1995.07.16 / Robert Heeter /  FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: 16 Jul 1995 16:07:29 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Hi Everyone -

Below you will find FYI98 from the American Institute of Physics, 
which contains recent news on the state of the fusion program.
The House of Representatives passed an appropriation of only
$229 million, down from this year's funding of about $370 million.
The Senate is expected to begin considering fusion this week.  
Meanwhile, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science 
and Technology (PCAST) has just come out with a report on fusion 
(summarized below) which urges higher funding.  To my knowledge,
every major review of fusion has been supportive, yet Congress
is in the mood to cut.  Fusion has been singled out this year for
some reason, apparently because it's long-term basic research 
which actually dares to have a practical goal in mind (high-energy 
particle physics and nuclear physics and other "pure" areas of 
physics were barely scratched by the House budget, by comparison).  
Those who support applied research say it's too expensive 
and will take too long; those who support basic research say
it's too applied.  Sheesh!  Energy research (only a few billion
dollars per year including private funding) is cheap considering
that energy represents the foundation of the economy and 
roughly 10% of GNP (that would be $500 Billion plus); what
is spent on energy supply R&D is just a drop in the bucket.

I urge those of you who support fusion to write or call you
senators this week; on an arcane technical issue like this,
a few voices can make a big difference, especially if they
come from outside the fusion program.  Even a cut to $320
million (envisioned by PCAST) will virtually eliminate any 
chance of getting a demonstration fusion reactor within the 
next 30 years.  (Barring some miracle, like a working Plasmak,
of course.)  Still, it $320 million would be far better
than $229M, which would virtually kill the program.
 
***************************************************

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 98: July 12, 1995

On the Front Burner: Efforts Underway on Critical Fusion Program
Funding 
                                                                  
The first agenda item at yesterday's meeting of the President's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) was a
report of the Fusion Review Panel.  The bottom line: the magnitude
of funding for the Department of Energy's magnetic fusion program
contained in the House Energy and Water Development FY 1996
appropriations bill that is now on the House floor will have severe
consequences for fusion research.  In response, PCAST members and
administration officials will be conferring with the Senate Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee in an effort to
increase fusion funding in their version of this bill, H.R. 1905. 
Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) and his subcommittee colleagues may
be marking up their bill as early as next week, so time is of the
essence.

The PCAST Fusion Review Panel was established at the last PCAST
meeting in March (see FYI #52) in response to a congressional
recommendation in last year's DOE appropriations bill.  Their
67-page report was completed in three months, and released
following yesterday's unanimous vote to send it on to President
Clinton.  The panel was co-chaired by John P. Holdren and Robert W.
Conn.  Holdren reported that there was unanimous support for the
report's conclusions by all nine members of the review panel.   

It is coincidental that the report was released while H.R. 1905 is
on the House floor.  This bill provides, as this FYI is written,
$229.1 million for the magnetic fusion program.  Current year
spending is $368.4 million.  DOE requested $366.1 million (see FYI
#84.)

In the report's Executive Summary, three funding levels are
addressed:

The summary begins by stating, "we believe there is a strong case
for the funding levels for fusion currently proposed by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) -- increasing from $366 million in FY
1996 to about $860 million in FY 2002 and averaging $645 million
between FY 1995 and FY 2005."  This provides funding for ITER
construction and "a vigorous, complementary domestic program...."

The Executive Summary continues with one of its major
recommendations: "Although the program just described is reasonable
and desirable, it does not appear to be realistic in the current
climate of budgetary constraints; we therefore have devoted most of
our effort to developing a budget-constrained U.S. fusion R&D
strategy that, given level funding at about half of the average
projected for the period FY 1996 through FY 2005 under the current
DOE plan, would preserve what we believe to be the most
indispensable elements of the U.S. fusion effort and associated
international collaboration.  This strategy would cost about $320
million per year, $46 million less than the U.S. fusion R&D budget
in FY 1995."

Although not written with the House version of H.R. 1905 in mind,
the Executive Summary describes the consequences of a third, much
reduced, fusion budget: "In addition to developing the strategy
just described for a fusion R&D program funded at about $320
million per year, we also have attempted to envision a program that
could preserve key priorities at a still lower budget level of
about $200 million per year.  We find that this cannot be done. 
Reducing the U.S. fusion R&D program to such a level would leave
room for nothing beyond the core program of theory and medium-scale
experiments described above -- no contribution to an international
ignition experiment or materials test facility, no TPX, little
exploitation of the remaining scientific potential of TFTR, and
little sense of progress toward a fusion energy goal.  With
complete U.S. withdrawal, international fusion collaboration might
well collapse -- to the great detriment of the prospects for
commercializing fusion energy as well as the prospects for future
U.S. participation in major scientific technological collaborations
of other kinds.  These severe consequences - deeply damaging to an
important and fruitful field of scientific and technological
development, to the prospects for achieving practical fusion
energy, and to international collaboration in science and
technology more generally - are too high a price to pay for the
budgetary savings involved."

