Newsgroup sci.physics 207605

Directory

Subject: Re: Gravity and Electromagentism -- From: jim.goodman@accesscom.net (Jim Goodman)
Subject: Old AP Questions on the web -- From: ChemTeam@clubnet.net
Subject: Re: a naive question about the charge of molecules -- From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Subject: Re: Do gravitational waves carry momentum? -- From: Peter Diehr
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...) -- From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three... -- From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: Quantum Mechanics -- From: khaskin@sfu.ca (Grigori Khaskin)
Subject: Re: Yipee, Yipeee, Yipee! The Pyramid is a RADIO! -- From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric? -- From: Markus Kuhn
Subject: Re: the gravitational wave detection revolution -- From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three... -- From: gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory Dandulakis)
Subject: Re: a naive question about the charge of molecules -- From: breed@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu (Bryan W. Reed)
Subject: Q: EFFICIENCE OF "DIFUSE HOLOGRAPHIC GRATING" ? -- From: Markus Greiner
Subject: Re: Does Speed Vary With Direction? -- From: breed@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu (Bryan W. Reed)
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric? -- From: giocar@bo.nettuno.it (Giorgio)
Subject: Re: faster than light travel....light travels at the speed of time. -- From: d_micro@ix.netcom.com(Michael L Roginsky )
Subject: Re: 2nd law of thermo -PRETENTIOUS! -- From: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Subject: Re: Q: EFFICIENCE OF "DIFUSE HOLOGRAPHIC GRATING" ? -- From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation? -- From: "Paul B.Andersen"
Subject: Re: Question on the Direction of Aberration of Starlight. -- From: Keith Stein
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three... -- From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: How time started or it never starts -- From: "Lai Hon Choong"
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three... -- From: gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-)
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...) -- From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough)) -- From: "Jonathan W. Hendry"
Subject: Re: what Newton thought -- From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts -- From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts -- From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Subject: Re: New sci-fi movie called PULSAR, BEAM ME HOME -- From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Subject: Re: Entropy and time -- From: coolhand@Glue.umd.edu (Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri)

Articles

Subject: Re: Gravity and Electromagentism
From: jim.goodman@accesscom.net (Jim Goodman)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:15:47 GMT
odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
 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?
A curious fact is that the mass M is equal to the positive charge Q in
all multibody problems if you treat neutrons as (p+e). More clearly, 
number of charges equals the number of proton masses.
A second curious fact that is well known is that the potential energy
in both cases goes as 1/r.
A little known fact apparently, is that solving both systems provides 
the gravitational constant G in both cases.
Jim
---
Jim Goodman:jim.goodman@accesscom.net
sawf: Energy and Structure of Molecules

Return to Top
Subject: Old AP Questions on the web
From: ChemTeam@clubnet.net
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 09:41:54 -0800
Greetings to the biology and physics communities:
I have posted on my web site all the AP Chemistry Free Response questions
from 1970 to 1996 and I'm working on the multiple choice questions which
have been released.
Are any of you aware of a similar project which has posted either the
available biology questions or physics questions?
If this work is not being done and you would like to do it, but have no
web access, please contact me. I will post it. I cannot take the time to
HTMLize the questions because of my own work in chemistry, but I would
certainly take the time to upload files as well as write the file
controlling menu access. Please feel free to examine my work to see what
my style of presentation is.
 is the URL which
contains the links to individual files for each years' test.
It may be that several people in each discipline are motivated enough to
actually spend some time doing up the tests and their attendant images.
Great! Many hands make light work to the benefit of the entire community
of teachers.
John Park
ChemTeam@clubnet.net
P.S. As far as I know, there does not exist a Biologists' Photo Gallery on
the web. Is there anyone who might be interested in that task? I have a
Chemists' Photo Gallery at the same URL above and there is a Physicists'
Photo Gallery in Germany (I lost the link. Help!)
Return to Top
Subject: Re: a naive question about the charge of molecules
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 10 Nov 1996 21:02:05 GMT
Rich Haller  wrote:
>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
"Molecules" tend to be overall neutral.  Certainly organic chemistry is a 
study of primarily covalent bonding (shared electrons, not transferred). 
 Zwitterions are internally compensated.  Cations and anions have 
counterions.  Ionic solids like table salt are globally neutral.
Electronic conductors like metals are permeated by a loosely bound 
electron gas, the conduction band.  They are overall neutral.  Ionic 
conductors like lithium nitride are overall neutral.  
Calculate the attractive force of a millimole each of positive and 
negative charge 500 nm (wavelength of green light) apart.  Hint:  A mole 
of electrons is a Faraday, 95,500 coulombs.
There are no "free electrons" hanging around anywhere short of a static 
charge.  If you wish to pull electrons from a netural surface you must do 
work (input energy) except for one surface - diamond - which has a  
negative work function in vacuum.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Do gravitational waves carry momentum?
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:54:30 -0500
Ken Fischer wrote:
> 
>        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.
>
Relative accelerations are around us all the time. Without
taking them into account, Newtonian mechanics gets mangled.
A lot of the formalism was worked out by Leonhard Euler, 
in the mid-1700's.  You may want to put MTW back on the shelve,
and pick up an undergraduate text on analytical mechanics.
>        This isn't a big problem until the _cause_ of the
> apparent relative acceleration is considered.
> 
We need to get the kinematics straight first.
>        One of the other possibilities is that matter is
> expanding from an internal net repulsion, and this possibility
> cannot be ignored forever.
But Ken, this is inconsistent with the spectroscopic evidence:
we get the same spectra from hydrogen no matter how it is made,
or how old it is, or where it is. This poses a very severe 
constraint upon any expansion of atomic systems ... unless we
have a "conspiracy of nature" such that the expansion is undetectable.
In which case, it is as though such expansion doesn't exist.
In this way we parallel the undetectable aether of yesteryear.
> 
>        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.
>
Then you reject the Einstein field equations, which state that
the geometry of spacetime is a dynamical entity (hence "geometrodynamics").
If the metric tensor changes based upon the local stress-energy tensor,
then we must have some physics present, yes?
>        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.
> 
Best Regards, Peter
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:33:08 GMT
In article , moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>
>Mati:
>
>> >> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "it became orthodoxy".  It was 
>> >> used since it worked.
>
>moggin:
>   
>> >     Wait a minute -- you just finished telling me it didn't exist.
>
>Mati:
>
>> Gravity didn't exist???!!!
>
>     Interesting hypothesis, but no, I meant action-at-a-distance.
>
Oh, good.  And I meant that the gravity formula was used, not action 
at distance.  How do you use action at distance?
>Mati:
> 
>> >> Mind you, Newtonian gravity is a formula, not a theory.  There is no 
>> >> explanation of any sort offered.  So, how does a formula become an
>> >>orthodoxy?
>
>moggin:
>
>> >     That's a different question, and I'd like to stick with this one,
>> >for now.  Action-at-a-distance _is_ the explanation that Newton gave,
>> >and the one that eventually became accepted, after the resistance died
>> >down, even though it meant introducing sheer mysticism into physics.
>
>Mati:
> 
Sorry but since action at distance is not an explanation (I see 
another semantics argument brewing) and since Newton specifically 
stated that he offers no explanations, I see this argument closed.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:21:45 GMT
In article , gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>
>> >> In a way you got more 
>> >> extreme than I'm here, I'm only saying that you can't attach physical 
>> >> meaning to the unmeasurable, but you argue that even thinking about it 
>> >> is trash.  Nah, I suggest we avoid extremes.
>> >
>> >     I'm just pointing out that your premises conflict.  If you gain
>> >all your knowledge from observation, you can't know that an element
>> >is unstable unless you observe it decay; if you say that the element
>> >is unstable, even though you can't observe it decay, then you must
>> >have a source of knowledge apart from observation.
>> 
>> Nah, you take it to far.  The issue is not what questions you can ask, 
>> but which you can answer.
>
>Ultimately, yes, Mati. But that isn't the way a lot of theoretical physics
>works, afaik. Especially in the realms of cosmology and high-energy
>subatomic "particle" physics the structures of thought seem to have a
>history of racing way ahead (and even establishing themselves) before
>verification was possible, or even feasible. The existence of some
>subatomic particles were deduced theoretically many years before they were
>actually detected.
>
But of course.  That's exactly what I'm saying, maybe you've missed 
it.  Hypothesising is not just fine, it is necessery.  But hypothesis 
is an asked question, then you need an answer.  You can establish 
whatever structures of thought you wish but, barring verification, 
they are still just guesses.  And if it turns out that verification is 
impossible, the structure is meaningless.
