Newsgroup sci.physics 208633

Directory

Robert. Fung wrote:
>            A magnet surrounded by iron filings exhibits magnetic
>            field quantization nicely I think. When the field passes
>            through uniform spread of filings the filings move into
>            Faraday lines. Why ?  The filings bunch
>            together into the Faraday lines. They quantize in this
>            way because the magnetic field prefers to go through
>            the filings rather than free space. This leaves a
>            magnetic depletion zone between the lines where filings
>            were, while additional filings placed in these zones
>            will move into the existing lines.
In the theoretical perspective in which I work (Tapered Harmony), I 
view the pattern that the filings trace in terms of What's Described 
By 2nd Thermo (WDB2T). In this view, what are referred to as "atoms" 
are actually quantities of energy that are "trapped" in the form of 
Spherical Standing Waves (SSWs) that are in "compression"-"expansion" 
harmonic interaction with a Universal Energy Supply (UES; SSW<->UES 
harmonics). The energy is "trapped" because the sphere's 
volume/surface geometry under compression & expansion comes up against 
"window" sizes that prevent the "trapped" energy from escaping at c. 
The "windows" just are not big enough for the energy to escape without 
violating c.
But in this view, work is required to maintani the SSW<->UES 
harmonics. It is this real, physical work which is WDB2T.
The iron filings congregate as they do in magnetic fields because 
doing so constitutes a least-action configuration with respect to 
WDB2T - the energy dissipated in the collective sustenance of the iron 
SSW<->UES harmonics is minimized when they divide their group Geometry 
up in the form of the "Faraday lines".
Inherent in this is the view that "magnitism", itself, constitutes an 
ordered flow within the UES. Substances which react macroscopically to 
"magnetism" are "just" doing, in the presence of the "magnetic field", 
the least-action thing with respect to the Universal flow of energy 
from ordered "states" to less-ordered "states" that is WDB2T. In this 
view, the "magnetic field" consists of a physically-Real, 
relatively-ordered =flow= of energy. The iron filings align their 
intrinsic SSW<->UES harmonic flows with respect to the macroscopic 
flow that is "magnetism".
Substances which are not macroscopically "magnetic" (wood, etc.), do 
not respond to the flow of energy which is "magnetism" because the 
flow does not enhance the relationship between their SSW<->UES 
harmonics and the Universal flow of energy that is WDB2T.
>            The question is, whether the magnetic field is quantized
>            in such a way in "free-space" rather than a continuously
>            varying field strength ?
> 
>            Is the magnetic field continuous if we don't look at it ?
My view is that the Universe is continuous, and that all "quantal" 
stuff is only apparent when SSW<->UES harmonics are elevated above 
energy-content thresholds - that is when they receive energy that 
cannot be enduringly "trapped" within their Volume/surface area 
Geometry. Such excess energy is "spit out" by the SSW<->UES harmonics. 
Such has been interpreted as constituting a "quantal" event, but when 
one looks, one sees that, rather than constituting" a "quantal" event, 
such constitutes a thresholded redirection event within a continuous 
flow. 
There are significant benefits of viewing things in this way, many of 
which arise out of the recognition of the existence of sub-threshold 
energy flow dynamics, and the realization that such sub-threshold 
flows can actually be manipulated to perform useful work. And, for 
those with an aesthetic bent, this view dispenses with all of 
the so-called "quantum weirdness". 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.

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?
-- 
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

Triple Quadrophenic (Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig) wrote:
: What you've got to realise is that the correct answer to the question "Is a 
: photon a particle or a wave?" is "Neither". A photon (electron/neutrino/etc) 
: sometimes behaves like a particle, sometimes like a wave. Frequency is a 
: property of waves but it is also a property of fundamental particles.
Actually, it would probably be more correct to say "both".  A photon is
actually a wave packet, with a beginning and ending.  A great
source of information on this is an electronic article written by Dr.
Giles Henderson of Eastern Illinois University which is published at
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu
It illustrates how a photon is created or absorbed.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
	Donald A. Probst	cudap@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Wayne Throop wrote:
> 
> :: nguyen@clark.edu (Man Huu Nguyen)
> :: I know that the world wouldn't be where it is now if it wasn't for
> :: Newton's and Leibniz's original contributions to calculus.
> :: Airplanes, microwaves, etc are all derivived from calculus.  I am
> :: still quite amazed at how much Newton did for math and physics.  I
> :: was wondering if any of Einstein's theories have actually helped the
> :: world, technologically yet? Has anyone used the theories to produce
> :: useful ideas and tools?
> 
> : Peter Diehr 
> : The Global Positioning System (GPS) relies on both Special and General
> : Relativity.  GPS is a major new technology.
> 
> I think it's a bit more fundamental than that.  The relationship between
> "calculus" and things like "airplanes" and "microwaves" is not all that
> intimate; it's just a foundational item for later technology.
> 
> With a similar strength of foundational connection, for the want of
> special relativity, QED would be lost, for the want of QED, lasers and
> transistors would be lost, for the want of lasers and transistors, the
> internet (and usenet) would be lost, for the want of the internet, the
> original question would be lost.
> 
> Thus I find the question somewhat ironic.
> 
> Mind you, GPS is a good example.  Just doesn't adequately illustrate how
> pervasive the butterfly effect on technology from relativity, IMHO.
> 
> --
Well, those are good examples, but I didn't realize that the theory
of transistors or lasers depended upon QED.  When I took Solid State
Devices (we used Kittel and another book), we used QM, but not QED.
I realize (very much!) that we only dug in a tiny bit, but when do
you get to QED in condensed matter devices? Josephson Junctions?
I've also had a basic introduction to lasers, which used a fair
amount of quantum physics, but nothing that I recognized as coming 
from QED. I'm sure that as we get into the more powerful lasers,
and special effects, that QED shows up.  Do you know what effects
or conditions make QED the relevent model?
Best Regards, Peter

