Newsgroup sci.physics 207568

Directory

sdef! wrote:
> 
> Dan Evens wrote:
> >
> > sdef! wrote:
> > > As far as I am concerned, nobody has a right to two homes when one
> > > billion people do not have a roof over their heads. This is UN
> > > statistics, as before, find them yourself.
> >
> > In other words, nobody has a right to be richer than you, since
> > you obviously have not reduced yourself to the level of poverty
> > of the poorest people in the world.  (Since you can still afford
> > to pay your Netcom bills.)  Hypocrite.

> 
> SOOO! the justification for having obscene amounts of wealth far above
> that needed for comfort, is the fact that there are people  starving in
> the third world!
Did all those folks in the third world work to gain said riches? Then
theroetically, they have no right to them. If you think they have, then
by extension it must also be that everyone must have an equal amount of
wealth, whether they earn it or not. The problem is, there is only so
much wealth to go around, and The exploits of the USSR showed just how
miserably that kind of logic failed.
> This really simplifies things. The rich have a very good reason for
> keeping the poor down...
"Keeping the poor down"... inflammatory speech without logical
justification doth not a valid point make.
> ...as it can be used to justify their wealth
How? most folks you would consider to be "wealthy" aren't in it to have
more than the next guy, they're in it to produce enough to insure beyond
a doubt security for themselves and their children.
BTW, at what point would you define "obscene" wealth? What arbitrary
figure would you affix to the definition of "too much"? To be honest,
you cannot. Back in the 1896, an income of $10,000 per annum was enough
to build the largest house in a medium-sized town, fill it with the best
crap to be found anywhere, and do a whole lot of travelling and
party-throwing in the meanwhile. 
Of course $10K per year here in 1996 wouldn't amount to much more than
rent, heat, and food, mere subsistence living.
Therefore, would it not be smart of the person back in 1896 or so to
amass as much as he/she could, so that by the time 1996 rolled around,
decendants wouldn't be forced to live on a $10K/year stipend? Roll the
dates to 1996 and 2096, respectively, and you begin to see why it is
that many of the smarter folks work to getting as much as they can get
hold of. It's not to "put down" the poor, it's to avoid becoming poor in
the distant future.
I know what's coming next... Bill Gates' 20 billion. Remember though,
most of that cash is only paper stock, and it's value fluctuates with
the market. To be serious, Bill would never see $20 billion turn tinto
liquid assets. I repeat, he'll never have that 20 bil in the bank,
period. The nanosecond he tried to cash in any but the absolute smallest
amount of MS stock, everyone and their dog in the market will see this
and dump their holdings in Microsoft, and the price will fall to such an
extent that he'd be lucky to get .01% of the stock's present worth per
share after it was all said and done, and wreck his company in the
meanwhile. I've tried to make it as simple and as brief as possible, but
if you want a further explanation, please let me know.
> 
> I have two rooms. I could choose to do work that enabled me to have
> more, but choose not to because what I would have to do to achieve that
> would support those who cause the problems. 
Then why should you complain about what another person chooses to do
with money that is not yours in then first place?
> Your position is
> indefensible. 
It's quite defensible: It's mine, not yours; therefore it's none of your
damned business what I do with mine.
> Mine is merely awkward.
And apparently covetous. If you cared as much as you say you do about
the poor, then take that job which would get you more money, etc., and
give it to the poor, or at least use it to help out and build something
that will help the poor instead. 
Your worry that making more money would help those who "cause the
problems", is absurd. Sure, you would improve their status, but it's not
to the detriment of others as you assert, so why the fuss?
-- 
Careful what you wish; careful what you say,
Careful what you wish; you may regret it,
Careful what you wish; you just might get it.
                             -from "King Nothing"

In article <563gt0$107i@uni.library.ucla.edu>
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> 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.
Well, I don't know whose problem THIS is, but some of us have outgrown
talking about propositions and general and particular and concrete and
entity and nonindexical properties.  As far as eternal return, I don't
getcha; couldn't your proposition eternally return too, or is it
disposable after a single use?
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

Archimedes Plutonium  wrote in article
<55tll9$f39@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
> In the future there is no other holiday, just one, plutonium day. It
> comes 7 November, today.
	In the future, somebody will sit you down and explain basic English 
grammar to you.
>                       PLutonium Day 7NOV1996
> 
>      This is Autumn 1996 and
>      College bell goes ding-dong-ding
>      Progress came on Earth with
>      the One Plutonium Atom Everything
	And scansion. Remind them to tell you about scansion
and metre.
>      Humanity, one lifeform among
>      many others in thy 5f6
>      The many advanced aliens pulse
>      with their pulsar ping
>      Grant us vision and wisdom
>      231 P  U
>      in thy One Atom Universe
>      Plutonium Everything
	Just one question, Archimedes; do you OWN any plutonium?
					David

     Goings on: weemba has made several intelligent, personable
contributions to r.a.b. lately.  Meanwhile, Zeleny has taken to 
chanting "Liar, liar" and offering arguments-from-it's-obvious, 
and Russell has begun a habit of saying, "Like, duh."  Meg been
messing with those algorithms again, or what?
-- moggin

katlady@earthlink.net (katlady) wrote:
>I used to live in Dayton OH, and several people swore they saw me 
>driving a certain car and working at a particular bank.  Not only did I not 
>own a car like that, I've never worked at a bank!  I would have shrugged 
>it off, had it been only one person, but it was several.
>Arabella
Hello Katlady,
i am Remco Angioni from the Netherlands.
I have met my double. Lucky for me he's living neartown !
For years people were talking about him. Now i have seen hin with my
own eyes !   
Also his friends were talking about me !
So for all of you, you have to find him/her.  Looks like twins !

