, thus I confirmed...". 
The original author had tricked us to believe, that finding a non-raven
thing which is non-black would yield the same confirmation and then proved
by the 3rd statement, that this cannot be. The trick is, that reversing
from "non-black implies non-raven" to "non-raven implies non-black" goes
unnoticed, but is definitely wrong, as there are shoes, which are black,
but no pink things, which are ravens.
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 
           Alison@flin.demon.co.uk "Alison Brooks" writes:
>Interestingly enough, while the US was busy getting bogged down in
>Vietnam, the UK was engaged in fighting in Borneo, in remarkably similar
>political situations. The UK military position wasn't as good as that of
>the US; the Borneo border was massively longer than that which the
>Americans had to deal with, and the terrain very much harder.
>
>Nonetheless, the UK was successful.
>
>One can debate why this should be; however, there was no great "anti-
>war" debate in the UK. I suspect that this was in part because of
>different attitudes.
Also, there was no conscription; therefore, no involvement by large number of 
British people in the way Vietnam affected great numbers of americans.
Tom Burke 

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.....
Well, let's remember that Frances Urquhart was fictional....
Actually, it's worth remembering that at the time of the Falklands war, 
parliament debated the invasion of the islands at a special sitting (over a 
weekend, IIRC), and at the end of the debate a resolution was passed condemning 
the invasion and urging/instructing the government to do what it could to get 
them back. It seems clear therefore that Maggie did not feel her own powers 
were sufficient to launch a war; the government needed the approval of 
parliament, which it got.
Quite a good debat, actually, as I recall, with contributions from people that 
you would not normally expect to support the government, eg Jim Callaghan, Dr 
Deat^H^H^HDavid Owen, and various others - there was indeed "all-party" support 
for the government. I think the only dissenting voice was Tony Benn.... Chris, 
am I right on that? And what's your take on this?
Tom Burke 

Im Artikel <5bpgl1$g2a$1@mark.ucdavis.edu>, carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
(Steve Carlip) schreibt:
>In chapter 5, Feynman discusses linearized general
>relativity, and shows that it gives the wrong result for
> the precession of Mercury's perihelion.  In chapter 6,
>he adds in the gravitational field due to the energy of
>the Sun's gravitational field, and shows that this gives
>the correct result.  So it is because of the gravity
>of gravitational energy that general relativity succeeds.
That sounds like compound interest... is it calculated that way?
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.

Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>Having said this, I'll agree that some of the attacks 
>in WWII (like the bombing of Dresden) served
>absolutely no purpose.  Some other, did.
Yes. Like bombing industrial sites and 'missing' the gas chambers just a
mile away...
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.

         Entropy??--The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics--
   The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as:Natural processes tend to
  move toward a state of greater disorder or an increase in Entropy.One ex
  ample being if you put a layer of salt in a jar and cover it with a layer
  of pepper,when you shake it you'll get a thorough mixture no matter how
  long you shake it you will not get it to seperate again into two layers.
   This is not correct and I take issue with it.The falacy lies with our
  concept of how we define Order and Disorder.In regard to the example gi
  ven above(let's assume for starters that the grains of salt and pepper
  are the same size and density{I don't like playing with loaded dice}),
  when you shake the jar the probability of any paticular grain of salt or
  pepper occupying it's former position in the jar are just as astronomic
  al than if they returned to their original positions.There is nothing
  special about the first configuration of the particles!!!.Let me clarify
  this a little further.My desk is what some people(especially my wife),
  would call a complete mess or state of disorder.Now I know right where
  to lay my hands on everything,but my wife is appaled at the mess,so when
  I go out she tidies it up and puts everything "in order".When I get home
  I'm the one who's furious because I can't find a damm thing.To me NOW 
  everything is in a total mess or state of disorder.
   Perhaps a better example is as the following---Consider four people sit
  ting at a table with a deck of cards(playing Bridge{if you don't know the
  game it dosen't matter,you'll get the point i'm making here}).The cards
  are given a good shuffel and 13 cards are dealt to each person one card
  at a time.To their amazement when they look at their cards each person has
  a complete suit,not only that but there all "in order",the spade ace being
  the first card followed by the spade king and so on down to the spade two.
  The same happens to the other three with the three remaining suits.They l
  eave the game claiming that the dealer rigged the deck for the odds of th
  ocurring would be as astronomical as it would be for my spelling to be co
  rrect.But in fact there is nothing unique about this distrabution of cards
  for if the cards were reshuffeled and this time each person received a so
  called "random distrabution" of cards,the probability on any other redeal
  of receiving this identical "random" hand are just as high against the od
  ds!.We are the ones who place a unique state of order to the first deal of
  cards,because it's us who're RIGGING the rules(or laws if you like).Mother
  Nature assigns no special uniqueness to that first deal.We are instintivly
  preprogrammed to look for patterns in nature in order to survive as a spe
  cies,but the cosmos is completly indifferent to this so called increase in
  entropy,it has no meaning for her.
   Therefore while to most of us the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may seem valid
  on a grander scale it is meaningless!!!.
                            George Penney

