Newsgroup sci.physics 208712

Directory

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.  See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
Shayne O'Neill wrote:
> 
> >
> > What a load of crap! She may be a dimwit, and she may have run a fish shop, but she was
> > certainly NOT accidently elected. She stood for and won a seat in the House of
> > Representatives, against the major political parties. i.e. The people voted for her
> > personally, not proportionally as would happen in the senate.
> 
> I must disagree. Her election posters claaimed she was "fighting for
> equality". A most *VICIOUS* *EVIL* and *TREASONOUS* lie.
> 
> Pauline hansons days are numbered. By fair means of foul, she ain't
> getting another term. Take my word on it.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Shayne.
Again, what a load of crap! 
"A most *VICIOUS* *EVIL* and *TREASONOUS* lie." This is good, apparantly she is the 
first politician in this country to lie in an election. Jeezzz! Bob Hawke and Paul 
Keating sucker punched people like you for years. And now old Johnie is doing the same. 
She probably believes that she IS fighting for equality, but because you don't happen to 
agree with her she is the Evil Harradan from Hell.
She was elected on primaries. The two major parties have decided to swap preferences to 
ensure that she doesn't get elected again. There are plenty of "experts" who are of the 
opinion that she will be elected again on primary votes alone anyway. 
Her supporters have already stated that if opinion polls in her electorate show that she 
can't get elected, then she may stand for the senate. In this case she WILL be 
re-elected.
She is here, get used to it. She keeps the media salivating and gives good little social 
revolutionaries someone to hate. 
By the way, what do you mean by "fair means or foul"?
Ian
-- 
                                     _
"I say we take off and nuke the     / )  Ian.Fairchild@deetya.gov.au
 whole site from orbit. It's the   (_/_   _  DEETYA, Canberra,
 only way to be sure."   Ripley ____/(_\_/ )____ Australia

tony richards appears to have typed something along the lines of:
> pcosenza@gpu.com wrote:
> >SO, how do skates work
> >
> Mine don't. They continuously fall over, taking me with them.
I hope you mean continually. Or else you mean they are in orbit.
Rhiannon
--
Mathematicians are strange people.They had to wait until the 1920s
before Reidemeister proved that shoelaces could be tied. Everybody
else just assumed that it was possible.

Hello,
I've looked everwhere for a translation of Lagrange's masterpiece
MECANIQUE ANALYTIQUE but have had absolutely no luck.  I can't
even find a copy in the original French.  Can someone please
help me out?  
Thank you,
Ray

I'm sure that a question such as what is momentum and what is impulse
would seem strange to those Physicists with a string of letters before
your name.  However I wish to know because I have an exam on Monday.  If
anyone can help please write me thanx :-)

Andrew Dinn (andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
]Russell Turpin (turpin@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
]
]: Jeff Inman (jti@coronado.santafe.edu) wrote:
]: > The step between CM and GR may be "well defined, explicit, and clear"
]: > without implying that the metaphysical underpinings of CM are clearly
]: > continuous with those of GR.  It only works in retrospect, as a sort
]: > of "fixing" of what was understood in the past.  But, in fact, the
]: > nature of what an "object" was in CM and what it is in GR is vastly
]: > different.  Before you can understand what Newton means when he speaks
]: > of an "object", you must enter a different world.  ...
]
]: Nonsense.  
]
]: 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.
 completely incorrect. Go read a book, or something.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

moggin@mindspring.com (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). 
moggin:
>>   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.
Mati:
>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.
   They're easily comprehensible.  The question is, what makes you think
they're relevant?  Are you shaking your finger at Newton's colleagues for
not properly following your "rule of science"?  Or do you believe you're
arguing with me?
moggin:
>>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.
Mati:
>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. 
   That's an interpretation, although hardly worth the name.  As I've
already pointed out,  "action-at-a-distance" is an explanation of the
workings of the remote control (albeit an empty one).  I ask, "Mati,
how does the remote work?"  You tell me, "It exerts a force."  I say,
"Mysterious forces -- yeah, right.   O.k., how do _they_ work?  You
answer,  "Action-at-a-distance,"  and I reply, "You sound more like
a psychic than a physicist!"  If you really  thought like Joe Friday, 
then  you'd have said, "Well, it just works,  that's all.  Damned  if I 
know  how.  Just don't forget to change the batteries."
>If it happens to contradict the writings of half a dozen of your favorite
>philosophers, too bad, it is still a fact.
   Are you talking about _my_ favorite philosophers?  If so, why?
>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.
   What "fact"?
Mati:
>>> 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. 
moggin:
>>   Why _do_ you keep mentioning it?  It doesn't seem to have any
>>relevance here.
Mati:
>To you, maybe.  As I see it, it does.  And I value my opinion higher.
   Your self-regard is irrelevant,  too.
Mati:
>>>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).
moggin:
>>   Strawman.
Mati:
>Really ???
   Yep.
Mati:
>>>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.
moggin:
>>   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?
Mati:
>Need I remind again that Newton stated explicitly that he offers no 
>explanation for gravity.
   No, you needn't.
Mati:
>>>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.
moggin:
>>   That _is_ a philosophical idea, d00d -- not the brighest one in
>>the world, either.
Mati:
>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.
   Again, your self-evaluation has no relevance here.  And I see you
accept my point, since  you're now claiming to have a philosophy
that's superior to any philosopher's, while before you argued that
physics was ruled by evidence, not "philosophical ideas."
moggin:
>> 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.
Mati:
>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.
   I don't care _what_ your feelings are -- your assertion is false for
the reasons that I've offered.  (I was wondering if you bothered to read 
the posts you replied to -- thanks for supplying the answer.)
Mati:
>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.  
   You're being duplicitous again.  You cited the religious motivations of
Maupertois or Fermat  (you weren't sure which) in order to deny that
mysticism had a meaningful relationship with physics.  You did poorly.
Not only were you uncertain who you were actually talking about, you
had nothing to say about either their religious beliefs or their work as
physicists.
>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?".
   "Please be upstanding for the Mayor of Simpleton."
-- moggin

