Newsgroup sci.physics 216580

Directory

"Horizontal" listening? Does this mean listening while you are 
half-asleep on the couch?

Eric Flesch:
|> Wave functions, state vectors, etc., all describe what a photon does.
|> As for what the photon is, it's just a particle.  Ask Feynman.  (well,
|> anyway, read Feynman  :-)
A photon is absolutely _not_ a "particle" in the traditional 
Newtonian sense of the word.  A photon is decidedly nonintuitive  
entity which can be accuratey described, as Peter Diehr has 
summarized, by a state vector.
I suggest you audit a course in quantum electrodynamics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <32DFE6FF.2119@b.com>, Anonymous   wrote:
>
>Regular consonance and tonality can bring a level
>of euphony to the initially destabilizing effect of hearing other than
>the regular twelve tone increments, at times generating a bridge to the
>less standard frequency relationships.
NOW I understand! This precise definition of "tonality" makes everything 
perfectly clear.
This being said, I can understand why you post as "anonymous."

In article <32e079ec.45085630@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch) writes:
>On 17 Jan 1997 00:58:55 GMT, "Peter Diehr" wrote:
>>Eric Flesch  wrote in article
>>> Light is composed of photon particles which move in
>>>probability-based  wave-like patterns.  The photons themselves
>>>have no wave-like properties, they are just particles.
>>
>>This is a very inaccurate description of a photon.  The state
>>vector (or wave function, if you prefer to go to that notation), contains
>>all information; the photon number operator tells you how many
>>photons are present.  You can also determine the probability of an
>>interaction from the state vector.   Interference effects enter via the
>>state vector. Wave and particle are aspects of the state vector.
>> You cannot truly dispense with either aspect.
>
>The question, Peter, is what a photon IS, not what it DOES.  I suppose
>that if someone asked you about cars, you would describe roads.
>
Physics describes what things do.  Period.  Then you can use any 
metaphysics of your liking to describe what they are, if you're so 
inclined.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <5bo9sb$grs@news.fsu.edu>, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>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? 
>
Most probably one of the these two.  Would be interesting to get 
somebody from the Sorbone to comment.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

On Sat, 18 Jan 1997 15:37:19 -0800, Hermital 
wrote:
>On Sat 1/18/97 11:17 -0800 crjclark wrote:
>
>> In the holographic supertheory, the brain interprets
>> frequencies from a dimension beyond time and space.
>
>Hello, Craig:
>
>In the scientifically rational Holographic Paradigm, nonlocal holonomic
>Mind both creates and accepts thought vibrations that interact with
>other diverse diffraction patterns within conditional relativity.  And
>every diffraction pattern is contained within the transcendental or
>material time and space of conditional relativity.
>
>Egoless pure consciousness, unconditioned pure energy, is the underlying
>pre-existing ground of uncreated absolute pure being that contains and
>sustains all existence including itself.  Thus only omnipresent ONEness
>itself abides beyond the conditional relativity of transcendental and
>material time and space.
>-- 
>Alan
>The uncreated ground of absolute pure being creates nothing in or of
>itself; indeed, each reciprocally emergent entity that cohabits human
>form is his or her own creator.
   My dog makes more sense than that.
  Boris Mohar

In article <19970118161300.LAA07685@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>Well, he had his childhood experiences with the commies (the bloody 
>>communist takeover attempt in Hungary in 1921, or maybe 22) at that 
>>set his attitude for life.
>
>Quite understandable of course, though not all drew the same conclusions.
True.  These traumatic experiences tend to make people more extreme in 
their views, but the direction the extremism woill take can't be 
predicted well.  Two people will undergo same experience, one will 
become a warmonger, the other a pacifist.  Go figure.
	... snip ...
>
>>Anyway, lots of physicists get involved
>>with nonsense when they get older.
>
>This unfortunately is not only true for physicists. Quantum back-action at
>work?
>
Didn't think about it, but it sounds like an likely explanation.  
Shall we ask Sarfatti ?-)
>
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In <01bc056e$9518c060$1463a098@ic.net.ic.net> "Peter Diehr"
 writes: 
>
>Allen Meisner  wrote in article
><5boo38$2pc@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>>     Would fiber optic cables become superconductive at low
>> temperatures?
>> 
>
>Of course not. Superconductivity is a property of specific
>materials, and
    Why not? It is analagous to superconductors of electricity. Has an
experiment been done that shows that low temperature optical fibers
have less than 100% efficiency? Don't you think it would have many
useful technological properties?
Regards,
Edward Meisner
>fiber optic cables are made of materials chosen for a different set
>of 
>properties, primarily dispersion-related, but also flexibility.  The
>two
>sets of properties are not related in general.
>
>Why do you ask?
>
>Best Regards, Peter
>