The Executive Summary of this report, "The U.S. Program of Fusion
Energy Research and Development," concludes:

"We urge, therefore, that the Administration and the Congress
commit themselves firmly to a U.S. fusion R&D program that is
stable at not less than $320 million per year."

Holdren said that the Senate appropriations mark-up of the Energy
and Water Development Act is "key" to the future of the program. 
The subcommittee members (see FYI #14) will complete their
consideration of the FY 1996 DOE budget as early as next week,
although a definite date has not yet been scheduled.  Holdren wants
a forceful push by the Clinton Administration.  Office of Science
and Technology Policy Director John Gibbons said that he will be
taking this report to the Department of Energy and the Office of
Management and Budget, and said that briefings for Senate
committees are being planned.

Assuming that the House version of H.R. 1905 includes the $229
million for fusion, the Senate figure will have to be considerably
higher to get nearer to the $320 million level recommended by the
PCAST report.  This will be a budget item finally decided by the
all-important conference committee that will meet later this year
to finalize the FY 1996 DOE budget.  House and Senate conferees
typically split the difference on many items, making a high Senate
figure critical to the FY 1996 fusion program budget.

The thirteen senators on the appropriations subcommittee, and later
perhaps senators on the floor, are going to have to, in the words
of John Holdren, "go out on a limb" for the fusion program.  The
degree to which they do this will depend greatly on the kind of
support which is demonstrated for this program by not only the
administration, but also by the American people.   

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
##END##########

 -----------------------------------------------------
Bob Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu / rfheeter@pppl.gov
http://www.princeton.edu/~rfheeter
Of course I do not speak for anyone else in any of the above.
 -----------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:  This posting prepared without using any
government equipment.  (Can't use Gov't-funds for lobbying!)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 /   /  Re: Syclops and the helium fallacy
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Syclops and the helium fallacy
Date: 16 Jul 1995 13:40:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Mitchell Schwartz wrote:

:   -  All this having been said, one person's 
:   -  12-sigma effect can be another
:    -  person's two-sigma effect.
:   -   Mark Richardson
:
:  dont think so.  Although it is possible that 
: actually sigma could be taken as conductivity, current density,
:millisecond, Stefanboltzmann constant, specific magnetization,
:dispersion, surface tension, Thomson scattering coef,
:summartion operator, wave number, and the  ASA
:designation for groups of telephone wire for examining
:noise, it is the 
:standard deviation - which is what was meant.
:
:  And that is defined as sqr(sum (x-ith)^2/N)
:and that is not variable.  is it?
:
:       It is measurable, calculable and invariable,
:methinks.
:For example,
:the numbers 1 through 10 have a sigma of
:~2.87.   If we measure an amount from say, the
:mean, i.e. 5.5.  say by 2 or 12 sigma there results
:fixed numbers.
:
:  Thus, one person's two sigma cannot be another's 
:12 sigma.       
:              QED.
:
: 
:    Perhaps you meant for "significance"
:or for the definition of "compelling"?

Would that things were so simple! Another cute phrase, applicable here, is
"context is all".

On the use of "sigma", as in "12-sigma effect", we are definitely speaking
here of the number of standard deviations separating a signal from an
estimated background.

The emphasis here is *estimated*. Speaking as a (former) experimental
physicist here, backgrounds are notoriously difficult to estimate. One
investigator can come up with a different estimate than another, often by
leaving out background sources that he/she doesn't know about or has
neglected.

The background estimate consists of the expected distribution of signals
one would expect in the absence of the process one is investigating. This
is often considered to be gaussian, with a mean value and a standard
deviation. One generally takes the difference between the observed signal
and the mean estimated background and divides by the root-mean-square of
the background and signal standard deviations (since the signal is usually
not measured with perfect accuracy). This is the (somewhat oversimplified)
quantitative definition of an "n-sigma" effect.

The above is not universally applicable, since the distributions are not
necessarily gaussian. Reality is often more complex.

As I said in a previous post to this thread, the best method is to
*measure* the background with the identical apparatus used to measure the
signal, usually by "turning off" the process which produces the "signal"
and otherwise running the experiment in the normal manner.

In the case of CF and helium, one would want to do experimental runs both
with and without deuterium present and compare the rates of helium
production. Of course this assumes that one believes that CF is due to
deuterium.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.15 /  Eleaticus /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: ThnkTank@cris.com (Eleaticus)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 20:30:17 -0400
Organization: Think Tank Eleatic

In article <3ub8h5$bvh@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) wrote:

> It is my perception that,
> the fundamental unit of information and perception is the cycle.

> As I see it,
> the cycle is the fundamental unit of information.

I enjoyed your post, but I

wrote to say that you
 should be getting responses saying
 you have just described an ether theory
 in which all masses and energies are
 waves (cyclic wiggles) of the ether.

