Newsgroup sci.physics 216960

Directory

casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>On 19 Jan 1997 18:16:09 GMT, in sci.skeptic, sjhogart@unity.ncsu.edu
>(Susan Hogarth) wrote:
>>*someone* wrote:
>>* >>People properly nourished in clean surroundings won't
>>* >>get cancer at all.
>>Where does _this_ assertation come from?
>It's an idea she has. She has provided no evidence in support.
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>I
>suspect it's a "New Age" thing.
Irrelevant.
Carcinogenic pollutants are a reality should
you decide to familiarize yourself with some
serious science on the subject.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|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.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:09:26 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>=eat-me@regular-mealtimes.org= (Word Warrior) wrote:
>>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>>>... Hope, however, springs eternal...
>>One could hope you'd eschew the ad hominem
>>and at some point make your case.
>For someone who posts unsubstantiated claims, then responds to the
>answers with one-liners such as "non sequitur" and
>"Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless", with *no*
>accompanying text to support your position, this is more than slightly
>ironic. 
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>I, and several others, 
Ad populum fallacy.
>raised valid points to which the above
>were your sole answers. 
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>You have stated that cancer is *only* caused
>by pollutants;
No other cause has been discovered, unless
you have a cite to the contrary.
> you brushed off the response that (among other things)
>the UV in sunlight is known to be carcinogenic with more of the same,
Not necessarily in the absence of carcinogenic pollutants.
>and have so far provided *no* evidence for your claim, just more
>unsupported assertions that it is, indeed, true.
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>You, not I, need to "make your case".
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>>Or had you hoped no one would notice that
>>you have not done so at all?
>This line should have been self-addressed. And no, this is *not* ad
>hominem; you have provided *no* evidence for your initial claim.
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|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.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Guys and Gals,
This stuff was a joke back when I went to school.
Anonymous  wrote in article <32E3BE8F.77B3@b.net>...
> 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?
> 

casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:08:00 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>=eat-me@regular-mealtimes.org= (Word Warrior) wrote:
>>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>>>On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:14:21 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>>>=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.org= (>>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<) wrote:
>>>>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 20:57:06 GMT, in sci.skeptic, =green@pipeline.com=
>>>>>(Word Warrior) wrote:
>>>>>>The immune system is quite capable of fending off damage
>>>>>>from external sources of damage when it is properly
>>>>>>fueled and managed.
>>>>>Your substantiation for this would be...?
>>>>Plenty of people avoid diseases by allowing their bodies
>>>>to function as intended with proper fuel and maintenance.
>>>Plenty of people, regardless of "proper fuel and maintenance", avoid
>>>disease.
>>Your substantiation for that would be _?_
>Er, would personal knowledge be sufficient?
Your substantiation for that would be _?_
>>> Your statement is therefore unsubstantiated as evidence for
>>>your contention. 
>>Non sequitur.
>Hardly. 
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>If you don't understand why, please feel free to ask.
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
You have no answers nor substantiation.
>>>Or do you have double-blind studies to cite?
>>Of course.
>And I see you provided the cites for all the studies that exist.
>Thanks.
You don't see very well, especially if you're
unaware that environmental pollutants are
known carcinogens.
>>>>Scott Nearing decided, in otherwise perfect health at the
>>>>age of 100, to stop eating in order to die, which he did,
>>>>peaceably in his own home.
>>>And my great-grandfather decided to live until his wife died. He died
>>>2 months after she did (peacefully, in his own home), at the age of
>>>98. (He smoked and ate typical German cuisine - lots of saturated fat,
>>>etc.- most of his life, and was as healthy as most men 40 years his
>>>junior.) All of which proves exactly nothing; individual cases aren't
>>>evidence.
>>Enough of them most assuredly are.
>Oh, good! So my great-grandfather counts, and gives the lie to your
>unsubstantiated claim. Next?
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|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.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:08:11 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>=eat-me@regular-mealtimes.org= (Word Warrior) wrote:
>>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:43:57 GMT, in sci.skeptic,
>>>=eat-me@designated-mealtimes.org= (>>>--->Word Warrior<---<<<) wrote:
>>>>casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>>>>>  >>>--->Word Warrior<---<<< wrote:
>>>>>Y'know, it would help readability if you would insert (or leave, in
>>>>>the case of quoted text) blank lines as separators.
>>>>Irrelevant.
>>>Thank you.
>>>*plonk*
>>Killfiles are for pussies and cowards, and those
>>like you who can't make their cases and seek an
>>escape thus or via irrelevant complaints.
>Actually, I changed my mind about the killfile, since your
>unsubstantiated claims and wild assertions need refuting.
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>>Good riddance to you.
>I'm baaaaack...
Counting your lack of substantiation, you've never been anywhere.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|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.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

sjhogart@unity.ncsu.edu (Susan Hogarth) wrote:
>*someone* wrote:
>* >>People properly nourished in clean surroundings won't
>* >>get cancer at all.
>Where does _this_ assertation come from?
This is usenet.
The disease is but the price of habitat damage.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|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.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

John wrote:
> 
> Richard F. Hall wrote:
> >
> >>snip
> > What you say is for all intensive purposes true. ....
> > snip
> Is there a name for "intensive puposes"? It is probably apt.
> John
'Obsessions", I think.

