Newsgroup sci.physics 216619

Directory

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:51:06 GMT, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>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.
Foof, all that says, Mati, is that you're in one of the seven-or-eight
leadings "camps" to which physicists express their allegiance -- in
your case, you're in the "results-only-and-think-no-further" camp, is
that right?
Eric
___________________________________________
"The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose,
 but queerer than we *can* suppose." -- J. Haldane

In article <32E1954A.71AAAC46@MIT.EDU>, Pinky   wrote:
>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.
My major concern would be DEA officials who can't tell the difference.
Before hemp can become useful under current laws, the industrially
valuable but useless for smoking version must have obvious physical
differences.  Because you know they're going to ban everything that looks
the same.
-- 
"Good things come in small packages.  But big things can't, unless they're
inflatable or require some assembly." - The Tick

gpenney@thezone.net (George Penney) wrote:
>         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 
Here, lets make it even simpler .
A bottle of oil and water (just like some salad dressings)
Shake it up vigorously , then let it sit -- it separates.
Hmmm....
But what of the energy that was used to shake it up,
the enegy used in seperation will eventually end up moving out of the bottle
till an equalibrium is reached in tempurature.  I hope thiking about this does
not require to much calories and thus increase entropy to much.
You should observe that the heat gets radiated in all kinds of directions but
came from one source your shaking it. Pay more attention to the final
destinations of the heat produced in processes. 
Duncan

Dan Yertzell (Dan-Yertzell@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: 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.  
       Yes, I have always gone by that name except on legal
documents.
: 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.
        Sounds consistent with observation to me. :-)
: I recall the major objections at the time were:  matter would have to be
: *accelerating*, not just expanding, soon going FTL.  
         Which is not true according to the meter stick and
second we use, because they both would be lengthening, and
c becomes an observed constant.
         The fact that, in the underlying physics, all of
the values go hyperbolic, is not a problem, as long as
what we measure agrres with Newton or General Relativity.
: If matter is
: expanding, is it becoming more tenuous, or is each atom getting larger?  
      No, we would always observe the same size and density
using the meter stick and second we use, even though, in
the underlying physics, the quarks would be twice as far
apart about every 10 minutes.
      As close as the quarks are together, it shouldn't
matter too much, and even though this process of gravity
would involve the entropy of quarks moving apart, it
may be closer to reality than other models.
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?
       The acceleration provides surface gravity, but there
is a hidden residual outward radial velocity of the surface
that is greater for less dense material that allows all
objects to double in the same period of time.
       This hidden velocity also seems to provide the 
mechanism for some of the relativistic effects.    But the
acceleration is all we can measure and observe directly.
: 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.
        The object is to try to have a consistent model,
it isn't a question of "why bother, it's pointless", the
model exists and needs to be studied. 
        Things in freefall are not accelerated, that is
consistent with observation.
        The surface gravity of spheres of like material
is directly proportional to radius, that would be 
consistent if such spheres existed as planets, but the
Earth is not homogeneous, the core appears to be very
much compressed, it has a density of about 17, while
the surface has a density of 3 with some local variation.
        Check my homepage once in a while, maybe I will
find something interesting to post.
        Since I have been working on this for 51 years,
it is about time it was formalized, but I need a lot of
help, and I am getting none.
: Does anyone else here remember Joe Fischer from FidoNet, say 6-7 years ago?
: Dan
        Or 8 or 9?   :-)    But I think I bore people. :-)
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372 
Who's Who of American Inventors  Fourth Edition  1996-1997 
Divergent Matter GUT of Gravitation http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer 
aka Joe Fischer

In article <32E03188.7098@ix.netcom.com>,
Daniel E. Clark  wrote:
>Brent Hetherwick wrote:
>>If'n you don't think that atonal music be exist'n, what's all th'
[...]
>Brent Hetherwick: I competely agree. However, "honky," I don't see the
>point in talking (writing) like a fool.
An observation: we're all posting like fools for contributing to this thread.
-- 
Matt Fields  URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields

In article <32e19d76.35471469@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu>, ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch) writes:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 01:51:06 GMT, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>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.
>
>Foof, all that says, Mati, is that you're in one of the seven-or-eight
>leadings "camps" to which physicists express their allegiance -- in
>your case, you're in the "results-only-and-think-no-further" camp, is
>that right?
>
No.  First, I'm in my own camp, I don't recognize any other.  Second, 
I find thinking further very interesting.  But, I also find the 
distinction between "what things are" and "what things do" unphysical.
The only way we know something about things is through their 
interactions with other things.  Something that doesn't interact with 
anything else in the world is physically indistinguishable from 
something that doesn't exist.
Now, intercations are "what things do".  You're welcome to speculate 
all you wish about what things are but eventually it boils down to one 
of the following:
1)  Your model predicts some measurable property or effect, i.e. 
interaction.  Then it falls into the category of "what things do"
2)  Your model makes no measurable prediction.  Then it is not 
physics.
To put it in yet more concise form, from the point of view of physics, 
what something is is simply the sum total of the things this 
"something" does.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Dewey Burbank wrote:
.....
> 
> 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.
MF:
No need to quibble.  This answers my question.
You continue:
....
> 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.
> 
MF:
I agree - and encased in stainless steel as well unless the design has 
changed significantly in the last five years or so.

Thomas Huber wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> Could anyone please explain to me the principle of
> "charge transfer absorption", which occurs in crystals
> somewhere in the ultraviolet. References are welcome,
> too, of course
> 
> Thanks,
>                         Thomas
In a charge transfer absorption, the energy absorbed causes charge, i.e.
electron density, to be transferred from one portion of a species to
another portion.  There may be transfer of charge from a metal to a
ligand, (metal to ligand charge transfer, or MLCT), or transfer from
ligand to metal (LMCT), or there may be charge transfer from a dissolved
species to the solvent (CTTS).  There may also be charge transfer that
does not involve metals.  Some organic molecules undergo charge transfer
transitions which cause the molecule to undergo a twist, and these are
called twisted intramolecular charge transfers (TICT).  
As you can see from the above, it's not restricted to crystals.  Because
of the transfer of a relatively large amount of charge, the transition
dipole tends to be large, and therefore the absorption coefficients tend
to be large also.  There is a large range of absorption wavelengths
depending upon the electronic nature of the charge donor and charge
acceptor.  
Hope this helps, 
Steven Arnold
Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Oakland City University
Oakland City, IN

rick  wrote:
>Can anyone really define "tonality"?
My dictionary says "the character of a musical composition in relation
to scale or key".  That sounds OK to me.
>I've taken the obligatory courses
>in school that purported to teach it, but no one can really 
>tell how Mozart's music works, or Beethoven's or Bach's.
Unfortunately the real experts on these matters are dead.
>The music that is academically "tonal" isn't worth listening to.
>The stuff that is easy to analyze by some schoolish conception
>of "tonal" is rubbish.
You are going a bit far here aren't you?
>The people that have it boiled down to
>rules can't write anything at all, and the rules are stupid,
>always 'broken' by the real composers.
>So are we talking about "tonality" at all here? I think not. We
>are talking about a dance of musical components that have some
>acoustic similarity to one another but are really quite individual
>and defy analysis.  [This means *you*, Schenker!]
I'll give you my definition of tonality which will be different to
anything that you ever heard before but I believe will answer your
question.
Find the HCF (Highest Common Factor) of the frequencies played in a
passage of music (I say passage because you well know that some pieces
of music have modulations or key changes in them) and multiply it by 24
and that frequency corresponds to the note that is the key of the piece.
The only problem with this definition is that today we use an
equitempered scale and so there is no exact HCF.  To overcome this you
will have to either:
a. Consider the music as being in a Just Intonation scale OR
b. Work with a definition of HCF that allows a bit of slop (about 1%
should be enough).
If you want to see some worked examples from the great composers, then
go to my WWW pages and you will see something near to what you are
asking.  Try http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/aji-xmpl.htm and
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/aji-main.htm which is a description
of an invention of mine called AJI (automatic just intonation).
You may find interesting the stuff commencing at:
http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/alex-ha.htm
(I am replying from sci.physics, so keep that one in there please)
-- 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

I am doing a school project on Zenon (zeno, Xenon´s?) paradoxes. Does 
anybody know a place on the internet where I can find anything on this 
subject?