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.  See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
Archive-name: physics-faq/where-to-find-it
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-modified: 11 October 1996
                 Where to find the Physics FAQ
                 =============================
The Physics FAQ provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions
appearing in the sci.physics.* newsgroups, especially:
   sci.physics
   sci.physics.particles
   sci.physics.research (moderated)
   alt.sci.physics.new-theories
If you are new to these newsgroups you should take a look at the
Physics FAQ before posting questions. It is now available on the 
World Wide Web *only* and is located at these sites:
North America: 
   http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/faq.html
   http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/faq.html
   http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/physicsfaq/faq.html
Australia:  
   http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/physoc/physics_faq/faq.html
There are a number of other more specialised FAQs for
these and other physics newsgroups. Many of them are
mentioned in the Physics FAQ article: "An Introduction 
to the Physics Newsgroups", which can be found here:
North America: 
   http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/newsgroups.html
   http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/newsgroups.html
   http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/physicsfaq/newsgroups.html
Australia:  
   http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/physoc/physics_faq/newsgroups.html

Bryan W. Reed (breed@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <01bbccda$308e7580$8c867dc2@#goyra.iol.ie>,
: David Byrden  wrote:
: >
: >	The Megameter is the natural unit of measurement for the age of 
: >jet and space travel, yet we never use it! Why not get familiar with this
: >handy distance (one thousand kilometers) and see whether these
: >figures aren't convenient;
Could it be something very prosaic like confusing Mm with mm?
--
Tom
Dort, wo man Buecher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen
(Heinrich Heine)

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.  See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
# Written/Edited by:
     Robert F. Heeter
     
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
# Last Revised February 26, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Contents
  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.
* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
* 4) How to Use the FAQ:
  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.
* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  
  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)
Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History
Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power
Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding
Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)
Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
Section 6 - Recent Results
Section 7 - Educational Opportunities
Section 8 - Internet Resources
Section 9 - Future Plans
Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List
Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z
---------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************
* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)
   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html
   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq
* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups
  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.
  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 
* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):
   Several Web versions now exist.
   The "official" one is currently at
     
   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      () soon.
   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:
 
 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.
 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)
* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro
  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:
    
  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 
  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.
  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.
* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)
  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.
* 5) Mail Server
   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit
   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.
* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 
  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.
  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.
  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Written FAQ Sections:
  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.
  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.
   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***
* 2) Building a Web Version
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 
  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.
* 4) Status of the Glossary:
 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.
 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.
 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)
 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.
 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.
 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)
Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:
[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]
Belgium
-------
  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs
Canada
------
  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70
Finland
-------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm
France
------
  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Germany
-------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP
Korea
-----
  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers
Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers
The Netherlands
---------------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl
Sweden
------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet
Switzerland
-----------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"
Taiwan
------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw
United Kingdon
--------------
  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/
United States
-------------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.  See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
On Wed, 06 Nov 1996 22:54:28 +1100, Andrew Juniper
 wrote:
>IBAN wrote:
>> 
>> ASIANS OF THE WORLD....LETS BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA.......
>> 
>> AND ALL THAT HAVE SUFFERED AND BEEN ABUSED BY WHITES.......
>> THIS IS YOUR CHANCE ....BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA......JAPANESE BOYCOTT
>> AUSTRALIA....PROVED THAT YOU ARE ASIAN......
>> NATIVES OF AUSTRALIA.....STOP BUYING FROM WHITE
>> SHOPS......PROTEST......THIS IS A HITLER IN WOMAN'S DISGUISE....
>> PAULINE HANSON IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST
>
Pauline Hanson has got nice tits as well.
Politically correct whingeing follows:
>Give us a break.  Every country has a nut case.  Unfortunately ours got
>on TV.  Don't worry she might be well known (only because of what she
>said) but she is not in any position of authority or power over here. 
>The majority of Australia disagrees with her (note the anti-racsim
>rallys held after what she said).  And if you are going to cite the
>attack on the Singaporian soilders as an example of Australia's white
>racism, well don't because it was actually a group of aborigionals that
>were involved and I am sure was not over them not being white!
>
Everyone should be allowed to beat-up Singaporean's at least once in
their life, it makes a change from killing cats.  
It can't be the 'Abo's' either, I've seen them, aren't they those dark
things that resemble human-beings that actually spend most life
prostrate in outback ditches with a can of Fosters in their hand. 
>Seriously think about it.  It was one individual with a grab for
>attention. 
>
>
Yeah, you're right, now I'm actually thinking about it.  Thanks mate
for the pointer.

"Robert L. Watson"  enunciated:

>> Define life.

>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.
>-- 
>Robert L. Watson
>rlwatson@amoco.com
This is indeed a very good beginning.
Bravo. Intellect in the thread.
Cheers.
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh@cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.

Why does a gravitational lins make an odd number of images visible? Why
not an even, which would sound more logic?

moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>>   I didn't do anything to the science campers -- they attacked me.  And
>>what's ridiculous is that they attacked me for stating something they're
>>convinced is a truism.  Doesn't speak well for their intelligence, does
>>it?
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Two month and countless posts and you still claim it.  I won't even 
>bother using descriptive epithets, , don't think they're needed.  But, 
>I'll just mention that claiming that "they are convinced that your 
>statements are truisms" when "they" specifically said otherwise, is a 
>fraud, just like it was when you attributed to me things I didn't say. 
>Got to work a bit on these ethics standards, I would say.
   As I recall, you didn't hesitate to rewrite my posts when you found
yourself in some tight spots.  So I'd stay away from any conversations
on ethics, if I were you  -- then again, maybe you're not troubled by
hypocricy.  I wouldn't know.
   Anyway, Russell, Michael, Jeff and others claimed that my point was
obvious,  called it a cliche, dismissed it as  trivial, etc. -- curiously,
that didn't stop them from disputing it or calling me all sorts of names.
   I don't offhand remember you calling it obvious, but you certainly
agreed with it -- at least three separate times.  Yet for some reason
you keep changing your mind.  I think you ought to figure out what you
believe and get back to me after you have it sorted out.  This is getting
silly.
-- moggin