On 17 Jan 1997 15:11:44 GMT
czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
as message <5bo4rg$gr0$1@news.sas.ab.ca>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>|erikc (fireweaver@insync.net) wrote:
>|: On 15 Jan 1997 15:42:09 GMT
>|: czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
>|: as message <5bitsh$hbk$3@news.sas.ab.ca>
>|: -- posted from: alt.atheism:
>|
>|: >|Didn't anyone tell ya?  The common bond of all Canadians (our "identity"
>|: >|and "culture", if you will) is that we're glad we're not Americans! ;)
>|
>|: Care to explain?
>|
>|Gee, what do you need explained?  D'you think the whole world wishes they
>|could be  American?  Time to stop believing your own press releases! ;)
Duh, I don't believe all the bullshit in the press releases.  I know how fucked
up it is down here, and which way it is going (down, fast!) and try, in my own
small way, not to be a part of the problem.
>|******************************
>|   Me fail English?
>|   That's unpossible!
>|             - Ralph Wiggum
>|******************************
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 */

On 17 Jan 1997 15:11:44 GMT
czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
as message <5bo4rg$gr0$1@news.sas.ab.ca>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>|erikc (fireweaver@insync.net) wrote:
>|: On 15 Jan 1997 15:42:09 GMT
>|: czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
>|: as message <5bitsh$hbk$3@news.sas.ab.ca>
>|: -- posted from: alt.atheism:
>|
>|: >|Didn't anyone tell ya?  The common bond of all Canadians (our "identity"
>|: >|and "culture", if you will) is that we're glad we're not Americans! ;)
>|
>|: Care to explain?
>|
>|Gee, what do you need explained?  D'you think the whole world wishes they
>|could be  American?  Time to stop believing your own press releases! ;)
Duh, I don't believe all the bullshit in the press releases.  I know how fucked
up it is down here, and which way it is going (down, fast!) and try, in my own
small way, not to be a part of the problem.
>|******************************
>|   Me fail English?
>|   That's unpossible!
>|             - Ralph Wiggum
>|******************************
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 */

HeikoFy (heikofy@aol.com) wrote:
: 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) ?
: heikofy@aol.com
         Heating element wire comes in different diameters
and different ohms per foot ratings.
         Once the choice of wire is made, then wattage is
decided on, length of wire is cut to allow the correct
current to flow to heat the wire to it's working temperature.
         If the proper wire is selected and cut to the
proper length, current flow is determined by voltage.
         Note the Volts Squared derivation of Ohm's Law. :-)
Ken Fischer 

