Newsgroup sci.physics 208246

Directory

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?

In article <56a5l6$ohc@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>
>[bjon]
>>>Einstein's def. is based on the round-trip lightspeed experimental
>>>result.  And this result was caused (in part) by actual clock slowing.
>>>This is a part of absolute time.
>>>
>
>[kenn.]
>>Einstein's definition is based on the failure of first order effects to detect
>>the motion of the Earth through the ether.  He extrapolated those null results
>>to an invariant light speed.  This led him to the definition he used for 
>>clock setting.  How is that based on a round trip result?
>
>I don't suppose you knew that the MMX was a round-trip experiment?
Einstein didn't base SR on MMX.  He probably knew about it, but as he said and
reading his 1905 paper shows, the numerous first order experiments were his
motivation.  Lorentz had shown in 1895 that by introducing t-vx, he could 
get 'corresponding states' in EM, and explain the first order experiments.
Einstein's starting point was that paper and his analysis of simultaneity led
to the understanding that the time tranformation was real.

In article <56a5m4$ohc@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>pdp@ix.netcom.com (Pdp) wrote [in part]:
>>>
>[Pdp]
>>>>   Do they differ only to the observer of that is moving or do
>>>>   they really differ ?
>>>>>
>[bjon]
>>>>>In this case, the clocks are started by the light signals, and the
>>>>>clocks will differ by exactly DV/c², where D is the observer-measured
>>>>>distance between the two clocks, V is the observer's absolute speed,
>>>>>and c is light's absolute speed.
>>>>>They really differ since they must yield a real result -- they must
>>>>>yield the value "c" for light's one-way speed (as determined by the
>>>>>use of the two clocks described above -- those set per Einstein's
>>>>>definition of synchronization).
>>>
>>   Please help me a bit more. You said "must yield a real result",
>>   is this because of the result of "DV/C2" equation which C is
>>   constant. Therefore time must change to satisfied the equation ?
>
>>Regards,
>>-Pdp
>
>Well, the best thing to do is start from "scratch."  Let's drop all
>unnecessary baggage, and go back to the earliest stage of light speed
>measurement (on paper only).  We will drop or ignore the real slowing
>of clocks and the real contracting of rods.  We will also assume that
>two clocks can be truly or absolutely synchronized (just for the
>purposes of giving a simple example).
>
>The observer moves to the right (relative to either the paper or to
>the light ray).  He has two x-axis clocks, located a distance D apart,
>as measured by the observer, and they are truly synch'd (both read the
>same time at the same observer position on paper).  A light ray meets
>the observer, hitting the front clock when that clock reads zero (and
>of course the rear clock also reads zero at this same instant).  After
>this event, the observer's forward motion causes him to travel the
>distance Vt, where V  is the observer's speed across the paper or thru
>space (his absolute speed), and t is the time per any clock because no
>clock is slowed in this universe, and so all red the actual time (t is
>the true or absolute time).  By the same token, light travels an
>absolute distance of ct, where c is light's speed across the paper or
>across space -- its absolute speed.  The observer sees the light ray
>move between the clocks or he sees them go a distance D relative to
>him.  We can now solve for the time t that represents the observed
>time for the light ray's one-way journey.   We know that ct + Vt = D,
>so we have t = D/(c+V).  SInce light's observed (or measured) speed is
>the observed distance divided by the recorded time, we have the result
>light's relative speed = c + V.
>
>This is Newton's or Galileo's one-way light speed.  It varies with the
>observer's absolute speed, and if found, would give the observer V,
>his absolute speed.  But note that to find this c + V result, the
>observer has to have truly set clocks (absolute synchronization).
>Einstein says we cannot find such clocks, and he has been right so
>far.  Einstein saw that per experiment  light's relative round-trip
>speed did NOT vary, so he simply sets his clocks to reflect this in
>the one-way lightspeed case.  (There is no real reason for setting
>them to get "c" in the one-way case, it's just a matter of
>convenience.)
>
Einstein was working from Lorentz' theory of corresponding states, not MMX.
Lorentz had introduced the t-vx tranformation to explain the failure of
first order tests to reveal the motion of the Earth.  Einstein saw that the
equation could be understood, and PR extended to optical tests if he 
postulated an invariant lightspeed.
>However, since the round-trip experiments showed that both rods and
>clocks actually distort, this must be a part of the one-way deal.  (If
No experiment had shown either of these effects at that time.  They were 
assumptions made to explain the results, nothing more.
>you leave it out on paper, you can still get a one-way speed of "c,"
>but it will not be reality based).   But for the sake of simplicity,
>we here will ignore these distortions, and assume constant rod lengths
>(intrinsic or absolute lengths) and UNslowed clocks, just as above.
>
>We now will show how Einstein's clocks are set to cause light's
>one-way speed (relative to the SRT or einsteinian observer) will be
>"c" both ways and for any and all observers.
>
>As before, the front clock reads zero when hit by the oncoming light
>ray, but at this same instant the rear clock reads a different value,
>one that is not relevant now, but one that will cause a different
>total time than we found above.  From the above, we know that the
>absolute time for this one-way trip is t = D/(c+V).  Since the front
>clock started at zero and since it is UNslowed, it must read D/(c+V)
>at the end of the light ray's journey.  However, in order for light's
>relative speed to be "c" per this observer, the rear clock must read
>exactly D/c at the trip's end (when the light ray hits this rear
>clock).   At this point, we can find the actual difference in clock
>readings by subtraction.  D/c - D/(c+V) = DV/[c(c+V)].   This is often
>called the "local offset" and is the difference caused by Einstein's
>setting clocks to cause light's one-way speed to always be "c"
>relative to any inertial observer.  (Note that the local offset varies
>directly with the observer's absolute speed, so the offset amount  is
>different for each observer, as it must be to keep light's measured
>speed constant.)
>
The offset varies with the relative speed of the observer, when compared to 
another observer.  You introduced the velocity, and therefore the frame in
which that velocity is measured.
>And if you don't ignore actual rod/clock distortions, the above result
>will be DV/c².   (Correct local offset equation for E-set clocks).
>

In article <56a5ma$ohc@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>
>>In article <562h73$k2k@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
>>bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>>>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>>>
>>>>::: The dude did not ask for reality, but only for an operational def. 
>>>>::: of absolute time. 
>>>>:: You have given a definition, but not an OPERATIONAL definition. 
>>>
>>>>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
>>>>: It is operational in the sense that it could be carried out by simple
>>>>: trial and error if by no other means. 
>>>
>>>>You can only have "trial and error" as an operational definition if you
>>>>can tell when you err.  For example, it is clear that bjon has erred
>>>>here.  He now knows he needs to make another try at his operational
>>>>definition. 
>>>
>>>>So, keep on trying, bjon.  Everybody needs a hobby, I guess.
>>>>--
>>>>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
>>>>               throopw@cisco.com
>>>
>>>Still, given enough trials (and the error is when the times don't
>>>match), the observers should eventually reach the point where all
>>>their time intervals match for any given events.  At that point, they
>>>would have absolutely synch'd clocks. And this is per Einstein's own
>>>definition of absolute time, which is that all observers find the same
>>>time between any two events.  In SRT, all find a different time period
>>>for the same two events, which (being only two events) can have only
>>>one actual time between them.
>>>
>
>>But there is no single outcome of your definition.  It amounts to setting the
>>clocks in one reference system, then setting the clocks in all other reference
>>systems from that one.  How do you choose the starting system?  And then there
>>is that pesky time dilation that prevents the clocks from agreeing after some
>>time lapses.
>
>Time dilation is not involved -- only synchronization. And the goal is
>to get all the clocks absolutely sync'd by using real events. The
>criterion is all get the same time interval for any two random events,
>the opposite of SRT.
This definition does not pin it down.  As I said above, you can choose any 
inertial frame and use its clocks to measure the time intervals.  Then all
observers will get the same value.  But if I choose a different inertial frame
and use its clocks, everyone will again get the same value, but it will be
different from the original.  Which is "true"?
The use of such clocks will also show up in the laws of physics as a new
vector quantity, contradicting the PR.

