Newsgroup sci.physics 207718

Directory

Mati:
 How do you use action at distance?
moggin:
> >     Just as I was saying to you before:  to explain the workings
> >of gravity.  It's all very well to talk about inverse squares, and
> >suchlike, but you're left wondering about the means by which the
> >force of gravity makes itself felt.  How does the Earth pull stuff
> >toward it?  Does it reach out with its hands?  Well, no.  Does it
> >chase fluttering objects with butterfly nets?  It would seem not.
> >So _what_, then?  Here we have the Earth, and there the moon, some
> >distance away.  Supposedly the Earth, as we put it, attracts the
> >moon.  _How_?  By what device is the Earth's gravity able to make
> >itself felt across space?  "Action-at-a-distance" is one reply.
Mati:
> You seem to be running in a loop.  Classical physics had no 
> explanation for the workings of gravity, only a formula. 
     Except, that is, for action-at-a-distance.  Which was, I
agree, a piss-poor explanation, once taken out of the Hermetic
context -- but that doesn't make it just vanish into thin air.
> An "action 
> at a distance" is not a physical explanation, it is just a 
> description.  And an apt description, by the way.  You've a force and 
> it acts from a distance.  That's a statement of an observed fact.  No 
> mechanism is postulated by this. 
     Exactly -- that's what had Newton's colleagues up-in-arms --
they insisted on a mechanistic explanation, and weren't having any
of this spiritualistic clap-trap.  Hell, even Newton was a mechanist,
and would have a preferred a different explanation, if possible.
> It is the same as showing a remote 
> control to somebody when neither you nor the other person has any idea 
> how it works.  You say "here, you point it on your TV, press here and 
> the channel changes.  Press over here and the volume will change,..." 
> Nowhere does it imply any explanation of how it works, only how to use 
> it.
     In terms of your analogy, I ask, "How does the remote work?"
You reply, "On the principle of action-at-distance."  That offers
an explanation (albeit an empty one) of the means by which the
remote control is able to exert an influence on the t.v., all the
way across the room.
Mati:
> >>Sorry but since action at distance is not an explanation (I see 
> >>another semantics argument brewing) and since Newton specifically 
> >>stated that he offers no explanations, I see this argument closed.
moggin:
> >     Newton was capable of contradicting himself; also of changing
> >his views.  His thinking about action-at-a-distance was complicated
> >by several factors.  One was a conflict between his preferences as
> >a scientist and his leanings as student of religion -- like most of
> >his colleagues,  he would have preferred a mechanistic explanation
> >to a mystical one, in his role as a physicist -- yet he borrowed the
> >concept of action-at-distance from his studies in hermeticism, and
> >applied it as he saw fit.
Mati:
> There is no need to borrow anything. 
     Why does it matter whether you see a need?  Others did. 
> Look on this as follows:  You've 
> a theory of motion.  You know that planets follow specific 
> trajectories.  Now you ask yourself "Assuming that these trajectories 
> can be accounted for by acting between the the Sun and the planets, 
> what is the form of this force".  And, lo and behold you find that 
> there is only one form of force which can account for the 
> observations.  So you use it.  If you've an explanation for this 
> force, good, but if you don't you can still use it.  I think that I 
> mentioned countless times that science is pragmatic.  It was never the 
> approach that you cannot use something unless you can fully explain 
> it.
     Who said it was?  Clearly your felt need for explanations is
low.  Others feel and have felt differently.  You may think that
action-at-a-distance was unnecessary as an explanation.  And who
knows?  Maybe you're right.  But there it is -- an explanation --
whether you think it's needed or not.  Note, too, that your math,
however useful, doesn't even begin to explain how the force that
you've mananged to formalize exerts itself; which is exactly the
explanation that action-at-a-distance was meant to provide.
> Just to illustrate it, here is a copy of the relevant excerpt in 
> Principia (copied from a post by  M.Siemons)
>  ...But hitherto, I have not been able to discover the cuase of those 
>  properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; 
>  for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an 
>  hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, 
>  whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in 
>  experimental philosophy.
>  ... And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist and act 
>  according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves 
>  to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our sea."
> I thin this is rather clear.  Of course, you may still argue that 
> Newton wrote this for public consumption but nevertheless thought 
> otherwise.  I won't argue with this since it cannot be verified (and 
> isn't important to anything anyway).  But, the question you've to ask 
> yourself is "suppose that Newton's religious beliefs would've 
> different, could he have obtained a different formulation for the 
> force of gravity".  And the answer to this is no.  Keppler's Laws 
> uniquely identify the force.
     Why would I want to ask a question like that?  It's irrelevant
to the topic at hand, which is the role of religious mysticism in
physics, as demonstrated by the concept of action-at-a-distance.  If
you want to change the subject, go ahead -- but don't pretend that
you're doing otherwise.  What matters here is that N.'s studies in
hermeticism played a large part in the explanation he offered for
the workings of gravity, that is, action-at-a-distance -- it met
with considerable resistance from physicists unhappy about having a
piece of outright mysticism enter their discipline, but went on to
be part of the accepted wisdom for several hundred years.
moggin:
> >     Whether or not you consider it to qualify as an explanation is
> >another question.  I already noted (twice, if you count our earlier
> >go-round) that stripped of its hermetic connotations, action-at-a-
> >distance is an empty concept:  it merely repeats the description it
> >attempts to explain.  
Mati:
> Precisely
     Then your point is precisely that it's a crappy explanation --
not that it isn't one at all.
-- moggin

Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> 
> Hardy Hulley (hoh@rmb.co.za) wrote:
> [...]
> : You're talking nonsense. I suggest you brush up on your logical
> : positivism - much more interesting reading than Derrida, anyway.
> 
> How do you know? Did you graduate to reading a whole page of it lately?
I note, approvingly, that you have now successfully negotiated the
transition from nebulous verbiage to unsophisticated sarcasm.
Cheers,
Hardy

darla@accessone.com (Darla) writes:
> You cannot judge the importance or the value of a thing by the number and
> weight of the tools needed to produce or complete it.  It takes a lot of
> heavy equipment to haul garbage, but only a heart to fall in love.  And
> which is the greater endeavor? Which has more directly enhanced the lives
> of men and the survival of the planet?
Well, how long do you think you'll continue to love if your love
refuses to take the garbage away?
And how long do you think you are going to *live* if the garbage keeps
piling up in your rooms?  Can be pretty unhealthy.
-- 
David Kastrup                                       Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de         Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Universitaetsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany

In article , Bob_Hoesch@fws.gov (Bob 
Hoesch) says...
>
>Q: "Is a photon a particle or a wave?" 
>
>A: "Yes"
Congratulations. You win the prize for the shortest wrong anser on Usenet 
this month.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

>: First, I recently posted a disclaimer to two of my earlier postings,
>@> but now I want to disclaim the disclaimer. :-) Someone had posted
>@> saying that const qualification (in C) does not convey non-alias
>@> information, because the const qualifier guarantees only that no
>@> attempt will be made to write to the underlying addresses *through the
>@> const-qualified pointer*.
C9X, the revision of the C language that we (the C standards committee)
hope to have done by year end 1999, has added a new type qualifier: restrict.
It applies to pointers and indicates that there are no aliases to the 
pointed at object (unless the programmer gives up that property by doing
an assignment of the restricted pointer to another pointer).  In effect,
a restricted pointer acts like a pointer to malloc'ed memory.  A good place
to use restricted pointers is the parameters to a function.  The compiler
vendors who have already implemented this new feature report great performance
improvements.
Fred Tydeman          +49 (7031) 288-964  Tydeman Consulting
Meisenweg 20          tydeman@tybor.com   Programming, testing, C/C++ training
D-71032 Boeblingen                        Voting member of X3J11 (ANSI "C")
Germany               Sample FPCE tests:  ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ty/tydeman

Nick Herbert's book "Faster Than Light" had a chapter on theoretical
attempts to exploit the "twin state" polarization of a pair of photons,
emitted by a central source, to send messages faster than the speed of
light.  Such an attempt would depend upon finding a means of "decoding" a
message by measuring the polarization of a single photon.  No such means
has apparently yet been found.
Would it be possible to send an instantaneous message without having to do
single-photon measurements?  Suppose a "central source" sends two
continuous beams of photons in opposite directions to a "sender" and a
"receiver" an approximately equal distance apart.  (The "sender" is
slightly closer than the "receiver".)  The beams are run through
polarizing filters at the "central source", such that they are both
polarized at 0 degrees.  So every photon in each beam is correlated with a
photon in the other beam, and the polarization of every photon in each
beam is known to be 0 degrees.
The "sender," who receives the beam slightly before the "receiver," has
two polarizing filters, one behind the other, both set at 0 degrees.  The
"receiver" has one filter, also set at 0 degrees, and an apparatus behind
this filter to measure the number of photons passing through (or the
"intensity" of the beam).
In this initial state, the "receiver"  receives a beam of 100 percent
intensity.  But now the "sender" resets the front filter to 45 degrees,
and the back filter to 90 degrees.  This causes half the photons
intercepted by the "sender" to change their polarization to 90 degrees. 
If the polarization changes identically in the opposite beam just
before reaching the "receiver",  this means that at least half the photons
reaching the "receiver's" filter are at a 90 degree angle, and cannot pass
through.  This will reduce the number of photons, or "intensity" of the
beam as measured by the apparatus behind the "receiver's" filter, by at
least half.
By varying the "intensity" of the beam in a measurable way, can the
"sender" send a faster-than-light message to the "receiver"?

Gordon --
     Looks like you hit the bull's-eye.  Check this out.  (It's
from the "Afterword" that Sokal wrote to his _Socal Text_ hoax.
The whole thing is available on his website.)
Sokal:
     But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old
     Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was
     supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old
     scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an
     external world, that there exist objective truths about 
     that world, and that my job is to discover some of them. 
-- moggin

In article ,
	hdmiller@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Texas Tom) writes:
> In article , Anthony
> Potts  wrote:
> 
>> I don't care what people think about me very much, except for those that
>> matter. I don't count the opinions of anyone on this group.
> 
> Ahh, so that's why you respond in such excruciatingly humorless detail to
> every perceived slight.  
Texas' reply roughly translates as: "I'm too witless to think of clever
responses, but I'm too much of a loud-mouthed prat to let them pass by
without comment."
Chris.