               GO TO JAMES THE RIGHTEOUS
       The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that You will depart
       from us. Who is to be our leader?"
       Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James
       the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
       [ The Gospel of Thomas, 12 ]
JAMES     = 10+1+13+5+19           =  48
THE       = 20+8+5                 =  33
RIGHTEOUS = 18+9+7+8+20+5+15+21+19 = 122
JAMES THE RIGHTEOUS = 203
The number of stone layers in the Great Pyramid of Giza = 203
JAMES THE RIGHTEOUS is the GREAT PYRAMID!
I always wondered about this saying. Why would the diciples
record a saying that seemed to be so limited in time. Obviously,
if James refered to an individual person, then when he died
there was now where to go. However, if James refered to a specific
place then recording this parable made perfect sense. The scribes
were encoding a specific reference here using gematria. When we
reverse the name JAMES we obtain SEMAJ and if we look up the
closest meanings to this phonetic expression we find --
from The American College Dictionary 3rd. Ed
sema-nteme  Ling. An irreducible unit of meaning
sema-ntic 1. Of or relating to meaning, esp. meaning in language.
         2. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.
sema-ntics 1. Ling The study or science of meaning in language forms.
          2. Logic. The study of relationships between signs and
             symbols and what they represent.
sema-phore   1. A visual signaling apoaratus with flags, lights, or
            mechanically moving arms, as one used on a railroad.
            2. A visual system for sending information by means of
            two flags that are held one in each hand, using an
alphabetic
            code based on the position of the signal-er's arms.
sema     [ Greek meaning ] sign
sema-tic   Serving as a warning or signal of danger. Used esp. of the
          coloring of some poisonous animals
So, the word SEMA-J refers to a sign, intended to communicate some
specific meaning, possibly warning of danger of some sort. That
is, JAMES is the Great Pyramid, and this structure is a sign
containing a warning of some kind.
Well, I'm stuck for the moment there. However, I think that the
parable should read "through which heaven and earth came into
being." That is to say, the Great Pyramid contains the Laws of
science through which heaven and Earth are constructed.
As proof ot this. Consider the following :-
The Great Pyramid, if compeleted, would have an apex 480 feet
above the ground. The Eye of Horus is a fractional system
that divides a standard measure into 64 parts. The Eye
sees LIGHT. And, lo and behold, LIGHT circles the earths' polar
circumference 480 times in 64 seconds. And if we take 4 seconds
off this we get 1 minute. And 4/64 = 1/16. The missing Capstone
on the Great Pyramid is 30 feet in height. 30/480 = 1/16.
That is to say, the Pyramid "as built" is only 450 feet tall,
because of the intentional missing capstone. But, LIGHT
circles the earth 450 times in 60 seconds. So, the Pyramid
represents 1 unit of time -- 1 minute in time.
This is clearly consistent with the first of the dictionary
meanings given above where "sema-nteme" is defined as
"An irreducible unit of meaning". The Pyramid is a time
marker. And it defines 1 minute.
Note also the
FOOT =   6+15+15+20 = 56
LIGHT = 12+9+7+8+20 = 56
so
     FOOT == LIGHT
again, consistent with the Great Pyramid's 480 FEET being the
measure of 480 cycles of LIGHT aroung the earth's pole.
Calculations:
        c =       29,979,2.45800   km/s (speed of light)
       Rp =          6,356.        km  (polar radius)
       Re =          6,387.        km  (equatorial radius)
  2.pi.Rp =         39,935.92581   km  (polar circumference)
  2.pi.Re =         40,074.15589   km  (equatorial circumference)
     c/(2.pi.R)
               =    7.507       times per sec around polar cir.
               =    7.481       times per sec around equat. cir.
    64 x c/(2.pi.R)
               =   480.4        times in 64 secs around pole
               =   478.8        times in 64 secs around equator
Ok. So, it's it clear that the G. Pyramid contains information
on the measures of space-time. And that JAMES is the code word for
the Great Pyramid in the scriptures.
Clearly, in the old days, everyone knew where the G. Pyramid was.
So, the saying "Wherever you are, you are to Go to the Great Pyramid"
makes sense, because no one could miss the giant structure.
But, does that mean one had to enter the pyramid and go into
the Chambers to recieve some kind of instruction or revelation?
Or, could one just study the metrological data from afar?
Any one with brains out there?
pmj

Depree, Jonathan A wrote:
> 
> In article <32E276FB.2776@gold.chem.hawaii.edu> Dettol  writes:
> >From: Dettol 
> >Subject: Re: strength of hemp fibers
> >Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 09:33:15 -1000
> 
> >Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <32E1954A.71AAAC46@MIT.EDU>, Pinky   wrote:
> >> >Granted Gary, but the point was that there is no need for
> >> >mucking about with the genes of cannabis. If the correct strains
> >> >are chosen there are low enough levels of THC to be negligible.
> >> >Even lower levels could be obtained through selective breeding.
> >>
> >> My major concern would be DEA officials who can't tell the difference.
> >> Before hemp can become useful under current laws, the industrially
> >> valuable but useless for smoking version must have obvious physical
> >> differences.  Because you know they're going to ban everything that looks
> >> the same.
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Good things come in small packages.  But big things can't, unless they're
> >> inflatable or require some assembly." - The Tick
> 
> >In Australia the relevant authorities simply take some plants at random
> >from the farm and test them.
> 
> What if the farmers are growing a hundred hectares of industrial hemp with
> five hectares of marijuana hidden somewhere among it. Each test has only a one
> in twenty chance of catching the illegal stuff. I (as the grower) know exactly
> where it is but can you find it?
> Jonathan Depree,
> Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.
> 
> Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
> people advice. They killed him.   (school history howler)
There is an easy way around that.   Just take leaves from regular points
in a grid (sampling virtually everywhere) then grind up the lot and test
with a DNA probe for DNA unique to the high  THC plants.   One test
samples a wide area.
What kind of insane country is it that makes marijuana illegal (note
that I do NOT use it (or ANY mind altering drug -including alcohol)) - a
drug which is relatively innocuous compared to alcohol (which kills FAR
more INNOCENT univolved people (via traffic accidents)) and yet allows
tobacco (which affects even those who not only don't use it but are
adamently opposed to it!)(and, of course, innocent children)?
IMHO, public welfare has nothing whatsoever to do with it!  It's the
MONEY (as always):  the tobacco industry is firmly entrenched in our
economic system.  
jdbarron@cphl.mindspring.com

Correct typo in Einstein 17: antimatter is, of course, negative energy
propagating backward in time which is equivalent to positive energy of
opposite charge propagating forward in time.
Some of that sentence that I intended was inadvertently cut out.

6546 20-JAN 19:05 General Information
     Help--Magnets!
     From: DUMBTERMINAL To: ALL
  Hello,
  I need some help on a "type" of magnet.
  I saw a really interesting Home Science Experiment with Food on an
  early morning children's newsmagazine show.
  The science teacher had children float some cereal flakes on top of
  milk in a bowl. He specified that you have to use flakes high in
  nutrients, specifically Iron (they used "TOTAL" brand in the demonstration).
  Then...he gave the kids a Magnet, and specified that it had to be a VERY
  strong type. He said the name of the type, but it had more than one
  syllabel and I hadn't had my morning coffee yet and didn't catch the name.
  (It was yellow, and looked like a cube of rubber or plastic).
   Anyway, by slowing moving the magnets over the flakes, the flakes moved
   in the same direction as the magnet! (The 100% iron in them being
   responsible.)  Next, they put about a cup of the cereal in a zip-lock
   baggie with plenty of water to cover, zipped shut the bag, and while
   holding this strong magnet on one side of the bag, shook like crazy
   until the cereal-water mixture turned into mulch...and ... sure enough...
   there was a small clump of miniscule iron filings massed on the side of
   the baggie were the magnet was being held!
  I need to know what type of magnet this was and where to find such a
  thing. I have told people about this, and they all think I have too
  much iron in my diet. I need to demonstrate this to them to prove them
  wrong...
  :)  magnetically challenged,
      dt.