moggin@mindspring.com (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). 
moggin:
>>   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.
Mati:
>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.
   They're easily comprehensible.  The question is, what makes you think
they're relevant?  Are you shaking your finger at Newton's colleagues for
not properly following your "rule of science"?  Or do you believe you're
arguing with me?
moggin:
>>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.
Mati:
>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. 
   That's an interpretation, although hardly worth the name.  As I've
already pointed out,  "action-at-a-distance" is an explanation of the
workings of the remote control (albeit an empty one).  I ask, "Mati,
how does the remote work?"  You tell me, "It exerts a force."  I say,
"Mysterious forces -- yeah, right.   O.k., how do _they_ work?  You
answer,  "Action-at-a-distance,"  and I reply, "You sound more like
a psychic than a physicist!"  If you really  thought like Joe Friday, 
then  you'd have said, "Well, it just works,  that's all.  Damned  if I 
know  how.  Just don't forget to change the batteries."
>If it happens to contradict the writings of half a dozen of your favorite 
>philosophers, too bad, it is still a fact.
   Are you talking about _my_ favorite philosophers?  If so, why?
>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.
   What "fact"?
Mati:
>>> 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. 
moggin:
>>   Why _do_ you keep mentioning it?  It doesn't seem to have any
>>relevance here.
Mati:
>To you, maybe.  As I see it, it does.  And I value my opinion higher.
   Your self-regard is irrelevant, too.
Mati:
>>>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).
moggin:
>>   Strawman.
Mati:
>Really ???
   Yep.
Mati:
>>>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.
moggin:
>>   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?
Mati:
>Need I remind again that Newton stated explicitly that he offers no 
>explanation for gravity.
   No, you needn't.
Mati:
>>>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.
moggin:
>>   That _is_ a philosophical idea, d00d -- not the brighest one in
>>the world, either.
Mati:
>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.
   Again, your self-evaluation has no relevance here.  And I see you
accept my point, since  you're now claiming to have a philosophy
that's superior to any philosopher's, while before you argued that
physics was ruled by evidence, not "philosophical ideas."
moggin:
>> 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.
Mati:
>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.
   I don't care _what_ your feelings are -- your assertion is false for
the reasons that I've offered.  (I was wondering if you bothered to read 
the posts you replied to -- thanks for supplying the answer.)
Mati:
>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.  
   You're being duplicitous again.  You cited the religious motivations of
Maupertois or Fermat  (you weren't sure which) in order to deny that
mysticism had a meaningful relationship with physics.  You did poorly.
Not only were you uncertain who you were actually talking about, you
had nothing to say about either their religious beliefs or their work as
physicists.
>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?".
   "Please be upstanding for the Mayor of Simpleton."
-- moggin

In article <329185b8.790590@199.0.216.204>, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
> >           New Book Available--Download for Free
> >   Provocative, Educational, Entertaining, Enlightening
[Moranic (tm) drivel snipped]
The Moran (tm)  is, as far as I can determine, an anti-Semite engaged in
blatant and offensive anti-Semitism, Nazi apologia, and Holocaust denial.
The Moran (tm) generally conducted himself with such a complete lack of
intellectual and factual integrity that there seems to be no point in
taking the time to read and respond.  For detailed and documented evidence
of this, please refer to:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom
But what else should one expect from a lying anti-Semite who holds wacko
beliefs, is intellectually depraved, hasn't the slightest clue regarding
Supreme Court decisions, or what constitutes a dud at the  box-office? For
evidence of this please see:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/1996/what-moran-believes.9607
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/lies/hilberg-out-of-context
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/moran-menorah-faq
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/moran-schindler-faq
Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes 
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts." 
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: Why should I have to find an instance of your calling someone an 
: inveterate liar in order to conclude that your philosophy *enables* 
: you to call people that.
Uh, Anton .... it's hard to imagine any philosophy that wouldn't enable x
to call y an inveterate liar.

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.  See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
IBAN wrote:
> 
> ASIANS OF THE WORLD....LETS BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA.......
> 
> AND ALL THAT HAVE SUFFERED AND BEEN ABUSED BY WHITES.......
> THIS IS YOUR CHANCE ....BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA......JAPANESE BOYCOTT
> AUSTRALIA....PROVED THAT YOU ARE ASIAN......
> NATIVES OF AUSTRALIA.....STOP BUYING FROM WHITE
> SHOPS......PROTEST......THIS IS A HITLER IN WOMAN'S DISGUISE....
> PAULINE HANSON IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST
Well I think I speak for most fellow Americans when I say:
	Where the hell is Australia?

Jerry wrote:
> 
> El Lobo con Moto wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Dave Monroe wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Another simile I've heard is that "Evolution is like a tornado
> > > tearing through a junkyard and assembling a 747".  This doesn't
> > > come from any science text, it comes from promoters of creationism.
> > >
> > > The problem with creationists is that they assume that those of us
> > > that believe in evolution are atheists.
> > >
> > > People believe in evolution because there's a huge body of evidence
> > > that points in that direction.  People believe in creationism because
> > > they were told to.
> > >
> > > Evolution is a much more interesting story than creation and is
> > > more what I would expect of God.  God is smarter that whoever wrote
> > > the story of creation in Genesis.
> > >
> > > It's a shame creationists don't think better of God.
> > > --
> > > David S. Monroe                          David.Monroe@cdc.com
> > > Software Engineer
> > > Control Data Systems
> > > 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
> > > Fairborn, Ohio 45324
> > > (937) 427-6385
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Bravo!!!
> > I am also an evolutionist...and I don't believe it really clashes with the
> > bible...unless you feel the need to take it totally literally, which is
> > not the best approach when you consider that the bible basically tries to
> > put the infinite in human terms...
> > I'm glad someone finally said they believed in evolutino *and* God...I was
> > beginning to think I was alone...
> > davComments from Jerry:
>   Read my book. It is free. It will explain the whole evolution process from our start
> within the will to exist within an exploding star.
> Jerry (Jewish Prophet of an Ethical God)  (paperback from India)
Imho,
  Evolutions Fatal Flaw;  chance has never created something intricate
except what is described in evolution itself.  Evolution boils down to 
many other theories that all boil down to a premise that can't be 
proven.

