Newsgroup sci.physics 216920

Directory

In article <5c00jj$h9e@dip.geo>, bmgorte@mtu.edu (Brandon M. Gorte) wrote:
snip
> Creationism doesn't explain a damned thing about why life is like it is.
> In addition, it has no explanation of geological features. 
I wouldn't expect creation to explain gelogical formations. The flood does
a god job at that.
-- 
see ya,
karl 
*********************************************
CREATION, is the scientific truth,
as well as the revelation of GOD

In article <32e38269.87199672@news.earthlink.net>, Morphesius@usa.net wrote:
>         Now, in all modesty, I do not have a large enough hard drive
> to accomodate what I am going to tell you (but then, size doesn't
> matter, right?). Go to a few university websites and download some
> references for evolution. These are from people who actually study it.
> Then maybe if your head is not full of crap as usual, you might notice
> that the evidence all fits. Moron.
> 
>                                         Morphesius.
I aoplogize for attacking your religion. (evolutionism)
-- 
see ya,
karl 
*********************************************
CREATION, is the scientific truth,
as well as the revelation of GOD

Potassium-40 and Carbon-14 are exploding in us all the time. It is beyond
our current science and engineering skills to produce enough pure
non-radioactive versions of the elements to remove them entirely from our
environment.  Carbon-14 also has the advantage in the cancer/mutation wars
since it is also found directly in the DNA of the various cells of the
body. The transmutation of C14 to N14 and the energy released during the
event has to have some very damaging effects to at least that strand of DNA
(or RNA or protein) don't you think? :-) Isaac Asimov wrote a number of
interesting articles on this during the '70s including "The uneternal
Atoms". I could probably find the specifics if you want them.
							Take Care
							David Sandman
-- 
dsandman@walldata.com
David Sandman
SSE  Wall Data Incorporated.
All Opinions are my own, not Wall Data's.
Simon Read  wrote in article
<32d7ec4d.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>...
: Anthony Potts  wrote:
: > Hell, even the natural replacement of cells is enough to cause cancer.
: 
: Only if there are genetic defects or carcinogenic agents corrupting
: the DNA.
: 
: 
: >One blindingly obvious reason that it is wrong is that the natural
: >radioactivity in our bodies is always going to damage a few cells and
the
: >repair mechanisms aren't perfect.
: 
: Well, you may work for CERN and hence glow in the dark, but that isn't
: everyone's experience.
: 
: 
: 
: Just which radionucleotides are present in your body?
: 
: 

In article <32E037C6.62CB@quadrant.net>, "Bruce C. Fielder"  writes:
[...]
>Logic cannot prove or disprove God; but it can prove that no matter what
>we learn about the world, it has no bearing upom whether God exists.
I disagree.
I suggest you read "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank Tipler. Tipler
argues that eschatology is the legitimate domain of both physics and
religion, that indeed physics and religion become identical when
pondering the future of the universe.
Followups edited (s.g.g has made it clear they want no more of this).
-- 
Gerard Fryer      
gerard@hawaii.edu        http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~gerard/
Personal views only.

In article <32e3cc2f.269016251@allnews.nbnet.nb.ca>, pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca (Patrick Reid) writes:
>[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.
It is 2*10^23 atoms, and 5 Ci (sorry to be nitpicking).  Anyway, it is 
indeed not much (In comparison to the sources you can find in any 
hospital).
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <32E1DE10.7A53@post5.tele.dk>, Rory Middleton
 wrote:
> 
> I am doing a school project on Zenon (zeno, Xenon´s?) paradoxes. Does 
> anybody know a place on the internet where I can find anything on this 
> subject?
>
Try Alta Vista, and search for Zeno paradoxes.
You could add depth to your project by also involving Parmenides.
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,sci.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.catastrophism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,rec.a
r
References: <5c00jj$h9e@dip.geo> 
Distribution: inet
ksjj (ksjj@fast.net) wrote:
: In article <5c00jj$h9e@dip.geo>, bmgorte@mtu.edu (Brandon M. Gorte) wrote:
: 
: snip
: > Creationism doesn't explain a damned thing about why life is like it is.
: > In addition, it has no explanation of geological features. 
: 
: I wouldn't expect creation to explain gelogical formations. The flood does
: a god job at that.
: 
Your flood model doesn't explain them as well as our models do.  Again, 
creation doesn't explain a damned thing about geological features.  Want 
me to post some that would drive you batty?  Give me some time, and I will.
Brandon Gorte

>Greetings,
>	I was wondering if anyone has done research into whether a human being
>could survive more G's if they were given time to get used to it.  Say a
>human left the planet Earth on a 10 light-year journey at 1G constant
>acceleration.  It would take them about 226 days to reach their
>destination, by my calculations (is this correct?)  
As far as your calculations go, you might want read the Special
Relativity sections of the FAQ for this newsgroup or check out an SR
book such as Spacetime Physics.  You are proposing a faster-than-light
velocity, which is not possible according to SR.
>At 3G's, an
>uncomfortable acceleration, this time is nearly cut in half (~130
>days).  However, it seems that if the spacecraft were to start at 1G,
>and change the magnitude of the G forces by 0.03G's per day (increase on
>first half, decrease second), it could reach its destination in ~140
>days, with a peak acceleration of 3G's, only it would have gotten to
>that acceleration at a gradual rate, and finish the trip at 1G.
>	Is my math correct, or have I made some gross calculation error?
>	In any case, it seems like if humans could gets used to higher
>gravities gradually, and the changes be naturally reversable, that that
>would be the way to go once constant acceleration engines and fuel
>sources are available.
>	--Sam
>-- 
>Samuel Kass - samkass@vtiscan.com - http://www.vtiscan.com/~samkass
> Software Engineer, Visus Technologies, Inc.
> Page Decomposition, Document Management, and OCR/ICR technologies.

