Newsgroup sci.physics 217145

Directory

Beth and Richard Treitel wrote:
>
>> To my surprise and delight, Anonymous  wrote:
>>
>  [massive snip]
>> if you could build
>>equipment on the moon it would be easier to boost it to earth orbit or
>>to elsewhere in the solar system than on earth.
>
> There's a mild Catch-22 here.  For this to come about, launching
> things from Earth to orbit would need to be expensive (i.e. the launch
> cost would need to be a substantial fraction of the manufacturing
> cost), AND launching things from Earth to the Moon would need to be
> cheap enough that one could send up an entire mining + manufacturing
> complex, and a launcher, at a cost that allowed the entire operation
> to be profitable.  Since factories have a tendency to weigh a lot more
> than the things they produce, it seems unlikely to me that both these
> things will be true together, until there are considerable advances in
> manufacturing technology, or until there's a very large market, so
> that mass production of simple things on the Moon is economic.
>
> If someone knows more about building lightweight factories, I'd love
> to hear from them.
>
> - Richard
> ------
> A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
>                        see also:
> What is (and isn't) ScF?   ==>  http://www.wco.com/~treitel/sf.html
You build many robots and send them up.  People on earth could
teleo-operate them just like people use bulldozers here on earth.  They
prospect around and build structures from the cement regiolith.  (the
regiolith is made of nearly the same stuff as cement)  The send up some
of the bare essentials such as pots and machining equipment, a few
chemicals and electric heaters.  The robots produce solar cells from the
silicon, and metals from the pots, which eventually will be powered by
electric power.  The robots produce more robots and more equipment and
more robots and more equipment and so on.  People could hop up there
occasionally, but the robots don't require any oxygen.  Eventually
enough machining and electronic and mining equipment could be built to
stop dedicating production to more machining and extracting equipment
for more robots and start dedicating production to aerospace.  Tough,
but you end up with a great lot more there then you initially launched
up.

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.
> 
> Just curious.
You might find
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html
interesting.
Regards,
John

In article , noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
> 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.
Actually, Americium-241 is fissionable.  I think the bare critical mass is
about 100 kgs.  The greatest drawback of Am-241 is that it is hot,
thermally, because of the rapid radioactive decay.  This makes it hard to
make a storable bomb.
> 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
-- 
Mark W. Goodman
mwgoodman@igc.apc.prg

Patrick Reid wrote:
> 
> [Posted to sci.energy]
> Dennis Nelson  wrote:
> 
> >Would someone calculate the number of curies in 80 grams of Pu?  With a
> >half life of 24,000 years it should be pretty active?
> 
> Can't do it. It depends on the isotopic makeup. However, you are
> fundamentally in error. The longer the half-life, the lower the
> activity, since the smaller the number of devays per unit time.
> 
> However, using your assumption that it is pure Pu-239:
> 
> 24,000 yr = 7.57x10^11 s
> 80 g = .334 mol = 2x10^24 atoms
You're a factor of 10 too high here - .335mol = 2X10^23 atoms
> A=-ln(1/2) / (7.57x10^11) x 2x10^24 = 1.83x10^12 Bq = 50 Ci
> 
The result is 5 Ci not 50 because of the above.
See my post in sci.energy for my calculation
You're correct that we have to assume 100% Pu-239 to get
a well defined problem, as we both did.
We both point out correctly in our posts that Dennis has the
wrong scaling - activity is INVERSELY proportional to half-life.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist LLNL

Identity Withheld (don't.send@me.mail) wrote:
: How ironically funny... not too long ago, Word Warrior was railing against
: myself and some others who posted anonymously, calling us cowards (or words
: to that effect).
Please leave Sheila alone. She's been taking quite a beating for a few
weeks now and is allowed to act out.
Pay no attention to the skeptics, Sheil.
GMS
http://www.svs.com/users/gmark

OX-11  wrote:
>Okay, here is your assignment, due immediately: Tell in your own words, 
>what you would do if you actually did invent a FTL communicator. How 
>would you release the design? 
I wonder if the patent office would issue the patent.  Isn't there
something nonspecific against assigning patents to devices which
violate the known laws of science (aimed at, mostly, eliminating
perpetual motion "devices" and "free energy" gimmicks -- though,
oddly, not preventing psuedoscientific yabba like electronic divining
rods)?
Scene from a comedy: inventor tries to prove his device works to
patent office employee by literally proving that it works, but since
it violates the "laws of physics", can't convince him that it works.  
"I see that it works, but I still can't assign the patent.  Sorry." 
"But it does work."  
"I know it works, but I still can't do it."  
"You know it works   I know it works.  How can it be forbidden just
because it shouldn't work?"  
"But it does, and I can't."
"Does what?"
"Violates what we know about the universe.  Sorry."
"So what? It works!"  
"It doesn't say 'things which don't work AND violate known science,'
or even 'things that don't work,' it says 'things that violate known
science,' nothing about working, so I can't assign it.  Sorry."
&c;
rsr                          b      a     l    a    n     c       e
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                please discontinue use of rsr@msn.com

