Newsgroup sci.physics 244472

Directory

Jaya Chakrabarti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Every year, my department holds a "Women in Physics" one day
> open day, where girls from local schools who are just about to
> choose their GCSE options are invited to think about physics as
> one of them.
>
> I've been asked to find dynamic and exciting web pages on
> different aspects of physics that will appeal to these young
> (14 year old) minds.  So - I'd really appreciate some suggestions
> and addresses of fun pages that will emphasize the "phun in physics"
> and if possible, the fact that women do feature in the careers
> identified.
>
> (those of you who read the article in New Scientist on the bleak
> prospects for women in research and funding, may wish to hold
> back any cynicism for the time being!)
>
> Thanks very much in advance, please email your answers to me
> just in case I miss the reply here on the newsgroup..
>
> - Jaya Chakrabarti-Gallemore
> University of Bristol
Hi Jaya,
Women have the greatest opportunity today they every have had.  Our
current standard theories of light, matter and gravity need to be
modified slightly so they fit more than sixty different known physical
observations.  Our existing scientists have thought one way for three
hundred years.  They have taught millions of students, including
myself.  But when I see that something I was sure was correct is not
exactly correct in science, I ask the simple question, Why?
For fun, have your women check out the simple Oppositely Charged Twin
Monopole Theory of Everything.  A short and long discussion follows:
Do you, or your associates, know of a physical observation to
prove Gravity is not a PUSH?  Please help us.  Over the past
fifteen years, we have found more than five dozen physical
observations, indicating we need to modify our standard theories
of matter, light and gravity slightly to fit known physical
observations
                            Abstract
The Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM) Theory
of Everything is as simple and elegant as its name.
By definition, there is a smallest positively charged
basic Monopole of matter and a smallest negatively
charged basic Monopole of matter.  These basic Monopoles
of matter, are twins with opposite charges.  In the
beginning, the cosmos was filled with these equal and
oppositely charged basic Monopoles of matter.
The two basic Monopoles combine, forming larger
groupings of particles of matter in the shape of
ellipsoids of influence.  These ellipsoids of influence,
automatically assume common crystal latticework
structures of ellipsoids of influence as taught in US
PTO document 'Educational Device and Method' at
.
Electromagnetic spectrum waves are very regular helical
like spirals of twinned domains of these ellipsoids of
influence.  To obtain the relative speed of an
electromagnetic wave, the relative speed of the emitting
surface or reflecting surface must be added to or
subtracted from the speed of the electromagnetic wave.
On Earth, the known force of gravity is the net kinetic
energy differential of incoming basic Monopoles of
matter interacting with your and my basic Monopoles,
impelling our basic Monopoles into the matter shadow of
the basic Monopoles of the Earth as taught in US PTO
document at .
        Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM)
                             Theory of Everything
                                       Main Text
 In the Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM) Theory of
Everything, Newton's three laws of motion, Coulomb's law of charges, and
Einstein's Energy/Mass equation are true.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything postulates there is a smallest basic
'plus' particle of matter and a smallest basic 'minus' particle of
matter, each being a Monopole of influence and a twin of the other.  All
larger particles of matter are postulated to comprise these two basic
particles.
 Any defined volume of space is postulated to be completely void of
matter or contain one or more of the smallest basic particles of matter.
 Initially, in deep space two basic Monopoles, being of opposite or like
charge, attract and/or repel each other according to Coulomb's law of
charges.  When two oppositely charged basic Monopoles are close enough
to each other, so their fields of influence, according to Coulomb's law
of charges, are strong enough to overcome their relative net vector
linear momentum's, according to Newton's three laws of motion, the two
basic particles link forming the smallest postulated basic dipole of
matter.
 When two oppositely charged Monopoles of matter attract each other as
above, they travel pursuit courses toward each other at an accelerating
relative velocity.  Occasionally, their initial pursuit courses are on
perfectly centered straight lines resulting in a perfect, direct,
head-on collision.  Such a perfect, direct, head-on collision results in
an enormous release of kinetic energy, raising the temperature of the
particles to the temperature range of some of the particles of matter in
the corona of the Sun.
 Most of the particles of matter, attracting each other as above, have
initial relative net vector momentum paths that are not on perfect,
direct, head-on collision paths.  Their courses are paired, curved,
pursuit courses.  By Newton's three laws of motion and Coulomb's law of
charges, these paired, pursuit courses effectively change most of the
initial relative net vector linear momentum of the particles into
angular momentum of rotation, of the particles of matter.
 If the above dipole is rotating slowly enough for Newton's laws of
motion to overcome Coulomb's law of charges, it becomes a stable
arrangement of particles of matter.  When this dipole is viewed from the
outside, in the plane of rotation, the "plus" and "minus" hemispheres of
charge are alternating so rapidly, the dipole of matter "seems" to have
no charge when observed in current bubble chambers.
 The smallest stable rotating tetrahedron of four particles is formed
from two basic dipoles.
 The smallest stable rotating octahedron of six basic particles is
formed either from three basic dipoles of matter, or from four basic
particles of matter of one charge and two basic particles of matter of
opposite charge.
 The dipoles of matter form into tetrahedrons, and octahedrons, or
larger combinations, that arrange themselves into helical-like spirals
of twinned domains, as taught in US PTO document 'Educational Device and
Method' at , when they are emitted from
larger groupings of particles of matter.
 These smallest arrangements of basic particles of matter continue to
build into larger arrangements of basic particles, essentially
maintaining the one "minus" particle for each "plus" particle with a few
odd "plus" or "minus" particles in the outer layers of the particles of
matter until a sufficiently large number of particles have combined to
form the hydrogen atom and isotopes of hydrogen.  As taught by the OCTM
Theory of Everything, deep space is filled with hydrogen and isotopes of
hydrogen.  All elements can be formed from the particles of matter in
hydrogen.
 Dr. Louis A. Frank's fluffy hundred ton snowballs hitting the upper
atmosphere at the rate of more than forty thousand per day is an example
of this.  See
.
 The combinations of particles of matter form crystals, solids, liquids,
gases and the very regular helical like spirals of particles of matter
in electromagnetic spectrum waves, including light.
  In the OCTM Theory of Everything the speed of electromagnetic spectrum
of particles of matter, is a function of the escape velocity necessary
for basic Monopoles of matter, according to Newton's laws of motion, to
overcome Coulomb's law of attraction.  The relative speed of the
emitting surface must be added to or subtracted from the escape velocity
of the emitted spiral rays of matter.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory
of Everything, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment on the speed of
light gives a null result in all directions.  A different interpretation
of the measurements of this famous experiment has caused unnecessary
modification of some great theories of Newton and other scientists.
 In the OCTM Theory of Everything, neutrinos, which seem to have no
charge, are rapidly rotating particles of matter containing equal
numbers of oppositely charged basic Monopoles of matter.  The diameter
of the "hard mass center" of the Monopoles is very small in relation to
the average distance between the "hard mass centers" of the twelve or so
closest Monopoles that touch the center Monopole in the crust of the
Earth.  The average distance between "hard mass centers" of Monopoles
has been estimated to be as much as 30,000 to 90,000 the "hard mass
center" diameter.  The diameters of the "hard mass centers" of neutrinos
are so small, if only one was passing through the earth by itself at one
time, the probability of it hitting another particle of matter in the
earth has been estimated to be between one chance in 10.0E10 and one
chance in 10.0E27.
 However, by some estimates there are about 10.0E23 neutrinos coming in
from space each second for each square centimeter of the area of the
atmosphere of the Earth.  In the OCTM Theory of Everything, the increase
in atmospheric pressure as one approaches sea level is the direct result
of the net balance of the kinetic energy force of particles from space,
acting on the particles of matter in the atmosphere.  The increase in
temperature as one goes down into the Earth is the direct result of the
kinetic energy force of particles of matter from space, acting on the
particles of matter in the Earth.  As one goes down into the Earth, the
rate of temperature increase is about the same until around 12,000
meters.  At about 12,000 meters, the rate of temperature increase begins
to increase at a faster rate than before.  The "cascade effect" of
particle collisions begins to be evident.
 The "cascade effect" is where an incoming particle of matter, traveling
at about the speed of light, hits a particle of matter in the Earth and
then two or more particles of matter travel from the collision in
different directions.  These particles of matter on average, are
traveling at less than half the speed of light, and are more likely to
hit other particles of matter in the Earth.  When these particles of