In article <56a5kp$ohc@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>>>If a clock travels between two events, there's only one value for this
>>>particular clock, and it is an absolute reading, not a relative one.
>>>And the clock that has the greatest reading has taken the shortest
>>>absolute route between the two events, which is the absolute distance
>>>between them.
>>>
>
>>You seem to have shifted the meaning of absolute.  You now have equated 
>>absolute time with proper time.  This is radically different than either
>>Newton's or Einstein's use of the term.  I don't think that is what you 
>>meant.
>
>A single clock traveling between events records a single time - this
>is clearly not relative, but absolute, or not observer dependent.
>
OK, we agree, but I would say it is invariant. 
>>>>: Obviously, for many events, there's not enough time for a clock to
>>>>: "span" them, even at lightspeed, so there would be no proper time for
>>>>: the events.  This is the case above. 
>>>
>>>>Yes, because we've switched from trig to hyperbolic trig.
>>>>We've switched from Pythagorus to Lorentz/Minkowski.
>>>>Thus, the interval is spacelike.
>>>
>>>>Oooooooo, scarey.  Ooooooh.   I dunno about you, kids, 
>>>>but that sure convinces old Count Floyd, boy, I'll tell you.  Oooooh.
>>>>--
>>>>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
>>>>               throopw@cisco.com
>>>
>>>Sad and irrelevant attempt at being humorous.
>>>And what's really scarey is a clock that reads hyperbolic time!
>>>
>
>>Your use of absolute above would truly be hyperbolic time in the sense that 
>>events at the same absolute time from the origin would occupy a hyperboloid,
>>rather than a plane.  I will let you reconsider this one.
>
>But there's no proper time reading by a real clock.
You just allowed the definition of proper time to be the reading of a real 
clock that traveled uniformly between the events.  Now you deny it.

In article ,
das3y@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Douglas A. Singleton) wrote:
> What about gravity. In some sense it can be thought of as a
> non-Abelian gauge theory (it bears the hallmark signature
> of a non-Abelian theory that it's force carriers should self 
> couple i.e. gravity couples to mass-energy so it couples to
> everything including itself).Yet gravity has a long range force.
> Of course the big difference is that the gravitational coupling
> is very weak while alpha_strong  is large. So maybe it's
> not the Abelian versus non-Abelian nature of the coupling that
> determines if you have long range forces, but rather it's the
> strength of the coupling that matters.
Indeed, I suspect that the really important thing is that alpha_s is big.
After all, if QCD were just a strongly coupled abelian gauge field, you
might not get confinement in some strict sense of the word, but strongly
coupled matter would still appear mostly in lumps with no net "charge," and
attempting to separate the charges could result in pair production just as
it does in the real world. Strong interactions between "hadrons" would
occur through higher-order effects corresponding to something like a dipole
interaction, or maybe via "meson" exchange; it would be effectively
shorter-range.
Of course, the two properties are interrelated. The Yang-Mills nature of
QCD is what leads to its coupling constant becoming stronger at lower
energies, at least up to the point where perturbation theory fails.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

On 13 Nov 1996 16:02:23 GMT, redsox3@ibm.net (Wayne Delia) wrote:

>I once worked on a PL/I program in 1993 along with a good friend who had 25 
>years experience with IBM, which required modifying a sorting routine based on a 
>date field in the format YY/MM/DD. I pointed out that we needed to take the
>turn of the century into account, but my friend said not to worry about it - 
>because he'd be retired by then. The scary part is he was dead serious.     
It's obvious *he* wasn't in management. After all, he was looking
further ahead than the end of the current billing cycle...
>
>Wayne Delia, redsox3@ibm.net
>"Don't take me! I have a wife and kids! Take *them*!"  - Homer Simpson
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
 the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

Mike   wrote:
>
>GFI circuits check that the amount of current that flows thru the hot 
>side is no greater than that flowing thru neutral.  Any difference means 
>the power is flowing somewhere else to ground and the circuit is then 
>electronically interrupted.  The allowable difference is sensed in the 
>range of micro-amps I believe..(?)  It only takes a very small amount of 
>electrical current through the heart to cause fibulation in some people. 
>
>Mike (Intended for reference not practical application)
>
No kidding.  I have discovered from experience that my body
when dry does not conduct enough current to trip a GFCI.
Duncan.  (ouch)

In <56cus3$ddr@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz  writes:
>Get yourself a PVT phase diagram for water.
>All you need do is take living tissue and freeze the bulk solid without 
>killing the cells or bursting them when the water freezes, eventually 
>thaw likewise, and not kill the tissue in the interim.
	Obviously not an intractable problem since this is already
done routinely for corneas, heart values, embryos, etc.  Recently
there have been reports of a rat heart recovered from liquid
nitrogen, and cryogenic banking of transplantable organs is a
dinstinct possibility before the end of the decade.  Check out
http://www.prometheus-project.org/prometheus/organ-cryopreservation.html
for a review of progress in this field.
	Incidentally, the phase diagram of water is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the phase diagram of water/cryoprotective
agent mixtures, which is quite different.  In particular, some
of these mixtures will vitrify on cooling instead of freezing,
circumventing freezing injury completely.    
>The brain is solely fueled by aerobic respiration, is a goodly sized 
>lump, is protected by the tight junctions of the blood brain barrier...  
>All you need do is, over a period of 180 seconds maximum diffuse in a 
>cryprotective agent and drop the temp by 230 degrees kelvin.
	But the brain is also governed by the Q10 rule, which
states that metabolic rate drops by more than half with every
10'C in temperature.  With the right base perfusate, you can
keep the brains of large mammals viable (i.e. get the whole
animal back with no neurological injury) for up to five hours
of bloodless perfusion near 0'C.  So you have more like 18000
seconds to do the above.   
>If you diddle with a living person it is homicide.  If you do it with a 
>dead person you can add resurrection to your shopping list.
	This is not an issue.  Standard cryonics practice is to 
restart blood circulation artificially within 60 seconds of cardiac
arrest.  A bolus of KCl or other meds prevents the heart from
restarting (so things stay legal), and the cryonics patient is as
biologically alive as anyone else on heart-lung bypass.
	The biggest problem with cryonics is that it simply
doesn't work (at least not in real time).  But the reasons
it doesn't work are more complex than the ones you give
(see the aforementioned URL).  In the meantime research
continues. 
***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Human Cryopreservation Services   cryocare@cryocare.org
wowk@cryocare.org   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone have tips for keeping David Kaufman's droppings out of 
the newsgroups?

p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr)  wrote on 07.11.96 in :
> kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
> > For example (real life example), I've got a wall of approx. 4.25 m, which
> > I want to put book cases at. I can get boards 1.20 m or 0.80 m long. Guess
> > what? 2*1.20+2*0.80 = 4.00, and there's a rest of 0.25 m which will
> > remain, as getting custom boards would cost about twice as much, and
> > that's not worth it.
> >
> .de is Germany, so how come you found a 14 feet long wall? ;-)
I didn't. There's some more distance on that wall, only it's unusable for  
book cases for various reasons (door, other stuff). (14 feet? That's a  
little under 4.27 m, not 4.25 - and anyway that was approximately off my  
head. Once I decided it's going to be 4 m boards, I promptly forgot about  
the exact number.)
By the way, how high are US doors? I'm accustomed to think of doors as 2 m  
high. That would be a little under 6 1/2 ft? I think I prefer 2 m.
Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/