If you understood my statement above as ".. which you can answer right 
away" then no, this was neither stated nor implied.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
Return to Top
Subject: Quantum Mechanics
From: khaskin@sfu.ca (Grigori Khaskin)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 19:31:17 GMT
[ Article crossposted from bc.jobs ]
[ Author was Grigori Khaskin ]
[ Posted on 10 Nov 1996 19:26:43 GMT ]
*  Experienced teacher in Quantum Mechanics available
*  Yes, we can study the rest of PHYSICS, too
*  Please call ANDY @ 454 - 9293 or
    E-mail to tnteslen@sfu.ca
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Yipee, Yipeee, Yipee! The Pyramid is a RADIO!
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 15:42:24 -0600
>If you take two myths and put them together you get
>a third myth. In this, and by this miracleous way,
>marvelous theories are made. Eventually, you get an
[...]
>Hey, I don't know all about biology, nor all about geology,
>and I too like to fool around with crazy ideas, but when I 
>decide to play scientist, I know what basic science is.
Another engineering student. Thanks for playing.
Return to Top
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: Markus Kuhn
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:53:25 -0500
mlyle@scvnet.com wrote:
> >> pascal - Pa     (newtons per square meter pressure, 100 kPa is very
> >>                  close to typical sea level athmospheric pressure)
> OK, the above is true, but _why_ is the abbreviation "Pa" instead of "P"?
There is the prefix "peta" = "P" = 10^15.
> It seems that the SI, which is a quest for consistant units, has
> really dropped the ball when it comes to abbreviations.  The
> selection of names with the same first letters (Henry, Hertz,
> Watt, Weber) increases the chance of error.  Yes, it's nice to
> honor scientists, but not by making everyone's lives more difficult!
When the SI was created and improved, CGPM tried to honor existing
practice in the old metric system, which was already used in most
countries over hundred years before. Therefore, there are a number of
minor inconsistencies (e.g., that KILOgram is a base unit and that both
meter and milli are abbreviated as "m" are probably the most important
ones), that are justified by over hundred of years usage in almost all
countries of the world.
Yes, there are a few tiny things in the SI that could be improved from a
very academic point of view, but I assure you that these do not present
a problem in daily live. In constrast to popular believe in the U.S.,
the SI was not intended as an academic design of pure beauty, but as a
very practical set of definitions for daily usage in industry, trade and
science. Therefore, backwards compatibility with the widely used metric
units was a major design point, and only where fundamental design
principles of the SI were violated, the metric system practice has been
changed. For example: the old metric unit "bar" for pressure was not
consistent with the base units, therefore the pascal was introduced to
replace the bar in the SI. Similarly, the old metric kilopond (force of
one kilogram on Earth at sea level) was replaced by the Newton and
degrees Celsius were replaced by the new SI base unit kelvin (in a way
that makes conversion between degrees Celsius and kelvin very easy).
The main design goal of the SI was that there are no conversion units
necessary when you calculate with SI base and derived units, which is
VERY convenient when you do physics and engineering calculations. You
just convert everything into Si base and derived units without prefixes
and then drop all units, insert the value into the formula and get the
result again in an SI unit.
This allows you to write down formulas without having to think about
which units have to be used, i.e. you write "F = m*a" instead of
"F [in N] = m [in kg] * a [in m/s^2]". I am always amazed how
often I see the second form of formula, which is given together with the
units that have to be used, in U.S. engineering text books. Writing down
a formula in a way that depends on the units that are used is a somewhat
ridiculous concept for someone like me who has learned very early in
highschool how elegant work with a congruent system of Units like SI is
(or even like cgs, another coherent system of units, that isn't used
today any more, except in U.S. physics textbooks, where the authors
still think for some strange reasons that you can't explain
electro-magnetic fields nicely in SI units). May be, the advantage of a
coherent system of units is just difficult to grasp for authors who have
grown up in the inch-pound world, where you always have to worry about
lots of conversion factors and can't simply look at a formula without
considerung the units that have to be used.
Markus
-- 
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue
University, Indiana, US, email: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu
Return to Top
Subject: Re: the gravitational wave detection revolution
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:35:08 GMT
: Then how could a gravity storm be detected?  Or am I confusing a term used
: in weather reporting with the phenomena called gravity.
       You are, it refers to a cold mass of air/water vapor/rain
falling rapidly.    I think they could call it something else.
Ken Fischer 
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: gd8f@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory Dandulakis)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:05:41 GMT
In article Patrick Juola  wrote:
>
>In article 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.
And I would add that the rest would have been equally lucid if
you substitute the terms "data compression algorithms" with the
terms "laws of nature in current physical theories", plus "random-
ness in current physical theories" with "facts unexplained by the
current physical laws".  The different terminology was used on
purpose to show the actual nature of what we call today "laws
of nature".  They are exactly like the compression programs in
your computer.  And as you can have competing compression pro-
grams, some better some worse, so you can have competing scien-
tific theories.  This is particularly true since there is no
known theory which can "explain" (compress) _all_ the existing
data.
Gregory
PS: The 5-year-old was bypassed :-).
Return to Top
Subject: Re: a naive question about the charge of molecules
From: breed@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu (Bryan W. Reed)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 22:18:54 GMT
In article <32860C33.1109@ns.uoregon.edu>,
Rich Haller   wrote:
>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?
>
When atoms come together to form molecules, you don't add electrons to
the whole thing to fill all the shells--instead you just use the electrons
you already had, rearranging them into a state that's lower in energy than
the energy of the separated atoms.
So in, say, an H2 molecule, you still have the original 2 protons and 2
electrons.  The only difference is that each electron is orbiting both
protons instead of only one.  The overall charge is neutral.  You don't
create/destroy charge when you form molecules--you only rearrange it.
A shell cannot hide the fact that an ion has a net charge.  If an ion has,
say, 3 protons and 2 electrons, the result has a +1 charge.
Have fun,
breed
Return to Top
Subject: Q: EFFICIENCE OF "DIFUSE HOLOGRAPHIC GRATING" ?
From: Markus Greiner
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:15:16 +0100
Hello!
When you make a holographic reflective grating by exposing a photo 
resist with a sin interference pattern (interference fringe field of 
two Laserbeams) you can reach a reconstruction efficiency of about 50 %.
What I need is not a simple grating but a type of "diffuse grating": 
One of the two interfering laserbeams passes a diffusor first 
(diffusing angle only about 1 or 2 degree). So, the resulting 
interference pattern is not a simple sin-pattern, but a more complex 
modulated sin-pattern.
My question is:
Does this "diffuse grating" have the same diffraction efficiency than 
a normale holographic grating? 
Or is there a principle difference between a simple sin-pattern and a 
more complex one concerning the efficiency?
Thank you for your answer!
Markus Greiner
markus.greiner@physik.uni-muenchen.de
Ludwig Maximilians Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Physics Department
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Does Speed Vary With Direction?
From: breed@HARLIE.ee.cornell.edu (Bryan W. Reed)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 22:30:24 GMT
In article , David Kaufman  wrote:
>
>	Even though it is said that the physical properties are
>the same in all directions in a face centered cubic (FCC) 
>structure of the metal elements whose atoms are arranged in 
>this order, I have doubts that maybe can be explored or discussed.
>
Who says that?
The properties of a material with cubic symmetry will have cubic symmetry.
This implies that any properties described by second-rank tensors will be
isotropic.  Elastic moduli (described by a fourth-rank tensor) don't have
to be isotropic--in fact they generally aren't.  You get a different Young's
modulus in the 100 direction than in the 111.  Since the speed of sound
is determined in part by the elastic moduli, generally the speed of sound
isn't isotropic either.
>	Does sound (or energy into the wall) travel like a 
>sphere from a hit wall atom?  Or does it travel from atom 
>bond to atom bond in straight lines in one direction, but at
>45 degrees to the straight line direction, does sound travel
>in a zig zag manner as shown in the figure below?
>
No.  You have to look at quantized lattice vibrations involving the whole
material.  It's not a classical mechanics problem.
The phonon dispersion relation will give you the speed of sound in the material
as a function of direction and frequency.  See the chapters on phonons in
Ashcroft and Mermin for more information.
Have fun,
breed
Return to Top
Subject: Re: When will the U.S. finally go metric?
