Newsgroup sci.physics 216747

Directory

In article <5bnbdr$7d8@electra.saaf.se>,
Paul Schlyter  wrote:
>In article ,
>David Kastrup   wrote:
> 
>0/0 should be computed as INDEF(inite). 
IEEE arithmetic returns a NaN and also may signal, if such is
enabled.  NaN is in fact usable for anything, including
encoding a pointer to a more-precise rendering of the number being
represented, a number with an off-scale exponent, an uninitialized
datum, as well as...
....
 NAN (not-a-number) is
>reserved for "values" which truly cannot be real numbers, such as
>the sqrt or the log of a negative number.
> 
>Yes, there is a difference:  if you add, subtract, or multiply an
>INDEF with an INF, you'll get an INF.  But if you do the same with
>a NAN and an INF, you'll get a NAN.
You are free to do whatever you want in a number system that
you implement yourself, but the IEEE standard provides some defaults
that should only be discarded by careful reasoning based on the
actual needs of your programs.  
Although everyone is entitled to an opinion (and in the internet
democracy, able to voice it regardless of merit) it is, I think, more
helpful to take an educated computing viewpoint. This is probably NOT, that
offered by pure mathematics, but rather from practical knowledge of
(a) numerical analysis and error analysis
(b) scientific computation and support libraries for scientific computation 
(c) programming languages for numerical or symbolic routines
(d) hardware/software implementation of arithmetic for basic
representations (e.g. floating point)
(e) implementation of higher-level computation, e.g. interval arithmetic,
symbolic math, matrix and linear algebra computations, approximation of
real and complex valued transcendental functions, etc.
This kind of expertise was brought to bear on the IEEE standardization
process. Anyone who has not looked at the standard and its supporting
explanations is missing a treasure-trove of information on this
and related topics. 
Read about it in ACM Computing Surveys 23,5  March 1991,
article by David Goldberg.
I have not followed all of this thread, so others may have already
stated something similar to what I've said above. Apologies for
the repetition, in that case.
-- 
Richard J. Fateman
fateman@cs.berkeley.edu   http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/

Jeff Candy:
|> >Absolutely correct.  At no point was I making an explicit reference 
|> >to a particular country. 
Bruce Salem:
|> Were you talking about a real economy at all, then?
Let me repost my initial comment in its entirety:
 "A free market system is the only rational system.  Perhaps 
  this is why laissez-faire is so poorly understood, and so 
  often maligned."
You responded with: 
|> You don't offer any argument for these assertions. 
and I gave three references.  Your last post reiterates the 
specific example given in your second-to-last post.  I accept 
the validity of the trend you percieve, but claim that it does 
not represent a fundamental change in the "rules of the game".
The philosophy of a mixed economy is the same as it was in the 
70's and 80's.   
|> 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.
Now tell me, what does this (or indeed any of your last post) 
have to do with my original claim?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy                        The University of Texas at Austin
Institute for Fusion Studies      Austin, Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <5bef76$l54$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
 >   I understand there are p-adic numbers and p-adic integers. Two
 > separate and distinct things. Thus, Z_2, Z_3, Z_5, .... are the p-adic
 > integers, and just like the relationship of Rationals to Integers, put
 > every Integer into a quotient deriving Q_2, Q_3, Q_5, .... and each of
 > these Qs are fields but the Zs are rings because they lack a
 > multiplicative inverse.
Right.
 >   I wonder if their only shortcoming is the lack of a multiplicative
 > inverse for the prime? Is this true Dik? And if so, can I patch-up the
 > Z_3 by appending a imaginary number 3' which is the multiplicative
 > inverse. And if I do so, will Z_3 then be a field?
The only shortcomings of the p-adic integers is the lack of multiplicative
inverses for the multiples of p.  This can easily be solved by adjoining
a multiplicative inverse of p, and you get something isomorphic to the
p-adic rationals.  Like the p-adic integers can be represented by an
infinite base-p digit string, the p-adic rationals can be represented by
a base-p digit string with an infinite number of digits to the left of
the point and a finite number of digits to the right of the point.
 >    Is the imaginary number 3' able to turn the Z_3 into a field?
Yes, although I would not call it an "imaginary number".
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

In article <19970119232000.SAA19731@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>>BTW: Karadcicz's PhD is in psychology (someone asked for it).
>>
>>Hmm.  My daughter won't be happy to hear it.
>>
>
>Yes, understandably. Actually in his field he seemed to have been
>respected even :-(
I know enough respected physicists whom I wouldn't want to see with 
the reigns of power in their hands.  No doubt same goes for other 
fields.
>Now this is a very good confirmation of what I think to be the most
>sensible sentence being prayed in the christian world: "...und fuehre uns
>nicht in Versuchung..." ( ?.. do not tempt us..?)
>
Yep.  Or, as Mark Twain used to say, "virtue is another name for lack 
of opportunity".
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