In article ,
James Logajan  wrote:
> Finally, there are many subfields where the "base" units are not SI: the barn
> in nuclear physics; the Angstrom in atomic physics; setting c = 1 (speed of
> light) in relativistic kinematics; Parsec or light-year in astronomy, the
> electron volt in atomic/nuclear physics; and I'm sure one can find a few
> other examples like this in the sciences. And most of these are used
> universally in their respective fields.
A few more examples:
Meteorology:  the milli-bar (or, as they say now, the hecto-Pascal)
Astronomy:  the day, and the year
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch@saaf.se     psr@home.ausys.se    paul@inorbit.com

Peter Diehr wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
I wrote to the author of the article, Paul Kwiat. He was kind enough
to describe a very clever method for dramatically raising the 
probability of having a single photon present in the test. It involves
a parametric conversion via an ultraviolet fluorescence interaction.
This interaction creates a pair of lower frequency photons, one of 
which is detected by a trigger.  At this point you can safely assume
that the other is in the apparatus.
A very nice trick!
Best Regards, Peter

I though that "glue balls" (heavy particles that are made of gluons and
no quarks) were theoretical, but I have just read a blip implying that
they have been discovered to exhist. Can anyone tell me if this is true
or not.. In any case I would appreciate any material that can be offered
on this state of matter.. (spin, decay modes, mass, particle
interactions, etc) thanks in advanced.
gvn@ma.ultranet.com

I though that "glue balls" (heavy particles that are made of gluons and
no quarks) were theoretical, but I have just read a blip implying that
they have been discovered to exhist. Can anyone tell me if this is true
or not.. In any case I would appreciate any material that can be offered
on this state of matter.. (spin, decay modes, mass, particle
interactions, etc) thanks in advanced.
gvn@ma.ultranet.com

Can anyone describe any high energy (I don't think any low energy
reactions exhist, but if they do tell me) particle reactions that
produce antiprotons... thanks ahead of time.
gvn@ma.ultranet.com

-----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:
  2 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: 2
Notice-ID: spncm1996320040958
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<56fvnp$j9r@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics
	rec.arts.movies.current-films
	sci.bio.misc
<56gc71$8k2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics
	sci.bio.misc
	sci.bio.technology
@@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
iQCVAwUBMo0+l4z0ceX+vLURAQHvRgQAjfFh5W+YKCNSFekcoVvGt4TYU/ia6MPx
u7kyCj82bmuIlyt/DhihYBrfqvVq3Fju/CghyAfndsc5bLHyHsbTR15agbVFFz16
Xkoybojt7SCfcphvGmm7v45nc++hvs90kkDcEnnHGuX2enwSMMT4fzGmlwCShngc
7Za9fYDq22M=
=hSiI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-Mammel,L.H.  wrote:
>Gordon Long  wrote:
>>  Anyway, this point has been covered before.  An inertial frame is
>>one in which Newton's first law holds; in other words, it's a frame in
>>which inertia works the way it's supposed to.  Not surprisingly, this
>>is why it's called an inertial frame.  Of course, to define it, you
>>have to distinguish between physical and fictitious forces (using the
>>"rule of thumb" that Mati described earlier), and define your inertial 
>>frame in the absence of external physical forces. 
>
>It looks to me like you dropped the ball :-)
>
>If your test is applied e.g. in the bay of the space shuttle
>while it's in orbit, it qualifies as an inertial frame. Einstein
>accepts this test and proceeds from there, with gravity becoming
>a fictitious force. However, in Newtonian mechanics the space shuttle
>bay is not an inertial frame, but an accelerating one, so your test
>is inadequate in this case.
>
  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.  As others have pointed
out, the space shuttle bay in your example is not an inertial frame.
  Are you trying to show how gravity affects things?  If so, then a
better example would be something like an elevator in free fall, i.e.
a frame in which accleration exactly cancels out the effects of
gravity.  But in this case, you do have a (local) inertial frame -- it
would pass all the tests.  The presence of gravity may screw up your
transformations (i.e. how to describe one reference frame in terms of
another), but it would not affect the existence of inertial frames.
In fact, GR is constructed using the existence of (local) Newtonian
inertial frames as one of its starting points.
    - Gordon
--
#include 
Gordon Long                      |  email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE                         |    
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland)  |