From: giocar@bo.nettuno.it (Giorgio)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:34:43 GMT
Achim Recktenwald  wrote:
> I find  English to be by far the easiest language to learn. 
> the English grammer is very very simple, compared to the 
> German, Latin or French one. 
I don't agree with you. The French, Italian, German grammar have
general rules, The English grammar has only some general rules, but
thousand of particular rules for every word, every situation.
Its lak of rules are subtituted by thousand of idiomatic forms.
English is not an easy language, it does not allow us to assemble the
words following general rules as the other languages!.
The defective verbs are painful. We must make terrible efforts to find
the circonlocutions to use times that in the other languages are quite
simple to use. We have some exceptions to the general rules, in
English there are some general rules instead. And the adverbs... where
they are to be placed in the phrase?
Your idiomatic phrases means another thing from that you can have in
translating it word to word.
The way to speach in England is different from USA. There are no
rapports from the alphabetical writing of a word and its pronounce. 
mmmmmmm ...
I hope that English become a simpler language!
Bye!			giorgio
Return to Top
Subject: Re: faster than light travel....light travels at the speed of time.
From: d_micro@ix.netcom.com(Michael L Roginsky )
Date: 10 Nov 1996 21:21:29 GMT
Pardon my comment, colleagues: Light travels at a precise speed, 186000
miles/sec or so. At that speed relative time=0. This is a paradox that
Einstein treated as a fact. As you well know travel is both a particle
and a wave. Not until we transcend to another set of dimensions, one of
which is time itself, light will be a paradox. How about "black holes"
and pulsars? Gtes to another universe we cannot detect because our
senses are incapable to do so? Cheers........:) Micro.
In <553u2i$l9c@atlas.vcu.edu> phy4dls@atlas.vcu.edu (David L. Smith
Jr.) writes: 
>
>abostick@netcom.com (Alan Bostick) writes:
>
>>greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) writes:
>
>
>>>In article <53sv1h$c4r@news.xs4all.nl>, marcone@xs2.xs4all.nl (Marco
"Mark-1"
>>>Nelissen) writes:
>
>>>Your premise is flawed.  Yes, there are some "tricks" or "loopholes"
in
>>>presently understood physics which would appear to permit "apparent"
FTL
>>>travel.  Most of them are understood to be mathematical artifacts of
>>>non-physical conditions, but a few of them (tunneling & Thorne-type
>>>wormholes, for example), may be physically attainable by a suitably
advanced
>>>technology.
>
>>>However, to the best of our current understanding, *all* of these
tricks
>>>violate causality as it is presently understood.  That doesn't mean
they're
>>>impossible -- but it means that either our understanding of the
physics
>>>is wrong, or our definition of causality needs improvement.  If you
want an 
>>>opinion, my opinion is that our understanding of causlity is
imperfect, but
>>>the universe doesn't respect my opinion :-)
>
>>Kip Thorne's wormhole-based time travel devices do not seem to
violate 
>>causality; at least it does not generate grandfather (Kip calls it
"matricide")
>>paradoxes.  He discusses the issue in his popular book, BLACK HOLES
AND TIME
>>WARPS: EINSTEIN'S OUTRAGEOUS LEGACY.
>
>These types of time machines do violate the father paradoxes.
>If one worm hole end is brought to a relativistic speed and dialated
>in time, anyone from the forward time part of the hole could travle
>back in to cause such a paradox, remember the dilation is only a local
>effect for that end of the worm hole.
>
>
>>He *does* warn, however, that a wormhole-based time machine would
very likely
>>blow itself up in a fountain of amplified vacuum energy.
>
>>-- 
>>Alan Bostick               | "Dole is so unpopular, he couldn't sell
beer on
>>mailto:abostick@netcom.com | a troop ship." (Ohio Republican Senator
William
>>news:alt.grelb             | Saxbe on Bob Dole's early career in the
Senate)
>>http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
>>http://www.theangle.com/  The first site with a brain.  Yours.
Return to Top
Subject: Re: 2nd law of thermo -PRETENTIOUS!
From: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 21:56:29 GMT
Mike Wooding (mikew@wse.com) wrote:
: goldbach wrote:
: > Mike Wooding  wrote in article <3279340B.167E@wse.com>...
: > > Crash wrote:
: > > > I'm not sure you understand the mathematics of exponential growth.
: > > > Consumption of non-renewable natural resources is growing
: > > > exponentially. This consumption is NOT linked to population growth.
: > > > Any economist will tell you that Man's natural thirst for wealth is
: > > > unquenchable.
: > >
: > >  I'm not sure what's meant by consumption? Nothing is consumed so
: > >  much as it's transformed from one arrangement to another. Excepting
: > >  entropy, all such transformations are reversible - at least in
: > >  principle. So, isn't entropy the only non-renewable resource? And
: > 
: > In open systems the 2nd Law and entropy are reversible. For example,
: > living things  seem to nicely order things from less orderly outside stuff.
: > It is not all down hill everywhere.
: > Larry
: > 
: > >  it's destined to increase until the 2nd Law is ruled un-universal?
: 
:  Assume the Universe is a closed system. :-)
Assume that the universe is in equilibrium.... ;-)
    ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Q: EFFICIENCE OF "DIFUSE HOLOGRAPHIC GRATING" ?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:33:51 GMT
In article , Markus Greiner  writes:
>Hello!
>
>When you make a holographic reflective grating by exposing a photo 
>resist with a sin interference pattern (interference fringe field of 
>two Laserbeams) you can reach a reconstruction efficiency of about 50 %.
>
>What I need is not a simple grating but a type of "diffuse grating": 
>One of the two interfering laserbeams passes a diffusor first 
>(diffusing angle only about 1 or 2 degree). So, the resulting 
>interference pattern is not a simple sin-pattern, but a more complex 
>modulated sin-pattern.
>
>My question is:
>
>Does this "diffuse grating" have the same diffraction efficiency than 
>a normale holographic grating? 
>Or is there a principle difference between a simple sin-pattern and a 
>more complex one concerning the efficiency?
>
The difference is of degree, not principle.  The diffraction pattern 
is the Fourier transform of the grating.  A perfect sine grating gives 
you a delta function, all the diffracted power goes to first order 
(the 50% comes from the fact that first order consists of two peaks, 
one on each side of the center).  A more complex grating will have a 
Fourier transform which is not a single delta, meaning that some of 
the power will go to higher orders.  So you expect the efficiency to 
be reduced but it doesn't have to be a dramatic change.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
Return to Top
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: "Paul B.Andersen"
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:49:14 +0100
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.
Yes, SR have an answer provided you omit the "absolute" in the
question. SR can give no "absolute" answers.
Yes, the definition of synchronization is a part of SR which
obviously would have to be used to arrive at an answer.
Yes, there is a definite way of synchronizing clocks in SR.
To synchronize them in an undefinite way would be silly, would
it not?
> 
> "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.
I have seen this claim of yours quite a number of times now.
You seem to think that the only difference of Newton and SR
is the way clocks are set. But as this would be to silly,
this must be a misinterpretation, right?
How can you, only by setting the clocks to "yield a constant 1-way
lightspeed", with the same setting of the clocks measure the
same speed of light going in the opposite direction?
> 
> 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).
Oh yes, I am capable of answering the above question, rephrased
as indicated. I do however think that you know the answer,
so why are you asking?
But ok:
The answers are:
#1
In the frame of reference in which an observer is stationary,
two clocks, positioned at an equal distance from him, co-linear
with the velocity of a moving lightsource emitting light as it 
passes the observer, will be hit by the light simoultaniously.
As they are started at that moment, they will both show 0 at
the same time.
#2
In the frame of reference in which a lightsource is stationary,
an observer is moving with two co-moving clocks at an equal 
distance at each side of him, co-linear with his velocity.
As the observer passes the lightsource, light is emitted.
Since one clock moves towards the light, and the other clock 
moves away from it, the clocks will not be started at the same
time, thus they will show 0 at different times.
Both answers are equally valid. That's relativity, you know.
> 
> >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.
I think you are in the best position to correct that.
There are a lot of good books you could read. :-)
> 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.
> 
> All I am saying above about the clocks is that even in SRT there are
> real clocks with real readings, etc.
Yes indeed the clocks in SR is real clocks with real readings.
But I think you are saying a hell of a lot more!
I am not sure what, though.
Paul
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Question on the Direction of Aberration of Starlight.
