Newsgroup sci.physics 208841

Directory

Ken MacIver (nanken@tiac.net) wrote:
]>In other words, after much effort, you're finally ready to deny the
]>antecedent. As I have said, whatever reading I have done in formulating
]>my argument is unimportant. What you should address is the argument
]>itself. If I have indeed never read Derrida, establishing a fallacy
]>should be easy (unless, of course, I'm terribly lucky). So, cogitate
]>upon the following:
]>	"[reading] cannot legitimately transgress the text towards something
]>other than it, toward a referent (a reality that is metaphysical,
]>historical, psychobiographical, etc.) or toward a signified outside the
]>text whose content could take place... There is nothing outside of the
]>text". (_Of Grammatology_, page 158)
]
]Silke has addressed your above comments succinctly and posed questions
]that I think you will be hard pressed to answer.  Good luck.
 Watch MacIver being unable to answer rational point.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

> `AP' released:
> David Ullrich  writes:
> > > Math is indeed the key to the universe.  Just don't let academia fool 
> > > you in to thinking they have the only copy.
> > 
> >         Certainly not! Just check sci.math - you'll find all sorts of
> > extra-academic mathematicians. There's Archimedes Plutonium, for example.
> > He's a super-genius; he seems to be the only person in the world who
> [1]  Thanks for summarizing what I think. I find it very frustrating to
> have to correct people who misunderstand what I am doing. Typically
> they take a path that I must be 100% wrong in everything that I do.
> [2]  I am changing mathematics , math that has been done with counting
> numbers for 3 millenium. I have a terrible war on my hands. And I think
> [3]  writing. I find it the case that when people want to attack ad
> hominem,it is almost impossible for them to understand what I am about
> and it is impossible for them to give an objective unbiased summary of
> my work. But when people are open minded and do not take me personally
> [??] But when one physics report announces that p-adics are essential in
> physics and that the counting numbers just do not work in the physics
> experiment. Well, my day in the sun has come.
Fine, if that's what you think. 
Otherwise I'd call that a paradox.                          Frank  W ~@) R

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read".  It would be inappropriate for anyone to interfere with the
propagation of these articles based only on this 'bot's notices.
You can find the software to process these notices at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW
site: http://www.cm.org.  This 'bot is not affiliated with the CM[TM].
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers:
  1 Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.93
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Delete: no
Count: 1
Notice-ID: spncm1996321003430
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<56ipcr$87u@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics
	sci.bio.paleontology
	rec.arts.movies.current-films
	soc.culture.british
	alt.comedy.british
	soc.culture.nordic
	soc.culture.german
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMo5dmIz0ceX+vLURAQEPfgP+NqJLXlai29pKHwqGCZnoTSZyYuc+pmKv
buXkJGWnjXMVn5CL29nc23aNyy/rDMGP/x3eheyuW2OZSz7m4TChQVINU8BE1qCe
utI0O0gkFttTS2SIA/WM14kdvuGxBaXLJtdQ+uLF3LvD8R9OBEi9eEr6+VKyhGBl
Oid1eBpYFFc=
=A1XI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Rhiannon Macfie (rhi@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: Peter Hickman appears to have typed something along the lines of:
: > John S. wrote:
: > > The only people you're annoying are those who find common sense thinking
: > > threatening. That applies to anyone who continues to espouse a theory that
: > > contains paradoxes, like QM. 
: > > It's the fractal idea on a galactic scale.
: > > Check my page  http://www.petcom.com/~john
: > > Of course many 'scientists' that write in here say I'm 'raving'.
: > 	Hey, kid, don't listen to this guy.  I'm no
: > scientist, but this guy is obviously raving.  Just ask
: > youself what sort of infinite regression you're in for
: > if atoms are galaxies (what about those atoms in those
: > galaxies or those galaxies in those atoms...etc. etc.).
: What`s wrong with infinite regression? Just because we can`t imagine it
: doesn`t mean it can`t happen -- look at QM!
: Rhiannon
The only problem is that QM is easily seen through experiment, whereas 
infinite regression has NEVER been demonstrated in ANY experiment.
Examples of QM in your life:
Your TV (also computer monitor), X-ray macines, MRI (that thing at the 
hospital which is so expensive and boring but lets the doc see soft 
tissue abnormalities), fluorescent whiteners in your clothes, my job, 
your computer (ever wonder how semiconductors work? or conductors for 
that matter), lasers, I could go on, but I'll cut it short.
-Superdave The Wonderchemist

In article <56l6mh$3ju@starman.rsn.hp.com>, schumach@convex.com
(Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:
>
>>>>  Is this why you apparently love to shout the word "crank" at every
>>>>occasion?  So you can get at the truth?  Cool dude!  Now I know where
>>>>*not* to go to get the truth.
>
>
>It is possible to simultaneously support free speech and oppose 
>stupidity. So far everyone posting here has supported free speech
>and not supported any of that "absolute space" nonsense. 
  It's strange but I believe in the existence and unavoidability of
absolute motion and yet, I don't believe in absolute space.  Why?  a)
Because the absolute does not have to be relative to any reference
frame, otherwise it would no longer be absolute since that would make
it indistinguishable from the relative.  b) Because if one is willing
to accept the reality of quantum nonlocality, one is forced to abandon
the notion of absolute space or any other space for that matter.  IOW,
nonlocality = nonspatiality.  So if there is no space, what is left?
Particles, that's all.  The experimental confirmation of nonlocality
is an interesting turn of events because, if there is no space, where
do the emergent concepts of 'position' and 'change in position' come
from?  My own theory is that 'position' or 'place' is intrinsic to
particles because, if they were extrinsic, i.e., if they belonged to
space, (the traditional entity to which physicists ascribe locality or
place) quantum nonlocality would be void.  Are physicists so enamored
with classical notions that many are willing to throw away Bell's
inequality and Aspect's experiments to satisfy their need for security
that comes with being familiar with the current state of the art?  I'm
sure many of you are secretly hoping that nonlocality would go away,
but I've got bad news for you.  Nonlocality is the obnoxious relative
that came to visit and refuses to leave.  The destroyer of secure
ideas such as continuity and the all-pervasive relativity.
Nonlocality is the fly in your ointment.
  If so, that is, if position is an intrinsic property or attribute of
particles, what can one say about the nature of position?  Being
intrinsic would make it absolute, would it not?  And true motion
(change in position) would also have to be absolute, would it not?
That would mean that physicists would be foolish in continuing to
maintain their malicious and pernicious intransigence vis-a-vis
absolute motion, especially in light of the fact that the existence of
absolute motion does not invalidate the current laws of motion in any
shape or form.  Why the doggone pig-headedness?  Is it just pride?  I
think there has to be more to it than that.  I think it's pathological
or worse.  Sorry to be so forceful, but this needs to be said.
  It's funny that physicists love to rail and froth at the mouth in
opposition to absolute motion considering that the reason they give is
that "absolute motion is unobservable" and yet, almost all of the
major concepts of physics such as "spacetime", "virtual particles"
"fields", quarks, etc..., are equally unobservable.  These concepts
(as dear to physicists as any other) can only be *inductively
inferred* from observing ancillary phenomena.  Well, one can say the
same thing about absolute motion.  I think it's high time that
physicists put their money where their mouth is and apply the same
logic that they apply to absolute motion to every concept that they
adhere to and preach to the masses.  Or should we, like so many sheep,
park our brains at the door, before we enter the hollowed grounds of
the priesthood to receive our sacred indoctrination?  I don't think
so.  I think the mood lately is pointing to imminent rebellion in the
ranks.  I even heard rumors of an outright insurrection.  :-)
  Time dilation and the invariability of the speed of light are, IMO,
ancillary observed phenomena that point directly to an underlying
unobserved absolute.  In fact, all the laws of physics are based on
absolutes, from the constancy of c to the conservation laws.  Why?
Because they are all invariant under various geometric
transformations.  The 'relative' is never invariant under
transformations.  Only the 'absolute' is.  So how can the 'relative'
be the be-all of reality?
Best regards,
Louis Savain
"O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason."  W.S.

