Newsgroup sci.physics 243379

Anthony Potts wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Ronald Kunne wrote:
> 
> > The problem is, Mr. Potts, that we physicists are not alone here in this
> > group. It's not the Aleph or CDF counting room, but a rather public place.
> >
> > That means that you will find here people of all levels.
> 
> And that's part of the reason that I read the group.
> 
> The thing is, howeverm that you can't help people to better understand
> physics if they just keep repeating thing like "but you can't have
> momentum without mass".
> 
> Once someone has pointed out that one party in an argument has made a
> basic flaw in their standard physics, it would make a lot more sense for
> them to go off and sort this flaw out.
> 
> All too often, someone will say "but your theory dispbeys the
> conservations of momentum and energy, and makes entropy run uphill".
> 
> The reply is oh so rarely "Damn, I'd better think again", and is usually
> "well then, energy and momentum must not be conserved, and entropy must
> indeed flow uphill, you blinkered bigot".
> 
> > I am sure, Mr. Potts, you can figure out for yourself, just why that is
> > important. Therefore, Mr. Potts, don't chase them away with your usual
> > arrogance. If somebody makes an error or has an explanation all inside-out,
> > then explain him, why he is wrong. Nicely!
> 
> I don't want to chase them away., I want to point out that when it comes
> to standard physics, you can bet your bottom dollar that when a high
> energy physicist says that mass is invariant, that that is the accepted
> truth of the matter.
> 
> This is not saying that the standard physics must be right, but it is
> saying that that is what the standard physics says.
> 
> When an English teacher, for example, then says that I am wrong, because
> their "physics for pedestrians" lecture said otherwise, I will tend to get
> exasperated.
> 
> Physics taught to non-physicists is sometimes simplified so much that it
> is untrue. That is what has happened in teh case which prompted this
> thread about variable mass.
> 
> Mass is invariant. It has a single definition, and that definition is such
> that mass does not vary with a change of reference frame.
> 
> To argue otherwise it to argue that the kilogram is defined wrong, or that
> a yard is actually six feet in length.
> 
> The argument isn't about the functioning of the universe, but about the
> standard accepted definition.
> 
> If people insist on using their own non-standard definitions in their
> proofs, then it is still my opinion that they would be better off not
> bothering.
> 
> > PS This is already my third Mr. Potts flame! I wonder how you do it.
> > One of these days we will meet face to face and you turn out to be a very
> > nice person. Another case of an Internet character distorsion.
> >
> It's the total lack of tonality in the text, you see. Can't really be
> helped. The fact that you also aren't facing the person will also tend to
> stop some of the pressures to tone down opinions.
Since you bought your education and diplomas its no wonder you 
can't understand what people with no more than a gradeschool 
education have said and resort to insults and slander !

In article ,   wrote:
>In article <33AB1F2C.5AC3678D@bigfoot.com>, Jay Hanson  writes:
>>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>--------------77795A9A7E70BCE7650E938D
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <33AAD52B.49556740@bigfoot.com>, Jay Hanson  writes:
>>> >
>>> >But modern cognitive science has shown that people do not make
>>> > decisions by calculating the utility of each decision. Thus,
>>> >  economic "rational man" is a fraud that leaves the public
>>> >   exposed to ongoing economic and political exploitation by
>>> >    corporate media experts. Moreover, this fraud provides
>>> >     economists and political leaders with effective "moral cover",
>>> >      or in the words of Adolph Eichmann, "a kind of Pontius Pilate
>>> >       feeling" that leaves them free of all guilt for their dirty
>>> >        deeds. [ for more, see: http://dieoff.org/page103.htm ]
>>> >
>>> This is all very nice. But, since we cannot trust people to make the
>>> right decisions, whom are we going to trust?  Who will take care of us
>>
>>You are right, individuals can not make "right" decisions,
>> but institutions can make "right" decisions by using
>> experts and technology.
>>
>Institutions are made of individuals.  Experts are individuals.  How 
>can you trust them?
>
>>Recall that there is ONLY ONE solution to the Tragedy of
>> the Commons: a political solution -- "mutual coercion,
>>  mutually agreed upon".
>>
>>We must invent a government that money can't buy 
>
>Good luck to you :-)
It almost sounds to me that you are saying, in this whole thread,
that there is no hope for the human species.
-- 
"When we talk to God we are praying; when God talksto us, we
	 are schizophrenic." -- Lily Tomlin
URL http://www.rfoy.org 

In article ,   wrote:
>In article <5oebpm$9kh@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>Right.  But the fact that it is unavoidable, doesn't mean that one 
>should accept it unchallenged.  Thus, when I see statements which go 
>way further than existing evidence warrants, I see it as my duty to 
>object.
>>
Good. 
I hope you object equally as strongly when you see such statements in
the opposite direction.
-- 
"When we talk to God we are praying; when God talksto us, we
	 are schizophrenic." -- Lily Tomlin
URL http://www.rfoy.org 

In article ,   wrote:
>In article , rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>>In article ,   wrote:
>>>
>>>Increasing competition by itself doesn't lead to more capability.  It 
>>>does lead to faster improvement of the product and the manufacturing 
>>>process which yield decrease in price as long as there is room for 
>>>improvement (see above).  Beyond this it allows the manufacturers and 
>>>the retailers to lower their profit margin since the larger volume 
>>>makes up for this.  But, only up to a point.  You do reach a point 
>>>where no further significant decreases occur.
>>
>>Perhaps. However, I believe that you will find that manufacturers
>>generally use a cost vs quantity estimatation that continually
>>decreases with volume.
>>
>Yeah.  But asymptotically so.
True.
>
>>Part of the reason is that there is always room for improvement. It
>>just gets more costly as time goes on so it requries more production
>>to be able to pay for itself. 
>
>Again, agreed (in principle).  But the prices converge asymptotically 
>(i.e gains beyond some point become negligible).  That's why you see, 
>in the area of mature products, companies differing by an order of 
>magnitude in size who nevertheless manage to offer the product at a 
>similar cost.
>
>BTW, no, I'm not claiming that solar panels are already at or close to 
>the asymptote.  But I also don't see the room for a drop in price on a 
>scope that'll make them an economically attractive for general purpose 
>application in the near future.  As for far future (generation and 
>beyond) nobody can make sensible predictions.  Too many unknowns.
This is where we differ. It would be interesting to draw a curve of
cost and quatity of production vs time of solar cells up to the
present time. And then project that forward.
In my thinking about price I attempt to do this, (without doing the
work of gathering the data, and with my biases). My conclusion is
that a ten fold increase in production would probably produce a
factor of two drop in cost. 
-- 
"When we talk to God we are praying; when God talksto us, we
	 are schizophrenic." -- Lily Tomlin
URL http://www.rfoy.org 

Mark Tarka (gmt1810@msu.oscs.montana.edu) wrote:
: 
: Seriously, though, is there a specific area of the sciences where
: this "laziness" or "impetuous" phenomenenon is especially overt?
While not orthodox science, I believe the thread was largely  
addressed to the CF folk and their history of extraordinary but 
unsubstantiated claims.  (This field is composed largely
of non-physicists making unsupportable claims in experimental 
physics.) 
                                          Harry C.

