Subject: Re: ABOLISH ACADEMIC TENURE
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:37:48
In article <32E44E4A.6BEF@gold.chem.hawaii.edu> Dettol writes:
>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.
It's tempting to dismiss your statement as the bitter response of someone who
flunked tenure, but I'm afraid I have to agree with most of what you said.
The real tragedy is not that some people have jobs for life, but the others
who must by custom be dumped from the system if they do not make tenure.
There is no middle ground -- bring in enough research funding and you get your
nice cushy sinecure. Fail to bring in enough, and you're into the lifetime
post-doc track. A lot of talent is being wasted this way.
None of the traditional arguments for tenure stand up to scrutiny any more.
Academic professionals are in no degree different than corporate middle
managers, whose fate depends on both performance and luck.
Bill
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540
630-548-3548, fax: 630-369-9618
email wpenrose@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Applications of gas sensors: Contract R&D;, product
development, and consultation.
********************************************************
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: Bombing of Khe Rieman
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 21 Jan 1997 02:27:28 GMT
In article <5btdjs$ihq$1@news.kth.se> Saeid Rashidi writes
>
> Mr. Plutonium, you are irresistible. Tell David Matadore, I doesn't draws the > bull. But I draws the birdbrain. This is the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, > the specialness of the number 2 in the encoding of 1/2 !!!!!!!!!!
>
> ....0002 is the one and only one adic Integer (take any
> adic) which solves this encoding---- (2+2)^1/2 = (2X2)^1/2 = 2
>
> As we say here in Sweden, molto vivace presto. Is the physics of a foucalt
> pendulum used in bombing attacks?
>
> --
>
> mvh Saeid Rashidi
>
>
>
> .z...e.
> .ed$$$eee.. .$ $P""
> z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ee......."
> .d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
> .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$e..
> .$$****""""***$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$be.
> ""**$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$L
> z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> .$$$$$$$$P**$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> d$$$$$$$" 4$$$$$
> z$$$$$$$ $$$P"
> d$$$$$$F $P"
> $$$$$$F
> *$$$$"
> "***" Za, la, na math birdbrains? No?
>
Hear, Hear.
Subject: Re: This is impossible
From: Erik Max Francis
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 07:51:14 -0800
Macarthur Drake wrote:
> 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.
Specifically, he was talking about UFOs being aliens spacecraft. It's not
the claim that extraterrestrial life exists that Sagan was calling an
extraordinary claim, it's that the aliens were regularly visiting Earth
surrpetitiously (but very poorly since they always seem to be seen).
> 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.
Yes. The question is not whether or life is possible or not, but how
common it is -- and, furthermore, how common _intelligent_ life is. For
that science has no answers.
Besides, don't knock confirming theories, even the ones that we're sure
about. That's how science works.
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE; / email: max@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems / web: http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States / icbm: 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
\
"Gods are born and die, / but the atom endures."
/ (Alexander Chase)
Subject: Re: Variational Principle
From: torre@cc.usu.edu (Charles Torre)
Date: 21 Jan 97 09:01:29 MDT
In article <5bl17p$pcc$1@mark.ucdavis.edu>, psalzman@landau.ucdavis.edu
(peter salzman) writes:
> I was having a conversation with some class mates, and we were trying to
> figure this question out:
>
> If the action is variationally stable, then the Lagrangian must satisfy
> the Euler Lagrange equations. Is the converse true? In other words, if
> the Lagrangian satisfies the Euler Lagrange equations, must the action be
> variationally stable?
>
> If so, how would one go about proving it? A friend said it could be done
> in just a few lines...
The terminology "variationally stable" is not familiar to me. One
interpretation is simply that the first variation of the action vanishes.
(Others have dealt with issues of stability, i.e., behavior of the second
variations). By the way, it is not so good to think of the EL equations as
equations satisfied by a Lagrangian. The Lagrangian is given, and the particle
trajectory (or field configuration) satisifes a differential equation defined
by the Lagrangian via the EL equations. Anyway, with the usual set-up for the
calculus of variations, if the first variation of the action vanishes for all
trajectory variations, then the trajectory satisfies the EL equations.
However, for the converse to be true one must satisfy appropriate boundary
conditions, e.g., at the endpoints of the trajectory of interest.