In article <19961115132700.IAA21224@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> Im Artikel <328B52A7.17B5299F@alcyone.com>
> 
> >I guess they didn't learn that in the Autodynamics school.  
> >(Amusingly enough, there answers aren't even write.)
> 
> Cool, too bucks in one line :-)
> 
> This has been fascinating me since I read s.p.: First I observed myself
> spelling words wrong b/c there existed another word with the same or
> almost the same pronounciation, and I thought it happened to me only b/c
> I'm not a native speaker. 
I find myself being careful not only when writing, but when speaking,
especially to non-native speakers. There are, for example, several small
markets nearby run by orientals. On more than one occasion I've asked the
clerk for "some chewing gum too." and have received two packs of chewing
gum. I'm careful in those instances to ask for "some chewing gum, also."
-- 
wild(at our first)beasts uttered human words
--our second coming made stones sing like birds--
but o the starhushed silence which our thirds
                      --e. e. cummings
                        '73 poems' (1963)

x-no-archive: yes
: >>If the author 'meant' something other than what he wrote --
: >>why didn't he write that instead?
There was a famous incident in world war I.
A beleaguered British commander had one
final chance to send a message before
being totally cutoff from all communication -
so he sent the following message -
BUT IF NOT
Now what will a "literal" reading of the
text by a roomful of pomos have got out
of this ? Zilch, that's what.
The man was referring to a particular
passage in the Bible, where one character
(I am quite ignorant of the Bible, fyi)
is surrounded by his enemies, and
he sends out an appeal for help saying
"speed is of the essence, come and
relieve us if you can, BUT IF NOT, we
will not disgrace our flag, we will
fight till the last drop of blood".
In 1916, almost all literate persons
in England knew their Bible, and the
Army high command had no difficulty 
figuring out this meaning.
So, you see, there was a reason why the
author didn't put down all his
intended meaning (there was no time),
and a literal interpretation of the
text alone would have resulted in
total meaninglessness. The meaning 
was there, but it needed a common
understanding, implicit, to get at it.
This should show up the silliness
of pomo arguments. 
RS

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
: >>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: >>>>>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
: >>>>>>>>>If I may quickly interfere here in my usual conciliatory voice:
: >>>>>>>>>I think that, yes, Zeleny is right: both Destruktion and 
: >>>>>>>>>deconstruction have an etymological connection to destruction; 
: >>>>>>>>>he is right further in claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are 
: >>>>>>>>>very attuned to implications of this sort -- to deny that there
: >>>>>>>>>is any link whatsoever strikes me as problematic.
: >>>>>>>>I appreciate your interference, but calling Derrida's self-serving
: >>>>>>>>lie `problematic' is still, umm...  "problematic" -- for reasons I
: >>>>>>>>suggested by my analogy with Jorg Haider.  Do you seriously expect
: >>>>>>>>Derrida to remain morally unaffected by inheriting his critical
: >>>>>>>>methodology from a Nazi and sharing it with a Nazi collaborator?
: >>>>>>>Yes; as much as I don't accuse Aristotelians to be pro-slavery. 
: >>>>>>Why ever not?  Philosophers such as Bernard Williams in _Shame and
: >>>>>>Necessity_ -- have made THAT argument.  What sort of superiority --
: >>>>>>and surely the intellectual variety could be ruled out right away --
: >>>>>>entitles you to dismiss them without consideration?
: >>>>>You says I haven't considered it? I'm familiar with the argument; it 
: >>>>>doesn't interest me, and I think it's fallacious. Next thing you'll argue 
: >>>>>that everybody who thinks Nietzsche is worthwhile will contract syphilis. 
: >>>>No germ or poison can contaminate reason as much as the belief that some 
: >>>>men are natural slaves.
: >>>So?
: >>So your hysterical analogy is quite worthless, as usual.
: >Barely established; commit yourself: are all people who respect 
: >Aristotelian philosophy pro-slavery or not? If not, are all people who 
: >respect Heidegger's philosophy pro-Nazi or not? If not, do you still have 
: >a point?
: All people who accept Aristotelianism lack the intellectual grounds
: for being anti-slavery.  All people who accept deconstruction lack the
: intellectual grounds for being anti-Nazi.  I say this counts as being
: morally affected by the ancestral odium.
YOu didn't answer the question. Please do.
: >>>>>I find much of Heidegger's approach to metaphysics problematic, and I 
: >>>>>have no interest in constructing apologetic arguments about his 
: >>>>>involvement with the Nazis -- yes, he was a Nazi, and, yes, part of his 
: >>>>>philosophy reflects this or is at least connected to it. That does not 
: >>>>>constitute a critique of his philosophical work yet; it certainly does 
: >>>>>not constitute a critique of _Derrida's_ philosophical work. As you damn 
: >>>>>well know.
: >>>Response?
: >>You know where to find my critique of Derrida's philosophical work.
: >No, I don't.
: See my responses to Brian Artese in the thread "De la grammatologie".
Which one?
: >>Feel free to join in.  In this thread I am exclusively addressing his
: >>moral failure.  To recap:
: >>Derrida:
: >>"The word _déconstruction_ ... has nothing to do with destruction."
: >Have you read Goldman's comments to which Derrida is addressing himself?
: No, I haven't.  Nor do I care about their content.  Derrida's emphatic
: "nothing to do" speaks for itself.  So does your frenetic scramble for
: plausible deniability.
Perhaps; they don't however veil in the least your lack of  credibility.
: >>Derrida:
: >>"Deconstruction ... is simply a question of ... being alert to the
: >>implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language which we
: >>use."
: >Precisely; and you have failed to establish what exactly the historical 
: >sedimentation of Heidegger's _Destruktion_ would be here. In other words, 
: >make a case for destructiveness.
: Assuming that "X has nothing to do with Y" means that X has nothing to
: do with Y, Derrida's claim can be falsified without such hermeneutic
: excavations.
In other words, you have no answer to the question I asked you.
: >>Gasché:
: >>"The main concepts to which deconstruction can and must be retraced
: >>are those of _Abbau_ (dismantling) in the later work of Husserl and
: >>_Destruktion_ (destruction) in the early philosophy of Heidegger."
: >>Deconstructively speaking, we have a contradiction.  Hence Derrida is
: >>lying, cqfd.
: >You are again trying to argue from Gasch'e's authority; by now, you 
: >should have realized that it doesn't work very well.
: Works for me just fine.  I am a simplistic fellow making a simplistic point.
Ah yes. Of course. Simple folks and what they'll do.
: >>>>>>>>If so, what good is his alleged sensitivity to "historical
: >>>>>>>>sedimentation"?
: >>>>>>>It's good when it's subtle; your brand is indeed worthless.
: >>>>>>Subtlety is no substitute for truth.
: >>>>>It's a good approach to it, though. 
: >>>>It is in no way superior to honest reason as an approach to truth.
: >>>Honesty and subtlety are not mutually exclusive; I consider your response 
: >>>a non-response.
: >>You implied that my brand of deconstructing `déconstruction' was
: >>worthless for want of subtlety.  Consider your claim refuted by your
: >>own subsequent turn.
Which turn? You still haven't exhibited any subtlety, so the point is 
still valid.
: >Hardly. You set up a dichotomy between honesty and subtlety; that's 
: >pathetic. Apart from the fact that nothing you do in these threads is honest.
: Speak for yourself.  I pointed out a straightforward connection
: between deconstruction and destruction.  You impugned it for lack of
: subtlety.  I consider THAT response a non-response.
You also stipulated connections between Nazism and deconstruction. This 
is what you will have to address if you want to gain credibility (not a 
priority with you, I know).
: >>>>>>>>	Zeleny's problem is that he cannot distinguish between 
: >>>>>>>>>throwing a bomb at a church and taking it apart piece by piece,
: >>>>>>>>>lovingly, to see how it is made. The latter does involve, to
: >>>>>>>>>introduce a new term, dismantling, and it is a destruction to the
: >>>>>>>>>extent that any interference with a structure is a destruction 
: >>>>>>>>>because it doesn't leav its object unchanged.
: >>>>>>>>ANY interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't
: >>>>>>>>leave its object unchanged?  Are you really implying that each time
: >>>>>>>>you eat your Wheaties or take your morning shit, read a newspaper or
: >>>>>>>>write your Usenet screed, you destroy your body or your mind, by dint
: >>>>>>>>of interfering therewith?  Would you care to reconsider your claim
: >>>>>>>>after a leisurely walk through Liddell & Scott on metabole?  
: >>Response?
: >I did respond to this; you quote my response below.
: You never substantiated your distinction between destruction and dismantling.
You mean the difference isn't obvious to you? Well, that's what I 
claimed  to begin with, of course. A dismantling is not a destruction 
apart from the banal sense in which you use it for reasons unclear to me. 
But that goes back to the question of subtlety; we'll call it the 
Zelenian circle.
: >>>>>>>>                                                              At any
: >>>>>>>>rate, Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace
: >>>>>>>>them with -- WHAT?
: >>>>>>>Yes, I am -- which is precisely why your objection is so worthless; 
: >>>>>>>deconstruction is destructive precisely to that degree --- that is,
: >>>>>>>it is destructive in such obvious and negligible ways that to point
: >>>>>>>out that it is destructive and trying to build your case on it 
: >>>>>>>bespeaks your vindictive fantasies rather than any understanding 
: >>>>>>>of what is at stake.
: >>>>>>Half of my family was murdered by Heidegger's party comrades.  What
: >>>>>>makes YOU so sure of your entitlement to the high moral ground in
: >>>>>>denouncing my "vindictive fantasies"?  What have YOU got at stake?
: >>>>>Half of my family belongs to slavic Untermenschen; another part (a small 
: >>>>>one) is gypsy; my husband is Jewish and my children according to 
: >>>>>Antisemites the result of Rassenschande --  so what's your point?
: >>>>First tell me what entitles you to the high moral ground.
: >>>You introduced the terrain; you graze it. Since you introduces your 
: >>>family history, I introduced mine -- but it's you who seems to think it's 
: >>>relevant. Explain yourself.
: >>I introduced my family history to put in context my moral concerns,
: >>which you so charitably characterized as "vindictive fantasies." 
: >Bullshit. You have given no evidence of "moral concerns" whatsoever; 
: >being a relative of Nazi victims gives you no intellectual leverage. If 
: >you have true concerns about a connection between deconstruction and 
: >Nazism, establish such a connection. 
: I never arrogated "intellectual leverage".  My provenance merely gives
: me personal reasons for concern and visceral understanding of what is
: at stake.  In particular, I have concerns about the avowed connection
: between deconstruction and dismantling of the Spirit, Logos, and Reason.
You were fooled; your personal reasons, if they are indeed the reason for 
your intellectual behavior around here, stand in your way when it comes 
to understanding what is at stake in deconstruction which is a profoundly 
anti-authoritarian approach to reading texts. So make a point if you have 
one: what is the connection? What are your concerns? How do oyu 
understand the "dismantling of the Spirit, Logos, and Reason"? Be as 
visceral as you like, but try to be also logical, and attempt to exhibit, 
once again, credibility.
: >> As
: >>far as I am concerned, your ethnic provenance is irrelevant to moral
: >>standing -- but perhaps you feel differently.  So answer the question
: >>already.
: >My ethnic provenance is as irrelevant as yours. Your question is 
: >disingenuous; I do not claim moral high ground, I'm asking you for an 
: >argument to sustain your moralisms.
: What sort of argument do you require to sustain a straightforward
: identification of a self-serving lie as such?  In the passage quoted
: above, you already identified Derrida's disclaimer as "problematic".
: At this point, we are merely quibbling about proper force of epithets.
Yes, some of us are still concerned with the proper word. You aren't -- 
accepted. But then, your concern for logos and reason seems a lot more 
problematic than Derrida's response to Goldman.
: >>>>>>>"What does he replace them with?" -- Why, do you think philosophy 
: >>>>>>>is like restocking the shelves in a supermarket? Oh, gee, these
: >>>>>>>Wheaties seem stale, let's put some Cheerios in instead? As soon 
: >>>>>>>as you stop asking "what is" in favor of "what is it good for," 
: >>>>>>>you're in trouble. Get your reassurances somewhere else -- 
: >>>>>>>Commentary would probably suit.
: >>>>>>What a jolly good show of non-partisan demagoguery.  Now would you
: >>>>>>kindly point out an instance when I stopped asking "what is" in favor
: >>>>>>of "what is it good for"?
: >>>>>It's implied in your suggestion that critique should reshelve the 
: >>>>>metaphysical storehouse.
: >>>>Non sequitur.  Quidditative inquiry depends on the availability of its 
: >>>>tools and subject matter alike, as surely as pragmatic concerns depend
: >>>>on an expectation of benefit.
: >>>So tell us what your point was in the dramatically capitalized "WHAT?"
: >>First you answer the question.
: >Which question is that?
: Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace them
: with -- WHAT?  Until and unless you can answer this question, your
: distinction between destruction and dismantling will remain nugatory.
Doesn't work this way; why does he have to restock the shelf? What makes 
your question one that should be answered? And, before that, what do you 
mean when you say "Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason"? 
Silke