>>I think that this line of argument should be retitled "The Utter
>>Futility of Arguing with WF3H.
> 
> i would be honored if you would cease doing so since your posts are
> tedious and ill argued
Clearly not too tedious for your replies, which, up to this point have
consisted of little substance.  You tend instead to resort to personal
attacks or facetious remarks.  Criticising an idea or labeling it
"illogical" is easier than addressing it.
> do you know what religion is?
As much as anyone can, I suppose.  Do YOU?
> you dishonor those who ARE religious by
> twisting the word to mean what ever is convenient for you.
I've studied it and discussed religious ideas with fellow students and
friends, some of whom are born-again Christians.  None of them have
expressed any indignation with a broad definition of religion.
I suspect that they might, however, to your statement...
> religion is teleological and uses faith to understand its
> teleology. thats religion. the other is empirical and uses evidence.
> science is not voodoo.
Was it your implication that religion IS "voodoo", or perhaps you
were referring to the Haitian vodu religion.
> faith and experience are not identical.
I never said that they were.  I said that science relies to some
degree on faith in addition to experience.
>>Creationism is the belief that the universe and the life
>>within it are to be attributed to an extraordinary cause.  So a
>>Taoist or a Hindu could be said to fall into this category.
> 
> none of them want it accepted as scientific fact
Nor do you want to consider the idea that the basis for the existence
of the universe and life MAY lie outside the boundaries of science.
>>Collecting trains is not a system of faith.
> 
> its something one is devoted to. thats the context you tried to use on
> science...that because one is devoted to science it can be considered
> a religion.
Because science is based partly on faith, I feel it may fall within
the category of religion.  Because it is "a way of life woven around
a people's ultimate concerns" (Huston Smith again), ditto.  As I've
already pointed out to you, I think that you're taking the term
"devoted" too lightly.  People who collect trains are rarely devoted
to them in the same sense that one is devoted to Christianity or the
way that a major portion of society is devoted to scientific study.
> and intuition has nothing to do with transendence
> and metaphysics is not necessarily transcendent
>>Do you deny that science also has end goals?
> 
> science is a method used to investigate nature. it does not assign a
> purpose to human existence. it is not transcendent
"Transcendent" is a way of describing what is outside our experience
or ability to conceive rationally.  Transcendental ideas are acceded
to intuitively.  Metaphysics is by its very nature speculative.  I'm
contending that science is often both intuitive and speculative.  At
any rate, science deals with many ideas that are transcendent.
>>The very fact that so much dispute exists -- that
>>different scientists are willing to sanction so many contrasting
>>ideas -- is evidence of scientific faith.  Science does not and
>>could not rely solely on evidence.
> 
> and in the end it does. because if it doesnt, its just not science.
> any theory in science must be testable. it must be based on evidence.
If that's the case, then any theory not tested and confirmed should
eventually disappear from the scientific scene.  More often than not,
however, a theory must be DISproved before it's dismissed.  A theory
yet to be substantiated tends to remain for decades or centuries.
During that time, intuition and speculation play a large part in its
existence.

Sartre: Being and Nothingness
First: Cheers to all you "for-itselfs".  All you boneheads with a sense
of huemer who recognize the proof of your own solipstological existence.
Life is the epistemological orgasm.  It is our OPPORTUNITY!
but are we ready for Joy.. victory, if you will, on the intellectual playing field
of life.
Realistic Idealism is for those who simply cannot believe in magic.  Sartre went there,
I am lead to believe: Dialectic materialism.  That is not Science or especially realistic idealism.
Sartre is inspiring.  He is poetic as much as a philosopher.  Read him fast (I call this frontal-
lobe surfing)  He deserved the award for literature.  He should have accepted it.  
"the being of negation leads to nothingness"
The present is the infantesimal moment that is so small it is both "being and 
nothingness"
He inspired me to recognize a meaning to the Love of God..  Not an animal love, like father 
to son, or mother to son or daughter, or brother to brother (sibling to sibling), but existence
itself.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html

Bruce C. Fielder (bfielder@quadrant.net) wrote:
: There is no gravity, the earth sucks!
        On the contrary, there is gravity anytime
levity is so pitiful.
        But gravity is a riddle, and your appraisal
is not compatible with General Relativity.
Ken Fischer 