Eleaticus
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
! Eleaticus                                      Think Tank Eleatic ?
! "Anything that requires or encourages systematic examination of   ?
!  premises, logic, and conclusions"  ftp.infohaus.fv.com:/infohaus ?
!  ThnkTank@cris.com     http://www.infohaus.fv.com/access/by-topic ?
!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?---!---?
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenThnkTank cudlnEleaticus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Syclops and the helium fallacy
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Syclops and the helium fallacy
Subject: Re: Syclops and the helium fallacy
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 14:20:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3u8pe6$der@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Syclops and the helium fallacy
mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) 

   -  All this having been said, one person's 
   -  12-sigma effect can be another
    -  person's two-sigma effect.
   -   Mark Richardson

  dont think so.  Although it is possible that 
 actually sigma could be taken as conductivity, current density,
millisecond, Stefanboltzmann constant, specific magnetization,
dispersion, surface tension, Thomson scattering coef,
summartion operator, wave number, and the  ASA
designation for groups of telephone wire for examining
noise, it is the 
standard deviation - which is what was meant.

  And that is defined as sqr(sum (x-ith)^2/N)
and that is not variable.  is it?

       It is measurable, calculable and invariable,
methinks.
For example,
the numbers 1 through 10 have a sigma of
~2.87.   If we measure an amount from say, the
mean, i.e. 5.5.  say by 2 or 12 sigma there results
fixed numbers.

  Thus, one person's two sigma cannot be another's 
12 sigma.       
              QED.

 
    Perhaps you meant for "significance"
or for the definition of "compelling"?

   Thanks to Mark Richardson and Scott Little
for some great comments, and thoughts.

   best wishes.
     Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 / Tom Potter /  General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 16 Jul 1995 14:42:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Friends, scientists, wackos and lurkers,
lend me your minds.
I come bury Einstein, not to praise him.

It is my perception,
that General Relativity is closely associated with space and mass.

The Equivalence Principle is mass oriented,
and the Riemannian Metric is space oriented.

It is my perception that,
the fundamental unit of information and perception is the cycle.

Time is one step removed from fundamental perception ( cycles ):
        time(X) = cycles(reference) / cycles(X)

while space is two steps removed:
        distance(X) = time(X) * C

and mass is even further removed.
        mass(A) = distance(B)^3 / time^2 / G

Note that mass not only is a more complex expression of time and space,
but a second "point" or body is also needed to define it.
( A point being a memory element associated with some information. )

General Relativity gives mass a dominate role,
and indicates that space and time are distorted by it.
No place is given to cycles.

As I see it,
the cycle is the fundamental unit of information.
Time is a cycle ratio.
Mass is an even more complex blend of time and space.

General Relativity suggests that mass distorts time and space.
It is more likely that mass is a distortion of cycles than vice versa.

Rather than looking forward from cycles, to time, to space,
to mass, and examining the relationships between each step,
GR provides a backwards, distorted look at time and space.
It is analogous to using carbon as the basic unit of object,
and defining atoms ( Larger and smaller ) and particles in terms of it.
It can be made to work, but unnecessarily complicates the problem.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 10 Jul 1995 18:12:35 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <DB3x7n.A1A@prometheus.UUCP> 
pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>Which welfare are you intending here?? 

As generally used in the budget discussions, welfare consists of direct 
payments excluding Social Security.  This includes Medicare, Medicaid, and 
the various AFDC-type programs.  People from my generation and younger 
might also include Social Security and the unfunded (future) costs of 
federal retirement programs, but those are ignored in the cash-type 
accounting used in the federal budget. 

Take a look for yourself.  It is all there on the soon-not-to-be-a-Dept. 
of Commerce gopher, including data going back to the beginning.  It was 
also spelled out nicely in the USNews issue devoted to the budget. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 10 Jul 1995 18:19:24 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3thok9$rj2@overload.lbl.gov> 
Jean-Paul Biberian <jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>One of the major arguments addressed against cold fusion is the lack or 
>very low level of radiation observed. This is practically the only isue 
>raised by Huizenga in his book. 

That is mainly because Huizenga foolishly decided to include in his 
investigation all of the claims made in the first P&F(&H) paper, and 
radiation was prominent in that paper as a sign of fusion. 

>                                 The point made is the following: at all 
>energy there is always the same branching ratio between the three 
>possible ones. Therefore an extrapolation at zero kinetic energy should 
>give the same distribution of reaction by products.
>
>This statement is extremely dangerous. 

That is true, and was the reason for much theoretical investigation 
after the initial reports. 

However, you do not mention that one of the data points, that for 
muon catalyzed fusion, is very close in energy to where the electro-
chemical CF is supposed to occur, much closer than it is to the thermal 
data points.  Extrapolation was actually the motivation of the work by 
Jones, if you read his early paper with Van Siclen. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 14:17:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview_805467704@rtfm.mit.
du> rfheeter@pppl.gov writes:
>Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
>Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
>Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
>Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
>     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
>     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
># Written/Edited by:
>
>     Robert F. Heeter
>     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
>     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
>
># Last Revised February 26, 1995
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>* 1) Contents
>
>  This file is intended to indicate 
>     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
>     (B) what it discusses, 
>     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
>     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
>
>
>* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
>
>* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
>
>  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
>  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
>  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
>  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
>  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
>  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
>  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
>
Bob,
I don't really expect that you will answer this query, but just in
case I find you in a generous mood:  

What's your read on MTF (Magnetic Target Fusion) as to its 
conventionality  or unconventionality?    

