Newsgroup sci.physics 208312

Directory

when cold water was poured into a plastic cup,
condensation formed on the outside. However
it did not cover the whole surface. Rather it formed
in a pattern that looked like wood grain. Pleas explain.

central.tiac.net> <3280BDF8.E30@rmb.co.za> 
 <32835389.114D@rmb.co.za>  <01bbceb4$e8daa920$07df1ac4@hardy.icon.co.za>  <3289
A00E.3A0C@rmb.co.za>  <01bbd1a8$cb862e20$34df1ac4@hardy.icon.co.za>
Distribution: 
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103  (was: I know that!)
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,rec.arts.books,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Followup-To: alt.postmodern,talk.origins,sci.skeptic,rec.arts.books,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
References: <55aefe$65i@netnews.upenn.edu> <3279AF89.ED4@rmb.co.za> <55d6io$qst@netnews.upenn.edu> <55g3hb$1jiq@uni.library.ucla.edu> <327DA83F.42C9@rmb.co.za> <55l1kj$4oc@netnews.upenn.edu> <01bbcaa4$2914d8e0$LocalHost@hardy.icon.co.za> <55n8jf$ler@news-
central.tiac.net> <3280BDF8.E30@rmb.co.za>  <32835389.114D@rmb.co.za>  <01bbceb4$e8daa920$07df1ac4@hardy.icon.co.za>  <3289
A00E.3A0C@rmb.co.za>  <01bbd1a8$cb862e20$34df1ac4@hardy.icon.co.za>
Distribution: 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3]
Hardy Hulley (hardy@icon.co.za) wrote:
: Hardy:
: >> Falsifying my claim entails finding an interpretation for Derrida's
: >> remark which is both reasonable and true. 
: moggin:
: >    No, it requires demonstrating that his comment isn't necessarily
: > meaningless or false.  And that's exactly what I did.  Case closed.  Of
: > course it still _might_ be either one; so might any statement -- if
: > you claim it is, you'll have to prove your point.
: I really don't expect you to possess the intellectual agility to grasp
: this, but I'll state it for the record, anyway. If A stands for the
: universal quantifier and E stands for the existential quantifier, then
: falsification of some statement A(x)P(x) is equivalent to a proof of
: ~A(x)P(x). This is, in turn, is equivalent to establishing E(x)~P(x). To do
: this, you need to locate some c, such that ~P(c).
: Now, you may read my hypothesis concerning Derrida's remark as: "For all
: reasonable interpretations x, Derrida's remark is false". Consequently, by
: the above, you are required to locate some reasonable interpretation c,
: such that Derrida's remark is not false (ie. true).
: Needless to say, you haven't offered any reasonable interpretation of
: Derrida's comments. Furthermore, by your own admission, even the inane
: possibility you did offer doesn't render Derrida correct in any obvious
: way. Perhaps you should obtain an education before attempting to continue
: this dialogue.
Perhaps you should read the other threads more carefully; as far as I can 
see, both Richard Harter and Mati Meron acknowledged that Derrida's 
remark makes fine sense within the context of his talk (which you may or 
may not have read -- we're still waiting for a clear statement on this 
matter); therefore, you're hypothesis above is falsified if you accept 
RH's and MM's reason to be sufficient.
How's your reading of "Cogito" coming along, btw?
Silke
: Cheers,
: Hardy
Hardy Hulley (hardy@icon.co.za) wrote:
: Hardy:
: >> Falsifying my claim entails finding an interpretation for Derrida's
: >> remark which is both reasonable and true. 
: moggin:
: >    No, it requires demonstrating that his comment isn't necessarily
: > meaningless or false.  And that's exactly what I did.  Case closed.  Of
: > course it still _might_ be either one; so might any statement -- if
: > you claim it is, you'll have to prove your point.
: I really don't expect you to possess the intellectual agility to grasp
: this, but I'll state it for the record, anyway. If A stands for the
: universal quantifier and E stands for the existential quantifier, then
: falsification of some statement A(x)P(x) is equivalent to a proof of
: ~A(x)P(x). This is, in turn, is equivalent to establishing E(x)~P(x). To do
: this, you need to locate some c, such that ~P(c).
: Now, you may read my hypothesis concerning Derrida's remark as: "For all
: reasonable interpretations x, Derrida's remark is false". Consequently, by
: the above, you are required to locate some reasonable interpretation c,
: such that Derrida's remark is not false (ie. true).
: Needless to say, you haven't offered any reasonable interpretation of
: Derrida's comments. Furthermore, by your own admission, even the inane
: possibility you did offer doesn't render Derrida correct in any obvious
: way. Perhaps you should obtain an education before attempting to continue
: this dialogue.
: Cheers,
: Hardy

In article <328430E9.1031@warwick.net>,
Eric Kniffin   wrote:
>Christopher Michael Jones wrote:
>> Besides,
>> there is also the possiblity that none of this matters anyway.
>
>That's for sure.
>
>> If the
>> universe is really a "multiple minds / multiple reality" universe, then
>> all these things can happen (including the hard encounter / "paradox")
>> without a paradox acutally occuring.
>
>Well, I was thinking of possibility: that time travel only exists in comic 
>books and movies.
I won't give any kind of scientific hypothesis, but my personal belief,
based on little more than faith, is that time travel isn't possible.
Further, if time travel is possible, the universe finds a way to neatly
avoid paradoxes, or we get thrust into seperate timelines. Why? Because if
time travel did exist, we'd be seeing people come back all the time. 
>I can't remember if I posted this or emailed it to someone.  But I'd like to 
>know why anyone thinks that time travel is possible.  I know that Einstein 
>theorized that if we travel REALLY fast, it will seem like we were traveling 
>for a short time, but when we stop we will find that the rest of the world 
>has experienced a much greater time.  I suppose that the faster we travel, 
>the greater the time difference will be.  But how has this theory been 
>tested?  (I've only heard of this theory.  I dont know why Einstein thought 
>this would happen.  I just don't know anything about this stuff.)
I was told by a high school physics instructor (a very bright man,
incidentally) that, quote, "They tested this. They took two clocks, one on
the ground, and put the other in a 747 and flew it around the world a couple
of times. After 6 or 8 times around, there was a microsecond difference or
so in the clocks." He might have been making up that anecdote to get the
point across, though.
I also read years ago that they "proved" time dilation by computing the
expected life of the mu meson. Mu mesons are created in the upper
atmosphere, and have a short life -- so short, in fact, that they shouldn't
hit sea level. But they detected them here, and it happens that the actual
life, as perceived by us, coincides with what the time dilation theory 
predicts.
>
>But what I don't understand is how people decided that, because of that 
>theory, we must be able to go forward and backward in time.  That's quite a 
>bit different.  I mean WAY different.  Is there another theory, based on 
>Einstein's, that explains this?  (In which case, it's a theory based on a 
>theory, not a theory based on fact.)  Is the other theory completely 
>unrelated to Einstein's?  Who is the author of this other theory?
I think what you're refering to is the exploitation of time dilation for
purposes of manipulating time. If I go at a sufficiently large velocity,
then there's a huge disparity between my perceived time and the time in the
inertial frame that, say, Earth would be in. Therefore, I could, if I were
to go fast enough I could move in such a way that when I slowed, hundreds or
thousands of years would have passed on Earth.
As for the backwards time travel thing, I believe people are assuming that
since the time dilation follows a particular curve, and since Einstein
theorized that time "stops" when you're at c, the natural progression is for
time to regress when one is travelling in excess of c. In the standard time
dilation equation we're taught in school, travelling in excess of c gets you
an imaginary result.
Folks correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm a bit rusty.

throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>::: Once this has been answered, one can see that absolute clock
>::: readings cause this,
>:: I coulda swore relative coordinate axes cause it. 
>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones)
>: WHAT causes the "relative coord.  axes"?
>Hmmm?  What do you mean "what causes them"?
>Do you mean, you really don't know what causes a line drawn on paper
>to be at a different angle than another line?  You really think
>there needs to be an "absolute" or "observer independent" axis-direction,
>so that lines drawn on paper have relative angles between them?
>--
>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
>               throopw@cisco.com
No, I mean "What causes SRT observers to have different coord. axes?"