I'm looking for the Na2CO3-H2O phase diagram, the H2O ritch side.  Could some 
one give me some references ?
Thanks in advance.
Roger Pelletier
CIREP
Ecole Polytechnique
MTL, Qc, Can

Macarthur Drake  wrote:
> This messege is to provoke a serious scientific debate.
Then it should have been written more seriously and without
a plethora of spelling and grammatical errors!!
> 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.
> I beg to differ with both of these ridiculus statments.
> [snip]
> I would appriciate any math or stats expert to comment on the 
> chances that we are alone in the entire universe. I bet that s/he'd 
> say that it is statistically impossible for us to be alone, so what's 
> the big deal we know that life is there, just a matter of time 'til
> we find it....or them us!
> [snip - again]
Extraordinary claims DO REQUIRE extraordinary proof.  Statistics can
be used to measure the dimensions of reality, but not to verify the
moments of reality.
Let me introduce you to Dick Adams' Three Laws of Statistical
Analysis (from my unpublished paper "The Statistical Demise of 
the Moss Klein Pitcher):
First Law:   Every non-uniform distribution can be expected to
             have a tail.
Second Law:  Fairy tales come true in the tails of a distribution.
Third Law:   Anyone who proposes an argument based on the tails
             of a distribution without rigorous proof of a link
             to reality should expect their argument to be viewed
             as being without merit and is deserving of the 
             ridicule received.
When I apply Occam's Razor, Dr. Sagan's presentation is superior
to mine.  But then he was being scientific while I was being
sarcastic.
Life elsewhere in the universe is probable; finding it may well
be the greatest discovery ever made up to that time.
Dick -- There are no Statisticians.  We are all just students of
        Statistics striving to learn more each day.

Peter Diehr (pdiehr@mail.ic.net) wrote:
: Take a coin (a 25 cent piece is perfect), and a meter stick.  Hold
: the meter
: stick in such a way (tucked to your chin, for example), so that you
: can
: aim your eye (one eye only, please!) along the stick, and place the
: coin
: so as just block the full moon. 
.........
: That's what I've found when I've done it.
I'm amazed to hear you say that you have done it -- or is this a troll?
In fact a quarter must be more than eight feet away to exactly cover the
moon.  I've seen this proposed as a bar bet: "Bet you can't hold a quarter
up so that it just covers the moon."  Very few people have 8-foot arms,
and even fewer have 8-foot meter sticks!
Of course your statement of principle is correct.
--Spencer Roedder   roedder@roedder.com

jacob@omicron.csustan.edu 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'.
I'd rent an appartment in Manhattan and watch the stock-market carefully.
After a few weeks, there are several possibilities:
If it appears feasible, I'd spend some time (and aquired resources) on
developing a true time machine (for myself - just in case - and to check
out some possible scenarios).
Should it not appear to be the case ... (then e_mail me ;).
However, it would be a nice move to publicize the design eventually ...
... and the `complete-sentences requirement' let's me now add the qualifier:
If (and only if) that was found a desirable scenario.
Regards,                                                Frank  W ~@) R
p.s. So ... you are/have been working on a terminal too?

In talk.origins "R. Alan Squire"  wrote:
[snip]
>
>I'm quoting Huston Smith -- probably the foremost authority on the
>religions of the world.  If you wish to dismiss his insights, you'd
>be in very poor company.  And if you're apt to suggest that the
>term "transcendental" marks the dividing line between science and
>religion, you should first consider that many scientific theories
>to which eminent physicists subscribe begin as intuition and remain
>that way.  E.g., many scientific explanations for a quantum
>particle's strange behavior are, for all intents and purposes,
>metaphysical.  
There is nothing metaphysical in the equations used in quantum
physics. The metaphysics comes in when a physicist tries to "explain"
the equations.
>The very fact that so much dispute exists -- that
>different scientists are willing to sanction so many contrasting
>ideas -- is evidence of scientific faith.  Science does not and
>could not rely solely on evidence.
So we go from "transcendental" to "metaphysics" to "dispute" to
"faith". An interesting, but not totally successful, slight of hand.
The existence of disagreement does not show that the ideas are held on
faith, and faith is not necessarily "transcendent".
If you wish to pursue this line, perhaps you could present some of the
actually physics that is under dispute.
>
>>wrong. religion is teleological and uses faith to understand its
>>teleology. thats religion. the other is empirical and uses evidence.
>>science is not voodoo.
>
>Do you deny that science also has end goals?  Any experiment begins
>with an hypothesis.  
The end goal of science is a greater ability to explain and predict.
This has little to do with an experiment having a hypothesis. 
>(And a researcher is not usually quick to
>dismiss it when the results are less that satisfactory.)  
That an individual holds strongly to their own ideas is well known. It
is one of the reasons for the peer review part of the process of
science. 
>Evidence,
>interpretation, AND conviction are used to substantiate the
>results.
Evidence is the results. Interpretation is used to develop hypotheses
and to design further experiments. Conviction is used to keep the
experimenter up late at night waiting for an experiment to finish.
Matt Silberstein
====================================
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day
Teach a man to fish, he eats his whole life
Teach a village to fish, they depopulate the lake

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:22:59, wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R.
Penrose) wrote:
>In article <5bsc70$f1d@csu-b.csuohio.edu> drake.79@osu.edu (Macarthur Drake) writes:
>
>>This messege is to provoke a serious scientific debate.
>
>                      
>>                        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
>
>
    What if they decide that we are delicious?
 Boris Mohar

Andromeda  wrote in article
<32E293A1.765D@thepentagon.com>...
> 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?" 
One of the things that relativity teaches us is that the concept
of simultineity is invalid.  You just can't make the claim that something
happens at the same time... it depends totally on your reference frame.
Interesting question, I would be interested in applying the equation for
mass expansion : m=mo/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) along the length of the rod
to calculate the torque required to rotate it.
Rob Altenburg
"Legalize Physics"

ale2  wrote in article
<5br5vn$lk8@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...
> In article <5bpamr$eka$1@nova.thezone.net>
> gpenney@thezone.net (George Penney) writes:
> 
> 
> >    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.
> 
> Thanks, that felt good, what is next %^)
> 
Gee, I always thought c=1!  Sure made the equations a lot simpler,
too!
E=m, E^2 = p^2 + m^2, etc.
Best Regards, Peter