John DeHaven (johnd@mozart.inet.co.th.remove) wrote:
[...]
> it. If I understand this thread right, it is hard to see how a black hole
> would seem ever to "grow" from this viewpoint. Time would "stop" (from our
> viewpoint) for the thing the instant the developing black hole condensed
> enough to "close up" and form an S-radius. This would seem to imply that
[...]
I am not an expert in this matter, by I understand that the black 
hole forms and grows because its horizont is not static (actually 
before forming there is not even an horizont yet). If the black hole 
has mass M and its S-radius is R, a new mass m could enter the black 
hole in a finite time (even as mesured by an external viewer) by geting 
closer than R' to it, where R' is the S-radius of a black hole of mass 
M+m. Since R' > R, the new mass can get closer than that without entering 
the current horizont. After getting that close, a new horizont appears 
already enclosing the new matter.
> 2) And for that matter I don't understand Hawking radiation. Stop me if I'm
> wrong, but it boils down to some occasional quantum virtual particle pairs
> forming near the surface _just so_ that they don't recombine again, but one
> of the pair is captured by the hole and the other escapes. But if, in such
> an event, one particle _enters_ the hole, it would seem that it should
> _increase_ the mass and the hole would _grow_ instead of shrink as a result
> of Hawking radiation! Net gain for the universe: a more massive hole and
> more radiation outside the hole! An interesting effect, if true, but I'm
> sure this is wrong somehow. I even think I knew why once, but right now
> I've forgotten. 
Because of the law of conservation of energy, the total energy of 
a virtual pair is zero. If one of the particles has positive energy, 
the other one shoud have negative energy. If the particle with 
negative energy falls into the black hole, the net result is 
equivalent to the black hole losing one particle.
It remains to explain why negative-energy particles fall inside 
the black hole more often than positive-energy particles, otherwise 
the black hole would gain as much matter as it loses in average.
I think it has something to do with the fact that virtual particles 
become real particles inside the black hole, but someone more 
knowlegable than me will be able to provide a better answer.
> 3) Everyone talks about the singularity at the middle, of zero size, and
> the very much non-zero S-radius that defines the "surface." What's in
> between? If we managed to dive through, we surely could not cover that
> distance instantly, FTL-wise. What _would_ our (or some godlike-being's)
> experience be as we (or it) fell further towards that singularity? What is
> the spacetime picture inside the hole? _Is_ there even any "distance?" Why
> _isn't_ the volume between the singularity and the S-radius populated with
> falling stuff? Or would it be?
The radial coordinate inside the black hole is time-like, and the 
time coordinate is space-like. I guess the experience would be like 
living in a universe that gets smaller very quickly and disapears 
in a small version of Big Crunch (however it woud get smaller only 
along two of its three space-like coordinates, since the time coordinate 
is not affected).
> 4) I am skeptical (at the moment) about singularities, at least as they are
> usually characterized. A singularity is a purely relativistic idea. But as
> a blob of stuff collapses towards a limiting size of zero, it seems to me
> that it must (eventually) collapse through epochs where _quantum_ spacetime
> effects completely overwhelm relativistic spacetime effects. I don't think
> you can even speak coherently about a "point in space" in quantum spacetime
> at very small scales. Is that right? If so, then there would be some
> super-intense, and very "singular," quantum-foam thingamajig at the center
> of a black hole, but it would not be a dimensionless point.
I think the same.
Miguel A. Lerma

In article <19970119232000.SAA19734@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>Suppose you would have a son in draft age.  Would you support sending 
>>him and others to fight and die so that Saddam can stand trial?  I'm 
>>not saying that the answer should be "no", only that it is a question 
>>you must ask yourself.
>
>I would not. BUT: Having decided to defeat Iraq, and then stopping short
>of final victory is something that should be explained to us, shouldn't
>it? 
Agreed.
>If there's a good reason to leave Saddam alive, they should tell us.
>It reminds me of other opportunities, where the victorious army stopped
>instead of moving on....
OK, here is my pet theory.  The continued presence of Saddam, weakened 
but still potentially dangerous, makes the Gulf States dependent on an 
ongoing US presence for their protection, thus enabling the US to 
maintain a control position right on top of the world's richest oil 
reservoir.  If the US would eliminate Saddam, it would've been tole by 
the Saudiis and the rest of the bunch "Thank you, now leave please".
Having said this, I'm not sure that continuing the war to Bagdad and 
eliminating Saddam would've been a very appealing proposition in any 
case.  There is nothing Unique about Saddam, he's just a typical 
product of his political environment.  Eliminate him and you'll have 
another one like him in short time.  Unless you're willing to remain 
there as an occupying power.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Next full moon get out your caliper and go outside at moonrise. Arm
extended full length, or with a device to make sure your eye and the
caliper are the same distance apart, "measure" the moon. At full rise
do the same.
I could see little or no difference.
Ross

Those among you interested in combating scientific illiteracy might find
the following of interest:
THE ALIEN-BASED HIGH TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGE:
According to many "UFO advocates," fifty years ago this June, at least
one alien space ship crashed near Roswell, New Mexico.  As the story
goes, back in '47 the U.S. military (specifically, the U.S. Army Air
Force) recovered wreckage from the crash as well as the bodies of
several alien crew members.  
Such a find would arguably constitute the single greatest discovery in
all of human history.  In view of the overwhelming Cold War tensions of
the era, it is inconceivable that the military would fail to exploit
such a miraculous technological windfall in every way imaginable.  (They
could hardly afford not to.  There'd be no guarantee that the Soviets
might not, sooner or later, enjoy a similar "gift from above.")  
Presumably, then, for the last half-century the Pentagon has been
financing and coordinating a massive, Manhattan-like research and
development project designed to identify and exploit miraculous alien
technologies and materials.  Such an effort must surely have involved
dozens if not hundreds of the world's most outstanding scientists, and
thousands of less-stellar personnel.
Open-minded skeptics, like myself, are unable to find a shred of
compelling evidence to support any of the "Roswell ET scenario" cited
above.  On the basis of eyewitness descriptions, most of us are
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a 600-foot-long "train" of some
twenty-four "weather balloons," attached radar reflectors, aluminum
fittings, microphones and electronic paraphernalia, were responsible for
the "Roswell wreckage" found in '47.  Such a "balloon train" is known to
have been launched as part of the military's TOP SECRET Project Mogul
up-wind from the crash site (and subsequently lost to tracking crews)
just days before the wreckage was discovered.
In the decade prior to the "Roswell Incident," the U.S. military
developed the atomic bomb from scratch, and did so in less than six
years.  If the "Roswell story" is true, the same U.S. Military has now
had almost fifty years to work on their "alien techno-bonanza."  Surely,
by now they have at least SOMETHING to show for their effort.  We
skeptics would like to know exactly what that "something" might be.  
Therefore, I offer the following two-part challenge to anyone advocating
the "space aliens crashed at Roswell" hypothesis:
1.  Name ONE item of high technology which "suddenly appeared" on the
human technological horizon subsequent to the summer of 1947.  In other
words, cite a single invention, material, process, or branch of science
or mathematics that simply "fell to Earth" one day without ANY evidence
of previous investigation or development by mere human beings.  (I.e.,
an item with a paper trail that "springs to life from out of nowhere.")  
Sweeping but hopelessly vague examples such as "stealth technology," or
"hypersonic aircraft" won't do.  The challenge calls for a specific,
singular and clearly-defined item such as (for example): the transistor
(rather than "radios"), or the cavity magnetron (as opposed to "radar"),
or Kevlar (rather than high-strength synthetic polymers).  Please
include a summary of the history, scientific data and evidence which
leads you to make your particular claim.
2.  Name ONE living scientist who claims to have been directly involved
in the development of the specific alien-based item of technology cited
above.  Please include the individual's full name, address, (and phone
number, e-mail address, and social security number if possible), an
overview of his/her technical/scientific training, specific degrees held
and the dates they were granted and the institutions granting them, and
his/her current place of employment.  The names, phone numbers, and
addresses of friends, colleagues and previous collaborators would also
be helpful.  
Please do NOT bother to respond if, for "reasons of national security,"
"fear of retribution from ETs or Men In Black," etc., you are
conveniently unable to provide sufficient information to allow said
individual to be accurately identified or personally contacted.  (In
other words, please don't take up band-width by nominating
"Bob-L***r-types" who claim they've received degrees from schools that
have never heard of them and insist they were taught by professors whose
names they can't recall.)
I've cross-posted this "challenge" to several pertinent news groups.  I
hope and trust that news group readers with pertinent training,
education, and expertise will help evaluate the merits of any claims or
claimants.
Fifty years is an incredibly long time for a story of this alleged
magnitude to remain "under wraps."  Our supposed new-found alien-based
technology, and the individuals who presumably helped develop it have
been denied their due long enough.  I urge "Roswell/space alien"
advocates to meet the challenge head on.  Though I don't agree with
their various claims regarding "extraterrestrials," I do agree it's
high-time the public knew the "truth about Roswell."
Bob Imrie
(And please:  no frivolous messages, and no lengthy dissertations on
"why such evidence and scientists, though they DO exist, can never be
identified."  Save that stuff for the "skeptic" and "UFO" news groups
where it usually appears.  And, particularly for the benefit of the
various "serious science" news groups to which this challenge is
cross-posted, please be mercifully brief when making your claim(s).)