dcs2e@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Christopher Swanson) writes:
>brian artese  writes:
>> Hardy Hulley wrote:
>> 
>> > If you bothered to read what I wrote before you started
>> > hyperventilating, you will note that it is quite consistent with your
>> > little rave. 
>> 
>> No... Your characterization claimed that the 'first principle' of 
>> deconstruction was that an author's text obscures some 
>> already-established thing called 'intent.'  Writers like Derrida or de 
>> Man would never propose such a naive schema.
>> 
>> Why naive?  Let me answer this way:  Let's say we have an author with 
>> something to say; let's say he sits and writes it down.  It 'worked' -- 
>that is, he succeeded in writing down what he had to say.  Let's say he 
>I believe THAT's yer problem.  What is this "success"?
>> publishes this writing and you and I read it.  We talk about the text, 
>> and perhaps at some point you say, 'I know what this author means.'  
>> Another way to say that is, 'I know what this author means to say,' or 
>> 'I know what this author intends to say.'
>> 
>> Such a statement does not merely claim to have read the actual words of 
>> the author, to which we all have access.  The statement does not simply 
>> point to *what* the text says; it claims to have apprehended something 
>> else:  the 'intent' of the author.  Somewhere along the line something 
>> went wrong -- why did 'intent' get divorced from the text itself?  
>> Didn't we establish that the author successfully wrote down what he had 
>> to say?
>> 
>> The point is:  If there really exists something called 'intent' that is 
>> *distinct* from the actual text -- and if that intent is communicable 
>> and therefore articulatable -- *why didn't the author simply write down 
>> _that_ articulation instead?*
>> 
>> In other words:  it's not deconstruction that claims that there is a 
>> 'problem' with communicating *what* one has to say; it's not 
>> deconstruction that has posited the text as an 'interference' to 
>> communication; what causes the 'problem' is this goblin called 'intent' 
>> that humanists feel so compelled to protect.
>> 
>> By throwing out 'intent' deconstruction doesn't _cause_ a problem 
>> regarding communication -- it obviates one.
>> 
>> -- brian
Of course there was something called intent that was not part of the text.
That something is what we say the author had...he intended to
do this or that and the text may represent his intention ...and more.
Banish poor "intention" and you banish the world and this makes
this and that more comfortable ... It's clear, for example, that Joyce
intended this or that (use 115 or so rhetorical tropes in "Aeolus" for
example).  Let look who will.
And did you intend "obviate?"  

briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote[in part]:
>>
>>>Your use of absolute above would truly be hyperbolic time in the sense that 
>>>events at the same absolute time from the origin would occupy a hyperboloid,
>>>rather than a plane.  I will let you reconsider this one.
>>
>>But there's no proper time reading by a real clock.
>You just allowed the definition of proper time to be the reading of a real 
>clock that traveled uniformly between the events.  Now you deny it.
Note the context -- "hyperbolic time"
In this case the clock (a real one) cannot span the events to give us
a reading of its proper time for the events.

devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote[in part]:

Please see new thread, 
"Brian Jones' universe (was:its still....)"

devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote[in part]:

Please see new thread, 
"Brian Jones' universe (was:its still....)"

In article ,
moggin  wrote:
>
>     .......................-- as I've mentioned before, Newton
>imported his concept of action-at-a-distance to physics from his
>studies in hermetic philosophy (read: religious mysticism). 
What gives you this idea, I wonder? Are you just making it up?
Cajori says:
	The doctrine of "action at a distance" has been wrongly
	ascribed to Newton. It is more properly due to Cotes ...
He also supplies the famous quote where Newton calls action-
at-a-distance,
	 ... so great an absurdity that I believe no man,
	who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty
	of thinking, can ever fall into it."
Lew Mammel, Jr.