  wrote:
[On possible exceptions to Occam's razor]
> ... given a vague and general enough definition there are no 
>exceptions.  I think that it is important to realize that Occam's 
>Razor is not a rule which tells you how to pick the best hypothesis.  
>It only tells you that in a situation when you've two or more equally 
>good (that's important) hypotheses, when "equally good" is measured by 
>correspondence to existing information, you should pick the simplest
>one, i.e. the one which uses the smallest number of postulates and/or 
>assumptions.
That's a good point,  IMVHO.  In line with what we were talking about
earlier in relation to "binary thinking",   Occam's razor is a
strategy and we could argue that in some set of possible strategies it
either is or is not the best one,  but it is a little misleading to speak
of "exceptions".  It's like taking out insurance and then thinking you
made the wrong decision because nothing happened.  You can only use
the best information available to you at the time.
>So then somebody may come and say "yeah, but in such and such case, 
>based on the information that became available later, the other 
>hypothesis turned out better.  So, Occam's Razor was wrong in this 
>case."  Not so.  At the time the first decision was made, the 
>hypotheses were equally good, thus the need to apply the Razor.  By 
>the time the new information came around, they were no longer equally 
>good and a new judgement was called for.  Statemetns like "good", 
>"better", "equally good" etc. when applied to physical theories, don't 
>have an eternal and invariant truth value.  They are temporary 
>statements, based on available information, and they keep being 
>reevaluated.
What you said.  I believe the strategy can be put on a statistically
sound footing even,  given some minimal assumptions.  I only object
to the inconsidered use as a slogan.  

>> Also,  in my limited
>>experience,  mature scientists hardly ever wield this argument,
>>realizing that the implication of belief in invisible mythical
>>beasts is an insult to intelligence.   It is associated with a stage
>>of youthful confidence when long having been a big goldfish
>>in a little pond...
>That's a charitable view.  I think that in many cases what you see is 
>just a variation on the well known phenomenon that little dogs bark 
>more than big dogs.
If that was charitable,  I don't think it was enough to itemize. ;-)

Ken Fischer  wrote in article ...
> mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
> : kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
> : >       If you have two spheres of the same material, one having
> : >twice the radius of the other, and the first has a 1 g surface
> : >gravity, the second will have a 2 g surface gravity, and this
> : >is true in Newtonian gravitation, and it is true in Divergent
> : >Matter.    For the same density material, surface gravity is
> : >directly proportional to radius.
> : >       If you can buy this, I'll work on the distance part,
Are you related to (or perhaps the same person) a Joe Fischer who used to
post, many years ago on FidoNet, similar gravity "theories".  I remember
"Divergent Matter", and "Parallel World" as being the names of his pet
gravity theory.  
The basic idea was that, rather than all matter simply attracting other
matter, all matter is somehow expanding, and this accounts for gravity.  We
are not being pulled down to the earth, but instead the earth is pressing
up against our feet.
I recall the major objections at the time were:  matter would have to be
*accelerating*, not just expanding, soon going FTL.  If matter is
expanding, is it becoming more tenuous, or is each atom getting larger?  If
you placed a ball of lead inside a ball of plastic, why doesn't the ball of
lead (which has more mass and therefore more "gravity", and therefore, must
be "expanding" faster) break thru the outer ball of plastic?
My own personal objection:  since everything is expanding the same relative
to everything else (i.e. the yardstick expands the same amount as the
object you are trying to measure) this "expansion" can never be observed,
measured or proven.  Given this, why go with such a hypothesis.  It's like
arguing that the moon is made of cheese, except for when you look at it. 
It's pointless, and even *if true*, still is pointless.
Does anyone else here remember Joe Fischer from FidoNet, say 6-7 years ago?
Dan