matter traveling at less than half speed, hit other particles of matter,
there are more than four particles of matter traveling at less than one
fourth speed going in many random directions.  When these particles of
matter traveling at less than one fourth speed hit other particles of
matter, there are more than eight particles of matter traveling on
average less than one-eighth speed going in even more random directions.
 Soon this "cascade effect" causes more incoming particles to combine
with Earth particles, causing the Earth to expand from its center at an
ever increasing rate.  This is shown at
.
 Our Ocean floors are only two hundred million years old or less.  Our
Oceans are spreading apart and have middle trenches that are also
becoming longer as demonstrated by their many cross rifts.  This is
shown at .
 A small amount of the total original net kinetic energy force
accelerates the Earth-Moon system into the "matter shadow" of the Sun,
or into their mutual "matter shadows".
 In the OCTM Theory of Everything the force of gravity is the net
balance of kinetic energy force of all particles of matter from space,
driving two or more groupings of particles of matter into each other's
mutual "matter shadows".  The net imbalance of the electromagnetic
radiation on the particles of two facing objects drives the objects
toward each other.
 Scientists know (1) the Moon is locked in orbit with it's more massive
side pointed away from the Earth, (2) the Moon is slowly moving away
from the center of the Earth, (3) the rotation of the Earth about its
North-South axis is slowing down, and (4) the actual "tide action" not
fully understood, requiring that "Tide Tables" be continually updated.
The traditional PULL of Gravity Theory does not have completely
acceptable answers to why these four measured actions occur.  The
"dumbbell" and "Tidal Force" theories are postulated but many scientists
agree the theories are not convincing.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything predicts these four natural events as
follows:
 (1) The massive end of an object in orbit automatically attempts to
point into the income particles from space and the object locks in
orbit, like a dart.
 (2) The action of both Lunar and Solar eclipses PUSH the Earth and Moon
apart.
 (3) The mass of the particles from space, which are absorbed by the
Earth, increases the combined mass of the Earth.  By Newton's laws of
motion, this slows the rotation of the Earth down.
 (4) Water of lakes, seas and oceans, up swell into the center of the
"Matter shadows", of the Earth and the Moon, as they slowly move across
the bodies of water.  The areas opposite the "Matter shadows" receive
the full flux of incoming particles from space.  The traditional PULL of
Gravity mechanics and mathematics give different answers for the "Tidal
force".
  The OCTM Theory of Everything gives Newton's Universal Equation of
Gravity, adjusted for traveling at the speed of light.  The force of
gravity causes moons to orbit their planets and planets to orbit the Sun
at radii that are 3/2ths power of their distances from their mutual
centers.
 At any given point in orbit, the equal areas of the two circular
Moon-Earth "matter shadows" are a function of the square of the radius
of the Moon or Earth and the distance between the centers of the Moon
and Earth.  At the same point, the masses of the Earth and Moon are a
function of the cube of their radii.  The radii of the Moon and Earth
can be expressed as a function of the distance between their mutual
centers.  Mathematically the equation for the net balance of kinetic
energy force of gravity can be expressed as a function of the masses
being accelerated toward each other, divided by the area of their mutual
"matter shadows".  In other words, the force of gravity can be expressed
as a function of the cubes of the radii of the Moon and Earth (masses),
divided by a function of the square of the radius of either the Moon or
Earth (area of mutual "matter shadows").  This net balance of kinetic
energy force of gravity travels at the speed of the incoming particles
of matter from space, (speed of light).  The radius of the mutual
"matter shadows" can be expressed as a function of the square of the
distance between their mutual centers.  Therefore the OCTM Theory of
Everything predicts the force of gravity travels at the speed of light,
and can be expressed "as the 3/2ths power of the distances" between the
centers of the Earth and the Moon.
 The masses of the Moon and Earth are essentially constant during an
orbit.  The net kinetic energy force of matter from space, per square
centimeter, hitting the areas opposite their mutual "matter shadows" is
essentially constant during an orbit.  The areas opposite their mutual
"matter shadows" change just like their mutual "matter shadows" change,
depending on the point in orbit and the distance between their mutual
centers.  At any point in orbit, the Earth and Moon automatically move
into a dynamic net kinetic energy force balance, where the areas
receiving net kinetic energy force are just the right size to provide
the necessary net kinetic energy force to accelerate the Moon mass and
Earth mass toward each other to maintain their mutual orbits.
 The tangential speeds of the Moon and Earth in their orbits are not
substantially changed due to the action of the net balance of kinetic
energy force acting on their mutual "matter shadows".  When the distance
between their mutual centers increases as it does during an orbit, the
net balance of kinetic energy force decreases.  When the distance
between their mutual centers decreases as it does in orbit, the net
balance of kinetic energy force increases.  The greater distance between
their mutual centers, increases the time, the net balance of kinetic
energy force acts during a given arc of an orbit.  The smaller distance
between their mutual centers, decreases the time, the net balance of
kinetic energy force acts during a given arc of an orbit.  The
Earth-Moon orbit is a delicate balancing act of the area the net kinetic
energy force is acting on and the time this net kinetic energy force is
acting during a given arc of the orbit.
 Mathematically, according to the OCTM Theory of Everything, two
spherical masses of matter orbiting each other, are accelerated toward
each other with a net kinetic energy force of gravity proportional to
their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
between them, where the net kinetic energy force of gravity travels at
the speed of particles of matter from space, (speed of light).
 The far side of the Moon points away from the center of the Earth.
Based on certain measurements over the past two hundred years, most
Scientists agree the center of the Moon has, on balance, moved away from
the center of the Earth.
 Mathematically, except during eclipses, the traditional attractive
force of gravity theory and the balance of net kinetic energy force of
gravity of the OCTM Theory of Everything give almost the same results.
Without eclipses, both predict the Moon will move closer to the Earth
over a long period of time, just as a satellite's orbit slowly decays
and falls into the atmosphere.  However, when eclipses are factored in,
the OCTM theory predicts that on balance the masses of the Moon will
move away from the Earth, as has been demonstrated through experimental
observation.
 The net kinetic energy force of gravity of the OCTM Theory of
Everything explains mathematically how the Moon's most massive side can
remain locked in orbit essentially pointing away from the center of the
Earth, and how the Moon can very slowly move away from the Earth, when
eclipses are involved.
 When a Solar eclipse occurs, the normal "net kinetic energy Sun matter
shadow" on the Earth is partially blocked by the "net kinetic energy
Moon matter shadow" on the Earth.  When this occurs, more total net
kinetic energy force from space is pushing on the Earth from the
direction of the Sun and Moon.  As long as this Solar eclipse continues,
this additional net kinetic energy force pushes the Earth away from the
Sun and Moon more than would have been the case if the Solar eclipse had
not occurred.
 When a Lunar eclipse occurs, the normal "net kinetic energy Sun matter
shadow" on the Moon is partially blocked by the "net kinetic energy
Earth matter shadow" on the Moon.  When this occurs, more total net
kinetic energy force from space is pushing on the Moon from the
direction of the Sun and Earth.  As long as this Lunar eclipse
continues, this additional net kinetic energy force pushes the Moon away
from the Sun and Earth more than would have been the case if the Lunar
eclipse had not occurred.
 During both Solar and Lunar eclipses the distance between the Earth and
the Moon is being increased by a slight amount.  As predicted by the
OCTM Theory of Everything, by actual measurements over the past 200
hundred years, the center of the Moon has slowly moved away from the
center of the Earth.
 The Moon is currently locked in orbit with it's "far side" always
essentially pointing away from Earth.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory
of Everything, the Moon is locked in orbit with it's more massive side
essentially pointing away from the center of the Earth.
 The Earth rate of rotation about its North-South axis is very slowly
decreasing.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory of Everything, the Earth is
absorbing some of the particles from space and gradually increasing its
total combined Mass.  By Newton's laws of motion, the Earth's rate of
rotation must slow down when its mass is increased by the absorption of
the particles of matter from space in the balanced net kinetic energy
force of the PUSH of Gravity.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything brings the force of gravity into
agreement with Einstein's famous Energy/Mass equation.  The OCTM Theory
of Everything is in agreement with the experimental results of presently
known experiments on solids, liquids, gases, light and the other
electromagnetic spectrum particles of matter.  The simplicity of the
OCTM Theory of Everything is elegant.
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com
Maurice E. Mitchell, Retired Independent Businessman
MSME (Heat Transfer) UC Berkeley
10306 Cogswell Ave.,
Las Vegas, NV 89134
(702)243-6837
FAX (702)243-9135
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com