	Below are 2 replies I received by e-mail  that state that measuring
the difference of Time 1E-5s Versus 1.4E-5s for the two crystals
5 cm by 1.5 cm as easy to test.  Even  5 mm by 1.5 mm crystals
could be easily tested, if such crystals were sold commercially.
	Thanks again to Mr. Don Taylor for his imput below that could
decide how energy and sound may travel through metal
atom structures, if no one out their knows already.
	Does anyone know if sound goes in straight lines or if it zig-zags 
from atom bond to atom bond when it moves perpendicular to the square
arranged atoms in their layers?  Does anyone know?
	Is anyone interested in doing the experiment to find out?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
First e-mail reply follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don Taylor 
>
>           For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
>      Interested In Exploring Math, Science And Ethics
>    Through Collaboration For Enrichment And Achievement.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>       Can the experiment be made that measures the time sound
> travels 5 centimeters in a single aluminum crystal which can
> distinguish the prediction that it takes 1E-5 seconds
> (1/100,000 s) for a crystal oriented (110) and 1.4E-5 s
> for a crystal oriented (100) as shown below.
...
It would certainly be easy to make such a measurement.
Take any two channel oscilloscope with better than say 10Mhz bandwidth and DC
coupling.
Take any square wave signal generator and produce good quality square waves at
oh, say 1000Hz.  You want good clean rising edges on this.
Bond a piezo transducer to the front of each of your crystals and drive both
of the transducers with the square wave.  (Depending on the generator you may
need to match the impedance of the generator to the relatively low impedance
of the transducers.)
Similarly bond a piezo transducer to the back of each of your crystals and
use any reasonable scope probes to pick up these signals.
Trigger the scope on the rising edge of the square wave.  Set up the
sensitivity, offset, trigger level, etc. on the scope and display both
channels.  About 2 microseconds/div should display the leading edge of the
square wave and both received pulses on the back face.  Push your holdoff
out so you get consistent clean triggering and you should see your two
transit times cleanly displayed one above the other.
Now, does sound actually behave the way you predict it does in aluminum,
that I can't tell you.
>       If this above experiment is warranted, and if the
> difference in times is measurable, then the purchase of the
> 2 aluminum crystals (5 cm by 1.5 cm each) needed to do the
> experiment is about $1450 for each oriented single crystal.
And it sounds like your probably should know this before making an order ;}
(if all this description of oscilloscopes is hazy, show the description to
anyone over in the electronics department and see what they think.  But I
think that trying to show on a scope tube the difference between 10 and
and 14 microseconds ***under controlled conditions*** is a piece of cake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second e-mail reply follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, David Kaufman wrote:
>       If you don't object, I intend to post this reply of yours
> below and give you full credit for it.
I don't really care.  I don't need any credit for it, but it is up
to you.  If you were to approach almost anyone in an electronics
department and ask them the same question I would think you would
get the same answer.
>       Thanks again for your valuable information. I would also be
> interested in knowing just what are the limits for this kind of
> measurement difference. For example, could a 5 mm by 1.5 mm crystal pair
> be tested to show a difference between 1 and 1.4 microsecond?
There are a variety of limits involved here.
One is the oscilloscope used.  Relatively inexpensive oscilloscopes,
say costing $1000-$3000 could easily make this measurement and probably
make measurements between 1 and 1.05 microseconds fairly easily.  Good
laboratory quality oscilloscopes costing an order of magnitude more
money could make far more precise and accurate measurements.
Another is the characteristics of the transducers used to couple the
signal into and out of the crystals.  You want these to respond in a
consistent manner to each of tens of thousands of pulses into and out
of the crystal with timing that does not vary by more than a few percent
of what you are trying to see.  Thus the "bandwidth" of the transducers
is an issue and the bonding of the transducers to the crystal will be
important.  A carefully applied thin layer of adhesive will probably
do.
Another is the quality and reliability of the signal source used to put
the pulses into the crystal.  You would want this to have a very consistent
shape of the leading edge of the waveform.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion:
	Thanks again to Mr. Don Taylor for his imput that could
decide how energy and sound may travel through metal
atom structures, if no one out their knows already.
	Does anyone know if sound goes in straight lines or if it zig-zags 
from atom bond to atom bond when it moves perpendicular to the square
arranged atoms in their layers?  Does anyone know?
	Is anyone interested in doing the experiment to find out?
David Kaufman (davk@netcom.com) wrote:
:           For K-12 Students, Teachers And Others
:      Interested In Exploring Math, Science And Ethics
:    Through Collaboration For Enrichment And Achievement.
: ------------------------------------------------------------
: 	Can the experiment be made that measures the time sound
: travels 5 centimeters in a single aluminum crystal which can
: distinguish the prediction that it takes 1E-5 seconds 
: (1/100,000 s) for a crystal oriented (110) and 1.4E-5 s 
: for a crystal oriented (100) as shown below.
: 	Face Centered Cubic (FCC) Structure
:               /      \ /      \ /
:              O    O   O    O   O                     O
:             /  \     /  \     /  \                  /  \
:            /    \   /    \   /    \                /    \
:           /      \ /      \ /      \              /      \
:    Hit-->O   O    O   O    O   O    O Straight-->O   O    O
:    Atom  |\      /|\      /|\      /| Path       |\      /|
:          | \    / | \    / | \    / |            | \    / |
:          |  \  /  |  \  /  |  \  /  |            |  \  /  |
:          |   O    |   O    |   O    |            |   O    |
:          |   |    |   |    |   |    |            |   |    |
:          | O | O  | O | O  | O | O  |            | O | O  |
:          |   |    |   |    |   |    |            |   |    |
:          O   |O   O   |O   O   |O   O            O   |O   O
:           \  |   / \  |   / \  |   /              \  |   /
:          | \ |  /   \ |  /   \ |  /                \ |  / |
:          |  \| /     \| /     \| /                  \| /  |
:          |   O        O        O                     O    |
:          |                                                |
:          |<---------------------------------------------->|
:          |   5 Cm Single FCC Crystal Oriented (110)   |
:          I inferred this orientation needed, as (110) 
:                Please correct me, if necessary.
: Note: Atoms O in adjacent cube faces are adjacent atoms
:       bonded together also in a straight line from one
:       end of the 5 centimeter crystal to the other end.
: 	For aluminum, sound travels about 5000 meters per 
: second. Thus for a 5 centimeter (5/100 m) piece of 
: aluminum (as oriented above) it would require 1E-5 seconds 
: for sound to move in a straight line from atom bond to atom 
: bond at one end of the single crystal to the other end 
: calculated as follows.
:        s       5 m        1  
:     --------  ---  =  ----------- s = 1E-5 s 
:     5000 m    100      100,000
: 	Below is an aluminum crystal oriented (100), so 
: that if energy flows from adjacent atom to adjacent atom, 
: the sound will travel in a zig-zag direction. 
: 	The extra distance traveled in a zig-zag path is the 
: square root of 2 times the straight (direct) distance D, or 
: 2^.5 D = 1.414 D. 
: 	Thus the time to travel 5 cm in a zig-zag path is 
: 1.414E-5 seconds versus 1E-5 s for the straight path.
:            O________O________O________O         O________O
:            /        /        /        /|        /        /|
:           /   O    /   O    /   O    / |       /   O    / |
:          /        /        /        /  |      /        /  |
:   Hit-->O_______O/_______O/_______O/   |  -->O_______O/   |
:   Atom  |\     / |\     / |\     / | O | Path|\     / | O |
:         | \   /  | \   /  | \   /  |   /O    | \   /  |   /O
: Zig-zag |  \O/   |  \O/   |  \O/   |  /      |  \O/   |  /
:   Path  |        |        |        | /       |        | / 
:         |________|________|________|/        |________|/  
:         O        O        O        O         O        O   
:         |                                             |
:         |<------------------------------------------->|
:         | 5 Cm Single FCC Crystal Oriented (100)  |
:         I inferred this orientation needed, as (100) 
:                Please correct me, if necessary.
: Note: Atom adjacent bonds go from corner atom O to face
:       centered atom O.
: Remember: The above is only a prediction of how energy flows
:           in face-centered cubic (FCC) structures.
:           An alternate view is that energy will flow in a 
:           straight line also in the (100) oriented 
:           crystal rather than a zig-zag fashion as 
:           predicted.
:           What's your view and why?
: 	The problem is can the difference in time (for the 
: experiment outlined above) be detected to settle this 
: question of how energy and sound flows in atom structures.
: 	Does anyone know?
: Note: Their is also a straight path in the (100) oriented 
:       crystal. However, since the 5 cm long crystal is only 
:       1.5 cm wide, the straight path only reaches 1.5 cm 
:       along the 5 cm length. Therefore, energy traveling 
:       along this straight must also zig-zag the same 
:       distance to reach the end of the 5 cm sound path.
: 	If this above experiment is warranted, and if the 
: difference in times is measurable, then the purchase of the 
: 2 aluminum crystals (5 cm by 1.5 cm each) needed to do the 
: experiment is about $1450 for each oriented single crystal.
: Below between the 2 dashed lines is a repeat of the above 
: but from another perspective.
: ------------------------------------------------------------
: 	Does sound (or energy into the wall) travel like a 
: sphere from a hit wall atom?  Or does it travel from atom 
: bond to atom bond in straight lines in one direction, but at
: 45 degrees to this straight line direction, does sound 
: travel in a zig-zag manner as shown in the figure below?
: 	All numbers and letters in the figure below are atoms 
: in the face of cubes. Adjacent faces contain adjacent atoms
: that are bonded together.  
: 	Note the same bond to bond distance traveled of 2 paths
: from H the hit atom. But the overall distance traveled is 
: different for each path as follows:
:      ___________________________ 
:     /|       /|       /|       /|
:    / |  1   / |  3   / |  5   / |
:   /__|_____/__|_____/__|_____/  |
:   | H|_ _ _|_2|_ _ _|_4|_ _ _|_6| In Path H-1-2-3-4-5-6
:   |  /     |  |     |  /     |  / Energy from H Moves
:   | /   A  | /|     | /|     | /  6 Bond Lengths = 6 d.
:   |/_______|/_|_____|/_|_____|/    
:            | B|_ _ _|_ |          But distance if traveled
:            |  /     |  /          in a straight line from
:            | /   C  | /|          H to 6 = 3 (2)^.5 d 
:            |/_ _____|/ |          
:                     | D|_ _ _ _ _
:                     |  /        /| In Path H-A-B-C-D-E-F
:                     | /   E    / | Energy from H Moves
:                     |/_______ /  | 6 Bond Lengths = 6 d
:                               | F| But In A Straight line.
:                               |  /
:                               | /
:                               |/
: 	Can the difference in the time sound travels in the
: 2 paths above be detected? 
: 	If such a difference in the time sound travels were
: detected, it would prove that sound travels from bond to 
: bond in a zig-zag fashion. 
: 	Also the atoms in the crystal could be oriented because
: travel perpendicular to the square layer section takes 41.4%
: longer for sound to travel than the shortest straight line 
: path at a 45 degree angle to the square layers.
: ------------------------------------------------------------
: Thanks for joining this undertaking.
: 	Good luck on this exciting adventure to find useful 
: projects to explore and the tools to empower and to succeed 
: with.
: 	I offer this post to continue a useful discussion on 
: many valuable ideas about atoms that could become meaningful
: projects for students and others to undertake.
: ____________________________________________________________
:   Thanks to those who have offered constructive criticism.
:     
:              C by David Kaufman, Nov. 11, 1996
:                   Founder of the Cube Club
:    For Collaborative Math, Science and Ethics Excellence.
:          Be Good, Do Good, Be One, and Then Go Jolly.
:                  What else is there to do? 
: -- 
:                                              davk@netcom.com
-- 
                                             davk@netcom.com

moggin@mindspring.com (moggin) wrote:
>cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>:Who was that masked man from Crete, anyway?
>   Ask him and he'll tell you.
Liar
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:53:59 -0700, briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly)
wrote:
>
>I agree to a point, but if absolute motion adds nothing to the physics, then
>we do not need to use it.  My further point was that retaining absolute motion
>can restrict our understanding and imagination.  
Not at all. In fact absolute motion is the mother of all the processes
in the universe. Please go to my web site for the article entitled
"The physics of Absolute Motion". In this article, I outlined how
absolute motion is able to unify all the forces of nature (including
gravity). Also new experiments how to detect absolute motion are
included in this article.
Ken Seto