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In article <56eosu$153@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,  writes:
> Relay-Version: ANU News - V6.1 08/24/93 VAX/VMS V6.2; site wvnvms
> Path: wvnvm!wvnvms!news.cais.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!op.net!news.mathworks.com!
>  
newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!nntp-serve
r.caltech.edu!alexchen
> Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.misc,k12.ed.science,alt.folklore.science
> Subject: Re: Teaching Science Myth
> Message-ID: <56eosu$153@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
> From: alexchen@cco.caltech.edu (Yebo Chen)
> Date: 14 Nov 1996 09:31:10 GMT
> References: <325777EE.6011@halcyon.com> <3281EC2A.6905@slc.unisys.com>
>   <560tn7$a5s@rocky.scvnet.com>
>   <328765D8.2607@slc.unisys.com>
>  <569kno$je3@phunn1.sbphrd.com> <569lvi$as2@nn2.fast.net> 
<56a7vl$sj0@phunn1.sbphrd.com> 
> Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
> NNTP-Posting-Host: accord.cco.caltech.edu
> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #12 (NOV)
> Lines: 9
> Xref: wvnvms sci.physics:155063 sci.misc:13550 k12.ed.science:5239 
alt.folklore.science:21236
>
> peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
>
> >I always thought that it was the glass insert (very small- most people
> >don't even realise that it's there) which flows, so making the skates work.
>
> From what I was taught in school, the moving skates melted the ice by heating
> it (with friction) and the melted layer of water lubricated the skate/ice
> surface.  I think this makes sense and is better than ice ballbearings.
>
I'm not sure what the problems are with the discussion.  I teach physics and 
have dealt with many "myths" in science.  Ice will change state to a liquid in 
a variety of ways.  One way is by pressure.  The concave shape of the edge of 
an ice skate applies enough pressure on the ice to force it to change state to 
a liquid (the process is called "regelation").  The skate glides across a bead 
of water.  As soon as the pressure is relieved (by the skate moving onward), it 
changes back to a solid.  Because of the nature of ice formation, the ice 
reforms as a ridge that must be leveled or smoothed at olympic events.  It is 
one way judges determine how well a skater did their routine.
As a side note.  Another common misconception is that you are safe inside a car 
during a lightning storm because of rubber tires.  This is false.  Consider, 
the tires will be wet.  The bolt of lightening has traveled through thousands 
of feet of air (how would half an inch of rubber help?).  You are safe because 
you are inside a "Faraday Cage."  Electrical charge is carried on the outside 
of your cage to ground.  If anything, the tires increase the danger.  That's 
why many gas tankers have chains they drag with them.  They want a gound 
conduction to ground.
jboutwel@access.k12.wv.us

In <328CAA96.2847@sdrc.com> Jim Batka  writes: 
>
>Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>> 
>> In article , apl@world.std.com writes:
>
>Ah, but there is a side to this coin that most people are not aware
>of! Fluid Dynamics equations describing subsonic fluid properties
>include a "factor" identical to the one used in SR.
>
>	1/sqrt(c^2-v^2)
>
>For fluids the c represents the speed of sound in that medium while in
>SR it represents the speed of light.  In super sonic Fluid Dynamics
>this equation changes form to be
>
>	1/sqrt(v^2-c^2)
>
>Both sub & super sonic forms of this equation predict infinite drag
>when v=c.  As people are aware today, this is not true.  It turns out
>that the "infinite" peak formed by asymptotic approach to the v=c
>condition is rounded off.  Currently an empirical curve fit is used to
>describe fluid dynamics in the vicinity of the v=c condition.
>
>I am *not* trying to imply that SR is related to fluid dynamics.  
Why not?  GR is clearly fluid dynamical, and SR is but a sub-set
(special case) of GR.
Take a close look at Condon & Odishaw's Handbook of Physic section 3,
chapter 8.  This chapter, titled Acoustics will demonstrate the
mathematical similarities ...
>I am trying to convey my opinion that the limitations imposed by SR
>theory may not reflect reality.  
Absolutely ...
>Although we have "explored" this velocity condition with subatomic
>particles (I believe we've had e- up to 99.9999...% of light speed),
>I'm not convinced that we've learned all there is to know about
>velocity limitations imposed by "Real Life" (tm) as opposed to SR.
>
>-- 
>Jim Batka	Email:  jim.batka@sdrc.com
>
>Contrary to popular opinion, the word "gullible" is not in
>(American) Dictionaries.

lbsys@aol.com enunciated:
>Im Artikel <56gqa5$ano@ren.cei.net>, lkh@mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling)
>schreibt:
>>>I snooped around on Mr. Hempfling's home page, and, yes, as it turns
>>>out, he does appear to have  strong religious beliefs.
>>
>>You find a problem with Jew being a Jew? You and Hitler too? 
>The former poster didn't refer to any specific religion - and he certainly
>made no attempt to make an antisemitic comment. But of course yelling
>'Hitler' will put an end to any argument - as you very well know and
>probably intended.
When someone wishes to resort to personal games I can play too. I do
not wear gloves. I enjoy the contact. So the next one is welcome. But
as far as this argument is concerned..... if a person can not stand a
retort than do one's best to not disrupt in the first place.  And
things getting too hot in a cryonics thread is really dangerous isn't?
Just think of the mush that will occur in thaw...... THINK!
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

Bruce McGuffin (mcguffin@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
: Many years ago (well 12 at least), I attended a talk at Princeton by a
: well known member of the psychology faculty. I enjoyed the talk, which
: supported my own social and political views, and at the following
: reception I struck up a conversation with the speaker. Like any normal
: human being he was happy to discover a fan, and we had an interesting
: conversation until he asked my major. When I told him I was a grad
: student in electrical engineering, the conversation went from 60 to 0
: in 5 seconds. He said two more sentances, than walked off to speak
: with someone else.
: A few years earlier, I had a somewhat similar, though less obvious,
: experience with the dean of the graduate school at PU (a professor of
: German Literature), at a reception in the Graduate College. He didn't
: actually walk away, he just got this dissapointed look, and then
: started talking with some literature students I was standing with.
: Engineering isn't exactly science, and one or two professors hardly
: constitutes a "culture", but the incidents suggested to me that there
: might have been some hostility between the humanities/social sciences
: and engineering.
I have noticed the same thing.  I am a mechanical engineering major with 
a strong interest in music.  I took an advanced music class last summer 
that required a deep understanding of music theory and history in order 
to be able to follow the class.  I was the only "technical" person in the 
class, and the professor spent 20 minutes before the first class started 
trying to convince me to drop the class, as I could not possibly hope to 
be able to follow it.  I got an A in that class, so I guess we engineers 
aren't quite as dumb as we seem.  :) 
Larisa

