![]() |
Back |
Suzanne, I'm not an atheist, that's why I am not posting into that group. The large problem overlooked is that all experiences, such as those of Joshua, Moses, etc, and ours, must be interpreted. One has a spiritual or "other" experience, and one is likely to interpret it according to one's presuppositions or conditioning. Thus, Joshua probably interpreted his experience in terms the history of the Hebrew belief and encounter with G*d. So do we. I do not say there is no G*d, in fact I believe in G*d very strongly. However, I do recognise that belief is belief and that any experience of G*d or the "other" which I have had is interpreted by me according to my past, education, religious background, etc. For example, committed Christian has a spiritual experience of a being telling them that Jesus was only a man, sure a prophet of G*d, but not G*d himself. That Jesus pointed people toward G*d, and we should seek G*d, not Jesus. But does the Christian say wow!, I can see more clearly now. No - highly unlikely. I would suggest that most, interpreting this experience by their presuppositions would denounce the bringer of this message as demonic. Example only. So religious experience is valuable to the individual and interpreted by the individual. My point is that with all the variety of interpretations and understandings in the world, that even if and when the infinite touchs and interacts with the finite, the finite cannot with assurance claim to fully and exclusively claim to understand the inifinite. I would suggest that this is a fault in the approach of many to religion, to their faith, or to their non-faith. Whilst we may believe one thing, such criticism of others beliefs as seen in Mike's original statement shows little tolerance for the difficulty of interpreting life in it's fullness. Regards, Daniel, -- Daniel McLean, email - dange@topend.com.auReturn to Top
>mwdamick@unity.ncsu.edu (Matthew W. Damick) wrote: >God gave man a free will, and the angels too, apparently. With the free >will came pride and temptation. God did not create evil, but he >permitted its existence as he does now, if for no onther reason than to >(eventually) demontsrate his power and glory when he ultimately destroys >it as told in Revelations. Oh but God did create evil! He demonstrated his knowledge of evil when he created the tree of knowledge of good and EVIL. He created evil with his own hands AND he went one step further then that by making a way for other people to know the evil as he knew by allowing Adam the chance to eat of that tree and learn what God knows in his heart. The_SageReturn to Top
Reply in body of message; -- mrippie@sierra.net http://personalweb.sierra.net/~mrippie/mirrors.htm michael@the-last-church.org Rick Hartman/Lani EllingtonReturn to Topwrote in article <33B137C0.CED@earthlink.net>... > Daniel McLean wrote: > > > > Thanks for your statement of faith Mike. True there has been much crap. > > And there will be more. Yet you seem to fail to accept that the existence > > or non-existence of God is beyond proof. The infinite can neither be > > proven nor disproven by the finite. ( I don't know why you think this? The existence of God is beyond proof and that is the way it has to be, because if You could prove it, that would eliminate free choice!!!!!!!!!! BUT, BUT, You can prove the force is real..!)))))))))))))) ((((((((( > (((((((((( ((( Michael ))) ((( ((( ((( ((( "Names given to worldly things are very deceptive for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect." (The Apostle Philip, The Gospel of Philip, pub. before AD 350) Inside every mainstream Christian is a confused Person...... -- ÐÏࡱá > So the question is, is the suffering which exists in this world > logically consistent with the existence of such a God? > Rick > ((((((( If there were no suffering you would not know the difference between right and wrong. It may take 10,000 years to stop the suffering but the human race will get the job done. Truth is a living thing and it grows. Truth may be slow but it unstoppable. Michael ))))))))))))))))))))) The Last Church mrippie@sierra.net
jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote: | Ralph SansburyReturn to Topwrites: | > | > In Kaufmann's experiment one twin or a beta electron would start | >moving at .6 times the speed of light while the other twin would remain | >at rest in the laboratory of Earth. | | Why do you persist in treating a 3-body decay as if it were a | two body decay, over and over and over again, when it has been | pointed out to you over and over and over again that it is _not_ | a two body decay??? Ralph Sansbury writes: > > Why do you persist in repeating irrelevant jargon? Because you do not >understand what you are talking about perhaps? Then please elaborate on two points: 1. What _result_ of this experiment is inconsistent with SR? That is, what number does SR predict that conflicts (to experimental error) with a number reported by Kaufmann. 2. If the beta electron is twin-1, what is twin-2? The nucleus or the neutrino? Where is twin-3 in your discussion? -- James A. Carr | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
.Return to Top
> > Or (c) deliberately opposed to the sanctimonious PC thought police and the > hypocracy for which they stand. > > Michael Lacy The creation of PC, or the enforced replacement of objective observation, by means of social intimidation with 'left wing' moral, political, and social canon, is a clear indication of the fundamental unsoundness of the 'liberial' Utopia. Must we weather yet another totalitarianistic storm? Let's say we ditch the Utopias, and get back to hard, cold, clear REALISM. "the truth will set ya free" Jt §Return to Top
.Return to Top
Jim Batka wrote:
> Expectation usually falls far short of reality ;).
Umm, that should have been:
Reality usually falls far short of expectation..
--
Jim Batka | Email: jim.batka@sdrc.com | Babylon-5: Our last best Hope!
...for good TV...
Someday, I'll have a tactical nuke, and there will be justice.
simulated persona = "The Cube", from Forum 2000
Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email WILL be
charged a $100 proof-reading fee. Do NOT send junk email to me -
consider this an official notice:
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such
equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned
Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or
$500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
Return to TopReturn to Topwrote: > ready@enad240-001.cc.purdue.edu (Paul J. Ready) wrote: >> Man's inability to predict that answer has to do with the chaotic nature >> of the problem, not the limitations of the tools he has at his disposal. >> That doesn't mean that the universe is faulty, just that it is random >> to any observer within it. > >Considering the bug in the original Pentium and later the bug in the >Pentium II, I think you overstate your case. But hey, that's just my >opinion. And then there was the "bubble in the Hubble." I agree that >the *problem* is chaotic but not because the movement of the planets is >chaotic. No, it's not my opinion, and the calculations have nothing to do with Intel type machines... ever hear of a company called Silicon Graphics? At any rate, the motion of a n-body system simply using Newton's law of universal gravitation and Newton's laws of motion (never mind modern physics) is chaotic for n > 2. Small changes in conditions have large effects in position as time propigates, which makes it impossible to predict the motion... in other words, the motion of the planets is chaotic. I suspect that you misunderstand the meaning of chaotic systems...