From: Keith Stein
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:02:49 +0000
In article , Keith Stein
 writes
> "Paul B.Andersen"  writes
>>Keith Stein wrote:
>>>                                 * Star
>>>                                 !(no parrallax)
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>>   Water moves at v to the right           >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >
>>> 
>>> >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >    II  Underwater Telescope
>>>                                     also moving at v to the right.
>>> 
>>>         WHICH WAY MUST I POINT THE TELESCOPE TO SEE THE STAR ?
Paul,i am now thinking that light beams are NOT deflected by moving
media,because the whole of the aberration effect would seem to be
accounted for even where we assume that light continues in a straight
line completely undeflected by movements in the media. The direction
which any particular observer associates with the straight line taken by
the light will of course depend on the observers velocity, and in such a
way as to fully account for the magnitude and direction of the observed
aberration of starlight,i am now thinking.
I do (now) appreciate your previous postings Paul, and i am sorry  i was
rude to you. Thanks for the lesson.
-- 
Keith Stein
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:06:28 GMT
In article , gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> You can establish 
>> whatever structures of thought you wish but, barring verification, 
>> they are still just guesses.  
>
>Yes, and all serious scientists are perfectly aware of this. But aren't
>there cases of "layers" of hypotheses built on such guesses?
Sure.  And they are still guesses.  Nothing wrong with it unless you 
try to pretend that they're more then this.
>
>> And if it turns out that verification is 
>> impossible, the structure is meaningless.
>
>Is there verification for the Big Bang?
The answer is maybe, in part.  Verification doesn't mean that you've 
to go back and actually see the Big Bang.  If starting with the Bing 
Bang hypothesis you derive some observable consequences and then 
manage to actually observe them, that constitutes verification (the 3K 
radiation background comes to mind).  It is not a proof, mind you, 
since you cannot prove that said consequences cannot result through 
some other mechanism.  But, it is a verification.
>Are there not all sorts of
>cosmological theories "out there" who's verification is impossible? 
I think you confuse verification and proof.  Saying that "verification 
is impossible means "there are no observable consequences".  In which 
case the theory is indeed meaningless.
>I'm arguing that one step further about the value and importance of
>hypothesizing: There is an inherent value to hypothesizing (not only as a
>question) and even without verification, if it is well grounded in and
>consistent with the overall body of knowledge. Maybe you can just call it
>a working hypothesis, but significant research is being conducted based on
>such unverified assumptions, that are not addressing them specifically in
>the process.
But of course.  However, if the assumption has some observable 
consequences, eventually you'll either observe them or you won't.  
And, if it has no consequences whatsoever, it could just as well not 
be there at all.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
Return to Top
Subject: How time started or it never starts
From: "Lai Hon Choong"
Date: 11 Nov 1996 02:28:27 GMT
Accroding to Steven Hawkings
Time started when a tiny dot explode, just how?
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:24:46 -0800
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> gonser@eawag.ch (-Tom-) writes:
> >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >> The issue is not what questions you can ask, 
> >> but which you can answer.
> >
> >Ultimately, yes, Mati. But that isn't the way a lot of theoretical physics
> >works, afaik. Especially in the realms of cosmology and high-energy
> >subatomic "particle" physics the structures of thought seem to have a
> >history of racing way ahead (and even establishing themselves) before
> >verification was possible, or even feasible. The existence of some
> >subatomic particles were deduced theoretically many years before they were
> >actually detected.
> >
> But of course.  That's exactly what I'm saying, maybe you've missed 
> it.  Hypothesising is not just fine, it is necessery.  But hypothesis 
> is an asked question, then you need an answer. 
I am aware of that and fully agree.
> You can establish 
> whatever structures of thought you wish but, barring verification, 
> they are still just guesses.  
Yes, and all serious scientists are perfectly aware of this. But aren't
there cases of "layers" of hypotheses built on such guesses?
> And if it turns out that verification is 
> impossible, the structure is meaningless.
Is there verification for the Big Bang? Are there not all sorts of
cosmological theories "out there" who's verification is impossible? 
I'm arguing that one step further about the value and importance of
hypothesizing: There is an inherent value to hypothesizing (not only as a
question) and even without verification, if it is well grounded in and
consistent with the overall body of knowledge. Maybe you can just call it
a working hypothesis, but significant research is being conducted based on
such unverified assumptions, that are not addressing them specifically in
the process.
Ecology must depend on this procedure often since there are too many
variables and one must often deal with various levels of organisation
simultaneously.
Tom.
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Time & space, still (was: Hermeneutics ...)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 02:36:26 GMT
In article <5661nb$jc@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article <5646t1$6lt@news-central.tiac.net>,
>Richard Harter  wrote:
>>
>>You have to remember that Mati is a plumber, er, experimentalist.  His
>>focus is on the use of theory in the laboratory.  For this it suffices
>>to have the equations, the barest formal theory, and some connection
>>with them to their application in the specific experiment.  But
>>physicists come in two sorts,  experimentalists and theorists. 
>
>Well, you know what Feynman said ( paraphrasing from memory ):
>
>A theorist is one who thinks and imagines about physics; an
>experimentalist is one who does experiments and thinks and imagines.
>
>Just more idle musing to be brushed aside, eh?
>
Oh no, it is quite cute actually.  You should hear some of the things 
experimentalists say about theoreticians :-)
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Our current education system (was Re: How Much Math? (not enough))
From: "Jonathan W. Hendry"
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 17:23:20 -0500
Ken MacIver wrote:
> This is both true and false.  It is true that Americans as a group
> devalue in particular humanities, art, philosophy, and the like and
> often place on mindless pedestal science and other things that promise
> *answers*.  I have a pretty good imagination, yet I'd find it hard to
> imagine an American scence such as that in one of Zola's novel where a
> working class wedding party takes a tour of the Louvre.
scence? This isn't clear. Do you mean science? Or scene?
I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at here.
Science may be put on a pedestal, but not *scientists*. The
people who are idolized here tend to be atheletes, musicians,
and others in the entertainment industry. Even writers have
a bigger following than scientists. On TV, pseudo-science gets 
ratings, while science is relegated to PBS and cable.
Intelligence simply is not valued by Americans. Wealth is,
but not intelligence.
> 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.
The obsession with higher learning is due to the common knowledge
that degreed people tend to make more than non-degreed people,
and have a better selection of jobs available.
What would you suggest as an alternative to loans? If not
for the loans, many fewer people would be able to attend college.
Colleges simply aren't going to lower their tuitions, so that's
not an option. Paying for the educations with tax money isn't
a viable alternative, either. Paying for your own education,
either immediately or through loans, is a pretty hefty reminder
to make the most of your time in college. By learning, that
is, not socializing. If college were 100% paid for by Uncle
Sam, you'd have a lot more "endless undergrads".
I also think that the "youthful propensity towards risk and
exploration" is a romantic myth. People with a propensity
towards risk won't be stopped by mere college loans. If 
anything, it might act to spur them on. The working
world is far from 'safe', so why not go for it?
My massive pile of loans didn't stop me from starting
my company last year and going solo, one year out of
college.
Besides - college students these days are likely to
build up an onerous credit card debt far worse than
their college loan debt (if they have any loans to
begin with). The students with a "youthful propensity
towards risk" are quite likely to fall into this trap,
actually.
I'll take college loan debt over credit card debt any
day.
-- 
Jonathan W. Hendry    President, Steel Driving Software, Inc.
OpenStep, Delphi, and Java Consulting in Cincinnati
http://www.steeldriving.com
DNRC Lord High Minister Of Binder Buffing
Return to Top
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 02:06:23 GMT
In article <565ve0$fh@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, lew@ihgp167e.ih.att.com (-Mammel,L.H.) writes:
>In article ,
>Michael L. Siemon  wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
>The only foundation I'm presuming is "plain English", and
>Newton seems to express himself quite clearly:
>
>
>        Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation
>        to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.
>        Relative space is some movable dimension or measure
>        of the absolute spaces; ...
>
>
>You are making a presumption that his definitions must
>be grounded operationally. Since Newton confesses this
>can't be done completely ( although "the thing is not
>altogether hopeless." ) you decide the whole thing has
>to be reinterpreted relativistically, riding roughshod
>over his plain meaning.
>
It is not a matter of presumption.  There is nothing in Newton's 
equations that relies on the notion of absolute space.  Thus the 
notion is extra-physical.
>I really can't get over the idea that Newton can't be accepted
>at his word on this. It seems that anathema has been pronounced on
>Absolute Space, so to save Newton, it must be exorcised from
>his (sacred?) works, although Mati chooses simply to ignore it
>as irrelevant commentary, notwithstanding its foundational position.