In article <5oevl1$9kh@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
Michael Tobis  wrote:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: >In this light the developed countries agreed at Rio in 1992 to restrain 
>: >post-2000 emissions to 1990 levels. Few countries seem to be complying with
>: >this "commitment".
>
>: Are you surprised?-)
>
>I admit I am taken aback by the ease with which diplomats can agree to
>things which they have not the slightest intention of accomplishing.
>The impending failure of the Rio Accord has done a great deal to
>reinforce my pessimism. It also makes me wonder if there is any
>purpose to climate research. Pure fluid dynamics is much prettier, 
>and engineering is more lucrative.
I hope this concern about the purpose of climate research is a
temporary frustration. Though I am an electronics engineer and not
particularly knowledgeable about climatatology, I am 99.99% convinced
that climate research is the most important work being done today.
It IS frstrating when we see politicians do things like the Rio
Accord and then ignore it. But that does not mean that the Rio
Accord is useless and that climate research is not important. 
Actually it means that the research is more important. It seems to me
that the knowlege produced by research spreads slowly. First the
majority of researches in the particular field accept the results.
Then technically competant people in other fields, such as myself,
accept it. Then the thoughtful non technical people accpet it. Then
the general public. Then the corporations with vested related vested
interests accept it. Then the politicians accept it. 
Then things might start happening.
But in the problem of climate change the more people can do to spread
the word and broaden the understanding the better.
HOwever I doubt very seriously that serious things to ameliorate the
effects of climate change will be done in time to prevent the most
devastating "natural" disasters that have ever happened.
Atually in my not so scientific opinion this may already have
happened. Can the climatologists say with any certainty that the
devastating floods in the Red River valley this year were not
partially as severe as they were at least partially a result of humn
effects on the climate?
>
>Is there any point in hassling with the nasty details of the real world
>when all it carries is uncertain funding as the political winds shift,
>while the feedback to policy remains trivial? What is the point of second
>order refinements when the public debate is still on the rather vapid
>question "global warming - yes or no?"
>
>The sensible feedback from science to policy should be in addressing the
>question of how much total accumulation of greenhouse gases should be
>tolerated so that the risks of further accumulation are balanced by the
>economic risks of the constraints. It's a really interesting question, but at
>this point I have my doubts that the political sector gives a good
>goddamn about it. Two to six year election cycles and twenty year careers
>are not suited to dealing responsibly with fifty to hundred year problems.
>And the press is busy dividing the public into the two camps, the "yes"
>and the "no" camp. We need a strategy, not a bloody tennis match.
>
>mt
>
-- 
"When we talk to God we are praying; when God talksto us, we
	 are schizophrenic." -- Lily Tomlin
URL http://www.rfoy.org 

In article ,   wrote:
>In article <33AAD52B.49556740@bigfoot.com>, Jay Hanson  writes:
>>
>>But modern cognitive science has shown that people do not make
>> decisions by calculating the utility of each decision. Thus,
>>  economic "rational man" is a fraud that leaves the public
>>   exposed to ongoing economic and political exploitation by
>>    corporate media experts. Moreover, this fraud provides
>>     economists and political leaders with effective "moral cover",
>>      or in the words of Adolph Eichmann, "a kind of Pontius Pilate
>>       feeling" that leaves them free of all guilt for their dirty
>>        deeds. [ for more, see: http://dieoff.org/page103.htm ]
>>
>This is all very nice. But, since we cannot trust people to make the 
>right decisions, whom are we going to trust?  Who will take care of us 
>"for our own good"?  Any takers for the position of "guardian of 
>mankind?"
Perhaps a better question would be "Who should we not trust to make
the decisions for us?" 
My answere to that would be, "We should not trust corporate
advertizers and their flunkies in government."
-- 
"When we talk to God we are praying; when God talksto us, we
	 are schizophrenic." -- Lily Tomlin
URL http://www.rfoy.org 

In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes...
>In article <33AA9E82.49C3@continet.com>, Rich Lemert  writes:
>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <5od2be$ei4$1@news.fsu.edu>, dmm5206@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (D. Maso-Furedi) writes:
>>> >
>>> >P.S. If people were able to put aside their racism and sexism in hirings,
>>> >why has there never been a Black/female President?
>>> 
>>> Since women are the majority of the voters in the US, it is rather
>>> difficult to justify the idea that "no woman has been elected
>>> president due to sexism".
>>> 
>>
>>  Actually, its rather easy. First, women did not even have the right
>>to vote for most of the republic's life. Then when they did, they were
>>never given female candidates to vote for. Remember, while in theory
>>the voters select the candidates through the primaries, in practice 
>>they are selected by their parties with the consent of the voting
>>populace.
>>
>And who are the parties made of?  Martians?
 Your contention was that since women constitute the majority of the
electorate, one cannot attribute the lack of a woman president to
sexism. This could only be correct if the electorate, as a whole,
had a direct vote on the presidency. In fact, candidates have to obtain
sufficient backing from a very small subset of the electorate (those
with money and power within the parties, or just money) before 
they can put themselves forward as candidates. And only a national
candidate stands any chance of being elected. 
Even the selection of candidates by an all party-member vote in the primaries 
has only been around since when - the early 60s? maybe even later. Smoky
backrooms ar party conventions for earlier elections.
 Therefore, the composition of the entire electorate is irrelevant to
the selection of a presidential candidate, since the entire electorate
does not decide who stands, and your contention is incorrect.
 This does not mean that the lack of women candidates is due to overt 
sexism, but the (continued) disparity in numbers between male and female 
politicians is kind of striking. Do you _really_ think that those attitudes 
actually play/played no role in politics????
 Neill Reid - inr@dowland.caltech.edu
> 
>Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
>meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"

"Mike Burkett"  wrote:
}
} A friend and I were trying to understand the physics behind the topspin hit
} in tennis versus the slice shot. From our experience, and according to some
} tennis literature I have seen, a ball hit with topspin "kicks up" on the
} bounce, that is... it bounces higher than one hit without topspin. A slice
} will tend to skip off the surface and not bounce as high.
Tim Mason  writes:
>
>Mmmm...you must hit some wierd shots :-)
 My experience is mainly with ping pong, since I could never hit a 
 tennis ball well enough to explore the effect of spin, but I agree 
 with the physics of your analysis and conclusions. 
>Balls with topspin bounce lower and faster than balls without spin, and 
>balls with backspin (sliced) bounce higher and slower.
 However, when the ball is played off the racquet, one does get the 
 effect described above.  That is, misread topspin and the ball 
 will kick up, backspin and you will net it.  That may be what 
 was being remembered from experience.  It must also be very 
 different on grass than on slower surfaces. 
>Balls with topspin curve downwards in flight, which I guess is an 
>aerodynamic effect caused by the spin. 
 Our old friend, the Magnus effect, that makes baseball's curve. 
 Crucial to getting a hard serve in for either tennis or ping pong. 
-- 
 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. 

Peter Diehr wrote:
> 
>  @netroplex.com wrote in article <5o80oa$8pi@tofu.alt.net>...
> >I quite agree. Let's not deal in mumbo-jumbo. Let's keep it
> >simple and clear.
> >
> 
> Great! And the clearest, simplest way to say it is as follows:
> 
> mc = Sqrt[ (E/c)^2 - p^2 ]
> 
> where E=total energy, c=speed of light, p=momentum
> gives m, the invariant mass (times a constant, c)
> 
> If m=0 then p = E/c, else p = gamma*m*v, where gamma = 1/Sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2
> ], with v being the velocity of the particle.
> 
> >In an accelerator mass *does* increase. It is *not* velocity
> >invariant.
> >
> 
> No, it is the same m everywhere ... E and p "conspire" to make it so ...
> 
> >Outside an accelerator mass *does not* increase. It is velocity
> >invariant.
> >
> 
> Quite right ...
> 
> >How do we explain this?
> >
> 
> Same reason:  P=(E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z) is a relativistic four-vector ... and the
> length of this vector is a constant, regardless of how it is viewed.  This
> means it is frame-invariant.  This is the result you get from a geometric
> analysis of spacetime and Special Relativity.
> 
    Then P = H( f(p_x), g(E/c, p_y, p_z) )and the functions 
    f and g must be inversions of each other in the yin-yang sense ? 
    Similary for the relativistic covariant 
    c = H(f(wavelength), g(frequency)) 
    in the simple case f=1/gamma and g=1/f and H is the times "operator". 
    The same holding for c = H(f(length), g(time)) 
    where f=1/gamma, g=1/f and H is the division operator.