In article <56itgb$3s@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>,
James Wentworth  wrote:
>
> A SMALL SNIP
>
>If we wished, we could once again be a self-contained economy and 
>society.  The backlash against NAFTA and GATT are the first signs of our 
>possible return to our former economic state of affairs.  In such a 
>situation, we can and will use whatever system of weights and measures we 
>choose with impunity.  If other nations don't like it, so be it.
	The previous message forgot to footnote Pat Buchanan.  We will
NEVER again be a self contained economy for 2 simple reasons.
1)  Most people will buy the cheaper product (if = quality), regardless
    of origin.  
	OF COURSE INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS ARE TYPICALLY METRIC
2)  American companies want to sell their goods overseas and generate
    more revenue.  These companies can not afford to manufacture goods
    in both metric and imperial units.  As mentioned earlier in this
    thread - Look under the hood of any recent GM/Ford/Chrysler.  
    Other than the diameter of the wheels and the speedometer output -
    *everything* is metric.
   	THESE COMPANIES WILL MANUFACTURE METRIC GOODS TO SELL EVERYWHERE.
	This does not mean that Farmer Jones will not be able to
sell his wheat by the bushel to his neighbor.  But when that wheat
gets shipped abroad, it will be sold by the metric tonne.
	I realize that some people are scared by the metric system.
But it will a slightly simpler and less confusing world when we
all agree to use the metric system and stop whining. Just because
 'miles were good enough for my grandpa so they are good enough for me.'  
If you really like the good old days - why are you using the 
new-fangled Internet?
						Jock R. I. Christie
p.s. Remember 1 m ~ waist height, 0 deg C = ice, 100 deg C = steam.

Steve Geller wrote:
> 
> Wayne Shanks wrote:
> 
> > I have seen several creationist calculation for the probability of
> > simple amino-acid formation, and they come up with a VERY high
> > improbibility.  These calculations were done assuming no or little
> > particle interation.  The situation they are calculation is akin to the
> > thermodynamics problem of computing the probability of all the gass
> > atoms in the room collecting in a pile on the floor.
> >  [...]
> >   It is true that we do not know how to properly calculate the
> > propability of abiogenisis, but that is just a matter of studying
> > physical chemistry (no small job).  I am shure abiogenisis was not a
> > "ramdom" event but a energetically favored event in a special
> > environment.
> 
> Right.  But you are actually thinking about it as a real problem.
> 
> The Creationists just use the "improbability" argument as a propaganda
> tool.
> 
> It's intellectually dishonest, because a creation has zero probability,
> doesn't it?
> 
> --
> Steve Geller
> (to be sure I respond to your reply, E-Mail it to me)
The question of the genesis of life is not exactly a pure scientific
question.  Science cannot return to the point that nothing existed. 
When science tries to trace facts backwards ( this I think anyone can
agree with ) they have been faced with great failures in evidence and
have not been able to replicate any hypothesis.  Scientific replication
and sound systematic documentation are the basis of all good science. 
The trouble with some of the evolutionary theory is in both areas.  Even
in this area of expertise there is much disarray as to where and how. 
Mix in a good dose of chaos theaory (which in my mind is evolutions best
hope) sudden appearance, a personal favorite, with classic Darwinism and
you got quite a mess.  A lack of a fossil record completes the confusion
by science today.  ( I won't even go into the terrible
misinterpretations and outright lies "science" has suffered through, but
it would make you appreciate a televangilist. that's a joke) Christians
aren't just snobbish about their faith, they are unconvinced by
science's answers.  "It could happen," is not a better scenario than
that of faith.  Now, theorectically, think---back before matter, would
there be time, if not (and Einstien believed time only existed in a
reality with matter) think back before time, before it all.  Open your
eyes there and see God.