In article <32E037C6.62CB@quadrant.net> "Bruce C. Fielder"  writes:
>From: "Bruce C. Fielder" 
>Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing  about God
>Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:39:02 -0600
 Dear Bruce:
>Religion is based on "faith", science is based on "observation".
>These are not mutually exclusive.
no doubt.
>For example, consider a world is which any sin was Imediately punished
>-say, by pain.  How many people would brave the pain to 'sin' when the
>punishment was imediately there?
Some sins are punished by God, while others are punished by man.
>Of course, this eliminates the proposition of 'free will'.  After all,
>if you are imediately punished, "free will" can hardy be said to apply.
Free will is your call.. your thing!
>At best, god would be selecting the stupid.
Selecting the stupid to be eliminated (?), like crossing a freeway on foot.  
or contracting AIDS through sexual transmission (how many people thought they 
were smart?).. so what stupid thing will we die of?  And "how soon" is the 
question.  It is not how soon you die, but what did you live for?
>By extension, ANY type of proof for the existence of god is infringement
>upon our free will.  (If YOU had proof of god's existance, how stupid
>would you have to be to knowingly choose hell?)  And, if proof was
>available, but only to those who had studied science (or theology), god
>would obviously be favouring those who were rich enough to study -
>clearly contradicted by anyone's version of the scriptures.
It doesn't take money to study.
Don't stop with the scriptures, there is much to be learned since then.  The 
writers of the scriptures never meant to be cannonized in the third century 
AD.  There were many who never made the grade, and many who have written since 
then.
>Therefore, if god exists, s/he cannot be proved or disproved by anything
>we may discover in science.  
Science IS the discovery of God.  If you doubt that this is true, look at what 
all science has discovered, isn't it awesome.  And there is so much more 
mystery to go.  If you think you have the slightest inkling of God, you are a 
magical idiot.  You are like a savage on the desolate plain that is naked in 
front of the universe.  You are like me.  We do know a little though.. take 
advantage of it.  http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
>Logic cannot prove or disprove God; but it can prove that no matter what
>we learn about the world, it has no bearing upon whether God exists.
Everything we have learned about the world is only a tiny fraction of God.  
The more we learn, the more we should be struck by the awesomeness of God.  
This post is from one puny to another.  We don't even know "gravity" or 
"magnetism" yet.. both basic ideas of the universe.  We can exist in harmony 
with recognition, at least, of each other's intellectual needs.  Realistic 
Idealism is for those who are ready.
may we both be blessed.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html

Michael Weiss  enunciated:
>When I first started reading sci.physics, a few years ago, it was
>filled with fascinating stuff.  Crystal groups in biological research,
>the mechanisms of phosphorescence, the true dope about anti-particles,
>the analemma, negative resistance, tidbits about accelerators from
>grad students who spent half their lives futzing with them, oddball
>facts about elementary mechanics and the rest of the undergrad
>curriculum.  Posts from the research frontier mingled freely with
>more basic but offbeat items.
>Even the flame wars and bizarro posts had some flair.  For example, I
>remember someone heard two booms from a supersonic plane, and asked
>why; someone answered that it must have been travelling at Mach 2!
>Nowadays I wonder why anyone is even tempted to reply to the
>anti-Einstein nutcases.  You might as well try to put the Psychic
>Friends Network out of business.
>Alas.  Gloria gets sick on the subway every Monday.  Or something like
>that.
BRAVO!
It is for this exact reason that our company, when looking to find a
place for conversation about serious physics questions in
computationality et.al. choose to create NTCNewsMail. We then thought
it was appropriate to post the group to a usenet group as well and
after a long examination choose sci.physics.computational.   Whereby
we found out that group had just been cancelled. (Days before we
decided to mirror at the group. (We've asked to have it reinstated).
The suggestion has been made to post to  sci.physics   .    I don't
think so. The discussion would follow the same evolutionary path as
the rest of the usenet. Serious to challenge to frivilous to absurd.
Ok,.. anti-evolutionary. Only on the web could the survival of the
flipent be the norm.
Cheers
lkh