In article <567rmr$9lb@panix2.panix.com>
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) writes:
>C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker on Earth):
>| In other words, Mr. Fitch, you are unable/unwilling to prove
>| that you have any understanding of a) Newtonian mechanics or
>| b) elementary calulus.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the
>| rules of reasoned discussion; among them is the proposition
>| that it is up the one who advances a claim to prove its
>| veracity.  What I see here is the cheap and boring trick
>| of the intellectually inept to squirm out of a conversational
>| obligation. ...
>
>What you have seen was an anecdote meant to clarify a
>question, which you have tried to turn into material
>for a domination ritual, for some reason or other.
What I have seen is an unsupported assertion that a) you
understand Newtonian mechanics with recourse to mathe-
matical machinery, b) that you 'understand' the machinery,
specifically, calculus, and c) that 'understanding' calculus
did not significantly improve your understanding of Newt-
onian mechanics.
Your refusal to demonstrate such on the grounds that I am
engaging in a 'domination ritual' (whatever that means; more
in a moment in re this and other misuse of terminology) is
an argument that has neither force nor merit; I assure you
that I am not intending my objections as such, but let us
assume for the moment that you are spot on.  Does this negate
in any way your rhetorical (the burden of proof is always
upon the one who advances the proposition) or logical obli-
gations?  Of course not.
Allow me to demonstrate with a small fable:  suppose I am a
nineteenth century archeologist who for purely personal
grubby reasons despises a professional colleague and who wishes
to humiliate him via the agency of destroying his professional
reputation.  Now, I know that he has built it through a series
of ingenious proofs that the lost city of Troy is a construct
of myth, and so in my malice I deliberately set out to find
and unearth this supposedly fabulous city . . . which I suc-
ceed in doing.  Can my rival, who we may suppose knows my
desires, cry foul, remonstrate with his fellows to ignore the
overwhelming evidence that Troy exists, purely on the basis
of the pettiness of the motivations which caused it to be
found?  Of course not - the city exists irrespective of the
ambitions of the discoverer.
And that is the position you find yourself in now - your
characterization of my motivations, true or not, in no
way excuses you from demonstrating the validity of your
claims.
Quite frankly, I think you're well aware of the weakness of
your position and I find the manner in which you choose to
defend it disgusting.  You have absolutely no proof to back
up your feeble attempt at character assassination, nor can
even _define_ what you mean by 'academic procedures of dom-
ination,' rather lazily preferring to believe the pejorative
denotations invoked by that murky phrase are enough to deflect
my entirely legitimate request for validation of your claims.
In fact, you seem to specialize in muddying, rather than
clarifying definitions.  For example, in answer to my initial
post you claimed:
----begin----
Intuition doesn't explain things; explanation is a textual
or rhetorical act.
----end----
but in a later post went on to say:
----begin----
Let's suppose, however, we want to teach a child how the Moon
moves around the Earth.  We find an apple tree out in the
fields of England, and there's conveniently a pale moon hanging
in the late afternoon sky.  There are several apples scattered
on the ground.  We pick one up and encourage the child to notice
that, in certain positions, the shadow on the apple is similar
to the shadow on the moon.  Now we throw the apple a short
distance.  It moves in a curve and strikes the ground.  Then
we throw another one a bit harder, and of course it strikes the
ground further out.  Now, the child knows that the Earth is a
ball; so when we ask her what would happen if we could throw the
apples as hard as we wanted, and kept throwing them harder and
harder, she will correctly guess that eventually one will either
circle the earth or fly off into space . . .
This child now intuits something about the motion of the Moon
around the Earth, which can be generalized to the whole Solar
System . . .
----end----
In one post, you are so bold as to say that intuition does not
explain things, yet less than a week later you follow up with
another to show that you clearly think it does; you're picking at
whim the definitions which best supports your arguments of the
moment, not even making the effort to check that they are
consistent.  This has been and always will be the mark of an
inept or dishonest argument.
Nor do you make any effort to spare more reputable sources than
yourself insult; already you have claimed that it is not well
known that Feynman is mediocre at best and that Scientific
American has been 'thoroughly discredited,' whatever that means
in your personal lexicon.  This too is a signature of sorts, the
hallmark of those reviled creatures collectively known as trolls,
the profile of which you fit remarkably well.
So much for the digression to personal motivations.  Now that
we've got all that off our chests, if you're really interested
in defending the thesis that one needs no knowledge of math-
ematics to understand Newtonian mechanics, would you please
present some evidence a) that you understand Newtonian mech-
anics without resort to mathematics (such as a nonmathematical
argument that explains why the cube of a satellites radius
is proportional to the square of its period), and b) that you
understand calculus.  If you can show a) and b) I'll take
your word that your b) didn't augment your a) :-)
Please be very sure that I am _not_ asking for any rigor, and
as proof of the bona fides of my intentions, I'll be more than
satisfied if someone else pronounces judgement on whether or
not you have demonstrated either of your above propositions.
>What proposition was it I was supposed to have advanced
>through a claim of mathematical knowledge?
Sigh.  In case you've forgotten:
----begin----
>| >The mystery for me is this:  I studied and got a reasonably good
>| >grade in elementary Calculus.  Prior to this study, I had what we
>| >might call an intuitive grasp of Newtonian mechanics -- for instance,
>| >I could "feel" and visualize the planetary system, and beyond that I
>| >could do the arithmetic given reasonably simple cases.  According to
>| >a lot of people in these threads, however, at that time I did not
>| >_understand_ Newtonian mechanics, because I didn't know Calculus.
----end----
You then went on to state that knowing elementary calculus in no
way informed your premathematical understanding of Newtonian mech-
anics.  I'm asking you to demonstrate the accuracy of your state-
ments, no more, no less, and personalities do not enter into this
request at all.