Hardy
> : Since a fundamental assumption of deconstructionism is that the text
> : forms an impenetrable screen separating author from reader (with the
> : corollary that the author's intentions, together with the source of his
> : statements, are irrelevant),
Silke:
> Do you have a cite for that?
With pleasure.
From _Philosophy_ , A.C. Grayling (ed.):
(Page 608)
"What may be considered *intentionalism* identifies textual meaning with
authorial meaning: what the text means is what the author meant.
*Anti-intentionalism* denies that textual meaning is authorial meaning and
asserts that textual meaning is autonomous: it resides objectively in the
work and has nothing to do, conceptually, with what the author may have
meant".
(Page 610)
"...deconstructionism or post structuralism - is an extreme form of
anti-intentionalist pluralism. This position is adopted on wholly general
philosophical grounds: it is held that the notion of determinate meaning
should be rejected in all (not just literary) contexts".
From _A Dictionary of Political Thought_, Roger Scruton
(See "deconstructionism")
"The written text stands as an impermeable screen between the reader and
the author, who disappears forever behind it, and leaves the text as the
sole guide to its meaning".
From _The Tain of the Mirror_, Rodolphe Gasche
(Page 282)
"The absence of all extra-text, about which one could decide independently
of the textual system of referral, implies that there is no one final
meaning to the text."
From _Of Grammatology_, Jaques Derrida
"There is nothing outside the text".
From _Dissemination_, Jaques Derrida
"There is nothing before the text; there is no pretext that is not already
a text".
From _The Oxford Companion to Philosophy_, Ted Honderich (ed.)
(See "deconstructionism")
"This tradition holds speech to be the direct expression of thought or
logos, contemporaneous with its meaning, while writing enters the scene
subsequently, a dangerous substitute for speach in which the speaker's
intentions, no longer 'present', are likely to be betrayed".
Hardy:
>  it is intellectually dishonest for a reader
> : purporting to support deconstructionism to even have an interest in the
> : author's reading habits. Nevertheless, I'll answer your question - I've
> : read enough Derrida to formulate my opinion. 
Silke:
> Not to judge from what you take to be his "fundemantal 
> assumptions" above. So, share, what _did_ you read? 
You're being infantile. Where my arguments depend upon the provision of
suitable references, these will be forthcoming. For the rest, you are in as
much need of knowing what I read, as I am in need of knowing whether you
wax or shave.
Silke:
> What's your opinion based on?
Rational and systematic reflection. In other words, concepts alien to you.
Cheers,
Hardy

Vladimir A. Pertsel  wrote:
>"Dmitri V. Papichev"  wrote in relcom.rec.puzzles:
>(Translation only)
>[...]
>49 absolutely identical insulated wires cross the river under the 
>water. The ends of each wire are on the opposite banks of the river, 
>disconnected  initially. There is an electricity source on one of 
>the banks. An electrician with a tester (*) has to label all the 
>wires (0 - 48) (Each wire should have the same label on its both ends).
>A boatman charges 1 rouble for each crossing of the river.
>What is the minimal sum of money, sufficient for the electrician to 
>fulfill the task?
>
>(*) The tester allows to determine whether the wire is
>    connected to the electricity source, when You touch 
>    the wire by the tester.
Seen it. Good one, though. Spoiler below...
He can do it in two crossings of the river.
First, he should make sure all the wires are not touching each other.
He should tie 48 of the wires together into 24 pairs. The extra
wire, he labels as 0. He connects wire 0 to the power source.
Then he crosses the river once. Using the tester, he locates wire 0.
He picks a random wire, labels it 1, and connects it to 0. Wire 1
must be paired with another wire, and since wire 1 is connected to
wire 0, which is connected to the power source, wire 1's partner
should be live. The electrician uses the tester to locate wire 1's
partner, and labels it 2. He picks a random wire, labels it 3,
and connects it to wire 2. He locates wire 3's partner, labels it
4, and connects it to a random wire, labeled 5. He labels 5's
partner 6, and so on.
Then he crosses back. He disconnects all the connections he made,
but leaves the formerly-paired wires wrapped together by their
insulation, so he can tell which wires were paired before.
He locates the wire that is now paired with 0, and labels it 1.
1's former partner gets labeled 2, and 1 and 2 get reconnected,
so power flows to 2's current partner, labeled 3. 3's former
partner is 4, 4's current partner is 5, and so on.
You can do this without a power source, if you have a continuity
tester (which can tell when two wires are connected.)
-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas             | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  jhaas@microsoft.com          | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  Microsoft Corporation        | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Don't Tread On Me            | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.

In article <56dvn1$jg1@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>Perhaps you should read the other threads more carefully; as far as I can 
>see, both Richard Harter and Mati Meron acknowledged that Derrida's 
>remark makes fine sense within the context of his talk (which you may or 
>may not have read -- we're still waiting for a clear statement on this 
>matter); therefore, you're hypothesis above is falsified if you accept 
>RH's and MM's reason to be sufficient.
>
Well, not quite.  I'm not sure what Richard's position was, as for 
myself I said that I'm not in a position to judge whether it makes 
sense since I don't know yet what it was supposed to mean.  What we 
both agreed on (I think) is that it should not be judged as statement 
about science but rather as statement about thoughts inspired by 
science.
So, we've an agreement regarding the context within which the 
statement should be judged, as well as the criteria which apply.  The 
court is set, the procedure agreed upon, what's needed now is a 
translation of the defendant statement into common talk.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

>> ... Let's say we have an author with
>> something to say; let's say he sits and writes it down.  It 'worked' --
>> that is, he succeeded in writing down what he had to say. 
> I believe THAT's yer problem.  What is this "success"?
? *What* is the problem?  An author has something to say, so he writes it 
down.  The pen didn't break and he didn't run out of paper, so he succeeds. 
 Did you not yourself succeed in writing your last post?  Didn't your post 
say what you wanted to say? 
So, onward...
>> ... he publishes this writing and you and I read it.  We talk about the 
>> text,
>> and perhaps at some point you say, 'I know what this author means.'
>> Another way to say that is, 'I know what this author means to say,' or
>> 'I know what this author intends to say.'
>>
>> Such a statement does not merely claim to have read the actual words of
>> the author, to which we all have access.  The statement does not simply
>> point to *what* the text says; it claims to have apprehended something
>> else:  the 'intent' of the author.  Somewhere along the line something
>> went wrong -- why did 'intent' get divorced from the text itself?
>> Didn't we establish that the author successfully wrote down what he had
>> to say?
>>
>> The point is:  If there really exists something called 'intent' that is
>> *distinct* from the actual text -- and if that intent is communicable
>> and therefore articulatable -- *why didn't the author simply write down
>> _that_ articulation instead?*
>>
>> In other words:  it's not deconstruction that claims that there is a
>> 'problem' with communicating *what* one has to say; it's not
>> deconstruction that has posited the text as an 'interference' to
>> communication; what causes the 'problem' is this goblin called 'intent'
>> that humanists feel so compelled to protect.
>>
>> By throwing out 'intent' deconstruction doesn't _cause_ a problem
>> regarding communication -- it obviates one.
-- brian

Erik Max Francis  wrote in article
<328A06AE.2F74F680@alcyone.com>...
> Dean Povey wrote:
> 
> > In AD gravitation, the perihelion advance for each planet is
> > proportional to the square root of the division of the solar mass by
> > the orbital radius power 3.
> > 
> >              Tp = sqrt(M / r^3)      [ditto: DGP]
> 
> Care to derive this?
> 
> > If the Mercury value is taken as 43" . . . .
> 
> Do you _actually_ mean that Autodynamics can't predict Mercury's
perhelion
> precession without being given it?  That's not very impressive.  Right
> there general relativity has a head start on you.
I'm more confused than ever now. If M = the solar mass then precession is
independent of the mass of the object. 
This also implies that the orbits are circular? which they are not or
precession would not exist.
And where does this 43" come in there's no place for it in the equation
unless the text says one thing and M is  the Mercury value.
I make high school students show their work.
> 
> > [These] values are equal to Hall's empirical values and close to the
> > expected values calculated by Newcomb.
> 
> Empirical values and expected values?  I don't see observational values.
> 
> -- 
>                              Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
>                               Alcyone Systems |
http://www.alcyone.com/max/
>                          San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
>                                  &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
>          "But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we
were"
> 

Joseph M Green wrote:
> Of course there was something called intent that was not part of the text.
> That something is what we say the author had...
Yes, I know that's what we *say*...
> ...he intended to
> do this or that and the text may represent his intention ...and more.
...intended ... this or that ... representation ...
Why not just say he meant what he said and he said what he meant?  Isn't that 
a simpler explanation?  What is it about the situation that forces you to 
bring in *something else* besides what he said?  My explanation is simple and 
accounts for everything we actually see; yours is convoluted and requires 
something more than what's given (the text); so why should I prefer yours?
> Banish poor "intention" and you banish the world [...]
You do?  It seems to me that banishing intent simply banishes the 'interior 
space' required to house it, a 'space' that doesn't hold up to empirical 
scrutiny anyway.
> ... and this makes this and that more comfortable ... 
...huh?
> It's clear, for example, that Joyce
> intended this or that (use 115 or so rhetorical tropes in "Aeolus" for
> example).  Let look who will.
? This doesn't make much sense.  You'll have to give me a concrete example of 
what you're talking about.
> And did you intend "obviate?"
No... I said it.
-- brian

throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:
>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones)
>: But there's no proper time reading by a real clock. 
>Bjon has it backwards.  Clocks always and exclusively display proper time.
And this is totally out of context.
I said that for two spacelike event, no clock can read the proper time
- and it's because the clock cannot travel fast enough to go from one
event to the other.
>A clock always ticks off the proper time along its worldline. 
>Coordinate time of events along that worldline is what is cobbled
>together by synchronizing distant clocks.  That's why the fact that the
>spacetime interval corresponds to the proper time is so important; it's
>what clocks really do along their worldlines.  Coordinate times are
>human artifacts, and thus appropriately observer-dependent. 
>None of this, of course, implies any need for a clock to have
>an observer-independent velocity.
>--
>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
>               throopw@cisco.com
I have never seen a world line nor a clock traversing one.