dgree2@corp.atl.com wrote: : kisrael@allegro.cs.tufts.edu (Kirk L. Israel) wrote: : > dgree2@corp.atl.com wrote: : > : ready@enad240-001.cc.purdue.edu (Paul J. Ready) wrote: : > : >Return to Topwrote: : > : > : > : > >Microsoft's next release? Man-made systems may be more susceptible to : > : > >chaos than natural systems. : > : > : > : > Predict where Pluto will be in a few million years and tell : > : > me if you agree with that statement. : > : > : Sure, Paul! Which-man made calculating engine would you like me to use? : > : (zing! case closed -Ed) : > : > I suspect the orbit maynot be as predictable as you think. : > In which case you missed the point of the post entirely, : Reading is fundamental, Kirk. Didja see that line about about man-made : systems? Now tell me, if the prediction does not line up a million years : from now where does the error lie? In man's inability to predict or : because the universe has a faulty design? it's broken-- the darn thing's busted. any thing that evolved a giraffe but no real karmic balance is clearly out of whack : > and come off looking like an obnoxious twerp with the smug : > 'zing case closed -ed' line-- you're even worse than people : > who say "'Nuff said" to try to end an argument their way. : > : > God, that line is annoying. : Ya know, I thot I'd laid the sarcasm on plenty thick but apprently not : quite thick enough. ('nuff said, I'd say -Ed) (errrrrrrrrrr -Ed) -- Kirk Is | "I just want a lover who'll kisrael@ | make me chicken soup when alienbill.com | I'm sick" | -L, Nov 1 1995
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Peter Swanson wrote: > I'm sorry, it has not been clear what your claim was. Before, it seemed > that you were claiming that Heisenberg+Chaos Theory implies that die > throwing generally selects a random number. In this post, you seem to be > claiming that with unusual effort to randomize initial conditions, die > throwing selects a random number. Correct? > Perhaps it would help if you clearly stated your position. Right now, it > seems to be a moving target. > Nop, it has been constant throughout. The question was whether you could use a die to get random numbers. My point ws that if you shake it enough, you can. > It seems unrealistic to me that someone would make such an excessive effort > to randomize the initial condition while playing a game in the real world. They would if they wanted to make sure that the die was really random (if, for example, they were studying randomness of properly shaken dice)Return to Top
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > > In article <33B1C6AE.67D0@cadvision.com>, grossepReturn to Topwrites: > >dgree2@corp.atl.com wrote: > >> > >> Considering the bug in the original Pentium and later the bug in the > >> Pentium II, I think you overstate your case. But hey, that's just my > >> opinion. And then there was the "bubble in the Hubble." I agree that > >> the *problem* is chaotic but not because the movement of the planets is > >> chaotic. > > > >"Chaotic" and "random" are two completely different things. The motion > >of the planets is well-defined, but chaotic: > > > >Definition of chaotic system - one in which a small change in initial > >conditions results in a large change in final conditions. Moving a > >planet even a little bit could drastically alter the solar system, given > >enough time. Ergo, the motion of the planets is chaotic. > > > That depends a bit what we call a"a large change in final conditions". > In periodic or quasiperiodic motion, the total distance travelled by a > body is unbounded but the displacement is bounded. Thus it is easy to > perceive a slight change in the motion of a planet which, over > sufficiently large time will accumulate to a huge uncertainty > regarding the location of the planet along its orbit. Yet, at the > same time, the orbit itself remained almost the same. Do we consider > this to be "a large change". I would argue for considering the > orbital parameters, not the location of the planet along the orbit at > a specific moment, to be the important stuff. > > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" I may be wrong, but I believe it is not known even if the solar system remains bounded over time if one puts in all the current positions and masses of all the consstituents. That is no one seriusly expects Saturn to suddenly go off to infinity, but it has not been proved yet that this might not happen at some future time. One thing everyone should keep in mind is that all this is based on assuming these systems follow only the laws of Newtonian mechanics and usually that the masses are point masses. There is a lot of physics left out which could easily affect the conclusions. -- Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537 Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University Evanston Illinois
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:41:41 +0100, Russell BlackadarReturn to Topwrote: >dgree2@corp.atl.com wrote: >> >> Anthony Potts wrote: >... > >> > If a butterfly in the amazon can cause a tornado in Utah, a photon hitting >> > a dice as it leaves your hand can cause it to land on a different side. AFAIK, what the 'butterfly effect' is trying to exemplify is the fact that in *certain* types of system, the difference between (arbitrarily?) close but nonidentical states increases exponentially with time. That is, given two otherwise identical atmosphere states, in one of which a butterfly flapped it's wing, the difference might be amplified into, say, a tornado given sufficient evolution time. However, IIRC, one of the conditions necessary is feedback, or coupled differential equations or something of the sort. Thus the die and photon experiment would not work due to (i) Insufficient feedback (ii) Too small a time and state diffreence for markedly different evolution. The whole experiment seems to deal more with *randomness* than chaos as such. Martin
Martin DeMello wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:41:41 +0100, Russell Blackadar >Return to Topwrote: > > >dgree2@corp.atl.com wrote: > >> > >> Anthony Potts wrote: > >... > > > >> > If a butterfly in the amazon can cause a tornado in Utah, a photon hitting > >> > a dice as it leaves your hand can cause it to land on a different side. > > AFAIK, what the 'butterfly effect' is trying to exemplify is the fact > that in *certain* types of system, the difference between > (arbitrarily?) close but nonidentical states increases exponentially > with time. That is, given two otherwise identical atmosphere states, > in one of which a butterfly flapped it's wing, the difference might be > amplified into, say, a tornado given sufficient evolution time. > However, IIRC, one of the conditions necessary is feedback, or coupled > differential equations or something of the sort. > Thus the die and photon experiment would not work due to (i) > Insufficient feedback (ii) Too small a time and state diffreence for > markedly different evolution. The whole experiment seems to deal more > with *randomness* than chaos as such. > > Martin I don't believe this discussion is completely accurate. Sensitive dependence on initial conditions is a characteristic of many simple differential equations. For example, the differential equation for exponential population growth certainly has exponential growth of error based on small differences in initial conditions. It is more interesteding if small differences in initial conditions oculd produce significant differences in a bound system. One way this could happen is if there are two or more attractors and a small change in initial conditions could determine which attractor the solution is drawn to. That is I believe what happened in the origina model studied by Lorenz in connection with his attempts to understand numerical weather prediction. While the above is correct that you have to have a couple system for such things to happen, it is also important to remark that a second or higher order equation is equivalent to a first order couple system. -- Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537 Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University Evanston Illinois
Return to Topwrote: >grossep writes: >>"Chaotic" and "random" are two completely different things. The motion >>of the planets is well-defined, but chaotic: >> >>Definition of chaotic system - one in which a small change in initial >>conditions results in a large change in final conditions. Moving a >>planet even a little bit could drastically alter the solar system, given >>enough time. Ergo, the motion of the planets is chaotic. >> >That depends a bit what we call a"a large change in final conditions". >In periodic or quasiperiodic motion, the total distance travelled by a >body is unbounded but the displacement is bounded. Thus it is easy to >perceive a slight change in the motion of a planet which, over >sufficiently large time will accumulate to a huge uncertainty >regarding the location of the planet along its orbit. Yet, at the >same time, the orbit itself remained almost the same. Do we consider >this to be "a large change". I would argue for considering the >orbital parameters, not the location of the planet along the orbit at >a specific moment, to be the important stuff. It would appear that pluto is in a stable resonance (last I heard) and the orbital elements will remain essentially unchanged, but the position of pluto at a date far in the furture is essentially unpredictable. For unstable configurations, chaotic effects show themselves in a much shorter time span. The problem I was referring to is simply where, in terms of a sun-centered inertial cs, would pluto be in n(large) years. After a certain n, we can't answer that question.