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, "Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz" wrote:
> The 20C or charge is confined to the outside of the Faraday cage, where 
> all good mobile charge flows to equilibrium in conducting bodies.  The 
> FIRST spark occurs when the quarter exits the cage and encounters 20C or 
> charge at a million volts.  Also note that the edge of the hole has a 
> very small radius of curvature, and the electric field will be 
> concentrated there.
> 
> The SECOND spark occurs as the charged quarter aproaches the ground.
The potential inside the Faraday cage is the same as that at the surface,
and not necessarily zero.  Otherwise you would have a potential gradient,
which is by definition an electric field.  Therefore there should not be 2
sparks as you suggest, because the quarter and the surface of the Faraday
cage are at the same potential. 
---------------
Peter Berdeklis
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, R M Mentock wrote:
> Peter Berdeklis wrote:
> 
> > You and the quarters you are carrying are at the same potential as the
> > cage, well above the potential of the ground.
> 
> Why?
An electric field cannot penetrate a Faraday cage (i.e. E = 0).  An electric 
field is defined as the gradient of the electric potential.  Therefore, 
everywhere inside a Faraday cage the potential is a constant (but not 
necessarily 0) and so the potential inside the Faraday cage must be that 
at the surface of the cage.  
However, the surface of the cage in my though experiment is at a much
higher potential than the ground because it is (perfectly) insulated from
the ground and has had ~20 C of charge added to it by the lightning
strike.  Since you and the quarters are inside the cage, you must be at
the same potential relative to the ground as the charged surface of the
cage. 
---------------
Peter Berdeklis
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto

In article <32E344EC.15BE@dial.pipex.com> JohnAcadInt  writes:
>From: JohnAcadInt 
>Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
>Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:11:56 +0000
>Depree, Jonathan A wrote:
>                                  
>> >Actually, whether the authors reached the conclusions before or after
>> >examining the evidence, is nobody's business [sic].
How the hell did that happen? I never said that I certainly don't believe 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)

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:57:54 -0400, in sci.skeptic, ksjj@fast.net
(ksjj) wrote:
>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.
And as usual, every single point you make is wrong (including the
last, unfortunately). "There are none so blind as those who will not
see."
>
>The scary part? They teach this religist psuedo-science as fact in our
>schools. Kinda sends chills down your spine. 
Yeah, it'd be *so* much better to teach religion as science, wouldn't
it, Karl?
>
>Your uncle was a monkey
Not even very close (natch).
>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
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:57:54 -0400, in sci.skeptic, ksjj@fast.net
(ksjj) wrote:
>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.
And as usual, every single point you make is wrong (including the
last, unfortunately). "There are none so blind as those who will not
see."
>
>The scary part? They teach this religist psuedo-science as fact in our
>schools. Kinda sends chills down your spine. 
Yeah, it'd be *so* much better to teach religion as science, wouldn't
it, Karl?
>
>Your uncle was a monkey
Not even very close (natch).
>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
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, A. Cook wrote:
> > >The Situation:
> > >
> > >Your standing in an almost perfect Faraday cage.  There is just one small 
> > >hole in the cage wall big enough to throw a quarter through without 
> > >hitting the wall.  Your Faraday cage is perfectly insulated from the 
> > >ground.  Now your cage gets hit by lightning.  
> 
> 	If lightning struck the Faraday cage, would you necessarily be
> insulated on the inside even without a hole? I thought my physics prof
> said that a changing electric field will momentarily cause electrons to
> rearrange themselves. Might a temporary field then be produced inside the
> cage?
A magnetic field is not impeded by a Faraday cage.  A lightning bolt 
certainly provides a very strong magnetic field.  I think in my thought 
experiment I suggested that the charge was added slowly.  I meant slowly 
enough to ignore the magnetic effects.
Slowly adding charges also eliminates the temporary field argument.  In 
any case once the charges rearranged themselves again the field inside 
would return to zero, so I don't see where an increase in electrical 
potential energy would occur.
> 	This is kind of off the subject, but there's something I've always
> wondered about conducting materials. 
> 	1. If you place a charge on the surface of a hollow, conducting
> sphere, then there will be no field within the sphere. If the sphere has a
> net negative charge, then an electron at any point within the hollow sphere
> would not feel a net force.
> 	2. If you place a net charge on a conducting sphere, the charges
> will rearrange themselves until they are on the outside of the sphere.  
> This arrangement looks very similar to the charge on a hollow sphere.
> 
> Likely premature conclusion: If you place an electric charge inside the a
> charged, conducting sphere, this charge should not be subjected to a net
> force in any direction. The charge should remain where it was injected
> into the sphere.
Take your solid conducting sphere and turn it into an infinite no. of 
conducting shells.  Although any charge on the surface will not affect 
charge inside the shell, any charges inside the shell will exert a force 
on one another and will move as far away from each other as possible.  If 
you consider only the outermost shell, which corresponds to the surface 
of the solid sphere, you see that all the (like) charges will move to the 
surface.
---------------
Peter Berdeklis
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto

In article <5boan1$81q@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>,
  ale2@psu.edu (ale2) wrote:
> 
> I am offering a staggering $7 (US) prize money for the best "drawing"
> of an electron (what is best will be explained below). This contest is
> open to all; crackpots, amateurs, professionals (professors seeking
> tenure should use a pseudonym), AP, and AA, anyone, from anywhere!
I'm in...
For my entry I propose "electron as soliton":
1. Lisi, A.G.
     A solitary wave solution of the Maxwell-Dirac equations.
   Journal of Physics A (Mathematical and General), 21 Sept. 1995,
vol.28,
   (no.18):5385-92.
You even get a picture of an electron cross section!
This paper is also available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9410244
I didn't want to get labeled a crackpot (even if it is so) as I am but a
lowly graduate student. (hence the $5 means something to me. :-) )  But
you've hit the right buttons to get me to babble on about my crackpot
ideas so I'll
spill.
QFT with point particles is clearly "right" in the sense that it gives
the right answers to scattering problems, etc., however, it is far from
satisfying.  I think the most elegant theory of the electron we could
get, and my contest entry, is the
following:
Start with classical General Relativity (minimize the curvature) and
compactify some dimensions (Kaluza-Klein theory) to get GR coupled to
your Dirac and gauge fields.  Break some symmetries to get a mass (~Plank
mass) for your Dirac and some gauge fields.  The Maxwell-Dirac equations
admit non-topological soliton solutions (see paper) that are fermions
(looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...) with spin, charge, magnetic
moment, etc.  You'll get different solitons (leptons, quarks) for the
various gauge interactions.  Then you have to quantize the field theory
using path integrals over the field space and the classical action
(curvature).  (I can't dispute QM, even if I wish it didn't work that
way.)  In doing these path integrals you can expand around the classical
soliton solutions rather then the vacuum.  This way you get excited
quantum states for your solitons which correspond to the different
families (electron, muon, tau) with the mass hierarchy.  In your path
integrals you'll also see that the Poincare invariance of your soliton
solutions makes them look like moving point particles at large distance
scales.  This way you get to connect to standard QFT and the standard
model as well as get all the standard results of quantum electron
behavior.
This whole ball of wax holds together pretty well.  I have, of course,
excluded all the details, which includes stuff I haven't been able to do,
such as actually calculate the darn mass hierarchy.  (You would have
heard about that!)  But I believe this exposition, as well as the cool
electron pin-up picture in my paper, will be enough to net me that $5.
:-)
Unless of course you're merely looking for "most bizarre", in which case
I will loose out to the likes of Plutonium and his ilk.  (Is there a
crackpot compendium available somewhere, or is this it?)  If curious
personality traits do turn out to be a factor, perhaps you could consider
that I spend most of my time surfing (on the ocean), but don't tell my
advisor!
Garrett Lisi
336 Bonair St.
La Jolla, CA 92037
(619)456-0857
     .-===_   A.Garrett Lisi             alisi@ucsd.edu
    .'  /   \                    ^+^        NeXT mail->
  .'   |\o   \              ^+^      aglisi@heaviside.ucsd.edu
-'     | h\    Physics Department                    ___/(_
        \^     University of California, San Diego  ='____.\
         `~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~\{~
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

> >I was wondering if anyone has done research into whether a human being
> >could survive more G's if they were given time to get used to it.  Say a
> >human left the planet Earth on a 10 light-year journey at 1G constant
> >acceleration.  It would take them about 226 days to reach their
> >destination, by my calculations (is this correct?)  
> 
> As far as your calculations go, you might want read the Special
> Relativity sections of the FAQ for this newsgroup or check out an SR
> book such as Spacetime Physics.  You are proposing a faster-than-light
> velocity, which is not possible according to SR.
My back of the envelope calculation agrees with the first post --
calculating ship time, of course, not elapsed time for an observer back on
Earth.
-- 
John D. Goulden
jgoulden@snu.edu

>   What are the largest structures in the Universe? On page 139,
>Einasto et al report the latest attempt to elucidate the organization
>of the Universe on the 100-million parsec scale, by looking at the
>three-dimensional distribution of galaxy clusters.
....
>  The universe as a Lattice does not make sense in either a Big Bang
>theory nor in the Steady State theory.
The web site:
http://www.aai.ee/~einasto/nature.html gives a bit more information.  
Also big but uninformative article in Sunday's New York Times.

For a homework assignment I need to interview a scientist and an
engineer.  So anybody who would be willing to answer a few questions for
me please E-mail at bcurley@teleport.com and I will send you a list of
questions(probably 4 or 5 at most).
Thanks,
Bob

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:51:41 +0100, Julien_D@CompuServe.COM (Julien
DUBREUILLE) wrote:
>Does anyone have any information on the subject ?
>I need technical documentation on why, how is the distance between earth
>and moon meseared.
They use laser ranging. A high-power laser is fired at reflectors left
on the moon during the Apollo missions. The time delay of the
reflected pulse gives you the distance between the Earth and the Moon.
Here is a URL with a more complete description:
http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/Apollo15/A15_Experiments_LRRR.html
John A. Limpert
johnl@Radix.Net