-----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: 0.9
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Delete: no
Count: 2
Notice-ID: spncm1996318064127
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<56dbs4$vt4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.logic
	sci.physics
	sci.math
<56dcq2$4ev@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.logic
	sci.physics
	sci.math
@@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
iQCVAwUBMoq/GYz0ceX+vLURAQHTPwP/YniiDQ+oeFFHVUzeX5A+YPeZTuHNvZok
JhU6t75QgMxChRp5wZKYkzZh+Bn0ouWexqKrhAULFgPys7qsZxwYs9l1Tj2Z3GQ9
R00RTbDNDKF3F8cXJlg6GMBcQk3bCklWlv37ZMPQlv4dSuORk6oneHHmoCOdrL6N
Y3IFCTagRJ4=
=w9GA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz 
in message <56b48v$n4o@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
dated 13 Nov 1996 00:20:47 GMT 
wrote to alt.atheism, among others:
[snip]
>>|God is like a shamrock - small, green, and in three parts.
Isn't that the same argument that Saint Patrick used to convert the heathen in
Ireland?
Erikc.
Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
http://www.christiangallery.com/    (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger
/* Finest Christian porn on the 'Net */

AI@gwyha3.demon.co.uk
in message <3289b2f4.7526043@news.demon.co.uk>
dated Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:07:15 GMT 
wrote to alt.atheism, among others:
>>|tc3@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
>>|>
>>|>   The Bible is a lengthy, tedious, repititious and often boring book.
>>|>Can you recomend a book (or books) that fully analyzes the Bible and
>>|>points out all the contradictions it contains?
>>|Try The Bible Handbook,  American Atheist Press, PO Box 2117, Austin,
>>|Texas 78768-2117, 1986.  It just lists contradictions (conveniently in
>>|columns facing each other), absurdities, atrocities, etc.  And lets
>>|them speak for themselves.  Some are a bit strained, but of course
>>|there are plenty that are very clear.  
>>|There's also a Web site with contradictions listed and "Christian"
>>|answers.  The answers that require changing the Bible in order to
>>|render it infallible are probably the most amusing. 
Could you give its URL?
>>|Artificial Intelligence 
>>|karl says the bible isn't true
>>|and he doesn't seem to know why it matters
Erikc.
Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include
diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.
http://www.christiangallery.com/    (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger
/* Finest Christian porn on the 'Net */

Matthew P Wiener wrote:
> Some consider that cheating.  "Real" cross products, the two vectors at a
> time sort, work in dimensions 3 *and* 7.  The familiar 3-dimensional one
> can be thought of as the purely imaginary part of quaternion multiplication.
> Similarly, the purely imaginary part of octonion multiplication can be read
> as a 7-dimensional cross product.  Most of the familiar identities hold in
> both cases.
Do cross products only work in 3 & 7 dimensions, or will they work
anytime
there are 2^n - 1 dimensions (where n > 1 and an integer)?

Ken MacIver:
> Since I am not now or have never been a reader "purporting to support
> deconstructionishm," I will feel free to ask you this question:  what
> by Derrida have you read?
Why should I offer you an answer? I have no desire to be an authority in
your eyes, nor am I concerned whether or not you consider me credible.
Consequently, I have nothing to gain.
Furthermore, your line of questioning is futile, to the extent that I could
tell you anything, and you'd never be able to verify it. Perhaps you should
concern yourself a little more with issues and arguments, than with
name-dropping.
Cheers,
Hardy

>> .... Somewhere along the line something
>>went wrong -- why did 'intent' get divorced from the text itself?
>>Didn't we establish that the author successfully wrote down what he had
>>to say? 
> No.  We established that the author felt, upon completing the writing,
> that he had succeeded in writing down what he had to say.  This doesn't
> imply that he had actually succeeded
So the author in question looks at his own text and says, 'that is what i 
wanted to say.'  Then you come along and say, 'Not so fast there, buddy...'
> ; and as a matter of fact, I find
> your hypothesis that "he succeeded in writing down what he had to say" to
> be implausible at best, since it implies that he's a perfect writer.
> Take any glance at a linguistics or psycholinguistics text and you'll
> find innumerable examples where a person's "intended utterance" and
> "actual utterance" are widely varying; these are often but not always
> lumped under the heading of "slips of the tongue." 
This argument is, technically speaking, trivial.  (A) It does not account for 
my hypothetical situation, in which no typos or slips of the tongue occured. 
 (B) It attaches 'intent' only to diction, to the actual words the author had 
in mind.  The 'intent' you're defending claims to be more than unwritten or 
unspoken *articulation*; your 'intent' claims to be the *source* of this 
articulation.  In my schema, there are only particular articulations.  In 
yours, a given articulation is merely an *expression* of this other thing 
called 'intent' that existed *before* any articulation.  Your 'intent,' in 
other words, is not itself an articulation (see your final paragraph below).
You should understand that I don't think intent is a useless word.  It can 
serve a useful grammatical function when talking about 'meaning' -- that is, 
when talking about the future paraphrases that a given articulation might 
evoke.  But this is a far cry from the psychic entity you're talking about.
> Any decent text on
> functionalist linguistics will also spend tremendous amounts of time on
> things like "establishing shared information", &c.;, which is, vaguely,
> the sort of thing that one does in conversation to determine exactly how
> much of the information the speaker intends to convey is new to the
> hearer.  
Just because a speaker has doubts about how a listener will receive his 
statements does not mean he does not say what he planned to say.
> Given the amount of difference between the message conveyed and the words
> uttered in a dialogue/speech occurrance...
Huh?  How could 'the message conveyed' ever arise from anything *besides* 
'the words uttered'?
> , it seems the very height of unreason
> to assume that people, who can't talk to one another without an extensive
> need for error-correction and cross-checking at every stage, can somehow
> become perfect writers capable of expressing themselves without danger of
> error or mis-interpretation as soon as they pick up a pen.
Again: errors in transmission are simply mechanical errors wherein the 
writer/speaker does not accurately re-present the articulation as it is 
delineated in thought.  In such cases 'intent' is the same as the thought 
articulation -- it is not something prior to articulation.
And again: the danger of a listener's misinterpretation has nothing to do 
with the speaker's ability to transmit what he thinks.
> >The point is:  If there really exists something called 'intent' that is
> >*distinct* from the actual text -- and if that intent is communicable
> >and therefore articulatable -- *why didn't the author simply write down
> >_that_ articulation instead?* 
> Because the author *can't*.  The author can write down an approximation of
> his intent, from which a reader can glean his true intention.  Or not, in
> the case of poor or willfully-stupid readers, or readers lacking an
> the background to which the author targeted his writing, or readers who
> jump hastily to the wrong conclusions.
In other words, "the author cannot say what he means to say."  Isn't it 
ironic that this is exactly the claim that people think deconstruction makes?
-- brian

In article <328682a5.10518521@nntp.erinet.com>, kenseto@erinet.com says...
>
>On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 18:29:09 GMT, 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 and absolute motion is
>>the mother of all the processes in the universe. For more information
>>on absolute motion please look up my web site for the article "The
>>Physics of Absolute Motion"
>>
>
>Since there is no response to this thread, I assume that the
>relativists are agreeing with the existence of absolute time and
>motion. Also, I assume that the variable light-speed idea is a valid
>one.
>Ken Seto
>
..extending 'non-response' toward validation of an idea is dangerous.
// rw ///