grossep wrote: > > dgree2@corp.atl.com wrote: > > > > Considering the bug in the original Pentium and later the bug in the > > Pentium II, I think you overstate your case. But hey, that's just my > > opinion. And then there was the "bubble in the Hubble." I agree that > > the *problem* is chaotic but not because the movement of the planets is > > chaotic. > > "Chaotic" and "random" are two completely different things. The motion > of the planets is well-defined, but chaotic: > > Definition of chaotic system - one in which a small change in initial > conditions results in a large change in final conditions. Moving a > planet even a little bit could drastically alter the solar system, given > enough time. Ergo, the motion of the planets is chaotic. > > -Josh G There are several definitions of the term `chaotic dynamical system'. Sensitive dependence on initial conditions is not the only criteriorn. Devaney's book on the subject contains one definition which seems broadly accepted among mathematicians. I don't have it handy, but a little search of the literature should allow one to track it down. -- Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537 Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University Evanston IllinoisReturn to Top
In article <5otv5t$4dh@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, ready@enad240-001.cc.purdue.edu (Paul J. Ready) writes: >Return to Topwrote: >>grossep writes: > >>>"Chaotic" and "random" are two completely different things. The motion >>>of the planets is well-defined, but chaotic: >>> >>>Definition of chaotic system - one in which a small change in initial >>>conditions results in a large change in final conditions. Moving a >>>planet even a little bit could drastically alter the solar system, given >>>enough time. Ergo, the motion of the planets is chaotic. >>> >>That depends a bit what we call a"a large change in final conditions". >>In periodic or quasiperiodic motion, the total distance travelled by a >>body is unbounded but the displacement is bounded. Thus it is easy to >>perceive a slight change in the motion of a planet which, over >>sufficiently large time will accumulate to a huge uncertainty >>regarding the location of the planet along its orbit. Yet, at the >>same time, the orbit itself remained almost the same. Do we consider >>this to be "a large change". I would argue for considering the >>orbital parameters, not the location of the planet along the orbit at >>a specific moment, to be the important stuff. > >It would appear that pluto is in a stable resonance (last I heard) >and the orbital elements will remain essentially unchanged, but >the position of pluto at a date far in the furture is essentially >unpredictable. For unstable configurations, chaotic effects show >themselves in a much shorter time span. The problem I was referring >to is simply where, in terms of a sun-centered inertial cs, would >pluto be in n(large) years. After a certain n, we can't answer >that question. That I agree with. I just maintain that for a closed system with well defined orbits it is the stability of the orbits that matters, not the location along the orbit. So, in this sense, I consider a system where the orbits are maintained as predictable. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Bill Vance wrote: > > LEE (@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com) wrote: > : In article <01bc77ff$8a1aa8a0$32f135ce@hammer.stonewest.com>, "Dave VanHorn"Return to Topsays: > : > > : >Kirk Kohnen wrote in article > : ><339ED4EE.1CE6@ccgate-dot-hac.com>... > : >> basild@eugenides_found.edu.gr wrote: > : >> > > : >> > Dear Sirs: > : >> > > : >> > I am graduate Electrical Engineer with specialization in Magnetic > : >> > Recording Applications. > : >> > : >> Your school should immediately flunk you. > : >> > : >> > I am considering to cooperate with an Esteemed > : >> > Company regarding a New Product which concerns the Energy Market > : >> > (Production Of Electric Power From Magnetic Tapes, VHS Cassettes). > : > > : > > : >I donno, you could burn them... > : > > : >Or: haul cases of them to the top of a building and use pulleys to run > : >generators on the way down.. Kind of a video rental whrere the return is > : >on the 40h floor, and the check out is at ground level. This way you get > : >double income, one from the rental, and the other from the recovered > : >kinetic energy and dead bodies. > : > > : >This is like the people who tell me that you can't use a mag read head > : >into a summing junction (virtual short) because the curent in the head > : >will erase the tapes.. > > Nah, you guys are missing the whole point. Instead of high impedence head > phones, you use a high impedence VCR. That way the taped signal powers > the VCR, just like a Crystal Radio.....:-) Gentlemen... You ALL have it wrong. The whole thing will work very well. You just need to adjust the thermal bias stabilisation of the magnetic depolarizing valve by a few degrees. That should do it. -- Cheers, Ian Du Rieu The Leon Audio Co idurieu@adam.com.au
altavoz wrote: > > altavoz wrote: > > > > altavoz: There is a better reason for their non aknowedgement . > > Their contributions were in the areas not as needed . (snip) I wrote: (snipped anecdotes about Dorothy Hodgkin, Lise Meitner, Rosalyn Yalow) > altavoz: Yes . And if you don't mind can you give us examples > of both discouraged women and men , and in sufficient numbers > as to be statistically significant ? Sorry, I wasn't able to find any examples of men who were openly screwed *because* they were male, and went on to perform Nobel-prize caliber science regardless. Maybe you can. > And one more thing ... > WHAT THE HELL DID YOU SAY THOSE WOMENS SCORES WERE ?!!! > Did they go on to be great contributors to science ? They did OK, considering they were female. BeckyReturn to Top
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Thomas N. Lockyer 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 But the fact is, they don't always occur together. That is the whole point.Return to Top
JUKKA wrote: > > 1. Assumption: Everything that happens is in response to stimuli > > (in a pure materialistic sense). > > > It seems to me people have choices (a WILL - not robots or a plant), > > > and a will doesn't seem to be entirely material, therefore how do > > you study it, let alone predict it. People don't always act > according > > to a specific pattern every time. Psychology, study of the soul, > > get's some general patterns but exact predictions? > > Consciousness makes things very complex, it is much easier dealing > > with weather. Much easier is a relative term, I didn't say easy. > > Somebody is again trying to make humans something more than other > animals. > I don't believe that. Humans are only more complex but > they basicly function according to the same principes. Soul is > just a word. Have you ever seen any? Human is like playing chess. > He is a machine and a computer like Deep Blue can easyly mimic all > that what we call a will, soul or whatsoever "high". > > JOJ When I read your reply I first thought of all "animals" following certain "laws" as analogous to the idea that if we could ever know the exact state of the universe at any one time we could predict past and present states. Except we have to throw in Heisenberg! To this I say the there are only so many "levels beneath" an atom, quark, gluon, or whatever is the latest discovery. These "levels" that we cannot see we can simply attribute to Heisenberg and "uncertainty". There is nothing wrong with attributing these dark spots in our theories to a soul or in the sense if the universe THE soul.Return to Top
Shane HitchingReturn to Topwrote: Interesting cross posting. Oh well, far be it from me to question anybody's right of free expression... >It was my understanding that QM does state (or at least insinuate) that >particles have a definite position/velocity; it is the observation of them >that cannot be definite. Am I wrong or just nit-picking? Some flavors of quantum mechanics contain this; Bohm's pilot wave theory places each particle in a definite trajectory, which however is strongly non-locally (or at least superluminally) determined. It is consistent with ordinary quantum mechanics. Therefore we can say the minimal uncontroversial content of quantum mechanics actually has nothing to say about this! The uncertainty principle is most neutrally a statement about the variances observed in a long series of 'identically prepared' experiments, in particular the product of the variance of 'conjugate variables'.
In article <33B158BD.4F4C@sdrc.com>, jim.batka@sdrc.com says... > >Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email WILL be >charged a $100 proof-reading fee. Do NOT send junk email to me - >consider this an official notice: > >"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer > meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), > it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such > equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned > Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or > $500, whichever is greater, for each violation." an interesting concept: does this posting make a solicitation for e-mail? I think so. Harold refusal to accept the concequences of ones actions shows ones true age. Daddy fix it.Return to Top
I saw a special on "Sightings" once, talking about this light. Its in the area of the 4 corners...where all 4 states join. exact location was given on the show, but I dont remember the directions. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Computer Disciple, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+Return to Top
William R. Penrose wrote: > > In article <33A9C016.A55@mail.mia.bellsouth.net> HardenReturn to Topwrites: > > >There seems to be a prejudice in evaluating papers presented to > >scholarly journals: nonexistent papers are not even given an iota of > >credibility! This is a horrible injustice! There is, we KNOW with > >probability 1, some superb math being done by nonexistent authors of > >nonexistent papers, and they are ALL being blatantly ignored with no > >afterthought or even lending of credibility to the notion of giving an > >afetrthought or reconsideration to this incredible prejudicial, > >unethical, monstrosity! > > An excellent point. I, myself, have nearly two file cabinets full of > nonexistent papers. At least, they'll remain nonexistent until I get around > to writing them up. And until they're written up, I am not their author, so > I, too, am nonexistent. And sure enough, just because they aren't written, no > one cares to review them, publish them, or cite them. > > I need to get a round tuit? Anyone got one? > > Bill Well, I have a nonexistent friend who writes for a nonexistent scholarly journal. If you send a couple of your nonexistent papers my way, I'll be sure he gets them and - who knows - they may get reviewed or even published. -- Harold Tessmann III Summer Intern, Chemical Engineering, Ford Motor Company My opinions are mine and mine alone. You can't have them.
