Subject: Re: Unit Conversions
From: gnygaard@crosby.ndak.net (Gene Nygaard)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:30:55 GMT
Lawrence Goetz wrote:
>
> I've written a JavaScript page that converts between the different units
> of measurement of temperature, length, weight, and volume. It's very easy
> to use, and educational. It's at the following address:
>
> http://pages.prodigy.com/VDJW65A/convert.htm
>
> Perhaps you might find it to be of some use to you.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lawrence Goetz
> goetz@dorsai.org
I responded twice to this message on sci.physics, but only one of them
showed up on my server. Then I decided to look for it posted in other
groups.
I hate programs that do no error checking for temperatures below
absolute zero.
I also hate programs, especially those posted on the WORLD WIDE WEB,
that
use units such as quarts and gallons without identifying which quarts
and
gallons are being talked about. This is especially bad when you post
this message to two uk.education newsgroups, since the United Kingdom
hasn't used these gallons or quarts for 1 3/4 centuries.
Especially when they have such a poor conversion factor that when I
convert 1.00000000000000000 quarts to liters I get 0.9460737937559131.
for a United States liquid quart, this should be 0.946352946 exactly.
Of
course, it is much more for either a United States dry quart or for an
imperial quart.
Gene
Subject: Re: Unit Conversions
From: gnygaard@crosby.ndak.net (Gene Nygaard)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:31:24 GMT
Lawrence Goetz wrote:
>
> I've written a JavaScript page that converts between the different units
> of measurement of temperature, length, weight, and volume. It's very easy
> to use, and educational. It's at the following address:
>
> http://pages.prodigy.com/VDJW65A/convert.htm
>
> Perhaps you might find it to be of some use to you.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lawrence Goetz
> goetz@dorsai.org
I responded twice to this message on sci.physics, but only one of them
showed up on my server. Then I decided to look for it posted in other
groups.
I hate programs that do no error checking for temperatures below
absolute zero.
I also hate programs, especially those posted on the WORLD WIDE WEB,
that
use units such as quarts and gallons without identifying which quarts
and
gallons are being talked about. This is especially bad when you post
this message to two uk.education newsgroups, since the United Kingdom
hasn't used these gallons or quarts for 1 3/4 centuries.
Especially when they have such a poor conversion factor that when I
convert 1.00000000000000000 quarts to liters I get 0.9460737937559131.
for a United States liquid quart, this should be 0.946352946 exactly.
Of
course, it is much more for either a United States dry quart or for an
imperial quart.
Gene
Subject: Re: Unit Conversions
From: gnygaard@crosby.ndak.net (Gene Nygaard)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:17:53 GMT
Lawrence Goetz wrote:
>
> I've written a JavaScript page that converts between the different units
> of measurement of temperature, length, weight, and volume. It's very easy
> to use, and educational. It's at the following address:
>
> http://pages.prodigy.com/VDJW65A/convert.htm
>
> Perhaps you might find it to be of some use to you.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lawrence Goetz
> goetz@dorsai.org
I responded twice to this message on sci.physics, but only one of them
showed up on my server. Then I decided to look for it posted in other
groups.
I hate programs that do no error checking for temperatures below
absolute zero.
I also hate programs, especially those posted on the WORLD WIDE WEB,
that use units such as quarts and gallons without identifying which
quarts and gallons are being talked about. It is even worse when you
are so ignorant as to post this message to two uk.education
newsgroups, since the United Kingdom hasn't used these gallons or
quarts for 1 3/4 centuries.
Especially when they have such a poor conversion factor that when I
convert 1.00000000000000000 quarts to liters I get 0.9460737937559131.
for a United States liquid quart, this should be 0.946352946 exactly.
Of course, it is much more for either a United States dry quart or for
an imperial quart.
Gene
Subject: Formation of Planetray systems
From: mc9350@mclink.it (Stefano Bianchi)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:22:28 GMT
Hi all!
The other day my dad asked me a 'simple' question : how did our solar
system ( and, in general all those that may exist ) forme? Where did
it get all those heavy elements? I answered that all I knew was that
some events, like supernovae's explosions, reach temperatures so high
that allow formation of heavier elements through thermonuclear
reactions. But he told me : that's ok. But how did those elements
reach this place? I suggested that supernovae's explosions are so
'catastrophic' they interact with an enormous radius of space around
them, an so it wasn't so strange. I knew anything else, I was only
trying to figure something out. Then he asked me : but why our solar
system is made so that inner planets are made of heavier elements and
outer ones are made of gases like Jupiter? And why, in general, stars
are made of hidrogenum and helium, while only the planets contain the
other elements? I tried to say something ( I'm not even so sure about
the inner-heavier corrispondence ), but, in a word, I failed. Could
anyone help us?