Bill Rowe (browe@netcom.com) wrote:
: DMJT30C@prodigy.com (J Mikes) wrote:
: >IF IT IS TRUE that the magnetic effect does not run out, let us "not 
: >remove" the weight it lifts, but use the magnetic field to create 
: >electricity or lift something constantly. I want part of the patent for 
: >the perpetuum mobile. JM
Magnets can indeed demagnetize.  And I have an example which extracts
energy from a magnet by having it power a turning and wobbling rotor with
a single charge on the edge.  Your example might yield net work with the
assistance of magnetic shielding, but it is definitely conservative since
there is no simultaneous presence of bare electric and magnetic charges.
(This is needed to destroy the EM "vector" 4-potential, which otherwise
serves to conserve the relativistic energy-momentum.) 
If the magnet resists demagnetization, then magnetic cooling occurs -
extracting the energy from the environment required to run the rotor.  The
first law of thermodynamics is satisfied by the heat energy extracted from
the environment.  The second law is fulfilled by the increase of entropy
in the weakening magnet.
This motor serves as a refutation of magnetic monopoles, since they are
(by the topological Bianchi identity) unable to demagnetize.  So energy
would not conserved by magnetic monopoles.
I can also show that magnetic monopoles provide free torque when they
are configured in a way impossible to duplicate with normal magnets. 
(Actually, the impossibility of duplication follows from the free torque.)
: I wouldn't be in a hurry to apply for a patent even though it is true
: the magnetic effect doesn't run out.
: You cannot produce electricity from a magnetic field without relative
: motion. This requires an energy source other than the static magnetic
: field. So, you will have friction and other losses as is the case for
: any machine used to produce electricity.
Friction is not a refutation for the production of energy since either can
be varied all but arbitrarily.  EM radiation is also not a refutation,
since it varies independently of the rate of work. 
: As for the second example, i.e., having a weigth suspended using a
: magnetic field, it is possible to arrange this to continue
: indefinitely. However, this doesn't qualify as a perpetuuum mobile on
: several counts. First, and most obvious, nothing is moving. Second, no
: energy is being extracted from the system. It is the lack of energy
: extraction that allows the weight to be suspended indefinitely. The
: situation is no different than say a book setting on a shelf in the
: earth's gravitational field.
-- 
Michael J. Burns                            http://www.indirect.com/www/mburns/
  "We are such stuff                             "Oh brave new world, 
   As dreams are made on, and our little life     That has such people in't!"
   Is rounded with a sleep."

>>>>> " " == Joseph Edward Nemec  writes:
In article <328217DF.23B30DDC@mit.edu> Joseph Edward Nemec  writes:
 > On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Anthony Potts wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
>> 
>> > Oxford, but everyone knows what those "automatic degrees" are worth.  
>> 
>> That's right, about ten times what your undergraduate degrees are
>> worth.
 > Rubbish. I've spent a considerable amount of time with Oxford and
 > Cambridge undergrads, and they are definitely not as well educated as
 > graduates of MIT or Harvard, for example. Most of them here at MIT find
 > it to be quite a shock at how unprepared they are in many areas. Now,
 > some of our smaller colleges, yes. But I've also met a large number of
 > students from your little country's horrible technical schools, and they
 > are truly poor. I believe you've said so yourself, with typical
 > arrogance.
Techincal colleges here teach welding, car mechanics, carpentry, etc. It's a
blue-collar place, akin to the German Lehre & Berufschule.
Not reallly comparable to MIT/Oxbridge
>> Mais, je pense que mon Anglais est suffit.
 > Ca va sans dire. Mais quant a l'accent ... moi je doute que tu parles 
 > l'anglais de la renne de l'Angleterre. Tu viens, evidement, du Nord, et
 > les accents la-haut sont affreux. Nous allons voir en Janvier (ou bien
 > en Mars, je n'ai pas encore decider...)
That's 'cos you don't have the foggiest. 
Which one of the miryad Northern dialects are you insulting in particular?
I take it you'd prefer the Estuarine?
G - Northern

Hardy Hulley (hoh@rmb.co.za) wrote:
: Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
: > 
: > Hardy Hulley (hoh@rmb.co.za) wrote:
: > [...]
: > : You're talking nonsense. I suggest you brush up on your logical
: > : positivism - much more interesting reading than Derrida, anyway.
: > 
: > How do you know? Did you graduate to reading a whole page of it lately?
: I note, approvingly, that you have now successfully negotiated the
: transition from nebulous verbiage to unsophisticated sarcasm.
Projective identificatin is a fine thing, nah? We will talk 
sophistication once you start reading what you critique. 
Silke
: Cheers,
: Hardy

In article <560sie$dmt@uwm.edu>, pst@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Peter Stephen 
Thomas III) says...
>
>OX-11 (jacob@omicron.csustan.edu) wrote:
>: therre is an even more interesting fossil -- in the upper rio grands 
>: valley of new mexico, there is the imprint of a bare human female 
footprint 
>: in a sandstone outcropping that is around 10 -60 million years old. The 
>: girl was walking and tripped. seh overcorrected by extending her foot and 
>: made the imprint in the once soft mud of the riverbank.  It left a deep 
>: impression clearly visible. You can even see the potho;e she stepped 
>: into, and the splash marks extending out from it.....
>: 
>: 
>
>Please explain in detail how it is possible to determine the sex of a
>being from a single foot print.
>
>Also please explain how you came to the conclusion about her acrobatics at
>the time this foot print was made.  You speak as if you have video or film
>of her preforming this act.
>
Curses - discovered.
It's a little known fact that, just next to the footprints, a fossilized TV 
and VCR were discovered. On top of the VCR was a fossilized edition of TV 
Times that includes the folloving information - 
Monday 20th September 23,000,013 BC.
17:40 - The Cook Report BCTV
Roger Cook investigates the terrible states of stream beds today and follows 
the court case of a young girl as she attempts to sue the village elders 
after tripping in a potho;e.
This has been kept quite by the government due to pressure from the TV 
companies who are using the ideas in the magazine for their programmes.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