However, it's given that the initial expansion rate of the cosmos was much
greater than c. Not to mention, it took the universe 300,000 years after
the big bang to cool to where light could exist.
>    I hope I've finaly layed this issue to rest with my theory of why C
has the
>   velocity it has,and not some other value.
> 
>                               George Penney
> 
> 
George Penney  wrote in article
<5bpamr$eka$1@nova.thezone.net>...

In article <19970119232000.SAA19736@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
>Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>schreibt:
>
>>>But Mach's principle would tell us, that the gyro should stay
>>>directed at the fixed stars, thus make exactly one turn WRT the earth's
>>>path. That should have been subject to measurement long ago, thus
>someone
>>>should be able to tell me about it :-)
>>
>>It works this way, indeed.  Foucault's pendulum gives you the period 
>>of rotation relative to the fixed stars, not the sun.
>
>Can't say that I'm pleased with this, I mean, the content of the
>information. So, as Eric says, the problem is still unsolved yet?
>
I'm not an authority on this but it seems far from being solved, to 
me.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

A single superstring may be generated in a black hole.
As another universe is instantiated, the total electromagnetic
spectrum is differentiated into smaller strings.  These are
the resonant harmonics.
Resonators are isomorphic and homogeneous.  It looks like
all universes look exactly like our own!
----------------saith crjclark.
Hey, crjclark, have you tried the poetry newsgroup?  they could
critique it better I reckon
-- 
Matt Fields  URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields

Last night I responded to a question on one of these news groups that 
was, something of the sort to "If there was a rod 10 light years long, 
and there was one person at each end of the rod, if one of those persons 
were to move the rod in any way, would the person on the other end feel 
it?" (Assuming the rod had enough structual ridgity so as to not fold up 
on itself). I gave my opinion of an answer saying, no I didn't think they 
would feel it immediatly if it were ten light years long. However it was 
such an interesting question, that I decided to bring it up to a member 
of my family that knows more about the subject. His reply was, yes they 
would feel it immidiatly, and no it wouldn't be faster then light 
communication because it would all exsist in the same time frame. Since 
every particle in the rod was connected, and the people were connected to 
the rod by holding it, it would act as one whole body. Now if one end of 
the rod was at a fixed point, and the other end was spinning, like 
someone spinning a string around, that would be a different story because 
one end of the rod would be moving faster then the other, therfore they 
would be in different time frames. He also went on about how thats the 
most brilliant question he had ever heard. And how it implied a simple 
method, and yet was complicated enough for a bit of thought. So to who 
ever asked the question, there is your answer:)