Charles Torre
Department of Physics
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-4415 USA
torre@cc.usu.edu
Subject: Re: VietMath War: Finite Integers as fake as Newtonian Mechanics
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 21 Jan 1997 02:01:34 GMT
--- most of text from THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE ---
There are two possibilities. One of them is this. The
loop is held stationary, not moving, and I take the magnet and I move
the magnet into the loop.
Show a bar magnet moving through a stationary loop.
And then, show a loop moving through a stationary bar magnet.
.-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-.
--/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/-
`-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-'
////////
| [.]
|( _J
| ^ ( _|
/ \_____)
/ _____ \
| / \ |
| | | |
\ /\ /\__ |
| | \/---
\ \ ) .-. .-. .-. .-.
| >_____/_____) --/---\---/---\---/---\---/-
\___ `-' `-' `-'
/ \
| |
\ \\
\ |\
\ | \
\ | |
| | |
| | |
| / |
|________/____|
(_________)____)
================================
That causes the current to flow. Now that
case the charges in the loop were not themselves in motion, so it
can't have been the magnetic field of the bar magnet that made them
move but since they did move
There therefore was an electric field and so we conclude that
a changing magnetic field, moving the bar magnet, created an electric
field. And that of course was Faraday's great discovery of
Electromagnetic Induction in the 19th century.
../ ~`~`~'~~'~ ``;; -
'/~////~|\\\\\\~\\\\\~\\\~
~////~//||||\\\\~\\\\\\~\\\\\~
~//~//||||~||||\\\\\\~\\\\\~\\\~
~///|||~||||~||||\\~\\\\\~\\\\\\\\~.
~/<<<<<||<<<<<<\\\\<<<<<"|""\\\~\\\\\~
;\\\\\\\\\~~\\\\\~\\\\\~/""" ""|\\\\""|\
|||/\\\\|\\\\~\\\\\\|/ "||"""||\~
||/ |"""""""" ~
||| """"""|
= ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,====""|"""~
"|""""||~
| \\ / \ \\ """''|""~
| // \ ""/~ ||/
| / "/P '~
\ | , |
\ \ ~~\_/ "
\ / ,.""
\ \............../ ,.
\ \_______/ ,.
\ ,.'
\ ,.'
\ ,'~
/ ~~~~~~~~~ \
_ _ _ / ___ ____ \ _ _ _
/ ! \_/ ! \
/ !___/~\_____! \
.-. .-. .-. .-.
--/---\---/---\---/---\---/---\---/-
`-' `-' `-' `-'
And that is one explanation of that experiment.
Now there is another completely different, independent explanation and
that goes this way. Suppose instead I hold the bar magnet stationary
and I move the loop. Now of course exactly the same thing happens. But
in this case we have no moving magnet, no changing magnetic field ,
but instead, the charges in the loop are moving because I am moving the
whole loop. They have the velocity v and this velocity crossed into
the magnetic field of the bar magnet gives us a force which causes the
current to flow and that also describes perfectly well the experiment
that we just saw. So those two different phenomenon that is to say
this, loop stationary and magnet moving and this,
magnet stationary and loop moving are actually two completely distinct
independent phenomenon that have completely different explanations.
When Albert Einstein saw that he said look guys, you just got to be
kidding any yoyo can see that those two things are the same thing.
//\\\||///\\ ,------------------------------------
//| |\\ ( Look guys, you got to be kidding, any )
|[ | | ]| ( yoyo can see that those two things )
|||| .\. |||| o O ( are the same thing. )
|||< _ >||| o '------------------------------------'
\__(_)_/ o o
_____!___!_____
| | \ / | |
| | _ \./ | |
| |[_] | | |
| | o | |
| | | | |
| | o | |
|__| | |__|
WW| o |WW
| | |
| o |
|____|____|
| | |
| | |
| | |
|___|___|
\_/ \_/ (art from others)
So it was this simple little experiment that was really the starting
point of the theory of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley
experiment. Not
some exotic experiment to detect the motion of the Earth through the
ether. But this simple little phenomenon that of course everybody knew
about, but which disturbed nobody else , except , Albert Einstein. And
what disturbed Einstein was not that we had difficulty explaining this
phenomenon this equation explains them perfectly in every case. What
disturbed Albert Einstein was the lack of inner perfection of the
theory and what he did in response was to produce a theory the Special
Theory of Relativity which had just that kind of inner perfection.
