Subject: Re: Einstein's Constant
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:14:50 GMT
Cliff Pratt (cliff_p@actrix.gen.nz) wrote:
: In article <5bnkva$dvb@goofy.snet.net>, wrote:
: > Please give a reference to one of Einsteins papers/books where he claims
: > the velocity of light is a never changing constant.
: It was not Einstein who originally decided that the speed of light is
: constant. That was measured many times, before Einstein. Einstein used it
: as a fact to underlay his theories.
Measured, yes, more than one way, but "many times"?
: >He states in places that, for instance, your measurement of the velocity
: > of light will be the same as my measurement of it.
: >
: > Does that require C to be a constant over time?
: >
: > I think not.
: Sure it does. If I measure the speed of light, I do it at a different time
: to when you measure it. I get the same value. Someone on Alpha Centauri
: measures and gets the same value. If I measure the speed of light which
: is coming from the far reaches of the universe, I find that it is the same
: value. It does not appear that the speed of light has changed over the
: life of the universe.
: Cliff
There is a way that the _actual_ underlying speed
of light can be increasing, but still always be measured
as a constant c.
In fact, this possiblilty could _possibly_ help
explain some of the things about relativity and the apparent
constant speed of light.
But it would always still have to _measured_
as the constant c, that seems to be certain.
And I think that agrees with the accepted concept,
that it is the measured speed that is constant.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
Divergent Matter GUT of Gravitation http://www.iglou.com/members/kfischer
Subject: Re: What the F**k is "Tonality" anyway? [was That's Gross! ]
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 18:21:11 GMT
In article <32f0c431.620053230@aklobs.org.nz>,
Ray Tomes wrote:
>Find the HCF (Highest Common Factor) of the frequencies played in a
Also known as Greatest Common Divisor or GCD
>passage of music (I say passage because you well know that some pieces
>of music have modulations or key changes in them)
Ah, and there you open a can of worms. What counts as a passage and
what doesn't? If I don't tell you ahead of time where a "passage" might
contain a modulation, what would you do with it?
NB also that your method up until now would appear to normally give the
submediant in a major or minor key, not the tonic. But it would work
fairly good for Lydian mode and better for Lydian-flat-7.
> and multiply it by 24
Any special reason why 24?
>and that frequency corresponds to the note that is the key of the piece.
Hmmm. Neat. I guess 24 because it compensates for the submediant
problem outlined above.
NB though that the number should have been 3, not 24. The factors
of 2 just raise everything up by octaves, whereas the factor of 3
raises you up a 12th, exactly enough to get from the submediant to
the tonic in a major or minor mode.
>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:
Surely that's not the only problem with this definition. What folks
mean by "tonality" and "key" is more sophisticated than that, and
modulation may well be *part of* the expression of the key, *not*
something working *against* it. In other informal settings,
modal folktunes like Hava Nagila may be referred to temporary
pitch centers and described by analogy with tonality, without
using a scale that will behave this way at all.
>a. Consider the music as being in a Just Intonation scale OR
Problematic...which one to use is the problem.
>b. Work with a definition of HCF that allows a bit of slop (about 1%
>should be enough).
Better, allows room for enharmonicism alla Schubert. Also gives a
key for any piece of music that contains pitches---which is just about
what you'd expect.
--
Matt Fields URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
Subject: Re: Newton -v- Einstein
From: martin@sik.de (Martin Dickopp)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 17:00:44 GMT
In article ,
Keith Stein writes:
> 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)
Today clocks with such a high precision exist that no spacecraft is
necessary to measure the effects of both SR and GR, aircrafts are
sufficient. Measuring relativistic effects in aircrafts is something
which of course has been done a thousand times.
--
Martin
http://wwwcn.cern.ch/~mdickopp/
Subject: Re: The Lost Golden Age of sci.physics
From: Michael Weiss
Date: 20 Jan 1997 14:37:28 -0500
ericf@central.co.nz (Eric Flesch) writes:
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?
Who won, Bohr or Einstein?
Oh, there are plenty of anti-QM nutcases as well.
OK, so reconciling QM with GR is a major unsolved problem of modern
physics. What's your point? That GR is garbage, a fantasy for fools?
Or just that GR is not the final word?
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: Jean-Joseph JACQ
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 06:59:12 -0800
JohnAcadInt wrote:
>
> G. Mark Stewart wrote:
>
> .> 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.
>
> Am I not right in thinking that Biro invented the biro? It's
No. AFAIK it was Baron Bich of France who had the honour of doing that
(producing the first "biro" of the name Bic).