Hi,
Does anyone know of a good reference on electrical breakdown in small
air gaps? By "small" gaps, I mean something in the order of microns.
(1e-6 m)
Thanks for the help. E-mail please!
-Joey

DOES ACADEMIC TENURE HAVE ANY PLACE IN THE MODERN WORLD?
I find the whole idea of someone being given a job for life abhorrent
but I think what irritates me the most about academia is the lack of
accountability of tenured staff.
I'd like to hear if anyone knows of a tenured academic who has been
sacked for poor performance.   I am personally aware of two academics
who have been sacked [one broke the law (theft of university property)
and the other was "invited to retire" rather than face a harassment
suite] but none who have even been discipline for poor performance.
What is so special about academics that they deserve privileged
treatment?  The idea of a job for  life has been tried in the broader
community and has failed.  The reasons for the failure are generally
given as lack of incentive, lack of competition, lack of efficiency and
productivity and so on.
Isn't it time we abandoned failed socialist ideas of a job for life?
When discussing this issue with others the point is often raised what
criteria should be used to assess performance.   Also it is often
suggested that poor performers exist in the real (ie, non-academic)
world.
As a first instance could I suggest a minimum requirement of turning up
to work for at least twenty hours a week.  I'm sure failure to turn up
for work would result in dismissal in private industry.  I have been
associated with three academic chemistry departments and this criteria
alone would result in three staff members being sacked.  At the moment
of course they are tenured and therefore accountable too no-one.  The
off-the-record  feeling of others in these departments is that there is
nothing that can be done so just ignore the problem and try not to make
the same mistake when hiring the next time.
Admittedly academic absenteeism is probably only a problem in a
relatively small percentage of cases but it highlights the lack of any
systematic accountability.
I think a far worse and endemic problem is fraud.  I'm choosing to use
the word in its broadest sense.  Perhaps "parafraud" is a better word. 
It is the word used by Harold Hillman in an article published in The
Times Higher Education Supplement (1995) titled "Peccadilloes and Other
Sins" to describe a multitude of academic "sins" some of which included
:
"research workers who do not report their own experiments or
observations that are incompatible with their beliefs.
Academics who do not quote publications who's conclusions they do not
like.
Scientists who do not carry out the relevant control experiments either
by omission or refusal to do so, when attention has been brought to
them...
Some supervisors expect to share in authorship of research work in which
they have made little or no intellectual contribution..."
It is this final point that I think is the most widespread.
The current system of reward in academia encourages quantity rather than
quality of research publications.  I'd like to take a hypothetical
example of an academic who works diligently during their initial years
of academic appointment.  Through hard work and flair in their field
they may attract research funds which in turn enables them to attract
graduate students and, if the researcher publishes and gains more
recognition (= more funds), post docs.  There reaches a stage when a
research group has enough graduate students and postdocs for the whole
process of engaging in scientific research to be self propagating
without the need for input from the principal investigator (PI).  
At this stage the PI faces a moral dilemma.  One can become an absentee
PI, turn up for work very now and then and still watch one career flower
due to the output of the laboratory or the PI can continue to
participate actively in the process.  Sometimes a problem exists in that
despite the best intentions of the PI the research group becomes too big
for the PI to have a realistic input to all projects.  In this case and
more so in the case of the absentee PI they are needed solely to sign
purchase orders.  My point here is that these people have become
glorified lab managers and are no longer needed for the scientific
process to continue (other than getting their signature on a PO).  
I think that without tenure this situation would be less likely and
where it existed the university would be able to dismiss the faculty
member and appoint someone else.
The next thing that often gets raised when I have this discussion is
that in the situation that I have described (and witnessed) the PI is
still productive based on the only measure of productivity that seems to
exist in academia, namely quantity of publications.
This is where a huge reform in attitude is necessary.  Recall the final
point that I quoted from  Hillmans article.  I've asked people why
such-and-such a person was listed as a co-author when they have made no
scientific contribution.  A typical response is that "they raised the
money."
For those of you who are chemists check out the ACS ethical guidelines
for publication (I'm sure the other societies have similar).  It is
quite clear in those guidelines what constitutes authorship and what
doesn't.  Raising the money does not constitute grounds for authorship. 
If it did a philanthropist could choose to fund research projects and
very soon become the most published scientist of our time.  
The problem that is rampant in academia is that PIs take credit and
co-authorship when they do not ethically warrant it, and thereby
increase their quantity of publications, enhance their reputations and
make funding all the easier to acquire the next time.  And so the cycle
continues and a PI can build a 30 year career by turning up to work in
the first ten years.
At the moment it is a foolproof system.  No accountability exists.  The
people in a position to observe this parafraud, the graduate students
and postdocs, depend on the PI for their salary but perhaps what is more
important they depend on the PI for a reference for future employment. 
Why be a "whistle blower?"  You are only there for a few years, it is
too easy not to rock the boat.  
PIs will continue to be "raising the money" and paying graduate students
and postdocs and churning out quantities of papers and raising more
money and so on...
The cycles continues and  academia has lost its way.
Mike

In article <5bjlgs$93d@news.fsu.edu>, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>gay@sfu.ca (Ian Gay) writes:
>} 
>} Ballard are claiming 60% on their H2 fuel cell.
>} 
>} Of course you have to ask where the H2 comes from :-)
>
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>That's exactly the point.  We should compare full efficiencies, not 
>>partial.
>
> How far are you going to go, the refining of petroleum into gasoline, 
> or are you going to include the petroleum used to defend our sources 
> of petroleum as well? 
>
Definitely.  This is part of the cost too.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

“What the psi-function (at a definite time) states, is this: What is the
probability for finding a definite physical quantity q (or p) in a
definite given interval if I measure it at time t? The probability is
here viewed as an empirically determinable, and therefore certainly a
‘real’ quantity, which I may determine is I create the same psi-function
very often and each time perform a q-measurement. But what about the
single measured value of q? Did the respective individual system have
this q-value even before the measurement? To this question there is no
definite answer within the framework of the existing theory, since the
measurement is a process that implies a finite disturbance of the system
from the outside; ...”
Note that conventional quantum measurement theory does not even consider
a “self-measurement” which is what we do when we think, feel, experience
and introspect.
“... it would therefore be conceivable that the system obtains a
definite numerical value for q (or p), the measured numerical value,
only through the measurement itself. ... I shall assume two physicists A
and B, who represent different conceptions concerning the real situation
as described by the psi-function.”
“See how The Fates their gifts alot
For A is objective and B is not.”
variation on Mikado by Gilbert and Sullivan
“A. The individual system (before the measurement) has a definite value
of q (or p) for all variables of the system, specifically that value
which is determined by a measurement of this variable. Proceeding from
this conception, he will state: The psi-function is not a complete
description of the exact state of the system, but is only an incomplete
representation; it expresses only what we know about the system because
of previous measurements.”
Note Einstein’s use of “previous”. He totally accepts the principle of
retarded causality as an absolute invariant, i.e., that effects are in
the timelike or lightlike future of their causes in all frames of
reference. Of course, there are solutions of Einstein’s own general
relativity equations which. because of special warp configurations, have
closed timelike curves (CTC’s) that violate retarded causality globally
while obeying it locally. A good discussion of this is in Kip Thorne’s
book, Black Holes and Time Warps. Thorne’s book, of course, was written
more than forty years after Einstein wrote the remarks we are studying
and meditating upon. There has been tremendous progress, both
theoretically and observationally, in the development and verification
of Einstein’s general theory of relativity at the classical level. There
is even the possibility that we will develop globally faster-than-light
warp drives for our spacecraft without any time dilation and without any
uncomfortable g-forces to contend with, if we can manufacture or find
“exotic-matter” which is negative energy propagating forward in time.
This is not to be confused with anti-matter which is negative energy
propagating forward in time. Again, even for this “Alcubierre” warp
drive the local motion is still slower than light and it is “geodesic”
i.e. freely floating with no gravity experienced by the crew of the
ship. 
On Rumors of the Coming Extra-Terrestrial War
General Douglas Mac Arthur in his final "Duty, Honor, Country" address
to the cadets of West Point has a remarkable warning about cosmic
warfare with extra-terrestrials. He says we "must harness the cosmic
energy". This speech was only a short time after the alleged Roswell UFO
incident when we allegedly shot down several alien "flying saucers" that
were attempting to fly over the first U S Army nuclear bomber base in
New Mexico. If any one had been privy to what really happened it would
be General Mac Arthur. Since that time we have made great progress in
physics. NASA has a serious small project to develop a practical warp
drive in the near future. There have been claims that it may be possible
to make traversable wormholes that will also achieve effective
faster-than-light travel to the stars without the need for
exotic-matter. Finally, there are many rumors that our military has
captured alien UFOs that already have this super-technology and that we
are reverse-engineering them at Wright-Patterson and Area 51 etc for our
own military forces. I have no further comment on the veracity this
particular rumor which may simply be disinformation for more
conventional “Black Budget” covert R&D; of the next generation of
military aircraft. The fact that we are now able to detect planets
around other stars has added some stimulus to these sorts of conjectures
and wishes that run deep in pop-culture.