In article <32E2441E.7399@cphl.mindspring.com>, Jim Barron  writes:
>> 
>> Maybe that's how it is "supposed" to work.  Think about forest fires.
>> We used to think about them as disasters, took a long time to realize
>> that (at a reasonble rate) they are necessery for the well being of
>> the forest.  The dead wood must be cleaned out, somehow, else the new
>> sprouts won't grow.
>> 
>> Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
>> meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"
>
>
>Very bad analogy!  Firstly, with our level of technology and the  global
>distribution of power, we probably could not survive another "forest
>fire" as you put it.  
The fact that an analogy points to unpleasant conclusions, doesn't 
make it bad, only unpleasant.  And, unfortunately, the time constant 
for significant changes in human nature is way longer then the one for 
significant technological changes.
>Secondly there IS an alternative:   Without forest
>fires the dead wood eventually decays, forms soil and the forest
>thrives.  It DOES *change* into a new distribution of species (this is
>known as "succession", I believe), some species die out and new ones
>appear.   THIS is the type of change we will have to achieve if we are
>to survive.  ORDERLY succession, not forest fires.
Would be nice, and may happen eventually.  These processes don't occur 
on demand, though, and there is no telling what is the time scale 
needed for the change you envision to occur.
>
>Look at what's happening in Serbia.  When enough people get concerned
>enough about what's going on (a matter of making them realize the full
>impact of some of the insanities currently being engaged in by our
>governments) THEN change will occur.
I'm afraid you're an optimist.  I would really like to be proven wrong 
(and you being proven right) on this matter but I'm not holding my 
breadth.  What's happening in Serbia, for example, is a rather mild 
version of what was periodically (with a period of one or two 
generations) happening almost everywhere in the world during all of 
recorded history.  And, that's important, it kept happening.  People 
saw the consequences but somehow it didn't disuade them from trying 
again.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <32e28779.6725391@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu>, ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch) writes:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 06:28:44 GMT, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>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.
>
>And yet I can't help but think of a Model T Ford on display in a
>museum as being the same object as one which is driving around on the
>roads, Mati.  
>
Of course.  Same as the car parked in my garage is the same car I 
drove on I-57 few hours ago.  I should've say above "... the sum total 
of the things this ""something"" does or may be doing"
>The aetherists are all around us here in sci.physics, Mati, mumbling
>their mantras of waves and "wavicles".  The well-meaning
>conventionalists are also here in droves, talking wave packets,
>collapse of the wave function, etc.  The best way to steal their
>thunder and scatter them in all directions is to tear through them
>shouting "Photons are PARRRTICCCLLLLLEESSSSSS!!!!!", while salting the
>land with a few Feynman quotes.
Well, it'll certainly liven things up a bit, something that 
sci.physics desperately needs.  Go for it.
>
>So I ask you for your forbearance in this regard.   :-)
Who am I to stand in the way of such worthy cause :-)  
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

"John D. Goulden"  wrote:
>
>> Alex Tsui wrote:
>> > 
>> > I was just wondering, suppose two persons were 10 light years away
>> > from each other, and they were strong enough to hold a 10 light years
>> > long rod that could not be stretched nor be contracted.  if 1 of the
>> > person pulls or pushes the rod, will the person 10 light year years
>> > away immediately sense the change?  IF he was able to do that, then
>> > wouldn't that be regarded as FTL comm?
>
>Surprised no one has caught this. Your rod is mostly empty space; the
>interactions between neighboring atoms is governed by their electromagnetic
>fields, which propogate at c. A signal that betins at one end of the rod
>will require ten years to traverse the rod. This would be true even if the
>rod was made of some exotic material like neutronium.
A signal propagating through the rod (i.e., a longitudinal wave) would 
not travel at the speed of light.  It would travel at sqrt (Y / rho) 
where Y is the modulus of elasticity for the rod and rho is the density 
of the rod.  For ordinary materials this speed is a tiny fraction of c.

In article <32E2D9D1.781A@erols.com>, Dennis Nelson  writes:
>John McCarthy wrote:
>> 
>> Bernard Cohen is a professor of physics and former head of the physics
>> department at the University of Pittsburgh.  Dennis Nelson refers to
>> him as a moron.  What are Dennis Nelson's qualifications?  His style
>> of argumentation is that of a middle school student.
>
>Thomas Mancuso was a Professor of medicine or biostatistics at the same
>University of Pittsburg.  How many of you nuclear sops will give him the
>time of day although he was eminently more qualified than Cohen to judge
>the health effect of nuclear radiation.  Mr. McCarthy is either so 
>monetarily attached to the nuclear industrio/academic complex or so
>intellectually dishonest that he cannot admit to uncertainity or bias
>in the pontifications of the so-called experts.  As for me I don't rely
>on "authorities" to make my judgements, particularly not if those experts
>have both their hands in the nuclear cookie jar.
>
Translates to "I'm not going to take seriously the opinion of anybody 
who knows something about the subject."  Great.  So who you're going 
to rely on, Jane Fonda?
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Pugh's Theory: The Earths Command Field, is a concept theory which
describes
how magnetic fields according to Faraday are misinterpreted, and how Ampere
gave us the true story of electromagnetic functions. This material can be
downloaded from
HTTP://www.cwo.com/~2brandee/index.html . Regards, Lee Pugh

Pertti Lounesto wrote:
> 
> Archimedes, Newton, Euler, Gauss and Galois are great mathematicians.
> I have heard that the greatest mathematician of all times is a Russian
> mathematician called Maplev, who is still living, presumably in Canada.
> Is this true, and what are the contributions of Maplev?
> --
>    Pertti Lounesto         Pertti.Lounesto@hit.fi
>                            http://dopey.hut.fi/staff/lounesto.html.en
Pertti,
That Canadian guy, Maplev, never had an original thought in his life.
You must be thinking of the Greek genius, Met Amaplev.
Regards,
John

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
The gravitational field near a 10-LY-long rod would be quite small 
(assuming that the diameter of the rod is much smaller than the radius of 
a planet).  The grav. force would be proportional to the mass per unit 
length of the rod, not to the total mass of the rod.  (And the grav. 
force would be directly proportional to the distance from the rod.)