> certainly not a word in current usage. The claim to fame was
> that as the ball rolled ink would flow onto it. One could not
> write upside down, however. [Pity. I used to like writing that.
> Ed.]
>
> > GMS
> > http://www.svs.com/users/gmark
>
> Yrs evr
> JohnM
> & The TT
--
Subject: Re: density of humid air
From: "\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz" <#UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:04:55 -0800
Harold G. Dukes wrote:
>
> Why is the density of humid air less that of dry air?
If you multiply the abundance of each molecular or atomic (argon)
species in air by its formula weight, you get the average molecular
weight of dry air, which is about 29.
Water has a molecular weight of about 18.
If you have a constant pressure/temperature/volume of air and add water
(humidity), then some dry air must be displaced. By adding a lower
molecular weight species you lower the weight average of the whole
mixture. Since one mole of ideal gas occupies 22.4 liters at STP,
adding humidity to dry air makes it less dense (less mass at consant
volume).
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Atonality
From: Anonymous
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:51:40 -0600
David & Deborah Cliffe wrote:
>
> 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
One of the interesting things about the different steps is that we are
used to hearing music gradually go up or down to other notes, (like in
trombones), but not always hearing incremental steps. I've found you
can do it on an electric guitar or violin, and I have done some on the
computer. When you step directly up or down a quarter step it is more
appearant than when you skip several steps between notes. I've not done
much with harmony or chords, but one that sounds interesting at times is
the quarter step between major and minor chords. I've programmed a
little in the other scales on the computer. My ear will tend to follow
a scale and then notice that its gone to another note about half way
through. You could try it sometime with a computer or string
instrument. (or a trombone)
Subject: Re: Is Science Religion
From: wf3h@enter.net
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:02:53 GMT
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 04:20:10 -0800, "R. Alan Squire"
wrote:
>wf3h@enter.net wrote:
>
>> i never pass up a chance to educate the uneducated
>
>But you can't teach what you don't know.
>
fine. then teach me what you know and ill know as much as i did
before.
>>>Criticising an idea or labeling it "illogical" is easier than
>>>addressing it.]
if someone says the moon is green cheese, thats logical for you? oh,
yes...a creationist..yes it would be logical for you
My contention (for the half-dozenth time)
>is that science is ALSO somewhat religious in nature.
>
if science is religious then religion loses meaning because EVERYTHING
is religious. there are things which are not religious. there are
things which arent poetry or art as well. your statement is
meaningless
>>>>religion is teleological and uses faith to understand its
>>>>teleology. thats religion. the other is empirical and uses evidence.
>>>>science is not voodoo.
>>>
>>>Was it your implication that religion IS "voodoo"
hardly. creationists try to make it so, however by pushing a
transcendental concept as science
>You've accused me of being an OED literalist. You may be a St Paul
>literalist. Many scientific theories speculate on the existence,
>structure, or behavior of things that can be neither tested nor
>substantiated -
wrong. they can be tested in principle...like the 'gedanken'
experiments of einstein or the string theories of ed witten. if they
cant be tested theyre not science.
>Would you dismiss something simply because science is unable to
>explain it?
as ive explained, contrary to the creationist claim, not everything is
science. poetry, love...these are not scientific. but creationists
reduce EVERYTHING to science...EVERYTHING they say relys on faith and
faith is religious therefore everything is scientific. a bizarre
notion to be sure.
For now (and maybe forever), conscious-
>ness seems to be beyond the grasp of science. By your logic, would
>you say that it doesn't exist?
>
and as ive pointed out, the ideas of penrose are testable in
principle. we simply dont have the technology yet to do so.
.
>Recall also the second half of Smith's definition: a concern to align
>Spirituality is only one transcendental notion. As I stated before,
>science encounters and attempts to understand many ideas that are
>transcendental in nature.
absolutely wrong. science is grounded in the study of matter and
energy. there may be something which IS transcendent but it is not
scientific. why do you want EVERYTHING to be science? we scientists
are quite happy living within our limits since this limitation has
been successful.
>
>You're a chemical physicist. Is Hugh Everett's 1957 "many worlds"
>hypothesis testable? Can a quantum accelerator yield data to support
>his notion that a universe emerges upon the observation of a quantum
>particle?
actually yes. andrei linde in the sept 94 issue of scientific american
points out that that many worlds theories of the universe would
produce a universe with things like magnetic monopoles. thats
testable. as to the second..if it aint testable it aint science.
science made a breakthrough with galileo...do you know why? because he
was the first one to look at EXPERIMENT as yielding information about
the world. there is a world of difference between aristotelian
rationalistic physics and the empiricism of galileo. your definition
of science is, literally, medieval.