FROM 11/9 NEW YORK NEWSDAY ARTICLE:
...even after the strong words from the federal officials, Salinger, who
is also a retired ABC-TV correspondent, stuck by his story in an interview
with The Associated Press. He repeated the comments made before an airline
industry conference in Cannes, France, that the Navy accidentally shot
down the plane because it thought all civilian aircraft would be operating
at 23,000 feet rather than the 13,000 feet Flight 800 was at.
``As far as the FBI statement and the Navy statement are concerned, I'm
not a bit surprised that that is their position,'' Salinger said.
He added, ``The FBI is now after me. They visited my house in Washington
last night and spoke to my wife, and I'm sure they are looking to talk to
me.
``I am getting my information from someone in the Secret Service who has
high contacts in the Navy,'' he said. ``I got the information from a
French intelligence officer.'' He said the latter had gotten the
information from the Secret Service person, but he knows both individuals.
``My information is that the Navy runs missile exercises off Long Island
four or five times a year,'' and after the July 17 incident, ``the people
responsible were put on another ship and sent out to the Atlantic.
``Who knows where they are now?'' he said.
The Navy denied that accusation, too.
Salinger's assertions, the officials said, appear to be based on an
Internet posting attributed to an unidentified former safety chairman of
an airline pilots association. That message was copied and recopied into
messages by other Internet users who believed the friendly fire theory.
In September, the author was identified as Richard Russell of Daytona
Beach, Fla., a retired United Airlines pilot who said he'd heard the
information from someone who attended ``a high-level briefing'' in
Washington in mid-August. Russell said in an interview yesterday that he
still believes that friendly fire downed the plane.
But the Air Line Pilots Association doesn't believe his claims, said
spokesman Bob Flocke. 
``We let the FBI and NTSB speak for us in the investigation,'' said
Flocke, citing the officials' firm denials.
Kallstrom said Salinger had not yet been reached by his agents, but the
bureau is interested in hearing his claims and seeing his docments.
Reached in Paris, Salinger's son Gregory said his father was expected
there last night and said a French radio reported that the families of the
TWA Flight 800 victims wanted a French judge to investigate Salinger's
claims.
The friendly fire rumors were born in the moments after the air
catastrophe as a number of witnesses reported seeing a streak of light
ascending toward the Paris-bound jet before it exploded 12 minutes after
takeoff from Kennedy Airport.
Flocke said yesterday that the rumor has ``had three lives'': just after
the TWA plane went down in July, about a month ago during a flurry of
media reports about conspiracy theories and now with the Salinger report.
But even before Salinger's statement, the friendly fire theory had taken
on a life of its own among TWA flight attendants, many of whom came to the
consensus that nothing but a missile could have downed the flight.
``In the industry, we are pretty certain it's something like a missile,
and if you look at the body language of, like, [NTSB Vice Chairman Robert]
Francis, he looks like a fish on a hook, like he wants to say something
but can't,'' said one TWA flight attendant, who spoke on condition of
anonymity.
``Most of the flight attendants think it was a missile,'' said another.
``A lot of [TWA] employees feel it was a missile. Evidently, all over
Europe, it is a missile, too.''
Recently, someone hired a private investigator in Manhattan to find out
more:  Vincent Parco said he has been combing bars on Long Island's South
Shore for several weeks chasing a rumor about a man who claimed his cousin
accidentally shot down the plane.
``We got a lead that it was friendly fire and that the guy who did it was
a young man who accidentally let off a missile during training
exercises,'' said Parco, hired by a private individual he would not
identify. ``I've been tracking down his cousin who went to a bar, got
drunk and told them, `Yeah, my cousin . . . Oh my God, what he did, he's
in a mental hospital.' ''
Kristensen said, ``To my knowledge, the Navy has never fired a live
missile in the ranges off the coast of Long Island.''

What about the problems of causality, which are implied by FTL travel. 
Incidentally, could someone give a simple explanation of why FTL travel 
does suggest time travel?
Thanks,
Roger Luther

You can eliminate the cool down period if you use a high quality
synthetic motor oil (I like the AMSOIL 5W-30 Series 3000 for my
turbodiesels) which do not form coke when heat soaked at 800F or more. 
Petroleum oils boil away leaving hard deposits (coke) that eventually
stop oil flow altogether resulting in turbo bearing failure.  I even
insulated the exhaust side of my turbo's with a kit I got grom JC
Gipme...I mean JC Whitney which is suppose to retain more heat to
minimize turbo lag.  I have over 80,000 miles on the turbo with no
problems.  Use cheap oil, you get what you pay for.  It's obsurd to
spend hundreds of dollars on after coolers and water cooled turbo's with
the real solution being the use of a better lubricant designed to take
the heat and for longer drain intervals.

In article <562tm4$o72@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom
Potter) wrote:


Then how could a gravity storm be detected?  Or am I confusing a term used
in weather reporting with the phenomena called gravity.
/BAH

Ash wrote:
> 
> 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.
Only if you think people should have a "fear of 'God'".
I've seen this too often to take it seriously; every time I've
told a believer that I don't need "salvation", they've turned
on me with the old threat "Just wait till you're standing
before 'God' and you'll soon change your sinful ways".
The fact is, I'm not scared of your "God" so I'm not scared
of "His" opinion of me.
The fact that some believers feel too scared of their "God"
to even be able to face "Him" just shows how pathetically
weak their so-called "faith" is in the first place.

It would appear that at earth surface conditions, atoms tend to form
molecules which (to use the shell model) have their highest shells
filled rather than hang around as individual atoms with unfilled shells,
right? In any case, such molecules will have an excess of protons over
electrons. Do such molecules have as result a net positive charge, or
does the shell mask that and they appear neutral to other atoms or
molecules?
If I am correct, then, if available, do 'free' electrons tend to hang
out in objects composed of molecules in order to balance the charge of
the object?
Thanks,
Rich Haller

gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) wrote:
>nanken@tiac.net (Ken MacIver) wrote:
>> gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) wrote:
>> >I find the poor state of American public education is an expression or
>> >symptom of much deeper and wide-spread deficiencies in the appreciation of
>> >learning and the educated in general. 
>> >Over here in German-speaking Europe education is highly esteemed, teachers
>> >and especially professors are greatly respected and society offers
>> >teachers tremendous benefits and job security to attract the bright and
>> >select only the best to teach its youth. Universities are free in order to
>> >offer everyone that qualifies regardless of parents' income equal
>> >opportunity. Society shows a strong commitment to see to it that everyone
>> >(not just my own kids) gets a good education.
>> 
>> There is some truth to this, I think.  However, in Germany (& most
>> other European countries, I believe), kids are weeded out quickly,
>> thos who don't make the grade are moved out into society or to a
>> technical school at a younger age, and the system concentrates its
>> resources on the select - i.e. those who attend the Gymnasium, for
>> example, in Germany.
>I dislike your wording of "kids are weeded out quickly", Ken. I'll assume
>you don't mean that as it sounds. Some kids simply have different talents
>and aptitudes than pure academic learning. The kids are set on different
>educational tracks early (a little too early in my opinion), but society
>also puts a premium and invests its resources on these technical schools
>and an apprenticeship system producing excellent trades- and craftsmen. In
>the US such a system doesn't even exist.
It's that "little too early" part that sticks in the craw of Americans
generally and educators specifically.  It creates and determines an
economic class structure at an early age.  It is also simply untrue
that the U.S. doesn't have excellent trade schools.  In my state of
Massachusetts, for example, there are many good technical high schools
and two year colleges that train people in all manner of technical
skills.
>> OTOH, Americans have an almost indecent obsession about higher
>> education, to the point of touting it without focus, lowering or
>> eliminating admissions barriers, and offering easy access to loans
>> that may encumber the students for a decade or more, dampening an
>> other wise youtful propensity towards risk taking and exploration.
>I don't agree with lowering admission barriers, but isn't that a direct
>result of universities and colleges being strapped for cash and seeing it
>as a way to bring in more tuition fees and increase the number of
>"successful" graduations and thereby procure more government support. If
>society would be willing to commit more support so schools can be more
>independent and maintain high standards even for low-income students that
>wouldn't be necessary.
Admissions barriers were lowered, IMO, to make school more accessible
to a greater segment of society.  Whether this is right or wrong, it
did not always bring in more dough, as, for example, in the case of
CCNY.  I do agree that society should commit more support to schools
but it is in how they do so that the battlefield rages.
>As for easy access to loans, I'm for it, and I will gladly take into
>account those students that end up sticking around the university a little
>longer, for the benefit of any and all students for whom this is the only
>opportunity to get access to higher education that is basically being sold
>on an education market.  For many it is the only ticket to exploration. I
>say support kids' educational exploration opportunities.
Maybe so, but like those easy loans for fancy tractors that sent many
a *family* farm into bankruptcy, kids straddled with $80,000 in debt
and no prospect of a decent job are often the losers in the endgame.
>America most certainly has some (maybe even most) of the very best
>universities and private schools in world, but they are extremely elitist
>and very expensive. What I'm talking about here is the commitment to
>"Everyman's" kids, to the public schools, the run-of-the-mill high
>schools, the community colleges or the creation of trade schools. Why are
>Americans _as a society_ so selfish when it comes to providing education
>to their own youth?
Americans are not so much selfish as [far] more diverse in size and
population than the typical European society.  Many cities and towns
provide substantial funding for good public schools.  What you think
of as *selfishness* is often a legitimate disagreement over whether
(and, if so, what kind) we should have a national curriculum.  The NYT
Mag had an article on this last week that described how both liberals
and conservatives are often opposed to this notion, albeit for
differing reason.
Ken MacIver

Ken Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
: How can you be so sure? Absolute motion of the earth is the motion
: relative to  the medium (E-Matrix) occupying space. This means that
: the earth has only one path of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. This
: path of absolute motion is made up of vector components of all the
: observed motions. An observed uniforn motion will yield a vector
: component in the direction of absolute motion. An observed accelerated
: motion will yield a vector component that will change the direction of
: absolute motion. The resulting path of absolute motion is curved
: (geodesic) and this agrees with the prediction of GR. 
       You mention geodesic motion of the Earth, but you
will have to graduate to consideration of the geodesic
motion of freefalling bodies, which cooresponds to the
inertial coordinates near the Earth's surface accelerating
toward the center of mass of the Earth.
       This has to mean your hypothetical E-matrix would
have to be flowing into the Earth, and any absolute motion
relative to the hypothetical E-matrix would be primarily
vertical.
: This means that
: all the Labs on earth have the same path of absolute motion in the
: E-Matrix and thus there IS such thing as an earth frame.
        If the inertial coordinates are flowing downward,
then maybe you could say the labs are accelerating upward,
if you want to consider it in a relative way.
: I am saying that the earth has one path of absolute motion relative to
: the E-Matrix and all the lights are waves in the E-Matrix. This means
: that the whole MMX apparatus is moving relative to all the light waves
: that it had deposited into the E-Matrix. This  motion is a receding
: motion. So it doesn't matter when or where you do the MMX experiment
: you will get the same result.
       The path of the Earth is not the whole story, 
SR cannot be considered by itself anymore.
       Old ideas fit well to a small part of the Earth,
but they don't hold water in in an expanded viewpoint.
Ken Fischer 

Peter Diehr (pdiehr@mail.ic.net) wrote:
: Ken Fischer wrote:
: > Nathan M. Urban (nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu) wrote:
: > : In article , kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: > : >        In General Relativity, freefalling objects move
: > : > along geodesics in spacetime, and they move in inertial
: > : > motion (are _NOT_ accelerated), but everybody says they
: > : > are accelerated.
: > : >        Bodies in orbit move in inertial motion, yet
: > : > everybody says they are accelerated.
: > 
: > : Relativists don't say they are accelerated.
: > 
: >                 I trust an explanation follows.
: > 
: The acceleration is in 3-space, which is what we see. But the 
: geodesics are in 4 dimensional spacetime, and following a 
: geodesic is the _definition_ of not being accelerated. 
: Thus you can eat your cake (in 3 space) and have it
: (in 4 space) too!
         Peter, this uncharacteristic of you, you know
perfectly well there is no _experienced_ acceleration
in freefall (in 3-space, or whatever).
         And I don't buy the story that the inertial
coordinates are accelerated toward the center of massive
bodies, but in the real world, I guess we are stuck
with that explanation. :-)
Ken Fischer 