Ken Fischer (kfischer@iglou.com) wrote:
: Christopher Hillman (hillman@math.washington.edu) wrote:
: : "John DeHaven"  writes:
: : |> What an interesting thread! Makes me want to ask some related questions.
: : |> 
: : |> 1) The point of view of almost everyone in almost every non-suicidal
: : |> situation is for sure "outside" the S-radius of a black hole, and hoverin
: : |> isn't necessary. Looking thru a telescope would be good enough to observe
: : |> it.
: : The formation of the black hole from a collapsing star?   Or the hole
: : after formation?  Looking through a telescope you could follow the
: : early stages of the collapse, but (by definition) you couldn't see what
: : happens to anything after it passes through the event horizon.
:         Do you mean that a black hole could form without
: supernova?    I never heard that before.
There are several ways in which a black hole can form.
Currently, if two massive bodies (such as, say, two white dwarfs) were to 
merge as a result of a collision, they could go over the Chandreshekar 
Limit and collapse into a black hole.
In the early universe, when the density was very high, small regions that 
were slightly denser than average could have collapsed into primordial 
black holes, which could be very, very small.
As well, it may not be neccessary for a supernova to occur during the 
collapse of the core of a masive star to form a black hole.  If the core 
was massive enough, it could collapse into an effective black hole before 
the overlieing matter could impact and rebound, preventing the explosion 
from begining.  This would cause the entire star to rapidly implode 
without an explostion.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <32e5b499.2179424@news.erinet.com>,
Ken H. Seto  wrote:
........................
>time is depended on the timing mechanism of the clock and the timing
>mechanism is sensitive to the its motion. Therefore measured time is
>dilatable. 
>>
>Ken Seto
Ken, please tell me that you are unaware that the very function of
GPS depends of the operation of very precise on-board clocks.
Jim

>I'm a chess problem composer, and I sometimes
>do it even in my dream. Too bad that when I
>awake, my problem is cooked and nothing works.
    Umm... I have that happen sometimes.  I have it happen when
    I'm awake, too.  I spend quite some time exploring a unique
    solution to the problem at hand and realize that I started
    with a different problem in a different hand.
    But, I also very often find that I dream things correctly,
    too.  I can't count the number of times in the last three
    years that I've gone to sleep with some problem rattling
    in my brain and had some dream that suggested which section
    of code was causing me problems or which geometric
    interpretation of the situation would yield the results I
    was after.
    *shrug*
    pat
-- 
I live in another Dimension, But I Have a Summer Home in Reality

I'm doing research on the effects of Electromagnetism and Einstein's
special theory of relativity on Newtonian Physics. I am a bit lost, so
if anyone can give me any information or can point me in the right
direction, that would be much appreciated. Thank you.
-Tram

Almorkentra Zuleeno Alfrakeetaan Moful.
This is a test.
Now I will see if this newsgroup can be accessed and searched with Alta
Vista.
Since this is sci.physics, F=ma.

In article 
wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
> 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.  [...]
More about this below.
On 13 Jan, I saw an interesting article in our local paper. Arthur R.
Butz, a professor at Northwestern University, has for decades vocally
denied that the Holocaust happened (the "extermination legend," he calls
it.)
But he has tenure, and Northwestern has tolerated his views all this
time. I personally think that's only proper -- academic freedom and all
that. His opinions are nonsense, IMHO, but there's a free speech issue.
But wait. There's more. Look what happened to an engineering instructor,
who was presumably untenured -- "When Sheldon Epstein, a Northwestern
engineering instructor outraged by Butz's 'hate, lies and libel,'
recently attacked Butz's views in class before a relatively small number
of students, he was fired. The reason: He had strayed from the class
curriculum." [*]
What worries me about tenure is not so much that incompetance and
stagnation are protected -- maybe I'd be willing to put up with that
in exchange for academic freedom -- but what about the effect tenure
has on non-tenured faculty, staff and students?
How often does the above scenario happen? The public hears only about
the outrageous abuses that make the news. How often do non-tenured
employees or students get shafted, either by an arrogant tenured
professor or by the misguided attempt to protect one? How often are
they afraid to speak out because they are automatically suspected of
the bitterness to which Bill alluded? How often are they afraid to
speak out because a tenured professor is viewed as virtually
invulnerable?
What are the hidden costs of tenure?
-- Frank Manning
[*] "Holocaust puts college in free speech bind," _Arizona Daily Star_,
1/13/97, p. A1.

Northern Telecom Displayphone Plus wrote:
> 
> 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 Magnetically,
Hardware stores carry large, pretty powerful permanent magnets which
are used by contractors to pick up nails. Radio Shack may have some
also.
If you can't move Total flakes with the magnet, you can always stick
your little brother to the refrigerator with it.
No experiment is ever a failure.
Happy ironing,
John

Greg Neill wrote:
> 
> Hmmm, could it be that he's actually looking for the total tonnage
> converted per second in the sun, or in representative stars?
> 
No, I do know that, but I needed to know what was the actual mass that
goes missing (defects) during each of those reactions. That mass is
obviously changed to energy. The amount of energy formed was the number
that I needed. I am still curious, and I did recieve an e-mail that
almost fit exactly what I need, but, I had to hand in the project this
morning! The page on the internet that I was working on is now
completed, but lacks the actual amounts of energy produced in each
fusion reaction. Hopefully my teacher doesn't notice!
Chris Dreyer
http://www.oxford.net/~crdreyer/stars/

Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
> 
> He *also* wants to know how much energy comes from each
> of those reaction pathways in the Sun. In other words,
> how common is each reaction? That is not in the CRC.
> For that, look for texts on astrophysics, or one specifically
> about the Sun.
I didn't think of that! I do know the rate of Hydrogen-Hydrogen Fusion,
and I guess that I'd have to settle for just that, but, if you take a
look at my other reply from today you'll see why I'm not expressly
looking for a solution to my problem, but I am still curious if anyone
else has anyting to add!
Chris Dreyer
http://www.oxford.net/~crdreyer/stars/