phs503e@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au wrote:
> It's knows that the Moon is moving *away* from the Earth (few
> centimeters
> a year I think) due to energy lost from tidal friction with the Earth.
>
> But on the other hand a satellite comes *down* when it loses energy
> due to
> friction with the atmosphere. Why the difference?
The PUSH of Gravity predicts the Moon moves away from the Earth during
both solar and lunar eclipses.
Do you, or your associates, know of a physical observation to
prove Gravity is not a PUSH?  Please help us.  Over the past
fifteen years, we have found more than five dozen physical
observations, indicating we need to modify our standard theories
of matter, light and gravity slightly to fit known physical
observations
                            Abstract
The Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM) Theory
of Everything is as simple and elegant as its name.
By definition, there is a smallest positively charged
basic Monopole of matter and a smallest negatively
charged basic Monopole of matter.  These basic Monopoles
of matter, are twins with opposite charges.  In the
beginning, the cosmos was filled with these equal and
oppositely charged basic Monopoles of matter.
The two basic Monopoles combine, forming larger
groupings of particles of matter in the shape of
ellipsoids of influence.  These ellipsoids of influence,
automatically assume common crystal latticework
structures of ellipsoids of influence as taught in US
PTO document 'Educational Device and Method' at
.
Electromagnetic spectrum waves are very regular helical
like spirals of twinned domains of these ellipsoids of
influence.  To obtain the relative speed of an
electromagnetic wave, the relative speed of the emitting
surface or reflecting surface must be added to or
subtracted from the speed of the electromagnetic wave.
On Earth, the known force of gravity is the net kinetic
energy differential of incoming basic Monopoles of
matter interacting with your and my basic Monopoles,
impelling our basic Monopoles into the matter shadow of
the basic Monopoles of the Earth as taught in US PTO
document at .
        Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM)
                             Theory of Everything
                                       Main Text
 In the Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM) Theory of
Everything, Newton's three laws of motion, Coulomb's law of charges, and
Einstein's Energy/Mass equation are true.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything postulates there is a smallest basic
'plus' particle of matter and a smallest basic 'minus' particle of
matter, each being a Monopole of influence and a twin of the other.  All
larger particles of matter are postulated to comprise these two basic
particles.
 Any defined volume of space is postulated to be completely void of
matter or contain one or more of the smallest basic particles of matter.
 Initially, in deep space two basic Monopoles, being of opposite or like
charge, attract and/or repel each other according to Coulomb's law of
charges.  When two oppositely charged basic Monopoles are close enough
to each other, so their fields of influence, according to Coulomb's law
of charges, are strong enough to overcome their relative net vector
linear momentum's, according to Newton's three laws of motion, the two
basic particles link forming the smallest postulated basic dipole of
matter.
 When two oppositely charged Monopoles of matter attract each other as
above, they travel pursuit courses toward each other at an accelerating
relative velocity.  Occasionally, their initial pursuit courses are on
perfectly centered straight lines resulting in a perfect, direct,
head-on collision.  Such a perfect, direct, head-on collision results in
an enormous release of kinetic energy, raising the temperature of the
particles to the temperature range of some of the particles of matter in
the corona of the Sun.
 Most of the particles of matter, attracting each other as above, have
initial relative net vector momentum paths that are not on perfect,
direct, head-on collision paths.  Their courses are paired, curved,
pursuit courses.  By Newton's three laws of motion and Coulomb's law of
charges, these paired, pursuit courses effectively change most of the
initial relative net vector linear momentum of the particles into
angular momentum of rotation, of the particles of matter.
 If the above dipole is rotating slowly enough for Newton's laws of
motion to overcome Coulomb's law of charges, it becomes a stable
arrangement of particles of matter.  When this dipole is viewed from the
outside, in the plane of rotation, the "plus" and "minus" hemispheres of
charge are alternating so rapidly, the dipole of matter "seems" to have
no charge when observed in current bubble chambers.
 The smallest stable rotating tetrahedron of four particles is formed
from two basic dipoles.
 The smallest stable rotating octahedron of six basic particles is
formed either from three basic dipoles of matter, or from four basic
particles of matter of one charge and two basic particles of matter of
opposite charge.
 The dipoles of matter form into tetrahedrons, and octahedrons, or
larger combinations, that arrange themselves into helical-like spirals
of twinned domains, as taught in US PTO document 'Educational Device and
Method' at , when they are emitted from
larger groupings of particles of matter.
 These smallest arrangements of basic particles of matter continue to
build into larger arrangements of basic particles, essentially
maintaining the one "minus" particle for each "plus" particle with a few
odd "plus" or "minus" particles in the outer layers of the particles of
matter until a sufficiently large number of particles have combined to
form the hydrogen atom and isotopes of hydrogen.  As taught by the OCTM
Theory of Everything, deep space is filled with hydrogen and isotopes of
hydrogen.  All elements can be formed from the particles of matter in
hydrogen.
 Dr. Louis A. Frank's fluffy hundred ton snowballs hitting the upper
atmosphere at the rate of more than forty thousand per day is an example
of this.  See
.
 The combinations of particles of matter form crystals, solids, liquids,
gases and the very regular helical like spirals of particles of matter
in electromagnetic spectrum waves, including light.
  In the OCTM Theory of Everything the speed of electromagnetic spectrum
of particles of matter, is a function of the escape velocity necessary
for basic Monopoles of matter, according to Newton's laws of motion, to
overcome Coulomb's law of attraction.  The relative speed of the
emitting surface must be added to or subtracted from the escape velocity
of the emitted spiral rays of matter.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory
of Everything, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment on the speed of
light gives a null result in all directions.  A different interpretation
of the measurements of this famous experiment has caused unnecessary
modification of some great theories of Newton and other scientists.
 In the OCTM Theory of Everything, neutrinos, which seem to have no
charge, are rapidly rotating particles of matter containing equal
numbers of oppositely charged basic Monopoles of matter.  The diameter
of the "hard mass center" of the Monopoles is very small in relation to
the average distance between the "hard mass centers" of the twelve or so
closest Monopoles that touch the center Monopole in the crust of the
Earth.  The average distance between "hard mass centers" of Monopoles
has been estimated to be as much as 30,000 to 90,000 the "hard mass
center" diameter.  The diameters of the "hard mass centers" of neutrinos
are so small, if only one was passing through the earth by itself at one
time, the probability of it hitting another particle of matter in the
earth has been estimated to be between one chance in 10.0E10 and one
chance in 10.0E27.
 However, by some estimates there are about 10.0E23 neutrinos coming in
from space each second for each square centimeter of the area of the
atmosphere of the Earth.  In the OCTM Theory of Everything, the increase
in atmospheric pressure as one approaches sea level is the direct result
of the net balance of the kinetic energy force of particles from space,
acting on the particles of matter in the atmosphere.  The increase in
temperature as one goes down into the Earth is the direct result of the
kinetic energy force of particles of matter from space, acting on the
particles of matter in the Earth.  As one goes down into the Earth, the
rate of temperature increase is about the same until around 12,000
meters.  At about 12,000 meters, the rate of temperature increase begins
to increase at a faster rate than before.  The "cascade effect" of
particle collisions begins to be evident.
 The "cascade effect" is where an incoming particle of matter, traveling
at about the speed of light, hits a particle of matter in the Earth and
then two or more particles of matter travel from the collision in
different directions.  These particles of matter on average, are
traveling at less than half the speed of light, and are more likely to
hit other particles of matter in the Earth.  When these particles of
matter traveling at less than half speed, hit other particles of matter,
there are more than four particles of matter traveling at less than one
fourth speed going in many random directions.  When these particles of
matter traveling at less than one fourth speed hit other particles of
matter, there are more than eight particles of matter traveling on
average less than one-eighth speed going in even more random directions.
 Soon this "cascade effect" causes more incoming particles to combine
with Earth particles, causing the Earth to expand from its center at an
ever increasing rate.  This is shown at
.
 Our Ocean floors are only two hundred million years old or less.  Our
Oceans are spreading apart and have middle trenches that are also
becoming longer as demonstrated by their many cross rifts.  This is
shown at .
 A small amount of the total original net kinetic energy force
accelerates the Earth-Moon system into the "matter shadow" of the Sun,
or into their mutual "matter shadows".
 In the OCTM Theory of Everything the force of gravity is the net
balance of kinetic energy force of all particles of matter from space,
driving two or more groupings of particles of matter into each other's
mutual "matter shadows".  The net imbalance of the electromagnetic
radiation on the particles of two facing objects drives the objects
toward each other.
 Scientists know (1) the Moon is locked in orbit with it's more massive
side pointed away from the Earth, (2) the Moon is slowly moving away
from the center of the Earth, (3) the rotation of the Earth about its
North-South axis is slowing down, and (4) the actual "tide action" not
fully understood, requiring that "Tide Tables" be continually updated.
The traditional PULL of Gravity Theory does not have completely
acceptable answers to why these four measured actions occur.  The
"dumbbell" and "Tidal Force" theories are postulated but many scientists
agree the theories are not convincing.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything predicts these four natural events as
follows:
 (1) The massive end of an object in orbit automatically attempts to
point into the income particles from space and the object locks in
orbit, like a dart.
 (2) The action of both Lunar and Solar eclipses PUSH the Earth and Moon
apart.
 (3) The mass of the particles from space, which are absorbed by the
Earth, increases the combined mass of the Earth.  By Newton's laws of
motion, this slows the rotation of the Earth down.
 (4) Water of lakes, seas and oceans, up swell into the center of the
"Matter shadows", of the Earth and the Moon, as they slowly move across
the bodies of water.  The areas opposite the "Matter shadows" receive
the full flux of incoming particles from space.  The traditional PULL of
Gravity mechanics and mathematics give different answers for the "Tidal
force".
  The OCTM Theory of Everything gives Newton's Universal Equation of
Gravity, adjusted for traveling at the speed of light.  The force of
gravity causes moons to orbit their planets and planets to orbit the Sun
at radii that are 3/2ths power of their distances from their mutual
centers.
 At any given point in orbit, the equal areas of the two circular
Moon-Earth "matter shadows" are a function of the square of the radius
of the Moon or Earth and the distance between the centers of the Moon
and Earth.  At the same point, the masses of the Earth and Moon are a
function of the cube of their radii.  The radii of the Moon and Earth
can be expressed as a function of the distance between their mutual
centers.  Mathematically the equation for the net balance of kinetic
energy force of gravity can be expressed as a function of the masses
being accelerated toward each other, divided by the area of their mutual
"matter shadows".  In other words, the force of gravity can be expressed
as a function of the cubes of the radii of the Moon and Earth (masses),
divided by a function of the square of the radius of either the Moon or
Earth (area of mutual "matter shadows").  This net balance of kinetic
energy force of gravity travels at the speed of the incoming particles
of matter from space, (speed of light).  The radius of the mutual
"matter shadows" can be expressed as a function of the square of the
distance between their mutual centers.  Therefore the OCTM Theory of
Everything predicts the force of gravity travels at the speed of light,
and can be expressed "as the 3/2ths power of the distances" between the
centers of the Earth and the Moon.
 The masses of the Moon and Earth are essentially constant during an
orbit.  The net kinetic energy force of matter from space, per square
centimeter, hitting the areas opposite their mutual "matter shadows" is
essentially constant during an orbit.  The areas opposite their mutual
"matter shadows" change just like their mutual "matter shadows" change,
depending on the point in orbit and the distance between their mutual
centers.  At any point in orbit, the Earth and Moon automatically move
into a dynamic net kinetic energy force balance, where the areas
receiving net kinetic energy force are just the right size to provide
the necessary net kinetic energy force to accelerate the Moon mass and
Earth mass toward each other to maintain their mutual orbits.
 The tangential speeds of the Moon and Earth in their orbits are not
substantially changed due to the action of the net balance of kinetic
energy force acting on their mutual "matter shadows".  When the distance
between their mutual centers increases as it does during an orbit, the
net balance of kinetic energy force decreases.  When the distance
between their mutual centers decreases as it does in orbit, the net
balance of kinetic energy force increases.  The greater distance between
their mutual centers, increases the time, the net balance of kinetic
energy force acts during a given arc of an orbit.  The smaller distance
between their mutual centers, decreases the time, the net balance of
kinetic energy force acts during a given arc of an orbit.  The
Earth-Moon orbit is a delicate balancing act of the area the net kinetic
energy force is acting on and the time this net kinetic energy force is
acting during a given arc of the orbit.
 Mathematically, according to the OCTM Theory of Everything, two
spherical masses of matter orbiting each other, are accelerated toward
each other with a net kinetic energy force of gravity proportional to
their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
between them, where the net kinetic energy force of gravity travels at
the speed of particles of matter from space, (speed of light).
 The far side of the Moon points away from the center of the Earth.
Based on certain measurements over the past two hundred years, most
Scientists agree the center of the Moon has, on balance, moved away from
the center of the Earth.
 Mathematically, except during eclipses, the traditional attractive
force of gravity theory and the balance of net kinetic energy force of
gravity of the OCTM Theory of Everything give almost the same results.
Without eclipses, both predict the Moon will move closer to the Earth
over a long period of time, just as a satellite's orbit slowly decays
and falls into the atmosphere.  However, when eclipses are factored in,
the OCTM theory predicts that on balance the masses of the Moon will
move away from the Earth, as has been demonstrated through experimental
observation.
 The net kinetic energy force of gravity of the OCTM Theory of
Everything explains mathematically how the Moon's most massive side can
remain locked in orbit essentially pointing away from the center of the
Earth, and how the Moon can very slowly move away from the Earth, when
eclipses are involved.
 When a Solar eclipse occurs, the normal "net kinetic energy Sun matter
shadow" on the Earth is partially blocked by the "net kinetic energy
Moon matter shadow" on the Earth.  When this occurs, more total net
kinetic energy force from space is pushing on the Earth from the
direction of the Sun and Moon.  As long as this Solar eclipse continues,
this additional net kinetic energy force pushes the Earth away from the
Sun and Moon more than would have been the case if the Solar eclipse had
not occurred.
 When a Lunar eclipse occurs, the normal "net kinetic energy Sun matter
shadow" on the Moon is partially blocked by the "net kinetic energy
Earth matter shadow" on the Moon.  When this occurs, more total net
kinetic energy force from space is pushing on the Moon from the
direction of the Sun and Earth.  As long as this Lunar eclipse
continues, this additional net kinetic energy force pushes the Moon away
from the Sun and Earth more than would have been the case if the Lunar
eclipse had not occurred.
 During both Solar and Lunar eclipses the distance between the Earth and
the Moon is being increased by a slight amount.  As predicted by the
OCTM Theory of Everything, by actual measurements over the past 200
hundred years, the center of the Moon has slowly moved away from the
center of the Earth.
 The Moon is currently locked in orbit with it's "far side" always
essentially pointing away from Earth.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory
of Everything, the Moon is locked in orbit with it's more massive side
essentially pointing away from the center of the Earth.
 The Earth rate of rotation about its North-South axis is very slowly
decreasing.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory of Everything, the Earth is
absorbing some of the particles from space and gradually increasing its
total combined Mass.  By Newton's laws of motion, the Earth's rate of
rotation must slow down when its mass is increased by the absorption of
the particles of matter from space in the balanced net kinetic energy
force of the PUSH of Gravity.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything brings the force of gravity into
agreement with Einstein's famous Energy/Mass equation.  The OCTM Theory
of Everything is in agreement with the experimental results of presently
known experiments on solids, liquids, gases, light and the other
electromagnetic spectrum particles of matter.  The simplicity of the
OCTM Theory of Everything is elegant.
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com
Maurice E. Mitchell, Retired Independent Businessman
MSME (Heat Transfer) UC Berkeley
10306 Cogswell Ave.,
Las Vegas, NV 89134
(702)243-6837
FAX (702)243-9135
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com

