Newsgroup sci.physics 207457

Directory

> gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
> | That's quite possibly true. Instead a large portion of them seems to
> | prefer handing control to demagogues, preachers,  blind faith, and a media
> | concerned more with holding short attention spans than providing
> | information in the warranted complexity.
> 
> +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Exactly.  Lunatics on stumps.  But the lunatics don't look
> down on them, even though they're up on stumps....  They're
> scanning the heavens for a sign.  Remember our ancestors:
> religious fanatics, [..........], huddled masses yearning to
> breathe free. We are sensitive to being looked down upon.
Although I can follow your historical reasoning, doesn't the cat somehow
bite its tail?:  It is this very act of elevating ignorance, adhering to
lunatics and worshipping the heavens and "scripture" that induces the
being-looked-down-upon.
> gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-):
> | This chain of associations:
> | Intellectual=bourgeoisie=enemy -> resistence (I call it contempt)
> | is most certainly prevalent and has in its own way become a testimony of
> | faith. I think Americans are not sufficiently irreverent of great
> | ignorance.
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
> No, I think Americans like information.  After all, they --
> we -- got this whole Internet / Web thing going, and we
> support the _Weekly_World_News_.  
Well, yes....to information, but what kind of information and why? Mostly
all this information is being shoved around just for kicks. Look at us.
That's where I think Americans truely excel - in having fun.
Not that I think learning shouldn't be fun. In fact that's just it. - The
fun of it should be encouraged.... Maybe the Internet will help. But then
again, could it be, just maybe, it's just another thrilling distraction.
Actually, the point I was trying to make above is that the association
intelectual=enemy is a matter of faith in its own right. Ignorance as
creed. Educatedness as embodying demonic evil.
+@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:
> I'm certain the hostility towards intellectualism and 
> institutions of learning is a class thing.  Remember, 
> it was only about a generation ago that popular culture 
> became a respectable subject of attention for all but a 
> tiny minority of intellectuals. Prior to that, going right
> back to the 17th century, there's a lot of sneering, based 
> mostly on identification with Europe.  Cultures change 
> slowly, even in America, and I don't think that sneering 
> has yet been forgotten or forgiven.
Oh, it can't be forgotten, because it's still alive and kicking in many
corridors of academia, and over on this side of the Pond widely popular
antiamerican cultural chauvinism will try its hardy best to make sure
Americans never do.
Tom.

Christopher J. Henrich wrote:
> Concerning neutrino counts associated with SN1987:
> ... it seems to me that the observation of neutrinos coming 
> from that supernova must imply a very stringent bound
> on their mass.
About 14 eV.  This has been superceded by laboratory experiments,
which lower the limit to 7.3 eV (1992 Particle Data Booklet).
Best Regards, Peter

When Newton wrote that he didn't make hypotheses (e.g. about why the
planets obeyed an inverse square law), we can ask what kind of
hypothesis his interlocutors might have had in mind.  My impression is
that they would have liked a hypothesis about what motivated God to
choose an inverse square law.  In the era preceding Newton's such
hypotheses were offered.  Recall that Newton was born and spent his
youth in an era of religious war.
My tract, _Letter to Christian Physicists_ (title adapted from Martin
Luther), contains an invented quotation from Newton saying that he
designed his equations to express the glory of God.  No-one seems to
have notice that this directly contradicts what Newton actually said.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

VOUTIER PAUL wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> I have some questions that came to mind while
> reading Chapter 5 of Feynmann's Lectures on Physics
> yesterday. Maybe someone can tell me what's going on.
> 
> The first one concerns a comment about the lifetime
> of resonance particles near the end of Section 5-3
> on page 5-3. He says that their lifetimes are about
> 10^{-24} seconds. With the other time scales he mentions,
> he states how they were measured, but here he doesn't
> say. How do they determine these lifetimes which seem
> so short? The only thing that comes to mind is that if
> they could determine the energy of these resonances then
> maybe they are in violation of some law of conservation
> of energy, but Heisenberg's uncertainly principle lets
> them live for a little while. Does this make sense?
> 
You are on the right track: times less than about 10^-15 
seconds are always found via the Heisenberg Uncertainty
relation for time and energy. 
> If this is the way physicists do it, then how do they
> determine the energy? How do they know there is just
> one particle of energy X, instead of n particles of
> energies x_{1},...,x_{n} whose sum is X? etc...
> 
There are many ways to measure energy. Calorimeters are
one. Perhaps one of the particle accelerator people could
be more helpful.
> The second question concerns the photo in Figure 5-9
> on page 5-8 of the virus molecules. There is a calibration
> ball in the picture. How did they find an area of the
> surface being scanned (or whatever you do with an electron
> microscope) which contained a calibration ball?
> 
They may be two different pictures, one of a calibration 
plate, and the other of the virus. If they are taken with
the same settings, they should be comparable.
> The second thing about this picture. The caption says that
> the diameter of this calibration ball is 2*10^{-7} meters.
> How do they measure that? How accurately made are such balls?
> For that matter, how do they make them?
> 
I don't know, but I would also be interested in the answer.
Best Regards, Peter

In <563cef$5e7@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes: 
>
>    I am having trouble understanding something. I have already asked
>Mr. Oakley for clarification in a private email, but I would like to
>pose the question to this newsgroup at large. Mr Oakley, in his
article
>"In the Interest of Physics," puts forth the hypothesis that gravity
is
>an interaction between energies, rather than a force between mass. My
>hypothesis is that electrostatics is also an interaction between
>energies, rather than a force between charges. If this is so, then why
>is the interaction proportional to mass rather than charge. In other
>words, the force equation, Coulomb's Law, is a function of mass rather
>than charge. Shouldn't the interaction be proportional to both mass
and
>charge, since they are both essentially the same? And shouldn't the
>interaction between mass also be proportional to both mass and charge,
>since they are both essentially curvatures in spacetime? Should Mr.
>Oakley therefore apply his calculations to both Coulomb's Law and
>Newton's Law?
>
>Regards,
>Edward Meisner
P.S. Would a spacetime calculus be helpful here? Something that would
give you the sum of all the geodesics due to all the fields and give
the resultant motion of the particles?

T. Sloan wrote:
>         A couple of weeks ago, our prof. by some outworldly motivation,
> assigned the term design and thesis:
> 
> * Build a buggy of mass<250g, powered by rubber bands and cabable of pushing a
> mass=300g of specified distances of up to 6.5m.
> 
> How the hell do I do this!!!!! 
[Moderator's note: Extraneous quoted material deleted. - JB]
               Try using pullys to reduce speed.  (Ten to one ratio)

Hello!  I'm searching for any and all information I can find on the topic of 
low-temperature engineering.  Specifically, the use of liquid nitrogen 
cryogenics to temper tools and other miscellaneous products for business.  I 
found one article in the May, 1995 Tooling and Production magazine, but other 
than that I've come up empty-handed.  Does anyone have information or know a 
good web site or FAQ that would have the information?  Even the name and issue 
of a recent popular science periodical or book I might find at a public 
library would be helpful.  Please reply to:  shakey@indy.net.  Thanks!
Peter Binkley
shakey@indy.net

I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.