>> you have a neo-scholastic belief that EVERYTHING is religious.
>
>No. I believe that SCIENCE MAY be considered religious. Science and
>widely-accepted organized religions may have their differences, but
>so do Christianity and Buddhism.
and buddhism is not xtianity. but they are both religions. again, you
seek in a neo scholastic sense to make EVERYTHING religious. there are
some aspects of the human experience which simply are not. science is
one. EVERY human can be a scientist. BUDDHISTS cannot be xtians.
members of ONE religion cannot (with rare exceptions) be members of
another religion unless religion loses meaning. but since ALL can be
scientists, science is NOT a religion.
>Very possibly. But, once again, Taoism and Confucianism are not
>necessarily theistic. They still qualify as religions.
right. they deal with teleology. science does not>
>Why should science be set aside from the vast number of faiths and
>philosophies simply because of its methodology?
because it is. just as construction work is not religion, farming is
not religion science is not as well. not every human experience is
religion
Science can be
>described as an organized system of explaining the world around us,
>as can religion.
but you have half the pie. religion is teleological. it is DESIGNED to
answer the question of purpose. science does not do that.
you demean religion, you demean science, and you demean human
experience by subsuming all experience in religion. people have fought
to find experience in the world. you reduce it all to mere
subjectivism. there is nothing that binds us in your world. there is
only that which separates us.
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationites
From: wf3h@enter.net
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:06:39 GMT
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:57:54 -0400, ksjj@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>
>But, then again we all know evolutionism is psuedo-science.
and the moon is made of green cheese. just cuz YOU dont understand
science doenst make it non science.
>The fossils don't line up, the dating techniques are flawed,
gee whiz...heres a guy who's a creationist...a biased mouthpiece for a
flawed wrong belief telling scientists why we're wrong. why is YOUR
RELIGION right and science wrong? DO TELL!!
you PROMISED me a reference for the HORDES of scientists you said were
creationists karl. you said you would send me a reference to PROVE
that scientists were accepting creationism. YOU PROMISED. to date i
havent received that independent refereed paper. ARE there papers?
where is the research karl? you said creationism is science. prove it.
see ya professor corey
Subject: Re: Missing Plutonium
From: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca (Patrick Reid)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:16:50 GMT
[Posted to sci.energy]
Dennis Nelson wrote:
>Would someone calculate the number of curies in 80 grams of Pu? With a
>half life of 24,000 years it should be pretty active?
Can't do it. It depends on the isotopic makeup. However, you are
fundamentally in error. The longer the half-life, the lower the
activity, since the smaller the number of devays per unit time.
However, using your assumption that it is pure Pu-239:
24,000 yr = 7.57x10^11 s
80 g = .334 mol = 2x10^24 atoms
A=-ln(1/2) / (7.57x10^11) x 2x10^24 = 1.83x10^12 Bq = 50 Ci
Not much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated | Voice: (506) 674-9099 |
| Saint John, NB, Canada | Fax: (506) 674-9197 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Missing Plutonium in Smoke Detectors
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:22:21 GMT
In article Kyle Jones writes:
>Anonymous wrote:
>> I've always heard that some of the materials in smoke detectors is
>> radioactive. Is this true, and if so what is it? Is there a potential
>> nuclear threat from Sadaam Husein buying and then smashing apart
>> millions of smoke detectors?
>Americium and no.
That's interesting. I recall that Americium is fissionable like Pu-239 and
U-235. But because as far as I've seen in the public literature no nuclear
weapon is being deployed using Americium, it's probably because Americium has
other problems that make it impractical, if not impossible, for such a
purpose. It may be that the required quantity to get a critical mass is way
too large. Does anybody here know the critical mass for a sphere of Americium
in air?
I suppose the question is how much Americium is used for each smoke detector.
It would not surprise me if it'd take a billion of them to get any sizable
quantity of Americium to do something dangerous. Americium is not cheap to
manufacture, so one has to use a very little amount.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omnimedia@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majordomo@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: martins@cadvision.com (S Martin)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 21:22:33 GMT
In article <5btebu$4ob@news.htp.net>, jimt@emapnet.com (The Hermit) says:
>
>In article <5bdjm3$277@cwis-20.wayne.edu>,
> mje@bob.pass.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) wrote:
>>Peter Smidt (smidt@dd.chalmers.se) wrote:
>>
>>: Strange... Shouldn't the Mars atmosphere change at least a
>little bit during
>>: all that millions of years
>>
>>No. Why should it, particularly if there's no life?