I have the following books for sale :
Please note the books condition:
Brand New = (!)           Good    = (***)
Excellent = (****)        Average = (**)             Poor = (*)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- J. G. Kemeny, J. L. Snell, G. L. Thompson, Introduction to Fininte
  Mathematics, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1956, $19, (***).
- W. Kaplan, Introduction to Analytic Functions, Addison-Wesley, 1966,
  $24, (***).
- M. C. Gemignani, Elementary Topology, Second Edition, Addison Wesley,
  1967, $22, (****).
- R. C. Diprima, W. E. Boyce, Elementary Differential Equations, Third
  Edition, Wiley, 1977, $22, (***).
- P. R. Halmos, Measure Theory, Nostrand, 1950, $35, (***).
- C. L. Silver, From Symbolic Logic...to Mathematical Logic, WCB, 1994,
  $34, (!).
- J. A. Peterson, J. Hashisaki, Theory of Arithmetic, Second Edition,
  Wiley, 1963, $22, (***).
- B. V. Limaye, Functional Analysis, Halsted Press, 1981, $29, (***).
- R. E. Williamson, R. H. Crowell, H. F. Trotter, Calculus of Vector
  Functions, Prentice-Hall, 1968, $27, (***).
- G. Strang, Linear Algebra and Its Applications, Academic Press, 1976,
  $23, (***).
- J. Breuer, Introduction to the Theory of Sets, Prentice Hall, 1958,
  $18 (***).
- R. S. Burington and C. C. Torrance, Higher Mathematics with Applications
  to Science and Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1939, $19 (***).
- E. Gaughan, Introduction to Analysis, Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.,
  $22 (****).
- T. W. Gamelin, Uniform Algebra, Prentice Hall, 1969, $24 (***).
- J. W. Keesee, Elementary Abstract Algebra, D.C. Heath and Co.,
  1965, $19 (****).
- K. Knopp, Elements of The Theory of Functions, Dover, 1952, $15 
  (***, soft cover).
- K. Knopp, Infinite Sequences and Series, Dover, 1956, $15, (***, soft
  cover).
- K. Knopp, Theory And Application Of Infinite Series, Hafner Pub. Co.,
  2nd ed., 1923, $22 (***).
- R. C. Jeffrey, Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits, McGraw Hill, 1967,
  $25 (****).
- E. R. Stabler, An Introduction to Mathematical Thought, Addison Wesley,
  1953, $19 (****).
- P. W. Zehna and R. L. Johnson, Elements of Set Theory, Allyn and Bacon,
  1962, $25 (****).
- W. H. Richardson, Finite Mathematics, Harper & Row Publishers, 1968, $19 
  (****).
- M. R. Kinsolving, Set Theory and The Number Systems, International
  Textbook Company, 1967, $19 (****).
- M. D. Larsen, Fundamental Concepts of Modern Mathematics, Addison Wesley,
  $19 (****).
- A. H. Lightstone, Symbolic Logic and the Real Number System: An Introduction
  to the Foundations of Number Systems, Harper & Row Publishers, 1965, $19
  (****).
- E. J. Cogan, Foundations of Analysis, Prentice Hall, 1962, $19 (****).
- V. G. Sprindzuk, Mahler's Problem in Metric Number Theory, American
  Mathematical Society, 1969, $23 (***).
- D. N. Clark, G. Pecelli, and R. Sacksteder, Contributions to Analysis and
  Geometry, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, $24 (****).
- G. A. Freiman, Foundations of a Structural Theory of Set Addition, 
  American Mathematical Society, 1973, $22 (****).
- R. T. Seeley, Calculus of Several Variables, Scott Foresman & Co., 1970,
  $19 (****).
- D. Saracino, Abstract Algebra: A First Course, Addison Wesley, 1980,
  $19 (***).
- J. T. Moore, Elements of Abstract Algebra, Allendoerfer Advanced 
  Series, The Macmillan Company, 1962, $22 (****).
- B. L. Van Der Waerden, Modern Algebra, Vol. I, Frederick Ungar
  Pub. Co., 1940, $25 (***).
- A. Clark, Elements of Abstract Algebra, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1971,
  $22 (***).
- C. B. Hanneken, Introduction to Abstract Algebra, Dickenson Publishing
  Co., 1968, $22 (****).
- W. E. Barnes, Introduction to Abstract Algebra, D.C. Heath & Co., 1963,
  $22 (***).
- C. W. Curtis, Linear Algebra: An Introduction Approach, 2nd ed., Allyn
  and Bacon, Inc., 1968, $22 (***).
- J. Gilbert and L. Gilbert, Elements of Modern Algebra, 3rd ed., PWS-Kent
  Publishing Co., 1992, $22 (!).
- M. R. Spiegel, Applied Differential Equations, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall,
  1967, $17 (***).
- M. L. James, G. M. Smith, and J. C. Wolford, Applied Numerical Methods
  For Digital Computation with Fortran and CSMP, Harper & Row Pub., 1977,
  $22 (***).
- G. A. Bekey and W. J. Karplus, Hybrid Computation, John Wiley & Sons,
  1968, $22 (****).
- F. R. Ruckdeschel, BASIC Scientific Subroutines Vol. II, McGraw Hill,
  1981, $22 (****).
- A. L. Edwards, Statistical Analysis for Students in Psychology and
  Education, Rinehart & So., 1956, $10 (***).
- P. R. Rider, An Introduction to Modern Statistical Methods, John Wiley &
  Sons, 1939, $10 (***).
- M. Rosenblatt, Random Processes, Oxford University Press, 1962, $19 (***).
- Z. W. Birnbaum, Introduction to Probability and Mathematical Statistics,
  Harper & Brothers Pub., 1962, $19 (***).
- R. B. Reisel, Elementary Theory of Metric Spaces, Springer-Verlag, 1982,
  $15 (!), Soft Cover.
- D. Moller, Ed., Advanced Simulation in Biomedicine, Springer-Verlag, 
  1990, $17 (!), Soft Cover.
- D. V. Chudnovsky, G. V. Chudnovsky, H. Cohn, M. B. Nathanson, Eds., 
  Number Theory, Springer-Verlag, 1991, $18 (!), Soft Cover.
- K. H. Borgwardt, The Simplex Method: A Probablistic Analysis, Springer-
  Verlag, 1987, $18 (!), Soft Cover.
- J. R. Dias, Molecular Orbital Calculations Using Chemical Graph Theory,
  Springer-Verlag, 1993, $16 (!), Soft Cover.
- L. S. Charlap, Bieberbach Groups and Flat Manifolds, Springer-Verlag,
  1986, $17 (!), Soft Cover.
- R. L. Gue and M. E. Thomas, Mathematical Methods in Operations Research,
  The macmillan Co., 1968, $25 (****).
- F. Hausdorff, Set Theory, 2nd ed., Chelsea Pub. Co., 1962, $29 (****).
- S. Bell, J. R. Blum, J. V. Lewis, and J. Rosenblatt, Modern University
  Calculus with Coordinate Geometry, Holden Day, 1966, $23 (****).
- P. Buser, Geometry and Spectra of Compact Riemann Surfaces, Birkhauser
  Boston, 1992, $25 (!).
- J. L. Schiff, Normal Families, Springer Verlag, 1993, $19 (!, soft cover).
- C. E. Froberg, Introduction to Numerical Analysis, Addison Wesley, 1965,
  $22 (***).
- H. Rutishauser, Lectures on Numerical Mathematics, Birkhauswer, 1990,
  $35 (!).
- G. F. Simmons, Differential Equations with Applications and Historical
  Notes, McGraw-Hill, 1972, $25 (***).
- P. G. Hoel, Elementary Statistics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1966, 
  $25 (***).
- S. Ross, A First Course in Probability, Second Edition, MacMillan, 1984
  $28 (!).
- J. Gilbert, L. Gilbert, Elements of Modern Algebra, Third Edition, 1992
  $27 (****).
- P. C. Shields, Elementary Linear Algebra, Second Edition, Worth, 1968
  $18 (***).
- I. N. Vekua, Generalized Analytic Functions, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.,
  1962, $25 (***).
- E. D. Rainville, P. E. Bedient, A Short Course in Differential
  Equations, Sixth Edition, Macmillan, 1981, $25 (****).
- H. L. Pazer, L. A. Swanson, Modern Methods for Statistcial Analysis,
  Intext Educational Publishers, 1972, $22 (****).
- P. E. Pfeiffer, Concepts of Probability Theory, McGraw Hill, 1965,
  $19 (***).
- J. S. Bendat and A. G. Piersol, Measurement And Analysis of Random
  Data, John Wiley & Sons, 1966, $19 (**).
- R. E. Walpole and R. H. Myers, Probability and Statistics for Engineers
  and Scientists, 2nd ed., Macmillan, 1978, $19 (**).