In sci.chem meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: : In article <5orcip$el7@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Joshua HalpernReturn to Topwrites: : >In sci.chem meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: : >: In article <5opu24$rlt@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>, Joshua Halpern writes: : >: >In sci.chem meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: : >: >SNIP... : >: I'm assuming a time canstant of the order of one generation. You : >: think that it is significantly longer than this. : One item you might reflect on is that Abe Beame was : >the first jewish mayor of NYC in the 1970s. : So? This means to imply that Jews didn't enjoy parity in NYC till the : 70s. No but it is another evidence that it took quite some time, even in a political unit in which their (our) representation was larger than in any other political unit in the US. You might like to read any of the many good books about tammany hall and how political control flowed beteen the various ethnic groups in NY, and reflect on why it took so long for a jewish person to be placed on the top of the "balanced ticket". : > : >: >Another interesting mechanism is that until about 20 years ago : >: >women were discriminated against in law school admissions. Since : >: >law practice is a common entry point into politics.... : > : >: This may well be (though I think that it is more like 30 years ago). : > : >25?), but between the mid sixties and mid-seventies would be a : >fair estimate. : > SNIP.. : No, that wasn't my assertion. My assertion was that if unequal : representation persists over more than a generation after barriers : have been removed, then it is rather unlikely that bias is the cause. : Yes, I know that the current dogma takes it for granted that any : differentce between groups must be a result of bias. So? This assumes that the only thing affecting political representation is the the identity of voters at the poll. You have been offered a small sampling of examples which show that this is a false assumption. Consider the following. If what you assert is true, then the only thing that matters is the identity of people who go to the polls. If this is true, then the entire controversy about campaign funding is irrelevant. Since we know that the amount of money available to any candidate correlates strongly with their electability, there is good reason to believe that the original assumption is not true... Finally, in a first past the post system (such as exists in the US and Britain), groups with between 0 and say 30% of the population are greatly under-represented in national assemblies where the districts are large, and the statistical basis for this is clear. (Example: Reform party, Libertarians, Liberal Democrats). The correlation between representation and population improves as the size of the district decreases, although for groups that are "well mixed" this is less true. : P.S. Just for information (since I wasn't in this country at the : time) what was the form of the discrimination against women in law : school admissions? Was it something like qouta, or an outright ban? Depended on when, but the short answer is both, with more of the first at earlier times and the later at later times. You might also want to look up what state bar policies were. : Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, : meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1CFB3F54FF6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Douglas A. Singleton wrote: > > In article <33AFD2CF.FF6@numep0.phys.nwu.edu>, > Todd PedlarReturn to Topwrote: > >Thomas N. Lockyer wrote: > > > >> >jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes: > > > >> > If the neutrino had a charge current, it would be very easy to detect. > >> > End of story. > >> > >> 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. > > The neutrino may or may not have a mass. This is an experimetnal > question. There are minimal extensions of the Standard Model > which would easily allow the neutrino to have a mass if it where > found to have one experimentally. For example there's the > "see-saw" mechanism where one introduces both Majorana and > Dirac masses. Then by picking the Dirac and Majorana masses > appropriately one gets an extremely light and an extremely > heavy neutrino on diagonalizing the mass matrix. > > Also, while it's true that at tree-level the neutrino has no > magnetic moment, is this true to any order in loop corrections. > For example any time you have a vertex like > > \ / > \ / > \ / > BLOB > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > > (where \ and / are fermions, ~ is a photon, and BLOB is some > Feynman loop diagram of arbitrary order). Now in the Standard Model > there are processes where BLOB can be an electron, W, W triangular > loop due to the tri-linear WW photon coupling. Now one would have > to go through the calculation to see if this gives rise to a magnetic > moment, but there certainly exists the possibility that the neutrino > has a small magnetic moment from such processes (unless there's some > symmetry that I've overlooked which forbids it form aquiring a MM > even at higher order loops). Actually if I remember correctly Cheng&Li; > go through some calculation like this at the end of Chapter 13 of > their particle theory text and for a particular model find that > the neutrino does acquire a small MM (too small however to be > currently observed). The model they deal with does involve the Yes, the Standard Model predicts a MM of ~10^(-19) Bohr magnetons due to such radiative corrections. There are other models predicting higher MM's and actually one of the explanations (even though not the most favoured one) of the solar neutrino deficit is the existence of a MM of order 10^(-10) Bohr magnetons. The current experimental upper limit from the Savannah River experiment is 2 10^(-10) Bohr magnetons. I am involved in the MUNU project which will be sensitive down to 3 10^(-11) Bohr magnetons vie mu-e scattering at low energies. visit our Web page ftp://neiphsg.unine.ch/pub/web/pp/munu/Welcome.html. Alan > neutrino having some kind of mass, so maybe if the neutrino is > strictly massless it would not acquire a MM. I think all the > restrictions and caveats are spelled out by Cheng&Li.; > > Doug > . --------------1CFB3F54FF6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="Welcome.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Welcome.html" Content-Base: "ftp://neiphsg.unine.ch/pub/web/pp/munu /Welcome.html" MUNU home page
Welcome to MUNU
Text version here MUNU is a transcription of greek letters `mu' and `nu', where `mu' stands for magnetic moment, and 'nu` for the neutrino.
Neutrinos
The neutrino is a fundamental particle, emitted by the Sun, but also present as a relic of the Big Bang. It is the most elusive particle known to physicists, as it very seldomly interacts with matter. As you are reading these lines, about ten trillion neutrinos are zooming through your head each second at the speed of light, and you feel nothing! In fact, only about one neutrino per YEAR will interact with your head. Maybe that's when you get a bright idea - it just may be the neutrino interaction... This is why we still know very little about this particle - we don't know its mass or its magnetic moment. We only know that the mass is less than about two millionths of an electron's mass, and that its magnetic moment is at least ten billion times smaller than that of an electron. MUNU wants to measure the scattering of neutrinos off electrons, and thus test the presence of a magnetic moment down to the level of one hundred billion times less than the electron magnetic moment, i.e. ten times better than the present limit.Now why do we want to do it? Well, the main reason is to understand the missing neutrinos from the Sun. It is now well established that there are less neutrinos reaching us from the Sun than we expect from the Standard Solar Model. One of the possible explanations is that the neutrinos, which are produced as left-handed in the Sun, may flip in the Sun's magnetic field to become right-handed, and these do not interact with matter at all, not even once a year, and therefore escape detection. However this is only possible if the neutrino has a magnetic moment.
How do we want to measure the magnetic moment?
We plan to use neutrino-electron scattering. The neutrinos are coming from the Bugey nuclear power plant reactor, which, at a distance of 18.6m from the core gives a flux about 200 times the one from solar neutrinos on Earth. The electrons are in the target, a 1 cubic meter time projection chamber filled with tetrafluoromethane gas (CF_4) at 5 atmospheres. When a neutrino interacts with an electron from the gas, the electron recoils and ionizes the gas, leaving a track behind it. This track then drifts in a uniform electric field to the anode, where it is read out.AP
Who are we?