--- text quoted from THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE ---
The inner perfection
How many people can see that the Successor Axiom of the Peano Axiom
System is a Series of endless adding 1
such as 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + .....
is the same Series
as the Series definition of what a P-adic Integer, (an Infinite
Integer)
is.
a_0 x p^0 + a_1 x p^1 + a_2 x p^2 + ....
What does this mean? It means that Naturals are the P-adic Integers and
that
the old mathematics of Finite Integers was an imprecise, a foggy,
unclear concept. Just as Newtonian Mechanics was wrong and a fake, so
also is the Naturals = Finite Integers a fakery. Quantum Mechanics
replaced Newtonian Mechanics as the true physics. So also, will
Naturals = P-adic Integers replace the fakery that is Finite Integers.
But this simple little phenomenon that of course everybody knew about,
but which disturbed nobody else, except, Archimedes Plutonium. And what
disturbed AP was not that we had difficulty proving simple math
problems as ancient as the ancient Greeks this phenomenon this
identicalness of the Series of the Successor Axiom, identical to the
Series of p-adic definition explains them perfectly in every case. What
disturbed AP was the lack of inner perfection of the theory and what he
did in response was to produce a theory the Naturals = P-adic Integers
=
Infinite Integers which had just that kind of inner perfection.
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: schne042@gold.tc.umn.edu (Mike Schneider)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:48:59 -0600
Anthony Potts wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, April wrote:
> > following the path laid before them by their parents'. Go to college,
> > get a PH.D. and you will be successful!! But those who aspire to be
> > self employed have the guts to risk, suffer failure, and end up
> > successful enough to hire degree holders to be their lawyers,
> > accountants, financial advisers......get the picture??
>
> I hate to disillusion you in your academic bashing, but here goes.
>
> The highest earners around are traders in the financial markets. The vast
> majority of traders hve a degree in a numerate subject, many have advanced
> degrees, such as MBAs.
>
While this is true for most cases it is not for all. Also, it does not
make it false for non-degreed people.
> Whilst you may like to believe that the people with these degrees will
> never do as well as the people without, the truth is somewhat different.
> Within about three years of leaving college, they can expect to earn
> around 300 000 dollars per annum.
>
I'm sure this is true for some, however, as the person above states, that
this can also occur for people with no degree, they just have an 8 year
head start.
Also, not all PhD's get huge sums of money. For instance, I am the only
person with less than a PhD in a team of five PhD's working on
Biodegradable plastic. One of the PhD's makes more money and they are all
older than I am.
Furthermore, one of the PhD's is a total moron, and I don't expect him to
ever earn more than I do, in fact, last year I received a raise and he
didn't, making the gap between us larger.
> From there, it only goes upwards, very very quickly.
>
Not always, as I stated above.
> Perform well, and you will be on millions per year by the time you are in
> your thirties.
>
This is what it is all about. Performance, not education is what makes a
person successful.
> This is not an option if you don't have a degree of a suitable standard.
>
I disagree, a degree only opens windows, it does not make one successful.
Keep your stick on the ice,
Mike Schneider http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/g396/schne042/
Subject: Re: Missing Plutonium in Smoke Detectors
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 17:23:37 GMT
In article michael keenan writes:
> 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?
>I'm pretty sure that the radioactive element in smoke detectors is not
>fissionable (I think it may be prometheum, but I'm not sure.) I suppose
>you could make a radiological weapon by surrounding a powerful
>conventional bomb with the stuff, but you'd need an awful lot of smoke
>detectors to make it work.
Others have commented that it is Americium-241 that is used. In a prior
post I mentioned that Americium is fissionable, which is inaccurate. It's
probable that one of the isotopes of Americium is fissionable (and thus
theoretically usable to create a nuclear detonation), but it is likely not
Americium-241.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omnimedia@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majordomo@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
Subject: Re: The Hawking Radiation Challenge
From: schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja Schmelzer)
Date: 21 Jan 1997 17:52:05 GMT
In article <5c1ml0$not@juliana.sprynet.com> 100130.3306@compuserve.com (Eric Baird) writes:
>>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 have given reasons for the assumption that it is not necessary to do
this dirty job. The art of science often consists of finding ways to
replace calculation with reasoning.