In article <328615B8.1228@carmen.murdoch.edu.au>, Shayne O'Neill  writes:
q> Ian Fairchild wrote:
q>> 
q>> Marcus Tarrnat wrote:
q>> >
q>> > ALT.NEWS wrote:
q>> 
q>> SNIPPEROONIE!
q>> 
q>> > >
q>> > > In article <55s90n$80t@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, AQAY1 > She ran a fish shop until she was accidentally elected a few months ago.
q>> > That's one of the drawbacks of democracy I suppose.
q>> > But what's a dimwit like Pauline Hanson got to do with woodworking
q>> > anyway?
q>> > tyrant
q>> 
q>> What a load of crap! She may be a dimwit, and she may have run a fish shop, but she was
q>> certainly NOT accidently elected. She stood for and won a seat in the House of
q>> Representatives, against the major political parties. i.e. The people voted for her
q>> personally, not proportionally as would happen in the senate.
q> 
q> I must disagree. Her election posters claaimed she was "fighting for
q> equality". A most *VICIOUS* *EVIL* and *TREASONOUS* lie.
q> 
q> Pauline hansons days are numbered. By fair means of foul, she ain't 
q> getting another term. Take my word on it. 
I heard that many Asian governments and African governments are
considering to boycott the Olympic. Is that true?
q> 
q> Hmm...
q> 
q> Peace,
q> 
q> 
q> Shayne.
q

In article <5666sr$8bd@news-central.tiac.net>
cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
> dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) wrote:
> 
> >In article 
> >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
> 
> >> Would I have the ability of hearing the music in my 
> >> mind just by reading the notes (Some people do, so it is not 
> >> impossible) then plying it wouldn't be necessery.
> 
> >But playing it would.  Hearing it in your head is not the same thing.
> >David
> 
> It would in my head - it's a nice empty resonant cavity.  I keep a
> miniturized copy of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir there for the odd
> moment when I thirst for music.
> 
Is that what they call the Cartesian Theatre?
David
"When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the
apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person
could have written them.  When you find an answer, . . . when these
passages make sense, then you may find that more central passages,ones
you previously thought you understood, have changed their meaning."
Kuhn

Now now.
moggin (moggin@nando.net) wrote:
:  weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck):
: > If I may quickly interfere here in my usual conciliatory voice:
: > I think that, yes, Zeleny is right: both Destruktion and deconstruction 
: > have an etymological connection to destruction;
:      "Zeleny is right"?  
Within the very limited range defined by what is after the colon.
More 
accurately, Zeleny is reciting 
the : obvious.  
Precisely.
As I've noted several times now, the connection was 
: never in dispute.  The question is what follows from it.  If you
: were following the conversation, then you know what's at issue.
Then I think you may have overstated your case; at dispute were at some 
point "destructive implications" --- and in the banal sense, destructive 
implications are there. 
: > he is right further in 
: > claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are very attuned to implications 
: > of this sort 
:     Zeleny claims that Heiddeger's concept of Destruktion contains
: "destructive implications," which deconstruction receives as its
: inheritance -- he's failed to support either proposition.  
If there is a connection between destruction and Destruktion and 
Destruktion and deconstruction, then his case is already made and 
doesn't need any more support. "Implications," however, doesn't say 
much -- and as soon as Zeleny tries to make it mean anything specific, 
he flounders in ignorance and arrogance, as usual.
And as
: the thread has gone on, it's become apparent that by "destructive,"
: he means "fascistic," leading to the further claim that Derrida is
: a Nazi -- worse yet, a _lying_ Nazi, since he has the chutzpah to
: deny it.
I know; that's where he's wrong. 
: > -- to deny that there is any link whatsoever strikes me 
: > as problematic.
:      And no one here says differently -- so what's your problem? 
I'm not aware of having a problem right now; if you say that he has to 
make a case for "destructive implications," you seem willing to hedge at 
least.
: To make things clear, I agree there's a link; in fact, I 
don't : see how it could be any more obvious -- the question, again, is
: what the link means.  Zeleny believes the answer is self-evident:
: Derrida is a crypto-fascist.  But that's just a crude, baseless
: slander, as I've taken the trouble to show.
I'm aware of that; in your words, "nobody said any differently."
: >         Zeleny's problem is that he cannot distinguish between throwing a 
: > bomb at a church and taking it apart piece by piece, lovingly, to see 
: > how it is made. The latter does involve, to introduce a new term, 
: > dismantling, and it is a destruction to the extent that any 
: > interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't leave   
: > its object unchanged.
:      Oh, this is just great -- Zeleny tries to make Derrida into
: a Nazi, and pretends that a reference to Heidegger's politics can
: substitute for an understanding of his philosophy, while you try
: to present them as a pair of museum curators.
And that's what they are -- it's a much better metaphor. As Sokal points 
out but doesn't understand, it's not about helping the working class, but 
it is very much about preserving what can be preserved (a major 
misunderstanding of Derrida in the US).
: >         The larger question, however, is whether such an action is 
: > destructive in the larger sense -- destructive, as has been claimed, 
: > to "Western Culture," "humanist education," "respect for the 
: > classics," etc. Those claims are silly and not worthwhile debating in 
: > the end, unless one is into the politics of the so-called culture 
: > wars.
:      The _debates_ have been silly, but the questions aren't.
I referred to claims, not questions. But, "does deconstruction destroy 
Western Culture" does strike me as on the silly side.
Silke
: -- moggin

moggin@nando.net (moggin):
| Gordon --
|      Looks like you hit the bull's-eye.  Check this out.  (It's
| from the "Afterword" that Sokal wrote to his _Socal Text_ hoax.
| The whole thing is available on his website.)
Well, it was not a hard bull's-eye to hit, since I
had read the passage.  Dr. Sokal's politics are
interesting, and to me, highly respectable.  I mean
_I_ didn't go to Nicaragua.  He seems to be happy
with his new role, however -- apparently he's now
traveling around as a lecturer and confrontationist,
from what I read in a _Village_Voice_ article, so
maybe John McCarthy is correct and he'll convert to
the Truth (political) Faith as well -- the one
that's Right.
Sokal:
|      But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old
|      Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was
|      supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old
|      scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an
|      external world, that there exist objective truths about
|      that world, and that my job is to discover some of them.
Wait 'til I work on it a bit.  How about
Dr. Soka:
|
|      But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old
|      Luftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was
|      supposed to help the Work. And I'm a stodgy old
|      scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an
|      external world, and its name is Mu....
Dr. Soka, of course, would be the founder of Soka Gakkai.
Along with Amida, of course.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