ricka@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) enunciated:
> Since I'm the one who rhetorically asked if you might be a religious
> nut case, I'll comment. *No one* cares what specific variety of
> religious dementia you suffer from. *You* said you were Jewish, not
> another poster; and no poster wrote anything critical about you being
> Jewish. (At least no such post appeared on my ISP's news server.) Your
> emotional problems seem to impact most facets of of your life---get
> help. You are one paranoid sucker.
> All the pro-Cryonics posters care about is that you compose 
> unintelligible sentences and those which can be deciphered are only
> an emotional rejection. To base an entire argument on "I don't 
> believe" is the hallmark of the fool.
You say "I don't believe". So . You are right.
> You have brethen who believe we never landed on the Moon, that the
> TV images we saw were made in a secret studio somewhere in California.
> These people think just like you do.
> 
> Someday, we'll learn whether religious dementia is self-inflicted or
> has a irresistable biological component. Until then, I'll just ignore
> you.
>-- 
>rha
Since you insist on interjecting spin to the topic to keep from facing
the facts and insist on attacking personally I am very glad you intend
to ignore me. I will not succumb to your intimidation and I will not
succumb to the manner of non-argument you base your postings in. 
Which means the world will no longer have to put up with such things
from you since you proclaimed you would ignore me. 
That means if you respond you proclaim yourself to be a liar too.
In the mean time you may continue to preach anti-religious bigotry and
base your arguments on nothing. I am so glad you have proclaimed
publicly that you will not intimidate me. I am soooo afraid of you. 
Actually, I jest. I don't care about you. And I do not attack you. 
So I guess you have accomplsihed your desire in two ways: 1: you have
shown your inability to argue with intellect and resort to deflected
attacks and; 2: you have pledged to never try such foolishness again.
Good.
Now, perhaps sci.physics can return to physics and leave sci.cryonics
out of things that explain the real world.
We can hope, at least.
Ha!
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: In article <56j1bg$m0t@hpindda.cup.hp.com> seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
:   x-no-archive: yes
:  > : >>If the author 'meant' something other than what he wrote --
:  > : >>why didn't he write that instead?
:  > 
:  > There was a famous incident in world war I.
:  > A beleaguered British commander had one
:  > final chance to send a message before
:  > being totally cutoff from all communication -
:  > so he sent the following message -
:  > 
:  > BUT IF NOT
:  > 
:  > Now what will a "literal" reading of the
:  > text by a roomful of pomos have got out
:  > of this ? Zilch, that's what.
:  > 
:  > The man was referring to a particular
:  > passage in the Bible, where one character
:  > (I am quite ignorant of the Bible, fyi)
:  > is surrounded by his enemies, and
:  > he sends out an appeal for help saying
:  > "speed is of the essence, come and
:  > relieve us if you can, BUT IF NOT, we
:  > will not disgrace our flag, we will
:  > fight till the last drop of blood".
:  > 
:  > In 1916, almost all literate persons
:  > in England knew their Bible, and the
:  > Army high command had no difficulty 
:  > figuring out this meaning.
:  > 
:  > So, you see, there was a reason why the
:  > author didn't put down all his
:  > intended meaning (there was no time),
:  > and a literal interpretation of the
:  > text alone would have resulted in
:  > total meaninglessness. The meaning 
:  > was there, but it needed a common
:  > understanding, implicit, to get at it.
:  > 
:  > This should show up the silliness
:  > of pomo arguments. 
:  > 
:  > RS
: Doubtless this shows the silliness of some pomo arguments, but there
: is little hope of getting them all with one truck bomb.
Allow me to doubt the doubtless: which "pomo argument" has just been 
devastated by a nice anecdote about intertextuality?
Silke

In article <56e24o$jqg@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>>
>>>>Your use of absolute above would truly be hyperbolic time in the sense that 
>>>>events at the same absolute time from the origin would occupy a hyperboloid,
>>>>rather than a plane.  I will let you reconsider this one.
>>>
>>>But there's no proper time reading by a real clock.
>
>>You just allowed the definition of proper time to be the reading of a real 
>>clock that traveled uniformly between the events.  Now you deny it.
>
>Note the context -- "hyperbolic time"
>In this case the clock (a real one) cannot span the events to give us
>a reading of its proper time for the events.
>
>
OK, you misunderstood my statement.  
If we pick a coordinate frame and at time 0, send clocks in all directions at
all possible velocities, and mark the point in space and time when all the
clocks read 1, then if we plot that on a spacetime diagram, the points will
fill a hyperboloid.  This is true even in your world, because you have already
affirmed the "truth" of time dilation.  
The point was that proper time is not a good definition of absolute time.

In article <56e2eb$jqg@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>
>>In article <56a5l0$ohc@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>>>This is quite funny considering the fact that none of my questions in
>>>this regard have been answered by the relativists here.  Such as why
>>>two SRT observers obtain different time intervals for two events.
>>>Once this has been answered, one can see that absolute clock readings
>>>cause this, and that the clocks were set out-of-true in direct
>>>proportion to each observer's absolute speed.  There are many such
>>>absolutes in SRT, behind the scenes.
>
>>They have been answered many times.  Differently moving observers get 
>>different values for intervals because they synchronize their clocks 
>>differently, as you have noted.  This synchronization is dependent on the 
>>observers *relative* speeds.  A single observer would not get offset clocks
>>using Einstein's procedure.
>
>There's a special type of answer that I meant -- the right one.
>
The use of the concepts of SR leads to the right answers in all cases tested.
Perhaps you have different meaning for "right answer"?
>How can a merely relative difference in synch yield or produce a real
>or absolute difference in intervals?
>
The interval is the difference between to events.  At least one observer must
use two clocks to measure the interval.  If they are not synch'd, they will
yield a different value than a single clock, or a clock pair with a different
offset.  The source of the offset doesn't matter to that fact.
Einstein showed that there is no invariant way to synch the clocks between
moving systems if light speed is invariant.  The offset will depend on
the relative speed of the systems.  
So, SR leads to an offset depending on the relative velocity, and that leads 
to a real difference in measured time intervals.

In article <56e1mu$jqg@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>
>[bjon]
>>>And meaningless.  (What does "Light's speed relative to any observer
>>>whatsoever is independent of the light source" mean?)
>>>
>
>>Exactly what it reads.  Any observer can measure light's speed, for light
>>emitted from any source and will get the same value.
>
>But you have mixed together two light speeds -- light's speed as it
>leaves the source and this light's speed relative to the observer.
>Does it make any difference if the light is source independent or not?
>
Yes, it does.  Unless light's speed changes between emission and reception
the speeds will be the same.  So, source dependence will show up in 
measurement. 
>>>>>more meaty proofs of light's absolute motion existence. In 1977, Ken
>>>>>Brecher studied binary star x-rays to see if the stars' _absolute)_
>>>>>motion (the only kind that _could_ have a real effect upon anything)
>>>
>>>>The issue was variation of the star's motion relative to the Earth.
>>>
>>>No.  It was the star's speed being source affected or not, and the
>>>only type of light speed that  can possibly be affected by a light
>>>source is the absolute or actual light speed.
>
>>The only speed we can measure is relative speed.  It can be affected by
>>motion of the source.  But in the case of light, it is not.
>
>Brecher (as I said) did not measure the light's speed at all. All his
>experiment showed was the the light leaving the source was not pushed
>faster thru space by the source or slowed down thru space by the
>source.  This clearly has zilch to do with some observer measuring the
>speed of light relative to his frame.
>
You really don't understand the experiment do you?
>>>>>had any affect upon the emitted light's _absolute_ speed (the only
>>>>>type of speed that could be affected by a source's motion). He said in
>>>>>his paper that there would be a definite pattern if light's speed were
>>>>>source-affected (or source dependent), and this pattern would be
>>>>>readily observable from earth.  (The light would get "mixed up" as it
>>>>>was emitted from stars moving rapidly in opposite directions).
>>>>>However, no such telltale pattern was ever observed, meaning that the
>>>>>light's actual speed thru space (or its absolute speed) was in no way
>>>>>affected by the source's movement thru space, or the stars' absolute
>>>>>movements. Note that the earth observer in no way measures any light
>>>>>speed (either round-trip or one-way)in this case.  This is purely a
>>>
>>>>The experiment was based on the fact that the travel time would vary if the
>>>>speed varied.  (D/c+v <> D/c-v).  The equality of the times is a proof that  
>>>>the speeds are the same.  
>>>
>>>No clocks were involved, therefore no times.
>>>
>
>>Try again.  The times involved were the travel time of light from various 
>>points in the stellar orbit.  Read the literature on this experiment.
>
>What was looked for was the following: [1] pulses appearing (arriving
>on earth) from more than one orbit postition at the same received
>time, [2] odd eclipses of the binary star system's members, and [3] an
>apparent orbital eccentricity.   Each of these is discussed in detail
>in Brecher's paper in Phys. Rev. Lett.
>
These are all effects related to the travel time of light.
>The point here is: Either you believe in Ritz's emission theory or you
>accept Brecher's experimental disprove of it.
>And in either case, the only speed that fits is light's absolute
>speed.
>
The experiment says only that Ritz was wrong.  Nothing about absolute speed
can be inferred.
>>>>>matter of absolute speeds, both of the light sources and of the light
>>>>>leaving the sources.  All that was looked for was a particular
>>>>>pattern, a pattern whose origins were light-years away, and in no way
>>>>>affected by us on earth. Since no observer measured any speed at all,
>>>>>the speed of the light in this is simply an absolute speed.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Absolute's got nothing to do with it.  The experiment showed that the light
>>>>traveled at the same speed, relative to the Earth, no matter what the relative
>>>>speed of the source.
>>>
>>>Dead wrong.  Call  Mr. Brecher.
>>>
>>I stand by my statement.
>
>The experiment showed only that the source's movement had no effect
>upon the speed of the emitted light. No one on earth measured any
>speed of anything at all.  And saying "I stand by my statement" does
>not prove anything except that you are determined to ignore facts.
>
The experiment showed that the travel times were the same.  The distances were
also the same.  This implies equal speeds.  If the times had been different
then the speeds would have been different.  It was not necessary to measure
the speed to infer this.  
As I assume you understand the kinematics of the experiment, and you affirm
that it showed the light speed to be the same, I am not sure why you are 
arguing this point.
>
>>>
>>>And Einstein's View explains nothing at all.
>>>
>>Wrong.  
>
>Not according to A.I. Miller, Ph.D. in physics, M.I.T.
>(All I am doing is repeating his written message).
>
Can you provide the citation, so I can review Miller's statements?