I noticed in these posts nobody mentioned a tonic.  All "tonal" music is 
based on a tonic or keynote.  Basically, the composer establishes the 
tonic, move from the tonic, and then resolves the piece back to the tonic.
Simple melodies start on the tonic and then finish on the tonic.  This is 
a very simplified explanation of tonal music.  The tonic is something you 
have to feel or identify at the beginning of the piece.  It is the base or 
key note of the music.  When you move the tonic, this modulates the music 
to another key note or key.  
This will either make sense or seem incomprehensible.  This is because the 
tonic is something that is preceived. 
A final note:  this is the older definition of tonal music.  Modern 
theories have complicated matters unecessarily in my opinion.  The 
additions of the use of accidentals and different scales make the "tonic 
theory" of tonal music a little inadequate.

rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) wrote:
>rick  wrote:
>The only problem with this definition is that today we use an
>equitempered scale and so there is no exact HCF.  To overcome this you
>will have to either:
>
I thought we were using a "well-tempered" system.  When did we revert to 
the early baroque even tempered system.  Maybe I am misinterpreting the 
word equitempered.  The prefix "equi" should mean equal.  In the 
well-tempered system all notes are note equal.  Some notes have been 
adjusted to fit in the twelve tone system.  However, in a well-tempered 
system there would be no exact HCF for certain notes.  
This maybe a good mathematical defintion of tonal music.  However, music, 
like science, is a product of human perception.  Like, if a tree falls in 
the forest, does a bear take a crap in the woods or something.
Butthead

In article <5c2meh$vcb$1@thorn.cc.usm.edu>,
Lawrence R. Mead  wrote:
>What makes you think we are unaccountable? Each April we have to submit
The simple observation that many university departments have professors who are
inactive in research and are mediocre teachers.
Phil

On 21 Jan 1997 17:50:37 GMT, Gary Kercheck wrote...
>
>lparker@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
>
>>because I pointed out a flaw in your reasoning?  
>
>There is no flaw.  My formulas accurately represent the distance travelled
>by each vehicle in the 4.8 seconds it takes the Porsche to reach 130mph.
>The difference in distance is about 23 feet.  You calculated 146 feet.
In the hope of settling this issue, I crunched some numbers today and 
discovered a few things:
** Summary **
First, C&D; was wrong when they said the Viper would be ahead by more than 
260 ft at 130 mph.  What they should have said is that the Viper reaches 
130 mph in 260 ft less distance than the Porsche.  My analysis (which I'll 
explain later) shows that the Porsche needs 2,186 ft to reach 130 mph and 
the Viper needs 1,920 ft.  That's a difference of 266 ft in Viper's favor.
Second, between the time that the Viper finishes the QM (12.3 sec) and 
the time it reaches 130 mph (15.7 sec), it has closed the gap to the 
Porsche by a not-so-spectacular 20 feet (in fact, the Viper is alongside 
the Porsche). The Porsche is going 126 mph at this point.  
By the time the Porsche reaches 130 mph (17.1 sec) the Viper is going 
almost 135 mph, and has pulled out another 8 ft on the Porsche.
Third, even allowing for some calculation error, the Viper and Porsche 
are within horn-honking range (if not fender-tapping range) of each 
other at 130 mph.
** Method **
Using Microsoft Excel's Solver add-in, I fitted a curve to the speed vs 
time plot for each car.  For the Viper, I used the curve from C&D; 9/96.  
For the Porsche, I used the times from the 7/95 C&D;, filling in 
intermediate speeds based on the curve from the 6/95 Motor Trend.  BTW, 
the 20.5 sec 0-150 mph time in C&D; 7/95 is clearly wrong.  My curve-fit 
suggests it should be 25.0 sec.
The equation I fitted to the curves had the form:
Speed = (C1 * t^E1) + (C2 * t^E2) + (C3 * t^E3),
where C1..C3 are constant coefficients, and E1..E3 are exponents applied 
to the time variable.  After some frustration with setting up the solver, 
I fixed E1 = 0.40 and E2 = 0.75, then let the solver find the other 4 
unknowns by minimizing the sum of the squared errors. 
After the coefficients and exponent were found, I plotted distance vs 
speed for each car by integrating the above equation for speed.  As a 
reality check, I used the goal seek function to find the time required 
to cover 1320 feet (quarter mile).
** Results **
Each fitted speed curve matched the published curve within about 1 mph 
over the full speed range.
For the Viper: 
Speed(mph) = 430.86 t^0.71602 - 352.96 t^0.75 - 60.158 t^0.40
and 0-1320' in 12.3 at 116 mph
For the Porsche:
Speed(mph) = 357.75 t^0.72183 - 303.66 t^0.75 - 29.962 t^0.40
and 0-1320' in 12.3 sec at 113 mph
** Conclusions/Recommendations **
I am confident that this method generates a fitted curve that is at 
least as accurate as the published test data.  This method is readily 
available to anyone with access to later versions of MS Excel.  And 
IMHO, it's a helluva lot better than endless handwaving and questionable 
assumptions.  Try it and see.
-- 
     __
 ___|  |____ Chuck Tomlinson 
/___LT-1___/ Mouse Power!
    |__|    '94 Vette Z07/ZF6, '89 Mustang LX5.0L/T5