Wm James (spam@here.not) wrote:
: Many of the computer models do not match the data they are
: designed to mimic. Most have not been able to predict with any
: success, yet they continue to be used to support the political
: positions of the socialists. This is antiscientific, and
: anti-environment.
Amazing.  Why is it that 9 times out of 10 the user of a word like
"antiscientific" immediately shows that he has little grasp of science?
Politics appears to be a weak spot too.  I wonder which "socialists"
are being referred to.  Does Bernie Sanders have a special position
paper on computer models?
: For example, there is absolutly no evidence that CFCs are any
: danger of any kind to the ozone layer. Yet freon is getting
: harder to find and mush more expensive.  The substitutes for
: freon 12 are quite toxic and less efficient. This is not only a
: real hazard, but requires more energy to produce the same
: cooling.
OK, brave defender of science, why don't you read the stratospheric
ozone depletion FAQ?  Then, if you have any actual and reasoned
objection to the science involved, please make it.  References
would help.
And as a toxicological footnote, you can specify just what you mean
by "quite toxic".  
: The public needs to be educated in the fields of science.  
I agree.  Luckily for you, there is an outstanding opportunity for
more education very close at hand.
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html

>luke@rocketship.com wrote:
>>No, but niether would I falsely claim that I could. Christians, on
>>the other hand, are falsely claiming to prove of the existence of
>>a person somewhere in the universe that they have never seen
>>or met, for over 2000 years. You can't make a claim and then wait
>>for the evidence to magically show up, you have to find evidence
>>first.
>God is not just "somewhere in the universe" God is everywhere. 
How do you know that?
>>>In this present day and age, are you able to prove or disprove the
>>>existance of life elsewhere in the universe?
>>No, but so what? I don't claim to otherwise. Christians, on the other
>>hand, claim the existence of a certain lifeform elsewhere in the
>>universe but offer no proof. If it hasn't shown itself, if it hasn't
>>already been manisfested, then you can't claim that it _does_ exist,
>>you can only claim you _hope_ it exists.
>God is not a "certain lifeform elsewhere in the universe" God is the author
>of all lifeforms. By definition God is the most high, most powerful, most
>intelligent - how shall I put it - King? Existance? Lord? The master of the
>universe. Nothing can ever be more powerful or intelligent than God. The
>reason for this is that God is infinite. Our minds, or any finite mind
>cannot grasp the concept of infinity, so many people try to think of a "big
>guy" who is more powerful than anything that they can imagine and end up
>with a finite god. (This may account for why many atheists on usenet forget
>to capitalize the G)
But this is YOUR abitrary definition. Anyone can arbitrarily define
anything they can imagine and that is precisely what you have
done with God. It is one thing to make up definitions about something
that you imagine, it is quite another thing to show that these qualities
exist in God if you cannot show that God exists to begin with.
>>It is one thing to speculate on the existence of something that
>>may or may not exist. It is quite another thing to base your life on
>>something that has never been shown to exist. Scientists and
>>logical thinking people get the facts first and then believe while
>>Christians and illogical thinking people believe first and then wait for
>>the facts to show up. They have been waiting for over 5000 years now
>> and nothing has happened yet, so when are they going to learn?
>It is not whether an idea can be proven that counts, it whether an idea can
>be disproven that counts.
OK, I just murdered your God, now prove that I didn't murder him. That
kind of logic will get you nowhere. In fact, you cannot prove that there
isn't more than one God, so your claim that there is one or two or even
three Gods would be completely wrong...unless you can disprove that.
In science, that isn't how things are done. If science did things that way
there could never be any progress, just like religion hasn't progressed
in the last 2000 years. Science goes by facts, and the fact is there is no
God.
>Evolution is a good example of an idea that can be disproven.
>There are plenty of normal fossels but no transitional ones.
>There are a lot of bad mutations, but no good ones (besides sicle cell
>anemia).
That wouldn't disprove that evolution happened, that would only disprove
the way some people think it happened.
Evolution is a fact because of the overwhelming fossil evidence that
exists. You cannot erase or undo those facts. And for your information,
all "normal fossils" are transistional fossils. There are innumerable
numbers of transistional fossils, but no one has discovered all the
fossils that there are to discover and not all lifeforms are lucky enough
to be fossilized, since fossilization is a very rare thing. So naturally
one would expect gaps but the gaps aren't proof that nothing happened.
>God, however has not been disproven and cannot be disproven.
Allah, however has not been disproven and cannot be disproven.
Buddha, however has not been disproven and cannot be disproven.
Invisible Pink Elephants, however has not been disproven and cannot be
disproven.
It is very easy to disprove that God doesn't exist, and it has been
done numerous times. Would you like to see me do it?
>To say so would be to say that there is no intelligence in the
>universe and there is no power in the universe, and that the
>universe is finite. All of these things are not so, so God must
>exist.
To say so would not be to say that there is no intelligence in the
universe (man is intelligent whether or not God exists), and that
the universe is finite (the universe is infinite despite the lack of
God now).
>Forgive me if my logic is not complete: when you are dealing with infinite
>things, you cannot completely understand them.
It isn't a matter of forgiveness, it is a matter of education. You don't
understand the thing that you have been conned into believing, that's
all.
The_Sage

On 20 Jun 97 22:15:09 -0700, luke@rocketship.com let it be known that:
>>>george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote:
>>
>>>> How do you know? You have no capabilities to know spiritual beings nor
>>>>are
>>>> you able to show anyone spiritual beings. That certainly would be
>>>>coincidental
>>>> with the definition of non-existant beings.
>>
>>>2000 years ago, living near the Mediteranian, would you be able to show
>or
>>>prove to anyone of the existance of peoples on the other side of the
>>>globe?
>>
>>No, but niether would I falsely claim that I could. Christians, on
>>the other hand, are falsely claiming to prove of the existence of
>>a person somewhere in the universe that they have never seen
>>or met, for over 2000 years. You can't make a claim and then wait
>>for the evidence to magically show up, you have to find evidence
>>first.
>
>God is not just "somewhere in the universe" God is everywhere. 
	Well then god must be in hell also.
	Omnipresent means everywhere. Everywhere includes hell.
	Bet you won't like that, will you.  Too bad. Not my problem your silly
fantasy has some serious contradictions.
>
>>>In this present day and age, are you able to prove or disprove the
>>>existance of life elsewhere in the universe?
>>
>>No, but so what? I don't claim to otherwise. Christians, on the other
>>hand, claim the existence of a certain lifeform elsewhere in the
>>universe but offer no proof. If it hasn't shown itself, if it hasn't
>>already been manisfested, then you can't claim that it _does_ exist,
>>you can only claim you _hope_ it exists.
>
>God is not a "certain lifeform elsewhere in the universe" God is the author
>of all lifeforms. By definition God is the most high, most powerful, most
>intelligent - how shall I put it - King? Existance? Lord? The master of the
>universe. Nothing can ever be more powerful or intelligent than God. The
>reason for this is that God is infinite. Our minds, or any finite mind
>cannot grasp the concept of infinity,
	So how can you say anything about god then if you cannot comprehend it?
> so many people try to think of a "big
>guy" who is more powerful than anything that they can imagine and end up
>with a finite god. (This may account for why many atheists on usenet forget
>to capitalize the G)
	There are many gods. Zeus, Krishna, Allah, etc. Not just yours. Perhaps
you've forgotten that.
>
>>It is one thing to speculate on the existence of something that
>>may or may not exist. It is quite another thing to base your life on
>>something that has never been shown to exist. Scientists and
>>logical thinking people get the facts first and then believe while
>>Christians and illogical thinking people believe first and then wait for
>>the facts to show up. They have been waiting for over 5000 years now
>> and nothing has happened yet, so when are they going to learn?
>
>It is not whether an idea can be proven that counts, it whether an idea can
>be disproven that counts. Evolution is a good example of an idea that can
>be disproven. 
	It has yet to be disproven.
>There are plenty of normal fossels but no transitional ones.
	Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/  
	Why don't creationists *ever* go there? Are you afraid of scientific
fact?
>There are a lot of bad mutations, but no good ones (besides sicle cell
>anemia).
>
>God, however has not been disproven and cannot be disproven.
	Because it is a non-falsifiable concept.
> To say so would be to say that there is no intelligence in the universe and there is
>no power in the universe, and that the universe is finite. All of these
>things are not so, so God must exist.
	You claim something and yet provide no proof. You must not only prove
that the universe exhibits "intelligence" (design you mean), "power" (whatever
that means), and is "infinite" (it's actually non-bounded finite) but that
"intelligence" is required.
	Simply asserting something does not make it true.
>
>Forgive me if my logic is not complete: when you are dealing with infinite
>things, you cannot completely understand them.
	Then how can you claim that your god is omnipresent? That implies some
sort of understanding.
Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51
Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin

In article <33ab1ebe.2322943@news.klis.com>, enigma@klis.comYY wrote:
> >There was no evidence to support the concept of an atom back when the
> >Greeks postulated the theory.  Did that mean it wasn't a valid theory?
> 
>  In that time period it was not a valid theory. It is now. Something
> becomes valid once there is evidence to support it. You cannot say
> that God exists because we will prove it exists in the future. If you
> did, I could just say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, it's
> just that we haven't been able to prove it yet. It's not a good way of
> arguing one's point.
No.  Even if you had no evidence, atoms still exist.  They came up with a
theory, and though it was very rough, it turned out to be correct.  It was
a valid theory then.  You certainly couldn't say it was "invalid".
You're playing word games, so I'll play along.
I can prove Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist by the following theory
and logic:
1) Invisible means something cannot be seen with the eye.
2) Pink is a quality than can be seen by the eye.
3) Since pink can be seen by the eye, it is not invisible.
4) Therefore, something cannot be both pink and invisible.
I didn't even have to mess with the unicorn part as your logic doesn't
hold from the start.
>  I think he/she ment that having faith in something like science, that
> can be perceived by our five senses, which we all agree we have, and
> are therefore universal, is more reliable than having faith in an
> entity that is beyond our comprehension and/or senses.
Some of us have a spiritual sense that lets us experience God.  We not
only have faith, we KNOW.  Some people just have faith, and that's enough.
Quarks are beyond most people's comprehension.  Even the best minds in
physics don't claim to fully grasp them.  They are beyond the
comprehension of our 5 senses.  We can only detect them through the aid of
machines.  We are greatly removed from experiencing the "world" of quarks.
However, we need not be so far removed from experiencing "God".  If you
use your spiritual sense, it will become more clear to you.  You don't
need expensive machinery or drugs to do it, either.
======================================================================
|                                |                                   |
| Nishnabotna Bend Technologies  | Visit us & request a free issue   |
| Advanced Technology Consulting | of our weekly security report. We |
| Networks-Security-Computing    | summarize current security news   |
| http://www.nishnabotna.com     | and alerts for you!               |
|                                |                                   |
======================================================================

In article <33ab21e8.3133086@news.klis.com>, enigma@klis.comYY wrote:
>  To look at something spiritually, you must first explain to me why
> you think you have a spirit. If science cannot find you spirit what
> can? You cannot prove that you have a spirit by saying that your sense
> you spirit by the means of your spirit. It's circular reasoning.
I know I have a spirit.  Unfortunately, it is not something that can be
sensed directly by the 5 senses.  It's much like self-conciousness.  I
can't explain my self-conciousness in terms of logic.  It just is.
>  But you first explain why there are other tools and techniques.
Why would an explanation be necessary?  If something doesn't work for you,
you look for new tools and techniques, some possibly yet undiscovered.
>  Actually this is wrong. You cannot assume this. How do you know that
>  when you stop looking at something, it disappears then reappears when
>  you look at it again? You don't.
That's possible, but what about existance.  Appearence is a perception,
existance just is.
>  Again, if you are saying that God exists, it's just that we haven't
> been able to prove it yet, I could say that an infinte number of
> things exist, it's just that we haven't been able to prove them yet.
> There should be a *current* basis for your claims.
Yes you could do that.  However there is current basis for the existance
of God, namely the scriptures and personal testimony of people now and
thousands of years ago.  It may not be enough to "prove", but it is enough
indication for a basis of a claim.
> True for both sides. My life has drastically improved since I left
> Christianity, and some other improve when they convert to
> Christianity. So what? All this shows is that humans strive for truth,
> happiness and content. We do not all need to convert to one mindset,
> since some of us may not see it as truth. One billion Christians may
> think I'm going to Hell, but I do not. That's all that really matters.
I'd be interested in hearing that personal testimony for leaving Christianity.
>  Agian. Prove to me why other tools exist.
I don't have to prove that other tools exist.  When you have a problem,
you look for new tools.  Sometimes the tools do not exist, so you create
new tools.
If you don't feel a need for spirtuality, then why look for your
spirituality?  If you think you might need it, or your just curious, go
looking for it.
Unfortunately, it isn't a tool I know how to give you.
>  How do you know that you have spiritual tools? I can easily claim
> that I have a third tool called a "Grishy" that allows me to know who
> is going to win Jeopardy, and when it is wrong, I can just say that it
> isn't always right. Can you prove that I do or do not have this tool?
Well, I wouldn't really be interested in your "Grishy" in the first place
as I have no need for a tool like that.  But let me assume that I might...
Based on your Grishy testimony and that of many other Grishy folks, I may
think "Hey, there may be something to this!" and go looking for my
Grishy.  Maybe I'll find it, maybe I won't.  
> It would be better for me to explain how or why do I know I have this
> tool.
>  If you say "I know God exists because my spirit tells me" it is
> circular reasoning. The origins of the spirit are from God. You cannot
> use something given to you by God to prove God. 
The circle is broken because I personally did not start assuming my
"spirit" was a gift from God.  It just "was" and I accept that as fact. 
From there I explored outward and through that sense detected evidence for
God.  The fact that God gave me that spirit doesn't make it circular,
because I just assumed my  spirit "was" from the start.
> "original motivation" behind your beliefs.
The original motivation is that I am what I am.  That's all I started
with, and I explored from there.  Once I found God, I clinged to that and
started to grow.  My original premise is now no longer necessary because
I'm rooted in God.
======================================================================
|                                |                                   |
| Nishnabotna Bend Technologies  | Visit us & request a free issue   |
| Advanced Technology Consulting | of our weekly security report. We |
| Networks-Security-Computing    | summarize current security news   |
| http://www.nishnabotna.com     | and alerts for you!               |
|                                |                                   |
======================================================================