CharlieS wrote:
> 
> Judson McClendon wrote:
> >
> > CharlieS wrote:
> > > Only if you think people should have a "fear of 'God'".
> > > I've seen this too often to take it seriously; every time I've
> > > told a believer that I don't need "salvation", they've turned
> > > on me with the old threat "Just wait till you're standing
> > > before 'God' and you'll soon change your sinful ways".
> > > The fact is, I'm not scared of your "God" so I'm not scared
> > > of "His" opinion of me.
> > > The fact that some believers feel too scared of their "God"
> > > to even be able to face "Him" just shows how pathetically
> > > weak their so-called "faith" is in the first place.
> >
> > "And I say to you, My friends, do not be  afraid of those who kill the
> > body, and after that  have no  more that they can do. But I will show
> > you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power
> > to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!" (Luke 12:4,5, words of
> > Jesus)
> >
> > No, you don't have to fear God.
> 
> ?
> Then who is the one with "the power to case into hell" that Jesus
> was talking about in your quote above?
The One with the power to cast into Hell is God.  I said "No, you don't
have to fear God" because God will not force you to believe in Him or
receive Him.  He wanted us to have free choice.  You can receive God or
reject Him now.  What God is about with Mankind is creating for Himself
beings who, having free choice, decide to believe and receive Him
without being forced. This decision is a touchstone for the heart of
man:
16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world,
but
that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe
is
condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God.
19 "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the
world,
and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to
the
light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be
clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (John 3:16-21)
> > You just have to face Him at Judgement.
> 
> But I want to face him NOW!
But you and I don't make the rules.  God created this whole universe for
His own pleasure.  He has provided a way for us to be in perfect
relationship with Him.  But we will only see that if we are willing to
receive God's plan for our lives.  We must allow Jesus, God's Son, to be
our Savior and Lord.
> I keep getting this promise from Christians.
> They always say "You'll meet 'God' on judgement day and _then_ you'll
> know the truth!"
> Why the hell do I have to wait?
> I'm *ready* to face "Him".
> In fact I'm looking forward to asking "Him" just how life evolved
> and what happened during the Big Bang, but you damn christians keep
> me waiting till "Judgement day", its just not fair damn it.
> Why am I always held up by the dumb kids in class?
What any person, Christian or otherwise, says to us isn't what we have
to be concerned with.  It's what God says that we will answer to.  God
is Soverign.
> > No choice.  And your opinion won't impress God.  You can argue with a
> > human, but you won't argue with God.
> 
> I'd like to think it would be more like a friendly debate rather
> than an actual argument; but then a debate isn't half as fun
> unless it gets a little heated :)
Where do you get the idea that you (or I) will decide how God will deal
with us?  Just wishful thinking?  Your (or my) opinion about any of the
natural laws doesn't affect them at all, and they are a reflection of
God'd will.
> > However, there is a way out.  Not by ignoring God,
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the *only* "way out" is precisely by
> ignoring "God" -- but you theists won't let me.  You're ruining
> my chance of "salvation": that's _soul_ abuse.
I don't know about what others have said to you, but I would persuade
you, if possible.  For the same reason I would try to persuade someone
who was walking off a cliff.
> > but by receiving His
> > salvation in Jesus Christ.  If God enjoyed destroying us, He wouldn't
> > have to work up a sweat doing us in.  But He went to a lot of trouble to
> > provide a way of salvation.  But if we trample under feet the salvation
> > provided by God, there will be no mercy.  God loves you, but he will not
> > tolerate rebellion forever.
> 
> If "He" really is such a kill-joy, I just might rebel and stop
> tolerating
> "Him"...
So the God who created this vast universe, and us, has put up with a
rebellious bunch of humans for thousands of years, watching us kill,
steal, lie, cheat and so on.  So He sends His own Son Jesus to take our
sins upon Himself and die a horrible death on a Roman cross to pay the
penalty for those sins.  Then He tells us that all we have to do is
believe on Jesus and receive Him as Savior and Lord and God will
completely forgive us all our sins and give us eternal life as a
reward.  And you call that God a 'kill-joy'.
-- 
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems    judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

In article <56a5l0$ohc@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>
>>In article <563iol$fvv@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>>>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote[in part]:
>>>>    How about the time span between spacetime events that are dependent
>>>>on an inertial frame that is at absolute rest? Would this give us the
>>>>absolute time?
>>>
>>>Yes, because such an observer's clocks are truly set even by using
>>>Einstein's definition, and further, such clocks are not slowed, being
>>>at absolute rest in space. But of course this time span cannot be
>>>confirmed as the one that's absolute because no one knows which
>>>observer is at rest, if any (or, similarly, no one knows what the true
>>>time span should be). So, it does give us an absolute time reading,
>>>but does not give us absolute time itself for our use.
>>>
>>>
>
>>Another step on the road to understanding relativity.  The next is to discard
>>the scaffolding of the absolute frame.  You will see that the theory stands
>>without it, and yields the correct answers to any questions about the 
>>relationship between moving reference frames. 
>
>This is quite funny considering the fact that none of my questions in
>this regard have been answered by the relativists here.  Such as why
>two SRT observers obtain different time intervals for two events.
>Once this has been answered, one can see that absolute clock readings
>cause this, and that the clocks were set out-of-true in direct
>proportion to each observer's absolute speed.  There are many such
>absolutes in SRT, behind the scenes.
They have been answered many times.  Differently moving observers get 
different values for intervals because they synchronize their clocks 
differently, as you have noted.  This synchronization is dependent on the 
observers *relative* speeds.  A single observer would not get offset clocks
using Einstein's procedure.

In article <56a5lq$ohc@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>
>>In article <563fpa$fhn@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>>bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>>>Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
>>>[re the existence of absolute motion per bjon]
>>>[roos]
>>>>I am not discussing Einstein with you. My question rather relates to
>>>>epistemology. How can you know a phenomenon exists if you cannot
>>>>define it and not measure it?
>>>
>>>By "not define," I meant "No working definition," not "No definition,
>>>period."  We cannot measure gravity waves, but everyone believes in
>>>their existence. 
>>>
>>>Anyway, if light has no real (or absolute) motion, then how does it
>>>get to here from the stars? And what type of light motion is source
>>>independent, absolute or relative?  It makes no sense to say relative
>>>because "Relative to what?" cannot be answered.  But let's go on to
>
>>I will answer it.  Relative to any observer whatsoever. That was easy!
>
>And meaningless.  (What does "Light's speed relative to any observer
>whatsoever is independent of the light source" mean?)
>
Exactly what it reads.  Any observer can measure light's speed, for light
emitted from any source and will get the same value.
>>>more meaty proofs of light's absolute motion existence. In 1977, Ken
>>>Brecher studied binary star x-rays to see if the stars' _absolute)_
>>>motion (the only kind that _could_ have a real effect upon anything)
>
>>The issue was variation of the star's motion relative to the Earth.
>
>No.  It was the star's speed being source affected or not, and the
>only type of light speed that  can possibly be affected by a light
>source is the absolute or actual light speed.
The only speed we can measure is relative speed.  It can be affected by
motion of the source.  But in the case of light, it is not.
>>>had any affect upon the emitted light's _absolute_ speed (the only
>>>type of speed that could be affected by a source's motion). He said in
>>>his paper that there would be a definite pattern if light's speed were
>>>source-affected (or source dependent), and this pattern would be
>>>readily observable from earth.  (The light would get "mixed up" as it
>>>was emitted from stars moving rapidly in opposite directions).
>>>However, no such telltale pattern was ever observed, meaning that the
>>>light's actual speed thru space (or its absolute speed) was in no way
>>>affected by the source's movement thru space, or the stars' absolute
>>>movements. Note that the earth observer in no way measures any light
>>>speed (either round-trip or one-way)in this case.  This is purely a
>
>>The experiment was based on the fact that the travel time would vary if the
>>speed varied.  (D/c+v <> D/c-v).  The equality of the times is a proof that  
>>the speeds are the same.  
>
>No clocks were involved, therefore no times.
>
Try again.  The times involved were the travel time of light from various 
points in the stellar orbit.  Read the literature on this experiment.
>>>matter of absolute speeds, both of the light sources and of the light
>>>leaving the sources.  All that was looked for was a particular
>>>pattern, a pattern whose origins were light-years away, and in no way
>>>affected by us on earth. Since no observer measured any speed at all,
>>>the speed of the light in this is simply an absolute speed.
>>>
>
>>Absolute's got nothing to do with it.  The experiment showed that the light
>>traveled at the same speed, relative to the Earth, no matter what the relative
>>speed of the source.
>
>Dead wrong.  Call  Mr. Brecher.
>
I stand by my statement.
>>>And if light has an absolute speed, so does everything else.
>>>
>>>However, this does not mean that we can determine any object's
>>>absolute speed. Mechanical methods fail due to inertia, and optical
>>>attempts have failed due to various reasons.  Right now, the earth's
>>>absolute speed could be anything from zero to nearly lightspeed (using
>>>c as light's absolute speed), but we have no way (yet -- but some
>>>think the CBR supplies us with an absolute frame) of determining the
>>>actual value of this absolute earth speed. (We could so it if we could
>>>find a way to start two clocks at the same time, but this, too, has
>>>eluded us).
>>>
>
>>This was one of Poincare's objection's to Lorentz's theories.  The same 
>>principle (PR) is explained by various hypotheses, depending on the experiment.
>>So, one explanation is given for mechanical tests, another for first order 
>>optical, still another for second order optical.  Lorentz was able to combine
>>the optical results with his 'corresponding states' and offset time definition.
>>Einstein answers all PR questions by showing that Lorentz' time indicates the
>>need for a new kinematics.
>
>Of course there must be different physical explanations for optical vs
>mechanical.  These are totally unalike because light's speed (UNlike
>any inertial object's) is source independent.
We expect different theories to explain different phenomena.  But SR allows
us to extend the theories to moving reference systems.  Prior to that, 
different hypotheses were needed for each theory to explain the failure to
detect motion.
>
>And Einstein's View explains nothing at all.
>
Wrong.  