Hello,
I have the following books for sale...all are hardcover in like-new condition
unless otherwise specified:
1. Chaos in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: Proceedings of a Workshop held at 
   The US Army Research Office, Triangle Park, N.C., March 13-15, 1984,
   ed. by J. Chandra, 1984.  List: $32.50   I ask: $20
2. Chaos, by A. Holden, 1986.  List: $50 (?)   I ask: $30
3. Current Problems in Computational Fluid Dynamics, ed. by Belotserkovskii
   and Shidlovsky, 1986.  List: ?    I ask: $15
4. Problems of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Modelling, ed. by
   Marchuk and Dymnikov, 1985.  Softcover.   List: ?  I ask: $12
5. Topological Vector Spaces, by Narici and Beckenstein, 1985. 
   List: $110    I ask: $70
6. Theory of Nuclear Structure and Reactions, ed. by Lozano and Madurge, 1986.
    List: $115   I ask: $75
7. The Elements of Nonlinear Optics, by P.N. Butcher & D. Cotter, 1990.
    List: $95    I ask: $65
8. Studies in Biomechanics: Proceedings of the Summer School on Biofluid
    Dynamics, held at the Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kampur,
    India, June 19 - July 9, 1978, 1980.  List: ?   I ask: $20
9. Handbook of Physiology: Circulation V. 1 & 2, ed. by Hamilton & Dow, 1962.
   List: $200+    I ask: $100
10. Chemical Synthesis in Molecular Biology: Biological Macromolecules
   with Natural and Modified Monomer Units, From a Symposium held in
   Brauschweig, FRG, September 1984.  Ed. by Blocker, Frank, and Fritz.
   1987, softcover.   List Price: $105    I ask: $70
11. Transactions of the Eighth Army Conference on Applied Mathematics and
    Computing, ARO Report 91-1.  Held at Cornell University, June 19-22, 1990.
    Over 900 pages (8.5" by 11"), softcover.
    List Price: $98    I ask: $65
12. Celestial Mechanics: A Computational Guide for the Practitioner, by
    Laurence G. Taff, 1985.   List Price: $154 (paper)  I ask: $100 (HC!!)
13. Elements of Nonlinear Optics, by P.N Butcher & D. Cotter.  Cambridge
    Studies in Modern Optics #9, 1990.  List Price: $95   I ask: $65
Please add a few dollars for postage, insurance, and COD (if used).
I am somewhat firm on the prices, but will consider reasonable offers.
Abe
mantell@dorsai.org

: ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch)
: The bottom line is that Mach's Principle is ridiculous, but modern
: Physics clings to it as it is a foundation of General Relativity,
: which today's physicists won't do without even though it is
: incompatible with the thoroughly-tested Quantum Mechanics. 
What makes you think modern GR involves Mach's Principle?
Near as I can tell, it doesn't.
According to Pais, Einstein was a big fan of Mach's principle, including
the period he was developing GR.  But it is only the solutions with
the "cosmologic constant" that even vaguely followed Mach's principle,
and even then inertia was not specificaly assoicated with the
distant stars.  Einstein expected further incorporation of Mach's
principle, but the opposite happened: the cosmologic constant was
removed, the big-bang cosmology adopted, and there are few if any
remnants of Mach's principle in GR.  By the 1950s Einstein said
        Von dem Mach'schen Prinzip sollte man eigentlich 
        uberhaupt nich mech sprechen.
                  ---  Einstein, 1954, letter to a colleague
                       see Pais, "Subtle is the Lord", p288
or, "one should no longer speak of Mach's principle at all".
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

slvrmn@netcom.com (Albert Silverman) wrote:
> But you didn't _answer the question_, Peter.
> 
> Could it possibly be that you don't know what "tonality" is?
The question was rhetorical, Albert. It doesn't demand a direct answer.
The real problem is: Is "tonality" relevant under circumstances which were
not precisely defined in the question. And my answer, I thought, was, It's
all a matter of taste.
-- 
Peter Kerr                        bodger
School of Music                   chandler
University of Auckland NZ         neo-Luddite

Dennis Nelson  wrote in article
<32E2DD6D.77F3@erols.com>...
> Rick Tarara wrote:
> >
> > Viewed from the
> > outside, some would then view Cohen as a kook if not aware his
'kookiness'
> > was very practiced and deliberate.
> > 
> 
> This is a very interesting argument.  A "kook" is not a "kook" when his
"kookiness"
> is deliberate.  I suppose a "moron" is not a "moron" if his "moronicity"
is also
> deliberate.  I say if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it
probably is
> a duck.
Depends on the audience.  To scientists who might not have been aware of
the agenda, Cohen's nuclear energy campaign might have seemed a bit 'far
out'.  Of course he already had a well established reputation in the field
of nuclear particle research, so most physicists new what he was doing. 
However, to the layman, Cohen's tactics should have been no 'kookier' or
moronic than the cadre of anti-nukes he was refuting.  He was fighting fire
with fire to get the public's attention to present the 'other side of the
story.'  
Name calling usually reflects more on the caller than the callee!
rwt

R M Mentock (mentock@mindspring.com) wrote:
: lbsys@aol.com wrote:
: > (Eric Flesch) schreibt:
: > >The bottom line is that Mach's Principle is ridiculous, but modern
: > >Physics clings to it as it is a foundation of General Relativity,
: > 
: > where is the link? How is GR based on Mach's principle?
: Pais ("Subtle is the Lord..."), p. 287, says 
: "So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of
: inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on equal footing three
: principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should
: rest:
: 1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance
: 2. The principle of equivalence
: 3. Mach's principle "
: Einstein "abandoned" 3., and physicists have "abandoned" 1.'s -general
: covariance- criteria (see MTW Graviation, thank you Daryl McCullough),
: and of course 2. is obvious.  Ol' Albert was one lucky sunbeech.
        Do you mean all that's left is number 2?  :-)
I like that one the best.
Ken Fischer 