Andy Perry (Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu) wrote:
]In article <55tvf7$jkt@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu
](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]>Andy Perry (Andrew_Perry@Brown.edu) wrote:
]>]In article <55mg2t$8p0@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu
]>](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]>]
]>]
]>]>]> If you find meaning in lunatic ravings, you are liable for getting
]>]>]> locked up in mental institution. So much for your cherished
]>]>]> article of faith - that no text can be called gibberish if there
]>]>]> exists some sucker who thinks it's truly deep.
]>]>]
]>]>]If you can use a particular utterance to label someone a lunatic and lock
]>]>]them away in an institution, you are hardly failing to attribute meaning
]>]>]to them, now are you?  
]>]>
]>]> Your reading is sloppy. I am talking about meaning of texts.
]>]> I do not know what is "attribute meaning to the person" - 
]>]> sounds like a gibberish to me.
]>]
]>]My writing was sloppy, not my reading.  Let me rephrase: You are
]>]attributing meaning to the text by calling it "lunatic raving." 
]>
]> Your thinking is even slopier then your writing. By calling
]> the text "lunatic ravings" I attach the meaning to the act of
]> creating it, not to the text itself.
]
]And "the text itself" isn't your only means of access to the act of
]creating it?  You don't use it to STAND FOR the act of creating it? 
 Neither I use the cheese to stand for the act of milking. Gee ...
] If
]not, what does the text have to do with its lunatic or nonlunatic status? 
]And you call MY thinking sloppy...
 They say, one fool can ask more questions in an hour then 10 sages
 can answer in a year.
][Much snipped to get back the the point of all this.  You're welcome. 
](I'm not talking to you, Kagelenko.)]
 I am so sorry to upset your royal self. Your snipped couldn't have
  anything to do with your inablity to answer, by any chance ? 
]>]>]>]  It's kind of like
]>]>]>]feeling pain, don'tcha know?  The same cannot be said for tangible
]>]>]>]objects.
]>]>]>
]>]>]> I note dryly that you fail to make a distinction between logic and
]>]>]> emotion.
]>]>]
]>]>]I note dryly that pain is no more an emotion than are red, cold, or odors.
]>]>
]>]> Neither of those are emotions, they are facts of material
]>]> world that can be measured and that exist independently of any
]>]> observer.
]>]
]>]All four are sensations. 
]>
]> Thos words denote both the sensations and the causes that prodiuced them.
]
]Does any of this explain why you think pain is an emotion?
]
]> It seems that you are trying to ignore latter meaning.
]
]No, you moron, I am trying to point out that sensations are incorrigible,
]remember?  That was the whole point of bringing them up.  People can see
]red, feel cold, or smell bacon frying under many different circumstances. 
 You overwhelm me with the depth of your observations.
]Maybe they are experiencing physical objects in the real world external to
]themselves.  Maybe they are dreaming, remembering, hallucinating, or
]imagining.  In NONE of the latter four cases are they "wrong" about
]experiencing what they are experiencing.  Even someone who is
]hallucinating really is seeing red or feeling cold.  The problem is that
]they think this sensation has a relationship to external reality which it
]does not have.  But the sensation is itself real.
 That's where men in lab coats come on the scene.
]I drew an analogy which you wanted to question, but you are so utterly
]bent on spuriously finding fault with anything you read that you have now
]talked yourself into a position where you CAN'T question my analogy
]anymore, because you no longer seem to believe that there is any
]difference between pain and meaning. 
 What a ridiculous assertion. Having a meaning is a property of a text
 which can be discovered by one's rational facilty, whereas
 same is not true for the pain.
] It's ALL rational in your book.  If
]I were you, I'd grant my description of sensation, and start talking about
]the major differences between it and meaning, rather than trying to make
]it sound like you have the same model for both.  Just a helpful hint on
]how to go about making your argument effectively.  Normally I get paid for
]those.
 I bet you don't. Advice like yours is worse then worthless.
]>
]>] None can be measured.  Their CAUSES can be
]>]measured, but that just isn't the same thing.
]>
]> Please note, that progress of neuroscience cast doubt on the second
]> part of your assertion.
]
]Please note that neuroscience only exists as a field if the second part of
]my assertion it accurate.  If it is inaccurate, then one would expect
]people interested in measuring perception to go into physics.
 I know that english departments denizens have a big problem
 with science.
]>]>]>]>]You'd much better try reading some Derrida, indeed.
]>]>]>]>
]>]>]>]> If you are good example of results of such reading, then I'll
]>]>]>]> pass.
]>]>]>]
]>]>]>]Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the only important
]>]>]>]difference between Silke and you is that she's read Derrida and you
]>]>]>]haven't?
]>]>]>
]>]>]> You are twisting what I said.
]>]>]
]>]>]How so?
]>]>
]>]> On the second thought, I replace my previous remark with note that
]>]> your question is irrelevant to my point, which was; dishonest sophist's
]>]> recommendation of some text as noteworthy is suspect and ought not
]>]> to be given weight to when making choces.
]>]
]>]And now YOU are twisting what you said.
]>
]> Are you caliming that your reading of what I said is privileged ?
]
]No, I'm claiming that yours is implausible.  You claim:
]
]"dishonest sophist's recommendation of some text as noteworthy is suspect
]and ought not to be given weight to when making choces"
]
]is a simple paraphrase of
]
]"If you [aka dishonest sophist] are an example of results of reading [some
]text], then I'll pass [on reading it]."
  Well, you seem to have flashbacks of long-lost ability to read
 now and then. However, your bogus quip still doesn't have
 anything to do with what I said.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