In article <32E11E5C.5294@erols.com>, Dennis Nelson  writes:
>John McCarthy wrote:
>> 
>
>Please spare us any more refferences to that moron Bernie Cohen.  Most
>thinking people wouldn't give his comments or writing the time of day.
Apparently I'm a non thinking person.
>As for this silly Denver argument, Denver has more background from man-made
>radiological contamination than it does from cosmic rays.
There are lies and there are big lies.  The above is a giant one.  I 
don't think I would buy a bridge from you :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <19970118095300.EAA26576@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>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...
>
If I would be a military planner, at that time, I would definitely 
give industrial sites a higher priority.  But, as a side remark, most 
of the gas chambers were in Eastern Europe which was out of the reach 
of allied bombers till very lat ein the war.  Which is why Germany 
relocated big part of its armaments industry over there.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Michael Weiss...
Mea culpa.  I cannot deny that I single handedly have destroyed
sci.physics...   No,  wait that's megalomania...  Megalo culpa.
Seriously,  I think the system has flipped.  It was/is bistable,  and
now is in the lower stable state.  The exterior variables that have
changed are the volume and average education of people with access to
the net.  The first term goes up,  the second down.  The number of
flagrant, inane and just generally boring cross-posts expands.  There
are too many to deal with by the old net tools of social suasion and
embarrassment leaving only the hard core cranks,  who had a certain
interest at least as statistical outliers.  The new breed is just
banal,  and unembarrassed.  The new would-be educated poster -- the
grad-student or undergrad -- takes one look at this mess and selects
himself out.  Or maybe a colleague tells him it is full of kooks and he
doesn't even bother looking.  The system is stable.  Quality new
posters are discouraged,  banality rules.
Elitist?  You bet.  Any suggestions how to change things?
 wrote:
>Everything was better in the olden days.  At least this group doen't get
>the sex postings.
But sometimes things really do get worse.
>And I don't reply to the stupid postings (lots more I don't reply to -
>don't take that the wrong way).  Why don't we all just stop doing so?
Because "we all" includes the people making the stupid postings?
Ed

But you didn't _answer the question_, Peter.
Could it possibly be that you don't know what "tonality" is?

On Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:46:49 -0500, Pinky  wrote:
>In naturre there exists a natural distinction between hem and
>marijauana. They are essentially the same plant but they have naturally
>differing amounts of THC (Hemp has less). This fact is often overlooked.
Yo Pinky,
Same plant, different strain.  Many strains of different strengths.
No, nature doesn't separate and make a distinction, people do.
From:
Your Kind and Humble Narrator
Gary L. Green, B.Sc., D.C.
jiajen@pc.jaring.my
Chiropractor's pick-up lines  "What's a lousy joint like this doing in a
nice person like you?"

yvesg@infobahnos.com (Yves Guillemette) wrote:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu (Victor Yodaiken) wrote:
>>In article ,   wrote:
>>>tomcool@ix.netcom.com (TomCooley) writes: 
>>>> (snip)... It was conceived by the
>>>> United Nations along with the council on foreign relations, the
>>>> trilateral commision and glenn gould(his humming on his recording is
>>>> certainly atonal).  It is part of a plot to establish one world
>>>> government.  On many occasions I have seen black helicopters with huge
>>>> speakers blasting schonberg's 12 tone music.
>>>
>>>And don't forget Stockhausen's piece for string quartet, with the
>>>players riding over the audience in 4 BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!!
And the damn helicopters aren't even in tune....
Webern rules, the Last European, as Pynchon's characters have it in
the In The Zone  section of Gravity's Rainbow...atonal fiction

In article , jstanley@gate.net (John A. Stanley) writes:
>In article <32E013BA.7D47@erols.com>, Dennis Nelson  wrote:
>>John A. Stanley wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>
>>A purist would call that a radiological weapon, not a nuclear weapon.
>
>A nitpicker would point out that the type of weapon was never
>specified in the original inquiry.  ;)
>
True.  How about affixing the plutonium to a 2x4 and using it as a 
mace.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <5bs056$6g0@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) writes:
>  wrote:
>
>[On possible exceptions to Occam's razor]
>
>> ... given a vague and general enough definition there are no 
>>exceptions.  I think that it is important to realize that Occam's 
>>Razor is not a rule which tells you how to pick the best hypothesis.  
>>It only tells you that in a situation when you've two or more equally 
>>good (that's important) hypotheses, when "equally good" is measured by 
>>correspondence to existing information, you should pick the simplest
>>one, i.e. the one which uses the smallest number of postulates and/or 
>>assumptions.
>
>That's a good point,  IMVHO.  In line with what we were talking about
>earlier in relation to "binary thinking",   Occam's razor is a
>strategy and we could argue that in some set of possible strategies it
>either is or is not the best one,  but it is a little misleading to speak
>of "exceptions".  It's like taking out insurance and then thinking you
>made the wrong decision because nothing happened.  You can only use
>the best information available to you at the time.
>
Right on.
>>So then somebody may come and say "yeah, but in such and such case, 
>>based on the information that became available later, the other 
>>hypothesis turned out better.  So, Occam's Razor was wrong in this 
>>case."  Not so.  At the time the first decision was made, the 
>>hypotheses were equally good, thus the need to apply the Razor.  By 
>>the time the new information came around, they were no longer equally 
>>good and a new judgement was called for.  Statemetns like "good", 
>>"better", "equally good" etc. when applied to physical theories, don't 
>>have an eternal and invariant truth value.  They are temporary 
>>statements, based on available information, and they keep being 
>>reevaluated.
>
>What you said.  I believe the strategy can be put on a statistically
>sound footing even,  given some minimal assumptions.  I only object
>to the inconsidered use as a slogan.  
So do I.  But people love slogans, it saves the effort of thinking:-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Michael Weiss wrote:
> 
> When I first started reading sci.physics, a few years ago, it was
> filled with fascinating stuff.  Crystal groups in biological research,
>
We need a TV virus that will destroy all TVs. 
People would have to learn to think again for entertainment.
-- 
F. Martin McNeill      http://www.fuzzysys.com
"I believe that I am in hell, therefore I am there." -Arthur Rimbaud
"Anger is one of the sinews of the soul; he that wants it hath a 
maimed mind." - Thomas Fuller