You still seem to have a difficulty with the notion that scientific 
theories stand independent of their creators.  What I was saying and I 
repeat it is that there is no absolute space in Newtonian physics.  
Whether he believed in one or not, is besides the point.
>( Not that this stops him from expressing enthusiastic agreement
>with the sentiments he finds praiseworthy. )
You must mean my current exchange with moggin about whether Newton did 
or didn't use "action at distance" as explanation.  Don't confuse 
issues.  When the topic is Newton's thoughts and beliefs, his writings 
and opinions are relevant.  When the topic is Newtonian physics, it is 
fully expressed in the formalism and Newton's writings are not 
relevant.  If tomorrow, due to some unexplained reason, all copies of 
Principia and all quotes from Principia averywhere would disappear, 
classical mechanics wouldn't change one single bit.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
Return to Top
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 22:31:59 -0500
Current mind control operators are carrying out the social 
revolution to U.S. with the communism theroy
< Part I>
Since US learned about the mind control technologies from Red 
Russia after the Korean War, the U.S. has developed this type of
technology and invented more advanced EMR mind machine in
this field.
 After the Soviet Union collapsed, the US also bought a lot of mind
control equipments and patents from Russia in order to increase US
mind control capability (see detail information at below). 
(attachment)
======================================================
NEW WORLD ORDER E.L.F. PSYCHOTRONIC TYRANNY
By: C.B. Baker  YOUTH ACTION NEWSLETTER  ISSUED DECEMBER 1994
The 3\1\93 issue of Time Magazine reported: "American and 
Russians are discovering common interest...MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 
The Jan. 11-17, 1993 issue of DEFENSE NEWS reported that U.S. political
and military officials are obtaining Soviet mind-control technology.
The Soviet KGB "capability, demonstrated in a series of laboratory
experiments dating back to the mid-1970's, could be used to suppress
riots, CONTROL DISSIDENTS, demoralize or disable opposing forces and
enhance the performance of friendly special operations teams, sources
say."
"Pioneered by the government-funded Department of Psycho-Correction at
the Moscow Medical Academy, acoustic psycho-correction involves the
transmission of specific commands via static or white noise bands into
the human subconscious without upsetting other intellectual functions.
Experts said laboratory demonstrations have shown encouraging results
after exposure of less than one minute. Moreover, decades of KGB research
and investment of untold millions of rubles in the process has produced
THE ABILITY TO ALTER BEHAVIOR ON WILLING AND UNWILLING SUBJECTS, the
experts add."
One of the KGB's psychotronic systems was being sold for as little as $
80,000. A scientific analysis published by an affiliate of the
Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy stated: "...It
has become possible to probe and correct psychic contents of human beings
DESPITE THEIR WILL AND CONSCIOUSNESS, by instrumental means...Results
having been achieved...can be used with inhumane purposes of manipulating
psyche."
Janet Morris of the Global Strategy Council, a Washington "think-tank"
tied to the CIA and Federal Government, "is a key U.S. liaison between
Russian and U.S. officials." Morris is a long time close associate of
Col. John B. Alexander, a leading U.S. expert on psychotronics.
               ELECTROMAGNETIC TOTALITARIAN CONTROL OVER AMERICA       
The 4\94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported that Janet E. Morris and her
husband Christopher C. Morris "have been involved in promoting a
'psycho-correction' technology, developed by a Russian scientist, that is
INTENDED TO INFLUENCE BY MEANS OF SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES EMBEDDED IN SOUND
OR VISUAL IMAGES"(infrasound mind machine--Alan Yu note). 
In 1993, "the Morrises organized a meeting in which the technology was
demonstrated for U.S. scientists and officials by its Russian inventor."
Defense news reported that on Dec. 15, 1992, Janet Morris stated that she
and the Richmond, Virginia-based International Health-line Corporation
"have briefed senior U.S. intelligence and Army officials about the
Russian capabilities, which Morris said could include hand-held devices
for purposes of special operations, crowd control and anti-personal
actions" (infrasound weapon--Alan Yu note).
Morris reported that this particular weapon creates "BONE-CONDUCTING
SOUND WAVES that cannot be offset by protective gear These devices appear
to work at the Very Low Frequency (VLF) spectrum, the same frequency
range as generated by the sinister U.S. Gwen (Ground Wave Emergency
Network) system of transmitters.
DEFENSE ELECTRONICS reported that a Richmond, Virginia firm,
Psychotechnologies (believed to be closely tied to the CIA and the FBI)
has purchased the American rights to the Soviet mind-control devices.
DEFENSE ELECTRONICS described a spring, 1993 meeting between Clinton
Administration officials and Soviets psychotronics experts, including
Dr. Igor Smirnov. Amongst the U.S. agencies represented at the meetings
with Smirnov were the FBI, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and
the Advance Research Projects Research Agency (ARPA). Clinton
Adiministration officials wanted "to determine whether
psycho-correction...programs COULD BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
These devices could be used to AFFECT JUDGMENT OR OPINION OF
DECISION-makers, KEY PERSONAL OR POPULACES."
Also meeting with the Soviet psychotronic experts, were officials from
the giant Trilateral-allied international corporations, such as General
Motors and researchers from the National Institute of Mental Health. 
The 8\22\94 NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE reported on a secret Arlington, Virginia
meeting between experts from the FBI's  Counter-Terrorism Center and Dr.
Smirnov, whose work was described in the publication: "...Using
electroencephalographs, Smirnov measures brain waves, then uses computers
to CREATE A MAP OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS AND VARIOUS HUMAN IMPULSES, such as
anger or the sex drive. Then through taped SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES, he claims
to physically alter the landscape with the power of suggestion."
The 3\23\94 WASHINGTON POST reported: "The Pentagon and the Justice
Department have agreed to share state-of-the-art military technology with
civilian law enforcement agencies, including exotic 'non-lethal'
weapons."
The 4\94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported: "Federal researchers 
are now investigating a broad array of non-lethal devices
including...LOW-FREQUENCY 'INFRASOUND' GENERATORS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO
TRIGGER NAUSEA OR DIARRHEA,...electronics-disrupting pulses of
electromagnetic radiation..and biological agents that can chew up crops."
In November, 1993, a three day top-secret non-lethal weapons conference 
took place in the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University 
in Maryland. The meeting was attended by Attorney General Janet Reno, 
numerous scientist, military weapons experts, intelligence officials from 
state and local police departments. The main purposes of the meeting was 
to prepare leading law enforcement officials for the use of psychotronic
mind-control weapons.
Amongst the subjects covered at the conference were "RADIO-FREQUENCY
WEAPONS, HIGH POWERED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY, ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY" (used to
transmit subliminal voices into a victims head), VOICE SYNTHESIS, and
APPLICATION OF EXTREME FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS TO NON-LETHAL
WEAPONS." Col. John B. Alexander, Program Manager for Non-Lethal
(psychotronic) Defense, Los Alamos National Laboratory, served as
conference chairman.
In 1989, FULL DISCLOSURE MAGAZINE published the article, "REMOTE MIND
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY." The magazine reported that Los Alamos National
Laboratory "prepared a report for Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) setting forth that use of microwave radiation on 'terrorist' could
kill them, stun them, or at least modify their behavior by changing their
perceptions."
NEXUS reported on the U.S. development of "High Powered Microwave (HPM)
Projectiles." The U.S. Government has already obtained "a portable
microwave weapon."
Several U.S. high tech laboratories, with the help of Soviet scientist,
are working on very low frequency (VLF) weapons. NEXUS reported that
these U.S. high labs, including Col. Alexander Los Alamos Laboratory,
are working on "developing high power, VERY LOW FREQUENCY acoustic beam
weapons. They are also looking into methods of projecting high frequency
acoustic bullets."
"Very Low Frequency (VLF) sound, or low-frequency radio-frequency 
modulation CAN CAUSE NAUSEA, VOMITING, AND ABDOMINAL PAINS. Some 
Very Low Frequency sound generators, in certain frequency ranges,
CAN CAUSE DISRUPTION OF HUMAN ORGANS, and at high power levels CAN
CRUMBLE MASONARY." 
NEWSWEEK described how these psychotronics non-lethal weapons will be
used: "The United States needs new options to control "rogue" 
governments and insurrectionaries without resorting to total war. 