- I.N.F.N. Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Italy
- Institut des Sciences Nucleaires, Grenoble, France
- Institut fur Kernphysik, Munster, Germany
- Institut de Physique, Neuchatel, Suisse
- Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universita & INFN, Padova, Italy
- Physik-Institut, Zurich, Switzerland
Related topics
GG
Last updated: Thursday, 11-Jul-96
--------------1CFB3F54FF6--
In articleReturn to Top, wrote: >In article , rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes: >>>> Only if the regulation is written stupidly and enforced mindlessly. >>> >>>Which is not exactly uncommon. >> >>True but does this mean that we should throw out the baby with the >>bath water, or that we should strive to improve the quality of the >>regulation process. >>-- >Definitely to improve. Not easy to do, though, as long as EPA is not >willing to face to the fact that there is lots of room for >improvement. Nothing is easy that involves a lot of people who have various interests and various degrees of knowledge about the subject and various ways of getting their input to be considered. But if things were easy there would be no joy in doing them. :-) -- "When we talk to God we are praying; when God talksto us, we are schizophrenic." -- Lily Tomlin URL http://www.rfoy.org
In articleReturn to Top, wrote: >In article , rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes: >> >>True that is what happened then. However one might look at another >>situation. JFK's "before this decade is out"... "land a man on the >>moon." The Apollo program was 99% simply a result of JFK's charisma, >>with perhaps a 1% tie to the percieved "threat" of communism. > >I'm not sure it is easy to quantify it. There is no doubt that JFK's >charisma played a role. How big? I don't know. It'll probably take >a very long time before we can do "social computer modelling", where >you can assume some initial situation and ask "if I change this >parameter, how much will the outcome change?" Would be very >interesting to have something like this but we're nowhere near. > >But, mind you, the Apollo Project wasn't a difficult sale. It didn't >call on people to tighten their belts, endure hardship and personal >risks, all in the name of a goal. It wasn't a difficult sale because it was sold in a postive manner by a charismatic leader. It cost a rather large amount of money, which the people paid. It was not really sold as an element of the cold war. Rather it was sold more as a noble glorius thing to do. Dealing with global warming does not necessarily have to involve personal hardship and personal risks. It all depends on the approach that is taken to deal with it. There are sufficient examples of low CO2 approaches to things to indicate to me that quality of live could actually be improved by using some of them. Over a phase in period of 10 to 30 years. >>>> > ... snip ... > >>I am basing >>my thoughts on a report that the flood was a 500% flood, and on the >>number of reports of 100% year floods, storms around the globe that I >>believe that have been reported recently. Not proof of climate change >>but thought provoking. I would be very interested in seeing a >>tabulation of the numner of 50yr 100yr 500yr etc storms floods etc >>for as long as records are available. >> >>I suspect that such information is not readily available. Why not? > >Probably because in most areas of the world no systematic recording >was done till this century. I would assume that good flood records >should be available from Western and Central Europe and from China, >going quite far back. As for storm records, I doubt it. Right, but wouldn't it make sense to do the best we can with what data is available? >>>So, just to put a twist on your statement above, yes, I suppose that >>>given a charismatic leader who would actually manage to convince >>>people that this or other weather related disaster is a result of >>>climate change, people could be motivated to pull behind him. Would >>>it be a good thing? Depends. >> >>Right it does depend. And even not so charismatic leaders can more >>eaaily convince the public that there is nothing to worry about if >>they or their campaign contributors so desire. > >In cases where personal sacrifice may be involved, it is always easier >to convince the people not to worry. I don't think that is actually true. I think most people love to get dramatically involved in "saving the world." Millions of people volutarily got involved in WWII. They found it easy to belive that there efforts and sacrifices were necessary to preserve the US. > >>Actually it is not so >>hard for them and the contributors to convinve themselves. > >Yep. Neither it is hard for everybody else, on all sides involved. >> >>I don't know how you evaulate the Apollo program. I personally think >>it was immaterial to the cold war. It cost a lot of money and gave us >>a bit of knolwedge abouat the moon. So? > >I tend to agree with you. My view (which is quite unpopular here) is >that all or most of the great spinoffs which are attributed to the Apollo >project would've materialized without it, on approximately same time >scale. I agree. > >As for relevance to the cold war, it turned out that there was no >direct relevance but it couldn't be known in advance. The thing that >was on the mind of both adversaries during the cold war was that even >an area of research seemingly totally detached from reality may >suddenly acquire decisive importance (as happened with the nuclear >research). Thus the attidude regardless everything was "if they do >it, we do it". You can look at it as life insurance. I doubt very seriously that Kennedy's motivation had anything to do with the cold war expect in a psychological way. That is a demonstration that our way is better than your way. But I really think the main factors in the end of the cold war, were more due to the fact that the lies of the leaders of communism became harder to maintain as information flow from the west to the east increased. Any way I am off to Nova Scotia for a couple of weeks to see how they deal with Global Warming. :-) -- "When we talk to God we are praying; when God talksto us, we are schizophrenic." -- Lily Tomlin URL http://www.rfoy.org
cbayseReturn to Topwrites: > in reference to no female presidential candidates. we came close with a > female v.p. candidate. geraldine ferraro. > > does it really make any difference what the gender of a politician is? > they're all crooks. :) So are all judges, prosecutors, and all the people who elect them or their laws. It is idiotic to think, a priori, that politicians are ON AVERAGE worse than the unknown person. I hate to use the phrase, "common person", since everyone is unique. Whatever negative and positive effects the unknown person has is simply magnified a million times by the pen of the politician.
Geoff Henderson asks for estimates of the costs of various components of nuclear energy. He can find them in a recent report published by the Electric Power Research Institute. Unfortunately, I have mislaid the detailed reference. Nuclear energy can power cars indirectly by splitting water H2O into hydrogen and oxygen and using the hydrogen. This won't happen as long as petroleum remains so cheap. -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.Return to Top
In articleReturn to Top, rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes: >In article , wrote: >> ... snip ... >>It is a well documented phenomenon that people who adopt extreme >>positions, if they change their mind later they tend to switch to >>another extreme position, not the center. For example, a big part of >>the following of Le Pen (sp?) in France, an extreme right party by any >>definition, is made of people who were previously members of the >>French Communist party. Once you apply the "cylinder" image, you >>realize that switching from "extreme left" to "extreme right" is >>immediate. > >This is an intersting look at the classifications "left" and "right." > >However, I think it needs to be even more complicated than one can >think about in terms of a sphere. The reason is that there are >different domains of "left" and "right." A person might be left, >right or center on the domains of economics, safety, and morality and >probably more. And they may or may not be correlated with each other. Indeed. It is really a multi dimensional map. I do think however (though I have no more than anecdotal evidence for this) that paople who are "extreme right", not just "right" on one issue (more about terminology in a moment) may well be "extreme left" on another, but rarely "center". The distinction I'm making between the "extreme whatever" and just "whatever" is as follows: the extreme position is characterized by an enormous (usually absolute) certainty in one's "rightness" and in a total lack of tolerance for those who think otherwise. As a result you get rigidity and unwillingness to accept compromise. Those closer to the center (whether to the left or to the right of it) are more open to the possibility that people with different opinion are not necesserely wrong, and therefore more ready to search for a common ground. This is of course my personal classification, other may differ. > >When you say pretty well documented to you mean that there are >studies around that would give some percentage of people who switch >as opposed to people who drift from liberal say to conservative. I don't know to what extent numerical studies were performed. I'm rather aware of qualitative observations. The one with Le Pen's party is the newest one. Another one that I recall is from Germany. Lots of the people who joined the Nazi party around 1930 switched over from the German communist party. I'm talking about the time before the Nazis got to power, so it wasn't an issue of "siding with the winner". BTW, lots of ex-Nazi party members in what was East Germany joined the communist party after the war (but this could've been just a career move). > >There is a common exprsssion I believe attributed to Churchill that >more or less says, "A your person who is conservative has no heart, >an old person who is liberal has no head." This expression to me >implies taht people tend to drift towrds conservatism as they age. Yeah, I think that this is well observed too. A cynical friend of mine once commented that it simply has to do with how much taxes do you pay (on the average as you get older your income goes up and so do the taxes) but I'm not sure that fully explains the phenomenon. Still neither liberal nor conservative has to be extreme and I don't think that people become more "extreme" in old age. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
In articleReturn to Top, rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes: > >Nothing is easy that involves a lot of people who have various >interests and various degrees of knowledge about the subject and >various ways of getting their input to be considered. > Indeed. Anything involving more than two people is complicated. >But if things were easy there would be no joy in doing them. :-) >-- Or, as I say to my engineer, when she complains that something I asked her to do is complicated, "look, if I would think it is easy, I would do it myself" :-) Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Bill Vance wrote in article <5otdm9$j28$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>... >: > Very well, all that is not consistent w/ God's character (thoughts, >: > deeds) is evil, not good, etc. That's absolute, -not- relative. >: But that's according to YOUR book. Suppose MY book say different. >: Suppose >: MY book says that what YOUR book says is evil. Who is good and who is evil? >: Is it >: subjective or objective? > >It is interesting to note that YOUR book is strictly imaginary and doesn't >exist, and is therefore invalid; God and God's book however do exist. >Didn't you get enough of playing, "lets pretend", as a kid? What was the point of a personal insult? I thought you were discussing Evil/Good/God/NoGod. Just because 'his book' has not been written does not invalidate the argument, it would be a trivial task to actually write the book, or even find an existing one that states what he wants. The existance of ideas and concepts is what is important, not the fact that someone wrote them down.Return to Top>: He already [defined good and evil] for us (check out the Bible) making it simple. > >: The Bible is over 2000 yrs old and full of atrocities and errors. > >You forgot to mention that even the Biblical, "heroes", are there with all >their warts and pimples intact. This is so that everyone there serves as >example of the results of the good/evil, attrocities and errors being >discussed. There are lots of texts that are FAR older than the bible that state things very differently. Take the Roman or Greek gods for example, they are far older then the God of the bible, but no one (or not many people anyway:) still believes in them. I think on of the intresting things about religions is the way their policies change to suit society. Take a look at what was considered normal christian activity 2000 years ago, and compair to today. As society shifts toward more conservative behavior, so, too, do religious doctrines. Cause... or effect? Maybe a bit of both? -- +------------------------------+------------------------------------+ |David Knaack | "...scanning the sky for [signals] | |Email replies are appreciated,| from intelligent life. One group | |but not necessary. | has improved its ability to | +------------------------------+ distinguish human signals from the | |Return address mangled, use: | real things." Science 271, 1055. | |User : dknaack +------------------------------------+ |Domain : rdtech.com | 'Thou art god' - The Man from Mars | +------------------------------+------------------------------------+
I use a large 439-sided geodesic ratcage with 17 treadmills inside.