In article <01bc058c$be8cf380$ebe2aec7@pro> "Rick Tarara"  writes:
 > 
 > Cohen's writings and 'stunts' about nuclear matters have always been
 > 'tongue in cheek' and in direct response to the more wild claims and
 > statistical manipulations of the anti-nuke press.  I once heard a symposium
 > he gave where he showed conclusively that building thousands of nuclear
 > power plants would SAVE lives even with a couple 'worse case' accidents. 
 > The life saver?--mining all that Uranium would severely reduce the Radon
 > exposure of most people.  What to do with the waste and mining
 > tailings?--"Throw it in the oceans--its going to end up there eventually
 > anyway  ;-)" {emoticon added}
Rick Tarara can't believe that actual calculations of the effects of
various policies are so far from what he has come to believe.
Does he have an argument that Cohen was mistaken in any of his
calculations?
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Mark Friesel  wrote:
>Dewey Burbank wrote:
[in response to Jim Carr's statement:]
> > > >"...at Hanford where no records were kept of what went in the tanks. "
>> Wrong.
>> I refer you to http://twins.pnl.gov:8001/ to see the records of
>> what is in the tanks.  You will find gigabytes of online
>> information including photographs, reams and reams of analytical
>> data, operations records, etc. etc. that will tell you whatever
>> you might want to know about what is in the tanks - at Hanford,
>> Savannah River, and INEL.
>
>I reply:
>
>Not wrong.  Records, as the term is usually used to refer to what was 
>put into the tanks made at the time the waste was put into the tanks, 
>don't exist for the Hanford site.  The information you refer to is 
>post-hoc and relatively recent analysis of tank waste to determine what 
>was put into them and what it has evolved into.
[snip]
>Hanford records more than about 20 years old do not exist - or at least 
>no-one has been able to find them.  So says Westinghouse managers, and 
>others I have worked with on the site.
Westinghouse doesn't work there any more :-)
I'm not going to quibble about semantics as to whether the
information in question constitutes "records" or not.  I frankly
don't know if there is a piece of paper sitting in a file cabinet
somewhere that says X amount of waste with composition Y was put
into Tank Z on October 13, 1957 (the classic DOE definition of
"record material").  However, I do know that those records did
exist at one time.  I also know that they have been summarized
over the years and compiled into a massive tome (reference 1).
This 1,200 page report presents the transaction histories of all
177 of Hanford's waste tanks throughout the period from 1944 to
present.  
Of course, what went into a particular tank 40 years ago is not
necessarily what is in the tank today.  The waste has been pumped
all over the place, allowed to settle, cascaded from tank to
tank, sent through additional processes, etc.etc.  The folks at
Los Alamos National Laboratory have been working diligently on
this problem (reference 2) and have developed a very detailed
model of what probably happened during all of these operations.
It is the basis for what is known as the Historical Tank Contents
Estimate.  From this, they have developed a set of estimated
compositions for no less than 48 "Hanford Defined Wastes"
(reference 3).
But, the story doesn't end there.  Over the years, real live
samples of the waste have been pulled from the tanks and
analyzed.  Some of the older analyses are of dubious quality, but
the majority of analytical data have been taken over the past few
years and used full EPA analytical protocol and QA pedigree.
Even so, anyone that would claim to know what is in a
million-gallon tank based on analysis of a 1-liter sample is not
very well versed in the scientific method.  All of these
"records" (and more) can be accessed at the TWINS site that was
referenced in the original post.
Not surprisingly, there are discrepancies between the analytical
data and the estimates from the model.  To this end, there is an
effort underway to resolve the discrepancies and come up with a
"Best Basis Inventory" to describe the feed streams to the
vitrification plants.
The whole question of what is in the tanks is far from a simple
problem.  They will never know exactly what is in every tank, but
they certainly know enough *now* to proceed with retrieval,
treatment, vitrification, storage and disposal of the waste.
Blocks of solid radioactive glass buried in the ground are orders
of magnitude less environmentally risky than the current
situation of leaky tanks of liquid radioactive waste buried in
the ground.
dewey@televar.com
References:
1)  Agnew, S. F.; Corbin, R. A.; Duran, T. B.; Jurgensen, K.A.;
Ortiz, T. P.; Young, B. L. "Waste Status and Transaction Record
Summary (WSTRS Rev. 2)" WHC-SD-WM-TI-615, -614, -669, -689, Rev.
2, September 1985.
2)  http://mwanal.lanl.gov/CST/CST-4/hanford.html
3) Agnew, S. F. "Hanford Defined Wastes: Chemical and
Radionuclide Compositions," LA-UR-94-2657, Rev. 2, September
1995. Also available as WHC-SD-WM-TI-632, Rev. 2 
http://lib-www.lanl.gov/pubs/hdw.htm
dewey@televar.com