>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.
That means, changing something in the matter distribution behind the
horizon requires to replace the solution by another one with different
horizon?
I don't think that is possible, I suppose it should be possible to
prove this by the following reasoning:
We consider the part before the collaps, outside the horizon, in
harmonic coordinates fixed by Minkowski coordinates as the initial
value before the collaps. We define now the part behind the horizon
as the part of the solution not covered by our coordinates. That is
only a specification of the usual horizon definition inside the
collapsing star during the collaps, which approximately coinsides with
the usual horizon definition.
Now we can use uniqueness results for general relativity in harmonic
coordinates to prove that such modifications cannot have an influence
on the part outside the horizon.
>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.
IMO there is no such potential problem.
>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...
That's close ot the way I try out. I fix the problem by replacing GR
with a slightly modified theory where the part behind the horizon does
not exist. The collaps stops before horizon formation because of
increasing time dilation (in inobservable absolute time).
>>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.
Yep.
>(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).
I don't agree. To say "/qualitatively/ the same" for radiations with
many orders of magnitude difference may be considered as formally
true, but nonetheless nonsense.
That's very probable, because Hawking radiation of a star is so small
that we will never be able to observe it. Something typical for
quantum effects, classically it is very hard, if not possible, to
obtain such very small numbers.
>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.
I'm not. Even if you are right, and the formulas are by accident
identical, what does it give you? To name this verification
"sanity-check" is not justified, because GR does not go "insane" if
your guess is correct.
But, read your old papers, if they have made computations, post the
old formulas you find there, and I will probably be able to tell you
explicitly "not identical, a difference by orders of magnitude".
For Hawking radiation of a black hole of the mass of the sun we have a
radiation similar to a black body of temperature 6*10^-8 K (see
Birrell,Davies, Quantum fields in curved spacetime, Cambridge 1982).
That is de-facto no radiation, only an effect of theoretical interest.
Much darker than the darkest night you can see looking into the
cosmos, because the background radiation has temperature 3K. Only very
small black holes really radiate in this sense.
Ilja
Subject: Re: Is Science Religion
From: wf3h@enter.net
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:09:59 GMT
On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:49:16 -0800, "R. Alan Squire"
wrote:
>wf3h@enter.net wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>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)
not rare but rare in the west. and the notion of special creation is
a western one
>
>> you have half the pie. religion is teleological. it is DESIGNED to
>> answer the question of purpose. science does not do that.
>
. Sometimes I
>just wish I'd watched something on A&E; that night.
>
i like the history channel, too
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.
but if you look at it differently i think the concept becomes much
richer. if you set aside the historical category of religion and just
LOOK at what people are doing i think you will see a much wider range
of human experience that almost defies description and doesnt fit into
a category like religion. contemporary art, music, and literature as
they explore the human pscyhe find concepts that relate to human
experience itself. whether or not this is religious is, in a sense,
meaningless because this imposes a category on an experience strips
away from it aspects which may not fit that category.
in a way, its a kind of stereotyping. its a way to simplify complex
concepts. mebbe these things ARE new ways of thinking. Karen armstrong
in her book 'a history of god' says that secular atheism is an
entirely new way of looking at the world since no society in history
has lacked a god before, or even denied that one was necessary
and thats why i 'forgot my lithium' as you put it. i AM a scientist.
i worked hard to achieve this. but i also have, i hope, at least an
elementary appreciation of art, music, etc. i am also an atheist and
as such, i have no history to go on like theists do. to me the world
is, in a sense, new and fresh because i DONT believe the 'old notions'
(NO disrespect intended to believers). but i also believe that even
believers, if they can understand and confront this idea they can ALSO
enrich their FAITH. theyve done it before.
Subject: Re: Thermal Conductivity of Doped Silicon
From: walkey@doe.carleton.ca (David J. Walkey)
Date: 21 Jan 1997 15:19:27 GMT
Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
: walkey@doe.carleton.ca (David J. Walkey) wrote:
: >Does anyone have a suggestion as to where I might find data for the
: >effect of doping on the thermal conductivity of Silicon?