In article <562oce$fsf@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: In article <5612ek$j6h@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>: >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: >: In article <55vpse$ub0@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>: >: >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: >: >: In article <55vho0$o2k@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>: >: >: >
>: >: >Believe me, I'm aware of it. I am not aware, however, of Derrida having 
>: >: >applied for a professorship in physics, so it doesn't seem all that 
>: >: >relevant. The argument against Derrida so far has usually taken the form, 
>: >: >"hah, the guy doesn't even know the science, he doesn't know what he's 
>: >: >talking about, why should I listen to him."
>: >
>: >: The argument as I've seen it (note that I'm not involved in it) was 
>: >: rather "His statements in the specific passage quoted don't seem to 
>: >: make any sense."
>: >
>: >Okay, I'll bite -- why doesnt it make any sense? 
>
>: You ask me?  I told you already, I'm not involved in this argument.
>
>Not so; when the passage was first quoted, you quite publicly snickered 
>and presented yourself much amused. May I take the above to say, then, 
>that you have since reconsidered your original position?
>
Well, let me put like this.  Reading the statement as it stands, and 
assuming that the words used carry the same or similar meaning as in 
common usage, it sounds pretty ridiculous to me.  However, since then
you've pointed out that the assumption obove is baseless and one has 
to acquint himself first with the meaning of the terms "constant", 
"center", "game" etc. as used by D. and H.  Since I've no reason to 
doubt you on this I must conclude that in such case the statement, as 
it stands, is written in a foreign (to me) language and in the absence 
of an agreed upon translation, I'm not in a position to make 
meaningful comments.  Thus any comment I did made isn't meaningful.
So now there are two possibilities.  Either a unique, agreed upon 
translation can be arrived at, in which case we'll be in position to 
argue whether it does or doesn't make sens, or it turns out that there 
is no unique translation, in which case the statement is rather 
meaningless (though not necesserily nonsensical).
	.....
>: >Actually, a colleage of mine who has graduate degrees in both physics and 
>: >litcrit has mailed me his lecture on this question; I will, his 
>: >permission granted, post his take on it.
>: >	For the time being, however, let me phrase it like this: a lot of 
>: >scientists who were original contributors to 20th century science seem to 
>: >have understood SR and QM as profoundly unsettling in a philosophical 
>: >sense (Lew has posted on this briefly as well); 
>
>: Definitely.  I don't think that somebody here argued against it (I'm 
>: sure I didn't).  Which doesn't mean that any statement offered about 
>: the philosophical implications of modern physics is valuable, or even 
>: meaningful.  But, that's beside the point.
>
>It is and it isn't; it just means that any statement has to be tested in 
>both directions.
No argument here.
>
>: >I'm amazed that this point seems hard to grasp. I'll try again: Derrida 
>: >refers to SR as a decentering, destabilizing theory -- so have major 
>: >physicists before him.
>
>: I won't argue the "decentering" part, will already agreed that I've no 
>: idea what Derrida means by "center".  As for "destabilizing" I would 
>: say, quite the opposite.  Science was destabilized before relativity, 
>: by the apparent contradictions between the Newtonian notion of 
>: inertial frames and the implications of Maxwell's theory.  RElativity 
>: resolved these contradictions and restabilized science.
>
>Misunderstanding -- not destabilizing science -- obviously not. 
>Destabilizing a notion of time, perhaps, that used to hold up a lot of 
>non-scientific theories -- how's that?
Bingo.  Just what I had in mind.
>
>: But, I have a feeling that I know what you mean.  Relativity can be 
>: viewed as psychologically destabilizing since it brough home the point 
>: that out intuition and common sense which guided us through science 
>: previously are of limited utility.  
>
>Yes, I think that's partially at stake in the remark of Hyppolite that 
>the experimenter cannot live the experiment (quoting from memory).
>
>The previous concepts of invariant 
>: space and time intevals didn't just appear out of nowhere.  They were 
>: the product of our common sense, which we trusted as an absolutely 
>: reliable guide.  But, it turned out that common sense is just the 
>: distilled product of past experiences and once we've ventured into 
>: areas with which we've had no previous experience, common sense 
>: couldn't be relied upon any more.  Something like this, a situation 
>: where things you relied upon turn out to be unreliable, is quite 
>: unsettling and, indeed, destabilizing.  BTW, if you think that 
>: relativity is unsettling, you should take a look at quantum mechanics.  
>: Relativity is tame in comparison.
>
>I know, but I think we're finally moving on common ground here. That's 
>quite a heartening development...
To me too, believe me.
>
>: But, the destabilization is not in science itself, it is in the way we 
>: think about science.  Which, as I keep stressing, is not the same 
>: thing.  
>
>Absolutely; and "thinking about science" is what's at stake in this 
>discussion, as far as I can see. Nobody ever suggested that Derrida or 
>others were trying to advance science itself...
You were right, above.  There seems to be common ground here.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu  writes:
> David Swanson (dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu) wrote:
> : In article <55uhmd$12v@netnews.upenn.edu>
> : weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
> 
> : > Oh, give me a break; not three philosophers can agree on Plato's notion 
> : > of anamnesis, or on what the status of his daimonion is; put any three 
> : > Kant scholars together and they will argue bitterly about the sublime; 
> : > likewise, try to get pragmatists to agree on Dewey's notion of 
> : > intelligence. In this regard, theory may as well be poetry. Which, 
> : > incidentally, is one of the claims post-struc is making, to wit that it 
> : > has become increasingly difficult to draw a _rigorous_ line between 
> : > philosophy and literature.
> : > 
> : > Silke
> 
> : Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dewey would have drawn the line at the
> : unuseful.  The useful includes a good many books of all kinds of types.
> :  The unuseful includes quarrels over what Dewey's notion of
> : intelligence was.
> 
> You're wrong. I don't think Dewey ever objected to people talking about 
> Dewey. Incidentally, and more importantly, these discussion strike me to 
> be neither literature nor philosophy, so your objection doesn't apply.
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Silke
>  : 
> David
> 
> : I probably love you.
> 
Didn't mean it to "apply." It was just a comment, pointing out
a DIFFERENT distinction.  I stand by
it.
DS

jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU:
| ...
| However, the ordinary, unreflective person often has contradictory
| ideas in mind, i.e. can simultaneously believe in science and
| technology and also in abductions by aliens.
I don't see anything unscientific in belief in abductions
by aliens, given the information available to the average
person.  I heard Dr. Sagan complaining about such beliefs on
the radio, and yet all he could come up with as a counter
was appeal to authority -- not a very good
argument.
Of course, part of the problem here is political -- the
ownership and operation of the media and the government by
people who lie as a matter of course, something the public
seems to be at least dimly aware of.
|                                             The literary, high
| culture that denigrates science and scientists is almost as
| unreflective in many of its fattitudes.
What literary, high culture denigrates science and
scientists?  I'm not familiar with this.  I realize there's
probably something out there, but I want specifics.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

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

The world's first most beautiful syllogism was this.
  Since all things are made up of atoms, implies that the whole itself
is one of those atoms.   And so just find what numbers are special to
physics and that will tell you what chemical element is the universe.
 And here is the world's second most beautiful syllogism. These two are
the cream of logic and the sciences. BTW, the subject of logic is just
a subdepartment of physics just as mathematics is a subdepartment of
physics. We accept it as common knowledge that chemistry is subsumed by
physics. But we should never think that chemistry is as low down the
totem pole as is logic or mathematics , just because physics subsumes
all three of those subjects. We must remember that logic and
mathematics are physics experiments that need or require at most pen
and pencil and a few humans who nod their heads even though they barely
understand what is going on. But chemistry is right up there with
physics for chemistry is often required to use heavy equipment and a
lot of materials and much of the physical universe in some of its
experiments. Unlike logic and mathematics where the only equipment
needed is pen and paper. You see, mathematics and logic are physics
experiments where in the laboratory all you need is pen and paper.
Thus, most every physics experiment which uses more of the universe
than pen and paper, such as the Aspect experiment or the Bohm
experiment or the Faraday experiment or the Coulomb experiment etc have
magnitudes of more knowledge, wisdom, power and importance than does
any mathematical proof or logic argument simply because all that was
used in the mathematical proof or the logic argument was a few minds
and pen and paper. On the other hand , the physics experiments used
minds and a lot of the physical environment, the universe and hence
those experiments place much more knowledge on the world we live in.
  Sorry I strayed from the subject.
Here is the world's second most beautiful logic syllogism.
I knew this syllogism back when I propounded the HYASYS theory --
Hydrogen Atom Systems theory. That the Strong Nuclear force is but
nuclear electrons and that a neutron is nothing but a energetic
hydrogen atom containing a nuclear electron. HYASYS makes all atoms as
a composite hydrogen atoms. Thus a plutonium atom 231PU is an energetic
arrangement of 231 hydrogen atoms (counting the 137 hydrogen atoms of
the 137 neutrons and the 94 proton-94 electron systems).
I have delayed too long so here is the world's second most beautiful
logic syllogism. (Often I get so many ideas flooding my mind yet it is
annoying to me that it takes so long for me to explain these ideas to
someone else. That I can get a great idea in a split second, yet to
communicate that idea takes many minutes or hours to tell others.)
 2nd Syllogism:  First was since all things are made-up of atoms
implies the whole universe is one of those atoms itself. Now the Second
connects with the first. Second is: If atoms are the last cut, the last
division and that all things subatomic have no independent existence,
this implies that there exists no infinite regression downwards nor
infinite progression upwards.
  If you look in the book COSMOS there is a hint of the Atom Totality
theory but the author yaks on about infinite regressions downwards into
universes and infinite progressions upward into new universes. But if
we accept this 2nd logical syllogism that existence is connected with
an atom and that the cutting process or the dividing process must stop
at some point, then we are left with, have remaining the Atom Totality.
  Years ago I posted that the present particle physics zoo of so many
different particles all is cleared out if you accept the fact that the
atom is the last cut and that any and every particle is connected to
some atom somewhere and that all of these particles have no independent
existence from some specific atom.
  You can sort of see that the 1st syllogism is connected with the 2nd.
The first bespeaks of completing, completion of an idea, the Atomic
Theory that all matter is composed of just atoms. And the second
bespeaks of existence, what can exist and the answer is that only atoms
exist. When you see a subatomic particle that is okay but you neglect
to specify the rest of the atom for which that particle you are
inspecting belongs to.
  What this 2nd syllogism does is talk of existence itself. If accepted
it destroys our modern particle physics zoo and straightens out that
mess that is that zoo. And if accepted it removes the idea of infinite
regressions downward such as down below quarks and on and on, and
infinite progressions upward also. It dismisses these infinities.
  And this 2nd syllogism already has experimental proof because of
HYASYS and the truth that a neutron decays into a hydrogen atom. If the
2nd syllogism were false, then there should not be any , any subatomic
particle that contains a full fledged atom. But, since the neutron
contains a hydrogen atom inside of itself means that the 2nd syllogism
is true and that the atom is the last and final cut. All subatomic
particles have no independent existence. Only an atom has independent
existence.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
| Too complicated for me, try to use simpler language.  Anyway, what 
| people are claiming is that if you use the formula
| 
| 	F = G*m_1*m_2/r^2
| 
| to calculate the force of gravity between two material objects and 
| then use the result as the force in Newton's F = ma, you get 
| predictions for trajectories which match well with observations (all 
| the above valid for classical physics, in GR the mathematical 
| formulation is different).  That's all.  Got it.  That's all!
| Whatever meanings you attach to it, whatever images it conjures in 
| your imagination, this is your business, having nothing to do with 
| science.  ...
Well, not very long ago I was taking quite a bit of abuse
for saying as much.  It was very interesting.  I think Noel
sort of blew up the game by cross-posting to sci.physics.
-- 
   }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{