In article <32e11ef2.4602826@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mulder78@ix.netcom.com (Brian James Mueller) writes:
>On 17 Jan 1997 22:16:56 GMT, yqg023@mrbig.rockwell.com (Jim F. Glass
>x60375) wrote:
>
>>But if you take the product of the efficiencies of the central power plant,
>>the various stages of transmission/conversion, the charger, the battery, the
>>electric motor, and so on---it might just be a push.  In fact, it is entirely
>>possible that the gas burner could win.
>
>no it isn't.
>
>the issue of the generator is entirely seperate from the issue of the
>electric car. In the United States, most generators are still
>coal-fired or run on natural gas...such is not the case in the rest of
>the world.
>
>IMHO, the engineering issues regarding electric cars can be ignored,
>because ICEs are inferior for other reasons also; for example, the
>electric car does not pollute the atmosphere. Whether the Generator
>that supplies it power pollutes the atmosphere is a parenthetical
>issue. 
NO, it isn't.  It is definitely relevant.
>There is a law in this state (California, USA) that requires, by 2010
>iirc, 10% of all new cars sold here to be zero emission. Sorry I don't
>have the details in front of me at the moment. (though I think it's a
>good law, I wonder how Sacremento plans to enforce it.)
>
I wonder when the California will pass a law requiring all pigs to be 
able to fly by year 2025.  And, how they're going to enforce it.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Mark Bondurant wrote:
> : >The square root of 2 can be written in Basic computer language
> : >as follows: 2^.5 or 2^(1/2) or SQR(2).
> 
> How about .5*log(2)?
Eh?  (1/2) log 2 (one-half the common logarithm of two) is not the same
thing as 2^(1/2) (two raised to the one-half power, or the square root of
two).
-- 
        Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE; / email:  max@alcyone.com
                      Alcyone Systems /   web:  http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 San Jose, California, United States /  icbm:  37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W
                                    \
           "Gods are born and die, / but the atom endures."
                                  / (Alexander Chase)

Granted Gary, but the point was that there is no need for
mucking about with the genes of cannabis. If the correct strains 
are chosen there are low enough levels of THC to be negligible. 
Even lower levels could be obtained through selective breeding.

In article <5bpb1b$ofu@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Hibnar
 wrote:
> In article <32ddf066.1015272@news.hkstar.com> Alex Tsui,
> alextsui@hkstar.com writes:
> >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?
> 
> A ³rod² 10 LY long would most likly have more mass then any 2 planets.
> safe bet they would move first
An interesting thought, would the bar have enough strucual ridgity ( I cant
spell tonight) to with stand it's on gravidy, or would it fold up from it's
own gravity drawing the end toward the middle?