Anton Hutticher :
>> >But I am not attacking you! 
>> >However, I am glad that you state publicly that you feel so. You see, 
>> >I simply used your style to post loaded statements without telling
>> >anyone that I loaded them with private meanings. You are not overly
>> >bright, remember :-).
moggin:
>>    Trouble is, that's not my style -- it's an accusation you've repeated
>> countless times.  You have yet to substantiate it.  I don't even know how
>> you came up with it, in the first place -- but as I said, you're in the
>> habit of making groundless attacks, and you're not always coherent, so
>> I've pretty much given up trying to make sense out of what you say.
Anton:
>You posted statements like Newton is wrong without telling people 
>you have a different notion of wrong. I did the same with 
>"not overly bright", not telling you what my notion of overly bright is. 
>Not the same style?
   Right -- not the same style.  Because your description of my style is
false.  Incidentally, the attack in question was "inveterate liar" -- not
"not overly bright."
Anton:
>> >As to inveterate liar: There is sufficient evidence that you have very
>> >peculiar notions of true, false, right, wrong, correct....
>> >Your claim that Newton is as wrong as Ptolemy, for instance. It transpires
>> >that for you Newton is always wrong (except if v=0 or c=infinite), because
>> >the slightest deviation in the millionth decimal means its wrong.
moggin:
>>    You have no any idea what I was saying, even though I explained it
>> repeatedly.  Or maybe you prefer to set up a strawman.   Comes to the 
>> same thing.
   I stand by that. 
[...]
Anton:
>> >Paraphrased, if I understood you correctly, the
>> >bus conductor uses a theory to make his announcement of when the bus
>> >arrives and he gets ever more wrong. Having the wrong theory, he never
>> >can be right, just like Newton.
moggin:
>>    No, you didn't understand.  Sorry.
Anton:
>Ok, I dug upthe ref:
[Moggin: ]
>    If the conductor is Newton, we need to add some details.  Say
>   you're riding on his bus.  As you drive along, he announces the time
>   that you'll arrive at each stop.  The bus reaches the first one within
>   a second of the time he announced it would be there.  It gets to the
>   second stop within a minute of the time he announced.  When it reaches
>   the third stop, it's five minutes late.  At the fourth stop, it's ten
>   minutes behind.  Several stops after that, it's running an hour behind
>   the conductor's announcements.  Then several hours.  And so forth, as
>   it proceeds across country, until it's off by days, weeks, and months.
>        Is the conductor right or wrong?  You could say he's right in
>   a "limited domain," or that he produces "useful approximations within
>   certain limits" (that is, the area of the first four or five stops).
>   But in general, his announcements can only be described as inaccurate.
>   They begin with a small inaccuracy, dismissable from a practical point
>   of view, which grows steadily as the bus travels along.  And that says
>   something -- namely, that the theory he's using to produce the times
>   he announces is false.
Anton:
>According to you, if the conductor makes inaccurate announcements, 
>his theory for producing the times is false. 
>With a false theory he will produce false statements, except by chance. 
>In general therefore the conductor will not tell truth. 
   I  wouldn't say, "except by chance," but aside from that, I can go along
with your description, given that it applies  to the example above (and
by analogy to Newton).  What's the part you object to?
Anton:
>> >No scientific theory can ever be right, except maybe the final one, 
>> >according to your usage of right.
>> >Well, what about people, can they generally be right. No, it turns out 
>> >that according to your own philosophy they are inveterate liars. 
>> >"Mrs. Miller, as a witness, you must tell truth. So, tell me how tall
>> >are you. 1m52? Well I see at a glance this is not right, looks more like
>> >1m 51.9 to me. So, in earnest, how tall are you. 1m 51.987345? well,
>> >seems still not right to me. So once again: HOW TALL ARE YOU! WHAT?
>> >1m 51.98734598765432112345678909876543211234567890. THIS IS AS
>> >WRONG AS EVER! 
>> >Your honour, I, moggin the great, proclaim this subject to be an inveterate
>> >liar."
>>Well, can *you* tell me your precise age, not an approximation, as a
>>simple number, not an evasion. See, duh.
>>LIAR!
>>lire, lire, pant on fiar. 
>>oops, nonstandard spelling but ordinary meaning
>>Why are you using these extremely cumbersome definitions of true etc.
>>They simply mean that people cannot ever tell truth about many properties
>>of our world. They are *per definitionem (mogginum?)* inveterate liars.
>>Nor can any scientific theory be right, also by definitionem, but you
>>do not tell people that little fact. 
>This is just a scenario of how a courtroom scene might be if the lawyer 
>uses right and wrong in the same way as you do.
   As I pointed out before, none of that crap has much anything to do with 
what I said.  You can spend all day and all night building strawmen, but it
 won't do you any good.  Unless you collect strawmen, of course.
>Its simply using right and wrong, true and false exactly in the same 
>medieveal sense as you did.
   No, it isn't, for the simple reason that I didn't use them that way --
thus my note about your strawmen.
Anton:
>> >The interesting thing is, you felt attacked when I used your peculiar
>> >meanings of truth against you without telling you. 
moggin:
>>    No, you didn't. 
Anton:
>Prove to me that you can tell your age or weight truthfully, given 
>your usage of true/false.
   Anton, I don't have to prove shit to you.  If anything, you need to
demonstrate at least some small degree of reading comphrension.
Not that I insist.
Anton:
>> >Maybe now you get
>> >an inkling of why you caught some flames on the sci. groups.
moggin:
>>    You've given me more than an inkling, thanks -- if the answer
>> wasn't already obvious, it sure is now.
Anton:
>signs of hope?
   I wouldn't put it quite that way.
Anton:
>> >Well I got on long ago because I was reminded of like statements in 
>> >discussions at our university: You know: "The distance to the moon was
>> >measured not completely correct a hundred years ago, the distance is
>> >being measured not completely right now. Pronouncements on the
>> >distance of the moon have been false and are false. The statements 
>> >of science have been false, are false and will always be false. 
>> >There is no progress in science."  Thats where I got on.
moggin:
>>    You don't understand what I was saying, and I wonder if you
>> you understood the discussions you were in at school, either.
Anton:
>Misunderstanding you *is* easier than misunderstanding the "science 
>campers", but I don�t think I misunderstood: 
>"So there's no domain where Newton is "right" -- just a range where 
>the errors his theory generates are small enough to limit their 
>practical consequences". 
   Sure looks like you did.
Anton:
>> >You have the same debating style as they. You use weird notions of true
>> >etc. without telling people but knowing you mislead them. You do not
>> >change them nor tell about them when politely told the error of your ways
>> >In the end it simply is a power play, where the power of science, which
>> >is perceived as *unjustifiedly* overwhelming, is sought to be reduced to an
>> >equal standing with "alternative realities". 
moggin:
>>    The notions of truth I've used in this discussion have been mundane.
Anton:
>They have been different from scientific and common usage.
   No, they haven't -- only the ones you're ascribing to me.
Anton:
>> >"Newton always gives wrong results. Einstein most likely always gives
>> >wrong results. Ptolemy gave wrong results" Einstein is as wrong as
>> >Newton as Ptolemy.
>> >No scientific theory can ever be right. So what? (moggin)
>> >No bus conductor can ever be right. 
>> >Nobody can tell truth about his age, height, weight etc.
>> >They are all liars, according to moggin.
moggin:
>>    You're not even in shouting distance.
Anton:
>You are again evading answering the points.
   You didn't make any points, so I can't be evading them.  But I did
point out the most important thing right now, which is that you've
got no idea what I was saying.
Anton:
>> >That where I get off.
>> >Several other people have told you more or less the same as I have
>> >above, several times
>> >Maybe this tells you something. 
moggin:
>>    Absolutely.  But I'm too courteous to say what.
Anton:
>You are sure you understood correctly?
   Pretty much.
Anton:
>> >So I did not intend to attack you. I simply did to you as you did to
>> >the science camp. And it irked you and you felt attacked.
moggin:
>>    I didn't do anything to the science campers -- they attacked me.  And
>> what's ridiculous is that they attacked me for stating something they're
>> convinced is a truism.  Doesn't speak well for their intelligence, does
>> it?
Anton:
>You made a statement, "Newton was wrong", without indicating that you 
>use "wrong" in a peculiar way.
   Since I wasn't using it in a peculiar way, there was no need to say
I was -- in fact, that would have been false.
>Sure they corrected you on that.  [Quotes Richard.]
   And they were mistaken.  Richard may have agreed with you, but
he didn't make a case any more  than you did -- his authority won't
support your opinions.
>When you said "wrong" you say something different from what the 
>science campers say.
   Possible, since they say many different things, and some  of them
say something different every other day of  the week.  Some of you
even believe that the word has no application to scientific theories.
>Your inference that they attacked you for 
>something they consider a truism is unwarranted. [...]
   That's not an inference -- as Mati would say, "It's a fact." 
-- moggin