phs503e@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au wrote:
> It's knows that the Moon is moving *away* from the Earth (few
> centimeters
> a year I think) due to energy lost from tidal friction with the Earth.
>
> But on the other hand a satellite comes *down* when it loses energy
> due to
> friction with the atmosphere. Why the difference?
The PUSH of Gravity predicts the Moon moves away from the Earth during
both solar and lunar eclipses.
Do you, or your associates, know of a physical observation to
prove Gravity is not a PUSH?  Please help us.  Over the past
fifteen years, we have found more than five dozen physical
observations, indicating we need to modify our standard theories
of matter, light and gravity slightly to fit known physical
observations
                            Abstract
The Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM) Theory
of Everything is as simple and elegant as its name.
By definition, there is a smallest positively charged
basic Monopole of matter and a smallest negatively
charged basic Monopole of matter.  These basic Monopoles
of matter, are twins with opposite charges.  In the
beginning, the cosmos was filled with these equal and
oppositely charged basic Monopoles of matter.
The two basic Monopoles combine, forming larger
groupings of particles of matter in the shape of
ellipsoids of influence.  These ellipsoids of influence,
automatically assume common crystal latticework
structures of ellipsoids of influence as taught in US
PTO document 'Educational Device and Method' at
.
Electromagnetic spectrum waves are very regular helical
like spirals of twinned domains of these ellipsoids of
influence.  To obtain the relative speed of an
electromagnetic wave, the relative speed of the emitting
surface or reflecting surface must be added to or
subtracted from the speed of the electromagnetic wave.
On Earth, the known force of gravity is the net kinetic
energy differential of incoming basic Monopoles of
matter interacting with your and my basic Monopoles,
impelling our basic Monopoles into the matter shadow of
the basic Monopoles of the Earth as taught in US PTO
document at .
        Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM)
                             Theory of Everything
                                       Main Text
 In the Simple Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole (OCTM) Theory of
Everything, Newton's three laws of motion, Coulomb's law of charges, and
Einstein's Energy/Mass equation are true.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything postulates there is a smallest basic
'plus' particle of matter and a smallest basic 'minus' particle of
matter, each being a Monopole of influence and a twin of the other.  All
larger particles of matter are postulated to comprise these two basic
particles.
 Any defined volume of space is postulated to be completely void of
matter or contain one or more of the smallest basic particles of matter.
 Initially, in deep space two basic Monopoles, being of opposite or like
charge, attract and/or repel each other according to Coulomb's law of
charges.  When two oppositely charged basic Monopoles are close enough
to each other, so their fields of influence, according to Coulomb's law
of charges, are strong enough to overcome their relative net vector
linear momentum's, according to Newton's three laws of motion, the two
basic particles link forming the smallest postulated basic dipole of
matter.
 When two oppositely charged Monopoles of matter attract each other as
above, they travel pursuit courses toward each other at an accelerating
relative velocity.  Occasionally, their initial pursuit courses are on
perfectly centered straight lines resulting in a perfect, direct,
head-on collision.  Such a perfect, direct, head-on collision results in
an enormous release of kinetic energy, raising the temperature of the
particles to the temperature range of some of the particles of matter in
the corona of the Sun.
 Most of the particles of matter, attracting each other as above, have
initial relative net vector momentum paths that are not on perfect,
direct, head-on collision paths.  Their courses are paired, curved,
pursuit courses.  By Newton's three laws of motion and Coulomb's law of
charges, these paired, pursuit courses effectively change most of the
initial relative net vector linear momentum of the particles into
angular momentum of rotation, of the particles of matter.
 If the above dipole is rotating slowly enough for Newton's laws of
motion to overcome Coulomb's law of charges, it becomes a stable
arrangement of particles of matter.  When this dipole is viewed from the
outside, in the plane of rotation, the "plus" and "minus" hemispheres of
charge are alternating so rapidly, the dipole of matter "seems" to have
no charge when observed in current bubble chambers.
 The smallest stable rotating tetrahedron of four particles is formed
from two basic dipoles.
 The smallest stable rotating octahedron of six basic particles is
formed either from three basic dipoles of matter, or from four basic
particles of matter of one charge and two basic particles of matter of
opposite charge.
 The dipoles of matter form into tetrahedrons, and octahedrons, or
larger combinations, that arrange themselves into helical-like spirals
of twinned domains, as taught in US PTO document 'Educational Device and
Method' at , when they are emitted from
larger groupings of particles of matter.
 These smallest arrangements of basic particles of matter continue to
build into larger arrangements of basic particles, essentially
maintaining the one "minus" particle for each "plus" particle with a few
odd "plus" or "minus" particles in the outer layers of the particles of
matter until a sufficiently large number of particles have combined to
form the hydrogen atom and isotopes of hydrogen.  As taught by the OCTM
Theory of Everything, deep space is filled with hydrogen and isotopes of
hydrogen.  All elements can be formed from the particles of matter in
hydrogen.
 Dr. Louis A. Frank's fluffy hundred ton snowballs hitting the upper
atmosphere at the rate of more than forty thousand per day is an example
of this.  See
.
 The combinations of particles of matter form crystals, solids, liquids,
gases and the very regular helical like spirals of particles of matter
in electromagnetic spectrum waves, including light.
  In the OCTM Theory of Everything the speed of electromagnetic spectrum
of particles of matter, is a function of the escape velocity necessary
for basic Monopoles of matter, according to Newton's laws of motion, to
overcome Coulomb's law of attraction.  The relative speed of the
emitting surface must be added to or subtracted from the escape velocity
of the emitted spiral rays of matter.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory
of Everything, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment on the speed of
light gives a null result in all directions.  A different interpretation
of the measurements of this famous experiment has caused unnecessary
modification of some great theories of Newton and other scientists.
 In the OCTM Theory of Everything, neutrinos, which seem to have no
charge, are rapidly rotating particles of matter containing equal
numbers of oppositely charged basic Monopoles of matter.  The diameter
of the "hard mass center" of the Monopoles is very small in relation to
the average distance between the "hard mass centers" of the twelve or so
closest Monopoles that touch the center Monopole in the crust of the
Earth.  The average distance between "hard mass centers" of Monopoles
has been estimated to be as much as 30,000 to 90,000 the "hard mass
center" diameter.  The diameters of the "hard mass centers" of neutrinos
are so small, if only one was passing through the earth by itself at one
time, the probability of it hitting another particle of matter in the
earth has been estimated to be between one chance in 10.0E10 and one
chance in 10.0E27.
 However, by some estimates there are about 10.0E23 neutrinos coming in
from space each second for each square centimeter of the area of the
atmosphere of the Earth.  In the OCTM Theory of Everything, the increase
in atmospheric pressure as one approaches sea level is the direct result
of the net balance of the kinetic energy force of particles from space,
acting on the particles of matter in the atmosphere.  The increase in
temperature as one goes down into the Earth is the direct result of the
kinetic energy force of particles of matter from space, acting on the
particles of matter in the Earth.  As one goes down into the Earth, the
rate of temperature increase is about the same until around 12,000
meters.  At about 12,000 meters, the rate of temperature increase begins
to increase at a faster rate than before.  The "cascade effect" of
particle collisions begins to be evident.
 The "cascade effect" is where an incoming particle of matter, traveling
at about the speed of light, hits a particle of matter in the Earth and
then two or more particles of matter travel from the collision in
different directions.  These particles of matter on average, are
traveling at less than half the speed of light, and are more likely to
hit other particles of matter in the Earth.  When these particles of
matter traveling at less than half speed, hit other particles of matter,
there are more than four particles of matter traveling at less than one
fourth speed going in many random directions.  When these particles of
matter traveling at less than one fourth speed hit other particles of
matter, there are more than eight particles of matter traveling on
average less than one-eighth speed going in even more random directions.
 Soon this "cascade effect" causes more incoming particles to combine
with Earth particles, causing the Earth to expand from its center at an
ever increasing rate.  This is shown at
.
 Our Ocean floors are only two hundred million years old or less.  Our
Oceans are spreading apart and have middle trenches that are also
becoming longer as demonstrated by their many cross rifts.  This is
shown at .
 A small amount of the total original net kinetic energy force
accelerates the Earth-Moon system into the "matter shadow" of the Sun,
or into their mutual "matter shadows".
 In the OCTM Theory of Everything the force of gravity is the net
balance of kinetic energy force of all particles of matter from space,
driving two or more groupings of particles of matter into each other's
mutual "matter shadows".  The net imbalance of the electromagnetic
radiation on the particles of two facing objects drives the objects
toward each other.
 Scientists know (1) the Moon is locked in orbit with it's more massive
side pointed away from the Earth, (2) the Moon is slowly moving away
from the center of the Earth, (3) the rotation of the Earth about its
North-South axis is slowing down, and (4) the actual "tide action" not
fully understood, requiring that "Tide Tables" be continually updated.
The traditional PULL of Gravity Theory does not have completely
acceptable answers to why these four measured actions occur.  The
"dumbbell" and "Tidal Force" theories are postulated but many scientists
agree the theories are not convincing.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything predicts these four natural events as
follows:
 (1) The massive end of an object in orbit automatically attempts to
point into the income particles from space and the object locks in
orbit, like a dart.
 (2) The action of both Lunar and Solar eclipses PUSH the Earth and Moon
apart.
 (3) The mass of the particles from space, which are absorbed by the
Earth, increases the combined mass of the Earth.  By Newton's laws of
motion, this slows the rotation of the Earth down.
 (4) Water of lakes, seas and oceans, up swell into the center of the
"Matter shadows", of the Earth and the Moon, as they slowly move across
the bodies of water.  The areas opposite the "Matter shadows" receive
the full flux of incoming particles from space.  The traditional PULL of
Gravity mechanics and mathematics give different answers for the "Tidal
force".
  The OCTM Theory of Everything gives Newton's Universal Equation of
Gravity, adjusted for traveling at the speed of light.  The force of
gravity causes moons to orbit their planets and planets to orbit the Sun
at radii that are 3/2ths power of their distances from their mutual
centers.
 At any given point in orbit, the equal areas of the two circular
Moon-Earth "matter shadows" are a function of the square of the radius
of the Moon or Earth and the distance between the centers of the Moon
and Earth.  At the same point, the masses of the Earth and Moon are a
function of the cube of their radii.  The radii of the Moon and Earth
can be expressed as a function of the distance between their mutual
centers.  Mathematically the equation for the net balance of kinetic
energy force of gravity can be expressed as a function of the masses
being accelerated toward each other, divided by the area of their mutual
"matter shadows".  In other words, the force of gravity can be expressed
as a function of the cubes of the radii of the Moon and Earth (masses),
divided by a function of the square of the radius of either the Moon or
Earth (area of mutual "matter shadows").  This net balance of kinetic
energy force of gravity travels at the speed of the incoming particles
of matter from space, (speed of light).  The radius of the mutual
"matter shadows" can be expressed as a function of the square of the
distance between their mutual centers.  Therefore the OCTM Theory of
Everything predicts the force of gravity travels at the speed of light,
and can be expressed "as the 3/2ths power of the distances" between the
centers of the Earth and the Moon.
 The masses of the Moon and Earth are essentially constant during an
orbit.  The net kinetic energy force of matter from space, per square
centimeter, hitting the areas opposite their mutual "matter shadows" is
essentially constant during an orbit.  The areas opposite their mutual
"matter shadows" change just like their mutual "matter shadows" change,
depending on the point in orbit and the distance between their mutual
centers.  At any point in orbit, the Earth and Moon automatically move
into a dynamic net kinetic energy force balance, where the areas
receiving net kinetic energy force are just the right size to provide
the necessary net kinetic energy force to accelerate the Moon mass and
Earth mass toward each other to maintain their mutual orbits.
 The tangential speeds of the Moon and Earth in their orbits are not
substantially changed due to the action of the net balance of kinetic
energy force acting on their mutual "matter shadows".  When the distance
between their mutual centers increases as it does during an orbit, the
net balance of kinetic energy force decreases.  When the distance
between their mutual centers decreases as it does in orbit, the net
balance of kinetic energy force increases.  The greater distance between
their mutual centers, increases the time, the net balance of kinetic
energy force acts during a given arc of an orbit.  The smaller distance
between their mutual centers, decreases the time, the net balance of
kinetic energy force acts during a given arc of an orbit.  The
Earth-Moon orbit is a delicate balancing act of the area the net kinetic
energy force is acting on and the time this net kinetic energy force is
acting during a given arc of the orbit.
 Mathematically, according to the OCTM Theory of Everything, two
spherical masses of matter orbiting each other, are accelerated toward
each other with a net kinetic energy force of gravity proportional to
their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
between them, where the net kinetic energy force of gravity travels at
the speed of particles of matter from space, (speed of light).
 The far side of the Moon points away from the center of the Earth.
Based on certain measurements over the past two hundred years, most
Scientists agree the center of the Moon has, on balance, moved away from
the center of the Earth.
 Mathematically, except during eclipses, the traditional attractive
force of gravity theory and the balance of net kinetic energy force of
gravity of the OCTM Theory of Everything give almost the same results.
Without eclipses, both predict the Moon will move closer to the Earth
over a long period of time, just as a satellite's orbit slowly decays
and falls into the atmosphere.  However, when eclipses are factored in,
the OCTM theory predicts that on balance the masses of the Moon will
move away from the Earth, as has been demonstrated through experimental
observation.
 The net kinetic energy force of gravity of the OCTM Theory of
Everything explains mathematically how the Moon's most massive side can
remain locked in orbit essentially pointing away from the center of the
Earth, and how the Moon can very slowly move away from the Earth, when
eclipses are involved.
 When a Solar eclipse occurs, the normal "net kinetic energy Sun matter
shadow" on the Earth is partially blocked by the "net kinetic energy
Moon matter shadow" on the Earth.  When this occurs, more total net
kinetic energy force from space is pushing on the Earth from the
direction of the Sun and Moon.  As long as this Solar eclipse continues,
this additional net kinetic energy force pushes the Earth away from the
Sun and Moon more than would have been the case if the Solar eclipse had
not occurred.
 When a Lunar eclipse occurs, the normal "net kinetic energy Sun matter
shadow" on the Moon is partially blocked by the "net kinetic energy
Earth matter shadow" on the Moon.  When this occurs, more total net
kinetic energy force from space is pushing on the Moon from the
direction of the Sun and Earth.  As long as this Lunar eclipse
continues, this additional net kinetic energy force pushes the Moon away
from the Sun and Earth more than would have been the case if the Lunar
eclipse had not occurred.
 During both Solar and Lunar eclipses the distance between the Earth and
the Moon is being increased by a slight amount.  As predicted by the
OCTM Theory of Everything, by actual measurements over the past 200
hundred years, the center of the Moon has slowly moved away from the
center of the Earth.
 The Moon is currently locked in orbit with it's "far side" always
essentially pointing away from Earth.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory
of Everything, the Moon is locked in orbit with it's more massive side
essentially pointing away from the center of the Earth.
 The Earth rate of rotation about its North-South axis is very slowly
decreasing.  As predicted by the OCTM Theory of Everything, the Earth is
absorbing some of the particles from space and gradually increasing its
total combined Mass.  By Newton's laws of motion, the Earth's rate of
rotation must slow down when its mass is increased by the absorption of
the particles of matter from space in the balanced net kinetic energy
force of the PUSH of Gravity.
 The OCTM Theory of Everything brings the force of gravity into
agreement with Einstein's famous Energy/Mass equation.  The OCTM Theory
of Everything is in agreement with the experimental results of presently
known experiments on solids, liquids, gases, light and the other
electromagnetic spectrum particles of matter.  The simplicity of the
OCTM Theory of Everything is elegant.
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com
Maurice E. Mitchell, Retired Independent Businessman
MSME (Heat Transfer) UC Berkeley
10306 Cogswell Ave.,
Las Vegas, NV 89134
(702)243-6837
FAX (702)243-9135
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com
--
Mitch
mitch1@accessnv.com
mitchbicpu.com