Cees Roos wrote:
> 
> In article <3284A12E.6CD@ix.netcom.com>, 
> wrote:
> >
> > Cees Roos wrote:
> > >
> > > As far as SRT is concerned, absolutes are no more than romantic
> > > phantasies and irrelevant to physics. You might as well say they do not
> > > exist.
> > > --
> >
> > Ah ... so the only absolute is that there are no absolutes!
> 
> NO. SRT is a theory, i.e. a formulation of how we think the universe
> functions. The formulation of SRT was induced from empiric data, and
> subsequent experimental data conformed to predictions.
Hmmmm .... not in accordance with what I've read regarding Einstein's development
of SR. The literature I've seen indicates that SR was a pure thought-experiment
by Einstein. Though it's often stated that SR was the answer to the resolution of
M&M;, I find no evidence that that experiment played any role whatsoever with 
respect the development.
If you (anyone) have a cite of a direct correlation please post it. But I think
you'll find the thought-experiment stands on it's own without being based on 
any empirical data. ... Of course empirical data (observations, experiments, etc.)
has provided evidence of the theory's accuracy.
> If SRT would be falsified by data collected with a new experiment, it
> would be replaced by a new theory, explaining all the data SRT
> explained, plus the new data, which falsified SRT.
Unfortunately the answer is not that easy. The question is not only whether data
provides clear contradiction of the theory ... but whether there's an alternate
"theory" which explains the data. In other words, whether SR explains the data, 
experiments, observations, etc. exclusively. While simple confirmation provides 
validity to the use of a theory for prediction, it does not provide
the necessary proof that the theory reflects reality.
> So, no absolutes is not absolute, but a pretty good working hypothesis.
> 
Reality is the arbitrator. If SR is an accurate model (of reality) the theory
must be absolute in the sense of providing accurate data. The value of time
dilation wrt some particular velocity is an absolute value.
If you are speaking of some absolute frame of reference, even Einstein did not
believe (if one can accept the literature) that SR ruled out finding one.
> > So existance
> > "sort of" exists ... but not in any permanent defined way; and it's basically
> > irrelevant to physics (which is the study of the natural (material) world and
> > the phenomena therein).
> 
> I don't understand what you say.
> 
I'm saying existance, i.e. reality, IS absolute, and it is the superior final
arbitrator of all speculation ... even rigidly consistant mathematical ones. And
that everything else is relevant to this absolute ... not the other way around.
> >
> > Such a working metaphysics should take one a long way .... but of course
> > you never know where you are when you get there because any measure of
> > your location is non-absolute, i.e. illusion.
> 
> You always know where you are, i.e. here. If you want to know where you
> are in the universe, look around and you'll see.
> 
I agree with you. In fact this is the basis for rational objective metaphysics,
i.e. ostensive knowledge. But for those that claim there are no absolutes 
(except the absolute that there aren't any), one can claim the ostensive 
information is illusionary, and the "real" reality unassailable ... in which
case one could never "know" anything. While this may be an interesting 
philosophical question to discuss it has no bearing on the real world for 
real beings where absolutes are required for existance. Illusionary food is
good to sustain only illusionary entities.
> >
> > W$
> --
> Regards, Cees Roos.
regards, Bill Samples (W$)

In article <562e3k$l3e@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, Brian Jones
 wrote:
> 
> Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
> 
> >In article <55u757$ijt@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, Brian Jones
> > wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> SRT does not deny the existence of absolute motion -- it just says
> >> that it is undetectable.
> 
> >....and continues to give a perfectly convincing theory neglecting any
> >concept of absolute space or absolute time.
> >SRT gave a sound theoretical basis to some puzzling empiric data, and
> >predicted quite a few testable phenomena. Testing these phenomena failed
> >to falsify SRT.
> >As far as SRT is concerned, absolutes are no more than romantic
> >phantasies and irrelevant to physics. You might as well say they do not
> >exist.
> >-- 
> >Regards, Cees Roos.
> >Viewing facts in the light of your theory is only feasible
> >if you view your theory in the light of the facts.
> 
> However, as soon as you say this, SRT becomes untestable, and is no
> longer scientific.
On the contrary. Design an experiment which shows absolutes, and you
have falsified SRT. That is Popper's 'Criterion of demarcation' for
scientific theories.
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

In article <562dfs$mqv@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, Brian Jones
 wrote:
> 
> Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
> 
> >Please try to understand what I ask. I don't agree with you abou
> t what
> >Einstein denied or not, but my question concerns flaws in your
> >reasoning.
> >-- 
> >Regards, Cees Roos.
> >I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
> >to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981
> 
> Please state your case explicitly.
> I have attempted to answer, but don't see what you are getting at.
My original question was about your sentence:
  It exists whether or not I can "define" or "measure" it.
My question was:
  What you state in your sentence amoounts to:
    The something here, of which I don't know what it is, and which I
    cannot observe, is here anyway.
  How can you know?
So the question was: How can you know?
You answered:
  Einstein does not deny the existence of absolute motion, but the
  detection thereof.
Now, in my question I don't mention absolute motion, nor the detection
thereof, neither are these words used in the sentence I ask about.
This raises doubts about your understanding of my question. Hence
my request to try to understand what I ask.
I cannot help wondering how a person can think phenomena exist, and
at the same time think that these phenomena cannot be detected. That's
what I mean when I talk of flaws in your reasoning. Could you try to
explain to me how you manage to reconciliate these contradicting
views?
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

In article <562cuq$mqv@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, Brian Jones
 wrote:
> 
> Cees Roos  wrote[in part]:
> 
> To: bjon @ ix. netcom. com
> >> 
> >You don't understand what it is I am asking.
> >I don't agree at all with your statements about absolutes, but I will
> >not dispute your right to your opinion. However, when I try to
> >understand what you are saying I notice these strange contradictions in
> >your reasoning.
> >My question is not about absolutes. My question is about these
> >contradictions.
> >-- 
> >Regards, Cees Roos.
> >I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
> >to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981
> 
> Apparent contradictions.
Not apparent to me at all. Could you try to point out the error
in my reasoning?
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