New-wave military thinkers say that the list of exotic technologies that 
could be harnessed for non-lethal technologies is already large and 
growing. It includes lasers, MICROWAVES, SOUND WAVES, STROBE LIGHTS 
(already used for psychotronic entrainment during the Waco siege), 
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES and Microbes (GERM WARFARE)."
In March, 1993, the National Institute of Justice [NIJ]--(an office of
Janet Reno's Justice Department), issued a report titled: "NIJ Initiative
On Less-Than-Lethal Weapons." The Department is now encouraging local
and state police organizations to utilize Soviet-KGB psychotronic,
electromagnetic and mind control weapons against their local citizenry.
Targets for these KGB weapons include "domestic disturbances" meaning
that mind-control devices are even to be utilized against family
arguments.
The reports stated: "Short-term research will be completed TO ADOPT
MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES TO USE BY DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT...including
LASER, MICROWAVE, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC" WEAPONS.
======================================================== 
So today's mind control technologies of US is the most advanced in the
world. 
What is the real meanning of mind control?
We can simply say that it uses the scientific technologies (mind 
machine) to handle human thoughts and use the psychological theories to 
produce pressure to human in order to forcibly change human behaviors.
However, it can also be said that it is a revolution to our originally 
free & democratic society.
Why?
We know that besides the law, religions (such as Christianity, Islam, 
Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) have also shaped human behavior in 
society.  These religions use morals to teach people and lead them into 
a state of benevolenceand it has become the most important source of ethics.
However, since the mind machine has been invented and used by many 
countries after the mid 1970s (according to news reports & military 
classified documents of Taiwan), it has been used to change human 
behaviors in stead of the original religion and the society morals
copcept.
How could the mind control technology can be allowed to use in U.S.
and replace the function of orginal religion and society morals concept?
It can be used in U.S. because the technology (to spy entire
nation) are available and the political concept of the government
officers has changed.
First, during the Vietnan war of 1960s, there were lots of people 
opposing the foreign policy of federal government and making protests,
causing many confrontations in the streets.
So the security officers started to think that people need to be
controlled and educated to accept the governmental policy.
They start to believe the real meaning of people's freedom and 
democracy is that people are not awared of being spied or controlled by
the state opf art national security surveiliance system.
Second, since CIA started the electromagnetic mind control research 
in 1960, it has made the remarkable progress in this technology in 1970.
Therefore, the related technology of mind machine already can be used
in surveilliance system.  
Furthermore, the general efficiency of our surveilliance system made it
possible to shelve a program to wire every house, car, boat in America
(See page 181 on 1978 book _Uncloaking The CIA_).
Therefore, the security officers have this idea to use the mind 
control technology to keep people under closely surveilliance and 
to control people's behavior.
As early as 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later National Security Advisor
to President Jimmy Carter, predicated a "more  controlled and directed 
society" would gradually appear, linked the technology.  This society
would be dominated by an elite group which impresses voters by allegedly
superior scientific know-how.
Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite
would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest
modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society
under close surveillance and control.  Technical and scientific momentum
would then feed on the situation it exploits.  Brzezinski predicted 
(see page 200 on _Angels Don't Play This HARRP_).
In August 1971, there is a entire nation surveillance security 
system program proposal submitted to the President Nixon.  It 
proposed to "wire" every "house", "car", and "boat" in America.  
The plan included a blueprint for a government- operated propaganda
system via a TV network that would have linked every state, city, and
home.  (See page 181 on the 1978 book _Uncloaking the CIA_)
Although this program wasn't accepted at that time.  It did
prove that US government did have this plan and have the 
technology to accomplish it since 1971.
How could they propose to "wire" every "house", "car" and "boat" 
in American?  It must use the radio wave or low radiation wave to 
network these objects (house, car, boat, etc.), otherwise, they 
cannot achieve this goal.  
This program has proven that the US governmental officers has the
technology and the plan to keep our society under close surveilliance
and control ( they even can "wire" the house, car, boat, etc. and via a
TV network that would have linked every city, state, home) in order to
control people's behavior as the predicion of Brzezinski in 1970 (one 
year before).
The above information of news report also prove that the so called 
elite group who will lead our society (as the Brzezinski predicted) 
is the local law enforcement.
Since the mind control equipments are intentionaly used in our 
society, the local law enforcement have recruited the local business
owners (and managers) as their first cooperaters (and offer these mind
control equipments to them).
These equipments has been proven to help business owners and
managers to easily manage their employees and reduce theft from their
stores.
Thus, the concept of using the mind control equipments to manage
employees and reduce theft from stores have been accepted by these 
local business owners and managers.
From the early 1980s, mind control (machine) technologies has been 
slowly used in commercial chain stores, business stores, and expanded to  
the entire society in order to spy and control people behaviors (According 
to the House of Representative Hearing in 1984).
Above situation causes the local business owners and managers to support
the using of mind control equipments in our society.
Thus, instead of using religious beliefs and law to regulate the 
public, these career officers (and under-cover operators) try to use the
mind control technologies to keep people under close surveilliance and
control.
However, although the business owners and managers are comfortable with 
the use of the mind control equipments, it doesn't mean that these mind
control equipments suit the needs of our whole society.
Why?
That's because current mind cotrol equipments are only used to protect
the interests of the business owners or managers but does not consider
the interests of the employees.
After the employers can use the mind control equipments, the employees
will be treated unfairly and keep the disadvantage position forever.
That's why the influence of American Labor Unions (ALU) have weakened 
over time and you will never see the strong influence to our society as
they (ALU) had before (in 1960).
What is worse is that since the so called "nonlethal weapon" has been
transferred to the local law enforcement, the mind control operators 
have started to use this equipment to make a society revolution to our
entire nation openly.
Furthermore, this time the object of revolution are the law 
abiding citizens who are legally working or living in our society.
Why?
That's because these law abiding citizens have deep beliefs
of religious and moral concepts and do not believe that the mind 
control equipments can replace them to control our society. 
Therefore, they try to destory these law abiding citizens with the 
invisible wave weapon because the operators dislike them and afraid
these people to become the opponents of mind control in the near furture.
How?
Their proposal of using non-lethal weapon technologies against terrorists
and drug traffickers as the excuse and request our Congress to allow them
to transfer the invisible wave weapon (so called "nonlethal weapon" or
soft killing weapon) from military to local law enforcement.
I would show readers this kind of information below.
There is a report on nonlethal technologies, issued by the 
Council on Foreign Relations.
(attachmrent)
----------------------------------------------
This report points out that , "The Nairobiv Convention, to which
the United States is a signastory, prohiibits the broadcast of
electronic signals into a sovereign state without its consent in
peacetime.
This report opens discussion of use of these weapons against 
"terrorists" and "drug traffickers".  The CFR report recommends 
that this be done secretly so that the victims do not know where the 
attack is from, or if there even is an attack!  There is a problem
with this approach. The use of these weapons, even against these kinds
of individuals, may be in violation of United States law in that it
presume guilt rather than innocence.  In other words,  the POLICE,
CIA, DEA, OR OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION become THE JUDGE, JURY 
AND EXCECUTIONER. (See page 180 on _ANGELS DON'T PLAY THE HAARP_1995 by
Jeane Manning & Dr. Nick Begich)
-------------------------------------------------
Comparing with the facts, the above information has made a very
accurate deduction on these nonlethal weapon abusers.
Currently, the mind control operators have become the judge, jury, 
and executioner while they investigate or control the mind of any person.
It means that these career officers' powers have been over authorized.
Therefore, the real power of these career officers (or operators) are the
same as a king, who owns the executive rights (as the President), judical
rights (as Supreme Court), and legislative rights (as Congress) at the
same time.
Since such kind of unlimited power is handled by the local law 
enforcement officers, it has made the U.S. to fast move toward a
police state and mind control society.
Will be continued on the next post....
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's health condition and lives in order to eliminate their 
  opponents or enemies secretly (die as natural cause).  
  This objective has been secretly carried out since the late of 1970s 
  in Taiwan (At that time they simply use the microwave beam or low 
  radio frequency modulation).
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries.
  Accusing others as insane is the "trademark" of mind control
  organization.
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Return to Top
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 22:34:39 -0500
Current the mind control operators are carrying out the 
social revolution to U.S. with the communism threoy
< Part II >    
Causeing by the over authorized, the seriousness of these operators'
abuse of victims have now surfaced.
Beside the report of "Microwave Harassment & Mind Control
Experimentation" has been published by Julliane McKinney on December
1992, another very famouse tradegy happened in the Waco, Taxas.