Macarthur Drake wrote:
> 
> 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.
>          I beg to differ with both of these ridiculus statments. From my
> understanding of biochemistry and the number of stars in the universe....to
> not find life would be the greatest discovery of all times. There is nothing
snip
>         I would appriciate any math or stats expert to comment on the
> chances that we are alone in the entire universe. I bet that s/he'd say that
> it is statistically impossible for us to be alone, so what's the big deal we
> know that life is there, just a matter of time 'til we find it....or them
> us!
>         By the way there are an estimated 100 million million million stars
> or as Dr. Sagan put it more stars than the number of grains of sand on all
> the beaches/deserts on the entire Earth!
> 
>                         Logical and insightfully comments welcomed!
> 
>         drake.79@osu.edu
Experts in math and stats could provide no meaningful incite unless they
were also expert in Biochemistry.  More expert, in fact, than anyone
currently is. Statistics does not provide one with a magical elixir to
make meaningful predictions from a point of ignorance.  As far as my
biological knowledge goes, this is the bare essentials for life:
liquid water
20 amino acids (and their biosynthetic pathways, unless the primordial
soup is extremely rich)
20 tRNA'a
20 tRNA synthetases
functional ribosomes
An RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (I skip DNA to make it easier)
RNA which codes for the last 4 requirements
Note that all of these must be present simultaneously.  RNA that codes
for ribosomes will do no good unless their is already a ribosome to
implement it.  RNA polymerase will do no good unless there is already
RNA (coding for the polymerase) to duplicate, and etc.
To be more generous, let's say we only need 5 amino acids, tRNA's, and
synthetases.  Still looks pretty darn unlikely, even for billions of
stars and billions of years.
Of course life doesn't have to start this complicated.  It could have
consisted only of catalyic RNA at first.  But we have little to no
evidence that RNA can catalyze such a range of transformations.
Until (or unless) we learn more about the beginnings of life on this
planet, we cannot even speculate to within a power of 10, or for that
matter a power of 1000000000, the likelihood of life elsewhere.
Jeff

If Einstein was right and Newton wrong, does it not imply that Big 'G"
is a false constant and must likely relates to the atomic constants?
See "In the interest of Physics" at URL http:www.lasertape.com
Also:
Abstract:  If matter is energy spatially localized in observer space,
why does gravity operate via mass and not energy?  This question is
easily resolved and an expression for the gravitational constant G, is
obtained within the experimental error.
Gravitational ‘G’ And The Atomic Constants  W.S. Oakley 15 January 1997
Divining the fundamental nature of matter is one of the long sought
goals of physics.  Before venturing into conjecture as to the physical
structure of elementary particles we must address a fundamental
question of a more philosophical nature.  Is matter simply a spatially
localized manifestation of energy?  The answer would seem to
necessarily be affirmative as no other option is available.  This has a
direct relevance to gravitation as matter apparently attracts other
matter via mass, not energy.
	Consider the apparent force F required to maintain a mass m in an
orbit of radius r at a velocity v as perceived by a classical observer,
i.e. F = mv^2. /r.  A highly relativistic system can be envisioned
where the velocity v is close to c, the velocity of light in free
space, producing a relativistic mass m/b in a precessing elliptic orbit
such that the energy of precession allows the system to be quantized as
though it’s orbital velocity were c exactly.  This provides a system of
quantized angular momentum, e.g. h* = mcr, (h* = h/2p), and a condition
where the energy wavelength is essentially the orbit circumference.  
	The apparent force constraining such a relativistic system  to a
locality is Fr = mc^2. /b^2. r for a mass m/b at an equivalent radius
br, where b is a dimensionless relativistic factor.  This expression
can be expanded and written in an inverse square form; Fr = (b^2.
r/mc^2)(mc^2. /b^2. r)^2 = K (E/r)^2, where the force constant is given
by K = b^2. r/mc^2.  For the quantized system r = h*c/mc^2, and hence K
= h*c/(mc^2. /b)^2.  Fr also represents a hypothetical force of
attraction between two distant particle systems interacting via their
energies.  Experiment shows that remote particles do not interact
gravitationally via their energy, but via their mass.  Therefore
logically the gravitational attraction should be c^4 less than an
energy interaction and given by A = K(m/r)^2, rather than Fr = K(mc^2.
/r)^2.  This presents a problem as the resulting gravitational attr
action A is not a force but has dimensions of force/c^4.  How is this
to be resolved?
	One possibility is to regard mass as a parameter which is
dimensionally c^2 removed from observer space in which energy is
defined, i.e. m = E/c^2.  Mass interaction between particles would then
be between masses each of which is c^2 removed from the observer.  An
observer, unaware that mass is c^2 removed would see a mass interaction
and postulate a force F = G(m/r)^2, instead of the mass attraction, A [
= force/c^4 = K (m/r)^2.].  The effect would appear identical in
observer space.  By this conjecture the force of mass interaction acts
not in observer space but on the masses in their c^2 distant frames. 
If this conjecture is correct the gravitational constant G should
relate to K = h*c/(mc^2)^2.  
	A numerical value for b can be obtained by comparing K and G,
with m the electron mass and known values of h* and c.  Using the cgs
unit system in which the ‘Newtonian force of gravity’ was originally
defined gives, b = 26.6.  What is the significance of this value for
the relativistic parameter?
	 If mass distorts the metric of space as described by Einstein’s
General Theory  of Relativity, and in a spherical manner for remote
particle masses, a particle in relativistic rotation presumably
undergoes a volumetric contraction.  Two such masses interact in the 2D
plane normal to the line between them and the gravitational
relativistic factor b should therefore relate to such a 2D interaction.
 The related system 3D spherical distortion (or volumetriccontraction),
is therefore b^3/2., i.e. the distortion (relativistic contraction) is
b^1/2 per dimension.  We note that (26.6)^3/2 = 137, the value of the
inverse fine structure constant (= 1/a).  Hence the numerical value of
the expression K = h*c/(mc^2. /a^2/3)^2. in cgs units gives the value
of the gravitational constant, although the units differ from those
accepted by c^-4..  This numerical correlation is accurate to within
the one sigma empirical value for G.  Compared to the classical
dimensions for G of hc.m^2, K matches G to three significant digits
over 42 orders of magnitude.  The chances of this being a random
coincidence is therefore less than one part in 10^42!
	A volumetric contraction by a factor of 137 implies that the
rotating particle mass is relativistic by a factor equal to the fine
structure constant, i.e. m/a.  Conservation of energy demands that
creation of this mass energy requires a compensating negative potential
also be created: mc^2/a - h*c/r = 0.  Both of these effects are
evidently perceived reduced by the relativistic factor a so that in the
observers frame of reference, mc^2 - ah*c/re = 0, which is well known,
where m is the electron mass, re is the classical electron radius, and
- ah*c/re is the potential energy of a unit electric charge.
Conclusion.
The author concludes that Newton was essentially correct, gravity is a
force between masses.  However, mass is an effect which is removed from
the domain of the observer by c^2, as the observer’s domain is an
energy domain and E = mc^2.  Newton’s equation should therefore be
modified to A = Force/c^4 = Go.(m/r)^2., where Go = h*c/(mc^2.
/a^2/3.)^2.  This is valid for all unit system as is evident by A =
K(m/r)^2 differing from F = G(m/r)^2. only by the introduction of units
of c^-4 on both sides of the equation.  Apparently the classical value
for G has heretofore inadvertently included a factor of c^-4 in cgs
units which has introduced a factor of about 10^42 in all physics
expressions involving the constant.