In article <56a5kh$ohc@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>>>True, but also irrelevant.  My point is that SRT contains absolutes,
>>>and the proper time is one of them, and it reflects the absolute
>>>distance between two events.
>
>>Now you assert the reality of the invariant interval.  SR does not disagree 
>>with you, but you have a remarkably fluid definition of absolute.
>
>Not the II, but the proper time per a single clock that moves between
>the events.  This is obviously an absolute and physically meaningful
>quantity.
>
The invariant interval by definition is the same as the proper time for 
time-like seperation.  It is 'i' times proper length divided by 'c' for 
space-like seperation, and it is zero for the light cone.   
Using this definition, even you would agree that it is meaningful.  The longer
definition follows from mathematical analysis.  Then we can use it for further
analysis.
>>>
>
>>Your use of absolute has shifted from Newton's to the search for invariant
>>quantities.  Your have begun to follow the path of Einstein.
>
>Einstein's own path contains many absolutes, including his 2nd axiom,
>so what's your point?
>
If you use "absolute" the way Einstein used "invariant", then you are right.
But your earlier posts show that that is not the case.

          For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
     Interested In Exploring Math, Science And Ethics
   Through Collaboration For Enrichment And Achievement.
------------------------------------------------------------
        ----------------------------------------
       |   Surf The Web For Free And Learn How  |
       |   At The Science and Business Library  |
        ----------------------------------------
	The Science Library at 34th Street on Madison Ave in 
NYC has 55 computers downstairs that are used to access the 
Web with over 30 million sites. 
What Is The World Wide Web Like:
-------------------------------
	To search the web for any topic of interest, click the 
mouse arrow on Net Search of the Navigator browser. Then 
click on Yahoo.com for lists of topics. For example, I'm 
interested in education. I click on education first, then k-
12, then math and science, then any of hundreds of web sites
around the world offering k-12 math and science education 
from different perspectives. 
	Each of these sites you visit will often connect you to
many other sites (that they recommend) at the click of a 
mouse. By visiting sites that interest you, you'll be 
surfing the web from site to site savoring beautiful 
pictures, unimaginable information and ideas that others 
have published inexpensively for the whole world to visit 
and see.
How To Access A Web Computer:
-----------------------------
	These powerful 55 Web accessing computers at the 
Science Library have to be requested by computer on the same
day by anyone to use for an hour. Be sure to keep the print 
out of the hour and machine assigned to you.
	On the Saturday I went, some people tried to tell me 
the computer assigned to me was for them. I showed them my 
assignment paper and they quickly vanished.
	Even before your assignment hour, many people don't 
stay their full hour. Some people who left after 20 minutes 
told me I could have their assignment spot. I was able to 
spend 3 and half hours on Saturday until closing time on 
various computers accessing the Web to my heart's delight.
Take A Free Hour Class On Using The Library's Computer:
-------------------------------------------------------
	Even though the Science Library's many free classes on 
how to use the internet (and many other classes on using 
their library) are all booked up weeks in advance, many 
people don't show up for their scheduled classes.
	If you arrive about 15 minutes before a scheduled 
internet (Web) class, you'll likely get a seat at one of the
13 computers in the class. I did without trouble twice for 
the Library's 2 different internet (Web) classes. 
	There are also 4 other seats in the back of the class 
(without computers) that can view the large overhead screen 
that magnifies what is on the computer screen. The 
information that is handed out in class is discussed during 
class and is a valuable resource on using the Web.
13 Other Web Computers Are On The Ground Floor:
-----------------------------------------------
	These 13 ground floor Web computers are hard to access 
because there is no time limit on them. There are 3 to the 
right of the front door that have no seats and 10 more 
inside that do have seats.
Remember: Surfing (or searching) the Web is an exciting 
--------- adventure into exploring many of the 30 million 
          creations of ordinary and extraordinary people, 
          corporations and organizations.
A Recommendation:
------------------
	Here is one of my recommendations that can be typed in 
as follows:  
                  http://www.contact.org
Then press enter, and you can then visit any of 1000's of 
non-profit organizations anywhere in the world to see what 
they have to offer at their web site. Imagine the 
possibilities.
Location And Hours Of The Science Library:
-------------------------------------------
Science, Industry and Business Library (SIBL)
188 Madison Ave (Between 34th and 35th Street)
New York, NY 10016-4314
1 block from Lexington Ave # 6 train 
at the 34th Street (and Park Ave) subway stop.
Hours: Monday, Friday and Saturday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
------ Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday: 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Telephone: General Information: (212) 592-7067
           Telephone reference: (212) 592-7001
Internet Home Page:
-------------------
                     http://www.nypl.org/research/sibl
C by David Kaufman, Nov. 13, 1996.  Have A Great Web Trip.
____________________________________________________________
         Be Good, Do Good, Be One, and Go Jolly.
-- 
                                             davk@netcom.com

David Kornreich wrote:

> I think it would be nice if indeed QG got rid of the need for
> singularities altogether, but "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable
> answer...
Considering the "layman's" version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, "I don't know" might *be* the answer.
> As for the information ever getting out of the black hole, there's always
> the possibility of "naked singularities," singularities not "clothed" by
> an event horizon, which are allowed by GR. (But then there's Penrose's
> Cosmic Censorship Conjecture... [I always enjoy saying that...])
Hmm, I've heard this situation is not prohibited.  What conditions
could lead to the existance of a naked singularity?
-- 
Jim Batka	Email:  jim.batka@sdrc.com
Contrary to popular opinion, the word "gullible" is not in
(American) Dictionaries.

In article <56a7vl$sj0@phunn1.sbphrd.com>,
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
>>SO, how do skates work
>>
>
>Steel, being a liquid, forms a thin film at the base of the skates, thus 
>lowering friction.
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.
-- 
Peter

Followups set to sci.physics, since this is really about quantum mechanics,
not relativity.
In article <56av4s$fa0@news.cc.utah.edu>, gwd6306@cc.utah.edu (guy dadson)
wrote:
> If the uncertainty principle tells us that we cannot know the momentum 
> and position exactly, how can one determine the angular momentum of a 
> diatomic molecule...  The position of the atoms would not be known 
> exactly and there would be no possible way to determine the length of the 
> axis upon which the atoms rotate.  I suppose that one oculd determine an 
> average value...
Each component of momentum commutes with the *other two* components of
position, just not with the corresponding component. For instance, p_x has
an uncertainty principle relating it to x, but not to y or z. Since angular
momentum depends on the *cross product* of position and momentum, there is
no problem measuring any single component of angular momentum. (The
situation is more complicated than that, since the spin part of angular
momentum can't be constructed nonrelativistically from position and
momentum, but it turns out to be true in general that it can be measured.)
However, there is an uncertainty principle relating the different
components to each other, so it is impossible to measure *all* of the
components of angular momentum with arbitrary precision simultaneously.
-- 
Matt McIrvin   

In article <567e56$2m7e@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>, ale2@psu.edu (ale2) wrote:
> Consider an infinite linear system of identical masses seperated by
> identical springs. A system of inductors and capacitors if connected in
> the right way will have the same differential equation of motion as the
> above linear mass spring system (see page 512 "Theoretical Mechanics"
> by T.C. Bradbury for example)
> 
> Question, what is the circuit diagram (if one exists) of a system of
> inductors and capacitors that would have the same differential equation
> of motion of a 2-dimensional (and 3-dimensional) system of masses and
> springs ?
> 
> Thanks for any refrences or ideas!
I believe the diagram (for a 1-d system of masses and springs) should be
equivalent to the standard "lumped circuit" approximation to a
transmission line (i.e. wire an infinite series of identical inductors in
series; between each inductor wire a capacitor to ground).
Kirk Bertsche

-----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:
  3 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: 0.9
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Delete: no
Count: 3
Notice-ID: spncm1996317212527
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<56b0t4$4ed@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics
	sci.math
	sci.logic
	sci.chem
<56avde$u8r@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.logic
	sci.physics
	sci.math
<56b965$27f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics.electromag
	sci.physics
	sci.logic
	sci.math
	sci.bio.misc
@@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
iQCVAwUBMoo8yYz0ceX+vLURAQF2zAQAnilVIQhIil8VJyqMtaBPlHzezn8q6Tly
zSAqZFGaYjWLY9jfc0AeaoGeEgLkzjMzLbOEg8sGrMzxc4v3SrueudcqLypxGVTD
XCgnD17wqZeS5JDcDw5b717zbFIDYqxm5nYQHM5pgvvc6Kj6RQNRhRelOn9LMdHd
dS7vyXgEkP4=
=ixxY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <568k56$47n@news-central.tiac.net>,
   conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
>While I continue to seriously doubt that anything but mechanical
>failure was responsible for the crash of TWA Flight 800, the following
>scenario (totally unsupported by physical evidence) has crossed my
>mind.
>
>I recall one news report citing an (airline pilot?) observer claiming
>that he saw a decending streak of light (perhaps a meteor) heading 
>towards TWA800.
>
>Given that a ground (or ship) fired Stinger type missile would be
>unlikely to reach the operating altitude of the TWA aircraft, what
>about the possibility of a missile launched from another aircraft?
>
>To date, I have read absolutely no speculation on this possibility.
I can't recall such speculation being bantered about in the news, but there were 
a number people discussing this idea, and posting on the Internet (along with a 
large number of even less likely ideas). It is always difficult to prove a 
negative conclusion, such as "there was no aircraft present to fire such a 
missle", but the FAA has already reported that there were no radar reports of 
unidentified aircraft recorded near TWA800. The operators of known aircraft were 
contacted and questioned as to what they saw, and I suspect were investigated by 
the FBI as well. Unless we want to assume a stealth aircraft equiped bad guy 
that also had a Stinger did this, I really can't find even a glimmer of room for 
this idea. And I do understand that you were simply speculating here, and not 
offering a theory of what actually happened. 
While I personally have read of no evidence that would support the airborne 
missle idea, every question now needs to be explored. If only to lend support 
for the best seeming alternative if such speculations fall short. Namely, that 
some wierd mechanical failure may somehow have caused this accident.
Stephen Bennett