Macarthur Drake wrote:
>         Also very cute, but I thought I missed
> 'alt.correct.my.english.please'...if not then I'll do so next time. Remember
> it is the thought that counts....words are just a specific pattern of
> varying density of air...and typed words on computers are just a bunch on
> transmitted electrons...so lighten up buddy....
"Lighten up" from someone who said "I beg to differ with both of these
ridiculus statments."  Go figure.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindSpring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Macarthur Drake wrote:
>         Also very cute, but I thought I missed
> 'alt.correct.my.english.please'...if not then I'll do so next time. Remember
> it is the thought that counts....words are just a specific pattern of
> varying density of air...and typed words on computers are just a bunch on
> transmitted electrons...so lighten up buddy....
"Lighten up" from someone who said "I beg to differ with both of these
ridiculus statments."  Go figure.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindSpring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

I am looking for someone with experience in the physics of LEDs.
Specifically, experience in spectral issues relating to heat and
current.
zac@zbe.com

In article , Rich Rostrom  writes
>
>> Britain, on the other hand, had rather
>> restricted resources to play with. My understanding is that, in Borneo,
>> on average, 1 British soldier had 2 miles of border to keep track of.
>> Numbers of helicopters deployed by Britain was very low.
>> 
>> Lots vs lots on the one hand, and little vs little on the other.
>
>As Joe Askew points out, you're conflating the Chinese-Malayan
>Communist insurgency with the Indonesian Konfrontasi against Sarawak.
>
No. I always was talking about the Borneo siyuation. I don't know why
Joe Askew suggests otherwise.
-- 
Alison Brooks  
O-

wf3h@enter.net wrote:
> 
> fine. then teach me what you know and ill know as much as i did
> before.
I ended my last reply to you (I believe it was the fourth or fifth
round in our little debate) with, "I'll let you decide".  And I
WILL.  Andromeda's point is well taken ("...matter of opinion...");
whether science falls into the category of "religion" or "knitting",
it remains science.
>>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
I think you forgot to take your lithium today.  (Besides, I'm not a
creationist.)
>>You're a chemical physicist.  Is Hugh Everett's 1957 "many worlds"
>>hypothesis testable?
> 
> 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.
What can I say?  That's intriguing.
> members of ONE religion cannot (with rare exceptions) be members of
> another religion
That is only a Western notion.  Most Chinese people belong to the
"Great Church", which is a mixture of Taoism, Confucianism, and
Buddhism.  As well, Hindus have do not consider their religious
beliefs to be incompatible with those of others.  (Hardly rare)
> you have half the pie. religion is teleological. it is DESIGNED to
> answer the question of purpose. science does not do that.
I do not subscribe to any religion in the conventional sense.  I DO
find them interesting.  And I find science, especially the physical
sciences, particularly interesting.  And for the most part, I accept
them.  But... one rather dull Wednesday night, I decided to EXPRESS
AN OPINION regarding the two.  I received several responses, some of
them in agreement, some tactfully critical, and then there was your
caustic, arrogant, "This AINT Alice in Wonderland.  And words DON'T
mean what YOU say."  Unfortunately, this response led me into a
four-day debate, which admittedly is half my fault.  Sometimes I
just wish I'd watched something on A&E; that night.
> 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.
I don't really think so.  The question, "Is Science Religion", is
more unifying than it is anything else.  I'll enter this final
thought, and you can consider it or dismiss it.  But note that
because of my interests and educational background, I tend to see 
things from a psychological point of view.  So this is my take...
For whatever reason, humans are and have been a people with a deeply
rooted desire to know what "all this" is.  Primal beliefs, as far as
we know, had no gods (read anything about the Australian Aboriginal
belief in "The Dreaming" -- also a pretty good Kate Bush album).
When theism entered the scene, it did so in many forms, and it
changed over time.  Various philosophical methods of understanding
were born.  In some cases they stood alongside the religions of the
time.  In others, they melded with or became the religions of the
time.  And today, we have science, very likely an outgrowth of
philosophical reasoning, which now lives in precarious balance with
religions and philosophies that came into being long ago.
This reminds me very much of evolution, in this case science being
the end product that is often held in the highest regard.  But mostly,
it suggests to me that methods of discovery or understanding (or
whatever you'd like to call them), be they old or new, all come from
the same human desire to know, and in this way, they are related.  So
in the same way that humans, apes, and reptiles are all living things,
I believe science and religion to be in a single category.  Label that
category what you will.

Chris Chierchio wrote:
> 
> Hi, I work for an engineering company, and we have to do a design that
> involves some minor compensation for the Coreolis Effect (hope I'm spelling it
> correctly!). My understanding is that it is the effect caused on water
> draining downwards, causing a spiraling effect, that differs in direction
> depending on which hemisphere your viewing it from.  Anyways, we started
> discussing the effects at the poles and the equator.  We are guessing that the
> effect is negligible at the equator, and at a maximum at the poles.  But this
> raises a question of rotational force acting to a lesser degree at the centre
> of rotation.
> 
> My question:  Does anyone know where the maximum point of rotational force
> is, and where the least is?
> My first guess, considering gravity's effect is somewhere around a 45 degree
> angle off the poles.
Sounds scary, what are you designing?
-- 
D.
mentock@mindSpring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

Hi, I work for an engineering company, and we have to do a design that 
involves some minor compensation for the Coreolis Effect (hope I'm spelling it 
correctly!). My understanding is that it is the effect caused on water 
draining downwards, causing a spiraling effect, that differs in direction 
depending on which hemisphere your viewing it from.  Anyways, we started 
discussing the effects at the poles and the equator.  We are guessing that the 
effect is negligible at the equator, and at a maximum at the poles.  But this 
raises a question of rotational force acting to a lesser degree at the centre 
of rotation.
My question:  Does anyone know where the maximum point of rotational force 
is, and where the least is?
My first guess, considering gravity's effect is somewhere around a 45 degree 
angle off the poles.
Just curious.