Hardy Hulley wrote:
> Silke:
>> Do you have a cite for that?
> With pleasure.
> 
> From _Philosophy_ , A.C. Grayling (ed.):
> (Page 608)
> "What may be considered *intentionalism* identifies textual meaning with
> authorial meaning: what the text means is what the author meant.
> *Anti-intentionalism* denies that textual meaning is authorial meaning and
> asserts that textual meaning is autonomous: it resides objectively in the
> work and has nothing to do, conceptually, with what the author may have
> meant".
This 'anti-intentionalism' is an accurate description of the deconstructive 
brand -- until it brings in 'what the author may have meant,' which 
completely ignores the identification of textual and authorial meaning it 
just brought up.  This writer does not understand deconstruction.  The point 
is that intent exists *only* in an articulation.  There is no 'meaning' that 
is independent of the articulation.  The text says what it means and it means 
what it says.  If the author 'meant' something other than what he wrote -- 
why didn't he write that instead?
> (Page 610)
> "...deconstructionism or post structuralism - is an extreme form of
> anti-intentionalist pluralism. This position is adopted on wholly general
> philosophical grounds: it is held that the notion of determinate meaning
> should be rejected in all (not just literary) contexts".
This has nothing to do with intent.  It simply refers to the fact that any 
given articulation can be paraphrased in the future; there is no 'final 
paraphrase' that cannot be paraphrased again.
> From _A Dictionary of Political Thought_, Roger Scruton
> (See "deconstructionism")
> "The written text stands as an impermeable screen between the reader and
> the author, who disappears forever behind it, and leaves the text as the
> sole guide to its meaning".
This is exactly wrong.  The _only_ thing that creates a metaphysical wall 
that 'seals off' an author is the concept of intent.  Deconstruction says: 
*there is no such wall* that distinguishes 'meaning' from the text.
> From _The Tain of the Mirror_, Rodolphe Gasche
> (Page 282)
> "The absence of all extra-text, about which one could decide independently
> of the textual system of referral, implies that there is no one final
> meaning to the text."
This is a horribly written sentence that has nothing to do with intent, and, 
as far as I can tell, nothing to do with deconstruction.
> From _Of Grammatology_, Jaques Derrida
> "There is nothing outside the text".
> From _Dissemination_, Jaques Derrida
> "There is nothing before the text; there is no pretext that is not already
> a text".
Where in these assertions do you find the claim that 'the text forms an 
impenetrable screen separating author from reader?'
> From _The Oxford Companion to Philosophy_, Ted Honderich (ed.)
> (See "deconstructionism")
> "This tradition holds speech to be the direct expression of thought or
> logos, contemporaneous with its meaning, while writing enters the scene
> subsequently, a dangerous substitute for speach in which the speaker's
> intentions, no longer 'present', are likely to be betrayed".
Oh lord... Do you understand what this is describing?  This is a paraphrase 
of what Derrida calls logocentrism, a metaphysical presumption that he argues 
*against*.
I'm not trying to be insulting when I say this: but this post truly horrified 
me.  It proves that most second-hand summaries of deconstruction are written 
by scholars who have *no idea* what deconstruction is about.  Even more 
horrifying is the fact that people feel no compunction at all about 
substituting these summaries for what writers like Derrida and de Man 
*actually say* -- and these people really do believe they're engaging those 
writers by doing so.  I don't know how many times I've run into people who 
say things like, 'I know what deconstruction is about -- I read Terry 
Eagleton's essay on it.'  It is truly unbelievable.
-- brian

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:
>We do not abuse our Tools, 
>We only use them in order to bring about the realization of the 
>vision of Global Harmony and Total Accord.  
Unbelieveable words!
I would remind you the cases which was reported in "Microwave 
Harassment & Mind Control Experimentation" by Jullianne McKinney to
prove what I say is true. 
(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 individual 
11-year-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 is on the receiving end of externally induced 
auditory input. 
=================================================================
Comparing with above cases, I would ask you a few question?
In the above first case, Is it a necessary way to achieve yours'
"realization of the vision of Global Harmony and Total Accord"
from turture the kids of a victim with the invisible wave weapon?! 
In the second case, does the high power line is the necassary path of
" the vision of Global Harmony and Total Accord?!
In above cases, why operators always use the invisible wave weapon to
torture the victims' kids in order to threaten their parents?
Is it the necessary threatened and inhumane method to achieve 
your " thevision of Global Harmony and Total Accord?! 
The above cases only prove that mind control operators indeed inherit
the phylosophy of Communist and the violence phylosophy of Starin
and Mao--The regime's power come from the nozzle of the gun.
That's why the operators always use the invisible wave weapon (the
violence) to surpress those people who against their interests.
>Turn down the volume on your Media Information Box.  Remain quiet for
>a moment.  Do you hear it?  A fine, high-pitched noise that seems to
>be inside your head?  We could show you the capabilities we possess
>without even being near you.  
>We could SHOW you the Benevolence of Computer-1, but we do not.  That is
>too impersonal.  We prefer to conduct our Hearings in person.
Unbelieveable words!
If operators prefer to conduct their victims with the way of face to face
then they will not need the microwave voice equipment to drive their
targets mad.
If your words is true, the operators will not need to use the invsible
wave weapon to torture their targets.
if the oprertors dare to negotiate any problem with their targets in the
way of face to face, the invisible wave weapon is a uncessary tool.
That's because these victims of above cases are the law abiding citizens.
However, to surpress these law abiding citizens's against opinion is the
only reason that the operators use the invisible wave weapon on them.
Furthermore, to achieve their goal, the operators intentionally use the
invisible wave weapon to injure the kids of these victim in order to
threaten their parents.
Such kinds of actions only prove that the invisible wave weapon are
intentionally used in violence, inhumane, and crime by the operators and
it is definitely not the "Peace Tool".
>We do not abuse the Tools.
Comparing with above cases, readers have known that your words are full
with the lies.
>> > You have been warned before about using your Labor Station
>> >terminal to disseminate your lies to the Freedom Loving Citizens of
>> >the World.   
>> No! I never tell the lies in my articles but only tell the facts and 
>> truth with my best knowledge.
>> However, the mind control operators did warn me before.  That's 
>> because my articles has exposed the secrets of mind control technology.
>> I do appreciate you to admit it openly that mind control operators 
> have warned me. 
>It is useless to protest your innocence, 
> We at *AHFUC* know, and all true Freedom Loving Citizens of the World
>know that you are naught but a devious and cunning but ultimately
>inconsequential disinformation agent of the Secret Hidden Intelligence
>Triangle.  Do not deny this.  We have files and we have files about those
>files.
The above words are full with lies and false accusing. 
That's because I have received the clean record of my self in the FBI
files after I request it from the FBI.
Since you are openly and intentionally false accusing me on Internet, 
you have commited the crime of slander and liber.
I will keep the rights to sue you while it is necessary and the 
readers of Internet are the witnesses.
You better be careful in your words!
>> >Now you must be punished.  You will be an example for the
>> >rest of the Freedom Loving Citizens of the World.  
>> Very well, do you know that this time they will use the infrasound 
>> weapon or chronal gun to attack me?!
>> However, your opened threat is a crime and the internet readers are 
>> the witnesses.  Since you openly use the Itelligence Officer title 
>> to warn me without getting problem, you and the intelligence officers 
>> will be the suspect if anything (or injury) happen on me. 
>We did not threaten you,  #59875.  No threat was made. 
Yes. you did.
You have said that "you must be punished."
Everyonre knows that it could be a threat of using the violennce to 
attack a person.
> Only a statement to the effect that you will now be contacted by our
>Control Agents and disciplined. 
Your words obviously violate the freedom of speech rights of
US Constitution.
> This was not a threat.  It was a notification.
We didn't know that the censorship has become the legal thing in 
United Sates.
Before the "freedom of speech rights be removed from the US 
Constitution, please close your big mouth!
> What Tool of Peace is used will be determined when the
>Discipline Hearing is concluded.
Excuse me!  I never receive any notification which write from the law
enforcenent so far.  Except I read your reply on Internet and receive your
reply yesterday.
>  We do not injure anyone, even rebellious agitators like yourself.
I don't trust  your words.
That's because I have be attacked with the invisible wave weapon by the
operators many times.  
>You will be disciplined.  That is all.  A Citizen may learn from his
>mistakes, and so become a Happy and Obedient Citizen of the World. 
I have never commite any crime nor violate any law of United States.
If a law abiding citizen express his opinion to the public events is a
mistake, then it is a ttotaltarian regime but not the free and democracy
country.   I certainly cannot agree with you that United States don't
allow a citizen to express his opinion to a public event.
> For this reason we discipline you.  It is for your own good.  You will
>love us for this gift.  Do not fear us.
After the operators use the infrasound weapon secretly attack me, I really
don't trust that your words can represent any government officer.
If so powerful infrasound weapon can be called the "peace Tool", any gun
with soundless is the "Peace Tool."
I hope that you can try it on you own body and enjoy it yourself.
>> >Disconnect from the Host Computer and await further instructions.     
>> Freedom of speech is our citizens' Constitutional rights.
>> I don't think that you have rights to take it away from our citizens.
>Foolish agitator.  
>We ARE the constitution. 
>...................
>  We take away no rights from any Citizens of the
>World.  There exist no other rights.  There is no need for any other
>rights.  Obey and be Happy.  Disobey and be punished.  An easy choice,
Could you believe that they believe that they ARE the Constitution?
If their wrods is true, what kind of country the United States should be?
>no?  Any Sane and Thoughtful Citizen of the World would think so.
>Surely you are Sane?  Surely?  Hahahahaha.  It is a funny joke, to be
>sure.  You find it so, definitely.  Disconnect from the Host Computer,
>remain in your Dormitory Cubicle and await the arrival of the Control
>Agents.  That is all.
>Ministry of Peace and Harmonious Order
>Office of Electronic Media Dissemination
>Disciplinary Actions Agency
>Branch BETA
>Computer-1 makes Citizens Happy
==========================

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

In article <56di30$fhh@twizzler.callamer.com>
duncan@punk.net (silly) writes:
> 
> No kidding.  I have discovered from experience that my body
> when dry does not conduct enough current to trip a GFCI.
> 
How were you performing this experiment?