For my Phyiscs class, we are to send a pringle's potato chip thourgh
the mail to school, without it breaking. Anyone got ideas on a way to
package the chip so it does not get broken?
--Jordan Tobin
seinfeld@earthlink.net

pcosenza@gpu.com wrote:
> SO, how do skates work
From the articles I found no one knows for sure. Theories range from
friction heating to tiny ball bearings made of ice particles.
-- 
 Helge "I suspect space aliens." Moulding
                                            Just another guy
 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401/      with a weird name

Duquette et al wrote:
> [various maunderings about the 
>  quality of science ed certification...]
But I don't think any of this matters, either. The thing I was asking
about is a problem in any course of study. You can know all the 
formulas, know calculus, memorize the periodic tables, whatever, but
if you can't understand the basis of the scientific method, none of
this matters. Feynman in _Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman_ (a 
hilarious book, by the way, I recommend it highly) tells of his visit
to Brazil in the early fifties, and makes a point much like this.
I am back to asking, how do we actually acquaint science students with
the scientific method? Lemme suggest this test. If a student can *do*
the scientific method *without* knowing what it is called or what the
definition of the term "scientific method" is, then a science teacher
has succeeded. I think most science teachers fail by this test.
-- 
 Helge "...wonder how I was a success..." Moulding
                                            Just another guy
 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401/      with a weird name