Imagine this: a satellite approaches a planet on a trajectory that
takes it just behind the planet's orbital path with enough velocity to
escape that planet's gravity.  Once the satellite exits on the other
side of the planet's orbit, it will have gained that planet's orbital
velocity.
-- 
                                 Bill

Peter Berdeklis  writes:
>Since you are in a Faraday cage there is no potential gradient inside.  
>Therefore no charge enters the cage beyond some skin depth on the outer 
>surface of the cage, which we will assume is small compared to the wall 
>thickness.
>
>Although there is no potential grad. inside the cage, the entire cage has 
>a significant potential with respect to the ground because the lightning 
>stroke just dumped 20 C of charge on it.
>
>You and the quarters you are carrying are at the same potential as the
>cage, well above the potential of the ground.  When you throw a quarter
>out the small hole you should get a spark as the quarter nears the 
>ground.
Uh, no.  Just because something is at a high potential does not mean it
has extra charge.  It can be at a high potential because there is a lot
of extra charge somewhere nearby.  The corners of the Faraday cage (if
it has corners) will be at the same potential as the sides of the cage,
but will have more charge on them.  The interior of the cage will be at
the same potential, but will have no excess charge at all.
Thus the quarter will not spark when it hits the ground, unless it
picks up some charge on its way out.  (Which would involve another
spark.)
--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu

Chris Marriott  wrote in article
...
> In article <5bdt0c$3mj@umbra.jobstream.co.uk>, Tony Lezard
>  writes
> >If the
> >rods were truly rigid you could wiggle one end and the other end would
> >have to know instantly (i.e. via some signal moving faster than c)
> >when to move.
> 
> If you "wiggle" a rigid rod, the "force" travels along the rod at the
> speed of sound for the material of the rod.
Sound travels in waves right? Then the rod is not *rigid* if there is a
wave in it.
-- 
Randy,
rtdoran@gate.net
[Moderator's note: it's obviously not *perfectly* rigid.   I have
set followups to sci.physics.relativity for those who wish to 
continue this discussion. - jb]

stooge1@aol.com (Larry) writes:
> stooge2@ohyeah?y.i.oughtta.com (Moe) responds:
>> stooge3@nyuk.nyuk.ca (Curly) sez:
>>> My science teacher said that glass is a supercooled liquid that
>>> flows over time.
>> Glass is an amorphous solid; it does not flow measurably over
>> historical time scales.
> I've seen distorted window panes in older houses, and old stained 
> glass windows that are thicker at the bottom than at the top. 
> Obviously, given enough time, glass will flow.
After reading many hundreds of posts of a similar nature, I hereby
propose the following theory:
LANCE'S GENETIC-BASIS-FOR-GLASS-FLOW THEORY (c)
By now, it must be obvious to almost everyone on saa, afu, and
sci.physics that humans have a strong disposition to believe that
glass flows. We've observed over and over again that much of the
'evidence' of glass flow is accepted without a second thought by those
who have not been disabused by the cold light of science and reason.
It is my contention that this acceptance is instinctive. We need only
explain the source of this instinct, and we will have explained the
widespread and intractable tendency toward erroneous ideas concerning
the ultimate nature of glass.
To humans, whose main bodily constituent is H2O, water is arguably the
most important substance in the entire world of physical objects. Ever
since the first ring-tailed skink (or whatever it was we evolved from)
developed eyes, our ancestors have seen that water is transparent yet
tangible. Millions of generations of our predecessors have evolved
associating transparent tangibility with (flowing) water. Our present
attitudes toward glass--a transparent solid--are influenced by our
genetically determined attitudes toward water. When modern humans
encounter a pane of glass, they  bump into a billion years of
hard-wired reactions and inherited predispositions. No words and no
science can entirely overcome our compulsion to regard this
transparent solid as essentially a liquid. (Our ancestors' encounters
with clear ice would only have served to reinforce the notion that all
transparent solids will flow at body or 'room' temperature; and those
naturally occurring substances that 'magically' defied this simple
classification were coveted as gems by our later ancestors.) 
Even though our language is perfectly adequate to define a solid,
language is a relative newcomer to the evolutionary scene, and our
primitive instincts seem to drag our discussions about glass down into
a semiotic swamp; though materials science tells us that glass is
about as solid as a solid can be, modern physics cannot compete
with--and is often co-opted by--the intuitive physics of our
primordial mind. 
So the next time you get the urge to say that glass flows, just
remember that it's great2x10^8-grandpa Skink who's making you say it.
--
lance      <---- not a crackpot                  see you in Stockholm