To me it would seem to be a hybrid of your two highly exclusive
categories, magnetic fusion and inertial fusion.  

See:

R.C . Kirkpatrick, I.R. Lindemuth, M. S. Ward; "Magnetized Target Fusion 
       ... An Overview", LA-UR 93-2777, Los Alamos National Laboritories.  
				(submitted to Fusion Technology)

Peter Sheehey, "Magnetized Target Fusion", Natural Science, May 1995,
      pp 192-199.   
                (includes description of joint LANL/Russian collaboration)

R.C. Kirkpatrick, I.R. Lindemuth, R.E. Reinovsky and M.S. Ward, "Parameter 
      Space for Magnetized Target Fusion", ISBN: 156072-160-X, Nova 
      Science Publishers Inc. Commack, NY, 11725, 516-499-3013, 
      Novascii1@aol.com 
                                  (Megagauss fields in pulsed power)

You can probably surf through LANL and search on the authors or topic for
additional information.  

Best Paul
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 /   /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 16 Jul 1995 12:31:54 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Tom Potter wrote:

:Friends, scientists, wackos and lurkers,
:lend me your minds.
:I come bury Einstein, not to praise him.
:
:It is my perception,
:that General Relativity is closely associated with space and mass.
:
:The Equivalence Principle is mass oriented,
:and the Riemannian Metric is space oriented.
:
:It is my perception that,
:the fundamental unit of information and perception is the cycle.
:
:Time is one step removed from fundamental perception ( cycles ):
:        time(X) = cycles(reference) / cycles(X)
:
:while space is two steps removed:
:        distance(X) = time(X) * C
:
:and mass is even further removed.
:        mass(A) = distance(B)^3 / time^2 / G
:
:Note that mass not only is a more complex expression of time and space,
:but a second "point" or body is also needed to define it.
:( A point being a memory element associated with some information. )
:
:General Relativity gives mass a dominate role,
:and indicates that space and time are distorted by it.
:No place is given to cycles.
:
:As I see it,
:the cycle is the fundamental unit of information.
:Time is a cycle ratio.
:Mass is an even more complex blend of time and space.
:
:General Relativity suggests that mass distorts time and space.
:It is more likely that mass is a distortion of cycles than vice versa.
:
:Rather than looking forward from cycles, to time, to space,
:to mass, and examining the relationships between each step,
:GR provides a backwards, distorted look at time and space.
:It is analogous to using carbon as the basic unit of object,
:and defining atoms ( Larger and smaller ) and particles in terms of it.
:It can be made to work, but unnecessarily complicates the problem.
:

I suppose I fit all four of the categories mentioned at the top, so I
quess I'll take a crack at this one.

Spacetime is pretty weird stuff, even newtonian spacetime, and if you have
a better handle on it then more power to you.

You may not like GR, but it does work exceedingly well. If you have
another theory than it is incumbent upon you to show that it does at least
as good a job predicting nature as does GR. Since GR is a quantitative
theory, you need some equations to back up your words.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 / Walter R /  The WAVE nature of NEUTRON explains COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: "Walter E.R. Cassani" <cassani@Linux.InfoSquare.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The WAVE nature of NEUTRON explains COLD FUSION
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 23:23:11 +0200
Organization: Comm 2000 - Milan, Italy


The NEUTRON not exists in nucleus, it born in the moment of nucleus is 
excited.

Albert was right, a new, more complete, causal, theory is born.

This is: The Wave Theory of the Field.

It is available in  <<  http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >> 

The INDEX of  "The Wave Theory of the Field" is:

LETTER
The Letter contains the provocatory announce that : " a new, unitary 
Wave Theory, for justification of masses and fields, is born ".
The original idea coming from : "Il Campo Unificato" -Robota srl-.
(The Unified Field) published 10/09/84 in Milan -Italy-

ABSTRACT
It contains arguments of the book translation, published 
in Italy in 1989, entitled " La Teoria Ondulatoria del Campo ",
more widely treated in the next book in 1994:
"Albert Aveva Ragione - DIO NON GIOCA A DADI"
"Albert Was Right - GOD DON'T PLAY DICE".


INTRODUCTION
It shows the concept of space-time, that qualify the actual model
of space-time continuum, to clarify the idea that everybody
form about it, in order to define new ideas to create a " discrete " 
model of space-time.

PERTURBATION OF SCHILD'S DISCRETE SPACE-TIME
It shows the nature and properties of a Schild's discrete space-time, 
that can be interpreted like waves of perturbations of its own metrical 
structure, and can be read like perturbations of a new, plausible, 
discrete, metrical " Ether ".