Charles Tart wrote:
> 
> The "G" word: "GOD" AS DATA  vs
> 
>               "GOD" AS HYPOTHESIS-BELIEF-THEOLOGY  vs
> 
>               "GOD" AS REALITY
> 
> 
> 
......
> 
> "God" as DATA:  Throughout all cultures and all times, some peo-
> 
> ple have had transpersonal experiences of "something" that is ex-
> 
> perienced as vastly greater than the experiencer's personal, bio-
> 
> logical and cultural identity and that "something" seems to have
> 
> some sort of characteristics of "consciousness."  
This phenomenon is easily understood in the post-quantum physics of
back-activity from classical brain to quantum mind. Transpersonal
experiences happen when messages are exchanged between different
classical brains that share the same quantum mind i.e., wave function.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen "spooky telepathic" objective nonlocal
form-dependent intensity-independent "active informational" (Bohm)
connection does become a communication channel in the presence of
back-activity. Eberhard's theorem which strictly forbids this does not
apply because it is only correct in the limit of zero back-activity.
Note, by "brain" I mean any classical material beable that is able to
back-act to its attached quantum pilot-wave. 
By "material", like Bohm, I include all "beables" not only classical
sources like electrons, protons at a moment in their trajectories etc,
but also their classical electroweak and strong gauge field
configurations on spacelike surfaces. 
God is the common wave function shared by all classical brains that
were, that are, and that will come. If we include the classical metric
of general relativity as a beable, which we must do for quantum gravity,
then we are forced to conclude that God's mind is the invisible grand
quantum pilot-wave which guides the evolution of the visible material
universe. Back-activity is the modern technical formulation of the myth
of God's Covenent with Abraham that gives us smaller homomorphic pieces
of the big wave function a limited degree of self-determination allowing
us to be morally responsible for our behavior. This answers David
Hodge's question at Tucson II. 
My theory of everything is the worst possible theory of every thing
except for every other now proposed in all the books by the pundits. :-)
Jack Sarfatti
Commentator

Jean-Joseph JACQ (jjjacq@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: JohnAcadInt wrote:
: > 
: > G. Mark Stewart wrote:
: > .> Chris Marriott (chris@chrism.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > .> : In article <32e0b0a4.5197858@news.crosslink.net>, Bob Casanova
: > .> :  writes
: > .> : >What the hell is a Biro?
: > .> : A plastic ball-point pen, immensely popular in the UK. Many people use
: > .> : the word "Biro" to mean "Pen", rather like you Americans tend to use the
: > .> : word "Xerox" when we'd say "photocopy".
You guys got it screwed up. Don't you know what a Xerox is?
: > .> Are we a couple of fucked-up illiterat countries, or what?
: > 
: > .> No wonder we like each others' movies.
: > 
: > .> You wouldn't catch the russkies sayin' that stuff, and that's why
: > .> Comrade Python sucks.
: > 
: > Am I not right in thinking that Biro invented the biro? It's
: No. AFAIK it was Baron Bich of France who had the honour of doing that
: (producing the first "biro" of the name Bic).
No, it was invented by Sgt. Scripto, one of the famous Paper Mates.
He did it on a bet made with an enchanted IOU. I forget what it was
called, tho'.
GMS
http://www.svs.com/users/gmark

> 
> 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.
My observation is that quantity of publications and research funding will always carry the
day when it comes to promotions etc.  Unfortunately no-one seems to dig a bit deeper about
the ethics issues abd whether or not the publication record and funding have been
fruadulently or unethically obtained.
> : 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.
someone else also mentioned the supreme court and I will respond seperately.
> : 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.
I know many academics who work those hours as well.  Quite alot actually.  
In the department that I did my PhD nearly all the staff worked those hours.  They led by
example.  My point is for those who choose not to work their is no accountability.
> 
> 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.
I disagree.  Morally responsible, yes.  But the absetee academic or unethical (in terms of
co-authorship) academic can survive if not flourish.

> : 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.
Well would you agree that this is FRAUD?
> 
> : 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.
And they get away with it.  So where is the accountability???  Isn't this FRAUD we are
describing?
> 
> : 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).

> :
> : 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).
In effect the real talent of a PI who chooses to flout the system is being able to
 identify and recruit good graduate students and postdocs.  The whole process become self 
propagating if the PI can gather enough surfs for his lab.  The PI need not turn up (other
than to sign purchase orders) yet will still be a co-author on many papers.

> This is an ethics problem, not necessarily connected with the tenure system,
> which was your original thesis above.
I was attempting to make a case that accountability would be better if tenure was abolished.  
By accountability I would include scrutiny of the contribution of PIs to papers.
The rules are already out there but they need to be enforced.
> 
> : 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...
> 
> 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.
Perhaps one of the causes is that many academics have never been OUT of the classroom.
If you are raised in a system in which unethical conduct, with respect to co-authorship,
is widespread it may be taken forgranted that that is the way things are.  
I think it will be very difficult to break the cycle.
I take your point about administrators.  Presumably bean counters look for methods of
evaluation and quantity of papers seems OK.  This doesn't excuse the unethical practises
though.
We both see it happening.
 --
> 
> Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu)
> ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
> http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
Mike
(I kept getting an error that it wouldn't let me post this cause their was not enough new
text.  Is their a way around this?)
(I kept getting an error that it wouldn't let me post this cause their was not enough new
text.  Is their a way around this?)
(I kept getting an error that it wouldn't let me post this cause their was not enough new
text.  Is their a way around this?)
(I kept getting an error that it wouldn't let me post this cause their was not enough new
text.  Is their a way around this?)
(I kept getting an error that it wouldn't let me post this cause their was not enough new
text.  Is their a way around this?)
(I kept getting an error that it wouldn't let me post this cause their was not enough new
text.  Is their a way around this?)
(I kept getting an error that it wouldn't let me post this cause their was not enough new
text.  Is their a way around this?)
(I kept getting an error that it wouldn't let me post this cause their was not enough new
text.  Is their a way around this?)