In article <5bo1gi$721@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Jeff Candy  wrote:
>
>|> I think that we do not in fact have laisses-faire economics, 
>|> even after Regan, but that we still have a "Mixed" economy in which
>|> some of the regulation has been undone. 
>
>Absolutely correct.  At no point was I making an explicit reference 
>to a particular country. 
	Were you talking about a real economy at all, then?
>|> What change has happened? Technology, notably the personal computer 
>|> has changed the relationship between labor and management.
> 
>Not in any fundamental way.
	Oh, something has allowed organizational change, to allow
business to outsource a great deal which they used to do in house.
You don't think that massive change has happened in the way business
is structured since 1967? I do. It is not the same world.
>|> It has created a labor force that has not become collective, 
>|> yet. One on which all the risks of small business has been 
>|> pushed with none of the benefits. The tax laws certaintly 
>|> don't favor the white collor migrant worker or the temporary 
>|> contract worker.
>
>Now I don't follow you.  The current tax laws in the US are 
>not imposed in a fair, rational way.  They are "unfair" for 
>millions of people.
	You missed the point. Many more individuals are being
forced to accept the same risks as small business whether they
want to or not. They are being forced to become self-employed
by structural changes in the economy, in the position of the
work force. The computer is the main tool of this transformation.
It is represented as an opportunity, but in fact it is a way for
companies to reduce their labor costs and risks associated with
labor. By forcing functions to outsource not only do the companies
not have to keep people around, but the companies do not own the
means of production, people can go out and buy their own tools.
This has historically allowed for companies to force people off
their payrolls and turn the laborforce into migrants. This has
an additional benefit to business at the expense of labor. It
weakens the ability of labor to be organized in any meaningful
way. This is further exaberated by the rise of contracting
companies as middlemen. This allows corporate HR departments
to shrink to nothing but benefits handlers and for all the
risk in labor procuring to be placed outside the business.
	The tax code does not yet recognize the risk in having
people who are not making more money than their basic needs
consume. In one act the role of automatic tax withholding
is removed from the lives of many people who have never been
self-employed before, in going from a permanent employment to
become a contract employee and without the benefits that used to
be associated with free-lancing. Technology change has allowed
business to force more people to free-lance whether they want
to or not, and without the income increment that used to offset
the risk. You will still hear that people make lots of money as
contractors, true enough, What you will not hear is that many more
were forced to become temps., or contractors who fared less well.
>|> This change really has little to do with government politics,
>|> yet it is revolutionary and it is the source for cynicism in
>|> our current setting. People feel very much less secure and
>|> yet true to American mythos, they speak of the opportunity and
>|> play down the risk. We will see what the tune is after the
>|> next downturn, and remember that Americans are again putting
>|> all their eggs in one basket, as happened in the 1920s. If
>|> the Stock and Bond Markets crash, which could happen this
>|> year, all hell could break loose.
>
>If this passage were shown to a high school student in 1967, 
>he'd probably have said, "right on man".  Nothing fundamental 
>has changed. 
	I don't know what hole you have been hiding in for 30
years that you could say such a statement. You would then have
us believe that nothing has changed in the U.S. Economy or in
labor experiences in that period. I seriously doubt that. Then
again, if I worked for the Department of Energy on one of the
few long-term investment projects to be found anywhere in
government or the private sector, I might agree with you.
	If you were to go around and ask any middle or upper
manager if his team or even the company he works for has a
five-year business plan, or even a stratigic plan of any
sort that he believes in, I doubt that you would find such.
Most people work in environments where the investment is
short-term and subject to quartery performance, where very
little fiancing is there for payoff in five years.
Bruce Salem
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
>Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!

ray@scribbledyne.com (Ray Heinrich) writes: > In article <32E037C6.62CB@quadrant.net>,
>   you may have gotten your causality reversed here.
>   it seems probable, from the experiments i've conducted so far,
>   that the stupid are selecting gods.  and it's lots of diferent 
>   ones, too.  at the least, it's quite creative. 
>   -ray
The stupid are selecting gods - 
spontaneous combustion. I never thought
how lust and zits could yield theophanies.
Then I put my hand on the cold blue face
of my TV and Y-Rays penetrated me.
Gods select their own. I try to be
a blue-light special, though home grown,
try to possess a faith encapsulated
and indelible - shrink-wrapped.
But someone slipped innoculating me - 
I don't know what to do with it,
but I think I've been set free.

Jim Carr (jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: 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. 
The amusing part of that being that when I visited a friend in central 
Minnesotta, I was struck by how much like home it was, right down to the 
Amish community beyond the north end of town.  (The fact that there 
weren't any universities and the town was less than a third the size of 
the one near my home made much less of an impression.)
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....
> And don't be misled by thinking that those who haven't earned Ph.D.s are
> somewhat lacking in education.  Getting an education isn't only about
> going to college.  I would hope that everyone furthers their education
> whether or not in an institutionalized classroom.
> 
....
> April
Within a given field of study those without the PhD certainly are 
lacking in education and experience, and it's a constant problem when 
those who direct or fund research lack appropriate credentials in the 
field.  I'm glad you found your own road to success and happiness, and 
your latter hope is certainly shared by most or all, but what on earth 
are you doing babbling to sci.physics if you're so happy with your lack 
of physics education?
Mark Friesel