I have computed a beautiful graph in MathCAD that shows how a bubble, if
compressed by sound or external pressure, can reflect the thermally
induced radiation within. My model assumes the temperature is constant
throughout the bubble. Could someone help me with modeling the inward
rushing shock waves I hear mentioned in various models of
sonolumninescence? I can't upload via UUNET but can share my MathCAD
document with anyone interested. Between .25 and .05 of the initial
radius, the contents are compressed enough to provide a cavity Q from .01
to near 1, by total internal reflection, as the refractivity of the gases
in the bubble becomes equal to, and then greater than, the refractivity of
the water surrounding the bubble. I use the Eyckman equation to model the
refractivity of the gases, rather than the Lorenz-Lorentz (sp?) law, but I
have tried both. .25 radius is 64 times atmospheric density. The MathCAD
document is more readable than my earlier post on this topic. This
refractive change calls the laser scattering data of several authors into
doubt, as at an index of 1.333 (the same as water) the bubble would be 
invisible and wouldn't scatter light. I don't know enough physics to prove
that these widely accepted data are unreliable. The lower bound of bubble
size is critical to this phenomenon. It is interesting that the refractive
index given by the Eykman equation is not sensitive to pressure or
temperature directly, but only needs density as an input. That's good,
because I don't know enough thermodynamics to get either P or V.
I suspect that excimer laser operation is possible in the cavity and guess
that noble-noble molecules may be formed. Or, maybe, ArO excimers in
bubbles filled with air. ArO excimer lasers have already been built by
others. Then there is the question of gain bandwidth....
Ask for sbslq.mcd....
Yours,
DGoncz@aol.com 
A.A.S.M.E.T. (CAD/CAM) 1990 No. Va. Comm. Coll.
Owner of Replikon Research in Fairfax County since 1985
Self-reproducing machine tools, other inventions, 
and the machining and assembly of experimental apparatus.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> My feeling is that it is wide spread, i.e. we don't have saints and
> sinners, only sinners.  Which, in a way, is just business as usual for
> mankind :-)
> 
Well, sinners---people who realize that their conclusions are
speculative---are not so bad. But the sincere believers---who 
jump to unwarrantable conclusions, and then spend 20 years
defending them....
--------------------------------------------------------------
A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian.
                                                    Gibbon
--------------------------------------------------------------

In article <21JUN199710010257@deimos.caltech.edu>, inr@deimos.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid) writes:
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes...
>>In article <33AA9E82.49C3@continet.com>, Rich Lemert  writes:
>>>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> In article <5od2be$ei4$1@news.fsu.edu>, dmm5206@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (D. Maso-Furedi) writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >P.S. If people were able to put aside their racism and sexism in hirings,
>>>> >why has there never been a Black/female President?
>>>> 
>>>> Since women are the majority of the voters in the US, it is rather
>>>> difficult to justify the idea that "no woman has been elected
>>>> president due to sexism".
>>>> 
>>>
>>>  Actually, its rather easy. First, women did not even have the right
>>>to vote for most of the republic's life. Then when they did, they were
>>>never given female candidates to vote for. Remember, while in theory
>>>the voters select the candidates through the primaries, in practice 
>>>they are selected by their parties with the consent of the voting
>>>populace.
>>>
>>And who are the parties made of?  Martians?
>
> Your contention was that since women constitute the majority of the
>electorate, one cannot attribute the lack of a woman president to
>sexism. This could only be correct if the electorate, as a whole,
>had a direct vote on the presidency. In fact, candidates have to obtain
>sufficient backing from a very small subset of the electorate (those
>with money and power within the parties, or just money) before 
>they can put themselves forward as candidates. And only a national
>candidate stands any chance of being elected. 
>Even the selection of candidates by an all party-member vote in the primaries 
>has only been around since when - the early 60s? maybe even later. Smoky
>backrooms ar party conventions for earlier elections.
>
You still don't understand.  In a democratic system power is built 
from below, not from above.  Most people get into politics at grass 
root level, then rise in the system by proving that they can deliver 
this precious commodity, votes.  True, there are relatively small 
groups which control lots of the money and the resources you need to 
compete at national level.  But these groups are pragmatic and if you 
prove that you can deliver lots of votes, you'll get lots of support.  
But, as I said, the process takes long term involvement starting at 
low level and moving up from there.  Without lots of women competing 
at the town level there won't be many at the county level, meaning 
less still at the state level etc.  Long and tedious process but 
that's the only way.  If any specific group of people expects to be 
able to bypass the process and simply be handed a slice of the power 
pie at the national level because "based on our numbers we deserve 
this" than no, it is not going to happen and it shouldn't happen.
Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"

ars@mcs.net writes:
>
>However, a tennis ball is particularily well suited to produce friction
>through air and in contact with the ground.  A tennis ball with no
>rotation hitting the ground at an incidence angle < 90 degrees would
>have some of its energy translated to rotational energy, which would
>cause the ball to be bounced off the ground at a lower angle that the
>incident angle.
 The force is horizontal, so shouldn't it only affect the horizontal 
 component of the momentum?  Of course, a tennis ball is quite dead 
 so it is possible that there is an interplay here that also involves 
 the coefficient of restitution and the horizontal forces at work. 
 I will have to think about that. 
>  A tennis ball that hits the ground with top spin would
>have less of its energy translated to rotational energy.  In fact, it
>could hit the ground at a velocity and rotation that would result in no
>additional rotational speed and an exit from contact at an angle
>identical to the incident.  
 Agreed, but see above.  Also, my understanding is that the rotation 
 is faster than the translation, but that might be my ping pong bias 
 where you can put huge spin on the ball.  What is the amount of 
 spin on a tennis ball? 
>In regards to the height of the bounce, the higher loss of energy in a
>bottom spin ball would exhibit itself as a combined lower bounce height
>and length.
 They also tend to be going slower to begin with if they are going 
 to stay in play for a similar initial impact, so that will come 
 into the analysis also. 
>
>Mike Burkett wrote:
>> 
>> A friend and I were trying to understand the physics behind the topspin hit
>> in tennis versus the slice shot. From our experience, and according to some
>> tennis literature I have seen, a ball hit with topspin "kicks up" on the
>> bounce, that is... it bounces higher than one hit without topspin. A slice
>> will tend to skip off the surface and not bounce as high.
>> 
>> From our brief discussion, it appears that there are several factors that
>> might influence this motion.
>> 
>> 1st You typically hit a topspin shot from a higher trajectory which would
>> give it a higher angle of entry and thus cause you to expect a higher angle
>> after the bounce.
>> 
>> 2nd A topspin shot will tend to curve towards the ground as it goes forward
>> while a slice will tend to form a asymptotic curve with the ground (the
>> ball is responding like a curve thrown by a pitcher in baseball). This
>> curving towards the ground (with the topspin shot) should make the entry
>> angle of the bounce steeper and again give you a higher expected exit
>> angle.
>> 
>> However... it seems if you could keep the entry angle equal on both shots
>> that a ball with topspin, and therefore forward spin when it hits the
>> ground, should tend to bounce more forward (and therefore less upwards)
>> than an equivalent shot with back spin?
>> 
>> Any insight? I assume there are some rotational dynamics I don't understand
>> here, and thought this would be a very SIMPLE problem for people monitoring
>> this newsgroup.
>> 
>> Thanks for your time,
>> Mike Burkett
>> mburkett@tri.sbc.com
>
>-- 
>Allen R. Sampson
>Advanced Research Systems
>317 North 4th. Street
>St. Charles, IL 60174
>PH 630.513.7093   FAX 630.513.7092   Email: ars@sem.com   
>WWW: http://www.mcs.net/~ars/index.html
>repair and maintenance services for analytical instrumentation
-- 
 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. 