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.
The size of the Coriolis force is equal to -2m(w x vr) where w is the
angular velocity of the Earth (a vector pointed along the rotational
axis), vr is the velocity of object in question in the rotating reference
system, and x represents the vector cross product.  The force will be a
maximum when the w and vr are at right angles.  This can happen at the poles,
if the motion of the object is horizontal, or at the equator, if the motion of
the object is vertical. 
If one is interested in the horizontal deflection of objects already moving
horizontal to the surface, then it is true that the force is a maximum
at the poles and a minimum at the equator.  To see this, imagine translating
the angular momentum vector for the Earth to the point in question on the
surface.  At the equator it lies tangent to the surface, so w x vr can only
cause a horizontal deflection if vr has a vertical component.  At the poles
w is radial, so any horizontal motion causes a maximum Coriolis deflection at
right angles. In between the poles and the equator, the horizontal deflection
due to the Coriolis force on horizontally moving objects will have a
sin(latitude) term which reduces it.
Geoff

val (valnet2000@loop.com) wrote:
: Is it possible???
:    Base - theory of  Teilhard de Shardin.
:  
:  Creation of Hyper brain:
: Increasing speed of net ~ 10000 times.
: Direct contact  from net to brain , virtual reality(?).
: Self-organization of initial seed - new evolution structure.
: Finally, new structure restricted only geometrically, by surface       
: of planet and by  number  of involved  humans (sells of Hyper brain).
: Power of Hyper Brain  will excel power of human brain,
: as human brain excel power of  brain cell.
: Power of Hyper Brain is INFINITE. 
: Evolution  approaches to omega point - crown of evolution on
: earth and , finally, in universe.
:  
:         
: Earth  is unique place in universe - if  this
: process  was going somewhere else ,Omega would involve us
: already.
:      ================================================
:       WE ALONE IN UNIVERSE, BECAUSE WE ARE FIRST !??
:      ================================================
: It puzzle me long time, please, any comment.
: Thank you.
: Val.
Val,
  I think you should get together with Nancy on sci.astro and hash this
out.
Regards,
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Neill,              | "Mystics are those who are baffled by the obvious
HNSX Supercomputers Inc. |  yet possess a complete understanding of the
gneill@sx.nec.com        |  nonexistent." - Unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

val wrote:
> 
> Is it possible???
> 
>    Base - theory of  Teilhard de Shardin.
> 
> 
>  Creation of Hyper brain:
> Increasing speed of net ~ 10000 times.
> Direct contact  from net to brain , virtual reality(?).
> Self-organization of initial seed - new evolution structure.
> Finally, new structure restricted only geometrically, by surface
> of planet and by  number  of involved  humans (sells of Hyper brain).
> 
> Power of Hyper Brain  will excel power of human brain,
> as human brain excel power of  brain cell.
> Power of Hyper Brain is INFINITE.
> 
> Evolution  approaches to omega point - crown of evolution on
> earth and , finally, in universe.
> 
> 
> Earth  is unique place in universe - if  this
> process  was going somewhere else ,Omega would involve us
> already.
>      ================================================
>       WE ALONE IN UNIVERSE, BECAUSE WE ARE FIRST !??
>      ================================================
> 
> It puzzle me long time, please, any comment.
> Thank you.
> Val.
I see. Very good. Carry on.
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/sri.htm

evolution starts with something so it cant explain the beginning...god
started with nothing and some of you are still nothing.
Blind faith is overated, and very dangerous when the terrain is rough.    
 wrote in article
<5bn70b$loq@camel1.mindspring.com>...
>  LADIES & GENTLEMAN !!!!
> IT'S THE BATTLE OF THE MILLENIUM !!!!
> CREATION VS. EVOLUTION!!!
> 
> This is going to be a caged, no holds barred match, to the death!!!!
> 
> In one corner we have EVOLUTION, who brings with it an assortment of
> weapons, including : records,  fossils, actual proof, and even a bit
> of faith & belief.
> 
> In the other corner we have CREATION, who brings---wait a minute,
> CREATION is pulling something from out of a sack, it's a....it's a....
> It's a book ?!?  CREATION has brought a book to use in battle. And yes
> a bit of faith & belief. 
> 
>  It's unbelievable the way they are going at each other folks !  It's
> a battle royal.  Who will win this grudge match?  Who will suffer from
> their loss?   We may never know.  Let's watch & see, and pray ours is
> the victorious one, which ever that may be.  
> 
> 

In article <5bgs44$5u1@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>,
David L Evens  wrote:
>ale2 (ale2@psu.edu) wrote:
>: In article 
>: varange@crl.com (Troy Varange) writes:
>
>: > > A PhD isn't useless. True, the knowledge you are digging up
>: > > is very specialised, but the skills you learn while digging
>: > > are very important: determination, skepticism, thought,
>: > > rigour, etc.
>: > 
>: > Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
>: > than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
>
>: But who gets hired at Microsoft Corp.?
>
>Whoever is better at putting together buggy code.
Would that be the same people who figure out that threads like this
belong in the newsgroup control, or would it be the ones who like to
use wanking big .sigs?
[snip fifteen lines]
	--Crabby "Or would it be the ones who bother to follow up?"
--
crabby is my uname, and grumblesmurf.net the domain; and if that ain't
enough for you to find me from this .sig, I'd have to say you're lame.
 Speaking only for the Disgruntled Internet Workers Union of America

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:26:35 -0600, schne042@gold.tc.umn.edu (Mike
Schneider) wrote:
>> LANCE'S GENETIC-BASIS-FOR-GLASS-FLOW THEORY (c)
>> 
>...(excellent explaination snipped)...
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>What about clear plastic?  Why don't people believe it flows like they
>believe glass or water flows?
Because we all know that clear plastic *does* flow. 
Philo "geez, where have you been?" NLN
					philo@radix.net
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Let joy and innocence reign forever.