Nathan M. Urban (nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu) wrote:
: In article , kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: > Nathan M. Urban (nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu) wrote:
: > : In article , kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: > : >        In General Relativity, freefalling objects move
: > : > along geodesics in spacetime, and they move in inertial
: > : > motion (are _NOT_ accelerated), but everybody says they
: > : > are accelerated.
: > : >        Bodies in orbit move in inertial motion, yet
: > : > everybody says they are accelerated.
: > : Relativists don't say they are accelerated.
: >         	I trust an explanation follows. 
: Hmm?  Relativists like to say that objects in geodesic motion are not
: accelerated, just like you seem to do.
       Great, I can't be wrong all the time.    But there 
appears to be an irrationality present, it concerns the 
apparent relative acceleration of the surfaces of massive
bodies and freefalling objects.
       I don't consider acceleration to be a relative thing,
I believe the accelerometer readings, and an accelerometer
resting on the Earth's surface reads 1 g.
       This isn't a big problem until the _cause_ of the
apparent relative acceleration is considered.   
: >          I haven't fully digested it yet, but it is
: > another case of finding GR has already considered the
: > possibility of matter expanding, but, the authors dismiss
: > the idea in a single sentence, only on the basis that if
: > the expansion was general all the way down to sub-atomic
: > scales, there would be no way to detect or measure it,
: > at least that is the way I interpret what is said at first
: > read.
: Does that imply that you favor the theory that everything is expanding
: equally?  
      No, gravity is not subordinate to cosmology, I can't
find where the author even mentions expansion other than
as a part of a cosmological model.
      But it seems to me there can be other possibilities
besides what the authors mentioned.   They mentioned the
expansion of everything equally as a result of the Big Bang,
which would mean that the expansion would exist apart from
gravitation, and would simply be a coasting velocity of
everything away from each center of mass of everything.
      This is one possibility, but it doesn't seem rational
to me, and a cause and mechanism for gravitation is left
open to speculation.
: Well, you pretty much stated why physicists don't like that
: theory.  If it were true, there would be no way to detect or 
: measure it.
        I think it could be recognized in some indirect way,
but it is of too little consequence to worry about, but I
don't understand how the authors can state that it could not
be detected, then state emphatically. that the meterstick
does not expand (as a part of a purely cosmological model).
: Physicists discarded the aether hypothesis for the same reason.
       The aether was rational as long as the Earth was flat
and space was Euclidean, the reason that it was discarded
had more to do with the wider knowledge gained, and the
theoretical application of that knowledge.
: Furthermore, we have some pretty good experimental evidence that the
: universe is expanding.  If the expansion were general, we would not be
: able to detect it, and hence would not have such evidence.
       As a part, solely, of a cosmological model, I concede.
But I didn't mention any of the other possibilities that
will have to be considered sooner or later (sooner, if LIGO
fails to detect gravity waves).
       I didn't realize (until your discussion prompted
me to read more MTW) that even though I have written a
number of articles and followups mentioning an expansion
of matter, that cosmologists considered an isotropic
expansion due to the Big Bang.
       One of the other possibilities is that matter is
expanding from an internal net repulsion, and this possibility
cannot be ignored forever.
       This would provide a cause of gravitation, and make
a long range mechanism unnecessary, as all motion would
be simply relative, and could be described purely in a
geometrical way.
: >          I concede that _if_ the expansion is like a balloon
: > with the galaxies represented by pennies glued on it's surface,
: > then there has to be gravitational radiation.
: Really?  You can get gravitational waves locally, without regard to what
: kind of universe we live in.  Cosmology is kind of irrelevant to the
: issue, IMHO.
       What I mean is, if matter is not expanding, then some
unknown process is present that provides the mechanism of
gravitation at long ranges, it isn't a matter of cosmology,
you are correct, the implications would have a profound
effect on physics, although I'm not sure how adaptive 
intelligent beings would be in such a case.
: >          Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that the galaxies
: > also expand, and that all matter itself expands, due to quark-
: > quark repulsion.
: That's pretty weird.  The quark-quark force is pretty short range, 
: you know.
      Yes, it is weird, and the range need not be more than
what is observed in molecular interactions as the longest
range.    It is my dumb way of trying to explain surface
gravity, and I got the idea either just before or just after
I joined the Air Force in 1946.
      I went on a ride in a cylinderical metal cage that
spun with the axis vertically, and they dropped the floor
about 3 feet, and people against the wall did not drop
with the floor.
      I have followed the idea faithfully for more than
50 years, and it has forced me to study General Relativity
as comparison, and as a source for ideas, but not to
change my original idea in any way.
      It is a hobby that has become a passion.  
: Or do you think that it also repels spacetime or something, which
: expands too?
       I consider spacetime to be the real world geometry
that we observe and measure.
       It is not something that has a physical structure,
it is just the geometry.
       Matter just extends into space, and moves through
space, and time is integral to the extension and motion of
matter, although space has no dimensions, no attributes at all,
so coordinates in spacetime must be defined at a particular
instant, and physics requires knowledge of the past history
of motions and events in order to work problems in spacetime.
       I think it is remarkable that I have gained an insight
into General Relativity as a result of following such a seemingly
weird model of gravitation. 
: I looked at p. 719, but I don't see where it says anything about
: gravitational waves.  Note that anything that follows from this analysis
: will only hold under conditions in which the universe is _completely_
: homogeneous and isotropic, which of course is false.
: -- 
: Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech
      I agree, I wrote a couple of followups that express
part of my feelings on this.
Ken Fischer 

It's a kind of momentum - angular momentum, to be precise.
It's like a roundabout - you give it a shove, and it keeps
spinning, more and more slowly. It can last for minutes.
Like the Earth's orbit round the sun, there is a force
pulling the Earth towards the centre, but that doesn't mean
it ever gets any closer to the centre.
As with _any_ circular motion, there are always forces trying to
push things in towards the centre, as a result of which, things
don't travel in a straight line, but curve round and manage to
circle the centre. That's what happens with the pressure differences
within a vortex. Once the vortex has been set up, the pressure
differences are just enough to keep the air molecules moving in
circular paths. As friction (viscosity, to be precise) slows things
down, the air does indeed move inwards slightly and the pressure
differences diminish. This radial inward movement depends on just
what the pressure drop in the vortex core was. Some motions inside
the vortex may be very energetic, comparable to the speed of sound
in fact (depends on a lot of things, the aircraft's mass in
particular, the aspect ratio of the wings), which means the pressure
inside the vortex can get very low, so the air has a decidedly
lower density inside the vortex. This means that as the vortex
slows down, there is a gradual inward movement of air and eventually
the air returns to motionless, no pressure changes and no density
changes.
Simon

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
> >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <327957FB.140C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons  writes:
> >> >How far back would you feel comfortable labelling someone a scientist?
> >> >Considering the cultural factors, but keeping an essential utility
> >> >and repeatability as the primary requirements.
> >> >
> >> I would certainly count Archimedes as scientist.
> >
Archimedes probably rates as the greatest scientist and mathematician of antiquity.
We all know that there were earlier mathematicians ... and since both math and 
science build upon earlier findings, then there must also be earlier scientists.
Aristotle certainly rates as a scientist ... his physics has not all endured, but
he made basic contributions to many areas.  Since much of Aristotles work was 
a systematization, it again follows that there were still earlier contributors.
And we can find specific contributions from a number of philosophers of the preceding
few centuries. Pythagoras would certainly count for his basic findings in music.
This takes us back three centuries before Archimedes.
But there were certainly people, and groups of people, who made significant 
contributions to our knowledge of the workings of the world by means of systematic
study, even centuries before this.  I don't believe that the engineering works of
the middle bronze age (Mesopotamia and Egypt) were mere accidents. And certainly 
the agricultural and astronomical knowledge that were accumulated between 2500 BC and
1000 BC were major works.  That some of the secrets were handed down through
priestly societies just shows the efficacy of bureaucratic structure.
I would vote for the Egyptian architect, Imhotep, as possibly the first scientist,
circa 2800 BC.
Best Regards, Peter

live in Fl. have seen both my double and my best friends double
and strangely enough they were together just as we are. have seen
them seperately as well, usually while driving, once at the mall,
my friends double. strange. have not seen them recently, in past 
year or so have also had people mistake us. Strange they were together
don't you think?
  anne