Anton Hutticher :
>> >> >So far we know about your philosophical stance only that it enables 
>> >> >you to claim that people are inveterate liars. 
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
>> >>    As I recall, "inveterate liar" was your phrase, aimed at me.   I've
>> >> never used it.
Anton:
>> >I didn�t say you used it. I said your philosophy enables you to claim
>> >that people are inveterate liars.
moggin:
>>    If I haven't called anyone an inveterate liar, then how do you know?
>Why should I have to find an instance of your calling someone an 
>inveterate liar in order to conclude that your philosophy *enables* 
>you to call people that.
   I didn't say that you had to find one -- I pointed out that you _hadn't_
found one, and asked what other evidence you were relying on, instead.
moggin:
>> And more generally, _what_ are you going on about?
Anton:
>In a nutshell its that your usage of terms like right, wrong etc.
>differs from scientific and "common" usage. You do not explain
>that before using them and most readers here do not expect your 
>weird usage. One consequence of holding that a statement is "wrong"
>if it is off by any amount regardless of how small is that people
>can generally only make wrong statements about many properties of  
>our physical universe.
   That's not my position.
>This has been pointed out to you in various form by several people.
>You ignored it.
   No, I've pointed out repeatedly that it's not my position.  But I don't
think you're being accurate here -- you should have said, "This is a
strawman that some people keep setting up, including me."
Anton:
>Grinding down someone by just repeating inaccuracies, manipulative
>statements, misleading usage of words even after it has been 
>pointed out to them is an attitude I have experienced often with the 
>"new age, pop psych, pseudo pomo decon" crowd at Sbg univ. I am 
>surprised that you use the same strategy.
   Forget about _experiencing_ that attitude:  that _is_ your attitude!
You just keep on propping up the same strawmen, over and over and
over.
>One of the reasons of arguing with you is that I think you are not
>an isolated incidence of a lost sheep bleating up the wrong tree. 
>You have ignored too many explanations of how substantially common
>and scientific usage of certain words differs from yours and I have
>seen far to many people argue in the same style as you. 
   Meaningless, since your idea of my "style" is absurd, and what you
call "explanations" are just your favorite strawmen.
Anton:
>Usually it 
>turned out their ultimate aim was power, not understanding. So while 
>it is probably useless to try to convince you it is important to
>clearly state that your peculiar usage of words misleads people in 
>order to redress the bias created by your usage of words.
   There's nothing peculiar about the way I've used words in this
discussion -- you're clearly misled, but you accomplished that
all by yourself.
-- moggin

In article , lverdon@julian.uwo.cam says...
>
>In article , you wrote:
>>Ken H. Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
>>: On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 , kenseto@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
>>: >So why do we bother with the variable light-speed concept? Because it
>>: >allows us to think in terms of absolute motion ...
>
>>: Since there is no response to this thread, ...
>>:  ... I assume that the variable light-speed idea is ... valid
>
>>...
>>         But I claim to be a relativist, and I regret having
>>to tell you I disagree, unless you can show me whatever it
>>is that is not moving.
>>         And I am still confused by what you mean by absolute
>>time, I asked before, does that mean one second per second?
>>         And I thought everyone was aware the speed of light
>>depended on the medium the light is moving through.
>>...
>>Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
>
>Ken,
>
>Everyone, including M&M;, believes that light has a speed
>of propogation when it has none.  Light propogation _is_
>instantaneous if you ride the event horizon and only appears to be
>delayed if your frame of reference is different.  The classic
>experiment should be revised to read that: in the time frame of an
>observer in the ordinary earthly condition, the time frame shift
>of a light event is directly proportional to the distance
>traversed by the light event and is equal to 1 second per 186k
>miles.  We know from further work that the shift is modified by
>the medium as you have pointed out.
>
>The universal ignorance of this fact has caused much delusional
>and futile speculation from warp drive to time travel and on to
>the intelligent photon.  Time travel is real, but only in these
>terms. (i.e. 1 sec/186000 miles, by experiment)
>
     Do you mean that events are just records by light played back
     to the oberver of light that travels along time line ?
Regards,
-Pdp
>Then the light event is the thing that does not move because
>movement implies a change of position over time and no time
>elapses during a light event.    ...if you wish an absolute
>reference.
>
>Lou
>--
>
>Can you measure our ground potential?
>
>

ieh@st-andrews.ac.uk (Iain Edward Horton) wrote:
>In article <32804099.325F@extro.ucc.su.oz.au>,
>JeffBD   wrote:
>>An ex-girlfriend claimed that I had met her and gone shopping.  At the time 
>>I was actually giving a tutorial presentation in front of about 30 people.
>Not quite as severe as that, but a friend of mine saw me walk past the garage
>he was working at when I was twenty miles away in the next town.  This was my
>best friend at the time who knew me better than anyone else, and would not 
>have been fooled at anything greater than a glance by a simple lookalike.  By
>all account the man was my height, wore the same clothes as me and his 
>mannerisms were just the same.  It quite scared me at the time as the man was
>carrying a gun case.  Imagine if he'd shot someone and I'd taken the blame.
>	Love and Hugs,
>		Dr Zippy.
   In my home town there has to be a guy named Stefan who looks
exactly like me. He also wears the same type of clothes. I have never
seen him, but several people told me they saw me in a place I never
were. My best friend almost put a hand onto his shoulder before
noticing it was not me. What a pity he didn't speak to him. I'd like
to meet him. Sometimes his friends approach me like: 'Hi, Stefan, how
are you? I didn't know you wore glasses.'
   And now for the funny part. When somebody asks me for my name (in
the disco, in my taxi cab) and I don't want him/her to know, I used to
call me Stefan, and that was before I knew this guy existed. Gives you
headache.
                                                                 Kai