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <199702@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com writes:
: >Im Artikel <32e1489c.13746656@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, ericf@central.co.nz
: >(Eric Flesch) schreibt:
: >
: >>(in plain English, what's the difference between a
: >>spinning top and one which does not spin).
: >
: >Well, thanks, got that :-)
: >
: >>Mach does this by noting that the non-spinning state does not move
: >>with respect to the distant stars.  He jumps from this to the
: >>conclusion that the distant stars *control* the inertial state by some
: >>mysterious controlling force.  This force is dubbed "Mach's
: >>Principle".
: >
: >Isn't that the same as Newton's bucket?
: >
: Yep.
        And it is a totally unacceptable premise.
: >>The problem with Mach's Principle is that the force cannot be
: >>detected.  While gravity decreases from its source by the inverse
: >>square (g = function(1/r^2)), Mach's principle requires that the
: >>distant stars exert their influence by no less than the straight
: >>inverse ( F = function(1/r)), otherwise the stars cannot do the job.
: >>No conveyance, or any theoretical mechanism for this mysterious force,
: >>has ever been formulated or observed.
: >
: >Now here comes a real dummy argument :-)
: >
: >Wherever we are in the Universe, there's gravity. Which means that we 
: >find
: >a certain structure of space, geodesics (which I envision a bit like 
: >those
: >photographs of an air channel with those smoke lines bending around
: >objects etc.). And any object in free fall is moving 'along' these lines
: >thus from the view of the object, the local structure is at a standstill
: >Any rotation would mean, that the parts of this given object (molecules,
: >whatever) are moving / accelerated WRT this structure. 
: >
: >Thus I'm forced to define rotation as being relative to the given null
: >geodesic at this part of space.
        I just read the other day, that at some point,
Einstein believed that the geodesic path should be the
index of zero rotation.
        In 1964 I spent several months convinced that
the Moon does not rotate relative to it's geodesic,
rather than being tidally locked to the Earth.
        But then I found out the Moon has a large area
of higher density within the side facing the Earth.
        Still, the wobbles of the Moon are numerous and
could possibly shed more light on this.
: >Mmmh. If this is a valid definition, I can derive a prediction, which is
: >testable: as the earth is rotating wrt it's geodesic, a gyro should show
: >this. Well it does, as we all know (Foucaults pendulum). Now comes the
: >tricky thing: the same gyro showing the daily rotation (i.e. the rotatio
: >WRT the earth's null geodesic around the sun) should not react to the
: >yearly rotation around the sun, as my definition tells him, that it's at
: >standstill wrt the null geodesic path, although an outward observer woul
: >see it following a huge circle. Thus the axle pointing in direction of t
: >path around the sun should remain parallel (tangential) to this big
: >circle. But Mach's principle would tell us, that the gyro should stay
: >directed at the fixed stars, thus make exactly one turn WRT the earth's
: >path. That should have been subject to measurement long ago, thus someon
: >should be able to tell me about it :-)
: It works this way, indeed.  Foucault's pendulum gives you the period 
: of rotation relative to the fixed stars, not the sun.
: Mati Meron			
       Is there any precession at all, has one ever been set up 
on one of the Earth's poles?
Ken Fischer 

>> Water and power for all of earths deserts:  
>[massive Liberal snip]
>                                                                         
>Let them acquire infrastructure the way the First World did - 
stealing from those who could not protect themselves.

>>Nowadays I wonder why anyone is even tempted to reply to the
>>anti-Einstein nutcases. 
>What about all the physicists who have been unable to reconcile QM
>with GR.   Are they "anti-Einstein nutcases"?   If opposition to GR
>makes one a nutcase, then QM must be full of nutcases, right?
He meant the anti-Einstein nutcases who worship Galileo and their 
own ignorance. QM and GR are not at odds, just incomplete. We
don't know how to merge them yet.
>Who won, Bohr or Einstein?
Both (because their limited theories work spectacularly well in their
respective spheres), and Neither (because neither theory is as yet 
complete).

In article <32E276FB.2776@gold.chem.hawaii.edu> Dettol  writes:
>From: Dettol 
>Subject: Re: strength of hemp fibers
>Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 09:33:15 -1000
>Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>In Australia the relevant authorities simply take some plants at random
>from the farm and test them.
What if the farmers are growing a hundred hectares of industrial hemp with 
five hectares of marijuana hidden somewhere among it. Each test has only a one 
in twenty chance of catching the illegal stuff. I (as the grower) know exactly 
where it is but can you find it?
Jonathan Depree,
Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
people advice. They killed him.   (school history howler)

terry d gray (grayt@direct.ca) wrote:
: In article <32DBAAC5.15D6@weirdness.com>, Robert Wenzler  says:
: >
: >Gary Cruse wrote:
: >>              Nah, time is just to keep everything
: >>              from happening at once.
: >
: >Maybe everything IS happening all at once. Time may be a way to sort it
: >all out.
: 
: 
: Very interesting assertion!  But its a very dificult concept to
: grasp and put into words.  
Time is a filing process. Put each event in its place to be accessed
according to the awareness of the individual.
-- 
Cardinal Fang   mhammond@access.digex.net
****************************************************************
Taxidermy Cafe: "Let us stuff you."
FC 1.2 FCF~m3a/FRRs3r A++ C-/* D++ H M- P+/- R T++ W Z Sm#/Sm++
RLGP a+ cd++ d? e++ f/f+ h+ i+ p~-/* sm#

SOME TIME AGO.....
In article <32822D9E.3B5@onramp.net>, Larry Richardson writes
>It is my understanding that the CBR is a relic of the decoupling of
>matter and radiation due to the average temperature dropping below that
>required to maintain atomic ionization, and the figure I recall is about
>3000K, or approximately the surface temperature of an M class star - the
>unionized gas became transparent to ambient radiation, whereas the
>ionized gas had been opaque.
keith stein wrote:-
                    about 3000 K eh! Larry.
  (So my 6000 K was no closer than Dave's 2.73 K then %-)
   Now I shall endevour to remember for the future:-
        CBR = red shifted 3000 K Black Body spectrum
            = surface temperature of Class M star
Thank you Mr. Richardson. (Can i quote you on that %-)
MORE RECENTLY........
 hanson  writes
>Hubble's constant (H) & the Cosmic Background temp. (Tb)
>appear to be the simple products of few physical constants.
>The equations obtained and their numerical solutions  are
>
>Tb = 2/(3k) * a^2/4 * e^2/r  = 2.8 K
>
>H = [3/2 * k*Tb * a^2/4] / (N*h) = 1.93E-18 /s  or  59.6 km/s per mps 
>
>Parameters used are in cgs:
>a = 7.29...E-3 Finestructure constant
>r = 5.29...E-9 cm, Hydrogen-Bohr radius
>e^2=2.30...E-19 grcm3/s2, (e-charge)^2
>k = 1.38...E-16 grcm2/(s2 K), Boltzman
>h = 6.62...E-27 grcm2/s, Plank's constant
>N = 6.02...E+23 Atoms/Mole, Avogardo's Number
>Hubble conversion
>= 3.08572...E+19 from 1/s to km/mps
>
>Why are H & Tb inter-related and connected to these
>physical constants? 
>Which theory predicts these 2 relationships?
>What is the proper derivation of these equations?
>Are these (above) 2 connections known?
>Is an experimental verification possible or done? 
>Could anyone enlighten me? 
>Has this been published before; where? 
>On interest, I share my view of why on it.
>Regards, Hans F. Hanson.
Well Hans,
At first i was thinking that since the CBR temperature
is really 'a red shifted 3000 K Black Body spectrum', 
your derivation above must be,at best, coincidental.
but on second thoughts the '2.73 K' must be the 'APPARENT
TEMPERATURE' of the universe from everwhere, i guess,so it
is indeed a sort of Universal Constant, of a sort.......
But just how good a correlation are you claiming here Hans?
I mean approximate relationships are a dyme a dozen
e.g. Stein's Approximation:-),
   FINGERS ON LEFT HAND + FINGERS ON RIGHT HAND = (Pi)^2 
but it's the exact relationships like  Josephson's f=(e/h)*V
which really impress,eh!
In short Hans, i doubt if your relationship is more than coincidental,
but what do i know? and i really hope that history proves me wrong about
this, because i think you were definitely right,to write to sci.physics
with your
 'nice idea'.
Cheers,
-- 
Keith Stein