Im Artikel <564hk4$ca3@news-central.tiac.net>, cri@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) schreibt:
>>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....).
>
>You don't understand; I haven't the slightest intention of defending
>that remark at this particular juncture; I have other fish to fry.
I do understand, that you feel unable to defend your point and you are
intelligent enough to notice it JIT.
>You will have to take it as my opinion,
Well, next time better mark it as your very personal opinion then.
> with all of the authority of
>my peachable credibility.
I'm in no position to doubt your credibility - and have no way of telling
your authority, which anyway doesn't depend on your credibility but on
your knowledge in the field. The statement in question doesn't display
much knowledge in the respected field and also you are 'not willing' to
defend it. Well, then....
>You asked for a wee tiny bit; that I was willing to deliver.
Between the science campers, the ability to understand what was said and
what was asked, is seldomly a point of discussion - at least no one would
hide behind a  'But you literally said...' etc.pp. Seems that the 
non-science-campers do really have some difficulty to hermeneutically
'understand'  - and if it's not that, than they just don't have the guts
to simply admit, when they trapped themselves. Doesn't raise my respect,
actually.
>For more you will have to pay my consulting rates.
>
>Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
Oh, I didn't know that your Institute is in dire straits, but of course,
life is hard these days....
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.

Robert Fung wrote:
> 
>     But isn't a photon a wave ? Mathematically a wave packet
>     built up from a superposition of a certain spectral distribution
>     of wave frequencies ?
> 
No, a photon does not consist of bits and pieces of an electromagnetic
wave. The photon is a quantum object; it is the quanta of the electromagnetic
field. As such, it has both wave and particle attributes. It is also subject
to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).
If you are able to fully specifiy the electromagnetic field, then one of
the quantum properties is that you no longer know how many photons you have!
That is, the photon number is not an eigenvalue of the electromagnetic field.
When you think of a photon as having wave properties, the waves in question
are probability amplitudes ... and these are going to tell you the likelihood
of finding the photon here or there.
Best Regards, Peter

In article <55ublo$h0s@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>"Paul B.Andersen"  wrote[in part]:
>
>>Brian D. Jones wrote:
>>> 
>>> An observer has two x-axis clocks that have not yet been started.   He
>>> passes a light source.  This source is energized midway of the clocks.
>>> 
>>> Since the rear clock moves TOWARD the light, and the front clock moves
>>> AWAY FROM it, the clocks will not be started at (absolutely) the same
>>> time.
>>> 
>>> Given that the clocks cannot have the SAME reading at (absolutely) the
>>> same time, what will their readings be at (absolutely) the same time?
>>> 
>>> Fill in the blanks:
>>> 
>>> _________________                                  _________________
>>> 
>>> Rear Clock Reading                                 Right Clock Reading
>>> 
>>> NOTE: You cannot put zero in both places.
>
>>In SR there is no such thing as absolute time, so SR can 
>>obviously not give an answer to what the readings of the 
>>clocks are at absolutely the same time.
>
>SRT has an answer, and it is given by Einstein's definition of
>synchronization.  There is a definite way that clocks are synchronized
>
>in SRT.
>
>"How definite?," you may ask. Well, in Newton's View, clocks are
>absolutely set, and yield a variable 1-way lightspeed.  OTOH, in SRT,
>clocks are relatively set, and yield a constant 1-way lightspeed.
>
The primary difference is that all known methods of synchronizing clocks 
agree with SR, but no method is known to set clocks "absolutely".  
Absolute time and lightspeed invariance are incompatible.  If you put both
postulates into a theory, you will get contradictions.  One of them must be
sacrificed.  Because there is no experimental evedience for absolute time, 
SR sacrifices it.  There is direct and indirect evidence for lightspeed 
invariance.  
The situation is analogous to the Copernican revolution.  It was obvious to 
everyone that the Earth was the center of the universe.  All you had to do
was look at the sky to see it.  We had to give up our place in the center in
order to get a more accurate description of the data.  Or again, physicists 
in the early 19th century thought it was obvious that a caloric fluid was
necessary to explain heat, but they gave it up in favor of the energetic
explanation.  In SR, we give up absolute time because we get a simpler 
explanation without it.
>Therefore, you can answer my above question by simply showing us how
>the above two results happen (on paper).  Show each step, giving the
>clock readings (algebraically).
>
I don't think we disagree about the settings, only the interpretation of
them.
>>According to Newton however, we can give an answer which we 
>>know will be wrong for high relative speeds between source
>>and observer.
>>As I am sure you know, by rephrasing the question, omitting
>>the "absolutely" and inserting "in the inertial frame in
>>which the observer is stationary", SR could give an answer,
>>and you know what that is.
>
>>What is your point? 
>>What is _your_ answer? According to which theory?
>> 
>>SR is a well defined, consistent theory. I am now refering to SR
>>as the rest of world understands it, not what you say SR should
>>be, or what you say SR is (whatever that may be), or PR or SRT.
>>As all consistent theories, SR can only be falsified by showing 
>>that its predictions do not match experimental evidence.
>>When comparing the predicted values of entities with the 
>>experimental values of the same entities, you obviously have
>>in both cases to use the same definitions of the entities as 
>>per the theory. When SR predicts a time, you must in the experiment
>>measure the entity time as defined by SR.
>
>>What you are doing, is asserting an absolute space, absolute 
>>velocity and absolute global time. That is your right. 
>>That you are not able to define what those mystical entities 
>>are, or how they could be observed, is your problem.
>>But when you over and over and over again claim SR to be 
>>wrong because "time" and "velocity" in SR are defined
>>differently than _your_ mystical entities by the same name,
>>then you only display faulty logic.
>
>>Or have I misinterpreted you?
>>Do you not claim SR to be wrong?
>
>>Paul
>
>Oh, I feel sure SRT is correct, but grossly misunderstood.
>All the theory says is "No absolute motion detection, not even by
>optical means" (classical physics already had mechanical means).
>So far, SRT has seemed to hold, but I am not sure about the CBR.
>
That deceptively simple statement contains the clock settings and all the 
other results.
q: CBR?
>All I am saying above about the clocks is that even in SRT there are
>real clocks with real readings, etc.
>
True, but differently moving observers will set them differently and see them
running at different rates.