Hello...
>adona26963@aol.com wrote:
>: We must discover and utilize technology to
>: detect gravity waves...
     I've been thinking about a little experiment I saw a while back
that caught my attention.  This one professor took a disk of aluminum,
rotated it about an axis through its center ( like a record ), then
placed a magnet above it.  What happened was that the magnet somehow
recieved a slight upwards force.
     I missed his explanation of the phenomenon, so I'll just guess
that the moving particles of aluminum somehow reflected a portion of
the magnetic radiation.  The faster the atoms travel, the more
magnet-thingies hit the aluminum, and the more bounce off. Maybe sort of
like raindrops in a slight drizzle progress to an observed downpour as a
car is taken from a slow speed to a high velocity ( I know I didn't say
that well ).  The magnetic waves would then fly back up to push on their 
source.
     Why can't the same be done with gravity.  I've read that Einstein
thought the two forces to be one in the same, and they are definitely
related in many ways...  Perhaps the aluminum atoms need only move faster,
Or maybe a thicker plate needs to be used.
     Well, even if that does work, I still can't see how you could use it
to make a detection device, though it would make for a nice accelerator
on a vehicle.  One could set up a kind of uniform gravitational field
throughout the hull of a ship, thereby causing all occupants and the craft
itself to change speeds at the same rate, and in a different direction
from downwards.  Since all internal organs would be speeding up together,
the passengers wouldn't be crushed no matter how far down the pedal was 
pressed.
     Maybe I've been dreaming too much.
                                                     - Aaron Bishop

Some of the readers of this newsgroup might be interested in a FAQ
just posted to the rec.arts.startrek.tech newsgroup.  The FAQ is
called "Relativity and FTL Travel".
Basically, it is a straight forward look (written for a non-technical
person to follow) at Special Relativity, General Relativity, and the
problems and "solutions" one finds when considering faster than light
travel.
For more information, read the "Introduction to the FAQ" portion which
you should find in the r.a.s.tech newsgroup.  You can also take a look
at the HTML version of the FAQ via the world wide web from this URL:
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~hinson/ftl/FTL_StartingPoint.html
Enjoy, and let me know what you think.
-Jay

In article <56gtgj$7s7@lex.zippo.com>, dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F.
Dietz) wrote:
I thought I was bold
 but now         it's   so cold 
         they chopped off my head
         and now I'm really dead

All books are in excellent condition unless otherwise indicated.
Prices include shipping and may be negotiable if you're interested
in multiple books.
Physics and Chemistry
  Statistical Field Theory, Itzykson and Drouffe            50
    Volume 1: From Brownian motion to renormalization
              and lattice gauge theory
    Volume 2: Strong Coupling, Monte Carlo Methods,
              Conformal Field Theory, and Random systems
  Atom-Photon Interactions,                                 30
  Cohen-Tannoudji, Dupont-Roc, and Grynberg (h)
  The Early Universe, Kolb and Turner (h)                   25
  Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Shankar (h)              20
  Twistor Geometry and Field Theory, Ward and Wells (p)     20
  Angular Momentum, Zare (h)                                25
  Elements of Advanced Quantum Theory, Ziman (p)            15
  Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th Ed.                  20
  Dirac (h)
  Introduction to Modern Physics,                           10
  Richtmyer and Kennard (h, worn, of historical interest)
  Quantum Many-Particle Systems, Negele and Orland (h)      25
  Theory of Crystal Space Groups and Lattice Dynamics,      20
  Birman (p)
  The Quantum Theory of Scattering, Rodberg and Thaler (h)  25
  Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time,     20
  Fulling (p)
  Group Theory for Physicists, Joshi (h)                    25
  Symmetry in Bonding and Spectra, Douglas and              25
  Hollingsworth (h)
  Newtonian Mechanics, French (p)                           15
  Supersymmetry and Supergravity, Wess and Bagger (p)       15
  Problems in Quantum Mechanics, ter Haar (h)               25
  Basic Electromagnetic Fields, Neff (h)                    25
  QED, Feynman (h)                                          15
  Thermodynamics, Lewis and Randall (h)                     25
  Molecular Thermodynamics, Knox (h)                        20
  The Spectra and Structure of Simple Free Radicals,        15
  Herzberg (h)
  Herzberg, Spectra of Diatomic Molecules (h)               25
  Molecules and Radiation, Steinfeld (h)                    25
  An Introduction to Quarks and Partons, Close (p)          20
Math
  Differential Equations and Their Applications, 4th Ed.,   25
  Braun (h)
  Applied Abstract Analysis, Aubin (h)                      30
  Solitons: An Introduction, Drazin and Johnson (p)         20
  A Primer on Riemann Surfaces, Beardon (p)                 15
  Transcendental Functions Satisfying Nonhomogeneous        20
  Linear Differential Equations, Babister (h)
  Introduction to Analysis, Rosenlicht (h)                  15
  Set Theory, Kunen (h)                                     15
  Linear Algebra, Mostow and Sampson (h)                    15
  Calculus of Variations, Elsgolc (h)                       15
  Partial Differential Equations, Sommerfeld (h)            20
  Stability Techniques for Continuous Linear Systems,       30
  Krall (p)
  Symmetry Groups and Their Applications, Miller (h)        25
  Elementary Linear Algebra, Roberts (h)                    20 
  A First Course in Stochastic Processes, Karlin (h)        20
  Finite Markov Chains, Kemeny and Snell (h)                20
Numerical Analysis
  Matrix Computations, Golub and Van Loan (p)               15
  Analysis and Design of Parallel Algorithms: Arithmetic    25
  and Matrix Problems, Lakshmivarahan and Dhall (h)
  Elementary Numerical Analysis, Conte and de Boor (h)      20
  Computational Methods in Elementary Numerical Analysis,   20
  Morris (p)
  Numerical Analysis of Spectral Methods: Theory and        15
  Applications, Gottlieb and Orszag (p)
Computer Science
  Theory
    Genetic Programming, volumes I and II,                  60
    Koza (h, like new)
    Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective             20
    Computability, Rogers (p)
    Multiprocessor Methods in Computer Graphics Rendering,  20
    Whitman (p)
    Mathematical Methods for Artificial Intelligence        20
    and Autonomous Systems, Giardina (h)
    Computational Linguistics, Grishman (p)                 15
    Program Translation Fundamentals, Calingaert (h)        15
    Fundamentals of Data Structures,                        20
    Horowitsz and Sahni (h)
    Computational Aspects of VLSI, Ullman (h)               15
    Transmission Analysis in Communications Systems,        25
    Volumes 1 and 2 (complete), Shimbo (h)
  UNIX
    Advanced UNIX Programming, Rochkind (p)                 15
    Introducing the UNIX System, McGilton and Morgan (p)    10
    UNIX Systems Administration, Fiedler and Hunter (p)     15
    Systems Software Tools, Biggerstaff (p)                 15
  Programming Languages
    The Standard C Library, Plaugher (p)                    15
    Reliable Data Structures in C, Plum (p)                 15
    Advanced C, Schildt (p)                                 15
    C Programmer's Library,                                 15
    Purdum, Leslie, and Stegemoller (p)
    C Primer Plus, Waite, Prata, and Martin (p)             15
    Dr. Dobb's Toolbook of C (h)                            15
    Common LISP, Steele (p)
    Mathematica: A System for Doing Mathematics             15
    by Computer, Wolfram (p)
    Modula 2: A Software Development Approach,              15
    Ford and Wiener (p)
    Programming in Prolog, Clocksin and Mellish (p)         15
    The T Programming Language, Slade (p)                   15
Language
  Barron's Mastering Spanish: includes book and 11          75
  compact discs, "The same course used by the U.S.
  Government to train Diplomatic Personnel"
  (like new, in original case, list $100)
Thanks,
Nick Nystrom
nystrom@psc.edu