WAVE HYPOTHESIS OF THE MASS FIELDS
Starting from equality of two energies: Einstein's energy  E = m c^2  
and  Planck's energy  E = h v, we make the hypothesis that all 
subatomic particles are elementary sources of spherical waves that, 
in complex, constitute all spherical fields ascribing to particles.

WAVE MOMENTUM
With this elementary waves we discover a new law for elementary
interaction light - particle that involve a simple symmetry principle.

ENERGY AND ITS VARIATIONS
Where we discover the real variation's nature of Photon, and the 
relation between elementary waves and De Broglie waves. 

THE RELATIVE SYMMETRY PRINCIPLE
This simple and elementary symmetry principle constitutes the
unique law that regulates the four interactions, that unify, under a 
omnicomprensive vision, Quantum Mechanics and all other 
physical dynamics.

THE INERTIA'S WAVE NATURE
We discover that, the wave nature of masses, and the variation's
nature of Relative Symmetry Principle, conduces to consider
the Inertia like natural and " local " consequence bodies' wave structure.

THE WAVE NATURE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY
It appens that, the same model of the variation's nature of the 
Relative Symmetry Principle, applied to Inertia, results an extraordinary
consequent model to describe a Wave Quantum Gravity interaction.

TERMINAL VELOCITIES FOR MASSES
The exclusive wave nature of bodies, and the space-time
quantization, displays the impossibility for masses to surpass 
the velocity of own waves, that move at light velocity, and to reduce 
its wavelength, for Doppler effect, under the "discrete" length. 

THE FIFTH INTERACTION
Because impossibility to return at continuum space-time concept,
we can comprehend impossibility to reduce a wavelength, that 
describes bodies' mass, to infinitesimal. And consequently,  
we can understand existence of a Fifth Repulsive Interaction 
that acts with more evidence in cosmological field, between 
the maxi-bodies, and prevent any indiscriminate increase of masses.  

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
An unexpected, simple completion of General Relativity discovers
the inevitable, causal connection with Quantum Mechanics, realizing
the dream so long time pursued from Albert.

WAVE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPTON EFFECT
With the wave interpretation of experimental data, derived from Compton
effect, we immediately show possibilities, verifying the Relative Symmetry
Principle's capacities, applying the new unification between QM and GR.

WAVE MODEL OF ELECTRON AND PROTON
A new extrapolation of Compton effect, conduces to discover an 
extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism, that allows to verify the 
possible existence of a creative wave's system, so far called : " particle ".

WAVE CREATION OF PAIRS
The generalization of the same extraordinary resonance's wave mechanism
allows to justify the phenomenon of creation of pairs.

WAVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LORENTZ FORCE
The application of a dynamical orientation, for the same wave mechanism
that we identify with particle, shows that happens wen it is submitted 
to magnetic field, showing that the Lorentz force is a consequence of 
Doppler relativistic effect of particle's oriented wave system.

THE WAVE NATURE OF ELECTRIC CHARGE
The geometrical analysis, of the "discrete", shows that particle's wave 
structure presents the characteristics, that we have so far justified and
quantified with the electrical charge concept.   

THE VECTORIAL DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLES
The specularity of the pairs' creation allows to consider the opposition
particle - antiparticle, that conduces to justify the electromagnetic
interactions like violations of characteristic  " chirality's properties " 
of the wave mechanism - particles.

THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVE ISOTROPY
From the VECTORIAL description of the wave mechanism - particles
we can justify existence of one principle of relative isotropy
that comprehends in a generalization the Relative Symmetry Principle.

STATISTICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR CREATION 
OF SINGLES PARTICLES
We deduce from quantification of statistical possibilities, inherent 
in geometrical wave structures, to overlap particle-antiparticle, 
in annihilation phenomena, from which we can concept 
a causal wave chain to create matter in elementary particles. 

MASS DEFECT AND WAVE NUCLEAR FORCE
The comparation, to nuclear distances, of two Protons-wave model
show that at distance 1 Fermi the electromagnetic interactions are 
absent, because are absent the waves that characterize electrical 
interactions. This implies a different point of view for the forces in act.
From this different view we can support an original explication
of Cold Fusion.  

THE NEUTRON WAVE MODEL
The different wave structures and interactions between the nucleons
conduces to consider a new possibility for a Neutron wave model.

BETA DECAY IN WAVE MODEL
The new wave model shows a causal chain that justify, better that 
actual way, the entire process of Beta Decay and, consequently,
allows the wave nature of Neutrinos.

THE MUON AND PION WAVE MODEL
From wave model of Beta Decay process we can deduce all masses,
charges, energies, spins, and decays of all particles' family.

THE WAVE ATOM
The atom's quantum energy's levels can now be interpreted, like wave
resonance's organizations, of the wave source-electron in resonance's
orbits, that contain and describe integer numbers of Doppler 
wavelength on the specific orbit. 