>>
>>--mike
>
>Uh... maybe you haven't noticed but, Mars is Red. It's red because
>of rusty iron particles (Ferric Oxide).
>
>Iron only turns red when it rusts in the presence of OXYGEN
>But, there's no oxygen now
>
You're on the right track - the red stuff is the product of chemical
weathering, probably of iron-rich basalts (NOT iron itself). I've seen
pictures from high in the mountains of Hawai'i that are remarkable
Mars-like - but these are rocks less than 10 million years old, not over
200 million like most Mars rocks... lots of oxygen + water makes a
visciously reactive atmosphere.
But Mars does NOT have zero free oxygen. It has maybe 0.5% free oxygen
in its thin atmosphere (I forget the exact figure). A whole lot less
reactive than Earth's atmosphere, but enough to cause significant
weathering over time.
The source of the oxygen appears to be water - the hydrogen in water can
be lost to space, leaving excess oxygen to attack surface rocks. The
same process on Venus is blamed for all that sulfuric acid...
-Steve Martin.
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:23:54 GMT
In article <5c0g15$evq@news.iastate.edu>, dhanwada@iastate.edu (C Dhanwada) writes:
>
>How about brehmsstrahlung (sp?) radiation (BR)? (I think its german
>for something or the other.)
German for "braking radiation". It's the radiation emitted by charged
particles as a result of rapid deceleration (hence "braking"), usually
when colliding with some target. You dentist's X-ray machine uses it.
>
>If I remember my physics courses correctly, certain particles
>can sometimes accelerate to speeds larger than c which results in
>BR. Details anyone?
No, the above is off. What you refer to is Cherenkov radiation,
emitted by particles traveling faster then the speed of some band of
electromagnetic radiation in a medium (not faster than c, though).
People (including those who should know better) refer to it as "faster
then the speed of light in solid" which is both inaccurate and
misleading.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: Science Versus Ethical Truth.
From: Fred McGalliard
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:45:36 GMT
Tani Akio Hosokawa wrote:
> If this is the case, then
> an all-powerful being cannot exist without being paradoxical. Absurd in
> fact. Now the question seems to come down to "Does God have to play by
> rules?"
Please spend some time with theology if you are going to try to address
it's issues. You have proposed one of the simplest of contraditions
dealing with omnipotence. I am not an expert in this area of theology,
but even to me the answer seems sound. Only a human would test the all
powerful God by asking him to create something that cannot be created,
and then complain about it. Remember that God, if you grant me his
existance, is, above all, true to his own nature. The true God would
hardly be found creating that which cannot be created just for our
entertainment. But in a way, you may already have an example of the sort
of problem your approach leads to. If you will allow me the assumption
that God created the universe, can he lift it? The answer is certainly
no, but not because God has any failing, because lifting the universe
does not make any sense. There is no frame from which to measure the
motion. You may ask a more human question. Can God create a man that he
cannot forgive? No! Not because he cannot but because he will not. But of
course that is theology and requires a fairly complete set of accepted
axioms to get this far.
Subject: Re: ** structure of reality ** article 3
From: glird@gnn.com ()
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:05:08
In article <000016C300000054@hlos.com.au> Gary Forbat wrote:
>In the previous essays I described a process of material formation
>which provides the basis for the observed material reality. The
>process operates through a building procedure which involves a
>relationship between the physical magnitudes of structures, that
>is, the volume they occupy, and the rapidity of their internal
>cycles. Moreover, the process is universal, ranging over an
>infinity of scale tranformations from the most miniscule sizes to
>the most gigantic imaginable, in fact infinite in both directions.
There is a unifying principle: Though the internal cycles are
enormousely faster in smaller compared to larger matter-units, the
organizing actions always take place at the local speed of light,
which is itself a function of the variable concentration of the
material medium at the given place.
>The composition of the electron has not yet been penetrated, but
>the possibilities are few. Either it is composed of a very large
>number of tiny parts, or maybe fewer but of a much higher
>dynamicity.
It can also be composed of highly structured energetic continuous
compressible matter, the very stuff modern Physics thinks doesn't
exist. Starting with the premise that a compressible material
continuum fills all space, the internal structure of "an electron"
HAS been penetrated in total detail. :-)
>The nucleus, on the other hand, is known to break down to
>combinations of smaller, but much more dynamic parts known as
>'quarks'. Quarks themselves must reduce to even smaller
>components, with cyclical rates of increasingly more rapidity.