On 26 Jun 1997 02:22:01 GMT, hntrros@aol.com (HntrRos) wrote:
>Peter Ceresole (peter@cara.demon.co.uk) writes:
>
>:It would be easy to say that the non-liberal political right were a bunch
>
>:of brutal, ignorant, shortsighted know-nothings who turn the earth into a
>
>:cess pit for everybody, because it's true.
>
>Poppycock.
>
>It would be even easier to say that England's political left is really
>composed
>of a bunch of crack-headed Socialist ninnies with incompetent plans for
>re-wrecking their nation's economy and turning Britain into an unabashed
>welfare state like the rest of sorry Europe's rump. 
and it would actually be true.
But thankfully we elected the Labour Party and Paddy Ashdown is still
out of it.
Simon

In article ,   wrote:
)Okay, this is the weirdest thing I've read in a while.
)
)The way I've always understood it, when something is expressed as being
)of so many units, the term "unit" is defined to express that it really
)doesn't matter whether you mean inches, kg-m^2/s^2 (momentum), or (a,b).
)
)Draw a circle of any size in any space you want, take the distance from
)the center to be 1 unit in length, then area of that circle is pi*r^2
)square units (1 square unit being defined as it normally is: the area of
)a square having sides of length 1 unit [which was defined above])
)
)-- 
)Glenn Lamb - drofmum@mocten.moc, Email address reversed to munge
)spam email scanners.  Reverse before mailing.
)Finger that address for my PGP Key.
)PGPprint = E3 0F DE CC 94 72 D1 1A  2D 2E A9 08 6B A0 CD 82
You think like a physicist. When you say "draw a circle in any space
you want, take the distance..." you don't understand that there are
mathematical spaces in which the very concept of distance does not and
cannot have meaning, they being non-metrizable spaces. Until you can
divorce the concept of "circle" from "geometry", you do not think like
a mathematician. Topologically, a circle is simply the image of the
line segment [0,1] such that f(0) = f(1) and such that x <> y -> f(x)
!= f(y) for all other points. If one needs metrical properties, then
one introduces a function
	f(x,y)
mapping pairs of points into the Real Numbers. Note that "distance" is
just a Real Number. No unit implied. Likewise area is simply an
integral, or another Real Number. You might also study Measure Theory a
little bit.
Mike
-- 
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I don't speak for DSC.         <- They make me say that.