The main problem is getting it to settle down. To do this I spray
with insecticide, which kind of puts them all to sleep within a few
seconds, and I can write down the outcome. Most of the rats recover.
Tod Weitzel and his Orchestra (xarph@inow.com) wrote:
: On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Ian Stirling wrote:
: > Throwing dice may not be deterministic, due to brownian motion
: > in air, and perhaps heisenberg comes into it too.
: I would like to see Brownian Motion have a significant effect on a 100
: sided die (about the size of a baseball).
Ian.
17
--
*****************************************************************************
6+ Trillion Dollars GNP in the USA alone, and NO DECENT SOFTWARE YET ?!
Boss don't let me die until I debug this life,
and don't let me rhincornate until I can't make a mess of next time.
"A .sig is a tail-feather tacked on to a turd." -- Tak Eeyawn
*****************************************************************************
Return to Topcbayse wrote: > > 1 Lucky Texan wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > If a bunch (even majority or ALL) of female voters DID vote for a > > female candidate JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS FEMALE,wouldn't that be sexism? > > > > oh no, that's different. only men can be sexist like only white people > can be racist. (much sarcasm intended) > > > BTW-bet you can't name the FIRST woman to receive an electoral > > college vote. > > > > i can't. i could guess... Toni Nathan - 1972 (?) - Libertarian Party V.P. candidate libertarians - defenders of the rights of the smallest minority in the world.....the individual. CarlReturn to Top
Tonight I was entertained with the movie TWELFTH NIGHT with Helena
Carter as Olivia. Handsome women she is.
"Care's an enemy to life."
I do not know about others, but I am getting tired of hearing the
word "beseech". A great improvement of Shakespeare plays would be to
find some other word for "beseech". So corny.
I am going to stop workin on all of these plays and save them for a
future time. And I like the route of this play for it begs of
creativity. I have no idea where this play is going but a wonderful
cornucopia of rich history to feed upon. No one man shall be Caesar.
http://the-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/Tragedy/juliuscaesar/juliuscaesar.ht
ml
This play is beginning to look like a song that interwoven with several
different songs. I forget what such a song is called. Such as Parsley
Sage Rosemary and Thyme and the songs all come together at the end.
Act 1, Scene 2
A public place in Siracusa, Ancient Greek times
and the life of Archimedes 1st, mingled with my reincarnated life
(photon soul). I will call myself either Archimedes 2nd or AP.
Flourish. Enter
Archimedes 1st
Work on the engineering of the machinery of defence for the City!
Siracusan worker:
Peace, ho! king of engineering speaks.
Archimedes 1st :
Engineering will save us! [Aside speaking to myself: aye, though
I be in my 70s years, and could have fleed, my olden age, we all must
die, so go out in a spectacle. My engineering will hold us fast, but
the weakness are these fellow humans. My physics is strong, but the
nerve of humanity in times of stress is weak and falls off these
Siracusan walls like the leaves off trees 'fore winter.
Inner ear of Archimedes II
Forget not, in your speed, AP,
To touch Carnotite; for our elders say,
The barren, touched in this holy chase,
Shake off their sterile curse.
AP
I shall remember:
When mining for carnotite or uraninite, it is perform'd.
Archimedes I to the soldiers of Siracusa :
Set on; and leave no detail of engineering out.
Flourish
Soothsayer
Archimedes!
Archimedes I :
Ha! who calls?
Soldier :
Bid every noise be still: peace yet again!
Archimedes I :
Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue, shriller than all the music,
Cry 'Archimedes!' Speak; Arcimedes is turn'd to hear.
Soothsayer
Beware the ides of March.
Archimedes I :
What man is that?
Soldier :
A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.
Archimedes I :
Set him before me; let me see his face.
Women with mirror shield :
Fellow, come from the throng; look upon Archimedes.
Archimedes I :
What say'st thou to me now? speak once again.
Soothsayer
Beware the ides of March.
Archimedes II
Quantum dreamer; I was, let me not leave it pass.
Women 2 of mirrors :
Will you go see the order of the course?
Women 200 of mirrors :
Not I.
Women 2 of mirrors :
I pray you, do.
Steven Weinberg :
Then, Einstein, I have much mistook your passion;
By means whereof this breast of mine hath buried
Thoughts of great value, worthy cogitations.
Tell me, good Albert, can you see your face?
Albert Einstein
No, Steven; for the eye sees not itself,
But by reflection, by some other things.
Steven Weinberg
'Tis just:
And it is very much lamented, Einstein,
That you have no such mirrors as will turn
Your hidden worthiness into your eye,
That you might see your shadow. I have heard,
Where many of the best respect in experiment,
Except immortal Atomic theory, speaking of Einstein
And groaning underneath this age's yoke,
Have wish'd that noble Einstein had his eyes.
Einstein
Into what dangers would you lead me, Weinberg,
That you would have me seek into myself
For that which is not in me?
Steven Weinberg
Therefore, good Einstein, be prepared to hear:
And since you know you cannot see yourself
So well as by reflection, I, your glass,
Will modestly discover to yourself
That of yourself which you yet know not of.
And be not jealous on me, gentle Einstein:
Were I a common laugher, or did use
To stale with ordinary oaths my love
To every new protester; if you know
That I do fawn on men and hug them hard
And after scandal them, or if you know
That I profess myself in banqueting
To all the rout, then hold me dangerous.
Flourish, and shout
Women 300 of mirrors :
What means this shouting? I do fear, the Romans
214BC besieging Siracusa by Marcus Marcellus
Soldier :
Ay, do you fear it?
Then must I think you would not have it so.
Archimedes I :
I would have Gelon flee; yet I love him well.
But wherefore does engineering hold me here so long?
What is it that I should impart the world with?
If it be aught toward the general good,
Set honour in one eye and death i' the other,
And I will look on both indifferently,
For let the Proton gods so speed me as I love
The name of honour more than I fear death.
Hieron I died 467BC tyrant of Syracuse Sicily from 478 to 467BC.
Hieron became ruler of Syracuse upon the death of Gelon
Hieron II died 216 BC tyrant from 270 to 216 BC, in 214BC besieged by
the Romans Marcus Marcellus
Archimedes 287-212BC Sicily. Pheidias, the astronomer, the adopting
father of me and my brother, Hieron II king of Syracuse. I left the
politics to my brother, King Hieron II whilst I did my mechanics.
My brother Hieron, King of Syracuse took his name from the old king
Hieron I. I took my name from the fact that I was chief Architect,
builder of inventions. We had no engines back then so Engineer was not
a word to use.