Lew Mammel writes:
        [I seem to have missed this note in talk.origins; I just now found
        it in deja-news; my apologies for a late response.]
+ It seems to me that Einstein was making history, not recounting it.
I would agree with this, in whatever sense I can attribute to your remark.
+ He remarks in his book that Newton's postulate of absolute
+ space was necessary at the time, and you dismiss this as not
+ particularly cogent.
What book? The 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegeter Koerper" has no
mention of Newtonian postulates, nor any citation of Newton nor any comment
on earlier opinion in physics, except with reference to the (then current)
understanding of Maxwellian electrodynamics. The single allusion to Newton
is "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian
mechanics hold good." I would indeed dismiss this as not particularly cogent,
if the issue is Newton's ideas of space and time.
+ Einstein on Newton - not cogent!!!!
If you are refering to Einstein's popularizations, then (with no diminution
of respect for Einstein's physical genius) I'd have to say that he, like most
physicists uses historical figures primarily as symbolic counters in a game
HE is engaged in. If I may proffer some historiographical advice, it is a
*very* bad idea to approach the ideas of a historical figure by reading them
*through* the concerns of their heirs after some two centuries of development.
Far better (for historical purposes! :-)) to try to understand Newton by reading
him through the concerns of the immediately preceding generation or two, and all
the inherited baggage of earlier times.
Einstein on what *moved* him, on what the relevant ideas were *for him* is of
course extremely cogent -- even in popularization.  But what that has to do
with Newton is, perhaps, a rather more difficult matter to address. No?
When I read Newton without Machian (or anti-Machian) presumptions, I see little
to recommend the position you have taken. Perhaps I would change my mind if I
had a substantial exposure to Medieval and Renaissance treatment of natural
philosophy, especially if I were highly sensitized to Cartesian agendas and to
the Newtonian reaction to these. I understand (at some removes :-)) that this
was a live issue for Newton, and I would (no doubt) read the _Prinicipia_ with
more insight if I were better grounded in this. But that doesn't seem to be
what you are objecting to. Instead, you seem to assume that a late 19th century
reading of Newton (which was totally dependent on two centuries of work derived
from the _Principia_), is the "right" foundation on which to approach the
question
of what Newton thought. Frankly, I think *that* is silly.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon                             mls@panix.com        
        "sempiternal, though sodden towards sundown."

Volker Hetzer wrote:
> 
> > > Why be so stupid and wait until it's too late. Don't you think every
> > > rapist and murderer is gonna repent if they were standing before God.
> Actually one can be a nonbeliever WITHOUT beeing a rapist or murderer,
> you know?
> 
Sorry let me clarify. Don't you think every Nonbeliever is gonna repent
if they were standing before God.

throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote[in part]:

>Bjon's claim is that, for observer-independent results, there must be
>an observer-independent cause.   OK.  Fine.  But this observer-independent
>cause need not be a coordinate time, nor a velocity.  In Bjons' framework,
>since the coordinate time between two events varies, this variation must
>be due to the varying of some observer-independent absolute "velocity".
>This is exactly as daft as the claim that since delta-x between two
>points varies, this variation must be due to the varying of some 
>observer-independent absolute "slope" or direction.
I have two choices: [1] spend a lot of time typing an explanation, or
[2] let Throop try to explain.  Guess which one I chose?  Question: If
I see events A & B occur at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock (respectively),
and you find them to occur at 2 o'clock and 5 o'clock, then why (given
parallel x-axes on which are our clocks)? Answer: It may be because
our clocks had these time readings at the events. Question: Why did
our clocks have different time readings at the same two events?  And
not only different readings, but different time intervals per the
clocks. Answer: It may be because my clocks are not set like yours.
For example, if we assume truly simultaneous events (to keep it as
simple as possible), then my clocks are clearly set exactly one (1)
hour apart on my x-axis, while yours are just as clearly set three (3)
hours apart.  This is just as clearly NOT a relative thing at all; the
clock readings are real readings made by actual clocks, and recorded
in the Captain's Log.  And this is clearly the only possible way for
us to obtain those different times and different intervals for the
same two events. Question: How did our clocks get to be set
differently?  Question: Why are my clocks only 1 hour apart, and why
are yours a full 3 hours apart?