: I assume you are referring to doping levels that would be found in
: typical semiconductor applications. If so, there won't be much change
: in the thermal conductivity at all.
: Typicall doping levels are on the order of 1E16 to 1E17 atoms/cm^3.
: Pure silicon has on the order of 1E23 atoms/cm^3. So typical doping
: amounts to about 0.1 to 1 ppm change in the composition of silicon.
: Additionally, the doping is usually done in such a way to minimize
: lattice defects. Both of these fact imply very little difference
: between doped and undoped silicon with respect to thermal
: conductivity.
: In fact, it is really hard to imagine a situation where such a small
: difference would be important.
In the interests of education, I'll expose my ignorance :)...
I'd say "typical" doping levels in Silicon are anywhere from ~1E15
to ~1E19, if you count things like collector sinkers, MOSFET S/D
junctions, etc.. Although there are ~1E23 atoms/cm^3, this range of
dopants is still enough to change the electron mobility by around an
order of magnitude. So why would this range of dopants make such a
difference in mobility but not in thermal conductivity?
Dave
Subject: Re: New Bad Astronomy Addition (1/7/97)
From: pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Twisted STISter)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 15:10:03 GMT
In article <32E026F6.F40@quadrant.net>, Bruce C. Fielder wrote:
>Purely psychological. Anything that big looks larger when we have
>something to compare it to. When the sun or moon are close to the
>horizen our eyes also take in the surronding scenery, and we notice just
>how big these things are.
As has been said here before, and as I outline on the Bad Astro page,
this is incorrect. You can look at the Moon when it is high in the sky,
*but still near foreground objects like trees*, and it still looks
smaller than on the horizon.
>In the day, we look up to see them (the moon, at least!) and there is
>nothing to compare them to. The same type of thing happens with the
>speed at which the sun moves; compare the speed of the sun across the
>sky with how fast it rises or sets.
Note that the light from the setting Sun or Moon is going through thicker
and thicker parts of the atmosphere, which bends the light upwards. This
effect means that you can actually see the Sun/Moon after it is physically below
the horizon, because the light has been bent up to your eyes. This also means
that it appears that the setting Sun/Moon slows down as it gets nearer the
horizon. The distance it travels appears compressed, so the angular velocity
slows down.
--
* Phil Plait, Pee Aytch Dee pcp2g@virginia.edu
* My home page-- http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~pcp2g/home.html
* --> Humor, supernovae, Bad Astronomy, Mad Science
* and my daughter Zoe.
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: =eat-me@regular-mealtimes.org= (»Word Warrior«)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:50:05 GMT
popelish wrote:
>»Word Warrior« wrote:
> > Carcinogenic pollutants are a reality should
> > you decide to familiarize yourself with some
> > serious science on the subject.
>And many carinogenig pollutants are not man made.
You're incoherent.
Pollution's definition includes the terms "man made"
in my dictionary. Get someone to show you how to
use one of those, eh?
_____________________________________________________________________________
|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.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: New Theory of Glass Flow
From: reida@nwu.edu (Andrew C. E. Reid)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 17:25:02 GMT
In article <330b7150.44816053@newsserver.sfu.ca>,
lolkovic@sfu.ca (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)
>
> [Snippage]
>
>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.
YES! Absolutely. I have noticed a related phenomenon,
the persistent intuitive expectation by people who should know
better that "all liquids are water". Did it myself when I was
burned by some boiling cooking oil, and was astounded at the
severity of the injury. Oil of course boils at a higher temperature
than water, and has a substantially higher heat capacity as well.
I knew this. I should not have been surprised. I *should* have
been more careful.
You will be pleased to know that I am willing to grant you
priority in your Nobel application even though I really came up
with the idea first, because I deliberately kept it a secret,
you see. I was concerned that it revealed precisely the kind
of primitive approach to everyday life which proved that mankind
wasn't ready for it.
Andrew "Besides, it might be wrong." Reid
Subject: Re: "Draw" an electron, you may win fabulous prizes.
From: lockyer@best.com (Thomas N. Lockyer)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:13:22
In article <5bvlu7$qc2@r02n01.cac.psu.edu> ale2@psu.edu (ale2) writes:
>From: ale2@psu.edu (ale2)
>Subject: Re: "Draw" an electron, you may win fabulous prizes.