In article <01bc03fa$46056fc0$ee26efa8@jblood>, Lord of the Flies
 writes
>> >>Maxwell's Equations predict:-
>> >>
>> >>                c_m = 1/(mu * epsilon)^.5 
>> >>
>> >>        where  mu   = the magnetic permeability of THE MEDIUM.
>> >>        and epsilon = the electric permittivity of THE MEDIUM.
>> >>        and c_m = the velocity of light relative to THE MEDIUM.
>> >>
>> >>and remember,Gary,there is always SOME MEDIUM everywhere.  Therefore,
>> >>Maxwell's equations are not only consistent with, but in reality DEMAND
>  
>> >>a 'c+v' model, where v is the velocity of the observer relative to
>> >>THE MEDIUM, of course.
>
>That is not true.  The vacuum has no medium.  Remember that a medium in
>reality is empty space with "point" locations of matter called particles.
This is indeed a very "naive" view of a medium, which can't even explain
the rectilinear propagation of a beam of light. 
> 
>The reduction in the speed of light in the medium is the result of a sort
>of "resistance" mechanism.  The light bouncing off the many atoms /
>particles in the medium.
>
>However, during its bouncing,  the light travels at c.  The EMPTY SPACE c. 
>Therefor,  Maxwell's equation DON'T require any medium like ether at all. 
>They introduced ether because they think in terms of mechanics and only a
>mechanical theory would work with Newton's laws.
>
>> > Consider what those equations look like when v = c or -c. 
>> Could you be more specific here Jim. I really can't see any problem when
>> v = c or -c, but then i can't see any 'v' or 'c' in the equation either
>
>Indeed.  That is where the mystery lies.  In Maxwell's equations the only
>speed is c.  Maxwell of course wondered: "c relative to what?"  Since there
>was nothing else in the theory, he concluded that c must be relative to the
>absolute space.  Thinking in mechanical terms,  this space could be defined
>in terms of a medium dubbed ether.  So c then is the speed of the light
>observed when the ether is not moving relative to the observer (they are at
>absolute rest).
>
>> > Or, consider the lowly electron ripping along with c-v = 0.001 m/s. 
>> > What is epsilon for this little observer?
>> Are you serious Jim? 'epsilon' is the 'dielectric of the medium' and is
>> same for all observers, just like the 'density of a medium' is the same
>> for all observers, Jim.
>
>Wrong.  Relativity shows that density is NOT the same for all observers.
        I don't beleive anyone quotes densities relative to a particular
observer, nor do i think this a desirable innovation. In any case, since
the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source,it is
clearly the normal 'static' dielectric, as measured in any laboratory,
which determines the velocity of light in the medium. Just as it is the
normal static density of the medium which determines the velocity of
sound in a medium. If you want the velocity of light (or sound),
relative to any observer moving through the medium, you simply add
vectorially the observer's velocity through the medium to the standard
velocity in the medium.   
However, i do of course conceed that IF RELATIVITY IS RIGHT, THEN
I AM WRONG.
-- 
Keith Stein

In article <5buevr$agd@whitecliff.sierra.net>, mccoy@sierra.net (John
McCoy) wrote:
> ts.books,rec.arts.poems
> Followup-To: alt.atheist.lies,alt.humanist.religion,sci.skeptic.hypocrites
> Distribution: inet
> 
> crs (chucksz@ultranet.com) wrote:
> : R. Alan Squire wrote:
> : > 
> : > Peter Besenbruch wrote:
> : > 
> : > > 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.
> 
> : Perhaps it is the capacity to suspend (not sacrifice) judgement that is
> : at work here.  Many scientists use final results of derivations or
> : reasoning without going through the original work step-by-step but that
> : isn't the same as faith.
> 
> If you want to read a definition of religion, read the humanist manifesto 
> I. It gives a pretty good definition and they say that humanism and 
> evolution are religious views. 
But, then again we all know evolutionism is psuedo-science. 
The fossils don't line up, the dating techniques are flawed, they can't
explain how a puddle of GUE sprang forth life, They can't explain how a
scale turned into a feather, the missing link is still missing, Behe has
got them baffled,  and you, me and (T)ed don't exist.
The scary part? They teach this religist psuedo-science as fact in our
schools. Kinda sends chills down your spine. 
Your uncle was a monkey
ate green bananas
and swung from a tree......uhh uhh ahh ahh.
-- 
see ya,
karl 
*********************************************
CREATION, is the scientific truth,
as well as the revelation of GOD

Have any of you tried this multimedia version of the text by:
Halliday,Resnick and Walker?
If so, I'd very much appreciate hearing your thoughts on whether or not
it be worthy of my purchase, or if you know of better multimedia titles
for physics.
Thank You,
         John