Thank you, Stefano
--
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
William Blake
--
########
Stefano Bianchi
E-mail : mc9350@mclink.it
HomePage : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2030
########
Subject: Re: twin paradox
From: mc9350@mclink.it (Stefano Bianchi)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:22:30 GMT
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:31:58 -0800, Erik Max Francis
wrote:
>Jason Kodish wrote:
>
>> Ok, folks, here's the nub of the question. Is the effect of the twin
>> paradox really due to accelleration at all?
>> Well, the answer I suspect is, yes and no......
>
>It's not due to acceleration per se, but instead a change of inertial
>frames (that is, a boost).
Hi!
I'm not an expert at all, but I know something about the twin paradox
that I'm not sure someone has still pointed out. All this fuss about
the 'paradox' should be caused by pretending to treat it as something
explainable with SR. The problem is that, since the astronaut has to
accelerate to reach a near c velocity and to decelerate to come back,
SR ( wich explains only things in inertial frames ) can't explain
anything, while you should use GR instead. How, I don't have the
slightest idea. And I don't even know who really ( and if ) would age
more. What I'm sure is that the 'paradox' isn't a paradox at all in
GR.
Ciao, Stefano
--
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
William Blake
--
########
Stefano Bianchi
E-mail : mc9350@mclink.it
HomePage : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2030
########
Subject: Re: Viper/Porsche: time, speed, distance
From: John Henry
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:53:37 GMT
Chuck Tomlinson wrote:
> Using Microsoft Excel's Solver add-in, I fitted a curve to the speed vs
> time plot for each car.
snip
> 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
snip
> 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 **
>
>
snip
> 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
Chuck,
When you get a minute, could you please cure cancer?
:-)
J
Subject: Re: slingshot effect
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:55:51 GMT
In article , kater@kater586.on-luebeck.de (Miles Collins) writes:
>In article <01bc06c0$3187c480$0f02000a@jx>,
> "John DeHaven" writes:
>>
>> Dan Yertzell wrote in article
>>> How about the "slingshot effect" of *falling* into a massive body and
>> then
>>> pulling out at the last moment, to gain a tremendous increase in speed?
>>> This is not hypothetical, but fact and used many times in deep space
>>> missions.
>>
>> You know I've read about this and I guess I believe in it, but I'm darned
>> if I can see how it works. It seems to me that, on elementary principles,
>> it would consume *exactly* as much energy to climb back out of a gravity
>> well as you gain by falling into it. Yet "more speed" sounds like more
>> energy to me. Something for nothing? Where does the new spacecraft kinetic
>> energy come from in this trick?
>
>It only can work on ROTATING big masses, by slowing that big mass a tiny amount
>thus accelerating a small mass a great deal. Like with billard balls, the total
>impulse remains constant (p=m*v).
No, nothing to do with "rotating".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: RE: Question Regarding Coreolis Effect at the poles and the Equator
From: edwardsg@cc5.crl.aecl.ca
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:05:16 GMT
bfp@bfp.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Putnam) wrote:
kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) writes:
:> There is no rotational force, it is an inertial "effect",
:>but it is only relevant to the atmosphere and very large mediums.
:The Coriolis force isn't a "fictitious" force in the sense that
:centrifugal force is, if that is what you are saying. It's just as
:much a force as centripetal force.
:For example, if you are walking south from the North pole, your
:angular momentum is increasing since your perpendicular distance from
:the rotation axis is increasing. There must be some real force
:pushing you toward the east that causes this increase in angular
:momentum.
The Coriolis force is on the same footing as the Centrifugal force as a force
necessary to explain motion from inside a rotating reference frame but not
existing for observers in an inertial reference frame. [I don't like to call
these forces 'fictitious' because they are real enough for people who live in
rotating frames of reference, which is most people at present].
In your example, if someone walked rapidly south from the North pole, they
would be dragged Eastward by the friction between their feet and the ground.
This frictional force is a real force in the sense that an observer in space,
not rotating with respect to the Earth, would agree that it exists. It is
only the walker, trying to make sense out of why he has to lean to the East
to keep from being dragged off his feet (towards the West) who postulates a
force called the 'Coriolis' pulling him West. Compare this to a person going
around a sharp curve in a car. The acceleration of the car is inward, toward
the center of the curve. Inside the car, all the passengers will be leaning
towards the center of the curve, too, to balance the 'Centrifugal' force which
appears to be pulling them towards the other side of the car. The situations
are identical in principle.
:I agree that I can't imagine an engineering project for which it's
:necessary to know any of this since the effect is small for man made
:machines.
Everybody has seen these demonstrations in science museums, haven't they, where
a funnel/pendulum slowly pours sand out and creates a rosette sand trail as the
Coriolis force pushes the plane of oscillation around in a circle each 24
hours? If any child can make a clock which keeps time using the Coriolis
force, I'd say it's a bit sweeping to dismiss it as unimportant for 'man made
machines'.