In article <55v90f$etp@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
fc3a501@AMRISC04.math.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann) writes:
> Anyone interested in p-adics may try the American
> Mathematican Monthly (Aug-Sep 1996) for a nice
> article on the theme.
> (I would have taken this into email - if Pu's
> email account hadn't been mailbombed into oblivion)
Thanks, read that article. The preamble reads:
" You can sum some of the series some of the time 
and some of the series none of the time...
but can you sum some of the series all of the time?"
Mathematicians up to the day of this writing still think the Naturals =
Finite Integers is precise and is mathematics. That system of belief
would be analogous in physics if all physicists believed that Newtonian
Mechanics was modern day physics.
Naturals = Infinite Integers = p-adics is the truth just as modern
physics is based on Quantum Mechanics, not the older and imprecise
Newtonian Mechanics.
Trouble with mathematics is that the community is far lazier than is
the physics community. Those guys can ignore and keep doing wrong
things. Whereas in physics, experiments prompt change and prod that
community into action.
What is nice about the day when p-adics are found essential in physics
is that mathematics will then be linked to science experiments, just as
the physicists are linked to every physics experimental result.

In article <5665u7$3pu@Nntp1.mcs.net>, Tommy E.   wrote:
>
>>From: DC, 75277.3335@CompuServe.COM
>
>>>What completes the grounding circuit in an electrical system?
>>Let's say a refrigerator shorts and the current goes to ground (thus
>>protecting anyone touching the refrigerator).
>>The current goes through a wire down to metal pipe down to the earth
>>itself, but how does it come back from the soil in the back or front
>>yard to complete the circuit to the refrigerator in the house?
>>Thanks for help and info.
To clear up a bit of a misnomer, ground has several meanings.  In
general it's used to indicate something that is at zero volts with
respect to a source.  The earth ground is used mainly for protection
from lightening or similarly induced voltages, and is used to ensure
that all wires into a  house are at the same ground voltage with
respect to each other.  This includes phone lines and cable.

>
>The problem, as you might imagine, is when for some reason, say defective
>wiring, you have a high resistance ground connection.   In this case, the
>protective overcurrent device will not trip, leaving the circuit hot and
>the frame of the device at an energized, possibly dangerous potential. 
>If you suspect that you have a high resistance ground, your installation
>should be immediately checked by a qualified electrician.
This is also one of the reasons for ground-fault interrupted circuits.
These can either be at the outlet or an entire circuit, and are
designed to sense when there is a voltage with respect to ground that
may not be high enough to trip a regular breaker.  Anytime a circuit
is to be used in a bathroom, basement, kitchen near a sink, garage
or similar outbuilding, or outdoor circuits, a GFI should be used.
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #How many of our  #I'm a cheap
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co.,IN #Bretheren die for#date, but an
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  #every glass of V8#expensive
EOL DoD#1147  # Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#Juice?. TBTW #10 #pet.