In article <55smns$jqi@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) wrote [in part]:
>
>>In article ,
>>      briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) writes:
>
>>> What you call E synch is simply the ordinary, common sense way we set clocks.
>>> (P.s., it should probably called L synch, after the man who introduced it.
>>> Lorentz introduced this time, and I believe it was before MMX.)
>
>>If we use a rotating shaft between two clocks to synchronize them, then
>>I think we can be justified in calling it N-sync (`N' for Newton).  I'm
>>sure he, at least, would agree that this would synchronize the clocks.
>
>>Brian Jones behaves as if he believes in "absolute" time, "absolute"
>>motion, and "absolute" synchronization.  It's as if he fails to realize
>>that these terms are meaningless in the sense that SR doesn't have them,
>>doesn't need them, and that there's no evidence for them.  Though this
>>behavior seems odd to me, I realize that he isn't the first person to
>>believe in something that is unnecessary and unevidenced.
>
>>-- 
>
>>Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve
>
>
>You have misunderstood, Steve.   I know that we don't USE absolute
>time, but what I am saying is that it does exist in the sense that
>each clock does have an absolute (nonobserver dependent) internal
>beat.  (This beat varies with the clock's absolute speed, so there's
>another absolute -- both of which are inside SRT, as they must be).
>
The internal beat of a clock has nothing to do with absolute time.  You have
already made an exception for motion, what is next?
The regularity of a clock does not tell us how it will compare with other,
non-local clocks.  This was recognized by Poincare in 1898, and developed by
Einstein in 1905 into SR.

In article <55u2qs$epb@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones) wrote:
>devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote[in part]:
>>: Christopher R Volpe  wrote:
>>: >Answers:
>>: >5) There is no dependence of physical phenomena on inertial frame of the 
>>: >   lab. In other words, there is no absolute motion.
>
>>Ken Seto (kenseto@erinet.com) wrote:
>>: Is this your explanation of the MMX null result?  I read somewhere
>>: that SR explains the MMX null result with a combination of time
>>: dilation and length contraction. How does no absolute motion explain
>>: the null result?
>
>[Evens]
>>Time dilation and length contraction in other frames is the RESULT of the 
>>absences of absolute motion.
>
>If the earth moves relative to the sun, it also moves relative to
>a hypothetical fixed point in space (or it is at rest relative to 
>this point if the sun is doing all the actual moving).
>
>If light's motion is merely and purely relative, then I can say that
>I am moving at c and the light ray is motionless, but this contradicts
>SRT which claims that nothing inertial can move as fast as light.
No, within SR you can only transform to a system with a velocity less than
light.  If you define a transformation to 'c', then you are not working in
SR, so cannot claim a contradiction with SR.  
What are your transformation equations?
>
>In SRT, after each observer sets his clocks per Einstein's def by
>using light signals, each observer's clocks are different.  Since
>light always travels at the same speed thru space, the only reason for
>the difference is that the observers all have different absolute
>speeds.
>
Absolute speed is not required.  The reason the clocks are offset is that
the speed of light is the same, and the observers are in relative motion.
If you assume that one of the observers is at "absolute" rest, you will get
the same offset as if you assume the other observer (or any other observer)
is at "absolute" rest.  The "absolute" in the assumption does not show up in
the result, so the result does not imply anything is "absolute".
>SRT has never claimed that absolute motion has no existence, but only
>that it cannot be detected.  SRT says that only relative motion is
>detectable.
>
A corollary is that you gain nothing by assuming absolute motion.  
OTOH, you lose the unifying vision of SR by assuming absolute motion.  SR 
leads to a perfectly definite model of space-time that allows us to extend
our understanding.  

In article <55sm4u$jqi@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote [in part]:
>
>>:: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>
>
>>Well, OK.  It's not an "argument for absolute time".
>>It's still obviously vacuous, and a non-sequitur, and bjon posted it.
>
>Vacuous to whom?  You?   (And there's a major distinction between the
>two -- "absolute time" and "the existence of absolutes"  The latter is
>why each SRT observer differs from another (as in getting totally
>different times for the same events, etc., etc.)
>
>>::: The invariant interval has no physical meaning, being a mere
>>::: mathematical construct. 
>>:: This claim is exactly as convincing as a claim that "distance" has no
>>:: physical meaning, being a mere mathematical construct (x^2+y^2). 
>>:: I've lost count of the number of times I've pointed out to bjon the
>>:: physical meaning of the interval: it's the number of times a clock
>>:: will tick in uniform motion between two events. 
>>: You're referring not to the invariant interval but to "proper time."
>
>>And of course, bjon has yet to notice that they are the same thing.
>>Despite having it pointed out to him multiple times.  The physical
>>meaning of the invariant interval is that it is the proper time
>>of an object in uniform motion between events.
>
>The invariant interval is not proper time -- but the square of the
>difference of the squares of both time and distance values combined --
>which obviously has no physical meaning.  The proper time is simply
>the time as recorded by a single clock.  This obviously does have a
>physical meaning.
>
How is it obvious that the interval has no physical meaning?  For time-like 
separation it is the proper time, the time recorded by a clock that passes 
both events in uniform translation.  The definition of the invariant interval
allows us to determine the coordinate time between the events for a moving
observer, for whom the space separation is not zero.  
Denying the interval is equivalent to denying the validity of the Lorentz
transformations.