Geoff
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationites
From: kjfair@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Fair)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:53:26 GMT
In article <5c6647$52j@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>, tmkoson@umich.edu
(Todd Matthew Koson) wrote:
>Kenneth Fair (kjfair@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>
>: Only Jean-Joseph JACQ and Stix had posted to talk.origins. Furthermore,
>: of all these posters, only Stix uses Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 to
>: post his messages.
>
>: Now I may be wrong about this, but I suspect Stix owes Karl an apology.
>
>Mmm. Sitting next to one of the great law schools of our country, and
>then turning right around and accusing a man based on circumstantial
>evidence. Although I thought "may be wrong" and "suspect" were nice
>touches in the last sentence.
Attending that law school, thank you very much.
It's more than just, "Hey, Stix posts from Australia." Stix has shown
animosity to Karl in the past and is a frequent poster to talk.origins,
where Karl can usually be found. Stix was the only person, with the
exception of one post, to post to all of these newsgroups.
Besides, "circumstantial evidence" does not mean what you think it
means. It does not mean "weak evidence." It just means it's not
direct evidence, i.e., I didn't personally witness someone forging
this post.
>Now isi it possible that some other person in the entire continent of
>Australia is also using oz.mail and Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230?
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying he's the only one who's posted
with that combination at all recently.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law |
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Our Mother Goose who art in the henhouse, hallowed be thy name. Thy roast-
ing come. Thy meat be done in earth as it is in heaven." - Riley Sinder
Subject: Re: What the F**k is "Tonality" anyway? [was That's Gross! ]
From: fields@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields)
Date: 23 Jan 1997 01:22:38 GMT
In article <5c0d2n$s89$1@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
>NB also that your method up until now would appear to normally give the
>submediant in a major or minor key, not the tonic. But it would work
Write in haste, repent at leisure. Subdominant, not submediant.
>fairly good for Lydian mode and better for Lydian-flat-7.
>> and multiply it by 24
>Any special reason why 24?
>>and that frequency corresponds to the note that is the key of the piece.
>
>Hmmm. Neat. I guess 24 because it compensates for the submediant
Subdominant
>problem outlined above.
>NB though that the number should have been 3, not 24. The factors
>of 2 just raise everything up by octaves, whereas the factor of 3
>raises you up a 12th, exactly enough to get from the submediant to
Subdominant
>the tonic in a major or minor mode.
--
Matt Fields URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: depreej@lincoln.ac.nz (Depree, Jonathan A)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:08:14
In article franl@world.std.com (Francis Litterio) writes:
>From: franl@world.std.com (Francis Litterio)
>Subject: Re: FTL Comm
>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:14:01 GMT
>Jim Akerlund wrote:
>> 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.
>> You would set up your communicator so that you could talk to yourself
>> two hours in the past. You would then use this little trick to win
>> lotteries across the US, and when you are winning lotteries who needs
>> friends.
>That was my first thought too. And it's exactly the reason that FTL
>communication is impossible. Under both SR and GR, FTL communication
>is equivalent to reverse causality (i.e., event A is affected by
>events in its future light-cone). Causality is a premise so
>fundamental to physics that it is rarely explicitly stated in any
>treatise.
No you could not talk to yourself two hours ago, you could however be in
instantaneous contact with a friend. I suppose you could have one person in
the Nikkei exchange and relay information to another in the New York exchange
seconds before that information arrived by sattelite link. I don't know if
that would give you time to do anything.
What I would do would be to send a robot to Mars and control it in realtime by
remote control.
I do not see that an FTL communication system can possibly send messages back
in time and thereby violate causality. Will someone plaese explain this to me?
Follow-ups trimmed
Jonathan Depree,
Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Socrates was a famous Greek Teacher who went around giving
people advice. They killed him. (school history howler)
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: =eat-me@regular-mealtimes= (»Word Warrior«)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:40:47 GMT
Anthony Potts wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, =Word Warrior= wrote:
>> Pollution's definition includes the terms "man made"
>> in my dictionary. Get someone to show you how to
>> use one of those, eh?
>The thing is, Sheila, that from all the evidence so far,
On what would you base your claim to possession of "all the evidence" ?
>your dictionary
>is something which only makes sense to you.
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
>For example, you seem to have made a rather large error in your use of the
>word fallacious.
I apply it only to fallacy, your incomprehension of that notwithstanding.
>Sure, it must be nice when you learn a new word,
You seem all too uncertain of that.
>but you ought to only
>apply it when it fits the bill.
Irrelevant.
>For example, it cannot accurately be applied to a question.
False: for example: "Have you stopped getting gerbilled by other nazis?"
is fallacious, as are all such loaded questions.
>If you have any more linguistic problems,
Inaccurate/inapplicable; fallacious regardless.
> please feel free to come to me
>for advice.
Sorry, but I only want valid advice, and you've none to show for yourself here.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|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.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