In article <56e066$7mo@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>
>>This definition does not pin it down.  As I said above, you can choose any 
>>inertial frame and use its clocks to measure the time intervals.  Then all
>>observers will get the same value.  But if I choose a different inertial frame
>>and use its clocks, everyone will again get the same value, but it will be
>>different from the original.  Which is "true"?
>
>>The use of such clocks will also show up in the laws of physics as a new
>>vector quantity, contradicting the PR.
>
>
>You don't just pick one frame to get the readings for all.
>You let all the observers (many different ones) take readings for a
>set of events, and you average these.  Then later you do the same for
>another set of events to see if the observers are closer or not to
>each other.  If not, you vary them some way and do it again (take
>readings of another set of events).  I believe that eventually the
>observer readings will merge (all agree on the times between any set
>of events).  The event-pairs themselves each always have only one
>absolute time interval and this is the controlling factor.
>
If you fill space with clocks (at rest relative to each other), so that to 
each point of space a clock is assigned, and you use that clocks reading for
all observers, you will satisfy your criterion for absolute time measurements.
An event happening at point X will get a time label T.  Another event at 
point Y will get label U.  The time difference, for all observers will be
t=U-T.  The clocks can be set arbitrarily and run at any rate whatsoever, as
long as they enable us to assign a time label.
In order to be useful for physics, certain additional assumptions should be
made about the clocks.  Uniformly moving objects should travel equal distances
in equal times, and the same process occuring at two different points should
take equal times.  These criteria allow us to regulate and synchronize the
clocks.  I granted you that much.
But, having set up the clocks, there is still the choice of rest system for
the clocks.  If, as assumed in SR, light speed is an invariant, then you 
cannot set the clocks so that all observers will get the same intervals with
resting clocks.  

Peter Diehr wrote:
> 
> Wyatt Earp wrote:
> >
> > 1)  Explain the double slit experiment.
> >
> > I think it was done by Young, in 1801.  He used a single source light and
> > shined it thru 2 slits.  Effectively making 2 light sources which were
> > coherent (in phase and whatever else). Then he observed the pattern of
> > dark and light spots (nodes and anti nodes) and he concluded this must be
> > due to the wave property of the light adding and subtractino of the waves.
> > Up until this time light was thought of as being particle motion, after
> > Youngs experiment, light was thought of as both particle and waves. (and
> > later Michaelson-Morley (1920-30?) showed there was no 'ether' through
> > which the light wave could propagate, but thats not part of our
> > discussion...yet)
> >
> 
> The wave theory was originated by Huygens, a contemporary of Newton. The
> particle theory was championed by Newton, and since Newton was able to
> give very good explanations for optics, his approach was adopted widely.
> 
> Young revived the wave theory by means of the demonstration of interference.
> Interference is a property of waves, but not of particles.  Fresnel then
> developed these ideas further, including mathematics for polarization, etc.
> 
> Maxwell showed what light is an electromagnetic wave in 1862. Hertz
> confirmed this by actually creating, and measuring radio waves in the
> lab, in the late 1880's.
> 
> The Michelson-Morley experiments also date to the 1880's (there was a series
> of them, but the definitive one was in 1887). Nobody could explain the
> result very well until Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity
> in 1905.  Earlier explanations by FitzGerald, Lorentz, and Poincare, which
> involved physical changes in objects due to their motion, were shown to
> be unnecessary.  And so was an aether: unnecessary.
> 
> Curiously, during the Hertz experiments with radio waves, Hertz discovered
> the photoelectric effect.  This remained unexplained until Einstein put
> together the electron theory of electricity (due to Lorentz, 1892) with the
> quantization of electromagnetic fields (due to Planck, 1900), and showed
> that light quanta (now called photons) must sometimes be considered as
> particles.
> 
> >
> > and, Would this be "classical" or "quantum" physics?
> >
> 
> Young's experiment is classical physics.  But it was repeated in the 1920's
> with electron beams (which are generally considered to be particles). Guess
> what? The electrons interfere with each other.  Thus it was shown that the
> de Broglie hypothesis (matter waves) was correct, and several Nobel prizes,
> and a lot of good theorizing resulted.
> 
> > 2)  Explain Schrodingers Cat idea
> >
> > It has to do with: given a 50/50 chance of a stimulus going off
> > and killing a cat in a box.  then discuss the chances of the cat
> > being dead.
> >
> 
> Sorry, no credit for this answer.  You must discuss the role of quantum
> theory ... after all, Schroedinger invented this Hellish device solely
> to make a point about how ludicrous the standard interpretation of quantum
> mechanics is (1935).  See, for example, Gribbon's "In Search of Schroedinger's
> Cat", or Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality".
> 
> > 3)  Have any subatomic particles been observed to travel backwards
> >     in time?
> >
> > I said none have been observed, but I agree that there are theories
> > that predict it is possible, however the other person says it has happened.
> >
> 
> The usual model just treats anti-particles as regular particles traveling
> backwards in time. This is called "time symmetry".  As a practicle matter,
> you cannot tell the difference.
> 
> > I was told there is (was?) a person named Feynman, who won the 1965 nobel
> > prize in Physics, (as I have been told) he completed an experiment that
> > actually showed a subatomic particle to travel backwards in time (How did
> > he find it to measure it?) If any of you could explain the experiment, if
> > there was such, and if it can be replicated.
> >
> 
> Feynman did no such experiment ... he was a theoretician. But the idea was
> his.  Somebody has their explanations a bit garbled.  For more on this idea,
> see Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".
> 
> Best Regards, Peter
> 
> BTW, all of the books mentioned are meant for a general audience ... no math,
> just words and pictures.
Now, what fun is a physics book without math?!

In article <56due0$9kf@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>
>[bjon]
>>>You have missed the point.  If there's  no such thing as absolute
>>>motion (no existence of it), then it becomes impossible for any
>>>possible experiment to ever detect, even in principle, and yet this
>>>must be the case for SRT to be testable.
>>>
>[kenn.]
>>Your logic is flawed.  If absolute motion can be detected, then the PR will
>>fail for that phenomenon.  If the experiment is optical, then SR will be 
>>falsified.  
>
>>But it is not necessary for absolute motion to exist for this argument to go
>>through.  If absolute motion does not exist, then SR is true and therefore
>>cannot be falsified.  This does not prevent us from testing it and its 
>>consequences.
>
>Here's what I am saying: If one makes the argument that "Unicorns
>aren't detectable" when actually one means "It is my theory that
>unicorns don't exist, and furthermore they are not detectable," then
>this latter part is a senseless addition, and I don't believe Einstein
>would have done this.  SRT says that only merely relative motion is
>detectable, and that absolute motion is not detectable.  Einstein said
>that absolute motion is meaningless in that it cannot be observed, but
>this doesn't mean that he denied its very existence.  And a theory
>that says "Absolute motion is not detectable" meaning "Despite the
>fact that absolute motion does exist, it is not observable" is not
>falsifiable unless such motion does exist.  The only way it can be
>falsified is by the detection of absolute motion, so this type of
>motion must exist for the theory to be falsifiable.
>
This is still flawed logic.  
>>In an argument of the form 'if A, then B', it is not necessary for A to be 
>>true to test the arguement.  This argument is equivalent to 'if not B, then 
>>not A', so we can test B.  The truth of B does not prove A, nor does the 
>>falsity of A prove the falsity of B.
>
>
Let A be 'Unicorns do not exist'
Let B be 'Unicorns are not detectable'.
Then we can allow 'A implies B'
This leads us to 'not B implies not A'. (I.e. detecting unicorns implies they
exist).
You claim that 'B implies not A' is also equivalent, but it is not.
If we can derive 'B implies not A', as in your argument, then we can prove
'not A'. (I.e. unicorns exist). 
So, if unicorns do not exist, they are not detectable.
If they are detectable, they exist.
If they are not detectabe, they exist.
Unicorns exist.  QED.

On 15 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
> alweiner@presstar.com (Alan Weiner) wrote:
>
> >Name and publisher of book pls.  What evidence do they use to support
> >this conjecture?
>
> >In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> >>
> >>I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> >>printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> >>accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
>
>
> Ashes to ashes,
> Dust to dust.,
> Got to correct you,
> THAT I must!
>
> T'wasn't that book
> you're referring to.
> An ENCYCLOPEDIA,
> If you want to know.
>
	clearly, it's a silly unscientific quote from some frustrated
writer who couldn't grasp concepts and had to lash out at everyone else
for being smarter by saying a ridiculous lie.  I do the same thing myself,
or at least I did when I was younger. . .but it doesn't really deserve
consideration just because it's a quote or because it is in print.
	If a printing press were to explode, and the matter from that was
to form any book previously written (or any original work, for that
matter), It would have created a better part of human culture from
nothing.  These seems a lot less probable, don't you think?  A book
implies a writer and a culture, so even if the culture doesn't exist, it
would be created by the explosion that creates a book.
	ALSO, ... (I can't stop myself from writing...)  To say the world
created by some dead matter sounds silly.  What is the world that this
refers to?  You used dead as if to mean inert, and matter generally isn't
inert. {now let me proceed into metaphysics}  matter which isn't inert is
moving, and movement is energy and energy is life.  I don't call light
alive, but that is negative energy.  all life is slightly positive.
Choices are not free but freedom is choices and they are energy.  this
freedom is not life but consciousness.  there are levels of life below
awareness.  but this life we don't see as life because it doesn't see
itself as life and then it can't exist as such.  all things that we see as
life have some level of awareness which proceeds to where we are fully (?)
conscious and even self-conscious beings.  the matter at the start of it
all, which was probably nothing but movement, predicted this.   It could
have been no other way.  there was no probability.  it was 1/1.
	of course, for anything to be there rather than nothing, well,
maybe that was improbable, but time was not existant before there was no
time, so probability does not play a role.