According to some news report, the officers use the mind control
equipments to confuse David Koresh's followers in order to avoid some
of them fleeing from the burning building.
I would show readers such kind of information below.
The below report shows that FBI has used the mind control weapon at Waco.
=======================================================
NEXUS MAGAZINE stated: "Reports recently appeared that the FBI deployed
the weapon against David Koresh" during the siege at Waco. This type of
psychotronic weapon was able to confuse and plant false messages into the
targeted victims. Videos of the Branch Dividian compound, made during the
siege, showed a small microwave dish (used for TRANSMISSION) setting atop
a portable pole, POINTED DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE MAIN BUILDING IN THE
COMPOUND.
The 7\93 issue of DEFENSE ELECTRONICS discussed the FBI's use of Soviet
KGB psychotronic devices against the Branch Dividians at Waco, Texas.
There is strong evidence that such weapons were used. After the Feds
launched their mass-murdering, flame-throwing attack, some members of
David Koresh's church attempted to flee the burning building, but soon as
they got outside, they suddenly turned around and ran back INTO the
fire--which demonstrated an extreme mental disorientation of the type
created by psychotronic mind control weapons. The few victims who
survived the fire were visibly confused and unable to talk coherently or
move.
Prior to the massacre, the Feds targeted the church building with a night
and day acoustical barrage (that included the sounds of dying animals and
low frequency sound devices). The Feds also utilized a super-strobe light
show (pulsed at ELF frequencies).
===============================================
I don't believe the David Koresh is the Jesus Christ and don't agree 
with him.  However, I also do believe that David Koresh and his church's
members should be protected by US constitution because they are the US
citizens.
The members of David Koresh are most law abiding citizens because they
didn't commit crime or violate US law. The only mistake of these members 
might pay their full trust on David Koresh.  However, these members and 
their children are full burned to death in the event. 
Why?
According to the above DEFENSE ELECTRONIC reported, the
officers use the mind control equipment to cofuse the members of David
Koresh' chruch in order to avoid some of them fleeing the burning
building.  If theis information is correct, it only shows that this
officer was intentionally trying to kill the all members of David
Koresh's chruch.
In the mind control surveiliance system, the goal of mind control is 
that everyone must be mind controlled or cooperate with the operators.
Based on this mind control rule, the mind control operators will rather
kill anyone if anyone cannot be controlled or cooperate with them
(operators).
In the report of "Microwave Harassment & Mind Control harassment" by
Julliane Mckinney, readers can find that some law abiding citizens 
become the mind control victims only because these people refuse to be
controlled or to cooperat with mind control operators.
Comparing with mind control's evil goal, these career officers in 
the Waco should intentionally kill whole members of the David Koresh
chruch after the building was burning. 
That's because the mind control operastors dislike the very religiouse
people because these religiouse people are hardly to be mind controllled.
Therefore, from the view point of mind control operators, the operators
would rather kill these people than waste time to control them.
So, although our government policy point out that these invisible wave
weapon (nonlethal wepon) will be used to against the terrorist or
drug-trafficker, hoever, the operators never hesitate to use these
invisible wave weapon on the law abiding citizens whom the operators
dislike.
To gurantee the operators can control everyone in our society,  
mind control operators are carrying out the soicial revolution 
in our country and would supress our law abiding citizens (whom the
operastors dislike) with the invisible wave weapon. 
Furthermore, the operators are using the philosophy of Communism
(materialism, atheism, etc) to erode people's belief in law,
moral values, and God.  
How?
I will clearify my words below.
The victims of mind control are tortured by the operators and cannot get 
any protection from the law.
Such kind of situation will erode people's belief in law or even
US Constitution.
The operators use the invisible wave weapon to injure or kill the
victims without being punished. These kinds of situation will erode the
victims'(and their family's members') belief in their God (or religion).
The operators can manipulate people's lives with the invisible wave
weapon and induce the illness (such as heart disease, liver disease,
lung disease, kidney failure, etc.) on victims.
Not only the career operators will not feel sorry for such kind of
injuries but also enjoy their crimes. 
This kind of situation will erode the victims' belief in mankind's 
morality.  It has proven that these operators are only cruel criminals
and not part the elite group.  Furthermore, not only will the people who
are aware of this situation distrust the law enforcement officers, but it
will erode their confidence in our Constitution.
Therefore, current mind control in U.S. are very similar to the
social cultural revolution of Mao (Red China) in 1970s.
It means that these carrer officers are revolting against our 
original society. They don't believe in the legal powers of the law or
the spiritual powers of religion, but only trust the technologies and
tactics of mind game (built from the psychological theroies).   
They are the materialism and believe that using the scientific methods 
can more effectively control people in a short time.  However, this idea
come from Communism (Stalin's atheism and materialism) and only treat
humans as animals (without soul).
Their idea also inherit the evil belief of Stalin and Mao:  the 
regime's power come from the nozzle of the gun.  
That's why the operators always use their invisible wave weapon to 
injure or even kill people while these career officers prusue the
interests of mind (machine) control system and thsee operators 
their own.
The operators will also use the invisible wave weapon to secretly
eliminate their opponents in order to keep the mind control system 
as a secret and mantain the career officers (operators') privileges
forever.
Sometime, the operators will get rid of innocents because they try to 
keep their illegal crimes in secret.
What is the worse is that these operators learn everything from
the communists but their basic idea is worse than communists.
Why?
The Communism's basic idea suppose to be nice to society because it was
trying to creat a equal society which people can do one's best for the
society and everyone can also get what he need.
Although, the communism economic has failed because communist economic 
system didn't consider the human natural.  That's because human natural
is always  to pursue the interests of his own first.
Therefore, even the communism's method has been proven as a mistake but
these comunists's dream are not completely wrong in the very begining.
That's because their original idea was trying to creat a equal society.
Their murder actions to the capital persons are inhumane but the mind
control operators' murder action to law abiding citizens are also inhumane
as the communists.
What is the funny thing is that the communists make mistake because they
believe that their theroy is nice for the society.  But the mind control
operastors know their theroy is wrong but still continuously make the
mistakes on our society.
It means that the communists make the mistake is not intentionaly (because
they believe their theroy is correct and nice to the society), however, 
the mind control operators are intentionaly to make mistakes and crimes on
us.
How could I criticize this words on mind control operators?
That's because our government officers and their cooperators of society
almost all deny such kind of cruel actions of mind control exist in our
society and deny such kind of evil actions could be made by the mind
control operators.  Also they deny such kind of thing involve the
govrernmental officers.
Such kind of reactions only prove that these operators either cannot 
face the truth (because they do not legally existance and are the  
criminals), or the government officers agree with that mind control
operators are the infasmous courier (because the operators frequently
vilolate law).
It means that these career officers (and under-cover operators) 
know that the mind control is a illegal and infamous thing.  The
operators use the inhumane actions on victims are crimes.
We can always find that the career officers and their cooperators 
openly deny the existance of mind control equipments in the society.
However, on the other hand, the operators never stop to use the mind
control equipments on our people.  Therefore, the victims of mind control
continuously careat in the society. 
This only prove that these operators are intentionaly making the mistakes
and crimes on our society.  And that is why we cannot forgive them.
Comparing with the communists, the communists make mistake only because
they falsely beliive their theroy is correct, but the mind control
operators already know their theroy and methods are wrong, illegal
but still intentionally make the mistakes and crimes on our law
abiding citizens.
Comparing with the communists, the mind control operators are more 
evil and more need be corrected.
If such kinds of operators are the elite group in our society then the
communists are more qualify for the elite group than them because the
operators fully imitate the communism phylosophy.
Furthermore, these career officers used the local law enforcement 
as the basic mind control unit to control the local area people and 
then extend to the entire nation.  
What's worse is that they hire more undercover female operators to 
cooperate with law enforcement officers to spy on & manipulate 
people's live.  These unawared victims are the opponents of mind 
control operators or whom these operators personally dislike (such 
as the religiose people). 
They manipulate these people's live (without victims' knowledge) in 
order to secretly eliminate them from society.
When these career officers (and under-cover operators) use mind 
control technologies to spy & manipulate people's live, they have
totally forgotten the law, human rights, and Constitution of our 
society.
With their vast power of determining people's live with their weapons, 
the operators' position have been elevated to those of kings who are the
judge, jury, and executioner at the same time.
Dear American citizens, do you agree with their criminal activities, if
the operators use the invisible wave weapon on the law abiding citizens
or on you?