         Entropy??--The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics--
   The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as:Natural processes tend to
  move toward a state of greater disorder or an increase in Entropy.One ex
  ample being if you put a layer of salt in a jar and cover it with a layer
  of pepper,when you shake it you'll get a thorough mixture no matter how
  long you shake it you will not get it to seperate again into two layers.
   This is not correct and I take issue with it.The falacy lies with our
  concept of how we define Order and Disorder.In regard to the example gi
  ven above(let's assume for starters that the grains of salt and pepper
  are the same size and density{I don't like playing with loaded dice}),
  when you shake the jar the probability of any paticular grain of salt or
  pepper occupying it's former position in the jar are just as astronomic
  al than if they returned to their original positions.There is nothing
  special about the first configuration of the particles!!!.Let me clarify
  this a little further.My desk is what some people(especially my wife),
  would call a complete mess or state of disorder.Now I know right where
  to lay my hands on everything,but my wife is appaled at the mess,so when
  I go out she tidies it up and puts everything "in order".When I get home
  I'm the one who's furious because I can't find a damm thing.To me NOW 
  everything is in a total mess or state of disorder.
   Perhaps a better example is as the following---Consider four people sit
  ting at a table with a deck of cards(playing Bridge{if you don't know the
  game it dosen't matter,you'll get the point i'm making here}).The cards
  are given a good shuffel and 13 cards are dealt to each person one card
  at a time.To their amazement when they look at their cards each person has
  a complete suit,not only that but there all "in order",the spade ace being
  the first card followed by the spade king and so on down to the spade two.
  The same happens to the other three with the three remaining suits.They l
  eave the game claiming that the dealer rigged the deck for the odds of th
  ocurring would be as astronomical as it would be for my spelling to be co
  rrect.But in fact there is nothing unique about this distrabution of cards
  for if the cards were reshuffeled and this time each person received a so
  called "random distrabution" of cards,the probability on any other redeal
  of receiving this identical "random" hand are just as high against the od
  ds!.We are the ones who place a unique state of order to the first deal of
  cards,because it's us who're RIGGING the rules(or laws if you like).Mother
  Nature assigns no special uniqueness to that first deal.We are instintivly
  preprogrammed to look for patterns in nature in order to survive as a spe
  cies,but the cosmos is completly indifferent to this so called increase in
  entropy,it has no meaning for her.
   Therefore while to most of us the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may seem valid
  on a grander scale it is meaningless!!!.
                            George Penney

Don McKenzie (mcaldon@wavenet.com) wrote:
: John Wilkins  wrote:
: [snip]
: > or Canadians (wot's the derogatory terms for them?). 
:
: Canucks?
devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) writes:
>
>Cann't be.  We call ourselves that.
 Americans.  
 Tell a Canuck that Canada is just like the US, only metric, and he 
 will usually go ballistic.  Tell a Hab that you thought Ontario was 
 just like the states and he will mutter something obscene in French 
 and hold another election. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

R. Alan Squire wrote:
> The idea that religion equals Christianity may be too narrow a view for
> these arguments.  Religion is no more than a system of beliefs --
> subjective or objective.  In order for a scientist to begin research,
> some existing ideas must be accepted as fact.  That doesn't necessarily
> mean that they are.  And invariably, the theories of one generation
> have to give way to the "facts" of the next.  That may not be religion
> in the popular sense, but it does necessitate a kind of faith.
While I think your idea regarding the need for a little faith when
practicing science has merit, I think your definition of religion is a
tad narrow. Granted, it resembles the the Random House definition
closely, but to say it is "no more" than that is reductionistic. Quite a
number of people have approached religion from a sociological
perspectice, or focused on the psychological experience. Others forcus
on such things as myth, sacraments and symbols. While these may refer to
core beliefs, I think the myths, sacraments and symbols often endure
while the beliefs change.
I think it would be fun to apply some of these approaches to the study
of science: To treat it as something more than just a method of study.
What are science's sacraments and rituals? Is there a characteristic
psychological experience; is there a community of scientists to examine?
One gets a glimpse of this in Dennis Overbye's _Lonely Hearts of the
Cosmos._ It's a fastinating glimpse into the myths and rituals of
cosmologists, and oh yes, one does learn quite a bit about cosmology
too.

>
>> Here's food for thought.
>> Say you got into your FTL capsule and transmitted yourself to the edge of
>> the (admittedly ridiculous) Big Bang universe. Now, according to
>> conventional wisdom, you have now put yourself at the beginning of
>> space-time...... or have you?
We're ON the edge of the big bang universe now, aren't we?  Get there on
foot, no trouble - it's just around the corner.  Don't see what it has
to do with the beginning of space time though, whether its admittedly
ridiculous, closet ridiculous, credible or whatever...
Almighty, Inviolate and Omnipresent - Physics.
          Andy Newman   (squint-at-squint.demon.co.uk)