In article <56dvil$785@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>
>>In article <5668oi$2ho@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>>>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>>
>>>>The internal beat of a clock has nothing to do with absolute time.  You have
>>>>already made an exception for motion, what is next?
>>>
>>>>The regularity of a clock does not tell us how it will compare with other,
>>>>non-local clocks.  This was recognized by Poincare in 1898, and developed by
>>>>Einstein in 1905 into SR.
>>>
>>>There's more to absolute time than mere clock synch. (In fact, clock
>>>synch has nothing to do with absolute time -- it is merely a matter of
>>>definition, as Einstein has pointed out.)
>
>>If clock sync has nothing to do with absolute time, then what is absolute
>>time?   The only way we can compare time intervals of events at different 
>>places is by synchonizing our clocks.  Your previous definition of absolute
>>time is one where all observers will agree on the value of the time interval.
>>Without synch, the only thing left to agree on is that the time interval is
>>meaningless.
>
>It was not a definition of absolute time, but a way of showing that
>such time does exist, even in SRT. That is, it was an example that
>shows how real time shows up in SRT by the phenonenon of any SRT
>observer getting a different time interval for two events than that of
>any other SRT observer.  This is not a relative thing, but is an
>absolute thing, a reflection of real clock readings even in SRT, and a
>reflection of the fact that an SRT observer's clocks are set
>out-of-true in proportion to his absolute speed.  The real parts of
>usable absolute time are [1] a real clock rhythm [2] that is known by
>the observer. Absolute time by itself is just part [1].  As for the
>synch part, Newton's is called absolute synch, and E's relative
>synch., but this is not absolute time itself, which is the actual
>rhythm of an actual clk.
>
So your absolute time only allows us to build clocks, but implies nothing 
about simultaneity.  No argument, that is exactly what SR says about time.
>>>And there's no "exception made for motion."  A clock has an absolute
>>>rhythm, independent of any observer.  This is a simple fact about the
>>>clock's absolute time.  Another fact is that this absolute rhythm
>>>changes with the clock's absolute speed. (Proved by the KTX).
>>>
>
>>KTX showed that if AT and length contraction exist, then time dilation must
>>exist.  Another explanation of the experiment is that AT does not exist and
>>SR holds.
>
>No explanation at all in SRT.
Here you go again.  Theory says that in a rest system, we will expect a null
result.  SR says the same is true of a moving system.  It explains it, if
you wish, by showing how length and time are measured differently in a moving
system.  So, SR gives us length contraction and time dilation in the moving
system.  In AT, these effects are supposed to exist "absolutely", but are 
assumed, not explained.
SR gives a better explanation.

karen@snowcrest.net (Karen McFarlin) wrote:
>All of the relevant evidence indicates that life grew here on earth. This
>does not necessarily eliminate the divine from the picture. But it
>eliminates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
>
>And it quite possibly changes are infantile anthropomorphic and
>specio-centristic notion of the divine.
>
>Cairns
Can anyone positivly prove the creation theory?
I don't think so.
You will need to have SOME faith in the scientific evidence.
So it is with the Bible.  The Adam and Eve story cannot be positivly
proven.  You must have faith that the Bible is the word of God.
Nothing eliminates the literal interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible is NOT partially the word of God.  It is completly the word
of God.
Recently there have been efforts made to discredit the Bible (Pope's
statement about creation is an example).  They are all based on a plot
by Satan to cast doubt in peoples minds.
I hope you will reconsider your belief about the Bible.

Mountain Man  writes:
>
>Hahahahahahaha .....  end of discussion.
>Hahahahahahaha .....  what an intellectual singularity.
 One of the most cogently argued cases for Autodynamics yet. 
 A combination of ad hominem attack and argument-from-authority (on 
 the basis that only a non-authority can be trusted to speak with 
 authority) rather than a single word of comment on the content of 
 the article.  The article raised a particular case that should be 
 explained by Autodynamics, or another experiment for them to repeat. 
>I find sci.physics the most amusing newsgroup to read for this
>very reason ... "Know_it_Alls" - Please stand up and be recognised.
 Certainly we see that one of the KnowNothings has stood up. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
}
} : bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones)
} : WHAT causes the "relative coord.  axes"?
}
}Hmmm?  What do you mean "what causes them"?
 There goes Throop again, perpetuating the coverup.  I'll let you 
 in on a little secret.  No, make that a really big secret. 
 It is one of the mysteries of the Secret Society of Physicists.  
 When they close the thesis defense, excluding everyone except properly 
 and fully indoctrinated members of the SSP from the room, for the final 
 questioning, the initiant is shown the Instruments of Axis Definition 
 and given his or her own personal copy.  It is a key tenent of this 
 religion that if this secret is ever revealed, space and time will 
 cease to be defined and the world will co&&^^J_*&*^!@%.  CARRIER LOST 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "The half of knowledge is knowing
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  where to find knowledge" - Anon. 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  Motto over the entrance to Dodd 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  Hall, former library at FSCW. 

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 13:28:17 GMT, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>tom moran wrote:
>>>         During the Gulf War build up, there appeared some 45 vcolumns in
>>> the N.Y. and L.A. Times calling for the U.S. to bash Israel's enemy
>>> Iraq.
>>> 
>>>         Of the 45 columns, 42 of them were by Jews.
>>[snip]
>>
>>Do we smell a little anti-semitism here?  After all, Iraq and the other
>>Arab nations have sworn again and again since 1948 to 'push the Jews
>>into the sea', and have tried to do so a number of times.  Is it any
>>wonder the Jews (I'm not Jewish) would have ill feelings toward Iraq?
>
>	"Anti-Semitism" you "smell", you say? Maybe you can expand on it.
>
>
>	Maybe while your at that you could explain or excuse how it
>happens that Jews who make up barely 2% of the American population
>wrote 85% of the columns in the nations two largest newspapers calling
>for war on Iraq, the enemy of the Jewish state of Israel.
>
>	Are you going to say they submitted the stuff for the good of
>America and it had nothing to do with personal ethnocentric motives? 
	If the truth is unpleasant, attack the messenger.  It is the
holohugger way.  
	But one thing never made sense to me, why was Israel threatening to
nuke Iraq over its invasion of Kuwait?  That was nearly the first
official response.  
=====
http://home1.gte.net/mgiwer/index.html
http://www.codoh.com/

In <56jia2$ohp@ren.cei.net> lkh@mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling)
writes: 
>It reminds me of
>people who seek to preserve life regardless of its state. They are
>branded "right to lifers" oh horrible thing it may be. While Right to
>Choose is NOT called Anti-Life.
I believe that people have the right to choose experimental medical
treatments that are unlikely to work but have not yet been disproved.
Cryonics falls into that category.
If it works it also is an example of the right to life.

I would like a quick, easy, accurate way of measuring the force of
springs, specifically, steel magazine springs.  What's the best way of
doing this?  30 pounds force (133 N) would be plenty for a maximum. 
I could of course simply build some sort of apparatus to sit atop the
spring and pile weights on it, but while sufficiently accurate, that
wouldn't by quick, or easy.  I'm hoping there's a better way.
It would also be nice to be able to get a force vs. spring compression
curve, rather than just measuring a point or two and depending on Hooke's
law, but that's frosting, not really necessary. 
Please Cc: any posts to me, thanks...
-- 
--
Andrew Piskorski
atp@hopper.unh.edu

In <56gtgj$7s7@lex.zippo.com> dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz)
writes: 
>lkh@mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling) wrote:
>
>>You find a problem with Jew being a Jew? You and Hitler too? 
>
>Ding!  By official usenet rules, the comparison of your opponent
>to a nazi ends the thread.  A TKO to the opposing side!
FWIW, I'm Jewish and I think cryonics should be taken more seriously.

In <56j0l0$lun@ren.cei.net> lkh@mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling)
writes: 
>Excuse me here. Pronounced dead is (in most cases ) dead. You're
>living in a dream world if you think there is hope afterward.
If cryonics actually works, Such a pronouncement is frequently a
mistake.
>I don't care to do anything different than I do. Hucksters and snake
>oil salesmen will always be with us. They always come out of the grass
>sooner or later the secret is just to not allow one to bite you.
On the Internet we have examples of real con men --- those who post the
MMF scams. When faced with criticism they either ignore it or emit
insincere apologies. Arguing against criticism is NOT the mark of a con
man. (It might instead be the mark of a loony.)
BTW, some people have been revived after being frozen --- as embryos.