Brian D. Jones asked:
> How can a merely relative difference in synch yield or produce a real
> or absolute difference in intervals?
Excellent question! The nice thing is that there is a pretty 
constructive answer (algorithm) for it.
(I wonder if it is given in
> Please see new thread, "Brian Jones' universe (was:its still....)", though :)
Good thing I got my posts backed up!                            Frank  W ~@) R 

Anton Hutticher (Anton.Hutticher@sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: I would feel distinctly queasy if I had to give advice on treating a
: sick child and knew that there were two contradictory but equally 
: reasonable opinions: 
: a) This child has a deadly disease but the medicine will heal it without
: any trouble.
: b) This child will recover easily from the disease but the medicine will
: kill it. 
: Fortunately, if you encounter such statements in science, mostly one
: of them is overwhelmingly more likely than the other. 
: How do philosophers react if reality intrudes this way.
: How do you cope.
How one copes is not the issue. The real issue is that in doing
science you are mostly required to restrict your attention to exactly
those sort of situations where, as you put it, `mostly one of them is
overwhelmingly more likely than the other'.
I hope you realise that there are many decisions which people have to
confront where such a qualification does not apply. And I would also
hope you realise that any scientist who refuses to make judgements in
any circumstances other than those where of all the available choices
`mostly one of them is overwhelmingly more likely than the other' -
such a scientist would, as a consequence, be intellectually and
morally inadequate.
Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.

In article <32892D03.4A71@ix.netcom.com>, 
wrote:
> 
> Cees Roos wrote:
[snip]
> > If your 'alternate theory' explains exactly the same phenomena as the
> > 'original theory' then they must agree on all issues, and any discussion
> > as to whether one is better than the other will be superfluous,
>  because
> > they are equally good. One might consider the simplest of the two better
> > (Occam, you know..).
> 
> Not necessarily. Epicycles did a wonderful job of prediction planetary motion
> with a geocentric universe, the Copernican system did/does an equally good job
> with a heliocentric universe. Which is the "correct" theory?
Perfect example! Both are correct, but Copernicus is less complex, and
consequently preferred.
> > The issue of the present thread is the need for absolute time.
> > If the 'alternate theory' needs this, it is not an alternate theory,
> > because absolute time is irrrelevant to SRT. Consequently we have a
> > means if determining which of the two is better.
> 
> It's more involved than "invariant" vs. "variable" time. The variant time 
> must act exactly in accordance with SR for the theory to be "correct". 
Of course, but that's not the issue right now.
> It may well be possible to have invariant time AND still have the observations
> which confirm SR,
I don't see how. But even if, for the sake of the argument, we assume
this possibility, the invariant time is orthogonal to SRT, i.e. it makes
no difference whether it exists or not, because SRT yields correct
predictions as it is.
> or variant time which does not encompass the assymetrical
> predictions of the "twins paradox" (among other effects).
Again, I don't see how.
> > As far as I can see, the battle has already been decided, because there
> > is no experimental result indicating that absolute time exists.
> > Once more, come up with an experiment which will show one way or the
> > other and the matter can be settled.
> > 
> 
> But you are accepting the "prefered" theory as fact, long before many experiments
> have been developed to test it.
Yes, and I will do that as long as it stands, i.e. as long as it is not
falsified.
> You have the cart before the horse when you
> say someone must disprove the theory ... or accept it. Some things remain 
> to be seen.
Science progresses by falsifying theories, but as long as a theory gives
right predictions, and is not falsified, I don't see what's wrong with
accepting it.
On the other hand, if you have an equally 'strong' alternative, feel
free to believe it. Only, if it's equally strong, there will be no
conflict. The present discussion could be an indication that the
two viewpoints pro and contra are not equivalent.
> 
> > >
> > > > So, no absolutes is not absolute, but a pretty good working hypothesis.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reality is the arbitrator. If SR is an accurate model (of reality) the theory
> > > must be absolute in the sense of providing accurate data.
> > 
> > A theory does not provide data, it can provide predictions, which can be
> > tested. The predictions of SRT have proved to be accurate so far.
> > 
> > > The value of time
> > > dilation wrt some particular velocity is an absolute value.
> > 
> > And is correctly predicted by SRT.
> > 
> 
> In some very limited circumstances there is a great deal of evidence regarding
> SR's predictions.
Unfortunately, the limited circumstances are all we have. It is possible
to make all kinds of assumptions about what's outside, but we will never
know one way or the other. Discussing such assumptions might be a
comfortable passtime, but will always remain purely speculative.
> This is not the same as claiming ALL predictions of SR WILL
> BE correct.
All predictions of SRT have been correct so far. Nobody claims eventual
further predictions will all be correct. As long as this is so, why not
be content with a satisfactory theory?
> 
> > >
> > > If you are speaking of some absolute frame of reference, even Einstein did not
> > > believe (if one can accept the literature) that SR ruled out finding one.
> > 
> > In physics nothing can be ruled out on beforehand. SRT hypothesizes no
> > absolute frame, and comes up with correct predictions so far.
> > 
> 
> So far. More tests will give more data. More data will add certainty to
> conclusions.
Let's wait and see.
> 
> 
> W$
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

This is a most interesting thread.  However, no one gave an answer to the 
question, "When will the U.S. finally go metric?"  My answer is, "never."
A more meaningful question would be, "Why should the U.S. go metric at 
all?"  There are no doubt many answers to this question, but my response 
would be that there is _no_ compelling reason for the U.S. to do so.  The 
global economy and interdependence arguments are mere bogies.  Up until 
about 1965, the U.S. was capable of manufacturing all of the goods 
needed/wanted by industry and the citizenry, respectively.  In other 
words, an American could purchase a toaster, radio, automobile, or 
anything else he/she needed that was designed and manufactured in the 
U.S. using domestic labor and materials.  I don't know what the U.S. 
population was in 1965, but it certainly provided a large enough market 
to sustain our industry.  Our population is considerably larger today, so 
it would surely provide a more than adequate market for U.S. goods and 
services.  The fact that this is not the case today is due to corporate 
greed and greed and shortsighted thinking on the part of politicians.
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.
However, there is a more immediate reason the U.S. shouldn't go metric.  
Why should we use an inherently inferior measurement system?  The 
American Standards Association (ASA) units are more practical than their 
metri
James
--
James J. Wentworth
d005794c@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us