In article 
KBertsche@aol.com (Kirk Bertsche) writes:
> 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).
>
Thanks for the reply! My question was what is the 2-D and 3-D analog of
the 1 dimensional case? I replied to my own question but i'm not sure
if i'm right, Guess i have to sit down and try to solve the equations.
Thanks %^)

> Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> : 
The redoubtable AP comments---
> :    You have failed to see my point and my message.
Well, *sigh* what I actually failed to see were the several email messages
warning me (too late) not to ever answer one of your posts.  Now I
understand why.
I saw your point and your message---I happen to disagree, which, last time
I checked, was my right and was not a green light for condescension and
derision from you.  
It is unfortunate that instead of using proper logical argument to attempt
to prove your "points,"  you chose to descend to a personal attack on me.
To quote Dr. Foakes-Jackson (1855-1941) of Cambridge ..."It's no use
trying to be clever, we are *all* clever here.  Just try to be kind."
Darla
---who hereby thanks her brave champions, both public and private.

        The Warning Letter To The Mind Control Operators
This is my eleventh warning letter to the Mind Control group.  
Recently, I have revelaed many of their secrets especially the secret 
about their curent objective: to manipulate people's healths 
and live in order to eliminate their opponents and enemies.  So, they can 
secretly eliminate any dissident without attracting the attention 
of society (even the victim might never become awared of it if the 
victims do not have knowledge about these technologies).   This is their 
first step to achieve their ultimate goal of regulating and change 
people's behaviors to suit their need--people should be their silence
followers.  Thus, the people will become the loyal subjects (submissing
peasants) of mind control operators in the society. The operators are
controlling people's live with the invisible wave weapon because they
inherit the evil phylosophy of Communist (Starin and Mao)-- The regime's
power come frome the nozzle of the gun.  They believe their sceince
technology can achieve everything and don't believe the God existance
because they are the materialism and Atheism.
By informing the publics of this, I have once again angered the
all members of the mind control operators, and they have eagerly tried
to get rid of me.
But this time, not only they use extremely powerful infrasound
weapons (military grade nonlethal weapons - vibrating over serval inches
of protective materials including heavy metals) in order to seriously
injure me, but also openly warn me on Internet with the words that they
will punish me.
I would show readers the openly warning letter below:
(Attachment)
==================================================
wilson@softdisk.com "(Intelligence Officer #999)" wrote:
>caesar@copland.udel.edu Yu) did say:
>>Current the mind control operators are carrying out the 
>>social revolution to U.S. with the communism threoy
>>< Part II >    
>>
>>Causeing by the over authorized, the seriousness of these 
>>operators' abuse of victims have now surfaced.
>> 
>>Beside the report of "Microwave Harassment & Mind Control
>>Experimentation" has been published by Julliane McKinney on 
>>December
>>1992, another very famouse tradegy happened in the Waco, Taxas.
>>
>>According to some news report, the officers use the mind control
>>equipments to confuse David Koresh's followers in order to avoid 
>>some of them fleeing from the burning building.
>>
>
#59875:  
Return to your cubicle.  Cease and desist all unauthorized actions at
once.  Control Officers will arrive shortly to initiate disciplinary
measures.  You have been warned before about using your Labor Station
terminal to disseminate your lies to the Freedom Loving Citizens of
the World.   Now you must be punished.  You will be an example for the
rest of the Freedom Loving Citizens of the World.  Disconnect from the
Host Computer and await further instructions.     
"Iron Parrot" JIIM
"fear the vOIDbEEST"
wilson@softdisk.com
(Intelligence Officers #999)
============================================
After I reply Wilson that openly warning a law abiding citizen is a crime
and violate the law, he deny that they will use their "Peace Tool" on me.
However, the words of a cooperator or operator of mind control can never
be trusted.  
I would show readers the reply below:
(attachment)
==============================
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:
(part One)
>> >#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?
................
---------------------------------------------
Fromblack999@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
  (Yu) wrote:
(Part Two)
>#59875.  
Excuse me, I am Alan Yu but not belong to any secret life' copntrol code
of mind control operators.
>We do not abuse our Tools, 
>We only use them in order to bring about the realization of the 
>vision of Global Harmony and Total Accord.  
Unbelieveable words!
I would remind you the cases which was reported in "Microwave 
Harassment & Mind Control Experimentation" by Jullianne McKinney to
prove what I say is true. 
(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 individual 
11-year-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 is on the receiving end of externally induced 
auditory input. 
=================================================================
Comparing with above cases, I would ask you a few question?
In the above first case, Is it a necessary way to achieve yours'
"realization of the vision of Global Harmony and Total Accord"
from turture the kids of a victim with the invisible wave weapon?! 
In the second case, does the high power line is the necassary path of
" the vision of Global Harmony and Total Accord?!
In above cases, why operators always use the invisible wave weapon to
torture the victims' kids in order to threaten their parents?
Is it the necessary threatened and inhumane method to achieve 
your " thevision of Global Harmony and Total Accord?! 
The above cases only prove that mind control operators indeed inherit
the phylosophy of Communist and the violence phylosophy of Starin
and Mao--The regime's power come from the nozzle of the gun.
That's why the operators always use the invisible wave weapon (the
violence) to surpress those people who against their interests.
>Turn down the volume on your Media Information Box.  Remain quiet for
>a moment.  Do you hear it?  A fine, high-pitched noise that seems to
>be inside your head?  We could show you the capabilities we possess
>without even being near you.  
>We could SHOW you the Benevolence of Computer-1, but we do not.  That is
>too impersonal.  We prefer to conduct our Hearings in person.
Unbelieveable words!
If operators prefer to conduct their victims with the way of face to face
then they will not need the microwave voice equipment to drive their
targets mad.
If your words is true, the operators will not need to use the invsible
wave weapon to torture their targets.
if the oprertors dare to negotiate any problem with their targets in the
way of face to face, the invisible wave weapon is a uncessary tool.
That's because these victims of above cases are the law abiding citizens.
However, to surpress these law abiding citizens's against opinion is the
only reason that the operators use the invisible wave weapon on them.
Furthermore, to achieve their goal, the operators intentionally use the
invisible wave weapon to injure the kids of these victim in order to
threaten their parents.
Such kinds of actions only prove that the invisible wave weapon are
intentionally used in violence, inhumane, and crime by the operators and
it is definitely not the "Peace Tool".
>We do not abuse the Tools.
Comparing with above cases, readers have known that your words are full
with the lies.
>> > You have been warned before about using your Labor Station
>> >terminal to disseminate your lies to the Freedom Loving Citizens of
>> >the World.   
>> No! I never tell the lies in my articles but only tell the facts and 
>> truth with my best knowledge.
>> However, the mind control operators did warn me before.  That's 
>> because my articles has exposed the secrets of mind control technology.
>> I do appreciate you to admit it openly that mind control operators 
> have warned me. 
>It is useless to protest your innocence, 
> We at *AHFUC* know, and all true Freedom Loving Citizens of the World
>know that you are naught but a devious and cunning but ultimately
>inconsequential disinformation agent of the Secret Hidden Intelligence
>Triangle.  Do not deny this.  We have files and we have files about those
>files.
The above words are full with lies and false accusing. 
That's because I have received the clean record of my self in the FBI
files after I request it from the FBI.
Since you are openly and intentionally false accusing me on Internet, 
you have commited the crime of slander and liber.
I will keep the rights to sue you while it is necessary and the 
readers of Internet are the witnesses.
You better be careful in your words!
>> >Now you must be punished.  You will be an example for the
>> >rest of the Freedom Loving Citizens of the World.  
>> Very well, do you know that this time they will use the infrasound 
>> weapon or chronal gun to attack me?!
>> However, your opened threat is a crime and the internet readers are 
>> the witnesses.  Since you openly use the Itelligence Officer title 
>> to warn me without getting problem, you and the intelligence officers 
>> will be the suspect if anything (or injury) happen on me. 
>We did not threaten you,  #59875.  No threat was made. 
Yes. you did.
You have said that "you must be punished."
Everyonre knows that it could be a threat of using the violennce to 
attack a person.
> Only a statement to the effect that you will now be contacted by our
>Control Agents and disciplined. 
Your words obviously violate the freedom of speech rights of
US Constitution.
> This was not a threat.  It was a notification.
We didn't know that the censorship has become the legal thing in 
United Sates.
Before the "freedom of speech rights be removed from the US 
Constitution, please close your big mouth!
> What Tool of Peace is used will be determined when the
>Discipline Hearing is concluded.
Excuse me!  I never receive any notification which write from the law
enforcenent so far.  Except I read your reply on Internet and receive your
reply yesterday.
>  We do not injure anyone, even rebellious agitators like yourself.
I don't trust  your words.
That's because I have be attacked with the invisible wave weapon by the
operators many times.  
>You will be disciplined.  That is all.  A Citizen may learn from his
>mistakes, and so become a Happy and Obedient Citizen of the World. 
I have never commite any crime nor violate any law of United States.
If a law abiding citizen express his opinion to the public events is a
mistake, then it is a ttotaltarian regime but not the free and democracy
country.   I certainly cannot agree with you that United States don't
allow a citizen to express his opinion to a public event.
> For this reason we discipline you.  It is for your own good.  You will
>love us for this gift.  
After the operators use the infrasound weapon secretly attack me, I really
don't trust that your words can represent any government officer.
If so powerful infrasound weapon can be called the "peace Tool", any gun
with soundless is the "Peace Tool."
I hope that you can try it on you own body and enjoy it yourself.
>Do not fear us.
I never fear the mind control operators' violence.
>> >Disconnect from the Host Computer and await further instructions.     
>> Freedom of speech is our citizens' Constitutional rights.
>> I don't think that you have rights to take it away from our citizens.
>Foolish agitator.  
>We ARE the constitution. 
>...................
>  We take away no rights from any Citizens of the
>World.  There exist no other rights.  There is no need for any other
>rights.  Obey and be Happy.  Disobey and be punished.  An easy choice,
Could you believe that they believe that they ARE the Constitution?
If their wrods is true, what kind of country the United States should be?
>no?  Any Sane and Thoughtful Citizen of the World would think so.
>Surely you are Sane?  Surely?  Hahahahaha.  It is a funny joke, to be
>sure.  You find it so, definitely.  Disconnect from the Host Computer,
>remain in your Dormitory Cubicle and await the arrival of the Control
>Agents.  That is all.
>Ministry of Peace and Harmonious Order
>Office of Electronic Media Dissemination
>Disciplinary Actions Agency
>Branch BETA
>Computer-1 makes Citizens Happy
==========================
I belive that the mind control operators attack me because I disagree with
this notice.
However, if our country's freedom and the rights of freedom of speech 
can be openly threatened and a law abiding citizen can be openly
threatened then attacked with invisible wave wapon , United States has
moved to a police state. 
Since last night (11/13/96) they indeed attack me with the powerful
infrasound weapon, I hope that my articles can awake our citizens to stop
their crime.
This is not only protect our citizens' human rights, live rights but also
keep the United States standing forever as the free and democracy country. 
I will keep my rights to sue Wilson if he indeed involves in this
physical attack on me with infrasound weapon.
                           Signed
                               Alan Yu  on November 14, 1996