The Sand Reckoner addressed to Gelon , son of Hieron.
Mt. Etna rising 3263 meters strong seismic activity, is an active
volcano was north.
Archimedes engineered stone catapults, engineered crane like beaks and
iron claws to seize and grapple ships and sinking them
Archimedes 287-212 B.C.
Throughout the siege Archimedes invented ingenious war machines,
catapults to hurl stones, ropes, pulleys, hooks to raise and smash the
enemy ships devices to set fire to the ships. Ultimately Syracuse fell
through a "fifth column". In the sack of the city Syracuse, Archimedes
was slain by a Roman soldier. I had the greatest price on my head. But
why should I care, I was 75 years old and better to go out in glory.
Archimedes I : I was friends with Conon of Alexandria and Eratosthenes
of Cyrene. I sent many of my manuscripts to Dositheus. I sent some to
Zeuxippus and to Gelon. I wanted to preserve them for prosperity and
so disseminate and hope some survive. The cover of one of my
manuscripts showed that the volume of the sphere is two-thirds that of
the enveloping cylinder.
Archimedes I : My most original contribution was physics, a
mathematical theory of mechanics: (1) Law of the Lever (2) Centers of
Mass Equilibrium (3) Hydrostatic Pressure.
The only other Mechanics extant was the thoroughly incorrect Mechanics
of Aristotle. I was fighting the "Confederacy of Dunces" in physics
back then against the followers of Aristotle and Plato. In math I was
fighting the "Confederacy of Dunces" against the followers of Plato.
Archimedes I : I hold the greatest admiration and respect of Eudoxus,
Euclid, Democritus, and my rival Apollonius. Us five had kindred
spirits. Us five were the greatest thinkers of old. The kings of
thought.
Polybius: Invented Archimedean screw a devise for raising water from a
low level to a highter one. Archimedes discovered the fundamental
principle of hydrostatics. The dual nature of his genius both a
practical engineer to theoretical physics.
Leibniz : "He who understands Archimedes will admire less the
achievements of the foremost men of later times."
Polybius: "were merely the diversions of geometry at play"
Plutarch : And yet Archimedes possessed such a lofty spirit, so
profound a soul, and such a wealth of scientfific theory, that,
although his inventions had won for him a name and fame of superhuman
sagacity, and regarded the work of an engineer as nearest to Atom god.
Vitruvius: Archimedes the great master of mechanics, the great
engineer, the architect.
AP: Chariots of Fire heard the music first in another life while
Archimedes. the horns sounded as the Romans approached it was the the
opening lines of CHARIOTS OF FIRE. play "See the Conquering Hero
Comes" for the Chariots of Fire was a variation of. Throw out the false
prophets from the its altar cyclotrons, from its temples science
classes, from its planet.
Plutarch : Upon this Marcellus moved with his whole army to Syracuse,
and encamping near the wall, sent ambassadors into the city to relate
to the Syracusans the truth of what had been done in Leontini. When
these could not prevail by treaty, the whole power being now in the
hands of Hippocrates, he proceeded to attack the city both by land and
by sea. The land forces were conducted by Appius: Marcellus, with
sixty galleys, each with five rows of oars, furnished with all sorts of
arms and missiles, and a huge bridge of planks laid upon eight ships
chained together, upon which was carried the engine to cast stones and
darts, assaulted the walls, relying on the abundance and magnificence
of his preparations, and on his own previous glory; all which however,
were, it would seem, but trifles for Archimedes and his machines.
These machines he had designed and contrived, not as matters of any
importance, but as mere amusements in geometry; in compliance with King
Hiero's desire and request, some little time before, that he should
reduce to practice some part of his admirable speculation in science,
and by accommodating the theoretic truth to sensation and ordinary use,
bring it more within the appreciation of the people in general.
Eudoxus and Archytas had been the first originators of this far-famed
and highly-prized art of mechanic, which they employed as an elegant
illustration of geometrical truths, and as means of sustaining
experimentally, to the satisfaction of the senses conclusions too
intricate for proof by words and diagrams. As, for example, to solve
the problem, so often required in constructing geometrical figures,
given the two extremes, to find the two mean lines of a proportion,
both these mathematicians had recourse to the aid of instruments,
adapting to their purpose certain curves and sections of lines. But
what with Plato's indignation at it, and his invectives against it as
the mere corruption and annihilation of the one good of geometry, which
was thus shamefully turning its back upon the unembodied objects of
pure intelligence to recur to sensation, and to ask help (not to be
obtained without base supervisions and depravation) from matter; so it
was that mechanics came to be separated from geometry, and, repudiated
and neglected by philosophers, took its place as a military art.
Archimedes, however, in writing to King Hiero, whose brother he was,
had stated that given the force, any given weight might be moved, and
even boasted, we are told, relying on the strength of demonstration,
that if there were another earth, by going into it he could remove
this. Hiero being struck with amazement at this, and entreating him to
make good this problem by actual experiment, and show some great weight
moved by a small engine, he fixed accordingly upon a ship of burden out
of the king's arsenal, which could not be drawn out of the dock without
great labor and many men; and, loading her with many passengers and a
full freight, sitting himself the while far off, with no great
endeavour, but only holding the head of the pulley in his hand and
drawing the cords by degrees, he drew the ship in a straight line, as
smoothly and evenly as if she had been in the sea. The king, astonished
at this, and convinced of the power of the art, prevailed upon
Archimedes to make him engines accommodated to all the purposes,
offensive and defensive, of a siege. These the king himself never made
use of, because he spent almost all his life in profound quiet and the
highest affluence. But the apparatus was, in most opportune time,
ready at hand for the Syracusans, and with it also the engineer
himself.
When, therefore, the Romans assaulted the walls in two places at once,
fear and consternation stupefied the Syracusans, believing that nothing
was able to resist that violence and those forces. But when Archimedes
began to ply his engines, he at once shot against the land forces all
sorts of missile weapons, and immense masses of stone that came down
with incredible noise and violence; against which no man could stand;
for they knocked down those upon whom they fell in heaps, breaking all
their ranks and files. In the meantime huge poles thrust out from the
walls over the ships sunk some by the great weights which they let down
from on high upon them; others they lifted up into the air by an iron
hand or beak like a crane's beak and, when they had drawn them up by
the prow, and set them on end upon the poop, they plunged them to the
bottom of the sea; or else the ships, drawn by engines within, and
whirled about, were dashed against steep rocks that stood jutting out
under the walls, with great destruction of the soldiers that were
aboard them. A ship was frequently lifted up to a great height in the
air (a dreadful thing to behold), and was rolled to and fro, and kept
swinging, until the mariners were all thrown out, when at length it was
dashed against the rocks, or let fall. At the engine that Marcellus
brought upon the bridge of ships, which was called Sambuca, from some
resemblance it had to an instrument of music, while it was as yet
approaching the wall, there was discharged a piece of rock of ten
talents weight, then a second and a third, which striking upon it with
immense force and a noise like thunder, broke all its foundation to
pieces, shook out all its fastenings, and completely dislodged it from
the bridge. So Marcellus, doubtful what counsel to pursue, drew off
his ships to a safer distance, and sounded a retreat to his forces on
land. They then took a resolution of coming up under the walls, if it
were possible, in the night; thinking that as Archimedes used ropes
stretched at length in playing his engines, the soldiers would now be
under the shot, and the darts would, for want of sufficient distance to
throw them, fly over their heads without effect. But he, it appeared,
had long before framed for such occasions engines accommodated to any
distance, and shorter weapons; and had made numerous small openings in
the walls, through which, with engines of a shorter range, unexpected
blows were inflicted on the assailants. Thus, when they who thought to
deceive the defenders came close up to the walls, instantly a shower of
darts and other missile weapons were again cast upon them. And when
stones came tumbling down perpendicularly upon their heads, and, as it
were, the whole wall shot out arrows at them, they retired. And now,
again, as they were going off arrows and darts of a longer range
inflicted a great slaughter among them, and their ships were driven one
against another; while they themselves were not able to retaliate in
any way. For Archimedes had provided and fixed most of his engines
immediately under the wall; whence the Romans, seeing that indefinite
mischief overwhelmed them from no visible means, began to think they
were fighting with the gods.