>: If a clock travels between two events, there's only one value for this
>: particular clock, and it is an absolute reading, not a relative one. 
>: And the clock that has the greatest reading has taken the shortest
>: absolute route between the two events, which is the absolute distance
>: between them. 
>But the "absolute distance" is completely irrelevant, and doesn't figure
>into any part of the SR model, neither explicitly nor implicitly.  Because
>the exact same SR calculations work no matter what this "absolute distance"
>or "absolute route" might be.
True, but also irrelevant.  My point is that SRT contains absolutes,
and the proper time is one of them, and it reflects the absolute
distance between two events.
>Just exactly as length in geometry works, and yields the same answers
>from the same measurements, no matter what direction you
>might choose as the "absolute direction".
>: you carry it beyond reason by denying the very existence of that which
>: SRT says we cannot determine -- our absolute velocity. 
>Sheesh, bjon can't even get *this* simple point correct.
>I DO NOT DENY THE EXISTANCE of absolute velocity, in this discussion.
>I say it's irrelevant.  I've lost track of the number of times
>I've told bjon this; dozens at least.  Yet he continually
>says I'm "denying the very existance of [] absolute [whatever]".
>Read my lips.  It's irrelevant to SR.
>I didn't say it was nonexistant, and in this context, I don't
>care whether it exists or not.  It's precisely as relevant to SR
>as absolute direction is to geometry.
>It's not beyond reason.  It's simply pointing out that SR doesn't
>involve any absolute velocity, in any of its formulae, nor in any of its
>definitions, either explicitly or implicitly.  The cases where bjon
>claims it creeps in are, in fact only places where bjon *drags* it in
>arbitrarily, to "explain why" (eg) SR synchronization works.  And this
>is as irrelevant to SR as dragging an "absolute direction" into geometry
>to "explain why" a straightedge works. 
>A straightedge works because it's straight.  It's straight because
>we've defined objects with certain relative properties straight.
>Just as with SR clocks and synchronization.
>--
>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
>               throopw@cisco.com
There are absolutes in the definition of synchronization, as there are
absolutes in much of the relativistic stuff, including the transforms.
Throop would see this instantly if he only knew how to show the
difference between a Newtonian observer and an einsteinian observer
measuring light's one-way, two-clock speed. Perhaps Throop can show us
this in detail, using algebraic clock readings. These are different
cases, you know.

> Thus, most every physics experiment which uses more of the universe
> than pen and paper, ...have
> magnitudes of more knowledge, wisdom, power and importance than does
> any mathematical proof or logic argument simply because all that was
> used in the mathematical proof or the logic argument was a few minds
> and pen and paper. On the other hand , the physics experiments used
> minds and a lot of the physical environment, the universe and hence
> those experiments place much more knowledge on the world we live in.
Sweetie---
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?
By the way...without logic to show man how to think and reason, the
chemists and physicists would be sitting around looking at one another
wondering how to begin.

Darla

(snip)
> 
> The point is that almost nothing in physics is EXACT.  There are
> just different degrees of approximation, from back of the envelope
> calculations down to the umpteenth decimal.  
(snip)
From "Genius":
The phone would ring and a voice would ask, �What is the sum of the
series 1 + (1/2)_4 + (1/3)_4 + (1/4)_4 +...?
"How accurate do you want it?" Feynman replied.
"One percent will be fine."
"Okay," Feynman said. "One point oh eight." He simply added the first
four terms in his head - that was enough for two decimal places.
Now the voice asked for the exact answer. "You don't need the exact
answer," Feynman said.
"Yeah, but I know it can be done."
So Feynman told him. "All right. It's pi to the fourth over ninety."
When people try to be too precise, I think to myself, "That's another
Feyn-mess you've gotten us into."
Rgds., etc.