Since Physics considers quarks to be "extensionless points", how
can it reduce to smaller components. {There is nothing smaller than
a point, which is an imaginary thing anyway.}
Matter isn't made of particles. Particles are made of matter and
energy.
Matter is the actor. Energy is the ability to do work. The two
are not interconvertible. {You can't convert a piano player into
the ability to play the piano, nor vice versa.}
Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
Subject: Re: This is impossible
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:22:59
In article <5bsc70$f1d@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur Drake) writes:
>This messege is to provoke a serious scientific debate.
> I am an engineer, no biologist, astronomer or statictician or
>anything, but something puzzles me. I am sure you are aware of the Late Dr.
>Sagan's quote " extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof " with
>regards to extraterrestrial life, UFOs etc. I have also heard people say
>that the discovery of life on another world would be the greatest discovery
>in human history.
The first man on the moon was supposed to be the greatest event of the
century, but so far it has impacted my life a lot less than the OJ trial or my
grand-daughter's birthday.
What if the aliens turned out to be incredibly boring bureaucrats, or
religious fruitcakes, or spoiled rock stars, or sullen Gen-X'ers? We'd soon
be looking for some way to un-discover them.
In any case, the unambiguous discovery of life elsewhere in the universe would
get about 1 column in the Chicago Tribune, if no aldermen were being indicted
that day, and about 1/4 page in People magazine. Congress would probably pass
a bill restricting immigration of aliens to the US, and restaurant owners
would make the case that antidiscrimination laws did not apply to
neodymium-based life forms. Other than that, the whole thing would be a big
yawn, on the worldwide scale.
> Logical and insightfully comments welcomed!
Sure, here's a comment: Next time, don't spam every newsgroup in the known
universe with your deathless observations.
Bill
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540
630-548-3548, fax: 630-369-9618
email wpenrose@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:50:29 GMT
On 16 Jan 1997 18:47 +0000, Steve Gilham
wrote:
>
>> >Spacetime is not a medium, it's geometry.
>> To have geometry you need spatial dimensions which in turn, you need
>True,
>> some kind of medium to be meaningful.
>
>but this is not so.
You can have geometry with 2D or 3D. Also you can have motion in 2D
and 3D. If spacetime is not a medium then what is it? How is a 3D
material system have motion in this non-medium?
>> >You'd not quibble at there
>> >being Euclidean geometry in an empty 3-space, would you. So why cavil
>> >at the possibility of something more complicated?
But we know the 3-space exist. OTOH, we don't know what is spacetime
and how a material system follows the curvature of spacetime.
>> material system to the geometry of a non-existing space-time.
>
>If it's space time you require - look around you. Extent in space and
>duration in time.
Here you are separating space from time. This implies that a 3D
material system is following the curvature in 3D space with the
passage of time. This notion implies that there is a medium occupying
space and it was abandoned because of the MMX null results.
>> the E-MATRIX is such that all points on earth will have the same
>> absolute motion in the E-MATRIX in all the directions. This means
>
>This is bogus, since points on the Earth's surface are in relative motion
>(causing day and night, coriolis winds and the like), an thus ipso facto
>cannot have the same absolute motion.
Every point on earth will have only *one* path of absolute motion in
the E-Matrix. The vector component of a uniform relative motion will
contribute to this absolute motion in the same direction of this
absolute motion. The vector component of an accelerated motion will
contribute to the change of direction of this absolute motion. The
rotation of the earth and the structure of the E-Matrix (everywhere
you look is the same) make all point on the earth surface to have the
same absolute motion in the E-Matrix.
>> >Have you considered the Pound-Rebka experiment?
>> I am not familiar with this. Perhaps you will enlighten me.
>
>It's the experiment that verified gravitational red-shift (in a water tower
>at Harvard IIRC). The second (i.e. 1/frequency) at the botton of the shaft
>is longer than at the top (since the height against time of flight paths
>taken by the wave-crests must be identical by construction).
This is clock or measured time. The absolute time I am talking about
is hand set and not variable from frame to frame.
Ken Seto
Subject: Re: Gravity a property of Energy, too?
From: carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 22:27:05 GMT
Eric Flesch (ericf@central.co.nz) wrote:
: Let's concentrate on free energy, shall we?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "free energy" here (the term has
a technical meaning, which doesn't make sense in this context, and I'm
not sure of your use). If I may try to paraphrase: are you saying that
you accept the fact that binding energy gravitates, but you reject the
idea that othr forms of energy gravitate? Or do you have a more precise
set of "other forms" in mind?