>Date: 20 Jan 1997 11:46:15 GMT
>In article <5boan1$81q@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>
>ale2@psu.edu (ale2) writes:
>> 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!
>>
>> The Rules ...
>It may not be clear from my post but the "picture" you "draw" is to be
>a written essay and not computer scans of a picture, thanks.
>Remember a thousand words is equal to one picture, less words if you
>are clever.
I can't resist commenting.
Your rules are not restrictive enough, so you will attract ideas that are ad
hoc. You should require that they also give a model for the positron, since
if their model for the electron is correct, it should immediately give the
congugate structrure. Also the model should explain the reason that the
electron and positron are spinning and be able to give their spin angular
momentum, and Bohr magneton without editing the model's structure in any way
that would beg the result. And, of course, the model should explain how the
electron positron pair form from a model for energy.
See the correct models in this URL:
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home3.htm
Subject: Re: Faraday Cage: A Thought Exp.
From: harford@znet.com (James Harford)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 17:08:53 GMT
On 21 Jan 1997 00:04:55 -0500, yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
wrote:
>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
I agree entirely with your explanation. I would just like to add that
the confusion may have arisen from not distinguishing between electric
potential and electric potential energy. Since the quarter has no
charge on it, its electric potential energy is the same as it would
be if it were lying on the ground. There is no energy transferred to
or from the coin as it leaves the cage (unless it touches the outer
wall on the way out), so it falls to the ground in exactly the same
way as if the cage were at ground potential..
Subject: Re: The Hawking Radiation Challenge
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:38:51 GMT
Ilja Schmelzer (schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de) wrote:
: For Hawking radiation of a black hole of the mass of the sun we have a
: radiation similar to a black body of temperature 6*10^-8 K (see
: Birrell,Davies, Quantum fields in curved spacetime, Cambridge 1982).
: That is de-facto no radiation, only an effect of theoretical interest.
: Much darker than the darkest night you can see looking into the
: cosmos, because the background radiation has temperature 3K. Only very
: small black holes really radiate in this sense.
: Ilja
If this is the kind of temperature that black hole
proponents think are needed for black holes, it is the
most illogical (I won't say insane :-), I think a better
word would be greed or scientific graft, or money-making
by proposing controversial impossibilities) scientific
proposal I can imagine, because black holes cannot cool
to be cooler than the Earth's core, there is no mechanism
that can accomplish that.
It would be horrible if everyone stopped thinking
of other theories and spent their time thinking about low
temperature objects that cannot ever cool in a billion
years.
I am not directing this at any person, just toward
the direction of any black hole proponents who will write
anything to make a buck.
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: GO TO JAMES THE RIGHTEOUS (hidden data in the Pyramid)
From: pmj@netcom.ca(Peter Michael Jack)
Date: 21 Jan 1997 18:58:28 GMT
In <32e5de5b.101350966@news.xs4all.nl> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer
Vidal) writes:
>
>On 21 Jan 1997 03:16:54 GMT, pmj@netcom.ca(Peter Michael Jack) wrote:
>> Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James
>> the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into
>>JAMES THE RIGHTEOUS is the GREAT PYRAMID!
>
>So Jesus spoke English?
>
No. But Jesus probably never said that parable either. It
is just a way for scribes who knew the secrets to encode
information. Does JAMES sound like a Jewish name? Nope.
There probably was no one with that name 2000 years ago.
When names are invented, the architects sometimes deliberately
construct them to encode other information. For example,
PETER = 16+5+20+5+18 = 64
= 16 x 5 x 20 x 5 x 18 = 144,000
Now 64 is the first cubeSquare ( don't feel like going into the
extended details right now but this is connected to the Egyptian
Eye of Horus measure. Note SAINT = 19+1+9+14+20 = 63 so that
SAINT:PETER = 63:64 which is the Heqat with the 1/64 fraction
missing said to be supplied by the wisdom of Toth. )
and 144,000 is a key number in the book of Revelations. But, there
was no one named PETER 2000 years ago. The name was PTAH. And
PTAH is the one with the keys to open the gates. The syllables of the
word PT-AH, when uttered, requires the opening of the mouth from
the PT to the AH. The Egyptians used the voice to represent concepts
and ideas, and the similarities of _action_ was important in conveying
the meaning.