Derrida:
>"I believe, however, that I was quite explcit about the fact that
>nothing of what I said had a destructive meaning. Here or there 
>I have used to word _de'construction_, which has nothing to do 
>with destruction.  THat is to say, it is simply a question of 
>(and this is a necessity of criticism in the classical sense of
>the word) being alert to the impliations, to the historical 
>sedimentation of the language which we use-- and that is not 
>destruction. I believe in the necessity of scientific work in the 
>classical sense, I believe in the necessity of everything which 
>is being done and even of what you are doing, but I don't see why
>I should renounce or why anyone should renounce the radicality of
>critical work under the pretext that it risks the sterilization 
>of science, humanity, progress, the origin of meaning, etc. I 
>believe that the risk of sterility and of sterilization has 
>always been the price of lucidity."
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>Derrida is lying.  Since his term `d�construction' is derived 
>from Heidegger's term `destruktion', the destructive implications
>are there, brought out by the argument from etymology, favored by
>the Nazi and the Nazi apologist alike.
Silke:
>Zeleny is lying, but he can't help it.
Zeleny:
>You are out of it.  See Rodolphe Gasch�, _The Tain of the Mirror:
>Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection_, Chapter 7, pp 109-121.
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>     I don't have the book handy, but the last time I heard Gasche, 
>he was arguing that the implications of Heidegger's _Destruktion_ 
>differ significantly from the English "destruction."   David Farrell
>Krell takes the same tack, noting that _Zerstorung_ would have been
>closer.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move.
[...]
>I meant that "historical sedimentation" is either transparently there or 
>not at all.  Matters of brute fact do not require elaborate corroboration.
     Moot point -- we agree that "deconstruction" derives, at
least in part, from Heidegger's concept of _Destruktion_; but as
I've pointed out, you want to give that a certain interpretation.
In particular, you claim that "deconstruction" has "destructive
implications" that it derives from _Destruktion_.  And that needs
an argument you haven't provided.  In particular, you would have
to show that _destruktion_, as Heidegger employs it, contains the
"destructive implications" you contend.  I've given some of the
objections to that idea.  You haven't replied, preferring to fall
back on the authority of "brute facts," which isn't sufficient
for your purposes.  In the event you were able to establish that
_destruktion_ has the meaning you think, you would then have to
demonstrate that "deconstruction" inherits it; but you haven't
made any efforts in that direction, either. 
Zeleny:
>Check his Greek etymologies against Liddell & Scott -- always 
>good for a giggle.
moggin:
>     I thought we were discussing the relation of _destruktion_ and
>deconstruction: you claimed Derrida is lying when he distinguishes
>them, and stated that "deconstruction" possesses the "destructive 
>implications" of Heidegger's "_destruktion_."  
Zeleny:
>As I said, implications are beside the point. 
moggin:
>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Zeleny:
>I brought up history, not logic.  Refer to Derrida's apposition of
>"the historical sedimentation of the language which we use" for HIS
>sense of `implications', which involves him in Heidegger's crypto-Nazi
>rhetoric by HIS own lights.
moggin:
>     Call it what you like, you brought up "destructive implications."
>But you haven't said anything that would support your claim, namely
>that "Since [D.'s] term `d�construction' is derived from Heidegger's
>term `destruktion', the destructive implications are there...."  (And
>needless to say, you haven't shown that Heidegger is using "crypto-
>Nazi rhetoric" -- that's mere demagoguery.)
Zeleny:
Derrida:
>"The word _d�construction_ ... has nothing to do with destruction."
>Derrida:
>"Deconstruction ... it is simply a question of ... being alert to the
>implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language which we
>use."
Gasch�: 
>"The main concepts to which deconstruction can and must be retraced
>are those of _Abbau_ (dismantling) in the later work of Husserl and
>_Destruktion_ (destruction) in the early philosophy of Heidegger."
>Deconstructively speaking, we have a contradiction.  Hence Derrida is
>lying, cqfd.
[...]
moggin:
>           Derrida isn't contradicting himself.  I take
>it you see a contradiction between his statements and Gasche's.  That
>wouldn't make Derrida a liar.  Gasche is entitled to give any reading
>he wishes, whether or not it agrees with Derrida's interpretation of
>his own work.  Even if Gasche _did_ disagree with Derrida here, that
>would simply indicate a difference of opinion.
Zeleny:
>As I said before, I am not in the least interested in Gasch�'s 
>READINGS.  His text is of value to my argument only in so far as it
>corroborates a well-known etymological FACT.  [...]
moggin:
>     Then you could've saved yourself the trouble -- I never disputed
>the proposition that "deconstruction" derives in part from Heidegger's
>"_destruktion_."  But you claim that the former contains "destructive
>implications" it takes from the latter, and _that's_ what you haven't
>been able to show.
Zeleny:
> Once again, the historical derivation is all the implication I need.
     And that's all it is -- an implication.  You claim that
history bears certain implications re: deconstruction; but
that's a matter of interpretation -- not "brute fact."  And
you haven't made a case for your reading, while I've offered
several strong objections; so as yet, Derrida isn't a liar,
Silke isn't out of it, etc.
Zeleny:
>Politician: "Vote for the Freedom Movement!  Our benign goal is being alert 
>to the national culture and historical genealogy of our fellow countrymen."
>Historian: "The main concepts to which the Freedom Movement can and must be 
>retraced are those of National Socialism."
>Politician: "The Freedom Movement has nothing to do with National Socialism."
>Citizen: "He is lying."
     If you want to claim Derrida's a Nazi, fine -- now prove it.
moggin:
>     But as it happens, Gasche and Derrida aren't contradicting each
>other.  Derrida says that deconstruction doesn't have "a destructive
>meaning."  Gasche observes that it stands in relation to Heidegger's
>concept of _Destruktion_.  You assume that _destruktion_ contains the
>"destructive implications" which you mentioned earlier -- but both
>Heidegger and Gasche say otherwise.  As I already observed, Heidegger
>says clearly that _destruktion_ does not have "the _negative_ sense
>of shaking off the ontological tradition."  (His emphasis.)  He goes
>on, "We must, on the contrary, stake out the positive possibilities
>of that tradition..."  So Derrida's assertion that deconstruction is
>not basically destructive is entirely compatible with Gasche's point
>that the concept derives, in part, from Heidegger's _Destruktion_.
Zeleny:
>Your valiant efforts to stake a claim of plausible deniability are
>duly noted.  Alas, nothing you say has the effect of dislodging the
>"historical sedimentation" of Derrida's term.  I said it before, and
>I will say it again -- Derrida deserves to be judged by the lights of
>his own theory.  If you are uncomfortable about my judgment, blame
>the man or his views.
moggin:
>     The question isn't whether your judgement makes me comfortable
>(do you mean it to serve as a couch?),  but whether it's valid.  You
>haven't offered any reason to think so, while the evidence against
>it is substantial.
Zeleny:
> So you say.
     Right.  And I notice you haven't offered a rebuttal, or
substantiated your own conclusions.  (Guilt-by-association
is no substitute.)
Zeleny:
>                                           My etymological
>argument satisfies Heidegger's (and a fortiori, Derrida's)
>demonstrative criteria with room to spare.
moggin:
>     You've offered only an argument-from-authority.  (The one that
>we're presently discussing.)
Zeleny:
>What else is new?  Arguments about history ARE arguments from authority.  
moggin:
>     Your claim concerns the implications contained in certain terms.
>But you haven't offered any support for it, except to mention Gasche,
>who appears to disagree with you, in any case.
[...]
moggin:
>All this on authority
>of Gasche, in a passage you didn't quote; but as I said, I've heard
>Gasche contend that "_destruktion_" doesn't imply "destruction" (an 
>argument also forwarded by Krell, on the basis I mentioned).
Zeleny:
>How phallogocentric of you to judge a text on the basis of an oral
>presentation! 
moggin:
>     ??  Where have I judged a text?  You based your case on Gasche's
>_The Tain of the Mirror_, but didn't bother to quote whatever you were
>thinking of.  I replied that while I didn't have the book handy, I'd 
>heard Gasche argue very differently in the past.
Zeleny:
> >>>>>And?  Am I responsible for his allegedly arguing in the past?
moggin:
>     In this case, yes, since you're relying on his authority.
Zeleny:
>Not at all.  I am relying on the authority of his TEXT, with which you
>are admittedly unfamiliar.
moggin:
>     Until you quoted the text, you were relying entirely on his name.
>Now that you _have_ quoted it, we can see that it doesn't support your
>argument.  (As an aside, you don't seem to remember what I said about
the book.)
Zeleny:
>Gasch�': "This unavoidable loosening up of a hardened tradition, and
>the dissolution of the concealment it has brought about, are not, as
>Heidegger often insists, violent acts.  Nonetheless, it is interesting
>to note that in the context of the public debate between Cassirer and
>Heidegger in April 1929 at Davos, Switzerland, Heidegger employed the
>much more forceful German word _Zerstoerung_, as opposed to its
>Latinization in _Being and Time_, to designate the radical dismantling
>of the foundations of Occidental metaphysics (the Spirit, Logos,
>Reason)." (p 113)
moggin:
> >    That repeats Krell's point, which I mentioned at the beginning,
> >i.e., that if Heidegger had intended to say "destruction," he would
> >have been more likely to use _Zerstorung_ than _Destruktion_.  Yet
> >_Destruktion_ is the term that "deconstruction" derives from (as
> >you've been at pains to argue).
Zeleny:
> More reading disability.  Like Gasch� says, `Zerstoerung' is a dysphemism 
> for `Destruktion', which Heidegger was wont to use in its stead.  Thus any 
> negative connotation of the latter a fortiori applies to the former.
     Gasche and Krell both point out the distinction between
_Zerstorung_ (meaning "destruction"), and _Destruktion_ (the
term Heidegger employs in _Being and Time_ and an antecedant,
as we agree, of Derrida's "deconstruction").  Heidegger takes
care to explain the meaning he attaches to _Destruktion_ --
it's not a synonym for _Zerstorung_.  If you want to contend
that Heidegger is (as I'm sure you'd put it) lying, and that
the former is just a euphemism for the latter, go ahead.  So
far you haven't gone beyond shouting and stamping your feet.
Zeleny:
>To put this disingenuous doubletalk in perspective,
>we are discussing the philosopher who publicly asseverated "the inner
>truth and greatness" of National Socialism as late as 1967; who defined
>in correspondence with Jaspers a moral equivalence between the German
>operation of the gas chambers and the postwar displacement of ethnic
>Germans from East Prissia by the Allies; who extolled his students not
>to make principles and "ideas" into the rules of their existence; and
>who never renounced his 1933 declaration that "the Fuehrer himself and
>himself alone is the German reality of today, of the future, and of its
>laws." (See Farias' biography for more gems of this kind.)
moggin:
>     Non sequitur.
Zeleny:
> Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance in yet another language?
> The point is that Heidegger's insistence on the benign nature of his
> procedure has as much credibility as your learned disquisitions on
> Einstein's "revisions" of Newton.
     So you say; but even if we agreed, just for the sake of
argument, that Heidegger's credibility was nil, you'd still
need to show that a) _Destruktion_ contains the implications
you find in it, in distinction from the ones that it appears 
to have in Heidegger's text, and b) that the implications you
find in _Destruktion_ are present in "deconstruction" as an 
inheritance (in distinction from the ones it appears to have
in Derrida's text).  You haven't.
moggin:
>                    But out of curiosity, were you the one who was
>quoting Lacoue-Labarthe out-of-context on the topic of Farias' book? 
>I can't remember who it was, but I'm reminded of your technique.
Zeleny:
> No.
     Must've been someone else, then.
Zeleny:
>            "We understand this task as one in which by taking _the
>question of Being as our clue_, we are to _destroy_ [_Destruktion_]
>the traditional content of ancient ontology ..." (Heidegger cited by
>Gasch� on p 112).  Read the book, or I will sic Silke on you.
moggin:
>     "...until we arrive at those primordial experiences in which we
>achieved our first ways of determining the nature of Being -- ways
>which have guided us ever since."  Yep, that's Heidegger, alright --
>and so?  You haven't established anything about Gasche's reading of
>"_destruktion_."  But two sentences later, Heidegger says explicitly
>that _destruktion_ does not have "the _negative_ sense of shaking
>off the ontological tradition."  (His emphasis.)  Which is just what 
>Gasche emphasized, as I recall.
[...]
Zeleny:
>Tell your problems to an optician.  All I want from Gasch� is his
>corroboration of the historical link between Derrida's term and its
>Heideggerian ancestor, which is well-known anyway.  
moggin:
>     Well, no -- you invoked Gasche to support your your assertion
>that "deconstruction" contains "destructive implications" which it
>supposedly derives from "_destruktion_."  (You also accused Derrida
>of lying for saying differently.)  That leaves you with an argument
>from authority which your chosen authority doesn't seem to support.
Zeleny:
>I cited Gasch� as an authority on etymology.  You seem to suggest
>that I should care about his interpretation, or your reading thereof.
>What a droll notion.
moggin:
>     I don't give a damn what you care about.  (Where do you get these
>ideas?)  Your only argument was a reference to Gasche, who appears to
>differ with you on the point in question, and a quote from Heidegger,
>borrowed from Gasche, which doesn't support you, either.  That's that.
>If you can come up with something better, you know where to reach me.
Zeleny:
>The sole point in question is the etymology of the term `d�construction',
>as derived from Heidegger's `destruktion' -- a proposition that Gasch�
>corroborates.  If you have other concerns, address them to your mother.
>She cares.
moggin:
>     I'm surprised you haven't learned to back down more gracefully,
>given all your recent practice.  Of course "_deconstruction_" derives
>in part from Heidegger's concept of "_Destruktion_."  That's obvious.
>But you claimed that since deconstruction derives from _Destruktion_,
>it contains "destructive implications," making Derrida a liar when he 
>says that deconstruction isn't fundamentally destructive.  And that's
>the contention you haven't been able to support -- it's based on the
>premise that Heidegger's "_Destruktion_" means "destruction," which
>you've failed to demonstrate.  And as I pointed out, Heidegger's
>text disputes you.
Zeleny:
>Horror of horrors -- Heidegger's text disputes me, just as it
>dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason?  I am crestfallen.
moggin:
>     Properly so.
Zeleny:
>Help yourself to the last word.
     Done.
-- moggin