L.A. Moran (lamoran@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <32dd7eba.10966160@news>,   wrote:
: >On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:04:02 GMT, lamoran@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (L.A.
: >Moran) wrote:
: >>
: >>The real reason why there's no derogatory term for Canadians is that there
: >>is never any need for such a term.
: >who was it that said canada could have had english govt, american know
: >how and french culture....instead they got english know how, american
: >culture and french govt....:-)
: Probably an American, but it could have been an Englishman or a Frenchman.
I'm fairly sure that the guy's Canadian.
Y'see, we KNOW we live in a pretty screwed up county.  The only thing 
that most Canadians DON'T know is that most of what they think is good 
about Canada (almost always compared to the US) is WRONG.
For instance, Canada is thought to be safer.  In fact, Canada has a 
HIGHER rate of violent crime, nationally, than the US.
It is thought that Canadians are more generous than Americans.  In fact, 
Americans give more to charities than Canadians do.
There are all sorts of things like that.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wf3h@enter.net wrote:
: On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:04:02 GMT, lamoran@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (L.A.
: Moran) wrote:
: >The real reason why there's no derogatory term for Canadians is that there
: >is never any need for such a term.
: who was it that said canada could have had english govt, american know
: how and french culture....instead they got english know how, american
: culture and french govt....:-)
I heard it said by the host of _Madly Off In All Directions_.
(For those of you who don't or can't listen to CBC Radio, that's one of 
the weekend comedy programs.)
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Sepkoski (dsepkosk@earthlink.net) wrote:
: John Wilkins wrote:
: > While I'm not exactly sure of the European
: > practice (I understand it's *much* more rigorous), the Anglo tradition,
: > followed in Australia, roughly works out to Anglo Masters (by research)
: > equals US PhD in years of post-secondary study. It's not exact because
: > you have that confusing Junior College thing. That's not to denigrate US
: > PhD's, because the standard of work is most likely the same, but US
: > graduates are typically a few years younger than ours and the UK.
: > 
: > I only know this because I once worked in a university that had to
: > accredit Australian degrees for Aussie postgraduates and post-docs in
: > the US.
: Actually, you're dead wrong about that.  In the English system, a BA
: takes about 3 years, compared to the US 4 (don't even worry about junior
: college--most people who go on to grad study start at a 4 year college
: or university).  The English BA takes less time because it is more
: specialized, and it is perhaps fair to say that in the individual
: subject of the student's major, an English BA is slightly better
: prepared.  Remember, however, that the US higher educationial system is
: modeled after the German system, and a US BA generally has to study a
: wider range of subjects during their undergraduate education (liberal
: arts).  The English MA and PhD are generally more exclusively
: research-oriented than their counterparts in the US, involving less
: classwork (a US MA will normally include 1 yr of required courses, the
: PhD 2-2 1/2 yrs) but make no mistake, an equivelant time will be spent
: in the US researching and writing the dissertation.  A US PhD might take
: an average of 5 years to complete (even after a Masters', in some cases)
: while a UK PhD may only take 3 years, even without a MA.
: So, in the final tabulation: US--4yrs BA, 2yrs MA, 4yrs PhD = 10 yrs.  A
: US student is 28-30yrs old upon completion, assuming they have taken
: minimal time off from school.  UK--3 yrs BA, 2 yrs MA, 3 yrs PhD = 8
: yrs.  You can see that it is UK PhDs that take less time.
Slight ammendment to that:  In the US, it is possible to entirely skip 
the Masters and go straight for the PhD.  We have at least one Proof at 
UofG who did that.
: I'm not evaluating the merits of either system--I've studied in both,
: and found each to be rewarding in different ways.  But there seems to be
: a myth outside of the US that we in America have "less rigerous"
: educations.  That is simply not the case.
High schools can be a LOT less rigourous in places.  For instance, in 
California (at least until recently) it was posisble to go through high 
school and never write proper exams.  I started them in what Americans 
call junior high.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) wrote:
>Actually I hear more praise for 19-tone equal temperment than
>for 16 or 24.  31, 55, and 108 also have their fans.  One of the
>Javanese scales uses 5 of the 7 notes in 7-tone equal temperment,
>more or less....
(Perhaps this belongs in another thread)
How are the pitches generated in some of these microtonal works for
tones greater than 24?  (i.e., What medium is most often employed -
traditional instruments?  Computers?)  I've always been fascinated by
the concept, but often wonder if its value lessens (aurally) as the
number of tones greatens...What are we able to perceive, and how?
************
David Cliffe
Commack, NY
clida02@mail.idt.net

dewey@televar.com (Dewey Burbank) wrote:
>>> I refer you to http://twins.pnl.gov:8001/ to see the records of
>>> what is in the tanks.  You will find gigabytes of online
>>> information including photographs, reams and reams of analytical
>>> data, operations records, etc. etc. that will tell you whatever
>>> you might want to know about what is in the tanks - at Hanford,
>>> Savannah River, and INEL.
I apologize for pointing to a location that may not be accessible
to the general public.  The best location for publicly released
information about what is in the Hanford tanks can be found at:
http://www.hanford.gov/twrs/char.pub/doc_toc.htm
dewey@televar.com

tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien) wrote (in sci.astro.research):
...
>The earth would shield an object like my body from CBR energy arriving from 
>beneath me, while the atmosphere is not a perfect shield for that energy 
>arriving from above.  Thus, my body will be struck by this energy as we know 
>from the fact that the CBR was able to be "heard" using a radio antenna here 
>on earth as is well established.
...
>Le Sage, in Newtons time showed that mathematically, Newton's equations are 
>equivalently the same equations one would use if gravitation were a shielding 
>mechanism of some form of radiation arriving from space.
Ross, your description was a nice one an is largely valid but I think
misses one point.  What happens to the blocked energy?  Does it get
reradiated at other wavelengths?  If so then there is no effect at all!
So in order to explain gravitation by the action of radiant energy it is
necessary that some energy be PERMANENTLY absorbed.  Otherwise the space
between close atoms will eventually have the same energy density as
elsewhere and there is no force.
If we assume that a small proportion of the energy passing through each
particle is absorbed then we can explain gravitation.  The proportion
that is needed is about 1 part in 10^41 because that is the strength of
gravity relative to the strong force which we may assume are the naked
forces of the full blast of this radiation.
What are the other consequences of nucleons (which are the main
purveyors of gravity) absorbing 1 part in 10^41 of the energy passing
through them?  Well, they would gain in mass/energy wouldn't they.
The rate that they would gain is 1 part in 10^40 per oscillation and
their oscillation rate is ~10^23.5 times per second (the Compton
frequency of a nucleon).  So the rate would be about 1 part in 10^17.5
per second or 1 part per 10 billion years.
If the mass/energy of nucleons increased at a rate of 1 part per 10
billion years then all atomic transitions would move toward the blue 
end of the spectrum at this rate.  When we looked at older atomic
transitions (as we do when we observe distant galaxies) we would see
them as being red relative to the present ones.  In fact what we would
expect is the Hubble redshift relationship and the Hubble constant is
correctly predicted.
In other words the galaxies are not speeding away, they are simply
redder because we are comparing them to the new higher frequency models
which are like that because they have absorbed energy since those
distant times.
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm

In article <5bof98$g9f@mn5.swip.net>, mj17624@janus.swipnet.se says...
> [snip]
>>Mathias,
>> Since the USA has shut down the SSC, when does CERN plan to have a 
collider 
>>capable of achieving the necessary energy to produce Higgs particles?
>>--Mike Ramsey
>      
>Sorry for the long reply time, I sent you an e-mail , but it didn't
>reach your server.
>
>The LHC is scheduled to be ready in 2005. It will be able to produce
>collision energies of 17 TeV. Hopefully this will be enough to create
>the higgs particle.
Mathias & Jim,
 Thank you both for the reply.  My "reply to" address was missing a period.  
It is now fixed.  I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.
I recall an article in Scientific America back before the SSC was canceled
where a range of energies was predicted between which the Higgs (if it 
exists) should be found.  The SSC was only going to explore the bottom part
of this range.  How does the LHC compare?  How much of the expected 
range will it cover?
Stated another way, what are the odds that the Higgs will be found or the 
theory disproven by 2005?
--Thank you,
--Mike

Tim Hollebeek (tim@franck.Princeton.EDU.composers) wrote:
: 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.
I begin to wonder if there is a trend here:  We've had two true monsters 
with PhDs listed that I've seen so far:  Karazdic and Pol Pot.  Pol Pot 
had a PhD in philosophy, apparently.  What's Karazdic's in?  Is there a 
distinct skew for monsters who have PhDs to have PhDs in social sciences 
rather than the harder sciences?
: > 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!)
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: 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! ;)
He is, obviously, asking how it can be that a country can have a 
population who's only cohessive notion is of what they are NOT.
This situation is the result of a massive program of cultural isiolation 
that has been in progress for over 2 decades now.  It is called 
'Multiculturalism.'
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cbayse (cbayse@isc.tamu.edu) wrote:
: > 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.
He may, like Hitler and Hussein, have published works which gave a clear 
(although likely not as clear) indication of what sorts of things he 
would try to be up to in the future.  Since Pol Pot's writtings were 
probably largely peer reviewed, he wouldn't have been obvious about it.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <5bs0ev$ruc@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) writes:
>czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
	... snip ...
>
>: 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! ;)
>
>He is, obviously, asking how it can be that a country can have a 
>population who's only cohessive notion is of what they are NOT.
>
>This situation is the result of a massive program of cultural isiolation 
>that has been in progress for over 2 decades now.  It is called 
>'Multiculturalism.'
Multiculturalism is just an updated version of what the Romans called 
"divide and conquer".  That's why politicos love it.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"