Anyway, when the scribes got around to _inventing_ the text that
would encode the information they felt was important they
simply constructed the nearest entity that fit all the parameters
they were aiming for. It was important that the name PETER
represent the 144,000 saints that are saved since PETER is the
head of the Christian Church. And it was important for PETER
to be encoded as THE FIRST, and the number 64 is the FIRST
CUBESQUARE.
[ a cubesquare is a whole number that is simultaneously the
cube of an integer and the square of another integer. This
is important because we can only _see_ a cubesquare amount of data.
Which is to say, the retina at the back of the eye is a two-dimensional
surface that has to collect data comming from a three-dimensional
world outside, so there must be a mapping from 3-d space,
represented by Cubic-Volumes, to 2-d space, represented by
Square-Areas, and 64 is thesmallest number of cells the Eye
must have to form a representation of a 3-d object... etc...
anyway you can pick it up from there....]
pmj
Subject: Re: ABOLISH ACADEMIC TENURE
From: lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead)
Date: 21 Jan 1997 15:13:21 GMT
Dettol (mikeh@gold.chem.hawaii.edu) wrote:
: 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.
What makes you think we are unaccountable? Each April we have to submit
all activities to an evaluation committee, first at the departmental
level, second at the college level and third at the university level.
The opinion of these committees of ones teaching, research, and
service determines promotions and yearly raises.
: 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.
It happens more often than you think.
: 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.
There is one special thing about academics which does not exist for any
other "trade". That is academic freedom. As a professor, one must be free
from political or administrative influence ragarding the veracity/uitility
of what one teaches in the classroom. If ones very livelyhood can be held
in the hands of administrators, great influence can be applied to an academic
to teach an incorrect idea in the classroom. This is the very reason why
supreme court justices are given lifetime tenure by the constitution - in
order to shield them from political influence.
: Isn't it time we abandoned failed socialist ideas of a job for life?
The idea of tenure is apolitical and thus is neither socialist nor
capitalist.
: 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
I know of at least 50 academics here (mostly in the sciences); I assure
you that even tenure faculty work many more hours than 20 per week. Show
up on weekends and you will find our lab (physics) occupied at all hours
by professors putting in extra (unpaid, I might add) time while you may
be watching your favorite sport on TV.
: 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
On the contrary, they are responsible to a) their students, b) their
own faculty, and c) the state legislature if this is a public university.
: 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...
Scientists who repeatedly do these things will rapidly lose any reputation
in the scientific community; their "theories" will not gain following and
not be credible. Give the scientific process time to winnow out bad
science; that is what makes science work so well.
: 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.
With this I cannot quarrel.
: The current system of reward in academia encourages quantity rather than
: quality of research publications. I'd like to take a hypothetical
Nor will I dispute this either; there is a polymer chemist here who claims
(fancifully you will have to agree) more than 1000 publications over the
last 20 years. That's 50 per year, or one per week for 20 years.
Rediculous, and goes to show how intellectually dishonest some will become.
: 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.
Sadly, true. Nonetheless, the PI in this case is participating in good
science (presumably, since the funding committee is renewing his grant -
and funding committees are notoriously stingy).
: 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.
This is an ethics problem, not necessarily connected with the tenure system,
which was your original thesis above.
: 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
Yes, but only in the sense that professors lost control of the university
and gave it up to the administration most of whom have never been in the
classroom.
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
Subject: UFT-What Four Forces?
From: lots@ix.netcom.com(Joel Mannion)
Date: 21 Jan 1997 17:31:52 GMT
RE: Georg Penny and Michael Strickland.
If the Newtonian concept of Gravity as a force has been replaced by
Einstein’s warped space time geometry as in GR, then it follows that
Newton’s constant Big ‘G’ is not fundamental but probably relates to
the atomic constants. This is shown to be so by the conjecture in the
following article.
The four ‘forces’ are the nuclear strong, electromagnetic,
nuclear weak forces and gravity. Some years ago a theoretical link
was established between the weak and electromagnetic forces, reducing
the number of fundamental forces to three. The web page referenced
below shows that gravity and the strong force are related: (as hinted
at by Einstein,- “Do Gravitational Fields play a part in the structure
of Elementary Particles”). A case can be made for the strong force as
simply gravity in a frame rotating at c.