> >Let's put it the reverse: "why should
> >all the fotons really travel at only one speed .. can
> >you answer that?" If you can put particles to different
> >speeds why not the same with fotons.
> This has problems - see below.
Where?
> >> What margin of error is there in the speed at which signals
> >> can be detected?
> >Again. Don't have experiments. But this theory answers very
> >nicly several problems not yet answered.
> The problems have been answered, you just don't like the
> answers.
Yes. The old theory is a too global. It trys to answer all
the problems with any price. I don't need that. I like more
a nice theory with some exceptions (defined elsewhere or not
at all or later). And anyway .. all theories will be outdated
someday for some parts anyway. So one should maybe not even
to try to make too global.
> Experimental observation of time dilation - which your
> theory avoids.
What I know the answers to those experiments could have been
almost anything .. I'll put here an example:
"The time difference is experimented because a hybercalactical
spinning directed gravitation field temporary affected the
measurements."
Yes. I try to keep the normal absolute time running (as a
common observer has it). After all the theories should be
made for users. Avoiding as much as possible such things
like clocks, times, frames .. what the nature don't originally
use. I could use rivers, mountains, animals etc. :-) If I only
knew how the form the statements so. More green theory?
> >Well this have something to to do with the energy levels
> >or kvants or something like that. The detection starts only
> >when the signal has the speed c. Why .. that just is so.
> Some arbitrariness in every theory I suppose. You'll have
> to rewrite Maxwell's Laws and QED but thats alright if
> we're already rewriting relativity :)
The relativity as known starts to be outdated anyway since
they show over-c speeds in experiments. What is QED? Maxwell
was dealing with the signals also if I remember it anymore.
> >> Where does the loss of energy caused by unreceived non-c
> >> signals go? Why is this energy loss not observed?
> >Well, the only answer here is that the formulas have something
> >wrong .. if they don't predict non-c speeds. They put all the
> >energy for the c-component or the h is wrong (you name it).
> On further thought I do not believe energy is lost.
Where? .. aa .. you mean the non-c signals. Why is this not
observed? Where does it go?
-> If a signal has never been observed .. it's energy should
also not have been observed? There is like an other world
outside the c .. hard to find .. somewhere in the background
radiation? Lost energy and signals finally make background
radiation. It is not even said that we should detect non-c
energy.
The non-c part could also be the temperature part of the
radiation as a tought.
BTW: I believe that you detect non-c signals also in non
vacum materials when the signal speeds temporary decreases.
> HOWEVER:
> A moving receptor should receive less energy than a stationary
> one assuming a stationary source. No red-shift observed. Yet a
> red-shift is observed and this kind of energy loss is not.
What?
BTW: I have a small problem with detection. Some calculations
could predict (using the theory) that I should be able to receive
"early" signals with some kind of a moving detector from far
sources (detector moving away from the source). Actually when
I made some calculations I found out that I should only walk
(about speed 1 m/s) to get information 1 s earlier from a source
that is 10 light years distant. And if the distance is huge ..
basicly only waving ones head he could take a look in the past
of that source?
So if a distant star exployded .. just nick your head fast
backwards .. and you could see it again? This is maybe too
fatal. I have maybe an error in the calculations or I should
think the signal information side again.
This fenomen is based on the idea of the theory that what
ever longer distance that ever more difference two different
speed signals make when traveling all the voyage. As the
transition to different speeds is mostly smooth in the
destination such fenomens are normally not detected?
But there can also be other answers. The foton speed shift
is smooth .. formed in kvants .. signal edges become smoother
etc.etc.
Well .. there can be answers?
> >> Need I go on? I can if you want.
> >Please .. try to tell me why it's not possible.
> Most of it hinged on the energy loss. However I'll add more
> later.
Why not put it in the background radiation .. or loose it
forever? Who cares?
> >> >WHY SOMEBODY THINK THAT c IS THE SPEED LIMIT
> >> >
> >> >They think it mostly because they cannot detect anything
> >> >going faster than that speed. But this does not limit
> >> >the speed to that c. I only say that we cannot easyly
> >> >detect speeds outside c. That is because our atoms are
> >> >not triggered by (you name the reason) such fotons.
> >> >
> >> Why can we not accelerate objects beyond c? We can get pretty
> >> damned close - ask Potts, and he'll probably tell you that
> >> particles are being accelerated to 99.99% of c or some such
> >> speed right beneath his feet. So why can't they accelerate
> >> particles to 101%c in particle accelerators?
> >
> >Maybe they are already doing it but they just cannot detect
> >them! I am sure that such (whatsoever) are there. Why would
> >we otherwise always get the speed c for whatsoever measurements
> >we do? How ever the sources or destinations are moving. And
> >for all possible different types of signals also .. always c.
> >
> Then they would observe particles vanishing into a
> superluctic state. Which they don't. Mass increase would
> also not be observed.
Superluxtic state = ?
> >> >THIS THEORY OPENS THE SKY
> >> >
> >> >This theory also widens the space. Since we only get
> >> >information about fotons entering our detectors at
> >> >the speed c. We have to be missing a huge amount of
> >> >information travelling at different speeds.
> >> >
> >> >One could think us as beeing radio receivers tuned to
> >> >a frequency (speed) c. And that there are sevral stations
> >> >sending outside our receiver range.
> >> >
> >> Problem is radio reception and transmission is essentially
> >> the same. So why can sources emit non-c signals and yet not
> >> receive them?
> >Because that's the way the nature is. Maybe some fotons loose
> >some energy when created (for example in collisions) and some
> >other fotons get some more energy. And thats why there are
> >several speed available in that signal.
> I'll leave it to you to rewrite Maxwell's equations and QED and
> just about every other time-reversible law of nature (which is
> most of them).
Why I cannot let them be as they are at the moment? I have
nothing against them? And I don't have the books here.
JOJ

Jay Hanson wrote:
> 
> meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >
> > In article <33AAD52B.49556740@bigfoot.com>, Jay Hanson  writes:
> > >
> > >But modern cognitive science has shown that people do not make
> > > decisions by calculating the utility of each decision. Thus,
> > >  economic "rational man" is a fraud that leaves the public
> > >   exposed to ongoing economic and political exploitation by
> > >    corporate media experts. Moreover, this fraud provides
> > >     economists and political leaders with effective "moral cover",
> > >      or in the words of Adolph Eichmann, "a kind of Pontius Pilate
> > >       feeling" that leaves them free of all guilt for their dirty
> > >        deeds. [ for more, see: http://dieoff.org/page103.htm ]
> > >
> > This is all very nice. But, since we cannot trust people to make the
> > right decisions, whom are we going to trust?  Who will take care of us
> 
> You are right, individuals can not make "right" decisions,
>  but institutions can make "right" decisions by using
>  experts and technology.
> 
> Recall that there is ONLY ONE solution to the Tragedy of
>  the Commons: a political solution -- "mutual coercion,
>   mutually agreed upon".
> 
> We must invent a government that money can't buy -- and
>  then limit freedom in the commons.  If we can't, we're dead.
> Jay --
It seems the conversation has shifted from the sciences to the social 
sciences.  I wonder if the correct newsgroups are being addressed.  
Maybe you would like to add a few newsgroups where experts at history, 
law, government, etc., could take potshots at all our opinions.
However,  Professor Jeff is not only clever at math, but a (self) 
ordained expert at human events and institutions as well.  So, here is 
the autoritative opinion of Professor Jeff, which nobody can refute, but 
only refine:  The word government as you and so many people use it shows 
a narrowness of conceptual framework.  The U.N. has a branch called 
"Economic and Social Counsel."  Is this Government by voice of the 
people?  No.  Is it management by voice of the wealthy?  No.  It is 
Management by the voice of the people.  We do not need refinements of 
government to make the economy work and be earth and people friendly.  
We need to adopt this U.N. concept of a whole new kind of citizen 
effort: management by the people.  We still need free competition.  But 
more so we need free and fair competition.  We still need to recognize 
profit seeking corporations as moneyed interests.  But we need also to 
recognize non profits and labor unions as money interests.  The reason 
for doing so is the reason the U.N. does it.  It stems from a previous 
crisis and the passion to avoid catastropy in the future, but the 
passion was just as strong or stronger as your present passion to 
correct the foolish management of our country's resources.
I hope you can take my opinions seriously enough to look up some facts 
about the U.N.  Maybe you'll even get time for my webpage:
http://www.erols.com/geren/welcom.htm
Jeff H.
> Jay -- http://dieoff.org/j.htm
> 
> -----------------
> "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be,
>  first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to
>  discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the
>  society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual
>  precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue
>  to hold their public trust."
>                     -- James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]

In <33A9CF73.2547@sierra.net>, "Rory R. Davis" 
wrote:

Am I reading the drawings right?  Combustion pressure forces the balls
outward radially.  The 'ramp' angle of the V-groove (Is it psi in the
drawings?  A very tiny angle, if I understand correctly.) results in a
circumferential component of force which produces a torque on the
rotor?  It seems to me if you're going to get any significant torque
out of this thing, you're going to need an *extremely* large radial
force.
Have you looked at the Hertz contact stresses at the two *points*
of contact between the ball and the V-groove?  Have you done any
analysis to quantify the effests of wear of the V-groove on the
performance of the machine?
Does the machine exist anywhere but in computer models?  If so,
has it ever been operated as an engine, or just as a compressor?
--
John M. Feiereisen      feierejm(at)utrc.utc.com  

 wrote:
> Well, that's the point.  The losses at the power plant are big.  
> Conversion of chemical to thermal to mechanical to electrical involves
> great losses.  Top efficiency will be around 40%.  Distribution net 
> losses are rather small but still add to something.  So I don't think
> that you can get significantly over 35% global efficiency, with 
> electrical house heating.
How about magnetohydrodynamic generators? I heard that they can convert
thermo-chemical (and possibly thermo-nuclear) energy to electricity at
an efficiency of 50%. I don't know if that is the theoretical max or
just the limit of current technology.
Conversion efficiency is not the only issue either. Power distributed
through the electric network has limited and controllable environmental
impact. Gas and oil transports tend to crash and break all the time,
on the sea and on the roads, and in the piping withing cities.
People die and there is serious damage done to the natural environment.
I'll happily accept suboptimal efficiency at our nuclear power plants
since the alternatives are so deadly and harmful.
Unfortunately, there is a swedish law ("lex Birgitta Dahl") that forbids
anyone to develop new nuclear reactors. It is actually illegal even to
*think* about constructing a new reactor, according to the law text...
-- 
Bjorn Danielsson  
http://www.algonet.se/~bonus

grossep wrote:
> 
> Max Keon wrote:
> >
> > The calculations for length contraction also demonstrate that there is
> > length extension in the trailing direction. The two values cancel each
> > other, and show that length contraction is a doppler illusion only, with
> > a mathematical shroud that conceals sensible logic.
> >
> 
> Fact is, if the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, then
> the length contraction is real.  Ditto with time dilation.  Are you also
> claiming that time dilation is a Doppler illusion?  If so, then please
> explain how muons reach the earth.
> 
>         -Josh G
-------------------------
Don't particle accelerators indicate that muons have extremely short
(microsecond) life cycles? How *do* they reach the earth? I will not
believe {subject keyword} that they could travel the 8 minute journey
from the sun to the earth, or from distant galaxies, at light speed
within relative microseconds. Because these (atmospheric) muons are
gamma ray created, I imagine that they are created at the point where
they are detected. 
The constancy of the speed of light is only "relatively" correct. It
depends on where is the local position of stationary. Stationary, is
probably the most relative state in the universe. The earth sets the
position for localized stationary, showing only very minor drag from the
matter of the surrounding universe. (Differing times when traveling from
east to west, compared with from west to east.) A muon, or any other
particle, plus an ether wind (if it's coming from the sun) traveling
with it through the reasonably open expanses of space, would drag along
the position of stationary to some degree. It would not be traveling at
light speed within its', relatively, moving environment, to which it
also has some input. This distortion of dimension between different
centers for stationary was the main theme in the original message. 
The mass of the earth clearly sets our local stationary. If it was to
travel straight toward the sun at e.g. 10000kph the position of
stationary would move along with it, by very nearly 100% at the surface.
A balance between the influences of the sun and the earth would be set
at any location between the two, and at no point would the position of
stationary be that of the earth or the sun. Similarly, the rotation of
the earth will set two different distortions of dimension between the
sun and the earth on either side of the earth's rotation, one in
compression mode and the other in expansion mode. Light from a point on
the sun will arrive on each side of the earth with (almost) exactly the
same character. 
-- 
Max Keon

Dustin Voss  wrote:
>Although technically, I don't suppose photons actually bounce, but rather
>swap energy or get polarized or get redirected because of an
>electromagnetic field, or something.
Technically,  this is known as 'bouncing'.
>Hot science concepts have, in recent times, become known the general
>public, but with the unfortunate side-effect of being distorted.
I am aghast at this development.  A pogrom of scientifically distorted
popularizations is indicated.  Many textbooks will perish also that
day I tell you.   I am certainly glad you took the time to give us the
straight skivvy on the uncertainty principle.  

Philippe Boucher wrote:
> 
> Rolf Tore Randeberg (randeber@tele.ntnu.no) wrote:
> > No.  Ever heard of quantum mechanics?  It is the physicists' most usefull
> > and most incomprehensible theory.  One of it's outcomes is that you cannot
> > know the position and velocity of something at the same time.  And that
> > makes it impossible to know all events in the past, and certainly in the
> > future!
> 
> Impossible to know all event of the future and past, but it doesn't say
> that universe is not determinated!  It make you unable to predict
> both velocit and position of something, but it doesn't say that the
> velocity and the position is something very precise and non-random.  I
> think you don't see the difference.
Whether the poster to whom you are responding sees the difference is
unknown, but if the mutual indeterminacy of characteristics like
velocity and position are simply a matter of either the practical
inefficiency of measurements or unknown considerations (Einstein's
view), then you are correct, but if these characteristics are
indeterminate in principle (Bohr's and many [most?] QM experts' view),
then the poster is correct.  There is still room for either viewpoint to
be correct and the determination will depend upon additional knowledge,
but until then belief is the only mechanism available with which to make
a decision, and over the course of human history belief has had an
absolutely wretched track record with respect to predicting how the
world physically works.
LR
> 
> From my point of view, I don't beleive in pure and true random in the
> universe, and the asymetric of the universe is cause by things at the
> beginning of the universe.
> 
> Have a nice day!

If a 10km asteroid/meteor hit earth, I strongly suspect that
civilization would collapse. After all, see how easy it is for it
to collapse in places like Zaire, Sudan and such. Either one bad
harvest or 2-3 years of bad harvests and people are ready to eat
each other. Or leaving country in droves. 
IF we had a meteor impact, some 30% or more of the worlds
population would shortly die of hunger. And the rest would eat
what was left.
Our globe is very dependent on each other, we are not isolated
from each other. You want to try to stop 2-10 million hungry
refugees?

In article <01bc7e58$204759a0$0fee9bce@P133.nova-storm>, Pons Varolii
 writes
>Take an ounce of pure gold and cut it half, continue to cut each halve in
>half. Use every known instrument to continue the process and imagine
>instruments (if needed) to continue to cut the halves in half. 
>
>The result is to reduce the gold to what makes it's mass. The atom. The
>smallest gold half is made of only one atom, when the gold atom is cut, you
>now have for argument's sake a split atom, but no gold. 
>
>Dividing an ounce of gold results in gold no longer being gold. The paradox
>is... That can not happen, but it does. 
>
>1 divied by 2 = 0.5   - not - 1 divided 2 = 0
>
>The transition is the paradox; at the point the gold is no longer gold. At
>the point when the gold is still gold, and then is no longer gold as a
>result of division. At that instance is the Paradox.
>
What paradox, you turn the gold into yttrium & zirconium with some
binding energy and maybe a few neutrons. I haven't worked out if you
need more or have to lose a few, in practice there will be another
element produced.
-- 
Ian Walker                     G8ILZ               on packet as G8ILZ@GB7SRC
I have an IQ of 6 million,  |  How will it end?  | Mostly       | Out of cheese
or was it 6?                |  In fire.          | harmless     | error