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <56fbjd$akg@news.sas.ab.ca>, czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:
: >...And you all thought "Dilbert" was just a comic strip...
: >
: Actually, "Dilbert" is reality, while what we refer to as "reality" is 
: a comic strip.
This explains a number of things I see going on the the world that make 
absolutely no sense.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lbsys@aol.com wrote:
: And some of the most prominent are definitely not just spelling errors,
: e.g. _their_ vs. _there_. This indicates to me that we do not think in
: written syllables, but in 'heard' ones, thus sound is by far more
: important to speech then scripture. Which of course devalidates another
I don't think it's true for all people.  I think in text - I can force 
myself to think in "heard" syllables, but naturally I think in written 
(or typed) ones.  This is why, in learning English (as a second language) 
I had no problem learning the spelling of words, but would sometimes 
mispronounce certain words.
Larisa

In article <19961115.150658.181324.NETNEWS@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>,
  wrote:
[...]
>I'm not sure what the problems are with the discussion.  I teach physics and 
>have dealt with many "myths" in science.  Ice will change state to a liquid in 
>a variety of ways.  One way is by pressure.  The concave shape of the edge of 
>an ice skate applies enough pressure on the ice to force it to change state to 
>a liquid (the process is called "regelation").  The skate glides across a bead 
>of water.  As soon as the pressure is relieved (by the skate moving onward), it 
>changes back to a solid.  Because of the nature of ice formation, the ice 
>reforms as a ridge that must be leveled or smoothed at olympic events.  It is 
>one way judges determine how well a skater did their routine.
It was posted here by someone early in the history of this thread that
it happens that it cannot be shown that the pressure of an ice skate is
sufficent to shift the ice into the liquid part of the phase diagram,
and, since the triple point of water is at about 0C, it is unlikely in
any case.
>As a side note.  Another common misconception is that you are safe inside a car 
>during a lightning storm because of rubber tires.  This is false.  Consider, 
>the tires will be wet.  The bolt of lightening has traveled through thousands 
>of feet of air (how would half an inch of rubber help?).  You are safe because 
>you are inside a "Faraday Cage."  Electrical charge is carried on the outside 
>of your cage to ground.  If anything, the tires increase the danger.  That's 
>why many gas tankers have chains they drag with them.  They want a gound 
>conduction to ground.
Tank trucks drag chains to discharge the inevitable static charge built
up by traveling along a highway. it has nothing to do with lightning
strikes. This static charge is probably at least partially due to the
friction of the tires on the pavement.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

On 15 Nov 1996 10:58:37 GMT, schmelze@fermi.wias-berlin.de (Ilja
Schmelzer) wrote:
>In article <328682a5.10518521@nntp.erinet.com> kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) writes:
>
>>>So why do we bother with the variable light-speed concept? Because it
>>>allows us to think in terms of absolute motion and absolute motion is
>>>the mother of all the processes in the universe. For more information
>>>on absolute motion please look up my web site for the article "The
>>>Physics of Absolute Motion"
>>>
>
>>Since there is no response to this thread, I assume that the
>>relativists are agreeing with the existence of absolute time and
>>motion. Also, I assume that the variable light-speed idea is a valid
>>one.
>
>There has been already enough response to your "theory" which is not
>even a theory.  It has been already shown that you are incompetent.
>You don't even understand what a theory is.
Now let see what is a theory and what is a mathematical scheme:
GR and PG:
1. Both have equations that predict the path of travel of celestal
objects.
2 Both based on a non-existing entity space-time. We can't even define
what is space-time because once we give it a definition we will need
to explain it and this is an impossible task. If we say space-time is
within the normal 3D space and space-time is the time dimension in
this 3D space, this would imply an aether occupying space which would
be in conflict with the MMX null result. If we say that space-time is
a 4D space then we will need to come up with an experiment to detect
this 4D space and this is also an impossible task. So the physicists
leave the description of space-time in limbo.
3. Both posit that material systems follow the curvature of space-time
but how? What is the machinery that enables them to do so?
4. Both predict the existence of singularities--now what are they? 
5. Both cannot be unified with the other forces of nature.
Now on the basis of the above I would say that GR or PG  is nothing
but a mathematical scheme that describe the motion of celestal
objects. Not .even a theory.
Now Model Mechanics:
1. The equation for gravity is in the process of development. However,
the machinery for gravity is well defined and it is not abstractive.
2 The machinery for all the other  forces are well defined.
3. Newly designed experiments can confirm the existence of the
E-Matrix. See  for detail. In
other word, the existence of the E-Matrix is falsifiable whereas
space-time is not falsifiable.
4. Model Mechanics can unify all the forces of nature. 
5. Model Mechanics predicts that Mu and epsilon are constant in the
earth labs because all the labs on earth have the same absolute
motion. However, Model Mechanics also predict that Mu and epsilon have
different values in different inertial frames. This alone could
overturn SR.
On the basis of the above, I would say that Model Mechanics is
definitely a falsifiable theory.
Ken

ale2 wrote:
> 
> Has the following experiment been performed ?
> 
> I think i have read somewhere that experiments can now be performed
> such that the uncertainty of conjugate pairs of variables approach the
> limits set by the Uncertainty Principle?
> 
> Say one can do such an experiment where the measured uncertainty in
> pairs of conjugate variables is extremely close to the theoretical
> limit set by the Uncertainty Principle, if there was some small
> uncertainty in the Uncertainty Principle might one have a small chance
> of measuring a violation of the Uncertainty Principle?
> 
> I'm uncertain, %^(...      Thanks for any thoughts?
The uncertainty principle, as usually expressed, is a simplification of
a more complicated expression. In the case of Gaussian wave packets,
this usual expression is exact. But as we change the shape of the wave
packets, the extra terms (which are all positive) make it more and
more difficult to get close to h/4pi.  
Since we usually don't know the exact shapes, it would be hard to
test the validity of the general expression exactly.  And using
the simplification, we can't get arbitrarily close.
Other than that, I too am uncertain.
Best Regards, Peter
number of term