From black999@vexation.net Wed Nov 13 17:50:54 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 04:57:51 GMT
From: Intelligence Officer #999 
Reply-To: freedom1@earthstar.com
To: caesar@UDel.Edu, LGSJ41A@prodigy.com
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts 
    caesar@copland.udel.edu (Yu) wrote:
>> >#59875:  
Is it the new secret code to call me by the mind control operastors?
If it does, then you indeed like a mind control opperator.
That's becauuse, to calssfy the target's life or health condition with
numbers is the usual way of mind control operators.  
>> >Return to your cubicle.  Cease and desist all unauthorized actions 
>> >at once.  
>> Since you can use the "Intelligence Officer" title to warn me 
>> openly without getting any trouble, it has showed readers that you
>> are one of the cooperators of them.
>> Furthermore, your words has proven to readers that my article
>> have been censored and I believe that such kind of censorship to my
> >articles should have been taken for a long time. 
Since you have no comment to my opinion of above, It has showed readers 
that you didn't deny it. 
>> >Control Officers will arrive shortly to initiate disciplinary
>> >measures. 
>> Any control officer who try to abuse the invisible wave weapon to
>> attack a citizen is a crime and violate the law.
>> That's because I am not the terroir or drugtrafficker but only a 
>> law abiding citizen.
>> If these career control officers come and try to control my mind,
>> they are not welcome.
>Abuse our Tools of Peace? 
Since the invisible wve weapon can injure or even kill people without
leaving external evidence, it has been considered as a murder weapon of
mind control operators by our awared citizens.
That's because these invisible wave weapon are invisible, noiseless, 
and leaving no external evidence.  The victims of invisible wave weapon
have no witness and evidence to sue the weapon's abuser.
If the invisible wave weapons (soft kill weapon) belong to your Peace
Tools, then the knife or gun with soundless are also can be clled Peace
Tools.
To avoid readers being misled, I would further clearify my words to 
these invisible wave weapon below.
What is the Nonlethal weapon?
The Nonlethal weapon include the invisible wave weapon of infrasound,
laser weapon, electomagnetic pulse generators, high power microwaves
emitters,etc.
The 3\23\94 WASHINGTON POST reported: "The Pentagon and the Justice
Department have agreed to share state-of-the-art military technology with
civilian law enforcement agencies, including exotic 'non-lethal'
weapons."
 According to the report, the Department of Defense signed a memorandum of 
understanding with the Department of Justice, to transfer non-lethal 
weapons from the Department of Denfense to local law enforcement 
agencies through the National institute of Justice 
 "What particularly worries civilian scientist is a classified
 Pentagon contract issued earlier this year for the development of
 high-power electro-magnetic generators that interfere with human
 brain waves. Quote: "These electronic "skull-zappers" are designed to
 invade the mind and short-circuit its synapses -- the tiny electric
 impulses that control our behavior," says Dr. Emery Horvath, a
 professor of physics at Harvard University. "In the hands of
 government technicians, it may be used to disorient entire crowds,
 or to manipulate individuals into self-destructive acts. It's a
 terrifying weapon."
 "It is quite true that the government has no right to shoot or
 incinerated citizens resisting bureaucratic abuses of power," says
 Prof. Arno Roche of Columbia University. "But the use of mind
 altering electronic emissions may be even worse."
 "It's use does not just violate the law," he added. "It effectively 
 annuls every protection the Constitution provides for your people."
This is very similar to how the KGB assualted the U.S. embassy in Mascow 
as early as 1953.  During the height of the Cold War, the KGB aimed 
their high power microwave emitters at the U.S. embassy.  The 
result of the irradiation was the report of unusally large number of 
illnesses.  The cause of U.S. Ambassador Walter Stoessel's rare blood 
disease (very similar to leukemia) was attributed to his exposure to 
radiation during those years.  It is unfortunate, that groups of corrupted 
officers of the United States are mimicking the deceitful tactics of the 
KGB; but this time, the weapons are aimed at the US citizens--the American 
style political prisoners & this time the technologies being abused is far 
more advance.
Since this kind of weapon have been transferred to the agencies that 
operate within the United States and to be used on American people, it 
can no longer classified as "Non-Lethal Weapons."  Instead, it should be 
classified as the invisibl, noise-lesse murderous weapons that are facing 
U.S. civilians.
Why do I make such conclusion?  Let me explain it to you as below.
These weapons are called "non-lethal" based on comparison with 
other type of weapons (such as high explosive weapon, Nucler 
weapon,etc).  "Non-Lethal" weapon doesn't function like bomb or 
missiles by completely destroy the target. 
   However, it still can kill human beings in variety of ways.  This is 
analogous to shoot a person with a gun.  A person can either be 
killed or just injuried depending on where on the body the person is 
shot.  
   So, if the invisible (infrasound or radiation) wave weapons can be
called "Non-lethal weapons" inside the United States, then the guns should
also be called "non-lethal" weapons.
   We certainly cannot call the gun non-lethal nor can we 
called these invisible wave weapons as "non-lethal".  Privately, even 
the officers inside the Department of Denfense does not consider 
"non-lethal" weapons as non-lethal.  They call it "soft kill technology." 
I must emphasize that the internal United States is not a military 
battlefield.  We do not live in the cruel world of military battlefield 
and rarely need to spend human lives to bring about change inside 
our country.
Also, there's a very small possibilites of having missles fired at us or 
bombs dropped on us in our current society.  The most serious threat (the 
type weapon) challenging our society is only guns, pistols or at the 
very worst semi-automatic rifles if "non-lethal" weapons are not used.  
We, as a society, have had a long history of dealing with problems of 
guns and how it can be abused.  We have had enough time to develop laws to 
regulate the use of guns.  So, we can still live in security without the 
feeling of being threaten.   Most the citizens of United States feel free 
and safe if one didn't commit crime. 
However, since the "non-lethal" weapons have been used in the our 
society, it has secretly change the very nature which our freedom and 
safety is defined.
If you do not agree, I would like to explain why I make such conclusion:
The existing laws in our society only regulate the use of regular weapon 
(the weapons that we are familiar with like guns, knives, explosives, 
etc.).   
     However, the existing laws does not apply to the
invisible wave ("non-lethal") weapons because these invisible wave  
weapons do not operate in the same manner as the regular weapons.
"Non-Lethal" weapons emits invisible and noiseless radiation (or sound) 
waves to hurt, torture, and even kill people without leaving 
evidences of "foul play."  
     Victims cannot sue the abusers of the invisible wave weapons because
it leaves no evidences of external injuries by using infrasound
or radiation to damage internal organs, nervous system, and human brains.
( it can cause bodily disfunction, damage the nerve system and decrease
human intelligence.)  
    In order to bring about a hearing or court case today, you need to 
 satisfy at least two requirments. 
    The first requirments is eye witnesses to verify the crime.  
    The second requirment is the physical evidence of the crimes (external 
injuries, etc).
If the victims cannot offer either one of the above evidence, then their 
cases will be dismissed.
Let's review  in current society if the victims can satisfied the above 
requirments to bring about a hearing or court case against the abuse of 
invisible wave ("non-lethal") weapons.
The conclusion is no!  They cannot!  The radiation emitted from 
these "non-lethal" weapons is invisible.  Then, how can anyone claim to 
be the eye witness.  The only eye witness might be the criminals who have 
abused these weapons on innoncent American citizens.  But, these 
criminals definitely will not come forward to testify against 
themselves.   
Second, these weapons use noise-less sound (infrasound, ultrasound) or
radiation waves to  attack innoncent civilians, so it won't attract other
people's attention.  This further reduce chances of any witness.
So, no one including the victims themselves can prove that they saw these 
weapon used to directly attack the victims.  Also, there is no evidences 
of external injuries to support the victims' claims.
So, the victims cannot protect their rights nor can the current laws of 
United States protect the society from the abuse of these weapons.
So, these kind of weapons can be considered as criminal weapons because 
it can be used to commit crime and the officers who abuse it will not be 
held responsible by laws in current society.
People will feel threaten because victims will not be aware of these 
infrasound or radiation weapons existing around them until this weapons'
radiation or sound waves are shot at the victims' bodies.
Victims even can't figure out which direction the rediation waves came 
from because this weapon's weaves is invisible, noise-less (except the 
painful howling of the victims).  
Then, U.S. citizens cannot feel safe any more because this kind of weapons
leaves no trace evidences (no external injuries evidences). 
So, these invisible wave ("non-lethal") weapons (soft kill weapons) should
be considered as the most horrible, criminal and muderous weapons. 
Our United States citizens are used to live in non-threatening society, 
and we have never expect to deal with such kind of device which is in the 
hands of law enforcement agencies today.
On the other hands, if any corrupt officers dare to abuse their regular 
weapons (guns) on citizens, then we can easily sue the corrupt officers 
according to the laws and evidences.  The officers who abused the weapons 
will be held accountable by law when the officers is proven guilty by 
evidences and/or eye witness.
However,  this situation have completely change since the Nonlethal 
weapon was transfer to local law enforcement. 
Victims who have been tortured or hurt by these invisible wave weapons' 
abusers may not even aware of the existence of such kind of weapons in our 
society today.  How can victims protect their rights?   Since they can't 
see the infrasound, radiation waves of" Nonlethal weapon" come from, how
can they find the criminals who abuse the weapon?  And how can they have
the eye witness to see the physical attack process?  Sinse this weapon
leaves no external injuries evidence & no eye witness can exist in crime
scence how can victims offer obvious evidence to support their claim? 
   No! They can't do anything to against these crimes.  
    Fourmore, the most terrible thing is that the victims might even be 
accused as "mental problem person" by the Authorities if the victims 
dare to report or complain such kind cases to Authorities.  
   So the victims will be still victims who can't get any help from the 
law in current society and the criminals can still commit crime to 
the same victims because the criminals never be held by law.  This is 
the facts in our American current society.  It show us that Juastice is 
only words, the currupted officers have been above the law.
  Now, I would like to show you few facts as below.
   There are eight of such kind cases had been reported in the " Microwaves 
harassment & mind-control experimentation".   (See page 8, 9 on 
electronic survilliance project- Author Julianne Mckinney  December 1992)
(Attachment)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   One dividual (driven to extremes of stress by ongoing electronic 
harassment focusing on her children) killed one child in an effort to 
protect her from further pain.
   Another individual, during a telephone conversation, was told by an 
employee of a local power company that , if she value the lives of her 
children, she would  drop the her opposition to the company's 
installation of high power lines.  Since receiving that threat, the 
invidual 11-wear-old daughter has been reduced to extrrement of illness 
which cannot be diagnosed.    It's now also apparent to this invidual 
that her three-year-old son ids on the receiving end of externally 
induced auditory input. (DoE figures prominently in this case.)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------   
    The above informations proved that no place is safe when you live 
under the society with the threat of so called "Nonlethal weapon".   
So even when the children of the victims familiese living at home or 
satying at the hospital, they cannot avoid being hurt by the remotely 
controlled, invisible radiation of the "non-lethal" weapons.
The parents cannot do anything to protect their children.  One individual 
ended up killing one of her child to protect the child from further pains.
This kind situation only prove that the invisible wave ("Nonlethal") 
weapon have been combined with the survilliance system & network through
the whole nation.   
    So the invisible wave weapon abusers can focus infrasound, rediation
waves to hurt any people anywhere.   Then, the invisible wave
weapon of "Nonlethal weapon" used in our current society
cannot be called "non-lethal."  Instead, it should change its name to the 
invisible, noise-less, criminal muderous weapons"
The so called " Nonlethal weapon" are the subordinate product of EMR 
mind control technology.   So, sometime the Nonlethal weapon abusers 
might use microwaves frenquency to directly deliver spoken words to the 
victims to create the illusion that the victims are hearing things in 
their brains.  This tactic is used to drive the victims mad or confusing 
the victims themselves (this technology was developed by Dr. Sharp of Walter 
Reed Army Institute of Research in 1973).
This kind Nonlethal weapon have been transfered to local enforment agencies.
I would like to show you the information as below:
--------------------------------------------------
("New World Order E.L.F. Psychotronic Tyranny" by C. B. Baker published
  in Youth Action Newsletter issued in December 1994)
  The US & Soviet military officers have found that they have same 
interest in Mind control technology & coorperate each other.
...............
March 1993, the National institute of Justice (NIJ) issued a report 
titled: "NIJ Initiative On Less-Than-Lethal Weapons."
    The Department is now encouraging local and state police organizations 
to utilize Soviet-KGB psychotronic, electromagnetic and mind control 
weapons against their local citizenry. Targets for these KGB weapons 
include "domestic disturbances" meaning that mind-control devices are 
even to be utilized against family arguments.
......
The reports stated: "Short-term research will be completed TO ADOPT
MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES TO USE BY DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT...including
LASER, MICROWAVE, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC" WEAPONS.
In 1989, FULL DISCLOSURE MAGAZINE published the article, "REMOTE MIND
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY." The magazine reported that Los Alamos National
Laboratory "prepared a report for Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) setting forth that use of microwave radiation on 'terrorist' could
kill them, stun them, or at least modify their behavior by changing their
perceptions."
------------------------------------------------
  These weapon not only cause death (such as induce an artificial heart 
attack by using electromagnetic waves then cause victim to appear to have 
die of natural cause), but also leave no trace of evidences.  
So, it not only can hurt and kill victims, but it also can help corrupted 
officers to commit crimes without leaving evidences, then these 
corrupted officers will never be held responsible.
Based on the above facts and evidences, U.S. citizens will live
under the threat of the "non-lethal" weapon since the law enforcement
use it. 
We all know that our country stands as the symbol of "Land of the 
Free" to rest of the world.  This is because in the U.S., our citizens 
enjoy freedom and democracy without the threat and fear persecution.
Yet the existence of such invisible wave weapons in the hands of local law 
enforcement will cause threaten to us.   These weapon might be abused and 
have been abused by corrupted officers, it poses a horrible threat to the 
freedom and safety of all of us.   A true officers of a democractic 
government must do everything to protect and enforce the laws and our 
U.S. Constitution.  It is most unfortunate that there are some rotten 
apples that's spoiling the image of the local enforcement agenices.  It 
is even more unfortuante that there are no law in the book right now 
that can punish these criminals.  
    Since the so called "non-lethal" (invisible wave ) weapons are being
used inside the country, it offers the potentials to have the corrupted
officers unlimited chances to abuse "non-lethal" weapons to hurt or
torture anyone (victims).   This is because this weapons leaves no
evidences and the abusers are currently not being held accountable under
the law.   Perhaps, what is more frightening is, the fact that some of
the officers who are supposed to enforce the laws are actually violating
the laws if some really abused the weapons.   In these cases, the victims
who report their cases to local authorities might cause even more
retailations.
   It has already cause serious consequences in our country & need to be 
seriously dealt with by our representatives in Congress.  
   If you have ever read the report of "Microiwaves Harassment & Mind 
Control Experimentation" which was investigated & published by ANSA, 
you will find that these invisible wave weapon ( so called " Nonlethal
weapon") is indeed the invisible, criminal, murderous weapon when it is
used on American people in a covert way.
Now I would like to show you the facts in our society.
--------------------------------------------------------
 This part continue from the above "New world order ELF psychotionic 
tyranny by C.B. Baker.
............ 
Janet Morris described so-called "Non-Lethal electromagnetic technologies."
These technologies are already being directed against American citizens
in the GWEN system, in various ELF transmitters inside the U.S.A., and in
secret collaboration with the Russians in electromagnetic 
weather-engineering.
NEXUS reported on the U.S. development of "High Powered Microwave (HPM)
Projectiles." The U.S. Government has already obtained "a portable
microwave weapon."
Several U.S. high tech laboratories, with the help of Soviet scientist,
are working on very low frequency (VLF) weapons. NEXUS reported that
these U.S. high labs, including Col. Alexander Los Alamos Laboratory,
are working on "developing high power, VERY LOW FREQUENCY acoustic beam
weapons. They are also looking into methods of projecting high frequency
acoustic bullets."
"Very Low Frequency (VLF) sound (20-35 kHz), or low-frequency
radio-frequency modulation CAN CAUSE NAUSEA, VOMITING, AND ABDOMINAL
PAINS. Some Very Low Frequency sound generators, in certain frequency
ranges, CAN CAUSE DISRUPTION OF HUMAN ORGANS, and at high power levels
CAN CRUMBLE MASONARY."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The above information indeed prove the invisible wave weapon already
direct use on US citizen and they already hold the portable microwaves
weapon. 
  Fourmore, the abuser of the invisible wave weapon can slect more
secreat way to use the invible sound or radition waves to attack victims
when they are alone or go to sleep at night.   In this way, victims are
tortured  & the criminals try to show victims that they are helpless to
discourage them.
Furthermore, these kind weapon offer the weapon users unlimited chance to
commit crime and not being held responsible by the law.
Why?
Human nature are all the same.  There are good and bad traits in anyone.  
One of the human weakness is that people can't resist long term 
seduction.  These "non-lethal" weapons emits invisible and noiseless 
radiation waves, and it leaves no external injuries evidences.  So, these 
weapons can offer the abusers unlimited chances to satisfy their desire to 
commit crimes that is in everyone.
Since the abusers of these weapons are used to commit crime without being 
held responsible by law, their personalities are slowly changed and fall 
into the  desire trap to continously commit crime. 
They can't release themselves out to the commit crime desire trap although
they know their covert actions are evil.
Why I said this? I would like to make a example to explain it now.
We know some people have habitual stealing problem.  Some of them are 
rich.  They don't steal because that's how they support themselves, but 
they steal to satisfy their desires.  
This is because some of them have been brought up in a bad environment 
when they were children.  They like to cheat, enjoy cheating, and are 
used to cheating because it provides a special thrill.  A special thrill of 
getting away with something.  A thrill of being above the law and not 
being held responsible.  They steal because it offer a special 
satisfaction to them.  It is the desire to commit crime that push tehm to 
commit crime.
The invisible wave (" Nonlethal") weapon abusers trapped in similar
situation. They are officers so they hold powers.  But, the power
entrusted in their hands are almost absolute.  As the old saying goes,
"power corrupts and absolute power corrupt absolutely!"   
    When these abusers are used to do what they want without being held 
responsible by law, then they cannot live without these power.  Nor will 
they give up their powers.  They use these weapons to provide themselves 
thrills and "kicks":  To provide the thrills of being above the law!  
These above situation shows that some of invisible wave weapon abusers
must be mentally abnormal.
So, we must help them (the invisile wave weapon abusers) to release them
from the trap of seduction to commit crime and help the victims who are
suffering from the abuse of Nonlethal weapons.
The only way is to create new laws to regulate the invisible wave weapon
and stop theses kind of "Nonlethal" weapon being used in US before the law
can be passed.
That's why I want to point out that these invisible wave weapon 
cannot be allowed to used in our society because current society have 
no law to regulate it.
Since there is no law to regulate these weapon in current society,  
simply transfer these kind of weapon to current society should be considered 
as a consipracy or try use the whole society as the laoboratory of 
the invisible wave weapon.   The public will be the invisible wave weapon 
testing subjects (guinea pigs).   People are not the volunteers in 
the whole experiments. Who should be responble to such illegal actions?
   We American people live in a freedom & democracy country.   However, such 
kind important decisions didn't get our attention which suddenly push our 
people from the land of free into an unexpected experimentation of the 
whole society.
Why don't they ask our Congress to make new law to regulte these kind of 
weapon before the "non-lethal" weapons are transferred to local agencies?!   
   Right now our public people have no law to protect us from the injuries 
of the "Nonlethal weapon".   
Let's review the facts of how the authorities react when victims report 
being injuried by "non-lethal" weapons.
  * The FBI spokesman do acknowledge that they have received large 
number of requests for asistance from "persons" who believe that they 
are being "zapped by radio waves" and/or " are hearing voices"... (See page 
10 on Microwaves Harassment & Mind Control Experimentation.----1992 December)   
Unfortunately according to above report, these victims are only treated as " 
Mental problem persons" then their case are dismissed.
According above report, It did prove that public people are under 
threaten of these Nonlethal weapon & there is no way to get protection
from current law.  ( The explanation of " zapped by waves" or "are hearing 
voices" , please see the article of " The American Style Political 
Prisoners".) 
 If we cannot change the situation right now then the result will be 
horrible.  
THe invisible wave ("Nonlethal") weapon victims will be tortured
forever or treated as a "mental problem persosn" by the law enforcement
agence.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's live in order to eliminate their opponents or enemies 
  secretly (die as if natural cause).  
  This objective has been secretly carried out since the late of 1970s 
  in Taiwan (At that time they simply use the microwave beam or low 
  radio frequency modulation).
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries.
  Accusing other as insane without evidence is the "trademark" of mind
  control organization.
  (If any law enforcement officer declare anone as "insane" but cannot
  be accepted by social security department to put in the wealfare progrm,
  then it only represent a kind of political supression or false
  accusing).
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article <327FD551.4A31@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
kenneth paul collins  writes:
> Please, what are "p-adics"?
In article 
Dan Razvan Ghica  writes:
> It would be interesting if Archimedes Plutonium would steer his postings
> away from anti-mathematical-establishment conspiration-theory-esque
> rantings and tell us more about these mysterious p-adics, their fine
> properties and their potential impact on life from mathematics and physics
> to, say, accounting. 
In article 
Le Compte de Beaudrap  writes:
> 	Now why didn't I think of this? Arch, would it be possible to 
> please talk more about p-adics and less about how they will cause the 
> collapse of mathematics? Serious request, here: I don't mean to be snide 
> or sarcastic. Tell us about them.
  I do not have time for another p-adic dialogue now. My mind has to
stay concentrated on present ongoing agenda. However, I can repost my
entire first dialogue on p-adics. As I so often stated, the math
literature is a failure in the teaching of what p-adics are. There
should be a Schaum's type of basic outline of what they are so that
even a good High School student can learn them. The reason for this is
because noone ever realized the importance of Naturals = p-adics =
Infinite Integers. Until I came along in 1993, all math people thought
that p-adics were a mere exotica, an extension exotica of integers,
failing to realize and grasp that p-adics were the Naturals all along.
MAY 1993
-------------------------------------------------------------
	On 3May I argued with a Princeton U. Prof. J. H. Conway in the math
lounge around 1545 before he was going to give his lecture. Argue over
my proof of the countable Reals. 
	On 4May  I had the listing and was going to return to the Math lounge
at 15:30 hour and show Prof. Conway. My listing though will have a new
math concept, in fact, new numbers which I call infinite integers.  I
was sure that he would argue against them. What are the chances of
something new being accepted immediately? It took a long time for the
community of math majors to accept CantorÕs fake proof that the Reals
are uncountable.
------------------------------------------------------------
	PUBLISHED IN THE DARTMOUTH  11MAY1993
	Replying to Prof. J.H. Conway who argued against my proof published in
The Dartmouth  5Apr0053. Saying that I could not countably list the
Reals in the closed interval [.1,1], nor tell what Real in that
interval is matched with say the positive integer 500 or 501.
	Cantor's false proof for uncountable Reals is this:
where the digits b1 then c2 then d3 and so on endlessly are changed,
allegedly purporting to materialize a new Real not accounted for in the
original list. Thus one of the steps of the proof argument is a logical
contradiction-- both A and not A, specifically, an end to the
endlessness, yielding Cantor's false conclusion that the Reals in
[.1,1] are uncountable.
	This is my countable listing of the Reals in [.1,1] as follows:
1 «1  
10 «.10   
110 «.110   
120 «.120   
.            .
.            .
50 «.50   
.            .
.            .
	The matching of any Real in [.1,1] is the positive integer at which
the repeating of zeros starts. An underlined zero means endless
repetition of zeros. So I do not even need to use 500 I have plenty of
positive integers, nor do I need 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9. Then 501 matches
with .5010 . What do I match .3 or (pi-3) which is .14159. . . in my
list. Again I drop the decimal point and this is new in mathematics. I
match .3 with the infinite positive integer 333. And for the irrational
number, the truncated pi of .14159. . . is matched with the infinite
positive integer 14159. . . . Applying the same scheme for truncated e
of (e-2).
	Infinite integers are new in mathematics, just as irrational numbers
were new when the Pythagoreans first discovered them. And they took a
very long time to get used to. Operations of add, subtract, multiply
and divide are easily enough worked-out. Multiplying 22  by the finite
integer 4 yields 88 . Adding, 6666 + 3333 = 9999 .
	Thus Cantor's alleged proof using Cantor diagonalization disappears,
for in the instant someone claims to manufacture a new Real, then it is
uniquely matched by its infinite positive integer. My matching above is
a mixture of both finite and infinite positive integers but I could
just as well use only infinite positive integers in my matchings. 
	Whenever a math professor balks about infinite positive integers, turn
the onus around, and ask him to immediately show you an aleph94 set.
Oops! What? He cannot show you that. Why of course not for alephs are
math fictions, funnier than science fiction because math fictions have
no partial truth value.  He can never give you a clear picture of the
transfinite number aleph94. Compare aleph94 with the picture of the
infinite integer 9494 or any other infinite integer. Mathmunchkin
professors would rather stare through the looking glass at Alice in
Wonderland than to embarrassingly admit that Cantor's proof was a fake
and that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) was a complete chimera. So it is
not surprizing that many of the Fields Prizes were mistakes-- Cohen on
CH; Smale and Freedman (see my proof of the Poincarˇ Conjecture, The D
18Nov0051). Mistakes just as in the Nobel Physics Prize mistakes--1)
Glashow Weinberg Salam, since radioactivity is a quantum dual force to
electromagnetism; 2) Chandrasekhar, since gravitational collapse to the
size of the order of the Compton wavelength is a violation of the
uncertainty principle; 3) Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer in BCS
superconductivity, never before in the history of physics has so little
of an explanation been proffered and such a large prize given.  BCS
traders did a one-upsmanship on the bead traders for Manhattan.  Why so
many math prize mistakes? Because it is such a "small clubhouse
communityÓ, and worst yet it has no experimental evidence like in
physics to fall back on.  	
	Notice that in the last two years the Nobel Physics Prizes were
awarded in experimental physics.  The reason is that the committee is
well aware of the Plutonium Atom Totality-- PU theory. And they are
very nervous. Cautiously, the committee is steering on the safe side by
awarding only experimental physics.
	Infinite integers is for the future for I well realize that in this
present year 0053, the math community is retarded. The year 0000 is the
year of the nucleosynthesis and discovery of our Maker, a plutonium
atom. The old calendar is now scrapped as unscientific, as unscientific
as the measurement of length by the foot of some English King.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Subject: Re: Cantor Corrected, A proof that the Reals are Countable
Message-ID: 
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
References: 
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 23:30:25 GMT
Lines: 23
        Infinite integers--that is the answer to uniquely matching
every Real in the interval (.1,1). Just drop the decimal point on the
Real in that interval you are looking at and that is an infinite
integer. There, all the Reals in that interval are matched uniquely by
an infinite integer. The alternative is to write Cantor's diagonal and
hope and pray that no student raises his/her hand and says "But in
order to manufacture that "supposed new Real " not in the original list
you had to STOP the endlessness of the positive finite integers. You
had to end endlessness which is a contradiction scooting unto a false
conclusion that the Reals are nondenumerable."
	Will present day teachers stay happy for long with the situation that
only in Cantor's proof is it acceptable to have a contradiction within
the body of the proof. But any other math proof a contradiction is
verboten. Did anyone of the quarrelsome sect to my original posting ask
themselves that perhaps they had best take another look at Cantor's
proof. That the proof may have cracks in it after all? Is the notion of
various different types of infinity intuitive? Not to me, for it just
means never ending. How can there be two different types of never
ending? What is the opposite two types of nothing? Ending endlessness
in the body of a proof is a contradiction. Cantor diagonal is great on
any finite set because it naturally stops and so there is no self
contradiction but creating a new number by halting the endless is a
logical contradiction.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Cantor Corrected, A proof that the Reals are
Message-ID: <1993Aug20.014006.27459@husc14.harvard.edu>
From: kubo@germain.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo)
Date: 20 Aug 93 01:40:05 EDT
References: 
<25166s$92m@paperboy.osf.org>
 