This Sci-Fi movie needs a preamble. Play some real serious and pensive
music to this preamble.
  This story is dedicated to the fine geologists and paleontologists
who wanted to impose either the meteorite theory or the vulcanism
theory 
or a combination thereof for the dinosaur extinction unto the world
public. 
Some theories are big budget science and the meteor theory alone has
a larger science budget than even cutting edge new important physics
such
superconductivity.
Scientists have indisputably known that the climate at the end of 
the Cretaceous became much colder and it was time for new life and 
extinction of the old. Mammals were superior in coping with cold
climate.
Science like other forms of art is caught in the public's imagination,
for how important really is it as to how the dinosaurs became extinct
as long as a more superior form of life progressed. The hand crank auto
went extinct to the self starter auto and do we need some outside 
explanation for that extinction.
  In the 20th century, scientists do not want to tell the 
world public another aspect to the dinosaur story, being kept in 'top
secret' 
security vaults were two unknown source metallic objects discovered
in the Permain stratigraphy and in the late Cretaceous stratigraphy.
    These metal objects have been hidden from the world public -- 
until now.
Time : For advanced aliens on Bu it was one light year after they
discovered controlled fusion energy. There civilization sent a space
ship in the shape of a rocket and about the size of the Earth's radius
to another pulsar signal.  For Earth, it was the Permian geological
time period.
Mission: The mission for the Bu rocket was to go to the Nascent star
system because the Nascent pulsar had radioed Bu of how to increase
space ship flight speed in trade for pulsar technology. Earth and the
Solar system was a stopping station between Bu and Nascent.
Pit stop on Earth: It is the Permain time period on Earth. Animals and
plants were coexisting nicely. Then this rocket space ship lands on
Earth. It is huge and has to land in the ocean. The Bu-s need more
lithium for their electrical systems. They make a quick analysis of
Earth's environment and decide that the quickest way to restock their
lithium supply is to run all of the big animals on Earth of that time
through their distillation tank. The Bu-s immediately set out to net
all of the Permain large sized animals and run them through their
distillation tank. In one end is fed all of these captured animals and
at the other end is seen a fractionalized form of lithium. Within a
month most all big animals on Earth are gone and the Bu-s have plenty
of lithium and take off to their rendevous with the Nascent pulsar
civilization.
Flashing Forward in Time to the Earth year 1972 when a paleontologist
working in the Permain stratigraphy finds a metal object imbedded in a
fossilized matrix of sea creatures that had become extinct in the
Permian. The metal looks like some sea netting.
Bu rendevous with Nascent : In the meeting with Nascent civilization
the Bu-s trade their secret of how to pulse millisecond pulsar machines
for the Nascent technology of faster rocketship flight.
Time: On Bu, they have increased their rocketship flight from the trade
in technology with the Nascent civilization. Both Bu and Nascent now
use millesecond pulsar machines for communication. Time on Earth is the
Cretaceous geological period. A Nascent rocketship is on its way to Bu
to exchange biologicals.
Pit stop on Earth: Again rocket spaceships are huge and they need pit
stops to refuel for lithium. Nascent rocket surveys Earth among the
planets of the Solar system and decides the quickest way to get more
lithium is to herd together all the large animals on Earth and to
fractionalize distill the lithium out of the animals. Here the movie
shows interesting encounters and engagements with the dinosaurs as they
are corralled and herded and killed and run through the distiller. Once
enough lithium has been gathered and the Nascents take off for Bu.
  The movie is made long with interesting sequences of the Permian
extinction of animals, and what the Permian animals looked like and
what animals became extinct. And long sequences of the dinosaur
extinction in the Cretaceous at the hands of advanced aliens. Use
animations such as in the 4 part series movie THE DINOSAURS 1992 (far
better movie than JURASSIC PARK because it is real science) episode (1)
The Monsters Emerge (2) Flesh on the Bones (3) The Nature of the Beast
(4) The Death of the Dinosaurs. The series depicted live animations
which showed a t. rex fighting with a triceratops and other animations.
Do a lot of animations in this movie.
Flashing Forward in Time to the Earth year 1984 when a geologist
working in the near the KT boundary stratigraphy finds a metal objects
imbedded in a fossilized matrix of dinosaurs in Canada, a herd of
dinosaurs and found that the hearts of these dinosaurs were surgically
removed and that a strange knife of a metal was found in the bone
fossil matrix. 
  Show a biologist lecturer explaining that hearts are high in lithium
concentration.
  Show a chemist lecturer explaining that storing electrical energy is
most efficiently done via lithium battery storage.