Im Artikel <562g1t$304@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) schreibt:
>>> Scientists quote people like Popper, not because they are
>>>very good [they aren't], but because what Popper, et.al., says is
>>>somewhere in the neighbourhood.
>
>>Would you care to back up the claim in the brackets just a tiny wee bit?
>
>What did Popper say about evolutionary theory and why and when did he
>retract it?
>
>Will that do is as a tiny wee bit?
No. And having gone through all that Newton debate, you should know why.
But I'll explain. Claiming that someone 'wasn't very good' is a general
statement. Just like 'Newton plain doesn't work' etc. Popper said (wrote)
a lot of things. Even if his claims on ev. theory where a lot of BS, as
you suggest (and you would have to back up that just for credibility in
the eyes of bystanders), this doesn't necessarily discount anything else
he said. Remember Linus Pauling and Vitmain C? 
I know you can do much better, and if it (the jab in the brackets) was
only a temporary slip, just state it and let's forget about it. Otherwise
allow me to stick with Popper in general, if only for this very handy tool
he gave us (V vs. F), quite practically resolving a severe problem Kant
has left us alone with (not even mentioning his followers, *Weltgeist*,
wow, *Uebermensch*, no, thank you very much indeed....).
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Jeff Inman (jti@isleta.santafe.edu) wrote:
]mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
]>Jeff Inman (jti@isleta.santafe.edu) wrote:
]>]mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
]>]
]>]> Metaphysics deals with the question of possibility of knowledge.
]>]> Scientist does not need anything from metaphysics beyond the
]>]> fact of possibility of knowledge, much like humans managed to do
]>]> ad-hoc genetic engineering thousands of years before discovery of genes.
]>]
]>]If you don't understand the issue, just say so.  That would be the
]>]scientific way to go.
]>
]> I understand the issue pretty well, humanities types are bothered
]> to no end by apparent irrelevancy of their studies, and are 
]> trying hard to latch onto science bandwagon. Heh heh.
]
]Mati Meron's .sig goes like this:
]
] "When you argue with a fool,
]  chances are he is doing just the same"
]
]This seems to me to be a heuristic, rather than a scientific principle
]directed from necessity, but I'll take it to heart.  The next step
]will be to wonder whether, if I'm wise enough not to argue with a
]fool, he will continue to argue with me anyhow.
 Truth often sounds a bit foolish, doesn't it ?
]
]
]>  jti:
]>] The case is more clear if you go back, say, to Aristotle.
]>
]> Hand-picking cases to suit your theory ?
]
]It is tempting to try and straighten foolishness like this out.
 Hurts getting caught on the attempt to swindle, doesn't it ?
]>] The accuracy of a prediction has nothing to do with its objectivity.  
]>
]> That would be the case if differing predictions are possible.
]
]Not gonna do it.  Wouldn't be prudent.
]
 No, better not. Maintaining dignifid silence pregnant with impeding
 revelations is much more impressive. Heh heh heh heh
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
]In article <560d06$76s@lynx.dac.neu.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
]>Gregory  Dandulakis (gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
]>]It seems that you forget that science is, like biological
]>]evolution, a field filled up with dead-end hypotheses.
]>]These dead hypotheses are many-many more than the success-
]>]ful ones. 
]  [deletia]
]>
]> What a bunch of crackpot nonsense.
]
]Oh, I don't know.  The first two sentences were coherent, correct,
]and important.
 A lot of crackpots start out like that.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