: So you see, Steve, your points miss. When people ask "does energy
: gravitate", they mean things like:
: 1) Does a hot body gravitate more than a cold one.
According to Feynman, yes. "We may for example calculate the mutual
attraction of two masses of gas; the experimental evidence suggests that
the force is greater if the gases are hotter." (Feynman Lectures on
Gravity, p.30.) He doesn't give a reference, but Feynman is pretty
careful about experimental results.
: 2) Does radiation gravitate.
I don't know of any direct test of this. It is an interesting question
how much of the mass of the Sun consists of radiation; does anyone reading
this know? There are strong limits on the difference between the inertial
and gravitational masses of the Sun, so this might be a good test (unless
your claim is that radiation has no inertial mass, either).
: 3) Does kinetic energy gravitate.
This one might be answerable from observations of the Earth-Moon system.
The Moon's orbit is slightly eccentric, so the energy of the Earth-Moon
system will vary monthly in the proportion of gravitational binding energy
(which you say gravitates) and kinetic energy (which you say doesn't).
If you were right, there would be a monthly perturbation in the force
between the Sun and the Earth-Moon system. Now, the Lunar orbit is known
extremely accurately, and I suspect such a perturbation would have been
seen, but I don't know of any computations.
There's another test you might think about. The "old quantum theory"
picture of an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus in a definite orbit, with
a definite velocity, is of course wrong. But if you look at the energy of
an atom, you will find a contribution proportional to the square of the
angular momentum of each electron, which is classically equal to the kinetic
energy contribution. Do you believe this term should contribute to the
gravitational mass of an atom, or not? (Tell me your answer, and I'll look
up the experimental results, which I don't know off hand.)
Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Gravity a property of Energy, too?
From: carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 22:27:05 GMT
Eric Flesch (ericf@central.co.nz) wrote:
: Let's concentrate on free energy, shall we?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "free energy" here (the term has
a technical meaning, which doesn't make sense in this context, and I'm
not sure of your use). If I may try to paraphrase: are you saying that
you accept the fact that binding energy gravitates, but you reject the
idea that othr forms of energy gravitate? Or do you have a more precise
set of "other forms" in mind?
: So you see, Steve, your points miss. When people ask "does energy
: gravitate", they mean things like:
: 1) Does a hot body gravitate more than a cold one.
According to Feynman, yes. "We may for example calculate the mutual
attraction of two masses of gas; the experimental evidence suggests that
the force is greater if the gases are hotter." (Feynman Lectures on
Gravity, p.30.) He doesn't give a reference, but Feynman is pretty
careful about experimental results.
: 2) Does radiation gravitate.
I don't know of any direct test of this. It is an interesting question
how much of the mass of the Sun consists of radiation; does anyone reading
this know? There are strong limits on the difference between the inertial
and gravitational masses of the Sun, so this might be a good test (unless
your claim is that radiation has no inertial mass, either).
: 3) Does kinetic energy gravitate.
This one might be answerable from observations of the Earth-Moon system.
The Moon's orbit is slightly eccentric, so the energy of the Earth-Moon
system will vary monthly in the proportion of gravitational binding energy
(which you say gravitates) and kinetic energy (which you say doesn't).
If you were right, there would be a monthly perturbation in the force
between the Sun and the Earth-Moon system. Now, the Lunar orbit is known
extremely accurately, and I suspect such a perturbation would have been
seen, but I don't know of any computations.
There's another test you might think about. The "old quantum theory"
picture of an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus in a definite orbit, with
a definite velocity, is of course wrong. But if you look at the energy of
an atom, you will find a contribution proportional to the square of the
angular momentum of each electron, which is classically equal to the kinetic
energy contribution. Do you believe this term should contribute to the
gravitational mass of an atom, or not? (Tell me your answer, and I'll look
up the experimental results, which I don't know off hand.)
Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Missing Plutonium in Smoke Detectors
From: Dan Evens
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:29:58 -0500
Jon Noring wrote:
> That's interesting. I recall that Americium is fissionable like Pu-239 and
> U-235. But because as far as I've seen in the public literature no nuclear
> weapon is being deployed using Americium, it's probably because Americium has
> other problems that make it impractical, if not impossible, for such a
> purpose. It may be that the required quantity to get a critical mass is way
> too large. Does anybody here know the critical mass for a sphere of Americium
> in air?
>
> I suppose the question is how much Americium is used for each smoke detector.
> It would not surprise me if it'd take a billion of them to get any sizable
> quantity of Americium to do something dangerous. Americium is not cheap to
> manufacture, so one has to use a very little amount.