Organization: Dept.  of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 30
In article 
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <25166s$92m@paperboy.osf.org> karl@dme3.osf.org (Karl >Heuer) writes:
>
>> These are well-defined. It should be obvious how to add and 
>> subtract and multiply them; division is a little trickier.
>
>Karl I please need your help, you have shown the way. Please tell me >how to deal with division? It escapes me.
(1) Unless you add a "decimal point" to your system (but so that any   
      number has only a finite number of digits to the right of the 
      point), you can't divide by every "infinite integer". For
example, 
      you can't divide by 10. Even if you add the decimal point there  
      are some complications.
(2) The inverse of  (1-x),   is (formally) the infinite sum 1 + x + x^2
+ 
      x^3 + . . .   Try this with x=10 to see how to get 1/9 and -1/9. 
      Then try to generalize from there.
(3) The number system you are (re)inventing is called the "10-adic 
      integers". The version with decimal point, where you can also 
      divide by any nonzero number, is called "Q_2 x Q_5".
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Subject: Re: 1 IS THE ONLY ODD PERFECT NUMBER PROOF
Message-ID: 
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
References: 
<2515i0$91c@paperboy.osf.org> 
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 03:46:21 GMT
Lines: 7
       Dear Karl,
      You showed above how to make the ordinary finite integers a
special case of infinite integers (Re: Cantor Corrected). I do not know
if you review old files so I ask here. You mentioned in there "division
is a little trickier". Please Karl, I still do not see how to get
division. Please help. Thanks