"Robert L. Watson"  wrote:
>Lee Kent Hempfling wrote:
>> The arguments put forth imply that life may indeed be only the cell
>> structure. Not something inside the cell structure. I can not prove
>> one way or the other. But I can defy anyone to turn a rock into
>> something with life.(snip,snip)
>How about this attempt at a definition:  Life is not only cell structure, 
>and life is also not some mysterious extra ingredient that departs or 
>vanishes at death; life is an extremely complex and inter-related process 
>that occurs in the context of cells, bodily systems, etc.  When the 
>physiological substrate is sufficiently disrupted, the process breaks 
>down and comes to a halt, and then the organism is dead.
You mean disrupted *beyond repair*? Right? If the substrate is
delivered to a time when repair techniques are sufficient, then the
organism is not dead.
What if you developed acute appendicitis in the year 5000 BC?
Yes, you would be suffering shortly from a burst appendix and 
likely death. Is that shaman going to be able to fix you up with the
appropriate herbs and chants?
What if that happens tomorrow in New York?
Are you dead?
What about the USA 300 years from now?
Depends on "when" and where you are. Deliver the substrate, damaged
though it may be, to the appropriate *time* and the organism is not
necessarily dead. It depends on if the repair facilities are up to
repairing the damage.
Randy
>-- 
>Robert L. Watson
>rlwatson@amoco.com

In article <3289829E.6C8C@gnn.com>, caffeineman@hotmail.com wrote:
> I just saw a show about cyyonics on the discovery channel, and the
> thought of living on does sound interest.  However what is the price or
> prices like for this process.  In the show it talk about $28,000 for
> full body freezing.  Is there a better price or is that a low price?
> 
> Also what happens to me if the company goes belly-up after I'm on ice?
> 
> L8r
> Caffeine Man
> caffeineman@hotmail.com
There was a company that went bankrupt in LA. The details are available
in the cryolist archives. The bodies thawed, I believe.
Don't waste your time or money thinking or signing up for cryonics.
Face your death like a real man.

Robert. Fung wrote:
> 
> >
> > No, as far as I know, you can never be sure that you have only one photon.
> 
>             It's implied that this is the case in this recent work:
>             http://p23.lanl.gov/Quantum/kwiat/ifm-folder/ifmtext.htm
> 
This is an interesting presentation, and by someone who is well 
prepared to delve into this subject.  You might try asking him
the question "what is a photon?" ... but perhaps that is a life's
work!
The only reference I noticed was in "Step 2: The Quantum Zeno Effect",
where the diagram shows entry of "One Photon"; in the text there is
a reference to the probability that a partial photon is present.
I interpret this to mean that they have arranged things so that 
_on average_, there is less than one photon present. But there might
be one, there might be none, and there might be two.
Best Regards, Peter

Pan of Anthrox  wrote in article
<328B5555.55B3@tnp.com>...
> TJ wrote:
> > 
> > Jukka Korpela wrote:
> > Speaking of human remains...Remember the freeze-dried bronze-age man
> > found in the Alps a few years back. PBS did a once over lightly special
> > on him. I assume much of the research has been done, but where can I
> > find an account of the 'findings' on this guy? Any good books out, or
> > articles? With near-morbid fascination of the very old, tj
> 
> i saw a book on it at a Barnes and Nobles bookstore in new York City.
> One does exist.. i know that!
>
For the Iceman you could also try
http://dm2.uibk.ac.at/c/c5/c504/iceman_en.html

In article <56f04q$n3m@phunn1.sbphrd.com>,
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
>That's one.
What could you possibly mean by that?
-- 
Peter

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> It is not a matter of presumption.  There is nothing in Newton's
> equations that relies on the notion of absolute space.  Thus the
> notion is extra-physical.
I think that things are a bit more subtle. There are no absolute
positions and no absolute velocities in Newton's equations.
But what about accelerations? The famous example of the rotating
bucket filled with water? Rotation with respect to the absolute
space would be detectable by measuring the curvature of the surface
of the water. So I would say that Newton's space still has some
remnants of "absoluteness".

nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>In article <56gtgj$7s7@lex.zippo.com>, dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F.
>Dietz) wrote:
>I thought I was bold
> but now         it's   so cold 
>         they chopped off my head
>         and now I'm really dead

Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
> > Why quote from a book that , for the most part, I don't accept. If I
> > quote from the Koran (Sp?) will it make any difference to you??
> >
> > Slim
> 
> "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any
> two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and
> of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
> the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
Surah 3: 
2. “Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting,
Eternal. 
3. It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book,
confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and
the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent
down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).”
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis              “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services                                       -Hobbes
716-442-2884                                 
******************************************************************

Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> Mark & Susan Sampson wrote:
> >
> > Who cares how God created the universe???  All that matters is that he
> > did.  However he accomplished it, is beyond my need to know.  He did
> > that is all that matters.
> 
> If God agreed with that sentiment, why would He have recorded the
> creation account in the Bible?
> --Comments from Jerry:The Biblical writers recorded their understanding of creation in the Bible, not God.
The true understanding from God is found in my book:
"The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth" Available in paperback by mail for free.
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of an Ethical God) 
> Judson McClendon
> Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

-- 
Lloyd Manley
University system of Georgia
Can anyone tell me what exactly is meant by the term mathematical 
physics (no smartasses please). Is this a synonym for theoretical
physics. Obviously, it is what is states, the mathematical aspects of
physics, perhaps developing new mathematical methods for physics?
How does theoretical physics fit into that picture?
Also, can anyone recite the set of equations that relates the magnitudes
of the four fundamental forces to one another. I would like to know 
*exactly* how this is calculated if anyone can help.
Please respond to jeffroot@macon.mindspring.com
Thanks in advance.

In article <56gm1f$7ae@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>, Anton Hutticher  writes:
>
>But if you are asked: "What shall we do? Should we outlaw Holocaust denial
>because of these reasons or should we tolerate it because of those."
>you have to make a decision. Not enacting a law is also a decision.
>
An extremely important point.  Unfortunately it is lost on most people 
who believe that by refusing to decide they can wash their hands of 
any consequences.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Judson McClendon wrote:
> 
> Mark & Susan Sampson wrote:
> >
> > Who cares how God created the universe???  All that matters is that he
> > did.  However he accomplished it, is beyond my need to know.  He did
> > that is all that matters.
> 
> If God agreed with that sentiment, why would He have recorded the
> creation account in the Bible?
Do you think that god lies to us with the *only* true revelation that
*we know* for sure comes directly from him - his universe?
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis              “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services                                       -Hobbes
716-442-2884                                 
******************************************************************

In article <56i6ct$7ec@rainbow.rmii.com> kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster) writes:
>     There was a "filler" story on NPR's "Morning Edition" program
>November 15, 1996 about an attempt to recreate "Newton's epiphany" with
>the apple.
>     A sapling grown from a cutting off the very apple tree Newton was
>supposed to have sat under, was sent to and planted in Japan.  When the
>tree appeared ready to bear fruit, they set up a video camera to record
>the apple's fall from the tree.
>     Before the great event could happen, though, someone living nearby
>spotted the apple, picked it and ate it!
So, the point being that the price of apples are so high that
the theory of gravity could not be developed there?
Interesting how economics affects science.