Einstein’s last stand on the warfare between classical relativity and
quantum mechanics.
“... I must take a stand with reference to the most successful physical
theory ofour period, viz., the statistical quantum theory ... this is
the only theory that permits a unitary grasp of experiences concerning
... micro-mechanical events. This theory, on the one hand, and the
theory of relativity on the other, are both considered correct ...
although all efforts to fuse them so far have not met with success.”
The primacy of objective physical reality.
“Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as something that
is considered to be independent of its being observed. In this sense one
speaks of ‘physical reality.’ In pre-quantum physics there was no doubt
as to how this was to be understood. In Newton’s theory reality was
determined by a material point in space and time, in Maxwell’s theory by
the field in space and time. In quantum mechanics the situation is less
transparent. If one asks: does a psi-function of the quantum theory
represent a real fact in the same sense as a material system of points
or an electromagnetic field? one hesitates to reply with a simple ‘yes’
or ‘no.’ Why?”
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread, nevertheless, Bohm’s answer to
this is a resounding “yes.” Einstein is thinking of the Bohr type
intepretations of the meaning of quantum physics. In Bohm’s version the
psi-function does represent a real fact, but it is a thoughtlike real
fact which is qualitatively different from the real rocklike facts of
classical material points and electromagnetic fields. Both of these
classical rocklike things are “hidden-variables” or “beables” in Bohm’s
interpretation that move under the influence of
form-dependent/intensity-independent objective nonlocal spooky
“telepathic” actions at a distance. Einstein, as we shall see, did not
like this, but Bell’s theorem would have forced him to accept it
nevertheless if he had lived to see it. Einstein cannot have his cake
and eat it. Nonlocality and objectivity are incompatible quantities. An
objective theory must be nonlocal. The many-worlds theory appears to be
nonobjective and possibly local. That’s what Murray Gell-Mann believes
and professes in his book, The Quark and the Jaguar in Chapter 12, “The
Story Distorted”. I take the opposite view that it is Murray who has
distorted the quantum story. He cites a letter I co-wrote which
presupposes an objective nonlocal quantum reality. Eberhard’s theorem
correctly entails that objective nonlocal quantum connections are not
paranormal “telepathic” and/or “precognitive” communication channels.
However, Eberhard’s theorem is overridden in post-quantum mechanics
because of direct back-action of the hidden-variables on their quantum
psi-functions. This “back-action” is not easily conceived of in Bohr’s
interpretation where there is no hidden-variable. Stapp has done so
however in his paper in Physical Review A, July 1994, p.18. Weinberg’s
nonlinear post-quantum theory is an example of a back-action theory, as
is the GRW theory of objective spontaneous collapse of the psi-function
of N-particle complex systems. 
Einstein proceeds to describe the “pragmatic” epistemological
“Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics of Niels Bohr. It is
qualitatively different from Bohm’s version. Einstein wrote all this in
1946. He did not meet Bohm for a few more years. Bohm developed his
objective nonlocal ontological interpretation directly because of his
meetings with Einstein. Einstein did not like what Bohm came up with
because it was nonlocal in ordinary space-time. Einstein wanted an
objective-local quantum theory to conform to the spirit of special
relativity. This was more than ten years before John Bell’s famous
theorem proved that what Einstein hoped for was impossible. That is, you
can have an objective nonlocal, or a non-objective local, or a
non-objective nonlocal theory, but you cannot have an objective local
version of quantum physics. Murray Gell-Mann thinks that his particular
version of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics is
non-objective and local and that any objective nonlocal theory like
Bohm’s is “the story distorted”. However, E. J. Squires claims that
Gell-Mann’s theory is actually non-objective and nonlocal, so that
Gell-Mann is in error if Squires is right. Note, I was in Bohm’s group
at Birkbeck College in London in 1971. Bohr’s pragmatic theory is really
tied into statistical samples or “ensembles” of identically prepared
simple systems. It cannot really claim to describe complex individuals
like a living human brain. In contrast, Bohm’s version of quantum
physics, which naturally extends to include the universal backactivity
of post-quantum physics is not fundamentally wedded to the statistical
interpretation, though it can explain why it works in its proper regime. 
The close of the nineteenth century saw the discovery of radioactivity.
The close of the twentieth century saw the discovery of backactivity.
Radioactivity and relativity led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl,
the nuclear arms race and the current problem of nuclear terrorism by
rogue nation states and criminal sociopathic organizations. What will
backactivity lead to if it really does demystify the role of conscious
mind as a fundamental nonlocal form-dependent/intensity-independent
physical force of “active information” in the universe?
Bohm’s theory is the only theory that can naturally and unambiguously
describe individual complex systems. This virtue is conclusive in
choosing among the current competing explanations for the meaning of
quantum physics. I disagree with John Gribbin who thinks that John
Cramer’s “transactional interpretation” is the “best buy” (e.g.,
Schrodinger’s Kittens). In fact Cramer’s version may not even be
mathematically consistent. For the record, John Bell favored Bohm’s
theory as the best buy. I agree with Bell and disagree with Gribbin and
Gell-Mann. The latter, of course, disagree with each other. There is no
consensus on this issue of what is the meaning of quantum physics even
though every one uses its algorithms in the same way for relatively
simple inanimate levels of the organization of  matter and
electroweak-strong gauge fields. I claim that post-quantum physics is
required for living complex adaptive organizations of matter and field.
This would imply that Gell-Mann’s theory of the “IGUS” is fundamentally
wrong because it does not have any backactivity.

>>                        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
>
	Cute, but the reason why I did post to so many is because it touches 
on several aspects of science. For example, a biologist that has studied 
ancient life may be able to comment on the beginings of life.

In article <5c0t8g$j5g@access1.digex.net>, rdadams@access1.digex.net says...
>
>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!!
>
	Also very cute, but I thought I missed 
'alt.correct.my.english.please'...if not then I'll do so next time. Remember 
it is the thought that counts....words are just a specific pattern of 
varying density of air...and typed words on computers are just a bunch on 
transmitted electrons...so lighten up buddy....

In article <5c1lld$rus@charity.ucr.edu>
Edward Edmondson  writes:
> Ted Coffman  wrote
> 
> >       Unrelated question: would stretching every particle in the universe
> >straight up and down from a fixed point change anything perceivable by us?
> >I thought of a 3 dimensional universe with particles only using 2 of them.
> >There can be no 3rd dimension unless there is energy(potential or kinetic)
> >that carries the particles in that dimension.
> >
> >Hope my wording is clear enough.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow the first bit, but with respect to the section on
> a 3 dimensional universe using only 2 dimensions I believe it is
> possible to determine dimensionality by examining force properties.
> In 1 dimension gravity-like forces are constant.
> In 2 dimensions the force is inversely proportional to distance.
> In 3 dimensions the force is inversely proportional to distance^2.
> In 4 it is to distance ^3 etc.
> -- 
> Edward Edmondson
> 

In <5bpb29$eka$4@nova.thezone.net> George Penney wrote:
>   In short we can't have our cake and eat it too.We must give up the noti
>  on of Gravity as a force or redefine the other three in terms of a disto
>  rtion of space or drop GR as it now stands.
The later.  Check out Kaluza-Klein theories, in which the "other three" are
defined as gravity operating in extra compactified dimensions.
-Garrett
--
      .-===_   A.Garrett Lisi             alisi@ucsd.edu
    .'  /   \                    ^+^        NeXT mail->
  .'   |\o   \              ^+^      aglisi@heaviside.ucsd.edu
-'     | h\    Physics Department                    ___/(_
        \^     University of California, San Diego  ='____.\
         `~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~\{~