Yet Marcellus escaped unhurt, and deriding his own artificers and
engineers, "What,"said he, "must we give up fighting with this
geometrical monster, who plays pitch-and-toss with our ships, and, with
the multitude of darts which he showers at a single moment upon us,
really outdoes the hundred-handed giants of mythology?" And, doubtless,
the rest of the Syracusans were but the body of Archimedes's designs,
one soul moving and governing all; for, laying aside all other arms,
with this alone they infested the Romans and protected themselves. In
fine, when such terror had seized upon the Romans, that, if they did
but see a little rope or a piece of wood from the wall, instantly
crying out, that there it was again, Archimedes was about to let fly
some engine at them, they turned their backs and fled, Marcellus
desisted from conflicts and assaults, putting all his hope in a long
siege. Yet Archimedes possessed so high a spirit, so profound a soul,
and such treasures of scientific knowledge, that though these
inventions had now obtained him the renown of more than human sagacity,
he yet would not deign to leave behind him any commentary or writing on
such subjects; but, repudiating as sordid and ignoble the whole trade
of engineering, and every sort of art that lends itself to mere use and
profit, he placed his whole affection and ambition in those purer
speculations where there can be no reference to the vulgar needs of
life; studies, the superiority of which to all others is unquestioned,
and in which the only doubt can be whether the beauty and grandeur of
the subjects examined, of the precision and cogency of the methods and
means of proof, most deserve our admiration. It is not possible to
find in all geometry more difficult and intricate questions, or more
simple and lucid explanations. Some ascribe this to his natural
genius; while others think that incredible effort and toil produced
these, to all appearances, easy and unlabored results. No amount of
investigation of yours would succeed in attaining the proof, and yet,
once seen, you immediately believe you would have discovered it; by so
smooth and so rapid a path he leads you to the conclusion required.
And thus it ceases to be incredible that (as is commonly told of him)
the charm of his familiar and domestic Siren, invention, made him
forget his food and neglect his person, to that degree that when he was
occasionally carried by absolute violence to bathe or have his body
anointed, he used to trace new inventions in the ashes of the fire, and
diagrams in the oil on his body, being in a state of entire
preoccupation, and, in the truest sense, divine possession with his
love and delight in science. His discoveries were numerous and
admirable; but he is said to have requested his friends and relations
that, when he was dead, they would place over his tomb the five simple
machines of physics. Lever and fulcrum, wheel and axle, pulley, screw,
and spring.
Such was Archimedes, who now showed himself, and so far as lay in him
the city also, invincible. While the siege continued, Marcellus took
Megara, one of the earliest founded of the Greek cities in Sicily, and
capturing also the camp of Hippocrates at Acilae, killed above eight
thousand men, having attacked them whilst they were engaged in forming
their fortifications. He overran a great spart of Sicily; gained over
many towns from the Carthaginians, and overcame all that dared to
encounter him. As the siege went on, one Damippus, a Lacedaemonian,
putting to sea in a ship from Syracuse, was taken. When the Syracusans
much desired to redeem this man, and there were many meetings and
treaties about the matter betwixt them and Marcellus, he had
opportunity to notice a tower into which a body of men might be
secretly introduced, as the wall near to it was not difficult to
surmount, and it was itself carelessly guarded. Coming often thither,
and entertaining conferences about the release of Damippus, he had
pretty well calculated the height of the tower, and got ladders
prepared. The Syracusans celebrated a feast to Diana; this juncture of
time, when they were given up entirely to wine and sport, Marcellus
laid hold of, and before the citizens perceived it, not only possessed
himself of the tower, but, before the break of day, filled the wall
around with soldiers, and made his way into the Hexapylum. The
Syracusans now beginning to stir, and to be alarmed at the tumult, he
ordered the trumpets everywhere to sound, and thus frightened them all
into flight, as if all parts of the city were already won, though the
most fortified, and the fairest, and most ample quarter was still
ungained. It is called Acradina, and was divided by a wall from the
outer city, one part of which they call Neapolis, the other Tycha.
Possessing himself of these, Marcellus, about break of day, entered
through the Hexapylum, all his officers congratulating him. But
looking down from the higher places upon the beautiful and spacious
city below, he is said to have wept much, commiserating the calamity
that hung over it, when his thoughts represented to him how dismal and
foul the face of the city would be in a few hours, when plundered and
sacked by the soldiers. For among the officers of his army there was
not one man that durst deny the plunder of the city to the soldiers'
demands; nay, many were instant that it should be set on fire and laid
level to the ground: but this Marcellus would not listen to. Yet he
granted, but with great unwillingness and reluctance that the money and
slaves should be made prey; giving orders, at the same time, that none
should violate any free person, nor kill, misuse, or make a slave of
any of the Syracusans. Though he had used this moderation, he still
esteemed the condition of that city to be pitiable, and, even amidst
the congratulations and joy, showed his strong feelings of sympathy and
commiseration at seeing all the riches accumulated during a long
felicity now dissipated in an hour. For it is related that no less
prey and plunder was taken here than afterward in Carthage. For not
long after they obtained also the plunder of the other parts of the
city, which were taken by treachery; leaving nothing untouched but the
king's money, which was brought into the public treasury. But nothing
enraptured Marcellus so much as the death of Archimedes, who was by
then the biggest enemy of all Rome.And as fate would have it, as
Archimedes was fleeing north to Mount Etna from Marcellus with his
heavy instruments and tools, by which the magnitude of the sun might be
measured to the sight, some soldiers seeing him, and thinking that he
carried gold in a vessel, slew him. Despite the order of the Roman
commander that the Architect be spared to be tried and tortured in
Rome.
Plutarch: Archimedes had the understanding of the engineering works of
levers, pulleys, and compound pulleys. King Hieron doubting the power
of these mechanical devices. The King wanted a practical demonstration
and so Archimedes selected the King's largest ship and moved the
largest ship all by himself a-pulling.
A one-man-military-industrial-complex that was I Archimedes.
Return to TopI saw a special on "Sightings" once, talking about this light. Its in the area of the 4 corners...where all 4 states join. exact location was given on the show, but I dont remember the directions. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Computer Disciple, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+Return to Top
In article <33b51188.30206662@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, s.meric@merde.ix.netcom.com (Polar) writes: >On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:05:50 -0500, rayvt@comm.mot.com.nospam (Ray Van >Tassle) wrote: >> >>How about the most obvious of all reasons: Very few people of ANY sex >>become President. The number of men who are able and willing to put out >>the lifelong effort required to become eligible for President is very >>small. >>The number of women able & willing to put out that effort is even smaller. >> >That only shows common sense. > I agree. >And considering how the office of president has been reduced by the >spin doctors and sensationalist media (abetted by the slavering >public, bien su^r) Yep, that's very important, the bit in parenthesis. >what worthwhile person, male or female, is going >to expose him/herself to the sniggering personal attacks on >candidates -- as opposed to investigating where they stand on issues, >and what policies they plan to implement? My feelings exactly > > No, we'll end up getting what we have implicitly asked for: A blank >slate on which the most powerful can write their demands. > "In democracy people get the government they deserve" (source unknown) Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"Return to Top
> coming to the statement about n=0.25..i am not sure why it should be > so. [ that this would be for a perfectly isotropic solid] One of the scientific greats is alleged to have made a calculation that if there were only central force fields acting between the atoms, then allegedly the Poisson ratio would be something near 0.25, or thereabouts. it kind of makes sense that if there are only central forces, then perhaps there could be enough of an additional constraint to fix a relationship betweeen some of the remaining elastic constants for an isotropic body. I've forgotten the famous scientist, but somebody else will remember him.Return to Top