In talk.origins devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
>Don McKenzie (mcaldon@wavenet.com) wrote:
>: In article <32D83882.6B70@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins 
>: wrote:
>: [snip]
>
>: > So far as alcohol goes, yes, it was right. However, please note that 
>: > about 50% of the aforementioned thinking sots were either Yanks or Brits 
>: > or Canadians (wot's the derogatory terms for them?). And I only know 
>
>: Canucks?
>
>Cann't be.  We call ourselves that.
>
And your point is?
Matt Silberstein
====================================
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day
Teach a man to fish, he eats his whole life
Teach a village to fish, they depopulate the lake

In talk.origins lamoran@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) wrote:
>In article <5bgs73$5u1@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>,
>David L Evens  wrote:
>>Don McKenzie (mcaldon@wavenet.com) wrote:
>>: In article <32D83882.6B70@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins 
>>: wrote:
>>: [snip]
>>
>>: > So far as alcohol goes, yes, it was right. However, please note that 
>>: > about 50% of the aforementioned thinking sots were either Yanks or Brits 
>>: > or Canadians (wot's the derogatory terms for them?). And I only know 
>>
>>: Canucks?
>>
>>Cann't be.  We call ourselves that.
>
>Shuuuuush ....! *They* don't know that!
>
>The real reason why there's no derogatory term for Canadians is that there
>is never any need for such a term.
>
Either that or it is redundant. ;-)
Matt Silberstein
====================================
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day
Teach a man to fish, he eats his whole life
Teach a village to fish, they depopulate the lake

R. Alan Squire wrote:
>     "If religion is taken in its widest sense, as a way of life
>     woven around a people's ultimate concerns... if religion is
>     taken in a narrower sense, as a concern to align humanity
>     with the transcendental ground of its existence..."
>     (Huston Smith, "The World's Religions")
> 
> Is science transcendental?  Does it need to be in order to fit this
> definition?  Or is it enough that it contemplates transcendental
> ideas?  I find the possibility fascinating.
Yes, it is fascinating, but a little beyond my expertise. Certainly
thories like relativity and quantum mechanics tend to fall outside the
realm of ordinary human experience (one of the definitions of
transendental). I had read that Hawking is trying (tried?) to use his
mathmatical skills to look "into" the black hole that "preceded" the big
bang. He described it as trying to find God (said tongue in cheek).
Most science, though, is more prosaic. The language downplays meaning.
While relativity may have transcendental elements, scientists tend to
use the word "counter-intuitive." Religion has developed a much richer
vocabulary of meaning than science has. I use "vocabulary" broadly to
mean also objects and myth. I suspect the astronomical discoveries of
the 20th century will get apropriated by various religions, and added to
the religious vocabulary. These phrases might then migrate back into the
scientific community.
Unfortunately, its not a very good answer. Just some thoughts off the
top of my head.

As I see it, there is one big problem with the whole debate.  The most
likely number of stars in the universe that have life is equal to the
product of the number of stars and the probability that any one star had
the right conditions to foster the formation of life.  We know the number
of stars, roughly speaking.  If the probability of life forming around any
one of these stars is much less than 1/(the number of stars), then the
product is small and it is unlikely that there is other life out there.  On
the other hand, if the probability that any one star has the right
conditions to give rise to life is of the order  of 1/(the number of stars)
or greater, then there is a great likelihood that some other star has life
circling it.
The problem is that we have *absolutely* no way to rationally assess the
probability that any given star has the right conditions to have given rise
to life or intelligent life.  All we have is the two emotional "arguments",
a)  "There are *so* many stars, there *must* be other intelligent life out
there." 
and 
b) "The formation of life is *so* improbable that it *can't* have happened
more than once in the universe."  
Unfortunately, both of these arguments have exactly equal validity and
probability until we have some means of assessing how probable (or
improbable) the origin of intelligent life at any spot in the universe
might have been.
	Eric Lucas
Macarthur Drake  wrote in article
<5bsc70$f1d@csu-b.csuohio.edu>...
> 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.
> 	 I beg to differ with both of these ridiculus statments. From my 
> understanding of biochemistry and the number of stars in the
universe....to 
> not find life would be the greatest discovery of all times. There is
nothing 
> extraordinary about looking the biochemistry of life and looking at the 
> billions of stars (in this galaxy alone) and concluding that there MUST
be 
> life out there. From a scientific view, there is nothing unique about
amino 
> acids.....the elements that make them up are not located only on this
planet 
> for sure. Now if there were only 10 stars in the entire universe the Dr. 
> Sagan's stament maybe more logical. But we can say, based upon all our 
> scientific theories, that LIFE MUST  exist elsewhare in the universe. If 
> not, then everything we understand about the universe is false. I even 
> suspect that life is rather common, say every 20,000 stars or so.
> 	Now I am not saying that UFO are here or anything, just that life 
> must exist. Maybe they are just prokaryots or something, but that is
life. 
> Why all the hype? We know that alien life MUST exist in some form or 
> another, so why get so excited? Now the debate over UFOs and aliens
visiting 
> is another story, although I think that can be debated scientifically
also. 
> I'd be glad to do that with anyone who likes debating as much as I do.
> 	I would appriciate any math or stats expert to comment on the 
> chances that we are alone in the entire universe. I bet that s/he'd say
that 
> it is statistically impossible for us to be alone, so what's the big deal
we 
> know that life is there, just a matter of time 'til we find it....or them
> us!
> 	By the way there are an estimated 100 million million million stars 
> or as Dr. Sagan put it more stars than the number of grains of sand on
all 
> the beaches/deserts on the entire Earth!
> 			
> 			Logical and insightfully comments welcomed!
> 
> 
> 
> 	drake.79@osu.edu
> 
> 
> 