I was wondering if anyone here knows of a company that sells/deals in 
Microimpulse radar chips (developed at lawrence livermore NL). I would 
appreciate it if you could email me the name/address/number of such a 
company. Thanks.

I heard the news that last night amateur astronomers had detected 
something large near Hale-Bopp that wasn't there even a few hours 
earlier. The guy uploaded his picture and I managed to get through an 
inordinately high amount of traffic and download the picture. WoW!  The 
thing, whatever it is, is huge, and has a faint saturn-like ring around 
it. It does seem to be glowing with its own light (not reflected). I 
tried to look for more info today, but the particular websites seem to be 
totally overloaded. Anyone have any idea what this 'thing' could be?
If you cant get through, you can download yesterdays picture from my server.
Do an anonymous FTP to: altair.csustan.edu/pub/misc/jacob/halebopp.jpg
If this is real, its amazing!!

romana@azstarnet.com wrote:
> I have noticed that this issue of crossposting via not trimming
> headers has been around for a long time without solution.  As a person
> who does not have much time to spend on newsgroups triming headers is
> more time consuming than I can afford.  It is also putting me in the
> position of editor to decide where this post belongs.  Who am I to
> judge through the plethera of newsgroups just where this particular
> post should go.  Instead of asking the origninal poster (the person
> who is really responsible) not to send certain materials to certain
> newsgroups, people who are merely trying to participate in discussions
> are harrased continually.  I am not responsible for deciding what goes
> where, I refuse to be put in the spot of the editor of the newsgroups.
> If you don't like a thread you may delete it or you could also put it
> in your kill file.  Let us all try to make the newsgroups a more
> pleasant place to be.
Eli writes:
I suggest that everyone who can understand the above post
take it and paste it in a notepad where everytime they read a post like
below which calls people fuckwits and accuses them of starting the
thread....you can mail their postmaster by merely copying their
address and writing postmaster ahead of it.
examples for the below posts of
Jack Campin as:
jack@purr.demon.co.uk
postmaster@purr.demon.co.uk
and Michael D. Painter as:
mpainter@maxinet.com
postmaster@maxinet.com
> Ah, Jack, it appears that you have not met EJ before.
> This latest appearance is one of the most coherent posts I've seen from
> him. ( No, really)
> He exhibits all the behavior of someone who goes off his meds, gets worse
> and worse, then gets locked up for a few days (when he disappears) and is
> put back on track.
> I said this in jest the first time I ran across him but am beginning to
> believe I was right.
> Jack Campin  wrote in article<1942@purr.demon.co.uk>...
> > Eliyehowah  writes:
> > > This is a reply. I have not chosen the header newsgroups this thread is
> > > found in.
> >
> > Yes you have, fuckwit.  You can't weasel out of your responsibility by
> > saying "the other guy started it".
> > > I have added alt.religion.christian to share with them
> > I'm sure that group's readers are all *really* grateful.  I don't think.
> > Now edit your goddamn headers before continuing this discussion.
> > Jack Campin
> jack@purr.demon.co.uk
> > T/L, 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE, Scotland       (+44) 131 556
> 5272
> > ---------------------  Save Scunthorpe from Censorship

THIS IS THE FAIREST MOST HONEST WAY I KNOW TO SHARE THE WEALTH! 
Hello!
Would you like to make thousands of dollars, quickly, legally, with NO
CATCH?  Then keep reading.......please take five minutes to read this
article - it will change your life, just like it did mine.  It's true!
You can make up to or over $50,000 dollars in 4-6 weeks, maybe sooner!
I SWEAR I'M NOT LYING TO YOU, AND THIS IS NOT A SCAM! If you're
interested, keep reading; if you're not, I apologize for wasting your
time.
     Here we go.  A little while back, I was browsing through these
newsgroups, just like you are now, and came across an article similar to
this that said you could make thousands of dollars in weeks, with only
an initial investment of $5!  So, I thought, "Yeah, right, must be a
scam",
but I was curious, like most of us, so I kept reading.  Anyway, it said
that you send $1 to each of the 5 names and addresses stated in the
article.  You then place your own name and address in the article at the
bottom of the list at #5, and post the article in at least 200
newsgroups (there are thousands).  No catch, that was it!
     So after thinking it over, talking to a few people first, I tried
it. I figured what have I got to lose except for 5 stamps and $5, right?
Well, guess what....within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail!
I was shocked!  I still figured it would end soon, and didn't give it
another thought.  But then money kept coming IN, tripling in size and
multiplying by 10-20 times the amount that I got the first week!  In my
first week I made about 20 to 30 dollars.  But by the end of the second
week, I had made a total of over $1,000!!!!  In the third week, I had
over $10,000 dollars, and it's still growing!  This is my fourth week
(Nov 13) and I've made about $42,000 TOTAL, and believe it or not the
money is still coming in.....
     Let me tell you how this works and most importantly, WHY it
works....also, make sure you print a copy of this article NOW, so you
get the information from it, and begin making money.
The process is very simply, and it consists of 3 EASY steps:
STEP 1:  Get 5 seperate pieces of paper and write the following on each
sheet of paper..."PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST.  YOU ARE NUMBER
4.' Get five $1 bills, and place ONE inside each piece of paper that you
have just written on, and fold each piece of paper so the bill will not
be seen in the envelope (otherwise, nosey people who like to steal
envelopes with money in it will get yours).  Put one paper inside the
envelope and seal it.  Do the same for all 5.  You should now have 5
envelopes sealed, EACH having a piece of paper AND the $1 bill inside. 
NOTE: make sure those words that were stated above are written on each
piece of paper. What you are doing is creating a service by this.  This
is PERFECTLY LEGAL.   Now, mail the 5 envelopes with the paper and $1 in
each to the following 5 addresses:
1.     H. H., 435 Franklin TPA Apt. 15 Mahwah, N.J. 07430
2.     Bruce, P.O. Box 63 4700 Keele St., North York, Ontario M3J 1P3
3.     D. Cota, 10019 Austin Dr., Spring Valley, CA 91977
4.     D. Hill, 4280 150 6 Ave S.W., Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 3Y7
5.     Jason G., 325 23rd St NW, Canton, OH  44709
STEP 2:  Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move the
other 4 names up (5 becoming 4, 4 becoming 3, etc.) and put YOUR NAME as
number 5 on the list.  
You can slightly alter this article if you need to, editing what you
need to edit.
STEP 3:  Post your amended article (with your name at #5) to at least
200 news groups  (there are around 18,000 of them!).  All you need is
say, at least 200.  HOW TO DO THIS:  If you have Netscape 3.0 do EXACTLY
the following:
1) Click on any news group like normal, THEN click on 'TO NEWS', which
is on the far left when you're in the newsgroups page.  This will bring
up a box to type a message in.
2)  Leave the newsgroup box as it is, but CHANGE the subject box to
something eye-catching, like, "NEED CASH $$$   READ HERE" $$$ or "FAST
CASH" !!!
3) Tab once and you should be ready to type.  Now, retype (only once)
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE, word for word, except to insert your name at #5, and
to remove #1 off the list, plus any other small changes you thing you
need to make.  Keep almost all of it the same.
4) When you're done typing the WHOLE article, click on FILE in THIS BOX,
right above send, NOT where it says netscape news on the first box. 
Click on SAVE AS when you're under FILE.  Save your article as a text
file to your C: or A: drive.  DO NOT SEND OR POST YOUR ARTICLE UNTIL YOU
HAVE SAVED IT.  Once saved, move on to number 5 below.
5)  If you still have all of your text, send or post to this newsgroup
now by simply clicking Send, which is right below FILE, and right above
the Cc: button.
6)  Here's where you're going to post all 200.  OK, click on any news
group then click on 'TO NEWS', again (in the top left hand corner of
your netscape navigator.  Leave the newsgroups box alone again, put your
eye-catching title in the SUBJECT BOX, hit TAB once you're in the body
of the message, and then click on ATTACHMENT, which is below the Subject
box.  You will get another box to come up.  Click on ATTACH FILE, then
find YOUR FILE THAT YOU HAVE SAVED;  click once on this file, and then
click OPEN.  Now click on OK.  if you did this right, you should see
your file name in the attachments box, and it will be shaded green.
IF YOU USE I.E. EXPLORER, IT'S JUST AS EASY:   Holding down the left
mouse button, highlight this article.  Then press the "CTRL" key and the
"C" key at the same time, to copy this article.  Then print this article
for your records to have the names of those you will be sending $1 bills
to.  Next, go to the news groups and press "POST AN ARTICLE".  A window
will open.  Type in your headline in the subject area and then click in
the large windown below.  If you want to edit the article, do so and
then highlight and copy it again.  Now everytime you post the article in
a new newsgroup all you have to repeat is "CTRL" and "V" and press POST.
7)  That's it!  Each time you do this, all you have to do is type in a
different newsgroup, so that way, it posts to 200 DIFFERENT newsgroups. 
You see?  Now you just have 199 to go!! (Don't worry, each one takes
about 30 seconds, once you get used to it).   REMEMBER, 200 IS THE
MINIMUM.  The more you post, the more money you will make.
AND THAT'S IT!!!  
You are now in the mail-order business and will start receivng your $1
envelopes from various people all over the world, within days!  HINT:
THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST TO, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE.  
You may want to rent a PO Box eventually, because of all the mail.
If you wish to stay anonymous, you can come up with a name, such as
"manager" or "investor".  Just make sure all the addresses that you have
typed in for the 4 people plus yourself are correct, please.
LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS SYSTEMS WORKS!
Out of every 200 postings, let's say i ONLY receive 5 replies, which is
actually VERY LOW.  So I made 5 dollars with my name at #5.  Now, each
person who just sent me $1 makes, say, only 200 postings, now with your
name at number 4, WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 1000 POSTINGS, not including yours
too.  50 people send you $1 now - that's $50 you have just made!  Next,
your new 50 agents each post 200 newsgroups with your name at number 3,
or 10,000 POSTINGS (50x200 = 10,000).  The average return is 500 at $1
each, so $500.  They make 200 postings, which is 5,000 returns at $1
each, which is $5,000 dollars!  And finally, 5,000 people make 200
postings with YOUR NAME AT NUMBER 1.  YOU NOW GET A RETURN OF $50,000
BEFORE YOUR NAME DROPS OFF THE LIST.  AND THAT'S IF EVERYONE ONLY MAKES
200 POSTINGS, AND IF ONLY 5 PEOPLE RESPOND!!!
     When your name is no longer on the list, you simply take the latest
posting that is appearing in the newsgroups, and SEND OUT ANOTHER $5 TO
THE NAMES ON THE LIST, PUTTING YOUR NAME AT #5 AGAIN.  And start posting
again.  The thing to remember is, THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD
ARE JOINING THE INTERNET AND READING THESE ARTICLES EVERY DAY - just
like you are right now!!!  
So can you afford $5 to see if it really works?  I think so.......
People have said, "What is the plan is played out and no one sends you
the money?"  So what!  What are the chances of that happening when there
are TONS OF NEW HONEST USERS AND NEW HONEST PEOPLE who are joining the
internet and newsgroups every day and are willing to give it a try?
Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,00 new users, every day, with THOUSANDS of
those actually joining the internet.  
Remember, PLAY FAIRLY, AND HONESTLY, and this WILL WORK.  I promise
you!!!  You just have to be honest.  Make sure you print this article
out RIGHT NOW.
Also, try to keep a list of everyone that sends you money and always
keep an eye on the newsgroups to make sure everyone is playing fairly. 
REMEMBER: HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY!  You don't need to cheat the basic
idea to make money!  
GOOD LUCK TO ALL, PLEASE PLAY FAIRLY, AND YOU WILL REAP THE HUGE REWARDS
FROM THIS - TONS OF EXTRA CASH!!!
One last note: if you try to deceive people by posting the messages with
your name on the list and not sending the money to the people already on
the list, you will not get much.
Someone I talked to knew someone who did that and he only made $150
dollars, and that's AFTER seven or eight weeks!  Then he sent the 5 $1
bills, people added him to their lists, and in 4-5 weeks he had over
$10,000!!
THIS IS THE FAIREST AND MOST HONEST WAY I HAVE EVER SEEN TO SHARE THE
WEALTH OF THE WORLD WITHOUT COSTING US ANYTHING BUT OUR TIME, $5 AND
FIVE POSTAGE STAMPS!