In article <32E20E45.63A5@thepentagon.com> Andromeda  writes:
>From: Andromeda 
>Subject: Re: Utter Futility of scientifically Arguing : TO ALL OF YOU.
>Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:06:29 -0500
>Wouldn't it be easier to just say that religion is whatever belief you 
>put your faith into? If you want to believe other wise then this 
>statment, then go ahead, if I were to try and stop you I would be 
>contradicting my purpouse for posting this. The point is, everyone has 
>their own opinion of what religion is, so fighting over it is like 
>fighting over whether or not chocolate cake tastes good. It's all 
>personal opinion.
What you say is for all intensive purposes true.  We can change our faith when 
we realize the faith in something else is more true to us.  Arguing is often 
two people who have no intention of recognizing the other.  In this day and 
age when so much has been discovered in such a little amount of time, 
discussion and illumination can add a great deal to our understanding of life 
without necessarily totally altering our faith.  This has been the case 
through the ages.  So it's not ALL personal opinion, though that is what we 
keep day to day, we now have knowledge which is reliable, repeatable and 
consitent with what is already known.  This new knowledge impacts, but does 
not necessarily negate that which has come before.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html

In<5bkkfa$aqj$3@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
|In article 
| writes:
|> These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
|> a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
|> "already read". You can find the software to process these notices with some
|> newsreaders at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW site: http://www.cm.org.
|> 
|> Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers, with byte counts:
|>   1  1810  Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
|
|  I need to know if this site is available for me to log on, without an
|account in order to post to the Net? If Dartmouth pulls my account, I
|need another site to log on where I can post to the Net
Worried about something Archie? Dartmouth finally getting fed up with your
shenanigans?
--
Dave Ratcliffe                     If you post it, don't email it too
dave@frackit.com                
   Unsolicited email advertisments will be returned to sender in bulk

Chris Marriott (chris@chrism.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <32e0b0a4.5197858@news.crosslink.net>, Bob Casanova
:  writes
: >What the hell is a Biro?
: A plastic ball-point pen, immensely popular in the UK. Many people use
: the word "Biro" to mean "Pen", rather like you Americans tend to use the
: word "Xerox" when we'd say "photocopy".
Are we a couple of fucked-up illiterat countries, or what?
No wonder we like each others' movies.
You wouldn't catch the russkies sayin' that stuff, and that's why
Comrade Python sucks.
GMS
http://www.svs.com/users/gmark

In article <32E15EAF.4C58@livingston.net>,
Hermital   wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
Etc.
YES!  I Believe!  I BELIEVE!
I don't know WHAT the HELL you're talking about, but I'm going to sit right
down and BELIEVE it until my BRAIN BREAKS!
Have fun,
breed
(snap.)
But seriously:
If you really want to communicate . . . whatever it is you have in mind, 
I would suggest at least a moderate rewrite.  The above paragraph is
ambiguous and confusing at best estimate, and utter nonsense at worst.
There isn't enough context established to even begin to critique whatever
ideas may be present, and one suspects that there are in fact no ideas
at all.

In article <19970119232000.SAA19731@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
  wrote:
>Yes, understandably. Actually in his field he seemed to have been
>respected even :-(
>Now this is a very good confirmation of what I think to be the most
>sensible sentence being prayed in the christian world: "...und fuehre uns
>nicht in Versuchung..." ( ?.. do not tempt us..?)
Translated directly, "...and lead us not into temptation...", from the
Lord's Prayer.
-- 
"Good things come in small packages.  But big things can't, unless they're
inflatable or require some assembly." - The Tick

        Take one clock the Mir Space Laboratory.
        Ten days later take up another clock.
Assuming that the clocks were originally syncronised,
What is the difference between the clock readings
when the two clocks are compared in Space ?
        NEWTON'S ANSWER = 0.000000000000000000  Secs.
        EINSTEIN ANSWER = AN ENORMOUS! 260 microSecs.
    Although i personally don't doubt Newton is right,
         I STILL WANT TO SEE THIS EXPERIMENT DONE,
        (and so too would any other real scientists)
-- 
Keith Stein
        "I COME TO BURY SR, NOT TO PRAISE IT"

In article  meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
>Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:56:56 GMT
>In article <0ae_9701191822@gastro.apana.org.au>, Terry@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) writes:
>> > From: Wil Milan 
>>
>> > is no denying that _The Bell Curve_ is social science done using
>> > very conventional methods.             ^^^^^^ 
>>
>> > Debate the conclusions and disagree with the authors if you like,
>> > but let's not try to say that this is not science. It's science you
>> > don't happen to like, but that doesn't mean it's not science.
>>
>>The conclusions were reached by the authors before they went looking for
>>the `evidence' to support it.
>>
>Actually, whether the authors reached the conclusions before or after 
>examining the evidence, is nobody's business.  The question is, does 
>the data support the conclusions.  If you claim it doesn't, you should
>1)  Prove that the authors used only a selective and biased subset of 
>the available data.
>2)  Prove that when you use the whole available data, the quoted 
>differences disappear.
>Failing to do that, you're guilty of just what you blame others of, 
>namely reaching conclusions based on your prejudices, regardless of 
>evidence.
There's rather a nice debunking of The Bell Curve in Scientific American (Feb 
1995 Vol 272 (2) pp82-86) written by Leon J Kamin, Professor of Psycology at 
Northeastern University, Boston. He uncovers a number of sins including:
Hernstein and Murray state that they benefitted especially from the advice of 
on Richard Lynn, who seems to have worked over a number of previous studies, 
particularly by Ken Owen, and derived 'IQ' scores where none were given. One 
of the tests was Ravens Progressive Matrices, which are nonverbal and thought 
to be less culturally biased than other tests. But the inventer of the tests, 
John Raven repeatedly states that scores cannot be converted to IQ because 
they don't follow a normal distribution.
A rework of a 1976 paper which ignored the finding that 288 black students in 
Soweto actually scored higher than a same-age group of South african whites. 
And so on. I risk getting 'timed out' if I spend too long here, read the 
review.
I notice this is cross-posted to one hell of a lot of groups, but not to ones 
who might be able to help -like any psycology or statistic-related groups.
It's all too easy to create something that looks good to people who don't have 
the specialised knowledge to see through it.
Jonathan Depree,
Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
people advice. They killed him.   (school history howler)