> >response to edward green's post on elastic constants :
> >
> That is really fascinating.   What I really thought is that an
> editorial error had substituted 'ideal isotropic solid' for 'ideal
> _incompressible_ solid' in Dieter (I thought that would be n = .5,  but
> that maybe some oolie over engineering vs. tensorial strains could
> resolve this factor of two);  but I see something much more interesting
> was at work:  Textbook conservatism.  So Dieter (original publication
> date 1961) was simply repeating some erroneous or at least dubious bit
> of information without comment (and without seeming to notice the
> apparent contradiction of following on a section that implied there
> were two independent constants), that should have been cleared up 40
> years earlier.  In 1976 (2nd ed) this error was apparently simply
> copied over again without comment.  Black mark for McGraw-Hill.
> 
> I am unclear from your comment;  _assuming_ central forces only,  then
> I infer the result would be correct,  and that we therefore have
> evidence for non-central (or at least non-pairwise-separable)
> interatomic forces in solids?
> 
> Thanks for the interesting comments.
> 
> Please cc any reply,  I may never see it otherwise.
Central force fields would be classically pure electrostatic (or 
gravitational) for example.  You can argue "ionic interaction".  Non 
central force fields would be covalent bonds which have both length and 
angular rigidity.  Examples are diamond and graphite - both pure carbon 
forms.  Most of the organic tissues of your body and trees and the food 
you eat have directional force fields - covalent bonding.  Simple metals 
are really not so simple because the cohesive bonding in metals is not 
simple ionic or covalent.  Here, quantum mechanics is sticking it's 
effects into a classical Newtonian (Hooke was one of Newtons greatest 
enemies) discussions.  There really are places where that atom stuff 
works.

Alexander Abian wrote:
>  That in real life
>  everything is true or false and not both  is the essence of
>  existence and consistency!! I am for overthrowing almost every
>  main-stream  brain-washings and indoctrinations  BUT TO OVERTHROW
>  THE TWO VALUED LOGIC IS TO OVERTHROW THE EXISTENCE ITSELF !
>  IS TO ANNIHILATE EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING!!!! (except perhaps the
>  annihilation itself!)
Oh Bull!That is purely a statement of FAITH! How do you know the nature
of EXISTENCE ITSELF?
You're imposing an axiom from a mentally constructed logical system
(albeit a very useful one) onto reality. How is this different from the
guy who insists that reality is all a dream and we'll all go poof if he
wakes up?

On 24 Jun 1997, Alexander Abian wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> In article <33AF0F0D.1825C733@chelmsford.com>,
> Andrew   wrote:
> >Snowmit wrote:
> >
> 
> >     
> >I have heard of "Fuzzy" Logic, in which there are layers of truth.  You
> >rate a statements truth on a value from 0 to 1.  0 being false and 1
> >being true.  In the case of the card you would say it is .5 true. (or .5
> >false)
> >
> 
> Abian answers:
> 
>    No matter WHAT MULTIVALUED LOGIC you consider, say, Fuzzy logic,
>   
>   and if in that Logic the value of a statement  P  is, say, 0.37
>   (with 0 being False and 1 being  True of that Logic)
> 
>   STILL, in real life  IT IS TRUE OR FALSE AND NOT BOTH that the
AND NOT NEITHER :-)
>   values of  P  in that Logic is 0.37!! That in real life 
>  everything is true or false and not both  is the essence of
>  existence and consistency!! I am for overthrowing almost every
>  main-stream  brain-washings and indoctrinations  BUT TO OVERTHROW
>  THE TWO VALUED LOGIC IS TO OVERTHROW THE EXISTENCE ITSELF !
I think it's not sensible to state that anything breaks down to two valued
logic. You might as well state that anything breaks down to something on a
gradual scale from weak to strong. Any logical statement can be placed on
such a scale of logical strength with True and False being the weakest,
resp. strongest possible statement.
All of these possible scales can be seen in the triange of Pascal that
contains binomial coefficients. The two valued case is just one of those
scales.
							regards, Niek
>  IS TO ANNIHILATE EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING!!!! (except perhaps the 
>  annihilation itself!)> 
> -- 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA  m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
>        ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS  AND EPIDEMICS
>        ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT  
>                      TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
> 
> 
> 
> 

In article <33B3F955.649FF169@nosc.mil>, trischma@nosc.mil says...
>
>Alexander Abian wrote:
>
>>  That in real life
>>  everything is true or false and not both  is the essence of
>>  existence and consistency!! I am for overthrowing almost every
>>  main-stream  brain-washings and indoctrinations  BUT TO OVERTHROW
>>  THE TWO VALUED LOGIC IS TO OVERTHROW THE EXISTENCE ITSELF !
>>  IS TO ANNIHILATE EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING!!!! (except perhaps the
>>  annihilation itself!)
>
>Oh Bull!That is purely a statement of FAITH! How do you know the 
nature
>of EXISTENCE ITSELF?
>You're imposing an axiom from a mentally constructed logical system
>(albeit a very useful one) onto reality. How is this different from 
the
>guy who insists that reality is all a dream and we'll all go poof if 
he
>wakes up?
>
>
>
very good: why did you not enclose the concept of the quantum cat.there 
is no "none paradoxical language."  If it were to be created, the 
users would kill each other because they didn't like what every on said 
about them.
Harold
sound out  Gilbert Gosaine  thank you A E Van Vogt

The_Sage  wrote in article <33af0d72.2363168@news.psn.net>...
> >Andreas Koslowski  wrote:
> 
> >> No, what I have been saying is that ENERGY IS MASS and the ratio
> 
> >You are lying, sucker. You said: "energy=mass"
> 
> And you are a stupid sucker. Energy is mass can also be stated as
> energy=mass. So you are saying that energy is not mass? What is
> energy then and why can it transform into mass and back again?