THE WAVE CONSTANT OF FINE STRUCTURE
The complete, causal comprehension to wave nature, of Constant
of Fine Structure, conclude from presence of  two relativistic Doppler 
wavelength of two waves that move in opposite directions
on the same resonance orbit, that obey to more parameters
that condition their wave resonance states. 

LIGHT LIKE WAVE'S VARIATION 
The final consequence, of existence of resonant orbits and
non resonant orbits for the wave source-electron, that jump between
two different states of resonance, concludes itself with a directional 
wave emission, of a modulation of frequency, that we call : " Photon ".

Good reading, and...... please to destroy it, if you be able.

                         Walter E. R. Cassani
**************************************************
                   cassani@linux.infosquare.it

     For FTP of  " The Wave Theory of the Field "
    <<  ftp.infosquare.it  >>  in  pub/theory/ 
     Files: wtf-1.doc , wtf-2.doc  =  1.7 Mb 
     in Microsoft Word 6.
               
 For the Theory in W W Web, with formulae and figures:
      <<   http://www.inet.it/cassani/index.html  >>

**************************************************
 








cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencassani cudfnWalter cudlnR cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 /   /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: jallen1356@aol.com (JAllen1356)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 16 Jul 1995 17:47:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I find little to justify your argument that the cycle is fundamental.  
Secondly most of the major predictions from general relativity have been
tested and appear to work.  I suggest you read a good modern physics text
(graduate level) beginning with special relativity and continuing on to
general.  Then if you are not convinced, you will at least have earned the
right to hold your opinion.
Jonny
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjallen1356 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 01:32:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3ubetq$3fr@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353) writes: 

>
>Tom Potter wrote:
>
>:Friends, scientists, wackos and lurkers,
>:lend me your minds.
>:I come bury Einstein, not to praise him.
>
>I suppose I fit all four of the categories mentioned at the top, so I
>quess I'll take a crack at this one.

Thanks for considering me a friend.
Then you can't be a wacko.

>Spacetime is pretty weird stuff, even newtonian spacetime, and if you have
>a better handle on it then more power to you.
>
>You may not like GR, but it does work exceedingly well. If you have
>another theory than it is incumbent upon you to show that it does at least
>as good a job predicting nature as does GR. Since GR is a quantitative
>theory, you need some equations to back up your words.
>
>Mark Richardson

Sure GR works, but as I mentioned, when it focuses on mass and space,
instead of the more fundamental cycles, or time it presents a 
severely distorted view of reality.

Time, space and mass are mind stuff.
Cycles are the stuff the universe is made of.


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 01:37:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3uc1dv$923@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jallen1356@aol.com (JAllen1356) writes: 

>
>I find little to justify your argument that the cycle is fundamental.  
>Secondly most of the major predictions from general relativity have been
>tested and appear to work.  I suggest you read a good modern physics text
>(graduate level) beginning with special relativity and continuing on to
>general.  Then if you are not convinced, you will at least have earned the
>right to hold your opinion.
>Jonny

Are you saying that:
	time(X) <> cycles(reference) / cycles(X)
and 	distance <> time * C
AND 	mass <> distance^3 / time^2 / G

????????

Please explain to me what is wrong with this.
If you do, you may not be convinced.
but at least you will have thought about the fundamentals,
and will be richer for the experience.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Detailed discussion of Potapov device
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Detailed discussion of Potapov device
Date: 17 Jul 1995 01:39:37 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

William Beaty (billb@eskimo.com) wrote:
: Any who are interested in participating in an ongoing discussion of
: Potapov's vortex tube device are welcome to send a request to me re: 
: vortex-l discussion list.

I've been saving most of the postings to that discussion list since
late May.  So I have put that text file into my www page (see url below.)
It is currently about 320k.  If you save it to a local file, you should
be able to input it into a mail reader (such as elm) and it will parse
into about 130 or so individual messages.

I don't promise to maintain the archive, but since I had it handy ...

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.17 / gary cruse /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: gcruse@ix.netcom.com (gary cruse )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 17 Jul 1995 03:48:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3uc1dv$923@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jallen1356@aol.com (JAllen1356)
to
> Then if you are not convinced, you will at least have earned the
>right to hold your opinion.
>Jonny

                      Correct or incorrect,  I have problems 
                      with having to earn the right to hold
                      an opinion.  Do you have such backing
                      behind every opinion you hold?





-- 

                                                                           Oh, yeah?
"We probably have three more years of prosperity ahead of us before we enter
the cyclic tailspin which has occurred in the eleventh year of each of the four
great previous periods of commercial prosperity.  
                                                                     November 1, 1929
                                                              
      ---Stuart Chase, "Economist"




cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengcruse cudfngary cudlncruse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Marshall Dudley hyhpothesis
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 13:52 -0500 (EST)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
-> If I understand Marshall Dudley's hypothesis he starts by seeking
-> to use the electronic configuration of PdD to provide shielding
-> for the electrostatic repulsion between D nuclei.  That has been
-> considered many times by many people with some limited success.
-> Yes, it is possible that there is some enhancement of the fusion
-> rate, but never enough to be interesting.  The way CF has gone
-> actually frustrates this approach to the problem.  Experimentally
-> the advocates are forced to assert that the PdD system is particularly
-> well suited for this, i.e. is endowed with some special properties
-> not to be found in other systems.  However, the approach Marshall
-> proposes fails to show any special significance in the choice of Pd as
-> the host lattice.
 