The amount of isotope in a typical smoke detector is so small that not
long ago they were re-classified so as not to require disposal as a
radioactive object. It's pico-curies. To get a critical mass of the
stuff (suposing a critical mass is not too far off what a critical mass
of Pu or U would be) you'd need 10's to 100's of billions of smoke
detectors to pull apart. Maybe trillions. The effort would certainly
be far larger than the effort to make a more ordinary weapon.
Actually, the expense to buy 100 billion smoke detectors would
be enough to fight a very large war. Supposing they were only $9.95
each, that's a trillion. There would certainly be easier and
cheaper ways to build a weapon. And then you've got this
ENOURMOUS pile of now-defunct smoke detectors to get rid of.
Geeze! The pile might be larger than many mid-size cities.
I'm not sure anybody has ever had enough to measure what a critical
mass would be. Probably there is enough to measure cross sections only.
It's particularly expensive to produce because it is not one of the more
common products in a reactor. It is produced, but not at any large rate.
Also, I'm pretty sure that smoke detector makers are not too concerned
with getting ONLY the isotope(s) of Americum that are best for weapons.
Likely smoke detectors have more than one isotope in them, so you'd
now have to worry about building a weapon with whatever isotopes happen
to be in the silly things. You might need a re-processing plant to
pull out only the isotopes you really needed. And if you can purify
isotopes, who cares from smoke detectors? Build a reactor. Way smaller
and easier to hide than buying a billion smoke detectors. And cheaper.
No, the effort of getting isotpes out of smoke detectors is massively
larger than (and harder to hide than) other ways of making a weapon.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens
Subject: Re: This is impossible
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:01:59
In article <5bsc70$f1d@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur Drake) writes:
> I am an engineer, no biologist, astronomer or statictician or
>anything, but something puzzles me. I am sure you are aware of the Late Dr.
>Sagan's quote " extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof " with
>regards to extraterrestrial life, UFOs etc. I have also heard people say
>that the discovery of life on another world would be the greatest discovery
>in human history.
The first man on the moon was supposed to be the event of the century. While
exciting at the time, its net effect on my life has been a lot less than my
dog throwing up on the living room rug, my grand-daughter's birthday, or even
the OJ trial. Same goes for "life" on Mars.
The discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence would get about 1 column in the
Chicago Tribune, provided that no aldermen were being indicted that day, and
about 1/4 page in People Magazine, provided there were pictures. Congress
would pass a law prohibiting immigration from other star systems, and a
restaurant chain would claim that the antidiscrimination laws do not apply to
neodymium-based life forms. Otherwise, there would be a world-wide,
collective yawn.
>
> Logical and insightfully comments welcomed!
Here's a comment: Was this so important that it had to be spammed to
"billions and billions" of newsgroups?
Bill
(If this post nearly duplicates a previous one of mine, it is because my
provider lost it after posting and the original may yet find its way to the
ng.)
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540
630-548-3548, fax: 630-369-9618
email wpenrose@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Subject: Re: How do we know it's "jc" ?
From: fw7984@csc.albany.edu (WAPPLER FRANK)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 17:37:04 GMT
Keith Stein wrote:
> However, i do of course conceed that IF RELATIVITY IS RIGHT, THEN
> I AM WRONG.
I think this shows that you understand as much of relativity
as I understand of your theory
("expanding space", I suppose; sorry, I didn't pay much attention).
What you should consider to conceed is:
"If relativity is right then I (K.S.) have succeeded in describing one
possible model of the universe which is consistent with it (I hope);
but if it is consistent with it then there is no way to claim its
reality as opposed to any other consistent model
(be it a little simpler or much, much more complicated)."
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Subject: Re: Gravity a property of Energy, too?
From: carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 22:36:11 GMT
lbsys@aol.com wrote:
: Im Artikel <5bpgl1$g2a$1@mark.ucdavis.edu>, carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
: (Steve Carlip) schreibt:
: >In chapter 5, Feynman discusses linearized general
: >relativity, and shows that it gives the wrong result for
: > the precession of Mercury's perihelion. In chapter 6,
: >he adds in the gravitational field due to the energy of
: >the Sun's gravitational field, and shows that this gives
: >the correct result. So it is because of the gravity
: >of gravitational energy that general relativity succeeds.
: That sounds like compound interest... is it calculated that way?
Yes, roughly---that's a good analogy, though it's a little too
simple. (The gravitational field is described by ten numbers
rather than one; it also varies from point to point, and to compute
the field at point x, you need the field at all other points. But
imagine turning the equation for compound interest into a partial
differential equation, and you'll be close.)