In article <14JAN97.25155773.0024@ACADEMIC.NEMOSTATE.EDU> The Lord Leto II  writes:
>From: The Lord Leto II 
>Subject: Re: Condemnation of Atonality
>Date: 14 JAN 97 23:17:32 CST
>In article <32DAB94B.7D72@physics.com> Heisenberg  writes:
>>Why is it that those who are so ardently for atonality (and nihilism
>>in general) are Jews, or are led by Jews?  If my memory serves me
>>correctly, wasn't the inventor of atonality Schoenberg, a Jew?
No Sir, the leaders of atonality are Japanese and were followed by a large 
population of Whites Then a large population of Backs.   The original 
atonality was Kareoke, followed by Rap.
>>
>>Why are you Jews so bent upon destroying traditional Western culture?
>>I must say, you've done a pretty damn good job so far.
If it weren't for the Jews, You would be pounding your wife's head with a 
club, may be you are.
>What the hell is this crap?  Please tell me you're joking.
This crap is you.  But we've all got a sense of humor, especally you.
>>- Heisenberg
>** The Lord Leto II *** God Emperor of Arrakis **
>*  Check out my and other Yamaha XG MIDI files: *
>*      http://www.ids.net/~marshall/xg.htm      *
>* "Conscious of the pain     Pass off as humane *
>*  White coat seems so clean Most dirt bleached *
>*  out of greed" -- Skinny Puppy, "Testure"     *

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>How about this well known Doctor of Philosophy, Pol Pot.  As I 
>remember, his degree (in philosophy, indeed) is from the Sorbone, in 
>Paris.
 He certainly satisfies the defintion.  What an interesting factoid. 
 I would *really* like to know the title of his dissertation and the 
 name of his major prof!  What are the odds that it involved a marxist 
 analysis -- or deconstruction? 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

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.
 Believe it or not, but there are actually research universities in 
 third world countries.  Vietnam has sponsored international conferences 
 in physics during the postwar era.  That Pu was probably sent there 
 for research purposes, just as the US sent Pu and similarly controlled 
 materials (e.g. separated isotopes of U) to other universities around 
 the world.  Not sure if that would have been under the "Atoms for 
 Peace" program of the Eisenhower administration or something similar 
 with a different name. 
>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?
 Not even close, even assuming it was weapons grade Pu-239, which would 
 not have been the case if the motivation was metalurigical or chemical 
 research.  I thought the news reports did a poor job making that point.  
 Too small by more than a factor of 10, even more if you are talking 
 about a crude design like Fat Man.  The chance of diversion and 
 proliferation was always a consideration in programs that distribute 
 'interesting' isotopes. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
> All it really takes for life to evolve is complex
>carbon chemicals and an energy source.
Since the origin of life is not understood, how can
you make this claim?  The correct assertion would be
"it isn't really known what it takes for life to evolve."
> Before the discovery of
>deep sea life near volcanic vents, everyone was saying that
>sunlight or lightning was the energy source.
The life near vents also uses sunlight, albeit indirectly.
The higher organisms there (tube worms, crabs) eat bacteria
and oxidize them using dissolved oxygen from sunlight.  The bacteria
use CO2 in seawater and either hydrogen or sulfides from the
vent water.  CO2 is not a stable constituent of a reducing
atmosphere in the absence of sunlight, I think (it would get
converted to methane and water by hydrogen.)
	Paul