Pons Varolii wrote:
> 
> Take an ounce of pure gold and cut it half, continue to cut each halve in
> half. Use every known instrument to continue the process and imagine
> instruments (if needed) to continue to cut the halves in half.
> 
> The result is to reduce the gold to what makes it's mass. The atom. The
> smallest gold half is made of only one atom, when the gold atom is cut, you
> now have for argument's sake a split atom, but no gold.
> 
> Dividing an ounce of gold results in gold no longer being gold. The paradox
> is... That can not happen, but it does.
> 
> 1 divied by 2 = 0.5   - not - 1 divided 2 = 0
> 
> The transition is the paradox; at the point the gold is no longer gold. At
> the point when the gold is still gold, and then is no longer gold as a
> result of division. At that instance is the Paradox.
> 
No paradox. Is it a paradox that you can't divide the integer 1 by 2
and get an integer result?
---
Jim

I wrote:
> Unfortunately, there is a swedish law ("lex Birgitta Dahl") that forbids
> anyone to develop new nuclear reactors. It is actually illegal even to
> *think* about constructing a new reactor, according to the law text...
This is somewhat off-topic, but I forgot to explain who "Birgitta Dahl" is:
she is the architect behind the law that forbids swedes to even think about
constructing new nuclear reactors. Birgitta Dahl is currently chairman of
the swedish parliament. In the 70's when she was an ordinary member of the
parliament (for the Social Democrat Party) she publically defended Pol Pot
and his politics against the accusations of genocide in Cambodia. She was
supporter of a hard-core communist mass-murder, although she will probably
deny it straight in your face today. The facts are easy to check though.
It's kind of like if David Duke (the KKK man) would become chairman of
the U.S. House of Representative, with no-one complaining about it...
This puts the political situation in Sweden in perspective, I believe.
-- 
Bjorn Danielsson  
http://www.algonet.se/~bonus

3mrjw@qlink.queensu.ca (Walton Michael R J) writes:
> :   And when a woman tries to use unfair tactics to get promoted,
> : she must be vigorously punished .
> Does this involve whips and chains and leather outfits?
Are you referring to the unfair tactics or to the punishment?
-- 
David Kastrup                                     Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de       Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany

Jim Carr wrote:
> 
> ars@mcs.net writes:
> >
> >However, a tennis ball is particularily well suited to produce friction
> >through air and in contact with the ground.  A tennis ball with no
> >rotation hitting the ground at an incidence angle < 90 degrees would
> >have some of its energy translated to rotational energy, which would
> >cause the ball to be bounced off the ground at a lower angle that the
> >incident angle.
> 
>  The force is horizontal, so shouldn't it only affect the horizontal
>  component of the momentum?  Of course, a tennis ball is quite dead
>  so it is possible that there is an interplay here that also involves
>  the coefficient of restitution and the horizontal forces at work.
>  I will have to think about that.
> 
Once again, just working on intuition, the center of gravity of the ball
would be considerably above the ball's contact point with the ground. 
On contact, the ball would tend to roll some, gaining rotational
momentum, which would sap some of the energy from the rebound.  Since
there is also a vertical vector to the ball's initial movement, would't
that also affect that vector?
> >  A tennis ball that hits the ground with top spin would
> >have less of its energy translated to rotational energy.  In fact, it
> >could hit the ground at a velocity and rotation that would result in no
> >additional rotational speed and an exit from contact at an angle
> >identical to the incident.
> 
>  Agreed, but see above.  Also, my understanding is that the rotation
>  is faster than the translation, but that might be my ping pong bias
>  where you can put huge spin on the ball.  What is the amount of
>  spin on a tennis ball?
> 
Good question.  Seems we need some empirical data.
> >In regards to the height of the bounce, the higher loss of energy in a
> >bottom spin ball would exhibit itself as a combined lower bounce height
> >and length.
> 
>  They also tend to be going slower to begin with if they are going
>  to stay in play for a similar initial impact, so that will come
>  into the analysis also.
True enough, but wouldn't there also be the effects I noted?
> >
> >Mike Burkett wrote:
> >>
> >> A friend and I were trying to understand the physics behind the topspin hit
> >> in tennis versus the slice shot. From our experience, and according to some
> >> tennis literature I have seen, a ball hit with topspin "kicks up" on the
> >> bounce, that is... it bounces higher than one hit without topspin. A slice
> >> will tend to skip off the surface and not bounce as high.
> >>
> >> From our brief discussion, it appears that there are several factors that
> >> might influence this motion.
> >>
> >> 1st You typically hit a topspin shot from a higher trajectory which would
> >> give it a higher angle of entry and thus cause you to expect a higher angle
> >> after the bounce.
> >>
> >> 2nd A topspin shot will tend to curve towards the ground as it goes forward
> >> while a slice will tend to form a asymptotic curve with the ground (the
> >> ball is responding like a curve thrown by a pitcher in baseball). This
> >> curving towards the ground (with the topspin shot) should make the entry
> >> angle of the bounce steeper and again give you a higher expected exit
> >> angle.
> >>
> >> However... it seems if you could keep the entry angle equal on both shots
> >> that a ball with topspin, and therefore forward spin when it hits the
> >> ground, should tend to bounce more forward (and therefore less upwards)
> >> than an equivalent shot with back spin?
> >>
> >> Any insight? I assume there are some rotational dynamics I don't understand
> >> here, and thought this would be a very SIMPLE problem for people monitoring
> >> this newsgroup.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your time,
> >> Mike Burkett
> >> mburkett@tri.sbc.com
> >
> >--
> >Allen R. Sampson
> >Advanced Research Systems
> >317 North 4th. Street
> >St. Charles, IL 60174
> >PH 630.513.7093   FAX 630.513.7092   Email: ars@sem.com
> >WWW: http://www.mcs.net/~ars/index.html
> >repair and maintenance services for analytical instrumentation
> 
> --
>  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.
-- 
Allen R. Sampson
Advanced Research Systems
317 North 4th. Street
St. Charles, IL 60174
PH 630.513.7093   FAX 630.513.7092   Email: ars@sem.com   
WWW: http://www.mcs.net/~ars/index.html
repair and maintenance services for analytical instrumentation

In article <5nhget$p26@valhalla.comshare.com>, Mike Pelletier
 wrote
>If you finangle a wormhole such that you can travel 10 lightyears
>in 10 minutes, without attaining relativistic speeds,
If you are talking about 10 minutes for the traveller, you don't need a
wormhole to do that.
Relativity places no lower limit on the time a traveller takes (as
measured on the clock that travels with her) to travel any distance.
-- 
Gary Jones 
PGP public key available from servers
Key ID: 6AFBEAA1
Key fingerprint: FF F0 6C 8A AC 42 1D 63  20 F3 AE 22 6C E1 79 83

lhom@nature.berkeley.edu (Louis Hom) writes:
>
>If you split a grape in two and set the two halves next to each other on a
>plate and stick it in the oven and turn it on, you get *SPARKS*.
 I've never done that.  Will have to try it.  Ever hold grape races? 
>(Actually, it looks a lot like some weird Star Trek plasma discharge
>thing.)  You sometimes get even better effects if you take a half grape and
>split it in two and set the two quarters end to end.  
 CD-ROMs make the best effects, but they don't last long, it can 
 really stink, and the CD-ROM is useless when you are done.  (Of 
 course, it could be useless already.)  Looks like the thing got 
 hit with a photon torpedo, and the "after" has some nice Lichtenberg 
 figures in it if the exposure is only a few seconds -- although 
 more than that could damage the microwave. 
 Might try it with grapes on the CD-ROM next time.  Any chance of fire? 
-- 
 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. 

"DanTheMan"  writes:
>
>Very nice. 
 I should hope that you like your own theory.  
>So you are trying to say that too fast or slow fotons
>will not be detected? 
 Asking questions about something you posted yourself could be 
 sign that you need to seek professional help. 
>This is a bit confusing. 
 When the author finds it confusing we are all in trouble. 
-- 
 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.