One of the interesting results of the early '60's is that this
"compounding" procedure is almost unique. That is, if you start
with a linear theory---a theory in which gravitational energy
does not gravitate, but other forms of energy do---and then
"compound" the result iteratively---the equivalent of continuous
compounding of interest---the result is the field equations of
general relativity. Now, Einstein had written down these field
equations some 40 years earlier, using a completely different set
of arguments based on Riemannian geometry and the principle of
equivalence. It's fascinating that two so completely different
approaches lead to the same theory.
Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: Jim Akerlund
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:00:41 +0000
OX-11 wrote:
>
> Okay, here is your assignment, due immediately: Tell in your own words,
> what you would do if you actually did invent a FTL communicator. How
> would you release the design? Would you only care about making money?
> What if all your friends started laughing and ridiculing you, and no one
> believed you did it? Do you just turn over your hard won idea to the
> government and go back to your job of inspecting underwear?
>
> Use complete sentences, and be thoughtful. Everyone gets an 'A'.
Hi OX-11
You would set up your communicator so that you could talk to yourself
two hours in the past. You would then use this little trick to win
lotteries across the US, and when you are winning lotteries who needs
friends.
Jim Akerlund
Subject: Re: Einstein's Constant
From: Jim Akerlund
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:14:14 +0000
Cliff Pratt wrote:
>
> In article <32E1FF17.29AA@thepentagon.com>,
> Andromeda wrote:
> >
> >Just a question on the subject here. If this constant thing were accurat,
> >would that be implying that the universe has a constant preset number of
> >particles, that can take any form, but no matter what, there will be no
> >less and no more?
> >
> IMHO, no. There is no postulated connection between the number of particles
> in the universe and the speed of light, so far as I am aware.
>
> What is it that suggests to you that there is?
>
> Cliff
Hi Cliff and Andromeda,
In Einstein's equation E = MC^2, he shows that matter is just a form of
energy. So your statement, Andromeda, needs to be changed to; the
universe was created with a constant preset "quantity" of energy. In
which case, if you have ever been to a physics class, you will
imediately learn that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only
transformed.
Jim Akelrund
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: huston@access5.digex.net (Herb Huston)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 16:54:37 -0500
Followups restricted. Resume crossposting at your own risk.
In article <9Xx0OOAHBm4yIwvi@treetop.demon.co.uk>,
Paul Johnson wrote:
}In article <5b81fg$bo2@crl8.crl.com>, Daniel Benbenisty
} writes
}>Primatologists have been studying these very questions. One gorilla,
}>having been taught sign-language, was taught the symbol for "death"
}>by associating it with insect he just smushed. Asked something like,
}>"what would will happen after you die?" he replied, "I will go to
^^
}>warm, comfortable hole in ground." I guess that qualifies as a need
}>for a "life after death" (you can't be warm and comfortable unless you
}>are conscious enough to feel).
}
}Do you have any references for this story: it sounds quite remarkable.
His account sounds like an elaborated version of an exchange between Penny
Patterson and Koko. Koko's reply was "Comfortable hole. 'Bye." If I
remember correctly, this is recounted in Penny's book _The Education of
Koko_.
However, Koko is not a "he."
You can find out more about Koko at the Gorilla Foundation's Web site. The
URL is http://www.gorilla.org.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: gmark@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart)
Date: 20 Jan 1997 21:20:38 GMT
Ewen Charlton (ewenc@lsl.co.uk) wrote:
: Dark Dante wrote:
: > On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:06:37 GMT, casanova@crosslink.net (Bob
: > Casanova) found a Biro and scribbled:
: > >On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:41:20 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
: > >=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.com= ( >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<
: > >>Sunlight is the source of all life on the planet.
: > >Yes, it is
: > No it isn't!
: > What about those organisms that live by feeding off sulphur plumes at
: > the bottom of the sea?
: Aha, but would these lifeforms have evolved in the first place without
: the sun's energy? I thought that the 'primordial soup' was the result of
: chemical reactions caused by either solar radiation or lightning
: (indirectly caused by sunlight).
Aha, but you have no way of proving that and almost no one really gave
nearly as much a shit about little sulphur guys as they did about guys
hangin' out on the surface of the planet.
And besides which, if we all go back to the origin of this energy, it all
comes from the Big Bang, so who gives a crap about the mid points?
And I, coming from the Orion Nebula, don't give a shit what you sol people
think anyway.
I'd say "harumph", but that's one of your local idioms.
GMS
http://www.svs.com/users/gmark