         Entropy??--The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics--
   The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as:Natural processes tend to
  move toward a state of greater disorder or an increase in Entropy.One ex
  ample being if you put a layer of salt in a jar and cover it with a layer
  of pepper,when you shake it you'll get a thorough mixture no matter how
  long you shake it you will not get it to seperate again into two layers.
   This is not correct and I take issue with it.The falacy lies with our
  concept of how we define Order and Disorder.In regard to the example gi
  ven above(let's assume for starters that the grains of salt and pepper
  are the same size and density{I don't like playing with loaded dice}),
  when you shake the jar the probability of any paticular grain of salt or
  pepper occupying it's former position in the jar are just as astronomic
  al than if they returned to their original positions.There is nothing
  special about the first configuration of the particles!!!.Let me clarify
  this a little further.My desk is what some people(especially my wife),
  would call a complete mess or state of disorder.Now I know right where
  to lay my hands on everything,but my wife is appaled at the mess,so when
  I go out she tidies it up and puts everything "in order".When I get home
  I'm the one who's furious because I can't find a damm thing.To me NOW 
  everything is in a total mess or state of disorder.
   Perhaps a better example is as the following---Consider four people sit
  ting at a table with a deck of cards(playing Bridge{if you don't know the
  game it dosen't matter,you'll get the point i'm making here}).The cards
  are given a good shuffel and 13 cards are dealt to each person one card
  at a time.To their amazement when they look at their cards each person has
  a complete suit,not only that but there all "in order",the spade ace being
  the first card followed by the spade king and so on down to the spade two.
  The same happens to the other three with the three remaining suits.They l
  eave the game claiming that the dealer rigged the deck for the odds of th
  ocurring would be as astronomical as it would be for my spelling to be co
  rrect.But in fact there is nothing unique about this distrabution of cards
  for if the cards were reshuffeled and this time each person received a so
  called "random distrabution" of cards,the probability on any other redeal
  of receiving this identical "random" hand are just as high against the od
  ds!.We are the ones who place a unique state of order to the first deal of
  cards,because it's us who're RIGGING the rules(or laws if you like).Mother
  Nature assigns no special uniqueness to that first deal.We are instintivly
  preprogrammed to look for patterns in nature in order to survive as a spe
  cies,but the cosmos is completly indifferent to this so called increase in
  entropy,it has no meaning for her.
   Therefore while to most of us the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may seem valid
  on a grander scale it is meaningless!!!.
                            George Penney

Scott, don't thow your money in the air.
-- 
   Pertti Lounesto         Pertti.Lounesto@hut.fi 
                           http://dopey.hut.fi/staff/lounesto.html.en

In article <32DB6A44.442B@astro.uni-wuerzburg.de> Ralf Kleineisel  writes:
>From: Ralf Kleineisel 
>Subject: Re: Hypothetical Universal Theory regarding Big Bang, gravity, and matter.
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:13:08 +0100
>nebula@spacelab.net wrote:
>> 
>>                 · Entering Sub-assumption: The reaction is an explosion.
>> 
>The Big Bang wasn't an explosion IN the universe, it was the explosion
>OF the 
>universe. Before the Big Bang, there even wasn't space itself. Because
>of the
>BB the space itself expands, not the matter within a static space.
I suppose that one should care about the big-bang, and it all seems logical 
based on gravity, but what about magnetism, and what about what we DO know?  
There is much to be shared already within the realm of what we know about 
ourselves.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
for humans who simply cannot believe in the supernatural

In article <32DB6A44.442B@astro.uni-wuerzburg.de> Ralf Kleineisel  writes:
>From: Ralf Kleineisel 
>Subject: Re: Hypothetical Universal Theory regarding Big Bang, gravity, and matter.
>Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:13:08 +0100
>nebula@spacelab.net wrote:
>> 
>>                 · Entering Sub-assumption: The reaction is an explosion.
>> 
>The Big Bang wasn't an explosion IN the universe, it was the explosion
>OF the 
>universe. Before the Big Bang, there even wasn't space itself. Because
>of the
>BB the space itself expands, not the matter within a static space.
I suppose that one should care about the big-bang, and it all seems logical 
based on gravity, but what about magnetism, and what about what we DO know?  
There is much to be shared already within the realm of what we know about 
ourselves.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
for humans who simply cannot believe in the supernatural

Does anyone know of any IRC channels or servers out there?
Chris.

The following articles have been reposted.
 1:Why C=3x10^8m/s
 2:EPR Solution.4D-Space
 3:UFT.What Four Forces??
 4:GR Problem Restated
 5:Entropy?? The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
This time they should be readable.
               George Penney

In article <32DEFAC0.6ED4@interpath.com> Neel  writes:
>From: Neel 
>Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 23:06:24 -0500
>> > Sunlight is the source of all life on the planet.
>> >
>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.
Any way we look at it, Neel, the sun has a lot to do with it.  You are right.  
I wonder if it is possible that the "sun life" is a spn off from the "vent 
life".  I think this is the question.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
for the "sun life"