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> 
> And that would be the limit for an ambitious, uncultured bourgeois moron
> from Newcastle. How sad...
Good job I'm not from Newcastle then.
> 
> Translation: I am not good enough at physics to get to the top.
> 
Are you not Joe? How sad.
to be honest with you though, life at the top isn't all that great. It
just means that you are researching slightly different things to other
people.
Of course, I get to have a nice well known subject such as the Higgs, but
that's about it.
> 
> Well, aside from actually getting a Ph.D. in it...
> 
I will hand in before I head off to the city. Probably. 
> 
> Soon to realize that you were duped...
Shit, man, you're right. I ought to instead have gone to some anonymous
institution. I'd havedone much better there, that's for sure. Then,
instead of ending up a particle physicist, I could have become an expert
in queuing theory. After all, it is THE fashionable subject of the day,
isn't it?
> 
> Soon to realize your country is second rate in that field...
Oops, we were ten years ahead of the field. Never mind.
> 
> Well, except for publishing distinguished work in the field...
Been there, done that. 
> 
> Please send me a copy of that report.
Please pay me 50 pounds, and I will send you a copy. You aren't getting
one for free, that's for sure.
You wouldn't understand it anyway. Peculiarly enough, it will be pretty
technical, requiring knowledge beyond degree level of high energy physics.
> 
> We don't think you are shallow. We just know that you will not make
> several million dollars per year.
No, all the people I know in the city are obvioulsy completely
unrepresentative of what's out there. I am completely deluding myself that
I will do the same as them.
Well, at least I'm happy in my ignorance.
> You are a failure at physics.
Of course I am, of course. How foolish of me to think otherwise. 
> 
> Anthony, I would LOVE to test you on your knowledge of the stochastic
> calculus...
Now why doesn't that surprise me?
> 
> Of course not: you are the sort of idiot who rails over the internet, and
> hides behind his keyboard.
That's right Joe. My boxing matches have all been carried out over the
internet. In fact, now I think back, they weren't boxing matches at all,
they were in fact just video games.
> 
> Failure. 
> 
You oughtn't to sign yourself that way. Hell, just because you aren't
going anywhere, it doesn't mean that your parents don't love you. And not
all of us can get a place on the high energy physics courses, so don't
feel too bad about yourself.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, sdef! wrote:
> 
> So, I've heard this line many times before, from the ignorant who don't even 
> know the first thing about the lives and hygeine of the people they are 
> talking about. I hear it when families are being thrown off the land with 
> nowhere else to go, while the pompous spouters of this fascist line sit snug 
> in their houses. Some people don't want to live as you do. But they are not 
> allowed to live in any other way. 
They were allowed to, on the guinness project. It turned out to be a
complete disaster.
> As things stand, I could not get up and walk out of the city and survive. 
> this is because all the land "belongs" to someone. Some brave people do try 
> to live like this. They are called travellers and sent to prison. The reason 
Of course it's owned by someone, their ancestors either fought for it, or
worked for it. You can't complain about that. I was born without any land,
but I am working to buy a house, and the land it is on.
Don't youunderstand that this is a way to do it?
If you aren't happy with the system, and want your children to grow up
free, then sacrifice yourself for a few years, buy some land, and then you
can live in peace.
You will have to pick an appropriate piece, where you would not be
creating an eyesore, or causing problems (for example, not in hyde park),
but the highlands of Scotland are fine for this.
> 
> Their neat, anal-retentive backyards reflect their neurosis, that same 
Anal retentive backyards?
So, you don't think it's fair for people to complain about travellers, but
you can complain about people who aren't.
What a hypocrite.
> neurosis that is destroying the very fabric of life we depend on. You cannot 
> tolerate anyone actually LIVING the way they talk, because then you wouldn't 
If people want to stop taking any state benefits, not use the hospitals,
not use the sewers, the television, and not destroy the land they use (for
example, taking care of rubbish themselves, in an environmentally
sensitive way, not nipping down to Tescos for some plastic bin bags), then
I have no problem with people doing this.
I just expect them to have to pay for the land, much like I have to with
where I live.
You don't get anything for free in this life, you know.
> 
> You get a bloody bath your self, I can't afford one, i use the shower.
> 
Well, I tend to shower too. That is neither here nor there.
The thing is, we see all too many example of travellers who want the
advantages of living outside society, whilst not actually being willing to
go without the benefits, which the rest of us realise we have to pay for.
If one of th echildren gets sick, develops cancer, or in some other way
needs medical attention, just how do you intend to trat them? You won't
have paid for the hospitals, and further, will have turned your back on
them, choosing not to live using any of "society"'s benefits.
It quite simply isn't practical, or fair on the children. The reason most
people live as we do is because we have found a good balance between
liberty and responsibility. We acept that we can't hust do whatever we
want, but we will have recompense through the courts and the police for
transgressions comitted against us. Our children will be educated, and we
will all have health care available.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, sdef! wrote:
> > 
> > Dancing is illegal?  (I live in the U.S... do you live in commie china or
> > something?)
> > 
> It isn't illegal, that would cause a revolution. It's just licenced. If people 
> want to party they have go to the approved venues, have to put moneey in someones 
> pocket. They arent allowed to gather somewhere and just party. It is ILLEGAL to 
> gather on public land without a licence.
This is blatently untrue. You can stand around in a group and dance if you
want.
If you want to light fires on the lawns, bring in a large sound system,
and make enough noise to affest people who live nearby, then you should
need a license. Otherwise, people could just set up outside residential
areas, and wake everyone up.
> Pubs have to have a special licence to allow dancing.
> You can't have fun unless you pay, unless you can afford to pay, otherwise if you 
Can't have fun unless you pay?
That's so much rubbish. Things which you enjoy, but which can affect
others adversely are controlled the world over, and rightly so. Otherwise,
the selfish people make life a misery for the others.
> try you are acting illegally. It's bullshit dreamed up by old gits in grey suits 
> who hate life.
As opposed to you, who just hates all the conformists, eh?
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva

dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) wrote:
>In article <5666sr$8bd@news-central.tiac.net>
>cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>> dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article 
>> >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>> 
>> >> Would I have the ability of hearing the music in my 
>> >> mind just by reading the notes (Some people do, so it is not 
>> >> impossible) then plying it wouldn't be necessery.
>> 
>> >But playing it would.  Hearing it in your head is not the same thing.
>> >David
>> 
>> It would in my head - it's a nice empty resonant cavity.  I keep a
>> miniturized copy of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir there for the odd
>> moment when I thirst for music.
>> 
>Is that what they call the Cartesian Theatre?
I think so.  Indeed it is essential to my existence that I continue to
think so.
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.

In article <32804099.325F@extro.ucc.su.oz.au>,
JeffBD   wrote:
>An ex-girlfriend claimed that I had met her and gone shopping.  At the time 
>I was actually giving a tutorial presentation in front of about 30 people.
Not quite as severe as that, but a friend of mine saw me walk past the garage
he was working at when I was twenty miles away in the next town.  This was my
best friend at the time who knew me better than anyone else, and would not 
have been fooled at anything greater than a glance by a simple lookalike.  By
all account the man was my height, wore the same clothes as me and his 
mannerisms were just the same.  It quite scared me at the time as the man was
carrying a gun case.  Imagine if he'd shot someone and I'd taken the blame.
	Love and Hugs,
		Dr Zippy.
-- 
======================* Dr Zippy - ieh@st-andrews.ac.uk *======================
Dr Zippy; Six foot six and 200 pounds of pure tanned, sexy, | HEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
handsome, SAS trained, muscle bound pathological liar.      | I CARE !!!!!!!!!!
===============================================================================