Isn't it a bit silly that this is still being argued over?  I think the
confusion is that energy=mass (e=m) is a mathamatical equation while
"energy is equal to mass" is a statement in english.
Mathamatically e=m is wrong, try e=mc^2.
Gramatically e=m is wrong, try "energy equals mass".
Does that help?  Can we stop trading insults now?
*  *  *  *  *
Shane Hitching
Shane@XX.Demon.co.uk - replace XX with GAMyNet
www.GAMyNet.Demon.co.uk

I have a statics problem that I have posted on a web page. If anybody would
be interested in giving me a start on it I would appreciate it much. Please
private e-mail unless you feel the group would be interested.
http://www.getnet.com/~mgcon/physics
TIA
Mike
mgcon@getnet.com

Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> 
> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
> : 4)  There never was any treaty against the development of rockets and
> : missiles thus von Braun couldn't be declared war criminal on these
> : grounds.
> 
> Not on those, but perhaps on the grounds of having built and supervised
> a factory which destroyed the slave workers which von Braun himself was
> active in procuring from the death camps.  Sad, but true.
Excuse me, I just jumped onto this thread. Since
when did von Braun build and supervise a factory
KZ? There seems to be a serious confusion about
who was responsible for what during WWII.
Are we going to have some kind of posthum debatte,
where every claim that he wasn't really involved
in this is declared as conspiracy in the wake
of operation paperclip?
> I admire his efforts to get manned rocketry going in the US in the
> 1950s, but that does not at all excuse what he was and what he did
> during the Nazi regime.
You may find the circumstances under which he con-
tinued (not chose) to work questionable, but what
he did before, during and after the Nazi regime was
developing and building rockets. And no, I am not
denying that modern scientists and engineers have
a moral duty, but the very same applies, perhaps to
a much higher degree, to people like Oppenheimer,
et al.
Now I go back to continue reading my copy of "The
rocket and the Reich", which I think sticks more
to the historical "truth". Let's see.
	George
-- 
Exchange @ and the first . to mail me. Sp*mbots, this
is for you: webmaster@localhost
            abuse@localhost
            postmaster@localhost
            postmaster@fbi.gov
------------------------------------------------------
Pack hunting may be a bit much to ask of T.Rex, but by
most accounts their likely prey animals weren't rocket
scientists either, or even lawyers.  -Robert Gotschall

Snorty Dog wrote:
> 
>  If you could anwer this question it would greatly add to my prestige, and
> I could gain one on a guy who thinks he knows EVERYTHING.
> 
> I f a gun is level and fires a bullet and I drop the same type of bullet
> at the exact time the gun is fired both bullets will strike the earth at
> the same time.
> 
> I say that the mass of the bullet is neglible whether shot or dropped and
> its attraction to the center of the earth is equal.  Will both bullets hit
> the ground at the same
> time ?
In the absence of air resistance, given a flat Earth, and without the yaw of 
repose: both bullets hit at the same time.  Horizontal and vertical motion are 
independent in theory.
HOWEVER, the bullet is spinning which can give it lift in air, and the Earth is 
curved (which means that a bullet launched tangent to its surface will have 
farther to fall when it travels).  Note that a rile bullet can travel nearly two  
miles.  It also makes a difference whether you launch the bullet with or against 
the Earth's rotation (Special Relativity and frame-dragging, if nothing else).
Bottom line - they hit at pretty much the same instant unless you really force 
the case.  At the fine edge of things, the dropped bullet hits first.
Now you can debate the meaning of "simultaneity" in time-like and space-like 
events.  Two incidents separated in time and space are not necessarily strictly 
ordered.  {8^>)
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
I'm Glad I'm A Man
I'm glad I'm a man, you better believe.
I don't live off of yogurt, diet coke, or cottage cheese
I don't bitch to my girlfriends about the size of my breasts
I can get where I want to - north, south, east or west
I don't get wasted after only 2 beers
and when I do drink I don't end up in tears.
I won't spend hours deciding what to wear,
I spend 5 minutes max fixing my hair
and I don't go around checking my reflection
in everything shiny from every direction.
I don't whine in public and make us leave early
and when you ask why get all bitter and surly.
I'm glad I'm a man, I'm so glad I could sing
I don't have to sit around waiting for that ring.
I don't gossip about friends or stab them in the back
I don't carry our differences into the sack.
I'll never go psycho and threaten to kill you
or think every guy out there's trying to steal you.
I'm rational, reasonable, and logical too
I know what the time is and I know what to do.
And I honestly think its a privilege for me
to have these two balls and stand when I pee
I live to watch sports and play all sorts of ball
It's more fun than dealing with women after all
I won't cry if you figure out it's not going to work
I won't remain bitter and call you a jerk.
Feel free to use me for immediate pleasure
I won't assume it's permanent by any measure.
Yes, I'm glad I'm a man, a man you see
I'm glad I'm not capable of child delivery
I don't get all bitchy every 28 days
I'm glad that my gender gets me a much bigger raise
I'm a man by chance and I'm thankful it's true
I'm so glad I'm a man and not a woman like you!

In article  Thorsten Ohl  writes:
>From: Thorsten Ohl 
>Subject: Re: Antineutrons
>Date: 26 Jun 1997 20:58:51 +0200
>lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>> Josh, it is my belief, based on the vector models that give me a sturcture
>              ^^^^^^^^^
>> for the neutrinos, that the neutrino does not spin.
>Since this is matter of Lockyer's religious beliefs, can't we move
>this thread from sci.physics* to alt.religion.lockyer or some similar
>group?  Since Lockyer's model contradicts the vast majority of the
>scattering data gathered in the last 50 years, it is WRONG and he
>should either come up with a fixed model or shut up ...
Thorsten, I know that my ideas are painfull for you, and I am sorry.  I don't 
enjoy controversy.  You must understand that these models put themselves 
together directly from a Poynting vector representation of the photon.  The 
model is the only model I have seen that gives structures to the electron 
*and* positron.  The muon type neutrino *and* it's antiparticle.  And the 
electron type neutrino shows as a Majorana type as it's own anti particle.
Now if the model stopped there, I might think it was just coincidental, but 
the model goes on to model the proton, neutron and muon.  The model relates 
the several fundamental physical constant in the same precision that they are 
known.  The geometry is at least the geometry that nature uses.
Please don't through the baby out with the wash.
>[The psychology is eerily similar to people who `believe' that faster
>than light travel must be possible because their favorite TV shows is
>based on that premise ...]
>-- 
>/// Thorsten Ohl, TH Darmstadt, Schlossgartenstr. 9, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
>//////////////// net: ohl@crunch.ikp.physik.th-darmstadt.de, ohl@gnu.ai.mit.edu
>/// voice: +49-6151-16-3116, secretary: +49-6151-16-2072, fax: +49-6151-16-2421
regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, grossep wrote:
> Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
> > 
> > Doen't it seem strange to you that the neutrino is the only particle that is
> > assigned a spin of one half that does not have a mass and a magnetic moment?
> > The model I have been working with clearly shows that a free neutrino does not
> > spin, rather the neutrino only spins when in concert with an electron or
> > positron.   It is the spinning only with the structures of the composite
> > particles that gives the neutrino a mass and charge currents.   Once the
> > neutrino uncouples from the structure, it no longer spins, so it has no charge
> > currents or mass.  End of story.
> > 
> 
> A neutrino is the only particle with spin 1/2 that has no
> electromagnetic charge, so it makes sense it has no electromagnetic
> charge currents.
The neutron has spin 1/2 and no EM-charge.
> 
> Far weirder than that would be that neutrinos would lose there spin when
> far away from other matter.  Think what this means: they transform into
> bosons unless something is around to stop them.  That is FAR WEIRDER
> than them having no mass.
> 
Agreed. Actually it is quite impossible. If you accept that this can
happen, you will have to start all over with the damn standard model.
Spin is a property of the particle and is not influenced by it's
surrounding. If one accepts that in case of the neutrino this is
different, there is no reason why it shouldn't happen with other
particles. 
Dries van Oosten
Eat any good books lately?