On 08 Jan 1997 08:57:53 GMT, schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja
Schmelzer) wrote:
>In article <59nuvc$763@juliana.sprynet.com> 100130.3306@compuserve.com (Eric Baird) writes:
>>Do we have any reason to believe that the sort of indirect radiation
>>from black holes described as "Hawking radiation" is substantially or
>>*in any way* different to the sort of indirect radiation from dark
>>stars that older theories predicted, and which GR claimed was
>>impossible?
>Yes. Compare the numbers, how much radiates a star of a given mass and
>radius. Without having done this I have any reason to believe that
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>they are very very different for Hawking radiation and for the
>radiation in older theories.
Well, I suppose that if =I= haven't done the calculation, and =you=
haven't done the calculation, then neither of us really know the
answer.
I was rather hoping to hear from somebody who had already worked the
thing through, or who knew of someone else who had. 
>>Is the Wheeler black hole just an artifact of Einstein's early
>>decision to treat "reality" as being only what could be observed
>>first-hand? (a decision that he later regretted in the context of QM).
-
>No, it is a consequence of GR.  Einstein's decision was necessary to
>allow him to find GR.  
-
It was a step toward the implementation of a general theory that we
ended up with, yes.
-
>Having the believe that absolute time exists
>even if we cannot measure it, he would have been able to create
>another theory (like my "postrelativistic gravity", see
>gr-qc/9610047), but not GR.
-
Whatever. 
-
The point that I was trying to make was that the decision to declare
particles that were not directly observable as "non-existent" seems to
have been a bad one. We probably both believe that it is possible for
an event that is not directly observable for a given observer to have
observable consequences for that observer when the "unobservable"
signal is relayed via a third party (e.g. by a probe chain). 
Textbook GR seems to say that since a signal generated just behind an
event horizon doesn't exist (for a distant observer), any changes that
make the signal path away from the horizon easier to cross have no
effect, because (for that observer) the signal is never generated, and
can't be said to be in transit.
But we could also argue that by making the distance easier to cross,
we are reducing the effective gravitational gradient along the signal
path, and making the apparent event horizon contract to behind the
event position, so the event now does exist after all.
The result that you get (radiation escapes/radiation doesn't escape)
is sensitive to the order in which you calculate the different
effects.
Methinks Wheeler et al didn't perform enough sanity-checks before they
made their announcement about inescapable black holes, and peer review
failed to notice the potential problem with their approach. 
Maybe we ought to be thinking about fixing the problem at its source
before we try to retrofit more theory on top of GR. Bringing GR into
line with QM wrt the indirect radiation problem might even sort out
this quantum gravity thingy...
>>Now I've turned over the alternatives so many times that I don't know
>>WHAT to believe. Is HR a sneaky ploy to allow first-division
>>theoreticians to work on non-Einsteinian theory without admitting to
>>the second-division guys what they are up to, or is everyone equally
>>in the dark?
>Of course, Hawking radiation is not GR. It has as much to do with GR
>like Bohrs orbits with classical physics - an intermediate step on the
>way to a quantum theory of gravity.
>And even third-division guys know that future quantum gravity and GR
>are different theories.
See above - maybe we just need an alternative approach to general
relativity that allows indirect observation. Variables that aren't so
much "hidden" as temporarily mislaid.
Anyway, to summarise the arguments on the web-page(s) below:
(1.) Indirect radiation from dark stars was a feature of pre-Einstein
theory. Einstein took a decision to construct his models in such a way
that the effect was declared to be impossible. This was why one reason
why Wheeler's black holes were supposed to be a different class of
object to the old dark stars. 
(2.) The observed characteristics of Hawking radiation are at least
/qualitatively/ the same as the characteristics of the old,
supposedly- naive models that GR replaced. In /this/ respect, GR seems
to have represented a step backwards in predictive accuracy (if we
believe that Hawking radiation exists).
(3.) Since the two effects are quaIitatively the same, it seems
entirely reasonable to ask whether they might actually be the same
effect. If you assume that the old mechanism was accurate, and then
try to recreate the same observed behaviour in the sort of
relativistic model described in textbooks, then what you end up with
is a description of apparent pair-production above the event horizon,
with the infalling particle of the pair appearing to be time-reversed.
I just want to know if anybody has done the neccessary sanity-checks
to be absolutely sure that the two sets of predictions are definitely
incompatible.
-
You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your current opinion on this
as fact - please don't take this personally, Ilja, it's just that I've
learnt (through bitter experience) not to trust "obvious" things that
nobody has checked. I know that you have done a lot of work in this
area, and I'm not calling into question your expertise on problems
that you've worked on. 
On the contrary, I think that if you haven't heard of anyone doing
this calculation, it makes it more likely that the calculation hasn't
actually been done. 
-
Does anybody know different? 
-
>Ilja
-
Regards,
=Erk=
___________________________________________________
A more complete discussion, with pretty colour diagrams:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/hr_main.htm
___________________________________________________  

In article <5bjp86$a7p$1@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, Joseph Askew
 writes
>
>: > Interestingly enough, while the US was busy getting bogged down in
>: > Vietnam, the UK was engaged in fighting in Borneo, in remarkably similar
>: > political situations. The UK military position wasn't as good as that of
>: > the US; the Borneo border was massively longer than that which the
>: > Americans had to deal with, and the terrain very much harder.
>: > 
>: > Nonetheless, the UK was successful.
>
>As I point out to Richard Rostrum below you are confusing the 
>Emergency with the Confrontation.
No I'm not. I didn't mention the Malaya emergency. My father was
involved in Malaya but not Borneo. I was only ever talking about the
Borneo situation. Malaya, as you say, is a seperate case, and one I was
not talking about.
> Finally
>the British "won" but only at the price of leaving Malaya to the
>Malays. They defeated the Communists but they were forced out of
>Malaysia. How is that a victory?
>
It was called the "Winds of Change". It was a victory because Britain
turned an Empire into a Commonwealth, without bitterness, and retaining
good feelings between itself and former Imperial territories.
Knowing when to let go was a victory.
-- 
Alison Brooks  
O-

   "It must be clearly grasped that vessels which are generally believed to be 
empty are not really empty, but full of air.  Now air, in the opinion of the 
natural philosophers, consists of minute particles of matter for the most part 
invisible to us.  Accordingly, if one pours water into an apparently empty 
vessel, a volume of air comes out equal to the volume of water poured in.
    To prove this make the following experiment.  Take a seemingly empty 
vessel. Turn it upside-down, taking care to keep it vertical, and plunge it 
into a dish of water.  Even if you depress it until it is completely covered 
no water will enter.  This proves that air is a material thing which prevents 
the water from entering the vessel ...
    Now bore a hole in the bottom of the vessel.  The water will then enter 
the mouth while the air escapes by the hole ... This constitutes proof that 
air is a bodily substance."
   - Strato, Head of the Lyceum at Athens between 287 and 269 B.C.

Kresimir Kumericki  wrote in article <5bkqoo$j6n@bagan.srce.hr>...
| weasel (weasel@televar.com) wrote:
| : kkumer@desdemona.phy.hr (Kresimir Kumericki) writes: 
| : > : Joseph H Allen wrote:
| : > : > Thus all of the non-black things you find which
| : > : > aren't ravens (your red coat, the white ceiling, etc.)
| : > : > also support your generalization that "all ravens are black".
| : > 
| : > Hm, isn't there a name for this paradox? 'Hempel paradox' or
| : > something?[...]
| :
| : This is not a paradox [...] the two statements are logically equivalent.
|[...] 
|    what I meant is not that these statements constitute *logical* paradox, 
| but the one which is *epistemological* in nature.
|    The thing is that you want to know generally how knowledge is
| acquired and what constitutes a 'proof' of some scientific 
| theory. 
|[...]
| I'm sure that this is a very famous paradox in modern philosophy of 
| knowledge, and I just cannot remember his exact name or what was response
| of philosophers to it.)
Not that I've though about it so much, but this particular paradox 
is what Rudolf Carnap (_Logical Foundations of Probability_, vols 1&2, 
1950) suggested calling "Hempel's paradox", since Carl Hempel first 
stated and solved it. It's a special case of what Hempel (_Mind_, 1945) 
called the "paradox of confirmation".  
BTW, Hempel's original example refers to "white swans" instead of 
"black ravens", and he claims to show that Nicod's criterion (that 
"all swans are white" is confirmed by observations of white swans 
and only by these) is not acceptable.
-- 
Robert E Sawyer 
soen@pacbell.net