As I mentioned in the post, although I used Pd for the basis of the hypothesis,
it certainly is not the only possibility.  The only requirements were that the
material behave in a similar manner to Pd and be conductive.  Nickel I believe
would be another good choice.  In fact any metal which appears to absorb large
quantities of hydrogen should make a good candidate.
 
As far as the P&F system being particularly well suited (with properties not
found in other sytems), I don't see how you reached that conclusion.  All the
hypothesis refers to is loading factors, and it should be irrelevent as to how
that loading is accomplished.  Ion Discharge, ion implantation, spark discharge
and so forth are other possibilities which could have merit.  Methods which
prevent the concentration of ions from stabilizing should enhance the rate.
Thus the P&F method would not be the best choice unless augmented by an
additional disturbing factor, such as EM waves, ultrasonics and so forth.
 
-> Even after the fusion-rate barrier is overcome the experimental data
-> leaves much to be explained concerning the outcome of the fusion
-> that is said to occur.  Rapid cooling of the nucleus implies close
-> coupling which implies very significant alterations in the nuclear
-> wave functions.  That in turn indicates a general breakdown in the
-> organization of the nucleons as Pd, D, and/or 4He, etc.  Should we
-> not expect that a few neutrons might leak out under those conditions?
-> Aren't we requiring some sort of Maxwell's Demon to be operative
-> at the nuclear level?
 
Unfortunately my schooling on wave functions is sorely limited, so I will have
to defer to those more knowledgable on that one.  However, how can be be sure
that a few neutrons don't leak out?  Adding a neutron to one of the palladium
isotopes simply makes it the next higher isotope, and since palladium naturally
occurs with many different isotopes, detecting an isotope ratio shift would be
very difficult.  If course the neutron has much energy at all, it will leave
the sample and enter the water.  Hydrogen and deuterium are very good
moderators, so it will not travel very far.  Adding a neutron to water makes it
deuterium, once again something you can not measure easily.  Adding it to
deuterium makes tritium, which has on occason been reported as being
detected in heavy water experiments.
 
Can we be sure that detectors outside of the flask will ever be reached by
 neutrons released in the metal?  I am not convinced that we can.
 
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.15 /   /  Re: Syclops and the helium fallacy
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Syclops and the helium fallacy
Date: 15 Jul 1995 12:12:54 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Scott Little wrote:

:On second thought, Mitchell, I have to say that you're sorta wrong.  
:12 sigma simply means that the result was quite significant when compared
:to the instrument's measurement precision.  This has nothing to do with 
:the actual concentration being measured which is where the term "trace"
:comes in. "Trace" means a small concentration. "Trace" connotes
:a concentration near the detection limit of a particular instrument but,
:what is "trace" for one instrument is a big signal for another instrument
:and an undetectable amount for a third instrument.

In general an "n-sigma" effect usually refers to the signal as compared to
the expected "background" level. The error in the measurement as well as
the error in the estimation of the background enter into the calculation.
Here "background" refers to the level which one would expect in the
absence of the process being investigated. Often the expected error in the
background estimate dominates the calculation.

The estimation of  background levels is *exceedingly* difficult in many
situations, and different physicists can come up with different estimates
rather easily. Usually, especially with a controversial result, it is
necessary to perform a modified experiment in which the process producing
the signal is modified or eliminated while leaving all other factors
completely equal. In this latter case one can say that the background has
been measured.

All this having been said, one person's 12-sigma effect can be another
person's two-sigma effect.

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.15 / William Beaty /  Detailed discussion of Potapov device
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Detailed discussion of Potapov device
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 21:01:12 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Any who are interested in participating in an ongoing discussion of
Potapov's vortex tube device are welcome to send a request to me re: 
vortex-l discussion list.

-- 
....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.15 / Ted Frank /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 23:38:39 GMT
Organization: The University of Chicago

In article <3tojo5$snh@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <3tervv$9b9@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>I certainly intend to expose flamers at every opportunity as they
>>are the problem, rather than the solution.
>
>Which is all fine and good, except that he had earlier written, in 
>article <3susto$ivk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, that
>
>> I am an equal opportunity flamer.
>> I have no inhibitions about flaming Blacks, Whites, Christians,
>> Jews, conservatives or liberals where truth is involved.
>
>Any time you want to take your own advice, Mr. Potter, and stop 
>bothering us, it will be fine with me.