In article , andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk (Andrew Dinn) writes:
>Russell Turpin (turpin@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
>
>: GR can extend CM only *because* they share common, operational
>: notions of time, space, and many other common concepts.  For both
>: Einstein and Newton, time is measured by regular physical
>: processes, i.e., clocks.  If Newton were to pop forward to the
>: 20th century, he would NOT say of GR: What a strange concept of
>: time!  It uses the same operational concept he used, indeed, the
>: same operational concept used by every chef in boiling an egg.
>: Rather, he would say: so a clock accelerated away and back
>: *really* runs at a different rate from the one that stayed in
>: place?  The amazing thing is NOT the "metaphysical underpinning,"
>: which hasn't changed one bit, but a surprising fact about how
>: time works across great distances and changes in speed.
>
>Err, ... nonsense.
>
>The notion of time used in GR is based on the motion of light just as
>the notion of distance is based on the wavelength of light. Newton's
>notions of space and time are based on a big stick in a glass case and
>a mechanical device with a particular period of oscillation.
>
Apperently the concept of transfer of standards escapes you.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <56hf2d$pb7@nw101.infi.net>
tejas@infi.net (Ted Samsel) writes:
> I was under the impression that Gibberish came about after the isolation
> of gibberelic acid, a plant mutagen.
> 
> -- 
> Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net  "Took all the money I had in the bank,
>                                Bought a rebuilt carburetor, 
>                                put the rest in the tank."
>                                 USED CARLOTTA.. 1995
BTW, where did you and Meg post your concession speeches?  I can't seem
to find 'em.
David
"When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the
apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person
could have written them.  When you find an answer, . . . when these
passages make sense, then you may find that more central passages,ones
you previously thought you understood, have changed their meaning."
Kuhn

Why has Nicola Tesla's genius not appreciated?

CyberGuy  wrote:
>  Funny thing that the language in the Pyranees has NO
>INDOEUROPEAN ROOTS OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER
In that case you must find it hilarious that the language in Finland
has NO INDOEUROPEAN ROOTS OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.
By the time you find that the language in Hungary NO
INDOEUROPEAN ROOTS OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER you must be falling about
all over the place with laughter.......
And then there's....
No - he'd die laughing if I gave another example...
----
Robbie Langton                 Hey, this web thing's immense -
robbie@roblang.demon.co.uk     must be one HELL of a spider!

cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy) enunciated:
>When present-day patients are pronounced legally dead, cryonics is the
>last hope for  them. Do you agree? Or is there some afterlife from
>which the patient is excluded? 
Excuse me here. Pronounced dead is (in most cases ) dead. You're
living in a dream world if you think there is hope afterward.
>>But I wonder...if it were possible to revive dead bodies (aka Mary
>>Shelly) claiming that science may be able to undo any previous damage
>>is putting science into the business of creationism.
>So what's wrong with science being in the business of creationism?
>Any fertile human male and female can be in the same business with a
>little pleasureable effort and a little luck. Are you saying that
>there is something "sacred" about creating life?
There is something grand about life and if you can't see that you
deserve to be frozen.
>>And why isn't it listened to when the statement is made that there is
>>no guarantee that damage will be reversible tomorrow?
>Consider the alternative: There is a guarantee that I will never see
>another sunset if I am NOT cryopreserved. I LIKE sunsets; I want to
>see more of them. I can't see ANY sunsets if my brain rots. Agreed?
You can't see any more sunsets when you die. Death is not arguing with
you you are arguing with it. You have lost you argument before you
even speak.
>A thought experiment for you: you're walking in the jungle and you spy
>a man-eating tiger rushing toward you. You quickly look around,
>looking for escape routes. There is a tree nearby. You have a small
>chance of climbing the tree before the tiger reaches you. You know
>it's your only chance. Do you try for the tree, or since the chance is
>small, do you give up?
The tree actually exists and you're still alive to save. But of course
you would undoubtedly ask for the tiger so you could be frozen and be
up the tree without there being a tree.
>>If thawing out a pile of mush can be made to be alive again it should
>>at least be a vegatable. 
>What a wit.
Nice attempt to cover a lack of response.
>>But I point out the same thing mentioned earlier: It will take quite a
>>long time to see if this happens. In the mean time the companies doing
>>it will have to remain financially solvent. It appears efforts have
>>been made to see that such happens. So in the end if nothing does work
>>as planned, we can be assured that a group of people will have had
>>careers, guaranteed to be paid for.
>Why don't you do some investigating into cryonics and find these
>cryo-hucksters. If you can indeed find such, I, and every other
>cryonicist, will be quite grateful.
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.
>>And also be assured that nothing will happen to those people for
>>having pulled off something that didn't work since they state right up
>>front that it just might not.
>Of course, you can't know this, but take it from me, in the entire
>history of cryonics, there has never been one person involved with any
>cryonics company who didn't fervently want to be preserved himself.
Of course not. A crack dealer would never tell his victim he would not
use the stuff. He couldn't sell it. But crack is not the issue here.
Addiction is not either. Belief and hope in beating death IS. There is
no argument there. When you die you are dead. Period. There is no
difference between the person who believes in science and cryonics and
the person who believes in the rapture. They both hope to save their
bodies so they can beat death. Sorry...... no one is going to swoop
down and take away the responsibility of life so trying to beat the
opposite of it is futile.
>>But there might be a zealous prosecutor somewhere who decides to try
>>the desecration of a corpse issue.  Then again, those who benefitted
>>from the endeavor will not have to worry about that issue. Piles of
>>human mush do not make good defendants.
>You mean good 'witnesses." Why do I bother?
You don't get it do you. Of course I knew that. That is why its so
much fun bantering with you. And now a belief in science has
"witnesses." HA! Who is the grand poobah of cryonics purgatory these
days?
>>It is such a perfectly developed machine I wonder who to give the
>>credit to.
>Huh?
I'll point it out to you. The business. Now.... try not to think too
hard.
>>As a Russian acquiantance of mine has recently said, upon learning of
>>this country's ridiculous overwrought preoccupation with trying to
>>stay alive:
>>"They proceed to freeze after death ?
>> If just so then the cryonics is the double deception since
>> both a live brain and a dead brain will be destroyed by ice
>>crystals."
>Semantic games?
You are speaking of a highly respected physicist. Only a true cad
could stoop so low. Just because you can't let any listing of logic
into your life does not mean the person who offers it is at fault. 
>>And all of the effort so far has rested on the need to protect such
>>freezing from causing damage. Which mean preparatory efforts, not
>>something that can be corrected later. 
>>Which I guess leaves all those heads and those frozen cadavers
>>hanging. They died too soon? Why didn't someone tell them to hang in
>>there a bit longer....... Nah.
>I give up. I'm lost in a semantic  and logical morass here....
No you're not. You're just lost. There is hope though. Isn't that what
you want anyway? Why not try to deal with the life that you have
instead of letting someone or some crowd frenzy put you into the same
ridiculous belief structure riots are caused by.
You have a brain, lest you could not type. Use it for something other
than hunting and pecking.
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