Eric Flesch  wrote in article 
> I think JS is referring to and commentating on Mach's principle all at
> once.  Mach's principle attempts to formulate the basis of absolute
> rotation, that is, why one rotational state leads to no radial forces,
> and another does (in plain English, what's the difference between a
> spinning top and one which does not spin).
> 
> Mach does this by noting that the non-spinning state does not move
> with respect to the distant stars.  He jumps from this to the
> conclusion that the distant stars *control* the inertial state by some
> mysterious controlling force.  This force is dubbed "Mach's
> Principle".
If anyone else bother to concentrate on gravity field of photon, Mach's
paradox and dark matter problem and many of open questions about
light's behaviour could be solved. 
> The problem with Mach's Principle is that the force cannot be
> detected.  While gravity decreases from its source by the inverse
> square (g = function(1/r^2)), Mach's principle requires that the
> distant stars exert their influence by no less than the straight
> inverse ( F = function(1/r)), otherwise the stars cannot do the job.
> No conveyance, or any theoretical mechanism for this mysterious force,
> has ever been formulated or observed.
Day after day I can read here for example about 'null-geodesic of light'.
If you see the light as basic element of universe how can't you make
some quite obvious conclusions:
- gravitational influence of light decreases by the straight inverse.
- there is something that can be modelled as gravitational influence
  having no decrease in relation of distance.
- causality is concern of all 'forces'.
- all 'forces' are due to space pressure of causality (as simpliest seen
gravity)
- there are basic relative connections as extra dimension(s) of space.
...and some 'filosofical' statements:
- time and its direction is illusion of observers.
- tension of causal order is fractal function of consciousness.
> The bottom line is that Mach's Principle is ridiculous, but modern
> Physics clings to it as it is a foundation of General Relativity,
> which today's physicists won't do without even though it is
> incompatible with the thoroughly-tested Quantum Mechanics.
> 
> Eric
Mach's Principle is not ridiculous. Our theories must be based on
observations - we haven't another reality.
Esa

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Fred McGalliard wrote:
> 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.
If you insist, I can give you a new scenario with a frame of reference
that is understandable.  Can God create something more complex and
powerful than He, himself?  If he can, then he cannot be omnipotent,
because he would not be all-powerful with respect to that greater being.
The existence of the potential of existence of that greater being is all
that need exist to prove this, because omnipotence is just a concept as
well...

wf3h@enter.net wrote:
> 
> 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
And verily, on the seventh day God said "hit Ctrl + Alt + Delete"!
-- 
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\  //\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
   /        Don     \/     tazman@yournet.com     \/      Parker      \ 
  ( "If you can't eat it, have fun, or make money - the hell with it"  ) 
   \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Lance Olkovick wrote:
> 
> stooge1@aol.com (Larry) writes:
> > stooge2@ohyeah?y.i.oughtta.com (Moe) responds:
> >> stooge3@nyuk.nyuk.ca (Curly) sez:
> 
> >>> My science teacher said that glass is a supercooled liquid that
> >>> flows over time.
> 
> >> Glass is an amorphous solid; it does not flow measurably over
> >> historical time scales.
> 
> > I've seen distorted window panes in older houses, and old stained
> > glass windows that are thicker at the bottom than at the top.
> > Obviously, given enough time, glass will flow.
> 
> After reading many hundreds of posts of a similar nature, I hereby
> propose the following theory:
> 
> LANCE'S GENETIC-BASIS-FOR-GLASS-FLOW THEORY (c)
> 
> By now, it must be obvious to almost everyone on saa, afu, and
> sci.physics that humans have a strong disposition to believe that
> glass flows. We've observed over and over again that much of the
> 'evidence' of glass flow is accepted without a second thought by those
> who have not been disabused by the cold light of science and reason.
> It is my contention that this acceptance is instinctive. We need only
> explain the source of this instinct, and we will have explained the
> widespread and intractable tendency toward erroneous ideas concerning
> the ultimate nature of glass.
> 
> To humans, whose main bodily constituent is H2O, water is arguably the
> most important substance in the entire world of physical objects. Ever
> since the first ring-tailed skink (or whatever it was we evolved from)
> developed eyes, our ancestors have seen that water is transparent yet
> tangible. Millions of generations of our predecessors have evolved
> associating transparent tangibility with (flowing) water. Our present
> attitudes toward glass--a transparent solid--are influenced by our
> genetically determined attitudes toward water. When modern humans
> encounter a pane of glass, they  bump into a billion years of
> hard-wired reactions and inherited predispositions. No words and no
> science can entirely overcome our compulsion to regard this
> transparent solid as essentially a liquid. (Our ancestors' encounters
> with clear ice would only have served to reinforce the notion that all
> transparent solids will flow at body or 'room' temperature; and those
> naturally occurring substances that 'magically' defied this simple
> classification were coveted as gems by our later ancestors.)
> 
> Even though our language is perfectly adequate to define a solid,
> language is a relative newcomer to the evolutionary scene, and our
> primitive instincts seem to drag our discussions about glass down into
> a semiotic swamp; though materials science tells us that glass is
> about as solid as a solid can be, modern physics cannot compete
> with--and is often co-opted by--the intuitive physics of our
> primordial mind.
> 
> So the next time you get the urge to say that glass flows, just
> remember that it's great2x10^8-grandpa Skink who's making you say it.
Baloney.  Every so often, a wild idea will sweep the scientific
community, and be convinced by the sheer wonder of it and all its
supporting data.  Only later will the stuff be challenged, and that
era's scientific community will skoff at the gullibility of the 
masses.  Liquid glass vs. solid, fat vs. sugar, walking vs. aerobic,
continental drift vs. not, particles vs. waves, new math vs. old,
relativity vs. absolute space, cold fusion vs. hot, wait I'm not done
-- 
D.
mentock@mindSpring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

cbayse (cbayse@isc.tamu.edu) wrote:
: Chris Dreyer wrote:
: > 
: > I am presently doing an independant study project for grade 13 Chemistry
: > on the nuclear fusion reactions occurring inside stars, and I need to
: > know how much mass (in metric units, preferrably using Grams as the base
: > unit) is lost in Hydrogen+Hydrogen to Deuterium fusion reactions,
: > Deuterium+Hydrogen to Helium 3+Helium 3 to Helium 4 fusion reactions and
: > Helium 4+Helium 4+Helium 4 to Carbon 12 fusion reactions. These masses
: > are a core (pardon the pun) part of my project! I can't seem to find a
: > source for any of these numbers! E-mail would be good, but any help will
: > be appreciated!
: > 
: > Thanks!
: > 
: > Chris Dreyer
: > crdreyer@oxford.net
: > (My fusion reactions project is located at
: > http://www.oxford.net/~crdreyer/stars/index.html [frames only])
: the answer is right in front of you if you just crack your textbook.
: read the chapters on nuclear chemistry.
: -- 
: Craig A. Bayse
: Theoretical Chemist
: Texas A&M; University
: College Station, TX 77843
: email:  cbayse@isc.tamu.edu
: http://mbhall6.chem.tamu.edu/~cbayse
Hmmm, could it be that he's actually looking for the total tonnage
converted per second in the sun, or in representative stars?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Neill,              |  "This party will not condone intolerance."
HNSX Supercomputers Inc. |    - Preston Manning, leader of the Reform Party
gneill@sx.nec.com        |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------