Potter is a first-class kook. He called Jews "sub-human" in misc.legal.
Definitely kill-file material.
-- 
ted frank   |   "The Ancient Greeks revered the duck because of its 
            |    association with the four elements: the duck swam on 
            |    water, flew through the air, walked on the ground, and
            |    invented fire." -- Glenn Branch
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenthf2 cudfnTed cudlnFrank cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 / Tom Potter /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 16 Jul 1995 01:23:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <DBs70F.6DL@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes: 

>
>In article <3tojo5$snh@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3tervv$9b9@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I certainly intend to expose flamers at every opportunity as they
>>>are the problem, rather than the solution.
>>
>>Which is all fine and good, except that he had earlier written, in 
>>article <3susto$ivk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, that
>>
>>> I am an equal opportunity flamer.
>>> I have no inhibitions about flaming Blacks, Whites, Christians,
>>> Jews, conservatives or liberals where truth is involved.
>>
>>Any time you want to take your own advice, Mr. Potter, and stop 
>>bothering us, it will be fine with me.
>
>Potter is a first-class kook. He called Jews "sub-human" in misc.legal.
>Definitely kill-file material.

Ted, you are a bareface liar and a paranoiac.
See a doctor and don't contaminate the science boards.

>-- 
>ted frank   |   "The Ancient Greeks revered the duck because of its 
>            |    association with the four elements: the duck swam on 
>            |    water, flew through the air, walked on the ground, and
>            |    invented fire." -- Glenn Branch
>

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: New Gravitational force
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@pop.netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Gravitational force
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 03:53:55 GMT
Organization: Improving

On Thu, 13 Jul 1995 06:46:02 GMT, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
wrote:

>In article <3tunsr$dcu@martha.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu
(Matthew Kennel) writes:
>>(Charles Cagle) (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:
>>: Define gravity.  Define gravitational dipole.  Define gravitational dipole
>>: moment.

>>In analogy with electromagnetics I don't see any reasonable definition
>>of a gravitational dipole as there isn't negative "gravitational charge".

>Your right Matt, there is not use in defining grav hanky panky until
>we define charge.   

>So what is charge, and why does it have the special characteristics it
>seems to have?  I've never seen a definition, not even in Jackson.  

>special ?  1. the absolute value of the plus minus the absolute
>value of the minus certainly looks like a number crowding zero.  
>           2. It's time tied, since a positron and electron seem
>to be time displaced by a tad.  (a tad is just half a time frame, if
>time is quantized).   Positron is advanced and the electron is retarded.  

Are you implying that a positron is an electron that is PI/2 out of
phase? And herewith, a general definition of charge?

>                      If it's not in a text book, 
>                              nobody knows.  
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@pop.netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.16 / Charles Cagle /  Re: The Farce of Physics
     
Originally-From: <singtech@teleport.com> (Charles Cagle)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.
stro,sci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 01:20:23 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <805190629snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>, rich@galacta.demon.co.uk wrote:


> As scientists we should be careful to keep both feet on the firm ground
> of the scientific method and not try claiming knowledge of some greater
> truth regarding reality.  Leave that to philosophy and religion. 

Rich, you may be a doctor or a Ph.D. but I think you missed a class or two.

Like modern science isn't a religion?  And philosophy?  Goodness, physics
used to be called 'natural philosophy'.  Physics has never made a
significant advance without philosophy first encouraging it and
authorizing it to do so.(Thomas Mann)  When there was a split a little
after the turn of the century where philosophy was no longer the guiding
instrument, its been downhill for physics ever since.
 
> This may be "obvious" to most, but it bears repeating, especially in
> education where we want to stimulate insight, not create converts.

You are very wrong.  We need to create converts to the idea that truth is
knowable and that academia generally doesn't have the answers either to
the creative process or the process of gaining insight.  What it can do is
regurgitate facts and concepts and has little taste for differentiating
between the two.

Best Regards,

-- 
Charles Cagle
Chief Technical Officer
Singularity Technologies, Inc,
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR 97304

Ph/Fx 503/362-7781


I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed,
Hid privily, a measureless resource
For man, and mighty teacher of all arts.  - Aeschylus ..Prometheus Bound

email> singtech@teleport.com
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensingtech cudfnCharles cudlnCagle cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.07.15 / Jack Sarfatti /  e-print archive conversion to .pdf
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,comp.ai,sci.astro,sci.physics.research,
lt.consciousness,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.cogni
ive,sci.energy,sci.edu,sci.engr,sci.environment,sci.fractals,sci.logic,s
i.med,sci.misc,sci.optics,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics.accelerators,s
i.physics.fusion,sci.research,sci.space,sci.systems
Subject: e-print archive conversion to .pdf
Date: 15 Jul 1995 22:27:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom

For all you non-unix end users out there in cyberspace who have been
frustrated at not being able to read the full electronic preprints at
xxx.LANL.gov, we at the Internet Science Education Project are offering
a new service using the freely downloadable Adobe Acrobat Reader for
Windows. For more information contact sarfatti@ix.netcom.com. Also
check http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr for new developments over the
next few weeks.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jul 17 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