-Mammel,L.H. (lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com) wrote:
]In article <560kd6$aip@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
]Michael Kagalenko  wrote:
]>
]> I just had a thought. I know the good way for the American Telephone
]> and Telegraph to cut their costs and boost share price a small,
]> really tiny bit.
]
]This thought is a little late.
 Ahh, make that "Lucent Technologies" instead of AT&T.; The thought
 still seems useful.
-- 
LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Hardy Hulley :
>>>>>>>>>>>The question of what does quantum physics *really* mean,
>>>>>>>>>>>physically, is still very controversial, and I guess one could 
>>>>>>>>>>>adopt the stance that it isn't meaningful. Of course, you'd then 
>>>>>>>>>>>have to contend with the fact that it does make incredibly good 
>>>>>>>>>>>*testable* predictions, in contradistinction to Derrida, who 
>>>>>>>>>>>makes no testable claims at all.
Anton Hutticher :
>>>>>>>>>>And successful predictions are of course the only reliable way to 
>>>>>>>>>>distinguish complex statements which sound like gibberish, but are 
>>>>>>>>>>not, from complex statements which are gibberish. The exception 
>>>>>>>>>>are fields which are formalized enough to permit a formal analysis 
>>>>>>>>>>without recourse to verbal handwaving. 
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>>>>>>>>>     Thanks, folks, for falsifying Russell's statement that logical
>>>>>>>>>positivism is dead.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>>>>Would you care to explain what you imagine the views suggested above
>>>>>>>>have to do with logical positivism?  Or are you merely trying to show
>>>>>>>>incompetence in yet another discipline?
moggin:
>>>>>>>     You're in no position to be issuing challenges, but I'll humor
>>>>>>>you, just this once.  Logical positivism:  meaning is verification;
>>>>>>>a statement that can't be verified is meaningless.  
Zeleny:
>>>>>>Not.  Verificationism is neither necessary nor sufficient as a
>>>>>>characterization of logical positivism.  For starters, you must
>>>>>>do justice to the genus and the differentia.
moggin:
>>>>>     So who's characterizing?  I offered a tenet, namely the one
>>>>>in common with the statements above.
Zeleny:
>>>>In other words, your offering had nothing to do with falsifying the
>>>>statement that logical positivism is dead.  Thank you for playing.
moggin:
>>>     Sure it did: if a central tenet of logical positivism is in
>>>circulation, and cited with approval, then it must not be dead.
Zeleny:
>>At the risk of hating myself in the morning for catering to the
>>wilfully obtuse, here goes another attempt.  F.H. Bradley, among
>>others, articulated the view that all propositions must have the
>>logical form of general assertions.  It follows that all Bradleyan
>>propositions make predictions, and all predictions are, by definition,
>>testable.  Hence BY YOUR LIGHTS, Bradley must be a logical positivist.
moggin:
>     Far be it from me to harm your self-image, but it seems to me
>that the statements above are sufficiently doctrinaire to qualify,
>in virtue of their contents.  Bradley, of course, is everything any
>self-respecting logical positivist would reject, but I don't feel
>at all compelled to enlist him in their ranks.
Would it help or hinder your comprehension to consider the point that
Messrs Hulley and Hutticher said nothing that Popper would have found
objectionable?  Is Popper a logical positivist?
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

In article <561dva$21vs@uni.library.ucla.edu>
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> At the risk of hating myself in the morning for catering to the
> wilfully obtuse, here goes another attempt.  F.H. Bradley, among
> others, articulated the view that all propositions must have the
> logical form of general assertions.  It follows that all Bradleyan
> propositions make predictions,
It does?
 and all predictions are, by definition,
> testable.  Hence BY YOUR LIGHTS, Bradley must be a logical positivist.
David
I probably love you.

In article <55v0ub$7b2@phunn1.sbphrd.com>, Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig 
says...
>
>In article <32756FDD.5D63@cam.org>, achim@cam.org (Achim Recktenwald ) 
>says...
>>
>>
>>But frequency is a characterisitc of a wave. How do you distinguish
>>photons, not waves, of different energy ?
>>
>>Achim
>
>By their frequency!!!
>
>What you've got to realise is that the correct answer to the question "Is a 
>photon a particle or a wave?" is "Neither". A photon (electron/neutrino/etc) 
>sometimes behaves like a particle, sometimes like a wave. Frequency is a 
>property of waves but it is also a property of fundamental particles.
>
Quantum effects can not be experienced at the macroscopic level and so are 
totally outside our ken. That is the problem. If we can not experience it we 
(or most of us) can not grasp it, except perhaps mathematically - even though 
quantum theory is so elegant as to have *predicted* any number of 
counter-intuitive phenomena such as quantum tunneling, etc, etc, which were 
later confirmed by experiment. 
Check out the last year or three of Scientific American for descriptions of 
several quantum experiments that proved some truly mind boggling interactions 
between apparently separate photons/waves as a result of simply deriving 
information from one or the other. A recent article demonstrated an optical 
system that allowed extraction of information from a single quantum without 
losing the information - a seeming violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty 
principle.
In other words, the question has no meaning, Give it up. It just proves there 
are some things beyond our physical experience and understanding. Nobody 
appreciates the vast beauty and complexity of the universe better that a true 
scientist, whatever his/her field.

lbsys@aol.com wrote:
---[GIGANTIC snip! sorry!]---
> Ah, there was a 60 million year old sneaker
> footprint being found at the end of the story in a layer of slate()....
Interesting story...sorry about intruding here, but there are tons of
REAL fossil anomalies, e.g. imprint of what looks like a sandaled
footprint crushing a trilobite; toads, frogs, spark plugs, nails and
even a pterosaur found trapped in unbroken coal...looks like the guy who
made that time machine was pretty careless, huh?? :)

dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) writes:
>zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>At the risk of hating myself in the morning for catering to the
>>wilfully obtuse, here goes another attempt.  F.H. Bradley, among
>>others, articulated the view that all propositions must have the
>>logical form of general assertions.  It follows that all Bradleyan
>>propositions make predictions,
>It does?
Trivially.  General assertions entail each of their spatiotemporal
instances.  It might be difficult to apply, or even articulate one
of the latter -- but hey, that's Bradley's problem, not mine.  To
put it in simpler terms, under the foregoing assumptions there is
no way to express an individual concept of any concrete particular.
The closest you can get to it is identifying it as the entity that
satisfies certain non-indexical properties.  If there happen to be
more than one of them, e.g. by dint of eternal return, you are out
of luck.
>>                               and all predictions are, by definition,
>>testable.  Hence BY YOUR LIGHTS, Bradley must be a logical positivist.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
[re the existence of absolute motion per bjon]
[roos]
>I am not discussing Einstein with you. My question rather relates to
>epistemology. How can you know a phenomenon exists if you cannot
>define it and not measure it?
By "not define," I meant "No working definition," not "No definition,
period."  We cannot measure gravity waves, but everyone believes in
their existence. 
Anyway, if light has no real (or absolute) motion, then how does it
get to here from the stars? And what type of light motion is source
independent, absolute or relative?  It makes no sense to say relative
because "Relative to what?" cannot be answered.  But let's go on to
more meaty proofs of light's absolute motion existence. In 1977, Ken
Brecher studied binary star x-rays to see if the stars' _absolute)_
motion (the only kind that _could_ have a real effect upon anything)
had any affect upon the emitted light's _absolute_ speed (the only
type of speed that could be affected by a source's motion). He said in
his paper that there would be a definite pattern if light's speed were
source-affected (or source dependent), and this pattern would be
readily observable from earth.  (The light would get "mixed up" as it
was emitted from stars moving rapidly in opposite directions).
However, no such telltale pattern was ever observed, meaning that the
light's actual speed thru space (or its absolute speed) was in no way
affected by the source's movement thru space, or the stars' absolute
movements. Note that the earth observer in no way measures any light
speed (either round-trip or one-way)in this case.  This is purely a
matter of absolute speeds, both of the light sources and of the light
leaving the sources.  All that was looked for was a particular
pattern, a pattern whose origins were light-years away, and in no way
affected by us on earth. Since no observer measured any speed at all,
the speed of the light in this is simply an absolute speed.
And if light has an absolute speed, so does everything else.
However, this does not mean that we can determine any object's
absolute speed. Mechanical methods fail due to inertia, and optical
attempts have failed due to various reasons.  Right now, the earth's
absolute speed could be anything from zero to nearly lightspeed (using
c as light's absolute speed), but we have no way (yet -- but some
think the CBR supplies us with an absolute frame) of determining the
actual value of this absolute earth speed. (We could so it if we could
find a way to start two clocks at the same time, but this, too, has
eluded us).