In article <56ht3p$ao1@bignews.shef.ac.uk>,
David Roussel  wrote:
>In article <328BAA68.4B82@mhv.net>, lepore@mhv.net says...
>>
>>Why can't it simply be that ice has a very low coefficient of
>>friction?  Why is anything special presumed to happen beneath 
>>the ice skate blades?
>
>A coefficient of friction is macro generalisation.  A measure 
>of other phenomena going at a micro scale.  There is some other 
>cause with the coeff being the effect.
Additionally, isn't the coefficient of friction between "dry" ice and
steel pretty high?
Note: "dry" referring to lack of surface moisture, not to frozen CO2.
-- 
Michael Warner
warner@wsu.edu

Ah, Jarno, you have made my day, today, in comedy! Thanks buddy.
In article <328b207d.3594017@news.cs.ruu.nl>
jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl (Jarno Peschier) writes:
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote the
> following:
> 
> >Time : For advanced aliens on Bu it was one light year after they
> >discovered controlled fusion energy.
> 
> Sorry if I start laghing after this first sentence, but a light years
> is a unit of distance, not of time. 
> 
 Please, go ahead and laugh loud. This is a sci-fi movie and you are
permitted that art of laughter.
 Some movie makers have a mountain peak as their logo. Some have a
roaring lion. Some have Earth rotating.  My logo, which I would like to
have is to show a movie with a panning of the audience and observe them
laughing and then show me seated in a seat above the audience where I
can view the audience laughing and laugh at them.
  Mr. Peschier, I expected such a post, only I expected it from a
Scandinavian country like Norway where they only laugh when given the
go-ahead sign by they society permitting them to laugh. Apparently, Mr.
Peschier you have not read many of my posts for if you have you will
see that I lay traps. And then when a poster comes rip roaring laughing
at me, it is I who get the last laugh. Do you honestly think that I do
not know that a light year is distance? You must remember Jarno that
people here pay 6 to 10 bucks to see a movie and so I think it is best
to get them to -- think and laugh -- right at the start so that they
feel they are getting their money's worth.
  And to have a trap in every one of my movies is a good thing for me,
for it establishes my trademark. That their is an obvious , silly trap,
you laugh and then I laugh at you for laughing at me. It is not the
British understatement humor or the US slap stick and it probably flys
over the heads of the Germans.
  But a good delicate trap is an artform that I hope to exploit in my
movie productions. Remember these are sci-fi movies. Luis Bunuel (sp)
had trademarks in his films and I hope to have trademarks in my films.
I want to nurture the 'trap' as my trademark. The obvious wrong that
people laugh, yet I laugh at their laughter. It is good exercise in
humility.
> >There civilization sent a space ship in the shape
>  ^^^^^ their
> 
   Yes I do make mistakes and I type in a rush often my mind interposes
their and there. There are other words that my mind interposes when I
am in a rush.
> >through their distillation tank. The Bu-s immediately set out to net
> >all of the Permain large sized animals and run them through their
> >distillation tank. In one end is fed all of these captured animals and
> >at the other end is seen a fractionalized form of lithium.
> 
> So, all large Permian animals were composed completely and 100% of
> lithium? I didn't know that!
> 
    The lithium part was not a trap. I did not say 100%. Put your
thinking cap on or was your initial laugh unceasing.  Think for a
moment. If each animal had so much lithium then you would not have to
round up all of them to get the desired amount of lithium. The point is
that lithium is too diffuse in nature but concentrated, and a known
concentration in animal bodies. Thus , if faced with a time constraint
of one month to get a known volume of lithium and you know that animal
hearts have a given volume of lithium, you can calculate how many
animals you need, how long to round them up and be out of there in a
month's time. Take the known quantities rather than the risk of looking
for a lithium mine and not finding one.
> >  The movie is made long with interesting sequences of the Permian
> >extinction of animals, and what the Permian animals looked like and
> >what animals became extinct. And long sequences of the dinosaur
> >extinction in the Cretaceous at the hands of advanced aliens.
> 
> I really have much difficulty of taking this post for real. Movie
> makers are often stupid, but not this stupid, are they....?
> 
   You are the stupid one, for not only have you not made a movie to
show, but you have never made a movie outline such as PULSAR, BEAM ME
HOME. And I would guess that you are not creative enough to do so, and
if you did and posted it, you would be so embarrassed by it that people
there in the Holland would say, there is Jarno, he is a computer person
because he is dull and bland otherwise.
> Come on, get real and wake up. ;-)
> 
> Jarno Peschier, jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl, 2:2802/247.5@Fido, 162:100/100.2@Agora,
>      74:3108/101.5@QuaZie, 27:2331/201.5@SigNet, 606:3130/200.2@F1-net
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>            'avwI' nejDI' narghta'bogh qama' reH 'avwI' Sambej
   Jarno, have you read anything about Chaos theory and attractors in
chaos ?
Well, if you have that is a fair likening of my posts on the Internet.
I set traps and many of my posts are 'nonlinear' and have attractors
and chaos in it. But to the simple minded folk that read the Net , like
you, well, they expect everything linear to them and are puzzled by my
posts. So, here's to you Jarno Peschier chump, I am laughing at you.
One movie director said it "here's to you kid"