Matt McIrvin  wrote in article 
astronomy. 
> For example, if you believe that the stars are at varying
> distances (an easy, if not self-evident, conclusion if you've
looked at the
> Milky Way through a primitive telescope), it is possible to look
for
> stellar parallax. Of course, the stars are so far away that this
was not
> feasible in Galileo's time. Actually, I think that the absence of
visible
> parallax was taken by some (Tycho Brahe?) as a falsification of
the
> Copernican hypothesis.
> 
I believe that you are correct wrt Tycho Brahe.  In fact, stellar
parallax
wasn't demonstrated until about 1843, when Bessel was able to
demonstrate it.
Best Regards, Peter

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:19:56 -0800, Erik Max Francis 
wrote:
>Randall E. Robie wrote:
>
>> Several years ago PBS presented a series of lectures taped at
>> CalTech called the "Mechanical Universe".  There's also a series
>> of Feynman lectures on video as well.  Does anybody know how I
>> can obtain these videos?.
>
>Last I heard, you can get books, lecture notes, and videotapes from the
>organization by calling 1 800 LEARNER.  I have no idea exactly what they
>offer or how much it is, but that's the only lead I've ever seen.
>
>> Please e-mail me if possible.
>
>Posted and emailed.
>
>-- 
>                             Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
>                              Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
>                         San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
>                                 &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
>     "You must surely know if man made heaven | Then man made hell"
The Mechanical Universe series is found in the video collection
catalog of The Annenberg/CPB Collection,  P.O.Box 2345,  South
Burlington, VT 05407-2345.   The Series consists of two parts of 26
half-hour programs on 7 VHS cassettes for each part ( total of 52
programs on 14 cassettes).  The price for each part was $199.00 a few
years ago.  They also offer companion books "Trigonometry Primer and
Student Study Notes Part 1" ($26.95) and "Student Study Notes Part 2"
($28.95).  I know from experience with the "French In Action" series
that the books are essential !  
The 1-800-LEARNER number connects you with Annenberg/CPB.
		Mike Donohue

Keith Stein wrote:
>          Take one clock the Mir Space Laboratory.
>          Ten days later take up another clock.
>     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)
(Can I assume that you find the indications that time dilation has to 
be accounted for in all sorts of space travel - notably GPS and the Voyager
missions - and particle physics - decay times of moving particles - 
not convincing?)
Consider the following method of synchronizing two spatially separated 
clocks (A and B) through a third one (Reference, let's say a precise atomic 
clock or a `radio-activity-decay-rate' clock) using light signals:
1) Put the reference clock in the middle between A and B
   (approach and confirm that middle position by measuring the shortest
   equal round-trip times for signals: Ref-A-Ref and Ref-B-Ref)
2) Send the reference time to A and B and set A and B to that time
   as soon as they receive it. 
Repeat 1) and/or 2) at your leisure.
Can you come up with a more reasonable method to synchronize A and B
(without moving them - probably into physical contact)?
If yes, then please let me know.
(Btw., I claim there is one which doesn't even use the reference clock
as intermediary and is therefore `more secure': otherwise it could
happen that you accidentally pick up the `wrong reference signal'
once in a while ... for instance)
If not, can you name a reason which can convince the cosmonauts in Mir 
(or us in a lab on earth) not to synchronize clocks by that exact method?  
If yes, then please let me know.
If not, then you can safely assume that the clocks in Mir are synchronized
by that method and lack 
> AN ENORMOUS! 260 microSecs.
behind clocks which rotate with earth's surface compared at start time
and when they are brought up later
(Can I assume that the value is corrected for GR effects?) >>because<< - 
those are the only conditions to derive (observational) time dilation:
observers on earth and in Mir synchronize their clocks with that same method
and they have no reason to doubt that they themselves are at rest
(an observer on earth has no such reason - apart from Coriolis forces,
much less an observer in Mir. Accordingly both wish to apply the `rest-laws'
for themselves and the `moving-laws' for others.)
(And I might then point out that step 1 is in fact problematic for SR because
it works even without the `requirement of empty space' 
- e.g. it works even when observers are orbiting masses, i.e. when they 
actually think that a mass is orbiting them, as in Mir.)
Regards,                                                  Frank  W ~@) R

"Identity Withheld"  wrote:
>How ironically funny... not too long ago, Word Warrior was railing against
>myself and some others who posted anonymously, calling us cowards (or words
>to that effect).
So you are.
>Now, here she is, "Word Warrior" (I doubt that is the name on her birth
>certificate) with a return address of "eat.me@regular.meal-times.org".
My name is on every post, my identity no secret.
>Can anyone say "hypocrite"? 
You attempt to condemn others for that which you do.
It'd be best if you really knew the meaning of the
word which so obviously applies to you.
>Yeah, yeah, yeah. So her name is in her .sig.
>Main thing is, what's she doing, trying to hide?
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
You remain entirely devoid of validity in this post.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Respectfully, Sheila          ~~~Word Warrior~~~         green@pipeline.com|
|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^