Since the operators can use the invisible wave weapon to secretly 
manipulate people's live without victims' knowledge, do you believe 
that they have created fears to our society?
If we disgree with their crimes, why we don't stop them?!
Furthermore, they have openly tortured the people who know their 
secrets with their invisible wave weapon in order to build the fear in
the society and threaten these victims in order to surpress or silence
them.
Under such kind of situation, no wonder the operators have eroded 
victims' confidence in law and Constitution.
These kinds of victims has been reported in "Microwave Harassment 
& Mind Control Experimentation" by Julianne McKinney on December 
1992.  I would remind you one more time.
(attachment)
 ===========================================================
   One dividual (driven to extremes of stress by ongoing electronic 
harassment focusing on her children) killed one child in an effort to 
protect her from further pain.
   Another individual, during a telephone conversation, was told by an 
employee of a local power company that , if she value the lives of her 
children, she would  drop the her opposition to the company's installation 
of high power lines.  Since receiving that threat, the individual 
11-year-old daughter has been reduced to extrrement of illness which cannot 
be diagnosed.  It's now also apparent to this invidual that her 
three-year-old son is on the receiving end of externally induced 
auditory input. (DoE figures prominently in this case.)
=================================================================
I would like to emphasize some important points for those readers who think 
that the above examples are unusual cases and other people would not be 
subjected to similar harassment.
The two families in this example are average law abiding citizens and 
living in their own home.  Even under such kind circumstances, these 
members of these two families cannot avoid of being spied on.  So, the 
children of these two families cannot avoid being attacked and harm by 
remotely controlled invisible wave weapons (even in the security of 
their own home or staying at hospitals). 
It proves the invisible wave weapon has been used in conjuction with 
the surveilliance system.  Also, both systems can track or attack any of 
the member of these two families with incredible accuracy.  From these 
cases, we know that anyone of us can be also injured or examined in our 
own home or any public building (including cars -- I would emphsize it).
The above information (two cases) also proves that no place is safe for 
anyone when you live under the surveilliance & manipulation lives system of 
mind control.
Dear citizens, the mind control operators are revolting against our free
& democratic country.  They are revolting against the social culture,
beliefs (religion), law, and the Constitution of United States.
Since they can use the electromagnetic pulse weapon to stop my car's
engine on the road or even stop my car from starting
(they also can make the signal lights of a car malfuction with 
remote control), it has proven to me that they can totaly control the 
transportation system.  Since their conspiracy is so deep, it has caused 
me to suspect that they might also be able to remote control an airplane's 
engine while it is flying (by remote control plane's computer system).  
That's because  US is a big nation and the airplane is a common 
transportation of American people.  If these corrupted officers really 
try to totally control our people's transportation, they probably have 
developed the ability to remote control some important parts of the 
planes.
If my deduction is correct, then currently lots of airplane crashes 
should be re-investigated.   
Why?
If the operators remotely control a car's computer system to stop car's 
engine, the awared driver can still use the emergency brakes to stop the 
car on the road.
However, if they can remotely control the computer system of an airplane 
to stop the engine, this airplane will only drop down to the ground and 
crash (The pilot can do nothing even he is aware of this unresonable 
situation).   For example:
The commerce secretory of US died in an airplane crash a few months ago.
This kind situation wouldn't have happened in a small or poor country, 
but it happened in our highly technical country-- US.
Also, currently the airplanes crash seem to happpen frequently.
If the mind control operators really can remotely control an airplane's 
computer system, I hope that the family's members of these airplane crash
victims can find the truth.
Even if the above airplane crashes were not caused by these operators,
the reported cases of mind control (such as the cases was reported by
Julianne Mckinny) have made our citizens fear our government.
These corrupted officers' crimes must be stoped by our law
abiding citizens, responsible Congress members, and our President.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Alan Yu
  The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate 
  people's health condition and lives in order to eliminate their 
  opponents or enemies secretly (die as natural cause).  
  This objective has been secretly carried out since the late of 1970s 
  in Taiwan (At that time they simply use the microwave beam or low 
  radio frequency modulation).
  The mind (machine) control system is the national security system of 
  Taiwan from late of 1970s and should be the same in US or lots free 
  countries.
  Accusing other as insane is the "trademark" of mind control organization.
  The shorter the lie is, the better it is.  So, the liar can avoid
  inconsistency and mistakes that other people can catch.
  Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Return to Top
Subject: Re: New sci-fi movie called PULSAR, BEAM ME HOME
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 02:08:31 GMT
In article <563hh6$skd@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Time : For advanced aliens on Bu it was one light year after they
> discovered controlled fusion energy. There civilization sent a space
> ship in the shape of a rocket and about the size of the Earth's radius
> to another pulsar signal.  For Earth, it was the Permian geological
> time period.
> 
> Mission: The mission for the Bu rocket was to go to the Nascent star
> system because the Nascent pulsar had radioed Bu of how to increase
> space ship flight speed in trade for pulsar technology. Earth and the
> Solar system was a stopping station between Bu and Nascent.
> 
> Pit stop on Earth: It is the Permain time period on Earth. Animals and
> plants were coexisting nicely. Then this rocket space ship lands on
> Earth. It is huge and has to land in the ocean. The Bu-s need more
> lithium for their electrical systems. They make a quick analysis of
> Earth's environment and decide that the quickest way to restock their
> lithium supply is to run all of the big animals on Earth of that time
> through their distillation tank. The Bu-s immediately set out to net
> all of the Permain large sized animals and run them through their
> distillation tank. In one end is fed all of these captured animals and
> at the other end is seen a fractionalized form of lithium. Within a
> month most all big animals on Earth are gone and the Bu-s have plenty
> of lithium and take off to their rendevous with the Nascent pulsar
> civilization.
> 
> Bu rendevous with Nascent : In the meeting with Nascent civilization
> the Bu-s trade their secret of how to pulse millisecond pulsar machines
> for the Nascent technology of faster rocketship flight.
> 
> Time: On Bu, they have increased their rocketship flight from the trade
> in technology with the Nascent civilization. Both Bu and Nascent now
> use millesecond pulsar machines for communication. Time on Earth is the
> Cretaceous geological period. A Nascent rocketship is on its way to Bu
> to exchange biologicals.
> 
> Pit stop on Earth: Again rocket spaceships are huge and they need pit
> stops to refuel for lithium. Nascent rocket surveys Earth among the
> planets of the Solar system and decides the quickest way to get more
> lithium is to herd together all the large animals on Earth and to
> fractionalize distill the lithium out of the animals. Here the movie
> shows interesting encounters and engagements with the dinosaurs as they
> are corralled and herded and killed and run through the distiller. Once
> enough lithium has been gathered and the Nascents take off for Bu.
> 
>   The movie is made long with interesting sequences of the Permian
> extinction of animals, and what the Permian animals looked like and
> what animals became extinct. And long sequences of the dinosaur
> extinction in the Cretaceous at the hands of advanced aliens.
 I just did a little research on lithium  to see if lithium might be
the most desirous single chemical element in the universe by advanced
aliens. Obviously to humans the single most desirable element for
energy sake would be plutonium. And should aliens land here, uranium
would be high on their mining list. But lithium , you see is perhaps
the most efficient maker of electricity. And I would go so far as to
say the lithium makes the best chemistry battery of all.
Here is the data I pulled today on lithium:
levels in humans
muscle/p.p.m.  0.023
blood/mg dm^-3  0.004
total mass of element in average 70 kg person   0.67 mg
--from THE ELEMENTS, 1991
And I read that lithium is concentrated in seawater more than it is in
biolife, but I doubt that data.
So, I put it out as a question. Is the concentration of lithium the
highest in biomaterial than it is in rocks or water? I read that some
brine has large concentrations of lithium. And are there organs in
animal or plant bodies that have higher concentrations of lithium?
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Entropy and time
From: coolhand@Glue.umd.edu (Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 19:05:56 -0500
In article <01bbcb23$607513c0$9fa901c7@David_Schneider.onramp.net>,
David Schneider  wrote:
>
>I've always been in the group that says that starting with a specified
>state, entropy increases in both directions of time.
>
>When you take a naturally occurring system and film
>it before and after, I challenge the view that entropy occurs in one
>direction of time only.
>
So you'd see nothing odd about childbirth in reverse?
-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri				University of Maryland
"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instictive"
Return to Top

Downloaded by WWW Programs
Byron Palmer