In article , mmcirvin@world.std.com writes:
> In article <328B7096.6D0A@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie 
> wrote:
> 
> > Didn't QED come after the invention of the transistor?
> 
> Initial stabs at QED were made in the 1920s and 1930s. It was formulated in
> its modern form in the late 1940s. (I've forgotten when the transistor was
> invented.)
> 
> Technological applications are not necessarily all beneficial. After World
> War II it was fashionable to regard relativity as a cursed theory, on the
> grounds that it had made nuclear bombs possible. Certainly the relation
> E=mc^2 was a major aid in the effort (though experimental work in nuclear
> physics made a larger contribution than relativity theory did, and calling
> E=mc^2 "the equation for the atom bomb," as many did at the time, is a bit
> of an overstatement--there's a lot more to it than that).
Right.  The first fission work was predominantly chemistry, though
this is often forgotten these days.  Personally, I hate that people
talk about fission converting mass to energy.  IMO, it just releases
nuclear binding energy, just as burning molecules releases chemical
binding energy.  The only difference is that in the first place, the
energy is large enough to have an appreciable mass.  That fact is
completely irrelevant to building a bomb, though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek         | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist |                for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University  | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)

In article , Hernan Altman  writes:
> 
> 15/11/96
> 10:30
> 
> Hello:
> 
> I've been reading the third volume of Feinman's Lectures in Physics
> (Quantum Mechanics) for a while, and I came up with a question that is
> really bothering me.  I would appreciate if you take some time to answer.
> 
> In his chapter about the Hamiltonian Matrix he writes about the amonia
> atom (NH3).  He explains its energy levels split in two because of the two
> possible arrangements of the N with respect to the plane formed by the
> H's. 
> 
> The question is:  
> 
>  Although both positions of N are simmetrical, the split of energy levels
> produce a high energy and a low energy level.  You can't possibly say that
> each level corresponds to a different position of N, since both the
> positions are symmetrical, and the levels aren't.
You're assuming the N atom can only be in one place.  Like all quantum
particles, it is really a wave.  In the ground state, the N atom has
equal probability of being on either side of the H's; a symmetrical
situation.
With small molecules involving light atoms, you have to be very
careful to *not* think in terms of molecular structure.  Yes, it gets
confusing :-)
> 1) Do this two levels of energy correspond to two states of the amonia or
> don't they?
Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek         | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist |                for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University  | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)

In article , moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>
>moggin:
>
>>> As
>>>I shouldn't have to point out, introducing the notion of gravitas in  the
>>>_Principia_ would be enough, by itself, to commit him to action-at-a-
>>>distance, even in the absence of any other considerations, since it's a
>>>force that exerts itself  across space without any mechanism to account
>>>for its workings.  As his contemporaries didn't hesitate to object.
>
>Mati:
>
>>You certainly shouldn't have to point it out, since it would've been a 
>>total nonsense.  Newton's law of gravity says that the planetary 
>>motion is welll explained by a force proportional to the product of 
>>the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.  
>>This is well supported by observations.  And, that's important, it by 
>>no means precludes the existance of an underlying, deeper mechanism, 
>>just pleads ignorance of such (as Newton explicitly stated). 
>
>   Yet Newton's theory presented a force, namely gravity, that had
>effects across immense distances, and no mechanism by which to
>apply itself.  Any self-respecting mechanist would be horrified by
>that kind of nonsense, and many were.
The rule of science is "if it works, use it".  Moreover, if it works 
in a way that's opposed to your common sense, then it is your common
sense thet needs to be modified.  I don't see why this concepts are so 
difficult to comprehend.
>Note that the law, taken 
>alone (as you'd prefer) explains nothing whatsoever -- as I think
>you'd agree, it's only a description.  What makes it into more than 
>a simple (or not-so-simple) picture is  the concept of _gravitas_.  
>And the force of gravity is an illustration of action-at-a-distance.
No more so then the remote control I talked about few days ago is an 
illustration of action at a distance.  You use it and it works from a 
distance.  This is a fact. If it happens to contradict the writings of 
half a dozen of your favorite philosophers, too bad, it is still a 
fact.  By acknowledging this fact you don't deny the possibility of an 
underlying mechanism (you don't affirm it, either).  But you don't 
need to know the mechanism in order to acknowledge the fact.
>
>> As I've 
>>mentioned (so many times that even I'm getting bored with it) physics 
>>is pragmatic and when you've something that works, you use it 
>>regardless of whether it makes sense to you or not. 
>
>   Why _do_ you keep mentioning it?  It doesn't seem to have any
>relevance here.
To you, maybe.  As I see it, it does.  And I value my opinion higher.
>
>>The approach of 
>>rejecting something that's supported by observations because it 
>>disagrees with our philosophical position wouldn't get us very far 
>>(though it sure will find lots of support among Galileo's opponents).
>
>   Strawman.
Really ???
>
>>It's worth mentioning that the electrostatic force (between two 
>>charges) is given by a formula identical to the one for Newtonian 
>>gravity.  So, is it "an action from a distance".  No, since we know 
>>knowadays that it is explained by photon exchange where all the 
>>interactions are local (but it certainly wasn't known at the time 
>>people started using Coulomb's law).  So there is no contradiction 
>>between something appearing as an action at a distance and the 
>>existance of an underlying local mechanism.
>
>   Aether served the same purpose in Newton's time, although his 
>concept of aether also borrowed from Hermeticism -- or so I've
>heard  (it's possible that Lew will correct me).   And what of it?
Need I remind again that Newton stated explicitly that he offers no 
explanation for gravity.
>
>>These are technicalities, though.  What is important to understand is 
>>that the adoption of a physical law in this or other form in no way 
>>constitutes an acceptance of this or other philosophical principle.  
>>It just constitutes a recognition that said law fits well with 
>>available experimental evidence.  In physics evidence is king, not 
>>philosophical ideas.
>
>   That _is_ a philosophical idea, d00d -- not the brighest one in
>the world, either.
That's your opinion.  In my opinion it is brighter than anything that 
ever came out of philosophy.  And, as I stated above, I value my 
opinions higher than yours.
> But I've got no interest in arguing with you
>about the philosophy of science (or the supposed lack of it).  You
>claimed that there was no relation between physics and religious
>mysticism.  That's false.
Statement from authority?  And whose authority?  You're too much in 
the habit of passing pronouncements, trying to act as a referee while 
taking a side in a debate, at the same time.  But, I'm not impressed.
Now, if the above you mean to say that many physicists were (and some 
still are) motivated by mysticism (religious or otherwise) I'll 
certainly agree.  This exchange started with me bringing an example 
for just such occurence.  However, the results of such work stand or 
fall based on their own merit, not on the underlying philosophical or 
religious beliefs of their authors.  And the reason for this is just 
the thing which you find so boring, tedious and irrelevant, namely 
that the criterion used to judge scientific work is plain and simple 
"does it work or doesn't it?".
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"