I've been reading about entropy, and have become very confused about 
how entropy works in chemical reactions.  Specifically, a chemical
bond between two atoms is supposed to store some kind of potential
energy.  Yet, when you form a new bond, heat is released; whereas, 
when you dissolve an existing bond, heat is absorbed.  On the surface,
this behavior seems to violate the law of conservation of energy.
If a bond stores potential energy, where does that energy go when
two atoms lose their molecular bond?  Why does the heat decrease?
I have only high-school level math and science, so would appreciate
it if someone can explain the issue on this level or refer me to a 
book that does.  Thanks in advance.

kenneth paul collins (KPCollins@postoffice.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: ale2 wrote:
: 
: > [...] might one have a small chance of measuring a violation of the 
: > Uncertainty Principle?
: 
: My view, which is not yet accepted by others, is that what's been referred 
: to as "uncertainty" has everything to do with the existence of 
: sub-emission energy flows, and nothing to do with Physically-Real limits.
: 
: In the future (if I'm reading things right, the near future), when folks 
: have come to terms with the fact that Physical Reality is "subtle", and 
: have learned that massive applications of energy "just" come up against 
: self-generated inertial dynamics, within the artificially-imposed group 
: discipline of which, the True subtlety of Physical Reality remains hidden, 
: then we'll see a lot of elegant experiments, performed in gentle energy 
: realms, but having ever-more-refined Geometry with respect to energy flow 
: dynamics, and we'll see experiments in which sub-threshold flows are 
: successfully combined. And in this way, the concept of "uncertainty" will 
: gradually be whittled down to Certainty.
: 
: "uncertainty" was an error resulting from the oft-reiterated behavioral 
: propensity to take what's "in-hand" (what's familiar), and to call it 
: "everything there is". ken collins
: _____________________________________________________
: People hate because they fear, and they fear because
: they do not understand, and they do not understand 
: because hating is less work than understanding.
They've landed apparently.
-Dave D.

Brian D. Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote [in part]:
: >Brian D. Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
: >: >>If a clock travels between two events, there's only one value for this
: >: >>particular clock, and it is an absolute reading, not a relative one.
: >: >>And the clock that has the greatest reading has taken the shortest
: >: >>absolute route between the two events, which is the absolute distance
: >: >>between them.
: >: >>
: >: >You seem to have shifted the meaning of absolute.  You now have equated 
: >: >absolute time with proper time.  This is radically different than either
: >: >Newton's or Einstein's use of the term.  I don't think that is what you 
: >: >meant.
: >: A single clock traveling between events records a single time - this
: >: is clearly not relative, but absolute, or not observer dependent.
: >The problem with this demand is that the CLOCK becomes the observer.
: So who is Mr. Clock observing?
In this case, the clock is measuring the proper time for the world line 
connecting the two events.
: >: >>>: Obviously, for many events, there's not enough time for a clock to
: >: >>>: "span" them, even at lightspeed, so there would be no proper time for
: >: >>>: the events.  This is the case above. 
: >: >>
: >: >>>Yes, because we've switched from trig to hyperbolic trig.
: >: >>>We've switched from Pythagorus to Lorentz/Minkowski.
: >: >>>Thus, the interval is spacelike.
: >: >>
: >: >>>Oooooooo, scarey.  Ooooooh.   I dunno about you, kids, 
: >: >>>but that sure convinces old Count Floyd, boy, I'll tell you.  Oooooh.
: >: >>>--
: >: >>>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
: >: >>>               throopw@cisco.com
: >: >>
: >: >>Sad and irrelevant attempt at being humorous.
: >: >>And what's really scarey is a clock that reads hyperbolic time!
: >: >>
: >: >Your use of absolute above would truly be hyperbolic time in the sense that 
: >: >events at the same absolute time from the origin would occupy a hyperboloid,
: >: >rather than a plane.  I will let you reconsider this one.
: >: But there's no proper time reading by a real clock.
: >No, the proper time is given by a clock carried by the observer or system 
: >you want the proper time of.
: I meant that no real clock could travel between the events -- so there
: could be no real proper time recorded.
Now you are demanding that all clocks are constrained to be at rest in 
your magical prefered frame?
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tsar@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: David L Evens wrote:
: > Actually, the meaning is quite simple:  All observers, regardless of
: > inertial motions, observe that all light from all sources moves at
: > precisely the same speed.
: Except for observers of or in rotating frames.
Rotating frames do NOT change the observed speed of light.  Rotating 
frame, you see, can always be shown by purely internal measurements to be 
rotating.
: Except for observers in 
: a medium other than hard (absolute?) vacuum. Except maybe .....
That doens't change the limiting speed of information transit.
: > Light moves at the same speed for everyone.
: Except ...
Nobody.
: > Indeed it is.  It is also OBSERVER independent.
: Except for certain observers.
All of whom notice that light is acting oddly and can see why perfectly well.
: > : And Einstein's View explains nothing at all.
: > 
: > Except for most of the universe.
: Except that Einstein wasn't so sure about that.
"Aristotle created a universe, and it lasted for 2000 years.  Newton 
created a universe, and it lasted 200 years.  Now I have created a 
universe, and we shall see how long it lasts."
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------