What is the nature (global structure) of the three-dimensional space (four-
dimensional space-time) of the universe?
One possibility, given by the Friedmann cosmology model, is that it is the
three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional sphere.  The space-time
"interval" for this model is given by:
        ds^2 = - dt^2 +
                 S(t)^2 * d(chi)^2 +
                 S(t)^2 * sin(chi)^2 * d(theta)^2 +
                 S(t)^2 * sin(chi)^2 * sin(theta)^2 * d(phi)^2
  where t is in geometrized units of length (c=1),
        S(t) is the four-dimensional radius of the universe
                as a function of time
In this model, "the distance between galaxies" is given by chi * S(t).
This model has several feature that can be used to compare other models:
1.  Isotropic -- Any neighborhood in the three-dimensional space (for a given
time) looks the same any other.  One consequence of this feature is that it
has no boundary.  (Is the correct term for this 'unbounded'?)  If there were
a boundary, then some neighborhoods would be closer to it than others, and
as such the space would not be isotropic.
Cosmologically, this is important (at least in my mind) because space seems
to look everywhere the same (witness the cosmological background radiation),
and does not seem to possess any sort of boundary; some sort of "wall"
beyond which the universe does not exist.
2.  Finite -- at any particular time, the three-dimensional space forms the
closed surface of a four-dimensional sphere (e.g., x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 = 1).
I feel that this feature is EXTREMELY important cosmologically.  I
emphatically believe that the universe must be finite.  If it were not, for
example, then the big bang instantly created or simultaneously acted upon a
sturcture of infinite extent.  I do not believe that such a concept could be
physically manifested.  (I would, of course, welcome any comments on this.)
Further, if the universe started out finite, could it ever transition to
infinite in extent?  Can the answer to this be anything but no?
3.  Simply-connected -- It has the genus of zero.  (Forgive me if my
terminology is improper.  Any corrections would be appreciated.)  What I
mean by this is that there are no "holes" in the global structure such as
there would be with some three-dimensional analogue of a torus.
What is the cosmological "necessity" of this feature?  If the universe is
not simply-connected, then how would some complex connectivity be
accomplished? How would you form the hole?  And wouldn't the presense of the
hole create some sort of anisotropy as is does in the torus?  These
questions lead me to feel that simple-connectedness is a necessary feature
of the universe.
4.  Curvature -- In this case, the space has a constant positive curvature.
The curvature of a two-dimensional surface can be "determined" by measuring
the circumference of a circle about a point and comparing it to the radius of
the circle.
  Curvature     Circumference/     Examples
                   Radius
   Zero           = 2 * PI          Flat plane, or a straight cylinder
   Positive       < 2 * PI          Sphere, or the "outside" of a torus
   Negative       > 2 * PI          "Inside the hole" of a torus, or
                                      a hyperbolic paraboloid ("saddle-back"
                                      x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = c*z)
The curvature of a three-dimensional surface (embedded in a four- or higher
dimensional space) can be "determined" analogously to that of a two-dimensional
surface by measuring the area of a sphere about a point and comparing it the
the (square of the) radius.
  Curvature        Area/           Examples
                  Radius^2
   Zero           = 4 * PI          Euclidean (flat) space
   Positive       < 4 * PI          The three-dimensional surface of a four-
                                      dimensional sphere (x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2=1)
   Negative       > 4 * PI          ???
The Robertson-Walker cosmology model generalizes the Friedmann model, and
its space-time interval is given by:
        ds^2 = - dt^2 +
                 S(t)^2 * d(r)^2/(1-k*r^2) +
                 S(t)^2 * r^2 * d(theta)^2 +
                 S(t)^2 * r^2 * sin(theta)^2 * d(phi)^2
  where t is in geometrized units of length (c=1),
        S(t) is the four-dimensional radius of the universe as a
                function of time, and
        r is a pseudo-distance coordinate.
For a "closed universe", k = 1, and "the distance between galaxies" is
given by S(t) * arcsin(r).  For an "open universe", k = -1, and distance
is S(t) * arcsinh(r).  For a "flat universe", there can, technically, be
no expansion/contraction.  Therefore, k = 0, S(t) = 1, and r is distance.
For the closed universe case, again we have the solution of the three-
dimensional surface of a four-dimensional sphere which is isotropic, finite,
simply-connected and has positive curvature.
The flat universe would have zero curvature.  However, is there any sort of
flat space solution that is isotropic, finite, and simply-connected?  A
two-dimensional torus embedded in four-dimensional space would be given by
the equation set [x^2+y^2=1, z^2+w^2=1].  Analogously, a three-dimensional
torus could, I believe, be embedded in a six-dimensional space such that it
had zero curvature.  Such a construct would be finite, but would not be
simply-connected.
The open universe case possesses negative curvature.  The great burning
question in my mind is:  Is there an isotropic, finite, simply-connected
three-dimensional space solution for the open universe case?
If the answer to this question is no, then I do not see how we can seriously
consider the prospect of an open universe.
Jerry D. Hedden
hedden@netaxs.com