Consider a mass m localized in a stable orbital system at a
radius r by gravitational self attraction given by, A = G(m/r)^2. If
this mass is in a frame of reference rotating at close to the velocity
of light in free space, c, (see note 1), the attraction would be A =
G(M/R)^2, where M and R are the relativistic values of m and r, i.e. M
= m/b and R = rb, where b is a dimensionless relativistic parameter.
The same localizing effect could also be described by a static observer
by the normal centripetal force equation; i.e. F = Mc^2. /R. By
expansion, this centripetal force can be written in an inverse square
form, i.e. F = k(Mc^2. /R)^2, where k = R/Mc^2. Comparing equations we
can write F = k(Mc^2. /R)^2. = G(Mc^2. /R)^2 = Ac^4. In other words,
due to being in the rotating frame the attraction A is considered by
the observer as a force c^4 times stronger than gravity. This stronger
force is easily shown to be of the same strength as the so called
“strong force”. The strong force is simply gravity acting in a
relativistic frame rotating at a velocity near c.
If the gravitational constant G = k = R/Mc^2, and if Mc^2 =
hc/2pi R, i.e. one wavelength equals 2pi R, then G = hc/2pi(Mc^2)^2,
and the centripetal force, F = [hc/2pi(Mc^2)^2][Mc^2. /R]^2.
The electric force is classically given by Fe = e^2. /R^2. Now
e^2 = a*hc/2pi, where a* is alpha, the fine structure constant. Hence
Fe = a*hc/2pi R^2. Inserting Mc^2 in both denominator and numerator
gives Fe = [a*hc/2pi(Mc^2)^2][Mc^2. /R]^2. From which Fe/F = a*: i.e.
the centripetal force F is 137xFe, and is therefore of the same
strength as the “strong force”.
The web page referenced below shows that the attraction due to
gravity has been wrongly considered a force in observer space whereas
it is an attraction of dimension force/c^4. It further shows that for
this reason a factor of c^-4 in cgs units has thereby inadvertently
been included in the classical value for G. Consequently the “strong
force” is 137x the electric force and is approximately c^4 (~ 81x10^40)
stronger than gravity. The relativistic mass M = m/b, is also shown to
be related to the electron mass me, by M = me/(a*)^2/3. = me/26.6 The
gravitational attraction, and G, are given for masses at rest with
respect to each other so that the factor of (M/m}^2 must be taken into
account for the “strong/gravity” ratio, giving the electric force to
gravity ratio of c^4. a*^-1/3. (cgs units), or 4.16 x10^42 as commonly
accepted for electrons.
Note: An orbital system is considered where the orbital velocity v
approaches c and the mass is highly relativistic (b = 1/137), in a
precessing elliptical orbit, the degree of precession is exactly that
to provide for the quantization of angular momentum and an effective
velocity of c; i.e. h/2pi = McR = mcr.
W.S. Oakley 21 Jan 1997: SEE: URLhttp://www.lasertape.com for further
details.
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Why negative ground?
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:17:00 GMT
Jim Carr (jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) writes:
: > There should be two insulated cables and one bare
: >cable in your 220 volt service entrance cable, the bare
: >wire is the ground.
: I thought that was the neutral. Two phases so you can get both 220
: and 110, plus the return. How is a standard box wired up?
It is the neutral, and it is also the ground, they
connect together.
Older house wiring had no ground wire in some cases,
but now the green (bare, in two-wire with ground Romex) wire
is ground, neutral is white and black is 110.
220 volt wire is 3-wire with ground, with a different
color scheme, sometimes red and black for 220, white for
neutral, bare or green for ground.
So, even with only 3 wires in the service entrance
cable, and the neutral grounded to both the bare wire and
plumbing ground or an eight foot ground rod, you can see
all they are doing is connecting all the neutral and ground
wires together.
And electrical codes require a frame ground on
large appliances, plus house trailer codes require an
extra ground wire, but _all_ ground wires are connected
to the neutral which is connected to the metal electrical
boxes. If an appliance plug has 5 wires, 2 are for
220, the other three are grounds, or one is _called_
neutral if the appliance has any 110 circuits in it.
Ken Fischer