Ummm...  Am I missing something here?  My great-grandfather, grandfather,
and father all had hemp ropes, and I have inherited several of them.  Hemp
used to be the only thing from which high-quality ropes could be made, and
even with polypropylene, it's still the only thing I know of from which can
be made a strong rope which is resistant to photochemical decomposition. 
When did the rope I have hanging in my garage become illegal?
	Eric Lucas
Gregory Loren Hansen  wrote in article
<5bsdh5$ik9@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>...
> In article <32E1954A.71AAAC46@MIT.EDU>, Pinky   wrote:
> >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.
> 
> 
> My major concern would be DEA officials who can't tell the difference.
> Before hemp can become useful under current laws, the industrially
> valuable but useless for smoking version must have obvious physical
> differences.  Because you know they're going to ban everything that looks
> the same.
> 
> -- 
> "Good things come in small packages.  But big things can't, unless
they're
> inflatable or require some assembly." - The Tick
> 

Dr. Mohib N Durrani writes:-
>       We are conducting research/survey on the recorded WORLD-WIDE
>         first sightings of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY"
>                  in the evenings, for every lunar month.
>                    Some TECHNICAL INFO. is at the end.
> 
>                 PHOTOGRAPHS / SLIDES ARE MOST WELCOME
> 
>              Since they are very helpful in the research.
> 
>             Please also pass on the request to your friends
>              who are interested in Astronomy/physics and to 
>                your local amateur Astronomy associations.
> 
>                 We would very much like to hear from you.
>               Please respond either by email or by letter.
> 
>      The survey results are to enhance the present ATMOSPHERIC MODEL
>         and fine tune some parameters regarding SCATTERING/VISION.
> 
>           Hilal (crescent) sightings would be in the evenings, 
>       at least 10 minutes after sunset, usually before 20 minutes, 
>  and upto 40 to 90 minutes after sunset; near and along the sun's path.
> 
> When reporting Crescent Moon (Hilal) sightings, (even if you do not see it)
>                       PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
> 
> HILAL was visible to naked eye?......... (Yes/No)
> Hilal sighted in binoculars,etc?........ (Yes/No)
> 
> If binoculars or Telescopes were used:   Used.......... (Telescope/Binoculars
> Total Magnification..................... Diameter of Objective Lens......(mm)
> 
> EXACT TIMES: Complete Sunset at......... Hilal First Visible....... End......
> HEIGHT: Hilal highest......(deg);  Hilal lowest.....(deg); .......(faded/set)
> LOCATION: Hilal LEFT of Sun .......(deg) Hilal RIGHT of Sun........ (degrees)
> 
> ORIENTATION: Ends of Hilal Curve,        along with an approximate middle.
> (Visualize an imaginary vertical         Clock Face in the western horizon:)
> (Right is 3'O Clock:Bottom is 6'O Clock: Left is 9'O Clock:Top is 12'O Clock)
> HILAL CURVE: Start at.....'O Clock:      Middle at...'O Clk: End at....'O Clk
> Hilal Curve Continuity: ................ (Continuous/Broken/Jagged)
> 
> WEATHER condition: Rel.Humidity......... Temperature..... Pressure...........
> Sky near western horizon: Clear?........ Hazy?........... Cloudy?............
> Observation Place: Latitude.........(+N) Longitude......(+E): Elev........(m)
> 
> OBSERVER: Age.... Eyesight: Glasses?.... Far sighted?.... Near sighted?......
> Name....................... Date........ City, State.........................
> 
> E-Mail.................................. Telephone.................(optional)
> 
>   An approximate guide for MEASURING ANGLES in the sky is as follows:
>   When our hand is stretched out in front of us (palm facing the horizon)
> 
>     a. each finger at arm's length would cover about 1.5 deg at our eye,
>     b. two fingers  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...     3.0 deg 
>     c. four fingers ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...     6.0 deg 
>     d. closed fist  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...    10.0 deg 
>     e. outstretched fingers and thumb   ...  ...    20.0 deg 
> 
> 
> 
>                                Thanks.
> 
Thank you Dr. Durrani for a most stimulating and unusual contribution.
How nice it is to see sci.physics being used for some real research. 
I hope you don't mind if i check on your approximation :-
For me: Thickness of finger = approx 2 cm
        Distance to eye = approx 65 cms
        Angle = Arc Tan (2/65) = about 1.75 deg.
Right. I shall remember that always. God bless you Doctor. 
keith stein
>  Look For The CRESCENT MOON ( HILAL ),         ---------------- >>>           
>)
>   It Is One Of THE MOST BEAUTIFUL OF CREATIONS;  -------- >>>>          )
>    Then Offer An INTENSE PRAYER To The ONE CREATOR, ---- >>>>          )
>     All Sincere DEVOTIONS Are Surely ACCEPTED.  --- >>>              )