I would doubt much work has been done. A certain "tolerance" could probably
be built up but the (Newtonian) physics of the rest of it would probably
preclude it in any event. Falling down, dropping things on your foot, blood
pooling, walking, maintaining balance, etc.
In any event, if you come up with the energy source, I'm sure it could be
tested ;)
Samuel Kass  wrote in article
<32E36956.7677@vtiscan.com>...
> Greetings,
> 	I was wondering if anyone has done research into whether a human being
> could survive more G's if they were given time to get used to it.  Say a
> human left the planet Earth on a 10 light-year journey at 1G constant
> acceleration.  It would take them about 226 days to reach their
> destination, by my calculations (is this correct?)  At 3G's, an
> uncomfortable acceleration, this time is nearly cut in half (~130
> days).  However, it seems that if the spacecraft were to start at 1G,
> and change the magnitude of the G forces by 0.03G's per day (increase on
> first half, decrease second), it could reach its destination in ~140
> days, with a peak acceleration of 3G's, only it would have gotten to
> that acceleration at a gradual rate, and finish the trip at 1G.
> 	Is my math correct, or have I made some gross calculation error?
> 	In any case, it seems like if humans could gets used to higher
> gravities gradually, and the changes be naturally reversable, that that
> would be the way to go once constant acceleration engines and fuel
> sources are available.
> 	--Sam
> 
> -- 
> Samuel Kass - samkass@vtiscan.com - http://www.vtiscan.com/~samkass
>  Software Engineer, Visus Technologies, Inc.
>  Page Decomposition, Document Management, and OCR/ICR technologies.
> 

TWIT alert.
Be careful about posting anything here. This guy will start sending you
E-mail about the wonders of his work. I don't know if he will stop........
Since I've done so already I'll do it again.
This is a vanity press site and there is no reference to how chaos theory
relates to weather patterns. He will not talk about the subject.
Maybe he just does not like butterflies....
PS to Singer. The word if it applied would be: "revolutionary"
Oscar Singer  wrote in article
<32E45DE5.43B0@sure.net>...
Some fundamental and elementary physics has been overlooked up till
now..
I think you will like this  unusual insight into weather where standard
physics is applied for the first time to many weather processes.
Please check http://www.weather.org/  The MOST important book ever
written for understanding (and forecasting) weather can be read online
at no charge. Title: �The REVOLUTION in the Understanding of Weather�. 
Library of Congress Card Number 83-90086. Author is former weather
officer (Major) US AirForce.  This book is THE LEADING EDGE of weather
forecasting.  The book was purchased by the US AirForce, US Navy, 
libraries of GM, DuPont, White Sands, The Hurricane Forecast Center
(Miami), many universities, four weather centrals in Canada, Max Planck
Institute in Germany and many other foreign countries.  
OSCAR SINGER
----------

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:22:58 GMT, Peter Berdeklis
 wrote:
>An electric field cannot penetrate a Faraday cage (i.e. E = 0).  An electric 
>field is defined as the gradient of the electric potential.  Therefore, 
>everywhere inside a Faraday cage the potential is a constant (but not 
>necessarily 0) and so the potential inside the Faraday cage must be that 
>at the surface of the cage.  
>
>However, the surface of the cage in my though experiment is at a much
>higher potential than the ground because it is (perfectly) insulated from
>the ground and has had ~20 C of charge added to it by the lightning
>strike.  Since you and the quarters are inside the cage, you must be at
>the same potential relative to the ground as the charged surface of the
>cage. 
This is true.  However, since you carry no net charge, your electrical
potential *energy* is still zero.  An electrically neutral coin thrown
out of the cage has no electrical energy to release, and falls to the
ground exactly as if the cage was uncharged.  
A more intersting case is if your coin happens to carry a positive
charge Q.  Then it has a large electric  potential *energy* of V*Q,
where V is  the large electric potential of the faraday cage relative
to the ground.  The coin also has a small potential energy of
capacitance from the charge on the coin.  The large  potential energy
converts to kinetic energy (not electric)  as the coin enters the
electric field surrounding the cage and is repulsed by the like charge
of the cage.   On landing, the coin would release its small energy as
a small spark into the ground.
.

Jon Noring (noring@netcom.com) wrote:
: 
: 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.
Looks like Am-241 has a thermal fission cross-section of 3.2 barns and a 
yield of 1.2 kg per 1000 MW-yrs according to my handy Chart O' the 
Nuclides.  So it's not fissionable, it's fissile!  
tooie

R M Mentock wrote:
> What is it rotating with respect to?
Nothing.  It is in asymptotically flat spacetime.
The point is, the Kerr solution represents a valid solution of the Einstein
field equations, and in it there is something rotating which is alone in
the universe.  That makes general relativity non-Machian.
-- 
        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)

Could someone comment about how movies show the view as a ship
goes to hyper-space?
Rick

czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> 
> Gerard Fryer (gerard@hawaii.edu) wrote:
> 
> : I suggest you read "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank Tipler. Tipler
> : argues that eschatology is the legitimate domain of both physics and
> : religion, that indeed physics and religion become identical when
> : pondering the future of the universe.
> 
> Tipler's "theories" (a generous word), are self-admittedly unscientific
> and have been summarily (and rightfully) panned by fellow physicists.
> 
> Personally, I think he went ahead and published what he knew was pure
> conjecture simply for the money.  He knew the New-Age yuppie
> angel-loving fast-food instant-rice microwave-popcorn 1-hour-eyewear
> easy-answer instant-gratification ilk (most of society) would buy (into)
> it.
> 
Didn't you know that there was a contest?  With a big prize - over $1m 
if I recall!  I suspect that many physicists and others writing 
simultaneously about science and religion were trying to win it.
Mark Friesel

From movie Purple Hearts, 1984
CO: Jardian, if that 3rd wave gets through, you forget about that
hypocratic oath of yours. Take a few of the bastards with you.
---
Staff: You ain't going nowhere Sir, until you get your VD orientation
signed, and signed by a doctor.
Jardian: Oh really, fine
Staff: yea
Jardian: I am a doctor [and signs it]
From movie Vietmath War
AMS: AP, that 3rd axiom of yours, the Successor one, gets through, you
forget about the hypocritical "finite" integers pledge of allegiance
oath of yours. Infinite expansion makes all of those integers infinite.
---
Math Staff: You ain't going nowhere Sir, until you get your p-adic
integer orientation signed, and signed by a doctor.
AP: Oh really, fine
Staff: yea
AP: I am the author of Naturals = P-adic Integers [and signs it]. Say
there, are foucalt pendulum swings p-adic integers?