El Lobo con Moto wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, David Hultgren wrote:
> 
> > Ash wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > If You are a troll, this is getting a bit stale please stop...
> >
> > otherwise...
> >
> > 1. State Your sources (creationist pamplettes doesnt count)!
> >
> > 2. Show us the amazing calculation You talk about.
> >
> > My guess is that (if You are for real and not a troll), You vagely
> > remember something from a creationist pamplette or something from some
> > religious creationist book...
> >
> > DH.
I have seen several creationist calculation for the probability of
simple amino-acid formation, and they come up with a VERY high
improbibility.  These calculations were done assuming no or little
particle interation.  The situation they are calculation is akin to the
thermodynamics problem of computing the probability of all the gass
atoms in the room collecting in a pile on the floor.  For an ideal
non-interating gas this is infinitesimal, but nothing is ideal in the
real world.  The gas can collect in a pile on the floor if you cool it
enough.  An ideal gas should NEVER liguify or crystalize, but we know it
does.  This is because of patricle interactions.  I would like to see a
creationist calculate the probability of ice forming.  I suspect by
their math it should never form.
  It is true that we do not know how to properly calculate the
propability of abiogenisis, but that is just a matter of studying
physical chemistry (no small job).  I am shure abiogenisis was not a
"ramdom" event but a energetically favored event in a special
environment.  We are already making progress in the chemistry of self
assembling compounds.  Various simple compounds can "reproduce" using
unique surfaces as templets.  I have no doubt that in 10 to 20 years we
will be able to work with self organizing,assempling systems of the
order of complexity needed to be considered living. The job will then be
to evaluate the likleyhood of the "special" conditions being present in
the early Earth.  I have read that various clays and minerals can be
used to catalyze self assempling systems.  Any argument against
abiogenisis using probability better properly account for existing order
and phase transitions; They better be exaustive tomes of chemistry and
Quantum Physics.
Wayne Shanks