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Mathematicians up to the day of this writing still think the Naturals =
> Finite Integers is precise and is mathematics. That system of belief
> would be analogous in physics if all physicists believed that Newtonian
> Mechanics was modern day physics.
Not quite.  Mathematics does not care one hoot about reality or
applicability, it cares about consistency.
I can develop a number system in which 1+1=0 and work with it and
derive theorems about it quite fine as long as I keep consistent.  It
does not matter for this that one sheep plus one sheep does not make
no sheep.  Sheep are not good for modulo 2 arithmetic.  But if I look
carefully, almost every mathematic system *can* be applied in some
ways: calculation modulo 2 is quite well-suited to finding out whether
the light is on depending on how many people happened to throw the
switch.
> Naturals = Infinite Integers = p-adics is the truth just as modern
> physics is based on Quantum Mechanics, not the older and imprecise
> Newtonian Mechanics.
That's the difference: in physics, different world models are sort of
"winner takes all" oriented (although no winner is up to now none,
only quite a lot of non-winners been thrown out of the race).
In mathematics, Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics could
coexist quite nicely: different axiomatic systems do not need to obey
the same laws as long as they obey their respective axioms.
That one of them applies better to modern reality does not make it
mathematically illegitimate, only physically.  It just happens that
*relative* speed counts in the universe, not absolute.
> Trouble with mathematics is that the community is far lazier than is
> the physics community. Those guys can ignore and keep doing wrong
> things. Whereas in physics, experiments prompt change and prod that
> community into action.
Depends on what you mean by "wrong".  In mathematics you are allowed
to do crazy things (like allowing many parallel lines through a point
to another line) and see where that would take you, as long as you
carefully watch that you are not mixing up your "real-world"
expectations with actual consequences of the changed systems.
> What is nice about the day when p-adics are found essential in physics
> is that mathematics will then be linked to science experiments, just as
> the physicists are linked to every physics experimental result.
Not at all, the link is one-way.  It might, however, make more
physicists interested in a branch of mathematics (p-adics) which they
otherwise would rather choose to ignore.
But all this is one-way: being able to apply real numbers or p-adic
ones or whatever does not influence the validity of the use of natural
numbers, but at most the interest taken in them.
-- 
David Kastrup                                       Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de         Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Universitaetsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany

> gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
> | But that's not at all what their doing. They're buying into the
> | tutti-frutti religious supermarket and supporting its telegenetic
> | advertisers propagating the look-down-on-everyone-else mentality of divine
> | redemption. Especially the fundamentalist Christian folks (who are a
> | characteristic feature in the American landscape) are, if anything,
> | supporters of closed systems of thought and have erected rigid systems of
> | mandatory adherence.
> 
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Then they're not buyers-into at the tutti-frutti religious
> supermarket, are they?  We've got two different groups here,
> neither of which are very popular with the great majority
> of their fellow citizens excepts as the butts of jokes.
I have trouble distinguishing the two (but hey, I'm no expert) and find
the line is blurred to non-existent. Do you mind if I just lump 'em? 
Nevertheless, alas, we have to deal with them, because the "Christians"
are a well-organized political force, which, especially in the arena of
public education and curriculum, is trying to impose its Weltanschauung.
Are they not one of the major impediments to really openminded education? 
> | I think education also contains the training of critical
> | thought, the honing of logical skills, the offering of intellectual
> | stimulus and challenge, the nurturing of intelligence, the knowledge of
> | how to seek and access information, presentations of frameworks of
> | knowledge that order and contribute to retaining information, contact with
> | differing modes of thought, the inspiration conveyed by the experience of
> | others' creative genius, the helping hand of a caring person. I view
> | education from a practical perspective of offering kids the best possible
> | access to information and training of their skills and not so much as an
> | issue of the Klassenkampf.
> 
> The education you describe above in America is distributed
> at prep schools and some special public schools to candidates 
> for posts in the ruling class.  The remainder get no such
> instruction -- in school, that is.  As far as I know.
That's what I'm saying, although I hesitate to state it as categorically
as you. Therefore public education should radically change to incorporate
or at least strive for the above perspective. This requires public
commitment, engagement and yes, tax dollars not just for my own community
but also others', that may desperately need it. This deficiency is what I
mean by selfishness.
It's interesting that you cast American society as firmly structured in
classes. This seems to run against the conventional wisdom of America
striving to be a classless society, with equal opportunity for all. I too
find America to be quite class-structured and to be much more
class-conscious than much of Europe. The movement through different social
strata (the "permeability") on a daily basis is much more difficult.
Status is a really big deal in the US, especially at the work place. Just
consider the hire-and-fire mentality that permeates the American job
market. The way workers can be treated as throw-away items, just doesn't
cut it over here. Here social attitudes and responsibilities are a major
factor of how we interact and perceive the necessity for society to
function. OTOH, many Americans get kind of a Pavlovian rejection reaction,
wenn something even contains the word (or concept) "social". You see, they
want "freedom".
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Such is the omnivorous nature of liberalism, that one can
> hardly make progress against it without being at least
> middle-class within it.  It's an impressive system.
Could you give me a working definition of liberalism?
What's the system?
Tom.

Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri wrote:
> 
> In article <55v9fu$etp@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>,
> Hauke Reddmann  wrote:
> >Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri (coolhand@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
> >: In article <55scd5$hoc@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>,
> >: Hauke Reddmann  wrote:
> >: >"True" cross products only exists in dim 3+7.
> >:
> >: Could you explain why 7-d also works?  (Also what exactly do you mean
> >: by "true" cross product?)
> >:
> >Ask on sci.math, I'm only a "trivia" expert ;-)
> >(Somehow this is connected to Stokes theorem. Another
> >trivia I remember...I believe in a recent back-issue
> >of Am.Math.Monthly something appeared)
> 
> OK, dutifully cross posted to sci.math.
> 
> So, math-types, anyone got an explaination for this little fact.
> 
> --
> ======================================================================
> Kevin Scaldeferri                               University of Maryland
> 
> "The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instictive"
Some people go on repeating that in n-dimensional spaces 
a cross product is only properly defined if you are given (n-1) vectors. 
This might be true in general, but there ARE WAYS to define 
a CROSS PRODUCT of TWO vectors a and b 
provided that YOUR VECTOR SPACE has ``ENOUGH STRUCTURE''. 
To see this let's first take a look at 
why there is a cross product on 3-dimensional space: 
IT'S BECAUSE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE CAN BE IDENTIFIED WITH THE 
(much discussed) SPACE OF QUATERNIONS 
(and 3-d space with the space of imaginary quaternions. 
Suppose we are given an orthonormal basis of four vectors in 4-d space; 
let us call them 
	1, i, j, and k. 
Define a multiplication on the space by the multiplication table
	. |  1  i  j  k 
	----------------
	1 |  1  i  j  k 
	i |  i -1  k -j 
	j |  j -k -1  i 
	k |  k  j -i -1 
Thus we define a multiplication on our 4-d space; 
BUT CAREFUL: Multiplication depends on the order of factors: 
	i.j = k 
but	j.i = -k .
We've lost commutativity. 
A general vector in 4-space (which we will call a quaternion) 
is given by the linear combination 
	x = a . 1 + b . i + c . j + d . k  
or simply 
	x = a + bi + cj + dk, 
where a, b, c, d are real numbers (the coordinates of the vector x in
the 
given basis 1,i,j,k). 
The coefficient a is called its real part 
	a = Re(x) 
and the remaining rest 
	bi + cj + dk=Im(x) 
its imaginary part. 
A conjugation is defined by 
	Conj(x) := Re(x) - Im(x) . 
The space of imaginary vectors is just ordinary 3dimansional space and
we will 
see that the cross product is simply derived from the product on the 
quaternions as follows: 
For quaternions x and y define the cross product x X y as 
	x X y = -1/2 Im( Conj(y).x ) .
On the imaginary part this restricts to 
	x X y = Im (x.y) 
and is just the ordinary cross product 
with e.g. the following properties: 
	(1) x X y is alternating: y X x = - x X y ; 
	(2) |x X y| = |x \wedge y| . 
Now to the generalization to dimension 7 (or 8 respectively). 
Here we need the OCTONIONIC STRUCTURE on 8-space: 
Write an ortorgonal basis of 8-space as 
	1, i, j, k, l, il, jl, kl ; 
write an arbitrary element (octonion) as 
	a + b.l 
where a and b are quaternions and define a multiplication by 
	(a+b.l).(c+d.l) := (ac-Conj(d)b) + (da+b.Conj(c)).l . 
This time we even loose associativity of the product, 
e.g.: 
	(i.j).l = k.l = kl 
	i.(j.l) = i.(jl) = (ji).l = -kl . 
Anyway, a cross product can be defined on the octonions by the same 
formula as in the quaternionic case (the real part of a + b.l is just
Re(a), 
the imaginary part the rest Im(a) + b.l). 
And the restriction of this cross product to the imaginary octonions is 
the one you are looking for. 
Properties (1) and (2) still hold in the octonionic case. 
A good introduction to octonionic structures can be found in sections
IV.A 
and IV.B of the following article 
	R.Harvey, H.B.Lawson Jr. 
	Calibrated Geometries 
	Acta Mathematica 148, 1982 
	pp. 47 - 156
Hope this helps a bit. 
Regards 
	Thomas
--
Thomas Mautsch 
mautsch@mathematik.hu-berlin.de

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!

sdef! (savage@easynet.co.uk) wrote:
:It isn't illegal, that would cause a revolution. It's just licenced. If people 
:want to party they have go to the approved venues, have to put moneey in someones 
:pocket. They arent allowed to gather somewhere and just party. It is ILLEGAL to 
:gather on public land without a licence.
:Pubs have to have a special licence to allow dancing.
:You can't have fun unless you pay, unless you can afford to pay, otherwise if you 
:try you are acting illegally. It's bullshit dreamed up by old gits in grey suits 
:who hate life.
On the other hand, there's a lot of *good* things to come of licensing; it
generally insures *some* level of safety and accessibility to the venue,
which would be a damn good thing should something not-cool happen at said
venue, such as a fire, or a floor collapsing from stomping ravers.  Regulation
allows for the existence of that which many find displeasing, and much of
society, if they had their way, would thumb their nose towards most anything
with loud music and people dancing, regardless of the venue or style of music;
regulation provides for both an offense against that kind of thought, and
defense when used against you.  It prevents society from becoming nothing
more than the tyrrany of the masses, at times.
If your problem is that licensing is too tight, well, join the club, a lot of
us feel that way.  However, I don't think it's fair to attack the *concept*
of licensing in a society that, for the most part, thinks of things in black
and white, and would gladly wipe it away for all of the bad press it's seen.
Licensing is a way of proving to the local government that you can provide
a safe and controlled environment that meets generic social guidelines; that
prevents people from thumbing you based on prejudice, to some degree.
Unfortunately, it doesn't do well enough at that.  But not giving up is the
answer.
:plur
Greg
--
     Reality is a sticky llama.  Or, at least, it was last time I looked.
Security Administrator, Lemon Internet                   gblock@lemon.net
   The American Were-Poof in London               http://www.lemon.net/~gblock

Joseph Edward Nemec wrote:
> 
> You are an uncultured,
> monolingual, materialistic boor with absolutely no depth.
I've been away for a few months and I come back and,
blow me, Nemec is *still* here in soc.culture.british!
Listen, Nemskull, why don't you take your inane patter, 
goofy grin, gun fetish and bloated body off somewhere else?
The spectacle of *you* condemning anyone as uncultured
is tremendously risible but the grim pleasure I get from
it is more than outweighed by the bile that rises in my stomach
when I see your name in print.
(Oh, and what's the betting he's unable to resist a stupid 
comment about my first sentence?)
Jason