Michael Hannon  wrote:
> No explanation, eh, Mr. Johnston? 
> You have no idea what magnetism is.
> No one does. 
> They know how it acts, but just like everyone else, you
> have no knowledge whatsoever of what it really is. Go read the books
> yourself, Mr. Johnston - try to find in them a clear, concise
> explanation of what magnetism actually is, which, if at most is based on
> theory, and you'll get exactly what I'm getting from you - every 
> possible description of what it does and nothing about what it IS.
> 
> YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
Actually, magnetism isn't the half of it. To the extent that you're
looking for, *nobody knows anything at all*.
Try it! No matter what explanation of anything you ever hear, you can
*always* ask "But why is it that way?" and after three or four
iterations (maybe six or seven if the subject is complex), your
explainer will come up blank. You can run back to the Big Bang or down
to the most fundamental physical theories, then you always come up dry--
sometimes it happens long before that. (Sometimes the explainer is
driven into the realm of religion, and expresses shock and disapproval
when you keep asking "Why." But this is not the same thing as an
answer.)
Most children discover this at about age two or three (and use it to
drive their parents crazy). Then they forget it sometime in high school.
The unfortunate thing is that many people seem to believe that
fundamental physics is different from every other field of endeavor,
that at some point a physicist can actually tell you "This is why
everything is the way it is!" They get disappointed when they discover
that this is not the case. But how could it possibly be the case?
-- 
Font-o-Meter!      Proportional  Monospaced
                                      ^
http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/

Tony Blagden wrote:
> 
> I am trying to help my 15 yr old daughter with her home work and I am
> well out of my depth.
> 
> We are trying to describe the elasticity of a material at the molecular
> level. We have not been able to find any suitable reference material.
> 
> Could someone please help with a fairly straight forward explanation of
> the effect that stretching a material has on its molecules.
It depends on the stuff at hand.  Table salt is held together by electrostatic 
attraction (see: Mandelung constant).  Dry Ice is held together by van der Waals 
attaction.  A diamond crystal is one large covalent molecule.  Allied Glas-Met alloys 
are amorphous metals - atoms held together in their electron sea without any long 
range order.  Glass is an amorphous ionic/covalent solid
Then, it gets complicated.  Polyethylene is molecular entanglement and crystallites 
(see:  Spectra and Dyneema gel-oriented polyethylene).  Rubber is a collection of 
springy polymer molecules that don't crystallize attached amongst themselves every now 
and again to pin their relative positions (crosslinking).  Rubbers (Hevea, Kraton 
thermoplastic elastomers, segmented polyurethanes) are entropy engines.  Take a wide 
rubber band and hold it against your lip.  Stretch it taut and touch it to your lip 
again.  Wait a couple of minutes with it stretched, then release the tension over 5 
seconds.  Touch it to your lip again.  /_\G = /_\H - T/_\S
Steel is a compote of many phases dispersed in a complex metal-small atom matrix.
Try news:sci.materials for a more discrete discription.
Or wing it with Hook's Law - everything is held together with molecular potentials 
that look parabolic as a zeroeth order approximation (simple harmonic oscillator), 
otherwise to be conceptualized as "tiny springs."  {8^>)
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article , Luke  wrote:
>I don't think that the Dean Drive violates the principle of conservation of
>momentum, it just bends it at 180 degrees. 
It's just as bad to bend laws of physics as it is to break them.

In article <33B2DF93.1CFB@handel.phys.nwu.edu> Todd Pedlar  writes:
>From: Todd Pedlar 
>Subject: Re: Antineutrons
>Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:30:59 -0500
>Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
> 
>> In vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch) writes:
>> >Thomas N. Lockyer (lockyer@best.com) wrote:
> 
>> >: Anthony, I have to assume that when three things always occur together, i.e.
>> >: spin, rest mass and magnetic moment, that they are all intimately and
>> >: inseparably connected.  That is,  spin, mass and magnetic moment cannot exist
>> >: without the other. 
>> >Now this is a funny line of reasoning.
>> 
>> You are not understanding that the spin angular momentum 
>> stores energy locally and that denotes rest mass.   
>You are apparently not understanding that this statement leads 
>to an impossible conclusion.
>Aside from the fact that at least one massless particle clearly
>has spin (ignoring for the moment the neutrino), there is a
>second contradiction in what you've just said.
>If you hold strictly to what you've said above, a spinless
>object must be massless, since there's nowhere in your model to
>store this mass.  This is not what you want to be saying, is it?
> 
Todd,  I am trying to interpret the vector models as they are presented to me. 
 The vector models, for the first time, show how particles might interact by 
simply adding their vectors together.  It works and gives one the mass and 
magnetic moment of the proton and the neutron's mass and decay products, 
exactly.   The fate of a free neutrino is a  guess.  It certainly is a 
dead structure that cannot move.   Now I know everyone thinks the neutrino 
travels at 'c' but I would ask, how?  We know why the photon travels at 'c' 
from Maxwell's equations.  But the photon takes a exchange between electric 
and magnetic forces and includes wavelengths which result in scatterings, etc. 
to travel at 'c'. 
Current theory is loaded with contridictions and I think current 
theory deserves a critical  look at those failed ideas, they are wrong INHO.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
>     FNAL E835    Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Phone:  (847) 491-8630  (630) 840-8048  Fax: (847) 491-8627
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way --and the 
>fools know it.                          
>                                             Oliver Wendell Holmes
>------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:  http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm

You could burn them in a thermal generating plant

In article <01bc7e82$5ba32cc0$5c19ffcc@MyComputer.warwick.net>,
Debbie S.  wrote:
>I have a very small understanding of physics and have been reading
>"popular" books on the subject.  I would appreciate it if someone could
>explain this to me.
>
>I recall reading that there is a theory that there were other dimensions at
>the time of the Big Bang that "rolled up in a ball" smaller than the Planck
>constant (please forgive me if this is not quite right).
It sounds like you are talking about string theory.  Although 
this particular notion of "other dimensions curled up in a ball"
is much older than string theory, it's the string theorists who
are fondest of it now.
According to this theory, these extra dimensions are still there.
You mean to say "Planck length" rather than "Planck constant".  
The Planck constant has units of length times momentum.   The 
Planck length --- a unit you cook up using the Planck constant --- 
is about 10^{-35} meters.  Very short.
>I would like to know, if such dimensions supposedly exist, "where" do they
>exist.  Where in the universe would something so small "be".  
All over the place!  The idea is that if you started anywhere, and
started walking in one of these extra directions, you'd come around
back to where you were after walking an incredibly short distance,
like about the Planck constant.  
Because that distance is so short, you'd never notice the trip!
So it's not just about what things were like at the time of the
Big Bang, it's about here and now.  Cool, huh?  Of course, it's
only a theory.

In article <5p11fd$jlb@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) writes:
>
>Klaus Kassner   wrote:
>
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>Schroedinger's version is a wave theory. There are alternative
>>formulations
>>of quantum mechanics which hardly can be characterized as wave theories:
>>Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, Feynman's path integral approach.
>
>Well,  aside from a few pesky factors of exp(iHt) in the time
>dependent formalism,  we know of course that this is just an alternate
>formulation of wave representation (except of course where the vector
>space is so simple there _is_ no wave representation,  like spin).  I
>know you know this,  but when the implied argument is "And therefore
>there is nothing intrinsically wave like about QM",  I like to
>counter:  Suppose we represented the time dependent state of a violin
>string as a finite superposition of harmonics with complex phase
>factors.  Does that mean there is nothing essentially wavelike about
>the violin string?  :-)
>
Good point.
>>> The Copenhagen Interpretation says in effect that "the
>>> wave is the particle, period". 
>>
>>Maybe that is the best way to say it in a single sentence. But
>>I think it does not do justice to the complexity of the Copenhagen
>>interpretation.
>
>Some might substitute 'obfuscation'... ;-)
>
>>I believe, that a follower of this interpretation
>>would not deny, e.g., the objective existence of, say, an
>>electron. But he would deny that the wave function of this 
>>electron is objective. Thus the wave function is *not* the particle.
>>It is just the maximum information we can have about it.
>
>That is something a person who identified himself as a follower of the
>Copenhagen interpretation might say,  but I think another equally
>qualified interpreter might say something subtly different,  and a
>third something a little different yet.  In other words,  I'm not sure
>there is some single 'Copenhagen interpretation',  but rather a cluster
>of sort of similar sounding things 'Copenhagenists' might say.
>
I agree.  It is really now different then the business of dividing 
philosophers (or artists, or psychologists or....) into "schools".  We 
know that the "schools" aren't sharp concepts, only rather broad 
characterizations.  I would say that the "common denominator" of 
Copenhagenists is the belief that "there ain't nothing beyond the wave 
function".
>My personal opinion,  only in case anyone is interested,  is that
>usually,  or almost always,  the simple (if subtle) kind of philosophy
>101 groundwork about scientific models has not been laid,  even to
>the extent there exists a common language,  before jumping into the
>quantum philosophical fray.  In short,  we really haven't done our
>homework.  
But of course.  That's the way human knowledge always advances.  First 
we look for something that works.  Then we proceed to develop it.  
Only way later, in our spare time, we start to ask "but why it 
works?":-)
Seriously now, this kind of philosophy hasn't been invented before the 
advent of QM becouse the need for it wasn't apparent (mind you, I'm 
not saying that it wasn't needed, only that it wasn't apparent).    
Look for example at the "three polarizers" thread.  There is some 
sense there that modern physics somewhere along the lines switched the 
rules of the game, that while classical physics dealt with "what 
things are?" modern physics deals with "what things do?".  Now the 
truth is that physics never dealt with anything else but with "what 
things do?"  But, as long as we dealt with objects for which we've had 
a good intuitive feeling, it didn't occur to most people that there is 
any distinction between the two questions.  Some vague premonition 
that maybe it is not that straightforward appeared with the EM theory, 
but it was only with the advent of SR and QM that the issue hit us 
straight in the face.
	... snip ...
> 
>>> Now, these are metaphysical questions, not physical ones.  My tendency
>>> is to employ Occam's Razor and answer "no" to both questions above.
>>> But, as Ed Green used to state, Occam's Razor is double edged.
>
>It seemed appropriate at the time.  :-)
Still is.
Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"