In article <32E2D9D1.781A@erols.com>,
Dennis Nelson   wrote:
>John McCarthy wrote:
>> 
>> Bernard Cohen is a professor of physics and former head of the physics
>> department at the University of Pittsburgh.  Dennis Nelson refers to
>> him as a moron.  What are Dennis Nelson's qualifications?  His style
>> of argumentation is that of a middle school student.
>
>Thomas Mancuso was a Professor of medicine or biostatistics at the same
>University of Pittsburg.  How many of you nuclear sops will give him the
>time of day although he was eminently more qualified than Cohen to judge
>the health effect of nuclear radiation.  Mr. McCarthy is either so 
>monetarily attached to the nuclear industrio/academic complex or so
>intellectually dishonest that he cannot admit to uncertainity or bias
>in the pontifications of the so-called experts.  As for me I don't rely
>on "authorities" to make my judgements, particularly not if those experts
>have both their hands in the nuclear cookie jar.
>
>As for using Cohen as a model, I never saw Mancuso resort to the cheap
>theatrics Cohen uses.  Let's see Cohen put his health where his mouth is
>and eat and inhale a few grams of finely divided Pu.  Then we can see
>what the effect is after a few years.  In the meantime I will choose
>which "expert" I will believe.
>
   Does it matter that Mancuso's results are at variance the vast bulk
   of other research?  Does it matter that Mancuso's work has been
   peer-reviewed and found to have errors?
   I agree that the fact that his results are different and are not
   accepted by the relevant research and academic communities does not
   necessarily indicate that they are incorrect - he could be that
   maverick who stands the science on its head.  Nonetheless, one should
   embrace his work cautiously.
-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III          |   Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin 
alan.guthrie@nmd.pgh.wec.com  |   

Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
> 
> Dettol (mikeh@gold.chem.hawaii.edu) wrote:
[snip]
> : 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.
> 
Teaching an "incorrect idea" is no longer a real danger.  More likely
than not, a professor will be done in by an offhand remark. 
"Homosexuality is not normal." or comparisons of a woman's body to Jello
were reasons that faculty members jobs were threatened.  The point is
not whether the ideas were incorrect (in fact, they involved value
judgements or just plain bad judgement) but whether faculty have the
right to say anything at all- no matter how silly (unless the prof
happens to be black and insults Jews).  Of course, in industry, what one
says in such an offhand remark can be grounds for dismissal.   
As far as the veracity/utility argument is concerned, I would bet that
an assistant professor of mathematics who always tried to relate her
mathematics to something practical (no matter how abstruse) would
probably be denied tenure.  Mathematicians seem to love playing with
ideas that have little or no utility until some granting agency waves a
few bucks in front of their nose.
Oh boy - judges for life...  What evidence is there that judges who hide
behind a lifetime appointment are any better than those who must face
the voters from time to time?  Are their legal opinions of higher
quality?  Do they show up for work on time more often?  Do they work
harder?  Come to think of it, I would have loved to have had a chance to
vote against that idiot, Julius Hoffman - just one...
> : Isn't it time we abandoned failed socialist ideas of a job for life?
Will you stop with the anachronistic, ahistorical claptrap?  Who taught
you rhetoric?  Bob Dornan?
> 
> The idea of tenure is apolitical and thus is neither socialist nor
> capitalist.
> 
[snip]
> 
> : 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.
[snip]
> 
> : 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.
Your point about accountability is a good one.  The problem with highly
specialized curiosity motivated research (as opposed to goal directed
research) is that it can be pretty hard to judge wrt merit.  This may
lead to the quantity over quality problem you referred to.  To whom
should a PI be accountable? Students?  Other faculty?  Administrators? 
In an industrial research situation, the criteria often involve
commercial success.  Rarely would this be a consideration in a
university.  Perhaps, evaluations involving peer review from other
universities would be in order.  Perhaps teaching is the mission of the
department.  In that case it would seem that the same criteria being
used to support tenure decisions would be useful in periodic review
under a new system.  In any case, even with periodic review for the
purpose of making employment decisions, I would bet that very few
faculty members would be let go.
An implicit bargain has been struck in the tenure system that should be
acknowledged.  Faculty are paid less than similarly educated people in
industry (who, by the way, must submit themselves to periodic review). 
If we abolish the tenure system, we will wind up paying higher wages to
faculty who will only keep their positions only if they receive
acceptable evaluations.
> : 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.
Nah - you overstate the case.  The question is whether we will have
better universities if we abolish the tenure system in favor of a
lifetime merit system.  Perhaps we would if we could come up with the
right system.
Chuck Szmanda
chucksz@ultranet.com

Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,sci.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.catastrophism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,rec.a
r
References: <5c00jj$h9e@dip.geo> 
Distribution: inet
ksjj (ksjj@fast.net) wrote:
: In article <5c00jj$h9e@dip.geo>, bmgorte@mtu.edu (Brandon M. Gorte) wrote:
: snip
: > Creationism doesn't explain a damned thing about why life is like it is.
: > In addition, it has no explanation of geological features. 
: I wouldn't expect creation to explain gelogical formations. The flood does
: a god job at that.
I hope he answers the question on how life sprang from some gue.
: -- 
: see ya,
: karl 
: *********************************************
: CREATION, is the scientific truth,
: as well as the revelation of GOD