I would like to build my own pulsed radar for a personal tracking
project.
I am trying to find a source for circuit diagrams, or a kit I can
assemble/cannabilise, or any other assistance.
My design constraints are:
- to be used to track a corner reflector made of aluminized foil -
(mylar)
- corner reflector cube side size limit is between 1 to 2 inches / 2.5
to 5 cm
- radar range is to cover an area 150 x 150 yards / 140 x 140 metres
- the radar will be used to track the distance of the corner reflector
only
- the device will need to output elapsed time between "ping" and "echo"
- no display is required
- time output feed will be fed into a PC for processing
- 3 radar devices will be used to determine location by triangulation
If anyone can give me some pointers I'd be most appreciative.
Thanks
Richard

David Vitek wrote:
> 
> I'm trying to calculate refraction index so far all I know is that sin I
> over sin R will give it to me.  I just need to know which angle is where...
 n_i sin(i) = n_r sin(r)
where n_i is the index of refraction of the material where the 
incident light is coming from, and n_r is the index of refraction
of the material where the light is going to (the refracting material).
i is the incident angle, measured from the normal, or line perpendicular
to the surface.  The angle with the normal is used because it is
more convenient to measure when you have a curved surface.
As in the diagram:
   \ i |
    \  |
     \ |
      \|
The index of refraction of the pair of materials is n_ir = n_r/n_i.
You can remember the order by noting that if material i is vacuum,
then n_i = 1; and almost the same holds for air.
Best Regards, Peter

Brian Kennelly wrote:
> Absolute time and lightspeed invariance are incompatible.  If you put both
> postulates into a theory, you will get contradictions.  One of them must be
> sacrificed.  Because there is no experimental evedience for absolute time,
> SR sacrifices it.  There is direct and indirect evidence for lightspeed
> invariance.
> 
One could say much the same thing about the wave/particle/corpuscular 
observations regarding light, yet ....
Reality is what it is, not necessarily what we think our mathematical - or even 
religious models say it "should" be.
W$

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; he is right further in 
claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are very attuned to implications 
of this sort -- to deny that there is any link whatsoever strikes me 
as problematic.
	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 leav   
its object unchanged.
	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.
Silke
moggin (moggin@nando.net) wrote: : 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 <564uqi$8h6@panix2.panix.com>, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) schreibt:
>| (...but who actually pays moggin to find out this most important fact
>| about the mega confusion in the pomo camp?)
>
>That's the _anti-pomo_ camp.  The pomo camp is _supposed_ 
>to be confused.  The big problem with the pomo camp is not
>confusion but non-existence.  However, it's being worked on.
You mean, moggin is a counter spy? Give me a break, I'm already aching
from ROTFLing... :-))))
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.

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

On Wed, 06 Nov 1996 23:53:24 +0100, "Paul B.Andersen"
 wrote:
>Ken Seto wrote:
>> This is the reason why the intruements on
>> earth are not directional sensitive.
>
>I suppose the "instruments" in this case are microwave 
>antennas. Are you saying they are not directional sensitive?
>You can't be serious! You _do_ know that radio astronomers
>are using the directional sensitivity of these antennas all
>the time, do you not? You do know that you can lock such
>an antenna on a distand celestial object, do you not?
>Of course you do.
When I say not directional sensitive, I meant to its direction of
absolute motion. You can imagine the earth is bath in the CBR, if the
earth is not rotating the antenna on the earth surface can lock onto
the direction of its travel (absolute motion) in the CBR. However,
since the earth is in a state of rotation the direction of its
absolute motion is changing constantly  and therefore there is no
specific direction to lock onto and thus all measurements of CBR on
earth are equal in all the directions.
>The always changing speed of the antenna do influence 
>the received signal. The most prominent effect is a doppler 
>shift of the signal. However, as the movement of the earth is well
>known, these effects can be compensated for to a high precision. 
>The astronomers looking for planets are measuring changes in the 
>radial velocities of stars with a resolution of 5 m/s, very
>much less than speed of earth. 
>To detect the doppler shift in the CBR due to the 370 km/s speed 
>of the solar system would be no match, if the signal was not so noisy. 
Noise got nothing to do with it. The antenna must be able to lock onto
a specific direction of absolute motion before it is able to detect
the dipole. On earth surface, there is no direction of absolute motion
to lock onto and therefore the dipole is not detectable on earth. 
>
>> OTOH, the instruements up at the
>> U2 or the satellite experience no rotating motion and its  antenna  is
>> locked onto a specific direction by a gyroscope.
>
>A gyroscope can be used for stabilizing the instrument platform
>to make it possible to aim the antenna. But it obviously cannot
>cancel the changing speed of the plane. The plane obviously
>has to follow earth in its movement, or it would became a 
>spaceship or submarine.
The plane is not in a state of rotating motion and thus its direction
absolute motion  relative to the CBR is not constantly changing and
therefore. the antenna is able to lock onto a specific direction and
thus detecting the dipole.
Ken Seto

To those turkeys who would boycott Australia. A two word reply will
suffice.....
As we say in Canada:           
                                                   "BULL SHIT"
Kindest personal regards:
Tom Hamilton               frogman@mnsi.net 

New Papers Added To Site Collection
The Worlds According To Deutsch.
	An evaluation of quantum computation getting off on the wrong foot.
Correlational Opponent-Processing: A Unifying Principle by Ronald C.
Blue and Wanda Eileen Hatcher Blue (Revised Edition)
	The correlational opponent-processing theory using wavelets, quasi-
holographic memory and eigenfunction equivalence generates new
insights into many areas of psychology. The model seems especially
strong in joining many contradictory scientific facts into an unifying
whole. Significant implications from the model exist for a wide 	
range of psychological topics and principles.
Not What They Expected
	One finds supporting materials in the most unusual places. For a paper
to argue computationality in mental processes, especially
consciousness and use the Hameroff-Penrose Orchestral Objective
Reduction (Orch OR Hameroff-Penrose 1996) anti-	computational theory
as the fundemental basis of support is indeed rather unique.
Hameroff-Penrose did not intend it to be this way.
The Error Of Quantum Computing
	On the examination of error correction schemes and the argument that
such is no longer needed.
The Ricci Robot Project : Project Report
	The full 110 page piece is revised to ascii without graphics
(restricted access). This report now carries the full interpretation
of quantum mechanics used in the project as well as details on the
technology and its applications. Includes complete physical
description of the Little Ricci Noid Robot
The FULL TAWS Paper
	Even though the TAWS paper is available online there has been interest
in the complete version including all graphics, charts and pictorials.
It is available only in windows write .wri format with metafiles
included. 1.8MB. HTML version still available on the web.
These materials are available linking to the Enticy Papers Collection
at:
		http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Some papers are still in draft form. Comments and critiques are
welcome.
Thank You.
Neutronics Technologies Corporation
PO BOX 3127 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72913
http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
lkh@cei.net  or  batong@helios.aston.ac.uk